But building such a submarine with this kind of displacement with a 60 day endurance, transit speeds of 20 knots, burst speeds above 30 knots, state-of-the-art signature management technologies and support for unmanned platforms would be cost prohibitive for all but the largest navies. A fleet of hybrid nuclear submarines (6,000+ ton range) would be ideal for Canada. A smaller nuclear-powered attack submarine that is large enough to support a good sized crew and carry unmanned systems would be ideal for Canada but, presently, none is available.Ī hybrid submarine offers a novel solution. A fleet nuclear submarine is neither necessary nor ideal for Canadian waters. Due to their endurance, nuclear submarines tend to be blue water, ocean-going, and compared to the Victoria-class at about 2,500 tons, they are large vessels. Thus, nuclear propulsion in some form is still the ideal for Canadian requirements. Then there is the deafening noise of diesels, even when equipped with the latest quieting technologies. Radar can pick out periscopes or snorkels. Whenever a diesel ‘snorts,’ it leaves a very visible plume of smoke and heat that is readily detectable. These are distinct disadvantages given the long distances missions that Canadian subs must undertake. ![]() With or without AIP, diesels are far too ‘short legged’ – they are dependent on logistically complex supplies such as liquid oxygen that deplete quickly and the engines are mechanically complex. But neither of these options are satisfactory for Canadian naval requirements. ![]() ![]() Technologies like AIP or LIBs extend the endurance of diesel submarines but introduce major compromises in performance. Another route to substantial cost savings is to share the development costs of major items like the propulsion and power plant with partners. That will require DND to end the habit of imposing onerous modifications that inevitably cause costs to explode. If an existing, proven, hull can be slightly modified, it is a major cost saver. Development, or non-recurring engineering costs, make up a sizable percentage of the cost of a small fleet of subs. But is there a better way? The first challenge to costs is volume. DND’s proposal for extending the lives of Canada’s four Victoria-class conventional submarines for another 6-18 years appears to be a bargain. Outrageous cost estimates for nuclear-powered submarines tend to cloud Canadian thinking about recapitalizing the submarine fleet. The French Shortfin Barracuda Block 1A being built for Australia offers a limited hybrid design that enables electric propulsion for low-speed cruising and turbo-mechanical drives at higher speeds, but is not competitive against nuclear-steam turbo-mechanical for blue water or Arctic operations. The dominant paradigm for a modern nuclear-powered submarine is a steam generating reactor driving turbines that directly drive the propeller. But neither of these options are completely satisfactory for Canadian submarine needs. But is there a better, more affordable and collaborative way? Off-the-shelf air-independent propulsion (AIP) submarines such as the French Barracuda Block 1A class being designed for Australia or the Japanese Soyru-class AIP design with lithium ion battery (LIB) technology are alternatives that extend the endurance of diesel submarines. ![]() Nuclear propulsion of submarines is ideal for long distances and extended under-ice missions.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |