NSSN Virginia-class - current status and future

[bobbymike]

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]

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]

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]

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]

http://news.usni.org/2016/03/24/navy-future-undersea-warfare-will-have-longer-reach-operate-with-network-of-unmanned-vehicles

 

[marauder2048]

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

 

[sferrin]

Ha! Wish I'd had that handy. ;D

 

[marauder2048]

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.

 

[Grey Havoc]

Pun Alert!

 

[bobbymike]

http://news.usni.org/2016/03/28/submarines-to-become-stealthier-through-acoustic-superiority-upgrades-operational-concepts

 

[bobbymike]

https://news.usni.org/2016/03/31/navy-set-to-buy-awesum-miniature-sub-launched-uavs

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.navytimes.com/story/military/2016/04/04/south-dakota-submarine-navy-keel/82618618/

 

[bobbymike]

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]

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL32418.pdf

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/revealed-inside-the-us-navys-lethal-virginia-class-attack-16061

 

[covert_shores]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/how-the-us-navys-submarine-force-dominates-the-worlds-oceans-16243

 

[Austin]

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]

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-us-navys-dangerous-nuclear-attack-submarine-shortage-16304

 

[bobbymike]

https://news.usni.org/2016/05/26/document-report-congress-virginia-class-submarine-program-5

 

[bobbymike]

http://ctmirror.org/2016/06/03/electric-boat-plans-major-hiring-expansion-to-tackle-sub-ramp-up/

 

[bobbymike]

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/us-navy-nuclear-submarines-will-control-multiple-drones-16503

 

[bobbymike]

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]

http://nextbigfuture.com/2016/06/us-navy-has-breakthrough-acoustic.html

 

[phil gollin]

Hilarious.

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

So they've invented negative sound ?

 

[JohnR]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[covert_shores]

Cheers! What is this?

 

[Moose]

Those are the prototype AWJ-21 water jets that give the Sea Jet its name. Here's a PDF with more.

 

[bobbymike]

https://news.usni.org/2016/08/01/attack-boat-illinois-completes-alpha-trials

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.seapowermagazine.org/stories/20160812-sdak.html