Super Fast Navy Sub In Development

[LancerMc]

Well it now looks like that U.S. Navy is going to be the first to develop a Supercavitation submarine. Today the Navy awarded Northrop Grumman & General Dynamics contracts to develop a small submarine to deploy a small squad of men (probably SEALs) in a littoral warfare environment at high speed. It is hoped that the sub with have similar performance to the Russian Shkval torpedo.

I am sure the SEALs will be happy for such a machine. Though they won't be arriving by stealth.

What does everyone else think of such a machine?



Here the orginal article form janes.com
http://www.janes.com/defence/news/jni/jni061117_1_n.shtml

 

[gf0012-aust]

Well it now looks like that U.S. Navy is going to be the first to develop a Supercavitation submarine. Today the Navy awarded Northrop Grumman & General Dynamics contracts to develop a small submarine to deploy a small squad of men (probably SEALs) in a littoral warfare environment at high speed. It is hoped that the sub with have similar performance to the Russian Shkval torpedo.

I am sure the SEALs will be happy for such a machine. Though they won't be arriving by stealth.

What does everyone else think of such a machine?



Here the orginal article form janes.com
http://www.janes.com/defence/news/jni/jni061117_1_n.shtml

I have to say that I'm unconvinced of the benefit of utility of such a specialist solution.

the US already leads the way in cavitating ballistics, I would have thought that better uses could be made with existing advances in the tech.

torpedoes and maritime shuttles are of limited value imo.

and as for acoustically managing/suppressing a cavitating transport system (let alone a torpedo) - I'm glad someone else thinks it works....

 

[Ths]

I'm an ignorant here: How can you suppress the sound of cavitation/supercavitation?

If it cannot be done I don't se any military use for it.
The advantage of a submarine is stealth - a sub seen is a sub sunk. As to out run other naval vessels; well it is a helicopter the supercavitating sub has to outrun.

Anybody that will make me wiser?

 

[dioditto]

the US already leads the way in cavitating ballistics

erm... since when? I havn't seen a report of US cavitation weapon in deployement, nor any current news about such weapon in research that surpass the Russian. The German on the other hand, do claimed to have something surpass the Russian. "CLAIMED". (The Barracuda)

 

[gf0012-aust]

erm... since when? I havn't seen a report of US cavitation weapon in deployement, nor any current news about such weapon in research that surpass the Russian. The German on the other hand, do claimed to have something surpass the Russian. "CLAIMED". (The Barracuda)

so what? because you haven't seen it doesn't mean a thing - and with no disrespect, there are (for example) some 7 different weapons projects currently underway in Australia (alone) that are not in the public domain - and they won't be for obvious reasons.

In 2000-2001 I was personally involved with a privately funded weapons project for ballistic weapons recoil management. I was the Operations Manager. Part of that project involved liaison with a gentleman in the US who was working on and had successfully trialled a cavitating round.

His development swung off work done by a US Naval Weapons Scientist in the mid 1960's. That Scientist is regarded as the pre-eminent US expert on UDT - and he is still contracted by the USG even though he has retired.

RickUSN will probably be familiar with him (as in the NAVSEA Scientist).

Not all news about weapons capability and technology hits Google.

The US is well ahead of the Russians and were working on cav torpedoes in the mid 60's.

 

[Grand Danois]

But some of it is Googleable.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/mk258.htm

I also wonder how one can do acoustic sig management on something supercavitating...

 

[gf0012-aust]

But some of it is Googleable.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/mk258.htm

ahh yes - but only some of it.

I also wonder how one can do acoustic sig management on something supercavitating...

well, I'd say that its damn difficult. There are some things in fluid and aerodynamics (which is a close cousin) that you can't avoid.

In UDT technology (and not just sub warfare) Speed = noise. Noise kills.

 

[Grand Danois]

ahh yes - but only some of it.

I wouldn't expect real figures, drawings and that everything related to such a thing to "be out there." But when I don't get the sense of being BS'ed it gives a clue...

 

[gf0012-aust]

I wouldn't expect real figures, drawings and that everything related to such a thing to "be out there." But when I don't get the sense of being BS'ed it gives a clue...

The technology is certainly real. The GlobalSec article basically gives a sanitised overview from 2003 on. Prior to that he was achieving significant results.

As for the NAVSEA scientist - well some people would like to meet Bill Gates, or Neil Armstrong or Oprah Winfrey : etc... I met the bloke I absolutely respect above and over anyone else on the planet for underwater weapons development in 2003 - and he isn't a Russian

As for the cav round developer, I tried my damndest to get him to relocate to Oz in 2001. He was screwed around by some in USN - and at that stage was not a happy man. He was "that close" to relocating to Aust.

 

[Grand Danois]

I think sanitized was the word I was looking for.

But you discover new things all the time - eg. before my interest in subs etc., cavitation was an agent of erosion. So it expands your horizon.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I think sanitized was the word I was looking for.

Yes.

I tend to get very short tempered when some question weapons technology achievements because they can't find a source on the Internet - hence why I got snippy with Dioditto before.

To give an example. I attended an underwater weapons technology conference recently where over 90% of technologies discussed were not in the public domain. the only way that you could validate they existed was that all delegates received print outs of the discussion papers and briefings - none of it - and none of those technolgies have ever reached the internet and some of those projects are very much active.

So, when some people quote "google" (or the internet per se) as a reference/qualification point I can get a little dismissive about credibility and subject knowledge issues.

/rant off

 

[Ths]

To support gf-0012:
The details of the Barnes Wallis rotating bombs used on the German dams in WW2 was only declassified in - oh I belived - the mid 1960'ies - after the Mosquito bomber was retired.

The conventional torpedo is not a very satisfactory solution as a weapon for a modern submarine:
- It is slow, so unless fired exactly right it can be outrun.
- If fired at depth it digs into the reserve of compressed air - big time.

Considering few facts:

1. The vast amounts of money used world wide on submarines, maybe - just maybe - money for funding alternatives could be found.
2. The very absence of google-ability is in itself an indication of activity: Just like the old tactical military intelligence axiom: When the enemy imposes radio-silence he is up to something.
3. What is available (by Google) are marginal application - like the supercavitating projectiles with a penetration depth of 25 meters. To illustrate: The pharmaceutical firm Novo published the details of their research project into postmenopausal osteoporosis in their annual reports - just to conclude they didn't work.

After this little essay on methodology two conclusions:

1. Information on the net isn't answers, it is questions.
2. When gf-0012 appear impatient - you are off the mark, when he is talkative - you are not even close to sensitive information, when he clams up - your wild speculation just might have some merit.

 

[Grand Danois]

Thought it was Lancs that did the dambusting.

 

[gf0012-aust]

2. When gf-0012 appear impatient - you are off the mark, when he is talkative - you are not even close to sensitive information, when he clams up - your wild speculation just might have some merit.

gee, if I'm getting that predictable I better change my approach...:nutkick

My other pet peeve is quoting internet sources for ballistic armour stats - none of the stats I've seen quoted for anti-tank weapons and armour penetration remotely resembles data I've seen on some of our own proximity tests or data thats been provided by some of our allies who have been "disassembling" in their own "sandpits" - so again, I tend to switch off and go read a book rather than comment and get frustrated.

publicly "released" data is so off the mark sometimes its not funny.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Thought it was Lancs that did the dambusting.

The Lancs did the dam busting - but the original Upkeep and Highball tests were done using mossies.

Upkeep and Highball were declassified in 1974 as part of the 30 year OSA release.

There are some technologies that have been double extended under OSA. ie they have been deemed classified until 2034 (ie 3rd extension).

Some australian data is classified for 99 years even though the nominal release is at 30 years.

 

[Ths]

I waited for that one :hehe

Yes the 617 used Lancaster on the Möhne and Eder dams.

But a version was developed for the Mosquito for antishipping - this version was used until the Mosquito was retired. I don't know if it was the Buccaneer that killed off that solution.

 

[Ths]

Gf-0012: Thank you for a better answer than I could give.

You raise important points:

Predictability: I reminds me of talk I had - say 10 years ago - with the skipper of Thetis, where i riled him about the alleged oil-exploration assistance by the Danish navy off north-eastern Greenland - and my barely controllable mirth at stubborn sticking to the official fable: Research on 79 degrees north, in waters with severe icing and floating ice, sea 1000 meters deep. The point being: It is difficult avoiding making footprints if you walk on soggy soil.

Let's take Your example: classification extended to 2034.

 

[scraw]

I waited for that one :hehe

Yes the 617 used Lancaster on the Möhne and Eder dams.

But a version was developed for the Mosquito for antishipping - this version was used until the Mosquito was retired. I don't know if it was the Buccaneer that killed off that solution.

Haven't read the book for a while but as I recall the shipping version (Highball) was delayed to ensure the Germans wouldn't get a look at the tech and develop countermeasures before the dambuster (Upkeep) could be used.

 

[dioditto]

I tend to get very short tempered when some question weapons technology achievements because they can't find a source on the Internet - hence why I got snippy with Dioditto before.

Jesus, cool it mate. You are just full of it. :

I am only an amateur speculating, and I do NOT work in the defense industry per se, so why would I have any more insight or info than the source from internet? And I only said I have NOT SEEN it on internet, at WHICH POINT did I say it does not exist? (as research/prototype)

And secondly, Do you work for the Russians? how do you know the Russians does not have even more advanced secret prototype under development? or does the Russians just disclose their secrets to you free of charge?
LOL.

ALL I know, is that, Russians, have demonstrated, and revealed their working (albeit OLD) super cavitating weapon. We (in the west), do not have an equivalent yet.

So, we may have been doing super cavitation research secretly, but
no matter how secretive you say they are, THEY DO NOT EXIST IN DEPLOYMENT.

 

[Ths]

No matter how secretive you say they are, THEY DO NOT EXIST IN DEPLOYMENT.

I would not be too shure.