Following the article “Netherlands New Sub...” of January 19, 2021, Anonymous kindly commented on the estimation of cost of fuel cell AIP for submarine.
Note 1: the costs seem low, because they are wholesale/producer component costs only. The cost customer navies (especially foreign ones) would pay would be much higher due to such variables as:
- producer (company and selling navy) manpower costs
- revenue
- profits
- training of key officers, petty officers and technicians and in producer's port(s) and subs
- training (including document translation and simulators)
- spare parts
- integration (if customer wants something very non-standard) and
- cost of LOx and Hydrogen propellents.
Currency: There are about 100 Yen to the US Dollar.
Assumed cost of fuel cell system is consisted of (i) cost of
fuel cell, (ii) distribution cost of fuel cell including anti-shock and safety
system such as hydrogen leakage, (iii) price of metal hydride, and (iv)
distribution cost of metal hydride cylinder (cylinder structure, gas/medium
distribution, flow meter, heat sensor, heating system, anti-shock,
non-magnetism, corrosion resistance, adiabatic, thermal insulation etc.)
As there are no data on (ii) and (iv) which are not
so serious in Stirling generator, (i) and (iii) are estimated on other
information.
(i) unit price per power of fuel cell is nearly same as that of Stirling generator. As price of Stirling generator (240kW) is 2 billion price of fuel cell (480kW) is 4 billion yen.
(iii) Price of commercial metal hydrogen cylinder [size
81mm(diameter) x 270mm (length)] is 200,000 yen.
Estimated metal hydride cylinder for Type 212A: size 60cm
(diameter) x 350 cm (length) and 32 sets?.
Then estimated price of metal hydride for Type 212A is
4.5billion yen [=(60/8.1)^2 x 350/27 x 200,000 x 32]
Cost of fuel cell system = (i) + (ii) + (iii) + (iv) = (ii) + (iv) + 8.5billion yen (US$8 million). Judging from technology level used and severe requirements, (ii) and (iv) are considerably expensive.
2 comments:
If it is really that cheap, one should not think twice about it.
The tactical gain is huge. No surfacing during the whole mission. No MPA, helo, unmanned system or vessel radar spotting you. From my perspective, reducing the indiscretion rate will become more and more relevant.
Hi Anonymous [at January 29, 2021 at 4:56 PM]
No, I myself think that Germany would price Fuel Cell AIP for a customer navy at around US$150 million. This would be on a Type 214 or 218 or a Dolphin 2. So a customer would see it as a considerable add-on for a submarine that might already cost around US$1 Billion.
For a South Korean 214, Singaporean 218 and Israeli Dolphin 2 it is correct that they might operate fully submerged on original dockside battery charge and AIP for a whole mission of 2-3 weeks.
Helos, ships, subs and fixed microphones all using ACTIVE sonar could spot even a sub sitting on the seafloor (which is operating on AIP).
Yes reducing the indiscretion rate will become more and more relevant especially against increasingly advanced competitors, like China.
Regards
Pete
Post a Comment