Nuclear attack sub challenge
Page 2 of 7

Author:  erik_t [ March 23rd, 2019, 12:41 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Nuclear attack sub challenge

Nicely drawn, but one wonders where the machinery goes.

Author:  odysseus1980 [ March 23rd, 2019, 1:28 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Nuclear attack sub challenge

Sweden did design an SSN back in 1960's, the A-11, and it was much smaller from sebu entry.

Author:  acelanceloet [ March 23rd, 2019, 2:02 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Nuclear attack sub challenge

Yeah, I suspect your reactor, which on most subs is full height of the pressure hull, would go exactly where the rescue pods are positioned. Most of the crew is far forward of that, would it not be more likely to put them in or near your command tower? They are pressure hulled themselves, so no need to put them inside your pressure hull, of which you are limiting the diameter by putting them in the current position. The same goes for the minisub. And no, you cannot put the reactor forward or aft in the sub, due to the weight distribution. It needs to be about midships, with at least part of the machinery section next to it.

Author:  Blackbuck [ March 24th, 2019, 1:08 am ]
Post subject:  Artaimís-class Fleet Submarine

[ img ]

Artaimís-class Fleet Submarine

Conceived toward the end of the 1980s what would become the Artaimís-class were specifically designed to hunt both deterrent carriers and hunter-killers in the Meridian ocean. Entering service in the late nineties four out of six vessels were completed, the final two being cancelled with funds directed elsewhere.

They represented a step-change in submarine-warfare, constructed with titanium pressure hulls they could dive deeper than any previous Glasic submarine, they were the first highly automated submarines to be commissioned into the submarine service, capable of operating with a crew as low as 66 (though more usually 74), had larger diameter torpedo tubes for the then as-yet unrealised Devilfish torpedo as well as vertical launch tubes for anti-ship or later on land-attack missiles.

Operational service for the class has been varied with deployments to both the Meridian and Helian oceans as needs dictate. Between 2015 and 2018 the class in their entirety were dry-docked for extensive mid-life updates, the net result of which was the gutting of much of the original combat system and its replacement with systems introduced during the intervening years, mainly upon the four SSGNs of the Bean Sí class which are ostensibly direct descendants of the Artaimís class albeit of constructed of less-exotic materials. The four Artaimís-class vessels are expected to remain in service until around 2030.

Class Members
RGF Artaimís
RGF Aitéiné
RGF Artio
RGF Áine

Max. Operational: 39 Knots
Max. Silent: 28 Knots
Search: 12 Knots (25 knots towed-array survival limit)
Emergency: 5 Knots (Thrusters)
Test Depth
- 825m
Max. Operating Depth
- 1,000m normal 1,250m emergency
Crush Depth
- ±1,500m
- Essentially unlimited, no re-fuelling expected during lifetime
- Stores for 120 days of operations

- Nominally 74 (31 officers and 43 enlisted), a minimum of 66 and maximum of 80, accommodation for 90

- 8x 660mm Torpedo tubes - 4x lined to 533mm
- 16x Vertical launch tubes
- 52 Torpedo room weapons

- BHI Devilfish 660mm heavyweight torpedo
- BHI Icefish 533mm heavyweight torpedo
- GAIA Mosquito multi-role missile
- BHI Trident anti-submarine missile
- BHI Shillelagh cruise missile

- Large-Area bow array (0.5-5kHz Passive - 3.5kHz Active)
- Chin Array (70-100kHz Active)
- Forward and aft sail arrays (5-8kHz Active, fore and aft - 70-100kHz Active, fore only)
- Planar Flank Array (0.5-5kHz Passive - 3.5kHz Active)
- Intercept array (0.5-100kHz Passive)
- Thin-Line Towed Array (10Hz to 3.5kHz)
- Passive ranging array
- Self-Noise Monitoring Hydrophones
- Non-Acoustic Sensor System (SOKS equivalent)

- Photonics Mast 1 (Attack Periscope)
- Photonics Mast 2 (Search Periscope)
- COMMO Mast 1 (SATCOM - Secure Datalinks)
- COMMO Mast 2 (SATCOM - Secure Datalinks)
- COMMO Mast 3 (Secure Communications)
- COMMO Mast 4 (Secure Communications)
- Radar Mast (Sharpeye X Submarine Radar)
- ESM Mast 1 - TIMNEX-derived
- ESM Mast 2 - ES-3601U / ES-3701U derived
- Snorkel Mast

- Hard and soft-kill tube-launched countermeasures (Torbuster, Subscut)
- Nixie-derived towed-acoustic decoys

- 1x Collins LFR2 lead-cooled fast reactor totalling 200MWt
- Turbo-electric transmission form two turbines totalling 55MWe
- 1x 760kW emergency diesel-generators
- 6x 120kW PEM fuel-cell banks producing up-to 720kW
- 2x 350kW emergency-propulsion / manoeuvring devices


Edit 1: addressing of concerns

Author:  Deskjetser [ March 24th, 2019, 2:04 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Nuclear attack sub challenge

Federation of Fire Territories First Nuke Boat
[ img ]

On the 10th of March 1955, the Ministry for Naval Procurement awarded the contract for a modified class of the current series of diesel electric SSK. This modification would see the rearrangement of the pressure hull and working spaces, while keeping as close to the standard form factor for the sea hull. The internal changes were to make room for a new advanced power plant coined 'reactor engine', which having been demonstrated on land, was now eagerly awaited by the navy to be demonstrated at sea.

The first and only of her class, Hund, had her keel laid later the same month on March 14th, and would be launched on the 23rd of May 1957. Designated DU-1 symbolising her status as the first of a new generation, Hund would commence extended sea trails in earnest. With initial teething problems proving manageable, Hund was accepted into Navy service on the 2nd of January 1958.

Hund Class SSN
Hound Class Nuclear Attack Submarine
General specifications
  • 244ft
  • 28ft
  • 23ft surfaced
  • 2,000t surfaced
  • 2,240t submerged
  • 15kn surfaced
  • 20kn submerged
Installed power:
  • 6,600shp
  • 8 officers
  • 70 crew
  • 60 days
  • 6 x 20 inch torpedo tubes

U.bāt Dōnere B.1t
Submarine Reactor Model 1t
Designed in house and built by Fæstēah Edness Int., the reactor is an evolution of its land based cousin.
Thermal power:
  • 42MWt
  • ~12%
Core lifespan:
  • 2,300h @ full power
  • 2,600h @ full power (later)
  • 27ft compartment length
  • 23ft compartment diameter
  • 13,780ft^3 compartment volume

Author:  heuhen [ March 24th, 2019, 3:17 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Nuclear attack sub challenge

Blackbuck that one look goooooood

Author:  erik_t [ March 24th, 2019, 4:30 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Nuclear attack sub challenge

Blackbuck's entry is, unsurprisingly, incredible.

Author:  MihoshiK [ March 24th, 2019, 6:50 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Artaimís-class Fleet Submarine

Blackbuck wrote: *
[ img ]

Artaimís-class Fleet Submarine

Conceived toward the end of the 1980s what would become the Artaimís-class were specifically designed to hunt both deterrent carriers and hunter-killers in the Meridian ocean. Entering service in the late nineties four out of six vessels were completed, the final two being cancelled with funds directed elsewhere.
That looks really noisy at speed with all those greeblies and straight edges on those side sonar panels, and I have to say that the lower curve where the bow blends into the straight body can be done better.
It's a bit of a weird blend of Soviet and US designs.

Author:  acelanceloet [ March 25th, 2019, 10:28 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Nuclear attack sub challenge

With the construction of the first nuclear submarine, the Nautilus, many considered diesel-electric submarines outdated at once. The Royal Netherlands navy would commission 2 new submarines in 1960 of the Driecilinder type, which were considered very modern if not state of the art. But even while these submarines were constructed, thought was given to the fact that future Dutch submarines would likely be nuclear powered. Talk about this started in 1956 and work started in 1957. However, while there was some nuclear technical knowledge in the Netherlands, when talking about submarines it was concluded the Dutch were about 8 years behind on the United States or the United Kingdom. For that reason it was considered best to start talk with these 2 nations to cooperate to avoid duplicate research work.
The budget of the Royal Netherlands navy was limited, they were unable to lead the design work of this submarine as for budgettary reasons even the second series of 2 driecilinder submarines was moved to the 1960's, after the first 2 were completed. It was thought by some that it might be best to not build that second series at all, and instead build 2 Nuclear powered submarines for the RNLN. Politics and funding issues would make sure this never happened, even though the Dutch were for a long time the only nation in NATO with oceangoing diesel-electric submarines.

The following drawing is a vision of what this submarine might have looked like if build. The design has the Driecilinder submarine and the Skate class as direct ancestors, combining the 2 designs and the affiliated systems in a way that matches the Dutch requirements for a submarine, similar to how this was done with Driecilinder and Barbel to create the Zwaardvis class submarine in real life.
[ img ]
Design work would start in 1958, with construction starting in 1960. The submarine, Tonijn, would have been completed by 1964 and be comissioned in 1965 and would be followed by a sister ship, Potvis, two years later.

As much of the onboard equipment would be build by the Dutch industry, however the reactor, affiliated systems and heat exchangers would be exactly the same as the ones in Skate, and would be acquired in the United States. This resulted in an S3W reactor and turbines delivering 4900W to the propellers. The ship had an displacement of 2350t surfaced and 3000t submerged. The top speed on the surface was 18 knots, while the top speed underwater was 21,5 knots. The complement would be 80 and she was test dived to 200m.
The ship had 8 torpedo tubes, 6 forward and 2 aft. Both were in theory capable of carrying the same weapons, but the aft tubes were mostly used for the launch of decoys or mines. The bow tubes used Mk 37 torpedos. There was space for 4 torpedo's (or other equipment) aft and for 18 forwards.
She was fitted with an small navigational radar, PWS-1 targeting sonar, LWS-1 warning sonar and LAS-10 long range sonar.

Author:  erik_t [ March 26th, 2019, 2:30 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Nuclear attack sub challenge

I wonder about a reduction in limber holes and vents on Tonijn. It's hard to envision many scenarios in which a SSN would need to crash dive from surfaced operation.

Page 2 of 7 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited