Your Ad Here

Saturday, November 14, 2009

Astute Class Attack Submarine United Kingdom

Key Data:

110 (including 12 officers)
7,800t (dived)
29 knots (dived)



Weapon Systems:

Submarine-Launched Cruise Missile
Tomahawk Block III
6 x 533mm torpedo tubes for missiles and Spearfish torpedo - total of 36 carried
Combat Data System
Alenia Marconi Systems AMCS
Outfit UAP(4) ESM, decoys
I-band navigation radar
Thales Underwater Systems Type 2076

Source Naval-technology

Project 877K/877M/636 Varshavyanka

Source : NTI

2,325 surfaced; 3,076 submerged
Dimensions, ft (m):
238.2; 242.1 (Project 636) x 32.5 x 21.7
(72.1; 73.8 x 9.9 x 6.6)
Main machinery:
Two 3,650 hp (2.68 MW) diesel generators; one 5,900hp (4.34 MW) motor
Speed, knots:
10 surfaced; 17 submerged; 9 snorting
52 (13 officers)
Range, miles:
6,000 at 7 knots snorting; 400 at 3 knots submerged
Diving depth, ft (m):
790 (240)
Can be outfitted with Club-S missiles (NATO name SS-NX-27 'Alfa'), which can have supersonic 3M-54E or subsonic 3M-54EI antiship missiles, 3M-14E land attack cruise missiles or 91RE1 antisubmarine torpedoes.  Six 21" (533 mm) tubes with 18 torpedoes, or 24 mines in lieu of torpedoes.

Norway Future Submarine

 Norway Future Submarine
 Type 214 Submarine

Operational Requirement: The Royal Norwegian Navy (RNoN) has a requirement for a modern submarine force able to conduct a variety of missions in the littoral waters of the Norwegian fjords and in the open ocean waters of the Norwegian Sea, including anti-surface warfare (ASuW) and anti-submarine warfare (ASW), surveillance and intelligence collection, special operations support, and mine laying. The RNoN expects its submarines to play a key role in opposing an invasion of Norwegian territory.
Program Background: The RNoN submarine force currently consists of six Ula class submarines, which entered service from 1989 – 1992. Although these submarines are currently undergoing a modernization program, the RNoN should start replacing the aging hulls by 2019 if funding is available.
It must be noted that Norway was originally part of the Viking Submarine Project that began in 1997. The Viking project, which included the Nordic countries of Norway, Denmark, and Sweden was designed as a program to replace the submarines of all three countries, which had aging submarine fleets built in the 1960s and 1970s.
Its intention was to develop a common, affordable, new-generation submarine design to meet the submarine replacement requirements of the Danish, Norwegian, and Swedish navies. Additionally, it was believed that the joint procurement approach would save around 20% in total procurement costs when compared to a purely national acquisition program. It also anticipated additional savings in training and integrated logistic support (ILS) costs. However, after the program began in 1997, all three nations began to reduce their respective submarine requirements including Norway. The RNoN cut its requirement from ten hulls to six as it began to restructure its sea services to reflect its new military posture. Following five years of participation in the Viking Program, Norway withdrew on 12 April 2002 due to budgetary constraints.
Even though Norway has withdrawn from the Viking Program, it will still have to procure a new submarine from a foreign source since it has never built a complete submarine indigenously. Norway has a strong association with Germany and will more than likely procure a new submarine from Germany. A primary candidate would be the German Type 212A, which is already being built for the German Navy. Utilizing the German Type 212A or Type 214 would probably be the least expensive alternative the RNoN will have for the foreseeable future.
Program Acquisition Plan: The RNoN currently does not have an acquisition program in place to acquire a new submarine to replace the Ula class. However, the Navy will probably begin long-term feasibility studies around 2012. A construction contract will probably occur by 2016 in order to have the first unit in service by 2019 in order to begin replacing the Ula class on time. Based on this information, the following acquisition plan, for a buy of six units, valued at US$300M each, is projected:

  • Concept Start 2012

  • Concept Select 2013

  • Contract Design 2014

  • Construction Contract RfP 2015

  • Construction Contract Award 2016

  • First of Class Commissions 2019

  • Hull Two Commissions 2020

  • Hull Three Commissions 2021

  • Hull Four Commissions 2022

  • Hull Five Commissions 2023

  • Hull Six Commissions 2024

  • Design and Construction Considerations: Design and construction considerations are purely speculative. However, if the RNoN intends to replace its aging Ula submarine fleet, it will have to do so at a very economical cost. Since Norway has a long-term relationship with Germany in the submarine field, it could attempt to join in with the German Type 212A program or procure the Type 214 that is being exported to South Korea. Currently, Norway is already providing the Kongsberg Defense Aerospace (KDA) combat management system (CMS) MSI-90U for the German and Italian Type 212A units. In addition, all of Norway’s past submarines have originated from Germany.
    Hull, Mechanical, and Electrical (HM&E): The new submarine will be approximately 56 meters (183.7ft) in length with a displacement of around 1830 tons. The design will probably include a number of features to enhance the submarine’s stealth characteristics, including reduced acoustic, infrared, magnetic, pressure, and radar signatures. It will also feature considerable automation in ship control, remote monitoring, and combat systems in order to utilize a small crew of around 30 personnel.
    Combat Systems:
    1. Combat Management System (CMS): The selection of the CMS will be dependent on which design is chosen. Considering a German design, the CMS will probably be a Kongsberg Defense Aerospace (KDA) MSI-90U.
    2. Anti-Surface Warfare (ASuW) Systems: The new submarines will possess up to six 533mm meter torpedo tubes for the launching up to12 Atlas Elektronik DM2A4 torpedoes.
    3. Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW) Systems: The new submarine will include a sonar suite consisting of bow, flank, and towed array sonars. The suite could include the Atlas Elektronik DBQS-40 passive ranging and intercept; FAS-3 flank and TAS-90 clip-on passive towed array as well as an Atlas Elektronik MOA 30070 active mine detection sonar.
    4. Electronic Warfare (EW) Systems: The new submarine will posses an electronic support measures (ESM) system to provide radar warning emissions from other submarines and surface ships. A leading candidate would be the EADS FL-1800U.
    Ship Characteristics: 

    Ship Characteristics:
    Vessel Type Submarine
    Country Norway
    Program Future Submarine
    Total Number 6
    Unit Cost (US$) 300M (Est.)
    Builder To be determined, likely HDW.
    Displ. Tons 1830 (Est.)
    Length 56m (183.7ft) (Est.)
    Beam 7m (23ft) (Est.)
    Draft 6m (19.7ft). (Est.)
    Machinery Diesel-electric: Open. Probably one MTU 16V 396 diesel (1,428hp); one alternator; one Siemens Permasyn motor (3,875 hp); one shaft; one seven-bladed skewback propeller; Siemens/HDW PEM fuel cell (AIP) system (300kW); sodium sulfide high-energy batteries. (Est.)
    Speed (Knots) 20 (submerged); 12 (surfaced). (Est.)
    Range 8,000nm at 8 knots (surfaced). (Est.)
    Diving Depth 350m (1,148.2ft). (Est.)
    Complement 27 (including eight officers). (Est.)
    Weapons Torpedoes: Six 533mm (21-inch) bow tubes (water ram discharge) for a total of 12 Atlas Elektronik DM2A4 torpedoes (Est.)
    Missiles None.
    CMS/Fire Control Kongsberg Defense Aerospace (KDA) MSI-90U. (Est.)
    Radar Navigation: Kelvin Hughes 1007 (Est.)
    Countermeasures Electronic Support Measures (ESM): EADS FL-1800U (radar warning) (Est.)
    Sonar Atlas Elektronik DBQS-40 passive ranging and intercept; FAS-3 flank and TAS-90 clip-on passive towed array; Atlas Elektronik MOA 30070 active mine detection sonar (high frequency) (Est)
    Periscope Possibly Zeiss Electro Optronic (ZEO) SERO 14 search periscope (equipped with an optical rangefinder and a thermal imager); Zeiss ZEO SERO 15 attack periscopes (equipped with a laser rangefinder and optical ranger). (Est.)

    U212 / U214 Attack Submarines

     U212 attack submarine

    U212 submarine schematic

    Key Data:

    27 (including five officers)

    Weapon Systems:

    six 533mm tubes, 24 STN Atlas Elektronik DM2A4 torpedoes
    Combat Data Syetem
    Basic Command and Weapons Control System (BCWCS)


    EADS FL1800U
    TAU 2000 torpedo countermeasures system
    Kelvin hughes type 1007 I-band navigation radar
    Atlas Elektronik DBQS-40 sonar suite and Atlas Elektronik MOA 3070 mine detection sonar
    Zeiss Optronic SERO 14 search and SERO 15 attack
    Diesel-electric, MTU 16V-396 diesel engine, 3.12MW, HDW / Siemens AIP (Air-Independent Propulsion) system, 300kW

    U212 Dimensions:

    Displacement (Surfaced)
    Displacement (Dived)

    U214 Dimensions:

    Surface Displacement
    Presure Hull Diameter
    Buoyancy Reserve

    U212 Performance:

    Speed (Surfaced)
    Speed (Dived)
    Range (at 8kt Surfaced)
    8,000 miles
    Range (at 8kt Dived)
    420 miles

    U214 Performance:

    Submerged Patrol Speed of Advance
    Mission Endurance
    12 weeks
    Constantly Submerged
    Three weeks without snorkelling
    Mission Sprint Speed
    15kt to 20kt
    Maximum Dive Depth

    Class 214 submarine will have an increased diving depth and an improvement in AIP performance.

    Class 214 Submarine (courtesy of HDW)


    Three-dimensional path of submarine maneuver

    Instruments showing rudder and hydroplane angles

    PLARK - Project 661 (NATO : PAPA class ).

    PLARK - Project 661 "Upas Tree"


      106.9 m


    11.5 m

    Draft to DWL

      8.0 m

    Displacement: above-water

    5197 m

    Displacement: underwater

      8000 m

    Full speed.  surfaced

    44.7 knots.

    Full speed. Underwater

      11 knots.

    Maximum diving depth

    550 m

    Working depth of immersion

    400 m

    Crew all (ofitser.)



    70 days.

    PLAT Project 661 (enlarged diagram)

    China admits secretly salvaging British submarine HMS Poseidon

    China has admitted secretly salvaging a British submarine sunk in an accident in 1931, but claimed there was no sign of the remains or personal effects of the 18 men who were entombed in HMS Poseidon when it went down off the former naval base of Weihai. 

    Beijing has only confirmed that it raised and scrapped the Poseidon in 1972 after its fate was reported by The Daily Telegraph shortly after the anniversary of the sinking on June 9.
    But China's claim that the hull of the vessel contained no human remains, identity tags, watches, rings or other personal items has provoked anger among relatives of the men who died.
    "It was a shock to discover the Chinese authorities' claims and I'm deeply upset and disappointed," said Penny Lewis, whose grandfather, Able Seaman Frederick Tolliday, died in the accident.
    "And that is not only for myself, but especially on behalf of my father and grandmother who were both still alive in 1972 when the Poseidon was recovered," she said.
    "The Royal Navy has always maintained that a large number of the crew never escaped from the vessel, including my grandfather, but this conflicts with the Chinese saying no remains or personal effects were discovered. Who is telling the truth?" said Mrs Lewis, 51, from Stevenage, Herts.
    In a statement, the Ministry of Defence said it "takes very seriously the issue of the sovereignty of United Kingdom maritime graves."
    Chinese authorities informed the ministry that "due to the long time that has passed and the lack of effective record keeping during that turbulent period of Chinese history, they have no more information that that which appears on the Shanghai Salvage Bureau's web site."
    It was this brief reference to the raising of the Poseidon during the Cultural Revolution that caught the attention of American maritime historian Steven Schwankert. Subsequent inquiries led to evidence that the Chinese salvaged the vessel without informing London in order to test the skills of their naval special forces and newly formed underwater recovery units, as well as to clear a fishing area of a hazard that had been damaging fishermen's nets for four decades.
    And while it is accepted that little more can be done to protest the raising of the vessel, there are hopes that China might be encouraged to conduct a new investigation into the remains of the crew, which experts believe would have been recovered.
    After all, they point out, the CSS Hunley, one of the first submarines ever built and sunk in 1864 during the American Civil War, contained eight skeletons that had been almost perfectly preserved when it was recovered from Charleston harbour in April 2004.
    "There is no doubt in my mind that there would have been human remains on board, and that means that either the people who raised the submarine lied to the Chinese government, or they are lying to us," said David Clarke, whose grandfather survived the sinking.
    Petty Officer Reginald Clarke spent more than three hours inside the submarine before managing to escape using the then-new Davis Submerged Escape Apparatus, a rudimentary underwater breathing system designed to lift sailors to the surface. Eight men managed to leave a bow section compartment, although two failed to reach the surface and another died later.
    "The answer the families have been given from the Chinese is completely unsatisfactory and not at all believeable," Mr Clarke added.
    The question of the fate of the crew of the Poseidon was raised in Parliament in June by Dr Julian Lewis, the shadow defence minister, who believes that an opportunity still remains for both the families and the Chinese naval authorities to benefit from the situation.
    "It is understandable that the Chinese authorities are sensitive about any remains that may have been discovered, but I do hope that they will check their records a little more thoroughly," he said.
    "This is because they have a real opportunity to do something positive, by reaching out from their modern navy to the descendants of sailors in our inter-war navy, to strengthen bonds and perhaps even invite the relatives to an appropriate ceremony in Weihai to rebury any remains they have found," he added (telegraph). 

    Collins Class "Type 471" Submarine Australia


    Key Data:

    42 (including 6 officers)


    3,050t (surfaced)
    3,350t (dived)


    Surfaced - 10kt
    Snorting - 10kt
    Dived - 20kt
    At 10kt surfaced - 11,500 miles
    At 10kt snorting - 9,000 miles
    At 4kt dived - 400 miles

    Weapon Systems:

    Surface-to-Surface Missile
    Sub Harpoon
    6 x 533mm tubes for Harpoon and Gould mk 48 torpedoes - total of 22 carried
    Up to 44 (in place of torpedoes)
    Combat Data System
    Rockwell Australia combat system, being replaced with Ratheon CCS mk 2


    EDO ES-5600 ESM, ARGO AR-740
    Strachan and Henshaw SSDE
    Kelvin Hughes I-band navigation radar
    Thales Underwater Systems Scylla bow sonar
    Thales underwater Systems Kariwara or Namara towed array
    Thales optronics CK043 search and CH093 attack periscopes


    3 x Hedemora / Garden Island type V18B/14 diesel engines, 1,475kW each
    3 x Jeumont Schneider 440V generators, 1,400kW each
    1 x main motor, 5,250kW
    1 x Mactaggart Scott DM 43006 hydraulic motor for emergency propulsion




    Name (Number)
    Laid down
    Collins (S601)
    HMAS Stirling
    ASC, Adelaide
    February 1990
    August 1993
    July 1996
    Farncomb (74)
    HMAS Stirling
    ASC, Adelaide
    March 1991
    December 1995
    January 1998
    Waller (75)
    HMAS Stirling
    ASC, Adelaide
    March 1992
    March 1997
    January 1998
    Dechaineux (76)
    HMAS Stirling
    ASC, Adelaide
    March 93
    March 1998
    February 2003
    Sheean (77)
    HMAS Stirling
    ASC, Adelaide
    February 1994
    May 1999
    February 2003
    Rankin (78)
    HMAS Stirling
    ASC, Adelaide
    May 1995
    November 2001
    March 2003

    MK-48 Torpedo

    MK-48 Torpedo

    Torpedoes are self-propelled guided projectiles that operate underwater and are designed to detonate on contact or in proximity to a target. They may be launched from submarines, surface ships, helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft. The three major torpedoes in the Navy inventory are the Mark 48 heavyweight torpedo, the Mark 46 lightweight and the Mark 50 advanced lightweight.The MK-48 is designed to combat fast, deep-diving nuclear submarines and high performance surface ships. It is carried by all Navy submarines. The improved version, MK-48 ADCAP, is carried by attack submarines, the Ohio class ballistic missile submarines and will be carried by the Seawolf class attack submarines. The MK-48 replaced both the MK-37 and MK-14 torpedoes. The MK-48 has been operational in the US Navy since 1972. MK-48 ADCAP became operational in 1988 and was approved for full production in 1989. The SSN 714 Norfolk fired the first ADCAP torpedo on 23 July 1988, sinking the FORREST SHERMAN class destroyer DD 938 Jonas K. Ingram. MK-48 and MK-48 ADCAP torpedoes can operate with or without wire guidance and use active and/or passive homing. When launched they execute programmed target search, acquisition and attack procedures. Both can conduct multiple reattacks if they miss the target.
    A highly capable weapon, the MK 48 can be used against surface ships or submarines, and has been test fired under the Arctic ice pack and in other arduous conditions. The ADCAP version, in comparison with earlier MK 48 torpedoes, has improved target acquisition range, reduced vulnerability to enemy countermeasures, reduced shipboard constraints such as warmup and reactivation time, and enhanced effectiveness against surface ships. The MK 48 is propelled by a piston engine with twin, contra-rotating propellers in a pump jet or shrouded configuration. The engine uses a liquid monopropellant fuel, and the torpedo has a conventional, high-explosive warhead. The MK 48 has a sophisticated guidance system permitting a variety of attack options. As the torpedo leaves the submarine's launch tube a thin wire spins out, electronically linking the submarine and torpedo. This enables an operator in the submarine, with access to the submarine's sensitive sonar systems, initially to guide the torpedo toward the target. This helps the torpedo avoid decoys and jamming devices that might be deployed by the target. The wire is severed and the torpedo's high-powered active/passive sonar guides the torpedo during the final attack.The MK 48 Mod 5 ADCAP torpedo is an improvement to the MK 48 submarine launched torpedo. It is a heavyweight acoustic homing torpedo with sophisticated sonar and a fuzed warhead. The ADCAP enhancement includes all digital guidance and control systems, digital fuzing systems, and pro-pulsion improvements which add speed, depth, and range capability. The Navy will produce about 1046 MODS ADCAPs, replacing an equivalent number of baseline (Mod 5) ADCAPs, and maintaining the total inventory of ADCAP torpedoes at 1046. One of the major advantages of using readily available technology to develop an updated weapon using the current torpedo body and off the shelf systems resulted in significant savings and reduction in the development time for the ADCAP torpedo. In addition, by using currently installed systems in place for operating and maintaing the MK-48 torpedo very little additional cost is incurred in new facilities for maintenance and repair.The Navy developed two hardware modifications to ADCAP, called the G&C (Guidance and Control) MOD and the TPU (Torpedo Propulsion Upgrade) MOD. The G&C MOD replaces the obsoles-cent guidance and control set with current technology, improves the acoustic receiver, and adds additional memory and improves processor throughput to handle the expanded software demands anticipated for near term upgrades. The TPU MOD improves the propulsion unit as discussed in the classified version of the FY96 Annual Report. Both modifications were combined into one torpedo, the MK 48 Mod 6 (MODS ADCAP).Software Block Upgrade III (BU III) is intended to provide a near-term improvement for use in the baseline G&C for improved performance in some key scenarios.Software Block Upgrade IV is intended to provide a mid-term upgrade for use in the MODS G&C for improved performance in key scenarios as discussed in the classified version of this report. It will use advanced sonar and signal processing algorithms.One engineering change planned for the MODS ADCAP, the Common Torpedo Development Vehicle (COT-DV), is planned for fleet introduction in the FY01 time frame. COT-DV is a common processor to be used on all advanced U.S. torpedoes, that will use COTS hardware and be significantly more capable than the current MODS G&C. It will initially use BU IV software.Another hardware upgrade, Common Broadband Advanced Sonar System (CBASS), is planned for IOC in FY04. Additional information about CBASS is contained in the classified version of this report.The ADCAP torpedo OPEVAL was completed in August 1988, and the B-LRIP report was sent to Congress in December 1988. ADCAP was reported to be operationally effective against certain threats, but not operationally effective against other threats at that time. The system was reported operationally suitable. The Navy subsequently authorized full-rate production, but Congress constrained procurement because of the concerns identified in test reporting. Modifications were implemented by the Navy to improve performance in certain scenarios, upgrade fuzing systems, and improve reliability. These modifications were considered effective. In 1994 a second software upgrade was introduced to improve performance and reliability.The MODS ADCAP (MK 48 Mod 6), when properly employed, is more effective than the ADCAP torpedo (MK 48 Mod 5). Unfortunately, production MOD 6 ADCAPs have shown a significant vulnerability, differing from the test units. This production problem is typical of problems seen in the initial phases of LRIP. The program office is investigating. DOT&E will continue to follow this.Performance in some environments of both ADCAP and MODS ADCAP, against certain targets employing advanced tactics and equipment, still needs to be improved. Shortfalls are discussed in the classified version of this report. The program office is aggressively working to upgrade these modes.The MK 48 ADCAP torpedo R&D program focuses on two specific areas through FY99: Guidance and Control (G&C) software block upgrades and wideband sonar capability. The Chief of Naval Operations continues to stress shallow water (less than 600 feet) as a critical operating area to counter third world diesel electric submarines. Torpedo testing in shallow water has demonstrated that in-service ADCAP has less than full capability in this difficult environment. However, this testing, in conjunction with laboratory simulation efforts, has shown that significant performance improvements can be made by implementing changes to weapon tactics and software algorithms. Development, implementation and testing of these changes is being accomplished under the ADCAP G&C software block upgrade program.The focus of the MK 48 ADCAP torpedo R&D program for FY99 and out has shifted from being primarily concentrated on Software Block Upgrade efforts to a coordinated hardware/software upgrade for countering evolving threats and maintaining robust performance. Countermeasure (CM) sophistication and availability on the open market directly affects ADCAP kill proficiency and its ability to counter rapidly evolving threats. The Common Broadband Advanced Sonar System (CBASS) program will develop and field a wideband sonar capable of identifying CMs and discriminating them from the target. CBASS received an ACAT III designation on 17 April 1997, with full rate production scheduled to begin in FY04.
    The introduction of phased prototyping in FY01 will provide a more rapid technology transition path for incremental torpedo improvements and upgrades (including the development and test of New Technology Concepts from the R&D community (6.2) and contractor Independent Research and Development (IR&D)). This approach will incorporate accelerated in-water testing of the new concepts allowing early Fleet input into future ADCAP upgrades and help to provide the foundation for Next Generation Torpedoes. These efforts will continue torpedo development investment at a lower cost and shorter term than traditional torpedo development programs.



    Primary FunctionHeavyweight torpedo for submarines
    Power PlantAir Turbine Pump Discharge (ATPD) system;
    liquid (Otto) fueled swash plate engine with pumpjet propulsor.
    Length19 feet (5.79 meters)
    Weight3,434 lbs (1545.3 kg) (MK-48);
    3,695 lbs (1662.75 kg) (MK-48 ADCAP)
    Diameter21 inches (53.34 centimeters)
    RangeOfficially "Greater than 5 miles (8 km)"
                  40 kt      55 kt
    MK-48         44,550 yd  34,430 yd
    MK-48 ADCAP   54,685 yd  42,530 yd
    Weapon acquisition range 1600 yards
    Min/Max ASROC launching ranges 1500 to 12000 yards
    SpeedOfficially "Greater than 28 knots (32.2 mph, 51.52 kph)"
    Reportedly - 40 - 55 kt.
    Actual 55 knots
    DepthOfficially "Greater than 1,200 ft (365.76 meters)"
    Reportedly 3,000 ft
    Search/attack depth settings Minimum 20 yards
    Maximum 1500 yards
    Run characteristics 6-8 minutes
    Guidance SystemWire guided and passive/active acoustic homing
    Warhead650 lbs (292.5 kg) high explosive
    Date Deployed1972
    1988 ADCAP
    Unit Cost$2.5 million
    $3.5 million (?) ADCAP




    Friday, November 13, 2009

    Tupi Class Submarine

    Key Data:

    Improved Tupi - 40
    Tupi - 30 with 8 officers
    Displacement (Surfaced)
    Improved Tupi - 1,850t
    Tupi - 1,260t
    Displacement (Dived)
    Improved Tupi - 2,425t
    Tupi - 1,440t


    Improved Tupi - 6.7m
    Tupi - 61m
    Improved Tupi - 8m
    Tupi - 6.2m


    Surface or Snorting Speed
    Over 10kt
    Submerged Speed
    Range Surfaced
    Improved Tupi - 11,000 miles
    Tupi - 8,000 miles
    Range Dived
    400 miles

    Weapon Systems:

    Torpedo Tubes
    8 x bow tubes, 533mm, swim-out discharge
    8 ready-to-launch plus 8 for reloading
    IPqM Torpedoes
    Range 18km, speed 45kt
    Tigerfish Mod 1 or Mod 27 Torpedo
    Range 14km to 40km, speed 25kt to 40kt
    IPqM Mines
    MCF-01/100 mines in lieu of torpedoes


    Weapon Control
    KAFS-A 10
    Radar Warning Receiver


    2 x Kollmorgen Mod 76 periscopes
    I-band Navigation Radar
    Calypso III
    Hull-Mounted Sonar


    Diesel Engines (Tupi)
    4 x MTU 12V 493 AZ80 GAA31L
    Alternators (Tupi)
    4 x Siemens 1.8MW
    Motor (Tupi)
    Siemens 3.4MW motor
    Diesel Engines (Improved Tupi)
    4 x MTU 12V 396, providing 2.76MW


    The Brazilian Navy submarine Tupi (S30)

    Mk24 Tigerfish

    This heavyweight submarine ASW/anti-surface torpedo was developed during the 1970s as a successor to the Mk8 of WWII vintage. It entered service in 1978.

    Tigerfish was plagued by problems early in it’s career, with many British captains regarding it as completely unreliable. During the 1982 Falklands War, the captain of HMS Conqueror selected to use Mk8’s against General Belgrano. After the war, the RN conducted a series of tests that showed the weapon malfunctioned 60% of the time. In a test designed to recreate the attack on Belgrano, two of five Tigerfish failed to clear the tubes and the other three all missed. A crash programme in 1985 greatly improved reliability and it was finally accepted as a frontline weapon.

    In 1990 a license was granted to the Chilean company Cardeon for Tigerfish. The Royal Navy retired the weapon in 2004; it remains in service with Brazil, Chile, Turkey, and Venezuela.

    12 or 35kts
    22NM low speed, 7NM high speed
    21” diameter, length 21’, weight 3414lbs
    750lb HE
    Active/passive sonar with optional wire guidance
    Electric, Silver-Zinc chloride batteries

    Historic overview of submarine technology

    Some 400 years before Christ, Alexander the Great explored the depths of the sea in a glass diving bell

    Again our friend Alex the Great in his glass diving device, [picture from the web]. Comparing this picture with the previous one, it is obvious that determining the construction of Alex's diving bell of Alex is not an easy task. 

    Wooden pre-submarine the Rotterdam, 1654 (NL) [Francis, 1997].  

    Design of a 'Diving Bell' by father Giovanni Alfonso Borelli, published in this 'De montu Animalium' (on the motion of animals) published in 1680 in Rome [van der Vat, 1994].

    So much for copyright! Boat built by Nathaniel Symons in 1747, seventy years after the Borelli design [van der Vat, 1994] . This boat is supposed to have actually been submerged for forty-five minutes in the river Thames (UK). 

    The Turtle by David Bushnel, 1776 (USA) [Chant, 1996]. The Turtle attempted to attach its 150 lb gunpowder charge to the British flagship the Eagle, but failed. 

    The Nautilus by Robert Fulton, 1800 (USA) [Francis]. In 1800 Fulton obtained a grant to build the sub for Napoleon. 

    The 'Brandtaucher' designed by Wilhelm Bauer in 1850  


    The 'Hunley', after Horace Lawson Hunley, 1863 (USA) [Ragan, 1995]. An American human powered submarine. The Hunley took part in the civil war and was the first submarine ever that sunk an enemy vessel on February 17th, 1864. Currently the wreck of the Hunley has been salvaged. 

    An early submarine design by John P. Holland, 1877 (USA) [Morris, 1998]. The text on the drawing states that the boat was experimented with in 1878 and contains the autograph of John Holland!

    Design by George Garrett, 1878(UK) [Compton-Hall, 1999]

    The 'Nautilus' by Ash and Campbell 1888 (UK) [van der Vat, 1994]. This boat was the first to run on batteries underwater. 

    Holland A-1 design, 1901 (USA) [Chant, 1996]. This boat may be regarded as the first real submarine. It features diesel electric propulsion and has on board torpedo tubes. The life and works of John P. Holland, is outlined in [Morris, 1998]. 

    The first true German U-boot: the U1 1906  

    O1. The first Royal Dutch Navy submarine, 1906 (NL) [Jalhay, 1997].


    O21. Pre WWII Dutch submarine (NL) [Gerretse, 1993].

    K-18. Pre WWII Dutch submarine 1931 (NL) [Wytema, 1936]

    Type II German Pre WWII submarine, 1935  


    Type 9b German pre WWII submarine, 1939


    Type VIIB German WWII submarine, 1939  

    German Type XIV, WWII submarine, 1940 (D). The XIV supplied fluel to other submarines and was thus called a milkcow


    Famous German WWII boat Type VIIC, 1941


    British Chariot Mk I, 1942 (UK). A two person human manned torpedo. 


    An English WWII mini submarine X-craft, 1942 (UK). X5-X10 series. [Kemp, 1999].

    A small German WWII sub WK202, 1942 

    Type 21 WWII German submarine, 1944

    Ty-pe 26 WWI German submarine, 1945

    Russian Quebec class submarine, 19XX (USSR).


    Zulu V class Russian submarine, 1952  

    Dolfijn class, 1954 (NL). Dutch triple hull submarine [Gerretse, 1993].

    Russian November Class submarine, 1958 (USSR).


    German type 205 submarine, 1962

    Spanish Tiburon submarine, 1964. This boat was designed in 1952 with help from the WWII German submarine experts. 

    USS Flasher, an American Thresher class boat (1966). 

    Dutch Zwaardvis class, 1966

    German 206A submarine design, 1973 (D). This is the drawing of a Revell plastic model. 

    Hydrosub, designed by Brian Walker "The Rocket Guy" (1979).

    Typhoon, Russian missile submarine 1980 (USSR)  [Modeler Konstruktor]. Thanks to Jerome Simon, who is building this boat.

    TR 1700 Argentinan submarine, 1980.

    Akula, Russian submarine 1984  

    Norwegian Ula class, 1989  

    Russian Oscar II Class 1990  

    British Vanguard Class 1992


    Turkish Preveze Class (German design 209-1400) 1994 (T)


    Source : heiszwolf

    Also This