Submarine for amphibious warfare

[KonTim]

This is my first post in here and i honestly seek your convinience if this tread is already been posted.

I would like to ask the following:

Very recently i've read that back to the '80s a British navalyard company had released an innovator project for a amphibious warfare submarine,having perhaps the capability of transporting heavy hardware to amphibious warfare operations.

I'm asking your knowledge on this.Do anyone knows something?

 

[gf0012-aust]

This is my first post in here and i honestly seek your convinience if this tread is already been posted.

I would like to ask the following:

Very recently i've read that back to the '80s a British navalyard company had released an innovator project for a amphibious warfare submarine,having perhaps the capability of transporting heavy hardware to amphibious warfare operations.

I'm asking your knowledge on this.Do anyone knows something?

I seriously doubt it.

In the late 1980's the british managed to acquire a swag of naval designs from the ex soviet union through the auspices of DERA. It included trimaran designs for aircraft carriers and air warfare cruisers. I don't ever recall seeing any that were submarine based. I did see the others through a contact at DERA in 2000 (prior to transition to the sell off)

 

[Abraham Gubler]

The Soviet Union had a couple of submarine LST and transport designs post WW2.

The 1948 Project 621 submarine could carry and land a full infantry battalion of 745 troops plus 10 T-34 tanks, 12 trucks, 12 towed cannon, and 3 La-5 fighter aircraft.

http://sub-log.com/files/images/sovietgiants_Project-621.gif

You can read an article (actually a book extract) by Norman Polmar on this topic at:

http://sub-log.com/russian_submarines_-_the_first_soviet_giants

 

[gf0012-aust]

well I'll be. I've been on the distrib list for "Underwater Warfare" (and variants) for close to 8 years) and I can't even remember seeing the article.

I've just ordered Polmars book.

abe, thanks for the feed

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I've just ordered Polmars book.

Cold War Submarines: The Design and Construction of U.S. and Soviet Submarines

Its a really good book. Has some great stuff about the Soviet Alfa and their plans for high speed submarines, amongst everything else the US and USSR did. Not that much detail on the latest boats as it focuses very much on the 50s, 60s and 70s.

 

[macman]

Wasn't there a program to convert some of the Typhoon's to transport carriers in the 90's?

From what I remember reading about it, I think they ended up deciding that, while it could be done without too much of a problem, it wouldn't be cost effective...

 

[AegisFC]

The Soviet Union had a couple of submarine LST and transport designs post WW2.

The 1948 Project 621 submarine could carry and land a full infantry battalion of 745 troops plus 10 T-34 tanks, 12 trucks, 12 towed cannon, and 3 La-5 fighter aircraft.

http://sub-log.com/files/images/sovietgiants_Project-621.gif

You can read an article (actually a book extract) by Norman Polmar on this topic at:

http://sub-log.com/russian_submarines_-_the_first_soviet_giants

Excellent article, thanks for posting it.

 

[Feanor]

One Delta IV (K-64 Vladimir) was converted into a special forces submarine. I'm not 100% sure what this means, but I'm guessing that means that it is a troop transport. It ended up renamed to the BS-64.

 

[Wooki]

The Soviet Union had a couple of submarine LST and transport designs post WW2.

The 1948 Project 621 submarine could carry and land a full infantry battalion of 745 troops plus 10 T-34 tanks, 12 trucks, 12 towed cannon, and 3 La-5 fighter aircraft.

http://sub-log.com/files/images/sovietgiants_Project-621.gif

You can read an article (actually a book extract) by Norman Polmar on this topic at:

http://sub-log.com/russian_submarines_-_the_first_soviet_giants

Enjoyed that.

What the snippet doesn't mention is plans for 500Kton semi submersible tankers, you know, that actually had a possibility of being commercially competitive.

After all:

1. You only have to go down x meters to gain efficiency
2. You have new build double hull regulations for tankers
3. The price of oil will go up again

cheers

w

 

[gf0012-aust]

One Delta IV (K-64 Vladimir) was converted into a special forces submarine. I'm not 100% sure what this means, but I'm guessing that means that it is a troop transport. It ended up renamed to the BS-64.

The "new" USN SSGN are designed to take an extra 66 "non paying" customers....

 

[Abraham Gubler]

The "new" USN SSGN are designed to take an extra 66 "non paying" customers....

They even considered putting a couple of submerged firing 127mm naval guns on the SSGNs... Now that would make for an interesting sonar transient.

 

[Galrahn]

The Soviet Union had a couple of submarine LST and transport designs post WW2.

The 1948 Project 621 submarine could carry and land a full infantry battalion of 745 troops plus 10 T-34 tanks, 12 trucks, 12 towed cannon, and 3 La-5 fighter aircraft.

http://sub-log.com/files/images/sovietgiants_Project-621.gif

You can read an article (actually a book extract) by Norman Polmar on this topic at:

http://sub-log.com/russian_submarines_-_the_first_soviet_giants

Fantastic find. I own the book, read it a few years ago, but didn't know any portions of it were online. Very nice.

 

[StingrayOZ]

They even considered putting a couple of submerged firing 127mm naval guns on the SSGNs... Now that would make for an interesting sonar transient.

What? Is that for real? That would be insane! Surely thats something suggested by a target(surface) admiral.

The submersable tankers might get a look in if priacy gets out of hand and oil has a few spectacular increases in price. How many 300-400 million $ tankers do you have to lose with millions in cargo before the option of a submerged tanker starts to sound very attractive. Not to mention as a navy supply ship.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

What? Is that for real? That would be insane! Surely thats something suggested by a target(surface) admiral.

Of course its real and it makes perfect sense. You want a submarine to sit offshore and attack land targets then why not use a gun? Its not as if thousands of submarines haven't gone to sea with guns before... Nor that submerged firing wasn't proven as long ago as 100 years... Though this application would have the top of the gun barrel above water like a periscope.

Anyway for the doubters here is the link to the paper:

"Vertical Gun for Submarines and Small Surface Ships" by Dr. Martin T. Soifer, GD Electric Boat and Mr. Ted A Kuriata, General Dynamics Armament Systems
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/gun/martin.pdf

 

[AegisFC]

Of course its real and it makes perfect sense. You want a submarine to sit offshore and attack land targets then why not use a gun? Its not as if thousands of submarines haven't gone to sea with guns before... Nor that submerged firing wasn't proven as long ago as 100 years... Though this application would have the top of the gun barrel above water like a periscope.

Anyway for the doubters here is the link to the paper:

"Vertical Gun for Submarines and Small Surface Ships" by Dr. Martin T. Soifer, GD Electric Boat and Mr. Ted A Kuriata, General Dynamics Armament Systems
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/gun/martin.pdf

I've heard of the VLG for surface ships, but I had no clue a submerged version was proposed, interesting concept.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I've heard of the VLG for surface ships, but I had no clue a submerged version was proposed, interesting concept.

VGAS [Vertical Gun for Advanced Ships] was the original US Navy 155mm LRLAP firing gun concept. It consisted or two barrels and aroudn 1,500 LRLAP rounds packaged into the same space as a 64 cell, Strike length Mk 41 VLS launcher.

Some bright Admiral said they needed a trainable turret able to fire LRLAP and conventional 155mm rounds. So the US Navy replaced VGAS with AGS that was a massive gun turret and system. Of course they spent so much money developing AGS that there was no money to develop the conventional 155mm round family (it can't fire Army standard 155mm rounds). So the US Navy is left with AGS doing less than the VGAS can and at far more weight and volume. VGAS could have easily been retrofitted to CG-47 and DDG-51 vessels, or just about any ship for that matter including LCS.

Depressing really.

 

[StingrayOZ]

I find it interesting that for CVGS they selected a smooth bore design. When I suggested smooth bore for naval guns I was informed that they would not be needed.

Quite a bit different to what I had initally envisioned, WWI/WWII style 5" on the deck... Dragging and singing its way along.

I would imagine the VGS being more compact would easily allow multiple gun configurations.

I wonder about collins II and what it will have in the way of amphibious capability.