Sub Design Comparisons (Virgina and Astute)
- Thread starter enigmaticuk
- Start date
contedicavour
New Member
Given the belated recognition by the USN that littoral warfare/brown water capabilities are key, and given the fact that for the surface ships the LCS is conceived for this purpose, I am surprised that for the submarines the USN is still focusing exclusively on big 1+bnUSD SSNs...
cheers
cheers
enigmaticuk
New Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #24
Is this refering to weapons systems such as the supercavitating torpedoes or mobile mines/uuv's. Thanks for all your great info and insights btw gf, i take it your the resident sub expert everyone seems to know you.gf0012-aust said:
American Expertise
I was under the impression the US sub-expertise was brought across the pond because of the difficulties experienced with the new cad-cam design system the Brit's were using. Basically the complexity of the Astute Design overwelmed the cad-cam systems current abilities! The US submarine yards are already using a similar system and where able to assist. Previous Brit Subs were designed using traditional draughtsmanship methods.
I was under the impression the US sub-expertise was brought across the pond because of the difficulties experienced with the new cad-cam design system the Brit's were using. Basically the complexity of the Astute Design overwelmed the cad-cam systems current abilities! The US submarine yards are already using a similar system and where able to assist. Previous Brit Subs were designed using traditional draughtsmanship methods.
we all know that the Astute had problems. but so did the virgina class also had its buget overruns and delays.
enigmaticuk
New Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #28
Still no absolute answer on the relevance of Astutes unusual architecture?
I don't think the shape of the submarine makes much difference. Compare the Bodine American bobsled to the others, the shape of the Bodine bobsled hasn't helped win many Olympic medals.
With submarines, the beam of a submarine is based primarily on the width of the powerplant. A larger powerplant has to have a larger beam.
I think you are making mountains out of molehills about the shape of the subs. As long as they are close to cigar shape, they will move through the water sufficiently. From what I heard from a submariner, the sailors prefer a flat top when on the surface, making it easier and safer to walk about. Keep in mind attack submarines don't have the double crews of the ballistic missile submarines, and spend much more time in port.
With submarines, the beam of a submarine is based primarily on the width of the powerplant. A larger powerplant has to have a larger beam.
I think you are making mountains out of molehills about the shape of the subs. As long as they are close to cigar shape, they will move through the water sufficiently. From what I heard from a submariner, the sailors prefer a flat top when on the surface, making it easier and safer to walk about. Keep in mind attack submarines don't have the double crews of the ballistic missile submarines, and spend much more time in port.
Last edited:
Thats more or less right, in the engineering filed we've mostly given up on tracing methods, all of the drawings and designs are CAD and electronic. I bet its a heck allot cheaper has a higher ROI overtime and is allot more quicker, incorporating all the previously learnt Techniques in Design.riksavage said:
I was fortunate enough to sit in on a session given by CINCPAC and the Head of the Project for NG at a UDT Conf in Hawai'i in 2003. Both of them made some significant claims about reduction in development and build times - and the fact that there was a reduction in errors at major component fitment.adsH said:
I'd have to rummage through my UDT notes (and IIRC there is similar data available in one of the NSL publications for 2004), but I can try and track it down if people are interested.
Unfort my time on here is erratic at the moment due to work committments - so I'm not the most reliable of beasts....
Super Nimrod
New Member
If you look at the photos of the hull sections in build on Beedles website in the Astute section, the pressure hull does still seem to be circular so maybe the raised sections fore and aft of the sail and the keelson section are not pressurised ?
If any of you saw last weeks 'Coast' programme on the BBC, they visited the assembly shed at Barrow and took you aboard the current hull under construction which I think was Ambush ?. They wouldn't answer any technical questions though and you may depend that the film was vetted prior to broadcast. I did think it interesting though that they confirmed that the steel used was unique to the Astute sub and not used anywhere else.
If any of you saw last weeks 'Coast' programme on the BBC, they visited the assembly shed at Barrow and took you aboard the current hull under construction which I think was Ambush ?. They wouldn't answer any technical questions though and you may depend that the film was vetted prior to broadcast. I did think it interesting though that they confirmed that the steel used was unique to the Astute sub and not used anywhere else.
they probably contain water/waste tanks and such, no need for them to be pressurised, also could be just freeflow areas for sonar housing. (no, i didn't take a closer look at the astute's layout so correct me if i'm wrong). The pressure hull is allmost allways circular because that spreads the pressure nice and equal, doubt if this isn't the case with the astutes.
I was more upset when Peter Brock died, he was by far the greater Aussie icon than Irwin.
Back to the subs.
The actual pressure vessel will be a cylinder as usual.The exterior casing however is the unusual shape.It flattens behind the sail and then rises again towards the stern.It would be a nice place to put a dds though!I actually saw this boat up close and personal but did not manage to make it inside.
http://navy-matters.beedall.com/astute.htm
If you goto this link, it has a full explanation of everything Astute....
From CAD problems, to the US involvement in the programme.
Super Nimrod
"If any of you saw last weeks 'Coast' programme on the BBC, they visited the assembly shed at Barrow and took you aboard the current hull under construction which I think was Ambush ?. They wouldn't answer any technical questions though and you may depend that the film was vetted prior to broadcast. I did think it interesting though that they confirmed that the steel used was unique to the Astute sub and not used anywhere else."
I saw the episode your talking about & I hate to say it, I believe it to be a very simple answer about the steel.
Steel is manufactured in various grades, just like aluminum for aircraft.
Most products made from steel are constructed using cheap/standard, run of the mill steel, even the majority of ships hulls !
Astute however, uses steel that has probably had special treatments to make it denser, more robust to operate under the pressures of being deep under the sea & to fend off the corrosive effect from salt water.
These special process utilised in the manufacture will make the cost of the steel more expensive by possibly a factor of x20 - x30.
Additionally, the thickness of the steel used may also be another factor, making it "unique" to Astute.
Hope this helps.
Systems Adict
