June 20, 2015

Defence distances itself from Tony Abbott's submarine claims

 Australia's Prime Minister should not be a salesmen for Japanese subs.
---

Tom Richardson for INDaily ADELAIDE Independent News has written an excellent article which indicates that Prime Minister Abbott's claims favouring Japan's Soryu are not supported by the Australian Defence Department http://indaily.com.au/news/2015/05/25/defence-hoses-down-pms-soryu-sub-hype/

"Defence hoses down PM’s Soryu sub hype

TOM RICHARDSON | 25 MAY 2015

ADELAIDE | The federal Defence Department has refused to back Prime Minister Tony Abbott’s assertion that the Japanese Soryu submarine is “the best in the world”.

The PM made the claim in [23 February 2015], telling parliament that discussions over the multi-billion dollar Future Submarines contract “have been more detailed with the Japanese, because the Japanese make the best large conventional submarine in the world”[!]

But written answers from Defence to questions put on notice by Senator Nick Xenophon from an Estimates hearing are considerably less effusive.

Asked whether authorities have briefed the Prime Minister that the Soryu is the best in its class, the department replies: “Defence has provided a range of advice to Government on the future submarine program, and through engagement with Japan, Defence has established that Japan has been successful in the design and build of the Soryu class, which is of a size similar to that required by Australia.”
Xenophon told InDaily: “The political rhetoric doesn’t match the technical realities.”

In similarly measured terms, Defence responds to a question about whether it has technical information to support the PM’s claim: “Defence has technical information that helps us to understand aspects of the Soryu design that relate to our submarine capability needs.”

However, it continues, “publicly available information does not provide a true indication of the capabilities of the Soryu design”.

“Submarine capability is judged against a number of attributes, including range, endurance, payload, stealth and sensor performance. The Soryu and Collins class differ in various ways when each of these attributes is considered. There are particular requirements for the Future Submarine that the Soryu class has not been designed to meet. Incorporation of the preferred combat and weapon systems for the Future Submarine would also entail design changes.”

Defence revealed senior navy submarine command-qualified officers have “been to sea in a Soryu class submarine” early this year as part of their research.

“My mail in terms of people that I’ve spoken to, the inside running is with the Japanese,” Xenophon said.

“They’re the favourites to win this, the process seems to be stacked towards [Japan] and that is a real concern because they have never built a sub overseas let alone shared their technology, unlike the French or the Germans,” he told ABC Radio.

He also highlighted fears an overseas design would not yield local jobs in manufacturing, highlighting another response to a Question on Notice, with Defence Minister Kevin Andrews confirming the much-hyped 500 new jobs would instead be in “design assurance, combat system integration, and land-based testing of submarine systems”. WHOLE ARTICLE

Pete

27 comments:

Anonymous said...

Hi Pete

I found interesting video of TKMS Type 212A. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gtasj2i1bkA

Regards
S

Peter Coates said...

Thanks S

Looks very crowded in the TKMS Type 212A's control room - perhaps meaning only a few crew can fit, with high workloads for few crewman if they were in a long mission? Good for short missions though.

Seems that the 212A at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gtasj2i1bkA is in an exercise stalking a Canadian Halifax class frigate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halifax-class_frigate .

Regards

Pete

Peter Coates said...

Meanwhile here is a SSN Rubis-Amethyste SSN - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvBjxcJzrwA .

These were the smallest SSNs ever - made which is why France is building much larger, more able Barracuda SSNs. Very safety conscious.

Anonymous said...

Dear Pete,

here a rather old video about the U31 (the first Type 212) from 2004:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44HGpx0bhYA

The video is split in two sections from 18:00 on a comparison according to size and equipment with the older Type 206A follows.
Here the cramped Type 206A control room: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44HGpx0bhYA&feature=youtu.be&t=23m53s
In comparison here the Type 212A control room:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44HGpx0bhYA&feature=youtu.be&t=10m47s
or
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44HGpx0bhYA&feature=youtu.be&t=8m24s
Far more spacious than it looks on the other video.

According to this part the U31 had problems to dive.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44HGpx0bhYA&feature=youtu.be&t=9m15s
It is far easier to add some lead or other things than to make a submarine lighter (S-80).

The guy like to talk. He compares Type 206A to 212A: "With the old Type you hear the frames to knack. Here at 200 m you hear nothing."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44HGpx0bhYA&feature=youtu.be&t=13m26s

BTW. the terminals are not linked to a special task. They are interchangeable. The Type 214 is even bigger.

Here on the second picture you can see the Type 212A control room simulator.
http://www.marine.de/portal/a/marine/!ut/p/c4/NYq7CsJAEEX_aGYjEdHOuBDS2mjsxmQIg_sIw0QbP97dwnvgNOfiAwuJ3rKQSU4U8I7jJKfnByIp0Ms2DoHxVn8zw5QTW7VxMilelCwrrFkt1LKplgIy4-ga37mD-6_5Hvv-svPtvvVDd8U1xvMPZa1J_Q!!/

Regards,
MHalblaub

Peter Coates said...

Hi MHalblaub

Much to see in U31 (the first Type 212) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44HGpx0bhYA . Much comradery in crew relations. Older but highly digital equipment. Interesting divers checking the hull and an old sunken sub around 22.30

Yes the 206A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44HGpx0bhYA&feature=youtu.be&t=23m53s
indeed has a cramped control room – not so much “in it” but “wearing it” . The officer who looks 6 feet 2 inch may have problems bumping his head. :

The Type 212A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44HGpx0bhYA&feature=youtu.be&t=10m47s
control looks very roomy – many more combat system station-screens room. Much shorter hair-cuts – beginning mission? Interesting the catamaran vessel at 15.45. Is it a hydrology-research or minesweeper?

Yes there seems far more room in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44HGpx0bhYA&feature=youtu.be&t=8m24s . I assume the periscopes have safety sensors when they go up and down – or occasional casualties?

According to this part the U31 had problems to dive. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44HGpx0bhYA&feature=youtu.be&t=9m15s
“It is far easier to add some lead or other things than to make a submarine lighter (S-80).”
Yes it goes very much to builders experience on balance-bouyancy outcomes. Spain lacked experience – maybe the US has fixed it for them now.

"With the old Type you hear the frames to knack. Here at 200 m you hear nothing." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44HGpx0bhYA&feature=youtu.be&t=13m26s
New crewman who have watched “Das Boot” deeper than crush depth would certainly be unnerved by contraction creaking.

Interchangeable terminals was something they wanted to do with the Collins in the 1980s. Now computer processing technology has caught up. “Type 214 is even bigger”
And we caught hire some Israelis to install nuke missiles on Dolphin 2AUs :-).

“Here on the second picture you can see the Type 212A control room simulator.
http://www.marine.de/portal/a/marine/!ut/p/c4/NYq7CsJAEEX_aGYjEdHOuBDS2mjsxmQIg_sIw0QbP97dwnvgNOfiAwuJ3rKQSU4U8I7jJKfnByIp0Ms2DoHxVn8zw5QTW7VxMilelCwrrFkt1LKplgIy4-ga37mD-6_5Hvv-svPtvvVDd8U1xvMPZa1J_Q!!/ “
Definitely need simulators and submariners as pretty as Janine (first picture) helps.

Regards

Pete

Anonymous said...

Hey Pete,
the catamaran at 15.45 is a SWATH (Small-waterplane-area twin hull) that is used for ocean surveillance. They are probably doing signature measuring on the German sub.
Maybe one of these two:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USNS_Victorious_(T-AGOS-19)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USNS_Impeccable_(T-AGOS-23)

Anonymous said...

Dear Pete,

you should know the catamaran at 15:45 because it was built in Australia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HSV-2_Swift

German Navy also has a catamaran for submarine research:
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planet_(Schiff,_2005)
(Try Google translator because the English Wikipedia is thin.)

Here you can see construction of U33:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44HGpx0bhYA&feature=youtu.be&t=26m23s

The U33 is featured in this video of 2006:
https://youtu.be/GZ-eO2PFreg (Submarine hunt in the Skagerrak strait)
With frigate "Hessen" (F 221) as aim for the first trails of Seahake DM2A4.

Also a famous picture made by U18.
https://youtu.be/GZ-eO2PFreg?t=4m32s
This picture was locked away for more than ten years and one US Vice admiral had to retire. During an exercise U18 travelled right beneath the carrier for a while. Imagine an aircraft carrier firing torpedoes at his escorting ships...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZ-eO2PFreg&feature=youtu.be&t=17m42s
Sinking of German destroyer Z1 by torpedo. Z1 (Fletcher-class) did sink within 4 minutes. Details of the Seahake top speed about 55 kn (21:15).

Here another video of 2010 with an even better with around the control room:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=paBkxJ2FR7w&feature=youtu.be&t=13m48s

How to relax on a German submarine: Feierabendbier (beer o'clock)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=paBkxJ2FR7w&feature=youtu.be&t=38m12s
Einlaufbier (enter port beer):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=paBkxJ2FR7w&feature=youtu.be&t=43m10s

Here the last submarine of the first batch U 34:
https://youtu.be/HtFsY6Ad0wI

Here U 35 with the new sonar buoy (orange on top of sail): https://youtu.be/swhrwq8nPrk?t=40s


Something else:
http://www.marine.de/portal/a/marine/!ut/p/c4/04_SB8K8xLLM9MSSzPy8xBz9CP3I5EyrpHK93MQivfLEtLTUvNI8vdKk_PySVD0jQ6NEvZLU5Iy8zGz9gmxHRQBPgSDG/
There is a official statement about the efficiency of fuel cells compared to diesel generators ("Leistungsvergleich mit einem Dieselantrieb").
Efficiency for diesel generators is about 30 % while fuel cells offer 65 % (and even more).
Diesel offers about twice the energy than methanol. So with the same amount of methanol instead of diesel a submarine can produce the same electrical energy.

Type 212A the diesel generator provides 1,050 kW and the fuel cells just 300 kW. With twice the amount of fuel cells the diesel generator could be skipped for direct methanol fuel cells. The fuel cells could work surfaced just like diesel generators to recharge the batteries with sniffed air and submerged on stored oxygen.

Therefore my opinion is the future of submarines is a fuel cell system without diesel generators. Sorry MTU!

Regards,
MHalblaub

Anonymous said...

Close up of radio buoy "Callisto" on picture 7/8:
https://www.ndr.de/nachrichten/schleswig-holstein/Hochmodernes-U-Boot-ist-startklar-,uboot496.html

Peter Coates said...

Hi MHalblaub

Thanks for your June 23, 2015 at 5.24 PM and first part of your June 23, 2015 11:44 PM posts. Your research has solved the https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44HGpx0bhYA&feature=youtu.be&t=15m45s
catamaran mystery ship question. As you say she is the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HSV-2_Swift built by Incat in Tasmania (once known as Van Dieman's Land) Australia:

HSV-2 Swift is a hybrid catamaran - originally leased by the US Navy as a mine countermeasures and sea basing test platform. Now privately owned and operated by Sealift Inc - previously chartered to the USN Military Sealift Command. And may indeed be "doing signature measuring on the German sub" or logistics work.

I'll write about spy-ship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USNS_Impeccable_(T-AGOS-23) activities (years ago) off Hainan submarine base in a future post.

More to follow on your your fresh batch of sub and ship Youtubes.

Regards

Pete

Anonymous said...

Dear Pete,

the German "Planet" and the HSV-2 Swift catamarans are extremely quite so they can capture noise from other sources far better.

The German commentator on the video said the US ship stayed a little longer after a joint exercise. I doubt that they could hear anything useful;-)

Regards,
MHalblaub

Peter Coates said...

Hi MHalblaub

Yes the the many engines and shallow water in port would make for reflected water impulses - very noisy. More likely that serious testing would go under controlled conditions further out in the Atlantic.

Regards

Pete

Anonymous said...

And finally U 36: https://youtu.be/036fCZab13E
Tightness evaluation down to the official 250 m "Betriebstauchtiefe" or assured diving depth by contructor. As usual fire exercise ...

Anonymous said...

Hi Pete

Ministry of Defence (MOD) of Japan used to research fuel cell system for submarine, but quit the research. It is said that one of the main reason was that MOD could not overcome issue of hull-cutting in fuel cell stack exchange. Lifetime of Proton Exchange Membrane Fuel Cell (PEMFC) is 40000 hours for continuous running. But in the case of a submarine operation, the lifetime is expected to be shortened because of adverse effect by start-and-stop conditions. In a case vehicle, the estimated lifetime is 2,000-4,000 hours [1].LIBs and Lead Acid Batteries can be exchanged through a hatch, but PEMFCs can not. PEMFC is too big. It means that we have to exchange of PEMFC by hull-cutting, which is very complicated and expensive and includes rearrangement or adjustment of hydrogen stage or delivery system. Various impacts (reduction in hull strength, life shortening, hull-cutting and rewelding periods, verification periods, increase in a cost, etc) must be considered in every 40000 hours or less running. How many times do we have to cut hull in a 22 years operation for Japanese submarine? Should we avoid possible hull-cutting by significant reduction in operation periods of submarine?

[1] http://batteryuniversity.com/learn/article/fuel_cell_technology

Regards
S

Peter Coates said...

Hi MHalblaub [June 24, 2015 at 9:12 PM, 11:44 PM and 12:02 AM]

PETE COMMENT - Germany seems to be the most active country in generating operational in-submarine youtubes – perhaps with possible sales and crew recruiting benefits :)

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planet_(Schiff,_2005)
PETE COMMENT - Good explanation why hydrographic reseach ships are catamarans:
“The thin struts that connect the two floating bodies with the hull, hardly contribute to the buoyancy. Even in bad weather and rough seas allows a very quiet location of the vessel. This makes it a perfect base for hydrographic research on the high seas.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44HGpx0bhYA&feature=youtu.be&t=26m23s
PETE COMMENT - At 28.00 - looks very rough on the surface – time to dive deep.

https://youtu.be/GZ-eO2PFreg
PETE COMMENT - Lots of space in the sub at 13.30

https://youtu.be/GZ-eO2PFreg?t=4m32s
PETE COMMENT - Yes one US carrier nailed. Seems every western navy (but the US) cherishes such moments. China also achieved a carrier photo.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZ-eO2PFreg&feature=youtu.be&t=17m42s
PETE COMMENT - Great torpedo top speed on 55 kn!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=paBkxJ2FR7w&feature=youtu.be&t=13m48s
PETE COMMENT - Bier at 38.15 even though alkohol is verboten! Who keeps is locked away before entering port?

U 34:
https://youtu.be/HtFsY6Ad0wI
PETE COMMENT - Looks freezing topside!

http://www.marine.de/portal/a/marine/!ut/p/c4/04_SB8K8xLLM9MSSzPy8xBz9CP3I5EyrpHK93MQivfLEtLTUvNI8vdKk_PySVD0jQ6NEvZLU5Iy8zGz9gmxHRQBPgSDG/ fuel cells compared to diesel generators
PETE COMMENT - There must be some backup measures if new Li-ion batteries fail.
With increasingly sensitive seafloor sensors major LIB or LIB+AIP may become essential

Therefore my opinion is the future of submarines is a fuel cell system without diesel generators. Sorry MTU!
PETE COMMENT - Operations for Baltic and maybe North Sea countries may indeed not require diesels. For Australia 6,000nm round trip at 11 kn needs to be factored in - which still means diesels.

And finally U 36: https://youtu.be/036fCZab13E
Tightness evaluation down to the official 250 m "Betriebstauchtiefe" or assured diving depth by contructor. As usual fire exercise ...
PETE COMMENT - Looks so cold at beginning. At 30s it shows how easily the mouth of the Baltic could be blocked by sea-mines. 1.10 the electronics look very efficient.

Regards

Pete

Peter Coates said...

Hi S [at June 24, 2015 at 9:48 PM]

Thanks for a very interesting comment that I'll turn into a blog article. I suspected that Japan was looking at fuel cell AIP.

I suppose the PEMFC is too large to squeeze through the torpedo tubes?

Regards

Pete

Anonymous said...

Pete

I think that PEMFC exchange through a hach is possible [1] in the case of german submarine. See Fig.5 (page7) and Table (page9).
[1] http://www.industry.siemens.com/verticals/global/de/marine/marineschiffe/energieverteilung/Documents/sinavy-pem-fuel-cell-en.pdf

Regards
S


Anonymous said...

Dear Pete,

according to the comparison of diesel generators and fuel cells the electrical energy provided by 1 liter of diesel is equal to 1 liter methanol. So the exchange of diesel by methanol would not reduce the range of a submarine.

According a table on page 10 of the PDF provided by S the Siemens' fuel cell module size is 50 cm x 53 cm x 147 cm.

The US carrier Enterprise was nailed by a Type 206 submarine commissioned in 1975. Other navies did accomplish this mission with far more "modern" submarines decades later.

Regards,
MHalblaub

Peter Coates said...

Hi MHalblaub

Yes I think in a 4,000 tonne (surfaced) future Aussie submarine room should be found for an AIP system. It need not be a large AIP or normally used. But after 100+ years of Lead-acid batteries the change to LIBs introduces a risk LIBs may fail. In that case an AIP working to some LABs should at least allow a sub in trouble to surface.

Thanks for the fuel cell dimensions I've placed them at http://gentleseas.blogspot.com.au/2015/06/technical-problems-of-fuel-cell-aip-and.html

On the 206 - a great acheivement - perhaps US sonar was calibrated for subs larger than a 206 - just registering a 206 as an anomaly or a whale :)

Regards

Pete

Anonymous said...

Dear Pete,

here is another video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nThnmbim3Xg&feature=youtu.be&t=48m
There you can see how a torpedo is loaded inside a Type 212 submarine. The torpedo is first loaded inside a container and after that lowered inside the submarine (50:00). At 50:40 you can see the captain speaking right by the side of an empty container. This is not a torpedo tube. So the torpedo hatch is far bigger than a normal torpedo.

I guess Siemens and TKMS were smart enough to build fuel cells fit through one or another hatch;-) I would not believe that Japan is not capable of doing it. There must be another reason.

Regards,
MHalblaub

Anonymous said...

I found japanese article about submarine industry.
http://diamond.jp/articles/-/73594
This article says MHI and KHI are not happy to export submarine because of its low profitability.
Building submarine is originally low profit business. If submarine were built in Australia, profit will be smaller.
Article also says MHI and KHI have no capacity to provide submarine for Australia. They are busy in building or maintaining sub for JMSDF. Training and keeping technician is hard job so they don't want to increase the number of technicians. They have no plan to extend their facilities too.

Peter Coates said...

Hi MHalblaub

Thanks for your June 25, 2015 at 9:44 PM comment.

I'll move it as a comment to http://gentleseas.blogspot.com.au/2015/06/technical-problems-of-fuel-cell-aip-and.html as it is directly relevant to hatches for fuel cell fitting.

Regards

Pete

Peter Coates said...

Hi Anonymous [at June 26, 2015 at 5:39 AM]

Thanks for the Japanese article and especially your explantion of its contents.

Regards

Pete

Anonymous said...

Hi Pete

Both Soryu and TKMS are very good submarines, no other contender exists. Japan hesitates to sell and build Australia version Soryu, and Germany eagers to sell TKMS submarines and even offers job opportunities, but US recommends Soryu. As US is a senior defence partner of Australia and Japan, both Australia and Japan can not neglect US’s will. I have a impression that US is a shadow decision maker of Australia’s next submarine selection.

Regard
S

Peter Coates said...

Hi S

Japan certainly should be worried about security leaks to China, disrupted Soryu production and low (or no) profits in selling 6 special large subs to Australia. Australia and Japan are being forced to swallow national pride to serve the US master of us both.

Germany is not the only participant eager and able to sell to Australia - there being France as well. If Japan is eliminated the remaining French-German competition is important for Australia getting the best deal.

Regards

Pete

Peter Coates said...

New signs of:

- lack of timely political support for Abe's alliance development plans http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/shinzo-abe-tipped-to-seek-alliance-between-japan-and-australia/story-e6frg6so-1227419031545 and

- how unlikely it is that Australia would help fight for Japanese interests in the Senkaku Islands.

Anonymous said...

Hi Pete


One of the fundamental reasons of border issue is lack of respect of the rule law. Powerful nation tends to neglect tiny nation’s opinion on this issue, even if the latter shows the right opinion in terms of international law. Japan respects the rule of laws. Australia can cooperate with Japan in international movement to respect the law. It’s also beneficial to middle power like Australia. I do not expect that Australia can militarily cooperate with Japan in Senkaku issue. It’s obviously beyond Australia’s ability.

Regard
S

Peter Coates said...

Hi S

Yes Australia already sends forces to far off battlefields to service out alliance with the US. In any alliance with Japan Australia would inevitably be a junior ally compared to the much greater military and economic resources of Japan.

I agree Australia should not send forces to East China Sea disputes when the South China Sea is a more immediate battle (geo-strategic) area. Any Australia sub in the East China Sea could not be publised as an asset in a mainly US-Japan confrontation with Chinese forces.

China is more important to Australia's economy than Japan, these days.

Regards

Pete