Shipbucket

As someone who is being increasingly drawn into this project as my future career I can say that report has nothing to do with the Australian project.

Blackbuck check out:

http://www.bmtdsl.co.uk/?/308/899/

As a good starting point for current sub design. Not that the Brits know anything about underwater laminar flow so are about 50 years behind the US and 10 years behind Australia.

....

You do know that the Stuart Slade I mentioned is the one who has written essays for Navweaps and works for Forecast International right? While I understand you may have some personal experience in the field, Mr. Slade has worked in the "Military-Industrial Complex" for all of his adult life.

_________________
𝐌𝐀𝐓𝐇𝐍𝐄𝐓- 𝑻𝒐 𝑪𝒐𝒈𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝑺𝒐𝒍𝒗𝒆

I found Stuart Slade's post very informative and thought provoking - he raises some very good points. Being Australian I am very keen to see a strong submarine arm, be it nuclear or diesel-electric.

By the way Blackbuck this is a great AU, I always look forward to more posts, keep up the good work

_________________

Or even that, most of the points he makes is just common sense.

Thats all well and good but his opinion about how he would build a new australian sub bears no resemblance to how the australian government is planning to do it. There is plenty of information already published in australia about what is being looked at and how the project is structured. People like Slade just probably haven't bothered to read it or don't care. I'm not saying his conculsions are wrong or flawed they just don't have anything to do with this program.

I'm rather fond of this series, but I've got a variety of thoughts and questions.

1. Another +1 about needing larger drive motors. If I were you, I would reasonably scale your power needs off of similarly-sized real ships. At 12kton deep displacement, you're not going to get much speed out of less than 80kshp; the latest Burkes are in the 110kshp range, as I recall. This PDF from ABB details Azipod selection; whatever pods you use would be similar. The largest current offering is 25MW (about 33kshp). Realistically, you're looking at a four-pod arrangement, probably very much like the setup on QM2 (which is 4x21MW). Forward pair are probably fixed, aft pair variable-azimuth. See this picture for a first approximation. Three pods might also be doable, although it would complicate the arrangement somewhat. See M/V Freedom (or Oasis) of the Seas. Thought you may well not have enough beam for such a configuration. If you want to imagine scaling up the system, scale things based on the following data. Image 1, Image 2, Image 3, from documents found here. I believe the largest V-series and X-series Azipods to be sized identically (within Shipbucket tolerances). I might just handwave a 2x30MW arrangement, scaling pod size by constant power/volume and screw size by constant power/area.

2. All that said, you need enough glorious gas turbines to power such, and you don't have enough right now unless that stack is extremely wide. Look at Burke for the sort of stack-spam you need for a big pile of gas turbines (and though I know you're CODLAG, most of your available power is going to be in the turbines). It would be nice to have split plants, if you can absorb the length. It would make you much more damage tolerant.

3. Bow thruster, as said above, should be as forward as possible. Forward of that strange access-panel like thing. Speaking of which, what are those?

4. Your ships are presumably very much for rough-seas use. With that in mind, I approve of the stabilization fins. However, I think yours are far too large.

5. With that in mind, you need way more freeboard IMHO. And holy smokes, the transom is deeper than shit. Look at some real cruisers and destroyers for some guidance on stern shape and freeboard forward, particularly the USN and British (who tend to have good rough-weather capability). Right now you seem fit mostly for service in the Med.

6. And more rake to the bow. Right now, the anchor is going to want to gobble up the sonar dome as it goes by (through).

7. Weapons fit seems generally appropriate, although a bit light on the VLS. 64 cells, presumably? I wouldn't want a single block larger than that, as huge holes in the strength deck are not a good thing. I might try for another 32 to replace the Harpoonskis, which could quite easily be stuck on elsewhere. No reason not to pretend the forward 40mm aren't port and starboard, like a baby Horizon. Whose stack arrangement I might also steal.

8. The area right abeam of the RAMski seems added in just for a place to put such. Again, VLS the crap out of that area. RAMski should feel like an afterthought, not a driver for length.

In fact, consider the following. Horizon-like air search set and after engine stack where RAMski is now. RAMski on either beam above the after edge of the RHIB doors. Shift the main stack forward maybe 20ft, and throw in 32 VLS amidships. Ditch the separate Harpoonski canisters and put the weapons in the VLS.

9. What's with the exhaust-thing below the waterline under the helo pad?

10. Lower the forward VLS one deck. No reason to have such a heavy object so high. Angle the bulkhead below the forward 40mm in alignment with all of your other near-vertical surfaces.

11. Bridge seems awfully small for a ship that will surely end up in charge of flotillas.

12. Needs a pile of ECM/ESM/comms crap, but you probably knew that.

13. You have an awful lot of space in the stern. Maybe some RHIBs or towed array or generic flexible space?



Food for thought.

[quote="erik_t9. What's with the exhaust-thing below the waterline under the helo pad?[/quote]
I believe that's the intake for the pump-jet that for some reason didn't make it into this version.

_________________
“Close” only counts with horseshoes, hand grenades, and tactical nuclear weapons.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error

Worklist

Source Materiel is always welcome.

I wasn't paying attention apparently - there's a pumpjet too!?

I guess that would explain the OMGTRANSOM. I can't say I support such a ludicrously mixed propulsion set though.

In addition to what erik_t said, I'd consider dumping the Harpoon analogue entirely, since you have a VLS-launched missile that looks suitably adaptable to the ASM role.

Also, I guess it's a bit late, but I'd wonder why your corvette has so little weapons commonality with your other stuff. I would think at the very least it would use whatever your "national" ASM is, and your RAM-analogue adapted for a MANPADS launch.

I'll get something basic posted at the weekend to brainstorm over.


The corvette does use the "national AShM" - Kingfisher, 150NM range, 300kg warhead, GPS & ARH guidance subsonic (0.95Mach + supersonic terminal)
As for a manpad version of the Armaros PD, mibbeh. Will look into it.

_________________
AU Projects: | Banbha et al. | New England: The Divided States
Blood and Fire