Following the January 11, 2021 article - on January 16, 2021 Anonymous kindly commented (with edits by Pete for improved English and clarity) that:
Sweden's SAAB (with a submarine entrant based on the A26) and Germany (with the TKMS Type 212CD E (see video below) are competing for the Netherlands Walrus replacement program. The cost of the submarines is, of course, one of the decisive factors in the tender. Cost (for each of 4 new submarines) is estimated very roughly on the design/material of pressure hull, AIP and combat system. The A26 entrant may be considerably less expensive (perhaps as low as a 1,000 million USD?) than the Type 212CD E.
As Germany's Siemens Fuel Cell AIP technology does not generate carbon dioxide it is not restricted in diving depth (in the sense water pressure would prevent carbon dioxide being emitted). [Pete comment: This is in contrast to Swedish Stirling AIP which does suffer the carbon dioxide emission restriction]. But, fuel cell AIP and its peripheral technologies (metal hydride for hydrogen source, hydrogen/oxygen
storage and supply system, etc.) seem to be very expensive (more than 100
million USD in a future Type 212CD E?).
Strength of pressure hull steel relies on Yield Strength (given a number) and on the strength contribution of other support structures. This may be:
- magnetic steel (see Sweden's "Strenx700" at Table 1") maybe based on the existing design of the Gotland/Blekinge class for the A26 entrant
versus
- Germany's non-magnetic stainless steel (see 1.3964 or 1.3974 at Table 2.) maybe a new design? for the Type 212 CD E.
Pressure hull material, if 1.3964 or 1.3974, is much more expensive (30million USD in a 212CD or more) than Strenx700 (1). [Pete comment: However the non-magnetic nature of the German steel should make it harder to detect.]
AIP: Stirling generators vs fuel cell 30 million USD for Stirling generators versus around 100 million USD for fuel cell? (2)
(1) Price of Nitronic 50 (=1.3964) plate is 1,500INR/kilogram (20USD/kilogram) and assumed 1500ton of 1.3964 stainless steel is used for 212CD. Judging from composition of steel, 1.3964 stainless steel seems to be 10 times expensive than Strenx700.
(2) Four Stirling generators four x Kawasaki
Kockums V4-275R for the Soryu class submarine cost 20 million USD, where costs
of alloy for LOx tanks and other systems are excluded.
Video uploaded December 2, 2020. Thyssenkrupp Marine Systems’ (TKMS) proposal for the Netherlands Submarine Replacement
Project: the Type 212CD E (Expeditionary). “The video shows the general...212
CD E design characteristics without sharing details due to security
classification matters.”
---
Hi Pete
ReplyDeleteOn estimation of cost of fuel cell for submarine.
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 yen, 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 (8million USD). Judging from technology level used and severe requirements, (ii) and (iv) are considerably expensive.
Regards
Paging Pete
ReplyDeleteYou might want to see this article
Australia Reportedly Looking At An Alternative To Its Costly New French-Designed Submarines
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/38790/australia-reportedly-looking-at-an-alternative-to-its-costly-new-french-designed-submarines
Hi Nicky
ReplyDeleteRe The Drive article carrying the latest in a long line of Swedish suggestions for a Swedish designed Collins II for Australia.
My response has become so long that I will respond with an Article in about 16 hours time.
And this is assuming violence around Biden's Inauguration hasn't amounted to a new crisis.
Regards
Pete
Hi Anonymous
ReplyDeleteRe:
1. your https://gentleseas.blogspot.com/2021/01/type-212cd-e-with-some-216-traits-for.html?showComment=1610455321664#c2188716581148297809
and
2. your article suggestion at January 19, 2021 at 11:06 AM (above)
I am becoming so busy with other submarine and US Inauguration issues that I aim to publish 1. and 2. as articles next week.
Kind Regards
Pete
Dear Pete,
ReplyDeletehighly appreciate your content. Anyhow, it is probably comparing apples with pears.
Material is just one cost position of the total cost of ownership.
My feeling is that the Swedes found some smart ways to reduce cost of submarine build. A more ikeaish submarine when you compare it to the German 212 class.
My further two cents to consider. Engineering design of the submarine itself as well as within the supply chain is a major cost component. If you distribute this to only two submarines, it really sucks...
Furthermore the user benefits from having the same or very similar submarines within other navies. Training, sustainement/obsolescences, everything becomes easier...
Hi Anonymous [at January 20, 2021 at 1:50 PM]
ReplyDeleteIts very true that TKMS has Recent/Ongoing Experience of producing subs with tailor made specs for a variety of customers. Indeed this is backed, with efficient, supply chains.
In comparison the last full build of a submarine by Kockums was in 1996, and even that was for its own parent Swedish Navy.
Saab-Kockums current record of not yet building only 2 submarins in 24 years (and that is again for the Swedish Navy) cannot compare with TKMS for tailor-made or tailored supply chains.
Regards
Pete
Non-magnetic stainless Nitronic 50, well for it to be truly ‘non-magnetic’ it needs to be annealed which means no strength, which means...nope, not useful for the application at hand. Incredible hard to weld, solidification cracks. And there are other ways to manage magnetism too; degaussing.
ReplyDeleteWonder why Nitronic, which I think is inherently an American steel is offered by the Germans?
Hi Anonymous [January 29, 2021 at 6:01 PM]
ReplyDeleteI suspect I know less about pressure hull steels than you do - so am in no position to answer your questions.
I just draw your attention to my main pressure hull steel comparative table article of March 7, 2019, at https://gentleseas.blogspot.com/2019/03/submarine-pressure-hull-steel-tables.html
Regards
Pete
------
ReplyDeleteHi Pete
On comment (January 29, 2021 at 6:01 PM)
(1) 1.3964 is material number and Nitronic 50 is bland name.
https://www.langleyalloys.com/en/knowledge-advice/what-is-1-3964/#:~:text=1.3964%20is%20the%20Werkstoff%20number,commonly%20known%20as%20Nitronic%2050.
“1.3964 is the Werkstoff number for a more highly alloyed austenitic stainless steel most commonly known as Nitronic 50. The Werstoff designation was developed by the German standards body DIN, with the term Werkstoff translating approximately to ‘material’. It is also known as XM19, as used in ASTM A182, ASTM A276 and ASTM A479, alongside the unified numbering system caption of UNS S20910. Nitronic 50 is a trademark of AK Steel Corporation.”
(2) Magnetism of 1.3964 is extremely small and annealing is not needed.
https://www.dew-stahl.com/fileadmin/files/dew-stahl.com/documents/Publikationen/Werkstoffdatenblaetter/RSH/Datenblatt_1.3964_GB_06_2010.pdf, page 2/2, figure of “Magnetic permeability”
(Relative) magnetic permeability (ur) is 1.0033, while ur for iron is 200000 as shown in wikipedia.
(3) Effect of annealing on magnetism of Nitronic 50 is neglectable.
http://www.electralloy.com/images/pdf/Product_Sheets/Electralloy/Nitronic50HS_main.pdf, page2/2, table of “PHYSICAL PROPERTIES”, Magnetic Permeability: (@ RT, 200 oersted):
(Relative) Magnetic Permeability of Annealed or “Super” High Strength (of Nitronic 50) is ca.1.004”
ibid MAGNETIC PERMEABILITY: Nitronic® 50 does not become magnetic when cold worked. The magnetic permeability of the alloy remains low even at cryogenic temperatures to below -400˚F.
Regards
------
Hi Anonymouses concerned with Nitronic 50 Pressure hull steel [January 29, 2021 at 6:01 PM and January 31, 2021 at 12:17 PM]
ReplyDeleteI aim to do an article with your contending arguments soon.
Regards
Pete