Attention all registered users. The new forum upgrade requires you to reset your password as you logon for the first time.
To reset your password choose this option that is displayed when you attempted to login with your username: "Forgotten your password? Click here!"
You will be sent an e-mail to the address that is associated with your forum account. Follow the simple directions to reset your password.
If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Yes the Holland only had 1 internal ballast tank...
"The U-shaped main ballast tank, matched to the cross-section of the hull, was located amidships and rose outboard of the battery compartment. Even when completely ballasted, the boat was positively buoyant, and again, dynamic forces generated by the stern planes held it down, while small trim tanks fore and aft facilitated minor adjustments."
For me at least, I would prefer the rumor of what the Typhoons were for a build rather then a mono hull. Then again, it depends on what the purpose of the sub is in the first place. For a good, battle ready, SSN with the intent of taking out multiple targets on its own, I'd go for the idea of two cylindrical parallel dry hulls with an armored outer wet hull. Now I'd have a tank that could in theory withstand an attack and still be a viable platform to continue an attack. Even if a good portion of one of the inner hulls is flooded, the other hull will still be functional. The only issue with this idea is that all of the water tight compartments would need to be sealed during general quarters. This concept allows for backup systems and duplicate primary systems in each dry hull. Obviously this sub would be twin screwed, but if you have enough buoyancy in the design for a compromised dry hull, you still have a weapons platform. Gibbs had this in mind when he built the SSUS. She has 2 engine rooms as a result and was built with a submarine attack in mind. I'm not that old, but I seem to be holding on to old concepts, like backups, and platform performance after an attack.
The thing that scares me about mono hulls is the lack of a backup or failsafe system in the event of an attack that caused a hull breach. Not only is your primary hull exposed at all times, it is also your only hull. I don't know what the depth rating is on the compartment seal doors, but I'm thinking it's less then operational depth. So after an attack and assuming you survived, your weapons platform (the mono hull sub) may be forced to surface because it can't maintain depth. Now your hidden platform is exposed and possibly compromised depending on the damage.
For my money (and via taxes, it is my money) I'd rather have an expensive sub platform with redundancies and duplicate primary and secondary systems in a protective cocoon. I prefer it because it has a better chance of survival, and a damaged but functional platform is better then a one hit and gone platform.
We can talk about sub designs all we want, but the majority of the subs in the world are military with the possibility that they may be call upon to perform live fire military situations and I would want to have one that could not only take a beating, but take out everyone targeting her, and go home on her own power when it was all over.
I know a lot of people may disagree and that's okay. This is just my idea and reasoning for a double hull sub. If anyone is interested, I have put a lot of thought into this so feel free to ask.
I was under the impression that with double hulled designs all the strength is with the inner hull, which is essentially the same as a single-hulled design's except inside out. The outer hull is just a casing and cannot be watertight for obvious pressure reasons.
Re multiple inner hills for survival, I'd one flooded and the other didn't, which way up would it float?
soviets designs tend to be built like tanks ( like most of their military equipment ) to make up for a lack of technology for survivability. most other countries design plan was not to get hit in the first place . modern submarine have counter measures to hide it self or fool an incoming torpedo but that's another subject.
as for compartments. on early boat they had multiple water tight compartments. each bulkhead and water tight door was rated to the same limits or greater then the hull it self.
triva... water tight doors had 82 cotter pins..
each compartment also had a percentage rating of how much flooding it could survive from. boats with conning towers some times had a "safety tank". it had the same volume as the conning tower and was kept flooded. if the conning tower flooded you could " blow safety" and be back to normal trim.
ssn 575 had a safety tank but it was converted into storage for long deployments
most newer boats only have one water tight bulkhead , just in front of reactor compartment.
as for back up submarines have it made, every system has at least one back up and most have two back ups. systems can be cross connected and every hull penetration has two valves inline to isolate it from sea .
For a good, battle ready, SSN with the intent of taking out multiple targets on its own, I'd go for the idea of two cylindrical parallel dry hulls with an armored outer wet hull. Now I'd have a tank that could in theory withstand an attack and still be a viable platform to continue an attack. Even if a good portion of one of the inner hulls is flooded, the other hull will still be functional. The only issue with this idea is that all of the water tight compartments would need to be sealed during general quarters. This concept allows for backup systems and duplicate primary systems in each dry hull. Obviously this sub would be twin screwed, but if you have enough buoyancy in the design for a compromised dry hull, you still have a weapons platform. Gibbs had this in mind when he built the SSUS. She has 2 engine rooms as a result and was built with a submarine attack in mind. I'm not that old, but I seem to be holding on to old concepts, like backups, and platform performance after an attack.
The thing that scares me about mono hulls is the lack of a backup or failsafe system in the event of an attack that caused a hull breach. Not only is your primary hull exposed at all times, it is also your only hull. I don't know what the depth rating is on the compartment seal doors, but I'm thinking it's less then operational depth. So after an attack and assuming you survived, your weapons platform (the mono hull sub) may be forced to surface because it can't maintain depth. Now your hidden platform is exposed and possibly compromised depending on the damage.
For my money (and via taxes, it is my money) I'd rather have an expensive sub platform with redundancies and duplicate primary and secondary systems in a protective cocoon. I prefer it because it has a better chance of survival, and a damaged but functional platform is better then a one hit and gone platform.
There are several pragmatic reasons why your concept of an armored double hull isn't possible. The first issue is displacement- the sheer weight of both a pressure hull (or double pressure hulls) and a heavy gauge protective "cocoon" would require very large ballast tanks for buoyancy. This would in turn lead to a much larger hull, more wetted surface area and more drag. This would in turn require more propulsive power (bigger and heavier plant). All of these items would add significantly to platform expense. The Russian Typhoon (Akula in their terminology) subs had forward double hulls, were very expensive and handled rather poorly due to their size. As for a twin screw design, the most hydrodynamically efficient design is single screw body of revolution. This was established back in the late 1940's, and led to development of the Albacore. Subsequent US subs deviated from body of revolution by adding a constant diameter middle section to increase internal volume and ease of assembly. Current US submarine designs do not have much reserve buoyancy as they have relatively small ballast tanks (relative to earlier US fleet submarines, for example) at the bow and stern.
I think you also have to factor in that current torpedoes have considerable explosive power and employ shaped charges to put more of the explosive power "forward". In the case of Russian submarines with double hull, I don't know how much good the thin outer hull does in dissipating explosive energy.
The armored double hulls worked really well, but like most military secrets, we found a way around that too. The torpedoes you're talking about came about as a way to sink the double hull subs, rendering the first outer hull pointless.
The problem I was eluding too is what happens when a submarine has to use its weapons. Any nation with ASW systems should be able to at least get a general idea of where a torpedo or missile was launched from, rendering stealth-at least at the time of launch-useless. After all, these are weapons of war. It's the survivability after an attack has commenced that I'm wondering about. True there are countermeasures and tactics, but one would assume that after an attack has been carried out the opposing side could come up with a decent search area. Another thing I've always wondered about was the evolution of safety systems after Thresher. In the event of flooding, do subs still automatically SCRAM, and if so, is there now an auxiliary system of propulsion to get them to the surface in the event they can't surface?
Any nation with ASW systems should be able to at least get a general idea of where a torpedo or missile was launched from, rendering stealth-at least at the time of launch-useless.
I suspect that you are under appreciating the capability of currently deployed torpedoes with their swim-out-of-the-tube capability and wire guided control that can allow an attack on a target from a vector very different than that of the launching sub.
I suspect that you are under appreciating the capability of currently deployed torpedoes with their swim-out-of-the-tube capability and wire guided control that can allow an attack on a target from a vector very different than that of the launching sub.
-Jeff
I would've been with you until recently. I've been talking with my retired military neighbors and at least for the last 10 years, I think I've been over estimating subs. Plus when I was growing up the USN couldn't sink half of the New Carissa which is sort of leaves some wondering as to what was wrong with those torpedoes and salvos.
Wire guided torpedoes were deployed on the Barbells but those at least had a limited range due to the amount of wire carried on the sub. Even still that gives someone a grid to search even if it wasn't from the same heading. Something that I've wondered about (though don't want to it happen) is what would've happened if a Oscar had actually carried out its primary design mission and attacked a carrier group. The USN has some boats with its capabilities, but not to the extent that the Oscars have. From what I've gathered, it was designed to shower a CG with missiles, but I've always wondered what the post attack scenario was supposed to be for them. It isn't like a P-3 or a new P-8 couldn't find out where that rain of terror came from. I mean, they are built like a tank, so were they expecting a retaliatory attack after the first volley?
The drawing of the Typhoon brings thoughts of the movie "Hunt for Red October".
Ever time I watch it, I can't help laughing when the gun fight goes on between the missile tubes.
Knowing that that the missile tubes are in the wet on a Typhoon and it would be very difficult to have that gun fight.
Tweet
Comment