submarines

[thebig C]

The end of the Cold War left the big and hugely expensive nuclear submarines looking like dinosaurs. But smaller, cheaper diesel-electric submarines have proliferated, including new designs utilising 'Air-Independent Propulsion' or AIP, which means they can stay down for weeks. This is an interesting article about modern German submarines, written by Captain Raimund Wallner of the German Navy, and published by the Royal United Services Institute about a year ago. France, Spain, Sweden and Russia are also producing and seeling this type of submarine.

http://www.rusi.org/downloads/assets...Submarines.pdf

A U212 class submarine:

[Fireplace]

The U212/214 has been a very successful product but there are questions relating to the wisdom of using a fuel cell AIP system despite its efficiency. To recharge the fuel cells of a U214 you need 15 ton of oxygen and 2 tons of hydrogen, taking 2 days to do so. Major in-port infrastructure is needed, especially for transfering the hydrogen,cooling and storing it. Only a specially equiped port can do this.

Added to this the replacement of the fuel cells would put an export customer at the mercy of the exporter. The cost of 1 mile of AIP operation is circa $43000. To top it all excessive heat from the fuel cells increase its chances of being detected.

It may take some time to work out if the benefits of fuel cell AIP out-weigh these difficulties and how it compares to what seems to be its main rival - the French MESMA system. MESMA may not be as efficient as fuel cells but it is safer, less expensive(1 mile run $6000) and can be refuelled at any base.

[thebig C]

Any word on the Swedish Stirling AIP?

[Fireplace]

The Swedish sterling engine system like Swedish submarine design/construction has been a success. Like closed-cycle steam turbines (MESMA) and closed-cycle diesel engines (which doesn’t seem to be going anywhere) sterling engines rely on moving parts. This makes them less efficient than fuels cells, nevertheless, they are very quiet and do allow up to two weeks operation underwater.

As the mechanical process comes about due to an inert gas (Helium) being expanded by heat coming from an external source there is great flexibility in the choice of fuel – all it needs is heat. With the combustion and the mechanical processes kept separate it is easier to deal with exhaust products and acoustic radiation. The USN was so impressed by their performance in a Mediterranean war game they leased one for a year.

Two former Swedish A-17 subs destined for Singapore will be retro-fitted with sterling engines. Kockums are developing a new generation sterling system for the Swedish/Danish/Norwegian Viking project. As Kockums is now owned by HDW, sterling AIP is being developed to retro-fit type 209 subs.

[criodan]

i think the Iranian's have built some small ones too though i doubt any where near the standard of the above named ones.

[Fireplace]

The Iranians definitely do not make AIP subs. Midgets like the Ghadir are diesel-electric.

[thebig C]

cúpla FE?

Ireland is one of only four Western European coastal nations that do not have submarines. (The others are Iceland, Belgium, and Denmark, which decommissioned its three submarines in 2004.)

As an example of the effectiveness of small diesel-electric submarines, according to Wikipedia, the Norwegian Ula class submarines "..are among the most silent and manoeuverable submarines in the world. This, in combination with the relatively small size, makes them difficult to detect from surface vessels and ideal for operations in coastal areas. During the annual NATO Joint Winter exercise in 2004, the HNoMS Utvær had to be disqualified from the exercise because it kept the entire landing operation at bay. The Ula class submarines are regarded as both the most effective and cost-effective weapons in the RNoN." Unit cost approx. €90 million.

I've posted elsewhere about the success of the Swedish AIP submarine HMS Gotland, leased to the US Navy for a year complete with its crew: the USN could never find it, and it 'sank' one of their carriers. There is also the report of the South African submarine SAS Manthatisi, which during an exercise a couple of months ago not only evaded detection by a joint NATO/SA naval group consisting of several ships, it also managed to penetrate the anti-submarine screen of seven ships undetected and 'sank' the high value target that the screen was trying to protect. After this she turned on the protecting screen and managed to 'sink' the balance of the remaining surface ships from Canada, Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, Portugal and the United States. (The South Africans bought three Type 209 boats from Germany, at a unit cost of just under €200 million. Similiar boats are operated by Greece, Turkey, and most coastal countries in South America.)



According to the official Defence Forces website, the primary role of the Naval Service is National Security: "The objective of the Naval Service in this role is to defend the State against armed aggression and to provide for its security..." If the NS are serious about this, it would seem that a couple of small submarines would be by far the most effective means of achieving this objective. (Fomhuireán Éireann?)

[Goldie fish]

How many coastal EU members are not members of NATO?

[thebig C]

How many coastal EU members are not members of NATO?

Is that relevant? Neither Sweden nor Ireland are members of NATO - although both are members of the so-called NATO 'Partnership for Peace' - but Sweden has arguably the best submarines in the world at the moment, and Ireland has none.

(A digression: NATO is a Cold War organisation, past its sell-by date. Its involvement in Afghanistan is a clear case of an organisation looking for a role, now that it doesn't have to face the Soviet Union. The sooner we have a European defence alliance, without the USA, the sooner we can avoid getting sucked in to US-made messes.)

But the bottom line is that with or without allies, Ireland should have a basic ability to defend itself, and as an island nation on the edge of the North Atlantic, maritime defence should be a strong element in an overall defence package. It would appear from the evidence that a couple of small submarines could provide a very effective contribution to Ireland's maritime defence.

[Stoker]

Submarines

Very interesting information on AIP systems, the running costs are staggering,Faceplace,I don't suppose you have the decimal point in the wrong place?

In Carringtons download the German author claims that the Argentine Sub. San Luis made several unsuccesful attacks on HMS Invincible, I hadn't heard of that before, does anyone know anything about it? come to think of it I have not seen any books written from the Argentinian side,

[Fireplace]

Given the way the country looks at defence spending, talk of buying submarines will get you nowhere. Despite this, I find it interesting to argue what type of major combat vessels we would purchase if we were prepared to spend the money. To begin with we would have to decide what we wanted them for – nothing other than the defence of our seas or to take part in international operations as well.

Submarines are not particularly useful in most of the type operations navies engage
in these days such as counter-piracy/terrorism/smuggling. An EPV with good close in air defence systems would probably be adequate for any situation it would be sent into. A corvette or light frigate would be better but such vessels are really only needed for the more dangerous situations which the government would never consider putting it in.

This would mean that only purpose we would have major vessels for would be national defence. Presuming this was still seen as a good enough reason for spending several hundred millions of euro submarines would be the best choice. Throughout history countries that have limited resources have opted to concentrate on developing a strong submarine force - Germany WW1 and WW2, USSR Cold War. Today Israel and Iran have submarines as their greatest naval assets. After all John Holland developed submarines in the belief that Britain would have the greatest ability to produce iron clad warships and saw submarines as the best way of countering this.

The Argentinians did claim to have fired torpedoes at British ships but being faulty and ancient they missed. If this is true or not is not clear but the British despite great efforts never caught the 209.

[Goldie fish]

The argentinians also claimed to have sunk Both British Aircraft carriers.

[yooklid]

My understanding is that the Argentine subs never left port.

[Goldie fish]

Is that relevant? Neither Sweden nor Ireland are members of NATO - although both are members of the so-called NATO 'Partnership for Peace' - but Sweden has arguably the best submarines in the world at the moment, and Ireland has none.

.

The relevence is that the basis of Naval power in europe was devised during the Cold war. Other Nato coastal nations, which you compare us to, had specific naval tasks given to them By NATO. While the Netherlands and Belgium concentrated for the most part on mine countermeasures, Norway concentrated on protecting the northern route out from the Kola peninsula. Iceland was one large NATO base, even if it had no military participation itself. Sweden, as a Neutral squashed between east and west, took a highly agressive defensive stance, sparing no expense on appropriate defences unique to its geographical nature. Their Naval forces, which is for the majority based around fast attack boats, demonstrates this.

You must compare like with like.

[FMolloy]

So we should get new subs to go with our surplus Russian helicopters....