January 15, 2016

Aus Future Submarine Program, Yen in, Dragons out

OYASHIO - SORYU TABLE (latest as at January 19, 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 new: snorkel, sonar, floating deck & G-RX6 torpedo
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
2023?
2025?
2027?
in Aus
Aus2 to 8?
?
?
 Super SoryuAU
LIBs only
2024?
2026
2028
in Aus

Table mainly courtesy of updates provided to Submarine Matters by Japanese sources. Note that it summarises the 11 submarines of the Oyashio Program (5SS - 15SS) then continues through the Soryu Program (16SS onwards)

* The Dragon names have been removed – while important in Japanese culture such names are not important to Australian or Americans. Instead the column is filled with Japanese Ministry of Finance (MoF) approved Budget Amounts in Yen (¥) Billions (B) (¥1 Billion = A$12 million on Jan 15, 2016). FY = First Year of Budgeting. These Yen  and FY years were provided by S to Submarine Matters for the article of January 13, 2016.

** LAB = lead-acid batteries, AIP = air independent propulsion, LIB = lithium-ion batteries. 


On January 16, 2016 in the Comment Thread S explained:

“The budgets for the Soryu are 20SS (¥51B), 22SS (¥52.8B), 23SS (¥54.6B), 24SS (¥54.7B), 25SS (¥53.1B) and 26SS (¥51.7B). The fluctuation of the cost is due to a combination of yearly small modifications and a continuous effort toward cost reduction as follows:

-  the MoD investigates the flow of funds to private companies on payee, expenditure and contract for procurement of submarines, and confirms that there are no problems. The cost audit after fulfillment of submarine building has been conducted from FY2002.

-  as a result of effort toward cost reduction including use of government supply, adoption of open tender and reduction of man-hours, the executed price has gradually decreased from FY2004 to FY 2007.

The man-hours of the second batch of MHI and KHI launched submarines (18SS and 19SS respectively) is about 10% lower than for the first batch (that being MHI 16SS and KHI 17SS) achieved by reduction of man-hours. This is achieved through learning, setting of standard man-hours for similar work and through time management.

PETE COMMENT 

The broad future decisions on the Australian choice (of Japan, TKMS or DCNS) are up to the National Security Committee of the Australian Cabinet with a decision likely late 2016. Much will then depend on a managerial-industrial mix of Australian companies and the "winner" (eg. Japan) building 2/3s of the subs and US companies (Raytheon and/or Lockheed Martin (as possible integrator) for 1/3 = Combat System and Weapons). Ideally Japanese expertise/experience will have main carriage of the 2/3s + 1/3s integration as a it would be messy if all three countries were constantly negotiating throughout the Program.

Undelining that the Submarine Program would not be just an Australian-Japan affair is that politically powerful Lockheed Martin has opened a Combat System Laboratory in Adelaide. A US citizen (Rear Adm (rtd) Stephen Johnson US Navy) has already been appointed General Manager, Australian Future Submarine Program - presumably he is well placed to manage and balance US, Japanese and Australian interests. 

Regarding “Aus1 ***” in the Table the dates and places where the subs are built inevitably involves opinion. Aus1 is the first of class for Australia. It may make sense to have it built in Kobe, Japan to ease initial construction, testing and certification issues. From Aus2 the numbers only go up to Aus6 in the Table because only 6 subs might be built (based on the formula 6 + 2 (maybes) used for the Oberons and Collins). (After this Submarine Matters article the Adelaide Advertiser indicated fewer than 12 subs to be built.) Building Aus2 to Aus6 in Kobe need only be a last resort if a re-run of the Collins or Air Warfare Destroyer (see 2010 onwards) problems are developing. Such a things-going-wrong situation obviously needs to be picked up early (eg. in 2023).

Whatever happens, if Japan is chosen, the materials for the submarines will mainly be produced in Japan (mainly by MHI and KHI?) and the Combat System in the US.

As with other Japanese ventures in Australia (eg. car factories) a large number of Japanese managerial and technical advisers should be in Australia. 

The clear record of Japanese submarine building discipline should produce a positive industrial and political (Federal and State levels) experience, thus minimising anarchy.

A useful and basically new background reference on the Future Submarine (Collins Replacement) Program is here.

Pete

20 comments:

Anonymous said...

Hi Pete

The budgets of Soryu are 20SS (51B), 22SS (52.8B), 23SS(54.6B), 24SS(54.7B) , 25SS(53.1B) and 26SS(51.7B). Fluctuation of cost is due to combination of yearly small modification and continuous effort toward cost reduction as follows.

MoD investigates the flow of funds to private companies on payee, expenditure and contract for procurement of submarines, and confirms that there is no problem. The cost audit after fulfillment of submarine building has been conducted from FY2002.

As a result of effort toward cost reduction including use of government supply, adoption of open tender, reduction of man-hour, the executed price gradually decrease from FY2004 to FY 2007.

Man-hour of second batch of KHI and MHI is about 10% lower than that of first batch by reduction of man-hour by learning, setting of standard man-hour [1] for resemble works and management of man-hour. The reduction of man-hour resulted in the reduction of cost, and the cost decreased from 60B (16SS MHI first batch) to 56.2B (18SS MHI second batch) and from 58.7B (17SS KHI first batch) to 53B (19SS KHI second batch).

Regards
S

Anonymous said...

I am unsure why you refer to Lockheed Martin since the AN/BYG-1 is a Raytheon product unless Lockmart will be hired as system integrator. I would hire Raytheon or General Dynamics (the designer/builder/integrator of USN SSN/SSBM) as integrator.

Peter Coates said...

Thanks S

I've put your information in the Table and text. I noticed I had not placed 21SS in the Table. Do you have the Yen Billions Budget figure for 21SS?

Regards

Pete

Peter Coates said...

Hi Anonymous re Lockheed Martin

I have amended the text, adding a link to a Lockheed Martin Media Release http://www.lockheedmartin.com.au/au/news/press-releases/2015/25092015.html which seems to indicate Lockheed Martin is already involved in seeking business regarding the Combat System.

http://www.lockheedmartin.com.au/au/news/press-releases/2015/25092015.html doesn't mention Raytheon or General Dynamics, though it does mention Thales and Saab.

Regards

Pete

Anonymous said...

Hi Pete

FY 2009 submarine (21SS) does not exist. 16SS-20SS of the table is right, and correct description of 22SS-28SS is as follows.

Pennant No/Nick name/Budget/Batteries/Laid Down/Launched/Commissioned/Build By
SS506/22SS/52.8B/LABs+LIBs/Jan2011/Oct2013/Mar2015/KHI
SS507/23SS/54.6B/LABs+LIBs/Feb2012/Oct2014/Mar2016/MHI
SS508/24SS/54.7B/LABs+LIBs/Mar2013/Nov2015/Mar2017/KHI
SS509/25SS/53.1B/LABs+LIBs/Oct2013/Nov2016/Mar2018/MHI
SS510/26SS/51.7B/LABs+LIBs/-/-/Mar2019/KHI
SS511/27SS/64.3B/LIBs/-/-/Mar2020/MHI
SS512/28SS/63.6B/LIBs/-/-/Mar2021/KHI

Regards
S

Peter Coates said...

Hi S [Jan 17, 1:05AM]

Thankyou for the clarification.

Regards

Pete

Anonymous said...

Saab and Thales are not even remotely linked to any An/BYG-1 development. I am not surprised that Lockmart is fishing for business, but with the AN/BYG-1 integration, I would hire either the AN/BYG designer (Raytheon) or someone who has integrated succesfully AN/BYG into submarines (mainly GD). In fact, Raytheon and GD are the ones USN hires.

On Russian news, the Russian Pacific fleet is going to order 6 more project 636.3 submarines.

Anonymous said...


Hi Pete

I analyzed cost of Soryu based on budget, and I concluded that Australia can build and maintain 10 submarines for 30 years (total cost 1,600B Yen) under proper management system.

Modification cost of 29SS to Aus 1 is 5 B Yen.
Adoption cost of US combat system is not high.
Premium cost in Australia is 10B Yen
30years- operation cost is double of building cost.
Life cycle cost for 30 years = {basic cost (65B) +US combat (0B)+ modification (5B)+ premium (10B)}x 2= 160B Yen

Regards
S

Anonymous said...

Hi Pete

I correct my comment (January 17, 2016 at 1:05 AM), sorry.

Pennant No/Nick name/Budget/Batteries/Laid Down/Launched/Commissioned/Build By
SS506/22SS /52.8B/LABs+AIP/Jan2011/Oct2013/Mar2015/KHI
SS507/23SS/54.6B/LABs+AIP/Feb2012/Oct2014/Mar2016/MHI
SS508/24SS/54.7B/LABs+AIP/Mar2013/Nov2015/Mar2017/KHI
SS509/25SS /53.1B/LABs+AIP/Oct2013/Nov2016/Mar2018/MHI
SS510/26SS /51.7B/LABs+AIP/-/-/Mar2019/KHI
SS511/27SS /64.3B/LIBs/-/-/Mar2020/MHI
SS512/28SS /63.6B/LIBs/-/-/Mar2021/KHI

Regards
S

Peter Coates said...

Hi S [Jan 18, 1:39AM]

No problem.

Thanks for the corrections and confirmation.

1. Note for the Pennant Numbers SS-506 to SS-512 I have put Building Numbers 8121 to 8127. Are those Building Numbers correct?.

2. Note I'm calling 29SS "1st of New Class". Is that correct?

3. I would be grateful if you could contact me on my email. If possible please provide the first two groups of an IP Address, or City and Prefecture so my sitemeter can authenticate.

Regards

Pete

Peter Coates said...

Hi Anonymous [Jan 18, 12:07AM]

Yes it is curious that Lockheed Martin has mentioned Saab and Thales in http://www.lockheedmartin.com.au/au/news/press-releases/2015/25092015.html . Saab and Thales are into many submarine related fields particularly sonar. The wiki entry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collins-class_submarine mentions in its right sidebar "Thales SHORT-TAS towed sonar array" and "Thales intercept array"

Saab's ownership of Kockums indicates likely familiarity, following the Collins, of Australian conditions, procedures, equipment needs and industrial and naval personalities.

Given Lockheed Martin's economic and political power it could easily be predicted that Lockheed Martin could be chosen as Combat System integrator and supplier. This is even if Australia going direct to Raytheon or GD may be more logical and cheaper for the Australian taxpayer.

Thanks for the Russian news.

Regards

Pete

Peter Coates said...

Hi S

For my request 3. in this string at January 18, 5:22PM its OK for you to maintain anonymity.

That is: no name, organisation (such as government or not) or precise location needs to be given.

Regards

Pete

Anonymous said...

Hi Pete

Q1 Note for the Pennant Numbers SS-506 to SS-512 I have put Building Numbers 8121 to 8127. Are those Building Numbers correct?

A1 There are no building number in the table of Soryu submarine in Japanese wiki. But building number of 23SS is 8122.

Q2: Note I'm calling 29SS "1st of New Class". Is that correct?
A2: Correct.

It is generally believed that 29SS is next generation submarine. But, I think 27SS and 28SS belong to next submarine family based on various view point.

Requirements of the next generation of Japanese are LIBs, new snorkel generation system, floating deck and new torpedo. Postponement of structure change is unlikely from view point of design.

MoD contracted the sonar systems for next submarine in 2010 and 201, respectively, except the sonar systems for 22SS and 23SS. Each new sonar system is ca.1.5 B yen more expensive than the current sonar system. I think MHI & KHI are examining actual properties of the new sonar system.

Increase in cost of LIBs is expected to be ca. 4.5 B yen for 720 LIBs arrays based on reported source.

New diesel electric generation system is indispensable to exert performance of LIBs. The new generation system does not exceed more than twice of current cost, I think. So, increase in cost of diesel electric may be 2B yen.

Cost of Stirling AIP of 23SS (2.7B yen) is cheaper than before.

Sum of cost change (+1.5B yen for new sonar, + 4.5B yen for LIBs, +2 B yen for new generation system, -2.7B yen for AIP elimination = +5.3B yen) is much less than increased cost of 27SS (+ 12.6B yen) compared with the cost of 26SS. This means existence of another modification, i.e., adoption of floating deck.

Regards
S

Peter Coates said...

Hi S [Jan 19, 12:37 AM]

Thanks for those costings and explanations.

Regards

Pete

Anonymous said...

Hi Pete

As LIBs, LABs and Stirling AIP are is customer supplied product, additional costs of other customer supplied products such as diesel generstors and sonner system will increase up to nearly 10 B JPN in Soryu Mark II (27SS, 28SS) which equips with LIBs instead of LABs and Stirling AIP. This means significant improvement of power generation and enemy detection systems in Soryu Mark II and makes Soryu Mark II stronger than Soryu Mark I.

Regards

Anonymous said...

Hi Pete

Costs of LABs and NCA-LIBs are reported to be 1.55 and 8.3 B JPN, respectively. NCA-LIBs are nealy five times more expensive than LABs, but, in terms of cost performance, NCA-LIBs are not ridiculously expensive.

Regards

Anonymous said...

Hi Pete (continued from 11/8/17 9:06 AM)

More precisely, price ratio of LAB to NCA (Lithium Nickel Cobalt Aluminum Oxide)-LIB is 4.5 and 5.4 for 576 and 480 LIBs in Soryu Mark II, respectively. Specific energy of LAB and NCA-LIB is 40-60 and 240 Wh/kg, respectively and ratio of specific energy of LAB and NCA-LIB is 4-6 nearly same as the above mentioned price raitio.

Regards

Anonymous said...


Hi Pete (continued from 11/8/17 8:56 AM)

A significant portion of additional cost of customer supplied products (10 B JPY) may be spent for diesel generators and sonar system whose price for Soryu Mark I is expected to be about 2 and 3-4 B JPY, respectively. This suggests big modification of diesel generators and sonner system portion in Soryu Mark II.

Regards

Peter Coates said...

Hi Anonymous

Thanks for your comments and information (above) of 11 August 2017.

I aim to use the information for an article next week.

That is if there is no major escalation in the US-North Korea confrontation next week - especially if Australia became involved

On Australia's possible future involvement see http://gentleseas.blogspot.com.au/2017/08/australia-would-support-us-against.html

Regards

Pete

Anonymous said...

Hi Pete (continued from 11/8/17 9:06 AM)

Cost of LABs of 1.55 B JPY is not latest figure. According to Acquisition, Technology & Logistics Agency (ATLA), costs of LABs for Soryu Mark I (26SS) and NCA-LIBs for Soryu Mark II (28SS) are 1.44 and 8.3 B JPY, respectively.

Regards