Future submarine warfare?

[fwcain]

Re: Future submarine warfare?

 

Why are subs always pictured as military vessels? What about large commercial CARGO-HAULING subs?

 

Just tossing out an idea...

Franklin

[Old Man]

Re: Future submarine warfare?

 

I tend to agree--subs depend on hiding to survive. Any time a sub can be tracked' date=' it can be killed. That's been the case since they were invented. And given how detector tech is advancing, the oceans are becoming more and more transparent. I expect that in the not too distant future, subs simply won't be able to hide from the enemy any longer. And when that day comes, subs will be as obsolete as biplanes.[/quote']

 

No, they will get faster, and have better active defenses.

[Lemurion]

Re: Future submarine warfare?

 

Why are subs always pictured as military vessels? What about large commercial CARGO-HAULING subs?

 

Just tossing out an idea...

Franklin

 

Because commercial enterprises are all about cost-- and a regular freighter's thin hull is a lot cheaper than a submarine's pressure hull.

 

That's ignoring the other costs of a submarine's life-support systems and sonar and all the rest. Subs are currently too expensive to make good freighters. The Germans did use some (the milch cow) to support submarine operations in WWII but they were driven by military not economic necessity.

[Dale A. Ward]

Re: Future submarine warfare?

 

Also, the main reason subs were invented was for the stealth factor. Very few commercial vessels require stealth, and the few that do are armed and armored enough to qualify as military vessels.

[Vondy]

Re: Future submarine warfare?

 

From the DARPA site...

 

 

BAA06-13

Posted Date:Nov 28, 2005

Response Date: Feb 01, 2007

Archive Date: Feb 16, 2007

 

Fedbizopps Reference:

http://www.fbo.gov/spg/ODA/DARPA/CMO/BAA06%2D13/listing.html Description

BROAD AGENCY ANNOUNCEMENT (BAA) 06-13 Underwater Express Program; CLOSING DATE: 12:00 Noon, February 1, 2007; FULL PROPOSALS FOR FIRST SELECTIONS: 12:00 Noon, February 1, 2006; local Arlington, VA time. POC: Khine Latt, DARPA/ATO; Email: BAA06-13@darpa.mil; Web: http://www.darpa.mil/ato/solicit/underwaterexpress/index.htm

 

PROGRAM OBJECTIVES AND DESCRIPTION: The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency's (DARPA) Advanced Technology Office (ATO) is soliciting proposals under this BAA for the Underwater Express Program to demonstrate stable and controllable high-speed underwater transport through supercavitation. The intent is to determine the feasibility for supercavitation technology to enable a new class of high-speed underwater craft for future littoral missions that could involve the transport of high-value cargo and/or small units of personnel. The Underwater Express program is a technology development and demonstration program: It will require the investigation and resolution of critical technological issues associated with the physics of supercavitation and must culminate in a credible demonstration at a significant scale to prove that a supercavitating underwater craft is controllable at speeds up to 100 knots.

 

Through this program, DARPA is seeking to facilitate new operational opportunities in the underwater battlespace. Also relevant are the current limitations for small high-speed surface craft which suffer performance degradation in waves and are subject to exposure, while underwater alternatives today are very slow. The military advantage of very high speed underwater craft has yet to be exploited to its full potential because significant technological breakthroughs are needed for operational viability of such a craft. The ability to attain substantial underwater speeds for this class of vehicle is severely constrained by the power required to overcome the large drag forces on an underwater body. Without a radical means to solve this problem, strides that could be made in underwater propulsion are limited, as are breakthroughs needed in underwater sensing, navigation, and communications, all critical to taking strategic advantage of the underwater space.

 

Supercavitation offers 60-70% reduction in total drag on an underwater body. It can be attained by going fast enough to develop a full vaporous cavity, or it can be induced at lower speeds by injecting gas into a partially-developed cavity. Although the technology has been applied to weapons with minimal control capability, its application to larger vessels with transport missions will require thorough development. Our goal is to achieve tractable management and control of the dynamics of a supercavitating underwater body so that an eventual system, manned or unmanned, could be envisioned to travel in this state.

 

DARPA is interested in proposals that will advance the understanding and use of supercavitation technology through research and development, small-scale experimentation, and a final at-sea demonstration. The Underwater Express final demonstration will be conducted at 1/4 to 1/2 scale of a notional future craft of about 8-ft diameter and 60 tonnes, a "super-fast submerged transport" (SST) craft. The ability to generate and maintain the large cavity needed for this scale vehicle has never been demonstrated, nor has a control system for maneuvering the vehicle. Therefore, this program will emphasize:

1. Modeling, simulation, and experimentation to provide better physical understanding of cavity formation, stability, and control;
   
2. Cavitator designs that generate stable, robust, and controllable cavities;
   
3. Prediction of cavity dynamics and vehicle behavior, prediction of vehicle behavior during fully-wetted conditions, transition to supercavitation conditions, and supercavitation conditions at speed;
   
4. Control system technologies that enable maneuverability when supercavitating;
   
5. A system concept, preliminary design, and requirements documentation for the notional SST craft.

The technologies will be first developed and proven at subscales. After demonstrations show the technology to be viable and technically sound, the technology will be scaled up to the next level.

 

Phase 1 will focus on stable cavity generation and sustainment by examining supercavitation physics and the interactions between the cavity and body. During Phase 1, a system concept for the 8-ft diameter notional SST system will be developed so that appropriate scale models can be designed for Phase 1 and Phase 2 testing and the Phase 3 demonstration (at 1/4 to 1/2 scale of the notional SST). In addition, an initial concept design of a control system for all vehicle operating conditions is necessary.

 

Phase 2 will focus on stable vehicle dynamics by continuing to examine supercavitation physics and cavity/vehicle interactions and developing the vehicle control approach. The propulsion concept will be integrated. In this phase, maneuvering and body forces will be characterized and measured, as will gas expenditures. Phase 2 will also continue to develop the SST system concept.

 

Phase 3 will focus on design and fabrication of the demonstrator and system testing to ensure safe and effective operations. It will end with the at-sea demonstration of maneuvering at 100 knots for 10 minutes. Additionally, the final system specifications for the full-scale SST notional concept craft will be completed.

 

Potential bidders should include team members with expertise in vehicle system integration, vehicle control, supercavitation (or cavitation), cavity ventilation, underwater propulsion, and computational modeling.

 

This BAA shall remain open for one (1) year from the date of publication on www.fedbizopps.gov and www.grants.gov. Although the Government may select proposals for award at any time during this period, it is anticipated that the majority of funding for this program will be committed during the initial selections. Proposers may submit a full proposal in accordance with the instructions provided in the Proposer Information Pamphlet (PIP) at any time up to the proposal due date. In order to be considered during the initial round of funding, full proposals must be submitted to DARPA, 3701 North Fairfax Drive, Arlington, VA 22203-1714 (Attn: BAA06-13) on or before 12:00 Noon, February 1, 2006 Eastern Standard Time.

 

The Government encourages proposals from non-traditional defense contractors, nonprofit organizations, educational institutions, small businesses, small disadvantaged business concerns, Historically-Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU), Minority Institutions (MI), large businesses and Government laboratories. Teaming arrangements between and among these groups are encouraged. However, no portion of this BAA will be set aside for HBCU/MI, small business, or small disadvantaged business participation due to the impracticality of preserving discrete or severable areas of research in the technologies sought. This BAA affords proposers the choice of submitting proposals for the award of a Grant, Cooperative Agreement, Contract, Technology Investment Agreement, Other Transaction for Prototype Agreement, or such other appropriate award instrument. The type of procurement or assistance vehicle is subject to negotiations.

 

PROPOSERS' DAY: DARPA will host a Proposers' Day in support of the BAA06-13, Underwater Express Program, on 16 December, 2005 at the Executive Conference Center, 3601 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 600, Arlington, VA 22201 beginning at 8:00 am and lasting until 3:00 pm. The purpose of this event is to provide information on the Underwater Express Program, promote additional discussion on this topic, and address questions from potential proposers.

 

The Proposers' Day will be unclassified NOFORN and will include a classified session at the SECRET level. Attendance is limited to U.S. citizens only, and attendance at the classified session will require an active collateral SECRET clearance. The Underwater Express Program will be subject to U.S. Export Controls (International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR)) and National Security regulations. All performers must meet the requirements for participation set by those regulations. The Proposers' Day is voluntary. Attendance is not required to propose to this BAA. No registration fee is required for this event. Additional information is available through the Underwater Express website: http://www.darpa.mil/ato/solicit/underwaterexpress/sn.htm.

 

Those who wish to attend this event must register NLT December 9, 2005 at the following website: https://enstg.com/Signup/default.cfm?ThisCode=UND63154 .

 

EVALUATION CRITERIA: The criteria to be used to evaluate and select proposals for this project are: (a) Technical Approach; ( Experience in Developing Underwater Systems; © Management Approach; (d) Potential Contribution to the DARPA Mission, and (e) Cost Reasonableness and Realism. Each proposal will be evaluated on the merit and relevance of the specific proposal as it relates to the program rather than against other proposals for research in the same general area, since no common work statement exists.

 

The Government reserves the right to select for award all, some, or none of the proposals received in response to this BAA.

 

ADDITIONAL GUIDANCE: Proposers choosing to respond to this BAA must read the associated PIP available at http://www.fedbizopps.gov and http://www.grants.gov, which provides specific information about this BAA, including instructions on how to respond.

 

And this was in their unclassified budget materials:

 

 

Super-Fast Submerged Transport (Underwater Express) 0.000 0.000 3.500

(U) The Super-Fast Submerged Transport (Underwater Express) program will demonstrate the first application of manned vehicle

supercavitation enabling high speed transport of personnel and/or supplies. The inherent advantages of traveling underwater are: ability to transit

clandestinely, no radar or visible signature, and avoidance of rough sea conditions that may limit or deny mission execution. Supercavitation

places the vehicle inside a cavity where vapor replaces the water, and viscosity is reduced by orders of magnitude, thus reducing the power

requirement dramatically. This program will design an underwater vehicle that can operate close to the surface where cavitation can occur more

easily (lower vapor pressure), and, by augmenting the cavitation with forced ventilation, a marked decrease in cavitation speed is possible.

Innovative failsafe control will be required for stability and maneuverability at speed.

(U) Program Plans:

− Develop models and simulations to predict cavity and cavitator performance.

− Design a vehicle concept.

− Conduct subscale testing in a controlled facility.

− Design, fabricate and test a scaled prototype vehicle.

− Test in wire guided pond for failure modes and responses.

− Analyze against metrics for speed/power and stability.

− Incorporate model test results into design.

Narrative Title FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007

Wideview 0.000 0.000 2.200

[proditor]

Re: Future submarine warfare?

 

Or we could go rubber-science....(posted in Pulp Hero, but it probably fits better in this specific thread)

 

[tkdguy]

Re: Future submarine warfare?

 

Interesting picture.

 

That DARPA announcement sounds intriguing. It sounds more like a cargo/troop transport rather than a combat sub, though. Still, if it is possible (I've never even heard of supercavitation before), they could use it as the equivalent of a stealth bomber.

[sinanju]

Re: Future submarine warfare?

 

No, they will get faster, and have better active defenses.[/quote

 

I don't think so.

 

There are practical limits to how fast submarines can travel--and torpedoes (or surface-to-sub drones) will almost certainly be able to move faster.

 

As for active defenses--what sort of 'active defenses' do you imagine?

 

(And anything the sub can use to defend against depth charges or torpedoes can be turned against subs--which are inherently more vulnerable than torpedoes or depth charges. Those don't have to maintain a survivable internal environment for a crew. Plus, the surface vessels only need to hit once; the sub has to stop every attack every time (this is assuming the subs' location is known precisely--the basis of this conversation).

[Old Man]

Re: Future submarine warfare?

 

I thought shkvals were supposed to be able to intercept incoming torpedoes?

 

or was that the German version?

 

Purpose built torpedo interception systems might be a possibility - either micro torpedoes or laser based.

 

I don't see depth charges as being much of a problem unless the attacker fires a huge spread of them in the area the sub is going to be, and the ocean is a big place.

 

Then again, there is nothing stopping future navies from using supercavitating hydrofoils firing high speed depth charges.

[Old Man]

Re: Future submarine warfare?

 

Would dropping a steel wall in front of a torpedo be a bad thing? Are they smart enough to dodge it?

[Sundog]

Re: Future submarine warfare?

 

Would dropping a steel wall in front of a torpedo be a bad thing? Are they smart enough to dodge it?

 

Yes and no. Modern torps are wire-guided for a certain distance; inside that range (about 1km as of 1993, but could be more now) the torp is literally being steered by the sub's weapons officer, who could indeed cause it to jink around such an obstacle. Once they break wire, they're governed by homing systems not dissimilar to modern homing missiles.

 

This is one reason why sub-launched torps are more dangerous than air-dropped or ship-launched torpedoes; both such rely purely on the homing capability of the warshot itself. The other reason is size - most ship and air-launched torps are smaller, less capable and more short legged. They rely upon being fired from closer in, which can often be arranged with such things as sonobuoys and a willingness to use active pinging. In addition, breaking a sub's pressure hull isn't so difficult, so a smaller warhead is needed than is required to, say, break the back of a cruiser.

[pinecone]

Re: Future submarine warfare?

 

I thought shkvals were supposed to be able to intercept incoming torpedoes?

 

or was that the German version?

 

Purpose built torpedo interception systems might be a possibility - either micro torpedoes or laser based.

 

I don't see depth charges as being much of a problem unless the attacker fires a huge spread of them in the area the sub is going to be, and the ocean is a big place.

 

Then again, there is nothing stopping future navies from using supercavitating hydrofoils firing high speed depth charges.

 

One area of interest is supercavitating bullets...so you could have an underwater Phalanx system or an sub armed with a rail gun.......

[Cancer]

Re: Future submarine warfare?

 

If you posit an efficient neutrino detector technology, especially with an ability to resolve a neutrino emission spectrum, then you gain the ability to find and track any nuclear device ... reactor or weapon ... in very close to real time, literally anywhere in cislunar space.

 

That would more or less convert subs to being equivalent to bomber bases or carrier groups in terms of strategic military bombardment. Not worthless by any means, but not the ace in the hole they are now.

 

It's already true that the quietest boats aren't nuclear-powered. Nuclear boats cannot turn off everything and go totally silent on the bottom; the reactor pumps have to keep going at all times.

 

The vorticity left behind by standard screw propellers is also more persistent than one would initially guess. With detailed sea surface monitoring (aperture synthesis radar from orbit) and one hell of a mass of computing power, you could be able to track subs in any part of the ocean that wasn't undergoing strong storms that way.

 

I've made up (for a near-future supers campaign) fuel-cell powered boats with some kind of internal, non-rotational impeller for propulsion, and a graded-composition outer skin to minimize the acoustic reflectivity of the hull. Add the ability to walk or crawl on the bottom if it's suitable, and they'd probably be slow, but really quiet and really hard to track. But once you find them, any craft is going to be vulnerable to those supercavitating rocket torpedoes.

[CorpCommander]

Re: Future submarine warfare?

 

Most likely subs will deploy lots and lots of robots in the future. You may get a solution on the primary but you will have to be wary of all the robots that will A) try to defend the sub or, failing that, seek revenge. Robot subs coordinated by the primary are not very new idea and have been discussed for 15 years now. However the technology for them to be more and more autonomous is starting to take shape. They can be small and built for a specific purpose like anti-air (pesky P3! Go away!) or they can be medium sized and capable of a lot of interesting tasks.

 

--Pete

[CorpCommander]

Re: Future submarine warfare?

 

One area of interest is supercavitating bullets...so you could have an underwater Phalanx system or an sub armed with a rail gun.......

 

well current SC systems require more than just shape. The Russians are releasing a chemical that coats the body with bubbles. This reduces the drag an extreme amount. The nose cone is not pointy either but rather flat.

 

Bullets would have to have the same type of system and would therefore be very bulky. Probably not what you want. I assume you are thinking of an anti-torpedo defense? The best defense is to break the solution either with stealth or deception. IMHO.

 

--Pete

[Sundog]

Re: Future submarine warfare?

 

One thing about subs - while detection of them may become easier in the near future, they may also become the only survivable warships.

 

I seriously doubt any modern surface ship could survive a THOR javelin.

[SirViss]

Re: Future submarine warfare?

 

I can't predict how effective subs will be in the far future, but here is a really stealthy diesel sub that can stay submerged for weeks!

[Yansuf]

Re: Future submarine warfare?

 

One thing about subs - while detection of them may become easier in the near future, they may also become the only survivable warships.

 

I seriously doubt any modern surface ship could survive a THOR javelin.

 

Probably not, but laser or particle beam weapons could probably deflect the weapon enough for survivability. For that matter, the current SM-3 SAM used by some USN Aegis ships can (usually) direct hit them, resulting in vaporization of both SAM and Thor at high altitude. Future improved SAMs and ASATs will be even more effective.

 

Not to mention that use of satellite weapons may be banned by treaty, or just not used for fear of the results if the other side retaliates. If they are used, expect a lot of satellite constellations to go away real fast, as ASATs (both projectile and DEW) are used to clear LOE.

[Yansuf]

Re: Future submarine warfare?

 

If you posit an efficient neutrino detector technology, especially with an ability to resolve a neutrino emission spectrum, then you gain the ability to find and track any nuclear device ... reactor or weapon ... in very close to real time, literally anywhere in cislunar space.

 

That would more or less convert subs to being equivalent to bomber bases or carrier groups in terms of strategic military bombardment. Not worthless by any means, but not the ace in the hole they are now.

 

It's already true that the quietest boats aren't nuclear-powered. Nuclear boats cannot turn off everything and go totally silent on the bottom; the reactor pumps have to keep going at all times.

 

The vorticity left behind by standard screw propellers is also more persistent than one would initially guess. With detailed sea surface monitoring (aperture synthesis radar from orbit) and one hell of a mass of computing power, you could be able to track subs in any part of the ocean that wasn't undergoing strong storms that way.

 

I've made up (for a near-future supers campaign) fuel-cell powered boats with some kind of internal, non-rotational impeller for propulsion, and a graded-composition outer skin to minimize the acoustic reflectivity of the hull. Add the ability to walk or crawl on the bottom if it's suitable, and they'd probably be slow, but really quiet and really hard to track. But once you find them, any craft is going to be vulnerable to those supercavitating rocket torpedoes.

 

While we can posit anything we want in SF, it is highly unlikely an efficient or mobile neutrino detector will be developed in the foreseeable future; let alone an efficient and mobile one.

If it is developed, it will involve at least one major scientific breakthrough, with associated unpredicable effects.

For "realistic" future submarine warfare, it is unlikely any way to really find submarines trying to be stealthy at long range will be developed.

Of course, any sub that moves too fast will lose most of its stealth, but how fast is too fast is currently unknown.

[tkdguy]

Re: Future submarine warfare?

 

Here's a sci-fi story that has supercavitation technology.

[Cancer]

Re: Future submarine warfare?

 

While we can posit anything we want in SF' date=' it is highly unlikely an efficient or mobile neutrino detector will be developed in the foreseeable future; let alone an efficient and mobile one. [/quote']

 

It wouldn't have to be mobile; three detector stations (stationary or otherwise) would be adequate for locating and tracking terrestrial sources, assuming their data are readable and analyzeable in near real time, they're in real-time communcations, and reasonably well separated from each other. That first part is the "efficient" that I mentioned, and that is, as you point out, a huge and unforeseeable departure from reality. The rest is stuff that is possible right now. If they're like real-world neutrino detectors ... big, deep subterranean stations, one at Sudbury, one at Kamiokande, one at a third position preferably in the Southern Hemisphere (South Africa, Australia, Brazil or Argentina) ... that'd work just fine.

 

If it is developed' date=' it will involve at least one major scientific breakthrough, with associated unpredicable effects.[/quote']

 

Yeah, I know. I salivate at the thought.

[ThothAmon]

Re: Future submarine warfare?

 

Frank Herbet did an interesting future sub warfare piece called Dragon In the Sea. The story involved WWIII / Cold War submarine tugs being used for surreptitious collection of petrochemicals from seabed sites. Lots of good stuff on the risks of being a submariner in a world that is radioactive. Essentially a potboiler with a lot of ecology and psychology thrown in.

 

I guess the future-sub scenario is heavily dependent upon tech levels. If you have anti-grav and inertial dampening for starships then logic says that your subs (if they exist as a separate class of vehicles) make use of something similar to assist in survival at pressures. Likewise if you have force-fields, self-repairing hulls and exotic sensor arrays.

 

Areas in which I have yet to read significant SF propositions are the creation of artificial water-worlds (c.f. the research facility / ecology satellite in 'Web Between The Worlds') to overcome habitation issues in space or the use of submarine tropes when considering exploration of gas giants or very large planets with significant bodies of water (c.f. Jack Vance's novel 'Big Planet').

 

The latter would seem to offer some scope for roleplaying i.e. ships specifically built for operations inside a gas giant - ramscoops for reaction mass, limited sensor capability, extreme meteorological effects in place of underwater currents, claustrophobia, pressure and the possible nullification of advantages from satellite monitoring.

[Cancer]

Re: Future submarine warfare?

 

First, guilty of thread necromancy.

 

An interesting article in the March 2012 Physics Today (unfortunately the article is behind the subscriber wall). But the title/teaser lines go:

 

The many uses of electron antineutrinos

((authors))

 

They have become tools for understanding Earth’s internal heat engine and for surveillance of nuclear reactors.

 

 

Things I read there lead me to think that reactor-powered vessels will become routinely trackable via their neutrino emissions in roughly a decade's time. It won't be "real time" tracking, but day-by-day tracking seems plausible. So the nuclear-powered missile boats seem likely to become quietly obsolete. I don't think warheads themselves are likely to become trackable in the foreseeable future, so non-nuclear missile boats may come.

 

One of the things in that article is that it is pretty easy to tell from its neutrino spectrum if a reactor is being used for plutonium production. They go into that idea at some length, for verifying compliance with agreements not to make weapons-class materials.

 

The thing is, if you want to explore the earth's interior (by seeing how the uranium and thorium are distributed through the Earth, via the distribution of those neutrino emissions), whether you care about reactors for their own sake or not, you have to know (at some level) and subtract out the contributions by the "hot" artificial neutrino sources so that you can correctly estimate that planet-wide background. The article never mentions ship reactors, but it is hard to see how one could overlook those in this context.

[Old Man]

Re: Future submarine warfare?

 

I think what might really kill nuke subs is cost, and the fact that diesel-electrics can be made quieter. Still, while tracking SSBNs on a day-to-day basis would make them somewhat easier to find, if it's not enough to come up with a firing solution, it's probably not good enough to prevent them from launching.

[Beast]

Re: Future submarine warfare?

 

LA.Sea Wolf ,Virgina and Ohio Classes all can run at low power by using natural convection and turn off the pumps if need be

 

 

 

 

It's already true that the quietest boats aren't nuclear-powered. Nuclear boats cannot turn off everything and go totally silent on the bottom; the reactor pumps have to keep going at all times.

 

 

.