SSK Diesel/Electric Sub Thread (AIP too)

[FORBIN]

The last Soryu commissioned, 6th, 506 Kokuyru

 

[Blitzo]

Not to sound like a sceptic, but if AIP has been mastered by the Chinese and the new Chinese Stirling engine has improved 117% over it's rivals. Then why is that similar accomplishments have not yet been achieved when it comes to propulsion systems for combat aircraft?

First off, I don't place any faith in the article that is posted, however having the industry and experience to successfully produce competent propulsion for say, submarines or surface ships doesn't automatically mean one can translate that same competence and technology say, to aerospace turbofans.
For any kind of comparison like this (doesn't only have to be military) it really depends on how similar the technology is and the various common design, material, and thermodynamic factors that one can transplant from one industry to the other, among others. Not to mention different present and past investment and experience in different fields will also produce differing current results.

So yeah, even if China has "mastered" AIP (whatever the word "master" means...), there are a host of realistic and sensible reasons why they may not have mastered every other form of propulsion as well...

 

[Jeff Head]

The last Soryu commissioned, 6th, 506 Kokuyru
View attachment 13743 View attachment 13744
View attachment 13745

It's the 6th...but it is not the last. Not by far. Perhaps the translation should be "Latest" instead of "Last."

507, 508, and 509 are all already laid down, with 507 planned for launch in October of this year and commissioning in 2016. 508 in 2017, 509 in 2018. The 10th is planned to be the last, 510, which should commission in 2019.

 

[shen]

Besides the sugar coated compliments it doesn't give much details so I will take it with a lump of salt as usual to any PRC press releases.

Interesting passage within the article;


Are they suggesting to place solar panels and/or burn coal?

That part refers to commercial Stirling engine also developed by 711 institute for distributed power generation. The Chinese language article uses different terms 热气机 and 斯特林发动机 to differential between the commercial and military products.

 

[shen]

Jeff, you should link the Chinese language original sources as well.

Yes...those comments are very revealing.

I found this article to actually not say much at all definitively.

When you read through it you find that they use terms like: "According to a 2004 report by state news agency Xinhua"

That sentence is in the paragraph about commercial Sterling engine models. and they came in 20kw and 100kw model, capable of using multiple fuel source. what's the problem?

The website then speculated that the power of China's new generation of Stirling engine has likely reached...

And then based on that comment from the 13 year old report and on some healthy speculation (which they admit), they then say:

The engine would also drive the submarine at the same time as charging the battery. This means that China's new Stirling engine can charge its main battery at the speed of a conventionally-powered submarine in snorkel mode, while travelling at a low speed of 2-3 knots. This is a unique breakthrough

So, in other words...the big breakthrough is based on thin air.

That extrapolation of power output is based on the People's Daily article that states new Chinese Stirling engine have 117% better power output compare to foreign product.
Coming from People's Daily, it should be regarded as official. The article even says the new engine will be used on future ships, so it is not talk about commercial power generation units.

The tactical implication of the increased power output is not mentioned in the People's Daily article. The author of the Duewei article says that with the increased power output, future Chinese AIP equipped conventional submarine will able to recharge its batteries from AIP, and that's unequaled by any other existing design. Whether that's true or not I don't know.

 

[Jeff Head]

The problem is simple, no matter where it came from.

They referred to a ten year old document (you know that there is going to be a whole lot more documentation since).

They then admittedly made speculative comments on what would result from that ten year old information.

The whole thing is not factual...it is speculation at best...by its own admission,.

It can certainly not be taken to mean that these are references to actual specification.

That's all.

 

[shen]

It refer to the 2004 Xinhua (official source) article to establish a baseline what China was capable of producing back then. The April 26 People's Daily article (another official source) provides an update of what China is capable of today, 117% better power output compare to foreign competition.

 

[Jeff Head]

It refer to the 2004 Xinhua (official source) article to establish a baseline what China was capable of producing back then. The April 26 People's Daily article (another official source) provides an update

Sorry...they said themselves, when referring to the source that was the base for their claims that they were speculating.

"...then speculated that the power of China's new generation of Stirling engine has likely reached 160 kW."

Speculation is not a formal declaration of anything.

We are left not knowing, from that article, what the actual specifications actually are.

But to claim that they are as capable as a small nuclear submarine in terms of power and operating capabilities...well, that speaks for itself.

Whatever their true capabilities, it is not definitive from the article.

Now, there is no since in continuing this line of discussion...it has been beaten to death. Particularly since this is a Thread about non-Chinese SSKs and AIP in the World Military forum. There are separate threads for the Yuan class and other Chinese classes in the Chinese Forum

Move on.

 

[shen]

yes, I can agree to disagree. Jeff, as I suggested earlier, you should include the two Chinese language source articles I posted

https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/pl...2-submarine-thread.t3746/page-283#post-339984

The translation provided by Asian Defense News is not perfect. for example, the Chinese article didn't say they "speculated", "according to calculation" is how they put it.

basic arithmetic of 117% over 75kw and 110kw is how they arrived at their estimate of current Chinese engine output. Readers should read the original article and judge for themselves.

 

[TerraN_EmpirE]

Besides the sugar coated compliments it doesn't give much details so I will take it with a lump of salt as usual to any PRC press releases.

Interesting passage within the article;

The advantage of the engine is that it can be used together with other propulsion systems such as natural gas, diesel, solar energy or other solid fuels to generate electricity.

Are they suggesting to place solar panels and/or burn coal?

Solar panels on a Submarine. Yeah.. Some people should not write.