Commercial (or Semi Commercial) Cargo Submarines

RyanC

RyanC

Crazy Researcher
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
19 December 2006
Messages
979
Reaction score
917
Website
www.generalstaff.org
Yes I know once again from NHHC Photo
 

Attachments

  • USN 1038877 - Submersible Tanker Concept.jpg
    USN 1038877 - Submersible Tanker Concept.jpg
    180.6 KB · Views: 1,703
  • Tanker Concept by NSRDC Caderock MD.jpg
    Tanker Concept by NSRDC Caderock MD.jpg
    91.6 KB · Views: 1,601
And Japanese in WWII (not to mention Russian use of converted subs in the Crimea - which was a concept further developed in the postwar years with dedicated designs).

Is there any conceivable requirement for commercial submarines (other than moving under pack ice)?
 
And Russian subs in the arctic to go under the ice in the winter...
 
The arguments I've seen are the following;

1. Arctic Oil Tanker - The intention being to move oil under the arctic ice cap to the US eastern seaboard. Unfortunately, the gradual opening of the Northwest Passage due to the northern ice melting reduces the economic incentives.

2. Cargo safety - Traveling underwater is a comparatively steady state operation, with little to no impact from surface storms. If a cargo route goes through areas with significant storms, and there is sufficient depth to escape surface wave effects, this may be viable since the ship travel times would vary very little. The drawbacks being cargo load/unload time, and reduced speed/higher cost when compared to a conventional ship when there are no significant storms. There is a secondary cargo security issue at play as well.

3. Blockade evasion - The WWII german cargo submarines are an example of this. Unfortunately, this really only applies to very high value cargo due to easy detectability of large submarines carrying bulk cargo. The modern equivalent are the current cocaine semisubmersibles (which will probably move to concrete submarine construction at some point in the future, if not conventional steel submarines such as those that have already been discovered)
 
just found :
http://gcaptain.com/maritime/blog/russian-cargo-submarine-bizarre-maritime-technology/
 
Orionblamblam said:
... Wait for pirates to board, then submerge.
Click to expand...

Good idea ! This way even the old Type 206 subs, now to be decommissioned, could still serve
in role proposed by our former Federal President: To secure our trade, mimicking, say a sailing
yacht. ;D
But another good task could be, to load crude oil direct at the bore, making oil rigs and long
tubing redundant. Large pollutions had to be achieved another way then !
 
How much they are going to charge for insurance for commercial cargo submarine? It will never work.
 
Let
skyrider said:
How much they are going to charge for insurance for commercial cargo submarine? It will never work.
Click to expand...

Let's see ! Would be a lot more difficult for Somali pirates to board such a ship ! ;D
And those guys can increase charges for insurance, too. Maybe shipyards, which are
able to produce such ships, should invest in small speedboats, Kalashnikovs and RPG-7s
in the meantime ? B)
 
You could also say that this topic is related: http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,10902.0.html
 
I wouldn't say that this is any great surprise; Via our rivials at Militaryphotos.net:

The old Soviet Union may have been just as familiar with Canada's Arctic waters as Canadians.

Sections of Cold-War-era nautical charts obtained by The Canadian Press suggest that Russian mariners have for decades possessed detailed and accurate knowledge of crucial internal waterways such as the Northwest Passage.

Those charts, which may offer the first documentary proof of the widely held belief that Soviet nuclear submarines routinely patrolled the Canadian Arctic during the Cold War, are still in use by Russian vessels. In some places, they are preferred to current Canadian charts.
Click to expand...


http://ca.news.yahoo.com/red-october-real-maps-suggest-soviet-subs-cruised-093009696.html
 
http://www.institutenorth.org/assets/images/uploads/files/Power.pdf
 
George Allegrezza said:
While Searching For Something Else (WSFSE?), I came across this 1981 General Dynamics proposal for submersible LNG tankers:

http://www.navalprofessional.com/vessels/submarine-carrier-proposed-dynamics-4482

The boats were intended to be 1470 ft long and could have nuclear or non-nuclear propulsion. The conops was to ship LNG from Alaskan waters to consumers in Europe and Japan.
Click to expand...


Although the sail on the boat in the photo is toward the bow rather than the stern (as for the artist rendering of the GD LNG carrier in the item at Naval Professional), this appears to be related.


Posted at the San Diego Air & Space Museum (SDASM) Flickr photostream:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sdasmarchives/8126225660/in/photostream
8126225660_169a85031c_z.jpg
 
http://www.shipbucket.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=4417

These post-war designs may be related in some way: http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,1857.0.html
 
Very interesting - whilst obviously intended for dry bulk cargoes, it would be fairly straightforward to produce a similar design for bulk oil. I'd be surprised if Saunders-Roe hadn't drawn one up, actually.
 
Grey Havoc Love those Russians Wiki has some info on a suggested Typhoon conversion
 

Attachments

  • IMG_20200413_193655.jpg
    IMG_20200413_193655.jpg
    84.3 KB · Views: 221
madmike said:
from 'Storia Militare', an italian historical magazine, the project of a pre-WWII submarine oil tanker, with carachteristics.






Uploaded with ImageShack.us






Uploaded with ImageShack.us


and, from the same source, drawings and characteristics of the transport submarines R class, of WWII, of the Italian Navy






Uploaded with ImageShack.us






Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Click to expand...
Hi, do you still possessed that Italian historical magazine, I am interested in the submarine oil tanker
 
And now for something slightly bonkers: The "Nuclear EEL", a 1969 proposal for a 1400*38ft, 40-50 knot shallow diving (200ft) nuclear powered train ferry for trans-oceanic cargo routes. Extensive use of concrete for permanent ballast, and un/loading performed by hauling the thing part way up a ramp and opening the nose. Being right before containerisation took off, the author focuses on the ease of cargo handling in rail ferries compared to the general cargo ships then in use.

Reference: Whitelaw, RL, "The Nuclear EEL", Mechanical Engineering Nov. 1969.

RP1's comment: Given how much time was spent in handling cargo, pretty much any kind of modularisation; container, rail, barge, was much cheaper. In engineering terms however this thing is bonkers. The L/D ratio is so far off the charts I could only guess what the power required would be. Depth control at speed would be a nightmare - a five degree angle means the bow and stern are 120ft different in depth.
 

Attachments

  • eel_1.PNG
    eel_1.PNG
    182.8 KB · Views: 61
  • eel_2.PNG
    eel_2.PNG
    287.6 KB · Views: 54
  • eel_3.PNG
    eel_3.PNG
    217.1 KB · Views: 63
Has anyone proposed construction work via submersibles?

The Drake Passage is incredibly violent, yet I could see that as a source of wind and sea power.

Too violent for surface ships—but, just perhaps—one could tow telescoping well under the surface then have the structure break the surface as a Jack-Up Rig in reverse.

Keep filling in the gaps and you can get a bridge.

Maintenance done below the surface.
 
RP1 said:
And now for something slightly bonkers: The "Nuclear EEL", a 1969 proposal for a 1400*38ft, 40-50 knot shallow diving (200ft) nuclear powered train ferry for trans-oceanic cargo routes. Extensive use of concrete for permanent ballast, and un/loading performed by hauling the thing part way up a ramp and opening the nose. Being right before containerisation took off, the author focuses on the ease of cargo handling in rail ferries compared to the general cargo ships then in use.

Reference: Whitelaw, RL, "The Nuclear EEL", Mechanical Engineering Nov. 1969.

RP1's comment: Given how much time was spent in handling cargo, pretty much any kind of modularisation; container, rail, barge, was much cheaper. In engineering terms however this thing is bonkers. The L/D ratio is so far off the charts I could only guess what the power required would be. Depth control at speed would be a nightmare - a five degree angle means the bow and stern are 120ft different in depth.
Click to expand...
Aw, hell no.

Do NOT want to drive that monster. No way, no how. Your cargo is going to do "trim parties" on you, 200ft is not deep enough to get you clear of heavyweight haulers or surface effects from big storms, and you're absolutely not safely doing 40-50 knots at 200ft.

What's a trim party? That's when you get 150 people running from one end of the ship to another as quietly as they can to mess with a newly-qualified dive or chief of the watch. If those railcars are not locked down SOLIDLY, they're going to shift back and forth and completely mess up the ship's trim.

I had a really bad PD trip once. Taking rolls at 200ft, got sucked up to the surface from 160ft. And that's depth to keel, so the top of the hull was more like 110ft from the surface. Fought us down, sank out to 200ft. Tried again, sucked back up to the surface. Spent the next 45 min broached bigger than hell, waves so tall that the guy on the periscope couldn't see the tops of the big waves with the headpiece cranked all the way up. 27deg rolls side to side, +-10 in pitch, and heaving probably +-10ft. Finally caught a good wave across the fairwaters and was able to get down to 200ft.

Had another time when the Captain was trying to run on the treadmill, and we were rolling enough to be annoying at 300ft. "Off'sa'deck, from the Captain, make your depth 400 feet."

And finally, at 200ft you're going to be lucky to be safely doing 15 knots. You want to do 40-50 knots, you need to be closer to 600-800ft down. That's not a matter of noise, it's a matter of being able to not exceed your crush depth if/when the stern planes decide to blow their packing out and jam at "full dive" position.

Not to mention that trying to offload train cars while the sub/tracks are at a ~2deg incline is going to be miserable. You'd be better off sticking the sub into a drydock and pulling the trains out flat!




publiusr said:
Has anyone proposed construction work via submersibles?

The Drake Passage is incredibly violent, yet I could see that as a source of wind and sea power.

Too violent for surface ships—but, just perhaps—one could tow telescoping well under the surface then have the structure break the surface as a Jack-Up Rig in reverse.

Keep filling in the gaps and you can get a bridge.

Maintenance done below the surface.
Click to expand...
You'd need something comparable to NR-1 to be able to do that well. Maybe not a nuclear boat, what with modern battery/AIP abilities, but you'd need something that could spend a month or more underwater.

Plus you'd need to be doing all the work at probably 400ft down. Maybe deeper. Kentucky went around that way (maybe not Drake Passage), and was taking rolls when they were DEEP. So we'd be talking saturation diver support, and/or ROVs.
 
That and telepresence.

I think the Johnson Sea Link was retired, but it’s diver’s lockout was given over for computers and extra seats well before then.
 
Scott Kenny said:
If those railcars are not locked down SOLIDLY, they're going to shift back and forth and completely mess up the ship's trim.
Click to expand...
In fairness, that's a problem on normal train ferries too. Though they do have the small advantage that when the cargo decides to unload itself of its own volition, it doesn't take the whole ship with it. Usually.
Scott Kenny said:
You'd need something comparable to NR-1 to be able to do that well. Maybe not a nuclear boat, what with modern battery/AIP abilities, but you'd need something that could spend a month or more underwater.
Click to expand...
There was a lot of interest in crewed submersibles for subsea work in the 1960s and 1970s, including the rather unfortunate experience of Pisces III. ROVs ate the lunch of the 1-atmosphere submersibles.

For dive support, saturation divers very quicky said not just no, but hell no to not being connected to the surface. There were a few submersibles built for it (not just the Johnson Sea-Link) but they were seriously unpopular.

There are a lot of parallels between spaceflight and subsea work, not just in timeframe but also in the way that developments in uncrewed systems made crewed ones largely obsolete.
 
southwestforests said:
Oh, oh! I just figured out how to get rich quick selling cargo submarines ... I'm going to build and sell roll-on, roll-off, automobile carrier submarines specifically for transporting EVs having lithium ion batteries!
;)
Click to expand...
A joke, I know—but a hold full of EVs might well power that sub.

Some pirate tries to steal it empty—they’re in for a (no) shock.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom