JAPANESE CONTEXT
Japan is adopting new technology Lithium-ion Batteries (LIBs) for the two Soryu Mark 2 submarines (27SS and 28SS)(see SORYU TABLE below) as well as the new Japanese class submarines (29SS onwards).
LIBs represent a major future submarine technology, but Japan may be the only (or at least the
first) country that is fully moving to LIBs for newly commissioned submarines (ie.
27SS from 2020 onwards). The increased cost of LIBs appears to be one of the major reasons
other navies are not shifting to LIBs.
The budgets for future Japanese submarines (including 27SS, 28SS
and 29SS) suggests that LIBs are AUS$130 million (for one 6 year replacement cycle) more expensive than the
existing LABs per Soryu submarine.
According to cost calculations (by the Japanese government) of mass produced LIBs, the equipment cost accounts for around 15% of total
cost. So the cost of a battery modules consisting of 10 LIBs for the Soryu Mark 2s (27SS/28SS) is estimated as 1.5 million yen. This is significantly less than the actual cost of
around 20 million yen and suggests that in very low volume production of
submarine LIBs, the equipment cost accounts for more than 90% of total cost.
AUSTRALIAN CONTEXT
In constrast the Royal Australian Navy’s (RAN’s) appears to have rejected LIBs in favour of sticking with current Lead-acid Battery (LAB) technology.
When increased LIBs/submarine costs are considered over Australian 12 Shortfin submarines operating for 30 years, each with twice the quantity of LIBs than Soryus, and considering
LIBs need replacing every 6 years, then you get the following estimate:
(+AUS$130 million per sub) x 12 subs x 2 (amount of LIBs per sub) x 5 (replacements) = AUS$15.6 billion higher than if the Shortfins used LABs.
(+AUS$130 million per sub) x 12 subs x 2 (amount of LIBs per sub) x 5 (replacements) = AUS$15.6 billion higher than if the Shortfins used LABs.
Putting costs in context - assume DCNS proposed the LAB cost for the whole Shortfin program, over the Shortfin's 30 year lives, would total AUS$50 billion. Then assume the RAN used LIBs instead - then Australia
would be pay the extra AUS$15.6 billion,
hence totalling AUS$65.6 billion just for LIBs over the operating life of the
Shortfins. Quite large figures.
But as the LIBs cost reduces with increases in production of LIBs, the adoption of a Japanese submarine by the RAN woud have considerably reduced price of LIBs (e.g. from 20 to 12 million yen per unit battery module).
But as the LIBs cost reduces with increases in production of LIBs, the adoption of a Japanese submarine by the RAN woud have considerably reduced price of LIBs (e.g. from 20 to 12 million yen per unit battery module).
SORYU TABLE (with earlier Oyashios) as at October 21, 2016
SS
|
Build No
|
Pennant
|
MoF approved amount ¥ Billions & FY
|
LABs, LIBs, AIP
|
Laid Down
|
Laun
|
Commi-ssioned
|
Built
|
8105 Oyashio
|
¥52.2B
|
LABs only
|
Jan 1994
|
Oct 1996
|
Mar 1998
|
KHI
| ||
6SS-15SS
|
8106
|
SS-591-600
|
¥52.2B per sub
|
LABs only
|
Feb 1994
|
Mar 2008
|
MHI
| |
16SS
Soryu Mk 1
|
8116
|
SS-501
|
¥60B FY2004
|
LABs + AIP
|
Mar 2005
|
Dec 2007
|
Mar
|
MHI
|
17SS
|
8117
|
SS-502
|
¥58.7B FY2005
|
LABs + AIP
|
Mar 2006
|
Oct 2008
|
Mar
|
KHI
|
18SS
|
8118
|
SS-503
|
¥56.2 FY2006
|
LABs + AIP
|
Feb 2007
|
Oct 2009
|
Mar
|
MHI
|
19SS
|
8119
|
SS-504
|
¥53B FY2007
|
LABs + AIP
|
Mar 2008
|
Nov 2010
|
Mar
|
KHI
|
20SS
|
8120
|
SS-505
|
¥51B FY2008
|
LABs + AIP
|
Mar 2009
|
Oct 2011
|
Mar
|
MHI
|
No
|
No 21SS built
| |||||||
22SS
|
8121
|
SS-506
|
¥52.8B FY2010
|
LABs + AIP
|
Jan 2011
|
Oct 2013
|
Mar
|
KHI
|
23SS
|
8122
|
SS-507
|
¥54.6B FY2011
|
LABs + AIP
|
Feb 2012
|
Oct 2014
|
7 Mar 2016
|
MHI
|
24SS
|
8123
|
SS-508
|
¥54.7B FY2012
|
LABs + AIP
|
Mar 2013
|
2 Nov 2015
|
Mar? 2017
|
KHI
|
25SS
|
8124
Seiyū |
SS-509
|
¥53.1B FY2013
|
LABs + AIP
|
22 Oct 2013
|
13 Oct 2016
|
Mar? 2018
|
MHI
|
26SS
|
8125
|
SS-510
|
¥51.7B FY2014
|
LABs + AIP
|
2014
|
?
|
Mar 2019?
|
KHI
|
27SS
Soryu Mk 2
|
8126
|
SS-511
|
¥64.3B FY2015
|
LIBs only
|
2015
|
2017?
|
Mar
2020
|
MHI
|
28SS
Soryu Mark 2
|
8127
|
SS-512
|
¥63.6B FY2016
|
LIBs only
|
2016?
|
2018?
|
Mar 2021?
|
KHI
|
29SS
New Class
|
?
|
?
| ¥76B FY2018 |
LIBs only
|
?
|
?
|
2023?
|
MHI?
|
Table courtesy of information provided to Submarine Matters. LABs = lead-acid batteries, AIP = air independent propulsion, LIBs = lithium-ion batteries. ¥***B = Billion Yen.
CONCLUSIONS
So, not only do LIBs present a new technology, with the RAN reluctant to take increased project and operating risks adopting them, but the substantial extra costs of LIBs are a reason the RAN appears to be rejecting the LIB option.
Put against the increased risks and cost of LIBs is the higher fully submerged range and higher fully submerged speed performance they provide, compared to LABs alone. See some related comparitive figures for Collins LABs vs TKMS Type 212A LABS+AIP vs Soryu LIBs. IF a future Australian submarine avoided imminent destruction because it had LIBs then the risks and costs of having LIBs might turn out to be worth it.
Pete - Some translation and the Conclusions.
Friend – Most translation, all the calculations, data and views.
6 comments:
@Pete
If the cost is this high, what is motivating the Japanese to go in this direction? Shorter expected submarine lifespan (ie, less battery changes outs)?
Hi Pete
According to cost calculation of mass production LIBs by Japanese government [1, 2], equipment cost accounts for around 30% of total cost. In this case, cost of a battery module consisted of 10 LIBs for 27SS/28SS is estimated as 1.5 million yen significantly deviating from actual cost of around 20 million yen and suggesting that in very low volume production of submarine LIBs, equipment cost accounts more 90% of total cost.
As equipment cost reduces with increase in production scale of LIBs, adoption of Japanese submarine by RAN woud have considerably reduced price of LIBs (e.g. from 20 to 12 million yen per unit battery module).
[1] http://www8.cao.go.jp/cstp/tyousakai/juyoukadai/energy/12kai/sanko2.pdf
“Quantitative Research on Scenario for Realization of Low Carbon Society” by Japan Science and Technology Agency (JST), Feb/16/2016, reference 2, page 9.
[2] http://www.jst.go.jp/lcs/documents/item/s09_2-5.pdf]
“Construction of Technology Scenario based on Structuring of Basic Technology: Secondary Battery” by JST, page 36,
Figure 2-5-3 Relationship between production cost (yen/Wh) and scale for lithium ion batteries
(Bars mean labor, equipment, utilities (electricity, etc) and raw material costs from top to bottom)
Regards
S
[Reposted]
Battery technology may be making big strides soon:
"Next year is starting to shape up as the year batteries change. We've collected all
the best battery discoveries that could be with us soon. From over the air charging to
super-fast 30-second re-charging, you could be seeing this tech in your gadgets sooner
than you think."
See:
http://www.pocket-lint.com/news/130380-future-batteries-coming-soon-charge-in-seconds-last-months-and-power-over-the-air
Hi Josh
The co-author of the article can probably speak about Japan's motivations with more authority than than I.
But possible reasons could be:
- the higher tactical performance of LIBs over LABs
- Japan finding that the AIP "experiment" in current Soryus revealed many AIP drawbacks
- Japanese government encouraging Japanese LIBs industry development through defence spending on LIBs
- possibility that LIBs in Japanese subs will prove very successful, thereby putting Japan in a good position to sell LIBs (or whole Japanese LIB subs) to the worldwide submarine market.
Regards
Pete
I've added the comments [at 22/10/16 1:42 AM] to the article.
Unfortunately source [1] didn't open.
PDF source [2] was in Japanese. This is noting long PDF documents are very hard to translate. Short HTML documents, in contrast, are easy to translate.
Regards
Pete
Hi Pete
Thanks to new data, we have more insight into price of LIBs. 12 million yen/battery-module for LIBs is reasonable price, though it looks very expensive. Both life period and energy density of LIBs are twice as much as those of LABs according to MoD, and price of LIBs actually corresponds to four times (=twice life period x twice energy density) the price of LABs.
Regards
S
Post a Comment