Cargo Submarines...

[natehale1971]

I've been doing a little reseach on Typhoon submarines, and read where Rubin Design Bureau has been wanting to create merchant cargo submarines based upon the Typhoon hull. This has been something Sci-Fi writers have been doing alot (i can't count the number of pictures from the Cyberpunk RPG sourcebooks of various cargo subs that look like the Typhoon-class, admittedly one of the coolest looking subs i've ever seen)...

It's made me ask the question "If the Cold War had continued, how much more developed would Submarine technology have gone?"

Would we actually have cargo submarines operating in use by both the civilian and military markets?

[Targan]

Originally Posted by natehale1971

Would we actually have cargo submarines operating in use by both the civilian and military markets?

Civilian-operated cargo subs do exist but are not utilised in exactly the manner I think you are suggesting... as in, there have been several cases I have seen news reports about which involved the detection and seizure of submersibles and semi-submersibles being used to smuggle drugs (cocaine into the US IIRC).

[natehale1971]

Originally Posted by Targan

Civilian-operated cargo subs do exist but are not utilised in exactly the manner I think you are suggesting... as in, there have been several cases I have seen news reports about which involved the detection and seizure of submersibles and semi-submersibles being used to smuggle drugs (cocaine into the US IIRC).

I've known of subs being used by smugglers, and their being intercepted by the Coast Guard over the past ten (almost twenty) years... Even read a report about a group of industrious cartel smugglers who actually had a type of submarine built just for smugglilng their product.

I was thinking more of a legal merchant fleet of submersibles. especially with the growth of pirates in modern times off the horn of africa... submersibles would be just one kind of answer against such low-tech criminals. while also creating a new headache for coast guard formation trying to deal with smuggling.

but the possibility of drilling for artic oil and getting it out would be enough to start deveopment... but also with the continuation of the Cold War it could become an answer to problems for some counties as well.

[pmulcahy11b]

You can strip out a military sub to be a cargo vessel. The Germans and Japanese did that in World War II to send items, expert personnel, and intelligence back and forth when they wanted to be sure (as possible) that they would not be intercepted.

[Mohoender]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

You can strip out a military sub to be a cargo vessel. The Germans and Japanese did that in World War II to send items, expert personnel, and intelligence back and forth when they wanted to be sure (as possible) that they would not be intercepted.

Perfectly true for the Japanese and the German sub you are talking about were converted Type IXD1. In addition the Germans designed such cargo subs during both world wars.

In WW1 they had designed the U-151 but only 2 out of 7 were completed as cargo: Deutschland and Bremen. They had a cargo capacity of 700 tons and would have been used between USA and Germany.

In WW2 they designed the type XIV (10 units) that had a cargo capacity of 430 tons+torpedo supply. All were lost to air attacks.

For my part I had the barrikada converted to a cargo sub (my players failed that one). This Typhoon was brought back to Russia, it was stripped of the three remaining missiles (placed on trains) and converted to a cargo/special mission sub.

[natehale1971]

Originally Posted by Mohoender

Perfectly true for the Japanese and the German sub you are talking about were converted Type IXD1. In addition the Germans designed such cargo subs during both world wars.

In WW1 they had designed the U-151 but only 2 out of 7 were completed as cargo: Deutschland and Bremen. They had a cargo capacity of 700 tons and would have been used between USA and Germany.

In WW2 they designed the type XIV (10 units) that had a cargo capacity of 430 tons+torpedo supply. All were lost to air attacks.

For my part I had the barrikada converted to a cargo sub (my players failed that one). This Typhoon was brought back to Russia, it was stripped of the three remaining missiles (placed on trains) and converted to a cargo/special mission sub.

If i remember right, the cargo subs during WW2 where called 'milkcows' by the Germans

[Abbott Shaull]

The Japanese were working one that could be used with limit Aircraft carrier capabilities. I forget the exact details, but I seen on the history channel.

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

[natehale1971]

Originally Posted by Abbott Shaull

The Japanese were working one that could be used with limit Aircraft carrier capabilities. I forget the exact details, but I seen on the history channel.

The I-400 aircraft carrying fleet submarine. it was the largest submarine in the world until the Soviet Typhoon-class was built.

I-400, I-401, I-402 Type Sentoku aircraft carrying submarine: Three built. (Carried three floatplanes, catapult forward. Were designed specifically to launch floatplane bombers against U. S. cities. Two not completed, others cancelled).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-400_class_submarine

the French also had one as well. the Surcouf

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

[dvyws]

The biggest problem with cargo submarines would be access - i.e hatches. Anything other than a tanker needs hatches. They are basically big holes in the ship's structure, and cause problems with both structural strength and watertight integrity.

But the majority of cargoes need the hatches to be big, just to get the stuff in and out (look at any general cargo boat). The exceptions would be specialised stuff, or high value, low volume items - i.e. drugs.

The broblems could be overcome - but would the benefits outweigh the costs? Why do you want your cargos shipped underwater? OK the boat can't bee seen - usually - but there is not exactly a shortage of platforms hunting for submarines in a war environment...

[Abbott Shaull]

Yes they are problems to overcome. Now I can see some looking at this as options more and more for several reasons. For if you can move cargo without worrying about such thing as pirate would be plus. Yet, there only so many places where such a subs could operate and the port facilities needed to load and off load the cargo would be issues too.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

I'm going to rain on the parade here...
You have three other problems that haven't been mentioned.

1. No matter how big you can make a cargo carrying submarine you could always make a cargo ship bigger. The submarine simply cannot carry the volume that a normal ship can hence it is only useful for highly valuable items. This limits it's usefulness because the ratio between value of cargo to operational costs of the vessel needs to be balanced to even make the operation financially worthwhile.

2. Underwater navigation isn't as easy as surface navigation and it you start making submarines larger to carry more cargo then you also make them easier to bump into things or get fouled in fishing nets etc. Even with the smaller submarines in service in most navies, there are plenty of accidents involving running into ships, fishing nets, underwater obstacles and even other subs.
Adding to that problem, gas leaks & fires on submarines are often much worse because of the enclosed environment.
More danger means more expense.

3. Crew; a submarine requires a crew that aren't necessarily 'better' than a surface ships crew but they need to be a lot more psychologically stable and prepared to do without some of the basics available to a surface ship - like how often they can shower, having to share sleeping quarters with two or three times what a surface ship does and so on.
There's a reason why nearly every submarine fleet in the world is made up of volunteer crew.

In cyberpunk, the cargo subs are owned by corporations who would typically use them for very high value cargoes - it simply would not be worth running a sub to carry a bunch of TVs (you could never carry enough to make it financially worth it - unless they're the worlds most expensive TVs). Most writers seem to like the cool factor of cargo submarines but forget the cost versus profit mentality that rules every corporation.
When a nation has used cargo subs, such as Germany in WW2, it has been for strategic materials, such as rubber & oil and the subs were being used as a way to break through any potential naval blockades. In other words, the national desire for the cargo was high enough to warrant the expense of transporting a relatively small cargo in a relatively expensive-to-run vessel.

[micromachine]

I have been thinking about this for quite a while and I would think that one "nuke" sub sans weapons would be an excellent cargo hauler, not for tactical items such as tanks and howitzers, but more for industrial diamonds, essential personnel (machinists, draftsmen, brewmeisters, etc), and "payoffs" to other factions.
It is worthy to mention that the sub's own reactor would be an excellent "alongside" powerhouse, so long as you have the proper nuclear engineering officers on hand, and an adequate security force to keep it behind closed doors.
I also think that there is a weapons locker and a machine shop aboard, precious heirlooms that must be husbanded against future needs.


Food for Thought!

[copeab]

Most of the military submarines listed so far weren't built as cargo subs -- most were converted minelayers or were built to carry fuel and ammo to seaplanes and other subs (which I suppose are technically cargo carriers, but not in the sense of carrying cargo from port to port (or port to beach). The WWI German Deuchland class was one exception and the Japanese Ha 101 class being another exception.

While these boats were poor cargo carriers (in terms of total weight devoted to cargo) they were also much stealthier than surface freighters.

And if a sub can carry cargo, it can carry troops -- the USS Argonaut being one example (after her minelaying gear was removed, she was one of two subs involved in th Makin Island raid and carried part of the 120 Marine force).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ha-101_class_submarine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Argonaut_(SM-1)

[Mohoender]

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic

I'm going to rain on the parade here...
You have three other problems that haven't been mentioned.

No you're not. All you say is perfectly right.

[Targan]

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic

No matter how big you can make a cargo carrying submarine you could always make a cargo ship bigger. The submarine simply cannot carry the volume that a normal ship can hence it is only useful for highly valuable items. This limits it's usefulness because the ratio between value of cargo to operational costs of the vessel needs to be balanced to even make the operation financially worthwhile.

This brings up some interesting questions, such as how the running costs of a nuclear submarine might compare to a cargo vessel with similar capacity. I suspect that they are very expensive to run, but I'm not certain. Mainly because there are not any nuclear powered civilian cargo ships in operation to compare it to. Fuel oil must be a major expense in the running of a cargo vesel, so I wonder how much more or less expensive it is on a per nautical mile travelled basis to run a nuclear powered cargo vesel (submarine).

Something to ponder.

[Abbott Shaull]

Originally Posted by Mohoender

No you're not. All you say is perfectly right.

No you are pointing out things that some of us took that people would/should of took into account without having to point them out.

Even if someone hasn't thought of these points, someone has to give them a dose of reality.

Sometimes it nice to see someone trying to think outside of the box and run with it....

[mikeo80]

Originally Posted by Targan

This brings up some interesting questions, such as how the running costs of a nuclear submarine might compare to a cargo vessel with similar capacity. I suspect that they are very expensive to run, but I'm not certain. Mainly because there are not any nuclear powered civilian cargo ships in operation to compare it to. Fuel oil must be a major expense in the running of a cargo vesel, so I wonder how much more or less expensive it is on a per nautical mile travelled basis to run a nuclear powered cargo vesel (submarine).

Something to ponder.

There was one American nuclear civilian cargo vesel. The N.S. Savannah. In service 1962 - 1972. Considered to be a HUGE waste of money.

[kato13]

Originally Posted by mikeo80

There was one American nuclear civilian cargo vesel. The N.S. Savannah. In service 1962 - 1972. Considered to be a HUGE waste of money.

Since i Googled it here you go
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NS_Savannah

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Originally Posted by Targan

This brings up some interesting questions, such as how the running costs of a nuclear submarine might compare to a cargo vessel with similar capacity. I suspect that they are very expensive to run, but I'm not certain. Mainly because there are not any nuclear powered civilian cargo ships in operation to compare it to. Fuel oil must be a major expense in the running of a cargo vesel, so I wonder how much more or less expensive it is on a per nautical mile travelled basis to run a nuclear powered cargo vesel (submarine).

Something to ponder.

There are a few examples of civilian nuclear powered ships but the list is tiny and ther majority of that list are Russian icebreakers. Still, if someone wants to follow it up, here are some links that could help.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NS_Savannah arguably the most famous because it was the first nuclear powered cargo ship but the article is important because it has a brief section on the economics of the Savannah's poor design & the other aspects of operating with a nuclear plant. However, this ship more than any other that I can think of would be damned interesting for a Twilight game.
http://www.atomicengines.com/Ship_paper.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._nuclear_ships
http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/13292 in answer to "Why don't civilian commercial ships and cruise ships use nuclear power?"
http://www.nti.org/db/nisprofs/russi...n/icebrkrs.htm
http://www.coal2nuclear.com/nuclear_ships.htm
http://www.handyshippingguide.com/sh...iner-ships_992 China considers nuclear cargo vessels
http://www.usatoday.com/travel/cruis...=61483036.blog nuclear power for cruise ships proposed

sorry, I seem to have wandered away from the thread again...

[Abbott Shaull]

NS Savannah suffered from poor designed period. If you read the article it had 100 Staterooms. This was done more for show than as true Cargo ship.

From what I have read in several of the articles the reason why there aren't more Nuclear power vessels is due to several factor that pertain to the cost of the power plants, the training of the crew to maintain and operated these vessels, the refueling requirements, and the fact that the power plants would probably have to be replace much sooner than the life until major refit than other vessel. This argument could be used at the turn of the past century when many vessel stilled used coal as their operating fuel.

There are security concerns that would add to cost to running the ship. In my mind these measure should already be in place, but shipping companies and their insurance companies find it easier to pay pirate ransoms, which to me is insane.

To me it only a matter of time. Many cargo that is shipped on the sea lanes is either liquid bulk, container, or specialized RO-RO shipping. I live on the Great Lakes near one of the choke points for shipping on the Great Lakes. It has dropped significantly in the 9 years I have lived hear, even though it did pick up a bit this year. Form what I have heard it has dropped off drastically what it was like in the 1980s and before.

The Russia/former Soviet Union has operated many some Nuclear power Icebreakers. Then again they had still maintain a large diesel fleet of Submarines too for some of the same reason mention above, and the fact that the diesel sub operating on battery power is totally silent as oppose to the nuclear one which has to run cooling pumps all of the time.

The US EPA has set up rules that they have since suspended that would of eliminated many of the ship that work their trade on the Great Lakes. They are looking at doing the same to ship traffic coming to and from the US. As well as many other nations wish to limit the pollution.

For the most part sometime in the future you will see the change, I will not hazard a guess when, and not a question of if. It will probably happen, unless they come up with technology that will make it cheaper on fossil fuel in running these type of cargo moving vessels. Especially if we continue to live in a global economy.