Ikalugin's (and JohnSilver's) submarine projects.
 

Recently I (and my partner in this difficult task - JS) have decided to draw some paper, fanboy driven, submarine projects. Please comment and criticise as much as you feel like :)

The first project was purely by JS to earn some gold for WoT, and depicts a small alternative multirole nuclear boat. Due to the decrease in the dive depth (400m crash) and max speed (25 knots), as well as the buoyancy reserve (down to 15 percent) it became possible (atleast on paper) to reduce the displacement substantially. This project could be found here:
http://skb-86.awardspace.biz/kikimora.htm
Some images:



Currently we are working on a new, torpedo armed, hunter killer submarine.

The idea is that such a submarine would compliment current project 885 series submarines (Yasen or Severodvinsk class) in the hunter-killer role and other tasks, that do not require heavy salvoes of the Yahont or Kalibr series missiles (24-32 of those carried by Severodvinsk in the VLS).

Thus the tasks it is expected to complete:
- ASW duties.
- Intelligence gathering.
- Civilian shipping interception.
- Destruction of small surface action groups with AShMs and torpedoes.

Thus the approximated requirement is:
- high tactical speed (10 knots).
- conservative max speed (25 knots).
- conservative dive depth (400m crash).
- small buoyancy reserve (15 percent).
- powerful torpedo tube armament.
- high performance sonar (bow, flank, towed arrays).
- viable counter torpedo defense, both soft and hard kill (counter torpedoes).

So we took the Kikimora project and modified it to the original version found here:

As you could see the original armament (6 533 tubes) is reinforced with the additional 8 324mm tubes for counter torpedoes (M15 series), self propelled imitators and small calibre torpedoes (MTT series).

The sonar systems were reworked in line with the project 677 layout for bow and frontal flank arrays. While trying to improve torpedo armament we have tried a number of layouts, including this one:

With 10 533mm tubes and 30 torpedoes in reserve, however this would lead to a decrease in aperture of bow sonar, thus we have stopped on 8 bow tubes seen here (this being the current version in the works):


Currently working on it and we have begun to work on a small displacement AIP sub.

Interesting. However, wanted to let you know, first couple of pics not showing for me.

Thanks, though sadly there is no constructive criticism :( also - fixed the pics.

Hello,
i find this pretty interesting, it looks as if you used original plans (?), and then modified them ?
I always found the shape of the russian subs pretty good, and streamlined, however i think the original Alpha project with smaller hulls was much more promising. Less surface = less resistance. Of course you need buoyancy for the payload, but... a light titanium hull with exchangeable hard- and software adapting to future tech and needs, would be a better investition - more smaller boats instead of a few big ones are cheaper, and less likely to detect.

Also, the early US subs were better streamlined, than are the new ones. You cannot make a long cylindrical hull and improve the flow along the hull, while making it more silent. The original Albacore or Scorpion hull was better, in that respect.

b.t.w. What is "WoT" ?

Greetings,
Catfish

P.S. First two graphics (photos?) still do not show up

We have borrowed a number of solutions from existing subs.

Titanium hull is expensive to build, the idea behind our projects is to create a line up of "cheap" yet capable submarines both for domestic use and export. To this end we have sacrificed the buoyancy reserve, speed and dive depth.

WoT is World of Tanks. Images show to me, but they are very large.

p.s. about buoyancy reserves and displacement. The overall displacement was selected to accommodate the required depth (and thus hull structure), speed (and thus the powerplant mass/power output) and equipment (sonar, weapons ect) requirements. The buoyancy reserve is given for when the submarine is surfaced, when the submarine is submerged it is basically the part of displacement taken up by water. While it does help with upgrading the submarine (there is a room for growth) or when hit (you could do an emergency blow), it is still displacement wasted when going under water. Increasing the reserve to 30 percent level (ie to the level of Akula class) would create futher need to increase power output for the powerplant, which would lead to further displacement increase and so on (making the sub bigger).

Some very early concepts for the AIP SSK we have at the moment:

The idea is to:
- have an integrated power-plant of some sort.
- adequate armament.
- large aperture bow/flank array, a spherical is replaced with a large conformal array in the bow.

Current options for the power-plant that are under consideration:
- integrated boiler+turbogenerator and main electric motor (with batteries). In this configuration boiler+turbine replace the normal reactor+turbogenerator set up found in SSNs. The other way to view this is an electric transmission.
- integrated boiler+turbine+reversable electriv motor (with batteries). Here the electric motor is used both for primary propulsion and for generating power.
- all turbine set up, which mimics the SSNs with the conventional boiler replacing the nuclear reactor.

I don't have any criticism to offer, good or bad, as it's completely outside what I usually do. It is interesting though, and I'll be following it. :sunny:

It's a beautiful design, much like the Akulas and Alfas. I've always admired the way the Soviets blended their sails into the hull, US subs look pretty stodgy in comparison.

Thanks. We have also tried to keep optimum diameter/length ratio for our speeds.

Meanwhile, some plane projects by Paralay:


http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z...ptroopers2.jpg