Astute Class Submarine and Nuclear/Non Nuclear Debate by AnthonyT

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Astute Class Submarine and Nuclear/Non Nuclear Debate

POSTED BY: ANTHONYT
UPDATED: Saturday, August 8, 2009 10:24
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 1327
PAGE 1 of 1

Friday, July 31, 2009 4:56 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

Today I was reading about the nuclear powered Astute class submarine being produced by the United Kingdom. She looks like a fine boat, with possibly some of the best comfort for sailors to be found on such a craft. (No hot bunking, yay!)

However, I learned two interesting things about her.

1) Her nuclear reactor will never need to be refueled throughout 25 years expected service life.

2) She only carries enough provisions for a 3 month cruise.

I was left to wonder... If you have to re-provision every 3 months, what is the point of having a nuclear reactor? I am a proponent of nuclear energy in general, but not where it's not needed. Do you think nuclear power was the best choice for the Astute class, considering it will need resupply anyway every 90 days?

Let me know what you think.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 31, 2009 6:52 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

For comparison, see the Scorpene class:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scorpene_class_submarine

It can operate submerged for 21 days with air-independent propulsion, (alternative fuel for the win) and has 50 days mission endurance.

Is the gap in capability between this kind of submarine and the Astute enough to warrant a nuclear reactor?

I guess I'm disappointed that the opportunity wasn't taken to build a next-generation diesel electric, as I don't think the Astute is the kind of sub that really benefits from not needing to refuel.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 31, 2009 10:57 PM

FREMDFIRMA

IMHO, we oughta be using a Stirling Engine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stirling_engine

Internal combustion is at the pinnacle of it's development cycle, and still doesn't lend itself well to renewable energy, whereas the Stirling is still at the beginning of it's development cycle and has much more potential in that respect.

The Swedish Navy uses em in the Gotland class submarine, and it proved so effective and efficient we borrowed one under the paper thin pretenses of using it for ASW practice, when in fact what we REALLY wanted was to figure out how to build our own - they made us give it back in 2007 though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gotland_class_submarine

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 1, 2009 2:58 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

I found this notable:

"At least two automobiles exclusively powered by Stirling engines were developed by NASA, as well as earlier projects by the Ford Motor Company and the American Motor Company. The NASA vehicles were designed by contractors and designated MOD I and MOD II. The MOD II replaced the normal spark-ignition engine in a 1985 4-door Chevrolet Celebrity Notchback. In the 1986 MOD II Design Report (Appendix A) the results show that highway gas mileage was increased from 40 to 58 mpg and urban mileage from 26 to 33 mpg with no change in vehicle gross weight. Startup time in the NASA vehicle maxed out at 30 seconds,[citation needed] while Ford's research vehicle used an internal electric heater to jump-start the vehicle, allowing it to start in only a few seconds."

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 1, 2009 6:00 AM

PIRATECAT

AT, The US has the most nuclear plants in the world. People forget we have an all nuclear navy. We are safer than France. Most plant workers are from the Navy. Now as far as provisions they can on load at sea even in high seas. This includes water, food, medical, fuel, oil, and weapons. It is truely amazing to watch. I am old school in my day we steamed off the coast of Libya burning oil into the atmo, dumping medical waste and needles into the sea along with paint cans, hydraullic fluid, and anything else you can thing of. The other armed forces never got the jump on the navy in the 50s. By the way your passenger jets carry radioactive elements in the wings for fuel quanity measurements. Very small amounts but there put in during manufacturing by nuke experts.

"Battle of Serenity, Mal. Besides Zoe here, how many-" "I'm talkin at you! How many men in your platoon came out of their alive".

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 1, 2009 11:46 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Anthony,

There's been many experiments over the years with automotive technology, but every time anyone even honestly SUGGESTS moving away from the Otto engine and Gasoline as a power source, american automakers and their oil company buddies throw a hissy fit cause that would mean giving up a little profit while they retool for something else, and why should they do that when the Gov will bail them out no matter how unviable their business model is ?

Hell, GM was actively sabotaging their own alt-fuel experiments while prolonging the tests to get more grant money to siphon off, while PLANNING on being bailed out as early as 2002 - something I was very well aware of since I was personal friends with the supply chain folk involved in getting the parts.

One "test" involved a vehicle that had gotten too close to actual functionality, and they had to figure out SOME way to make it fail the next test series, so you know what they did ?

Put in an aluminum driveshaft, under the pretense of weight saving, ran up the RPMs and dropped it into gear, causing it to more or less explode into pieces, sending the engineers diving for cover and damaging one or more employee cars in the parking lot with shrapnel.

We *CAN* build stuff like this, but we don't - and not only will the big three and their hangers on not do it - but exploitation of patent law and intellectual property right, they'll make DAMNED sure no one else does.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 1, 2009 11:54 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

It's not up to them. The world is going to alt fuel and electric power, with or without them.

They can either offer the model-T in every color, as long as it's black, and die...

Or evolve, and live.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 5, 2009 10:38 AM

CAVALIER

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:

For comparison, see the Scorpene class:

Is the gap in capability between this kind of submarine and the Astute enough to warrant a nuclear reactor?

According to wikipedia:

Scorpene class:

Propulsion: Diesel-Electric, Batteries, and AIP
Speed: 20 knots (37 km/h) (submerged)

Range: 550 nmi (1,020 km) at 5 knots (submerged)

(This submerged journey would take 110 hours. The range would probably be much lower at higher speeds.)

Astute class:

Speed: 29 knots (54 km/h) submerged
Range: Only limited by food and maintenance requirements.

29 knots would allow a submerged journey of 3190 nm in 110 hours.

Seems like pretty big performance gap to me.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 5, 2009 11:09 AM

GINOBIFFARONI

Quote:
Originally posted by Cavalier:
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:

For comparison, see the Scorpene class:

Is the gap in capability between this kind of submarine and the Astute enough to warrant a nuclear reactor?

According to wikipedia:

Scorpene class:

Propulsion: Diesel-Electric, Batteries, and AIP
Speed: 20 knots (37 km/h) (submerged)

Range: 550 nmi (1,020 km) at 5 knots (submerged)

(This submerged journey would take 110 hours. The range would probably be much lower at higher speeds.)

Astute class:

Speed: 29 knots (54 km/h) submerged
Range: Only limited by food and maintenance requirements.

29 knots would allow a submerged journey of 3190 nm in 110 hours.

Seems like pretty big performance gap to me.

I think it all comes down to mission requirements.

Most navy's want subs for coastal defense, surveillance, and local sea denial.

The performance of the Type 212 seems to fit those requirements just fine, maybe a little more endurance would be nice, but perhaps this would be feasible with upgrades later on. The cost to purchase, operate and maintain these boats would require some research, but I would suggest that it would be cheaper to run two or three boats of this type for the cost of a nuke, particularly counting training costs, eventual disposal costs, etc.

" I don't believe in hypothetical situations - it's kinda like lying to your brain "

" They don't hate America, they hate Americans " Homer Simpson

Lets party like its 1939

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 5, 2009 11:13 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

I feel the 'only limited by food and maintenance requirements' to be a somewhat misleading statement suggesting near infinite range. In fact, stopping for food is very much like stopping for fuel. One might as well list the range of the Scorpene as 'only limited by fuel, food, and maintenance requirements,' which is exactly what it is.

The 9 knot speed difference is notable, but it is not convincing that this speed difference is dependent on nuclear power. Any fuel can power an engine, be it electric, diesel, ethanol, or nuclear powered. It is likely that the profile of the Astute and the design of its engine have more to do with its speed than the fuel which powers it.

The nuclear sub provides a singular inherent advantage over the non-nuclear sub to my mind: Virtually limitless fuel.

But if you have to stop periodically to resupply, this advantage becomes less profound.

Ballistic missile submarines that park in the ocean fully submerged for 6 months need the 'limitless' fuel.

Attack submarines that do not share this mission profile do not, to my mind, share that need.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 5, 2009 1:06 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Good point(s), Anthony. To my mind, the three month "mission limit" isn't really a big deal, though. Think about it: What are you waiting out for more than three months? I think the big Cold War scare about nuclear winter is probably behind us now, hopefully forever. So what is there that will require you to stay under for more than three months? In three months, you can be anywhere in the world (at least anywhere with enough draft under your boat...); if anyone had the ability to track you and locate you, they also had the ability to either bring you to the surface or send you to the bottom forever, through the use of ASW (antisubmarine warfare) tactics such as depth charges, mines, or torpedoes.

If you can be anywhere in the world within reason, you can resupply from surface ships anywhere as well.

If you're staying under merely to wait out a full-scale thermonuclear war or some other threat that is so great that you can't even pop up to resupply, then you may have much larger issues than that 3-month mission profile...

I'm just sayin'. I know the Ohio-class boomers can pretty much stay under indefinitely, reliant basically only on food, but at some point, what's the use? And NO sub can go down with enough food on board to stay under for years, can it?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 8, 2009 10:24 AM

JBM

"The 9 knot speed difference is notable, but it is not convincing that this speed difference is dependent on nuclear power. Any fuel can power an engine, be it electric, diesel, ethanol, or nuclear powered. It is likely that the profile of the Astute and the design of its engine have more to do with its speed than the fuel which powers it."

Not exactly. Nuclear power delivers between 10 and 30+ times the power that non-nuke does in like to like comparisons. (i.e. submersible power plant) This is everything. Energy required to move forward in the water is not linear. Moving forward in the water at 2 knots requires much more energy than just doubling the power required for 1 knot. More power = better in virtually every combat scenario with a possible tie being in the area of coastal defense.

You can convince yourself of this by finding wattage output ratings for various boats. This is publicized for many non-nuke frames. The stirlings on the Gotland boats total about 150kW. The fuel cell designs on the 212's (best guess) is ~ 3MW. Guesses on the Virginia boats go at 20MW+.

The 212's are small and relatively fast. You could actually send 212's on longish missions and both their speed and endurance would make that fairly practical. Their payload is much smaller than nuke boats (10 torps as opposed at least that many on a nuke + various flavors of mines and both tube and VL launced missles). Never the less a sub is a sub in terms of the problem it represents for those opposing it on the ocean.

Land attack for any flavor other than a rock throwing exercise takes you to the nuke power plant as a bare minimum starting point. The Virgina's and Seawolves are fine for this but the new Ohio refits are a force to be reckoned with.

I'm a big fan of non-nuke platforms as a cheaper compliment to a nuke force. However, until peace spontaneously breaks out everywhere, being able to "reach out and touch someone" invisibly and unpredictably in an overwhelming way will continue to be a high-pri mission requirement.

Fun topic. Thanks for raising it.

yada yada

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE