Blast-Off!!

This is coolbert:

Here is the final word on rocket artillery as employed from submarines during World War Two [WW2].

"The U-Boat Rocket Program"

"America's entry into WW2 prompted a discussion among German strategists seeking ways to strike the American mainland."

"Various methods were available at that time" [American entry into WW2]. Methods to include:

* "saboteurs by U-Boat"

German saboteurs were landed and betrayed almost immediately. Seems the group consisted of men who were not highly trained, poorly motivated and would have probably NOT had much success even if not for betrayal and capture. During World War One [WW1] German saboteurs WERE highly effective. The Black Tom explosions caused massive damage to New York City harbor facilities, the perpetrators NEVER being caught.

* "fly bombers to New York City, and ditch them near a waiting U-Boat in the Atlantic before the fuel ran out."

German long-range bombers on ONE-WAY attack missions against American targets. The planes NOT able to make a round-trip and return safely. Would need to ditch the plane in mid-ocean, the crew of the aircraft being plucked out of the water by a waiting U-boat. A U-boat presumably emitting a beacon of some sort. The results would have been so meagre for the cost that the idea is not even worth considering.

"Yet another method became apparent during a conversation between Dr. Ernst Steinhoff, an engineer at the Penemunde rocket development facility, and his brother, Korvettenkapitan Fritz Steinhoff, Kommandant of U-511."

* "fire an artillery rocket from the deck of a submerged submarine."

"Tests were conducted in May/June of 1942 using a standard army issue Wurfgerat 41 launcher and rockets from 21 to 30cm. The tests proved that it was not only feasible, but that the rockets could be fired from depths up to 15 meters below the surface, without effecting the normal flight path."



[the Nebelwerfer was in the original version a 15 cm. rocket "projector". Rockets to be launched from submarines were bigger by far!]



German Type II submarines were fitted with rocket launchers and did use same against Russian targets on the eastern front during WW2. Firing rockets at land targets while submerged and doing so effectively.



"The Type II U-boat was designed by Germany as a coastal submarine . . . It was too small to undertake sustained operations far away from the home support facilities."

"Six [Type IIs] were stripped down to just a hull, transported by river and truck to Linz (on the Danube), and reassembled for use in the Black Sea against Soviet Union."

Here from KTB "Sharkhunters":

"U-24 and . . . U-9 were ordered into dry dock at Constanta in Romania. The boats were then hidden from view by covering the dock with nets and tarpaulins . . . the majority of the crew were given leave . . . when they returned the found the boats back in the water without any unusual additions . . . A framework for holding the rockets had been attached and none of it showed above the water, even when the boat was fully surfaced . . . Each rocket was about 25 - 35 cm. in diameter and well over 1 meter long. Following this U-18 probably became the first boat to try the rockets operationally by bombarding Russian positions on land and it appears as if a number of sorties were undertaken throughout 1944."

"the following remarks at the end of the log of . . . U-18":

"The close approach to the harbor at Poti made the bombardment with the new projectiles [rockets] a total success."

The American submarine Barb, under the command of that most able commander, Gene Fluckey, too was able to use rocket artillery, in the Pacific theatre, against Japanese targets, right at the end of the war:

"Barb was sent to the U.S. for a yard overhaul and alterations, which included the installation of five-inch (127 mm) rocket launchers . . . For the first time [not exactly if German accounts are true!] in submarine warfare, Barb successfully employed rockets against the towns of Shari on Hokkaidō, and Shikuka, Kashiho, and Shiritoru on Karafuto."

Using rocket artillery from submarines, even while submerged, was a sound concept. But not embraced by either side until the war was nearly over. American east coast cities would have been vulnerable to attack - - but - - NOT exactly as Doenitz had in mind [NYC reduced to a sea of flame and rubble]. A diversion more than anything else. A valid concept but not contributing in a major way to the war effort.

coolbert.

Believe?

This is coolbert:

Thanks here to KTB "Sharkhunters" from Harry:

The development by the German to fire rocket artillery from submarines came about as the result of:

"a conversation between Dr. Ernst Steinhoff, an engineer at the Penemunde rocket development facility, and his brother, Korvettenkapitan Fritz Steinhoff, Kommandant of U-511."

The ultimate fate of Fritz was grim. Indeed, very grim. Survived the war, taken prisoner but meeting a cruel fate at the hands of American interrogators. All in the AFTERMATH OF THE WAR!!

"U-511 and Steinhoff did this [fired rocket artillery from a submarine] in the Baltic as an experiment. His brother worked with Werner von Braun at the German rocket facility at Penemünde. Maybe that is what led to his death at the hands of an American beating some weeks after the war [had ended]. Steinhoff surrendered his boat (U-873 at the end of the war) in Portsmouth, NH but unlike the other POWs, he was tied to a chair in his cell and beaten all night long. Maybe they thought he could tell them something about the German rocket program. Either way, he did not live out the night. The government [U.S.] came up with the story that he was so despondent that he smashed his eyeglasses and slashed his wrists with the glass. Problem there - if you wore eyeglasses, you didn't serve on the boats . . . Captain Johann-Heinrich Fehler, Skipper of U-234, was in the next cell and witnessed it all."

Again, this occurred after the war WAS OVER, Fritz following commands - - surrendering for what he thought was going to be honorable captivity.

Mistreatment of a German POW for no really good reason?

"I believe you, it is just that I don't want to believe you!!" - - Bert!!

coolbert.

Submarine II. [Conclusion]

This is coolbert:

Here is another class of submarine that was of dubious value? Intentions were good, and the concept was sound, but as a class, never came to fruition. Operationally, for intended missions, would have been of little consequence if had been deployed?

The Japanese The Sen Toku I-400-class submarine. An aircraft carrier submarine!



"The Sen Toku I-400-class (伊四〇〇型潜水艦) submarines of the Imperial Japanese Navy were the largest submarines of World War II, and the largest ever built prior to the development of nuclear ballistic missile submarines in the 1960s. These were submarine aircraft carriers and each of them was able to carry 3 Aichi M6A Seiran aircraft underwater to their destinations. They also carried torpedoes for close range combat and were designed to surface, launch the planes then dive again quickly before they were discovered."

A submarine designed from the start to carry combat aircraft [three carried per sub]. NOT reconnaissance aircraft. Combat warplanes that could carry bombs and torpedoes. A submarine to approach enemy coast lines stealthily, launching flight combat missions against vital and critical targets.

"The I-400 was originally designed so that it could travel round-trip to anywhere in the world, and it was specifically intended to destroy the U.S.-controlled Panama Canal."

A submarine carrying a specially designed, top-secret float plane, the existence of which was unknown to American intelligence.

"They were able to carry three Aichi M6A Seiran aircraft, each carrying an 800 kilogram (1,764 lb) bomb [or one torpedo]"



A submarine developed with very specific missions in mind:

"the Commander-in-Chief of the Japanese Combined Fleet, Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto, devised a daring plan to attack the cities of New York, Washington D.C., and other large American cities as well as to destroy the Panama Canal."

"sen toku (secret submarine attack) . . . The plan was to sail westward through the Indian Ocean, around the southern tip of Africa, and attack the canal’s Gatun Locks from the east . . . The flights would, of course, be one-way trips. None of the pilots expected to survive the attack, a tactic called tokko. Each pilot was presented with a tokko short sword, symbolic of the ultimate sacrifice."

It WOULD HAVE BEEN POSSIBLE for the I-400 class of sub to make an around-the-world-voyage and mission if they had been deployed in time. The I-400 and the Seiran float plane is an example of how an asymmetry in warfare can work. Great damage COULD HAVE BEEN DONE WITH JUST ONE BOMB IN THE RIGHT SPOT AT THE PANAMA CANAL. A lock damaged or a ship sunk in the right spot and the canal is closed until cleared of damage.

But DID NOT happen!

coolbert.

Submarine I.

This is coolbert:

"At Paris, during a state dinner the French Minister of Marine leans close to the Japanese Ambassador and whispers that France and Japan must stand to the last on the submarine question." - - from "The American Black Chamber" by H.O. Yardley.

The "submarine question". An item on the agenda of the Washington Conference [1921].

Treaty negotiations that resulted in the Washington Naval Treaty.

A naval treaty that restricted the number of capital ships the signatories to the treaty were allowed to have. When I speak of capital ships, I am thinking battleships and heavy cruisers. The significant striking force of all self-respecting navies the world over.

"The Washington Naval Treaty, also known as the Five-Power Treaty, limited the naval armaments of its five signatories: the United States, the British Empire, the Empire of Japan, the French Third Republic, and the Kingdom of Italy."

"This burst of capital ship construction kindled fears of a new naval arms race, similar to the Anglo-German Dreadnought race leading up to World War I."

A treaty that resulted in successful negotiations and signing thereof by the major powers of the world. CONFINED TO THE RESTRICTION OF SURFACE VESSELS!!

DID NOT INCLUDE SUBMARINES AMONG THE RESTRICTED WARSHIPS!!

"The Washington Naval Treaty had placed strict limits on naval construction by the major naval powers, but submarines had been omitted."

The French in particular, took advantage of the treaty exception to the "submarine question" by constructing a naval warship of an unique class. The underwater cruiser.

A SUBMARINE ALSO CAPABLE OF ENGAGING THE ENEMY IN SURFACE COMBAT. HAD INTEGRAL NAVAL GUNS OF LARGE SIZE. ALSO CARRIED RECONNAISSANCE AIRCRAFT OF THE FLOAT PLANE VARIETY.

This was the French Navy class of underwater cruiser Surcouf (N N 3):




"Surcouf was designed as an "underwater cruiser", intended to seek and engage in surface combat. For reconnaissance, she carried an observation float plane in a hangar built abaft of the conning tower; for combat, she was armed with 12 torpedo tubes and a twin 203mm/50 Modèle 1924 guns [that is dual 8 inch guns for those of you that are metrically challenged] in a watertight turret forward of the conning tower."

Prior to the Surcouf, the British too had "tinkered" with the idea of an underwater cruiser.

* HM Submairne X1.

"HM Submarine X1 was, conceived and designed as a submersible commerce raider for the Royal Navy . . . She was larger than any other submarine previously built and besides her six 21-inch bow torpedo tubes she carried two twin 5.2 inch gun turrets"

* HMS M2.

"HMS M2 was a Royal Navy aircraft-carrying submarine . . . she was armed with a single 12-inch (305 mm) gun as well as torpedo tubes."

[able to carry aircraft too. Those planes had an offensive capability? A combination of triple threat. A conventional submarine, surface attack, or aerial assault!]

The role of the underwater cruiser was strictly limited? Surprisingly so? A naval warship designed to do it all could not any of them [combat operations] well?

coolbert.

Kursk.

This is coolbert:

The doomed Russian submarine Kursk did have integral escape mechanisms that COULD have allowed survivors to reach the surface.




To include:

* An escape capsule.

* Two escape hatches.

The former presumably some sort of pod allowing multiple number of sailors to ascend to the surface. NOT requiring flooding or pressurization of any sort? Persons inside the capsule are not exposed to the water during escape?



The latter, escape hatches, REQUIRING pressurization and exposure to the water during the ascent to the surface.

Sailors, those survivors left on board the Kursk, would don survival suits, place over their heads some sort of expedient breathing apparatus, flood the compartment connected to the escape hatch, open the hatch and flee the stricken sub in that manner.

Here is a photo of Russian submariners practicing "escape drill". Again, this sort of thing will not work in pelagic waters [deep]. Crush depth will be exceeded first, the hull of the sub breaking apart before the "sub bottoms out". Under such circumstance ESCAPE IS NOT POSSIBLE!



Those survival suits are quite impressive. Allow for flotation at the surface. Keeps the sailor warm for some time as well. The Russian Navy works almost exclusively in very cold waters [Barents/Baltic/Pacific]. Immersion normally means death from hypothermia in a few minutes. Under such conditions, a survival suit as worn by the Russian sailors IS A MUST!

Evidently a number of crew members on the Kursk did survive. Were trapped in a rear compartment for up to three days prior to death. They DID NOT ATTEMPT AN ESCAPE? Could have accessed an escape hatch? But did not?

coolbert.

Goats!

This is coolbert:

From the Chicago Tribune today:

“Britain ending goat experiments”

“London - - “

“The British military said Wednesday that it will no longer use goats in experiments to gauge the risks of evacuating a submerged submarine.”

“The tests, conducted for years by the Ministry of Defense, involved herding the animals into a special chamber and then drastically changing the air pressure. Six goats died in the experiments between 2000 and November 2006.”

“Goats were chosen because of their physiological similarities to human beings.”

[sheep too resemble humans. The physiology, the internal organs, etc. You hear a lot of talk about that sort of stuff. But we will not go there!]

I am assuming this was some sort of experimentation to determine the best manner for sailors to evacuate a damaged submarine, underwater, immobile, and unable to surface!

Such an occurrence, would be extremely rare, an evacuation from a submarine, in time of peril. Especially, now, in the day of the nuclear boomer, operating almost exclusively in pelagic waters [deep oceanic]! A sub in peril, out of control, settling to the bottom, would first exceed “crush depth” and have the hull collapse, instant death for all inside being the result. Such as with the Thresher or the Scorpion. NO POSSIBILTY OF ESCAPE WOULD EXIST IN THE FIRST PLACE!!

For an accident such as was suffered by the Russian Kursk, the sub settling to the bottom in waters of lesser depth, continental shelf depth waters not exceeding six hundred feet [two hundred meters], escape is possible in theory. The Kursk was evidently equipped with escape pods and exits. Trapped sailors would enter the escape pod wearing some sort of expedient underwater breathing apparatus, the pod is flooded [now under pressure] the sailors ascending, following a rope tethered to a jettisoned buoy floating at the surface.

Again, such an occurrence, nowadays, a disaster necessitating the evacuation of a submerged vessel, would be extremely rare! I think such measures as sub crews practice for rescue, are mostly psychological than anything else?!

coolbert.

North Pole?

This is coolbert:

The underwater voyage of the nuclear submarine U.S.S. Nautilus to the North Pole was - - at the time - - a matter of considerable public interest. An "impossible" feat had been done? And "done" with relative ease at that?

"At 11:15 pm on August 3, 1958, NAUTILUS' second Commanding Officer, Commander William R. Anderson, announced to his crew, "For the world, our country, and the Navy - the North Pole." With 116 men aboard, NAUTILUS had accomplished the "impossible"" reaching the geographic North Pole - 90 degrees North."

I do recall the stir this voyage created. Anderson, along with his entire crew, were considered to be national heroes. Anderson in particular, was thought to be capable of very high political office and did serve in Congress for a time.

I would also ask the question, HOW WAS THE NAVIGATION OFFICER OF THE NAUTILUS ABLE TO DETERMINE THAT THE NORTH POLE HAD ACTUALLY BEEN REACHED?

The ship had ACTUALLY REACHED THE EXACT SPOT OF THE NORTH POLE, AND NOT AN APPROXIMATE POSITION?

Under the ice [the Nautilus was under the ice without possibility of surfacing the entire voyage], normal methods of navigation were not possible?

"The U.S. Navy developed the ships inertial navigation system (SINS), which allows a submarine to navigate underwater by keeping track of its relative motion from a known starting point. In practice, errors accumulate, requiring the submarine to approach the surface for periodic updates from external sources at periscope depth."

An inertial guidance system, by the standards of the time, or even now, provides ONLY an approximate location, NOT and exact one. Corrections are needed for exactness.

NOT being able to surface, or even come to periscope depth, meant that celestial bearings, LORAN readings from low-frequency communications, etc., were NOT possible.

[my understanding is that submarines are equipped with a tethered radio receiver buoy. The buoy is raised to the surface and radio signals can be received without the submarine surfacing. This too could not be done under the ice.]

LORAN can penetrate the water and ice to a degree that reception is possible?

[OMEGA did not come onto line until 1968 and of course no GPS existed in 1958.]

OR, some sort of secret [secret to this day], navigational system was available to the navigator of the Nautilus?

Anyone have an idea on this one?

coolbert.

Midgets VII. - - [Conclusion]

This is coolbert:

Modern midgets are currently used by the Croatian Navy. This is the “Una” class submarine. This may very well be the class that the North Koreans used as the model for THEIR “Yugo” class PLASTIC submarine!

The “Una” is STRICTLY a special operations type of midget submarine. Does NOT carry any torpedoes. Used solely to transport and deploy “combat swimmers” for special purpose missions.

[the term “combat swimmer” is a Soviet and Eastern European military term roughly translated as underwater demolition technician [UDT]! A scuba diver placing demolition charges on the bottoms of enemy moored vessels!]

Combat swimmers using limpet mines against enemy shipping. A Jaywick type of special purpose operation. Presumably the North Koreans would use their own version of the “Una” for such demolition operations, surveillance, reconnaissance, etc. Read an account of ANOTHER abortive North Korea midget sub mission!

"Limpet mines are a special form of contact mine which are attached to the target by magnets and left, and are so named because of the superficial similarity to the mollusk, limpet. A swimmer or diver usually performs this task."

"usually they are set off by a time fuse. They may also have an anti-removal system making it explode if the mine is torn off by enemy divers or by other explosions. Sometimes the limpet mine had a small propeller which would detonate when the ship has sailed a certain distance."

Midget submarines are a very effective form of asymmetric warfare that causes a lot of headaches for conventional naval commanders and planners!!?? I would have to think that just GUARDING against this type of attack poses special difficulties??!!

coolbert.

Midgets VI.

This is coolbert:

Italy in the pre-World War Two [WW2] era also made significant strides with regard to the development of midget submarines.

These were the CB class of midget sub.




We find the same arrangement for weaponry on this sub [CB] as you had with the Soviet Pigmei. Torpedoes, two of them, carried outside [outboard] the vessel in firing tubes. Two shots and that was that. Back to base. Again, used for harbor and coastal defense and special missions.

The Germans, after capturing the SOLE experimental Pigmei sub from the Soviets, had Italian designers examine the vessel. Surprisingly [??]:

"in August 1942, Pigmei was shown to Italian submariners . . . Its dimensions did not differ much from those of the Italian CB-type submarine, but its hull was better proportioned and longer. The submarine's trapezoidal house [conning tower] was rather large but narrow. There were two long recesses at the boat-s hull mid-height which served to accommodate torpedoes."

Perhaps this should not be so surprising. According to Suvorov:

"There may be some people who underestimate Italy as a country of great thinkers, but not the GRU [Soviet/Russian military intelligence]. The GRU knows that the Italians have very good brains, the brains of great inventors . . . The Italians were not especially brilliant in battle, and this obscured the extent of Italian achievement in military technology. In fact those achievements, especially in the spheres of aviation, SUBMARINES and high-speed launches, were really amazing. Before the War [World War Two] GRU Colonel Lev Manevich had shipped from Italy to the Soviet Union tons of technical documentation of tremendous importance."

Tons of documents!

TONS!!

coolbert.

Midgets V.

This is coolbert:

Do not think that the day of the midget submarine is over. Apparently, far from it! There is now, or will be, a rennaissance in such submarine development? A need exists, NOT for large, atomic-powered, pelagic submarines, but coast-huggers employed in a defensive mode?

There are a variety of nations that still employ midgets. To include:

* Iran. Ghadir class midget submarine.


"Ghadir is a class of midget submarines built in Iran."

An indigenous design built with a lot of the "latest military and technological equipment"!

"the submarine is equipped with the latest military and technological equipment and that its capabilities are equal to that of foreign types."

"The submarine is said to be a sonar-evading stealth submarine which is equipped with state-of-the-art electronic equipment and can fire missiles and torpedoes simultaneously, but no information was given on the range of these weapons."

With submarines of this size, you can build from metals that are less detectable? Create a stealth type midget sub from the get-go!?

* North Korea. Yugo and Sang-O class of midgets.

North Korean midget submarines designed for intelligence, reconnaissance, special operations type of missions. Read about one such abortive mission that did stir up a lot of headlines. The North Koreans take midget submarine missions seriously, even in time of "peace"!

* Russia. Project 865 Piranha.



"Project 865 Piranha (Russian: Проект 865 «Пиранья»), NATO reporting name "Losos", is a Russian supersmall experimental submarine."



"The Losos was designed for special operations and engaging surface ships located offshore, and is thus very durable and almost completely silent."



"The hull is made of a titanium alloy, reducing the effectiveness of mines"

"Due to belief in Russia that there will be an increased demand for small subs, the Project 865 Piranya Submarines have since been revived. Malakhit [Russian design bureau] has resumed development on small submarines based on the original Piranha. These mini-submarine have are being marketed to Asia appearing at expositions in Indonesia and Singapore."

"Malakhit believes that the vessel, which is quick and relatively inexpensive to build, is well-suited to navies that must operate in shallow waters."

Think here of Singapore, Indonesia, Malaysia.

Midgets - - wave of the future?

coolbert.

Midgets IV.

This is coolbert:

Various combatants used midget submarines during World War Two [WW2]. With ONLY varying success. A mixed record at best! Again, these midget subs were intended only for a defensive role [Germany], or a special purpose type mission [Britain, Japan]. These were NOT general purpose submarines that could perform a variety of missions. NOT versatile.

* Japanese. Type A,B,C and Type D midgets.




Conceptually, the Japanese approach to midget submarines AT THE START OF WW2 WAS RADICALLY DIFFERENT THAT OTHER COMBATANTS WHO ALSO HAD IN THEIR NAVAL INVENTORY MIDGETS!!

"They were originally intended to be carried by larger Japanese ships and deployed in the path of an enemy fleet, where they would disrupt its operations with torpedo attacks. However, during the Second World War, the midgets were used for special operations against ships in enemy harbors, among them the 7 December 1941 Pearl Harbor attack and May 1942 raids on Sydney, Australia, and Diego Suarez in the Indian Ocean."

Midgets were seen - - by the Japanese - - as an offensive weapon - - for special purpose missions!!

"Carried" [piggy-backed] to the target by another much larger ocean-going [pelagic] submarine. The midget would be deployed near the target and attack, penetrating defenses normally "off-limits" to a conventional submarine. Pearl Harbor, Sydney, Diego Suarez.

The Type D class midgets WERE to be used strictly as defensive weaponry. Coastal-huggers attacking American warships venturing close to the Japanese home islands in 1945.

The extent to which the Japanese put their faith in midgets can be seen by the number of "Koryo" midgets found in a drydock at the end of the war!



* British. X-craft.



"The X class submarines' weapons were two side-cargoes - explosive charges held on opposite sides of the hull with two tons of amatol in each. The intention was to drop these on the sea bed underneath the target then creep away. The charges were set off by a time fuze."

[not even carrying torpedoes. Had "charges" attached to the side of the sub that would be dropped "near" or under the target and detonated with time fuze! These X-craft were specifically developed with destroying or neutralizing German large surface raiders operating out of Norway!?]

"Their first deployment was Operation Source in September, 1943, an attempt to neutralise the heavy German warships based in Northern Norway. Six X-Craft were used, but only 2 successfully laid charges (under the German battleship Tirpitz); the rest were lost, scuttled or returned to base. The Tirpitz was badly damaged and out of action until April 1944."

[as one can surmise, the success rate of these midget subs was not too great!]

* Germany. "Seehund".



"The Seehund (seal) (also known as Type XXVII ) was a successful series of German midget submarines created during World War II. Designed in 1944, and run by two men crews"

"The small size and its rapid movement made the Seehund virtually undetectable and difficult to destroy due to their resilient hulls. The submarines were operated by crews of two and carried two underslung torpedoes."

[again, the total armament is two torpedoes, carried OUTSIDE THE SUB. Fire those two, and back to base!]

The record of midget submarines during WW2 - - is mixed at best!! Was all the effort worth it?

coolbert.

Midgets III.

This is coolbert:

Here is another midget submarine [slightly more displacement than the conventionally accepted definition of a midget?] that saw action in World War Two [WW2]. Much more successful as a class of midget sub than any other?

The Soviet "Malyutka".

"The M-class submarines, also Malyutka-class, were a class of small, single-hulled submarines built in the Soviet Union and used during World War II."

Again, a midget sub FOR DEFENSIVE PURPOSES ONLY. The original "Malyutka" had only two torpedoes for armament. Fire those two and that was that. Back to base for replenishment!

"These boats were designed in the beginning of the 30’s as typical coastal submarines. That is why their abilities were modest enough . . . just two torpedoes . . . these cheap, mass-produced boats were intended to defend naval bases, blockade enemy harbors and, as a main feature, be railway-friendly to be transported from one war theatre to another."

Railway-friendly means the entire sub can be placed on a railway car and transported from one locale to another, where ever the need is greatest! From White Sea to Baltic. From Baltic to Black. From Black to Pacific. Etc.!

Also used modular construction. Unusual for the time - - "cheap, mass-produced boats"! YES!

coolbert.

Midgets II.

This is coolbert:

It seems that the Soviet Union was far ahead of the rest of the world when it came to original concepts and designs of midget submarines? Research and development began in the 1930's? Concepts and designs far ahead of their time? TOO FAR AHEAD?

Deploy able, combat ready midget submarines that never got off the drawing board and into production. Experimental models only.

"Project APSS"

"The first Soviet midget submarine built was code named Project APSS (special-purpose autonomous submersible vessel). In other documents and publications this submarine was called a ‘telemechanical submarine’, ‘radio-controlled TV-equipped submarine’ and even a ‘telecontrolled self-propelled vehicle.’"

APSS was a midget submarine with a surface displacement of 7.2 tons and underwater displacement of 8.5 tons. The submarine was armed with one forward mounted torpedo tube, and could be operated in two basic modes: standard mode (by one man) and remote-control mode. In the latter mode, the possibility of controlling the submarine from surface ships and aircraft . . . In the telemechanical mode, the APSS carried a 500-kg explosive charge instead of a torpedo."

A midget submarine [APSS] that could have either a one-man crew or be autonomously controlled. AN UNMANNED VEHICLE FAR AHEAD OF IT'S TIME!!

Then we have the case of the Soviet Pigmei midget sub as well.

"The second midget submarine designed by Ostekhbyuro was designated APL (autonomous submarine) and called Pigmei (Pygmy)."

"Initially, this miniature submarine was conceived by Ostekhbyuro as an autonomous undersea vehicle controlled from an aircraft, but later the design work was focused on a project of a manned midget submarine."

. . . .

"there was only one experimental Pigmei midget submarine in the Navy. It was 16 m long and 2.62 m wide and had a standard surface displacement of 18.6 tons. It could develop a maximum surface speed of 6 knots and a maximum underwater speed of 5 knots. The boat-s full-speed range amounted to 290 miles on the surface and between 18 miles (full speed) and 60 miles (economical speed) underwater. The boat-s maximum diving depth was limited to 30 m and its maximum endurance was about three days. Pigmei-s main armament included two 450mm 45-15 type torpedoes fired from side rack-type launchers."

Armament was two torpedoes NOT CARRIED WITHIN THE SUBMARINE ITSELF! Carried outside the submarine "from side rack-type launchers"! Also had a one-man crew?

Vessels NOT designed for deep-water missions. Strictly for coastal and harbor defense. NOT having a general versatility.

coolbert.

Midgets I.

This is coolbert:

The topic for discussion is midget submarines.

A midget submarine is carefully defined by the wiki entry as:

"A midget submarine is any submarine under 150 tons, typically operated by one or two but up to 6 or 8 crew, with no on-board living accommodation."

Submersibles small in size, but meeting the accepted criteria as to what constitutes a submarine.

Namely:

* When surfaced, powered by an air-breathing diesel engine.

* When submerged, powered by an electric motor which uses a large bank of batteries for "juice".

* Submerges by taking in water into ballast tanks.

* Surfaces by expelling the ballasted water with compressed air.

* Engages enemy targets primarily by firing a torpedo.

The norm for fighting submersibles as established by John Holland a long time ago now.

Personally, I have always wondered about the midget submarine and the utility of same. More effort than they are worth. The returns are less than for what is put into them? Having a general purpose, versatile, medium size, ocean-going submarine is far more preferable?

[Please keep in mind that a conventional German U-boat of World War Two [WW2] would displace about 1000 tons. Midget submarines, as defined, displace only about 1/10th as much.]

With regard to midgets, the role historically has always been defensive or special purpose missions. NOT deep-water [pelagic] vessels with long-range capacity. Definitely NOT! Used in littoral waters for coastal or harbor defense. And having versatility as a harassing weapon when performing the special operations type of mission!

According to Suvorov, the midget sub is seen by Soviet/Russian naval planners as:

* "capable of penetrating into places in which the ordinary ship cannot"

* Cheaper.

* Harder to locate and destroy.

The midget sub is a concept now passe'? NOT really living up to billing in the past, and now an anachronism in the nuclear age? Maybe NOT SO!?

coolbert.

Hybrid?

This is coolbert:

Latest intel dope on the Russian hybrid submarine. A combination of nuclear and diesel/electric power?

"Russia Completes Hybrid Submarine"

"Russia's Sevmash shipyard at the Arctic city of Severodvinsk has completed a hybrid submarine powered by a diesel-electric plant and a small nuclear reactor. Designated B-90 and named Sarov, the submarine was completed on 17 December [2007]."

"The submarine is known as Project 20120 in Russian design terminology. She apparently employs the small nuclear reactor -- known to some engineers as a "teakettle" -- to keep a charge on the battery, providing essentially unlimited underwater endurance on relatively quiet electric propulsion. In effect, this is an Air-Independent Propulsion (AIP) system."

""Secret" Russian Sub, Probed"

"Russia's Not So Super Secret Special Submarine"

"What's Wrong With This Submarine Story (W3TS2)?"

A degree of skepticism is had by those in the know. This is NOT some sort of revolutionary breakthrough?

A vessel to be used as a "test bed" for the new but not quite unique technology. NOT a submarine having two separate power sources. A diesel/electric submarine with a modified, not full scale nuclear reactor as a recharging source. A form of air-independent-propulsion different from German and Swedish designs. To be used for the Russian Northern Fleet as a "spy" ship?

Reactors of this type have been used in spacecraft with success. A much, much larger "radioisotope thermoelectric generator (RTG)" is needed to provide a continuous "trickle" charge to the subs batteries?

As of yet, the U.S. Navy has nothing to fret about?

coolbert.

New?

This is coolbert:

Flash. Here thanks to Harry, KTB Sharkhunters. [http://www.sharkhunters.com]

"New Russian 'hybrid' not a car, but a diesel/electric AND NUCLEAR submarine already undergoing sea trials, probably to replace the KILO Class diesel/electric boats."

[previously it had been thought that the Lada Class diesel/electric only Russian submarine was the follow-up to the Kilo!]

A "hybrid"? Combining "diesel/electric AND NUCLEAR" power plants all in one sub? This would be unusual. It is usually one or the other, NEVER both!

Such a submarine would allow for unlimited range, fast speed while in cruise mode, and then "stealth" [diesel/electric] while in the attack phase of a mission?

Such a submarine would have to be of large size? Allowing for an impressive array of weaponry to be carried on board too?

More later when available.

coolbert.

Diesels!

This is coolbert:

From the comments of Harry, KTB Sharkhunters [http://www.sharkhunters.com].

"China has recently taken delivery of her fourth SOVREMINNY Class destroyer and who knows how many KILO Class submarines from Russia"



The above incredible photograph shows a Russian Kilo class sub [enhanced version?] enroute to China for delivery.

Kilo class submarines. Diesel/electric powered. Once thought to be obsolescent, the diesel/electric submarine has enjoyed an amazing resurgence of popularity. NOT with the U.S. Navy, but with other militaries around the world - - YES!

Diesel/electric is the way to go in the future. Especially with air-independent-propulsion now feasible and ALREADY BEING USED!!??

The U.S. Navy [USN] is behind the curve on this one and needs to catch up and fast. Easier said than done!! The USN for decades now has thought ONLY nuke is the way to go, and that is that. Must now rethink existing policy and RIGHT NOW!!

The Kilo class was originally developed by the old Soviet Union at a time [1980's] when nuke powered subs were all the rage. Called originally Project 877 Paltus. An advanced version Kilo has also been developed and is sold for export. This is Project 636 Varshavyanka.



NOW being replaced by Russian Project 677 Лада. The Lada class submarine.



The latter [Lada], will have the capability for air-independent-propulsion as desired. Primarily a submarine for the international market. To be sold to navies throughout the world. However, as an export item, NOT necessarily equipped with the full range of submarine-launched cruise missiles available to the Russian Navy.

From appearances, the Lada and the Kilo before that used the tear-drop tuna fish shape hull that is the most hydrodynamic design for maximum underwater efficiency. Capable of higher speed [and pretty good speed at that] underwater than on the surface.

Again, we see a blast from the past. Previous technology, the diesel/electric submarine, making a marked comeback. Equipped with the latest technology, electronic "suites", and weaponry, having a capability far exceeding that of World War Two [WW2] submarines.

These latest versions diesel/electric submarines are the future of undersea warfare, and the future is NOW! Are "boss", as they say!!

U.S. Navy, wake up - - AND QUICK!!

coolbert.

Supercavitation.

This is coolbert:

Supercavitation.

From a comment to the blog:

"Fascinating stuff. If a torpedo can be created that can reach 200mph, why not an entire submarine? A few attack submarines that could go that fast could destroy an enemy navy very quickly or deposit troops/equipment on an enemy shoreline with noo warning."

This idea has been thought of. Some sort of power source must be required to get the vehicle to initial speed, then the rest is "duck soup"!

This could be done with an unmanned undersea vehicle [UUV]? I would think that is the way to go.

A jet sub was purportedly made some decades ago? Was evidently a hoax. But was thought of and research has been done.

"Josef Papp claimed in 1966 to have built an underwater propulsion system which took advantage of supercavitation to achieve incredibly high speeds. However this is generally regarded as a hoax, due to circumstances surrounding his claim."

"Papp, a Hungarian-Canadian engineer, claimed to have built a special high-speed submarine in his garage that was propelled by a special underwater jet engine. However, on his maiden voyage across the Atlantic he encountered a stability problem and the submarine sank."

Is right now the subject of resarch? Yes!?

coolbert.

Missile?

This is coolbert:

Add this one to your daily TOP SECRET briefing.

Thanks to KTB "Sharkhunters" [http://www.sharkhunters.com]

"Germany has perfected their BARRACUDA underwater missile with enhanced speed up to 800 km/h! This will be normal armament on the 212 Alpha Class submarines on the Bundesmarine. The fuel cell for this high speed torpedo is being built by Diehl BGT Defense, Atlas Elektronik and TMS. This torpedo created a vacuum forward of the nose and that allows for the very high speed. Remember, the Russian designed SQVALL torpedo, released a few years ago, is rocket propelled and some of the exhaust goes out the nose thereby allowing the torpedo to run at 200 mph or better in this sheath of bubbles. These new torpedoes are formidable indeed, and would be difficult indeed to evade."

From the Diehl BGT web site:

"Underwater Missile

The supercavitating underwater missile is a technology demonstration program for close-in defence against underwater targets. It is equipped with a solid-propellant rocket motor, inertial measurement unit, autopilot and a conical tip which can be moved by means of an actuator system. The rocket motor provides the missile with a submerged speed of more than 400km/hr . . . The flexible nose cone provides steering just as a missile's fins do . . . To date, around a dozen test models of the underwater missile have been built and tested successfully."



These underwater missiles [torpedoes [??]] are useful only in limited circumstances??

Does not have long range and are intended to be used ONLY in certain particular situations. Such as from what is described on the wiki site for the Squall:

"the Shkval is designed as a countermeasure against torpedoes launched by undetected enemy submarines. It may also be used as a counter to incoming torpedoes whereby it is launched at the enemy submarine, forcing it to evade, and hopefully cutting the guidance wire to its own torpedo in the process."

The latest German torpedo [underwater missile] is formidable, but only in a very limited way??

coolbert.

Tango?

This is coolbert:

"Submarines For Sale!"

Thanks for this tidbit from James Santos through KTB.

http://www.sharkhunters.com

"the Russian Navy is selling many of their 'used' Tango Class submarines. For a mere half million dollars, you can have one of these diesel submarines, let over from the 'Cold War'.

These are intended for static displays . . . But as we have noted by a phone call from D.E.A., it is also quite possible that drug runners would like to get one or more."

"drug runners would like to get one or more"

Drug runners!! U-boat attack by the Cali cartel and such?

YES!! NOT so absurd.

It is a known fact that several years ago, a member of the Russian Mafia residing in Brooklyn did try to act as a go-between between some Colombian drug cartel and the Russian military. Negotiate and buy a used Soviet submarine for drug smuggling operations. Bring all sorts of illicit contraband into the U.S.

This Russian immigrant [he certainly showed a lot of love for his adopted new home, did he not!!??] talked tough, dressed tough, acted tough. Tried to present himself as person that could get things done.

Thankfully, the deal did not go through. The Colombians nixed the transaction when they found out THAT THE USED SUBMARINE COULD NO LONGER SUBMERGE!! Well, you have to ask yourself, WHO WOULD BUY A SUBMARINE THAT COULD NOT SUBMERGE?!

[maybe some dot.com zillionaire with a lot of loose change would like to buy a Tango Class sub to use as a conversation piece. Automate, put a very thick window on the bottom, Captain Nemo style, take for cruises with that person you want to impress. I could imagine the cost of operating such a boat would a lot more than the cost of the sub itself!!]

Put this one in the strange but true category.

coolbert.