• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

NSSN Virginia-class - current status and future

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,641
Reaction score
97
Submarine Technology Symposium - Classified man I would love to go ;D

http://www.jhuapl.edu/sts/Default.aspx

Agenda

http://www.jhuapl.edu/sts/STS2016_Agenda_20160315.pdf

IMHO mot interesting sessions:

Advanced Weapons Enhanced by Submarine UAS against Mobile Targets (AWESUM) Joint Capability Technology Demonstration (JCTD) Operational Demonstration, Final Results, and Next Steps

Integrating Surface Ship Weapons for Submarine Launch

So would this one mean possible SM-6 land attack/Anti-ship missiles on SSNs?
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,779
Reaction score
199
Heh. I did a post years ago on another forum about SM-6 on an SSGN and people lost their minds. ;D But think what one or two could do parked, oh, somewhere in the South China Sea or on the south east side of Taiwan. The data rate it would need to receive would be low as all it would be is a very deep magazine. It receives a basic set of coordinates to send it on it's way and another resource (UCAV, E-2, F-35, satellite, whatever) provides the midcourse updates. The SSGN send off a directional signal back up to a satellite, which feeds the network, confirming it's launched missile request X.
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
8,959
Reaction score
168
sferrin said:
Heh. I did a post years ago on another forum about SM-6 on an SSGN and people lost their minds. ;D But think what one or two could do parked, oh, somewhere in the South China Sea or on the south east side of Taiwan. The data rate it would need to receive would be low as all it would be is a very deep magazine. It receives a basic set of coordinates to send it on it's way and another resource (UCAV, E-2, F-35, satellite, whatever) provides the midcourse updates. The SSGN send off a directional signal back up to a satellite, which feeds the network, confirming it's launched missile request X.
A semi-submersible arsenal ship, or perhaps something along the lines of the old Fleet Concept 13, would be more economical in terms of both money and of force projection.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,779
Reaction score
199
Grey Havoc said:
sferrin said:
Heh. I did a post years ago on another forum about SM-6 on an SSGN and people lost their minds. ;D But think what one or two could do parked, oh, somewhere in the South China Sea or on the south east side of Taiwan. The data rate it would need to receive would be low as all it would be is a very deep magazine. It receives a basic set of coordinates to send it on it's way and another resource (UCAV, E-2, F-35, satellite, whatever) provides the midcourse updates. The SSGN send off a directional signal back up to a satellite, which feeds the network, confirming it's launched missile request X.
A semi-submersible arsenal ship, or perhaps something along the lines of the old Fleet Concept 13, would be more economical in terms of both money and of force projection.
Except that building such a ship is a new class, doesn't have most of the advantages of a submarine, but does have a whole lot of problems a surface ship doesn't have. Much more expensive than using subs you're already building. Have often wondered at times about a semi-submersible cruiser type where it's surfaced during transit and submerges when under attack. The top of the hull maybe 10 feet under water with a sensor festooned "crows nest" sticking way up out of the water.
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,641
Reaction score
97
http://news.usni.org/2016/03/24/navy-future-undersea-warfare-will-have-longer-reach-operate-with-network-of-unmanned-vehicles
 

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
2,279
Reaction score
54
sferrin said:
Heh. I did a post years ago on another forum about SM-6 on an SSGN and people lost their minds. ;D But think what one or two could do parked, oh, somewhere in the South China Sea or on the south east side of Taiwan. The data rate it would need to receive would be low as all it would be is a very deep magazine. It receives a basic set of coordinates to send it on it's way and another resource (UCAV, E-2, F-35, satellite, whatever) provides the midcourse updates. The SSGN send off a directional signal back up to a satellite, which feeds the network, confirming it's launched missile request X.
I'm shocked your concept was so poorly received. It was a real US Navy concept for "outer air battle" in the late 80's where subs equipped with long range SAMs and cued by HALE UAVs (Condor) would ambush ingressing bombers.

And note the graphic from the article bobbymike posted
 

Attachments

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,779
Reaction score
199
Ha! Wish I'd had that handy. ;D
 

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
2,279
Reaction score
54
And occasionally, an unclassified version of a paper presented at a Submarine Technology Symposium gets released.

The one attached proposes using sub launched UAVs (and possibly the sub's ESM mast) to construct a Time-Frequency Direction of Arrival network to locate double digit SAMs; a sub-launched TBM version of Standard Missile
then does the DEAD.
 

Attachments

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,641
Reaction score
97
http://news.usni.org/2016/03/28/submarines-to-become-stealthier-through-acoustic-superiority-upgrades-operational-concepts
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,641
Reaction score
97
https://news.usni.org/2016/03/31/navy-set-to-buy-awesum-miniature-sub-launched-uavs
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,641
Reaction score
97
http://www.navytimes.com/story/military/2016/04/04/south-dakota-submarine-navy-keel/82618618/
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,641
Reaction score
97
http://nextbigfuture.com/2016/04/virginia-payload-module-will-increase.html

Next Big Future may not always have 'new' information but always quality graphics and pictures.
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,641
Reaction score
97
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL32418.pdf
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,641
Reaction score
97
http://www.nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/revealed-inside-the-us-navys-lethal-virginia-class-attack-16061
 

covert_shores

Research + illustration
Joined
Oct 31, 2014
Messages
670
Reaction score
7
Website
www.hisutton.com
bobbymike said:
http://nextbigfuture.com/2016/04/virginia-payload-module-will-increase.html

Next Big Future may not always have 'new' information but always quality graphics and pictures.
unusually for headline grabbing journalism I think the article understated the % increase in tomahawk capacity. It makes the assumption that 100% of the torpedo load could be switched for tomahawks. Is that really the case? Tomahawks must be heavy and more negatively buoyant than torpedoes?
 

RP1

I see the truth in it.
Joined
Feb 22, 2006
Messages
441
Reaction score
0
Website
rp-one.net
unusually for headline grabbing journalism I think the article understated the % increase in tomahawk capacity. It makes the assumption that 100% of the torpedo load could be switched for tomahawks. Is that really the case? Tomahawks must be heavy and more negatively buoyant than torpedoes?
I doubt one would ever do that, purely for reasons of self-defence, but offhand I think heavy weight torpedoes are heavier than Tomahawk. Practically, there will be some allowance in the trim and comp system for a range of weapon combinations which could well extend from 100/0 to 0/100%. They both occupy a single stowage position.
 

moonbeamsts

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Mar 5, 2010
Messages
39
Reaction score
0
Hello
As a sts serving in cold war ,our ship was assigned duty as a tlam/conventional missile boat. The load out was 4 torpedo's in the tubes plus 4 torps rest cruise missiles. We had to make regular punctual contact for misson alert/update . The joke was to reach out and touch someone who liked to call out line of death in the med! There isn't a weight issue,varable ballasting on subs handle this quite easily.
 

Volkodav

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Mar 28, 2014
Messages
112
Reaction score
0
My understanding is some classes of submarines literally cannot fire a full load out of heavy weight torpedos as that would exceed the limit of the trim tanks leaving the bow light. Sub Harpoon is lighter than HWT so adding several of them to the load out brings the weight budget back to manageable levels.
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,174
Reaction score
98
Not true of any modern US boats, that's for sure. Sub-Harpoon has been out of the inventory for a long time (since the late 1990s, IIRC).
 

Volkodav

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Mar 28, 2014
Messages
112
Reaction score
0
TomS said:
Not true of any modern US boats, that's for sure. Sub-Harpoon has been out of the inventory for a long time (since the late 1990s, IIRC).
Didn't say modern US boats and it was very much the case with the subs I am familiar with. Not every class has a bow spherical array with the torpedo tubes and weapons stowage compartment located in a more neutral amidships position, most actually have bow tubes and WSC. Your average HWT is around 1600kg while subharpoon at around 700kg is less than half that, so for a given weight a sub can carry more than twice as many harpoon as HWT which is completely impractical operationally and in terms of volume, it does however make perfect sense to tune a given capacity / volume to include a mix of weapons rather than maximum number of HWTs that would be limited by weight rather than volume.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,779
Reaction score
199
Volkodav said:
TomS said:
Not true of any modern US boats, that's for sure. Sub-Harpoon has been out of the inventory for a long time (since the late 1990s, IIRC).
Didn't say modern US boats and it was very much the case with the subs I am familiar with. Not every class has a bow spherical array with the torpedo tubes and weapons stowage compartment located in a more neutral amidships position, most actually have bow tubes and WSC. Your average HWT is around 1600kg while subharpoon at around 700kg is less than half that, so for a given weight a sub can carry more than twice as many harpoon as HWT which is completely impractical operationally and in terms of volume, it does however make perfect sense to tune a given capacity / volume to include a mix of weapons rather than maximum number of HWTs that would be limited by weight rather than volume.
Tomahawks weigh almost as much as a Mk48.
 

Volkodav

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Mar 28, 2014
Messages
112
Reaction score
0
sferrin said:
Volkodav said:
TomS said:
Not true of any modern US boats, that's for sure. Sub-Harpoon has been out of the inventory for a long time (since the late 1990s, IIRC).
Didn't say modern US boats and it was very much the case with the subs I am familiar with. Not every class has a bow spherical array with the torpedo tubes and weapons stowage compartment located in a more neutral amidships position, most actually have bow tubes and WSC. Your average HWT is around 1600kg while subharpoon at around 700kg is less than half that, so for a given weight a sub can carry more than twice as many harpoon as HWT which is completely impractical operationally and in terms of volume, it does however make perfect sense to tune a given capacity / volume to include a mix of weapons rather than maximum number of HWTs that would be limited by weight rather than volume.
Tomahawks weigh almost as much as a Mk48.
Yes and as such tomahawks can replace HWTs one for one on suitably configured submarines no problem. Then again how many SSNs stow their Tomahawks along side there HWTs these days, the Ts, Astutes, Seawolves and any remaining SSN688 (as opposed to 688I) LA class boats?

A bit off track now as I can see no reason why a SSN could not swap every single HWT for a Tomahawk and have then in both the WSC as well as VLS/VPT. This does not change the fact that there are submarines out there that do not have sufficient trim margin to fire the full capacity of HWTs. The can carry them but will not be able to fire all of them but this is not an issue as normal SOP is to carry a mix of Harpoon and HWT with solid ballast being carried in the in the WSC.
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,641
Reaction score
97
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/how-the-us-navys-submarine-force-dominates-the-worlds-oceans-16243
 

Austin

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Jan 30, 2006
Messages
194
Reaction score
1
bobbymike said:
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/how-the-us-navys-submarine-force-dominates-the-worlds-oceans-16243
How much of acoustic edge does Virginia SSN have over the Russian Yasen ?

Does Virginia is also acoustically quiter compared to SSK like U-214/Scorpene/636 kilo etc ?
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,641
Reaction score
97
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-us-navys-dangerous-nuclear-attack-submarine-shortage-16304
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,641
Reaction score
97
https://news.usni.org/2016/05/26/document-report-congress-virginia-class-submarine-program-5
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,641
Reaction score
97
http://ctmirror.org/2016/06/03/electric-boat-plans-major-hiring-expansion-to-tackle-sub-ramp-up/
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,641
Reaction score
97
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/us-navy-nuclear-submarines-will-control-multiple-drones-16503
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,641
Reaction score
97
http://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2016/06/15/submarine-production-poised-to-outpace-other-pentagon-programs-through-2030/#699e27753696

but keeping Virginia-class production at two per year would require only a few additional hours of federal spending annually — the ships currently cost $2.7 billion each, and the government spends over $11 billion each day.
So the Federal government spends $11B/day 365 days/years each Virginia costs 5.22 hours of government spending.
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,641
Reaction score
97
http://nextbigfuture.com/2016/06/us-navy-has-breakthrough-acoustic.html
 

phil gollin

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Sep 19, 2007
Messages
199
Reaction score
1
Hilarious.

So they've improved on their claim of "a hole in the water" !

So they've invented negative sound ?
 

JohnR

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Sep 8, 2006
Messages
353
Reaction score
0
Worrying, trying to make an SSBN a maid of all work.

Adding the lock out facilities for special forces puts the subs in littoral waters for which they are too big; I would argue that all current US and UK SSNs are too big for this kind of work.

Adding cruise missiles will also put them in shallower waters given the shorter range of the missiles.

Better IMHO to leave the SSBN as a specialist vessel lurking in deep water.
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,174
Reaction score
98
That "Marlin Class" poster on the "Next Big Future" page isn't a USN product. It looks to be a student CAD project from a student at New River Community College. So basically a fantasy.
 

moonbeamsts

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Mar 5, 2010
Messages
39
Reaction score
0
As a matter of fact ultra quiet subs produce a blackout/shadow effect on ocean/bio background noise. It shows up on sonar displays. I cannot say much more. You have to be reaLLLY close to pick it up though! In ref to sonar advantage.
::) ::)
 

zhuravlik

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
May 14, 2007
Messages
43
Reaction score
0
Very interesting clip about Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock Division Bayview Acoustic Research Detachment :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTc4yHfSNpg&index=7&list=PLh6Fee3oYRKiuear2uxcdKKqQQ5lSOQyW
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,641
Reaction score
97
https://news.usni.org/2016/08/01/attack-boat-illinois-completes-alpha-trials
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,641
Reaction score
97
http://www.seapowermagazine.org/stories/20160812-sdak.html
 
Top