UnicornGood enough that they have taken up the mantle of the Oberon class that the RAN operated for so many years.
They have “sunk” high value targets in exercises such as RIMPAC (US CVN’s amongst others), have conducted the same intelligence gathering ops that the Oberon class used to undertake and have given the nuclear attack subs of the RN and USN a very hard time when they have met in exercises.
Given that both of those navies are the varsity of SSN ops, the RAN is reasonably happy with where the Collins class are right now.
They will be better when a range of upgrades and improvements currently planned are completed.
Unicorn
UnicornTo my Knowledge X-Tail is a good thing to have in Shallow water or litorral environment , As it allows tight/fine manovering or better turning factor , But it also requires a computer control to do it , I dont think its of significant advantage in Open Ocean .
Even the latest Amur dosent have a X tail , But for the matter even the Scorpene dosent , Only U-212/214 has it in modern sub , It is quite possible that you can achieve fine manouvering without having an X-tail.
You might want to check again.
The Collins class also have an X tail.
Unicorn
UnicornRe nuclear powered escorts for the USN.
Read the book Eletctronic Greyhounds, the Spruance Class Destroyers (which also covers the Kidds and Ticonderoga’s).
In that it becomes apparent that it was going to be the Spruance class or nothing.
Rickover and his nuclear mafia were adament that anything over 8,000 tons was going to have a nuclear reactor, and the costs meant that the USN would not have been able to afford the Spruance class capability on a nuke powered hull.
Same applied with the Ticonderoga’s.
The fight was quite nasty within the Pentagon and Congress, but the cost of nuclear propulsion is such that if they had decreed a nuke-powered Aegis class, it would never have been built.
The other issue with nuclear propulsion is that it’s benefits are oversold.
Sure a CVN can race across the oceans at high speeds, but it still needs to rendesvous with a conventionally powered replenishment group every few days or so to supply food, aviation fuel, spare parts etc, etc.
Making a few escorts nuclear powered will not change that basic limitation, and will only ensure that the USN has even fewer escorts available, due to the much higher unit costs.
Unicorn
UnicornThe following report is from Stratfor, a private sector intelligence organisation which has an interesting take on things.
I would heartily reccomend subscribing if you have any interest in geopolitics. They issue several analysis a day.
***
Israel: German Subs and Nuclear Reach
Summary
Two Dolphin-class submarines will be built in Germany and sold to Israel for $1.17 billion, with the government of German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder — who is leaving office Nov. 22 — picking up one-third of the cost. By finalizing the sale on his government’s last day in office, Schroeder is able to reap the benefits of the deal without dealing with the political fallout. Germany has long been hesitant about selling subs to Israel, concerned that the Jewish state might arm them with nuclear weapons. In reality, arming the subs with nukes may not be as technically feasible as people think. Either way, the Israelis probably do not mind other countries believing the subs are nuclear-capable.
Analysis
The outgoing government of German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder has agreed to supply two Dolphin-class diesel-electric submarines to Israel. The new sub deal will allow the Israelis to upgrade their fleet without taking any of their active boats offline. There is speculation that the Dolphins could be modified to launch nuclear weapons and thereby give Israel a second-strike capability. Although technically possible, it is unlikely the Israelis will transform the boats into an effective nuclear delivery system — using currently available hardware, that is.
Germany, which is a staunch supporter of Israel, donated two Dolphins to Israel in the early 1990s. The Israelis later bought a third at a greatly reduced price. Israel’s existing fleet of three Dolphins, known as the Type 800 in Israeli service, were built at the Howaldtswerke shipyard in Kiel and fitted out with equipment according to Israeli specifications.
Observers have speculated that Israel’s submarine fleet gives the Jewish state a nuclear second-strike capability, the premise being that if a nuclear attack from another country takes out Israel’s nuclear ars enal, the Dolphins would survive and be able to launch a counterstrike from another location. There also has been speculation that the subs could be used to launch a pre-emptive strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities in order to prevent Tehran from fielding a nuclear weapon of its own.
Although it would be possible to arm the Dolphins with nuclear weapons — and Israel’s defense industry is certainly capable of doing this — such weapons would not likely be effective against Iran’s nuclear assets or political targets. The Harpoon is an anti-ship missile, designed to seek out ship-sized targets on the water, and the missile’s guidance system would have to be changed to attack targets over land (making it, essentially, a cruise missile). Though that conversion would be possible, some analysts contend that a nuclear warhead would be significantly heavier than the Harpoon’s normal conventional warhead. A heavier warhead means that the range of the missile would be shortened, and its now nose-heavy airframe could degrade its accuracy.
The range of a non-nuclear-armed Harpoon is approximately 175 miles, which is too short for a Dolphin in the Persian Gulf to be able to hit Tehran, or Iran’s nuclear facilities at Arak or Natanz. Only the reactor at Bushehr would be vulnerable. With its shallow water, the Persian Gulf is an environment in which submarines can be spotted relatively easily by aircraft and ships, reducing the likelihood that the Israelis would risk their Dolphins by operating there. Therefore, the Israelis would be compelled to restrict their submarine operations to the deeper Gulf of Oman, or even better, the Arabian Sea.
The Dolphins operated by Israel are similar to the Germans’ Type 212/214 design and were originally designed for interdiction, surveillance and special-forces operations. They can accommodate a crew of 35 for up to two months of operations away from their base. The submarines are capable of launching the U.S.-made RGM-84F Harpoon anti-ship missile from its torpedo tubes. Any nuclear capability the Dolphins would have would be in the form of Harpoons armed with Israeli-made nuclear warheads.
Even getting to their launch point would be problematic for the Dolphins, with their range of 4,500 nautical miles. The only way they could get to the Gulf of Oman without needing to stop for refueling would be to go though the Suez Canal — Going around Africa would mean that they would have to stop in friendly ports at least twice on the way. If a Dolphin from Haifa refuels in Gibraltar, it lacks the range to make it to South Africa. It would have to stop or be replenished along the way. It would also have to refuel on the second leg of its trip, or be replenished at sea.
Given the advanced state of Israel’s aeronautical and defense industry, developing a system that can reach targets deep inside Iran from the Gulf of Oman or the Arabian Sea is certainly within Israel’s technical means. If Israel does have a nuclear second-strike capability, it is unlikely to come from Dolphins firing nuclear-tipped Harpoons from the Gulf of Oman or Arabian Sea. However, with an eventual fleet of five subs lurking in the waters around the Middle East, the Jewish state’s potential enemies cannot completely ignore the possibility that Israel might be capable of responding to an attack, and must keep that in mind when considering any major action against it.
***
UnicornEven if you could undertake the mating of a reactor with the Foxtrot hull (good luck!) there would still be a pile of other issues.
The Foxy is hardly the quietest of subs even trolling around at 5 to 8 knots.
Try propelling it with a kettle at 25 knots and you would make an underwater volcano sound quiet. You could probably track it by the exodus of marine life from the vicinity.
In addition, the design itself has maximum speed limitations, partly due to hydrodynamics. I understand that one reason the world’s navies ended up going for versions of the Albacore hull is because there is an upper limit to speed and manouverability from a conventional (ie non-albacore) hull design.
If on the other hand all you are looking for is an increased endurance and reduced indescretion rate from snorting, fuel cells or a Stirling engine are much cheaper, much easier to retrofit and don’t cause the same angst amongst the major power of the world.
Unicorn
UnicornEpoPisces, I suspect that you and the owner of this site
Have much in common.
Unicorn
UnicornLooks like there will be a few good ships on the blocks soon.
Unicorn
UnicornI believe one of the old US conventional boats had that modification done to support operations against the Soviet undersea telecommunications lines.
Might have been the Halibut for the Ivy Bells missions in the Sea of Okhotsk.
Unicorn
Edit. According to the book Blind Man’s Bluff, the Sturgeon class SSN USS Parche was cut in two in 1987 to have a 100 foot long section inserted to better fit her out for electronic evesdropping and intelligence missions.
That is the only example of which I am familiar of any navy successfully cutting a submarine in two, rejoining it and then sending it back to sea on regular operations.
As a correction, the Halibut was not modified by cutting her in two, they simply used the Regulus cruise missile hangar which was built onto the bow of the sub.
UnicornHow long is a piece of string?
You are asking an extremely open ended question.
The factors influencing the answer to your question include;
The age of the airframe?
How recent the last major overhaul was?
Has the powerplant and drivetrain been upgraded or is it still original?
What electronics are on-board? (more recent tend to be somewhat more reliable however very newly installed gear tends to go through a low availablility period as operators and maintainers grow familiar in its use and operation)
What is the operational environment for the platform? (operations from large deck vessels such as the Garibaldi in the Mediterranean tend to be easier on the airframe than operations from small Canadian frigates in the wilds of the North Atlantic winter gales)
What is the operational environment for the aircraft’s operation? (operations in the Persian Gulf are very hard on engines and blades due to the airborne sand and dust)
What is the operational requirement? (Short range troop ferry flights have a greater sortie rate than outer perimeter ASW patrols)
What is the operating services policies? (some services limit the amount of hours flown to husband the airframe hours)
Are their alternative available aircrew? (If an aircraft has only one crew, then it can only fly for set periods of time, given mandatory crew rest)
As you can see, there are a vast number of interrelated factors which effect your request, and thus its almost impossible to answer your question in general terms. You either have to be very specific in your question or relate it to a particular operation’s historic data.
Unicorn
UnicornHere is another thought.
That does not look like a round hole. rather that it is the edge of the explosion zone, and that the lower “rounded” half of the “hole” is in fact formed by the buckling of the metal plating below it up and back, creating an optical illusion of a hole.
In a seperate image, you can see the same area, and the impact hole is not evident.
If you wish to see the pros and cons of the “Foreign sub sank Kursk” argument look at this thread.
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=49333&page=1&pp=30
The conspiracy theory seemed to get well and truly debunked there.
Unicorn
UnicornI am not so sure on that.
The stresses and strains of carrier aviation reguire substantially strengthened structural members, more robust landing gear, hard points for arrestor hooks, marinisation features, all of which are wasted on land based aircraft. In fact the excess weight is a positive detriment to performance.
The FA18 Hornet is an anomaly in that it was designed as carrier aircraft then adapted as a land based aircraft by a number of air forces. Similarly the F4 Phantom followed the same path.
Going the other way however has not been undertaken since the Second World War, and those aircraft that tried to do so (Seafire, Sea Hurricane, etc) were inferior in many ways to purpose designed carrier aircraft.
The Mig 29s which the then-Soviet Navy deployed to sea were apparently not identical by any measure to the usual PVO-Strany aircraft.
I would wager that the modifications to convert land based SU27s to carrier capable SU33s would entail a lot more than just fitting an arrestor hook.
It would probably be quicker and cheaper to go back to Sukhoi and get them to re-open production of the SU33 on their tooling, rather than trying to reinvent the wheel by building in-country with no previous experience in building and operating fixed-wing carrier aircraft.
Unicorn
UnicornInteresting.
That would suggest that Mauritius is not happy with the Vigilant.
Either that or it is going to be substantially cheaper to acquire a new ship from India.
Unicorn
UnicornWhite Clowd, allow me to correct a few of your more obvious errors.
You said
“your American “Normal Palmer” Back in 1989 wrote in a Military Publication called “Proceedings” 1989 XII, No.1042 on pages 119-122 Titled “Battling Against Torpedos”… “
The name of the person in question is Norman Polmar, a very reputable naval analyst and author.
The publication in question is Proceedings of the United States Naval Institute. It is not a government publication in that it is not published by the US government, but by the US Naval Institute, a private organisation which was set up more than a century ago to promote better understanding of the US Navy and maritime issues in the public arena.
You said
“Further on, the author lists the weaponry being developed by the American Navy against Soviet subs armed with these wonder-torpedos:”
The article in question did not say the US Navy was developing these weapons. Polmar stated that these were some possible current and future technologies which could be developed to offset the 65 inch “wave following” torpedo.
The article in question was written in the period after the Western navies had become aware of the existance of the “wake homing” torpedo and much speculation was underway in various publication as to the threat it posed to ships, particularly the USN’s major surface combatants such as the Iowa class BBs and the CVNs.
As is usually the case when only a portion of the information is known, speculation was rampant and tended to the worst case scenario.
Later information, particularly in the years after the fall of the Berlin Wall and Communism in Russia allowed the USN to take a more balanced view of the wake homing torpedo, it is a threat, but simply one amongst many, not a game ending device.
Please be a little more careful in the information you present and how you present it.
Selective quoting and taking statements out of context, or changing the wording to support your assertions does you no credit.
Unicorn
UnicornGuys,
Lets have a small moment of common sense here.
You are assuming that in this day and age, a US submarine would willingly (torpedo) or unwillingly (ram) a Russian submarine, sinking it and creating one of the biggest naval-related media spectacles in decades, and nothing would leak?
That amongst a crew of more than 100 USN officers and sailors aboard, and the dozens more on shore that would have learned of it, not one of them has said anything?
That none of the civilian appointees who would have learned of it would use it for partisan political purposes?
That none of the civilian contractors who would have been involved in repairing damage sustained woudl say anything?
At all?
Ever?
I think not.
This is something out of a bad movie, not factual data worthy of the time and effort of the people on this board.
Lets go back to real intangibles (Is China refurbishing their ex-Russian carrier for service) rather than chasing conspiracy-theory smoke and mirrors.
Unicorn
UnicornThe model is of the initial concept, and was somewhat modified ion the way to the final design.
The air search radar was moved from the top of the forward superstructure to the forward part of the centre superstructure block, and the enclosed mast structure was moved further forward.
Unicorn
Sign In
