Replica A Lange & Sohne
Replica Accutron
Replica Audemars Piguet
Replica Baume & Mercier
Replica Bell & Ross
Replica Breitling
Replica Bvlgari
Replica Cartier
Replica Chanel
Replica Chopard
Replica Christian Bernard
Replica Christian Dior
Replica Citizen
Replica Coach
Replica Concord
Replica Corum
Replica D&G
Replica DKNY
Replica Ebel
Replica ESQ
Replica Fendi
Replica Fila
Replica Franck Muller
Replica Girard Perregaux
Replica Givenchy
Replica Gucci
Replica Guess
Replica Hamilton
Replica Haurex
Replica Invicta
Replica IWC
Replica Jacob & Co
Replica Jacques Lemans
Replica Jaeger LeCoultre
Replica Levis
Replica Longines
Replica Mont Blanc
Replica Movado
Replica Omega
Replica Orient
Replica Oris
Replica Panerai
Replica Patek Philippe
Replica Piaget
Replica Rado
Replica Rolex
Replica Sector
Replica Seiko
Replica Skagen
Replica Swatch
Replica Swiss
Replica Swiss Army Victorinox
Replica Tag Heuer
Replica Technomarine
Replica Timberland
Replica Tissot
Replica Ulysse Nardin
Replica Vacheron Constantin
Replica Wenger
Replica Wittnauer
Replica Zenith
Replica Zodiac ecommerce
open source
shop
online shopping
Rolex Sports watches
Rolex Datejusts watches
A Lange & Sohne watches
Aigner watches
Alain Silberstein watches
Audemars Piguet watches
Bell & Ross watches
Breguet watches
Breitling watches
Bvlgari watches
Cartier watches
Chanel watches
Chopard watches
Concord watches
Corum watches
Dior watches
Dolce & Gabbana watches
Ebel watches
Emporio Armani watches
Glashutte watches
Gucci watches
Hermes Watches
IWC watches
Jacob & Co watches
Jaeger LeCoultre watches
Longines watches
Louis Vuitton watches
Mont Blanc watches
Movado watches
Omega watches
Oris watches
Panerai watches
Patek Philippe watches
Philip Stein watches
Porsche Design watches
Rado watches Roger
Roger Dubuis watches
Sarcar watches
Tag Heuer watches
Technomarine watches
Vacheron Constantin watches
Zenith watches ecommerce
open source
shop
online shopping

Posted by: luxury watch at April 17, 2009 09:25 PM

Iam from Sri Lanka,on bealf of sri lanken I would like to say, we are very happy.go a head.

Posted by: Lal yapa at February 17, 2009 06:08 PM

AIP submarines have large cryogenic tanks holding H and O2 for use in their fuel cells, or ethanol in the Mesa system. Both require a supporting infrastructure. Diesel generators can provide a lot of power in a short time when surfaced or at snorkel dept but are noisy and air dependent. A nuclear plant needs no air but is a big dangerous system requiring lots of shielding etc. Sized to permit high transit speeds in the open ocean, it is wasted in low speed coastal patrols.

In the hybrid design you have electric drive, very quiet and good for speeds to 20 to 25 knots. Batteries provide for burst speeds as required, diesels permit rapid charging when it is safe to do so, generally 3 to 5Mw. AIP provide enough power to run the subs systems include hotel requirements, plus provide surplus for patrol speeds, about 3 to 5 knots, from about 150 to 300Kw. They slow charge the batteries, depending on other needs, maximum would be if the sub sits on the bottom. Non nuke AIP has the disadvantage of once it is depleted, it is difficult to refuel without the supporting infrastructure. But a nuclear battery can run unattended for years, even decades. Russia has over 1000 of them powering lighthouses, remote sensors etc. They use radioisotopes that emit radiation at a rate that creates usable heat. Some give off only alpha radiation, electrons, that cannot penetrate the skin, or the container it is packed in, requiring no shielding. Others require thin shielding, but measured in mm instead of meters. Heat can be converted in electricity using thermocouples, Stirling engines, thermalphotovoltaic arrays etc. The Gotlands use 300Kw Stirling generators, if the diesel/LOX fuel source was replaced with a radioisotope source, the sub could cruise for years at patrol speeds safely, surfacing only for provisions every couple of months. The nuclear battery can be small, cheap, and safe as it isn't required to provide for high speed running, that is the batteries task, modern batteries can provide for several hours running at high speed, all that is needed in a coastal sub. Most transits, at least in peacetime, are done on the surface or snorkeling, where the diesels are adequate for the task, with ranges of 10,km plus being common. A nuclear battery hybrid sub has a lot of advantages over a conventional AIP submarine.

Posted by: Brian at December 7, 2008 06:05 PM

umm pardon my ignorance but exactly why do u need the diesel if u have small nuclear reactor/nuclear battery to charge the electric battery infact why do u need the battery at all can't the nuclear device deliver electricity to the turbines directly or is the battery an emegency power reserve for tactical burst speed etc?

Posted by: shantanu chatterjee at September 12, 2008 03:11 PM

Our island adventure, hope for a better, as if the joy of childhood when the growth to continue in pursuit of that future~ can step by step, the development of advanced, it, of our time, the motherland Time, the world's time, gradually the past, our childhood memory of ~~~ happy time! We have to remember that to purchase maple mesos, to facilitate our task to do!

Posted by: maple mesos at August 8, 2008 03:41 AM

My friends in order to help me, send me much Requiem gold, I was very thank him.

Posted by: Requiem gold at August 6, 2008 01:07 AM

Once she was cheat many by archlord online gold therefore I secretly pledged that I must protect her.

Posted by: archlord online gold at August 6, 2008 01:05 AM

But today she is always distracted, and her fiesta online gold is lost hardly.

Posted by: fiesta online gold at August 6, 2008 01:04 AM

IT sounds like something Canada worked on the 1980"s a small nuclear reactor using heat to create a Rankine cycle power supply for higher underwater endurance for a conventional submarine.
A modified version has been proposed to improve the performance of the Victoria class thus turning our"ex .uk. junk. into proper sskn's.
Even in the ufortunate condition we recieved them comentatators have compared the subs to trafalgar class without the kettle. so even putting back a small teakettle would improve there performance

Posted by: kevin at May 14, 2008 07:40 PM

IT sounds like something Canada worked on the 1980"s a small nuclear reactor using heat to create a Rankine cycle power supply for higher underwater endurance for a conventional submarine.
A modified version has been proposed to improve the performance of the Victoria class thus turning our"ex .uk. junk. into proper sskn's.
Even in the ufortunate condition we recieved them comentatators have compared the subs to trafalgar class without the kettle. so even putting back a small teakettle would improve there performance

Posted by: kevin at May 14, 2008 07:32 PM

nice to meet you

Posted by: wowpowerleveling at April 14, 2008 08:23 PM

how do kilo class submarines compare to the australian collins class sub?

Posted by: freya at February 18, 2008 02:33 AM

There is no discussion that the ideal power plant for submarines is a nuclear reactor, provided that the boat is large enough to accommodate one. Conventional (i.e. diesel/electric) subs still exist in part due to specific operational requirements for small and exceedingly silent boats operating in coastal waters, in part because of cost reasons, but overwhelmingly because of the political implications of nuclear-powered warships. That is, virtually all navies that operate diesel/electric submarines do so simply because they are prevented from building or acquiring nuclear boats due to international or/and domestic political considerations.

Given this, the Russian hybrid/nuclear proposal makes no technological or commercial sense. If a country can afford (politically and financially) to procure a nuclear-powered submarine, it would want the "true thing", not a contraption which effectively combines the shortcomings of both nuclear and conventional power plants with none of their advantages.

Posted by: Ezio Bonsignore at January 3, 2008 10:53 AM

Don't we allready have these patrolling Peru ?

http://www.strategypage.com/military_photos/20075122727.aspx

check this out. make sure you are sitting down

http://awwar.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=132&Itemid=58

check me out at :
http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-O1ahRPI8er4gvVWAGF6W_kZB;_ylt=AoR3WIy8hBAJWEl4PbtYiY2kAOJ3

Posted by: Max Anderson at December 29, 2007 09:24 PM

Cant the US reengineer our subs with same power system as Russians??
Save on Next Gen subs alone.
Wild.
Who will???
Nice- diesel & nuclear power.
Radical.
Imagine this in Hitlers U Boats in WW2.
Very doable
& cut our Sub Dev in 1/3rd time alone.
Same prefab BUT Faster Dev & Seatime vs Nuclear test time.
Must have for the Navy Sub Force.

Posted by: stephen russell at December 28, 2007 11:16 PM

Strategy Page (a blog) had a recent article which talked about a Russian AIP submarine, but it had the electrical source being an ethanol/oxygen fuel cell, not nuclear. My recollection is that the article was not about Russian work, per se, but about Indian development work being undertaken with Russian cooperation. As I recall, the submerged time was around two weeks.

Posted by: John F at December 26, 2007 02:12 PM

2 busy working in the t-shirt factory 2 comment! besides, you don't wont 2 see or smell me with my head out of myass!!
regards,
"Edd the talking Mule"
I ammmmm!

Posted by: Edd the talking mule at December 26, 2007 05:11 AM

I find it amazing that Russia could build or design anything using their own technology and design. I know nothing about subs but I have watched for years how they have copied all out aircraft up to and including the Space Shuttle. Why should their boat building be any different?

Posted by: Just A Reader at December 25, 2007 11:56 AM

Good Evening Folks,

I believe that the German Submarine Technology as used the U-212 is not AIP but whichis being developed in Sweden among other countries but Hydrogen Fuel and battery technology. Two completely different types of propulsion.

Ooop's.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

Posted by: Byron Skinner at December 24, 2007 07:50 PM

Does anybody know if the Rubin Design Bureau in St. Petersburg, is named after T. Rubin the Hungarian whom received a US Medal of Honor?

Posted by: navblk4 at December 24, 2007 03:21 PM

The issue here, as I see it, is not particularly that the Russians built a hybrid sub,but, more importantly, that they are back in the armaments business again. After allowing their nuclear sub fleet to rot at the dock, they are equipping themselves again. This also means that they will ,most likely, be marketing to third world wanna-bee countries.

Posted by: windsailor at December 24, 2007 12:58 PM

In regards to what was said about WWII boats by a poster,about the diesel being directly tied to the screws. This is not correct regarding U.S. boats. These boats were true diesel electric drive.

Posted by: wolfie at December 24, 2007 11:19 AM

The "missing link" that several have commented upon is this: these reactors use direct thermoelectric conversion of nuclear heat into electric power.

Thus there is no "diesel" and no "turbo" element.

Rather, it's 200kW of power for station-keeping, plus lithium-ion batteries for tactical "sprints".

Cheap. Quiet. Simple.

There's nothing classified here ... any US boat store will sell you the thermoelectric converters.

Posted by: John Sidles at December 23, 2007 11:19 PM

The real story continues to be the USN and the shipbuilders selling large subs relying on high tech toys verses the "many small" with right-sized high tech paths taken by several other European and allied navies.

TODAY

Now with 688, Seawolf and Virginia we shall have too few of boats too large and expensive, while foreign boats like the GFR's U-212 look mighty fine for small crew complimmmment, good tech, some legs though slow at a more affordable price.

The HMAS Collins class bares watching as one forward looking program. (Unlike the Canadians buying RN wrecks.)

Needed

About 10-20 small boats should be a target build to compliment the 50 or so big nuc attack boats that get built. These would be driven by one or more combination of Sterling engine, Diesel-Electric, or a small nuc (80-100 MW) plant in a 20-25 ft diam hull with crew target of 24-50 men and 3-5 Officers in mixed bag of SSK and SSKN add-ons. These would serve as both local and far coastal patrol or small island hopper. This would be meant to compliment the open-ocean Virginia sports cars and Ohio underwater boomer hotels as these would provide the killer patrol capability lost when the tall sail & twin-screwed boats were decom'd.

Poor Definition

"Hybrid Desiel-Electric / Nuc boat" is a definition without merit. All boats with the Nuc plant have battery and diesel. All have an electric motor as emergency propulsion (somewhere) with use of battery and diesel for supply of power to get a few knots closer to home. Tulibee and Lipscomb used motors for propulsion verses steam propulsion turbine drive with reduction gears. Any pumps the larger, the more, and the faster running with reduction gears make the most noise. The Skates, Halibut and Tulibee had smaller plants with less and smaller motors.

While I don't know how sister Skate did in an underwater drag race with Tulibee in the small pond, but our slower transit in the big pond was noticeble when the LA showed up but still not too arduous. Besides it gave us move time to drill and we loved (gag) our drills. Our only claim to boast was that we could out race the round hulls on surface coming into port from stress limits on their single shaft.

Posted by: Mark Toth at December 22, 2007 09:48 PM

"U.S. attack submarine force would perform admirably, but it has never been tested in an actual conflict."

. . . that you know of.

There are a number of Mk48's "missing" from U.S. inventories during cold war.

A full accounting of what these fish were used for won't be public knowledge for years/decades to come. It might be interesting for some here to look at the Soviet sub inventory for "missing" boats. More than a couple have disappeared never to be seen again.

Posted by: jas at December 22, 2007 01:20 PM

Actually what you are seeing is part of a revolution in the design and fielding of small nuclear reactors. Over the next ten years or so a large renaissance in nuclear power will occur as the engineering community has finally found a way to build very safe, very small and extremely inexpensive nuclear reactors. Toshiba recently gave a small Alaskan town a stand alone system that is only 20 feet long and six feet wide.

Posted by: Tom at December 22, 2007 12:12 PM

At least based on the news as reported, something doesn't add up. Please consider:

- In modern diesel/electric subs (unlike their WW2 ancestors) the diesel engine is ONLY intended to generate electricity for the electric motor + reloading the batteries. That is, the diesel is never connected to the power shaft and rather acts as a source of energy. The boat is always powered by the electric motor, this being fed electricity by the diesel + generator when on the surface or snorkeling and by the batteries when submerged.

- AIP systems (Stirling, fuel cells or Mesma turbine) are a way to extend underwater range (but at very low speeds!) by reloading the batteries without having to come to the surface or snorkel depth. In practical terms, what happens is, the boat can move at very slow speed (some 4-5 knots) for very long periods with minimal or no drain on the batteries, which thus remain fully laden should a burst to max. underwater speed be required.

- In the standard configuration of nuclear power plants, the reactor acts basically as a boiler, producing steam which powers geared turbines acting on the shat through reduction gears. It is my understanding that the reduction gears are by far the most significant source of noise in a nuclear submarines.

- For the above reason, it is sometime preferred (e.g. the French Navy) to rather use the turbines to power a generator, which then feeds electric energy to an electric propulsion motor. This of course takes more space and weight and entails not insignificant energy losses, but it is easier to silence.

- Based on the news, the Russian system looks like a contraption whereby a small reactor + turbine + generator would be used in the same vein as AIPs, i.e. to keep the batteries loaded while moving underwater at slow speed.

- Point is, this makes no sense in either technological or operational sense. Such a mini- nuclear power plant is certainly more complex and probably even more costly to design than a "full-size" one. The Russians did use a different type of similarly complicated hybrid power plant (nuclear + stem) on the "Kirov" class cruisers, but this was because they could not develop a suitably powerful reactor.

- If there is a logic, this is purely commercial. The international market for conventional subs is increasingly dominated by AIP-equipped designs, which the Russians currently cannot offer. It is thus possible that they are trying and recovering their lost commercial positions by offering a "semi-nuclear" boat.

Posted by: Ezio Bonsignore at December 22, 2007 06:41 AM

Thanks for this post. I'm always interested in what's going on in the backwaters of engineering. As you note AIPs have been an interesting (and ever-promising) solution to a non-nuke sub design challenge. If people are interested in the workings they sould Google "Sterling Engine" a name now used more as a generic term for a family of AIP designs than just the original Sterling concept itself. There's plenty of animations out there demonstrating how they work.

Subs: I'm just an interested amateur with friends and colleagues who were in the Silent Service. But cruise missiles are in another category.

There were TWO subs that launched Tomahawks in the FIRST Gulf War in 1991 (or Second Gulf War if you were there in '88 like). The USS Louisville launched from the Red Sea and USS Pittsburg from the Med.

Posted by: SMSgt Mac at December 21, 2007 08:56 PM

The Americans did this with the Tullibee (SSN-597) in 1958. No idea if we were the first or not.

The short-term tactical advantage of a nuke plant over AIP / batteries / the "teakettle" is explosively fast submerged speed and acceleration. A non-nuke boat is functionally an underwater mine, practically stationary. Either B-90's plant is very low output, and thus limited in submerged speed, or it is as big as a regular reactor plant, and just as noisy. According to most sources (for instance, http://www.fas.org/spp/eprint/snf03221.htm) the main source of noise for Russian boats is the drivetrain, not the reactor, anyway. An American nuclear sub at low speed is just as quiet as a boat on batteries; you don't get much quieter than utter silence.

As far as size of the plant goes, either this thing has a lot of bulky shielding, or it fries the crew. Russian naval history points towards frying the crew.

American nuclear attack submarines have fired Tomahawks in both Iraq wars, among other conflicts; see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomahawk_missile . The US government, when launching Tomahawks, uses subs as much as possible; this keeps them looking useful for political reasons until Chinese saber-rattling becomes convincing. To my knowledge the only warshot torpedoes fired in anger from a nuke were by the British during the Falklands war.

Posted by: Asterix at December 21, 2007 06:25 PM

According to CNN the 1998 cruise missiles were fired from U.S. ships (still ironic, considering that Afghanistan is a landlocked country) and not submarines. (http://www.cnn.com/US/9808/20/us.strikes.01/)

While we now have converted Ohio class submarines with cruise missiles, those didn't exist in 1998, IIRC, and I don't recall U.S. nuclear attack submarines carrying cruise missiles.

Posted by: ohwilleke at December 21, 2007 06:19 PM

Some of the missles fired at Afghanistan in 1998 were from a sub. At least that is the story as I heard it.

Posted by: joe at December 21, 2007 06:04 PM

Sure are glad we scrapped all those obsolete S-3's.

Posted by: Joe at December 21, 2007 06:02 PM

One suspects that the virtues of a diesel-nuclear hybrid may include:

(1) Longer periods submerged between refuelings than a diesel (for which a week might apply). The additional submerged time that would be secured by an all nuclear design may be useless because the need to reprovision requires periodic surfacing anyway.

(2) Nuclear fuel has much higher energy density than than diesel reducing fuel requirements and hence also reducing total submarine size.

(3) A teakettle, because it is smaller than other nuclear reactors, is probably quieter than the threshold that existing ASW technologies targeted at nuclear submarines were designed to detect. It also probably requires less shielding since the radioactive source is smaller.

(4) Nuclear submarines are more expensive to build than diesel-electrics; reducing the size of the nuclear fuel plant probably reduces cost.

(5) There are many potential commercial and military applications for very small nuclear reactors, particularly in places like Siberia with small isolated communities that have to fly in all of their fuel, and isolated military bases. Similar commercial nuclear power plant applications are being considered for use in Alaskan villages. This program allows Russian military R&D money to be used to develop the technology with human test subjects who can't opt out because they are military personnel.

Also in response to another Engage, a full fledged AIP (which this doesn't sound like it is, it sounds like this is a traditional air driven diesel that surfaces to recharge the batteries), or battery drive alone, should be significantly quieter than a nuclear submarine.

Why then has the U.S. submarine force been a success? Mostly because it has no opposition. Very few countries have blue sea navies (where U.S. nuclear submarines mostly operate) of any consequence. Fewer have decent ASW resourced and the subtle differences between nuclear subs and AIP or battery driven subs is very slight unless the opposition has good ASW. Also, none of those countries with good ASW has found it politically expident to target U.S. submarines.

Likewise, the U.S. has not, to my knowledge, every fired a shot in anger from a U.S. nuclear attack submarine. One reason that U.S. attack submarines haven't been tested is that in the kinds of naval engagements that come up between the kind of major naval wars, like taking potshots at pirates, a surface ship is preferred because it leaves no doubt about who is responsible. A submarine strike attributed to the wrong country could spawn diplomatic mayhem.

The U.S. Navy and I as one of the many people whose tax dollars help fund it would like to think that if we had to knock on wood that the U.S. attack submarine force would perform admirably, but it has never been tested in an actual conflict.

Posted by: ohwilleke at December 21, 2007 05:43 PM

Engage:

the diesel part of the powerplant isn't so quiet (one of the big reasons the superpowers went nuclear) but the electric part certainly is. like a locomotive, the motor is actually a direct-drive electric and the diesel (or nuke) plant just makes the electricity.

i agree with the other posters that it's confusing why they would do a hybrid instead of all nuke.

Posted by: C at December 21, 2007 04:23 PM

I don't follow. Why is a hybrid diesel/nuke an advantage? Are diesels that much quieter? If so how has the US sub force been so successful?

Someone please break it down Sesame Street style for me.

Posted by: Engage at December 21, 2007 03:59 PM

That is a fairly brilliant design, but I would not call it air independent. If that were the case then there would be no need for the diesel engine. I would imagine the nuclear reactor can keep the batteries charged for a longer period of time, but the batteries will still drain. Sonar, motors, etc. take a lot of juice.

DC2

Posted by: DC2 Jennings at December 21, 2007 01:46 PM

So the sub contains a small reactor. I understand that reactors need cooling, and that the resulting gurgle is what makes them so noisy. That is a bit different than a diesel AIP. I suppose that the reactor would be smaller in capacity, perhaps as capable as a Skate-sized ship. But that ought to be large enough to be noisy. Or am I missing something here?

Posted by: Jerome Mrozak at December 21, 2007 01:42 PM