Can the U.S. Navy build a supersub?

Originally posted by orangetom1999
using HY 130 steel that submarine is going to be alot more expensive than that quoted price.

HY 80, HY 100, and HY 130 require more and more progressively difficult and precise welding proceedures and quality control. No shortcuts to be taken here.

You get a crack or defect in steel like this and it will run like a crack in a fiberglass Corrvette body or a crack in a winshield. You need serious, qualified and dedicated welders to work these kind of metals...no lightweights need apply. You cannot do this type of work with light weight contractors from across the border.
I've had personal experience in repairs on metals like this and it is a very involved and serious process.

Yet as I said before that if there was no limits of the cost can you build this boat, even when it is difficult to handle such materials? You point out that it is difficult but not impossible. I understand that it can be extremely hard and time consuming, but you seem to be a stubborn type not to be stopped just by possible challenge.

I dont know if it has occured to you Deltaboy...but why do you need a boat today that goes that deep??? I mean it looks good and impressive on paper...just like going to the moon..but why do you need a boat to go that deep today?? Think very carefully and outside the box on this one.
Most boats need to go just deep enough to operate, Hide, maintain quietness, and attack when necessary....then resume hiding, hunting, intelligence gathering, and quietness. Shhhhhhhhhh!!! Quiet!!! No breaking wind allowed!!! "Think Quiet!!"

A boat that goes deep, I never exactly said how deep the boat should go. I'm not even asking for a 10,000 feet crush depth boat. Just deep at least 2,000 feet or more. Heck it gives a submarine the possible to avoid a torpedo that also has limits as to how deep it can chase a submarine depending on the environment conditions the submarine is. The deeper the better.

You also dont need that many torpedo tubes. That many tubes is just more of a maintenance problem and alot of complexitys. More hull openings/watertight integrity problems to monitor. More complex support equipment. A well trained torpedo crew and good support/handling equipment can handle this with four tubes...of whatever size you need.
8 tubes is a complex system with alot more maintenance headaches.

It is a huge complex job...and very expensive to ready just four torpedo tubes...prepare the hull..and properly mount and weld them in place...to proper specifications. And that is just the torpedo tubes...not even the support equipment. Eight torpedo tubes and the price would quadruple...plus!!!
If you ever get to see it done...it is a huge undertaking/expense..and I am talking about just four tubes.

Complex and high cost yes, but can all those possibly outweight that the submarine can put more ordnance on the target. The Akula even has 8 torpedo tubes as well. Let me ask you this, why did the Seawolf was giving the 8 tubes in the first place? I'm sure it wasn't for aesthetics or decoration.

reply to post by deltaboy


Yes DeltaBoy...I understand that your question was theoretical in nature. But the realiity is that we have a penny pinching phoney baloney congress who would rather give away billions to something more unproductive as long as it gets them votes to stay in office...no matter how many souls of other peoples they must sell and barter for power. This is the reality of that with which we are dealing.

I also know that there are Navy Yards with the capacity to build ships, submarinies, and aircraft carriers. The truth of the matter is that the budgets of these Navy hards are hardly ever made public. This is because if they ever tried to build a carrier or submarine it would take 5 to 10 times as long and cost 10 to 20 times as much. US Navy yards are like the military ...a cloistered political enviornment. Much is kept from the public.

So when I see these Political A-- Wipes in Washington whining and bitching about how much it costs to build a ship or submarine....I tend to think they all need a serious brain enema because they have had thier heads up you know where for much to long. Pardon my crudity...the mods too... but someone needs to tell it like it is.

Washington DC and our politicians are themselves inflating the value of the dollar into the tank by their Rabid/Rampant give aways .. not only to stay elected within this country ..but also putting other countrys on the dole/Breast...to keep certain corporations profitable...ie...votes and campaign contributions.

This is the reality of the shipbuilding industry as well as other industrys/buisnesses. They are often whored out to the body politic and changing poliitical winds.

One of the silent problems with the War on Terror is that it took so much moneys away from the Democratic Social Breast feeding programs used to keep certain politicians constantly in office on the public purse. Social give aways for votes. They could no longer count on and gaurantee these funds...the funds were going to the war on terror...no wonder Bush and his cabinet were so little liked. You dont see this view on the evening news ...looking out for you.
When the Democrats get back into office after this election you will see these give away programs on the public purse return en mass and with a vengance/entitlement...to bolster certain politicians to remain in office... They will not be worried about shipbuilding ..but how to get re elected on the public purse....ie ..more social giveaways.
Didn't they used to call this political pork spending? I think alot of this today is under the new term to hide it called "Earmarks."
I dont think the future of shipbuilding will fall under any of these until we get into a real shooting war.

The truth of the matter is that there is and will be a limit to the cost...you will not be able to get away from it.

No you did not specify a depth .quite.correct. While not going into state secrets ...I will tell you that your informations are out of date..across the board here.... Enough said on that matter. Some of this technology is moving past Flash Gordon so to speak and to use such a tacky cliche.
Hence I said...outside of the box in thinking.

I dont believe the russians and especially the Chinese are big on automation in their torpedo rooms. They would need 8 torpedo tubes.

You should also know that the Sea Wolf boats are also dubbed within the trades as "Pier Wolfs." You figure out what it means.

No matter how many bells and whistles you put on a gadget or a system of gadgets there is still and definitely alot of veracity/truth to the Olde Ones when they say.."Keep It Simple Stupid" The KISS Principle.
Nothing wrong with updating and new ideas and gadgets/technology....no doubt...just dont forget to properly KISS it!!

There are alot of Olde Salts on these boards who can verify and second this. They have seen enough useless overly complex equipment come and go to believe in the KISS principle......religiously!!!

Thanks,
Orangetom

reply to post by orangetom1999


I can't disagreed with you on the political front. All of what you said is true. Can't get pass all that bureacracy unless we have a real shooting war. Even then it doesn't stop, for example the MRAP vehicles were politicians would give only a few dozen here and there a month before deciding to allow the procurement of hundreds or thousands. By then many troops have lost their lives when it could have been avoidable with IEDs that the MRAP could take on, where the armored Humvees could not.

Pierwolfs I understand exactly what you mean. Spends more time at the pier because of maintenance or repairs than spending time at the sea as it was so aptly named for.

You're right about the KISS principle. I'm thinking more Hitler with grandiose imagination of what particular platform weapon should have with no possible limits. The Tiger tanks was too complex even with all possible strengths. They were disabled because they stopped working, not because they fell to hostile fire.

reply to post by deltaboy



Wow Deltaboy,

I had not thought of it in the light of the Tiger Tank but that is a good comparison. I am certain the Tiger Tank was a shock to the Allies when first they ran across them. But I imagine with typical German Engineering they were complex to maintain out in the field.

You know Deltaboy...there is a museum acrross town in Newport News called the War Memorial Museum. They have alot of small arms in glass cases for public display. One of the german weapons there is of course the German 9MM MP 40 submachine gun. This was the first time I had actually seen one other than in photos. What was of great intrest to me was the sheet display of the exploded parts diagram. I was shocked at the number of parts in this gun. It was obviously over designed. No doubt it was a fine design and worked well...but to many parts in it.

In a later display I was to contrast this with the Thompson submachine gun and then the even simpler M3 .45 ACP caliber grease gun. Talk about simplicity. LOL LOL Hence the KISS principle personified.

Nothing wrong with European workmanship as far as fit and fininsh in many tools and firearms etc...but sometimes a bit overdone to conform to the KISS principle.

Hey.while I am thinking about it...that MRAP vehicle of which you spoke. I am not familiar with it by that name or nomenclature. Is that the vehicle with a bottom that has an unusual design ...like a boat....such that it deflects a blast out at a tangent or away from the direct bottom of the vehicle??? If this is the same...they definitely need more of those.

Thanks for your post,
Orangetom

When I was in the Royal Navy, everything had to be made ''Jack Proof''. I should imagine nothing has changed. If there is ever a weak link, 'Jack Tar' will find it and break it. Moral is ..... dont rely on too much automation and technology.

built cheap buy used is Canada's moto.
The USA should buy it from China
the Chinese would give them a better deal
than they would get from their own Suppliers in the USA

Hey Delta, good post.

I believe the US invented the revolving ordnance magazines for the B-52s for both internal and external loads and this leads to one very simple question?

Given the size of your proposed build, why not do away with torpedo tubes and have then launched from revolving magazines built in to the missile tubes?

That solution would be very similar to the auto-load magazines that can be found mounted in tanks and on light to medium calibre deck guns on modern frigates and destroyers?

Orange in reply to part of your post concerning both the Tiger 1 and the MP 40, I can assure you that both were heavily over-engineered. One of the reasons they lost the war.

Originally posted by Wotan
When I was in the Royal Navy, everything had to be made ''Jack Proof''. I should imagine nothing has changed. If there is ever a weak link, 'Jack Tar' will find it and break it. Moral is ..... dont rely on too much automation and technology.

Ok....ok...Wotan,

I had to think about your post and the nature of it because the name Jack or Jack Tar did not automatically ring a bell with me.

Here among us "Yanks" Jack is called Murphy. It is also called Murphy's Law.

However...I thank you for expanding my vocabulary and horizons with the introduction to "Jack/Jack Tar/Jack Proof.

You are correct about not getting to reliant on automation and technology.
I almost bought one of these machines called a drill doctor for sharpening olde dull drill bits. One day at work I decided to try to sharpen a drill bit on a bench grinder. It took me about ten trys but I finally got it sufficient to finish my job. I proceeded to resharpen all my olde worn out drill bits at home after that. I can still do this with drill bits up to an inch and a half diameter.
Also taught myself how to pick certain kinds of locks and also make my own lockpicks if necessary.
Lots of ways to do a manual overide if necessary.
Same with reloading my own ammunition.

Orangetom

[edit on 3-8-2008 by orangetom1999]

Originally posted by orangetom1999
Hey.while I am thinking about it...that MRAP vehicle of which you spoke. I am not familiar with it by that name or nomenclature. Is that the vehicle with a bottom that has an unusual design ...like a boat....such that it deflects a blast out at a tangent or away from the direct bottom of the vehicle??? If this is the same...they definitely need more of those.

Thanks for your post,
Orangetom

Correct, MRAP=Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicle. As you have described it accurately for its purpose.

Now talking about the Tiger tanks which is complex, I was thinking Hey! What about the Abrams tank which is more sophisticated and complex with the fire control systems, communications, NBC systems, etc. Its more complex than the older tanks. Even with all the complexity, the Abrams tank met all the expectations for the Army.

For example the 688s is more complex than the Sturgeon boats are they not, yet you were successful in building the boats. Isn't it true that the first few 688s had problems before they were commissioned? And since then you learned from mistakes or problems and was able to smoothly build the later boats of the Flight IIs and 688Is with no problems. Same for the Ohio class boats when the number of missile tubes was increased from 16 to 24, yet were able to build the boats that exceeded the Navy's expectations.

Surely when the Seawolf was being built it of course would be more complex and have problems. Had the Cold War not ended we may have about 10 of the boats already based on the progress of building about 1 for each year since the first boat was produced, and probably building the Flight II Seawolf boats already with all the technologies being applied had the Virginia not existed. As time progress you may have address some of the problems that the Seawolves were giving by improving the next Seawolf boats. Fewer parts perhaps, some off the shelf components, etc.

With the Virginias moving on to the Block IIs and IIIs, had the Seawolf continued on in production, the technologies applied and gained from the Ohio SSGNs and Virginias would make the Seawolf practically what I imagined. The hull extension (learned from the Jimmy Carter) of about 50 feet added to increased the length of the theoretical Seawolf III boats to have the SSGN capabilitiy (learned from Ohio) as well as add the new "six shooter" vertical launch system being applied to the real world Virginias of Block IIIs, as well as maintain the 8 tubes, deep diving, high flanking speed.

Since you built only the first 3 and last 3 of the Seawolfs, we can never be certain if you could have readdress the problems that the Seawolfs had face that made their reputation to the point of nicknaming them "Pierwolfs."

reply to post by fritz


I don't know about that, sounds more complicated have submarines just trying to fire torpedos from vertical launch systems. I would have to say that the boats would have to dive deep to fire a torpedo when its launching at an arc like you see on Tomahawks. Orangetom would probably easily explain the reasons why torpedos should not be launched from vertical launch tubes.
However SUBROC comes to my mind that submarines can launch a missile and hit its submerged target, but that uses nukes only. Conventional warheads would be useless against boats that are diving deep in combat.

reply to post by deltaboy


DeltaBoy,
Thanks for the definition of what MRAP means. I did not know that. I had only seen a few photos of an unusual vehicle which looked to me like the bottom was made like a boat.

The Tiger Tank was indeed complex in its day as is the M1 Abrahams Tank. No doubt updates and upgrades have taken place over the years to make them the M1 even more complex and still deadly. Remember too...alot of these systems which make todays tanks so deadly were not around 50 years ago. These systems too had to be developed...tried by fire for reliability and dependability verses other systems. I imagine that for every system which survived the test requirements and are installed today..there were at least five to ten which did not make it for various reasons.

It is the same for submarines. The 688s definitely were more complex and different in critical areas than the 637s or Sturgeon class. For one thing I can definitely tell you without breaching to much security is that solid state miniaturization took quantum leaps from the 637s to the 688 class. It has made even more quantum leaps to the Sea Wolfs and then the Virginias.

The problem with the Sea Wolfs outside of overall costs...is complexity...they are overly complex boats to maintain. And you only have three of them...so keeping parts is a problem verses so many of the 688s.

As to vertical launch tubes for torpedos..this is not practical. Such tubes are ideal for missiles as they need only keep the missle dry long enough to get free from the water...usually a bit more than periscope depth.
Torpedos are designed to be loaded dry and then the tube flooded..so they are then wet. This will not do with a missle...not for any lengthy time that is.

Subroc is a bit different type of weapon ...similar to a torpedo in that it is designed to fit into a horizontal torpedo tube...the tube flooded and then the missle launched like a torpedo ..rising to the surface ...only to return to the water down range. AS I recall...most subroc weapons have been phased out now days...eclipsed by better weapons. I also think subrocs fell under "special" treaty arrangements. Probably for the best too.

Conventional warheads would be useless against boats that are diving deep in combat.

Think this through carefully ..outside the box...this arena is changing. They are not sitting still here. Enough said on this.

Thanks,
Orangetom




[edit on 4-8-2008 by orangetom1999]