Astute vs Virginia

[LoBlo]

Which is the better sub and why?

Discuss. :)

[goldorak]

What are the known specs for the virginia and astute classes ?
No vote without clear facts. ;)

[XabbaRus]

Although I voted astute I would have to say at the moment Virginia class.

Why? Well 2 or 3 of them exists. Astute hasn't even been finished yet.

[MSgalileo]

No not an another comaprison, base on what?
A computer will answer : 'ERROR : Not enough data to proceed, BIP, BIP.'

[LoBlo]

What are the known specs for the Virginia and Astute classes?

Aww.. thats lazy :):p

Oh well, here's *one* source of info (even though there are no real "facts" in sub specs.)

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/ssn-774-specs.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/astute.htm

In a nutshell....
The cost of the two subs is about equal. Both subs were designed to be low-cost but each had significant cost overruns.
The VA is estimated at 7800 tons crew of 113, the Astute at 6800 tons crew of 100-108.
VA is built by Electric Boat company, Newport News, Lockheed, and Raytheon. Astute is built by BAE, but halfway through the design phase, BAE needed to bring in Electric Boat Company to solve some of its problems. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2930237.stm
Both subs probably have comparable sensors, and diving depths.
The VA has 4 horizontal tubes and 12 VLS tubes; total weapons capacity 38. The Astute carries 6 horizontal tubes with no VLS system; total weapons capcity 36 weapons
The Astute speed is estimated at 32 knots. The VA speed is unknown. Its thought to be somewhere between the LA and the SW.

That's about all I can find atm. I voted for the VA. They cost the same, but Electric Boat Company seems to know what its doing more than BAE. I have some theories about they're quieting levels as well.

[LoBlo]

No not an another comaprison, base on what?
A computer will answer : 'ERROR : Not enough data to proceed, BIP, BIP.'

Based off what we do know of course.:roll: And any other reasoning that the chooser expresses in their post for an interesting and enlightening discussion :)

[goldorak]

Nothing interesting out there :ping:, the same boats, same weapons, same hull design, same everything *yawn*.
I want something new in submarine design/ weapons.
Why is it that american and english subs only carry "torpedos". ? :rotfl:
What about more "exotic"weapons : skvals, anti-ship missiles, subroc etc....

Enough rant, I vote for the Astute class, only because its a european sub everything else being equal. :)

[LoBlo]

Although I voted astute I would have to say at the moment Virginia class.

Why? Well 2 or 3 of them exists. Astute hasn't even been finished yet.

You have to explain why you would choose Astute :) That the fun of the discussion. :)

[Linton]

Despite not wanting to upset the British community on here ,anything that BAE is involved in and is already late and over budget is going to be inferior.In the modern world the RN should be buying a fleet of aip SSKs

[goldorak]

Despite not wanting to upset the British community on here ,anything that BAE is involved in and is already late and over budget is going to be inferior.In the modern world the RN should be buying a fleet of aip SSKs

As far as I understand its not only the americans that are "fixed" on nuclear submarines.
English and French have decided for an all out nuclear submarine force.
How dumb is that ?
Especially for the 2 european countries ?
Did Rickover have relatives in France and England btw. ? :rotfl::rotfl:

[Linton]

Rickover came from an eastern european jewish family.I think that despite being a very good engineer his dogmatic approach that every ssn officer should be an engineer first and also personally selected by him took some of the fghting spirit away from the US submarine force in the early nuclear years

[LoBlo]

But really, what can anyone do with a SSK, besides park it off your own coast and let it sit? How useful is that? *shrug*

What's the UK going to do. Send an SSK into the Mediterranean, across the Suez, around Saudi Arabia, and into the Persian Gulf at a whopping 8 knots SOA? At that speed it should get there by .... oh lets say Christmas (j/k)

[goldorak]

Most countries don't need to project their forces all over the world.
Well if history is a thing to reckon then having open sea lanes is fundamental.
What happens when a country such as china/iran/india etc... uses its fleet of SSK for interdiction of trade routes ?
What good are 688I, or the entire american surface fleet in the strait of ormuz ?
Some ssk in that zone could prove deadly adversaries against the us navy.
The US has virtually 0 experience in ssk design and how to counter them (and things have changed a LOT since the 1950's).
The end of the cold war, has shifted the center of naval warfare from blue water operations to coastal/littoral operations.
As an aside Russia is developping a wireguided supercavitating torpedo as well as Germany.
This could change radically the nature of underwater combat.
The US are still focused on normal torpedo technology.
Nuclear hunter killer submarines (except boomers) , are like the F-14.
They were born in a era where cost was irrelevant with respect to the mission they had to accomplish.
Same thing with the F-14, it was the best of the best bar none.
End of cold war, desmise of the F-14.
The US navy should not desmise its nuclear submarine force, but on the other hand should develop ssk submarines for the new type of post cold war warfare.

And when you ask what good is an ssk ?
Look at the damage SSKs did to the English fleet during the Falkland's war. :arrgh!:

[Driftwood]

I believe that the USN has absolutely recognized the threat posed by the new breed of SSK's and are taking steps to counter that threat. It's also recognized that the focus is shifting toward brown water operations and the VA class has many new features that enhance it's abilities in these areas. And please don't kid yourselves folks when it comes to Nukes vs. SSKs. The simple fact is that the US, USSR, UK and France take the nuke route because they can. The modern SSK is a result of governments that can't afford nukes but wanted a modern submarine force that can hold it's own in coastal opns.

[Kapitan]

Astutes have 6 torpedo tubes i believe the VA's have only for so the british subs have 20% more firing capibility than the americans right away, both are similar, but its not who is better or who has the best sub, its who has the best trained crew, and at this moment on even the united states navy flatly bows down to the british on that score period end of.

The USN regularly sends thier naval officers to train with us and do our "perisher" as do the indians and even had some germans too.

[LoBlo]

Most countries don't need to project their forces all over the world. Well if history is a tihng to reckon then having open sea lanes is fundamental. What happens when a country such as china/iran/india etc... uses its fleet of SSK for interdiction of trade routes?

Exactly. :yep: A sub can't protect a sea lane if it can barely reach it. What *does* happen when Iran/China/India uses its fleet to cut off trade routes? In such a likely scenarios what good is a sub to the US/UK that can only sit off the US/UK coastline?.... a waste of money and manpower. So the US/France/UK have decided that subs with such limitations would really only be good for coastal defense, and in the likely scenarios that the US/UK/France will face, those subs add nothing to their capabilities, with SSNs the more economical investments and more effecient spending.

The VA is absolutely deadly in waters like the Straights of Hormuz and exactly the type of environment that it was designed to operate in. Brown water training and anti-SSK warfare training is in full effect in the USN. Most countries *can't* project forces all over the world... because they can't afford SSNs :yep: :p , or just don't have interest.

And for those that seem so interested in US bugdet costs, they need to realize that buying a 2billion dollar submarine represents only 0.1% (one tenth of a percent) of the total US yearly budget or 1% of the total US defense budget.

As an aside Russia is developping a wireguided supercavitating torpedo as well as Germany. This could change radically the nature of underwater combat. The US are still focused on normal torpedo technology.

Nope. Just more classified regarding the manner. http://stinet.dtic.mil/oai/oai?&verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADP014188
And on a side note. The USN is now testing designs for its new anti-torpedo torpedos.

[Sea Demon]

Exactly. :yep: A sub can't protect a sea lane if it can barely reach it. What *does* happen when Iran/China/India uses its fleet to cut off trade routes?

Let me just say that the use of diesels for long-term objectives may prove fruitless to those that own them. Ultimately they quickly need support, fuel, and food replenishment. Much, much faster than the nukes. Most of these diesel types within 30-40 days. The answer is to destroy their ability to replenish their diesel sub force at sea or in port. Destroy their ports, support ships (if any), and fuel supplies. That's pretty easy to do with stand off capabilities currently. Watch em' like hawks. Any attempt to rebuild this infrastructure or find alternatives should be eliminated. Also, any diesel trying to return should be eliminated. Basically, any nation with diesel subs can find their fleet obsolete within 30-40 days if the right steps are taken against them. While I think diesels are deadly, I believe their shelf life will be short in any major war against any major player.

P.S. Oh yeah. And I did vote for Virginia SSN simply because from the current data, it has more capabilities. Just like Astute, it has an impressive capability for ASW, and ASuW. Also like Astute, it seems to have impressive weapons and sensors. The Virginia however, has VLS giving it a significant long range Strike role. And it also seems suited for littoral operations. So it seems to give just a bit more.

[Phullbrick]

Regarding France choice to own a nuclear submarines fleet, I don't think the objective is to project our force anywhere - let's be honest which EU country can really do it with their defense budget ? Anyway it's not even our will.

No, France needs nuclear attack submarines to protect our commercial routes and SSBN submarines which carry our nuclear arsenal, because our defense doctrine is still based on nuclear deterrence. If an hostile country wants to invade or strike France, they know France 'will' use nuclear missiles as a counter-attack or a preventive measure.

Also, remember that we had nuclear missiles bases located in France during the Cold War which are no longer existing. So as the threat has moved away, our defence doctrine had to adapt and can only be assumed by a mobile and stealth submarine nuclear force. :lurk:

It's the sword of Damocles over any hostile nation and ofc I really hope we will never use this nuclear force. :dead:

About the Astute/Virginia comparison, I have no opinion as 99% of the facts are kept secret ;) But well I bet on the UK as they 'are' in Europe ;) and I'm a UE supporter :)

And please don't kid yourselves folks when it comes to Nukes vs. SSKs. The simple fact is that the US, USSR, UK and France take the nuke route because they can. The modern SSK is a result of governments that can't afford nukes but wanted a modern submarine force that can hold it's own in coastal opns.
That's totally true imo

[goldorak]

Regarding France choice to own a nuclear submarines fleet, I don't think the objective is to project our force anywhere - let's be honest which EU country can really do it with their defense budget ? Anyway it's not even our will.

When i was talking about projecting force i obviously meant primarily aircarft carriers :) .
Don't tell me the CDG with its complement of rafales is for coastal defense :doh: :rotfl:
A 100% nuclear submarine fleet in my opinion is still a sign of national prestige (as it was in the 1960's to have kicked Nato out of France, or have begun a armed nuclear force indpendent from the American and British programs etc...)
And the French (with the British) want to retain a "global" projection force within their resources.
Call it a heritage of their colonial past.

[Phullbrick]

I strongly agree with you

ofc it is also a way of running after a prestige lost with the falls of the colonial empires for EU countries

but speaking for the France nuke sub forces it is still mainly based on a defence doctrine imo

but I can only smile about our capacity of projection... let's face it and be honest, owning a single aircraft carrier like the CDG doesn't give you the power to project yourself as we used to do in a 'glorious' past. We simply can't do it today, we don't have the forces, we don't have the budget, we don't have to political will to do it. Times changed.

Ok I know France has forces in several places in the world to help people sometimes to fight (Africa, Iraq, Afghanistan), but without the help of other countries nothing can be achieved. Imo only the US still have the forces to project a full army, but even them call for support from allies.

For me our forces are more some sort of 'police' forces acting under UN resolutions. As you said, empires are lost in the past and there's no need anymore for us (the EU) to be able to project what we used to project before. And if we really need to project forces, it's always as a joint force with EU countries and in that case it begins to mean something from a 'military power perspective'.

But today with the political issues we can see and above all some ressources shortage do not plead for a reduction of the military forces, on the contrary it gives reasons to rise them :(

[Sub Sailor]

I am not sure what Admiral Rickover's being Jewish has to do with anything. Yes he was dogmatic, opinionated, and an all around Pain in the A... But he made Nuclear Power what it is today, as far as the US Navy is concerned.
I would suggest that anyone who believes US Sub Commanders are not aggressive should read Blind Man's Bluff, Whitey Mack and the USS Lampon is not the actions of a unaggressive skipper. Nor is the greatest intelligence coup of all time "Ivy Bells". At one time most of the pictures of Russian (Soviet Union) appearing in Jane's were compliments of the US Navy Submarine Force.
I met the Admiral on many occasions and I was interviewed by him for NR-1, thank god I was not accepted. I never liked him, most of us didn't, but we all respected and admired him.
Look at the US Navy's saftey record, and we can thank the Admiral for that. I will match our CO's againist any in the world. Attending the Perisaher course, of course they do, it is one if not the finest course in the world. I am happy the British Navy lets us.
You got a tough dangerous job, the United States Navy Submarine Force will do it.
Rickover was demanding and an all around jerk but he set a bar we all workd to reach, bitching as we went, but we did it and we are better men to day because of it. He worked as hard as we did for perfection, and it paid off.

Pride Runs Deep


Ron Banks MMCM(SS), USN(Ret)
one of Rickover's boys 1962-1981, yes I know he was dead by 81 but is influence was and still is felt and respected.

[Kapitan]

Rickover was not to messed with period.

As for the USN saftey record nuclear saftey its not the best the RN and frnech navies hold that infact in terms of length of nuclear subs in service britian clearly wins, the title for being the safest nuclear navy 0 losses.

Russia is not the worst either ! china is since the 1960's there has been some 20+ submarines go missing from chinas navy, dissapeard without a trace.

You may have a superior boat but a well trained crew and skipper in an inferior boat can cause nightmares.

[Sub Sailor]

When I said safe I meant Reactor plant, the Thresher was a hull in the Aux Machinery Space, and Scorpion was due to a Battery explosion, although there are some who theorizes it could have been a faulty torpedo. I always leaned to ward the Battery myself.

[Orm]

[quote=LoBlo
but Electric Boat Company seems to know what its doing more than BAE.[/quote]

What a strange statement. Then you think that a company that get a national contract of billions of pound does know much of what it is doing. :rotfl: :rotfl:
Before you affirm such a thing, please show the hard facts that BAE is not competent in its job, or admit that it was a pure nationally biased statement, which is, in my point of view, meaningless.

[Sub Sailor]

I meant hull fitting and I am not blaming anyone or accusing anyone. It was a very sad accident and comes with the job. The hull fitting failing is common knowledge, and happens this happed at or near test depth.
Now for facts, I was involved in some of the testing after Thresher, to see what things we could change in our power plant operations to aid in this not ever happening again. It turns out we had overkill on the safe side and was far to restrictive, that was changed, and no I will not and cannot discuss it. Also from the Thresher sinking came sub safe, another area that had not kept up with the new capabilities of our subs. I have no idea what other Navies have in this area.
In regards to the Scorpion-everything from underwater sea mount, some one torpedoed her, lost depth control, to a battery explosion were out there on the rumor mill. The United States Navy made changes to how we handled the battery, I never saw the films of Scorpion and know we changed our operation of the ships battery, so apparently that what the experts determined caused the loss of the ship. In the case of Thresher I was allowed as others on the testing program to hear the tapes made by the vessel that accompanied Threser to sea, normal coming out of the shipyard.
Orm I was on Nuclear Subs from the early day (1962), and I have a lot of knowledge about US Subs. I know first hand our requirements and I know the training our people get, I did not any way question any other country's program.
I believe strongly in our programs, I trusted every crew I ever sailed with, and I will say now and always I never served with a CO who was not tops. I stated Rickover was difficult, he was driven, and his efforts and determination let the US send the first Nuclear Ship to sea. I truly do not believe anyone else could have done what he accomplished. But, he was about to be riffed when he took this program over and became the darling of the Congress of the United States. I also said I did not care for him, and was glad I was not accepted for NR-1, because that was his baby, but I did admire and respect the man.
Meeting Rickover's standard made me a better and smarter person than I thought I could ever be. It changed my life greatly and allowed me to become successful because of the work ethic drilled into me, and I am not alone there are 1000s of us around today.
I told you my qualifications to speak up, do you want to share yours?


Ronald E. Banks MMCM(SS), USN(Ret)

[Sub Sailor]

Orm;
Your post was not directed to me so I put my foot in my mouth and my head in my Ass.
Please accept my profound apology and forgive me for sounding off as I did. I guess this old man needs to read things more closely, and to be less sensitive.

Truly sorry,

Ron Banks MMCM(SS), USN(Ret)

[Orm]

Orm;
Your post was not directed to me so I put my foot in my mouth and my head in my Ass.
Please accept my profound apology and forgive me for sounding off as I did. I guess this old man needs to read things more closely, and to be less sensitive.

Truly sorry,

Ron Banks MMCM(SS), USN(Ret)

No apology need Sir. I got from you an answer of quality, and I respect and recognize your knowledge in this area that way much more than mine. :up: I must admit that my only experience in the Navy is serving for one year the French Navy as a naval infantry.

I am only very careful with statements that show only the national pride of the individual. I think that in a forum with a mix of nationality, we should stay only by the facts and appreciate also that others can do better that ours.

Greetings

[Sub Sailor]

Thank you Orm;
Naval Infantry, is that the same type of force as our Marines? I was unaware the French Navy had that type of unit. Does the French Navy have units such as our SEALS?
I did correspond with a gentleman from France who was in the French Air Force, he really wanted to be in Subs. I lost touch with him.
Again thank you for your graciousness and I certainly learned a lesson, to read more carefully before I open my Battleship mouth thus overloading my rowboat butt. (American Navy humor for talking without the facts)

Thank you,

Ron Banks MMCM(SS), USN(Ret)
(sometimes known as cannon mouth):oops: :up:

[Orm]

Naval infantry in the French Navy is the step before the naval commando units like Seals. Naval infantry in French is "fusilier-marin". The naval infantry history go way back to the French Royal Navy as they were the onboard assault troops. Nowadays, there main duty are naval bases protection and police duty onboard warships. But, like I said previously, most of the youngs going there, target the commando units, which is not very easy.

[LoBlo]

What a strange statement. Then you think that a company that get a national contract of billions of pound does know much of what it is doing. :rotfl: :rotfl:
Before you affirm such a thing, please show the hard facts that BAE is not competent in its job, or admit that it was a pure nationally biased statement, which is, in my point of view, meaningless.

*sigh* Looks like someone can't read....:nope: .

VA is built by Electric Boat company, Newport News, Lockheed, and Raytheon. Astute is built by BAE, but halfway through the design phase, BAE needed to bring in Electric Boat Company to solve some of its problems. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2930237.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2930237.stm)

Read the *already* posted BBC article.

I'll summarize for you. Over 3 years behind schedule... over 1 billion dollars over budget... and still could not solve its design problems.... Needed to bring in Electric Boat personel and expertise to help solve its problems.

Reading... its a good skill to have.

[Kapitan]

I kawnt wead gowd

[Orm]

[quote=LoBlo
Reading... its a good skill to have.[/quote]

Just keep your sarcastic comments out of this thread, otherwise I am going to ask that your post should be deleted.

[Linton]

Orm,as a British taxpayer I have to fund the dross that Bae produces.Where would you like me to begin?SA 80 rifle,AEW Nimrod ......the list goes on!If you can get hold of it read a book called Lions Donkeysamd Dinosaurs.It has some very interesting chapters about the UK defence industry.For example the decision to build Apaches by Westland.The price ended up almost twice what the IDF paid for theirs!!

[LoBlo]

Just keep your sarcastic comments out of this thread, otherwise I am going to ask that your post should be deleted.

Just keep *your* sarcastic comments out of this thread, otherwise I am going to ask that your post be ridiculed. :lol:

[Kapitan]

I bet you guys £50 a november class submarine could sink a virginia.

Il tell you how in a few hours.

[Sea Demon]

I bet you guys £50 a november class submarine could sink a virginia.

Il tell you how in a few hours.

From what I understand, any submarine is capable of sinking any other submarine. I'll still bet that the Virginia would come out on top most of the time.

I'll bet an old 1970's Permit Class could sink any Akula (Gepard) for the same reasons. ;)

[Kapitan]

Yeah ok you got me, i was thinking about the november being just out side the port and catching the VA on its way out.

[Beastttt]

about the only thing I can see Va, having is a larger missle alpha strike over the brit

16 tomahawks to a max 6 from the brit

[Whistler]

What a strange statement. Then you think that a company that get a national contract of billions of pound does know much of what it is doing. :rotfl: :rotfl:


http://infantry.kylt.ru/teror/imgter/l85.jpg

[Whistler]

about the only thing I can see Va, having is a larger missle alpha strike over the brit

16 tomahawks to a max 6 from the brit

Exactly... the Astute may have more forward aimed tubes, but whens the last time a sub sank another sub or even a ship with torpedos? Falklands?

Ever since the Gulf War Tomahawks have been where its at... this isn't the cold war anymore.

[Driftwood]

It may not be the Cold War anymore........BUT.......the best anti-submarine weapons platform is STILL another submarine!:rock: Even a retired old green suiter knows that!

[rman214]

I think the Virginia class is best because it is the sum of all the knowledge gained by the US Navy since the 1950's. The Brits being our closest ally can benifit from an exchange of information and training from us. We should be developing a new fleet of high-tech SSK subs for specific operations that run on fuel cells and designed to operate quietly in shallow waters and have better survivabilty than LA class subs....they (LA's) only have 2 watertight compartments so a torpedo tube leak could sink the whole ship:nope:

[XabbaRus]

:rotfl:
Benefit in technology transfer and training from the UK. The tech transfer I give you but training. Hmmm not just being patriotic but why do many of the world's navies send thier submarine officers to the RN perisher course, and that includes the US sending a couple. Maybe because it is one of the toughest in the world.

As for the tech, I am extremely confident that the Astute will be a technological equal to the Virginia class.

Don't forget that in the cold war, it was the Special fit S Boats and T boats that were preferred up in the Barents, more suited to the SIGINT mission than the 688s. Also being a bit smaller I reckon they were more useful closer to shore.

[Kapitan]

I agree with xabbarus i have a friend going through subschool he is bunked up with some americans not to mention indians and also germans.

We have the most notorius and most difficault officer training submainre in the world, its a well known fact that only 10% pass the course the other 90% fail.

Whats more BAe yes thats right a BRITISH company supplys most of the parts to build the computer systems on the virginia, BAe also made parts for the French Exocet BAe basildon makes parts for about 93 diffrent missiles submarines and computer systems.

British submarines are smaller yes but the americans find them better suited and often place them in the barents sea, the americans will hang around northcape norway the british right off thier harbours.

Its also known that british submarines have penetrated into murmansk submerged and i can tell you for a good fact an american 688 or SSN21 could not do that because of its sheer size.

[Bubblehead Nuke]

they (LA's) only have 2 watertight compartments so a torpedo tube leak could sink the whole ship:nope:

This is actually a design consideration and our operation procedures and systems took this into account. It is not as much a danger as is sounds. In any situation regarding flooding that would cause loss of ship would probably take down any other sub in existance at this time.

[Henson]

The brtitish tactical training is far and away the best in the world today. American officers are (unfortunatately and to our detriment) nucs first, ship-drivers second. People in authority are just now starting to realize this and try to change it, but it has been ingrained in our culture for a long time now.

As for the flooding thing, any hole in the boat that can cause flooding (flooding is defined as an inrush of water that our pumps cannot keep up with at test depth) can be shut by 3000 lb hydraulics within a second or two, including all four torpedo tubes. Trust me, a simple leak is NOT going to sink us. I know, I've seen one.

[diver]

:rotfl:
Benefit in technology transfer and training from the UK. The tech transfer I give you but training. Hmmm not just being patriotic but why do many of the world's navies send thier submarine officers to the RN perisher course, and that includes the US sending a couple. Maybe because it is one of the toughest in the world.


Absolutely.

The RAN and the USN hold joint PCO's in Hawaii. For the yanks its the be all and end all, the qualification needed for command.

For the Aussies it's just one warm-up whilst preparing for Perisher.

[Bubblehead Nuke]

Trust me, a simple leak is NOT going to sink us. I know, I've seen one.

We had the shaft seals let go at about 60% of test depth. It went from seepage to weepage to scary in about 30 minutes. I was ERLL watch and watched the whole thing unfold while the Eng said it was going to be fine. It is amazing how much water can get into the people tank in a few seconds.

I am glad I went though the flood trainers at one point early in my seaduty days or I would have been scared stiff. Lord it was loud, and water spraying everywhere.

As you said, they did not classify it as flooding since we were able to keep up with the intake. Granted, took BOTH pumps going BTTW to do it until we got shallow. It made for an interesting transit back home. Everyone had to come aft and look at the octopus we rigged to get the water draining into evey available funnel to so we could pump it over the side.

[Henson]

the Eng said it was going to be fine.
Uhuh sir...yeah, suuuure. yup, yup. :yep: :yep: :huh: :o

:hmm:

Great story. It's a tribute to you guys that no one called it away as flooding and caused a quick trip to the surface a'la Greenville.

[Sub Sailor]

I have been following this post and I have come to one conclusion all those years (1962-1982) I rode nuke boats and our officers were competent, we must have been very lucky. Several of my former Skippers and Engineers became Admirals, well go figure.
I am wondering why they changed the design of the Shaft, we had the regular shaft seal, and the old style packing gland for emergency. Strange they removed that, it worked very well, I had to use it four times. But in the old days we took any leakage seriously, and my Engineer or MPA would have recommended a depth change right now, and the Conn would have done it.
I read this post and guess we were just lucky, the officers and crews all seem to know their jobs and we really got along well. Boy I really thought Ivy Bells, Sea of Okhotsk, Petropovlsok, Vladivostok, Barents Sea and trailing those Russian Subs for weeks took pretty sharp skippers, just didn't know any better.
Well like I said we were just lucky back then, I probably would not be happy in this new Navy.

Dumbfounded in retirement,


Ronald E. Banks MMCM(SS), USN(Ret)
Old but proud Nuke and Submariner.

[Bubblehead Nuke]

The shaft sealing system has mulitple redundencies built in. The last being an inflatable boot. Can't turn the shaft but you WILL stop the leakage.

There is manually pumped hydraulic packing on the shaft as well. When your primary and secondary mechanical seals are blown you DANG sure do not want to tighten the emengency packing too tight and smoke it. So we let it leak a bit. Sure, at times it might have been a little excessive but it was better too have much lubrication than not enough. The bad part was you were always adjusting the dang thing when you changed depth. Once we had it under manual control we had to pump out the after drain tanks every turn of the watch.

As for not calling away flooding. If I had been there, alone, I would have dang sure called it, BUT, the Eng was the senior man on scene and he said not to. He DID recommend changing depth but we were... operationally constrained.. at the time. We gambled on the pumps keeping up and it all worked out in the end.

Like any boat, we had good officers and bad. My first Eng?? GREAT guy. He knew when to listen. Second Eng?? Well, if you did not eat in the wardroom he did not listen to you. We had a LOT of friction till he figured out that we MIGHT know what we were talking about. This incident was the turning point I think.

[Sub Sailor]

Thanks Bubblehead Nuke;
That is how I remember the shaft seal installation, I don't ever recall using the inflatable boot, I "seem" to recall testing it coming out of the ship yard. Pumping out the tank once a watch seems about right. For anyone not familiar with the packing gland seal, Bubblehead is quite correct, you tighten that rascal to much and it smoked it, as I recall one flat at a time was the rule.
It sounds like there was a major shift in the attitude of officers since I left the Navy, that is really to bad. Sub Crews were always really tight, some would say to tight, but I never had a problem with it. Well that is not true, when I was Chief Recruiter for NRD Francisco I encountered some "difficulty" with shore duty Officers. Guilty of to much familiarity with Superior officer is ho I believed it read, my CO said yeah he is always like that and round filed it.

Ron Banks MMCM(SS), USN(REt)

[Pingjockey]

I am sort of biased about this but I think the Virginia class will head the way for submarine designs and performance to come. One thing to bear in mind though is that the boat is designed to be upgraded as needed. New sonar systems, fire control systems and other tactical systems can be installed with ease due to the modular nature of the boat. I speak well on this topic since I just commissioned the USS Texas and have been there for roughly 4 yrs and 90% of the construction process...


Pingjockey

[Henson]

You should see the type of 'modularity' NUWC is considering for the next class...

[micky1up]

dont worry about technical differences the fact is that the Royal navy submariners are better than any other nations submariners ergo astute will be handled better than anyother boat its like what schwartkoff said about the first gulf war even if the iraqis and the coalition had swapped equipment the coalition would have stil won its not bragging or arrogance its a fact

[LoBlo]

You should see the type of 'modularity' NUWC is considering for the next class...

Do tell :)

[micky1up]

im currently staffing the perisher course now we are in the third week of tactical simulator phase

im the opso for the course basically the tactical picture supervisor

[Bubblehead Nuke]

You talked about RN submariners. When my boat pulled in over in that part of the world I got a tour of one of the british nuke boats. I do not recall the class but the differences in ship design were striking. While you recognize the general layout the RN boat was obviously more combat oriented. One thing I noticed hast was that they had a LOT less creature comforts. The ones they DID have seems better than ours but overall, it was more spartan and much more well, businesslike. But then again, they typically would have much less distance to go to get into the thick of things. Do brit boats do 90+ day deployments? I presume so but I never asked.

One thing that I have ALWAYS remembered was when I was in the torpedo room and one of my shipmates (a torpedoman) was talking shop with one of his RN counterparts. They were talking about putting a topedo in the water and my guy asked about the torpedo door interlocks (USN boats have a device that prevent you from opening the OUTER door unless the INNER door is closed). His comment was that if you were STUPID enough to open both the bloody doors at the same time you deserved what you got. That they did not uses the things. Bravado on the brits part? I dunno, but he shook our guy up a lot.

That and a few discussions with other crewmen did tell me a lot of their training. They do not let ANYONE stand a watchstation unless they KNOW what they are doing. They do not tolerate adequate performance. You were a top performer or you were on a surface ship.

[Pingjockey]

Although I will say that the brits do seem to know what there doing. I feel that as a US sonar tech and qualfied sonar supervisor I we are still better tactically. And from a tech standpoint the virgina is still a better boat.

And of course if anyone would ever like to try there "tactics" in a game of DW with me sometime I would not have any issue in showing them a thing or to.. :)

V/R
STS1

Pingjockey

[SeaQueen]

And of course if anyone would ever like to try there "tactics" in a game of DW with me sometime I would not have any issue in showing them a thing or two.. :)


:arrgh!:

I'm up for it. You'd have to host, though. My router won't let me. I'm sure I'd learn a lot. I'll create the scenario if you'll play it with me. Deal?

[Bellman]

Pingjockey: '' I speak well on this topic'' .... Really !

1) '' Although I will say that the brits do seem to know what there doing. '' .....:huh: Big of you !

2) ''As a US sonar tech and qualfied sonar supervisor '' .....If you say so ;)

3) ''And from a tech standpoint the virgina is still a better boat. '' ....Where is your reasoned argument ?

4) ''.......showing them a thing or to .. :) '' .... So you have issued a challenge and SeaQueen has accepted it ................
but you have not publicly responded ............................yet ?

09-14. Edited by Bellman - My other criticisms were not relevant and have been deleted (see below ):yep::lol:
Pingjockey deserved better - I have PMd my appology.

[Bellman]

The poll has no validity - the people motivated to respond can be expected to place votes on a nationalistic basis ! Bulls**t beats brains ? :arrgh!:

[SeaQueen]

Bulls**t beats brains ? :arrgh!:

You'd be amazed at how frequently that occurs.

[DAB]

I'm suprised that no one has raised the issue of differences in combat doctrine between the two navy's. Its been touched on, but not explicitly mentioned.

The question that has to be asked is whether if the submarine was transfered to the other navy, it would be capable of performing equally well or better then that navys own sub.

Without a point of reference, you can't answer the question.

[Dr.Sid]

Where can I get some info about this new British sub ? Virginia is more versatile, cheaper Seawolf, first with non-penetrating scope (photomast), right ?

[Henson]

No, Virginia is not at all like Seawolf, which is actually becoming an older platform (it's been well over a decade guys). I've worked with both, and Virginia is like.... Virginia.

[micky1up]

You talked about RN submariners. When my boat pulled in over in that part of the world I got a tour of one of the british nuke boats. I do not recall the class but the differences in ship design were striking. While you recognize the general layout the RN boat was obviously more combat oriented. One thing I noticed hast was that they had a LOT less creature comforts. The ones they DID have seems better than ours but overall, it was more spartan and much more well, businesslike. But then again, they typically would have much less distance to go to get into the thick of things. Do brit boats do 90+ day deployments? I presume so but I never asked.

One thing that I have ALWAYS remembered was when I was in the torpedo room and one of my shipmates (a torpedoman) was talking shop with one of his RN counterparts. They were talking about putting a topedo in the water and my guy asked about the torpedo door interlocks (USN boats have a device that prevent you from opening the OUTER door unless the INNER door is closed). His comment was that if you were STUPID enough to open both the bloody doors at the same time you deserved what you got. That they did not uses the things. Bravado on the brits part? I dunno, but he shook our guy up a lot.

That and a few discussions with other crewmen did tell me a lot of their training. They do not let ANYONE stand a watchstation unless they KNOW what they are doing. They do not tolerate adequate performance. You were a top performer or you were on a surface ship.





we typically do more than 90 patrols and in most case deploy for 10-11 months away from base ports, the technology that stops outer and innner doors opening at the same time was brought in by the royal navy so yes we do have the equipment ,subs are not about comfort there about adequet living condidtions for the purpose , and having been on US subs and Royal navy subs we have far more safety equipment than any other boats and we put this safety above everything else thats why we have never lost a nuc boat the perisher course provides us with the best trained dedicated command officers and the quality of the senior and junior ratings is outstanding i have served for 19 years on valiant spartan superb splendid sceptre and resolution and i have never met a bunch of fantastic down to earth guys to work with and yes we do get out of hand on a run ashore but ut our moto is work hard play harder

[Ramius]

......and yes we do get out of hand on a run ashore but ut our moto is work hard play harder

I've no idea what your on about there Micky :D

Might have to test it out in the Imps, Royal etc in a month or so :yep:

[Pingjockey]

Only back in the poles for a few days and of course I have pissed people off already.

1) Regardless of if you beleave that I am in the US Navy is not my concern. Neal has been on my boat and there is a pic of me and him in the torpedo room.
2) Sure there is an open challenge and I would love to have a few people in on it.
3) The US and Brits tactics are different but the same. Any brits out there that would like to play sometime I would love to demostrate some tatics.

And lastly, this post was not meant to piss anyone off. Both the British Navy and the US Navy are on the same team (Last time I checked anyway) and I think that we can all learn something from each other. So, I am sorry if I offended anyone in any way.

STS1

Pingjockey

[Kapitan]

This forum is ment to be a place to share ideas and information, pingjockey is right British america even russia are on the same team now both the VA and astutes are highly capible units, and i have no doubt they will perform beyond expectation of thier designers.

[micky1up]

Only back in the poles for a few days and of course I have pissed people off already.

1) Regardless of if you beleave that I am in the US Navy is not my concern. Neal has been on my boat and there is a pic of me and him in the torpedo room.
2) Sure there is an open challenge and I would love to have a few people in on it.
3) The US and Brits tactics are different but the same. Any brits out there that would like to play sometime I would love to demostrate some tatics.

And lastly, this post was not meant to piss anyone off. Both the British Navy and the US Navy are on the same team (Last time I checked anyway) and I think that we can all learn something from each other. So, I am sorry if I offended anyone in any way.

STS1

Pingjockey



not pissed off dude just sharing facts and info:D

[Sub Sailor]

May never happen on this forum, but I would really like to see in real life the British, French, Russians, and the US to accept we are in a new era with terrorism, and in my opinion, the resurgence of China all of us have more to gain working together, sharing info, and yes operating together.
Oh before anyone goes ballistic, and chastises me for not mentioning country X, this is a sub forum post about nuke boats so I only use the countries that currently are operating Nukes. China has them and from what I am reading is improving them along with their whole Navy, but they are a long way from cooperating with the above mentioned counties. I also predict the next "Cold War" will be with China against players to be named later.


Ron Banks MMCM(SS), USN(Ret)

[DAB]

May never happen on this forum, but I would really like to see in real life the British, French, Russians, and the US to accept we are in a new era with terrorism, and in my opinion, the resurgence of China all of us have more to gain working together, sharing info, and yes operating together.
Oh before anyone goes ballistic, and chastises me for not mentioning country X, this is a sub forum post about nuke boats so I only use the countries that currently are operating Nukes. China has them and from what I am reading is improving them along with their whole Navy, but they are a long way from cooperating with the above mentioned counties. I also predict the next "Cold War" will be with China against players to be named later.


Despite the arguments that seem to have suddenly appeared out of nowhere on this thread, I think there is a general consensus on what your saying.

However,

What you say does highlight one of the major differences between the combat doctrines that have dominated the latter development of both the Virginia and the Astute - terrorism.

The Virginia reflects the US doctrine that warfare is shifting towards dealing with insurgance groups. The Virginia is a strike platform, as well as an attack vessal. Her ability to launch a salvo of cruise missiles whilst hidden off a countries coast reflects this. It is the same doctrine that has seen the conversion of some Ohio SSBN's into SSGN's.

The Royal Navy however does not see Submarines as part of the war on terror. Very little in the way the British Military is structured has changed post Sept 11th 2001. Royal Navy subs are primarily used as platforms designed to deny an opponent the freedom of the seas so that the Surface Fleet can operate safely. The Tomahawk capability operated by British Subs is clearly a secondary capability in the eyes of strategic planners. When Royal Navy Subs do use their cruise missiles, they do so as part of a carrier group, or some other type of taskforce - in other words they only do so when they are being covered, they do not do so in isolation.

[micky1up]

May never happen on this forum, but I would really like to see in real life the British, French, Russians, and the US to accept we are in a new era with terrorism, and in my opinion, the resurgence of China all of us have more to gain working together, sharing info, and yes operating together.
Oh before anyone goes ballistic, and chastises me for not mentioning country X, this is a sub forum post about nuke boats so I only use the countries that currently are operating Nukes. China has them and from what I am reading is improving them along with their whole Navy, but they are a long way from cooperating with the above mentioned counties. I also predict the next "Cold War" will be with China against players to be named later.


Despite the arguments that seem to have suddenly appeared out of nowhere on this thread, I think there is a general consensus on what your saying.

However,

What you say does highlight one of the major differences between the combat doctrines that have dominated the latter development of both the Virginia and the Astute - terrorism.

The Virginia reflects the US doctrine that warfare is shifting towards dealing with insurgance groups. The Virginia is a strike platform, as well as an attack vessal. Her ability to launch a salvo of cruise missiles whilst hidden off a countries coast reflects this. It is the same doctrine that has seen the conversion of some Ohio SSBN's into SSGN's.

The Royal Navy however does not see Submarines as part of the war on terror. Very little in the way the British Military is structured has changed post Sept 11th 2001. Royal Navy subs are primarily used as platforms designed to deny an opponent the freedom of the seas so that the Surface Fleet can operate safely. The Tomahawk capability operated by British Subs is clearly a secondary capability in the eyes of strategic planners. When Royal Navy Subs do use their cruise missiles, they do so as part of a carrier group, or some other type of taskforce - in other words they only do so when they are being covered, they do not do so in isolation.




sorry friend your wrong all our ssn's can now fire TLAM and have done so in the adriatic and the gulf war 2 and they operate not in strike groups but completely independant of the surface ships whilst keeping mind that join operation are going to happen , what your talking about isnt navy policy but political goverment policy we choose not to use TLAM in the same way because we have a far greater understanding of anti terroist oprations than the US duz indiscriminate bombing dosent win hearts and minds saying that we always have the options to use the TLAM in the same way as the US.

[Kapitan]

In 1999 British submarines singlehandedly not assigned to task forces fired tomahawk cruise missiles inot kosovo, in 2003 the same happend in iraq.

British submarines are mainly in service to protect the fragile fleet and also to be sent out ahead of the main fleet should war break out and a vessel has to get there within a matter of a few days.
Afterall a nuclear submarine can hit +33 knots all the way to say the falklands and be ahead of the main battle group by a week or two, and thus being in the area to stop further landings and deny enamies that viatl bit of time to get ready.

The british only have the defence side of things worked out, our navy is not large enough to support an attack role even though it can do this i dont think attack is what we realy need from our navy seeing as we get along with 90% of the world.

This is why the British SSN's are built without VLS tubes, they are designed to defend by attacking, however the americans policy of strike first is clearly shown by the fact they have got 4 ohio SSGN's and VLS capible submarines.

America has the navy to attack we dont.

[micky1up]

In 1999 British submarines singlehandedly not assigned to task forces fired tomahawk cruise missiles inot kosovo, in 2003 the same happend in iraq.

British submarines are mainly in service to protect the fragile fleet and also to be sent out ahead of the main fleet should war break out and a vessel has to get there within a matter of a few days.
Afterall a nuclear submarine can hit +33 knots all the way to say the falklands and be ahead of the main battle group by a week or two, and thus being in the area to stop further landings and deny enamies that viatl bit of time to get ready.

The british only have the defence side of things worked out, our navy is not large enough to support an attack role even though it can do this i dont think attack is what we realy need from our navy seeing as we get along with 90% of the world.

This is why the British SSN's are built without VLS tubes, they are designed to defend by attacking, however the americans policy of strike first is clearly shown by the fact they have got 4 ohio SSGN's and VLS capible submarines.

America has the navy to attack we dont.


partialy right my friend we go in long before the skimmers get there often weeks ahead to make sure the area are safe ive served 19 years and have never been part of a fleet strike group we operate very independantly whilst not forgetting that we have other missions we are capable of doing

[Kapitan]

Well i cant get everything right, but at a logical guess these missions could be performed by the British SSN:

Special forces pick up and drop off
Cruise missile attacks
general attacks
survailance
fleet protection
S.A.R
Comunications relaying
Command and control vessel

[Sub Sailor]

Please don't anyone take this out of context. I love my country dearly, that is why I chose to make the Navy a career. Our current focus on the war on terror is now, next year, hell next month who knows. My Navy like all the Navies of the people on this forum will meet the call of what ever we are asked to do. I am not talking the politics of any of this, I am simply pointing out, ideology aside, Sailors will rise to the call. My God shipmates all of you are well read, the German Navy was not in good standing with the Nazi's but they put up one hell of a fight, many hated Hitler. Yammoto did not agree with going to war with the US, hotheads in the Army wanted assassinate him but when the decision was made he gave it hell.
I believe that if we cooperated and learned from each other--the world in fact--would be safer. We have our differences, Christ we have been absolutely rude to France, but I will go to bed tonight and not worry about Russia, France, Britain attacking us, and I don't believe any of you worry about us attacking you.
Work together, and by all means keep the competition that is what makes us all great. I am one American who is very sad at how we have treated France, I am a historian, in fact I have advanced degrees, I must be one of the few Americans that remember that France helped us in our war of independence. Please don't start a new war over that comment, it is in the past and we are friednds now.
Navies of all of the countries will do whatever is needed to protect and serve their nations. I did not like Viet Nam, I still did my job, I have never agreed with the war in Iraq, but if I was still in I would go and carry out what ever our orders were.
I would be disappointed if each of you did not feel your country, your branch of service, and your command was not the best. I know every ship I served in from 1958-1982 was the best in the world, my Captain was the best, and I was the best Machinist Mate in the Navy. This pride is what makes each of our countries great.
I firmly believe Submariners from any country will take the boat they have and do the job, history has proven that. We are all great, my navy is just a bit greater that all:rotfl: ;) .

I now relinquish my soap box,

Ron Banks MMCM(SS), USN(Ret):rock:

[Bellman]

Hey Pingjockey - Sorry for letting the 'red mist' of nationalistic pride make me over-react - I did'nt catch Neals cool Texas article. :|\\

'Aliquando et insanire iucundum est.. ' Seneca. ( It is sometimes pleasant even to act like a madman.) :arrgh!::damn:

Sub Sailor a great post ! :ping:

[Neal Stevens]

Ping Jockey is the real deal. I had dinner with him tonight. :yep:

I don't have any way of knowing which sub/crew is better, but I am confident that the Brits and Americans set the standard.

[Neal Stevens]

im currently staffing the perisher course now we are in the third week of tactical simulator phase

im the opso for the course basically the tactical picture supervisor

Sounds like you have some pull, I think we should talk about getting a Subsim journalist in to cover a British submarine, like we recently did on Ping Jockey's boat (http://www.subsim.com/articles/article_usstexas2.php).....:hmm:

[Henson]

To set the record straight, there is no such thing as a lone wolf boat singlehandedly planning a TLAM strike. It is not currently possible because of the way the technology is structured.

Those missions are always tasked by a battlegroup of some sort, and without going into too much detail, until the SSGNs come fully online, only surface platforms and shore commands can coordinate strikes and strike planning.

Those brits that shot in support of coalition/NATO missions did so at the direction of CENTCOM through an american CVBG.

[LoBlo]

The poll has no validity - the people motivated to respond can be expected to place votes on a nationalistic basis ! Bulls**t beats brains ? :arrgh!:

I like nationalistic debate.... In fact, you should see the next poll I'm planning: "United States or Britain.... who pees farther?" :)

[Bellman]

:D.....or highest ? The hops in our beer or the beer in our hops ?

[micky1up]

again wrong the tlam mission for the royal navy are planned back in the uk at north wood HQ not by a battle group or any other surface ship they sent the package and the boat gets the tlam to the launch point simple as that

[Henson]

Where is the tasking from? Who writes the message? Who is the LAC?

Our surface ships don't write missions either. I never said they do. On the other hand, someone has to manage the airspace so missiles and planes aren't flying into each other. CENTCOM (a joint, coalition command) fulfilled that function. Perhaps the LAC was british, but who was FOTC? It's a silly point to argue.

It doesn't matter what nation is coordinating things, the thrust of my message was exactly what I wrote: The idea of a lone-wolf submarine out there launching TLAMs alone is a myth.

As far as working with foreign submariners, I prefer working with the Australians anyway. It must be a PACFLT thing.

[Bellman]

"United States or Britain.... who pees further? :) ''......Bring it on LoBlo.............quickly before Euroland excretes its ''preferences'' ! :rotfl:

[Bellman]

Well I'm going to wind my neck in now for a time 'at sea.'

Acta est fabula. Augustus.
The drama has been acted out.

[micky1up]

Where is the tasking from? Who writes the message? Who is the LAC?

Our surface ships don't write missions either. I never said they do. On the other hand, someone has to manage the airspace so missiles and planes aren't flying into each other. CENTCOM (a joint, coalition command) fulfilled that function. Perhaps the LAC was british, but who was FOTC? It's a silly point to argue.

It doesn't matter what nation is coordinating things, the thrust of my message was exactly what I wrote: The idea of a lone-wolf submarine out there launching TLAMs alone is a myth.

As far as working with foreign submariners, I prefer working with the Australians anyway. It must be a PACFLT thing.
no one said the sub was lone wolf uk subs stay in constant comms with th uk and recieve tasking from HQ direct via communications not via a task group the uk runs its boats like that and have done so for the 19 years ive served

[Pingjockey]

Bellman: No worries, I kind of egged you on to begin with.

Everyone else, I am sorry for my lack of responses over the last few days. I been swamped with other issues here in my life but with some luck things will work be ok here soon.

Bellman or anyone else on this thread. is there a link somewhere out there that would give a few more tid bits of info on the the astute. I would like to have a chance to read alittle more about it.

To other folks out there that would like to play a little DW we just need to do some cordination and set it up. I am on older laptop right now due to the fact that I am on travel. But I am sure we can make it work some how...

Lastly, thanks for hanging out the other night neal, it was a blast and I hope I shed some light on a few things for ya.

PingJockey

[Dr.Sid]

Hm .. so once again .. where can I get some info about the new British sub ? :cool:

[XabbaRus]

Here are several links

http://www.baesystems.com/newsroom/2005/sep/130905news181.htm

http://navy-matters.beedall.com/astute.htm

http://www.global-defence.com/2003/astute_03.htm

One thing I like is the shape, the US has stuck with the stretched modified Albacore shape of hull, like a tear drop with the middle cut out and a cylinder put in the middle.

The Astute, like the Trafalgar class and the Vanguard have a more dolphin shaped bow. Any advantage there?

[Dr.Sid]

Great info ! Now I can vote .. I vote for Virginia. It just looks better :cool:
Since I'm from Czech Republic, country with no sea and no navy, I have little national preference here :D

Anyway it seems one of my relatives died on Austrian sub U13 during WWI. War sux .. let's play games instead ..

[Doc Savage]

I thought the Astute's hull looked slightly odd (somewhat fatter) but had put it down to the angle of the photos.
Funny how there are so many different hull designs for subs.
Logically, one would think, a cylindrical hull would be better at distributing pressure evenly over the hull. It might also be easier to build. But apart from the USN, nobody else seems to be making cylindrical hulls.
Some of the ssk hull designs seem to be even more weird. e.g. The Collins, Gotland and the Type 209 (esp. the earlier versions) - wonder what the thinking for those designs was (increased surface range maybe?)

[Bubblehead Nuke]

I thought the Astute's hull looked slightly odd (somewhat fatter) but had put it down to the angle of the photos.
Funny how there are so many different hull designs for subs.
Logically, one would think, a cylindrical hull would be better at distributing pressure evenly over the hull.

Don't confuse the shape of the PRESSURE hull with the shape of the outer hull.

You can have a cylindrical pressure hull and the put a rectangular box around it if you want. USN subs do not have an outer hull on them. What you see IS the pressure hull. Many other navies put fairings and such for their own purposes and designs. Ballast tanks, array fairings, the differences in mounting the fairwater planes are all things that can affect the external appearance.

[Lurchi]

The Astute, like the Trafalgar class and the Vanguard have a more dolphin shaped bow. Any advantage there?
I believe the difference in the bow form is mainly dictated by different sonar layout concepts. While the US have a bow sonar in form of a sphere the british is positioned around the "chin" of the bow.

The stretched shape with a large cylindrical part of the US boats emphasizes speed and easier series production (especially true for the LA class) while the stout shape of the british submarines offers better maneuverability.

[diver]

I thought the Astute's hull looked slightly odd (somewhat fatter) but had put it down to the angle of the photos.
Funny how there are so many different hull designs for subs.
Logically, one would think, a cylindrical hull would be better at distributing pressure evenly over the hull. It might also be easier to build. But apart from the USN, nobody else seems to be making cylindrical hulls.
Some of the ssk hull designs seem to be even more weird. e.g. The Collins, Gotland and the Type 209 (esp. the earlier versions) - wonder what the thinking for those designs was (increased surface range maybe?)

The collins class have cylindrical pressure hulls, however the platform can be seen out of the water is the outer casing which houses all kinds of crap kept elsewhere on USN boats.

If you take a look at a collins (or probably a gotland) out of the water this can be clearly seen.

[XabbaRus]

Like the emergency floatation airbags :rotfl:

[LoBlo]

The cylindrical hulls has less drag, less flow noise, and better sonar-washout speeds, but fitting equipment against a cylindrical surface is a bit more cumbersome iirc.

[XabbaRus]

Uk sub huls are almost cylindrical except for teh bow which seems to be influenced by the shape of a dolphine, I wonder if there is something there too. US hull design seems quite conventional.

[Kapitan]

Th british submarine bows are influenced by the sonar system inside , if you look at the shape it seems that the british boats might have a better bow sonar system than the americans as the shape may give the sonar system a better scope outside.

but hey thats just my radical thinking :D

[Lurchi]

From a low-drag standpoint a consequent teardrop hull shape is considered as ideal. Two submarine classes which embody this ideal in an almost perfect way are the US Skipjack class and the soviet Alfa class.

However this complicated shape is expensive to manufacture so the US submarines have a compromise in form of a cylindrical middle part. This makes sense because subs like the Sturgeon and Los Angeles were built in large numbers. The hull form of Seawolf and Virginia however becomes more similar to the british design.

[diver]

Like the emergency floatation airbags :rotfl:


Enough of that, they aren't Russian.

[XabbaRus]

Ooh a little touchy are we...

[Kapitan]

As it goes floatation airbags are a russian idea implemented in the november and hotel class submarines then later on they were implemented on the akula and kilo's typhoons oscars the works, that big red and white signal bouy is a floatation device and oddly enough it happens to be attached to russian submarine.

So yes xabbarus is quite right there.

[rman214]

Been thinking about it since my last post and realized the UK has some darn good subs and sailors. I will withhold judgement until the Astute becomes operational. Too bad the Royal Navy gave up Pusser's rum :arrgh!:

[Linton]

Bow design will be a trade off between minimising drag and generated flow noise around the bow area.

[SeaQueen]

But really, what can anyone do with a SSK, besides park it off your own coast and let it sit? How useful is that? *shrug*


Extremely useful if your goal is to deter amphibious assault or keep aircraft carriers at arms reach. Regarding the power projection question, not all diesel electric boats are so constrained in range and speed. The Germans sent diesel electric boats all the way across the Atlantic, remember. These days, though, in all likelyhood, if they wanted to deploy a submarine extremely far from home they would either tow it or transport it on a heavy lift ship.

[Bellman]

SQ I tried to address the issue of 'power projection' deploying Kilos far from home, in my scenario 'Twitcher' at Bills. The need, I think, would be for more covert methods than those you suggest. I think a little lateral thinking ,outside the box, could reveal several possibilities. ;)