Written by George Papangelopoulos
|  | 
| Japanese Navy Oyashio class SSK performing an emergency main ballast  blow maneuver. Photo: JMSDF
 | 
One of the best-kept secrets of submarine manufacturers and operators
 is the level of their subs’ signatures. As a result, related official 
published and open source data is mostly limited to general estimations 
of outdated designs from the Cold War era. The key 
signatures of a conventional submarine include its radiated noise, its 
target echo strength, its magnetic characteristics and its snort mast’s 
radar cross section and radiated heat. As new and more sophisticated 
naval mine detonators are developed, electric signatures (UEP, ELFE) are
 added to this list. The present article focuses on the
 radiated noise of modern diesel-electric submarines (SSKs), in an 
effort to shed some light on this interesting and highly classified 
subject. 
|  | 
| Italian Sauro class submarine emerging next to a Durand de la Penne class destroyer | 
 
Radiated noise is the total noise emitted by a 
submarine and can be received by hostile passive sonars. It should not 
be confused with sonar self-noise, although in most cases both are 
caused by the same sources. For example, flow noise can be an important 
contributor to the sonar self-noise even at low speeds, but it is only 
at high speeds that it becomes a significant contributor to radiated 
noise. 
 
|  | 
| Russian Kilo class submarine emerging next to Steregushchiy corvette | 
In the frequency domain, radiated noise comprises
 three components: tonals, transients and broadband noise. It is 
dependent on frequency, speed, depth, manoeuvring (e.g. turning), 
maintenance status and mode of operation (e.g. snorting), and its 
sources are classified as follows:  
Propeller noise 
Propeller
 noise is generated by the mechanical vibrations of the rotating 
propeller blades. The propeller’s oscillating thrust is the dominant 
noise source in the low frequency range, while the less intense trailing
 edge noise occurs in higher frequencies. Turbulence in the inflow 
causes broadband noise (100 Hz - 1 kHz). The propeller’s
 rotation may also generate strong high frequency broadband noise due to
 the formation and collapse of bubbles produced by cavitation, a 
phenomenon of seawater vaporising in low-pressure. Propeller cavitation 
can be suction-side, tip-vortex and hub-vortex. 
|  | 
| The propulsion system of U31, first German Type 212A submarine. Photo: Bundeswehr | 
 
|  | 
| The propulsion system of U36, latest German Type 212A submarine. Photo: Bundeswehr / Björn Wilke | 
 
In 
general, the advanced design of a modern submarine propeller provides a 
rather large cavitation-free margin of operation (speed/depth) and 
reduced-level tonals. For example, the HDW Type 212A uses a 7-blade skewback propeller  with an optimised blade shape and trailing-edge geometry for a low 
acoustic signature, as well as PCBF (propeller boss cap fins) to 
suppress hub-vortex cavitation and increase propeller efficiency. 
|  | 
| Alrosa's pump jet system uncovered | 
|  | 
| The sole Project 877 (Kilo class) submarine with pump-jet | 
|  | 
| The pump jet of Kilo submarine Alrosa | 
 
|  | 
| The standard propeller of a "regular" Kilo submarine | 
Pump-jets
 can be even stealthier, but they are not suitable for small size submarines. The only known example of an
 operational diesel-electric submarine equipped with a pump-jet is the Project 877V Kilo-class B-871 Alrosa of the Russian Navy Black Sea Fleet. 
|  | 
| Acoustic stealth comparison (broadband quieting). Work based on N. Polmar "Cold War Submarines"
- originally on en:Office of Naval Intelligence data. Author
Voytek S | 
 
Hydrodynamic noise
As
 a submarine moves through the water, it generates boundary layer 
turbulence and vortex shedding noise, with both broadband and narrowband
 components. At low cruising speeds, the broadband flow noise has a 
relatively small contribution to the total radiated noise. This 
contribution, however, becomes more significant at higher speeds, as the
 flow noise power level is proportional to U5 where U is the sub’s 
speed. The hull, fin, control surfaces and any appendages (e.g. fixed 
tube for towed array) contribute to the generation of hydrodynamic noise
 either directly, or by disturbing the wake field entering the propeller
 disc, which in turn causes the radiation of low frequency noise. 
|  | 
| Collins class submarines of the Royal Australian Navy | 
 
The
 narrowband hydrodynamic noise component is sourced by flow-induced 
vibrations and may be present even at low speeds. If the frequency of 
the flow fluctuations is near one of the natural frequencies of a 
structure, this part of the submarine may vibrate relatively strongly 
and generate noise. 
|  | 
| Victoria class submarine of the Royal Canadian Navy | 
Machinery noise  
An SSK’s machinery noise is normally independent of its speed and can be classified as follows: 
a.
 Low frequency transients generated during the operation of the 
submarine (for example: movement of the hydroplanes and the rudders; 
opening the torpedo tube door; changing depth). Although of short 
duration, LF transients can assist a hostile anti-submarine force in 
classifying and probably also identifying the submarine. 
b.
 Noise generated by the electric motor, the cooling units, the various 
auxiliary systems and the air-independent propulsion (AIP). The use of 
advanced isolation infrastructure, anechoic tiles and permanent magnet 
propulsion motors can reduce this type of radiated noise. It
 should be mentioned that in absolute terms, AIP systems do not reduce 
the machinery noise radiated by a submarine. On the contrary, a 
submarine using its batteries radiates less noise than a similar one 
using its AIP system, although the difference is minimal. 
c.
 Noise produced by the diesel engines and their auxiliary equipment 
(pumps, valves, etc) during the recharging of the submarine’s batteries.
 in the course of this process, diesel engines operate under high load 
so as to recharge the batteries as quickly as possible, generating 
significant acoustic noise. Despite the passive and the more recently 
developed active vibration isolation systems and exhaust silencers, the 
diesel engines remain the dominant source of radiated noise for 
conventional submarines. 
|  | 
| Walrus class submarines of the Royal Netherlands Navy in formation | 
 
In conclusion 
|  | 
| Israeli Dolphin II class submarine | 
Detecting,
 tracking and locating submerged SSKs using passive acoustic sensors has
 always been a challenging task, since diesel-electric submarines, 
especially in silent patrol mode, radiate minimal noise. In practical 
terms, this type of sub is vulnerable and easily detectable only during 
snorting, a process generating a high level of acoustic noise, as well 
as radar reflections, IR emissions, hull and snort head wake, exposing 
the SSK to passive and active detection sensors from long distances. An 
SSK’s total submerged endurance exceeds 100 hours, but it normally has 
one 15-minute snorting per 12 hours, depending on the mission 
requirements, to keep its battery in a continuous high state of charge. 
|  | 
| Ula class submarine of the Royal Norwegian Navy | 
AIP
 technology greatly prolongs the snorting intervals, enabling an SSK to 
significantly extend its submerged endurance to more than 400 hours (at 4
 knots and with a normal “hotel load”; speeds higher than 8 knots cannot
 be supported by AIP systems in stand-alone mode). Combined with the 
latest advances in vibration isolation systems, propeller and hull 
design, which further reduce the radiated noise signature, AIP provides a
 decisive tactical advantage and makes the passive acoustic detection of
 a modern SSK a nearly impossible task, even for an advanced 
anti-submarine force.  
|  | 
| Okeanos, sole Type 209 submarine upgraded with AIP technology | 
 
In light of the above, active 
sensors and, specifically, low frequency active sonars in multistatic 
configuration, are probably the preferred solution against a modern 
diesel-electric submarine. Such a configuration offers a longer 
detection range, increases the number of detection opportunities per 
ping, allows higher ping-repetition rates and, most importantly, 
complicates the tactical situation for the hunted submarine. In the 
absence of a valuable bearing, range and depth estimation of the 
receivers, the submarine cannot successfully exploit counter action 
manoeuvres, such as the “turn tail-on to the source and change depth”.
|  | 
| Dolphin II class submarine of the Israeli Navy Tanin, perhaps the most advanced type in the Mediterranean today
 | 
 
Bibliography:
- Submarine Design, Ulrich Gabler
- Submarine Hydrodynamics, Martin Renilson
- Sonar, A.D. Waite
 
 
 
Nice article as usual.
ReplyDeleteQ: Is it true that SSKs snorkeling very close to shores are reducing detectability to the minimum ? And if so, does that means that AIP systems tend to help mostly for stealthy operations at open "deep blue" waters ?
Near-coastal waters are extremely complex acoustic environments (wave breaking, shipping, human industrial activities, etc) with high ambient noise levels. Assuming a friendly shore :), getting closer makes detection more difficult. Snort area is decided taking into account the mission requirements, the tactical situation and the lowest detection risk.
DeleteThanks George
ReplyDeleteThis is a well written analysis. Succinct and to the point.
Signature analysis has reached such a sensitive state that organizations like the Integrated Undersea Surveillance System http://www.csp.navy.mil/cus/About-IUSS/ can determine not only the class of an SSK but individual SSKs.
Also the routine habits/submarine manoeuvres of Captains can indicate which Captain is in command of a given submarine.
Regards
Pete
Submarine Matters
Thanks a lot Pete!
DeleteThe main difficulty of classifying and identifying a detected underwater target lies in building and updating a reliable and accurate acoustic intelligence database.
Regards,
George
PS: By the way, your blog is top quality!
Hi George
ReplyDeleteYes US Oceanographic Survey Ships - T-AGS [1] like the (USNS) Pathfinder class survey ships [2] are involved in updating acoustic intelligence databases. Such database may be centred on mainframes located at US Naval Intelligence, Washington DC, and servicing an international USN network (including combat ships and submarines at sea). Much database assitance and algorithms might supplied by the NSA.
[1] http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=4500&tid=700&ct=4
USN "Military Sealift Command's Special Mission program supports worldwide oceanographic programs with six ships that perform acoustical, biological, physical and geophysical surveys. These ships gather data that provides much of the military's information on the ocean environment. The collected data helps to improve technology in undersea warfare and enemy ship detection..."
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathfinder-class_survey_ship
Regards
Pete
i think that each aip system have diferent level of noise radiated, for example stirling cycle engines, fuel cells. Is this correct? regards.
ReplyDeleteThat is correct. FC based AIP is considered the quietest.
DeleteThanks George.
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed reading this article, albeit, I don't know enough about submarines.
Are you able to point me to the direction of understanding noise and noise signatures?
I think the 3rd reference is a good start
DeleteA related question, can AIP submarines "recharge" their AIP capabilities while snorkleing/surfaced? e.g. can the Swedish Gotland generate liquid oxygen for later use?
ReplyDeleteAccording to my knowledge, this is not possible.
Delete