A friend, with a wide knowledge of submarine battery usage rates and pricing, advised in late September 2016:
JAPANESE CONTEXT
JAPANESE CONTEXT
Japan is adopting new technology Lithium-ion Batteries (LIBs) for the two Soryu Mark 2 submarines (27SS and 28SS)(see SORYU TABLE below) as well as the new Japanese class submarines (29SS onwards).
LIBs represent a major future submarine technology, but Japan may be the only (or at least the first) country that is fully moving to LIBs for newly commissioned submarines (ie. 27SS from 2020 onwards). The increased cost of LIBs appears to be one of the major reasons other navies are not shifting to LIBs.
The budgets for future Japanese submarines (including 27SS, 28SS and 29SS) suggests that LIBs are AUS$130 million (for one 6 year replacement cycle) more expensive than the existing LABs per Soryu submarine.
According to cost calculations (by the Japanese government) of mass produced LIBs, the equipment cost accounts for around 15% of total cost. So the cost of a battery modules consisting of 10 LIBs for the Soryu Mark 2s (27SS/28SS) is estimated as 1.5 million yen. This is significantly less than the actual cost of around 20 million yen and suggests that in very low volume production of submarine LIBs, the equipment cost accounts for more than 90% of total cost.
AUSTRALIAN CONTEXT
In constrast the Royal Australian Navy’s (RAN’s) appears to have rejected LIBs in favour of sticking with current Lead-acid Battery (LAB) technology.
When increased LIBs/submarine costs are considered over Australian 12 Shortfin submarines operating for 30 years, each with twice the quantity of LIBs than Soryus, and considering LIBs need replacing every 6 years, then you get the following estimate:
(+AUS$130 million per sub) x 12 subs x 2 (amount of LIBs per sub) x 5 (replacements) = AUS$15.6 billion higher than if the Shortfins used LABs.
(+AUS$130 million per sub) x 12 subs x 2 (amount of LIBs per sub) x 5 (replacements) = AUS$15.6 billion higher than if the Shortfins used LABs.
Putting costs in context - assume DCNS proposed the LAB cost for the whole Shortfin program, over the Shortfin's 30 year lives, would total AUS$50 billion. Then assume the RAN used LIBs instead - then Australia would be pay the extra AUS$15.6 billion,hence totalling AUS$65.6 billion just for LIBs over the operating life of the Shortfins. Quite large figures.
But as the LIBs cost reduces with increases in production of LIBs, the adoption of a Japanese submarine by the RAN woud have considerably reduced price of LIBs (e.g. from 20 to 12 million yen per unit battery module).
But as the LIBs cost reduces with increases in production of LIBs, the adoption of a Japanese submarine by the RAN woud have considerably reduced price of LIBs (e.g. from 20 to 12 million yen per unit battery module).
SORYU TABLE (with earlier Oyashios) as at October 21, 2016
SS | Build No | Pennant | MoF approved amount ¥ Billions & FY | LABs, LIBs, AIP | Laid Down | Laun | Commi-ssioned | Built |
8105 Oyashio | ¥52.2B | LABs only | Jan 1994 | Oct 1996 | Mar 1998 | KHI | ||
6SS-15SS | 8106 | SS-591-600 | ¥52.2B per sub | LABs only | Feb 1994 | Mar 2008 | MHI | |
16SS Soryu Mk 1 | 8116 | SS-501 | ¥60B FY2004 | LABs + AIP | Mar 2005 | Dec 2007 | Mar | MHI |
17SS | 8117 | SS-502 | ¥58.7B FY2005 | LABs + AIP | Mar 2006 | Oct 2008 | Mar | KHI |
18SS | 8118 | SS-503 | ¥56.2 FY2006 | LABs + AIP | Feb 2007 | Oct 2009 | Mar | MHI |
19SS | 8119 | SS-504 | ¥53B FY2007 | LABs + AIP | Mar 2008 | Nov 2010 | Mar | KHI |
20SS | 8120 | SS-505 | ¥51B FY2008 | LABs + AIP | Mar 2009 | Oct 2011 | Mar | MHI |
No | No 21SS built | |||||||
22SS | 8121 | SS-506 | ¥52.8B FY2010 | LABs + AIP | Jan 2011 | Oct 2013 | Mar | KHI |
23SS | 8122 | SS-507 | ¥54.6B FY2011 | LABs + AIP | Feb 2012 | Oct 2014 | 7 Mar 2016 | MHI |
24SS | 8123 | SS-508 | ¥54.7B FY2012 | LABs + AIP | Mar 2013 | 2 Nov 2015 | Mar? 2017 | KHI |
25SS | 8124 Seiyū | SS-509 | ¥53.1B FY2013 | LABs + AIP | 22 Oct 2013 | 13 Oct 2016 | Mar? 2018 | MHI |
26SS | 8125 | SS-510 | ¥51.7B FY2014 | LABs + AIP | 2014 | ? | Mar 2019? | KHI |
27SS Soryu Mk 2 | 8126 | SS-511 | ¥64.3B FY2015 | LIBs only | 2015 | 2017? | Mar 2020 | MHI |
28SS Soryu Mark 2 | 8127 | SS-512 | ¥63.6B FY2016 | LIBs only | 2016? | 2018? | Mar 2021? | KHI |
29SS New Class | ? | ? | ¥76B FY2018 | LIBs only | ? | ? | 2023? | MHI? |
Table courtesy of information provided to Submarine Matters. LABs = lead-acid batteries, AIP = air independent propulsion, LIBs = lithium-ion batteries. ¥***B = Billion Yen.
CONCLUSIONS
So, not only do LIBs present a new technology, with the RAN reluctant to take increased project and operating risks adopting them, but the substantial extra costs of LIBs are a reason the RAN appears to be rejecting the LIB option.
Put against the increased risks and cost of LIBs is the higher fully submerged range and higher fully submerged speed performance they provide, compared to LABs alone. See some related comparitive figures for CollinsLABs vs TKMS Type 212ALABS+AIP vs Soryu LIBs. IF a future Australian submarine avoided imminent destruction because it had LIBs then the risks and costs of having LIBs might turn out to be worth it.
Pete - Some translation and the Conclusions.
Friend – Most translation, all the calculations, data and views.