April 18, 2018

Comparing Kilo 877s with TKMS Type 212A submarines

Further to Submarine Matters’ interest in Russian submarines Anonymous on April 13, 2018 provided the following data which Pete has put in the Table below.

Comparison between
submarines
older model
TKMS Type 212A
also Todaro
When first launched
Sept 1980
March 2002
When last launched
Oct 1999
July 2015
(Todaro batch)
Propulsion motors
section length
4 motors = 2 main + 2 small “economical” “silent” motors, [1] 7m
1 PMSM 1.7m
Diesel engines
2, around 10m
1, around 10m
Fuel cell 2.8m
Non-propulsion hull length
56.1m
40.0m
Total
submarine length

70-73.8m (see
56.0m to
57.2m (2nd batch)
(see sidebar)

[1] Length of Kilo 877’s economic-silent motor + main motor (4.4MW) is around 7m. When compared to the 212A’s PMSM (of 2MW) at 1.7m long, miniaturization and simplification of propulsion motor system is probably necessary in Russian conventional submarines. 

Particularly in the narrows and rocky holes of the Baltic Sea, where the Kilo 877 encounters the 212A, the 212A having a much shorter length overall and having an X-plane tail may tend to make it more manoeuvrable hence able to hide in smaller holes than the Kilo 877. Although the effectiveness of the Kilo's internal thrusters/impeller tunnels may give Kilos some advantages (unassessible at this open source level). 


Diagram of Type 212A that highlights location and rough size of propulsion elements (Diagram courtesy Naval Technology).
---

If 212A’s silent running Fuel Cell, (see above) at 2.8m long, is added into the comparison then the Kilo has less of an overly long propulsion problem.
Kilo Project 877 interior diagram above. (See much larger more readable diagram at source https://www.soumarsov.eu/Sous-marins/Post45/877/877_schemdet_agrandi.htm )

On the larger diagram the following parts can be identified:
1. Sonar base MGK-400 RUBIKON 
2. 533mm torpedo launch tubes 
3. First section (Front / torpedoes) 
4. Anchor windlass 
5. Front hatch  
6. Reserve torpedo with fast reloading device 
7. Front dive bars 
8. Crew quarters
9. Front battery 
10. MG-53 AVTOGRAF sonar interceptor
11. Place where officers/crew on watch stand in the fin/sail
12. Attack periscope PK-8.5 
13. Periscope PZNG-8M 
14. Schnorchel mast 
15. Diver's hatch
16. Radar mast MRK-50 KASKAD
17. ZAVESA direction finder mast 
18. MRP-25 radar interceptor mast 
19. STRELA-3 surface-to-air missile lookout container 
20. Second section
21. Command Post to Control Navigation Operations (PCNO) 
22. Third section (living area) 
23. Rear battery 
24. Fourth section (diesel generators) 
25. Diesel generator 
26. HP air cylinders 
27. Fifth installment (electric motors)
28. Main Electric Motor
29. Emergency signalling buoy 
30. Sixth Trim (Rear) 
31. Rear Panel 
32. Silent Electric Motor
33. Rear dive bar and rudder press 
34. Rudder support

This Youtube below (presented by Gisoo Misha Ahmady in traditional dress) is inside one of Iran's three largest submarines of the Russian (Saint Petersburg) built Iranian TAREG variant (Kilo class Project 877s). We can understand the difficulty of maintaining and monitoring the 877's Lead-acid batteries (LABs). In the loss of Argentine submarine ARA San Juan one of the LAB section was flooded with seawater resulting hydrogen gas leakage, on ignition fire, then catastrophic explosion. 



On the mainly English language Youtube above see: 

2 minute 31 seconds in to 2mins 48 secs : A crewman, in hot, humid, conditions manually measures
     the specific density of sulfuric acid in LABs. This density reduces with potentially dangerous 
     hydrogen discharge?

More specifically at:

  2:31 the crewman is checking LABs on the keel, because heights of right and left hand sides of
        LABs are the same.
  2:40 : Other LABs are on left hand side. They are also checked. 
Female announcer says there are 
         "roughly 80 members of the crew!" Is it the same crew size in Indian Kilos?

Anonymous and Pete

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

The size of the DC motor used in the Kilo submarine is likely determined by the amount of torque that is required. To go smaller, I think Russia would need to switch to AC motor?

I think the main difference between project 877 and 636 is the addition of a planetary reduction gear to reduce propeller speed and noise.
KQN

Ztev Konrad said...

There a photo of the Siemens Permsym submarine electric motor on their website ( plus the pdf)
https://www.industry.siemens.com/verticals/global/en/marine/marine-ships/propulsion/pages/permasyn-drive-motor.aspx

The person standing next to indicates the massive scale

Peter Coates said...

Thanks Ztev

And the huge Permsym motor at
https://www.industry.siemens.com/verticals/global/en/marine/marine-ships/propulsion/pages/permasyn-drive-motor.aspx
would be only for a 2,000 tonne or less (surfaced) TKMS sub.

If Australia had bought the TKMS Type 216 its Permsym would be far larger.

I wonder if Australia's French designed future sub will have a Permsym or equivalent?

Regards

Pete

Ztev Konrad said...

Juemont Electric has been selected as the supplier for electric motor for the Australian-French sub project
https://www.naval-technology.com/contractors/electrical/jeumont-electric/pressreleases/pressjeumont-electric-australian-submarine-programme/

http://www.jeumontelectric.com/produits/motors/?lang=en

Peter Coates said...

Thanks Ztev

For the reminder that French supplier Juemont Electric has already been selected by Naval Goup to supply the Permasyn like "permanent magnet propulsion motor" for the Australian Future submarine.

I forgot Submarine Matters has already covered at http://gentleseas.blogspot.com.au/2018/01/jeaumont-electric-have-aleady-won.html the no competition? selection of Juemont Electric to supply the motor. That selection being more than a decade before the Australian submarines will actually be launched.

Naval Group's selection of the Right Diesel will be even more important as the Wrong (Swedish Baltic suited) Diesel was the Collins' major failure.

Regards

Pete