>same displacement
>same number of weapons
>USA sub be long and skinny
>bong sub be chonky boi
What is the meaning of this?
>same displacement. >same number of weapons. >USA sub be long and skinny. >bong sub be chonky boi
>same displacement
>same number of weapons
>USA sub be long and skinny
>bong sub be chonky boi
What is the meaning of this?
probably to do with manufacturing effeciency.
UK will only make a few, so all custom handmade, and tailored to most effecient forms.
USA will have production line, so replicable hull sections will save costs, even if its slightly less effecient.
Think less efficiency and more different setup for the construction yards. You can make short&chonky subs out of modular hull sections, too. Jsut takes a different kind of yard setup. This is infrastructure that evolved over decades at play, these modern subs are well beyond the imagination of the people who originally built the yards.
How old are you? Why do you type out threads like a such a fricking loser? Can’t you just communicate your question like an adult?
So your question in a simplified manner is “why are subs different shapes?”. It has a lot to do with different sonar suites, compartment design, reactor design, material usage, etc. There’s a multitude of factors at play, Anon.
British subs are thicc to ensure the reactor is as far away from the hull as possible to reduce noise, I think.
See
No one here has any technical knowledge or information that can provided. The best anyone can do is guess. Which is absolutely worthless. All of the information related to nuclear subs is HIGHLY classified.
You could just go on a War Thunder forum
>The best anyone can do is guess. Which is absolutely worthless.
Tom Clancy guessed well enough that the feds legitimately thought he'd had access to leaked material and interrogated him over it.
How old are you? This is an ancient form of posting. It is your fault that you cannot decipher the ancient texts.
I doubt anybody here has seen the original requirements and the reasoning behind them - and even then wouldn't be allowed to speak about it.
Oddly enough
is probably the closest, astute uses the pwr2 reactor design that was originally made for the vanguard/boomer boats, so probably necessitates a wider hull form which then leads to the chode effect. This was widely reported on when astute was first being commissioned and everything was a clusterfrick, iirc someone was saying the pwr2 reactor was the wrong thing for an ssn (talking out their ass) and the media was lapping it up
That's pretty much it, while the core on the Astute IS more modern, it is (supposedly) the same design use on the Vanguard. Hence the larger size to accommodate a boomer size core on a smaller attack sub.
It is not a good idea to make a direct comparison between Virginia and Astute. They were built to different requirements, to fill different roles.
The Virginias complement the Seawolf, replace the 688's and 688I's, replaced some of the late Sturgeons and the new blocks of Virginia are squarely aimed at replacing the ancient SSGN conversions. I think it's fair to say the various blocks of Virginia have to do a lot of shit, quite a lot of shit doesn't involve sinking other ships.
The Astute, has to defend the GIUK gap, the Vanguard SSBN's, Falklands, new carrier strike group and various NATO duties. Thus it would be fair to conclude that the Astute is a cold blooded ship killer with a secondary (albeit large) VLS capability.
Conclusion: While VERY similar, the Astute is primarily aimed at blue water anti ship missions. While the Virginia has made serious concessions for more mission flexibility and brown water operations befitting the various roles in the US submarine force that it must partake, compared to the single minded focus of the Astute.
IMO, the Astute is a better attack submarine as it is more suited to the original and most prominent role of subs in wartime: sinking ships.
How can Astute be a ship-killer with only shitty old Harpoons which are carried by Third-World PT boats?
torpedos, good ones, lors of them.
Remind me when that crater on the runway of Port Stanley was repaired?
We've not operated subharpoon for over 10 years
Yes we've got beer and wine, but we don't drink it often at sea as 6 hours on, 6 hours off doesn't mix well with drinking. Booze is preserved for occasions (or Sunday God bothering where you get a small measure of sherry if you attend, in lieu of Holy wine)
ooooh, a submarine on /k/, you guys have balls working in a sealed tube that randomly catches fire when a room temperature IQ sailor doesn't pay attention with the laundry or oxygen generators.
*submariner
Becomes less of an issue with more modern miniaturised oxy level alarm systems.
Laundry stuff though yeah for sure, but less likely.
That's why we don't employ room temp iq sailors and they've all got to prove they know the boat inside -out to the same standard to get their dolphins (not like the yanks and their fish)
We do things very differently (and I'm biased, but also seen this myself) but better than the yanks
>Run a fraction of missions in an op area the size of one partition of one region in the USNs capacity
>Stupid enough to believe they are better at it despite the clear and easy facts showing USN running more ops in more regions to massive success
Your sub forces are weak shit and your crews a joke. Run as many subs as often as the USN then your opinion might matter
Arguably the Astute is one of the newest sub designs out there designed around the same time as the seawolf. The USA was utilising the advances the brits had integrating CAD, while learning from the mistakes in implementation. I love the seawolf too.
Americans often take design ideas from the Brits subs and buoy mapping, often enough in fact you could say the brits specialise in quiet sub manufacture and are ahead of the game. They're also positioned well to gain intelligence from Russian and America fleets from the GIUK gap. The brits also try and fit into specialised gaps that they see in the US military forces, they're not America's closest European ally for no reason.
The population is 1/5th of the USA, with only 1/7th (1 in 6.7 depending on what's floating or in dock) of the fleet, with 4 more subs in production arguably they will have more per capita than the US. This with with significantly less landmass to draw resources from, so I would argue they wouldn't have the ability to "launch more missions and more crews" as you state, but per capita they're pretty close.
Quotes are backwards. Swap around.
>more = better
Disingenuous little shit
688s are made of matchsticks and Virginia's are made of knives. Virginia's are also made to run more efficiently and quieter, everything typically has way less loading than a 688 did meaning it's overall much safer. Virginia's only downside is that they're itty fricking bitty and all the hang out space has been optimized out of the boat. But I do love how that simplified a lot of the mechanics systems from 688 to 774. Jam dive? Not anymore.
>Because the Royal Navy treats its sailors as adults
This will never happen in the USN. Leading reason I tell people not to join if they're considering.
Have you toured an Ohio class? Virginia's and 688 are positively cramped in comparison lol imagine having to hot rack.
Time to sit on PrepHole time for a system
Kek, finished all my walk rounds chief - here's ma book.
Ignore the massive wieners drawn throughout it - I left it loafing once it twice
What serious concessions has made the Virginia? The mission flexibility has not made them less stealthier or slower, to name some potential drawbacks.
Concessions is a strong word. I should have phrased that differently.
The Virginia's were a follow on to the Seawolf's with an emphasis on being cheaper - much cheaper. I believe the first few blocks of Virginia are louder than the Seawolf as an example. Their design was also significantly more targetted towards a multirole sub. You can go back and watch all the media and OSI when the first Virginias came out to see what I mean. And if you design your submarine to be cheaper and to be a jack of all trades but master of none it's hard to see how that design is going to be better than one that has a single minded to focus to one role - the Astute class. The origins of the Astute date back to the late cold war and is a concurrent design of the Seawolf, albeit more modern.
Note that Seawolves don't have VLS, either; they were optimized for deep-water combat, especially against Soviet boomers under the ice where VLS is useless except for SLBMs. The VA started out as a cheaper design with more emphasis on brown-water operations (although it took years for it to drop below the purchase price of a new Seawolf).
The VA Block 5 is going to be interesting. Instead of 4 massive SSGNs, we'll have dozens of SS(G)Ns, packing ~40 VLS tubes with the option to swap them out for a smaller number of larger-diameter tubes in the future. That will allow for better coverage, flexibility, and mitigation of losses.
The Astute doesn't have any VLS tubes, so it doesn't need to be as long.
WTF? No VLS? What kind of fricked up design is this?
Aussies don't plan on using VLS tubes for large scale land strikes or anti-ship work, I assume they're going all in on CBASSs launched from the tubes.
Most countries don't use SSGNs
Can it launch Tomahawks from its torpedo tubes?
Yes, harpoons as well I believe
Virginia isn't really an SSGN. It's an SSN with a limited amount of VLS tubes.
Block V Virginias are getting an extra module of something like 32 VLS aimed squarely at replacing the Ohios that were converted to SSGNs
many new or upgraded designs do now though, kinda missed opportunity to increase long range strike capacity
>Swedes
>Tomahawk
what?
https://www.defensenews.com/air/2017/05/17/saab-a26-submarine-gets-vertical-launched-tomahawks/
That's what the dreadnought class is for, though arguably that's really only for the UK's nuclear warheads.
I often wonder why the UK doesn't run more. Maybe it feels the US has that covered.
You primordial monkeys. Why don't you 2 smoothbrain apes do even BASIC research on the topic?
Well then we wouldn't be having this nice chat, would we?
Let me tell you of a time anon before the 688i class SSN...
*bongs
This except Astute doesn't have VLS
So what's the difference between a Tomahawk launched from a torpedo tube and one from a VLS cell?
You can only launch four of something at a time - realistically three if you want to keep a torpedo readied for self defense - and then there is a lengthy reload process. Very lengthy. We're talking minutes.
16 VLS tubes means firing 16-19 missiles at once and still retaining self defense capability.
Astu has 6 tubes.
Normally for TLAM, you'd have tubes 1-4 loaded with TLAM and tubes 5+6 with spearfish for self defence.
No vls - all horizontal launch
idk, but I guess you take up less space by storing the missiles in the same space as the torpedos, but you lose some range and targeting options from waiting for the missile to float to the surface rather than lobbing it straight up.
You lose no time -the missile has a rocket booster that ignites on contact with sea water post-discharge such forces it up to the surface and into the air - there is transitions into its normal flight mode and the booster falls away.
There's room for 32+6 (32 in the bomb shop, 6 in the tubes)
I stand corrected, but the point stands, the Astute doesn't have VLS but can still shoot multiple handfuls of tomahawk, but it's more of a useful sidegig.
I don't think the bongs operate Tomahawk
Their cruise missile is air launched Storm Shadow
Sub driver told me you usually keep a mix of Harpoons and torps in the tubes. Having VLS means a Virginia can launch cruise missile strikes and doesn't have to compromise its antiship capability for the duration of time it would take to reload. Furthermore, with Block V Tomahawk a Virginia might actually sling a significant salvo of antiship missiles AND torpedoes downrange. Part of the idea behind saturation attacks is to present multi-dimensional threats.
They do. The storm shadow is a completely different system.
>They do
Right. My bad then.
>The storm shadow is a completely different system
I'm aware.
Both of these. Also the US typically swaps modules in and out of the design process, not all the Virgina class are configured the same. I imagine the longer shape makes that easier. Seems like it would also help with hull cavitation, and give better resolution to the flank sonar at the expense of the diameter of the bow sonar.
Or it could be something as simple as the size constraints of the shipyard or berthing available.
OK, something I've been wondering about VLS tubes recently versus torpedo tubes.
1) The Virginia seems to have them inside the pressure hull, but is that the norm? I thought they usually sat outside the pressure hull, such as on the Typhoon SSBN.
2) Is it practical to extend this concept to torpedoes? i.e. VLS torpedoes, either vertical or horizontal mounted. The only issue I can think of is the guidance wire for the torpedo. Could a torpedo room be replaced long term with this?
Replying to myself to clarify - The VLS at the front was what I was expecting, outside the pressure hull.
1) they sit outside the pressure hull for those monstrously huge subs the Russians use
2) the Russians also put torpedoes outside in similar fashion but they are "one shot" as a result - no reloading possible - and IINM a maintenance nightmare consequently.
3) what would be the point of VLS torpedoes? Sounds like a solution looking for a problem there
1) It depends on the sub. Boomers obviously have to carry them inside the pressure hull. The 688i added them outside the pressure hull, because there was a chunk of empty space there and somebody had a very bright idea. With the VPM, there wasn't really any place to put 4 huge tubes except in an extra hull section amidships. I forget offhand if Oscars and Charlies are inside the pressure hull; I kinda think they aren't; they're mounted at angles on the sides of the hull, rather than on the centerline. There are pros and cons either way, but if you want to put them outside the pressure hull, you have to leave a large enough gap between the pressure hull and the outer hull to fit them in, and that's just not really an option with the VA.
2) HLS has been bandied about as a future concept; I know the French were really interested in it a few years ago. It sounds really good on paper: store all your torps outside the pressure hull, no need for torpedomen to manhandle them around, significant reductions in space required in the pressure hull, etc. There are downsides, though, and I don't know that USN will be interested in trying to develop HLS within the next 30-40 years. Honestly, the pros are the greatest for makers of smaller subs like the French, Germans, Swedes, etc. Less space and fewer men for more rounds carried is a bigger plus for their requirements and capabilities.
Thank you kindly.
>if I project more maybe people won’t realize I’m moronic
Why don’t you post some more funny “le meme” threads about “thicc bois” and “long bois” that’s sure to gain you respect and quality answers. You should pay better attention in class Anon, and quit shitposting on /k/.
Shut up, tribal monkey
It could also have something to do with where they're supposed to park basically. Dimensions of dry docks, piers, waterways and so on.
Unless you're Spain, then you start building subs longer than your longest dock and worry about the details later.
Astute needs a land attack capability to frick up Rio Gallegos airbase if Argentine tries anything funny again.
The handful of tomahawk missiles onboard can do the job.
A crater in a runway can be repaired in about an hour.
Yeah, theoretically.
The North Vietnamese could repair any bridge in days as long as the supports weren't destroyed.
Everyone thought Russia would be able to do the same. Well...
Astute just enjoys a good pint, simple as
I'm pretty fricking sure - in fact I'm certain - that the the Astute and other RN ships in general have beer onboard. One must flex on those silly Americans for:
>A. Not having alcohol onboard.
>B. Having the most crap naming convention.
Imagine you go to war and you have to fight against a ship called the New Jersey.
Ajax, Agamemnon, Vengeance, Vanguard, Dauntless, Iron Duke, Warspite and so on are all so much better names for a warship.
Facts
I'd rather sail in a Warspite than a Gonzalez
>muh gonzalez
I would be HONORED to serve on the USS Benavidez rather the HMS Radesh Singh or some shit
They curbed a lot of alcohol on board subs in the Royal Navy after this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Astute_(S119)#2011_fatal_shooting
Shame about that. Note "curbed" not banned. Otherwise the entire Royal Navy, admirals included would have gone on strike instantly.
Because the Royal Navy treats its sailors as adults and knows it can give alcohol to a sailor 99% of the time without that sailor doing weird shit.
Didn't they only stop giving out a rum ration in the 1970s?
"He stepped out [of the control room] with another man and two shots were fired and then he entered the control room again and began shooting again…. He had a magazine with 30 rounds in it so I took the view that someone had to stop him."
:proceeds to tackle and wrestle for control of the SA80 from the belligerent unassisted before asking for help after disarming and restraining him:
The British propensity for understatement on full display.
>A
No drugs and liquor aboard warships of critical strategic is a plus, drunkard
>B
Naming the tip of the spear of your naval force after towns and states(if not outright funny fish names) is kino af
Prove me wrong.
> going to war on a tub named “The USS Detroit”
>the torpedo tubes fire sideways
>sonar jamming is just blasting rap
>the torpedo tubes fire sideways
my sides in orbit
kraut navy could host oktoberfest and it wouldn't make a damn difference
>what is cost
Bong nuke capability is already eating up a lot of their budget as it is
Das Einlaufbier is a tradition as old as subs itself.
?t=3405
sadly no english subs but really nice documentary. Its about a transit to england for an exercise. They went through a very heavy storm which caused a lot of damage in germany, and even some on the sub.
?t=3405
I like how you didnt drop subbrief or hisutton.
subbrief is a whiny shithead. Most of his information is old as hell and all the other stuff i can read in the sources which he copies anyway.
i like small diesel / AIP subs because the crew dynamic is totally different.
also check out 40:28, he said:
oh its nothing, only a cupple of bowls and coocking trais. Its fine. And then the whole kitchen explodes.
>oh its nothing, only a cupple of bowls and coocking trais. Its fine. And then the whole kitchen explodes
and the net bags of bananas and garlic and so on flopping around like it's 1939
How far is the best AIP getting you? Amazing for shitty around the block be quiet, right?
germans have beer, but only one a day. also you get one at start end end of mission.
Wtf I love the Brits and Germans now
If you don't have to go deep, or really REALLY fight someone...you can get these AIP girls with amazing performance. Project power though.
unrealistic beauty standards have given American subs eating disorders.
US sub has nook and longer baseline for hull mounted sonar.
Might just be inertia. The average beam of American attack subs has stayed fairly constant since the skipjack class in the 50's, with only the seawolves interrupting with a brief period of 12 meter fattitude.
Also consider that sections of the Virginia-class are built as modules at 2 separate yards then joined together, so it might be thinner to make the sections easier to transport.
It literally just could be compatibility reasons.
With a smaller fleet the Brits are likely to not see major differences by swapping out hull sizes cost wise as they have a smaller fleet they can update almost one to the other, whereas with America they have a much larger fleet, and thus to maintain multiple hull sizes for maintenance would maybe cost stupid money, when there isn't really a notable difference between the two to justify it.
American subs are longer for VLS.
The only real difference that's important outside of length (For VLS) imo is the shape of the nose, I wonder how that affects noise and speed.
Brits also have VLS subs (Vanguard), but they use them for nuclear deterrent.
Interestingly I came across the following just looking up the bow shape
"At this point it is worth noting that the bow sonar array configuration hitherto employed by US, Russian and British subs is different. Russian SSNs used to be fitted with cylindrical or conical bow sonars, US submarines famously adopted spherical arrays whereas British sonars were always what is known as conformal arrays. This latter technology has now also been adopted by the LAB sonar for the Block III Virginia-class and possibly all but the first (which has a US-style spherical array) Russian Severodvinsk-SSNs, following its introduction in the Lada-class SSK. There is potentially a significant difference though: both the US LAB and the Russian Lira sonar surfaces are double-curvature, while based on the sonar window the British arrays may well be single-curvature (two inclined planar panels joined by a cone frustum section at the forward end). This simplification could explain why the British were able to go down this route so early, at the cost of having a rather unorthodox bow shape forced upon them to make it work. Now that such arrays can be successfully implemented with double-curvature surfaces and therefore made to conform to favourable high-speed bow geometries, the US and Russia (having previously baulked at the shaping restrictions) are adopting this solution too. The British meanwhile, for cost reasons, are sticking with a bow configuration that has served them well enough for decades."
Whether it has any value is another thing, but it seemed interesting enough. The brits were always ahead of the game but too poor, after all.
This post seem to be under the impression it's not an advantage to have the European body shape (Shown on nearly all European subs no just the brits)
The purpose of the body's odd angles is that the shape will bounce conar up to the surface and from the surface it will be bounced back to bottom, which will repeat and grow weaker as it gets to the active transmitter, as the wave will spread out more and dissipate more than a round direct reflection
The Chine/facetting is larger evolving way to counter developments in MIMO arrays, since this is an attack submarine designed for sinking ships specifically. It could well be cost, but it also could be specifically a design meant for breaking up wake, or reflecting sonar while attacking at certain angles, or something else fun.
Don't just say it's inferior just because you assume it's a slower shape, because the Americans and Russians are all chasing different environments and mission profiles for their subs, due to local environments the Europeans seem to be following the same style designs.
The unique British bow design also looks somewhat similar to the nose of some whales, either engineers imitated nature to an extent or came to the same conclusion as nature.
US subs have a full composite nose section while British subs are using a full steel nose with a composite window for the sonar.
British sub noses look a bit like the nose of some whales, there's definitely something there. Also been using that shape for over 50 years now, why change if it works? The large chines and diamond-esque shape help reflect active sonar to directions away from the receiver, much like a stealth aircraft. also how they integrate the main sonar array.
Shit taste.
Weird bows seem to be a north sea thing. Something to do with the arctic ice or shallow water.
Probably the acoustics are different because of the sea floor in that area.
Thing looks like a shark what are you smoking
It's literally a hippo.
Kek, most deadly land mamal that hides in water.
Sure thing vlad
You're fricking right.
I love British subs now
Kekked, yeah
These subs are for attacking ships and targets of opportunity with torps and tube launched missiles specifically with a secondary sub hunt role, they have a class of ships for VLS, it's not like they couldn't choose to add it, they apparently just don't feel the need to do so.
When are they gonna be attacking carrier groups? Given their allies I mean? Lol
Also, accommodations? Anon are you on a weapons board or hotels.com.
This is actually not a bad comparison considering hippos are basically big submarines. They run along the bottom of the river instead of swim because they're so heavy they're slightly less than neutrally buoyant.
US subs since the 688 have all looked like gigantic torpedoes.
>Squat goblins
and yet, only one of those 3 countries has sunk an enemy combatant with a submarine in the last 70 years, and only one of those 3 countries has never lost a nuclear submarine to an accident.
Curious.
>taking pride that a weak country like Argentina thought they could take on the UK
>*blasting the Argie military back into the 19th century while the bulk of the Army is poised to fight the Soviets AND while fricking the IRA up, despite US analysts thinking it would not be possible
I still can't believe the US refused to even help refuel the bong ships or Vulcans.
Monroe Doctrine never ended. No aid to European or Asian ops in our backyard.
They did supply fuel, and the use of the Ascension island airstrip. Though of course they were repaid.
The USA basically provided the logistics and weapons to the UK - also pressured France of not providing more weapons to Argentina. The Southern Atlantic was of no interest of the UK back then so the fleet barely got there in the first place and wouldn't be capable of operating without the USA.
I'm pretty sure the bongs would have managed, but they would have taken longer to build up fuel for the sortie, and perhaps that would have meant they would have built up more ships too, they may have had to pull ships from their duties helping the US in the gulf.
Also, the US was absolutely willing to help, they were just not doing it openly.
They considered offering the USS Guam, a helicopter carrier, but it wasn't made because the need did not arise, officials said such discussions took place as part of a large-scale effort to try to ensure that Britain's 100-ship armada did not meet defeat in a battle 8,000 miles from its home waters.
Also the UK and France bought out all the weapons they could have bought off the market, so don't take credit for things you didn't do.
Slipped them a few cheeky sidewinders for a rainy day too
what is this?
A little trolling by the Royal Navy
Looks like HMS Bongsub got the drop on USS Martsharter in an exercise.
The implication is that the US sub didn't know that they were being 'worked with'.
Getting that close and positioning underneath an enemy vessel to take those photos (including the screw) undetected is pretty much the submarine equivalent of walking into a guy's house and fricking his wife, dog and underage daughter. You can completely map noise profiles, use the enemy ship to mask your own signature, even steal towed arrays if you're particularly ballsy.
As it's between allies, this photo is more like walking into a guy's house and leaving a cheeky note on his fridge saying that his dog is looking damn frickable today
walking into a guys house while he is there and awake*
Considering the background light sources, the pictured sub is almost certainly surfaced or very near to the surface.
Given the typical SSN operating profile, it is probable that US SSN is either coming into or out of a port or they are having a steel beach.
Coming into or out of port would be most likely. If true, this makes this especially cheeky as a submarine already on the surface is not trying to be quiet.
Using the existing analogy of invading a guy's home: This would be kind of like leaving a not on the guy's fridge about how hot his wife is during a cook-out he is hosting where you and the rest of the neighborhood have been invited.
It is possible I am assuming too much about the context as well.
The fact remains that it is an allied sub doing it. Even if you knew it was there, what were you going to do about it? Presumably, you had a reason for being where you were. You wouldn't let someone being cheeky keep you from accomplishing your mission.
Recordings from the control room blackbox might have a lot to say about the British captain being a little too deep in his cups for all we know.
Or the US SSN could be as deaf and ignorant as the image suggests.
Wiki says they were on an arctic patrol exercise together in 1994 with one of the objectives being equipment testing.
Said photograph is likely the results of one of those tests, so more like a couple of buds testing out their dog-frick-in-ator protocol than any cheekiness.
Thank you sir, I stand corrected.
Apparently the two were deployed together for training and testing, so there's a good chance the Whale knew they were there.
>Following the final Change of Command in January 1994, Whale deployed to the Arctic with HMS Trenchant (S91) in support of combined United States and Royal Navy testing of submarine equipment as well as collection of environmental data in the polar region. JOINTSUBICEX 1-94 saw Whale's second North Pole surfacing on 16 April 1994, 25 years and 10 days, after her first polar surfacing in 1969.
At the time the Whale was pretty much a geriatric, she would be decommissioned that year.
Checks out
>luv me Yanks
>luv me Bongs
>luv me subs
>'ate me zhangs
>not racist just dont like 'em
>simple as
I don't know if China is actually angry about this new deal.
Australia is going to have no modern submarine fleet for more than one decade longer than originally planned.
They actually are. Australia joining in the nukesub fun cuts out going the long way around Indonesia as an option for Chinese shipping if the Pacific Fleet ever decides to block Chinese ships from entering the Straits of Malacca.
>shallow Straits of Malacca
>nuclear sub
Australia wanted nuclear subs to protect the lines of communication to the USA.
But for real action in SEA, this is actually a letdown.
Australia now has missiles that can reach the straight of malacca thanks to the US.
>The F111 is a dud
>The Collins Class wont happen
>The F-35 is an over priced lemon
>[You are Here]
>Nuclear subs wont happen
>Australia not expected to get any sub for over a decade now
Delicious pic.
>You wont get them b-b-ecause you wont
have fun coping
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jul/20/australia-almost-no-chance-to-buy-any-submarine-from-current-us-building-program-experts-say
Have fun coping
>experts say
>the expert is the same man who has been seething at the F35 in the senate for years
Bongs don't even have their own nukes, half of their Tridents are stored in some US Navy depot and they need permission from the USA to handle them.
They also don't have VLS and Bong subs have awful accomodations, even Russian subs have more room.
US subs are for cross ocean operations often in combination with aircraft carriers.
The UK SSN is designed more for ASuW, the US is more multi-purpose.
i like submarines
neat
Had no idea they could attach those docking sections, neat
The Los Angeles and Virginia classes did it decades ago.
Ok? I was just saying I had no idea the bongs did it too.
Do SSNs routinely carry a contingent of Marines?
Bring back plane-carrying subs I say.
Seems impractical, but it makes me wonder if there have been plans to launch drones from submarines.
Just reading up about the RN's submarine commander course - "Perisher" - which is infamously difficult. Only 60% pass it and if he fails the officer is not allowed to serve aboard a sub in any capacity. That seems ridiculous to me. Just because you may not be commander material doesn't mean you couldn't be perfectly good in another role.
It's a temperament and stress test mostly anon. You don't want loose cannons that can't handle stress on a sub.
When you only have 5 SSNs in service, you can afford to be very, very picky in choosing who gets to command them.
7.
5 is just mid-change between Trafalgar and Astute.
well, for practical purposes the RN only has 6 right now
Future US subs will be based on the Columbia's hull.
Will cross compatibility with UK subs truly reduce costs? Or is it cause they also arm UK subs so their munitions business will be cheaper?
Its because the Bongoloids Dreadnought class missile sub is due in early 2030's.
I can't decide if I love or hate the artist rendering of that on wikipedia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreadnought-class_submarine
It has a top and bottom chine apparently all along the sub not just the front like the astute, not that visible on that render, so it seems it is something to do with sound reduction.
>Will cross compatibility with UK subs truly reduce costs?
Presumably
Economies of scale and all that
UUVs absolutely as hisutton will be the first to tell you. USVs or even UAVs, big possibility IMHO.
It's a universal collar iirc
They make it so rescue DSRVs from anybody can mate with any sub. Even Russian, which is why Kursk's survivors could totally have been saved if only
Source? I haven't heard that anywhere. 20,000 tons is a bit hefty for an attack boat.
It's the Ohio replacement.
Yes, but the thread topic is attack boats, and Anon's claim is literally "Future US subs will be based on the Columbia's hull." Obviously, that implies more than just the Columbia class.
cutting the SLBM section alone out of a Columbia would substantially reduce its size, but the point being SSN(X) will be as girthy as a Columbia
Lower looks capable of more littoral work (especially stealthy stepped upper hull form), upper less so for more ordinance.
>currently under construction
oh nononno HAHAHAHAHAHAH
holy frick people still believe australia will get anything from that deal other than air
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RL/RL32418
usa literally cant maintain their own fleet
For those who refuse to read....
There has been much ado for a few decades about the projected dip in the number of US SSNs that was to happen in the late 2020s to early 2030s.
The US Navy has been extending the lives of various 688 and 688i boats beyond their originally projected end of life to 'fill in' this dip.
This is possible, in part, to having not used some of them very much. The CBO report summarizes this as follows:
"The service has taken harsh criticism from Capitol Hill for at times allowing some boats to
sit in dock for several years at a time while awaiting servicing. That time in dock—and by
extension time when the sub’s reactor was not being used—likely comes into play when
assessing whether the boat can sail past its original service life."
...
"In recent years, a number of the Navy’s SSNs have had their deployments delayed due to
capacity-related maintenance backlogs at the Navy’s four government-operated naval shipyards (NSYs), which are the primary facilities for conducting depot-level maintenance work on Navy SSNs. Delays in deploying SSNs can put added operational pressure on other SSNs that are available for deployment. For additional background information on this issue, see Appendix C."
From page page 5 of COB report RL32418 (9 of 40 of the PDF) (link: https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RL/RL32418 ).
american subs are made of paper and cardboard just like their sub divisions and neighborhoods.
>be mutts
>only empire in the world
>have a need to patrol worlds sea lanes
>make subs optimized for transoceanic voyages
>be bongs
>your empire collapsed
>have a need to keep an eye on frogs vatniks and krauts
>make subs optimized for navigating northern passages
long and slick for cruising
short and thicc for turning
https://news.usni.org/2021/11/22/next-generation-ssnx-attack-sub-is-going-to-carry-a-lot-of-torpedoes-says-admiral
Where do French subs sit in the long-and-skinny/thicc and chonky debate?
Short and skinny, they're like half the displacement of proper navy's subs. Same as their carrier.
French SSNs are 2,400 tons.
why does a submarine need VLS to strike ground targets? Why can't missiles be loaded into the regular horizontal tubes, then the submarine kinda only pokes its "nose" out of the water to spit out some tomahawks?
the submarine could also porpoise at max speed out of the water, launch its payload, then dive back down. The shoot-and-scoot of seaworld.
Are you serious or just trying to (successfully) get a (You) to say that you had a conversation with someone today? Poke its nose out of the water? Jesus christ.
serious. Go semi horizontal, at least a couple of degrees or ten to give the forward torpedo tubes some verticality. point sub in the general direction of the enemy and the missile will know the rest.
Tomahawks and Harpoons can be fired from the torpedo tubes underwater. They have boosters on the back that activate when in contact with seawater. Fire out of the tube and it goes out and up. Firing one of these from a tube is pretty much no different than firing a torpedo. Can't remember how deep they can be, but I'm sure the real number is classified af.
oh...
...it would have been cuter if subs had to poke their nose out to do this.
?t=29
nani!?!?
My weeb way of saying I appreciate and dislike your takes. Wrong sub perhaps.
It would be cute, but you can just stick air ballast at the top of the missile, or design the weight of the missile at the bottom instead and it'll right itself on its own, without the need for the sub to do manoeuvres that could put it at risk
Is Virginia still top of the line? Jesus...
It's a mini seawolf with VLS that keeps getting modernized every couple years, what's the problem?
Well, it's not as bad as the airplanes they use I guess.
maybe optimized(noise, drag?) for different speeds. maybe brit sub bigger sensors or something that make it necessary for it to have larger diameter hull
>Some of the most classified military projects in existence today
>Asking a Bolivian line dancing enthusiast forum why they were designed the way they were
What is the meaning of this?
bow down to the best sub nation
If throwing over 700 subs and 20k dead sailors at the UK for very limited success is something to be proud of.
>best sub nation
>was unable to stop an amphibious invasion of it's territory
pick one
meh we maybe took a bite too big to chew as we had to fight the whole damn planet and we're a pretty small country.
>whole damn planet
America has better claim to that since they fought in Asia.
muh Asia that was only one enemy nation which was coincidentally also tiny.
Ever looked on a map?
It was krauts (small nation in Europe) and japs (tiny island) versus the whole fricking planet
Japan actually owned the Korean penisula and Manchuria back then. And they are four big islands. Bigger than the UK.
yeah overall 1/50 of the territory of USA and Russia combined
>fight the whole damn planet
That would unironically be the British.
Germans were wannabe British in the first place.
British?
all you did in WWII was sitting on your small shitty island literally shitting yourself while all the heavy lifting was done by Russia and US (primarily Russia).
picture related
Most of the SUbs were sunk by the brits. Most of the German surface fleet got wrecked by the brits as well.
This. The British kept the trade routes clear
British could only survive with heavy US support.
Nothing more than a nuisance from a kraut perspective while the war was lost at the eastern front (Stalingrad, Russia)
picrel first ever glided bomb, developed by krauts
The British destroyed the largest Submarine pen in the world with frick huge earthquake bombs
earthquake bombs huh?
watched too much discovery channel?
Picrel the first cruise missile, developed by krauts
And it was HIGHLY inaccurate and usually sabatoged during construction. Modern US tomahawks rule the skies and now the waves with re added anti ship capabilities
blabla tomahawk bullshit this was the 1940s
They were still shit on accuracy, a bloody Scud missile had more precision
Wehraboo's really are aids.
The brits handed the asses of the Italian and German Navies just fine. It was just Japan they needed help.
Yeah they owned the sea like at dunkirk...
Dunkirk is a town in France. It's on land. It wasn't a naval battle like Trafalgar.
Dunkirk was only made possible by a complete absence of the British navy.
>thirty-nine destroyers and one cruiser directly involved in the evacuation
>of those, six were sunk and twenty more damaged
>not to mention all the minesweepers, troopships, gunboats and torpedo boats
How is that absence
>picture related
That's cute
muh the British navy
all it takes nowadays is a single French (!) 250kg warhead and you're going down...
picture related
Tell that to all the Exocet missiles that HAVENT killed their targets Ala USS Stark
To be fair, Germany makes a shit ton of subs today and exports and licenses them quite heavily, like to the South Koreans. Now if only they would build up their own sub forces and pay their nato dues...
we're still playing peaceful krauts, also we're cucked and infested with homosexualry and wokeism.
It's over...
Trust me, we know, half your military is in mothballs
it means I prefer length over girth
I mean ladies prefer length over girth
What about the KSS-III Submarine? Batch 1 is 3358 tons, has 6 torp and 6 K VLS tubes for ballistic missiles, and batch 2 upgrades the weight to 3600 tons and 10 vls cells. It has AIP too. Considering how buddy buddy Poland is getting with South Korea, do u think it has a chance to replace their one shifty kilo class?
Modern Japan is bigger than Modern Germany fyi. It is also bigger than Modern UK.
And have a bigger sub force that is very modern. The Taigei-class submarine uses lithium ion batteries, has 6 tubes, and can fire harpoons
Arguably they're having to compete with china, North Korea AND Russia, who in total eclipse basically everyone else combined, so it's not a surprise they're concerned and have more really.
And you can tell their worried about subs. The new Mogami-class frigate has advanced sonar, mine laying equipment, torp tubes, and a helicopter. Thing is made to kill Chinese subs, and they want 22
naah japs and Chinese aren't keen to fighting.
There is still an open unpaid invoice from WWII (Hiroshima).
Postwar Japanese navy was always about ASW. Everything else came later like the Japanese Burke classes
Considering that their barred from having land attack weapons, and they're an island vulnerable to nuclear equipped subs, it makes sense to go full in on ASW to fill the space on their ships. I mean they literally built the Asahi class destroyers just to frick subs away from their not-carriers
there aren't barred from anything.
it's one big larp and they can go imperialist any minute if they want to
Oh I know they can, but it requires a constitution change. They've been doing some trolling already with the Izumo class, going full light aircraft carrier with F 35B's
Asahi class are pure sex
The sub fricker supreme that STILL has anti air capability with its highly advanced AESA radars
what's with the bad shoop? you ain't fooling anyone.