AHC: Build a bigger submarine

First, try finding an ore-miner that can work at that depth while still being fast enough to actually be profitable.
Yep, that will definitely be one of the engineering challenges that will have to be solved before commercially viable mining of the ocean floor becomes a reality. I wonder if I will live to see this come to pass? Anyone else read the article about the rare earth ore deposits that the Japanese discovered recently? I cannot recall where I read it, I think it was on CNN online, but don't know for sure, dang it.
 
Having a submarine "train" for logistics strikes me as a bad idea either from an economic or military point of view.

The economic point, if there is any, in devising a submarine freighter is mainly to achieve lower drag by getting well below the surface, where wave drag on the interface is by far the worst drag surface ships have to deal with. Aside from the sheer novelty requiring an up-front investment in design, and the expense of a pressure hull, there are a couple of major drawbacks--one, you need to get the overall density of the ship up to that of water, which is much tighter packing than any surface ship. Obviously, since ships are meant to float! But the difference in density, that is the ratio of useful volume total to what is below the water line, is quite high, something like a factor of 4 or 5. There aren't a lot of cargoes that lend themselves to such tight packing! The sub will wind up carrying heavy metal ballast which only adds to maneuvering problems and offsets some of the advantage of avoiding surface waves.

Second, you need power, and aside from nuclear power, for practical purposes this means airbreathing--a snorkel that can allow the sub to remain deep enough to avoid surface waves would be a very long and draggy one. So, post WWII such a scheme would strongly favor nuclear power of course, and aside from a class of Soviet/Russian icebreakers, for various reasons the few commercial nuclear ships that have been commissioned have not stayed in service long. For the subs the necessity is obviously a stronger argument--but the question is, why have such subs at all?

Now--breaking up the load into modular towed pods seems extremely questionable to me. It certainly does allow the "locomotive" sub to be more agile on its own and removes the problem of making its density match the water--but only to transfer that latter problem to the cargo pods, with a vengeance! The favorable reduction in drag, which is the one thing this submerged cargo concept has going for it, is now offset or reversed by breaking the load up into multiple pods, each of which has its own drag and which probably interfere with each other. So economically it's a no-go--if you have a need for such subs, such as for hauling oil for instance, you probably know the standard cargo volume/mass to design for, and it will always work better economically to consolidate it into one well-streamlined hull.

I haven't addressed the military side yet, but in known history that is the one case where logistic subs have in fact been used. The Germans did, per a suggestion up thread, use submarine cargo ships in WWI, to trade with the USA past the British blockade. All major naval powers of WWII did use subs for communication with and limited resupply of various bases, and for special operations (but that's getting away from the cargo concept!) The additional concern military logistics brings is stealth rather than economical operations. (And, aside from scientific exploration, military stealth is in fact the only reason submarines have been used for any purpose hitherto).

There too the multiple-pods-pulled-or-powered-by-a-locomotive sub concept falls flat. Just as multiple pods will generate more drag, they must also generate more noise. Again if we are going to do this at all, it's best to do it in one integral hull!

The sub tug concept does have the merit of being flexible; you can haul a few or up to the tug's limit, many, modules. So if there were peaceful operations where there is a need to haul cargo to or from some submerged destination, it might be viable there. But not, I think, for point-to-point hauling from one surface port to another. Or only to achieve some odd purpose, like being able to haul a load under the polar icecap. Because it won't be economic if any more conventional option is open.
 
This French one was very big

WNFR_8-50_m1924_Surcouf_side_pic.jpg
WNFR_8-50_m1924_Surcouf_mounting_pic.jpg

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]203 mm/50 (8") Twin Turret M1929 on Submarine Surcouf[/FONT]

French submarine Surcouf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_submarine_Surcouf

This was an Aircraft carrier and had big gun like a battle ship.
 
Last edited:
fly aircraft carrier makes more sense tha a submarine one

Massive floating airship carriers deploying squadrons of fighters – a scene from some fantastic grade-B thriller? Well, maybe. But back in the mid-1930′s it wasn’t all that far fetched. The Navy, in the midst of transformational experimentation with aircraft carriers, was well into the trials with lighter-than-air ships. Of these, the USS Akron and USS Macon were the most intriguing, being the largest of the Navy’s airships and equipped to carry a small compliment of fixed-wing aircraft.
http://blog.usni.org/2009/06/19/flightdeck-friday-gasbags-and-hookers/
g441979.jpg
h80773.jpg
h43900.jpg
 
Interestingly DARPA has [/url=http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727671.000-from-sea-to-sky-submarines-that-fly.html]plans[/url] to develop 'submersible aircraft' or 'flying submarines' (depending on which service is buying them, I suppose), which would make a submersible aircraft carrier viable. I'd be more inclined to think they'd make use of UAVs and UCAVs, perhaps with another 'S' in parentheses, rather than actual fighters.
 
http://www.fishingnj.org/artoilsub.htm
Russian 30k tonne proposed oil tanker


http://www.ebenhopson.com/apr/august 1982/Tankers.htm
LNG tanker for Arctic production
also http://www.navalprofessional.com/vessels/submarine-carrier-proposed-dynamics-4482
hmmm 228x92x1470 feet is ~75x30x400+m^3 is some 900,000 m^3, which would be like 900ktonnes displacement, assuming my 'back of the envelop' calculations have any bearing on reality. that's BIG


I distinctly remember proposals from the ?70s? for submarine oil tankers which would tow trains of pods behind them. But I can't find any reference to those now.
 
Top