miércoles, 4 de julio de 2007
DEFENSA CHINA DE ACTUALIDAD
Home Navy Naval Missiles 3M-54E1 (SS-N-27)
3M-54E (SS-N-27) ANTI-SHIP CRUISE MISSILE
In 2005~06, the PLA Navy (PLAN) received six improved Project 636M (Kilo class) diesel-electric submarines which are fitted with the advanced ‘Club’ anti-ship weapon complex designed by Russian Novator Bureau. The system features the 3M-54E (NATO codename: SS-N-27 Sizzler) subsonic anti-ship cruise missile (ASCM) with a maximum range of 220~300km. The ‘Club’ weapon system is available in two versions: the surface-ship-based Club-N and the submarine-based Club-S, both of which employs unified combat assets – two types of anti-ship cruise missiles and a type of ballistic anti-submarine missile.
The ‘Club’ weapon system includes a number of different variant missiles including the anti-ship variants 3M-54 and 3M-54E1, and the anti-submarine variant 91RE1. It is still not clear which variant the PLAN is operating on its Project 636M Kilo class submarines. The 3M-54E1 is a 300km-range subsonic anti-ship cruise variant similar to the U.S. Tomahawk. The 3M-54E variant with a shorter range is based on the subsonic stage of the 3M-54E1 but use a rocket-propelled second stage which is released 20~60km from the target. This second stage then accelerates to Mach 3 to defeat ship defences. Both missiles in the ‘Club’ weapon complex use a common active radar guidance system and both fly a low-altitude sea-skimming mission profile. The missile is launched from the torpedo tubes of the submarine.
SPECIFICATIONS
3M-54E 3M-54TE 3M-54E1 3M-54TE1 91RE1 91RE2
Length (m) 8.220 8.916 6,200 8,916 8,000 6,500
Diameter (m) 0.533 0.645 0.533 0.645 0.533 0.533
Weight (kg) 2,300 1,951 1,780 1,505 2,050 1,300
Warhead (kg) 200 200 400 400 76 76
Range (km) 220 220 300 275 50 40
Max speed (Mach) 0.6~0.8; (terminal 3) 0.6~0.8 0.6~0.8 0.6~0.8 0.6~0.8 0.6~0.8
Guidance Inertial + active radar Inertial
Flight profile Low altitude sea-skimming Ballistic
This page was last updated 27 April 2006
Copyright © 2002-2006 Chinese Defence Today. All rights reserved
About us | Contact us | Privacy | Site Map | Bookstore
Web www.sinodefence.com
3M-54E (SS-N-27) ANTI-SHIP CRUISE MISSILE
In 2005~06, the PLA Navy (PLAN) received six improved Project 636M (Kilo class) diesel-electric submarines which are fitted with the advanced ‘Club’ anti-ship weapon complex designed by Russian Novator Bureau. The system features the 3M-54E (NATO codename: SS-N-27 Sizzler) subsonic anti-ship cruise missile (ASCM) with a maximum range of 220~300km. The ‘Club’ weapon system is available in two versions: the surface-ship-based Club-N and the submarine-based Club-S, both of which employs unified combat assets – two types of anti-ship cruise missiles and a type of ballistic anti-submarine missile.
The ‘Club’ weapon system includes a number of different variant missiles including the anti-ship variants 3M-54 and 3M-54E1, and the anti-submarine variant 91RE1. It is still not clear which variant the PLAN is operating on its Project 636M Kilo class submarines. The 3M-54E1 is a 300km-range subsonic anti-ship cruise variant similar to the U.S. Tomahawk. The 3M-54E variant with a shorter range is based on the subsonic stage of the 3M-54E1 but use a rocket-propelled second stage which is released 20~60km from the target. This second stage then accelerates to Mach 3 to defeat ship defences. Both missiles in the ‘Club’ weapon complex use a common active radar guidance system and both fly a low-altitude sea-skimming mission profile. The missile is launched from the torpedo tubes of the submarine.
SPECIFICATIONS
3M-54E 3M-54TE 3M-54E1 3M-54TE1 91RE1 91RE2
Length (m) 8.220 8.916 6,200 8,916 8,000 6,500
Diameter (m) 0.533 0.645 0.533 0.645 0.533 0.533
Weight (kg) 2,300 1,951 1,780 1,505 2,050 1,300
Warhead (kg) 200 200 400 400 76 76
Range (km) 220 220 300 275 50 40
Max speed (Mach) 0.6~0.8; (terminal 3) 0.6~0.8 0.6~0.8 0.6~0.8 0.6~0.8 0.6~0.8
Guidance Inertial + active radar Inertial
Flight profile Low altitude sea-skimming Ballistic
This page was last updated 27 April 2006
Copyright © 2002-2006 Chinese Defence Today. All rights reserved
About us | Contact us | Privacy | Site Map | Bookstore
Web www.sinodefence.com
ARGENTINA INVESTIGACION APLICADA (invap)
Contractors
Investigacion Aplicada (INVAP) is a state owned company of the Province of Río Negro, Argentina, with headquarters in San Carlos de Bariloche where the company was created in 1976. As a technology-based company INVAP develops state of the art Custom Designed Technology in a number of areas such as Nuclear, Space, Medical, Environmental and Industrial to meet the requirements of its customers. A staff of 320 work at INVAP, 72% of which are professionals and specialized technicians. INVAP started as a supplier in the Nuclear field, having fully developed and built the Uranium Enrichment Plant for the National Commission of Nuclear Energy [CNEA].
RESOURCES
Investigacion Aplicada (INVAP)
Investigacion Aplicada (INVAP) is a state owned company of the Province of Río Negro, Argentina, with headquarters in San Carlos de Bariloche where the company was created in 1976. As a technology-based company INVAP develops state of the art Custom Designed Technology in a number of areas such as Nuclear, Space, Medical, Environmental and Industrial to meet the requirements of its customers. A staff of 320 work at INVAP, 72% of which are professionals and specialized technicians. INVAP started as a supplier in the Nuclear field, having fully developed and built the Uranium Enrichment Plant for the National Commission of Nuclear Energy [CNEA].
RESOURCES
Investigacion Aplicada (INVAP)
ARGENTINA..MISILES Y PODER NUCLEAR
Missile Programs
Argentina was working, at varying levels of commitment, with Egypt and Iraq on the Condor II (Egyptian designation Badr-2000) medium-range surface-to-surface missile (SSM) from 1984 until May 1991, when Argentina's minister of defense announced the project's demise. Just how far along the missile's development progressed remains unclear. Iraq withdrew from the project in 1988, as its own missile program flourished. According to one Argentine press account, the missile was tested in March 1989 over a 504 km distance in Patagonia. But according to another report, the first test flight was planned for 1989, and it now appears that the missile was never flight tested.
The Condor II drew on the technology of the Condor I, a single-stage, solid-fuel sounding rocket, with a range/payload capability of 100 km/400 kg, which Argentina manufactured in the late 1970s. Argentine officials maintained that the Condor II was part of a peaceful satellite launch program, devoid of military objectives, but the project drew much attention and criticism. Britain, especially, was and remains concerned that the Condor's 1,000 km range would allow a strike on the Falkland Islands (Malvinas), while Israel continues to be concerned that the Egyptian and Iraqi ties to the project might presage its spread throughout the Middle East. Israel reportedly asked Argentina to drop Egypt from the venture and promised the delivery of twelve aircraft - said to have been embargoed in response to the Falklands War - in return.
In early 1993 Argentina's government decided to hand over most of the components of the secretive Condor II ballistic missile project to the United States for destruction.
In March 1995, Argentine Defense Minister Oscar Camilion said that Argentina is restudying its missile program in the context of space exploration. All missile developments, indigenous or purchased from another country, would take place within the limits set by the MTCR, which Argentina joined in 1991 when it abandoned the Condor II project.
The remaining ballistic missile in service in Argentina is the Alacran (200 km/500 kg). (6) 1. According to Carus and Bermudez,
RESOURCES
Nuclear Weapons Program
Argentina pursued a covert nuclear weapons program for many years, refused to accede to the NPT, and did not sign the Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America (the Tlatelolco Treaty). A gaseous diffusion enrichment plant was built. Construction of reprocessing facilities was pursued for some years, but was suspended in 1990. A number of sites and facilities were developed for uranium mining, milling, and conversion, and for fuel fabrication. A missile development program was pursued for some years. Argentina's nuclear program was supported by a number of countries: power reactors were supplied by Canada and West Germany, a heavy water plant was supplied by Switzerland, and the Soviet Union was another supplier of nuclear equipment. Hot cells operated from 1969-1972, with no international safeguards; figures on the amount of spent fuel treated in the hot cells vary greatly.
In 1992 Argentina constructed with Brazil a bilateral arrangement to place both countries' nuclear material and facilities under their mutual supervision, and signed along with Brazil a comprehensive safeguards agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency. On 24 March 1993 the Argentine Senate ratified the Treaty of Tlatelolco, moving Argentina one step closer to becoming the 25th country to join the 1967 agreement calling for a nuclear-free zone in Latin America and the Caribbean.
In February 1995 Argentina acceded to the NPT as a non-nuclear weapon state. The European Union said that Argentina's accession to the NPT confirms its commitment to nuclear non-proliferation, already demonstrated by the quadripartite agreement on nuclear safeguards concluded among Argentina, Brazil, ABACC (Argentinean-Brazilian Agency for Accounting and Control) and IAEA, and by the Treaty of Tlateloco.
RESOURCES
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAS | Nuke | Guide | Argentina |||| Index | Search |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/argentina/nuke/
Maintained by Webmaster
Updated Saturday, October
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAS | Nuke | Guide | Argentina |||| Index | Search |
Argentina was working, at varying levels of commitment, with Egypt and Iraq on the Condor II (Egyptian designation Badr-2000) medium-range surface-to-surface missile (SSM) from 1984 until May 1991, when Argentina's minister of defense announced the project's demise. Just how far along the missile's development progressed remains unclear. Iraq withdrew from the project in 1988, as its own missile program flourished. According to one Argentine press account, the missile was tested in March 1989 over a 504 km distance in Patagonia. But according to another report, the first test flight was planned for 1989, and it now appears that the missile was never flight tested.
The Condor II drew on the technology of the Condor I, a single-stage, solid-fuel sounding rocket, with a range/payload capability of 100 km/400 kg, which Argentina manufactured in the late 1970s. Argentine officials maintained that the Condor II was part of a peaceful satellite launch program, devoid of military objectives, but the project drew much attention and criticism. Britain, especially, was and remains concerned that the Condor's 1,000 km range would allow a strike on the Falkland Islands (Malvinas), while Israel continues to be concerned that the Egyptian and Iraqi ties to the project might presage its spread throughout the Middle East. Israel reportedly asked Argentina to drop Egypt from the venture and promised the delivery of twelve aircraft - said to have been embargoed in response to the Falklands War - in return.
In early 1993 Argentina's government decided to hand over most of the components of the secretive Condor II ballistic missile project to the United States for destruction.
In March 1995, Argentine Defense Minister Oscar Camilion said that Argentina is restudying its missile program in the context of space exploration. All missile developments, indigenous or purchased from another country, would take place within the limits set by the MTCR, which Argentina joined in 1991 when it abandoned the Condor II project.
The remaining ballistic missile in service in Argentina is the Alacran (200 km/500 kg). (6) 1. According to Carus and Bermudez,
RESOURCES
Nuclear Weapons Program
Argentina pursued a covert nuclear weapons program for many years, refused to accede to the NPT, and did not sign the Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America (the Tlatelolco Treaty). A gaseous diffusion enrichment plant was built. Construction of reprocessing facilities was pursued for some years, but was suspended in 1990. A number of sites and facilities were developed for uranium mining, milling, and conversion, and for fuel fabrication. A missile development program was pursued for some years. Argentina's nuclear program was supported by a number of countries: power reactors were supplied by Canada and West Germany, a heavy water plant was supplied by Switzerland, and the Soviet Union was another supplier of nuclear equipment. Hot cells operated from 1969-1972, with no international safeguards; figures on the amount of spent fuel treated in the hot cells vary greatly.
In 1992 Argentina constructed with Brazil a bilateral arrangement to place both countries' nuclear material and facilities under their mutual supervision, and signed along with Brazil a comprehensive safeguards agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency. On 24 March 1993 the Argentine Senate ratified the Treaty of Tlatelolco, moving Argentina one step closer to becoming the 25th country to join the 1967 agreement calling for a nuclear-free zone in Latin America and the Caribbean.
In February 1995 Argentina acceded to the NPT as a non-nuclear weapon state. The European Union said that Argentina's accession to the NPT confirms its commitment to nuclear non-proliferation, already demonstrated by the quadripartite agreement on nuclear safeguards concluded among Argentina, Brazil, ABACC (Argentinean-Brazilian Agency for Accounting and Control) and IAEA, and by the Treaty of Tlateloco.
RESOURCES
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAS | Nuke | Guide | Argentina |||| Index | Search |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/argentina/nuke/
Maintained by Webmaster
Updated Saturday, October
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAS | Nuke | Guide | Argentina |||| Index | Search |
CONSTRUCCION USS ALBACORE
Historic Mechanical Engineering LandmarkMay 13, 2000Portsmouth, New HampshireASME International
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 2
Official Photograph U.S. NavyPraenuntius Futuri(Forerunner of the Future)Albacore’s motto, Praenuntius Futuri(Forerunner of the Future) describes herpurpose well. She was intended as thetest vessel for a generation of submarinedesign innovations that would point theway for submarines of the future.Albacore’s mission was experimental.She was meant to be modified, modifiedagain and then again in a series of con-figurations designed to test submarinehydrodynamics. The Albacore is anexample of the value of testing andexperimentation to the engineering pro-fession and the design process. Also, thepioneering engineers and technicianswho worked on her were unknowinglydevelopingthe roots of anew techni-cal disci-pline, OceanEngineering.The ussA l b a c o r eserved as thefloating sub-m a r i n edesign labo-ratory for 19y e a r s .During this time period she underwentfive re-fits or phase conversions to testand evaluate new concepts. Much of theequipment developed and tested on theAlbacore was fitted onto other sub-marines in the United States Navy. Themarriage of the hull form pioneered onthe Albacore with nuclear power tech-nology pioneered in the USS Nautilusresulted in the first submarines capableof sustained underwater performance.IntroductionSubmarine operations during WorldWar II demonstrated to the UnitedStates Navy the importance of underwa-ter speed, maneuverability andendurance. Following the war, theUndersea Warfare Committee of theNational Science Foundation issued aset of design recommendations to meetthese needs. They called for a subma-rine with a streamlined hull constructedof new high strength steel. After manydebates, the decision was made to buildan experimental submarine incorporat-ing the recommendations of the com-mittee before proceeding with thedesign of a military version. Where subshad always been surface vessels thatcould avoid detection, for the first time,a submarine was to be designed as avessel meant to operate under the seainstead of on the surface. This meant acomplete change in design philosophy.Like everything that involves radicalchange, the design issues were a sub-ject of hot debate in the submarinecommunity. The Albacore was going totest the new designs and settle thearguments once and for all.In order todeterminethe opti-mum shapefor the outerhull, thed e s i g n e r smade exten-s i v e t e s t su s i n g t h etowing tankat the DavidT a y l o rModel Basinand at theLangley full scale tunnel. [The DavidTaylor Model Basin is also an ASMELandmark.] The original shape selectedfor study was based upon the form of theR101, a World War I dirigible.Eventually, the data from these tests waspublished in a document called Series 58.In order to obtain data at high Reynoldsnumbers, large-scale models of theAlbacore were tested in a wind tunnel.As a result of all these tests, the optimumshape and dimensions were determined.Design andConstructionAs first proposed by Rear AdmiralCharles Momsen, Assistant Chief of NavalOperations for Undersea Warfare andinventor of the Momsen Lung, Albacorewas to be a “target” used for anti-subma-rine warfare practice. This ruse was nec-essary in order to get the approval tobuild her At the time, aircraft carriershad replaced the battleship as the navy’spremier vessel. Since submarines wereaircraft carriers’ most feared adversary,approval to build her as a training toolcame quickly. As a “target,” Albacorewould also be unarmed, which meanther designers would not be restricted bythe requirements of numerous navaldesign bureaus responsible for differentaspects of naval combat ships. Thedesigners were free to follow Momsen’sorders, “When in doubt, think speed.”Her keel was laid on March 15, 1952.The hull was made from a new type ofsteel, HY-80. HY-80 had yield strengths of80,000 PSI, greater than any other steelavailable. This was the first application ofthat steel for a submarine pressure hull.But even with high strength steel, thedimensional restrictions required by thehull shape posed design difficulties. Thehull was shorter and wider than that ofWWII submarines. In order to maintainthe minimum number of watertight com-partments, the internal bulkheads had tobe placed close together; a fact that madeinternal arrangements more difficult.As originally built, her control planes andrudders were positioned aft of the pro-peller in a cruciform, or “+” configura-tion. She also had a small dorsal rudderfitted on the rear portion of the sail. Theplacement of control planes and rudderswith respect to the propellers was a topicof many debates in the submarine com-munity. Another topic of debate was thesingle propeller placed on the centerlineof the hull. While this provided anincrease in propulsive efficiency, it wasnot an accepted practice at the time.Albacore would be used to test variouscontrol designs and to correlate actualsea trial performance with that predictedin tow-tank tests.Service History andTesting OperationsAlbacore was launched on August 1,1953and commissioned on December 5,1953.After her initial Phase I testing was com-pleted, Albacore returned to PortsmouthNaval Shipyard in December of 1955, for
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 3
her Phase II conversion. The dorsal rud-der mounted behind the sail wasremoved. It had also been found thatmounting the rudders aft of the screwcaused high stresses in the structuralsupport members. Therefore, the rud-ders and diving planes were moved for-ward of the screw. Later, her screw wasreplaced with one larger in diameterBecause of the effectiveness of the sterndiving planes, the bow diving planeswere also removed.By this time, the basic teardrop hull formpioneered by Albacore had become stan-dard for U.S. nuclear submarines, andother nations had begun to adopt similarshapes for their hulls.She entered the shipyard again inNovember 1960 to begin her Phase IIIconversion. She emerged in August 1961with a radical “X” configuration of sternplanes. This configuration became popu-lar with foreign submarine designers buthas never reappeared on U.S. sub-marines. Other changes included addinga larger rudder behind the sail, divebrakes around her middle, and newsonar During this time, she also tested anew towed sonar array Towed sonararrays, towed behind the submarine, arenow standard on modern submarines.One interesting side note during thisphase was the installation of a para-chute on Albacore. A B-47 bomber dragchute was borrowed from nearby PeaseAir Force Base and deployed underwa-ter in a series emergency stopping tests.While the concept did not make it pastthe testing phase, itdoes demonstratecreativity at workand the value of theAlbacore as a testvehicle.The distance between these two screwswas varied throughout the testing period.A photographic system was installed fordirect observation of the cavitation charac-teristics of the propellers. It was at this timethat high capacity silver-zinc batteriesreplaced the usual lead-acid type. Thesenew batteries provided the submarinewith three times the power of the old lead-acid type and effectively doubled the avail-able shaft horsepower for short duration.Also, an emergency main ballast tankblow system, part of the “Subsafe” pro-gram, was added in response to theThresher disaster Another innovationwas the testing of the “fly-around-body”, aremote controlled underwater kite used todeploy antenna systems.The fifth, and final, phase conversion wasfor a series of tests to increase speed.That system, and the results of the testare still classified.Albacore twice set world submergedspeed records. She was also awarded theNavy’s Battle Efficiency Pennant and wasgranted permission to display the White“E” for overall readiness to perform herassigned mission.Albacore TodayAlbacore was decommissioned onDecember 1, 1972 and placed in thereserve fleet in Philadelphia. In 1982, acitizens group began the process of bring-ing the Albacore back to Portsmouth, NH,as a tangible monument to the area’snaval heritage. On May 3, 1985, the Navythe submarine to thePortsmouth SubmarineMemorial Association. Shewas towed back toPortsmouth in 1984. A perma-nent display site was selectedtransferred responsibility forHer Phase IV conver-that was one-quarter milesion took frominland and 27 feet higher thanDecember 1962 tothe Piscataqua River. MovingMarch 1965. Thethe Albacore required disman-single screw wastling 30 feet of railway trestle,replaced with two concentric counter- crossing a four-lane highway and finallyrotating propellers. These were installed to lifting it above the level of the river. Thistest the capability to harness the power of was done by enclosing the submarine innuclear steam-turbine power plants with-a series of earthen “locks” and literallyout noisy reduction gears and to attempt a floating her into position. She was set onfurther increase in propulsive efficiency.her cradle on October 3, 1985 andopened to the public on August 30, 1986.ASME History andHeritage ProgramThe ASME History and Heritage RecognitionProgram began in September 1971. To imple-ment and achieve its goals, ASME formed aHistory and Heritage Committee, composed ofmechanical engineers, historians of technolo-gy, and the Curator Emeritus of Mechanicaland Civil Engineering at the SmithsonianInstitution. The committee provides a publicservice by examining, noting, recording, andacknowledging mechanical engineeringachievements of particular significance. TheHistory and Heritage Committee is part of theASME Council on Public Affairs and Board onPublic Information. For further information,please contact Public Information, ASME,Three Park Avenue, New York, NY 10016-5990, 212-591-7740; fax 212-591-8676.An ASME landmark represents a progressivestep in the evolution of mechanical engineer-ing. Site designations note an event or devel-opment of clear historical importance tomechanical engineers. Collections mark thecontributions of several objects with specialsignificance to the historical development ofmechanical engineering.The ASME Historic Mechanical EngineeringRecognition Program illustrates our technolog-ical heritage and serves to encourage thepreservation of the physical remains of histor-ically important works. It provides an anno-tated roster for engineers, students, educators,historians, and travelers, and helps establishpersistent reminders of where we have beenand where we are going along the divergentpaths of discovery. The USS Albacore is the209th Historic Mechanical EngineeringLandmark designated by ASME.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 4
The ASME History andHeritage CommitteeJ. Lawrence Lee, ChairRobert M. Vogel, SecretaryWilliam J. Adams, Jr.William DeFotisR. Michael HuntPaul J. TorpeyDiane Kaylor, Staff LiaisonThe American Society ofMechanical EngineersRobert E. Nickell, PresidentFred E. Angilly, Vice President, Region IFrank C. Adamek, Vice President, EnergyResources GroupJoseph A. Nunes, H & H Chair, Region IHarry Armen, Senior Vice President., Councilon Public AffairsVictoria A. Rockwell, Vice President, PublicInformationDavid L. Belden, Executive DirectorBurton Dicht, Director, Northeast RegionalOfficeOcean, Offshore and ArcticEngineering DivisionStephen J. Liu, ChairJohn T. Robinson, Vice ChairAlan Murray, SecretaryCengiz Eretekin, TreasurerThe purpose of the Ocean, Offshore andArctic Engineering Division of the AmericanSociety of Mechanical Engineers is to promotetechnical advancement of and internationalcooperation in the engineering sciences relat-ed to the oceans and the arcticNorthern New England SectionJ. Richard Neff, ChairFrederick I Wakefield, Vice ChairStephen M. Floyd, SecretaryKathryn E. Heselbarth, TreasurerAlbacore ParkAGSS-5699A National Historic LandmarkFirst Hydrodynamic SubmarineAuthorized November 24,195OKeel Laid March 15,1952Launched August 1,1953Commissioned December 5,1953World's Fastest Submarine 1966DecommissionedDecember 1, 1972Arrived at Albacore ParkMay 4,1985Joseph Sawtelle, PresidentBoard of DirectorsASME CeremonyCommittee MembersProf. E. Eugene AlhnendhrgerMr. Russ VanBilliardOur Thanks To:Portsmouth Naval Shipyardfor their assistanceThe Portsmouth Sheratonfor their supportThe Officers and Crew ofUSS AlbcoreYou can visit the Albacore at thePort of Portsmouth MaritimeMuseum & Albacore Park600 Market Street, Portsmouth,NH 03801 (603)436-3680
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 5
was able to refine these designs before incorporating them intothe fleet. The USS Albacore is tangible evidence of the value oftesting and experimentation to the engineering profession.change in submarine design. Experience in World War II had shown that speed, endurance andmaneuverability were key requirements for submarines. As a result of this experience, Albacore’shull was designed with underwater speed as the primerequirement. She was also built with a newlydeveloped high-strength steel.Along with these two innovations,USS ALBACORE (AGSS-569)Statement of SignificanceThe submarine USS Albacore, AGSS-569 (Auxiliary General Submarine) inaugurated a radicalAlbacore was to serve as a test vessel for the newest designs in submarine technology.Throughout her career she tested many innovative concepts. As a result, the United States NavyHISTORIC MECHANICAL ENGINEERING LANDMARKU.S.S. ALBACOREDECEMBER 1953THE USS ALBACORE WAS THE FIRST NAVY-DESIGNEDVESSEL WITH A TRUE SUBMARINE HULL FORM, IN WHICH SUR-FACE CHARACTERISTICS WERE SUBORDINATED TO REQUIREMENTSOF UNDERWATER PERFORMANCE. THE ALBACORE’S UNIQUE TEARDROP-SHAPED HULLDESIGN, THE RESULT OF YEARS OF EXTENSIVE MODEL TESTING, ENABLED HER TO SET TWONEW UNDERWATER SPEED RECORDS WITH IMPROVED CONTROL. DURING HER NINETEENYEARS OF SERVICE, THE ALBACORE CARRIED OUT TESTS OF SPEED, DEPTH CHANGES, ANDUNDERWATER MANEUVERING. PROVING ITS SUCCESS, THE ALBACORE’S HULL DESIGNBECAME THE MODEL FOR ALL FUTURE U.S. NAVY SUBMARINES THAT FOLLOWED.THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS2000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 6
A Partial Listing of ConceptsTested on Albacore:Body of Revolution Hull with Propeller Mounted on AxisLow L/D Ratio of 7.5:1HY-80 SteelStern Plane Placement Forward of PropellerCounter-Rotating PropellersUnderwater Dive BrakesTowed Sonar ArraysSilver-Zinc BatteriesSound Dampening TechnologyHigh Pressure Hydraulic SystemFly-Around-Body Antenna Deployment SystemLight Wright Radial Diesel Engines“X” Shaped SternDorsal RudderSingle Stick “Aircraft” Type ControlsPrinciple Ship CharacteristicsL e n g t h : 2 0 5 . 3 f e e t ( 6 2 . 6 m )Beam: 27.3 feet (8.3 m)Draft: 18.6 feet (5.7 m)Surface Displacement: 1692 tonsSubmerged Displacement: 1908 tonsTest Depth: 600 feet (182.9 m)Collapse Depth: 1170 feet (356.6 m)Power Plant:Two(2) General Motors 16-cylinder, two cycle radialdiesel engines, 1000 BHP eachGenerators:Two(2) Elliot 710 volt, 1150 amp single armature, 817 KW eachPropulsion Motors:Two(2) General Electric double armature, 730/925 VDC,8000 amp per armature, 50-250 rpm,7500 HP eachPropulsion Surfaced:(Diesel-Electric Drive), Speed: 12 KnotsPropulsion Submerged:7500 SHP (Lead-Acid Batteries), Speed: 25 KnotsPropulsion Submerged:15,000 SHP (Silver-Zinc Batteries), Speed: over 25 KnotsCrew: 5 officers, 50 enlistedH209
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 2
Official Photograph U.S. NavyPraenuntius Futuri(Forerunner of the Future)Albacore’s motto, Praenuntius Futuri(Forerunner of the Future) describes herpurpose well. She was intended as thetest vessel for a generation of submarinedesign innovations that would point theway for submarines of the future.Albacore’s mission was experimental.She was meant to be modified, modifiedagain and then again in a series of con-figurations designed to test submarinehydrodynamics. The Albacore is anexample of the value of testing andexperimentation to the engineering pro-fession and the design process. Also, thepioneering engineers and technicianswho worked on her were unknowinglydevelopingthe roots of anew techni-cal disci-pline, OceanEngineering.The ussA l b a c o r eserved as thefloating sub-m a r i n edesign labo-ratory for 19y e a r s .During this time period she underwentfive re-fits or phase conversions to testand evaluate new concepts. Much of theequipment developed and tested on theAlbacore was fitted onto other sub-marines in the United States Navy. Themarriage of the hull form pioneered onthe Albacore with nuclear power tech-nology pioneered in the USS Nautilusresulted in the first submarines capableof sustained underwater performance.IntroductionSubmarine operations during WorldWar II demonstrated to the UnitedStates Navy the importance of underwa-ter speed, maneuverability andendurance. Following the war, theUndersea Warfare Committee of theNational Science Foundation issued aset of design recommendations to meetthese needs. They called for a subma-rine with a streamlined hull constructedof new high strength steel. After manydebates, the decision was made to buildan experimental submarine incorporat-ing the recommendations of the com-mittee before proceeding with thedesign of a military version. Where subshad always been surface vessels thatcould avoid detection, for the first time,a submarine was to be designed as avessel meant to operate under the seainstead of on the surface. This meant acomplete change in design philosophy.Like everything that involves radicalchange, the design issues were a sub-ject of hot debate in the submarinecommunity. The Albacore was going totest the new designs and settle thearguments once and for all.In order todeterminethe opti-mum shapefor the outerhull, thed e s i g n e r smade exten-s i v e t e s t su s i n g t h etowing tankat the DavidT a y l o rModel Basinand at theLangley full scale tunnel. [The DavidTaylor Model Basin is also an ASMELandmark.] The original shape selectedfor study was based upon the form of theR101, a World War I dirigible.Eventually, the data from these tests waspublished in a document called Series 58.In order to obtain data at high Reynoldsnumbers, large-scale models of theAlbacore were tested in a wind tunnel.As a result of all these tests, the optimumshape and dimensions were determined.Design andConstructionAs first proposed by Rear AdmiralCharles Momsen, Assistant Chief of NavalOperations for Undersea Warfare andinventor of the Momsen Lung, Albacorewas to be a “target” used for anti-subma-rine warfare practice. This ruse was nec-essary in order to get the approval tobuild her At the time, aircraft carriershad replaced the battleship as the navy’spremier vessel. Since submarines wereaircraft carriers’ most feared adversary,approval to build her as a training toolcame quickly. As a “target,” Albacorewould also be unarmed, which meanther designers would not be restricted bythe requirements of numerous navaldesign bureaus responsible for differentaspects of naval combat ships. Thedesigners were free to follow Momsen’sorders, “When in doubt, think speed.”Her keel was laid on March 15, 1952.The hull was made from a new type ofsteel, HY-80. HY-80 had yield strengths of80,000 PSI, greater than any other steelavailable. This was the first application ofthat steel for a submarine pressure hull.But even with high strength steel, thedimensional restrictions required by thehull shape posed design difficulties. Thehull was shorter and wider than that ofWWII submarines. In order to maintainthe minimum number of watertight com-partments, the internal bulkheads had tobe placed close together; a fact that madeinternal arrangements more difficult.As originally built, her control planes andrudders were positioned aft of the pro-peller in a cruciform, or “+” configura-tion. She also had a small dorsal rudderfitted on the rear portion of the sail. Theplacement of control planes and rudderswith respect to the propellers was a topicof many debates in the submarine com-munity. Another topic of debate was thesingle propeller placed on the centerlineof the hull. While this provided anincrease in propulsive efficiency, it wasnot an accepted practice at the time.Albacore would be used to test variouscontrol designs and to correlate actualsea trial performance with that predictedin tow-tank tests.Service History andTesting OperationsAlbacore was launched on August 1,1953and commissioned on December 5,1953.After her initial Phase I testing was com-pleted, Albacore returned to PortsmouthNaval Shipyard in December of 1955, for
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 3
her Phase II conversion. The dorsal rud-der mounted behind the sail wasremoved. It had also been found thatmounting the rudders aft of the screwcaused high stresses in the structuralsupport members. Therefore, the rud-ders and diving planes were moved for-ward of the screw. Later, her screw wasreplaced with one larger in diameterBecause of the effectiveness of the sterndiving planes, the bow diving planeswere also removed.By this time, the basic teardrop hull formpioneered by Albacore had become stan-dard for U.S. nuclear submarines, andother nations had begun to adopt similarshapes for their hulls.She entered the shipyard again inNovember 1960 to begin her Phase IIIconversion. She emerged in August 1961with a radical “X” configuration of sternplanes. This configuration became popu-lar with foreign submarine designers buthas never reappeared on U.S. sub-marines. Other changes included addinga larger rudder behind the sail, divebrakes around her middle, and newsonar During this time, she also tested anew towed sonar array Towed sonararrays, towed behind the submarine, arenow standard on modern submarines.One interesting side note during thisphase was the installation of a para-chute on Albacore. A B-47 bomber dragchute was borrowed from nearby PeaseAir Force Base and deployed underwa-ter in a series emergency stopping tests.While the concept did not make it pastthe testing phase, itdoes demonstratecreativity at workand the value of theAlbacore as a testvehicle.The distance between these two screwswas varied throughout the testing period.A photographic system was installed fordirect observation of the cavitation charac-teristics of the propellers. It was at this timethat high capacity silver-zinc batteriesreplaced the usual lead-acid type. Thesenew batteries provided the submarinewith three times the power of the old lead-acid type and effectively doubled the avail-able shaft horsepower for short duration.Also, an emergency main ballast tankblow system, part of the “Subsafe” pro-gram, was added in response to theThresher disaster Another innovationwas the testing of the “fly-around-body”, aremote controlled underwater kite used todeploy antenna systems.The fifth, and final, phase conversion wasfor a series of tests to increase speed.That system, and the results of the testare still classified.Albacore twice set world submergedspeed records. She was also awarded theNavy’s Battle Efficiency Pennant and wasgranted permission to display the White“E” for overall readiness to perform herassigned mission.Albacore TodayAlbacore was decommissioned onDecember 1, 1972 and placed in thereserve fleet in Philadelphia. In 1982, acitizens group began the process of bring-ing the Albacore back to Portsmouth, NH,as a tangible monument to the area’snaval heritage. On May 3, 1985, the Navythe submarine to thePortsmouth SubmarineMemorial Association. Shewas towed back toPortsmouth in 1984. A perma-nent display site was selectedtransferred responsibility forHer Phase IV conver-that was one-quarter milesion took frominland and 27 feet higher thanDecember 1962 tothe Piscataqua River. MovingMarch 1965. Thethe Albacore required disman-single screw wastling 30 feet of railway trestle,replaced with two concentric counter- crossing a four-lane highway and finallyrotating propellers. These were installed to lifting it above the level of the river. Thistest the capability to harness the power of was done by enclosing the submarine innuclear steam-turbine power plants with-a series of earthen “locks” and literallyout noisy reduction gears and to attempt a floating her into position. She was set onfurther increase in propulsive efficiency.her cradle on October 3, 1985 andopened to the public on August 30, 1986.ASME History andHeritage ProgramThe ASME History and Heritage RecognitionProgram began in September 1971. To imple-ment and achieve its goals, ASME formed aHistory and Heritage Committee, composed ofmechanical engineers, historians of technolo-gy, and the Curator Emeritus of Mechanicaland Civil Engineering at the SmithsonianInstitution. The committee provides a publicservice by examining, noting, recording, andacknowledging mechanical engineeringachievements of particular significance. TheHistory and Heritage Committee is part of theASME Council on Public Affairs and Board onPublic Information. For further information,please contact Public Information, ASME,Three Park Avenue, New York, NY 10016-5990, 212-591-7740; fax 212-591-8676.An ASME landmark represents a progressivestep in the evolution of mechanical engineer-ing. Site designations note an event or devel-opment of clear historical importance tomechanical engineers. Collections mark thecontributions of several objects with specialsignificance to the historical development ofmechanical engineering.The ASME Historic Mechanical EngineeringRecognition Program illustrates our technolog-ical heritage and serves to encourage thepreservation of the physical remains of histor-ically important works. It provides an anno-tated roster for engineers, students, educators,historians, and travelers, and helps establishpersistent reminders of where we have beenand where we are going along the divergentpaths of discovery. The USS Albacore is the209th Historic Mechanical EngineeringLandmark designated by ASME.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 4
The ASME History andHeritage CommitteeJ. Lawrence Lee, ChairRobert M. Vogel, SecretaryWilliam J. Adams, Jr.William DeFotisR. Michael HuntPaul J. TorpeyDiane Kaylor, Staff LiaisonThe American Society ofMechanical EngineersRobert E. Nickell, PresidentFred E. Angilly, Vice President, Region IFrank C. Adamek, Vice President, EnergyResources GroupJoseph A. Nunes, H & H Chair, Region IHarry Armen, Senior Vice President., Councilon Public AffairsVictoria A. Rockwell, Vice President, PublicInformationDavid L. Belden, Executive DirectorBurton Dicht, Director, Northeast RegionalOfficeOcean, Offshore and ArcticEngineering DivisionStephen J. Liu, ChairJohn T. Robinson, Vice ChairAlan Murray, SecretaryCengiz Eretekin, TreasurerThe purpose of the Ocean, Offshore andArctic Engineering Division of the AmericanSociety of Mechanical Engineers is to promotetechnical advancement of and internationalcooperation in the engineering sciences relat-ed to the oceans and the arcticNorthern New England SectionJ. Richard Neff, ChairFrederick I Wakefield, Vice ChairStephen M. Floyd, SecretaryKathryn E. Heselbarth, TreasurerAlbacore ParkAGSS-5699A National Historic LandmarkFirst Hydrodynamic SubmarineAuthorized November 24,195OKeel Laid March 15,1952Launched August 1,1953Commissioned December 5,1953World's Fastest Submarine 1966DecommissionedDecember 1, 1972Arrived at Albacore ParkMay 4,1985Joseph Sawtelle, PresidentBoard of DirectorsASME CeremonyCommittee MembersProf. E. Eugene AlhnendhrgerMr. Russ VanBilliardOur Thanks To:Portsmouth Naval Shipyardfor their assistanceThe Portsmouth Sheratonfor their supportThe Officers and Crew ofUSS AlbcoreYou can visit the Albacore at thePort of Portsmouth MaritimeMuseum & Albacore Park600 Market Street, Portsmouth,NH 03801 (603)436-3680
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 5
was able to refine these designs before incorporating them intothe fleet. The USS Albacore is tangible evidence of the value oftesting and experimentation to the engineering profession.change in submarine design. Experience in World War II had shown that speed, endurance andmaneuverability were key requirements for submarines. As a result of this experience, Albacore’shull was designed with underwater speed as the primerequirement. She was also built with a newlydeveloped high-strength steel.Along with these two innovations,USS ALBACORE (AGSS-569)Statement of SignificanceThe submarine USS Albacore, AGSS-569 (Auxiliary General Submarine) inaugurated a radicalAlbacore was to serve as a test vessel for the newest designs in submarine technology.Throughout her career she tested many innovative concepts. As a result, the United States NavyHISTORIC MECHANICAL ENGINEERING LANDMARKU.S.S. ALBACOREDECEMBER 1953THE USS ALBACORE WAS THE FIRST NAVY-DESIGNEDVESSEL WITH A TRUE SUBMARINE HULL FORM, IN WHICH SUR-FACE CHARACTERISTICS WERE SUBORDINATED TO REQUIREMENTSOF UNDERWATER PERFORMANCE. THE ALBACORE’S UNIQUE TEARDROP-SHAPED HULLDESIGN, THE RESULT OF YEARS OF EXTENSIVE MODEL TESTING, ENABLED HER TO SET TWONEW UNDERWATER SPEED RECORDS WITH IMPROVED CONTROL. DURING HER NINETEENYEARS OF SERVICE, THE ALBACORE CARRIED OUT TESTS OF SPEED, DEPTH CHANGES, ANDUNDERWATER MANEUVERING. PROVING ITS SUCCESS, THE ALBACORE’S HULL DESIGNBECAME THE MODEL FOR ALL FUTURE U.S. NAVY SUBMARINES THAT FOLLOWED.THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS2000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 6
A Partial Listing of ConceptsTested on Albacore:Body of Revolution Hull with Propeller Mounted on AxisLow L/D Ratio of 7.5:1HY-80 SteelStern Plane Placement Forward of PropellerCounter-Rotating PropellersUnderwater Dive BrakesTowed Sonar ArraysSilver-Zinc BatteriesSound Dampening TechnologyHigh Pressure Hydraulic SystemFly-Around-Body Antenna Deployment SystemLight Wright Radial Diesel Engines“X” Shaped SternDorsal RudderSingle Stick “Aircraft” Type ControlsPrinciple Ship CharacteristicsL e n g t h : 2 0 5 . 3 f e e t ( 6 2 . 6 m )Beam: 27.3 feet (8.3 m)Draft: 18.6 feet (5.7 m)Surface Displacement: 1692 tonsSubmerged Displacement: 1908 tonsTest Depth: 600 feet (182.9 m)Collapse Depth: 1170 feet (356.6 m)Power Plant:Two(2) General Motors 16-cylinder, two cycle radialdiesel engines, 1000 BHP eachGenerators:Two(2) Elliot 710 volt, 1150 amp single armature, 817 KW eachPropulsion Motors:Two(2) General Electric double armature, 730/925 VDC,8000 amp per armature, 50-250 rpm,7500 HP eachPropulsion Surfaced:(Diesel-Electric Drive), Speed: 12 KnotsPropulsion Submerged:7500 SHP (Lead-Acid Batteries), Speed: 25 KnotsPropulsion Submerged:15,000 SHP (Silver-Zinc Batteries), Speed: over 25 KnotsCrew: 5 officers, 50 enlistedH209
Suscribirse a:
Entradas (Atom)