2014 STGOD OOC Commentary Thread 1

[Thanas]

Good thing we aren't the palatinate then.

[Eternal_Freedom]

Beowulf, would those be anything like the new Japanese "destroyer"?

EDIT: Whoops, you said 20k tonnes, which would be more like these other new Japanese ships.

Anyhoo, whilst it not a type of ship Orion uses, it is something we are looking at, and at present we can use one of our LPH's as an emergency ASW hull if need be. Then again, we always figure the best ASW asset is a better submarine.

[Skywalker_T-65]

Putting more thought into it, I could easily see Arcadia having a 'modernized' version of an old carrier (Essex equivalent?) as an ASW carrier. New build of course, not just slapping a fresh coat of paint on a decades old ship.

Just random musings. I could probably put something more substantial together if needed

[Beowulf]

Beowulf, would those be anything like the new Japanese "destroyer"?

That's exactly what they look like! Though don't bash the Japanese on the designation too much. They're all designated "Goei-kan" in Japanese, which literally translates to something like defense ship. Pretty much all of their warships are "Goei-kan". It's just the usual translation ends up being "destroyer". The newer, larger helicopter destroyers of the TGHJ are to be Izumo-class analogs.

[Simon_Jester]

Putting more thought into it, I could easily see Arcadia having a 'modernized' version of an old carrier (Essex equivalent?) as an ASW carrier. New build of course, not just slapping a fresh coat of paint on a decades old ship.

Although such a ship would probably be in danger of physically falling apart after a while. The Umerians had such a ship at one point, but gave up on it.

A larger, postwar ship that didn't survive the transition to the big nuclear supercarriers of the '70s and later might be a better choice.

[Skywalker_T-65]

Hmm...point. Like I said, random musings more than anything else right now.

[Simon_Jester]

Well, the idea is quite logical (using an old carrier as a VTOL/helicopter platform). The catch is making it work safely.

[Siege]

Or, if you only ever had one - indicating low priority, low readiness - you could just scrap the ship and hire a PMC to sporadically sweep for subs or whatever it is you need doing. Much simpler and probably a lot cheaper than operating your own unique ship, the job gets done by seasoned veterans, your navy can focus on jobs it actually does well, and to those handwringing about national security I say let's face it: a single helicopter carrier isn't gonna hack it in a full-blown war anyway. So, outsource that shit, yo.

[Simon_Jester]

Heh.

Rambling about myself, the Umerians are in a kind of funny position on that in that their helicopter carrier is basically a mutant version of their normal carrier. Sort of an experiment and they thought rather hard about operating more- they might still do so, dunno. Plus, their main frontline fighter is (in one variant) VTOL-capable, even if their naval strike aircraft, AEW birds, and so on, are not.

So even a "helicopter carrier" can actually provide semi-effective air support for a battlegroup in the Umerian Navy.

[Eternal_Freedom]

Beowulf, would those be anything like the new Japanese "destroyer"?

That's exactly what they look like! Though don't bash the Japanese on the designation too much. They're all designated "Goei-kan" in Japanese, which literally translates to something like defense ship. Pretty much all of their warships are "Goei-kan". It's just the usual translation ends up being "destroyer". The newer, larger helicopter destroyers of the TGHJ are to be Izumo-class analogs.

Score! Yeah I understand that the class description doesn't translate perfectly.

Hmmm...Might your nation be interested in exporting a couple? They could be a valuable addition to my surface action groups, as a "baby carrier" operating choppers or VTOLs. Like the old escort carriers, but minus the cost of the stonking great Lucifer class carrier's we're building at the moment.

[Simon_Jester]

At the extreme low end you get this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Control_Ship

[Beowulf]

That's exactly what they look like! Though don't bash the Japanese on the designation too much. They're all designated "Goei-kan" in Japanese, which literally translates to something like defense ship. Pretty much all of their warships are "Goei-kan". It's just the usual translation ends up being "destroyer". The newer, larger helicopter destroyers of the TGHJ are to be Izumo-class analogs.

Score! Yeah I understand that the class description doesn't translate perfectly.

Hmmm...Might your nation be interested in exporting a couple? They could be a valuable addition to my surface action groups, as a "baby carrier" operating choppers or VTOLs. Like the old escort carriers, but minus the cost of the stonking great Lucifer class carrier's we're building at the moment.

I didn't have the link handy when I wrote previously, but: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/408 ... _destroyer is pretty explicit that it's a Hyuga analog. Tianguo might be interested in exporting a couple to Orion. Something to note is that the forward elevator is narrower than the rear one, and most VTOL aircraft will not fit.

[Eternal_Freedom]

Thanks, it's something to ponder anyway.

[The Romulan Republic]

Apologies for not posting for a while. I'll try to get something up tomorrow.

[Eternal_Freedom]

Out of curiosity, does anyone having nuclear-powered civilian ships? It's an idea I've been toying with, since we Orions just love nuclear power. Is it actually worth bothering with?

[Simon_Jester]

If it's going to be economical at all, it'll be for ships that need to run long distances at high speed. Normal ships have a limited cruising speed which is set by fuel economy.

So you might see, say, nuclear-powered car ferries* designed to cross a several hundred mile ocean gap. There's no way to simply fly the cars across the ocean (so air travel is out)... but speed matters because no one in their right mind wants to cross that wide belt of ocean any slower than they have to.

But this would depend heavily on there being demand for such a thing.

*Tip of the hat to the Duchess of Zeon; it was her idea and I'm recounting it.

[Siege]

The merchant fleet of San Dorado runs on good old diesel power. There might be an insane superyacht out there operating a pebble bed reactor, but by and large fossil fuels are the way to go. Not in the least place because I suspect there's more money in petroleum than in thorium.

[Eternal_Freedom]

Well Orion has plenty of thorium and not much oil, so it's probably attractive. Hmm, I suspect with the improved trade agreements with Rheinland high speed cargo ships might suddenly come good.

What sort of size range are they? Would you, for instance, have a nuclear powered supertanker? Ir is it smaller than that?

[Siege]

What purpose is a nuclear high speed supertanker going to serve? The petroleum industry does not operate on 'just in time' principles, oil isn't perishable, and the cost of taking a few days longer to move between continents is absolutely minute when you think about the ludicrous amounts of money involved in shifting millions of barrels of oil around.

Also, making a Panamax-size ship go faster isn't just a matter of brute-forcing more speed by adding reactors, I bet hull shape and hull strength are equally as important in making something that massive do 20 knots instead of 10. I gotta wonder what the sea will do to a high-speed Panamax-size ship, because you're talking about an awful lot of energy to bring it up to speed, and an awful lot of energy that gets dumped on it when the weather goes nasty and the sea starts smacking your fast ship with big waves.

What is this cargo that is so time-sensitive that you'd develop expensive nuclear cargo ships to move it slightly faster?

[Eternal_Freedom]

I dunno. In fact I know precisely sod-all about cargo shipping in general, I was just curious about the idea.

[Simon_Jester]

Well Orion has plenty of thorium and not much oil, so it's probably attractive. Hmm, I suspect with the improved trade agreements with Rheinland high speed cargo ships might suddenly come good.

What sort of size range are they? Would you, for instance, have a nuclear powered supertanker? Ir is it smaller than that?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NS_Savannah
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutsu_%28ship%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_Hahn_%28ship%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sevmorput

That's all the ones that have ever existed. Fourteen thousand ton showcase, expensive eight thousand ton prototype that never did business, the 25000-ton Otto Hahn which at least did business for a while but was ultimately re-engined for diesel, and the 38000-ton Russian container ship Sevmorput. None of them are amazingly fast, but they're pretty damn fast for civilian large ships.

There's also the Soviet nuclear icebreakers, but Orion has basically zero need for those.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_marine_propulsion

Nuclear high speed freighters are a thing that Orion or others might care about, and they could probably be made economical. As flavor I think it's cool, but it'd be very hard for atomic energy to entirely unseat fossil fuels for marine applications as a whole.

Giant nuclear tankers have been considered in real life, but as Siege says, it's generally better to have more tankers providing a steady but slower stream of oil, rather than fewer tankers that make the round trip faster. Plus, if you're already moving a hundred thousand tons or more of crude oil, it's not like a little bit of refined fuel oil is going to be a big price to pay.

Also, making a Panamax-size ship go faster isn't just a matter of brute-forcing more speed by adding reactors, I bet hull shape and hull strength are equally as important in making something that massive do 20 knots instead of 10. I gotta wonder what the sea will do to a high-speed Panamax-size ship, because you're talking about an awful lot of energy to bring it up to speed, and an awful lot of energy that gets dumped on it when the weather goes nasty and the sea starts smacking your fast ship with big waves.

Many modern cruise ships are already Panamax-size and can make twenty knots in good seas; I took my honeymoon cruise on one. Aircraft carriers are as big or bigger and can make thirty knots and handle quite rough weather.

So if you want a big ship that can make 20-30 knots, it's a solved problem, although at some point the need for a long, slim hull tends to get in the way of being an efficient cargo vessel.

What is this cargo that is so time-sensitive that you'd develop expensive nuclear cargo ships to move it slightly faster?

The main advantages of nuclear cargo ships is that speed lets them carry more cargoes in a given year (they can make the same run from one port to another in a given amount of time, compared to a slower ship). Also that they don't need to refuel (except as a maintenance item every 4-10 years), and that their reactor takes up less space in the hull than a normal merchantman's fuel tanks and diesels.

[TimothyC]

That's all the ones that have ever existed. Fourteen thousand ton showcase, expensive eight thousand ton prototype that never did business, the 25000-ton Otto Hahn which at least did business for a while but was ultimately re-engined for diesel, and the 38000-ton Russian container ship Sevmorput. None of them are amazingly fast, but they're pretty damn fast for civilian large ships.

MS Savannah is actually an interesting case - she was laid up partly because fuel costs at the time were such that she wasn't economic to operate, which combined with the normal unions not liking that the nuclear crews were paid more was a problem. She also suffered because of her smaller size* (reasonable as a prototype) meant that containerization (converting to take containers) wasn't plausible. Even so, by the mid 1970s she would have been economical to operate, but by then there was no interest.

Also, Sevmorput isn't a container ship. She's a LASH ship. She took and transported barges. The barges often had containers on them, but they didn't have to.

*Even for her displacement, she didn't have a lot of cargo capacity - she had more staterooms than any of her contemporaries except for maybe the Grace Lines Sisters, and they did have container capacity (and a lot more such as twice the passenger load!)Images link to specs pages for the ships

Nuclear high speed freighters are a thing that Orion or others might care about, and they could probably be made economical. As flavor I think it's cool, but it'd be very hard for atomic energy to entirely unseat fossil fuels for marine applications as a whole.

This is correct so long as fuel prices for commercial ships do not climb above about $150-200/barrel. Above that, all bets are off.

Also, making a Panamax-size ship go faster isn't just a matter of brute-forcing more speed by adding reactors, I bet hull shape and hull strength are equally as important in making something that massive do 20 knots instead of 10. I gotta wonder what the sea will do to a high-speed Panamax-size ship, because you're talking about an awful lot of energy to bring it up to speed, and an awful lot of energy that gets dumped on it when the weather goes nasty and the sea starts smacking your fast ship with big waves.

Eh, this isn't an issue in the real world, if only because of the stress that the weather can put in your hull even at slow speeds. Now, the bow shape is important and based on design speed, but that's something you do when you build the damn ship.

their reactor takes up less space in the hull than a normal merchantman's fuel tanks and diesels.

It's actually about the same once you factor in safety margins. The nuclear plant, even the LWNP is going to be heavier on a per SHP basis than a diesel plant. What it will have is that it won't have as much total mass as the plant + the fuel needed by the diesel to match the range.

As a side note, I had not defined it well, but Hawai'ian Royal Steamship Lines does operate a small fleet of fast Ocean Liners (Think the refit proposals for SS United States), if only because passenger service is one place where speed matters. Something like an SL-7 Fast container ship is also around.

[The Romulan Republic]

Siege, I posted about the meeting involving Coulson and his informant you suggested.

I left the details about the informant mostly up to you since they're from San Dorado.

[Siege]

Timothy, could you remove those images and link to them instead please, they are doing a number on the page formatting.

Many modern cruise ships are already Panamax-size and can make twenty knots in good seas; I took my honeymoon cruise on one. Aircraft carriers are as big or bigger and can make thirty knots and handle quite rough weather.

Cruise ships and aircraft carriers are also extremely expensive ships optimized for a very specific role and business model that is entirely different from moving massive amounts of containers or oil around. And the fleets they are in can make do with a handful of such ships, whereas to shift cargo around at the national economy scale you need dozens or more ships.

My point is not that it's impossible to bring a ship up to 30 knots, it's that it's economically pointless to do so for a cargo vessel. The gain in speed is far outweighed by the costs, or else we'd be seeing faster ships already. It's a Concorde versus 747 issue: yes the supersonic jet is faster, but the trade-offs it has to make to attain that speed are so massive that it's not economical to use them for anything but showboating.

It'll be the same for nuclear freighters. Yes you can build them, obviously, and you can then boast that they'll get your cargo across the ocean at 25 knots or whatever, but I see no economic benefit to this whatsoever.

The main advantages of nuclear cargo ships is that speed lets them carry more cargoes in a given year (they can make the same run from one port to another in a given amount of time, compared to a slower ship).

This is only true if you manage to create a ship capable of moving just as much cargo as a regular freighter. If your nuclear tanker goes twice as fast as my ULCC but can only carry a few hundred thousand barrels of oil whilst my crude carrier shifts two million, your speed advantage just evaporated. Unless you're running your nuclear freighters on the tramp trade or something, but then we're well off into crazyland IMO.

Also, steel and diesel and the people to run them are cheap, whereas you'll need to fit and maintain a reactor, requiring nuke techs, expensive safety measures and spare parts on each and every one of your nuclear ships. Which inevitably means that each of your nuclear ships will be more expensive to build and operate than my regular two-stroke diesel engined ships. And we're talking dozens of ships here, if you want to make a dent in the global shipping market. These costs start to add up. And to what advantage? What are you moving that can't wait a few more days for a regular ship to make the trip?

[Thanas]

Also, some nations will most likely refuse entry to nuke ships either on principle or require huge safety inspections.