WesWorld

SubSim is a tricky tool to get right and has some awkward steps based on the date increments.

Would will definitely need more reserve buoyancy, 11% before was probably just about adequate. At 2% it will dive well, not sure you'll come back up though!
Range is high so you could cut on the fuel tonnage to save a some weight to raise it. I do think though that SubSim is a bit optimistic when it comes to ranges compared to real life figures.

Makhai Class
Date: 1949
Oceanic
Armament:
- Guns: None
- Torpedoes: 6
- Mines: 12 (Simming torpedoes reloades)
Electric HP: 3540 hp
Diesel HP: 2000 hp
Crew: 38
wt fuel&batts: 146t
Light Displacement: 884t
Loaded Displacement/Kerb Weight: 952t
Full Displacement: 1076t
Reserve buoyancy: 12%
Max Surf Speed: 14,4 knots
Max Sub Speed: 16,8 knots

Length: 65m
Beam: 6,97m
Draft: 4,75m
Crush depth: 317,5m
Tons Oil: 56t
Tons Battery: 90t
Cruise speed: 12 knots
Submerged speed: 10 knots
Surface Range: 2010nm@14,4 knots; 2878nm@12 knots; 16576nm@5 knots
Submerged Range: 2,66nm@17 knots; 21nm@10 knots; 240nm@ 4 knots

Notes: Misc Weight : 25,5 tons
Surface and air searcher radar (7,5 tons)
Air searcher radar (10 tons)
Sonar (9 tons)

Even though I commented after Bruce earlier, I didn't see his response. So allow me to go back and address a few points...

Quoted from "BruceDuncan"

For the most part the Med is not that deep.

The major issue with the Mediterranean is not the depth, but the relative clarity of the water. As a result, you can spot a submarine at periscope depth rather easily from an aircraft.

Most of the areas I'd identify for Greek submarine operations are actually pretty deep - deeper than the crush depth of the Maklai design. For instance, the Ionian Sea is over 3,000 meters deep. The Aegean is much shallower, of course (some spots are quite shallow while others reach 400m), and the Adriatic is quite shallow indeed - although even the southern reaches of the Adriatic between Montenegro and Bari are 900m or more in depth. So I don't have any particular issues with a deep-diving submarine in the Mediterranean: it is entirely possible to reach this crush depth without bottoming out.

Quoted from "BruceDuncan"

And on that point the crush depth seems quite excessive, but on technical grounds I’d defer to Brockpaine’s opinion. He knows Subsim far better than I do.

Crush depth in Subsim is... rather simplistic. If you have an oceanic submarine, you will always get one figure. If you design a coastal submarine, you get a second figure. There's no design input that will let you customize the crush depth. I list it in my writeups, but it's not a particularly accurate number and you'd best not treat it as gospel truth. Checking against real submarines, I'd guess Subsim gives you a crush depth about 125% in excess of what might be considered historical for the late 1940s.

Quoted from "BruceDuncan"

The first question that comes to my mind is why Greece might require an oceanic-scale submarine, particularly one so large and with such long range, when presumably the Greek Navy would be operating in the Mediterranean, which historically has been troubled ground for large submarines. During the Second World War the Royal Navy found itself getting a better return on the smaller U and V class boats than with the larger S and T classes.

Yup - the U and V classes had much better dive times and maneuverability, which allowed them to avoid detection (and attacks) by aircraft more easily than the large fleet boats.

The French, who have the second-largest submarine fleet in the Mediterranean (after Italy), follow something of a multi-tiered approach overall. The French certainly have large submarines, but these are based in the Pacific or Atlantic fleets. The largest boats used for the Mediterranean are the Daphne and Thetis classes. The significantly more compact Aréthuse class is coming into service as well, largely to replace older submarines.

French thinking on this matter favors small submarines, with their underwater mobility maximized at the cost of all other factors, including striking power. The Aréthuse class is pretty indicative of this. They have four torpedo tubes and only one reload torpedo apiece - eight torpedoes in total. But their submerged speed is a knot higher than the most recent Maklai variant, with 40% longer underwater range at creep speed.

Here's a go at a large coastal submarine, based on the French Thetis-class, that France might propose for export to be license-built in Greece.

Quoted

DCNS French Export Submarine, 800t Class, For Greece
Date: 1949
Type: Coastal
Length: 59.0m
Beam: 6.6m
Draft: 5.2m
Crush depth: 225m
Light Displacement 720t
Loaded Displacement 884t
Full Displacement 1012t
wt fuel&batts: 350t
Reserve buoyancy: 13%

Armament:
- 6 x 533mm torpedo tubes (all bow tubes)
- 24 tons for mines or twelve reload torpedoes
ElecHP: 3600hp
DieselHP: 1800hp
Speed:
- Max Surf Speed: 13.7 knots
- Max Sub Speed: 17.1 knots
Range:
- Surfaced: 6940nm@12 knots
- Submerged: 254nm@6 knots / 95nm@9 knots
Tons Oil: 140.0t
Tons Battery: 210.0t
Miscellaneous Weight: 39 tons

This is about the largest size that I (France) would really consider suitable for Mediterranean operations. It has plenty of endurance for long (relative to Mediterranean terms) patrols and a lot of reload torpedoes, but is not so large that it's going to be easy to spot and kill. Underwater performance (speed and range) is the crucial focus.

Well this has been an excellent ocasion to experimentation. I was afraid of make any number increase much. Now I have much more range on a better speed so I will consider this a lesson learned.

Quoted

French thinking on this matter favors small submarines, with their underwater mobility maximized at the cost of all other factors, including striking power.

I had a similar idea but in the order of go deep to avoid any conflict. Now I realize that no matter how deep you go if you emerge just a few miles away.

If you see any irregularity tell me.

Makhai Class

Date: 1949
Costal
Armament:
- Guns: None
- Torpedoes: 4
- Mines: 4 (Simming torpedoes reloades)
Electric HP: 3900 hp
Diesel HP: 1800 hp
Crew: 33
wt fuel&batts: 290t
Light Displacement: 726t
Loaded Displacement/Kerb Weight: 810t
Full Displacement: 916t
Reserve buoyancy: 12%
Max Surf Speed: 14,2 knots
Max Sub Speed: 18 knots

Length: 59m
Beam: 5,97m
Draft: 5,2m
Crush depth: 225m
Tons Oil: 80t
Tons Battery: 210t
Cruise speed: 12 knots
Submerged speed: 6 knots
Surface Range: 3147nm@14,2 knots; 4384nm@12 knots; 17538nm@6 knots
Submerged Range: 10,6nm@18 knots; 273nm@10 knots; 1166nm@ 3 knots

Notes: Misc Weight : 25,5 tons
Surface and air searcher radar (7,5 tons)
Air searcher radar (10 tons)
Sonar (9 tons)

Also there is another version slightly slower but with more torpedoes reloads.

My only real comment is about miscellaneous weight:

Quoted from "M_Fredi"

Notes: Misc Weight : 25,5 tons
Surface and air searcher radar (7,5 tons)
Air searcher radar (10 tons)
Sonar (9 tons)

The radar will need to be much lighter than that in order to fit in a periscope-style mounting.

All of them of the Air Searcher in particular? Around which weight? After all I just want it to be as powerful to allow the submarine to dive in time.

Quoted from "M_Fredi"

All of them of the Air Searcher in particular? Around which weight? After all I just want it to be as powerful to allow the submarine to dive in time.

Here's what I have for the latest French subs:

Quoted

Electronics:
- 2 tons for DRBV-6C surface and air search radar
- 1 ton for ARBR-1L radar warning receiver

In this case, the DRBV-6C can usually detect an aircraft at around five to ten miles (8 - 16 km). Presuming the aircraft has already spotted them and comes straight in for an attack, that gives the sub some time to submerge and evade. If the attacking aircraft comes straight in at 120 knots (222kph), it gives the submarine 131 seconds before the aircraft arrives to crash-dive.

The current generation of French coastal submarines are fitted with snorkels, and designed to avoid surfacing as much as possible. Thus, there are limitations to fitting any more powerful radar sets: their radar has to fit in the specialized masts.

The lost of 5 tons let me add other 4 torpedoes reloads as well as add a bit more of range.
[b]
[/b]Makhai Class
Date: 1949
Costal
Armament:
- Guns: None
- Torpedoes: 4
- Mines: 8 (Simming torpedoes reloades)
Electric HP: 3900 hp
Diesel HP: 1800 hp
Crew: 33
wt fuel&batts: 290t
Light Displacement: 720t
Loaded Displacement/Kerb Weight: 808t
Full Displacement: 914t
Reserve buoyancy: 12%
Max Surf Speed: 14,2 knots
Max Sub Speed: 18 knots

Length: 59m
Beam: 5,96m
Draft: 5,2m
Crush depth: 225m
Tons Oil: 80t
Tons Battery: 210t
Cruise speed: 12 knots
Submerged speed: 6 knots
Surface Range: 3148nm@14,2 knots; 4392nm@12 knots; 17567nm@6 knots
Submerged Range: 10,6nm@18 knots; 273nm@10 knots; 1168nm@ 3 knots


Notes: Misc Weight : 20 tons
Surface and air scercher radar (2 tons)
Air warning radar (1 tons)
Underwater listening devices (9 tons)
Crew confort (8 tons)

I have two... proposals ? about the Argo class.
The first is more an erratum (or at least that is the closest traduction that I found to the phrase in spanish). When I was counting the misc weight I counted the "electronic suit" and the weight of the electronics as two separate adding a hundred tons to the misc weight. Also I forgot to count the superfiring guns. Both errors can be corrected without problem.
The second is the odd one. While looking at this I realized that I could made some changes in the range and cruising speed to allow more armor and some extra secondary guns. I used the block coefficient to retain the same displacement and reduce the trim to keep the performance in more or less the same levels. Since the ship is already being built, I would not be surprised if this late idea was rejected