Home » News » Navy » Ohio Replacement Subs to Shift to Electric Drive

Ohio Replacement Subs to Shift to Electric Drive

by Kris Osborn on September 27, 2013


The U.S. Navy’s successors to Ohio-class submarines will feature an electric propulsion system, making them quieter and stealthier than today’s versions.

The technology for the ballistic-missile subs is being developed by the Navy and General Dynamics Corp. as part of the Ohio Replacement Program, Rear Adm. Richard Breckenridge told Military​.com in an interview. Construction of the boats is set to begin in 2021, he said.

Unlike existing versions, which use mechanical propulsion technology, the replacement subs are designed to have an electric-drive system, Navy officials said. The technology still relies on a nuclear reactor to generate heat and create steam to power turbines, they said. However, the electricity produced is transferred to an electric motor rather than so-called reduction gears to spin the boat’s propellers, they said.

“We just take the electricity from those high-speed turbines and use that electricity to drive an electric motor that propels the ship,” Breckenridge said. “It is quieter than a mechanical drive system.”

Evolving global threats require ever more quiet submarines, Navy officials said. The Navy decided to invest in the technology after reaching the limits of trying to silence mechanical propulsion, they said.

“Great minds have figured out how to get those gears whisper quiet,” one Navy expert said. “We did not have any more tools in the bag to get the stealth that we knew we needed for this national strategic imperative.”

The Navy has experimented with electric drive in the past, but it took 15 years for the service to perfect the technology, officials said.

The system offers a number of potential advantages, including noise reduction, according to Bryan McGrath, managing director at FerryBridge Group LLC, a defense consulting firm based in Easton, Md.

“When you have the motor tied directly to the propulsion shaft, that should eliminate some of the noise,” he said.

Electric propulsion can also help ships generate more on-board power for electronics, sensors and weapons systems, McGrath said.

“Electric drive makes a lot of sense for submarines,” he said. “There is some technical risk in moving from mechanical to electric drive, but electric drive has been around for decades. The DDG 1000 (Zumwalt-class destroyer) surface ship is also electric drive — so you have two very big important ships are moving to electric drive.”

Other innovations in the submarine program include an X-shaped stern to improve maneuverability and stealth, officials said. As subs evolved from using propellers to more quieter propulsors, they lost some surface maneuverability, they said.

“With the X-stern, the Ohio Replacement will regain some of that maneuverability and, as a side effect, will have improved flow characteristics in the stern area while submerged,” the Navy expert said. “This will improve quieting and it simplifies the hydraulic control layout in the engine room.”

Similar to the current Ohio-class submarines, the replacements will be equipped to fire the Trident II nuclear missile, Breckenridge said. The missile, designated D5, has proven reliable in testing, with all but one of its 149 test shots successful, he said.

“Last week we did another round of successful firings of that missile,” he said.
“The performance of that strategic missile is just incredible. As we look to deter bad behavior from other countries, we’ve got this kind of reliability.”

The new subs will eventually be fielded with the successor to the D5, Breckenridge said. The program office is also working with officials in the United Kingdom to engineer a common missile compartment. General Dynamics’ Electric Boat unit in Groton, Conn., is building prototypes under a $770 million contract.

The Ohio Replacement Program aims to control costs in part by borrowing technology already in production on the Virginia-class attack submarine program, officials said. Examples of the technology include conformal plane array sonar, fiber-optic links between sail-mounted cameras and a control room and “fly-by-wire” digital controls that allow crews to use a joystick and touch-panel to control the boat, they said.

Sonar technology is of particular importance to a submarine platform whose mission depends upon quietness and detectability, Breckenridge said.

“The SSBN has to have a capable sonar system with hull arrays,” he said. “We also stream along a towed array by putting out a string of transducers that give you that much more listening power. SSBN wants to detect an undersea adversary – if we can hear them further than they can hear us we have a tactical advantage in the undersea domain.”

In addition, the new submarines are being engineered with a new nuclear-reactor core designed to power the ships for 42 years. Unlike the current Ohio-class SSBNs, which require a multi-year refueling process halfway through their service life, the new Ohio Replacement boats will be able to continue their missions without needing a refueling pause, Breckenridge said.

The technology also allows the Navy to conduct the same mission with fewer submarines, service officials and analysts said.

Share |

{ 104 comments… read them below or add one }

Lance September 27, 2013 at 8:12 pm

Glad to see Ohio get the new tech added to them I dont see them going away or any new sub coming soon in this fiscal environment.


Kole September 27, 2013 at 9:21 pm

$20 says this can fly for less money than the F-35.


Rest Pal September 30, 2013 at 1:29 pm

"fly" or "fry"

I'd say it will "fry" for less money than the F-35.

The US simply doesn't have the money to do electric-drive. The plan will be scrapped, after shelling out a few billions for nothing.


tiger September 27, 2013 at 11:51 pm

Well not so fast, Lance. The POTUS is not a big nuclear force fan. Funding for a new Trident sub has many hurtles.


Moose September 28, 2013 at 6:21 am

The class IS going away, the article's title is very poorly worded. The electric drive will show up in the class which replaces the Ohio class.


Musson September 30, 2013 at 8:21 am

Exactly. The electric drive will show up in the new PRIUS class submarines.


LesG007 September 27, 2013 at 8:54 pm

Let's just keep the lid on this from R&D through production. We cannot afford to let the Chinese infiltrate our Contractors and steal our secrets, like most other programs have. This is our last step up in our weapons and delivery systems which they have not gotten away with all of our secrets. Cyber espionage is huge and more sensitive information is being stolen each and everyday. Like the old adage states…Loose lips sink ships. Instill this in every military branch like they used to, and this crap will STOP ASAP!!!


Lee September 30, 2013 at 7:09 am

We would not even want the Chinese to read that we are developing it from this source, so keep it a secret? Get real! They know that we are working on it already.


Josh Cohen September 30, 2013 at 10:37 am

If you look into what those electric drive motors need to operate, ie: magnets made from Rare Earth Elements. A vast majority of these are only mined in China, so in addition to their having infiltrated our defense industry, are aggressive in industrial espionage, and now wlll probably supply key raw materials for a US strategic defense program, you must wonder what is really going on.


blight_ September 30, 2013 at 2:40 pm

Fair enough. It may also depend on which "rare earth metals".

Also, we have rare earth metals in the US, but don't tap them due to costs. Then there's rare earth metals in Africa…the new battleground of the PRC and the USA.


sharkey October 3, 2013 at 6:42 pm

When I was putting an FBM in commission some model company put a sub model with a cutaway view on the market. It was so accurate that Admiral Rickover went orbital. I hope it does not happen again.


Mike Hense December 11, 2013 at 10:43 pm

mr. president… we must not allow a mineshaft gap!!!


EW3 September 28, 2013 at 1:51 am

Have to wonder about the magnetic signature that can be observed from the air over a sub with this type of propulsion.


blight_ September 28, 2013 at 12:53 pm

I'm reminded of the AN/ASD-5; that could detect ignition coils of Soviet trucks on the Ho Chi Minh trail under foliage.

One way or another, the more water you put between yourself and the sensor, the safer you'll be?


EW3 September 28, 2013 at 11:54 pm

Ignition coils/cables/plugs emit RF energy. (The first radio transmitters were actually spark generators.) The primary frequency is 1/t where t = the width of the pulse (length of the spark)

With magnetic propulsion we're likely be detected by a modern MAD detector. They can detect the disturbance of the earths magnetic field when a massive ferrous mass crosses it. And the earths magnetic field is very weak compared to powerful magnetic motors. (Hunt for Red October would have been rather easy in real life) Although it's possible the hull will act as a Faraday shield and reduce the magnetic field created by the generator/motor.

One thing about going with magnetic propulsion is that they likely are anticipating having high(er) temperature super conductors.


blight_ September 29, 2013 at 12:23 am

I guess it's lucky for our enemies the P-8 deletes the MAD, though we probably have long term plans to deal with the deficit.


Rage September 29, 2013 at 11:07 pm

MAD only works if you fly low over the water and within a few hundred yards of the submarine. Modern active sonar bouy designs are much cheaper and vastly more effective then those of the Cold War, so no point exists to using MAD to localize contacts, it just gets massive numbers of false alarms from wrecks, cables and iron ore on the bottom of the sea that waste time. It has no value as an area search tool, its main value was always finding diesel submarines on the bottom which are dead silent. Not a concern for an SSBN design.

The P-8 doesn't even bother with MAD because of the reasons above, and because by flying low to train with it the lifespan of the aircraft is greatly reduced. The USN is spending money on torpedoes and bouys which can be dropped from high altitude. That means the plane lasts longer, it can fly longer from lower fuel consumption and it isn't exposed to possible MANPADS attack.

Rage September 29, 2013 at 11:15 pm

What they expect to have is permanent magnet motors that actually run cooler and use less power then existing designs. DDG-1000 was already supposed to have them, but the tech was not proven in time, nor did they feel like spending a lot of money on it when it became clear it would only be a three ship class.

What do you think the chances are that an enemy even has extensive ASW patrols over a US SSBN operating area? Seriously, who is able to fly air patrols over the eastern Pacific or western Atlantic on a sustained basis to have a chance in hell of finding one of these boats from the air? The main concern for an SSBN armed with a missile as long ranged as Trident D-5 is enemy subs.


platypusfriend October 3, 2013 at 2:37 am

Or counter-battery fire.

Jay September 29, 2013 at 6:09 am

The solution to magnetic signature is to replace steel with advanced carbon composite structures. This has numerous other advantages as well, such as superior acoustic properties and extreme shock resistance.


blight_ September 29, 2013 at 12:40 pm

And when carbon delaminates somewhere under the ocean…


Rage September 29, 2013 at 11:19 pm

A more pressing problem so to speak, would be that carbon composites are very high in tensile strength in specific directions only. They are not equally strong in all tensile directions, it depends on the fiber directions, and the compressive strength sucks. They would work rather poorly for submarine hulls, even if durability were not such a massive problem.

Now it is possible to build a submarine out of non magentic steel, as the Germans have done for a long time with diesel boats. You could also use titanium which is also lighter,, and would surely be cheaper then attempting to build a vessel displacing over ten thousand tons with carbon fiber!

As far as the USN is concerned, it suffices to degauss the submarines before each patrol, and each SSBN base has a large wet facility to do this in.


platypusfriend October 1, 2013 at 3:14 am

I did nine Trident patrols (4 PAC, 5 LANT), and we never degaussed once.

Curt October 2, 2013 at 2:48 pm

Degaussing is an active cancelation system, what you describe is deperming. There are deperming piers at every major submarine base. Not sure how often they are utilized.

sharkey October 3, 2013 at 7:01 pm

Boats now have degaussing/demagnetizing systems built right into their hulls.

Curt October 2, 2013 at 2:42 pm

You realize that virtually every diesel or gasoline powered submarine ever built has used electric propulsion, right? Properly designed motors do not generate a magnetic field that is readily detectable. Plus US submarines all use large electrical motors in the trim and drain systems as well as fire pumps and emergency propulsion systems. The most magnetically silenced ship in the US Fleet, the MCM class, has electrical motors (light load propulsion motors) that can be used when mine hunting. Won't be an issue.


Rage September 28, 2013 at 5:51 am

Ohio Replacement Program = NOT Ohio Class. Talk about bad titling. This has nothing to do with the existing boats at all.


Jon September 29, 2013 at 2:23 pm
Jon September 29, 2013 at 2:26 pm
orly? September 28, 2013 at 10:43 am

I'm curious if we can progress ballistic grade polymer fast enough to make ships/subs out of them.

That should improve sound signature correct?


Rage September 28, 2013 at 7:48 pm

Yes it removes the noise created by the reduction gearing normally required between a steam turbine and a screw. With electric drive the turbine can directly spin the generator, and then the motor for the shaft can run at a different speed. Nothing but silent wiring in between. Most diesel submarines already operate like this. So do some surface ships, a number of surface ships had partial electrical drive like the Type 23 frigate.

The USN built two nuclear electric drive submarines before, USS Glenard P. Lipscomb and USS Tullibee. The downside was electrical drive cost more and weighed more, leading to slower speed. But speed isn't a big deal in a Boomer, and the technology has gotten better since those hulls went in the water.

Back in WW1 era a number of US battleships and carriers had turbo electric drive too, but it faded for the same reason, excessive weight vs possible speed.


platypusfriend October 1, 2013 at 3:17 am

We don't use the term "boomer" anymore to refer to Tridents, which we simply call "Tridents". Nor do we say "Ohio", for some reason. It's just "Trident", if you care what actual bubbleheads say.

You're thinking of the "old boats", which were known as boomers; a boomer is featured on the patrol pin, also known as the "boomer pin" (or an "idiot pin" if you have a gold one).


brownie September 28, 2013 at 11:13 am

China is building new nuke subs and missiles. These SSBNs will be patrolling in the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic within 3-5 years. China has not the bogus 240 nukes advertised but between 1,200 (Russian intel) and 3,000 (Georgetown U. Study). China is building between 100-300 nukes per year of various designs. She just took delivery of 15 new turboprop strategic bombers.


Steve B. September 28, 2013 at 4:33 pm

30-50 years more likely for their ballistic sub force patrolling the Gulf of Mexico ?. Did you actually type that ?. Do you know how ludicrous that is ?. Go look at a map. It’s about 20,000 miles from China to the Gulf via Cape Horn, cause there’s no way they are using the Panama Canal for this. That’s a month transit over and another month back and then how long on patrol – ? another month ?, before they run out of food ?. Maybe they could put into Cuba, yuk, yuk.

And those bombers ?, the PLAF has 120 H6 (not prop aircraft) with a 3000 range and about 10 tankers. These H6′s can’t even reach Guam. What aircraft are you talking about ?.


Juuso October 1, 2013 at 5:43 am

Georgetown U. Study has been debunked years ago and so is "Russian intel" claim. http://blogs.fas.org/security/2011/12/chinanukes/ http://lewis.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/5460/yes

There you have, some realistic studies about Chinese nuclear weapons.


Rest Pal October 1, 2013 at 12:46 pm

FAS didn't debunk GU's study; it merely disagreed with the estimate and offered its own estimate and reasoning. The linked article admits no one knows exactly how many warheads China has.

Both estimates may be inaccurate. The FAS has been wrong many times in the past.


blight_ October 3, 2013 at 3:01 pm

I wonder where FAS rested on Saddam and WMD…


Rest Pal October 3, 2013 at 6:08 pm

FAS had claimed that Saddam had WMD – nuclear, chemical and biological. If memory serves me right, FAS had even accused Iraq of developing long range ballistic missiles. All proven wrong.

FAS has little credibility as far as I'm concerned.

Phil Mason October 2, 2013 at 8:25 pm

So what !


PolicyWonk September 28, 2013 at 12:10 pm

None of the newer SSBN's are being designated as replacements for the Ohio SSGN subclass, and the POTUS designated a pile-o-dough for the extension of the Virginia hulls to provide a similar capability.

Lamentably, the GOP-led HoR voted the funding for the Virginia hull extension program down to ZERO dollars. Hence – this important capability looks like its going to be lost when the Ohio SSGN's are decommissioned.


blight_ September 28, 2013 at 12:54 pm

Perhaps the next SSGN'ed submarine should also serve as a electric drive testbed? Let's figure this out before the R&D is billed to SSBN-X and each submarine costs more than its weight of platinium and rare earth metals.


JCross September 29, 2013 at 2:05 am

Similar electric drives have been used in Commercial vessels and Naval craft for a many years. Out of all the R&D risk on the new subs, this is going to be pretty low risk. The only possible difficulty would be to try to hide it from MAD equipment. And that's just a matter of shielding.


blight_ September 29, 2013 at 3:26 pm

I like low risk. I like lower risk.

I suppose the obvious step is to build it out on a fractional-scale demonstrator and design ways to hide the Ohio-Replacement. What's the point of having nuclear deterrence on a findable platform?


JCross September 29, 2013 at 7:58 pm

Theoretically at least, the sheer volume of water and the steel hull should be enough shielding to prevent any type of disturbance being spotted. Still a mockup would be good, just to be sure. If it's not enough, adding in a faraday cage for the new drivetrain shouldn't be that difficult.


Christopher Bloom September 28, 2013 at 7:07 pm

@blight the US NAVY operated a Electric drive nuclear sub in the 1970's I think ,and the French have been using Electric drives on their sub's for years. the only reason the US navy did not go with them was they where conservative and did not trust the technology.


S O September 28, 2013 at 7:13 pm

Actually, the USN used steam-electric propulsion on battleships a hundred years ago already.

They had either good, still hidden reasons to prefer a direct coupling (unlikely, as other navies did use the generator- electric motor combo) or they were simply doing it wrong.


Rage September 29, 2013 at 11:28 pm

The issue was pretty simple. The electric drive submarines could not go faster then a CVN running flat out at a reasonable cost, the power plant was too heavy for the horsepower produced.. The next large class of submarine built meanwhile were the 688s, specifically intended to run with fast carrier groups to defend them from the growing threat of Soviet attack and missile submarines. Because of sprint and drift tactics needed for good sonar performance the SSN has to be a lot faster then the carrier for this to work.

One might observe that all the Soviet attack submarines also used direct drive systems, so they could have the speed to engage fast surface warships and other fast subs.

The original interest US in the electric subs was more focused on hunting down Soviet SSBNs, which like all SSBNs were not all that fast but were rapidly becoming quieter with the Delta boats. Escorting the fleet won over hunting boomers, though the 688s were still quieter then the subs before them. Just not as a quiet as they could have been.


Rage September 29, 2013 at 11:31 pm

Oh and I should have also said, the reason Ohio didnt go electric was because it was already a very large submarine to hold so many missiles, and a lot of attention was being focused on other features like the natural circulation reactor to gain more stealth. Since the whole of the '41' for freedom needed replacing, making the subs even bigger for electric power would have been an issue budget wise.

The Ohio class replacement subs are going to be smaller, and electric technology has gotten a lot better so the weight, power and cost issue is less then it once was.


Dfens September 28, 2013 at 10:34 pm

If they're smart they'll make it a hybrid drive so they can run silently using the electric drive but have the full power of the steam turbine available to run if they really need to get somewhere fast.


platypusfriend October 1, 2013 at 3:20 am

Reduction gears on a Trident are RIDICULOUSLY LOUD. Holy crap, you'd be amazed. Especially at all ahead flank. Just when you think shaft alley might be a nice, quiet place to think…


Dfens October 3, 2013 at 7:04 am

Right, so what a lot of hybrids do is put a clutch between the output of the motor and the transaxle so when the electric motor is not providing enough go power then they add in straight shaft hp from the motor. Heck, you'd probably need a reduction gear to run the generator anyway. There's damn few of those that will run at 40,000 rpm, which I'm guessing is a ballpark figure for how fast these turbines spin.


Darragh McCurragh September 29, 2013 at 6:08 am
Tad September 29, 2013 at 10:53 am

Nice. I wonder if it will be as quiet as, say, a Type 214 with AIP and fuel cells or if the reactor cooling system will still be a big giveaway.


Mystick September 29, 2013 at 10:28 pm

I'm curious how exactly they'll "tie the electric motor directly to the propeller shaft" without reduction gears. Electric motors of all kinds favor RPM. Especially those under a heavy load like moving a large amount of (relatively) viscous fluid at any given moment.

IMO, one more thing to fail for propulsion in an emergency.


Mystick September 29, 2013 at 10:29 pm

As an additional thought, I'm surprised they haven't tried an impeller approach yet. That would further isolate noise from the props and help with cavitation.


Dfens September 30, 2013 at 3:21 pm

An impeller? You mean like an automatic transmission? They use a steam turbine now. I suppose if they wanted they could use steam to drive a piston engine. That would lower the output RPM quite a bit, though it would cost a lot of friction. I don't know that a nuclear reactor would care about a little friction more or less.


Mystick October 2, 2013 at 12:23 pm

No an impeller instead of a prop. Think an inboard ducted fan.


sharkey October 3, 2013 at 6:50 pm

I have seen a rough sketch of a jet drive with the impeller/propellor built inside of the hull. It's coming.

Kevin E Hoeschen October 2, 2013 at 1:01 am

They will use DC motors – motors that have very good speed control all the way from very slow to very fast. I am sure these motors will be in excess of 15,000 shaft HP


Mystick October 2, 2013 at 12:26 pm

DC motors do have good speed control, but they don't produce power linearly at different speeds… i.e., there is an optimum RPM for torque efficiency… and it's in the high range… Which is what you would normally gear for, just like any other engine-torque application.


sharkey October 3, 2013 at 6:52 pm

Which is why the Foxtrot B-xxx class russian boats had three shafts with ability to run direct or indirectly. The center motor was only 250 HP and was used for "creep or dead quiet" running. It was still damn noisy.


bum291 October 3, 2013 at 9:30 am

They will not use a certain RPM or DC engines, they will use frequency converters. It's reliable, easy to repair, doesn't wear out, doesn't need lubrication. They can run at any desired RPM, can stop and hit a required RPM in seconds.
As an ex-military, now engineer, trust me: this is the best they can get.

Getting rid of the gearbox is one LESS thing to fail.

Of course, someone might choose a crappy system and that can cause problems (just took at the F-35 oxygen device)


Darragh McCurragh September 30, 2013 at 6:45 am
Lee September 30, 2013 at 7:21 am

I am totally elated to finally see a subject where so much constructive information is passed out, instead of the usual dribble that we see so much of. Thank you one and all for your very informative comments.


Bill October 2, 2013 at 4:21 pm

Great comment Lee
We used to chase subs out of NAS Norfolk in 1950 with old WW II TBM'S with sonar buoys.VS 27. Would like to hear what Naval Air does now about the chase.


Dfens September 30, 2013 at 3:28 pm

They could go further and expand the steam through a piston engine instead of a turbine and use the engine to turn the generator. That way there would be nothing whirring away at really high RPM. If they did that, the steam powered engine could work as a 2 stroke and develop twice the horsepower of the equivalent diesel burning engine. Since the reactor itself doesn't make any noise, then they'd be at least as quiet as a diesel electric if not quieter, plus they'd be able to run long distances underwater and make their own air like they do now.


platypusfriend October 1, 2013 at 3:21 am

The reactor makes steam; steam is loud. I cross-qual'ed sonar… own ship's noise is mostly steam.


Dfens October 1, 2013 at 1:35 pm

I guess I should have known that from the sounds of the steam pipes at the plant where I work. Of course, you'd think they'd be better at using steam than they are at that rusty old place.


Kenny September 30, 2013 at 6:40 pm

FYI: the chinese have successfully attach a "star fish" to a U.S. sub to track it for a distance of a few hundred miles using the same tech as the whale tracker but quieter, it broadcasted a very tiny burst of signal of computer code! this meant U.S. sub is no longer invinsible! this occurance off the coast of Japan sometime! and it is not a magnitised device but some kind of suction that look very much like a sucker fish that is very small! I hope the U.S. Navy is aware of this! if not pass this to them asap. The source is not reliable, but the info is investigatable! the attachment was attached while the sub was not at home base.


Atomic Walrus October 1, 2013 at 12:54 pm

Nice story, except for the part where it neglects the problems of signal propagation through water.


blight_ October 1, 2013 at 2:20 pm

saw it in a movie once

Probably easier to just hunt a submarine with another submarine…if your submarine was quiet enough and had sufficiently modern sonar.


guest October 6, 2013 at 10:46 pm

He addressed the problem – same tech as the whale tracker.


blight_ October 7, 2013 at 10:41 am

Whale trackers only transmit when the whale surfaces. Unless the tech has changed considerably.

A SOSUS net across the ocean will probably track submarines more effectively than trying to put a tracker on them. Even whale trackers come off by design, and often un-intentionally.

Whale-tracking devices are usually low-powered and don't track in real time. They are retrospective devices..retrieved from the ocean and processed later.

Edit: http://ocean.si.edu/ocean-photos/whale-tracking-d
Edit: http://whale.wheelock.edu/whalenet-stuff/stop_cov

"Data is collected by the tag while the marine animal is underwater and then transmitted when the animal surfaces. The tag has an antennae which is used to send a signal each time the animal surfaces. Information relayed includes time, date, latitude, longitude, dive depths, dive durations, amount of time at the surface in the last six hours and quality of the transmission. The ARGOS instruments detect the tag's signal when the satellite passes overhead."

How often do nuke subs surface, or perhaps operate at depths close enough to the surface for a transmission? Also, without GPS signals (updated with continuous surfacing, your method of tracking movement would be what, INS?

This could work for tracking surface ships, and perhaps the diesel that surfaces to take on air.


sharkey October 2, 2013 at 8:51 pm

Wow! What a lot of info to absorb and yet it's not all that difficult to condense into what is coming next. First, propulsors give the boats great maneuverability. Then the EMF signal from the electric motors has been dealt with for years so not a problem. Boats will revert back to (almost diesel boats) but eliminating the diesel for a very quiet reactor instead. DBF now becomes NBF. As to secrecy let us hope that the company which put out a scale model of our Boomers in the 60's doesn't get access to data allowing them to do it again. AIPs are not quiet enough and are also limited duration so phooey to that technology. Finally, the new reactor technology has enough excess power to be used for future weapons (think of the Bush class CVN which has electric launchers and will carry rail guns. I don't know much more but my experience tells me that we have a great submarine coming in the future.


Joe Semon October 2, 2013 at 9:28 pm

Nice article however I would be interested in how the experience with the SSN-685 propulsion plant is being parlayed into a new design. Clearly the surface fleets experience with AC power conversation equipment and improved efficiencies are now viewed as doable in a submarine.


Steven Stevens October 2, 2013 at 11:20 pm

Why would the Chinese bother to infiltrate? Just do like they did in Clinton's time and give political donations to the DemoncRat Party. The DNC will hand-over the drawings and data and the American Sheeple will yawn and watch American Idol reruns.


Michael Galey October 2, 2013 at 11:22 pm

The USS Glenard P. Lipscomb (SSN 685) was the US Navy�s second prototype design using a turbo-electric power plant similar to the USS Tullibee (SSN-597). The Glenard P. Lipscomb was generally similar to the SSN-637 Sturgeon class, apart from the use of submarine turbo-electric drive [TEDS] rather than the standard geared drive. Intended to test the potential advantages of this propulsion system for providing quieter submarine operations, the substantially larger and heavier machinery also resulted in slower speeds. Those disadvantages, along with reliability issues, led to the decision not to utilize this design on the follow-on SSN-688 Los Angeles class of submarines. Although serving as a test platform, the "Lipscomb Fish" was a fully combat-capable attack submarine.


JJJones October 3, 2013 at 7:59 am

The Lipscomb was commissioned in 1915. You don't think in 100 years we might have better technology to resolve reliability and speed issues?


dratomic888 October 6, 2013 at 8:20 pm

Sorry, Lipscomb was commissioned 1973. but yes electrical drive has improved in the 40 years since then. Glenard P Lipscomb was BORN in 1915.


bum291 October 3, 2013 at 9:23 am

It's about time, this is the norm for new surface merchant vessels and has been for a while already, especially in "high-tech" vessels. Those subs ought to be.


Bill October 3, 2013 at 9:46 am

Being a Boatswain Mate I never served aboard subs, but I was on two sub tenders and I retired from NSSF New London OPS Department where I was on tugs that moored subs (they can't get underway or dock without BM's) so I know a little about what subs can do. But, for the media to release any information about the technology of our submarine fleet is irresponsible. The Chinese and other countries already do enough damage to our military through cyber spying we sure don't need to whet their appetites by announcing new thecnology through the news media.


Wilderness voice October 3, 2013 at 2:40 pm

We lack the will to use them why have them.


blight_ October 3, 2013 at 2:51 pm

You want to use nuclear weapons?

Guess it's good the Soviets also "lack[ed] the will to use them" during the Cold War. Whew!


sharkey October 3, 2013 at 8:26 pm

Just want to state that way the system of a motor driving the propeller shaft works is this: The shaft is wrapped and becomes the rotor. The stator is stationary with the shaft going through it. There is no clutch used to couple the motor for drive but it can be decoupled from the propeller. Not sure of this arrangement. It is a DC motor so can be fine tuned as to the number of revolutions (speed control). As someone stated the torque varies with the voltage applied but there are new materials and controllers now which can use DC much more efficiently. If you want to see an actual submarine with such a system, google the USS Dolphin which is on display at the Maritime Museum in San Diego.


Jack - DGI - AIS October 4, 2013 at 4:41 am
sharkey October 4, 2013 at 2:35 pm

Jack. Can't cut and paste as the address is two lines. I will try to type it out.


orly? October 4, 2013 at 4:55 pm

Says nothing about submarines, as it is incapable of such.

FYI, this seems like a navigational GPS displaying all surface vessels in proximity trying to replace Furuno.


Max October 4, 2013 at 4:56 pm

Whatever happened to MHD drives for subs? When I was in the Navy (80's), the Soviets were rumored to have it. The fictional "Red October" had it, but was it fictional or not?


sharkey October 4, 2013 at 6:38 pm

MHD in theory, uses one field of materials to electrically influence a second field of materials. As water, even seawater, does not have a ferrous material to influence, no motor (Stator) can influence the rotor because it is water and not ferrous material. There is one way to build a MHD which I referred to above. Jet drive. In other words: build a tunnel through which water can enter forward and exit aft but all built inside the hull. Put an impeller or propellor INSIDE but OUTSIDE the pressure hull but inside the tunnel and put a stator around the tunnel INSIDE of the pressure hull. Now put a voltage (AC) to the stator and it should start turning the impeller inside. This is a JET DRIVE. The benefit is that the stator is around the tunnel while the impeller is inside, separated by the PRESSURE HULL.


Max October 7, 2013 at 4:27 pm

Great, but what happened to MHD? If it really works, then shouldn't we be using it? Did it turn out to be a tech dud? What?


blight_ October 7, 2013 at 10:42 am
davec October 8, 2013 at 9:27 am

In regard to electric drive, didn' the Lexington (CV2) and Saratoga (CV3) have electric drive when they were built back in the 1920's?


Charles James Haas October 20, 2013 at 11:42 pm

Seems like this makes perfect sense as electric drive would significantly reduce radiated noise. Hardly a secret technology also.


@DFNAcom December 5, 2013 at 7:07 pm

Reading through the post and the comments as well makes me think that i think media or journalists must have a little of etiquette and limitations. They might be allowed to search for something to report but I think it must undergo screening and evaluation of their reports especially if it harms the security of the country. I mean they would still have that freedom but they must also think of how to save and help the country through responsible selection of reports. I guess we already know what's helping us and what's not for the benefit of the many people and the country itself.

On the other hand, I was wondering how does it feel to ride in a sub?


sharkey December 5, 2013 at 8:18 pm

Depends on the sub. An old diesel boat moving slow gives little to no feeling of motion. When it moves faster, say 7-10 knots it vibrates more but still is a stable platform. When an old boat turns at speed the sail tended to tip the boat so it leaned to the outside of the turn ie turning left the sail tipped to the right while a left turn did the opposite due to water pressure on the sail. Nukes and diesel both were stable until a maneuver caused pressure on the sail to do as above until they developed the Fairwater Planes. These planes were mounted up on the sides of the sail so the boat could turn and the planes would help to keep the deck under you tilting into the turn. They are gone now as the X configuration aft can offset the tilt. Bow planes are back on the bow and there are no Fairweather planes. Riding in a new nuke can get hairy though as the speeds at which they can maneuver can put the deck below you at rather drastic angles especially in a deep dive down or emergency surface maneuver up.


steve December 20, 2013 at 5:17 am

look at brit type 45 destroyer and new carrier class.
all electric propulsion


Jason June 19, 2014 at 6:34 pm

I was an A -ganger on the Hawkbill and in a sense the boats are somewhat of a hybrid in the first place you can ether run power from the diesel gen to the battery to the aux electric motor . or run the turbo generators to the battery to the aux electric motor. running on the battery is by far the quietest mode of operation. the bad part is that if you have to get out of dodge in a hurry, your screwed.


Atomic Walrus September 30, 2013 at 12:53 pm

Not to mention that the Soviets and Russians built a number of titanium-hulled boats which made MAD even less useful.


blight_ October 1, 2013 at 2:22 pm

I recall there being a handful of degaussing facilities (norfolk and hawaii I think, there may be more?), but not necessarily a pipeline that sent ships directly to degaussing before every patrol.

platypus: Recent, I assume? You didn't mention Polaris…


orly? October 1, 2013 at 8:14 pm

Tbh, we easily tailed all of those boats easily just using tried and true submarine tactics.

The John Anthony Walker spy case illustrates this fact.


Chouquet's October 2, 2013 at 5:33 am

Ancien Sous-Marinier Français, et tout à fait d'accord : la boucle est bouclée. Question tout de même : il faudra bien un réducteur "mécanique" donc bruyant ! Non ?


platypusfriend October 3, 2013 at 2:33 am

Hah. Yeah, D5 all the way. In case you're wondering what one is like up close, they're huge and they smell like rocket fuel. But they have a barcode and stock number, just like everything else!


platypusfriend October 3, 2013 at 2:35 am

Correct. Takes place at the MSF (Magnetic Silencing Facility).


dratomic888 October 6, 2013 at 8:26 pm

It was called the Red October. Oh wait that was just a movie/book/theoretical paper.
By the way every 688 class sub had an electric motor for emergancies. The prototype electric drive sub design had the motor constructed directly on the propeller shaft so needed no drive gears


Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: