Comments on: Russia Completes Hybrid Submarine

By: Lal yapa

Lal yapa — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 23:08:37 +0000

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

By: shantanu chatterjee

shantanu chatterjee — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 20:11:31 +0000

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?

By: Requiem gold

Requiem gold — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 06:07:05 +0000

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

By: kevin

kevin — Thu, 15 May 2008 00:40:36 +0000

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

By: kevin

kevin — Thu, 15 May 2008 00:32:21 +0000

By: freya

freya — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 07:33:36 +0000

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

By: Ezio Bonsignore

Ezio Bonsignore — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 15:53:39 +0000

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.

By: stephen russell

stephen russell — Sat, 29 Dec 2007 04:16:58 +0000

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.

By: John F

John F — Wed, 26 Dec 2007 19:12:16 +0000

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.

By: Edd the talking mule

Edd the talking mule — Wed, 26 Dec 2007 10:11:26 +0000

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!