Shawn C has commented on Malaysian and mainly Singapore navy
issues below – including Singapore’s Invincible class (Type 218SG)
submarines might sport a mix of 533mm and 650mm torpedo tubes. Comments in square brackets [...] by Pete:
1. Frankly speaking - Malaysia is too much of a close economic
partner with Singapore and I don't think they are seen as strategic
competitors, especially in terms of defense. The last decade has widened the
gulf between the military capabilities of the two, and niggling border
[maritime, water and aviation] issues aside, Malaysia benefits from a
neighbour who is willing to help them in terms of data fusion and ISR,
particularly around the Malacca Straits and parts of the SES[?]. [See this December 2018 Youtube Video on maritime dispute].
---------------
Some of the Singapore-Malaysia disputes in late 2018
-------------
That is not to say that Singapore doesn't ignore
any Malaysian 'posturing'. There's plenty of stories by Singaporean National
Servicemen of some of the 'mobilization exercises' they've gone through.
https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/saf-holds-largest-mobilisation-exercise-since-1985-with-8000-troops-700-vehicles
Singapore is a signatory of the NPT and does not have a nuclear industry - also no place to put a nuclear plant with a 30km safety zone.
It's a certainty that Singaporean and Israeli submariners have 'bumped into' each other during the construction of their respective submarines at TKMS, but what systems are shared is of course conjecture at this time, and I don't think the Israelis would let sailors of other nations into their super-secret subs. More likely the Singaporean crewmen trained on Type 212 boats.
We know from launch images of the RSS Invincible/Type 218SG [and see Wiki link] that while the sub has a family resemblance to the Dolphin II, the sail is located centrally, there are four X- rudders instead of the seven (four rudders and three fins) on the Dolphin II, and a broader keel that runs almost the whole length of the submarine.
What wasn't shown in the images, was the Invincible's eight torpedo tubes, and it may be that, like the Type 212, they have an asymmetrical torpedo tube layout, and could even be a mix of 533mm and 650mm tubes [like the Dolphin 1s and 2s!], which would make a lot of sense for special forces and UUV use, amongst other things.
Did TKMS torpedo Kockum with Australia and Singapore? The Swedes think so.
https://www.thelocal.de/20131015/52407
Ultimately Kockums was removed from the SEA 1000 project because "they hadn't built a submarine in twenty years". In a What If scenario - TKMS-Kockums get awarded the A26 project in 2010, and in 2012, with some delays, cuts steel on the first boat. In 2013 Singapore signs in for a customised version, so Kockums now has a 4 submarine order book. This keeps them in the SEA 1000 downselect.https://au.finance.yahoo.com/news/sweden-barred-australia-sub-program-105608893.html
Singapore is a signatory of the NPT and does not have a nuclear industry - also no place to put a nuclear plant with a 30km safety zone.
It's a certainty that Singaporean and Israeli submariners have 'bumped into' each other during the construction of their respective submarines at TKMS, but what systems are shared is of course conjecture at this time, and I don't think the Israelis would let sailors of other nations into their super-secret subs. More likely the Singaporean crewmen trained on Type 212 boats.
We know from launch images of the RSS Invincible/Type 218SG [and see Wiki link] that while the sub has a family resemblance to the Dolphin II, the sail is located centrally, there are four X- rudders instead of the seven (four rudders and three fins) on the Dolphin II, and a broader keel that runs almost the whole length of the submarine.
What wasn't shown in the images, was the Invincible's eight torpedo tubes, and it may be that, like the Type 212, they have an asymmetrical torpedo tube layout, and could even be a mix of 533mm and 650mm tubes [like the Dolphin 1s and 2s!], which would make a lot of sense for special forces and UUV use, amongst other things.
Did TKMS torpedo Kockum with Australia and Singapore? The Swedes think so.
https://www.thelocal.de/20131015/52407
Ultimately Kockums was removed from the SEA 1000 project because "they hadn't built a submarine in twenty years". In a What If scenario - TKMS-Kockums get awarded the A26 project in 2010, and in 2012, with some delays, cuts steel on the first boat. In 2013 Singapore signs in for a customised version, so Kockums now has a 4 submarine order book. This keeps them in the SEA 1000 downselect.https://au.finance.yahoo.com/news/sweden-barred-australia-sub-program-105608893.html
2. [Pete never mentioned any
Scorpenes had AIP. Only the 3 DCNS (now Naval Group) designed Pakistani
Navy Agosta-90Bs have DCNS MESMA AIP. It was Wikipedia
that wrongly implied MESMA AIP on Scorpenes here
and in Wikipedia’s
right sidebar].
You might be interested that the Republic of
Singapore Navy (RSN) trains
in the Andaman Islands with the Indian Navy https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/a-rare-look-at-rsn-submarine-training-crew-can-now-take-out-adversary-within-minutes
The Chief Trainer of Submarine Forces RSN, is a Perisher graduate:
https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/why-whiskey-was-the-last-thing-on-rsn-submarine-commanders-mind-during-gruelling-perisher
Checked up on the Polish A17 story, and I think there's a lot of unsubstantiated conjecture in the article, specifically with Sweden 'buying back' the Archer class submarines in 2023.
https://www.defence24.com/is-sweden-willing-to-maintain-its-submarines-and-their-potential
The RSN currently operates two Challenger class and two Archer class subs. The Challenger boats are over fifty years old [originally launched in 1968 and 1969] and in RSN commission for twenty years, so their replacement by the first pair of Invincibles is urgent. With the Archers its a little more complicated - they were extensively modernised over five years and have been in service for about 9 years, which means they should be able to remain in RSN commission till 2030 without any major life-extensions needed.
While most commentators see the RSN's intent is to replace the Archer's with the second pair of Invincibles, this won't happen till the boats are delivered in 2024-2025 (not 2023). The RSN may also be planning to expand its submarine forces to six submarines, and keep the Archers in commission while ordering a third pair of [Invincible class] Type 218SG boats for delivery later in the decade.
The Chief Trainer of Submarine Forces RSN, is a Perisher graduate:
https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/why-whiskey-was-the-last-thing-on-rsn-submarine-commanders-mind-during-gruelling-perisher
Checked up on the Polish A17 story, and I think there's a lot of unsubstantiated conjecture in the article, specifically with Sweden 'buying back' the Archer class submarines in 2023.
https://www.defence24.com/is-sweden-willing-to-maintain-its-submarines-and-their-potential
The RSN currently operates two Challenger class and two Archer class subs. The Challenger boats are over fifty years old [originally launched in 1968 and 1969] and in RSN commission for twenty years, so their replacement by the first pair of Invincibles is urgent. With the Archers its a little more complicated - they were extensively modernised over five years and have been in service for about 9 years, which means they should be able to remain in RSN commission till 2030 without any major life-extensions needed.
While most commentators see the RSN's intent is to replace the Archer's with the second pair of Invincibles, this won't happen till the boats are delivered in 2024-2025 (not 2023). The RSN may also be planning to expand its submarine forces to six submarines, and keep the Archers in commission while ordering a third pair of [Invincible class] Type 218SG boats for delivery later in the decade.
9 comments:
1) It's almost certain that the Archers will be kept in service for a while longer maintaining a six boat fleet. The Archers are said to have had significant upgrades c.a. 2010 for which one particular Dr. Tan Beng Hock won the Defense Technology Prize in 2013.
2) It's actually very informative to make a comparison between the three HDW Type 214 derivatives: the "basic" 214, the Turkish 214TN Reis class and the 218SG/Invincible.
Some links:
a) 218SG largest cutaway found at: https://www.naval.com.br/blog/2019/02/18/invincible-primeiro-submarino-type-218sg-de-singapura-e-lancado-na-alemanha/
b) 214TN largest cutaway found at: https://www.monch.com/mpg/news/naval-channel/4361-turksub.html
c) Generic 214 largest cutaway, found at: http://www.naval.com.br/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/u-214-schnittbild.jpg
3) Comparing the cutaway diagrams, using the central console as a central point of reference for size, we see that there is about a two and a half meter extension fore of the sail, and about a similar extension aft of the sail compared to the generic 214.
4) The area with bunk beds in the 218SG is almost certainly a reconfigurable space serving alternate duty as Spec Ops hotel, or Torpedo/Payload Room, or part of each at the same time. It is however the same size (between the Galley and the start of the Torpedo launch tubes) as that on the 214TN/Reis class.
5) The extension fore of the sail seems to be entirely localised in the torpedo and sensor section. Comparing it with the 214TN, the torpedo tube compartment is about 1/3 longer. Try scaling it identically and superimposing the images to see. Maybe the 218SG's shtick really is "engaging targets at longer range" as the Defence Ministry puts it, and remote sensing/distributed swarm tactics with UUVs to "sense targets at greater range". Perhaps it is fitted for the DM2A4 ER? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYvt3tU2yqU
6) The extension aft of the sail seems to be distributed throughout the engine room, and in the cutaway it appears to be used as empty space, but the cutaway seems to omit a lot of important things; it's almost like somebody turned off a few layers on a CAD rendering. We can only speculate (and I encourage you to speculate!) as to what might be contained in the engine room, because it's not typical of the Singaporean military to sacrifice equipment for comfort. If anything their stuff is chronically over modified.
7) The 218SG might not have a HMPL for Spec Ops delivery; the airlock might be located in the base of the sail instead like the 212A and the Greek 214s. However, no pictures are forthcoming of the sail itself. There is however, one picture of the bow during the commissioning ceremony on Alamy Stock Photos, showing that like the classic 214s, the hydrophone and most of the larger sonar equipment is probably housed below the torpedo tubes.
8) The screw is obviously missing from the cutaway (which makes you wonder why they omitted the screw when HDW screws are very well photographed), and there are no extant pictures of the 218SG's screw. However, the cutaway shows a PBCF in place of the traditional hub, and a large ring like shroud for several very thin, straight blades, probably non rotating. A very interesting device which I have not seen anywhere else. It have something to do with flow optimization, or it might have something to do with reducing cavitation. I recall some years ago on your blog a commenter said it had to do with a torpedo or towed array; as far as I can tell this is not the case since there are no torpedo tubes to the rear, and plenty of submarines with towed arrays function well without it.
9) It is quite a thin submarine with respect to draught. It's unlike the 212A and Dolphin, (which are more similar to each other than to the 214 derived series), and is probably not a true double decked design.
10) Depending on how long you think the Upgraded Vaestergoetland class/Soedermanland class Stirling subs can endure underwater, the 218SG has anywhere between 3 and 6 weeks' endurance (half again compared to Archer class, according to the Defence Ministry). My guess is that the rear of the 218SG is used to house more LOX/MH, or more batteries. If it's batteries, then it's got to be lithium ion, because lead acids are too bulky and there's no point having more of them then. By a back of the envelope calculation, you'd need 13 to 14 tonnes of LOX to go 2880 nautical miles, or 4 knots continuously at 60 to 70 percent reactant efficiency (which is ballpark for 4 knots for the SINAVY 120kW cells, at 60 to 70kW total propulsion load) for 30 days. This works out to about 11 cubic meters of LOX (and a smaller volume of Metal Hydride), which is quite a bit but not so much.
The alternative is between 100 cubic meters to 300 cubic meters worth of lithium ion batteries. Instead of a full lithium ion battery solution, the 218SG might employ a very large load of LOX, perhaps up to 20 cubic meters worth for recharging, and a larger than normal volume of batteries, which might be lithium ion. HDW/TKMS is known to have explored lithium ion for the Type 216, and as early as c. 2009, the below linked Singapore publication states specifically that HDW is researching replacing lead acid with lithium ion. In that case, the advantage would be a much larger sprint/surface reserve battery capability, mitigating the problem with the old Swedish subs.
https://www.dsta.gov.sg/docs/default-source/dsta-about/introduction-to-submarine-design.pdf?sfvrsn=2
11) At the dockyard, the bottom of the hull seems to be much blockier than the Dolphin or classic 214. I speculate that it might provide extra strength, external reactant storage, and larger sensors. At the commissioning dockyard, I could not find any photo evidence of a side payload bay.
12) The contract price for the first two subs was stated in press releases to include logistics, training and the actual construction. At USD 900m per sub, if we assume half the costs go to logistics (spares) and training, the remaining half goes to the sub, which is about half again more expensive than the classic 214s that Korea and Greece received, which went for about USD 300m. The 218SG's construction costs are in the ballpark for a 212A but of course this is the purest kind of speculation.
13) Funnily enough, the diagram of the 218SG linked above, which the Singaporean Ministry of Defence released, appears to be an isometric projection, whereas the 214 and 214TW are both orthographic projections. It's as if they just took a screenshot in AutoCAD and released it to the publicity people. Cheap on the minor, splurge on the major, classic.
The 218SG might actually be shape up to be the smallest oceangoing capable submarine in service. Its shtick might be long submerged range, long engagement range, and long sensor range in a distributed swarm.
Thanks retortPouch
Your 3 comments above have given me enough material for at least 3 articles.
I'll publish the first article tomorrow.
Regards
Pete
At some point I'll fire up GIMP and do a rough ortho to iso conversion of the 214 and Reis diagrams followed by a scaling for superimposition for my own interest. If you like I can give you something to use as illustration depending on what you want... when I get around to it haha
Sorry, I forgot to account for cell voltage in the basic calculation, the quantity can be divided by 0.6 for standard fuel cells giving 22 tonnes or 19 cubic meters of LOX, however Siemens claims the Sinavy 120kW models run at about 1 volt cell voltage, which makes the calculation accidentally correct.
I must here disclaim that I am neither *that* "Above and Beyond* blogger, nor an actual defence professional! Pure "OSINT" speculation.
correction, on precise inspection the torpedo tube section on the 218sg is the same length as that on the Turkish Reis.
Post a Comment