Same.

+1 for this

x4

I'll give it some thought, thanks

Fifth-ing (?) this request. Subbrief probably can't make a video going into the minutiae of design decisions, since he risks (due to his background) getting a knock on his door from some people in black suits.

Was exactly my thoughts.

I was thinking the same.

It is an evolution that has taken place an infinite number of times because it is always how things are balanced. Smaller and more is better than better has played out so many times in warfare that it is a fundamental rule in how any powers interact

Yes indeedy

TIME to get kamikaze uuv drones for Taiwan to counter this threat in a unsymmetrical ways eh lol

Except it doesn't tolerate low temperatures, particularly well. Whether that matters for a coastal submarine in the waters off the Chinese mainland, I truly don't know but should be considered.

Humans also don't tolerate low temperatures well, so that can be solved. @@MrGMoney1944

@@MrGMoney1944 That's irrelevant. Even car-scale EV battery packs are thermally managed. It would be nonsensical for a submarine to not thermally manage its battery pack. I agree with Gary (hey, I think I remember you from Xitter :) Enn nafnlaus. I'm on Bluesky and Mastodon now :) ). Li-ion batteries are not monolithic. There are non-flammable li-ion chemistries. You give up a bit of energy for that, but nothing catastrophic. Indeed, the main thing sacrificed is mass density anyway, but for submarines volumetric density often matters more. A typical (high-energy-density) NMC pack is only 20%-ish denser than water! It should go without saying, but: submarines have to weigh down that large volume of air that they enclose, and something the density of water contributes nothing toward that end. I'd also add another addendum: H I Sutton stated that electric motors have rather limited power density. Respectfully, I must disagree there. Modern electric motors are insanely power dense. And to boot, here you get free liquid coolant for your pack and motor, as much as you want. I rather wonder if the limiting factor in a practical design might actually be prop strength. Honestly, it'll probably just be a balance of all factors battery power, motor power, cooling limits, shaft strength, and prop strength. You only have so much mass and volume to go around. One thing is certain, however: it has the potential to be *very* fast. You're basically building a modern electric torpedo, just with a bit of added drag to enclose that air volume. But most of the internal volume not used for air will be batteries.

@@MrGMoney1944 it might only fit to the warm shallow water layer, or for near shore littoral combat, and that's all it needs for a 600t coastal submarine it might not venture very far from the coast, nor would it dive anywhere below 200m, so i could see LFP batteries being used

Next week, he will be using Windows 3.1 MSpaint just to flex.

more performance but higher price

@@jebise1126 Also, more weight and more hull covered by water.

also, the outer hull serves for hydrodynamic streamlining of the boat, so the inner pressure hull could go wild with whatever shape (the deep diving soviet submarine losharik has an inner hull looking like a string of beads)

Sounds risky. Unless they already have solid state batteries... or they are drones (or fewer people/drone adjacent).

This fire containment issue was solved in the mid 2000s. Intermetallics can take the heat and cutting action near effortlessly.

LHP: lithium Iron Phosphate much less prone to internal shorts than traditional Li batteries.

@@TheInfidel_SlavaUA Ferrite is iron

The US submarine community is still fixated on the 2008 submersible lithium-ion battery fire, which occurred in an experimental vessel at a very early stage in the application of lithium-ion batteries for submarines. Japan is now operating large submarines with lithium-ion battery (LIB) systems without any apparent problems, and South Korea is following this lead with the Hanwha-Samsung modules that have been rigorously tested for submarine use (KSS-III B2). Future all-battery SSEs will have much lower discharge rates than diesel-electric subs with LIB main batteries, and with appropriate design the risks will be lower than current lead-acid battery systems.

It's a sabotage spec ops sub. Getting ready for taiwan or maybe japan

Thanks, good calculation. Compressed air may be better storage method though.

Chemically, double is a pretty high guess. We're already closer to theoretical limits than that. In a perfect world 50% is closer.

@@DamnedSilly You're referring to the theoretical limits of lithium-ion batteries, which are the "1st technology" of the light metal battery era. 2nd & 3rd technologies (solid state, lithium-sulphur & non-lithium chemistries including aluminium) have energy densities 3-5X higher than Li-ON batteries, and we can expect to see these coming into maturity in the 30s, 40s and 50s. Aluminium chemistries will be of particular interest for subs because of their high specific density (mass/volume) & high volumetric energy density.

@@jennydavidstokesjones8454 ...and by then we'll have cold fusion. I stick to proven tech. ;]

That was in 2008, very early in the application of lithium-ion battery technology in submarines. A great deal of work has been done since then to evaluate and validate the use of lithium battery technology in subs.

I geolocated it using Google Earth, no trick tools. The lack of background landmarks was a pain but familiarity with Chinese shipbuilding helped. Geolocation on this one is maybe 80% confident

U probably worked on the Collins class then. A pricey sub but we are getting long term use out of it.

@@ActionPanda-g5n Oberon Class subs transitioning to Collins class at the time. Subs essentially haven't changed in the basic elements. It's still a fossil fuelled oxygen consuming engine of some discription like diesel elect or the alternative a Nuke pwerd one. To me they are like a pressure tube under the water and fairly unsettling in a war to be locked in at 700 odd feet down. The only real answer to a propulsion system is a nuke boat and it looks like they are going to be it for us. The problem bow is Morrison and Dutton just put us on the nuke target list by announcing it early to the world when they could have kept it quiet for a while behind the scenes. They are overly worried the comos are going to invade Australia and overrun the gov jobs they are presiding over like fat cats with a big pension at the end, fairly sad arrangement unfortunately for our population now.

@@bretthorwood9396 the hurried announcement has Bojo’s fat fingers all over it. More for him to gain political points.

@@bretthorwood9396 you are correct in most of your answer, however the perceived threat is only at the behest of being fed lies and propaganda by the USA. Australia has traded peacefully and longer than the damning rhetoric of scumo. Australia imposed 25 claims against China in Jan 2019 through the WTO, and China retalited hard, because of scumo's now self proclaimed bulldozer attitude. The sting is every thing we lost, was picked up by the USA and now they, despite the claims of no trade etc, enjoy our losses. The same bulldozer tactic was done to the French, at the request of the potus, and the UK. We have to pay for. Breach of contract with the French, while scumo sets us into a one trillion dollar deficit. The subs will not appear for thirty years, now they say forty. Will this still be one trillion dollars? Is Australia a projective power in our region? What purpose will nuclear subs fill if they cannot be nuclear armed? That was not something they were able to discuss, because the nation, like NZ is opposed to this. In some way I hope Albo and the ... yggh Greens...win and they scap AUKUS. Scrap this sub deal because scumo FUBAR it by not getting bipartisan approval and it is technically a null and void document in its current form. News fact 16May2022. He will have plenty of money to fic Australia first. I am a Veteran of 30 years service, but all we have done by proxy of the Government's, is run with America when they whistle. I was discharged with PTSD in 2010. During this time I have studied, traveled globally and even remarried. I am studying a degree in History, modern and nation specific to seek answers as to why I and my relatives and mates fought and died for America. The answers are not acceptable, after SVN, the last country to ask for American help, every other sovereign nation was forcibly invaded by the USA & NATO. We by way of our governments were led illegally into these countries to commit acts of War. I was deluded then to think I was serving and protecting Australia, but I could not be further from the truth. If we were to combine the ANZAC forces to defend New Zealand, we would be lucky if the islands were left above the water level. IMHO our best solution would be to cut ties with the USA, call them allies if you like...but stop being a launching pad for them in their need to have wars. We should concentrate on our regional neighbors and work together to create a stable and harmonious South West Pacific as well as with Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand and South East Asia. Australia does not need America's apron strings to hold onto and we would have less threats without them. We should also make the top 12 companies in Australia pay taxes in Australia before any product can be mined or drilled out. They are all owned by USA and UK. One last point recently released, scumo was the minister who signed the papers across for the Port of Darwin...makes you think zbout him being a compulsive liar.

@@crypteiansentry1922 agree with you.

I appreciate that!

@@HISuttonCovertShores you make great content and I can't tell you in qords how much I appreciate that. I just recently found your channel and I'm thrilled I did. Thank you for all your work and the quality of it. It's easy to find someone on KZfaq yhat exaggerates or has very little knowledge of a topic talking about it like they know everything. People like you are priceless on here. Thank you

I agree 💯

Yeah a few people have wondered about how many subs etc. Working it out would be more time than I can spare, but one thing to consider is that most submarines in the world spend much more time in port than at sea. And at-sea time varies greatly based on multiple factors.

Going with half of the inventory based on french practice with SSBN (4subs, one on station and one on training permanently). Found a page that lists the total subs in the world at 513, and not everyone is going to be as diligent on optipizing maintenance cycles. I'd ballpark it at 200 subs at seau at any given time. www.globalfirepower.com/navy-submarines.php

Incredible info. So new underwater warfare stradegy will be hidden autonomous small submarines that be a threat to the U.S aircraft carrier fleets and Japan navy.

Try this Q&A video I made which covered pros and cons of sailless subs kzfaq.info/get/bejne/p72VmpqAqK3bZI0.html

Appreciate it!

Agree. Superconducting motors combined with light metal battery technology will be a gamechanger for future non-nuclear submarines.

Yeah I try to say "lithium-based" instead of "Lithium-ion" but it's hard not to slip up. There are a few different variations being developed in different places, and submarine applications are likely to capitalize on the safest variations.

@@HISuttonCovertShores Agree - we've started using the term "Light Metal Battery" (LMB) to include the full spectrum of emerging battery technologies in coming decades. This will include batteries based on not only lithium but also aluminium, sodium etc. Lithium-ion battery (LIB) technology is just the beginning of the LMB revolution.

When my sister was teaching in China they had one of these buses caught fire killing the kids and teacher aboard. Wet cell batteries will always have that big risk of catching fire. The gold mine of batteries will be dry cell ones like the ones Toyota is developing. Lighter safer and last longer.

that or its not really part of the mission profile. the soviets never bothered much with noise dampening because they had more subs overall. if these are meant to patrol the south china sea, they might not have to worry about anti sub aircraft as much as the soviets in the north atlantic

or...... that they are just being cheap like most of china military hardware.

@@AsbestosMuffins The USSR didn't do a lot of soundproofing because early in the cold war they had really crappy passive sonar systems and assumed the systems on NATO boats was about as bad. Once they figured out that mistake, they put sound-deadening on the top of their submarine construction program's To Do-list. This resulted in various quick fix modifications to the design of the submarines then being produced, as well as entirely new projects designed from the ground up for quietness.

Wrong way around. Single hull gives more interior volume and thus space for quieting techniques and sound dampening materials for the same hull diameter than double hull.

the space between the first and second hull is most often filled with noise conducting water. If that space was filled with noise dampening foam, it would make a much bigger difference lol

They rolled up our humintel assets in 2013 I think, all at once, very likely tortured and shot them all. We basically have zero inside information on the Chinese military and government since then. Frankly, I think we had better humintel coming out of the Soviet Union, and that wasn't much. We don't find out what the Chinese are working on until it basically starts operating.

I'll try to remember next time I do a Q&A.

Seconding this request. I find it a very interesting topic.

@@HISuttonCovertShores That's one topic I've long being waiting for Hi Sutton

For sure, nice and smooth. I prefer it, off the cuff and drawing, at that moment, from whatever knowledge you have. No problems with it

small subs won't reduce the complexity of maneuvering, but huge reduction of range and sustainability. those midget subs will be consumed in the very first days of war. I would never bet my life on it and I don't think and lucid submariner may carry out same suicide missions

@@mikecarlson6416 More survivable than a 500 tonne guided missile boat.

Air does not stop or absorb explosions underwater. It just transfers energy or causes more damage when it's bubble pops also

@@Rays_Bad_Decisions Hm ok, but are you not referring to cavitation, where there where no cavity to start with?

@@bellybutthole 2 completely different things

Brilliant, thank you.

the coastal aspect of China's naval anti-access & area denial against the US Navy has been well established with the surface-based missile corvettes & fast missile crafts, the land-based coastal anti-ship missile batteries & maritime strike fighters, so adding coastal subs is not a big concern nor urgent matter for the PLA Navy it likely only comes as an afterthought to add an underwater-based element and complete that A2AD force into a triad

Exactly. The application of the Law of Requisite Variety (Ashby 1956) in the submarine battlespace. China is clearly not putting all its eggs in the SSN basket (as HI Sutton has pointed out previously). It's increasingly looking like China will have a mixed fleet of SSNs plus increasingly advanced and capable SSKs and potentially small SSEs in big numbers. Global Security shiplist for the latest Class 039 (Yuan) variant suggests that China could be building these at a rate of 3/year. Light metal battery technology (lithium batteries are just the first mainstream example of this technology) is a gamechanger, and SSKs and small SSEs will become increasingly potent relative to SSNs at a fraction of the cost. Your point is correct - regardless of whether the weapon that kills your multi-billion $$ SSN was delivered by another multi-billion $$ SSN or by a much cheaper SSK/SSE/UUV, it's still dead. "Competitive asymmetry".

You got that right. The Chinese even have lead lined drones that irradiate US ships and carriers whenever they pass the South China Sea. There is no immediate effect but many sailors will get cancers in 10 years time. As an enlistee, it would be important to make sure the USN covers all cancers and diseases that may develop after deployments to the South China Sea

@@slslbbn4096 They get cancer from chemical, nuclear ammunition's, paints and so on. Warships are not build to safely be inhabited. Sailors are cheap

@@slslbbn4096 haha what

ccp don't care about any lives. party first, people last.

all those things require more holes in the hull. I've noticed sub designers (and drivers) don't like holes in their hulls.

@@railgap You can have get a good 4K cameras the diameter of a go-pro these days, so it's hardly going to be a big hole. 😉

There's a reason why they don't use these Technologies cuz the enemy will be able to see them using it they will be a Sitting Duck for our submarines

@@Puzzoozoo glass lense on them won't with stand the pressure 😂👌🏻 plus visibility in water is rarely clear nuff to rely on for visual

Coastal water rarely has good visibility. Couple windy days or an off shore storm and it'll drop down to a couple meters. LIDAR won't work. Cameras won't work. And any holes, even small ones, compromise hull integrity.

Interesting line of thought.

Civilian ship order/construction is way up in China and the rest of the world due to increase in demand as a result of various easy monetary policies by central banks around the world. It doesn't really make sense for PLAN to build subs just to keep yards busy, since they are already very busy in China.

PLAN?

China usually builds not just for military, but also for commercial purposes. These small subs may be useful in rescue missions in rivers, maybe. Sellable to other countries too

Recharging underwater is a topic, mainly for UUVs. Is less likely with submarines any time soon though Coastal subs will, generally, have less sophisticated/powerful sonar, etc.

At current battery tech levels a small all-battery sub like this Chinese sub or the South Korean HDS-400/500 will have a littoral patrol endurance at 4kts of 20-24 days. By the mid-late 2030s this could increase to 30-40 days, with extended fast advance capability. Subsea charging is technically feasible but will require the charging locations to be defended.

i believe there was talk of iran having those... or at least trying to build.

Expendable, release and retract solar panels could do the recharging on the fly. Sure it exposes the sub (barely, if done right)- but is tactical in the sense it can extend the mission vs. port time. ;)

Russia used silver zinc batteries on it's diesel electric submarines, the early Kilos I believe. While they had a high energy density, they had to be replaced every 2 years so an expensive option. Today they seemed to be used more in electric torpedoes. Earlier Li-on batteries used exotic materials and were subject to thermal problems. I believe the Li-on Phosphate chemistry is a lot safer, though not as energy dense. Cheaper EVs tend to use this chemistry, even the standard Tesla 3 built in China.

Three or four EMs (nuclear trained electricians mates) take temperature and specific gravity readings on each of the 128 cells during a battery charge. This is done hourly and it takes at least three hours to charge the battery. To take the temperature & specific gravity readings the EMs crawl in the 20 inches of space between the bakelite grid that is on top of the cells and the ceiling of the battery compartment. It is not comfortable. While the EMs are crawling around on top of the battery all the others who stood watch with them or participated in the scram drill that necessitated the battery charge are in the rack. The battery is charged following scram drills and otherwise, as needed. That's quite a few scrams & battery charges during workup for reactor safeguards exam and during the the exam. Sensors in the battery compartment continuously measure H2 gas. Should seawater mix with the battery's sulfuric acid then chlorine gas will result. While replacing a battery cell, one of my shipmates created a short and burned a chicken mcnugget sized portion out of the meaty part of his forearm.

I am probably not the best person to cover that, I see it from an analyst's perspective not an engineers. But basically lead-acid has won so far because of low cost (relative!!!), reliability, robustness to being recharged, and service life. Lithium-based techs promise to revolutionize things because their higher energy density translates into real operational differences. But safety is the main thing slowing their adoption down. We are on the cusp.

@@HISuttonCovertShores IIRC another thing slowing things down is that Lithium batteries are less dense than lead-acid, which can cause issues with stability when retrofitting existing ships with them, as now your removing potentially dozens to hundreds of tons from the ship.

You are correct, you don't know much.

They always are but there's definitely something about this one

Submarine planners should assume that there will a significant small SSE submarine threat emerging from the late 2020s onwards. By the 2040s this will evolve into a significant medium-large SSE submarine threat, with Naval Group's all-electric battery-only SMX-31E concept SSE submarine providing some broad indication of likely performance (zero indiscretion mission, > 40 days at 8kts, 60 days at 6kts), with a sophisticated weapons mix and advanced sensor and combat systems. www.naval-group.com/en/naval-group-reveals-smx-31-e-its-2020-concept-ship-0 kzfaq.info/get/bejne/gKuKrJxyptvWlqc.html

Its using propellers that right there tells us how unstealthily it is. Its not near as advance as it should be just based off of that.

I appreciate that!

What? These are river subs. Of these, the new boat appears to be similar to both the MS-200 midget submarine and S600 coastal submarine. Our estimate is that it is closer to the latter, although likely shorter.

Most of their SSKs were first reported like this. Nothing special about it. It’s just you can’t really hide subs for long. Someone is going to see it eventually, especially when being built near downtown of a big city.

This. China is actually the only country which can hide new submarines 'in plain sight' as well as this. DPRK etc maybe but different scenario. Re the Yuan Class, which I think that you are referencing, that's one which we don't know the *real* designations of, except the Type-039A. We have a -B, -C and maybe a -D variant but which counts as which is really speculation. China is in no hurry to help Western observers learn about their subs.

wasn't an choice a maybe*, perhaps

knowing the Chinese they'll have copied the US listening tech and probably have done the same thing to identify all US subs. I think it's unwise for either side to assume they have a huge advantage over the other

I don't think it's an approach which is being considered. Wouldn't flooding part of your sub just further add to the problems? There is a thing with nuclear submarines where they flood the bottom of the reactor compartment in some emergency scenarios, to act as a heat sink.

Japan has now built and commissioned two large naval submarines fitted with lithium-ion batteries (JS Oryu, JS Toryu) and will shortly commission a third (JS Taegei). There is no indication to date that they have experienced any significant issues with these new main battery systems either during the acceptance trials before commissioning or in service. There has been zero delays in construction of these new subs, which suggests no major changes have been needed for the lithium-ion battery systems following acceptance trials.

I hope Belt n Road fails, and that the world sees China for the threat it is. May your Army remain a paper dragon, and the technologies you have stolen be incomplete, and fail where they matter most.