NationStates Jolt Archive

Marx Class Nuclear Submarine
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v521/Fascist_Confederacy/MarxClassNuclearSubmarine.jpg
Powerplant: Two S20 nuclear reactors (Reloaded every nine years)
Lenght: 590 Feet
Beam: 42 Feet
Displacement: 16,766 Tonnes (Surfaced); 18,760 Tonnes (Submerged)
Speed: 35 Knots (Max); 25 Knots (Cruising Speed)
Operating Depth: 1,678 Feet
Armamanets: 32 Missile Tubes (Nuclear Or Conventional); 8 Torpedo Tubes; 4 Anti-Torpedo Tubes; 4x flip up 12.7mm deck guns
Sensors: BTS-6 Bow Mounted SONAR, BWR-10 Navigation System, BQS-13 Active SONAR, TB-17 Towed Array, RADAR
Combat Systems: Marionette Defense System, TDS-9, RAS-50, DSMAS
Propulsion System: Magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) Propulsion; Normal Rear Rotary Propulsion As Back-up System
Crew: 16 Officers, 143 Enlisted
Contractor: Soviet Nationalised Associates
Designer: Broyenin Design Bureau, Maritime Commissariat

The Marx Class Nuclear Submarine is to be a revolutionary new form of sea-warfare. Due to its general huge size - and the new MHD Propulsion system - it is not only the quitest and most stealthy nuclear submarine on Earth, but a fulcrum to push Soviet opposition over the edge.

With a combonation of senor arrays and highly advanced combat systems, the MCNS can strike anywhere in the world within a matter of hours.

Magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) Propulsor
The MHD Propuslor or 'silent drive' as it has been called, is a revolutionary new stealth engine that has actually no moving parts. Magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) propulsion is a type of vessel drive where thrust generates through interaction of magnetic and electric field. An electric current is passed through seawater in the presence of an intense magnetic field. Functionally, the seawater is the moving, conductive part of an electric motor, pushing the water out the back accelerates the vehicle.The main characteristic of this propulsion is that there are no mobile parts, no propeller noises and no vibration. As a completely new type of vessel drive, magnetohydrondynamic propulsion (MHD) is very useful for military necessities or submarine drive.

http://www.sanu.ac.yu/ciril/brodogradnja/pics/fluks_eng.jpg

This new propulsion systems gives the USSR a needed push ahead of its enemies. Scientists from around the world have praised the Soviet Union for developing the new system to help suppress the evil corporate giants who only seek to destroy the workers state of the USSR.

As of now, the SNA is not selling the MCNS to foreign nations outside the Moscow Pact. However, they are developing a export version for sail and mass-production for allied, non-Moscow Pact nations.

(OOC: Questions? Comments?)

mmm Hunt for Red October style with a propulsor...Not bad...

(OOC: Yes! Someone knew what the hell it was. The MHD Propulsor was called a 'silent drive' in The Hunt for Red October.)

(OOC: Yes! Someone knew what the hell it was. The MHD Propulsor was called a 'silent drive' in The Hunt for Red October.)

Well yeah it ran down the hull. The propulsor of the Seawolf & Virginia NSSN is amazing as well. Does this sub use that as well or no?

(OOC: As I've designed, its based somewhat off of the October, so the MHD cells run along the bottom and 'pool' at the back. It allows for reversal aswell with some of the 'cells' at the front aswell.)

Yes but does it also use a propulsor on its propeller like the Seawolf & Virginia NSSN?

(OOC: No. That abolishes the reason of having the MHD propulsor. With the stricly MHD system, it abolishes all moving parts, thus all noise and vibration. That, plus the combative systems, makes the vessel nearly - if not entirely - undetechtable.)

Well that sucks heavily in case your MHD goes down. Hell even Red October had propellars.

Well that sucks heavily in case your MHD goes down. Hell even Red October had propellars.

(OOC: I agree - you need some kind of redundancy just in case something bad happens, unless you're willing to sacrifice the lives of the crew just a slightly added stealth. The installation of a backup system, only to be used as a means of returning to port in emergencies, might be a good idea.)

OOC: Never thought about that... Ill add propellors for precaution.

OOC: Never thought about that... Ill add propellors for precaution.

1 pumpjet propulsor would do better than mulitple propellers.

Check this principle:

2 small propellars will require more RPMs to push the vessel
1 large propellar will require less RPMs to push the vessel

This is a concept that the Russians never picked up on. This is why US submarines are significantly quieter than their Russian counterparts. The 688/I with the improved propellar can move at 40 knots. The Ohio can do about 32 knots, who knows it's classified. Now using a single prop and a propulsor, the Seawolf and the Virginia NSSN have a tactical silent speed of some 20 knots. At 20 knots, the Seawolf is as quiet as a 688/I at 5 knots.

hmmm, lay, are you a sub buff? if so, i got some cool books for you to read. neway, one idea would be to allow room for submerged tactical vehicals. think about it.

edit:are you in earth II

hmmm, lay, are you a sub buff? if so, i got some cool books for you to read. neway, one idea would be to allow room for submerged tactical vehicals. think about it.

Submarines are the greatest naval weapons since the engine.

Submarines are the greatest naval weapons since the engine.
Hear Hear! well, id love to stay and talk, but i need sleep, unlike you lay, my first class is at 7:30 tomorow morn. im still in hs. by the way, where do you go to school.

OOC: Hmm... *Writes notes*

OOC: Layarteb, one thing that bothers me: I find it extremely hard to believe that the Russians did not work out something that anyone with even the faintest knowledge of propulsion can work out, and I wish that you'd stop claiming that that is the case. Odds are that they had their own, perfectly valid reasons for favouring smaller propellers for their submarines, and that, unless you have been able to pick the brains of the various Russian submarine propulsion designers, you cannot smugly dismiss the Russians as fools unable to master this relatively easy-to-grasp concept.

Sorry for taking up space in your thread, FC/USSR. Nice boat btw :)

OOC: Nice sub...why is it base off of the Ohio Class Sub, then to a Russian Sub!

and DPUO where is my battleship!

(OOC: No problem, DPUO. And because it was the first pic I could readily alter to fit my needs within a short period of time.)

OOC: Layarteb, one thing that bothers me: I find it extremely hard to believe that the Russians did not work out something that anyone with even the faintest knowledge of propulsion can work out, and I wish that you'd stop claiming that that is the case. Odds are that they had their own, perfectly valid reasons for favouring smaller propellers for their submarines, and that, unless you have been able to pick the brains of the various Russian submarine propulsion designers, you cannot smugly dismiss the Russians as fools unable to master this relatively easy-to-grasp concept.

Sorry for taking up space in your thread, FC/USSR. Nice boat btw :)

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/images/nssn4.jpg

The chart shows it all. The Improved Akula is the only thing quieter than the 688/I.

I haven't even begun with the reactor problems...Liquid metal does not work well...

(Why use nuclear at all in NS? The various diesel electric submarines being made today are quieter and roughly 1/8th the cost. Unless you're having a cold war, there isn't much of a point to loitering for months upon months. A mixed fleet isn't a bad idea though.)

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/images/nssn4.jpg

The chart shows it all. The Improved Akula is the only thing quieter than the 688/I.

I haven't even begun with the reactor problems...Liquid metal does not work well...

THat isn't nessisarily only due to the size of the propeller. The soviet's reactor technology, muffling systems.... virtually everything was behind american technology. And the twin prop system does allow for greater redundancy. If an american boat suffers damage to it's drive shaft, it's immobalizd or has it's acoustic signature increased, whereas a soviet sub can continue to limp on quietly on one screw.

Also, FC, the boat isn't going to be silent. We're still going to pick up reactor noise and turbulence from the water being sucked through the MDF propulsor... It'll be quieter, but slower than conventional subs, and it won't be silent. Other than that, a very nice boat =)

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/images/nssn4.jpg

The chart shows it all. The Improved Akula is the only thing quieter than the 688/I.

I haven't even begun with the reactor problems...Liquid metal does not work well...

That's not the point. Your implication is that the Soviets were unable to cope with the simple and easily-deduced fact that a larger propeller should move more water per revolution, something I find very hard to believe and which you cannot actually say unless you happen to be an ex-Soviet submarine propulsion designer.

For someone apparently so literate in submarine knowledge, you're showing a remarkable lack of insight. How can you say, with any degree of certainty, that the Soviets didn't elect to use smaller propellers for the sake of ease of manufacture and maintenance? Without knowing the specifics of each class of submarine's reactor and powertrain, how can you assert that the Soviets didn't find that smaller propellers, rather than larger ones, produced qualities with which they were happier? And what of doctrinal requirements?

What I'm saying, Layarteb, is that the fact that Soviet submarines were comparatively noisier than their US counterparts does not make the Soviet sub designers imcompetent, nor does it make them foolish. You seem to have asserted both.

THat isn't nessisarily only due to the size of the propeller. The soviet's reactor technology, muffling systems.... virtually everything was behind american technology. And the twin prop system does allow for greater redundancy. If an american boat suffers damage to it's drive shaft, it's immobalizd or has it's acoustic signature increased, whereas a soviet sub can continue to limp on quietly on one screw.

Also, FC, the boat isn't going to be silent. We're still going to pick up reactor noise and turbulence from the water being sucked through the MDF propulsor... It'll be quieter, but slower than conventional subs, and it won't be silent. Other than that, a very nice boat =)

(OOC: No boat will ever be completely silent, I know that. But it is relativelty quieter that a normal propellor drive.)

(Why use nuclear at all in NS? The various diesel electric submarines being made today are quieter and roughly 1/8th the cost. Unless you're having a cold war, there isn't much of a point to loitering for months upon months. A mixed fleet isn't a bad idea though.)
OOC: There are still problems with DE submarines as an intercontinental range capable power projection weapon. For one, as many people may know, it's diesel engines makes a lot more noise, except when you use the battery (which has a very limited submerged duration). AIP subs are a bit improved though, but then you'd have to keep it at a very slow speed in order to have it to travel a great distance underwater. More so, they are generally limited in speed and size, thus the implication that the superiority of nuclear-powered submarines (as an open ocean-going, long-endurance system) is nullified by the existance of DE subs, is still considerably flawed.

What I'm saying, Layarteb, is that the fact that Soviet submarines were comparatively noisier than their US counterparts does not make the Soviet sub designers imcompetent, nor does it make them foolish. You seem to have asserted both.

But then what does it mean? They're just sub-par? I would consider that incompetitant. Now you have a point with the easier and cheaper manufacturing for smaller propellars but you are spending millions on a submarine, why not ensure that it's not going to be sunk because it's prop noise is too loud. The reason I didn't bring up the reactors is because they've had many problems with them that such is obvious. Hell look at all the subs they lost due to reactor problems. Like I said earlier, liquid metal reactors ARE not good on a submarine and they've always had some problems with some of their pressurized water reactors, though why I can't say.

And Yes OMZ222, DE submarines have horrible range. The German U-214, which uses AIP can travel under 400nm on electric power. That's not much. DE submarines, when on electric power are the quietest types of submarines out there, much more quiet than nuclear submarines (damn reactor plant noise).

But then what does it mean? They're just sub-par? I would consider that incompetitant. Now you have a point with the easier and cheaper manufacturing for smaller propellars but you are spending millions on a submarine, why not ensure that it's not going to be sunk because it's prop noise is too loud. The reason I didn't bring up the reactors is because they've had many problems with them that such is obvious. Hell look at all the subs they lost due to reactor problems. Like I said earlier, liquid metal reactors ARE not good on a submarine and they've always had some problems with some of their pressurized water reactors, though why I can't say.

And Yes OMZ222, DE submarines have horrible range. The German U-214, which uses AIP can travel under 400nm on electric power. That's not much. DE submarines, when on electric power are the quietest types of submarines out there, much more quiet than nuclear submarines (damn reactor plant noise).

It wasn't incompitence, it was a lack of resources and nonexistant private sector. Say what you will about the evils of capitalism, but i's the best waiy to develop new technology. I don't think anyione would say german submarine designers in WWII were incompitent because they didn't use AIP or fuel cells, or nuclear power... they simply didn't have the technology. Same with the soviets; their technology was about a generation behind america's in most areas, but they did extremely well with what they had.

It wasn't incompitence, it was a lack of resources and nonexistant private sector. Say what you will about the evils of capitalism, but i's the best waiy to develop new technology. I don't think anyione would say german submarine designers in WWII were incompitent because they didn't use AIP or fuel cells, or nuclear power... they simply didn't have the technology. Same with the soviets; their technology was about a generation behind america's in most areas, but they did extremely well with what they had.

Indeed, this is what I have been told by many naval personnel, which makes me wonder. How many resources and technology is it required to built a large propellar if you can built a lot of small ones? And you have to hand it to German WWII sub designers. Those guys were nothing short of genius with the U-Boats. Them suckers got all the way to Argentina with them.