How About Eight Bow Tubes and Sixteen Vertical Launch Tubes? - Submarines - Warships1 and NavWeaps Discussion Boards - Warships1 and NavWeaps Discussion Boards - Message Board

RSS
Email

0 Kudo

How About Eight Bow Tubes and Sixteen Vertical Launch...

Author	Comment
SubsRUs	"Pointless exercise"	#31	[-]
Posts: 21 ( 1-May-2008 17:28:43) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	westwords2020 wrote: I'm not sure where to go with this. . . . I believe that you do know -- you have already written it twice in this thread: April 4: It seems I have made a big error or rather a compilation of errors. The moderator can close this out. I'm not posting here further. . . . April 24: . . . this is a pointless exercise now. . . .
01001011		#32	[-]
Posts: 54 ( 2-May-2008 18:48:17) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	RU, Is there any reason for the combat system of a nuke boat being more power hungry? Is that because the designers are simply less concerned about power drain? Considering the performance of a laptop today compared with a computer 10 years ago, does it help? Westwood, You should really think about a more realistic situation, say, the Chinese want a CVBG killer in the western Pacific. In that case, 4TT + 4-8VLS, with 12 torpedoes is enough, there is no chance to reload. Also notice that 2 smaller boats is harder to kill than a big one.
SubsRUs		#33	[-]
Posts: 22 ( 2-May-2008 19:24:03) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	01001011 wrote: (in italics) Is there any reason for the combat system of a nuke boat being more power hungry? Is that because the designers are simply less concerned about power drain? Yes. The entire "approach" to designing a nuke is different from designing a non-nuke. The latter is an exercise in minimizing the use of power. Every increment of required power consumption, while running on battery or AIP, leads to an increase in ship size and cost. Considering the performance of a laptop today compared with a computer 10 years ago, does it help? It certainly does. However, the level of data processing aboard modern naval vessels has also grown immensely. BTW, good advice for westwords. I believe that he received similar advice in his earlier thread on this topic.
westwords2020		#34	[-]
Posts: 280 ( 2-May-2008 19:42:48) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	I guess I'm in the wrong here and have been shown to be incorrect in my points. You all are right and I was wrong but the discussion was useful and thought provoking.
01001011		#35	[-]
Posts: 55 ( 6-May-2008 13:01:42) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	In this case the proposed nuke boat would be equipped with an 'AIP' combat system.
westwords2020		#36	[-]
Posts: 281 ( 6-May-2008 15:37:38) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	A sub with a supply of ship killer missiles makes more sense than my huge boat. It got bigger and more grander till it sank under the weight of too many features. Do eight tubes have a place? If you are salvoing eight ship killers like Club with subsonic cruise followed by terminal supersonic or Mach 2.9 stage to complicate defenses, I would hang myself out to dry and say yes. Yakhont requires a too large torpedo tube so it is vertically launched so another eight missiles go out. The Type 65 wake homer with the 765 kg warhead and 50nmi range might be fired either before or after missile launching which will complicate the sub's operation but confront the defenders problems. That would be enough and reload times are as small as two minutes for Kilo class then reloads should would not take long. Yakhont and Club feature manuevering terminal approach and a RWR and jammer for the Yakhont. Those conclusions might be very wrong but much of my enjoyment of these boards comes from your criticisms and knowledge as submarine professionals that I enjoy learning from.
westwords2020		#37	[-]
Posts: 282 ( 7-May-2008 19:14:53) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	It looks like I have grossly underestimated the size of this AIP submarine. Weapons weighing five metric tons apiece have a major effect upon displacement and their torpedo tubes have the same effect. Vertical launchers have similar problems. To accomodate two rows of 21 inch and 25.6 inch with lengths of 37 plus feet for the tubes means an even larger space for the torpedo/missile room. I would change from a two level or platform deck arrangement of four tubes per deck I would go to four tubes across with two rows of tubes with one at 21 inch and the other at 25.6 inches. The 21 inch tubes would be over 11.3 meters like the 25.6 tubes which could be benefical in that a tube might be loaded with multiple decoys or a torpedo and a decoy in tandem. As far as Naval Weapons is concerned, 533mm weapons can exceed 8 meters in the Russian practice of 'long' torpedoes compared to less than 7 meters for NATO standard/US standard torpedo tube length. As for the Type XXIC project, the eighteen tubes with eighteen torpedoes meant no reloading time needed as all weapons were already loaded and could be readied in a short time with multiple salvos to allow followup attacks, I guess. In a German history of U Boat design it was pointed out that manufactures considered eighteen tubes easier to manufacture than six tubes with mechanical loading. Torpedoes could be withdrawn from the breech for servicing. As for the point of this boat, it is to overload USN CVBG defenses and sink or at least damaging a carrier enough to require a long time for repair in drydock as has been suggested for Chineese aggression/warfare with USN.
SubsRUs		#38	[-]
Posts: 23 ( 7-May-2008 23:55:51) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	01001011 wrote: In this case the proposed nuke boat would be equipped with an 'AIP' combat system. Assuming that you are referring to your previously proposed [noisy] nuke boat with turbo-electric drive and lots of battery[for silent running], it will take a huge battery bank to power a large submarine for very long, even at low speed - not even including the combat system load. It just isn't practical. Also previously mentioned, switching between nuclear power and battery cannot be done quickly; I believe that the concept is operationally impractical. Finally, putting a far less capable 'AIP' combat system in a nuke boat is just throwing away a potential capability that is only available in nuke boats. Disregarding these "minor details," why would you put a nuke plant in a submarine when you plan to turn it off just when you need it the most? ----------------- In response to westwords' last messages: It is difficult to follow what is now in your notional submarine and what is not. Nevertheless, here are a few final points from me in this thread. Before "designing" it, you should develop a concept of operations and operational requirements for your notional submarine. For example, here are two (of many) areas to consider: Ship speed, range and endurance - Where will the submarine be based and where is its intended operating area? - In what mode(s) (surfaced, snorkel, and/or submerged) will it transit from its base to its operating area (and return) and at what speed? - How long will it remain on station and in what mode(s) (snorkel and/or submerged) and at what speeds? - If non-nuclear, what is the desired top speed submerged and for how long? (Remember that there is a cubic relationship between speed and power. To increase speed 10 percent takes a third more power. To double the speed requires eight times the power.) Answers to these questions will establish surface and submerged speeds and related endurances and, also, affect vulnerability to detection and attack. These will influence the selection of the propulsion system which will significantly influence ship configuration and size. Your enemy will not approach at your convenience so, if the operating area is far from base, your navy may need three or more subs to keep one in the operating area at all times. Also, your enemy will be looking for you well in advance of the arrival of his surface battle group. Engagement - Who is the intended enemy and how do you plan to attack him? - How will the submarine detect, classify, and localize its targets? You have partially discussed the first item here (it's the primary thrust of all of your posts) but not the second - which is key to a successful operation. How will the submarine detect (or be informed of) the presence of an enemy battle group at the very long ranges of its anti-ship cruise missiles and torpedoes and then "aim" each weapon at a selected target? When all of the operational requirements are defined, try to design a submarine that satisfies them. (Good luck!) In any case, it has been my contention, all along, that large AIP-powered submarines are not reasonable - technically and economically. If a practical, very-heavily-armed, diesel or AIP-powered submarine was truly feasible, some would already exist.
westwords2020		#39	[-]
Posts: 284 ( 9-May-2008 16:03:14) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	I guess it's time for me to do some research and answer these questions in the above post. As a civilian enthusiast rather than a member of the sea services I will make mistakes but perhaps I should persevere. I don't know. When the Germans researched Walter and closed cycle diesel drive, Walter had safety problems but high power and could drive a sub at 25 knots for six hours. Closed cycle diesel suffered in liquid form, a 5% per day boiloff rate. Seriously planned was storage of oxygen in cylinders at 400 atmospheres or 6000 psi. When comparative performance was estimated, closed cycle diesel while not able to achieve the speed of a Walter boat nevertheless had greater range. A battery was provided for low speed endurance in both types but not for sprint speeds. I have my German sub design history and the current editions of Combat Fleets and World Naval Weapons to consult. As for submerged speeds, the Type 212A submarines of Germany today employ sodium sulfur batteries that presumably have both high energy and high power density and use a fuel cell AIP system that provides a cruise speed of eight knots for several days if not a few weeks. I'll have to check that entry. According to Wikipedia, an extendable mast will mount a 27mm cannon for fire support of special ops teams and warning shots to other vessels.
Viper		#40	[-]
Posts: 3394 (10-May-2008 22:19:30) Supreme Dictator of the Universe Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Wikipedia is French for Gypsy Fortune Teller and about as reliable. I prefer reading teal leaves over Wikipedia for all my military information.

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

How About Eight Bow Tubes and Sixteen Vertical Launch...

Quick Reply