0% found this document useful (0 votes)
326 views8 pages

Improving Submarine Array Integration

Improving submarine array integration for operational performance

Uploaded by

shahpinkal
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
326 views8 pages

Improving Submarine Array Integration

Improving submarine array integration for operational performance

Uploaded by

shahpinkal
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 8

UDT 2019

Improving submarine array integration for operational performance Sensors & Processing

UDT 2019 – Improving submarine array integration for operational


performance
Abstract — In underwater warfare the passive SONAR system is the main sensor of the submarine, thus its performance is usually
considered as a key requirement. However, the performance does not depend only on the SONAR system but is also closely linked to how
the design of the submarine integrates the SONAR arrays and to the quality of the submarine itself. In this document, we will discuss
different aspects of the integration of SONAR arrays into the submarine that can improve operational performance of a submarine with a
focus on its two main SONAR arrays, the bow and the flank array. To highlight key points of this analysis simulations have been performed
on two models of medium size (2000t) conventional submarines (SSK) with distinct array integration and results are presented.
Edouard HONORE (1), edouard.honore@naval-group.com,
Olivier LACOUR (2), olivier.lacour@fr.thalesgroup.com
Raphaël LARDAT (2), raphael.lardat@fr.thalesgroup.com
Serge SITBON (2), serge.sitbon@fr.thalesgroup.com
(1) NAVAL GROUP, 199 avenue Pierre-Gilles de Gennes 83190 Ollioules France
(2) THALES Defense Mission Systems; 525 routes des Dolines 06903 Sophia Antipolis

1 Introduction
On modern submarines, the main SONAR arrays to 2.2 Type B submarine
detect surface or underwater threats are the bow array, the
The second submarine considered here will be
flank arrays and the towed array. If the towed array
referred as “Type B”. It has the following characteristics:
performance relies on its technology, the bow array and
flank array operational intrinsic performance strongly
depend upon the quality of their integration to the
submarine. Indeed, their integration can influence
detection performance with the main following impacts:
- Disturbing signal received by the array
- Increasing array self-noise
- Disturbing acoustic classification and Fig. 2. Type B submarine
identification of a threat
- Creating “ghost” detection
It is the submarine designer’s responsibility along Its bow array is also cylindrical and about the same
with the SONAR manufacturer, thanks to a strong size as the one of “Type A”. But on this submarine, the
teamwork, to optimize the integration of these arrays in array is positioned in the lower part of the bow (under
order to maximize their performance. torpedo tubes).
To illustrate key points of SONAR integration, two Its flank arrays are planar thin flank arrays, flush
SSK submarines with about the same displacement and mounted with hydrodynamics fairings in front and behind
same length but with different hydrodynamic shapes and the array’s acoustic part.
SONAR array integration have been compared.

2 Submarines models studied 3 Bow array integration


2.1 Type A submarine
3.1 Overview
The first submarine considered in this paper will be
referred as “Type A” and has the following Thanks to its wide frequency bandwidth and large
characteristics: bearing coverage, the bow array plays a major role in the
knowledge of the acoustic situation around the ship.
However, in order to maximize detection performance
this array must be fitted properly into a submarine.
For medium size SSK the bow cavity cannot be
dedicated solely to the array and is usually shared with
other equipment. The positioning of the bow array has a
strong impact on the whole architecture of the submarine
Fig. 1. Type A submarine
and on the SONAR detection performance. From
Its bow array is a cylindrical array, positioned in the SONAR point of view, the followings points shall be
upper part of the bow (above torpedo tubes) and the flank considered:
arrays, are mounted under fairings (GRP dome/fairings).

1/8
UDT 2019
Improving submarine array integration for operational performance Presentation/Panel

- Optimize array positioning and reduce array


sensitivity to ambient noise
- Maximize array bearing and elevation coverage
- Minimize impact of self-noise on the array
These points are developed in the chapters hereunder.

3.2 Optimizing array position based on ambient


noise consideration
As presented in the overview, on a medium size SSK, the
bow cavity hosts a lot of equipment including torpedo
tubes and the bow array, but these are the ones which
have the strongest impact on the architecture of the
submarine. Considering only these two major elements,
then two types of configurations are be possible: one with
the bow array above torpedo tubes and the other one with
the array below the tubes.
Considering SONAR performance, the bow array
fitted below torpedo tubes shall be preferred because it Fig. 4. Typical ambient noise vertical power spectral
reduces array sensitivity to ambient noise. density
Indeed positioning the bow array in the lower part of
the bow cavity, the array is protected from the ambient
3.3 Maximizing bearing and elevation coverage
surface noise of the waves coming from above and takes
all benefits of the anisotropy of ambient noise. Maximizing the coverage of the bow array both in terms
Surface noise is often strongly non isotropic. of bearing and elevation is essential because, the bow
According to the sound velocity profile, the energy array remains the main sensor of the submarine to cover
coming from the surface is detected at positive elevation the frequencies above 5 kHz.
angles from short to medium range through a direct path, For bearing coverage, a back baffle area cannot be
whereas the energy coming from negative angles comes avoided, even by deporting the array under or above the
from bottom reflection or refraction of noise at longer hull (such as on 1950s submarine design – see Fig. 5).
range, as illustrated in the figure hereunder. With this configuration, the self-noise would be much
higher reducing drastically detection performance with
submarine increasing speed.

Fig. 3. Surface noise structure

Within bow array frequency bandwidth, we can notice Fig. 5. Flore submarine
that there is more noise coming from the surface than
from the seabed.
By positioning the array in the lower part of the bow a To obtain the widest bearing coverage, the array
significant gain up to 10 dB over the surface noise should be integrated as forward as possible into the bow
(considering an omnidirectional sensor) can be expected. cavity and the acoustic window should be extended
In this case, the optimization of the array installation backward.
could offer significant improvement in terms of surface
noise rejection, as illustrated in the figure hereunder (Fig.
4), thanks to the masking of the surface noise on the array
hydrophones.

2/8
UDT 2019
Improving submarine array integration for operational performance Presentation/Panel

3.4 Minimizing the impact of self-noise on the


bow array
Due to their relatively high listening frequency
bandwidth and to the submarine’s low vibration level, the
two main components of self-noise on bow array are
usually flow noise and electromagnetic perturbations.
Flow noise is linked to the overall shape and
submarine speed. Flow noise will drive the optimum
detection speed, which is considered as the maximum
speed at which ambient noise remains higher than self-
noise. For the same ambient noise, a submarine with
Fig. 6. Impact of array positioning on the bearing lower self-noise will be able to operate at higher speed
coverage than another one, giving it a great advantage.

The forward array positioning also benefits elevation


coverage. If architecture constraints allow it, this
coverage can be greater than +40° and -40° (elevation)
allowing the array to detect most of sound rays
propagating into the sea (even for surfacing phase). To
get that aperture towards the rear of the submarine, the
acoustic window should be vertically extended so that the
Fig. 8. Optimum detection speed definition
submarine bow structure do not mask sound coming from
the rear (above or under).

3.4.1 Minimizing flow noise


Flow noise received by the array is directly linked to the
shape of the submarine and to array position in the bow
cavity. The hydrodynamic shape of the submarine is a
submarine designer responsibility because it has a strong
impact on other main performance aspects of the
submarine such has radiated noise, maximum speed,
autonomy.
Flow noise is an uncorrelated source of noise and so
is not reduced by specific array beamforming such as
adaptive beamforming. Two ways are used to limit
impact of flow noise:
- optimize the submarine hydrodynamic shape
- optimize the array position in the cavity
Fig. 7. Scorpene® submarine The acoustic excitation generated by a water flow can
be described by its pressure auto-spectrum. Different
models can be found in the literature. The most
By positioning the bow array in the lower part of the bow commonly used are Corcos, Goody and Chase [1]. These
cavity, surface noise rejection is obtained and bottom models allow comparing hydrodynamic self-noise level
reflected beams detection capability is achieved at the of different configurations (hydrodynamic shape and
expense of lower positive elevation coverage. However array positioning).
higher positive elevation coverage is usually not required Hereunder we present some simulation results of the
(even for surfacing phase) as it leads to short detection acoustic excitation of the bow array on Type A and B
ranges even at maximum depth of the submarine. submarines using Chase auto-spectrum model 1987

Spp(ω)=2.ρ²Ut4.ω-1.h.(2.π/3.Cm.α-3.(1+µ².α²)+π.CT.α-1.
(1+α-2)) (1)

With
α=(1+Uc/(b.ω.δ)²)1/2
h.Cm=0.466
h.Cm=0.014
b=0.75

3/8
UDT 2019
Improving submarine array integration for operational performance Presentation/Panel

This optimization also takes into account the experience


(especially at sea measurements) of both SONAR
manufacturer and submarine designer on previous
submarine class.
Following recent development [1], it is now possible
to take into account complex and spatially growing
turbulent flow coupled to the vibroacoustic response of
an array (module & phase) enclosed behind an elastic
dome. This new method shows the SONAR response
after beamforming and therefore a coupled optimization
between SONAR Manufacturer and Submarine designer
Fig. 9. Acoustic excitation level at 8 kHz and 12 knots can take place in order to design the shape of the dome,
for Type A (left) and Type B submarine (right) the cavity coating, the array geometry and its location
within the SONAR cavity.
This development uses a spatial and stochastic
methodology to model the flow inhomogeneity and its
statistics. Below is an example of hydroacoustic noise
simulation on a generic elastic dome including a
cylindrical array One can notice the noise reduction in the
0° bearing and the impact of the cavity rear wall type
(reflecting vs absorbing).

Fig. 10. Acoustic excitation level at 3 kHz and 8


knots for Type A (top) and Type B submarine
(bottom)

Fig. 9 and Fig. 10 show that submarine Type A has poor Fig. 11. Generic Bow SONAR cavity geometry
hydrodynamic shape and moreover its bow array is
located where the hydro-acoustic excitation is at a
maximum. On the other hand, Type B submarine has a
smooth hydrodynamic shape and the bow array is located
in a quieter area in term of flow noise level. Considering
the integrated noise level over the acoustic window, Type
A submarine has a noise level at least 3dB higher than
Type B, for every speed and in the whole frequency
bandwidth of the bow array.
More complex simulations can be performed to
optimize the array positioning and the design of the
SONAR cavity. Usually for submarine programs, Fig. 12. Example of Bow SONAR Pressure PSD
dedicated design cycles are performed between
submarine designer and SONAR manufacturer to
optimize the integration of the bow array:
- submarine designer defines submarine shape, array
position and cavity size
- submarine designer computes hydrodynamic
parameters around the submarine and the average self-
noise level in the cavity
- SONAR manufacturer computes self-noise after
SONAR processing (at beamforming level, array gain,…)
using hydrodynamic simulation provided by submarine Fig. 13. Example of one stochastic noise realization
designer. (left: module; right: phase)
- SONAR manufacturer and submarine designer team
analyze results and optimize bow array design and
integration.
4/8
UDT 2019
Improving submarine array integration for operational performance Presentation/Panel

3.4.2 Electromagnetic compatibility SONAR detection performance is strongly influenced by


how this integration is done. From SONAR point of
Electromagnetic compatibility was a major issue when view, the followings points shall be considered:
SONAR arrays were analogue. Now, with digitalization - Optimize array positioning and reduce array
close to the sensors, the phenomenon has been reduced sensitivity to ambient noise
but still remains. This signal pollution has a strong impact - Minimize impact of self-noise on the array
on detection performance when trying to identify a threat. These points are developed in the chapters hereunder.
Indeed, when the acoustic signal is polluted by
electromagnetic phenomena, many frequency lines
appear on analysis display and they make operators 4.2 Optimizing array position based on ambient
identification work harder and slower. Reducing the noise considerations
impact of electromagnetic interference on the SONAR is
a job for both SONAR manufacturer and submarine As for the bow array (see section 3.2), the same
designer. considerations are applied to flank array integration in
At SONAR manufacturer level, specific actions are order to optimize it towards environment features.
taken to suppress electromagnetic noise coupling or data A negative elevation tilting of the array between 15°
transmission loss. Acoustic channels are shielded and use and 25° (of course depending on submarine constraints)
symmetric differential structure to minimize electrical is chosen to reduce array sensitivity to ambient noise.
noise pick-up between sensors and amplification and In this condition, the optimization of the flank array
digitization stage. The data transmission between installation could offer significant improvement in terms
SONAR antenna and inboard cabinets is then quite of surface noise rejection, as illustrated in the figures
immune to CEM because of the use of a digital link. hereunder.
To reduce electromagnetic pollution, the submarine
designer works on the routing of array cables to ensure
that they do not pass close to strong electromagnetic
generators such as electrical convertors, motor and that
array cable harnesses are separated from other cable
harnesses especially from ones carrying electrical power.
Given that most electromagnetic field generators are
located inside the hull, a good way to reduce the risks is
to route array cable outside the pressure hull and to
position pressure hull penetrator as close as possible to
the SONAR cabinets.

To go even further in reducing electromagnetic noise,


the use of optical fiber transmission is a solution. To
reach full performance of this new kind of transmission,
SONAR manufacturer and submarine designer work
together to adjust array signal needs to transmission line Fig. 14. Typical ambient noise vertical power
spectral density
features (cable and pressure hull penetrator).
All the technical solutions presented here for reducing
electromagnetic noise are applicable to both CA and FA
arrays

4 Flank array integration


4.1 Overview
For the last two decades flank arrays have been
widespread on most submarines and their performance
has been considerably improved (wider sizes, higher
number of hydrophones, larger frequency bandwidths).
As they are mounted onto the submarine hull, these
arrays are very close to submarine noise sources and their
integration has a major impact on their performance.
To secure or improve detection performance this array
must be fitted properly on the submarine hull.
Depending on the array technology, integrating a Fig. 15. Typical directivity diagram of one FA
flank array can have a strong impact on the architecture stave at its Shannon spatial frequency
and the performance of the submarine depending on their
technology (increase of drag and so reducing endurance).
5/8
UDT 2019
Improving submarine array integration for operational performance Presentation/Panel

Flank arrays have far less restrictions on their As shown on Fig. 17, despite masking material, array
dimensions than the bow array, thus the shape can be also sensors will still perceive a strong pressure field coming
adjusted to optimize its performance thanks to the from above and under the array, thus increasing self-
elevation directivity. noise.

To effectively reduce the effect of such sources on the


4.3 Minimizing impact of self-noise on the flank array the SONAR manufacturer and submarine designer
array will adjust flank array shape and position to reduce their
sensitivity to internal noise sources. Indeed main
Due to their bigger size, flank arrays address a lower
mechanical noise sources are located at the aft of the
frequency range than the bow array. Thus the main self-
submarine (engine and propulsions system). The array
noise components of the flank arrays are different from
performance is driven by its surface area. Keeping that
the bow array and are usually the following:
identical, it is possible to make the array a shorter length
- Mechanical noise component at lower frequencies (but taller), and so flank arrays can be better positioned to
(from 200 Hz to about 1 000 Hz). avoid the aft part of the hull as illustrated on the figure
hereunder Fig. 18):
- Flow noise component above 1 000 Hz

4.3.1 Mechanical noise

Mechanical noise perceived by the flank array comes


from the sources located inside the hull such as
submarine engines, pumps, and other auxiliaries. The
practice of masking materials between the array and the
hull is one solution to reduce that noise.

Fig. 18. Maps of nearfield (1 m) pressure field (dB


ref µPa) on a stiffened cylindrical hull (55
stiffeners) representative of the pressure hull of a
submarine, excited by a punctual force at 600 Hz.
And with two different flank arrays shapes and
positioning.

Fig. 16. Illustration of SONAR array mounted on


The global detection performance of the flank array is
backing material to reduce internal self-noise obtained by the combination of the array performance, its
optimized integration to the submarine and the SONAR
But as mechanical noise is a very low frequency processing capabilities with advanced adaptive
noise, it requires a very thick layer of material, which has beamforming which is known to reduce correlated noise
a strong impact on a submarine: drag increase, buoyancy such as mechanical noise as shown on the figures
control. Indeed, as shown in the figure hereunder (Fig. hereunder (Fig. 19 and Fig. 20).
17) at low frequency the pressure field radiated by a
stiffened cylindrical hull (representative of the pressure
hull of the submarine) excited by a mechanical source
(punctual force) is far more widespread than the flank
array and its backing material.

Conventional Beamforming Adaptive beamforming

Fig. 17. Maps of nearfield (1 m) pressure field (dB Fig. 19. Flank array k-Omega plots
ref µPa) on a stiffened cylindrical hull (55 (bearing vs frequency)
stiffeners), excited by a punctual force at 600 Hz.

6/8
UDT 2019
Improving submarine array integration for operational performance Presentation/Panel

Conventional Beamforming Adaptive Beamforming

Fig. 20. Typical flank array broadband waterfalls


(bearing vs time) Fig. 21. Acoustic excitation level at 3 kHz and 8
knots for Type A (top) and Type B submarine
(bottom). Magenta square shows the difference
Having taller flank arrays also increases the effect of between thick flank arrays with angular form and
adaptive beamforming to reduce mechanical noise. thin planar flank array with smooth
hydrodynamic fairings.

4.3.2 Flow noise While Type B submarine has smooth hydrodynamic


shapes, Type A has angular fairings and forms close to
The first flank arrays were designed for low frequency the array. These angular forms will generate vortices (as
detection, with digitalization and the evolution of shown on figure Fig. 22 hereunder) which will increase
processing capability, their frequency bandwidth has self-noise even more.
been considerably increased and they now reach mid
frequency band (about 5 kHz) and even 10 kHz for
upcoming development. Due to this frequency increase,
flank arrays are impacted by hydrodynamic self-noise
component above 1 kHz. To preserve the high
performance of the array in the upper bandwidth and as
no advanced SONAR processing (such as adaptive
beamforming) has a reduction effect on hydrodynamic
component of self-noise, the SONAR manufacturer and
submarine designer must take great care of hydrodynamic
aspects of the flank array installation on the ship.
A strong collaborative work shall be done by SONAR
manufacturer to define array technology with the least
impact on submarine hydrodynamics and by the
submarine designer to provide the best fairings to avoid
self-noise generation on the array. Optimizing Fig. 22. Maps of vorticity on Type A submarine
hydrodynamics of the flank array will also benefit the (left) and Type B submarine (right) showing the
submarine speed, endurance and radiated noise. generation of vortex on Type A submarine by its
Hereunder Type A and Type B submarines flow noise angular form of flank arrays.
excitation caused by the flank arrays and their fairings are
compared. Type A has thick flank arrays mounted under Giving an overall level estimation of the self-noise on
large fairings while Type B has flush mounted thin planar Type A vs Type B would be difficult, especially due to
flank array, with adjusted fairings front and back to the difficulty in computing the vortex noise component
smoothen the incoming flow. but according to Thales and Naval Group experience, it
lies between 3 and 6 dB.

7/8
UDT 2019
Improving submarine array integration for operational performance Presentation/Panel

4 Conclusions References
Submarine SONAR performance depends on the [1] M. Berton, Modélisation de la réponse vibro-
design of the acoustic arrays, their associated processing acoustique d’une structure excitée par une couche
and the quality of the array integration to the submarine. limite turbulente en présence d’un gradient de
Only strong collaborative work between SONAR pression statique, PhD thesis, INSA Lyon, 2014
manufacturer and submarine designer can lead to the best
underwater detection performance. This paper has studied
the influence of array integration on SONAR
performance for the two main arrays of a submarine the Author/Speaker Biographies
bow array and the flank arrays. Beyond the necessity to
implement the most advanced signal processing technics Edouard HONORE has held the position of underwater
such as adaptive processing, the main recommendations detection specialist at Naval Group for 8 years during
regarding physical integration to optimize detection have which he has specialized in SONAR array integration to
been given. submarine and surface ship.
These recommendations are summarized here for the
bow array: Olivier LACOUR received his PhD degree of Physic in
- The best array location is in the lower part of the bow 1989 from Joseph Fourier University (Grenoble, France).
to protect it from surface noise and optimize negative He joined Thales in 1988 as a Materials engineer for
elevation sound rays detection. acoustic systems including piezoelectric and cladding
- The shape of the bow and the exact position of the materials. In 1997, he joined the acoustic department and
array in this shape shall be optimized taken into has been involved in many transducer designs and
account hydrodynamic component of self-noise. developments from passive to active domains. Since then,
he has been involved in submarine array design, and
And for the flank arrays: integration, including sea trials on the Scorpene
- The array position shall be chosen in relation with submarines.
array shape in order to avoid the noisiest parts of the
submarine (usually the aft part of the pressure hull). Co-Authors:
- At equal surface area (and so array gain), higher flank
arrays get higher benefits from adaptive Raphaël LARDAT received a PhD in Fluid Mechanics
beamforming. in 1997 and has been involved in acoustics since 19
- The hydrodynamic of the flank arrays and their years, 12 of which within Thales. He is currently leading
fairings shall be studied by SONAR manufacturer and a R&D group for SONAR array development, specialized
submarine designer to limit the impact of the array on in signal and noise modelling, acoustic materials and
ship performance and to reduce array self-noise. transducers design.
Angular shapes shall be avoided because they Serge SITBON received a PhD degree in Automatic &
generate vortex which is an important source of noise. Signal Processing and has been involved in Thales sonar
- Thin flush mounted planar flank arrays present all the design and development. He is currently working with
benefits listed above. the sonar signal and data processing Research &
Development department.

8/8

You might also like