Project 75 & Submarine Options

Marcos
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 55
Joined: 29 Jan 2003 12:31

Project 75 & Submarine Options

Postby Marcos » 04 Mar 2005 01:34

Indian Navy is looking forward to augment its current fleet of submarines, so that the replacement of its current fleet in the next decade doesn't make a dent in the operational capablity in addition to actually having a larger fleet for a very short period. But unless, the Indian Navy (& the mentally impaired babus aka junks) move forward with a plan to induct larger number of subs with the urgently required pace, the current 'imminent' induction will only fill-in the void created by the de-commisioning of the current fleet. This in no way is going to augment the fleet, let alone augment the much needed sea-denial capablity, which is no-way near adequate!

Since the much hyped, media covered and backed French Scorpene submarines seems like not heading any where and the retarded Indian mentality of the western goods being 'superior', the one part that we Indian's have failed to see is the family of very capable Russian non-nuclear submarines of the Amur family, because of the newly acquired international 'friends'. But, India and Indian's have ignored and forgot the very basic fact that an old & trusted friend - even though struggling and considered penniless - is always better than two new friends. But the bitter fact about this is, ignoring the basics have always resulted in paying heavy price.

The first submarine is the one we already knew - Amur-1650, as that was one of the likely candidate (and still is) for I.N's submarine fleet. The options from this submarine are -

1) Amur-1650 Basic ; which include the torpedo tube fired Klub
2) Amur-1650 with AIP (Air-Independent propulsion) module; this include longer submerged endurance in addition to Klub.
3) Amur-1650 with BAC (Brahmos Amur Complex) module; which include a 8-cell VLS for PJ-10.

Image

Amur-1650 spec

Number of torpedo tubes, ------ 6 pc
Missile, torpedo and amine ammunition, ------ 18 pc (calibre -533 mm)
Normal displacement, ------ 1765 m3
Principal dimensions,
- length ------ 66,8 m
- breadth ------ 7,1 m
Full submerged speed, ------ 21 kts
Submerged range at economic speed, ------ 650 miles
Cruising range with overload fuel capacity while snorkelling at economic speed of 7 knots, ------ 6000 miles
Maximum diving depth, ------ 300 m
Endurance, ------ 45 days
Crew, ------ 35 persons

The second from the Amur family is the Amur-950, which did not actually cross the Indian minds untill now. The second member of the Amur family is the new variant --- Amur-950 Version-2.

The V2 differs from its earlier version with the addition of a killer module aka a 10-cell VLS for PJ-10/Klub, showing as who sets standards for the SSK's of world.

Image
larger image

Amur-950 V2 was actually displayed at DefExpo'04' , which unfortunately did not get much attention or coverage ...

Amur-950 V2 spec

Number of torpedo tubes, ------ 6 pc
Missile, torpedo and amine ammunition, ------ 14 pc (calibre -533 mm)
Normal displacement, ------ 1060 m3
Principal dimensions,
- length ------ 60,3 m
- breadth ------ 5,6 m
Full submerged speed, ------ 20 kts
Submerged range at economic speed, ------ 350 miles
Cruising range with overload fuel capacity while snorkelling at economic speed of 7 knots, ------ 3000 miles
Maximum diving depth, ------ 300 m
Endurance, ------ 30 days
Crew, ------ 18 persons

Probably the outstanding capablity of the Amur-950 it is that, its possible to fire a a salvo of up to 10 missiles in one salvo from under the water. Torpedo weapon includes 4 torpedoes in the 4 forward 533 mm torpedo tubes plus 2 spare torpedoes. Not bad either, considering that this is meant to take out the surface fleet and for that task, in our case we can expect out surface fleet and the air-cover.

Check out the non-nuclear submarine section at CKB-Rubin for more, also for larger images of the above.

------------------------------------------------------------------

I.N's current fleet of submarines will be decommisioned in the next decade so most of the induction will go towards maintaining the fleet level. For augmenting the fleet we've got 2 really good option to choose from the Russian side, if anyone really cre to. Actually these two subs are not an 'option' , but it could be supplimenting each other for two set of roles.

The roles that these two can be dedicated to, are -
1) National defence (the 'inner circle') & western area of 'interest'
2) Expanding the 'reach' to protect India's National intrests in the areas's 'concerned'.

For these two different roles, we get two very capable platforms in the form of Amur-950 V2 (Role-1) and Amur-1650 modified (Role-2). The very common thing abt these two other than coming from same Country of Origin, Design Buearua and Family of submarines would be that, these two will be equipped with VLS for Klub/PJ-10, making it the most promising & cost-effective solution for a large volume sea-denial capablity & pre-emptive strike on land targets. These are one amoung the many capablities the competition can't provide, and wont be having in the near future.

The other options that we can have come along with there two submarines are -

1) Amur-950 V2 equipped with an AIP module (Kristal-2E) which will augment the submerged endurance for this killer.

2) Amur-1650 with N-propulsion. This wud be a good option, as an Amur-1650 with two modules (AIP & PJ-10 complex) might be heavier which could make it slower. This cud be somewhat like what the French have with the N-subs, but with a much capable platform and arsenal in the form of a N-powered Amur-1650.

.

sudipn
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 36
Joined: 06 May 2003 11:31
Location: los angeles

Postby sudipn » 04 Mar 2005 02:05

Question...............

And plz dont mind if i am asking a rather dumb question...

Why would we require a vls for bramose ...why would we be not able to fire them exactly like we fire the club missiles from our submarines today?
If i am not mistaken there are two types of torpedo tubes
1> the 533mm and then the other
2> the 650 mmm tube..

the israeli dolphin sub has 10 such tubes on its submarines 6 533 mm and the other 4 the 650 mm variants...http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/naval/dolphin/Dolphin.html..... it is these 650 mm variants which are used to launch long range cruse missiles... The soviets do it too... so now why should we not do it with the brahmose?
why spend the time money and effort on VLS? i mean if there is a presing urgency i can understand... but could someone plz let me in on these facts...

Marcos
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 55
Joined: 29 Jan 2003 12:31

Postby Marcos » 04 Mar 2005 02:52

sudipn wrote:Question...............

And plz dont mind if i am asking a rather dumb question...

Why would we require a vls for bramose ...why would we be not able to fire them exactly like we fire the club missiles from our submarines today?
If i am not mistaken there are two types of torpedo tubes
1> the 533mm and then the other
2> the 650 mmm tube..

well, if am not terribly wrong, for a tube-launch u need an additional booster to drive it up where as the VL launch doesn't need an extra booster.
In addition to that is -
- a tube laucnh wont give u the kind of salvo firing that one might want , for instance against a CBG of 8-12 ships.
- u will need to sacrifice the torpedoes and ultimately the total weapons load, if the missiles have to be fired from the TT
- with a VLS, u get a significant increase in weapons load, with the minimum displacement, where as for a 20-30 weapons load, the sub may extend too long and displace much more.
- and lastly , but not at all the least, it gives the freedom of engaging the surface fleet and the opponents sub that maybe targetting u, as ur torpedo tube is not choked with the missiles meant for the surface fleet.

the israeli dolphin sub has 10 such tubes on its submarines 6 533 mm and the other 4 the 650 mm variants...http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/naval/dolphin/Dolphin.html..... it is these 650 mm variants which are used to launch long range cruse missiles... The soviets do it too... so now why should we not do it with the brahmose?
why spend the time money and effort on VLS? i mean if there is a presing urgency i can understand... but could someone plz let me in on these facts...

First of all i'd like to request that please don't downgrade Indian National security requirements by comparing it to the Isreali's. Regarding the urgency of the VLS and Brahmos, well ...... only if we start now can we complete it 2morrow!

Katare
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2549
Joined: 02 Mar 2002 12:31

Postby Katare » 04 Mar 2005 04:12

VLS allows firing in any direction with no effect on range and that is the most important advantage of VLS IMHO. Everything else needs multiple units and support hardware to provide a 360' coverage.

Abhisham
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 85
Joined: 09 Jan 2003 12:31
Location: Singapore

Postby Abhisham » 04 Mar 2005 04:22

Just a question does the VLS have any affect on the acoustic signature or the mobility of the submarine. Though the VLS looks fully integrated and streamlined with the hull but is their any issues regarding weight distribution. IMO Amur with VLS is the only unique SSK offered to us if infused with indian/isralie/french tech will be as formidable as the scorpene. Recently there has been no news on the viablitiy of the project though!! Has the govt decided against the Amur and plans to stick with the Scorpene only is it?

sudipn
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 36
Joined: 06 May 2003 11:31
Location: los angeles

Postby sudipn » 04 Mar 2005 04:36

Katare wrote:VLS allows firing in any direction with no effect on range and that is the most important advantage of VLS IMHO. Everything else needs multiple units and support hardware to provide a 360' coverage.


:)

could you please try and explain what u mean by firing in any direction?
and also which units (that too multiple of them) would be required to provide a 360' coverage ... I really am curious to know :?:

btw hint ...please compare between the actual VLS and what ever u r saying ...

Katare
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2549
Joined: 02 Mar 2002 12:31

Postby Katare » 04 Mar 2005 05:34

Try google :D

Yerna
BRFite
Posts: 108
Joined: 17 Oct 2003 11:31

Postby Yerna » 04 Mar 2005 05:42

My uneducated guess:

1. To fire a missle from torpedo tube, the sub has to position itself at certain depth and angle with its torpedo tubes facing up. The VLS doesnt place any such restrictions, though depth restriction stays.

2. The VLS launched missile shoots out of the water vertically and can be turned any direction without consuming much fuel. OTOH, for a tube launched SLCM, the sub itself has to turn towards the target direction to fire the missile. The missile cannot be fired in arbitrary direction and manouvered towards target as it wastes fuel.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16391
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Postby NRao » 04 Mar 2005 06:13

A matter of convinience within the sub. With modern missiles having hugh ranges (300-3000 Kms), there is not much advantage - from a range perspective - to have one or the other (torpedo tubes of VLS tubes - yes, both are "tube"s).

The Torps being need more horizontal space, the VLS need vertical space (relative to each other that is).

Check out the Seawolf class for more info - it has 8 torp tubes, but carries 50 combination of land-attack CMs, ship CMs and torps.

(One thing I have not checked is CMs can be launced from torp tubes, can toprs be launched from VLS tubes?)

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20107
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Postby Philip » 04 Mar 2005 07:40

I can't agree with Marcos more.The Amur,of which two examples are being in their final stages of consttruction in Russia,have been in previous times the second line of conventional subs to have ben built in India,along with either Scorpenes or more German subs.Due to the controversy of "commissions" for the German subs,the deal for the Scorpene was worked out,which is still hanging fire and galloping in price thanks to the escalation clauses in the agreement.

There is no substantial reason why the Amur has not found favour with the MOD/IN,as from our long experience with Russian subs,thier sturdiness and capabilities have always come through.The Kilo has had a healthy regard from western navies,especially for its quietness and the Amur,which is supposed to be seven times quieter,smaller,costing much less than the Kilo is a quantum leap over the Kilo.As the first post showed,their are several versions of the Amur which could suit the IN.Since we already use the Klub aboard our Kilos,this version could be considered for the first lot if purchased.,especially as the same launch tubes could also fire the anti-sub version Later on,Brahmos equipped Amurs perhaps with an AIP system could follow.On cost alone,Amur should be far more attractive than the Scorpene.One can understand the IN's desire though to acquire Scorpenes which are excellent subs and also get a taste of French sub technology,more advanced than whiat is used by the PN on their Agostas-90Bs.

As most of our armament aboard our subs are of Russian origin,using the Amur would ensure a smooth transition to a newer sub,yet not discarding the weaponry at hand.Training of sub crews would also be easier task.Moreover,these subs can be inducted at a far faster rate than the Scorpenes as two Amurs are almost ready to enter service/trials in Russia.One of these could be the lead boat for India.A combination of Klub and Brahmos equipped Amurs in two variations of the sub,along with Shkval rocket torpedoes too,would be a very formidable sea denial capability for India.Building these subs in India along with a western sub would give us an unrivalled advantage.Due to high costs and low funding for the IN-something that has to be put right,there is a limitation on the number of nuclear subs that the IN can acquire from Russia or elsewhere or build at home.Nuclear subs in IN service would also have the drawback of being meant to carry part of our nuclear deterrent and at times unavailable for other regular sub duties.Therefore the main task of sea denial and offensive sub opration against enemy task forces/fleets would fall upon the conventional subs,of which we ned to have a minimum of 24 to be able to deal with future threats.many new nation are acquiring subs for the first time.China has a huge number of conventional subs and is building at least three different types of new subs.In our patr of the world,Pak has the best sub production facilities-by India's defautl.When we shoul'dve been building our own advanced designs by now,we are still struggling to identify which new type of conventional sub be acquired,even as Pak begins to build its first AIP version of the Agosta!

khan
BRFite
Posts: 554
Joined: 12 Feb 2003 12:31
Location: Tx

Postby khan » 04 Mar 2005 07:56

The Amur's even have Fuel cell AIP.

IN is trying to get german Fuel Cell AIP with frence Scorpene's :(( . I don't think either side is too happy about it.

Why don't they just get Amur's?

Nice link here.

Raju

Postby Raju » 04 Mar 2005 13:39

An honest but possibly stoopid observation ?? What if the GoI/IN has made a decision to induct onlee nookulear submarines for the future like the amerikans have been doing, with just the scorpene and the German AIP continually enticing them like a Rambha & maneka hybrid and destroy their singular focus on N-submarines ??

Only that would explain the lack of focus on the Amur etc !

JTull
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2651
Joined: 18 Jul 2001 11:31

Postby JTull » 04 Mar 2005 15:49

VLS tubes are preloaded and can be fired in a salvo. Launching a missile is a location giveaway to the enemy and the objective should be to fire and bolt as quickly as possible. Typically only two missiles can be fired from torpedo tubes at a time. This is a big limitation. Moreover, these tubes are typically used by heavy torpedos and sub should have these tubes available for defensive capability.

Although, torpedo tube based launch has an advantage that it can be launched from much deeper than a gas pressure based launch from VLS.

sudipn
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 36
Joined: 06 May 2003 11:31
Location: los angeles

Postby sudipn » 04 Mar 2005 21:34

yerna wrote:My uneducated guess:

1. To fire a missle from torpedo tube, the sub has to position itself at certain depth and angle with its torpedo tubes facing up. The VLS doesnt place any such restrictions, though depth restriction stays.

2. The VLS launched missile shoots out of the water vertically and can be turned any direction without consuming much fuel. OTOH, for a tube launched SLCM, the sub itself has to turn towards the target direction to fire the missile. The missile cannot be fired in arbitrary direction and manouvered towards target as it wastes fuel.


.....man u r kidding right..........a tube launch has to be done by placing the submarine in a certain angle... please oh please tell me where you got that info....
a tube launch is actually prefered as you can launch from a tube at much more depth then you can from a vls...
also a vls launch is much more noisy .... I am not sure but have u ever heard of the "water ram expulsion system for torpedo " it is used in the U212 class boats... this is by far the least nosisy system to get whatever out of your torpedo tubes.. the los angeles class on the other hand launches its torpedoes using compressed air...water ram expulsion system ejects the torpedo from the tube without the launch "transient" associated with using compressed air. In other words, the 212 can fire torpedoes stealthily, reducing the possibility for a counter attack
to read more on this please refer http://www.military.com/soldiertech/0,14632,Soldiertech_U212,,00.html

ok now some say that the only benifit of using a uls is using it for a salvo launch... well i'd like to challange that.... for this i'd again like to take the example of the german built dolphin class sub... it has 10 torpedo tubes
6 530 mm and 4 650 mm .... (it would be worth mentioning here that no indian sub has a 650 mm torpedo launcher) now say u have 4 missiles in the 650 mm launcher and 6 heavy weight torpedos in the 530mm tubes u think your defensive stratagy is gonna suffer or are 4 brahmos launched in a salvo not good enough...

the last point i'd like to make for the tube launched system is its conformance to the ideal shape of the submarine... as has ben repeatedly pointed out the most IDEAL shape for a submarine would be a tear drop the sleek rounded shape of a hunter killer class sub... hydrodynamic noise is caused more by water slushing on the body of a submarine at speeds more than 10-15 knots.. adding a vls system no doubt changes this ideal rounded shape ... (remember the boomers no wonder the shape of the hunter killers was much more sleeker)...thus causing that much more degree of noise...
well i think i'have said enough..i'll rest my case...

Yerna
BRFite
Posts: 108
Joined: 17 Oct 2003 11:31

Postby Yerna » 04 Mar 2005 22:13

.....man u r kidding right..........a tube launch has to be done by placing the submarine in a certain angle... please oh please tell me where you got that info....
a tube launch is actually prefered as you can launch from a tube at much more depth then you can from a vls...

I do not have any source to back that up, but believe me, if torpedo launch (of missiles) were so easy, the navies of the world wouldnt have developed a VLS.

This image from BR

Image

The above should make it clear why VLS is preferred to tube launch. The sub/ship has to position itself in the direction of the target to launch the missile.

John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2123
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Postby John » 04 Mar 2005 22:18

i'd again like to take the example of the german built dolphin class sub... it has 10 torpedo tubes
6 530 mm and 4 650 mm ....

In order for that HDW had to make few comprises in order to accomadate 4 heavy torp tubes for israeli submarine, one of those being that it can carry ony 16 missiles/ torpedoes as opposed to 24 and also less interior space for the crew men and so on.
In all likelyhood we will see VLS launchers on amur if it is purchased mainly because all signs point to IN procuring brahmos for submarine platform.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16391
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Postby NRao » 04 Mar 2005 22:33

Yerna,

That picture is not representative of a situation. At times missiles are programmed to make such manuvers for evassion. In theory the mssile could have just climbed up and turned towards the target too.

IMHO, from what little I have read, the VLS tubes were meant for ballistic missiles. The missiles launched from torp tubes are CMs (correct me if not).

As a FYI only, the Virginia Class subs are supposed to have: "12 VLS tubes and 4 Torpedo tubes for 16 Tomahawk missile salvo capability" (via google).

It looks as though a sub is designed for a certain purpose and configured with certain combination of tubes (with otu without VLS - they all have torp tubes). Then as the needs change they design ammo (missiles) to suite the subs they have on hand. Having said that I have noticed, via google, that BMs cannot be fired from torp tuves and torps cannot be fired from VLSs. (Since I have not googled enough, I could be wrong on both counts.)

sudipn
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 36
Joined: 06 May 2003 11:31
Location: los angeles

Postby sudipn » 04 Mar 2005 22:34

yerna wrote:[I do not have any source to back that up, but believe me, if torpedo launch (of missiles) were so easy, the navies of the world wouldnt have developed a VLS.

The above should make it clear why VLS is preferred to tube launch. The sub/ship has to position itself in the direction of the target to launch the missile.



ok man lets take it slowly...one step at a time..
Imagine in the same picture that you have shown the missile launched from the sub has to go in a direction 180' opposite...i.e. the other way...
also lets assume that the missile travels say 100meters in the horizontal plane before it surfaces and goes up... also let us assume that our submarine which launched this missile is huge say 100 metes in length...
also let us assume that a midship mounted vls system going straight up and in the same direction discussed above would travel only 1/2 the length of the submarine once it surfaces right...which is 50 meters in our example...

now think.....and tell me do u wanna say that these extra 150 meters is really the issue for a missile which has a range of 290 kms... ....

also you think all the other points that were pointed out in the last mail are negligible when u say extra 150 meters count..

further more remember if you put forth a hypothesis the onus is on you to prove the hypothesis by giving logical explanation's + references to drive your conclusion... sentencelike "Try google search for this" are vague childish remarks...and are best avoided.

sudipn
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 36
Joined: 06 May 2003 11:31
Location: los angeles

Postby sudipn » 04 Mar 2005 22:55

[quote="john]In order for that HDW had to make few comprises in order to accomadate 4 heavy torp tubes for Israeli submarine, one of those being that it can carry ony 16 missiles/ torpedoes as opposed to 24 and also less interior space for the crew men and so on.
In all likelihood we will see VLS launchers on amur if it is purchased mainly because all signs point to IN procuring brahmos for submarine platform.[/quote]

ok John the dolphin which has 16 devices I think is still a verry formidable platform... but besides the point the dolphin is a small submarine please refer...
http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/ ... lphin.html

the dolphis length is 57.3 metres... which is equivalent to our German 209 type 1200 class subs plz refer ...http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... pe-209.htm

but if u consider deploying this same on a kilo class submarine u will not be face with such a problem...
the kilos which we have now have a length of 72.6 meters plz refer http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/row/rus/877.htm and the amur which we might buy would have a length of 68 meters + a bigger cross section (beam) refer http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... pecs.htm... now it is also a rule that as technology increases the size decreases...the same is true on a submarine...

in short I dont think 16 missiles/torpedoes is a small arsenal and also I think we would be able to manage much more on the russian subs..if we decide to buy them

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16391
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Postby NRao » 04 Mar 2005 23:16

Check this out as FYI only: Raytheon (General Dynamics) AGM/BGM/RGM/UGM-109 Tomahawk

.
In an UGM-109 underwater launch, the missile remains enclosed in its transport canister until it has cleared the torpedo tube. The canister is then ejected, and the booster ignites to propel the missile to the surface. After it is fully airborne, some protective covers are jettisoned, and the flight procedes as in a surface launch. Newer SSNs also have vertical launch tubes for the UGM-109 missile.


Has some nice historic notes

Vick
BRFite
Posts: 753
Joined: 14 Oct 1999 11:31

Postby Vick » 04 Mar 2005 23:28

The canister is a very useful little tool when it comes to masking the launch sub's position. As in, the sub launches the canister(s) and leaves the area, after a predetermined amount of time, the missiles leave the canister and the CO of the firing sub is sitting pretty waiting for strike damage analysis.

Raman
BRFite
Posts: 266
Joined: 06 Mar 2001 12:31
Location: Niyar kampootar onlee

Postby Raman » 04 Mar 2005 23:31

VLS is more of an issue for SAMs and similar defensive missile systems where reaction time is crucial. It is less of an issue for offensive missile systems. Nevertheless, there is a range penalty, and I'm guessing that the penalty is more than the few hundred meters it takes to turn the missile around --- you have to measure the energy consumed by the maneuver (in a regime of increased drag) and figure out how much further that that energy could have gotten you if you didn't have to make it.

sudipn
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 36
Joined: 06 May 2003 11:31
Location: los angeles

Postby sudipn » 04 Mar 2005 23:38

Raman wrote:VLS is more of an issue for SAMs and similar defensive missile systems where reaction time is crucial. It is less of an issue for offensive missile systems. Nevertheless, there is a range penalty, and I'm guessing that the penalty is more than the few hundred meters it takes to turn the missile around --- you have to measure the energy consumed by the maneuver (in a regime of increased drag) and figure out how much further that that energy could have gotten you if you didn't have to make it.


Raman... as I have mentioned in my previous mails... the submarine is inherently a stealthy system... it is much more efficient to silently launch a canister from a water ram system, then use compressed gas to blow offf a cruse missile off a VLS. Plus it has the added advantage of the canister then launching the missile by which time the sub can verry well make its escape..and assume a defensive posture or get ready for a second salvo...

Yerna
BRFite
Posts: 108
Joined: 17 Oct 2003 11:31

Postby Yerna » 04 Mar 2005 23:43

sudipn wrote:ok man lets take it slowly...one step at a time..
Imagine in the same picture that you have shown the missile launched from the sub has to go in a direction 180' opposite...i.e. the other way...
also lets assume that the missile travels say 100meters in the horizontal plane before it surfaces and goes up... also let us assume that our submarine which launched this missile is huge say 100 metes in length...
also let us assume that a midship mounted vls system going straight up and in the same direction discussed above would travel only 1/2 the length of the submarine once it surfaces right...which is 50 meters in our example...

now think.....and tell me do u wanna say that these extra 150 meters is really the issue for a missile which has a range of 290 kms... ....

also you think all the other points that were pointed out in the last mail are negligible when u say extra 150 meters count..


Its not the 150 metres that the missile is travelling, but the energy it expends in executing a 180 degree turn at sub/supersonic speeds compared to an low G turns.
Now from the picture you may say that it dont matter which way the missile is turning as it is going straight up after launch from the tube. But, as I said earlier, the missile is not launched in that position (which is my hypothesis ofcourse and I may be wrong). You can use the ship analogy here too. Why are VLS preferred on ships instead of inclined launchers? Other than space saving, the VLS offers freedom to launch from any position and the ship doesnt have to position itself in the targets direction. Why should it be any different for submarines?
Also, the booster of the SLCM ignites only after the missile is launched clear of water, and it is launched by pressurized water from the tubes which makes a 90 degree turn inside water energy consuming and inefficient.

further more remember if you put forth a hypothesis the onus is on you to prove the hypothesis by giving logical explanation's + references to drive your conclusion... sentencelike "Try google search for this" are vague childish remarks...and are best avoided.


I dont remember asking you to google or anything. I have just put forth a hypothesis which I felt is perfectly logical (see the above explanation). I dont have sources to back it up and you cant disporve it. So, wait till some one more knowledgeable posts here.


IMHO, from what little I have read, the VLS tubes were meant for ballistic missiles. The missiles launched from torp tubes are CMs (correct me if not).

As a FYI only, the Virginia Class subs are supposed to have: "12 VLS tubes and 4 Torpedo tubes for 16 Tomahawk missile salvo capability" (via google).


Initially tomohawk missiles were designed to be launched from torpedo tubes, which placed constraints on the length, weight and placement of the fins on the missile. The USN then moved to VLS which has many advantages over torpedo launch as pointed out by other postors.

sudipn
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 36
Joined: 06 May 2003 11:31
Location: los angeles

Postby sudipn » 05 Mar 2005 00:08

man... what are u talking about... "but the energy it expends in executing a 180 degree turn ".... boss when u pop out of the water u r vertical ... u then make the turnto which ever direction u wanna go to... is this going to be any different then making a similar turn when u pop out in a vertical position from a vls system? .... the only difference I am sighting is when u get out of the water and are vertical when u r launched from a torpedo tube it is possible that you might be a few hundred meters more than the position that u pop out had u been launched vertically... after the pop up everything is the same man...(hence the request to take it verry slowly)

I dont remember asking you to google or anything. I have just put forth a hypothesis which I felt is perfectly logical (see the above explanation). I dont have sources to back it up and you cant disprove it. So, wait till some one more knowledgeable posts here.


boss do u really think what u said is logical...well.. a hypothesis is not a hypothesis unless substantiated with proper references... I dont have to disprove anything unless u try and prove something in the first place...
also i think you are just mentioning yourself when u consider someone more knowledgeable... well good that you at least got that right...

I mean even after all these attempts to explain u that the after a missile pops out of the water it is verticle and will expend the same energy doing the same turns thrice well yes i can understand your dilemma...and why u consider urself less knowledgeable...

my suggestion is try and read the other points that i mentioned too... about the silent ejection system and also the shape of the submarine... try to look at the bigger picture... and dont worry I will explain it one more time if you did not get it this time... ITsa ALL RIGHT

sudipn
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 36
Joined: 06 May 2003 11:31
Location: los angeles

Postby sudipn » 05 Mar 2005 00:17

Raman wrote:VLS is more of an issue for SAMs and similar defensive missile systems where reaction time is crucial. It is less of an issue for offensive missile systems. Nevertheless, there is a range penalty, and I'm guessing that the penalty is more than the few hundred meters it takes to turn the missile around --- you have to measure the energy consumed by the maneuver (in a regime of increased drag) and figure out how much further that that energy could have gotten you if you didn't have to make it.


Raman... the missile is launched from a canister which is ejected out from the submarine which is a much stealthier process then the VLS launching of the missile...This is what i could figure out from the tomahalk URL given above... This canister can be set to fire at a given timing sequence... the canister would be indipendent of the submarine thus not giving away is position... The energy spent by the missile while comming out from the canister as against comming out from a VLS I think sould be the same... hence the only difference being the distance traveled by the missile once it pops out of the water say a few hundred meters in front of the submarine rather than if it would have had it been launched from the VLS of the submarine...

please let me know what you think...

Marcos
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 55
Joined: 29 Jan 2003 12:31

Postby Marcos » 05 Mar 2005 00:28

BTW .... did u guys fotgot to look something ????

Our current Kilos employ 54 (which many had criticized), but just think of it as to how much we'd be able to get from these 540 men .... as the Amur-950 V2 needs just 18 guys (or say maybe, 20-21 when AIP module is included) and submarines aren't easy to get chaps in the world.

Here is one image of Amur-1650 with EG module. The Russians need finance for their Kristal-2E Electrochemical Generators aka AIP and we ned good submarines with exceptional capablity. And thats exactly what the Amur family provides, so I hope Govt move forward w/o anymore wastage of precious time to make these two a reality and then start work on the Russian 3rd Generation EG with complete ToT for local production.

The 3rd Gen EG is said to give the submarines nearly 100 days submerged endurance. BTW, Electrochemical Generators are what Russian call the Fuel-Cell, this has been a byproduct of the Soviet space flight.

I can't think of any better cost-effective leathel platform to carry out a massive strike against any surface fleet ..... or say a pre-emptive strike where we need most.

I hope these two move forward and get into INS - N-propulsion for Amur-1650 + 10-cell VLS for PJ-10 & Amur-950 V3 (speculative) with an AIP module + 10-cell VLS for PJ-10.

The N-powered ones can take care of the IOR and beyond choke points in the outer reach and suppliment the ATV or be placed in CBG. where as the Amur-950s can take care of the 'inner circle' with our immediate area of concern and of cource the western area of interest.

To add one note is that India need to move fast forward and seal the fate of Aumr, make a deal such that the Amur family of subs, its tech, or the EG is barred from transferring to any third country. Its an open secret that Russians' can't depend on India as India as off-late started diversifying its defence need for the sake for diversification (after the exact needy time of early 90s), so Russian might look towards any source that cud fund the subs and its highly advanced tech. And thats something thats not at all in India's interest - either Amur or the VLS complex on an SSK.

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2429
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Postby Cybaru » 05 Mar 2005 01:46

I dont think we should buy 1000 ton submarines. They are too tiny to house everything and have enough range to do duties submerged even if EG/fuel cells allow it to. One should still look at the old kilo sized boats with the above enhancements.

Marcos
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 55
Joined: 29 Jan 2003 12:31

Postby Marcos » 05 Mar 2005 02:16

Philip,

agree, when it is was actually time for us to have started rolling out our subs, we are still pondering as to which sub to choose when the fact is that there actually ins't much to choose from.

cy,

we need to move forward and not backward.

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2429
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Postby Cybaru » 05 Mar 2005 02:19

Marcos wrote:
we need to move forward and not backward.


I didnt say anything about moving backwards.

The point I am making is, it cannot be too tiny. Doesnt give it either the range or enough supplies to remain submerged for long.

sudipn
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 36
Joined: 06 May 2003 11:31
Location: los angeles

Postby sudipn » 05 Mar 2005 04:18

Marcos wrote:BTW .... did u guys fotgot to look something ????

Our current Kilos employ 54 (which many had criticized), but just think of it as to how much we'd be able to get from these 540 men .... as the Amur-950 V2 needs just 18 guys (or say maybe, 20-21 when AIP module is included) and submarines aren't easy to get chaps in the world.

Here is one image of Amur-1650 with EG module. The Russians need finance for their Kristal-2E Electrochemical Generators aka AIP .


.............
Marcos...I have the distinct feeling that this discussion is heading towards the classic subject of "which submarine should be choosen"
... well if thats the case I would Side with the U214 and no one else....
there are several ways of developing AIP ......the AIP which the russians use, uses liquid nitrogen to run their closed cycle engines... please take a close look at the oxygen tank clearly depicted in the URL that you have posted... this kinda AIP system has the drawback that they emit a very strong IR signal due to their hot water exhaust...
the germans on the other hand have a differnt way of going about this whole process of AIP... The system consists of nine PEM (polymer electrolyte membrane) fuel cells, providing between 30 and 50kW each.
refer http://www.naval-technology.com/project ... #type_2128

also i am completely against a VLS system for the brahmos complex... and hence would argue for the german design...

Roop
BRFite
Posts: 255
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby Roop » 05 Mar 2005 06:33

:?:

Philip:

I know you're a knowledgeable observer and serious commentator on the IN, so I want to ask this: are you saying that the Amur would be preferable to the Scorpene for the IN? I get this impression from your posts, but maybe I'm reading too much into them.

Marcos
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 55
Joined: 29 Jan 2003 12:31

Postby Marcos » 06 Mar 2005 00:39

Sudip,
i think u've confused urself, as what ur saying is not that of EG, which the west calls as Fuel-cells, but that of the MESMA close-cycle AIP. Read these from some old issues of Military Parade. ... on the Germans choice for Fuel-Cells for the U-212.
Before choosing AIP with EG, the German Submarine Consortium (GSC), which, apart from HDW, includes the IKL design bureau, the Thyssen Nordseewerke shipyard and some other companies, had conducted comparative tests of this kind of engine and a closed-cycle diesel designed by Thyssen, Holland’s RDM and Britain’s Carlton Deep Sea Systems. The engines were installed alternately in an outdated Class 205 U-1 submarine and tested at sea. The testing took several years. Both engines showed good performance. Yet, the air independent propulsion with an electrochemical generator proved more economical and it had lower levels of acoustic and thermal fields. Besides, it turned out much more environmentally friendly as the electrochemical generator produced only one by-product - distilled water. These factors predetermined the choice of the engine, although some specialists believe that closed-cycle diesels are closer to the so-called "single engines", capable of operating in both surface and underwater travel, and are thus more promising.


On the Soviet/Russian development
In 1991, the St. Petersburg-based Special Boiler Design Bureau (SKBK) completed development of the Kristall-20 AIP system for the Piranha Class small submarines (Project 865). The AIP underwent comprehensive testing and was accepted by the customer - the Ministry of Defense. However, AIP systems were never installed in submarines due to reductions in defense spending.

Earlier, in the first half of the 1970s, the Lazurit Central Design Bureau and the Kvant and Kriogenmash research and production associations began to develop AIP systems with EG for submarines. Class S-273 diesel-electric submarine (Project 613) was converted into the Project 613E Katran sub. It took almost ten years to bring the experimental vessel designers’ ideas to fruition and prepare coastal support facilities adequately. The testing, which began in 1987 and ended in 1989, showed that those years were not wasted. Whereas other Project 613 submarines could remain submerged for slightly more than seven days, traveling at two knots without recharging their storage batteries (actually their dived endurance did not exceed three to four days), the S-273 boat powered by electrochemical engines was capable of traveling submerged at 2.5 knots for four weeks.

Closed-cycle diesels which are developed for future AIP submarines have been known in Russia since the 1930s. The Soviet Union developed several types of the closed-cycle propulsion units (CCPU) for submarines, which could propel both surfaced and submerged boats. The Soviet Navy was the only one in the world for which in the 1950s submarines with CCPUs (Project A 615) were series-produced.

These engines increased submarines’ submerged range. However, they were extremely fire - and exlposion - hazardous and were the cause of several serious accidents. Due to this, Project A 615 submarines had an ill reputation in the Navy. Yet, the CCPUs themselves were very promising. However, with the development of nuclear power plants started, the development of CCPUs ceased in the U.S.S.R. and other countries.

Several years later, it turned out that nuclear power plants were not only expensive but could also contaminate the environment in an accident. Moreover, when it came to scrapping nuclear-powered vessels with expired service lives, specialists found themselves at an impasse. So far no methods have been invented that could guarantee safe deactivation and scrapping of reactors. The technologies used nowadays for the partial recycling of radioactive waste are very costly.

Eventually, specialists revived the CCPU development programs. Russia’s first auxiliary AIP system with a hydrogen/oxygen EG, installed in the S-273 submarine, occupied very much space. Its four large reservoirs for storing liquid oxygen and hydrogen, built into the inner hull, made the sub look ugly and, most importantly, impaired its hydrodynamic characteristics. However, many elements of future AIP systems were tested on the S-273, specifically to exclude fire and explosion hazards. The solution of the problem of the propulsion unit size came from the space industry: spacecraft of various kinds used electrochemical generators that directly converted chemical energy into electricity.

In 1978, the Special Boiler Design Bureau became the leading developer of shipborne propulsion systems with EG. The bureau used the experience of the Urals Electrochemical Plant and the Energia Research and Production Association in developing electrochemical generators for spacecraft. The weight and size of the Kristall-20 engine were drastically reduced. Kristall-20, like the AIP installed on S-273, used oxygen and hydrogen. Hydrogen was kept as an intermetallic compound and not in liquid state.

The SKBK is now developing second-generation propulsion systems with EG, Kristall-27 and Kristall-27E, which can be installed as auxiliary engines in Russia’s latest Project 677 diesel-electric submarines and their export modification, Amur-1650, now being built at the Admiralteiskiye Verfi shipyard. According to estimates, Kristall-27E will increase the Amur Class submarines’ submerged endurance by 15 to 45 days (the longer endurance is ensured by a short-term operation of the diesel engine in the snorkeling mode).

The Rubin Central Marine Design Bureau, which has developed these subs, and the Energia Rocket and Space Corporation have pooled efforts to develop one more AIP system with EG. They offer to equip earlier built Project 877 EKM and Project 636 (Kilo class according to the Western classification) boats with AIP systems by building them into the hull, and modernizing the compartment with EG.

Other Russian design bureaus, too, develop diesel-electric submarines with EG. One of them, the Lazurit Central Design Bureau, the first to design AIP boats, has designed torpedo and torpedo-missile submarines with AIP systems. They displace from 1,000 to 4,000 tons. The Malakhit Marine Engineering Bureau has developed a family of the Kronverk submarines with a displacement of 150 to 2,000 tons.


Abt 3rd Gen EG
Presently, third-generation propulsion systems with EG are being developed. They are scheduled to be put into service after 2010. According to the Director General of the Special Boiler Design Bureau, Vladimir Zinin, and its Chief Designer Veniamin Avakov, these propulsion systems will cease to be regarded as auxiliary and will be referred to as all-mode CCPUs which will fully meet the requirements for underwater and surface cruise in the entire range of loads. Third-generation air independent propulsion systems will increase submarines’ dived endurance to 60-90 days and will thus bring their performance very close to that of nuclear submarines.


Some more on the AIPs
The AIPPs will be used on diesel-electric submarines as auxiliary power plants making it possible to increase range and underwater endurance at low-noise speed 1.5 to 3 times. One should bear in mind that the AIPPs are rather complex, require highly skilled maintenance personnel and are much more expensive, compared to the conventional diesel-electric plants in manufacture and operation (for example, a one hour run at a speed of 3 knots costs $50,000).

Special attention should be paid to the provision of fire and explosion safety of these plants, because liquid and gaseous oxygen is used in their operation. The experience of operation of about 40 submarines with closed-cycle diesels acquired by the Russian Navy indicated the importance of considering all aspects related to the development and safe operation of such plants.

Different countries follow different paths in the creation of AIPPs. Russia has developed several schemes of underwater diesel operation, using oxygen stored in a liquid or gaseous state, CO2 removal by dissolving it in sea water or by absorbing it by chemical substances. Russia and Germany are working successfully on the creation of electrochemical generators - the so-called fuel cell plants, which are supposed to be used in addition to the main plants on several diesel-electric submarines of the next generation submarines at the beginning of the 21st century.

Sweden has concentrated its efforts on creating the Sterling motor and France - on creating a by-pass plant using ethanol as a working medium in the first contour and a steam-water cycle in the second. Russia gives preference to the fuel-cell plant, since it boasts higher efficiency compared to the aforementioned, is less noisy, its power rating can be easily adjusted and it is environmentally friendly. Its main advantage is high safety, since the working cycle is static and the plant has no rotating or moving components. Due to this fact, no oxygen and hydrogen leaks are feasible. A compartment with such a power plant is fully automated and pressure-tight. During cruise, the plant requires no attending personnel. Irrespective of this fact, before series production, this plant and its fire-explosion safety should be thoroughly checked via experimental operation. It should be borne in mind that the operation of the AIPPs requires the development of costly shore-based infrastructure, including new cryogenic and chemical substance production facilities. Therefore, operational use of conventional submarines with fuel-cell power plants or other types of AIPPs should be substantiated by a detailed military and economic feasibility study in each particular case.

Marcos
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 55
Joined: 29 Jan 2003 12:31

Postby Marcos » 06 Mar 2005 00:51

Sudip,

I also want to add that, once the torpedo is out in water, u r out in the open to the other sub thats watching u, unless it happen that the opponents sub is of 70s vintage. So there is not much to hide. Also another fact is that, the torpeod just need to be pushed out, after that its propulsion unit take charge, so there is not much a great thing abt pushing it, but still there is. But for a missile launch, its not that easy, as the objective chance to not just pushing it out, but pushing it out such that it comes out of the water. So a simple pushing wont do the job and the reason why the torpedo launch requires an additional booster.

Now, think abt the threory that urself propagated abt the stealthines of the torpedo launch (which first of all is not there once any weapon is out in water), as the canister comes open in water after leaving the TT (which means additional noise) and then the booster ignites and propells it up (so is the booster and the process silent?, well i guess not) and after that when it clears the water or the specified height or travel time, the additional protective cover (main wings and fan area mostly) comes out and the main motor take charge and propells it to the direction intended. But in the case of the VLS (Russian case), its propelled out of the VL tube by gases (cold launch) and after the specified time or travel, the main motor take over and flies to its destination.

The addition of cover and booster in itself increase the size and weight of the weapon and for a torpedo launch these become necessary (defininite case for Exocet & Harpoon) as the wings can only fold and these cannot be launched w/o the protective smooth canister. Its coz these wings/control surfaces cud dampen the missiles way to the top surface and maybe even change the direction and never reach the surface. Where as the case for TH or Klub its different as their main wings are only extended after reaching the surface or the clearance. So they externally have a smooth surface and no obstructive and deflective surfaces in their intended way to the surface. In the case of TH, we know they use canisters and additional covers, but don know abt the case for Klubs. Maybe some one can throw some light on that.

Now comes out PJ-10, and since its wings is fixed it can only fold which means that it wud have canister like what we have seen in the versy first launch of the PJ-10. So it wud have that outer covering and a top cap while propelling it out to the surface. It may or maynot have the booster and that can be the same case with the Klub. Hope u guys get the point that i made, and welcomes corrections, if u guys find any.

The VLS is the future and we need to master it.

Marcos
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 55
Joined: 29 Jan 2003 12:31

Postby Marcos » 06 Mar 2005 01:12

For a nation like us , where the cream of idiots rule the nation and among them many cool their butt in the south block, we simply cannot afford to have a fleet of just killers, CM and BM fleet. But the future lies (more so in case of India) to have a mix of capablity (more so CM) being integrated into a platform. It also seems like our ATV is moving in that direction (as already the Kilos) with VLS for land/anti-ship CMs in addition to the normal load of torpedoes.

This also is the way forward as can be seen from the Russian development, where they earlier had a dedicated bulky carrier killer in the form of Oscar class. That was necessistated b'coz of the fact that for an armamant of 24 Granits (550 Km) the sto be accomodated the siub became bulky. But tthe Russians have learned their lessons and it increasingly seems like they wud probably merge this into one platform - Sevrodvinsk Class.

That particular image shows it to have 8-cell VLS, which in itself was testifying to the fact that Russian's was moving toward the optimum solution on their future platform by taking out the missiles from the torpedo rooms and giving their own space on the subs. But my feeling earlier have been to have the Oscars scrapped and utilise the Akula platform (new variant) to have 24-cell VLS section to take the role of Oscars as the CBG striker. This shifting allows the subs to have its torpedo room shifted to the middile section (or say almost directly under the conning tower) and make the bow section free enough to have huge spherical sonar and other equipments. But seem like that role of Oscar is now readily bestowed on the Sevrodvinsk class as can be seen from thsi report , where it mentions the primary armament of of the sub to be 24 x Onyx/Yakhont/PJ-10. This also shows (atleast thats what I think) that Russians in the future be replacing the Granis with a lighter, but as leathel as Granit with smilar (550Km) or longer ranged Yakhont/PJ-10.

But my guess is that there might be 2 variants, one with a 8-10 cell VLS and another with the full load of 24-missiles. And there cannot be a better news than this as I strongly believe that ATV cud be an "MKI" affair for Indian Navy's N-powered subs.

Atleast, I believe that the right way ahead for us is SSKs with VLS , which allows us to not to have a compromise on the torpedos or TT launched mines caried by the submarine. Even small midget submarines have 4 VLS which are meant for special ops. In our case, we've already acquired this capablity of sub based CM, but the next logical step is to heve it in the VLS form and extend such a platfrom's submerged endurance.

So if u guys ask me where are we today ---- I'd like to say ......

1) we have the missile (PJ-10 & Klub)
2) we have the complex for the missile (hope the Russian have readied it)
3) we have the module for that extra endurance (Kristall-27E)
4) we have the platform staring right into our eyes (Amur-1650 & Amur-950V2)

so what is that we are lacking from our part or missing in our approach???

--- it is just a matter of taking three very improtant steps ----

1) we need to wake up!
2) we need to make the resolution for the day!
3) we need to move forward to make it happen!

.

sudipn
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 36
Joined: 06 May 2003 11:31
Location: los angeles

Postby sudipn » 08 Mar 2005 02:20

Marcos wrote:Sudip,
i think u've confused urself, as what ur saying is not that of EG, which the west calls as Fuel-cells, but that of the MESMA close-cycle AIP. Read these from some old issues of Military Parade. ... on the Germans choice for Fuel-Cells for the U-212.....................


Marcos....
OK Let us start with the assumption that I am a thoroughly confused guy as regards to the AIP (Air Independent Propulsion) Theory...
So let’s get a step by step analysis of what I proposed. Luckily I was cut a break and in one of the adjoining discussion threads I came up with the following URL.http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/cno/n87/usw/issue_13/propulsion.htm This URL discusses various (generalized) theories about AIP.

It mentions all the four possible AIP techniques viz.
Closed-cycle diesel engines, generally with stored liquid oxygen (LOX)
Closed-cycle steam turbines
Sterling-cycle heat engines with external combustion
Hydrogen-oxygen fuel cells

In my previous post I had sided with the German Hydrogen-oxygen fuel cell principle and had quoted the following Lines.
Sudipn wrote:the Germans on the other hand have a different way of going about this whole process of AIP... The system consists of nine PEM (polymer electrolyte membrane) fuel cells, providing between 30 and 50kW each.


Also as given in the article that I have mentioned above, If you happen to observe carefully every single one of them (Except for one the Hydrogen-oxygen fuel cells) produce a vast quantity of heat and CO2. Both these bi-products are released in the ocean which can be easily detected.
I would like to point it here that the Germans have the only working submarine based on this theory.
Now lets say that the Kristall-27E works on the same principle as the German fuel cells, but then again the Russian navy has rejected the use of these AIP means due to the very fact that their own fuel cells need quite a bit of shore base infrastructure. Please refer to the following URL for details….http://www.sfu.ca/casr/ft-winz1.htm

Above and over this the Russians are at the best offering things which they themselves have not yet fully demonstrated on a working submarine… Their only working AIP(demonstrated on a actual submarine platform) has been on submarines called "cigarette lighters" (due to their tendency to light up) by their crew. It is common practice and I think we r quite aware of this by now that most russian claims are at best just that "claims ". To put those claims into a working piece needs a lot of tinkering, time and money.

Hence my assumption of ruling out anything russian which is only claimed and not demonstrated on actual working platforms. (here I would surely like to know if there is an actual working AIP amur or kilo based on techs like kristall-27E)

Would u still consider that I am thoroughly confused.. :-)

sudipn
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 36
Joined: 06 May 2003 11:31
Location: los angeles

Postby sudipn » 08 Mar 2005 03:04

Marcos wrote:Sudip,

I also want to add that, once the torpedo is out in water, u r out in the open to the other sub thats watching u, unless it happen that the opponents sub is of 70s vintage. So there is not much to hide. Also another fact is that, the torpeod just need to be pushed out, after that its propulsion unit take charge, so there is not much a great thing abt pushing it, but still there is. But for a missile launch, its not that easy, as the objective chance to not just pushing it out, but pushing it out such that it comes out of the water. So a simple pushing wont do the job and the reason why the torpedo launch requires an additional booster.


Marcos ....
in your previous mail u mentioned that i was an utterly confused fellow... hmm.....well yes ..... i was confused and i did not know if I should reply at all to this rather childish mail of yours... your opening remark was amazingly laughable... god ... ne ways fun and jokes aside... say one submarine (say having a gas based torpedo ejection system) opens its doors at say 300ft and there is one more hunter lurking right aboveit at say 80 ft do u think that the hunter will immideatly be alearted to the other submarine? if your answer is yes i'd suggest u do some reading up... [Hint:- think on the possiblities of thermal layers]

also how many types of torpedo ejection systems do u know..
i'd like to know that... [Hint:- there really are a few different types]
you might be aware (i certainly hope so that you are) that clubs are launched from our existing kilos... could u please tell me as to how they are launched...[Hint:- This is open source material]

also let me know if you think for a verticle launch can be done at all depths and compare that against torpedo tube launches..[Hint:- vls gas pressure requirements]

I think this much of home work is enought for you for today...
I'll ask a few more questions on your remaining paragraphs later...

Raman
BRFite
Posts: 266
Joined: 06 Mar 2001 12:31
Location: Niyar kampootar onlee

Postby Raman » 08 Mar 2005 03:17

sudipn,

Just some friendly advice before the admins come knocking. In the interest of keeping the forum a friendly place, I request that you tone down the sarcasm in your posts. I'm sure that debate can be conducted in a far more civil manner. If you have information to share, please do share it in a spirit that befits the dissemination of knowledge.

sudipn
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 36
Joined: 06 May 2003 11:31
Location: los angeles

Postby sudipn » 08 Mar 2005 03:53

Raman wrote:sudipn,

Just some friendly advice before the admins come knocking. In the interest of keeping the forum a friendly place, I request that you tone down the sarcasm in your posts. I'm sure that debate can be conducted in a far more civil manner. If you have information to share, please do share it in a spirit that befits the dissemination of knowledge.


Raman,
Yes there is a fair bit of sercasm in my previous mail. but I for one do not think it is completely unwarrented. I never called any one "confused ( I think u've confused urself)" just because my view did not match someone elses...
Also if you look at my posts almost all of them would be punctuated with proper refrences to open source materials..
with relation to this exact discussion..
I had put down points like silent torpedo launch tech or inherent loss of shape when an VLS system is added to the existing design... these points were well researched and always accompanied by proper refences..
if in spite of all this, if people are free to shot off their mouths without proper refrences or completely reading and understanding other refrences... and write what I'd call only their views and that too after calling others confused..
Do you think I have any other way than being sercastic and forcing the other guy to read up on his stuff before airing it...
Raman I have seen u post on this site quite a few times... this forum prides itself on being in touch with reality and by stating facts ...... not just airing ones own thoughts...
How else do u get people to realise this....

I'd be the first person to listen to any constructive argument there is and impliment it right away...As of now I really do think sarcasm works

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4291
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Postby srai » 08 Mar 2005 06:02

Marcos wrote:...
On the Soviet/Russian development
...
Abt 3rd Gen EG
...
Third-generation air independent propulsion systems will increase submarines’ dived endurance to 60-90 days and will thus bring their performance very close to that of nuclear submarines.
...

...


Amur-1650 spec
Endurance, ------ 45 days

Amur-950 V2 spec
Endurance, ------ 30 days


That 60-90 days submerged endurance will be longer than the endurance of the vessels themselves!


Return to “Military Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests