The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - November 23, 2008

Dunnigan's and Bay's Latest

Advertisement



New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Squad Battles: Winter War
2.Silent War
3.Manoeuvre
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 

Online Giving

Utah SEO Firm

Xango

Smiley Gifts for Babies

Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use
Submarines Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: A.I.P. Question
RockyMTNClimber    5/12/2007 2:50:59 PM
The AIP systems allow a submarine to charge its batteries while submerged. Do these systems make less noise than the diesels? With the AIP you still have to "go active" for a period of time which will reduce a sub's passive listening performance at the same time it generates a higher level of boat generated noise. Are those generators louder or quieter than a typical USN or RN nuke plant running in stealth mode?

I would assume that the ability to run the power plant in a location that the AIP sub CO considers optimal is a real plus (under a thermal layer or in a current that generates high ambient noise, et.), but I am wondering if the AIP truely creates a benefit worth the investment.

It has been noted here on SP by some posters that the current fleet of Australian Collins boats never installed their AIP equipment because of the benefits question.

Opinions for the clueless land-luber?

Check Six

Rocky
 
Quote    Reply
 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted

Pages: 1 2
VGNTMH    AIP   5/18/2007 3:58:20 AM

See:

h t t p://www.navyleague.org/seapower/aip_alternative.htm

The four main types of AIP are:

1) Stirling engine. This is the Swedish AIP option. It burns diesel and liquid oxygen and acts via a closed cycle piston engine which uses an inert gas such as helium. The gas is alternately heated and cooled and the movement of gas is used to power a piston, which is used to run a motor to charge batteries. Stirling AIP has been to sea in the Swedish Nacken and Gotland class submarines.

2) Closed cycle diesel. This uses a supply of liquid oxygen and an inert gas such as argon. The argon is mixed with the oxygen to make artificial air. This is then used as an oxidizer to run the submarine's normal diesels under water. The argon is recovered at the end of the process to mix with more liquid oxygen. I think the Russians and Germans have worked on this type of AIP.

3) MESMA is a French steam turbine based AIP. A fuel (diesel or ethanol) and an oxidizer (liquid oxygen) are burnt to make steam to power a fairly normal steam turbine.

4) Fuel cell. This consumes oxygen and hydrogen and produces water and electricity. The Germans have developed an operational fuel cell AIP on the type 212 and 214 submarines. I think the Russians have also developed fuel cells for submarine AIP.

Of these options, the closed cycle diesel and the Stirling engine involve running a piston engine. So that they might generate noise. The MESMA runs a steam turbine. So it would probably generate as much noise as a nuclear submarine, though the collant pumps might generate more noise on a nuclear submarine. A fuel cell has no moving parts. So it should be fairly quiet.

Note that the original AIP, the German Walter turbine from WWII, is not on the list. This involved running highly volatile and corrosive hydrogen peroxide fuel over a catalyst. The peroxide broke down into water and oxygen and released large amounts of energy. Because of the energy, the water was in the form of steam. Because of the oxygen generated, a fuel, such as diesel could also be injected to cause further combustion. The result of both these combustions was used to drive a turbine. This type of AIP propulsion was experimented with by the Germans in WWII, and both the Russians and British after WWII but was considered dangerous due to the corrosive and explosive nature of the fuel.

 
Quote    Reply

RockyMTNClimber    Thanks! Great link.   5/18/2007 2:21:14 PM


See:


h t t p://www.navyleague.org/seapower/aip_alternative.htm


The four main types of AIP are:


1) Stirling engine. This is the Swedish AIP option. It burns diesel and liquid oxygen and acts via a closed cycle piston engine which uses an inert gas such as helium. The gas is alternately heated and cooled and the movement of gas is used to power a piston, which is used to run a motor to charge batteries. Stirling AIP has been to sea in the Swedish Nacken and Gotland class submarines.


2) Closed cycle diesel. This uses a supply of liquid oxygen and an inert gas such as argon. The argon is mixed with the oxygen to make artificial air. This is then used as an oxidizer to run the submarine's normal diesels under water. The argon is recovered at the end of the process to mix with more liquid oxygen. I think the Russians and Germans have worked on this type of AIP.


3) MESMA is a French steam turbine based AIP. A fuel (diesel or ethanol) and an oxidizer (liquid oxygen) are burnt to make steam to power a fairly normal steam turbine.


4) Fuel cell. This consumes oxygen and hydrogen and produces water and electricity. The Germans have developed an operational fuel cell AIP on the type 212 and 214 submarines. I think the Russians have also developed fuel cells for submarine AIP.


Of these options, the closed cycle diesel and the Stirling engine involve running a piston engine. So that they might generate noise. The MESMA runs a steam turbine. So it would probably generate as much noise as a nuclear submarine, though the collant pumps might generate more noise on a nuclear submarine. A fuel cell has no moving parts. So it should be fairly quiet.


Note that the original AIP, the German Walter turbine from WWII, is not on the list. This involved running highly volatile and corrosive hydrogen peroxide fuel over a catalyst. The peroxide broke down into water and oxygen and released large amounts of energy. Because of the energy, the water was in the form of steam. Because of the oxygen generated, a fuel, such as diesel could also be injected to cause further combustion. The result of both these combustions was used to drive a turbine. This type of AIP propulsion was experimented with by the Germans in WWII, and both the Russians and British after WWII but was considered dangerous due to the corrosive and explosive nature of the fuel.





From the article:
 
"This AIP system also will be a "hybrid," with the submarine retaining a basic diesel-electric propulsion system. A fuel cell cannot deliver sufficient electrical output for high-speed operations, but the conventional storage battery can (for a short period of time, after which the fuel cell can recharge the battery as well as provide energy for low-speed operations).

Artificial Air But Tangible Improvements

HDW estimates that the 212, with its crew of 27, will be able to remain submerged for more than a month and to cruise (at four knots) for over 3,000 miles. Four of the $250-million submarines will be delivered to the German Navy--two built by HDW and two built by TNSW. "
 
The stirling system seems to be a easiest technical answer but not the best tactical answer. Keeping the noise down during regeneration would seem to me to be as important as not having to stick your snorkle up! The Fuel Cell answer can keep a boat down for 30 days and (guessing here) do it quietly. With adequate battery storage you can sprint from trouble before going quiet again.
 
The tactical question is do you really need to lay low for longer than 20-30 days to be competitive against a tier 1 nuclear sub navy? Wouldn't 30 days fulfill a sub's requirements to do recon, insertion, &  hunter killer operations.
 
If an opponent can pick his approach-egress cafefully he can probably cause havoc to a USN or RN battlegroup or convoy and stand a chance of escape. Does anyone think I am being charitable in my assessment of these systems?
 
A US Los Angeles Class boat is big by SK standards. Would a nation be able to use a larger platform to run a Fuel-Cell based power plant almost as if it was a Nuke? Size translating to extra battery, generation, & fuel reserves.
 
Check Six
 
Rocky
 
Quote    Reply

Herald1234       5/18/2007 3:12:12 PM






See:




h t t p://www.navyleague.org/seapower/aip_alternative.htm




The four main types of AIP are:




1) Stirling engine. This is the Swedish AIP option. It burns diesel and liquid oxygen and acts via a closed cycle piston engine which uses an inert gas such as helium. The gas is alternately heated and cooled and the movement of gas is used to power a piston, which is used to run a motor to charge batteries. Stirling AIP has been to sea in the Swedish Nacken and Gotland class submarines.




2) Closed cycle diesel. This uses a supply of liquid oxygen and an inert gas such as argon. The argon is mixed with the oxygen to make artificial air. This is then used as an oxidizer to run the submarine's normal diesels under water. The argon is recovered at the end of the process to mix with more liquid oxygen. I think the Russians and Germans have worked on this type of AIP.




3) MESMA is a French steam turbine based AIP. A fuel (diesel or ethanol) and an oxidizer (liquid oxygen) are burnt to make steam to power a fairly normal steam turbine.




4) Fuel cell. This consumes oxygen and hydrogen and produces water and electricity. The Germans have developed an operational fuel cell AIP on the type 212 and 214 submarines. I think the Russians have also developed fuel cells for submarine AIP.




Of these options, the closed cycle diesel and the Stirling engine involve running a piston engine. So that they might generate noise. The MESMA runs a steam turbine. So it would probably generate as much noise as a nuclear submarine, though the collant pumps might generate more noise on a nuclear submarine. A fuel cell has no moving parts. So it should be fairly quiet.




Note that the original AIP, the German Walter turbine from WWII, is not on the list. This involved running highly volatile and corrosive hydrogen peroxide fuel over a catalyst. The peroxide broke down into water and oxygen and released large amounts of energy. Because of the energy, the water was in the form of steam. Because of the oxygen generated, a fuel, such as diesel could also be injected to cause further combustion. The result of both these combustions was used to drive a turbine. This type of AIP propulsion was experimented with by the Germans in WWII, and both the Russians and British after WWII but was considered dangerous due to the corrosive and explosive nature of the fuel.








From the article:

 

"This AIP system also will be a "hybrid," with the submarine retaining a basic diesel-electric propulsion system. A fuel cell cannot deliver sufficient electrical output for high-speed operations, but the conventional storage battery can (for a short period of time, after which the fuel cell can recharge the battery as well as provide energy for low-speed operations).

Artificial Air But Tangible Improvements

HDW estimates that the 212, with its crew of 27, will be able to remain submerged for more than a month and to cruise (at four knots) for over 3,000 miles. Four of the $250-million submarines will be delivered to the German Navy--two built by HDW and two built by TNSW. "
 

The stirling system seems to be a easiest technical answer but not the best tactical answer. Keeping the noise down during regeneration would seem to me to be as important as not having to stick your snorkle up! The Fuel Cell answer can keep a boat down for 30 days and (guessing here) do it quietly. With adequate battery storage you can sprint from trouble before going quiet again.

 

The tactical question is do you really need to lay low for longer than 20-30 days to be competitive against a tier 1 nuclear sub navy? Wouldn't 30 days fulfill a sub's requirements to do recon, insertion, &  hunter killer operations.

 

If an opponent can pick his approach-egress cafefully he can probably cause havoc to a USN or RN battlegroup or convoy and stand a chance of escape. Does anyone think I am being charitable in my assessment of these systems?

 

A US Los Angeles Class boat is big by SK standards. Would a nation be able to use a larger platform to run a Fuel-Cell based power plant almost as if it was a Nuke? Size translating to extra battery, generation, & fuel reserves.

 

Check Six

 

Rocky



Rocky, to ruin a first class sensor suite and fire control system as well as computers and an automated sub, you need huge amounts of ELECTRICITY. We are not suggesting kilowatts here, but megawatts. That is not something you can get off an AIP plant that is small or auxillary. For a short time you can draw it off batteries if you move slowly. Otherwise against a running quiet nuclear boat with its fully-powered detection gear you are blind and deaf and you die.
 
Herald
   
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       5/18/2007 3:26:49 PM


Rocky, to ruin a first class sensor suite and fire control system as well as computers and an automated sub, you need huge amounts of ELECTRICITY. We are not suggesting kilowatts here, but megawatts. That is not something you can get off an AIP plant that is small or auxillary. For a short time you can draw it off batteries if you move slowly. Otherwise against a running quiet nuclear boat with its fully-powered detection gear you are blind and deaf and you die.

 

Herald

   

spot on.

one of the reasons why RAN Collins Class is able to run AN/BYG (same as Seawolf/Virginia/LAi) is that it has decent sized generation power and efficient onboard batteries - and thats because Collins was designed from the outset to be a fleet/bluewater sub to be able to go to war long range and with a degree of persistence.  They were originally  designed to be able to go to war against the soviets in their north eastern waters and the indian ocean

A smaller conventional with fuel cells and AIP is not going to be remotely able to run a complex combat system and sensor suite of the size of AN/BYG.

There's only one other similarly sized conventional powered sub that has sufficient on board power to do this.  Its "allied" to US and Oz.

 
Quote    Reply

RockyMTNClimber    Electricity & the AIP   5/18/2007 4:38:59 PM
Rocky, to ruin a first class sensor suite and fire control system as well as computers and an automated sub, you need huge amounts of ELECTRICITY. We are not suggesting kilowatts here, but megawatts. That is not something you can get off an AIP plant that is small or auxillary. For a short time you can draw it off batteries if you move slowly. Otherwise against a running quiet nuclear boat with its fully-powered detection gear you are blind and deaf and you die.< Herald

If that is true Herald, the chest thumping about SSK's prowess is all vacant. What you say makes sense but I have read comparisons that the AUS Collins Class has every bit of the electronic wizardry that we have in our contemporary nuclear boats (USN & RN). Is this not true?
 
What I am trying to ascertain here is whether or  not a nation can compete close enough with the USN/RN forces by substituting a quiet AIP system for nuclear power (given today's technology limitations).
 
Check Six
 
Rocky
 
Quote    Reply

RockyMTNClimber    Collins example   5/18/2007 5:19:20 PM
 
This Collins Diesel Electric has a dived range of 400 nautical miles at 4 knots speed. Tell me they are not running blind! This has to include passive sonar, environmental, and weapon systems on standby. Note the 5.25 megawatt motor. Yes this baby can soak up the go-go juice if it wants too, can't it!
 
Check Six
 
Rocky
 
 
ht***tp://www.naval-technology.com/projects/collins/specs.html
 
 

Specifications - SSK Collins Class (Type 471) Attack Submarine, Australia

 

Key Data

Crew

42 (including 6 officers)

Dimensions

Length

78m

Beam

8m

Draught

7m

Displacement

3,050t (surfaced)

 

3,350t (dived)

Performance

Speed

Surfaced - 10kt

 

Snorting - 10kt

 

Dived - 20kt

Range

At 10kt surfaced - 11,500 miles

 

At 10kt snorting - 9,000 miles

 

At 4kt dived - 400 miles

Weapon Systems

Surface-to-Surface Missile

Sub Harpoon

Torpedoes

6 x 533mm tubes for Harpoon and Gould mk 48 torpedoes - total of 22 carried

Mines

Up to 44 (in place of torpedoes)

Combat Data System

Rockwell Australia combat system, being replaced with Ratheon CCS mk 2

Countermeasures

ESM

EDO ES-5600 ESM, ARGO AR-740

Decoys

Strachan and Henshaw SSDE

Radar

Kelvin Hughes I-band navigation radar

Sonar

Thales Underwater Systems Scylla bow sonar

 

Thales underwater Systems Kariwara or Namara towed array

Periscopes

Thales optronics CK043 search and CH093 attack periscopes

Propulsion

Engines

3 x Hedemora / Garden Island type V18B/14 diesel engines, 1,475kW each

Generators

3 x Jeumont Schneider 440V generators, 1,400kW each

Motors

1 x main motor, 5,250kW

 

1 x Mactaggart Scott DM 43006 hydraulic motor for emergency propulsion

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
Quote    Reply

Herald1234       5/18/2007 5:43:47 PM
Depends, Rocky.
 
A Collins can easily compete if it practices noise discipline and energy conservation just taking passive snapshots with its sensors until it has a contact, then it can drift, creep, drift until it acquires a track and generates a solution. Once it is in torpedo range then the outcome all rides on the torpedo. Depending on how noisy the launch transient was, and how close the target is, and how long the run is, the Collins could kill silently with no presence detected, until the explosions announce a sub is in the area.
 
If the Collins is unlucky and an enemy nuclear boat using sound isolation rafted powerplant convection cooling and quieted steam turbines turning over slowly generators, or even running off its own batteries, and the applying the same drift creep drift drift tactics the Collons used, is in the area and hears the launch transient, then the Collins is in BIG trouble.
 
Herald 
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       5/18/2007 6:15:55 PM

technology is always wonderful - but training is the tipping point

 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       5/18/2007 6:21:33 PM

 

This Collins Diesel Electric has a dived range of 400 nautical miles at 4 knots speed.


the above data is an object lesson in the danger of public domain stats.  the above numbers are not related to  real life capability
 
Quote    Reply

RockyMTNClimber    British in WWII   5/18/2007 9:21:44 PM



technology is always wonderful - but training is the tipping point


Indeed,
The Brits did impressive work with a smallish fleet of out of date boats, in the Med especially. Training and fighting spirit kept them stroking out of Malta despite bombings, famine, & mines.
 
Check Six
 
Rocky
 
Quote    Reply

RockyMTNClimber    Manufacturers claims about a Stirling AIP system.   5/19/2007 11:48:02 AM

Increased submerged endurance
The Kockums Stirling AIP system considerably increases the submerged endurance.

The systems offers an alternative to battery power, which in turn means less frequent requirements for noisy battery recharging, with the diesel generators.

Instead of a number of days, a Stirling AIP submarine can extend the time submerged to weeks and thus outperform any other conventional submarine with regard to that key capability - submerged endurance.

Outstanding advantages
The main feature of the Kockums air independent propulsion (AIP) system is the use of Stirling engines burning pure oxygen and diesel fuel in a pressurized combustion chamber.

The combustion pressure is higher than the surrounding seawater pressure, thereby allowing the exha