Super Nimrod
New Member
Another reason for the Upsizing of the Astute is the decision to end 'hot bunking' so that each matelot has their own bed and doesn't have to share it. Adding accomodation for another 40 odd bunks can't have been easy.
French SSN Programme
- Thread starter riksavage
- Start date
Alpha Epsilon
New Member
Here a contribution to the debate.
Indeed, one of the best articles I've read on the Barracuda. Here some points that might be interesting.
This is surprising to me. The contract actually signed is for 8 billion euros and first delivery 2017 iirc.
Sounds good, and probably achievable in a lot of areas, though how they want to achieve that in the endurance area with the Sea Wolf having 50 weapons and Virginia 40. Also Sea Wolf's and Virignia's endurance at sea should be a lot higher than the 70 days quoted for the Barracuda.
This makes a lot of sense. A bit like the Astute using the Vanguard's recently retrofitted PWR2 Core H.
Well, we now know that they have increased the time from 7 to 10 years even with commercial fuel. Though they have not made a "no refuelling needed" reactor like the ones in Astute and Virginia. If this has anything to do with a lag in technology or in the size of the submarine and thus reactor I don't know.
Tonnage has gone up a bit, to about 5100 tonnes. The maximum speed seems a little slow, though that might be due to classification and in truth it can run near to 30 knots.
Really? No UUVs? What about Special Forces insertation? These two should imo be a standard requirement for SSNs.
Nice. Do other countries use something similiar too?
DoC_FouALieR
New Member
Don't worry, special forces insertion will be one of the main missions for the Barracuda. And UUVs capability too.
Alpha Epsilon
New Member
I thought so. Which UUV (if one has been selected already)? And how many Special Forces?
http://www.asd-network.com/editorial_detail.asp?ID=2
About this doc: It's not totally informed.
If one does a proper research in the official French agencies (DGA/Assemblee Nationale), the gap in capabilties between the TWO SSN types is not even mentioned.
The goal for quiet operations is NOT to surpass the Rubis which have been done easly with the SNLE-NGs but the latest standards.
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=1609&stc=1&d=1180433101
http://www.defense.gouv.fr/marine/d..._lanceurs_d_engins/le_snle_le_triomphant_s616
The Triomphant class is quieter than the seabed, hardly what one would call noisy and the Barracuda design goal is to achieve a HIGHER silent cruising speed, no less.
About this doc: It's not totally informed.
If one does a proper research in the official French agencies (DGA/Assemblee Nationale), the gap in capabilties between the TWO SSN types is not even mentioned.
The goal for quiet operations is NOT to surpass the Rubis which have been done easly with the SNLE-NGs but the latest standards.
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=1609&stc=1&d=1180433101
http://www.defense.gouv.fr/marine/d..._lanceurs_d_engins/le_snle_le_triomphant_s616
The Triomphant class is quieter than the seabed, hardly what one would call noisy and the Barracuda design goal is to achieve a HIGHER silent cruising speed, no less.
it isn't really hard to be less noisy then a Rubis if u'd ask me.
As for diving depth and speed, they will be classified so they're no point of comparison
smaller crew doesn't mean larger endurance in all cases tho, if shit hit's the fan it's nice to have a larger crew so u can still man your operational positions while other people are fixing the problems. Also high system automation seems to be an ideal solution but as we all know.. they're also prone for errors, and what happens when that's the case? I sure as hell know i don't want to be bottomed due to some electronics malfunction
Sorry, size with respect to "acoustic insulation" has got nothing to do with signature management.
There is no such thing as "acoustic insulation" - and signature management is achieved by other means. In current technology applications, only the US, France and Australia have developed that capability. Other nations are still using variations of "design out" management.
btw, I've worked on submarine projects, and am still involved with UDT signature management.
Currently there are over 60 discrete UUV/USV projects underway. I do not recall France having any discrete projects under development - and they certainly do not have any Tango Bravo type solutions in play.
The UUV/USV UDT community is very small - everyone knows what everyone else is doing at a baseline level - and France has not shown anything unique for the last 6 years. They are eager to work with a couple of NATO and associate nations - but they have cetainly not got anything that amounts to a dismount solution.
I'm curious as to where you get your info, as I've been involved in some recent UDT discussions where all of our allies capability has been discussed as we're looking at merging and fast tracking some solutions. France is part of that group.
If is were any you'll be the last to know.
http://www.netmarine.net/bat/cm/thetis/actu.htm
But you still can get your informatrions refreshed from this guy.
Frédéric Dabe, chef du département UUV (underwater unmanned vehicle) au groupe d'études sous-marines de l'Atlantique (Gesma) de la DGA,
Janvier - juillet 2002 : Nouveaux matériels en essai
En étroite collaboration avec le groupe d'étude sous-marines de l'Atlantique (GESMA), la Thétis conduit les essais du sonar Klein (relevé de l'environnement guerre des mines, océanographie et hydrographie) et du robot Redermor (UUV : Unmaned Underwater Vehicule, investigation et classification de mines). Un couplage des deux systèmes est prévu par le GESMA).
>>>>>
Après les drones aériens ou terrestres, les drones navals font désormais parler d'eux. Thème central de la journée Science et défense organisé par la délégation générale pour l'armement (DGA) le 19 octobre 2004 à Brest, ces engins sans pilote intéressent aujourd'hui grandement la marine nationale et pourraient faire leur apparition dans les opérations navales à l'horizon 2010-2015.
http://www.defense.gouv.fr/dga/les_drones_se_jettent_a_l_eau
could be tomorrow.
The Swordship is an audacious concept ship to help developers and potential customers think through the integration of new technologies with next-generation surface combatants.
A powerful network-centric warfare (NCW) node and a platform for a range of unmanned air and surface vehicles (generically designated UXVs), the Swordship will feature a powerful combat system and high-performance sensors.
The combat system will be mission-configurable enabling the ship to make a decisive contribution to naval operations and sea-based land strikes. Advanced stealth ensures extreme discretion, not to mention an appreciable 'advantage zone' where the ship can detect but not be detected.
The National Security Swath Ship (NS3) is designed for homeland maritime security missions.
Typically deployed within territorial waters, the NS3 offers extended coverage thanks to its own boat, an onboard helicopter and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs).
As a homeland security vessel, the NS3 is ideal for combating all forms of illegal trafficking, contraband, illegal immigration and terrorism.
The SMX-23 offers a cost-effective solution for navies wishing to set up a submarine force to defend their littoral or to expand an existing conventional submarine force and its homeland defence missions.
The SMX-23 is designed for safe, precise navigation in shallow waters and for missions ranging from special operations to intelligence gathering and mine laying. Powerful sensors and low observables ensure significant operational advantages.
The SMX-23's small size ensures excellent stealth, making it an exceptional lookout.
The state-of-the-art combat system features new-generation weapons, including Black Shark heavyweight torpedoes and SM39 anti-ship missiles, providing ample firepower and a strong deterrent to any enemy threatening the country's coasts.
Features for special operations include a lock-out/lock-in trunk for combat swimmers, electronic warfare and intelligence gathering systems and a mine-laying system.
The SMX 22, presented by DCNS at 2004 Euronaval exhibition, derives from the aircraft carrier concept applied to the submarine world.
SMX-22 combines three submarines into one underwater vessel with a 3700t displacement. It comprises a command unit nicknamed NCW, and 2 operational units nicknamed OPS.
The NCW unit centralises tactical data, exchanges information with the Navy headquarters, sails the OPS units towards the operational theatre, and ensures energy production. It is also the base for the OPS unit crew between two missions. Each OPS submarine, displacing less than 500 t, is fitted with a mission specific modular payload before leaving the harbour. With no energy production facility, the OPS unit is thus extremely silent. After each mission, limited to a few days, the OPS unit goes back to the NCW command unit for battery recharge and crew change.
This flotilla of 3 submarines can operate jointly on the operational theatre. It can carry up to 50 heavyweight weapons (torpedoes, anti-ship or land attack missiles), as well as UUV and special operation forces.
http://www.dcn.fr/us/innovation/concept.html
There is an appearent information GAP out-there...
Not at all, in fact refer to my last. Let me know when you can dig up something of note - not your atypical nationalistic hubris. DCN (and I have worked on projects involving DCN) have got nothing special except vaporware in train. The last major UDT Conf was in Naples - and nothing came out of France or was discussed amongst participants.
To be frank, Francois is the only Frenchman in here who is remotely aware of French UDT technology - and it won't be via public internet postings used to establish his case.
Let me guess, you asked for any discrete projects under development, i give you the link to that known of DCN and you conclude that this is my "atypical nationalistic hubris". Good going. I didnt know i was working for DCN
nfloorl: If i want a proper information about it i certainly NOT going to ask you...
nfloorl: Time to put your money where you keybord is a provide wth some proper evidences, the "i've been told" stuff doesn't do for us anymore...
Sure i believe he is into the "Secret Defense" on this particular aspect of it too.
Excuse ME but if you want ot be taken seriously you're going to surpass yourself by a factor of ten or so. Thanks for the effort though.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Time you broke out an ENGLISH dictionary mate. Nationalistic refers to your NATION.Let me guess, you asked for any discrete projects under development, i give you the link to that known of DCN and you conclude that this is my "atypical nationalistic hubris". Good going. I didnt know i was working for DCN
DCN IS French is it not?
As you do with your "squadron talk" based evidence on the Rafale threads?If i want a proper information about it i certainly NOT going to ask you...
Time to put your money where you keybord is a provide wth some proper evidences, the "i've been told" stuff doesn't do for us anymore...
Annoying and absolutely UN-PROVEABLE isn't it?
I suggest you QUICKLY read the Rafale aerodynamics thread if you wish to continue to participate on this site.Excuse ME but if you want ot be taken seriously you're going to surpass yourself by a factor of ten or so. Thanks for the effort though.
DoC_FouALieR
New Member
Perhaps I've not explain myself correctly. A UUV capability is a wish of navy officers for the Barracuda. As long as there will be money, sooner or later a request for such a capability will be issued to industrials. Not necessary DCN...
If it's later, UUVs can be part of a mid-life upgrade of the Barracuda.
I agree. I think all of the nuclear sub users will be moving towards some form of UUV/USV development. The future in sub warfare lies in dismounted options - its the best way to start removing some of the limitations in manned subs.
I used DCN as the primary example as they have been involved in such early work already, and they will naturally be part of a process that enhances sub development.
Last edited:
virginia-class
a single USS-texas, which is a virginia-class sub, can takeout both the barracuda, as well as the le-triomphant in one go.
the best way to counter SSBNs is by using something like a SMX-23 coastal submarine
.
a single USS-texas, which is a virginia-class sub, can takeout both the barracuda, as well as the le-triomphant in one go.
the best way to counter SSBNs is by using something like a SMX-23 coastal submarine
.
Adieu BKNO. Perhaps now we will get back to a more serious discussion - he did have the effect of driving some of us away from threads we might otherwise have been interested in!
I have been particularly interested in the UUV/USV discussions as it seems from what Gary and others have said that this has the potential to provide a major breakthrough in the capabilities of underwater platforms. Does the future in this area lie with large SSNs acting as underwater 'carriers' of small UUVs or with unmanned subs working as part of a flotilla controlled and co-ordinated from manned boats?
I imagine this technology will find its way into the French SSN program, even if it has to wait for a mid life upgrade as suggested by the Doc.
Cheers
There is some very very intersting tech under development, and IMV the tipping point is getting closer.
when you consider advances that the french (esp with micro fuel cells), americans, germans and australians have made with fuel cell technology, then the use of long range ROV/UUV/USV's becomes apparent.
I think I've mentioned before that I was shown some USV tech in Hawai'i at a UDT Conf in 2004. at that stage that platform had an 8hs worth of duration. In the space of 18 months, swimout duration had gone to 36 hrs.
Current advances in storage and propulsion have changed that again in recent times.
There are some very serious capabilities under development, and IMO, the nature of sub warfare is about to undergo some significant change. There may always be manned subs, but the tech means that manned subs running dismounts will be the future.
Has the advances in undersea comms been commensurate with the advances made in UUV platform capability? Or is the thrust placed towards incorporating as much automation/AI in the UUVs as possible to minimise comms requirement?