Professional Documents
Culture Documents
A Conceptual Design of An Underwater Missile Launcher: Carl T.F. Ross
A Conceptual Design of An Underwater Missile Launcher: Carl T.F. Ross
www.elsevier.com/locate/oceaneng
Technical Note
Abstract
The paper presents a conceptual design of an underwater missile launcher, which will be more
difficult to detect by the enemy than conventional surface missile launchers which are currently
being used.
The paper suggests that the material of construction should be a composite and not a metal, as use
of the latter for a large deep diving underwater vessel will result in such a structure sinking like a
stone, due to the fact that it will have no reserve buoyancy. The paper also shows that composites
have better sound absorption characteristics, thereby making the underwater structure difficult to
detect through sonar equipment. It is proposed that this launcher should operate up to a depth of
5000 m, as at this depth, some 60% of the oceans bottoms can be reached.
The author shows that current technology can be used to construct and operate such a vessel.
q 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Underwater; Missile launcher; Submarine
1. Introduction
Some three-fourths of the Earths surface is covered by water and only about 0.1% of
the oceans, bottoms have been explored. Indeed, the surface area of the Earths surface
covered by water is 10 times larger than the surface area of the moon. The average depth of
the oceans is somewhere between 5000 and 6500 m and the greatest ocean depth is found
86
in the Marianas trench, which is some 7.16 miles (11.52 km) deep. This distance is about
30% larger than the height of Mount Everest!
Undersea technology is already used for military purposes, but most large submarines
can only dive to a depth of about 400 m. It is the authors belief that as the average depth of
the oceans is between 5 and 6.5 km, the potential of the oceans for military purposes is not
being fully exploited. It is the authors belief that an underwater missile launcher will
prove far superior to a conventional surface missile launcher.
The advantages of using an underwater missile launcher are as follows:
Radar does not work underwater.
Heat-seeking missiles do not work underwater.
Satellite spy cameras for the filming of submarines, operating at depths of 5000 m, will
be ineffective.
The surface area of the Earths ocean bottoms is about three times larger than the
Earths land area.
The underwater missile launcher can move around the ocean bottoms without detection
more easily than a surface missile launcher.
Disadvantages of the underwater missile launcher are as follows:
The underwater missile launcher can be detected by sonar.
It will be necessary to supply the underwater missile launcher with food and other
provisions.
The discharge of refuse from the underwater missile launcher can be detected by the
enemy.
These disadvantages can, however, be overcome to some extent. For example, to
decrease detection by sonar, its hull can be constructed with a material which has a high
sound absorption coefficient, as presented by the present author (Ross, 1992), when he
proposed a conceptual design for a stealth submarine. In the case of the shortage of
provisions, these can be overcome by supplying the launcher with provisions (say) every
month with the aid of mini and larger submarines. After the missile launcher has been
supplied with its monthly provisions, it can stealthily move away just above the oceans
bottoms. Similarly, the discharge of refuse can also take place at monthly intervals. The
above arguments appear to show that the advantages of operating an underwater missile
launcher clearly outweigh the disadvantages.
2. The design
2.1. Hull form
The usual shape of a submarine pressure hull is in the form of a ring-stiffened circular
cylinder, blocked by end caps, as shown in Fig. 1. The pressure hull is sometimes
surrounded by a hydrodynamic hull, which is in a state of free-flood and is therefore
unlikely to fail due to hydrostatic pressure.
87
88
the launcher. It is suggested that at the centre of the toroid (plan view), a spherical shell is
attached, via walkways, to house the missiles, torpedoes, etc.
The above design appears to indicate that if it is used in preference to a conventional
design, we are in a winwin situation!
2.2. Manpower and living conditions
It is suggested that the required manpower should be about 120 personnel; this is not very
different to the number that currently operate a large military submarine. Since personnel on
89
the missile launcher will be on it for about 3 months at a time, it will be advisable to give each
individual a reasonable amount of space and a good headroom allowance. In current ocean
vessels, the average volume allowed per person is about 5 m3. Since personnel on the vessel
are required to carry out their work without it causing them any undue stress, a minimum
volume of 10 m3 is proposed. This gives a total living quarter requirement of 1200 m3.
Canteen and recreation facilities are also required and it is proposed that these are 2000 m3;
this makes a total of manpower space requirements of 3200 m3.
Radioisotopic generators.
Pressurised water reactors (PWR).
Boiling water reactors.
Liquid metal fast reactors.
Thermal system.
Each of these systems have their advantages and disadvantages, but the most suitable
reactors are radioisotopic generators, PWRs and liquid metal reactors, since these have the
smallest cores.
Radioisotopic generators are small, but they will have difficulty in generating 10 MW
of power. Although liquid metal reactors have the smallest cores, they need to keep the
metal molten at all times, even during periods of shutdown. This renders them hazardous,
and because of this, they will be unsuitable to power the missile launcher. This leaves the
PWR as the most suitable for powering the vessel, as it can generate the power, is small,
and has been proven safe for submarine usage. Additionally, suitable designs are readily
available. A suitable PWR, in terms of size and weight (Haux, 1981), including generating
sets, etc., is as follows:
SizeZ1000 m3.
WeightZ1200 tonnes.
90
Ideal
Normal maximum
Normal minimum
kg/man day
0.9
1.6
0.5
91
The use of electrolytic oxygen generators from water is probably the best method, since
a supply of water is not a problem and it is a well-proven technology resulting in high
reliability (Haux, 1981). This system does not have the resupply problems of other
systems, such as in high pressure or liquid oxygen storage nor does it have the safety and
operational problems.
The only drawback of electrolytic oxygen generators is that they require high electrical
power, but since we have a nuclear reactor on board, we do not have this problem. In the
event of an emergency, it is suggested that an emergency back-up system of bottled
oxygen is kept on board.
2.4.2. Carbon dioxide control
The air we breathe contains about 0.03% of carbon dioxide (equivalent to a partial
pressure of about 30 MPa) (Haux, 1981). Such a level will be difficult to maintain and the
required effort to so do, will not be justified. Therefore, the system should be capable of
maintaining the carbon dioxide level below that which will impair mental and physical
performance. This results in the requirement for maintaining a maximum partial pressure
for carbon dioxide of 1500 MPa (Haux, 1981). There are many systems currently in
existence on both spacecraft and submarines and these depend on absorption and
adsorption.
Such systems include the following:
Metallic absorbents.
Molecular sieves.
Monoethanolamine scrubbers.
Bosch reaction.
Sabatier reaction.
Metallic absorbents are currently widely in use, but for large manning levels and long
submergence times, they become restrictive, although they would be suitable as an
emergency back-up system.
The monoethanolamine scrubber is also regenerative and it is currently used in nuclear
submarines, although it does require large power requirements and deteriorates with time.
The Bosch system can be operated in the Sabatier mode and although it is expensive
and complex, it could make an excellent system for a permanent system, since it also
gives off oxygen.
2.4.3. Contaminant control
Since the environment within the missile launcher will be sealed, it will be
contaminated over a period of time with trace quantities of gaseous and particulate
matter emerging from the crew and from the materials and processes within the enclosure.
92
Table 2
Typical contaminant exposure limits
Substance
Ammonia
Carbon dioxide
Carbon monoxide
Freon-12
Hydrogen chloride
Hydrogen fluoride
Mercury (mg/m3)
Nitric acid
Nitrogen dioxide
Oil mist (mg/m3)
Ozone
Phosgene
Stibene
Sulphur dioxide
50
5000
50
1000
5
3
0.1
25
5
5
0.1
0.1
0.1
5
An internal system will therefore be required to control the level of the contaminants,
dependent on their type and toxity.
Table 2 (Haux, 1981) shows a few possible contaminants and their exposure limit, in an
enclosed vessel such as the rocket launcher. There may be many other contaminants due to
operations such as food preparation.
Some of the contaminants will be difficult to detect and remove and therefore it is
suggested that the structure is partitioned so that the atmosphere from one section does not
contaminate another. The only way for the total removal of all the contaminants within the
vessel is to purge the vessel from time to time.
2.4.4. Climate of the atmosphere
The climate of the enclosure is very important and for crew comfort, it must be set so
that it does not induce any physiological stresses into the crew. In normal ambient
conditions, it is generally accepted that the temperature should be between 18 and 22 8C.
Similarly, a relative humidity of between 50 and 65% is pleasant (Haux, 1981). It is
therefore proposed that the temperature and humidity in the vessel should be maintained at
these levels. Due to the heat generated by all the process equipment, there will be a
requirement for a suitable air condition system. It is also a good idea for the crew to control
the local climate in their cabins, etc.
3. External requirements
3.1. Support legs
The main external requirement of the structure is that of a system of legs or base to
position the structure in a horizontal position on the seabed. Therefore, any system
93
developed here must be able to take account of the state of the seabed. If the seabed is not
flat and horizontal, it will be necessary to have adjustable legs.
3.2. Other external requirements
There are many other external requirements that are needed for the missile launcher;
these include:
Sonar system.
Lighting cameras.
Remote operated vehicles (ROVs).
Docking system.
Escape system.
This list is by no means complete and it will need further investigation.
94
95
Specific density
Youngs modulus
(GPa)
Compressive yield
strength (MPa)
Heat treatment
HY80
HY100
HY130
HY180
7.8
7.8
7.8
7.8
207
207
207
207
550
690
890
1240
Q&T
Q&T
Q&T
Q&T
96
Table 4
Strength of aluminium alloys
Material
Specific density
5086-H1116
6061-T6
7075-T6
7075-T73
L65
2.8
2.8
2.9
2.9
2.8
290
310
572
434
207
276
503
400
390
Specific density
UTS (MPa)
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
896
869
870
345
827
724
830
276
97
Table 6
Strength and relative costs of composites
Material
Specific
density
Fibre
volume
fraction
Tensile
modulus
(GPa)
Compressive strength
(MPa)
Relative
cost
2.1
2.1
1.7
1.7
2.7
3.1
0.67
0.67
0.67
0.67
0.5
0.5
65
50
210
170
140
190
1200
1000
1200
1000
3000
3100
1
3.2
3.0
5.1
11
15
Specific
density
Yield
strength (MPa)
External diameter
(m)
Wall thickness
(m)
2.9
4.5
2.1
503
830
1200
11.95
11.05
10.69
0.97
0.52
0.35
Table 8
Wall thickness for connecting walkways
Material
Specific density
Yield strength
(MPa)
External
diameter (m)
Wall thickness
(m)
2.9
4.5
2.1
503
830
1200
8.36
7.34
7.49
0.68
0.37
0.24
98
Table 9
Some sound absorption coefficients
Material
500 Hz
2000 Hz
0.85
0.70
0.01
0.01
0.65
0.75
0.02
0.02
According to these theories, the calculated wall thicknesses of the toroid and
connecting walkways are given in Tables 7 and 8 for aluminium alloy, titanium alloy
and GRP; the calculated wall thicknesses for high-strength steel are not give as the
strength:weight ratios for high-strength steel are much too low to be used for this vessel.
The wall thickness for the sphere is not given as it is uncertain what the diameter of the
spherical will be. However, the wall thickness of the spherical shell will be in the same
order as the figures given in Tables 7 and 8.
From Tables 7 and 8, it can be seen that it is virtually impossible to construct this
structure in a metal, as the wall thicknesses are much too large. Additionally, even if it
were possible to construct the structure in a metal, the structure will have no reserve
buoyancy and will it sink like a stone to the oceans bottom. In contrast to these arguments,
the structure can be built in GRP by laying layer upon layer. Construction can be aided by
building the structure in smaller components, which will later be bolted together as
described in Section 2. Additionally, buoyancy calculations on this structure show that it
will have adequate reserve buoyancy, so that by the use of buoyancy tanks, it will be
possible to raise and lower the structure in the water. Additionally, GRP has good sound
absorption coefficients so that the vessel will be difficult to detect by the enemy and make
the noise levels within the vessel tolerable; see Table 9.
From Table 9, it can be seen that glass fibre has a sound absorption coefficient as good
as an acoustic tile.
5. Conclusions
Previous design studies carried in the 1960s and 1970s show that the present concept
can be built with present day technology.
Problems may occur with the slow build up of contaminants in the atmosphere and from
time to time the vessel may need purging. This will be lessened to some extent, as the crew
will probably work in two or three rota shifts. Considerations must be made so that the
crew does not suffer from physiological and psychological problems.
Outside support of the vehicle from mini and other submarines will not be easy.
However, such a vessel should prove suitable for defence purposes as the enemy will
find the vessel very difficult to trace.
The use of universally adopted hatch covers for submarines and submersibles should be
given much consideration to aid rescue missions.
99
The plan view of the main hull need not be a toroid, but can be of octahedral, or of
hexagonal or of similar form.
The use of nuclear power to produce electricity for the vessel should prove quite
satisfactory.
If a GRP composite is used, the vessel will have sufficient reserve buoyancy to be raised
and lowered in the water. Additionally, the good sound absorption qualities of a GRP
composite will make the vessel difficult to detect by the enemy and should also make noise
levels inside the vessel tolerable.
References
Case, J., Chilver, L., Ross, C.T.F., 1999. Strength of Materials and Structures. ButterworthHeinemann, Oxford,
UK.
Haux, G., 1981. Subsea Manned Engineering. Balliere Tindall, London.
Ross, C.T.F., 1992. The Silent Submarine, Inaugural Lecture. University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, UK. Also
from the web site with the following URL: http://www.tfross.freeserve.co.uk
Ross, C.T.F., 2001. Pressure Vessels: External Pressure Technology. Horwood, Chichester, UK.
Ross, C.T.F., Laffoley-Lane, G., 1998. A conceptual design of an underwater drilling rig. SNAME Journal of
Marine Technology 35, 99113.
Smith, C.S., 1990. Design of Marine Structures in Composite Materials. Elsevier, UK.
SNAME, 1990, Submersible Vehicles Design, USA.