This html article is produced from an uncorrected text file through optical character recognition. Prior to 1940 articles all text has been corrected, but from 1940 to the present most still remain uncorrected. Artifacts of the scans are misspellings, out-of-context footnotes and sidebars, and other inconsistencies. Adjacent to each text file is a PDF of the article, which accurately and fully conveys the content as it appeared in the issue. The uncorrected text files have been included to enhance the searchability of our content, on our site and in search engines, for our membership, the research community and media organizations. We are working now to provide clean text files for the entire collection.
By Norman Polmar, Editor, The Ships and Aircraft of the U.S. Fleet
Submarines in the Ice
The Arctic—of great interest to the United States for military reasons—is of great interest to most of the world for environmental and economic reasons. ^Peaking at a recent conference on submarine issues, Captain George Newton, U-S. Navy (Ret.), a leading authority on Arctic submarine operations (SubOps), Said that gaining environmental knowledge was second only to national security as the reason for U.S. interest in the Arc- tlc- Pointing out that nine-tenths of the earth’s population lives in the northern activities in the Arctic, have demonstrated the extensive interest in that sea area. This interest will increase because of concern over global warming issues and potential seafloor resources in a sea area that is relatively shallow (i.e., some 35% of the Arctic basis in less than 200 fathoms deep).
However, SSN missions into the Arctic are periodic, primarily military in nature, and SSNs have little space for scientific personnel and equipment, and little time for such activities. A potential solu-
Arctic Basin, being entrapped north of the New Siberian Islands (75° 50' N and 134° E) and finally ended up north of Spitzbergen.
In 1931 explorer Sir Hubert Wilkins obtained the former U.S. submarine 0-12 (hull number SS-73) and refitted her to operate as an under-ice research ship. The 0-12, renamed Nautilus, was fitted with topside runners so that in a state of positive buoyancy she could run along the bottom of the ice, surfacing in open water to recharge her batteries. The craft
hemisphere, he called the Arctic the Weather engine of the world.”
Since 1982, when the U.S. Navy had a belated renewal of interest in Arctic SubOps, there have been 26 cruises by uuclear-propelled attack submarines (SSNs) under the Arctic ice pack.[1] All of hiose SubOps have included some scien- hfic research. This effort, coupled with °lher national U.S. and allied scientific [2] tion for these problems is a dedicated, non-diving submarine platform for use as an Arctic drift station.
This concept is not new. The drift station idea originated with Fridtjof Nansen, the famed Norwegian explorer. His ship Fram entered the Arctic ice pack in September 1893 and was trapped in the ice— as a research ship-until August 1896. The Fram drifted completely across the
This surfacing at the North Pole in May 1991—foreground HMS Tireless, background USS Pargo (SSN- 650)—marked the 26th cruise under the Arctic ice pack by nuclear- propcllcd attack submarines since the U.S. Navy’s renewed interest began belatedly in 1982.
| Table 1 |
10-Man watch X 3 watches = | 30 (control, engineering, communications, sensor teams) |
Non-watch officers = | 6 (CO, XO, engineer, navigation, supply-mess, administrative) |
Housekeeping personnel = | 15 (cooks, clerks, stewards) |
Scientific personnel = | 30+ |
Total on board = | 81 + |
was also fitted with drilling mechanisms to make her own air holes, if necessary. However, mechanical problems prevented the Nautilus from undertaking the Arctic cruise.
Subsequently, the Soviet Navy is known to have operated submarines under the Arctic marginal ice zone on research probes. The Soviets, of course, have specifically converted submarines for oceanographic research, as has the U.S. Navy. Only on rare occasions did U.S. submarines operate near Arctic ice in the pre-nuclear era; the diesel-electric Sennet (SS-408) was part of the 1947 Antarctic expedition led by Rear Admiral Richard E. Byrd, but the submarine’s participation was unsuccessful as she was found too vulnerable to ice damage.
The current idea is to employ a former Polaris/Poseidon strategic missile submarine (SSBN) as an Arctic surface research ship, providing a mobile platform for U.S. civilian and military research. The submarine would be towed up to the ice pack (and at the end of a possibly Molten-year mission, be towed back to port). Research teams could be rotated to the ship, frozen in the Arctic, with NATO and other allied (or “neutral”?) research teams participating as appropriate. Provi-
Reprints
Available
Production Manager Proceedings/Naval History U. S. Naval Institute Annapolis, MD 21402
Be sure to indicate the date of the issue in which the item was published, the number of copies needed, and your daytime phone number. (Minimum orders: color—500 reprints; black and white—100 reprints.)
sion could also be made for classified research programs to be conducted, with even covert installation of equipment and transfer of personnel on site being possible.
The ship’s double-hull configuration and other features would afford protection from the Arctic weather for the men and women on board. Employing a ship, the scientific personnel could spend more time on research efforts and less on “survival,” a time-consuming and expensive portion of the time available to researchers living on Arctic ice. Ships drifting in ice are subject to being crushed as the ice pack is continually moving. However, when ice closes on a submarine hull it actually pushes the craft upward, until the weight of the submarine breaks through the ice and it returns to water level.
The SSBN would have its nuclear propulsion plant deactivated (as has been done with the Nautilus [SSN-571], now a submarine museum). The diesel-electric “come-home” plant would be retained, with fuel capacity increased, to provide electrical power for the platform as well as a limited surface maneuvering capability. When quiet operation is required for scientific work, power would be provided by battery power. The submarine would not be capable of diving and all weapons- related equipment would be removed. Research facilities would be installed in the forward torpedo room and in missile equipment spaces. The existing communications and navigation systems would be modified for Arctic operation.
Berthing spaces would be altered for the necessary civilian standards, but with the SSBNs designed for a 150-man crew, the berthing, mess, and storage space should be more than sufficient for the smaller operating and scientific crews (See Table 1). The large deck area over the (deactivated) missile hatches could be housed over with an equipment and vehicle storage structure. A small ramp would be provided for snowcat-type vehicles to be carried for use on the ice.
During a single cruise of perhaps one
year or more for the proposed SSBN plat' form, several mission teams would be flown out to the ship, being relieved on station. An analysis has been undertaken that indicates in a non-combat, nonnuclear, non-diving configuration, the craft could be operated with the following personnel:
The watch standers and officers would be civilian government employees or contract employees with the ship operated under the aegis of the Military Sealift Command, as are other U.S. research, survey, and range instrumentation ships- Depending upon missions and other considerations, some of the scientific and support personnel could be active Navy- j
There are no technical risk factors involved with this project. All necessary equipment (mission and ship operating) exists and has been extensively tested in the ocean/Arctic environment. A preliminary cost analysis indicates an estimated $225 million to overhaul/convert the submarine and $30—$40 million per year to operate. Such an effort, while nominally under the cognizance of the Navy, would be jointly sponsored (and paid for) by the National Academy of Sciences and National Science Foundation, with research institutes and possibly commercial firms paying a usage fee when their research teams are embarked.
The project would demonstrate peaceful uses of naval ships. The project appears to (1) be affordable—with total costs known at outset, (2) have virtually no technical risk, and (3) be highly visible from both media and political viewpoints. It could thus gain favorable publicity for the Navy and for the United States in a peaceful research project while providing an invaluable scientific and military research asset. [3] 2
106
Proceedings / August 1991
[1]“The U.S. Navy: Sailing Under the Ice,” U.S- Naval Institute Proceedings, June 1984, pp. 121" 123.
[2]>roceedings / August 1991
‘Presentation “Submarine Arctic Operations” at the Naval Submarine League symposium, Alexandria* Virginia, 12 June 1991.