Quantcast
Channel: Submarine & Other Matters
Viewing all 2347 articles
Browse latest View live
↧

Philippines may buy Russian subs and Thais buying Chinese

January 26, 2017, 8:33 pm
$
0
0
A gradual submarine arms buildup is continuing among Southeast Asian countries. Southeast Asian countries already owning submarines include Singapore, Indonesia, Malaysia and Vietnam. This buildup also marks strengthening preferences for China, away from the traditional US ally.

The main impetus seems to be China providing soft loans and projects in Southeast Asian countries along with provision of sophisticated weapons at low prices. Possible new Southeast Asian buyers of submarines include:

-  Thailand. Reuters, January 25, 2017, reports. “Thailand's military government has approved
    [US$380 million] to buy a [Yuan derived S26T] submarine from China...Thai officials said [on
    January 25, 2017]. Relations have been strengthening between China and America's oldest ally in
    Southeast Asia, particularly since ties with the United States cooled after [the US criticised
    Thailand’s] 2014 coup.”
    =  see the whole Reuters article, also
    =  see Submarine Matters March 25, 2015article on new submarines for Thailand.

and

-  the Philippines. Update Philippines, January 26, 2017, reported: [Philippines Defense] Secretary
    Delfin Lorenzana said the country is now evaluating Russia’s offer to sell the Philippines some of
    its advanced diesel-electric submarines....[the Philippines is] determining whether Kilo submarines
    are]essential for the modernization needs of the Armed Forces of the Philippines and whether the
    country can afford to acquire and maintain such an expensive weapons platform...Six Russian-
    made Kilo-class submarines are now being operated by Vietnam People’s Navy [just across the
    South China Sea from the Philippines]...The Armed Forces of the Philippines is expected to
    acquire its own...submarines under the AFP Modernization Program which is now entering the 2nd
    Horizon (2018-2022)..." See whole Update Philippines article

China is also well positioned to sell likely even cheaper Yuan derived S20 and S26 to anti-US President Duterte's Philippines.

Pete
↧
Search

Stray magnetic fields undersirable in submarine lead-acid battery use.

January 29, 2017, 11:31 pm
$
0
0
Electrical currents in a submarine’s electrical equipment, especially in its batteries, can induce stray magnetic fields. Above are used batteries at main battery supplier to Collins submarines, PMB Defence. Each battery cell weighs about 3 tonnes, is about 1.5m high and a metre wide. The entire battery weight for a Collins is about 450 tons [150 cells] (Photo courtesy overclockers forum. Comment #9).
---

In a Comment on 26/1/17 10:24 PM an Anonymous advised, along the lines:

Electrical currents in a submarine’s electrical equipment, especially in its batteries, can induce stray magnetic fields. Such distortions of the electro-magnetic field can lead to magnetic anomaly detection (MAD) of a submarine. MAD detectors may be frequently present in seabed arrays and on the tail booms of ASW patrol aircraft.

It is therefore important that diesel-electric submarine maintenance in port and during missions minimizes stray magnetic fields. This is partly achieved by arranging the contents of the submarine (especially batteries) for magnetic minimization. Another measure is degaussinga submarine’s iron, especially in its hull, before a mission.

A major way to minimize a stray magnetic field is be achieved by partial cancellation of magnetic field through “alternative arrangement of two battery modules with an opposite current loop. So, for the n-row by m-column array of battery modules, n and m are even numbers, and for the submarine with two battery sections, m is multiples of four.”

Existing lead-acid batteries may function by being closely packed in modules [1]. Such an arrangement doesn’t need pedestals (which can form a rigid structural base of a battery) and this minimizes stray magnetic fields. No pedestals also have the benefit of lowering the center of gravity. The lower the center the lower the chance of battery shaking, vibration and, in extremis, falling over.

Alternatively, lead-acid battery arrangements may use pedestals because this benefits battery installation and maintenance.

But discussion of precise battery arrangements is a highly confidential area for which there is little open source information. So one cannot be sure how diesel-electric submarine building and customer countries arrange their lead-acid batteries.

[1] see Page 11.2 (Figure 11.01 Battery compartment – typical arrangement) and Page 11.16 (Figure 11.06 Arrangement of cell group water cooling connections) of this Canadian Forces (CF) Oberon class (“O boat”) Training Notebook (Electrical). This Notebook would have been based on UK Royal Navy and Vickers original information. Notebook is decades old now and used to be classified “RESTRICTED” http://jproc.ca/rrp/rrp2/oberon_battery_and_electrical.pdf(about 10MB)


Also see very detailed battery comments at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oberon-class_submarine#Propulsion_systems.

BACKGROUND

The Japanese Ministry of Defence Standard NDS F8016B concerns “General rules for design of equipment with small stray magnetic field”, 5.3”Arrangement of main batteries for submarine” which specifies that submarine is generally equipped with 240 directly connected cells as a group. 

Flowing from NDS F8016B Japanese lead-acid battery arrangements might adhere to the following rules:

i) width of each column of cell module should be the same.  (240 = 20 columns x 12 cell modules) was decided based on these rule. In this case columns of 20 satisfies rule. 

ii) numbers of each column are desirably multiples of four or must be at least an odd number (20 = 4 x 5) and number (12) of cell module in a column satisfies rule 

iii) desirable numbers of cell modules in a column are multiples of four. (12 = 4 x 3). Logically speaking, if the rules are satisfied, other arrangements such as three groups of 24 columns or four groups of 16 columns are possible.

iv) polarity cancellation of a pair of neighbouring columns should be conducted by cross connection of these columns, and so on.
↧
↧

Visit to HMAS OTWAY Holbrook (Oberon) Submarine Museum

January 30, 2017, 10:22 pm
$
0
0
HMAS OTWAY at her Holbrook home.
---

In the first of Pete's long distance submarine quests he travelled 100s of kms into Australia's semi-desert to visit a huge (in its time) Oberon class submarine. For submarine junkies, historians, kids and everyone else this Oberon class submarine is HMAS OTWAY - Holbrook Submarine Museum. In the 1990s the top half of OTWAY was cut up and trucked from its former operating base (at HMAS Platypus), in Sydney Harbour, 500 kms southwest to the small town of Holbrook, New South Wales. Holbrook is halfway between Australia's two largest cities, Sydney and Melbourne, just off Australia's busiest "Hume" highway. 

Australia’s Oberon class“O boats” were highly successful from the beginning. Reasons for that success included:
-  use of an evolved, design (with few vices and good diesels) based on 60+ years of British
   submarine design, 
-  strong influences of the captured (and revolutionary) German Type XXI U-boats, and
-  from before WWI Australian born "British" officers and crew serving for decades, in war and
   peace, in the UK Royal Navy (RN) submarine service. This included Aussie service in Oberons,
   before Oberons the RN Porpoise class, further back WWII V class, 1930s T class etc. 

See vital information and statistics about OTWAY and Oberons at
http://holbrook.nsw.au/AboutHolbrook/Attractions/HMASOtway/tabid/416/Default.aspx

See Submarine Matters' December 16, 2013 article for brief details of (then) secret Oberon exploits, including OTWAY's - at Australian Oberon Submarine Intelligence Gathering . Also see.

THE HOLBROOK STORY


This 2014 youtube tells of Commander Holbrook VC's exploits, The Museum growing Oberon collection, Gundula Holbrook's hologram, and much more.
---


In the pamphlet information below the Holbrook Museum describes how Oberon submarine, HMAS OTWAY, got there, the steadily expanding exhibit of the insides of an Oberon submarine, full of analogue gauges and systems http://mgnsw.org.au/organisations/holbrook-submarine-museum/:

“Our prize exhibit is a genuine WW II “Jolly Roger” flag from a British submarine, it is one of only three dozen world-wide that remain from over 300 British and Australian submarines that operated in time of war.

We have the original above water line superstructure of the Oberon Class submarine HMAS OTWAY set within beautiful parkland.  Also a large scale model of Lt. [later Commander] Norman Holbrook VC's submarine B11.

We have recently completed re-building HMAS OTWAY’S original Wardroom (Officer’s quarters) in front of our control room within the Museum. The 7 original masts [periscopes, snorkel, antennas, radar] are back on the Otway with the Radar mast rotating during daylight hours.

In the museum you will see the extraordinary Hologram in which [Holbrook’s widow Mrs Gundula Holbrook, interestingly of Austrian birth, hence German accent!] tells the  fascinating story of her husband’s brave exploits on [HMS] B11 in 1914 and the subsequent town's name change [from the unpopular, in WWI, name "Germanton" to "Holbrook"]. The theatre seats forty and is wheel chair friendly. You will see an original torpedo tube with a torpedo mounted, two rooms full of interesting artefacts and information.

Then to finish (without having to go under water) you will enter the main passage from HMAS OTWAY and be able to sit in the officer's wardroom and experience what it would be like to live in a submarine. You may look through the periscope to see 360 degree views of Holbrook and take as many photos as you like.

On the way out there is a photographic exhibition showing how the Otway was transported and re-built here in Holbrook. Then don't forget to sign the guest book!”

Pete
↧

Duterte invites China to patrol southern Philippine seas shared with Malaysia & Indonesia

February 1, 2017, 10:25 pm
$
0
0
COMMENT

Over the last 24 hours Philippine President Duterte has exceeded even Trump's best brainstorms by inviting Chinese ships to patrol the Philippines southern shared seas against pirate, Islamist and separatist activities. Major problems with Duterte's invitation include:

-  Chinese patrols would also be close to, or in, Malaysian and Indonesian claimed waters in the still 
   unnegotiated Tri-border area.
-  Undersea oil exists nearby, especially in the Malaysia versus Indonesia disputed Ambalat parcel.
-  Duterte's invitation to China may therefore increase regional (territorial and oil claim) tensions
   between the Philippines, Indonesia and Malaysia and with China. 
-  any Chinese ships patrolling would act as a potential wedge-threat against Australian shipping
   lane trade and strategic connections with southeast and northeast Asia. 
-  even though only Chinese Coast Guard vessels might do the patrolling. The long range "Coast 
   Guard" ships are armed and weigh up to 12,000 tons like destroyer-cruisers (see photo below).
-  Where the Chinese Coast Guard goes the Chinese Navy (PLAN) may back it up and follow it. 
-  Chinese Coast Guard aircraft, based in the region, may be next.
-  Duterte's invitation comes at a bad time of rapidly decreasing US international and Asia-Pacific
   regional popularity triggered by Trump.

Dutertes February 2017 suggestion basically invites China to patrol seas in the still unnegotiated "Tri-border area". This includes seas the Philippines shares with Malaysia (Sulu Sea) and with Indonesia (Celebes Sea) (Map above courtesy Stratfor). 
---

ARTICLE

Here is a small part of Kinling Lo of the South China Morning Post's, February 1, 2017, article: 

“China ‘likely to agree to Duterte’s request for anti-piracy patrols”

...China is likely to agree to Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte’s request to sending sea patrols to help stop growing crime by Islamist militants along the southern coast of the Philippines.
Duterte said earlier in a speech to newly promoted Filipino generals that he had asked China to “patrol the international waters without necessarily intruding into the territorial waters of countries” in the southern waters of the island country in response to abducting sailors and attacking vessels in waters off the southern Philippines.

...Zhu Xin, associate professor at Beijing’s University of International Relations, believed China would again make a supportive gesture by agreeing to Duterte’s request.
“It is obvious that China feels positive about Duterte,” Zhu said. “Furthermore, China would probably consider the terrorist problem a regional one rather than only considering its relations with the Philippines.”

...Xu Liping, a researcher at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, shared the view that it was “highly possible” that China would respond positively to the deal as it had already cooperated with other Asian countries like Malaysia to fight terrorism.
See whole Kinling Lo, South China Morning Post, article.

BACKGROUND - Chinese "Coast Guard" Ships

China is building and converting very large "coast guard" ships that are more tools of long range regional power projection. Participating in patrolling southern Philippine water soon may be Chinese Coast Guard (CCG) ship 2901. This is one of China's largest coast guard ship class, along with sister ship 3901, displacing 10,000-12,000 tons. Built in a Shanghai Jiangan Shipyard by China Shipbuilding Industry Corporation (CSIC). For photo and comments see China Defense Blog more details in Popular Mechanics. 

China is also modifying modifies 2,000 ton Type 053 frigates into coast guard ships, including CCG 1002 and 1003. Globasecurity lists several classes of CCG ships of different tonnages - all carrying the "Hai Jing" prefix which could be translated as "Chinese ship" . 

Pete
↧

February 2017 Report: Germany’s Joint Submarine Order Won the Norwegian Order

February 6, 2017, 3:36 am
$
0
0
Germany's and Italy's Type 212 in action. Soon Norway will join the exclusive 212 owners club!
---


Hi Donors

I've just emailed Submarine Matters'February 2017 Report:Germany’s Joint Submarine Order Won the Norwegian Orderout to you, as a WORD attachment. Please check your spam bin if you don't see it in your IN box.

Regards

Peter Coates
Director
Submarine Matters International
↧
↧

Lack of Swedish Success Selling Submarines to Scandinavia and Poland, Japan?

February 10, 2017, 2:40 am
$
0
0
Pete distributed Submarine Matters' Report to Donors, Germany’s Joint Submarine Order Won the Norwegian Order on February 6, 2017.

ONEIL PADILLA’S COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS

 After reading it this Report ONeil Padilla offered some comments and questions:

1. “The Norwegians chose well but not hardly surprising because of their History with Germans subs has been a very positive one."

2."I still think the Swedes are chance with their A26 for Poland because SAAB are throwing in everything into it, even local construction as an incentive."


3.  "Could the Dutch go Japanese? SAAB once again teamed up with Damen to get leg up or some interest in their A26 design from the Dutch.”

PETE'S RESPONSE 

1.  Indeed the Norwegians have long been customers for German built submarines:

-  This goes all the way to three A-class subs built in Germany and delivered to the Royal Norwegian
    Navy in 1914. 

-  Germany has continuously supplied subs to Norway since 1964 when Norway began
   commissioning West German Kobben class. Norway later resold some Kobbens to Denmark
   and Poland.

-  The German Ula class to Norway 1989 - present.  

2.  Sweden has not supplied many subs to its fellow Scandinavian countries or Poland. Sweden did
     lease a Nacken class to Denmark for four years. Sweden has done much better selling used subs to
     Singapore and the new Collins to Australia.

The Scandinavian Viking class project in which Sweden would likely have been main designer collapsed in 1990s-2000s.

The A26 built by Sweden's SAAB-Kockums would likely be very expensive because it is a wholly new design and Sweden has only two orders, for the Swedish Navy itself. The A26 would therefore have difficulty competing with the established TKMS 212A (known as the Todaro class in Italy) design. 

Ten 212As have been built and 4 more are planned (2 each for the German and Italian navies). With Norway's initial indication it will buy 4 this means 18 x 212s. This provides increased economies of scale, resulting in lower costs/lower price.

The main reason for lack Swedish success in European sales seems to be NATO alliance (see Members) political solidarity, push to equipment standardisation and multi-decade strength of Germany's submarine industry:
-  Sweden's neutrality rather than joining NATO doesn't help Sweden.
-  Finland, though neutral, won't buy subs from anyone.
-  for submarines the great power political pressure and price competition from Germany and France
   towards European buyers seems stronger than the much smaller Swedish government and
   economy's

The NATO reason especially impacts Poland as Poland realises it is too geographically close to the common enemy of NATO, which is Russia.

3.  NATO country, the Netherlands would also likely buy from a NATO regional alliance country. Japan offers the Netherlands no equivalent regional alliance reason to buy from Japan - a Asia-Pacific power Japan.

Another reason why NATO countries buy from NATO exporters is equipment interoperability concerns. This includes having complex weapons systems (eg. German and future Norwegian 212s) with similar performance characterists under the usual joint command scenarios.

See Kevin's comments recorded in this September 7, 2015 article which seem to indicate the Netherlands may tend to buy subs from Germany.

BUT, Japan builds good submarines of the size the Netherlands may be interested in. If Japan offered subs for competive prices and terms Japan may have a chance.


Pete
↧

China adopting Lithium-ion Batteries (LIBs) for Submarine

February 13, 2017, 12:08 am
$
0
0

China's 335 kg WB-LYP10000AHA Lithium-ion Battery (LIB) being developed for (or already in) China's 2nd batch of Yuan class submarines. China is also marketing this battery to Russia, presumably for Russian Kalina submarine use.
---

The Yuan class (Type 039A or 41) diesel-electric submarine. The first Yuans probably have Stirling AIP (and almost certainly standard lead-acid batteries).
---

The Japanese Navy (JMSDF) appears to be the first navy that will openly and operationally use Lithium-ion Batteries (LIBs). However China is likely to have carried out extensive trialling and assessment of LIBs mainly on converted Song class submarines. China might also be testing LIBs on Yuan class submarines in addition to the Yuan's Stirling AIP.

It is significant that China's Winston Battery company (aka Everspring or Thunder Sky) has been developing Lithium-ion Batteries (LIBs) for submarines. Chinese marketing of LIBs at: "Winston Battery WB-LYP10000AHA in large submarines"states at 
http://gwl-power.tumblr.com/post/106634862416/winston-battery-wb-lyp10000aha-in-large :

"The technical information gives some ideas about the size of the battery pack for the Yuan-class of diesel-electric submarines to be equipped with an air-independent propulsion system (AIP) powered from large battery banks. 

The battery pack consists of 960 pcs of the WB-LYP10000AHA  cells making the total energy of 31 MWh. The lithium battery is saving some 260 tons of weight against the original lead-acid pack. With this pack the Yuan-class (B-class) diesel-electric submarine can drive 3,300 nautical miles or it can stay under water for 800 hours (33 days). This indicates the average onboard consumption of the submarine when not moving is some 38kW/h. Posted 2 years ago." 

See more details at Submarine Matters article of February 5, 2016 Chinese Yuan Submarines to use Lithium-ion Batteries (LIBs).

On possible Russian development of LIBs for submarine see Submarine Matters China into Lithium-ion Batteries (LIBs) for Submarine - Can Russia Keep Up? of February 2, 2016.

Tomorrow I will publish many details, provided by anonymous sources, on Japan's LIB's for submarine. 

Pete
↧

Possible Arrangement of Lithium-ion Batteries in Japanese Submarines

February 13, 2017, 7:28 pm
$
0
0
Diagram of possible shape of a Lithium-ion Battery (LIB) for a Japanese submarine. Note its 8 cells are in blue. This is from a January 2017 article on wispywood2344’s blog, http://blog.livedoor.jp/wispywood2344/archives/2017-01.html .
---

Submarine Matters makes a feature of charting the development of Lithium-ion Batteries (LIBs), and other technologies, in Japanese submarines. The Japanese Navy (JMSDF) is very likely to be the first navy that will openly and operationally use LIBs. This will first be in Japan's first Soryu Mark 2 submarine (known as 27SS, Build no. 8126, Pennant no. SS-511) see SORYU TABLE. 27SS might be commissioned in 2019-2020 or later.

If Japan successfully uses LIBs for years, with few problems, Japan’s Western submarine competitors (Germany’s TKMS, Sweden’s SAAB-Kockums and France’s DCNS) may also develop LIBs for use from the late 2020s.

As Australia’s future DCNS Shortfins will have an almost completely new electrical system (along with most of its other internal fittings) the Shortfin might be one of the first diesel-electric (conventional) submarines to be built around LIBs. Australia therefore could rely on LIBs to provide extended, fully submerged, range. In support of this contention is the fact Australia never publicly expressed interest in AIP for its future submarines under the SEA 1000 selection process.

Japanese testing of LIBs technology may have occurred on one, two or all three Harushio classsubmarines that were converted to trainings submarines and then perhaps propulsion testbeds. Those three submarines were renumbered TSS-3606, TSS-3607 and TSS-3601 (see Harushio “Vessels” Table). It is even more likely that Oyashio class TSS-3608 was partly converted to a LIBs testbed.

Commentsmade anonymously, 21-28 January 2017 indicate that LIB arrangements are very difficult to know with any certainty:

From the published information available it is difficult to work out how old Lead-acid Batteries (LABs) were moved around in a submarine. LIB moving arrangements are even more difficult to guess.

Suggested Model

The arrangement of LIBs in a future Japanese submarine is aimed at promoting safety and efficiency. The heavy LIBs module (weighing 770kg) shown in the diagram above must be securely anchored on a pedestal. This anchoring may take place as follows.
-  First, a battery module consisted of 8 single cells (see diagram), where the bottom two positions
    are empty, is placed on the pedestal.
-  Next, the battery module is anchored to the pedestal by bolts using the bottom empty positions.
   After anchoring a battery module, 2 single cells are fixed in the bottom two positions. That is why
   the bottom two cells seem to be convertible spaces.
-  Further provision for anchoring may be:
   =  more spacing outside the modules, including an accessible central aisle on the keel
   =  the LIBs' front facing the aisle, and
   =  a 6 by 6 row of LIBs arranged in clusters on each side of the aisle.

Perceptions Supporting Model 

In support of the above anchoring model is Japanese Industrial Standard (JIS) For LIBs Installation In Surface Ships. One of the requirements for installation is ”battery systems shall be anchored to robust structural elements of the ship by bolts and nuts.”

Also significant are pictures of prototype LIBs of the Japanese Navy (JMSDF) which clearly need a firm installation process. But any positions/holes for bolting outside of the battery module are not apparent. This strongly suggests bolting is conducted inside and at the base of the battery module. Adequate space for bolting is needed - then two single cells can be placed at the bottom of the module.

Batteries on pedestals have the downsides of a higher center of gravity (maybe increasing vibration and top-heaviness) and may expand any stray magnetic field. But mounting LIBs on pedestals has the benefits of providing better access for installation, maintenance and removal.

One should qualify the above comments on LIB arrangements. The comments are reliant on published sources and Japan’s first fully LIB submarine (27SS, see SORYU TABLE) hasn’t even been completed yet.

What Is Known About Old LAB Arrangements Offers Little Help

Looking at a reference of LAB arrangements on old Oberon submarines suggests ambiguity about how batteries are placed or removed. This may or may not take place using both vertical and horizontal hydraulic jacks [1]. Then, there is no the pedestal for LABs. Also battery modules for LABs are arranged in a fully closed packing manner. Whether LIBs use the same arrangement is an unknown.

[1] old Canadian C.F.’O’ CLASS SUBMARINES (TRAINING NOTEBOOK ELECTRICAL) provides detailed information on LABs in Oberon class (aka "O boats") subs, used by Canada, Australia and, of course the UK (designer and builder) etc, see: http://jproc.ca/rrp/rrp2/oberon_battery_and_electrical.pdf [about 5 MB] In particular seePage 11.26. Where it states: “C. Cell Lifiting Gear: Sick [that’s what it says!] cells are removed from batteries by cell lifting gear . Each submarine carries its own lifting gear.” also see:
-  Page 11.2 (Fig.11.01 Battery compartment – typical arrangement) and
-  Page 11.16 (Fig.11.06 Arrangement of cell group water cooling connections)

What We Can Conclude About Japan’s New Submarine LIB Arrangements From 2020 Onwards

First, it has taken a long time to develop LIBs and great deal of effort toward establishment of their safety and reliability. A modern quality control system, utilising a theoretical approach, assisted by computer simulations, provides guidance on any potential for battery failure and helps predict average battery life. But, these theoretical results still need validation through practical use and experimentation, which takes time.

Second, converting a battery system, from traditional LABs (used for up to 120 years by submarine countries) to LIBs, is a difficult process. This replacement process includes:
-  elimination of LABs’ safety ventilation system and water cooling system,
-  total conversion of electrical system (including totally new wiring, switches and
   battery/electrical control computers, etc)
-  installation of the LIBs' safety gas cylinder and piping for fire extinguishing system, and
-  as a submarine's batteries in total weigh hundreds of tons re-balancing the whole submarine is
   necessary, partly achieved by rearranging some fuel and buoyancy tanks. 

So, it is preferable to build a new submarine design (like the DCNS (future) Shortfin) around LIBs rather than retrofitting LIBs in a LABs submarine.

By Anonymous sources and Pete
↧
Search

Already a submarine named TRUMP

February 14, 2017, 10:47 pm
$
0
0
President Trump the Tweeter would be unaware that a successful submarine carried his name. Above is the Trump submarine badge/coat of arms. Note the sails and hull of the Trump "Ship of State" on top of the badge (Artwork courtesy Wikipedia). 
---

HMS Trump in 1945 before major upgrades (Photo courtesy Wikipedia)
---

The heavily converted HMS Trump in Sydney Harbour 1961 after many UK "Super-T" (GUPPY like) changes (Photo courtesy Flickr)
---

President Trump has not had to wait for a US nuclear propelled carrier or SSBN to be named after him, because there's already been a submarine named Trump.

I speak, of course, of UK Royal Navy HMS Trump which was launched in 1944 and presciently named "Trump" 2 years before The Donald's actual birth in 1946. HMS Trump was one of a relatively large class (for Britain) of  "T" or "Triton" class submarines mainly built in WWII.

HMS Trump mainly served from Fremantle, Western Australia, 1944-45 in the Asia-Pacific war against Japan. In four patrols in 1945, north of Australia, Trump sunk a Japanese guardboat, a sailing vessel, two coasters, a tanker, a cargo vessel and an army cargo ship.

After the war Trump continued on in a RN submarine squadron stationed in Sydney Harbour.  Trump received UK "Super T" (similar to GUPPY style) upgrades inspired by the revolutionary design of captured German Type XXI submarines. See the dramatic change (above) between Trump’s "old T" 1945 appearance and Trump's streamlined "Super-T" 1961 exterior.

Trump was scrapped in the UK in 1971. Hence a submarine with a successful war service, from Australian bases, accidentally carries the name of:

A.  America's top Reality TV Star, Twitter Star, Wrestlemania Guru, Professional Billionaire
      Boss and part-time President, 

OR 

B.  maybe that of a Superior Card.

The UK HMS Trump's career shows that there are other powers Australia, did, can, or could, rely on. The US should not take Australia for granted as a loyal servant.

If the Trump Administration runs two rustbelt-white driven terms and Trump continues his failing  "performance" and "leadership" in:

-  foreign
-  defence, and
-  intelligence

policy arenas there are other countries that Australia might need to rely on.

Half of Southeast Asia (eg. the Philippines) is steadily looking to China.

China is Australia's main trade partner that has already bought the Port of Darwin.

Pete
↧
↧

British Submarine Nuclear Reactor Firm’s Nuclear Links With China

February 15, 2017, 11:27 pm
$
0
0
Drawing from a World Nuclear Newsreportof February 14, 2017:  Having recorded a loss of $5.7 billion in 2016 Rolls-Royce saw itself as fortunate that it is expanding its nuclear reactor ventures with China. Rolls-Royce’s nuclear business made a difficult 2016 more manageable through growth of its nuclear business of 11% year on year to around $970 million ("£777 million"). "There are"encouraging opportunities" in the UK and China in particular, alongside its nuclear submarine activities, the company said on the release of its 2016 financial results."

"[Rolls-Royce] has also announced closer strategic collaboration with China National Nuclear Corporation [CNNC], including engineering and training services. "The Chinese market is expected to sustain strong growth and we are well-positioned with relevant technology," it said." 

On August 8, 2016 the UK Guardian newspaper reported that Nick Timothy, co-chief of staff, to the UK Prime Minister, Theresa May“has previously expressed alarm at the prospect of CNNC having such close access to the UK’s energy infrastructure because it would give the state-owned firm the potential ability to build weaknesses into computer systems.

[CNNC] was formerly China’s Ministry of Nuclear Industry and developed the country’s atomic bomb and nuclear submarines...Timothy singled out CNNC’s military links as a reason the UK government should be wary of such involvement.”


"The Rolls-Royce pressurised water reactor (PWR) series has powered British nuclear submarines since the Valiant class, commissioned in 1966. The first British nuclear submarine, HMS Dreadnought, was powered by a Westinghouse S5W reactor.

... Three propulsion options were considered for the successor to the UK Trident system – [the Rolls-Royce] PWR2, PWR2b (a PWR2 derivative with improved performance), and PWR3.[9] [the Rolls-Royce] PWR3 is a new system based on a US design but using UK reactor technology.[10] Both PWR2b and PWR2 would cost roughly the same but PWR3 is a simpler and safer design with a longer life and lower maintenance requirements than the PWR2 variants.[9]"

COMMENT

Was Nick Timothy’s "alarm" well based, baseless, or now silent? After all businessmen are taught to place security higher than financial bottom lines.

Although Rolls-Royce is clearly in need of revenue we outside the US are confident that, Chinese Walls within Rolls-Royce, will prevent any leakage of Rolls-Royce’s [“based on a US design but”] extremely sensitive submarine reactor technology.
↧

Two types of Japanese Lithium-ion Batteries Being Considered

February 16, 2017, 9:22 pm
$
0
0
The video "Why Japan’s Soryu Class Submarines Are So Good "Black Dragon" was published on Oct 3, 2016. See it being launched in video, numbered SS-506. Good on Soryu specifications, modifications for Australia, and strategic value for Japan generally.
---

Submarine Matters is not the only website writing about Lithium-ion Batties (LIBs) for submarine. Gordon Arthur, Asia-Pacific Editor for Shephard Media, wrote an excellent article in Shephard Media “Japan leads way with Li-ion submarines”.

That article features LIB performance and comparative information provided by Vice Admiral (Retired) Masao Kobayashi (see photo and career biodata). He is the former commander Japanese Navy’s Fleet Submarine Force. He spoke at UDT Asia (Singapore, 18 January 2017). Kobayashi’s information confirms the superiority of LIBs information provided by Anonymous sources to Submarine Matters over the last two years. New information in Gordon Arthur’s article includes:

27SS TO BE COMMISSIONED MARCH 2020

Japan's first LIB submarine, [that would be the first Soryu Mark 2, 27SS, under construction at MHI see SORYU TABLE] will be commissioned in March 2020 (no lead-acid batteries (LABs) or AIP.

THERE ARE TWO LIB TYPES FOR JAPANESE SUBMARINES

Kobayashi believes that there is no clear single lithium-ion solution as a submarine main battery with future submarines being optimised with different power source. Two LIB types for Japanese submarine use are available:

Lithium nickel cobalt aluminium oxide ( LiNiCoAlO2 ) known as “NCA”manufactured by GS Yuasa. For main traits scroll quarter way down at. The JMSDF will use NCA-type batteries. es. Kobayashi advised for mobile operations, for example, NCA batteries and diesel may be ideal.

and

Lithium-titanate ( Li4Ti5O12 ) known as “LTO”,from Toshiba. For main traits scroll a third way down at,. Kobayashi believes LTO types were offered to Australia for its SEA 1000, Future Submarine proposal. an ambush submarine would operate better on fuel cells, LTO and diesel.

Kobayashi advised the lowest-cost option may be LTO and diesel.

JAPANESE RESEARCH/TESTING OF SUBMARINE LIBS and AIP

Japan's LIBs research began in 1962. The first LIB for submarine was ready in 1974 but did not meet requirements (including cost). Fuel cell AIP technology was not yet mature so Japan turned to Stirling AIP. From 1991-97 (Stirling?) AIP was (land tested?) before being installed into a Harushio-class(probably JDS Asashio TSS-3601) submarine in 2000-01 for trials.
“Meanwhile, tests on Li-ion batteries continued to the point that the JMSDF asked for a Li-ion-powered Soryu-class boat [27SS] in its FY2015 budget request.”

SEE GORDON ARTHUR’S WHOLE ARTICLE HERE
 -------------------------------------------------------------

PART OF SUBMARINE MATTER’S OUTPUT ON SORYU PRICING, ENINEERING, MARKETING AND TACTICS INCLUDES:

January19, 2017http://gentleseas.blogspot.com.au/2017/01/lithium-ion-battery-arrangements.html

October 28, 2016 http://gentleseas.blogspot.com.au/2016/10/japans-lithium-ion-batteries-libs.html

August 30, 2016 http://gentleseas.blogspot.com.au/2016/08/japanese-submarine-tactics-combat.html

March 16, 2016 http://gentleseas.blogspot.com.au/2016/03/japanese-submarine-evolution-stronger.html

March 11, 2016 http://gentleseas.blogspot.com.au/2016/03/potential-soryu-problems-recalculations.html

March 9, 2016 Inside the Soryu Submarine, Rare Diagram, Photos and Translationshttp://gentleseas.blogspot.com.au/2016/03/we-all-live-in-black-gray-submarine.html

And many more at http://gentleseas.blogspot.com.au/search?q=soryu

Pete
↧

Update on Australia’s SEA1180 Offshore Patrol Vessel (OPV) selection process

February 19, 2017, 11:37 pm
$
0
0
Damen's OPV 1800 (Artwork courtesy Damen) is a possibility for Australia's Offshore Patrol Vessel (OPV) competition. Damen also offers the OPV 1800 Sea Axe and the 90m Sigma class. Damen has been shortlisted by Australia  - as have Fassmer and also Lurssen.
---

Australia’s SEA1180 future Offshore Patrol Vessel (OPV) selection process continues to steam ahead.  It was first announced April 18, 2016. A 30 November 2016 Media Release announced a Request for Tender (RFT). Government requirements have been stressing:

-  the three shortlisted designers should devise Australian Industry Capability Plans to team up with
   Australian shipbuilders. Hence the designers are teaming:
   =  the Netherlands' Damen with Civmec
   =  Germany's Fassmer, with Austal, and
   =  Germany's Lurssen (a report February 18, 2017 that Lurssen) may team up with BAE Systems)
-  use of Australian made steel for the hull is important
-  probable displacement may be up to 2,000 tonnes

-  the order is for 12 vessels, which will begin with two built in Adelaide from 2018 and ten in
   Western Australia from 2020 (this looks messy!).

The OPVs will be used for border protection and other missions of greater range/endurance than the existing, smaller 300 tonne Armidale class patrol boats. The Armidales have suffered from aluminium hull crackingaround the engine spaces, partly due to much greater use on illegal immigrant search than anticipated. Hence the new OPVs will have steel hulls.

Glorious photo (courtesy Cotecmar) of a Fassmer 80 OPV . Also a 90m OPV is a possibility.
---

A Lurssen (or Luerssen) OPV-80. Some are already in our region in the Royal Brunei Navy (Darussalam class). There are also Lurssen OPV 85s and OPV 90s (Photo courtesy pinterest).
---

The ambitiously tight selection and production deadlines may slip. Production in Adelaide (just two) and Western Australia (ten) also looks uneconomic and problematic.

New OPVs of up to 2,000 tonnes, replacing the old ones of 300 tonnes, will represent a major increase in RAN border protection capabilities. The emphasis will likely be on carrying illegal immigrants, over long ranges and a helicopter for reconnaissance/search and rescue, rather than carrying missiles for combat. 

Pete
↧

Performance Table, Lithium-ion Batteries (LIBs) vs Lead-acid Batteries (LABs)

February 21, 2017, 12:58 am
$
0
0
From Anonymous’s comments on February 12, 2017.

Anonymous estimated performance for a submarine that will have new Lithium-ion Batteries (LIBs) no AIP – see Table 1. The first such submarine can be called a “Soryu Mark 2” (see Table 2) and it is designated 27SS which is likely to be launched between October and December 2017.

Anonymous, in Table 1, then makes a traditional Lead-acid Batteries (LABs) only (no AIP) comparison. Japan’s Oyashio class (launched 1996 to 2006) were Japan’s last submarines that were LABs only. The Oyashios preceded the LAB-AIP Soryu Mark 1s (see Table 2).

LIBs/LABs Comparative Table 1.

Submarine/Measure
LIBs only Soryu Mark 2, eg. 27SS
LABs only Oyashio class
Nominal voltage per unit battery-module [1]
36V
[only 2V?]
Max submerged period at 4 knots [2, 3]
7 to 9 days
3 to 3.5 days
Standard submerged period at 4 knots [4]
6 to 8 days
1 to 1.5 days
Standard period at 18 knots (within a longer mission submerged)
3 to 4 hours
1 hour
Recharge times over 60 day mission
8 to 10 times
40 to 60 times

[1] Values are based on various pieces of data for LIBs and LABs. LIB-modules and LAB-modules are connected in parallel (series) for generating voltage of nearly same the magnitude.

[2] Data for LABs is based on various simulations of submarine propulsion.

[3] Data for LIBs is based on comparison with data for LABs.

[4] As complete discharge shortens the life of batteries, I assume 90% of LIBs are discharged and 30% of LABs.

SORYU-Oyashio TABLE 2 (as at February 21, 2017)

SS
No.
Build No
Name
Pennant
No.
MoF approved amount ¥ Billions & FY
LABs, LIBs, AIP
Laid Down
Laun
-ched
Commi-ssioned
Built
By
5SS Oyashio
8105 Oyashio
SS-590/ TS3608
¥52.2B FY1993
LABs only
 Jan 1994
Oct 1996
Mar 1998
 KHI
6SS-15SS
Oyashios
10 subs
8106
-8115
various
SS-591-600
¥52.2B per sub
FY1994-FY2003
LABs only
 15SS Feb
2004
15SS
Nov
2006
15SS
Mar 2008
 MHI
&
KHI
16SS
Soryu Mk 1
8116
Sōryū
SS-501
¥60B FY2004
LABs + AIP
Mar 2005
Dec 2007
Mar
2009
MHI
17SS
8117
Unryū
SS-502
¥58.7B FY2005
LABs + AIP
Mar 2006
Oct 2008
Mar
2010
KHI
18SS
8118
Hakuryū
SS-503
¥56.2 FY2006
LABs + AIP
Feb 2007
Oct 2009
Mar
2011
MHI
19SS
8119
Kenryū
SS-504
¥53B FY2007
LABs + AIP
Mar 2008
Nov 2010
Mar
2012
KHI
20SS
8120
Zuiryū
SS-505
¥51B FY2008
LABs + AIP
Mar 2009
Oct 2011
Mar
2013
MHI
No
21SS
No 21SS built
22SS
8121
Kokuryū
SS-506
¥52.8B FY2010
LABs + AIP
Jan 2011
Oct 2013
Mar
2015
KHI
23SS
8122
Jinryu
SS-507
¥54.6B FY2011
LABs + AIP
Feb 2012
Oct 2014
7 Mar 2016
MHI
24SS
8123
Sekiryū
SS-508
¥54.7B FY2012
LABs + AIP
Mar 2013
2 Nov 2015
Mar? 2017
KHI
25SS
SS-509
¥53.1B FY2013
LABs + AIP
22 Oct 2013
12 Oct 2016
Mar? 2018
MHI
26SS
8125
SS-510
LABs + AIP
2014
Oct-Nov
Mar 2019?
KHI
27SS First
Soryu Mk 2
8126
SS-511
LIBs only
2015
Oct-Dec 2017
Mar
2020
MHI
28SS  Second
Soryu Mark 2
8127
SS-512
¥63.6B FY2016
LIBs only
2016?
2018?
Mar 2021?
KHI
29SS First of
New Class
?
?
¥76B FY2018
LIBs only
?
?
2023?
MHI?
Table courtesy of exclusive information provided to Submarine Matters. LABs = lead-acid batteries, AIP=air independent propulsion, LIBs=lithium-ion batteries. ¥***B = Billion Yen.

Anonymous and Pete
↧
↧

China - foreign Submarines & UUVs transiting South China Sea Must Surface

February 21, 2017, 11:59 pm
$
0
0
China has, unilaterally claimed "water areas" or "territorial waters" of the South China Sea within its "Nine dash line". (Map courtesy GeoGarage).
---

In an excellent post that will create headaches for the US, Japanese and Australian navies, Chinese state media, Ecns.cnreports February 15, 2017 China may soon redraft its 1984 Maritime Traffic Safety Law to require:

“Foreign submersibles [ie. submarines and UUVs must] travel on the surface, display national flags and report to Chinese maritime management administrations when they pass China’s water areas”. Such waters are understood to include the South China Sea.

China’s Global Times adds:


“Foreign military ships that are approved to enter China's waters should apply for pilotage. Foreign ships that enter Chinese waters without approval will be fined 300,000-500,000 yuan ([US]$43,706-72,844) and those violating Chinese laws would be expelled, it said.”

COMMENT

China's $73,000 fines may be very reasonable compared to an SSK's or SSN's hourly running costs. Attention Commanders! Take wads of cash or don't leave home without your American Express cards.

Pete
↧

Philippine Navy - Acquiring New Ships Armed With Missiles and Torpedos

February 23, 2017, 8:46 pm
$
0
0
A South Korean HHI HDF-3000 frigate which carries missiles and torpedos, The Philippines is buying two. (Photo courtesy rhk111's Military and Arms Page)
---

The Philippine Navy’s (PN’s) recent interest in acquiring submarines from Russia (Kilos) or maybe China (S20s or S26s) should not be seen as a passing urge from a mere gun only second hand navy. Any future submarine purchase can be seen in the context of the PN’s new trend of paying serious money for new vessels armed with missiles.

In the last few years the PN has bought:

A.  3 x multi-purpose attack craft (MPAC) Mk. 3s, These patrol boats (coming from Israel around June 2017) are being armed with Spike-ERmissiles with a 8 km range. The Spikes have roughly the weight and range of Hellfire missiles.

B.   much more substantially a contract (for a total of US$337 million) was concluded October 24, 2016 for 2 new frigates,which are derivatives of the HDF-3000 design. These are being built by Hyundai Heavy Industries, South Korea and are scheduled for delivery starting 2019. These frigates will carry (see and wiki's right sidebar) SAMs, Harpoon like SSM-700K Haeseong anti-ship missiles and lightweight torpedos.

C.  The PN will also mount Spike-NLOS missiles on its soon to be received AW-159 Wildcat naval helicopters. Also LWTs can be mounted. These helicopters could operate from:
-  the 3 old cutter-frigates
-  the 2 new build frigates, 
-  the new 11,583 ton, Tarlac class landing platform docks (LPDs) - see the photo below, or
-  air bases in critical places like Palawan Island which borders the highly contested Spratly Islands in
   the South China Sea.


The Philippine Navy is gradually catching up to navies of its neighbours and resource competitors, Malaysia and Indonesia. Greater naval friction between these neighbours is likely as the potential prices of contested undersea oil-gas, and even fish, rise.

The Philippine Navy's new 11,583 ton Tarlac class LPDs can carry helicopters armed with missiles and LWTs. (Photo courtesy Miguel de Guzman via philstar GLOBAL).  

Pete
↧
Search

Midlife Overhaul for Dutch Submarines - Operational to 2025

February 26, 2017, 11:11 pm
$
0
0
A Walrus class submarine moving quickly. At 2,450 short tons (surfaced), 2,800 tons (submerged), with a crew of 49 to 60 - in Europe the Walrus is a uniquely large SSK class.
---

A 25 February 2017 commentfrom Kevin has prompted me to write two updates on:
-  Dutch Walrus class submarine overhauls (below), and
-  later this week Dutch submarine replacement issues and requirements.

The issue of overhaul or replacement of the Netherlands 4 Walrus class submarines, launched between 1985 and 1992, has been long discussed in Dutch naval and political circles. Originally the Walrus class were designed to operate for just 25 years (until around 2015). 

But the Walruses have operated mostly in shallow coastal waters (shallow immersion cycles). Hence the physical demands (contraction and expansion of the steel hulls causing metal fatigue) have been less than originally expected. Possibly the Walruses have been mainly used for signals monitoring as they are too slow for hunter-killer duties, chasing SSNs, SSGNs and SSBNs. The Walrus class  operating life has therefore been increased to 35 years, allowing the subs to remain in use until at least 2025.

The Walrus mid-life overhaul is known as the Capability Upkeep Program (CUP) [in Dutch 1]. The CUP overhaul program began in mid 2014 starting with His Netherland Majesty's Ship (HNLMS)Sealion [1]. Overhauls will continue until 2020. The CUP has also been called the Life Extension Program (LEP).

The overhaul includes:

-  modernising sensors, such as:
   = new sonars allowing the sub to draw closer to the coast (aka “near shore”) to gather intelligence.
      The suite includes a Mine and Obstacle Avoidance Sonar by ELAC Nautik.
   = New optronics masts [1] from L-3 KEO permitting sub to quickly see 360 degrees around itself,
      with less risk of discovery tan a periscope or older optronic. The new optronics suite includes a
      thermal imaging camera [1] providing HD footage both day and night. Optronics allow very sharp
      images to be visible on a screen for most in the sub's command center (not just one viewer's old
      periscope eyeball).

-  upgraded weapons including new software and other equipment for the Mark 48 torpedos, moving
   and them from current mod-4 standard to mod-7 CBASS.

-  command and combat systems and communications,
   = including a super high frequency (SHF) satellite communications system allowing messages to
      the submarine from Dutch naval headquarters or NATO Defense Networks, and
   = improved operating software for most systems (likely much work will be by Lockheed Martin).

-  refurbishing, strengthening and de-rusting the pressure hull

Later this week I’ll comment on the Walrus replacement program (yet to be approved by the Dutch Parliament) and on likely requirements and builders of a Dutch future submarine.

[1] these sites are in Dutch. For a PC mouse - right click mouse - then you will see Translate to English - translation may take 20 seconds. 

Pete
↧

German, French, Spanish, Reformer Fuel Cell AIP, Japanese LIBs

February 28, 2017, 3:35 am
$
0
0
Advanced French AIP proposal. “Simplified” Layout of Diesel Fuel Processing Equipment (Diesel Fuel Autothempermal Reformer – SOFC). Layout and description courtesy Bakst Engineering.
--- 


INTRODUCTION

The following is the section on AIP within an excellent article The Driving Factor In The SEA 1000 Choice The Submarine Propulsion Chain by submarine expert Rex Patrick, from Sydney, Australia. This was on pages 40 to 44 of the October 2015 issue (Volume 41, Number 8) of the Asia-Pacific Defence Reporter (APDR). APDR is an excellent magazine provided by subscription.

It was written before the Australian Government’s 26 April 2016 SEA 1000 decision in favour of the French DCNS Shortfin – but the article's comments on AIP still appear accurate.

Significantly the article is also published on the Siemens' website here. 

Pete has bolded for emphasis some words in the following AIP section and also added footnotes [1] and [2]. The footnotes indicate that the AIP section is still current and accurate. Japan and Lithium-ion Batteries (LIBs) are also discussed towards the end.

ARTICLE

AIR INDEPENDENT PROPULSION

The primary purpose of an AIP system is to convert stored reactant energy into electrical energy for the submarine’s main battery and to do so independently of the surface atmosphere. It provides little benefit during transits but is invaluable when operating slowly within an operational area.

TKMS will almost certainly offer Australia a reformer/ FC solution. Being a large submarine, it will demand two reformers and four 120 kW FCs.

The first element of TKMS’ AIP solution is a Methanol reformer that extracts hydrogen from methanol and feeds it directly into the FC. Methanol is selected because of its worldwide availability, high hydrogen content, low reforming temperature (250°C), reformation ease and high reforming efficiency (80 to 90%). LOX is also used in the reforming process. Sub-system waste is pressurised CO2 which can be discharged to sea down to full diving depth. The reformer is packaged in an enclosure with its own special ventilation system for cooling.

Each reformer is capable of producing enough hydrogen to supply two fully loaded 120 kW cells. It removes the need to store hydrogen on board, which is problematic from a supply availability and refuelling complexity perspective, and is also difficult on 2000+ tonne submarines because of the weight of the hydrogen’s metal hydride storage bottles.

The reformer has a two to three hour start-up time. Operationally, the idea is to start it up in the patrol area in block periods where AIP can be exploited, potentially for weeks on end, dependant on the amount of reactant stored on board.

The reformer has been in development since 1995 and a test site has been in operation for a decade, with FCs connected to it since 2010. A reformer suitably packaged for installation on board submarines is currently undergoing set-to-work in Kiel. Whilst the reformer has not been fielded on a submarine yet it is at the test bed state and therefore it attracts a low SEA 1000 project risk label.

Moving to the FC, TKMS will offer the second generation Siemens 120 kW Polymer Electrolytic Membrane (PEM) FC. The PEM FC works by feeding standard industry-grade LOX and high purity hydrogen into the cell which generate electricity in response. It does this silently and at a low temperature (80°C). It is different to a battery in that it stores no charge; it simply generates electrical energy so long as the reactants are fed into the cell. The cell is extremely (fuel burn) efficient at between 50 and 70%. Its ‘waste’ outputs are potable water, which is fed into holding tanks, and (1%) oxygen, which is fed into the submarine’s atmosphere to assist in maintaining breathable air during prolonged AIP dived periods.

The FC has been under development by Siemenssince the early eighties. It was first trialled on a German Type 205 test submarine in 1988 and then contracted for supply into the German and Italian Type 212 program. The first production FC went to sea in 2002 and it is now a very mature system at sea on 24 submarines, meaning it is a minimal project risk component of the German SEA 1000 solution.

The reformer/FC system meets all of the fundamental requirements of an AIP system; high efficiency, silent, low magnetic signature, light and compact, generates no pollution or heat, reliable, relatively easy to maintain and requiring no additional operating personnel.

Public domain information shows DCNS have abandoned their MESMA AIP solution on the Pakistani Agosta 90s and will use a diesel reformer/FC solution on the Shortfin Barracuda. [No supporting detail seen to date.]

It is interesting that the German Defence Department funded TKMS starting in 2007 to conduct a methanol vs diesel reformer comparison, because the diesel reformer approach would negate the need for storage of an additional fuel, methanol, on board the submarine. TKMS built a small 10 kW diesel reformer to support the study. The study conclusions were instructive. The diesel reformer was less efficient because diesel has a hydrogen to carbon ratio of only two to one, whereas methanol has a hydrogen to carbon ratio of four to one. The diesel reformer also needs to run at around 850 degrees which implies heat inefficiency as compared methanol. The higher temperature also means a longer start-up time than the methanol reformer. Finally, unless the diesel carried by the submarine is sulphur free, and standard diesel is not, the required sulphur purifier at the reformer output would likely take up considerable space (as big as the reformer itself). The idea was abandoned.

As to the French FC, it appears as though two options are on the table; a PEM or Solid Oxide FC (‘SOFC’) type. If a SOFC is chosen, noting they offer good energy conversion efficiency, long life and operating cost advantages, other drawbacks need to be addressed. Most of these drawbacks relate to the high 600 to 1000°C operating temperature which brings hot exhaust issues and brittleness related shock resistance problems.

Novelty, complexity and uncertainty put this solution’s inclusion in the French package as high risk. Even if the technical challenges of the diesel reformer and FC are solved, the enemy of the DCNS development will be schedule. DCNS are believed to have started their reformer/FC work back around 2006/7 and announced it as a future solution in 2008 as part of their SMX 24 concept design. [1] It is instructive that the Germans have developed and perfected their reformer/FC solution over four decades. It is also worthy of note that the Spanish have had issues with their S-80 submarine ethanol reformer/FC solution and have announced that the first S-80 will now be fitted-for-but-not-with AIP.[2]

The Japanese will not offer up an AIP solution, rather fill any potential AIP space with additional Li-Ion batteries. It is believed this decision stems from their experience with the inefficiency of the Swedish origin Stirling AIP solution. All things considered with respect to reported Stirling engine maintenance overheads and the lack of differential between the Stirling energy density and the Li-Ion energy density, the decision is likely valid.

However, the energy-density differential between the DCNS and TKMS FC and the Japanese Li-Ion’s is large, giving the Japanese solution a poorer indiscretion ratio than the Europeans’ FC approach. It is known that the Japanese originally approached TKMS about adopting their FC AIP solution, but the adoption of the German technology was problematic for two reasons; firstly, the reformer necessary for the larger Soryu submarine was not mature at the time and TKMS/Siemens were not inclined to transfer knowledge of what they considered to be the ‘crown jewels’ of their submarine program. Whilst Li-Ion may have advantages in transit situations, which is why the French and Germans have Li-Ion as part of their solutions, the FC provides the advantage where it really counts; in the operational area. Whilst an all Li-Ion Japanese solution may have advantages with respect to transiting, it means little if the boat is then sunk upon arrival in its assigned patrol area.

FOOTNOTES

[1] The possibility of French DCNS progress is recorded in a DCNS article of 13 October 2016 for Euronaval 2016: “FC2G AIP – Fuel Cell: Second-generation Air-Independent Propulsion. DCNS has developed the 2nd generation AIP system using fuel-cell technology. FC2G AIP provides the best possible dive autonomy in total safety and easy support.”


[2] Spain's problems are covered in IHS Jane’s article of 24 January 2017, which indicates: “Spain's first S 80-class submarine will not be fitted out with [AIP] as development of the system will not be ready in time, according to the admiral in charge of Maritime Action (Almart)...He also said he was not sure which of the four new boats would be the first to be fitted with the AIP system.”
↧
↧

Dutch Submarine Talks With TKMS & Kockums, not with DCNS.

March 2, 2017, 12:53 am
$
0
0
If TKMS were selected by the Netherlands to build a new Dutch submarine its size is likely to be between the 2,000 tons (surfaced) Type 218 and the 3,000 ton (surfaced) DSX-3000 that TKMS is likely designing for South Korea (diagram above) and Israel (what I call the Dolphin 3).
---

Kevin has provided unclassified information on Dutch Submarine Walrus overhaul and replacement matters for the last two years, Kevin’s thoughtful comment 1 of 25 February 2017 prompted me to write:

-  Midlife Overhaul for Dutch Submarines - Operational to 2025 of 27 February 2017, and

-  I’m also using Kevin’s 25 Feb comment 1, his followup 1 March 2017 comment 2 and other background to write about Dutch Walrus submarine replacement issues. 

The Dutch Government continues informal talks with Germany and Sweden on Walrus submarine replacement issues. Surprisingly there was not the previous firm resolve from Dutch naval high command that replacement subs be built in the Netherlands. 

The Midlife OverhauledWalruses will likely operate to 2025 and the last may operate until 2031.

A replacement submarine program may be influenced by the following timeline:

-  15 March 2017 Dutch General Election
-  June to August 2017 formation of a new government
-  if there is no replacement submarine program authorisation then the Dutch Navy would start
   dismantling the Submarine Service in 2027
-  but if the Dutch Cabinet authorises replacement formal talks with potential foreign governments
   and company partners can begin in 2017
-  2018 continuing discussion with foreign partners and with major component contractors (eg.
   combat systems, weapons, sonar suites, submarine launched UUVs, etc)
-  2020 onwards sign major contracts
-  2027 launch first New Dutch Submarine (NDS).

Likely Foreign Company Partners

TKMS and/or SAAB Kockums

- “With Germany and Sweden you can more easily negotiate to modules and
    packages for your systems and software, so you options are wider.” 
-  “What [I, Kevin] personally think is that the NDSs are going to be a German build with modules
    and packages from Sweden.”

"Not DCNS"

-  “No, not France...It's hard to break in the France defence industry [that makes customization of 
     hardware for the NDS difficult - see original words].
-  “France is open to make a bid but will have a low chance.”

The Netherland’s shipbuilder Damen "will get in the same time period mega orders totalling 16 ships (12 minehunters and 4 frigates) from the Belgian and Dutch governments so Damen will have its hands full."

“Japan is [“cool” OK] but not an option.”

European country (eg. Dutch) policies favour selection of weapons from:
-  European Union (EU) members (eg. Sweden, France and Germany), and
-  NATO countries(eg. Germany, France and the US, but not Sweden).

Earlier Reports From Kevin's Comments 

-  http://gentleseas.blogspot.com.au/2015/02/sweden-and-netherlands-replacement.html

-  http://gentleseas.blogspot.com.au/2015/07/netherlands-needs-new-submarines-quickly.html, and

-  http://gentleseas.blogspot.com.au/2015/09/poland-contemplating-joint-submarine.htmlsee
   KEVIN’s BACKGROUND

Kevin and Pete
↧

Australia's Electricity Crisis Rapidly Worsening - Higher Aged Death Rates

March 2, 2017, 5:56 pm
$
0
0
Sources of energy in eastern Australia in 2015-2016. In South Australia the "gray" gas power stations have more recently been switched off, taking too long to restart. This has made South Australia dependent on unreliable wind and solar. When these renewable sources fail (causing major blackouts to heavy industry about once a month) South Australia is depedent on Victoria's increasingly high-in-demand/hence expensive, base-load power stations.  (Graph above and Map below courtesy  Australian Energy Regulator/Operator via LCKE)

Submarine Matters is not completely tied to subs, surface ship ""skimmers" or even jets. Energy sources are worth commenting on.

THE ENERGY PROBLEM

Poor energy planning in the State of South Australia caused critical blackouts in that State during storms, heatwaves and other regular events in 2016/2017. These crises were caused by South Australia's closure of reliable base-load power stations and then over-reliance on massively subsidised  but unrealiable, renewable power stations (chiefly solar and wind).

Former Prime Minister Abbott's energy renewable comments (voiced 23 February 2017) are certainly justified by the facts [1]. Australia's pathetic "energy leadership" will cause hypothermia, increased respiratory diseases and higher death rates among the aged in southeastern Australia during the southern Winter (June to September this year).

The latest threat to southeastern Australia's electricity supplies is the closure soon of Victoria's Hazelwood Power Station [2]. Via major electricity cable extensions the renewable junky, South Australia, is also dependent on Hazelwood.

Hazelwood supplies up to 25% of Victoria's base load electricity and more than 5% of Australia's total energy demand [3].

Hazelwood is definitely closing by the end of THIS MONTH - 31 MARCH 2017. Multi-state blackouts won't be immediate but will impact 2 months later, in June 2017.

June will see very cold, still nights:

- with longer nights there is less solar generating daylight, and

- cold still air means windpower won't work

- dropping temperatures means more strain on the closure depleted base load power.

- prices for all baseload electricity as well as home oil and gase will jump by 30% over 18 months.

Under these conditions there will be greater "load shedding" ie. short term planned blackouts, especially during the coldest nights:

- starting with the renewable junkies of South Australia

- then the halfway coverted junkies of Victoria

- SA, Vic and Tasmania will need rely on the baseload power stations of Liberal NSW to feed them
  some power, but at unsustainably high prices.

As I've said after Hazelwood's closure there definitely won't be enough power to run heaters in the homes of poor, vulnerable and old. These people cannot afford sufficient insulation or afford sharply increasing energy prices.

WHAT SHOULD BE DONE

Both sides of Australian politics have failed to take action to improve the energy situation. This situation might only be improved by building new coal power stations (like China and India) to operate in the next 5-10 years. Australia, for the first time should also build nuclear power stations (in the next 10-20 year time frame) following Japan's and Canada's long held strategy.

[1] http://tonyabbott.com.au/2017/02/transcript-hon-tony-abbott-mp-remarks-launch-making-australia-right-mlc-building-miller-street-sydney/

[2] http://www.news.com.au/finance/business/mining/hazelwood-power-station-to-close-in-march-2017/news-story/12941ae68e41c0a4d05d5824bf1b3e3a

[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hazelwood_Power_Station

I wonder if Japan, Germany and the US suffer from similar renewable madness?

Pete
↧

Australian Growler Jamming Aircraft to Work With Australian F-35s

March 5, 2017, 9:06 pm
$
0
0
Diagram courtesy of bring_it_on's post [of 28th April 2014, 13:17] at Aviation Forum.
---

COMMENT

Like SeaWeb there is what I call a Western "AirWeb" in which jamming aircraft,  F-35s and new production line F-22s (available, from the mid 2020s, to those Western allies who bought the F-35) will play principal roles.  

The F-35 (and Western fighter-attack aircraft for the last 50 years) have been part of a war winning sensor platform network. The F-35's can surprise enemy aircraft opponents and ground targets even more thoroughly with Growler and other jamming platforms (above) including use of jet powered UAVs which blind enemy sensors. Satellites, X-37 spacecraft, submarines and UUVs might also form part of the F-35's support network. 

Aerial conditions are no longer WWII "dogfighting" which prized such technical qualities as tight turning and raw speed as well as a pilot's superior hand-eye coordination. From the Arab-Israeli wars (including this 2007 raid) through Vietnam and the Gulf Wars Western jamming networks have been crucial in the reduction of Western losses while winning air campaigns. 

Submarine Matters (originally) in 2007 at http://gentleseas.blogspot.com.au/2007/10/suter-jamming-our-good-guys.html described the Israeli "Suter" jet based jamming which made possible Operation Orchard, an Israeli airstrike against a suspected weapons reactor site in Syria. This Operation played a part in the thinking behind combining aerial jamming with the F-35.

To work with jammers Australia is buying a total of 72 F-35As. F-35s constitute an improved way to utilise the jamming and broader Western "AirWeb" electronic networks now available.

As described below Australia has bought 12 EA-18G Growler electronic warfare (jamming) aircraft to be based at Amberley, Queensland (map below) from mid 2017. 

DEFENCETALK ARTICLE

The Australian Department of Defence (DoD) reported March 1, 2017 via defencetalk.com:

[at the Avalon, Victoria Airshow Australian Defence] Minister Payne said...“The Growler can disrupt military electronic systems, such as radars, to protect personnel and improve situational awareness,”
...“Australia is the only country outside the United States flying the EA-18G Growler...”

The Chief of [the Australian] Air Force, Air Marshal Leo Davies, said the Growler was a vital part of Air Force’s evolution to a future fifth-generation Air Force.

“The EA-18G Growler will operate as part of our networked and integrated force, capable of sharing electronic intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance data with other aircraft, as well as with the Army and Navy.

“The Growler is powerful and flexible. It can undertake a range of non-kinetic tasks, ranging from jamming, to blocking radar displays, and suppressing an adversary’s air defence system,” Air Marshal Davies said...” See whole defencetalk.comarticle.

F-35 basing in Australia. See map larger. (Courtesy Australian DoD via Defense Industry Daily.
---


Pete
↧
Viewing all 2347 articles
Browse latest View live
Search