Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Submarines Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: USNI Proceedings: Holy Mackerel, Not Again
YelliChink    6/14/2011 5:53:30 PM
http://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2011-06/holy-mackerel-not-again The SSK concept is only worthwhile if it is genuinely cheaper and can be based out of areas that will make up for the SSK’s lack of sustained speed and endurance. If the absence of nuclear components means only a marginally cheaper submarine with less processing, weapons, and sustained speed, then it isn’t worth it. Instead, the better option is an innovative and cheaper nuclear submarine applying a number of the lessons that have been learned on board other innovative nuclear submarines, such as the NR-1, and incorporate the technological advances of the Virginia. The bottom line is: We need to buy more submarines for less money. But to do so, we need to seriously ask what missions and capabilities we absolutely require. Having decided that, we can move ahead and produce an innovative and cheaper submarine, with a minimal loss of capabilities, that is our era’s Gato-class fleet submarine, not an ineffective Marlin or Mackerel. ==================================== You know what, French did build small SSN called Rubis class.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
earlm       6/14/2011 10:40:02 PM
Australia and the US appear to need the same thing.  A conventional boat with long range and nuke-like capability.  They should cooperate.
 
Quote    Reply

YelliChink       6/15/2011 12:10:05 AM

Australia and the US appear to need the same thing.  A conventional boat with long range and nuke-like capability.  They should cooperate.

First sentence, agree. Second sentence, do not agree. If you want nuke-like capability, simply build with reactors. The life-time cost of small SSN isn't that expensive.
 
Quote    Reply

Hamilcar21       7/6/2011 1:54:59 AM


Australia and the US appear to need the same thing.  A conventional boat with long range and nuke-like capability.  They should cooperate.

First sentence, agree. Second sentence, do not agree. If you want nuke-like capability, simply build with reactors. The life-time cost of small SSN isn't that expensive.

S.H.I.E.L.D.I.N.G.

The French are rather careless about that. Any new American SMALL sub needs a safe new reactor design that is SMALL, dense, and high core temperature for greater thermal efficiency in the steam plant and still maintain a good thick shield . HARD to do.without a liquid metal core reactor. Any ideas how to do that? Liquid sodium does not like steel much. Other metals are WORSE.

H.       

 
Quote    Reply

phrank       7/6/2011 11:22:47 AM
The problem with the US buy a conventional boat is that it would cost as much as a nuclear one. They would spend 10 billion designing it and it would cost allot. Then congress would get involved and hearings and they would say we need  a cheaper one and design a new one for another 5 billion and say look we have a cheap conventional sub. For that 15 billion they spent they could have bought at least 7 of the nuclear ones.
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics