September 26, 2015

Japan willing to build in Aus says Industry Min Pyne, Japan Design Information - Table

Will an enlarged Japanese submarine (similar to the one pictured) win the future submarine competition and be built in Australia?

COMMENT

Industry Minister Christopher Pyne is playing up an aspect of the future submarine Competitive Evaluation Process (CEP) that was always there. This is two days since his last major defence announcement? That is that each of the three bidders must supply a Full Build in Australia option. Pyne's assertions today:

-  supports my theory that as the most senior politician (and MP) from South Australia he has to be seen by other South Australian MPs who voted for Turnbull as standing up for the interests of their State.

-  takes account of the possibility that if most of the submarines are not eventually built in South Australia at least he can say he tried. Other politicians, interests and scapegoats can then be blamed.

-  confirm his high status in the new Turnbull Ministry while increasing the safety of his electorate position in South Australia

-  redefine the role of Industry Minister in what under previous Governments would have been a matter for main carriage by the Defence Minister or Prime Minister. This may portend current or future power instability in the Turnbull Government. 

-  the relative lack of Defence Ministerial and Prime Ministerial comment on submarines this week appears to indicate tacit approval by those 2 Ministers with Industry Minister Pyne’s message and his right to communicate it. 

-  presumably new Defence Minister Marise Payne is fully engaged with the 2015 Defence White Paper editing and publication process (which includes more official submarine, future frigate and smaller patrol vessel announcements)

The SEA 1000 CEP is actually for an entirely new submarine that will weigh 4,000 tons (surfaced). Claims of Off-the-Shelf are deceptive or uninformed. This will be the world's heaviest conventional submarine. 

The likely eventual cost 3 $Billion each (if built by highly inefficient ASC in South Australia) needs to be anticipated.  

If new Treasurer, Scott Morrison, is talking of the need for restraint in the CIVILIAN budget why is Australia proposing to build the most expensive conventional submarine ever? 

Is the DEFENCE budget a sacred cow set apart from other budget realities?

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

ARTICLE

ABC Online, September 25, 2016 reports.

All three international bidders for the multi-billion-dollar contract to produce Australia's next fleet of submarines would prefer to build in Australia, according to Cabinet Minister Christopher Pyne.

…Industry Minister Mr Pyne has confirmed Japan is open to an Australian build process, and said all three countries were prepared to offer a local build option.

"All three of them are now saying they'd prefer a domestic build," Mr Pyne told Channel Nine this morning.

…Mr Pyne holds a South Australian seat that is considered marginal and has played up the prospects of Japan's interest in building in Australia.

"As a South Australian that is music to my ears but we will go through the proper processes and we'll make an announce at the appropriate time," he said.


…Labor's defence spokesman Stephen Conroy said he was happy to hear all countries were providing a local build option. But he said Mr Pyne had not indicated that the Government will rule out building the submarines overseas. "When Chris Pyne and Marise Payne and Malcolm Turnbull receive those bids they should only consider the three domestic build bids."

INFORMATION FROM S

On a less mainstream media matter special correspondent to Submarine Matters “S” indicated today that:

As [the Japanese Navy] does not like to lengthen submarines, if there is not significant structural change, the length of SS29 [may be laid down 2018 and commissioned 2022 - see table below] is expected to be 84 meters. That is the same as the [current Soryu and future Soryu for Japan] length of  SS28, i.e. 84m.

If the length of SS29 mod-AUS [Japanese designed future submarine for Australia] is 88m (submerged weight = 4500-4600t) for additional fuel and improved endurance - the extra range of 5000nm [to achieve the 11,000 nautical miles range that Australia wants] is achievable without loss of performance in my opinion. I expect some increase (plus 1-2knot/h) in the snorkel speed for 29SS by scaling-up the diesel engines.


The cost of the US combat system integration is not reported, but the cost related to the submarine information processing subsystem consisted of:

 i) computer for calculation on sonar and launch controller and 

ii) display of target is reported. 

The cost of the submarine information display for 19SS in FY2014 is 420M\ (5M$,100\=1.19$)|. [source of information provided to S undisclosed]

SORYU SUBMARINE PRODUCTION-DESIGN TABLE


SS
No.
Building
No.
Pennant
No.
Name/Namesake
LAB or LIB & AIP *
Laid Down
Laun
-ched
Commi-ssioned
Built
By
16SS
8116
SS-501
Sōryū (そうりゅう) / Blue Dragon
LAB + AIP
March 2005
Dec 2007
March
2009
MHI
17SS
8117
SS-502
Unryū (うんりゅう) / Cloud Dragon
LAB + AIP
March 2006
Oct 2008
March
2010
KHI
18SS
8118
SS-503
Hakuryū (はくりゅう) / White Dragon
LAB + AIP
Feb 2007
Oct 2009
March
2011
MHI
19SS
8119
SS-504
Kenryū (けんりゅう) / Sword Dragon
LAB + AIP
March 2008
Nov 2010
March
2012
KHI
20SS
8120
SS-505
Zuiryu (けんりゅう) / Sword Dragon
LAB + AIP
March 2009
Oct 2011
March
2013
MHI
22SS
8122
SS-506
Kokuryū (こくりゅう) / Black Dragon
LAB + AIP
January 2011
Oct 2013
March
2014
KHI
23SS
8123
SS-507
Jinryū (じんりゅう)/ Benevolent Dragon
LAB + AIP
Feb 2012
Nov 2014
March
2016?
MHI
24SS
8124
SS-508
?
LAB + AIP
2013
2015?
2017
KHI
25SS
8125
SS-509
?
LAB + AIP
2014
2016?
2018
MHI
26SS
8126
SS-510
?
LAB? + AIP
2015
2017?
2019
KHI
27SS
8127
SS-511
Soryu Mark 2 
LIB only
2016?
2018?
2020?
MHI
28SS
8128
SS-512
?
LIB only
2017?
2019?
2021?
KHI
29SS
8129
SS-513
LIB only
2018?
2020?
2022?
MHI







1AU?


 1st Australian class?

2023?
2026?
2029?



















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

Pete

37 comments:

ONeil Padilla said...

HiPete,

'Will an enlarged Japanese submarine (similar to the one pictured) win the future submarine competition and be built in Australia?'

It sure as hell looks that way, politically speaking I don't think they can go any other way. It'll keep everybody happy eg The Americans. (it just seems to me that Turnbull doesn't want to rock the boat on this one)

Does or will the Japanese option have a VMPL for cruise missiles?


PS - You've sold me on the 218 idea but I don't think our pollies are listening…..
.....

Peter Coates said...

Hi ONeil

Oh how quickly the submarine issue has moved since it was driven by the Abbott-Credlin Prime Ministership. Turnbull, indeed, is standing back on this whole of Cabinet matter. Either that or Turnbull is letting Pyne risk submergence in dangerous waters. Kim Beazley suffered from hitching himself to the Collins - maybe its Pyne's turn?

It is unclear whether Japan has included a Vertical Multi-Purpose Lock (VMPL) in its design. As the US, be default, is providing the combat system maybe the US (the world's most experienced VMPL user) will help Japan install a VMPL. It would only cost an extra $300 million per submarine.

Australia could buy 8 x 218s for $8 Billion all up. But hey! Australia has money to burn in the DEFENCE budget for what will be $24 Billion all up.

Scott Morrison is cutting the budget for CIVILIANS. So lets splurge on subs?

Regards

Pete

ONeil Padilla said...

Hi Pete,

I would just buy 6-8 Virginia class and be done with it, order an extra Destroyer
and increase the Frigate numbers to 12, that might placate the South Australians and keep their ship yards humming?!?!? (sigh)
I would of also considered a serious purchase of the P1 over the P8 MPA, but I guess the development with a little more advanced in the P8 and the economies of scale were probably better (even though that hasn’t seem to be transferred into a cheaper prices P1 - $140 million, P8 - $171 million?!?)
I like the P1’s 4 engine redundancy and magnetic anomaly detector (MAD) , I’ve read reports that the American crews who have switched over from P3’s to P8s really miss it!
Me think the Indians were right to add it on to their version.

ONeil.

Anonymous said...

Hi Pete

Japanese ambassador Sumio Kusaka told to The Australian that there was no strong opposition among the Japanese people to close co-operation on submarines. But, in “Yahoo Japan”, the biggest Japanese portal site, more than 95% of people vote or indicate opposition to production of Soryu in Australia. Mr. Kusada can represent the idea or willingness of Japanese government, it’s his duty, but he has to inform the fact to prevent from miscommunication between Australian and Japanese. Mr. Kusada does not seem to understand the meaning of his job.

[1]http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/defence/japan-in-local-jobs-pitch-for-submarines-deal/story-e6frg8yo-1227542867934?sv=7621a13e1a18ef16b26c7eb7edef936e “Japan in local jobs pitch for submarines deal”, The Australian,September 25, 2015 11:57AM by Brendan Nicholson

Regards
S

Anonymous said...

Hi Pete

Incorporation of VLS (Tomahawk) into 29SS mod-AUS (displacement: submerged = 4500-4600t, surfaced=ca.3600t; length=88m) needs a huge design change considering various factors such as i) position of heavy VLS system, ii) balance and strength of submarine, iii) enhancement of power generation for VLS system, iv) increase in personnel and fuel, v) lengthen of hull, etc.

As Japan has no experience of VLS, US cooperation will be needed. US and Japan used to conduct collaborative research on development of pressure hull steel for years (1995-2002).

Regards
S

Peter Coates said...

Hi S

Do you think that the Japanese Ministry of Defence, or KHI and MHI are angry with Ambassador Kusaka

or is Kusaka just being realistic (Japan cannot sell its submarines without building most of them in Australia)?

The Australian website http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/defence/japan-in-local-jobs-pitch-for-submarines-deal/story-e6frg8yo-1227542867934?sv=7621a13e1a18ef16b26c7eb7edef936e is a Pay-Subsciption Site in Australia.

So I have located http://www.9news.com.au/national/2015/09/25/04/47/japan-says-it-can-build-subs-in-australia as an alternative source.

Regards

Pete

Peter Coates said...

Hi ONeil [Sep 25, 2015 6:24PM]

Many reasons why Australia could not afford Virginia SSNs including likely 4 US$Billion (for export) cost per sub, extremely large crew sizes, basing and reactor management-emergency infrastructure and avoiding triggering an SSN arms race among have-nots in the region.

I think there are opportunity costs like money for Health, Education, Roads and Welfare that should not be excessively wasted on Australia's inefficient shipbuilding sector.

Japan's P1 is underdeveloped and has never been exported so I don't trust their optimistic pricing.

Yes Australia should revisit a magnetic anomaly detector (MAD) on its future P-8s

Regards

Pete

Peter Coates said...

Hi S [at Sept 26, 2015 3:17AM]

Those design specifications for the Japanese submarine for Australia "29SS mod-AUS" are interesting:

Length - 88 meters

Displacement (surfaced) - 3600 t (tons or tonnes?)

Displacement (submerged) 4500-4600t

VLS is very much an SSN feature. While the Australian sub may come at a high SSN scale cost if built in Australia our sub would have the disadvantages of conventional propulsion. Oh well.

Yes I suspected that any winner (DCNS, TKMS or Japan) would need to seek US assistance to build VLS tubes or a Vertical Multi-Purpose Lock (VMPL). The Swedish-German concept of a Horizontal Multi-Purpose Lock (HMPL) may be much more efficient on less space, easier balance, lower weight and lower price lines.

Dry Deck Shelter may make sense.

Regards

Pete

Anonymous said...

Pete

Ministry of Defense (MOD), especially Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force (JMSDF) is definitely furious at ambassador Kusada or Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA). I have never heard that any member of JMSDF supports key technology transfer such as NS110-GTAW (Gas Tungsten Arc Welding), snorkel system, sound insulating system and so on, but Mr. Kusada said Japan would accept any decision by Australia [1] on Sept 25.

Former Defense Minister, Kevin Andrews announced 70-80% of local building policy on Sept 17. The Prime Minister Abe enacted Security-related bills on Sept 19. Sept 20-24 are national holiday of Japan. In these situations, there is no time to discuss and fix key submarine issues by MOD and MOFA. I think MOFA or Mr Kusada did not obtain agreement of MOD. As Mr Kusada graduated faculty of law, he does not understand how these technologies are important.

[1]http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/defence/japan-in-local-jobs-pitch-for-submarines-deal/story-e6frg8yo-1227542867934?sv=7621a13e1a18ef16b26c7eb7edef936e THE AUSTRALIAN:
He (ambassador Sumio Kusaka) confirmed Japan’s bid was to build an evolved Soryu-class submarine with a much longer range than the domestic version to meet the requirements of the Royal Australian Navy. “We will go along with whatever decision the Australian government makes,” he said. “It is very important to Japan to be able to design world-class submarines. Not many nations can do that.”

Regards
S

Anonymous said...

Hi Pete,

There are legal issue for not going option N (N for Nuclear):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Australia#Nuclear_power_politics
"The Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 prohibits certain nuclear actions specified in s.22A unless a federal approval is obtained. It specifically prohibits nuclear power generation in s.140A (an amendment insisted upon by the Australian Democrats). The Act states that the Minister must not approve an action consisting of or involving the construction or operation of a nuclear fuel fabrication plant, or a nuclear power plant, or an enrichment plant, or a reprocessing facility."

So until our politicians managed to overcome the opposition from the Labor, the Green, the many anti-nuclear citizens and the special interest groups from SA and get another amendment to lift the ban, RAN cannot purchase a SSN.

30 years ago, Kim Beazley (a MP from SA) ignored the fact (there are other yards in Australia, but none in SA) and created ASC in his home state, we didn't pick the option N, French offered a SSK version of their SSN (Rubis class), German offered a version of their best selling (although, even they admitted it was cheaper but not a good) Type 209 and RAN chose a design from a nation who had no experience in exporting submarine. And to keep "Australian jobs/skills", we chose to design our own combat system.

It ended up real bad.

30 years later, another MP from SA ignored the fact that are better yards inside and outside Australia, hijacked the nation to build submarines in his home state. We again cannot pick the option N, French again offered a SSK version of their SSN, German offered a version of their best selling cheaper but not as good submarine and RAN is again very likely to chose a design from a nation who had no experience in exporting submarine. Fortunately, we are not going to design our own combat system again.

Sounds like a repeat of history. Hope we have learn from last mistake and don't ended up as bad.

imacca said...

" 30 years ago, Kim Beazley (a MP from SA) ignored the fact (there are other yards in Australia, but none in SA) and created ASC in his home state, "

err...No. Kim Beasley is from Western Australia actually.

Anonymous said...

Hi Pete

I retract a part of my comment (September 26, 2015 at 2:07 PM; “I think MOFA or Mr. Kusada did not obtain agreement of MOD”), because I found three information (1, 2, 3) which suggested agreement of MOD.

(1) NHK (the national public broadcasting organization of Japan) in Sept 13:
“MOD will propose idea considering local employment for submarine building of Australia in November meeting and make decision in next January.”

(2) The Nikkei (the world's largest financial newspaper) in Sept 19:
“Government is going designate Hideaki Watanabe to serve as director-general of to-be-launched Defense Equipment Agency of MOD. Mr. Watanabe, the current director-general of Technical Research and Development Institute (TRDI) of MOD, has detail knowledge about technology of defense equipment and overseas trends. Government judged Mr. Watanabe is an adequate person to accept order of next submarine of Australia.”

(3) “Proposals for the execution of the defense industrial policy” by Japan Business Federation in Sept 15:
“Toward CEP selection of Japan’s proposal, the public and private sectors should work together. The utilization of local industries from building stage to maintenance stage and the terms of technology transfer should be decided. The framework which defines the role of the public/private sectors and the risk sharing system should be constructed. The extensive governmental support system including industrial promotion, insurance, financial support and export control, should be aimed”

As Australia and Japan experienced huge storms, i.e. the deposition of Abbott government and the enactment of Security-related bills, respectively, I could not notice important sign which suggests the drastic change of submarine export policy in Japan.

Regards
S

Peter Coates said...

Hi imacca

Yes you are correct. Kim Beazley was about as Western Australian by birth, job as Lecturer and MP for Swan and then Brand, as one can get https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Beazley#Political_career

Any theory that Beazley chose ASC and South Australia out of home-state-itis is thus baseless.

I conjecture that the Federal Government in Beazley's time, needed the votes of SA Federal politicians - so chose SA to build the subs. If I'm right then SA is again being chosen for the same SA politicians' vote reasons. SA and ASC's proven inefficiency will then produce another Collins II fiasco.

About the only way around ASC's current inefficency is BAE buying ASC thereby the merger means privatisation and management-workforce shake-up. The new subs could then be built more efficiently mainly under BAE local company in SA and Victoria, maybe some subcontractor work for WA.

Regards

Pete

imacca said...

" The new subs could then be built more efficiently mainly under BAE local company in SA and Victoria, maybe some subcontractor work for WA. "

Maybe. I think in the political carve up of the project costs W.A. will be happy with the slice of the sustainment and basing money that gets put through Stirling and the Henderson yards.

What the W.A. pollies will be after is Austal getting some or all of the OPV work. Thats looking a bit uncertain as the indicated preference is for steel hulls and Austal seems to go all aluminium. They do have some interesting designs though so cant be written off.

Peter Coates said...

Hi S [September 26, 2015 at 2:07 PM and September 26, 2015 at 10:01 PM]

Japan now being in genuine competition with mere submarine companies (TKMS and DCNS) has obviously been a shock.

Japan may already be a problematic supplier. This includes:

1. the lower likely operational life of Japanese submarines designed for Australia (much lower than 30-35 years)?

2. NS110 being too secret for Japan to share, being too difficult to re-weld for maintenance in Australia. Presumably Japan is unable, or time is too short, for Japan to come up with an exportable submarine steel that can be welded-maintained in Australia?

3. overall Japan being too slow or too set in its "KHI-MHI build submarines only in Kobe" ways.

Maybe the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA), with its greater experience operating in Australia, realises that Japanese Ministry of Defence (MOD), KHI and MHI need to be much more flexible for Japan to have any hope of winning.

Regards

Pete

Peter Coates said...

Hi imacca [at Sept 27, 2015 3:16 PM]

Yeah in any consideration of submarine building there is also the sustainment variables and OPV (in steel) and Future Frigate overlays.

Its notable that OPV and Future Frigate goodies (both announced in Aug 2015) were mean't to make SA happy but now SA interests assume submarines belong to the SA entitlement Cargo Cult.

- Cargo cults include a "myth-dream", synthesis of indigenous and foreign elements; charismatic leaders; and lastly, belief in the appearance of an abundance of goods https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult#Causes.2C_beliefs.2C_and_practices

Hopefully "charasmatic" Christopher, Industry Minister (to date) for SOUTH AUSTRALIA, will soon be made to remember he is, in fact Federal.

Attention should more rightfully shift to the words and writings backed by the PM and Defence Minister. This is in the:

- 2015 Defence White Paper and hopefully simultaneous
- Defence Capability Review, and
- Force Structure Review

Regards

Pete

Anonymous said...

Hi Pete

(1)Answer to ” The lower likely operational life of Japanese submarines designed for Australia (much lower than 30-35 years)?”

Length of the operational life must be compared by using the same operational ratio or efficiency. If we do not operate the submarine, the operational life becomes limitless.

(2)Answer to “NS110 being too secret for Japan to share, being too difficult to re-weld for maintenance in Australia.---?”

US and Japan conducted collaborative research on development of pressure hull steel for 7years using NS110 equivalent to NY156. But, US who has continuous submarine building process yet realized to weld NY130. In the case of NS110, welding is quite difficult, and mis- or re-welding is not allowed. Welders must maintain their skill by engaging in continuous submarine building process which is not maintained by 8 submarines scheme of Australia. So, the development of new welding-friendly hull steel is realistic solution for Australia.

As reference I will show you the case of NS110. Basic research/experimental production (selection of component, preparation of specimen to check basic performance of matrix and welding materials and so on) were conducted in 1982. As a result of experiment, NS110 was completed in 1983. Research and experiment on welding property of NS110 started in 1984. NS110 was adopted to Harushio-class (precedent of Oyashio-class) in 1987. The various researches including soft joint welding were conducted until 2004.

R&D period of NS110 is long of about 20 years. But, I think new hull steel is applicable to the next submarine for Australia in time based on the following facts: i) the period from start of R&D (in 1982) to application (1987) was as short as 5 years, ii) MOD has huge amount of related data, knowledge and experience, and iii) welding condition of new hull steel is expected to be milder than that of NS110.

(3)Answer to “ overall Japan being too slow or too set in its "KHI-MHI build submarines only in Kobe" ways”

Japan Business Federation (JBF) who reported “Proposals for the execution of the defense industrial policy” is one of the most influential organization in Japan. The vice President of JBF is Mr.Miyanaga who is the president of MHI. KHI is a member of JBF. So, I believe that KHI and MHI will make effort for Australia.

Regards
S

Nicky said...

HI Pete,
This story may peak your interest.

Stranded: Ageing British nuclear submarine in top-secret mission is undergoing repairs off the coast of Iran
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3250393/Stranded-Ageing-British-nuclear-submarine-secret-mission-undergoing-repairs-coast-Iran.html

Peter Coates said...

Thanks Nicky [Sept 28, 2015 12:47AM]

Quite a mystery.

Pete

Nicky said...

HI Pete
Here's one that will peak your interest;

FEATURED | China's Undersea Nuclear Submarine Capabilities - A Critical View by Robert Potter
http://www.indrastra.com/2015/09/FEATURED-Critical-View-on-China-Undersea-Nuclear-Submarine-Capability-by-Robert-Potter-255.html

Lee McCurtayne said...

Considering, purely the performance of the ideal Submarine for Australia's needs. It does seem that speed, length(99mtrs), overall range,situational integration, range of weapons,no of special forces capability, and ability to cover operations for extended periods and offers a bigger sub for less $s with a nuclear option down the track, ATTRACTIVE.
The French Machine on paper, certainly ticks boxes. We must concentrate on the "Ideal Sub" that is bang for buck, and capability/ versatility. The French unit is closer to 5000t with a greater payload potential. particularly, torpedoes and missiles.
Yes I hear you say Big american nuclear subs!, but the Americans are reevaluating the need for ultra large machines, even the Russians are having second thoughts about super sized subs. There is a demand for smaller diesel electric, super quiet sub killers which are now being seen as more attractive package, than the past line of thought.

LM

Peter Coates said...

Hi Nicky [Sept 28, 2015 11:35PM]

By coincidence I also spotted China's Undersea Nuclear Submarine Capabilities - A Critical View by Robert Potter http://www.indrastra.com/2015/09/FEATURED-Critical-View-on-China-Undersea-Nuclear-Submarine-Capability-by-Robert-Potter-255.html and intend to run it on Submarine Matters this week.

Robert is current studying at/from the University of Queensland, in sunny Brisbane, Australia.

Regards

Pete

Peter Coates said...

Hi Lee McCurtayne [Sept 28, 2015 11:38PM]

Yes the Shortfin which may be sized down to 4,200 tons (surafaced) may be a good fit. Then again, the 216 with far less crew, may be more efficient.

I address [at http://gentleseas.blogspot.com.au/2015/09/us-and-france-in-talks-with-india-to.html posted 20 minutes ago] India's likely desire for a smaller SSN than the large ones the US and Russia build. Australia may one day be interested in buying - and buying Shortfin might be a start. Brazil, of course, is building an SSN with French help - probably Barracuda sized.

Regards

Pete

Nicky said...

HI Pete,
You may want to read this from the Diplomat Magazine.

Revealed: Why China Is Selling Submarines to Pakistan By Benjamin David Baker
http://thediplomat.com/2015/09/revealed-why-china-is-selling-submarines-to-pakistan/

Peter Coates said...

Hi Nicky [Sept 29, 2015 10:48AM]

http://thediplomat.com/2015/09/revealed-why-china-is-selling-submarines-to-pakistan/ is uninformed:

- it trusts Pakistan's constant claims over the years that Pakistan (which has no money) will buy Chinese subs - China has made no similar announcement

- it claims that the Yuan's AIP is Chinese developed when Yuans use Stirling AIP from Sweden

- claims a cruising speed for the Yuan of 18 knots on AIP. This is ludicrous even for subs snorting. Maybe 6 knots cruising on AIP is acheivable.

Regards

Pete

Lee McCurtayne said...

Can the 216 be modified to give the range of the DCNS offering.

Nicky said...

Hi Pete,
Check this out

Poland, Norway Could Team on Sub Program
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/naval/submarines/2015/09/27/poland-norway-could-team-sub-program/32555687/

Anonymous said...

Hi Pete

Japan is very serious about the bid, she will held second and third presentation in Sydney on Oct. 6 and in Melbourne on Oct., respectively. As Japan is a consensus-based society, its decision-making process is slow, but, once decided, its action is fast.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/09/29/japan-australia-submarines-idUSL4N11M2C420150929

Regards
S

Peter Coates said...

Hi S re Japan technical bid matters [Sep 27, 2015 10:48PM and Sep 30, 2015 6:43AM]

(1) On the issue of less than 30-35 year operational life the preferred Japanese measure of comparing the Japanese sub with German and French subs according to days actually on operational missions must also take into account non-operational time in salt water at Fleet Base West. Even when a sub is non-operational water rusts/corrodes hulls.

(2) Given limitations with NS110 “development of new welding-friendly hull steel is realistic solution for Australia.” I assume Japan would rapidly carry out the research and development (as rapidly as NS110 experience).

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 “Full Australian” or “Hybrid” build.

(3) Answer to “overall Japan being too slow or too set in its "KHI-MHI build submarines only in Kobe" ways”

Your subsequent reply of Sep 30, 2015 6:43AM “As Japan is a consensus-based society, its decision-making process is slow, but, once decided, its action is fast.” With link http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/09/29/japan-australia-submarines-idUSL4N11M2C420150929 responds well :)

I will do a post on the Japan bid today.

Regards

Pete

Peter Coates said...

Hi Lee McCurtayne [Sep 30, 2015 12:21AM]

As the 216 and Shortfin are both just drawing board designs, at this stage, no-one can definitively answer your question.

What can be said is that Australia wants a range of around 11,000 nautical miles and may not want to pay extra for 18,000 nautical miles.

Regards

Pete

Peter Coates said...

Hi Nicky [at Sep 30, 2015 4:05AM]

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/naval/submarines/2015/09/27/poland-norway-could-team-sub-program/32555687/ is better written than most. Same problems exist - Poland and Norway may want very different sized subs.

Neither Poland nor Norway have a history of designing/building modern subs.

It is unlikely that Sweden would involve itself with building subs that could mount land attack missiles against Russia.

This leaves France (without developed 2nd generation AIP) and Germany (more likely to be allowed by the US to "combat system" (new verb :) Tomahawks) in the running.

Regards

Pete

wispywood2344 said...

Hi Pete.

I found a document of Japanese national defense standard that helps us to estimate Soryu class submarine performance.
The title is "Common rule of submarine electric propulsion system -- Part2 : AC-motor-propelled submarines".
http://www.mod.go.jp/trdi/data/pdf/F/F8004_2.pdf

And I've translated page7 and 36.
http://livedoor.blogimg.jp/wispywood2344/imgs/9/8/98c40dab.png

It seems that AIP cruising speed of Soryu (at operation mode No.8) is 4-5 knots.

By the Way, according to my estimation, LOx loadage of Soryu is about 100 metric tons.
Convert this into available electric energy, this corresponds to about 80MWh.
http://blog.livedoor.jp/wispywood2344/archives/54964300.html

So, if all 4 stirling generators are opereted at rated power (total electric power output is 240kW), AIP duration of Soryu is about 14 days.

For your information.

Regards
wispywood2344

Peter Coates said...

Hi wispywood2344 [September 30, 2015 7:07PM]

Looks like you have a very interesting Japanese language strategic website at http://blog.livedoor.jp/wispywood2344/ .

The AIP estimates you provide are in line with what is known about the Swedish Stirling engine AIP performance which has been installed in the first batch of Soryus.

Information mainly from S indicates that in terms of tradeoffs (including safety, maintenace and crew needed to operate the Stirling AIP) Japan has decided not to continue AIP in Soryus laid down from 2016 onwards (ie 27SS onwards see Table). The 100 ton LOX weight and need to balance the Soryu as the LOX is consumed are additional factors for cessation of AIP in Soryus from 27SS onwards.

I also understand that the Stirling becomes less effecient in the higher ambient temperatures of tropical waters that some submarines operate in. If Japan returns to AIP use in future it may well go to a variation on fuel cell AIP (probably with some German help).

It seems that Japan is increasing intending to rely on Lithium-ion Batteries (higher capacity and faster charging than existing Lead acid battery).

Your research and clear English translation ability comes in at a useful time. You just need to target it precisely on what is not available in clear English on submarines. Reading Submarine Matters articles published over the last 12 months would give a pretty good idea of what isn't known.

This reference https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%81%9D%E3%81%86%E3%82%8A%E3%82%85%E3%81%86%E5%9E%8B%E6%BD%9C%E6%B0%B4%E8%89%A6 if turned into clear English would be very useful on research and development of the Soryu. I can only use Google Translate on https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%81%9D%E3%81%86%E3%82%8A%E3%82%85%E3%81%86%E5%9E%8B%E6%BD%9C%E6%B0%B4%E8%89%A6 which produces a pretty bad translation :)

Regards

Pete

Lee McCurtayne said...

The way the revenue situation is we may have to revamp the "Collins"for the next 80 yrs.

Peter Coates said...

Hi Lee

Getting rid of the "drydock queen" Collins yesterday might make many happier :)

Regards

Pete

Lee McCurtayne said...

I have a theory!!!!
You may laugh it off, but here goes anyway.
This infatuation with the Japanese offer, is a setup!. In that, disguised as an alliance, we are giving away our technical edge to the Japanese. thanks to the Americans.
The yanks are handing over our science to the Japanese, and not being seen as being biased to any specific nation. The Soryu is not competitive with the Collins, by a long shot. I see it as the Japanese getting the Gottland technology by default. I think we are being conned again. If the 3 offers on the table are not significantly better than the Collins, who stands to gain form this alliance. So much for a "Regional Superiority" after the event. As usual we are giving someone else what THEY want and we get the short straw.

Peter Coates said...

Hi Lee McCurtayne [10/4/16 8:24 AM]

Could be.

Certainly there would be a two way exchange of technical information if Japan won. This would be for the Kockums-Gotland hull-propulsion technology already in the Collins and also "lessons" for Japan in Australia modifying the US combat system in the Collins.

"Regional Superiority" is a fabricated term in the 2016 DWP used by politicians for a public who aren't able to judge. The reality is that the improved and more numerous Chinese, Indian and Russian nuclear attack subs (SSNs) that will increasingly operate in our region will make our Future Subs more inferior.

Virginia SSNs would be the only way for Australia to achieve parity or superiority in quality over China, India and Russia.

Regards

Pete