Quote:
|
Originally Posted by bottomcrawler
We live in the 21st century. An automated loading system with self-alignment would be an easy matter to design and build. You start with a crane and then add a rigid lift mechanism that lowers the loading tube (carrying the torp) into position. A docking mechanism then engages the edge of the storage tube inside the port, aligning and securing the loading tube. A rail system would then push the torp into the storage tube, where it transfers to the internal rail. Done!
When you say more drag, do you simply refer to the increase in wetter area (surface friction drag) and the slight increase in frontal area (form drag)? Or is the another factor that comes into play?
Well, there are several ways to solve that problem. One is to simply evacuate the tubes (which would require pressure-resistant storage tubes, i.e. a bit heavier) and only slowly flood them right before hostilities are expected. They could then be flushed with fresh water at a later time, to prevent large-scale corrosion.
Or, the tubes could be flooded with fresh water permanently and then flushed again (like above) after "use".
I'm not sure what the realistic production capacity for fresh water is in a modern sub, though.
Or, have encapsulated torps, where they each have their own, snug, storage capsule that is jettisoned at launch (this capsule could also have an ejection mechanism to solve the high-speed ejection issue).
|
Sure, those things are achievable, but are they efficient? My impression, is that the rail system itself would be the maintenance headache [as oppose to the torp], meaning that all the moving parts of the rail would need to be 100% malfunction proof, be able to sit in seawater for months between maintenance cycles without any malfunctions, and be able to sit in seawater for years before dry dock/dry maintenence (even in port they would be in the seawater and the maintence would have to be done in the water by divers, unless its expected that the sub would be in dry dock quite often). Is that doable? Yes. But is it worth it in terms of capability/maintenence/reliability/and cost? That's the tough question.
Hm... I'm not sure how often submariners haul the subs into dry dock or go into the ballast tank for maintence. I'll ask in the RL submariner's thread.
In terms of drag, I believe an elipsoid form have a higher coeffient of dray than a cylindrical form, meaning higher drag coeffience = higher drag per surface area.
Quote:
My mind is always looking for problems to solve and imperfections to improve on. Some ideas are good, others, not so great... 
|
Here's a challenge then. How would you solve these problems?
http://www.darpa.mil/STO/Solicitatio.../proposers.htm 
Code:
The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency's (DARPA) Advanced Technology
Office (ATO) announces the joint DARPA/United States Navy TANGO BRAVO
program. The intent of this effort is to overcome selected technological
barriers that are judged to have a significant impact on submarine platform
infrastructure and cost. DARPA and the US Navy together plan to execute a
technology demonstration program to enable design options for reduced-size
affordable submarines with full nominal capability, while simultaneously
decreasing platform infrastructure and the cost of future design and
production. Five technical areas will be solicited under a Broad Agency
Announcement anticipated to be published in the forthcoming weeks:
1. shaftless propulsion,
2. external weapons stow and launch,
3. hull adaptable sonar array,
4. radical ship infrastructure reduction, and
5. reduced crew/automated attack center.
A classified Proposers' Day Conference will be held on 8 November 2004
at the Executive Conference Center, One Virginia Square, Suite 600,
Arlington, VA 22203. A Proposers?Day Conference announcement will be
forthcoming with details on registration.