A.J. Donaldson, B.Sc, M.
Sc, MINucE, CEng
ABSTRACT This study compares
nuclear and non-nuclear submarines for
various mission requirements. It includes
non-nuclear AIP options: alternative fuels
and oxidants, heat engines and electro-
chemical systems, as well as advanced
rechargeable batteries. Alternative
submarine power sources are summa-
rized and the non-nuclear AIP options
are compared with each other for differ-
ent energy storage requirements. The
AIP options most suitable for low capaci-
ties have already been demonstrated,
and descriptions have been published.
This is not the case for the fuel cell
systems which are expected to be most
compact for longer endurance AIT: and so
an example is described briefly in this
paper. An AIP system is outlined to
meet a particular mission requirement
(1000-3000nm radius to a coastal/
enclosed sea patrol area). This draws on
fuel cell and reformer programs at Rolls-
Royce and Associates Limited.
The paper concludes with a cost
effectiveness assessment of alternative
submarines for typical sets of mission
requirements. The alternatives are
compared in terms of endurance, speed,
payload, signatures and relative cost.
This paper does not draw on any study
funded by the Ministry of Defence. AU
data is from open literature or is esti-
mated on a purely comparative basis.
NAVAL ENGINEERS J O U R N A L May 1996
Submarine Power Sources
For the Mission
Introduction
dvanced detection technology is reducing the effectiveness of con-
ventional submarines (SSKs) which must “snort” frequently. How-
ever, nuclear submarines (SSNs) also have limitations in shallow
and enclosed waters, and are more expensive than conventional
submarines.
Several air-independent power (AIP) systems are being developed to main-
tain the viability on non-nuclear submarines. Although they are sometimes
called alternatives to nuclear power, their potential operational roles are quite
different.
Submarine capabilities and costs are considered here for representative nu-
clear and non-nuclear installations. They are compared with requirements and
cost targets for alternative missions. The information given is comparative, and
does not indicate capabilities of specific submarines, present or future.
Nuclear Power Options
Existing SSNs are generally well-optimized for their principal roles, and will be
subject only to evolutionary development. They will not be discussed in detail,
but allowances have made for greater speed and more effective acoustic isolation
in larger hull sizes.
The SSn concept (Hewitt et al, 1985: Srigl et al, 1987,Boisrayon, 1988) is of
a low cost nuclear submarine, for shortimedium range coastal water operations,
with an under-ice capability. However, the scope for reducing nuclear power
system size and cost is limited: shielding and containment requirements impose
a minimum size and weight, while design, manufacture and testing to nuclear
industry standards tend to impose a minimum cost.
SSn proposed power levels have evolved steady towards 1-2MW(e), below
which the use of nuclear power is difficult to justify.
Non-Nuclear Options
Non-nuclear AIP systems are generally divided into two principal categories:
heat engines and electrochemical systems. The most prominent heat engine AIP
systems are:
1. Closed-cycle diesel (more properly called Recycle diesel)
2. Stirling engine
3. Closed cycle gas turbine
4. Recycle gas turbine
5. Steam Ranlune cycle
6. Organic fluid Rankine cycle
The most prominent electro-chemical AIP systems are:
1. Lead-acid batteries
2. Advanced rechargeable batteries
3. Alkaline fuel cells
4. Proton exchange membrane (PEM) fuel cells
5. Aluminum power cells
129
Submarine Power Sources For the Mission
Individual systems are further distinguished by the choice
of fuel and oxidant storage systems.
Fuel and Oxidant Systems
Alternative fuels offer drfferent energy storage densities,
and they confer dlfferent energy values on the stored oxy-
gen, according to the proportions in which fuel and oxidant
combine. For example:
1. Diesel oil is easily stored, and has more than double
the higher heating value of methanol, which requires
more complex storage tanks. (Rose and Cooper, 1977).
2. A quantity of oxygen will produce thirty percent more
energy in combination with hydrogen than in combi-
nation with diesel fuel.
Aluminum, as a fuel consumed electro-chemically, is
outstandingly economical in oxygen requirement. How-
ever, the electrolyte is also consumable, as its water con-
tent is consumed, and the electrolyte properties are de-
graded by accumulation of the aluminum hydroxide
product. The picture becomes more complicated when
hydrogen peroxide is considered, because this contributes
a significant heat of dissociation.
GST SYSTEMS
GST is a compressed gas storage system using toroids
integrated into the pressure hull structure (Tufano and
Santi, 1988). The volume which may be regarded as
“free”is limited, defined by the usable hull area and the
diving depth. This can only offer a few days of extra dived
endurance, but optimisation of the hull structure for AIP
may minimize or conceal the true cost of extending AIP
endurance to perhaps two weeks. The GST system seems
to be suitable for the smallest submarines, in short range
roles.
LIQUID OXYGEN (LOX)
Liquid oxygen is widely available at low cost and high
performance vacuum insulation promises very low pres-
surization and boil off rates. Heat leakage into the LOX
will be predominantly via the mounting system, where this
bridges the vacuum insulation. Minimisation of heat leak-
age must be reconciled with military standards of shock
resistance. LOX may be pumped to the system pressure
and then evaporated for use as gas, or the tank may be
pressurized by controlled evaporation. The latter option
will leave more unusable gaseous oxygen in the tank.
Some examples of oxygen pressure requirements for
AIP systems are:
1. Hydride Fuel Cell 2.3 bar
2. Recycle Diesel 3-5 bar
3. Stirling Engine 20 bar
4. MESMA 60 bar
(Knaack and Petersen, 1988: Klein et al, undated; Edman,
1991; Le Tallec et al, 1991; Kerros et al, 1993)
130
Supercritical pressure storage of LOX (above 51 bar;
Adams and Clarkin, 1993; Perry, 1984) eliminates the liq-
uid free surface. This is one way to avoid disturbance of
the system weight distribution in response to a change in
boat trim. However, if no gas space is allowed at the time
of filhg, thermal expansion must be accommodated by
liquid phase discharge to control pressure. This is more
wasteful than gas phase discharge in a low pressure sys-
tem, as discharge may begin sooner and the mass dis-
charged will be greater.
Allowing for LOX thermal expansion, tank mountings
and enclosed supply connections, the insulated tank vol-
ume is estimated to be about 1.3m3per tonne of LOX.
HYDROGEN PEROXIDE
Stored in PVC bags in a protective casing outside the
pressure hull, hydrogen peroxide has been used in exper-
imental AIP systems, both as a direct oxidant and as a
storage medium for oxygen (Comton-Hall, 1988; Reader
et al., 1990). Pure hydrogen peroxide is dangerously un-
stable. Dilution with water increases safety progressively,
and eighty-five percent is considered the highest accept-
able concentration. Hydrogen peroxide is far more expen-
sive than liquid oxygen, but offers superior performance if
the heat of dissociation is used in an integrated system.
This heat could be used:
1. Directly, in heat engines
2. As a heat source for reforming methanol to produce
hydrogen
3. As a heat source for releasing hydrogen from the high-
temperature magnesium alloy hydrides.
At eighty-five percent concentration, oxygen generation
and heat generation are well matched for applications 2
and 3.
Use of H,O, is hindered by its aggressiveness to many
structural plastics, its incompatibility with many common
metals, corrosioderosion of catalysts in the dissociation
units, possible detrimental effects of its chemical stabiliz-
ing additives and the likely high cost of engineering safety
requirements.
FAVOURED OXIDANT SYSTEM
The considerations described here support the wide-
spread preference for low pressure LOX as a general pur-
pose oxidant storage system. It is a low cost, low techcal
risk option, applicable to a wide range of AIP systems,
submarine sizes and endurance requirements.
LIQUID HYDROGEN
Liquid hydrogen storage has some fundamental problems:
1. At ZOK, heat entry via the mountings will be thrty-
three percent greater than for a similar size LOX tank
at 90K.
2. The coefficient of thermal expansion of saturated liquid
is thirteen times worse for hydrogen at 20K than for
May 1996 NAVAL ENGINEERS JOURNAL

LOX at 90K and it becomes much worse near the
critical temperature of only 33K.
The molar specific heat of hydrogen at 20K is only
thirty-seven percent of the value for LOX at 90K
(19.4JimolK compared with 53imolK).
Also on a molar basis, the latent heat of evaporation of
hydrogen at 20K is only thirteen percent of that for
LOX at 90K.
Release into the submarine atmosphere is extremely
hazardous.
HYDRIDES
Metal hydride storage is compact and overcomes most of
the hydrogen safety problems. The limiting factor is
weight, especially for the iron-titanium family of hydrides.
Magnesium alloy hybrid systems are lighter (about sixty
percent of the weight of iron-titanium systems) but require
sigruficant heating at about 300C. Both hydride farmlies
require additional pressure hull volume for buoyancy when
AIP endurance exceeds about 25 MW hours (Fe-Ti and
LOX, Mg-Ni and H,O,) or about 50 MW hours (Mg-Ni
and LOX).
METHANOL REFORMING
For long endurance, the most compact, neutral buoyancy
hydrogen supply systems are those using reformed meth-
anol. Efficient AIP system thermal integration is essential.
Target overall system efficiencies are in the range of forty-
two to forty-four percent (with respect to the higher heat-
ing value of methanol). The reforming process also con-
sumes water, which may be recycled product water.
Heat Engine AIP
CLOSED-CYCLE DIESEL (ARGON CYCLE DIESEL)
Off-the-shelf diesel engines and alternators are the basis
of the lowest cost AIP option. Air-independence is
achieved by selective dissolution of CO, into seawater,
before the cooled exhaust is recycled with added oxygen.
Argon addition (about five percent of oxygen consumption)
matches the working fluid properties to the requirements
of an unmodified diesel, compensating for replacement of
nitrogen by carbon dioxide. Many other closed-cycle diesel
systems have been tested, or proposed, but the argon
cycle seems to be the best. Power density is good, with
the CO, removal system being about the same volume as
the diesel generator. Efficiency is good, thirty to t b t y -
one percent after allowing for alternator losses, parasitic
loads and loss of some oxygen.
CLOSED CYCLE GAS TURBINE
With inert gas working fluid and a high speed alternator,
the rotating machmery is more compact than a diesel gen-
erator. However, the combustion circuit and the heat ex-
changes make up for the difference, although there is a
saving in CO, disposal from the high-pressure gas circuit.
NAVAL E N G I N E E R S J O U R N A L May 1996
Submarine Power Sources For lhe Mission
Power density, efficiency, fuel storage and LOX storage
are all estimated to be as for the closed cycle diesel at
about 400kW(e), but derior at lower powers. However,
no argon is required and the acoustic signature should be
less.
The cost would be greater than for a closed-cyclediesel,
because of the specialized design and manufacturing re-
quirement.
RECYCLE GAS TURBINE
The direct cycle, with combustion gas working fluid, re-
sults in larger and more complicated gas turbine and CO,
disposal units than in the closed-cycle gas turbine system,
but requires fewer heat exchangers. Overall power den-
sity, efficiency, signature and costs appear to be much the
same as for the closed cycle gas turbine.
STIRLING ENGINE
The Stirling engine has an inherently low power density
and a clean fuel is needed to avoid heat transfer surface
fouling. Exhaust disposal, from the high pressure com-
bustion circuit, is simple and so the overall system power
density is not much less than for a closed-cycle diesel.
The system efficiency is slightly better, and it has a low
acoustic signature. No argon is required, but there is a
greater loss of oxygen in the exhaust.
This is a relatively expensive system, because of the
level of technology and because Stirling engines are not
mass-produced.
STEAM RANKINE CYCLE
The MESMA system (Le Tallec et al, 1991; Kerros et al,
1993) has a modest power density, because of general
arrangement, mounting system and access requirements
for the major components; steam generator, combustion
chamber, CO, condenser, turbo-alternator and steam con-
denser. However, acoustic signature should be very low.
At 400kW(e), the steam cycle efficiency is about
twenty-five percent, and the overall system efficiency may
be twenty-four percent. LOX consumption will be twelve
to seventeen percent greater than for a closed cycle diesel.
For equal endurance, the ethanol fuel tanks (incorporating
flexible membranes) w ill occupy about double the volume
of the equivalent tankage for a closed-cycle diesel.
All the major components appear to be special purpose
items, requiring substantial design and manufacturing in-
vestment.
ORGANIC RANKINE CYCLES
Some fluids, such as R11, R113 and toluene, offer better
cycle efficiencies than steam for given boiler and condenser
temperatures. Unfortunately, thls is negated by their poor
heat transfer properties, and it seems unlikely that they
would give any real advantage. Further, they are undesir-
able as contaminants of submarine atmospheres.
131
Submarine Power Sources For the Mission
Electro-chemical AIP
BATTERIES
Rechargeability at sea gives batteries flexibility and oper-
ational value comparable with “one-shot’’ AIP systems of
much greater nominal endurance. The pressure hull re-
quirement for buoyancy to support lead-acid batteries is
estimated to be 30m:’iMWhour (very slow discharge).
Nickel Cadmium batteries are approximately equivalent to
lead acid batteries for very slow discharge (although su-
perior for fast discharge). Advanced batteries (sodiumi
sulphur, LAIS and sodiuminickel chloride) offer about dou-
ble the slow discharge capacity of lead-acid batteries, for
equal weight and volume in realistic submarine installa-
tions. Nickel-Zinc batteries might be almost as good as
these advanced batteries, if an apparently fundamental
cycle life problem can be overcome. (Linden, 1984).
FUEL CELLS
Hydrogenfoxygen fuel cells produce DC power with high
efficiency, forty-five to fifty-five percent. System power
density is modest, due to the need for reactant condition-
ing, heat sink and output power conditioning subsystems.
The power conditioning unit governs load-sharing be-
tween the fuel cells and the main battery of the submarine.
Its size is minimized by selection of a high nominal voltage
for battery and fuel cell systems. Aluminum power cells
are treated as fuel cells, in this respect.
PEM fuel cells are being developed by several compa-
nies. The module power density may be more than four
times that of the alkaline fuel cells demonstrated in the
submarine U1, due to higher current densities, thinner
cells, smaller reactant and coolant manifolds, and simpler
auxiliary systems. However, the cell voltage and the sys-
tem efficiency are not as high as for alkaline fuel cells.
ALUMINUM CELLS
Aluminum cells consume aluminum alloy anodes as fuel,
and use either hydrogen peroxide or oxygen as oxidants.
The alkaline electrolyte is also an important consumable.
Energy storage is proportional to the number and size of
cells, but power may be limited by the heat sink and power-
conditioning units. There are no overboard discharges.
Efficiency seems good at thirty-six percent or better,
and energy storage density is potentially excellent, but
partial utilization is wasteful, because refuelling is by re-
placement. Technical issues include thick anode perfor-
mance, hydroxide separation and cell handling space. The
dominant contributions to pressure hull volume are esti-
mated to be:
1. Electrolyte and product storage 33%
2. LOX storage 27%
3. Cell handling 20%
4. Cell banks 12%
132
This system appears expensive in through-life cost, due
to the refuelling and reconditioning requirement, but is
moderate in initial cost.
METHANOULOX FUEL CELL SYSTEMS
A PEM fuel cell system with LOX storage and a methanol
reformer seems attractive for long range missions. Overall
efficiency of perhaps forty-four percent corresponds to fuel
and oxygen storage volume about seventy percent of that
for the consumables of a closed-cycle diesel system. How-
ever, the generation system power density is relatively low
Use of fuel cell power for air-breathing transit as well
as AIP patrol has been proposed. In the near term, this
is unlikely because:
1. The system power density is not competitive with die-
sel generators and is further reduced by design com-
promises for air-breathing operation.
2. System efficiency would fall to about thirty-five percent
in air-breathing mode, due to lower cell voltage, air-
delivery loads and increased reformer heat losses.
3. The methanol tank volume would be more than double
the diesel tank volume for the same duty.
4. Fuel cells would be more expensive than diesel gen-
erators.
For reformed methanol fuel cell AIE key issues include:
1. Fuel cell module development for efficiency and power
density.
2. Fuel processing system integration, for compactness
and high efficiency.
3. Installation design, for close-packing of many sub-units
in the fuel processing and electrical generation sys-
tems.
4. Power conditioning and control systems for compact-
ness and efficiency
5. Component and system reliability.
These are likely to be expensive systems, due to the high
level of technology development required, and the low level
of production.
Comparison of AIP Options
Table 1 shows estimated “best achievable” pressure hull
volume requirements for three values of energy storage,
at 400 kW(e). Aluminum power cells look good, subject
to verification of electrolyte utilization, but may be handi-
capped by operational inflexibility and through-life cost.
Closed-cycle diesel seems the front runner for low to me-
dium endurance, but has not yet found a buyer. Stirling
engines have been chosen by Sweden, hydrideiLOX fuel
cell systems by Germany and MESMA by Pakistan. For
high endurance, methanol reformer fuel cell systems ap-
pear to have a clear advantage, but are still unproven. Fair
comparison depends on an individual navy’s operational
needs for specific patrol areas.
May 1996 NAVAL ENGINEERS JOURNAL
 Submarine Power Sources For lhe Mission

TABLE 1 5. Depleted reformate recuperative heat exchangers,

CO, dissolution systems, residual gas clean-up and
Pressure hull volumes for AIP systems recycle system.
Capacity, M W hours
6. Low pressure fuel cell installation.
30 100 300 7. Generating system heat sink (freshwateriseawater
System Volume, m3
__ cooler) and pumps.
C-C Diesel 158 396 1074 8. DC/DC power conditioning unit.
C-C GT 152 378 1019
Recycle GT 152 378 1019 9. Fuel cell system switchboard.
Stirling 160 386 1032 10. Control and instrumentation panel.
MESMA 193 501 1381
Lead acid battery 900 3000 9000
Advanced battery 450 1500 4500
AI/LOX cells 139 350 939
INSTALLATION
H,/LOX fuel cell + external 180 510 1452 The LOX tanks and compensation for 162 tonnes of LOX
hydride + 28 + 93 + 278 will occupy about 11.5m of a Z6m pressure hull. Internal
MethanoVLOX fuel cell 189 352 81 9
methanol tanks are preferred for maintenance access (re-
placement of flexible containers). For 108 tonnes of meth-
anol, 136m3of usable capacity is required.
In a Z6m diameter hull, the total volume required for
AIP 3200: A Longer Range AIP the AIP system corresponds to about 18m of hull (sixty-
Submarine four percent LOX, twenty-two percent methanol and four-
REQUIREMENT teen percent system). However, achievement of such com-
pactness will require consideration of the whole submarine
For a future submarine with a payload representative of arrangement, rather than forcing the AIP system to fit
the larger SSKs, it is suggested that an appropriate AIP exactly between bulkheads. Further, no provision has been
capability would be 300MW hours, for a coastal water made here for air purification equipment for long submer-
patrol of over 30 days, 1000-3OOOnmfrom base. gence.
SYSTEM
It is proposed that a fuel cell AIP system with methanol NAVAL ARCHITECTURE CONSEQUENCES
and LOX stores should contain the following features: As a consequence of the volume required for the AIP
1. Methanol tanks, internal, with a methanol-resistant system, the main ballast tanks must be larger than for the
flexible membrane to separate fuel from seawater. equivalent non-AIP submarine to maintain a satisfactory
2. LOX tanks, design pressure in excess of 10 bar, inside reserve of buoyancy. Additionally, the upper casing volume
the pressure hull, shock-mounted. will increase in proportion to the pressure hull length. The
3. Compensationiproduct water tanks, occupying the hydroplanes must also be larger for satisfactory dynamic
spaces around the LOX tanks. stability and manoeuverabilitp The total increase in the
4. Autothermal reformer, operating pressure 20 bars, submarine’s submerged displacement will be rather more
incorporating palladium alloy diffusers to supply pure than the volume of 820m3 of pressure hull required di-
hydrogen (via a compressor). rectly for the AIP system.

TABLE 2
Submarine performance targets
Environment mansit
Coastal Regional Ocean Arctic 500 1500 5000 12000
Transit 6 9 22 30
Speed (knot)
Patrol 3 9 15 10
Mission 25 36 75 120
Endurance (days) Snort Cycle 8 5 3 24
Acoustic signature 1 1.3 1.5 1.5
Theraml signature 1 2 2.8 2.8
Payload 0.55 0.85 1 1.2 0.55 1 1.3 1.6
cost +lo% +30% 0.6 1.2 2 3

NAVAL E N G I N E E R S J O U R N A L May 1996 133

Submarine Power Sources For !he Mission

Meeting Mission Requirements
OPERATIONAL NEEDS
The environments in whch a submarine may operate vary
from restricted waters, intensively patrolled by sophisti-
cated opposing forces, to very large areas of almost empty
ocean. The base-to-patrol-area transit distance is also an
essential consideration in setting submarine performance
requirements. For this study, four categories of patrol en-
vironment were defined, with different submarine perfor-
mance requirements on patrol. Four representative transit
ranges were also considered.
ENVIRONMENTS
1. Shallow (-100m) coastal water and small enclosed
seas, patrolled by hostile conventional submarines and
by airborne anti-submarine forces. These environ-
ments emphasize the importance of low detectability
on patrol, coupled with dived endurance of perhaps
eight days, so that any “snorting” can be done outside
the most hazardous area.
2. Regional seas, further offshore, sparsely patrolled by
hostile forces including conventional submarines.
Larger patrol areas require a faster rate of advance for
efficient patrolling. The dived endurance requirement
should reflect a moderate risk that observed or sus-
pected opposing forces will inhibit snorting.
3. Deep ocean conditions with minimal threat. The large
patrol areas require high patrol speeds, but the dived
endurance can be relaxed to about three days, permit-
ting flexibility of power use and occasional postpone-
ment of a planned snort.
4. Arctic waters, including regular under-ice operation.
Very long dived endurance is essential, but the patrol
speed requirement is less than for deep ocean patrol-
ling. Peacetime safety targets dictate reliability and
endurance targets for main and emergency power sup-
plies.
PERFORMANCE AND COST TARGETS
Target figures for submarines to be cost-effective for par-
ticular environments or transit distances are shown in
Table 2. The values shown represent the views of the
author.
Snort cycle and patrol speed targets are suggested val-
ues for different environments. Transit speed and mission
endurance targets represent the need for the submarine
to remain on station for a cost-effective proportion of each
mission. Acoustic signature targets were estimated in
terms of probability of detection by passive sonar and they
are normalized to assign a value of 1.0 to a conventional
submarine using battery power. Thermal signature targets
represent normalized gross power use, during 4kt patrol-
ling. (The Baltic Sea is a special case, where thermal
signature will have a low weighing in any overall assess-
ment, being much less important than acoustic signature.)
Payload targets were set for the part of the submarine’s
pressure hull which cames men, communications sys-
tems, sonar systems and weapons systems. These tar-
gets depend on both operating environment and transit
range. They are normalized to a value of 1.0 for the larger
SSKs.
Cost targets were proposed to represent the fact that
local, restricted water patrols can be performed by
cheaper submarines than would be required for long range
or open water patrols and that Arctic operation imposes
additional equipment costs. The cost targets were nor-
malized to assign the value 1.0 to the cost of a large SSK,
and ten percent and thirty percent increases are allowed
for deep ocean and Arctic operation, respectively.

TABLE 3
Submarine performance
SSKB AIP SSK SSKB
SSK1200 1350 1400 2400 3000 AIP3200 SSn2000 SSN3000 SSN5000
Transit 8(s) 8(s) 8(s) lO(s) lO(s) 1O(s) 8 25 30
Speed (knot) Patrol 4 4 4 4 4 4 8 <25 <30
Endurance Mission 30 30 30 60 60 60 50 70 100
(days) Snort Cycle 2 4 12 3 6 30 - - -
Acoustic
signature 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.1 1.8 1.5
Thermal
signature 0.02 0.02 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.16 1 1.6 2.4
Payload 0.4 0.4 0.4 1 1 1 0.65 1 1.7
cost 0.45 0.47 0.5 1 1.05 1.15 1.25 1.75 2.5
(s): Snorting

134 May1996 NAVAL E N G I N E E R S J O U R N A L

 Submarine Power Sources For the Mission

TABLE 4
Submarine performance shortfalls
Environmental Range
Coastal Regional Ocean Arctic 500 1500 5000 12000
Transit .9 .36 .27
Patrol .67 .52 .63
SSK 1200 Mission .a3 .4 .25
Snort .50 .63 .a2 0
Payload .a5 .69 .63 .5a .a5 .63 .55 .50
Transit .9 .36 .27
Patrol .67 .52 .63
SSKB 1350 Mission .a3 .4 .25
Snort .71 .a9 0
Payload .a5 .69 .63 .5a .a5 .63 .55 .50
Transit .45 .33
Patrol .67 .52 .63
SSK 2400 Mission .ao .50
Snort .61 .77 0
Payload .91 .aa .79
cost .60
Transit .45 .33
Patrol .67 .52 .63
SSKB 3000 Mission .80 .50
Snort .a7 0
Payload .91 .aa .79
cost .57
Transit .90 .36 .27
Patrol .67 .52 .63
AIP 1400 Mission .83 .40 .25
Snort .71
Payload .a5 .69 .63 .5a .a5 .63 .55 .50
Transit .45 .33
Patrol .67 .52 .63
AIP 3200 Mission .80 .50
Payload .91 .aa .79
cost .52
Transit .9 .36 .27
Patrol .94 .73 .a9
SSn 2000 Mission .67 .42
Noise .91
Payload .a7 .a1 .74 .a1 .7 1 .64
Cost .4a .96
Transit .a3
Mission .93 .5a
Noise .56 .72 .a3 .a3
SSN 3000 Thermal .a9
Payload .9 1 .aa .79
cost .34 .69
Mission 0.83
Noise .67 .a7
SSN 5000 Thermal .ao .96
cost .24 .4a .ao

SUBMARINE CAPABILITIES W SSKB 1350 represents SSK 1200 with a large advanced
Representative performance figures are given in Table 3, battery and increased charging capacity.
for seven conceptual types of future submarine: AIP 1400 represents SSK 1200 enhanced by an AIP
w SSK 1200 represents a small conventional submarine. system of twelve days endurance.

NAVAL E N G I N E E R S J O U R N A L May 1996 135

Submarine Power Sources For the Mission

SSK 2400 represents a relatively large conventional
submarine.
H SSKB 3000 represents SSK 2400 with a very large
advanced battery and increased charging capacity
H AIP 3200 represents SSK 2400 enhanced by an AIP
system of over t h t y days endurance.
H SSn 2000 represents a small patrol submarine with a
low-power nuclear reactor.
SSN 3000 represents a small purpose nuclear subma-
rine.
SSN 5000 represents a medium size general purpose
nuclear submarine.
The values shown are relative, and do not indicate the
capabilities of specific submarines.
Performance was compared with each target to give a
ratio which was 1.0 if the target was achieved or beaten.
Double-counting and over-emphasis of some parameters
were corrected by taking the square root of the ratios.
For each submarine, the scores where the targets are
not met are given in Table 4. Scores for a combination of
patrol environment and transit distance were produced by
multiplying the individual scores together. The results are
in Table 5. Table 6 shows the best scores for fifteen com-
binations of patrol environment and transit distance. This
provides a ranking of submarine size and propulsion sys-
tem options for each set of mission requirements.

TABLE 5
Operational cost-effectiveness
Range
Submarine Environment 500 1500 5000 12000
Coastal .36 .20 .03 .01
Regional .25 .14 .02 .01
SSK 1200
Ocean .23 .13 .02 .01
Arctic 0 0 0 0

Coastal .37 .61 .19 .08

Regional .31 .52 .16 .07
SSK 2400
Ocean .34 .52 .16 .07
Arctic 0 0 0 0
Coastal .5 .87 .27 .11
Regional .38 .67 .21 .09
SSKB 3000
Ocean .33 .52 .16 .07
Arctic 0 0 0 0
Coastal .51 .28 .05 .02
Regional .35 .19 .03 .01
SSKB 1350
Ocean .28 .15 .03 .01
Arctic 0 0 0 0
Coastal .72 .40 .07 .03
Regional .39 .22 .04 .02
AIP 1400
Ocean .28 .15 .03 .01
Arctic .22 .12 .02 .01
Coastal .52 1. .32 .13
Regional .35 .67 .21 .09
AIP 3200
Ocean .30 .52 .16 .07
Arctic .39 .57 .18 .07
Coastal .44 .64 .16 .07
Regional .39 .57 .14 .06
SSn 2000
Ocean .31 .43 .10 .04
Arctic .41 .48 .11 .05
Coastal .17 .34 .41 .19
Regional .24 .SO .59 .27
SSN 3000
Ocean .31 .63 .68 .32
Arctic .33 .68 .62 .29
Coastal .13 .26 .43 .44
Regional .20 .40 .67 .69
SSN 5000
Ocean .26 .53 .88 .83
Arctic .3 1 .62 1. .83

136 May 1996 NAVAL E N G I N E E R S J O U R N A L

 Submarine Power Sources For the Mission

TABLE 6
Meeting mission requirements
Range
500 1500 5000 12000
AIP 1400 .72 AIP 3200 1. SSN 5000 .43 SSN 5000 .44
AIP 3200 .52 SSKB 3000 .87 SSN 3000 .41 SSN 3000 .19
SSKB 1350 .51 SSn 2000 .64 AIP3200 .32
Coastal SSKB 3000 .5 SSK 2400 .61 SSKB 3000 .27
SSn 2000 .44 AIP 1400 .40
SSK2400 .37 SSN 3000 .34
SSK 1200 .36
SSn 2000 ,353 SSKB 3000 .67 SSN 5000 .67 SSN 5000 .69
AIP 1400 .39 AIP 3200 .67 SSN 3000 .59 SSN 3000 .27
SSKB3000 .38 SSn 2000 .57
Regional
SSKB 1350 .35 SSK 2400 .52
AIP3200 .35 SSN 3000 .50
SSK2400 .31 SSN 5000 .40
SSK2400 .34 SSN 3000 .63 SSN 5000 .88 SSN 5000 .83
SSKB 3000 .33 SSN 5000 .53 SSN 3000 .68 SSN 3000 .32
SSN 3000 .31 SSKB 3000 .52
SSn 2000 .31 AIP 3200 .52
Ocean
AIP 3200 .30 SSK 2400 .52
ssKa 1350 .2a SSn 2000 .43
AIP 1400 .28
SSN 5000 .26
SSn 2000 .41 SSN 3000 .68 SSN 5000 1.
AIP3200 .39 SSN 5000 .62 SSN 3000 .62
Arctic
SSN 3000 .33 AIP 3200 .57
SSN 5000 .31 SSn 2000 .48

is more limited in Arctic conditions. However, non-

Conclusion
The cost-effectiveness survey confirms that:
1. Small AIP submarines are appropriate for short range
operations, especially in coastal waters.
2. The largest non-nuclear AIP submarines are suitable
for medium-range operations, especially in coastal
waters.
3. Large installations of advanced rechargeable batteries
are a very cost-effective AIP option, provided that
there is some opportunity for snorting near the patrol
area.
4. Nuclear submarines of 3000-5000 tonnes are cost-ef-
fective for medium-range deep ocean and Arctic mis-
sions.
5. Nuclear submarines of about 5000 tonnes are more
cost-effective for long-range missions.
6. The low-power small nuclear submarine (SSn) appears
suitable for some short/medium range duties, espe-
cially for nations with Arctic coastlines.
7. In every role, at least one of the three nuclear options
achieves an acceptable cost-effectiveness score, and
there is a large area of overlap in which all three
achieve acceptable scores.
8. The AIP 3200, SSKB 3000 and SSn 2000 concepts are
s d a r in range of application, except that SSKB 3000
nuclear options cannot equal the versatility of the SSN
3000 and SSN 5000 concepts.
It is noted that the submarine types chosen by nations
with Baltic and North Atlantic coasts conform to the cost-
effective options, for the apparent needs of each nation.
A minor qualification is that the United States Navy and
the Russian Navy have increasingly favoured nuclear sub-
marines substantially greater than 5000 tonnes. This sim-
ply reflects their emphasis on long-range missions, re-
quiring long endurance and high capability with a mixed
weapons payload. 4-
REFERENCES
[ l ] Adams, M.J., and L. Clarlun, “Canadan Second Genera-
tion AIP-A Formula for Success,” RINA, Naval Subma-
rines 4, 11-13 May 1993, London.
[2] Boisrayon, G., “The Nuclear Coastal Submarine: An Alter-
native to Exotic Propulsion Systems,” RINA International
Symposium on Conventional Naval Submarines, 3-5 May
1988, London.
[3] Compton-Hall, R., Submarine uersus Submarine, David and
Charles, 1988.
[4] Edman, U., “The AIP Experience,” RINA, Naval Subma-
rines 3, 13-15 May 1991, London.
[5] Hewitt, J.S., I? Wilkins and G.A. Kastner, “SAGA-N: A
Nuclear-Powered Submarine Vehicle for Commercial Oper-

NAVAL E N G I N E E R S J O U R N A L May 1996 137

Submarine Power Sources For the Mission
ation,” Canadian Nuclear Society 6th Annual Conference,
June 1985.
[6] Kerros, I?, I? Leroy and D. Grouset, “MESMA: AIP Sys-
tem for Submarines,” RINA, Naval Submarines 4, 11-13
May 1993, London.
[7] Klein, M., U. Regensdorf, D. Wittekmd and C. Zartmann,
Closed-Cycle Diesel: Principle and Application, Thyssen
Nordseewerke.
[8] Knaack, K., and U-K Petersen, “Advantages of Aidnde-
pendent Propulsion Systems for Submarines being in Ser-
vice. The German Approach,” RINA, Naval Submarines 3,
13-15 May 1991, London.
[9] Le Tallec, J., E Tandeo and J. Gaillard. “AIP for Subma-
rines: Design and Safety Aspects,” RINA, Naval Subma-
rines 3, 13-15 May 1991, London.
[ 101 Linden, D., Handbook ofBatteries and Fuel Cells, McGraw-
Hill, 1984.
[ll] Perry, R.H., D.W. Green and J.O. Maloney (Editors), Per-
ry’s Chemical Engineer’s Handbook, McGraw-Hill, 1984.
[12] Reader, G.T., J.G. Hawley and G. Walker, “Power Plant
COMMENTS B Y
Thomas Goldsworthy
DESIGNERS AND PLANNERS
I would like to thank the author for bringing to light the
topic of ,4r Independent Propulsion (AIP) and in par-
ticular fuel cells for submarines. The analysis done for this
paper appears limited to what is currently being installed
in several classes of European submarines such as Proton
Exchange Membrane (PEM) Fuel Cells, Stirling Engmes,
MESMA, and Closed Cycle Diesels (CCD). These types
of AIP systems have been the recent beneficiaries of fund-
ing to the point where they are being installed as prototype
(experimental would be a better term) units as in the case
of Agosta 90B (MESMA), or operational such as Sweden’s
A 19 (Stirling Engine), and Germany’s U 212 (PEM Fuel
Cell). While discussing the various types of fuel cells, this
paper seems to dismiss high temperature fuel cells in favor
of the PEM type fuel cells. An economic assessment of
AIP that included the high temperature Phosphoric Acid
Fuel Cells (PAFC) and Molten Carbonate Fuel Cells
(MCFC) would have given the paper a flavor more useful
on this side of the Atlantic.
PAFCs of 7.5 and 11MW were built in the United States
in the early eighties. The Z5 MW unit was sold to Tokyo
Electric Power Company and is still in operation. (In late
1983, Tokyo Electric Power Co. built a 4.8 MW PAFC
based on a U.S. design that is still in operation.) As early
as 1977, it was apparent that MCFCs, and their ability to
use traditional marine fuels, were attractive alternatives
for marine applications. The author is inaccurate in as-
serting that MCFC “. . . technologies are considered im-
I 38
Development for Underwater Naval Vehicles up to 3000t
Displacement,” IME, 22 May 1990.
[13] Rose, J.W. and J.R. Cooper (Editors), Technical Data on
Fuel, Scottish Academic Press, 1977.
[14] Sligl, VR., G.A. Kastner and A.G. McDonald, “An An-
Independent Hybrid NucleariDiesel-Electric Submarine: A
Proposal Intended to Meet Canadian Requirements,” Mar-
itime Defence, December 1982
[15] Tufano, A. and G.G. Santi, “ ‘20 gst 48’ A Snorkeless Wake-
less Diesel Submarine of a New Generation,” RINA Inter-
national Symposium on Conventional Naval Submarines,
3-5 May 1988, London.
A.J. Donaldson spent several years at Rolls-Royce and Asso-
ciates Limited working on computer methods for reactor
transient analysis, before obtaining a Master of Science degree in
Nuclear Technology from the Royal Naval College at Greenwich
in 1984. Subsequently, as a senior engineel; he joined a team
assessing alternative power technologiesfor naval, space and
commercial applications.
mature. . . .” To say that these technologies “. . , are not
available for near term submarine AIP applications . . .,”
is not a statement about the present technology status of
MCFCs, but is simply a reflection of the lack of naval
funding so far to “marinize” the parallel on-land electric
utility MCFC commercialization process already under-
way. The MCFC is far advanced (at 1.8 MW) as compared
with the current modest AIP power requirements of 300
to 400 kW. The author’s statement that “operating tem-
perature, control and management of the warm-up and
cool down cycles are of concern” is gratuitous. There is
nothing about h g h temperature fuel cells that inherently
makes them unsuitable for submarine application. Diesel
engines have high temperatures too; charging up subma-
rine batteries from cold takes time, as does the initial
warm-up from cold of high temperature fuel cells. Once
they are hot, they have an almost instant response to load
changes. In fact, with internal fuel reforming MCFCs, the
response to load changes is faster than with (mandatory
external) fuel reformers required by low temperature
PEMFCs.
Since the author chose not to investigate PAFCs or
MCFCs, he does not properly investigate the use of diesel
fuel (sulfur free diesel) as an alternative to methanol. Sul-
fur free diesel fuel can be steam reformed to synthetic
methane and carbon dioxide. As long as the carbon bonds
of this multi-carbon fuel molecule are broken with care so
no elemental carbon (soot) results, then the sulfur free
form of this standard naval fuel can be used to great ad-
vantage. Diesel fuel is immiscible with seawater and it has
a high flash temperature, which are both significant naval
system advantages. Based on a high temperature type
electric utility derived fuel cell power plant approach
(which also permits heat recovery) overall system energy
May 1996 NAVAL ENGINEERS J O U R N A L

conversion efficiencies of sixty-five percent are reasona-
ble. The diesel fuel stored energy at approximately 43 MJ/
kg is almost double that of methanol fuel. The resulting
BSFC, or “fuel rate,” wdl then be 0.129 kgikWh or tonnes/
MWh. Compare this to methanol which contains 22.2 MJ1
kg of stored energy. The resulting BSFC is 0.369 kg/kWh
or tonnesMWh. This diesel fueled BSFC value of 0.129
kg/kWh is 2.88 times better than a methanol fueled
PEMFC type of power system. From the operator’s point
of view the submarine can go almost three times as far
per tonne of fuel used when a high temperature diesel
fueled fuel cell power system is used. Diesel fueled high
temperature fuel cell power plants offer great promise for
surface ship and naval submarine applications, particularly
because of their large power rating. Their cost per kW is
being rapidly reduced due to the electric utility sponsored
MCFC mass production commercialization process under-
way in the U.S.
The author makes some statements concerning fuel
cells for air-breathing transit which should be reassessed.
The “system power density” is not defined in this paper.
MCFCs on diesel fuel with air will be at least sixty percent
efficient (with heat recovery). MCFCs on air w ill be about
sixty percent efficient while MCFCs on 0, will be at least
sixty-five percent efficient. The phrase . . increased
I‘.
reformer heat losses . . .” makes no sense. The author
seems to be reversing hs field when comparing methanol
tank volume to diesel fuel tank volume. Naval fuel cells
derived from mass produced high temperature utility type
MCFCs will not be any more expensive than diesel gen-
erators. The author goes on to make some “key” issues
regarding reformed methanol fuel cells, none of which ap-
pear to be specific to reformed methanol. The author also
addresses the AIP capital expense issue due in large part
to “. . . the low level of production.” That is the best
argument for the electric utility derived diesel fueled
MCFC approach due to its mass production commerciali-
zation cost reduction path. (I am curious as to whether or
not the author is aware of a Detroit company called DTI
that is currently setting up an assembly line to mass pro-
duce fuel cells? This reviewer tried to make contact with
the company to learn the type and power output of fuel
cell they are going to produce, but was unsuccessful in
getting a timely response.)
For the author’s “AIP 3200: A Longer Range AIP Sub-
marine,” a thirty day patrol with 300 MWh of submerged
endurance is postulated. The comparison of a methanol
fueled forty-four percent efficient PEMFC approach shows
(0.369 tonnesiMWh x 300 MWh = ) 110.7 tonnes of
methanol fuel must be carried onboard. The oxygen to
methanol rate of consumption is in the MOL weight ratio
of 1.5: 1. Therefore, the 110.7 tonnes of methanol fuel will
require 166 tonnes of oxygen for a total submarine weight
of reactants of (110.7 + 166 = ) 276.7 tonnes for the 300
MWh of submerged endurance. A similar calculation is
made for the diesel fueled sixty-five percent efficient
NAVAL E N G I N E E R S J O U R N A L May 1996
Submarine Power Sources For the Mission
MCFC approach, for the 300 MWh case, (0.129 tonnesi
MWh x 300 MWh = ) 38.7 tonnes of diesel fuel. For
diesel fuel, the oxygen to fuel MOL weight ration is 3.43: 1,
(38.7 x 3.43 = ) 132.7 tonnes of oxygen. The total for
the diesel fuel plus oxygen reactant weights is then (38.7
+ 132.7 = ) 171.4 tonnes. The MCFC diesel fueled ap-
proach is clearly superior for the 300 MWh submerged
endurance case by 171.41276.7 = 62% of the weight of
reactants or 96.3 tonnes less. The sixty-five percent ef-
ficient diesel fueled MCFC approach is clearly superior to
the forty-four percent efficient methanol fueled PEMFC.
This does not even include the current cost differential
between methanol ($6.31/Million BTU) and diesel ($4.921
Million BTU).
Calculation of Spec& Fuel Consumption:
Diesel fuel which contains 43 MJkg of stored energy
3‘6 Mikwh = 0.129kg/kWh or tonnes MWh
65% x 43 MJ/kg
Methanol which contains 22.2 MJ1kg of stored energy
3.6 lLZTikWh = 0.369 kg/kWh or tonnes1MWh
44% x 22.2 MJkg
COMMENTS BY
LCdx Clifford A. Whitcomb, USN and
LCdx A.B. Smith, Canadian Forces
(Ret.)
The subject paper discusses alternative power sources for
submarines against a variety of submarine mission re-
quirements as stated in the abstract “. . . compares nu-
clear and non nuclear submarines for various mission re-
quirements.” A more applicable description of the paper,
and we suspect its intent, would be “assessing the merits
of various submarine power sources against specific mis-
sion requirements.” The author does a commendable job
at bringing together a wide variety of issues. In one suc-
cinct paper, he has brought to the reader’s attention details
and information that would otherwise have to be gleaned
from numerous sources. There are, of course, a number
of points worth discussing and we do so not to take away
from the paper, but in an effort to be constructive.
Power Source
The overview of the k r Independent Propulsion (AIP)
options for submarines is very good. The point that non
nuclear AIP submarines are not merely alternatives to
nuclear powered submarines, but have quite different po-
tential roles, is well made. Several aspects of the paper
are worth pointing out.
139
Submarine Power Sources For the Mission
In the comparison of AIP options, the results for the
estimation of the overall system volume are good. For
example, Table l-B compares estimates made using val-
ues obtained in the open literature, of submarine AIP
systems with similar energy storage requirements. Since
the closed cycle heat engine differences only result in
slight (less than ten percent) changes in the estimates, we
have grouped the diesels, gas turbines, and Stirling en-
gines together under this heading. The purely battery-
based systems are not estimated, since they are consid-
ered infeasible options at these energy storage levels. The
MESMA plant is not estimated, due to lack of system
parameter mformation.
TABLE 1-6
AIP System Estimation Comparison, 328 MWh
Author‘s Discussers‘
Results Results
System (m’) (m’)
Closed cycle heat engine 1074 918
AI-LOX cells 939 490
H,-LOX fuel cell (with regenerative
hydride bed) 1730 1846
Methanol-LOX 819 773
Our 328 MWh energy estimates are based on an in-
stalled propulsion power of 422 kW, an average loiter
speed of four knots, three high power burst evolutions of
one hour each, and 150 kW of hotel load over a sixty day
mission. These results include volumes for the AIP power
plant, support equipment, energy storage, variable ballast,
and an equipment arrangement factor. Our results com-
pare well with the author’s across the board, considering
that both are high level estimates. The only exception is
the result for the aluminum-oxygen (AI-0)cell system,
which is different by a factor of two. This is not surprising
since these systems are not widely developed, have not
been demonstrated at high power levels for submarine
use, and do not have much open literature information
available for estimation purposes. However, a report from
Professor A. Douglas Carmichael of MIT [3b] tends to
support the lower estimate for total system volume for the
N-0 option.
The type of fuel to use is not an easy choice, since all
have various advantages and disadvantages. The elimina-
tion of hydrogen peroxide (H,O,) and liquid hydrogen (LH)
from consideration is correct for the reasons stated. The
selection of liquid oxygen (LOX) as the preferred oxidant
is also correct. The regenerable hydride beds can be used
in place of lead ballast in some low energy storage level
AIP submarine designs, but the mass fraction of hydrogen
would have to be increased above the current three to five
percent levels to make this option more generally attrac-
140
tive. The final selection of methanol may be problematic
for the following reasons:
Methanol is toxic and may not work well in an AIP option
submarine due to personnel safety and atmosphere con-
trol standpoints [4b].
Current logistic availability of methanol, especially at
ports other than the submarine’s home base, is probably
not good.
The use of reformed diesel fuel may be a better alterna-
tive:
Reformed diesel fuel is synergistic with the assumed
installation of a diesel plant for transit propulsion.
It is already a widely used propulsion fuel for submarine
applications.
It is widely available in existing ports throughout the
world.
Diesel fuel also has disadvantages:
m Diesel fuel takes more energy to reform than methanol.
The presence of sulfur in marine diesel will poison most
fuel cells.
Although sulfur-free diesel fuel is probably no more avail-
able than methanol at typical ports, its availability is im-
proving on the world market due to pollution concerns.
With respect to fuel cells, the high temperature solid oxide
fuel cells (SOFC) and molten carbonate fuel cell (MCFC),
for example the internally reformed MCFC cells made by
Energy Research Corporation, Inc., hold the possibility of
overcoming some of the disadvantages, but they have not
been demonstrated at high enough power levels and power
densities for submarine use. Whether either of these two
fuel cell options is possible or not will have to wait until
further development is done.
Under batteries, the author mentions “. . . if an appar-
ent fundamental cycle life problem can be overcome (Lin-
den 1984),” what is the problem? There are wide differ-
ences in performance available in the traditional battery
technology. It would have been useful if the author could
have pointed out that charging capacitylspeed, discharge
capacity and maintenance are quite different between man-
ufacturers of submarine batteries (Varta, Chloride, GNB)
for similar sizelweight. Especially important is to leave
sufficient battery capacity for expected submarine opera-
tions, where the battery is never discharged below twenty
percent, due to depth of discharge h t s , and usually not
below fifty percent, due to safe operating margins for
SSKs.
Since no actual design and layout of any submarine op-
tions has been done, it is difficult to assess the feasibility
of a particular submarine option. For example, providmg a
sufficient equilibrium polygon is difficult at the high endur-
ance level missions proposed. This is due to several rea-
sons, the variable ballast amount and arrangement for
reactants and oxidants, the stores loadout for long deploy-
ments, and accounting for the sea water density changes
for operation in missions from warm Mediterranean type
waters to low salinity arctic waters. The selection of an
May 1996 NAVAL ENGINEERS JOURNAL

AIP submarine displacement of 3200 tons is about correct
for the features stated, but making a high endurance non
nuclear AIP submarine any smaller does not seem possible
given the energy storage and conversion options available
today.
The h k between submarine pressure hull volume im-
pact and the volume required by the AIP is mentioned in
the paper’s text, but not in Table 1, rendering it unclear
what the impact would be and if it is sizable enough to
influence propulsion requirement. Table 1 would be im-
proved if density of the systems were offered. Weight and
weight distribution are critical design constraints in sub-
marines.
Operational Characteristics
There are a number of operational characteristics men-
tioned in the report that bear scrutiny. In an effort to be
concise, there may be too much room for misinterpreta-
tion in a few cases.
Shallow water is defined as - 100m. It is not uncommon
for a 300 foot SSK to negotiate waters less than 150 feet
deep, something that is a nerve wracking (especially in
busy waters), but a distinguishing, capability of the SSK.
There is no way that an eight day (or even a one day)
dived period will be possible without serious air punfica-
tion capability.
In the author’s introduction, he identifies some differ-
ences between the SSK and SSN. One that he does not
mention is that on patrol, the SSK on battery may be a
more quiet platform than the SSN. AIP in the SSK should
strive to preserve that goal while increasing the duration
between snorts.
The author does not place enough emphasis on the im-
portance of air purification. Air quality is often the limiting
factor in current SSKs for dived duration, and air purifi-
cation and control is a highly power-consuming and poten-
tially noisy activity that could have enough of a volume/
weight impact to affect the submarine design. AIP cannot
be considered in isolation of air purification. Canadian
Atomic Energy has demonstrated that low power nuclear
powered “plugs” may indeed be an attractive option for
SSK AIE
The author gives the impression that nuclear power
plants can be built to suit. This is an expensive proposi-
tion. Nuclear power plants are generally available in dis-
crete sizes. Identlrylng a perfectly balanced design that
requires a power plant somewhere in between the available
choices is an enormously expensive proposition.
Basis for Comparison
The paper appears to focus on a cost effectiveness of
various alternatives. This of course is extremely important
to those involved in the acquisition of submarines. For
NAVAL E N G I N E E R S J O U R N A L May 1996
Submarine Power Sources For the Mission
those that will operate them, other considerations are at
least as important.
The author touches on, but never quite states the im-
portance of indiscretion ratio for the conventional subma-
riner. In transit to the patrol area and while in the patrol
area, the ratio of time snorting to time fully submerged is
a decisive factor for success. In transit, it will be the
propulsion power requirements that drive the indiscretion
ratio, making high power output AIP equipment desirable.
However, in the patrol area where speeds are low, it is
often the hotel load that will dominate power consumption.
Consequently, the hotel load consumed by the AIP equip-
ment becomes a deciding factor. In fact, the optimum pro-
pulsion power to hotel load ratio, with respect to a given
energy storage amount, can be shown to be optimum with
Pl‘ropuls~on = 112 phdel load’
The author does not seem to consider the apparent
increase in risk that some alternatives seem to have. In
peacetime, conventional submarines can be struck by the
odd wayward practice torpedo and there are the occasional
bumps in the night to consider. The idea of traveling around
the ocean clad in toroids or other containers holding sub-
stances that are crucial to my well being sends shivers
down my spine. As a naval architect, I can accept that
shock calculations may show this to be an unwarranted
concern. As an operator that would have to take such a
ship into battle, I would require substantially more con-
vincing evidence. Such considerations must have an impact
on a Commandmg Officer’s decision making process, how-
ever slight, when considering courses of action in the heat
of battle.
Given the incredibly strict measures invoked when bat-
tery charging evolutions approach the (hydrogen) gassing
stage, the very idea that large quantities of hydrogen can
be camed without a significant impact on the submarine’s
crew and operations is questionable. Options that include
sizable quantities of pressurized oxygen or hydrogen are
nothing short of scary.
Acquisition costs are always an important factor, and
cost estimation at this level of design is always difficult.
There are many implicit factors, such as acoustic quieting
level, crew size, weapons loadout, ice hardening of super-
structure, to name a few Using generic, overall cost fac-
tors is generally inadequate, especially in determining cost
effectiveness, but is generally unavoidable for early stage
and conceptual design studies since little useful informa-
tion is available for open literature publication.
Operating and support issues now drive the Cost and
Operational Effectiveness Analysis that every program
must do. Parts, training, reliability, availability, maintain-
ability, footprint, noise, weight, and accessibility are a few
of the issues that should be considered when comparing
alternatives. Alternatives that show an overall life cycle
cost savings for a larger initial investment can be seduc-
tively attractive when they are not exposed to Net Present
141
Submarine Power Sources For the Mission
Value Analysis. Even a marginal discount rate will often
show that dollars spent later is more cost effective than
dollars spent at the outset.
Comparison Methodology
Since the targets and submarine performance estimates
are subjective, it is important in the discussion to describe
carefully the decision model used for the selection process
so that it can be verified by an interested reader. There
is insufficient information in the construction and imple-
mentation of the assessment model used.
The payload target is stated as being a function of op-
erating environment and transit range. This is true, but
the submarine can have only one payload and leaving it
broken down into two aspects creates assessment &fi-
culties. Perhaps stating this requirement as “the payload
target for a particular mission option is the maximum of
the two values between operating environment and transit
range” would be better. The same idea holds for the cost
estimation. In this way, perhaps the overall assessment
could have been done on a single level instead of across
two of them.
Without knowing the methodology used, the casual
reader cannot assess the fidelity of the results, which can
often suffer from problems such as inconsistent scalability
and commensurability The type of analysis performed is
from the field of multi-criteria decision making (MCDM),
using multi-attribute decision making (MADM) in partic-
ular [5b]. Many well known, standard techniques are avail-
able for implementation of MADM [lb,2bl, and none are
listed in the author’s reference list. In addition, the au-
thor’s method of selection of alternatives does not consider
that most of the options simply do not meet, or even come
close to meeting, many of the targets. This results in
many rankings that are not even feasible options, as they
do not come close to satisfying major requirements. Al-
though this is a very early pre-design stage assessment,
the target values should at least be close to being met in
order to consider a feasible option. For example, a sub-
marine for an arctic mission with an estimated snort cycle
of two, four, or twelve days, for a required snort cycle of
twenty-four days, does not deserve a ranking of any sort,
since this submarine clearly does not even approach meet-
ing the target.
An example of a formulation adapted from proportional
scores [lb] and a MADM model [2b] that accounts for
scalableness and commensurability is shown in Equations
(1) and (2). This formula allows the decision maker (DM)
to score an alternative within some acceptable range of
the target.
when values must be 2 minimum acceptable levels
142
when values must be 5 minimum acceptable levels
The F , are functions of the desired objective, such as
speed or acoustic noise goals. The limits for the F , are
also determined by the DM, the F , ilmtl values is the
minimum acceptable and the F , ufifiur is the maximum
,tn,r,
acceptable value. This formulation for the score, z,, has
two distinct advantages. Scalarization is not a problem
since the objective functions are normalized to a given
range. Commensurability is also not a problem because
the objective function units cancel from numerator to de-
nominator. To implement this scoring formulation, a stan-
dard weighted sum model can be used to assess the op-
tions, as in Equation (3).
k
1
P, = y c w ,.
fi , - I
where P is the score for the j”’ alternative
This formula yields a value of PI, that can be used to
compare the ranking of alternatives with various weights,
w,,attached to the different objectives. For example, the
acceptable lower limit on the goals could be selected to be
within thirty percent of the target. A maximum score of
1.0 is given to any objective that meets or exceeds a
target. A score of 0.0 is given to any objective that does
not at least come w i t h thirty percent of the target value.
Table 2-B shows the result of our analysis using the au-
thor’s values for target and performance, and our model
using thirty percent from target as acceptable and all
w,= 1.
In order to properly assess the options, only subma-
rines that come within the acceptable range for each ob-
jective should be allowed to be ranked. Thus only feasible,
as defined by coming within thirty percent of the targets
on all objectives, submarine alternatives are scored. Table
3-B shows the ranking of only feasible designs.
Note that the “feasibility of design” criteria severely
restricts the number of acceptable alternatives. This is
not to say that the other submarine alternatives are not
possible “real” submarines, it is just that they do not even
come close to meeting at least a minimum level of all stated
objectives. For example, many of the non-AIP submarines
should be mfeasible since they do not meet even seventy
percent of the target snort cycle. The larger submarines,
especially the nuclear options, should fall out of the low
range categories since the cost is too high. In general,
arctic snort requirements, long transit requirements, and
large endurance payload requirements make the nuclear
options the only feasible alternatives for long endurance,
high speed missions. Some marginal alternatives could be
reassessed by either relaxing target values or designing
submarine options that meet at least minimum acceptable
May 1996 NAVAL E N G I N E E R S J O U R N A L
 Submarine Power Sources For fhe Mission

TABLE 2-B
Results of the Weighted Sum Assessment Model
Range (nm)
500 1500 5000 12000
Coastal SSKB 3000 0.8864 AIP 3200 1.ooo AIP 3200 0.6955 SSN 5000 0.6806
AIP 3200 0.8750 AIP 1400 0.8958 SSN 5000 0.6458 SSKB 3000 0.6250
SSn 2000 0.8333 SSKB 1350 0.8750 SSN 3000 0.6261 SSn 2000 0.5833
AIP 1400 0.7708 SSn 2000 0.7697 SSKB 3000 0.6250 AIP 1400 0.5208
SSK 2400 0.7614 SSKB 3000 0.7593 AIP 1400 0.5913 AIP 3200 0.5000
SSK 1200 0.7614 SSK 2400 0.6343 SSn 2000 0.5833 SSK 2400 0.5000
SSKB 1350 0.7500 SSK 1200 0.6343 SSKB 1350 0.5705 SSKB 1350 0.s000
SSN 5000 0.6250 SSN 5000 0.6250 SSK 2400 0.5000 SSK 1200 0.5000
SSN 3000 0.6250 SSN 3000 0.6250 SSK 1200 0.5000 SSN 3000 0.4306
Regional SSN 3000 0.7788 AIP 3200 0.8750 SSN 3000 0.7799 SSN 5000 0.7831
SSKB 3000 0.7500 AIP 1400 0.8750 SSN 5000 0.7484 SSN 3000 0.5844
AIP 3200 0.7500 SSn 2000 0.7650 SSn 2000 0.5787 SSn 2000 0.5787
AIP 1400 0.7500 SSKB 1350 0.7500 AIP 3200 0.5705 AIP 3200 0.5000
SSn 2000 0.7307 SSKB 3000 0.6343 AIP 1400 0.5705 AIP 1400 0.5000
SSN 5000 0.7276 SSN 5000 0.6250 SSKB 3000 0.5000 SSKB 3000 0.5000
SSK 2400 0.6667 SSN 3000 0.6250 SSKB 1350 0.4455 SSK 2400 0.4167
SSK 1200 0.6250 SSK 2400 0.5509 SSK 2400 0.4167 SSKB 1350 0.3750
SSKB 1350 0.6250 SSK 1200 0.5093 SSK 1200 0.3750 SSK 1200 0.3750
Ocean SSN 5000 0.8750 SSN 5000 0.8750 SSN 5000 0.9432 SSN 5000 0.9306
SSN 3000 0.8472 AIP 3200 0.8750 SSN 3000 0.8483 SSN 3000 0.6528
SSKB 3000 0.7500 AIP 1400 0.8750 AIP 3200 0.5705 AIP 3200 0.5000
SSK 2400 0.7500 SSKB 1350 0.8750 AIP 1400 0.5705 AIP 1400 0.5000
AIP 3200 0.7500 SSN 3000 0.8472 SSKB 1350 0.5705 SSKB 1350 0.5000
AIP 1400 0.7500 SSn 2000 0.7037 SSn 2000 0.5000 SSN 2000 0.5000
SSKB 1350 0.7500 SSKB 3000 0.6343 SSKB 3000 0.5000 SSKB 3000 0.5000
SSN 2000 0.6250 SSK 2400 0.6343 SSK 2400 0.5000 SSK 2400 0.5000
SSK 1200 0.6250 SSK 1200 0.5093 SSK 1200 0.3750 SSK 1200 0.3750
Arctic SSN 5000 0.8750 SSN 5000 0.8750 SSN 5000 1.000 SSN 5000 0.9306
SSN 3000 0.7778 SSN 3000 0.8520 SSN 3000 0.8483 SSN 3000 0.6528
AIP 3200 0.6806 AIP 3200 0.8056 AIP 3200 0.5705 SSn 2000 0.5417
SSn 2000 0.6667 SSn 2000 0.7454 SSn 2000 0.5417 AIP 3200 0.5000
SSKB 3000 0.6250 SSKB 1350 0.6806 SSKB 1350 0.4455 SSKB 1350 0.3750
SSK 2400 0.6250 AIP 1400 0.6806 AIP 1400 0.4455 AIP 1400 0.3750
SSK 1200 0.6250 SSKB 3000 0.5093 SSKB 3000 0.3750 SSKB 3000 0.3750
SSKB 1350 0.5630 SSK 2400 0.5093 SSK 2400 0.3750 SSK 2400 0.3750
AIP 1400 0.5556 SSK 1200 0.5093 SSK 1200 0.3750 SSK 1200 0.3750

TABLE 3-B
Ranking of Feasible Submarine Alternatives
Range (nm)
500 1500 5000 12000

Coastal AIP 1400 0.7708 AIP 3200 1.oooo

SSKB 3000 0.7593
Regiona I SSN 3000 0.7789 SSN 5000 0.7831
SSN 5000 0.7484
Ocean SSN 5000 0.9432 SSN 5000 0.9306
SSN 3000 0.8483
Arctic SSN 3000 0.8520 SSN 5000 1.000 SSN 5000 0.9306
SSN 3000 0.8483

NAVAL E N G I N E E R S J O U R N A L May 1996 143

Submarine Power Sources For Vie Mission
values for the shortfalls, especially in cases where only a
single target is missed.
Overall, the trends indicated by Table 6 in the paper are
reasonable, with smaller, cheaper, non nuclear submarines
being better suited to close in, short duration missions,
and nuclear for long endurance, high speed missions. The
AIP options look like viable alternatives good in the mid-
range, but still regional missions. The author’s conclu-
sions may be skewed due to inadequate accounting of Net
Present Value, safety, air punfication, and operational con-
siderations such as indiscretion ratio.
Conclusion
Despite the seemingly large number of negative com-
ments, the paper is still considered to be an extremely
useful piece of work. The author went to great pains to
establish a method for fair comparison between a wide
variety of alternatives. We have presented alternative as-
sessments not to criticize the author’s efforts, but to pre-
sent possible validation of his results. Those that quibble
too loudly with the approach should be invited to do better.
Cost and Operational Effectiveness Analysis is a task that
is very hard, very time consuming, and liely to introduce
just as many other considerations that could be regarded
as questionable. The author is encouraged to continue to
investigate and report on submarine AIP propulsion sys-
tem developments and implement MADM methods in his
assessment.
REFERENCES
[lb] Clemen, R., Making Hard Decisions: An Introduction to
Decision Analysis, PWS-Kent Publishing, Boston, 1991.
[2b] Ray, T. and 0.E Sha, “Multicriteria Optimization Model for
a Container Ship Design,” Marine Technology, v.31, n.4,
October 1994.
[3b] Carmichael, A. D., “Submarine Propulsion Systems: An
Evaluation of Air Independent Propulsion Technologies,”
MIT Department of Ocean Engineering. Report Number
92-6, 1992.
[4b] Kerros, E , I? Leroy, and D. Grouset, “MESMA: AIP Sys-
tem for Submarines,” Proceedings of the Warship ’93 In-
ternational Symposium on Naval Submarines 4, Royal In-
stitute of Naval Architects, London, May 1993.
[5b] Vinke, E, Multicriteria Decision-aid, John Wiley and Sons,
New York, 1992.
AUTHOR’S REPLY
To Tom Goldsworthy:
My paper gives only brief coverage of alternative AIP
systems, in order to prepare the way for comparison of
different concepts of submarines. Cost is a major factor in
the comparison, but the scope for economic assessment
of AIP options, within this paper, is severely limited.
144
The system energy conversion efficiency (allowing for
any incompleteness of fuel or oxygen utilisation) is a cru-
cial, and sometimes contentious parameter in assessing
performance of AIP systems. In some cases (e.g. Tinney
and Hensler 1994), proton exchange membrane fuel cell
efficiency of seventy percent or higher, has been claimed
(some authors have even used the same figure for the
system efficiency). This value is correct at laboratory
scale, for low current densities, but falls to about fifty- to
fifty-five percent for practical fuel cell modules running a
full power, or fifty-five- to sixty percent for the same mod-
ules running at low load.
After allowance for reformer and purification system
losses (as heat and as discharge of unused fuel or oxygen),
for parasitic electrical consumption (pumps and hydrogen
delivery compressor) and power conditioning (voltage con-
trol for management of power-sharing with the battery,
over a representative profile of power use and battery
charge), I arrived at a net efficiency of forty-four percent
for a methanoVLOX fueled PEMFC system.
To ensure a fair comparison, it would be helpful if the
sixty-five percent efficiency, quoted for MCFC systems,
could be supported by reference to published experimental
data, preferably corresponding to a fuel cell module power
density in the range 10-100 kWim“. Distinction between
electrical generation efficiency and the credit for waste
heat recovery would also be useful, especially in the con-
text of the use to which the waste heat is put.
Phosphoric Acid Fuel Cells
Phosphoric acid electrolyte fuel cells have been demon-
strated on land, in the MW range, for long periods of
steady operation. The good feature of phosphoric acid fuel
cells is that their high temperature operation confers tol-
erance of fuel and oxidant stream impurities, especially
carbon monoxide. They may be used with direct supply of
reformat gas mixtures. Also, their operating temperature
is high enough for waste heat to be recycled to a methanol
reformer. However, they have many disadvantages for sub-
marine applications.
The electrolyte is solid at room temperature, and hy-
groscopic. Storage requirements are demanding, and a
very long, slow warm-up is necessary to reach the oper-
ating temperature. The corrosive electrolyte and high
temperature enforce the selection of materials, which are
rather brittle, and therefore difficult to protect against
shock.
The hot, concentrated phosphoric acid is capable of cor-
roding the carbon catalyst support, producing carbon diox-
ide, and of damaging the graphic bipolar plates. the cata-
lyst also degrades during operations, especially at the
higher temperatures required for good power density.
Efficiency is lower than for alkaline or polymer mem-
brane electrolyte fuel cells, although not unacceptably so.
May 1996 NAVAL E N G I N E E R S J O U R N A L

Phosphoric acid can migrate as vapour, although only
slowl~and would be lost to the product water over a long
period. The product water would still be drinkable, but
the phosphoric acid would hinder recycling of product
water for use in a reformer.
Power density of phosphoric acid fuel cells is generally
mediocre, although the most compact systems could be
acceptable in this respect.
It wdl be appreciated that no single problem rules out
submarine application of phosphoric acid fuel cells, but the
list of disadvantages is not encouraging.
Molten Carbonate and Solid Oxide
Fuel Cells
These very high temperature systems offer the prospect
of internal reforming, running on directly supplied metha-
nol vapour fuel. This avoids the heat losses, fuel and oxi-
dant losses, and electrical parasitic consumption of a sep-
arate reformer, purification and discharge/recycle system.
The overall system electrical generation efficiency would
be close to the fuel cell efficiency, although I would expect
this to be higher than the fuel cell efficiency of a PEMFC
system.
The concerns about operating temperature and man-
agement of warm up, cool down cycles are largely read
across from the more modest temperature PAFC system,
although I understand that MCFCs and SOFCs contain
brittle components which may be susceptible to thermal
shock. Since poor temperature control cannot degrade
platinum catalyst performance in MCFC or SOFC sys-
tems, reading across from PAFCs may have been inappro-
priate.
For use of diesel fuel (sulfur-free), an external reformer
will be required to prevent soot formation. However, the
acceptability of carbon monoxide as a fuel for MCFCs and
SOFCs avoids the requirement for a lower temperature
shdt stage to complete reforming, which is necessary for
low temperature fuel cell systems to run efficiently on
hydrogen derived from diesel fuel.
Mr. Goldsworthy points out that a sixty-five percent
efficient diesel fueled MCFC submarine could go almost
three times as far as a forty-four percent efficient methanol
fueled PEMFC submarine, per tonne of-fuel. Since the
volume of LOX storage is dominant, more emphasis should
be given to his calculations which show that a sixty-five
percent efficient diesel fueled MCFC submarine would
have a twenty-five percent advantage, per tonne of LOX,
over a forty-four percent efficient methanol fueled subma-
rine.
My statements on use of fuel cell power for air-breathing
transit are under the heading “MethanoliLOX Fuel Cell
Systems.”
System power density is the net electric power output
per volume, taking into account all fuel processing equip-
NAVAL E N G I N E E R S J O U R N A L May 1996
Submarine Power Sources For the Mission
ment, heat exchangers, waste product disposal equip-
ment, control systems and power conditioning systems,
and also taking into account space required for mainte-
nance and inspection access.
Development of air-breathg fuel cell systems using
diesel fuel would remove the fuel tankage disadvantage.
On Mr. Goldsworthy’s efficient figures, the efficiency dis-
advantage would also be overcome by MCFCs in an air-
breathing mode. I cannot comment specifically on MCFC
costs, but we are in complete agreement that use of com-
mercially mass-produced technology would be one of the
best ways to reduce costs.
To LCdr. Clifford Whitcomb, USN:
The agreement between our system size estimates is
generally pleasing, For the heat engine and MethanoliLOX
systems, the small differences between our estimates may
originate in my allowances for gangway and through ser-
vices volume, maintenance and inspection access and
structural volume, to achieve a total contribution to the
pressure hull volume. The HydrideiLOX figure is the vol-
ume required to achieve a total contribution to the pres-
sure hull volume. The HydrideiLOX figure is the volume
required to achieve neutral buoyancy of a mass-limited
system. The difference between our estimates is small,
and fair comparison between mass-limited and volume-
limited systems would, in any case, require comparison
of independently optimized submarine designs.
I have given a breakdown for the major contributions to
my estimate of the MLOX system volume. the most likely
sources of the discrepancy between our estimates seem
to be my thirty-three percent allocation for storage of fresh
and degraded electrolyte, and my twenty percent allocation
for empty space to facilitate cell handling for refueling by
replacement. There may also be a difference in the eight
percent minor contributions, which includes power condi-
tioning equipment (for voltage control and management of
power sharing with the main battery), and DC switchgear.
The hotel load estimate of 150 kW seems rather low. I
suggest 250-300 kW for an AIP submarine of about 3200
tons. This does not greatly affect the comparison of alter-
native AIP systems, but it is important to the comparison
of AIP with nuclear power. Some of this hotel load is for
habitability maintenance requirements which arise from
the long submerged endurance, including clearance of any
methanol vapour contamination from the submarine’s at-
mosphere.
Methanol is commonly transported in bulk by road tank-
ers, as is liquid oxygen. The logistic problems of LOX and
methanol appear to be manageable, and of similar nature.
The logistic advantages of diesel fuel do not apply to the
sulfur free grade (less than 0.5 ppm) required for reform-
ing. Use of low sulfur diesel for a system incorporating a
final stage of desulfurization may be possible, but some of
the sulfur compounds found in diesel fuel are not easily
removed.
145
Submarine Power Sources For the Mission
I am advised that internal reforming of diesel fuel in
MCFCs is not feasible, because of coking. External steam
pre-reforming of sulfur free diesel to methane, carbon
monoxide, carbon dioxide and hydrogen may be feasible,
at temperatures compatible with recycling of MCFC waste
heat to the pre-reformer. The low-temperature pre-re-
forming process has been demonstrated with kerosene,
over highly active nickel catalysts, but diesel fuel is much
more difficult to reform.
The comments about propulsion power, payload targets,
cost estimation and other requirements are part of a po-
tentially endless debate. There are so many alternative
viewpoints, that it is probably best to ask all interested
readers and members of the audience to form their own
views of the requirements and of the validity of the as-
sessment which I have presented.
I have given no credit to nuclear submarines for speed
and endurance in excess of the targets. However, I have
credited non nuclear submarines with some capability,
even when they fall well short of these targets. Table 4
146
presents the credits allowed for performance short of the
targets, for any given environment or range. The value
zero eliminates an options. Each entry in Table 5 is the
product of the corresponding environment and transit
credits given in Table 4. Many entries are clearly so low
that the option must be eliminated.
The use of a product of credits rather than a weighted
sum prevents accumulation of an excessive score by an
option with a single disquahfymg deficiency. This achieves
the same objectives as the method preferred by the reader.
Arguably, Table 6 could be made clearer by renormalis-
ation of the values, so that each combination of environ-
ment and range would have a top score of 1.0. +
REFERENCE
[16] Tinney, LCdr. M.D., and J. Hensler, “Efficiency and Power
Density Improvements in Electric Propulsion Systems,”
INEC 94 Cost Effective Maritime Defense, RNEC Mana-
don, Plymouth, UK, 31 August-2 September 1994.
May 1996 NAVAL ENGINEERS JOURNAL