>>62830720
Size/internal volume tradeoff.

>>62830720
refer point 32
bow sonar size is no longer paramount

>>62830743
a large bow sonar array enables it to be more sensitive. flank and towed arrays are standard but that doesn't mean that the bow is suddenly less important

>>62830749
>that doesn't mean that the bow is suddenly less important
actually, yes, it does

>>62830755
>towed array already covers a huge portion of your flanks in addition to above and below
>nobody deleted their bow array
>flank arrays added as standard
>nobody deletes their bow array
>in fact the three major submarine forces in the world, the US, UK and Russian navy increase the size of their bow arrays and move exclusively to flank mounted tubes
actually, no, it doesn't

>>62830755
No it absolutely doesn't you retard.
Your biggest and most powerfull array is still the most important.

PUFFS-style multiple sonar fins remain the best solution, due to their inherent triangulation capability, however seems like their disadvantages were seen as too penalizing.

>>62830789
>in fact the three major submarine forces in the world, the US, UK and Russian navy
lol
>and move exclusively to flank mounted tubes
lmao

File: 1695647177098540.png (426 KB, 826x967)

426 KB PNG

>>62831967
>Astute class: flank mounted
>Dreadnought class: flank mounted
>Virginia class: flank mounted
>Columbia class: flank mounted
>Yasen class: flank mounted

the only boats being built by blue water navies that aren't flank mounted are 1980s designs like the Kilo (lol Lada) and Borei classes. even the PLAN's first clean sheet SSN since the 70s, the 095 has flank mounted tubes. sorry that france is behind the curve

>>62831217
Lateral and towed arrays are where it'S atr these days.
The big spherical array still offers great 'gain', though.

>>62832054
Aren't the French boats relatively small? They're probably too short.

>>62832367
It's not about length, but rather width. Suffrens are longer than Astutes (by about 2 meters), but much narrower (beam is nearly 3 meters lower).

i'd rather bow and flank mounted tubes
with ventral sonar array
dorsal vls
towed array

>>62834103
(total torpedo spam on the battle group because reloading takes too long.)

>>62834110
>(total torpedo spam on the battle group because reloading takes too long.)
That's how Cold War era German submarines (and the subs they built for other militaries) operated. Narco-sub-tier midget boats, 8 21'' torp tubes, no reloads.

>>62830720
nosub here, but why are torpedos still so fucking HUGE? Why hasn't tech shrunk them down to be say a 2-man carry?

Or are they smaller now?

>>62834292
the same reason why anti-shipping missiles are huge. fuel for range and speed.

>>62834303
Ah ok. Shrimple as that I guess.

>>62834292
Air-launched torpedos are pretty small, subs can't run away or get close to things they're fighting as safely and effectively so all the mass savings go into fuel load like another anon said.

US developed and fielded a 120kg aircraft torpedo back in the early 50s.

>>62834332
yep. the lightweight torpedoes have poor range and speed in comparison to the heavyweight ones. you can't escape physics.

subs generally want to fire their torps from as far away as possible while still not allowing the enemy to simply turn around and outrun them.

File: Leonardo-Black-Scorpion-d(...).jpg (73 KB, 1024x644)

73 KB JPG

Smol torped is smol.

>>62834426
Is this one of those self defense torpedoes to fire at wake-homing ones?

>>62834444
I think Leonardo market it as an anti-drone sub/semisub weapon.

File: file.png (141 KB, 317x281)

141 KB PNG

>>62834444
>>62834459
IIRC it's intended for surface vessels as a gap filler between depth charges and ASW torpedoes (more capable than a depth charge but cheaper to use than a torpedo)

>>62834566
>intended for surface vessels
>5"
fired from SRBOC type launchers?

>>62834586
Probably, I know the air dropped version can be deployed from sonobuoy dispensers

>>62833786
OK yes, makes sense that you need width to reload the angled tubes.

Is there a reason why the French build the boats this way? I assume being narrow means they can go faster with less power?

>>62834566
Do they have any plans to multi-pack them inside a 21'' tube? I think you could fit 4 of them relatively easily.

>>62834642
>I assume being narrow means they can go faster with less power?
I suspect that might be the reason, yes. Since MN naval reactors use civvie fuel instead of HEU.

>>62834708
No idea, I don't think they're really used by subs themselves (beyond being used by Diver Delivery Vehicles)

>>62834642
in surface ship design long and narrow generally means better fuel efficiency, but I have no clue whether this applies to subs too

in submarine design IINM (might be wrong) the narrower the design, the deeper it can dive, all else being equal; and since it is basically a cylinder, material use (and therefore cost) increases by a factor of π when you widen, but not when you lengthen

so to put more shit in the sub designers prefer to lengthen rather than widen; and to make it cheaper, designers prefer to narrow rather than shorten, if possible

>>62834642
>Is there a reason why the French build the boats this way?
Beyond "They're French"? Probably to continue using existing facilities built for their last generation of SSNs, which were also much narrower than other nations due to them essentially being an existing Diesel Electric design with a reactor compartment added in

>>62834708
>Do they have any plans to multi-pack them inside a 21'' tube? I think you could fit 4 of them relatively easily.
I've seen illustrations that propose this, but I don't know if that was something they actually wanted to develop or at least study further.

You might also use a set of auxilliary tubes, maybe installed as a hull extension module in the same way they placed the VLS tubes in the later Los Angeles boats.

>>62834791
That would mirror the development of the French dreadnoughts/super-dreadnoughts in an odd repeat of history.

>>62834953
>You might also use a set of auxilliary tubes
Heh, bring back the old-school interwar external torp tubes.

>>62834566
kwai

>>62833786
>It's not about length, but rather width.
You sound like my ex (i have neither)

Oh dear, it looks like this weapons thread needs further consideration

>>62834953
>I've seen illustrations that propose this, but I don't know if that was something they actually wanted to develop or at least study further.
It could be a selling point if/when they decide to re-iterate on the old Type 206A-style midget sub. Having multipacked weapons in a torp tube is an advantage when you have a lot of tubes, but no reloads.

>>62839236
Those subs were really specialized for the Baltic, pretty much everyone else bought the bigger versions.
But in concept that does take us back to interwar external tubes without reloads.

Another idea would be to try and intercept an incoming torpedo with one of those.

>>62840209
>Those subs were really specialized for the Baltic, pretty much everyone else bought the bigger versions.
Not quite. Several navies operated the compact versions, before the Type 209+ larger boats became available. The Norwegians, Danes, and Israelis operated Type 205 and 206, or derivatives of them (Kobben, Narwhalen, Gal classes). So they were reasonably popular, despite their small size.
Also, there's a moderate (but existent) renewed interest in compact boats. The pastas at Leonardo and Drass have several concepts, and the turks (STM) are building a class of small boats for Black Sea service (STM-500).

>>62834708
>Do they have any plans to multi-pack them inside a 21'' tube? I think you could fit 4 of them relatively easily.
The USN has been looking for a light/middle weight torpedo they can multipack into a 21" tube. The thinking behind it is that certain countries have a large number of vessels that don't require a large warhead or high performance to destroy or cripple so a smaller torpedo is ideal as it allows a sub to greatly expand it's magazine and stored kills. Additionally, any ship that's damaged and requires drydock time or simply can't go out and fight while being repaired is almost as good as sinking it outright. Making a bunch of crippled merchant or auxillary ships take up port space is also good.

>>62840781
>The USN has been looking for a light/middle weight torpedo they can multipack into a 21" tube.
I remember reading that the Swedish (16'') Torped 47 can be double-stacked inside 21'' tubes.

>>62840702
>the turks (STM) are building a class of small boats
the SUBSUNK shenanigans will be legendary

>>62841178
Eh, small subs are easier to build (to a satisfactory standard) compared to larger ones.

>>62843033
yes, but big or small, you can always rely on turdies to fuck up safety protocols
it's the little things they always are lax about
and submarines are one of those things which you can never ever fuck up even the little things

>>62843185
>and submarines are one of those things which you can never ever fuck up even the little things
Oh, you can definitely fuck up.

ONCE

>>62840209
I was skimming through an Euro Defence Review issue from earlier this year (May-June), and found it amusing that all minisubs presented there advertised reloads (due to low number of tubes) and SF capabilities as selling points. Which happen to be mostly pointless features for purely defensive boats.

>>62843842
>due to low number of tubes
how many tubes do you think you need?
>advertised reloads
yes, because reloads have been significant operational limits to submarine design, all the bloody way back to WW1

>>62843939
>how many tubes do you think you need?
For an under-900-ton compact coastal defense sub, a minimum of 8:
- 1x tube with multipacked IDAS missiles (multipurpose/AA underwater-capable missiles);
- 1x tube with multipacked 5'' minitorps (Northrop-Grumman VLWT or even Leonardo Black Scorpion)
- 2x tubes with doublestacked Torped 47 (for a total of 4x 16" medium-light torps)
- 4x tubes with a combo of classic 21" torps and/or AShMs (UGM-84 or SM40)
Plus an additional Mistral pod.

>yes, because reloads have been significant operational limits to submarine design, all the bloody way back to WW1
Another anon mentioned in a previous thread something I've also figured out: the current tactics for diesel boats, developed some time in the late-80s, are now completely useless. You can no longer evade by going slow and silent, sensors are simply too powerful. You need to either kill everybody on the first go, or have enough varied weapons to duke it out.
If you have few tubes, you'll die before your reloads hit. And, since you're in a diesel boat, you can't dive as deep, and you can't run as fast (or as far), even with lithiums. Especially if you're in a compact sub (<800 tons). You want a pitbull sub, who fucks shit up quickly. It's still very likely to get blasted apart, but it hurt the enemy badly in the meantime, and has a better chance of fucking off in the ensuing chaos.
Also, several new weapons systems lock down a tube, so it's unavailable for reloads anyway. Which means the old mid-Cold War design, of a shitfuckton of tubes with no reloads (the old Daphne class had 12[!] tubes), is more useful than what's basically a 1400-ton patrol sub shrunken down to 750-ish tons.
And specops are useless in a defensive boat: if you're getting invaded by a 100k-strong military (a heated thirdie-on-thirdie affair) your three/four 6-8 man opr8r teams ain't gonna do much against them. And the shit you're blowing up is likely to be your own in the first place.

>>62845263
This might actually mean a return of (non-reloadable) rear facing tubes for some of these new munitions.

And I believe there are already designs with SAM in a pod mounted in/behind the sail.
This may leave enemy ASW helos wit ha vague feeling of unease.

File: A3SM_Mast_Version_Mistral(...).jpg (96 KB, 640x367)

96 KB JPG

>>62845879
>And I believe there are already designs with SAM in a pod mounted in/behind the sail.
That's the A3SM light version (3 Mistral missiles + one targeting unit in a pod).

>>62834283
Wait until you read about CW era torpedo boats and doctrine for them.

File: IDAS_1.jpg (67 KB, 800x528)

67 KB JPG

>>62845879
Pod with 4 IDAS multipurpose/AA missiles (training version, hence the neon color) being installed into a torp tube.

>>62846399
One shot tubes, one shot boats.

Because you're not going to have a port to return to anyway when you're in WW3.

Is anyone making a very-long-range torpedo?

>>62848472
Yes, they're called anti ship missiles

>>62848132
With sufficiently small midget subs you don't even need a port, just a secluded cove and a sub tender.

File: 21-Ubt_typ_GTD_frhalas_ur(...).jpg (324 KB, 624x432)

324 KB JPG

>>62849669
>just a secluded cove

>>62849761
Those cliffside caves are neat, but not all countries have fjords.

File: Milch Cow Underway Replen(...).jpg (94 KB, 800x499)

94 KB JPG

>>62849669
>you don't even need a port, just a secluded cove and a sub tender.
Real men do submarine-to-submarine replenishment on the open ocean.

Does anyone make very-long-range torpedos?

>>62854657
The Soviets made some 65cm wake homing torps with around 100 km range.

>>62855386
And used one to unexpectedly open up the Kursk front IIRC

>>62855541
Yea, those used high-concentration peroxide.

>>62854657
status-6 is fired from a sub

>>62855580
In that case, they had a training torpedo for that 65cm wake homer.
It was from a batch of ten that had seen six disqualified for onboard use due to cracks in the peroxide tank.
But that's not a problem, it's just for training. And they put it in storage for a few years.
Then they sorta-kinda dropped the one they wanted to use from a crane while moving it to the boat.. But that's not a problem, it's just for training. Surely dropping it cannot cause any further problems in a torp from production batch had cracks in a tank due to shitty welding, which sat in storage for years with Russian navy tier inspections (i.e. the inspection gear was sold and no actual inspection happened)
.
Then they did the excercise, and it turns out that peroxide (in a cracked, dented tank), kerosene and compresed air (also in dented tanks) actually explode, even if it's just for training.

Then they abandoned the survivors and let them suffocate in the dark, even though NATO offered help and the rescue sub could probably have saved the twenty or so people in the aft compartment.
Then tehy silenmced teh families of the dead crew and blamed the dead crew for teh accident, to save face. Just Russia things.

>>62855386
>100km range
it sounds really impressive until you look up how it's wake homing works and realize that's nowhere close to it's realistic range

>>62848472
Besides vaporware like the russian meme "tsunami torpedo", no because no torpedo can be feasibly fast enough to reach distant moving targets without midcourse corrections while those can only be delivered by wire which has its own limits, as well as the sensors of the launching sub.

You can make an even bigger MK48 with even longer wire but you'd really be pushing the limits of what's feasible without sacrificing the speed, target tracking or size limits.

>>62834966
And predreadnoughts, since I think one of the reasons why French ships from that era looked like avantgarde art projects was that docks were too small

>>62830720
Larger sonar array doesn't mean shit.

You can have a conformal array like many navies do (Royal Navy to name one)

>>62856421

Modern Marvels episode on the Kursk is fucking good. Also sad as all hell.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sv3gwpnKyos

>>62856500
Yeh, wake homers use up a lot of their nominal range searching for wakes and chasing down receding targets. So the actual range is around 1/2 the stated one.

>>62857300
the physics don't change. the larger the array the better the gain

>>62857494
You can have high gain with smaller arrays if you use a lot of them placed all over the boat, and do a lot of processing/sensor fusion. That's how the Upholder/Victoria class's sonar works.

>>62830720
probably something to do with hull pressure vessel design

>>62857494
>t. Soviet hydroacoustics expert