miletus12
Squadron vice admiral
To get yourself lost, just follow the signs.
Posts: 7,470 
Likes: 4,295
|
Post by miletus12 on Jan 16, 2022 3:01:45 GMT
Republic of Korea wants to imitate Japan and China.
They are the "Me Too!" navy in Northeast Asia.
|
|
miletus12
Squadron vice admiral
To get yourself lost, just follow the signs.
Posts: 7,470
Likes: 4,295
|
Post by miletus12 on Jan 18, 2022 0:22:26 GMT
This version of the P-8 Poseidon is clearly derated, but it is designed to go after AIP boats as well as PLAN platforms.
India appears to be using France as its other naval aviation partner. The USG bumped up the order limit to 14 improve the Indian Navy coverage. The I variant includes antiship targeting capacity. India wants theirs to go anti-ship as well as anti-sub.
|
|
miletus12
Squadron vice admiral
To get yourself lost, just follow the signs.
Posts: 7,470
Likes: 4,295
|
Post by miletus12 on Jan 23, 2022 6:02:15 GMT
Here is a topic from Covert Shores.
The differences: summary; the speed bands are the clear delineators. At high speed screws are better and more efficient for shove. At low to moderate speeds, pumpjets are much more efficient for shove and are a lot quieter.
|
|
miletus12
Squadron vice admiral
To get yourself lost, just follow the signs.
Posts: 7,470
Likes: 4,295
|
Post by miletus12 on Jan 26, 2022 9:15:11 GMT
The Littoral Combat Ship was / is a disaster. What will be the fix?
|
|
miletus12
Squadron vice admiral
To get yourself lost, just follow the signs.
Posts: 7,470
Likes: 4,295
|
Post by miletus12 on Feb 4, 2022 22:20:32 GMT
DDX is going to be a disaster. Why are torpedoes on submarines almost all ~53 centimeters in diameter? Bliss Leavitt actually set the standard in 1910. The USN wanted to sink (British) battleships. Exceptions to the 53cm tubes. The French went to 55cm diameter to match Bliss Leavitt. The French 40cm was to sink freighters. 55cm after WWI was used against warships. Post WWII, in order to make sales internationally, the French adopted the 53.3cm universal standard. The Russians went for 65cm torpedoes around 1975 to sink American aircraft carriers. The Russians have abandoned the 65cm. It did not work. The Americans have 66cm tubes in the Seawolf. It was desired to carry large missiles, not torpedoes. The 53cm torpedoes (Mk48s) would swim-out of the 66cm tubes. There may be liners, (guide studs actually), but those are not necessary for swimouts. What is not mentioned are US 48.25cm torpedoes which were the norm for much of the 1950s and 1960s. These may be making a comeback as the USN wants to up its weapon loadouts on its submarines. My guess is that one could see a 33cm torpedo. |
|
miletus12
Squadron vice admiral
To get yourself lost, just follow the signs.
Posts: 7,470
Likes: 4,295
|
Post by miletus12 on Feb 9, 2022 4:03:56 GMT
Things are not going well in the USN. Sick sailors and sick ships.
Own opinion is that failure starts at the top. The fleet is also losing 9% of its surface combat power within the next 2 months. Not good.
|
|
miletus12
Squadron vice admiral
To get yourself lost, just follow the signs.
Posts: 7,470
Likes: 4,295
|
Post by miletus12 on Feb 15, 2022 9:46:59 GMT
|
|
miletus12
Squadron vice admiral
To get yourself lost, just follow the signs.
Posts: 7,470
Likes: 4,295
|
Post by miletus12 on Feb 25, 2022 18:34:24 GMT
The Status 6 torpedo is designed to attack San Diego, Norfolk, New York, Newport News, and Pearl Harbor. It is a violation of strategic arms limitation treaties.
|
|
miletus12
Squadron vice admiral
To get yourself lost, just follow the signs.
Posts: 7,470
Likes: 4,295
|
Post by miletus12 on Mar 3, 2022 2:33:50 GMT
The Russians learned a lot about titanium hulled submarines.
a. Hulls dent and cannot be easily repaired.
b. Deep diving does not provide any defense at all against US torpedoes.
c. They cost a lot to operate.
d. They cannot hold anechoic tiles.
e. They are "noisy".
f. Fire seems to be a huge problem with these types of boats. Merely coincidence that outcome.
g. Small hull diameter restricts sensor and weapon fits.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,832 
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Mar 4, 2022 14:58:34 GMT
The Russians learned a lot about titanium hulled submarines. a. Hulls dent and cannot be easily repaired. b. Deep diving does not provide any defense at all against US torpedoes. c. They cost a lot to operate. d. They cannot hold anechoic tiles. e. They are "noisy". f. Fire seems to be a huge problem with these types of boats. Merely coincidence that outcome. g. Small hull diameter restricts sensor and weapon fits.
Interesting video although your summary is rather odd in some points: a. Hulls dent and cannot be easily repaired. - accurate as titanium isn't as ductile as steel. b. Deep diving does not provide any defense at all against US torpedoes. - I didn't see any reference to that in the video unless your referring to the fact that modern western torpedoes, which came into service some time after the subs, can possibly now catch them? c. They cost a lot to operate. - The video mentions the much higher construction costs, both because of the greater expense of titanium and the conditions needed for manufacturing i.e. very clean shipyards and argon wielding, plus presumably specialised training. However I didn't see anything about greater costs to operate. d. They cannot hold anechoic tiles. - He speculates that they seem to lose acoustic tiles more easily but on what basis I don't know. He guessed it might be the adhesive being less effective on titanium than steel but whether that's accurate and whether it could be solved or not I don't know? e. They are "noisy". - He makes the point that the screws are also titanium and the comment that is odd because steel hulled subs don't have steel screws but doesn't say what they are. True its odd that you would have screws of such expensive material but speculates this could be because of a potential corrosion issue. He then goes on to say that he doesn't know if its noisier than an ordinary screw and then speculates again that "I don't know for sure that the titanium material makes the sub the propeller noisier, its more likely to deform I guess however hum it definitely seems to complicate things. f. Fire seems to be a huge problem with these types of boats. Merely coincidence that outcome. - A deep diving small submersible had a fire a couple of years back and one of the fleet subs was lost in 1989, see K-278_Komsomolets which also had a fire but whether that would be a particular problem with titanium hulls, other design features or simple poor quality control in the former USSR its impossible to tell. g. Small hull diameter restricts sensor and weapon fits. - The video states that the restriction on hull diameter was inherent in the shipyard where the titanium subs were built. Obviously the greater expense of a titanium hull, see c) above would make using it for construction of a hull scale hull more expensive but I there's no mention of a specific reason that using titanium would technologically restrict the size of the hull.
It could be that you have other information from elsewhere but the contents of the video differs from your summary in a number of points as noted above. The video does give arguments that titanium isn't practical for general military subs but largely for reasons you don't mention I believe.
|
|
miletus12
Squadron vice admiral
To get yourself lost, just follow the signs.
Posts: 7,470
Likes: 4,295
|
Post by miletus12 on Mar 4, 2022 15:37:32 GMT
Deep diving does not provide any defense at all against US torpedoes. - I didn't see any reference to that in the video unless your referring to the fact that modern western torpedoes, which came into service some time after the subs, can possibly now catch them? I cannot tell you "why", but the N37s and NT37s were designed to kill the already deep diving Russian boats of the 1950s and 1960s before the titanium subs entered the picture. The floors and speeds of those 19-inch torpedoes were quite sufficient to handle the new Russian subs. It is the British and the French who had to introduce new fish in the 1960s and 1970s. US heavyweights appeared in service in the late 1970s to sink Russian surface ships. The video mentions the much higher construction costs, both because of the greater expense of titanium and the conditions needed for manufacturing i.e. very clean shipyards and argon wielding, plus presumably specialised training. However I didn't see anything about greater costs to operate. The small crews and specialized reactors equal a very high human training and operations costs. Specialists in an already highly specialized and skills perishable profession is very very expensive. He speculates that they seem to lose acoustic tiles more easily but on what basis I don't know. He guessed it might be the adhesive being less effective on titanium than steel but whether that's accurate and whether it could be solved or not I don't know? Titanium is slicker than steel hull metal. Marine glue does not adhere well. The Americans ran into this problem with radar absorbing material on their first signal managed aircraft. The "tiles" will not stick in a wet environment. A deep diving small submersible had a fire a couple of years back and one of the fleet subs was lost in 1989, see K-278_Komsomolets which also had a fire but whether that would be a particular problem with titanium hulls, other design features or simple poor quality control in the former USSR its impossible to tell. It is possible to track Soviet and Russian navy accidents and reach some conclusions. They have a dodgy reactor control, coolant circulation, and scram setup by American standards for their light water and pressurized water reactors. Their liquid lead / bismuth cooled primary loop reactors are either paper weights waiting to become cold permanently in a scram or pressure cooker bombs waiting to explode. Their fire-fighting and fire-suppression philosophies are too few men to cover the vulnerable spaces, inadequate training, lousy automatics, and poor engineering choices (A serious material defect also shared in British boats.). The Russians try to go cheap as they can when they build ships and train crews and that bodes ill across their entire navy. You especially cannot go "cheap" in the nuclear fission heat lamp steam turbine propelled navy. And as I noted, the fires, explosions, reactor failures and other engineering incidents have nothing to do with what kind of hull metal is involved. I would argue that a derivative effect of titanium hulled subs, as perceived casually, is that in some cases, their smaller internal volume and much smaller crews than a Russian steel hulled example, plus the use of some liquid metal cooled primary loop fission reactors may have resulted in the false association of titanium hulls with submarine fires. He makes the point that the screws are also titanium and the comment that is odd because steel hulled subs don't have steel screws but doesn't say what they are. True its odd that you would have screws of such expensive material but speculates this could be because of a potential corrosion issue. He then goes on to say that he doesn't know if its noisier than an ordinary screw and then speculates again that "I don't know for sure that the titanium material makes the sub the propeller noisier, its more likely to deform I guess however hum it definitely seems to complicate things. Steel subs use bronze screws. The corrosion idea is farcical. Bronze holds up well in seawater. More likely it is a galvanic problem. Titanium is hard to mill after casting, which can result in deformations at the blade tips which results in "popcorning" or bubbling. The noise problem is further based on sound conductivity or what is known as a sound short or "banjo" effect in hull metal. Titanium is not quiet in a flow environment. It hums. Titanium is a lousy sound insulator, too. |
|
miletus12
Squadron vice admiral
To get yourself lost, just follow the signs.
Posts: 7,470
Likes: 4,295
|
Post by miletus12 on Mar 4, 2022 16:05:17 GMT
The video states that the restriction on hull diameter was inherent in the shipyard where the titanium subs were built. Obviously the greater expense of a titanium hull, see c) above would make using it for construction of a hull scale hull more expensive but I there's no mention of a specific reason that using titanium would technologically restrict the size of the hull. I had to check back on this one. It is true that the yard which assembled the hulls for most of the titanium boats had a smaller assembly shed setup. This did not affect hull diameter. One could build fat boats at the yard if one widened the float basin that one put the final pre-commissioned unit into to get it wet. I think the yard simply did not make the adjustment in the launch ramps because it was unnecessary. Now I will speculate why they thought so. The length to beam ratio and available watts *(Russian submarine fission marine plants usually have more watts than American ones, because the Russians need those added watts to match American performance. Why is rather complex, but it comes down to different outcomes in hydrodynamic choices and engineering throughput efficiencies in the powertrains.), screw thrust efficiency and desired speeds and depths; which drives barrel diameter more than the wet-down track limit. The Russians wanted fast, and they wanted deep, and they wanted small (Titanium is expensive.) so they built "skinny" for some of their titanium hulled boats for the same reasons Americans do and did for their attack boats . Speed and barrel hoops. Skinny is easier to shove through water than fat. Smaller diameter barrel hoops resist pressure over the arc circle in hull metal better than larger ones. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,832
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Mar 5, 2022 14:06:25 GMT
The video states that the restriction on hull diameter was inherent in the shipyard where the titanium subs were built. Obviously the greater expense of a titanium hull, see c) above would make using it for construction of a hull scale hull more expensive but I there's no mention of a specific reason that using titanium would technologically restrict the size of the hull. I had to check back on this one. It is true that the yard which assembled the hulls for most of the titanium boats had a smaller assembly shed setup. This did not affect hull diameter. One could build fat boats at the yard if one widened the float basin that one put the final pre-commissioned unit into to get it wet. I think the yard simply did not make the adjustment in the launch ramps because it was unnecessary. Now I will speculate why they thought so. The length to beam ratio and available watts *(Russian submarine fission marine plants usually have more watts than American ones, because the Russians need those added watts to match American performance. Why is rather complex, but it comes down to different outcomes in hydrodynamic choices and engineering throughput efficiencies in the powertrains.), screw thrust efficiency and desired speeds and depths; which drives barrel diameter more than the wet-down track limit. The Russians wanted fast, and they wanted deep, and they wanted small (Titanium is expensive.) so they built "skinny" for some of their titanium hulled boats for the same reasons Americans do and did for their attack boats . Speed and barrel hoops. Skinny is easier to shove through water than fat. Smaller diameter barrel hoops resist pressure over the arc circle in hull metal better than larger ones.
Thanks for clarifying on those points.
Steve
|
|
miletus12
Squadron vice admiral
To get yourself lost, just follow the signs.
Posts: 7,470
Likes: 4,295
|
Post by miletus12 on Mar 12, 2022 17:48:38 GMT
USS Bon Homme Richard loss update. (Not going to be popular with some sailors, here. M.)
Summary: the USN continues its historical trend of multiple action tracks when it comes to a major service disaster. It looks for scapegoats, it ducks public responsibility for a service wide deficiency in training and leadership that led to the disaster, it panics and remedially attempts to redress the causes that its own published internal investigation reveals led to the disaster, and in each and every part of the process, shifts the blame, diffuses responsibility and attempts to cover up from or obfuscate to civilian final authority each and every thing it does in the necessary process to correct its organizational deficiencies and mistakes.
It will fix the mistakes. It just does not, like most complacent bureaucracies, to deal with thorny necessary questions like Who allowed, What, Where When, How, and especially WHY, this disaster to happen?
$2 billion dollar ship burned to the keel and 250 injured sailors, some quite seriously, makes for a big sudden urge to prosecute a LOT of people. The pushback is to find a single scapegoat to save a lot of careers.
|
|
miletus12
Squadron vice admiral
To get yourself lost, just follow the signs.
Posts: 7,470
Likes: 4,295
|
Post by miletus12 on Mar 16, 2022 16:15:44 GMT
Type 55. The ship is equivalent to a Flight One Arleigh Burke. That still makes it very dangerous.
|
|
