supersonic submarine

[HollywoodBob]

http://rt.com/news/182756-china-supersonic-submarine/:arrgh!:

[Buddahaid]

404 error on the link. Supersonic? I forgot if sound travels faster or slower in water.

[Oberon]

Never mind travelling from Shanghai to San Francisco, it'll be heard from Shanghai to San Francisco. Not that there would be anything that the US has in its current ASW handbook that could kill it at that speed...but it's got to slow down at some point, and it'll leave a nice big acoustic trail right to its position. :yep:

Budda, remove the :aargh: from the end of the link, here's the proper link:
http://rt.com/news/182756-china-supersonic-submarine/

It's essentially a submarine using the basic principles that the Russians use in their Shkval torpedoes.

[Buddahaid]

Never mind travelling from Shanghai to San Francisco, it'll be heard from Shanghai to San Francisco. Not that there would be anything that the US has in its current ASW handbook that could kill it at that speed...but it's got to slow down at some point, and it'll leave a nice big acoustic trail right to its position. :yep:

Budda, remove the :aargh: from the end of the link, here's the proper link:
http://rt.com/news/182756-china-supersonic-submarine/

It's essentially a submarine using the basic principles that the Russians use in their Shkval torpedoes.

Thanks Oberon. I think warp drive is just as close to reality for manned vessels but short range torpaedoes look promising.

[Jimbuna]

Little more than an efficient noise generator.

[AngusJS]

An underwater Concorde! I just wouldn't want to hit a whale going 3,500 mph.

[Catfish]

This is the right link:

http://rt.com/news/182756-china-supersonic-submarine


The closest to a real speed sub would be the russian Papa and the Alfa classes.
But i really admired the ingenuity of the Shkval rocket torped, also not that fast, but a terrific (and working) idea. Reminded me of the NASA FTL ideas - if the medium around the craft does not permit faster travel, change the surrounding medium :huh:

"Going to war in a bubble .."

[Jimbuna]

This is the right link:

http://rt.com/news/182756-china-supersonic-submarine


The closest to a real speed sub would be the russian Papa and the Alfa classes.
But i really admired the ingenuity of the Shkval rocket torped, also not that fast, but a terrific (and working) idea. Reminded me of the NASA FTL ideas - if the medium around the craft does not permit faster travel, change the surrounding medium :huh:

"Going to war in a bubble .."

Yep, that's the one posted 13 hours earlier in #3 :)

[ikalugin]

If I remember it right - the speed of sound in water (take or give a brick) is 1500m/s.

This is a (very) high speed, not attained even in the piloted aircraft (apart from SS and the Buran ofc, but I dont think they count). I seriously doupt that such speed is possible for a large, manned submerged object, especially considering that the energy losses required to maintain a moving gas cavern in water.

[HollywoodBob]

sorry for the bad link :hmmm:

[vanjast]

Sounds like a Kim Jong Un fantasy.

Basic physical principles are difficult to achieve in a high density medium.
The energy required even for a torpedo to be accelerated at such speeds is phenomenal, and short ranged to say the least.

To shunt a 'big boat' at such speeds under water requires.... alien technology maybe.

I wouldn't discount it.. but this possibly just a dis-information ruse, to deflect attention away from other points
:)

[Platapus]

I could understand having a torpedo or unmanned drone go that fast, but really don't see the purpose of a submarine going that fast.

I don't think it would be able to hear much traveling at that speed so you would have a fast blind submarine. No thank you.

[Oberon]

And if you hit something at that speed... :dead:

I mean look what happened to the San Fran when she went into the deck, and that was at a much lower speed than this supercavitating submarine.

Now, as has been said, drones, interceptor drones, could well be possible...which brings us back to Catfish who mentioned the Alfa class, which was originally intended to be a highly automated interceptor submarine which would wait in port (with its reactor plugged into the shore equipment) until the US carriers came near Russian waters and then shoot off, throw a nuclear torpedo at them and run back again.
Unfortunately (and perhaps typically) for the Soviet Navy, the specifications were a decade ahead of the technology, and the Alfas instead became one of the biggest ruble-sinks of the Soviet Navys history. :/\\!!

[Pisces]

I'm still wondering how they expect to propel such a submarine in supercavitation, ... across the entire pacific. You still need a powerplant to make this happen, and something to push it.

[Platapus]

I'm still wondering how they expect to propel such a submarine in supercavitation, ... across the entire pacific. You still need a powerplant to make this happen, and something to push it.

Sails

You catch the wind just right....

[ikalugin]

Unfortunately (and perhaps typically) for the Soviet Navy, the specifications were a decade ahead of the technology, and the Alfas instead became one of the biggest ruble-sinks of the Soviet Navys history.
That was Papa class.

On Alfas - the idea of fast but noisy sub in itself probably was flawed. The high cost of the submarine was driven by it's over all concept (small, high performance platform), rather than the specifics (titanium hull, automation, new power plant).

[Oberon]

That was Papa class.

On Alfas - the idea of fast but noisy sub in itself probably was flawed. The high cost of the submarine was driven by it's over all concept (small, high performance platform), rather than the specifics (titanium hull, automation, new power plant).

Ah yes, good point. :yep: :up:

[ikalugin]

By the way (and sorry for the derailment), what do people think about the future of submarines in general?

Ie how would the 4+ and 5th generations of subs work, which concepts are appropriate now? Currently I see the following:

- "large" nuclear submarine, armed with the multipurpose launchers as well as conventional torpedo tubes. The former allow the use of large, semi independent unmaned underwater vehicles, probably armed as well as the conventional missile payloads.
- "small" nuclear submarine, armed with conventional torpedo tubes, with maximised classical performance (not as noisy, fast, deep diving, good sonar and so on).
- AIP conventional submarine, simmilar to the previous one.