tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post5918115635718178360..comments2024-03-28T07:56:09.239-07:00Comments on Navy Matters: Archers, Arrows, and EyesComNavOpshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comBlogger71125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-91228543452158010752015-03-06T16:52:59.504-08:002015-03-06T16:52:59.504-08:00Oh, I'm not done just yet.
I've actually b...Oh, I'm not done just yet.<br />I've actually been thoroughly enjoying this discussion, including the points negative about my design.<br /><br />Since that turned out awkwardly, I feel I should explain why I posted that.<br />I've actually been designing fictional military vehicles, aircraft, and ships (mock schematics and all) for several years now. As you may be able to guess, I have 'a bit' of experience with the online communities related to such, enough to have been burned by internet firestorms so many times that I've basically grown scared of the flame. Both being burned by it and unintentionally starting it.<br />Unfortunately, I'm one of those headstrong firebrand-personality individuals that solves problems by beating it in with my head, thus my preferred solution to a disagreement is to argue/heatedly_debate it out until both parties come to a conclusion that they are satisfied with. Such activity is even entertaining to me (doesn't help my heart any, though), so I can get really into it at times. Naturally, that only works with someone who is like minded, otherwise it flares up pretty easily.<br />Thus, when I noticed in myself getting a little too aggressive in my counter arguments, I decided that it may well be time to quit while I was ahead.<br />You see, you and B.Smitty have been invaluable influence in multiple designs already, although few of them have actually made it to paper.<br />Through more ways that just this conversation, I've picked up quite quite a few things merely by osmosis reading the articles and comments throughout this blog and it's given me quite a lot to chew on.<br />So, to me, commenting here is like stepping onto a field of giants, giants of individuals who I have a lot of respect for.<br />The last thing I wanted to do was to make those giants aggravated.<br />So, those potential withdrawal paragraphs were mostly an invitation to tell me to stop in a socially amicable manner.<br /><br />As for B.Smitty's comments. I knew they weren't attacks. I just was unable to grasp the logic or reasoning behind of a few of his comments and statements. I was actually particularly enjoying that exchange... which is why I was unintentionally letting it get hotter, and decided that I may need to scale it back.<br />I was also losing it badly. If that was a judged debate, it would be over already.<br />I kept shooting down the other radar types he was suggesting on the other hand because I have no cost estimate for them. I actually cleared out a fairly huge chunk of the sail for a retractable radar array in hopes that he actually did have a price guesstimate.<br /><br />That being said, I was defending the design more or less as a devil's advocate against reason; or rather, I was the one who proposed the concept AND the numbers, so it was more-or-less my job to defend the point until it was killed through the debate.<br />I was actually quite enjoying being hit upside the head with points that I hadn't thought of and fairly desperately trying to come up with legitimate counters. Pretty much pure concentrated fun to me.<br />Honestly, I feel no particular attraction to either of these designs, particularly Scheme 1. It looks naked, cramped, and just plain silly to me. I'm also dissatisfied with the layout and would be mortified if told I had to live there... which is why I kept expounding Scheme 2, mainly so I could add in some layer of creature comforts. Actually, most of the additional cost for it was originally in setting up a ship-wide entertainment system, the schemes were originally otherwise virtually identical in capability aside from the already noted speed and range increase.<br />It was mostly an exercise in seeing just how cheap I could make a throwaway boat with VLS capabilities.<br /><br />This can continue for as long as you allow it.<br />Although I'm going to need to be slowing down on the designing a bit, my time off is drawing to its end here soon.<br /><br />- Ray D.Ray D.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-20575002652274093212015-03-06T14:20:00.328-08:002015-03-06T14:20:00.328-08:00Ray, as I've said in each comment, you have an...Ray, as I've said in each comment, you have an intriguing concept and I commend you for it. What you need to recognize is that by putting your thoughts into a blog you implicitly accept the resulting discussion, positive or negative. You've probably noticed that a large chunk of the comments following any of my posts are critical. That's kind of what a blog and comment forum is! What you need to do is listen to the comments, debate them a bit to be sure you fully understand them, and then take any bits of information that you find useful and incorporate them into your design to make it even better. It's possible you may not find anything useful. That's OK, it's your design. You're under no obligation to incorporate any information. Best case, your design is improved and your conclusions are strengthened by the discussions. Worst case, you get no useful information from the discussions but you've still disseminated your ideas - not a bad thing! <br /><br />The hardest part of blogging (and commenting!) is to refrain from falling into the "defend my baby" mode where every comment is perceived as an attack. Smitty, for instance, has proven quite helpful and informative over the lifetime of this blog. His comments are not attacks; they're attempts to help you refine your concept. You may find them useful or not but they are intended to be helpful. <br /><br />Remember, you can always terminate a discussion that you feel is no longer productive by simply saying, "I understand your point and I'll take it under advisement." <br /><br />Also remember that most great inventions and advancements are not recognized as such initially.<br /><br />If you ever take your concept as far as an actual design sketch and concept of operations, I'd be happy to have you guest author a post about it. Creative thinking is always welcome even if not always universally appreciated! Status quo is a powerful enemy.<br /><br />So, stick with your concept, refine it if needed, and relax and enjoy the discussion and attention. Blogs and comments should be fun!<br /><br />I appreciate your contribution and I've enjoyed it. Thanks!ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-90472247133309770202015-03-06T13:27:23.896-08:002015-03-06T13:27:23.896-08:00B.Smitty,
I'm well aware of the space limitat...B.Smitty,<br /><br />I'm well aware of the space limitations necessitated by the shape of a submarine (you are aware that the pressure hull is not actually that thick, right? Many submarines were made with ~7/8th inch thick high tensile steel. 2-3” HY-80 is overkill for a 400' depth limit boat.), I'm also well aware of pressure hull shapes. A bulbed Pyramid shape is an acceptable pressure hull as well, even though it's not as efficient as a cylinder, which is in turn not as efficient as a sphere. <br /><br />You keep insisting that it's the depth pressure and salt water that would kill the radar array, but you continue to ignore or reject offhand my solutions as for getting around that issue.<br />For fear of going over the character count again (so far I've done it with almost every post, and weeding is getting old), I'll keep this one simple.<br />Put the radar array in its own pressure hull made from one or more of the numerous amounts of pressure resistant materials that do not incur the Faraday effect. Position this pressure hull so that it is barely sticking out of the sail of the main hull (or, better yet, incorporates said sail into its design in the first place. Bonus points if the sail's skin is made from non-Faraday materiel). Do this for all 4 arrays. Connect any antenna or other paraphernalia to telescoping masts that are contained in the sail. Wire the above electronics to a main system inside the main hull. Done.<br />Now, why would this not work? You seem to know a lot about this field of electronics (although I disagree with several of your points, but that's just being human), so I ask to learn.<br /><br />Also, submersible radar units are old. NATO just abandoned the Submarine Radar Picket concept some ~50 years ago since they had AEW units.<br /><br />My design calls for 3 GE LM500 gas turbines, each of which puts out roughly 4.2MW of power, and a single Rolls Royce Kamewa S3-63 Pump-Jet, which is a 4300kW pump-jet. All in all, my Scheme 1 has roughly 6.3MW of power generation left over after it's covered most everything else (including the computer arrays) aside from sonar/radar units. Its 6000 Li-Ion batteries can provide up to 11.5MW of continuous power on top of that for up to 20 minutes if need be.<br />Trust me, I set out to solve the power needs first thing.<br /><br />It would actually be fairly easy to shove that VLS system in the Harushio if she was just 50 ft longer. It's her length that's hurting her, not her beam. The Radar array too if they were fine with limited surface stealth (near flat sides excepting the placement of the arrays). Of course this would require a certain amount of build up on her deck, but it's nothing that's even relatively hard to do.<br />So no, the answer for that particular boat is indeed 'it cannot be done', but that particular boat isn't the problem.<br />It's an apples to apples approach, I admit, but you're comparing a Red Delicious against a Granny Smith and insisting that the Red Delicious is better for eating out of hand when the question was which is better in a pie.<br /><br />I've been mulling over the Booklet of General Plans of a GUPPY'd Balao for the last week and meticulously measuring every nook and cranny just to see how much space I could milk out of it (including by removing existing features). If you use a Bullet-like hullform, but still otherwise maintain the WW2 level amenities, there is plenty of space.<br /><br />- Ray D.Ray D.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-54334914678688211782015-03-06T13:25:04.383-08:002015-03-06T13:25:04.383-08:00Okay, I'm going to try to tone things here dow...Okay, I'm going to try to tone things here down a bit on my end in order to prevent some kind of ungentlemanly argument or something. I seem to be getting a little too passionate about this.<br /><br />CNO,<br /><br />I understand what you are getting at; you think I'm being unrealistic with my cost estimates because there is no existing similar product to my claim for a comparative cost point.<br />My argument is instead that, really, there is no existing comparative product in which to make a comparison to. Unless somebody out there actually is building GUPPYs, in which case my designs would probably be a world and a half more expensive.<br />Therefore, my argument is that Scheme 1 would only cost ~$190-$200 million in the real world, and that's only because the procurement rates that I specified are unrealistic under the current navy administration so you could only expect maybe 2 of them a year.<br />Perhaps it'd be better to consider these very small arsenal ships, just given the capability to sustain life and pick their own targets.<br />One will, of course, notice that the estimated cost of my designs has been slowly rising. My designs are only a week old and I only almost have a 'rough' schematic drawn up. I haven't quite had the time to completely proof all of my costs yet either (I'm still not certain just how much steel I'd be needing, for instance).<br /><br />Of course, if you want me to take my fantastical schemes elsewhere and stop cluttering up your blog, I will. Perhaps I've overstayed my welcome already with my rambling.<br />(That's the way most of my discussions end up.)<br /><br />In case of the contrary...<br /><br />The prices I listed for the Astutes were for the three boats currently under construction, Audacious, Anson , and Agamemnon, which use the COTS computing environment and such that I mentioned (of which they've already purchased). Unless you have some data that I don't, that is.<br />Also, I would like to point out that the price you listed was well above the Ministry of Defense published costs sited back in 2011, when the first two were already put to sea and the third one was already mostly paid for.<br />A US Congressional Budget Office report filed in May 2011 (titled 'The Cost-Effectiveness of Nuclear Power for Navy Surface Ships') indicated that, in general, the cost of a Nuclear Reactor and related systems can be estimated as $1 billion per unit regardless of platform, and further suggested that they thought this was cheap (it's been a while since I read the report though).<br /><br />The Souryu-class use expensive Air-Independent Propulsion systems with 'Silver Stirling Engines', which can cost as much as a small nuclear reactor each.<br />I use 3 x $2,000,000 gas turbines and 6000 x $250 batteries ($1,500,000 total, plus about $150,000 worth of management equipment). In exchange, neither of my designs can maintain themselves underwater for prolonged periods and absolutely have to surface within short order if they want to get above 12kt (which they can only maintain underwater for about 3 hours).<br /><br />I have a relative who worked at 3 of the Big-4 US shipyards (Newport, Ingalls, Electric Boat) and retired as one of Newport's highest paid electricians (he was one of the people who knew the Enterprise's electrical system inside and out), and he's still close to the market. From what he told me, the rates preferred by the shipyards on Government contracts is roughly 30 to 50% (depending on complexity) the cost of the ship's materials times the number of years it takes to build the ship (bottoming out at 20%). That last part is usually the clincher, and he indicated that that amount usually gets floated into the price of other components on the reports.<br /><br />Perhaps I need to just go take a few days away from this to cool my head a bit.<br />- Ray D.Ray D.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-67558719993700674722015-03-06T10:42:20.521-08:002015-03-06T10:42:20.521-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.B.Smittyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12650152449414871058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-6673488874920469202015-03-06T05:11:52.954-08:002015-03-06T05:11:52.954-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.B.Smittyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12650152449414871058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-4708359183110806892015-03-06T02:43:06.352-08:002015-03-06T02:43:06.352-08:00Ray, I'm not very familiar with British shipbu...Ray, I'm not very familiar with British shipbuilding in general or the Astute class in particular, however, a cursory reading suggests that the current cost is around 1.3B(UK) which would be around $1.5B(US) and that's for a vessel smaller than your scheme 1. I have no idea what the cost for a reactor is.<br /><br />A CSIS report puts the cost for a generic diesel electric sub at $500M - $1B.<br /><br />The Soryu class diesel-elec sub is listed at $540M for a 275ft sub which is significantly smaller than your concepts.<br /><br />You get the idea. Real world costs are well beyond your estimates. Now, there are two types of costs that can be discussed: real and "should be". There's nothing wrong with talking about "should be" costs just as long as it's clear what you mean. We all bemoan and criticise Navy construction costs. So, feel free to discuss "should be" costs but recognize that the real world costs are much higher.<br /><br />One of the reasons why the Navy is reluctant to build SSKs is because they would wind up being a significant potion of the cost of a nuc with only a fraction of the capability. That may not be what the cost "should be" but it's reality, as badly flawed as that may be.<br />ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-29038412549540856102015-03-06T00:38:29.260-08:002015-03-06T00:38:29.260-08:00Oh, also, I forgot something.
The price that I had...Oh, also, I forgot something.<br />The price that I had mentioned for that AN/UYQ-70(V) trouncer computer system was incorrect. I had misread my notes, it's actually on the order of $16 million.<br />...I blame my very messy speed-writing.<br />I have adjusted my plans accordingly, thus Scheme 1 only has a modest computer network capable of handling its on-board systems at pace and still manage the Radar.<br />Scheme 2 however gets that system.<br /><br />- Ray D.Ray D.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-68606121534445545772015-03-06T00:32:23.320-08:002015-03-06T00:32:23.320-08:00CNO,
A closer comparison may well be either of my...CNO,<br /><br />A closer comparison may well be either of my designs against the British Astute-class.<br />The last three of the class only cost ~$824 million in USD, which includes their ~$600 million Nuclear Reactor (not counting the cost of the required paraphernalia...). So, a diesel Astute would only cost about $220-$250 million.<br />Thus, my Scheme 2 is actually more expensive than the Astute, relatively speaking, just to achieve similar results (plus VLS and Radar) and Scheme 1 only scrapes ahead by sacrificing basic submarine staples, such as 21” torpedoes.<br />This was possible thanks to the British Navy realizing that the way they'd been going about it was no way to do business if they wanted to continue to exist, resulting in them upending their procurement and design philosophies and starting over. Their result was something I much respect, considering the situation with their Ministry of Defense.<br /><br />Yet, you essentially asked for a direct comparison, so I will try.<br />...Actually, this is less what I did to make my design cheaper and more what the US Gov. did stupidly to inflate the cost of their ships.<br />Overly complex and inefficient power systems requiring multiple layers and auxiliaries; inefficient and mostly obsolete computer systems, requiring more systems and power than necessary; general over-reliance on computers and technology requiring that their tech-level be on the bleeding edge (which delays production and ramps up the cost per ship) but then never rolling it out fleet-wide which further drives up the cost; tech and gear where it doesn't belong; expensive and out of date fly-by-wire systems that are, as far as I can tell, finicky and prone to breaking down; multitude of redundancies that the crews don't even know how to use anymore (lack of training); a seeming insistence on special or complicated to manufacture parts and components; an insistence on calling Light Cruisers destroyers and Destroyers frigates (this affects their budgets, and has spread to all allied navies except the Japanese... who call everything destroyers); the ship designs are complicated and can require multiple years just to build one 'simple' destroyer; and various other numerical procurement deficiencies.<br /><br />I could go on, but after a point I would start quoting you, so I'll stop here. I think you get the picture.<br />Seriously, how on earth they got a single AEGIS system to cost more than one of the world's most powerful super-computers, I'll never know.<br />This would have never happened back when the Navy was held responsible for what they bought.<br /><br />On the other hand, my design calls for a simple power system (the gas turbines only need to operate at efficient speeds and there are 3 of them, so I don't need auxiliaries or back-ups); a comparatively spartan environment; an expansive, but simple, computerized workspace using COTS computers and technology; only putting tech where the budget permits putting them and, more importantly, where they make good sense; a cheap, simple, and fairly reliable fly-by-wire system that relies on steel cables and very simple programming; up to date technology that is commercially available; being simple enough to construct in 9 months or less; and finally... a production rate of 7 or more a year. <br /><br />As for the size of Scheme 2... well, it's only that length because of hull-speed. Increasing the size of Scheme 1 to that length and beam would only cost about $8 million more, and most of that is labor (HY-80 steel sheet can be gotten for about $1-3/lb). Steel is cheap and fairly light overall, the cost is in justifying the size of the ship/boat to the brass/congress, since they're going to want to cram that new empty space full of gizmos and gadgets, which cost... a lot. I only shoved in that additional 32 VLS tubes to provide that justification.<br /><br />- Ray D.Ray D.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-3195047987858124772015-03-06T00:27:23.156-08:002015-03-06T00:27:23.156-08:00B.Smitty,
I'm not trying to come across as ho...B.Smitty,<br /><br />I'm not trying to come across as hostile here, so I hope you don't take it that way, I'm just trying to understand somethings.<br /><br />You insist that you cannot shield sensitive electronics from water pressure, and then claim that the comparative sonar system - which is almost identical in construction and material - because 'it was designed that way'. A transistor is a transistor, a capacitor is a capacitor, 0.3mm copper wire is 0.3mm copper wire. They will all blow or be crushed by pressure under the same circumstances regardless of what they are used for.<br />And more importantly, what does this have to do with anything when tried and true methods of preventing that pressure from ever hitting them in the first place have already been laid out?<br />You say you have to retract the item into a pressure vessel.<br />Why? Why not just put it inside a pressure vessel that it can still do its job from in the first place?<br />You can do that with a 3” thick sheet of reinforced marine fiberglass formed in a flat watertight bubble around the array that is filled with air or some other form of electrically neutral compressible gas. In fact, that's overkill. They've taken plain, relatively thin, glass down to the bottom of Challenger Deep (35,000'+) and it didn't even crack. You're to tell me that what was on the other side of that glass, Jacques Piccard and Don Walsh let alone the delicate scientific equipment of the time, should be red paste right now?<br /><br />Also, why does a ship have to weigh a certain amount before it may have a certain radar or sensor system installed on it? What does the tonnage have to do with working space? If the equipment fits in a ship and doesn't break its back, what is wrong with putting it there? Do you actually need to add 4000 tons of dead weight to a fast scout/picket ship just to give it a certain radar unit when you can have it AND the radar unit at 2500 tons via proper compartmentalization and construction methods?<br /><br />Again, I'm not trying to be hostile, rude, or even combative.<br />I just don't understand the logic, that's all, I'm trying to learn.<br /><br />Anyway, on a less potentially contentious point, there's a 10'x10'x18' space in the sail that is not taken up by electronics or the funnels, is that enough for that system?<br /><br />- Ray D.Ray D.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-63085303084048165702015-03-05T17:28:56.752-08:002015-03-05T17:28:56.752-08:00Ray, as I said, the concept is intriguing, however...Ray, as I said, the concept is intriguing, however, I'm concerned that your cost estimates are a world off. Consider... Your Scheme 2 is approaching a Burke in size and, to a degree, in capability. A Burke costs $1.5B - $2.2B depending on what set of numbers you want to use. Or, consider ... Your Scheme 2 is larger than a Virginia class SSN which costs $2.5B.<br /><br />Despite these relatively direct comparisons, your estimate is a few hundred million dollars. You can see why I'm concerned about your estimate! Any thoughts about the apparent cost discrepancies?ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-18281749509334352982015-03-05T17:13:00.848-08:002015-03-05T17:13:00.848-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.B.Smittyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12650152449414871058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-75190935538421311742015-03-05T14:43:29.861-08:002015-03-05T14:43:29.861-08:00Ray, for what it's worth, the 2014 SCN budget ...Ray, for what it's worth, the 2014 SCN budget line item doc lists the cost for a DDG-51 Aegis system as $234M.<br /><br />The doc does not break list the cost for the LCS radars.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-5033824021359015252015-03-05T13:53:38.763-08:002015-03-05T13:53:38.763-08:00B Smitty,
It tends to hurt to admit you were wron...B Smitty,<br /><br />It tends to hurt to admit you were wrong and that someone else was right, but in this case you were right and I was wrong.<br />I was just going over the Main Deck configuration of Scheme 1 (323'x27' GUPPY-like) and I realized that there was absolutely no way that I could fit the AN/SPY-1D onto the Sail and still maintain the surface stealth features that I had initially laid down as a requirement.<br />...or, in English, I didn't have the room on the sail after I factored in the minimum 10 degree tilt.<br /><br />I had been so focused on the internal layout of the boat that I entirely forgot about something so simple.<br /><br />That being said, I will instead be trying to fit in the AN/SPY-1F or AN/SPY-1K onto Scheme 1, for now.<br />Since they both are quite literally just pieces of the AN/SPY-1D unit I can still make a convincing argument in relation to their price point.<br /><br />That being said, seriously, if you have any idea what the prices for those other radar units would be, I'm not opposed to switching to one of them.<br />(Of course, this is all more or less just for fun, so don't go out of your way or anything.)<br /><br />- Ray D.Ray D.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-80495663827213216652015-03-05T07:02:44.655-08:002015-03-05T07:02:44.655-08:00Somehow my third post failed to go through.
Anyway...Somehow my third post failed to go through.<br />Anyway...<br /><br />B.Smitty,<br /><br />You're right that there are probably better choices of systems to use in a design the size that I was speaking of that would also possibly have the side effect of driving down the cost; however, the point of this venture was to provide a decent cost estimate for the design, meaning I have to have some price-point data of the parts that I'm using or I wouldn't be able to make my argument.<br />I only hope that made any sense.<br />That being said, if you can relay any sources as to price estimates for those systems (or just price estimates), I'd be more than interested in considering them into plans both future and present.<br /><br />“IMHO, on a Gato sized ship the best you're looking at is a radar in the TRS-4D, Sea Giraffe, or Smart-S range.”<br /><br />Honestly, I'm surprised that you didn't mention the more obvious AN/SPY-1F (Frigate) or AN/SPY-1K (Corvette), seeing as both of these are derivatives of present fleet equipment and share a lot of the same parts, functions, and training, not to mention that they integrate with the AEGIS system off the shelf.<br /><br />“For a sonar, look to the smaller end of the SSKs out there.”<br /><br />Or, I could give it one of the most powerful submarine-mounted sonar systems in the world at present, the British Sonar 2076. They actually managed to shove it into a ship that is some 60' shorter than my Scheme 1 (but 3' beamier), the Trafalgar-class submarine, which loses a lot of space to a Nuclear reactor. Worst case scenario, expanding the beam of Scheme 1 to 30' would actually be relatively cheap (It would add a small bit to their weight however).<br />The point? That entire system only costs $28 million USD, including everything from bow-mounted sonar and side mounted flat-panel arrays to towed passive sonar units.<br /><br />Speaking of which,<br /><br />“Beyond this, electronics and salt water don't mix. Electronics and submerged pressure don't mix. You need far more than just a "coating". You will need to retract the radar into a pressure vessel.”<br /><br />Are you sure of this?<br />They've been using flat-panel arrays underwater for a while now; and, from everything I've seen and read, they're virtually identical to the flat-panel arrays of the AN/SPY-1 series (just one is emitting sonic pulses while the other is emitting radio waves). These are just covered - watertight/air-tight - with about 3” of fiberglass and a rubber/metal composite... from what I've read/seen, at least.<br /><br />- Ray D.Ray D.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-37970152693958128512015-03-04T12:36:10.115-08:002015-03-04T12:36:10.115-08:00B.Smitty,
I acknowledge that there are probably &...B.Smitty,<br /><br />I acknowledge that there are probably 'better' systems out there for the mission, but as for this design itself I can't prove anything unless I have a decent cost estimate, which was the point of this venture (to prove that the US Navy is incompetent with money).<br />I actually passed over some promising entries because I couldn't nail them to a price (I waived this in so far as the Pump Jet and Motor in that other components of the ship that I did list have similar, if not functionally identical, parts contained in them, so I could make a convincing argument to that effect).<br />I mean, of course, I want the design to 'work' - it's my pride as a fictional ship designer at stake after all.<br />That being said, if you can relay any sources as to price estimates for those systems, I'd be more than interested in considering them into plans both future and present.<br /><br />“IMHO, on a Gato sized ship the best you're looking at is a radar in the TRS-4D, Sea Giraffe, or Smart-S range.”<br /><br />I'm honestly surprised that you didn't mention the more obvious AN/SPY-1F (Frigate) or AN/SPY-1K (Corvette). Both of those are derivatives of present fleet material, actually integrate with the AEGIS system off the shelf (meaning part, system, and training commonality with other vessels) AND work with the Standards, which is a requirement of this design.<br />Of course, neither of them can target a Ballistic Missile, which was a stretch goal, but...<br />...well, you can't have everything.<br /><br />“For a sonar, look to the smaller end of the SSKs out there.”<br /><br />OR I could just take a page from our cousins across the pond and give it one of the most powerful submarine-mounted sonar systems out there, the Sonar 2076.<br />England also managed to shove it in a boat that is 60' shorter but 3' beamier than a Gato, the Trafalgar-class submarine, but loses a lot of space to a Nuclear reactor.<br />It, a complete system, only costs roughly $28 million to boot, so it is well within the price point as well.<br /><br />Oh, one more thing...<br /><br />“Beyond this, electronics and salt water don't mix. Electronics and submerged pressure don't mix. You need far more than just a "coating". You will need to retract the radar into a pressure vessel.”<br /><br />…Are you sure of this?<br />Then how do the modern 'flat panel' sonar arrays work?<br />No, seriously, I'm asking.<br />With their coating removed, they look identical to flat panel radar arrays and all that coating is is fiberglass and rubber with a thin metal mesh running through it (like a tire).<br />Give it the proper covering/coating and I see no reason why the AN/SPY-1D/F/K array would not operate just fine, depending on the depth that you intend to take the boat. 400' of pressure should be 'easy enough' to resist considering the type of machinery that they've taken down that far that have returned entirely functional.<br />Laptop computers, for instance. In a special case, of course.<br />I'm not asking for the 700 to 1000' the metal I've chosen has a pressure hull should be capable of.Ray D.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-2390065440960955472015-03-04T12:33:56.313-08:002015-03-04T12:33:56.313-08:00“Are you sure a VLS could fit inside a Gato-ish su...“Are you sure a VLS could fit inside a Gato-ish sub?”<br /><br />If you mean a sub literally like a Gato, then - on the contrary - I'm positive that you could do no such thing.<br />The Balaos, according to the Booklet of General Plans of the USS Razorback (SS-394) from 1968, were only 20' deep from deck to keel, and this was ignoring the 13' restriction on both depth and beam of their inner hull, which was their pressure hull.<br />Both of my designs use a single hull of 2” or 3” HY-80 steel (depending), which allows me to utilize the entirely of the beam and depth of the vessel at any time required, such as with the VLS tubes, although it places constraint elsewhere as one has to make up for the lost ballast and fuel.<br />That being said, Scheme 2 is capable of fitting anything up to and including Trident 2 SLBMs into it's hull with relative ease (although that would be a violation of existing treaties).<br /><br />“Ray, you've mentioned that you don't think the hull form is a problem.”<br /><br />At this point, I think this may be more of an issue with interpretation of terminology than it is a disagreement.<br />To me, a ship or boat's hullform is more or less the model of a ship carved from wood, but with every single hole filled flush and every last non-hull protrusion (including the propellers, fins, fence, and even the rudder) ground off and sanded smooth.<br />In my book, you take a hullform like that and build it up with modern construction and stealth techniques in mind and you wind up with a boat that looks like the British Astute-class, which was stealthy enough to make a mockery of the Flight II Virginia-class USS New Mexico.<br /><br />When I say Hullform, I mean the form of the hull in its design phase, everything else is Applique' structure to me, which is to say 'not necessary'.<br />I suppose I get a lot of people confused on that one.<br /><br />“I suspect that a Gato-ish vessel would be a fairly easy target, acoustically. That doesn't mean that the concept couldn't work but the loss rate might be substantial. Consider a modern SSK sent to look for these Gato-ish vessels. I suspect it would be a fairly one-sided live fire exercise. ”<br /><br />If it's doing the mission I set out for it, it would fare well enough.<br />When a ship is on or is close to the surface, it has plentiful access to material to mask literally any sound it can make, if it is equipped to do so (again, the sliding scale of effectiveness vs economy rears its head).<br />That boat would have access to virtually any anti-submarine technology that surface ships have, including auditory dampening (and the bottoms/sides of such ships would have to be acoustically negative).<br />It has to be surfaced (or almost so) to be doing its job, after all.<br /><br />Of course, Scheme 1 would fall into the trap of not being suitable for underwater combat when forced into it by simultaneous air/surface and submarine assault, but it's a cost issue here.<br />Scheme 2 however would fare a lot better in this regard as it actually meant to have a proper submarine sonar system installed and would be otherwise decked out for the job (Actually, it'd be close to a stretched land-strike version of the Astute-class...). In fact, I'd have to say that one was weaker when surfaced, even.<br /><br />“You indicate that you've sketched this out and thought it through but I'm really skeptical. Just for fun, consider posting a picture of what you've sketched with a few basic dimensions. ”<br /><br />Unfortunately, I have no means of digitizing the physical image (the scanner I had been relying on for years decided to up and quit on me three years ago and I've never gotten around to replacing it). However, I've been working on a purely digital version of the mock-blueprints. I should have a presentable version completed within the next few days or so, if you're still interested at that time.<br /><br />- Ray D.Ray D.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-28150413500408303062015-03-04T12:32:31.319-08:002015-03-04T12:32:31.319-08:00I apologize for the wait, I was away from the inte...I apologize for the wait, I was away from the internet.<br /><br />CNO,<br /><br />Sorry about the number wall. I get lost in the data sometimes and have a hard time getting out, tending to bring it with me. I'll try to cover the gist of it.<br /><br />“For example, you started with a 323'x27' / 1580t surface but just mentioned 450'x35' / ?t.”<br /><br />Those were two different schemes for the same class of ship, more or less. One is cramped and slightly inferior, but economically lucrative; while the other is spacious and more capable, but slightly more costly (on the order of $300 million or so... which is still less than the projected price of the LCS, if I recall correctly).<br />I actually began designing the long hulled version first, as you'll note I said that “my design actually calls for a boat of 450' in length”, which is why it may well be more thought out overall. I only began designing the shorter version when I gave that earlier example, as there I was speaking of a hypothetical modern Gato.<br />That being said, for the sake of clarity, I'll further refer to the short hulled version as 'Scheme 1' (since I introduced it first) and the long hulled version as 'Scheme 2'.<br /><br />“That second set of numbers, the 450'x35', is enormous. It's far longer than an LCS and is begining to approach a Burke!”<br /><br />Indeed. Such is the price of speed and power.<br />If you took the design of Scheme 2 and gave it a nuclear reactor and about another $300 million worth of stealth material and actually got it built, it may well be the most powerful attack submarine put to sea. Or, ignore the nuclear reactor. That's actually a secondary benefit considering that the diesel would be capable of circumnavigating the world without refueling (@12kts).<br />That being said, it wouldn't be the largest attack submarine we've had. Indeed, it's a similar size to a submarine that fulfilled the very same role that we've posited this one to do (Recon and Picket) - the legendary USS Triton (SSRN-586).<br /><br />If you're curious, I hypothesized that the weight of Scheme 2 would be in the neighborhood of 2700 tons (with about 900 tons of that being fuel), 21,456 shp installed power, 33kt top speed, ~27kt submerged speed (~12-18kt safe), ~64 VLS tubes in it, some sort of DD grade radar, and one of the best submarine sonar systems in the world.<br /><br />If you cannot tell, this whole thing has turned into an exercise in beating a dead horse - proving that the US Military is an incompetent spender. <br /><br />“I realized a Gato-ish and an LCS are two completely different animals but are you sure about those length, beam, and displacement numbers. They don't seem right.”<br /><br />Pretty sure, but I could be off by as much as 200 tons on Scheme 1 and as much as 500 tons on Scheme 2 (since I have not been working on it in the last few days, it hasn't been being refined).<br />Ironically, many modern components are actually lighter than the ones they replaced, it's the addition of radar and the heavier sonar that added to the weight.<br />Also, keep in mind that a Gato (and my Scheme 1) is less than half the size of an LCS, so it (and my designs) is heavier overall.<br /><br />-Ray DRay D.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-23099267573562943142015-03-02T04:47:19.512-08:002015-03-02T04:47:19.512-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.B.Smittyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12650152449414871058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-50288268385217633512015-03-01T20:12:18.311-08:002015-03-01T20:12:18.311-08:00Ray, you've mentioned that you don't think...Ray, you've mentioned that you don't think the hull form is a problem. Remember that every projection from the hull is a source of turbulence and turbulence is noise. Hence, protruding guns, deck equipment, etc. makes for a noisy sub underwater. In addition, hull shape can cause turbulence even without projections. Some shapes are aerodynamic (to us the air term that we're all familiar with) and some are not. A blocky superstructure or sail causes turbulence. Hence, the streamlined shape of modern subs (in addition to the relationship between shape and speed and other operating characteristics. A Gato-ish shape is inherently more noisy than a modern shaped sub due to induced turbulence. This was acceptable in WWII because the subs were very slow underwater and WWII era listening gear was not very good.<br /><br />I suspect that a Gato-ish vessel would be a fairly easy target, acoustically. That doesn't mean that the concept couldn't work but the loss rate might be substantial. Consider a modern SSK sent to look for these Gato-ish vessels. I suspect it would be a fairly one-sided live fire exercise.<br /><br />I know just enough to pose questions and concerns but not enough to offer any definitive answers. Just something for you to consider as you develop your idea.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-88119562852814884392015-03-01T19:58:38.826-08:002015-03-01T19:58:38.826-08:00Ray, the concept is fascinating. However, you'...Ray, the concept is fascinating. However, you're flinging around lots of numbers and I may be missing some of what you intend. For example, you started with a 323'x27' / 1580t surface but just mentioned 450'x35' / ?t. Just for comparison, an LCS-1 is 378'x57' / 3000t. I realized a Gato-ish and an LCS are two completely different animals but are you sure about those length, beam, and displacement numbers. They don't seem right. For instance, a WWII Gato was 311'x27' / 1525t and you're proposing a larger sub with less relative displacement?<br /><br />That second set of numbers, the 450'x35', is enormous. It's far longer than an LCS and is begining to approach a Burke!<br /><br />Are you sure a VLS could fit inside a Gato-ish sub? The 27' - 35' beam includes a significant amount of ballast tank. The actual, usable beam would be, what, half or a bit more of the total? So, the usable beam would be on the order of 15' - 19'? Even a single 8-cell VLS module oriented the long way would require about 8' of width (beam) or so (sorry, I don't have my VLS specs in front of me) plus a few feet on either side for utilities, support, controls, and whatnot. So, the overall VLS width is around 12' or so? That's taking up most of the usable beam (essentially, all for the smaller version). However, simply fitting the VLS in is not the end of the fit problem. You need to provide passage around the VLS as well as maintenance space. So, add a few more feet. <br /><br />I'm also dubious about the hull penetration depth. The hull is going to be about, what, 25' in height? Can you really fit a VLS in that height and still allow room around it, especially if you want to add a cover of some sort?<br /><br />Finally, bear in mind that the hull is oval in cross section. Thus, the wide point of the beam is not the issue - it's the narrow point and whether that allows for fit.<br /><br />You indicate that you've sketched this out and thought it through but I'm really skeptical. Just for fun, consider posting a picture of what you've sketched with a few basic dimensions.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-44300302648413836602015-03-01T18:12:07.510-08:002015-03-01T18:12:07.510-08:00“You'll never fit SPY-1D and SQS-53 on a boat ...“You'll never fit SPY-1D and SQS-53 on a boat that size, and i doubt the arrays would be amenable to diving. Also, you'd have to adopt a different VLS. ”<br /><br />The AN/SPY-1D(V) is a 12 sq. ft. 3-5” thick octagon which sends its signals to (and is controlled by) a AN/UYQ-70(V) computer-cluster.<br />Fixing the AN/SPY-1D(V) arrays for diving is as simple as giving them the right coating or covering for the job. A simple 3” thick sheet of fiberglass would be sufficient for that task. Remember, WW2 submarines had radar units on them that were literally held together by solder welds and they rarely had problems with them. The only thing between those welds and 400' deep water was 3/8ths of an inch of fiberglass... well, okay, it's been a while since I looked up those radars, so my memory on them is hazy, but the concept applies regardless.<br />The AN/SQS-53D hull mounted sonar array is roughly 50' in length (outside its bubble) and its depth is a non-factor, it also sends its signals to and is controlled by the AN/UYQ-70(V). Technically speaking, it can be mounted anywhere on the boat so long as you consider its location in the array's technical profile (on the AN/UYQ-70).<br />The AN/UYQ-70(V) supposedly consumes roughly 18' x 12' x 9' of space (not counting movement space), the cluster is capable of being rearranged in any way necessary to fit into confined spaces. Since I did not have accurate measurements (or even a good image) of the equipment, I crammed a number of COTS super-units into a space until I reached an equivalency in capabilities and then worked from there.<br />With all of this I don't see how these systems cannot fit in a boat of that size if it was specifically designed to accommodate them. Remember, this boat was designed for just one mission, everything else that it hypothetically could do is an afterthought.<br />The sail is over 20' in height on top of the 7' of freeboard when surfaced and much of the interior has been rearranged in-order to accommodate the systems and many functions automatized in order to even further reduce an already small crew requirement (everybody does maintenance) merely to make up for lost work space in the interior. Of course, this incurs the LCS' problem of under-manning, but it's a submarine, they're always undermanned.<br />Indeed, a cursory sketch just now also claims that everything would fit in there.<br />The Mk41 VLS units are actually useable so long as you never directly expose them to the water pressures. My design called for having them under watertight missile-bay doors with about a foot of clearance between the doors and the unit as a cushion. That set up was cheaper than I thought it would be, not even $1 mil (covered under misc).<br />(...That reminds me, I forgot the Motor. Oh well, I could cover that by moving around the fluff, it'd only be about $500,000)<br />But yes, optimally I'd call for a new VLS type specifically for this purpose. Considering that it'd mainly be a Mk41 given a water tight pressure door of its own, it shouldn't be very expensive.<br /><br />The boat I described, while similar in length, width, and overall performance to the GUPPYs, should not be mistaken for a GUPPY. I never said what her draft would be, she'd have more height than beam - even discounting the sail.<br />That's why the design schemes are so much more valuable than mere specifications, because those are confusing and misleading.<br />Aside, outside the example specs I gave earlier, my design actually calls for a boat of 450' in length and 35' in beam, so in a sense I sort of agree with you overall on the space limitations.<br />450' length and 21,456hp at the pump would provide sustainable speeds of 33kts, the speed I listed as my Top Speed in the first post, although that scheme will probably cost closer to $200 mil.<br /><br />Interesting concept, that SSGT, and indeed that's one way to do it. But it wouldn't work for the AA role.<br /><br />- Ray D.Ray D.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-31522731386256765452015-03-01T14:51:17.314-08:002015-03-01T14:51:17.314-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.B.Smittyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12650152449414871058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-39584633504578970092015-03-01T13:11:29.286-08:002015-03-01T13:11:29.286-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.B.Smittyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12650152449414871058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-81407023090925213472015-03-01T11:51:13.707-08:002015-03-01T11:51:13.707-08:00Post 4 (final).
CNO, second response:
As for you...Post 4 (final).<br /><br />CNO, second response:<br /><br />As for your first paragraph, I assume you're talking about it as how B.Smitty described it, using their missile? I won't commit the text in case you are (because I agree with you).<br /><br />As for Gatos and survivability. Have you ever seen Kelsey Grammer's movie 'Down Periscope'? Almost everything tactically important in that movie actually happened at some point or another, including a wargame which pitted a lone diesel (a Balao) against the entire US Navy Atlantic fleet.<br />The Balao won.<br />Of course, this happened back in the days where the Sturgeon was the submarine king (unlike what the movie portrayed), but that's still not that long ago relatively speaking.<br />Also, putting an exposed gun or external fittings on a submarine in today's environment is tantamount to suicide. Any flight furniture (fueling and rearming equipment, etc) on a SV would be mounted inside (hot refueling would be impossible) and that helicopter catching thing (I've never been able to memorize its name) would be covered over when not in use. Of course, that's for a SV.<br /><br />All other points in this post I'm in agreement with.<br /><br />B.Smitty, second response:<br /><br />As for space for hanger/flight deck vs VLS. Keep in mind that a VLS System must penetrate the deck by 25 feet minimum, which is cutting out a lot of space in an already cramped boat whereas a hanger/flight deck would go on top and not mess with anything underneath it.<br /><br />As for GUPPY Balao. Why not a post-GUPPY long-hull Tang-class, the last diesel that we used and the resulting design of the GUPPY experiments? Or for that matter, a diesel version of the Triton.<br /><br />As for hull-form and shape. As I wrote above, this is all only as far as I can tell, but the hull-form of a submarine contributes little to the inherent stealthiness of the design beyond setting the necessities of your counter-acoustical requirements. As long as you knew what you were doing, making a surface-runner like a Gato (GUPPY II style) just as quiet as a deep-diver wouldn't be any more complicated than vice-versa. It's just that our own acoustic dampening techniques were already better suited to the deep-diving design that we now use, so we immediately experienced a benefit.<br />That being said, we actually did develop quite a few systems specifically for surface runners, such as the before mentioned Prairie-Masker system. In fact, we had Sturgeon nukes refuse to operate with GUPPY III Tench boats when they were running the system because they could never tell where they were.<br />...I had wrote an entire blurb about the Prairie-Masker system, but I'll cut it short here instead.<br />Suffice to say that it causes the ship and everything in the general area to sound like light rain or gently rolling waves. Most sonar systems are programmed to automatically filter that sort of noise out and it takes a trained sonar man to pick out the location of the target even if they shut off that filter. This is even more effective against torpedoes outside of wire range because if one is programed to hunt that noise they'll automatically get confused and target the surface of the sea.<br /><br />Overall, the best hullform compromise is that of the Virginia-class. While better underwater, they're still capable of pushing themselves along at 25kts while surfaced. However, underwater performance is going to get hit severely anyway by the fact that no diesel can move at flanking speed while submerged, their batteries just can't keep up; so I don't see the point in focusing on underwater performance when they'll just be spotted on the surface where they have to run.<br />As for your speed requirement. That's actually easy enough, you just need the horsepower and fuel to feed the engines (because you'd have to be running on your engines to achieve it).<br /><br />…looking over all of this, the number of my posts in a row is getting ridiculous.<br />I may hate character-limits, but I admit that they're there for a reason.<br />Once again, I apologize for the length!<br />- Ray D.Ray D.noreply@blogger.com