The (Current year) General Political/Salma Hayek discussion Thread Part V

[DoggyDaddy]

Did I not break it down Barney style enough?

 

[Hatin Since 87]

 

[Leadeye]

I understand the difference technically between the power plants, but are the only reason people buy diesel subs the price and upkeep costs?

 

[DoggyDaddy]

I understand the difference technically between the power plants, but are the only reason people buy diesel subs the price and upkeep costs?

Well that would be dumb. Diesel subs would need diesel fuel, while atomic subs just need atoms, and heck, there's atoms everywhere!

 

[nonobaddog]

Well that would be dumb. Diesel subs would need diesel fuel, while atomic subs just need atoms, and heck, there's atoms everywhere!

Right! And it is getting harder and harder to find a good diesel station in the middle of the ocean.

 

[actaeon277]

I understand the difference technically between the power plants, but are the only reason people buy diesel subs the price and upkeep costs?

No. Otherwise we would use diesels. They are cheaper.
Nukes give you a range advantage, and a sound advantage.
While diesels are quiet on battery power, lighting a diesel off tends to act like an alarm going off. In fact, when we were entering/leaving ports, and a russian AGI was in the area, we would light our diesel off just to scramble our sound signature.
And if you are on the battery, you have a limited submersed time. And the faster your speed, the less battery time you have.

But the Australians had previously determined the diesel was what they needed.
And mostly, they needed coastal defense. With capability to strike targets near Japan or China.

So now, they have changed their parameters. Not just their price.
China is upset, which is not necessarily a bad thing. Might even make them worried about a strike against Taiwan. Even if the Americans lose their spine, the Aussies could sink their invasion fleet. So, that's pretty good.

And I must say, the French were screwing the Aussies so bad, that they might as well have gotten nukes. I mean the French REALLY were screwing the Aussies.
The were laughing to the bank. But I guess they forgot that people that screw the customer, will eventually lose that customer.

 

[actaeon277]

Right! And it is getting harder and harder to find a good diesel station in the middle of the ocean.

Since a diesel boat in WWII could go from California to Japan, patrol for around 30 days (depending on speed) and then return to California.

I'm thinking they've gotten better over time.

So...

 

[nonobaddog]

Since a diesel boat in WWII could go from California to Japan, patrol for around 30 days (depending on speed) and then return to California.

I'm thinking they've gotten better over time.

So...

Wow! Are they all fuel tank?

 

[actaeon277]

Wow! Are they all fuel tank?

Okay. I misspoke. Design patrol duration was 75 days. Of course, traveling California to Japan to California would eat up a bit of that time. (One reason they moved to Australia and Midway later in the war)

I can't find the size of the fuel tanks, so here is some info from Wiki, and a diagram I found.

The Gato class were one of the largest classes of WWII subs. (number of hulls built, not size of the boat)
The Gatos were designed to operate with a fleet as scouts, though that's not the way they ended up being used. They were used as the equivalent of the Army scout/sniper.
They would scout enemy beaches. Sneak into harbors. Report shipping movements. And SINK ships.

Gato-class submarine - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Range	11,000 nautical miles (20,000 km) surfaced at 10 knots (19 km/h)[3]
Endurance	48 hours at 2 knots (3.7 km/h) submerged[3] 75 days on patrol

 

[actaeon277]

Dress maker apparently has some "problems"

 

[actaeon277]

View attachment 158991

Okay.
Your car has a fuel tank gauge. It displays the "level" of the fuel in the tank.
Can't really do that with a reactor fuel core.
So, they use what are called EFPH (Effective Full Power Hours).
1 EFPH is one hour at 100 percent power.
1 EFPH is two hours at 50 percent power.
1 EFPH is 10 hours at 10 percent power.
Similar to battery measurements using amp/hours.

With me so far?
Anyway, when they design the core, they have many considerations, two of which are of concern here.
1) neutron embrittlement.
2) fuel capacity and therefore range.. just like the range you get on one tank of fuel

Neutron embrittlement. Neutrons over time will cause the metals used in the power plant to become brittle. Brittle is bad. As the metals heat up or cool down, they expand and contract. Normally, the metal will "bend" or "deform" as necessary. But, if it is brittle, instead of expanding/contracting, the metal will BREAK and fracture.
In the Naval Nuclear Power industry, this is a technical term called "BAD".
so, you don't want to design a big fuel tank in your car, if the car's frame only last half the life of the fuel tank. 300 miles on your tank, but 150 miles in the car the car disintegrates.
So, that's why we worry about EFPH for life of the reactor. The damage to the metal is determined by neutrons, which is determined by power over time.

Range.
Unlike your fuel tank, the reactor has fuel in a core. The core is IN the reactor. To chance it, you need to disassemble parts. Sort of like placing your fuel tank in the engine, and no pipe in to refuel.
Also, it's radioactive. So a copper plated *****

So, when the reactor is in operation, every 15 minutes you log the power level. for the entire life of the sub. If you are sneaking into "enemy" territory, you go slow. So, 10 hours at 10 percent power, and you've used 1 EFPH.

Now, if you want the core to last, say 15 years, how many EFPHs would you need.
So, you take into account how much time at sea will it do. And what average power would it use.
Do some math, and then you need a certain amount of thousands of EFPH.



Clear?

 

[nonobaddog]

Okay. I misspoke. Design patrol duration was 75 days. Of course, traveling California to Japan to California would eat up a bit of that time. (One reason they moved to Australia and Midway later in the war)

Range	11,000 nautical miles (20,000 km) surfaced at 10 knots (19 km/h)[3]
Endurance	48 hours at 2 knots (3.7 km/h) submerged[3] 75 days on patrol

It looks like just the trip from California to Japan and back would use up about 9,900 of their 11,000 nautical miles and about 54 of their 75 days so they would still have enough time and distance left to do significant damage to Japan without having to row home.

 

[actaeon277]

It looks like just the trip from California to Japan and back would use up about 9,900 of their 11,000 nautical miles and about 54 of their 75 days so they would still have enough time and distance left to do significant damage to Japan without having to row home.

Which is why staging out of Australia and Midway helped with their time on station.
Though they still had to go to Hawaii or California for refits.

Also, I forgot, they staged out of Hawaii in the beginning, in addition to California.
So, starting in Hawaii knocked off a few miles from their transit also.

 

[nonobaddog]

Which is why staging out of Australia and Midway helped with their time on station.
Though they still had to go to Hawaii or California for refits.

Also, I forgot, they staged out of Hawaii in the beginning, in addition to California.
So, starting in Hawaii knocked off a few miles from their transit also.

Those were some badass fighting sailors. My uncle was on a light carrier in the Pacific from 1943 to the end and they all had a lot of respect for the submariners.

 

[actaeon277]

Those were some badass fighting sailors. My uncle was on a light carrier in the Pacific from 1943 to the end and they all had a lot of respect for the submariners.

Cause all the bubbleheads in WWII were crazy.
Us nukes, we're just kinda crazy.

 

[actaeon277]

 

[actaeon277]

 

[actaeon277]

Okay.
A little more about the Aussie submarine situation.

They started their sub replacement policy as a "jobs" program.
They laid out $50 billion for a dozen subs.

Here we are 5 years later and no sub has been started.
But now they're looking at $90 billion
With an estimate of 14 years to get a sub.





Also, they stated that, there were ZERO threats on the horizon.
ZERO.
And then peaceful China decided to start beating the war drums.
Threatening Taiwan.
And threatening anyone supporting Taiwan.

So now, China accuses us and the Aussie of "escalation".

 

[actaeon277]

An example of the education of their government on naval matters.




She talks about the pump jet system, which would replace propellers as the propulsion method.
But she talks about them as the power plant.
Which they're not.
And you'd think she knew that, cause earlier she was talking about diesel, which is a power plant.

ugh.

 

[KG1]

This whole Aussie sub debacle looks like a FAIL.