April 26, 2016

DCNS wins Australia's Future Submarine contest - Youtubes, Diagrams, Picture, Anthem.

Youtube 1. featuring the winning DCNS Shortfin contender.
---

Diagram A. Approximate DCNS Shortfin Barracuda's specifications. Displacement of 4,500 tonnes (surfaced) is indeed likely. Displacement submerged may be 5,100 tonnes. DCNS estimate a length of 97 meters. Diagram courtesy of Financial Times.
---

Diagram B. Details courtesy DCNS - via Sydney Morning Herald, April 26, 2016
---

DCNS artist's conception of the clean lines of the Shortfin Barracuda.
---

Midday 26 April 2016 - Announcement by Australian Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull

- DCNS is the preferred bidder [comment - Australia to build 12 DCNS Shortfin Barracuda's]

-  Most of build to take place in Adelaide, South Australia

-  US submarine experts a big part of CEP submarine selection process

Background

-  Most of the submarine design work will take place at the DCNS submarine shipyard at Cherbourg, France and in Adelaide

-  Australian made steel will go into submarine, The Collins steel was mainly made in Port Kembla-Wollongong, NSW, not in South Australia. So Shortfin steel likely to be made in Port Kembla-Wollongong, NSW (which is also the State where Defence Minister Senator Marise Payne comes from).

-  DCNS is mainly French Government owned

-  There will now be intense media interest before the 2 July 2016 Election, on everything DCNS especially DCNS Australia says and writes on DCNS build details. See DCNS Australia "pitch" on Shortfin.

See dcns australia submarine on Twitter.

More Australian Government detail from the Prime Minister and Defence Minister is in today's Joint Media Release.


Youtube 2. Short NavyRecognition and DCNS presentation at PACIFIC 2015 Trade Show in Sydney, October, 2015.
---

Youtube 3. DCNS's Shortfin concept was, in 2014, called SMX® Océan.
---



Vive la France!


Pete

35 comments:

imacca said...

ah well...break out the escargot and Moet.

Will be interesting to see more technical analysis of the DCNS offering. Interesting that they are proposing pump jet propulsion which will be a first for a conventional boat i think??

Does DCNS propose using AIP and or LIB's??

I think there will be a bit of argy bargy politically if the DCNS proposal builds the first in France, but that's likely to blow over pretty quickly and i can see some merit in doing that.

Anonymous said...

Hi Pete

Honestly, congratulations to Australia.

Regards
S

Ztev Konrad said...

It was a 'sensible' choice, as realistically only Japan and France had a chance. But by not going for Japan, Australia will be be troubled by quality of the basic hardware of the subs.
The French built electric motor generators from Jeumont-Schneider caused big problems in the Collins


"The January 2010 issue with HMAS Farncomb is emblematic. It involved failures in 1 of the submarine’s 3 French Jeumont-Schneider, 1,400 kW/ 440-volt DC generators, and has served in many respects as the final straw. As the Australian Department of Defence put it at the time:

“The problem stems from the way some of the generators were manufactured. At no time was the crew at risk but investigations are continuing in order to determine the impact this deficiency might have on the remainder of the submarine fleet.”
That’s a bland way to describe a serious problem. The generators must power all systems on board, from oxygen generation to combat electronics, and also drive the Collins Class’ 7,200 shp Jeumont-Schneider DC motor. Given the dangers inherent in a submarine’s mission, electrical redundancy, back-up capability, and reliability are all critical."

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/australias-submarine-program-in-the-dock-06127/

Critical sytems .... Oh dear

Anonymous said...

Hi Pete

Does australia has a plan to build some of the submarines with nuclear propulsion ?


Regards,

Hd

Anonymous said...

Hi Pete,

I have a question I hope you can help me with.

Q: Given a lot of the work will take place in Australia, how much money does France/DCNS really get? eg, of, say $30bn, will DCNS get $5bn?

Does this approximate fraction of the total tend to be what usually happens when Australia decides to build most of the ship/sub in Australia?

Thanks for your time,

Adrian

Peter Coates said...

Hi imacca

DCNS publically did not go to the level of details on whether it would include LIBs or AIP.

Australia (to my knowledge) has expressed very little interest in AIP from Collins onwards. The high electrical needs of the US Combat System may well exceed the "hotel" electrical generation capabilities of AIP.

Probablys LIBs need to be more proven, especially in their early 2020s use by Japan, before other submarine builders become confident about LIBs for submarine.

Regards

Pete

Peter Coates said...

Thanks S

Regards

Pete

Peter Coates said...

Hi Ztev

Yes the unreliability of diesels being driven hard over Australia's long transit distances has probably been the Collin's major unmet challenge. Australia transit distance more befit a nuclear reactor for speed-range.

DCNS buying rights to use modified MTU 4000 might be necessary... But still the speed-range envelope (fast Fremantle or Sydney to the middle of the South China Sea) may simply exceed diesel engine wear capabilities.

Regards

Pete

Peter Coates said...

Hi Anonymous

No to nuclear propulsion at this stage.

Chance that Australia may just build 6 conventional Shortfins until the mid-2040s while thinking long-hard about a subsequent class of 6 Barracuda SSNs.

Much will depend how threatening China is by the 2040s.

Regards

Pete

Peter Coates said...

Hi Adrian

Re "Q: Given a lot of the work will take place in Australia, how much money does France/DCNS really get? eg, of, say $30bn, will DCNS get $5bn?"

Given DCNS France will be part of the ongoing 30 years to Build

which overlaps with 50 rolling years of DCNS France involvement in Sustainment/Upgrades, and

many DCNS Australia employees will be Australians in Australia, and

many DCNS France employees (and ASC employees) will be Australians in Cherbourg, France:

The amount that filters back to DCNS in France, or is recycled there, will almost certainly be over $5bn.

Regards

Pete

Peter Coates said...

Thankyou to the person who made a Donation.

You are helping keep Submarine Matters going.

Regards

Pete

NavyRecognition said...

A video on the Shortfin Barracuda we recorded during PACIFIC 2015 show back in October

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wlr29PKX8X0

MHalblaub said...

Vive la France!

Escargots are overrated. Solo es la salsa, is what the people south of France say.

DCNS will provide us many more nice blogs. Especially then we will see what DCNS has offered and what DCNS is capable to do.

I suspect DCNS did a low ball offer. TKMS on the other side may have tried again to persuade RAN to by the right submarine just like last time.

We will see how much German content the Shortfin will have.

Regards,
MHalblaub

Peter Coates said...

Hi Xavier of NavyRecognition

Congratulations on France's win.

Thanks for the PACIFIC 2015 Youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wlr29PKX8X0. I have now placed it in the article above.

Regards

Pete

Peter Coates said...

Hi MHalblaub

Third time lucky. I feel sure TKMS will be marketing an SSN or super AIP submarine to Australia in 2065.

Meanwhile modified MTU 4000 diesels and Siemens Permasyn motors may be the best on the market...

Regards

Pete

Anonymous said...

Unreliability of diesel engines being driven hard? That depends on the diesel engine design. I have no off road diesel engine experience, but on road, the old Detroit Diesel 2 stroke engines 71 series and 92 series love to be driven really hard at the governor speed. In a motorhome, you floor them and I love their sounds. They die prematurely if you lug them.
In contrast, some of the Caterpillar engines prefer to run at 75%-80%.
Those DD 71 and 92 are million mile engines and with a new cam and turbocharger, even 2 strokes can meet Tier 2 California emissions. Even my old 6-71 from the late 1950s can be turbocharged and aftercooled and it still run hard in 2016. For highway applications, the later Detroit Diesel 4 stroke series 60 are excellent.
In fact, the MTU 4000 is the birth child of a joint design cooperation between Detroit Diesel and MTU (then belonging to M-B) in 1994.

French industrial diesel engines are notoriously bad. Even those in the Leclerc MBT do not last.
KQN

MHalblaub said...

Not to forget the Siemens fuel cells for submarines.

Therefore it would be interesting to know what DCNS has offered because many features already available for Type 2xy submarines are available for Scorpene submarines only as superb CGIs.

Shantanu kumar said...

Hello Peter, excellent blog, I just came across it a few days ago. As you know Indian Navy is also looking for new SSKs for the project P-75I. I was wondering what do you think would be a good sub for IN. While some sources do say Soryu is not going to participate, some say India actually never inquired for it. What do you think? Is there a possibility to see Soryu in the competition, or Barracuda SSK type? Thanks in Advance.

Ztev Konrad said...

Regarding diesels, the French company SEMT Pielstick is now owned fully by MAN the german company ( it was until recently a MAN-MTU partnership). MTU is now owned by Rolls Royce.

The reason for most naval diesels being from MAN or MTU or licensed, is because the major developments are patented by those who were licensed to use the original Rudolf Diesel patents ( now expired) eh the Danish firm B&W, now owned by MAN.
The bigger licensees eg Kawasaki in Japan, can and do their own development and improvements for their specialist engines. Some like Detroit Diesel work mainly for truck applications.

The new RAN subs may have their diesels built in France but I'll guarantee they are a 'MAN design'

Anonymous said...

I hope we include the MTU engine as the best of breed - we wouldn't be the first DCNS customer to request an MTU. I also think we should investigate funding Siemens to complete upsizing the Permasyn motor and producing a prototype.
If Japan is interested, I would also hope we consider their LIBs, as they will be the first to utilise them in a submarine, if they can be convinced their IP will be protected.

Nicky K.D Chaleunphone said...

Hi Pete,
Congrats on the Sub Deal with France. So when do you think Australia will get the Shortfin Barracuda and what will they do with the Collins. Will they sell the Collins to the Philippines?

Peter Coates said...

An excellent article is

The Diplomat's, April 27, 2016, "Why Japan Lost the Bid to Build Australia’s New Subs" [paywalled] http://thediplomat.com/2016/04/why-japan-lost-the-bid-to-build-australias-new-subs/

Peter Coates said...

Hi KQN, MHalblaub, Ztev and Anonymous(27/4/16 10:15 AM)

Your comments on diesel engine are very useful.

I'll write an article this week on the Collin's like main problem and the Shortfin's most pressing need - which is for highly reliable diesel engines.

Claimed future transit range-speed of 10,000-18,000+ nautical miles (nm) at 10-14 knots looks impressive but if one of 4 to 6 diesel engines breakdown 100 nm out of Fleet Base East impressiveness doesn't count.

Now to find the latest and most specific claimed specification for the Shortfin.

I'd be grateful for suggestions for the best links in this quest.

Regards

Peter Coates said...

Hi Shantanu kumar

On solution for India's Project P-75I. In brief:

- more Scorpenes but this time with a DCNS-DRDO developed second generation AIP
- TKMS Type 214 with its existing AIP or methanol reformer fuel cell AIP
- outside pick, not yet developed Saab-Kockums A26 with improved Stirling AIP
- Russians have no proven developed AIP for Kilos, Amurs or Kalinas

Probably unlikely Japan would offer current spec or advanced Soryu as India is demonstrably too close to Russia on advanced sub issues, typified by the INS Chakra lease and Russian help for Arihant's reactor. Japan very security conscious - needs to develop lower spec for customers sales strategy.

On "Barracuda SSK" (real chance a Russian-Indian reactor would make it an SSN). Chance of leak of Barracuda/Triomphant stealth technology through to Russia.

Regards

Pete

Peter Coates said...

Thanks Nicky

1. "So when do you think Australia will get the Shortfin Barracuda and what will they do with the Collins."

Highly political and technical issue. I could write a Brief but it would cost you.

2. "Will they sell the Collins to the Philippines?"

Highly unlikely as it would mean re-exporting highly sensitive Swedish hull and also US combat system technology (US wouldn't allow it) and sustainment is a huge cost for the Collins.

Regards

Pete

Anonymous said...

Hi Pete

Underlying cause of failure in this submarine deal is that Japan tried to sell what she could not sell. Submarine is a key defense measure in Japan, and we cannot easily share this technology with others. If enemy gets this technology, all the boats of JMSDF will be exposed to risk. The information protection on submarine directly affects defense of Japan. These facts caused implicit or explicit hesitation in selling submarine to bring failure of the submarine deal. For European builders, the submarine deal is just business, and they search request of customer and behave to achieve maximum customer satisfaction. But, for Japan it is beyond business. Japan must think security and the submarine business at the same time, these resulted in hesitation and delay or confusion of judgement.

Everything began from misunderstanding. Japan conducted “Three Principles on Arms Exports relaxation” in 2011, but Japan did not set exclusion items including submarine of exports. Japan did not expect the submarine technology transfer at all, because the submarine technology is so important. But, Australian government, who conversionary gave up the Japanese submarine technology by “Three Principles on Arms Exports”, requested submarine technology transfer and made Japanese government panic.

RAN thought Japanese submarine has somewhat similar features because Japan is also island country. But, features of Japanese submarine were resemble to those of smaller European submarines because of exclusively defensive posture. RAN also appreciated Stiring AIP and large size of submarine, but, JMSDF did not appreciate them. Stirling AIP and large size provided complex operation and being detected-ness, respectively.

Regards
S

Anonymous said...

Choosing DCNS flags to me that Aus is thinking nukes for the future, the switch from shortfin to full barracuda is easy once national understanding of the requirement is digested. Note how the Govt made a virtue of "regionally superior"?? No conventional can ever be superior, this we know, thus the subs will have to advance to the next level (ie nuclear) if they are ever going to deliver the promised superiority - perfect politics!

SA is already looking at nuclear disposal/energy to replace lost jobs, whereupon Defence could source the expertise to sustain a nuke fleet - the single reason they claim they cannot at present! Navy must be able to maintain their own boats, the problem is not having a sovereign capability, not political unpalatability as many mistakenly believe.

The Barracuda will give Aus a sub that is still small enough to be agile in shallow Asian water but with the speed, patrolling endurance, stealth and sensory capability of a nuke - the perfect combination for Navy's requirements!

10/15 years till the boats hit the water, that's enough time if we hurry....

Hardcash

Anonymous said...

I do not know now but up until a few years ago, you can see MTU Series 4000 being manufactured in Detroit Diesel plants (that were originally GM plants) in Michigan and South Carolina.
The 1st technical cooperation between Daimler and Detroit Diesel came about because in 1987, DD introduces the 1st diesel engine with electronic control DDEC and in 1991, Daimler hired DD to design electronic controls for its Series 60 engines (today there are more than 1M series 60 engines in the world). This partnership between the 2 companies developed further with the joint introduction of the Series 2000, the design team being led by DD, and then the series 4000. Like the 2 strokes DD series 71, the series 4000 have engines that run well past 20000 hours. Besides the design factor, a key point for engine longevity is the maintenance schedule which must be strictly followed. You skip, you will pay sooner and don't complain after.
I believe today even after the RR acquisition of MTU for off road applications like marine, mining, petroleum (gensets), Daimler still keeps the on road business, Daimler still supplies to RR the smaller diesel engines for marine applications.
Although I agree that the majority of Detroit Diesel is with on road, trucks (some 75% of the business came from that), if you look at marine survey of yachts (up to 150 feet) in 1995-2005, 3 manufacturers dominate the pleasure craft marine business, Detroit Diesel, Caterpillar and Cummins in that order. A lot of hauling trucks use the Series 4000, even multiple of them, just as yachts. Hauling trucks' operating cycles put tremendous stresses on any diesel engine.
KQN

Dave W said...

I think you are barking up the wrong tree talking in generality about diesels wearing out from long patrol transits. You do realize the predecessor to the Collins, our beloved diesel powered Oberons made numerous such journey's constantly over the course of their operational life? There wasn't even a murmur of issues with the O boats engines.

A lesson from the wise, the diesel component of a submarines propulsion system only runs when snorting to charge the batteries. It would be prudent to presume that the same will apply here otherwise the silent service is going to be a whole lot less silent.

Peter Coates said...

Hi Dave W [sound like a navy man?]

So do you recognise that the Collins suffered/suffer from unreliable engines (which just happen to be French) and history (with country of origin) may repeat itself?

Less problematic transits of Oberons (1970-2000) and in WW2, US fleet boats, may be due to their transiting on the surface.

Will MTU 4000s save the Shortfins?

Regards

Pete

Peter Coates said...

H S [at 27/4/16 5:40 PM]

Thankyou for your views.

I think the problems for Japan started in 2014 when Abbott offered to buy the Soryu without Abbott bothering to go through the long, complex, defence equipment buying procedures. Abbott told Abe the purchase would be quick and easy.

This is like Abbott's quick plans for Australia to fight alone in Iraq and Australia sending 1,000 Army men to the Ukraine - presumably to fight off Russian made tanks.

Abbotts desire for an alliance with Japan was not (is not) shared by most Australian defence, foreign policy officials or by most politicians.

Regards

Pete

Peter Coates said...

Hi Hardcash [27/4/16 6:19 PM]

Yes DCNS ability to offer Shortfins and SSNs would not have gone unnoticed. The 2016 DWP process did imply the option of Australia buying a batch (maybe 6) (as it turns out Shortfin SSKs) then more thinking (in the 2040s?) about another batch of possibly different subs.

Also the Virginia SSNs are semi-designed for narrow restricted movement and have diver delivery vehicles and UUVs. An Australian intention to buy 6 Barracuda SSNs might be countered by a US offer on better terms to sell 4 to 6 Virginia's in the 2040s. We'll see.

Pete

Peter Coates said...

Hi KQN [28/4/16 5:28 AM]

Perhaps first I'll write about the pumpjet propulsion for Shortfin issue - building on your comments made in https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=19245896&postID=3070342239950420359

The diesel engine issue is so broad I'll write about diesel next week.

Regards

Pete

Dave W said...

Hi Pete,
Yes correct on the first bit.

And yes the Collins suffered a litany of issues involving the propulsion and many other systems. However it will not be lost on the RAN that a previous French designed diesel had not insignificant issues. I think it erroneous to assume that the lessons learned from Collins won't be applied to the Barracuda, which really is an incomplete concept design at this point.

Regarding the Oberon transits, let me state they played a hard game entering the waters of many not so friendly countries who to this day would not know the O boats were ever there. They didn't make lots of long surface transits playing this ISR game,to do could have cost them their lives. US WW11 surface transits are a different thing, they weren't faced with the same array of detection measures today's submarines must avoid.

I do think it's premature to write off diesels at this point when they have worked very well in the past, Collins issues aside. In my opinion Collins was an orphan class we should never have picked but the politics of South Australian jobs and votes negated common sense. A diesel boat on batteries with a stealthy hull will be a very formidable platform.

It would be a bonus if the MTU was picked add they are a superbly reliable bit of kit but even so they will only be as good as the maintenance they receive. For now we shall simply have to wait and see when the design is finalized.

Cheers D

Peter Coates said...

Hi Dave W

Yes DCNS has much completing to do to make the Shortfin an unusually large SSK (engines, fuel and seawater tanks for buoyancy, etc).

Russian and Chinese advised North Vietnam springs to mind as a country potentially unforgiving to curious O boats through to the late 1970s.

The Table of 3 of the Scorpene buyers (specifically Chile, India and Brazil) here http://gemabersuara.blogspot.com.au/2012/06/fakta-sebenar-scorpene-malaysia.html reveals that their Scorpenes were fitted with MTU engines (probably 396s). Also France's FREMM Frigates use MTUs - so MTU via DCNS has a good chance of being the Shortfin's supplier.

Regards

Pete