Shipbucket

Ok! the edited version is now uploaded, the guns have been re-worked, and I added a rudder (duh!) Also some minor superstructure work! Next up: Submarines!!! Oh Jesus sorry I just read your message to upload the new design separately... oh dear... whoops!

_________________
Best regards,

RegiaMarina1939

The S-43 Class Attack Submarine:

-In the early 1950's, the CCCN submarine arm consisted of just 6 boats. These were all US-built lend/lease boats of the Gato-class, and were used mostly for attacking Japanese convoys in the Pacific and for guarding assets in the Caribbean. But after the war, the boats were paid for and retained in service, but started to reach obsolescence by the early 50's. During the Second World War, Soviet troops had captured several highly advanced German U-boats equipped with Walter AIP Peroxide Turbines. Soviet engineers immediately attempted to re-create the German technology, and produced several experimental boats for their own use. The CCCN designers observed tests of these new turbines and were highly impressed. The turbines worked by super-heating steam via chemical reaction produced by mixing Hydrogen Peroxide and a Potassium Catalyst. The steam was then utilized to drive a turbine. These engines produced speeds of up to 17 knots submerged, while surface propulsion could be left to conventional diesel engines. The class was to consist of four boats, two of which would be built at the Havana Naval Arsenal in Havana, Cuba, the other two were to be built at the Port-Au-Prince Naval Construction Yard in Haiti. Construction started in 1951 and the first two boats were completed in 1953. The project ran into complications, however, when there were not enough turbines to equip all four boats. The additional two peroxide units would take time to produce, and the navy needed to commission as many boats as possible in a limited time to keep parity with the United States. Therefore, the boats under construction in Haiti were fitted with diesel engines and electric motors. The diesels had been built for the S-39 missile boats, but were dropped in favor of 8-cylinder models (they were 6-cylinder models.) Each engine produced 1,230 horsepower, but they were smaller than anticipated and therefore took up little space. The extra space was used to accommodate more powerful electric motors and extra batteries. The high-test peroxide (HTP) boats were completed and commissioned in 1953 and the conventional boats were completed and commissioned just a month later. When US intelligence learned of the boats, they were immediately panicked. The new boats outperformed even the heavily modernized submarines of the GUPPY program, and the United States feared for the safety of their carrier groups in the Atlantic and Caribbean. There were however, some teething issues; the HTP submarines were somewhat dangerous, given the highly-explosive nature of their fuel, and were restricted in operational range for a short time until sufficient supplies of fuel could be produced. The diesel boats experienced some issues with their engines, as they had been manufactured for surface boats and not submarines. Eventually, the issues with both were worked out and they proved to be rather successful, giving US boats a run for their money. They served until the late 1960's, when they were reclassified as second-class boats with the commissioning of new and improved subs. They were the only examples of submarine in the CCCN navy to use HTP turbines, as the plants were deemed too expensive and complicated.
SPECS:
-Type: Large attack submarine
-Length: 206 feet
-Beam: 21 feet
-Draft: 15 feet
-Displacement: 920 tons surfaced, 1,300 tons submerged
-Speed: 16 knots surfaced, 20 knots submerged
-Machinery: 1st two boats: 1 x High-test peroxide turbine, 2 x auxiliary 6-cylinder diesels; other 2 boats, 2 x 6-cylinder diesels, 2 x high-performance electric motors
-Armament: 6 x bow-mounted 21-inch torpedo tubes, 1 in the tube and 3 reloads, option to fit 16 high-explosive naval mines, later carried smart torpedoes.

NEXT UP: destroyers, minelayers, submarine chasers!.

_________________
Best regards,

RegiaMarina1939

ML-1 Class Minelayer: In 1947, the CCCN Admiralty was looking at acquiring vessels that could make the waters of the Caribbean Sea difficult to access for the combatants of larger navies. The solution was found in a World War Two-era minelayer design for the Soviet Navy. The plans for the class were shipped to the Caribbean, where they were adapted to service in local waters. The class's main duty was to lay anti-submarine mines that could cripple US sub groups operating near home. Initially, they carried an armament composed entirely of guns (obviously besides the mines.) The guns carried were designed to deal with all sorts of threats, and were as follows: 1 x 100-mm B-24 DP gun, and 2 x twin-barreled 25-mm AA guns. The vessels served largely as defensive combatants, mining the waters outside of key navy bases to keep US spy ships and submarines out of recon range. Their names until 1965 were ML-1, ML-2, and ML-3.



Towards 1965, the growing number of submarines and less and less of a need for mine warfare vessels, two of the three vessels in the class were renamed and rebuilt at Arsenal de Havana. The reconstruction was aimed at converting the ships into submarine tenders, as well as increasing their self-defense capability. The aft 25-mm gun turret was removed and replaced with a navalized version of the SA-1 air-defense missile. One of the 25-mm guns was retained, but the single 100-mm B-24 was replaced with a DP 57-mm dual-gun turret. The mines were removed and their storage space was used for carrying submarine-related supplies including torpedoes, fuel, and crew mail. A large crane for loading supplies was mounted in place of the former mine rails. Propulsion remained the same throughout their career, with 2 x oil-fired super-heated boilers driving 2 x steam turbines, with 2 x 6-cylinder auxiliary diesels. The diesels were made by CEB, and the turbines by the Antilles High-Performance Machine Bureau (AHPMB) Retained in service as sub tenders until the mid 1990's, they were scrapped in 1997. The one remaining minelayer of the class had been sold to Honduras in 1981, serving as the largest vessel in the navy there until run aground in 1990 and was left to rot. Their names were (after 1965) Citizen, Laborer, and Farmer. Their names were supposed to illustrate the glory of the working class in the CCCN.

_________________
Best regards,

RegiaMarina1939

So, your HTP submarine is straight Project 617, right? Were the whole plans handed over to your CCCN designers by the Soviets, did they swipe them from the yard, or is this some sort of licensed production? I feel like I shouldn't go into how implausible this whole deal is, since it's your AU and your decision, but, well... a one-off Soviet design that foundered a few years after commissionning, sent for series production to a front-line ally? Even to tick off the Yanks, that's a whole lot of commitment of a new technology, and a good deal of local escalation to boot. Also, it assumes that your local yards can handle these turbines in the first place, but there again, that's your call.

As much as I like the idea of retro-fitting them with a non-insane propulsion plant, I feel like it would need some hull rework to fit powerful enough machinery. The original Pr.617 needed some 7250 hp on its single-shaft Walter turbine to reach 20kt, and the best 1950s Soviet submarine electrical drive I can find is 2700 hp on the Pr.641 Foxtrot). Not sure what amount of gearwork you would need to combine two of those on one shaft, or the space all of that would take. Hence, hull rework. Two 1230 hp diesels will only take your 1300 tons to a decent speed on the surface (case in point: Pr.613 Whiskey: 2x2000hp diesel & 2x1350hp elec for 1342t submerged, 13kt underwater and 18kt surfaced).
OTOH, ?
If you want a middle-displacement high-speed submarine in the 50s, I can suggest two arguably more plausible solutions:
- Take existing subs like the surplus Gatos you mentioned, cut them up and refit them for Walter turbines supplied from the USSR or post-war GDR,
- Attempt to build the abandoned Soviet Pr.654 (see also), that was meant to reach 20kt with only the help of two high-power conventional diesel-electric shafts (4000 hp elec),
- Locally design and build a smaller sub based on some high-end propulsion plant, like fitting a complete Pr.611 plant in a 1000-ton hull with reduced weaponry
- Commission a new design with foreign assistance, using your country's unique position to combine technological input from different sources to co-develop a more advanced classical propulsion
Of course you can stick with your initial design, I'm not here to re-write your AU

_________________
Soviet Century/Cold War 2020 Alternate Universe: Soviet and other Cold War designs 1990-2020.
My Worklist

Now that's a good idea that I'm not going to pick apart (too much)!
That's an interesting and credible concept for a regional post-WW2 navy with a major opponent next door. Love the backstory and the conversion.
The drawing could use some detailing but looks generally sound, so good job here.

Now what I'm going to take issue with is your 1965 upgrade.
A few things, as you might have guessed, on the systems:
- The main gun: While a 57mm DP makes perfect sense, is that an A-220 mounting? That stuff is late 1980s at the earliest, there were other Soviet 57mm models in your time. If you want something canon and modern, go for an AK-725, you should have enough reserve displacement. Otherwise, by all means design a local twin-57 turret mount.
- The SAM (part 1): SA-1, really? The strategic, gold-plated first-generation SAM that was only ever deployed around Moscow as a last-ditch defense to preserve the nomenklatura against the Stratofortresses? Same as for the Walter turbines, I'm going to argue against the exportability of that stuff, but ultimately let you decide what you do with your AU.
- The SAM (part 2): Or do you mean SA-N-1? That would be the ship-borne equivalent to the land-based SA-3 aka S-125, and would be the most realistic choice for a naval SAM at that point in time.
- The SAM (part 3): In both cases, both the launcher and the missile you've drawn don't fit at all. I get a lenght of 12m (!) for the S-25/SA-1 missile, which is 79 pixels in SB scale... Also remember to align the missile body with the launcher on the drawing, and to check its position against the template.
- The SAM (part 4): Taking this into account, there is no way you can replace a pair of light AA guns with a long-range SAM launcher, whichever model you want to use. The S-25 missile alone is 3,5 tons! And you'll want to store reloads and transfer them to the launcher! Take a look at the Project 70E cruiser SAM conversion, or the British Sea Slug installations for reference, because that is the kind of missile we are talking about here. If it fits to any extent on this hull, it will turn it into a full-on DDG with no space to tend to anthing.
- The SAM (part 5): If you are looking for a self-defense SAM for an auxiliary, I would suggest waiting a few years to put a SA-7/SA-N-5 mount, ideally a quad Fasta/MTU-4 launcher. This is something you can plug in instead of a light AA mount. For higher capabilities, go for the SA-8/SA-N-4, which will require some rebuild and a dedicated radar.
- Talking about radars: your initial version can do without, and the main fire director might even be overkill for the gun installation. After the rework, the new AA capability will require an air-search radar of some sort. Again, check out the Pr.70E for the radar set mandated by a first-generation long-range SAM system. I would add, at least: 1 single-face low-altitude air/surface set (Rif, Gyuys/Hair Net, Fut-N/Slim Net...), one or two basic navigation radars, and a basic radar director for the main gun (Bars/Muff Cob, Turel/Owl Screech), one or two visual directors if possible.

Details, details. But again, the overall design looks sound.

_________________
Soviet Century/Cold War 2020 Alternate Universe: Soviet and other Cold War designs 1990-2020.
My Worklist

Ok I will try and re-do the main gun and the SAM system. Also add some different radar. Thanks for the tips I'll get on it right away. Also, the subs were really supposed to be a proof of concept but the impracticality of the rather-fanciful Walter turbine led to it's abandonment in favor of diesels and later, nuclear power plants. That is why the last two boats were completed with diesels rather than turbines. Also, could I have a link to the SAM systems I should replace this one with if there is one already drawn?

_________________
Best regards,

RegiaMarina1939

-Here is the updated, if not necessarily improved version. I removed the missile launcher in favor of a cheaper AK-230 twin 23-mm CIWS system. The issue was that I couldn't find a launcher developed around this time frame that could fit the vessel. The main gun has been swapped for the dual 57-mm ZIF-31 mounting. I chose this one because it was older and therefore more likely to be produced for export to allied nations. I just don't really see the need for an SAM system on a submarine tender, especially for a smaller nation who would, in my humble opinion, be more inclined to mount such advanced and expensive systems to front-line combatants such as destroyers, frigates, escorts, and later on, small aircraft/helicopter carriers.

_________________
Best regards,

RegiaMarina1939

-Libertad class destroyers: Ordered in 1944, the 3 destroyers of the Libertad-class (Libertad, Revolucion, and Independencia) were built in Saint Petersburg as fast destroyers for the CCCN navy. The agreement was part of a military treaty in which the Soviets would supply equipment in exchange for military action of behalf of the CCCN. The ships served as convoy escorts in the Atlantic, guarded the Panama Canal, and protected oil rigs and tankers in the Gulf of Mexico. They were maintained in service, unchanged, until 1985. At this time they were fitted with improved main guns, replacing the single shield-mounted guns with dual turrets. While developed in the early 40's, the guns could fire up to 12 rounds a minute and were also capable of firing against aircraft. For this purpose, special proximity-fuse fragmentation shells were carried. Also mounted in 1985 was a twin-barrel AK-230 rapid-fire CIWS and an Osa-M SAM system. All guns had modern directors made locally to fit their specific needs. Propulsion remained unchanged throughout their lives, consisting of 4 x oil-fired super-heated naval boilers and 2 x steam turbines, for a top speed of 34 knots. Rails were fitted to carry 24 naval mines. The multitude of armaments carried implied their purpose as multi-role vessels. After 1985, their purpose was determined as carrier escorts, intended to protect the navy's two helicopter/VTOL carriers. They served until 2003, when they were decommissioned and scrapped.

SPECS:
-Type: Multi-role destroyer
-Length: 375 feet.
-Beam: 35 feet
-Draft: 14 feet
-Speed: 34 knots
-Machinery: 4 x Oil-fired high-pressure boilers, 2 x steam turbines.
-Armament: 2 x twin 130-mm B-2LM DP guns, 1 x AK-230 23-mm CIWS, 1 x dual-arm Osa-M SAM system, 16 x ASW or naval mines.
-Fate: All scrapped, 2003.

_________________
Best regards,

RegiaMarina1939

NEXT UP: Helicopter/VTOL carriers, heavy-gun cruisers converted to guided missile cruisers!

_________________
Best regards,

RegiaMarina1939

That looks better IMHO. My point exactly on the SAMs. For reference, Poland upgraded all its landing ships in the 80s with the quad Strela I mentioned earlier, so that's something you could add in a later upgrade. In the interim, the AK-230 is a good choice, only AFAIK it always comes in pairs. Which can be side-by-side without trouble, but always require a radar director. If you want manual control, stick to the 2M3 twin 25mm, which the Soviets did e.g. on minesweepers until the 1980s (manual control so you can visually aim at floating mines that can't be picked up by a CIWS radar). The min gun looks good as well, but would need a radar too to be marginally useful.
To summarize:
- ZIF-31 => Owl Screech or Muff Cob radar to replace the stereoscopic rangefinder atop the bridge
- AK-230 => Drum Tilt radar aft of the stack
- No aft radar => 2M3 instead of AK-230

Re. radars, your upgrade could do with a main tripod or lattice mast between bridge and stack, completely replacing the twin one you have (why two masts, BTW?). Put a navigation radar on a shelf above the bridge, and a larger search set atop the tripod and you're 80% done.
Re. further upgrades, the space abeam the mast could be used for that pair of Strela quads I mentioned, or a pair of PK-16 or PK-10 decoy launchers.

On a more general note, it looks like the cargo deck is where your mine deck used to be before the conversion. Does it mean there were mines stowed below decks? If not, you probably can't afford to dig down for your cargo hold without compromising something useful, so maybe include a solid railing one level higher or something, for some actual holding capacity. Weather might be clement in the Caribbeans, but you don't want your torpedoes just rolling off the deck in a cross-wind, do you?
On a related note, where is your crane operated from? There is no cab I can see, so you'll need some remote operation room, plus the machinery to move it. If you can afford to lengthen the crane arm a bit, may I suggest moving it to the forward edge of your cargo deck, and building a little deckhouse between the AA guns (assuming a pair) for the associated systems? Also you can put your FC radar for the AK-230s atop that.
If you want to keep the crane that far aft, at least you'll need some supporting structure below, since again you can't easily carve out space from below the main deck, and anyway someone piloting the crane will need some visibility and can't do it from under deck.

_________________
Soviet Century/Cold War 2020 Alternate Universe: Soviet and other Cold War designs 1990-2020.
My Worklist