Advertisement
by Roskian Federation » Tue Jul 26, 2016 9:50 pm
by Triplebaconation » Tue Jul 26, 2016 9:51 pm
by Gallia- » Tue Jul 26, 2016 9:52 pm
by Velkanika » Tue Jul 26, 2016 9:57 pm
Triplebaconation wrote:SPY-3 is the datalink radio, just like SPY-1. It also provides terminal guidance.
The problem was that Standard's datalink was designed to work with SPY-1, which is S-band. SPY-3 is X-band. Raytheon has since developed a dual-band datalink, not only for the Zumwalt, but to market Standard to all the other X-band users out there.
The necessity of a navy, in the restricted sense of the word, springs, therefore, from the existence of a peaceful shipping, and disappears with it, except in the case of a nation which has aggressive tendencies, and keeps up a navy merely as a branch of the military establishment. 1
by Triplebaconation » Tue Jul 26, 2016 10:02 pm
by The Akasha Colony » Tue Jul 26, 2016 10:03 pm
Velkanika wrote:Triplebaconation wrote:SPY-3 is the datalink radio, just like SPY-1. It also provides terminal guidance.
The problem was that Standard's datalink was designed to work with SPY-1, which is S-band. SPY-3 is X-band. Raytheon has since developed a dual-band datalink, not only for the Zumwalt, but to market Standard to all the other X-band users out there.
And if the Navy's testimony to Congress is true, they never had it installed for some reason.
by Triplebaconation » Tue Jul 26, 2016 11:50 pm
by The Technocratic Syndicalists » Wed Jul 27, 2016 12:10 am
SDI AG Arcaenian Military Factbook | Task Force Atlas International Freedom Coalition |
by Allanea » Wed Jul 27, 2016 2:54 am
Roskian Federation wrote:If you have no enemies, and you're a country that barely exists, is there any point kn having a naval force thats anything more than a couple of minelaying/missile boats?
by Roskian Federation » Wed Jul 27, 2016 8:01 am
by The Technocratic Syndicalists » Wed Jul 27, 2016 11:30 am
SDI AG Arcaenian Military Factbook | Task Force Atlas International Freedom Coalition |
by The Akasha Colony » Wed Jul 27, 2016 1:03 pm
by The Kievan People » Wed Jul 27, 2016 1:33 pm
The Technocratic Syndicalists wrote:How viable/effective would it be to quad pack ground launched SDBs into a single mk 57 VLS cell for added land attack capability for my not! Zumwalt? Tomahawks are obviously nice but for hitting targets near shore in littoral environments the 1000+ nmi range is a bit overkill. At first I was thinking of just using GMLRS (GPS guided version of MLRS rocket with 90 kg HE warhead) but it only has a 70-90km range which is less than the LRLAP of the 155m AGS (although the warhead is a lot bigger). I then looked into ground launched SDB (SDB with the rocket booster from GMLRS) which is small enough in diameter to be quadpacked into a mk 41 or mk 57 VLS cell and has a range of 150 kilometers (90km booster range plus 60km glide range) which is better than the 155mm AGS, not to mention the much larger warhead.
Another option I've looked into would be SPEAR CAP 3 which supposedly has a range of "at least 100km" which would give it at least 190km range, probably as much as 250km (140km range for SPEAR CAP 3 is supposedly achievable). SPEAR is also powered which means unlike the SDB it has loiter capability which could be useful.
Instead of using the M26 rocket motor from the GLMRS (220mm diamter another option could be to use the rocket motor from the sea sparrow/ESSM (254mm diamter). This means the ship launched SDB/SPEAR could be integrated into existing quad-pack canisters used for the sea sparrow/ESSM.
by The Technocratic Syndicalists » Wed Jul 27, 2016 2:03 pm
The Akasha Colony wrote:Sea Lance anyone?
Uses a 400 mm conventional lightweight torpedo, either battery-powered or using SCES like Mark 50. 80 kg warhead, 50 knot maximum speed, maybe 30-35 km range. I plan on converting my standard lightweight torpedo caliber from 324 mm to 400 mm.
The missile has a range of 75-100 km using the torpedo armament but this is restricted by the torpedo's ability to acquire the target to shorter ranges. Using a 100 kt nuclear depth charge it has a range of 200+ km.
(Image)
And that more or less concludes the range of torpedo tube-launched weapons I expect to have. I am undecided as to whether to retain both heavyweight torpedoes at this point, as having two separate types seems superfluous as their performance is not too dissimilar.
The Kievan People wrote:
Spear is a self propelled weapon. Sticking it on a giant booster is rather wasteful.
Adapting the GMLRS is the best option. Sufficient range, much shorter TOF, much larger warhead than either SDB or SPEAR. In the other words the Lockheed POLAR. Which was a GMLRS lengthened and adapted for quad packing in standard VLS cells, with a range of 200km.
SDI AG Arcaenian Military Factbook | Task Force Atlas International Freedom Coalition |
by The Akasha Colony » Wed Jul 27, 2016 3:10 pm
The Technocratic Syndicalists wrote:What about a tube launched decoy? Basically any one of your heavyweight torpedoes (maybe not the supercavitating one) with the warhead section replaced by a noisemaker and electromagnet that can simulate the acoustic and magnetic signature of a wide variety of submarines to trick enemy ASW into engaging the decoy.
TBH for your heavyweight torpedo it depends on whether or not you want your sub to focus on ASW and ASuW. For ASW I'd go with the electric torpedo for the stealth advantage and the lack of engine performance drop at depth. The advantage of monoprollant is the higher energy density which means more range and more speed but when you're doing ASW against a modern attack sub you're detection range will probably be a lot less than even the maximum high speed range of the torpedo making range and speed not as important of a factor. Also titanium hulled subs that can dive to under 1000 meters would be essentially immune to any monoprollent torpedo that has to expel waste products at that depth. If you're fixed on propellant though to reduce noise you could have your monoprollant torpedo use some form of IEP where the turbine drives an electric generator which in turn powers an external propulsor which direct drives the pumpjet, eliminating any noisy gearboxes in the torpedo. Depth performance could be increased by increasing the operating pressure of the engine although I'm not sure what the practical upper limit of that would be.
by The Technocratic Syndicalists » Wed Jul 27, 2016 4:14 pm
The Akasha Colony wrote:There is no need for a heavyweight torpedo to accomplish this task. All of the decoys carried by my submarines are launched out of separate tubes stored in the inter-hull space (and they are much smaller than a full 660 mm heavyweight torpedo), in order to maintain constant readiness. Otherwise at least one of the torpedo tubes would essentially be permanently unusable because it would always need to be loaded with a decoy ready to fire. There are also alternative arrangements for launching larger UUVs; the torpedo tubes and the torpedo room are intended only for weapons.
The Akasha Colony wrote:If an operating pressure of 6,000 psi is achievable, then a monopropellant torpedo would be able to function at any depth it could ever be expected to operate in, provided the other components are properly protected against the pressure (which would affect a battery torpedo as well). The pressure at 1,000 m depth is only ~1,500 psi, and at 1,500 m it's ~2,200 psi. Of course, this means an increasing percentage of the power is lost, but this is still less than half at 1,500 m, deeper than any combat submarine can or ever has dived. The only things it could not hunt would be super-deep research bathyscapes and such. I do not actually know if such a high pressure could be achieved with a turbine like Spearfish's design, as evidently Westinghouse's Mk 48 demonstrator used a turbine and had inferior deepwater efficiency compared to Clevite's design with its axial piston engine, which was selected in the end. But the piston engine was noisier than the gas turbine.
Also, I'm not sure if there would be a gearbox to eliminate. Mk 48 does not appear to have one. I do not know if Spearfish does as I do not know its operating speed (there is less information out there on Spearfish than there is on Mk 48). I had already considered turbo-electric propulsion, but torpedoes are particularly volume-limited and this would reduce available volume for propellants. At high speeds though there would no no serious acoustic advantage to either design though, as flow noise and propeller noise would be immediately noticeable to anyone with even half-decent sonar.
SDI AG Arcaenian Military Factbook | Task Force Atlas International Freedom Coalition |
by The Akasha Colony » Wed Jul 27, 2016 7:16 pm
The Technocratic Syndicalists wrote:I thought the smaller decoy launch tubes in subs were for launching acoustic decoys to lure incoming torpedoes away from the sub, like an underwater nulka or towed decoy for aircraft of sorts. The reason I suggested basing the decoy off a torpedo is so it can function as a sort of underwater MALD if you will. Say one sub with one or more decoys in its tubes launches them at a carrier group some 60-70km away, the carrier's ASW escorts then see the decoy(s) and engage them thinking they're your attack submarines.
If you're launching UUVs something like the funky hourglass shaped moon-well in the USS Jimmy Carter would be something to look at. It's something you could add to the submarine after the hull has been built, basically chopping the hull in half and then welding the UUV bay in between the two sections. The way I'm designing my attack sub is all the torpedoes are carried in between the pressure and water hulls in 6 cell clips (5 on each side, so theoretically up to 60 total) which eliminates the bottlenecking caused by having a limited number of torpedo tubes. No torpedo room also means more room for UUVs and other stuff inside the submarine as well.
The only info I can find on spearfish is that it has a top speed of 80 knots and a range of 48km at "low speed" which is not specified. I also know it has a gas turbine that drives a pump jet, if there's no gearbox it means the pumpjet is directly driven by the turbine. The mark 48 has that swashplate piston engine, not sure if it has any reduction gear system. I think the highs speed (>60 knot) sprint would be once you get within the torpedoes sonar range of the target ship and can just home in it from there. The lower cruise speed would be where an electric torpedo would have a noise advantage.
by The Technocratic Syndicalists » Wed Jul 27, 2016 9:00 pm
The Akasha Colony wrote:snip
SDI AG Arcaenian Military Factbook | Task Force Atlas International Freedom Coalition |
by Gallia- » Wed Jul 27, 2016 9:04 pm
by The Technocratic Syndicalists » Wed Jul 27, 2016 9:16 pm
Gallia- wrote:literally 2007
SDI AG Arcaenian Military Factbook | Task Force Atlas International Freedom Coalition |
by Gallia- » Wed Jul 27, 2016 9:22 pm
by Triplebaconation » Wed Jul 27, 2016 9:28 pm
by The Technocratic Syndicalists » Wed Jul 27, 2016 9:30 pm
Gallia- wrote:do you think youre the first person to come up with a supercavitating torpedo with an onc warhead on ns? it's not even wake homing
it's not even using the ramjet for open cycle nuclear fusion propulsion
youre like nine to ten years too late
SDI AG Arcaenian Military Factbook | Task Force Atlas International Freedom Coalition |
by Triplebaconation » Wed Jul 27, 2016 9:34 pm
by The Technocratic Syndicalists » Wed Jul 27, 2016 9:37 pm
Triplebaconation wrote:http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=120633
SDI AG Arcaenian Military Factbook | Task Force Atlas International Freedom Coalition |
Advertisement
Return to Factbooks and National Information
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement