Thankyou for the headsup on Wikipedia. I had some suspicions but didn't know it was that bad. Still, it seems to have some useful info but maybeye that
entire line about a mast mounted gun from a submerged sub is just baloney.
| Author | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
westwords2020 |
|||
|
Posts: 285 (10-May-2008 23:16:00) |
Thankyou for the headsup on Wikipedia. I had some suspicions but didn't know it was that bad. Still, it seems to have some useful info but maybeye that
entire line about a mast mounted gun from a submerged sub is just baloney.
|
||
westwords2020 |
|||
|
Posts: 286 (13-May-2008 00:37:07) |
I have been thinking on how to proceed. The submarine would need a substantial range on schnorkel or surfaced to be able to threaten Tiawan or other areas such
as dealing with Australia whose Collins class are the current size champs at 3000 tons submerged. I am researching still and using Combat Fleets for info which
so far suggests a schnorkel speed of 10 knots and a radius of several thousand miles to cover that area of the Pacific.
I need to consult some maps. I did come across material from Australia on the Web which discussed a Collins class successor as needing great operating radius to get to it's assigned area and patrol for the needed time. The German class 212A features a fuel cell setup capable of moving around 1600 tons submerged displacement at 8 knots and employs sodium sulfur batteries which presumably greatly outperform lead acid types. A speed of 21-22 knots submerged for a couple of hours seems possible. Lead acid batteries put out 25 watt/hours per kilogram at one hour discharge rate and 55 watt/hours per kilogram at the 100 hour discharge rate. Nicad, silver zinc and lithium batteries offer better performance and presumably sodium sulfur still more with a hopefully better lifespan than silver zinc batteries. Meanwhile my research continues but I come to conclusion for a large AIP submarine you need to show cost effectiveness and be substantially cheaper than nuclear plants. Stirling cycle and closed circuit diesel seem easier to handle than the hydrogen/oxygen combo fuel cells which weigh alot for power produced referencing the Case fo Mars by Dr. Robert Zubrin, the aerospace engineer who invented Mars Direct and founded the Mars Society. Producibility would interest China I think if these AIP subs could be procured in greater quantities with fewer specialized personnel than the nuclear plants. Oh, well, it's back to the research as I try and answer the questions put to me. |
||
westwords2020 |
|||
|
Posts: 291 (21-May-2008 03:06:39) |
Ran across some info in Combat Fleets about Class 212A German subs using sodium sulfer batteries and have been doing some checking on this on the web and data
I come across shows a one ton lead acid battery having an energy density of 20kw/hrs while a one ton sodium sulfur battery weighing the same one tone having
117 kw/hrs or about 5.8 times capacity. Size is more compact than equal weight battery.
A battery for fixed use puts out 4558kw/hrs for a 3.4 ton unit, lasts for 15 years, requires no maintaince and may have electric car apps. Use on a ship would require additional protection to prevent flooding a battery compartment with touching the battery proper because it reacts explosively with water. Regular casings are moisture proof but a flooding compartment requires each unit made up of several cells to have some additional protection. Batteries are sealed and assembled into units weighing tons. If I have my facts right, SSK/SSI subs could maintain full speed for several hours on sodium sulfur as opposed to one to three hours using lead acid cells. Reminds me of Walter U-boats that could maintain full speed of 25knots for six hours and then the chemical reactants fuel was gone. Such boats had conventional diesel/battery plant for all ops not requiring great speeds so reactants were not used until needed for attack and evasion. |
||