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.....:hmm:

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

Here are several links

http://www.baesystems.com/newsroom/2...905news181.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?

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 ..

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?)

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.

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.

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.

Like the emergency floatation airbags :rotfl:

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.

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.