Now We Know What the Navy’s Next Submarine Will Look Like
U.S. Navy art
Admiral reveals five possible future sub designs
by DAVID AXE
https://medium.com/war-is-boring
For
several years now the U.S. Navy has been planning to replace older
attack and cruise-missile submarines with an improved version of the
cutting-edge Virginia-class undersea boat. And in late October, Adm. David Johnson, the sailing branch’s top sub-builder, finally unveiled the new vessel’s possible configurations during a conference in Virginia.
Options for the so-called “Block V” Virginias
range from a nearly 480-foot-long behemoth to a simpler model that’s
just 450 feet from bow to stern. But all five proposed designs are
longer than today’s standard Virginias, which measure just 380 feet.
And
for a good reason. The Block Vs—the Navy wants to build 10 of them
between 2019 and 2023—are expected to include a structural plug, known
as a “payload module,” inserted in the middle of the standard
nuclear-powered Virginia design. The module is meant to accommodate four vertical tubes that open to the water and can be accessed from inside the ship.
These
payload tubes could carry sea-launched robots, divers or—most
significantly—seven Tomahawk cruise missiles apiece. Combined with the
six-round tubes already installed in the bow of a standard Virginia,
a fully missile-loaded module would boost a sub’s Tomahawk count to an
impressive 40 missiles. Each maneuverable, GPS-guided Tomahawk can fly a
thousand miles at low level and hit a target with pinpoint accuracy.
The
Navy wants the missile-heavy Block V subs to replace the current fleet
of four dedicated cruise-missile submarines. The SSGNs, as they’re
known, were modified in the early 2000s from surplus “boomer” boats
carrying nuclear-tipped ballistic missiles. Each SSGN packs up to 154
Tomahawks. In 2011 the USS Florida cruise-missile sub fired at least 90 Tomahawks at targets in Libya, clearing the way for follow-on attacks by warplanes.
The
SSGNs are all already nearly 30 years old and will retire in the
mid-2020s, resulting in a precipitous decline in the Navy’s overall
cruise-missile capacity. A force of 10 Block V Virginias
would make up for around half of the missile shortfall. Subsequent
Block VI and Block VII submarines could restore the other half.
General
Dynamics Electric Boat in Connecticut, the Navy’s main
submarine-builder, sketched out a basic, 94-foot payload module a few
years ago. Last year, amid worsening budget uncertainty, the module
options ballooned to five.
The
longest three—97, 91 and 88 feet—differ in their precise layout and the
number of new bulkhead walls they add to the baseline Virginia design.
But they all preserve the sub’s 34-foot-diameter outline, “allow[ing]
the platform to perform within key performance parameters,” according to
Electric Boat vice president John Holmander
Two
shorter and simpler options with 70-foot module plugs include humps on
the sub’s hull allowing for slightly taller and therefore more
voluminous tubes. But this “turtleback” arrangement comes with
“attendant hydrodynamic and potential acoustic problems, especially at
the higher speeds,” retired Capt. Karl Hasslinger and John Pavlos wrote in the Navy’s official Undersea Warfare magazine.
It’s costing $500 million just to develop the Block V design. Today’s Virginias
cost slightly more than $2 billion apiece to build—and with the Block V
module that unit price could rise by hundreds of millions of dollars.
Whichever Block V layout the Navy chooses in coming years, it won’t come
cheap.
But new
submarines are among the sailing branch’s top priorities—and rightly so.
Stealthy and heavily armed, undersea boats are by far the most powerful warships for full-scale warfare. With their planned extensions and more missiles, the Block V subs could be the deadliest yet.
The hunt for Red October gets easier. How submarine warfare is changing
Improving technology could make it
easier to find submarines. That's a threat to the US fleet – but it's
also an opportunity for the Pentagon, a new report says.
By Anna Mulrine
5 hours ago
Today's submarines are in danger of becoming increasingly
vulnerable as “game changers” in undersea warfare make it easier to
detect them, a new report says.
Deep sea submarines have been a key part of the United States military’s
offensive and defensive missions for decades, but a significant part of
their utility lies in their ability to operate stealthily. To this end,
the US military has invested huge amounts of money into making
submarines – in particular, the Navy’s Virginia-class nuclear submarines
– quieter.
But rapid increases in computer processing power are
offsetting these advances. Submarine detection techniques that do not
measure sounds but rather the wake left by submarines, for example, have
been known for decades. But “they have not been exploitable until very
recently because computer processors were too slow to run detailed
models needed to see changes in the environment caused by a quiet
submarine,” according to a report from the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA) released Thursday. Recommended: What do you know about US women in war? A quiz.
Today,
"big data" is providing the capability to run sophisticated
oceanographic models in real time, making these detection techniques
more feasible. As computer processors shrink, some will soon be small
enough to fit on the sea floor. “These systems have the potential to
make coastal areas far more hazardous for manned submarines,” the report
notes.
What’s more, emerging acoustic techniques will get better.
For example, computers could help find submarines by comparing the
normal ambient noise from marine life and waves with measured noise, and
in this way “identifying where sounds are being reflected off a
submarine or obscured by its hull.”
This is both good and bad news
for the US military’s undersea warfare programs. The same technologies
that make submarines easier to detect could help spur a new generation
of technology that the Pentagon could use to its advantage.
For
instance, next-generation submarines could fool sonar by emitting
special sounds to drown out their own radiated noise, “similar to the
method used in noise-canceling headphones,” the report notes. The US Navy could also use unmanned underwater drones to conduct acoustic jamming.
This
points to a brand new realm for the military-industrial complex. “A new
family of undersea vehicles and systems will be essential to maintain America’s
undersea edge,” the CSBA report argues. Failing to “aggressively
exploit” the latent potential of these emerging technologies “could
create an opening for rivals,” it warns, “and, in so doing, pose a major
threat to US security.”
Four of the U.S. Navy’s gargantuan Ohio-class ballistic missile nuclear submarines, otherwise known as ‘Boomers,’ were converted into multi-role platforms capable of deploying throngs of special forces, spying,
sinking ships and other subs and and putting any enemy within 1,000
miles of coast at risk of their arsenal of 154 cruise missiles.
As you can see in the rare photo above of the USS Michigan (SSGN-727), the re-branded SSGNs are of grand scale, measuring 560 feet long and displacing almost 19,000 tons while submerged. Behind the Michigan’s sail
is a modular Dry Dock Shelter, which is about 38 feet long and 9 feet
tall. It is used to house SEAL Delivery Vehicles and other
transportation devices used by special forces personnel. The SSGNs can
be fitted with two of these systems if need be.
Four of the
oldest Ohio-class SSBNs were converted to SSGNs over the last decade.
The process takes between two and three years to complete, where the
submarines have their reactors refueled and extensive modifications are
made to their interiors to support their new conventional mission. This
includes modifications to accommodate 66 Navy SEALs and their gear, as
well as mission planning, command, control, communications and prep
areas. Some sources say the the SSGN’s embarked commando manifest can
swell to over 100 SEALs for surge operations.
The ability
to launch small unmanned aircraft has been added to the SSGNs. These
can provide overwatch and beyond line of sight communications relay with
forward deployed special operations forces. An upgraded command and
control suite was also added to facilitate these clandestine commando
operations. As such, an entire special operations campaign can be ran
from the bowels of an SSGN.
The boat’s
24 Trident nuclear ballistic missiles are removed and in their place are
154 BGM-109 Tomahawk cruise missiles, with seven missile per tube. This
turns the once doomsday capability of the Ohio-class into the a
‘air war in a box’ capable of sneaking into an enemy’s inner sanctum
and letting loose a barrage of cruise missiles targeting command and
control, air defense and high-value targets. Basically, the SSGNs have
the ability to bypass an enemy’s anti-access/area denial capability and
kick down a metaphorical door for follow-on attacks by manned aircraft
and other assets.
Seeing that
these were once the holder’s of a large portion of America’s nuclear
‘second strike deterrent,’ the now multi-role boats remain some of the
quietest submarines in the world, and as such they can also accommodate
some of the roles of a fast attack submarine. These include
surveillance, electronic eavesdropping and even anti-surface, anti-submarine and
anti-mine warfare, as they retain their forward torpedo tubes. Even a
automated launch and recovery system has been designed to fit in one of
the SSGN’s missile tubes that it can launch and recover heavy-weight
autonomous unmanned vehicles. A capability that opens up a whole new
world of possibilities for underseas warfare.
The Ohio-class
SSGNs are possibly America’s most powerful “all in one” conventional
weapon systems, packing many times the firepower of the Virginia-class fast attack submarine
and capable of supporting sustained special operations campaigns in
some of the most inhospitable territory in the world. They put literally
any target within 1000 miles of the coastline at risk of a surprise
attack and their versatility is amazing. With four boats now in the
water, at least two can be on patrol at any given time, with a third
being common, and their patrols are only limited to the food stores
onboard, allowing them to lie in wait for weeks or even months at a time
off hostile shores.
These boats have also been battle tested. The USS Florida in particular launched at total of 93 Tomahawks during Operation Odyssey Dawn (the campaign to take down Qaddafi in Libya), with
90 of the missiles being successful against their intended targets.
Other SSGNs and their crews have received high honors, including the
Battle Efficiency Award and the Meritorious Unit Commendation, since being converted over from Boomers.
Currently,
the SSGNs are slated to serve into the next decade, at which time they
will be retired in the order in which they were added to the fleet
originally. By that time, The USS Ohio will be over 40 years old.
There is no replacement in sight for these awesome machines as the Navy struggles to even replace its 14 newer Ohio-class boats that continue to act in the nuclear attack role. The solution for replacing the SSGNs as it sits now will be for an enlarged Virginia-class, each packing 40 cruise missiles and far less SEALs then their Ohio-class
counterparts. Although this may help diffuse some of the Navy’s
conventional sub-launched cruise missiles to more boats that can be in
more places at any given time, it does not replace the incredible
striking or special operations power of the an Ohio-class SSGN.
There is always the chance that the current SSGN fleet will have their lives prolonged again, or that newer Ohio-class
boats will be similarly converted when their SSBN replacements are
finally available, but this remains highly doubtful. The last boat of
the class, The USS Louisiana (SSBN-743) was commissioned in 1997, and by the time it has a replacement it may also be over 40 years old.
Until the last of its kind is de-fueled and scrapped, the ‘second chance’ Ohio-class SSGNs will remain the most flexible, sneaky, survivable and hard hitting conventional weapons and special operations platforms on the planet.
Developed
in the '60s at the height of the Cold War, it remains the fastest of
its kind till this very day. Its propulsion system was so powerful that
it required an overhaul after a single high-speed mission. It could
operate at unrivaled elevations, was ridiculously expensive to operate
and its very existence sent the US into a frenzy trying to counter it.
This may perfectly describe the famously brutish MiG-25 Foxbat, but it also describes another Soviet technological marvel of the time period, the more obscure but arguably more impressive Alfa Class interceptor super-submarine.
From the
day of its inception, the top secret Project 705, also know as the Lyra
Class in Russia, was designed to be extremely fast and maneuverable. As a
result, it drastically pioneered many technological frontiers to get
there.
The idea
behind Project 705 was that a very fast hunter-killer sub could chase
down any surface combatant while also being able to evade almost all
anti-submarine weapons fielded by NATO at the time. Although immense
speed was the project's primary design goal, the sub also had to be hard
to detect while running at lower speeds, especially via active sonar
and magnetic anomaly detectors.
Because the
project's main design goal, to reach speeds of over 40 knots submerged,
was so ambitious, a tighter, smaller hull form was required to achieve
it. This small size, displacing only 3,200 tons submerged (as opposed to
more than double that for the Victor Class of similar vintage),
meant that the crew size had to be dramatically decreased, thus very
innovative automation would have to be developed to allow a crew of 31
to do the job that a crew of double, triple, or even quadruple the size
would normally be tasked with. Because of these crew size restraints,
the Alfas were to be manned by an all officer and warrant officer
complement, plucked from the cream of the Russian Navy.
As a
result of the small crew and their limited access to sensitive
components, no maintenance was to be performed while at sea beyond
emergency repairs and the whole boat was ran from a single control room
with just eight officers on watch. During tests, the Soviet Navy found
that having such a small watch crew all huddled together largely in one
room, greatly decreased the reaction time during combat maneuvers. This
snappier decision making resulted in enhanced combat effectiveness was a
well-matched feature for the Alfa Class's blistering performance.
The Alfa
Class had a double hull design, with the inner hull handling the
enormous pressures that would be faced by the sub's extreme operating
depths (stated at over 2200 feet, with some sources putting its
crush-depth at over 3600 feet!), and a lighter outer hull that is
optimized for speed, maneuverability and acoustic stealth. For its high
strength and low weight, the Alfa's hulls were made out of massive
amounts of titanium.
Because
titanium was still an exotic metal at the time (the A-12 and SR-71 were
groundbreaking in the west for their wide use of the metal, which was bought through a fake shell company from Russia), it is said the US was in doubt that it would be used for this new class. Nearly
a decade passed between the class's first test runs and confirmation of
the hull metallurgy by western intelligence agencies. It is rumored
that titanium shavings from the floor at a St. Petersburg shipyard,
where the Alfa Class subs were built, were smuggled out of the country
via espionage, thus proving that titanium was indeed the metal that was
being used largely in this high-speed class's construction.
None-the-less,
shaping and welding huge pieces of titanium for the sub's hull was said
to have been a major challenge, and some reports say that the entire
construction shed where the Alfa boats were built was filled with inert
argon gas and the builders had to put on moon suits while welding her
light-weight but super-strong hull together.
The
submarine's inner pressure hull was separated into six main
compartments, of which only one was habitable for the crew's for daily
use, the rest being packed with weapons, sensors, nuclear propulsion and
other machinery. Although this greatly hampered livability aboard the
relatively small, 267 foot nuclear submarine, it allowed the command and
living section to be a pressure vessel unto itself, which would have
greatly increased the crew's survivability if they were struck by an
enemy torpedo or depth charge during combat. The Alfas were also unique
in that they had a crew escape module that could take all the crew
safely to the surface should the ship be catastrophically damaged. This
was said to have been a result of the horrific events surrounding the K-19 incident.
The most
outrageous aspect of the Alfa Class design was its exotic nuclear
reactor, which was a compact and incredibly powerful unit that was
cooled by molten metal (lead-bismuth). The advantages to such a reactor
setup are numerous include greater efficiency and being less prone to
leakage, but the disadvantages were also quite severe, which you can read about here.
One of the
most prominent disadvantages of the Alfa Class's lead-bismuth nuclear
reactor setup was that it could not be shut down unless a source of
super-heated off-board steam was available to keep the molten
lead-bismuth coolant in a non-solid state. If it were allowed to
solidify, which happened at 257' F, the reactor would be unable to be
restarted as its fuel rods would be frozen in the solidified metal
coolant. Similar to a fire that constantly needs to be fed or you
literally have to build a new one from scratch, the Alfa Class's nuclear
reactors were innovative but extremely demanding.
Seeing as
the USSR's port-side infrastructure was more of an afterthought compared
to the high-tech submarines and ships that relied on it, often times an
external steady steam supply was less than reliable. Thus the subs
would have to run their reactors continuously while in port to maintain
their coolant in a liquefied state. Such a situation meant that the
ability to do deep maintenance on the reactors was a challenge and they
were never really built to be ran continuously for extreme periods of
time in the first place. Thus their lifespan was greatly reduced, and it
is said that four of the seven Alfa Class submarines met their
retirement early due to entombed, or 'frozen' reactors cores that could
not maintain their coolant's high temperature needs.
The Alfa's
cutting-edge and sometimes less than reliable automated systems, small
crews, and their needy reactors, kept them in port much more than their
traditionally configured, nuclear hunter-killer submarine cousins. Thus,
like their MiG-25 analogues, the Alfa Class boats were used as alert
interceptors instead of on long escort screening missions or patrol
duties. They would wait in port until a target was detected, at which
time they would scramble out of their harbor and sprint to that target's
last known location. There they would begin their cat and mouse game,
and this was a game they were incredibly good at.
These
'interceptor subs' had a single five bladed main screw tied to a
40,000hp steam turbine that could blast the boat through the depths at
unprecedented speeds. The Alfa Class was also equipped with two
additional smaller and super-quiet, 100kw, electrically powered
propulsors, that were used for stealth maneuvering. Different sources
state different speeds that the Alfa Class boats were capable of
hitting, but largely their top speed was said to be in excess of 43kts.
Some have even said these boats were clocked doing over 50kts while
running from an armada of American anti-submarine assets. Keep in mind
that the American Los Angeles Class SSNs,
many of which are still in service with the USN today, are said to have
a top speed of around 35kts and a dive capability stated as 950 feet.
Really, this number is said to be closer to 1250 feet, with a
crush-depth of 1500, which is not even close to the Alfa's low-ball
estimated maximum operating depth of just over 2200 feet.
The
Alfa boats were not just ridiculously fast and deep diving, but they
were also super maneuverable, and said to be able to accelerate at a
blistering rate (some reports say they could go from a dead stop to full
speed in under two minutes, while others put it at just under 90
seconds). There small size and light weight meant that they could also
come to a dead stop on a dime while changing depth and course rapidly
via her gobs of excess power. All these qualities, along with her
stealthy shape and skin coatings, put the Alfas outside the engagement
envelope of the majority of anti-sub weaponry fielded at the time of her
lead ship's commissioning.
According
to a Navy anti-submarine officer that served during the days when the
Alfa Class was not yet fully understood and highly-feared on — or below —
the seas, these boats were "loud as hell" when speeding toward their
targets or muscling around during tight maneuvers, but once when they
were operating on their propulsors, they were as quiet as any Russian
hunter-killer sub deployed at the time. Additionally, the Alfa's ability
to rapidly dive so deep, well below the thermocline, gave them an ability to disappear and reappear over fairly large distances in a relatively short period of time.
The Alfa
Class was not a particularly heavily armed attack submarine, being able
to carry 18 torpedoes. But this arsenal could include the 250mph, supercavitating, rocket assisted VA-111 Shkval,
which could put a western attack sub on the defensive in seconds. All
things considered, the Alfa Class's limited magazine was fine
considering that these boats ended up being interceptors as opposed to
true long-range hunter-killer subs. As for the Alfa Class's ability to
detect enemy submarines and ships, the sonar systems installed were
state-of-the-art, and highly capable, but their high degree of
automation and smaller size meant resulted in them being temperamental.
This, combined with these boats' small crew meant that sensor system
failures, even relatively rudimentary ones, could result in mission
kill.
In the end a
total of just seven Alfa Class subs were built, many less than the USSR
led on to be in the works, and the first in the class, The Leningrad,
was more of a prototype than an operational boat, as it suffered from
major defects with its titanium hull and higher maintenance reactor
design than follow-on production units. Still, these boats, and their
highly secretive development cycle, set off a scramble in the west that
resulted in new torpedo designs, mainly the US Mk48 ADCAP program and the UK's Spearfish torpedo program,
improved detection systems, all of which were needed to detect and
mitigate the Alfa's raw performance edge. Additionally, the fear that
the Soviets would build up their fleet with many dozens of these small,
high-speed subs spurred further investment in US and its allies' naval
anti-submarine capabilities.
As the late
1970s turned into the early 1980s, like its high and fast flying MiG-25
counterpart, the threat posed by a small force of Alfa Class subs was
realized to be more terrifying on paper than it was in real life. Yet
some naval historians state that the Alfa Class, even with its noisy
emissions during its high-speed runs, could have been paired with
super-quiet and slower attack subs to devastating effects and that the
Class's biggest missed opportunity was how it was implemented,
regardless of how reliable and expensive they were to operate.
On the
Russian side of the Alfa Class's legacy equation, evolved versions of
many of the boat's innovative automated systems and structural design
elements were carried over onto the highly successful Akula Class hunter-killer sub series, which still serves with the Russian and Indian Navies today.
By
1995 all of the charismatic but very expensive to operate (they didn't
get the nickname "Golden Fish" for nothing) and temperamental Alfa Class
boats were either decommissioned or previously written off. Since their
heyday, submarine design has concentrated much less of brute speed and
deep operating depths and more on stealth, persistence and
affordability, both in terms of life-cycle costs and acquisition costs.
Still, just as with its equally operationally unbalanced, high and
super-fast flying MiG-25 cousin, the Alfas will be remembered as the
shadowy hot rod subs of the Cold War. Thoroughbred boats that may have
had their clear deficiencies, but that pushed the technological barrier
to the edge of collapse and back again during their relatively short
operational lives.
Tyler
Rogoway is a defense journalist and photographer that maintains the
website Foxtrot Alpha for Jalopnik.com You can reach Tyler with story
ideas or direct comments regarding this or any other defense topic via
the email address Tyler@Jalopnik.com
Akula-class submarine
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article is about the Soviet/Russian submarine class with NATO reporting name "Akula". For the submarine class with native Russian name "Akula" (Акула), see Typhoon class submarine.
surfaced:
8,140 tons Akula I and Akula I Improved
8,450–8,470 tons Akula II and III
submerged:
12,770 tons Akula I and Akula I Improved
13,400–13,800 tons Akula II and III
Length:
110.3 m (362 ft) for Akula I and Akula I Improved
113.3 m for Akula II and Akula III
Chiblis Surface Search radar
Medvyeditsa-945 Navigation system
Molniya-M Satellite communications
MGK-80 Underwater communications
Tsunami, Kiparis, Anis, Sintez and Kora Communications antennas
Paravan Towed VLF Antenna
Vspletsk Combat direction system
Project 971 Щука-Б (Shchuka-B, 'Shchuka' meaning "pike", NATO reporting name "Akula"), is a nuclear-poweredattack submarine (SSN) first deployed by the Soviet Navy in 1986. The class is also known under the name Bars (meaning "snow leopard").[6]
There are four sub-classes or flights of Shchuka, consisting of the
original seven "Akula I" submarines which were commissioned between 1984
and 1990, six "Improved Akula" submarines commissioned between 1991 and
2009, one "Akula II" submarine commissioned in 1995 and one "Akula III"
commissioned in 2001.[citation needed] The Russians call all of the submarines Shchuka-B, regardless of modifications.[7]
Some potential for confusion may exist, as the name Akula (Акула meaning "shark" in Russian) was used by the Soviets for a different submarine, the Projekt 941 which is known in the West as the Typhoon-class. By contrast, the Projekt 971 (the subject of this article) was named Shchuka-B by the Soviets but designated as the "Akula-class" by the West after the name of the lead ship, K-284.
The launch of the first submarine in 1985, according to defense analyst Norman Polmar,
"shook everyone [in the West] up", as Western intelligence agencies had
not expected the Soviet Union to produce such a boat for another ten
years.[8]
The Akula incorporates a double hull system composed of an inner
pressure hull and an outer "light" hull. This allows more freedom in the
design of the exterior hull shape, resulting in a submarine with more
reserve buoyancy than its western analogs. This design requires more
power than single-hull submarines[citation needed] because of the greater wetted surface area, which increases drag.
The distinctive "bulb" or "can" seen on top of the Akula's rudder houses its towed sonar array, when retracted. Most Akulas have the SOCKS[citation needed]
hydrodynamic sensors, which detect changes in temperature and salinity.
They are located on the leading edge of the sail, on the outer hull
casing in front of the sail and on the bottom of the hull forward of the
sail. All Akulas have two T-shaped doors on the aft bottom of the hull,
on either side[citation needed].
These are where the OK-300 auxiliary propulsion devices are located,
which can propel the submarine at up to 5 knots (9.3 km/h).[citation needed]
Line drawing showing the starboard side of the Project 971 (Akula) Soviet submarine. The white cheatline marks the boat's waterline.
All Akulas are armed with four 533 mm torpedo tubes which can use Type 53 torpedoes or the SS-N-15 Starfish missile, and four 650 mm torpedo tubes which can use Type 65 torpedoes or the SS-N-16
Stallion missile. These torpedo tubes are arranged in two rows of four
tubes each. Improved Akulas, Akula IIs have an additional six 533 mm
torpedo tubes mounted externally, capable of launching possibly up to 6
decoys each[citation needed].
The external tubes are mounted outside the pressure hull in one row,
above the torpedo tubes, and can only be reloaded in port or with the
assistance of a submarine tender. The 650 mm tubes can be fitted with
liners to use the 533 mm weaponry. The submarine is also able to use its
torpedo tubes to deploy mines.
Current status
As with many Soviet/Russian craft, information on the status of the
Akula Class submarines is sparse, at best. Information provided by
sources varies widely.
Akula-I (project 971)
The four known variants within the Akula class.
Of the seven original Akula-I submarines, only three are known to
still be in service. These boats are equipped with MGK-500 Skat sonar
system (with NATO reporting name Shark Gill).[9][10]
The lead boat of the class, K-284 'Akula' was decommissioned in 2001,
apparently to help save money in the cash-strapped Russian Navy. K-322
'Kashalot' and K-480 'Bars' [Currently Ak Bars] are in reserve. K-480
'Bars' was put into reserve in 1998,[1] and is being dismantled in February 2010.[11] 'Pantera' returned to service in January 2008 after a comprehensive overhaul.[12] All were retrofitted with the SOCKS hydrodynamic sensors except Volk. All submarines before K-391 Bratsk have reactor coolant scoops that are similar to the ones of the Typhoon class SSBNs, long and tubular. Bratsk
and subsequent submarines have reactor coolant scoops similar to the
ones on the Oscar IIs, short and (the Typhoon, Akula and Oscar classes
use the similar OK-650 reactor).
Akula-I Improved (project 971 and 971I)
The six Akulas of this class are all thought to be in service. They
are quieter than the original MGK-500 Skat sonar system on Akula-I is
upgraded to the MGK-501 Skat-MS. Sources also disagree as to whether
construction of this class has been suspended, or if there are a further
two units planned.
Improved Akula-I Hulls: K-328 Leopard, K-461 Volk, K-154 Tigr, K-419 Kuzbass, K-295 Samara and K-152 Nerpa. These submarines are much quieter than early Akula class submarines and all have the SOCKS hydrodynamic sensors except Leopard.[13]
The Akula-I Improved submarines have 6 533 mm decoy launching tubes, as
do subsequent submarines. They have a different arrangement of limber
holes on the outer hull than Akula Is. Nerpa and Iribis (not completed)
have a different rescue chamber in the sail.[citation needed] I can be distinguished by the large dome on the top surface.
Akula-II (project 971U)
K-157 Vepr is the only completed Akula II[citation needed].
The Akula II is three meters longer and displaces about 700 tons
(submerged displacement) more than the Akula I. The added space was used
for additional quieting measures. The MGK-501 Skat sonar system on
Akula-I is replaced to a new MGK-540 Skat-3 sonar system,.[14] K-157 Vepr became the first Soviet submarine that was quieter than the latest U.S. attack submarines of that time, which was the Improved Los Angeles class (SSN 751 and later).[15] Two of these submarines were used to build the Borei class SSBNs.
Akula-III (project 971M)
K-335 Gepard is the only completed Akula III (see table for others)[citation needed](There
is no AKULA III NATO classification). It is longer and has a larger
displacement compared to the Akula II. Also, it has an enlarged sail and
a different towed-array dispenser on the vertical fin. Again, more
noise reduction methods were employed. The Gepard is the most
advanced Russian submarine before the submarines of the Severodvinsk and
Borei classes are commissioned. One of this class was used to complete
the Borei SSBNs.
The Soviet advances in sound quieting were of considerable concern to
the West, for acoustics was long considered the most significant
advantage in U.S. submarine technology compared to the Soviets.
Akula class submarine under way
In 1983–1984 the Japanese firm Toshiba sold sophisticated, nine axis
milling equipment to the Soviets along with the computer control
systems, which were developed by Norwegian firm Kongsberg Vaapenfabrik.
U.S Navy officials and Congressmen announced that this technology
enabled the Soviet submarine builders to produce more accurate and
quieter propellers.[16]
{{This reference should be expanded to include the information that
the "Toshiba" company listed was Toshiba Machine Tool Company (TMTC) and
not in any way related to Toshiba Corporation, the electronics firm. It
should also note that TMTC provided only the actual machine lathe and
the numeric controller which enabled the lathe to turn the propellers'
complex curves was provided separately by Kongsberg Vaapenfabrik
directly to the Soviet shipyard. No U.S. equipment or technology was
involved in the sales}}
Due to the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991, production of all Akulas slowed.
The 1999–2000 edition of Jane's Fighting Ships incorrectly listed the first Akula-II as Viper (the actual name is "Vepr", "wild boar" in Russian), commissioned November 25, 1995, Gepard (Cheetah), launched 1999 and commissioned December 5, 2001, and Nerpa, laid down in 1993[1] began sea trials in October, 2008 and was commissioned by the Indian Navy as INS Chakra II in April 2012.[17]
Lease to India
Three hundred Indian Navy personnel were trained in Russia for the operation of the Akula II submarine Nerpa.
India has finalized a deal with Russia, in which at the end of the
lease of these submarines, it has an option to buy them. The submarine
is named INS Chakra as was the previous India-leased Soviet Charlie-I SSGN.[29] INS Chakra was officially inducted into the Indian Navy on April 4, 2012.[30][31]
Whereas the Russian Navy's Akula-II could be equipped with 28
nuclear-capable cruise missiles with a striking range of 3,000 km
(1,620 nmi; 1,864 mi), the Indian version is reportedly armed with the
300 km (162 nmi; 186 mi)-range 3M-54 Klub nuclear-capable missiles.[32]
Missiles with ranges greater than 300 km (162 nmi; 186 mi) cannot be
exported due to arms control restrictions, since Russia is a signatory
to the MTCR treaty.
Russia said in December 2014 that it is ready to lease India more
nuclear-powered submarines a day after President Vladimir Putin and
Prime Minister Narendra Modi pledged to deepen defence ties.[33]
In January 2015, it was reported that India was involved in negotiations involving the leasing of the Kashalot and the Iribis.[19]
Nerpa 2008 accident
On 27 October 2008, it was reported that K-152 Nerpa of the Russian Pacific Fleet had begun her sea trials in the Sea of Japan before handover under a lease agreement to the Indian Navy.[34] On 8 November 2008, while conducting one of these trials, an accidental activation of the halon-based
fire-extinguishing system took place in the fore section of the vessel.
Within seconds the halon gas had displaced all breathable air from the
compartment. As a result, 20 people (17 civilians and 3 seamen)[35][36] were killed by asphyxiation. Dozens of others suffered freon-related injuries and were evacuated to an unknown port in Primorsky Krai.[37] This was the worst accident in the Russian navy since the loss of the submarine K-141 Kursk in 2000. The submarine itself did not sustain any serious damage and there was no release of radiation.[38]
Recent overseas deployments
In August 2009, the news media reported that two Akula-class submarines operated off the East Coast of the United States,
with one of the submarines being identified as a Project 971 Shchuka-B
type. U.S. military sources noted that this was the first known Russian
submarine deployment to the western Atlantic since the end of the Cold War, raising concerns within U.S. military and intelligence communities.[39] The U.S. Northern Command confirmed that this 2009 Akula-class submarine deployment did occur.[40]
In August 2012, the news media reported that another Akula-class submarine operated in the Gulf of Mexico purportedly undetected for over a month, sparking controversy within U.S. military and political circles, with U.S. Senator John Cornyn of the Senate Armed Services Committee demanding details of this deployment from Admiral Jonathan W. Greenert, the Chief of Naval Operations.[41]
Design began in the 1960s when the NII-24 research institute was ordered to produce a new weapon capable of engaging nuclear submarines.
The merger of the institute and GSKB-47 created the Research Institute
of Applied Hydromechanics, who continued with the design and production
of the Shkval.[2]
Previously operational as early as 1977, the torpedo was announced as being deployed in the 1990s.[2] The Shkval is intended as a countermeasure against torpedoes launched by undetected enemy submarines.[2]
Shkval nose cone
Shkval rear, showing the guidance fins and the electronics connector
The VA-111 is launched from 533 mm torpedo tubes at 50 knots (93 km/h) before its solid-fuel rocket
ignites and propels it to speeds of 200 knots (370 km/h). Some reports
indicate that speeds of 250+ knots may be achieved, and that work on a
300-knot (560 km/h) version was underway.[3] This high speed is due to supercavitation, whereby a gas bubble, which envelops the torpedo, is created by outward deflection of water by its specially-shaped nose cone and the expansion of gases from its engine. This minimizes water contact with the torpedo, significantly reducing drag.[2]
Early designs may have relied solely on an inertial guidance system.[4][5] The initial design was intended for nuclear warhead delivery. Later designs reportedly include terminal guidance and conventional warheads.[6]
The torpedo steers using four fins that skim the inner surface of the
supercavitation gas bubble. To change direction, the fin(s) on the
inside of the desired turn are extended, and the opposing fins are
retracted.[2]
Manufacture
The torpedo is manufactured in Kyrgyzstan
by a state-owned factory. In 2012 the Russian government asked for a
75% ownership of the factory in exchange for writing off massive Kyrgyz
debt to Russia.[7]
Espionage
In 2000, former U.S. Naval intelligence officer and an alleged DIA spy Edmond Pope
(Captain, USN, retired) was held, tried, and convicted in Russia of
espionage related to information he obtained about the Shkval weapon
system. Russian President Vladimir Putin pardoned Pope in December 2000, allegedly on humanitarian grounds because he had bone cancer.[8][9]
Specifications
There are at least three variants:
VA-111 Shkval – Original variant; GOLIS autonomous inertial guidance.
"Shkval 2" - Current variant; believed to have additional guidance systems, possibly via the use of vectored thrust, and with much longer range.
A less capable version currently being exported to various third world navies. The export version is referred to as "Shkval-E".
Submarines are a lot like Batman, they are covered in rubber and are
great fighters, but they are gadget toting stealth detectives at their
core. Of the Navy’s sub force, there is no boat more capable at
sleuthing under the high seas than the heavily modified Seawolf Class submarine, the USS Jimmy Carter SSN-23.
The 12,150 ton displacement USS Jimmy Carter, whose namesake qualified in Submarines during his pre-Presidential naval career, is one of only three Seawolf Class submarines ever built. The Seawolfs are relics of the final stages of the Cold War and are the most lethal fast attack submarines
ever created. The F-22 Raptors of the sea, they could dive incredibly
deep, could haul along at speeds approaching 40 knots, and they were
quieter than any other nuclear submarine on the planet. They were also
armed with a cache of 50 weapons and wide 660mm torpedo tubes.
Seeing as
the first boat was launched during the “peace dividend” years of the
1990s, its $3B price tag was thought to be too high and its ‘blue water’
sub hunting mission was becoming a secondary priority for the US Navy
as the majority of Russia’s submarine fleet was rotting next to a pier.
Instead, future subs would need to be more multi-role minded, cheaper to acquire and be more at home in shallow, littoral environments close to shore. As a result, the Seawolf class was replaced by the smaller, cheaper, and somewhat more flexible Virginia Class that remains in serial production today.
Regardless of the type’s cancellation, the Navy did receive three Seawolf Class boats, the Seawolf, Connecticut and the Jimmy Carter. With the Jimmy Carter, the Navy took advantage of the Seawolf Class’sdeep-diving
and ultra-quiet capabilities and created a one-off subclass that would
become part of a small but very proud lineage of shadowy American
submarines that were highly modified for clandestine surveillance and
espionage operations.
The Jimmy Carter, which was commissioned in 2005,
differs from the standard Seawolf Class submarine via a slew of
modifications made during her initial construction. A massive 100 foot
long hull extension gives the Jimmy Carter a length only second to the massive Ohio Class
Submarines (SSBN/SSGN) in US inventory. This extension, called the
Multi-Mission Platform, is described as a ‘moon bay’ with an hourglass
shaped passage running down the center of it.
This
rounded underwater hangar of sorts can hold outsized deep-diving
vehicles, unmanned vehicles, custom-built heavy machinery, spools of
cable, special forces supplies and craft, deployable sensors and
weapons, along with just about anything else you can imagine. Through a
lockout chamber system built within the MMP hold, divers, commandos and
remotely operated vehicles can be deployed and recovered.
Other modifications to the Jimmy Carter
include a set of precision thrusters, both fore and aft, that allow the
sub to hold its position perfectly within space while conducting
sensitive mechanical operations or when quietly trawling shallow waters.
The Carter also has a large reconfigurable cargo bay, just off
the MMP’s lockout chamber/ocean interface, for servicing vehicles and
preparing for clandestine missions.
A modular
command center can also be tailored to the specific mission at hand,
with different configurations available for special operations, deep sea
espionage, mine warfare, specialized sensor or unmanned systems deployment and just about any other mission you can think of.
The Jimmy Carter’s
mast can be easily adapted to sport unique, purpose-built electronic
surveillance and communications sensors. There is also said to be a
remotely operated vehicle handling system that may feature the ability
to recover autonomous vehicles and even aerial drones with limited human
direction.
Finally,
SSN-23 can accommodate an extra 50 commandos or mission personnel above
the standard crew size of about 130. Instead of sleeping in the torpedo
room or other improvised areas as is common for special operations
soldiers aboard submarines, this berthing was built into the original
ship’s design, making long endurance deployments more palatable.
Because the hull was lengthened 100 feet to accommodate many of the Jimmy Carter’s additional capabilities, the boat did not have to give up the baseline Seawolf Class fast attack
and strike abilities. This means the vessel can protect itself in
hostile waters or be tasked for traditional fast attack submarine
duties, although it seems like this may be a fairly rare occurrence.
So what does the Jimmy Carter do with all its modifications? Like its USS Halibut, USS Seawolf, USS Richard Russell and USS Parche, which were modified ‘special mission’ subs that came before it, the Jimmy Carter conducts espionage, and could even conduct sabotage, in a variety of manners.
Its
ability to hold perfectly on station at great depths, all while
deploying custom built ROVs and other elaborate hardware, allows it to
tap communications and data cables running along the sea floor. In the
past, this was done by splicing in tailor made recording devices,
leaving them for a period of time, and recovering them at a later date
for exploitation. Today, in an age of fiber optics, more exotic forms of
real-time seabed-based communication eavesdropping could theoretically
be facilitated by the Jimmy Carter, with the NSA rumored to one of the boat’s biggest ‘customers.’
Tapping the world’s massive underwater arteries of data is one thing, but the Carter could
also be able to sabotage communications nodes via simply cutting
through the wire with large claws or torches, or by setting up
mechanisms that could do similar tasks on command sometime in the
future, should the need arise. Much of this technology has been
pioneered in the deep sea oil drilling field (think Deepwater Horizon),
which can be adapted and used ‘off label’ for military purposes. Such
an ability could partially blind the enemy and limit their global
situational awareness and command and control capabilities during a time
of war without actually ‘kinetically’ attacking land targets in a traditional sense.
The Carter
can also use its underwater manipulation abilities and sensors to find
things that foreign governments have lost. Not only can it examine those
things up close on the sea floor, but if they are within the dimensions
of the sub’s MMP bays, it can recover them and transport them to a safe
place for further examination.
The Jimmy Carter
can also perform passive signals and communications intelligence
missions via moving in close to a country’s shoreline and utilizing its
easily customizable mast to deploy aerials that are purpose built to pickup particular radio frequency transmissions.
This can be as focused as searching for a single cellular phone
transmission in a city, to soaking up an enemy’s electronic order of
battle, including air and sea defense radar emissions and command and
control communications and data exchanges.
Although all fast attack and guided missile submarines have these capabilities to varying degrees, the Carter’s
modular mission center and adaptable systems allow for the installation
of new, experimental sensors and command and control interfaces without
heavily interrupting the boat’s normal operations or demanding long
in-port modification timelines.
Because SSN-23 has what equates to large hangar bay, berthing for 50 and a configurable command and control space, the Jimmy Carter
is a special forces dream machine. It can carry out-sized payloads
inside its MMP bays, such as boats and underwater speeders, as well as
throngs of sensitive gear and dozens of commandos in comparative luxury
within its pressure hull. It can also deploy small UAVs for special
operations overwatch and communications relay, not to mention it can
also carry a standard seal delivery vehicle dock on its spine.
Because of its unique modular nature, the USS Jimmy Carter can act as something as an operational test ship
for leading edge technologies. It is rumored that it was the first
submarine to be equipped with an aforementioned unmanned aerial vehicle,
which it supposedly launched shortly after North Korea barraged a South Korean island with artillery shells, to assess the damage.
Because of
its large MMP bay, and its ability to carry ‘piggyback’ payloads, just
like other fast attack and guided missile submarines, it would be the
perfect vessel to field unmanned undersea combat vehicles. Not only
could these be used as scouts, navigating closer to foreign shores for
spying purposes, but they could also act in concert with the Carter for
hunter-killer operations. Because these vessels are unmanned, they
could use complex, coordinated tactics, data-linking their information
to their Carter mothership. By fusing their sensor data with the Jimmy Carter’s,
a large increase in situational awareness and survivability may be
possible. Just like unmanned combat aircraft, they could range out a
distance from their mothership turn on their active sonars, giving away
their position but obtaining critical sensor data, all the while the Carter’s stays masked in silence a distance away.
Mine
warfare, of both a defensive and offensive nature, is another aspect of
undersea combat that the Carter is remarkably well suited for. Its
massive cargo space can be used to house mines and other autonomous
weapons, while the boat’s ROVs can help deploy them. These same
attributes can also be used for deploying unmanned craft and external
sensors for detecting and disabling enemy mines, especially high-end
ones that can lay on the sea floor for long periods of time, just
waiting for the right acoustic signature to come alive and prosecute a
surprise attack from below.
Finally,
so many of the same warfighting and espionage capabilities that this
unique machine possesses can also be used for oceanic research. The
craft’s amazing array of sonars, both passive and active, could be
re-roled for scientific exploration, from mapping the seabed to seismic
research. I know what you are thinking, why wasn’t this incredible asset
used to search for MH370, or any advanced military submarine for that
matter. Sadly, I cannot answer that question aside from the possibility
that operating around a foreign coalition could give away some of the
boat’s unique capabilities and expose some of its inherent limitations.
This goes for any advanced submarine really.
With the
threat of a new Cold War possibly emerging and with China’s rapid
expansion, both as an economic and military power, the USS Jimmy Carter
is probably in more demand than at any time in its decade long career.
When you consider how wide ranging we have discovered the government’s
domestic communications spying programs are here at home, you can use
your imagination as to just how busy the NSA and other US spy services
have been abroad. Just like how the CIA went to the Navy SEALs for one
of the hardest clandestine special forces operations in history, the NSA
calls upon the Navy’s giant multi-purpose spy ship to do the same, that
being the one of a kind USS Jimmy Carter.
http://nextbigfuture.com/
July 01, 2015
A 21st Century Submarines arms race could see numbers exceeding the 1000 German U-boats of WW2
Currently the USA has about 55 nuclear submarines that cost about $1-3 billion each.
On average the cost of each submarine is about $1.6 to 2 billion. The
annual operating cost for any of these subs is approximately $21
million. The typical service life of a nuclear sub is about 30 years.
Refueling and modernizing at the half-life point costs about $200
million. Near the end of the service life, another refueling and
extensive overhaul for about $410 million will extend the life another
12 years, for a total service life of 42 years. This totals to about
$3.6 billion in constant dollars over the lifetime of a Seawolf class
sub.
Roughly $100 million for the Swedish Gotland submarine
Current DARPA is a robotic surface ship but robotic submarines will likely be developed
James Fanell (x- Navy captain and naval expert), prediced China's Navy would grow
to include 99 submarines of all types, four aircraft carriers, 102
destroyers and frigates, 26 corvettes, 73 amphibious ships and 111
missile craft. All told, Fanell predicted, the Chinese Navy of 2030 will
comprise 415 ships. This is up from about 300 ships now. This is based
upon a projection of the current rate of production for the Chinese
Navy. China building about 10 new submarines each year.
If there were an escalation of the submarine arms race that is currently
beginning and the shift to low cost Air independent diesel submarines
continued, then the 55 expensive US nuclear submarines could eventually
be replaced by 1000 to 2000 robotic submarines and AIP diesel
submarines. The USA and China could afford to spend $5 to 15 billion per
year building up to the 1000 to 2000 low cost and robotic submarine
fleet levels over ten years.
DigitalGlobe imagery published on Google Earth showing what appears
to be a midget submarine at the Wuchang shipyard in Wuhan, China. A Type
041 conventional submarine berthed at the same site in January is shown
for comparison. (IHS/Google, DigitalGlobe)
KS 500A submarine specifications
— displacement — 510 tons;
— length of 37 meters;
— width — 4.5 m;
— maximum depth — 250 meters;
— max speed / economy — 20/7 knots;
— while the autonomous sailing — 3 weeks;
— range of up to 2 thousand miles.
— crew min / max people -5/10
— landing capacity — 14 people.
US Robotic anti-submarine ship
Speaking at a National Defense Association Event in Virginia,DARPA
program manager Ellison Urban outlined why the Navy needs sub-hunting
boat bots.
DARPA has Robotic submarines in development. The Anti-Submarine Warfare
Continuous Trail Unmanned Vessels (ACTUV) will be reportedly able to
operate autonomously up to 90 days. The 132-foot autonomous boat will
guide other US military vessels to the sub's location to destroy it.
The ACTUV prototype dubbed "Sea Hunter" will be ready for extensive tests in the fall of 2015.
An unspecified number of the four-engined Y-8GX6 (Y-8Q) turboprops have
now been inducted into the North Sea Fleet, which is responsible for the
maritime domain that stretches from the North Korean border to
Lianyungang (Jiangsu Province), some three-and-a-half years after the
type was first revealed in late 2011.
No further details about the entry-into-service were revealed in the
report, which appeared on a Chinese defence blogging site, except that
the Y-8GX6 (Y-8Q) may be rolled out to the PLAN's East and South Sea
Fleets at a later date.
Seen when it first emerged in late 2011, the Y-8GX6 (Y-8Q) maritime
patrol and anti-submarine warfare aircraft is now understood to have
entered service with the PLAN's North Sea Fleet. Source: FYJS web page
While the industry is not likely to meet the targets set by the current
armament programme, it will probably be able to produce 50-70% of the
weapons and equipment required by 2020.
Russia intends to restore its navy’s global reach, but given the time
needed to renovate shipyards, develop new designs, and build large
ships, the effort will not be fully launched until the 2020s. The
earliest that Russia could built a new aircraft carrier is 2027, while
new destroyers are still on drawing board, with the first unlikely to be
commissioned for ten years.
Russia can realistically expect to get modernized and repaired frigates
and some destroyers and cruisers. They should also have a handful of new
ballastic missile submarines and some multi-purpose diesel submarines.
Some Incomplete Frigates could be sent from Russia to India in order to get the Ukrainian Turbines
The fourth and fifth Project 11356 frigates, built for the Russian Navy
at the Kaliningrad Yantar shipyard, might be sent to India. A source in
the Defense Ministry informed Lenta.ru of this. Such a move will make it
possible to equip the ships with turbines of Ukrainian manufacture that
were previously ordered but which Kiev now refuses to supply since they
would be used for equipping Russian warships. The first three ships
will be transferred to the Russian Navy on time.
In
terms of looks, if a DC-8 and a P-3 ever drank to much high octane fuel
and had a steamy one-night stand, the Kawasaki P-1 would be born nine
months later. Japan’s home-made and high-tech multi-mission maritime patrol aircraft is a purpose-built weapon system with a lot going for it, and Japan hopes potential foreign customers agree.
Japan began working on the P-1 as a replacement for their aging P-3 Orions after the Lockheed P-7 was
cancelled in the 1990s and after no other available type seemed to meet
their needs. This occurred in a very similar manner as how the U.S.
Navy developed the Boeing P-8 Poseidon.
The big difference between the P-8 and the P-1 being that the P-8 was
adapted from the most prolific airliner of all time, the 737, while the
P-1 was a clean-sheet design that is specifically configured for the
long-range multi-role maritime patrol mission set. Most notably, the P-1
is slightly smaller than the P-8 yet it features four turbofan engines
instead of two.
Many have
besmirched the P-8 for only having two jet engines. Its challenging
mission set, that often sees the aircraft flying to very remote areas
and at lower altitudes where birds often share the airspace, does
question the logic of procuring a twin-engine aircraft in such a role.
Boeing and the Navy have posited that the P-8 can operate at higher
altitudes with its improved sensors and that engine technology has come a
long way in recent decades. How higher operating altitudes and two
engines instead of four will affect the P-8’s effectiveness and safety
remains unclear, although the jet has seemed to have gotten good reviews
after several high-profile public events that it was involved in. Those
being the search for MH370 and monitoring China’s island building in the South China Sea. Still, these tasks are a far cry from hunting elusive enemy submarines in all weather conditions
.
The stubby Kawasaki P-1 also features a Magnetic Anomaly Detector (MAD) boom
on its tail, a feature that was dropped from the U.S. Navy’s P-8
equipment list due to cost and integration issues. The MAD is used to
detect submerged submarines and many in the P-3 community were very
concerned that it was omitted from the Poseidon’s final configuration,
especially consider the exploding threat that submarines, especially long-diving and relatively cheap Air Independent Propulsion equipped diesel submarines, pose to American interests around the globe.
Other
differences between the P-8 and the P-1 are the latter’s massive cockpit
windows, which allows the pilots to become a little more engaged with
surface searches. The P-1 has a bit smaller cabin than its American
peer, a reality that may limit future upgrades and added capabilities,
something the P-8 is already experiencing.
Also, although a fresh design has clear advantages, the P-8 is a next
generation 737 at heat, which means parts and support are not an issue.
The P-1
first flew in 2007 (as the XP-1) and entered limited service in 2013. It
was originally designed together with another of Japan’s indigenous
aircraft designs, the XC-2 (now known as the C-2)
that was meant to replace Japan’s C-130s and C-1s. Although both
aircraft became very different designs in the end, the C-2 and the P-1
have similar components and subsystems, which saved billions of dollars
in their development.
The P-1 is
really a cutting-edge design. By taking a “clean-sheet” approach,
Kawasaki was able to incorporate some unique systems in the jet that
help with its primary mission. The main one being a “fly-by-light”
control system. This is similar to fly-by-wire but instead of
traditional wiring and communications interfaces between the controls,
flight control computer and control surface actuators, a fiber-optic
system is used. Not only does this system help with reliability and
upgrades down the road, but it also causes less electromagnetic
interference with the aircraft’s sensitive mission hardware.
The P-1 has
roughly similar sensor suite to that of the P-8, although the
effectiveness of either one when compared to each-other remains unknown.
Some of the sensors and mission equipment installed on the P-1 include a
Toshiba HPS-106 Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar system
which has four antennas, giving it constant 360 degree coverage. It
packs a self protection suite including missile launch detectors and the
aircraft also has an infrared and electro-optical turret for examining
and tracking surface targets. A MAD (like the P-3 has it replaces),
a LIDAR system and 30 sonobuoys ports that can be pre-loaded with room
for another 60 sonobuoys stored in racks in the cabin, are all there for
chasing subs. These systems are tied to a user interface in the cabin
that uses intuitive control and artificial intelligence to predict a
submarines movements, giving operators the best probable options for
continuing to track one using the aircraft’s various systems as a single
integrated force.
Other
systems include a high-end communications system which includes various
data-links as well as satellite communications and data exchange
capability. Japan’s latest electronic surveillance measures suite for
sniffing out enemy radars and electromagnetic emissions is also added.
All together, these capabilities give the P-1 a secondary communications
relay and information, surveillance and reconnaissance capability in a
similar fashion as the American P-8.
As far as
combat punch goes, the P-1 definitely has it. By not adapting an
off-the-shelf design, Japan was able to create a jet optimized to carry
external and internal stores, as opposed to retrofitting such a
military-only capability. In total, the P-1 has 16 hardpoints, two on
each wing, two on each wing root and eight in its weapons bays. As far
as the weapons “menu” that the P-1 can use, it is similar to the P-8.
These include AGM-84 Harpoon anti-ship missiles, AGM-65 Maverick
air-to-surface missiles, Japan’s indigenously produced ASM-1C anti-ship
missile, as well as various bombs, mines, torpedoes and depth charges.
Like the P-8, one day the P-1 could integrate laser guided and GPS
guided bombs into its quiver. Such a capability would give Japan a more
persistent over-land close air support capability than their fighter jet
force can provide. In this way the P-1 would work as a communications
and surveillance node, as well as an arsenal ship/bomber.
Today, a
couple dozen P-1s have been ordered by or delivered to Japan and after
teething problems, the aircraft is rumored to perform fantastically well
at its job. Still, Japan’s demand for the aircraft is limited to
replacing their own P-3 fleet and seeing that the aircraft is a now an
integrated weapon system that has its major bugs worked out, Japan wants
to see if it can get some of the billions of dollars invested into the
program back in the form of international sales. This is precisely why
two P-1s will appear at the Royal International Air Tattoo (RIAT) this
year, with one aircraft being shown as a static display and the other
flying a routine during the air show and arms expo.
The UK’s Royal Navy in particular is in great need of a maritime multi-role aircraft. Since the Nimrod MRA4 debacle of the last decade,
the Ministry of Defence has no maritime patrol and sea control
fixed-wing platform, which is pretty absurd for an island country. This
is especially true seeing as Russia has drastically increased its
submarine patrols all around the British Isles and even has sailed its ships into the English Channel.
Current
candidates to fulfill this huge capability gap include America’s P-8
Poseidon, its smaller cousin the Challenger business jet-based Boeing Maritime Surveillance Aircraft, a multi-role maritime patrol version of the C-130J known as the Sea Hercules
and an Airbus C-295 configured for the maritime patrol role. Although
other defense contractors will offer even more options, as of now this
would put the P-1 somewhere between the P-8 and the Sea Hercules when it
comes to cost and capability.
Currently,
the P-1 is said to run about $140 million per copy fully outfitted (the
P-8 is about $250M), but this figure could drop as efficiencies are
found in producing higher numbers of aircraft at a time and as the
aircraft matures. Additionally, Japan can be quite aggressive with its
exports, and could even take a loss to realize a larger and more
efficient total fleet size of P-1s and to get their first international
customer for the type.
The UK is
not the only customer out there that really needs to get into the
maritime patrol game in a larger way than they currently are. Countries
around the globe are finding huge capability gaps in this space. Asia
especially, with its growing territorial tensions should see the
multi-role maritime aircraft marketplace explode in the coming decade.
When you
look at the P-1 and the P-8 closely you realize that the U.S. and their
close ally Japan basically built similar aircraft for almost the
identical mission. It is unfortunate that they could not work together
on a common design. With a little foresight, who knows? We could be
seeing P-1s with U.S. Navy titles on their wings today.
In the end
the marketplace will tell if the P-1 offers enough extra capability at
the right price to bring in the big defense bucks from abroad, but out
of all the aircraft on the market in its mission-space, it is the only
clean-sheet, totally purpose-built design. In this day and age of
multi-role everything, where manufacturers constantly shoehorn disparate
capabilities into a few common designs, that has to be worth something.
Photos via: Wikicommons: Top shot- Ken H / @chippyho,
side shot of 5501 Toshiro Aoki, XC-2-Richard Vandervord. P-8 and P-1
via USN, Sea Hercules concept via Lockheed. All other shots via Japanese
Government/MoD
5 Most Lethal Russian Submarines
The Russian bear is certainly deadly below the waves.
During the Cold War, the
Soviet submarine program was a force to be reckoned with. The U.S.S.R.’s
underwater killing machines captured the imagination of Westerners and
Soviet citizens alike. Tom Clancy’s 1984 novel (adapted as a film the
following year) The Hunt for Red October depicted a daring attempt by the crew of a fictitious Soviet Typhoon
Class ballistic missile submarine to defect to the United States. In
the tense years of confrontation between Washington and Moscow, many
Americans imagined Soviet submarines lurking off the country’s
coastlines. Submarines granted both superpowers the ability to unleash
nuclear Armageddon from the quiet sanctuary of the ocean depths.
After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Russian submarine program
fell into decline along with many other branches of the Russian
military. In the past decade, however, Russian officials have undertaken
efforts to modernize their armed forces. From upgrading Cold War models
to meet present-day challenges, to designing completely new platforms
like the Borei and Yasen Class submarines, Russia is clearly determined to renew the status and capabilities of its underwater fleet.
Here are the five submarines that deserve particular attention. Akula Class Submarine
Built in the Soviet Union as the Bars Class 971, this nuclear-powered
attack submarine is better known by its NATO reporting name “Akula.” While the Akula
cannot run as quietly as some of its Western counterparts, it remains a
credible threat, especially after a series of upgrades in the aftermath
of the Cold War.
The Soviet Navy commissioned seven Akula I models between 1986 and 1992. Between 1992 and 1995, Russia commissioned between two and four upgraded Akula I subs. Moscow had already set about designing a more comprehensive upgrade, dubbed Project 971A—the Akula II.
This upgrade featured an extended hull length of 110 meters and an
improved displacement of 12,770 tons. The enhanced design also
incorporates a quieter engine than its predecessors, making the Akula II Russia’s quietest submarine design. Russia built three such vessels: the Viper (commissioned 1995), the Nerpa (2000), and the Gepard (2001). Moscow is expected to keep the Gepard in its arsenal until at least 2025 while the Nerpa is being leased to India.
For surface cruising, the Akula reaches speeds of up to 10
knots. Once underwater, this submarine can achieve speeds of up to 33
knots while diving as far as 600 meters. Once deployed, the Akula has an endurance of 100 days. The Akula is armed with a variety of anti-ship, anti-sub, and anti-surface weapons, allowing it to complete a range of missions. One Akula
class submarine can carry as many as 12 Granit cruise missiles, which
come in anti-ship and land attack variants. The Granit missile has a
range of 3,000 kilometers. For anti-ship and anti-sub operations, the Akula I has eight torpedo launch tubes, while the Akula I Improved and Akula II have ten. The Strela SA-N-5/8 portable launcher with 18 missiles gives the Akula class an anti-air capability as well. Kilo Class Submarine
Conceived during the Soviet era at Rubin Central Maritime Design Bureau at St. Petersburg, Russia’s Project 877 Paltus (NATO reporting name “Kilo”) is a diesel-electric powered attack submarine. First commissioned by the U.S.S.R. in 1982, the Kilo remains in service in Russia and around the world.
The Kilo is a smaller submarine, with the Iranian version boasting an underwater displacement of 3,076 tons and hull length of 70 meters. The basic Kilo
model contains six torpedo launch tubes. This platform can be used for
systems like the TEST-71MKE TV electric-homing torpedo, which carries a
205 kilogram explosive charge. The Kilo can also release up to 24 mines. Eight anti-aircraft missiles can be fitted to the Kilo, which is compatible with both the Strela-3 and Igla surface-to-air systems. India, which also uses the Kilo, contracted the Russian shipyard Zvezdochka to add anti-ship missiles like the Klub S (range: 220 kilometers) to its models.
The Kilo’s diesel generators give the submarine a speed of up to 10 knots for surface cruising and 17 knots submerged. The Kilo can dive as far as 300 meters below the waves and has an endurance of 45 days. Post-Soviet Russia still uses the Kilo,
while the model is also in service in countries like China, India,
Iran, and Algeria. Two ex-Warsaw Pact NATO members, Poland and Romania,
also use the Kilo. Type 636.3 Varshavyanka (Improved Kilo)
When Russia’s new diesel-electric Lada submarine failed its sea trials in 2010, Moscow turned to a Cold War classic: the Kilo. To fit the niche for a modern diesel-electric attack sub, Russia set about upgrading the earlier Kilo model.
Enter the Type 636.6 Varshavyanka, also known in the West as the “Improved Kilo.” Originally intended as an intermediate step between the original Kilo and the Lada, the Varshavyanka
will have to fill the gap until the new models are deemed seaworthy.
The Russian Navy commissioned six such vessels, four of which have been
launched. The newest, Krasnodar, was launched in April 2015.
With a displacement of up to 4,000 tons submerged, the Varshavyanka serves as a platform for a powerful weapons suite. Like its predecessor, the Improved Kilo
has six torpedo launch tubes and is armed with surface-to-air missiles
like the Strela-3 and Igla. The newer Type 636.6 model also carries
anti-ship missiles like the Novator Club-S. This missile, tipped with a
high-explosive warhead, has a range of 220 kilometers.
Like the original Project 877, the upgraded Kilo has an endurance of 45 days and a maximum diving depth of 300 meters. The Improved Kilo
boasts higher speeds than its predecessor: 11 knots at the surface and
20 knots underwater. A silent killer, the upgraded model is already
viewed as one of the quietest diesel-electric submarine models in
service. Still, the Rubin Design Bureau is exploring ways to fit the Varshavyanka vessels with an Air-Independent Propulsion system, which has the potential to run quieter than even a nuclear power plant. Borei Class Submarine
The first completely new Russian submarine model designed since the fall of the Soviet Union, the Borei Class is a series of nuclear powered ballistic missile submarines. The lead ship in this new class, the Yury Dolgoruky was launched in 2008 and commissioned in 2013. A second Borei class sub was launched in 2010 and commissioned in 2013. A third was launched in 2012, while the newest vessel, the Knyaz Vladimir, was laid down earlier that year. Moscow hopes to replace its aging fleet of Soviet-era Typhoon and Delta III submarines with the new Borei class model.
The Borei Class hull length is 170 meters, and each submarine has a submerged displacement of 24,000 tons. Yury Dolgoruky and its sister vessels carry
16 RSM-56 Bulava submarine-launched ballistic missiles. Bulava missiles
are tipped with a 150 kiloton yield nuclear warhead and have a range of
8,000 kilometers. Some reports indicate the RSM-56 may have a longer
range and more destructive capability: up to 10,000 kilometers and a 500
kiloton yield. In addition to its ballistic missile payload, the Borei Class craft also come with six torpedo launch tubes, which can be fitted with a range of anti-submarine warfare torpedoes.
The nuclear power plant onboard Borei Class submarines grants the vessels a
surface speed of 15 knots and a submerged speed of 29 knots. The
vessels have a maximum diving depth of 480 meters and an endurance of
100 days. Borei Class submarines promise to provide the Russian
Navy with a potent long-range capability for years to come. Already,
Moscow has placed an order to receive 10 new vessels by 2020. Yasen Class Submarine
Sevmash Shipyard’s Project 885 Yasen is Russia’s response to an aging fleet of Akula
class submarines. This nuclear powered model will eventually replace
Soviet-era designs and service Moscow’s need for a capable attack
submarine. The first Yasen class sub, the Severodvinsk, joined the Northern Fleet, based in Severomorsk, in 2014. Yasen class submarines have a hull length of 111 meters and
an underwater displacement of around 13,500 tons. Each Project 885
vessel can carry weapons designed to hit land targets, surface craft,
and other submarines, allowing the Yasen class to carry out a range of missions. To conduct anti-submarine operations, the Yasen
class comes equipped with eight torpedo launch tubes and can fire ASW
missiles like the long-range supersonic P-800 Oniks. Oniks missiles can
also be deployed as an anti-ship weapon. For targets on land, the Yasen Class
submarines can launch 3M51 cruise missiles, which can be tipped with a
nuclear warhead. 3M51 missiles have a range of 800 kilometers.
The powerful nuclear propulsion systems onboard Yasen class submarines allow the new models to greatly outpace their predecessors. Project 885 subs can achieve speeds of 20 knots at the surface and 35 knots submerged. Yasen class vessels can slip over 600 meters beneath the waves, rendering them an ever more potent threat to Russia’s rivals. Evans Gottesman is a research assistant at The National Interest
Russia's Black Sea submarine fleet is getting a serious upgrade
By Jeremy Bender
56 minutes ago
(Admiralty Shipyards) The Krasnodar Russia
is making moves to revive and increase the size and scope of its Black
Sea submarine fleet, the Russian Ministry of Defense stated.
Russian Navy Admiral Viktor Chirkov stated during a meeting
with the Main Naval Command in Saint Petersburg on Monday that he
believes that the submarine fleet will be "revived" and ready for action
by 2016.
The submarines will be based at the Novorossiysk port on the Russian mainland across from the Crimean peninsula.
The submarine fleet will be augmented by the inclusion of six new
diesel-electric submarines that Russia has been phasing into service
since 2014.
“The construction of 6
diesel-electrical submarines (project 636) for the Black Sea Fleet is
under the control of the Main Navy Command. 'Novorossiysk' and
'Rostov-on-Don' submarines were put into service in 2014," Chirkov said. "'Krasnodar' submarine will join the Navy by the end of 2015.”
Three other submarines will
additionally be added to the fleet by the end of 2016. The submarines of
project 636 have been designed to excel at warfare in shallower water
while being arguably the quietest submarines in the world.
“The formation will consist of a group of 636 submarines, which have a
large sea endurance, modern weapon systems, effective radio and
navigational systems,” Chirkov said.
(Wikipedia)
The
project 636 submarines are Varshavyanka-class vessels, which are
upgraded versions of Russia's previous Kilo-class
submarines. Although Varshavyanka-class submarines can not dive as deep
or stay submerged underwater as long as nuclear submarines, they are
nearly impossible to detect acoustically.
Primarily, the Varshavyanka-class submarines will be used for anti-shipping and anti-submarine warfare in shallower water. According to
Naval Technology, the submarines can cruise for a range of 400 miles,
can patrol for 45 days, and carry surface-to-air missiles and torpedoes.
The mixture of weaponry onboard
the submarines allow the vessels to hypothetically strike both a mixture
of land, sea, and underwater targets.
(Anton Egorov)
The
revival of the Black Sea fleet coincides with Russia's general drive to
modernize its submarine assets as a whole. In addition to the Black
Sea, Moscow plans on adding an
additional 14 to 18 diesel-electric submarines similar to Lada-class
subs over the next 15 years throughout the Russian fleets.
The Kremlin also plans to
replace its Delta III and Delta IV-class subs with Borei II submarines
in the coming years. The Oscar II-class sub will be replaced with the
entirely new Yasen submarine class after 2020.
With new paint and grease, Navy tries to lengthen subs' life
By MICHAEL MELIA
1 hour ago
GROTON, Conn. (AP) — As it tries to get the most out of each
of its $2.6 billion attack submarines, the U.S. Navy is finding a lot
depends on the right paint job.
A new painting process that helps keep marine life
from fouling the hulls is among dozens of innovations aimed at reducing
the maintenance needs for attack submarines, which are coming out of
service faster than they can be replaced.
"They're not very
glamorous but they're huge in terms of payback to the fleet," said Navy
Capt. Mike Stevens, a manager for the Virginia-class submarine program
at Naval Sea Systems Command.
The changes were developed by
private and government shipyards in response to a request from the Navy,
which wants to squeeze more service life out of each vessel. In
addition to the paint, updates include water-resistant grease for
hatches, a special coating on the metal rods that extend the bow planes
to minimize deposits, and redesigned water-lubricated bearings to
improve support of the propeller shaft.
The goal is for the
submarines eventually to go eight years between lengthy and expensive
major overhaul periods, up from six years currently.
The USS
Virginia was commissioned in 2004, and 12 others in its class are
already in service. The country is now building two a year to replace
the aging Los Angeles-class attack subs. The nuclear-powered
Virginia-class subs, which typically deploy for six months at a time,
are capable of conducting surveillance in shallow waters and firing
missiles among other missions and are expected to have service lives of
about 33 years.
In this Thursday, July 30, 2015 photo, shipyard workers at General Dynamics Electric Boat prepare th …
While the submarine force says the demand on its 53 attack subs
already exceeds their availability, the number in the fleet is
projected to continue a post-Cold War decline and bottom out with 41 in
2029 before it begins rising again due to ramped-up construction,
according to the Navy's shipbuilding plan.
The design changes are intended to reduce costs and increase the number of combat deployments.
"We want them to spend as much time at sea as possible," Stevens said.
In
Quonset Point, Rhode Island, where the submarines are painted, the Navy
has invested in facilities to apply anti-fouling paint more rigorously
during construction. During overhauls, the Navy also has adopted
powder-coat, high-gloss paint applications that hold up better under
water and require less maintenance, Stevens said.
At
Electric Boat, the Groton-based submarine builder, workers tasked with
finding ways to reduce maintenance needs came back with 800 ideas. Those
were whittled down to 128 ideas that were recommended to the Navy, said
Ken Blomstedt, the company's Virginia-class program manager.
Nearly
all of those changes have been incorporated into the design of
submarines that are now in the beginning stages of construction,
Blomstedt said. One challenge, he said, was ensuring that the
submarine's sophisticated capabilities were not compromised.
"That tenet of maintaining combat capability was first and foremost," he said.
The Virginia Class fast attack submarine, the USS John Warner, was just commissioned into service. She is the second Block III Virginia Class boat to be produced, and has a pair of new huge Virginia Payload Tubes on her bow. These replace twelve individual vertical launch tubes used to fire Tomahawk missiles in previous Virginia Class boats.
As you can see in the photo above this is a new capability that the Navy is proud to showcase.
You can read all about this new vertical launch system and the John Warner here, but to put it simply, the Virginia payload tubes’ large diameter and modular nature allows it to be adapted to larger diameter missiles in the future, breaking the previous 533mm diameter restrictions of the Tomahawk cruise missile. This will allow Virginia class submarines to more easily field emerging technologies, like hypersonic long-range missiles and it could even be used to launch and recover large autonomous unmanned underwater vehicles that can come and go for days, or even weeks at a time.
America’s newest nuclear submarine, the USS John Warner (SSN-785), has successfully completed its… Read more
The Virginia Payload Tubes are an innovation that came from the Navy’s brilliant decision to reconfigure their oldest four Ohio Class SSBNs into conventional missile arsenal ships and special operations platforms. This saw the Ohio’s rows of Trident Ballistic Missile launch tubes being converted into launchers that hold clusters of seven Tomahawk Cruise Missiles each. Now the Navy is looking toward this capability to offset the drastic loss of deployed cruise missiles when the reconfigured Ohio Class SSGNs begin retiring in the the coming decade.
Four of the U.S. Navy’s gargantuan Ohio-class ballistic missile nuclear submarines, otherwise known … Read more
This will see the fifth block of Virginia Class boats getting an addition four of these tubes grafted on to their hulls behind their sail. This initiative and light redesign is referred to as the Virginia Payload Module. These four additional tubes will add another 28 Tomahawk Cruise Missiles to the majority of the yet to be produced Block V Virginia Class boats.
Because of these new tubes intercontinental ballistic missile-like diameter, one could wonder if a ballistic missile armed Virginia Class could be in the Navy’s future. It would be at least one way to help with what is a growing possibility of a nuclear deterrent shortfall if the already cash strapped Ohio Class SSBN replacement does not go exactly as planned.
Yet even if the Virginia Class Block III, or more relevantly Block V boats were capable of wielding SLBMs, it would lock them into a very different mission set then the wide array of roles they were designed for today. Instead of collecting intelligence, launching frogmen in mini-submersibles and hunting for other submarines and for surface targets, a nuclear ballistic missile armed Virginia Class would be tasked with just hiding for long periods of time.
Regardless of if the Virginia Class could carry ballistic missiles or not, new boats in the class going forward will be more reliable, upgradable and flexible than their predecessors because of this new launch system.
http://nextbigfuture.com/
August 19, 2015
US Navy will have squadron of large robotic submarines by 2020 and mass production in 2025
1) “intelligence, scouting, and reconnaissance” underwater, which means
the combined jobs of watching an area for potential threats and then
sending back useful information to people on shore.
2. “Intelligence Preparation of the Operational Environment.” Observing a
battlefield and evaluating enemy options in war, to (in peacetime)
exploring potential threats and courses of action.
The LDUUV as an underwater scout and spy, a submarine whose sensors will
collect data to help build a better understanding of what future naval
wars could look like.
Future robot subs will be used as
* underwater minesweepers
* launch flying scout drones that scan above the surface of the sea
* “deploy payloads” such as shooting torpedoes or missiles.
The LDUUV can be launched from drydocks, Virginia-class submarines, and the Littoral Combat Ship.
U.S. Subs Play a Dangerous Game of Hide-and-Seek With China
And it's about to get more dangerous.
Don't look now, but China has a new warship in its
fleet. It's tailor-made for hunting U.S. submarines -- and just might
give us a clue as to what defense contracts will be coming out of the
Pentagon next.
China's new Type 056-class corvette. Image source: Hudong Zhongua Shipbuilding Group.
As reported earlier this week by The National Interest
magazine, China has churned out "nearly 20" of these new antisubmarine
warships in less than five years. Described as "small, cheap, versatile,
rugged and well-armed," the Type 056 patrol ship is designed "to show
the flag in proximate maritime disputes," says the magazine.
But the Type 056 carries more than just flags:
It has a flight deck capable of carrying the new Z-18F submarine-hunting helicopter.
It sports variable-depth sonar capable of searching for submarines hiding beneath thermal layers in the ocean.
It's expected to carry a new type of "homing" depth charge alongside antisubmarine guided missiles.
The common theme running throughout all this is, of course, the word
"submarine." Indeed, the Type 056 is designed from the keel up to hunt
U.S. nuclear submarines operating in the South China Sea. (A new Type
055 guided missile destroyer is said to be in the works as well. It will
have much the same mission as the Type 056 -- but carry twice as many
helicopters.)
Chinese naval bases are starting to fill up with warships at ASW
aircraft. Satellite view of the Qingdao Naval Base, via Google Earth.
Plugging the gaps in China's Great Wall of Defense Why
the sudden emphasis on antisubmarine warfare, or ASW? The answer begins
in March 1996, when the U.S. responded to China's conducting of
amphibious assault exercises off the coast of Taiwan by sending an
aircraft carrier battle group into the Taiwan Strait.
China didn't like that one bit. And ever since, it's been working to
expand its security envelope, and make it harder (and more dangerous)
for U.S. forces to enter a region that China considers its own private sphere of influence.
In the years since, China has invested heavily in building up its surface navy and its submarine forces, and has even bought an aircraft carrier. It developed the DF-21D ballistic missile -- China's so-called "carrier killer" -- to force the U.S. Navy to think twice about sending $14 billion supercarriers into harm's way.
To deal with America's development of stealthy warplanes that might
launch from outside the range of shore-launched DF-21Ds, and use
refueling tankers to penetrate Chinese airspace, China developed new
radar systems. According to China, at least, these radars can detect stealth aircraft at distances of up to 360 miles.
Development of the Type 055 (and Type 056) warships is therefore just
the next step in a 20-year effort by China to secure its borders and
keep America's military at bay. With the threat of U.S. aircraft and
their carriers now minimized, the People's Liberation Army Navy is
tackling the problem of stealthy nuclear submarines. What comes next? All of which is, of course,
fascinating in a geo-politico-military sense. But what does it mean to
investors? Well, now that we know where we are in the game of move,
countermove, counter-countermove, we can next make an educated guess as
to how the U.S. might respond to China's new ASW capabilities.
Logically, the U.S. Navy has two responses it can make to China's
Type 055 and Type 056 warships. First, the U.S. can develop new missiles
to threaten China's warships. (And in fact, the Navy is doing that.) Second, the Navy could develop new submarines that it can afford to risk losing -- and we're doing that, too.
Earlier this year, we reported on the U.S. Navy's Large Displacement Unmanned Undersea Vehicle, or LDUUV,
program, which aims to develop robot submarines that can be used in
naval warfare. Major defense contractors have been enlisted in the
effort. Indeed, Boeing's (NYSE:BA)new
five-ton Echo Ranger autonomous underwater vehicle appears designed
with the LDUUV program in mind. While not necessarily more survivable
than our existing submarine fleet, Boeing's robotic submarines, being
unmanned, would at least be expendable.
Last month, the Navy doubled down on this effort, awarding contracts worth up to $1.4 billion to a team of contractors -- Harris Corporation(NYSE:HRS) and SAIC(NYSE:SAIC)
among them -- to develop new "unmanned maritime systems." Precisely
what work Harris and SAIC are doing for the Navy hasn't been revealed,
but the size of the contract alone speaks volumes.
Going forward, we'll want to keep our eyes open for more developments
on this front. Despite the large sums being expended, the Navy is still
in the early stages of developing an unmanned underwater military
capability. In years to come, however, this ability will only grow -- as
will the values of the contracts, and the profits of the defense
contractors working on them.
Will the submarine force of the future look something like this?
If the U.S. Navy gets its way, it might. Image source: U.S. Navy.
Russia vs. America: The Race for Underwater Spy Drones
Russia is developing a family
of unmanned surface and underwater vehicles, a high-ranking official in
that country’s navy said this week. While the U.S. Navy has been
developing naval drones for more than a decade, this is the first
indication that Moscow is working on similar capabilities.
“Work will be continued in 2016 to develop unmanned boats that can be
based both on ships and on the shore," Vice Adm. Alexander Fedotenkov,
deputy commander-in-chief of the Russian Navytold the TASS news agency on Jan. 21.
The Russian developments include autonomous long-range reconnaissance
vehicles. But it’s not clear if the Russian navy is developing an
autonomous underwater vehicle or a surface vessel. It is possible that
the Russians are developing both—but a long endurance unmanned
underwater vehicle would make more sense from a military standpoint for
its ability to avoid detection. Fedotenkov said that Russia is also
working on developing tethered unmanned underwater vehicles (UUV) that
could undertake complex operations at great depths.
While both the U.S. Navy and Russia are developing naval drones, the
technology is in its infancy. The U.S. Navy is relying on commercially
available drones until the technology matures. USS North Dakota (SSN-784)—a Virginia-class
nuclear attack submarine—launched and recovered a Norwegian-built Remus
600 while submerged for the first time during the summer of 2015. “This
was something they thought we could go do. We went out, and we proved
that,” North Dakota’s commanding officer, Capt. Douglas Gordon,said at the time.
While the technology is still in the early years, UUVs show great
promise for the future. A few months I ago I asked naval expert Bryan
Clarke, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary
Assessments, what the potential applications are for such systems might
be. This what he e-mailed me: “The Department of Defense (DoD) has pursued a large variety of
UUVs during the past decade, mostly for mine clearing and ocean
surveillance and launched from surface ships or shore. These
applications did not require particular sizes of UUVs. As UUVs become
more integrated with submarines as part of a family of systems, the Navy
should focus on UUVs that can use the submarine’s ocean interfaces and
conduct the most likely UUV missions. Specifically, the Navy should
pursue the following UUV types as part of its undersea family of
systems: “Micro UUVs (about 6” or less in diameter) are inexpensive and
improving in their endurance and on-board power. They could be procured
and deployed in large numbers or swarms as weapons, to survey the ocean
floor, or interfere with enemy ASW operations. “Small UUVs (about 12” in diameter) are commonly used today for
surveys and minehunting, such as the Navy’s Mk-18 UUV. They will be able
to take on other surveillance or attack missions as part of the Fleet
Modular Autonomous Undersea Vehicle (FMAUV) program and operate from
submarines as well as surface ships and aircraft. “Medium UUVs (about 21” in diameter) are the size of the
Navy’s Mk-48 submarine-launched torpedo. And while the Navy is not
operating UUVs of this size today, the Modular Heavyweight Undersea
Vehicle (MHUV) program plans to make the torpedo of the future able to
be configured to conduct a range of missions, from mining and long-range
attack to electronic warfare. “Large UUVs (about 80” in diameter) such as the Navy’s Large
Displacement UUV (LDUUV) are designed to use the planned Virginia
Payload Module (VPM) tubes in Block V Virginia-class submarines. The
LDUUV will provide a way for submarines to increase their sensor reach,
expand their payload capacity, or deliver payloads into areas that are
too risky or constrained for the submarine to reach. “Extra-Large UUVs (More than 80” in diameter) would be designed
to launch from shore or very large ships with well decks or “moon
pools.” They could be used for long-endurance surveillance missions or
primarily as “trucks “ to deliver other payloads and UUVs. Experience
with LDUUV will help inform concepts for using XLUUV.”
Essentially—once perfected—unmanned underwater vehicles could revolutionize naval warfare. But only time will tell. Dave Majumdar is the defense editor for the National Interest. You can follow him on Twitter: @davemajumdar. Image: Flickr/Office of Naval Research/U.S. Navy/John F. Williams.
The Hunt for the Next Red October: Russia's Lethal New Subs
Though the Project 705 Lira-class attack submarine—better known in the West as the Alfa-class—is perhaps most famous for starring as the main antagonist in the movie The Hunt for Red October,
the ill-fated boats have left an outsized legacy independent of the
silver screen. That’s because Moscow’s future submarine fleet will be
far more automated than current designs—continuing a trend that was
pioneered in the late 1970s by the Soviet Union’s Project 705 Lira-class attack boats.
While theAlfa-class
boats were in many ways an unsuccessful experiment, the fast
titanium-hulled submarines pioneered many innovative technologies. Their
strong hulls gave them tremendous speed—close to 45 knots according to
some sources—and they could dive to impressive depths. Indeed, the Liras
had a never-exceed depth of around 3,900ft, but operationally rarely
exceeded 2,000ft. Moreover, the submarines were relatively
tiny—displacing only 3,200-tons submerged.
Other than the titanium hull—which was a huge innovation for the time—the Lira-class
boats featured two other innovations. One was a very compact
liquid-metal cooled reactor, which could generate enormous amounts of
power. In all, two types of lead-bismuth cooled fast reactors were used
on the Lira—the OK-550 and BM-40. Both reactors produced about
155-MW of power giving the boat more than 40,000shp. The result was
blistering speed and acceleration—but at the price of being extremely
noisy (though the boats had a pair of 100kW electrical propellers for
low speed tactical maneuvering).
The other major innovation introduced by the Lira-class was
automation. Because the Soviet wanted a small, fast interceptor
submarine, a small crew-size was mandatory. The Soviets did manage to
reduce the crew-size to about thirty-two officers, but no enlisted crew.
Ultimately, however, the Lira-class was a technological bridge too far—safety was a major concern. “We spent twenty years using the Lira
(Project 705) subs during the 1970s through 1990s. . . . It was a very
promising project but it was eventually shelved due to the abundance of
new technological ideas simultaneously implemented in one boat,” Lenta.ru quoted an unnamed defense source, according tostate-owned Sputnik.
But while the Lira was a failure, the technology from those boats paved the way for the later Sierra (Project 945) and Akula-classes (Project 971Shchuka-B), and ultimately the Project-885 Yasen-class (Severodvinsk-class submarine). Indeed, compared to U.S. Navy submarines, the Russian submarines have a very small crew-size. The Yasen-class only carries ninety crew members while future Russian nuclear submarines such the new“interceptor” and “SSGN” designs
that are currently in the works will have fewer still. “The crew of
such a sub could be down to 50 or 55 people and could ultimately be
reduced to between 30 and 40,” the source told Lenta.ru.
Of course, given Russia’s economic conditions, it is hard to say when those new submarines will materialize—if they ever do. Dave Majumdar is the defense editor for The National Interest. You can follow him on Twitter: @davemajumdar. Image: Wikimedia Commons/Alex Omen.
Japan's Soryu-class submarine, described as the world's largest conventionally powered submarine.
Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force photo
KOBE, Japan, March 7 (UPI) -- Mitsubishi Heavy Industries reports its delivery on Monday of its fourth Soryu-class submarine to Japan's Ministry of Defense.
Japan currently has seven of the submarines.
Soryu-class submarines are the world's largest conventionally powered
submarines, equipped with state-of-the art technologies, including
air-independent propulsion systems.
The submarines are 274.5 feet long, about 29.8 feet wide, and have a maximum speed of 20 knots.
The submarine delivered on Monday -- the Jinryu -- was the fourth
Soryu-class vessel by MHI, which has manufactured a total of 26
submarines at its Kobe facility over the past 70 years.
http://nextbigfuture.com/
March 06, 2016
India commissions their first nuclear armed submarine the 6000 ton INS Arihant
The Arihant, which is the first of five nuclear missile submarines or
SSBNs planned for induction, has also undergone deep sea dives off
Vishakhapatnam where it was build. A Russian diving support ship —the
RFS Epron that arrived on October 1 — has been accompanying the Arihant
on its deep sea dives and launch tests, officials told ET.
The submarine is to be equipped with K 15 (or BO-5) shortrange missiles
with a range of over 700 km and the K 4 ballistic missile with a range
of 3,500 km. "It has passed all tests and in many things has surpassed
our expectations.
Work is already in progress on two more Arihant class submarines at the
Ship Building Center (SBC) in Vishakhapatnam which will be larger and
more advanced than the first boat. The navy is also accelerating work on
INS Varsha - a new strategic naval base with underground pens on the
Eastern Coast near Kakinada - where the nuclear assets would be based.
The Navy's Submarine Design Bureau is also presently working on a new class of nuclear powered attack submarines (SSNs).
The deployment would complete India’s nuclear triad, which means that it
could deliver atomic weapons from land, sea and air. Only the U.S. and
Russia are considered full-fledged nuclear triad powers now, with China
and India’s capabilities still largely untested. India would become the
sixth country to have nuclear-armed submarines in operation, after the
US, UK, France, Russia and China.
INS Aridhaman is the second Arihant-class submarine.
She will be the second nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarine
being built by India. This submarine will have double the number of
missile hatches than its predecessor INS Arihant giving it the ability
to carry more missiles. This will have a more powerful reactor than its
predecessor. It should be commissioned in 2018. It should be launched
this year for trials
SOURCES - Economic Times, Wikipedia
HMS Artful recently carried out a successful missile test using
its new Common Combat System
(Credit: Crown Copyright)
The Royal Navy's latest and most advanced nuclear
submarine, HMS Artful, has successfully fired its first test torpedo
using a state-of-the-art "brain." According to the British Ministry of
Defence, the 7,400-tonne (8,157 ton) hunter-killer used the new Command
Combat System (CCS) to integrate data from its suite of sensors to track
and hit the moving target with an unarmed practice weapon. The Artful is the third of the Astute class submarines and is the first to have the CCS installed.
It wasn't that long ago when the most
sophisticated computer aboard a submarine was the Apple II in the
Paymaster's office. Now, the likes of the RN's Sonar 2076 alone has the
processing capacity 60,000 present-day PCs. This and other sophisticated
digital systems mean that today's submarine captains need equally
sophisticated command systems to turn all that data into meaningful
action.
Designed by BAE Systems
and constructed by VMware, Dell, and Aish in the UK, the CCS is
described by the makers as a "step change" in combat information
processing technology. It uses off-the-shelf components for greater
design flexibility combined with new algorithms to gather data from many
different sensors and other systems that make up the "nervous system"
of the boat, turning them into a single computer environment instead of
being read and controlled from many different places.
According to the RN, this not only makes
processing the data more efficient, is also allows for directly control
of the sensors and weapons, as well as saving the one premium item on
any submarine – space. The CCS can directly interpret the data coming
from the 13,000 hydrophones of the Sonar 2076 and track targets while
leaving the crew to concentrate on command decisions.
The RN says that the CCS was originally
slated for installation on the fourth Astute class submarine, but work
was completed ahead of schedule and Artful was chosen instead. The CCS
will be retrofitted to previous boats in the series, as well as to the
fleet's Vanguard class nuclear missile submarines, the remaining four of
the Astute class currently under construction, and the next generation
of RN submarines.
HMS Artful
(PDF) was handed over to the RN in December by BAE Systems. As one of
the most advanced submarines in the world, it can go its entire service
life without refueling and its sensors are claimed to be able to detect
and track the quietest of hostile vessels. The vessel is undergoing sea
trials until July, after which it will carry out maintenance and
training in anticipation of active duty.
Source:
Ministry of Defence
All Akulas are armed with four 533 mm torpedo tubes which can use Type 53 torpedoes or the SS-N-15 Starfish missile, and four 650 mm torpedo tubes which can use Type 65 torpedoes or the SS-N-16
Stallion missile. These torpedo tubes are arranged in two rows of four
tubes each. Improved Akulas, Akula IIs have an additional six 533 mm
torpedo tubes mounted externally, capable of launching possibly up to 6
decoys each[citation needed].
The external tubes are mounted outside the pressure hull in one row,
above the torpedo tubes, and can only be reloaded in port or with the
assistance of a submarine tender. The 650 mm tubes can be fitted with
liners to use the 533 mm weaponry. The submarine is also able to use its
torpedo tubes to deploy mines.
In 1983–1984 the Japanese firm Toshiba sold sophisticated, nine axis
milling equipment to the Soviets along with the computer control
systems, which were developed by Norwegian firm Kongsberg Vaapenfabrik.
U.S Navy officials and Congressmen announced that this technology
enabled the Soviet submarine builders to produce more accurate and
quieter propellers.[16]
The VA-111 is launched from 533 mm torpedo tubes at 50 knots (93 km/h) before its solid-fuel rocket
ignites and propels it to speeds of 200 knots (370 km/h). Some reports
indicate that speeds of 250+ knots may be achieved, and that work on a
300-knot (560 km/h) version was underway.[3] This high speed is due to supercavitation, whereby a gas bubble, which envelops the torpedo, is created by outward deflection of water by its specially-shaped nose cone and the expansion of gases from its engine. This minimizes water contact with the torpedo, significantly reducing drag.[2]
Roughly $100 million for the Swedish Gotland submarine
Current DARPA is a robotic surface ship but robotic submarines will likely be developed
Seen when it first emerged in late 2011, the Y-8GX6 (Y-8Q) maritime
patrol and anti-submarine warfare aircraft is now understood to have
entered service with the PLAN's North Sea Fleet. Source: FYJS web page
Soviet Navy
Russian Navy
Indian Navy
Japan's Soryu-class submarine, described as the world's largest
No comments:
Post a Comment