Nuclear vs AIP

[amrcg]

Dear all

I have a doubt about the noise characteristics of nuclear submarines vs AIP diesel submarines. In several websites I use to read statements like this:

"A nuclear sub uses a compact nuclear reactor to generate steam to drive a turbine to turn the propeller. Except for modern adaptations, this differs little from old coal driven turbines. They are much quieter now, but they still make a lot of noise. Diesel submarines use reciprocating engines on the surface and while snorkeling, and battery driven electric motors while submerged. The first is noisy, the latter extremely quiet."

My dumb question: Theoretically, couldn't nuclear submarines also have batteries that would be charged by the steam-driven turbine? That would make nuclear submarines even quiter during an action.

Best regards,
Antonio

[TLAM Strike]

The 1st Brit nucs had an electric motor for doing just that (among other things)

[Bubblehead Nuke]

You might not realize it but a reactor plant is not something that you can just turn on and off like a diesel. We would spend about 8 -12 hours MINIMUM doing prestartup checklists and a few hours to actually take the reactor critical and bring systems online.

The Americans did try something like this with the USS Tullibee. It was turbo electric drive with a big honkin electric motor driving the shaft directly. The power requirements are a LOT different when you are just driving turbine generators and not the engines. It supposedly cut the noise level down propulsion plant noise significantly but due to the way it was designed it was not very fast.

Oh, and american subs DO have batteries. BIG ones, but they are a backup for a backup of the reactor plant. (yes, I said backup twice for a reason)

[Smaragdadler]

Dear all

I have a doubt about the noise characteristics of nuclear submarines vs AIP diesel submarines. In several websites I use to read statements like this:

"A nuclear sub uses a compact nuclear reactor to generate steam to drive a turbine to turn the propeller. Except for modern adaptations, this differs little from old coal driven turbines. They are much quieter now, but they still make a lot of noise. Diesel submarines use reciprocating engines on the surface and while snorkeling, and battery driven electric motors while submerged. The first is noisy, the latter extremely quiet."

My dumb question: Theoretically, couldn't nuclear submarines also have batteries that would be charged by the steam-driven turbine? That would make nuclear submarines even quiter during an action.

Best regards,
Antonio

AIP is not Diesel and not every AIP is the same.
Your quote above talks only about 'normal' Diesel vs. Nuclear. AIP means 'air independent propulsion' and it comes in different concepts. There are some 'older' AIP-systems which 'only' allow to run the diesel submerged without snorkel. With most modern 'true' AIP (fuel cell) you don't need the diesel at all.

http://www.marine.de/02DB070000000001/CurrentBaseLink/W26DJ8NX959INFODE/$FILE/Unterseeboot212-640x480.jpg

[Smaragdadler]

AIP - The Early History

http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/cno/n87/usw/issue_13/USW%20fall%2002/Type-XVIIB-sub.gif
Walter Type XVIIB up on the stocks. Pictured above is the German Walter Type XVIIB U-1406, partially dismantled shortly after the end of World War II. U-1406 was turned over to the U.S. Navy as a war prize and soon disposed of, but the Royal Navy later operated her sister ship, U-1407, as HMS Meteorite to gain experience in hydrogen-peroxide propulsion technologies.

Despite their initial successes, submarine pioneers were still eager to find some means to free their boats from the necessity of surfacing frequently for access to the atmospheric oxygen demanded by the gasoline or diesel engines that charged the batteries. A number of approaches were tried, but eventually, open-cycle diesel engines, lead-acid batteries, and electric motors for submerged propulsion became the standard submarine engineering plant that served well through two world wars.

In the early 1930s, however, a brilliant German engineer, Dr. Helmuth Walter (ca. 1900-1980) of Kiel's Germaniawerft, proposed a radical new submarine propulsion plant based on the use of high-purity hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) as an oxidant. In Walter's system, hydrogen peroxide from an onboard supply was decomposed using a permanganate catalyst to yield high temperature steam and free oxygen. Into the reaction chamber was injected diesel fuel, which combusted with the oxygen to yield a mixture of steam and hot gas that drove a high-speed turbine. The exhaust and condensed steam were then expelled overboard. Walter's primary design goal was high underwater speed, rather than long endurance, and indeed, his first submarine prototype, the experimental V80, reached 28.1 knots submerged in its 1940 trials - at a time when conventional submarines were limited to 10 knots or less. Thus, V80, only 76 tons and 22 meters long, also served as an early test bed for studying the dynamics and control of high-speed underwater vehicles.

Later in the war, the Kriegsmarine attempted to scale Walter's prototype up to a useful operational size, but although seven Type XVIIB H2O2 coastal boats were completed before Germany's final defeat, none saw combat. These Type XVIIs displaced 300 tons and were powered by two 2,500 horsepower turbines, in addition to a conventional diesel-electric plant. More ambitious plans to build larger Walter-designed ocean-going submarines, such as the 800-ton Type XXVI and the 1,600-ton Type XVIII were thwarted by the unsuccessful course of the war and the realization that the industrial capacity needed to supply sufficient quantities of hydrogen peroxide could never be achieved. However, the Type XVIII was modified into the highly successful Type XXI "electro-boat," in which larger batteries provided a submerged speed of 17 knots, which could be maintained for 90 minutes. That innovation, and the adoption of the snorkel, yielded a potent combination that strongly influenced the postwar design of conventionally-powered submarines on both sides of the Iron Curtain.

[...]

An AIP Perspective
Although it is a remarkable tribute to Hellmuth Walter's engineering genius that he fielded a fully functional - if troublesome - 5,000-horsepower AIP system in 1945, the maximum power output of current AIP installations is typically on the order of 400 horsepower (300 kilowatts). In comparison, the conventional diesel-electric plant of the U 212 class described above is rated at over 3,000 horsepower, and a typical nuclear submarine propulsion plant produces over 20,000. Since the power required to propel a submerged body varies with the cube of its velocity, it should be apparent that at least for the near future, AIP will be valuable primarily as a low-speed, long-endurance adjunct to the under- water performance of conventional submarines. There is little short-term prospect for AIP to become a primary, full-performance alternative to either diesel or nuclear power. Even the phrase "closed cycle" is something of a misnomer, because except for fuel cells, all AIP alternatives require ejecting exhaust gases overboard, which limits both depth capability and stealth.

However, this is not to minimize the dangerous potential for AIP submarines to complicate seriously both coastal defense and assured access to littoral regions. If their distinctive characteristics are exploited by skillful operators, AIP submarines can be used to telling effect for both short- and medium-range missions. AIP dramatically expands the tactical "trade-space" for diesel-electric submarines. If conditions permit, they can transit rapidly on the surface with-out unduly expending the wherewithal for superior underwater performance. Submerged, they can opt for a long, slow, silent patrol that keeps their batteries fully charged and thus capable of powering speed bursts of significant duration. And by carefully husbanding their resources, they can revert again to slow-speed operation and repeat the cycle several times over weeks of submergence. Moreover, AIP technology is evolving rapidly, and some experts predict, for example, that the power output of a typical fuel cell module could well double or triple in the next several years, allowing an even more advantageous trade-off between underwater speed and endurance.

Their tactical flexibility, their small size, their inherent stealth - and the novel operational paradigms AIP submarines introduce to undersea warfare - will make these new boats a dangerous threat to submariners accustomed to nuclear- or conventionally diesel-powered adversaries. The Submarine Force needs to understand this threat - where it's been, where it's going, what it means, and how to counter it.

more:
http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/cno/n87/usw/issue_13/propulsion.htm

[Kapitan]

It realy depends on how much you want to spend, and what its going to be needed for.

Germany has no nuclear submarines only AIP ones but they dont get heavily involved in forign politics so thier subs realy have no use for the time being.

Britian on the other hand does and we use our nukes all the time for all diffrent kinds of missions and what not so it does depends on you place in the world.

Personaly id like to go on an AIP submarine not a nuke.

[amrcg]

AIP is not Diesel and not every AIP is the same.
Your quote above talks only about 'normal' Diesel vs. Nuclear. AIP means 'air independent propulsion' and it comes in different concepts. There are some 'older' AIP-systems which 'only' allow to run the diesel submerged without snorkel. With most modern 'true' AIP (fuel cell) you don't need the diesel at all.


I thought that fuel cells were still not efficient enough to allow full autonomy. I thought they operated more like "more efficient batteries" in modern diesel subs. What is the current autonomy of a fule-cell-only sub?

Cheers,
Antonio

[Smaragdadler]

I thought that fuel cells were still not efficient enough to allow full autonomy. I thought they operated more like "more efficient batteries" in modern diesel subs. What is the current autonomy of a fule-cell-only sub?

We had talked about it a little bit in the u31-pic thread. There are lot of rumors but nobody came with hard facts.
This is what Skybird wrote about u212:

The Diesel is very much only an emergency backup. They are not expected to "charge batteries" under normal conditions during a trip, for all energy for board systems and engine is not coming from batteries, but directly from the fuel cells, the traditional diesel-battery-engine-concept cannot be compared to in this case - this is NOT a normal diesel sub with an added fuel cell. The engine is directly powered by the fuel cells. The energy in these fuel cells can only be replenished at harbour, by replacing and/or loading the cylindrical modules that store these ressources (they do indeed look like giant AAA battery cells, :) ) Normal operation of the the engine and screw is energized by the fuel cell only - always. Top secret propeller and fuel cell makes for so little noise at up to medium speed settings that the sub is described to be "undetectable by contemporary passive sonar even if sensors are just a "Katzensprung" away" (quoting a leading engineer of HDW in an interview with a defense affairs journalist at the beginniong of this year, a guy I once talked to). The same source told him that the "212 is easily the most "non-existing" sub in the water today."
The limited hull size (still much more room than in the 206 and 209) is referring to the roots of the project in the cold war. The 212 hull design was once meant for exclusive Eastern sea operations.

The duration of the sub beeing able to remain submerged without snorkeling or taking ressupplies is top secret, and various sources indicate various time frames from up to 3 weeks to up to 4 months. Since the sub is Germany's top intel gathering platform is is now meant to serve in that role globally, if wanted, and that requires long endurance capabilities. time and again German medias have pointed out that this sub can operate completely indepedent from surface (snorkelling, ressuplying) for "many, many weeks". That'S why some tend to think of it as "a nuclear sub without a nuclear engine."

but whatever - it looks damn sexy.

[BigBadVuk]

Well if Nimitz class is somewhere (if im right) around 1 year of authonomy then i guess subs r around that time also....

And @amrcg even if u order full stop to nuclear sub...manuvering and reactor control room will NOT turn down all the pumps and systems for cooling the reactor, becose that will be the invitation for disaster...Chernobyl II at sea...So u need to keep reactor supplied with coolant all the time even if he is not operating at 100% and CRDM(control rods drive mechanisam-set of graphite rods for controling the fission,something like throtle in plane or car) is in full down position.And even if pumps are all on rubber stands,double insulated from sub external hull they r still noisy so generaly SSNs are louder than SSs..

[Henson]

What is being missed is that the two different platforms fulfill different missions, and especially in the case of the US the requirements we have of our submarines are a lot different than the requirements Japan or Pakistan have for theirs.

We need those legs and that speed to do what we need to do and get where we need to go. Considering where warfare is moving, once you get a submarine to a certain level of quiet it's debateable whether it's worthwhile to go any further now.

We live in brown water. The cold war is over, and so are cold war submarine realities.

[Kapitan]

Not so fast henson, cold war is still a reality, you guys still track trail and moniter russian exercises and submarines.

America is not 100% to blame i can name a few submarines that have been monitering such exercise's including german norwiegen swedish danish french British and American

[Henson]

Not so fast henson, cold war is still a reality, you guys still track trail and moniter russian exercises and submarines.

America is not 100% to blame i can name a few submarines that have been monitering such exercise's including german norwiegen swedish danish french British and American

I won't confirm that either way.

I would point out that we have no doubt the russians attempt to track US subs, especially our Tridents (Ohio class SSBNs).

It is true however that our focus has moved to other missions, TLAM strike being among them. We train for a large range of possible missions, in all different types of waterspace.

[Kapitan]

I dont need you to confirm this, watching the tv doc documentary says it all, i mean what chance is there of just coincidentaly bumping into a norwiegen spy ship, not to mention a british spy ship as well.

We know all of you try and track us we know where you hide just off the coast, and we know what your doing it for.

Your missions have changed so have ours, our role is to protect our country, our sovrenty, your now taking to brown water to stop these terrorists and we know your not putting much emphasis on tracking our boats so much.

I dont ask for you to confirm you actions or the USN actions, because we and most people here already know that you still track our submarines.

We are also to blame il openly admit we do track your submarines, ohio's are the main goal.

In 1999 we sent two Oscar class submarines too sea to stalk you waters, the mission was a sucsess, it an open mission because you americans made it public, we put the Kursk in the med she was hunted by both british and americans for 3 weeks but you failed to find her.

It took a canadian P3 and for the kursk to have travel over 5,000 miles before she was spotted and moniterd heading home off the icelantic coast.

Another submarine at the same time was spotted first by a merchant ship lurking around the waters of pearl harbour, to confirm you sent out again a P3 which in turn moniterd the ship.

Despite being detected (which was an aim anyway) the mission was sucsessful the primary goal was to show that despite the issues Russia has we can still deploy far and wide, and let me remind you that since this has taken place, patrols have taken an up turning, there has been more of them.

Currently there is around 7 submarines at sea at my best guess, im not ranting here im filling in some detail so please dont take this as a negative post!

The submarines dont number what they used to be, we dont want a war with you we never have (maybe stalin and kruschev did), but i can only say that submariners from Russia admire thier american and british counterparts they hold close respect for you and what your doing, even if it is following them.

[Henson]

Trust me, that respect is reciprocated by all but the youthful, ignorant, or unwise.

We pay attention to anyone who could conceivably be a threat to our interests. No one expects us to do any different.


Incidentally, how would you know if an Oscar was detected? We don't exactly pubicize submarine encounters for reading on the web.

(I saw it on TV, it must be true...)

[Kapitan]

No we know you detected them, infact it was published in the Russian papers, they tv thing i was on about is something diffrent.

In this documentary the captain alleges that they are being spied on, not long after the cameras give a very good close up of the spy ships, and then the narrator translates what the captain says.

i dont take TV to light alot i mean alot of it is katwaddel.

But we understand we are a threat to you (Heavens knows why), but we know what your doing and we let you get on with it, we have no wish for a confrontation.

The reason it was publicised was that was the goal it was to prove to america publicly via the media that russia can still pose a threat so we basical helped compromise our own mission (again i aint a clue why).

Some high officed moscow idiot thought it would be a good idea to send these two submarines in tandem to prove that russia can still pose a threat, in my view it shouldnt have been done, it helped damage relations and got us where we are now in a tight spot.

Im not being youthfull but you do what you do to protect your country and family and i will do the same.

Together we are the same people doing the same thing just diffrent ways, we dont go out there looking for the problem we let it come to us.

As we said to the crew of one spy submarine back in the 1950's "thankyou for the ASW exercise" :rotfl:

In this post im not saying to the USN back off our coast but what i am saying is we know why your doing it, to protect yourself, any right minded person group or government would do that same, so realy no one is in the wrong.

Might i just add also that the two oscar class submarines missions were to be detected, the information is publicly availible but alot is still classified things like the route they took and what they did only the bear basics have been told.

[Skybird]

I thought that fuel cells were still not efficient enough to allow full autonomy. I thought they operated more like "more efficient batteries" in modern diesel subs. What is the current autonomy of a fule-cell-only sub?

We had talked about it a little bit in the u31-pic thread. There are lot of rumors but nobody came with hard facts.
This is what Skybird wrote about u212:

The Diesel is very much only an emergency backup. They are not expected to "charge batteries" under normal conditions during a trip, for all energy for board systems and engine is not coming from batteries, but directly from the fuel cells, the traditional diesel-battery-engine-concept cannot be compared to in this case - this is NOT a normal diesel sub with an added fuel cell. The engine is directly powered by the fuel cells. The energy in these fuel cells can only be replenished at harbour, by replacing and/or loading the cylindrical modules that store these ressources (they do indeed look like giant AAA battery cells, :) ) Normal operation of the the engine and screw is energized by the fuel cell only - always. Top secret propeller and fuel cell makes for so little noise at up to medium speed settings that the sub is described to be "undetectable by contemporary passive sonar even if sensors are just a "Katzensprung" away" (quoting a leading engineer of HDW in an interview with a defense affairs journalist at the beginniong of this year, a guy I once talked to). The same source told him that the "212 is easily the most "non-existing" sub in the water today."
The limited hull size (still much more room than in the 206 and 209) is referring to the roots of the project in the cold war. The 212 hull design was once meant for exclusive Eastern sea operations.

The duration of the sub beeing able to remain submerged without snorkeling or taking ressupplies is top secret, and various sources indicate various time frames from up to 3 weeks to up to 4 months. Since the sub is Germany's top intel gathering platform is is now meant to serve in that role globally, if wanted, and that requires long endurance capabilities. time and again German medias have pointed out that this sub can operate completely indepedent from surface (snorkelling, ressuplying) for "many, many weeks". That'S why some tend to think of it as "a nuclear sub without a nuclear engine."

but whatever - it looks damn sexy.

However, I have red different information in different medias, and saw different info on TV docus. Even dedicated online defense sites are not telling identical information. 3 weeks submerged at medium speed, and the currently most silent sub out there, these statements I would take as safe minimum of valid information only. But it must not be that the maximum is far beyond that. As said, the information situation is contradictory. And that is probably wanted by the German navy. Best advise is to take any info on these boats with extreme caution.

But the best point in their design is still this: that once the American navy wanted their hands on these boat's technology so desperately, that they were willing to buy the complete shipyard and company. Today another American investor has his hands in it, too, but he is not interested in the knowhow, but has economical and profit interests only. The Verteidgungsministerium has a very sharp eye on it.

[SeaQueen]

My dumb question: Theoretically, couldn't nuclear submarines also have batteries that would be charged by the steam-driven turbine? That would make nuclear submarines even quiter during an action.


They didn't really explain correctly why nuclear submarines tend to be louder than diesel electric ones. Nuclear submarines have to circulate water through their reactors to cool them. That's generally the source of noise. There was a lot of experimentation with reactors that used convection instead of pumps to circulate the water. These tended to be MUCH more quiet.

Some nuclear powered submarines do have electric motors and batteries, but they still have to keep their reactor cool, so there's only so much they can do.

Some AIPs are just as loud as air-breathing diesels. There's a really interesting description of the history and development of air independent propulsion in Cold War Submarines by Norman Palomar. There's some that are Sterling-cycle engines, others are basically just diesel engines with some kind of oxygen scrubber attached. Others are powered by the chemical decomposition of things like hydrogen peroxide. It's all neat stuff.

[Smaragdadler]

Europe News

German submarine sets world record for conventional dive
Apr 26, 2006, 13:14 GMT

Gluecksburg, Germany - One of Germany's crack new fuel-cell-powered submarines has set a world record with a two-week-long dive, the German Navy said Wednesday.

The trip by the U212A-class sub with a crew of 27 from Eckernfoerde in Germany to Rota in Spain involved the longest period that any non-nuclear vessel had ever spent under water.

The navy did not say what the previous record had been. US and Russian nuclear submarines can stay under water for longer.

Germany, which has no nuclear weapons and no nuclear-powered ships, developed the high-tech hybrid-powered submarines to replace diesel-electric vessels that need to surface more often to obtain air for the engines.

The U212A vessels have a hybrid propulsion system made up of an electric motor which is fed power from fuel cells that burn hydrogen. They must also keep air in their tanks, but need less than diesels do.

The vessel, the U 32, made the trip April 11-25 and had proved the capability of the propulsion system, a naval spokesman said in Gluecksburg, northern Germany. The U 32 is to protect the Straits of Gibraltar and Mediterranean as part of the war against terrorism.

The stealthy hybrid-powered vessels are almost noiseless and do not release any exhaust gases when under water.

© 2006 dpa - Deutsche Presse-Agentur

http://news.monstersandcritics.com/europe/article_1158610.php/German_submarine_sets_world_record_for_conventiona l_dive

[Smaragdadler]

The Wrong Sub for New Warfare Era

With the paradigm shift from strategic to tactical warfare operations, the United States Navy has found itself with an aging fleet of virtually obsolete nuclear submarines designed to fight a war that never happened – and which they played a significant role in preventing. (For a review of the post-Cold War state of our nuclear submarine fleet and the modern alternatives waiting in the wings to supplement or even replace these aging behemoths, see my 2002 article, “Tomorrow’s Submarine Fleet – The Non-nuclear Option,” DefenseWatch, Feb. 6, 2002).

In the two and a half years since that article appeared, the world of submarine warfare has changed significantly. This month, on Sept. 3, the nuclear submarine that eventually will be commissioned as the USS Virginia (SSN 774) underwent sea trials off the coast of New England .

According to Adm. Frank Bowman, director of naval nuclear propulsion, “This sea trial was an absolute success, a clean sweep, as we say in the Navy. It met every expectation of mine, for the propulsion plant and for the ship.”

It was, as the Navy says, a “clean sweep.”

The Virginia is the result of several years of round-the-clock efforts by thousands of people from 3,500 companies located in 46 states. It is an extraordinarily stealthy, futuristically high-tech, astonishingly expensive underwater marvel. To the tune of $2 billion.

What did we get for our hard-earned bucks?

The sub is 377 feet long with a beam of 34 feet, and it displaces 7,300 tons submerged. Compare this to the other “new” submarine – the USS Seawolf (SSN 21) – 353 feet long, 40 feet beam, displacing 9,137 tons submerged.

The Virginia carries a plethora of systems and weapons designed to keep the sub quiet, and to allow it to operate near-shore for battlefield support and for unmanned vehicle and Seal Team deployments.

A major element in the argument for canceling all but three of the proposed twenty-nine Seawolf Class subs was the substantial per-sub cost of about $2 billion. The new Virginia Class was supposed to cost less, but at you can see, it didn’t work out that way. Furthermore, the smaller Virginia Class was supposed to be better suited for operating close inshore, but – again as you can see – these subs are 24 feet longer. Because they displace significantly less, they are more maneuverable, but their added length limits their maximum angle when operating in waters about as deep as they are long.

In my earlier article discussing the non-nuclear submarine option, I pointed out that a typical modern Air Independent Propulsion (AIP) submarine costs about $250 million. As I related in that article, AIP design since the end of World War II has followed on four different fronts:



* German Thyssen Nordseewerke (TNSW) developed a closed-cycle diesel using liquid oxygen, diesel oil, and argon. The same diesel is used as a conventional air-breathing engine for surface propulsion. These systems are suitable for both retrofitting and new construction.



* Howaltswerke-Deutsche Werft (HDW) in Germany has developed a hybrid fuel cell system for a diesel-electric sub. High-speed operations run off the conventional battery, while the fuel cell recharges the battery, and provides energy for low-speed operations. Typical submarine cost using either HDW or TNSW AIP systems is $250 million.



* Hybrid diesel-electric units propel Swedish Gotland Class subs, supplemented with Kockum Stirling engines running on liquid oxygen and diesel oil to turn a generator to produce electricity for propulsion and to charge the vessel's batteries. Typical cost for a Gotland class sub is $100 million.



* The French “MESMA” (Module d’Energie Sous-Marine Autonome) AIP steam-turbine system burns ethanol and liquid oxygen to make steam to drive a turbo-electric generator. The design permits retrofitting into existing submarines by adding an extra hull section. Typical cost for a new submarine powered by MESMA is $250 million.

One could argue, therefore, that a potential enemy who is willing to spend $2 billion on submarine technology could deploy eight subs against a Virginia Class that are significantly quieter than a Virginia Class, significantly more maneuverable than a Virginia Class, and with every bit as capable in their weaponry as a Virginia Class.

Do I need to play out the battle scenario for you?

This potential enemy probably could do the same thing with just two or three AIP subs. In fact, even in a one-on-one situation, all other things being equal, he still has the advantage.

So tell me: Exactly why are we spending eight times as much for less than one-eighth the capability? It really doesn’t make a lot of sense.

The London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies says that at least 300 foreign submarines ply the world’s oceans today. Unnamed Pentagon officials put the number at more than 400 owned by Great Britain , France , Germany , Russia , Sweden , Norway , Canada , Poland , Italy , Spain , Singapore , Indonesia , Algeria , Colombia , Croatia , Vietnam , Pakistan , India , Egypt , Chile and Turkey .

If we factor out our certain allies (as I see it: Great Britain , France , Germany , Sweden , Norway , Canada , Poland , Italy , and Spain ), and our probable friends ( Russia , Singapore , India , and Turkey ), that still leaves us a formidable list of potential adversaries with submarine capability: Indonesia , Algeria , Colombia , Croatia , Vietnam , Pakistan , Egypt and Chile .

France and Germany have been selling AIP submarines as fast as they can produce them. Sweden is about to enter the market. Russia has “leased” a nuclear submarine to India , and has plenty more in stock.

At least half of the known foreign submarines are in the hands of friendlies or are of the older, strictly diesel variety that pose no match for anything we have – even our oldest missile subs. That still leaves 200 or so highly capable submarines that are potentially every bit as good as anything we have. As an ex-submariner (pronounced submarine-er), I will pit our guys against anyone out there, even at two-to-one odds. Our guys are absolutely as good as they get.

But the odds aren’t two-to-one. They’re more like four-to-one. The bad guys can station one of the new ultra-quiet AIP subs at a choke point, and seriously damage or even sink a carrier. An AIP sub can sneak up on a Virginia Class deploying a Seal Team with devastating results. A hunter-killer pack of several AIP subs can take out any nuke we have, once they find it. They don’t have our sophisticated locating technology, but you don’t need sophistication at choke points – all you need is numbers, and they’ve got those, in spades.

Following the end of the Cold War, we downgraded the underwater SOSUS surveillance system, putting much of it in standby (see “Confronting Maritime Terrorism”, DefenseWatch, May 12, 2004 ), but even if it were fully functioning, I’m not certain it could detect a properly configured AIP submarine.

In a phone interview early this month with the Newhouse News Service, Capt. Tom Abernethy, who commands the sub-hunting Destroyer Squadron 22 based in Norfolk , Va. , said: “Shallow water, you get a lot of noise reverberation and additional traffic, and you're fighting in somebody else’s back yard which they know pretty well …. [In that environment, even a diesel sub] is absolutely a real threat, a formidable threat …. ” By implication, he said that AIP subs were equal to or better than anything we have.

Vice Admiral Albert H. Konetzni Jr. of the Navy’s Fleet Forces Command wrote in the June 2004 issue of the U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings: “The uncontested undersea superiority experienced during recent conflicts is not likely to be repeated against determined and capable adversaries.”

It’s time to reexamine our reexamination of our submarine fleet. We mustn’t allow our nuclear superiority to overcome technological common sense. We are spending eight times as much for arguably one-eighth the capability.

I know our school systems are not producing math whizzes, but even a Los Angeles South Central drop-out can figure this one out.

http://www.argee.net/DefenseWatch/The%20Wrong%20Sub%20for%20New%20Warfare%20Era.htm

[Smaragdadler]

Admiral: Diesel Subs OK for Others, Not U.S.

InsideDefense.com NewsStand | Christopher J. Castelli | April 25, 2006

Diesel submarines have near-shore and stealth capabilities that may make them suitable for other countries but they do not meet U.S. requirements to project and sustain forces far beyond coastal waters, according to the Navy's submarine director, Rear Adm. William Hilarides.

The Navy has long opposed acquiring diesel subs, arguing nuclear-powered subs are superior. The subject came up again when Hilarides briefed reporters about submarines at the Washington Navy Yard April 17.

“If we were defending our coast from high-end ships, then a diesel submarine might make sense for that, but we project our submarines out to the far corners of the world and need them to stay there for long periods of time,” Hilarides said.

He said the short-range capabilities of diesel subs may be appropriate for countries that conduct naval operations close to shores. One country that Hilarides cited was Taiwan, which for the last few years has been considering whether to buy eight diesel subs from the United States (see related article).

While the service currently has more than 50 nuclear submarines, only one diesel sub remains in the fleet, the Dolphin (AGSS-555). The Dolphin is used exclusively for research purposes. The Navy decided to stop constructing diesel subs in 1956 and decommissioned the last diesel sub used for standard practices in 1990, according to the March 2006 issue of Proceedings.

But not everyone agrees the Navy should shun diesel subs. Author and analyst Norman Polmar said the short-range, stealth capabilities of non-nuclear subs would add needed capabilities to the United States.

“I would certainly think for special operations . . . especially when you look at the shallow waters around Korea and certain other countries in the Pacific, a few special purpose diesel submarines based in Japan could be very effective,” he told Inside the Navy. Polmar emphasized that non-nuclear subs would also be effective for anti-submarine missions and research and development projects.

He touted the effectiveness of non-nuclear subs that operate on air independent propulsion. Polmar said that while nuclear subs may be more effective than their non-nuclear counterparts in many aspects, non-nuclear subs are often less detectable than nuclear vessels. Even the United States has trouble detecting non-nuclear subs, Polmar said. He noted that putting ashore a handful of special operations troops makes more sense with a vessel manned by 35 people than with an 18,000-ton vessel manned by 140 people.

“The U.S. cannot detect non-nuclear submarines when they're operating on battery,” he said. “It's very difficult to find them, almost impossible in coastal operations, and that's where we're going to be in the future.”

Hilarides acknowledged that diesel subs often have more stealth qualities once they reach their destination, but said getting diesel subs to their place of operation and maintaining them there can be a problem.

“A diesel submarine sitting on the bottom is relatively quiet thing, but it has to get there, and it has to be relatively supportive there,” he said.

Hilarides and Polmar also had some disconnect on the cost of non-nuclear submarines.

The admiral said that diesel subs would cost $1 billion for the hull and for installing modern U.S. equipment on the vessel. While nuclear submarines are projected to cost $2.4 billion, Hilarides suggested that savings for diesel subs would be inadequate.

“So it would be two-for-one . . . if you were to buy a submarine like that,” he said. “And it has nowhere near the stealth, endurance, deployability and on-station time that we need for our submarines.”

Polmar said that the cost for non-nuclear subs would be even lower. He speculated that cost for the lead-boat would be about a $500 million and then the cost “would go down precipitously.”

Inexpensive submarines would be helpful, he said, predicting the Navy would not be able to meet its $2 billion per-submarine cost goal for the nuclear-powered Virginia class subs (see related article).

“The cost of SSNs and the cost of training their crews and the added on cost of handling their reactor cores and handling the submarines themselves . . . is just a tremendous cost,” he said.

Polmar said the Energy Department picks up the cost for fueling reactor cores, so energy costs are not included in the Defense Department budget, making nuclear sub costs seem smaller than they actually are.

http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,95378,00.html

[Bellman]

Thank you for your statement Admiral Kapitan - the senior voice of the Kapitan team ? :ping:

Kapitan:Im not being youthfull but you do what you do to protect your country and family and i will do the same.

Together we are the same people doing the same thing just diffrent ways, we dont go out there looking for the problem we let it come to us.

Father Kapitan ? :yep:

Henson:''Trust me, that respect is reciprocated by all but the youthful, ignorant, or unwise. ''

[Kapitan]

Father Kapitan ?

Yes my child.

[Sub Sailor]

Since Nautilus the US Navy has constantly worked on noise reduction. We have been quite successful at it.
What I would point out is there are some really quite subs, but weight that against the advantage of Nuclear power.
Fast, endurance, flexibility are some of them. A nuke boat can operate with a CVBG, or stalk other subs. Sonar 732 can be more specific on this, but I have read and been told a Ohio Class answering a standard bell can hardly be heard a 100 yards. I never operated against an Ohio so I can not offer first hand knowledge.
Nuclear power made subs truly independent of the out side environment. In 1964, on the Swordfish we submerged on may 15th and surfaced again on August 20th. The only thing every raised was periscope and radio mast. I don't know if we ventilated or not. Probably did because we were still using the old O2 candles back then.
Nukes are quiet, they are fast, and they can go for a long time. Let me tell you 90 plus days submerged is long enough, none of the super quiet subs can do that, not that they have a place in Naval warfare. The U.S. Navy is an offensive weapon and Nuke Boats are the best for that.

Good discussion,

Ron Banks MMCM(SS), USN(Ret)
Sub Sailor

P.S. In all fairness I never served on Diesel Boats so all my knowledge of them is from reading and talking. On I went out on one is Sub School, back when Moby Dick was a minnow.