''Sailless'' Submarine project ?

hi guys ! is there any other ''Sailless'' submarine project known ? other than soviet project 673 ?

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,7792.0/highlight,submarine.html
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,6343.0/highlight,future+submarine.html

nice thx for sharing ! those renegades concept are awesome ! is there any concepts of futur Russian Sub ?

seems be more aerodynamic for water , this means more performance than actual submarines ! B)

The same drawing is shown on Polmar, Norman & Kenneth J. Moore; 2004; Cold War Submarine, The Design and Construction of U.S. and Soviet Submarines; Potomac Books, Inc.; Washington, D.C.; p161. On the same page he states

Project 673, developed by SBD-112 in 1960 envisioned as a smaller SSN with a surface displacement possibly as small as 1,500 tons with a single reactor producing up to 40,000 horsepower for speeds of 35 to 40 knots. The faster variant would have no sail structure (see drawing). Six torpedo tubes and 12 to 18 torpedoes were to be provided.

Click to expand...

I would guess that diesel/AIP boats would benefit the most with a sail-less design. Are there any sail-less diesel/AIP designs?

dont know but it would be interesting to see other futur design B)! I cant find any Russian Futur design ? other than 885 Graney and 955 Borei ? is there any concept pict of russian futur submarine project ?

Creative said:

I would guess that diesel/AIP boats would benefit the most with a sail-less design. Are there any sail-less diesel/AIP designs?

Click to expand...

Wouldn't the opposite be true? Nuclear submarines may have a need for sail when entering and exiting port, but are otherwise submerged and could use trailing antennas for most of their needs. A diesel or other air breather type submarines must have snorkel time, which means sticking masts out of water at speed. A sail could provide hydrodynamic benefits for the masts and provide structural reinforcement, so that the remaining mast segment that extends from the sail to above water can be made of a smaller diameter.

A sail is also useful for helping to stabilize the submarine. One of the worst fears for a submarine is to roll upside-down underwater, which is almost certainly going to cause a loss of the boat with the death of everyone onboard since all the escape hatches are on the top. Entering and leaving port is good enough reason to keep them around anyway; an awful lot of submarines have been lost after they got rammed on the surface.

Such a funny thread. The policy on this forum is not to go and scan images in from commercially available books as in “Cold War Submarine" (Polmar, Norman & Kenneth J. Moore; 2004). Since no one here has anything further to add to an understanding of the Project 673 just keep to reading the book.

As to some of the comments? So funny…

Firstly aerodynamics in water is called hydrodynamics. Secondly the sail on a submarine provides very little of its roll stability. This is achieved by the weight balances of the submarine. For a submarine to roll 180 degrees while underwater there would have to be some considerable flooding to one side. Considering the tubular design of most submarines – lacking longitudinal bulkheads – this is very unlikely. Also if a submarine was to roll inverted it would not lead to the instant loss of the crew. While escape hatches are on the top they can still be accessed if inverted unless the submarine has fully grounded. Horizontal torpedo tubes provide an alternative escape point in such a case.

As to the utility of the sail as pointed out it is a good place to store the elevating masts and to provide an above water conning station. Both functions can be provided by other solutions as in the Project 673 and roughly similar configuration US Navy CONFORM study.

If people just want to post opinions expressing what they ‘feel’ about military technology perhaps they would be more comfortable at other websites and not this one.

A submarine doing a roll is actually a serious problem, and can be caused by the sail itself. It is not the problem of the roll, but the fact that the roll, but causes a coupled motion that can cause the boat to violently pitch down. This can happen in a tight turn, and if one is at flank speed making evasive maneuvers. Albacore was one of the first to deal with this, and indeed had a movable control surface on the sail in one of its iterations. If this happens close to crush depth, you will be dead. There are a handful of pics of boats that have come home after making excursions very close or slightly beyond crush depth. The amount of oil canning is very evident.

Adam

Abraham,

Any idea as to why the Soviet Union adopted a more rounded sail/conning tower for their Akula and later series of SSKs compared to the more conventional sail/conning tower on the Los Angeles class and later Seawolf class?

amsci99 said:

Any idea as to why the Soviet Union adopted a more rounded sail/conning tower for their Akula and later series of SSKs compared to the more conventional sail/conning tower on the Los Angeles class and later Seawolf class?

Click to expand...

This is a case of divergent evolution and it goes back to the 1950s. The American 'thin' type sail is actually very streamlined it just doesn't look like it from the side. It is like the thin wing of the F-104 compared to the Soviet sail which is like a blended wing-body of the F4D. Why the difference? The Soviets placed a greater emphasis on their boats being able to survive major accidents (because they had more of them!). Higher reserves of buoyancy and larger escape pods and the like. The later require a lot of volume and are usually positioned in the sail. Also Soviet technology required more masts and more volume to achieve the same (or less) capabilities as the western technology. So again the sails need to be bigger. If you need 2-3 times more sail volume and a lot more sail width then you reduce drag in different ways.

Abraham,

Thank you for your wisdom. IIRC, there was also a duplicate set of controls in the said/conning tower which was used when the subs were cruising on the surface. Appears to me another idiosyncratic design feature.

Abraham Gubler said:

As to some of the comments? So funny…

Firstly aerodynamics in water is called hydrodynamics. Secondly the sail on a submarine provides very little of its roll stability. This is achieved by the weight balances of the submarine.

Click to expand...

That’s nice. A surface ship works the same way and usually increases in water plane area as its rolls as a further defense, but it can still capsize too. But a submarine doesn’t increase in water plane area while it rolls, it has a what amounts to a tumblehome hull which will encourage it on the surface and not help one way or the other underwater.

For a submarine to roll 180 degrees while underwater there would have to be some considerable flooding to one side. Considering the tubular design of most submarines – lacking longitudinal bulkheads – this is very unlikely.

Click to expand...

Unless someone screws up ballast control or makes a bad maneuver underwater, things potentially made worse by an enemy action. Meanwhile if you do roll, you’d stand a much better chance of the boat righting itself if you do not have symmetrical buoyancy. The watertight spaces in the conning tower, which may be no more then a small watertight trunk or as much as a full command center are asymmetric buoyancy to encourage righting.

Also if a submarine was to roll inverted it would not lead to the instant loss of the crew. While escape hatches are on the top they can still be accessed if inverted unless the submarine has fully grounded. Horizontal torpedo tubes provide an alternative escape point in such a case.

Click to expand...

Sorry but I’ve seen how US Navy submarine escape trunks work. They have a retaining space to hold a bubble of air for each group to breath while they exit one by one in a controlled fashion. Every man must take time to fill his Steinke hood with air, and then climb out ready to retard his accent to the surface. If the sub is flipped that doesn’t work. You might still be able to use the chamber but only for one or two men at a time. Torpedo tubes could work, if they are rigged to function on emergency power and everyone can reach the bow.

If people just want to post opinions expressing what they ‘feel’ about military technology perhaps they would be more comfortable at other websites and not this one.

Click to expand...

Care to enlighten then as you your professional educational background in the field military technology then?

Sea Skimmer said:

That’s nice. A surface ship works the same way and usually increases in water plane area as its rolls as a further defense, but it can still capsize too. But a submarine doesn’t increase in water plane area while it rolls, it has a what amounts to a tumblehome hull which will encourage it on the surface and not help one way or the other underwater.

Click to expand...

Which is why submarines regardless of the sail structure has control planes and trim tanks.

Sea Skimmer said:

Unless someone screws up ballast control or makes a bad maneuver underwater, things potentially made worse by an enemy action. Meanwhile if you do roll, you’d stand a much better chance of the boat righting itself if you do not have symmetrical buoyancy. The watertight spaces in the conning tower, which may be no more then a small watertight trunk or as much as a full command center are asymmetric buoyancy to encourage righting.

Click to expand...

Under extreme circumstances the sail can obviously be of assistance but this is a far way from what you appeared to say in your original post that the sail is the thing that keeps the submarine up the right way in a kind of mirror image of a yacht’s keel.

Sea Skimmer said:

Care to enlighten then as you your professional educational background in the field military technology then?

Click to expand...

Four years on the job eight years being paid to comment on it.

I think you’ll find that here at secretprojects.co.uk it’s always a better response to go straight into the detail of your knowledge and opinions to avoid being mistaken for someone just key stroking for their own gratification.

date=1265799330]
Under extreme circumstances the sail can obviously be of assistance but this is a far way from what you appeared to say in your original post that the sail is the thing that keeps the submarine up the right way in a kind of mirror image of a yacht’s keel.[/quote]

Well it might not have been worded too well, but that it was the only means of stability is not what I was trying to imply. Still it does have value for that role, and it seems self explanatory that no one has yet come up with any good solution to all the roles a sail performs. Just for its value as a raised lookout platform entering and leaving port I doubt we’ll ever see a truly sail less submarine of any great size. The boats are too expensive to task unnecessary risks like that just to gain a little bit of speed. Special purpose mini submarines and remote underwater vehicles of course already use such configurations but they are neither fast nor placing 100+ lives and as much as 2.5 billion dollars of submarine at risk.

Four years on the job eight years being paid to comment on it.

I think you’ll find that here at secretprojects.co.uk it’s always a better response to go straight into the detail of your knowledge and opinions to avoid being mistaken for someone just key stroking for their own gratification.

Click to expand...

I won’t claim I don’t have an ego, but I’m here to share and gain accurate information, and reasonable speculation for all the stuff that’s yet to be known because this or that kind of war hasn’t happened yet or has already passed by. I was pretty much drawn here from RyanCrierie mentioning stuff he was finding and exchanging with people.

Sea Skimmer said:

I won’t claim I don’t have an ego, but I’m here to share and gain accurate information, and reasonable speculation for all the stuff that’s yet to be known because this or that kind of war hasn’t happened yet or has already passed by. I was pretty much drawn here from RyanCrierie mentioning stuff he was finding and exchanging with people.

Click to expand...

Heah it’s the internet – communication via text. They say that talking in you non native language makes you appear to lose 50 points of IQ. Talking on the internet appears to make everyone ten times the jerk they actually are and I’m more guilty of that than anyone else here at secretprojects. But content is king so keep it coming!

Aeroengineer1 said:

A submarine doing a roll is actually a serious problem, and can be caused by the sail itself. It is not the problem of the roll, but the fact that the roll, but causes a coupled motion that can cause the boat to violently pitch down.

Click to expand...

It's way, way, way worse than that. When you roll the boat you put a bubble in the reactor coolant pump, and when you put a bubble in the reactor pump, the reactor goes ka-boom. :-[

As far as I know, even the old Soviet liquid-metallic sodium coolant reactors were subject to this.

Bronc

From http://www.hisutton.com/Project%20673%20sub.html

Found an illustration of what looks like a sailless variant of the Maritalia LWT 23 midget submarine.
I also attached a drawing of the LWT 23 (with sail) for comparison.
The drawings are so similar that i first assumed that the sail was just not depicted in the color version, but on closer inspection i noticed that the upper mirror of the optronic periscope is depicted inside the hull, confirming in my opinion that it is a sailless design.
Also looks like it was configured primarily for divers with a forward lock-out, similar to the much smaller Button5.60/UOES3