October 4, 2018

Polands Future Submarine Project: Competition could be close.

On September 29, 2018 Anonymous commented on TKMS Type 212A and Type 212CD submarines:

For potential customer Poland's "ORKA" submarine - the competition between the TKMS Type 212CD and Saab A26 may be tight on price and other criteria.

The TKMS Type 212A and Type 212CD (“Common Design”) are Baltic Sea-specific small submarines. [2 x Type 212CDs have been ordered for the German Navy and 4 x Type 212CDs for the Norwegian Navy].

The Type 212A and 212CDs have non-magnetic steel alloy hulls. Judging from its composition the 1.3964 Austenitic chromium-nickel stainless pressure hull steel for the Type 212A is very expensive.

Costs of Type 212CD and Sweden’s [Baltic specific?] A26 are similar. Norway may pay a total of US$1.81 billion for its 4 x Type 212CDs according this National Interest article. This article is very interesting, as it indicates the adoption of volunteer system for the German Navy submarine service has led to a lack of crew. This has made German submarine fleet semi-dysfunctional [with only three trained crews for its six [212A] submarines!”].

In comparison Sweden is paying a total of US$0.945 billion [March 2015 dollars] for its 2 x A26s submarines. [Submarine Matters reported a slightly higher total of US$1.04 billion (June 2015 dollars)]. Maritime Today [cited by Wiki reports that] on 18 March 2015 Sweden’s A26 project was restarted after the Swedish government placed a formal order for two A26 submarines for the Swedish Navy. 

Anonymous and Pete

12 comments:

Anonymous said...

The 8.6 billion SEK also includes the midlife upgrade of 2 Gotland class subs.

/Kjell

Anonymous said...

Hi Pete (correction of 4/10/18 1:50 PM)

“New information [1] on pressure hull materials of A26 was found, and the said comment was corrected as follows.”


Pressure hull materials of A26 and 212CD are Strenx® 700 [1,2] and 1.3964 Austenitic chromium-nickel stainless steel (560MPA) [3], respectively. Strenx® 700 is commercially available, while the 1.3964 stainless steel belongs to special materials for naval ships and is considerably expensive than Strenx® 700.

PEMFC for 212CD needs hydrogen supply system including hydrogen cylinders and pipes increasing cost, and exterrnal hydrogen supply facilities.

In my opinion, A26 is more than 10% cheaper than 212CD, and judging from life cycle costs including maintenance cost and simplicity, A26 is competitive to 212CD.

[1] https://i1.wp.com/pulaski.pl/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Infografika_okrety_a26_ONLINE_ENG.jpg?ssl=1
Figure “KOCKUMS A26 SUBMARINE”. Pressure hull material is HY-100 in “General Data”. HY-100 (Proof strength, Rp0.2=690MPa) is neary same as Strenx® 700(Rp0.2=700MPa) of SAAB.

[2]https://www.ssab.com/products/brands/strenx/products/strenx-700
Strenx® 900 (Rp0.2=900MPa, equivalent to HY-130) and Strenx® 960 (Rp0.2=960MPa) presumably show poor weldability. Also, Strenx® 700 is cheaper than Strenx® 900 and Strenx® 960.

[3]https://www.dew-stahl.com/fileadmin/files/dew-stahl.com/documents/Publikationen/Werkstoffdatenblaetter/RSH/Datenblatt_1.3964_GB_06_2010.pdf


Regards

Anonymous said...

Stainless steel hull is not going to rust?
kqn

Anonymous said...

Hi Pete

Dimensions of MTU 16V396SE84, 12V4000U831, MAN Diesel & Turbo 8 PA4 V200 SM12 and PA4 V200 SMDS are compared [1, 2, 3] by using Modular Design-Platform of A26. A26 presumably equips with thee 8 PA4 V200 SM12s (total electrical ouput 1.68MW).

[1] http://www.sms1835.no/arkiv/2012-08-29%20Sea%20Power%20Seminar%20Kockums.pdf
Page 9, Modular Design-Platform
A26 equips with Three Stirling Mdules and three Diesel Gen Modules.
Width and length of A26 are 6.2m and 63m, respectively. Assuming thickness of pressure hull plate (a), width of hull stiffener (b), thickness of hull stiffener web (c) and thickness of sound absorbing rubber (d) are 0.05, 0.2, 0.05, 0.1m, respectively, then, inner diameter of pressure hull is 6.2- (a + b + c + d) x 2= 5.4m.

Length, width and hull direction height of Diesel Gen Module are 2.54, 1.87 and 1.55m, respectively.

[2] https://marine.man-es.com/docs/default-source/shopwaredocuments/pa4-sm-smdsfba3ca1740b144429518d4e002fd7d6f.pdf?sfvrsn=3
Page 4/5 Dimensions & Weights : MAN Diesel & Turbo 8 PA4 V200 SM 12 and PA4 V200 SMDS

[3] http://www.bmtdsl.co.uk/media/5045649/BMTDSL-Sub-Power-and-Propulsion-Confpaper-Pacific-Jan12.pdf
Page3 Table 2 - Engine Comparisons: MTU 16V396SE84 and 12V4000U831


Regards

Anonymous said...

Hi Pete (continued from 5/10/18 4:34 PM)

New information on A26 was found [1], where, length 66.1m, beam 6.75m, displacement 1925ton, propultion: 3 diesels and 3 Stirling AIPs. This data in 2016 is better than that in Wiki which refers older data in 2011.

Stirling AIP modules in Soryu-class are set on floating deck and insulated, then, diesel modules and Stirling AIP modules in A26 are set in the same manner. Stirling AIP is external combustion system and has not explosion process, and its vibration is basically much smaller than diesels vibration. Vibration suppression control of diesel is conducted more strictly.

From the view point of safety, A26 with three diesels is superior to 212CD with one diesel. Even if two diesels break down, A26 can be operated. Though Gotland-class, the precedent of A26 equips with two MTU 16V-396 [3], A26 equips with three 8 PA4 V200 SM 12.

A26 equips with permanent magnet motor as main propulsion motor [4], and is considerably smaller than counterpart of Siemens or JEUMONT ELECTRIC. Estimated power of the propulsion motor of A26 is ca. 3.5MW [5] nearly same as Siemens Permasyn motor, and this value is consistent with data of TKMS 214 (same displacement, maximam speed, propulsion power) [6].


[1] https://www.fmv.se/sv/Projekt/Ubat-typ-A26/A26-del-for-del/
“FMV supplies defense logistics to the Swedish defense. This means that we make sure that the Armed Forces have the material and logistics services they need to carry out their mission.”
See, Table

[2]https://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gotland-luokan_sukellusvene

[3] https://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gotland-luokan_sukellusvene
“The vessel's power source is diesel-powered, with two 16-cylinder MTU 16V-396 diesel engines (2,980 hp) or two Hedemora V12A / 15-Ub diesel engines (3,600 hp) delivering power to an electric motor that rotates the shaft at 1,200 horsepower. The power source provides maximum speed of 11 knots on the surface and 20 knots in dives.”

[4] https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2015/05/09/sweden-s-sub-building-capability-resurfaces/
“The propulsion plant, Roninqvist added, will also feature a permanent magnet motor allowing for a much smaller generator, although he declined to provide further details.”

[5] http://www.sms1835.no/arkiv/2012-08-29%20Sea%20Power%20Seminar%20Kockums.pdf
Page9, Propulsion Motor is considerably small. Maximam power of this motor was roughly estimated by using Admiralty Coefficient and Soryu data.

[6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_214_submarine

Regards

Anonymous said...


Hi Pete (correction of 7/10/18 11:57 PM)


A26 equips with permanent magnet motor as main propulsion motor [4], and is considerably smaller than counterpart of Siemens or JEUMONT ELECTRIC. Estimated power of the propulsion motor of A26 is ca. 3.5MW [5] nearly same as Siemens Permasyn motor, and this value is consistent with data of TKMS 214 (same displacement, maximam speed, propulsion power) [6].



A26 equips with one permanent magnet (PM) motor made by JEUMONT ELECTRIC [4, 7]. Power of the PM motor of A26 is 3.3MW [8] (estimation value 3.5MW [5]) nearly same as Siemens Permasyn motor, and this value is consistent with data of TKMS 214 (same displacement, maximam speed, propulsion power) [6].

[7] http://www.jeumontelectric.com/actualites/saab-kockums-names-jeumont-electric-supplier-of-the-year/?lang=en
In July 2015 Jeumont Electric was selected to supply two propulsion motors as well as converter cabinets (including the integration of circuit-breaker cabinets provided by Schneider Electric, one of Jeumont Electric’s oldest partners) for the Swedish Navy’s A26 submarines.

[8] https://corporate.siemens.com.au/content/dam/internet/siemens-com-au/root/aunz-defence-solutions/apdr-october-2015-issue-future-submarine.pdf Page44
A comparison of a Permasyn and French Magtronic motor using available public domain figures is instructive as to the Permasyn’s efficiency. A published UDT paper reveals the efficiency of the 3.3 MW Scorpene motor to be 2% less than the similar generation 4 MW Type 214 Permasyn at high speed and 7% less at all-important low speeds. This is significant in the context of an entire patrol.

Regards

Pete said...

Hi kqn [at 5/10/18 11:34 AM]

Your query "Stainless steel hull is not going to rust?" introduces many highly complex issues, without definitive answers.

eg. inside or outside the pressure hull or outer hull? Rust of outer fittings (eg. optronic masts, fins, planes, propellers, inside ballast-fuel-seawaters tanks? Is corrossion different?

Does deep or more frequent maintenance remove all the rust on a 212 or any submarine?

Will a company, navy or defense department non-confidentionally publish often confidential technical reports on rust?

Due to all the above I don't know.

Cheers

Pete

Anonymous said...

212 is one sleek looking submarine but welding that stainless steel hull cannot be cheap nor maintaining it. I do not know if the A26 in the Polish RFP has the VLS plug or not. VLS is a killer advantage, I cannot see the Poles saying no to that.
KQN

Anonymous said...

Hi Pete

Currently, SAAB/ Damen team offers the concept submarine based on A26 in the Walrus-class submarine replacement program by Royal Netherlands Navy [1].

The information on A26 may provide some insights into the concept submarine. I expect :

Pressure hull material: Strenx® 700 (proof strength, Rp0.2=690MPa)
Propulsion motor: PMSM byJEUMONT ELECTRIC (3.3MW)
Four Stirling AIPs (60kW x 4 =300kW)
Diesel generators: two 12PA4 V200 SMDS by MAN Diesel & Turbo (total electrical output 2128kW) [2]

[1] https://marineschepen.nl/nieuws/Details-voorstel-Saab-Damen-nieuwe-Nederlandse-onderzeeboot-010618.html
“design
with a displacement of about 2900 tons, the design is slightly larger than the current Walrus-class submarines. The concept submarine is currently about 73 meters long and has a diameter of about 8 meters. “

[2] ibid
From figure: The cut-away portion of the artist's impression
Length of diesel module seems to ca.4.5m a bit smaller than MTU 12V4000U83 (4.58m).

Regards

Anonymous said...

Hi Pete

Both A26 and the concept submarine equip with two parallel arranged LOx tanks under the Stirling module section [1, 2].

Capacities of LOx tanks in A26 and the concept submarine are estimated to be 50% (40MWh) and 75% (60MWh) of those in Soryu, respectively by comparison with LOx tanks in Soryu.


[1] http://www.sms1835.no/arkiv/2012-08-29%20Sea%20Power%20Seminar%20Kockums.pdf
Page9/14 “Modular Design – Platforms”

Needed amount of LOx and possision of LOx tank in this figure, and position, arrangement and size of LOx tanks in Soryu which equips with the same Stirling AIPs suggest two LOx tanks parallel to the keel.

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

[3] Soryu equips with four Stirling AIPs (60kW x 4 = 240kW) *and can be operated underwater for two weeks. In this case, electric energy from Stirling AIPs is 240kW x 24 h x 14day = ca. 80MWh at most.
*Output of 72kW is achieved for two minutes in this Stirling AIP.

Regards

Anonymous said...

Hi Pete

Indiscretion ratios (IRs) of A26 and the concept submarine are very roughly estimated for short and middle surveillance periods (2weeks, 4weeks), respectively.


Case 1-1 IR of A26 in short period and lowspeed surveillance

Asuming hotel load 150kW, output of propulsion motor 20kW, surveillance period 2week, output of diesel generator 1.5MW, electric energy of Stirling AIPs 40MWh

Power consumption in surveillance period (A1), A1=(hotel load + output of propulsion motor) x 24h x surveillance period =57MWh

As power supply from Stirng AIPs is 40MWh, power supply from diesel generator (B1) in surveillance period, B1 = A1 – 40MWh =17MWh.

Power supply from diesel generator in a day (C1), C1=B1/14days=1.22MWh

IR = (operating time of diesel genenerator)/24h x 100% = (C1/(output of diesel generator))/24h x 100% = 1.22MWh/1.5MW/24h x 100% = 3.4%


Case 1-2 In the case of electric energy from Stirling AIPs is 60MWh (30MWh for A26)
IR = 5.4%


Case2-1 IR of the concept submarine in middel period and lowspeed surveillance

Asuming hotel load 160kW, output of propulsion motor 30kW, surveillance period 4 weeks, output of diesel generator 2MW

Power consumption in surveillance period (A2), A2= (hotel load + output of propulsion motor) x 24h x surveillance period =128MWh

As power supply from Stirng AIPs is 60MWh, power supply from diesel generator (B2) in surveillance period, B2 = A2 – 60MWh =68MWh.

Power supply from diesel generator in a day (C2), C2=B2/28days=2.4MWh

IR = (operating time of diesel genenerator)/24h x 100% = (C1/(output of diesel generator))/24h x 100% = 2.4MWh/2MW/24 x 100% = 5.0%

Case 2-2 In the case of electric energy from Stirling AIPs is 60MWh (45MWh for the concept submarine)

IR =6.1%


Regards

Pete said...

Hi KQN [at 8/10/18 6:36 PM]

Probably the development of pressure hull (and some outer hull portions and fittings) steel alloy is always an expensive business for a new submarine class or 212CD variant.

Russia previously and maybe China (now?) using Titanium would further add to mining, processing, shaping and welding costs.

I'm wondering whether Poland has played down its initial aim of including a VLS with 6 land attack cruise missiles - with Russia as the most likely target. Poland would only have conventional warheads. So this might only add up to about 3,000kg of warheads delivered by each of three Polish subs against numerous and hugely dispersed Russian targets.

Perhaps Putin has let it be known Russia would retaliate with mass aircraft, conventional ballistic and/or cruise missile attacks or even low yield nuclear?

Regards

Pete