|
Post by dohboy on Mar 3, 2021 17:42:16 GMT -6
My mistake, the quote below had me thinking you were disagreeing with me about fueling operations being a major expense. It's clear to me now that you were agreeing about Kia drivers with the "No its not". I think we can safely say, that nuclear propulsion has a high up-front cost but over the life span of the ship, it is more cost effective.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Mar 3, 2021 17:50:58 GMT -6
My mistake, the quote below had me thinking you were disagreeing with me about fueling operations being a major expense. It's clear to me now that you were agreeing about Kia drivers with the "No its not". I think we can safely say, that nuclear propulsion has a high up-front cost but over the life span of the ship, it is more cost effective. No need to worry, this format prevents us from being able to read the tone of someone's words. It is easy to do. I will try to be more specific. Remember that supercarriers are power projection tools, no more and no less. The number of supercarriers is built around the idea of fighting two and half wars on two sides of the earth. Yea, it does not make sense and maybe some one will get the hint someday. In the two Iraq wars, most of the air to ground support and air to air combat was done by USAF bombers and fighters, not naval aircraft. Just a note: the Navy has never and will never send a carrier into the Persian Gulf, they make really good targets for missiles. They can do their job from the North Arabian Sea.
|
|
|
Post by seawolf on Mar 3, 2021 18:30:26 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by sagaren on Mar 3, 2021 18:37:33 GMT -6
I think one thing we need to be considering here is what would nuclear propulsion actually get us in terms of gameplay? I feel not a whole lot. I've found Medium range to be quite enough to get full utilization out of my fleets, extending that won't get us much. While it would be neat to have nuclear propulsion, I think we'll get more bang for our buck if the developers devote their time to other issues.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Mar 3, 2021 18:41:59 GMT -6
I think one thing we need to be considering here is what would nuclear propulsion actually get us in terms of gameplay? I feel not a whole lot. I've found Medium range to be quite enough to get full utilization out of my fleets, extending that won't get us much. While it would be neat to have nuclear propulsion, I think we'll get more bang for our buck if the developers devote their time to other issues. I absolutely agree, it makes no sense to install expensive nuclear propulsion for ships that generally don't last past 20-25 years. They should focus on the other more important issues.
|
|
|
Post by wlbjork on Mar 4, 2021 1:01:41 GMT -6
I think one thing we need to be considering here is what would nuclear propulsion actually get us in terms of gameplay? I feel not a whole lot. I've found Medium range to be quite enough to get full utilization out of my fleets, extending that won't get us much. While it would be neat to have nuclear propulsion, I think we'll get more bang for our buck if the developers devote their time to other issues. That's the thing, isn't it? Medium range is perfectly adequate for a battle-fleet, long range and extreme range are pretty much only used for raiding and hunting raiders IIRC. There is the odd issue where you have a bunch of ships starting with only half their fuel - except that I can't think I've ever run out of fuel even when that does happen. I am struggling to come up with any more benefits for using nuclear power, and the issues with dealing with the damage side just make me say "not going to be worth the time and effort".
|
|
AiryW
Full Member
Posts: 183
|
Post by AiryW on Mar 4, 2021 10:39:49 GMT -6
I think that nuclear power is something that was terrifically useful for a generation in a specific context and then kinda meh afterwards. Cold War American nuclear submarines are pretty freaking awesome and it's understandable why they went ahead and nuclearized the entire submarine fleet. But it's a very difficult technology to get right and conventional submarines closed the gap so the advantage isn't really there anymore. Something similar could be seen with Japanese oxygen torpedo chemistry. It's not just that they were a very effective design but that they were a very effective design at the right time. Later on as battery densities improved, the advanced chemistry for torpedo fuel wouldn't really matter. By the time any navy could field such torpedoes, they didn't really need to.
I think the interesting question is what to do with these "one off" advanced designs. It's not just the technologies that worked but the ones that could have worked... for a time. So ideas like iceberg or zepplin aircraft carriers might have been effective for a while but something like earlier radar or cruise missiles is a watershed technology that once proven is going to show up everywhere.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Mar 5, 2021 10:24:21 GMT -6
Another issue concerning nuclear explosions is the effects of a nuclear electromagnetic pulse or EMP. I currently reading a piece from the Naval Surface Weapons Center, White Oak Lab. I relate and copy some of the information when I am done reading it.
|
|
euchrejack
Full Member
Don't feed the Trolls. They just get bigger and more numerous.
Posts: 139
|
Post by euchrejack on Mar 5, 2021 12:50:24 GMT -6
The fact that so little is known about the effects of battle damage to nuclear propulsion leads me to think it's not worth including. The developer would ultimately just have to make stuff up, since it never happened. That detracts greatly from realism.
I'm recalling the previous discussions about the tests of nuclear weapons on ships, and how much new info was revealed by that. I'd like the battle simulator to remain realistic, honestly.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Mar 5, 2021 12:58:50 GMT -6
The fact that so little is known about the effects of battle damage to nuclear propulsion leads me to think it's not worth including. The developer would ultimately just have to make stuff up, since it never happened. That detracts greatly from realism. I'm recalling the previous discussions about the tests of nuclear weapons on ships, and how much new info was revealed by that. I'd like the battle simulator to remain realistic, honestly. Well, how about this option. On the start up screen after picking the country, a tick box for research on nuclear propulsion. The research and implementation would be very expensive and time consuming but available. Possibly only the USA, Russia, UK, France and maybe Japan and Germany. If you are not fighting in the Atlantic or Pacific, you will not need the nuclear propulsion.
|
|
|
Post by chaosblade on Mar 5, 2021 14:33:04 GMT -6
I could see Nuclear propulsion being a bonus to endurance, and a reduction of operational costs, specially outside home areas, but on the flip side you need a refit cycle 10-15 years tops, that is going to be more expensive and potentially longer than non nuke plants.
|
|
|
Post by thomasmacmoragh on Mar 6, 2021 4:43:15 GMT -6
My mistake, the quote below had me thinking you were disagreeing with me about fueling operations being a major expense. It's clear to me now that you were agreeing about Kia drivers with the "No its not". No need to worry, this format prevents us from being able to read the tone of someone's words. It is easy to do. I will try to be more specific. Remember that supercarriers are power projection tools, no more and no less. The number of supercarriers is built around the idea of fighting two and half wars on two sides of the earth. Yea, it does not make sense and maybe some one will get the hint someday. In the two Iraq wars, most of the air to ground support and air to air combat was done by USAF bombers and fighters, not naval aircraft. Just a note: the Navy has never and will never send a carrier into the Persian Gulf, they make really good targets for missiles. They can do their job from the North Arabian Sea. 2 and a Half? I know the idea of many navies in the past was to be able to fight 2 wars at the same time, The RN in the early 20th century was built around the idea if being able to fight any two other navies at once, maybe even longer. in the past that was largely a numbers game. The us navy in wold war two Faught 2 wars in two different oceans, post war the idea was to retrain that capably, not just for the navy but for the other armed forces, Though getting congress to pay for that in peace time ?!?! and as learned playing both Japan and the CSA, When you government can not or will not pay for it is some times about building the navy you can not the one you want. same with the Early game USN now that I think about it
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Mar 6, 2021 9:06:47 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by solops on Mar 6, 2021 16:36:20 GMT -6
Nuclear subs are noisier than diesel subs. This is a well known issue that I have not seen mentioned. Sorry if I missed it.
|
|
|
Post by dohboy on Mar 7, 2021 10:12:27 GMT -6
Nuclear subs are noisier than diesel subs. This is a well known issue that I have not seen mentioned. Sorry if I missed it. Electric is quieter than nuclear, diesel is louder. A diesel electric is vulnerable while recharging. As long as the batteries last they are quieter, but that endurance is very low (a few hours) at their top speed, which is about half the top speed of an SSN. For some jobs an SSK is ideal, others (like screening an underway carrier group) they are incapable of performing.
|
|