Double-hulled submarines - Why doesn't the U.S. Navy build them?

Janaury 24, 2010 | myknowledge

[myknowledge]

I'm sure you have heard of the United States Navy's proud and elite submarine service, comprising high-tech nuclear subs such as the LA, Seawolf and Virginia class SSNs, Ohio class boomers and SSGNs, and historically, Sturgeon class SSNs and George Washington class boomers.

But they have one thing in common: They are single-hulled subs. Subs with only one hull.

In stark contrast, the Russian Navy has fielded to this day, double-hulled submarines, such as the Akula class SSN and Typhoon class SSBN, the largest in the world, along with the latest Borei class SSBN and soon-to-be-completed Graney class SSN.

So here's my question: Why doesn't the United States Navy's submarine fleet ever have double-hulled subs?

[Pan_Yan]

If you want to see the future of submarine warfare look at this. There are more and more countries that have boats that are quiet and capable. They aren't looking to fight a pitched global battle against massive navies. The Russians have made good money selling their old Kilo subs all over the world. These are the threats that our navy has to worry about. I think we will soon need to move past nuclear power into the fuel cell technologies other countries are producing.

Just as a side note, Kilos can be very quiet when well run and maintained. And they can stay that way for days. But when they have to come up for air (to run the diesels and recharge batteries) they sound like "two skeletons f***ing in a trash can" as told me by several sonar techs.

[Non-Sequitur]

I thought there were two Mikes? One caught fire off South America and the other sank under mysterious circumstances (possible collision)?

Nope, just one. It caught fire and sank in the Barents Sea in 1989.

[dangus]

They did, I’m pretty sure. I might be thinking of 2 pressure hulls, and one outer one, but I think they actually built a few with three pressure hulls, and an outer one.

[Pan_Yan]

That’s what happens when I trust my notoriously bad memory instead of just looking it up. It’s not like I’d have to stand up to do some quick research ... man, I’m getting lazy.

[dangus]

I’m guessing it’s less an issue of inferior engineering, and more an issue of workmanship?

[xrmusn]

Nope, just one....
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Correct...they had started a 2nd but stopped construction.
Komsomolets K278, (project 685) is the one that sank off Norway after an electrical fire

[myknowledge]

If you want to see the future of submarine warfare look at this. There are more and more countries that have boats that are quiet and capable. They aren't looking to fight a pitched global battle against massive navies. The Russians have made good money selling their old Kilo subs all over the world. These are the threats that our navy has to worry about. I think we will soon need to move past nuclear power into the fuel cell technologies other countries are producing.

So AIP fuel cell D-E subs are the 21st century underwater adversary to the USN's all-nuke sub fleet? Pretty much so.

[Always Independent]

USN torpodeos are not impacting design, modern torpodoes detonate directly beneath the target causing a massive pressure wave under the target hull cracking it almost in two.

[myknowledge]

Consistency. We build one design repeatedly over and over. The USSR built a new class of subs every time someone had a new idea. They has two or three boats per class in many cases. This is a huge advantage for us in training and logistics. Russian boats required custom parts for each boat. I could have started up the engine room of any 688 in the fleet. I could have started up any 637 or Ohio class with a little training. Russians? Not so lucky. They used diesels, pressurized water reactors, liquid metal reactors, sodium cooled reactors, etc.

The USN must have followed the example of the WWII German Kriegsmarine with the Type VII and IX series, building them consistently, whereas the Russian Navy partially followed the example of the WWII Imperial Japanese Navy with the Type A, B, C, Sen Toku I-400 and Sen Taka I-200 series, with major inconsistencies.

[Riley]

Oh, LOL, the Titanic was double hulled, too.

Double bottom- not double hull.

[Riley]

Just as a side note, Kilos can be very quiet when well run and maintained. And they can stay that way for days. But when they have to come up for air (to run the diesels and recharge batteries) they sound like "two skeletons f***ing in a trash can" as told me by several sonar techs.

It is only by the very narrowest of margins that I managed to avoid spraying my monitor with beer.

[LS]

Oh, yes, you’re right. Double-bottom.

[cracker45]

Yes good buddy, your point is right on; it sounds like someone is trolling for classified design or performance data in this thread.

I used to hunt Russkie subs for a living...piece of cake!

[Pan_Yan]

Resonance from a double hull would mess us the guidance system for our new quantum pulse anti-submarine lasers. It also makes installation of the flux capacitors very difficult.

[Pan_Yan]

I used to hunt Russkie subs for a living

I just boiled water.

[mylife]

Yes I understand.

I was unaware that Ivan had two pressure hulls

[castlegreyskull]

That submarine, the USS SAN FRANCISCO survived by suberb engineering from Electric Boat. When it hit the under sea mountain at all ahead flank, it tore open two of its three forward main ballast tanks. If it hit the third of the three forward main ballast tanks the ship definately would have been a complete lost. It was able to provide low prssure air to its remaining forward ballast tank, as well as its 2 aft main ballast tanks.

Electric Boat and Northgrup Gruman have no interest in designing a submarine with dual hulls. Back in the 1950s when there was a submarine race the Soviet used the dual hull design and we went our way with a single hull design.

[Pan_Yan]

Electric Boat was the principal designer of Navy submarines for many years. However, the Navy decided to develop an alternative design capability, and in November 1969 awarded a design contract for the SSN-688 class nuclear attack submarine to Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Company (Newport News).

Source - globalsecurity.org

688's were designed by NNS&DD. The general concensus from those I asked who served on boats built by both shipyards NN built better. Either one is superior to what anyone else in the world can produce, however.

[castlegreyskull]

Thanks for the correction, you are right Newport News designed the 688.

I served on both a 688 and a VIRGINIA class boat I do know for a fact that the boats built in Newport News (SSN 775 USS TEXAS) had a large amount of problem in comparison to the (USS HAWAII SSN 776 and USS HAWAII SSN 778). Their postshakedown availability which was completed earlier last year, was extremely extensive. So you can talk about people you know who served on them. I served on them, and I work in the business of building submarines. Current EB has the market. It was a different story during the 1980s. NNS focus is mostly carriers.

[Pan_Yan]

I joined the crew of the Albany (753) during PSA and was precon on the Greeneville (772). They offered me precon on the Seawolf and I couldn’t run away fast enough. Not because of EB, but because of the dog-n-pony show. Some of my friends on the Seawolf told me I made the right choice. I don’t know much about the Virginia other than what was on the drawingboards of NNS while I was there. I do know not to buy the first model year of a new car and don’t be on the first boat of a new class.