Submarines general topic

SpaceNut · 2023-08-13 14:47:06

I have seen it
https://youtu.be/bmXBHHBup4A?si=Qis2dbtwtvHuDCk1
Ghost ship

Mars_B4_Moon · 2023-09-15 13:44:14

Mini-Subs Could One Day Ply the Seas Under Europa’s Ice
https://www.universetoday.com/163186/mi … ropas-ice/

Mars_B4_Moon · 2023-09-16 06:38:05

more on the Russian loss of a Submarine

Russian Submarine Suffers 'Catastrophic' Damage In Ukrainian Missile Strike
https://ca.news.yahoo.com/russian-subma … 41575.html

Russian military sources have tried to downplay the damage caused to the landing ship Minsk and Rostov-na-Donu submarine.
But in their latest intelligence update on the war, the UK’s Ministry of Defence (MoD) said: “Open-source evidence indicates the Minsk has almost certainly been functionally destroyed, while the Rostov has likely suffered catastrophic damage.
“Any effort to return the submarine to service is likely to take many years and cost hundreds of millions of dollars.”
The MoD also said that “there is a realistic possibility” that the dry docks where the two vessels had been situated will be out of action for “many months” while the wreckage is cleared away.

SpaceNut · 2023-09-17 10:02:07

Why Modern Submarines Are Nearly Impossible To Detect

Columbia: The Largest Submarine Built by the Navy Is a Big Secret

SpaceNut · 2023-09-23 16:58:25

The USS Scorpion: The Cold War Mystery That Remains Unsolved

tahanson43206 · 2023-09-26 14:25:08

This ariicle is about the recent return of a British nuclear powered submarine, after a six month tour of duty.

The crew appear to have survived, but the author of the article considers the deployment to be "irresponsible". The crew is only 130 people. Compare that to 1060 people for eight months.

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/roya … 00888.html

(th)

SpaceNut · 2023-09-27 19:25:50

The large ship while it's to be considered spacious truly is a test of man's ability to live with one another.

Space however could have issues which happen due to complacency as Negligence on Board: $3 Billion Submarine Almost Capsized Due to Unsecured Hatch

Space also has less chances of a ‘Sir, We Hit a Russian Submarine’: A Navy Sub ‘Hit’ a Nuclear Attack Sub

AA15QdXc.img?w=768&h=485&m=6

In either case it's important to save the equipment and then crew for our space adventures to mars.

SpaceNut · 2023-10-03 18:42:21

Thedanger of war tactics Fifty-five Chinese sailors are feared dead after their nuclear submarine 'got caught in a trap intended to ensnare British sub-surface vessels in the Yellow Sea'

Shipbuilders 3D-printed a part for a nuclear submarine

tahanson43206 · 2023-10-31 06:04:37

GW Johnson wrote:

Electric Boat in Connecticut built a lot of diesel-electric submarines for the US Navy, from between the world wars until the 1960's, when nuclear pretty much superseded the diesel-electric. I'm not sure about the early designs, but the WW2 fleet subs and their immediate predecessors at the time of the V-boats in the 1930's were all-electric drive, with the diesels running only electric generators to keep the lead-acid batteries charged.
These fleet types were 4-engine boats capable of running up to about 22 knots on the surface, and with 10,000-12,000 nautical mile range if you slowed a bit. The Gato's were test depth rated to 300 feet, while the Balao's and Tench's were rated to a test depth of 400 feet. I've actually been aboard a Balao still on active service with USN as a Guppy-modified boat when I was young. Several of them survived in combat to depths of 600-700 feet.
A lot of the nuclear submarines are direct mechanical drive with steam turbines. Some are electric drive with the steam turbines instead just generating electricity.
Some of the WW1 designs had clutches so the diesels could drive both the generators and the propeller shafts while surfaced. That didn't work out so well as all-electric drive, in terms of reliability. This clutch thing was in the S-class boats from about 1919-to-1925-ish. Some of these served in combat during WW2. They were were 2-engine boats, capable of about 14 knots surfaced, and about 5000 or 6000 nmi range, if memory serves (which it might not at my age). Test depth was 200 feet. One of them survived grounding at 315 feet off China, running from Japanese destroyers in WW2.
The diesel-electric thing done as all-electric drive is a true hybrid propulsion system. In the 1930's it was small enough to fit in a 300-foot-long fleet submarine, and in a railway diesel locomotive. It's small enough now to it in a car. The plug-in hybrids approximate it, but not correctly. You still have a very complicated and expensive transmission accepting shaft power from both an engine and an electric motor, even with the plug-in hybrids.
Hybrid cars really should be done with all-electric drive, and you do not need a complicated transmission. The plug-in hybrids proved that the electric components have to the power and the ruggedness to serve that function. You could put the motor-generator and the fuel tank in a small trailer, that you pull only when you need the range. That trailer could also carry luggage or cargo for you. Again, only when you need it.
GW

SpaceNut · 2023-10-31 18:44:15

Life Under the Sea: 30 Fascinating Facts About Living in a Submarine

Mars_B4_Moon · 2023-11-27 05:38:23

Explorer who made the first dive to the bottom of the Marianas Trench

Retired Navy Capt. Don Walsh, Deep Sea Submariner and Ocean Explorer, Dies at 92
https://news.usni.org/2023/11/13/retire … dies-at-92
a deep-sea submarine officer, oceanographer and renowned explorer

'Ocean Explorer Recalls Dive to Deepest Part of Sea'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6MXgqqmc1l8

SpaceNut · 2023-12-12 18:21:38

Navy Submarine Just Tested A Torpedo Tube-Recovered Drone

quite an interesting item to make use of...

SpaceNut · 2023-12-29 08:50:12

Many in service are coming up ill these days due to exposes The Air Force said its nuclear missile capsules were safe. But toxins lurked, documents show

SpaceNut · 2024-01-05 18:38:39

USS Columbus receives final funds as it nears overhaul completion

The US Navy’s Los Angeles-class submarine, USS Columbus (SSN 762), approaches the end of its eight-year-long engineered overhaul.
HII Newport News Shipbuilding, a US naval industrial prime and contractor for the submarine’s sustainment since 2015, has received the final funds worth $283.9m. This will see the boat return to active service sometime after December 2025, when the Navy expects the work to be fulfilled.

All I can say is that's too much time to not be available for the Navy to make use of.

SpaceNut · 2024-01-06 10:04:07

Inside a Submarine: A Glimpse into the Lives of Those Serving Beneath the Ocean's Surface

SpaceNut · 2024-01-10 20:00:22

A new X fighter is born as it is designed to replace the existing Ohio-class boomers Columbia Missile Submarine's X-Shaped Stern

SpaceNut · 2024-01-15 15:37:02

It does happen Navy fires captain of guided missile submarine for 'loss of confidence'
Not sure why and article does not have details...

Mars_B4_Moon · 2024-03-31 04:05:03

Why were passengers allowed on OceanGate’s experimental Titan sub?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4bYuSL8uVQ

Mars_B4_Moon · 2024-05-18 06:03:50

'Titan Documentary'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWTtA_Nmlpw

The Dark Mystery of the USS Scorpion Submarine

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tfsGbbK1dFY

one of two nuclear submarines the U.S. Navy has lost, the other being USS Thresher

NASA’s Flyby Of Europa Suggests "Something" Stirring Beneath The Ice
https://www.iflscience.com/nasas-flyby- … -ice-74251

Soviets, St. Petersburg journalist Viktor Tereshkin tells us a story about submarine K-429 (Charlie-I class).
https://bellona.org/news/nuclear-issues … m-oblivion

K-278 Komsomolets a nuclear-powered attack submarine of the Soviet Navy; the only submarine of her design class. The wrecked submarine is on the floor of the Barents Sea, about 1.7 km (1 mile) deep, with her nuclear reactor and two nuclear warhead-armed torpedoes still on board.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ … ia/685.htm

K-159 a nuclear-powered submarine that served in the Northern Fleet of the Soviet Navy
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/2020 … submarines

K-141 Kursk an Oscar II-class nuclear-powered cruise missile submarine of the Russian Navy.
a movie in 2018
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt4951982/

Last edited by Mars_B4_Moon (2024-05-18 06:06:37)

Mars_B4_Moon · 2024-06-02 17:23:48

Billionaire to take sub to Titanic to prove industry's safer after OceanGate implosion
https://www.express.co.uk/news/us/19042 … -oceangate
Larry Connor is preparing to plunge more than 12,400 feet to the site in a two-person Triton submersible

From a discussion navigation needs it's own beacons, Titan and Europa thread debate

the geographic restrictions apply
https://web.archive.org/web/20170128132 … report.pdf

'sonobuoys were equipped with one-pound packs of fluorescent dye to make them visible in daylight'
https://web.archive.org/web/20200324114 … 597432.pdf

North Korea Sinpo-class submarine also called the Gorae class or Pongdae class

possibly hold some type of submarine-launched ballistic missile, cruise missile or smaller SLBM

https://english.kyodonews.net/news/2021 … not-1.html

https://web.archive.org/web/20211027111 … democratic

https://space.skyrocket.de/doc_lau/pukguksong-3.htm

Last edited by Mars_B4_Moon (2024-06-03 01:59:16)

Mars_B4_Moon · 2024-06-15 06:32:08

Kazan, a nuclear-powered cruise missile submarine of the Russian Navy.

a small part of Russia's Navy arrives in Cuba

however they also sent a Tugboat for their ships, submarine, frigate arriving

Canadian warship sharing an anchorage with Russian vessels in Cuba
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/canadian-wars … 00110.html

The Royal Canadian Navy now finds itself in the unusual position of both shadowing Russian warships as a threat in the Caribbean and sharing an anchorage with them as a guest in the port of Havana — because Canada accepted an invitation to send a patrol ship to Cuba while the Russian navy is in town.

The Russian ships are expected to leave Cuba and head for Venezuela, where the Nicolas Maduro government is another major backer of Putin and the war in Ukraine.
"The Canadian Armed Forces will continue to track the movements and activities of the Russian naval flotilla" after it departs Havana, Kened Sadiku of DND told CBC News.

Donald Trump Criticizes Biden Over Russian Naval Presence Near Cuba
https://www.cubaheadlines.com/articles/283623

'Strategic Calculations Behind Russia’s Kazan Nuclear Submarine’s Upcoming Visit to Cuba'
https://theaviationist.com/2024/06/08/s … t-to-cuba/

"Russian Frigate Sails To The Atlantic With Hypersonic Missiles".
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 … -missiles/

Cuba welcomes Russian military ships to Havana
https://www.bbc.com/news/videos/c722m823612o
'part of a military drill in the Caribbean.'

Last edited by Mars_B4_Moon (2024-06-15 06:53:23)

kbd512 · 2025-01-29 18:47:05

It turns out that Stockton Rush and his business partner consulted with Boeing, NASA, and DARPA. Boeing initially told OceanGate that the hull needed to be 10 inches thick, if made from CFRP, because in simulation testing the composite structure was deflecting inward 37% more than allowable. Boeing opined that through layup optimization and very careful monitoring for fabrication defects, a 7 inch thick "un-notched" optimized hull thickness was feasible and would not fail.

For reasoning explicitly related to cost, rather than factor of safety, sensible engineering practices, or any other worthwhile considerations, Stockton Rush completely ignored the good engineering advice he received from our composite experts, and then proceeded to make his submersible's hull 5 inches thick (based upon what engineering principles and analysis, if any, I do not know), while knowing full well that Boeing was showing failures at hull thicknesses less than 7 inches. Even at that, it probably still would've held together, had he followed the other manufacturing protocols Boeing requested that he use, but he couldn't spend the money on that, either, apparently.

The Titan composite submersible may have been a perfectly sound and innovative design IF it was fabricated in accordance with the rigorous engineering analysis and advice from Boeing, NASA, and others, because they wanted the vehicle to be safe and for his business venture to succeed. This guy was so fixated on spending a little extra on Carbon Fiber that his greed killed him and his paying customers. He didn't even follow the layup schedule that Boeing provided, and Boeing told him they had no data for what he was attempting. NASA tested scale models for him using Stockton's preferred layup schedule, and both of NASA's sub-scale test articles failed at less than the rated pressure depth Stockton intended to take Titan to. On top of that, NASA came up with a new fiber layer bonding strength improvement method, which he also failed to utilize. It seems as if everybody and their dog tried to help him succeed, and certainly didn't want him to die, but sheer arrogance overcame all of their good faith efforts to help him remain counted amongst the living.

One thing I do seem to recall about this is that everyone disavowed ever talking to Stockton, but apparently that was not true. Why not just examine the wreckage, see if he bothered to follow any of the engineering advice given to him at all, and then tell the public what advice was provided to him, which he failed to follow? These people are publicly stating what they told him and showing what they sent him now, so it was always going to come out after this kind of disaster.

To think, I gave this guy the benefit of the doubt until more information was available. Now that we do have relatively complete info, whatever the heck was going on at OceanGate was pure amateur hour nonsense.

Note to self:
Anybody who is more concerned with saving a few dollars than they are with sound engineering practices can take a long walk off a short pier!

kbd512 · 2025-01-30 14:04:18

I'm beginning to understand why NASA won't work with anyone on adapting modern liquid-cooled EFI engines found in automotive applications, to aviation applications. They'll spend multiple millions, entire years of engineering time, give rock solid advice to the small startup companies they're tasked to work with, and then these "characters" who run these startups, like Stockton Rush, utterly ignore every good piece of advice or technological assistance they receive.

From the perspective of Boeing / NASA / DARPA, what's the point?

The government and aerospace majors served up a working or at least workable solution on a silver platter, but when the guy running the company didn't "read and heed", either because he thinks he knows more than the people he went to for engineering advice or is so arrogant that he thinks he can "BS" basic physics the way he does to his potential customers, then their names (Boeing / Lockheed-Martin / Northrop-Grumman, NASA, DARPA, etc) get dragged through the muck along with the startup they're working with, nothing ultimately gets accomplished (no working CFRP submersible or engine to show off the tech innovation, for all that pain and effort), and all the time and money they sunk into the project goes nowhere fast, because someone won't spend that extra dollar to get at something that works reliably.

The guy I bought my propellers from told me that the reason they could not complete their LS engine project for the Beech King Air conversion, which achieved turbine-like speeds with LS efficiency, was that their money guy wouldn't buy and install a second alternator on the aircraft "because the LS engine is reliable". Well, that assertion was / is true. The LS engine itself had very little issue delivering the power demanded of it. GM went completely over-the-top with the design. It was effectively an endurance racing engine with light / compact form factor, and it was mercilessly tested. The alternator which supplied electricity to the pair of electronically-controlled engines, which were entirely dependent upon electricity to function, quite clearly was not. Alternators can and do fail, because they're made to be inexpensive and easy to completely replace. Their chief engineer, chief mechanic, and founder all died demonstrating their re-powered aircraft at an airshow, in front of the investors. They lost electrical power and the same thing happened to every other PT-6A powered Beech King Air that lost power. The plane went down because it was only ever meant to fly using gobs of power, and everybody aboard died. All the orders they had, as well as all future investment money, immediately dried up. It's crazy how that happens, right? You sell your product to your investors as being capable and reliable, so they take you at your word until reality doesn't match up with the bill of goods they were sold, and then they take their money elsewhere.

The worst part of it was that they were closing in on an actual certification for flight from the FAA, via the STC route. They spent a crazy amount of money to get to that point (over $10M, IIRC), via FAA-mandated testing, and then someone who was intent on "saving more money", despite having already saved well over a million dollars per airframe, tries to penny pinch on installing secondary alternators, which virtually all certified aircraft engines have connected to them, even when they generate their own electricity to fire the plugs using magnetos. That rather silly way to "save money" was the kiss of death for the entire project.

After you've already saved over a million dollars per airframe using GM LS automotive V8 vs Pratt & Whitney PT-6A gas turbine engines, what the hell does it matter if you spend $200 extra on a backup alternator to assure that you always have electricity to run your modern computer-controlled engine?

They were projecting costs per airframe of $50,000 or less for the pair of engines (this was over 20 years ago), vs $1M to $1.5M for a pair of PT-6As. That cost figure is 20X less, and you get to use cheap (cheaper than Jet-A in many cases) / widely available MOGAS fuel. All they had to do was show the FAA that the engines were reliable. Crashing multi-million dollar airframes because you won't "splurge" on a second alternator doesn't help convince the FAA or your fellow pilots that your engine conversion is ready for prime time.

This is why the FAA, and potential investors, are so reticent to spend more time and money on these sorts of projects. There were at least 2 or 3 other serious attempts (well funded and staffed with competent automotive and aerospace engineers) to get GM's LS engine certified. It's a known-working engine design capable of delivering the power over extended periods of time, with more exhaustive testing, engineering effort, and aftermarket support behind it than almost any other modern engine suitable for use as an aircraft engine.

It's amateur nonsense like this which prevents us from "getting over the finish line" when it comes to new submarines, new aircraft engines, new airframe concepts, etc. I would be willing to bet that one of the reasons it's taken so long to get electric aircraft certified, is similar amateur hour nonsense. Somebody with a few nickels to rub together has some smart kids with masters degrees in electrical engineering from major universities in America / Europe / Asia, we all know how an electric motor works, and they're reasonably simple to design and operate. Thus, all we need to do is mount a dozen of them or one much larger motor in an aircraft, and voila! Electric aircraft done. Easy peasy.

Except... Maybe it's not so easy, so maybe the reason why aircraft with off-the-shelf engines still spend years in development, is that engineering reality is not "declarative" in nature, especially when it comes to submarines and aircraft. They don't operate on ideology or belief, and are unswayed by marketing gimmicks. You can't simply "declare" that a weight increase is allowable for an aircraft because your V8 or electric motor makes "way more power". The power increase is all well and good, but did the wings and engine mounts magically become any stronger as a result? No? How about that landing gear? If they didn't become any stronger, but the airplane became heavier, then how well does that particular airframe handle being stressed over its design limits every time you execute a maximum performance turn or pull up steeply on a windy day while landing? Therein lies the problem with declarative reality, as it relates to aerospace technology. I'm dumbfounded by how an engineer with that kind of background cannot accept the limits of structural strength. You cannot BS the strength of an engine mount while still expecting your airframe to hold together during sharp gust loading at Vmax, or during hard maneuvering. That will never end well.

This is disappointing because it means at some point in time all our aerospace majors and our government's various R&D arms were perfectly willing to work with "the little guy", and even provide near-free support for new technology development, but when the little guy won't behave as though bedrock physics are non-negotiable physical phenomenon, and that materials will fail when stressed beyond their limits, what are they supposed to do?

Terraformer · 2025-01-30 16:57:45

James Cameron, who loves submarines so much he makes films to fund his expensive hobby, insisted on the ballast release for his submersible being on its own circuit. His engineers wanted to all the electrics on the same circuit IIRC. A circuit which then failed whilst he was down there, proving that he was right to refuse them.

Re. the Titan submersible, I figured it had imploded when I heard what they were using for the pressure vessel, thanks to reading discussions on here about how composites respond to repeated pressure cycling.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2023-08-13 14:47:06

Re: Submarines general topic

#27 2023-09-15 13:44:14

Re: Submarines general topic

#28 2023-09-16 06:38:05

Re: Submarines general topic

#29 2023-09-17 10:02:07

Re: Submarines general topic

#30 2023-09-23 16:58:25

Re: Submarines general topic

#31 2023-09-26 14:25:08

Re: Submarines general topic

#32 2023-09-27 19:25:50

Re: Submarines general topic

#33 2023-10-03 18:42:21

Re: Submarines general topic

#34 2023-10-31 06:04:37

Re: Submarines general topic

#35 2023-10-31 18:44:15

Re: Submarines general topic

#36 2023-11-27 05:38:23

Re: Submarines general topic

#37 2023-12-12 18:21:38

Re: Submarines general topic

#38 2023-12-29 08:50:12

Re: Submarines general topic

#39 2024-01-05 18:38:39

Re: Submarines general topic

#40 2024-01-06 10:04:07

Re: Submarines general topic

#41 2024-01-10 20:00:22

Re: Submarines general topic

#42 2024-01-15 15:37:02

Re: Submarines general topic

#43 2024-03-31 04:05:03

Re: Submarines general topic

#44 2024-05-18 06:03:50

Re: Submarines general topic

#45 2024-06-02 17:23:48

Re: Submarines general topic

#46 2024-06-15 06:32:08

Re: Submarines general topic

#47 2025-01-29 18:47:05

Re: Submarines general topic

#48 2025-01-30 14:04:18

Re: Submarines general topic

#49 2025-01-30 16:57:45

Re: Submarines general topic

Board footer