PDF Ebook Comparative Naval Architecture Analysis of Diesel Submarines
Many comparative naval architecture analyses of surface ships have been performed, but few published comparative analyses of submarines exist. Of the several design concept papers, reports and studies that have been written on submarines, no exclusively diesel submarine comparative naval architecture analyses have been published. One possible reason for few submarine studies may be the lack of complete and accurate information regarding the naval architecture of foreign diesel submarines. However, with some fundamental submarine design principles, drawings of inboard profiles and plan views, and key assumptions to develop empirical equations, a process can be developed by which to estimate the submarine naval architectural characteristics. A comparative naval architecture analysis creates an opportunity to identify new technologies, review the architectural characteristics best suited for submarine missions and to possibly build more effective submarines. An accurate observation is that *submarines designed for different missions possess different capabilities. But are these unique.
capabilities due to differences in submarine naval architecture? Can mission, cost, or other factors affect the architecture? This study examines and compares the naval architecture of selected diesel submarines from data found in open literature. The goal is to determine weight group estimates and analyze whether these estimates provide a relevant comparison of diesel submarine naval architecture.
Several design concept papers, books and studies have been written on submarines but no exclusively diesel submarine comparative naval architecture analyses have been published. A comparative naval architecture analysis creates an opportunity to identify new technologies, review the architectural characteristics best suited for submarine missions and to possibly build more effective submarines. This study focuses on diesel submarine naval architecture from the end of the nineteenth century to present day. Over that time period, several significant technologies have vastly improved the capability of submarines. From the first combination of gasoline engines and energy-storing batteries in the USS Holland, to the development of the true diesel submarines of the first half of the twentieth century, to the advent of nuclear propulsion and its adaptation to the submarine in the 1950s, and recently to Air Independent Propulsion (AIP) systems, submarines have advanced to highly complex, systems-intense machines.
The urgency of submarine development, as with other military systems, was driven by the World Wars and Cold War, demanding improvements in acoustics, weaponry, safety, automation and submerged endurance. In the years leading up to and during World War II, over 1000 undersea boats and diesel submarines were built by Germany alone (1). During periods of WWII, Germany was producing over 35 diesel submarines per month. In fact, the total number of world submarines constructed during WWII, not including Japan, was well over 2500 (2). Although the focus was on rapid development and construction during WWI and WWII, submarine designs improved, especially in weapons and communications systems. With the advent of the Cold War and the need for longer submerged endurance, the focus shifted to nuclear submarines, causing an explosion in submarine production over the next 30 years. From 1955 to 1989 the Soviet Union and United States alone built over 350 nuclear submarines (3). From a high Cold War world count of 400 nuclear submarines in 1989, there are only approximately 160 today, as nuclear submarine production has experienced a significant slowdown worldwide (3). Building of nuclear submarines is limited to the United States, Russia, England, France, India and China. In the US, the production rate of nuclear submarines is only projected to be one per year over the next ten years.
While the nuclear submarine production rate has decreased recently, diesel submarine production rate today is growing. There are about 400 diesel submarines in the world today. Builders of diesel submarines include Sweden, Germany, Spain, Netherlands, France, Italy, Russia, China, Japan, and Australia. The world diesel submarine production rate is predicted to reach eight per year between 2004 and 2023 (4), which would increase the world diesel submarine count above 500 in the next twenty years. Additionally these predicted diesels possess advanced technology as evidenced by the spread of diesel electric with AIP systems. With such systems, diesel submarines may be suitable for more than coastal defense type missions and operate in more blue-water type scenarios.
Diesel submarine architecture seems quite similar at first glance from country to country and mission to mission. The basic submarine shape includes ellipsoidal or parabolic end caps, is either a hull of revolution or contains a parallel midbody in the center, and has various appendages attached along the body. Generally, diesel submarine designs tend to be of the single hull version, with a singular pressure hull over most of the midbody length and outer hulls at the ends used to create the ballast tanks and provide a hydrodynamic fairing for any other gear attached to the outside of the pressure hull. But, are there differences in the naval architecture of diesel submarines? Can distinct differences be noted, even when comparing two similar ships? Capability differences exist, such as propulsion, acoustic performance, and weapons systems. Do these capability differences affect the naval architect's approach to submarine design? What new construction techniques have been used worldwide? What shipyards have been most effective/efficient in submarine design and construction? How have submarine construction methods changed due to new shipyard methods or technology?
Contents
Abstract
Acknowledgements
Table of Contents
List of Figures
List of Tables
1 Introduction
- 1.1 Purpose of the Study
1.2 Problem
1.3 Background
1.4 General Approach/Methodology
1.5 Criteria for Success
2 SubmarineDesign Process
- 2.1 Design History
2.2 Submarine Design
2.3 Design Weight to Space Relationship
2.4 Weight Estimates and Weight Groups
2.5 Design Summary
3 Development of Procedure
- 3.1 Approach
3.2 Procedure Description
- 3.2.1 Submarines Selected for Analysis
3.2.2 Math Model Development
- 3.2.2.1 Major Compartment and Space Calculations
3.2.2.2 Area and Volume Calculation Error Checks
3.2.3 Weight Group Calculations
3.3 Overall Analysis Process
3.4 Validation of Model Outputs
4 Comparative Naval Architecture
- 4.1 Data Presentation
4.2 Analysis of Results
- 4.2.1 Historical Trends
4.2.2 Mission Effects
4.2.3 Construction Effects
4.2.4 Cost Effects
4.3 Discussion of Results
5 Conclusions
- 5.1 Summary of Work
5.2 Future Work and Recommendations
- 5.2.1 Survey Size
5.2.2 Math Model
5.2.3 Reserve Buoyancy
5.2.4 Advanced Technology
5.3 Closing
References
Appendices
Appendix A : Design Spiral
Appendix B : SS Design Flow chart
Appendix C : Math Model
Appendix D: Submarine Profile and Plan Drawings
Appendix E : Submarine Shape Factors
Download
PDF Ebook Comparative Naval Architecture Analysis of Diesel Submarines
Posted in :
