Aphibious warfare using the submarine??

Originally Posted by crobato

Nice for you to drop by Jeff. But you know if I were you I would clean up or delete some of those pictures of subs under construction in your website because I don't think they belong to the PLAN. I think one is a Scorpene, two are Kilos which may or may not be the PLAN's, and two are of the Zvaardis that was actually meant for the ROCN.

The one page regarding the growth is older and may well have a left over error or two on it. Thanks for bringing them to my attention.

The point however is simple...and it is without question or contention. The PLAN has made dramatic progress in its own construction and acquisition of modern diesel electric subs...Song, Juan, and Kilos...over the last few years. There has been significant construction associated with this. They are now making significant progress in the nuclear sub area...which I must add, was much needed, given the Hans and single SSBN.

They have made equally, very impressive progress in the modernization and construction and acquisition of their surface combatants. Tremendous ship building has been associated with that as well, and it is an amazing and phenominal buildup they have embarked on over the last 6-7 years.

I guess this is the Welcome back Jeff thread! So happy to see you posting again..Be sure to check out all the PIX I have posted...

The USN Ohio class SSGN are capable of landing a entire SEAL team. At this time this is the extent of an amphip landing conducted by a sub. And that would be a covert mission.

I can't imangine the cost of the subs proposed in this thread.

As everyone else here has made abundantly clear, it's good to have one of our most knowledgeable members back, Jeff Head. Welcome back Jeff.

Originally Posted by bd popeye

I can't imangine the cost of the subs proposed in this thread.

A weapons systems cost is never an issue once it has been built and proved worthwhile in combat. When it comes to budgeting for the military governments work by inertia. It's tough to get them to approve a new piece of hardware or other expense, but once a service has gotten what it wants, it's hell to get them to give it up (unless of course it has proved to be ineffective in combat).

Originally Posted by bd popeye

I guess this is the Welcome back Jeff thread! So happy to see you posting again..Be sure to check out all the PIX I have posted...

The USN Ohio class SSGN are capable of landing a entire SEAL team. At this time this is the extent of an amphip landing conducted by a sub. And that would be a covert mission.

I can't imangine the cost of the subs proposed in this thread.

The kind of subs being envisioned in Jeff's picture resembles those of the Typhoon class in concept, that is where the storage is moved to the front of the tower rather than on the back. As a matter of fact, the Typhoon actually had cargo sub proposals based on her design. Now you're looking at 20,000mt minimum of surface displacement for such ships.

Cost is relative. What makes subs expensive to make, refit or even scrap is cutting, welding, bending of even harder and thicker steel. That means a sub with higher and better quality steels is not only more expensive from the materials point of view, but from labor point of view. One of the reasons why there is a jump in price from LA class to Seawolf is the change from HY-80 steel to HY-100. The French, their subs not cheap either, is using HY-120 steel. As I mentioned in another thread, the fact that US sub designs are single hulled, also makes them more expensive, because you have to form those plats that form the pressure hull, into a hydrodynamic shape also, whereas in a double hull design, complicated shaping of pressure hull plates is not needed, since the hydrodynamic shape can be bent and welded using the thinner steel plates for the outer hull.

Basically the reason for using higher quality steels is to go deeper.

But for a "carrying" sub we can reduce costs by using more moderate parameters. An operational maximum depth of 300m instead of something like 400 or 500m. A double hull construction might be in order too.

crobato, everthing in your above post is 100% correct reguarding the procurement of military hardware..no matter what country.

I was thinking of the cost to the taxpayer. Many of whom,in the US, do not understand the importance of funding of deterents such as submarines, CVN, missile systems etc etc..

I for one do understand that the cost to defend a nation is high. Very high.

Originally Posted by bd popeye

I guess this is the Welcome back Jeff thread! So happy to see you posting again..Be sure to check out all the PIX I have posted...

The USN Ohio class SSGN are capable of landing a entire SEAL team. At this time this is the extent of an amphip landing conducted by a sub. And that would be a covert mission.

I can't imangine the cost of the subs proposed in this thread.

Thank yop very much popeye. It is good to be back.

I believe that this year is going to be a very interesting and exciting one as regards the PLAN.

As to cost of these vessels...my guess is that the Amphibious Assault version would be close to the cost of one of the existing Wasp class. The cost of the Jump Carrier version would be somewhere between that cost and the cost of a super carrier.

In many areas, they are less capable than those ships...but in terms of the ability to arrive off any coast in complete stealth, not knowing where they came from, when they got there, are being able to track them, the capabilities they would have (both air assault and amphibious assault - as well as air superiority with the F-35s and AEW vesrions of the V-22) would offset the other dificiencies.

Anyhow...its just an interesting concept and one I wanted to explore in my Dragon's Fury Series.

Originally Posted by Jeff Head

In many areas, they are less capable than those ships...but in terms of the ability to arrive off any coast in complete stealth, not knowing where they came from, when they got there, are being able to track them, the capabilities they would have (both air assault and amphibious assault - as well as air superiority with the F-35s and AEW vesrions of the V-22) would offset the other dificiencies.

I'm just curious, where is this stealth coming from. Obviously the fact that they are submarines gives them a certain amount of stealth but behemoths like these, being designed for carrying capacity and amphibious operations rather than acoustics, would not be too difficult to find, especially if they were moving in groups.

Originally Posted by Finn McCool

I'm just curious, where is this stealth coming from. Obviously the fact that they are submarines gives them a certain amount of stealth but behemoths like these, being designed for carrying capacity and amphibious operations rather than acoustics, would not be too difficult to find, especially if they were moving in groups.

Oh, they could be designed to be quite stealthy. From acoutsic tiles, to the hull design, to the reactors and desing of the props.

If you did not do so, it would defeat one of the primary purposes for haviung them be submersible.

They would not be designed for great depth, but certainly could be designed for enough depth, 300m or so, to allow for quiet passage.

The bottom line is...they would be orders of magnitude harder to keep track of than a surface oriented phibron...and when they button up for war, even a surface phibron can be hard to find once it gets out into the wide spaces of the Pacific or Atlantic.

Like I said, the best design to start with would be something like the Typhoon class, where you put the storage in front of the sail. And you would probably be looking at submersible behemoths over 20,000mt surfaced. Such a design can be modded into different versions that include SSBN, SSGN, submarine tanker, submarine cargo ship, submarine replenishment ship, submarine amphibious landing ship, even submarine helicopter carrier.

Originally Posted by crobato

Like I said, the best design to start with would be something like the Typhoon class, where you put the storage in front of the sail. And you would probably be looking at submersible behemoths over 20,000mt surfaced. Such a design can be modded into different versions that include SSBN, SSGN, submarine tanker, submarine cargo ship, submarine replenishment ship, submarine amphibious landing ship, even submarine helicopter carrier.

Agreed...the Typhoon could be a starting point for either Russia or China for that matter. My guess is if you used one of those as a starting point and then added the capability discussed here you would be looking at 25,000+ tons. These U.S. vessels are envisioned at 40,000 tons.

Anyhow, I have no doubt that such capability could be developed and put into service with the funds allocated accordingly...it is just a matter of will for any country contemplating it and that becomes both a risks vs. returns and capability issue (and rightfully so), but unfortunately, alos a political issue.

How much would such a sub would cost? 4 to 5 billion each at least in today's dollars? A Virginia class is around 2 billion today and rising.

This is something we can call our resident design expert Planeman, to do some of concept designs.

Man, for 40,000mt, I think the sub will look more like an oversized Typhoon. I don't know if you can build one single giant propeller for it. May have to be two. You can probably get the nuclear reactor (or two) from an aircraft carrier. You will need a special dock to build this ship and repair it. Man it will be so big its self quieting---the sheer bulk will absorb the noise.

Welcome back, Jeff!

Can't wait to see Planeman here either.
But, how will you get the aircraft on and offboard?

Originally Posted by sumdud

Welcome back, Jeff!

Can't wait to see Planeman here either.
But, how will you get the aircraft on and offboard?

If you look closely you ill see that there are two elevators forward of the Sail, and one aft. The two foward are large enough for the F-35s and M-22s, the one aft is only large enough for helos.

There are hangar spaces, for and aft, underneath the main deck.

These vessels, both the aircraft carrier variant and the amphibious assault variant would carry VTOL aircraft. F-35, AEW variant of the MV-22 and an ASW variant of the same, and helos.

It's been quiet some time since this was topical, but finally I have something to show regarding the issue.

At first, having screened other subs parameters like length to beam or volume to weight ratios, I came out with a sub being 215m/705ft long and having a 25m/82ft beam at 40.000t, with said ratios being rather close to a Typhoon, Oscar or to a lesser extant the Astute.

I first had it have one big ducted prop, but when surfaced, it might breach the surface and the prop's ends might end up turning to fast leading to cavitation. So I now put two ducted props beside each other there. Those might be supported by two real pump-jets at the top and bottom in the middle of the hull.
Additionally, there are several pumpjets perpendicular to the longitudinal axis in the nose and tail to support truns. I guess rudders might not be enough for that heavy thing. And the top of the deck must be clear of obstacles for approaching and leaving aircraft.

All that is to be powered by one A1B (?) reactor that will power the CVN-21s.

In the top of the sail is a retractable sensor package including ESM/ECM, IFF, Nav/GPS, Com, and SPY-1D radar antennas. The ship is AEGIS equipped.
In the nose is the big SONAR dome.

There are also two RAM launchers at the front and the end of the sail.
In the back to the left and right are missile magazines holding ESSM, ASROC and maybe Harpoon block III missiles. Those are tall enough to hold reserve ammo below the ready to fire missiles.
In the front bottom is a torpedo room with four tubes.

The sub is only armed for self defence and relies on escorts for fleet defence.

Those three elevators, that can only be positioned in the places were they are, take up a lot of hanger space. Though even in the back are two hanger levels, there's not much room to store aircraft or so. Because of that, I think this SSLHAN needs good SSGN support, since it doesn't really have a big punch. It really trades a lot of power for stealth.
Those SSGN escorts might then carry combos of Tomahawks, Harpoons etc.

Because of that, the sub must make extensive use of UA(C)Vs (FireScout, EagleEye), like for AEW, ASW, ISR and even strike roles.
Fitting LCACs in there for amphib landings, vehicles and AH-1Zs for attacks seems hardly possible. The sub would need to be bigger, wich would increase displacement beyond 40.000t I think.

Well, so far, just a little idea ...