Some navies still can't get it right - eg the russians and chinese have still not worked out how to develop a bond that is stable at all operational depths. hence why you see a few russian subs with gaping square chunks missing off their decks and hulls.
The USA and UK are reported to still have problems, too. This is definitely a non-trivial problem.
On ratio, far less than the russians, but yes its a universal problem. less for some, significant for others
No comment on the first part but as far as replacement at sea goes, propellers are too large to fit thru a logistics / escape trunk (even when removed) and you couldnt very well store them in pieces as rewelding on a pitching or even calm sea would be really difficult and my sub really had no crane or anything to rig it over the side without the possiability of dropping the thing thus leaving you out in the middle of the ocean w/o a means of propulsion.
fftopic sorry I didnt jump in some sooner I was away for a few days.)
If you can comment ? are the coatings used on the Virginia Class different ? As I understand it is a rubberised coating ? almost like a wetsuit for the sub. I have read in the past that the Virginias have also had issues with the coatings coming off, but I believe this was more predominat in the earlier subs, so it is a constantly evolving process which they appear to be getting better at
can't really comment beyond saying conceptually similar, materially different. bonding very different..
Sounds like I was quite off-base with my previous assumptions regarding the tech use, apologies for that Sturm.
.What we previously discussed about the integration of missiles and how it boils down to individual requirements I think can also apply to AIP. Some SSK operating navies navies, like Japan, were late in entering the AIP club. I was surprised however that Chile, which is an experienced SSK operator didn't go for MESMA on its 2 Scorpenes.I think it probably comes down to individual requirements more than anything. For example, the German-built Type 209 submarine employs a Harpoon capability in the navies of several export customers, and while I think the Germany Navy could quickly roll out a similar capability for their own Type 212, I'm sure they have a good reason for not doing so. I
my view is that AIP has become a defence journo buzzword thrown around all too frequently and with a limited appreciation of the use of it. Its not a panacea for all conventional sub "ills"
Saying that AIP equipped SSK can rival a SSN is taking it too far i think. But still, AIP is not without it's advantage. SU-27 with radar absorbing paint may not make it a cheap F-22. But it may get them a few kilometres closer to the enemy. But still, i see your point.
In your view would an SSK operator, which operates mainly in a shallow/littoral enviroment, within the continental shelf and never too far away from port, gain any clear advantages from investing in an AIP? From what little I know of AIP is that it encreases the endurance of an SSK and does away with the need to snorkel but it does not make an SSK invisible or significantly increase its performance as some reports would suggest.
A rubber 'sheath' or 'condom' if you will, covering the whole lenght of the hull, would not be practical. For one, it would probably effect the performance of the sub's sonar.
Floating dry docks capable of doing the job exist, but there are not enough of them. They are not self propelled and have to be towed, slowly, to a new location. And you never, ever, want to work in one except in absolutely calm water.
Modern anechoic tiles are around 4” thick, a sheath that thick would not be flexible. So you would having to build the submarine hull inside the sheath. Getting the air out from between the sheath and the hull would be harder than attaching the tiles, and if you don’t it will be almost as bad as not having the sheath at all.
All AIP gives you is better endurance than batteries. But you can only get it by sitting still or by traveling at low speeds. Typical ranges are 200 km at 5 km/hour, which sounds impressive until you realize that traveling into even a moderate current can bring you to a standstill. :argue
you might need to read what I said, not what you think I said.
i'd argue that energy generation and onboard power is far more critical at a benefits level than AIP.
Yes. The French Rubis-class SSN is a ~2,400 ton nuclear attack sub, while the Collins-class SSG is about 30% larger (displacement).
No reason why they could not do it. But the additional size and cost would not add any significant capabilities in a cost effective manner either, so there is no reason to do it. Optimal size is somewhere smaller than 6000 tons.