Arctic Sovereignty Submarine

[DrewMC36]

I'll freely admit that I am not remotely close to being an expert in Arctic Sovereignty or submarines, but a silent and small submarine would be a perfect fit for the role of a stealthy patrol vehicle in the north.

So here is my choice for a submarine that could fill the need to not only replace our current aging submarines: the German Type 212 class and the Italian Todaro class (a joint project).

Propulsion:
To get to point A to point B you have the diesel engine, in the need of silent the submarine uses 11 fuel cells and a electric engine.

Armament:
6 forward facing torpedo tubes, a retractable 30mm auto-cannon is being considered, and short range missiles are being developed for the torpedo tubes.

General characteristics of the 212:
Displacement: 1,450 tonnes surfaced
1,830 tonnes submerged

Length: 56 m (183.7 ft)
57.2 m (187.66 ft) (2nd batch)

Beam: 7 m (22.96 ft)

Draft: 6 m (19.68 ft)

Propulsion: 1 MTU 16V 396 diesel-engine[1]
9 HDW/Siemens PEM fuel cells, 30-40 kW each (U31)
2 HDW/Siemens PEM fuel cells each with 120 kW (U32, U33, U34)
1 Siemens Permasyn electric motor 1700 kW, driving a single seven-bladed skewback propeller

Speed: 20 knots (37 km/h) submerged, 12 knots surfaced[2]

Range:
8,000 nm (14'800 km, or 9'196 miles) at 8 knots (15 km/h) surfaced
3 weeks without snorkeling, 12 weeks overall

Test depth: over 700 m (2,296 ft)[3]

Complement: 5 officers, 22 men

Armament: 6 x 533 mm torpedo tubes (in 2 forward pointing groups of 3) with 12 DM2A4, A184 Mod.3, BlackShark torpedoes, IDAS missiles and 24 external naval mines (optional)

 

[Lex Parsimoniae]

Genrerally a bigger submarine is needed to operate near/under ice.  To paraphrase Stalin, size has a quality all its own.  The ability (and reserve buoyancy) to break through ice when needed, especially in an emergency, is important.  In addition, a 212/214 would require significant changes to operate near/under ice:
- Hull, casing and fin strengthening;
- Enhanced sensor outfit to include ice detection and avoidance sonar, upward looking
echo sounders and underwater imagery capability;
- Full inertial navigation system capability;
- Augmented capability to cope with excessive condensation;
- Augmented environmental system(s) to meet current pollution regulations; and
- Enhanced communications capability.

 

[DrewMC36]

Thanks for the reply and the info!

 

[GK .Dundas]

One of the reasons SNN 's are favored for Arctic work by the Canadian Navy wasn't so much that you could spend weeks submerged under the Arctic ice cap but  because you can move them from one coast to the other in a short period of time .
The reason in the eighties the Navy was  willing to give up 6 City class frigates in favor of the SSN option was the ability of a SNN to make a high speed run from say  Esquimalt to Halifax in 10 days thru the North west Passage  as opposed to 6 weeks via the Panama Canal.
As it turned out we got neither the SSN 's or the extra 6 Frigates.

 

[drunknsubmrnr]

Full inertial navigation system capability

They probably already have that. The Oberons did and that was a long time ago.

Augmented capability to cope with excessive condensation

They probably don't need more of that. Sea temps in the Arctic are pretty close to deep ocean temps already. If the boats can operate below the thermocline now, they'd be able to operate in the Arctic.

They might need a whacking great battery to power electric heaters. If you aren't snorting every so often, the boat will get really cold. Those sweaters aren't as warm under those conditions as you'd hope.

Augmented environmental system(s) to meet current pollution regulations

It would be pretty difficult to design an SSK that could contain it's grey and black water between port visits. It was hard enough on an Oberon to keep it three days, and that's with another era's standards for washing. An Oberon was a lot bigger than a Type 214 as well.

Enhanced communications capability

Good enough to operate beneath the ice? That does sound enhanced. Does anyone have systems that good?

Good points on the hull and sensors. There would still be a transit issue unless the boats were based in the Arctic though.

 

[Edward Campbell]

One of the reasons SNN 's are favored for Arctic work by the Canadian Navy wasn't so much that you could spend weeks submerged under the Arctic ice cap but  because you can move them from one coast to the other in a short period of time .
The reason in the eighties the Navy was  willing to give up 6 City class frigates in favor of the SSN option was the ability of a SNN to make a high speed run from say  Esquimalt to Halifax in 10 days thru the North west Passage  as opposed to 6 weeks via the Panama Canal.
As it turned out we got neither the SSN 's or the extra 6 Frigates.

Not to mention that the numbers/cost quesstimates in the Beatty white paper - drafted, mainly, by a gang of experts (cronies) from Toronto with limited DND input - were wildly unrealistic, usually by a factor of 100% or more.

 

[Lex Parsimoniae]

They probably already have that. The Oberons did and that was a long time ago.

Something like the Mk 49 Ring Laser Gyro Inertial Navigation System that are currently fitted to CF submarines.  The Oberons never had more than a very rudimentary gyro-compass with basic PK.  That isn’t sufficient to navigate dived on for long periods.

They probably don't need more of that. Sea temps in the Arctic are pretty close to deep ocean temps already. If the boats can operate below the thermocline now, they'd be able to operate in the Arctic.

The temperature of the near-surface sea (let's call that the area between Safe Depth and Periscope Depth for argument's sake) varies mainly with latitude.  The polar seas (high latitude) can be as cold as -2 degrees Celsius (noting that sea water, with an average salinity of 35 psu, freezes at -1.95 degrees Celsius).  Submarines don’t operate for long periods beneath the thermocline (in open oceans) and thus don’t have to cope with the extensive condensation that results as the SM cools down.  I’ve operated up north aboard two classes of SM and that was the universal experience.  Kindly provide your northern water experience.

It would be pretty difficult to design an SSK that could contain it's grey and black water between port visits.

Be that as it may, the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act currently applies out to 100 nautical miles and prohibits any discharge of waste (zero discharge) except untreated sewage. 

. It was hard enough on an Oberon to keep it three days, and that's with another era's standards for washing.  An Oberon was a lot bigger than a Type 214 as well.

Type 214 = Displacement: 1,690 t (surfaced), 1,860 t (submerged)
Oberon = Displacement: 2,030 t (surfaced), 2,410 t (submerged)

An Oberon is roughly 30% larger than a 214 (which can be built larger) but has 250% the crew.  Any guesses as to which has a greater black/grey water endurance?

Good enough to operate beneath the ice? That does sound enhanced. Does anyone have systems that good?

Yes.  However, operating above 60N brings with it challenges even with standard UHF and HF.

 

[drunknsubmrnr]

The Oberons never had more than a very rudimentary gyro-compass with basic PK.  That isn’t sufficient to navigate dived on for long periods.

The Oberons had a WSN-5, same as the TRUMPs (and frequently IMREQed by said TRUMPs). It was the basis for a very capable SINS. It had a few issues with updates, but overall it wasn't bad.

Submarines don’t operate for long periods beneath the thermocline (in open oceans) and thus don’t have to cope with the extensive condensation that results as the SM cools down.

Odd....I could have sworn we did that for several days at a time in a couple of exercises between Newfoundland and Iceland. Temp below the thermocline was almost always 3-4 C, and we didn't have that many problems with condensation. The problems we did have were running opened up where the condensation would form on the comms and FC gear. Running opened up is unlikely to happen a whole lot for various reasons.

Be that as it may, the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act currently applies out to 100 nautical miles and prohibits any discharge of waste (zero discharge) except untreated sewage.

So somebody's going to need an exemption or one whacking big ECP.

An Oberon is roughly 30% larger than a 214 (which can be built larger) but has 250% the crew.  Any guesses as to which has a greater black/grey water endurance?

A Type 214 can't be built larger. If it's significantly altered, it won't be a Type 214 any more, just like a Type 214 isn't a Type 212.

Do you actually have the tank layouts and sizes for a Type 214?

 

[Lex Parsimoniae]

The Oberons had a WSN-5, same as the TRUMPs (and frequently IMREQed by said TRUMPs). It was the basis for a very capable SINS. It had a few issues with updates, but overall it wasn't bad.

The WSN-5 was the basis for SINS.  Just not aboard CF Oberons which (post-SOUP) were fitted with the Attitude and Heading Reference components only.  The position displayed on the unit (in the AMS) was simply a PK – nothing more.

Odd....I could have sworn we did that for several days at a time in a couple of exercises between Newfoundland and Iceland. Temp below the thermocline was almost always 3-4 C, and we didn't have that many problems with condensation.

Hmmm…how’d you deal with the CO build-up after being deep “for several days at a time”?

So somebody's going to need an exemption or one whacking big ECP.

We can't protect the northern environment by polluting it.  Oily-water separators, trash compactors, etc aren't exactly large ECs.

A Type 214 can't be built larger. If it's significantly altered, it won't be a Type 214 any more, just like a Type 214 isn't a Type 212.

The Type 214 is available in different configurations, much like the Type 209 before it (Type 209/1100, Type 209/1200, Type 209/1300, Type 209/1400 and Type 209/1500). 

Do you actually have the tank layouts and sizes for a Type 214?

Try the ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems website: 214

 

[drunknsubmrnr]

The WSN-5 was the basis for SINS.  Just not aboard CF Oberons which (post-SOUP) were fitted with the Attitude and Heading Reference components only.  The position displayed on the unit (in the AMS) was simply a PK – nothing more.

The WSN-5 was still used as the system gyro. True, not all of the outputs were used as they are on a TRUMP, but they won't be used on a Type 214 as well. That position fed by the WSN-5 was still just as accurate as if the rest of the system was using the full set of nav outputs from the gyro.

There was also a position readout over the chart table.

Hmmm…how’d you deal with the CO build-up after being deep “for several days at a time”?

CO wasn't a problem. I don't even know how you'd get CO unless you were either snorting (not possible below PD) or had a fire.

If you meant CO2, we used the CO2 absorption canisters in the fore and after-ends. And got splitting headaches.

Oily-water separators, trash compactors, etc aren't exactly large ECs.

Those are standard equipment, although oily-water separators don't work quite as well as one would hope for pollution control. What are you going to do with the trash once it's been compacted? Store it on the boat for weeks at a time?

The Type 214 is available in different configurations, much like the Type 209 before it (Type 209/1100, Type 209/1200, Type 209/1300, Type 209/1400 and Type 209/1500).

I agree. However, they couldn't stretch the 209 any farther without turning it into another boat, the TR 1700.

Try the ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems website

Thanks! It doesn't have the tank sizes though.

I will concede that a smaller crew will generally allow for longer endurance on the same tank sizes, with the reservation that modern crews will probably use significantly more tankage on a per capita basis. A bird-bath once a week (whether we needed it or not) is unlikely to make it in the 21st century.

 

[Lex Parsimoniae]

The WSN-5 was still used as the system gyro. True, not all of the outputs were used as they are on a TRUMP, but they won't be used on a Type 214 as well. That position fed by the WSN-5 was still just as accurate as if the rest of the system was using the full set of nav outputs from the gyro.

The Oberon class WSN-501 Inertial Monitoring Units only measured movement in 2 dimensions (vice 3 dimensions aboard the IRO class) and could not be used for navigation.  My point was that an INS is required to operate near/under ice.  I stand by that statement.

There was also a position readout over the chart table.

Which boat and what year?

CO wasn't a problem.

Please describe the atmosphere monitoring program that was in use aboard the Oberons.  Who did it, when, and what gasses?

I don't even know how you'd get CO unless you were either snorting (not possible below PD) or had a fire.

CO is the dived endurance problem aboard SSKs.  Check the following out of your local library – it is Canadian and has an excellent section on submarines:  “Air quality in airplane cabins and similar enclosed spaces” by‎ Martin B. Hocking and Diana Hocking (2005).

If you meant CO2…

I didn’t.

Those are standard equipment, although oily-water separators don't work quite as well as one would hope for pollution control.

Zero discharge is the requirement north of 60.  That requires slightly higher standards than currently fitted equipment.  Happily, it's readily available as a COTS insertion.

What are you going to do with the trash once it's been compacted? Store it on the boat for weeks at a time?

Yes.  It’s done already (minus the compacting) aboard the VCS when they’re up north.

 

[drunknsubmrnr]

The Oberon class WSN-501 Inertial Monitoring Units only measured movement in 2 dimensions (vice 3 dimensions aboard the IRO class) and could not be used for navigation.  My point was that an INS is required to operate near/under ice.  I stand by that statement.

No, the unit only reported movement in 2 dimensions. It measured movement in all 3. That's why the actual gyro units were frequently IMREQ'ed by TRUMPs. I agree that an INS is required for under-ice operations, but the Oberon "iron gyro" system was good enough for that, and had been around since at least 1985. You don't need a laser gyro, although I'm sure it would be nice to have one.

Which boat and what year?

I installed Okanagans remote in 1996. IIRC OJ already had hers at the time, and Onondaga got hers as part of her last refit.

Please describe the atmosphere monitoring program that was in use aboard the Oberons.  Who did it, when, and what gasses?

The Doc used a Draeger kit every four hours or so. O2, CO2 and a bunch of others.

Are you playing "Who's qualified?".

CO is the dived endurance problem aboard SSKs.  Check the following out of your local library – it is Canadian and has an excellent section on submarines:  “Air quality in airplane cabins and similar enclosed spaces” by‎ Martin B. Hocking and Diana Hocking (2005).

It's on Google Books. And doesn't appear to support your assertion that CO is the dived endurance problem.

CO2 and O2 are far larger problems. Thats why they have had solutions provided. If CO goes above standards, you either live with the exceeded standards or snort to ventilate.

Zero discharge is the requirement north of 60.  That requires slightly higher standards than currently fitted equipment.  Happily, it's readily available as a COTS insertion.

That's a workable solution for short trips north of 60. It's not so good for long patrols.

 

[a_majoor]

Just an interesting note; "Skate" class SSN's with displacements of only 2250 tons were quite capable of operating under the ice, with the Skate surfacing at the North Pole in 1959.

Most of the problems have been solvd already, and we only lack the political will to build our own SSN (or even order them offshore). The Skipjack class design seems eminently suitable for our needs (especially combining the small size and hull form with modern equipment). Lashing together some sort of AIP solution foer a submarine "might" work, but with the exception of fuel cells (Solid Oxide Fuel Cells in particular, which can run directly on hydrocarbon fuels), most of the AIP solutions seem to far too complex to be considered a reliable solution to the under ice problem.

 

[Zoomie]

Wow - you guys are speaking in forked tongues.  Fascinating discussion.

 

[Lex Parsimoniae]

I agree that an INS is required for under-ice operations.

Glad we now agree.

The Doc used a Draeger kit every four hours or so. O2, CO2 and a bunch of others.

The OKA PA was awake 24/7?  Impressive.  However CANSSOs mandated the NAV COMMs to do the readings and they checked for CO, CO2, and O2.   

It's on Google Books. And doesn't appear to support your assertion that CO is the dived endurance problem.

You read pages 378-383?

CO2 and O2 are far larger problems. Thats why they have had solutions provided. If CO goes above standards, you either live with the exceeded standards or snort to ventilate.

CO2 and O2 are easily managed and hence aren’t an issue.  If you read the section on submarines from Prof Hocking then you'll know why CO is hard to manage for an SSK.

That's a workable solution for short trips north of 60. It's not so good for long patrols.

If you say so.  At least one submariner who has operated up north disagrees.

 

[drunknsubmrnr]

The OKA PA was awake 24/7?  Impressive.  However CANSSOs mandated the NAV COMMs to do the readings and they checked for CO, CO2, and O2.

OJ. And Doc was checking for a lot more than just those three, especially after OK's Freon leak. Maybe the NAVCOMM's were checking as well, but they were aft of the CR. I rarely went that far back.

You read pages 378-383?

That's the last page of the article and the references. Are you sure you're working off the same edition as is on Google Books?

http://books.google.ca/books?id=KzXPJ-p75QIC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Air+quality+in+airplane+cabins+and+similar+enclosed+spaces&source=bl&ots=g4-jsWMzL5&sig=i8_IHQrSHA4OXBCppyC0Su1U4eg&hl=en&ei=2r11TM-hCY6msQPmov2gDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBQQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=submarine&f=false

In any case, section 4.2.3 is the section on CO, and it's one paragraph long. Hardly a case for a major problem.

If you say so.  At least one submariner who has operated up north disagrees.

And that submariner was on station in a SPA north of 60 for how long?

 

[Lex Parsimoniae]

OJ.

Odd....I could have sworn we did that for several days at a time in a couple of exercises between Newfoundland and Iceland. Temp below the thermocline was almost always 3-4 C, and we didn't have that many problems with condensation.

One of these two statements is wrong – your choice as to which one you'd like to "correct".

And Doc was checking for a lot more than just those three, especially after OK's Freon leak.

Freon leaks were quite common – hence why the Outside Wrecker’s staff had Freon detectors and made daily rounds. 

Maybe the NAV COMM's were checking as well, but they were aft of the CR. I rarely went that far back.

They did the whole SM.

That's the last page of the article and the references. Are you sure you're working off the same edition as is on Google Books?

I wasn’t using Google Books – I own a copy – but when I enter your link I get “no preview available for this page” and the footnotes.  If you have only looked at the Google Books entry then you might want to wind your neck in.

And that submariner was on station in a SPA north of 60 for how long?

Which time?

Anyways - this is getting somewhat pointless.  Feel free to respond and have the last word.

 

[drunknsubmrnr]

One of these two statements is wrong – your choice as to which one you'd like to "correct".

They're both correct.

Freon leaks were quite common – hence why the Outside Wrecker’s staff had Freon detectors and made daily rounds.

And why the NWT's checked for Otto leaks etc. Wonderful, you get your sig on your Atmospheric Monitoring qual.

They did the whole SM.

If you say so. I never saw one taking readings in the AS. I did see the fore-endies taking them in the FTR.

If you have only looked at the Google Books entry then you might want to wind your neck in.

The Google books entry is online. I'll even attach a screenshot.

In any case, it has one paragraph on CO out of that entire chapter, and that's only in conjunction with snorting. Please point out how that makes CO "the dived endurance problem aboard SSKs".

Which time?

Any time under the AWPA rules.

 

[Navy_Blue]

CO is a product of combustion.  Therefore CO is only an issue in the event of an engine run on after a SNORT.  When we are dived we do everything in our power not to burn anything  ;D.  We have several facilities to deal with lack of O2 and excess CO2.  Your biggest limitation to an SSK’s dived endurance is the battery. 

As far as the environmental issues.  I would refer you both to the EMS policy for subs and if you read them you will notice they have been superseded by different orders and have concessions for submarines in several cases.   

As far as the origional statment ref 212 armliment.  It would rock having a mast mounted 30mm!!! 

 

[Lex Parsimoniae]

CO is a product of combustion.  Therefore CO is only an issue in the event of an engine run on after a SNORT.  When we are dived we do everything in our power not to burn anything  ;D.  We have several facilities to deal with lack of O2 and excess CO2.  Your biggest limitation to an SSK’s dived endurance is the battery.

Seriously?  You claim to be an ETECH aboard WSR and don't know where the CO aboard submarines comes from?  Hint: The machinery you would maintain as an electrician. 

Kindly explain why the Virginia class operates carbon monoxide burners if CO only results from engine run-ons.

FYI - Carbon monoxide is formed by the incomplete burning of carbon.  The wiki definition notes that "Carbon monoxide is a product of incomplete combustion of organic matter with insufficient oxygen supply to enable complete oxidation to carbon dioxide."  Any cooking equipment or rotating machinery used aboard submarines?  Anything aft of 56 that might offgas carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, and unburned hydrocarbons even after shut-down?  Is the ambient O2 percentage ever below 21%?  Ambient pressure ever drop below 1000 millibar?