Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
Belesarius

General Naval Warfare News/Technology thread.

Recommended Posts

COMMONWEALTH T26 USER GROUP GO. Are the canucks using S2087 like the UK & Aus, or do they have their own solution? A common sonar system over 3/5 eyes sounds handy.

 

This takes the number of T26s and derivatives to 32, which is significantly more than FREMM (unless the US buys it)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Xlucine said:

COMMONWEALTH T26 USER GROUP GO. Are the canucks using S2087 like the UK & Aus, or do they have their own solution? A common sonar system over 3/5 eyes sounds handy.

 

This takes the number of T26s and derivatives to 32, which is significantly more than FREMM (unless the US buys it)

As long as we don't fuck it up and over Canadianize it.

 

It' looks to be a pretty capable ship, and if we can manage to keep costs down somehow and not fuck it up too badly, they should be a solid backbone for the RCN for years to come.

 

The more I learn about the SeaCeptor system, the more I like it, and I like the fact that the design has decent anti-swarm protection with 2 30mm broadside mounts, along with the CIWS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Australia's new submarines are very expensive; https://thediplomat.com/2017/10/australias-government-under-attack-over-submarine-deal/

 



The report claims that Australia’s new submarine fleet will cost far more than necessary. “We will pay far too much for a boat that will do far too little,” Hugh White, author of the study, said on September 27, during a presentation of the report in Canberra. “Our calculation in the report is that, in 2016 dollars, these 12 boats will cost us $40bn, plus $6bn for the combat system – well over $3bn a boat. In every major project like this, the costs escalate.”

However, according to the report, the bigger risk with sticking to the modified Barracuda-class is that “Australia will be left with a submarine capability that is either seriously inadequate or, in the worst case, non-existent for several years.” The report states:

Engineering experts consider the technical risks around the Shortfin Barracuda to be high. It will be a very large conventional submarine and the engineering challenges are formidable. Most surprisingly, the present concept design does not incorporate modern batteries or AIP, considered by most experts as essential in a future operational environment where submarine detection technologies will have improved significantly.

 

 

For comparison, per wikipedia, Virginia class subs are $2.7-3.2 billion per unit depending on the fit (not that they would be a perfect fit, since Australia has virtually nil nuclear infrastructure, and almost certainly not enough manpower to support 12 Virginias).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The "modern batteries" dig is a little harsh, given that AFAIK japan is the only nation to improve on lead-acid (and then only recently):

https://www.janes.com/article/83625/japan-launches-first-soryu-class-submarine-equipped-with-lithium-ion-batteries

The whole procurement is a joke though, they're costing twice what an astute boat does

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not showing up until the 2030s, but it's not too late to start building hype for the Virginia replacement; https://news.usni.org/2018/10/19/analysis-of-navy-shipbuilding-plan-hints-at-return-to-blue-sea-great-power-competition?fbclid=IwAR0tKJVKVAQu-2OKocVkRG_6t9zKDX7JY3vZaZMqXdPy_39_SEZq64Y6Dn8

 

The Navy’s next class fast attack submarine will be designed for a return to blue-water great power competition, where the ability to

support forces ashore is less important than operating in the open ocean hunting rival submarines, according to an analysis of the Navy’s 30 Year shipbuilding plan conducted by Congressional Budget Office (CBO).

 

At least at this early stage, this new sub looks more like a Seawolf successor than a simple Virginia improvement (though the article does mention that the new boat will replace the Block VII Virginias). I'm curious about whether it will use the S1B like Columbia (S1B-2?), or a new S1F reactor.

 

Also linked in that article is that the USN is considering SSGNs; https://news.usni.org/2017/11/02/navy-considering-mid-block-virginia-class-upgrades-ssgn-construction-late-2030s

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not surprised it will be costly though.

 

Australia chose conventional subs using a SSN hull, which are to be built with transfer of technology on installations that never built something of that scale.

Add on top of that the cost needed to adapt the combat system to American weapons, and it's no wonder that the thing is expensive.

 

I don't know where they found that the subs would lack "modern" battery or AIP system though, that would be beyond stupid (or that was a massive procurement failure).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not convinced by AIP systems, they're a bit naff (enough for a couple weeks at ~4kn per janes, and then you need to go back to port to refuel) and strong oxidisers on submarines have a long history of killing people - I can see why aus wouldn't want one on their subs. Li batteries would also add a lot to the cost, you could easily be looking at hundreds of tonnes of batteries on board (and that'll need replacing in a few years).

 

IMO a big RTG is a much superior option for low speed, if you can't get a full SSN, but it would cost a lot

 

10 hours ago, LostCosmonaut said:

It's not showing up until the 2030s, but it's not too late to start building hype for the Virginia replacement; https://news.usni.org/2018/10/19/analysis-of-navy-shipbuilding-plan-hints-at-return-to-blue-sea-great-power-competition?fbclid=IwAR0tKJVKVAQu-2OKocVkRG_6t9zKDX7JY3vZaZMqXdPy_39_SEZq64Y6Dn8

 

At least at this early stage, this new sub looks more like a Seawolf successor than a simple Virginia improvement (though the article does mention that the new boat will replace the Block VII Virginias). I'm curious about whether it will use the S1B like Columbia (S1B-2?), or a new S1F reactor.

 

Also linked in that article is that the USN is considering SSGNs; https://news.usni.org/2017/11/02/navy-considering-mid-block-virginia-class-upgrades-ssgn-construction-late-2030s

 

 

Quote

 

However, the new SSN(X) will take the place of a Block 7 Virginia-class, and the planned design appears to prize increased torpedo storage over the VPM vertical launch capability. The new SSN(X) plans do not include VPM capability. When compared to the Block V Virginia-class submarines – the first built with the VPM – the CBO states the new SSN(X) will have 25 more torpedoes and Tomahawk missiles in the torpedo room.

 

No vertical launch at all? Odd, I don't see how space for a VPM precludes ASW capability

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Belesarius said:

 

Basically the design study just started.

 

The questions asked are nuclear propulsion or conventional and electromagnetic or steam catapult?

Conventional and steam catapult are obviously extremely unlikely.

It's worth noting that the CdG use two K15 reactor which were designed for subs, if the new design end up being significantly larger, a new, more powerful reactor may be needed.

 

The tricky part will be making sure that a wide range of aircraft can operate from it.

 

It will have to be able to launch the Rafale (which will be near the end of it's service life in 2040 but still not completely phased out), as well as the future jet and UAV from the Franco-German SCAF program.

 

On top of that Parly, said that the carrier should be interoperable with our European allies, which most likely mean Italy and the UK with their F-35B.

Now I guess that we could reinforce the deck so that they can land vertically, but to launch from it mean we would have to add a ski-jump on top of the catapults and I don't really know how one would do that (a ski-jump that could be raised and lowered at the end of catapult?).

 

The other possibility would be that they'll try to sell the naval versions for the SCAF and that anybody who will buy either the fighter-bomber or the UAV will be promised a right to operate them from the future carrier. That however would exclude both Italy and the UK since they would need F-35C rather than the F-35B they have and those two country are the only ones which have a capable navy (beside France) in Europe :/

 

Parly ended her speech by saying that "With those study we will determine how many units will be needed for both France and Europe" so it might hint that if several carriers are built they could become the core of European naval groups.

 

All in all, both the new carrier and the SCAF are extremely ambitious program which will have an impact on each other.

So I'm really crossing finger that both will succeed, because if one of the two fail we will be left with no carrier group for a long time.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Xlucine said:

Check out the third pic - I haven't seen an open stator/rotor combo on a sub before, I like it

 

I guess they propose it as an upgrade on the Scorpène (possibly as a retrofit?) drawing from the experience they've got on the Barracuda:

 

Old Scorpène:

 

http://www.thenutgraph.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/scorpene.jpg

 

Barracuda/Shortfin-Barracuda:

 

https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Jl5sQLFTJEM/VyImtbN_-FI/AAAAAAAACOE/JE80z6lcNmcf6wR729BxWw4F95sXHYDmQCKgB/s640/shortfin-barracuda-1a%2Bpump%2Bjet2.jpg


Though that does raise the question of why they didn't directly copied the new propeller.

 

50 minutes ago, Xlucine said:

I've also seen this concept from euronaval 2018:

I would like some of their drugs 

 

Supposedly this shape is hydrodynamically more efficient and thus stealthier:

 

http://www.opex360.com/wp-content/uploads/smx31-20181023.jpg

 

But DCNS/Naval group does have a habit of proposing weird concepts every few years:

 

SMX-25:


Concept of a high speed patrol/recon sub (38 knots surfaced - 10 knts underwater)

http://www.opex360.com/images/smx25-20101008.jpg

 

Spoiler

DNCS+SMX-25.jpg

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_ylHlERSbhjs/TJt1gv8QNBI/AAAAAAAAB8A/ZMjbeRkSRlc/s320/DCNS_SMX-25_02_0910.jpghttps://www.meretmarine.com/objets/500/28787.jpg

 

SMX-26:

 

Sort of special forces and infiltration optimized concept

http://www.opex360.com/images/smx26-20121012.jpg

 

Spoiler

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Belesarius said:

   I don't know anything beyond that things have gone very wrong. MoD will probably sue Rosneft (their company operated dry dock), and they manage to lose biggest dry dock in northern fleet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LoooSeR said:

   I don't know anything beyond that things have gone very wrong. MoD will probably sue Rosneft (their company operated dry dock), and they manage to lose biggest dry dock in northern fleet.

I'd like to see more info, so I'd appreciate it if you kept an eye out for anything.  This is a pretty big deal for fleet readiness, and not sure if you guys have anything else big enough to accept the carrier.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/27/2018 at 9:39 PM, Alzoc said:

 

I guess they propose it as an upgrade on the Scorpène (possibly as a retrofit?) drawing from the experience they've got on the Barracuda:

 

Old Scorpène:

 

http://www.thenutgraph.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/scorpene.jpg

 

Barracuda/Shortfin-Barracuda:

 

https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Jl5sQLFTJEM/VyImtbN_-FI/AAAAAAAACOE/JE80z6lcNmcf6wR729BxWw4F95sXHYDmQCKgB/s640/shortfin-barracuda-1a%2Bpump%2Bjet2.jpg


Though that does raise the question of why they didn't directly copied the new propeller.

 

Open propulsors are meant to be a bit more efficient, which should be useful for an SSK (the extra wetted area of the shroud means more drag). It's interesting to see someone choose to not use a ducted propulsor for a better reason than "it's more expensive than turning the handle on the old design codes for open propellers"

 

On 10/27/2018 at 9:39 PM, Alzoc said:

 

Supposedly this shape is hydrodynamically more efficient and thus stealthier:

 

http://www.opex360.com/wp-content/uploads/smx31-20181023.jpg

 

Minimising surface area is the main driver for minimising drag underwater, so that means circular cross sections and ducts on propellers are only as long as they have to be - I suspect the extensions on the leading edge of the ducts for the propulsors aren't worth their area

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×