September 9, 2015

The Type 216 - A strong contender for Australian Future Submarine

Diagram of most of the future TKMS-HDW 216. Note the space for a Vertical Multi Purpose Lock (VMPL) or two behind the sail. There is also a Horizontal Multi Purpose Lock (HMPL) (the thick tube) in the torpedo section. The VMPL and HMPL will allow the Australian Navy to quickly change and release equipment for specific missions. (Diagram courtesy TKMS).
---

COMMENTS

The submarine selection is a difficult choice. But Australia should keep its powder dry and get the best deal from vendors, by keeping them guessing.

While it is a pretty safe bet that Australia will not buy SSNs it is best to be agnostic on the SSK options - balancing the boats that are partially built (Soryu and Shortfin) with what is a design (216) but not built.


Resistance against China's South China Sea militancy must be countered by political and, if necessary, strategic means.

ARTICLE

Julian Kerr has written an excellent article on the Australian Strategic Policy Institute's (ASPI's) website The Strategist, September 8, 2015 http://www.aspistrategist.org.au/the-sea-1000-contenders-the-germans-part-2/ :

"The SEA 1000 contenders: the Germans (part 2)

Germany’s bid for the SEA 1000 Future Submarine project could reasonably be described as coming from a safe pair of hands.
Since 1960, ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems (TKMS) through its Howaldwerke-Deutsche Werft (HDW) subsidiary has delivered 161 diesel-electric submarines to 20 navies. Of this total, 123 have been built for international customers —including six NATO navies—51 of them in South Korea, Turkey, Greece and Brazil.
All have been built to fixed price contracts, a model which clearly works otherwise, as noted by TKMS Board member Torsten Konker ‘we’d be broke’.
Notwithstanding the company’s experience, TKMS has yet to construct a submarine in the 4,000 tonne range that’s generally regarded as the size needed to meet Australia’s requirements.
That isn’t seen as a problem by TKMS, whose designs have steadily grown in size and capability to meet customers’ specifications.
Such an evolutionary approach, based on the consistent use of the same design philosophy, is apparent in the Type 216 reference design on which the company’s SEA 1000 proposal is based.
Predicated on a 4,345 tonne (submerged displacement) platform but designed to be scaled up or down, the Type 216 is 89 metres long with a hull diameter of 8.1 metres, two pressure-tight compartments, and a two-deck layout.
At the heart of the boat is a propulsion system that employs a methanol reformer air independent propulsion (AIP) system to achieve a submerged range without snorkelling of 2,600 nautical miles (4,815 km) at four knots, assisted by lithium ion batteries as a supplementary energy source.
Snorkelling under diesel electric power at 10 knots adds a further 10,400 nautical miles (19,260 km), during which the indiscretion rate—the percentage of time during which the snorkel is raised—is less than 20%.
Overall endurance is about 80 days during which, according to unofficial but informed sources, a submerged AIP period could, if required, exceed more than 20 days. By contrast, Collins boats have no AIP and their endurance without snorkelling is understood to be about three days.
While a 33-strong crew would be sufficient to man and operate the Type 216, 60 bunks will be provided to meet Navy’s requirements that presumably include accommodation for embarked special forces; a gym area can be included for crew wellbeing.
The Type 216 design provides space for up to 18 heavyweight torpedoes or a mix of weapons that could include missiles and mines, fired through six bow tubes.
The design also provides  an option for an innovative vertical multi-purpose lock just aft of the sail for cruise missiles, unmanned systems or divers, together with pressure-tight containers inside the aft and forward casing for torpedo countermeasures systems and garaging of unmanned aerial vehicles.
An intercept detection, ranging sonar and a new conformal array sonar in the bow are included in the sensor suite, as are an expanded flank array incorporating passive ranging, an aft sonar array, a towed array and underwater cameras.
The 2,200 tonne Dolphin II class now in service with Israel—and reputedly nuclear-armed—is the largest submarine yet produced by TKMS. Two variants known as the Type 218SG are reliably reported to have been ordered by Singapore with delivery expected in 2020.
Scaling up a pressure hull is assessed as low risk, entailing as it does the same hull material, the same calculation systematics and engineering tools, the same stealth calculations and design, the same underlying layout parameters, and the same degree of quality assurance and documentation.
The design risk is therefore in the reliability and integration of systems and subsystems, of which TKMS says more than 80% are already at sea in the company’s Type 214.
Obviously these don’t include the AN/BYG-1(V) combat management system and the Mk48 Mod 7 CBASS heavyweight torpedo that equip the Collins-class and are mandated for its successor.  Nor are they likely to include several RAN-specified underwater and surface sensors.
Yet capabilities even within a given class can vary widely depending on the requirements, skills and presumably the pockets of the operators, and TKMS says that the integration of diverse systems and the handling of sensitive information is a well-established part of its normal business.
Close engagement with the Israeli Navy on a variety of systems had seen the Dolphin II—arguably the company’s most capable type to date—‘emerge as a unique submarine that precisely meets their needs’.
A $20 billion offer by the parent company to deliver 12 Type 216-based submarines built in Germany, Australia or a mix of both, had been based on RAN’s anticipated top-level requirements, Dr John White, chairman of the Melbourne-based subsidiary TKMS Australia (TKMSA), clarified to the Senate Economics References Committee in July.
Although the actual requirements had since been made available, the comparative evaluation process  (CEP) involving all three SEA 1000 contenders wouldn’t be long enough to produce a revised figure.
Both Defence Minister Kevin Andrews and Navy chief Tim Barrett have visited the sprawling TKMS shipyard in Kiel, where Andrews saw nine submarines either under construction, refit or repair.
A subsequent paper was prepared at Andrews’ request predicting the additional facilities and expertise required at ASC should the Type 216 be constructed there under TKMS management. This paper was also copied to and discussed with Finance Minister Mathias Cormann.
Dr White, head of the successful 1990s ANZAC frigate programme, told the Senate committee that as with all complex infrastructure projects, including SEA 1000, when done properly the most efficient, lowest cost option was to engineer and plan from the very beginning for building all boats in Australia.
TKMS would also provide options for building all or some boats in Germany as requested in the CEP. If selected, the company would follow the ANZAC model and utilise multiple sites to make best use of the skilled labour located around Australia.
Perhaps surprisingly, Dr White disclosed that TKMS would find it difficult to achieve a continuous build from eight submarines—the number on which current  speculation is centred—even if planned refits and potential upgrades were included in the time frame.
Since time is money, it wouldn’t be prudent to achieve a continuous build process simply by extending the build schedule."

40 comments:

Nicky said...

HI Pete,
I think for Australia, they have options. They can talk to America on buying the Virginia class SSN. France for the Barracuda SSN or Scorpene class SSK. From the German side, I suspect the Type 216 or Type 218SG. My bet is that since Australia won't go nuclear, It may boil down between the Type 218SG vs Type 216.

Nicky said...

Hi Pete,
That's why I think for Australia, they need something that is proven and reliable. The Soryu is a huge unknown for Australia because people don't know how reliable and combat tested the Soryu class SSK is. Whereas the Germans, they have SSK's that are very well proven and have been in use by other Navies. Which is for Australia, their Safe bet is either the German Type 218SG or Type 216.

Peter Coates said...

Hi Nicky

Its a pretty safe bet that Australia will not buy SSNs.

I think the best strategy is to be impartial to a fault.

We must balance the boats that are partially built (Soryu and Shortfin) with what is a design (216) but not built.

Resistance against China's South China Sea militancy must be countered by political and, if necessary, military means.

Regards

Pete

Anonymous said...

Dear Pete,

neither the Shortfin DCNS submarine is partially build nor the Soryu in respect to Australia's special needs.

The Shortfin has no drive train and the Soryus have not the range and need far to much crew to fullfill the job. By changing some important items you will get a very different submarine. Therefore none of the contenders is even partially built.

Regards,
MHalblaub

Anonymous said...

Hi Pete

Based on The Hindu’s article (April 10, 2013 04:21 IST) [1], I cannot agree with the comment (September 11, 2015 at 4:23 AM) .

[1] http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/germans-may-find-it-hard-to-sell-their-subs/article4599258.ece “Germans may find it hard to sell their subs”

Regards
S

Peter Coates said...

Hi MHalblaub

You may have a point.

The Shortfin design needs a 700 ton reduction to meet Australia's reasonable requirements.

The Soryu AU may need a 700 ton increase in weight and a whole new pressure hull steel type.

KHI/MHI and DCNS have not produced a submarine diagram (for public release) anywhere near as convincing as that of the 216 above.

It may therefore be that KHI/MHI and DCNS are 2 or 3 years behind TKMS in design work for SEA 1000.

Regards

Pete

Peter Coates said...

Hi S [September 12, 2015 at 7:31 AM]

Probably the quality of German subs is in their having many more submarines/designs exported (140?) and on export order than any other country.

South Korea has continued to build German designs for decades and is building more as we speak.

The Greeks have never been able to afford subs at market prices and have leaned on perceived problems in the hope of getting further European Union market discounts from Germany.

German readers may like to add more clarity to the story planted by submarine competitors in The Hindu.

Regards

Pete

Peter Coates said...

PS S

I notice that the article you identified http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/germans-may-find-it-hard-to-sell-their-subs/article4599258.ece

IS DATED - April 10, 2013

It could be that KHI-MHI are desperately seeking bad "news" about their German submarine competitor.

Even "news" more than 2 years old...

Cheers :)

Pete

Anonymous said...

Dear S and Pete,

the Greek and South Korean Type 214 did indeed had their problems but these problems were solved long ago.

It took the first Greek Type 214 more than 9 years from being laid down to commissioning in 2010. The Greeks just did run out of money. Greek was desperately seeking for errors. The next 2 Greek submarines were commissioned in 2015 when Greek received more money from the EU.

The first South Korean Type 214 was commissioned in 2007. Every new submarine has noise issues to be solved. This fine tuning has to be done with every submarine. Even The Hindu article stated that the noise level was lower than the requirement but just higher than the promises by TKMS.

South Korea is today building Type 214 submarines at a rate of one submarine per year. That looks to me that South Korea is content with this submarine type.

Israel is also pleased with its new Dolphin2-class (not only for the price). We will see how happy Poland was with support for the over 50 year old Kobben-class submarines.

The problem with the Swedish A26 will be maintenance. Can Saab promise to make submarine spare parts or new submarine systems in 30 years? DCNS, TKMS and Japan look more promising. That might be the real reason why Saab was excluded from SEA 1000. Australia today knows how expensive maintaining submarines is.

Regards,
MHalblaub




ONeil Padilla said...

Hi Pete,
If the 216 does get up what's the chance of the govt installing 3 vertical multi-purpose locks? 7 cruise missiles each sounds pretty useful. Perhaps 2 vml with cruise missiles, 1 for SAS deployment and 18 torps/asm. 
That to me sounds like a useful weapons load, The Soryu has 30 heavyweight weapons capacity and I think that should be at least a bare minimum...

ONeil

Anonymous said...

Why shouldnt Kockums be able to deliver spare parts in 30 years time.
? There is no gurantee that TKMS can guarantee it either? Its one thing we can be sure of,and thats no one can predict the future...

Nicky said...

Hi Pete,
That's why going Nuclear may be the longest shot for Australia but it could be possible if the Australian's and Canadian's got the same deal the US gave the British on the Nuclear submarine & SSBN Technology.

Though in reality Pete, I am betting that it's either the Type 218SG being built for Singapore, the Dolphin 2 that Israel has or the Type 216. I also think the Type 214 is possible but that's reaching very deep. Even more deeper is the short fin Barracuda, Scorpene or even the A-26 from Sweden. That's why I think the Germans are their safer bet for SSK Submarines.

Peter Coates said...

Hi MHalblaub [September 12, 2015 at 9:14 PM]

All very true.

Its interesting how each of the contenders for Australia's Future Submarine are now beginning to talk down each others submarines. I suppose the winner's prize of A$20 Billion justifies such tactics.

Regards

Peete

Peter Coates said...

Hi ONeil Padilla

The 216 design might be big enough for 3 VMPLs that are used for various purposes. Though I think 2 VMPL and one HMPL (in the torpedo room) would be a better balance.

I think the Soryu can carry just 20 heavyweight weapon equivalents/shots. This may be 10 torpedoes/missiles + 20 x 1/2 size mines = 30 weapons but still = 20 heavyweight shots.

Regards

Pete

MHalblaub said...

Dear Anonymous September 13, 2015 at 12:23 AM,

I can predict the future. I am a scientist. I must acknowledge forecasts are not an easy business especially those concerning the future.

A well known forecast is the weather forecast. A good forecast with a probability of over 60 % is to say the weather will stay as it is. Quantum mechanics says there is a probability for everything...

What we know about Kockums is that the company was already close to death before it was reanimated by TKMS. Since 1996 Kockums did not build any submarine. Saab-Kockums may build 2 or 3 maybe 6 submarines but that's it and then ...?

DCNS and TKMS can keep up their submarine business just maintaining or upgrading old submarines. Kockums has sold to few submarines to do this and now Japan is throwing out the Sterling engines from its submarines.

Another point in military business are counter trade obligations in one way or the other. Sweden is just to small to do this on a big scale. The first batch of German Type 212A submarines have a Norwegian combat system. Germany even sponsored several submarines for Israel.

After delivering the A26 Kockums will be again dead in the water.

Before TKMS or DCNS will vanish they will merge like Nexter and KMW.

Regards,
MHalblaub

MHalblaub said...

Dear Pete,

$20 billion is the price for the submarines. The price for the sixth Dolphin2 submarine was announced to be $1 billion! The difference to the Type 214 is significant. The difference according to displacement is 1,700 t vs 2,000 t - less than 20 % heavier.

The solution is easy. The price $1 billion does include the weapons. The price for the submarine is less around $600 million.

What will be the price to provide about 8 submarines out of 12 with a complete ammunitions load? Stacked right about 14 Tomahawk cruise missiles would fit in the HMPL and about 20 torpedoes - $400 million? Does Australia want some other weapons?

-----

Does anyone has the hope that a submarine today can really launch 30 torpedoes?

The crew compartment in the sketch for Type 216 is right above the torpedo storage. If there is place for 60 men and just 33 are necessary for the submarine half of this space could be used for storage purpose. The torpedo is loaded anyway through this area. So the mechanism to lower the torpedoes from crew compartment to torpedo storage area is already there.

A big torpedo lead only makes sense in case you want to sink merchant ships.

Regards,
MHalblaub

Anonymous said...

i Pete

KHI is expected to enhance submarine facilities [1]. As MHI Kobe Shipyard & Machinery Works [2] withdrew from the construction of the general merchant ships such as container ships three years ago, I think that MHI has enough potential capacity for submarine repair.

[1] http://www.nikkei.com/article/DGXLASDZ03HOP_T00C15A9TI1000/ (Japanese) 2015/9/4 0:02 The Nikkei.
“Kawasaki Heavy Industries (KHI), is provided with the building up of the submarine, to enhance the equipment for repair to an investment of 15 billion yen by fiscal 2019. Ministry of Defense in the future a policy to increase the number of vessels deployment of submarines is expected to repair demand of the submarine also expanding. Sequentially rebuilding the five buildings in the Kobe plant (Kobe), effectively we want to be able to repair.”

[2] In Japan, submarine building is carried out in Kobe.

Regards
S

Anonymous said...

Dear MHalblaub

You are not alone to work in science and engineering, so please don't try that card, and please note that a forecast, is just that, a forecast, not the a 100% prediction of the future.

Kockums wasn't close to death before TKMS takeover, instead it was a victim of short-sighted and naive politicians.

Submarine manufacturing is seen as a very important strategic demand within the Swedish armed forces and government, therefore the chicken race against TKMS in order to get the manufacturing back in Swedish hands. I very much doubt that they will make the same mistake again and sell it to foreign hands.

I very much doubt that Kockums will be dead in the water after A26, because then its time to construct something to take over from the Gotland-class.

Peter Coates said...

Hi MHalblaub [September 13, 2015 at 7:12 PM]

Sweden needs to build 4 A26s to replace its aging fleet.

Perhaps Sweden has a hope in its Baltic market. Perhaps Sweden could sell A26s (or smaller subs) to Norway and Poland?

Regards

Pete

Peter Coates said...

Hi MHalblaub [at September 13, 2015 at 7:39 PM]

I think Australia has made a mistake by saying it has US?$20 billion to spend before Australia has concluded a deal. The three sellers may be offering their subs for the "special price" of $2.5 Billion each for the revised downward number of 8 subs.

Australia may utilise the Mark 48s, Mines and Harpoons we have already stocked for the Collins.

Australia needs to buy Tomahawks and the combat system electronics and software needs to be rolled into the $20 Billion.

Don't know if UUVs are being bought.

30 torpedos are not being launched or considered as a standard warload. Probably the regular warload will remain around 20 and that will be a mixed load of Mk48, Harpoons, maybe mines. The subs new weapons will be the Tomahawks with 6-7 Tomahawks in a VMPL depending on mission requirements.

The possible 3 VMPL + 1 HMPL + dry dock shelter? should provide all the weapon, UUV and SEAL Delivery Vehicle storage necessary.

Regards

Pete

Peter Coates said...

Hi S [at September 14, 2015 at 4:02 AM]

Thanks for the info on KHI expansion. If Australia buys from Japan then expanded submarine building capacity at MHI/KHI is important.

Australia would want to repair any subs it buys in Australia - probably Adelaide.

Regards

Pete

MHalblaub said...

Dear Anonymous (September 14, 2015 at 4:06 AM)

The submarine division of Kockums was close to death but also the surface division is not so well up and very dependent on domestic orders. DCNS and TKMS offer and build more types of ships than Kockums sold its Visby-class corvettes. The political decision to sell Kockums was made to keep the submarine division alive.

No other foreign company except of a Russian one will ever buy Kockums again.

You are not alone to work in science and engineering, so please don't try that card, and please note that a forecast, is just that, a forecast, not the a 100% prediction of the future.

The A26 is the Gotland-class replacement.

Science and engineering is except of history always about predicting the future. So I stand by my prediction that by several orders of magnitudes it is more secure that DCNS or TKMS will deliver spare parts for submarines in 50 years than Kockums.

Regards,
MHalblaub

MHalblaub said...

Dear Pete,

what Poland will buy is very dependent on what operations the submarine is thought for. As somebody already mentioned it the A26 is not a submarine for Baltic Sea only operations.

The former German submarine fleet was just for Baltic Sea operations. 18 Type 206 submarines with a torpedo load of just 8 fishes at a displacement of just 450 t. In case of an emerging conflict 12 submarines with about 96 torpedoes would have been ready.

Today Germany has about 6 Type 212A submarines with a weapons load of 19 torpedoes or 76 torpedoes somehow ready to fire. These submarines with a displacement of 1,450 t were built for world wide operations.

Today Poland is very nervous about his Russian neighbor. Just look at what fighting vehicles the Polish army ordered in recent years. There is a good chance (forecast) that Poland will order a rather small submarine for the Baltic Sea to save the money for its army and air force.

Regards,
MHalblaub

MHalblaub said...

Dear Pete,

in my opinion the price offer by Atzpodien was about an "as is"-submarine with indigenous combat system, indigenous weapons, ... Therefore I think a Type 216 submarine with US combat system, US weapons, .. could cost a little bit more. On the other side the scaled up price from a Dolphin2-class would be just about $1 billion for a 4,000 t submarine. So there are still $8 billion left for development and special wishes.

In my opinion one VMPL is enough with a lock diameter of about 2.5 m. 2 or 4 smaller vertical launch tubes (VLT) for about 6 or 7 weapons of 21 inch size with an diameter of about 1.5 m could be arranged around the big lock. It would increase the length of the submarine for about 2 meter or even less per 2 VLT. Think of a squeezed 5 on a dice with a big point in the middle.

That leads to the question will all 12 submarine need a VMPL or would it be nice to have 6 submarines with 5 smaller VLT? 5 x 6 or 5 x 12 (mines) is a nice weapons load for 6 m insertion.

A revolver system could rotate the weapons so only a small lock would be necessary. Quite nice would be a another lock on the bottom of such a system to lay mines.

Regards,
MHalblaub

Anonymous said...

Dear MHalbaub

"The A26 is the Gotland-class replacement."
No, A26 is more the replacement of the Västergötaland-class. Traditionally Sweden has worked with two-three classes during the same period. The last class to take over from the first class and the middle class at the height of its use.

"So I stand by my prediction that by several orders of magnitudes..."
Prediction yes, sure future, no... Just as Kodak was sure that it would the dominant player in photographic area in the early 70s, well, now Kodak is gone.

You seem to have a very negative view against Swedish submarines, in every area, from technical to business, cant remember a single positive word about Swedish submarines from your side. It feels like either you are afraid of a competitor to TKMA or you have somekind of bad feeling against Kockums and Sweden.

Anonymous said...

German and Swedish submarines are equipped with external mines, positioned in a "Minengürtel".
Is that a system that would be if any use for RAN or is that too specialised equipment?

/C

Peter Coates said...

Hi MHalblaub [at September 14, 2015 at 7:40 PM]

I suspect that TKMS has the best, tested, small submarine solution to Poland and Norway's needs. It may well be the 1,000 ton Type 210mod - to replace the 210 Ulas Norway has and the lighter TKMS Kobbens that Poland has.

DCNS and SAAB would need to develop, build and test there own 1,000 ton designs - with development making them more expensive and risky a sub.

If Poland and Norway want a larger developed AIP sub there is the 1,500 ton 214. Meanwhile the DCNS (second generation AIP not developed) and SAAB competitors also being underdeveloped, more expensive and more risky.

Regards

Pete

Peter Coates said...

Hi MHalblaub [at September 14, 2015 at 8:49 PM]

It is becoming more certain that Australia now aims to buy 8 submarines (not 12) I'll make this an article today. So what can be bought for $20 Billion may change or $20 Billion may drop to a lower amount as upfront price.

Looks like the term VMPL is being replaced in (all important) US Navy terms by Virginia Payload Tubes (VPTs). Two or three VPTs may be in Australia's future sub. The dimensions of Australia's VPTs will, no doubt, be governed by US VPT dimensions.

I don't know US VPT dimentions BUT they are supposed to be sufficient for 6 Tomahawks. http://breakingdefense.com/2014/04/navy-sub-program-stumbles-ssn-north-dakota-delayed-by-launch-tube-troubles/

To add to the confusion the Virginia sub may have 2 VPTs in its current dimensions BUT will have an additional 4 VPTs in a mid-section plug confusingly termed the "Virginia Payload Module (VPM)". See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia-class_submarine#Virginia_Payload_Module

Regards

Pete

MHalblaub said...

Dear /C

the "Minengürtel" (mine belt) was used with decommissioned Type 206 submarines.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:S178_U29.jpg

The Type 206 submarines just had 8 tubes without reloads. So it was a smart idea to carry the mines on the outside. This was an adhoc solution. Two former German Navy Type 206 were commissioned in 2014/15 by Colombian Navy. Indonesia was close to reuse another 4 Type 206 but the decision was canceled.

Regards,
MHalblaub






MHalblaub said...

Dear Swedish Anonymous,

I like the Saab Gripen but I also think the A26 is not the right solution for Australia. Even though the A26 might even be a good solution for Poland and other nearby neighbors which would buy the A26 as is because they all have the same necessities. I am also against a big submarine for Australia.

The problem is also related to the Australian government. Saab-Kockums could be to weak to withstand all Australian nonsense wishes.

"A26 is more the replacement of the Västergötaland-class."
Sweden has two Västergötaland-class submarines left and 3 Gotland-class. I can't image that the A26 will just replace two submarines and then another type will be developed.

"Traditionally Sweden has worked with two-three classes during the same period."
Forecast: The weather will stay as it is.

"Just as Kodak was sure that it would the dominant player in photographic area in the early 70s, well, now Kodak is gone."
German Agfa is still alive.

Regards,
MHalblaub

P.S. I also like IKEA!!!

MHalblaub said...

Dear Pete,

the Virginia Payload Tubes (VPTs) are a nice feature but not a cheap one:
"at $360–380 million per boat (in 2010 prices)".

The VPTs are also thought for weapons with A bigger diameter. A somehow shorter Trident could fit inside the VPTs. Diameter of a Trident is 2.11 m. The VPTs are also interesting for the Ohio-class so this type would be able to launch non nuclear cruise missiles. It is also nice to carry vehicles diver in case your submarine is to big and expensive for costal operations.

So Australia does not need the complete VPTs design for bigger missiles. Australia just needs the inlay to launch cruise missiles. Just like Australia does not need a complete US combat system to read US communication protocols.

Regards,
MHalblaub

Peter Coates said...

Hi /C "Swedish Anonymous [at September 15, 2015 at 12:30 AM]

Saab-Kockums will be in a better position to compete with TKMS, DCNS, Russian and rising Chinese sub sellers once Kockums has again proven it can build subs (2 x A26s) and has its equipment supplier chains worked out.

When Sweden was excluded from the Australian future submarine contest Kockums did not even have orders from the Swedish Government for the A26s. The business risk of Australia buying 12 large subs from Sweden was too great - the 12 would have been Sweden's first new-build in 20 years.

Regards

Pete

Peter Coates said...

Hi MHalblaub [at September 16, 2015 at 9:39 PM]

If Australia buys the 216 it may well have 2 - 3 VMPLs that HDW may well be offering. VMPL may equal VPTs with a VPT desined for several uses - including carrying 6 Tomahawks.

I think it remains unknown whether all or some VPTs (on Virginias) will be Trident sized. US was considering some future Virginias as Trident carriers. But US certainly wants to build a new specialised class of Trident SSBNs - smaller subs than the Ohios. Full final details and deployment not yet available.

As Australia's new subs may end up as 2 to 3 $Billion (8 for $20 Billion) then $360–380 million per sub might be reasonable. VPTs still an emerging issue for Australia - and yes, much depends on what US does.

Regards

Pete

Nicky said...

HI Pete,
It looks like Germany and Italy are expanding their Type 212. Here's the story
http://www.janes.com/article/54292/germany-italy-may-increase-submarine-fleets

Peter Coates said...

Hi Nicky

http://www.janes.com/article/54292/germany-italy-may-increase-submarine-fleets seems to be saying that Germany and Italy may each want a couple of Type 212As in the next 10 years.

I would say Germany and Italy's subs are also used for missions near Syria, Horn of Africa, Yemen and the Persian Gulf - something they don't admit.

Regards

Pete

Nicky said...

HI Pete,
I suspect Germany and Italy want Submarines on par with the Type 218SG for capabilities such as Special Operations missions, ISR missions in places like Syria, Horn of Africa, Yemen and the Persian Gulf. I think the German's and Italians are mainly using the Type 212A for their home waters and abroad until they get something bigger.

Anonymous said...

Explosion of fuel cell submarine of Hyundai Heavy Industry took place five days ago [1-3]. Fortunately, there were no casualties. Hydrogen is really dangerous.

Anonymous said...

Reference of comment (November 9, 2015 at 2:01 PM)
[1] http://news.mt.co.kr/mtview.php?no=2015110310195888747
[2]http://gangnam.joins.com/news/article/Article.aspx?total_id=18993318&sc=&mc=
[3]http://www.koreaittimes.com/story/55236/hhis-submarine-saw-explosion-hydrogen-tank

Peter Coates said...

Hi Anonymous [Nov 9, 2:01PM]

Thanks for the HHI tip. Here is a report in English http://www.koreaittimes.com/story/55236/hhis-submarine-saw-explosion-hydrogen-tank . This likely occurred in one of the Son Won-Il Type 214 Class submarines being built at HHI.

It is likely Australia will adopt long life submerged Lithium-ion Batteries only - with no AIP of any type. So the dangers of fuel cell, Stirling and MESMA AIP will be avoided.

Regards

Pete

Peter Coates said...

Hi Anonymous [at Nov 9, 2:41PM]

Thanks for the references. My November 9, 2015 at 2:47PM comment clearly crossed with yours.

Regards

Pete