Appendage Design

  • Martin RenilsonEmail author


Submarines usually have three groups of appendages: sail; forward control surfaces; and aft control surfaces. Appendages contribute a considerable increase in drag, and need to be considered carefully. There are two approaches to sail design: a foil type; and a blended type. The blended type of sail has a larger volume than the foil type, and is better faired into the hull. If the sail is at an angle of attack it will generate a side force high up resulting in a heel angle (particularly snap roll) and a force and moment in the vertical plane on the hull, resulting in a stern dipping tendency. The magnitude of the side force when manoeuvring will depend on the distance of the sail from the Pivot Point. The location of the sail will also affect the turning radius. The forward planes can be located in three different positions: midline; eyebrow; and sail. The pros and cons of each of these are discussed. The aft control surfaces may include fixed and movable surfaces, with the fixed surfaces increasing stability, and the movable surfaces used to change trim, and hence to make large depth changes, and to turn the submarine. Different aft control surface configurations include: cruciform; X-form; inverted Y; and pentaform. The pros and cons of these different configurations are discussed.


Foil Type Control Surface Sphalerite Type Submarine Stern Plane 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Crossland P, Kimber NI, Thompson N (2012) Understanding the manoeuvring performance of an X-plane submarine in deep water and near the free surface. In: Pacific 2012: international maritime conference, Sydney, Jan 2012Google Scholar
  2. Crossland P, Marchant P, Thompson N (2011) Evaluating the manoeuvring performance of an X-plane submarine. In: Proceedings of warship 2011: naval submarines and UUVs, Royal Institution of Naval Architects, Bath, 29–30 June 2011Google Scholar
  3. Hoerner SF (1965) Fluid-dynamic dragGoogle Scholar
  4. Kormilitsin YN, Khalizev OA (2001) Theory of submarine design. Saint Petersburg State Maritime Technical University, RussiaGoogle Scholar
  5. Pook DA, Seil G, Nguyen M, Ranmuthugala, D, Renilson MR (2017) The effect of aft control surface deflection at angles of drift and angles of attack. In: Proceedings of warship 2017: naval submarines and UUVs, Royal Institution of Naval Architects, Bath, UKGoogle Scholar
  6. Renilson MR (2011) Submarine manoeuvring and appendage design—what is the best option for a large SSK? In: Proceedings of the Submarine Institute of Australia Technology conference 2011, Science Technology and Engineering, Adelaide, 8–10 Nov 2011Google Scholar
  7. Seil GJ, Anderson B (2012) A comparison of submarine fin geometry on the performance of a generic submarine. In: Proceedings of Pacific 2012 international maritime conference, Sydney, 2012Google Scholar
  8. Seil GJ, Anderson B (2013) The influence of submarine fin design on heave force and pitching moment in steady drift. In: Pacific 2013: international maritime conference, Sydney, Oct 2013Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Australian Maritime CollegeUniversity of TasmaniaLauncestonAustralia

Personalised recommendations