Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: DV8 gyro@********.co.za
Subject: Shipping (was Re: the value of education)
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 09:34:06 +0200
<snip original post>

I have a question about hydrofoil attack boats.

I remember in the 80's the US was testing a design for a fast attack
boat that used hydrofoil to get up to high speeds. Does anyone know
where I can find some info on this design? Seems appropriately
futuristic for my SR game.

Thanks

- - BRUCE <gyro@********.co.za>

<hard@****>
Message no. 2
From: Paul J. Adam Paul@********.demon.co.uk
Subject: Shipping (was Re: the value of education)
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 17:07:35 +0100
In article <014d01becea0$c0f4a3e0$b0d819c4@********.smartnet.co.za>,
DV8 <gyro@********.co.za> writes
><snip original post>
>
>I have a question about hydrofoil attack boats.
>
>I remember in the 80's the US was testing a design for a fast attack
>boat that used hydrofoil to get up to high speeds. Does anyone know
>where I can find some info on this design? Seems appropriately
>futuristic for my SR game.

The Pegasus-class patrol hydrofoils. Built by Boeing in Seattle through the
1970s, first entered service in 1977, six built.

218 tons displacement, able to make 48 knots foilborne or 12kts
hullborne. Crew of 21 (4 officers, 17 enlisted). Armed with one 76mm
OTO-Melara compact gun and eight Harpoon antiship missiles.

Good points: fast in good weather, resistant to torpedoes and mines while
foilborne.

Bad points: fuel-thirsty, couldn't use their foils in anything over Sea State
4, virtually defenceless, suffered serious vibration that degraded their
(already limited) sensor fit.

They make interesting coastal-defence assets if you have air cover and
can rely on fairly decent weather: they'd be quite handy in the Persian
Gulf, for instance.


The Russians and Chinese built quite large numbers of hydrofoil torpedo
boats (the Shershen and Huchwan classes) and some missile-armed units,
and Italy and Japan likewise experimented.


--
Paul J. Adam
Message no. 3
From: IronRaven cyberraven@********.net
Subject: Shipping (was Re: the value of education)
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 13:43:10 -0400
At 17.07 07-15-99 +0100, you wrote:
>The Pegasus-class patrol hydrofoils. Built by Boeing in Seattle through the

Thnx, saves me from typing it up.

>1970s, first entered service in 1977, six built.

Paul, any idea how many are left?

>They make interesting coastal-defence assets if you have air cover and
>can rely on fairly decent weather: they'd be quite handy in the Persian

Basically, souped up PT boats is the way they were described to me. But
not a "blue water" asset by any means. Lack the range and can't work alone.


CyberRaven
http://members.xoom.com/iron_raven/
"Once again, we have spat int he face of Death and his second cousin,
Dismemberment."
"Briar Rabbit to Briar Fox; I was BORN in that briar patch!"
Message no. 4
From: Gurth gurth@******.nl
Subject: Shipping (was Re: the value of education)
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 19:44:53 +0200
According to DV8, at 9:34 on 15 Jul 99, the word on
the street was...

> I remember in the 80's the US was testing a design for a fast attack
> boat that used hydrofoil to get up to high speeds. Does anyone know
> where I can find some info on this design? Seems appropriately
> futuristic for my SR game.

Not really, but I suppose in overall capabilities it's much like a normal
patrol/attack boat with hydrofoils added on. To build one in SR, I'd say
design a normal boat like that and give it hydrofoils as a design option.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Cooking with the devil, frying down in hell.
-> NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
->The Plastic Warriors Page: http://shadowrun.html.com/plasticwarriors/<-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

GC3.1: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+
PE Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 5
From: David Cordy DCordy@****.com
Subject: Shipping (was Re: the value of education)
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 11:03:52 -0700
> >I remember in the 80's the US was testing a design for a fast attack
> >boat that used hydrofoil to get up to high speeds. Does anyone know
> >where I can find some info on this design? Seems appropriately
> >futuristic for my SR game.
>
> The Pegasus-class patrol hydrofoils. Built by Boeing in Seattle through
> the
> 1970s, first entered service in 1977, six built.
>
There was also a stealth hydrofoil as well. I don't remember the name, but
I do remember the news stories from when they were testing it on the S.F.
Bay. It looked a lot like an elongated stealth fighter. Sorry, I don't
have anything else.

> --
> Paul J. Adam
>
DavidC
Message no. 6
From: Marc Renouf renouf@********.com
Subject: Shipping (was Re: the value of education)
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 14:33:08 -0400 (EDT)
On Thu, 15 Jul 1999, David Cordy wrote:

> There was also a stealth hydrofoil as well. I don't remember the name, but
> I do remember the news stories from when they were testing it on the S.F.
> Bay. It looked a lot like an elongated stealth fighter. Sorry, I don't
> have anything else.

That was the "SeaShadow." I don't recall it's designation. It
wasn't actually a hydrofoil, though. It was a SWATH (small
waterplane area, twin hull) design. Very stable, minimal wake, decent
speed. Also too damn expensive to be really useful. You're better off
launching stealth aircraft from carriers than trying to build stealth
ships, IMHO.

Marc
Message no. 7
From: Paul J. Adam Paul@********.demon.co.uk
Subject: Shipping (was Re: the value of education)
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 19:57:42 +0100
In article <3.0.3.32.19990715134310.00910250@***.softhome.net>,
IronRaven <cyberraven@********.net> writes
>At 17.07 07-15-99 +0100, you wrote:
>>The Pegasus-class patrol hydrofoils. Built by Boeing in Seattle through the
>
> Thnx, saves me from typing it up.
>
>>1970s, first entered service in 1977, six built.
>
> Paul, any idea how many are left?

All were retired by 1994.

>>They make interesting coastal-defence assets if you have air cover and
>>can rely on fairly decent weather: they'd be quite handy in the Persian
>
> Basically, souped up PT boats is the way they were described to me. But
>not a "blue water" asset by any means. Lack the range and can't work alone.

Yep, spot on.

--
Paul J. Adam
Message no. 8
From: Paul J. Adam Paul@********.demon.co.uk
Subject: Shipping (was Re: the value of education)
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 20:07:00 +0100
In article <Pine.GSO.3.95.990715143033.28066A-100000@*******>, Marc
Renouf <renouf@********.com> writes
> That was the "SeaShadow." I don't recall it's designation. It
>wasn't actually a hydrofoil, though. It was a SWATH (small
>waterplane area, twin hull) design. Very stable, minimal wake, decent
>speed. Also too damn expensive to be really useful. You're better off
>launching stealth aircraft from carriers than trying to build stealth
>ships, IMHO.

The Swedish Navy thinks differently - they're building low-observable
coastal ships (the Gotland class IIRC).

Reducing the signature of ships doesn't so much make them invisible, as
increase the effectiveness of their countermeasures (there's less signal and
just as much noise)

--
Paul J. Adam
Message no. 9
From: Paul J. Adam Paul@********.demon.co.uk
Subject: Shipping (was Re: the value of education)
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 19:58:26 +0100
In article <268AA7F4E99AD21193B500902728951F21B87F@********.brio.c
om>, David Cordy <DCordy@****.com> writes
>> The Pegasus-class patrol hydrofoils. Built by Boeing in Seattle through
>> the
>> 1970s, first entered service in 1977, six built.
>>
>There was also a stealth hydrofoil as well. I don't remember the name, but
>I do remember the news stories from when they were testing it on the S.F.
>Bay. It looked a lot like an elongated stealth fighter. Sorry, I don't
>have anything else.

Sea Shadow. Not a hydrofoil but a SWATH (small waterplane area twin
hull) ship.

--
Paul J. Adam
Message no. 10
From: Sommers sommers@*****.edu
Subject: Shipping (was Re: the value of education)
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 15:11:20 -0400
At 02:33 PM 7/15/99 -0400, you wrote:


>On Thu, 15 Jul 1999, David Cordy wrote:
>
> > There was also a stealth hydrofoil as well. I don't remember the name, but
> > I do remember the news stories from when they were testing it on the S.F.
> > Bay. It looked a lot like an elongated stealth fighter. Sorry, I don't
> > have anything else.
>
> That was the "SeaShadow." I don't recall it's designation. It
>wasn't actually a hydrofoil, though. It was a SWATH (small
>waterplane area, twin hull) design. Very stable, minimal wake, decent
>speed. Also too damn expensive to be really useful. You're better off
>launching stealth aircraft from carriers than trying to build stealth
>ships, IMHO.

That was the prototype. Of course it was going to be expensive. In a lot of
ways a stealth ship would be a lot cheaper than a fighter. It can carry a
LOT more ordinance internally than an aircraft. Thermal emissions are a
smaller on a ship than on an aircraft. The SWATH design is faster than a
sub AFAIK. Minimal wake means its harder to spot than a normal ship. And
its better for covert insertions than an aircraft would be.

And do you find it weird that the naval architect is arguing for stealth
planes while the aero engineer is making the case for a stealth ship? :)


Sommers
Insert witty quote here.
Message no. 11
From: kawaii kawaii@********.org
Subject: Shipping (was Re: the value of education)
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 16:03:05 -0400 (EDT)
On Thu, 15 Jul 1999, Sommers wrote:

> And do you find it weird that the naval architect is arguing for stealth
> planes while the aero engineer is making the case for a stealth ship? :)
>
>
> Sommers
> Insert witty quote here.
>

Irony at it's best.

Ever lovable and always scrappy,
kawaii
Message no. 12
From: Marc Renouf renouf@********.com
Subject: Shipping (was Re: the value of education)
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 17:14:12 -0400 (EDT)
On Thu, 15 Jul 1999, Paul J. Adam wrote:

> The Swedish Navy thinks differently - they're building low-observable
> coastal ships (the Gotland class IIRC).
>
> Reducing the signature of ships doesn't so much make them invisible, as
> increase the effectiveness of their countermeasures (there's less signal and
> just as much noise)

Yes, but think about the application. A coastal ship is in a much
better position to benefit from reduced observability due to the nature of
its environment. There's a hell of a lot more sensor clutter in a
brown-water environment than on the open ocean. I'm not saying the
concept doesn't have merit, just that it's applications don't justify its
cost. Further, the SeaShadow was *not* designed to be a coastal vessel,
but rather an honest-to-get blue-water vessel. The Gotlands are a much
different class of ship.

Marc
Message no. 13
From: Marc Renouf renouf@********.com
Subject: Shipping (was Re: the value of education)
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 17:29:05 -0400 (EDT)
On Thu, 15 Jul 1999, Sommers wrote:

> In a lot of ways a stealth ship would be a lot cheaper than a fighter.

The hell it is. Have you ever looked at how much it costs to
build a ship? It's ridiculous.

> It can carry a LOT more ordinance internally than an aircraft.

Yes, but in order to make it suitably stealthy, it had to be a
very small ship, which in turn cuts down its payload. Further, it's got
to get it to where it can be useful. Stealth technology is all well and
fine, but as soon as you launch missiles or torpedoes, you've likely been
detected. Remember, we're talking about attacking other groups of ships.
At least aircraft can high-tail it outta there. A surface ship is much
slower, and is resultingly more vulnerable.
Also, it's pretty much a given that the less time you spend in
your enemy's sensor envelope, the less likely you are to be detected. An
F-117 flying at 400 knots is going to be exposed to enemy air-search radar
a hell of a lot less time than a Sea Shadow doing like 20 knots (trying to
be sneaky)

> Thermal emissions are a smaller on a ship than on an aircraft.

Don't bet on it. It may not be as hot, but in terms of actual
heat it's much higher. The energy it takes to move a ship at decent
speeds is pretty staggering. Granted, you can vent a lot of your waste
heat into the water, but then any overhead thermal imaging system is going
to see your heat plume and follow it to you.

> The SWATH design is faster than a sub AFAIK.

Depends on who you want to believe. Like I said, for the
application that the Sea Shadow was designed for, I still think that
stealth aircraft launched from a carrier are a much more economical way to
go. Hell, both technologies (stealth planes and carriers) are already
well developed, so you cut your R&D down to a matter of figuring out a
good way to launch and recover the planes. Much cheaper.

Marc
Message no. 14
From: Oliver McDonald oliver@*********.com
Subject: Shipping (was Re: the value of education)
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 14:57:40 -0700 (PDT)
On Thu, 15 Jul 1999 15:11:20 -0400, Sommers wrote:

>That was the prototype. Of course it was going to be expensive. In a lot of
>ways a stealth ship would be a lot cheaper than a fighter. It can carry a
>LOT more ordinance internally than an aircraft. Thermal emissions are a
>smaller on a ship than on an aircraft. The SWATH design is faster than a
>sub AFAIK. Minimal wake means its harder to spot than a normal ship. And
>its better for covert insertions than an aircraft would be.

Actually, subs tend to be faster than surface ships. Exact data on the speed of most Subs
is
classified. However the new Seawolf class has a speed listed as 50+ knots. Unofficial
(therefore
unconfirmed) data indicates that this speed may in fact be understated by as much as 120%.

-----------------------------------------------------------
Oliver McDonald - oliver@*********.com
http://web2.spydernet.com/oliver/
-----------------------------------------------------------
Space. The Final Frontier. Let's not close it down.
Brought to you via CyberSpace, the recursive frontier.

"that is not dead which can eternal lie, And with strange aeons even death may
die."
-H.P. Lovecraft, "The Call of Cthulhu."

ICQ: 38158540
Message no. 15
From: IronRaven cyberraven@********.net
Subject: Shipping (was Re: the value of education)
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 20:50:17 -0400
At 20.07 07-15-99 +0100, you wrote:
>Reducing the signature of ships doesn't so much make them invisible, as
>increase the effectiveness of their countermeasures (there's less signal and
>just as much noise)

IIRC, doesn't getting low-observability material wet make them
less-low-observability. (Remember the broha-ha when they took the B2s
through the drizzel and there was a congresscritter's pet tapeworm in the
control tower last summer?)


CyberRaven
http://members.xoom.com/iron_raven/
"Once again, we have spat int he face of Death and his second cousin,
Dismemberment."
"Briar Rabbit to Briar Fox; I was BORN in that briar patch!"
Message no. 16
From: Sommers sommers@*****.umich.edu
Subject: Shipping (was Re: the value of education)
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 21:33:26 -0400
At 05:29 PM 7/15/99 , Marc Renouf wrote:


>On Thu, 15 Jul 1999, Sommers wrote:
>
> > In a lot of ways a stealth ship would be a lot cheaper than a fighter.
>
> The hell it is. Have you ever looked at how much it costs to
>build a ship? It's ridiculous.

Sorry, you are absolutely right. A stealth aircraft costs on the order of
30-60 million for a fighter class. On the other hand, a stealth ship
compares in job function more readily to a bomber for function and weapon
carrying ability. The B-2 costs about1 billion a copy, although a new
design might be cost less now that the original proof-of-concept is now
done. A frigate sized ship runs in the several hundred million range if I'm
not mistaken, so would compare to a bomber

> > It can carry a LOT more ordinance internally than an aircraft.
>
> Yes, but in order to make it suitably stealthy, it had to be a
>very small ship, which in turn cuts down its payload. Further, it's got
>to get it to where it can be useful. Stealth technology is all well and
>fine, but as soon as you launch missiles or torpedoes, you've likely been
>detected. Remember, we're talking about attacking other groups of ships.
>At least aircraft can high-tail it outta there. A surface ship is much
>slower, and is resultingly more vulnerable.

Part of that depends on what your definition is for "suitably stealthy."
The Sea Shadow was a prototype that was supposed to demonstrate the concept
of stealth in a ship, and as a specialized type of air-defense vessel. It
would be part of a fleet that provided air-defense, so it was going to be a
target anyway. The point was to make it as difficult as possible for those
aircraft to hit it. AFAIK it was never designed to attack surface ships at
all.

> Also, it's pretty much a given that the less time you spend in
>your enemy's sensor envelope, the less likely you are to be detected. An
>F-117 flying at 400 knots is going to be exposed to enemy air-search radar
>a hell of a lot less time than a Sea Shadow doing like 20 knots (trying to
>be sneaky)

True as far as it goes. But the F-117 is supposed to be an offensive weapon
that is used to take out air-defense systems and other hard targets. It was
going into enemy territory to take out targets, so hid it as much as it
could. The Sea Shadow was a defensive weapon system that would be used to
form an air-defense screen. It made its own territory; its job would be to
deny an enemy entry into that airspace. Hiding makes it more effective in
that job, but its stealthiness is supposed to prolong its life until it can
knock out the attacking aircraft.

> > Thermal emissions are a smaller on a ship than on an aircraft.
>
> Don't bet on it. It may not be as hot, but in terms of actual
>heat it's much higher. The energy it takes to move a ship at decent
>speeds is pretty staggering. Granted, you can vent a lot of your waste
>heat into the water, but then any overhead thermal imaging system is going
>to see your heat plume and follow it to you.

Looking at an article from the April 97 issue of Popular Science about the
Sea Wraith ship being designed for the British. It can run at 26 knots with
gas turbines, and uses a heat exchanger to feed waste heat back into the
incoming air to improve fuel efficiency and reduce thermal emissions. The
thing also has a system that sucks up cold sea water and produces mist
around it to both hied it and reduce the thermal signature further.

> > The SWATH design is faster than a sub AFAIK.
>
> Depends on who you want to believe. Like I said, for the
>application that the Sea Shadow was designed for, I still think that
>stealth aircraft launched from a carrier are a much more economical way to
>go. Hell, both technologies (stealth planes and carriers) are already
>well developed, so you cut your R&D down to a matter of figuring out a
>good way to launch and recover the planes. Much cheaper.

For power projection and pinpoint attacks, I agree with you that carriers
and stealth fighters are much better. The new F/A 17 EF variant has a lower
radar cross section, and the new joint tactical fighters that might be made
mid next decade will be even better.

For pure destructive force, the arsenal ship, or converted ballistic
missile subs seem better for pure destructive force. The stealth ship would
be the way to go for anti-submarine and anti-aircraft duties, as well as
special forces work.

Sommers
Insert witty quote here.
Message no. 17
From: Sommers sommers@*****.umich.edu
Subject: Shipping (was Re: the value of education)
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 21:53:09 -0400
At 05:57 PM 7/15/99 , Oliver McDonald wrote:
>On Thu, 15 Jul 1999 15:11:20 -0400, Sommers wrote:
>
> >That was the prototype. Of course it was going to be expensive. In a lot of
> >ways a stealth ship would be a lot cheaper than a fighter. It can carry a
> >LOT more ordinance internally than an aircraft. Thermal emissions are a
> >smaller on a ship than on an aircraft. The SWATH design is faster than a
> >sub AFAIK. Minimal wake means its harder to spot than a normal ship. And
> >its better for covert insertions than an aircraft would be.
>
>Actually, subs tend to be faster than surface ships. Exact data on the
>speed of most Subs is
>classified. However the new Seawolf class has a speed listed as 50+
>knots. Unofficial (therefore
>unconfirmed) data indicates that this speed may in fact be understated by
>as much as 120%.

I would think that subs on the surface would be able to go faster than subs
completely submerged, since it would have less drag.

According to my handy How to Make War reference book the speeds of some
ships in the US inventory are given below. I usually trust the numbers from
here, as he has a very impressive list of sources. All speeds are given in
kilometers per hour for top speed. Just for fun I put horsepower per ton,
which is listed as an indicator of agility, and displacement in thousands
of tons.

Nimitz class carrier 56 km/hr 2.1 hp/ton 96 tons
Ohio class SSBN 45 km/hr 3.6 hp/ton 18 tons
Seawolf SSN 80 km/hr 7.5 hp/ton 7.5 tons
Los Angeles II SSN 72 km/hr 4.8 hp/ton 6.2 tons
Arleigh Burke cruiser 60 km/hr 8.3 hp/ton 10.8 tons
Perry destroyer 52 km/hr 11.1 hp/ton 3.6 tons

The speeds for the attack subs edge out the surface class, but not by much
over the Burke, which is faster than Ohio. And again, I always thought that
the max speeds listed for subs were for surface running.
Sommers
Insert witty quote here.
Message no. 18
From: Ereskanti@***.com Ereskanti@***.com
Subject: Shipping (was Re: the value of education)
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 22:15:18 EDT
In a message dated 7/15/1999 8:54:41 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
sommers@*****.umich.edu writes:

>
> Nimitz class carrier 56 km/hr 2.1 hp/ton 96 tons
> Ohio class SSBN 45 km/hr 3.6 hp/ton 18 tons
> Seawolf SSN 80 km/hr 7.5 hp/ton 7.5 tons
> Los Angeles II SSN 72 km/hr 4.8 hp/ton 6.2 tons
> Arleigh Burke cruiser 60 km/hr 8.3 hp/ton 10.8 tons
> Perry destroyer 52 km/hr 11.1 hp/ton 3.6 tons

Sommers, I very grateful that you posted this. Jon S....if you are reading
(I hope so), which category is the "carrier" in the Cyberpirates group?

-K
Message no. 19
From: DV8 gyro@********.co.za
Subject: Shipping (was Re: the value of education)
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 09:39:31 +0200
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul J. Adam <Paul@********.demon.co.uk>
To: shadowRN@*********.org <shadowRN@*********.org>
Date: 15 July 1999 07:19
Subject: Re: Shipping (was Re: the value of education)


>In article <014d01becea0$c0f4a3e0$b0d819c4@********.smartnet.co.za>,
>DV8 <gyro@********.co.za> writes
>><snip original post>
>>
>>I have a question about hydrofoil attack boats.
>>
>>I remember in the 80's the US was testing a design for a fast attack
>>boat that used hydrofoil to get up to high speeds. Does anyone know
>>where I can find some info on this design? Seems appropriately
>>futuristic for my SR game.
>
>The Pegasus-class patrol hydrofoils. Built by Boeing in Seattle
through the
>1970s, first entered service in 1977, six built.
>
>218 tons displacement, able to make 48 knots foilborne or 12kts
>hullborne. Crew of 21 (4 officers, 17 enlisted). Armed with one 76mm
>OTO-Melara compact gun and eight Harpoon antiship missiles.

Any SR equivalent for the "compact gun"? autocannon?
I'll presume the ASMs are capable of blowing the crap ou of any ship
the PCs are on :)
Intelligence Rating?

>Good points: fast in good weather, resistant to torpedoes and mines
while
>foilborne.

Would they be effective in more of a brown water role? Puget Sound,
Great Lakes?
Could they be used in large rivers?

>Bad points: fuel-thirsty, couldn't use their foils in anything over
Sea State
>4, virtually defenceless, suffered serious vibration that degraded
their
>(already limited) sensor fit.

Would any of this be solved by 2060?
Defencless as in no armour?

>They make interesting coastal-defence assets if you have air cover
and
>can rely on fairly decent weather: they'd be quite handy in the
Persian
>Gulf, for instance.

I presume running on foils messes your signature totally?

>The Russians and Chinese built quite large numbers of hydrofoil
torpedo
>boats (the Shershen and Huchwan classes) and some missile-armed
units,
>and Italy and Japan likewise experimented.

Would you know where I can find pics of the Pegasus class, especially
running at top speed?

Thanks

- - BRUCE <gyro@********.co.za>

<hard@****>
Message no. 20
From: Paul J. Adam Paul@********.demon.co.uk
Subject: Shipping (was Re: the value of education)
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 17:39:43 +0100
In article <199907152158.RAA10212@*****.html.com>, Oliver McDonald
<oliver@*********.com> writes

>Actually, subs tend to be faster than surface ships. Exact data on the speed of
>most Subs is
>classified. However the new Seawolf class has a speed listed as 50+ knots.

35 knots. The _impressive_ soeed for Seawolf is the 20 knots she's claimed
to be able to make without having to kick her reactor pumps in. That
means she can be fast _and quiet_.

>Unofficial (therefore
>unconfirmed) data indicates that this speed may in fact be understated by as
>much as 120%.

<cough>Very, very unconfirmed... that's in the league of the 70-knot
aircraft carriers.


The fastest submarine, ever, to date, was the Russian Project 661 (NATO
reporting name 'Papa') which clocked 44.7 knots. Close in speed terms
were the seven Project 705 ('Alpha') SSNs which managed about 42 knots.
All were about as discreet as steel foundries while doing so, though: speed
requires power and power creates noise.

--
Paul J. Adam
Message no. 21
From: Paul J. Adam Paul@********.demon.co.uk
Subject: Shipping (was Re: the value of education)
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 17:08:47 +0100
In article <3.0.3.32.19990715205017.00913100@***.softhome.net>,
IronRaven <cyberraven@********.net> writes
>At 20.07 07-15-99 +0100, you wrote:
>>Reducing the signature of ships doesn't so much make them invisible, as
>>increase the effectiveness of their countermeasures (there's less signal and
>>just as much noise)
>
> IIRC, doesn't getting low-observability material wet make them
>less-low-observability. (Remember the broha-ha when they took the B2s
>through the drizzel and there was a congresscritter's pet tapeworm in the
>control tower last summer?)

Not quite. The problem is rain erosion (caused by flying through the rain
at ~500 miles an hour - it hits _hard_) and delamination caused by water
forcing itself into the damaged radar-absorbent material.

Radar-absorbent material (affectionately known as Flubber) has been used
on ships for a decade or more: our minesweepers in the Persian Gulf tend
to look like Chinese laundry ships, their upperworks have often been
thoroughly draped in RAM sheeting.


--
Paul J. Adam
Message no. 22
From: Paul J. Adam Paul@********.demon.co.uk
Subject: Shipping (was Re: the value of education)
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 18:02:24 +0100
In article <012e01becf6a$4be16be0$9cd919c4@********.smartnet.co.za>,
DV8 <gyro@********.co.za> writes
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Paul J. Adam <Paul@********.demon.co.uk>
>>218 tons displacement, able to make 48 knots foilborne or 12kts
>>hullborne. Crew of 21 (4 officers, 17 enlisted). Armed with one 76mm
>>OTO-Melara compact gun and eight Harpoon antiship missiles.
>
>Any SR equivalent for the "compact gun"? autocannon?

"Light Naval Gun" as described in Cyberpirates on Page 181.

>I'll presume the ASMs are capable of blowing the crap ou of any ship
>the PCs are on :)

Easily. Again, Cyberpirates has sample systems and rules, but basically, if
you're in a civilian vessel and one of these starts shooting at you, either
get the white flags up or learn to swim :)

>Intelligence Rating?

4, for the 'Sea Saber' antiship missile listed in Cyberpirates.

>>Good points: fast in good weather, resistant to torpedoes and mines
>while
>>foilborne.
>
>Would they be effective in more of a brown water role? Puget Sound,
>Great Lakes?

Very much so.

>Could they be used in large rivers?

Not so effectively - they'd need too much room to build up speed and any
bottom obstacles would snag the foils, especially when running hullborne.

>>Bad points: fuel-thirsty, couldn't use their foils in anything over
>Sea State
>>4, virtually defenceless, suffered serious vibration that degraded
>their
>>(already limited) sensor fit.
>
>Would any of this be solved by 2060?

The vibration, probably. The others, doubt it.

>Defencless as in no armour?

No warships around today have what most people would call "armour",
though Kevlar splinter matting is sometimes used to protect essential
spaces.

No, 'defenceless' as in lacking the ESM, jammers, chaff and flare
launchers, Rubber Ducks, towed torpedo decoys, et cetera typical of
larger warships.

>>They make interesting coastal-defence assets if you have air cover
>and
>>can rely on fairly decent weather: they'd be quite handy in the
>Persian
>>Gulf, for instance.
>
>I presume running on foils messes your signature totally?

Yep. You need a _lot_ of power so you get hot: and the 'roostertail' of
spray thrown up makes an excellent radar and visual target.

>>The Russians and Chinese built quite large numbers of hydrofoil
>torpedo
>>boats (the Shershen and Huchwan classes) and some missile-armed
>units,
>>and Italy and Japan likewise experimented.
>
>Would you know where I can find pics of the Pegasus class, especially
>running at top speed?

Go to

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/phm-1.htm

and they have some very nice images.


--
Paul J. Adam
Message no. 23
From: Slipspeed atreloar@*********.com
Subject: Shipping (was Re: the value of education)
Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 14:04:43 +1000
> >218 tons displacement, able to make 48 knots foilborne or 12kts
> >hullborne. Crew of 21 (4 officers, 17 enlisted). Armed with one 76mm
> >OTO-Melara compact gun and eight Harpoon antiship missiles.
>
> Any SR equivalent for the "compact gun"? autocannon?

The 76mm OTO Melara Compact gun come under the "Modern Naval Artillery"
section of The Encyclopedia of World Sea Power... Basically, it's a 3 inch
naval gun.

76mm OTO Melara Compact Gun
Calibre: 76mm (3 in)
# of barrels: one
Weight: 7.35 tons
Elevation: -15 to +85 degrees
Muzzle velocity: 925m/s (3035 ft/s)
Projectile weight: 6.3 kg (13.9 lb)
Max rate of fire: 10 (minimum) to 85 or 100 rpm, depending on the variant.
Max effective range: 8km surface fire, and 5km anti-aircraft.

That enough detail? : ) There's a 127mm (5 in) version too. Oh, and it's
Italian designed.

> I'll presume the ASMs are capable of blowing the crap ou of any ship
> the PCs are on :)
> Intelligence Rating?

The Harpoon has a 227 kg (500 lb) blast-fragmentation high-explosive warhead
on it with a time delayed contact fuse on it so it can penetrate the target
before detonating. Nevermind the leftover jet fuel, and fragments from the
missile case, etc. On the whole, one will certainly wreck your day. : )
Large ships (cruisers, carriers, battleships etc) will likely survive at
least one or two hits without sinking. If the PCs don't happen to have one
of those handy, however, the chances are good that one or at most two will
send them to the bottom. Assuming they're not vaporised. : )

> >Good points: fast in good weather, resistant to torpedoes and mines
> while
> >foilborne.
>
> Would they be effective in more of a brown water role? Puget Sound,
> Great Lakes?
> Could they be used in large rivers?

Yes and yes... The US Navy cancelled the project after the first unit was
made (USS Pegasus), though eventually 6 were made, instead of the envisioned
30 or so when the project started. No similar project has been put forward
for years, let alone actually approved. Says something about how cost
effective they are, eh?

> >Bad points: fuel-thirsty, couldn't use their foils in anything over
> Sea State
> >4, virtually defenceless, suffered serious vibration that degraded
> their
> >(already limited) sensor fit.
>
> Would any of this be solved by 2060?

Not likely.

> Defencless as in no armour?

Not many ships these days DO have significant armour. The warhead has
definitely won that race. Defenceless, in this case, means that the ship
has no ASW capability and very limited anti-air capability. There's no
point-defense system. There ARE two chaff launchers, and an ECM system, but
all in all it's extremely vulnerable to just about all forms of attack. In
addition, tests suggest that only minimal damage will render the foils
useless.

> >They make interesting coastal-defence assets if you have air cover
> and
> >can rely on fairly decent weather: they'd be quite handy in the
> Persian
> >Gulf, for instance.
>
> I presume running on foils messes your signature totally?

Your sonar signature, definitely. Would mean about didly squat for your
radar signature, though.

> >The Russians and Chinese built quite large numbers of hydrofoil
> torpedo
> >boats (the Shershen and Huchwan classes) and some missile-armed
> units,
> >and Italy and Japan likewise experimented.
>
> Would you know where I can find pics of the Pegasus class, especially
> running at top speed?

I have pics in front of me... Try the US Navy's website, or a general web
search. If worse comes to worse, I suppose I can ask a friend to scan the
pic for you, but try elsewhere first, please.

Slipspeed

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scattered showers my ass... - Noah
Adam Treloar aka Guardian, Slipspeed
atreloar@*********.com
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1900/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 24
From: Sommers sommers@*****.umich.edu
Subject: Shipping (was Re: the value of education)
Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1999 11:22:00 -0400
At 10:15 PM 7/15/99 , Ereskanti@***.com wrote:
>In a message dated 7/15/1999 8:54:41 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
>sommers@*****.umich.edu writes:
>
> >
> > Nimitz class carrier 56 km/hr 2.1 hp/ton 96 tons
> > Ohio class SSBN 45 km/hr 3.6 hp/ton 18 tons
> > Seawolf SSN 80 km/hr 7.5 hp/ton 7.5 tons
> > Los Angeles II SSN 72 km/hr 4.8 hp/ton 6.2 tons
> > Arleigh Burke cruiser 60 km/hr 8.3 hp/ton 10.8 tons
> > Perry destroyer 52 km/hr 11.1 hp/ton 3.6 tons
>
>Sommers, I very grateful that you posted this. Jon S....if you are reading
>(I hope so), which category is the "carrier" in the Cyberpirates group?

There's actually about another 10 ships in this book, along with another 10
categories that describe them. I just got tired of typing it in. If anyone
is interested, I'm sure I could send it to you through private mail.


Sommers
Insert witty quote here.

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Shipping (was Re: the value of education), you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.

Thwap!