Ocean Engineering 32 (2005) 8599

www.elsevier.com/locate/oceaneng

Technical Note

A conceptual design of an underwater

missile launcher
Carl T.F. Ross*
Department of Mechanical and Design Engineering, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth PO1 3DJ, UK
Received 8 January 2004; accepted 22 April 2004
Available online 11 September 2004

Abstract
The paper presents a conceptual design of an underwater missile launcher, which will be more
difficult to detect by the enemy than conventional surface missile launchers which are currently
being used.
The paper suggests that the material of construction should be a composite and not a metal, as use
of the latter for a large deep diving underwater vessel will result in such a structure sinking like a
stone, due to the fact that it will have no reserve buoyancy. The paper also shows that composites
have better sound absorption characteristics, thereby making the underwater structure difficult to
detect through sonar equipment. It is proposed that this launcher should operate up to a depth of
5000 m, as at this depth, some 60% of the oceans bottoms can be reached.
The author shows that current technology can be used to construct and operate such a vessel.
q 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Underwater; Missile launcher; Submarine

1. Introduction
Some three-fourths of the Earths surface is covered by water and only about 0.1% of
the oceans, bottoms have been explored. Indeed, the surface area of the Earths surface
covered by water is 10 times larger than the surface area of the moon. The average depth of
the oceans is somewhere between 5000 and 6500 m and the greatest ocean depth is found

* Tel.: C44-23-9284-8484; fax: C44-23-9284-3082.

E-mail address: carl.ross@ntlworld.com
0029-8018/$ - see front matter q 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.oceaneng.2004.04.008

86

C.T.F. Ross / Ocean Engineering 32 (2005) 8599

in the Marianas trench, which is some 7.16 miles (11.52 km) deep. This distance is about
30% larger than the height of Mount Everest!
Undersea technology is already used for military purposes, but most large submarines
can only dive to a depth of about 400 m. It is the authors belief that as the average depth of
the oceans is between 5 and 6.5 km, the potential of the oceans for military purposes is not
being fully exploited. It is the authors belief that an underwater missile launcher will
prove far superior to a conventional surface missile launcher.
The advantages of using an underwater missile launcher are as follows:
Radar does not work underwater.
Heat-seeking missiles do not work underwater.
Satellite spy cameras for the filming of submarines, operating at depths of 5000 m, will
be ineffective.
The surface area of the Earths ocean bottoms is about three times larger than the
Earths land area.
The underwater missile launcher can move around the ocean bottoms without detection
more easily than a surface missile launcher.
Disadvantages of the underwater missile launcher are as follows:
The underwater missile launcher can be detected by sonar.
It will be necessary to supply the underwater missile launcher with food and other
provisions.
The discharge of refuse from the underwater missile launcher can be detected by the
enemy.
These disadvantages can, however, be overcome to some extent. For example, to
decrease detection by sonar, its hull can be constructed with a material which has a high
sound absorption coefficient, as presented by the present author (Ross, 1992), when he
proposed a conceptual design for a stealth submarine. In the case of the shortage of
provisions, these can be overcome by supplying the launcher with provisions (say) every
month with the aid of mini and larger submarines. After the missile launcher has been
supplied with its monthly provisions, it can stealthily move away just above the oceans
bottoms. Similarly, the discharge of refuse can also take place at monthly intervals. The
above arguments appear to show that the advantages of operating an underwater missile
launcher clearly outweigh the disadvantages.
2. The design
2.1. Hull form
The usual shape of a submarine pressure hull is in the form of a ring-stiffened circular
cylinder, blocked by end caps, as shown in Fig. 1. The pressure hull is sometimes
surrounded by a hydrodynamic hull, which is in a state of free-flood and is therefore
unlikely to fail due to hydrostatic pressure.

C.T.F. Ross / Ocean Engineering 32 (2005) 8599

87

Fig. 1. Submarine hulls.

The advantages of using a circular cylinder are as follows:

A ring-stiffened circular cylinder is a good structure to resist the effects of external
hydrostatic pressure.
Extra space inside the pressure can be achieved by making the cylinder longer.
A circular cylinder is a good hydrodynamic form; better than (say) a spherical form of
the same volume.
A circular cylindrical shape can be easily docked; better than (say) a spherical shape of
the same volume.
Disadvantages of using a circular cylindrical shell for a submarine pressure hull are as
follows:
A cylinder has two ends and if crew members are required to move from the forward
end to the aft end, or vice-versa, it may prove difficult because of congestion.
Hydrostatic and hydrodynamic stability can be a problem for a hull of cylindrical form
underwater.
The conventional submarine cannot move easily in three dimensions.
For the missile launcher proposed here, for most of its time underwater, it is stationary
and when it moves, it will move slowly. Therefore, a good hydrodynamic form is not a prerequisite. Thus, to incorporate the advantages of using a circular cylinder, and remove the
disadvantage that a cylinder has two ends, it is proposed to manufacture the main hull in a
toroidal form, as shown in Fig. 2.
The plan view of the main hull need not necessarily be a pure toroid; it can be of
hexagonal or of octagonal or of similar form. If these latter forms are used, the hull can be
constructed in sections, which can then be bolted together, as suggested by NCRE (Smith,
1990) and by the present author for corrugated pressure hulls (Ross, 1992, 2001; Fig. 3).
The proposed design is similar to the design of an underwater drilling rig, as proposed
by the author and his former student (Ross and Laffoley-Lane, 1998). If water jets are used
for manoeuvering and propulsion, the missile launcher can move three dimensionally, like
a helicopter, except that it can also move backwards. Hydrostatically, stability will prove
less of a problem, both on the surface and underwater, because of the shape of

88

C.T.F. Ross / Ocean Engineering 32 (2005) 8599

Fig. 2. The underwater missile launcher.

the launcher. It is suggested that at the centre of the toroid (plan view), a spherical shell is
attached, via walkways, to house the missiles, torpedoes, etc.
The above design appears to indicate that if it is used in preference to a conventional
design, we are in a winwin situation!
2.2. Manpower and living conditions
It is suggested that the required manpower should be about 120 personnel; this is not very
different to the number that currently operate a large military submarine. Since personnel on

Fig. 3. Method of construction of corrugated pressure hulls.

C.T.F. Ross / Ocean Engineering 32 (2005) 8599

89

the missile launcher will be on it for about 3 months at a time, it will be advisable to give each
individual a reasonable amount of space and a good headroom allowance. In current ocean
vessels, the average volume allowed per person is about 5 m3. Since personnel on the vessel
are required to carry out their work without it causing them any undue stress, a minimum
volume of 10 m3 is proposed. This gives a total living quarter requirement of 1200 m3.
Canteen and recreation facilities are also required and it is proposed that these are 2000 m3;
this makes a total of manpower space requirements of 3200 m3.

2.3. Power requirements

It is suggested that a maximum power rating of 10 MW should be more than adequate
to support life and allow the vessel to be operable.
The power will be required at two fundamental levels; a normal high power level
(10 MW) and at an emergency level (several kiloWatts), in the event of failure in the
primary power system. The selection of the power system will not only be determined by
the power level, but also by the endurance time and in the case of this vessel, it will have to
be in the region of several years.
For the main power requirements, the existing generating sets used on surface vessels
will be unsuitable, partly because they require large quantities of oxidiser and partly
because their exhaust disposal facilities will leave a trace for the enemy to detect. The only
suitable source of power generation for this vessel is nuclear power.
There are several different types of nuclear generators and these include the
following:

Radioisotopic generators.
Pressurised water reactors (PWR).
Boiling water reactors.
Liquid metal fast reactors.
Thermal system.

Each of these systems have their advantages and disadvantages, but the most suitable
reactors are radioisotopic generators, PWRs and liquid metal reactors, since these have the
smallest cores.
Radioisotopic generators are small, but they will have difficulty in generating 10 MW
of power. Although liquid metal reactors have the smallest cores, they need to keep the
metal molten at all times, even during periods of shutdown. This renders them hazardous,
and because of this, they will be unsuitable to power the missile launcher. This leaves the
PWR as the most suitable for powering the vessel, as it can generate the power, is small,
and has been proven safe for submarine usage. Additionally, suitable designs are readily
available. A suitable PWR, in terms of size and weight (Haux, 1981), including generating
sets, etc., is as follows:
SizeZ1000 m3.
WeightZ1200 tonnes.

90

C.T.F. Ross / Ocean Engineering 32 (2005) 8599

2.3.1. Emergency power supply

This must be a non-atmospheric system which is normally independent of the main
supply. It must be sufficiently large to run emergency life support systems, lighting, rescue
and escape operations. Additionally, it must be able to operate some control systems to
allow sufficient time for the crew to survive and be rescued, or for the main generator to be
repaired. Due to the fact that the ambient water temperature at 5000 m is likely to be about
4 8C, there will also be a heating requirement and this may lead to a significant power
demand.
The power level for an emergency level will probably be about 40 kW for a period of
57 days; this can be met by using a large number of batteries, similar to those used on
conventional submarines. It must also be remembered that rechargeable batteries will give
off hazardous gases and this must be accounted for as well.
2.4. Environmental control and life support systems
The atmosphere and other factors, such as noise and vibration, within the subsea system
must be considered, so that no physiological or psychological performance degradation
occurs. Although under emergency conditions, limits can be set to which personnel are
exposed for short periods to these unwanted conditions, without suffering any adverse
effects.
Environmental control systems are required to sustain a breathable atmosphere and to
maintain the internal climate within a comfort zone. Logistic support by mini and larger
submarines will be required for provision of food, etc., and for the transfer of personnel.
The expected crew change will be around 3 months and it is proposed that supplies will
come every month.
2.4.1. Atmospheric control
The critical aspects of atmosphere are oxygen supply, carbon dioxide removal and trace
containment control with atmospheric analysis to ensure the safety of the environment.
Oxygen consumption is dependent on work load and dietary balance (Haux, 1981;
Table 1).
This equates to an average of 30 l of oxygen per hour per man; this figure is based on
extensive data collected from submarines. Conversely, this results in the generation of 25 l
of CO2 per hour per man, and this carbon dioxide must be removed from the atmosphere
and the oxygen replaced.
Several oxygen replacement systems may be considered and these include the
following:
Table 1
Oxygen consumption
Oxygen consumption

Ideal

Normal maximum

Normal minimum

kg/man day

0.9

1.6

0.5

C.T.F. Ross / Ocean Engineering 32 (2005) 8599

91

High pressure (gas) oxygen storage.

Liquid (cryogenic) oxygen storage.
Electrolytic oxygen generation.
Chemical oxygen sources.

The use of electrolytic oxygen generators from water is probably the best method, since
a supply of water is not a problem and it is a well-proven technology resulting in high
reliability (Haux, 1981). This system does not have the resupply problems of other
systems, such as in high pressure or liquid oxygen storage nor does it have the safety and
operational problems.
The only drawback of electrolytic oxygen generators is that they require high electrical
power, but since we have a nuclear reactor on board, we do not have this problem. In the
event of an emergency, it is suggested that an emergency back-up system of bottled
oxygen is kept on board.
2.4.2. Carbon dioxide control
The air we breathe contains about 0.03% of carbon dioxide (equivalent to a partial
pressure of about 30 MPa) (Haux, 1981). Such a level will be difficult to maintain and the
required effort to so do, will not be justified. Therefore, the system should be capable of
maintaining the carbon dioxide level below that which will impair mental and physical
performance. This results in the requirement for maintaining a maximum partial pressure
for carbon dioxide of 1500 MPa (Haux, 1981). There are many systems currently in
existence on both spacecraft and submarines and these depend on absorption and
adsorption.
Such systems include the following:

Metallic absorbents.
Molecular sieves.
Monoethanolamine scrubbers.
Bosch reaction.
Sabatier reaction.

Metallic absorbents are currently widely in use, but for large manning levels and long
submergence times, they become restrictive, although they would be suitable as an
emergency back-up system.
The monoethanolamine scrubber is also regenerative and it is currently used in nuclear
submarines, although it does require large power requirements and deteriorates with time.
The Bosch system can be operated in the Sabatier mode and although it is expensive
and complex, it could make an excellent system for a permanent system, since it also
gives off oxygen.
2.4.3. Contaminant control
Since the environment within the missile launcher will be sealed, it will be
contaminated over a period of time with trace quantities of gaseous and particulate
matter emerging from the crew and from the materials and processes within the enclosure.

92

C.T.F. Ross / Ocean Engineering 32 (2005) 8599

Table 2
Typical contaminant exposure limits
Substance

8-hour weighted average limit (ppm)

Ammonia
Carbon dioxide
Carbon monoxide
Freon-12
Hydrogen chloride
Hydrogen fluoride
Mercury (mg/m3)
Nitric acid
Nitrogen dioxide
Oil mist (mg/m3)
Ozone
Phosgene
Stibene
Sulphur dioxide

50
5000
50
1000

Ceiling concentration (ppm)

5
3
0.1
25
5
5
0.1
0.1
0.1
5

An internal system will therefore be required to control the level of the contaminants,
dependent on their type and toxity.
Table 2 (Haux, 1981) shows a few possible contaminants and their exposure limit, in an
enclosed vessel such as the rocket launcher. There may be many other contaminants due to
operations such as food preparation.
Some of the contaminants will be difficult to detect and remove and therefore it is
suggested that the structure is partitioned so that the atmosphere from one section does not
contaminate another. The only way for the total removal of all the contaminants within the
vessel is to purge the vessel from time to time.
2.4.4. Climate of the atmosphere
The climate of the enclosure is very important and for crew comfort, it must be set so
that it does not induce any physiological stresses into the crew. In normal ambient
conditions, it is generally accepted that the temperature should be between 18 and 22 8C.
Similarly, a relative humidity of between 50 and 65% is pleasant (Haux, 1981). It is
therefore proposed that the temperature and humidity in the vessel should be maintained at
these levels. Due to the heat generated by all the process equipment, there will be a
requirement for a suitable air condition system. It is also a good idea for the crew to control
the local climate in their cabins, etc.

3. External requirements
3.1. Support legs
The main external requirement of the structure is that of a system of legs or base to
position the structure in a horizontal position on the seabed. Therefore, any system

C.T.F. Ross / Ocean Engineering 32 (2005) 8599

93

developed here must be able to take account of the state of the seabed. If the seabed is not
flat and horizontal, it will be necessary to have adjustable legs.
3.2. Other external requirements
There are many other external requirements that are needed for the missile launcher;
these include:

Sonar system.
Lighting cameras.
Remote operated vehicles (ROVs).
Docking system.
Escape system.
This list is by no means complete and it will need further investigation.

3.3. Size of the toroid

From Fig. 2, it can be seen that the structure consists of an outer toroid and an inner
sphere, the two being joined by four connecting tunnels. It is suggested that the internal
diameter of the toroid be 10 m, so that the toroid will be large enough to handle large
equipment, where required. It can be separated by three levels; each about 3.33 m apart, on
average. The internal required volume of the toroid is likely to be in the region of
15,000 m3. Hence, if the toroid has an internal diameter of 10 m, it will require a mean
circumferential length of about 200 m. This equates to a toroid with a mean diameter of
about 64 m.
3.4. Central spherical shell
Based on the structural strength of thick-walled pressure vessels (Case et al., 1999) and
assuming that the wall thickness of the toroidal shell is to be the same as that of the sphere,
then the allowable internal diameter of the sphere can be approximately 20 m. Such a
sphere will yield an internal volume of approximately 33,500 m3; this may be more than
required to house the missiles, torpedoes, etc. A sphere with an internal diameter of 15 m
will yield an internal volume of 14,100 m3 and a sphere with an internal diameter of 10 m
will yield an internal volume of about 4190 m3. Naturally, of course, spheres of smaller
diameters can have smaller wall thicknesses.
It is suggested that the torpedoes can be launched at any angle, so that the can strike a
ship or submarine above, in the same way as surface launched missiles are aimed at
aircraft and rockets. It must be emphasised that as the missiles and torpedoes are being
launched from great depths, they must be stiffened by rings or corrugations (Ross, 2001) to
prevent their hulls from collapsing. Additionally, as these missiles have to be as light as
possible, it will be necessary to construct their pressure hulls from composites, as these
materials have better strength:weight ratios than metals and low weight is a high premium
for missiles.

94

C.T.F. Ross / Ocean Engineering 32 (2005) 8599

3.5. Connecting walkways

It is suggested that there should be four connecting walkways. From the calculations
regarding volumes, there appears to be enough space in the toroid and the sphere to
house all the equipment and because of this, the walkways need only be a means of
connecting the toroid to the central sphere. The walkways will simply be passage ways
for personnel and for moving equipment; they may also be used for exercise. It is
suggested that there should be four walkways and that each walkway should be of
internal diameter 7 m.

4. Material property requirements

Since the structure is to be designed for use up to depths of 5000 m, then the successful
development of such a system will depend on the availability of suitable materials of
construction. From previous work on submarines, it is already known that advanced
materials with diverse properties will be required. Whereas composites first come to mind,
complex alloys may also be used.
The materials for underwater pressure vessels must not only be capable of withstanding
very high external pressures, but must also have other suitable properties that can
withstand the environment.
Some of the required properties are as follows:
Good resistance to corrosion.
High strength:weight ratio: if the wall thickness is too large, the vessel will sink like a
stone.
Good sound absorption qualities.
Material costs.
Fabrication properties: can the vessel be manufactured easily in the chosen material?
Pressure hull design?
Susceptibility to temperature: fire protection?
Operating life span of the material.
Unfortunately, like most projects, there is not one material that is best for all the above
requirements.

4.1. Choice of material

The main materials for the design of submarine pressure hulls are:

High strength steels.

Aluminium alloys.
Titanium alloys.
Composites.

C.T.F. Ross / Ocean Engineering 32 (2005) 8599

95

4.1.1. General corrosion

In the marine environment, corrosion has been extensively studied and a lot of data
generated regarding corrosion rates. Hence, it is relatively easy to predict and to
compensate for.
The attack of submerged surfaces is governed principally by the rate of diffusion of
oxygen through layers of rust and marine organisms. With reference to steel, this amounts to
a loss of between 3 and 6 mm per year; it is substantially independent of water temperature
and tidal velocity, except that industrial pollution leads to higher rates of corrosion. Certain
marine organisms can also generate concentrated cell and sulphur effects (Haux, 1981).
4.1.2. Stress corrosion cracking
This is a form of localised failure which is more severe under the combined action of
stress and corrosion than would be expected if the two individual effects were added
together. There are many variables affecting the instigation of stress corrosion cracking
and amongst these are alloy composition, tensile stress (internal or applied), corrosive
environment, temperature and time. There are methods of relieving the internal stress and
it is possible to solve the susceptibility of materials to stress corrosion cracking by using
fracture mechanics. Thus, although this is a problem, it is one that can be reasonably well
predicted.
4.1.3. Other factors
These include:
Brittle fracture.
Fatigue fracture.
Problems induced through fabrication: for example, stresses induced by welding
together with the detrimental effects of heat affected zones, etc.

4.1.4. High strength steels

Table 3 shows the properties of some high strength steels that are popular with
submarine construction.
HY80 is the most commonly used of the high strength steels shown in Table 3; it is also
commonly used for commercial applications including pressure vessels, storage tanks and
merchant ships.
Table 3
Strength of high strength steels
Material

Specific density

Youngs modulus
(GPa)

Compressive yield
strength (MPa)

Heat treatment

HY80
HY100
HY130
HY180

7.8
7.8
7.8
7.8

207
207
207
207

550
690
890
1240

Q&T
Q&T
Q&T
Q&T

96

C.T.F. Ross / Ocean Engineering 32 (2005) 8599

Table 4
Strength of aluminium alloys
Material

Specific density

Tensile strength (MPa)

Proof stress 0.2% (MPa)

5086-H1116
6061-T6
7075-T6
7075-T73
L65

2.8
2.8
2.9
2.9
2.8

290
310
572
434

207
276
503
400
390

4.1.5. Aluminium alloys

From Table 4, it can be seen that aluminium alloys have a better strength:weight ratio
than high strength steels. Aluminium alloys are attractive as a construction material
because of their availability, low cost and fabricability, apart from their high strength:weight ratios. They have the disadvantage of being anodic to most other structural alloys
and are therefore vulnerable to corrosion when used in mixed structures, however, these
problems can be avoided by special design modifications (SNAME, 1990).
It is also difficult or impossible to obtain matching strength in weld metal and base
metal and it is therefore necessary for the welds to be thicker than the surrounding base
metal or for the welds to be located in light stress areas.
4.1.6. Titanium alloys
From Table 5, it can be seen that titanium alloys have an even greater strength:weight
ratio that aluminium alloys.
As titanium alloys have such a large strength:weight ratio, they are an ideal material to
be used for the pressure hulls of large submarines. Their big disadvantage is that there are
very expensive; they are about 5.5 times more expensive than aluminium alloys.
4.1.7. Composites
Table 6 shows the strength and relative costs of various composites.
The most commonly used composite for marine structures such as ships, etc., is GRP
based. The reason for this is partly that GRP has a very high strength:weight ratio and its
cost is relatively small when compared with other composites. Metal matrix composites
(MMC) have many advantages over GRPs and carbon fibre reinforced composites
(CFRP), but at the moment they are still in the development stages and their costs are very
high. If a structure is likely to suffer from structural buckling, it is better to use CFRPs
than GRPs, because the former has a much higher tensile modulus than the latter.
However, CFRPs are expensive.
Table 5
Strength of titanium alloys
Material

Specific density

UTS (MPa)

Yield strength (MPa)

6-4 alloy (annealed)

6-2-1-1 alloy
6-4 STOA alloy
C.P. Grade 2

4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5

896
869
870
345

827
724
830
276

C.T.F. Ross / Ocean Engineering 32 (2005) 8599

97

Table 6
Strength and relative costs of composites
Material

Specific
density

Fibre
volume
fraction

Tensile
modulus
(GPa)

Compressive strength
(MPa)

Relative
cost

GRP (Epoxy/S-glass unidirectional)

GRP (Epoxy/S-glass filament wound)
CFRP (Epoxy/HS unidirectional)
CFRP (Epoxy/HS filament wound)
MMC (6061 Al/SiC fibreUD)
MMC (6061 AL/Alumina Fibre UD)

2.1
2.1
1.7
1.7
2.7
3.1

0.67
0.67
0.67
0.67
0.5
0.5

65
50
210
170
140
190

1200
1000
1200
1000
3000
3100

1
3.2
3.0
5.1
11
15

4.2. Pressure hull designs

The general shape of the structure is a toroid surrounding a sphere, the two being
connected by four circular cylindrical walkways. As the structure is of large diameter and
it is intended to dive deep, it will be necessary to make the wall thicknesses very large.
This will mean that the vessel will not suffer structural buckling. Hence, it will not be
necessary to ring stiffen or corrugate the vessel. The vessel will be unstiffened.
4.3. Required wall thicknesses
4.3.1. Wall thickness calculations
Since the wall thicknesses are large in comparison with the diameters, it will be
sufficiently precise to calculate the toroidal and walkways thicknesses by the Lame line
(Case et al., 1999). Similarly, the wall thickness of the spherical shell can be calculated by
standard thick shell theory (Case et al., 1999).
Table 7
Toroidal wall thickness
Material

Specific
density

Yield
strength (MPa)

External diameter
(m)

Wall thickness
(m)

Aluminium alloy 7075-T6

Titanium alloy 6-4 STOA
GRP composite Epoxy/S-glass

2.9
4.5
2.1

503
830
1200

11.95
11.05
10.69

0.97
0.52
0.35

Table 8
Wall thickness for connecting walkways
Material

Specific density

Yield strength
(MPa)

External
diameter (m)

Wall thickness
(m)

Aluminium alloy 7075-T6

Titanium alloy 6-4 STOA
GRP composite Epoxy/S-glass

2.9
4.5
2.1

503
830
1200

8.36
7.34
7.49

0.68
0.37
0.24

98

C.T.F. Ross / Ocean Engineering 32 (2005) 8599

Table 9
Some sound absorption coefficients
Material

500 Hz

2000 Hz

Acoustic tiles on solid wall

Glass fibre 50 mm resin bonded
Marble on solid backing
Water, as in swimming pool

0.85
0.70
0.01
0.01

0.65
0.75
0.02
0.02

According to these theories, the calculated wall thicknesses of the toroid and
connecting walkways are given in Tables 7 and 8 for aluminium alloy, titanium alloy
and GRP; the calculated wall thicknesses for high-strength steel are not give as the
strength:weight ratios for high-strength steel are much too low to be used for this vessel.
The wall thickness for the sphere is not given as it is uncertain what the diameter of the
spherical will be. However, the wall thickness of the spherical shell will be in the same
order as the figures given in Tables 7 and 8.
From Tables 7 and 8, it can be seen that it is virtually impossible to construct this
structure in a metal, as the wall thicknesses are much too large. Additionally, even if it
were possible to construct the structure in a metal, the structure will have no reserve
buoyancy and will it sink like a stone to the oceans bottom. In contrast to these arguments,
the structure can be built in GRP by laying layer upon layer. Construction can be aided by
building the structure in smaller components, which will later be bolted together as
described in Section 2. Additionally, buoyancy calculations on this structure show that it
will have adequate reserve buoyancy, so that by the use of buoyancy tanks, it will be
possible to raise and lower the structure in the water. Additionally, GRP has good sound
absorption coefficients so that the vessel will be difficult to detect by the enemy and make
the noise levels within the vessel tolerable; see Table 9.
From Table 9, it can be seen that glass fibre has a sound absorption coefficient as good
as an acoustic tile.

5. Conclusions
Previous design studies carried in the 1960s and 1970s show that the present concept
can be built with present day technology.
Problems may occur with the slow build up of contaminants in the atmosphere and from
time to time the vessel may need purging. This will be lessened to some extent, as the crew
will probably work in two or three rota shifts. Considerations must be made so that the
crew does not suffer from physiological and psychological problems.
Outside support of the vehicle from mini and other submarines will not be easy.
However, such a vessel should prove suitable for defence purposes as the enemy will
find the vessel very difficult to trace.
The use of universally adopted hatch covers for submarines and submersibles should be
given much consideration to aid rescue missions.

C.T.F. Ross / Ocean Engineering 32 (2005) 8599

99

The plan view of the main hull need not be a toroid, but can be of octahedral, or of
hexagonal or of similar form.
The use of nuclear power to produce electricity for the vessel should prove quite
satisfactory.
If a GRP composite is used, the vessel will have sufficient reserve buoyancy to be raised
and lowered in the water. Additionally, the good sound absorption qualities of a GRP
composite will make the vessel difficult to detect by the enemy and should also make noise
levels inside the vessel tolerable.

References
Case, J., Chilver, L., Ross, C.T.F., 1999. Strength of Materials and Structures. ButterworthHeinemann, Oxford,
UK.
Haux, G., 1981. Subsea Manned Engineering. Balliere Tindall, London.
Ross, C.T.F., 1992. The Silent Submarine, Inaugural Lecture. University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, UK. Also
from the web site with the following URL: http://www.tfross.freeserve.co.uk
Ross, C.T.F., 2001. Pressure Vessels: External Pressure Technology. Horwood, Chichester, UK.
Ross, C.T.F., Laffoley-Lane, G., 1998. A conceptual design of an underwater drilling rig. SNAME Journal of
Marine Technology 35, 99113.
Smith, C.S., 1990. Design of Marine Structures in Composite Materials. Elsevier, UK.
SNAME, 1990, Submersible Vehicles Design, USA.