Virginia class Block III, thats right Block III

[The Bandit]

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/virginia-block-iii-the-revised-bow-04159/#more

I wonder if they are going to call then the 774i?? Dosn't have the same ring to it does. Just thought I would post this because I haven't seen it on the subsim homepage yet.

[Onkel Neal]

Nice find, I've added it to the World Naval News, thanks :up:

[Chock]

That first picture on the linked page is actually pretty big, and at decent quality, I nicked it with the old right click of justice, might print it out and stick it on my wall:rotfl:

:D Chock

[Swede]

well, all those america haters out there will have to reconsider now.

Go George Bush!

[The Bandit]

the only thing I don't get is, whats the difference between block II and block I, just they were ordered at different times to the same design or? The only other thing is, what is the advantage of the 6 shooters compared to a 12 single cell VLS, like as far as redundency would go you would think the VLS would be better, if somthing happens to ONE of the six shooters then you are down 50% of your missile load out right there. The sonar seems interesting too because I though that since the 688s the sonar domes have been flooded. Anyways it will be interesting to see what other changes are made.

[Torpedo Fodder]

the only thing I don't get is, whats the difference between block II and block I, just they were ordered at different times to the same design or?
From what I understand, the differences mainly relate to saving construction costs without compromising capability, important since the Virginias are turning out to be much more expensive than they were originally intended to be.

The only other thing is, what is the advantage of the 6 shooters compared to a 12 single cell VLS, like as far as redundency would go you would think the VLS would be better, if somthing happens to ONE of the six shooters then you are down 50% of your missile load out right there.
Again, having only two large silos saves on construction costs. Aditionally, it would make reloading them at sea much simpler, since you are only dealing with two pre-loaded canisters rather than a dozen individual missiles. Another advantage would be versatility for the future: they could potentially take a vary wide variety of payloads, being able to carry a smaller number weapons that are larger than Tomahawks, or a larger number of smaller weapons. Remember these boats will likely be in service till around 2050 (given their 40-year designed hull life), and who knows what new weapons will be developed by then.

Also, let's be realistic here. Given the types of weapons that would normally be employed against submarines, combined with how densly clustered the VLS cells are, battle damage that would take out one would likely take out most or all of them.

The sonar seems interesting too because I though that since the 688s the sonar domes have been flooded. Anyways it will be interesting to see what other changes are made.

"Air backed" refers to using air as a medium to isolate the individual transducers from their support structure (i,e the spherical array). Only the individual mounts that attach the transducers to the sphere are pressurized, however this air must still be replenished from within the submarine's pressure hull. The elimination of these air tubes would save on construction and maintenece costs without compromising capability (the new array is supposed to have even better performance).

[SmokinTep]

I have been on the Hawaii and Virginia so far. They are truely awesome subs......................

[Morts]

Go George Bush!
No-Go George Bush!

[TLAM Strike]

I was thinking recently how much money they could have save if they elimnated the torpedo loading hatch and loaded through the tubes like on the Kilos. It would require them moving at least two tubes above the waterline but that dosn't really chance the design much considering they would have been there already just on the next deck.

No loading hatch = one less hole in the pressure hull that could fail and one less hole to cut in the hull = less money spend on making it :hmm:

[fatty]

I have been told that the VA class is a step backwards in some under-ice capabilities compared to the Seawolf and 688[i]. I don't know specifics but I wouldn't be surprised if new blocks featured improvements to sail hardening and retractable dive planes.

[Sea Demon]

I have been told that the VA class is a step backwards in some under-ice capabilities compared to the Seawolf and 688[i]. I don't know specifics but I wouldn't be surprised if new blocks featured improvements to sail hardening and retractable dive planes.

How so I wonder? I haven't heard such a thing. Is it that they can't surface through as much ice, or something else?

[SmokinTep]

Bow planes are retractable.................:yep:

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

I was thinking recently how much money they could have save if they elimnated the torpedo loading hatch and loaded through the tubes like on the Kilos. It would require them moving at least two tubes above the waterline but that dosn't really chance the design much considering they would have been there already just on the next deck.

No loading hatch = one less hole in the pressure hull that could fail and one less hole to cut in the hull = less money spend on making it :hmm:

The problem, I think, is that the US likes angled torpedo tubes (they want a bigger sonar) while the Russians go for bow (they want to shoot torps at higher speed). Could be hard to slide a torpedo through an angled tube using a crane, and without bumping anything. The fact an American sub will have a lot LESS above the waterline (matter of reserve buoyancy) does not help.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Again, having only two large silos saves on construction costs.

Can't you say that the single VLS is one [b]big[/i] 12 shot silo? How does that new thing work anyway. Can all cells fire missiles (which makes it a circle rather than grid VLS), or is it like the Russian rotary scheme where only one spot can fire and the rest is rotated into place?

[Chock]

How so I wonder? I haven't heard such a thing. Is it that they can't surface through as much ice, or something else?

I suspect that might indeed be the case. I'm guessing subs with big planes on the sail can probably punch through more ice because the planes rotate through ninety degrees to form what is almost a blade on either side of the sail, without those, maybe the thing can't get through as thick a layer? Mind you, it's debatable whether that would be an issue, since their role in a nuclear war scenario would be to find under ice subs in their bastions before they'd found a hole in which to surface so they could launch stuff, so there wouldn't really seem to be any tactical disadvantage to things other than surfacing to pick up communications, and presumably they could come up through a suitable hole just as easily as the boomers they'd be looking for.

:D Chock

[fatty]

I have been told that the VA class is a step backwards in some under-ice capabilities compared to the Seawolf and 688[i]. I don't know specifics but I wouldn't be surprised if new blocks featured improvements to sail hardening and retractable dive planes.

How so I wonder? I haven't heard such a thing. Is it that they can't surface through as much ice, or something else?

I can't provide specifics, unfortunately, just what I was told about the sail and dive planes. I suppose it makes sense though, weren't the VAs geared towards littoral operations, and build to do so on the cheap? It only follows that something has to be sacrificed.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

I suspect that might indeed be the case. I'm guessing subs with big planes on the sail can probably punch through more ice because the planes rotate through ninety degrees to form what is almost a blade on either side of the sail, without those, maybe the thing can't get through as thick a layer?

Doubtful. There is a reason why the Russians (who have more emphasis with working in ice) almost always went for fully retractable bow rather than sailplanes. Sailplanes, even if you rotate them to upward 90 degrees, are a structural weak spot (they are on a fragile, movable hinge) - and if you can't rotate them that way you can pretty much kiss undamaged surfacing through ice goodbye. The main resistance will be the sail, and any object, even blade shape (a diving plane will make a very blunt blade BTW) will simply add to the resistance and increase the chance of getting stuck.

[Chock]

Well, I daresay there is some risk of damage to planes on the sail when coming up through the ice, but it didn't stop them doing it for 28 years with this one without them falling off (SSN-676 Billfish), so they can't be that weak:

http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j105/AlanBradbury/Billfish.jpg

:D Chock

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Well, I daresay there is some risk of damage to planes on the sail when coming up through the ice, but it didn't stop them doing it for 28 years with this one without them falling off (SSN-676 Billfish), so they can't be that weak:

:D Chock

That's because they (generally) measure the ice thickness and only go through ice they can win against. If they aren't pretty sure they can win they go find someplace else.

[SmokinTep]

Not all US Subs are capable of breaking thru ice. The sails have to be modified (hardened) to break thru the ice. Fairwater Planes have no bearing on breaking thru the ice. There are some 688i's (bow planes) that are capable of breaking thru ice. As far as the VLS tubes, they are not in a circle. There are 12 tubes located aft of the Sonar Sphere, in 4 rows 2, 4, 4, and 2. Most of the time they are not all loaded with Tomahawks. Sometimes there are ballast cans in the tubes. Also, the other 688's without VLS can launch Horrizontal TLAM's from the torpedo tubes. Seawolf class has no VLS tubes. They have 8 torpedo tubes........

[TLAM Strike]

I was thinking recently how much money they could have save if they elimnated the torpedo loading hatch and loaded through the tubes like on the Kilos. It would require them moving at least two tubes above the waterline but that dosn't really chance the design much considering they would have been there already just on the next deck.

No loading hatch = one less hole in the pressure hull that could fail and one less hole to cut in the hull = less money spend on making it :hmm:

The problem, I think, is that the US likes angled torpedo tubes (they want a bigger sonar) while the Russians go for bow (they want to shoot torps at higher speed). Could be hard to slide a torpedo through an angled tube using a crane, and without bumping anything. The fact an American sub will have a lot LESS above the waterline (matter of reserve buoyancy) does not help. If they load on the outboard side (the side not tied the pier) its not that difficult since there woudn't be another ship tied up there (assuming loading would be going on when a ship is getting underway or just ariving). The Russians use a rig that attaches to the hull that the fish rests on and is then put in to tube.

The bouancy and lack of structure above the waterline is an issue though... :hmm: