U.S. Submarines: Run Silent, Run Deep...On Diesel Engines?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • tom dougherty
    Senior Member
    • Jul 2005
    • 1355

    U.S. Submarines: Run Silent, Run Deep...On Diesel Engines?

    "Now may be the time to break up the nuclear monopoly."
    James Holmes
    September 18, 2014

    "Underway on nuclear power", radioed the skipper of USS Nautilus in 1955, after taking history's first nuclear-powered attack submarine to sea for the first time. Nautilus's maiden cruise left an indelible imprint on the navy. Her success, cheered on by the likes of Admiral Hyman Rickover, the godfather of naval nuclear propulsion, helped encode the supremacy of atomic power in the submarine force's cultural DNA.

    Things were never the same after that. America built its last diesel-electric sub, once the state of the art, not long after Nautilus took to the sea. Not since 1990 has the U.S. Navy operated conventionally powered boats. It's been longer than that since they were frontline fighting ships. For a quarter-century, then, it's been all nukes, all the time. No U.S. shipbuilder even constructs diesel boats nowadays.

    That was then. Now may be the time to break up the nuclear monopoly. To wit, imagine permanently forward-deploying a squadron of diesel attack boats, or SSKs, to likely hotspots. Such a force would expand America's silent service, reversing the ongoing slide in numbers of hulls. It would do so at reasonable cost in this age of budgetary stress. A standing East Asia squadron would be close to the action. Likely based in Japan and Guam, it would amplify the U.S.-Japanese fleet's prowess vis-á-vis China's navy and merchant marine. It would empower Washington and Tokyo to deny China access to offshore waters without committing the whole fleet of U.S. nuclear-powered boats to the endeavor. And in the process it would open up new vistas for building and reinforcing alliances.

    Greater numbers, middling cost, a heavier punch in battle. That's a major contribution from such humble craft. U.S. submariners' diesel-propelled past could be, and should be, part of their future.
    …………………à ¢â‚¬Â¦Ã¢â‚¬Â¦Ã¢â‚¬Â¦Ã¢â‚¬Â¦Ã¢â‚¬Â¦.
    Here the figures are striking. The unit cost for the Soryu is estimated at $500 million, whereas each copy of the Virginia class comes in at a cool $2.8 billion. Do the math. It appears the U.S. Navy could afford five Soryus for the price of one Virginia, with change left over. That's bang for the buck.

    Entire article is at]http://nationalinterest.org/feature/us-submarines-run-silent-run-deepon-diesel-engines-11306[/url]
  • gp100man
    Junior Member
    • Jan 2012
    • 374

    #2
    Re: U.S. Submarines: Run Silent, Run Deep...On Diesel Engines?

    Great article Tom, that's music to my ears. I think that the USA SHOULD DEPLOY SSKs from Japan, Guam, and other locations around the world, in addition to the SSNs and SSBNs and SSGNs. Now, the big question on everyone's mind is-------------what does the pentagon think of the idea?????

    Comment

    • ssn705
      Member
      • Sep 2013
      • 282

      #3
      Re: U.S. Submarines: Run Silent, Run Deep...On Diesel Engines?

      The ghost of Rickover will never let it happen...acquisition guys won't want to split submarine money.

      Comment

      • thor
        SubCommittee Member
        • Feb 2009
        • 1453

        #4
        Re: U.S. Submarines: Run Silent, Run Deep...On Diesel Engines?

        The Navy may not have a choice.
        Regards,

        Matt

        Comment

        • ssn705
          Member
          • Sep 2013
          • 282

          #5
          Re: U.S. Submarines: Run Silent, Run Deep...On Diesel Engines?

          The Navy may not have a choice.
          How so? Personally I would love to see a bunch of diesels, but I certainly can't see us buying a design. Maybe if a yard designs something for another country we might jump on it.

          Cheers,

          Dave

          Comment

          • thor
            SubCommittee Member
            • Feb 2009
            • 1453

            #6
            Re: U.S. Submarines: Run Silent, Run Deep...On Diesel Engines?

            I am saying due to operational cost pressures and the extremely high costs of adding to the nuclear fleet, the Navy may have no choice but to add diesel subs to the fleet.
            Regards,

            Matt

            Comment

            • tom dougherty
              Senior Member
              • Jul 2005
              • 1355

              #7
              Re: U.S. Submarines: Run Silent, Run Deep...On Diesel Engines?

              I agree that any acquisition would most likely be an indigenous SSK, not bought from another country. Keep in mind that AIP has progressed to the point where the new SSKs with Stirling Cycle engines can operate for extended periods submerged. However, given the range of the Soryu class, for example, any diesels would most likely need to be forward based, unlike an SSN.

              Comment

              • redboat219
                Member
                • Jan 2005
                • 519

                #8
                Re: U.S. Submarines: Run Silent, Run Deep...On Diesel Engines?

                How about rebuilding the Barbel class of diesel boats and modernizing it to meet present requirements.

                Comment

                • JWLaRue
                  Managing Editor, SubCommittee Report
                  • Aug 1994
                  • 4281

                  #9
                  Re: U.S. Submarines: Run Silent, Run Deep...On Diesel Engines?

                  ...probably less expensive and quicker to acquire rights for an existing design....?

                  -Jeff
                  Rohr 1.....Los!

                  Comment

                  • redboat219
                    Member
                    • Jan 2005
                    • 519

                    #10
                    Re: U.S. Submarines: Run Silent, Run Deep...On Diesel Engines?

                    like the Type 212 / 214s.

                    Comment

                    • JWLaRue
                      Managing Editor, SubCommittee Report
                      • Aug 1994
                      • 4281

                      #11
                      Re: U.S. Submarines: Run Silent, Run Deep...On Diesel Engines?

                      Exactly.
                      Rohr 1.....Los!

                      Comment

                      • thor
                        SubCommittee Member
                        • Feb 2009
                        • 1453

                        #12
                        Re: U.S. Submarines: Run Silent, Run Deep...On Diesel Engines?

                        That probably makes the most sense, but that is not how we do things here in the States....It will be a domestic design and manufacture. The politics of the situation make it impossible to do anything but use domestic defense contractors....We all know how that works.
                        Regards,

                        Matt

                        Comment

                        • JWLaRue
                          Managing Editor, SubCommittee Report
                          • Aug 1994
                          • 4281

                          #13
                          Re: U.S. Submarines: Run Silent, Run Deep...On Diesel Engines?

                          Absolutely agree, which is why I said "acquire an existing design" and not acquire manufacturing rights.

                          Even at that, it's a longshot.

                          -Jeff
                          Rohr 1.....Los!

                          Comment

                          • gp100man
                            Junior Member
                            • Jan 2012
                            • 374

                            #14
                            Re: U.S. Submarines: Run Silent, Run Deep...On Diesel Engines?

                            I wonder, what are the chances of the US Navy having SSN's/SSK's that are a hybrid of both. In other words, nuclear, but no nuclear reactor, that is to say, enormous nuclear batteries in large quantities on board an SSN/K combo type hybrid.

                            https://medium.com/war-is-boring/poweri ... 72975d7de8

                            Comment

                            • tom dougherty
                              Senior Member
                              • Jul 2005
                              • 1355

                              #15
                              Re: U.S. Submarines: Run Silent, Run Deep...On Diesel Engines?

                              RTGs are not really "batteries" in the same sense as a conventional battery. An RTG utilizes the heat from nuclear decay in a thermocouple circuit to deliver a low level of steady power. You can't accelerate as the power rate is constant. In the case of the current "Curiosity" rover on Mars, it has a plutonium RTG (that's the object with fins at an angle at the rear of the rover). It puts out constant power and when not using all of the power, it recharges a lithium battery. I am not sure you could build a practical RTG that could generate enough power to move a submarine. Remember that current submarines are in the 30,000 SHP range.

                              At one point, the USSR was considering a small nuclear reactor to place on board the Golf class (Project 629A) SSB. This reactor would have constantly charged the conventional batteries on board to reduce the necessity of running the diesel. This would have been a much smaller reactor than the versions employed for steam propulsion.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X