Nuclear propelled attack submarine HMS Trenchant, of the Trafalgar-class (which preceded the Astutes) is a floating hulk in the UK. Trenchant awaits the huge cost and a UK nuclear waste dump option, involved in removing her radioactive parts. She can then be scrapped.
In July 1997, HMS Trenchant ran aground off the Western Australian (WA) coast. While approaching Fleet Base West (HMAS Stirling) just south of Perth, WA, Trenchant, at a depth of 200m, collided with Australia's continental shelf. She came to rest on a sloping patch of seafloor. Trenchant was able to free herself, and an inspection by divers (at 200m? shallower? or at Fleet Base West?) reported no significant damage.
If Trenchant had collided at high speed, like Los Angeles-class USS San Francisco, there could have been fatalities and $100s millions in damage. In 2005 USS San Francisco collided with an undersea mountain ("seamount") with 98 crew injured and tragically one fatality. Photo below:
When, or if, Australia buys Virginia-class submarines, operating out of Fleet Base West, RAN crews will need to get used to high submerged speeds, to avoid collisions.
Fortunately submarine reactors are towards the stern/back, so, in theory, not effected by head-on collisions.
Another T-class sub had a problem with overheating:
ReplyDelete"Equipment began failing in 140F temperatures and men were collapsing. Commander Ramsey
ordered the sub to dive and it finally cooled in deep waters.
It emerged that inlet pipes were blocked by crabs and barnacles."
See:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2649074/Crew-British-nuclear-submarine-nearly-died-140F-temperatures-air-conditioning-got-clogged-crabs-barnacles-Indian-Ocean.html
Unrelated:
ReplyDeleteTwo more pictures of the S-5 SSBN hydrodynamic model have come into the light. Sharing here to add to your collection:
https://ibb.co/bWXPPXb
https://ibb.co/mbCKcyv
It seems more or less certain that the plan is for a boat with 12 ballistic missile tubes.
Cheers
Thanks Anonymous at Apr 5, 2023, 2:05:00 AM
ReplyDeleteThe article https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2649074/Crew-British-nuclear-submarine-nearly-died-140F-temperatures-air-conditioning-got-clogged-crabs-barnacles-Indian-Ocean.html
reads like propaganda for the Commander a "decorated officer" and "married father of two"
and by extension protects the UK RN.
Seem extraordinary that the Commander was topside in the open air "bridge" when some of his men below were Already suffering from heatstroke. The order to dive down to cooler water seems to have been delayed... Hence the Commander's early retirement at 44 might not be an accolade.
More generally the UK RN had a reputation of not being very good at cooling Air Conditioning in all its SSKs right through to the Oberons in the year 2000s (where some crew served shirtless, in shorts and sandals). Perhaps the RN hadn't learned the cooling A/C lesson right through to the Trafalgar SSNs. Or they had weak A/C more suitable for the RN's usual North Atlantic patrol areas.
In contrast the USN had A/C in their WW2 subs. Regarding the US Gato-class SSKs, from 1941 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gato-class_submarine#Gato_class :
"The air conditioning in particular had a very practical application, too, besides comfort. Should a submarine submerge for any length of time, the heat generated by the recently shut-down engines, electronic gear, and 70 warm bodies will quickly raise internal temperatures above 100 °F (38 °C).
High humidity generated by tropical waters will quickly condense and begin dripping into equipment, eventually causing electrical shorts and fires. Air conditioning, acting mostly as a dehumidifier, virtually eliminates this problem and greatly increases mechanical and electrical reliability.
It proved to be a key factor in the success of these boats during World War II."
Regards Pete
Hi Gessler
ReplyDeleteThe 2 photos of the S-5 SSBN hydrodynamic models at https://ibb.co/bWXPPXb and https://ibb.co/mbCKcyv indeed seem to imply a shortish missile compartment for just 12 ballistic missile tubes. Also some borrowing from Russia's Delta-class II - V exaggerated missile hump seems obvious https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta-class_submarine#Delta_II_(Project_667BD_Murena-M)_4_boats
Could add to hydrodynamic noise...
Just 12 suggests India has resolved the steps toward MIRVed future K-5 and K-6 SLBMs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K_Missile_family
Although India may be utilising fair ambiguity as it would not want its hydrodynamic pool models to very accurately reflect a shape that is usually kept Secret for as long as possible.
Also if India assesses the Chinese Navy intending to have 16 tubes for China's future Type 096s then India might opt for 16 tubes, 16 SLBMs.
If India wants truly quiet S-5s it may need to get rid of a pronounced hump - in the direction Russia has evolved with the Borey and US with the Ohio and future Columbia SSBNs.
Regards Pete