France pitching AIP Scorpene as Project 75A contender

[pyromaniac]

When it comes to stealth in subs my money is with the Typhoon. And in SSn it is with the Nerpa> When it comes to SSK I would love to see the latest U-212 in the Indian navy.I dont know but I prefer european subs over western ones.

The Typhoon is not in service anymore and I have to repeat what I was saying to rage. When it comes to SSBN's nothing beats the Ohio.

 

[Pintu]

Typhoon , I think are replaced by Borei.

 

[pyromaniac]

Typhoon , I think are replaced by Borei.

yeah it is smaller than the Typhoon(which sub isn't?? lol) but it can carry just about the same number of missiles

 

[pyromaniac]

what i think is that we should completely scrap the SSK's from the navy except for the six scorpenes we are building....

these 6 costed 2.4 billion euros or approx 3 billion dollors or 500 million each

the atv after so many research is coming for about >1 billion a piece.
now the tender for 75a because of inflation and added tech will make each sub around 800 mill apiece

so my question is---> isint it better to go nuke??

To put it simply...Diesel Electric subs are better at the Attack role than nuclear ones. Then again..if India was inclined to sink about 30 billion dollars to research a state of the art Nuclear attack sub that would be different but a diesel electric powered attack boats works out simpler...

 

[SATISH]

The Typhoon is not in service anymore and I have to repeat what I was saying to rage. When it comes to SSBN's nothing beats the Ohio.

But wassnt the Bulava testfired from the Dimitry Donskoy.....

 

[pyromaniac]

But wassnt the Bulava testfired from the Dimitry Donskoy.....

The Bulava is just the SLBM...I guess the Typhoon and the Borei use the same launch tubes

 

[SATISH]

Borei is not yet operational.....it must be the Delta you are talking about. But Delta cant be used to fire the missile as it is only for some other missile I forgot.

 

[pyromaniac]

Borei is not yet operational.....it must be the Delta you are talking about. But Delta cant be used to fire the missile as it is only for some other missile I forgot.

Its operational...just not commissioned yet


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borei

 

[Pintu]

Self Deleted.

 

[Pintu]

Borei is not yet operational.....it must be the Delta you are talking about. But Delta cant be used to fire the missile as it is only for some other missile I forgot.

Borei is operational from 15th April, 2007, 1 has been completed, I am providing the link from Wikipedia here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borei

 

[kuku]

what i think is that we should completely scrap the SSK's from the navy except for the six scorpenes we are building....

these 6 costed 2.4 billion euros or approx 3 billion dollors or 500 million each

the atv after so many research is coming for about >1 billion a piece.
now the tender for 75a because of inflation and added tech will make each sub around 800 mill apiece

so my question is---> isint it better to go nuke??

What is the difference in life cycle costs between nuclear and conventional/AIP operated submarines?

 

[Rage]

What is the difference in life cycle costs between nuclear and conventional/AIP operated submarines?

K, my apologies for the somewhat belated response.

Assuming a typical service life of 30 yrs. for the average nuclear sub, I would assume refuelling and modernization costs of about $200 million (in constant dollars) at the half-life stage. If towards the end of its service life, another extensive refit and refuelling is done to the tune of about $400 million, that would extend the life of the average nuclear sub by about 12 years. That, over and above the average annual maintenance costs usually equating to between $20-22 million, would imply a total life-service cost of approximately $1.5 billion. For a USS Seawolf (SSN-21) class nuclear submarine, with acquisition costs of about $2.1 billion, that totals to a lifecycle cost of about $3.6 billion (again, in constant dollars). Or for a Los Angeles (SSN-688) or USS Virginia (SSN-774) class nuclear sub, with average procurement costs of about $1 billion and $1.6 billion respectively, that would total to lifecycle costs of about $2.5 billion and $3.1 billion respectively.

On the other hand, typical per unit procurement costs for submarines using air-independent propulsion systems such as HDW [Howaltswerke-Deutsche Werft] or Thyssen Nordseewerke [TNSW] systems vary anywhere between $100 [the Swedish Gotland class diesel-electric featuring the Sterling AIP] to 500 million dollars [India acquired her 6 Scorpenes for USD 3billion, albeit with full ToT]. Mid-life upgrades and servicing costs also vary significantly, but based on the British 'Upholder' (Candian 'Victoria' / Type 2400) class submarine, retrofitted with an AIP system, annual per-unit operating costs (based on its 'Oberon' program and a highly conservative estimate that factored smaller crews and a new Upholder technology) were estimated at about $22.5 million each, and routine overhaul costs at $250 million over the life of the submarine. Bear in mind however that the submarines were purchase second-hand and at a cost of $152.5 million each, but if their mid-life refit and servicing costs are extrapolated [debatable since AIP technology has made rapid strides in recent years] to say the Scorpene class submarine, that would represent a total lifecycle cost of between 1.4 - 1.5 billion in constant cost dollars.

In addition, the HDW and MESMA systems are extremely quiet- far quieter than any nuclear/steam plant infact, rendering an added stealth advantage to AIP submarines in minimizing acoustic detection by underwater passive sonar arrays.

 

[kuku]

K, my apologies for the somewhat belated response.

Assuming a typical service life of 30 yrs. for the average nuclear sub, I would assume refuelling and modernization costs of about $200 million (in constant dollars) at the half-life stage. If towards the end of its service life, another extensive refit and refuelling is done to the tune of about $400 million, that would extend the life of the average nuclear sub by about 12 years. That, over and above the average annual maintenance costs usually equating to between $20-22 million, would imply a total life-service cost of approximately $1.5 billion. For a USS Seawolf (SSN-21) class nuclear submarine, with acquisition costs of about $2.1 billion, that totals to a lifecycle cost of about $3.6 billion (again, in constant dollars). Or for a Los Angeles (SSN-688) or USS Virginia (SSN-774) class nuclear sub, with average procurement costs of about $1 billion and $1.6 billion respectively, that would total to lifecycle costs of about $2.5 billion and $3.1 billion respectively.

On the other hand, typical per unit procurement costs for submarines using air-independent propulsion systems such as HDW [Howaltswerke-Deutsche Werft] or Thyssen Nordseewerke [TNSW] systems vary anywhere between $100 [the Swedish Gotland class diesel-electric featuring the Sterling AIP] to 500 million dollars [India acquired her 6 Scorpenes for USD 3billion, albeit with full ToT]. Mid-life upgrades and servicing costs also vary significantly, but based on the British 'Upholder' (Candian 'Victoria' / Type 2400) class submarine, retrofitted with an AIP system, annual per-unit operating costs (based on its 'Oberon' program and a highly conservative estimate that factored smaller crews and a new Upholder technology) were estimated at about $22.5 million each, and routine overhaul costs at $250 million over the life of the submarine. Bear in mind however that the submarines were purchase second-hand and at a cost of $152.5 million each, but if their mid-life refit and servicing costs are extrapolated [debatable since AIP technology has made rapid strides in recent years] to say the Scorpene class submarine, that would represent a total lifecycle cost of between 1.4 - 1.5 billion in constant cost dollars.

In addition, the HDW and MESMA systems are extremely quiet- far quieter than any nuclear/steam plant infact, rendering an added stealth advantage to AIP submarines in minimizing acoustic detection by underwater passive sonar arrays.

Thank you for posting that.

There were some documents on line about the cost of safe disposal of decommed nuclear submarines which were released in relation with the money that USA and other nations gave to the Russians for safe disposal of its large amount of nuclear submarines left from the Soviet era, i can not find that, if you have information on that aspect of nuclear submarines, please do share.

 

[Rage]

Thank you for posting that.

There were some documents on line about the cost of safe disposal of decommed nuclear submarines which were released in relation with the money that USA and other nations gave to the Russians for safe disposal of its large amount of nuclear submarines left from the Soviet era, i can not find that, if you have information on that aspect of nuclear submarines, please do share.

You're most welcome.

Are you referring to this? : Russian Nuclear Submarines: U.S. Participation in the Arctic Military Environmental Cooperation Program Needs Better Justification

 

[kuku]

Thats the one, these nuclear submarines require a whole set up after decommissioning, they just keep on costing more and more.

I suppose the US and allies must have come to know a great deal about soviet engineering due to this exercise.