So it uses diesel as fuel and liquid oxygen as oxidant (because it's underwater and there is no avaiable air). They could have used a steam engine, much more fun! However unless they have some means of storing the CO2 on board it will leave a trail of bubbles, bit of a give away
For a description of British steam submarines see **LINK**
unless they have some means of storing the CO2 on board it will leave a trail of bubbles, bit of a give away
They have diving sets that can do that, they produce no bubbles, so I would think they've found a way to solve that issue on a billion dollar submarine
A poor mans nuclear submarine, with an added bonus, no decrepit decommissioned nuclear submarines piling up in navy yards, like in Britain and Russia
It has been a long time since I read about this – somewhere – and I seem to remember that:
1) the energy for running the engine comes from the temperature difference between sea water and interior temperature.
2) for servicing, they cut the sub 3 pieces; one of the pieces is the sterling engine unit. (mind you, this is pretty common sub maintenance style, from what I understand – hard to get big pieces down the tower!)
Dived submarine are detected at range by two means Sound emissions and heat plumes.
On the surface they are detectable by more conventional means.
So submerged one wants to be quiet and not excessively hot. Futher one wishes to have long endurance.
Assuming conventional power this means either batteries or burning fuel.
Running diesel under water..oxygen..well either way liquid ox is compact Noise…yeah diesel are loud Heat..around two thirds of your fuel goes up as heat.
Now sterling engines Quiet Thermal efficiency approaches fifty percent…less heat. Higher eff. Means less fuel ,less o2 and co2 So sterling win if you want to run engin while submerged.
Of course if batteries were better..send out sub with fully charged batteries and dispense with heat engine entirely.
And then there’s fuel cells…fuel and o2 in…co2and water out…plus a little electric. .wonder why no one though of that? …
Dived submarine are detected at range by two means Sound emissions and heat plumes.
On the surface they are detectable by more conventional means.
So submerged one wants to be quiet and not excessively hot. Futher one wishes to have long endurance.
Assuming conventional power this means either batteries or burning fuel.
Running diesel under water..oxygen..well either way liquid ox is compact Noise…yeah diesel are loud Heat..around two thirds of your fuel goes up as heat.
Now sterling engines Quiet Thermal efficiency approaches fifty percent…less heat. Higher eff. Means less fuel ,less o2 and co2 So sterling win if you want to run engin while submerged.
Of course if batteries were better..send out sub with fully charged batteries and dispense with heat engine entirely.
And then there’s fuel cells…fuel and o2 in…co2and water out…plus a little electric. .wonder why no one though of that? …
They were going to fit these to the Australian built Collins class subs (licenced Kockums/Saab) but ran out of money. Now the Aust Feral Gumment are talking about buying the next lot from Japan, the Soryu class, also licensed from Kockums with Stirlings built by Kawasaki and the boats by Mitsubishi. They can apparently stay underwater for weeks/months.
The Japanese are using Kockums STIRLING Engines on patrol boats, The USN borrowed one of Swedens subs, and I think there is a possibility that they are also using Stirling Engine subs but they won't advertise the fact. I think the US is finding that nuclear is more trouble than it's worth at the end of it's service life.
The US is building 18 at the moment. And the French are using turbo-electric subs fired by Ethanol and liquid oxygen.