Italy, Russia to jointly develop SSKs.

[rickusn]

"HMAS Sheehan and Rankine (eg) have always been able to air up even in a proscribed training box."

The reasons as I understand it are:

1. That it requires only a fraction of the time(indiscretion rate) required of most(maybe all) other diesel submarines to recharge its batteries.

2. It has more potent batteries than other diesel subs.

3. Its noise level (indiscretion profile) while recharging batteries apparently is orders of magnitude less than other diesel subs.

 

[scraw]

"HMAS Sheehan and Rankine (eg) have always been able to air up even in a proscribed training box."

The reasons as I understand it are:

1. That it requires only a fraction of the time(indiscretion rate) required of most(maybe all) other diesel submarines to recharge its batteries.

2. It has more potent batteries than other diesel subs.

3. Its noise level (indiscretion profile) while recharging batteries apparently is orders of magnitude less than other diesel subs.

This would be the time gf goes mysteriously silent..

 

[G-Capo]

thanks for the info gf,can you post some info,pics or links pertaining to the japanese submarines ,i have always found them fascinating but i find it very difficult to find meaningfull information about them .

also india had recently signed a defence co-operation agreement with japan,what do you think are japan's chances of selling their latest subs to india?

Maybe the Japanese would co-develop a new submarine class with India.But selling out right a new submarine to India I think not.India is buying a large capable fleet of submarines but the Indian Government and navy is stressing indigineous systems.Also wouldn't more submarines be a logistical nightmare for India.

 

[aaaditya]

Maybe the Japanese would co-develop a new submarine class with India.But selling out right a new submarine to India I think not.India is buying a large capable fleet of submarines but the Indian Government and navy is stressing indigineous systems.Also wouldn't more submarines be a logistical nightmare for India.

india currently operates 3 different types of submarines ,of which 2 are of russian origin(foxtrot and kilo) and one is of european origin(hdw type209),with the advent of scorpene india will have 3 different types of submarines and yet i do not think it will be a logistical nightmare,india has 2 facilities for submarines,the mazagaon docks limited on the west coast which caters to the submarines of european origin and the one at vizag on the east coast which caters to submarines of russian origin and with private companies like larsen and toubro entering into shipbuilding and maintainence ,i doubt there will be any problem for a navy operating a submarine fleet consisting of 2 or 3 types of submarines.

 

[Betasys]

More info was released at Euronaval about the S1000.
It is shaping up to be quite a potent machine with a complete sensors suite, WASS torpedoes, Club S antiship/antishore missile, antiaircraft missiles, remarkable special ops capabilities.

A titanium alloy hull is apparently being considered.

Defense Technology http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/mh/...=bdad4bf56ebc0e127adf0ccbdb603133&ncd=content

 

[Betasys]

In the "U-214 SSK problems" thread
....
I'm not sure at all that in Italy we may gain commercially from HDW's pains. Before we manage to sell some S1000 we'll have to build a prototype with the Russians, and even the Russians themselves may still priorize Amur and Lada in their export efforts. Our country has the credibility to sell surface vessels ranging from the STOVL aircraft carrier to the OPVH, but in subs we are soooo behind... we haven't exported any since WW2.

cheers

The S1000 will feature a mix of Italian and Russian technologies.
The autopilot is likely to be derived from that sold to the Spanish for their S80 subs, the WASS torpedoes and self defense solutions are certainly state of art. Another Italian contribution is going to be the PEM fuel cell system. Regarding this Fincantieri appears confident that the system won't be violating the non-reexporting agreements that were signed with Siemens in relation to the FC system on the U-212. The Italian solution draws on studies carried out by national firms while possibly the exposure to the Siemens system would have helped in figuring out how specific submarine implementation issues have been solved. This shouldn't be cause for criticism as the Germans for example will also be implementing on their further two U-212 subs some divers operation related features originally developed by Fincantieri for the Italian units.

It is reasonable to assume that the technological areas in which Italy lags, will see the use of Russian systems. The whole object being to combine each other's strengths. This should alleviate concerns about the technical viability of the S1000.

The use of already developed systems will help keep cost down to half that of a U-212.

Doubts about Russian commitment to S1000 in light of them having a clear interest in pushing their own Amur aren't that well founded. The S1000 will have FC AIP, internal modularity, 12 divers op., western standards and systems. This is going to differentiate S1000 from Amur both on features and international appeal.

 

[aaaditya]

the russian subs would find a ready market in china,india and maybe african and other asian countries ,or with the countries enemical to the nato alliance,however to make their submarines attractive in the western world ,they would need some joint development and marketting with european countries.

 

[contedicavour]

The S1000 will feature a mix of Italian and Russian technologies.
The autopilot is likely to be derived from that sold to the Spanish for their S80 subs, the WASS torpedoes and self defense solutions are certainly state of art. Another Italian contribution is going to be the PEM fuel cell system. Regarding this Fincantieri appears confident that the system won't be violating the non-reexporting agreements that were signed with Siemens in relation to the FC system on the U-212. The Italian solution draws on studies carried out by national firms while possibly the exposure to the Siemens system would have helped in figuring out how specific submarine implementation issues have been solved. This shouldn't be cause for criticism as the Germans for example will also be implementing on their further two U-212 subs some divers operation related features originally developed by Fincantieri for the Italian units.

It is reasonable to assume that the technological areas in which Italy lags, will see the use of Russian systems. The whole object being to combine each other's strengths. This should alleviate concerns about the technical viability of the S1000.

The use of already developed systems will help keep cost down to half that of a U-212.

Doubts about Russian commitment to S1000 in light of them having a clear interest in pushing their own Amur aren't that well founded. The S1000 will have FC AIP, internal modularity, 12 divers op., western standards and systems. This is going to differentiate S1000 from Amur both on features and international appeal.

Very interesting grazie
Do you believe that we'll see a prototype being built anytime soon ?
It's a tough sell to persuade a foreign navy to buy a sub that your own navy doesn't have and doesn't want to have... since we all expect that Forcieri will activate the option for 2 more U212A in the CY2008 budget.

ciao

 

[Betasys]

Very interesting grazie
Do you believe that we'll see a prototype being built anytime soon ?
It's a tough sell to persuade a foreign navy to buy a sub that your own navy doesn't have and doesn't want to have... since we all expect that Forcieri will activate the option for 2 more U212A in the CY2008 budget.

ciao

If I interpret correctly what written in the article linked above Fincantieri Rubin are saying that detailed design work and configuration definition could take place in 2008-9 leading to start of building thereafter. It would appear that an order would be required to get things going... and this is where an effort would have to be made to convince potential clients of the soundness (metaphorically speaking) of the project, the limited risks (simplicity and use of off-the-shelf solutions), the operational usefulness, the competitive pricing.

One element that I find interesting is the possibility of having a titanium hull. The Russians would be leveraging their experience in this field and there can be little doubt about the feasibility. Such a solution could either be viewed as a way to increase pressure hull resistance not only to depth pressure but also to explosions shockwaves or as a way to mantain depth performances while reducing pressure hull mass fraction leading to a high density mass requirement which could be filled, for example, by increasing hydrogen-oxygen stores... (or other high density items) This would be another way to play around with the mass-volumes allotment (the reference is to the 'internal modularity' approach that characterizes this project).
And of course, whichever way you implement a titanium hull, there is always the elimination of the major source of magnetic signature.

 

[contedicavour]

If I interpret correctly what written in the article linked above Fincantieri Rubin are saying that detailed design work and configuration definition could take place in 2008-9 leading to start of building thereafter. It would appear that an order would be required to get things going... and this is where an effort would have to be made to convince potential clients of the soundness (metaphorically speaking) of the project, the limited risks (simplicity and use of off-the-shelf solutions), the operational usefulness, the competitive pricing.

One element that I find interesting is the possibility of having a titanium hull. The Russians would be leveraging their experience in this field and there can be little doubt about the feasibility. Such a solution could either be viewed as a way to increase pressure hull resistance not only to depth pressure but also to explosions shockwaves or as a way to mantain depth performances while reducing pressure hull mass fraction leading to a high density mass requirement which could be filled, for example, by increasing hydrogen-oxygen stores... (or other high density items) This would be another way to play around with the mass-volumes allotment (the reference is to the 'internal modularity' approach that characterizes this project).
And of course, whichever way you implement a titanium hull, there is always the elimination of the major source of magnetic signature.

You can definitively change your setting and put "defence professional/analyst", you are clearly an expert in materials (qualcosa del genere : dottorato in ingegneria dei materiali ?)

You do confirm however that nobody is thinking of selling these subs to the Italian Navy ?

ciao

 

[gf0012-aust]

I really can't see any navy seriously considering the use of titanium hulls anymore. The soviet/russian exp didn't show sufficient expense/reward for capability. It was wonderful as an example of technological prowress at a point in time - but realtime gains? current heavy torpedoes remove the dive and speed variables that used to be the key cards in the Ti debate.

to be blunt, some of the existing steel stds available provide greater benefit.

there are far better ways to spend the money than have "nn" sq metres of titanium.

the internal design is far more important than the exoskeleton.

 

[Betasys]

I really can't see any navy seriously considering the use of titanium hulls anymore. The soviet/russian exp didn't show sufficient expense/reward for capability. It was wonderful as an example of technological prowress at a point in time - but realtime gains? current heavy torpedoes remove the dive and speed variables that used to be the key cards in the Ti debate.

to be blunt, some of the existing steel stds available provide greater benefit.

there are far better ways to spend the money than have "nn" sq metres of titanium.

the internal design is far more important than the exoskeleton.

What about using titanium to reduce the pressure hull mass fraction and using the freed mass requirement for increased payload fraction or propulsion systems fraction .... This would allow to increase performances for a given hull size / for a given project. Wouldn't it?

 

[gf0012-aust]

What about using titanium to reduce the pressure hull mass fraction and using the freed mass requirement for increased payload fraction or propulsion systems fraction .... This would allow to increase performances for a given hull size / for a given project. Wouldn't it?

Thats still more an issue of material density and flexibility when you assess performance fractions. and its relevance within the operational requirements profile. For me the more significant issue is internal design. I truly think that Titanium, (as conventionally used) is an absolute waste of money for minimal benefit against a sophisticated enemy with current weapons capabilities.

the benefits that titanium had as far as diving depth and resilience to attack have been virtually negated with new weapons technologies amongst the more modern navies - and that doesn't include some of the newer dense munitions under development.

it is of course always going to be an issue of clients requirement for perceived roles. But, the new weapons systems seriously degrade any advantages that titanium prev had.

some weapons are not subject to the vagaries and delimiters of "crush" depth. and they can certainly outdive and outpace a nuke.

I think you are going to see some significant weapons developments over the next few years.

 

[Betasys]

Thats still more an issue of material density and flexibility when you assess performance fractions. and its relevance within the operational requirements profile. For me the more significant issue is internal design. I truly think that Titanium, (as conventionally used) is an absolute waste of money for minimal benefit against a sophisticated enemy with current weapons capabilities.

the benefits that titanium had as far as diving depth and resilience to attack have been virtually negated with new weapons technologies amongst the more modern navies - and that doesn't include some of the newer dense munitions under development.

it is of course always going to be an issue of clients requirement for perceived roles. But, the new weapons systems seriously degrade any advantages that titanium prev had.

some weapons are not subject to the vagaries and delimiters of "crush" depth. and they can certainly outdive and outpace a nuke.

I think you are going to see some significant weapons developments over the next few years.

This is all tied to the idea of using titanium to increase op. depth and resistance to shock. And in that context it's true with the limitations and for the reasons you mentioned with only the added note that in a coastal environment, at low depth and with the introduction of improved self defence systems there is in my view a possible requirement for increased hull strength in absolute terms to resist shock.
However. The pure hull mass fraction argument goes like this.
In the context of coastal ops. and having a requirement for amagnetic hull, titanium being lighter than amagnetic steel would allow the advantages I mentioned essentially in either payload or range for a given design.
Without venturing right now in calculations that would always have a certain degree of uncertainty, for lack of detailed knowledge, it could be fair to assume that a coastal sub sized could be constructed combining the payload-range capabilities of larger units while retaining small size and no magnetic signature. The best of both worlds in a way. Coastal area manouver, stealth and submerged endurance better than any steel hull.

 

[gf0012-aust]

However. The pure hull mass fraction argument goes like this.

I do actually work on sub warfare technology and have been involved on sub building programmes. :

I stand by my prev that titanium offers no tangible benefits in current weapons environments.

The "Akula" (to use the common but incorrect name) is a sitting duck with current weapons systems. A smaller sub would not even remotely survive a strike using some of the current weaps systems. Titanium tech as used by the russians on their subs would fracture like an overboiled egg.

there are better ways to spend the money.

 

[Betasys]

I do actually work on sub warfare technology and have been involved on sub building programmes. :

I stand by my prev that titanium offers no tangible benefits in current weapons environments.

The "Akula" (to use the common but incorrect name) is a sitting duck with current weapons systems. A smaller sub would not even remotely survive a strike using some of the current weaps systems. Titanium tech as used by the russians on their subs would fracture like an overboiled egg.

there are better ways to spend the money.

I know who you are from months of monitoring the forums in which you write. I do not work on submarines, for me that's just an interest. However I have exhibited at UDT, and will again. : So maybe we'll meet someday.

And of course I stand by my argument on the titanium hull S1000

 

[gf0012-aust]

And of course I stand by my argument on the titanium hull S1000

oh well, we'll just have to have a difference of opinion on this .

I hope that Francois is lurking as he can provide a different perspective - and may well disagree with me as well...

 

[Francois]

UDT has special sessions for people with a NATO clearance.
In this closed sessions, things funny are discussed.

Now, no serious shipyard will ever think of building a hull in any Ti- alloy.
Too much pain for not that a good result.
You can get a very close result with high alloy steels.

Even Russians did come back from it.
When you have to heat the whole room and have it under inert gases like CO2 or Argon or Helium (not Nitrogen, Titanium burns in Nitrogen...).
Plus the cost of the Ti makes it no reliable.

This being said, it is getting worse, as China is absorbing more and more of the production of Ti, and the costs are raising hights every now and then.

And then there is the myth... see: Tom Gervasi.

 

[Betasys]

Now, no serious shipyard will ever think of building a hull in any Ti- alloy.
Too much pain for not that a good result.
You can get a very close result with high alloy steels.

Even Russians did come back from it.
When you have to heat the whole room and have it under inert gases like CO2 or Argon or Helium (not Nitrogen, Titanium burns in Nitrogen...).
Plus the cost of the Ti makes it no reliable.

This being said, it is getting worse, as China is absorbing more and more of the production of Ti, and the costs are raising hights every now and then.

And then there is the myth... see: Tom Gervasi.

I am aware of the existance of technical difficulties with using titanium (or more appropriatly titanium alloys) for a submarine pressure hull.
Taking the discussion back to the S1000 Italian Russian co-operation project I believe that those difficulties have been overcome in Russia and that they possess the know-how for building them. Also the high alloy steels have building issues of their own, they are magnetic and Italy and Russia may not have the know-how. Also I doubt the high yield steel alloys currently employed are that close to titanium alloys in terms of specific strength.
And amagnetic steel doesn't have the required characteristics of strength-density.

If with HY80 steel the pressure hull mass fraction is 40% (this and all other values are my rough estimates) I believe that that could be replaced by a titanium hull weighing around 25% of submerged displacement for the same operational depth. The mass saving would be 0.15x1000=150 tons. That mass of course has to be added to recover the required average density.
Consider the hydrogen and oxygen storage tanks (remember we are still talking of the S1000) These, to my knowledge are high density items. The tanks themselves are heavy even when empty. What is the mass of these in the S1000? Let's assume they are 150 tons. If we allocate the freed mass requirement to these items, we could double the submerged persistance of the sub.

The S1000 sub is described as implementing internal modularity. In reason of this assume that the placement and other issues are addressed and possibly the very same concept I am illustrating here hasn't been missed.

If the steel S1000 has submerged persistance of 10 days at 4 knots, a titanium hull S1000 will have 20 days at the same speed plus no (or smaller) magnetic signature. How much would one pay for this and how much would it cost? I don't know. But it certainly is extremely interesting.
Plus it would allow the S1000 to be in direct competition with the bigger SSKs that dominate the market: the Scorpene (>Marlin) and the U-212 / 214 that have in their inevitably longer range (both on diesel and underwater) an apparently irremediable advantage.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Also the high alloy steels have building issues of their own, they are magnetic and Italy and Russia may not have the know-how. Also I doubt the high yield steel alloys currently employed are that close to titanium alloys in terms of specific strength.
And amagnetic steel doesn't have the required characteristics of strength-density.

If with HY80 steel the pressure hull mass fraction is 40% (this and all other values are my rough estimates) I believe that that could be replaced by a titanium hull weighing around 25% of submerged displacement for the same operational depth. The mass saving would be 0.15x1000=150 tons. That mass of course has to be added to recover the required average density.
Consider the hydrogen and oxygen storage tanks (remember we are still talking of the S1000) These, to my knowledge are high density items. The tanks themselves are heavy even when empty. What is the mass of these in the S1000? Let's assume they are 150 tons. If we allocate the freed mass requirement to these items, we could double the submerged persistance of the sub.

There can be in excess of 36 different metal types in a modern submarine. Its not the exoskeleton that counts - its the internal design that is critical.

There are far too many variabless involved to argue that a reduction of weight by using Ti is going to allow an increase in range or depth of operation.

eg, The Oyashios are the deepest diving conventional in the world - they rival some of the numbers thrown around for russian nukes. They don't use titanium.