Japan's Silent Submarines Extend Range With Lithium-Ion Batteries (nikkei.com) 121
AmiMoJo shares a report from Nikkei Asian Review: Japan's first submarine powered by lithium-ion batteries was launched on Thursday. The [Soryu-class diesel-electric] submarine can reach speeds of roughly 20 knots and displaces 2,950 tons. It will be delivered to the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force in March 2020. Batteries are recharged by the energy generated by Oryu's diesel engines. The vessel switches to batteries during operations and actual combat in order to silence the engines and become harder to detect. The lithium-ion batteries radically extend the sub's range and time it can spend underwater.
Double-purpose! (Score:5, Funny)
Plus, when they run out of charge, they double as torpedoes.
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
WW II era submarines were not diesel-electric. They were electric underwater, diesel on the surface. A real diesel-electric uses a diesel to drive a generator that in turn drives electric motors. [wikipedia.org] Obviously, this isn't possible when submerged.
Re:Kamikaze (Score:5, Insightful)
I guess you never heard of the snorkel?
Re:Kamikaze (Score:4, Informative)
I could have written "submerged below snorkel depth" but I assumed an intelligent reader. More to the point, I erred in claiming that WW II submarines were not actually diesel-electric. They actually were. [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:1)
Right...
Type XXI U-boats were a class of German diesel-electric Elektroboot (German: "electric boat") submarines designed during the Second World War. Four were completed during the war and only two were sent for combat patrol and these were not used in combat.They were the first submarines designed to operate primarily submerged, rather than spending most of their time as surface ships that could submerge for brief periods as a means to escape detection or to attack. [wikipedia.org]
It must hurt your neck to walk around wi
Re: (Score:2)
Just for reference, and perhaps to save some future embarrassment, German "boot" is pronounced like Englilsh "boat".
Re: (Score:2)
No it is not ...
But it not pronounced like the english boot, either, if that is your point.
The german boot is pronounced like the english bot, but with a very long "o".
Combination diesel-electric and diesel/electric (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Right. To niggle, the Seawolf class was between wars. After that, looks like fully diesel-electric, that is, Balao and Tench class. Possibly because the priority shifted from surface speed to submerged endurance.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You know, if you are going to get up on your high horse and be insufferable, maybe notice that I corrected my post with a follow up more than an hour before you felt compelled to trot out your own urgent clarification.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why mention 1943? The British built a diese/electric sub in 1910, the D1. The Germans ditto with U19. There were earlier petrol/electic subs (dangerous combination) but the vast majority of subs in WW1 were diesel/electric. There may have been even earlier diesel/electric subs built by Russia or France but I don't know, and the British built some steam-tubine/diesel ones (the K-class).
Re: (Score:2)
Need not worry : the USA was among the first in submarine tech. They were used in the War of Independence and in the Civil War - tiny things driven by hand-turned propellors, not successful though.
Re: (Score:2)
Clueless is clueless again. Kamikaze tactics had nothing to do with submarines.
Re:Kamikaze (Score:5, Informative)
Kamikaze tactics had nothing to do with submarines.
Yes they did: Kaiten suicide subs [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:1)
From your own link: "this meant Kamikaze planes, Shinyo suicide boats, Kaiten submarines, and Fukuryu suicide divers". Saying "kamikaze submarine" is just illiterate.
Re: (Score:2)
From your own link: "this meant Kamikaze planes, Shinyo suicide boats, Kaiten submarines, and Fukuryu suicide divers". Saying "kamikaze submarine" is just illiterate.
Not offtopic. The bellycrawler with mod points was offtopic.
Re: (Score:2)
For a very short time, American prop-driven nuclear bombers were a thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Sound like you have just been watching "Dr Strangelove". Those 1960's American airman rode bombs like they rode broncos; men were men then.
Re: (Score:2)
It's an anti-air missile, it's first flight is supposed to end badly. /s
Re: (Score:2)
Lol, don't call others clueless if you have no clue.
Many late war submarines had mini subs, manned torpedoes, supposed to be used as kamikaze torpedoes. Luckily most submarine commanders refused to utilize them.
Re: (Score:1)
Not so much. The thing that makes lithium batteries nasty is that they can let out all their stored energy in a great hurry if they're damaged. If they're discharged, there isn't any energy left to release, so they are pretty boring when you damage them.
Subnautica - Rig for Silent running (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Can U feel the fueling? (Score:4, Insightful)
If you like half the total energy efficiency and a fraction of the energy storage capacity compared to diesel/lithium ion combo then, yeah...way better!
Nuclear for the win
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If you like half the total energy efficiency and a fraction of the energy storage capacity compared to diesel/lithium ion combo then, yeah...way better!
Nuclear for the win
Only if you need to go far and or fast while you're submerged.
And nukes are much harder and more expensive to make quiet, and even then they'll never be as quiet as a sub running on batteries. You know how much noise a sub's batteries make? Go outside and try to hear your car's battery.
For defensive purposes, conventional subs are hard to beat.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Subs running on batteries still drive propellers that create noise. It's not the power source of a sub that is most important it is the advanced sensor suites capable of hearing a dolphin fart 100 miles away that makes it dangerous. There are no great technological secrets involved with building a modern day sub. Specs on everything from power sources to composite hull materials are available to anyone. The specs for the sensor suites and targeting systems are not so readily available. For a lot of countrie
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Subs running on batteries can turn off propellers. Nuclear subs always run cooling.
Re: (Score:2)
Nuclear for the win
Nukes are hecka expensive. If you need globe traversing subs to support your blue water navy, they make sense. If you just want coastal defense in the East China Sea, they do not.
Re:Can U feel the fueling? (Score:4, Informative)
Nuclear also has it's issues. A diesel electric sub is much quieter, and therefore harder to detect, than a nuclear as long as the diesel electric is running in electric mode. The trade-off is that when running the diesel it's much, much, louder, and the all electric range tends to be limited. Nuclear allows longer range and relative quiet, but not as quiet as electric.
This is interesting because it extends that electric range, and therefore extends the advantage over nuclear in short term engagements.
Re: (Score:2)
The phrase you should be looking for is "natural circulation reactor". That's when you don't need reactor coolant pumps to get power out of your reactor.
They tend to be quieter than ambient. Which means you can detect them, with a sensitive enough sonar, by listening for the hole in the "normal" sea noise.
Noise (Score:4, Informative)
Noise isn't necessarily the problem with nuclear reactors, it's the heat. They dump a bunch of heat into the water, which can be picked up by satellites. They have to go *deep* to evade detection this way, which limits where they can go. You won't be able to tell *exactly* where the sub is, but you get the idea that one is in the area, and it's general direction.
Re: (Score:2)
So when can we expect your free energy source?
Re:Can U feel the fueling? (Score:4, Insightful)
If you like half the total energy efficiency and a fraction of the energy storage capacity compared to diesel/lithium ion combo then, yeah...way better!
Nuclear for the win
A diesel on batteries can be quieter ... slightly. (The nuke plant coolant system and the steam system must always run.) But the diesel can't be on batteries forever.
Pros and cons, pros and cons ...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Their total range is actually larger than the Soryu class. Their endurance without snorkeling is 3 weeks, but I did not find that number for the Japanese boat.
Re: Can U feel the fueling? (Score:2)
If the Soviets could run a sub with a nuclear reactor cooled with liquid sodium, a substance that explodes when it touches water then LOX is a joke
Re: (Score:2)
The class also uses four of the same air-independent Stirling engines used in the Swedish Gotland class subs, each delivering about 100 horsepower. While not as quiet a fuel cells, they are still pretty quiet and are cheaper to operate.
So I guess what happens is that the submarine operates on the Stirling engines then shifts to batteries for combat.
Re: (Score:2)
And they can run the stirling engines under water, capturing the exhaust and running it with compressed air or compressed O2.
They actually can run combat missions with the stirling engine on, they sunk in "war games" a Nimitz class carrier several times.
A Gotland vessel is boroughed out to the US Navy to figure ways how to detect/defeat them.
Re: (Score:2)
Damage control problem (Score:1)
I would think they'd make damage control very difficult though.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps not as much worse as you might think. Sea water plus lead acid batteries produces chlorine gas.
Fire will be the big risk (Score:2)
if they are using a Lithium-Cobalt chemistry. Hopefully they've chosen a Lithium-Phosphate though. These are tough cells.
The article is too lacking.
Re: (Score:2)
The chlorine gas is not the problem, the O2 and H2 that is created by electrolysis while running the batteries is: it creates an explosive mixture called 'Knallgas".
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Not quite.
The 5th Basic Energy Plan, approved in July 2018, maintains the same electricity percentages as agreed in mid-2015. It presents nuclear power as âoean important base-load power source contributing to the stability of the long-term energy supply-and-demand structure,â and states that necessary measures will be taken to achieve nuclear powerâ(TM)s share of 20-22% in the 2030 energy mix.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/i... [world-nuclear.org]
Japan shutdown all nuclear power plants for reviews on safety after the tsunami hit Fukushima. Since then Japan has declared many of the smaller and older plants unfit for restart, a few newer reactors have already been restarted, and about half of their nuclear power plant fleet is set to be restarted soon, and they have plans for the construction of new nuclear power plants. To get from near 0% to 20% nuclear in little over a decade means they intend to be ver
Re: (Score:2)
No. That is the primary advantage of nuclear propulsion in submarines. Range.
The primary downside is extra cost/size and noise from having to keep reactor cooled at all times.
diesel boats... (Score:2)
They're glorified diesel Type XXI boats (WW2 German boats).
If you really want extended underwater capabilities, well, that's why they invented the nuke boats....
Re: (Score:2)
Which are larger, noisier and much, much more expensive. They also in practice require a nuclear weapons program to produce the fuel.
No, diesel-electric submarines are simply the best technical solution for their intended use, not a throwback to the past.
Re: (Score:3)
I enirely agree about diesel electric subs by the way. And about nuclear ones.
They also in practice require a nuclear weapons program to produce the fuel.
This is Japan we're talking about. At any given point in time they're probably about 6 months to a year away from having nuclear tipped ICBMs, should they so choose.
They've got a large, active nuclear industry including reprocessing and uranium enrichment for their reactors.
Also, they have probably the world's current best solid fuel rocket. If you can rel
This man's Navy ... (Score:4, Informative)
... out on the Big Pond.
Aviation Anti-Submarine Warfare Technician 2nd class.
The other side of the story is using hydrophones (waterproof microphones) to listen to the deep.
Every major country has these permanent stations anchored out across the oceans.
An audio spectrum analyzer sweeps the apparently random noise with tones from near zero up to the khz.
Obviously, when noise from the sea is the same frequency as the artificial pure tone, they are added together.
Rinse, repeat.
The results are charted with frequency on the X axis and amplitude on the Y.
A computer alerts when it sees a straight line, created over time.
That's the tone and sea noise agreeing when they coincide with the sounds of reefers (ice boxes), generators, prop cavitation, screw bearings, engine noises, and miscellaneous unwanted fingerprints.
We could tell you the fucking captain's name by the signature.
Aircraft drop sonobouys to do the same.
--
Then there's this:
Submarines, to date, have a lot of fucking metal that distorts the Earth's magnetic field locally.
Permanent or airborne magnetometers can pick up these small anomalies.
Sunken ships have long been logged and they don't move.
--
Then, there are active sonar devices, permanent or airborne (tethered from helicopters) that map the surroundings and alarm on novel or moving objects.
--
The submarine/anti-submarine balance of technology is similar to the battle of virus/antivirus one.
This latest improvement by the Japanese may or may not be better than existing or future state of the art detection.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Works in the shallows. Open oceans, not so much. The primary reason for South China Sea brouhaha is literally this. SCS is shallow, and Chinese ballistic missile subs need to run the shallows gauntlet to vanish into the Pacific. It's choke full of USN and allied hydrophones. That's why Chinese grabbed the drone that was doing water temperature measurements, and why previous pushing around was about USNS Impeccable. For the hydrophone network to operate, you need solid data on thermal conditions of various l
Re: (Score:2)
Buoys and ships and satellites monitor currents, and there are many at different temperatures and depths, like rivers in the sea.
The hydrophones work best in open waters because man-made noises are rare.
That.s why subs keep close to the shipping lanes and noisy shores.
Ship and airborne craft, manned and unmanned, are capable of dropping hydrophones at several depths.
Re: (Score:2)
Accurate and reliable things that can provide constant cover over large area vs inaccurate and unreliable things that can cover barely a tiny fraction of area that would be needed to covered to provide comparable detection rates.
Re: (Score:2)
Can't help you.
I can only share my experience and expertise.
The issues you're leaning toward are not issues we had to deal with and that continues to be the case.
Thanks.
Re: (Score:2)
I have no idea who "we" is, but considering the relevant clashes between PLAN and USN in the SCS over last two decades, both PLAN and USN clearly agree with me and disagree with you.
Re: (Score:2)
So, a whole career down the drain because I learned nothing.
Sorry to disappoint.
Re: (Score:2)
I have no idea what field you're in either. You never provided me with any information on any of those, so I can't make a judgement on either one.
I can only talk about things I know about, such as public information available about events in SCS between PLAN and USN/USN contractors in last two decades.
Re: (Score:2)
I told you what field I'm in:
Aviation Anti-Submarine Warfare Technician 2nd class. [USN]
Re: (Score:2)
So, P-8? About the only way to develop that sort of arrogance is to be the sonar guy on that aircraft. It's so much better than P-3, you can develop a feeling you're just able to do miracles, because all too often you're given mission profiles intended for P-3.
Which is where harsh reality check comes in. You still need a track provided by intelligence on approximate location of submarine you're looking for to actually go hunt it. Even with the speed P-8 can scan the area it's given, it's a needle in a hayst
Re: (Score:2)
You do not know what the fuck you're talking about.
What the hell?
There's a whole world out there that involves aircraft carriers, helicopters, prop jobs capable of cruising at 200 feet above the sea, jets, ...
I worked on the P-3 Orion (hurricane hunter) out of NAS Jax, as well, and it's a shame that you're stepping up like this.
Let's end this on a positive note, OK?
To those who served before me
To those with whom I served
To those who serve us now
Thank you for your service
CaptainDork
Out.
Re: (Score:2)
>There's a whole world out there that involves aircraft carriers, helicopters, prop jobs capable of cruising at 200 feet above the sea, jets, ...
And to provide coverage, they're not anywhere near enough on their own, because as you certainly must know, most of them travel over beaten paths. Those that don't are usually fishers, who unintentionally serve to confuse attempted detection further. That's why Impeccable got harassed as much as it did, and that's why Chinese grabbed that hydrographic drone from
Re: (Score:3)
Of course he did ... just click back back back, till you find the post you originally answered too ... he is an expert and you are a double noob. Noob in not realizing that he is an expert and a noob in not realizing meanwhile what nonsense you have posted.
Re: (Score:2)
Shouldn't you go back to claiming that Germany controls wind?
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not aware that someone is controlling wind ... you seem to have misunderstood something
Re: (Score:2)
Of course I have, mr "professional in field of energy generation and transmission who thinks that Germany controls wind".
Unless this is what some people pointed out some time ago, a PR account with multiple people manning it, and not knowing what the other employee ended up saying. In which case, fuck off.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm an expert in energy production and transmission, not an expert about "controlling wind", what ever you mean with that.
As I said before: you misunderstood something.
Re: (Score:2)
And then you get this little jobby. [popularmechanics.com]
The Soviets/Russians have the ability to find subs without sonar at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Captain Dork, I think your carriage return key is sticking.
Saving time. (Score:1)
One hit that causes water to leak and it blows itself up.
Re: (Score:3)
The cells are sealed, you can throw those li-ion straight into the chuck and they just sink. Currently gaining a lot of traction as marine batteries, the only issue is the price.
Re: (Score:2)
Good to hear. Everything marine just costs exponentially more and takes a long time to ramp down.
Re: (Score:3)
By the time a warhead gets inside your submarine you have far bigger issues than exploding batteries, if they even do.
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
You better email those Japanese engineers right away to inform them of the terrible mistake they made, that only you can see.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
No, you really need to tell them about how much more fragile their battery casings are than they really think. Don't hold back.
Fuel Cell for the win (Score:3)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
German Type 212 up to 3 weeks of silent running on fuel cells.
1173 = model # (Score:1)
yes (Score:2)
The vessel switches to batteries during operations and actual combat in order to silence the engines and become harder to detect.
Like ... all diesel electric boats.
(I get that the point is that these are better batteries. That was just kind of weird.)
Re: (Score:2)
Soryu (Score:2)
Why would the Japanese name a warship after one of the carriers that went down at Midway, the battle that pretty much ended their empire?
Nice for war (Score:2)
How about an article about VPT lithium batteries for rebreather divers?
Those can also dive silently for much longer times than the old compressed air ones and it's useful for us as well.
Red October... (Score:2)
Nothing new, lots misleading (Score:2)
Diesel electric submarine tech has been around close to a century so that's not new.
Running on electric is quieter and in the submarine warfare scenario, that is crucial.
Batteries don't radically extend range. What is likely is that the batteries have better range than previous types of batteries.
This is all information that is easily available and yet the referenced article reports on it poorly.
So ask yourself, "How accurate is the media when it comes to information that is hard to obtain?"