How did the various SSBN operators come to decide how many tubes their subs would have?
0 Kudo
Number of tubes on a SSBN
| Author | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
 PMN1 |
Number of tubes on a SSBN |
Lead | |
|
Posts: 3118 ( 6-Nov-2007 16:16:39) |
|
||
|
emc |
|||
|
Posts: 3244 ( 7-Nov-2007 03:56:46) |
Pulled it out of their collective butts?
Less frivolously, the early SSBN were based on SSN designs, so they would have the same number of torpedo tubes as the SSN upon which they were based. After that, the decision was probably based on successful past practice. |
||
|
taschoene |
|||
|
Posts: 4100 ( 7-Nov-2007 04:37:26) |
I assume the OP is referring to missile tubes, not torpedo tubes. If so, the rather surprising answer for the US boats is that the polled the members of the
Special Projects Office team developing the Polaris sub and averaged the answers. Basically, it was a consensus of educated guesses.
|
||
|
PMN1 |
|||
|
Posts: 3120 ( 7-Nov-2007 18:32:59) |
Ah yes, I did mean missile tubes.
|
||
|
Alexius55 |
|||
|
Posts: 88 ( 7-Nov-2007 21:55:25) |
The Polaris sub was the first proper SSBN (the Soviet Hotel boats before that only had a few short-ranged missiles in the sail). So presumably the boats after
that had a similar number due to imitation.
|
||
|
emc |
|||
|
Posts: 3246 ( 8-Nov-2007 02:22:38) |
taschoene wrote: Oops! 
|
||
|
jaluhn |
|||
|
Posts: 14 (10-Nov-2007 08:15:26) |
Also obviously some technical issues, since the first were literally cut in half ssn's. Obviously adding a 500' center section (as an example) will
result in structural problems, so I'm sure there was a maximum limit on the length of the center section that could be installed while maintaining
structual integrity (ie - max depth) I would not be too surprised to find that the maximum length was right around what was used. The ohio's were beamier,
so could acomindate a relativly longer center section, hence 24 tubes. (also purpose built, so less of an issue, but still need to have a certain length to
beam ratio) Probably tacictal / strategic issues, since having too many missiles on one boat makes the system excessivly vulnerable to incapacitiation of one
boat, while lots of boats is not economical to maintain.
So the issue is more complex than it at first seems. I think it's somewhat telling that forign designed boomers tend to have roughyl the same tube number per boat, athough some of that may be just a rub off from US designs. (ie, I think the french boomers were based on the early us ones, right?) |
||
|
emc |
|||
|
Posts: 3251 (10-Nov-2007 19:33:17) |
I don't have my structures books with me, but submarines are essentially cylindrical pressure vessels, so their length has little relationship to their
diving depth, which is dictated primarily by hoop stresses, which are not related to a pressure vessel's length. On the other hand, there are some other
constraints on a submarine's length, including bending stresses while surfaced and during rapid maneuvers.
Submarine design involves quite a lot of interacting constraints. I believe, for example, that the diameter of the USN's Los Angeles class was set by the size of the reactor, and that of the Ohio class SSBN's by limits in manufacturing the hulls' structural components. |
||
|
Alexius55 |
|||
|
Posts: 97 (11-Nov-2007 00:03:18) |
Reposting a failed post:
On adding centre sections, you can add quite a lot. For example, take the Resolution-class. This was 130 metres long and made by inserting the 16 Polaris tubes of a Lafayette as an additional centre section in an 87-metre Valiant. So cut-in-half SSBNs can definitely carry up to 16 missiles- and the only purpose-built ones that carry more are the Ohio (24) and the Typhoon (20). |
||
|
taschoene |
|||
|
Posts: 4101 (11-Nov-2007 02:22:55) |
jaluhn wrote:The first US SSBNs were built using some parts ordered for some SSNs, but they did not actually cut apart an SSN under construction and add a missile compartment in the middle. So the issue is more complex than it at first seems. I think it's somewhat telling that forign designed boomers tend to have roughyl the same tube number per boat, athough some of that may be just a rub off from US designs. (ie, I think the french boomers were based on the early us ones, right?) French SSBNs are not based on US designs. The US does not share nuclear submarine or weapon technology with France, thanks to the NATO withdrawal and other political disagreements. Perhaps they picked their numbers based on US practice, but I suspect it actually had more to do with the size of the missiles (dictated by their range and some fairly basic engineering/physics) and a desire to keep the overall displacement to a reasonable figure. |
||
|
bager1968 |
|||
|
Posts: 2627 (11-Nov-2007 23:07:10) |
True... it was the design that was "cut in half and lengthened" (with a few modifications).
|
||
- Battleship Vs Battleship
- Should Battleships Be Back In Service?
- The United States Navy
- The Royal Navy
- The European Navies
- The Commonwealth Navies
- The Asian Navies
- Aircraft Carriers
- Fighting Ships Of The World
- Submarines
- Designing A Navy/Ship
- The Land Forces
- The Air Forces
- The Naval Fiction Board
- The Politics Of War
- Naval Help
