For the first time, information about this strange submarine, being built in China, appeared in the fall of 2018 in the Chinese media, when this boat was taken out of the workshop. In the spring of this year, a photograph of this submarine appeared during the withdrawal from the workshop and launching. Recently, satellite photos of her at the outfitting wall appeared. But it is clearer what kind of ship it is and whether it in general is not yet clear. A feature of this submarine, about 45-50 m long and about 4-4.5 m wide, is the almost complete absence of a superstructure, or, as it is also called, fencing of retractable systems. On the "back" of the hull, only a small "tubercle" is visible instead of the usual forms of felling. That is, it is a bezel-less submarine.
History of the issue
The very idea of removing the wheelhouse is not new at all. She is the same age as the submarines themselves. On the first submarines, or, more precisely, dull structures made of wood and metal, or later only metal, there were very often no fellings. The inventors wondered more about how to dive and not drown, and not about how to control the boat on the surface and where to hide the retractable devices. But it quickly became clear that the then submarines, in fact, "diving" ships, and for a very short time diving, most of the time would have to be on the surface. The shapes of the hulls began to take on a form that was optimal for surface movement, moreover, for a long time and during rough seas (the forms optimal for underwater movement appeared only when the battery pits on the submarine became of such a capacity that it became possible to move under water much faster and longer - this happened on the German "electric boats" type XXI and XXIII at the end of the war). There were also wheelhouses of normal height, from which the view was much better, and they were not flooded with water during the excitement, and the retractable devices had where to hide.
However, after the war, when the capabilities of hydroacoustic search facilities began to grow sharply (however, in response, the noise of the submarine also decreased accordingly), in a number of countries they began to try to design boats without the enclosure of retractable devices, that is, bevelling. Despite the fact that after the war, the number of these very devices only began to increase. Even during the war, mines for RDP devices (diesel engine operation under water) or, in common parlance, snorkels, as well as masts for passive radio intelligence devices / radiation warning stations, and then radar masts were added. The number of such masts and devices, coupled with the traditional pair of periscopes (commander and anti-aircraft), quickly reached 5, and then even 7-8. In later times, the number of retractable devices was tried, not without success, to reduce, placing, say, radio reconnaissance stations, communication antennas and radars on one mast. On Soviet / Russian nuclear submarines, starting with Project 705, they began to install VSK in the fence of retractable systems - a pop-up rescue chamber for the entire crew. And on many foreign and our projects, there are also horizontal rudders at the wheelhouse.
But at the same time, the submarine designers were well aware that from the point of view of noise, a boat without a wheelhouse is better than with a wheelhouse. And they tried to reduce its size at least relative to the hull (it is easier to do this on two-hull domestic boats). In addition, masts and periscopes can be made not to retract inside, but to fit into grooves in the hull. This scheme is rarely used, but it is used, for example, on the well-known sabotage small submarines of the project 865 "Piranha" and it was this solution that was applied. But more often it has been used in recent years on underwater drones.
Superpower test
Nonetheless, there have been projects of logless manned submarines, and more than once. For example, in the USSR in 1960, 12 variants of a small nuclear submarine of project 673 were developed. The goal of the project was to create a compact nuclear submarine of small submarine displacement (in fact, at the level of nuclear deep-water stations or diesel-electric submarines), about 1,500 tons. The options were divided into two subgroups: 4 "type M" - 1500 t and up to 35 knots of underwater speed, and 8 "type B" - from 1550 to 2450 t and up to 40 knots of speed. The power of the nuclear power plant varied from 25,000 to 40,000 hp, of all the options, only one was made according to a two-shaft scheme, the rest were single-shaft. But 7 variants of fencing had no retractable systems. The retractable devices were retracted into the body, and instead of the bridge there was a retractable structure resembling a barrel. Of course, it would be extremely difficult to control this ship on the surface. This whale-like atomarina was not only not built, but it did not even come to the defense of the draft design. But some of the developments were not lost in vain. Much later they were implemented when working on the future "Lyras" of the 705 / 705K project.
A little later, our then and current main opponents - the Americans - thought about gnawing the "cut-free cactus". Having met with the super-high-speed Russian nuclear submarines of projects 661 Anchar and 705 Lira, which developed up to 43-44 knots, the Americans responded with a very successful and very numerous series of Los Angeles class nuclear submarines, which replaced the Sturgeon class at the shipyards. In terms of speed characteristics, the "Los", as our submariners still call it, was better than the "sturgeon", but it did not reach our ships. During the development phase, however, there were suggestions for a more compact, quieter and cheaper … but more inconvenient tubeless ship. The so-called CONFORM project was developed by a design team led by Captain Donald Kern. It was a pipeless ship. Its torpedo tubes were probably located further and at an angle to the longitudinal axis, as on a number of Japanese submarines at a later time. But this project was also dismissed, and it was not just anyone who dismissed it, but the "father" of the US nuclear submarine fleet, Admiral Rikover. Moreover, they say, more for internal political reasons (the manufacturer of nuclear power plants for "Elks" needed to be supported).
French "high-tech" on paper
In the 90s, proposals for the construction of a pipe-free submarine were put forward in Spain, where one of the engineers proposed the concept of a large submarine without a wheelhouse and with torpedo tubes and rocket cells in the middle of the hull … in a horizontal position perpendicular to the longitudinal axis. But it didn’t go further than drawings.
A futuristic project of a pipe-less submarine was recently proposed in France, it is called the SMX-31. Also, in general, this project did not move further than sketches and advertising fairy tales, and it is not surprising. Painfully he is not of this world. The ship, similar to a sperm whale, was planned according to a two-hull scheme, with a light hull made of polymer composites (which, of course, would greatly limit the working and maximum, well, calculated, immersion depths), and almost all of its surface should have been covered by conformal antennas of the GAC. The boat was supposed to be completely electric, without any retractable devices at all (instead of them, a pop-up buoy with a quadcopter was proposed - an extremely dubious decision), etc. The price tag, the complexity and timing of the implementation of such a project also came out, obviously, out of this world, and the characteristics were clearly extremely overestimated, so it remained at the draft level.
Chinese approach to the projectile
Thus, we see that many states that build good submarines, like states that are unable to boast of this, have been ill with pipeless submarines. Now, apparently, it is the turn of the Chinese to find out why the tubeless design takes root only on large underwater drones, and even then not on everyone.
When you look at a few, let's say, photos, some things are striking. First: this boat has a very small buoyancy reserve, this can be seen from the ratio of the part of the ship submerged in the water in the surface position, and the one that sticks out of the water. This speaks of the unambiguously used single-hull scheme (one-and-a-half and two-hull submarines have a much larger buoyancy margin, which has a positive effect on the survivability and vertical maneuverability of the ship). Second: this boat for some reason does not retract into the hull and does not fold, say, upward or backward, bow horizontal rudders. Why such a decision was made is not clear. This simply interferes with the controllability of the ship in a number of situations, together with a disgusting view from the "pimple" that this submarine replaces the guardhouse. It is unclear what with the retractable devices, but, probably, the masts fall into the hull, but there are no traces of this decision. But maybe they are retracted into the case in the traditional way, if they fit (which there are great doubts). Maybe they do not exist at all, then it is not clear how it can act at all at periscope depth. Her actions at such depths may resemble attempts to jog on the high-speed Autobahn - with a bucket on her head and in the middle of the stream. No perfect sonar equipment will protect against a collision with a vessel at periscope depth with a high probability. The boat has a short vertical rudder feather - very short, which indicates that the boat may have been built for shallow water (where its periscopes or optronic masts are even more needed). The absence of a wheelhouse with a navigating bridge will not allow the ship to be controlled normally on the surface - this is also understandable.
Assumptions by a number of analysts that this is a very large drone also do not hold water. Rails are visible on the deck of this strange creature, and a number of other details indicate that this is a manned ship. But for some reason, there are no signs of escape hatches on the deck. And the thrusters are not visible - they are practically mandatory for drones. For the same reason, this is not an analogue of domestic nuclear deep-water stations. And even non-nuclear - clearly not a deep-sea ship.
The type of power plant is also unknown. The boat does not look like a nuclear-powered ship at all: it is small in size, and there are no signs of intake and outlet openings and gratings, which the nuclear-powered ship must have - for external cooling of the reactor. There is a version about an "all-electric" boat on lithium batteries, "clogged" at the base, but there is no confirmation of it either (as well as the meaning of such ships and the level of their safety due to such batteries is not clear). Classic diesel-electric submarine? Perhaps, but in this case, again, the question is about retractable devices, because there is no way without a RDP (even a nuclear-powered ship has these same devices, because it has backup diesel engines).
In the only photo, close-up and in high resolution, no scupper holes, grates for ballast intake into the main ballast tanks and all other ballast tanks are visible below the waterline. And above the waterline too. How will this ship sink? There are no signs of torpedo tube covers, no signs of GAK fairings. What is it? Are there any traces of Photoshop maltreatment? Yes, boats launched into the water are actively photoshopping in our country too, glossing over a number of details unnecessary for the layman and "laymen in civilian clothes" from different foreign countries. But not so that nothing remains at all! Well, the Chinese submarine does not carry weapons and is blind under water? And there are no traces of anti-hydroacoustic coating either.
Obviously, this is not a combat experimental design. There are even suggestions that this is something like a self-propelled model for working out some solutions. But for now I like the idea that this boat is something like a submarine target. There were such specialized submarines in the Soviet Navy. But why such difficulties on the "target" submarine? At the same time, did you decide to check the idea? Perhaps.
Something more concrete can be said when the boat is completed, so we will wait and come back to this question later. Unless, of course, this is a boat, and not some kind of model. The Chinese are quite capable of this, as practice shows.
