This thread was already posted in 2008 (and a couple times before that).

http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?t=81887

I’d rather have an anti-torpedo torpedo. 😀

Meh, the current jammer/decoy combo launchers for subs aren’t that bad either. U212 is getting four launchers with five decoy and five jammer micro-torpedoes each in Batch 2, the same batch that will probably have IDAS installed from the start.

Most of those payments were war-related though – the early 60s deliveries (military deliveries stopped 1965) were officially German reparations for WW2 (i.e. deducted from reparation payments); the 90s deliveries Germany was forced into by the US after the Gulf War to pay off some externally imposed “war guilt” for German companies supplying Iraq with dual-use equipment (… used to cook up those chemical weapons Rumsy gave ’em the recipes for).

Not really all-new. The IDAS missile seems to be mostly a shrunk Polyphem Triton, or at least derives a lot from that cancelled earlier design. The fibre-optic guidance is also transferred from Triton of course.

I know the French are looking at improving the AAW fit on the Mistral class because of the Lebanon evacuation, i dont see much of a reason why as i doubt the Isreali AF would do anything stupid.

Two reasons, both from October 2006:
– France threatened to shoot down Israeli aircraft crossing the border, this was while there was still unloading operations going on with French amphibious ships
– the crew of a certain German ELINT ship was pretty much unpacking their Stingers after six IAF aircraft buzzed them and fired over the bow

It’s got slightly bigger.

I’m fully expecting it to be 8000+ tons by the time the first keel is laid in 2 years or so – 400 tons added every year since the initial 6000-ton draft in 2006 or so. :diablo:

The Modern day counterpart to the county and leander classes of the 1930’s?

Modern day counterpart to the French 1930s Bougainville class “Aviso Colonial”.

German yard withdraws from Greek contract for high-tech subs

The company that makes Germany’s non-nuclear submarines said Monday it had withdrawn from a contract with Athens involving four of the U-214 vessels. The advanced vessels can remain underwater in nearly complete silence for weeks on end, thanks to their fuel-cell engines.

The company, a unit of ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems (TKMS), said it was cancelling contracts with the Greek Defence Ministry because it had not been paid 524 million euros (765 million dollars) although the submarines are ready for delivery.

They were built by TKMS unit Howaldtswerke Deutsche Werft GmbH. The other party to the contracts signed in 2000 and 2004 is a TKMS subsidiary in Greece, Hellenic Shipyards SA, which is claiming 300 million euros of the disputed sum from Athens.

TKMS said in Hamburg it now wished to put the dispute with Greece into arbitration.

The first of the contracts was code-named the “Archimedes Project”, supplying the U-214 vessels, the same as those used by the German Navy. TKMS said all four were ready for delivery.

Unlike diesel-powered submarines, which must come up to the surface often to refill air in their tanks, fuel-cell vessels use minimal air.

The second contract, Neptune II, was to retro-fit three 209-class submarines with fuel-cell propulsion. It said HDW and HSY tried to deliver the first 214-class boat back to Greece in 2006, but Greece refused to accept it “although it met all standards.”

HDW and HSY then conducted two years of fruitless talks with the Greek government on the issue, the statement issued in Hamburg said. It said that HDW and HSY could no longer afford to continue with the contracts.

TKMS added that it had even modernized and expanded the Hellenic Shipyards site since buying it in January 2005, providing Greece with the most modern yard to build non-nuclear submarines on the entire Mediterranean.

Source: dpa.

Note: Yes, this affects both Archimedes/Type 214 and the Neptune-II/Type 209 upgrade. Both cancelled. Original German-language statement regarding the Type 214 is rather “met and exceeded the requirements” than “met the standards”.

A less massive shell can be manipulated faster into a firing position. With all things being equal, this allows for a higher ROF.

Except if you fire at higher ROF, your barrel – or in the railgun your track – will melt. And pretty quickly. The Navy is trying to get its railgun design to the point where the track lasts close to 10 seconds (actually more like 8-9) under its current full ROF. A Mk45 or Vulcano could go 400 seconds with a big enough magazine feed, and even high-pressure tank guns would last easily 30-40 seconds at full ROF.

In a chemical round, all of the impulse is applied to the round at the start and then drops off till the round leavs the barrel.

Umm, no? That would be the case if one used explosives to propel the projectile instead of gunpowder, which (relatively) slowly burns while propelling the projectile.

With a gentler acceleration, the electronics come under less G stress upon firing.

… the 64-MJ railgun for the Navy is intended to accelerate at up to 50,000 g. That’s twice the g stress encountered in a conventional gun. In any trainable gun, you can’t just extend the track to 100 ft.