It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

FAS (Future Attack Submarine)

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 2 2004 @ 06:57 PM
link   
I am just going to post the whole artical because it is only 3 paragraphs long......




The Defense Science Board (DSB) task force on the “Submarine of the Future” in its July 1998 report called for pursuing a vigorous technology development program in preparation for a new and more capable successor to the Virginia class in the 2020s. Dismissing the suggestion for a force mix that includes diesel-electric submarines, the panel “firmly reaffirmed” that the Virginia-class follow-on should be a “large” nuclear ship offering high transit speed, independent logistics, and endurance – as well as the substantial internal volume necessary for unconventional payloads, such as auxiliary vehicles. Suggesting that “weapon-specific interfaces” such as torpedo and Vertical Launch System tubes be avoided, the group postulated “using ‘bomb bay’ techniques or other large aperture openings, coupled with external storage of rapid-response weapons.” In this concept, today’s torpedo room would be supplanted by a free-flooding weapons bay reconfigurable for a variety of weapon and offboard sensor payloads.

The task force recommended that the traditional emphasis on SSN propulsion and quieting be shifted to “connectivity, sensors, weapons, adjuvant vehicles, and interfaces with the water.” And finally, the panel suggested that DoD needs to broaden participation and reallocate taskings in the research, development, acquisition, and performance verification of new SSN designs. Thus, they recommended a “wide open look” at the future submarine by the Navy and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), with substantial industry input to the development of alternatives. Subsequently, DARPA and the Navy have signed a Memorandum of Agreement to study future fast-attack submarine design concepts, with a focus on advanced payloads and sensor systems.

The Navy and industry have concluded that electric drive will be a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for retaining stealth margins (i.e., standoff and counterdetection) into the far future. This assumes potential adversaries will possess sensor and processor technology in the 2015 timeframe, which is similar to that which the US is developing now. Furthermore, electric drive provides the opportunity to use all (rather than only about 15 percent) of the useful reactor power for a wide range of high power, high energy, and high endurance payloads, which the future will bring. Today, some 85 percent of the design reactor power can only be used for propulsion. Other benefits include the flexibility that electric drive brings to naval architecture (eliminate the tyranny of the shaft through external motors), on-the-fly reapportionment of power to deal with casualties, battle damage, or countermeasures (for high-speed incoming weapons), and technology growth potential in related technologies.






www.globalsecurity.org...

So people, how kick ass is this sub going to be




posted on Sep, 2 2004 @ 07:05 PM
link   
Sounds cool!


Looks a bit like a futuristic Tampon though



posted on Sep, 2 2004 @ 07:22 PM
link   
hahaha


What I find interesting though is that they shifted their focus from making the sub more stealthy to sensors and weapons.

Following the AF line of thinking, I guess that they feel they have made their ships stealthy enough, but do not have the leathality they want. I also wonder if they will have those rocket tarpedos



posted on Sep, 2 2004 @ 07:35 PM
link   
Does the US have cavitation Torpedoes like Russia? I hear that they can get up to 200 knots as they create some sort of cavition wave which lessons water resistance....



posted on Sep, 2 2004 @ 07:38 PM
link   
Thats what I was talking about, thank you for the corection.


I believe I read somewhere that the US navy is doing R&D on it as we speak.

Let me see if I can find the link.....



posted on Sep, 5 2004 @ 02:09 AM
link   
The FAS will probably use some UUVs or maybe even piloted minisubs used for detection and fight. It will be something like a small underwater carrier, so the extreme quieting is not necessary. I wonder if the future Navy will have minisub fighter pilots
.



posted on Sep, 5 2004 @ 02:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by longbow
The FAS will probably use some UUVs or maybe even piloted minisubs used for detection and fight. It will be something like a small underwater carrier, so the extreme quieting is not necessary. I wonder if the future Navy will have minisub fighter pilots
.


I always thought about that. Manned or unmanned a small craft could swim circles around a normal size sub. A craft design for speed and optimal maneuvering would be really hard to hit with a normal torpedo. Also a small craft I think could carry enough firepower to take out a huge sub. It would only take a small torpedo to really mess up a sub underwater.

Heres a thread I started about some applications for UUVs and what I think would be their advantages over manned subs.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Sep, 5 2004 @ 11:30 AM
link   
As underwater cavitation technology matures, perhaps smaller manned or unmaned subs could use this technology to perform a role much like the F-14 did for surface carriers.

Assuming the US can get this technology into working order, it really would be amazing on a submarine.



posted on Sep, 6 2004 @ 04:12 PM
link   
Actually, Russia never perfected the SuperCavitating torpedo. The Soviet Union Collapsed before they could.

It only went straight also.

The US is picking up where they left off. There diong some modification to its original design and are going to make it be able to turn, that also makes it have the ability " Home in" on other ships or subs.

Normal torpedos go 30-80 mph.
SuperCavitating torpedos will go 230-300 mph.

Good site




posted on Sep, 6 2004 @ 08:49 PM
link   
Thanks for the link


thats some good info. I guess the question then becomes, how long before the technology matures?



posted on Sep, 7 2004 @ 12:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Murcielago
Actually, Russia never perfected the SuperCavitating torpedo. The Soviet Union Collapsed before they could.

It only went straight also.

The US is picking up where they left off. There diong some modification to its original design and are going to make it be able to turn, that also makes it have the ability " Home in" on other ships or subs.



I heard about speculations that newer versions of Shkval could be laser guided. They should use some kind of special "blue-green" laser - such beam should be able to travel long distances under water.



posted on Sep, 7 2004 @ 01:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man




The problem with large apature opening is that they need to be flooded before they open to negate the sound of the air rushing out, but then there is the problem of sound deadening the noice generated by flooding such a large cavity with water before opening.

Also, where are teh stabilizers in this picture? How will this tampon manuver with any degree of accuracy? Maybe it will use vector thrusting.



posted on Sep, 7 2004 @ 01:17 AM
link   
If you look at the rear of the sub, you can see part of an "X" shaped stabilizer.

As far as the apature opening, I have a funny feeling that the US Navy wouldn't choose it if they hadn't figured out the stealth aspet of it. Just a hunch



posted on Sep, 7 2004 @ 01:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man
If you look at the rear of the sub, you can see part of an "X" shaped stabilizer.

As far as the apature opening, I have a funny feeling that the US Navy wouldn't choose it if they hadn't figured out the stealth aspet of it. Just a hunch


Ah thanks, I didn't see the X config.

As for the government figuring out stealth, you never know. All that excitement over a completely new configuration...

Anyway, larger loading ramp style openings for vehicles will mean more seams on the surface unless they get really precise in manufacture (oh no now Im really nitpicking).



posted on Sep, 7 2004 @ 04:16 PM
link   
speed can out way stealth in the case of the the Seawolf class of subs. they could get a fireing solution on a 688 fast attack with in 5min of first contact. the Acula class would no chance in @#*! but it soon became aparent that fast attack sub werent a big consern in M.A.D. just boomers(SSBM) so the Seawolf was canselded after only a few were built.



posted on Sep, 8 2004 @ 02:30 AM
link   
as I understand it the sea wolf was canned after the soviet implosion because such an expensive open ocean attack sub wasn't needed anymore.

BTW, this isn't the seawolf, it is a next generation concept.



posted on Sep, 10 2004 @ 11:29 PM
link   
whos the contractor
general electric or northrop g ship building



posted on Sep, 11 2004 @ 02:12 AM
link   
I don't believe there is one yet. This would be a next generation submarine, currently the US has to finish with the Virginia class subs. I'd say this thing is like 15-20 years away from being built.



posted on Sep, 11 2004 @ 06:21 PM
link   
theres usely a prospect contractor ill ask around and see if i can find out
who it is.



posted on Sep, 11 2004 @ 08:42 PM
link   
Any info you can dig up would be greatly apreciated



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join