Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Surface Forces Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Submersible ASW escort - half frigate, half submarine
Iano    8/20/2005 6:43:31 AM
Does anyone think there is merit in a class of ship that blurs the distinction between surface ship and submarine? Such a ship I could operate largely on the surface, allowing it to use its point air defence missiles and anti shipping missiles, perhaps it would even mount a gun, although I see this being much less suited, except perhaps for Goalkeeper/Sea RAM CIWSs. Then when it was required to prosecute an attack on a submarine (detected from afar with a variable-depth towed-array sonar, bow & flank sonar and datalinks to other sensors) it would be able to slip below the waves, it would not be as fast or as deep as the submarines in use now, but it would offer less noise (from the sounds of the surface water hitting the hull) and could mount heavyweight torpedoes in bow tubes. It wouldnt have the underwater endurance of an SSN but would be much cheaper, easier to build, and more versatile as it would also be used in the general-escort role as an FFG replacement. SSNs would still of course be required but why not effectively an underwater-capable ship, this is largely how the U boat wolfpacks operated, and the combination of running on the surface for routine and high speed transits and then submerging for the actual attack or to evade enemy forces, won them much success. Perhaps it could be outfitted with a flightdeck for operating helos such as Lynx from, this would give it another edge in ASW & ASUW, however they would need to be evacuated to another ship prior to diving (perhaps the next generation of AAW warships could be trimaran to give them expanded deckspace and stability?), or the alternative might be a rather expensive system of sealed lifts from hangar to flightdeck. Ian
 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest

Pages: 1 2 3 4   NEXT
AussieEngineer    RE:Submersible ASW escort - half frigate, half submarine   8/20/2005 7:13:56 AM
My gut instinct tells me it's not feasable.
 
Quote    Reply

Iano    RE:Submersible ASW escort - half frigate, half submarine   8/20/2005 7:17:02 AM
From an engineering perspective or an operational one?
 
Quote    Reply

AussieEngineer    I'll explain   8/20/2005 7:21:03 AM
I don't see the advantage now that I think about it a bit. If an FFG detects a sub it can send the helo to pin point it's location and attack a lot quicker than the ship/sub you are suggesting. It's detection capability and accoustics would undoubtably be inferior to a purpose built sub. In the end it would probably cost more than a frigate, it would basically be a loud sub which spends most of it's time on the surface. That doesn't sound like a winning combination to me.
 
Quote    Reply

Iano    RE:I'll explain   8/20/2005 11:54:03 AM
I see what you mean. I dont think it could ever replace dedicated submarines for all the roles they perform. I was thinking essentially a frigate replacement, with point air defence and anti shipping missiles too, but if submerging might give it an edge against submarines. The helo usually wins I suppose you are right. But it would be nice to have some sort of heavyweight torpedo capability to get at deep-diving and fast submarines. The only platform the RN has that can loose off Spearfish are its submarines and they will be in short supply and rather busy if a full war ever occurs I am sure! Believe the Russians did something with heavyweight torps on their cruisers but seems rather irrelevant to me, as their cruisers operate as flagships and massive surface-to-surface missile-firing platforms, not as an escort vessel or in the ASW picket. Perhaps deck-mounted tubes, or bow tubes, for heavyweight torps in FFGs could be considered? Do you think a semi-submarine would have any military value at all? Could come in useful for avoiding spy satellites, aerial recce and long range radar etc.
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica    RE:I'll explain   8/20/2005 12:32:12 PM
"Do you think a semi-submarine would have any military value at all?" --Perhaps but look at the capabilities of a modern SSN today. They are stealthy and enjoy all the benefits implied. In terms of firepower they are almost as destructive if not more to land targets as a FFG. They are absolutely lethal to surface ships and other submarines as is.
 
Quote    Reply

doggtag    semi-submersible   8/20/2005 1:23:29 PM
this could be a very useful stealth feature for a future naval vessel: doubtful that surface search radars and anti-ship cruise missile would find the target if it could fully submerge to just under the surface (although the bottom of the hull then would easily be 50-100 feet down, depending on mast/antenna height... unless we make them retractable like a submarine's periscope and sensors). If moving into a target area under cover of darkness, when aircraft cannot optically spot you, this could be a very useful covert tactic, although most likely it would be used on small combatants, not several-thousand-tons-displacement frigates and destroyers. The surprise potential of a semi-submersible surface raider becomes obvious. It could be a larger follow-on to SEAL Delivery Systems: runs more economically on the surface to within the target area, then semi-submerges to carry out a close-in raid.
 
Quote    Reply

EW3    RE:semi-submersible   8/20/2005 1:51:37 PM
The real problem you run into is that most of the systems on a frigate are not really waterproof. You put a 5" gun under saltwater for even a few hours it's probably broken. Water pouring through the waveguides or cable conduits would make a mess of the ship, and water down the stack is a very bad idea. This is a case where you'd appreciate the difference between the terms water-resistant and water-proof. Frigates are water-resistant subs need to be water-proof.
 
Quote    Reply

jhaley    RE:semi-submersible   8/20/2005 2:34:00 PM
I don't think a frigate size submersible is practicle, but a stealth designed frigat with 40 to 60% deck under water may be more practical. A type of frigate could be posative buoyant and could shallow submerge {porpoise} for limited time.
 
Quote    Reply

SpudmanWP    RE:semi-submersible ASW   8/20/2005 4:20:39 PM
If the enemy sub is detected by ASW aircraft... they should prosecute the attack themselves. The ASW ships can prosecute with an ASROC. The sub you described would be too specialized and expensive to EVER be authorized.
 
Quote    Reply

doggtag    RE:semi-submersible   8/20/2005 5:14:58 PM
-"You put a 5" gun under saltwater for even a few hours it's probably broken." Ummm...didn't most submarines from WW1 through WW2 HAVE deck guns, out in the open, exposed to saltwater? I would think our modern metallury and materials technologies have progressed suitably enough. Besides, I wouldn't see much need for a large caliber gun, not when VLS arrays are more than sufficient (we're not looking for a coastal-fire-support vessel, but merely more of a covert raider, I think). Something along the size of a small submarine that is economically suited to surface cruise most of its life, but is waterproof enough to dive just beneath the surface: it doesn't need to be stressed to withstand 250m depths or anything close to what modern subs handle (and with their hatches and access ports, you don't hear much about them leaking). Conformal arrays are the wave of the future (pardon the pun), as we see in the latest stealthy designs: sloped sides with sensors embedded into the actual skin panels. And retractable sensor systems are nothing new: submarines have been deploying optical periscopes, IR systems, radar masts, and comm antennas for decades, as well as those diesels who have snorkels that effectively have allowed them to cruise underwater on more than just battery power (some of the first real stealth applications were being developed by the Germans in WW2 to prevent Allied surface search radars from detecting the snorkels of submerged submarines, utilizing special coatings and materials so the snorkel did not offer a measurable radar echo...) Hell, shape the submersible like a whale shark, arm it with a large array of lightweight VLS weapons (Maverick, Hellfire, AMRAAM-sized ordnance) and ASW torps (current 12.75" weapons can work as ASuW also, and their 100+ pound warheads hitting below the waterline will cause sufficient damage to a vessel to limit its effectiveness. 2 rounds equals just over 200 pounds of explovise, and still takes up less space than a 21" fish. Any guns needed for when on the surface could be easily found in retractable systems in the medium-caliber (25-50mm chain guns?) class, perfect for surface self defense more than an offensive role. SSBNs have been oprating with large hull doors over their SLBMs for decades with little concern over leaks, so we should be able to use the same tech and make a waterproof hatch for a retractable deck gun/RWS. Now this sounds more like a future "UCUV" Unmanned Combat Underwater Vehicle, perhaps similar to the USN's Manta concept, semi-autonomous UUVs armed with sufficient firepower to present a very effective threat to any adversary. In packs, guided by a manned CiC in a larger submarine, would have the equivalent effect of a WW2 wolfpack, but only needing one submarine to be manned. The only real difficulty could lie in creating a quiet-enough high-speed underwater hull that can economically maintain high surfaced speeds. Most likely, any such semi-submersible combatant would be little more than a technology-enhancing (prototypes only) program, not a production-line class of ships. I am merely entertaining what it might involve in the finished platform.
 
Quote    Reply
1 2 3 4   NEXT



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2012StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy