Shipbucket

Let me ask this. What if you want to build a sub to carry strategic weapons, ballistic missiles or cruise missiles, and you just wanted something to sneak into range and sneak away? Or, hypothetically say I'm Colombia and I want to attack Chile, or at least maintain a credible deterrent threat. A big, non-nuclear, sub might be an idea. Cheaper to build, and you can hide a big strategic weapon in your coastal protected waters. I know speed is a huge advantage, but if you cant afford it, stealth might just have to do. Just an idea.

_________________
Eschew obfuscation

My take on it:

Strategic assets like a SSB(N) are very, very expensive and call for a comparatively large vessel. The Hotel class SSBN was a full 2000 tons heavier than the contemporary November class SSN, and only added three very short ranged SLBM's. Likewise, the Skipjack to George Washington conversion of early U.S.N. SSBN's cost an additional 2400 tons- though this vessel did add in 16 Polaris SLBM's.

If I were a small nation like Colombia, Chile or even Australia, I wouldn't even consider such a vessel.

If I wanted to make some kind of 'deterrent' vessel for a small navy, I would concentrate on an SSG design more like the Juliett class; though I would want it to be as large as the Echo II class if I could afford it. Building super-sonic cruise missiles is not nearly as expensive as building an SLBM; better yet you could actually purchase these missiles rather than having to design the locally... as I doubt that any nuclear nation would be kindly disposed to the idea of making their top-secret SLBM's available for sale to any nation not intimately connected to their defense strategies.

Three of these vessels can be built for the materials used for two SSB's. They carry three times as many weapons, and though they will have a more limited range, they will be able to attack more effectively within that range. They force the enemy to look for more targets at one time... and with three vessels, you can constantly have one on station during peacetime.

I quite agree with erik, but it will be well to mention the Chinese and the French also.


With regard to the underwater world, many nations develop the system of combusitble partying more advanced that the AIP


Then, are propulsion systems them - even being full revolution and also their design reviewed from A to Z.


The submarine will always remain a naval strategic piece


But you have forgotten that water is composed of oxygen and hydrogen, I let you guess the suite...

_________________
I am approached me too close to the Sun and I am burned me the wings... Fortunately for me, I'm falling in the sea!

Wut?
Hydrogen fusion is far beyond our current and near future technical capability.

_________________
“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 can not say more, secret defence


Lol !

_________________
I am approached me too close to the Sun and I am burned me the wings... Fortunately for me, I'm falling in the sea!

I'm sure someone's already brought it up, but for a submarine size is only relevant for its bunkerage or, in the case of nuke boats, to fit a reactor. Other than that the only reason to go bigger is to fit SSBMs.

The goal in fact has always been to make submarines smaller but practical considerations usually get in the way. Nonetheless as with most naval vessels submarines are as small as they can get away with while still being mission-effective.