Shipbucket

Thanks Rowdy!

In quick succession I have completed the Uphoff Class SSK.


The Uphoff Class SSK was built to replace the aging Iberville Class SSK. There are 8 submarines in the class, with the first being delivered and commissioned in 1999, and the last being commissioned in 2003. The submarines are built with many advanced features. The most prominent is the Stirling Air-Independent Propulsion system which allows the sub to stay underwater for several weeks at a time. The hull is built with non-magnetic materials, reducing it's magnetic signature, and is smoothly shaped to increase it's stealth.The first submarine, Uphoff, is currently being used as a test bed for a tube launched SAM and SSM cruise missile, which is expected to enter service in 2017. The boats are expected to be in service into the '30s.

Length: 192'
Beam: 23' 2"
Propulsion: 1x V16 Diesel Engine/Generator, 1x Electric Motor, 1x Stirling AIP unit, 1x Shaft
Range: 10,000nm at 8kts surfaced
Speed (Surfaced): 12kts
Speed (Underwater): 20kts
Complement: 36

Armaments:
6x 21" torpedo bow tubes, 14 torpedoes

-Ethan

_________________
Salide - Denton - The Interrealms

I am not very active on the forums anymore, but work is still being done on my AUs. Visit the Salidan Altiverse Page on the SB Wiki for more information. All current work is being done on Google Docs.
If anyone wishes for their nations to interact with the countries of the Salidan Altiverse, please send me a PM, after which we can further discuss through email.

Great looking Subs Ethan looking forward to see more of your great work.

_________________
___________________________________________

Best Regards,
Aart.

Projects:

The Kingdom of Rochfort in FD

As you may be able to tell by my signature, I am planning to work on completing Denton's modern navy. In my fleet list (which will be posted once I have all the numbers figured out), I've called for a single Mobile Landing Platform, what the Americans call an Expeditionary Transfer Dock. This ship is primarily to be used for sea-basing in amphibious operations. There are several things I would like to do with the design, based on either of the two image sets below:
- A docking/landing area for two medium hovercraft and one large (Saale Class) hovercraft.
- A side-ramp (port side) for vehicle transfer from a RoRo/Materiels transport ship.
- A helicopter deck and hangar above the main deck, capable of supporting 4x Chinook helicopters
- Accommodations for temporarily embarked special operations forces






My main question comes from the overall configuration of the ship. Option one relies on the entire ship being ballasted until the hovercraft well decks are underwater, while option two requires that only the stern be ballasted, as the well decks are in the stern. The only problem with Option 2 is that there's only room for 2 (or 4) medium hovercrafts, but it would not be able to accommodate the heavy hovercraft.

I have thought of a design that incorporates a stern well dock for the heavy hovercraft (main superstructure above) and two well docks on the starboard side near the bow, but I'm not sure if that would work as well as I think it would.

Thoughts on which design to go with, as well as the overall design itself?

-Ethan

_________________
Salide - Denton - The Interrealms

I am not very active on the forums anymore, but work is still being done on my AUs. Visit the Salidan Altiverse Page on the SB Wiki for more information. All current work is being done on Google Docs.
If anyone wishes for their nations to interact with the countries of the Salidan Altiverse, please send me a PM, after which we can further discuss through email.

Since the ship will built on this concept, I think it can have a open well dock at rear for a heavy hovercraft and two light hovercraft in front of it (facing bow). When the heavy hovercraft is missing, additional light ones can be carried.

MLP has an open well dock, I am sure that this can be designed for one heavy hovercraft or two light ones. Look in USN LPDs/LHAs which can take LCAC or two narrower LCU side by side.

That is a well drawn submarine.

I have a serious question. Most heavyweight torpedoes these days are still 5->6 meters long and mass 1->1/1/2 tonnes. The ram assist machinery and the racks for these fish add another 7-10 meters to feed the tubes. that is 12->16 meters hull length on a 60 meter hull. Is the hull long enough for 14 torpedoes, a 2200 kWatt diesel-electric plant, sensor flank arrays and 34 men? I say probably not. Here is why.

The Type 212 appears to be the archetype for this design. That German sub is a sardine can for 27 men. Add 7 more and the air plant fails. The PEM fuel cells allow creep speed at about 480 hours but such feature is tactically useless as the heat signature is a position giveaway. The endurance claimed is 12 weeks surfaced and 3 weeks submerged (no snort used). Torpedo capacity is maxed out at six in the tubes and six in the racks and one spare slung independent. Where is there space for the number 14? These weapons are not small. They are as large as cars.

uhm tobius......
http://shipbucket.com/images.php?dir=Re ... WALRUS.png this is the walrus class. slightly bigger then this uphoff, however it ships 20 Mk 48 sized torpedo's or 40 Mk 46 torpedo's, is similarly ranged and has most likely more weight and volume in batteries on board compared to the AIP system on this boat. I disagree, with just one ship as comparision, that 30 years later (smaller crew, smaller systems) this sub would be impossible.

in addition to that, while torpedo's are very big, they are only car sized in length. putting them all in one section of the vessel seems not impossible, especially that off the 14 torpedo's, 6 are already in the tubes. in addition, it is not specified which type of torpedo is fitted, if they are Mk 46 sized this fits easily!

_________________
Drawings are credited with J.Scholtens
I ask of you to prove me wrong. Not say I am wrong, but prove it, because then I will have learned something new.
Shipbucket Wiki admin

It is 67 meters long, not 58 meters or less: 4,000 kWatt plant of approximately equal size not 2,200 kWatt. 4 tubes not six,

Type 212 submerged displacement 1830 tonnes.
Walrus submerged displacement 2400 tonnes..

Internal usable cube work volume is about 40 % greater with similar machinery spaces as a Type 212. That additional extra 7 meters hull length, and no AIP makes an additional huge difference even with the additional 6 torpedoes, larger air plant, and 20 added men crammed inside. My objections might still remain valid I think.

you forget that an bigger sub also needs an bigger engine, the walrus is 30 years old and is battery powered under water, meaning that the actual propulsion space is most likely at least 40% bigger then that of an type 212. the tubes themselves are actually outside the pressure hull so having less of them is actually more torpedo's in the pressure hull.

while I am not familiar enough with subs to give exact numbers, I suspect that this amount of torpedo's on board is far less unlikely then you make it be. while it might be a bit much, it is in my opinion not impossible for this sub to have these specs, so it is up to ezgo if he wants to edit.

and can you please not underline, colour and bold with 5 different styles in 5 lines of text? I can read it just as well without it, hell it even gets harder to read this way.

_________________
Drawings are credited with J.Scholtens
I ask of you to prove me wrong. Not say I am wrong, but prove it, because then I will have learned something new.
Shipbucket Wiki admin

You have some good points.

Respectfully, I suggest;

a. Diesel and battery technology has not changed that much since 1950.
b. Cube of volume is very different from hull length. The difference in the amount of work space is astonishing.
c. More torpedo tubes eat more machinery work area in volume deck space squared and cubed even when vertically stacked. That also involves similar handling equipment in the length run too.. (The cutaways of the Type 212 and Walrus illustrate this stark factor clearly. Tubes take up more space than racks.)
d. Torpedoes still include handling and ramming machinery behind the torpedo racks; If you can stack torpedoes two in the rack and use space over the tubes, then you can cram in six more fish with that extra seven meters of hull length..

if you look at that image, you can actually see that the walrus's machinery takes up more then 1/3th of the hull length, while on the T212 it takes actually quite a lot less.
wrong! when the walrus were build, there was very little of battery types not close to lead cells. right now we have lithium and all variants of it.
as for diesels, due to computer technology in managing the proces in the engine, designing the engine and material science advances diesel engines of the same power have gotten smaller and smaller over the years. you are talking to an shipbuilding engineer, why on earth did you think I did not know that? to be exact, when you scale a ship up, you can calculate the volume by scale factor ^3. however, due to the dimensions of torpedo's, the length is most important factor in this discussion. the handling equipment is mostly an small crane on a rail. you can make it much more, even auto loading, and that of course takes more space. it does not have to be so though. this machinery however, does not have to be much longer then the racks themselves. hell, it can even be shorter when the torpedo's are hand-loaded into the torpedo tubes with just a small crane.

all in all, the reason for the smaller torpedo storage on the 212 seems to be the battery bank underneath the torpedo tubes forward. at the cost of range or speed (due to modding hull shape for different weight) a designer can surely play a bit with that

_________________
Drawings are credited with J.Scholtens
I ask of you to prove me wrong. Not say I am wrong, but prove it, because then I will have learned something new.
Shipbucket Wiki admin