Modern Submarine Discussions

[Manticore]

​

Yankee I (Project 667A), ballistic missile submarines in service in 1968 – carried 16 x SS-N-6 missiles and 18 x Type 53 torpedoes (34 craft were built). They were the first Soviet SSBNs to carry their ballistic missiles within the hull (as opposed to the sail).
Yankee II was a single-ship class, this was a Yankee I submarine (K-140) converted to carry 12 x SS-N-17 missiles, which was the Soviet Navy’s first solid-fuelled SLBM (submarine-launched ballistic missile). The existence of this individual prototype led

​

Yankee Notch (Project 667AT / Grusha-class): This variant was an attack submarines which first appeared in 1983. Four Yankee I boats were rebuilt to this configuration. They incorporated a “notch waisted” center section, which replaced the old ballistic missile compartment,
Left: Yankee Notch at sea
Yankee Sidecar (Project 667M/Andromeda-class) was yet another single-ship variant. Also known as Yankee SSGN, this was (in this case K-420) class, converted into an SSGN. It appeared in 1983, carrying 12 x SS-NX-24 nuclear-tipped cruise missiles
There were one or two more Yankee class that were prototypes or used as test beds.

5. Victor class​

Strictly speaking Charlie class submarines came after Victor class (Charlie class in 1973, Victor class 1967), however, the first variant,Victor I, was operational before and the last variant, Victor II, and the Victor III were in production and operational (1995) long after the Charlie class had been decommissioned.
The rationale of the Victor class design was for a vessel primarily to protect Soviet surface fleets and to attack American ballistic missile carrying submarines.

​

Designed as the successor to the November class, the Victorclass which came into service in around 1967 and displaced 6,085 tons submerged. For the first time this class featured a tear drop shaped hull we have come to expect in the most modern of submarines.
Left: Victor I
The Victor I class had the Soviet designation Project 671. It had two small, two-blade (not multi-blade) propellers fitted on the stern planes for slow-speed operation. Project 671 (Victor I) boats were retrofitted to handle the TEST- 68 wire-guided torpedo weapons
The initial type had a “crush depth” of 1,700 feet and capable of 32 kts this made it an ideal hunter-killer. Contemporaneous of the American Sturgeon class, Victor Is were significantly faster but had much higher noise levels, despite having a noise absorbing coating.
Victor IIs, of which only 7 were built, were a little longer (20 ft) and should have been heavier but counter-intuitively they are listed as having a displacement of 5, 800 tons (Victor Is 6, 085 tons). They entered service in 1972 and were equipped with the new “Kolos” non-acoustic detection system. However, production stopped when the Soviets, via their spy network, learnt that Victor IIs were being easily tracked by the West.
Victor II class were enlarged from the Victor I to provide additional weapons capabilities and improved fire-control system. The new generation of 65 cm (Type 65) heavy torpedoes were longer than earlier models, and required power assistance to handle them in the torpedo room. The Type 65 had a range of 50,000 yards and were designed to be used against large enemy vessels, e.g. aircraft cariers, that would not be expected to sink if hit by one normal sized (53 cm / 21”) torpedo.
All Victor Is and Victor IIs had been decommissioned by 1996. Some Victor IIIs had also been decommissioned by this date but several (about eight) are believed to be still active.

5.a. Victor III class​

Victor IIIs entered service in 1979, were capable of 30 kts and displaced 7,000 tons. They are shown as a sub-set (5 a) due to the activities of John Walker and the Soviet espionage service (see below). The Victor III class, are immediately identifiable by their distinctive, almost iconic, rear sonar “pod.” Design improvements using ‘clusterguard anechoic’ coatings [2] helped to decrease radiated noise levels for the Victor IIIs. Anechoic tiles or coating not only reduce internal noises conducted into the sea which can then be heard from afar but blurs sonar detection apparatus (for other references to ‘anechoic’ tiles see alsohttp://rwhiston.wordpress.com/2011/10/17/11/ ). Twenty five were produced with the last one being completed in 1991.
The Victor III was much quieter than the earlier versions – unusually so – and the reason soon became apparent. Among the US Naval fraternity the Victor III class, is sometimes called theWalker class since many of the improvements

​

in quieting the boat design and in providing them with more effective sensors were the product of the activities of the John Walker (USN) spy ring in the 1970s and 1980s. [3] This same spy ring also passed on thousands of de-encrypted naval messages. [4]

Left: Victor III at sea​

Victor IIIs were 325 ft long and displaced 7,000 – 7,250 tons but in all other respects were very similar to all other Marks. However, it was the Victor III class’s ‘pod’ that caused consternation for a long time among analysts in the fevered atmosphere that was the Cold War. The pod was later identified as a hydrodynamic housing for apassive sonar array that could be unreeled and towed to gather data and then reeled back in. NB. The system was subsequently incorporated into the Sierra class and Typhoon class of SSNs.

6. Charlie class submarine ​

Soviet SSN designers seem to alternate between having missiles housed forward of the conning tower or astern and inevitably, e.g. the Victor class, there were again derivatives of this submarine class too.
Charlie Is (Project 670) had two banks of four missile tubes angled upwards on each side of the bow and outside the pressurised hull. The tubes were covered by large outer doors and the design was to incorporate the P-120 Malakhit (NATO code Siren) medium range anti- ship missile (two of which carried nuclear warheads). Sirenallowed the submarine, to launch a missile up to a maximum depth of 150 feet. The illustration shown here displays the missile doors in the bow.

​

However, due to problems in development the twelve Charlie Isubmarines had to fitted with the shorter-ranged P-70 Ametist(NATO ‘Starbright’) and it was only Charlie Iis that were armed with the Siren missile.
NB. Both the Ametist and Siren missiles could be fitted with nuclear warheads and are therefore designated SS-N. Stallion SS-N-16 missiles were also fitted.
The first Charlie I was launched in 1967 with another 10 followed over a period of five years. The displaced 4,900 tons submerged. In 1972 to 1979, six improved units called the Project 670M SKAT-M (NATO Charlie II class) were built.
The Charlie I class was de-commissioned from 1990 to 1992 andCharlie II were de-commissioned between 1991 and 1998 (Victor Iand II classes were de-commissioned in 1996 but Victor IIIs are still operational today).
Charlie IIs had a displacement of 5,100 tons when submerged, and were 340 ft long with a speed of 24 kts. They were first commissioned from 1973 to 1980 and all 6 were de-commissioned from 1991 onwards.
The Indian Navy leased K-43, a Charlie I (renamed as the ISN Chakra) from 1988 to 1992 which was manned by Indian sailors. After the 3 year lease ended, K-43 was returned to the Russian Pacific fleet.[5] This arrangement provided India with valuable experience of a nuclear powered submarine and guided missiles –ISN Chakra was armed with eight SS-N-7 known as Ametist (NATO code Starbright), anti-shipping missile.
Charlie class submarines are unique among Soviet combat nuclear submarines in having only a single reactor and a single propeller shaft – all other Soviet submarine classes feature two reactors and two propellers. American combat nuclear submarines tend to have only 1 reactor but their speed significantly exceeds the Charlieclass’s 24 kts. [6] The very last Charlie class was retired in 1998.Charlie class submarines were superseded by the Papa class, circa 1969.

7. Delta class submarine ​

What must surely be the most visually distinctive Soviet submarine ever produced is the Delta class – but it also had a worrisome arsenal.

​

Right: Delta class submarine ​

In the 1960s the Soviet Navy wanted a new submarine-launched nuclear missiles thatcould threaten targets in North America – preferably one without the launch platforms The submarine) needing to pass over the US’s deep sea sensors (SOSUS is a chain of underwater surveillance / listening posts across the northern Atlantic Ocean). [7]
Delta class submarines were armed with the R-29 Vysota nuclear ballistic missile (NATO code ‘Sawfly’) which had a range of 4,780 miles (twice that of the preceding missile type). The need for constant patrolling off the American coast (see Yankee class) became redundant – Delta’s could sit under theArctic or far out in the Pacific and still reach their targets.
The class evolved over time into the Delta II which was a “stretched” Delta I that could carry 16 rather than 12 ICBN missiles – all with multiple warheads.
The family of Delta class (from Delta I to Delta IV) is primarily a nuclear deterrent and it has evolved with time to meet changing requirements.

• Delta I – submerged: 10,000 tons, length 456 ft, speed 25 kts. First introduced in 1973 all 18 built have been retired.
• Delta II – submerged: 10,500 tons, length 508 ft, speed 24 kts. All 4 built have been retired.
• Delta III – submerged 18,200 tons, length 544 ft, speed 24 kts. Of the 14 built commissioned between 1976 and 1982, five are still active.
• Delta IV – little data is available. Of the 7 begun from 1984 to 1990, all are still active.

Since its introduction in 1973 the Delta class was the mainstay of the Soviet strategic submarine fleet and remains today a key part of Russian defence.
The much larger Typhoon class submarines had been earmarked to replace Delta class. However, the high running costs Typhoons and the enforced retirement of the Typhoons′ R-39 ICBM missiles under the START I Treaty, meant that some Delta III’s were reactivated in the early 2000s as replacements. By 2004 all R-39missiles had been withdrawn and destroyed.
Each succeeding Delta class had better noise reduction. The Delta III, at 544 ft and 18,200 tons, was a leap up in firepower. It was the first Soviet boat that could launch any number of missiles in a single salvo, also the first submarine capable of carrying ballistic missiles with multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles(MIRV). The Delta III was also equipped with a new ‘battle management system’ (the Almaz-BDR) for the fire control of torpedoes in deep-water, a new sonar system, and also had a new ‘inertial navigation system.’
The submarine design of Delta IVs is similar to that of Delta II andDelta III. It is probably bigger again than Delta III but the operational diving depth of the submarine is said to be 320 metres (approx 1.050 feet) and unlike all other Delta class boats it surface speed is as fast as its submerged speed, i.e. 24 knots.

8. Papa class submarine​

Soviet submarine K-162 was at 44 kts the world’s fastest submarine – and remains faster than many others today. Her estimated test depth was 1,312 ft. and endurance 70 days.
Papa class submarine were designed as nuclear-powered attack submarine and the first to be constructed with a titanium hull. She would prove to be a single-boatsubmarine type which the Soviet named Project 661. The boat is best known in the West by its NATO reporting name Papa class. K-162 was renamed K-222 in 1978.

​

Commissioned in Dec 1969 she was de-commissioned in 1984 and placed in reserve. She was deleted from the Navy list in 1989 and her Russian Navy flag was lowered only in 1999. She was finally scrapped in 2010.
She is regarded as a predecessor to the Alfa and Sierra classes, and may have tested technologies which were later used in those classes.
As an extremely fast attack submarine K-222 was armed with 10 x SS-N-7 Starbright (П-70 ’Amethyst’) missiles in individual tubes forward of the sail, between the inner and outer hulls, which were both of titanium alloy. Similar in design to the Charlie class submarine, K-222 was designed to intercept and attack aircraft carrier groups. In common with the Charlie class and the laterOscar class submarines, her cruise missiles could only be reloaded in port, making her one of the Soviet Navy’s “one shot” boats.
The single Papa class submarine displaced 7,100 tons when submerged, was 350 ft 9” long and had two water-water reactors, designed to be as compact as possible. Unusually, there were no diesel generators – the ‘emergency power’ source was the boat’s powerful batteries.
Her sensors and processing systems included the MGK-300 “Rubin” sonar system, the “Ladoga-P-661” torpedo fire control system and the “Sygma-661” navigation system. Her radar systems were RLK-101 and MTP-10, a Nichrom “Friend or Foe” detection system and there is mention of a “radio intelligence station”.
Offensively she was armed with ten SS-N-7 nuclear tipped cruise missiles in individual tubes, and carried 12 torpedoes to be fired through four 533-mm (21”) torpedo-tubes.

9. Alfa class submarines​

Alfa class submarines replaced the Victor class and at 41 kts were the fastest class of military submarines built. They were the result of the Soviet Navy’s Project 705 where a uniquely powerful lead cooled fast reactor was the power source, this greatly reducing the size of the reactor compared to conventional designs.
The trade-off was that the reactor had a shorter lifetime and had to be kept warm when not being used. As a result, the Alfas were used as interceptors,

​

mostly kept in port ready for a high-speed dash into the North Atlantic. Only the prototype, K-222, known to NATO as the “Papa’ class, exceeded Alfa class submarines speed when submerged.

Right: Alfa class submarine​

Of all Soviet designs the Alfa is perhaps the most brooding, the most menacing looking. Alfa class boats displaced 3,200 tons submerged and were 265 ft long. Visually, Alfa class and Victorclass can be distinguished in the area where the latter has amore blended-in junction between conning tower and hull. All Victorclass craft have a pronounced 90 degree junction.
The hulls were made of titanium and at a time when acoustic detection was being complemented by MAD (magnetic anomaly detector) in both sea and air borne mode, a very low magnetic reading was invaluable.
Such was the insanity of the era thatbarely 3 years after being commisioned, in 1971, the first of the Alfa class submarine were being decommisioned. Seven were built (between 1969 and 1981) and there appears to be no subsequent variant or derivation for this class. Most Alfa class were decommissioned in 1990 with only 1 being scraped later in 1996. According to U.S. Naval Intelligence, the tactical speed was similar to Sturgeon class submarines, i.e. 26 kts submerged.
In terms of straight line-speed the Alfa was therefore a slippery customer. This was only bolstered by its extremely good manoeuvrability which not only exceeded all other submarines in service at the time but also most of the torpedoes that were available. Acceleration to top speed took one minute and reversing 180 degrees at full speed took just 40 seconds. The ability to thus successfully evade torpedoes launched by other submarines required the introduction of faster torpedoes such as the AmericanADCAP and the British Spearfish.
According to U.S. Naval Intelligence, Alfa class submarines were designed for burst of speed up to about tests 43 – 45 kts (approx 52 mph) and was capable of a sustained speeds of 41 – 42 kts (still faster than any Western boat.

 

[Manticore]

Project 705 boats (Alfa class) were intended to be experimental platforms, a demonstration of prowess to the West and to test all innovations and rectify their faults. These would later be found in new generations of larger, quieter boats that eventually became theTyphoon class submarines.

Alfa class derivatives, such as Project 705D, were armed with long-range 650 mm torpedoes and Project 705A carried ballistic missile variant which was designed be able to defend itself successfully against ‘attack’ submarines.

Although Soviet titanium technology was superior to the West’s, the cost of each hull meant fewer could be built. One suspects that the brittle nature of titanium lead to the rapid withdrawal of the early versions.


10. Typhoon class submarines

The full enormity of the Typhoon class submarines is hard to grasp – it was, and remains today, the largest submarine ever built. The photo below of a Typhoon class (NATO code) tied up along side another large Soviet submarine and the personnel on the jetty give some idea of its bulk. [8]

Every Soviet submarine type has a ‘project’ number, however, there is some confusion in some citations regarding the Typhoon – some ascribe Project 941 to this massive submarine and others Project 971. The displaced tonnage difference is so great between 941 and 971 that it cannot be the same boat. This commentary, after checking with the available NATO list (see Appendix A) ascribes theTyphoon as Soviet Project 941.

First commissioned in 1981, just 6 of the Typhoon class submarines were built and were being deployed shortly thereafter.Typhoon class submarines displaced 47,000 tons when submerged, were 574 ft long and had a submerged speed of 27 kts. The photo below shows the human scale of the missile silo hatches.

The last Typhoon class commissioned was in 1998. Only one has been scrapped (2003) but 4 have been ‘laid up’ or are inactive (2004 – 2006).

Soviet military planning for these vessels was to allow them to waits for weeks or months at a time under the Arctic ice and to launch their nuclear armed ballistic missiles undetected by deep sea sensors of SOSUS.

Ice and icebergs also provided perfect cover from prying sensors of ‘attack’ submarines which would not be able to get a clear or identifiable signal.

Armed with the three stage intercontinental ballistic missile, the R-3, Typhoon class submarine was able to fire from within the Arctic Circle and hit any target within the continental US. Theoretically, Typhoons were also able to fire their long-range nuclear missiles while moored in harbour.

Unlike most Soviet submarines types there appears to be no variants or derivatives of the Typhoon class but it is thought that the remaining Typhoons has been used for proving prototypes etc.

The death knell for these leviathans was the ‘arms reduction talks’; the impact of the START I Treaty on ICBM missiles and particularly the Typhoon’s R-39 missiles and the huge running costs of the craftat a time of the economic disintegration of the USSR.

Two vessels were decommissioned in 1997, and in 2002 only two remained in service although it has been reported thatthree of the class will remain active in order to test the R-39M or the newBulava SLBM, contravening the “Co-operative Threat Reduction Program.” The Typhoon class will be eventually replaced with theBorei class submarines

11. Akula class submarine

By 1986 the Soviet Navy was deploying the NATO code Akula class boat which the Soviets dented as Project 971. The Russian name “Щука-Б” (i.e. Shchuka-B) translates as “pike” (the fish). To clear any lingering confusion with the Typhoon class (Project 941), its Russian name was Акула” (meaning “Shark”).

Visually as this photo shows the NATO code Akula class boat has a faired-in or blended junction where the hull meets the conning tower. By contracts theTyphoon class has a “spare tyre“waistline around its conning tower.

Right: Akula class (not Typhoon)

The hull is more circular in cross-section as befits an attack submarine and is more similar to the Alfa class than the Typhoonclass, which has, of necessity, a wider and flatter hull for missile storage.

Akula’s are nuclear-powered attack submarine (SSN), of which there are four sub-classes. The original seven “Akula I” submarines which were commissioned between 1984 and 1990 and displaced 12,770 tons when submerged. Six “Improved Akula” submarines (the second sub-class) were commissioned between 1991 and 2009 and one type “Akula II” (of 13,400 ton) was commissioned in 1995. Only 2 Akula II” have been completed (1995 and 2001) with production on 3 more suspended. A further possible derivative, at 13,800 tons is an Akula III, allegedly commissioned in 2001, in all eight Akula class were operated byRussia and one by the Indian navy. Five more have been retired.

Akula class are 335 ft long, feature a seven-bladed propeller and use a steel hull. Initiated in 1976 it became evident that the existing industrial infrastructure was inadequate to mass produce expensive titanium hulls (see above). The steel-hulled submarines of Akula class (NATO code) were easier and cheaper to built than the Sierras, and are essentially successors to the prolific Victorclass. Today, they make up about half of Russia’s dwindling fleet of nuclear-powered attack submarines. [9]

The Akula class of boat is fitted with two OK-300 retractable electric propulsors (pump jets) for low-speed and quiet maneuvering at 5 knots. On the surface this class can achieve 10 knots but submerged 28 knots.

Improved Akulas, and Akula IIs have an additional six 533 mm (21 inch) torpedo tubes mounted externally, capable of launching possibly up to 6 ‘noise’ simulation decoys each. The external tubes are mounted outside the pressure hull in one row, above the torpedo tubes, and can only be reloaded in port or with the assistance of a submarine tender. (With submarines capable of ever greater depths – the “crush depth” of Akula class is 1,970 – 2,160 feet – is this one way to avoid complications when firing a torpedo in the future ?)

Another slight oddity is the use of 650 mm torpedo bays when the world navies have long standardised on 533 mm (21 inch). Type 65s are heavyweight torpedoes are designed to deliver a decisive blow against very large shipping targets, e.g. American carriers of 100,000 tons. Their range is 50,000 yards (28 miles)at 50 kts (or 100,000 yards (56 miles),at the slower speed of 56 km/h, approx 28 kts).

The Type 65 torpedoes uses contra-rotating propellers and is powered by HTP (high test Peroxide), mixed with kerosene and compressed air fuel. (Ref. diesel electric subsChina’s Submarine Fleet | Robert Whiston's Weblog ; torpedoes Torpedo technology | Robert Whiston's Weblog ; WWII subs Elektroboot submarines (1935 – 1955) | Robert Whiston's Weblog ).

It was HTP in torpedoes aboard the Kursk – an Oscar class SSN, K 141 – that Russian officials believe was responsible for the explosion Aug 2000 which sank the Kursk, K 141, in theBarents Sea and killing all hands (118 men).

Anti-aircraft defence on the Akula class is provided by between 1 and 3, SA-N-10 Igla-M surface-to-air missiles. These are for surface use only as they are stored and fired from the conning tower (US, sail). They are are said to be as light and portable as the shoulder mounted US Stinger missile, if not slightly more advanced.

Six Akula and Akula IIs are all thought to be in service. They are quieter than the original batch and the improvements included not only better silencing but improved automation (crew numbers). The improved quietness may be partly due to sophisticated propeller technology they were able to secure from the West. [10] Akula class submarines have an upgraded passive sonar and detection system, the MGK-501 Skat-MS. The Akula have the SOCKS hydrodynamic sensors, which detect changes in temperature and salinity.

Akula is the quietest Russian nuclear submarine ever designed, and the low noise levels came as a surprise to Western intelligence. Noise reduction efforts include rafting the propulsion plant, anechoic tiles on the outside and inside of the hulls and possibly other measures such as active noise cancellation. Nonetheless, the American Improved Los Angeles class retained a decisive edge in silencing compared to the Akuka I.

Akula II s incorporated an improved double layer silencing system for the power train. Noise emissions are comparable to the (US) Los Angeles class at low speeds but the ‘Improved Los Angeles’ design retains an acoustic advantage according to Russian sources at medium or high speeds. [11]

The Russian Akula class probably has a speed advantage (28 – 35 knots submerged), but Russian sources say they are at a distinct disadvantage in sensors, with a sonar suite which are roughly one-third as sensitive as the Los Angeles class. Russian sensors and fire control can track only two targets simultaneously as opposed to the multiple target tracking capabilities of the American system. According to some reports, the Akula-II class has a 3.7 metre (11 ft) longer hull to accommodate a quieter propulsion system.

All Akula or an Improved Akula etc boats were all commissioned between 1985 and 1992. The prototype, K-284, was launched in Dec 1984 and commissioned in 1985. She was decommissioned in 1995 to avoid the expense of a reactor refueling.

Double Bluff ?

All of the Improved Akula class of boats were commissioned after the arrest and conviction of theWalker spy ring in theUS. It seems possible that a nation capable of blending unique metal alloys to withstand the high temperatures of IBM rocket jets – temperatures unknown to theUS – could build and improve sound deadening techniques acquired from theUS. There is, in some quarters, a notion that Russian submarines are deliberately ‘noisier’ than their counterparts in the West for precisely the reason that in a time of war they would suddenly become so quiet that tracking hunter killer submarines from the West would acoustically lose them.

This bluff could be applied to all or many other Russian submarines, particularly when the diesel electric powered Kiloclass is a class leader is quietness (seeChina’s Submarine Fleet | Robert Whiston's Weblog).

Whereas it is common in the West to highlight Russian malpractices, shortcomings and incompetence, “Running Critical: the silent war” by Patrick Tyler points to alarming short cuts in the American programme. When the “much vaunted” Los Angelesclass was launched a series of design and construction problems were hidden.

The US Navy’s overriding concern in 1969 was to have a submarine thatcould keep up with its Carrier Task Force. Thresher class boats (28 kts) could achieve this but their replacement the Sturgeonclass could not (25 kts). When a Soviet November class sub kept pace with an American nuclear powered aircraft carrier, the USS Enterprise in 1968, the pressure mounted exponentially.

It proved impossible to achieve 30 knots unless the hull of Los Angeles class was lightened. The resulting effect was that Los Angeles class of which 64 were built, had an operational depth of only 950 feet – 350 ft less than the Sturgeon class and no where near the 3,000 ft of some Soviet submarines. Jane’s Fighting Ships, 2004-2005 Edition puts the maximum diving depth at 1,475 feet – but this is still short of several Soviet types. [12]

The official speed of the Los Angeles class is only 20 knots submerged. The Elektroboots of WWII had a submerged speed of 17 knots (Type XXI, see U-2540) and other U-boats could achieve 25 kts by 1944 (e.g. Type XXIIIA).

Construction problems began with General Dynamics Electric Boat Co which won the contract to build the first 7 of the panned 12 Los Angeles class boats. Doubling the workforce led to skills shortages among welders. A welding inspection found that welds had been claimed / certified that did not exist (Electric Boat Co). Supposed to be welded. This forced General Dynamics to open up the hulls of 6 nearly completed boats to verify all welds.

Shoddy workmanship (or lust for profits) aboard the USS New York City lead to such a great misalignment on the forward loading hatch that Mark 48 torpedoes could not be loaded.

USS La Jolla built by Electric Boat Co in 1981, had an engine room foundation that was put in backwards and which had to be removed later. She is still in service.

The USS Philadelphia (1977 – 2919) was so badly put together she was literally manufactured twice over with huge quantities of parts ripped out and replaced.

With this in mind one wonders how much “spin” has been fabricated by the American military to cover substandard submarines of limited capability. And one has to question whether Soviet submarines are really as antiquated, lacking in sophistication, noisy and as ill-thought out as we have always been lead to believe ?

“Survivability” of a submarine in a conflict situation is critical and the adoption by the Americans of a single skin hull design has to be questioned. Double hulls allow for a degree of damage before a catastrophic flood of water and loss of all hands.

12. Sierra class submarine

Project 945 known in the West as Sierra class (NATO code) was the Soviet Union’s successor class to the ill-fated Alfa class submarine The Sierra class entered service in 1987 just two-years after the all steel Akula class (see Alfa class titanium hulled submarine circa 1970s above).

The hull is made from the light but strong metal titanium which allows it to withstand the hull pressures of diving to “unprecedented depths“, i.e. greater depths than normal. [13]Their submerged speed was 34 kts. Greater depths had the advantage of reducing the level of noise radiated and increases‘resistance’ to torpedo attacks. The first Sierra class was launched in 1983 but laid up in 1987. They were 335 ft. long (Sierra II 364 ft) and displaced 8,100 tons. The last to be commissioned was in 1993. Three remain active and 1 has been retired.

Two Sierra I class were built before 2 Sierra II class were launched. Sierra II had a 16 ft longer conning tower. Sierra I class boats had a crew escape pod that can be seen protruding slightly on the port side of the conning tower. Sierra II class boats had 2 escape pods either side of the conning tower necessitating the masts to be offset to the starboard to make room. Sierra IIs were 364 ft. long and displaced 9,100 tons.

Were these pods for sailor safety, or likely to be used because of the boats unsafe characteristics, or were they an experiment for adoption in later classes ?

Designed as an attack submarine the Sierra class was to engage surface task forces and launch cruise missilesat coastal facilities. With a ‘crush depth’ of 3,000 feet it could out-perform boats from the West and speed awayat between 34 and 38 knots.

The Sierra class (Project 945) was generally comparable in performance to early American Los Angeles class boats, though with an arguably superior non-acoustic detection system and integrated acoustic countermeasures system.

Left: Sierra class

The shortcomings and pitfalls gained from the Alfa class (Project 685) resulted in a much larger torpedo room with capacity of up to 40 torpedoes and noise levels were reduced by “Cluster Guard” anechoic tiles on the outer hull. One source states that the Sierraclass is “. . . so quiet that they cannot be detected by NATO’s tracking system SOSUS” (Project 945, 945 A, 945 B (Mars) - Sierra Class).

Although the actual number of boats launched is thought to be only about 4 many more were planned. The mounting military costs of the late 1970s and cash shortages in the 1980s curtailed the project.​

 

[Manticore]

.

13. Mike class submarine

In the 1980s Project 685 was a response to a challenge to develop an advanced submarine thatcould carry a mix of torpedoes and cruise missiles with conventional or nuclear warheads. The Mikeclass turned out to be another single example class of submarine, the K-278. [14]

Project 685 was developed to test out technologies for the Soviet 4th generation of nuclear powered attack submarines. Unusually for Soviet submarines, only one pressurised water reactor was fitted (intelligence analysts had expected the adoption of the high performance liquid-metal lead-bismuth reactors.

She was in fact fitted with an OK-650 reactor which is also installed on Project 971 (Akula class), Project 945 (Sierra class), and in pairs on the Project 941 (Typhoon) SSBN.

Commissioned in Dec 1984, K-278’s displacement was 6,400 – 8,000 tons when submerged. Her length was 385 ft. Although primarily intended as a developmental model, she was fully combatcapable. In trials she reached a depth of 3,345 feet and reached 30 kts.

The Mike class K-278 had a double hull, the inner one being composed of titanium, which gave her an operating depth far greater than thatof the best American submarines. The pressure hull was composed of seven compartments with the second and third protected by stronger forward and after bulkheads creating a “safety zone” in case of an emergency.

The short life of K-278 (1984 to 1989) was due to a fire which broke out in the aft engineering compartment on its first operational patrol (April 1989). K-278, named Komsomolets, was able to surface after the fire started and remained afloat for approximately 5 hours before sinking. Of the 42 crewmembers that died, only 4 were killed by the fire and smoke, while 34 died of hypothermia, drowning in the frigid waters waiting for rescue that did not arrive for 18 minutes.

Right: Mike class

An escape capsule was fitted in the sail above these compartments to enable the crew to abandon ship in the event of an underwater emergency (see Sierra class).

See Appendix B for a list of US and Soviet submarine sinkings. Unfortunately, very few photos of the Mike class submarine are available.

One lesson learnt was that although the escape capsule was used by the last five crew members still on board as she went down, the capsule did not survive the rough seas before it too sank – four of the five died.

It would appear that for all the precautions every Navy takes they are forever neutralised and confounded by events leading to lives being lost in catastrophes that should that had been planned for and then ruled out of the equation.

14. Oscar class submarines

The 1970s saw a veritable explosion in Soviet submarine designs but the 1980s saw them all curtailed or cancelled. The first Project 949 submarine known as Oscar class in the West was commissioned in 1980. A second was commissioned in 1983.

They were reportedly between 19,400 and 22,500 tons (submerged), 508 ft long and had a submerged speed of 32 kts. It is the world’s 4th largest submarine ever built and in the Russian Navy second only to the Typhoon class (for a visual comparison see photo of Typhoon above).

A total of thirteen Oscar class submarines were constructed, 11 of them were the slightly larger Oscar II or Project 949AAntey. Oscar II are about 30 feet longer. Oscar II whensubmerged displaced up to 24,000 tons.

Over 20 Oscar class had been planned but the financial problems that followed the fall of the Soviet Union forced the Russian navy to “retire” many older submarines classes. Although the Oscarclass survived and received the priority to proceed, the programme did not escape cutbacks.

Oscar class boats evolved from having two 4-bladed propellers to the Oscar II which had twin 7-bladed propellers which would probably make them acoustically quieter.

The role of the Oscar class was to deliver multiple missile blows on groups of ships and coastal installations, including the use of nuclear warheads on both shipping and land based targets. The conning tower is reinforced to enable it to break through the ice in theArctic to fire its missiles.

The gap between the inner and outer hulls is said to be 3.7 metres (approx. 10 feet). This is thought to give the Oscar significant reserves of buoyancy and improved survivability against conventional torpedoes (http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/oscar/).

It is fitted with the normal 21” torpedo tubes but also 650 m/m (25½“) tubes through which weapons such as the cruise missile, the SS-N-15 Starfish, can be fired. The Starfish has a solid fuel rocket motor and can deliver its payload to a target 28 miles away.

The payload carried by Starfish ranges from a simple depth charge to a 200 kiloton nuclear warhead. It is the same missile system carried by the Akula class, the Typhoon, Delta, Kilo, and Boreiclasses.

The Oscar class submarine is also equipped with two dozenStallion SS-N-16 missiles (with a range of 550 kilometres) three times as many anti-ship cruise missiles as earlier Charlie and Echo II class submarines.

Twenty four P-700 Granit (SS-N-19, NATO Shipwreck) cruise missiles can be carried by the Oscar class. The P-700 was designed in the 1970s to replace the P-70 Ametist and P-120 Malakhit, both effective missiles but with too short a range in the face of improving weapons of US Navy carrier battle groups.

Shipwreck missiles can be termed a “smart” cruise missiles. When fired in a ‘swarm’ (group of 4 – 8 ) it has a unique guidance mode. One of the weapons climbs to a higher altitude and designates targets for the others to attack. The missile responsible for target designation climbs in short pop-ups, so as to be harder to intercept. Networked in flight, should the designating missile be destroyed one of the other missiles in the swarm alters mode and assumes its role (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-700_Granit#cite_note-1#cite_note-1).

The missiles are also able to differentiate targets, detect groups and prioritise targets automatically using information gathered during flight and types of ships and battle formations pre-programmed in an on-board computer.

They will attack targets in order of priority, highest to lowest: after destroying the first target, any remaining missiles will attack the next prioritised target.

The dimensions of the P-700 Granit (NATO, Shipwreck) is; length: 32.8 ft; diameter: 33.5 inches; weight over 6 tons, speed Mach 1.6; and a range of 342 – 388 miles. With a diameter of 33.5 inches the 650 mm (25”) tubes cannot be use to launch this missile so another mechanism must be fitted (unless the submarine version is slimmer ?). One source http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/oscar/ answers the question:

The [Shipwreck] missiles, which are launched while the submarine is submerged, are fired from tubes fixedat an angle of approximately 40 degrees. The tubes, arranged in two rows of twelve each, are covered by six hatches on each side of the sail, with each hatch covering a pair of tubes. The launchers are placed between the inner pressure hull and the outer hydrodynamic hull.

This leaves the torpedo tubes to fire both torpedoes and shorter range anti-ship missiles – a combination of some two dozen weapons are carried. [15]

The SOSUS array of seabed detectors, mentioned earlier, was extended between the 1960s and 1980s to provide a more comprehensive cover especially for the Pacific Ocean. However, one suspects that the Arctic would not be so well covered and therefore it was used by Soviet boats to enter the Pacific Oceanand observe American and NATO exercises.

For example, the Tomsk travelled into the Pacific under the Arctic ice after being commissioned in Feb 1997, and joined the Pacific Fleet in 24 Sept 1998. The Pacific Fleet totalled seven Oscar II,with four others in the Northern Fleet.

Another Oscar II, class submarine, K-442, shadowed several US aircraft carriers off Washington state in July 1997.

Project 949A, i.e. Oscar II class submarines, have a total of at least ten separate compartments, which can be sealed off from each other in the event of accidents. In common with the largerTyphoon class ballistic missile submarine, the Oscar class boats are reported to have an emergency crew escape capsule located in the sail.

The tragic sinking with all hands of the Kursk on Aug 12th 2000, an Oscar II class submarine was therefore all the more shocking than one would have expected. Sailors had always been told that the Kursk(like the Titanic ?)was unsinkable. [16]

A Russian Navy spokesman said the video taken of the hull some days after the sinking showed extensive damage from the top to the back fin. It showed the periscope was also still up, indicating the ship sank so fast the crew did not have time to react.

The Kursk, K-141, sank about 100 miles from the Russian port of Murmansk during naval exercises and amid a flotilla of about 30 Russian ships. She sank so quickly and catastrophically that distress buoys were not able to be launched “the majority of the crew died during the first seconds of the disaster.” [17]

This pictorial representation (left)shows the damage initially done by the explosions thought to be caused by Mark 65 HTP torpedoes and the equipment needed in the early stages of recovery. The greaterst danger posed to divers were the unexploded HTP torpedos still in the torpedo room. Fortunately, the submarine was not carrying any nuclear weapons at the time, and there is apparently no immediate danger of radiation leaks.

The submarine was said to be lying at45 or 60 degrees but the final angle at which she lay was no more than 20 degrees from vertical and ata depth of a little more than 100 metres (305 feet). This depth and the angle were said to be well within the operating limits of the BritishLR5 submarine crew rescue craft.

Left: K141 recovered and in dry dock

One year after the sinking, July 2001, divers began the dismantling of the bow compartment prior to the hull being raised.

The picture of the Kursk in dry dock is after she has had the torpedo compartment cut off with underwater torches and the bodies recovered (for more details seeRussian submarine Kursk (K-141) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). Recovery workers found notes on a crewman’s body; they showed that 23 sailors (out of 118 aboard) had waited in the dark with him.

The devastation wrought on a warship by a torpedo explosion underlines the lethality of weapon systems today. War Gamesplayed by general and admirals may keep them busy but the price paid by ordinary soldier and sailors is so great that it intimidates a “first strike” mentality if ones own losses are not to be horrendous.

15. Graney class submarine

No definitive or comprehensive range of pictures exist of Project 885, a hunter killer submarine otherwise known as Yasen class – and designated by NATO as Graney class. For all the column inches this boat has generatedspecific hard facts are hard to find. However, if the model and press launch pictures are to be believed than the Yasen class represents a departure from normal Russian practice. Firstly, it appears to have only one propeller which remained coveredat the boats launch and secondly it would appear that its ballistic missiles are stored aft of the conning tower.
​

 

[Manticore]

A photo of the single propeller is shown below. The third photo in this section is of an American Polaris ballistic missile submarine of the Lafayetteclass (USS Sam Rayburn), and show how the silo hatches might be arranged now that that it appears missiles are to be stored aft of the conning tower.

The Yasen class is thought to be based on the Akula class and Alfaclass submarines and is projected to replace Russia’s Soviet-era attack submarines. Ten Yasen class are planned by 2020 with one already undergoing sea trials (2011) and a second is to be commissioned in 2015.

Yasen class submarines are listed as having a submerged displacement of 11,800 tons, is 390 ft in length and a submerged speed of 28 (or 35) kts.

It is known that construction programme, started in Dec 1993, has suffered as series of stoppages due to finance and ‘technical problems’. The first of the Yasen class, K-329, was scheduled for launch in 1998 but by 2004 work was only ‘resuming’ and ‘moving forward.’

In part this was due to the priority given to the new SSBN Boreiclass which will carry ballistic nuclear missiles. Nevertheless, work on a second Yasen class submarine (the Kazan) began in July 2009.

Left: USS Sam Rayburn

Graney class submarines are made of low magnetic steel, with a spherical bow sonar. Precise details are not available as the first voyage of K-329 took place in Sept 2011 but educated guesses have been made about its improved quietness, new generation of reactor and its range or armaments. Some consider by that the Graneyclass will be only slightly quieter than the improved Akula class.[18]

These are likely to include the Shipwreck missile (see P-700Granit above), and the supersonic anti-ship cruise missile, the P-800 which has a range of about 200 miles. There is a likelihood that a long-range cruise missile will be developed with a range of up to 3,100 miles, thus out-distancing the 1,000 mile range of the current P-700 Granit .[19] One source estimates that 24 cruise missiles will be carried together with munitions for its eight 650 m/m torpedo tubes.

Yasen class submarines will operate a VLS, or vertical launch systems, which allows surface and submarines to launch a variety of pre-loaded missiles. These can be “hot” launch using the missile’s own exhaust, or ‘cold’ launches – each have their own advantages.

The schematic illustration (above) is of a Russian hot launch system depicting the use of exhaust gases and the relief valve into the sea.

16. Borei class submarine

Russia’s new inter-continental ballistic missile firing submarine is the 557 ft long Borei class. The class is intended to replace theDelta III, Delta IV and Typhoon classes now in Russian Navy service. Of the 8 planned 2 have been completed and are undergoing sea trials.

Advances include a compact and integrated hydro-dynamically efficient hull for reduced broadband noise and allegedly, the first ever use of pump-jet propulsion on a Russian nuclear submarine. Visually, it is closer to the profile of an American boatthan any previous Russian hull design. The cost is thought to be around US $ 890 million.

The length of the submarine is 557 ft 9 ins. (170 m), and reputedly has a submerged displacement: 24,000 tons) and has a sped of 30 kts. It has not two (as is normal) but only one reactor feeding into a single shaft and propeller – though this is said to be a pump jet than a conventional multi-bladed propeller.

Work on Project 935 began in 1996 but delayed because of missile design changes. In fact, work on the original missile was abandoned, and a new missile called the Bulava was designed.

As a result the submarine needed to be redesigned to accommodate the new missile, and so the project name was changed to Project 955. Those photos that are available (see below) appear to show missile silos aft of the conning tower (US: fin or sail) a change also seen in theGraney class (above).

Bulava missile replaces the R39 solid fuel SLBM which first came into service in 1983. Weighing 84 tons it was 52 ft (16m) long and had a range of 5,120 miles (8,250 km). [20] The new 3 stageBulava has a range of 6,120 miles (10,000 kms), weighs 36 tons and is about 11 m long without the warhead – this might add another 5 metres to its length. Bulava missiles do not fall within the scope of the new START treaty leaving the Russian Navy free to deploy them.

The first batch of Borei class is expected to carry 16 missile silos and a later generation is planned to be armed with 20 silos. Layout of silos hatches will therefore be similar to those shown on this American Lafayette class submarioens (left).

It is a ‘smart’ weapon which will be the future cornerstone of future Russian military thinking. For example, the missile possesses defence capabilities which include an ability to undertake evasive manoeuvring, mid-course countermeasures and emitting decoys. The Bulava’s technology allows it to carry up to 10hypersonic, individually guided warheads each with a yield of 100 – 150 kilo tons.

Intriguingly it is said to be fully shielded against both physical and ‘electromagnetic pulse’ damage – something I heard first suggested as theoretically possible some decades by Ivor Catt, a leading authority in electromagnetism. Some believe that‘electromagnetic pulse’ warfare and counter-measures will overtake lasers and electronics on the battlefield – pulse technology rendering the other two inoperable.
Soviet Nuclear Submarines | Robert Whiston's Weblog

 

[Manticore]

Differences and Explanation of the U-214 SSK family, U209PN and U-212


The formalization of a procurement contract by the Navy Portugal, two submarines, with the aim of replacing the old submarine Albacore acquired in the sixties, has generated some confusion about its features, especially regarding the type or family submarines belonging to the model U-209PN.
Introduction
The U-209PN, U-214 and contract furnishing Navy Portugal U-209 The family originated in Germany and was begun in the early 70s, after the Western Allies to lift the restriction Germany produced submarines from 1000 tons displacement.Until then, Germany had been limited to small coastal submarines build of U-205 and U-206 classes.
The U-209, therefore, is a submarine that is based, in part, in small U-206, but has a larger displacement and greater battery capacity, more powerful propulsion, propulsion, rudders mounted to Reach low height at the bow, stern rudders cruciform and can be operated by a small crew. The U-209 was a huge success in the export market and sold to several countries like Argentina, Ecuador, Venezuela, Indonesia, Colombia, Brazil, Greece, Turkey and Chile among others.

The U-209-1100 and U-209-1200 are the first models appeared on the market.They have a displacement of about 1,300 tons submerged and are perfectly capable of operating in the ocean. The U-209-1100/1200 is recognizable by its characteristic "hump" at the base of the candle, which is a feature inherited from the U-206, although its configuration is different.



U-209-1200 is the smallest of the "209 family", with conventional diesel propulsion system. However, it is much larger than the U-206.

The family has grown over time and is designed and manufactured SSK older that incorporated new systems, larger and more autonomous motors, which resulted in the appearance of the SSK U-209-1300/1400, but longer than past and now without the "hump" characteristic of earlier models. With the removal of the same, the noise level was reduced when the ship is submerged and improved hydrodynamic characteristics.



NEW INDEPENDENT PROPULSION SYSTEMS AIR AIP
(For its acronym in English: Air Independent Propulsion)


A late 80's, again were considered studies for the construction and implementation of a system of air-independent propulsion.
Up is currently conventional submarines depended on a diesel engine connected to a generator, thus producing electricity so that the electric motor was operating the submarine and also at the same time, charge the batteries simultaneously.Clearly, it works for the diesel engine requires the presence of air.
. The conventional diesel electric submarine can dive for a limited period of time, turning off the diesel engine and use the energy from the battery, but when these are downloaded, the only alternative left to the submarine is to reconnect the diesel engine to recharge .
This presents two problems:

a) First, the noise produced by diesel engines, even in the most modern, is relatively high, which is a big disadvantage when average usage of a conflict or when there is an immediate possibility of detection.

b) Moreover, the diesel needed to run air and this should emerge obtained by submarine or surf to a depth that allows get through the "snorkel" motor. The disadvantage is that modern detection equipment a potential adversary ( radar, sonar, heat detectors, etc.) can even detect segment snorkel protruding from the surface, revealing the potential enemy the exact position of the submarine.
System Air Independent Propulsion (AIP) allows to increase their autonomy submarine submerged. A conventional SSK submerged and can navigate without using the snorkel to recharge their batteries, between 48 and 72 hours. A submarine equipped with an AIP system can navigate submerged for a period of between 15 and 21 days, producing electrical energy by avoiding chemical reactions during that period, have to emerge or use the snorkel to recharge batteries .

From the tactical point of view, an underwater AIP is "almost invisible" and it becomes almost impossible to know where you are or course taken after submerging. Since the last day on which there is information on its location, can take days or weeks to find out where you are.

The tender for the replacement of the submarine "Albacore" Portuguese: AIP MESMA systems and "Fuel Cells"
When Portugal launched the tender for the supply of new submarines, two competitors stood out:

1 -. 's French DCN, which offered two alternatives, the first of its new submarine class "Scorpène" who is adicionaba AIP system known as "MESMA" and the second the same but without the AIP SSK system, in a similar to the model of "Scorpene" sold to Chile configuration.
. 2 - The Germans U-209/1400 last version without AIP system, but with the possibility of incorporating a system based on the use of "fuel cells" AIP system.
The French submarine, given its modernity, was viewed more favorably than the German SSK, as the alternative of incorporating the latter "in the future" the AIP system, it was not so clear.
Moreover, the installation of the AIP system in the "Scorpene" seemed to be simpler than in the U-209/1500, since it involved only adding a module (section), while the U-209 model, should be added the hydrogen and oxygen tanks in other sections of the submarine, in a much more complex and expensive operation.
During the analysis of the proposals, there was a freezing process that led to the decision of the Portuguese navy dilate long. The delay was caused by political decisions, and other techniques that are not subject to analysis in this area. So, only the inauguration of another government in 2002, the competition for the acquisition of new submarines was reactivated.
At such times, the Portuguese Navy was leaning towards the French offer SSK class "Scorpene" MESMA the AIP system. The modern design of that submarine, tipped the balance. The German submarine U209-1500 with AIP system (although it was recognized that the latter was more efficient than the French MESMA) responded to a design that was more than 30 years. A height that new proposals were submitted, the submarine U209-1500 seemed to be doomed not be accepted and the German offer to be defeated.





Surprise introduced by HDW

However, when finally presented the new proposals, a curious surprise discovered: while the French consortium DCN, presented a new proposal based on "Scorpène" with changes to adapt to new technical requirements of the Portuguese Navy, the consortium German HDW presented something different: A SSK with "native" AIP system (which meant that it should not be modified in the future to incorporate this system SSK) and with very different characteristics in terms of size, internal layout, dimensions and external to traditional 209/1400/1500 lines: this submarine was named U-209PN.

The U-209PN of the Portuguese Navy
The submarine presented by HDW in the second stage of the competition, has features that distinguish it from those presented in the first phase. Unlike previously proposed submarine U209 all belonging to the class, the new U209-PN has an AIP system "from scratch", new lines and different dimensions than the former. However, as shared with the U-209 some characteristics that qualify it as "oceanic submarine" is not entirely wrong to call it, "209" but rather "changed".
I actually said submarine, although for legal or tactical reasons "should be called" U209, has characteristics that demonstrate that belong to the new class U214, a new family of German Indeed submarines, has in common with the 214's AIP system installed from scratch, similar hydrodynamic lines and metal alloys allow the 214 to achieve greater depth. Their equipment is designed to operate with the AIP system, resultam in terms of arrangement and design of the various systems of the ship, in considerable gains in space. Submarines U-209PN, are roomier than the U-209-1400 / 1500/AIP and largely more capable, mainly by increasing their ability to dive deeper and quieter operation.





Displaying the proposed new HDW and put before the decision to opt for a modern submarine with AIP but also less efficient modern system (Scorpene / MESMA) or U209PN, but with a more efficient AIP system, the decision was oriented in the direction to accept the proposal of HDW and select the U-209PN instead of Scorpène with AIP-MESMA system.
Noting the victory of the German project, the French consortium DCN, contested the results of the competition because, in his view, the new submarine was not offered but a U214 and U209, in this case, HDW should have been excluded because the submarine featured in the second phase was not the same as presented in the first.

The U-209PN

Given the new proposal of the German HDW competitors, and choose between a modern submarine, with a minor efficiency AIP system (Scorpene / SAME), and U209PN, too modern, but with a more efficient AIP system, the decision was in order to accept the proposal of HDW and then choose the U-209PN instead of AIP-Scorpène SAME system.
The company DCN, have reason on their claims because, through the analysis of its features, the U209-PN has original features of the U209 (internal layout) and adds others (desarrooladas systems and technologies for the U-212 project), do not less than the SSK U212A project built for the German Armed and Italy.

The confusion between U-209PN / U-214 / U-212 ....
Doubts about what class submarine responds PN-U209, derived from the fact that it was introduced only in the second stage of the competition, as in the first phase HDW introduced the U209-1400 (proposed alternately with AIP system without AIP ).
Because the combat system, electronic systems, weapons and sensor types correspond to U-214 (or U-209PN, as designated HDW), the new submarine has probably less to do with the more "old" U209 (which retains, however, some features, especially the internal structure) and a lot more to do with the U212 and U214.

 

[Manticore]

.



It is a German project that aims to replace the small German coastal submarine for submarine features to operate in coastal waters but with larger dimensions, so you can also operate over long distances with AIP propulsion system.

This submarine will allow the Portuguese Navy, where appropriate, to operate in the Atlantic, which with small submarines could do. The U212 is thought to respond to the needs arising from the use of the AIP system. The oxygen tank is located outside the area of the pressure vessel and hydrogen tanks. In fact, this is the biggest difference between the two ships, because the U-214, has no oxygen tanks on the outer hull and the hull itself pressurized, because the project is after U212.

There are several reasons for the differences between U212 and U214. The second was designed to operate primarily in the ocean, where you immerse deeper. This is the reason, the hull (or at least the pressure) should be more resistant. The U-214 has a pressurized uniform, almost like a huge gas cylinder area. The decision to install the oxygen tanks inside the pressure hull, leaned against the changes, technical changes and discoveries in the 90s, which reduced the primary risks of placing a pressurized oxygen tank inside the hull of a submarine. Moreover, the U214 would not occur to place the oxygen tanks in the outer hull and lines had to be redesigned.
Keep in mind that it was possible to use the original studies performed to install the AIP system in the new U214, it can be applied also in the old U209 (Greece and some countries in Latin America).

In the U-212, the oxygen tank is placed on the outside. As a result, the U-212 has a pressure area with two different diameters. The first section (derived from submarine project conducted by Thyssen for the Armada Argentina, known as TR-1700) is greater than the back section because that section of the vessel, the oxygen tank is located. The only problem, in this case, is the ability of pressure takes place there a point of least resistance, which makes the U-212 less effective than U-214 in relation to dips at great depths.

Another difference between the U-212 and U-214, is the form of rudders. While the U-214 has vertical bow rudders, the U-214 has vertical rudders on the sail.Also check the rear rudders have a significant difference: the model U-212 has a rudder on "X" while the U-214 has a traditional command in configuration "+"

In the one case or another, the reasons are related to the concept of use. The helm "X" U-212, makes it less prominent, while facilitating the operation of "landing" on the seabed. Also for this reason, the elevators were placed on the sail and not the town, as in the U-214, which is designed to operate in the ocean and not have to settle on the seabed, which would make the wheel X of little use.Moreover, the U-212 has no elevator on the hull and the sail itself, because if the submarine hits the fund to the bottom, will not damage the wheel.
There are also advantages and disadvantages to the mobility of submarines and their ability to submerge or emerge rapidly.


The rudders aft of both submarines




The planes of the two submarine depth

The U209-PN, being basically a "mutant" U214 that meets all requirements of the Navy of Portugal determined for U209 initially proposed Germany, are among the most modern SSK classes currently under construction and will be when officially incorporated in 2010, among the most efficient conventional submarines possessing European Navy.




However, given the situation created by the presentation of the U-209PN "on appeal," the company DCN took the matter to court, claiming that HDW presented in the first instance, another class of SSK and therefore should have been excluded from the competition. The presentation was not successful and the first U-209PN was launched, adding a new member to the "family" of class 209, this time relative "very close" of 214.


Diferencias y Aclaraciones sobre las familia SSK U-214, U209PN y U-212 | www.elSnorkel.com

 

[Neptune]

@Manticore
Any footage of Type214TN?

Type 214 submarine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Indus Falcon]

S-80: A Sub, for Spain, to Sail Out on the Main

Service delay to 2018 forces life extension of Agosta Class subs.

May 24/14: S-70 LEX.Spain is forced to extend the operational life of its S-70 Agosta Class boat Tramonta, because the S-80 submarine Issac Peral isn’t expected until 2018 now. The cost of S74 Tramonta’s refit has risen from EUR 30 million to EUR 42.9 million after the last budget, in order to extend the boat’s life to compensate for the S-80 program’s 5-year delay.

Spain’s entire budget is under huge pressure, but they didn’t have much choice with this. The Agosta Class submarines S71 Galerna reportedly has just 2 years of safe service life left, and Spain needs to have at least 2 submarines in its fleet to meet NATO commitments in the Mediterranean. The current plan is to keep S73 Mistral in service, and use S74 Tramonta’s enhanced servicing overhaul to ensure that she is the 2nd boat.

On the other hand, El Confidencial also reports that Spain won’t increase the S-80′s EUR 2.136 billion budget to deal with its weight issues and delays. Even though changing specifications from the Navy may be partly to blame. That could end up cutting the S-80 program to 3 boats. Sources: El Confidencial, “El retraso del S-80 obliga a invertir 43 M€ para mantener un submarino con 29 anos”.

Jan 20/14: Delays.Spanish paper El Confidencial reports that S81 Issac Peral won’t be operational until 2018. Apparently, the dates bandied about in meetings between Navantia and the government keep on getting later, with about 4 more years of design, testing, and training left to go before the sub can be operational.

As a result, Spain will have to approve additional funds to keep 2 Agosta Class boats in service until 2018 at least. If the S-80′s program budget can’t be increased, Spain may also have to cut 1 submarine from the build plan.

The CIM-2000 Scorpene class diesel-electric attack submarine partnership was just the first step for Spain’s Navantia, as it joined with France’s DCNS to enter the global submarine market. Now Navantia is building on that base of expertise, to field its own S-80 Class for the Spanish Armada. Spain’s new submarines will be larger boats than Navantia/DCNS’ Scorpene Class, with Air-Independent Propulsion (AIP) systems as standard gear, and completely new designs for both external shape and internal systems.

S-80: A Sub, for Spain, to Sail Out on the Main

 

[Indus Falcon]

 

[Indus Falcon]

SSK S-80 Class Submarine, Spain

• Manufacturer Navantia
• Crew 32
• Length 71m
• Surfaced Displacement 2,200t
• Submerged Displacement 2,400t
• Hull Length 51.76m

Interior of the S-80 class submarine. Image courtesy of Navantia.

The main electric motor for the first S-80 class submarine was laid in February 2012. Image courtesy of Navantia.

Construction of the first S-80 class submarine in progress. Image courtesy of Navantia.

The new S-80 class of submarines is being built by Navantia, formerly IZAR, for the Spanish Navy.
The submarines include:
1) Isaac Peral (S-81),
2) Narciso Monturiol (S-82),
3) Cosme Garcia (S-83) and
4) Mateo Garcia de los Reyes (S-84).

Four S-80 class submarines have been ordered by the Spanish Navy.

Isaac Peral, the first S-80 class submarine, is expected to enter service in 2015, followed by Narciso Monturiol in 2016. Cosme Garcia and Mateo Garcia de los Reyes, the last two submarines in the S-80 class, are expected to be delivered in 2018 and 2019 respectively. (Delayed - Please see Post #1)

The S-80 submarines will primarily carry out naval power projection operations and surveillance activities, and protect and transport both the naval and army forces in littoral waters.

Construction on the S-80 class submarines began in early 2005. The keel for the first submarine was laid and the steel for the second submarine was cut in December 2007. Construction of the third submarine began in 2009. All the submarines are being built at Navantia's shipyard in Cartagena. BAE in involved in manufacturing and supplying the pressure hull domes from its shipyard in Barrow.

The cost of construction of the four submarines is expected to be €2.2bn ($2.9bn).

S-80 class submarines design
The S-80 class submarines will measure 71m in length and 7.3m in diameter. The hull of the submarine will be 51.76m long.

The surface displacement of the submarines will be 2,200t, while the submerged displacement will be 2,400t. The submarine will accommodate 32 crew members and eight transport personnel.

Development history of the S-80 class

Initial plans for the S-80 Class submarine were brought forward in 1989, with preliminary studies conducted until 1991. Objectives for the submarine programme became clearer during 1997 and 1998.

Two project definition contracts were awarded from 1999 to 2002. The first contract was signed by IZAR (now Navantia) and Spain's DAM, while the second contract was carried out by IZAR. The contracts were awarded with the purpose of defining the submarine's prototype.

The construction approval was granted in September 2003 and the construction contract awarded in March 2004.

Sonar suite

The S-80 submarine's sonar suite will comprise of a cylindrical array sonar, a flank array sonar, a passive ranging sonar, and a mine and obstacle detection sonar. These facilities are being provided by Lockheed Martin. The support structures and fairings for the sonars are being provided by Goodrich.

The S-80 will also be integrated with a towed array sonar system, supplied by QinetiQ, an interception positioning system and an own noise analyser.

S-80 combat and command systems

The S-80 class will be equipped with weapons handling equipment (WHE), supplied by Babcock International, and commercial off-the-shelf technologies (COTS) jointly developed by FABA and Lockheed Martin.

The submarine will carry six torpedo launchers and 18 weapons, including mines, DM2 A4 torpedoes, MK48 torpedoes, Harpoon missiles and Tomahawk cruise missiles.

It will be fitted with satellite communication systems developed by Indra and a guidance automation unit distributed intelligence (GAUDI) autopilot system developed by Avio.

The submarine will be equipped with Aries radars, Friend or Foe identification systems (IFF) and modular Pegaso defence electronic systems supplied by Indra.

The submarine will also be enhanced by integrating non-penetrating all-weather optronic imaging systems, hoistable masts and periscopes, which will be supplied by Kollmorgen Electro-Optical and Calzoni.

Propulsion details of the S-80 class submarines

The S-80 will be powered by three diesel engines rated at 1,200kW each, a 3,500kW main electric engine, and a 300kW air independent propulsion (AIP) reactor.

The electric propulsion motors used in the submarine are 20% lighter than those used in Scorpene submarines and generate about 50% more energy compared to other submarines, while operating in the same conditions. The propulsion motors are being provided by Gamesa Electric. The propulsion system will provide a speed of 12kt on surface and 19kt when submerged.

Fuel cells for the AIP reactor will be supplied by UTC Power. The fuel cells will be fed through a bioethanol processor supplied by Abengoa. The reactor will be equipped with a carbon dioxide removal system developed by Bionet.
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/ssk-s-80-class-submarine/
SSK S-80 Class Submarine - Naval Technology

 

[Indus Falcon]

Navantia Gets US Help To Fix Overweight Sub
Jun. 5, 2013
US-based Electric Boat has signed on to work with Spanish shipbuilder Navantia to devise a fix for the company’s overweight S-80 submarine, the Spanish Defence Ministry said, after engineers discovered the sub is so heavy it could not resurface if submerged.

But as work proceeds urgently to identify the precise nature of the problem and slim down the sub, one analyst said weight is not the only issue. The air-independent propulsion (AIP) system onboard also is underperforming, he said.

“It was meant to allow the submarine to stay underway for 28 days but only manages one week,” said Rafael Bardaji, head of the Madrid-based Strategic Studies Group, a private think tank. “This is the main advantage of the submarine, and it does not work.”

A spokeswoman at Navantia declined to comment on the performance of the AIP system.

An engineering error caused the submarine to be 75 tons overweight, making it unable to resurface if it submerged, a Spanish industrial source said.

To tackle the weight problem, Electric Boat — owned by General Dynamics — was brought in by Navantia to help nail down the problems and find a solution.

EB, long the lead design shipyard for US submarines, is familiar with the S-80 program through a foreign military sales contract from the US Navy in support of the Spanish Defense Ministry. It also provided extensive assistance to BAE Systems a decade ago during construction and design problems with Britain’s Astute-class nuclear submarines.

The S-80 problems emerged as the hull of the first submarine, Isaac Peral, was nearly complete at the company’s shipyard in Cartagena. Only one section was left to be joined and a launch was planned before the end of the year.

“One solution to the weight problem could be to add length to the submarine, while another option that could be studied is to complete the first submarine without installing the AIP system,” the industrial source said.

“The firm is working with Electric Boat and while nothing has been decided, a conclusion should be reached in mid-July,” the source added.

A spokesman for Electric Boat declined to comment on the Navantia situation, but the US Navy confirmed that submarine building officials and EB are assisting the Spanish company.

In a statement issued May 7, Navantia announced that the sub had strayed from its planned weight, but stated that “delays are common in these projects.” The S-80 was likely to encounter challenges given the advanced technologies onboard, the statement said.

Navantia said the delivery date would slip by one to two years while it decided on a fix and made changes.

Work, meanwhile, has been halted on the €1.8 billion (US $2.3 billion) program to build the submarines, which are 71 meters long with a submerged displacement of 2,430 tons. With a maximum submerged speed of 19 knots, the submarines are designed to carry 32 crew members and eight special operations forces personnel. Spain has ordered four submarines of the type, and all are in various stages of production.

Bardaji said the weight problem is based on a simple error that was not corrected as work advanced.

“I have been told it was a simple matter of someone writing in one zero when they should have written three,” he said. “The idea is now to extend by 3 to 4 meters the main hull of the vessel.”

Navantia has not estimated the cost of reducing the submarine’s weight, but Bardaji said it would not be a cheap fix.

“The buoyancy problem alone could cost up to half a billion euros to cover redesign and extra construction, without considering the propulsion problem,” said Bardaji, a former director of Spain’s Office of Strategic Assessment.

As to the rest of Spain’s fleet, of the three remaining submarines of the Agosta type, two have been laid up for lack of funds while a third is being refitted to allow it to run until 2018, said Pat Bright, a US-based analyst with AMI International.

“The ministry has put a request to parliament asking for €30 million in funding to extend the life for two to three years of the submarine left in service, which will need ample funds for upkeep because of its age,” he said. “The idea of a submarine loaned from Germany has also been suggested.”

In its statement, Navantia said that the S-80 program is a “key element” in Spain’s national defense, based on a national design, granting “industrial independence” while putting the company “in a competitive position in the export market.”

“Navantia is stating that all advanced programs face such problems, but this will impact their credibility,” Bardaji said.

A second expert was more inclined to agree with Navantia.

“This is the first submarine designed by Navantia, so these kind of problems are normal,” said Enrique Navarro Gil, a Spanish defense analyst. “HDW [of Germany] had similar problems in the past. Don’t forget that it is less than 3 percent of total weight. If Navantia solves this issue properly, it will demonstrate a huge engineering capacity.

“Obviously, it is not good news, but I do not believe it will affect potential sales if Navantia can solve the issue quickly, although if the problems are not solved, the credibility of the company will be damaged,” Gil said. “It is possible that cuts among experienced engineers recently — all those older than 52 were retired — has made it difficult for the company to face up to these technological issues.”

The submarine construction problems come at a desperate time for the Spanish Navy, which has been decommissioning ships due to lack of operating funds. The aircraft carrier Principe de Asturias was decommissioned in February and is for sale.

“They’re in a bad situation right now,” Bright said. “Procurement budgets are down, the operational force is significantly reduced, ships are laid up.”

Navantia Gets US Help To Fix Overweight Sub | Defense News | defensenews.com

 

[Kalvari]

What are your thoughts on Arihant's capabilities?

 

[Mugwop]

Australia should discuss building its next-generation fleet of submarines overseas, the Department of Defence said on Monday, a shift that could open the door to a partnership deal with Japan that carries political risk at home and abroad.

Australia is looking for partners to help it build about a dozen diesel-electric submarines to replace its aging Collins Class fleet and help to extend its maritime surveillance deep into the Indian Ocean.

The proposed A$40 billion fleet of submarines is at the core of the nation's maritime defence strategy over the next two decades. Successive governments have pledged to build the vessels in Australia, creating much-needed manufacturing jobs.

The Department of Defence's 50-page Defence Issues Paper 2014, issued on Monday, is part of a public consultation process on a major strategic forces assessment due out next year. In it, the department echoed previous concerns about cost raised by Defence Minister David Johnston.

"There is significant debate emerging about the future submarine and whether it should be built in Australia. This debate must consider the cost, risk and schedule as well as the benefits of the different options," the department said in the paper. "What other military capability might be forgone if monies are committed to industries that do not meet international benchmarks?"

Prime Minister Tony Abbott has struck a tough stance towards struggling industries, declining to bail out anaemic auto manufacturers in a move that deepened acrimony between his government and trade unions.

Any decision to move construction of the submarine fleet overseas would likely cause a further backlash from working class voters.

Japan is considered one of the most likely beneficiaries if Australia does change its stance.
This month, Abbott and Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe signed an agreement on military equipment and technology transfers.
New Australian Navy Submarines to be Japan

 

[Hamartia Antidote]

I think Japan is going to be too busy building their own stuff never mind finding time to build Australia anything.

 

[Aepsilons]

I think Japan is going to be too busy building their own stuff never mind finding time to build Australia anything.

We'll definitely have the time / capacity to help our Aussie friends out.