TKMS continues to refine its Type 212CD E design bid in
consultation with the Dutch Navy. There will be ongoing design changes even if
the Dutch Navy makes a bid decision (versus Saab and Naval Group) in the early
2020s.
Following this earlier article on the future 212CD E (for Common Design Expeditionary) being marketed by TKMS. Anonymous has kindly reported (with some editing by Pete for improved English) the following:
Based on the TKMS Type 216, proposed for the Australian Navy's future submarine competition (finally won by Naval Group) [1], diesels for the 212CD E are considered as follows:
[1] To achieve improved efficiency and reduced R&D costs the 212CD E might be based on 216 as well as Type 212A. Concerning the, so far, not built large 216, with
specs at this link, the artwork right at the bottom, (at "1/3", "2/3" and "3/3") is particularly
interesting. Also see 2 cutaways below, of the 216, from this article noting the Vertical Multi Purpose Lock behind
the fin/sail.
[2] The future Netherlands’ submarine requires better safety and redundancy like the existing Walrus class submarine, which has 3 diesels engines. A baseline 212A design would never be accepted by the Netherlands because the 212A has only one diesel.
[3] Reduced magnetism for the hull and for other equipment is an important
feature of the 212CD E. Non-magnetic stainless steel would be used for
pressure hull material. In this context, reduction of magnetic mass of other
equipment (such as diesels) would be an objective. The latest MTU 12V4000 diesel is
suitable for the 212CD E.
[See this MTU document which recommends the MTU 4000 “The standard battery charging unit can easily
be customized with project specific generators and mounting system for
individual shock, acoustic and other Naval requirements – including magnetic
signature reduction.” ].
The HY100 grade pressure hull of the Walrus submarine is
made of non-magnetic steel. But the Walrus’s 3 x SEMT Pielstick 12PA4V200SM diesels seem to be magnetic.
[4] The control room is always set under the bridge for submarines with periscopes. This places design constraints on a submarine. But as the 212CD E will instead use photonic masts there are not the same design constraints. To achieve a short exhaust pipe to reduce exhaust resistance and improve diesel efficiency the best location of diesels is under the bridge. (See 2:51 in this Youtube ) The red rectangles may be a vertical launching system (VLS). If the Green square in front of propulsion motor (green) represents diesels, intake and the exhaust system, this will crowd/complicate the VLS system. Though this arrangement of diesels is suitable for a submarine with a single hull, it might be not suitable for a mixed single/double hull submarine.
[5] Again see 2:51 in this Youtube. Maybe the green square in front of propulsion
motor (green) means AIP fuel cells and not diesels. Heavy diesels are mounted in a double suspension manner (diesel – suspension- floating deck – suspension-
hull) which needs enough space under the diesels and a low center of gravity for the diesel position.
PETE COMMENT
As can be seen above, the interim design of the 212CD E raises many questions. Even if the Netherlands chooses a 212CD E bid or competing Saab or Naval Group bid in the early 2020s there will be further changes to nail down a final design.
By Anonymous (edits by Pete)
ReplyDeleteHi Pete
Siemens has developed a new PEM fuel cell, BZM evo which combine the advantages of BZM34 (34kW) and BZM120 (120kW) and further optimize power density [1,2]. As 212A is equipped with nine BZM 34s (8 x 34kW = 272kW, 1 backup), if Type 212CD is equipped with 12 BZM evos (12 x 40kW = 480kW), 212CD may show improved underwater performance compared with 212A.
[1] https://www.udt-global.com/__media/libraries/draft-abstracts--slides/22-Michael-Moersch.pdf
(The 4th generation of Siemens fuel cell modules for submarine propulsion, Michael Moersch, Siemens Gas and Power GmbH & Co.)
“A single BZM evo provides a nominal power of 40 kW. Future plants consisting of several single units will supply a maximum power of 320 – 480 kW into the grid without exceeding the footprint of an existing BZM34 or BZM120 plant.”
“The BZM evo is a further optimized system from the SINAVY Fuel Cells family/series and already Siemens` 4th generation after utilizing the first 3 generations on the German submarine FGS U1, HDW class U212A, TKMS class 214, Dolphin AIP and others. Finding its place both on conventional submarines and on future applications like UUVs or AIEPs will be Siemens’ utmost concern for the naval market. The BZM evo is designed to fulfill the requirements of new systems and retrofits of older AIP plants and should be available on the market from 2023, or a year earlier for UUV integration.”
[2] Type 212A and 214 are equipped nine BZM34s without pressure vessel and two BZM120s with pressure vessel, respectively.
[cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_212_submarine “2 HDW/Siemens PEM fuel cells each with 120 kW U32, U33, U34” is wrong.]
Regards
Hi Anonymous
ReplyDeleteThanks for your January 12, 2021 at 11:42 PM comment.
I'll turn it into an article next week.
Cheers
Pete
I have difficulties to imagine the engine room with diesel engines under the CIC. Engineers and their equipment always have been isolated from the ops areas.
ReplyDeleteHi Pete
ReplyDelete(after correction)
Siemens Fuel Cell which does not generate carbon dioxide has not restriction of diving depth due to carbon dioxide emission. But, fuel cell 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 for 212CD E?).
SAAB submarine based on A26 and Type 212CD are competing in Walrus replacement program of Netherlands. Cost of submarine is one of the decisive factors in the tender and is estimated very roughly on the design/material of pressure hull and AIP. Then, A26 seems to be considerably less expensive (100-150 million USD?) than Type 212CD.
Design (A26 vs Type 212CD) of pressure hull: existing design (based on Gotland/Blekinge class) vs new design.
Pressure hull material: magnetic steel (Strenx700) vs non-magnetic stainless steel (1.3964)
[1.3964 is much more expensive (30million USD for 212CD) than Strenx700 (1)]
AIP: Stirling generators vs fuel cell
[30 million USD for Stirling generators, ca.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 Starling generators four Soryu cost 20 million USD, where costs of alloy for LOx tanks and other systems are excluded.
Regards
Thanks Anonymous
ReplyDeleteFor your January 16, 2021 at 3:25 PM. I will turn that into an additional article next week.
Cheers
Pete
Hi Anonymous at January 16, 2021 at 2:44 AM
ReplyDeleteYes future possibility of placing the diesel generators under the combat information center (CIC) may have the disadvantages of
noise, some fibration and electronic emissions (all within the sub rather than outside the sub) reducing the efficiency of the CIC.
Pete
Hi Anonymous
ReplyDeleteThanks for your January 16, 2021 at 3:25 PM comment.
I have now turned it into an article, at https://gentleseas.blogspot.com/2021/01/netherlands-new-sub-swedish-entrant.html of January 19, 2021.
Regards
Pete
Hi Anonymous
ReplyDeleteI have just published your January 12, 2021 at 7:42 AM comment
as article "New “BZM evo” AIP PEM fuel cells to be on 212CDs?" of January 22, 2021
at https://gentleseas.blogspot.com/2021/01/the-new-bzm-evo-aip-pem-fuel-cell-to-be.html
Regards
Pete
Goodday,
ReplyDeleteType '212' CD will be 2.400 tonnes. Length is 70 meters. Diameter is 8,10 meter, this is the same as Type 216. The batteries are of the Lithium Ferro Phosphate (LiFePO) type. Top speed: > 22 knots, range approx 10.000 - 12.500 nm.
Locum,
Hi Locum
ReplyDeleteSo I'm assuming the new Lithium-ion Battery (LIB) technology - specifically Lithium Ferro Phosphate (LiFePO) is:
1. produced by SIEMENS?
2. Only for the "212CD E" Proposal for Netherlands? Walrus replacement?
3. Not for the 212CD to be built for the German and Norwegian navies?
Might the LiFePO also be used for the future LIBs on the future Italian 212NFS subs?
Note that a large, about 3,800 ton version, of the 216 was offered to Australia by TKMS in 2016,
So a 2,400 tonnes version would equate to a small 216 version.
Thanks for those other specs "Length is 70 meters. Diameter is 8,10 meter, Top speed: > 22 knots, range approx 10.000 - 12.500 nm."
Do you have any hyperlink(s) or other sources to support your comment?
Regards
Pete
Changing World, changing submarine market. Part 1
ReplyDeleteOur planet is now in the conversion phase from a geo-political uni-polar situation towards a multi-polar world. Currently and in the future, we will face more threats, which can be technically equal or superior. The threats will also be more diverse, more complex and unpredictable.
In order to cope with this rapidly changing world, Darwin's Law becomes more important. The species that adapts the best, will have the most chance at survival.
Submarines are changing considerably too because of technologial developments like: AIP, drones, new types of batteries, and futher going automation.
To give a submarine more potential of adaptation, or flexibility, the new generation sub's need more multi-role capabilities. The new gen. sub must be able to operate in 'brown water' and 'blue water'. Considerably more max. diving depth, range, endurance and speed. To cope better with nuclear propelled sub's and operations further away.
Surface ship design is ruled by the "iron triangle" of: speed - range - payload. Submarine design has to do with the "iron diamond": speed - range - payload - diving depth.
An AIP will give much more endurance, but will also add rougly 5 meters length. During transit, the AIP is not working and thus will eat into your payload and range.
The payload will consist of bigger and better sensors, more drones and Special Operation Forces (SOF, commando's). Because they will play structurally a bigger role in the new boats.
Anti Surface Warfare (ASuW) and Land Attack capabilities are becoming more important too, so add more cruise missiles in your torpedo room or ... add a VLS. Not only for cruise missiles, but also (quasi) ballistic weapons.
If you want to operate your submarine not only in the cold North-European waters. But also in the (sub)-Tropics, with saltier water. Your boat needs bigger trimming tanks. Yes, furhter automation results in smaller crews. But significantly longer range and endurance asks for relatively bigger crews to prevent exhaustion.
In January 2015, Damen Schelde Naval Shipyard CEO Heijn van Ameijde announced the submarine cooperation with Saab-Kockums. During that announcement he noted the structural shift in the submarine market, especially in Asia, towards more 3.000 - 3.000+ (metric) tonnes submarine types.
If we want to believe the Saab-Kockums marketing. Than just stretching the A26 till a maximum of over 80 meters will serve that grwoing market segment.
Err, the standard A26 has allready an unfavourable Length/ Diameter (L/D) ratio of 10,3. The Kilo, TR-1700, Walrus, Type 212 and Dolphin's have a very good L/D ratio of approx 8. That's close to the optimal submarine L/D ratio of 7,0.
Locum,
Changing World, changing submarine market. Part 2
ReplyDeleteOriginally, at the end of the ninties, the Spanish navy wanted to buy the Scorpene.
A relatively cheap export boat, with moderate performance and capabilties and optimised for littoral / 'brown water'. In 2002 - '03 the Spanish DoD ran an assessment of the future geo-political reality nd threats. Conclusion: we do not need a defensive coastal water boat. But an ocean-going defensive and offensive capable (power projection) sub.
Oops, significantly higher range of 10.000 - 12.500 nm, deeper max. diving depth, cruise missile capability means another (much higher) price catagory.
Navantia came up with a quite compact solution. Surfaced just 2.200 tonnes, submerged 2.426 tonnes, total length of 71,05 meters, diameter of pressure-hull is just 7,30 meters.
The Walrus class is allready a bit cramped design. For comparison: submerged 2.800 tonnes, 67,7 meter length and a max. diameter of 8,40 meter. Both are propelled by 3 side-by-side diesel generator sets and built in Marel steel, equivalent to HY-100.
The 2.400 tonnes (submerged) and 68,6 meter long Dolphin 2's, which are designed to the same doctrine as the S-80, has 3x MTU 16V 396 SE84's aswell. Because of the higher safety margin, needed in a longe range sub.
Try to squeeze 3 MTU 396's or 3 MTU 16V 4000's, depending on version: 1,69 - 1,80 m. wide, in a officialy 6,80 meter wide pressure-hull. Hhmm, mission impossible.
The Argentinian TR-1700 is surfaced 2.140 tonnes and submerged 2.336 tonnes. Has a length of 65,93 m.; a diameter of 8,36 m. Max. range is 12.500 nm, with a max. speed of 25 kts the TR-1700 was the fastest diesel-electric sub. Propelled by 4 MTU 16V diesels. The TR-1700 had a crew of 37, while the Dolphin's have 35 heads + 10 extra crew or commando's.
The Walrus has a crew of 50 heads, while the (original) S-80 has a very compact crew of just 32 heads. The S-80's Combat Information Center (CIC, commando center) is cramped. In this CIC there is certainly no room for extra (drone) consoles. In this tight boat concept, there is also no spare space for extra crew, SOF members, or drones. Yes, the S-80'Plus' got stretched from 71,05 to 80,81 meters, but that's to restore the buoyancy of the too heavy boat. The L/D ratio went from 9,73 to a very high 11,07. Originally, the S-80 should have a max. speed of 22 knots, but for the S-80'Plus' it is calculated at 19 knots.
So technically and commercially it's better for a submarine manufacturer to set up a 3.000 tonnes sub product line. Which is not a stretched version of a littoral submarine. But a shortened variant of a bigger boat. A shorter version of the Type 216 was the favorite choice of the Singaporean navy. Unfortunately, because of the quickly growing Chinese threat, they wanted their new submarines a.s.a.p. And they didn't want to have the risks when being a launching customer.
Lithium-Ion batteries.
Scientific research concluded that statistically seen, sooner or later a Li-Ion equipped submarine will catch fire. Li-Ion batteries are used safely underwater allready for 25 years. However, it's the application of much larger numbers of Li-Ion battery cells in submarines and over a long timespan of 25 - 30 years. That makes the statistical chance at a Li-Ion battery fire realistic.
Lithium Iron Phosphate (LiFePO) batteries are significantly more stabile than Li-Ion batteries. In other words: as safe as lead-acid batteries. Compared to lead-acid batteries, LiFePO batteries have also a 9 % lower specific weight,
The lifespan of LiFePO batteries is longer (more discharge cycli) and their re-charge time is shorter.
The LiFePO manufacturer for tkMS is Saft. First LiFePO batteries for rigorous defense applications, were introduced by Saft in 2009.
LiFePO batteries will not only find application in Type 212CD, but also 212CD E, Type 214, etcetera.
Locum,
Hi Pete
ReplyDeleteUsually, condition and performance of batteries are monitored. Batteries are exchanged in a regular basis and/or according to degree of deterioration [1] and never used over the service time of submarine (20-30 years) [2]. One of reasons for adoption of LIBs is its safety [3,4].
[1] Replacement period for LABs is decided based on operational experience (e.g., once a three-years). LIBs might be exchanged once a six-years.
[2] Poorly managed or deteriorated LAB generates hydrogen which might cause hydrogen explosion as shown in the case of ARA San Juan missing in 2017.
[3] Siemens patent of LIB
[4] Possible serious accidents caused from LABs and LIBs are hydrogen explosion and fire, respectively. Section for LIBs shall be shielded and be filled by inert gas in case of fire (Japanese standard for marine LIBs).
Regards
Hi everyone (Locum, Unknown, and Anons)
ReplyDeleteThanks for all the long comments. I'll publish 1 to 2 each day - oldest to newest date order.
Regards
Pete
Hello
ReplyDeleteI wonder what will be the price for the Dutch tender's submarines?
Hi Anonymous [at Oct 2, 2021, 7:16:00 AM]
ReplyDeletePrice is a multi-faceted uncertainty - its both a monetary and a political issue. First who wins the Dutch Walrus Replacement decision - maybe in 2022-2023 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walrus-class_submarine#Replacement
Price is a complex matter over many contractural milestones. Price for what? Development? Per submarine? Spares? Training? For the whole of the 50 year (build + operational) program? How much money will go to local content and local main contractor building 4 subs in the Netherlands. Price in whose currency? Counting inflation? On constant 2022 Euros? Converted to US dollars?
Basically "price" cannot be fully measured until the 2070s when the Walrus Replacements are retired.
Pete