CAPT. HARRY A. JACKSON, USN (RET.), CDR. WILLIAM D.

NEEDHAM, USN
& LT. DALE E. SIGMAN, USN

Bottom Bounce Array

Sonar Submarine (BBASS)

THE AUTHORS Shipyard, and earned master of science in materials science

and ocean engineer’s degrees at MIT. His awards include the
Capt. Harry A. Jackson, USN (Ret.) is a graduate of the Uni- Meritorius Service Medal, Navy Commendation Medal, Navy
versity of Michigan in naval architecture and marine engineer- Achievement Medal, Spear Foundation Award, and the Vice
ing and completed the General Electric Company’s 3-year Admiral C.R. Bryan Award. Cdr. Needham also holds a mas-
advanced engineering course in nuclear engineering. He has ter of arts degree in business management from Central Michi-
been an independent consulting engineer and participated in gan University.
projects involving deep submergence, waste disposal, water
purification, and submarine design, both commercial and Lt. Dale E. Sigman, USN is currently assigned as a ship super-
government. intendent at Charleston Naval Shipyard, South Carolina. He
Capt. Jackson was technical director of Scorpion Search received a regular commission through NROTC at the Univer-
Phase II. The on-site investigation included descending over sity of Kansas where he graduated with honors in mechanical
12,000 feet to the bottom of the ocean. He was also supervisor engineering. He has served on the USS Shark (SSN-591) where
of one of the Navy’s largest peacetime shipbuilding and repair he became qualified in submarines. Following transfer to the
programs. His responsibilities included supervision of design, E D 0 community in 1983, he earned master of science in me-
production and contract administration, chanical engineering and ocean engineer’s degrees at MIl?
Capt. Jackson was third from the top in managaement of a
major shipyard and responsible f o r design material procure-
ment, work order and financial control of two major surface ABSTRACT
ship prototypes, as well as a large repair workload. In addition
he was responsible f o r developing the shipyard’s capability f o r Anticipated technological advances in the quieting of po-
overhaul of nuclear powered submarines. tential adversary submarines mandate the use of increasingly
Capt. Jackson has over thirteen years involved in the design effective detection systems for U.S. ASW forces. Based on the
and development of naval submarines. This includes being assumptions that sonar will continue to be the primary means
head of a 700-man design force with over 200 engineers. He di- of detection and that the effectiveness of each individual sonar
rectly participated in the development of seven prototype sub- element will not change markedly, one must increase the pro-
marines. He was deeply involved and played significant roles jected area of the sonar array to improve its capability. The
in the development of the Navy’s Nuclear Propulsion Program primary SSN mission of anti-submarine warfare will hence re-
and the Polaris Missile System. quire increasing the hull area devoted to the primary sonar de-
Capt. Jackson ’sprofessional affiliations include registration tection system. A revolutionary hull form is proposed that
in the states of Connecticut, Washington and New Hampshire. maximizes the area available for this purpose. The advantages
He is a life member of SNAME and a member of ASNE. He and disadvantages of this hull form are discussed and feasibil-
has presented numerous papers on engineering in the marine ity study level design parameters and arrangements presented.
field. Who’s Who in Engineering lists his name as a recognized
authority in naval architecture and marine engineering. INTRODUCTION

Cdr. William D. Needham, USN is currently assigned as the T h e radio transmission “underway on nuclear
repair officer of USS Hunley (AS-31) in Norfolk, Virginia. He power” broadcast from the USS Nautilus (SSN-571) on
received a regular commission through NROTC at Duke Uni- 17 January 1955 marked the beginning of a new era of
versity where he graduated magna cum laude in mechanical en- submarine warfare, the era of the true submarine. As
gineering. Selected f o r the Nuclear Power Program, he served Nautilus was developed primarily to test the pressurized
as a division officer on the USS Grayling (SSN-646), as the
production training assistant at the MARF Prototype Reactor
water nuclear reactor at sea, her hull form was largely
in New York and as blue crew engineer of the USS Nathan unchanged from that of preceding diesel submarine de-
Hale (SSBN-623) where he completed the requirements to be signs. Development of an entirely new more efficient
designated qualified f o r command of submarines. Following hull form initiated in 1948 came to fruition with the de-
line transfer to the E D 0 community in 1981, he completed a sign and construction of the USS Albacore (AGSS-569)
tour as nuclear repair officer (Code 310) at Norfolk Naval in 1953. At-sea operations confirmed that the single
Naval Engineers Journal, September 1989 59
SONAR SUBMARINE JACKSON/NEEDHAM/SIGMAN

are foreseeable, order of magnitude changes are not

due to the fundamental physical nature of the problem.
Hydrophone spacing determines the maximum wave
length of incoming sound which can be processed by the
array. Lower frequency, longer wave length sound
waves hence require hydrophones mounted farther and
farther apart as the detection frequency is lowered.
Since it is the low frequency sound wave that travels the
farthest in the ocean and since it is the low frequency
sound wave that cannot be totally prevented from
emanating at the source, it stands to reason that the low
frequency sound wave should be the focus of future en-
33’0” hanced sonar designs. Array area is important in that
the number of individual hydrophones determines the
ability of the sonar to screen out unwanted noise from
SECTION
the ambient environment or from the ship on which the
I sonar is mounted. A larger area array thus allows for
Ggure 1. Major fast attack submarine classes. more hydrophones, less noise to interfere with the target
signal and better acoustic performance. Hence hydro-
phones need to be spaced farther apart and spread over
screw body of revolution hull form provided substantial a larger area to achieve markedly superior performance.
improvements in submerged speed and maneuverability It is instructive to compare the performance of a large
[ 11. The subsequent marriage of the nuclear power plant area sonar array to the performance of a spherical ar-
of Nautilus to the efficient hull form of Albacore ray. For purposes of discussion, the Conceptual Large
ushered in the era of the modern nuclear attack subma- Area Sonar (CLAS) with an area of approximately
rine with the design and construction of the USS Skip- 20,000 square feet will be compared to a nominal
jack (SSN-585) in 1958. 15-foot diameter sphere with a projected area of 177
The resounding success of the nuclear powered square feet [3]. Four basic parameters will be consid-
streamlined hull submarine is best evidenced by the fact ered; frequency, beamwidth, range and array gain.
that we have been designing and building submarines
with the same fundamental parameters for nearly 30 FREQUENCY
years. Examination of the outboard profiles of the ma-
Frequency (f) is inversely related to the maximum
jor fast attack classes constructed since 1958 supports
linear dimension (L) of the sonar array for a given re-
this argument with graphic clarity (Figure 1). The Los
solving power (D/r) according to [4]:
Angefes (SSN-688) class submarine, the most recent va-
riant of the body of revolution hull form, is a highly
f = Cr/LD
capable warship by anyone’s evaluation. It can effec-
tively carry out its combined mission of fast attack/di- where C = The speed of sound in water
rect support by virtue of its high speed and ASW/bar- (about 5,000 feet per second)
rier patrol by virtue of its quieting and advanced sonar r = The range to the target
system. Thus the evolutionary hull form of the U.S. D = The size of the object that can be
submarine fleet can operate effectively against the cur- resolved at the given range
rent and near-term threat posed by its potential adver-
saries. But what of the longer term threat? The maximum linear dimension of the CLAS is 160 feet,
Advances in submarine quieting made by the Soviets the diameter of a circle with an area of 20,000 square
in recent years indicate a major shift in force level doc- feet. When compared to the 15-foot diameter sphere,
trine. As U.S. submarines continue to improve with en- the CLAS array will then be able to operate at about
hanced quieting, there will come a time in the not too 1/10 the frequency of the sphere.
distant future when submarines won’t be able to hear
each other except at very close range. This has been BEAM
WIDTH
called “The Quiet Revolution” [2]. The question is
what can we do about it? One answer is to build a better The beamwidth of a sonar system is important in
sonar; a sonar that can detect quieter targets at greater maximizing the signal-to-noise ratio since it allows the
range. system to listen selectively in small sectors and thus
screen out interfering ambient noise from the environ-
SONAR EVALUATION ment. The beamwidth may be approximated by [S]:

Enhanced sonar performance requires either techno- BW = 50.8 C/fL

logical gains in sonar hydrophone processing technol-
ogy or more hydrophones spread over a large area. Al- The inverse relationship with the array dimension L
though some improvements in hydrophone technology again means that (for a given frequency sonar) the
60 Naval Engineers Journal, September 1989
JACKSON/NEEDHAM/SIGMAN SONAR SUBMARINE

CLAS array can operate at 1/10 the beamwidth of the where N = The number of independent sensors
sphere. (i.e. hydrophones)

For flow noise, array gain varies according to:

RANGE
AG = 10log(A)
Maximum sonar detection range is the most widely
quoted figure of merit for a given system as it reduces where A = array area
the complexities of acoustic analysis to layman’s terms.
Unfortunately, the “maximum range’’ is very much de- What all this means is that an area array with a linear di-
pendent on the target, the sonar platform, the geometry mension of 160 feet will have twice the array gain of a
of the encounter, and especially on the ocean environ- towed array of the same length since there are only N
ment. It can only be estimated with some degree of ac- elements in the towed array but N2 elements in the area
curacy when sound losses associated with each of the array. One would need a towed array of about 5 miles in
above entities are known. This is normally done through length to provide the same capability as the CLAS ar-
the use of the passive sonar equation which computes ray. From the standpoint of flow noise, one can again
the sound available at the sonar for a given set of condi- compare the CLAS array to the sphere by their pro-
tions. To a first order approximation, however, the jected areas. The 20 dB advantage of the CLAS array
maximum possible sonar range can be computed from means that it can be operated at a higher speed than the
[41: spherical array for the same acoustic performance.
One may conclude that the Conceptual Large Area
CYR= constant Sonar (CLAS) array has rather appealing advantages
over conventional sonar configurations. Basically, it
where R = Range can detect a target more accurately at greater range
CY = The coefficient of absorption of while moving through the water at greater speed. The
sound in seawater in dB/km operational implications are obvious; a submarine as-
signed to an ASW barrier patrol mission can search
This absorption of sound in seawater is a fundamental more ocean more effectively when equipped with the
physical property of the ocean environment and arises CLAS array. Perhaps more importantly, it can detect a
from a chemical relaxation process involving primarily much quieter submarine at ranges comparable to cur-
magnesium sulfate and boron. The absorption rent systems against current threats. The quid pro quo is
coefficient is in turn dependent on the frequency of the that one must build a submarine large enough and quiet
sound, varying linearly (proportional to f) over a por- enough to fully utilize these potential step jumps in
tion of the frequency range and quadratically (propor- sonar performance. We propose a submarine to do just
tional to f2) over the remainder. What all this means is that.
that the ocean imposes a physical limit on how far
sound can go at a given frequency. For the two systems
under consideration, the factor of 10 reduction in fre- THE BOTTOM BOUNCE ARRAY
quency possible with the CLAS array yields a range at SONAR SUBMARINE (BBASS)
which the target can be detected of between I0 and I00
times greater than the range for the sphere. Based on the preceding analyis of sonar system re-
quirements for enhanced detectability of a low noise tar-
get, one may formulate a statement of need for a new
ARRAYGAIN ASW submarine:
So far, we have justified the length of the array in Anticipated improvements in Soviet noise quieting tech-
terms of lower frequency and greater range but we have nology as extrapolated from current trends into the
yet to justify the need for a large area. If length were the twenty-first century will require that a sonar with ap-
only criterion, then clearly a towed array would provide proximately forty times the 1990’s technology projected
the best answer as it is not constrained by the dimen- area be built to maintain acceptable detection ranges.
An attack submarine platform with a large surface area
sions of the platform. To properly assess the importance
geometry is needed to meet this threat.
of area to sonar employment requires some rather com- Technological improvements in submarine acoustic
plicated mathematics to derive a parameter known in systems in the developmental (6.2) stage of fleet intro-
sonar lexicon as array gain (AG), a measure of how ef- duction will require a dedicated platform for future
fectively the system screens out unwanted noise. The ar- operational testing. An attack submarine platform is
ray gain varies depending on the source of the interfer- needed to fully evaluate the new technology.
ing noise for which target noise discrimination is de-
sired. For own ship’s noise or self-noise (again employ- The Bottom Bounce Array Sonar Submarine (BBASS)
ing sonar terms), array gain varies according to: was designed to meet this need. It is a revolutionary de-
sign as it must address a revolutionary threat. It is a mis-
AG = 10 log (N) sion-controlled design as it is totally dominated by the
Naval Engineers Journal, September 1989 61
SONAR SUBMARINE JACKSON/NEEDHAM/SIGMAN

.\CONCEPTIONAL LARGE AREA

SONAR (CLASS) ARRAY

Figure 4. Side view.

spherical sections of increasing radius that eventually

reaches infinity to form the flat horizontal stern. The
junction between the two halves is a 6-foot flat vertical
plate from the forward perpendicular to 25 feet aft of
the central reference point and a tapered flat vertical
plate from this point to the after perpendicular. This
configuration was chosen to eliminate fabrication prob-
lems due to the sharp internal corner that would have re-
igure 2. Bottom Bounce Array Sonar Submarine (BBASS). sulted had the top and bottom halves been joined di-
rectly. The flat steel plate would ultimately be faired
with coating material to provide a smooth surface at the
ASW mission of the future: detection of low noise tar- deck edge. An isometric view is shown in Figure 2. Top
gets with a large area hull mounted sonar array. and side views are shown in Figures 3 and 4 respectively.
The major design parameters are listed in Table 1.
SIZE AND SHAPE

A circle 160 feet in diameter has an area of about FAIRWATER

20,OOO square feet. The primary dimensions of the de-
sign are derived from this fact. To form a hydrody- The BBASS does not have a fairwater or sail in the
namically smooth surface the envelope was designed traditional sense since there is no fixed structure ap-
with mirror image top and bottom halves defined identi- pended to the hull. This somewhat controversial design
cally by a series of spherical shell sections with different feature is in actuality a compromise between the pro-sail
radii to provide the necessary curvature. The 80-foot operational community and the anti-sail hydrodynamics
forebody, which extends from the forward perpendicu- community. Operators have traditionally defended the
lar to the central reference point, is geometrically con- sail as a necessity for safe navigation of the surfaced
structed at a constant radius of 140.5 feet. The 110-foot submarine and for the safety of personnel on the bridge
afterbody, which extends from the center point to the during surfaced transits. The most vehement advocates
after perpendicular is geometrically constructed with of this position point out that the tragic loss of the com-
manding officer of the USS Plunger in heavy seas off
San Francisco was at least in part attributable to the
lowering of the Thresher class sail to improve hydrody-
PORT ESCAPE TRUNK
VERTICAL LAUNCH SYSTEM namic performance. A large sail was restored for the
<A,
,TORPEDO TUBE BANK #2
SPHERE
.RETRACTABLE SAIL
follow-on Sturgeon class. The hydrodynamicists argue
that the substantial increase in drag caused by the large
appended sail with its concomitant increase in powering
requirements is a high price to pay for a normally sub-
merged ship. In other words, a sail-less ship identical in
all other respects could go much faster. Thus it comes
down to operator oriented safety versus performance
oriented speed.
A design compromise is proposed that addresses the
basic positions of both factions: an “erectable bridge.”
The structure consists of four plates mounted on hinges
I and hydraulically driven so that they can be positioned
Figure 3. Top view. up to form four sides of an open “bridge box” or down
62 Naval Engineers Journal, September 1989
JACKSON/NEEDHAM/SIGMAN SONAR SUBMARINE

Table 1. Naval Architectural Key Parameters

Length 190 Feet

Beam 160 Feet
Height (Keel to deck) 57 Feet
Draft (Emergency) 43.7 Feet
(Normal Surface) 32 Feet
Displacement (Submerged) 11,180 Tons
(Envelope) 21,434 Tons
Depth 1,600 Feet
Speed 25 Knots
SHP 40,OOO HP
C, (Prismatic Coefficient) 0.619
Cx (Maximum Transverse Section
Coefficient) 0.712

and faired into the hull. During normal submerged

operations, the plates would be down and hence con-
tribute little drag. On surfacing, the two side plates
would first be hydraulically erected (like the space shut-
tle cargo bay doors) uncovering the front and back
plates which would then be raised to form the box. The
normal bridge accouterments such as ladders and instru-
ment brackets could readily be attached to the bottom
side of the plate to be properly positioned when “rig-
ging the bridge.” A stationary center strip is provided
for the housing of masts and antennas so that their op-
eration does not interfere with bridge plate movement.
Although this innovation is certainly not without
some major engineering problems and disadvantages,
the potential of ultimately solving the fairwater conun-
drum merits its consideration. The bridge would cer-
tainly not be as watertight as the fixed appendage Figure 5. Tow tank test model assembly.
variety, but it could easily be made tall enough for safe-
ty considerations. The increased complexity of a bridge
structure with interlocking large plates and hydraulic ous design experience. Based on these approximations,
rams and cylinders would lead to an increased potential a shaft horsepower (SHP) requirement of 39,674 was
for system failure. The time required to man the bridge calculated. A graph of speed versus required power is
on surfacing and to secure the bridge prior to submerg- shown in Figure 7.
ing would clearly be significantly longer than that for Hydrodynamic control of the BBASS design is a
previous designs. There are no technically insurmount- major issue which may potentially necessitate major de-
able problems, however, and the above disadvantages sign modifications. Efforts are currently in progress to
are relatively minor in comparison to the prospect for a
significant improvement in operational performance.

CONTROLAND POWERING

A scale model of the BBASS was built and tested at

the MIT Towing Tank to determine feasibility study
level powering requirements. The 23 314 inch long
model (scale factor 96) shown in Figures 5 and 6 was
towed at speeds dictated by Froude number scaling
(V/&) so as to provide data for the full scale ship in
5-knot increments from 5 to 30 knots. Test results indi-
cated that a bare hull effective horsepower (EHP) of
29,773 would be required to power the ship at 25 knots.
The increased powering requirements of the appended
hull were approximated based on scaling control surface
size and drag from current submarine designs. A pro-
pulsive coefficient (PC) of 0.85 was chosen from previ- Figure 6. Submerged unappended tow tank test.
Naval Engineers Journal, September 1989 63
SONAR SUBMARINE JACKSON/NEEDHAM/SIGMAN

Table 2. Powering Design Specifications

POWERING CURVE Power Plant - Natural Circulation Turbine Electric Drive

Model Ship

701
60
Displacement
Wetted surface
Length
Beam
Height (deck to keel)
Frictional resistance coefficient
(x 0.001)
20 knots
54.266 lbs

23.75 in
20.0 in
7.0 in

5.006
21,433.5 tons
5.164 s q ft 53,113.56 sq ft
190.0 ft
160.0 ft
56.0 ft

1.671
25 knots 4.764 1.623
30 knots 4.580 1.586
Residuary resistance coefficient
(x 0.001)
20 knots 1.646 1.646
25 knots 2.299 2.299
30 knots 3.012 3.012

Correlation allowance .0002

Propulsive coefficient .85
EHP Bare hull
20 knots 13,006.3
25 knots 29,772.8
30 knots 59,657.6
Appendage area 4,832 s q ft
Appendage drag coefficient .006
0 4 8 1 2 1 6 2 0 2 4 2 B
SHP appended
20 knots 17,680.9
D Mpv/oapp 0 SHP 25 knots 39,673.9
30 knots 78,215.8
igure 7. Powering curve.

build a smaller model in order to measure the hydrody- these problems. The USS Narwhal (SSN-671)with the
namic coefficients needed for this evaluation. In the in- prototype S5G natural circulation reactor plant to elimi-
terim, control and hydrodynamics engineers from the nate the need for large reactor coolant pumps was
Charles Stark Draper Laboratory in Cambridge, Mass. launched in 1967. The USS Glenard P. Lipscomb
were consulted for design comments and recommenda- (SSN-685), with a turbine electric drive system (TEDS)
tions. Based on their experience with geometrically simi- to eliminate the need for propulsion steam turbines, was
lar submersible devices, general control surface and pro- launched in 1973. It is proposed that these two design
pulsor configurations were selected. A twin propulsor innovations be combined for the ultraquiet BBASS nu-
power train was mandated by the wide flat shape of the clear power plant. This is well within current capabilities
envelope hull and resultant flow profiles at the stern. as both technologies have been demonstrated as not
Two large rudders were assessed to be equally as impor- only effective but quiet propulsion systems. The natural
tant to provide directional stability. circulation turbine electric drive power plant is the logi-
Vertical stability and control were considered to pre- cal choice for the SSKN design of the future. Control
sent the most serious potential threats to the feasibility and powering specifics are listed in Table 2.
of the BBASS design. There is some doubt that control
surfaces could be made large enough for adequate ma- PRESSURE HULLAND BALLASTING
neuverability and depth control, particularly in the dy-
namic near surface environment. Pending further test- Components
ing, stem planes were tentatively appended in the tradi-
tional midbody location just forward of the propulsors. With the envelope constrained by the size and ar-
The ASW mission of the BBASS requires that own rangement of the sonar array, the design effort shifted
ship noise be reduced to as low a level as possible so as to an analysis of pressure hull geometries which could
not to interfere with target noise detection and process- be configured within the envelope. A single digit weight
ing. The traditional nuclear power plant with its large approximation based on an extrapolation of current de-
coolant pumps and propulsion steam turbines is a major signs indicated the need for a submerged displacement
source of noise. According to Jane’s Fighting Ships, one of about 10,OOO tons, or about half of the envelope dis-
of a kind submarines have been built to address each of placement. The remaining envelope volume of about
64 Naval EngineersJournal, September 1989
JACKSON/NEEDHAM/SIGMN SONAR SUBMARINE

10,OOO tons of freeflood favored the use of a double Ballasting

hulled design in lieu of the more conventional stream-
lined single hulled arrangement prescribed for all recent- Reserve buoyancy refers to the amount of buoyancy
ly designed U.S. submarines. This choice may at first gained for an increase in draft. In surface ship design, it
glance seem recidivistic as U.S. double hulled subma- is a critical measure in the evaluation of stability in the
rines went the way of surfaced fleet submarines follow- damaged condition and is quite large, on the order of
ing the introduction of the Albacore hull form. The the ship’s displacement. For submarines it is quite small
U.S.submarine design community has since maintained since the difference between submerged displacement
that enhanced hydrodynamic performance, coupled must be in the form of floodable volume to effect the
with the simplicity of construction, favors single hulls transition. The dedicated volume used for this purpose
for high-speed attack submarines [a]. That this is not a must be subtracted from the total envelope volume
universal truth is evident since the Soviets build faster available for all other ship functions. Since single hulled
submarines with double hulls [7]. submarine designs are inherently volume constrained,
The double hull has a number of inherent advantages the trend has been to d i e dedicated ballasting
which should at least be mentioned since the prevailing tankage volume to the extent that recent designs have a
single hull bias has taken the form of a mandate instead reserve buoyancy of about ten percent.
of a design option. First, double hulls afford greater The relationship between reserve buoyancy and ship
protection against torpedos and mines since the explo- safety also takes on a different dimension in submarine
sion must not only broach the outer hull but extend design. Not only does the reserve buoyancy directly in-
across the standoff distance to the inner pressure hull dicate how much water can be flooded into the pressure
before the ship’s watertight integrity would be seriously hull and still permit recovery, but it indirectly indicates
threatened. Second, greater reserve buoyancy is possible the margin to the relative safety of the surface in the
since ballast tank size is not as restricted. Third, surface mind of the submariner. The issue of submarine reserve
stability is improved due to a larger waterplane area. Fi- buoyancy is, hence, of extreme importance to subma-
nally, externally framed pressure hulls are possible with rine operators and designers alike from the safety stand-
double hulls, increasing the available internal hull point. In spite of this concern, main ballast tank volume
volume. The offsetting disadvantages are greater has gradually been reduced to the point that modem
weight, increased complexity, poor maintainability, and submarines cannot sustain uncontrolled flooding except
higher power requirements than comparable single hull in a very few selective locations. This has been accepted
designs. based on an excellent safety record (since 1%7 when
In the case of the BBASS design, double hull con- Scorpion was lost), merciless quality control in fabric -
struction was the only viable choice for one very funda-
mental reason. The sonar constrained large flat
tion and maintenance, and the incorporation o
numerous submarine safety features such as remote hull
7
envelope is not a structurally strong shape. To use this valve closure and emergency ballast blow systems.
shape as the pressure hull would either restrict the sub- The double hull construction of the BBASS does not
marine to unrealistically shallow depths or require a restrict available ballast tank volume to the confines of
structure so thick that it would be exceedingly heavy. a long narrow single hull. The large free flood area be-
These options were rejected in favor of inherently tween the hull and the envelope would permit a reserve
stronger pressure hull shapes: the sphere, the cylinder, buoyancy of up to about 100 percent. In the feasibility
the toroid and the cone. Consequently, a trade-off study level design study, a dual ballast tankage system was se-
was conducted among various possible combinations of lected with main ballast tanks enclosing a volume based
hull shapes which would fit inside the envelope and en- on the current design standard of 10 percent reserve
close a volume corresponding to the approximated buoyancy and auxiliary ballast tanks enclosing an addi-
10,000-ton displacement. This study revealed that a tional volume to raise the reserve buoyancy to 68 per-
large centrally located sphere with a surrounding toroid cent. The design configuration of the main ballast tanks
was mandatory in consideration of the volumetric con- was again the subject of a trade-off study of various
straint. Cylinders could not be made long enough due to geometric shapes including spheres, cylinders and
the curvature of the envelope and a single large toroid toroids. Dimensional constraints and symmetry dictated
enclosed only about half of the required volume. Based that the tanks be configured as two small toroids con-
on this initial study, a 50-foot diameter sphere sur- centric about the upper and lower portions of the cen-
rounded by a 35.4-foot diameter toroid was chosen as tral sphere, as shown in Figure 4.
the first iteration design configuration. Subsequent With the main ballast tanks blown, the surfaced draft
weight iterations revealed the need for an additional of the BBASS is 43.7 feet. This was considered unaccep-
1,OOO tons of displacement for buoyancy compensation. table from the logistical support standpoint since most
To provide this volume, two 44-foot-long cones were existing port facilities would be inaccessible. The auxili-
added at the aft end of the toroid, situated so as to pro- ary ballast tank volume was chosen to lower the draft to
vide adequate support for the two propulsion shafts 32 feet to permit use of all existing submarine shore
over the @foot span between the toroid and the en- based support assets. The auxiliary ballast tanks were
velope at the stem. The final displacement of the four located below the 32-foot waterline between the hull and
major hull components balanced the design at 11,180 the envelope as shown in Figure 8 and were designed to
tons. be pumped instead of blown, although a blow system
Naval Engineers Journal, September 1989 65
SONAR SUBMARINE J ACKSON/NEEDHAM/SIGMAN

II EMERGENCY DRAFT
NORMAL DRAFT
I
I
Structure
The analytical and empirical relationships that are
used to determine the structural strength of ring-stiff-
ened cylinders and cones have been developed over the
course of several decades, The body of knowledge codi-
fied in Design Data Sheet 110-2 of 1 February 1981 rep-
resents the long-term efforts of some of the best struc-
IFigure 8. Side view showing auxiliary ballast system. 1 tural engineers in the country. The demonstrated opera-
tional success of submarine pressure hull structures
designed to this specification has proven its accuracy
and inherent safety.
The BBASS pressure hull is unique in several ways.
First, it consists of several components instead of the
standard single hull cylinder. Second, it employs a large
sphere and a toroid, shapes never before employed by
the U.S. Navy for submarine warships. Third, it re-
quires a hull envelope with a large standoff distance
from the pressure hull. Finally, it concentrates major
engineering hull penetrations in a relatively small area to
minimize sonar noise interference. The complexity and
uniqueness of the hull structure system preclude an in-
L 100.0' - 45.7'
--I depth structural analysis at the feasibility study level.
CENTRAL REFERENCE PDlNT
This is an understatement of rather major proportions,
'igure 9. Shear view of pressure hull. as the analysis of a ring-stiffened toroid alone is cur-
rently under consideration for at least one and perhaps
several Ph.D. theses at MIT.
The structural analysis undertaken to estimate the re-
quired hull thickness and framing parameters used exist-
ing procedures to the maximum extent possible. Design
pressure was determined from the design operational
depth of 1,600 feet with a collapse depth factor of safety
of 1.5 plus an additional overpressure factor for explo*
sive shock considerations. Hull material of 130 ksi yield
strength was chosen in anticipation of the future availa-
bility of HY 130 or equivalent for submarine hull con-
C W T R I L REFERENCE POINT/

Figure 10. Body view of pressure hull.

I struction.
The toroid was designed using standard structural cal-
culations for ring-stiffened cylinders based on the rec-
ommendations of NavSea Code 55Y and David Taylor
could be readily incorporated should the reserve buoy- Research Center [9]. These calculations were assessed to
ancy philosophy change. be conservative based on the continuity of the toroid
In operational terms, the ballasting system design es- geometry in comparison to the discontinuous end
tablishes a dichotomy between an emergency surface closure requirements of ring-stiffened cylinders.
condition and a normal surface condition. For casual- Nominal frame spacing was taken at the center of the
ties requiring an emergency surface or for short-term toroid with wider spacing at the outer radius and nar-
broaching evolutions, the main ballast tanks are blown. rower spacing at the inner radius. Internal framing was
When long-term surfaced operations are anticipated as specified to minimize noise transmission to the free-
in the case of pre-patrol or post-patrol port egress and flood baffle area behind the sonar array.
ingress, the auxiliary ballast tanks are pumped so as to The sphere was designed based on Reference [lo].
slowly lower the draft from 43.7 to 32 feet. The erec- This procedure takes out-of-roundness, prebuckling
table bridge would then be deployed to station a sur- stresses and fabrication method into consideration and
faced steaming watch. was assessed to provide a realistic feasibility study level
In logistical terms, the auxiliary ballast system solves sphere design. The cones were designed based on stan-
the deep draft problem which necessitated the construc- dard procedures for ring-stiffened geometric sections
tion of two special port facilities for the Trident design. [9]. The remainder of the structural requirements, in-
Many logistical problems remain, however, for the wide cluding bulkheads, shear girders, non-pressure hull
beam and delicate underbody of the BBASS design components and interconnecting stiffeners were based
would preclude the use of existing drydock facilities. on extrapolation from existing designs to the unique
These problems are not insurmountable since large BBASS configuration. Figures 9 and 10 show the di-
floating drydocks are currently in use in the civilian sec- mensioned side and front views of the pressure hull.
tor for overhaul of off-shore drilling rigs [8]. Table 3 provides hull and ballast design particulars.
66 Naval Engineers Journal, September 1989
JACKSON/NEEDHAM/SIGMAN SONAR SUBMARINE

Table 3. Hull and Ballast Parameter Sphere Compartmentation

I. Sphere The physical separation of the sphere from the sur-
Diameter 50.0 ft rounding toroid presents a difficult structural problem
Thickness 3.14 in
in the nature of the connection between the two hull
Maximum out-of-roundness 0.5 in
11. Toroid components. This problem arises from the difference in
Diameter 35.4 ft compressive deflection of the sphere and toroid when
Thickness 1.96 in subjected to external pressure. It is probable that some
Radius to center of toroid 45.7 ft form of semi-flexible joining tunnels would be required
111. Cones to allow for this differential expansion and contraction
Length 40.0 ft and that access to the sphere might then be restricted to
Forward diameter 14.0 ft shallow operating depths. Based on this possibility,
After diameter 8.0 ft spaces requiring access only during near surface opera-
IV. Ballast Tanks tions and normally unmanned spaces were assigned to
MBT diameter 11.6 ft
the sphere. These spaces include the reactor compart-
MBT radius to center of toroid 26.5 ft
MBT displacement 1,005.0 tons ment, the battery compartment, the emergency diesel
ABT displacement 3,536.0 tons generator spaces, the sphere auxiliaries space and the
V. Structure vertical launch system/evasion device compartment.
Web height 13.72 in The location of these spaces within the sphere pro-
Web thickness 0.78 in vides numerous advantages. First, major weight compo-
Flange width 10.24 in nents such as the reactor, the battery and the diesel gen-
Flange thickness 1.57 in erator are located near the center of the ship, thereby
Number of king frames 4 contributing to inherent static stability. Second, radia-
Number of bulkheads 4 tion shielding requirements are significantly reduced
Bulkhead weight 15.0 tons since the three-foot minimum water filled standoff dis-
Shear girder weight 353.0 tons
Total structural weight 3743.5 tons
tance between the unmanned sphere and the manned
Percentage of A-1 weights 43.0 Vo toroid is, in essence, a built-in secondary shield. Third,
potentially explosive hydrogen gas produced during
battery charging is restricted to the sphere internal venti-
lation system to minimize contact with potential ig-
nition sources. Finally, the proximity of the diesel gen-
ARRANGEMENTS erator to the snorkel mast and main induction system
minimizes the need for long piping runs and compli-
The CLAS array was estimated to have a weight of cated valving arrangements.
approximately 125 pounds per cubic foot based on pre-
liminary design materials and hydrophone spacing. For Toroid Compartmentation
20,000 square feet of 1-foot-thick array, this yields a
weight of about 1,100 tons external to the volume of the The toroid is subdivided into four major compart-
pressure hull with a very low center of gravity. For a ments which are vertically integrated along functional
submarine to be neutrally buoyant so as to enable ma- lines. The forward third of the toroid comprises the op-
neuvering in the depth dimension, weight must equal erations compartment, the after third the engineroom,
buoyancy. Since buoyancy is the weight of the water dis- with the remaining third divided symmetrically between
placed by the volume of the pressure hull, the 1,100 tons the port compartment for crew facilities spaces and the
of array weight outside the pressure hull must be com- starboard compartment for crew berthing. The three
pensated for by 1,100 tons (or about 40,OOO cubic feet) decks in each are interconnected by access ladders
of volume inside the pressure hull. This “excess” through the six-foot-wide passageway that extends
volume comprising about 10 percent of the total dis- around the inner radius of the toroid on all three levels.
placement is not inherently required for placement of This arrangement permits rapid and efficient personnel
equipment and facilities to make the ship run. The movement both between compartments and between
BBASS is hence a weight limited vice a volume limited levels for casualty control and operations emergencies.
submarine. This fact dominated the arrangements de- Figures 11, 12 and 13 show the equipment and compart-
sign, providing considerable latitude in the location of ment arrangements of the first, second and third plat-
spaces and equipment. form levels.
Three fundamental precepts were used in arranging
the BBASS internal compartmentation and space allo- Operations Compartment
cation; segregation of normally unmanned spaces to the
centrally located sphere, colocation of spaces on a func- The predominant feature of the operations compart-
tional basis and exploitation of the circularity of the ment is the wide area command center with its large
toroid structure with regard to rapid movement of per- commanding officer’s tactical display panel on the first
sonnel from off watch messing and berthing spaces to platform level (see Figure 11). It is anticipated that some
battle stations operations and engineering assignments. form of submarine advanced combat system (SUBACS)
Naval Engineers Journal, September 1989 67
SONAR SUBMARINE J ACKSON/NEEDHAM/SIGMAN

r- OFFICER BERTHING SPACES 1 CREW'S ACTIVITY SPACES

REACTOR COMPARTMENT
REACTOR COMPARTMENT

CWTROL ROW ENGINE ROOM

ENGINE R O M
SONAR EOUlPMNT
SPACE

AUXILIARY SPACE BATTERY COMPARTMENT

ENLISTED BERTHING SPACES

r

1
Figure 11. First platform arrangement.
on current projections of CLAS electronic processing
will eventually be approved and deployed on future gen- equipment space requirements.
eration submarines. The increasingly complicated
tactical environment coupled with rapid advances in Engineroom
digital processing and display technology mandate that
something be done to mitigate the information overload The large volume available for engineering equipment
conditions that currently permeate fire control opera- in the BBASS design permits a high degree of functional
tions. The hand drawn plots, verbal reports and paper component grouping. The first platform is primarily an
ballot data transfer must ultimately give way to automa- auxiliary space containing atmosphere control and ven-
tion just as the diesel submarine gave way to the nuclear tilation system components. The second platform is the
submarine. The BBASS control room is configured to main propulsion and electrical space, containing the
exploit available technology through the use of the large major shaft l i e components and virtually all electrical
display panel supported by multipurpose control con- generating and switchboard equipment. It additionally
soles. All information needed to conn the ship during serves as the connection point for the cone segments and
normal steaming or fight the ship during combat opera- for the access tunnels to the sphere. Here again one
tions would be available for display based on the selec- must face the potential problem of differential expan-
tion of the conning officer. Display panel repeaters are sion between the sphere and the toroid as numerous pip-
installed in the commanding officer's stateroom and in ing systems such as steam and feed water must extend
the wardroom for monitoring by the commanding of- from the engineroom to the reactor compartment. In
ficer and by other key personnel. To provide further this case, however, differential expansion can be readily
command integration, all other major operational accommodated by providing piping bends or loops with
spaces are located on either side of the periscope stand, some limited flexibility. The large, wide panelled ma-
including the radio room, ESM, navigation and missile neuvering room is located on the centerline at the aft
control. Two access ladders in the control room connect end of the second platform to facilitate the communica-
to the second platform (Figure 12) where the sonar tion and control function of the engineering spaces. The
room and the two torpedo rooms are located. The third third platform is given over almost entirely to pumps
platform of the operations compartment (Figure 13) is and fluid systems. This arrangement provides proximity
given over entirely to the sonar equipment space based between a pump and its associated fluid system so as to
reduce the need for long, heavy piping runs. Two sec-
ondary propulsion motors are provided for main pro-
pulsion backup and restricted waters positioning re-
TORPEDO ROOM Y2 quirements. The high density of hull penetrations in the
third platform is mandated by the overriding need to
prevent penetration of the CLAS array which ends at
ENGINE ROOM
SON&R RDOM the forward end of the engineering spaces. This penetra-
tion concentration may be of some concern from the
standpoint of structural integrity. A detailed study of
stress concentrations around holes in toroids must be
,--
undertaken to resolve this issue.

ORPEDO ROOM X I Port and Starboard Compartments

ENLISTED BERTHING SPACE
Space requirements for crew berthing and messing fa-
Cgure 12. Second platform arrangement. cilities were calculated based on the standard habitabil-
68 Naval EngineersJournal, September 1989
JACKSON/NEEDHAM/SIGMAN SONAR SUBMARINE

Table 4. Habitability Spaces PORT TRIM TANK

AIR

Crew Berthing (900 sq ft required) 1,818 sq ft BANK ROOM I1

CPO Berthing (154 sq ft required) 245 sq ft REACTOR

Officer Berthing (156 sq ft required)

Officer 357 sq ft AFTTER
FORVARD TRIM TANK

XO 205 sq ft
CO 182 sq ft
Total 744 sq ft

Crew’s Mess (seating for 30) 1,Ooo sq ft BCNK ROOM 1 2

Galley 281 sq ft
Wardroom (seating for 10) 255 sq ft
Pantry 102 sq ft
Crew’s Lounge 476 sq ft igure 14. Tankage arrangement.
CPO Lounge 132 sq ft

Ship’s Office 170 sq ft

Supply Office 66 sq ft the head facilities adjacent to the passageways to mini-
Laundry 130 sq ft mize berthing area disruption.
Library 159 sq ft An escape trunk is located in the overhead of the first
platform of both the port and starboard compartments.
Dry Provisions (1,973 cu ft required) 1,973 cu ft Two of the four structural bulkheads were provided
Chill Provisions (428 cu ft required) 492 cu ft with adequate shear girder weight to withstand pressure
Frozen Provisions (867 cu ft required) 983 cu ft to full collapse depth. With this configuration, a single
breach in the pressure hull would result in the flooding
Crew WC 384 sq ft
CPO wc 39 sq ft of only half the toroid with at least one escape trunk
Officer WC 68 sq ft intact for rescue. The location of the escape trunks ver-
COSR WC 23 sq ft tically above the major storerooms with the possibility
of removable deck sections in the center passageway for
Storerooms 7,877 cu ft in-port provisioning could effectively eliminate the all-
hands strikedown parties that currently complicate the
already time and space constrained refit periods. The
habitability space required deck areas and actual deckr
ity requirements of Reference [ l l ] . The crew size re- areas are listed in Table 4.
quirement of 90 enlisted, 14 CPOs and 12 officers was
determined based on recent-design submarine manning Tanks and Voids
documents. Since the BBASS design is not volume con-
strained, considerable latitude was afforded in The location of virtually every major tank in the bilge
arranging habitability spaces. This is in sharp contrast curvature under the third platform (Figure 14) is per-
with recent body of revolution hull forms in which per- haps the most appealing feature of the circular toroid
sonnel spaces must be made to fit in whatever space re- design. In addition to tankage, adequate volume is
mains after operational and engineering spaces are as- available to locate all air and gas storage cylinders
signed. within the pressure hull, so as to minimize hull penetra-
Habitability space arrangements are characterized by tions, prevent corrosion damage and remove a major
the functional vertical integration and the exploitation sonar reflector from the freeflood area. Tank location
of toroid circularity in space access and personnel move- was chosen based on the vertical integration precept,
ment that serve as overall design precepts. All adminis- with sanitary tanks beneath the habitability spaces, feed
trative and activity type spaces are located in the port and oil tanks beneath the main engines, etc. Tank sizes
compartment, including the officer’s spaces on the first were based on extrapolation from recently designed sub-
platform, the crew’s mess and galley on the second plat- marines, indexed by crew size for habitability related
form, and crew’s activity facilities on the third plat- tanks (potable water, sanitary, etc.), by propulsion plant
form. Two particularly appealing features are the loca- size for propulsion tanks (reserve feed water, lube oil
tion of the officer’s spaces for ready access to the storage, etc.) and by torpedo tube size for weapons
control room and the vertical alignment of food storage tanks (impulse, water round torpedo). Air and gas
and preparation spaces to facilitate provisions break- volume requirements were determined in like fashion.
outs. Crew berthing and supply storerooms are located Five variable ballast tanks were sized and located
in the starboard compartment, isolated from the adjoin- based on the various heavy and light load conditions
ing operations compartment and engineroom by struc- used to construct the equilibrium polygon [12].Port and
tural bulkheads so as to provide some measure of starboard trim tanks were included in addition to the
privacy and solitude. The two noteworthy features of more traditional forward and after trim tanks due to the
the starboard compartment are the ease of access to the potential for significant trimming requirements in the
operations spaces at all three levels and the location of transverse direction. Overall variable displacement re-
Naval Engineers Journal, September 1989 69
SONAR SUBMARINE JACKSON/NEEDHAM/SIGMAN

~~
I
'igure 15. Equilibrium polygon (longitudinal). Figure 16. Equilibrium polygon (transverse).

quirements further mandated the addition of a large (h) Hydraulic power plants
centrally located auxiliary tank. This was located at the (i) Towed array sonar system
bottom of the reactor compartment to provide addi- 6) Anchoring system
tional radiation shielding and to further attenuate noise (6) Combined natural circulation and turbine electric
drive propulsion plant for minimum noise.
originating from reactor plant operations. During nor- (7) Erectable bridge structure provided for reduced hy-
mal steaming trim conditions, it is anticipated that the drodynamic drag when submerged and adequate
auxiliary tank could be kept filed in order to realize its freeboard for safe navigation when surfaced.
complete noise abatement potential. The longitudinal (8) Auxiliary ballast tankage supplement to main
and transverse equilibrium polygons are shown in Fig- ballast tankage for reduced draft only when needed
ures 15 and 16. Tank sizes are listed in Table 5. for near shore navigation and docking. Potential
for increased reserve buoyancy if desired.
SUMMARY
*
DESIGNFEATURE
AND ADVANTAGES Table 5. Tankage and Gas Volumes

Forward Trim 114.6 tons

The numerous attributes and innovations of the After Trim 114.6 tons
BBASS design have been discussed in previous sections Port Trim 56.1 tons
in the course of equipment and space description. They Stbd Trim 56.1 tons
are repeated here in the interest of clarity and to focus Auxiliary 107.9 tons
the debate on the relative merits of the design when
compared to traditional nuclear submarine design con- Sanitary (#l, #2, & #3) 1,400 cu ft
figuration. Potable Water (#1 & #2) 625 cu ft
Bilge Collecting (6 Tanks) 642 cu ft
(1) CLAS Array of 20,000 square foot - continuous
hull mounted array with a 3-foot noise abative Impulse (port & stbd) 469 cu ft
water baffle supported by envelope configuration. WRT (port & stbd) 600 cu ft
(2) Wide Area Command Center with console-con-
trolled display panel incorporated into mission ori- Reserve Feed (#1 & #2) 1,900 cu ft
ented control room. LO Stowage (port & stbd) 430 cu ft
(3) Mobifity-oriented access arrangement through use Hyd Oil Storage (port ( stbd) 350 cu ft
of centrally located wide circular passageways on Fresh Water Drain Collecting (#1 & #2) 36 cu ft
all three levels. Waste Oil Collecting 268 cu ft
(4) Full vertical integration of key functional activities Retention 400 cu ft
in operations, engineering, and habitability spaces.
( 5 ) Widely separated dual components in key systems Emergency Air Banks
for improved reliability, survivability, and casualty (#1 thru #4) 134 cu ft (each)
control including: (#5 & #6) 268 cu ft (each)
(a) Main propulsion motors and shaft line compo- Total 1,608 cu ft
nents
(b) Torpedo launch and weapons control systems Service Air Banks
(c) Steering and diving control surfaces (#1 & #1) 100 cu ft (each)
(d) Secondary propulsion motor system Total 200 cu ft
(e) Escape trunks
(0 Vertical access ladders (level to level) Reactor Air/Ot and N2 loo cu ft
70 Naval Engineers Journal, September 1989
JACKSON/NEEDHAM/SIGMAN SONAR SUBMARINE

(9) Centrally located major weight components with when control surface appendage requirements are
reactor, diesel and battery in central sphere for low known.
center of gravity and improved stability. (6) D&placement must also be considered a disadvan-
(10) Reduced radiation shield requirement due to water tage as the BBASS design is large by any standard,
annulus between sphere and toroid and auxiliary and large means expensive.
tank below reactor compartment. (7) Cost is a common denominator for all proposed
(1 1) Dedicated tank deck with tanks located directly be- weapons systems. The fact that a capability is nec-
neath associated fluid systems to minimize piping essary for the future force structure must be
run requirements. weighed against how big a slice of the constrained
(12) Air bottles located inside pressure hull to minimize budget pie it requires for production and deploy-
corrosion damage and reduce sonar target strength. ment. The BBASS will be expensive.
(13) Consolidated supph storerooms for timely spare
parts location and breakout to minimize equipment
down time. Reduced manpower and time require- CONCLUSIONS
ments for pre-deployment provisions and supply
loadout. Sir Ian Hamilton said in his The Soul and Body of an
(14) Segregated berthing and activity spaces for en-
Army that “Inventions do not make their first bow to
hanced crew comfort and morale.
armies on the battlefield. They have been in the air for
some time; hawked about the ante-chambers of the men
DESIGNPROBLEMS
AND DISADVANTAGES
of the hour; spat upon by common sense; cold-
shouldered by interests vested in what exists; held up by
The feasibility level study of design analysis mandates
stale functionaries to whom the sin against the Holy
a reduction in detail in order that at least one cycle of
Ghost is ‘to make a precedent.’ ” In considering a revo-
the design spiral can be completed. The major ship
lutionary submarine design, it is easy to enumerate the
parameters that emerge from such a study should hence
“common sense” reasons why it can’t be done. It is
be viewed as rough estimates of detailed design engi-
neering requirements. In an innovative design such as much harder to prove that it can and thus “make a prec-
edent.”
BBASS, it is inevitable that some of the more novel de- When nuclear power was first proposed for subma-
sign features be given a qualitative evaluation. In recog- rine propulsion, critics were quick to point out that a re-
nition of the fact that the transition from an idea to in- actor with its shielding could not possibly be put on a
stalled hardware is no mean task, these qualitative as- submarine because it was simply too heavy. But a group
sessments must be addressed as potential design prob- of dedicated engineers led by Admiral H.G. Rickover
lems, particularly in those cases where some technologi-
forged ahead with single-minded dedication and proved
cal risk is involved. Potential design problems and dis-
that it could. In so doing, they revolutionized the entire
advantages were formulated based on the above consid- concept of submarine warfare and established U.S.
erations and are delineated below. technological leadership in submarine propulsion
(1) New hull and envelope geometry forms present an systems.
engineering effort of major proportions in the de- When the streamlined, single-screw, “teardrop” hull
termination of structural parameters. There is no was first suggested, critics argued that a submarine with
guarantee that a ring-stiffened toroid or a sphere of only one screw would never work because it simply
the large diameter prescribed could be built to with- couldn’t be maneuvered or controlled. But a group of
stand submergence depth pressures. dedicated engineers led by Admiral R.L. Moore be-
(2) The multi-component pressure hull presents a lieved that it could and proved it. In so doing, they revo-
similar and perhaps more intractable problem with lutionized submarine hull design and established U.S.
regard to the means of connecting the various com- technological leadership in submarine fabrication and
ponents. The interconnecting issue is further com- materials.
plicated by the potential need for a semiflexible
joint through which both personnel and equipment When launching strategic missiles from submerged
must be allowed to pass (i.e. the tunnels between submarines was first conceptualized, critics pointed out
the sphere and the toroid). that depth control could never be maintained when the
( 3 ) Dynamic control and stability have not been dem- heavy missiles were fired. But a group of dedicated engi-
onstrated and may prove to be a fatal flaw of the neers led by Admiral W.F. Raborn, Jr. were convinced
envelope geometry. Control surface size require- they could make it work and they did. In so doing, they
ments may preclude design feasibility. guaranteed freedom from tyranny for future genera-
(4) Logktical support requirements are a major prob- tions and established U.S. technological leadership in
lem from a costing standpoint. Significant indus- strategic defense.
trial retooling and capital expenditure would be Three precepts underlie the success of these major en-
needed for fabrication in addition to the obvious
problems of port facilities and drydocks for a sub- gineering accomplishments. First, each started with a
marine almost as wide as it is long. good idea whose time had come. This is a fundamental
( 5 ) Speed must be considered a disadvantage even requirement of any new program, for no matter how
though mission requirements did not necessitate earnest the effort the product must be fundamentally
high speeds. The currently projected maximum sus- good or the public won’t buy it. Second, each program
tained speed of 25 knots may be further reduced was directed by a tenacious and technically competent

Naval Engineers Journal, September 1989 71

SONAR SUBMARINE JACKSON/NEEDHAM/SIGMN

leader with visionary zeal and a total commitment to the REFERENCES

cause. These individuals made their programs successful
because they were convinced they were right and were [l] Arentzen, E.S. and P. Mandel, “Naval Architectural As-
bullheaded enough to overwhelm the critics with irre- pects of Submarine Design,” SNAME Transaction,
futable facts, figures, and facilities. Third, each Volume 68, 1960, pp. 622-692.
[2] Chatham, R.E., LCdr., “A Quiet Revolution,” Proceed-
program team was comprised of a small, tightly-knit, ings, Volume 110/1/971, Jan. 1984, pp. 41-46.
semi-isolated core group of dedicated engineers whose [3] Jane’s Fighting Ship’s, 1984-1985.
sole mission was to make it work. With a clarity of [4] Dyer, I., Dr., Professor of Ocean Engineering, Massa-
purpose and a commitment to excellence inculcated by chusetts Institute of Technology, unpublished manuscript
their respective leaders, these core groups worked engi- and private conversations.
neering marvels and set traditional notions of subma- [S] Loeser, H.T.,“Sonar and the Ship,” Navai Engineers
rine design and employment on their ears. Journal, Volume 93, Number 1, February 1981, pp.
Taken together, the synergism of a good idea, a 89-93.
strong leader and core group of dedicated professionals [6] Friedman, N., Submarine Design and Development,
mark a program for success. In their recent book In Naval Institute Press, Annapolis, MD, 1984.
[7] Polmar, N., “Soviet Nuclear Submarines,” Proceedings,
Search of Excellence, Peters and Waterman note the Volume 107/7/941, July 1981, pp. 31-39.
same elements for success among America’s outstand- (81 “Getting the Most from the Rig Repair Budget,” Marine
ing companies. Using the lexicon employed therein, a Engineering Log, February 1986, pp. 19-23.
successful product depends on “the presence of a [9] Comstock, J.P., ed, Principles of Naval Architecture,
zealous, volunteer champion” and on the “entre- The Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers,
preneurial spirit among their people’’ enhanced by the New York 1%7.
establishment of “bands of eight or ten zealots off in [lo] Weller, S.R.,Jr., “Structural Design of Spherical Shells
the corner’’ called “Skunk Works. ” Subjected to Uniform External Pressure,” unpublished
We believe that the large area sonar submarine is an manuscript.
[ 111 OpNav Instruction 9640.1, “Shipboard Habitability Pro-
idea whose time has come. With the right champion and gram.”
a fully equipped skunk works, it will succeed. The time [12] NavSea S9086C6-STM-000, Chapter 096, “Weights and
to act is now f o r we will need this submarine or some- Stability,” change 1 , November 1977.
thing like it by the time it takes to design and build it.
The Army Corps of Engineers’ motto says it all rather
succinctly: “Essayons” (Let us try).

AMERICAN SOCIETY OF NAVAL ENGINEERS

Seventh Biennial Combat Systems Symposium
at
The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory
Kossiakoff Conference & Education Center
Laurel, Maryland
New Challenges for Naval Forces: Combat Systems Engineering in the 21st Century
(Security Classification -
Secret US. Only)
18 8t 19 October 1989

Keynote Address
VAdm. Jerome L. Johnson, U S N , Commander, U S . Second Fleet
Warfare Planning and Appraisal The Future of Unmanned Systems
RAdm. Charles R. McGrail, Jr., U S N RAdm. William C. Bowes, USN
Asst. Deputy Chief of Naval Operations, Naval Warfare Director, Cruise Missiles and Unmanned Aerial Vehicles
Projects - NavAir
Submarine Research and Development Low Intensity Conflict
RAdm. Thomas W. Evans, U S N RAdm. John T. Hood, USN
Deputy Chief Engineer of the Navy for Submarines - Asst. Deputy Commander for Combat Systems Engineering -
NavSea NavSea
Luncheon Speakers
VAdm. Peter M. Hekman, U S N Capt. Clark Graham, U S N
Commander, Naval Sea Systems Command Commander, David Taylor Research Center
Wrap-up
RAdm. Wayne E. Meyer, U S N (Ret.)
ISHERWOOD LECTURE
An Unsinkable Navy
Dr. Edward Teller
Unclassified - Tickets will be available separately