Marlin AIP SSK

[contedicavour]

it would be an absolute nightmare to retrofit a CATOBAR capability to a STOBAR vessel.

in fact it would be highly unlikely to be done as accomodation for mechanisms involves more than just the turbine pumps. Its an incredibly intrusive system

I can't think of a greater example of post construction idiocy to undertake than to not build in the capability from the start if its use is envisioned.

the intrusion on bunkerage etc would be profound.

in fact, you'd probably want to court martial any uniformed officer who seriously suggested it, or sack ther maritime engineer who put it on the table.. :nutkick

Fully agree. Though the Cavour was planned in the mid-90s, and imagine the nightmare scenario of a cancellation of F35-B STOVL :shudder
In that case a modification to STOBAR at least would have to be envisioned (btw the flight deck can be lengthened by some meters and it can be widened), though I agree CATOBAR is too outlandish. After all the Kuztnesov manages to take off & land Flankers from a 270 metre long flight deck ... and without catapults.

cheers

 

[gf0012-aust]

After all the Kuztnesov manages to take off & land Flankers from a 270 metre long flight deck ... and without catapults.

cheers

except that the planes can't carry a full weaps load or launch fully fueled due to flight restrictions.

there are a legion of reasons as to why stobar aircraft are not as useful as catobar - and I'm not just talking about plane performance. there are serious doctrine impediments with STOBAR.

 

[contedicavour]

except that the planes can't carry a full weaps load or launch fully fueled due to flight restrictions.

there are a legion of reasons as to why stobar aircraft are not as useful as catobar - and I'm not just talking about plane performance. there are serious doctrine impediments with STOBAR.

Yep, in that nightmare scenario of no F35Bs we'd have to live with F35As flying shorter ranges and carrying only AAMs or ASMs, no big loads such as 4-6 Paveways LGBs.
Though I'm saying nightmare scenario of course.
Btw, we wouldn't be the only navy in deep s__t, since the Spanish and potentially Australian and Japanese navies would only be able to operate STOVL aircrafts from their future LPAs/DDGH (as the Japanese curiously call their new carrier-like ships).

cheers

 

[harryriedl]

with CATOBAR you could take F35c or Super horents or rafeles not much mide but it would be possible it would be simlar the hundereds of refits on all the old WW2 UK carrier refit

 

[contedicavour]

with CATOBAR you could take F35c or Super horents or rafeles not much mide but it would be possible it would be simlar the hundereds of refits on all the old WW2 UK carrier refit

Yes but it would be expensive, and block the ship for at least 6 months of major rework of part of the flight deck and of at least 3-4 levels beneath it. I checked, currently there is the NCOs' cafeteria (mess hall ?) underneath the beginning of the sky jump. Still beneath it, there's the end of the garage for VTLM, MBTs, etc to be used for amphibious missions. So that would require modification of internal space allocation.
Nothing impossible, to be clear, but complicated, long, expensive.

cheers

 

[Waylander]

@aaadytia
Are you sure that this is the right thread for your reply?

 

[G-Capo]

Any images so far or new information.Woul Colombia be interested in the Marlin SSK to replace the U-209's.

 

[powerslavenegi]

Any images so far or new information.Woul Colombia be interested in the Marlin SSK to replace the U-209's.

To me a logical replacement would be U212 or U214 (easier crew migration and possibly without much need for training).
Moreover fuel cell based AIP on German subs (which I recon is superior to MESMA system onboard french SSK's)

1. By product of fuel cell based AIP is water that can be used in a closed loop inside the sub itslef.


2.Methanol used in MESMA after combustion yields Co2 and CO that need to be discharged outside the sub at a very high pressure(might interfere with acoustics and compromise the subs stealth).

 

[Transient]

there are a legion of reasons as to why stobar aircraft are not as useful as catobar - and I'm not just talking about plane performance. there are serious doctrine impediments with STOBAR.

Could you please elaborate more? I'm sure many of us would find the lesson instructive.

 

[aaaditya]

@aaadytia
Are you sure that this is the right thread for your reply?

sorry buddy ,it was meant for another thread ,but i accidentaly got my threads messed up,i tried editing it a couple of times,using the feature provided here ,but it was taking a long time and hence i had to give up.

 

[aaaditya]

To me a logical replacement would be U212 or U214 (easier crew migration and possibly without much need for training).
Moreover fuel cell based AIP on German subs (which I recon is superior to MESMA system onboard french SSK's)

1. By product of fuel cell based AIP is water that can be used in a closed loop inside the sub itslef.


2.Methanol used in MESMA after combustion yields Co2 and CO that need to be discharged outside the sub at a very high pressure(might interfere with acoustics and compromise the subs stealth).

i believe that the by product of the poleymer electro membrane based fuel cells is potable drinking water,if this is the case ,then there would be no necessity for costly reverse osmosis water purificatin system for the submarines crew.

one of the biggest advantages of the pem is that it has no moving parts unlike mesma,sterling and the russian kristal ,and hence is the quietest propulsion system of the lot.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Could you please elaborate more? I'm sure many of us would find the lesson instructive.

CATOBAR advantages: (based on a US sized carrier "Forrestal" class and above as they're at the optimum efficiency level)

• significantly faster launch rates (volley launches)
• concurrent launch cycles (esp so with angled flight decks)
• shorter runways required for launch (typically up to 90m shorter form factor on actual take off length (as compared to STOBAR)
• no load restrictions - ie can fully fuel up and load up for launch.
• enables deck swapping (or cross decking) with allied navies eg UK, France, USA can hot swap
• flights of aircraft can form up faster on the way to the target
• enables heavier cargo aircraft for replenishment (COD) A number of years ago a Herc C130 was test recovered and launched from a Forrestal sized carrier. COD is a fundamental requirement for provisioning and other taskings
• enables larger fixed wing AWACs to be used - thus increasing organic awareness. The AWACs is a critical element in forward sniffing for cruise missiles or antishipping missiles (as well as trad roles) - a larger AWACs inherently brings further range advantages to that layer of intercept.
• Greater range of CATOBAR aircraft available
• Commonality and availability of common parts - eg French catobar systems are license built from the USN
• CATOBAR aircraft are inherently less complex (esp against STOVL) - and minimising complexity to keep available hours high is essential
• Flyaway costs are lower due to higher baseline of aircraft in service
• CATOBAR will arrive at a given target point "nn" faster than STOBARs or STOVL due to the launch volley rates.
• eg The Russian STOBARs as a counter example cannot take a full fuel load or weaps loadout due to ramp and length restrictions. Self launch also means high initial fuel burn to launch - burn rate is faster if the aircraft is max loaded

 

[gf0012-aust]

i believe that the by product of the poleymer electro membrane based fuel cells is potable drinking water,if this is the case ,then there would be no necessity for costly reverse osmosis water purificatin system for the submarines crew.

one of the biggest advantages of the pem is that it has no moving parts unlike mesma,sterling and the russian kristal ,and hence is the quietest propulsion system of the lot.

MESMA is not the quietest of the lot. RAN ran tests on all of the available systems and MESMA was deemed less suitable across a number of areas.

"Quietness"' is a relative concept. at a certain speed all subs are inherently similar. Vessel management eventually is the critical arbiter for subs.

 

[Transient]

Thanks, gf!

 

[G-Capo]

To me a logical replacement would be U212 or U214 (easier crew migration and possibly without much need for training).
Moreover fuel cell based AIP on German subs (which I recon is superior to MESMA system onboard french SSK's)

1. By product of fuel cell based AIP is water that can be used in a closed loop inside the sub itslef.


2.Methanol used in MESMA after combustion yields Co2 and CO that need to be discharged outside the sub at a very high pressure(might interfere with acoustics and compromise the subs stealth).

The U-214's would be more expensive than say a Scorpene or Marlin?

 

[aaaditya]

MESMA is not the quietest of the lot. RAN ran tests on all of the available systems and MESMA was deemed less suitable across a number of areas.

"Quietness"' is a relative concept. at a certain speed all subs are inherently similar. Vessel management eventually is the critical arbiter for subs.

i never said that mesma is the quietest.also it was considered by the indian navy to be infrastructure intensive.

 

[aaaditya]

The U-214's would be more expensive than say a Scorpene or Marlin?

the u-214 with all its accessories and gadgets ,plus a little extra was offered to india at a much lower price tag than the scorpene forcing the french to drastically cut the price of the scorpene subs offered to india.

 

[G-Capo]

the u-214 with all its accessories and gadgets ,plus a little extra was offered to india at a much lower price tag than the scorpene forcing the french to drastically cut the price of the scorpene subs offered to india.

Thank you sir.

Is it true India went for the Scorpene's aswell because they can possibly be fitted with nuclear power giving them much more range.I heard this some where not sure if correct.

You guys are lucky 6 Scorpene's I believe.When is the first one set to be going under trials.

 

[aaaditya]

Thank you sir.

Is it true India went for the Scorpene's aswell because they can possibly be fitted with nuclear power giving them much more range.I heard this some where not sure if correct.

You guys are lucky 6 Scorpene's I believe.When is the first one set to be going under trials.

well the first of the scorpenes would be commissioned in 2012 with one every year thereafter,india has a total requirement of 30 submarines of two types ,one of which is the scorpene and the other may be either the german hdw type214(as of now favourites) or the russian amur lada 1650.

of the scorpene i believe a total of 15 will be built ,after the first 6 the remaining may be redesigned and may incorporate the mesma or the pem fuel cells ,which will then be retrofitted on the earlier 6 scorpenes.

check out this link ,it contains some valuable information about the indian navy scorpenes:

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NAVY/Project75.html

 

[kams]

Thank you sir.

Is it true India went for the Scorpene's aswell because they can possibly be fitted with nuclear power giving them much more range.I heard this some where not sure if correct.

Sorry, thats not possible and there no plans to fit any Nuclear reactor in to Scorpene.