Thursday, 18 September 2014
masthead+quote+image
Advanced search

Babcock develops innovative anti-torpedo system

A revolutionary launcher powered by compressed air could boost submarines’ ability to evade torpedo attacks.

Every submarine film has that moment. The moment when a torpedo is launched towards the submarine. There’s the tension. The panicked looks. The pings of the sonar. The focused concentration. And someone, always, ends up shouting ’Dive! Dive! Dive!’ as the submarine takes evasive action.

While evasive manoeuvres are important for avoiding torpedo attack, for the past decade or so, the marine defence sector has been developing anti-submarine countermeasures. These are devices that can be launched from the submarine to trick the torpedo’s tracking system into following them, rather than the target.

Babcock countermeasure launcher 2

Silver bullet: in basic terms, the launcher is a compressed-air catapult

However, finding ways to launch these devices has proved rather difficult. A team from Babcock has now come up with a new type of launcher, designed with safety as a priority, which can be retrofitted onto the current submarine fleet to provide an extra layer of protection against a form of attack that all submariners hope will never come.

Torpedos hunt acoustically, explained Jeff Owens, future business director for Babcock’s Marine and Technology Division. ’If there’s a torpedo coming towards you, you want to put a countermeasure in the water that “looks” very much like you do from the torpedo’s point of view, so that you can then quietly move away from the torpedo,’ he told The Engineer.

It does this by emitting a sound signature that convinces the torpedo’s guidance system it should follow the countermeasure rather than the submarine. ’The idea is that it looks more like you than you do,’ Owens said. ’The countermeasure will move into clear space; so if you’re deep, you set the countermeasure to go shallow, so the torpedo will explode above you while you skulk out of the way.’

However, a lot of submarines don’t have the capability to launch countermeasures, partly because it takes such a long time to design and build submarines. ’They’ve been introduced over the past decade, but the cycle time is so long that that’s recent, really,’ Owens said.

Babcock countermeasure launcher 3

Full artillery:a submarine might need up to 20 launchers loaded and ready to launch

Some submarines have internal launch systems, positioned inside the pressure hull and shooting their armaments through the outer casing, but these systems aren’t suitable for countermeasures.

’One of the issues is that you need a lot of launchers,’ Owens explained. ’When a modern torpedo comes towards you, it instantly starts trying to decide whether it’s following a decoy or a real submarine, so a single countermeasure isn’t sufficient: you need to send out several, either at the same time or in a sequence. And these launchers have to be loaded at all times, because you only have seconds to react when a torpedo is launched. If one comes from a helicopter, you’ll hear nothing, then a splash, and you have to respond in seconds.’

“Launchers have to be loaded at all times, because you only have seconds to react when a torpedo is launched”

Depending on how many countermeasures a commander might want to launch to try to fool a torpedo, a submarine might need to have up to 20 launchers loaded and ready to launch. ’There haven’t really been any suitable systems for this,’ Owens claimed. ’There were some external launchers that sit outside the casing, but they tended to use pyrotechnic charges to launch and we found that customers weren’t at all comfortable with that, from a safety point of view.’

The solution that Babcock has developed is a launcher system that sits under the submarine’s outer casing but outside the pressure hull. This makes it relatively easy to install, because the pressure hull itself does not need to be pierced and then repaired.

The launcher itself is, in basic terms, a compressed-air powered catapult. ’It consists of three composite tubes arranged parallel to each other,’ explained Owens. One of these contains the countermeasure itself; one contains a piston, attached to a cable whose other end is attached to a pusher device behind the countermeasure.

Babcock_scalable flexible launcher concept

High pressure: the solenoid valve releases air from the reservoir into the piston tube

The system is controlled by a solenoid valve. ’When the launcher is operated, the solenoid opens and the air from the reservoir is released into the piston tube. The piston pulls the cable, which in turn pulls on the pusher device in the launcher tube, and the stored countermeasure is hauled out of the tube and into the water. The launch air is kept within the system, so there’s no release of gas into the water; this maintains the submarine’s stealthy acoustic performance and helps it escape.

Part of the design exercise was to ensure that the compressed air stored enough energy to accelerate the countermeasure from stationary to a sufficient exit velocity in a single stroke, Owens said. The system also had to incorporate other features, he added; launching the device had to be a single operation, so sub-systems had to be included to flood the launching tube before the compressed air is released. As the launcher is located outside the pressure hull, the mechanisms in the launch tube also had to cope with whatever water pressure the submarine could encounter. ’We had to find a solution that would keep the store dry when it wasn’t being used,’ Owens explained. ’After all, you really hope that you’ll never have to use one of these. But you don’t want to have to spend time adjusting settings to cope with water pressure, so that’s automatic.’

“The implementation of modelling went further in this project than anything we’ve done before”

JEFF OWENS, BABCOCK

Babcock used a model-based design approach for the launcher, using a digital model to simulate the physics of the launch system. This, Owens explained, was a way of reducing risk in the design process: the model allowed the teams to identify and quantify the stresses the system would encounter and have to overcome throughout the various stages of the launch process. The model was used to appraise concept designs, to understand the trade-offs that would be necessary to make the concept into a reality and to estimate the key design parameters.

’The model-based system incorporated mathematical modelling, which we’ve used for a long time,’ Owens said. ’But the implementation of that modelling went much further in this project than anything we’ve done before.’

The device had to be scalable, to take a range of device sizes from 85mm in diameter to a 200mm-diameter, device. ’It had to be lightweight,’ Owens said. ’We had some problems with the dynamics and the structural integrity of the cable, and there were issues with the composite tubing and its behaviour under the water pressures it would encounter at depth.’

For these problems, Babcock’s dedicated testing facilities were invaluable, Owens said. ’We can test at depth on land,’ he said. ’That helped us considerably when we were tackling these issues.’

model system

Babcock uses an adapted method to track the design process as it evolvesModel-based design is a technique that Babcock has adapted from the control and instrumentation sector, in which it simulates the way that processes occurring in the plant depend on the control system’s operation and vice-versa. It is also used for safety-critical process design in the aerospace, defence and automotive sectors.

As the system models the physics of the process, the effects of different subsystems and design tweaks can be seen as the design process evolves. It also allows members of the developing team to see how their input affects the system’s operation and assists with communication between team members something that is notoriously difficult in multidisciplinary engineering teams.


Readers' comments (11)

  • Somewhat novel, but still takes up approximately 3 times the displacement of a solid-propellant gas generator launcher system. Also, composite materials under explosive shock loading are problemmatic. Still significant acoustic transients, especially when pusher impacts end of launch tube at end of stroke. Finally, external HP air in a composite vessel is a serious implodable volume concern/risk.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Since pyrotechnics and exposives are commonplace on ships and submarines the safety argument is tenuous? It would be more compelling to look at he relative through life costs of pyro and air based systems and the versatility, backward compatibility and physical constraints of each.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I do not see any innovation in this solution. It is "steampunk" retro technology. It is too complicated with long operation chain - too many steps to provide the function. It should be as simple as possible...
    eg. Small vessel with liquid inert gas and Pyrofuze wire (aluminium wire with Ru/Pd coating) inside. Pyrofuze is ignited by electric charge from control unit. So Pyrofuze creates high amount of heat than vaporizes liquid gas which launch the countermeasure decoy from cylinder.
    If it is a concern regarding pyro gas generator than use a civil gas generator.
    Use an automotive airbags inflators (eg from driver cushion - driver inflator has cylindrical shape with radial holes). Inflators are very cheap (~5 Euro) and very safe during handling and during storing.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • We at Babcock believe that the presence of explosives and pyrotechnics aboard ships and submarines is a very significant safety issue for many navies, and this has been supported by discussions with the end-users. The larger displacement of the new launcher design is therefore an acceptable compromise in our (and our customer's) opinion.

    While the launcher is not totally silent, the acoustic transients produced are appreciably reduced compared to a pyrotechnic equivalent, partly due to the smaller volume of gas employed, as well as features within the launcher.

    During the development of this product through life costs and concerns were of course taken into account and it is our belief that the product is safer and inherently more reliable than an equivalent pyro solution.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • "We believe" , "it is our belief"... is a symptom of a lack of facts

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • If there's one thing that constantly annoys and frustrates me when reading the Engineer, it's the large number of negative comments from other readers about British innovation and many of the articles presented by the Engineer. No wonder we have a worldwide image as "wingeing Poms" and complainers!! This development by Babcock shows British innovation at its best. It cannot have all the detail for obvious reasons of non-disclosure etc .. so why don't the moaners here simply accept it for what it is? Yet more great innovation!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • If you had ever worked under the outer casing of a sub you would know that it not exactly the place you would want to be working with explosives. Confined areas are extremely high risk at the best of times. Any developments that give service engineers & naval personnel reduced risk is a plus in my book.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I have had the pleasure (not) of having to work under the casing and between the pressure hull and I concur with the previous statement. Being responsible for the countermeasures fitted to our boat we had no interaction with them once they were loaded mainly due to the volatile nature of the device. Any safer design to enable ease of use and even handling is a great benefit to the Commander and the person loading/maintaining

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Having worked on both pyrotechnic and pneumatic launchers, I can say quite categorically that both can be made to work. However, under the safety regimes currently in force with Navies, the pneumatic solution meets safety criteria more readily, is more friendly to potentially sensitive decoys and is therefore easier and more cost effective to get into service. Whole life costs come down in favour of the pneumatic solution, and the massive reduction in skills and overall capability in the UK's Energetic materials industry over the last few decades mitigates strongly against a pyrotechnic solution.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Pyrotechnic gas generators are relatively unrelable compared with a cold gas reservoir. Also if required the release of gas can be controlled so as to reduce any potential acoustic noise as much as possible.

    Also if the system can be recharged via a port on the external casing then this will reduce the requirement to servicing / replenishment of expolosive cartridges and supply chain / H&S paper mountain behind that.

    After all this is what our company has done for many airforces by replacing hot gas ejection release units with cold gas piston alternatives for launching munitions from aircraft.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

View results 10 per page | 20 per page

Have your say

Mandatory
Mandatory
Mandatory
Mandatory

My saved stories (Empty)

You have no saved stories

Save this article