April 11, 2016

Why the Japanese proposal is low risk (PART ONE)

Republished with permission from the Australian Strategic Policy Institute.

This article originally appeared in the Australian Strategic Policy Institute blog, The Strategist, on April 11, 2016, at the string http://www.aspistrategist.org.au/why-the-japanese-proposal-is-low-risk-part-1/

"Why the Japanese proposal is low risk (part 1)

11 Apr 2016 | Sumio Kusaka, Ambassador of Japan to Australia.

[pictured is Soryu submarine SS-505, which is Zuiryu "Sword Dragon"]

At the end of November last year, Japan submitted to the Australian government its proposal for Australia’s future submarine program.

The Japanese proposal is low risk and meets Australia’s needs. It’s a proposal based on our accumulated experience and the proven technologies of the Soryu-class submarine, which is the world’s largest conventionally powered submarine. Seven Soryus are already in use by the Japanese Maritime Self-Defence Force.

Several key questions have been posed about whether our proposal will be able to meet Australia’s future submarine needs.

The following two posts will seek to explain to the greatest extent possible the truth about the capability of the Soryu-class and the reasons why the Japanese proposal is low-risk.

Can Japan’s proposal meet Australia’s cruising range requirement?

There’s a concern, promulgated in some quarters, that the Soryu-class submarine won’t be able to match Australia’s requirements regarding cruising range. Such a concern is mistaken, for in Japan’s pre-concept design, every effort was made to ensure that Australia’s cruising range requirements would be met.

Given that cruising range can be determined by the quantity of fuel expended and fuel consumption efficiency, the Soryu-class submarine was the basis of a comprehensive study on an internal layout made in order to ensure effective use of space by extending the hull and re-designing partitions. That study led to the conclusion that by increasing the capacity of the fuel tank and working on its positioning, as well as extending the hull design, the pre-concept design will be able to meet Australia’s cruising range requirements without any problems.

Is the internal space of the Soryu-class submarine too narrow?

The size of the reserve buoyancy compared to submarines from other countries and the double hull structure has led to questions about whether the internal space of the submarine is overly narrow.

The estimated surfaced displacement of the Soryu-class submarine is approximately 3,600 tonnes, while its dived displacement is around 4,200 tonnes. So in relation to the reserve buoyancy of the Soryu-class submarine, there’s no reason to believe that it possesses an excessive amount of reserve buoyancy compared to submarines of other nations.

Moreover, although it’s true that one section of the Soryu-class submarine consists of a double hull structure, a highly space-efficient outfitting using 3D digital mock-up technology and design techniques that prevent reinforcement structures such as beams from restricting space have created a wide internal space while avoiding a growth in the size of the submarine itself. Furthermore, the extension of the hull has allowed a much wider internal space than in the Soryu-class submarine.

The internal space of the Soryu-class submarine has been shown to a large number of Australians familiar with the internal space of the Collins-class submarine. So far, there hasn’t been any comments which indicate that the internal space of the Soryu-class is too narrow.

Is the lifespan of Japanese submarines too short when compared to Australian boats?

Until recently, Japanese submarines were used for a period of 18 years before being retired. The operational lifespan of the submarines was determined by the National Defence Program Guideline (NDPG) taking into consideration factors such as not exceeding the pre-set number of submarines to be retained by Japan (originally 16), technical obsolescence, and the introduction of new submarines incorporating technical improvements.

Japan decided to increase its submarine fleet to 22 vessels based on the 2007 NDPG, so a decision was made to extend the service life of our submarines by six years.

It’s not true to say that Japanese submarines can’t endure for long periods of time. If the Royal Australian Navy desires to use the submarines over a long period of time, the same level of technological checks that we carry out on our own vessels now will enable such desires to be met.

Some have said that corrosion of the double hull structure is the source of the submarine’s shorter lifespan, but that’s simply not true. The construction of the Soryu-class submarine in sections allows for an appropriate level of anti-corrosive maintenance. Japan has never experienced any major fault’s which have interfered with the operation of its submarines.

These appropriate anti-corrosive technologies were developed to allow our submarines to operate in a range of environments, even in harsh warm waters conducive to corrosion. Japan believes that such technologies will guarantee the effectiveness of Australian submarines which will also operate in the same maritime environments.

Sumio Kusaka is the Ambassador of Japan to Australia"

© Australian Strategic Policy Institute



Ambassador Kusaka's advice is in line with information provided to Submarine Matters over the last few months:

Under subheading “Is the internal space of the Soryu-class submarine too narrow?”

This is the first time I’ve seen an officially published “estimated surfaced displacement of the Soryu-class submarine is approximately 3,600 tonnes”. This is very similar to the recalculated surfaced displacement of "3,700 tonnes" that Anonymous produced in the March 11, 2016 article Table. 

Note that this is forseen Wispywood2344 in a 11/3/16 10:31 PM comment [wait 10 seconds for auto-search] pointed out that “Soryus [displacement of] 2950 tonne, and this is the official "standard" displacement [whatever that means?] not "surfaced" displacement. See official specification of Soryu class submarine http://www.mod.go.jp/msdf/formal/gallery/ships/ss/soryuu/501.html
 [right click mouse for “Translate to English”].

So reserve buoyancy indeed doesn't seem excessive and there is more mission/crew space than the old misconstrued figure of 2,950 tonnes suggested.

Under subheading “Is the lifespan of Japanese submarines too short when compared to Australian boats?

Reasons for shorter life are very much along lines S has provided over the last few months – especially at S’s comment on 11/3/16 11:12 PM [wait 10 seconds for the auto-search] and at this Submarine Matters article of March 16, 2016.

Regarding “National Defence Program Guideline (NDPG)” see specifically 
NATIONAL DEFENSE PROGRAM GUIDELINES for FY 2014 and beyond, December 17, 2013”
page 31 of http://www.mod.go.jp/j/approach/agenda/guideline/2014/pdf/20131217_e2.pdf which indicates the Present number of “16” submarines, which is to be increased to “22” in Future.

PART TWO is due out tomorrow.



MHalblaub said...

"The Japanese proposal is low risk and meets Australia’s needs. It’s a proposal based on our accumulated experience and the proven technologies of the Soryu-class submarine, which is the world’s largest conventionally powered submarine. "

Kockums couldn't had said it better.

Wispywood2344 said...

Hi Pete.

I have estimated hull structure of Soryu Mk.2 and Soryu Aus.

Soryu Mk.1 & Mk.2 & Aus.
Soryu Aus.

The differences are as follows;

Mk.1 -> Mk.2
1)Abolition of Stirling AIP system [section 9]
2)Abolition of LABs (total 480 units) [section 5,8]
3)Adoption of LIBs (total 480(+approx.240) units) [section 5,8,13]
4)Existence of unassigned area (probably be assigned to accomodation) [sectoin ?,??]

Mk.2 -> Aus.
1)Insertion of double-hull compartment [section 14]
*Additional fuel tanks are installed outside the pressure hull
**Maybe additional diesel generators (perhaps conventional 12V25/25SB) are installed inside the pressure hull

Note that higher power generator system and high capacity LIBs make it possible to shorten the snorting time , that leads to lower indiscretion ratio (and perhaps extension of engine lifetime).
Whether new developed diesel generator system are exported or not is unclear, so there is some possibility of adopting conventional and relatively-powerless 12V25/25SB.

For your information.


Anonymous said...

Hi Pete

Three displacements (standard displacement, full load displacement, submerged displacement) are used for Japanese submarine. JMSDF uses standard displacement in the Home Page and sometimes uses submerged displacement. But, as far as I know, full load displacement is not used.

Full load is defined as the displacement of a vessel when floating at its greatest allowable draft as established by classification societies [1]. Submerged displacement is 4200t. Full load displacement which Ambassador Kusada meant is 3600t.

According to JMSDF, standard displacement is 2950t [2, 3]. Definition of standard displacement [4] by JMSDF, which is different from definition [1] by the Washington Naval Treaty of 1922, is displacement in which weight of fuel, preliminary boiler water, fixed ballast, expendable supplies, food, wet canteen, fresh water, general service sea water, fluid for stability and fluid for defense are excluded from full load displacement.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Displacement_(ship)#Loaded_displacement
[3]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C5%8Dry%C5%AB-class_submarine Definition of surfaced displacement in English wiki is not clear.
[4] “Standard of shipment allocation for surfaced war ship” established by MoD in Feb/18/1978 (currently not available).


Peter Coates said...

Hi Wispywood2344

Thanks for the Soryu diagrams and text.

I'll turn them into an article in the next few days.



Peter Coates said...

Hi S

Yes the difference between Displacements that are:

1. standard
2. surfaced
3. full load, and
4. submerged

may have different meanings due too different country approaches as to the components/formula for each. Different languages.

Then there is tonnes, short tons, long tons or just "t".

Also the need for secrecy may change the numbers or round them off.

Anyway, 3,600 tonnes is more appealing to a customer who want lots of room than 2,900 tonnes.

I'll study these definitions as well.