Canada may buy Nuclear Subs!

[gf0012-aust]

Yup, this line of question came up on another forum where a complete poltroon continues to insist AIP subs are just about as capable as SSN's.

well I could confidently tell you that he has never been involved with subs or woked in the sub industry - let alone have a decent understanding of the limitations of even current AIP.

He's got bugger all understanding of sub ops - esp long range conventional such as Soryu, Collins

As far as I understand the subject (and I post purely so folk who know better than I can correct and further educate me)

AIP engines have a relatively low output compared to diesels currently in use and can't give enough power to charge the batteries very rapidly. Effectively an AIP sprints on battery power which runs down very rapidly at which point you're trickle charging via AIP and on a hiding to nothing in terms of staying in the fight.

AIP uses about 7 times as much oxidiser by weight to burn diesel, and any tanks allocated to oxidiser therefore rob quite a bit of space from range. If you're after long range, better to snort and charge - the Collins class specified pretty hefty diesels instead of the AIP end of things to ram as many amps into those batteries in as short a time as possible to cut down on indiscretion rates vs giving patrol range.

AIP can let you scoot around at low speeds for a decent time, assuming you're already where you need to fight. It's not, as far as I can understand it, something that fits in with under ice ops at anything more than a few knots, or which would allow you to go climb into someone else's back yard at range.

fundamentally yes - AIP doesn't provide a conventional with all the operational advantages of a nuke - it provides an AIP sub with a distinct advantage over other conventionals in some operational scenarios - but not all

unfort the OP's understanding of AIP seems to be driven by the marketing and not the operational realities.

 

[John Fedup]

The next generation of conventional subs will most likely have submerged range in the thousands of kms, so they will be able to do significantly more in a polar patrol that conventionals were able to before (although not a as fast, nor as long as a nuclear submarine).

But I think your right, I think Canada may get out of the sub business. With current subs coming up to 25 yo and no real prospect of replacement appearing.

Next generation will have a range of thousands of km...and cars can't mange much more than 400! The battery technology is non-existent for this range and likely never will be (for subs and cars is a stretch as well)!

I am so sick of battery fantasy BS. As an Ontario resident I know windmill and solar farm produced electricity is green but without storage technology it is overpriced power with no place to go. Massive R&D dollars devoted to battery development will provide an alternative to nuke subs but more importantly will make green power available when it is actually needed for domestic use, something only hydro dams can do at present.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Next generation will have a range of thousands of km...and cars can't mange much more than 400! The battery technology is non-existent for this range and likely never will be (for subs and cars is a stretch as well)!

there are other solutions beyond AIP - and AIP is a limited solution set despite recent improvements

I am so sick of battery fantasy BS. As an Ontario resident I know windmill and solar farm produced electricity is green but without storage technology it is overpriced power with no place to go. Massive R&D dollars devoted to battery development will provide an alternative to nuke subs but more importantly will make green power available when it is actually needed for domestic use, something only hydro dams can do at present.

I directly worked in the wind turbine business for about 5 years, including fuel cells, regen tech and storage developments. One of the turbine techs I worked on was paid for by the USN

unfort the bulk of most peoples comprehension of wind turbine tech is pretty shallow - and the store forward tech is around if people want to pay for it - but its tied into line limits, capacity constraints and range issues

the stuff we worked on for wind turbines was of great interest to USN and when I was in Europe it was a case of "spot the guy from ONR"

wherever the energy conferences were in europe you could guarantee that ONR had a presence.

although store forward and storage tech is more efficient, what kills it is absolute economics.

there's no reason why LiPo and some other techs in dev couldn't go into subs today - but its also a "bleeding edge" conversation

 

[John Fedup]

well I could confidently tell you that he has never been involved with subs or woked in the sub industry - let alone have a decent understanding of the limitations of even current AIP.

He's got bugger all understanding of sub ops - esp long range conventional such as Soryu, Collins



fundamentally yes - AIP doesn't provide a conventional with all the operational advantages of a nuke - it provides an AIP sub with a distinct advantage over other conventionals in some operational scenarios - but not all

unfort the OP's understanding of AIP seems to be driven by the marketing and not the operational realities.

Agreed, chemistry and current battery technology is inferior to nukes for endurance and this is not likely to change anytime soon unless a huge amount of money is allocated to battery research. This would be good for subs and domestic power grids, a real win-win.

 

[the road runner]

What tech is available for country's such as Canada/Australia/Japan who all have long transit times to get to their operational areas?

Are we talking lipo batteries and more economical engines?

All you ever hear in the sub debate is AIP is the holey grail for conventional's ,but some defence pros have pointed out in a number of posts that its not as desirable for some navy's to use AIP. RAN and Collins being one.

What are these newer technology's?
Would love to have a read about them if they are in the public arena

 

[gf0012-aust]

What tech is available for country's such as Canada/Australia/Japan who all have long transit times to get to their operational areas?

Are we talking lipo batteries and more economical engines?

All you ever hear in the sub debate is AIP is the holey grail for conventional's ,but some defence pros have pointed out in a number of posts that its not as desirable for some navy's to use AIP. RAN and Collins being one.

What are these newer technology's?
Would love to have a read about them if they are in the public arena

some of them have been discussed by Abe and myself in here (DT) a few years back - unfort one of them has gone from public domain chat to never talked about due to military application developments

most of the silly chat (especially broadsheet defence journos) is about issues of range - and thats but a fraction of the requirement

eg specific conventionals had huge range capability in WW2 - max range has never been the issue.

its about range coupled with C4ISR/SA/C4ISTAR and lots of other alpha/numeric acronyms ie system of system co-operative engagement and fighting

 

[John Fedup]

there are other solutions beyond AIP - and AIP is a limited solution set despite recent improvements



I directly worked in the wind turbine business for about 5 years, including fuel cells, regen tech and storage developments. One of the turbine techs I worked on was paid for by the USN

unfort the bulk of most peoples comprehension of wind turbine tech is pretty shallow - and the store forward tech is around if people want to pay for it - but its tied into line limits, capacity constraints and range issues

the stuff we worked on for wind turbines was of great interest to USN and when I was in Europe it was a case of "spot the guy from ONR"

wherever the energy conferences were in europe you could guarantee that ONR had a presence.

although store forward and storage tech is more efficient, what kills it is absolute economics.

there's no reason why LiPo and some other techs in dev couldn't go into subs today - but its also a "bleeding edge" conversation

I assume LiPo is lithium polymer? Although wind and solar is a little off topic for subs, power storage is an issue for both subs and domestic power grids. Certainly Australia has better solar potential than Ontario but unless the demand is there both wind and solar generated power here is sold at a huge loss to export markets. AIP has issues but I have limited knowledge in this area. Fuel cell technology has similar problems with storage of less than desireable reagents for confined spaces found aboard subs. Snorkels and diesels with AIP works as an alternative to nukes for many navies but the RCN would be better served with nukes given our operating environment. In 20 years we will have neither, real shame.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I assume LiPo is lithium polymer? Although wind and solar is a little off topic for subs, power storage is an issue for both subs and domestic power grids.

there's been some very good developments in store forward/storage tech - but not commercially viable

there's also excellent opportunity for regen tech to be used in subs and improvements in using capacitor type tech as a flash/flush forward storage option

 

[John Fedup]

What tech is available for country's such as Canada/Australia/Japan who all have long transit times to get to their operational areas?

Are we talking lipo batteries and more economical engines?

All you ever hear in the sub debate is AIP is the holey grail for conventional's ,but some defence pros have pointed out in a number of posts that its not as desirable for some navy's to use AIP. RAN and Collins being one.

What are these newer technology's?
Would love to have a read about them if they are in the public arena

AIP is a valuable asset for hiding and sneaking away for any diesel electric sub and there are claims this tech is quieter than nukes as well as counter claims it isn't. In any event there is no denying the fact nuclear has superior endurance for underwater and surface operation. For Canada this is an important consideration as our transit times are longer, there are no bases in the Arctic and there is the ice factor. Japan and Australia are able to consider the non-nuclear options but given Australia's geography, the nuclear option has merit.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Post lag see below

 

[StingrayOZ]

Well I had a reply but due to crappy internet, by the time it was ready to send the thread had moved on.

Some of the technologies are mentioned in the 216 proposal, which is public domain, Li-ion, brushless motors, systems, dismounts, etc. Australia is also after the japanese diesel tech.
Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian
ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems

SSK and SSN are fundamentally different devices with different ways of operating. One doesn't have to be the other to be useful. Much like a tank and sniper don't have to be the same thing to do a similar job. In fact sometimes one tool is much better for a particular job.

Canada may find it doesn't have to go far to find other subs. Chuffing along at 30kts may mean things are missed. You might find you don't have to go far to find something interesting these days. Australia I think is quiet happy with conventionals and how they operate and what they let us do. To mirror the US and the UK with SSN's isn't what we are really about.

I do wonder if AIP stuff is still viable as other technologies like lithium ion and super capacitor (and hybrids) may be better use. Most of the AIP stuff was done in the 90's before Lithium Ion batteries were even discovered.

 

[Volkodav]

A factor that will come into play to the advantage of DE vs AIP subs (nucs are a different matter again) is energy density. Basically once the curve of battery storage for a given volume and mass crosses the curve of a diesel generator system (plus bunkerage) it will be possible to charge the sub by an external means and achieve equal or greater range from batteries alone than from internal combustion generators and their fossil fuel bunkers.

Well that's the theory anyway.

Factor in improved outputs and reduced fuels consumption from the DGs it will be a long time until the curves cross.

 

[gf0012-aust]

SSK and SSN are fundamentally different devices with different ways of operating. One doesn't have to be the other to be useful. Much like a tank and sniper don't have to be the same thing to do a similar job. In fact sometimes one tool is much better for a particular job.

which is what becomes interesting when you look at chinas deployment of her first carrier

she just doesn't have the relevant subs or the relevant technology to deploy a proper carrier group with current tech

they can carry on as much as they like about going mainstream with that carrier, but they can't send that carrier anywhere meaningful at present as the principle asset needed to protect and ride shotgun doesn't exist in their force structure.

in the press particularly there seems to be a comprehension deficit of the different requirements for some navies and particular sub types, which is why you seem them always trotting out the canned solutions for smaller subs as they think that one size fits all.

even if they were all one size, its the mission set and fitout issues that are important.
you can only mod an existing design so far - unless it was a jack and jill solution in the first place. (and they're usually ex nukes anyway )

 

[StobieWan]

That was one of several objections I had to the AIP for the RN routine - how the ferk do we screen the CVF group during ops with an AIP force? Travel at 2 knots?

 

[kev 99]

That was one of several objections I had to the AIP for the RN routine - how the ferk do we screen the CVF group during ops with an AIP force? Travel at 2 knots?

And no how many times we all said that he wouldn't acknowledge that it was a problem.

 

[StobieWan]

Ah, he had us whipped with the "lalalanotlistening" counter argument

 

[gf0012-aust]

Ah, he had us whipped with the "lalalanotlistening" counter argument

I guess he doesn't understand that the nukes and conventionals don't operate the same and that the mission sets for both are impacted by power plant?

if he doesn't get the basics then you're wasting your time even discussing it with him.

even though some of the latest conventionals have a higher top end, good luck sprinting and evading under contested space.

there are technical jihadists on both sides of the fence, but a reality check has to kick in at some stage.

there are mission sets where connventionals are superior to nukes and vice versa - but riding shotgun with a carrier battle group intent on staying safe evading and at speed is not one of the ones I'd be ticking off.

unless he can provide meaningful and real world context then he's whistling dixie

 

[StobieWan]

He's one of two fecking irritating trolls on Warships.

Fact-proof is his speciality, along with insulting behaviour if called on something.

I suspect all his AIP information comes from this briefing:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XS4HSPCjC28

 

[kev 99]

I guess he doesn't understand that the nukes and conventionals don't operate the same and that the mission sets for both are impacted by power plant?

if he doesn't get the basics then you're wasting your time even discussing it with him.

Yep, he really doesn't get it, not sure why, it's not as if it's a difficult concept to grasp.

 

[gf0012-aust]

He's one of two fecking irritating trolls on Warships.

Fact-proof is his speciality, along with insulting behaviour if called on something.

I suspect all his AIP information comes from this briefing:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XS4HSPCjC28

ROFL

I reckon there's a market for a dual fuel mentos/coke powered sub

what you don't eat or drink you can use for propulsion... has to be some logistics and maint savings in there somewhere....