The UK got what it deserved.

That is the standard reward they should expect for being sycophants with delusions of grandeur.
Serves them right.

I’m a world away from Kohler’s worldvision, but he is being entirely consistent
with his neo-con mindset: there is no such thing as “special relationships”,
just power relationships. “Allies” is an euphemism for vassals. He’s just telling
the UK who’s the boss…

The sailplanes in that pic are WAY TOO HIGH for it to be a Yuan.
So either it is a photoshopped pic, or not taken in china but in St. Petersburg and it is an Amur or, it is a Type 93!

There seems to be some confusion with what I posted earlier.
I’m aware that there is no trouble in shooting a 533 mm weapon from a 650 mm tube.
In fact, currently active russian SSN classes have tubes of both diameters.
What I pointed out is that the Klub, due to its smaller diameter, will always lack
range compared to weapons like the Sampson or the Kh-101, which is a shame because the
Kh-101 will not have a global range stealthy platform (like an SSN) to be launched from in the
foreseable future.
That is why I suggested that the way to go would be to develop a “torpedo shaped version
of the Kh-101″, aplying the recipe EADS is using on the SCALP.

Can anyone explain the Stirling engine … I never understand why an engine using the striling thermodynamic cycle would be an AIP. It will also need a comburant like Oxygen …

Well from what I know subs with Stirling AIP do indeed carry a load of LOx
to use as comburant. I think they burn diesel to heat up the gas (Helium?)
inside closed chambers with piston(s) inducing their motion with heating and cooling cycles. Why is this advantageous over closed cycle diesels?
I don’t
know for sure but I think it maybe related to noise. If it burns the fuel without
the detonations of the diesel cycle it could be a way to reduce vibrations,
but that is beyond my knowlege.

Nice thread, Blackcat.

I would like to begin with some considerations regarding the 4 AIP technologies currently available:

– Fuell cell – this is currently the most advanced and promissing technology. As it
has no major moving parts and drives directly the electric motor in the vessel, its quiteness is unmatched by the
other current AIP systems. Its disadvantage is the presence of LOx and LH2 containers
inside a vessel where a fire or an explosion can mean the loss of the whole crew.
Related to this is the disavantage of having to store and handle 2 completely different
types of fuel inside the sub.
Marketed in Gemany by HDW for the Type 212/214, and in Russia by Rubin for its
project 677/ Amur 1650.

– MESMA – closed cycle ethanol/LOx steam turbine. noisier than fuel cells because of
its moving parts and the disposal of the LOx/ethanol combustion gases. Has a high level of power output but, like the fuel cells requires a different fuel type stored
in the vessel and the aditional plumbing required.
Marketed in France By DCN for Agosta 90 and Scorpene subs. Not very bright development
prospects since there are rumors that DCN is studying the option of incorporating a fuel cell in the Scorpene.

Stirling Engine – Oldest AIP system. Quiet, although is said to be louder than
the fuel cells due to the piston motion. More than decade of operation in the Swedish
navy shows its maturity and reliability, although its not very high level of power output puts a question mark in its
ability to compete with more modern and performant technologies.
Marketed in Sweden by Kokums, that has been recently bought by HDW…

Closed Cycle Diesel – Diesel engine that can use LOx as oxydizer as well as atmospheric
oxygen. Does without the aditional storage volume and plumbing of other systems that
use 2 fuels. Problem is that when you need high underwater speed the diesel will
have to take over the electric propulsion and your enemy will be listening…
There is also the problem of the diesel’s exhaust underwater.
Marketed by Dutch and German companies whose names I don’t recall.

Now for the Subs:

Scorpene – made in France by DCN, it has a very good sensors/weapons combo.
it’s main drawback is that the MESMA AIP is widely regarded as noisier than the
fuel cells. Should DCN go ahead in making a fuel cell option available, it could
become much more competitive in relation to the HDW products.

Amur – The replacement for the highly successful Kilo in the Rubin Design Bureau
product line. It is rumored to be very stealthy, could be even quieter than the
212/214, although ambitious conceptual targets could prove elusive when the
real hardware will be put to test. The sensors and data processing systems should
lag behind its western competitors. OTOH it can deploy the Klub missile, whose range
is unmatched by Exocet or Harpoon. Scorpene and 214 will have to wait for the Scalp-Naval. I also think that the placement of the LOx tank inside the pressure hull,
like in the 214, is not a very good idea safetywise. Rubin should have opted for the 212 design
solution with the tanks outside the pressure hull.

Since I am on this subject I would like to add, regarding the supposedly new chinese
diesel sub, that the stepped structure above the hull, that many see as an influence
of the Kilo design, could instead be the place where the LOx tanks of the AIP system
are located, having them outside the pressure hull like on the type 212.

Type 212/214 – Very good combat systems, fuel Cell AIP and decades of experience
in diesel sub design, makes the 212/214 the most competitive design currently on
the market. As I mentioned above I don’t like the way the LOx tanks were placed
in the 214, but that is the about the only criticism that I can maake to that design.

Moray – Could be more competitive if it had a less noisier AIP than the closed
cycle diesel. As it is, it is not very probable that this design will ever be successfull
in the export maket.

“Makes me sick to my stomach that the French will benefit from this contract in any way, shape or form.”

oh wait, nevermind, Arthur didn’t report the guy that reply to USAgent with pretty much a personal attack, worse yet, an attack against a large percentage of Americans who did support the war. Remember Rwanda…did that just made all of us “armchair” generals who didn’t do anything? 😡

Vortex I assume, you are talking about me. As I posted above
I think the matter has been blown out of proportion.
That said, I think that americans have all the right to support their country’s
actions, good or bad. What I don’t think is at all fair is to call in question
the friendship of allies just because they happen to believe the US is taking
a very wrong course of action and hold a grudge against them for that
disagreement.
I also happen to believe that Iraq didn’t even pose a remote threat to the US
and yet the US decided to use military means to solve the dispute it had with Iraq. I believe
that those that advocate the use of the military as the preferred method
of solving such disputes – as opposed to the very last resort, that I happen to
defend – have, if able, the moral duty to volunteer to fight for their country.
Now, if my “armchair remark” offended you, or anybody else in this forum
I unreservedly apologize to all of you.

I don’t think he is a racist, Vaiar. He’s just the regular all-american tough-talking
armchair warrior.

There are a lot of them over there, and if they stood up and volunteered to fight for what they
say they believe in, the US Army wouldn’t be strugling to maintain the number of combat
troops in Iraq…