Rumoured "mini-nuke/diesel" Submarine SSK-N(?) thread

[Tomboy]

@tphuang why does SSK-N need a diesel backup if it has battery?
A SSK has 2 sources of power, so a SSK-N should also only have 2, the reactor and the battery.

I mean I'm pretty sure diesel engines are still more reliable and if broken probably more repairable than batteries

 

[tphuang]

@tphuang why does SSK-N need a diesel backup if it has battery?
A SSK has 2 sources of power, so a SSK-N should also only have 2, the reactor and the battery.

I think so that it can get back to port in the event that something happens to the reactor.

 

[Andy1974]

I think so that it can get back to port in the event that something happens to the reactor.

Even if something happens, the Stirling (heat) engine will keep generating until the reactor cools and the batteries can have enough juice to get it home.

So, if we are purely talking about something to give up to save space I think we could say the diesel system. It feels like the diesel system in this set up is redundant.

I think an SSK-N can be like a pure battery electric boat with a (nuclear) range extender. If you have already have 1 range extender, you don’t need a 2nd (diesel) one.

 

[W20]

Yes

a diesel-electric submarine is

diesel generator - batteries - electric motor

and a mini nuke-electric one will be the same but instead of a diesel generator it will have a nuclear generator

 

[W20]

diesel generators of a diesel-electric sub

diesel-electric sub:

 

[AndrewS]

Even if something happens, the Stirling (heat) engine will keep generating until the reactor cools and the batteries can have enough juice to get it home.

If the submarine is too far away from port, the batteries alone won't be enough.
And in a combat situation, the situation would be dire.

But if there is a diesel, then it can operate as an SSK until it reaches port.

A diesel would also be useful for higher speed transits in low-threat conditions.

 

[Andy1974]

If the submarine is too far away from port, the batteries alone won't be enough.
And in a combat situation, the situation would be dire.

But if there is a diesel, then it can operate as an SSK until it reaches port.

The diesel is also useful for higher speed transits in low-threat conditions.

Yeah, there is more risk, but it’s worth it to get VLS in there, no? I think we can say China makes reliable machinery that can be trusted in war time, that’s what they are aiming for.

 

[Tomboy]

Yeah, there is more risk, but it’s worth it to get VLS in there, no? I think we can say China makes reliable machinery that can be trusted in war time, that’s what they are aiming for.

It's not about how reliable machineries are, what if in war time the submarine gets damage and it took the nuclear reactor offline, without a reliable backup and if this is beyond the SCS(Which is probable use case for these SSK-Ns or else why not just stick with normal SSKs) with batteries only the submarine will not be able to make it back to base without support which may or may not be available in times of war. Basically there should be a redundant way to generate electricity for boats that are going to be operating in the open sea, smaller SSK's can probably do with only a diesel engine because first its alot more repairable than a nuclear reactor in field conditions and second normally diesel electric submarines don't usually venture too far away from support since they have limited time on AIP.

Also SSKs are for mainly submarine hunting and stuff with secondary antiship capabilities, so torpedo tube launched anti-ship missiles should suffice. I don't think there is valid reason to put VLS on this type of submarine