International Naval News & Discussion

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 20 Apr 2009 06:22

Chef on Royal Navy submarine HMS Tireless on secrets of feeding 130 under the sea

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 21 Apr 2009 05:04

China to display nuclear submarines in Qingdao fleet parade

Jamal K. Malik · Post by **Jamal K. Malik** » 21 Apr 2009 14:08

China to show off resurgent naval strength
http://in.news.yahoo.com/137/20090421/7 ... al-st.html

khukri · Post by **khukri** » 21 Apr 2009 20:14

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articl ... ition.html

JaiS · Post by **JaiS** » 24 Apr 2009 07:34

Hello Sailor! Rival Navies Check One Another Out

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 24 Apr 2009 13:18

There was a fascinating Chinese video featuring its sub fleet,including the interiors of its newest subs,possibly the Song class.Unfortunately the link is not working today (www.cctv.com).It might be on U-tube.The interiors showed the combat centre designed in a very clean and ergonomic manner,which would put some western diesel subs to shame.The interior of a Kilo class sub is far inferior.The detailing of the ceilings,showed a minimum of pipework and the flatscreen display consoles appeared multi-functional.Overall,it showed that

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 25 Apr 2009 06:45

China puts naval ships on show (9 pictures)

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 26 Apr 2009 22:59

Nice CGI of Borei on Wiki (clicky )

Borei SSBN

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 27 Apr 2009 21:10

Russia to build 6 Kilo-class diesel submarines for Vietnam

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 27 Apr 2009 23:13

EP-X Program Starts To Take Shape

Very interesting article - future in the making.

U.S. Navy Plans EPX Intel-Gathering Aircraft

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 05 May 2009 18:23

Oz buying 100 JSF aircraft and to acquire 12 new subs,more deadly than its Collins class to take on "India and China"! The land of OZ keeps true to form bracketing democratic India with the sinister Communist dictatorship China.Such an asinine foreign and defence policy shows up Oz as being a nation of idiots,cretins and morons,but one must remember that the land and fighting menof Oz are merely Uncle Sam's mercenaries! So one can clearly see that it is Uncle Sam who considers India an "enemy"!

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= ... =australia

Australia to Buy 100 Joint Strike Fighters, Double Submarines
By Gemma Daley

May 2 (Bloomberg) -- Australia will double its submarine fleet to 12, its biggest defense expenditure, and purchase 100 Lockheed Martin Corp. F-35 Joint Strike Fighters to keep pace with a regional military buildup led by China and India.

Gaurav_S · Post by **Gaurav_S** » 05 May 2009 18:51

Philip wrote:Such an asinine foreign and defence policy shows up Oz as being a nation of idiots,cretins and morons,but one must remember that the land and fighting menof Oz are merely Uncle Sam's mercenaries! So one can clearly see that it is Uncle Sam who considers India an "enemy"!

Obama requested Canberra to commit more troops to Afghanistan recently and Mr Rudd didnt wasted a minute to announce Australia to committ some 450 more diggers to help train Afghan army. This is when Australia based defence analysts have already pronounced there is nothing to be achieved and this committment by Australia is proving futile and its getting dragged. What more can prove that Australia is just a puppet in the hands of US.

Kersi D · Post by **Kersi D** » 06 May 2009 01:38

Philip wrote:Oz buying 100 JSF aircraft and to acquire 12 new subs,more deadly than its Collins class to take on "India and China"! The land of OZ keeps true to form bracketing democratic India with the sinister Communist dictatorship China.Such an asinine foreign and defence policy shows up Oz as being a nation of idiots,cretins and morons,but one must remember that the land and fighting menof Oz are merely Uncle Sam's mercenaries! So one can clearly see that it is Uncle Sam who considers India an "enemy"!

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= ... =australia

Australia to Buy 100 Joint Strike Fighters, Double Submarines
By Gemma Daley

May 2 (Bloomberg) -- Australia will double its submarine fleet to 12, its biggest defense expenditure, and purchase 100 Lockheed Martin Corp. F-35 Joint Strike Fighters to keep pace with a regional military buildup led by China and India.

Let us take it as a compliment.

Oz needs 100 JSF and 12 subs to counter a military build up by India

We need only one Bhajji and may be one Dada to take care of 100 Steve Waughs and 12 Andrew Symonds !!!!

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 06 May 2009 06:55

boeing unveils us-navy paint scheme for p-8a poseidon

Dmurphy · Post by **Dmurphy** » 07 May 2009 12:01

A taste of life on board Lusty

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 09 May 2009 13:44

More info on the Nerpa tragedy,where the crew member responsible has been found "sane",but appears to have fed in the wrong temp data,causing the accident.How pressing just one button ,with no back up system,caused the tragedy is also being examined by the investigation team.

http://en.rian.ru/russia/20090508/121505894.html

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 11 May 2009 13:16

The USN's latest answer to littoral warfare,with its new trimaran LCS frigate that has a top speed of 50kts,a 57mm main gun,Sea RAM SAMs and two helos.No mention of SSms,but it is sure to have Harpoons aboard.The cost has doubled to $500million per ship.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstop ... -Navy.html

Meanwhile,this "missile madness" story is so hilarious, as a US company is building Trident missiles for UK subs which won't fit the silos! Another 100 million pounds is to be spent to rectify the problem.The big Q is being asked,why didn't they employ a tailor!

http://www.snp.org/node/15271

..and details of the $4.7 billion 12,ooot DDX here,which supposedly has a radar signature "50 times smaller" than that of a regular DDG.Its two 155mm main guns,with sat corrrection,have arange of 100nm.The USN wants 12 DDXs.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... essel.html

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 11 May 2009 13:31

Philip wrote
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstop ... -Navy.html

Meanwhile,this "missile madness" story is so hilarious, as a US company is building Trident missiles for UK subs which won't fit the silos! Another 100 million pounds is to be spent to rectify the problem.The big Q is being asked,why didn't they employ a tailor!

Any logical reason why MTCR does not apply, or is it a case one rule for the Great White Gods and 1 Rule for SDRE pagans

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 11 May 2009 18:22

How the pirates get their info.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/ma ... telligence
Excerpt:

Somali pirates guided by London intelligence team, report says
Document obtained by Spanish radio station says 'well-placed informers' in constant contact by satellite telephone
Giles Tremlett in Madrid
The Somali pirates attacking shipping in the Gulf of Aden and Indian Ocean are directed to their targets by a "consultant" team in London, according to a European military intelligence document obtained by a Spanish radio station.

JaiS · Post by **JaiS** » 12 May 2009 10:52

Northrop Grumman Delivers Final Nimitz-Class Aircraft Carrier to the U.S. Navy

kit · Post by **kit** » 12 May 2009 13:25

Philip wrote:The USN's latest answer to littoral warfare,with its new trimaran LCS frigate that has a top speed of 50kts,a 57mm main gun,Sea RAM SAMs and two helos.No mention of SSms,but it is sure to have Harpoons aboard.The cost has doubled to $500million per ship.
..and details of the $4.7 billion 12,ooot DDX here,which supposedly has a radar signature "50 times smaller" than that of a regular DDG.Its two 155mm main guns,with sat corrrection,have arange of 100nm.The USN wants 12 DDXs.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... essel.html

range nearly 200 km for those 155mm smart shells , i would say IN does definitely have a requirement for some of those cannons for some littoral terrorists inside karachi city.Just imagine, replace missiles with an almost inextinguishable supply of smart shells raining down precisely on paki a****.Cheaper better and gets job done.

The Advanced Gun System is a 155 mm naval gun, two of which would be installed in each ship. This system consists of an advanced 155 mm gun and the Long Range Land-Attack Projectile. This projectile is in fact a rocket with a warhead fired from the AGS gun; the warhead weighs 11 kg / 24 lb and has a circular error of probability of 50 meters. This weapon system will have a range of 83 nautical miles (154 km) and the fully automated storage system will have room for up to 750 rounds.The system will be provided with a magazine of 600 rounds or more per weapon and offers a rate of fire of 10 rounds per minute per gun. The barrel is water cooled to prevent over-heating. The combined firepower from a pair of turrets gives Zumwalt-class destroyers firepower equivalent to 18 conventional M-198 field guns:[source - Wikipedia]

added later

Dual-band radar
The AN/SPY-3 radar will send and receive S-band (high altitude large airspace) and X-band (high altitude near airspace) signals with a common-phase conformal array on the deckhouse. Each band will have its own signal processors, with the returns combined by the display sensor manager.This system is thought to provide high detection and excellent anti-jamming capabilities.But at least one report by Congress' investigative arm, the GAO, raises concerns that it is too much of a technology leap .. so one reason why pentagon would like all allies and prospective ones to have the older AEGIS AN/SPY system

one question to the jedis here .. is it that a combo of X and S band provide can 'provide high detection and excellent anti-jamming capabilities'

soutikghosh · Post by **soutikghosh** » 12 May 2009 14:11

Kit
As far as I know, AGS is a very advanced and complex weapon system unlike any other weapon in the past. This gun is an electric gun and destroys it's targets with pure kinetic energy. The shells in an AGS is devoid of any propellent charges and warhead so as not to have any/less colateral damage and also the problem of unburst live mution.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 13 May 2009 04:23

Aditya_V wrote:Any logical reason why MTCR does not apply, or is it a case one rule for the Great White Gods and 1 Rule for SDRE pagans

The MTCR does not prohibit missile transfer between the Great White God members.

An "aide memoire" attached to the MTCR states that the regime does not supersede any agreement that came into force prior to 1997. This, for example, allows the transfer of Category 1 systems between NATO members.

The SDRE non-pagan members of the MTCR can only join if they forgo ballistic missile (but not space launcher) development. Great White God members can have both space launchers and ballistic missiles. SDRE pagans are denied transfer of both and are not invited to join the MTCR unless they forswear their pagan missile launching ways.

Yogi_G · Post by **Yogi_G** » 13 May 2009 08:22

Many of the missile transfer deals between UK and US pre-date the MTCR...so they can still go about transferring missile technology with range 300+....

KiranM · Post by **KiranM** » 13 May 2009 13:55

kit wrote:
Philip wrote:The USN's latest answer to littoral warfare,with its new trimaran LCS frigate that has a top speed of 50kts,a 57mm main gun,Sea RAM SAMs and two helos.No mention of SSms,but it is sure to have Harpoons aboard.The cost has doubled to $500million per ship.
..and details of the $4.7 billion 12,ooot DDX here,which supposedly has a radar signature "50 times smaller" than that of a regular DDG.Its two 155mm main guns,with sat corrrection,have arange of 100nm.The USN wants 12 DDXs.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... essel.html
range nearly 200 km for those 155mm smart shells , i would say IN does definitely have a requirement for some of those cannons for some littoral terrorists inside karachi city.Just imagine, replace missiles with an almost inextinguishable supply of smart shells raining down precisely on paki a****.Cheaper better and gets job done.

The Advanced Gun System is a 155 mm naval gun, two of which would be installed in each ship. This system consists of an advanced 155 mm gun and the Long Range Land-Attack Projectile. This projectile is in fact a rocket with a warhead fired from the AGS gun; the warhead weighs 11 kg / 24 lb and has a circular error of probability of 50 meters. This weapon system will have a range of 83 nautical miles (154 km) and the fully automated storage system will have room for up to 750 rounds.The system will be provided with a magazine of 600 rounds or more per weapon and offers a rate of fire of 10 rounds per minute per gun. The barrel is water cooled to prevent over-heating. The combined firepower from a pair of turrets gives Zumwalt-class destroyers firepower equivalent to 18 conventional M-198 field guns:[source - Wikipedia]

added later

Dual-band radar
The AN/SPY-3 radar will send and receive S-band (high altitude large airspace) and X-band (high altitude near airspace) signals with a common-phase conformal array on the deckhouse. Each band will have its own signal processors, with the returns combined by the display sensor manager.This system is thought to provide high detection and excellent anti-jamming capabilities.But at least one report by Congress' investigative arm, the GAO, raises concerns that it is too much of a technology leap .. so one reason why pentagon would like all allies and prospective ones to have the older AEGIS AN/SPY system

one question to the jedis here .. is it that a combo of X and S band provide can 'provide high detection and excellent anti-jamming capabilities'

I am not sure if folks are aware. But to put in perspective, there have been significant critiques on DD-x and LCS. I read from several sources over the last few years, which I summarize below. I apologize I cannot dish out specific links because the below summary is from too many sources which I do not remember now.

DD-X

Disadvantages:
1) Tumblehome structure may not withstand high sea states
2) Design and structure may not withstand repeated stress from firing those big guns. (Old battleships had a reason for having so much of metal real estate in them)
3) For such a large ship, it cannot handle all threats in 'stealth' mode. To handle, it needs to 'power up' its sensors. But then it loses its 'stealth'.
4) It is designed to provide fire support to Amphibious assault landings with its big guns with ranges of upto 200km with latest munition technology. The moot point is, how much is this feasible in times of Shore based AShM batteries (>300km range) which can fire and scoot. And closer to shore, such a large ship is not easy to miss visually, if not by radars.

LCS

1) Too expensive for its role (Mine counter measures, ASW, limited RORO/ amphibious capability)
2) Less equipped for its cost. Eg: Does not have significant Anti-Ship, Anti-Air capabilities. This is in stark contrast to the Visby class which is more stealthy and carries better weapons.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 13 May 2009 15:38

Can't remember where,an article on Italian shipbuilding/defence cos. interest in India,one with a naval gun (5"?) with ERA ammo sat linkup with a 100km range on offer.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 14 May 2009 05:19

Navy Decommissions USS Kitty Hawk

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 21 May 2009 12:13

Pak-German deal for U-boats "goes quiet".

Excerpt:

The catch? No contract. Contract negotiations were dragging out, and any contract is ultimately dependent on approval from Germany’s national security council, an inner cabinet of ministers with security portfolios. Pakistan’s insurgency has become a civil war, and recent Taliban advances are causing international observers to worry about the Pakistani government’s potential for collapse, or for a Taliban-backed coup led by the likes of Hamid Gul. In Germany, those developments reportedly led Germany’s national security council to take time away from serious matters like government efforts to ban paintball, and adjourn further deliberation on the Pakistani submarine sale until after September 2009.

Report: German Submarine Deal With Pakistan Goes Quiet
19-May-2009 18:07 EDT
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Rep ... old-05432/

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 21 May 2009 17:00

A nice video on Typhoon Submarine in Russian though , this nearly one hour video shows the life on board Typhoon , New Dolphins joinee , Trial by Fire, SSN Hunting and SLBM launch

Russian Akula

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 22 May 2009 19:31

Testing waters ahead

Article is a brief discussion on the future of the British armed forces - due to the lack of funds.

A blurp from the print edition:

THE NUCLEAR DETERRENT

Trident returns to centre stage

The debate over Britain’s independent nuclear deterrent is back on the political agenda. In some ways, that is a surprise. Only two years ago, the Labour government and the opposition Conservatives joined forces in the House of Commons to back renewal of the submarine-based system which is capable of launching Trident D5 missiles. But the acute financial crisis – and the significant costs of renewing Trident – are leading MPs to call for a re-think.

Most experts believe there is little prospect of a British government dismantling the deterrent unilaterally. Fears that Iran and North Korea are determined to acquire nuclear weapons make it politically difficult for the UK to give up its capability now. Trident’s defenders say it would be better if the UK negotiated the capability away, ensuring that other states abandon their nuclear weapons too. Then there is the question of the French. What would it say about Britain’s standing in the European Union – and the world – if the UK gave up its independent deterrent while the French kept theirs.

Still, some MPs are pressing ahead with arguments against Trident, questioning what use the system has in a world where the major threat is the use of weapons of mass destruction by terrorists. Many MPs say the cost should be reduced with some arguing that the UK should acquire a deterrent that is land or air-launched rather than deploying four submarines on permanent patrol.

One possibility might be to delay the signing of the cheque for the new submarines. The four existing Vanguard class boats are due to go out of service in 2024. But they could be patched up and given a longer life, buying London time to see whether arms reduction talks take the world closer to a non-nuclear era.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 23 May 2009 22:17

VANDENBERG COUNTDOWN: Ship's long journey to watery grave started in 1943

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... -10%29.png

The Vandenberg is towed into Key West in late April and is poised to take the plunge, seven miles south of Key West in 140 feet of water, on Wednesday.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 23 May 2009 23:32

Yasen factory and CGI image ( credit secretprojects )

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/attach ... 1243091513

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/attach ... 1243091513

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/attach ... 1243091513

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/attach ... 1243091513

Severodvinsk" (the project 855 "Yasen" (ash tree), NATO reporting name GRANAY): Displacement - 8600/13800 tons. Dimensions - 119х13,5х9,4m. Max depth - 600м. Speed of - 16/31 knots. Crew – 90 persons (32 officers).

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 26 May 2009 16:46

Sub detection through lasers.Experiments using blue-green lasers has been on for many years.Laser detection at the moment is the favoured approach.

Excerpts:

Lasers Could Find Friend or Foe Submarines Underwater
Navy researchers hope to use lasers for sonar detection or communicating with underwater submarines.
Posted May 25, 2009
By Jeremy Hsu, LiveScience

Flashy lasers should not make any sound in space, despite what "Star Trek" and "Star Wars" would have people believe. But lasers aimed underwater can and do create small supersonic explosions.

It's not just a light show. Naval researchers hope to use lasers for sonar detection, or even submarine-to-aircraft communication.

"The lasers we're using in experiments now are pretty compact," said Ted Jones, a physicist at the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory. "They're smaller than desk-sized and could fly on an aircraft."

Radios or other devices that rely on the electromagnetic spectrum don't work underwater, because water does not transmit such waves well. That means submarines cannot communicate from beneath the waves — they have to surface if they want to communicate with home base, planes or other naval ships.

Lasers could fill that communication gap, because water can act as a focusing lens if a laser has the right "frequency chirp." The chirp depends on the arrangement of different color wavelengths within a laser beam, because each color travels at a slightly different speed underwater.

The water's focusing effect squeezes the laser beam so that it gets narrower and narrower, and eventually creates a superheated explosion that can be heard.

"It's a very hot little bubble of steam that expands supersonically, makes a little shockwave, dissipates a bit and then turns into an ordinary acoustic pulse," Jones told LiveScience.

The naval researchers have used modest lasers to create pulses of 210 decibels, which far exceeds the sound of a jet engine or the loudest rock concert imaginable.

Playing with lasers underwater is nothing new for the U.S. Navy, but previous experiments used larger lasers and could only thermally heat the water without the pulse effect.

Much understanding of the acoustic pulse effect came from laser eye surgery, where scientists wanted to reduce the effect. Now Jones and his colleagues want to do the exact opposite and enhance the acoustic shock for a louder sound.

Jones envisions aircraft using lasers to transmit messages to submarines gliding beneath the waves. Or the lasers could allow aircraft to quickly search large areas of ocean with sonar systems, which listen for sound signatures reflected off of underwater objects.

"You put down an array of passive sonar buoys and go back over with same aircraft that dropped those," Jones explained. The aircraft could then use its laser to sweep a wide area and see what the sonar buoys detect.

But before any of that can happen, Jones and his fellow researchers are trying to improve the laser ranges underwater. Their current lasers can travel almost 66 feet (20 m) — not exactly Star Trek material, but still very sci-fi.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 28 May 2009 09:59

Question for Gurus

Is there any unique Hydrodynamic advantage of putting the sail ahead closer to the Bow as we see in USN Virginia SSN and Yasen too has something similar ?

In good old SSN LA , Akula ... the sail was more or less at the center.

KiranM · Post by **KiranM** » 28 May 2009 12:19

Austin wrote:Question for Gurus

Is there any unique Hydrodynamic advantage of putting the sail ahead closer to the Bow as we see in USN Virginia SSN and Yasen too has something similar ?

In good old SSN LA , Akula ... the sail was more or less at the center.

This just my thought and nothing more.
The older LA class subs did not have VLS. Missiles were also torpedo tube launched. So the weapons section, which would be in front, would tend to be heavier. As such to compensate probable shift of CG, sail was placed more or less in the center.

In the newer class, VLS is present and the missiles are distributed along the length of the submarine. Hence, the sail can afford to be in front, which might give an added advantage in speed and stealth with respect to fluid dynamics (Again this is my conjecture)

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 28 May 2009 12:36

I think they prefer to always keep the VL section behind the sail
to prevent accidents if the missiles are fired as the sub moves forward slowly.

ofcourse Typhoon SSBN has them ahead of the sail but those are
heavy duty gas generators with octuplex controls that must work. so
the danger is much less than launching ASMs or SLCMs I guess.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 28 May 2009 15:03

Austin – control surfaces should be as far away as possible from the center of gravity. That is why aircraft have tails, fins as back as possible and canards as front as possible. The sail prevents the submarine from rolling because of the torque generated by the propellers/pumjets. Keeping it forward makes it hydrodynamically efficient. However sails create drag, hence noise. So having a sail forward might affect bow mounted sonar performance. Hence older hunter killer subs had sails back and newer subs with better processing algorithms for noise cancellation have sails forward.

Other benefit is that CIC is usually foward. Most sensors (radar, optronics) are usually on sail. Moving sail forward reduces wiring that improves robustness.

Kiran – On Improved Los Angeles and Virginia, the 12 VLS for tomahawk are forward, not distributed

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 28 May 2009 16:43

Thanks guys , Tsarkar from what I have read due to the so called Non Hull Penetrating Optronic Mast on modern submarine the placement of CIC in any part of the submarine is not a issue.

But in the Russian Amur submarine they have all the mast ( all optronic type ) except the attack periscope Hull Penetrating type which probably makes the CIC placement necessary below the Sail.

Looking at the Virginia they dont seem to have those restriction , hence though the sail is at the forward closer to bow their CIC is some what behind the sail

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 28 May 2009 17:50

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/ima ... way_lg.jpg

CIC is still under the sail

Non penetrating mast improves the pressure hulls structural integrity. Keeping the sail close to sensors reduces wiring that reduces possible points of failure, reduces possibility of short circuits, saves space, weight, etc

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 28 May 2009 18:05

tsarkar wrote:http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/ima ... way_lg.jpg

CIC is still under the sail

Non penetrating mast improves the pressure hulls structural integrity. Keeping the sail close to sensors reduces wiring that reduces possible points of failure, reduces possibility of short circuits, saves space, weight, etc

Yes indeed I saw that cut out , but what I have read about the advantage of non hull penetrating optronic mast is besides what you have mentioned about hull structural integrity , is the ability to detach the CIC from the sail (sensors/mast ) , in that the more roomier protected part of the submarine can have the CIC where the sail can be placed at a more hydrodynamical efficient position.

Singha one of the reason I believe the Typhoon had VLS tube front of sail than aft is because of its nature of role it was designed for , the Typhoon was designed to operate under thick ice cover of artic with the designed ability to penetrate 3 m of thick ice ( 2.5 m penetration proven in an exercise in mid 90 where she broke through that thick ice and fired her SLBM without causing structural integrity issue )

Placing the SLBM in front of sail would allow her to expose the part front of sail through the ice , instead of letting the whole sub pop up through the ice which will be the case with aft VLS capability