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: The Victorias Finally Enter Service
SYSOP    3/12/2015 6:27:19 AM
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18   NEXT
JFKY    *WOW*   3/12/2015 8:22:38 AM
IF this little "story" is close to accurate, then this saga reads more like an arms deal involving India & Russia, than Britain & a Commonwealth Nation... Were the Upholders that shoddily built, that the BRIT'S would have been forced into expensive repairs before placing them into service? They were relatively new when purchased, so what "problems" could they have had? Also, do they REALLY have to be retired in the 2020's? I understand hull fatigue, but how fatigued can their hulls be? They've been in dry-dock rather than at sea for the last DECADE!
 
Quote    Reply

keffler25       3/12/2015 8:28:25 AM
 
Quote    Reply

keffler25       3/12/2015 8:38:10 AM
British shipbuilding for the RN has been CRAP from the days of their steel navy. 
 
Damage that German, Japanese  and American ships shrugged off, put British hulls under water so fast that it was understood that a near miss was as good as a kill with those targets. 
 

During early August 1940, while she was still being outfitted and was in a semi-complete state, Prince of Wales was attacked by German aircraft. One bomb fell between the ship and a wet basin wall, narrowly missing a 100-ton dockside crane, and exploded underwater below the bilge keel. The explosion took place about six feet from the ship's port side in the vicinity of the after group of 5.25-inch guns. Buckling of the shell plating took place over a distance of 20 to 30 feet (9.1 m), rivets were sprung and considerable flooding took place in the port outboard compartments in the area of damage, causing a ten-degree port list. The flooding was severe, due to the fact that final compartment air tests had not yet been made and the ship did not have her pumping system in operation.[6]

The water was pumped out through the joint efforts of a local fire company and the shipyard, and Prince of Wales was later dry docked for permanent repairs. This damage and the problem with the delivery of her main guns and turrets delayed her completion. As the war progressed there was an urgent need for capital ships, and so her completion was advanced by postponing compartment air tests, ventilation tests and a thorough testing of her bilge, ballast and fuel-oil systems.[6]

Sunk at quayside by a single rather light bomb that missed which put her out of action for months.  


Also, do they REALLY have to be retired in the 2020's? I understand hull fatigue, but how fatigued can their hulls be? They've been in dry-dock rather than at sea for the last DECADE!

 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    Your Links   3/12/2015 9:48:21 AM
though informative, except for the one in Japanese, didn't answer my question about how badly constructed the British Ships were or why they "needed" to be retired in the 2020's..... I will buy, that the Upholders were sub-optimal in initial RN service, I'd just like to see some evidence &/or an explanation of how that is possible. At the time of completion the Brit's had been building SSK's for 80 years. The "The USN ought to purchase SSK" article was very interesting, & made some good points, though I have quibbles..... HOWEVER, the author lost me with the $2.8 Billion v. $500 million point...that is the oldest Defense Reformer "Dodge" in the book....I'll bet once you look at PROGRAM COSTS & "overhead" you'll discover that a Soryu isn't as "cheap" as the author lets on or conversely that the Virginia isn't as "costly"....so the numbers you can ACTUALLY buy will be much smaller..... I've seen that dodge run on the F-16/-15 v. the F-5 for YEARS....or the M-1 v. M-60....at the end of running Program costs, vehicle, 20 year maintenance, crew costs, & war reserves, one discovers that you really can't buy as many "cheaper" alternatives as the UNIT cost would suggest. Not trying to argue with you, Keffler, just commenting on that particular article.
 
Quote    Reply

keffler25       3/12/2015 10:39:16 AM
...[T]hough informative, except for the one in Japanese, didn't answer my question about how badly constructed the British Ships were or why they "needed" to be retired in the 2020's..... I will buy, that the Upholders were sub-optimal in initial RN service, I'd just like to see some evidence &/or an explanation of how that is possible. At the time of completion the Brit's had been building SSK's for 80 years.
 
 
1. Just because you've been building submarines for eighty years does not mean you are any good at it. Look at how long it took the Americans to finally figure it out, (1898---> 1938 or 40 years) to produce a submarine (Sargo) as good as a late model German WW I U-cruiser. Once they figured out how, they rapidly overtook everyone else including the Germans, so that by 1950s the Gatos, Balaos and the Tenches could be modified to be superior to the Type XXI's or the Russian Whiskeys based off the German boats.       
 
A lot of nations bought surplus WW II British boats> What happened?  Incompetent diving control and torpedo tube design. You had to learn to think 'British' (double check to make sure you did not throw the valve control down for open instead of up) or you lost the boat in a simple dive evolution. American boats included signal color cues and word displays that TOLD you what you did (Christmas tree) so you didn't sink yourself by simple stupidity.      
 
The "The USN ought to purchase SSK" article was very interesting, & made some good points, though I have quibbles..... HOWEVER, the author lost me with the $2.8 Billion v. $500 million point...that is the oldest Defense Reformer "Dodge" in the book....I'll bet once you look at PROGRAM COSTS & "overhead" you'll discover that a Soryu isn't as "cheap" as the author lets on or conversely that the Virginia isn't as "costly"....so the numbers you can ACTUALLY buy will be much smaller..... I've seen that dodge run on the F-16/-15 v. the F-5 for YEARS....or the M-1 v. M-60....at the end of running Program costs, vehicle, 20 year maintenance, crew costs, & war reserves, one discovers that you really can't buy as many "cheaper" alternatives as the UNIT cost would suggest. Not trying to argue with you, Keffler, just commenting on that particular article.
 
Oh, I agree. The Soryus actually look to be 1.2 billion USD apiece just out of the assembly shed (assuming a US Yard) and I see no savings on fuel or training, parts, refurb and repair, or weapons and sensors based on cost per man. but I do see savings at the nuclear end with the lighter and thinner hulls possible and the slightly smaller crews. 
 
The point of interest is TACTICAL and operational. In the shallow coastal waters where those boats are intended to fight it saves us about a billion dollars a boat front-end (-a Virginia costs about 2.2 billion USD out of the shed before it's commissioned)  and gives us a self contained and independent sortie littoral combat unit which we desperately need for coastal warfare that is actually useful.  If we could get one of those for what I expect a LCS to truly cost over its lifetime, I think that would be very useful.  52 more subs in the fleet is more useful for sinking Chicom tankers and frigates than a bunch of CS802 cruise missile bait.
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    I had to laugh   3/12/2015 10:55:52 AM

-If we could get one of those for what I expect a LCS to truly cost over its lifetime, I think that would be very useful.  52 more subs in the fleet is more useful for sinking Chicom tankers and frigates than a bunch of CS802 cruise missile bait.
 
Quote    Reply

joe6pack       3/12/2015 11:13:39 AM
>though informative, except for the one in Japanese,
 
For those in need, Google Chrome  browser will provide a translation - it isn't spectacular.. but not complete gibberish either (like many earlier attempts at auto translating Japanese)
 
Quote    Reply

joe6pack    and laughing..   3/12/2015 11:19:30 AM
>-If we could get one of those for what I expect a LCS to truly cost over its lifetime
 
I suspect we would be better off investing in giant monster fighting robots (of Japanese design).. than spending billions on the LCS... but good lord.. can we pretend that didn't come up in this thread... I don't know that I can take another 100+  thread on the ship that shall no longer be named by me...
 
I am rather interested in the Soryu.. and was shocked that Australia was considering purchasing some..
 
 
Quote    Reply

keffler25       3/12/2015 11:34:30 AM
For those in need, Google Chrome  browser will provide a translation - it isn't spectacular.. but not complete gibberish either (like many earlier attempts at auto translating Japanese)
 
A rather lousy translation follows;
 

Ssangyong submarines (16SS)
Soryu class submarine
Ssangyong submarines

The Ssangyong submarines is a new submarine the Maritime Self-Defense Force is promoting in new construction. The first submarine is in the naval law budget of fiscal year 2004, the unit which is also referred to as the 16SS. Also sometimes referred to as the 2,900-ton displacement submarine from the planned value of its displacement.

The Ssangyong submarine, introduces a variety of innovations quite new to the Maritime Self-Defense Force submarine force, unknown to that service until it has been introduced, and noteworthy for the first time; air-independent propulsion as a part of the submarine (AIP Air-Independent Propulsion) and is adopting the Stirling cycle heat engine for that purpose.

The Stirling cycle heat engine is an external combustion engine does not require the air during combustion. Therefore this engine allows charging the battery cells even while diving, thus floating up closer to the surface [to snort] as the previous JMSDF submarines needed to power driving the diesel engine for the recharge is eliminated . So, because the Stirling engine frees you [of the snort], your need to frequently semisurface for battery charging is reduced, leading to reduced risk of being detected by the enemy.

The Maritime Self-Defense Force tested this concept in submarine Asashio from 2003, and has continued to test using the Kockums manufactured Stirling engine 4V-275R Mk? of Sweden. The 4V-275R Mk? is an improved type of this installation is intended for the Ssangyong submarines. The engine is license produced by Kawasaki Heavy Industries. Four of these engines are mounted in the planned submarine class.

Another characteristic technology that has been adopted in the Ssangyong type submarine's four rudder, which is equipped with stern plane control called the "X rudder".

Looking at this rudder control; from behind for the normal submarine it's arranged in a cross shape. The Ssangyong submarine's [rudder control] is arranged to form an "X". It permits some directiona control of the two remaining rudder blades even if one or two blades of the four rudder blade assembly fails by this “X” arrangement. In addition to the turning radius [for the submarine] is smaller than that of the prior rudder arrangement. It is possible to suppress the noise agitation of the ship during such turning.

Furthermore by the computer controlling the six rudder blades [bow and aft] plus the two latent rudder bridge [blade?] pair allows for more subtle movements, and is expected to improve the maneuverability.

The first new submarine that has these innovations, No. 1 ship [the class ship?] was launched at the Kobe Shipyard & Machinery Works Mitsubishi Heavy Industries on December 5, 2007. It was named "Ssangyong".

 
 The "Ssangyong" was named in the honor of aircraft carrier "Soryu" of the [Imperial] Japanese Navy, but it is the first time that the Maritime Self-Defense Force adopted the name of that former Navy [or its] aircraft carrier. This reflects a feeling that in this submarine of both [in that name and in reality] the Maritime Self-Defense Force's new generation is strong enough [to dare]. The No. 1 ship (class ship) "Ssangyong" [was] in 2009, March 30 handed over to the Maritime Self-Defense Force, and was deployed to the 1st U-boat Flotilla of Wu.
[cont.]
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

keffler25       3/12/2015 11:34:53 AM
The second ship [to be named?] is launched from Kawasaki Shipbuilding's Kobe factory to October 15, 2008 "Unryu". "Unryu" is also in honor of the aircraft carrier "Yunlong" of the old navy. It is supposed to take over the aircraft carrier name [of the ship] that succeeded "Ssangyong". "Unryu" is outfitting and expected to be completed as of March 2010.

In addition play a launch in Kobe Shipyard & Machinery Works Mitsubishi Heavy Industries to third ship also October 16, 2009, I was named as "White Dragon". Sea delivery {launch?] of the "White Dragon" is scheduled for March 2011. (This would be Haku ry&&63; or Hiryu. Keffler)
 
I find it interesting that the implied comment that the JMSDF finally feels it can return to its IJN roots (at least in ship naming) was included in the article.  
 
 
Quote    Reply
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics