4 ms·

Here is a brief (3 minute) silent video that explains what AIP is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rBL54Hdixw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rBL54Hdixw AIP

Here is a brief (3 minute) silent video that explains what AIP is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rBL54Hdixw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rBL54Hdixw AIPs are a big competitor to replace diesel submarines for the reasons the article sets out. Nuclear has superior performance, but the costs aren't in the same ballpark as either AIP or diesel (particularly cost to do nuclear safely). I could see the US retiring out a handful of nuclear subs and replacing them with AIPs simply as a cost saving measure (e.g. SSBN mission). It would reduce the cost of the submarine fleet while saving face in terms of sub count and on-paper capabilities (although then we go down the rabbit-hole of "is the US sub fleet oversized?").

Wistar 5y ago
Also, the wikipedia write-up: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air-independent_propulsion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air-independent_propulsion
jasonwatkinspdx 5y ago
> AIPs are a big competitor to replace diesel submarines AIP is a supplementary system used by diesel submarines, not a replacement for them. They don't have sufficient power for anything but slow quiet cruising. AIP equipped subs will retain diesel generators for faster sprints, and greater endurance while transiting on the surface or via snorkel. The two basic technologies for AIP are fuel cells and sterling engines. Both are deployed successfully at the moment. The video above is a neat summary of a 2nd generation fuel cell system that uses an onboard reformer to generate H2 from diesel, avoiding the downsides of H2 storage.
nradov 5y ago
The US Navy has conducted multiple detailed studies on AIP submarines. They are effective for short-range coastal defense. However the Navy isn't really tasked with that mission anymore. They're an expeditionary force and they need fast, high endurance submarines which can cross the Pacific Ocean in a matter of days or escort a nuclear-powered carrier. AIP submarines still can't do that. And even for the nuclear deterrent mission they lack the necessary submerged endurance.
- Someone1234 5y ago
  > The US Navy has conducted multiple detailed studies on AIP submarines. Indeed, and the technology has continued to improve. Thus, the linked article and related discussions. > They're an expeditionary force and they need fast, high endurance submarines which can cross the Pacific Ocean in a matter of days or escort a nuclear-powered carrier. Nobody was suggesting they could replace their hunter-killer fleet with AIPs. What was specifically discussed in-name was using them in their nuclear ballistic missile role. > And even for the nuclear deterrent mission they lack the necessary submerged endurance. I'd suggest you read the linked article before responding using outdated information. They now have four week endurance up from under a week many years ago. This was a valid critique, this isn't currently a valid critique.
  - nradov 5y ago
    I read the article and you're simply wrong. The critiques remain valid. Nuclear deterrent patrols last months, not weeks. And they need to make fairly fast transits to and from the patrol area. The National Interest is basically a site written by dilettantes for fanboys. It's not a reliable source for deep analysis of defense procurement policy.
    - Someone1234 5y ago
      > It's not a reliable source for deep analysis of defense procurement policy. Then by all means link to whatever better source you're using to base your arguments.

Wistar 5y ago

Also, the wikipedia write-up: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air-independent_propulsion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air-independent_propulsion

jasonwatkinspdx 5y ago

> AIPs are a big competitor to replace diesel submarines AIP is a supplementary system used by diesel submarines, not a replacement for them. They don't have sufficient power for anything but slow quiet cruising. AIP equipped subs will retain diesel generators for faster sprints, and greater endurance while transiting on the surface or via snorkel. The two basic technologies for AIP are fuel cells and sterling engines. Both are deployed successfully at the moment. The video above is a neat summary of a 2nd generation fuel cell system that uses an onboard reformer to generate H2 from diesel, avoiding the downsides of H2 storage.

nradov 5y ago

The US Navy has conducted multiple detailed studies on AIP submarines. They are effective for short-range coastal defense. However the Navy isn't really tasked with that mission anymore. They're an expeditionary force and they need fast, high endurance submarines which can cross the Pacific Ocean in a matter of days or escort a nuclear-powered carrier. AIP submarines still can't do that. And even for the nuclear deterrent mission they lack the necessary submerged endurance.

Someone1234 5y ago
> The US Navy has conducted multiple detailed studies on AIP submarines. Indeed, and the technology has continued to improve. Thus, the linked article and related discussions. > They're an expeditionary force and they need fast, high endurance submarines which can cross the Pacific Ocean in a matter of days or escort a nuclear-powered carrier. Nobody was suggesting they could replace their hunter-killer fleet with AIPs. What was specifically discussed in-name was using them in their nuclear ballistic missile role. > And even for the nuclear deterrent mission they lack the necessary submerged endurance. I'd suggest you read the linked article before responding using outdated information. They now have four week endurance up from under a week many years ago. This was a valid critique, this isn't currently a valid critique.
- nradov 5y ago
  I read the article and you're simply wrong. The critiques remain valid. Nuclear deterrent patrols last months, not weeks. And they need to make fairly fast transits to and from the patrol area. The National Interest is basically a site written by dilettantes for fanboys. It's not a reliable source for deep analysis of defense procurement policy.
  - Someone1234 5y ago
    > It's not a reliable source for deep analysis of defense procurement policy. Then by all means link to whatever better source you're using to base your arguments.