Alternate warships of nations

Can i post a warship (a submarine that is) from a fictional country (not fantasy nation btw) or does it only apply for real world nation only
Please give a bit of background about your fictional nation and scenario or most people will comment that they can't see why your nation would build a warship with those specs at a certain time based on their own imaginings of what your fictional situation looks like.
 
Russian Republic Submarine.png

Ship name: RNS (Russian Naval Ship) Skumbriya
Ship class: Skumbriya class
Years of Service:
1952-1965 (original configuration)
1965-1990 (GUPPY conversion)

The russian republic Skumbriya class submarine (ex class submarine of the soviet union) in its GUPPY III configuration after extensive refit in the US.

The russian republic naval forces was quite limited at the start only left with leftover soviet pacific fleet ships but the US was quick to give the russian republic several of its destroyers and submarines to bolster the forces but due to the location of the russian republic (located in the far east) the navy only saw small actions during the siberian war mainly supplying forces located near the arctic.

During the 60s the nation seeks to upgrade it fleet to have a better performance and as such they turn to the US to refit their old submarine fleet while looking for other alternative, while other submarine was scrapped the skumbriya class was kept due to its large size and its hull was reinforced so that it can do its duty in the north pole. All 3 class of the ships were retired in 1990 and the lead ship skumbriya are preserved as a musuem ship in vladivostok.

(Note this tl uses TWR timeline but using my headcannon)
(Also this is my first time editing an alternate ship so sorry for any incovenience when reading 🙏)
 

Driftless

Donor
What forum would be appropriate to discuss the sinking of the Moskva? This one, or one of the AH Chat forums? I'm more curious to read what some of our home-grown naval knowledgeable folks think.
 
What forum would be appropriate to discuss the sinking of the Moskva? This one, or one of the AH Chat forums? I'm more curious to read what some of our home-grown naval knowledgeable folks think.
I still think of them as slava
Moskva was that weird helicopter carrier that should have been turned into a “commando carrier” post Cold War
 
SSN-2 Styx could be the basis of a submarine launched cruise missile in the 60s or 70s ?
These SSGN could supplement the larger echo and Charlie classes
Maybe a modified whisky or Romeo class which can carry 5 or six such missiles ?
They would be bulky and short ranged and these boats will essentially be submersible missile batteries with poor sea going and long range capability but would be arguably more useful than the Osa boats in sea denial
 
SSN-2 Styx could be the basis of a submarine launched cruise missile in the 60s or 70s ?
These SSGN could supplement the larger echo and Charlie classes
Maybe a modified whisky or Romeo class which can carry 5 or six such missiles ?
They would be bulky and short ranged and these boats will essentially be submersible missile batteries with poor sea going and long range capability but would be arguably more useful than the Osa boats in sea denial
The Whiskey SSGs had stability issues that made them generally poor submarines. As soon as the strategic SLCM role was replaced by SLBMs, the Whiskey Twin Cylinders and Long Bins we're all converted for other uses. The Soviets built the Juliett-class SSGs and Echo-class SSGNs to fire the P-5 in the strategic SLCM role. When these submarines were supplanted in the strategic role by SSBNs, the Julietts and the Echo IIs switched to the P-6 anti-ship missile, a different missile with the same NATO designation. The Echo Is couldn't carry a targeting radar and were used as SSNs instead.
The submarine-launched derivative of the P-15 Termit was the P-70 Ametist, which entered service in 1968 on the Charlie Is. Each could carry 8 missiles.
 
The Whiskey SSGs had stability issues that made them generally poor submarines. As soon as the strategic SLCM role was replaced by SLBMs, the Whiskey Twin Cylinders and Long Bins we're all converted for other uses. The Soviets built the Juliett-class SSGs and Echo-class SSGNs to fire the P-5 in the strategic SLCM role. When these submarines were supplanted in the strategic role by SSBNs, the Julietts and the Echo IIs switched to the P-6 anti-ship missile, a different missile with the same NATO designation. The Echo Is couldn't carry a targeting radar and were used as SSNs instead.
The submarine-launched derivative of the P-15 Termit was the P-70 Ametist, which entered service in 1968 on the Charlie Is. Each could carry 8 missiles.
Echo I were turned into SSN , I’m surprised the same didn’t happen with Yankee class once the Deltas became widespread
But the Soviets went for various types of conversions like sidecar big nose notch etc etc

Could the P-70 be mounted on boats like Golf/ Hotel classes ? They became rapidly obsolete as SSBN too
 
Yavuz sultan turned into a missile cruiser with SAM / AshM ?
How long can the ship stay in service maybe till end of 70s ?
 
Yavuz sultan turned into a missile cruiser with SAM / AshM ?
How long can the ship stay in service maybe till end of 70s ?

I mean, suppose you can exchange (some of) the turrets for missile launchers but I am pretty the issue would be more that hull and engines have been degraded.
 
I mean, suppose you can exchange (some of) the turrets for missile launchers but I am pretty the issue would be more that hull and engines have been degraded.
Well, she was around until 1973, all be it laid up from 1954.

You'd have to assume an earlier than 1973 conversion. Maybe early 1960's?

No reason why the hull and engines would be too bad at that date (Note: That term is used loosly).

The engines would have to be replaced with oil-burning versions (If not already done?), and the hull can be checked / repaired. Maybe remove the two wing turrets and aft super-firing for the launchers? Her armour is pathetic though, so you could beef it up I suppose, if it is worth it? Probably not, but I'm not an armour vs rocket expert.
 
SMS Goeben was decommissioned from Turkish naval service in 1950 and stricken from their register in 1954. Material condition would probably already have been poor. In any case, a missile-armed battleship would be more expensive to operate and overall less effective than mounting a similar number of missiles on missile boats or corvettes.
 
Given Yavuz was 20 years removed from her reboilering in 1950, I can't imagine those boilers were in any real shape to be pushed into the 1970s. She'd need a reboilering, probably new turbines, and at that point you're well past the point where the cash-strapped Turkish navy can justify spending money on a nearly 40-year-old ship.
 
Given Yavuz was 20 years removed from her reboilering in 1950, I can't imagine those boilers were in any real shape to be pushed into the 1970s. She'd need a reboilering, probably new turbines, and at that point you're well past the point where the cash-strapped Turkish navy can justify spending money on a nearly 40-year-old ship.
I could see it if the Turks did the work, and paid the expense of building a virtually new ship, for some political means. Might be easier to get a shiny new warship if said new ship is wearing the skin of a much older vessel.

"What do you mean the Greeks and Soviets are mad at us? We are just refitting our existing battlecruiser!"
 

Driftless

Donor
I had read somewhere long ago (no source to cite), that coal soot and fumes were very corrosive on old steel, particularly working on riveted connections. Diligent paint scraping and repainting helped, but the coal residues would work their way into gaps and were harder on ships steels than oil residues.

True, or un-true?
 
I had read somewhere long ago (no source to cite), that coal soot and fumes were very corrosive on old steel, particularly working on riveted connections. Diligent paint scraping and repainting helped, but the coal residues would work their way into gaps and were harder on ships steels than oil residues.

True, or un-true?
Well it makes sense. Graphite is very corrosive in and of itself, part of the galvinic process if memory serves. So it would facilitate corrosion and general degredation of any metal it came into contact with, as well as being very difficult to keep out of everything.
 
I had read somewhere long ago (no source to cite), that coal soot and fumes were very corrosive on old steel, particularly working on riveted connections. Diligent paint scraping and repainting helped, but the coal residues would work their way into gaps and were harder on ships steels than oil residues.

True, or un-true?
Correct. Coal fumes contain sulfur compounds and the fly ash acts as a sponge for the resulting sulfur acid compounds. Further, the ash removes the protective oxide layers that form naturally on steel.

Source: https://www.nationalboard.org/index.aspx?pageID=164&ID=196 This is focused more on boilers, but it would presumably apply to other steel surfaces.
 
I know Confederate States Navy battleships are popular in alt-history, but given the likely state of the CSA by the early 20th century (probably Southern Cone-tier for development/economy) I feel their navy would need to be looking smaller for effective defense against the US. My thought was they'd identify Tennessee as their key weak spot given proximity to the border and critical importance given the industry, agriculture, and transportation, and they'd thus develop plenty of river warfare vessels for fighting on the Cumberland, Tennessee, and Mississippi Rivers. What sort of craft might they develop?

Certainly they could probably make some fairly large river monitors as I believe as early as the 1930s, the Mississippi was navigable for craft up to 9 feet of draft as far inland as Minneapolis, replacing an earlier system of locks. I presume the USN might build river monitors of this size to counter anything the CSA throws at them by sea. My thought would be for the Mississippi, they'd develop ships that could do double-duty in both the river and the sea, with a fleet of torpedo boats and coastal destroyers that would have that 9 feet of draft. For a WWI destroyer, that would be about 500-1000 tons--would that be enough to act as both river monitor and destroyer from Cairo, IL to the Caribbean/Gulf of Mexico? Could you make it seaworthy enough to be a decent mini-commerce raider? I feel the CSN will be strapped for cash and need ships with a lot of potential roles, including the essential role of river defense.

The Tennessee and Cumberland could be integrated assuming the CSA builds the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway (expensive, but crucial to national defense). Early plans called for making a passage for ships up to 4 feet draft, but the modern waterway I believe has 9 feet. I'll assume the CSA is too poor for more than a 4 feet draft. I'd assume these would just be typical torpedo boats of the ra around 150-200 tons, but something the CSA could domestically build a sizable number of and use throughout their internal waterways and coastal areas.

Would this sort of Jeune Ecole doctrine work well enough for the CSA to beat hypothetical enemies like Spain while acting as deterrance for the US so they're far more careful with any potential blockade? Or anyone care to Springsharp or otherwise draw up decent designs?
 
Top