October 5, 2015

TKMS Reducing Reliance on ASC in South Australia?

Chairman of TKMS Australia, Dr John White. (Photo courtesy Noelle Bobrige via News Corp Australia)

 Model of a TKMS Type 216, the German contender for Australia's future submarine, at a defence exhibition. (Youtube published December 5, 2013).

Full cutaway of a TKMS Type 216 (Courtesy defense-update

Part cutaway of TKMS Type 216. Note at least one Vertical Multi-Purpose Lock (for Tomahawk cruise missile vertical launch and other uses) and some larger torpedo tubes (for swim out capability or LDUUVs). Crew may be an efficient 35. A small crew that takes into account Australia's usual  crew shortages). (Diagram courtesy TKMS via news com au). 


TKMS in the West Australian (see article below) considers shipbuilders at Henderson, Western Australia, as more than capable of building sections of submarines and/or assemble whole subs. But TKMS is also saying most of the work can still be done in South Australia and that the Type 216 will have a longer range than the proposed Australian Soryu.

Much of the Future Frigate and Offshore Patrol Vessel work was prematurally promised to South Australia by Abbott on August 4, 2015. The work was meant to be announced after the planned October release of the 2015 Defence White Paper. But Abbott rushed forward the announcement to ensure MPs from South Australia voted for him in any leadership spill - this did not work.

Abbott's haste has confused the normal process of dividing up of shipbuilding work - a process that usually takes years. Clearly South Australia cannot get most of the work in Future Frigate and Offshore Patrol Vessel assembly AND Submarine assembly.

Now that South Australia feels entitled to all three shipbuilding projects this is an unworkable expectation from the point of view of other States and the new Turnbull Federal Government. This  entitlement would also compound ASC's famous inefficiency. ASC, which wishes to assemble the subs in South Australia, is currently building 3 Air Warfare Destroyers at a cost of AU$10 Billion (so far). That is 200% more expensive than the world's most efficient shipyards, in Spain and South Korea.

Hence contenders like TKMS (while being asked to compete themselves) are also trying to encourage some competition between the major Australian shipbuilders.

TKMS is hedging that work can be done in Western Australia, South Australia and Victoria. New Defence Minister Marise Payne, from NSW, will also need to guarantee that sections will be built in NSW.

One only hopes a Collins II "efficiency build" is not repeated - in Adelaide or elsewhere.


Nick Butterly (in Canberra) for The West Australian, October 5, 2015, reports, https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/wa/a/29720117/german-company-backs-wa-for-subs/ :

German company backs WA for subs

TKMS "...says WA could play a central role in building Australia’s next generation submarine if it wins the multibillion-dollar contract to replace the ageing Collins Class fleet.

ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems believes the shipbuilding infrastructure at Henderson, south of Perth, is world-class and would be perfect for building sections of boats - or even entire submarines.

“There’s the capacity to do the whole submarine there if you wanted to,” TKMS Australia chairman John White said. “It’s really just a question of what the Government wants to do.”

TKMS is considered the leading contender to win the submarine contract after Tony Abbott was removed as prime minister. 

...[Nevertheless] "TKMS would base the bulk of its submarine work in Adelaide, where thousands of manufacturing jobs had been lost because of the death of the local car industry.

...WA-based shipbuilder Austal has long said that it would like to play some role in the submarine contract - possibly managing the project...." WHOLE ARTICLE

Please connect with Submarine Matters' Australia's $90 Billion Naval Shipbuilding More Complex Under New Government, September 29, 2015


October 4, 2015

Indian Submarine Propulsion Reactor Needs - Arihant, Aridhaman & Chakra II

Kalpakkam nuclear enclave 45 km south of  Chennai is on India's lower east coast. At Kalpakkam submarine test reactors and other nuclear facilities are located. Kalpakkam is part of  the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC) India's military nuclear organisation. For a much larger map click on http://www.newindigo.eu/uimg/AtomicEnergyEstablishmentsinIndia.jpg (Courtesy Creativity India

Photo of Arihant's land based prototype reactor at Kalpakkam which went critical on November 11, 2003, was declared operational on September 22, 2006 and photographed (above) in early August 2009 (Courtesy The Hindu).

Please connect with Submarine Matters US and France in Talks with India to Assist India's Nuclear Submarine Program, September 29, 2015.

The Indian indigenous nuclear submarine program, that produced the Arihant, continues under some  secrecy. Secrecy is not total because Kalpakkam and its parent organisation, the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC), need to demonstrate to politicians and the public that the large amounts of taxpayers money is spent wisely with progress made in the nuclear projects.   

•  Work on the Indian nuclear sub program dates from the 1970's and was referred to as the Advanced Technology Vessel (ATV) Project .

•  The prototype nuclear propulsion plant at Kalpakkam (see photo and map above) was developed under the program "Plutonium Recycling Project" or "PRP" under direction of BARC or Bhabha Atomic Research Center (BARC). Kalpakkam nuclear enclave is 45 km south of  Chennai on the lower east coast of India.  

•  The 
Kalpakkam-Arihant prototype plant went critical on November 11, 2003 and after further development was declared operational on September 22, 2006. It was only shown to the press once, in early August 2009, about one week after the July 26, 2009 launch of the Arihant itself. Apparently only one photo (above) was cleared for distribution. 

•  Most sources list the prototype and the Arihant reactors as being rated at 82.5 MW. 
There are around 13 fuel assemblies with each assembly having 348 fuel pins.

Major components of Arihant's reactor were made by Indian companies, including:
-  the reactor vessel, made of special grade steel by Heavy Engineering Corporation, Ranchi. 
-  steam generator by Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited (BHEL) and 
-  Pressure valves were made by Audco India, Chennai.


There is a great deal of difference between a nuclear propulsion reactor in a submarine and a land-based atomic power station to produce electricity. While a land-based atomic power plant gets backup from other power stations on the electrical grid, a submarine nuclear propulsion reactor only has some weak diesel engines for emergency backup. A propulsion reactor has to be miniaturised to fit into the confined space of a submarine and be lightweight but strong enough to endure the shock due to moderately powerful underwater explosions. The reactor must also withstand the pitch and roll of a submarine. The reactor must also be capable of rapidly accelerating and decelerating the submarine - unlike a land-based power plant which ramps up gradually.

The Arihant's 83 MW reactor went critical after many sea trials. Extrapolating from known data on Russian submarines and their reactors - the Akula class has a 190 MW reactor but turbines that are rated at just 32MWGoing by the roughly 20 percent power rule here, the turbines on the Arihant are likely to be around 15 MW, or about 20,000 horsepower. Rating them at higher than that doesn't seem to make much sense, and the figures placing them at 47,000 hp (on wiki right sidebar) seems ludicrous - that sort of power would propel the Arihant's estimated 6,000 tons (surfaced) (perhaps 7,000 tons submerged) bulk past 37 knots (like a high speed SSN). A lower power rating and a speed in the SSBN range of 24 knots seems far more likely. A ballistic missile submarine isn't meant to sprint across the oceans - it's meant to be a ghost, running silent and deep, popping up to deliver its apocalyptic cargo when the time calls.

Arihant, with its 83 MW reactor, must be considered an interm and experimental test bed. The 83 MW reactor is not powerful enough for the second of class INS Aridhaman SSBN. Aridhaman, to carry a larger missile load, may weigh around 8,000 tons (surfaced). So a more powerful reactor, approaching Chakra II's 190 MW reactor, may be India's objective. 


A major reason for India funding Chakra II (ex Nerpa Akula's) completion and 10 year lease is Indian interest in developing a reactor with something approaching 190 MW.  It is logical to assume that India has a prototype 190 MW reactor at Kalpakkam with Russian advisers for technology transfer. The Akula SSNs, like Chakra II, use the OK-650 reactor rated at 190 MW. It uses a low end 20%-45% HEU reactor. The OK-650 may have been first used 1980 and is still being placed on new Russian submarines - such as 2 on the Borei SSBN in 2009. The OK-650 and other 190 MW Russian submarine reactors are made by the OKBM Afrikantov company.

Of nuclear submarine powers India may still have reactors less advanced than China's but ahead of Brazil. The most advanced remains the US. USS Nautilus was launched in January 1954 and its reactor went critical in December 1954, under two years after the land based prototype went critical. The US provided the UK with its best reactors and helped the UK build copies. France may have received direct US-UK assistance or they tacitly permitted "espionage" by France.


As at September 2015 India appears to be encouraging Russia, France and the US to compete in providing nuclear submarine assistance to India. Russia is an overt provider of assistance while France and US may claim that are not actually assisting in Indian submarine reactor development.

Biswajit Pattanaik advised in Comments [Oct 2, 2015 8:42PM] India may want a reactor similar to the K15, 150 MW that France has in the Barracuda SSN. Years ago a retired Indian Navy Admiral said the Navy asked BARC to develop a 190 MW with HEU for possible use for the 2nd Vikrant class aircraft carrier and future SSBNs and SSNs that will appear after 2025 time frame. Biswajit understands India is seeking French assistance to increase the life of the Indian reactor from the current 5-8 years to around 10-15 years. India may also be talking to French reactor builder AREVA about converting the K15 from LEU to a new HEU type reactor. 

Ultimately India would be very interested in developing a reactor approaching the capabilities of the US Virginia class's ninth generation S9G reactor which uses higher HEU of 90+ % and lasts the lifetime of a submarine (33 years).


Sources used include:

 -  Atomic Power Review, August 11, 2013:

-  On the Wings of a White Swan, also August 11, 2013, and 

-  "Warhawk, Jun 23, 2014"


October 2, 2015

Narco Subs and Low Profile Vessels Run Drugs

Semi-submersibles ('Snorkel Subs') capable of ballasting down to lower their surface profile, and controlling their running depth, but not fully submerging. These are quite rare with only a few ever captured. (Photo and description courtesy H I Sutton)

This Japanese WWII Type A Ko-hyoteki mini-sub, captured by US forces on Guam, may be one source of inspiration for the size and even color of the Snorkel Sub at the top. Do drug lords do research?

As with all matters submarine it was only a matter of time before Submarine Matters touched on Narco-Subs. A narco-submarine (also called narco-sub, drug sub and Bigfoot submarine) is a type of custom-made ocean-going motorised submersible or low profile vessel (LPV) built by drug traffickers to smuggle. They are especially popular with South American drug cartels to export cocaine to Mexico, then overland to the US.

The first known vessels, date to 1993, were low profile vessels (LPVs) that could not dive: most of the craft was sat low with little more than the cockpit and the exhaust gas pipes above the water. Newer narco-submarines are semi-submersible with snorkels designed specifically to be difficult to detect visually or by radar, sonar and infrared systems.

By 2008, US officials say they were spotting an average of ten per month, but only one out of ten was intercepted. Few were seized, as their crews scuttle them upon interception and they sink within a minute or so. By 2009, the US detected as many as 60 narco sub related events.

Cargoes carried are typically several tons of cocaine. They cost up to two million dollars to construct, the submarines can move enough cocaine in a single trip to make a small profit.

They are often assembled in the Columbian jungle/mangroves including heavy equipment such as propulsion gear and generators. Despite the costs, some of the craft are intended for one-time use, being abandoned at sea after a successful delivery such are the profits – but high dangers from law enforcement and other cartels.  

The design and manufacturing techniques employed in their construction have reflected skill and verve not often seen in Columbian society. The boats have become faster, more seaworthy, and of higher capacity than earlier models. An 18 m long narco-submarine can reach speeds of 18 km/h and carry up to 10 tons of cocaine. They are typically made of fiberglass, powered by a 225-260 kW diesel engine and manned by a crew of four. They have enough cargo space to carry two to ten tons of cocaine, carry large fuel tanks which give them a range of 3200 kilometers, and are equipped with satellite navigation systems. There is no toilet, and accommodation is cramped.

The complicated routes of narco-subs, surface vessels from South America to Mexico then on land to the US. See red arrows from bottom of map from Columbia to Acapulco and  Lazaro Cardenas in Mexico.

Because much of its structure is fiberglass and it travels barely under the surface, the vessel is nearly impossible to detect via sonar or radar, and very difficult to spot visually. The newer models pipe their exhaust along the bottom to cool it before venting it, making the boat even less susceptible to infrared detection. They are most easily spotted visually from the air, though even that is difficult as they are camouflaged with blue paint and produce almost no wake. They have ballast tanks to alter the vessel's buoyancy so that they ride low in the water.

Typical Narco-Sub Specifications

Hull material: wood, fiberglass, or steel 

Length 12–24 m

Freeboard 0.5 m

No Li-ion Batteries 

Engines: single or twin diesel

Fuel capacity: 5.6 cubic metres

Range: 3,200 kilometers

Speed: 11 km/h or more

Crew: 3

Capacity 4 — 12 metric tons

Control: human or remote

On 3 July 2010 the Ecuadorian authorities seized a fully functional, completely submersible diesel electric submarine in the jungles bordering Ecuador and Colombia. It had a cylindrical fiberglass and Kevlar hull 31m long, a 3m conning tower with periscope, and air conditioning. The vessel had the capacity for about 10 tonnes of cargo, a crew of five or six people, the ability to fully submerge down to 20m, and capable of long-range underwater operation.

The most common "semi-submersible" are low profile vessels (LPVs) like the one above. A boat designed to run awash - very low to minimize radar cross-section and almost no visual silhouette. (Photo and description courtesy H I Sutton)

In August 2005, U.S. authorities discovered an unmanned semi-submersible in the Pacific Ocean. What they discovered was a "torpedo"-style cargo container (instead of a full-featured self-propelled ship). It used a ballast tank (submersion control) to keep it at about 30m under water while being towed by a boat. This particular "torpedo" was planned to be towed by a fishing vessel. If a patrol ship is spotted, the "torpedo" cargo container is released. While still submerged, it was designed to automatically release a buoy (concealed as a wooden log so as to be mistaken for marine debris by authorities. The buoy contains a mechanism to temporarily raise and then lower its antenna and transmit its coordinates in encrypted form a few times per day.

Smugglers normally unload their cargo onto fast power boats for the final leg to shore and the semi-submersible is scuttled. None have been sighted unloading at North American ports or beaches. In 2006, a 10 metre long sub was found abandoned on the northern coast of Spain, where the authorities suspect the crew had unloaded a cargo of cocaine before fleeing. In March 2006, the Calabrian mafia ('Ndrangheta) ordered a shipment of 9 tonnes of cocaine to be transported by a narco-submarine from Colombia to Italy, but the vessel was discovered by the Colombian police while it was still under construction. More see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narco-submarine

Inside of a low profile vessels (LPV) with the engine/fuel balancing the 100+kgs drugs in the bow-cargo hold.(Diagram courtesy H I Sutton).

Legal situation

When semi-submersibles are stopped at sea, their crews usually scuttle them, sending both the boat and the cocaine to the bottom in a minute or so and leaving no evidence of trafficking. Until 2008, in accordance with maritime law, the crew was rescued and, if there was no physical evidence of wrongdoing, released without criminal charges. To address this legal loophole, the US Drug Trafficking Vessel Interdiction Act was enacted in September, 2008, making it a "felony for those who knowingly or intentionally operate or embark in a self-propelled semi-submersible (SPSS) that is without nationality and that is or has navigated in international waters, with the intent to evade detection." The penalty is a prison term of up to twenty years in the U.S.

National security issues related to torpedo style cargo containers, semi-submersible vessels, and submarines used for smuggling and/or terrorist activities were reviewed in an August 2012 article in Homeland Security Affairs. Also presented are behaviours indicating shifts in methods of operating by drug traffickers and the corresponding risk to national security.


October 1, 2015

Likely Specs of the Future Japanese Submarine for Australia

The Soryu first of class (No. 501). Japan's design for Australia, known as "SS29 mod-AUS", may  look like the Soryu. (Photo courtesy seaforces).

This is a work in progress mainly derived from comments by "S" over the last few months. S's information, from what I call the Japanese military-industrial complex, has frequently been unique and inline with other open sources. I will update and fill out details as new information and corrections come in.

There is a firmer Japanese intention to build the future submarines in Australia. See Reuters' excellent article Japan says ready to build all submarines for Canberra in AustraliaSeptember 29, 2015.

An excellent article by Mina Pollmann for The Diplomat indicates: "Japan’s Ministry of Defense (MOD) created the 1,800-person strong Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics Agency (ATLA) on October 1 [2015] to deal with many of the practical challenges that remain to implement this new export policy. A staff of 50 within ATLA will be dedicated specifically to arms export promotion….The proposal for submarine technology cooperation between Japan and Australia is a classic case of Japan trying to alleviate its abandonment fears vis-à-vis the U.S. by proving its commitment to “burden-sharing.”" 

I'm under the impression that Japan will likely win. The US probably still wants that. A winner needs to be qualified to receive the mainly US developed combat system which Australia has already announced Australia will use as a "key strategic requirement" (see item c) See Lockheed Martin Combat System Laboratory that has just opened at Mawson Lakes un Adelaide. If not Japan then probably Germany. 

The internal Japanese name for Australia's submarine class is (as at September 2015) SS29 mod-AUS. See the Soryu Table below. Japan is making a 29SS first for its own Navy. Japan's 29SS will , perhaps be laid down in Kobe, Japan in 2018. 

If Australia accepts that 29SS will be a part-prototype for the 8 to 12 SS29 mod-AUS submarines to be built in Australia then the Australian sub is unlikely to use Air Independent Propulsion (AIP). Australia did not use AIP in the Collins and "no-AIP" was one of the enlightened decisions involving the Collins. AIP involves high cost, heavy weight additions, balance-buoyancy problems and most importantly can be particularly dangerous due mainly to poison and/or explosive gases. However Australia is likely to use Lithium-ion batteries (LIBs) that are becoming the standard high capacity, quickly charged battery type.

On the issue of less than 30 year operational life the preferred Japanese measure seems to be comparing the Japanese sub with German and French subs according to days actually on operational missions. However, I think non-operational time in salt water (which can rust/corrode hulls) at Fleet Base West should also be taken into account.

The hull structure will be partly double and partly single hull instead of the all single hull on the Collins.

The pressure hull will not use Japan's most secret pressure hull steel alloy known as naval steel NS-110. Instead an alloy that is easier to cut and reweld (for major maintenance in Australia) will be used. I would guess that it may have a US scale HY value of HY-120 or HY-130. Countries involved in formulating a new or existing alloy would include Australia, Japan, maybe the US and possibly also Sweden. Given experience with Collins steel Australia has demonstrated it can make submarine steel. Australia making the steel (probably at Wollongong or Newcastle) might be considered part of the 70%-80% of the “Full Australian” build.


88 meters [source S comment Sept 26, 2015 3:17AM
9.1 meters Worked Out (1) below

8.5 meters [approx - this is current Soryu measure]

3,600 tons (surfaced) / 4,500-4,600 tons (submerged) [source for all 
displacement figures S comment Sept 26, 2015 3:17AM] Worked Out (2) below

11,500nm/10kt surfaced, / Worked Out (3) below
8000-9000nm/6.5kt snorkel
 and ca. 3000 nm/4kt submerged, 20+ kt max submerged (current Soryu)

40 Worked Out (4) below
Operational depth:
900 feet (275 meters) test depth [same as "shallow" official Soryu depth]

Diesel-Electric using Lithium-ion Batteries (LIBs)
2 Kawasaki 12V25/25SB or more advanced Kawasaki diesel engines Worked Out (5) and (6) below
equipped with newly-developed snorkel-generator system - see (6) below
6+ MW [approx] permanent magnet motor [APDR Oct 2015 edition, Vol. 41, No.8, page 44]
4,500 hp surfaced [est extrapolation]/ 8,500 hp submerged [est extrapolation]
1 shaft / 1 propeller

6 x 21-inch (533mm) torpedo tubes for 30 Mk 48 torpedoes or sub-launched Harpoon SSM or Tomahawk land attack or mines or UUVs. No VLS.

                                         AN/BYG-1 combat system with compatible sonars + other sensors
                                         Maybe detachable Dry Deck Shelter for divers or 
                                         diver delivery vehicle or LDUUV

How some figures Worked Out (1) to (5) by S in Comments at October 2, 2015 at 2:00 AM

(1)  Beam remains unchanged 9.1m as on current Soryu. Pressure shaping of hull steel plate to cylinder is very difficult process, so lengthening hull is much easier than broadening beam to increase submarine volume.

(2)  Displacement  "Surfaced: weight minus {liquid oxygen & container (120t), Stirling AIP (2-3t)} plus {LIBs(380t), longer hull + additional fuel (240t)} = +500t"

"Submerged: increase in water weight corresponding to volume increase with increase in hull length (+4m) = +300t"

(3)  Speed and range - "According to right sidebar Wikipedia, both surface and snorkel cruising speeds of Collins are 10kt, but these values seem to be introduced as maximum speeds by the RAN. S calculated and estimated amount of diesel fuel to achieve wiki-performance of Collins (11,500nm/10kt surfaced, 9,000nm/10kt snorkel) , and concluded that Collins must carry 800-1000 tons of diesel fuel to achieve 9,000nm/10kt and that it was impossible. Judging from the projected figure/dimension of Collins and from comparison with Soryu. S thinks that Collins cruises 9,000nm at ca.6kt snorkel by using ca.300ton of diesel fuel."

"29SS mod-AUS may achieve 8000-9000nm/6.5kt snorkel and ca. 3000 nm/4kt submerged. Speed of submarine is affected by drag rather than displacement. In 29SS mod-AUS, as frontal projected area and shape are not changed with slight increase in length (+4m=5%), drag does not become worse meaning negligible loss in performance compared to 29SS."

(4)  Number of Crew - "JMSDF adopts 3 working shift system for submarine operation except cooks with 2 working shift and RAN adopts 2 working shift system. In efficient 29SS without AIP, they can reduce at least 6 crews resulting in total 59 crews. In case of SS29 mod-AUS, total crew may be 40."

(5)  Improvement in diesel engine for rapid charge of LIBs - "Enhancement of diesel generation will be achieved by simple capacity increase (increase in bore and stroke) in cylinder volume, not by increase in numbers of diesel engine or cylinder. Increase in numbers of diesel engine requires change of arrangement of diesel engine room. V12 engine (12V25/25SB) is best cylinder configuration with ideal balance and least vibration.
The capacity increase in cylinder is dominated by snorkel capacity which may increase to certain extent which is limited by the unchanged dimension and shape of the mast. JMSDF may make an increase in diameter of snorkel and filter efficiency up to 20-25%. I think new V12 engine can improve in performance of 50-100% (12,000-16,000PS) which brings increase in snorkel speed (15-25%)."

(6)  Worked out by wispywood2344 in Comments on October 2, 2015 at 9:39 PM - The 29SS-class must be equipped with "newly-developed" snorkel-generator system, and its diesel engine must not be 12V25/25S variant. Because, TRDI(Technical Research and Development Institute) had concluded that present snorkel-generator system must be outdated in performance in 2020s, and started development of next-generation snorkel-generator system including diesel engine. The main concept is downsizing, increasing power, and reduce noise emission.[see Japanese language PDF]. Note that the first adoption of 12V25/25S series was 28 years ago (lead ship of Harushio-class), and its design is already obsolete. I guess that performance improvement of the diesel engine should be achieved by "expanding boost pressure" and/or "increasing rotating speed". 


The increase in displacement (surfaced) up from 2,900 tons (for the Soryu) to 3,600 tons for the SS29 mod-AUS, is probably due to the need for extra diesel fuel (for 10,000+ nautical miles range, up from 6,000) and more diesel engine capacity for faster Lithium-ion Battery charging requirements.

(which provides the context from which the Australian submarine will be developed)

One of the strengths of Japan overseeing the build of the Australian submarine is that the Japanese military-industrial complex (Japanese Ministry of Defence, Navy, KHI and MHI) is very stable but also constantly innovates.

Each of the Soryus (in the table below) is built on the lessons of each previous Soryu. The Soryu as a group have been developed on the basis of the preceding Oyashio class (11 subs, 1998 - present)  and Harushio class (7 subs, 1990 - 2 may be still training/testbeds).

LAB or LIB & AIP *
Laid Down
Sōryū (そうりゅう) / Blue Dragon
March 2005
Dec 2007
Unryū (うんりゅう) / Cloud Dragon
March 2006
Oct 2008
Hakuryū (はくりゅう) / White Dragon
Feb 2007
Oct 2009
Kenryū (けんりゅう) / Sword Dragon
March 2008
Nov 2010
Zuiryu (けんりゅう) / Sword Dragon
March 2009
Oct 2011
Kokuryū (こくりゅう) / Black Dragon
January 2011
Oct 2013
Jinryū (じんりゅう)/ Benevolent Dragon
Feb 2012
Nov 2014
Soryu Mark 2 
LIB only
LIB only
LIB only


 SS29 mod-AUS

in Aus

LAB = Lead Acid Battery.
LIB = Lithium-ion Battery,
AIP = Air Independent Propulsion (Swedish-Kockums designed Stirling engine)

I'll add new figures, comments and corrections as they come to hand.