r/Warships

I think that the Royal Navy is the most interesting to talk about in terms of modern hypotheticals. They are decently sized, fairly well funded, and have their illustrious history but with issues and commitments to match all of these things. As it now stands, their problems from what I’ve read are mostly their lack of suitable escorts, few amphibious warfare vessels, a decreasing mine countermeasure capacity while having even more manning shortfalls than everyone else.

So the question I think is begged: Could these all be at least to a degree resolved in a single ship class?

The Type 32 frigate idea already seems like the RN themselves’ idea in this regard though if that could ever now come to be is another story. It’s interesting though to see ships that other nations have or are building that could add so much.

Firstly that comes to my mind, something like an improved LCS. As many problems as they have, at least the Independence class are giving good service and are lightly manned potentially very useful ships. Make them more dedicated mine countermeasure vessels and drone carriers, with SeaCeptors as part of the armament, and it seems like such light frigates could be a welcome addition. And if need be, the royal marines should be able to be fitted with some vehicles inside the roomy mission space.

The Absalons are maybe the most obvious choice of what an actual Type 32 could be based one. More heavily manned but a much larger ship that was built on a budget, in their original guise as multi-mission ships they could do almost anything with their vast mission space including explicitly amphibious warfare while still being a venerable warship. With a more drone focused approach, things could be even better today and it’s what the Type 31s are based on.

The last is the Portuguese drone carrier D. Joao II. Now the RN would probably need to do things like significantly up the speed of any design to keep up with other ships and have it be better armed, but with drones now adding so much to what a ship can do, these ultra-light carriers seem like they could be a way to cover many bases at once. The San Giorgio class LHD might be an even better, specifically something like the Qatari Al Fulk which has a frigate level armament.

All of these seem like in theory they should also help with things like hydrographics if needed (another somewhat atrophying area), and the modular mission loads that are being experimented with seem like they are also suited to this type of ship.

But what do y’all think?

What would be the best type of ship for the Royal Navy to procure?

Maybe you think that these all should come secondary to more replenishment vessels?

Or maybe something more like a much smaller patrol minesweeper so high end ships can be left to do their things?

Or should the Type 83 program be made sure not to get delayed first and foremost?

BAE owns both the Bofors 40mm mk4 and the APKWS 70mm systems, propose that combining them would give synergistic effects against aerial and surface drones on navy ships.

I assume you would have to beef up the mounting ring and build a frame underneath the carbon fiber outer shell of the mk4 to support stubby weapon mounts on each side. Use the same mounting system as the Apache - this would give you the flexibility to mount 7-19 round rocket pods, 2-4 Hellfires, or switchblade/coyote drones on each side. While you are buffing up mounting points/motors- upgrade the carousel feed system of the mk4 to that of the K21 South Korean IFV. You would get 240(30+210) 40mm ready rounds versus 100(30+70).

Mount an independent Electro optical sight and laser designator on top of the turret. Use IR imaging and AI to constantly watch for drones or small vessels. Especially around ports.

Upcoming APKWS upgrades include a dual mode seeker for a target and fire/forget firing system along with upgraded rocket fuel(Ursa labs) for a possible bump in range to 8+ miles. 40x365mm rounds have a range from up to 6 miles with airburst rounds. Both of these could be used as a CIWS for basic missile defense as well.

Both systems are proven and cheap when compared to their competition in this field. 40mm 3P ammo is around $27 USD per round and a 70mm APKWS rocket is around $35,000 per rocket (no idea how much a dual mode seeker would add, but I bet it is still a helluva lot cheaper than a $300k JAGM) This matches up well against a $20-50k Shahed 136.

240 rounds and 38 rockets of drone luvin' fun.

Excuse the quick AI image, not exactly what I envisioned, but it conveys the idea (and it looks pretty cool). Thoughts? Pros and cons?

Hello all, i was wondering if this sub could help me identify the ship in this photo, I picked this 19×24 framed photo up from an estate sale.

There was a short period around 1900 where multiple countries constructed coastal defence ships. The concept has always interested me. I just recently realised I know of no example of a naval battle where they won. The only examples I know of just seem to be about them being a fleet in being. Are there any examples where the concept worked?

Hi,

I'm hoping someone can clarify for me how exactly a ship's guns were counted on Napoleonic warships, specifically in cases where the number of guns doesn't appear to match the number of gun ports in available ship plans.

I am aware that guns outside of the main armament (e.g. carronades) are not generally counted towards the total, however a lot of the plans I can find appear to show more gun ports than the vessel is listed as supporting - even including carronades.

For example, I've included images here of plans for the Merlin class from "British Warships in the Age of Sail 1793-1817" by Rif Winfield. The original armament for this class is listed as 16 x 6pdr guns (so a 16-gun ship-sloop) plus 4 Quarterdeck carronades, however the plans included appear to show 10 ports per side on the upper deck and 3 ports per side on the quarterdeck - suggesting an armament of 20 main guns and 6 quarterdeck carronades.

What is the reason for this discrepancy, and if some of the ports are for some reason not used - which ones would those be?

Additionally, am I correct in thinking that Bow- and Stern- chasers aren't typically counted as part of the armament when describing a ship by number of guns?

(Linked images of Merlin class because I'm not able to add them directly to the post)

https://files.catbox.moe/0f88nu.jpg

https://files.catbox.moe/hzqta0.jpg

edit: fixed autocorrect of "LinkedIn"

Named after the town of Sackville, New Brunswick, HMCS Sackville now rests on the Halifax waterfront as Canada’s Naval Memorial. She's the only remaining Flower-class corvette of the 274 that served with the Royal Canadian Navy during the Second World War. 

During the war, German U-boats were severing vital supply lines across the Atlantic to Britain, threatening the Allies’ war effort. The losses were staggering. June 1941 alone saw 454,000 tonnes of Allied shipping destroyed, and between January and July 1942, nearly 400 ships were sunk at the cost of just seven U-boats. 

Corvettes were the solution. Small, cheap, and quick to build, they could hunt U-boats and shield vulnerable merchant vessels. Nicknamed “Cheap and Nasties” by Winston Churchill, they became the workhorses of the North Atlantic. Sailing in convoys that often included about 40 ships, Corvettes defended the lifeline to Britain, engaging submarines and protecting cargoes from attack. 

HMCS Sackville escorted these merchant ships carrying food and military supplies from St. John’s, Newfoundland to Londonderry, Northern Ireland during the Battle of the Atlantic. 

Over the course of the war, Sackville faced both successes and losses. In early August 1942, she engaged three German U-boats in a single 24-hour period, putting two out of action. But the dangers went both ways. In September 1943, while part of an escort group, German U-boats sank several merchant ships and four escorts, inflicting major casualties. Sackville herself was rocked by an explosion, severely damaging her number one boiler. Repairs failed, and the defective boiler was removed, ending her career as a warship. She went on to serve as a training vessel for the HMCS Kings officer training establishment and later in loop-layer duties. 

Even without enemy fire, life aboard was relentless. Sea spray and waves drenched the decks, and once you were wet, you stayed that way - sometimes for weeks in freezing conditions. Ships pitched and rolled through the North Atlantic, swaying in every direction on two- to three-week voyages. Sailors had to adjust while battling seasickness, knowing a U-boat could be nearby. 

Many who served had never experienced the ocean, joining the Royal Canadian Navy from Canada’s inland provinces. Some enlisted out of the need for a steady income; others were driven by a desire to see the ocean, and many were motivated by patriotism or the chance to travel. Among them were many teenage boys, facing the same dangers and hardships as seasoned sailors. 

Today, you can take a tour or explore the vessel yourself, you'll move through the many spaces and systems that worked together to keep her running as one cohesive unit.  

At the bow stands the breech-loading four-inch gun, the Corvette’s primary weapon against surfaced U-boats. Without radar, targets had to be spotted entirely by the naked eye, even in rough seas or darkness. Ammunition could freeze solid in the Atlantic cold, a reminder of just how brutal the conditions were. Imagine standing on deck in that weather for hours, or even days. It’s a sobering thought while you’re onboard. 

Learn how orders travelled from the bridge to the wheelhouse through voice pipes, the only way to direct the steerer, who had almost no visibility from their position at the wheel. At night, steering was done completely blind, guided only by orders, as even the slightest escape of light could reveal the ship’s position to the enemy. While in the wheelhouse, you can also study the charts that mark the Corvettes’ convoy routes across the Atlantic. 

The sleeping quarters might offer the clearest glimpse into how rough sea life could be. These cramped spaces were crowded with hammocks, seats, and even cats, as some ships had a mascot to lift the sailors’ spirits.  

The crew’s quarters were also where sailors ate, tried to rest, and found what little entertainment they could. Sharing such close quarters with so many others was uncomfortable at best; without a hammock, you might start the night in a seat and end up on the floor, soaked from the saltwater pooling as the ship rolled and pitched. Boarding her today, it’s hard to imagine that roughly 60 sailors once lived and worked in these cramped conditions. 

Enduring these conditions day after day demanded not just physical stamina but mental grit to keep going in the face of exhaustion, cold, and monotony. You’ll also discover why the daily rum ration was the highlight of a sailor’s day, and how it served as currency on board. 

The senior crew’s sleeping quarters show just how complex even simple tasks could be. It was the job of a junior-ranked sailor to bring meals down - a task that seems simple until you factor in the boat’s constant motion. Navigating narrow passageways while trying not to spill or soak the food, all under the watchful eyes of higher-ranking crew, made it anything but easy.  

You’ll also discover some of the ship’s more technical features, each playing a critical role in keeping Sackville and her crew safe at sea. At the stern, you'll see the paravane, a minesweeping device used to protect the ship and the convoys she escorted through deadly underwater threats. 

First photo from the Canadian Naval Memorial Trust.

Second photo by Riaz Oozeer.

We know the American's absolutely would have went through with the South Dakota's, But the Lexingtons likely still would have ended up as flat tops, as even before the Treaty was signed that was becoming the popular idea for them. but past the South Dakota's Would the American's stick to the standard type design? Or would the fast battleships like NC and Iowa still become the endpoint for their Battleships?

Would the British have built the N3s? Or maybe the more Conventional L3 competitor design? Considering how much other work would need to be done to their Naval infrastructure to support such a vessel, i wonder if they would even survive the costs of such expansion, and building such ships.

Along with that how far would Japan push their ship designs? If the Yamato was their magnum opus after such a long pause in Design and build work, What would the evolution look like if they didn't have that pause.

CSS Georgia was an ironclad warship built in Savannah, Georgia during the American Civil War. The Ladies' Gunboat Association raised $115,000 for her construction. Because of a lack of iron, her armor was made from repurposed rails. as a result, she was very very very heavy. she could barely move or steer on her own, and never saw combat.

What makes this even better is that at the end of the war, she was scuttled to prevent the union from "using it". what they could have used it for i have no idea.

I’ve been working on fictional warships for a world build me and some of my friends are putting togethe, and here are a few of them, mainly from the navy of a nation called the United States of Yokania (or just Yokania — the name most likely gives away what IRL nation this is equivalent to):

Shown in the first image is a refit of an Anguloria-class fast battleshi, this one in particular being YSS Wesylvania as she was in the 1980s. The Anguloria class as a whole appeared in the 1940s originally, when the need for a fast battleship able to escort, fight alongside, and protect the Yokanian Navy’s aircraft carriers was identified, and have enjoyed a long service career afterward.

**-Name:** Wesylvania (subclass of Anguloria).

**-Type:** guided missile battleship.

• **Builder:** Wright Shipbuilding Co.

Size:

• **Draft:** 13 meters.

• **Beam:** 35 meters.

• **Length:** 270.4 meters.

• **Height:** 66 meters.

• **Top Speed:** 33 knots.

• **Range:** 32,500 km.

**Displacement:** 49,000 metric tonnes (standard).

**Propulsion:** Steam turbine.

**Engines:** 4x Simmers TP-900 steam turbines and 2x TG-950 steam turbine generators, fed by FO-525B oil-fired water-tube boilers.

• **Power:** 220,000 shaft horsepower to the propellers.

• **Fuel mass:** TBD.

Armament:

* Primary Gun Battery: 6x M41A2 405mm/50 naval guns (automatically loaded) in 2x forward superfiring 3-gun turrets.

* Primary missiles: 72x M82 CIVLS 8-cell VLS modules (all aft of amidships, typically 128x RGM-29/RGM-36/RGM-45 cruise missiles and 448x RIM-104/RIM-111 SAMs).

* Secondary Gun Battery: 8x M65 125mm/62 naval dual-purpose guns in single turrets on the wings (octagonal 4-up-4-down).

* Point Defense Battery: 8x TM-57 Hornet II quad-25mm revolver-cannon CIWS, 9x M66 Guardian SAM turrets, and RIM-104/RIM-111 SAMs. 40mm Stalwart II revolver cannons and/or flex-mounted M3A1 machineguns are optional.

* Aircraft: 4x UH-4 Twin Dragonfly, MH-17 Cicada, AH-10 Kokain, and/or AH-17 Locust helicopters.

* Crew: 1,580 enlisted/ratings, 180 officers (1,760 total).

* Entered service: 1960 (YSS Wesylvania BB/BBG-69).

Sensors:

Sonar: WQSG-69 sonar with towed array.

* Range: up to 20 km.

* Rotation Direction: 360°.

* Power: TBD.

Radar: SPS-21 low-frequency search radar, SPG-71 fire-control radar, and SPY-1 3D phased array radar.

* Range: up to 420 km.

* Power: a lot.

* Rotation: 360°.

* Slaving: all weapons systems tied into sensors, fire control suite, and Orion combat system.

* Datalink: 1980s, early military internet communications capabilities.

The second image shows a common missile cruiser in the Yokanian Navy, being the Greenwood class, also from the 1980s. The Greenwood class first appeared in the 1970s as a replacement for the myriad of cruisers then in service, serving to expand the Navy’s surface combatant capabilities.

**-Name:** Greenwood (class).

**-Class:** guided missile cruiser.

Size:

• **Draft:** 7.0 m.

• **Beam:** 25 m (approximate).

• **Length:** 220 m (approximate).

• **Height:** 58 m (keel/mast—approximate).

• **Speed:** 35 knots.

• **Range:** 30,000+ km.

**Displacement:** 20,000 metric tons.

**Propulsion:** combined-cycle turbine-electric.

**Engine:** 4x Simmers CG-140FD flue-burning combined cycle turbines, 2x Starfire PowerTech H-1280B auxiliary diesels. 4x propeller shafts.

• **Type:** Fuel Oil.

• **Weight:** TBD.

• **Power:** 160,000 shaft hp.

• **Fuel mass:** TBD.

Armament:

• **Primary Gun Battery:** 6x M40A2 205mm/55 naval guns in two forward superfiring triple turrets.

• **Primary missiles:** 32x M82 CIVLS 8-cell VLS modules amidships, and 4x M80 4-tube slant launcher “bins” (256 cells + 16 tubes = 272 total).

• **Secondary Gun Battery:** 3x M65 125mm/62 naval dual-purpose guns in single turrets, one centerline forward and two on the wings.

• **Point Defense Battery:** 4x TM-61 Hornet II quad-25mm revolver-cannon CIWS, 4x M66 Guardian SAM turrets, and RIM-104 CM-1/RIM-111 CM-2 SAMs in VLS cells (usually 192). 40mm Stalwart II revolver cannons and/or flex-mounted M3A1 machineguns are optional.

• **Aircraft Types:** UH-4 Twin Dragonfly, MH-15 Honeybee, MH-17 Cicada, and/or AH-17 Locust helicopters.

• **Aircraft Amount:** 2x.

* Entered service: 1973 (YRS Greenwood CG-191).

**Sonar:** WQSG-69 sonar with towed array.

• **Range:** up to 20 km.

• **Rotation Direction:** 360°.

• **Power:** I don’t know, a lot.

**Radar:** SPSG-21 low-frequency radar, SPG-71 fire control radar, SPY-1 3D search radar.

• **Range:** up to 420 km.

• **Power:** a lot.

• **Rotation:** 360°.

• **Slaving:** all weapons systems tied into sensors, fire control suite, and Orion combat system.

• **Data Link:** 1980s, early military internet communications capabilities.

As notes:

* the M41A2 is an equal to the 16”/50 Mark 7 guns used on the Iowas, albeit with a fully automated loading system to reduce crew requirements.

* the M40A2 is equivalent to the 8”/55 Mark 28 prototype guns that were developed for the Spruance-class destroyers of the 1970s, but were cancelled due to budget constraints.

* the M65 is equivalent to the 5”/62 Mark 45 Mod 4 gun on modern Arleigh Burkes.

* the M66 is primarily based on the launchers used with the RIM-116 Rollong Airframe Missile

* the M82 CIVLS is a cold-launch equivalent to the Mark 41 VLS used by the US Navy, specifically the Strike variant.

* the TM-61 Hornet II is my own homebrew stuff, utilizing four M7A2 25mm guns on semi articulated mounts (the M7 being an externally driven revolver cannon I came up with). This approach allows the size and shape of the turret’s beaten zone to be adjusted to the threat at hand, with exacting precision to take down aerial targets in its envelope quickly and efficiently.

* I built these ships with the help of one of my friends, utilizing a game called NavalArt (though fair warning, NavalArt‘s shipbuilding system is extremely clunky—I would much prefer to use Blender instead).

What are your thoughts on these machines? I’ll hold off on offering my opinion to allow you guys to discuss and offer any criticism.

(On another note, I apologize for the absolute text wall, as I wanted to provide at least general statistics on these ships to inform your take.)

I discovered it yesterday and I want to know more about it