Moderator: Community Manager
[Post Reply] [*]  Page 5 of 5  [ 49 posts ]  Go to page « 1 2 3 4 5
Author Message
Philbob
Post subject: Re: SSN Design ChallengePosted: January 19th, 2014, 6:40 am
Offline
Posts: 586
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 3:45 am
great story!

_________________
Supreme Commander of the Astrofleets


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
odysseus1980
Post subject: Re: SSN Design ChallengePosted: January 19th, 2014, 2:11 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 3607
Joined: November 8th, 2010, 8:53 am
Location: Athens,Hellenic Kingdom
Contact: Website
Wonderful submarines, both the French and the RCN/RAN.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Eeo
Post subject: Re: SSN Design ChallengePosted: January 25th, 2014, 6:02 am
Offline
Posts: 96
Joined: August 20th, 2010, 12:51 pm
The X-rudders on the Collins are enormous!


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
BrockPaine
Post subject: Re: SSN Design ChallengePosted: January 25th, 2014, 3:35 pm
Offline
Posts: 248
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 1:20 pm
Eeo wrote:
The X-rudders on the Collins are enormous!
Well, yes. I couldn't find any real-life examples of X-rudders that didn't look either far too small or far too large. I erred on the "too large" side; and I'm not entirely happy with them myself.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
erik_t
Post subject: Re: SSN Design ChallengePosted: January 25th, 2014, 7:08 pm
Offline
Posts: 2936
Joined: July 26th, 2010, 11:38 pm
Location: Midwest US
Fins that large will likely prohibit bottoming the submarine, and will complicate arrangements in drydock. In any case, if you rotate the section 45deg and consider how fins that exact same size would look in a conventional cruciform arrangement...
[ img ]
...I think you'll agree that they seem slightly excessive.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
BrockPaine
Post subject: Re: SSN Design ChallengePosted: January 26th, 2014, 2:07 am
Offline
Posts: 248
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 1:20 pm
Yes, I agree it's a bit too large.

Try this.

[ img ]


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Lebroba
Post subject: Re: SSN Design ChallengePosted: January 26th, 2014, 3:06 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 255
Joined: May 20th, 2012, 11:20 am
Location: Yokosuka, Japan
This challenge inspired me to make my first SB style drawing.

[ img ]

Originally started as a 3D model since I am more comfortable with that style.

NX-AS (Next-Generation Attack Submarine)
___________________________________________________________________

Specifications
Displacement:
Submerged: 6,400 t
Dimensions:
Length: 104 m
Beam: 11.4 m
Draft: 9.3 m
Electronics:
Combat Management System: AN/BYG-1
SONARS: AN/BQQ-10 SONAR Suite
AN/BQG-5A Wide Aperture Passive Flank Array
TB-29(A) Towed Array
Periscopes: 2 x AN/BVS-1 Photonic Masts
Radar: AN/BPS-16(V)4
Electronic Warfare: AN/BLQ-10

Weapons:
Torpedo tubes: 4 x 53 cm
Torpedoes: Mk 48 ADCAP
Missile Tubes: Variable
Missiles: Variable

Machinery:
Nuclear Plant: 1 x General Electric S9G PWR, 2 Turbo-Generators
Pump Jets: 4 x 7,000 hp (28,000 hp / 21 MW) Pump Jets

Structure: An evolution of the SSN-21 Program, the NX-AS design was selected to replace the aging 688 fleet of SSNs . The NAS sacrifices the top speed and weapons payload of the Seawolf class for improved stealth and flexibility in payload.

NX-AS has a reconfigurable mission bay (RMB) capable of carrying a variety of purpose built mission modules. These modules consist of various missile launch systems, mine laying, special forces and intelligence operations equipment. The major mission modules can be swapped out in a matter of weeks at specialized shore facilities and lesser alterations can be made by submarine tenders.

In addition to the RMB the NX-AS uses a distributed propulsion system (DPS) consisting of four (4) 7,000 hp turbo pump jets. In addition to SSN-21 level quieting already integrated into NX-AS systems, the pump jets reduce exploitable broadband and narrowband signatures even further. It is estimated that NAS can remain undetected by any sensor system currently employed.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
BrockPaine
Post subject: Re: SSN Design ChallengePosted: January 26th, 2014, 3:40 am
Offline
Posts: 248
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 1:20 pm
I'd suggest moving the sail back quite a bit. At present, the sail (and thus the conn) are right at the same place the submarine's torpedo rooms are located.

Given that it's been, what, over a year, maybe somebody not associated with the challenge ought to evaluate the entries?


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Philbob
Post subject: Re: SSN Design ChallengePosted: December 31st, 2017, 6:35 am
Offline
Posts: 586
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 3:45 am
I hate to do necromancy but does anyone have the image of this still?
BrockPaine wrote: *
I cast the spell THREAD NECROMANCY!

So, um... in my original post I mentioned I had another idea on my mind. After over a year of doing nothing with it, I figured I'd call it "Eh goodenough" and post. I'm not as happy with this little idea, but it's a thing. Maybe someone will enjoy it. If not, eh whatever. *Shrugs.*
Quote:
Collins-class / DeWolf-class Nuclear-Powered Attack Submarine
or the Joint Australian-Canadian Nuclear Attack Submarine

Length: 96 m (315 ft)
Beam: 10.4 m (34 ft)
Draft: 9.75 m (32 ft)
Displacement: 5,400t surfaced - 6,250t submerged
Propulsion: Pressurized Water Reactor
Speed:
- 28-31 knots
Test Depth: 250 m (820 ft)
Crew: 120 men
Armament:
- 6 x 53cm (21") torpedo tubes firing Mk48 torpedoes, Sub-Harpoon missiles, or Stonefish mines
Ships in Class:
Australia:
- HMAS Collins (SSN-73)
- HMAS Waller (SSN-74)
- HMAS Rankin (SSN-75)
- HMAS Farncomb (SSN-76)
Canada:
- HMAS DeWolf
- HMAS Houghton
- HMAS Kingsmill
- HMAS Murray

[ img ]
HMAS Collins (SSN-73)

[ img ]
HMCS deWolf

Development
In the 1980s, the Australian and Canadian navies both discussed, on and off, their desire for nuclear submarines. This desire was particularly strong in Canada, which saw the utility of under-ice operations in the Arctic Ocean using SSNs. The Australians and Canadians were both in the process of planning replacements for their British-built Oberon class submarines, and a new proposal was sought for the next class. Although the RAN and RCN had reservations about nuclear power (caused in part by political positions adopted by parties in the various governments) discussions about a joint development project began in 1983. By 1985, both navies were closely involved in working out suitable specifications for a nuclear attack submarine, initially designated JACNAS (Joint Australian-Canadian Nuclear Attack Submarine).

In February 1986, Canada and Australia signed a memorandum of understanding agreeing to cooperate on the JACNAS project. The two parties agreed to share a set amount of joint design work, after which the national project teams would split and complete individualized designs tailored to each country's preferences. The base design shared many similarities with the British Trafalgar class submarine, with which the design team familiarized themselves.

Design
Among the RCN's primary interests was under-ice operation, and so a number of external features differed from the Australian boats. The deWolf class had a different sail, with the planes mounted low on the bow in order to protect them better when surfacing under the ice, and the X-tail, which the RAN insisted upon, was replaced with an American-style cruciform tail. Similarly, the bow sonar arrangements changed.

Design and construction was placed in the hands of a jointly-owned parastatal, the Australian-Canadian Submarine Corporation (ACSC), which would conduct the major design work, develop a purpose-built shipyard in Australia, and oversee the construction of major parts. The PWR pressurized water nuclear reactors were provided by Rolls-Royce, and shared many components with the reactors of the British Trafalgar-class.

Construction
Australia approved the start of construction on the first submarine, HMAS Collins, in April 1988, while the Canadian parliament did not authorize HMCS deWolf until March of 1989. Major construction took place at ACSC's shipyard in Osborne, Australia. All four of the Australian Collins-class boats were completely constructed at this facility, although a number of large subassemblies were manufactured in Canada and shipped to ACSC. The four Canadian submarines were built in six modular sections. Each section was then loaded loaded aboard a heavy-lift ship and transported to Halifax, where assembly and all further construction was undertaken by Irving Shipbuilding.

HMAS Collins was laid down on February 14th, 1990, but did not complete until 1996, only a month before HMCS deWolf, which was laid down a full year later. Construction generally took between four to six years for each boat. The Canadian boats, which incorporated more off-the-shelf technology acquired via the US and Britain, cost slightly less than the Australian boats, but took on average four to six months longer to complete.

_________________
Supreme Commander of the Astrofleets


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Display: Sort by: Direction:
[Post Reply]  Page 5 of 5  [ 49 posts ]  Return to “Personal Designs” | Go to page « 1 2 3 4 5

Jump to: 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests


The team | Delete all board cookies | All times are UTC


cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
[ GZIP: Off ]