PLAN submarines Thread II

[Ambivalent]

Originally Posted by lcloo

A lone sub operating with-out anti-air cover is in greater danger of being hunted down, but if it is part of a fleet with long range SAM cover from destroyer stationed some distance away, or that the sub is equiped with under-water launched SAM, then battle can go either way.

The collision of British and French nuke subs in the Atlantic ocean some times ago shows that it is difficult to detect a sub even at extreme short distance.

Eh, depends. Most nations do not have big fleets of maritime patrol aircraft and UAV's that allow persistent surveillance of their maritime frontiers. Subs historically have proved most effective operating independently as lone wolves against merchant traffic. Japan tied their subs to their big surface fleets and, despite having some outstanding submarine classes, they made little impact in the war against the USN. By comparison, the US and German Navies both gave their respective submarine fleets complete autonomy of operations with considerable success.
Now, to operate a sub in the face of determined ASW from surface and airborn assets is difficult to impossible. Subs survive by being small and quiet in this vast ocean, the proverbial needle in the haystack. If you put enough ships and aircraft in the same piece of water, you shrink that ocean very quickly and make it very difficult for that sub to make an attack.
ASW is changing very quickly. As surface ship costs rise, fewer go to sea, so UAV's and UUV's are coming on line to replace manned ships and aircraft. The P-8 will not replace the old P-3 one for one. It cannot fly at 200 feet and turn to stay on top of a sub while launching it's torpedos. Rather, the USN will now rely on UAV's in a program called Broad Area Maritime Surveillance ( possibly a Navy specific Global Hawk or Predator to patrol the seas, relying on the fewer number of P-8's to prosecute anything interesting the UAV finds. Likewise a company called iRobot has a prototype UUV called Seaglider that will allow the USN to put thousands of these small autonomous swimmers, each of which can stay at sea for many months, to listen for adversary subs or surface ships, reporting these findings periodically to satellites when it surfaces, allowing the P-8 to prosecute an actual datum rather than staring at empty ocean for hours and hours day after day like the P-3 community often did. A sensor rich environment and net centricity replace hundreds of ships and airplanes patrolling the ocean.

http://www.navy.mil/navydata/policy/asw/asw-conops.pdf

http://www.onr.navy.mil/02/BAA/docs/baa_07_020.pdf

Here are a selection of the possible sensor nodes:

Broad Area Maritime Surveillance Unmanned Aircraft System (BAMS UAS)

Shipping, shipbuilding, offshore news

iRobot Corporation: Seaglider

[Infra_Man99]

Originally Posted by Ambivalent

My claim is specifically for helos with dipping sonars. These are not widespread, Merlins and Sea Kings are large heavy helos not typically carried by frigates or destroyers. It is only recently that the USN was able to shrink a dipping sonar into a size and weight that would work with the SH-60 airframe while still retaining the big radar and the anti-ship mission. The old SH-60F was a single mission platform. Most ASW helos do not even have much in the way of on board processing, relying on the computers aboard the launch ship to tell them where to drop their torpedos. A Lynx, while dynamically light years ahead of my tired old Sea Pig did not have any dipping sonar, nor did it have much in the way of the ability of my old Sea Pig to calculate a tactical plot. The ship did a lot of that work for them ( we couldn't do their anti-ship mission either ). All they had to go on were sonobuoys and the ship's sonar. Not much. We had all of that plus our own tactical plot of our sonobuoys, sonobuoys from the stiff wingers, and our own dipping sonar. The ability to put a sonar in the water fairly close ( can't tell you, but it's close ) and go active with impunity is a powerful tool no other ASW asset has. You have bearing and range with great accuracy, the sub is lit up like daylight, and your partner flies over with that MAD gear streaming to drop torps. Skimmers ( ships ) and subs rarely if ever go active, but not so a helo. Every other participant in the ASW game has to rely on triangulating passive sonar bearings to get close to the sub. This is less precise than active sonar.
As for the comment on the effectiveness of light weight air dropped torps against modern subs, this is the reason for the Mk-50 torpedo. The warhead can defeat double hulls and it has sufficient speed and endurance to hit the deepest diving attack subs. Consider also that the helo making the attack is trailing MAD gear to verify they are directly over top of the sub when they drop their torpedos.
Here is a paragraph out of Globalsecurity on the SH-60F
"The SH-60F defends the carrier against subsufarce contacts inside of 50 miles and can be tasked to prosecute submarines out to 150 miles. The SH-60F is capable of launching and processing both active and passive sonobuoys, but prosecution of hostile submarines is usually accomplished through the use of its active/passive dipping sonar. The SH-60F uses a variable depth sonar and sonobuoys to detect and track enemy submarines. Detection is primarily accomplished by using the AQS-13F dipping sonar which is deployed on a 1575 foot cable while the aircraft hovers 60ft above the ocean. The pilots are assisted in maintaining their 60ft day or night all weather hover by an automatic flight control system. The SH-60F is highly mobile and can "jump dip" to reposition its sonar for tracking evasive submarines. Active dipping sonar in combination with Mk-46 and Mk-50 torpedoes make the SH-60F the platform of choice for prosecuting hostile submarines"
Fanbois or the voice of experience? The SH-60F is already being replaced by the MH-60R

Thanks for the information (I genuinely enjoyed it). However, you still haven't answered my questions.

1. Are submarines obsolete due to the usage of the SH-60F or similar platforms? If so, please point me to proof. Lots of major navies still value submarines.

2. If 1 destroyer w/ an SH-60F went up against a 1 submarine in various environments, what would happened? How about 4 destroyers w/ 4 SH-60F against 3 destroyers (w/ 3 helicopters) plus 1 sub? Comparing multiple destroyers/skimmers with multiple SH-60F/equivalents against 1 submarine is NOT always the case. The submarine could have buddies under water, skimming on water, and above water.

[maozedong]

Originally Posted by crobato

Strange, the links weren't showing until I opened a reply. Let's see if it gets preserved with a report.

Addendum. I only got the fyjs.cn website. The pics may have been taken down. I guess its "sensitive".

I think they change the link digital, I already fixed, we can see the pictures now. sorry, I tried to put for attach thumb jpg before, but didn't work.

[Ambivalent]

Originally Posted by Infra_Man99

Thanks for the information (I genuinely enjoyed it). However, you still haven't answered my questions.

1. Are submarines obsolete due to the usage of the SH-60F or similar platforms? If so, please point me to proof. Lots of major navies still value submarines.

2. If 1 destroyer w/ an SH-60F went up against a 1 submarine in various environments, what would happened? How about 4 destroyers w/ 4 SH-60F against 3 destroyers (w/ 3 helicopters) plus 1 sub? Comparing multiple destroyers/skimmers with multiple SH-60F/equivalents against 1 submarine is NOT always the case. The submarine could have buddies under water, skimming on water, and above water.

I will direct your attention to the summer of 1943. By that point the USN and RN had enough maritime patrol aircraft, carrier base aircraft and surface ships with good enough radars on board to make it almost certain death for a German sub to operate on the surface. The USN had gone from a defensive ASW position, protecting convoys from attacks, to actively hunting submarines in the open ocean and attacking them first. At the exact same time, USN submarines were tightening the noose on Japan, and would eventually starve her of resources. The difference? Japan never adopted a dedicated ASW position.
A single dipping sonar helo doesn't give you all that much capability. Two however can make a submarine's life pure misery. You can leapfrog the sub for hours if necessary ( SH-3's had five and a half hours endurance and could refuel from a hover from any nearby ship, called HIFR ). One helo can have it's sonar in the water giving it's partner range and bearing data for it to fly to to dip it's sonar, or if the datum is small enough, to attack the sub. The sub will try to drift out of sonar range, gradually change depth and work it's way slowly out of your net, but it cannot do anything too fast or the noise will give it away. Meanwhile, the carrier is steaming rapidly away. It was not unknown during the Cold War to park a frigate and a couple of helos over a Soviet sub harassing it with active sonar while the CVBG steamed off into the distance.
For ASW, the actual weapon is only part of the solution. You have to have persistence and broad area coverage. Every time the sub pokes a periscope up or make a move, it must involve some immediate risk of drawing an attack. By the summer of 1943 the USN and RN had enough assets in the Atlantic to make this the situation the German's faced. Their losses, and the stunning drop in Allied shipping losses, testify to how well this worked.
Whether or not a particular helo can win, one on one, with a particular class of threat submarine is not a valid comparison because every helo will come at you as part of a larger ASW team of ships and other aircraft. Their combined sensors and how they integrate the data will determine the outcome. Training counts too. Finding and chasing other nations subs is great training. Coordinating surface and air assets is easier than coordinating submarines too, if you think about it, although subs are beginning to use distributed outboard sensors and UUV's to increase their sensor horizon.
A pair or more of dipping sonar helos are one of the most valuable tools in ASW, which is why, for example, the JMSDF built the DDH's and the Canadians made room for Sea Kings and now Merlins on their frigates and destroyers. Just from my experience, a single sub against a pair of trained crews in SH-3's, I'd give the advantage to the helos, but keep in mind very often the helos are brought out to a suspected sub first detected by another platform. A P-3 covers a lot of ocean, and might turn something interesting up, ditto the Hoover, but the helo is a better tool to localize the sub and attack it. When I flew, we didn't have many flight decks in the fleet so we didn't have the persistence with helos we have today, so the Hoover had to do the longer range searching for us.

[tphuang]

Originally Posted by Ambivalent

My claim is specifically for helos with dipping sonars. These are not widespread, Merlins and Sea Kings are large heavy helos not typically carried by frigates or destroyers. It is only recently that the USN was able to shrink a dipping sonar into a size and weight that would work with the SH-60 airframe while still retaining the big radar and the anti-ship mission. The old SH-60F was a single mission platform. Most ASW helos do not even have much in the way of on board processing, relying on the computers aboard the launch ship to tell them where to drop their torpedos. A Lynx, while dynamically light years ahead of my tired old Sea Pig did not have any dipping sonar, nor did it have much in the way of the ability of my old Sea Pig to calculate a tactical plot. The ship did a lot of that work for them ( we couldn't do their anti-ship mission either ). All they had to go on were sonobuoys and the ship's sonar. Not much. We had all of that plus our own tactical plot of our sonobuoys, sonobuoys from the stiff wingers, and our own dipping sonar. The ability to put a sonar in the water fairly close ( can't tell you, but it's close ) and go active with impunity is a powerful tool no other ASW asset has. You have bearing and range with great accuracy, the sub is lit up like daylight, and your partner flies over with that MAD gear streaming to drop torps. Skimmers ( ships ) and subs rarely if ever go active, but not so a helo. Every other participant in the ASW game has to rely on triangulating passive sonar bearings to get close to the sub. This is less precise than active sonar.
As for the comment on the effectiveness of light weight air dropped torps against modern subs, this is the reason for the Mk-50 torpedo. The warhead can defeat double hulls and it has sufficient speed and endurance to hit the deepest diving attack subs. Consider also that the helo making the attack is trailing MAD gear to verify they are directly over top of the sub when they drop their torpedos.
Here is a paragraph out of Globalsecurity on the SH-60F
"The SH-60F defends the carrier against subsufarce contacts inside of 50 miles and can be tasked to prosecute submarines out to 150 miles. The SH-60F is capable of launching and processing both active and passive sonobuoys, but prosecution of hostile submarines is usually accomplished through the use of its active/passive dipping sonar. The SH-60F uses a variable depth sonar and sonobuoys to detect and track enemy submarines. Detection is primarily accomplished by using the AQS-13F dipping sonar which is deployed on a 1575 foot cable while the aircraft hovers 60ft above the ocean. The pilots are assisted in maintaining their 60ft day or night all weather hover by an automatic flight control system. The SH-60F is highly mobile and can "jump dip" to reposition its sonar for tracking evasive submarines. Active dipping sonar in combination with Mk-46 and Mk-50 torpedoes make the SH-60F the platform of choice for prosecuting hostile submarines"
Fanbois or the voice of experience? The SH-60F is already being replaced by the MH-60R

i'm sure MK-50 is much improved compared to MK-46 in processing, acquisition and most important kinetic performance, but it still simply can't compare against something like ADCAP which can go at 55 knots for 20 nm (i assume the real figure is better than this). Gary on DT was talking a while ago about the processing power of CBASS, which is apparently leaps ahead of even ADCAP in target acquisition. I'm not saying MK-50 can't be used in ways to hit a modern nuclear submarine, but it just has certainly limitations due to its size.

As for helos with dipping sonar, I though it was more widespread, because we even have pictures of Z-9C with dipping sonar and it's a relatively small helo.

[Finn McCool]

Originally Posted by Infra_Man99

Helicopters don't make submarines outdated. No decent navy in the world makes this claim. Ambi, sometimes you're very informative, sometimes you're full of dung. This time, you are full of dung.

I'm just a fan of military information, but NOWHERE have I found respectable proof that helicopters easily defeat subs, reliably neutralize subs, or are guarantees against subs. Yeah, I have checked out some company advertisements and some sailors on message boards talking about how big of a fish they caught, but all this hype hasn't stopped the production and development of submarines for the US navy, the European navies, the Russian navy, the South Korean navy, Japan's navy, and China's navy. I have read how helicopters and airplanes can be used to defeat subs or to help defeat subs, but they aren't anti-sub guarantees.

In addition, comparing 2 or more surface combatants against 1 submarine is not always the battle. There could be 2 surface combatants against 2 subs, or 2 vs 3, 3 surface combatants vs 1 sub and 2 surface combatants, or 4 surface combatants vs 2 subs with 4 fighter jets, or a whole battle group vs another battle group, and so forth. You claim to possess lots of naval experience, yet you easily forgot about the value of teamwork amongst people, tools, and machines.

In a large battle space, things could get very lost.

However, maybe you're right and way ahead of your time, and all these navy commanders are wasting lots of taxpayers' money on submarines.

I think you're kind of putting words in Ambivalent's mouth. He was saying that in a situation where a submarine is facing two ASW helicopters that are close by and are looking for the submarine, the helicopters have a quite a good chance of sinking their target.

This does NOT mean that submarines are obsolete. A bullet will reliably kill an infantryman. Does that mean infantrymen are obsolete? An attack helicopter will reliably kill a tank, and the tank can't even fight back. Does this mean tanks are obsolete?

Ambivalent was merely stating that within certain parameters dipping sonar is a very effective weapon, and he is right.

[Infra_Man99]

Yeah, I was guilty of somewhat putting words in Ambi's mouth, but, in ONE of Ambi's postings, he was sort of describing anti-sub helicopters as having an easy time defeating a sub. He talked about helicopters with dipping sonars supported by S-3B/P-3/whatever-EM-sensing-planes and sonobuoys (active and passive). He said this system could clearly defeat a submarine without pointing out this system's complexitites, and he ignored dealing with multiple combatants.

He compared a team consisting of at least one land-based airfield, at least 2 destroyers/cruisers or 1 aircraft carrier, multiple aircrafts, probably satellite communications, probably depth charges, and maybe other supporting platforms against 1 submarine. It's like someone saying this about the NFL: "That team has a good wide reciever, but all we gotta do is get a good quarterback, a good coaching staff, a good medical and fitness team, a good offensive team, and a defensive team. Then we'll be able to crush that opposing wide reciever. Piece of cake." I am staring at this guy, and wondering if he being Captain Obvious or maybe his knowledge is too much for me to grasp.

I replied to Ambi 'cuz I wanted to clarify the degree of difficulty the situation actually was, and Ambi responded with clarification using interesting stories.

[Ambivalent]

Originally Posted by tphuang

i'm sure MK-50 is much improved compared to MK-46 in processing, acquisition and most important kinetic performance, but it still simply can't compare against something like ADCAP which can go at 55 knots for 20 nm (i assume the real figure is better than this). Gary on DT was talking a while ago about the processing power of CBASS, which is apparently leaps ahead of even ADCAP in target acquisition. I'm not saying MK-50 can't be used in ways to hit a modern nuclear submarine, but it just has certainly limitations due to its size.

As for helos with dipping sonar, I though it was more widespread, because we even have pictures of Z-9C with dipping sonar and it's a relatively small helo.

There have been great stride in miniaturization. The sonar reeling equipment in an SH-3 was quite large, as tall as the cabin, and heavy The transducer was also large. Then there were two senso's in back working sonobuoys and the tactical plot with the co-pilot. I'm sure automation has made at least one of the senso positions redundant. I have to wonder how independent of the ship a Z-9C is, and what the performance of it's sonar is. It would be interesting to know.
The old SH-60B, with no dipping sonar, was so crowded inside there was literally no room for a fourth crew member to sit, unless it was to sit cross legged on the floor. If a litter was brought on board, the swimmer or medic would have to stand directly over top of the litter. That version of the H-60 carried the same tactical computer as an FFG carried, and the aircraft was down if the air conditioning did not work. I would love a chance to see an MH-60R.
Btw, Coast Guard pilots would complain about the lack of room in their HH-65 Dolphins, the Z-9's kissin' cousin. There was just about enough room for a litter, a medic, hoist operator and the rescue basket back there. The Z-9C must be one crowded helo.

[sydneylaide]

Today Chinese official media reported that two types of Chinese new generation nuclear submarines have achieved full operational capabilities.

The new nuclear submarines were commisioned in 2006 in a ceromony presented by President Hu Jintao.

[tphuang]

I believe the article is this one
- It says in the fall of 2009, China indigeneously designed new submarine completed deep dive, high speed sailing, deep sea launching torpedo and other testings and exercises. All of the performances reached the design and combat requirements. This submarine has now achieve full operational capability.
In december of 2006, President Hu was their to officially commission the first of its class into the navy (this pretty much indicates its 093). It also said that Hu inspected 2 submarines that day (indicating the pair entered service at the same time).
It says that the new submarine has high displacement, large diamter and can dive deep, so needs new type of tough steel that can withstand the pressure in deep sea. Talks about the work did to achieve that.

August of a particular year, the lead ship of 093 conducted its first Land-based joint trial. It uses rotary main converter unit, which is core equipment for the safety of the submarine. Submarine's new electric system uses automated control for the first time, so they proposed the more advanced static main converter unit

The new submarine project is huge. It spans 22 provinces, 7 large corporations and 20 design institutes and 500 firms paricipated in the production.

has a bunch of stories on it.

国产新型潜艇完成系列试验全面形成作战能力
　新华网沈阳11月19日电 (乔燕飞、姜毅、司彦文、陈万军)2009年金秋，人民海军潜艇部队传出喜讯：我国自主研制的某新型潜艇圆 满完成极限深潜、水下高速、深海发射战雷等系列试验和训练考核，所有性能指标均达到设计和作战要求，标志我 国新型潜艇全面形成作战能力。
　　新型潜艇的诞生，凝聚着海军驻某厂军代表的心血和汗水。他们，用忠诚和热血托起共和国钢铁“蓝鲸”，从 船台驶向大洋。
　　使命：为了新型潜艇的诞生，冲刺在新的起跑线上
　　2006年12月的一天，中共中央总书记、国家主席、中央军委主席胡锦涛，亲自为某新型潜艇首艇入列授 旗。
　　授旗仪式结束后，胡锦涛先后登上两艘新型潜艇视察，深入到每一个战位，仔细询问装备的质量和性能，他反 复叮嘱艇上官兵，要学好管好用好新装备，让新装备尽快形成战斗力。
　　世纪之交，经党中央、中央军委批准，中国新型潜艇正式开工建造。
　　发展新型潜艇，是人民海军转型发展的重要步骤。
　　历史选择了他们——海军驻某厂军代表室承担起监造新型潜艇的神圣使命。
　　新型潜艇必定是高新技术时代的产儿。生产线需要重新建立，工艺、设备、材料等需要重新研制，人员需要重 新培训……一切都站在崭新的起跑线上。
　　同样，驻某厂军代表室也站在了新的起跑线上。从10多所军队和地方院校分配到代表室的40名博士、硕士 和本科生，走上了新型潜艇监造岗位。
　　面对新型潜艇涉及的1000多个专业和技术门类，年轻的军代表们向一个个技术堡垒发起了冲刺：“恶补” 专业知识，10天拿下一个专业；熟悉图纸资料，他们时常通宵达旦，双眼布满血丝；向技术人员和工人师傅求教 ，工厂三班倒，他们连轴转……就这样，新一代军代表仅用3个月就进入角色，半年就独立担负起监 造任务。
　　春节刚过，新型潜艇动力组件安装正在进行。
　　指挥席上坐满了有关领导、专家，通过视频系统，他们注视着组件安装的每一个细节。
　　第10组件开始装填。
　　设计人员、现场施工人员和总装厂专业检验员相继确认：燃料组件编号、坐标与图纸上的标识完 全一致。
　　作为3人检验小组的成员，25岁的军代表刘海鹏却独自留了下来。他反复告诫自己：细心，细 心，再细心！
　　动力组件多达数十组，内部结构、成分各不相同，但从外表很难进行区别。刘海鹏根据工作原理推算：“10 号组件不应该在这个位置！”
　　现场指挥员当即下令：作业暂停！刘海鹏再三比对后提出：“图纸标识错误！”有关部门立即组织对图纸、组 件、装载位置重新审查确认，得出结论：“刘代表是对的！”
　　新型潜艇总设计师在第一时间得知此事，当即打电话到现场：“一名年轻军代表能发现如此重大问题，了不起 ！”刘海鹏为此荣立二等功。
　　潜艇建造是一个庞大而复杂的系统工程。军代表要承担从设计到建造、试验全过程的检验验收。
　　副总代表孟凡明向记者介绍了这样一串数字：一艘新型潜艇从开工建造到交付部队，军代表需要查验的项目超 过10万个，验收的技术文件、图纸资料、计算数据能装满一卡车。
　　总体组7名军代表要检查验收项目达1.5万个，涉及总体布置、船舶性能、船体结构、舾装防腐、减振降噪 5大专业50门学科；轮机组9名同志要分管66个大系统、732台套设备；电子武备组仅设备就要对应几十个 厂家……
　　军代表吴汪洋23岁就独立承担潜艇验收任务。2008年9月，他在施工现场督查“弹筒外支环”机械加工 ，经过测量发现，工人划线时将加工位置划高了。万一加工错了，将影响导弹发射筒的基准，整个弹筒就要报废， 还将带来一系列严重后果。由于发现及时，吴汪洋受到嘉奖。
　　跨越：为了新型潜艇高性能，面对风险不言放弃
　　新型潜艇代表了现代中国科学技术和工业发展的最高水平，实现了“从有到优”的历史性跨越：广泛采用新技 术、新工艺、新材料、新设备，系统更完备、性能更先进、作战反应更快、静音性能更好、攻击能力 更强。
　　军代表是引领这一跨越的主导者。
　　新型潜艇吨位大、直径大、潜深大，需要采用能承受深海高强度压力的新型钢。
　　大家都把目光聚焦在我国最新研制成功的特殊钢材上。拉伸、弯曲、抗裂性试验；硬度、精度、密度检验；断 口检查、化学分析……
　　然而，令人头疼的是：正是由于这种高强度钢“宁折不弯”的“钢性”，焊接十分困难。
　　第一次焊接试验，检验合格率竟然不足10%！
　　第二次、第三次……相继多次试验，合格率始终在低水平徘徊。而新型潜艇焊接合格率要求必须 是100%！
　　难题屡攻不下，让大家感到了采用这种高强度钢的巨大风险，贸然采用，如果焊接存在瑕疵，后果无法想象。 “到底要不要用这种钢？”
　　军代表和建造者们众志成城：“采用高强度钢决不放弃！关键技术不突破，潜艇就谈不上‘换型’，后续艇也 将受影响！”
　　军代表室与工厂一起专门立项研究，开始了一步步艰难的工艺探索。
　　全厂挑选80名焊工集中培训，在苛刻条件下进行模型试验。数九严冬，气温降至零下20摄氏度，军代表李 铜桥、陈爱志、孙谦、李宁、张海宽、范名琦，和工人师傅一起，迎着强烈的电焊弧光做焊接试验，眼睛灼伤了， 脸颊冻肿了，脚趾冻烂了，可他们的决心比高强度钢还硬。
　　焊丝、气体、工艺全面创新。从焊丝软硬、气体配比、焊接速度到焊接部位的“预热”“后热”，从手工焊接 到自动焊接，连续奋战37天，历经上百次失败，他们终于摸透了高强度钢的“脾性”，突破焊接关键技术，并实 现了工艺稳定性。经多种先进手段对焊缝进行表面探伤和内部探伤，合格率均达到100%！
　　在新型潜艇的研制建造过程中，军代表参与了100多项重大技术难题攻关，在10多项核心技术领域取得重 大突破，并使之得到应用。
　　这年8月，新型潜艇首艇陆上联调试验。艇上沿用的“旋转式主变流机组”，是保证潜艇安全的核心设备。联 调中发现，设备特性不稳定，且不能在应急状态下手动使用。担任检验组长的军代表裴峰坚持认为：新艇电力系统 第一次采用自动化控制，必须同时保证能够应急启动。着眼新型潜艇的需要，他力主采用更先进的“ 静止式主变流装置”。
　　这，在当时还是个“世界性难题”。在军代表室领导的支持下，裴峰参加了攻关小组，经过上百个日夜攻关， 终于研制成功“静止式主变流装置”，这一全新设备使新型潜艇应急动力系统的先进性、可靠性大幅 提升。
　　新型潜艇是名符其实的信息化潜艇。电子设备密密匝匝，性能纷繁复杂。军代表室牵头成立“ 专家组”，对各类上艇的电子设备进行模拟磁场试验，建立电磁波辐射“超差评估”新模式，并逐一分析周围设备 的抗干扰能力。经过计算和试验，设计出信息设备互相兼容的理想方案，实行设备、系统、总体三级控制，成功化 解了高技术带来的新风险，确保了新型潜艇信息化优势和综合作战效能的发挥。
　　责任：代表国家签字验收，视潜艇的质量如生命
　　总代表柴小文，在潜艇监造岗位工作20年，参与了我国第一代潜艇的研制监造，如今是监造新型潜艇的领军 人物。他深知军代表在检验报告书上落笔签字的分量：“我们是代表国家检验验收”。
　　质量，是潜艇的生命，也是军代表的生命。每一艘潜艇的诞生，从一块钢板，一条焊缝，一个阀门，一个螺栓 ，军代表们都要亲手过三关，不放过一丝一毫的隐患。
　　“爬舱”，是军代表的“基本功”。潜艇大小舱室上百个，每个舱底角落都洒着他们辛勤的汗水 。
　　“越难钻的地方，越是‘工艺可达性’检验的重点。”总体组组长李宁刻意解释：不是“钻”而是“爬”，必 须“四肢着地”。双层耐压壳体夹缝，跟抽屉差不多，只能平趴着进去，倒趴着出来，被卡在里面出不来是常有的 事。一次，军代表张能上午9点爬进去，下午3点才出来，因虚脱差点窒息，被拖出来时，胳膊、膝盖都磨破了皮 ……
　　李宁粗略算了一下：一条艇干下来，军代表“爬舱”总长度超过400公里，相当于10个马拉 松匍匐前进！
　　“潜艇无小事”。再小的细节也要较真。有一次，船厂“告状”：设备安装完了，军代表张巍却不同意验收。 事情“僵”在一个插头上。张巍发现，由于电缆铺设时走向不好，插头费力才能插入插座。他说：“这样容易折断 ，必须重新安装！”
　　质量问题一定要找到原因。军代表徐金良发现稳压器紧固件力矩不达标，让设备厂3次返工。达标后，徐金良 仍不罢休，坚持要找出原因。他和工厂技术人员一起，对螺栓螺母螺纹尺寸逐一测量，逐一做化学成分分析，逐一 做力学性能检验，终于查明“超差”原因，使后续产品的质量得到了保证。
　　新型潜艇工程浩大，全国22个省市、7大行业集团、20个设计单位、500多家制造厂参与建造。面对企 业改制、市场经济的新环境，军代表室旗帜鲜明地坚持“国家安全至高无上、装备建设质量第一”，发挥军方主导 作用，不畏艰难搞好协调，推动军、厂、所大协作，确保建造质量。
　　动力装置控制设备多，接口有上千个，参加设计单位众多，各自给出的接口不统一、不匹配。担任主任审图师 的军代表柳志忠，与各设计部门反复沟通，坚持标准，统一电压、电流接口；他审图中还发现，有的单位为了容易 设计和制作，都放大了设备尺寸，使潜艇控制室十分拥挤。他又与设计人员一起，对控制系统每台设备逐一进行研 究，统一规定尺寸，并对控制室布置进行优化。控制系统联调，提前1个月完成。
　　忠诚：青春承载光荣与梦想，热血铸就潜艇“龙骨”
　　在潜艇所有试验中，要数极限深潜最为凶险莫测。
　　总代表柴小文、副总代表孟凡明、陈爱志等14人义无反顾，参加了新型潜艇两型首艇的极限深 潜试验。
　　军代表王海声在深潜前1周体检，发现肝部长了个5厘米大小的肿块，初步诊断为血管瘤。他毅然做出抉择： “先深潜，后手术！”
　　潜艇深潜复查，每一个舱室，每一台设备，每一根电缆，每一条焊缝，他们检查、试验都超过6 遍！
　　深潜中艇体会受压变形。通海管路主循环水系统的“波纹管”一旦爆裂，每秒钟就会有大量海水涌入舱内，瞬 间造成艇毁人亡惨剧。经预潜试验和计算，发现“ 波纹管”压缩变形呈线性变化，当下潜到极限深度时，可能逼近甚至突破它的承受极限。“一定要确保万无一失！ ”总代表柴小文带领马俊等人反复计算、验证，采取重压“转移”措施，成功化解安全隐患。
　　我国新型潜艇深潜试验圆满成功！
　　汗水洒船台，热血铸“蓝鲸”。
　　副总代表孟凡明在试验现场一呆就是13个月；军代表王海声持续22个月在外地参加航行试验，海上130 多天出满勤，一个航次不落……
　　“星期六保证不休息，星期日休息不保证”，这是军代表长年累月加班的写照。
　　从新型潜艇开工的那天起，军代表们平均加班时间相当于3年的正常工作量。
　　2004年春节前，首艇主泵电机出现故障。军代表室公告板上随即出现了5个大字“此事无春节”！农历除 夕下午和初一一早，唐耀阳、徐晓明先后登上火车赶往生产厂家，现场拆解主泵电机，分析原因，从初一干到初六 ，直到故障排除。
　　10年来的每一个春节，军代表只放假2天。
　　张海宽的妻子在怀孕6个月时检查出患有妊娠高血压症。在海上执行任务的张海宽，直到妻子临产前一天才赶 回来。新生儿只有1800克，医生告知：孩子有7天重度危险期。然而第5天，张海宽又跟艇出海了。如今孩子 落下了脑部残疾，3岁多了还不会说话。
　　即便如此，军代表们依然无怨无悔地挚爱着他们的事业。军代表路海晋对他当初放弃某公司高薪录用的选择倍 感自豪：“新型潜艇世人瞩目，而亲手参与建造潜艇的又能有几人？”
　　新型潜艇遨游大洋，负载着军代表的光荣与梦想：用热血青春筑起共和国坚固的水下长城！

[pla101prc]

stupid question here...how useful are torpedoes on subs nowadays?i thought its all about sub-launched anti-ship missiles now.

[Pointblank]

Originally Posted by pla101prc

stupid question here...how useful are torpedoes on subs nowadays?i thought its all about sub-launched anti-ship missiles now.

Let me tell you a story regarding anti-ship missiles versus heavyweight torpedoes:

The CO of a surface ship was once asked by a young submariner why we never practised being hit by a torpedo.

He very reasoned reply? "Son, why do you want to practice being dead?"

The fact is we have a damn good chance of defeating an inbound missile and even if we don't we can survive a hit and continue the fight if we do the job right. There is no surviving a heavy weight torpedo.

Don't believe me? See this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RV8MF-440xg

A torpedo will split most surface warships in half. A missile will at best punch a small hole in the side of the ship.

[Ambivalent]

Originally Posted by pla101prc

stupid question here...how useful are torpedoes on subs nowadays?i thought its all about sub-launched anti-ship missiles now.

Consider USS Stark sailed home under it's own power after eating a pair of Exocet missiles. Here is what a single MK-48 ADCAP does to a frigate.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vaImLvZbPw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7RWgr...eature=related

Here is what three Harpoon hits looks like

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCkf3ogkFxo&feature=fvw

This Spruance required two MK-48 hits to break the bow off. Even still it does not sink!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNdSd...eature=related

[Ambivalent]

Cool Harpoon video. Notice the very low cruise altitude.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oxpwI...eature=related

A development of Harpoon with a multi-mode seeker and much greater range. Note again the low altitude it flies in at.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rVME...eature=related

[pla101prc]

that's not my point, with all the modern ASW equipments available, what are the chances of a sub getting within a torpedo range. if they were to fire missiles from a greater distance they'd have a better chance.