Submarine Facts: Single Versus Double Hull Submarines
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 27 сен 2024
- What you need to know about this important topic in submarine history. The United States and Western nations build single hull submarines, while Russia and China build double hull subs. What's the difference and which is best? As usual this is unscripted and unedited, just raw defense analyst sharing knowledge
![State of Play | September 24, 2024 [ENGLISH]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/fVs0suPHAX8/mqdefault.jpg)
"this is useful information if you ever want to get involved in an argument on the internet or something important like that". Pure gold
It's amazing he knew exactly my favorite activity.
Man knows his audience
Also very useful if you are building your own private sub force... GET BACK TO WORK VASILLI. !!!
@@petersellers9219 Vasilli: "Awwww, I wanted to see Montana!"
@@petersellers9219every time someone does it tends to draw bad press, like that Madsen guy and the recent debacle. The notable exception is Euronaut they seem to have their shit together but they’re German building submarines is in their blood
"You put the water outside and the people inside".
How to prove you're an engineer in 10 seconds.
How you explain engineering to management 101
"That's what I've been doing wrong all these years!"
@@onetwo5155 Only if you have reasonably bright management who understand why the opposite is a bad thing.
Are we still doing burns on OceanGate or that was last month?
@@Peizxcv you mean when they tried the third hull type?
The collapsible.
Thanks for making these videos publicly accessible and free when the quality therein could easily be of commercial value since you are in my opinion the "go-to" OSINT analyst for anything naval.
When an HI sutton video drops I get excited
I would love to see a video where you talk about the recent advancements and innovations in submarine technology that we know off or can reasonably speculate about.
Like the stealthy German U-boat 212CD. Columbia and SSN-X. Dreadnought and SNLE-3G.
he did mention 212cd in some of older videos and explained how it is suppose to work. at least i think it was his video. but before it is build its hard to talk much about it i guess
It would be a great video. Unfortunately, it would be (a) pure speculation since all of the boats mentioned, especially the SSBNs, are highly classified; and (b) if the speculation became ‘too accurate’ I am sure he’d get an email or call asking him to tone down stuff.
Thus, like discussions on 5th Gen stealth, all we will have access to is low-level, generally-inaccurate, speculation.
Which is a good thing.
I helped build SSBs in the early 1980’s. It was need to know and sanitized blueprints with just your specific project IF you had DoD clearance.
Guarantee you that 99.9999 percent of those subs plans and spec.s are STILL classified.
@@kraitshakti From who would he get a call to tune down speculation, lol? If anything that usually backfires, we take freedom of speech rather serious in the west. Also would be kinda stupid, considering it would confirm the speculation.
Exception being if hes professional involved in secret programs, but thats a different topic and usually come with NDAs anyway.
@@kraitshakti I think we can make reasonable assumptions by looking at previously known tech and combine with what was being researched at the time, as well as latest more basic scientific and engineering advancements. Of course not details but more general directions of advancements.
Color me enlightened! 🙂 I have always associated 'double hull' with the ballast tanks down the side of the vessel (i.e., the old WWII-style subs), and single hull with the tanks fore and aft. I have also seen it stated that double hulls gave some standoff protection from torpedo hits.
Thanks for clarifying such a seemingly self-evident topic!
I love your videos. The amount of information we have access to today is incredible.
oceans of information but barely a drop of wisdom
@@likemostthings Wisdom would create better choices, which just isn't profitable lol
Regarding "Reserve Buoyancy", it's true that double-hull designs have a reserve displacement greater than single-hull units. However, when attempting to recover to the surface, double-hull units are required to drag the weight of all of the seawater filling their free-flood areas with them in their attempt to reach the surface.
Single-hull units, in contrast, need only to dewater the flooded areas of the pressure hull while attempting to reach the surface. Something western submarine crews regularly practice.
i am speaking in layman level here (i have no knowledge on hydrostatic or hydrodynamic mechanisms),
but the large reserve bouyancy of soviet double-hull designs may be useful in the situation where they need to break through the arctic ice to surface
soviet submarine's double-hull design choice might have came from the submarine warfare doctrine of hiding under the ice (where iceberg background noise is noisy enough to obscure the submarine's noise)
I have been waiting for this video for ages and thank you for this amazing video.
My pleasure!
The best part is this knowledge is applicable to so many things: cashews, fortune cookies, easter eggs, etc. Pure gold!
Love all your analysis on these boats. It's always a good day when one of your videos pop! Thanks H.I.
Since I am sure someone out there has contemplated a TRIPLE-hulled sub, I have seized the innovation tiger by the horns and I am now researching the HALF-hulled sub.
it was the Netherlands Navy submarines with that design, but it was a double-hulled design with 3-5 inner hulls, not triple-hulled (triple-hulled means that the submarine would have 3 hull layers between the crew and the water)
btw, half-hulled are single-hulled subs with some double-hulled section (but not the whole boat, it would be double-hulled if the outer hull fully covers the inner hull)
Clicked on the video because the submarine to the right looked like the Kosatka.
Ended up learning alot.
Mr. Sutton,why do some submarines have their dive planes on the sail and others mounted on the hull?🤔
Thanks for the fine presentation!
2 videos in a week?! ❤
You missed the post ww2 Dutch triple hull design of the “Potvis”- and “Dolfijn” class (Total of 4 built,, one survivor now part of the “naval museum” in Den Helder). Bottom two cilinders housed batteries and propulsion, top cilinder housing accomodation and weapon systems. Smaller cilinders forming pressure hull allowed for greater diving depth.
Fascinating submarine. They were double-hulled, but with three inner hulls within a single outer hull
Here is a quick article I did on some of the WW2 designs which led to the Dolfijn class www.hisutton.com/Dutch_WW2_Subs.html
The Soviets gained much experience in building double hull designs from Germany indirectly with the type IX U-boat and directly from the type XXI U-boat. The project 613 (Whiskey class) submarine in particular was heavily influenced by the type XXI. The type XXI being the first post war SSK.
Thank you so much for releasing another video so soon after your last! I love your content and expertise!
"I'm not a naval architect" says the guy who can draw submarine cutaway drawings in MS Paint.
Don't sell yourself short, Mr. Sutton 😄
I've been informed that naval architects don't use MS Paint
Your artwork is amazing! A video where you talk about how you render out your drawings would be interesting, I think.
Best submarine channel on RUclips, thanks
I would like to hear more about France's "complicated case", did they do both types of subs?
Agosta class was hard to categorize.
It's interesting that the soviet MIC was, as a trope, positioned for quantity and low cost in many cases compared to the west (tanks, small arms, etc.) but they went with double hulls on their subs.
Nice. Would love to see you do a video on the new US Dry Combat Submersible which just achieved IOC. And also the possibility of it being armed with Black Scorpion torpedoes.
HI we love your highly detailed very informative videos. Fascinating. Thank you so much
Glad you like them!
1. Is double hull like double-pane windows in that they're better at thermal and sonic insulation?
2. Is the outer hull also a pressure vessel or is it just watertight?
3. Does double hull act like a Whipple shield in case of shrapnel or other projectile attack? Or is that just not a factor since anti-sub weapons are all blast-based?
4. Does the outer hull give the sub more resilience to impacts (eg on undersea terrain, fishing boats, ice)?
Thanks.
1. submarine noise reduction is a complex & multi-factor topic (including stuffs like propeller noise or crew training), so the sonic insulation from double-hull is only a minor factor
2. outer hull is just watertight, but lightweight and thin-case so its not a pressure vessel
=> 4. its not really resilient to impact, being usually thin-case like that
3. anti-sub weapons are all blast-based, so its not a factor; in double hull case, the inner pressure hull is the hull being shaken & ruptured (whereas in the single hull case, the only hull there is would be the one getting shaken & ruptured)
Hi Mr h.i Hutton can you please do a video or videos on midget submarines and human torpedoes and combat swimmer's
Wonder if the “stealth” outer hulls will be composite to save weight and help make the sonar return.
Another great video.
I would think that a double hull would just add another layer of complication. Meaning more individual spaces to inspect. But, with all the advancements in metal alloys and other chemicals, it might not actually be as much of an issue as I thought.
I love your content! Would you please consider making a video on the Typhoon? I'm very curious about how the hulls are connected, how crew transits through the 5 hulls, what you suspect protocol was for sealing the hulls during battle stations, even what you suspect the diameter of each hull is as I suspect they are each actually narrower and less spacious per hull then a traditionally laid out SSBN considering the beam is 25m but there is a lot of space between hulls, etc. Very curious on your perspective! In any case, thanks for all the great content!
I plan to make a Typhoon video, time allowing.
I do not know about the protocols aboard them however, sorry
@@HISuttonCovertShores Awesome, thank you!
Great as always. I must watch it again. Very informative.
Fuck it, we're going FIVE hulls!
So each type has advantages, but why exactly did the various countries go with the type they did?
H.I. Informative as always sir; thank you!
Can you make a video talking about the s80 class submarine?
It was my impression that in a true double-hulled sub both hulls contribute to the strength of the pressure hull.
In other words, both hulls are load bearing, in contrast with submarines with some non-structural external casing that's there for hydrodynamic or acoustic reasons.
Thank you. Interesting.
I know nothing about this sort of subject but and find the information fascinating. Thanks for these informal presentations. I wonder if you might as part or whole of some future youtube chat about the trade offs for drone or autonomous underwater weapons related to maximizing the chances of sinking vessels mainly designed for hauling cargos. In the attack by a surface drone on a Russian vessel "Sig" a few days ago, the charge apparently was not shaped, so damage was less than would it have been if blast force was focused into the ship. Also, it was noted that the location of the strike might have been chosen to maximize the chance the freighter might break in two. I recall that charges for tirpitz were intended to maximize blast effect by seting them off under the ship in order to maximize chances this would severely damage the keel and other hull structures. I wonder what the sorts of approaches (type, size, and location of detonation), would be more optimal for an underwater drone or autonomous torpedo intended to sink a tanker, freighter or landing ship the size of the Sig.
5:32 also shout out to North Korean domestic (non-USSR) submarines being mostly single hull (& midget)
and on the double hull side, we have good guy countries like the Netherlands & recently Taiwan (which learnt from Dutch double hull designs), although i dont know exactly why the Netherlands chose to continue with the double hull design
Haven watched the video yet but my take is it doesn't matter. Much more important is how quiet the submarine is and how good its sensors are.
That was very interesting indeed. I'm just lacking someone to argue with... Any volunteers?
I would have assumed that double hulls would be quieter or atleast have to potential to be easily made quieter because sound dampening could be placed between the hulls.
Love it, more content, you and sub brief second to none 👍
Somewhat unrelated question for H I Sutton. In the recent internet deluge of "expert opinions" on submarine and submersibles, a retired US Navy submariner was quoted a saying the rate of dive affects the crush depth. Is this true? In know that the strength of steel or titanium is measured by slowly stretching or bending a sample (low strain rate) and the impact resistance (toughness) is measured by hitting a notched sample very quickly with a falling pendulum (high strain rate). It is hard for me to imagine that a submarine can dive fast enough that the materials experience the high strain rates of a Charpy impact test. Of course toughness would be important to resist underwater explosions and shell impacts.
fantastic, thanks!
Thank you
As always
:)
My pleasure!
"But this is useful information of you ever want to get involved in an argument on the internet or something else important like that" hahahaha
Self deprecating humour and not taking yourself and what you're saying too seriously speaks so well for someone's character in my view. It genuinely makes me take what you're saying more seriously.
I like your last point. As stealth becomes more important in sub design, double hull will become more common.
Awesome!
single hull is tracked back to the HL hunley era EH
"Water on the outside, people on the inside" Ooohhhhh so that's what I've been doing wrong all this time.
Outer hull can absorb some of the blast shock reaching inner hull
- outer hull is usually thin & lightweight, so it's unlikely it could absorb much of the energy
- there are usually ballast tanks between the outer hull & inner hull, and the water in these ballast tanks can still reliably transfer most of the blastwave to rupture the inner hull
@@tranquoccuong890-its-orge note there is water in between hulls another benefit of double hull is you can place tanks outside of main hull
Wouldn't a single hull lend itself to a quiter boat due to stiffness and rigidity? The outer hull/casing of a double hull is going to be less rigid and stiff as it doesn't need to withstand diving pressures, therefore more susceptible reverberations. I guess what you're saying is ultinately correct though - it's the sound deadening technologies that drive down the quietness.
Does a double hull not increase the stiffness of the hull for the same amount of material? So increase its buckling strength and allow for deeper dives. It should work just like an H-beam or a honeycomb structure
of course, a double hull is better, which is why Russian submarines feel better in the Arctic ocean where they have to surface breaking several meters of ice with their hull, including that's why double hulls are made in Russia because of the Arctic ice
0:21 showing a Akula might be a bit missleading as it has actually 5 pressure hulls 😂
Next, pros & cons pump-jet propulsion. And why there's no double pump-jet propulsion ? 😊
Try this ruclips.net/video/ugSEIiTZ1Pg/видео.html
Single is easier to inspect and repair.
Heads up, your description says both 'sides' use double hull.
Thanks, fixed
Regards the myths, I wonder how much of that came from the Tom Clancy era?
@HISuttonCovertShores
5:30 What about Japan and Spian subs?
So, the hulls systems doesn't affect the noise levels?
not inherently. You could argue that double hulls allow more space/layers of sound insulation but the specific quietening tech is a much bigger factor.
@@HISuttonCovertShores can you do a video on sound suppression next pls
I've heard the big Soviet double-hull boats (Nato-code Tyfoon etc.) which had the reputation in the west of being able to take a single torpedo hit and survive couldn't due to the venting system connecting both hulls.
Does anybody know if this is true or not?
unrelated but when a double-hull sub getting a torpedo blast, the inner hull - the pressure hull - is the hull being shook & ruptured (the damage to the lighter outer hull is not important), so the damage is roughly the same as against a single hull submarine
Video/Article idea/topic: Air management in Submarines. Both Nuclear and conventional submarines need to provide a breathable atmosphere. Nuclear submarines as far as I know, use electrolisis as well as CO2 scrubbers powered by their reactors to extend divetimes indefinitly. Do AIP Submarines have any technologies that extend the time between needing to replenish air?
It was eluded to in the AIP video I belive.
as far as i know, not much
AIP only provide extra power to the battery so the sub doesnt need to surface as frequently as non-AIP (pure diesel-electric) subs to run the diesel generator
not enough to power electrolyser for new oxygen like with nuclear power
any other non-electricity-dependant like purely-chemical CO2 scrubber or oxygen candles can also be installed on a non-AIP sub
I was just thinking about stealthy double hull submarine and specifically if there's any reason you couldn't use the space for a flow battery anolyte and catholyte tanks? There's lots of research being done into different chemical solutions and membranes for grid storage but since they're liquids it would kinda make sense for subs.
I was thinking that a double hull is ok if you cannot ensure that the cylindricity of the pressure hull for a given diameter. The smaller the diameter of a pressure vessel for a set thickness, the larger internal or external pressures it can take. Though I guess the stiffeners can strengthen it. For something like the Typhoon, it is more practical to have essentially two large pressure hulls and a launch complex inside a flatter cylinder instead of one very large circular hull.
5:31 Where would India fit in? Double hull, I assume, since they seem to be following the Soviet/Russian pattern?
Double, although French and German designed single-hull boats are also present
Single hull carbon fibre with Logitech controller are the strongest of all. Prove me wrong!
8:07 what is more efficient? i mean about what efficiency do we talk about where double hull is more streamlined?
With a double hull, you are pushing a larger object through the water for a given displacement, thus it is less efficient for any given engine power. The double hull also requires more openings, which can reduce efficiency by increasing the drag of even the most streamlined hull.👍
There is another reason why the German Type 212 is of a double hull design, other than stealthyness. The hydrogen used to power the fuel cell is stored in between the two hulls, thus keeping them outside of the crew compartment (for quite obvious reasons since hydrogen is known to go boom easily and violently 😂).
Also the hydrogen containers for its fuel cells stored outside the pressure hull.
TIL: I might be colourblind... the inner line is red the outer yellow... 3:35 ????
Yaas!
are the double hulls linked? ie can crew go between both??
Netherland and Japan built double hull submarines in Cold War.
So if i can move equipment outside the pressure hull with a double hull design, then for the same internal usable volume of the pressure hull, i could have a smaller radius tube.
Doesn't that mean i get an advantage in weight for the design to reach a specific deeper maximum depth?
Double hull comes with a weight penalty, but boyency wise, you could more easily have a very deep diving design to be safely boyent with smaller hull(s)
Have you made a video about how submarines control buoyancy ? ?
What about the WW 2 Japanese I-400 submarine, double hull, that carried airplanes.? The USS Segundo (SS398) captured one (The crew surrendered) at the end of WW 2.
How do the European subs compare with each other?
why is double hull more streamlined yet less efficient in the water? and does more streamlined automatically mean more stealthy?
The outer hull of a double-hull boat can be streamlined into the optimum hydrodynamic shape, but at the same time it's increasing the wetted area of the boat because the surface area is larger.
What about no hull? Ie a carbon fibre design
Both are good but nothing beats a carbon fiber hull.
Everyone knows more hulls is more better. I refuse to get into a submarine with fewer than four hulls.
The best Submarine is the one thats left at the end.
The saddle tanks were for fuel.
I think the ability to encase the abnormal shapes intoi a streamlined shell , as well as use that extra space for fuel, ballast, etc is a compelling argument in favor of double hull.
But I couldn't tell you if it's increased size would completely negate these advantages or not, that's down to pure numbers and I don't have them.
To one degree the difference is fairly meaningless between the two. Structural rigidity of a submarine is mainly achieved by relying on the fact that non circular shapes tends to have areas of higher stress, requiring an uneven amount of strength throughout the structure making it more challenging to design and build.
In a world before computers, and even today with them. It isn't fun to have to make considerations for variations in strain, it is a lot of work figuring out where extra strength is needed and where it isn't. And making suitably smooth transitions in rigidity is likewise important, else one just "moves" the high stress area to new places. Simply stated, a box implodes more easily than a tube.
Now a tube alone is fairly flimsy, and why reinforcement rings are used.
Placing them on the "outside" of our primary hull means that we will have the rings "pull" our hull into shape. While if the rings are inside they will "push" our hull into shape. The rings are technically in compression in both cases, however having the rings outside of the hull will see some of the rings be in tension. Now, steel is quite great at tension and compression, so it won't care.
But logically speaking, a double hull could use its outer hull to reduce pressure from the internal hull. That is however only true if the outer hull is water tight and able to regulate its internal pressure through some mechanism. This is not hard in the slightest to implement, a fluid "isn't compressible" but we can give it room to flow into to reduce its internal pressure such that the outer hull "compresses" to carry the burden of the water pressure outside. This in turn leaves less pressure for the internal hull to carry.
Though, spreading the pressure between two hulls isn't inherently meaning that one can dive deeper. If one's diving limit is mainly due to the structural rigidity of one's reinforcement rings, then one won't really add anything of note, since both hulls rely on those rings carrying the bulk of the burden. Ie, both approaches can simply strengthen their rings, or add more of them.
The point where the debate of who goes deeper starts to be interesting is when one's hull plates gets so thick that they become hard to deal with. At some point it isn't easy to ensure a good weld between two slabs of steel. Here the double hull approach has the upper hand if one actually uses both hulls as a pressure vessel. Since one can effectively work with half the material thickness for the same overall strength in the end.
But in the end. Most double hulled submarines to what I have heard don't seem to actually use their outer hull for anything else than make a more streamlined design.
And then we haven't even touched on the subject of inspecting the structure over the time, checking for rust and such. Here the single hulled design is quite practical, no tight squeezes into flooded spaces necessary to inspect the critical aspects of what makes the submarine not implode.
I will win now every argument with my wife
SP Squid Propulsion
Just take my money already
I’m not biased or nationalistic, I just know that the subs that I served on were the best!
What about the netherlands?
mostly double-hulled, funnily enough
also counting their derivative designs in service with the taiwanese navy (hai kun class & tai lung class)
double hull for the win !!!!
Another pro of double hull is it works with multi pressure hull designs like typhoon and lawshark
Someone told me that double hull is generally better and safer for breaking through ice and that's one reason why the Russians like them. The Russians tend to operate more around the north pole and the Barents Sea than the USA does.
Some sense because of the reserve buoyancy, but overall it's not the biggest factor for arctic ops. Submarines have to be hardened to break through the ice and USN and RN use single-hull subs.
Well ive learned either Sutton is yellow color blind, or maybe Im green colorblind? Anybody, is that line yellow or green 3:20 lol? also Yugoslavia doesnt exist anymore.
NOt sure what is meant by "streamlining". Are we talking interior space configuration (i.e. layout of quarters, mess, control, and so on) or are we talking something else here? Also not really sure that the double hull allows for more flexibility in outer hull design in any real and meaningful way, as hydrodynamics is the ultimate limiting factor in the design of the hull that is in contact with the water. This is part of the reason that US single hulls subs are more efficient and have less drag resistance, because the hydrodynamic shape was the first consideration and all internals were designed around fitting everything into the most "efficient" hull shape. Also I question the "reserve buoyancy" argument. Reserve buoyancy is only really a beneficial factor for surface ships which are design to not sink to begin with, whereas having to overcome reserve buoyancy can actually be a negative thing for a submarine. If you have to counter extra buoyancy to dive, then you also have to counter extra water weight to surface. See the problem here? IF anything this entire video just highlights the benefits of single hull design.
about the large reserve buoyancy offered by double hull design, i guess it was partly a design choice by the soviet navy when it needs its boats to be able to break through surface sea ice (especially on the arctic sea);
larger reserve buoyancy = stronger upward buoyant force, as per archimedes' principle
Embraer E2 usea the same engine
Note to myself:
Sutton is good in painting submarine cutaways, bad as submarine knowledge source.
What I'd like to know is why there aren't any submarine carriers yet.
I know subs can launch drones but those are ONLY the size of a torpedo which seems incredibly limiting to me.
I don't see a way for a torpedo-sized drone to fit a proper powerful active sonar which is something I imagine a drone would be most useful for. And of course a torpedo-sized drone by definition can't carry a full sized torpedo which means every single torpedo must be the super expensive wire guided single use drone all by itself rather than having all the expensive bits return to you after use.
It's possible to carry or tow a special forces midget sub, but this is a pretty specialized purpose. The big question is ... what else can a midget sub do for you?
I do think a reusable torpedo drone is a cool idea, but maybe a drone "tender" model makes more sense than a "carrier". The logistics of taking a drone internally, going into the pressure hull just so humans can reload it, and then launching ... seems like a nightmare and a recipe for disaster.
In contrast, imagine a drone that "lands" on the outside of the submarine, so a robotic arm can resupply it. Seems less hazardous, right?
Okay, let's simplify it even further, with aerial refueling ideas. To recharge the drone, the submarine tows a recharging drogue. The drone inserts a nose probe, and voila! Your drones can swim along, taking turns recharging.
Armament can be similarly supplied. The drogue is used to tow a wire powered torpedo. The drone's nose probe inserts into the tail of the torpedo. The drone simply pushes the torpedo until it nears the target. Then, the torpedo powers up, trailing a wire that provides it power and commands. This is not a very long wire. Just needs to be long enough to allow the drone to survive the explosion.
The point is, the torpedo doesn't need any smarts, and it doesn't even need a battery.
Alternatively, the drone could be supplied with a missile launcher. The launcher is towed by the sub, and the drone's nose probe inserts into it. The drone then climbs to the surface and pokes the launcher above water. Launch!
Hmm ... the resulting drone supply sub could be a pretty interesting design. It doesn't need big torpedo tubes or missile launch cells.
@@IsaacKuo This was essentialy my carrier line of thinking. I wasn't going for a breach in the pressurized hull because of the same things you listed but simply a side bay with a bottom door has all those above advantages plus it can be drained of water for some better maintenance on the drones.
And yes, a drone can easily pop up on the surface, bring out a radar mast, launch a few anti-air missiles and never put the carrier sub in any extra danger. As well as do many other things less overt than that.
The simple towed drone army that you propose is probably a very painless way to get started in that direction.