Likely China Protest Japan's Submarine Assistance to Taiwan During Abe's State Visit to China

October 2, 2018, 11:32 pm

≫ Next: Polands Future Submarine Project: Competition could be close.

≪ Previous: Taiwan's Submarine Project: Confirmed and Unconfirmed Details

$

0

0

On September 29, 2018 an Anonymous commented.

Will President Xi raise [Japan’s submarine assistance to Taiwan] when Japan’s Prime Minister Abe visits China around October 23, 2018?

This is at a time Abe is pushing for a rapprochement with China as a leverage against the US’s imminent tariffs on Japanese cars and components. Also Japan wishes to counter US pressure upon Japan to open its agricultural markets (a strategic electoral issue in Japan). 

How is Abe going to respond to Xi?

On defense matters, Abe cannot deny that he knows nothing, or cannot do anything, about [MHI and KHI] retirees looking for jobs as contractors on Taiwan's submarine project.

Geopolitically, [this Anonymous] has doubts on the staying power of Japanese or South Korean submarine technical assistance to Taiwan when China starts pressuring those countries. 

---

Polands Future Submarine Project: Competition could be close.

October 3, 2018, 5:00 pm

≫ Next: Japan has Launched the World's First Large Lithium-ion Battery (LIB) Submarine

≪ Previous: Likely China Protest Japan's Submarine Assistance to Taiwan During Abe's State Visit to China

$

0

0

On September 29, 2018 Anonymous commentedon TKMS Type 212A and Type 212CD submarines:

For potential customer Poland's "ORKA" submarine - the competition between the TKMS Type 212CD and Saab A26 may be tight on price and other criteria.

The TKMS Type 212A and Type 212CD (“Common Design”) are Baltic Sea-specific small submarines. [2 x Type 212CDs have been ordered for the German Navy and 4 x Type 212CDs for the Norwegian Navy].

The Type 212A and 212CDs have non-magnetic steel alloy hulls. Judging from its composition the 1.3964 Austenitic chromium-nickel stainless pressure hull steel for the Type 212A is very expensive.

Costs of Type 212CD and Sweden’s [Baltic specific?] A26 are similar. Norway may pay a total of US$1.81 billion for its 4 x Type 212CDs according this National Interestarticle. This article is very interesting, as it indicates the adoption of volunteer system for the German Navy submarine service has led to a lack of crew. This has made German submarine fleet semi-dysfunctional [with only three trained crews for its six [212A] submarines!”].

In comparison Sweden is paying a total of US$0.945 billion[March 2015 dollars] for its 2 x A26s submarines. [Submarine Matters reported a slightly higher total of US$1.04 billion (June 2015 dollars)]. Maritime Today [cited by Wiki reports that] on 18 March 2015 Sweden’s A26 project was restarted after the Swedish government placed a formal order for two A26 submarines for the Swedish Navy. 

Anonymous and Pete

Japan has Launched the World's First Large Lithium-ion Battery (LIB) Submarine

October 5, 2018, 12:55 am

≫ Next: Different Weights and Prices of LIB and LAB Batteries on Soryu Submarines

≪ Previous: Polands Future Submarine Project: Competition could be close.

$

0

0

Thanks to Anonymous for providing much of the following information on October 4, 2018.

Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI) in Kobe, Japan on October 4th, 2018 launched the world's first large (full sized) submarine that utilises Lithium-ion Batteries (LIBs). LIBs are an advance on the traditional lead-acid batteries (that have powered conventional submarines world wide for over 100 years). 

This new Japanese submarine has been given the name Auspicious Dragon (translatable as Oryū) [1]. 

More Detail 

In this conventional "diesel-electric" submarine its diesel engines charge the batteries. Once the submarine is fully submerged these new Lithium-ion batteries can turn the electrical motor (then propeller) [for 8 days?] before recharging by diesels is required again.

This new Japanese submarine is of the Soryu class and carries submarine number 27SS (see TABLE below). Its pennant number which will be on its fin/sail when in port is SS-511. It began being built ("Laid Down") in 2015 and may be commissioned into the Japanese Navy in 2020. It weighs 2,900 tonnes (surfaced) and about 4,200 tonnes (submerged) and is 84m long. 

Unlike previous Soryu submarines it carriers no Stirling Air Independent Propulsion (AIP) equipment. Hence it does not suffer the weight/volume disadvantages of carrying two large AIP [40 tonne?] liquid oxygen (LOx) tanks and does not use dangerously explosive hydrogen gas in its AIP process. Instead it carries a greater tonnage of more efficient Lithium-ion Batteries for improved range (in nautical miles) and "endurance" measured in days fully submerged.

While AIP may be the best solution for short range missions (eg. Baltic nations in the Baltic Sea) AIP is not the most efficient solution for Japan with the mid-range (4,000 nautical mile round trip) missions that Japanese submarines often travel.

Other nations, like South Korea, China, France and Germany are experimenting with LIBs for full sized submarines and may launch such submarines within 3 to 15 years. These and other countries are very interested (China using covert methods) in how this new Japanese LIB submarine performs. 

Some very small mini-submarines (called Diver [or SEAL] Delivery Vehicles of around 5 - 10 tonnes) in some navies are already using LIBs. These mini-submarines are housed in dry deck shelters on much larger nuclear or conventional submarines.

On a related matter - Japan's Ministry of Defense is planning to appoint woman submariners [2] in 2023 to travel in this new submarine [and perhaps older submarines?]. New equipment on the new submarine (such as a womens' sleeping room and a toilet) is needed by law [3]. This overall increase in accommodation weight/space will partly impact the improvement in range/endurance achieved by LIBs in 27SS.

[1]http://www.sankei.com/west/news/181004/wst1810040017-n1.html
      [right click mouse to Translate from Japanese]

[2]https://www.sankei.com/west/news/180831/wst1808310047-n1.html

      [right click mouse to Translate from Japanese]

[3] Japanese Ordinance on Industrial Safety and Health Part III Chapter IIV Cleanliness (Article 628)

      The employer shall install lavatories as provided by the following. “To be constructed separately

      for men and women."...“To provide one or more toilets for every 20 women or less working at the

      same time.”

TABLE for SORYU & Oyashio Program as at October 5, 2018 

SS No. Diesel Type Motor	Build No Name	Pennant No.	MoF approved amount ¥ Billions FY	LABs, LIBs, AIP	Laid Down	Laun -ched	Commi ssioned	Built By
5SS Oyashio 2 Toshiba motors	8105 Oyashio	SS-590/ TS3608	¥52.2B FY1993	LABs only	Jan 1994	Oct 1996	Mar 1998	KHI
6SS-15SS Oyashios  10 subs 2 Toshiba motors SMC-7?	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 12V25/25SB SMC-8	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	15 Mar 2013	2 Nov 2015	13 Mar 2017	KHI
25SS	8124 Seiryū	SS-509	¥53.1B FY2013	LABs + AIP	22 Oct 2013	12 Oct   2016	12 Mar 2018	MHI
26SS end of SMC-8s	8125 Shoryū	SS-510	¥51.7B FY2014	LABs + AIP	2014	6 Nov 2017	Mar 2019?	KHI
27SS First Soryu Mk 2 12V25/25SB  diesel first SMC-8B motor	8126 Oryū	SS-511	¥64.4B FY2015	LIBs only	2015	4 Oct 2018	Mar 2020?	MHI
28SS  Second Soryu Mark 2 12V25/25SB SMC-8B	8127	SS-512	¥63.6B FY2016	LIBs only	2016?	2018?	Mar 2021?	KHI
29SS First Soryu Mk 3 12V25/31S SMC-9?	8128	?	¥76B FY2017	LIBs only	?	?	2023?	MHI?
30SS Second Soryu Mk 3 12V25/31S	8029?	?	¥71.5B FY2018	LIBs only	?	?	2024?	KHI?

Table from information exclusively provided to Submarine Matters. LABs = lead-acid batteries, AIP = air independent propulsion, LIBs = Lithium-ion Batteries. ¥***B = Billion Yen. MHI = Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, KHI = Kawasaki Shipbuilding Corporation of Kawasaki Heavy Industries. 

---

Technical Details

Drawing from advice from Anonymous on February 13, 2018  

The Lithium-ion Batteries (LIBs) provide various benefits such as:

-  a low indiscretion ratio (IR) [the lower the ratio of time spent at periscope depth snorting to time

   completely submerged]

-  due to faster charging of LIBs by the diesel engines

-  providing greater operational flexibility for the submarine 

-  silent [4 knots?] speed performance over a longer medium distance [?? nautical miles for 8

   days?] fully submerged 

-  slightly longer period [probably less than 3 hours?] at the maximum speed (around 20 knots).

LIBs have a greater average charge and discharge efficiency within 80% - 90% (see LIB sidebar) compared to lead-acid batteries which have a lower average of around 70% (see lead-acid battery sidebar). 

Anonymous and Pete

Different Weights and Prices of LIB and LAB Batteries on Soryu Submarines

October 8, 2018, 10:56 pm

≫ Next: Saab Offers A26s for Netherlands' Walrus Submarine Replacement Program

≪ Previous: Japan has Launched the World's First Large Lithium-ion Battery (LIB) Submarine

$

0

0

On October 6, 2018 Anonymous commented (following Submarine Matters, October 5, 2018 article on the launch of the first large Lithium-ion Battery (LIB) submarine) along the lines:

As the length of the Lithium-ion Batteries LIB-Soryu (27SS) is the same as that of the preceding lead-acid batteries LAB-Soryus, the structure of the LIB-Soryus (27SS and the next 28SS) might be very similar to the LAB-Soryus. 

The major differences are:

1.  the large liquid oxygen LOx tanks and Stirling AIP on the LAB -Soryus will not be on the 

     LIB-Soryus. Instead the LIB-Soryus will have an extra 192 LIB modules (12 columns x 16 rows)

     to make up a total of 672 LIB modules. 672 was predicted in the Submarine Mattersarticle of

     April 4, 2017.

2.  there will be a not easily quantified weight difference between LIB-Soryus and LAB-Soryus

     given:

     LIBs weigh 770kg per module and there are 192 extra LIB modules

     Compared to LABs weighing 880kg per module, and

     The heavy LOx, LOx tanks and Stirlig AIP will not be on LIB-Soryus
     [But extra sleeping accommodation and a toilet for women will be on LIB-Soryus.]

3.  The major prices increases of LIBs over LABs, with Totals of:

      -  US$97 million for the 672 LIB modules (at US$144,000 /module) on LIB-Soryus

      -  compared to US$13 million for 480 LABs (at US$27,000 /module) on LAB-Soryus.

Pete Comment: As LIBs for submarines become more common their unit and Total prices are likely to decline significantly.

Saab Offers A26s for Netherlands' Walrus Submarine Replacement Program

October 9, 2018, 1:18 am

≫ Next: Saab A26 Submarine Specifications Compared with the Soryu's (especially AIP)

≪ Previous: Different Weights and Prices of LIB and LAB Batteries on Soryu Submarines

$

0

0

View A. Sideview of Dutch A26 concept (Image Saab via MarineSchepen.nl)

---

On October 8, 2018 Anonymous reported regarding concept A26 submarines for the Netherland's (Dutch) Navy's Walrus submarine replacement program - along the lines:

Currently, Sweden's Saab and the Netherland's Damen have teamed up to offer a large concept submarine based on Saab's A26 [1].

The information on A26 may provide some insights into the concept submarine. It is likely:

1.  the pressure hull material: Strenx® 700 (proof strength, Rp0.2=690MPa).
     Using https://www.convertunits.com/from/psi/to/MPa this is equivalent to US measure HY100.
     Also see Table for Sweden's Weldox 700.
2.  Propulsion electric motor: PMSM by JEUMONT ELECTRIC (3.3MW)
3.  Four Stirling AIPs (60kW x 4 =300kW)
4,  Diesel generators: 2 x 12PA4 V200 SMDS by MAN Diesel & Turbo (total electrical output 
     2,128kW) [2]

[1] https://marineschepen.nl/nieuws/Details-voorstel-Saab-Damen-nieuwe-Nederlandse-onderzeeboot-010618.html At “a displacement of about 2900 tons, the design is slightly larger than the current Walrus-class submarine's [2,650 ton (submerged) displacement]. The concept submarine is currently about 73 meters long and has a diameter of about 8 meters. “

View B. Above is an artist's impression, of the propulsion components.
On top is the Stirling AIP motors and Diesels. 
On bottom the "tanks" for liquid oxygen (LOx) and Lithium-ion? Batteries. 
MarineSchepen.nl explains "All engines are equipped with a hood. This ensures noise reduction, but also a more pleasant working environment for the technicians. In the engine room it is a lot quieter and cooler." (Image Saab via MarineSchepen.nl)
---

[2]  In View B. The length of diesel module seems to be about 4.5m long - a bit smaller than MTU 12V4000U83's length of 4.58m.

View C. Closeup sideview of Dutch A26 concept. "KOMBUIS" means Galley. (Image Saab via MarineSchepen.nl).
---

Pete Comments

Saab and Damen have been pointing to a Walrus replacement concept since early 2015. "Kevin" has pointed to the strategic uses of Walrus submarines since 2015. 

Germany and probably France and Spain would also be offering concept submarines for the Walrus replacement program.

The Walrus upgrade program may mean the 4 Walrus submarines will remain operational up to mid 2025.

Anonymous and Pete

Saab A26 Submarine Specifications Compared with the Soryu's (especially AIP)

October 10, 2018, 12:20 am

≫ Next: Chemical Formula, Pricing for New Soryu Sub's Lithium-ion Batteries

≪ Previous: Saab Offers A26s for Netherlands' Walrus Submarine Replacement Program

$

0

0

Picture of a Kockums Naval Solutions designed 4V-275R Mk III Stirling engine, licenced by Kockums to KHI. Four are on the Japanese Soryu Mark 1s (with air independent propulsion (AIP) and lead-acid batteries (LABs)) (Photo via https://blogs.yahoo.co.jp/dark_99_jp/39533734.html).

---

The main value of the following table may be the specifications provided by Anonymous, in early October 2018, for the not yet launched Swedish Saab A26 submarine. The first A26 may be launched in 2020. Two are being built for the Swedish Navy and Saab wishes to sell more to Poland and the Netherlands. 

Submarine Type	A26 (not yet launched)	Soryu Mark 1s (AIP and LABs)   (launched 2004)
Length	66.1m long [6]	84m [8]
Beam	6.75m beam [6]	9.1m [8]
Displacement	1925 tonnes surfaced [3] [6]	2,900 tonnes (surfaced) [8] 4,200 tonnes (submerged)
Crew	17 to 35 [6]	65  [8]
Weapons	533mm and 400mm torpedoes, mines [4] Also AUVs and ROVs [6]	533mm Type 89 torpedos, Harpoon missiles, mines [8]
Multimission Portal	>6m long [4] >1.5m diameter [4]	no
Diesel engines	3 x 8PA4V200SM12	2× Kawasaki 12Ｖ25/25SB  [8]
Stirling AIP Type of Engine	2? x new Stirling with low signature [1]	4 x V4... or 4V-275R MkIII
continual output (electrical)	not yet known	rated electrical output (continual) 4 x 60kW = 240kW [2]
continual output (mechanical)	not yet known	rated mechanical output (continual) is 1.25 x 60kW = 75kW. 4 x 75kW = 300kW mechanical output
120% output (2min) (electrical)	not yet known	rated electrical output at 120% output (2min) is 4 x 72kw = 288kW [2]
120% output (2min) (mechanical)		1.25 x 72kW = 90kW 4 x 90kW = 360kW
Electrical Motor	1 x Jeumont Electric permanent magnet motor [5]	Kawasaki? SMC-8
Pressure hull steel	Strenx® 700 [7]

[1]The A26 will be fitted with new generation Stirling engines, on floating decks and more heavily insulated to have a much smaller acoustic footprint and more power than the previous V4-275R series used in Sweden’s Gotlands and Japan’s Soryus.

[2] Set by Japanese Standard for Ministry of Defense (NDS)

[3] a changeable figure - growing with increasing roles (and perhaps with an eye to the large sized submarine the Dutch want) - best measured in metric tonnes

[4] “Designing For Future Submarine Capability” by Gunnar Öhlund, SVP Marketing, R&D and Business Development Kockums ABhttp://www.sms1835.no/arkiv/2012-08-29%20Sea%20Power%20Seminar%20Kockums.pdf page 7

[5] 1 x permanent magnet (PM) motor made by Jeumont Electric [hereand here]

The information on cost components for the Saab A26s would depend on many technical and business negotiation parameters of course. Some parameters can be quantified but many of them might not be quantified and would remain confidential.

[6] Sweden’s Defense Materiel Administration FMV https://www.fmv.se/sv/Projekt/Ubat-typ-A26/A26-del-for-del/

[7] Pressure hull materials of A26 Strenx® 700 See Table on Submarine Matters may be same as “Weldox 700”. Both equivalent to US standard HY-100 (aka HY100). As Strenx® 700 is commercially available it is cheaper than military submarine use only pressure hull steels.

[8] Wiki right sidebar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C5%8Dry%C5%AB-class_submarine 

Tomorrow estimated pricing data will be published, comparing A26s with Soryus and TKMS Type 212CDs.

Anonymous and Pete

Chemical Formula, Pricing for New Soryu Sub's Lithium-ion Batteries

October 15, 2018, 11:30 pm

≫ Next: Important Propulsion Components Make Submarine LIBs Work

≪ Previous: Saab A26 Submarine Specifications Compared with the Soryu's (especially AIP)

$

0

0

Following Submarines Matters articles of October 5, 2018 and October 9, 2018 comes Anonymous commentof October 16, 2018. That comment, further translated, is:

New data has emerged on the price of Lithium-ion Batteries (LIBs) on the newly launched Soryu Mark 2 submarine 27SS, and also effecting future Soryus 28SS and 29SS. 

The total price of the 672 LIB modules fluctuates every year, but the average price is US$78 million  for 672 LIB modules. This is except for the first year [2016?] when there were additional costs? US$9.8million (for jigs, measurement equipment, etc) needed to start production. 

One reason the price of LIBs (and also traditional lead-acid batteries (LABs)) fluctuates each year is the changing cost of raw materials in batteries. For example in the 27SS's LIBs this includes changing costs of Lithium, Nickel and Cobalt.

A (rare submarine use only) LIB module is 4.5 times more expensive than a LAB module. Meanwhile a commercially available LIB may be four times more expensive than a LAB.

LIBs for 27SS, 28SS and 29SS are made of Lithium Nickel Cobalt Aluminium Oxide (see red words in Table below). Chemically these LIBs for Soryu submarine are LiNiCoAlO2 and their shorter title are "NCA". See NCA's chart of qualities by scrolling a quarter-way down this Battery university website.

The maker of NCA LIBs is GS Yuasa which constructed a new manufacturing plant for LIBs for Japanese submarines in 2016. That plant has made sufficient LIBs for the Japanese Navy's (JMSDF's) medium term needs. The plant will restart production of submarine LIBs once it makes a profitable return on investment. See GS Yuasa's Reporting At a Glance on Fiscal Year 2017, page 32 at http://www.gs-yuasa.com/en/ir/pdf/GS_Yuasa_Report_2018e_10.pdf where it states "We have established a framework and started mass production of lithium-ion batteries for submarines,"

[TABLE OF LITHIUM-ION BATTERIES FOR SUBMARINE BY GENERATION

Anonymous created the following table on March 28 2017 at Submarine Matters site https://gentleseas.blogspot.com/2017/03/south-korea-to-be-2nd-country-to.html

	Name	Composition or abbreviation	Energy density [kW/kg] (theoretical)	Note
First Generation LIB	Lithium Nickel Cobalt Aluminium Oxide	LiNiCoAlO2 or NCA	260	for Soryus 27SS & 28SS. NCAs built by Japan's GS Yuasa
	Lithium Cobalt Oxide	LiCoO2 or LCO	200 (1014)	Shinkai 6500
	Lithium Nickel Manganese Cobalt Oxide	LiNiMnCoO2 or NMC	200
	Lithium Manganese Oxide	LiMn2O4 or LMO	140 (410)	Proto-type by JMSDF
	Lithium Iron Phosphate	LiFePO4 or LFP	120 (575)	LFYP (China) is family of LFP
	Lithium titanate	Li4Ti5O12 or LTO	80	CEP- Japan
LAB	LAB		40
LSB	LSB		(ca.2500)
Second Generation LIB	Lithium Ion Silicate	Li2FeSiO4	(1584)	High Safety, low cycle performance
	Lithium Manganese Silicate	Li2MnSiO4	(1485)	High Safety, low cycle performance

Anonymous commented: 

Two routes of advanced LIBs development may be as follows:

Route 1  LABs --- First Gen LIBs --- Second Gen LIBs --- LSBs

OR

Route 2  LABs--- First Gen LIBs --- LSBs

Second Generation LIBs (Lithium Ion Silicate or Lithium Manganese Silicate) show excellent properties such as very high energy density and safety. Their main drawback may be low cycle performance (ie. they cannot be recharged as many hundred times as First Generations LIBs). Studies to overcome this issue are being conducted.Battery University remarks"Manufacturers take a conservative approach and specify the life of Li-ion in most consumer products as being between 300 and 500 discharge/charge cycles."]

Anonymous and Pete

Important Propulsion Components Make Submarine LIBs Work

October 16, 2018, 10:40 pm

≫ Next: Alternates Technologies (LTOs and LSBs) to Oryu's NCA Submarine LIBs

≪ Previous: Chemical Formula, Pricing for New Soryu Sub's Lithium-ion Batteries

$

0

0

The following is drawn from Anonymous' statements in the Comments section below.

There are important propulsion components in the Oryu (27SS) the first Soryu Lithium-ion Battery (LIBs) submarine, that allows its (NCA (see Table below)) LIBs to function in the most efficient way. 

These components include, faster run rates of its two Kawasaki 12V25/25SB diesel engines, a more powerful SMC-8B propulsion motor and a more powerful snorkel system (with higher volume/minute intake of air and higher expulsion of exhaust gases).

Oryu’s charge rate of its LIBs is much faster than could be achieved if it had traditional lead-acid batteries (LABs). This gives Oryu a more discrete, shorter time needed to snort/snorkel for the same (or greater) fully submerged operation.Discrete means Oryu operates more quietly overall.

Also see NCA by scrolling a quarter-way down in the Battery University website.

TABLE OF LIBS BY GENERATION (provided by Anonymous)

	Name	Composition or abbreviation	Energy density [kW/kg] (theoretical)	Note
First Generation LIBs	Lithium Nickel Cobalt Aluminium Oxide	LiNiCoAlO2 or NCA	260	for Soryus 27SS & 28SS. NCAs built by Japan's GS Yuasa
	Lithium Cobalt Oxide	LiCoO2 or LCO	200 (1014)	Shinkai 6500
	Lithium Nickel Manganese Cobalt Oxide	LiNiMnCoO2 or NMC	200
	Lithium Manganese Oxide	LiMn2O4 or LMO	140 (410)	Proto-type by JMSDF
	Lithium Iron Phosphate	LiFePO4 or LFP	120 (575)	LFYP (China) is family of LFP
	Lithium titanate	Li4Ti5O12 or LTO	80	CEP- Japan
LABs	LAB		40
LSBs	Lithium-sulfur	Li2S3	(ca.2500)
Second Generation LIBs	Lithium Ion Silicate	Li2FeSiO4	(1584)	High Safety, low cycle performance
	Lithium Manganese Silicate	Li2MnSiO4	(1485)	High Safety, low cycle performance

Anonymous commented: 

Two routes of advanced LIBs development may be as follows:

Route 1  LABs --- First Gen LIBs --- Second Gen LIBs --- LSBs

OR

Route 2  LABs--- First Gen LIBs --- LSBs

Anonymous and Pete

---

Alternates Technologies (LTOs and LSBs) to Oryu's NCA Submarine LIBs

October 16, 2018, 11:36 pm

≫ Next: Nuclear Propelled Australian Submarines? Obstacles+Costs Huge. Part 1.

≪ Previous: Important Propulsion Components Make Submarine LIBs Work

$

0

0

Drawing from Anonymous' statements in the Comments section under this article, is: 

Lithium Titanate Batteries, short name "LTO" LIBs (formula Li4Ti5O12) (see on Table below) are an alternative to the NCA First Generation LIBs technology fitted in the Oryu (27SS) Soryu  submarine. 

Compared to NCALIBs, commercial use LTO LIBs have (Scrolling one-quarter way down the Battery Universitywebsite):

-  Lower specific energy

-  Higher Lifespan (in usage Cycles) 

-  Higher Cost. But the more years between battery “exchanges” (ie. between replacement of all a

    submarine’s LIBs) the lower the cost of the LIBs. and 

-  Higher Safety (for commercialbatteries, but submarine grade LTO safety is unknown). 

See Anonymous mathematical description (below) of LTO issues:

The unit price of an LTO LIB (with an Energy Density of 80-100kW/kg) is 40-50% of NCA [1] , price of LTO module is expected 40-50% of NCA and 200-250% of LAB. Total cost (T) of batteries (480 module, operation period submarine) is as follows.

LAB (unit price US$26,700; battery exchange cycle 3years = 8 times exchange) [2]
T=26700 x 480 x (1+8) = US$115 million
LTO (unit price US$26,700 x 2.5; battery exchange 10 years = 2 times or 0) [3]

T=26700 x 2.5 x 480 x (1+2) = US$96 million or US$32 million

LTO (unit price US$26,700 x 4.5; battery exchange cycle 6 years= 4 times exchange) [4]

T=26700 x 4.5 x 480 x (1+4) = US$288 million.

Though LTO is relatively low power as LIB, whose excellent stability prove significant cost reduction cheaper than LAB. LTO is suitable for countries who have high, well funded, maintenance budget. A low maintenance budget can cause serious result such as the tragedy of Argentina’s ARA San Juan and the unavailability of all 6 submarines in Germany's fleet.

[1]“Battery Strategy” Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, Japan, July/2012, page 11
[2] Comment by MoD in Administration Review: “LABs are exchanged every 3 years”
[3] Toshiba Home Page: Cycle life of LTO is 20,000 and 10 years
[4] Battery Universitycivilian use analogy

Lithium-Sulfur (or Sulphur) Batteries LSBs are a possible future LIB for submarine technology that may take 20 more years to mature for submarine use. For development of LSBs to maturity, they need extensive testing then placing on the civilian market to establishment a reliability and safety record. LSBs for submarine would need to be produced (by GS Yuasa?) efficiently with adequate return of investment and profit.

TABLE OF LIBS BY GENERATION (provided by Anonymous)

	Name	Composition or abbreviation	Energy density [kW/kg] (theoretical)	Note
First Generation LIBs	Lithium Nickel Cobalt Aluminium Oxide	LiNiCoAlO2 or NCA	260	for Soryus 27SS & 28SS. NCAs built by Japan's GS Yuasa
	Lithium Cobalt Oxide	LiCoO2 or LCO	200 (1014)	Shinkai 6500
	Lithium Nickel Manganese Cobalt Oxide	LiNiMnCoO2 or NMC	200
	Lithium Manganese Oxide	LiMn2O4 or LMO	140 (410)	Proto-type by JMSDF
	Lithium Iron Phosphate	LiFePO4 or LFP	120 (575)	LFYP (China) is family of LFP
	Lithium titanate LTO	Li4Ti5O12 or LTO	80	CEP- Japan
LABs	LAB		40
LSBs	Lithium-sulfur LSB	Li2S3	theoretically about (2500)
Second Generation LIBs	Lithium Ion Silicate	Li2FeSiO4	(1584)	High Safety, low cycle performance
	Lithium Manganese Silicate	Li2MnSiO4	(1485)	High Safety, low cycle performance

Anonymous and Pete

Nuclear Propelled Australian Submarines? Obstacles+Costs Huge. Part 1.

October 18, 2018, 11:23 pm

≫ Next: Would Australia Buying French Rubis (SSN) Submarines be Viable?

≪ Previous: Alternates Technologies (LTOs and LSBs) to Oryu's NCA Submarine LIBs

$

0

0

Current articles by learned Australian writers as to whether Australia should acquire nuclear propelled submarines, have resurfaced since September 2018.

The following is the first in a series. Below I discuss a thought provoking essay written by Dr Tom Lewis, which proposes Australia should buy US Virginia classnuclear propelled submarines. Tom's essay is called “A working sub fleet – for less than half the cost”, dated October 5, 2018, which appeared on The Australian Naval Institutewebsite. 

I have drawn some exact and sometimes, approximate, wording from Tom’s essay, and Agree and often Disagree.

Arguments For Appropriateness of Australian Nuclear Subs	Pete’s Reasons Why This Is Unviable or Viable
“Now we have a new PM” scrap plans for the 12 new Shortfin Barracuda SSKs	Our 2 month old Prime Minister may only last until May 18, 2019 when a new Labor Government, with its own ideas on subs, is likely to take power.
Buying a paper concept sub is risky	True. Neither Australia nor France have any experience in converting a (Barracuda) nuclear propelled submarine into a conventional (Shortfin Barracuda) diesel-electric submarine.
Barracuda re-model will use diesel engines, and fuel tanks, in a design which will likely be fraught with problems.	True. Also Australia’s Shortfin Barracuda is likely to be delayed owing to delays in France's nuclear Barracuda program (owing to major technical problems in the latter's K15 nuclear reactor).
“nuclear off the shelf option is the only way to go”	True. In the sense that, if buying nuclear, it should be off the shelf.
	The US didn’t even transfer all its Virginia technical secrets to its nuclear ally (since 1958) Britain. The US won’t transfer such secrets to Australia. Virginia (and new UK SSN) reactors are 90%+ HEU nuclear weapons grade, with the proliferation issues that implies.
US Navy’s Virginia-class submarines are in production now, and cheaper than a new build diesel-electric variant	Virginia’s demonstrated price is calculated for internal US Navy purchase and may not include the development cost component. But, the US Navy is already crying out for higher drumbeat production of Virginia’s for itself. The US would not accept a diversion of expertise, designers, workers, managers, shipyards to build Virginia’s for Australia or oversee construction of these subs in Australia.
Cost. The US Virginia class will only cost half the $50 billion for on its French Shortfin project.	This claim is only demonstrable once the first Australian Virginia is launched or when the last one is launched. The $50 billion estimate for the build and operation of the French Shortfin is a rubbery figure that has already been revised to $100 Billion
Proven design. If we bought a nuclear boat off the rack, we would be buying something already in service. We would know it works. We never had difficulties with the off-the-shelf Oberons.	True.
A diesel-electric is limited by needing diesel in port, returning to port, from tanker-tenders or from Guam, etc.	True. The speed, range, tactics, strategy and “hotel load” (non-propulsion) functioning of conventional submarines are severely limited compared to nuclear propelled submarines.
US Virginia (and UK Astute class) submarines have whole of operational life reactors that don’t need refueling.	Meanwhile the French Barracuda’s revised K15 reactor will need refueling every 7-10 years (and that will be in France)
Undetectability.	True. Nuclear allows for more discrete operation particularly avoiding regular snorting operations that are visible to Chinese satellites. But the sheer size of Virginia make them more detectable to ASW platforms in many of Australia’s shallow northern operational areas
Speed. Nuclear subs are much faster	True. Only a nuclear reactor allows a sub to remain protectively ahead or behind of a 15-30knot naval taskforce, protect SSBNs, and quickly transit Australia vast distances North, Indian Ocean, Southern Ocean and especially from the Fleet Base West(ern Australia) to the East Coast – including Fleet Base East.
“Crew. If we bought boats off the Americans, we could buy a few planeloads of crew too.”	Wrong. It takes huge efforts by the US to train crew (a limited resource) before and within operational nuclear submarines. Also crews are patriotic Americans who may consider Australian Virginias to be a defacto squadron of the US Navy when Australia separately needs its Virginia’s most. In the early 2000s the US shelved possible “sea-swap” plans to rotate submarine crews at Australia’s Fleet Base West for economic, political and US Naval professional reasons.
“Safety....The nuclear engine is a sealed unit.”	False. The US relies on the SUBSAFE Program, (here's a US Navy explanation) which is an extremely extensive, expensive and rigid set of nuclear submarine safety measures. These cover all nuclear navy practices, eg, over radiation leaks from reactor piping and fire risks, etc. There are also rigid armed, exclusion zone, security measures. Future nuclear weapon options, and civilian concerns have led nuclear submarines to be frequently based (at great cost) away from city harbours. Could Australian nuclear subs be based and/or repaired at Australia’s bases near Perth, in Adelaide or in Sydney Harbour?
“Pakistan”?	Pakistan has no serious plans (or the money or know-how) to build nuclear powered submarines. It has plans to mount nuclear tipped cruise missiles on French and Chinese designed conventional submarines.
Deterrence.	Israel already has Dolphin conventional submarines that carry nuclear tipped missiles. North Korea has been actively testing nuclear capable ballistic missiles on its conventional submarines.
	If Australia planned to buy just 6x 2 crew (Gold and Blue) Virginia class SSGNs then that may be cheaper than the 12 Shortfin SSK project. The Australian Virginia’s land attack missiles (a major reason for nuclear propulsion) would be conventionally armed, at first...

Submarine Matters has been discussing the Virginia class option (or non-starter) as far back as 2012 (Barracuda SSNs 2012), Virginia's 2013 and 2015. 

Pete

Would Australia Buying French Rubis (SSN) Submarines be Viable?

October 22, 2018, 11:31 pm

≫ Next: Option of TKMS for Dutch Walrus Submarine Replacement Program

≪ Previous: Nuclear Propelled Australian Submarines? Obstacles+Costs Huge. Part 1.

$

0

0

KQN on October 22, 2018 raised the interesting comment that:

"There is also the option of acquiring the small and proven Rubis class. The French would need to re-start its production which should not be a problem. Re-fueling is still an issue as well as local political considerations."

Pete's Response

The interior design of the Rubis is a mystery with no interior diagrams that Pete has seen. Odd for such an old sub. All I can offer is this diagram courtesy Pakistan Defence forum.

---

However there are some Youtube videos which give partial views of Rubis interiors. See this Youtube from 45 seconds on, starring the Rubis submarine Perle, visiting Jacksonville, Florida in 2011. The Youtube seens imply the small size of this submarine class makes it very crowded and uncomfortable for the 70 officers and crew on lengthy missions. At 3 minute, 20 seconds, surely the periscope and red goggle restrictions could be replaced with photonic masts!

---

The Rubis is small, at 2,400 tons surfaced - 2,600 ton submerged (right sidebar). The Rubis only carries 14 Heavyweight (HW) shots - torpedoes and/or missiles. This suggests the French Navy had to make severe compromises between the Rubis small 14 shot warload and other essentials such as accommodation for a relatively large crew of 70, food, reactor and sonars, etc. 

With only 4 torpedo tubes much space may be allotted to a bow sonar. Nuclear propulsion notwithstanding, food in Rubises may be limited to 45 days.

For most navies succeeding submarine classes are steadily larger, carrying more HW shots - now with the additional requirement of land attack missiles and soon UUVs. In comparison Australia's Collins subs already carry 22 HW shots.

The Rubis' have a limited submerged speed of only 25 knots, lower than the 30+ knot requirement expected of SSNs.

Its Rubis' 7.6m Beam (right sidebar) accommodates the K48 (48MW of power) reactor. The Rubis would be unable to accommodate the updated K15 reactor which requires a beam of at least 8.8m.

Since the 1970s, when the Rubis was launched anti-submarine sensors have improved greatly in performance, meaning active and passive quieting measures (which add weight and size) are all the more important. Highly relevant are Canada's 1980's reasons for not choosing the Rubis:

"The Rubis-class as designed failed to meet the Canadian Statement of Requirement (SOR) as it was noisy underwater and slow. It also came with the caveat that the first 4-5 submarines would have to be built in France. [But] Unlike the British Trafalgar-class [presumably the UK Astute class would have the same legal problems], the Rubis design did not require USA permission to transfer the nuclear propulsion technology, as the Americans were certain to invoke their veto of the sale to Canada."

Yes, the need to refuel in France every 7 - 10 years constitutes a major downside for Australia choosing the Rubis or Barracuda. At Peter Lobner's "Marine Nuclear Power 1939-2018" at  is Marine Nuclear Power 1939 – 2018_Part 4_Europe & Canada which states on page 197:

"Unique French nuclear safety rules have resulted in naval reactor operating cycles that are substantially different than in US and UK naval plants. 

Following nuclear safety practices established by the French civilian nuclear safety authority ASN...the defense nuclear safety authority DSND...requires that all reactor pressure vessels be inspected from the inside every 10 years using a dedicated inspection machine and requires the withdrawal of fuel assemblies and all the internal components of the reactor pressure vessel. These pressure vessel inspections are performed during each major overhaul (an IPER) of the nuclear-powered ship, which typically occurs at 8 –10 year intervals."

So all in all the Rubis would fall short of Australia's modern warload and quieting requirements and even the Barracuda may fall short on refueling in France realities.

Pete  

Option of TKMS for Dutch Walrus Submarine Replacement Program

October 24, 2018, 1:36 am

≫ Next: Naval Group's and TKMS' Submarine LIBs May Be At Very Early Stage

≪ Previous: Would Australia Buying French Rubis (SSN) Submarines be Viable?

$

0

0

The Youtube above has a useful summary of Walrus submarine history and characteristics.

---

The Dutch Government has a Walrus Replacement Programcalling for at least 4 medium-large conventional diesel-electric submarines for launch in the mid-late 2020s.

On October 9, 2018 Anonymous examined technical issues for a Saab A26 concept meeting the Walrus Replacement requirement. 

Now Anonymous, in commentsfrom October 21-23 2018, is looking at technical details involved with Germany’s TKMS meeting the Walrus Replacement requirement.

Drawing from those comments Walrus replacement concept could be a very large version of the TKMS 212A/CD, 214 or non-AIP 209. Assuming the South Korean 3,000 ton KSS3 is based on a TKMS design (lets call it a TKMS Type 3000). A 2,900 ton (submerged) Walrus replacement could also be a Type 3000.

Within the 2,650 ton (submerged) current Walrus class’s double hull structure (light & pressure hulls) there are 3 x MAN Diesel & Turbo owned SEMT Pielstick12 PA4 V 200 SM [1]diesels (width ca.1470mm, not 12 PA4 200 SMDS) could be installed in parallel. Distances (ca.400mm) between diesel-diesel and diesel-pressure hull are small (ca.400mm).

In the Walrus replacement concept, 3 x 12 PA4 V 200 SMSD diesels could be installed in parallel, but the separation distances could be somewhat greater (ca.600mm). These latter diesels could be more powerful to propel a larger 2,900 tons submerged Walrus replacement [and/or charge Lithium-ion Batteries (LIBs) more quickly]. As result of these exchange of diesels, Walrus-concept becomes more powerful. See Appendices [1],[2], [3] and [4] below.

MAN Diesel & Turbo or SEMT Pielstick (now operate as a brand by MAN Diesel & Turbo) has the following three generators which are sometimes confused. Correct data are as follows:

-  8 PA4 V 200 SM, cylinder bore 200mm, V8, single supercharger (mechanical output 700kW). A26; (2 starboard + 1 port) x 8 PA4 V 200 SM (2,100kW)

-  12 PA4 V 200 SM, cylinder bore 200mm, V12, single supercharger (1,060kW).  Walrus-class; 3 parallel x 12 PA V 200 SM (3,180kW)

-  12 PA4 V 200 SMDS, cylinder bore 200mm, V12, single supercharger + single turbocharger (1330kW), Walrus -concept; 3 parallel x 12 PA V200 SMDS (3,990kW)

  

The next Dutch submarine will need much space to accommodate some female crew, for additional quieting measures and additional weapons spaces (possibly for anti-ship missiles, land attack missiles and UUVs, etc). 

A double hull structure may be required for the stern drive sections (see red/blue in the 212A diagram above). This is if the Walrus replacement is an enlarged Type 212A/CD, 214 or 3000 equipped with LOx cylinders (diameter ca.1.7m) outside the pressure hull. To fit these cylinders the outer diameter of pressure hull in the drive sections would be considerably smaller (diameter ca.5.6m) than the 212s beam (of 6.8m) and would be an inefficient use of space. Also, the strength of pressure hull material for the 212A/CD is not high.

The Walrus replacement would need floating decks to insulate/isolate vibrations thereby reducing noise effectively, but, are not in 212A/CD or 214s. Floating decks also mitigate shock from outside thereby protecting equipment and crew. Floating deck are used in US nuclear submarines and already in the Stirling generator section of (LABs + AIP) Soryus.  Floating decks will also feature in the future Japanese Soryu with LIBs 29SS (to be launched in 2 to 4 years).

TKMS fuel cell AIP is more efficient than combustion type Stirling AIP. But fuel cell AIP, owing to its use of hydrogen is less safe than Stirling. For fuel cell hydrogen containers are placed out side the pressure hull (see red O2 Tanks and H2 Storage in diagram above). Meanwhile the Kawasaki Stirling AIP, licensed by Kockum’s Stirling, for use in LABs + AIP Stirlings, are very expensive.

[1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walrus-class_submarine

3 diesels, diesel-electric, 5,430 shp (4 MW): They confuse 12 PA4 V 200 SM (right) with 12 PA4 V 200 SMDS (wrong)

[2] Electrical output = 0.8 x mechanical output

[3]https://marine.man-es.com/docs/default-source/shopwaredocuments/pa4-sm-smdsfba3ca1740b144429518d4e002fd7d6f.pdf?sfvrsn=6f128e3a_3

[4] Some discussion of a TKMS option

 https://www.defensenews.com/industry/2018/03/23/emerging-german-dutch-naval-tie-up-has-industry-abuzz/

Pete Comment

The Netherlands may not use any AIP (fuel cell or Stirling) due to the Walrus' replacement need to travel long distance missions (maybe 8,000nm) from the Netherlands to the Dutch Caribbean and back. This is similar to Australia’s and Japan’s long transit missions making AIP inefficient (especially with high weight and imbalances of LOX tanks). Thus Australia in the 1970s and Japan now have decided against future placing of AIP in their submarines.

But Japan is obviously attracted to the submerged range and speed advantages of LIBs. TKMS and Naval Group are also marketing the advantages of their LIB solutions. See discussion of this tomorrow. 

TKMS corporate ownership changes/problems may be of concern to the Dutch government. Hence this may favour the A26 solution raised by a SAAB-Damen consortium or Naval Group.

Anonymous and Pete

Naval Group's and TKMS' Submarine LIBs May Be At Very Early Stage

October 25, 2018, 12:33 am

≫ Next: A US Plan for 5 New SSGN and 30 SSN(X) Submarines: Australia?

≪ Previous: Option of TKMS for Dutch Walrus Submarine Replacement Program

$

0

0

In the context of the Paris based Euronaval 2018 arms show Naval Group announced un-assessable progress in Lithium-ion Batteries (LIBs) for submarine. This falls short of Japan’s launch (on October 4, 2018) of an actual LIBs submarine.

This is part of Naval Group’s Euronaval 2018 Press Release (repeated via many other sites in the submarine-sphere)  http://naval-group.com.au/2018/10/24/naval-group-presents-librt-its-new-generation-of-lithium-ion-batteries-system-for-submarines/of October 24, 2018:

“Naval Group Presents LIBRT, Its New Generation Of Lithium-Ion Batteries System For Submarines...Naval Group brings its experience as a system provider and integrator, Saft [or SAFT] its expertise in the conception and production of state-of-the-art Li-ion batteries, CEA Tech provides Naval Group with its research capacities in the fields of chemistry, structure and electronics and, finally, EDF R&D volunteers its experience and its first rank testing facilities for energy production systems requiring high levels of safety, reliability and security...”

PETE COMMENT

Concept announcements in the context of arms shows like Euronaval 2016 and Euronaval 2018 need to be treated with caution. Announcements may be reactions to actual achievements by non-European submarine makers and in response to questions by European governments as to European progress made so far.

There seems to be little sense how technically mature the Naval Group and TKMS LIBs concepts are. What year will they first be launched in a submarine that will then become operational, 2025?

There is the risk that European submarine LIB intentions are at an early stage and if a customer wants LIBs it will need to pay a high portion of LIBs’ development costs.

A similar case was Naval Group’s announcement, again in Paris, at Euronaval (October) 2016 that it had developed a second generation fuel cell AIP known as FC2G. See this DCNS Youtube published two months later December 2016.

After land testing no actual launch of a FC2G Scorpene has occurred. This also includes no launch of FC2G in India’s Kalvari class Scorpenes. India has long postponed an up to date AIP for its Scorpenes...

So reports of great strides in European LIBs for submarine need to be treated with caution.

DETAILS ON EUROPEAN LIBs

Anonymous suspects Naval Group’s LIB technology may rely on Lithium Iron Phosphate (LFP) or Lithium Titanate (LTO or ITO) LIBs with high levels [not yet operationally proven] of energy and safety. The use of LIBs in the Netherlands’ Walrus replacement and Poland’s ORKA submarine program is possible. (see Anonymous original comments in the Comments section below this article).

Not only Naval Group, but also but Germany’s TKMS is relying on SAFT for developing LIBs for submarine. [1][2]. [3], [4]. LFP with good low-temperature stability is suitable for cold countries. Now, the market is implicitly forcing Sweden’s SAAB to develop a LIB option.

[Pete Comment - TKMS may also be recieving "reverse flow" submarine LIBs assistance from South Korean companies (quite advanced in LIBs - that have been building TKMS designed Type 209 and 214 submarines for 3 decades)!] 

[1]A Swedish language website on February 14, 2018 https://www.nyteknik.se/fordon/nya-ubaten-kan-bli-forst-med-litiumbatterier-6898850carried an ambiguous message that Norway's future TKMS Type 212CD submarines “can be the first with lithium batteries - or last with lead-acid batteries.”

[2] October 22, 2018https://www.aogdigital.com/component/k2/item/7668-thyssenkrupp-develops-new-lithiumion-batteries-for-submarines

[3] See the April 27, 2018 entry https://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=4458240

[4] A 2015 based BMT study “The Design & Safety Challenges of a Lithium-ion Main Storage Battery for Conventional Submarines” http://www.bmtdesigntechnology.com.au/media/6988323/SIA%20SubSTEC-4%20Paper%20-%20Challenges%20of%20a%20Li-ion%20Main%20Storage%20Battery%20for%20Conventional%20Submarines%20v1.0.pdf, has a passing reference to the Shortfin on the first pagewith more substantial mentions on especially the sixth page (to Japanese, Chinese and TKMS (LFP LIB) intentions through to page twenty.

Pete Comment: So this French and German submarine LIBs activity has been re-announced at an arms show but falls far short of Japan’s achievement of actually launching the first large LIBs submarine

Anonymous and Pete

A US Plan for 5 New SSGN and 30 SSN(X) Submarines: Australia?

October 25, 2018, 8:19 pm

≫ Next: Japanese Examination of Life Cycle Costs of Submarine Building

≪ Previous: Naval Group's and TKMS' Submarine LIBs May Be At Very Early Stage

$

0

0

Partly drawing from David Axe’s learned article “The [US] Navy's New Submarine Plan Is In. Take a Look.” in The National Interest, October 24, 2018 https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/navys-new-submarine-plan-take-look-34202 . 

As well as Columbia SSBNs, the USN reportedly plans to develop two new classes of submarine, that is:

-  5 new Large Payload Submarine SSGNs. Will they have an Ohio SSGN or Columbia class size?

    and retain the 154 Tomahawk capability of Ohio SSGNs? 

    Are 5 SSGNs quoted with the expectation Congress will trim the number to 4? 

and

-  30 new SSN(X) to enter service from 2034. They would reportedly be bigger than the 8,000 ton

    Virginias, more like the 9,000 ton Seawolf class. "The Navy indicates that the next-generation

    attack submarine should be faster, stealthier and able to carry more torpedoes than the Virginia

    class". 

   The SSN(X) plan is instead of upgrading the Virginias. The SSN(X) would not have the later
   Virginia's 40 Tomahawk Payload Module capability. But have a greater capability for ASW [mainly

   against Chinese and Russian subs].

COMMENT

Russia has also been talking about a 2 or 3 new submarine type project, called "Husky", since at least 2017. This was to include new SSNs, "multi-purpose" SSGNs and SSBNs. But a new Russian SSBN class make little sense as Russia plans to keep on building Borei/Borey class SSBNs through to the 2030s.

If the SSN(X) means the Virginia class become “old” technology might this increase the chances second hand Virginia’s could be sold to (or built for) the Australian Navy?

Japanese Examination of Life Cycle Costs of Submarine Building

October 29, 2018, 11:54 pm

≫ Next: Another Submarine or Minesweeping ROV operating near Stockholm?

≪ Previous: A US Plan for 5 New SSGN and 30 SSN(X) Submarines: Australia?

$

0

0

Anonymous has kindly provided the following model of  Life Cycle Costs of Submarine Building (with referencee to FY2014 Annual Report on Life Cycle Cost Management, 30/May/2015, by the Acquisition, Technology & Logistics Agency (ATLA), Japanese Ministry of Defense (MoD)
 http://www.mod.go.jp/atla/souhon/about/pdf/26lifecyclecost_houkokusyo.pdf noting "there is no intention to criticize others."

[Pete Comment - This examination is highly complex as it is:
-  translated from Japanese language, and
-  uses accounting assumptions and methodology
-  and within that, Japanese accounting assumptions and methodology which have different yearly start and finish milestone conventions eg. when looking at "27SS" (see TABLE for SORYU & Oyashio Program at the end of this article) what year was 1SS? 

Thorough Management policy of defense spending by Germany brought possible sale of TKMS by ThyssenKrupp, but, there is something to learn.

Though the batch building system has adopted in Japan for submarines to maintain navalsuperiority, this system has not been adopted by Australia because of Australia's defense budgetconstraints. Instead, Australia's indigenous submarine building project adopted a system that also satisfies demands of employment and industry.

If Australia's top priority is maintenance of regional superiority, it could consider the introduction of a batch building system because Australia's indigenous submarine building project does not correspond to submarine updates of naval rivals. Australia could consider participation in a foreign batch building system if this is within reasonable costs and these cost savings are used for satisfaction of demands of employment and industry.

Japan's Life Cycle Cost for Soryus 27SS [launched on October 4, 2018] and 28SS [likely to be launched around October 2019] was estimated based on  

FY2014 Annual Report on Life Cycle Cost Management, 30/May/2015, by ATLA of the Japanese MoD [1]. If all submarines are built in Japan and operate in Australia (Cases 2-4), totat costs are 3, 11 and 16 billion $AU for Cases 2-4, respectively. Considering adoption of US combat system and development cost, increase in total costs presumably become 20% at most. Total cost, when 4 submarines correspond to next Soryu (29SS series) and 4 submarines correspond to next Soryu (post 29SS series) are built in Japan according to batch building system, is around $AU 13B resulting in huge cost reduction [for Australia]. Building of other 4 submarines is determined in accordance with the situation.

Table 1 - [below] Life Cycle Cost of 27SS and 28SS

Case 1              2 submarines, 24 years-operation, including 8-10% consumption tax

Case 2              2 submarines, 30 years-operation, excluding consumption tax

Case 3              8 submarines, 30 years-operation, excluding consumption tax

Case 4              12 submarines, 30 years-operation, excluding consumption tax

		Case 1	Case 2	Case 3	Case 4
Classification
Precondition and others	Number of acquisitions [subs]	2	2	8	12
	Operation number [sub]	2	2	8	12
	Operation period [year]	24	30	30	30
	Repair	-		-
	Refinement of LCC	-		-
	Consumption tax	10%	0%	0%	0%
	others	-	-	-	-
Concept stage	Consideration on concept	0	0	0	0
	Research on technology	0	0	0	0
	Subtotal	0	0	0	0
Development stage 1 year	Research & development	0	0	0	0
	Practical test	0	0	0	0
	Performance test	0	0	0	0
	Design cost	0	0	0	0
	Government supply goods	0	0	0	0
	Subtotalis	0	0	0	0
Building stage 5 years	First year cost	16	0.02	0.04	0.06
	Product cost	1,272	1.50	6.01	9.02
	Subtotal	1,288	1.53	6.09	9.13
Operation & maintenance stage	Operation cost	40	0.06	0.24	0.35
	Combat service support cost	744	1.10	4.40	6.69
	Improvement & repair cost	*	*	*	*
	Ammunitions	*	*	*	*
	Subtotal	783	1.16	4.63	6.94
Disposal stage (After 2038s)	Decommission cost	1	0.001	0.005	0.007
	Facility	*	*	*	*
	Subtotal	1	0.001	0.005	0.007
	Total	2,073 x100M Yen?	2.95 $AU Billion	10.72 $AU Billion	16.08 $AU Billion

Reference

[1] http://www.mod.go.jp/atla/souhon/about/pdf/26lifecyclecost_houkokusyo.pdf

FY2014 Annual Report on Life Cycle Cost Management, 30/May/2015, ATLA, Japanese MoD

1. Aim of Life Cycle Cost Management

Life cycle cost (hereinafter referred to as "LCC") Management, cost necessary to acquire the equipment is considered not as mass production unit price, but as the total expenses necessary for the entire process (life) from concept, development, mass production, operation / maintenance to disposal. By LCC management, i) acquisition judgement based on cost effectiveness at the turning point such as start of development or mass production, ii) enhancement of accountability related to cost, and iii) decision making based on cost reduction at the operation and maintenance stages become possible. In this way, the purpose of LCC Management is to optimize the cost of the entire lifecycle of the equipment.

2. Background 

3. Organizations for LCC Management

4. Calculation method of LCC

In calculation of the LCC, break down the cost* related to the equipment was broke down into the various components and each cost component was estimated by using CBS ** in order to predict necessary cost of the equipment in the future.

Data necessary for the calculation are prescribed number of acquisition and data of the similar equipments in the past, etc. Particularly important data are those considered as high proportion in the LCC, i.e., body cost at the mass production stage, cost of supplies and repairment in the operation and maintenance stages. By using these data and the scale ratio (eg., weight ratio) between the equipment and the similar equipment, the cost necessary for the equipment is estimated. In this estimation, the most recent exchange rates are used, and no price fluctuations are assumed.

* Here, “cost” is a price government pays

**CBS (Cost Breakdown Structure: a tool used for planning of project management. CBS is a cost allocation expressed in a hierarchical structure by classifying project costs in detail)

5. Abstract of Annual Report 

6. Composition of Annual Report 

7. Explanation of the equipment whose LCC estimation is different from last year's Annual Report (skip)

8. Annual report for each equipment 

9. Note Expenses such as guided missiles and (actual/training) ammunitions are not included in the LCC estimation.

FY 2015 submarine (27SS submarine), page 77-80 [again see FY2014 Annual Report on Life Cycle Cost Management, 30/May/2015, by ATLA of Japanese MoD

 http://www.mod.go.jp/atla/souhon/about/pdf/26lifecyclecost_houkokusyo.pdf 

1. Outline of the equipment           

2. Performance of the equipment 

3. Method and preconditions of LCC calculation

Common items	Preconditions	Assuming that one submarine in FY 2015 and another same type of submarine within during New Meduim Term Defence Program are acquired, LCC is calculeated. Assuming that the latter submarine with the same specification as the former submarine is acquired in FY 2016, LCC is calculated. Operation period of each submarine is 24 years. Exchange rates until FY2013 are used, and no price fluctuations are assumed.
Each stage	Concept	No contract result
	Development	Cost is calculated based on DDD (Design Description Document) of same type of submarine.
	Building	Cost is calculated based on result of most recent same type of submarine.
	Operation & maintenance	Cost is calculated by using result of resemble goods or services.

4. Prediction line against base line for LCC Estimation (skip)

5 LCC summary table (100JPN Yen = 1.3AU$)

		JPN100million Yen
Classfication		Original baseline (FY2014)
Precondition and others	Number of aquisition	2 boats
	Operation number	2 boats
	Operation period	Ca.24years
	Repair	-
	Refinement of LCC	-
	Consumption tax	*1
	others	-
Concept stage	Consideration on concept	0
	Research on technology	0
	Subtotal	0
Development stage (2015)	Research & development	0
	Practical test	0
	Performance test	0
	Design cost	0
	Government supply goods	0
	Subtotalis	0
Building stage (2015-2020)	First year cost	16
	Product cost	1,272
	Subtotal	1,288
Operation & maintenance stage (2020-2038s)	Operation cost	40
	Combat service support cost	744
	Improvement & repair cost	*
	Ammunitions	*
	Subtotal	783
Disposal stage (After 2038s)	Decommission cost	1
	Facility	*
	Subtotal	1
	Total	2,073

*Consumption tax is set 8% and 10% for FY2014-2016 and FY2019-, respectively.

6. Possible factors affect on LCC

TABLE for SORYU & Oyashio Program as at October 30, 2018 

SS No. Diesel Type Motor	Build No Name	Pennant No.	MoF approved amount ¥ Billions FY	LABs, LIBs, AIP	Laid Down	Laun -ched	Commi ssioned	Built By
5SS Oyashio 2 Toshiba motors	8105 Oyashio	SS-590/ TS3608	¥52.2B FY1993	LABs only	Jan 1994	Oct 1996	Mar 1998	KHI
6SS-15SS Oyashios  10 subs 2 Toshiba motors SMC-7?	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 12V25/25SB SMC-8	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	15 Mar 2013	2 Nov 2015	13 Mar 2017	KHI
25SS	8124 Seiryū	SS-509	¥53.1B FY2013	LABs + AIP	22 Oct 2013	12 Oct   2016	12 Mar 2018	MHI
26SS end of SMC-8s	8125 Shoryū	SS-510	¥51.7B FY2014	LABs + AIP	2014	6 Nov 2017	Mar 2019?	KHI
27SS First Soryu Mk 2 12V25/25SB  diesel first SMC-8B motor	8126 Oryū	SS-511	¥64.4B FY2015	LIBs only	2015	4 Oct 2018	Mar 2020?	MHI
28SS  Second Soryu Mark 2 12V25/25SB SMC-8B	8127	SS-512	¥63.6B FY2016	LIBs only	2016?	Oct 2019?	Mar 2021?	KHI
29SS First Soryu Mk 3 12V25/31S SMC-9?	8128	?	¥76B FY2017	LIBs only	?	?	2023?	MHI?
30SS Second Soryu Mk 3 12V25/31S	8029?	?	¥71.5B FY2018	LIBs only	?	?	2024?	KHI?

Table from information exclusively provided to Submarine Matters. LABs = lead-acid batteries, AIP = air independent propulsion, LIBs = Lithium-ion Batteries. ¥***B = Billion Yen. MHI = Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, KHI = Kawasaki Shipbuilding Corporation of Kawasaki Heavy Industries. 

---

Anonymous

---

Another Submarine or Minesweeping ROV operating near Stockholm?

October 31, 2018, 1:25 am

≫ Next: Rare Satellite View of 2 Indian Arihant class SSBNs at Vishakhapatnam Shipyard

≪ Previous: Japanese Examination of Life Cycle Costs of Submarine Building

$

0

0

Pete Comment

Why would the Swedish military cover up yet another mystery submarine or robot underwater drone seen near Stockholm, the Swedish capital? Could it be that the Swedish military, is unwilling to confirm its undersea / inlet SOSUS sensors (like the ones at Malsten station which is near Stockholm) have long detected Russian underwater activities? 

When there are confrontations the overbearing political and military power of Russia often scares the small, neutral, Swedish political and military establishment into being quiet. 

Part based on Kyle Mizokami’s October 30, 2018 article in Popular Mechanics comes this tale. On June 28, 2018, off the Boson peninsula on Lidingö island (see red marker on map above) a group of Swedish children and teenage instructors at a sailing camp near Stockholm saw and filmed (see Youtube below) an unidentified underwater vehicle surface in the waters near Stockholm. 

The kids “observed large air bubbles, then a huge black object rose from the depths, heading east.” The sub disappeared after about 20 minutes. Only a short blurry video recorded the event when 2 or 3 high quality phone/camera images would have been more authoritative.

The Swedish military appeared very unwilling to publicise the student's camera work other than reporting there were no Swedish or foreign submarines operating in the area at the time of the sighting.

Possibly, but very unlikely, the small submarine photographed may be a Russian Project 1851 Paltus-class. These “nuclear-powered subs are just 180 feet long, displace 720 tons, and have a top speed of six knots.” But one would expect a Paltus would use its nuclear endurance for deepwater cable-splicing (electronic intercept) missions. Was it splicing a shallow cable for practice?

Pete Comments/Ideas

A little more likely the submarine may have been a conventional modern variant of the Russian Losos/Piranha minisub. Readers of Submarine Matters will recall that Swedish observers spotted mysterious submarine activity in waters close to Stockholm in October 2014 (see here for the Losos/Piranha theory) and also this 2015 article here).  

Alternatively and more likely the "submarine" filmed may actually be a very large Russian, US or European  Unmanned Undersea Vehicle (UUV) (aka Remotely Operated Vehicle (ROV)) being tested and revealed in error? As well as reconnaissance UUVs/ROVs can be used for slow, methodical, minesweeping. Even this activity may hold arms business sensitivities for some countries? For example idRoboTica markets the:

"PLUTO GIGAS is the heavierIdrobotica ROV (Remotely Operated Vehicle) having a primary use as a heavy duty MINE IDENTIFICATION and MINE DISPOSAL, in prohibitive conditions." [maybe with an upright radio buoy wireless link - note what looks like an antenna in the Youtube below].

The ROV above need not come in orange. It may come in camouflage black for some missions. Many other companies/countries also market robot surface and underwater minesweepers.

9 seconds in see blurry image of the mysterious submarine (or UUV?) filmed in June 2018. This Swedish language Youtube was uploaded in late October 2018.
---

Watch this space for more details as they come to hand.

Pete

Rare Satellite View of 2 Indian Arihant class SSBNs at Vishakhapatnam Shipyard

November 1, 2018, 1:21 am

≫ Next: China's "new" mystery small sub may be derived from a Russian Klavesin/Harpsichord AUV

≪ Previous: Another Submarine or Minesweeping ROV operating near Stockholm?

$

0

0

India’s indigenous nuclear submarine program is variously know as the Advanced Technology Vessel (ATV) Program and the Arihant class. At the same time India is long term leasing a Russian Improved Akula class SSN, known as INS Chakra II.

Submarine Matters has been following Indian submarine (especially nuclear) developments since INS Arihant’s launch on July 26, 2009. 

Since then India’s developing nuclear submarine program has had mixed fortunes. In early 2014 INS Aridhaman, under construction, suffered a major mishap which killed a civilian worker from Larsen & Toubro and injured two other workers. 

Aridhaman, now called INS Arighat, was later launched on November 19, 2017 and is due to be commissioned in 2020-21. 

In February 2017 INS Arihant, also had a major accident during a test sunk at its moorings, it is believed due to a hatch left open.

Arighat will be succeeded in the dry dock by two slightly larger 8,000? ton SSBNs that have been designated S4and S4*. India's three full sized 13,000+ ton "S5 class" SSBNs will probably be launched in the mid to late 2020s.

But now INS Arihant and Arighat may be developing smoothly. 

File photo of INS Arihant at its launch ceremony in 2009 (Courtesy Indian Ministry of Defence).

---

ThePrint, October 19, 2018 reported, in part:

“India has one nuclear submarine, the INS Arihant, launched in 2009, and is building five more at the Ship Building Centre (SBC) in Visakhapatnam [aka "Vizag"] under the nuclear submarine programme that began in 1974. The second [of the Arihant class] was initially named Aridaman but it was changed to Arighat.

The Indian Navy also operates INS Chakra [II], an Akula-class nuclear-powered submarine taken on lease from Russia.

INS Arihant — armed with nuclear tipped B-05 [aka K-15 or Sagarika] missiles with a range of over 750 km — was quietly commissioned in August 2016, pushing India into a select club of five nations with such technology. But within months [Arihant] suffered an accidental breach and ingress of water, raising fears of reactor contamination. It was repaired and made operational in October 2017 after extensive tests showed that the damage was not as bad as initially feared.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

INS Arighat, launched in November 2017, is very similar to Arihant main difference is a slightly more powerful, presumably larger, maybe around 90 MW, reactor.  Maybe undergoing trials end 2019 or early 2020.

S4 and S4* which are bigger than Arighat and Arihant (one of them could be named Aridhaman) are in an earlier stage of construction with probable launch and trials in the 2020s.

Note that Vishakhapatnam is the city/port containing the main base of India's Eastern Naval Command. It is also the main base of India's nuclear submarine squadron.

About the commercial grade (ie. not too detailed) Google 2018 satellite photo https://www.google.com.sg/maps/search/SBC+visakhapatnam/@17.7099413,83.26806,276m/data=!3m1!1e3 .

Alas! Google seems to block satellite-map images appearing on blogs.

But the submarine out in the open (midway, at base of image) (using the Google scale) is more than 100m long (ie. too long to be an SSK). 

Like an Arihant or Arighat, but unlike Chakra II:

-  it has mid-sail diving planes,

-  it does not have Chakra II's bulbous (housing a spooled long towed array) upright cruciform stern plane

Towards the left top corner, in the shed, is a ventilation opening revealing probably Arihant or Arighat. The fact that the shed is open indicates that India is not hiding its already launched Arihant class subs.

Due to understandable security the part open shed is unlikely to hold S4.S4 may instead be under construction, fully covered, inside the long roof/shed towards the bottom-left corner, to the left of the Arihant class sub out in the open.

China's "new" mystery small sub may be derived from a Russian Klavesin/Harpsichord AUV

November 1, 2018, 9:32 pm

≫ Next: Kockum's Mark 5 Stirling engine for A26 and Maybe Walrus Replacement

≪ Previous: Rare Satellite View of 2 Indian Arihant class SSBNs at Vishakhapatnam Shipyard

$

0

0

Photo A. (Photo repeated on Jane's via mil.news.sina.com.cn)

---

Andrew Tate for IHS Jane's Defence Weekly reports November 1, 2018 about what  (in Photo A.) looks like a Chinese special mission submarine on the stocks at China’s Jiangnan Changxingdao shipyard. 

Without indications of size (like a man or vehicle next to the sub) it may be "50 m long with a pressure hull diameter of about 5 m".

If completed? (and that is a major gap in non-Chinese knowledge) its evident lack of a fin/sail may indicate that its a deep diving test submarine, maybe:

1.  going further than the old Russian Alfa class (small size, small crew, highly automated) with a small sail design OR

2.  Using Russian analogies this Chinese sub (Photo A.) may be similar to the deep diving special mission  "baby" Losharik (diagram above - thankyou H. I. Sutton)  The small sail on the Losharik makes ascending into the belly of a Belgorod (thanks again H. I. Sutton) "mother" Delta or Oscar variant submarine, easier. The Chinese (Photo A.) unmanned or manned special mission submarine may have the principal mission of tapping submarine cables 1,000+ meters down on the seafloor as well under-seabed energy and mineral searches.

Photo B.

--

China's (50m long?) object in Photo A. may be a derivative of Russia's much smaller (6.5m long) "Klavesin"/"Harpsichord" object in Photo B.) 

About Photo B. (an AUV/UUV/ROV) this is Russian Rubin's Klavesin-2R-PM UUV (navyrecognition  Reported June 28, 2016):

"In 2015, Rubin finished the production of working construction documentation for Klavesin-2R-PM UUV intended for search operations at depths down to 6,000 m. The Rubin`s research and development (R&D) fabrication line produced the vehicle`s prototype. The special testing equipment with transport-docking module was manufactured to test the vehicle`s algorithms. In late 2016, the UUV`s demonstrator was tested at the Krylov State Research Center`s experimental tank to confirm its meeting to the operational requirements and to define the vehicle`s navigability", the report said."

Photo B. seems the same as, or similar to, H. I. Sutton's Harpsichord-2P-PM (scroll half way down this site) which records a AUV with "Specifications Length 6.5m, Diameter 1m, Weight in air about 3.700 kg, Range: about 27 nm, Operating depth: 6,000m (according to Rubin. Some reports suggest ~2,000 m)".

If true, while countries usually claim new submarines (or AUVs) are their own new "indigenous" invention it pays to re-invent someone else's "wheel".

Pete

Kockum's Mark 5 Stirling engine for A26 and Maybe Walrus Replacement

November 4, 2018, 10:51 pm

≫ Next: Deep Diving Submersibles Have Tested AIP Capabilities

≪ Previous: China's "new" mystery small sub may be derived from a Russian Klavesin/Harpsichord AUV

$

0

0

Anonymous in Comments on November 5, 2018 has kindly provided details discussing the Kockum's Mark 5 Stirling engine that will likely be incorporated into the SAAB A26 and maybe into the SAAB-Damen Walrus replacement:

The SAAB A26 and SAAB-Damen Walrus concept, will likely have an evolution of the current (in Gotland class) Kockums Mark 3 Stirling engine v4-275R Mark 3 [4]. The evolution-next version being likely the Mark 5 [1], but there is little information on the Mark 5. The Mark 5 evolution is discussed at [2] and [3]. The evolution may provide increased diving depth and a longer submerged period.

[1] R. Bitzinger and Haris Vlavianos “Emerging Critical Technologies and Security in the Asia-Pacific” 2016, Page 100, “Sweden’s next generation submarine, Kockums A26-currently in development, will incorporate the latest and most modern and refined Stirling AIP technology-MK 5 version.”

[2] ibid, Page 101, “Stirling engine operates at a pressure of 20 bars, which limits the submarine’s depth to 200m, unless power consuming and potentially noisy exhaust gas intensifier is used.”

[3] https://saab.com/region/saab-australia/about-saab-australia/latest-news/stories/stories---australia/2015/super-stealthy-saab-submarines/ 
Scrolling down half way to “Air Independent Propulsion” you come to the diagrams, reproduced below. 

-  diagram on left (above) is the current Kockums Stirling Mark 3 (on Gotland class) 

-  diagram on right (above) is the Kockums Stirling Mark 5 to be fitted on the future A26s.
   The combustor and insulator are omitted from this right diagram. For the Mark 5 to achieve higher 
   efficiency are improvements in:
   =  The heater (cylindrical pipes (inside of engine) connected top of piston cylinder) improves heat
        transfer.
   =  The heat insulation has presumably reduced heat loss, thus elevating combustion temperature
        and pressure. If the Mark 5 can tolerate pressure increases from 20 bars to 25 bars, the A26's 
        depth at which it can operate the AIP increases from 200m to 250m. This improvement will
        provide a longer submerged period. But an significant increase in speed is not expected,
        because speed is proportional to square-cubes of AIP output.

The Mark 5's generator is omitted (in the middle figure), but, the size of the generator does not seem to have changed. If the Mark 5's combuster size has not changed, the size of the Mark 5 AIP's (engine + generator) will not have significantly changed.

[4] Sweden's Gotland class submarines each use two v4-275R Stirling engines (each rated at 75kW) 
      see this Submarine Matters article. While Japan's Soryu Mark 1s use four Kawasaki Kockums
      V4-275R. China's Type 039A Yuans may use three or four Kockums V4-275R.

More recent and detailed data on Kockum's Mark 5 Stirling engine may well alter this current appreciation.

Anonymous (with Pete translating into standard English)

Deep Diving Submersibles Have Tested AIP Capabilities

November 6, 2018, 7:40 pm

≫ Next: Mystery Swedish "not a foreign submarine" Revealed as a "SEAL Carrier"

≪ Previous: Kockum's Mark 5 Stirling engine for A26 and Maybe Walrus Replacement

$

0

0

Anonymous kindly provided Comments on November 2018 on deep diving submarine research to test Stirling AIP capabilities.

Concerning the Kockums Stirling air independent propulsion (AIP) system known as the v4-275R, "v4" means V4 engine and "275" means a cylinder volume of 275cc. The pressure after combustion is 22 bars and waste gases are evacuated directly into the seawater. This means seawater pressure cannot exceed the 22 bars exerted at a submarine diving depth of 200m. 

Further on the Stirling v4-275R Gas of work: Helium (130 bars). Speed 2400 rpm. Fuel consumption 260 g/kWh. Oxygen consumption 980 g/kWh. Maximum power 75 kWh. Recoverable heat from the combustion gases 18 kW.  See  [1]. 

DEEP DIVING RESEARCH ON STIRLING AIP

1.  SAGA Submarine

[1]  The French built SAGA submarine is the first prototype of a new generation of industrial submarines capable of carrying out underwater operations using divers or robots at close proximity to the work site without surface assistance. SAGA is equipped by a diesel engine and two Stirling engines (Kockums v4-275R, 75kW) for surface and submerge, respectively. scroll half way down http://www.robertstirlingengine.com/saga_uk.php

At the SAGA submarine, symposium ISM 90, the 3, 4 and 5 December 1990 in Toulon, J. Mollard and D. Sauzade, which states "The waste gases, being at a pressure of 22 bars, are evacuated directly for immersions lower than 200 meters. Beyond and until the maximum immersion of the SAGA (600 meters), it is necessary to pressurize these gases and the condensates, which required the development of a specific compressor produced by GIE SAGA."

See photos of the yellow SAGA deep diving research sub at H. I. Suttons Covert Shores http://www.hisutton.com/Comex%20Sagittaire.html

2.  Japan's DSV Shinkai 6500

The DSV Shinkai 6500 is/was designed to dive to 6,500m where pressures of 650-700MPa are experienced (Unit Converter 1 Bar = 0.1 megapascal (MPa). 

Using DSV Shinkai 6500 research on a Stirling engine combusting at high pressures was conducted years ago. An AIP combustion of 70MPa was achieved. 

It is unclear if research finished. So, an increase in combustion pressure for the Kockums v4-275R may be possible to achieve higher efficiency and deeper diving.

See youtube on Japan's Shinkai 6500 deep submergence vehicle (DSV). It is arguably the world's deepest diving research submarine. It has a Titanium pressure hull.

Japan's deep diving (to 6,500m experimental submarine DSV Shinkai 6500 Photo above courtesy Wiki. Diagram and good description below courtesy JAMSTEC).

Tomorrow will be further comments by Anonymous on AIP and LIBs.

Anonymous and Pete