Submarines - Victoria class, the past, the present and beyond....

[Boudreas]

That's great news and congratulations....

 

[drunknsubmrnr]

I have read some very interesting things concerning the highs and the lows of sub service. I have read horror stories about being out to sea almost non stop (the 80's) and glamour stories about docking in Hawaii for a week on training all the while being paid... The life sub-surface sounds like a match made in heaven for a young person looking for adventure...

The 80's?! We were doing close to 230 days a year at sea in the 90's.

Generally, when you pull in to a port you spend about 5 days alongside. You're normally on duty aboard the boat one of those days, and in a hotel ashore the rest. You're normally given whatever the daily government rate is for food etc for all five days, and your hotel is paid for. After that, you're on your own. Here's a hint: Buy a large pizza. The rest you can spend on beer.

All this of course is subject to change. Or a whim of the clerks/SupplyO. The clerks are on the list of the top 3 people never to annoy on your boat. Just keep in mind you're pulling down extra sea pay as Sub Allowance, and if you're qualified, SubSPA. That's a fair chunk of change.

What was a tour like and how long was the duration?

You sailed for a patrol. The boat broke down. You came back in...and stayed alongside while it was being fixed. Then you sailed again. Then it broke again..And so on.....Insert a foreign port every few months.

And of course what does the future look like for Canada and subs? Will I see us bringing in any brand new super subs along the lines of the US fleet or is that just dreaming...

The CF needs around 30 billion/year. It's getting around 20 billion/year. I'm thinking yu're just dreaming, but that's just me.

Thanks and looking forward to your responses... I think If I was starting BMOQ today it would probably be 6 or 7 years before I ever served on a sub but dare to dream...

Remember...it's just like camping.

 

[Boudreas]

Thank you for your detailed answer...

I am very excited about the challenge of becoming a MARS Officer in the Canadian Navy. This really is an invaluable source of information (for the most part)...

Thanks again.

 

[a_majoor]

a bit about "Beyond"

http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/gear_supercavitation.html

Your squadron of jet fighters is madly circling and swooping over the Pacific Ocean, giving supersonic chase to an enemy you can’t see. You didn’t sign up with the Air Force for this -- hunting at Mach 2 for a supersonic submarine that at any moment can make a mockery of your efforts by diving, idling and waiting you out until it is only the vapor in your fuel tanks and failing momentum that keeps you aloft. And then he’ll take off again like a bat out of hell…

The technology that may make such a high-speed vessel possible is called supercavitation, essentially creating a gas bubble around all but the very nose of a projectile – and perhaps one day a vessel – to virtually eliminate water drag. Mastery of supercavitation could turn the quiet chess game of submarine warfare we know today into a mirror image of the hyper-kinetic world of aerial combat. Imagine warships and submarines sending swarms of super-fast mini-subs streaking against each other in dogfights tearing through the darkest canyons of the ocean in future wars over seabed oil drilling or mining.

And experts eyeing Jupiter’s moons say our world may not be the only one with an ocean to explore.

Several nations, including India, are researching supercavitation. But this technological horse race comes straight out of the Cold War and the former superpower rivals still dominate the field. Nerves are on edge. Kam Ng, a leading specialist on supercavitation at the Office of Naval Research agreed to discuss the fundamentals of the technology, but not how it might be tactically applied. "Undersea warfare tactic are a sensitive area. All I can say is: One can use supercavitation technology to produce high-speed undersea weaponry. The U.S. needs to defend such a weapon system," Kam wrote SPACE.com in an e-mail.

Supercavitating torpedoes have been demonstrated, as well as various other weapons using this principle (supercavitating bullets and projectiles fired by gunns or cannons), so future planners will have to be aware and think about how to deal with this. An actual supercavitating submarine is decades away, though...(maybe about when another funding surge happens)

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Something like this would be monstrously noisy. And require a monstrous amount of power. Also, supercavitation weapons (so far) have to be unguided because there is simply no method of "seeing" and tracking their targets through the supercavitation effect.  It is a bit double edged.

 

[Galahad]

Something like this would be monstrously noisy. And require a monstrous amount of power. Also, supercavitation weapons (so far) have to be unguided because there is simply no method of "seeing" and tracking their targets through the supercavitation effect.  It is a bit double edged.

Sure would be loud, you could hear it across the Atlantic, kind of defeats the purpose of a submarine, stealth.

Also, supercavitation would be much more difficult for a sub, since it depends on the depth. The deeper the sub, the larger the difference between ambient pressure and vapor pressure, thats why subs can go faster at depth without cavitating.

 

[Sub_Guy]

I'm 6'2. I never thought of that. Is there a height restriction? It would be terrible not being able to stand up straight...

I am a tall fellow, and there were a few spots that I could stand up straight, but my job required me to sit, I spent most of the time either sitting or sleeping.  It is not that bad unless PT is your thing, then you are going to be disappointed!

I loved it on boats, my brief time spent there was the best time I had in the Navy.  Prior to applying for submarine service I had never been on a submarine, my first exposure to the submarine was on my BSQ.

Like everyone else said on here, there are two types of people, those who love it and those who don't.  Considering your interest in Submarine service now, I doubt you will be the one who leaves after a one hour tour to never return.

Good luck.

 

[Boudreas]

I am excited... I can't wait for my NOAB, should that opportunity present itself...

That technology seems too good to be true... If that technology worked I don't think stealth would be a problem... The thought of a Sub moving around underwater like a fighter jet is mind-blowing... Plus who knows with power source technology progressing how it is what will be possible 20-30 years from now...

 

[aesop081]

Sure would be loud, you could hear it across the Atlantic, kind of defeats the purpose of a submarine, stealth.

Also, supercavitation would be much more difficult for a sub, since it depends on the depth. The deeper the sub, the larger the difference between ambient pressure and vapor pressure, thats why subs can go faster at depth without cavitating.

In Galahad's next lesson he will cover such topics as broadband and narrow band noise, transient noise, CZ and the ever popular doppler tracking........

 

[Galahad]

Fine, you win, I will never know anything, and I promise never to open my mouth again.

 

[Michael OLeary]

Fine, you win, I will never know anything, and I promise never to open my mouth again.

No need for that, but there is a need to understand your own limitations and to stay in your lane(s), which will change and evolve with your personal experiences.

I had a step-father who was an engineer on the Oberons for most of his 30+ year career.  I've toured them repeatedly and day-sailed on them - I still don't know enough about submarines to discuss life aboard, except in very general terms, or their specific technical and tactical operation.  So, I didn't contribute to answer the questions that started this thread,

I've flown in helicopter, but I don't fly them.  So, I don't jump in on helicopter flying threads.

I am an advanced mortarman and when I was employed at the Infantry School as SME Mortars I did a lot of additional reading into ballistics to understand things like smooth-bored vs rifling; spin vs fin stabilization, etc.   

See where I'm going here?

 

[Sub Standard]

:stars:
I am 6'1" and am currently posted to the Victoria.  yes the quarters are tight but I don't walk around all hunched over through these boats.  Yes I do have to duck around things but it is not that bad and up in the WSC there is lots of head room.

 

[a_majoor]

If enemy submarines or surface ships have the capability to fire a supercavitating weapon at our ships, then we need to think about how to deal with that. How loud the weapon is is a bit irrelevant when it is approaching at 300 knots; and if an aircraft can fire supercavitating bullets or 20mm cannon shells at a submarine operating below the surface then the sub will be at a huge disadvantage.

Russia is a known user of supercavitating weapons and they have sold this technology to Iran (among others), so this is more than theoretical.

 

[Navy_Blue]

Well I just found this thread

I have limited experience on the Victoria's as I have only sailed a little over a month last year and expect another month+ this year.  I am qualified though.  I'm one of the emerging group of people who are being voluntold to go subs.  My opinion was that I joined the military and part of the game is doing what your told and when I passed the medical and they punched out a posting to the MOG I shrugged it off and made the most of it. 

I am 6'2" and I find I can stand straight in a lot of places.  I still need to be like a snow drift and find my way between pipes and wires to locate valves and test sensors tho.  I find the tightest spot is my rack.  I can't completely stretch out in it and it drives me nuts.

The food rocks, Hotels in port are very nice as is the SA you get.  People are a special breed but I think they have moved closer to the skimmer mentality than they like to think sometimes.

All in all it has been a good experience and I'm happy I went with the flow.

Any questions feel free to ask and I will see what I can do.

Later

N_B

 

[TimBit]

If enemy submarines or surface ships have the capability to fire a supercavitating weapon at our ships, then we need to think about how to deal with that. How loud the weapon is is a bit irrelevant when it is approaching at 300 knots; and if an aircraft can fire supercavitating bullets or 20mm cannon shells at a submarine operating below the surface then the sub will be at a huge disadvantage.

Russia is a known user of supercavitating weapons and they have sold this technology to Iran (among others), so this is more than theoretical.

Americans have purchased this technology from Russia though, allegedly through us Canucks. I'm sure DARPA and the Navy are working hard at finding solutions against these weapons. It seems to me that, until a serious breakthrough comes in as far as ship speed and manoeuvrability go, decoys and diversions will be the order of the day against these weapons.

 

[drunknsubmrnr]

The super-cavitating weapons are extremely inaccurate, and short-ranged. Unless they're tipped with a nuclear device, they're not only useless, they take the space, weight and funding of weapons that actually work.

And no, decoys and countermeasures won't work against them...they're unable to be guided effectively.

 

[ironduke57]

The super-cavitating weapons are extremely inaccurate, ... . Unless they're tipped with a nuclear device, they're not only useless, they take the space, weight and funding of weapons that actually work.

And no, decoys and countermeasures won't work against them...they're unable to be guided effectively.

Well, at least Diehl BGT thinks different:
- http://www.diehl-bgt-defence.de/index.php?id=550&L=1
- http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=48501 (A bIt older.)

Regards,
ironduke57

 

[drunknsubmrnr]

The big giveaway on that is where they state the guidance is "inertial". It's useless against a moving target.

 

[a_majoor]

A little more "beyond"

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/2001/bushnell_shape.htm

The Shape Of Things to Come?
Top NASA Scientist Discusses The Future of Undersea Warfare

by Dennis M. Bushnell

Since the 1950s, when more than 50 percent of the nation's work force became engaged in some type of "information-intensive," activity, the United States (and the world) have been in the midst of an unprecedented Technological Revolution, currently centered around Information, Biological, and Nanoscale technologies. These technologies are all pushing the frontiers of the miniscule in a synergistic "feeding frenzy" among each other, and are causing tremendous changes in all areas of human endeavor. One of these areas is warfare. The character of these new technologies is altering both the context of potential conflicts and the diversity, effectiveness, survivability, and affordability of the techniques and material applicable to waging war.

In today's environment, some 70 percent of all research is now conducted within a "commercial" framework outside the United States and is thus readily available to likely adversaries. In terms of sheer size, several economies (Japan, China, and the European Union, for example) are approaching the magnitude of ours, and may even exceed it. Moreover, inexpensive, highly-motivational, web-based distance learning on demand promises to greatly accelerate these trends. With respect to techniques and materiel, the Info/Bio/Nano-technology revolution(s) are providing:
Increasingly small, ubiquitous, inexpensive, networked, scientific and commercial, land-,  sea-, air-, and space-based sensors applying multiple physics and hyper-spectral techniques

Robotics and automation "in the large"

Long-range precision strike

Inexpensive mini/micro/nano"everything," including platforms, sensors, and weapons

Wholly new classes of biological weaponry

Hard-to-jam optical communication and navigation systems

Greatly enhanced explosives and "volumetric" munitions... and finally,

A fourth "weapon of mass destruction" in the form of physical or electronic
information operations (IO)

Current estimates indicate that over the next 25 years, computing will increase in speed by some six orders of magnitude, and communication speeds will increase by four orders of magnitude as optical systems replace microwaves. Further, the use of large active-volume or broad-area techniques and advanced energetic materials in weaponry will increase their destructive power by up to four orders of magnitude.

The overall impacts of these largely-commercial and globally-available capabilities on the outlook for military operations are far-reaching. In particular, these technologies will enable much more effective "warfare on the cheap," in which "peer competitors" are no longer defined by their possession of megatons of Industrial Age artifacts in steel and aluminum. They create dangerous implications for any attempt to carry late-20th century U.S. power-projection concepts into the 21st century. Numerous systems are emerging that could be used in tandem to wreak havoc on U.S. air and sea-surface logistic and strike platforms, both en route and in the operational theater. Non-stealth and undefended logistics platforms are particularly at risk. What will be "new" in this future threat environment are the omnipresent, omniscient sensor suites mentioned previously and the sheer number and variety of long-range and pre-positioned precision munitions that can be brought to bear. Unless platforms and weapons enjoy the sanctuary of the deep ocean, being targeted will be a "given" in the out-years. New age weapons and munitions will include:

Lurking, semi-submerged, anti-air or anti-surface missiles in the water column, with off-board targeting by netted sensor "webs"

Transoceanic unmanned underwater and air vehicles (UUVs and UAVs)

"Brilliant" mines

Long-range cruise and theater ballistic missiles

Very long-range "guns," using Blast-wave Accelerator and Slingatron technology
Just consider the last. The Blast-wave Accelerator was analyzed at the University of Texas/Austin by Professor Dennis Wilson and is under study by both the Army and NASA for inexpensive access to space. The concept involves sequential detonation of charges behind a projectile (without a barrel) yielding ICBM or IRBM speeds after only 100 to 200 feet of acceleration. Essentially this is a "rocket" in which the external structure and propellant never leave the launcher - only the warhead. The latter could be proected in flight by a technique test-flown by NASA in the 1960s at 18,000 to 25,000 feet per second - injection from the nose of a thin stream of liquid water, which can be thrust-vectored. The 1,000-pound projectile would operate in a boost-glide, vice ballistic, trajectory and offer not only stealthy launch - no plume - but also exceptional flexibility, affordability, and survivability, while retaining the ability to be recalled. The Slingatron, also being studied for inexpensive space access, would use an oscillating horizontal tube - much like a "hula-hoop" - to accelerate projectiles in a spiral path until launch velocity is reached. Such an arrangement appears capable of lofting hundreds to thousands per minute of ten-kilogram projectiles over even intercontinental ranges.

As an example of progress in unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), the University of Washington recently flew a UAV across the Atlantic on only 1.5 gallons of fuel and intends to make a trans-Pacific attempt next. Increased precision, along with technology advances in materials, are also enabling a "mini-ICBM" option with terminal guidance for mid-ocean strike. Another potentially potent innovation is the Vortex Combustor under development at Penn State's Applied Research Laboratory, which burns nanoscale aluminum particulates and sea-water to provide inexpensive air-independent propulsion (AIP) for both submarines and very long range UUVs.

One way for the "Enemy-After-Next" to defeat or deter U.S. power projection with relatively little expenditure is to ensure that our forces do not "arrive at the party." The notional weapons described above - and others - are all based on enabling technologies already "in the pipeline," and they will make crossing the ocean in the air or on the surface like running the gauntlet. Attrition by enemy action could well begin within the continental United States (CONUS) itself and then over the continental shelf, since we typically deploy from a relatively small number of ports and airfields, thus simplifying the pre-positioning of smart, "pre-need," anti-air and anti-surface missiles and a variety of mines. As we will discuss below, "kill" mechanisms will probably not be restricted to high explosives.

The "density" of the threat will grow even more dangerous with increasing proximity to enemy-held coastlines. This is the "area denial" problem discussed for some time now by the Defense Department's Office of Net Assessment, among others. Well before mid-century, "country-sized" magazines may be available to loose "hordes" of inexpensive, long-range precision weapons with advanced warheads bearing a "devil's brew" of lethal components: electromagnetic-pulse generators and radio frequency blankers, IW payloads, mines, fuel/dust/air or other volumetric explosives, chemical/biological/microwave anti-functionals and antipersonnel weaponry, as well as carbon fibers and "blades."

In the face of such an onslaught, friendly platforms will be hard pressed not to run out of "bullets" just defending themselves, thus causing both unacceptable attrition and the defeat of strike or power projection operations. Beam weapons are sometimes suggested as at least a partial counter to such a threat scenario, but even these have multiple and inexpensive counter-countermeasures available to an adversary. One quickly concludes that late-20th century power-projection or forced entry approaches could be gravely threatened by a determined opponent with access to these new, generally-available technologies.

What, then, might be some alternatives? Possibilities include global-range cruise missiles and exo-atmospheric precision-strike munitions, launched directly from CONUS on conventional or miniature ICBMs, and hypersonic boost-glide projectiles launched from the several types of global-reach guns mentioned above. The latter could be far less expensive and far more survivable than our current options for global precision strike - tanking B-2s and steaming aircraft carriers. Obviously, many information operations could also be prosecuted directly from CONUS.

For shorter time-of-flight munitions, a deep-water "arsenal" submarine deploying various "swim-ins" or "pop-ups" provides a survivable option. Deep-water standoff is necessary because of the danger posed by multi-static, low-frequency active (LFA) acoustics and increasing capabilities for sensing the many non-acoustic "indiscretions" associated with submarines in shallow water. These include hull detection by visual, lidar, infrared, or bioluminescent means; sensing the underwater wake by perturbations in the pressure field; and measuring salinity scars, chemical releases, internal and surface waves, turbulence, magnetic effects, radar returns, and other phenomena. In the context of swarms of inexpensive, omnipresent sensors, based on multiple physics, and operated on a "take-a-vote" sensor-fusion principle to minimize false alarms, survival of shallow-water submarines appears problematical.

Because of increasing area-denial threat, "almost spherical" arsenal submarines could well become our best land-attack option.

Deep-water arsenal submarines would obviously need tremendous capabilities for loading out munitions. Thus, as almost a reductio ad absurdum approach in designing such platforms, "almost-spherical" configurations should certainly be investigated.

This shape would yield several synergistic benefits, including minimum wetted area and friction drag, plus the smallest structural weight for increased depth capability. The serious pressure-drag issue with such a shape could be ameliorated to yield very low overall drag by using a fully-integrated "Goldschmied" pump-jet propulsion approach, with thrust vectoring for control. In this configuration, the pump-jet inlet provides potential flow "sinks" inside the body and should convert the back of the pump-jet shroud into a stagnation region instead of a stagnation point. For enhancing the affordability and survivability of such volumetrically-efficient platforms, a number of ab initio design features suggest themselves:

Extreme automation for minimal crew size

An on-board chemical plant for producing drag- reducing polymer from phyto- and zoo-plankton sieved from the power plant coolant intake

Active acoustic masking to defeat LFA

Inclusion of a replenishable, burst-speed "afterburner" system - perhaps a hydrogen-oxygen rocket as an adjunct to a down-sized main propulsion plant

Manufacture of underwater platforms via robotic/magnetically-steered, electron-beam, free-form fabrication - essentially "virtual prototyping" of the final product
Admittedly, this concept submarine would be very different from what might result from continuing with our current and evolving design practice. However, along with affordability and survivability, volumetric loadout is the major issue for power projection from submerged platforms. An "almost-spherical," deep-water, arsenal submarine would have sufficient volume for many of the design options listed above; space for adjunct sensors, such as mini UAVs; and large capacity for storing munitions.

Other design alternatives for providing additional volume - such as simply "plugging" existing designs - have already been proffered. But in the opinion of this author, the revolutionary design approach suggested here has enough potential to warrant its inclusion in a design "runoff" for a future, submerged, deep-water "arsenal ship." It could well constitute the only survivable "close-in" strike platform for assuring naval power projection in the future.

 

[a_majoor]

Beyond the beyond. What will they think of next?

http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/07/potential-submarine-breakthroughs-four.html

July 27, 2009
Potential Submarine Breakthroughs: Four Times Faster and Super Deep Diving

1. Deep flight is a small company that is making deep diving one and two person submarines.

Deep Flight II (DFII), which has been designed and is awaiting funding, will be built with acrylic crew hulls for 3,000 feet or with titanium hulls with conventional viewports for 20,000 feet. Ceramic-carbon fibre hull will enable 37,500 feet dives. Hawkes has recently resolved all engineering design issues for Deep Flight II and is actively pushing this program forward.

Wikipedia on maximum depth for military submarines: World War II German U-boats generally had collapse depths in the range of 200 to 280 meters (660 to 920 feet)[citation needed]. Modern nuclear attack submarines like the American Seawolf class are estimated to have a test depth of 1,600 feet (490 m), which would imply a collapse depth of 2,400 feet (730 m).

2. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, which commissions research for the Defense Department, has given Electric Boat $26 million (and another $12 million is expected) to design a vehicle that could potentially transport high-value cargo or small groups of people at 100 knots (about 115 miles an hour) in a program known as “Underwater Express". Electric Boat is part of General Dynamics.

The technology, if developed, could revolutionize ocean transportation if it could be adapted to cargo and passenger ships.

The vehicle would travel inside a large gas bubble created in the water, a process known as supercavitation. The bubble reduces drag, since the drag is much lower in air than in water, allowing the vehicle to travel at high speeds.

Supercavitation has been applied to torpedoes, but never to transport vehicles, according to DARPA.

Electric Boat (EB) has come up with a secret way to dramatically increase the endurance and maneuverability of a body in supercavitating flight.

Ships would be much more fuel-efficient, or could use the same amount of fuel and instead of taking two weeks to get across the Pacific, they could get across in a matter of days.

EB initially pitted its design against one from Northrop Grumman Electronic Systems in Maryland. EB was chosen to build a quarter-scale unmanned vehicle, based on the concept of a full-scale size of 8 feet in diameter and 100 feet in length, for a demonstration in spring 2010 in the waters off Rhode Island.

The demonstration will include a 10-minute run at speeds of up to 100 knots with maneuvers, including depth control, to show the controllability of the vehicle, according to a DARPA statement.

At that point, the program will conclude and the technology will be available to the Navy for use in future systems as desired