New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy

[dapaterson]

Our organization is great at saying they want evidence based decision, right up until the evidence doesn't support their previously decided upon COA, or doesn't exist because no one has ever done the research (and then won't fund testing).

Decision based evidence making is a hell of a drug.

 

[Underway]

Thermal runaway is one issue, and can be a result of various circuit faults, a lot of which where due to internal faults from QA issues on cheaper batteries, or from some mechanical damage in things like phone from them flexing. Some of them were happening because the charger circuits were failing and they were overcharging, damaging the circuits, and eventually failing catastrophically.

And to make life more fun, the fumes coming off of it are usually combustible and toxic, so it can build up to explosive levels and light off, while also poisoining anyone in the vicinity. So part of the safety considerations is the compartment size the batteries are in. Sometimes that goes into a small water tank to basically absorb the gases while hopefully cooling things, but it's not really meant for something like a submarine.

Pretty uncommon now, but some of the lithium metal batteries would actually be class D fires. Even the normal ones that turn into a class A fire is really messy though as it's somewhat self sustaining and pumping out incredible amounts of heat, so you are doing less 'fire fighting' than cooling the heat. Fire departments are reporting it takes something like 4 or 5 pumper trucks of water to control an EV car battery fire, which obviously always isn't available.

It's pretty complicated, because there are a lot of different types of battery chemistries, with some proprietary types, different ways to set up the cathode/anodes etc. And with some pretty major fires on container ships from them, some of them are almost unsellable because no one will actually ship them due to liability.

You can also get things like really dramatic shorts from shrapnel damage, and with li-ion batteries that can be a pretty dramatic explosion just because of the power density. I remember seeing a test on laptop battery, which I believe was a stacked plate type arrangement, and there was a bright white flash as it turned into plasma with a pretty good blast, and then bits of it burning flying around the test chamber.

With the wet cell lead-acid batteries, they have their own hosts of risks, including things like hydrogen off gassing building up, violent reaction with sea water etc, but they are pretty stable and have good cycle/recharge characteristics. The whole stability thing for subs is really complicated as well, as they need to think about neutral buoyancy and balance, while trying not to get crushed, run into something, and stay quiet. They are a special breed.

One of those things where the technology was introduced, and the safety regulations are being figured out after the fact. Less because people didn't know, and more because the energy density provides huge benefits, it wasn't until there were some pretty major issues that the response went from 'Shut up, nerd' to 'what are the options to make it safer'. But because there are a lot of really sketchy products already sold and in use, it's a challenge. It's annoying as hell as well because people want a simple rule of thumb, which is only possible if you are really restrictive (or an idiot).

Our organization is great at saying they want evidence based decision, right up until the evidence doesn't support their previously decided upon COA, or doesn't exist because no one has ever done the research (and then won't fund testing).

Sorry for the rant, this one has eaten up a lot of my life in the last few years, and get a lot of flak from every side for trying to be reasonable and find the middle ground.

I can't remember the reference but because we were using some (USN I think) battery safety standards JSS went out of its way to force some equipment providers to replace their LI UPS with a different battery type. We were just not in the business of completely redesigning a space with different ventilation/fire suppression just because a SATCOM or somesuch used an LI UPS as a power conditioner. Better to spend the money on a different battery and a minor redesign/rewiring of the the system.

 

[Good2Golf]

There is some work to look at them to see about options like requiring additional separation between the cells, some kind of cooling medium, and some other options. It increases the size but doesn't do much for the weight, so it's a pretty good options for vehicles. The LiFePO4 batteries (which aren't actually lithium ion) seem to be the safest option for now though.

I'm not sure what they do on vehicles, but you can add some things like fire insulation at some boundaries to at least slow the heat from spreading to the crew area, and some fitted systems to flood the battery enclosure and act as a heat sink, but generally bit tricky in a vehicle where it might all get hit from a shock like an explosion or IED or similar. With ships they are big enough that you can keep the fitted systems separated from the compartment so if the batteries go off from battle damage the business end should be okay and it's more the piping in the area that gets damaged.

LFP is actually quite stable, Navy_Pete, compared to Li-ion. Some manufacturers have already replaced Li-ion with LFP. LFP can regularly be charged right to 100% where some/many Li-ion systems still prefer to be taken only to 80% on high charge and slow down for the last 80-100%. LFP has slightly lower energy density than Li-ion, but not much less (few % +/-).

 

[Navy_Pete]

LFP is actually quite stable, Navy_Pete, compared to Li-ion. Some manufacturers have already replaced Li-ion with LFP. LFP can regularly be charged right to 100% where some/many Li-ion systems still prefer to be taken only to 80% on high charge and slow down for the last 80-100%. LFP has slightly lower energy density than Li-ion, but not much less (few % +/-).

I agree, they are the preferred alternative to lead acid, and I think what we should be using as an alternative for any UPS or similar.

Still ways to make a battery pack more resilient, but that's the best chemistry currently on the market. Things like inter cell spacing, internal cooling and better QC all help.

Aside from battery type, also look at things like how much is in the compartment in total, as a bunch of smaller batteries on different systems nearby may require some similar precautions as one big battery bank.

There is a lack of clear rules for them though on ships anyway, so still playing catch up. At the moment the red line is that they can't be a type that would result in a Class D fire, and that they are certified to a reasonable standard (UL, IMO etc). The USN testing is the best I've seen to date as they actually characterize the smoke coming off them as off gasses during runaway and have a minimum compartment size to avoid hitting LEL in that scenario.

Batteries on fitted systems are less of a problem though, it's random stuff like e-scooters, e-bikes etc with larger battery packs that may or may not meet any quality standard that are an issue (on ships anyway).

Should you have to tell someone they shouldn't store and charge an e-scooter beside the torpedo magazine? The answer is apparently, yes.

The CFFM released some guidelines for all bases, and it was things like the e-bikes/scooter batteries should be certified to UL/CSA, shouldn't be left unattended while charging, charging shouldn't between you and the escape route and some other common sense things. It's incredible that you get pushback from warships on rules meant for buildings but apparently QoL reigns supreme (at least until something happens and they are looking for a scapegoat I guess).

 

[Sub Standard]

I hope its the front runner. For two reasons. Its currenly in production and it has VLS for TLAM's. Though the Japanese subs are gorgeous from what I've heard. LI batteries are still a bit experimental though.

All things being equal a single LI has power storage equal to four lead acid batteries currently in use by most DE boats. Which gives you some interesting design margins to play with. The Japanese say they don't even need AIP anymore with LI, because the space an AIP would take up is less useful then just adding more LI batteries with no change in underwater endurance (or even less endurance with an AIP and obvious increased engineering complication).

The negative is the LI batteries, overheat in a bad way (Old Galaxy phone situation). So when a lead acid battery overheats its not great but manageable. When an LI overheats it creates a cascading effect of causing the other LI batteries in the rack to start to overheat as well, and then kinda blows up. This is really bad on a submarine. As such there is some resistance (see what I did there) to LI in other navies right now as the technology is not quite mature in their minds.

From what I have read these boats have both LI batteries and AIP

 

[Underway]

From what I have read these boats have both LI batteries and AIP

The Taigei class don't. Just batteries. There's even an interview out their somewhere where the one of the Japanese officials states that AIP is a waste of space on a Taigei class because the battery bank is good enough.

 

[YZT580]

The Taigei class don't. Just batteries. There's even an interview out their somewhere where the one of the Japanese officials states that AIP is a waste of space on a Taigei class because the battery bank is good enough.

but Japan doesn't have thousands of miles of ice

 

[Underway]

but Japan doesn't have thousands of miles of ice

The entire point I was trying to make was the Japanese believe that LI batteries are better than any of the below AIP.

You'll notice that AIP requires different fuels which require different fuel tanks, liquid oxyegen storage, other equipment like steam turbines or engines. This takes up a lot of space.

So if you believe the Japanese, and you want to do under ice, a high power density battery is better than AIP as you can store more energy than AIP produces for the same amout of space/tonnage.

• Open-cycle systems
  Submarines which employ concentrated hydrogen peroxide as a source of oxygen below the water surface. They utilised steam turbines, which used steam heated by diesel fuel in a water vapour/oxygen environment generated by a potassium permanganate catalyst decomposing hydrogen peroxide.
• Closed-cycle diesel engines
  This technique makes use of a submarine diesel engine that can be used on the surface but could also be supplied with oxidant, which is typically kept as liquid oxygen, whilst underwater. Because pure oxygen can scorch the metal inside an engine, the oxygen is normally mixed with recovered engine exhaust gas. Whenever the engine starts, argon substitutes the exhaust gas.
• Closed-cycle steam turbines
  It’s basically a reworked nuclear propulsion technology that uses ethanol and oxygen to create heat. A standard steam turbine power facility, for example, is operated by steam produced at a pressure of sixty atmospheres from the burning of ethanol and compressed oxygen. Without the need of an emission compressor, carbon dioxide from the exhaust may be released overboard at any depths.
• Stirling cycle engines
  An additional Stirling engine burns liquified oxygen as well as diesel oil to power the electricity generators, which can be used for propulsion or battery charging.
• Fuel cells
  A technology that converts chemical energy from a fuel as well as an oxidizer into electrical energy. Fuel cells are distinguished from batteries in that it requires a constant supply of fuel (like hydrogen) and oxygen, both of which must be carried in pressurised tanks inside the submarine to keep the chemical reaction going on.

 

[Stoker]

The entire point I was trying to make was the Japanese believe that LI batteries are better than any of the below AIP.

You'll notice that AIP requires different fuels which require different fuel tanks, liquid oxyegen storage, other equipment like steam turbines or engines. This takes up a lot of space.

So if you believe the Japanese, and you want to do under ice, a high power density battery is better than AIP as you can store more energy than AIP produces for the same amout of space/tonnage.

• Open-cycle systems
  Submarines which employ concentrated hydrogen peroxide as a source of oxygen below the water surface. They utilised steam turbines, which used steam heated by diesel fuel in a water vapour/oxygen environment generated by a potassium permanganate catalyst decomposing hydrogen peroxide.
• Closed-cycle diesel engines
  This technique makes use of a submarine diesel engine that can be used on the surface but could also be supplied with oxidant, which is typically kept as liquid oxygen, whilst underwater. Because pure oxygen can scorch the metal inside an engine, the oxygen is normally mixed with recovered engine exhaust gas. Whenever the engine starts, argon substitutes the exhaust gas.
• Closed-cycle steam turbines
  It’s basically a reworked nuclear propulsion technology that uses ethanol and oxygen to create heat. A standard steam turbine power facility, for example, is operated by steam produced at a pressure of sixty atmospheres from the burning of ethanol and compressed oxygen. Without the need of an emission compressor, carbon dioxide from the exhaust may be released overboard at any depths.
• Stirling cycle engines
  An additional Stirling engine burns liquified oxygen as well as diesel oil to power the electricity generators, which can be used for propulsion or battery charging.
• Fuel cells
  A technology that converts chemical energy from a fuel as well as an oxidizer into electrical energy. Fuel cells are distinguished from batteries in that it requires a constant supply of fuel (like hydrogen) and oxygen, both of which must be carried in pressurised tanks inside the submarine to keep the chemical reaction going on.

Has anyone used AIP to actually operate under sea ice for an extended period of time?

 

[Underway]

Has anyone used AIP to actually operate under sea ice for an extended period of time?

No idea. Maybe Russian? Norwegian? It's not like RCN submariners would tell you one way or the other. They take their Silent Service vows quite seriously (as they should).

 

[Stoker]

No idea. Maybe Russian? Norwegian? It's not like RCN submariners would tell you one way or the other. They take their Silent Service vows quite seriously (as they should).

Ack. The reason why I asked is that I haven't seen anything online to suggest that a AIP equipped submarine has operated extensively under ice before. I assume from everything I have read concerning the new submarine project the capability to operate under the ice is a capability we would want. Will we be the first to do it for the length of time we would want?, do we have the experience? Is the boat that we will eventually purchase have the power to surface through ice? Have conventional boats surfaced through the ice in our Arctic? Nuclear boats do of course but that's off the table. It seems to me that we would be after a fairly large blue water boat with a conventional propulsion plant that has a long submerged endurance.

 

[Rainbow1910]

In many unofficial circles, AIP is often treated as this sort of magic bullet technology which solves every problem of a conventional submarine. This is especially evident whenever you speak about under ice operations, the proponents of AIP come out and start aggressively pitching it. As was mentioned previously, some powers like Japan are actively moving away from it. As I understand, conventionally powered boat operation under ice in general is incredibly dangerous compared to nuclear powered boat operation.

Canadian Submarines – Whither the Arctic? – Vanguard

vanguardcanada.com

Norman Jolin wrote this interesting article sometime ago about some issues conventional submarines might face operating near or under ice.

Ice – a submarine can surface through ice but there are some very finite limitations. Typically, when conducting under-ice operations, most submarines surface in what is called a polynya, which is an area of open water or very thin ice that shifts with the overall ice-pack movement. While the exact thickness of ice that a submarine can surface through is dependent of the design of the submarine itself, and specific details are understandably classified, it is almost certainly less than three metres and often less than one metre. Submarines pictured surfacing through the ice are fitted with specialized equipment and have searched for an appropriate area to surface, which can often take some time as the ice field is continually shifting. To be clear, a submarine cannot surface whenever and wherever it chooses when conducting under ice operations.

Atmosphere – once a submarine dives it is necessary to monitor the atmosphere and change it as required. In a nuclear submarine, a liveable atmosphere is manufactured through a very power intensive process of electrolysis of seawater to produce oxygen combined with the use of carbon dioxide scrubbers. Because the reactor generates sufficient power, this process does not require the submarine to snort. In the case of conventional (including AIP fitted) submarines, the atmosphere is completely changed out when snorting, and although there are abilities to prolong breathable atmosphere whilst dived, they are necessarily limited. Moreover, should there be a major fire while operating under the ice, all submarines must return to the surface and snort to clear smoke. It is this factor, which precludes non-nuclear-powered submarines from conducting deep under-ice operations, as the time it takes to be able to clear the ice edge, or find a polynya, to either surface or snort is limited by the extant capacity of the battery and the fitted Emergency Breathing System (EBS).

Routine ice edge operations would demand a bigger hull, that is strengthened, to surface through ice in an emergency, as well as enhanced navigation and life support systems. Moreover, operating in the Arctic requires total self-sufficiency as shore-based support is not available and the submarine must be large enough to carry sufficient fuel and stores, as well as being able to meet environmental regulations which preclude any discharge (e.g. large holding tanks).

 

[suffolkowner]

are submarines not using buoyancy/displacement to surface through the ice?
Its not a matter of power?
It comes down to the endurance and redundancy of a SSN vs a SSK?

 

[Underway]

are submarines not using buoyancy/displacement to surface through the ice?
Its not a matter of power?
It comes down to the endurance and redundancy of a SSN vs a SSK?

Took me a bit to find and get answers to some of these questions. Please bear with me as I develop the discussion.

First, a submarine needs to always be able to surface quickly in case of an emergency. Any minor issue can quickly become a major one if you can't get to the surface. I think given the history of RCN submarines we can all understand that.

In order to surface a submarine through ice without power requires 100's of tons of reserve buoyancy. Basically the submarine must be more buoyant than its own full weight plus the 100's of tons of ice it needs to push through. What that means in practical terms is that any submarine that wants to surface through ice either needs a thin piece of ice not weighing much or it needs to power through the ice. DE do not have the power to break through thicker ice when running on batteries (or likely diesel's either).

The next thing is that all submarines have two hulls (or three in some cases). The inner or pressure hull which is designed to withstand the pressure of the dive and the outer or "casing" hull which is not watertight and provides a hydrodynamical shape for the submarine. The casing is used to mount equipment, like sonars, which if attached directly to the pressure hull could cause unnecessary stress. The pressure hull is much heavier than the casing and generally made of high grade steel.

The Victoria class casing (as an example) is made of fibreglass, stainless steel and other materials and coated in anecoic tiling. A Victoria class trying to break through ice would severly damage the casing, rip off sonars, destroy and damage the mast, periscope and some antenna. This would be particularly damaging should the submarine should it hit an ice inclusion which might even crack the pressure hull.

Given this information DE submarines (of any nation) should never go under ice. Even with AIP. Its way to dangerous. Near ice is fine. Nuclear boats go under ice because their casings are often made of steel, titanium etc... which can withstand much more damage ice would cause while surfacing. They have enough power to blast through the ice in an emergency. And they have more reserve buoyancy given their size.

 

[Navy_Pete]

@Underway, great answer; surfacing through the ice is basically icebreaking without the benefits of gravity on all those tonnes bearing down to break the ice.

I can't even imagine what would happen to a conventional sub trying to emergency surface through ice, but guessing it would be really bad, and cause a lot of damage even if they did punch through. Subs are dangerous enough at the best of times.

All a moot point anyway, we won't get nuke boats, and can't really properly support conventional subs. They provide a lot when they sail, but the infrastructure and resources for the limited operations they do is significant, while we already struggle to crew them without having additional nuclear safety training.

 

[dapaterson]

All a moot point anyway, we won't get nuke boats, and can't really properly support conventional subs. They provide a lot when they sail, but the infrastructure and resources for the limited operations they do is significant, while we already struggle to crew them without having additional nuclear safety training.

You're saying a one time DLN nuclear safety course with seven true false questions for the final exam wouldn't be sufficient?

 

[Navy_Pete]

You're saying a one time DLN nuclear safety course with seven true false questions for the final exam wouldn't be sufficient?

Box ticked, job's a good'un!

Funnily we actually usually only have one qualified nuclear safety officer at any time (sometimes vacant), so the positions on the coast are normally filled by some random unqualified two ringer and then the actual qualified person comes down as required when a nuke boat/carrier comes for a visit.

Given that we have a less than 50% fill rate for 2 jobs that are supposed to have a nuclear safety qual, I'm not optimitic.

 

[PuckChaser]

Please tell me that's someone's like 4th duty and not a primary job? I feel like the Canadian Nuclear Safety officer is just standing on the dock as close as the US security team allows poking the ship/boat with a stick asking periodically if they're being safe in there, and if they're sure.

 

[Navy_Pete]

Please tell me that's someone's like 4th duty and not a primary job? I feel like the Canadian Nuclear Safety officer is just standing on the dock as close as the US security team allows poking the ship/boat with a stick asking periodically if they're being safe in there, and if they're sure.

No, it's a sponsored PG, I think at RMC, and then they disappear into the puzzle palace. Ironically nothing to do with the CBRN on ships, which is support by the HVAC team.

Most of them get poached by Atomic Energy Canada (or whatever they are called now) to work on Nuclear safety oversight.

I think they are supposed to be the primary POC in case of a nuclear emergency on a visiting ship, and lead the base (ie regional) nuclear response plan, so would be a legit job if we took it seriously.

When I lived in Halifax, and read the response plan I realized I was in the 90%+ fatality range area, with only bottlenecks to get off the peninsula, so figured my response to a short notice evac would likely be to put on the kettle, have a nice cup of tea and kiss my ass goodbye.

Edit to add: The moral of the story is never go full RCN.

 

[dapaterson]

Please tell me that's someone's like 4th duty and not a primary job? I feel like the Canadian Nuclear Safety officer is just standing on the dock as close as the US security team allows poking the ship/boat with a stick asking periodically if they're being safe in there, and if they're sure.

The Commander, Military Personnel Command, is the only CAF nuclear entity, with a Slowpoke reactor in the basement of RMC.