Non-Vitriolic Concrete Submarine Thread

What is wrong with your thought is your lake of knoweldge on submarine design.
The pressure hull is 5% of the design and building process.
Please go on a real sub, look around, talk to the designers, mostly for that go to Russia, the best sub designer in the world, and the most prone to share the knowledge. St Petersburg is a good start.
Yes the Russian studied the concrete, but also 250 kind of steel, and even some real bizarre material. The German studied the frameless sub, as other countries. I mean real sub designer studied all solutions.
They studied all, but as the whole, like a real designer, not just as a slab builder.
I don't say we can discuss the concrete but when people come with numbers on concrete strength, they applied this information on an object they don't know. That is make the concrete discussion mute and your post, as interresting it is on concrete, not relevant.

 

Since most submarines are military their high cost would not be incurred in a sub for personal use. Speaking for myself, I wouldn't have a use for torpedoes, intercontinental ballistic missiles, anti-aircraft weapons, an attack periscope, snorkel, VLF or ELF radio systems, sonar, passive ship sensors, radar, a towed array, inertial guidance systems, accommodation and supplies for a large crew out for many weeks, water-recycling equipment, run-silent or stealth operation, underwater trash discharge and most of the other complexities of a military sub. I wouldn’t dispense with propulsion, steering, depth and attitude control but those can be simplified and reduced in cost by using external steerable electric power pods, I’d want scrubbers and it would be nice to have a chunk of lead that can be dropped as the emergency surfacing system and also contribute to stability.

Let’s face it, home-built subs are never going to match the numbers of home-built boats or even home-built cars; there aren’t many places where they can be safely deployed, they’ll always be a danger to other boats and a concrete sub isn’t exactly trailerable. You really need your own private lake for one of these. Much more practical is the wet sub, lightweight, agile, safer, easily launched and retrieved, and far less costly (a “wet sub” is one that floods completely and the diver has a wet suit)

 

I think the concrete sub idea valid but the quality control has to be paramount. I see cycling as a major factor. Some kind of polymer composite would likely be the way to go. But why when steel is so much... Better?

-Tom

 

Let's say we cut the price to 1/1000.. so instead of a billion it's a million
If I recall right those tourist subs taking you down to 10m for a 10m ride are in that ballpark? Basicly quite simple things but regardles quite a pile of dough, and it's not the steel hull that makes the costs..

 

Seriously, what will this get you: A monolithic 53-foot sub, that weights about 100 tons, with a 18 maximum beam shaped like a football. Interior will be several hollowed out balls connects. Submarine will be poured a one unit from 5000psi dci concrete with fibers. Once allowed to cure fully it will be painted with epoxy paints inside and out. There will be no windows and only one entry point into sub. Propulsion will be diesel electric driving hydraulics motors outside in pods. Buoyancy of craft will be positive with drop weights to make it negative. Several prototype's balls about 6 feet in diameter will be made and taken to the drop off and lower until they implode. These balls will test hatches, different materials. The whole ship will operate via remote control for many trips until we are sure that it is safe. Perhaps after a hundred trips. Included in the first $100k is the development of the mold for the boat, since we are going to have to destroy a couple before we are sure that it is safe.Sound's like fun, seriously anyone with a few hundred thousand tospend, we can build it.

 

But, why?

 

- because!

 

Because why?

 

just because you had the 100k and I needed it ;-)





I just can't help but think that steel is far more cost effective.

 

Oh the money budget didnt come out in post. It totals $250k, $100,000 is just the hull. Why? because it is there. To say you're the first to build or sink a concrete submarine. So come on guys put together a couple hundred or so thou so I can play with it and then we wont have to have these dumb concrete submarine threads.

 

There not into subs anymore. Now they're towing negatively buoyant "fish" and releasing them when detected. Later, they go back, trigger a float system and retrieve them. They were never really using subs anyway, they were semi-submersibles that travelled awash at the surface. I suspect too many were dying trying to survive at depth not to mention navigating. Entire multimillion dollar loads were being lost.

-Tom

 

Safety

The Russian safety record is not exactly something to write home about.

 

Eight nuclear submarines have sunk as a consequence of either accident or extensive damage: two from the United States Navy, four from the Soviet Navy, and two from the Russian Navy. Only three were lost with all hands: two from the United States Navy and one from the Russian Navy.

The US is far from perfect, and lets not talk about early British Submarine records.

 

Un-vitriolically speaking, subs are a dangerous business even in steel. Concrete is ludicrous, un-vitriolically speaking, of course.

 

Scorpion was sunk by a RUSSIAN torpedo.