SSKs

[agc33e]

Have you been paying attention to the last ~two pages? The ease or difficulty of detecting a submarine is essentially independent of size.

As for specific information on what is or is not effective vs. active pings, or anything relating to distance is not discussed in public settings.

Now a modern diesel-electric sub might well be quieter operating on batteries and/or the AIP than a nuclear boat, it is not a fact. In other words, it does not apply in all cases.

Also, the assumption has been made that the SSN will be detected first. That is a false assumption, since there is the distinct possibility that the SSN would never be detected, nevermind 'first'. Secondly, the assumption that a nuclear boat is 'noisier' than a conventional boat is just that, an assumption, which is not the same as being a fact/correct/true.

The way a nuke submarine can operate is different in some areas from the way a conventional or diesel-electric sub can operate. One of the most significant of which I am aware of is the ability for a nuke boat to conduct long distance/duration transits and patrols while remaining submerged the entire time except for when leaving or entering port. Some of the larger 'fleet' diesels as well as some with AIP systems are capable of doing this to an extent as well, but not to the same degree. A nuke boat's dive endurance limitation AFAIK is dictated by the food supply and need to maintain crew health and morale. A conventional sub can have a greater need for oxygen to run the engines, and likely a more limited (if available at all) method for onboard oxygen generation due to a smaller powerplant (in terms of electricity output).

-Cheers

Hi Todjaeger, thanks for all, you as always are very nice and polite and good words, i would be delighted of having you as moderator, honestly.

Now if you are using extra systems to reduce the active sonar signature of a sub, then the signature is not only dependent on the size and amount of steel the sub has, ok, but I am sure you cant prove neither state firmly that those systems are so efficient in all the distances from the ping, in some distances ok i accept.
But i bet you, between friends, that nowadays systems for that dont make the sub disapear from the ship´s active sonar screen or helo at certain distances, which are also the most critical ones, the near distances, if it would be so, that system will be more important than spy+aegis+essm or sm´s in surface ships, and spain, uk, france, all the nato countries would have it, that capacity in a sub will be able to destroy any surface ship.

And going for the comparison between collins and scorpene, recall that both they will have reducing systems for the act signature, and actually scorpenes technologies are newer, in general from year of design, and what you include in the collins in the mid refit wont be a special system because in the refit you cannot redesign so the amount of complements to add in that refit is limited probably very limited and not of much hardware addition but substitution. Also the big scorpene is the same lenght as collins 75 vs 77 mts collins, but 1 mts less in wide and height. so i would vote they will have similar active sonar signature (talking coloquiallly). Other thing is passive sonar signature that in the collins maybe they use the rubbermaidium (for ex.) and in the scorpene they will use other thing or the same....

Best regards.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Hi Todjaeger, thanks for all, you as always are very nice and polite and good words, i would be delighted of having you as moderator, honestly.

I'm sure that TJ appreciates your graciousness but having a sideways shot at the Mods is pretty transparent.

Now if you are using extra systems to reduce the active sonar signature of a sub, then the signature is not only dependent on the size and amount of steel the sub has, ok, but I am sure you cant prove neither state firmly that those systems are so efficient in all the distances from the ping, in some distances ok i accept.

How many times have you been told that sheer size can have little to do with how effective an active sonar system can be? This happens regularly on ASW events - in fact there is a public domain event where HMAS Sheehan avoided a concerted active sonar attack - this was despite the fact that she was reflected against a maritime geographical object and despite the fact that she was obviously big enough for a fish finder to work out that she was not a fish. Again, I suggest that you make the attempt to actually listen to what others are saying rather than regurgitate your own beliefs as evidence of fact - its about physics - not perceptions

But i bet you, between friends, that nowadays systems for that dont make the sub disapear from the ship´s active sonar screen or helo at certain distances, which are also the most critical ones, the near distances, if it would be so, that system will be more important than spy+aegis+essm or sm´s in surface ships, and spain, uk, france, all the nato countries would have it, that capacity in a sub will be able to destroy any surface ship.

CREF above - between friends I am telling you again that you are wrong and that its been publicly demonstrated and declared in a number of RIMPAC events. Stop making comments to support your own views when its been patiently explained by a number of people - all of whom deal with or have dealt with sub warfare issues and sub management

And going for the comparison between collins and scorpene, recall that both they will have reducing systems for the act signature, and actually scorpenes technologies are newer, in general from year of design, and what you include in the collins in the mid refit wont be a special system because in the refit you cannot redesign so the amount of complements to add in that refit is limited probably very limited and not of much hardware addition but substitution. Also the big scorpene is the same lenght as collins 75 vs 77 mts collins, but 1 mts less in wide and height. so i would vote they will have similar active sonar signature (talking coloquiallly). Other thing is passive sonar signature that in the collins maybe they use the rubbermaidium (for ex.) and in the scorpene they will use other thing or the same....

Best regards.

Have you completely ignored the last 2 pages of commentary about the relevance and impact on the size of subs relative to detection?

you are on serious short finals - I and others have exercised significant patience with you - but if you are going to continue down this path of wanting to ignore some very clear advice and some very steered responses, then I can but assume that you are trolling.

once more, anechoic tiles are not an endstate for signature management - it is to all intents and purposes RAM for a maritime solution - and like RAM on aircraft it is not a single massive solution. You cannot "coat" an entire sub with anechoic tiles and turn it into some super duper VLO underwater attack system.

and again, larger modern subs are able and do fight in the littorals. its not about size when traversing the shallows - its about detection and prosecution as well as location.

In subwarfare its all about the combination of power and sensors - its not about size.

 

[kato]

anechoic tiles are not an endstate for signature management

When i read about what work went into just silencing the propulsion of the Type 212A... anechoic tiles are merely the beginning.

its not about size when traversing the shallows - its about detection and prosecution as well as location.

There's of course also operational requirements that vary from navy to navy. German submarine design for example has the requirement of any sub for the Bundeswehr having to be able to fully operate underwater in less than ten fathoms depth (shallowest part of the offshore Baltic Sea, above the Gedser Reef). At full speed.

 

[gf0012-aust]

When i read about what work went into just silencing the propulsion of the Type 212A... anechoic tiles are merely the beginning.

yep, there are a whole pile of things that go into acoustic and sensor management for subs - the tiles may be the most visible, but they're only a fraction of the technology needed to do the job

There's of course also operational requirements that vary from navy to navy. German submarine design for example has the requirement of any sub for the Bundeswehr having to be able to fully operate underwater in less than ten fathoms depth (shallowest part of the offshore Baltic Sea, above the Gedser Reef). At full speed.

the germans have done some very sexy stuff with the 21nn family - and you say, the requirement is driven by their CONOPs

at the end of the day, the biggest single capability vector is about training - you can shove the best crew into a noisey sub and do far more damage than an average crew in a hi-tech sub.

 

[Lofty_DBF]

There's of course also operational requirements that vary from navy to navy. German submarine design for example has the requirement of any sub for the Bundeswehr having to be able to fully operate underwater in less than ten fathoms depth (shallowest part of the offshore Baltic Sea, above the Gedser Reef). At full speed.

So you are saying the Germans conduct dived operations in water less than 18m at full speed. Wow they must be good operators.

 

[OPSSG]

Hi Todjaeger, thanks for all, you as always are very nice and polite and good words, i would be delighted of having you as moderator, honestly.

You want some time off again in the sin bin or would you prefer a Perm Ban? You are behaving badly with or without language issues (we usually try to be understanding when forum participants are not posting in their native language). So how do you want us to treat a person, like you, with a limited ability to process information? Particularly since you are now clearly trolling.

Do not reply to this post. The questions are rhetorical.

 

[EXSSBN2005]

First post here for me, but I have been reading the boards for about the last 1-2 months or so. Being formerly on a sub I'll try to answer some of your questions as best as i can. Here goes (if i dont post this correctly apparently please have a mod change it as nessary) :

1. background info

2. advantage over nuclear

3. how they are used

4. sub comparison a. yuan b.scorpeon c.kio, amur, etc.

5. Which sub is most silent?

6. sub techs

1- Submarines have been arround for a long time the first recorded attack was during the revolutionary war in the US (1776ish) with the turtle a hand screw propelled sub, he made the attack but no damage was inflicted, Going to skip the whole history lesson and go to the holland next as it was the first non-human powered sub IIRC (please correct me if I'm wrong) and thats where we get the SS part, SSK is submarine hunter-killer/ASW (retired designation in US Navy). Basically this could be any sub that is out there with exception to SSBNs as we tended to slowly move out of the way rather than chase them down and prosecute targets.

2- Cheaper, someone said coolant problems earlier and my response to that is do they know that "almost" all subs use water as coolant and thats what subs are floating in granted its di-ionized water in the core but its still water. (Some Russian subs had more exotic coolant systems but I'm not going to talk about those here : ), when both subs are using their main power supplies (reactor and diesels) both will make noise but a ssk might be quieter depending on water conditions, speed, poweroutputs, crew noise discipline (exception being when on natural circulation through the core then hands down the nuc). When using their back up power supplies (ssk-battery, ss(b)(g)n - diesel/batterys) the ssk will be quieter than a snorting nuc but about the same if both on batterys (not going to give specifics on battery life here)

3- Used as a submarine is suppost to be, from the depths with no warning, lots easier to kill a sub than a target err surface ship. Might be lying in wait might be actively hunting shipping, they wont know until they hear the launch noises.

4- I'm not qualified to make the best call but maybe this is where I'll insert my small understanding of sonar, a sonarman once told me that the sound waves are bouncing off the void space that is the air in our hull but I'm pretty sure he was pulling my leg, they are looking for the return of generated sound waves striking the irregularities of the hull at different times and times of return (active sonar) and listening for the sounds generated by the other guy (passive sonar). Smaller subs dont really have an advantage over larger subs as far as detectability as most machinery is on sound mounts and doesnt connect to the hull therefore doesnt radiate noise for passive sonar. Most of the posters seem to be citing active sonar in this thread and if your using active sonar the submarine knows exactly where you are long before you'll ever find him as your radiating alot of noise to their smaller returns.

5- Personnal vote goes for the Ohio class, but the new SSKs are probably up there with reduced noise signatures. We deployed noise makers even when playing with other USA boats and never played with other countries boats (our mission was to hide and be 2nd strike if WW3 happened).

6- Not going to discuss that for at least another 15 years on open or even closed forums (some stuff would blow your mind though).

Hope this helps and I'll be around posting on stuff I know and reading what I dont.

 

[harryriedl]

yep, there are a whole pile of things that go into acoustic and sensor management for subs - the tiles may be the most visible, but they're only a fraction of the technology needed to do the job



the germans have done some very sexy stuff with the 21nn family - and you say, the requirement is driven by their CONOPs

at the end of the day, the biggest single capability vector is about training - you can shove the best crew into a noisey sub and do far more damage than an average crew in a hi-tech sub.

stupid question and one Im not expecting to be fully anserwed. In regards to training crews for sub ops(sea denial and other various ops) with the lack of operational use of subs for sinking ships 2 examples post war(PNS Gaizi and Conquror) won't allmost all training be permmisive compared with the actual use. Where the threat of getting it wrong will mean being sunk rather than lose an exersise.

 

[gf0012-aust]

stupid question and one Im not expecting to be fully anserwed. In regards to training crews for sub ops(sea denial and other various ops) with the lack of operational use of subs for sinking ships 2 examples post war(PNS Gaizi and Conquror) won't allmost all training be permmisive compared with the actual use. Where the threat of getting it wrong will mean being sunk rather than lose an exersise.

subs are basically always on a warfooting due to the nature of the way they operate.

as for getting practical experice in sinking things, it depends on the nation, but for australia, US etc we take advantage of things like SINKEX, HULKEX. eg recently USS New Orleans...

 

[EXSSBN2005]

You train like you fight, I can only speak about the US for certain but we have "tapes" of just about every other ship out there at sea and for the simulations they run these ships out at different bearings and expect you to proscute as you would if they could shoot back at you, the excercise usually concludes with shooting air slugs (sometimes multiple) at the target, we also have sensors on the hull to moniter self noise and if they detect you before you shoot end simulation and you lose, careers for the officers can be made or broken on these simulations so its a pretty big deal for them to do well on the excercise while at sea, we also can load practice shots and go to the training range and shoot practice torps at ships and if your the best at the target range you might get to shoot some live fish at a ship they want to make into a reef.

"Where the threat of getting it wrong will mean being sunk rather than lose an exersise. "

Why would any country put their sailors, soldiers, marines, airmen into real danger where the is the possiablity of getting them killed and losing an asset (sometimes a stratigic asset) for the purpose of making the excersise more realistic / dangerous.

If your at sea and there is a sub within 50 miles of you your being tracked, sail boats are a real pain in the atz to nail down(they make hull noises when going thru the waves), and wooden skiffs (somali pirates, they just float there) making almost no noise can be lost in surface noise.

 

[Palnatoke]

I do understand what 'page' you are on. What I was attempting to illustrate is that 'everything else' is not equal in submarine sizes. Some solutions are only viable or effective when done to certain minimum scales. Hence my example with a material that had to be a half-metre thick to be effective.

Another way to look at the situation is from the perspective of soundproofing a room, with the stipulation that all the soundproofing done/material used has to be contained within the room itself, and with the added requirement that a useful/usable space needs to be maintained within the room as well. In this case, a room with dimensions of 3m x 3m x 3m can be soundproofed, but not the extent that a larger room, which is 10m x 10m x 10m can. The smaller room is already limited in terms of useful space, just because it is so small (27m^3). This means that any soundproofing material added to the room would reduce the interior space even further, until whatever is deemed the minimum useful space is reached. In the case of the larger room, up to 973m^3 of soundproofing can be added. making the soundproofed internal size of the larger room the same as the un-soundproofed size of the smaller room.

Granted this example is rather crude and does not have anywhere near the level of variables that come into play in terms of ASW and sub detection, but it should hopefully make it understood that submarine size does not have a direct impact on the ease or difficulty in detection.

-Cheers

I don't quite accept this. I think the above is a design optimization problem; "How large should my sub be, if I want this and that" The conventionally driven sub, then ought to have the smaller engine pack, which should allow the overall design to be smaller.

Now GF says that size don't matter significantly in sonar detection, I accept that, but I am still looking for a technical explaination, on what I think is counter-intuiative.

 

[LancasterBomber]

And going for the comparison between collins and scorpene,

LOL this ought to be good....

and actually scorpenes technologies are newer

I see.

what you include in the collins in the mid refit wont be a special system.

Ok then.

so i would vote they will have similar active sonar signature (talking coloquiallly). Other thing is passive sonar signature that in the collins maybe they use the rubbermaidium (for ex.) and in the scorpene they will use other thing or the same....

Riveting stuff Agc33e. How are things going in the hollywood script writing caper? Business booming?


:crazy

 

[gf0012-aust]

agc33e is no longer with us....

 

[Jaimito]

I take advantage of this place to comment on the Aip system for the S80 class from Navantia:
-the first bioethanol processor prototype for 300 kw was made in the year 2007 and up to now it has thousands of hours of testing without problems, since them the work is being done in squeezing it at maximum for the sub and how to mount it.
-the fuel cell from Utc, is being tested and gives more than 300 kw, testings are being done to see the resistance of the fuel cell to non 100% pure hidrogen, but high %.

 

[gf0012-aust]

-the first bioethanol processor prototype for 300 kw was made in the year 2007 and up to now it has thousands of hours of testing without problems, since them the work is being done in squeezing it at maximum for the sub and how to mount it.

Who's building the bioethanol plant for the sub?

I was in Spain recently and was shown some of the bioethanol powered generation tech, the Spanish had some considerable problems with residue management - to the point where it was highly corrosive and destroying tanks.

I'm curious as to who thinks that this is now successful and safe enough for use in subs.

 

[the road runner]

Deleted Post

 

[Jaimito]

Who's building the bioethanol plant for the sub?

I was in Spain recently and was shown some of the bioethanol powered generation tech, the Spanish had some considerable problems with residue management - to the point where it was highly corrosive and destroying tanks.

I'm curious as to who thinks that this is now successful and safe enough for use in subs.

The plant is builded by Hynergreen from Abengoa: http://www.upcomillas.es/catedras/crm/report07/ppts/I Javier Brey HYNERGREEN.pdf

Bioethanol has many purposes, in petrochemistry, in vehicles motion,like the brazilian sub program, sorry bus program, also mixed with common fuels for making the mix cleaner of CO2. I don´t know what purpose you refer, but the bioethanol plant has wgs and coprox processes that clean the hydrogen, and then there is the CO2 disposal system, extensively tested in scale. Navantia probably thinks it is safe because it is proceeded to mount the whole first Aip ring, the proper that will fit into the sub, with the CO2 system done by Bionet, chemical engineering, so that the residues are not kept in any tank, just they are "burnt" and mixed in seawater. The requirements of hydrogen purity for the fuel cell have been achieved,so the Aip system seems pretty much ready...
As long as 28 days at 4 knots, which means x days at bigger speed, what it is max Aip speed? It was said 320 kw so what that gives, and S80 is 2400 tonnes...in the sense to adapt Collins with aip, they are 3400 tonnes, probably some aip system could be fitted needing more than 300 kw. Anyway for long range missions, being deployed apart from any convoy, Collins don´t need really Aip. To escort convoys what you most thank it would be like 6 subs in all the cardinal points under the convoy, 6 means enough dense to listen silent penetrating subs (if there are any), or being at a distance wrt our convoy ships active sonars to be detected and so detect any penetrating sub at that same distance, even for this escorting there is no strictly Aip needed. Say 6 hehe !?

 

[gf0012-aust]

:Navantia probably thinks it is safe because it is proceeded to mount the whole first Aip ring, the proper that will fit into the sub, with the CO2 system done by Bionet, chemical engineering, so that the residues are not kept in any tank, just they are "burnt" and mixed in seawater. The requirements of hydrogen purity for the fuel cell have been achieved,so the Aip system seems pretty much ready..

except that this is obviously not the case.

I've seen the affected tanks - you don't want corroding tanks on a sub.

AIP was looked at for Collins and ignored. The test bed is still sitting on pallets as a paper weight.

AIP is not a panacea for conventional sub endurance issues.

It is somewhat overhyped in the press.

 

[Jaimito]

except that this is obviously not the case.

I've seen the affected tanks - you don't want corroding tanks on a sub.

AIP was looked at for Collins and ignored. The test bed is still sitting on pallets as a paper weight.

AIP is not a panacea for conventional sub endurance issues.

It is somewhat overhyped in the press.

I have not heard nothing about that tank. The sub is planned for comissioning in 2013. I hope they end with a good aip, it can be useful for not to snorkel, if there is safe zone for snorkeling or low probability, then no problem. But also being an diesel-electric submarine with electric magnetism engine maybe you can combine aip and diesel-electric for an output, giving same speeds as diesel but smaller use of diesel engines.

It is your visit related to:
El responsable de material de Australia visita Navantia para conocer los trabajos del S-80 - infodefensa.com - Información Defensa y Seguridad)

 

[the road runner]

I have not heard nothing about that tank. The sub is planned for comissioning in 2013. I hope they end with a good aip, it can be useful for not to snorkel, if there is safe zone for snorkeling or low probability, then no problem.

Im under the impression that the only Subs that dont need to snorkel to recharge there batteries are Nuke subs.

I hear alot of people talking about AIP and commenting on the virtues of AIP.But again even AIP subs need to surface to recharge there batteries.So i am starting to think that AIP is a percentage improvement on a Diesel engine and not a revolution in a new technology.???


Regards