Using Radar to Search for Submarines

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by SeaQueen

That depends on what their actuation radius is and what you're trying to do.

Valid point.

However the closer you can get to where ships are coming from (a port) the less mines are needed to isolate/destroy them. So a submarine with fewer mines can do more damage than aircraft(s) or ships can with more. Since the aircraft risk being shot down (and their pilots bailing out in enemy airspace) and the ships risk being attack by costal defenses.

[SeaQueen]

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

However the closer you can get to where ships are coming from (a port) the less mines are needed to isolate/destroy them. So a submarine with fewer mines can do more damage than aircraft(s) or ships can with more.

That is true. Covertness is definitely the submarine's advantage. None the less, the Airforce, at the present time, doesn't seem to have much trouble surpressing air defenses sufficiently to allow their B-52s, B-1s and B-2s as much access as they need. The other thing about submarine mining is that it basically takes a submarine out of the game. That one submarine is dedicated to mining, and that's pretty much it. After it lays it's mines, it has to go all the way back to wherever they've forward based it. Then it'll most likely be weeks until the submarine can begin transiting back to the theatre. At that point, things will be pretty much over. Unless you just happen to have a spare submarine in the theatre, still I wouldn't do it.

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by SeaQueen

That is true. Covertness is definitely the submarine's advantage. None the less, the Airforce, at the present time, doesn't seem to have much trouble surpressing air defenses sufficiently to allow their B-52s, B-1s and B-2s as much access as they need. The other thing about submarine mining is that it basically takes a submarine out of the game. That one submarine is dedicated to mining, and that's pretty much it. After it lays it's mines, it has to go all the way back to wherever they've forward based it. Then it'll most likely be weeks until the submarine can begin transiting back to the theatre. At that point, things will be pretty much over. Unless you just happen to have a spare submarine in the theatre, still I wouldn't do it.

Well I have to disagree with you on the USAF's ablity to conduct SEAD in this case. To lay mines they would need to fly at low altitude a to avoid damage to the mines when the enter the water. So unless they fly far off the coast they are voulnerable to MANPADs and other light SAMs not to mention small arms fire ("Every cousin with a rifle" to quote Flight of the Intruder).

The Swedes and Germans have gotten around the whole taking a sub out of the game thing. They use GRP mine cratles to haul dozens of mines around in additon to their torpedo armorment.

[bottomcrawler]

I could easily imagine a hull-conformal mine storage. I don't know the size of a typical mine, but I'm certain a fair number could be hauled along outside the pressure hull. But it would make for a slightly noisier sub, and a slower one.

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by bottomcrawler

I could easily imagine a hull-conformal mine storage. I don't know the size of a typical mine, but I'm certain a fair number could be hauled along outside the pressure hull. But it would make for a slightly noisier sub, and a slower one.

A mine is roughly half the size of a torpedo (torpedoes are about 533mm wide 8 meters long). It woudn't nessarly be much noiser if the storage girdle was streamlined, the sub would lose some speed. Also the storage girdle could be jettisoned after the mines have all been deployed.

[bottomcrawler]

Perhaps not much noisier, but I'm pretty sure one noise component is the water flowing over the surface, and if the wetted area increases, that noise component should increase as well. Seams and ports would also produce some noise due to flow disturbance, I would imagine.

Perhaps I'm wrong here, but I tend to think of drag-inducing factors as noise inducing as well. But I'm really mostly into aviation, not subs...

[SeaQueen]

Originally Posted by bottomcrawler

I could easily imagine a hull-conformal mine storage. I don't know the size of a typical mine, but I'm certain a fair number could be hauled along outside the pressure hull. But it would make for a slightly noisier sub, and a slower one.

Actually, one of the things people in engineering circles are looking at for future submarine designs is weapons storage external to the hull.

[bottomcrawler]

Ah!

Well, as I said, my main interest is aircraft and aviation in general, and conformal fuel tanks and sensor packages are becoming more common there. It just made sense to me to have something similar under water.

Carefully designed, CFTs only add around half the wetted area compared to a pylon-mounted drop tank of the same volume. In addition to that, they free up pylons for missiles and bombs.

For a sub, I figure faster reloading and an increased load capacity would be the main advantage. Having torps in long tubes that are already flooded, outside the pressure hull, would make for quieter launches. I don't know if it's possible, but gently pushing a torpedo out, then have it "hover" silently until the launching boat quietly swims away to a safe distance, would allow very stealthy engagements.

[SeaQueen]

My understanding is that with future 774 class flights you'll see more experimentation with various ideas. Rickover did a lot for the nuclear Navy in terms of safety, but at the expense of quashing innovation with weapons systems and sail designs in particular. There's all kinds of things on the books for future versions.

Originally Posted by bottomcrawler

For a sub, I figure faster reloading and an increased load capacity would be the main advantage. Having torps in long tubes that are already flooded, outside the pressure hull, would make for quieter launches. I don't know if it's possible, but gently pushing a torpedo out, then have it "hover" silently until the launching boat quietly swims away to a safe distance, would allow very stealthy engagements.

[LoBlo]

Originally Posted by bottomcrawler

Ah!

Well, as I said, my main interest is aircraft and aviation in general, and conformal fuel tanks and sensor packages are becoming more common there. It just made sense to me to have something similar under water.

Carefully designed, CFTs only add around half the wetted area compared to a pylon-mounted drop tank of the same volume. In addition to that, they free up pylons for missiles and bombs.

For a sub, I figure faster reloading and an increased load capacity would be the main advantage. Having torps in long tubes that are already flooded, outside the pressure hull, would make for quieter launches. I don't know if it's possible, but gently pushing a torpedo out, then have it "hover" silently until the launching boat quietly swims away to a safe distance, would allow very stealthy engagements.

Sounds like your thinking along the lines of the the Navy's "Tango Bravo" research project http://www.darpa.mil/STO/maritime/tango.html

I love speculating about future designs as well.

Conformal would make sense if it looked similar to the Ohio Class subs fairwater area [above the missile tubes]. That would be the only way to make them conviently reloaded otherwise the weapons would need be loaded underwater [awkward at pierside and with a 1 ton torp]. Not sure how many torps you could fit at a 'read to launch' position in such a small space though. I say, storage in the ballast tanks would be better.