SSN (X) - Seawolf Redux or something far larger?

[Scott Kenny]

What are the advantages of these externally mounted torpedo tubes?

One advantage not mentioned yet is that they allow you to use larger torpedoes than you can fit in your torpedo tubes, say 65-66cm weapons, or much longer weapons like Shkval (8.2m, Mk48s are 6m).

You would want a supercavitating torpedo ready to launch at all times, though the external tube would still need an impulse pump. You do NOT want a solid fuel rocket blowtorching your hull!

 

[bobbymike]

DARPA launches program for super-quiet submarine propulsion tech

DARPA sees an opportunity to finally make the efficient, scalable magnetohydrodynamic drive a reality.

www.inceptivemind.com

 

[MihoshiK]

What are the advantages of these externally mounted torpedo tubes?

One advantage not mentioned yet is that they allow you to use larger torpedoes than you can fit in your torpedo tubes, say 65-66cm weapons, or much longer weapons like Shkval (8.2m, Mk48s are 6m).

You would want a supercavitating torpedo ready to launch at all times, though the external tube would still need an impulse pump. You do NOT want a solid fuel rocket blowtorching your hull!

Even with a double-hull design it would be a good way to get rid of your anechoic cladding.

 

[Scott Kenny]

What are the advantages of these externally mounted torpedo tubes?

One advantage not mentioned yet is that they allow you to use larger torpedoes than you can fit in your torpedo tubes, say 65-66cm weapons, or much longer weapons like Shkval (8.2m, Mk48s are 6m).

You would want a supercavitating torpedo ready to launch at all times, though the external tube would still need an impulse pump. You do NOT want a solid fuel rocket blowtorching your hull!

Even with a double-hull design it would be a good way to get rid of your anechoic cladding.

A SUBROC hot run would burn a hole through the sub in a little under 3 seconds, they said. Not through the torpedo tube door.

Through the inner door, across two or three steel pressure bulkheads, through the reactor, and out the hull on the far side of the sub.

 

[WatcherZero]

Looking at that concept image in the video I might suggest the possibility they arent offensive torpedoes but smaller interceptors.

 

[TomS]

Looking at that concept image in the video I might suggest the possibility they arent offensive torpedoes but smaller interceptors.

The video here?

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/ssn-x-seawolf-redux-or-something-far-larger.36619/post-590575

Those are definitely heavyweight sized tubes. Compare to the bow tube shutters that are visible in the same image.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Looking at that concept image in the video I might suggest the possibility they arent offensive torpedoes but smaller interceptors.

The interceptors are intended to be 6.75" diameter, the same size as the external "alka seltzer" countermeasures.

 

[WatcherZero]

I doubt a submarine would use the SSTD (Surface Ship Torpedo Defense), they rely on rockets to travel through the air to reach an enemy torpedo travelling close to the surface while their own propulsion is only for the final couple of hundred yards of the interception, they would be unsuitable for protecting a submarine where they would have to travel a significant distance through water.

The Israeli one can go down to a depth of 350m but its mainly an acoustic decoy with a hard kill proximity fuse rather than an interceptor.

 

[Scott Kenny]

I doubt a submarine would use the SSTD (Surface Ship Torpedo Defense), they rely on rockets to travel through the air to reach an enemy torpedo travelling close to the surface while their own propulsion is only for the final couple of hundred yards of the interception, they would be unsuitable for protecting a submarine where they would have to travel a significant distance through water.

The Israeli one can go down to a depth of 350m but its mainly an acoustic decoy with a hard kill proximity fuse rather than an interceptor.

No, there's a separate program or source of funds for a submarine specific defensive torpedo, to use the same external form factor and potentially launch systems as the external ADC countermeasures.

 

[WatcherZero]

The one that was cancelled in 2019? There is a US program to miniaturise the 6.25" ADC Mk 4 countermeasures to a 3" form factor as the Mk 5 as well as one to develop a 3" sonar probe that would relay information back to the submarine via underwater phone, essentially a self propelled underwater sonar buoy so they are moving away from the 6.25" form factor. The Royal Navy has used a 4" form factor for its submarine launched smart decoys for some time.

 

[Josh_TN]

The program to add anti torpedo systems to US carriers was canceled but a new program to install them in external countermeasures dispensers in submarines still exists AFAIK. They might not necessarily be used as anti torpedo munitions; they might easily be used against UUVs or suddenly appearing sub targets.

 

[TomS]

The program to add anti torpedo systems to US carriers was canceled but a new program to install them in external countermeasures dispensers in submarines still exists AFAIK. They might not necessarily be used as anti torpedo munitions; they might easily be used against UUVs or suddenly appearing sub targets.

Correct. The Compact Rapid Attack Weapons program is still running as of earlier this year.

Small Torpedo Being Prototyped by Raytheon to Arm the Navy's Submarines - Seapower

ARLINGTON, Va. — Raytheon is building prototypes of a small torpedo that is designed to attack hostile submarines and defend the U.S. Navy’s submarines from incoming torpedoes. The Compact Rapid Attack Weapon (CRAW) is designed to be launched from a...

seapowermagazine.org

 

[WatcherZero]

I understand that program has transitioned over the last three years away from a defensive interceptor and into an offensive weapon for attacking small and unmanned craft.

 

[Scott Kenny]

I understand that program has transitioned over the last three years away from a defensive interceptor and into an offensive weapon for attacking small and unmanned craft.

The difference between a small USV and a torpedo is payload. So if the mini torpedo can hit a heavyweight torpedo, it can also hit a small USV.

There is a US program to miniaturise the 6.25" ADC Mk 4 countermeasures to a 3" form factor as the Mk 5 as well as one to develop a 3" sonar probe that would relay information back to the submarine via underwater phone, essentially a self propelled underwater sonar buoy so they are moving away from the 6.25" form factor.

Yes, to open up capacity in the 6.25" bays for mini torpedoes.

 

[Josh_TN]

A torpedo moves at a significantly higher speed than most UUVs. That said I suspect all of the various sonars on a USN SSN make for much better fire control than anything a surface ship could ever hope for, which might make anti torpedo interception more practical. Depending on the distance and angle, one might expect an extremely fast TMA against a loud torpedo target.

 

[Scott Kenny]

A torpedo moves at a significantly higher speed than most UUVs. That said I suspect all of the various sonars on a USN SSN make for much better fire control than anything a surface ship could ever hope for, which might make anti torpedo interception more practical. Depending on the distance and angle, one might expect an extremely fast TMA against a loud torpedo target.

Right. Read the order I wrote things in again. "if the mini torpedo can hit a heavyweight torpedo, it can also hit a small USV." The Heavyweight torpedo is the more challenging target.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Catching up on some comments I had not replied to before.

I'll be very curious to learn if the Nuclear-Turbo Electric machinery is noticeably quieter than the previous mechanical gearing. Seems like the best of both worlds of Nuclear and Diesel-Electric propulsion combined.

Reduction gears are the single loudest part of a sub, because they're directly connected to something that sticks into the water: the prop shaft.

Getting rid of them is something like an order of magnitude less noise leaving the ship.

We ever going to get a new torpedo?

Not till we get a supercavitating one.

Everything else is going to be an upgrade to the Mk48 series. Even if by the end of it there's nothing in common with the Mk48ADCAPs.

And even after we get supercavitating torpedoes, they'll probably stay in limited use as an emergency snapshot weapon rather than the primary weapon used.

"Run Silent, run deep" is supposed to be the US Navy's submariner motto. The reality is "Run Silent, Run Shallow because all we care about is stealth". The fact that diving depths have not improved at all from the 1960's is inexcusable. It began with Rickover's forcing the SN-688 and S6G on the Navy over the 2000' ft diving depth, retractable sail, high-speed S5G powered CONASS design. It continued with the decision to pursue Centurion/NSSN/Virginia instead of designs -from within the US submarine community- that featured spherical pressure hulls and 4000+ ft diving depths, and continues today with the SSN(X). Diving depth is more valuable than stealth. Period.

The only weapon a submarine has is stealth.

If you are detected in a submarine, you are dead.

And since I still have friends on the boats, I will appreciate you not killing them with bad ideas.

Do we know what the current state of underwater communications and data-links is? The UK had a requirement for an underwater data-link to use with the computerised command systems of their submarines, and I imagine something like that is now well within the realms of technical plausibility.

There are underwater modems, the problem is that they are the farthest thing from stealthy.

There’s no electric torpedo that reaches those depths?

Electric torpedoes have speed challenges, cannot easily chase down a nuclear submarine. For that matter, Mk48s and even Spearfish (both powered by combustion engines) can be outrun, if you detect them soon enough and have enough acceleration and top speed.

 

[Ironmiked]

Congress Highlights Need for Third Submarine Production Facility (From Defense News)

WASHINGTON ― A congressionally mandated commission on Thursday released its final report on the U.S. nuclear posture, recommending an increase in additional assets as China rapidly expands its own arsenal.

At the same time, the commission found the Pentagon and Energy Department are lagging behind their modernization goals, raising questions about the ability to develop additional nuclear assets.

Sen. Roger Wicker of Mississippi, the top Republican on the Armed Services Committee, called the report “a stark reminder of the significant work needed to expand our nuclear submarine industrial base to increase production and reduce repair time.”

Industrial base failing to keep pace​

The report also sounds the alarm about the industrial base’s failure to keep pace with nuclear modernization requirements.

For instance, the Navy is behind in its goal of constructing one Columbia-class submarine per year while maintaining the older Ohio-class vessels on top of trying to produce two Virginia-class conventional attack submarines per year, which use overlapping nuclear supply chains.

“The [White House’s Office of Management and Budget] as well as the commission are skeptical that the current infrastructure can simultaneously support conventional and nuclear sustainment, modernization, and construction as scheduled,” states the report. “The AUKUS agreement may place further stress on this capacity,” referring to the trilateral pact in which the U.S. and Britain will help transfer Virginia-class submarines to Australia.

To that end, the commission says the Defense Department should “establish or renovate a third shipyard dedicated to production of nuclear-powered vessels, with particular emphasis on nuclear-powered submarines.”

Wicker has held up key authorizations needed to implement AUKUS, demanding the Biden administration and Congress put more money into the submarine industrial base. The two authorizations Wicker is holding up would permit the transfer of two Virginia-class submarines to Australia and allow the Defense Department to accept Canberra’s $3 billion contribution in the submarine industrial base.

 

[Moose]

No shipbuilders on the commission, let alone sub builders. The report is not costed, and includes bangers like the notion we should convert the SSGNs back into SSBNs. Circular file it.

I don't wish to dismiss the idea of a third construction yard out of hand, but both EB and HII have been adding to their already large yards lately and have (or will soon have) the footprint to support the program. They need the workforce and supply chain to match the facilities, simply adding a third builder wouldn't fix those.

If they want to add a new shipyard, they should be thinking a new USN-owned repair yard on the West Coast to sustain the Pacific Fleet. Maintenance and sustainment are in a lot worse overall shape than construction, and they ARE constrained by not having enough facilities on the Pacific Fleet side of the country.

 

[bobbymike]

As the old [modified] saying goes when was the two best times to start expanding our nuclear weapons enterprise and infrastructure?

20 years ago
Now

 

[Scott Kenny]

No shipbuilders on the commission, let alone sub builders. The report is not costed, and includes bangers like the notion we should convert the SSGNs back into SSBNs. Circular file it.

lolwut?

You mean rip all 24 tubes out because there's 7-10 feet of concrete in the bottom of each? Spin up another batch of 4x D5 Backfit control systems? And somehow shit out 4x SINS, since the SSGNs got RLGNs instead?

I don't wish to dismiss the idea of a third construction yard out of hand, but both EB and HII have been adding to their already large yards lately and have (or will soon have) the footprint to support the program. They need the workforce and supply chain to match the facilities, simply adding a third builder wouldn't fix those.

If they want to add a new shipyard, they should be thinking a new USN-owned repair yard on the West Coast to sustain the Pacific Fleet. Maintenance and sustainment are in a lot worse overall shape than construction, and they ARE constrained by not having enough facilities on the Pacific Fleet side of the country.

Gods, yes! The USN has all of 2 shipyards on the Pacific. One is at Pearl Harbor, the other at Bremerton.

None left in California.

 

[publiusr]

Ugh.

Maybe torpedoes made to generate a lot of noise so the submarine can get away if detected?

Like lighting a match in front of night vision goggles?

 

[Scott Kenny]

Ugh.

Maybe torpedoes made to generate a lot of noise so the submarine can get away if detected?

Like lighting a match in front of night vision goggles?

Yes, MOSS was a thing back in the day, and I could see fitting a Mk48 body with a bunch of batteries and a big loudspeaker.

 

[aim9xray]

Rick-Roll'n at 160 dB. There's a seismic displacement for you!

 

[Scott Kenny]

Rick-Roll'n at 160 dB. There's a seismic displacement for you!

Banned by the Geneva Conventions as causing unnecessary suffering!

 

[BlackBat242]

Gods, yes! The USN has all of 2 shipyards on the Pacific. One is at Pearl Harbor, the other at Bremerton.

None left in California.

San Diego might differ with that. USN warships up to LHD/LHA size are repaired there all the time.

Large USN ships like the Expeditionary Mobile Base and the Expeditionary Transfer Dock are built in SD by GD-NASSCO, as well.

 

[Scott Kenny]

San Diego might differ with that. USN warships up to LHD/LHA size are repaired there all the time.

Large USN ships like the Expeditionary Mobile Base and the Expeditionary Transfer Dock are built in SD by GD-NASSCO, as well.

Pardon, that's nuclear-capable shipyards. The ones that can fix subs and carriers, ergo the only ones that matter (only sorta joking there).

 

[WatcherZero]

No shipbuilders on the commission, let alone sub builders. The report is not costed, and includes bangers like the notion we should convert the SSGNs back into SSBNs. Circular file it.

I don't wish to dismiss the idea of a third construction yard out of hand, but both EB and HII have been adding to their already large yards lately and have (or will soon have) the footprint to support the program. They need the workforce and supply chain to match the facilities, simply adding a third builder wouldn't fix those.

If they want to add a new shipyard, they should be thinking a new USN-owned repair yard on the West Coast to sustain the Pacific Fleet. Maintenance and sustainment are in a lot worse overall shape than construction, and they ARE constrained by not having enough facilities on the Pacific Fleet side of the country.

Not read the report but I remember the previous suggestion of inviting more non-shipyard factories to weld modules similar to how the Virginia Payload tubes were outsourced by General Dynamics to General Atomics Tupelo, Mississippi electronics factory where EMALS and electric motors are built.

 

[sferrin]

No shipbuilders on the commission, let alone sub builders. The report is not costed, and includes bangers like the notion we should convert the SSGNs back into SSBNs. Circular file it.

I don't wish to dismiss the idea of a third construction yard out of hand, but both EB and HII have been adding to their already large yards lately and have (or will soon have) the footprint to support the program. They need the workforce and supply chain to match the facilities, simply adding a third builder wouldn't fix those.

If they want to add a new shipyard, they should be thinking a new USN-owned repair yard on the West Coast to sustain the Pacific Fleet. Maintenance and sustainment are in a lot worse overall shape than construction, and they ARE constrained by not having enough facilities on the Pacific Fleet side of the country.

Could they do it at Bremerton? (Would that even be the best place?)

 

[Scott Kenny]

Could they do it at Bremerton? (Would that even be the best place?)

Could they? Yes. Bremerton has the skilled workers and heavy equipment to do the lifting.

But building would mean taking up one drydock that would normally do repairs. And there's no space to enlarge the shipyard.

 

[Moose]

Not read the report but I remember the previous suggestion of inviting more non-shipyard factories to weld modules similar to how the Virginia Payload tubes were outsourced by General Dynamics to General Atomics Tupelo, Mississippi electronics factory where EMALS and electric motors are built.

Yes, efforts to expand the supplier base are ongoing. It's challenging, but there's been progress. Austal USA is now subcontracting work for HII, and the two primes have brough in some additive manufacturing companies to their teams.

 

[Ironmiked]

Could either Naval Shipyard Hunters Point or Former Naval Shipyard Mare Island be required and reconstituted?

 

[Moose]

Could either Naval Shipyard Hunters Point or Former Naval Shipyard Mare Island be required and reconstituted?

Hunter's Point is still owned by the Navy and much of the important bits, such as 3 drydocks and a whacking huge amount of square footage is still there. The downside is that it's still a Superfund site and it's close enough to downtown San Francisco that the workforce couldn't afford to live nearby.

Mare Island isn't owned by the Navy, in fact it's kinda a patchwork of owners at this point, and I don't love the idea of putting the new generation of big boats on the silty Napa River.

There's two other options in the Bay area. Richmond Shipyard No. 3 is one, the bulk of it is either still there or it's empty parking lots that won't be missed. The site still has a heavy rail link, which is very useful for getting materials in. It's part of a National Park, but the Navy could build there more easily than a non-gov entity. And cost of living is a bit lower than San Francisco.

The other option is former NAS Alameda. It's not owned by the Navy and it's a Superfund site. But Alameda's had zero luck redeveloping the site and it is MASSIVE. Making a shipyard happen there would be quite do-able with the right money and leadership. Could the Navy swoop in and convince the locals to sell it back? Probably not, but fun to daydream about.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Could either Naval Shipyard Hunters Point or Former Naval Shipyard Mare Island be required and reconstituted?

Mare Island still has the drydocks, but it's almost impossible to buy back enough pieces to make a secure shipyard again. No matter how much a friend of mine would love to see boats built there again (he grew up in Vallejo).

Sounds like Richmond #3 is the best bet there.

 

[bobbymike]

US Navy submarine branch focuses on developing Project Overmatch

A submarine community reorganization is allowing greater focus on submarine sustainment, weapons production and new capabilities like Project Overmatch.

www.defensenews.com

 

[Scott Kenny]

Mare Island isn't owned by the Navy, in fact it's kinda a patchwork of owners at this point, and I don't love the idea of putting the new generation of big boats on the silty Napa River.

Oh, come on, what's wrong with making another Mare Island Mud Puppie?

 

[Scott Kenny]

US Navy submarine branch focuses on developing Project Overmatch

A submarine community reorganization is allowing greater focus on submarine sustainment, weapons production and new capabilities like Project Overmatch.

www.defensenews.com

WTH is up with that site, my ad blocker IS OFF and it still keeps giving me issues...

 

[Foo Fighter]

I got there OK without disabling my ad blocker.

 

[bobbymike]

Only because AUKUS thread is locked last I checked

Navy takes early steps with Australian, UK vendors on shared sub work

The U.S. Navy is increasing its submarine work with Australian and British firms, even as it awaits passage of four key measures to enable AUKUS.

www.defensenews.com

 

[Desertfox]

Hunter's Point is still owned by the Navy and much of the important bits, such as 3 drydocks and a whacking huge amount of square footage is still there. The downside is that it's still a Superfund site and it's close enough to downtown San Francisco that the workforce couldn't afford to live nearby.

Mare Island isn't owned by the Navy, in fact it's kinda a patchwork of owners at this point, and I don't love the idea of putting the new generation of big boats on the silty Napa River.

There's two other options in the Bay area. Richmond Shipyard No. 3 is one, the bulk of it is either still there or it's empty parking lots that won't be missed. The site still has a heavy rail link, which is very useful for getting materials in. It's part of a National Park, but the Navy could build there more easily than a non-gov entity. And cost of living is a bit lower than San Francisco.

The other option is former NAS Alameda. It's not owned by the Navy and it's a Superfund site. But Alameda's had zero luck redeveloping the site and it is MASSIVE. Making a shipyard happen there would be quite do-able with the right money and leadership. Could the Navy swoop in and convince the locals to sell it back? Probably not, but fun to daydream about.

Easiest way to deal with housing issue is for the government to buy up and develop government housing for the workers. There's a few buildings in downtown SF that could be converted and all that land where the stadium used to be.