January 13, 2016

Japanese Submarine Costings – Oyashios through to Soryu Mark 2s

The Soryu class (at top) and Oyashio class (middle). Their main weapons are the Harpoon anti-ship missile and the Type 89 (Mk 48 very similar) torpedo.
---

It is useful that Japan is publically providing Soryu Budget Estimates (below) as they have deep significance for future costings for Australia’s “Super Soryu” class (possible) future submarine. Becoming familiar with Japanese financial-military-industrial thinking is important.

Note that for most submarines exported worldwide the export price is often twice the price "charged" to the builder's own navy. Hence a US$500 million for German Navy TKMS-HDW 212 when downgraded to 214 may cost US$1 billion to a customer. As Australia may be Japan's first submarine customer necessary Japanese organisational changes and translation of millions of pages of design and "owners" manuals may represent substantial extra costs to Japan and maybe to Australia.

TKMS and DCNS cannot produce such future sub for Australia costings because their SSK submarine solutions are more theoretical than actual (noting Shortfin SSK would, in 2025, be very different from France's not yet launched Barracuda SSN).

Submarine Matters main Japanese source "S" has provided detailed comparitive figures for major parts of the Soryu program in Comments of early January 2016. Some further English translation has been done by Pete.

Japan calculates the price of its Soryu using cost accounting equation (1) GCIP (where GC = selling, general and administrative expenses, I = interest rate, P = profit ratio). As the Japanese Government has requested MHI and KHI to make nil profit in equations (1) MHI and KHI may go into the “red” depending on the circumstances.

Calculate price = overall cost + interest + profit + packaging & transport cost --- (1)
Overall cost = manufacturing cost + manufacturing cost * GC --- (2)
Manufacturing cost = direct material cost + processing cost + direct cost --- (3)
Interest = overall cost * I --- (4)
Profit = overall cost * P --- (5)
First year costs (design cost, jig & tool cost, testing cost, technical collaboration fee) belong to direct cost in equation (2) 

OYASHIO - SORYU TABLE (as at January 18, 2016)

SS
No.
Building
No.
Pennant
No.
MoF approved amount ¥ Billions & FY
LABs, LIBs, AIP
Laid Down
Laun
-ched
Commi-ssioned
Built
By
5SS
8105
SS-590/ TS3608
¥52.2B
FY1993
LABs only
 Jan 1994
Oct 1996
Mar 1998
 KHI
6SS-15SS
Oyashios
10 subs
8106
-8115
SS-591-600
¥52.2B per sub
FY1994-FY2003
LABs only
 Feb 1994
Mar 2008
 MHI
&
KHI
16SS Soryu
Mark 1
8116
SS-501
¥60B FY2004
LABs + AIP
Mar 2005
Dec 2007
Mar
2009
MHI
17SS
8117
SS-502
¥58.7B FY2005
LABs + AIP
Mar 2006
Oct 2008
Mar
2010
KHI
18SS
8118
SS-503
¥56.2 FY2006
LABs + AIP
Feb 2007
Oct 2009
Mar
2011
MHI
19SS
8119
SS-504
¥53B FY2007
LABs + AIP
Mar 2008
Nov 2010
Mar
2012
KHI
20SS
8120
SS-505
¥51B FY2008
LABs + AIP
Mar 2009
Oct 2011
Mar
2013
MHI
No
21SS
No 21SS built
22SS
8121
SS-506
¥52.8B FY2010
LABs + AIP
Jan 2011
Oct 2013
Mar
2015
KHI
23SS
8122
SS-507
¥54.6B FY2011
LABs + AIP
Feb 2012
Oct 2014
Mar 2016
MHI
24SS
8123
SS-508
¥54.7B FY2012
LABs + AIP
Mar 2013
Nov 2015
Mar 2017
KHI
25SS
8124
SS-509
¥53.1B FY2013
LABs + AIP
Oct 2013
Nov 2016
Mar 2018
MHI
26SS
8125
SS-510
¥51.7B FY2014
LABs + AIP
?
?
Mar 2019
KHI
27SS
Soryu
Mark 2
8126
SS-511
¥64.3B FY2015
LIBs only
?
?
Mar 2020
MHI
28SS
8127
SS-512
¥63.6B FY2016
LIBs only
?
?
Mar 2021
KHI
29SS
?
?
 1st of New Class
LIBs only
?
?
?
?
Aus1
?
?
 Super SoryuAU
LIBs only
?
?
?
?
Aus2 to 12?
?
?
 Super SoryuAU
LIBs only
?
??
?

Table courtesy of updates provided to Submarine Matters by Japanese sources. LABs = lead-acid batteries, 
AIP = air independent propulsion, LIBs = lithium-ion batteries.  See fuller explanation of this revised January 15, 2016 Table at Submarine Matters' January 15, 2016 article Oyashio - Soryu Table, Future Sub Program, ¥ in, Dragons out.
---

In the case of 19SS, build expenses (53 billion yen) consist of government supply (23 billion yen) and build cost [labour?] (30 billion yen). About fifty percent of build cost is parts or material cost. [One billion yen currently = 12 million Australian dollars]

"Execution" (build) expenses tend to decrease every year, which are 60, 58.7, 56.2 and 53 billion yen for 16SS, 17SS, 18SS and 19SS, respectively.

The currently operational Oyashio class are the forerunners of the operational Soryu class. The Oyashios have a very similar internal and external structure to the Soryus. The Oyashio class does not have AIP so it has a shorter hull (at 81.7 meters) than the AIP equipped Soryu Mark Is (84 meters). The Oyashios also lack full rubber (Anechoic tile like) coatings on the outer hull. These differences explain some of the differences in cost between Oyashios and Soryus.

The cost of the Oyashios was 52.2 billion yen (type 5SS, FY1993 Oyashio). The cost rose to 59.8 billion yen for the AIP equipped Soryu Mark 1’s (designated type 16SS, FY2004 Soryu). A reference is “On the current status of foundation of ship building and technology” by Japanese MoD, FY2011 March.

From this comparative data, it can be concluded that the cost of AIP is high. [Pete’s Comment: The operational and safety downsides of AIP for Soryu also worried/worries the Japanese Navy]
 In fact, the total cost of the 4 AIP engines for Soryu 19SS (FY2009 Soryu) was 4 billion yen [about A$50 million upfront + high running costs].

The last of the Soryu Mark 1s (ie. with AIP) will be 26SS (which will cost 52 billion yen).

Turning to future non-AIP Soryus [Mark 2s], specifically 27SS and 28SS, each will cost 64 billion yen. Within that cost there is:

-  an increase of 1.5 billion yen for the introduction of Lithium-ion Batteries (LIBs)
-  possible extra cost for the (possible) introduction of the new snorkel system
-  removal of the AIP engines will save 4 billion yen per submarine.

"If Australia selects the Japanese submarine, the submarine will be very reliable, because there are three prototypes, i.e., 27SS, 28SS and 29SS."

DETAILED COSTINGS FOR 28SS (the 2nd SORYU MARK 2)

In December 2015, the budget for 28SS was announced by the Japanese Ministry of Defense (MoD). MoD requested 71.5 billion yen. Judging from the budget, MoD expected higher performance from the 28SS compared to the preceding 27SS, but Ministry of Finance (MoF) was not impressed with  MoD's expectation. As is correct the MoF approved budget stands and is less, at 63.6 billion yen (excluding some initial year costs).

28SS’s MoD Requested budget [1] was 71,527,717,000 (FY2016-2020) yen

The detailed request is as follows:

1) 118,833 (FY2016),
2) 71,408,884 (FY2017-2020),
3) 6,830,844 (FY2017),
4) 24,290,039 (FY2018),
5) 23,682,417 (FY2019),
6) 16,605,584 (FY2020).

28SS’s MoF Approved budget is 63.6 billion yen [2], cost of first year (FY2016) is excluded.

[So "FY" is First year not what Pete assumed to be Financial Year? Or can FY be First Year or Financial Year?]

See mid January 2016 comments explanation - First Year (FY) are more generally expenses related to the initial investment in order to fulfill the production contracts of Japanese defence equipment. From the viewpoint of proper budget management and reduce corporate risk, First year costs are blanket contract and classified into direct costs. Example: 118,833 (FY2016) in 28SS’s MoD Requested budget.

For references see:

[1]
http://www.mod.go.jp/j/yosan/gaisan/h28/gaisanyoukyu.pdf , “Detailed FY2016 Budget Request”, Page 672, Request No (Left column) 47.

[2]
http://www.mod.go.jp/e/d_budget/pdf/271016.pdf , “Defense Programs and Budget of Japan - Overview of FY2016 Budget Request”, Page 8/56.

Also note:

http://www.mod.go.jp/j/yosan/gaisan/h27/gaisanyoukyu.pdf , “Detailed FY2015 Budget Request”, Page 626, Request No (Left column) 40, and

http://www.mod.go.jp/e/d_budget/pdf/270414.pdf , “Defense Programs and Budget of Japan - Overview of FY2016 Budget Request”, Page 8/66.

Details from S on batteries, torpedos and snorkels to follow later this week.

Pete

13 comments:

Anonymous said...

Sentence: “First year costs” *snips”
Comment
First year costs are expenses related to the initial investment in order to fulfill the production contracts of defense equipment. From the viewpoint of proper budget management and reduce corporate risk, First year costs are blanket contract and classified into direct costs. Example: 118,833(FY2016) in 28SS’s MoD Requested budget

Sentence: “In the case of 19SS, build expenses (53 billion yen) consist of government supply (23 billion yen) and build cost [labour?] (30 billion yen).
Comment
Aim of the government supply is prevention from the double GCIP. Build cost is manufacturing cost in equation (3). Labor cost belongs to direct cost in equation (3).

Sentence: “-possible extra cost for the (possible) introduction of the new snorkel system”
Comment
Possible modifications are (1) snorkel system including new diesel generator, (2) additional LIBs, (3) floating deck and (4) new sonar system. Estimated costs are 2 and 3billion yen for (1) [only diesel generators] and (2) [additional 20 LIB arrays], respectively. Considering increased cost (+11.5 billion yen) of 27SS/28SS and cost effects of AIP elimination (+ 4 billion yen) and substitution of LABs by LIBs (-1.5 billion yen), i.e., 14 billion yen in total, various important modifications can be conducted. Modification (1) will be firstly conducted to exert performance of LIBs.

Regards

MHalblaub said...

Dear Pete,

Some thoughts about battery prices.

A rough estimation is 1/8 up to 1/4 of SSK displacement is batteries weight. That would be 500 t for a 4.000 t submarine.

A standard car battery with 200 Ah weights about 65 kg and costs about 300€. Value just for lead acid battery about 2.5 million €.

A LIB with the same AmperHours costs about 10 times more.

So the price for LIBs would be around 25 million on the low end. With more capacity for a submarine without an AIP the factor is at least 2.

50 million € + just for the naked LIBs and every time again for a battery replacement.

A fuel cell AIP offers far more submerged operation time than LIBs. At least 5 times longer.

Regards,
MHalblaub

Peter Coates said...

Hi MHalblaub

There are certainly inevitable costs and considerations for Australia.

If Australia chooses to ignore the US/UK nuclear route then it is likely that:

- All three CEP contenders are offering or expected to offer LIBs, noting LABs are also expensive.

- LIBs are untested in operational subs and may NOT replace LABs in common (new SSK) usage.

Australia's longterm calculation that AIP cannot handle the US combat system exceeds Japanese (also using a similar combat system) unhappiness with AIP. Australia did not adopt AIP for Collins mainly due to AIP's low power output for high Australian propulsion and combat system demands.

The US SSN combat system that Australia will definitely use on the future submarine ideally requires a nuclear reactor to achieve average electrical power levels.

Still not too late for Australia to buy 4 Virginias (which will more than do the jobs of 6 SSKs) instead.

Regards

Pete

Peter Coates said...

Hi S

Thanks for the extra info.

I will use part in the current article and part for a new article soon.

Regards

Pete

MHalblaub said...

Dear Pete,

I doubt that an US combat system would today overload an AIP.

Just compare the computing power used in 1990
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d8/Macintosh_classic.jpg
(100 Watt for 8 MHz Motorola 68000 with 16/32-bit)

and what we have today
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e8/Imac_16-9.png
(400 Watt for 4.0 GHz i7-6700K with 64/64-bit)
((Power usage is related to the display. The 21.5-inch display version needs just 300 Watt))

The Siemens Fuel Cells provide about 300 kW for a Type 212 submarine. Enough power for 1.000 iMacs with a "small" display.

Main application for computers on submarines are FFT-calculations to provide the nice water fall diagrams. Today's computer hardware has not only a 500 times faster clock speed. It also provides 4 CPUs and 64 bit data (another factor 8 for 32-bit audio - normal computer sound system just use 16 bit).

So the computers are about 4,000 times faster today. I doubt that an AN/BYG needs the same power than in 1990. GDs system was even installed on Brazilian Type 209 submarines just powered by LABs.

The 300 kW on Type 212 were provided by 9 FCM 34 fuel cell modules with a power output of 34 kW each at 630 kg weight (due to the fact that 1 cell is reserve the actual power output is 270 kW). The FCM 120 modules with 120 kW weight 930 kg. So power output according to weight was increased by factor 2.
http://w3app.siemens.com/mcms/infocenter/dokumentencenter/cc/InfocenterLanguagePacks/SINAVY%20PEM%20Fuel%20Cells/sinavy-pem-fuel-cells.pdf

The first methanol reformer for submarines was tested in 1999:
https://web.archive.org/web/20050425213817/http://www.komo.uni-kiel.de/martech/workshop/AG3-Pomm.pdf

Fuel cells for submarines are mature systems. How many commissioned submarines use LIBs today? The three Japanese submarines will be commissioned far to late to make a descent decision in 2016.


Here on page 10 is a nice scaled and dimensioned drawing:
http://vzb.baw.de/publikationen/kolloquien/0/Vortrag_7_Brennstoffzellenantrieb.pdf
You can see how big the complete fuel cell system is and how the engine compartment (to the left) is quieted on Type 212 submarines - a double hull around the diesel engine compartment.

Just the modules encircled with red and yellow belong to the FC (German: Brennstoff-Zellen - BZ) system. The area marked green is a regular switchboard necessary on every type of submarine (just ask for further translations).

Regards,
MHalblaub

Nicky said...

Hi Pete,
You might want to see what Israel's New Subs looks like

Israel's Newest And Most Advanced Submarine Is Their Last Line Of Nuclear Deterrence
http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/israels-newest-and-most-advanced-submarine-is-their-las-1752459324

Peter Coates said...

Thanks Nicky

Some great photos at http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/israels-newest-and-most-advanced-submarine-is-their-las-1752459324

Much of this was a photo shoot for Israeli national pride, for Israel's Navy and for Israel's Prime Minister Netanyahu.

If Australia was in the market for a 2,200 ton sub the Dolphin 2 (Israeli 218?) may well be the best in that tonnage. It is another example of a nuclear missile capable diesel/electric sub - what I call SSBK.

See Submarine Matters article on Dolphin 2s, eg. Rahav, at http://gentleseas.blogspot.com.au/2015/03/israeli-publicity-concerning-nuclear.html

Regards

Pete

Peter Coates said...

Hi MHalblaub [at Jan 15, 1:33AM]

You have presented a wealth of details, arguments and new issues that I'll center an article on next week.

Regards

Pete

Nicky said...

Hi Pete,
I wonder if the Australian's are looking for a Sub similar to the Dolphin 2 from Israel.

Peter Coates said...

Hi Nicky [Jan 15, 2:33 PM]

If Australia was wise (rather than entrapped by the Labor Party's 2009 (diesel powered "SSN" size) Defence White Paper) Australia would do well to have a longer term lo-hi mix.

The lo/low is 6 x medium-large (2,200 ton) submarines with the 218 (called Dolphin 2 in Israel) being the most logical choice. TKMS could begin production in 2 years.

The hi/high would be 4 x Virginia class negotiated more quietly and for longer term 2035-on production. By 2030 India, Russia and China will have significant numbers of SSNs in production and operational. South Korea viewing N Korean developments will have firm breakout to SSN plans. If South Korea does Japan would.

Thats the scheme I've been talking about since:

http://gentleseas.blogspot.com.au/2015/02/australian-nuclear-sub-option-afr-feb.html and earlier

http://gentleseas.blogspot.com.au/2014/12/mixing-australian-conventional-and.html

Regards

Pete

Peter Coates said...

Hi Nicky - further on the Dolphin 2 along comes INS Dakar

The third Dolpin 2 is to be named INS Dakar http://www.timesofisrael.com/emotions-bubble-to-surface-over-plan-to-name-new-sub-after-sunken-dakar/ There are three problems.

- Israel's original INS Dakar "sank over 45 years ago killing all 69 crew on board, [stirring] mixed feelings among relatives of the lost mariners," also making Dakar an unlucky name

- INS Dakar sounds like "Dhaka" which is the capital of Muslim Bangladesh. Israelis are a bit (alot) sensitive about Muslims.

- India also uses ship/sub titles of "INS". India also wouldn't be happy with the "INS Dhaka" confusion.

Regards

Pete

Anonymous said...

The 300KW AIP module may or may not be sufficient without seeing the hardware architecture of AN/BYG.
I understand that the AN/BYG is a fault tolerant multi core multi processor parallel computing architecture. So if each of the node has 8 quad core Xeon or Itanium processors and say there are 512 nodes, the power consumption can get big very fast. Essentially it is the same architecture as found today in big critical data centers, quite a bit more sophisticated than 1000 iMACs, much more like a supercomputer.

Anonymous said...

LIB is getting down on the cost curve. I do not believe it is any more 10X more than LAB, more like 4-5X. If you own a catamaran, and you need a 1000ah battery bank, you will likely go for LIB today.