USN SSK?

Managed to find the SSGT factsheet on BMT’s website if anyone wants it:

http://www.bmtdsl.co.uk/Documents%20&%20Resources/?/188/270/270

USS Texas

Impressive……….:D

Think nothing of it.

Incidently I appear to have downloaded this some time ago if anyone wants it I’m sure I could upload it somewhere.

That is what I did in the first place, none of the three it shows are actually the relevant one, I think they’ve removed it

Blind leading the blind?

I found some PDFs but of course whether they’re the one you were referring to I don’t know! And if you did the same as I suggested then they probably aren’t!

Sorry about that

Al

Just stick ‘SSGT’ in the search box on said site and choose ‘search BMT’.

Certainly an interesting design. I wonder how things have moved on since 2004/2005?

Al

That is what I did in the first place, none of the three it shows are actually the relevant one, I think they’ve removed it

Z06 isn’t bad but isn’t exactly cutting edge, the Viper likes to set itself on fire and can’t corner, the shelby cobra is a British AC Ace with a V8 dropped in and the Ford GT40 (not F40GT, which is a racing Ferrari), which was and still is stunning, was designed and built in the UK by Lola cars, though at least a couple of Yanks worked on it, again, mostly on the engine.

What does cutting edge have to do with it. It will outperform most of anything Europe can come up with and at a fraction of the price. The Viper can’t corner, maybe where you come from but over here that just is not so. Take a look here for just an example.
http://www.fastestlaps.com/car4737bc8924cc2.html
The 1967 Ford Mustang Cobra GT was not an AC with an American engine.
The Ford GT40 was built in Wixom Michigan.

So what was your point besides derailing the thread?

Clearly, it would be very expensive to re-start SSK Production after decades of only building SSN’s. Yet, the USN could purchase a small number directly from Europe. Mainly equipped with US Weapons and Sensors of course

Why? If the US is going to field SSKs I am sure EB could build them. That said there would be no reason to build SSKs. They lack range, endurance and speed.

Corvette Z06, Viper SRT10, F40GT and the golden oldie Shelby Cobra. All world beater sports cars.

Z06 isn’t bad but isn’t exactly cutting edge, the Viper likes to set itself on fire and can’t corner, the shelby cobra is a British AC Ace with a V8 dropped in and the Ford GT40 (not F40GT, which is a racing Ferrari), which was and still is stunning, was designed and built in the UK by Lola cars, though at least a couple of Yanks worked on it, again, mostly on the engine.

http://www.bmt.org/News/?/1/0/160

There was a pdf factsheet that went in depth on their website but I can’t seem to find it now.

Just stick ‘SSGT’ in the search box on said site and choose ‘search BMT’.

Certainly an interesting design. I wonder how things have moved on since 2004/2005?

Al

I was being slightly tongue in cheek but I’d suggest watching Top Gear for a full run down on American Vehicular deficiencies!

You must be kidding……….As “Top Gear” is more “Comedy” than a serious Automotive Show for Enthusiast! As a matter of fact they often praise “Jaguar” and down play American Cars. Which, is understandable considering the Show is UK Based. Yet, they are hardly un-bias!:eek:

To be honest I agree with you on this, restarting an SSK program probably isn’t financially viable as you’d be taking money away from other programs to build up a niche capability.
Basically the only thing I can remember SSKs being better at than SSNs is sitting on the bottom, which can be very useful in a littoral context. SSNs have a lot of intakes etc. on their keel which get clogged up, SSKs don’t and obviously sitting on the bottom is a quieter and a better way of hiding than hovering just above it.
Obviously I last studied submarine design in about 1997 so things may have changed.

Clearly, it would be very expensive to re-start SSK Production after decades of only building SSN’s. Yet, the USN could purchase a small number directly from Europe. Mainly equipped with US Weapons and Sensors of course….;)

Sounds interesting!
Do you have anything more on this proposal – specifications, drawing……etc?

Regards
Pioneer

http://www.bmt.org/News/?/1/0/160

There was a pdf factsheet that went in depth on their website but I can’t seem to find it now.

The British firm BMT put out an SSGT proposal, and SSK with additinal gas turbines in a pod at the top of the sail. This allows fast strategic movement at the fraction of SSN costs. Once in theatre its an SSk AIP again. Had a crew of 25, a dozen torps, 8 VLS and room for a group of SF.

Sounds interesting!
Do you have anything more on this proposal – specifications, drawing……etc?

Regards
Pioneer

Corvette Z06, Viper SRT10, F40GT and the golden oldie Shelby Cobra. All world beater sports cars.

I was being slightly tongue in cheek but I’d suggest watching Top Gear for a full run down on American Vehicular deficiencies!

Why bother taking money away from the nuclear program when the SSNs can perform all of the SSKs missions but not vice versa.

Thirty fathoms is 180 feet. It won’t make any difference whether you have a boat that is 55 feet from keel to mast or 40 feet.

To be honest I agree with you on this, restarting an SSK program probably isn’t financially viable as you’d be taking money away from other programs to build up a niche capability.
Basically the only thing I can remember SSKs being better at than SSNs is sitting on the bottom, which can be very useful in a littoral context. SSNs have a lot of intakes etc. on their keel which get clogged up, SSKs don’t and obviously sitting on the bottom is a quieter and a better way of hiding than hovering just above it.
Obviously I last studied submarine design in about 1997 so things may have changed.

Not necessarily. The Seahorse AUV was tested in the SSGN during Giant Shadow, and it has a range of 500nmi. Yet it was found that the existing tubes in the SSGN could accomodate a UUV with more than 100% increase in size over the Seahorse. And the plan is for SSGNs to be able to deploy even large displacement UUVs than the Seahorse that can operate as long as 2 to 3 weeks. That will reduce the need for SSGNs to get that close to the danger area.

You’d be surprised. SSNs may be more complex, but they’re also different to SSKs and in most fields of engineering experience counts. As an example the UK has had major snags getting the Astute class sorted despite having extensive experience of SSN design, if only because of the decade long gap in design experience.
As another example the US can design fighter jets but they have yet to produce a decent sports car.

Corvette Z06, Viper SRT10, F40GT and the golden oldie Shelby Cobra. All world beater sports cars.

That said I agree building an SSK is not the same as an SSN. Some of the design parameters that are not constrained with an SSN are constrained with an SSK. It is however ludicrous to think that Electric Boat or NG shipbuilding with all their experience building both nuclear and in the past literally hundreds of conventional submarines could not come up with a decent SSK given enough money. The Germans had a long hiatus and they managed okay.

Why bother taking money away from the nuclear program when the SSNs can perform all of the SSKs missions but not vice versa.

Thirty fathoms is 180 feet. It won’t make any difference whether you have a boat that is 55 feet from keel to mast or 40 feet.

…

In any case, the solution to SSKs in confined waters in the eyes of the USN isn’t with SSKs, but LCS and SSGNs seeding these areas with sensors like RMMVs and USVs trailing arrays and dipping sonars to cue in assets like p-8s and MH-60Rs.

Doesn’t fly with me! LCS is fine, I’m actually not so negative about it as a lot of people. But to “seed” robots one has to go pretty close to where they should operate. Thinking about putting an Ohio into the Persian Gulf to seed the Iranian coast is – :eek:.

My question about churning up silt: I have no idea, but it might be that a large slow screw on a 1500ts sub results in less turbulences and flux effects than a pump jet on a 7000ts sub. In shallow water I’m sure no sub wants to leave a big fat trail of discolored water!

You’d be surprised. SSNs may be more complex, but they’re also different to SSKs and in most fields of engineering experience counts. As an example the UK has had major snags getting the Astute class sorted despite having extensive experience of SSN design, if only because of the decade long gap in design experience.
As another example the US can design fighter jets but they have yet to produce a decent sports car.

I think you need to cut back on the medication……..:eek:

As for Sports Cars. I am very happy with mine…….;)

I very much doubt that……………Nuclear Submarines and far more complex. To say the US couldn’t design and build a quality SSK……..is laughable.

You’d be surprised. SSNs may be more complex, but they’re also different to SSKs and in most fields of engineering experience counts. As an example the UK has had major snags getting the Astute class sorted despite having extensive experience of SSN design, if only because of the decade long gap in design experience.
As another example the US can design fighter jets but they have yet to produce a decent sports car.

Clearly, a SSK would be ideal to provide defensive mission within the Littorals and coke points. Like in and around Okinawa for example………

Why do that when SSNs allow for active hunting of the enemy? SSKs are limited to choke points precisely because of their limited mobility.

Persian Gulf: average 30, max 50 fathoms
Strait of Formosa: around 30 fathoms average
Yellow Sea and Yangtze Bank: 25 fathoms average
Malacca Strait: 30 fathoms average

Virgina class: 380 feet long, overall height (what’s that called on subs?) something like 55 feet (with full periscope another 25 to 30 feet). Compare: a 212 is around 40 feet high overall.

How much water does a Virginia have to have under its keel before the pumpjet starts churning up silt?

The Virgs have a fly by wire system which allows for precise depth control, allowing for better maneuverability even in shallow waters. In any case, the solution to SSKs in confined waters in the eyes of the USN isn’t with SSKs, but LCS and SSGNs seeding these areas with sensors like RMMVs and USVs trailing arrays and dipping sonars to cue in assets like p-8s and MH-60Rs.

The Seawolves weren’t designed for the littorals, the Virgs were. So things like EM stealth was also emphasized in the Virgs that weren’t in the Seawolf. The USN needs its subs to do things like Spec Ops insertion, covert SIGINT monitoring etc. SSKs don’t have the endurance or space to do that satisfactorily for the USN, especially with upcoming things like storing UUVs/other sensors to seed areas for pervasive surveillance. This requires more of what the USN terms as ‘ocean interface’, essentially the volume that is accessible to the sea.

Persian Gulf: average 30, max 50 fathoms
Strait of Formosa: around 30 fathoms average
Yellow Sea and Yangtze Bank: 25 fathoms average
Malacca Strait: 30 fathoms average

Virgina class: 380 feet long, overall height (what’s that called on subs?) something like 55 feet (with full periscope another 25 to 30 feet). Compare: a 212 is around 40 feet high overall.

How much water does a Virginia have to have under its keel before the pumpjet starts churning up silt?

The United States is not able to build conventional submarines. And after the shift to build the nuclear submarines to do so. It also does not have the capacity, expertise and modern techniques for the construction of such submarines. This is clear when it had not been able to build conventional submarines,to the Taiwan Navy for some time. Perhaps if the U.S. Navy had sought conventional submarines to recommend the construction of submarines in the country with a vast experience in this area for example, Germany or Sweden.

I very much doubt that……………Nuclear Submarines and far more complex. To say the US couldn’t design and build a quality SSK……..is laughable.

With all do respect……:cool: