Register here

Author Topic: Ohio Replacement Submarine  (Read 20670 times)

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2025
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Ohio Replacement Submarine
« Reply #45 on: December 15, 2016, 03:41:26 pm »
That rendering appears to show 16 missile tubes. Does the life-of-ship reactor that this new boat class sports contribute to the increased size?

As for naming, why not restart the convention of naming attack submarines after underwater creatures? State names for boomers seem fine, and frankly I'm getting quite tired of seeing vessels named after politicians.
The reactor and the electric drive contribute a lot of mass and volume, plus there's the regular generational growth contributed by improvements in the crew accommodations and quieting.

My impression was that by going to a larger beam (43 ft. vs. 42. ft) they could potentially accommodate a longer
SLBM in the future e.g. they could replace the through-deck third stage motor with a longer first or second stage
motor.

Offline NeilChapman

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 854
  • Interested 3rd party
Re: Ohio Replacement Submarine
« Reply #46 on: January 07, 2017, 02:06:46 pm »
That rendering appears to show 16 missile tubes. Does the life-of-ship reactor that this new boat class sports contribute to the increased size?

As for naming, why not restart the convention of naming attack submarines after underwater creatures? State names for boomers seem fine, and frankly I'm getting quite tired of seeing vessels named after politicians.
The reactor and the electric drive contribute a lot of mass and volume, plus there's the regular generational growth contributed by improvements in the crew accommodations and quieting.

Well, the Ford-Class reactors are reportedly smaller, weigh less and require 2/3 the maintenance than Nimitz-Class while electrical power generation is 3x larger.  Expect the Columbia-Class reactor to have many efficiencies over predecessor besides service - to include size.  Recall Virginia-Class reactors are life-of-the-boat @ 33 yrs.   

Interesting article.  Indicates drive is actually smaller...

http://www.public.navy.mil/subfor/underseawarfaremagazine/Issues/Archives/issue_09/power_system.html

"As I mentioned earlier, with mechanical drive 75-80 percent of the useful power produced by the reactor is available exclusively for propulsion. An integrated electric power system, on the other hand, puts power on a common electrical bus and gives the commanding officer operational flexibility in how this energy is distributed to suit the range of payloads, sensors, and propulsion needs for a given tactical situation. An integrated electric power system will allow tomorrow's submarines to make greater use of rechargeable off-hull vehicles, payloads, and sensors to extend the submarines' tactical reach and safeguard operations in high risk and restricted areas."

Emphasis above mine.  What might be integrated into all that space.  All I can find are references to "performance - survivability and acoustics". 

http://nationalinterest.org/feature/beyond-the-ohio-class-inside-americas-next-generation-16270?page=show

"While there have been rumors  that the ORP is larger than its Ohio predecessors because of the size of the electric drive and its permanent magnet motor—despite carrying eight fewer missiles—Lennon said that is not true. The ORP will be larger than the Ohio-class because of the enhanced survivability measures integrated onboard the submarines—the new boats will displace more than 20,800-tons. Indeed, the Navy could have opted to build the boat with twenty or twenty-four missile tubes, but chose not to in order to make sure the United States dispersed its nuclear deterrence. “If you look at the overall length of the ship, the length of the missile compartment is smaller,” Lennon said. “But it’s distributed pretty much equally—the increase—forward and aft. Very little of that has to do with electric drive. It’s really to do with the other capabilities we’ve had to put into the ship in order to meet the mission needs.”

While he could not go into detail, Lennon said those mission needs include performance—including survivability and acoustics. “We’ve had to designate larger volumes in order to put certain features and capabilities into the ship,” he said."

On another note...

UK Dreadnought is also larger then its predecessor and it too has less tubes.  Interesting to note that US/UK shared reactor tech but US reactor has 42 year life and UK is 30 years.






Offline RLBH

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 168
Re: Ohio Replacement Submarine
« Reply #47 on: January 09, 2017, 02:07:01 am »
Interesting to note that US/UK shared reactor tech but US reactor has 42 year life and UK is 30 years.
Design decision based on industrial considerations. UK submarine lifespan, fleet size and build rate are all tied together; we're at minimum fleet size and minimum build rate, which defines the life of the boat. A 42-year core would require a 40% increase in the size of the fleet or the yard standing idle for 12 years out of 42 - funding the former is politically unlikely, the second disastrous for the submarine industry.

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8503
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8442
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline NeilChapman

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 854
  • Interested 3rd party
Re: Ohio Replacement Submarine
« Reply #50 on: August 09, 2018, 06:37:38 pm »
cross post...

https://news.usni.org/2018/08/08/35632

"General Dynamics Electric Boat and the Navy are evaluating the potential of missile tube welding issues identified by a subcontractor to delay construction of the first Columbia-class submarines, the next block of Virginia-class submarines and for the British Dreadnought-class submarines."


**  Edit: Fixed problem link  **
« Last Edit: August 10, 2018, 05:54:31 am by NeilChapman »