Stealth submarine shaping - Type-212CD, etc

covert_shores

covert_shores

Research + illustration
Senior Member
Joined
31 October 2014
Messages
717
Reaction score
307
Website
www.hisutton.com
Hi, starting to put some info out there about the Type-212CD and other 'stealth shaped' submarines. You'll actually see similar lines in other submarine classes of certain countries
www.navalnews.com

Radical New Stealth Submarine, Type-212CD, Will Be Much Larger - Naval News

Submarines rely on stealth to maintain the element of surprise and escape threats. For decades this has focused on reducing the noise emitted by the submarine. A resurgence of using active sonar to locate submarines now means that new stealth measures may be required. German submarine builder...
www.navalnews.com www.navalnews.com
 
A common theme for future submarines has been going totally sail less. That or extendable types. Would it make the hull stronger in that area if the hull form was to have greater circumferende to allo the sub to ride higher and achieve the same effect as a sail/conning tower?
 
Hm. Wouldn't such shapes of submarine hull conflict with laminar flow, thus essentially cancelling the whole advantage?
 
Last edited:
Interesting.

I wonder if this design owes anything to the feed back from the Australian submarine program in which the Germans were advised their design was deficient in terms of acoustic signatures.
 
Lockheed definitely considered it back in the 80's although the navy didn't really like the design

http://www.hisutton.com/Lockheed-Stealth-Submarine-Design.html

Interestingly enuff this wasn't the first time Lockheed worked on a sub project, they were part of the "aircraft" sub concept back in the 50's (aircraft in this case meaning number biult not the aircraft carrier sub concept) with there design being called empire.
 
Volkodav said:
Interesting.

I wonder if this design owes anything to the feed back from the Australian submarine program in which the Germans were advised their design was deficient in terms of acoustic signatures.
Click to expand...
Stealth shape and acoustics are two different things. In this regard, Australia cited the 216-class freestanding propeller as one reason, but the real reasons are more political, as Australia was really looking for reasons why they should not be German or Japanese boats. Ultimately, Australia also found political reasons to give France the boot.
Stealth technology was considered by tkMS (HDW) as a variant for the Type 800 as early as around 1997. This variant looked very similar to the current form for 212CD.
 
Pardon me, the "Similar Threads" sidebar brought me here...

Foo Fighter said:
A common theme for future submarines has been going totally sail less. That or extendable types. Would it make the hull stronger in that area if the hull form was to have greater circumferende to allo the sub to ride higher and achieve the same effect as a sail/conning tower?
Click to expand...
Before the Virginia class and the fiber-optic "photonics mast" periscope, it just wasn't possible to go without a sail. The traditional periscope is a single tube that is however long. Hull diameter, maybe plus some. It doesn't telescope, it's just 40ft long or whatever. It gets raised by hydraulic power to bring the eyepiece end up to the control room, and then stick up however far that is above the top of the sail.

So there are 5 holes in the hull under the sail. 2 for the periscopes, one for the bridge access hatch, Snorkel Mast (air in), and diesel exhaust (air out). The periscope holes are tiny in comparison, maybe 10"/25cm across.

You're not getting rid of the other 3 holes. You have to be able to get up to the top of the sail, that's where the bridge is on the surface. You have to have the snorkel mast to take air into the boat. And you have to have the diesel exhaust to get air out.

On something like a Virginia-class, the Snorkel Mast is 18" in diameter, exhaust is less than that. On an Ohio-class, the snorkel mast is a 36" diameter hole in the hull...
 
Dilandu said:
Hm. Wouldn't such shapes of submarine hull conflict with laminar flow, thus essentially cancelling the whole advantage?
Click to expand...
I don't believe so in practice, submarines very rarely move with a significant "angle of attack" relative to the flow of water.

But it would have to be examined for interactions at 0-10deg positive and negative angle of attack for sure. If a sub is doing more than a 10deg bubble, you no longer care about noise. Less than that, you'd be at periscope depth in bad weather or heading deep.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom