Soryu Mark IIs are likely
to cost more than US$91 million = 10 Billion (B) Yen (¥)
than Soryu Mark Is, due to new:
- LIB batteries replacing (LABs+Stirling AIP)
and diesel generator sets (gensets)
for greater power
generation, and
- sonar systems for improved
detection of the enemy and for better submerged navigation-by-sonar
Anonymous on August 18-21, 2017 kindly provided amendments direct to Pete for TABLE 1 and the footnotes below it.
Anonymous on August 18-21, 2017 kindly provided amendments direct to Pete for TABLE 1 and the footnotes below it.
TABLE 1 [Amendments in Green and Violet]]
Item/Submarine
Type
|
Soryu
Mark I
|
Soryu
Mark II (27SS & 28SS)
|
Comments
|
|
SS order number
|
26SS
|
27SS
|
28SS
|
See Soryu Table below
|
Batteries + AIP (where applicable)
|
LABs
+ Stiling AIP
|
NCA-LIBs
[1]
|
ß
|
|
Cost of battery/Soryu in Billion Yen
(\***B) [2]
|
LABs
\1.44B
|
NCA-LIBs
\8.3B
|
ß
|
LIBs per Soryu almost 6 times costs of
LABs
|
Relative
price to LABs [3]
|
1
|
4.8 (576 LIBs)
5.8 (480 LIBs)
|
ß
|
|
Specific energy (Wh/kg) [4]
|
40-60
|
240
|
ß
|
LIBs have 4-6 x the specific energy of
LABs
|
Total cost per Soyu in Billion Yen [5]
|
\51.7B
|
\64.4B
|
\63.6B
|
|
Building
cost [6]
|
\31.2B
|
\38.7B
|
\35.9B
|
|
(a)Cost
of customer-supplied products [7]
|
\20.5B
|
\25.7B
|
\27.7B
|
|
(b)LABs
or LIBs
|
\1.44B
|
\8.3B
|
\8.3B
|
|
(c)Stirling
AIP
|
\2.72B
|
0
|
0
|
Estimation
value
|
(d)=(a)-(b)-(c)
[8]
|
\16.3B
|
\17.4B
|
\19.4B
|
Estimation
value
|
(e)Sonars
|
\3-4B
|
+w B
|
+x B
|
Estimation
value
|
(f)Generators
|
\2B
|
+y B
|
+z B
|
Estimation
value
|
(g)Propulsion
motor [10]
|
\1.3B
(25SS)
|
\1.2B
|
\1.0B
|
[1] The Soryu Mark IIs (27SS and 28SS) will likely be equipped with
(NCA LIBs) Lithium nickel cobalt aluminium oxide ( LiNiCoAlO2 ) made by GS
Yuasa.
[2] According to the Japanese Ministry of
Defense’s (MOD's) Acquisition, Technology & Logistics Agency (ATLA) the costs of
LABs and NCA-LIBs are reported to be 1.44 ¥B and 8.3 ¥B, respectively. This
makes NCA-LIBs just under 6 times more expensive than LABs for each Soryu sub.
But, in terms of cost/performance (see [3]), NCA-LIBs are not overly expensive.
[3] More precisely, price ratio of LAB to NCA-LIB
is 4.8 and 5.8 for 576 and 480 LIBs in
Soryu Mark II, respectively.
[4] Specific energy of NCA-LIBs are 240 Wh/kg and
LABs are 40-60 Wh/kg. The specific energy of NCA-LIBs are 4 to 6 times that of
LABs, nearly the same as the above mentioned price raitio.
[5] Soryu Mark IIs will cost ¥12-13B more than
Mark Is. That cost increase is due to major Soryu Mark II enhancements, including LIBs, new snorkel generation system, new gensets and new sonar system.
[6] In
Japanese submarine building, the MOD offers customer-supplied products to the builders (KHI and MHI) for cost reduction and the MOD pays building costs. Building costs consist of materials,
labor and utilities (water, electricity, etc) etc.
[7] Customer-supplied
products include the command system, weapon/sensor system, communication system and
propulsion/generater/battery system. Building costs consist of materials,
labor, utilities (water, electricity, etc) etc.
[8]
(c) is changes in customer-supplied products, except AIP + batteries. This gives some insights into other modifications. In the Soryu Mark II, priority in
modifications is orientated towards the performance of the LIBs. In terms of
changes in (d), the snorkel generation system and gensets are modified for 27SS and the sonar system is also modified for 28SS, I believe.
[9] The Japanese submarine builders (KHI and MHI) cannot earn much because of strict budget
management by the MOD. But, the cost of Japanese submarines may provide some insight into the price
of other convensional submarines. The size of submarines will affect the cost of
submarine building more than the cost of customer-supplied products. Even very
small submarines need a command system, weapon/sensor system, communication
system and propulsion/generater/battery system.
But, in the small submarine building process,
amounts of materials, labor (in man days) and utilities can be reduced. In submarines half the size of the Soryu, building costs become significantly lower and
other costs become a bit lower, Y20-25B and Y10B, respecrively. The purchaser
can buy the latest small submarine for Y30-35B. If a submarine builders can sell subs for Y50-60B, they can make high profits. That is why bribe scandals are prominent.
[10] The propusion system consists of one small motor and one large motor in the Soryu Mark I. The small motor is used at low speed and the two motors are used at high speed. Soryu Mark II is likely to be equipped with two same large motors. If these Soryu Mark II armatures are larger a higher speed
performance is expected.
TABLE 2 - Overview of SORYU (& Oyashio) Programs as at August 15, 2017
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
|
15SS Feb
2004 | 15SS Nov 2006 |
15SS
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
|
KHI
| |||
25SS
|
SS-509
|
¥53.1B FY2013
|
LABs + AIP
|
22 Oct 2013
|
12 Oct 2016
|
Mar? 2018
|
MHI
| |
26SS
|
8125
|
SS-510
|
LABs + AIP
|
2014
|
?
|
Mar 2019?
|
KHI
| |
27SS
Soryu Mk 2
|
8126
|
SS-511
|
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 exclusive information provided to Submarine Matters. LABs = lead-acid batteries, AIP=air independent propulsion, LIBs=lithium-ion batteries. ¥***B = Billion Yen.
Anonymous and Pete
Hi Pete
ReplyDeleteOn table 1 [6], costs of diesel generators and sonar system for Soryu Mark I (not Mark II) are ca.2 and 3-4 B JPY, respectively. Major improvement except LIBs for Soryu Mark II is snorkel generation system including diesel generators and sonar system, and thier costs seems to be much higher than those (2 and 3-4 B JPY) for Soryu Mark I, suggesting significant enhancement in performances of snorkel/diesels and sonar system in Soryu Mark II.
Regards
Thanks Anonymous
ReplyDeleteI have made corrections in Table 1 and in footnotes [5] and [6].
Regards
Pete
probably one of the few truly 'nearly' ocean going DE subs.
ReplyDeletemy gripe is the cost esp. if any sort of local production is envisaged it will with near 100% certainty double the price esp. if the Japanese or for that matter the Frenchies are involved.(with DCNS the Aussies are stuck I think just as they would have if the Soryus been chosen)
Plus the life cycle costs and the service time lost in the multiple transits back to get batteries and diesels serviced etc will make for even more eye watering amounts getting spent for DCNS boats or the Soryus or the Type 216 for that matter...
The Aussies imho are better with an all SSN fleet for ocean faring...They should just get 3-4 off the shelf Type-214s for EEZ level defence and get 3-4 SSNs for ocean going roles
I am afraid the Shortfin Barracuda DE sub is going to be no less cheaper than the Soryus eventually. If I could, I would grab the Barracuda if the Frenchies could be convinced to sell the SSN version and not the damned white elephant shortfin.
Hi GhalibKabir
ReplyDeleteI agree there's no way Australia could/can/will build and maintain tailormade SSKs without high costs and great procedural complexity.
Australia, with a fraction of India's current and future GDP can/could not afford nuclear propulsion without excessive defence spending.
Also the threat profile against Australia makes even only 4 Barracuda SSNs (+ 4 medium SSKs) too expensive yet too small a force against Russia and future China SSN-SSBN forces.
If Australia wanted to counter nuclear threats against Australia we would need nuclear armed SSGNs with 35 year no need for refuel in distant foreign port reactors. That would rule out Barracuda's K15 7-10 year to refuel reactor. This would point to the reactors on Virginias and Astutes.
All this is a well established circular debate, of course.
Cheers
Pete
I am led to believe that due to the non proliferation treaty, Australia can not get access to the reactors used by the Astute & Virginia classes as they use weapons grade fuel (the reason their reactors don't need refueling, but also meaning the fuel is ready made for weapons). The Barracuda class however uses commercial grade fuel similar to Lucas Heights. While Australian public might eventually come on side for a SSN, going for nuke weapons is a another matter entirely (although Australia has the know how to do so).
ReplyDeleteIn considering the power density of Yuasa GS Li-Ion batteries you may find this article interesting.
ReplyDeletehttps://in.reuters.com/article/us-gs-yuasa-batteries-idINKBN1AO031
As for fuel cells although in Japanese Mitsubishi had announce of new technology for high performance large scale fuel cells and road map for further advancement of their technology for commercial use to the public last year.
http://www.meti.go.jp/committee/kenkyukai/energy_environment/jisedai_karyoku/pdf/003_01_00.pdf
Japan probably has one of the largest market for small scale fuel cell for homes called Enefarm that has been on the market for the last six or seven years.
Accident again this time in SCS. USS McCain, an Arleigh Burke destroyer, was hit by a tanker on its port side just a few days after USS McCain did a FOP mission near Mischief reef in the Spratly's.
ReplyDeleteKQN
Hi Peter
ReplyDeleteI am interested in your opinion on the following idea as a power option
http://defence.frontline.online/blogs/3896-Dr.%20Danny-Lam/7909-Hybrid%20submarines%2C%20an%20efficient%20alternative
Hi suffolkowner
ReplyDeleteAustralia is not really part of even a HYBRID nuclar propulsion debate as many more details would need to be presented.
The cost and complexity of building new style submarines with a New propulsion systems (eg. LIBs is but one component) is always very high. "Nuclear-steam-electric hybrid" mentioned in http://defence.frontline.online/blogs/3896-Dr.%20Danny-Lam/7909-Hybrid%20submarines%2C%20an%20efficient%20alternative
would be far more ambitious than LIBs.
It is up to the proposers to develop, test, trial, argue and prove new marine propulsion systems. Sometimes proposers are well placed, like Rickover.
Regards
Pete
Hi Pete
ReplyDeleteAcquisition, Technology & Logistic Agency (ATLA) of Japan classifies specification of Japanese submarine build-number 8128 (29SS submarine) as revision, suggesting 29SS being modified version of 28SS of Soryu Mark II.
Though many modifications will be conducted in next Japanese submarines (29SS-), they essenitially belong to Soryu Mark III. Basic design/concept of Japanese submarine has been established, and next submarine is based on this design/concept.
Regards
Hi Pete
ReplyDeleteJapan MOD announced FY 2018 budget on Aug/31/2017. Based on FY 2017 and 2018 budget, table 2 can be revised as follows.
(1)Correction of 29SS; i) “Build No” is 8128; “MoF approved amount Yen Billions & FY” is JPY 76 (7.6*)B FY2017.
(2)Addition of 30SS; i) “Build No” is 8029?; MoF approved amount Yen Billions & FY” is JPY 71.5 (2.3*)B FY2018 (submitted).
*Figure in bracket is first year cost such as new epuipments, and is excluded number. In other words, real budgets of 29SS and 30SS are 83.6 (=76 + 7.6) and 73.8 (=71.5 + 2.3) JPY B, respectively. First year cost for both 29SS and 30SS means that builders of the two submarines are different.
(3)For application in future 29SS-type submarine, budget for study on a new silent driving system is submitted.
Regards
Hi Pete
ReplyDeleteEx-commander of submarine fleet Masao Kobayashi told that 29SS was upgrade version of Soryu, where optimization of LIBs, improvement of sonar system and other performance would be taken place [1]. So, we can call 29SS as Soryu Mark III.
[1] SHIPS OF THE WORLD, 2017, October.
Regards
Hi Anonymous [at 4/9/17 6:30 PM]
ReplyDeleteI'll put the revisions in an updated Table "Overview of SORYU Program..." later this week.
Regards
Pete