October 10, 2018

Saab A26 Submarine Specifications Compared with the Soryu's (especially AIP)

Picture of a Kockums Naval Solutions designed 4V-275R Mk III Stirling engine, licenced by Kockums to KHI. Four are on the Japanese Soryu Mark 1s (with air independent propulsion (AIP) and lead-acid batteries (LABs)) (Photo via https://blogs.yahoo.co.jp/dark_99_jp/39533734.html).
---

The main value of the following table may be the specifications provided by Anonymous, in early October 2018, for the not yet launched Swedish Saab A26 submarine. The first A26 may be launched in 2020. Two are being built for the Swedish Navy and Saab wishes to sell more to Poland and the Netherlands. 

Submarine Type
A26 (not yet launched)
Soryu Mark 1s (AIP and LABs) 
 (launched 2004)
Length
66.1m long [6]
84m [8]
Beam
6.75m beam [6]
9.1m [8]
Displacement
1925 tonnes surfaced [3] [6]  
2,900 tonnes (surfaced) [8]
4,200 tonnes (submerged)
Crew
17 to 35 [6]
65  [8]
Weapons
533mm and 400mm torpedoes, mines [4] Also AUVs and ROVs [6]
533mm Type 89 torpedos, Harpoon missiles, mines [8]
Multimission Portal
>6m long [4]
>1.5m diameter [4]
no
Diesel engines
3 x 8PA4V200SM12
2× Kawasaki 1225/25SB  [8]



Stirling AIP Type of Engine
2? x new Stirling with low signature [1]
4 x V4... or 4V-275R MkIII
continual output (electrical)
 not yet known
rated electrical output (continual) 4 x 60kW = 240kW [2]
continual output (mechanical)
  not yet known
rated mechanical output (continual) is 1.25 x 60kW = 75kW.
4 x 75kW = 300kW mechanical output
120% output (2min) (electrical)
  not yet known
rated electrical output at 120% output (2min) is 4 x 72kw = 288kW [2]
120% output (2min) (mechanical)

1.25 x 72kW = 90kW
4 x 90kW = 360kW



Electrical Motor
1 x Jeumont Electric permanent magnet motor [5]
Kawasaki? SMC-8
Pressure hull steel
Strenx® 700 [7]


[1] The A26 will be fitted with new generation Stirling engines, on floating decks and more heavily insulated to have a much smaller acoustic footprint and more power than the previous V4-275R series used in Sweden’s Gotlands and Japan’s Soryus.
[2] Set by Japanese Standard for Ministry of Defense (NDS)
[3] a changeable figure - growing with increasing roles (and perhaps with an eye to the large sized submarine the Dutch want) - best measured in metric tonnes
[4] “Designing For Future Submarine Capability” by Gunnar Öhlund, SVP Marketing, R&D and Business Development Kockums AB http://www.sms1835.no/arkiv/2012-08-29%20Sea%20Power%20Seminar%20Kockums.pdf  page 7
[5] 1 x permanent magnet (PM) motor made by Jeumont Electric [here and here]
The information on cost components for the Saab A26s would depend on many technical and business negotiation parameters of course. Some parameters can be quantified but many of them might not be quantified and would remain confidential.
[6] Sweden’s Defense Materiel Administration FMV https://www.fmv.se/sv/Projekt/Ubat-typ-A26/A26-del-for-del/
[7] Pressure hull materials of A26 Strenx® 700 See Table on Submarine Matters may be same as “Weldox 700”. Both equivalent to US standard HY-100 (aka HY100). As Strenx® 700 is commercially available it is cheaper than military submarine use only pressure hull steels.

Next week estimated pricing data will be published, comparing A26s with Soryus and TKMS Type 212CDs.

Anonymous and Pete

18 comments:

Anonymous said...

Pete,

if you have missed it Saab has put up a video on YouTube were you can see the progress of the A26 and even the mid-life upgrade of the first Gotland class sub with the added plug visible and it was put in the sea in June.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKDAg121oUA

/Kjell

Anonymous said...

Hi Pete

On Soryu MK 1s:

Calculation standard of dry displacement for Japanese submarine is different from that European standard. Dry displacement of Soryu MK1s in the European standard is presumably 3,600tonnes.

Electric motor is not made by Kawasaki.

The pressure hull materials are NS80 and NS110. Based on hull welding research by MOD, possible combination of the materials is NS80 hull/NS110 stiffener and NS110 hull/NS110 stiffener. The former combination is for pressure hull with small diameter (propulsion, diesel, a part of AIP and torpedo sections) and with large diameter (other sections), I think.

Regards

Pete said...

Thanks Kjell

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKDAg121oUA is most informative and in English.

Regards

Pete

Pete said...

Thanks Anonymous

I assume dry displacement of Soryu MK1s means their surfaced displament?

Regards

Pete

Anonymous said...

Hi Pete

Standard displacement (dry displacement) of JMSDF ship is specified by Ship Design Standard Bylaw of JMSDF (unpublished). But, judging from the related JMSDF document, dry displacement is presumably weight of ship itself. Surface displacement (loaded displacement) of European submarine seems to be full loaded displacement [1, 2], the sum of deadweight tonnage (DWT: the total weight of cargo, fuel, fresh water, ballast water, food, passengers, passengers, etc) and dry displacement.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Displacement_(ship)
[2] https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E6%8E%92%E6%B0%B4%E9%87%8F

Regards

Pete said...

Hi Anonymous

Thankyou for your explanation at 11/10/18 5:54 PM Displacement is certainly a complex matter.

Thankyou also for your comments on pressure hull steel for Soryus of 11/10/18 6:53 AM
That shows that steels used can be of more than the one yield strength normally assumed. So your description of two strengths, NS80 and NS110, in the Soryu, is useful.

Regards

Pete

Anonymous said...

Hi Pete

High cost of LIBs is caused by huge capital investiment cost. There is possibility of export of LIBs [1].

For spread of LIBs in submarine sector, effort toward cost reduction of capital investiment including establishment of joint venture is needed. Currenty, many manufacturers try to develop LIBs for submarine which provide dispersion of capital investiment and affect adversely on cost reduction of LIBs.


[1] FY2012 Review of Administrative Approach by Japan Ministry of Defence,17/JUN/ 2016

MoD: We are considering introduction of submarine with LIBs. But, capital investment cost is huge which will raise much the unit price of submarine. We understand superior performance of LIB-submarine. But, it is too expensive and we currently hesitate introduction of LIB-submarine. (page 18)

MoD: We do not import batteries for submarine, because performance of submarine is somewhat estimated from specification of battery. Convensionally, we could not export the batteries for submarine. But, as “the Three Principles of Transfer of Defense Equipment and Technology” was set, possibility of export will be discussed when the export projects of batteries occurs. (page 24)

Regards

Anonymous said...

Hi Pete

New data on pice of LIBs for 27SS, 28SS and 29SS. Total price of 672LIB modules fluctuates every year, but average price is US$78million (average, [1]) for 672 LIB modules except first year cost [2] of US$ 9.8million.

LIB is 4.5 times more expensive than LAB, we had to better consider that price ratio of commercially available LIB/LAB is four and that LIBs for 27SS, 28SS and 29SS are Lithium Nickel Cobalt Aluminum Oxide.

GS Yuasa constracted new manufacturing plant of LIBs for JMSDF submarine in 2016, until having a return on investment for this plant, GS Yuasa does not manufacture new battery for submarine.

[1] Price fluctuates every year for LIB and LAB, maybe, because of price fluctuation of raw materials.
[2] Cost (jigs, measurint equipment, etc) needed in start of production (=first year).

Regards

Anonymous said...

Pete

Better comparison would be SAAB A26 Oceanic (Extended Range) as its closer in size. The specs given for the Netherlands concept don't seem to exactly line up with that model though. Is it another version again?

regards

Anonymous said...

Hi Pete

Specs of the Warlus concept are expected as follows: (i) displacement 2900t (submerged), length ca.73m, beam ca. 8m, crew 34-42, multimission portal drived from A26 (1.5m diameter) [1], (ii) four Stirling AIP, two Diesel (12 PA4 V 200 SMDS) generators [2,3]; one Jeumont Electric permanent magnet motor; and (iii) pressure hull Strenx® 700 [4].

[1] https://marineschepen.nl/nieuws/Details-voorstel-Saab-Damen-nieuwe-Nederlandse-onderzeeboot-010618.html

[2] http://www.sms1835.no/arkiv/2012-08-29%20Sea%20Power%20Seminar%20Kockums.pdf
Page9/14, Modular Design – Platforms (lower left figure)
In A26 submarine, three Diesel Genset Modules and three Stirling Modules are asymmetrically installed. One Diesel Genset Modules and three Stirling Modules are installed in the port side and two Diesel Genset Modules are installed in the starboard side. Size of Genset Module is relatively small, and only 8 PA4 V 200 SM satisfys this space demand.

[3] https://marineschepen.nl/nieuws/Details-voorstel-Saab-Damen-nieuwe-Nederlandse-onderzeeboot-010618.html
In the Warlus concept submarine, two Diesel Genset Modules and four Stirling Modules are symmetrically installed in the starboard and port sides. Diesel Genset Module of this submarine is larger than that of A26 suggesting use of 12 PA4 V 200 SMDS.

[4] SAAB produces Strenx® 900 stronger than Strenx® 700, but applicability of Strenx® 900 to pressure hull is low.

Regards

Pete said...

Hi Anonymous

Saab's A26 concept may not necessarily win the Walrus replacement competition.

A TKMS Type 214 or 212 variant might win.

And a winner might only be announced in the early 2020s.

Regards

Pete

Anonymous said...

Hi Pete

Warlus concept was compared with TKMS212A/CD and 214.

Warlus-class adopts double hull structure (light & pressure hulls). Three 12 PA4 V 200 SMs (width ca.1470mm, not 12 PA4 200 SMDS) are installed parallel. Distances (ca.400mm) between diesel-diesel and diesel-pressure hull are small (ca.400mm). In Warlus-concept, three 12 PA4 V 200 SMSD modules are installed, but the said distances are somewhat bigger (ca.600mm) than those in the Warlus-class. As result of exchange of diesels, Warlus-concept becomes more powerful. Two diesels are installed near propulsion motore in 214. In LIB-submarine, high power diesel is needed.

Appedix [1, 2, 3]
MAN Diesel & Turbo or SEMT Pielsticlk (now operated as a brand by MAN Diesel & Turbo) has following three generators which are sometimes confused . Correct data are as follows:
8 PA4 V 200 SM, cylinder bore 200mm, V8, single supercharger (mechanical output 700kW).
A26; (2 starboard + 1 port) x 8 PA4 V 200 SM (2,100kW)
 
12 PA4 V 200 SM, cylinder bore 200mm, V12, single supercharger (1,060kW).
Warlus-class; 3 parallel x 12 PA V 200 SM (3,180kW)

12 PA4 V 200 SMDS, cylinder bore 200mm, V12, single supercharger + single turbocharger (1330kW)
Walus -concept; 3 parallel x 12 PA V200 SMDS (3,990kW)

Next dutch submarine is highly space demanding for female crew, more silent, weapon system, etc. To satisfy these requirements, maximam package is needed. Double hull structure is adopted in drive sections of 212A/CD to equip with LOx cyliders (diameter ca.1.7m) on the pressure hull. As a result, outer diameter of pressure hull in drive sections is considerably smaller (diameter ca.5.6m) than beam (6.8m) and is not so efficient in space use. Also, strength of pressure hull material for 212A/CD is not high.

Floating decks are adoped in Warulas concept to insulate vibration and reduct noise effectively, but, not in 212A/CD and 214. Floating mitigate shock from outside and protect effectively equipment or crew.

Fuel cell AIP is more efficient than combustion type Stirling AIP, but, safety of the former in which hydrogen is used is lower than the latter. External hydrogen station is needed in fuel cell. 

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walrus-class_submarine
3 diesels, diesel-electric, 5,430 shp (4 MW): They confuse 12 PA4 V 200 SM (right) with 12 PA4 V 200 SMDS (wrong)
[2] Electical out = 0.8 x mechanical output
[3] https://marine.man-es.com/docs/default-source/shopwaredocuments/pa4-sm-smdsfba3ca1740b144429518d4e002fd7d6f.pdf?sfvrsn=6f128e3a_3

Regards

Pete said...

Hi Anonymous [at 21/10/18 2:26 AM]

Thanks for the information. I'll turn it into an article by Wednesday.

It is possible that the Netherland's Walrus replacement may have no AIP due to the high weight and imbalances of LOX tanks.

Hauling LOX tanks would be a particular problem for the Netherlands' subs long transit mission requirements. That is the need to transit from the Netherlands to the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_Caribbean and back.

Maybe the Walrus replacements will use LIBs instead?

Regards

Pete

Anonymous said...

Hi Pete

Floating deck is used for US nuclear submarine and Stirling generator section of Soryu and is going to be used as one of featuring for 29SS.

Safety issue of LIB is usually pointed out, but, risk of ITO is lower than LAB which generated hydrogen under the critical conditions. Japan eases restriction of export of defense equipment and once tried to offer ITO-submarine to Australia.
As LAB is going out of fashion in near future, LIBs should be selected for newly developed submarine.

Kawasaki Stirling AIP licensed by Kockum is incredibly expensive. I do not mention its price, but, it is realy, realy expensive.

Regards

Anonymous said...

Hi Pete

ThyssenKrupp may sell TKMS [1]. In this situation, Dutch government will not select TKMS submarine as post Warlus-class. Warlus-concept by SAAB-Damen team is now becoming a winning horse.


[1] https://www.maritime-executive.com/article/thyssenkrupp-reorganizes-its-shipbuilding-business
ThyssenKrupp Reorganizes its Shipbuilding Business

Regards

Pete said...

Hi Anonymous

Thanks for your comments at 21/10/18 7:26 PM and 22/10/18 4:43 PM

Interesting that Thyssen Krupps's corporate instability may lower its changes of winning submarine competitions.

If the Dutch Navy does not want AIP that may increase the possibility that the Scorpene might be chosen because Naval Group won't be in a poor position of not having a mature second generation AIP.

Regards

Pete

Anonymous said...

Hi Pete

Detail analysis of TKMS’ failure was found [1]. Elimiation from MKS 180 frigate project by Germany, defeat in SEA 1000 bid and corruption triggerd the failure. I think results of Warlus replacement project and Polish Orka project will play decisive role to determine future of TKMS.

Interestingly, this article reveals cost of 12 TKMS 216s is $AU20 billion, $AU30 billion cheaper than French proposal [2].

[1] https://seekingalpha.com/instablog/49640579-taylor-mitchell/5194964-bets-tkms
[2] ibid
Centre Alliance senator Rex Patrick released the TKMS cost details, furnishing a letter from TKMS sent to Defence Minister Marise Payne reaffirming a previously made offer of "a fixed maximum cost of no more than $AU20 billion for the project" with all 12 submarines to be built in Australia.”

Regards

Pete said...

Thanks Anonymous [at 23/10/18 1:52 PM]

40-50 years of a submarine project brings surprises even for the BMW building Germans. Remember VW and the diesel pollution monitor crisis? Though TKMS quotes lower so much depends:

- on whether the $billions are in 2018 or inflated dollars in the future

- on INCLUSIONS, eg, training? simulators? spare parts? maintenance? operations? unforseen costs of creating and testing a new design?

- as in https://seekingalpha.com/instablog/49640579-taylor-mitchell/5194964-bets-tkms changes in TKMS corporate ownership and legal respoonsibilities?

Swedens Collins building Kockums suffered corporate changes and intellectual property worries.

Regards

Pete