Poland seems to be moving very slowly on its "ORKA" Project to buy 3 medium sized submarines to replace its decrepit Kobben class subs (on average 54 year old with 2 (ORP Sokół and ORP Bielik)
operating and 1 (ORP Kobben) training and Poland's 1 x 33 year old Kilo class sub.
If Poland has survived with such old subs against mainly land threat Russia and Belarus does Poland need subs at all?
The most serious contenders in submarine competition ORKA seem to be:
- French Naval Group Scorpenes. Reuters, January 25, 2017 reported along the lines Poland's state-
run defense firm PGZ has signed an MoU with Naval Group that could allow them to work together
on building submarines in Poland, AND
Sweden's Saab, marketing the A26, appears to have made little competitive progress since SubMatts reported on it in February 10, 2017.
Pete
operating and 1 (ORP Kobben) training and Poland's 1 x 33 year old Kilo class sub.
If Poland has survived with such old subs against mainly land threat Russia and Belarus does Poland need subs at all?
The most serious contenders in submarine competition ORKA seem to be:
- French Naval Group Scorpenes. Reuters, January 25, 2017 reported along the lines Poland's state-
run defense firm PGZ has signed an MoU with Naval Group that could allow them to work together
on building submarines in Poland, AND
- German TKMS Type 212CDs. SubMatts reported July 6, 2016: "In June 2016 Germany
and Poland signed an MoU to establish a joint submarine operating command to be based
in Glucksburg, Germany...
and Poland signed an MoU to establish a joint submarine operating command to be based
in Glucksburg, Germany...
Sweden's Saab, marketing the A26, appears to have made little competitive progress since SubMatts reported on it in February 10, 2017.
On
September 25, 2018 "Nick" provided a link and a Youtube on the TKMS, Naval Group and Saab submarine competitors displays at the Balt Military Expo 2018. This
Expo, held in close co-operation with the Polish Ministry of Defense and Navy, took place, June 25-27, 2018, at Gdansk on Poland’s Baltic coast.
I don't know if the Polish Defense Ministry or Navy at the Expo, said anything formally or informally that might clarify who is likely to win the submarine competition?
Maybe Poland is looking for the lowest price as TKMS, Naval Group and Saab bid their way downwards or Poland has simply shelved buying subs for a few years?
Pete
10 comments:
Poland will buy the german submarines, because:
-Tkms Desperate need it
- Poland never buy french. Even if they did, they cancell it.
What impressed me on the video was the A26, with it's 'simplistic' design, cylindrical hull and internal isolated platform to fit all kit giving high shock protection and minimal sound propagation.
If as good as it sounds design should enable 'low' cost build, would be of interest to know cost Gotland rebuild.
Hi Pete
TKMS 212A and CD are Baltic Sea-specific small submarine [1] adopting non-magnetic hull [2]. Costs of 212CD and A26 are nearly same, and as much as (US$18.1billion USD/four 212CDs [3], US$0.94 billion/two A26s [4]) that of AIP-Soryu, which equips with two most powerful diesel generators, strongest steel for hull, nearly 1000 LABs, 6MW-PMSM, four Starling AIPs, latest combat and sonar systems, etc. This means possible significant reduction of prices of 212CD and A26. If SAAB offer much cheaper price than TKMS and Swedish does not angry, it can win.
[1] https://www.defencechronicles.eu/u-212-cd-the-next-norwegian-submarine-but-what-for/
[2] https://www.dew-stahl.com/fileadmin/files/dew-stahl.com/documents/Publikationen/Werkstoffdatenblaetter/RSH/Datenblatt_1.3964_GB_06_2010.pdf
Judging from composition,1.3964 Austenitic chromium-nickel stainless for 212 Ais very expensive.
[3] https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/germany-could-arm-europe-some-truly-super-submarines-24056
This article is very interesting. Adoption of volunteer system provided lack of submarine crew in German Navy and made German submarine fleet semi-disfunctional.
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A26_submarine
Maritime Today on 18 March 2015 reported that the project was restarted after the Swedish government placed a formal order for two A26 submarines for a maximum total cost of SEK 8.2 bn (approximately US$945 Million as of 18 March 2015).
Regards
Hi Anonymous [at 29/9/18 5:36 PM]
Thanks for your comments.
I'll turn them into an article set for Thursday 4 September 2018.
Regards
Pete
Hi Pete
Breakdown cost of Soryu is costomer supplied goods (command system, weapon and sensor system, communication system, propulsion motor, AIP generator, diesel generator, main batteries, etc) and submarine building cost (materials, wages, utilities (electricity, gas, water), etc). In typical case, costs of costomer supplied goods and submarine building are 184 and 284 million USD (total cost 468 million USD), respectively.
As submarine building cost depends on manday, i.e., size of submarine, in the case of half size submarine of Soryu, submarine building cost is 284/2=142 million USD. If, numbers of AIP generator, diesel Generator and main batteries are half, cost of customer supplied goods is 184-29=155 million USD. Then, total cost is 142+155 = 297milion USD and 63% of Soryu cost (=297/468 x 100). In this case, reduction of sonar allays, implification of weapon system and so on are not considered.
Regards
Correction (underline) of breakeven points
Hi Pete (continued from 30/9/18 10:57 PM)
Breakeven points of A26 and 212CD are very roughly estimated (267 and 270 million USD).
A26 equips equips with two Staring AIPs, while Soryu equips with four same AIPs. High strength steel, super high strength steel (NS110) and high strength stainless steel are used for A26, Soryu and 212CD, respectively (material cost: stainless steel>NS110>steel). Sonar sizes of A26 and 212CD may be half of Soryu.
A26 & 212CD: sonar system (-USD15million) [1]
A26: Starling AIP (-USD12million) [2]
212CD: Fuel cell (-USD12million) [3]
A26: hull (-USD3milllion) [4]
212CD: hull (same) [4]
Breakeven pointsof A26 and 212CD are esmated as follows:
A26: 297-15-12-3=USD267million
212CD: 297-15-12=USD270million
[1] Based on sonar price of Soryu. Sonar size was estimated half of Soryu (USD30million)
[2] Based on Starling AIP price of Soryu (USD23million)
[3] Output of PEMFC was estimated USD33, 748/kW based on market price, and reported output of PEMFC for 212A is 304kW. Then, price of 212CD was estimated USD10million
[4] 1.3964stainless steel of 212CD contains 15-17% of Ni and 20-21.5% of Cr. NS110 contains 9-10% of Ni. Marcker prices of Ni and Cr as raw metals are 6 and 1.41USD/Lb, respectively. Amounts of 1.3964 and NS110 used for hull were estimated 1000 and 2400 tonne, respectively (dry weight of Soryu is estimated 3600ton based on European standard, hull weight is estimated 2/3 of dry weight). Then, prices of hull steel are calculated 2.8 and 3.2 million USD for 212CD and Soryu, respectively. Manufacture price of steel is not considered, and raw material price of iron is considerably lower than Cr and Ni.
Regards
Correction (underline) of breakeven points
Hi Pete (continued from 30/9/18 10:57 PM)
Breakeven points of A26 and 212CD are very roughly estimated (267 and 270 million USD).
A26 equips equips with two Staring AIPs, while Soryu equips with four same AIPs. High strength steel, super high strength steel (NS110) and high strength stainless steel are used for A26, Soryu and 212CD, respectively (material cost: stainless steel>NS110>steel). Sonar sizes of A26 and 212CD may be half of Soryu.
A26 & 212CD: sonar system (-USD15million) [1]
A26: Starling AIP (-USD12million) [2]
212CD: Fuel cell (-USD12million) [3]
A26: hull (-USD3milllion) [4]
212CD: hull (same) [4]
Breakeven pointsof A26 and 212CD are esmated as follows:
A26: 297-15-12-3=USD267million
212CD: 297-15-12=USD270million
[1] Based on sonar price of Soryu. Sonar size was estimated half of Soryu (USD30million)
[2] Based on Starling AIP price of Soryu (USD23million)
[3] Output of PEMFC was estimated USD33, 748/kW based on market price, and reported output of PEMFC for 212A is 304kW. Then, price of 212CD was estimated USD10million
[4] 1.3964stainless steel of 212CD contains 15-17% of Ni and 20-21.5% of Cr. NS110 contains 9-10% of Ni. Marcker prices of Ni and Cr as raw metals are 6 and 1.41USD/Lb, respectively. Amounts of 1.3964 and NS110 used for hull were estimated 1000 and 2400 tonne, respectively (dry weight of Soryu is estimated 3600ton based on European standard, hull weight is estimated 2/3 of dry weight). Then, prices of hull steel are calculated 2.8 and 3.2 million USD for 212CD and Soryu, respectively. Manufacture price of steel is not considered, and raw material price of iron is considerably lower than Cr and Ni.
Regards
Hi Anonymous
Thankyou for your posts at 30/9/18 10:57PM and 2/10/18 10:15PM. I'll turn the information into an article set for Wednesday next week.
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.
I understand Saab's offer of A26's to Poland is becoming steadily more competitive. Part of this is because Saab is gaining more experience building the two A26s for the Swedish Navy. Also Polish industry is actually making some components for those two A26s.
Regards
Pete
"A26 equips equips with two Staring AIPs, while Soryu equips with four same AIPs"
That is not correct. The A26 will be fitted with new generation Stirling engines with a much smaller footprint and more power than the previous V4-275r series used in the Gotland and Soryu's.
Hi Pete
MoD supplys goods as much as possible to the submarine builders and suppress puchasing goods by the submarine builder to reduce th total cost [1]. Profit of the builder is very small, but it is not red. If the builder trys to sell submarine, difference between the said total cost and selling price may be profit of the submarine buider. Foreingn submarines are considerably expensive than Japanese submarine [2].
[1] FY2012 Review of Administrative Approach by Japan MoD,12JUN/ 2016
MoD: In case of 19SS, the total cost is 53 billion JPY. The cost of customer (= government) suppy goods and the building cost are about 23 and 30 billion JPY, respepectively. Ratio of the cost of customer supply goods is high. The raw material cost is about 50% of the building cost. 80~90% of the raw material is the exclusive material for submarine, suggesting good profit.
[2] FY2010 Review of Administrative Approach by Japan MoD,10/JUN/ 2010
MoD: Cost of 16SS is about 60 billion JPY. SK purchased six submarines in one-time bulk and cost of each submarine is 50 billion JPY (=TKMS214), but size of this submarine is half of Soryu. Cost of Collins with nearly same size as Soryu is 78 billion JPY, and this submarine has many troubles. We can buy whole submarine. But, Soryu is best convensional submarine in the world and we can not find better submarine than Soryu.
Regards
Post a Comment