SUBSIM: The Web's #1 resource for all submarine & naval simulations since 1997 |
10-21-10, 11:23 AM | #16 |
Ocean Warrior
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Between test depth and periscope depth
Posts: 3,021
Downloads: 175
Uploads: 16
|
Orly? Heavier? Yes they have because they have gotten larger. Slower? No, overall speed increased as new classes with more powerful reactor plants were produced. Shallow depths? Here the trend changes with the 688 having its max diving depth reduced to save on weight, but this also made it faster in return. The trend changes back with the Seawolf being made of HY 100 steel. But I like the subs your making, very cool!
__________________
USS Kentucky SSBN 737 (G) Comms Div 2003-2006 Qualified 19 November 03 Yes I was really on a submarine. |
10-21-10, 12:01 PM | #17 |
Machinist's Mate
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Central Scotland
Posts: 127
Downloads: 29
Uploads: 0
|
My reading had made me think that from the Skipjack onwards, US SSNs got larger with no real increase in reactor power, so each successive class was more accomplished and stealthy, but a knot or two slower. Then when you hit the Los Angeles they also go backwards on depth to save cash and you end up with a quieter, slower, shallower diving sub. I dont think there's a lot in it, but until the hugely expensive Seawolf it's all backwards. On the Soviet side the only thing they didn't compromise on in their designs was speed and diving depth.
|
10-21-10, 05:00 PM | #18 | |
Ocean Warrior
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Between test depth and periscope depth
Posts: 3,021
Downloads: 175
Uploads: 16
|
Quote:
__________________
USS Kentucky SSBN 737 (G) Comms Div 2003-2006 Qualified 19 November 03 Yes I was really on a submarine. |
|
10-21-10, 08:59 PM | #19 |
Navy Seal
|
Quote:
|
10-22-10, 03:09 AM | #20 |
Machinist's Mate
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Central Scotland
Posts: 127
Downloads: 29
Uploads: 0
|
After looking at the shape of the Astute class, I decided to throw out the classic sewer pipe and just make an interesting shape. I went for width rather than height so that I could fit the most vertical launch modular weapons systems for the smallest overall size, and to make piggy-back systems much easier to accomodate. My thinking was that it should be a littoral combat ship, designed for cruise missile and SpecOps missions, as well as the classic anti-ship role. Hence the modularity and azipod steering for improved manoueverability.
A sphere might be the best shape to resist pressure, but not the best for a usable submarine. The elongated body of revolution is probably the best in terms of speed, stealth and decent pressure resistance, which is why I chose it for my SSN. The current round ended sewer pipe shape popular with US subs is a compromised version of that to make it easier to fit habitable spaces inside, without the constantly changing width of the more efficient shape leaving gaps everywhere. |
10-22-10, 08:58 AM | #21 | ||
Navy Seal
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
10-22-10, 11:27 AM | #22 |
Machinist's Mate
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Central Scotland
Posts: 127
Downloads: 29
Uploads: 0
|
So what you're sayiing is, the external shape doesn't really matter.
If it were to be a particularly deep diving sub I'd worry more about shape, but this is purely meant to be a weapons and spec op platform for littoral waters. |
10-22-10, 12:58 PM | #23 |
Ocean Warrior
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Between test depth and periscope depth
Posts: 3,021
Downloads: 175
Uploads: 16
|
Speaking from experience, a large flat deck is a very bad thing to have when in shallow water. Numerous times we've been sucked up to the surface while at a shallow depth. What happens is when near the surface the wave action across that flat deck creates a suction and so pulls the submarine upwards, the larger the flat area the larger the suction force. Just a bit of submarine knowledge I'd thought to share, not trying to stifle your imagination or anything.
__________________
USS Kentucky SSBN 737 (G) Comms Div 2003-2006 Qualified 19 November 03 Yes I was really on a submarine. |
10-22-10, 08:03 PM | #24 |
Machinist's Mate
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Central Scotland
Posts: 127
Downloads: 29
Uploads: 0
|
You're quite right, I can see how that would happen in any kind of decent swell. It's not something I had considered. Another rethink needed I think.
|
10-23-10, 02:34 AM | #25 |
Commodore
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: U-142
Posts: 624
Downloads: 62
Uploads: 0
|
Well, it does have modern technology on it, so I'm sure what we're worring about can be countered
__________________
Support U-Boot_HAHD: Install Dropbox Click Here & Increase The Teams Dropbox space and get 2.25GB of free online Storage space for yourself. |
10-23-10, 05:57 AM | #26 |
Machinist's Mate
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Central Scotland
Posts: 127
Downloads: 29
Uploads: 0
|
You're right, i could slap on another few thrusters or azipods to give it much more control. However, if i can sort it with a reshape I would be better doing that.
|
10-27-10, 10:24 AM | #27 |
Machinist's Mate
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Central Scotland
Posts: 127
Downloads: 29
Uploads: 0
|
Well, here's another attempt at a more futuristic sub. It has containerised weapon systems in the unmanned fore section, which can be swapped out at any time for other mission packs or weapons systems. Reloading would involve unplugging the empty and plugging in a new one, with the reloading of the packs being done ashore at your leisure. You could also have a dry dock or wet garage for minisubs, with a link to the inhabited rear section via a tunnel link.
I have yet to work out how I will propel this thing, I'm going to try a couple of ideas for this. Here's how it looks so far, length about 140m at this point. The weapons packs were based on 25 x Tomahawk missiles at 6.5m long (with boosters) and .52m wide. The body is much more hydrodynamic this time, less flat along the top and more futuristic looking for added effect. |
10-27-10, 07:43 PM | #28 |
Navy Seal
|
Very nice, looks like something that might do battle with the SeaQuest DSV.
Maybe add a pair of sea water intakes forward and a pair of exhausts aft for a pair of MHD. |
10-28-10, 11:16 AM | #29 |
Machinist's Mate
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Central Scotland
Posts: 127
Downloads: 29
Uploads: 0
|
Yeah, thats the next move for this one.
|
10-30-10, 12:55 PM | #30 |
Navy Seal
|
Cool
I was talking to Neal about having a sub design contest. Something real too aprat from building the thing. Have a set of specs and a team designs a sub. Best sub wins. |
|
|