Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

comparison of U.S. V. europe subs

page: 7
0
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 25 2005 @ 08:21 AM
link   
saw a new bit of kit recently, acoustic imaging sonar. It uses sound wave to produce an image through murky water




posted on Apr, 25 2005 @ 02:57 PM
link   
yes ..understand the depth of the river and he width..definitely.

This yard is on the James River..while width here is not a problem ..depth sometime is and dredging must occasionally be done.

yes...thanks for the offer.

Orangetom



posted on Apr, 25 2005 @ 03:13 PM
link   
yeah..they've come along way with the sonar technology. Once gain..I pray they dont give away the technology to our enemies as is often done in history.

Orangetom



posted on Apr, 27 2005 @ 02:16 AM
link   
I understand that the Swedish subs' Stirling air independent propulsion (AIP) system is both quieter and more powerful than our nukes and in a hunter-killer role could do some damage to an enemies fleet.



posted on Apr, 27 2005 @ 05:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by gemron
I understand that the Swedish subs' Stirling air independent propulsion (AIP) system is both quieter and more powerful than our nukes and in a hunter-killer role could do some damage to an enemies fleet.


in a word NO, the stirling engine is not as powerful as the nukes, and doesnt have the range to compete, they are however very good for use in littoral waters (such as around sweeden).

[edit on 27-4-2005 by paperplane_uk]



posted on May, 6 2005 @ 02:41 AM
link   
Paper,

Is there a physical barrier to power output on AIP systems compared to similar sized nuke plants?

I mean, is it possible with improvements in tech on the way to foresee AIP systems with similar power outputs to equivalent sized nukes?

Cheers

BHR



posted on May, 6 2005 @ 03:52 AM
link   
anything is possible!



posted on May, 7 2005 @ 04:59 PM
link   
yes..bill there is a power limit to AIP technology as there is to nuclear technology.
AIP has definite advantage in quiteness but the high power curve ..is not that usable ..long range.
Also new designs in natural circulation reactors have closed the gap in quietness. All newer designs of nuclear power plants on submarines will use the latest in natural circulation reactors.
The main drawback to nuclear reactors for most nations is simply costs. It is just to expensive..in production/maintnence/refueling costs for the bulk of the Navys in this world. Also included in maintnence costs is the training of replacement personel. In any Navy there is a high turn around rate of people retiring and leaving the Navy ..so people must be constantly trained in this field. This is not an inexpensive venture..just the training alone. I worked in this shipyard a number of years before I really got a handle on the turn around rate of personel. It was not till I worked Nimitz class aircraft carriers I realized what a huge turn around rate the Navy actually has in people...constantly. I suppose this is true of any Navy in any nation but with a Nuclear Navy it is particularly acute. Hence they pay huge bonuses for these people to stay in service. These skills are at a premium and the civilian sector loves to lure them away. I cant blame them for leaving.
Agree with the bulk of PaperPlanes assessment..at the costs ..AIP technology is ideal for Navys primarily concerned with coastal issues/defense. These submarinse will still function outside coastal waters..but their effectiveness and usefulness will be limited in arenas where they will come into contact with nuc boats.
The irony to me ..is that for all the hoopla about nuclear technology ..they are still making olde fashioned steam. Steam with all its ancient uses...is still pound for pound the most powerful medium available. All nuclear technology did was to create another way of manufacturing steam in unlimited quantities.

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on May, 9 2005 @ 04:14 AM
link   
your right it is basically a very complex and very very expensive kettle connected to a Parsons turbine.



posted on May, 9 2005 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by BillHicksRules
Rogue,

The sensors and weapons fits are more capable than those on the Virginia for the task they are for.

I will give you the fact that they will not carry Tomahawks but that is not part of their tasking.

On a sub v sub engagement they will outmatch the Virginias even in a blue water scenario. The only thing the SSNs have on them is range in a long term pursuit but in that case it is a win for the AIP boat.

Cheers

BHR

p.s. As to my credibility, for those with the full knowledge of this, my credibility is fine. As for the rest, I do not care.


how can the AIP subs be more capable in terms of sensors and weapons over Virginias?



posted on May, 9 2005 @ 06:52 PM
link   
First off..Thanks Paper Plane for the information on Sir Charles Parsons and his invention of the steam turbine. I never knew it was his invention and am always glad to add another bit of information to my library of facts..for this I thank you.
I recall the first time ..I went to the local Mariners Museum here in Virginia and saw a early reciprocating engine. After working on some steam turbines I was shocked to see how the early mariners did things. A very large bulky arrangement...obviously not suited for high RPMs. But ...considering the state of the art it was still quite something to be invented in the minds of men.
I should also add...that I was priveleged to see the steam engine of the Navy ship USS Monitor when it was salvaged..and brought here to dry dock #10 and sprayed down with salt water .while awaiting the completion of its preservation tank uptown at the Mariners Museum. Quite a feeling to stand before a piece of history ...before the bulk of the public sees it for themselves. Most of it was covered with barnicle and marine growth .but enough was visible so that ...one could tell the basics of how it worked. It seemed to be a very crude single piston affair with some kind of what I call a clacker or shifter..when the piston came to the end of its travel it tripped a clacker or shifter ..porting the steam to the other side of the piston and the process is repeated. Direct coupling to the propellor shaft.
Since that time they have also salvaged the gun turrent and are working on other salvage projects .on this wreck.
The US Navy appears to be using this wreck to train and maintain skills for their salvage divers. This wreck is particularly suited for high degrees of difficulty as the currents are strong and Cape Hatteris is known for quickly changing weather.
I will add also ..that recently I made a trip to Charleston , South Carolina to see the salvaged CSS Hunley..the first recorded submarine to successfully sink a surface vessel. The history is known so I won't gointo it .
However..I was appalled..when I saw the total of what it was. My reaction was "Good Grief...Good Lord..those guys went out in this!!!!????"
It was very small...in circumference...much smaller than I had originally thought. Now I realize that on the average people were of much smaller stature than today ..but this was really small. Of course knowing something about the state of the art...it was appalling what ...state of the art was back then. Good Grief...talk about by the seat of ones pants.

Now ..back on topic....I would like to say about AIP submarines...
This technique is nothing to turn ones nose up at...The US Navy is constantly checking out what other Navys are doing...allies as well as enemys.
A modern conventional submarine ...with modern weapons and state of the art systems is a formidable platform. Combine this with a well trained , diciplined crew and a determined skipper....every nuclear boat crew needs to pull their heads out of their backside and pay attention.
Sonar technology has come along way since WW2 and its days of infancy in this field. Same with propulsion systems ..propeller designs...hull designs..etc etc..etc.
I can tell you for certain .that our Navy has had enough experience with conventional submarines not to turn their noses up at the total performance curve of these boats. And this technology is only getting better.

Thank you Gentlemen,
Orangetom



posted on May, 9 2005 @ 08:26 PM
link   
Before shoving off to work ..I want to also add...that I have taken a number of night school courses offered here.
One of them in ship systems...and hull designs...part of the course covered the supercavitating rocket propelled torpedo..which seems to take up some space on these boards...and the other of note was AIP technology.
They are not ignorant here as to these advances and thier potential. You can bet that this technology is being watched and studied with great concern.

Thank you ,
Orangetom



posted on May, 10 2005 @ 05:03 AM
link   
Orange,

you may also like to know that parsons was instrimental in the study of cavitation, as well as developing the turbine. He had the notion to use the steam turbine on a ship and so designed a small launch to test it. The vessel called 'TURBINIA' when launched only did about 12 knots (they were expecting 30). The reason unknown at the time was cavitation. To solve the problem he consulted the leading marine researchers of the day (Froude and Reynolds) about the problem. He then went on to build the worlds first cavitation tunnel to study the phenomina in close detail.

After many months of study he realised what the problem was (power/area ratio too high) and corrcted the problem to achieve the massive (for the time) speed of over 30knots. In order to prove his idea he devised a cunning plan, he gatecrashed the Spithead Review when the royal family and all the heads of the armed forces were watching. Officials at the event did not have a vessel capable of catching them, and within 2 years all new RN warships were powered with steam turbines.

Incidently 'Turbinia' is preseved (along with the first marine steam turbine) in a museum in Newcastle upon Tyne, Uk along with the worlds first cavitation tunnel (which still works by the way, i last saw it running in 1995, 100 years after being built). All modern caviation tunnels still use the same principals that he developed, including the ones used to study roket torpedos etc.

[edit on 10-5-2005 by paperplane_uk]



posted on May, 10 2005 @ 05:23 AM
link   
Paper,

I have been meaning to ask you what the pic is on your avatar?

Cheers

BHR



posted on May, 10 2005 @ 07:59 AM
link   
Thankyou for that history lesson ..I will add it to my library of facts. I did not know that about the cavitation studies ...but in retrospect it seems a natural occurance in anyone of curiosity ..and dicipline working in this field. Also very intresting that those inventions survive in museums for historical reference.
I suppose with England's naval history that it would be natural to have a maritime museum and most likely one with rich exhibits too. Does it have a formal name and a web site..I would like to visit it's site if one is available. The Mariners Museum ...has one on line by that very name in Newport News, Virginia. This museum has close ties to the shipyard where I am employed. Oddly enough ..other than the very detailed models..my favorite exhibit is art work by sailors..particularly the ships in bottles...some ships in light bulbs too. I find them very intriguing... the kind of mind and dicipline to accomplish such a thing. I was really floored when first I saw a bottle with two detailed ships in it. It was a beautiful piece of work.
I find history to be a fascinating subject...the knowlege of who and what we are..and our ancestors were..the inventions that got us here..improved our lives...the people involved..down to the little details. I also find it sad that so many today know more about the products we daily consume than the things and people who got us here. A sad state of affairs Bill.
Thanks for the information.

Orangetom



posted on May, 10 2005 @ 09:00 AM
link   
OT,

I would not wish to take credit for someone else's post.

The post on cavitation was from PaperPlane.

Cheers

BHR



posted on May, 10 2005 @ 11:40 AM
link   
The avatar is a black arrow rocket. The only UK designed and built rocket ever to put a sat. into space. (and that was a full 3 months after the government had cancelled the programme - now there's planning). You may also notice the lack of clouds and smoke being produced, thats due to the HTP and kerosene mix in the rocket engine.

The museum with the Turbinia is the Discovery museum in Newcastle (not specifically a maritime museum, but has some stuff of local interest)

www.twmuseums.org.uk...

For history of the royal navy etc two of the best places are the national maritime museum, london and portsmouth histoic dockyards

www.nmm.ac.uk...

www.flagship.org.uk...



posted on May, 10 2005 @ 04:50 PM
link   
First off gentlemen ..my apologies for the mix up of your postings. I must have been more fatigued than I had thought after getting off work this morning. For that I apologize.

I looked up the town of Newcastle this morning under museums...and noted that there was a outdoor museum of some considerable acreage. I was impressed...some 300 acres is a large museum. Lots of room for exhibits.

Thanks Paperplane for the posting of the Discovery museum in Newcastle. I will look it up before shoving off back to work tonight. Also the national maritime museum

Thanks again gentlemen,
Orangetom



posted on May, 13 2005 @ 04:46 AM
link   
Paper,

I heard an article on Radio 4 on Wednesday nights PM programme about the Churchill Rocket that is being tested by Starchaser Industries (www.starchaser.co.uk).

Cheers

BHR






top topics



 
0
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join