NationStates Jolt Archive


Denial-Class CSSG concrete submarine released. (Comments and Critics welcomed)

USSNA
23-07-2005, 21:53
(No pic as of yet)

The Denial-Class CSSG

The Denial-Class CSSG is a revolutionary new type of submarine in that it is made of concrete. The new sub can dive deeper and run quieter than any combat sub before it. The sub uses swivel-nozzle electric turbine pumps and ballast tanks to maneuver like a jet uses thrust vectoring. It is also more crew-friendly than any other sub. The small crew enjoys some of the best meals to be ever served on a sub, have their own bunks, and can even watch television via a floating transceiver. These we thought necessary considering the mission this sub is design to take. The ship’s mission usually entails going to a location, deploying its sensors, waiting for an enemy ship (aka Target) to pass overhead, and then destroying that target. They do what their name implies; deny an enemy the use of a certain passage or waterway.

General

Crew: 46
Displacement: 3,200 tonnes surfaced unladen
4,800 tonnes submerged unladen
4,500 tonnes surfaced fully laden
7,700 tonnes submerged fully laden

Speed (kts):
Surfaced: 18 knots
Dived: 32-33 knots

Endurance: 120 days
Dimensions:
-Length: 85m
-Beam: 25m
-Draught: 10 m
Maximum Safe Diving Depth: 914m (3000 ft)


Armament

The Denial-Class sub carries both the Scourge supercavitating rocket-propelled torpedo and the Thorn advanced lightweight torpedo.

The Scourge is a supercavitating rocket-propelled torpedo measuring 27x1.75 ft. It has a range of 10,000m with a speed of 275kts, and carries a 800lb. shaped charge warhead. This torpedo is unusual in that preserve the stealth of the sub that launches it, it is jettisoned about 75m from the sub before it supercavitates and fires its rocket engines.

The Thorn advanced lightweight torpedo is a anti-sub torpedo that is wire guided or passive/active acoustic homing. It measures 19x1.75 ft, has a range of 8,500m, a speed of 55kts, and a 650lb. warhead.

Ammunition allocations

20 Scourge Supercavitating Torpedoes
8 Thorn Advanced Lightweight Torpedoes

Armor and Survivability

The Denial-Class sub has a duel-hull design. The outer hull is made from a very strong concrete reinforced with vectran. Due to the nature of this outer concrete hull, the sub can dive well below the 1,800ft “crush depth” limit for steel. Its surface is also hard to pick out against the sandy ocean bottom. The second hull is a conventional high-grade titanium hull. The space in between this hull is taken up by a rather large sound-proofing layer. Due to this design, the sub is 80% quieter than a conventional sub.


Electronics

Radar

One Snoop Pair surface-search/air-search radar, detection range for destroyer-sized target 60 miles, with new "Shark Tooth" beam-sharpening systems and computers for greater range against small targets and SURTASS systems.

Sonar

MKG-500M Shark Gill B passive-active sonar suite, able to track 34 targets simultaneously, can track 688(i)-class SSN at 5 knots at 20km.

Python towed array, proven detection range against a 688(i)-class SSN at five knots is 68km.

IRST

The Typhoon-II carries the MKO-612 Infra-Red Search and Track system, designed to supplement the sonar suites of the ship by providing IR detection ability. The system is mounted in the bow of the submarine, in a small bulge above the bow cylindrical sonar array.

Propeller wash sensor

The Denial-Class mounts the experimental MKH-20 propeller wash sensor. An enlarged version of the sensor used by the 65-76 torpedoes, the MKH-20 is designed to detect the disturbed water and bubbles characteristic of a propeller having moved through an area of water. The sensor is currently capable only of operation below seven knots.

Fire-control

SSU-45 fire-control for torpedo armament linked with sonar arrays, radar system etc to produce rapid target engagement abilities, obviating need for separate TMA station, although TMA is retained for backup.

EW

Bulava ESM array, detection range approx. 100Km against most surface-search radars.

Radio/Sattalite Transceiver

The floating radio and sattalite transceiver is made of RAM material and radar deflecting shapes as to blend in with the sea. It can recieve and transmit radio, microwave, and wide-beam sattalite tranmissions. It is connected to the sub via a fiberoptic line encased in sound absorbing, shock resistant rubber.


Propulsion

Propulsion is done by 4 powerful electric turbine pumps. The pumps allow the submarine to manuver like a jet does with thrust vectoring.

The batteries on the sub can be charged by either 4 Hydrogen Combustion Engines (http://auto.howstuffworks.com/bmw-h2r2.htm) or a conventional back-up diesel engine. The hydrogen and oxygen for this engine is produced through the process of Electrolysis on sea water. The amazing thing about this type of generator is that ic can be done while totally submerged .

Powersource: 4 1,500 Hp Hydrogen Combustion Engines
Backup: 1 4,750 Hp "Deltic" pattern diesel engine, water-cooled.
Propulsion: 4 swivel-nozzle electric turbine pumps


This is my first sub design, so please, bear with me.

EDIT: Upped the crew, changed the engines and powersources, and added ballast tanks.
USSNA
23-07-2005, 23:34
*Bump* for comments.
Praetonia
23-07-2005, 23:37
[OOC: Yey, militay tech made of concrete =). I heard somewhere that in WWII the British were planning to build a concrete battleship if the war went on much longer. It might just be a rumour, but I have seen floating concrete barges at Gloucester harbour, so it's definately possible.]
USSNA
23-07-2005, 23:40
Based off of this:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1281166.html

Only it's bigger. But how is the design itself? Anything totally out of wack?
Praetonia
23-07-2005, 23:46
Only it's bigger. But how is the design itself? Anything totally out of wack?
I dont know. It's 11:45pm in Britain and Im a bit too tired to examine the design in any detail... maybe tomorrow.
Adejaani
24-07-2005, 00:07
OOC: Wow, unique, yes. For some reason, I thought that concrete was too heavy. Sort of. I'm not critiquing your design, I'm just giving you my honest feedback. Let me explain my thought.

Concrete is heavy. So you're basically forcing buoyancy into this massively heavy hull. When I read "concrete submarine", I thought "Hmm. They're trying to keep this thing up rather than keeping her down". If I remember correctly, submarines fill their ballast tanks with water in order to get them to go down. But I can't help but feel a true concrete submarine would have to force its way up rather than down.

I actually thought myself of using my own patented Hardhat™ armor for a submarine. It's a steel/titanium/kevlar/ceramics and "other" (ie classified) components mix. See, ceramics can have the overall same tensile strength as steel at a fraction of the weight, but is notorious to work with and shape properly.

With a ceramic submarine, it's light and I mean light. You'd be forcing it down, great for "emergency blow" when you have to reach the top quickly.

Beyond that, you get points from me for doing this. It's a very superb design, somewhat a Russian Kilo updated, definitely great for coastal defense purposes.

If you ever decide to sell, count on at least a dozen for my coastal defense purposes. If successful, count on a minimum of around eighty more. Further, if you want to make a nuclear powered, blue ocean version (like the 688 class), count me in to help fund and develop it.
Praetonia
24-07-2005, 00:22
Adejaani - Conrete ships exist, and I've seen them, and they float. Admittedly not as well as other materials, but they will float. Especially as subs have this massive space in the middle filled with air. Ceramics (to my knowledge) would simply crack. But Im not sure so dont quote me.
USSNA
24-07-2005, 00:24
This sub contains no balast tanks. What it does is that it uses it's water "jets" to push it up and forward, as it gains more speed, wings-like things on the side, prodive hydrodynamic lift, allowing even more speed to be gained.

The thing is ment to be heavy. Concrete it great in compression and allows it to go down further than any other conventional sub. Think of this as a kind of manned mobile mine.


EDIT: As for the nuke part. It doesn't really need a nuke. Once it gets to a location, it drops and puts the Solar Tether up, nuke reactors are a bit noisy. With it being electric, it is extreamly quiet.

I might make a more Blue Water version. Would dive a bit further, be a bit bigger, and hold a bit more ordanance.
Kanuckistan
24-07-2005, 00:24
OOC:
The major problem I see with this is the comparitice brittlness of concrete vs steel; a diving sub's hull will flex if it goes very deep, as the pressure builds up - a concrete sub will develope cracks as it flexes, which will almost perminatly comprimise the integrity of the hull, even after repair.
USSNA
24-07-2005, 00:31
Actually concrete is great in compression, much more so than steel. As you go down, the hull compresses. The brittleness of the material doens't matter when diving.

The only thing where brittleness would matter would be in the event of an attack on the sub. A torpedo would go right through the outer layer and the sub would have to rely on the inner layer to protect it.
Adejaani
24-07-2005, 00:36
OOC: I'd like to say I'm not talking "pure" ceramics. As I noted with my armor system, it would probably be augmented somehow, a mix. Don't ask me what or how it'll be done, but I think it could be. Maybe not in ten years, but eventually, ceramics will prove the answer.

USSNA: I do agree concrete's great... But I'm still scratching my head slightly. It's easier to try and force something down, rather than forcing it up. If that thing goes down too far, well... *Shrugs*

I still think you've got a brilliant design, which is why I said I'll buy and fund any future developments if you're willing. But the nuclear/deep ocean thing, that was using the technologies developed in the design, not upgrading the design. The concrete hull, your wash jets etc. I'd keep this coastal defense version the way it is, but expand the design for an ocean boat.

Sort of like how we have the F/A-18 A/B/C/D Hornet and a rather different design in the F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet.
Aysheaia
24-07-2005, 00:57
There are modern day ferroconcrete sailboats, but the material is used more for economy than anything else.

I'd imagine that the concrete would be used as a stiffening matrix for some kind of reinforcement, and that's really what would make or break the design. Kind of like epoxy in composites (fiberglass). The glass is very strong, yet it's floppy. The epoxy keeps the glass stiff and stable and lets it be used as a building material.

I'd be more concerned about the solar panels. You've got big-assed panels floating on the surface which are supposed to be stealthy. I can't see that happening. You'd be better off with a nuclear reactor. The concrete hull would go a long way towards quieting it.

Likewise, I'd drop the thrusters for ballast tanks. They'll reduce the engine needs tremendously, letting you use a smaller and quieter reactor.

Keep up the good work!
USSNA
24-07-2005, 01:10
There are modern day ferroconcrete sailboats, but the material is used more for economy than anything else.

I'd imagine that the concrete would be used as a stiffening matrix for some kind of reinforcement, and that's really what would make or break the design. Kind of like epoxy in composites (fiberglass). The glass is very strong, yet it's floppy. The epoxy keeps the glass stiff and stable and lets it be used as a building material.

I'm not argueing any more about the concrete.

I'd be more concerned about the solar panels. You've got big-assed panels floating on the surface which are supposed to be stealthy. I can't see that happening. You'd be better off with a nuclear reactor. The concrete hull would go a long way towards quieting it.

Likewise, I'd drop the thrusters for ballast tanks. They'll reduce the engine needs tremendously, letting you use a smaller and quieter reactor.

Keep up the good work!

It's not like it's one big rigged panel, they are many fleible panels so that it can rasie and lower with the waves. It is stealthy. With the non-reflective coating, you wouldn't be able to see them unless you we right up beside them. And the thing sinks by nature, ballast tanks would be of no use. The use of a nuclear reactor are viable, but not in this design ATM.
McKagan
24-07-2005, 01:18
How would these operate in an artic climate?
USSNA
24-07-2005, 01:23
Hmm, I never thought about that. Let me research how concrete works when frozen/cooled.
Adejaani
24-07-2005, 01:35
USSNA, this just occured to me, as a side-off question to the arctic thingy. That made no sense, but you get what I mean.

Why don't you put cooling/heating elements in the concrete? Boil water to create more um... How to say... Water pressure? It's like how aircraft wings, the upper side is slightly bigger, to create lift that way, by airflow. Is it possible to like, heat up and lessen/increase water pressure above/below the hull to make it float better?
Kanuckistan
24-07-2005, 01:40
Hmm, I never thought about that. Let me research how concrete works when frozen/cooled.

It expands and contracts as it's heated and cooled, which results in cracks forming. This was my concern regaurding brittlness - conpression as it dives followed by extansion as it decompresses with ascent, although the temperature varriance between the surface and ocean depts also raises a concern.
USSNA
24-07-2005, 01:41
From what I can gather, concrete works fine in cold weather. So it should work fine.

The heating/cooling thing would be neat, but I'm afraid of the rapid temperature changes on the concrete. It might cause it to crack.
USSNA
24-07-2005, 01:43
It expands and contracts as it's heated and cooled, which results in cracks forming. This was my concern regaurding brittlness - conpression as it dives followed by extansion as it decompresses with ascent, although the temperature varriance between the surface and ocean depts also raises a concern.

I'm not worried about the compression. I think the answer to this would be that it isn't going to be making any emergency acents or dives. the thing isn't as mobile as a conventional sub, but then again, it doesn't need to be.
Adejaani
24-07-2005, 01:52
That's true, this thing is really just a mobile submerged weapons platform. We're discussing issues that really only affect an open ocean boat, which this isn't. Yet. :rolleyes:
McKagan
24-07-2005, 03:46
Just keep your ports secure.

You fuck up and let someone in a shotgun to cripple one of these things, from what I see.
Adejaani
24-07-2005, 04:05
Excuse me? Yes, excuse your language too.

Just how exactly can a shotgun do critical damage to a submarine, much less a concrete hulled one?
Infoclypse Industries
24-07-2005, 05:23
Obviously this is a unique craft, and A good idea too, the Main problems I see with the design for the role it seems most suited for are:
1. Small crew, even with the simplified area denial mission, a larger crew is almost certainly necesary. larger crews allow all ships duties to be performed in shifts, at least two shifts are required to keep a submarine operating at full efficiency for any length of time and with such a small crew I can't see all the necesary positions being filled twice over.
2. Propulsion and weight. The constant need of propulsion to avoid 'crush depth' is a definate problem, simply, anyhting you can do to make thrust can be heard by modern sonar, so constant thrust simply doesnot mesh with the role of your submarine. As much as I admire your resourcefullness by using such a cheap and unconventional approach to the problem, it just can't work without some sort of buoyancy assist.
3. Power source: Again, an admirable and unconventional approach to a problme but unless you want to announce your presence to every ship in the ocean, solar power is not the way to go. Even radar stealthing is not enough, the necesary size of a solar array to power the sub would be HUGE, think about solar powerplants for a minute, one solar power plant covering hundreds of square meters barely produces enough power for a normal sub to operate at peak efficiency, and the increased electrical strain placed by the constant need for proulsion places this sub outside the range of normal submarines power requirements. You're better off with a nuclear powerplant, modern technology has quieted nuclear reactors considerably.
3. Radio: Radio waves are notoriously weak when travelling through water, in fact, the UHF and VHF frequencies used by all television stations don't even travel through water more than a few feet before becoming undetectably weak. Besides, the middle of the ocean is not known for having great radio stations and quality television programing.
Squornshelous
24-07-2005, 05:46
OOC: The biggest problem I can think of also haas to do with buotancy, but in a different way. I think you could pull it off with no ballast tanks and just using waters jets, which in themselves would be very quiet. However, you'd need a tremendous amount of power to lift that weight up and reactor noise would spike when you went up. It would also probably handle like the russian Typhoons. Turning pretty slowly, changing depth like a crippled whale. If you ever had an emergency on board, your crew would be in trouble, because they couldn't do an emergency blow.
USSNA
24-07-2005, 13:24
Obviously this is a unique craft, and A good idea too, the Main problems I see with the design for the role it seems most suited for are:
1. Small crew, even with the simplified area denial mission, a larger crew is almost certainly necesary. larger crews allow all ships duties to be performed in shifts, at least two shifts are required to keep a submarine operating at full efficiency for any length of time and with such a small crew I can't see all the necesary positions being filled twice over.

Point taken, I might up the crew. Thanks.

2. Propulsion and weight. The constant need of propulsion to avoid 'crush depth' is a definate problem, simply, anyhting you can do to make thrust can be heard by modern sonar, so constant thrust simply doesnot mesh with the role of your submarine. As much as I admire your resourcefullness by using such a cheap and unconventional approach to the problem, it just can't work without some sort of buoyancy assist.

It doesn not just sit at 1,000m to do it's job, it actually lands on the surface of the ocean and sits. If it wants to move, it thrusts, say 85% down and 15% rearward. As it starts moving forward, the wings on the sides produce hydrodynamic lift, this lesses the need for downward thrust, to say 70% down and 30% rearward. This causes it to go even faster and produce more lift, 50-50%. I think that, at maximum, it cold go 25% down, 75% rearward.

3. Power source: Again, an admirable and unconventional approach to a problme but unless you want to announce your presence to every ship in the ocean, solar power is not the way to go. Even radar stealthing is not enough, the necesary size of a solar array to power the sub would be HUGE, think about solar powerplants for a minute, one solar power plant covering hundreds of square meters barely produces enough power for a normal sub to operate at peak efficiency, and the increased electrical strain placed by the constant need for proulsion places this sub outside the range of normal submarines power requirements. You're better off with a nuclear powerplant, modern technology has quieted nuclear reactors considerably.

True, I am considering to redesigning this. These are PV cells though, they dpnt heat a tank of water to turn steam turbines. They are highly efficent ones that that. I might do a solar/hydrogen hybrid. More on that in a later post.

3. Radio: Radio waves are notoriously weak when travelling through water, in fact, the UHF and VHF frequencies used by all television stations don't even travel through water more than a few feet before becoming undetectably weak. Besides, the middle of the ocean is not known for having great radio stations and quality television programing.

The Radio reciever is above water, so it pics ups the waves that are in the air. it can also pick up wide beam satalite transmissions. (Direct TV! Dish TV!) Point taken, but.





I decided to do my solar/hydrogen post now. I've always been thinking about hydrogen in a sub. But it all depends on if hydrolysis requires less energy per pound of hydrogen to make than a pound of hydrogen can produce. If so, this would less the need for large solar arrays.

-Solar panels gather energy into batteries.
-Battery power is used to make a pound of hydrogen from seawater.
-Hydrogen is recombined with the oxygen removed from hydrolysis and produces energy.
-Energy powers things.
-(You could store/reuse the same water, or just keep useing fresh seawater.

Hydrogen BTW, isn't as flammable as it seems. Hydrogen cell fuel cars were crash tested, and not a single on so much as caught fire.
USSNA
24-07-2005, 13:29
OOC: The biggest problem I can think of also haas to do with buotancy, but in a different way. I think you could pull it off with no ballast tanks and just using waters jets, which in themselves would be very quiet. However, you'd need a tremendous amount of power to lift that weight up and reactor noise would spike when you went up. It would also probably handle like the russian Typhoons. Turning pretty slowly, changing depth like a crippled whale. If you ever had an emergency on board, your crew would be in trouble, because they couldn't do an emergency blow.

wait! How do regular sub refil thier ballast tanks? I was going to say once you blew then to go down, you wouldn't be able to fill them again, but the thought ouccured to me that all subs do this no matter what. If I use the jets in conjuncture with ballast tanks, it would actually have great mobility as the water jets can turn just as aircraft jets do thurst vectoring.
Squornshelous
24-07-2005, 14:54
wait! How do regular sub refil thier ballast tanks? I was going to say once you blew then to go down, you wouldn't be able to fill them again, but the thought ouccured to me that all subs do this no matter what. If I use the jets in conjuncture with ballast tanks, it would actually have great mobility as the water jets can turn just as aircraft jets do thurst vectoring.

conventiobnal subs carry large tanks of highly compressed air. Usually, they flood the tanks a little at a time and use diving planes to maneuver, but in the event of an emergency, they can fill the tanks with air, creating huge positive buoyancy.

If you kept some ballast tanks along with the jets, the sub would be a lot more manueverable.
USSNA
24-07-2005, 15:03
yea, I'll retain some ballast tanks. But I'm not going to edit it till later nonight. I have a paintball game to get to soon.
McKagan
24-07-2005, 15:25
Excuse me? Yes, excuse your language too.

Just how exactly can a shotgun do critical damage to a submarine, much less a concrete hulled one?

Sorry about the language,

I might just be picturing concrete a more britle than it actually is.
Nianacio
24-07-2005, 19:07
This looks like a good idea (AFAIK I introduced concrete subs to NS around two years ago after reading the same article.) but there are some potential problems with it, some related to the actual sub and some just to how you present it:

The sub:
The endurance seems long to me, but I haven't seen numbers for a nuclear sub's endurance. I've seen "unlimited", but they obviously have a limited supply of food.

I recommend using torpedoes that explode right under the ships to snap their keels; I think that'll sink a ship a lot faster than blasting a hole in the bottom.

This torpedo is unusual in that preserve the stealth of the sub that launches it, it is jettisoned about 75m from the sub before it supercavitates and fires its rocket engines.Good idea, although while the exact location of the sub won't be known, it'll be clear there's a sub in the area and torpedoes are no good against ASW aircraft. The first target(s) will probably sink without any trouble if they're caught unprepared, but after that an enemy force may just fill the area with anti-sub weapons.

Is IRST useful in a sub?

Are you sure the propeller wash sensor will work? Detecting cavitation is no problem, but how do you detect dead marine organisms?

The presentation:
This isn't the first sub to get rid of hot bunking. I think IRL the Gotland and Collins classes have, and maybe some others, too.

Speed (kts): 32-32 knots DivedDoes that mean 32 surfaced AND 32 dived?

Maximum Diving Depth: 914m (3000 ft)Is that test depth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Test_depth), never-exceed depth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Never-exceed_depth), or crush depth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crush_depth)? The titanium alloy-hulled Sierra class has a crush depth of 914m/3,000', FWIW.
USSNA
26-07-2005, 03:19
I edited some stuff to make it a bit better.


If I do a blue water version I would do a thicker outer hull, 2 inner hulls, maybe keep my hydrogen engine or go nuclear, and make it a bit bigger.