The first of four S-80 Plus is due to be launched in 2021. It will probably need what is typical for a brand new submarine type, ie. 2 or 3 years of tests, fine tuning and crew training, before being commissioned around 2024. Three more will be built - to make 4 for the Spanish Navy. (see diagram below). The S-80 Plus was/is part of push to a larger more comfortable sub, with longer range and ability to carry more heavywight munitions (torpedos, ASh missiles, mines). For a 3,400 tonne sub it only has a small crew of 32 - so must be a lot of automation and living space per crew member.
Much has been written about Spain’s under construction S-80, now S-80 Plus (aka Isaac Peral) class.
Spanish Wikipedia on the S-80 Plus is much more detailed.
Previous S-80 and/or S-80 Plus articles here at SubMatts were
published on:
Jan 20, 2014, Aug 5, 2014 (on AIP), May 17, 2016, Feb 28, 2017 (AIP), May 23, 2017 (SENER), May 16, 2018, May 17, 2018, Feb 11, 2020 (Part 2) and
Feb 21, 2021
Below this article are some interesting comments by Anonymouses Feb 22 to 27, 2021
SPANISH ALCOHOL
REFORMER AIP
The main problem with buoyancy that killed off the S80 design was not the weight of the combat system but the addition of heavy, complex Ethanol reformer AIP. This unique AIP has been many years in development and is the main problem causing the S-80 Plus delay. The main builder Navantia and customer, the Spanish Navy, were (in hindsight) too ambitious. There were too many firsts, packing so much into the S-80 Plus including the first full US combat system integrated into a “EuroSub”.
Anonymous advises (words to the effect) there are three companies in Spain involved in Alcohol Reforming for the Subs AIP:
1. Abengoa EtOH reformer [Pete comment: “EtOH” means Ethanol Alcohol which we call just “Ethanol”]: this company was awarded the S-80
AIP Reformer. Many problems, but it seems as it is (hopefully) going ahead.
2.- Tecnicas Reunidas ETOH: very competent and experienced Spanish
engineering company, with huge oil refinery projects (in the Gulf States , Asia,
etc). Contracted by the Spanish Navy as "PLan B" in case Abengoa fails..
3. SENER CH3OH [CH30H means Methanol] reformer: SENER engineering company is very competent in military
projects and world leader in Naval engineering. This company has an agreement with TKMS Germany
to collaborate and promote the Methanol reformer for AIP. They are suggesting that a Methanol reformer could be an alternative
to an Ethanol reformer.
The Spanish Navy and Navantia are fully focused on Ethanol
reforming as it is, in fact, a fully Spanish development, either by Abengoa or
by Tecnicas Reunidas.
--------------------
According to Anonymous the first two S-80 Plus (S-81 and S-82) will be deployed fitted for, but not with the AIP (confirmed here). This is so AIP development won't continue to delay launch. The first S-80 Plus “Isaac Peral” S-81 is expected to be launched in the Northern Spring 2021 [around April?] depending on Covid!! and then S-82 after that. S-83 and S-84 will be delivered with the full AIP.
------------------------
9 comments:
The S80 has been more than 15 years in the making. I visited Navantia in 2012 and heard from them how the S80 fuel cell will be safer far superior to the German fuel cell system. One of their senior designers even disparagingly told me how the Indians can't makevupntheir mind about what they want from their future submarine. Would be interesting to know how their design has blown up in their face. Now calling it S80+ etc is a facesaving tactic. They are one of the five contenders for the Indian 75(I) programme. Wonder what they are offering
Is Joint R&D project on methanol reforming fuel cell for submarine by TKMS and SENER still conducted? Years ago, they announced success of their unique carbon dioxide dissolution unit for the fuel cell(http://www.revistanoticias.sener/en/news/aip-system-for-submarines/50/). That’s all as far as I know. I doubt TKMS and SENER gave up R&D on methanol reforming fuel cell.
From the viewpoint of performance, SIEMENS PEM Fuel Cell which only produces water is much better than methanol reforming fuel cell which produces carbon dioxide. The former is not affected by the dive depth and the latter is operated 250m in dive depth (actually, much shallower).
Weight Watchers.
In December 2019 The Netherlands eliminated Navatia's S-80 Plus from the Walrus replacement shortlist. Official given reason: "Navantia does not want to deviate enough from their S-80 Plus MOTS design".
The Dutch Algemene Rekenkamer (= General Accountability Office) published in October 2020 a financial review about the Walrus replacement file. This report stated that the so called D-option, in fact the S-80 Plus, 'fell out of the boat'. Because it scored (too) high regarding life cycle costs and too low at functionality.
The former 3-cylinder-, Zwaardvis-, and Walrus (key role) designer Jan-Jaap van Rijn participated in the S-80 design. Jan-Jaap said that weights and balance is a crucial thing in designing submarines. You can compare this to the (weight) "grow-factor" principle used in aircraft and spaceship design. However, a conventional sub like the Walrus consists of 500.000 components. A M-frigate or MEKO-200 frigate have approx 170.000 components. That makes weight control in a submarine even more important.
In van Rijn's opinion, the S-80 designers lacked in discipline to control the S-80 weight.
75 -100 (metric) tonnes overweight because of the ethanol reformer ?
First the overweight was caused by the US designed combat system
The former project leader of the RDM Morene export submarine, Carel Prins, stated that Navantia made failures in the integration of the components for the S-80 design.
Carel Prins: "In submarine development you haven "known-unknown" problems. For example, if you do not guard the balance of weights very thoroughly. You will get a "known unknown problem. But, in designing submarine's you have also "unknown-unknown" problems. Like the introduction of new (but proven) technologies, a change in staff requirements. Or not understanding how the user will operate and maintain his sub, as happened with Kockums developping the Collins class.
You prevent this by establishing an eco-system with the "users", "manufacturers" and "scientists" right at the start of the project. In the USA they call this an "Integrated Product and Processes Team" (IPPT), or in brief Integrated Product Team (IPT). Texas Instruments used an IPT successfully in the development of the AGM-154 JSOW glide bomb. As did Boeing with the Boeing 777. An IPT is a proven technique to keep the timeschedule and budget of a complex project in control.
Locum, part 1
Part 2.
'Which kind of booze shall we take in the bottle shop'.
Navantia stated more than once that their choice for ethanol was the wide availability of this fuel.
The Spanish firm SENER and Howaldtswerke-Deutsche Werft (HDW), part of ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems, announced 25-10-2012, the signature of an agreement for the industrial production of an air-independent propulsion (AIP) based on a methanol reformer.
HDW report, S. Krummrich:
The choice of the best fuel for a reformer system for submarines has great influence not only on the system design, but also on the submarines design and performance. Generally the feedstock for a reformer system can be hydrocarbon or alcohol. Compared to the storage ofpure hydrogen, this implies the production of CO2 onboard. As CO2 cannot be stored onboard like e.g. the product water of the fuel cell, it has to be discharged into the surrounding sea. To realize a weight balanced system (principle of Archimedes), the lost weight of the CO2 has to be compensated with sea water.
The reformer has to be operated with fuel + oxygen (+ water). The oxygen is stored onboardas a liquid in a cryogenic tank. This LOX-tank is the dominant component regarding systemsize. Consequently, the oxygen consumption of the AIP is very important and should be kept as low as possible. Considering the entire AIP, the chemical products are water (H2O) and carbon dioxide (CO2). Therefore, the ratio of H to C in the chemical structure should be high, because the oxidation of C requires more oxygen then the oxidation of H. Furthermore the overall system efficiency is of importance for the oxygen consumption, and of course for the fuel consumption.
Further factors are important for the choice of feedstock are the worldwide availability, the safety (handling etc.), the purity (avoidance of additional adsorbers etc.) and the reforming temperature to keep the reformer easy.
Summarized the requirements for the feedstock are:
▪ high hydrogen content in the chemical structure
▪ high efficiency of the reforming process
▪ worldwide availability
▪ easy storage onboard
▪ easy handling for e.g. refuelling
▪ easy reformation
HDW has considered three feedstocks for submarine reforming: Diesel, Ethanol
(C2H5OH) and Methanol (CH3OH). The final choice was made for Methanol because of the
following reasons:
▪ Hydrogen /Carbon ratio is highest for Methanol
▪ highest efficiency of reforming process
▪ very easy reformation (app. 250-300 °C for methanol; Diesel > 850 °C; for Ethanol >700 °C required)
▪ worldwide availability
▪ high purity (no sulphur, etc.)
Other fuel cell poducers made the samen conclusions.
Locum,
Hi subdriver and Anonymous [at Mar 7, 2021, 7:31:00 PM]
Its up to Navantia and SENER, TKMS and Siemens to advise on any AIP progress or change in technology.
The article https://gentleseas.blogspot.com/2021/03/spains-s-80-plus-no-aip-for-1st-2.html indicates Spain/Navantia are dedicated to Ethanol reformer AIP
with SENER-TKMS Methanol as a technological fallback if Ethanol AIP cannot be perfected.
Regards
Pete
Thanks Locum
Your Part 1 [Mar 8, 2021, 1:04:00 AM]
On main S-80 weight imbalance being Combat System and then Ethanol Reformer AIP is in line with my blogs conclusions.
AND
[Part 2 [Mar 8, 2021, 1:16:00 AM]
On AIP feedstock criteria is highly detailed.
You write with good, clear, English, so don't need much help from me. Have you thought of starting your own Submarine Blog?
I'm saying that I've already been writing for about 5 years about future submarine elimination processes in places like India (75I), Netherlands [Walrus replacement] and Poland for around 5 years, 5 years about Lithium-ion Batteries, 7 years about AIP.
"Movement" is glacial and progress take 5 more years to resolve often in the shape of Articles derived from Arms Bazaar Corporate od Ministerial Press Releases.
Sooo, I'm very much reorientating to the geo-political aspects of submarines, non-submarine technologies and non-military political, bilateral and multi-lateral (eg, Quad), intelligence dynamics even British Commonwealth/Royals :)
Two or three articles a week, usually, instead of four to six.
When hot, new international crises come along (eg. Chinese and Russian aggression) I'll be "in like Flynn" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Errol_Flynn#Lifestyle and write about them.
Cheers
Pete
P.S.
I encourage Commenters to argue, or discuss, amongst yourselves.
Cheers
Pete
Don't think India is going to select S80+ better for India to go for 3 or more Scorpène subs. Plus NMRL's AIP is preferred by IN so this Spanish AIP is a non-starter.
Hi Biswajit
Given Spain's Navantia has not launched a Spanish designed sub in modern times and Spain's ethanol reformer AIP is years from being ready
its no surprise that India's future sub selection process for Project-75(I) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_75I-class_submarine
has not selected Spain's S-80/S-80 Plus
OR for that matter
any other of the contestants which are: Germany's TKMS, Russia, France's Naval Group, or South Korea's DSME.
If India wanted a low-risk route for AIP it would be best to actually choose a company that has launched subs that have used second generation AIP operationally. They are only TKMS or Sweden's Saab-Kockums.
Regards
Pete
Post a Comment