Japanese Soryu Higher Power Snorkel (Intake and Exhaust) Study

"wispywood2344" has drawn and labelled this very useful diagram of the Japan's top of the line Soryu class submarine.  The diagram (minus the Stirling AIP) could represent the Japanese entrant "SEA-1000 Japanese submarine (SEA-J)” in the Australia’s Future Submarine competition (which France won in April 2016). A larger version of the diagram is at http://blog.livedoor.jp/wispywood2344/others/Soryu_cutaway.svg. 

---

Anonymous has kindly provided information for the following. One of the key factors in considering Soryu propulsive power (see January 16, 2018 article) comes through taking account of the efficiency of the snorkel (diesel intake and exhaust) system. If resistance against snorkel intake and exhaust is too high, the diesel generation system does not function well, resulting in poor output. 

Though the effectiveness of intake and exhaust system has been proven for Japanese submarines equipped with generators of around 4MW (total), the effectiveness of intake and exhaust has not been published for 8MW generators (the power required by Australian Future Submarines).

In this current article there is some discussion of the Japanese entrant "SEA-J" (diagram above) a Soryu enlarged for Australian conditions.

LARGER SEA-J

SEA-J highly likely omitted the Stirling AIP  (including LOx tanks, sections (9) and (10), 4th compartment) and was lengthened by 6m (from current 84m to 90m). This provided for:

-  extra diesel fuel (to increase range from the current Soryu Mark I's limited 6,100nm 

   range to the 10,000-12,000nm Australia required 

-  extra batteries (for increased fully submerged range on battery) and

-  larger bunks for the on average taller crew. The bunks are already individual for 65 crew

   (ie. no uncomfortable "hot bunking").  

Omitting the AIP (especially the large, weight shifting, LOx tank, of diminishing utility on Australia's long range missions) is easily understood. But the 6m increase in length is less understandable. SEA-J's extra length may be needed to handle an extra two diesel engines (four in all for the 8MW total power) instead of just two diesels in the existing Soryu Mark I. 

MORE POWERFUL SNORKEL SYSTEM

Rearrangements in SEA-J may be new sections 5, 6 and 7 to accommodate the larger, more powerful, diesel driven snorkel sytem. Such a faster working snorkel system would be required for the extra pressure and faster operation of four diesels (totaling 8MW) in SEA-J.

A larger, more powerful snorkel system may also be required in the Soryu Mark II (see Table, for 27SS, laid down in 2015) which may be launced in 2018. Mark II will have more powerful diesels to more quickly charge and technically exploit the new Lithium-ion batteries (LIBs) to be introduced in Mark II. 

Faster charging on Mark II will improve its indiscretion ratio (IR). Indiscretion being a submarine's fully surfaced or shallow submerged danger period, when it is snorting. SEA-J could have also benefitted from fast charge LIBs (if Australia had selected SEA-J).

Mainly by Anonymous 

Australian Submarine Expert, Senator Patrick, Forgets US Admiral Johnson

Australia's government owned ABC News service reports, January 17, 2018, in part  http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-01-17/submarine-delays-could-lead-to-cost-blowout-senator-says/9334240

"The cost of Australia's Future Submarine program is likely to blow out by billions of dollars because it is already missing key deadlines, [Rex Patrick] a former defence contractor turned senator has warned.

...In December, [the Australian Defence Department] confirmed two planning documents due to be released last year had yet to be finalised, but the department insisted there had been "no delays to key milestones" and no "cost or schedule impacts" to the $50 billion project.

Senator Rex Patrick, who once also served as a Royal Australian Navy [RAN] submariner, has not been convinced and said some military insiders were privately conceding the submarine program was "starting to go a little bit off the rails".

[The Head of Australia’s Future Submarine Program since September 2013] "Rear Admiral [Gregory] Sammut is a highly respected and highly capable naval officer, however he's never run a major project, he's never run a minor project," Senator Patrick said....” See WHOLE ABC article.

PETE's COMMENT

Given the postings rate of senior RAN officers Rear Admiral Sammut has already headed the RAN-Project liaison aspects of the Submarine Program for a long time since 2013. The 50 year Submarine Program will of course see more than six changes of RAN Head.

Head of program is a shared function between senior officers of the Prime Minister’s Department, Minister of Defence Industry, CEO of Naval Group Australia and also Naval Group HQ Cherbourg.

Perhaps the closest thing to THE Program Manager is US Navy Rear Admiral (retired) Stephen E. Johnson (photo below). He is General Manager Submarines in the Capability Acquisition and Sustainment Group, Australian Department of Defence. Johnson worked for 3 years in the management team of US Virginia class submarine program (from 1992-1995) and 6 years on the Seawolf class submarine program (1998-2003). See Johnson’s longer bio here  .

Johnson's Australian Department of Defence Position Description reads "Stephen E. Johnson commenced as General Manager Submarines in the Capability Acquisition and Sustainment Group on 4 November 2015. Steve is responsible for all aspects of submarine support across Defence in Australia, working across government and industry as the project integrator of our existing submarine fleet and the Future Submarine Project." See here and here.

---

Pete

Soryu LABs vs LIBs, AIP and Indiscretion Ratios

Anonymous has provided the following comments from January 13 to 15, 2018 (with some further translation by Pete). This is on the interrelated issues of LABs vs LIBs, AIP and Indiscretion Ratios. The maths are quite challenging.

According to the former Commander of the Japanese Navy Submarines Service, Vice Admiral (retired) Masao Kobayashi, in a lead-acid battery (LABs) submarine, one hour-ventilation by using a diesel generator (DG) is needed after battery charging to release hydrogen generated by the charging process. 

Based on this information, the indiscretion ratio of the five following submarine Cases/scenarios have been reviewed and very roughly estimated for Japanese submarine missions of 70 days. This is where the surveillance period is 50 days and transiting period is 10 days x 2 = 20 days) and the DG output (hotel load + propulsion) is 250kW:

The lower the Indiscretion Ratio (IR) (the snorkeling period per 24 hours) the better.

Case I   (submarine length 84m, LABs, powered 100MW (or is that 100 kW?) - air independent

             propulsion (AIP), 2 x 2MW-generators, model Soryu MK I, IR =7%;

Case II  (length 84m, lithium-ion batteries (LIBs), 2 x 2MW-generators, model Soryu MK II)

              see Table below) IR=6%;

Case III  (long range Soryu proposed for Australian Future Submarine (AFS), length 90m, LIBs, 

               4 x 2MW-gnerators) IR=2.5%;

Case IV  (AFS, length 96m, 100MW-AIP, LIBs, 4 x 2MW-gnerators) IR=2%;

Case V   (AFS, length 96m, 100MW-AIP, LABs, 4 x 1MW-generators) IR=7%.

Comparison of Cases I and V shows that IR is determined by slow charge rate of LABs in a LAB-submarine. Comparison of Cases II, III an IV shows that output of the DG shows critical effects on IR for LIB submarines.

Performance at low speed means IR is Case IV>= Case III >>Case II >Case V = Case I.

Performance at high speed, which depends on batteries, is Case III>= Case IV >>Case II >Case V = Case I.

The facts that:

-  using up stored liquid oxygen (LOx) ends the usefulness of the Soryu’s Stirling AIP, and

-  LIBs are better than LABs

shows the flexibility of operation of each cases: Case III>= Case II >Case IV> Case V=Case I.

The superiority of AIP and LIBs, or simple LIBs, depends on a submarine’s mission. DGs play a critical role in both LIBs-submarines (Cases II and IV) within certain diesel power output ranges.

Anonymous thinks the future of LABs-submarines (Cases I, III and V) are limited with or without AIP and recent the tragedy of Argentina’s ARA San Juan shows LABs are not automatically safe.

More mathatically IR was very roughly estimated as follows:

Over 24 hours the balance of energy supplied [Es] to batteries and energy consumed [Ec] form batteries and AIP is described in equation (1)

(1)   Es = Ec

(2)   Es = Energy from diesel generator [Ed] + Energy from AIP [Ea]

(3)   Ec = Energy for propulsion [Ep] + Energy for hotel load [Eh]

The Indiscretion ratio (IR) which is the snorkeling period [ts] per day (=24h) is described in eq (4)

(4)   IR = ts/24 x 100 (%) = (tg + th)/24 x 100 (%)

(5)   ts = snorkeling period for diesel generation [tg] + snorkeling period for hydrogen release [th] 

        This is where, th =1h for LABs with hydrogen generation, and th = 0h for LIBs without 

        hydrogen generation.

Charge of batteries (capacity X (MWh)) with Y of C rate, Ed for ts is described in (6)

(6)   Ed = 1000XYtg  This where C daily energy from Z (MWh)-AIP for 50 days-opertion is 

        described in (7)

(7)   Ea =1000Z/50 =20Z

(8)   is derived from (2), (6) and (7), Es =1000XYtg + 20Z

(9)   If 250 kW of energy is consumed in an hour, then, Ec = 250 x {24-(tg + th)} ---

(10) is derived from (1), (8) and (9), 1000XY tg+ 20Z = 250 x {24-(tg + th)}

(11) is derived from (4) and (10), IR =[1-{(1000XY tg+ 20Z)/(250x24)}]x100=(tg + th)/24 x100 .  

       Where, tg = (250 x24-20Z-250 th)/(1000XY+250)  IR is from eq (11)

10MWh-LAB, non-AIP, 0.2 C rate, 2MW-diesel: X=10, Y=0.2, Z=0, th =1, IR=14.8%

10MWh-LAB, 100MWh-AIP, 0.2 C rate, 2MW-diesel: X=10, Y=0.2, Z=100, th =1, IR=11.1%

20MWh-LIB, non-AIP, 0.2 C rate, 4MW-diesel: X=20, Y=0.2, Z=0, th =0, IR=5.8%

20MWh-LIB, non-AIP, 0.4 C rate, 8MW-diesel: X=20, Y=0.4, Z=0, th =0, IR=3.0%

20MWh-LIB, 100MWh-AIP, 0.2 C rate, 4MW-diesel: X=20, Y=0.2, Z=100, th =0, IR=3.9%

20MWh-LIB, 100MWh-AIP, 0.4 C rate, 8MW-diesel: X=20, Y=0.4, Z=100, th =0, IR=2.0%

ANONYMOS’s CONCLUSION (LIBs Over LABs)

Though the estimates are based on many assumptions and are rough, the results clearly show the superiority of LIBs over LABs. Anonymous believes LIBs are indispensable to maintain the regional superiority of a conventional submarine.

 TABLE - SORYU & Oyashio Program as at January 16, 2018 

SS No.	Build No Name	Pennant No.	MoF approved amount ¥ Billions FY	LABs, LIBs, AIP	Laid Down	Laun -ched	Commi ssioned	Built By
5SS Oyashio	8105 Oyashio	SS-590/ TS3608	¥52.2B FY1993	LABs only	Jan 1994	Oct 1996	Mar 1998	KHI
6SS-15SS Oyashios 10 subs	8106 -8115 various	SS-591-600	¥52.2B per sub FY1994-FY2003	LABs only	15SS Feb 2004	15SS Nov 2006	15SS Mar 2008	MHI & KHI
16SS Soryu Mk 1	8116 Sōryū	SS-501	¥60B FY2004	LABs + AIP	Mar 2005	Dec 2007	Mar 2009	MHI
17SS	8117 Unryū	SS-502	¥58.7B FY2005	LABs + AIP	Mar 2006	Oct 2008	Mar 2010	KHI
18SS	8118 Hakuryū	SS-503	¥56.2 FY2006	LABs + AIP	Feb 2007	Oct 2009	Mar 2011	MHI
19SS	8119 Kenryū	SS-504	¥53B FY2007	LABs + AIP	Mar 2008	Nov 2010	Mar 2012	KHI
20SS	8120 Zuiryū	SS-505	¥51B FY2008	LABs + AIP	Mar 2009	Oct 2011	Mar 2013	MHI
No 21SS			No 21SS built
22SS	8121 Kokuryū	SS-506	¥52.8B FY2010	LABs + AIP	Jan 2011	Oct 2013	Mar 2015	KHI
23SS	8122 Jinryu	SS-507	¥54.6B FY2011	LABs + AIP	Feb 2012	Oct 2014	7 Mar 2016	MHI
24SS	8123 Sekiryū	SS-508	¥54.7B FY2012	LABs + AIP	15 Mar 2013	2 Nov 2015	13 Mar 2017	KHI
25SS	8124 Seiryū	SS-509	¥53.1B FY2013	LABs + AIP	22 Oct 2013	12 Oct   2016	Mar? 2018	MHI
26SS	8125 Shoryu	SS-510	¥51.7B FY2014	LABs + AIP	2014	6 Nov 2017	Mar 2019?	KHI
27SS First Soryu Mk 2	8126	SS-511	¥64.4B FY2015	LIBs only	2015	2018?	Mar 2020	MHI
28SS  Second Soryu Mark 2	8127	SS-512	¥63.6B FY2016	LIBs only	2016?	2018?	Mar 2021?	KHI
29SS First Soryu Mk 3 (1) (3)	8128	?	¥76B FY2017	LIBs only	?	?	2023?	MHI?
30SS Second Soryu Mk 3 (2)	8029?	?	¥71.5B FY2018	LIBs only	?	?	2024?	KHI?

Table from information exclusively provided to Submarine Matters. LABs = lead-acid batteries, AIP = air independent propulsion, LIBs = lithium-ion batteries. ¥***B = Billion Yen. MHI = Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, KHI = Kawasaki Shipbuilding Corporation of Kawasaki Heavy Industries.

---

By Anonymous

INS Arihant's Temporary Sinking Explains Arighat's Launch & Aridhaman's Delay

It seems the Indian Navy and broader government thought it wise to launch INS Arighat on November 19, 2017 in the then secret knowledge that INS Arihant has sunk at its moorings during a test in February 2017. The Arighat (very similar to Arihant in size and design) launch can be seen as a means of deflecting the political embarrassment and recriminations of the Arihant sinking.

INS Arihant.

---

Arihant sank at India's major east coast naval base of Visakhapatnam . The cause - allegedly a hatch left open during an Arihant submersion test.

Given the apparent lack of such a hatch on Arihant (reports India's Economic Times, Jan 12, 2018) and likelihood of sensors to avoid major accidents the official "hatch left open" explanation seems suspicious. Maybe instead, sabotage by a disgruntled or bribed crewman or technician? Even Chinese or Pakistani agent involvement?

India's Visakhapatnam east coast naval base. Naval vessels can be seen halfway up the harbour. This is to the right of what looks like the submarine repair and SLBM loading shed that INS Arihant will need to use, or is already under repair at. 

---

Repairing, or if need be, replacing Arihant's reactor is likely to be a Billion dollar exercise. Involving Arihant being placed in drydock, moved to Visakhapatnam repair shed then being vertically cut open, basically in half.

The Arihant accident not only involves major repair costs but delays India's SSBN and broader indigenous nuclear submarine technical modification/learning program. It also delays training of the  officers and crew who will transition to a full size Aridhaman SSBN around 2020(?).

Compounding the problems is subsequent damage to India's other nuclear submarine, INS Chakra, in early October 2017. Russian built Chakra (ex Nerpa) has been 10 year leased to India. Chakra is used by India as a training platform and technology transfer (including its nuclear reactor) asset.

In fact these negative impacts (repair cost, technical improvements and training program) of the Arihant accident may have delayed Aridhaman's launch by a year or two.

Pete

False Alarm - Missile toward Hawaii - Emergency employee "feels bad"

False Missile against Hawaii warning - sent to Hawaiian, USA cell phones. More information on sensor or alarm chain of command errors will appear as it becomes available.

---

From Australia's ABC News January 14, 2018, first details:

[On January 13, 2018 (Hawaii time) a false alarm was sent out to Hawaiian residents and tourists] "Ballistic missile threat inbound to Hawaii. Seek immediate shelter. This is not a drill."

It might sound like something straight out of a horror movie, but for 38 minutes terrified Hawaiian residents thought the world was going to end.

...Why did it take 38 minutes to correct the error?

Many have been left asking why it took so long for emergency management to reveal it was a false alarm, with some residents only finding out it was sent in error because of a tweet sent in the interim by US Representative Tulsi Gabbard.

A revised alert informing of the "false alarm" did not reach mobile phones until about 40 minutes after the first warning was sent.

Hawaii's Emergency Management Agency administrator Vern Miyagi said "there was no automated way to send a false alarm cancellation".

"We had to initiate a manual process. And that was why it took a while to notify everyone," he told a media conference.

When asked if that was why it took 38 minutes to notify people, he again replied it was due to the "manual process to provide notification on the smartphones and cellphones".

"We did have other notification that occurred much, much sooner than that," he said.

The agency had tweeted there was no threat about 10 minutes after the initial alert, but residents who were not on Twitter did not see the correction.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reported January 15, 2018

EMPLOYEE RESPONSIBLE 'FEELS BAD'

While the message was a false alarm there was one part that was kind of true. It wasn't a drill, it was simply the result of a guy pressing the wrong button.

And that guy, a [Hawaii Emergency Management Agency] employee who was involved in a warning test of the state's emergency alert system — the wireless emergency alert — now "feels terrible".

Hawaii's emergency management administrator Vern T Miyagi yesterday indicated the man responsible was dealing with some deep regret.

Pete

Was it actually a North Korean submarine that entered Japan's contiguous zone?

Japan's Mainichi News reported January 11, 2018 that:

"TOKYO (Kyodo) -- A Chinese frigate and an unidentified foreign submerged submarine were spotted Thursday just outside Japanese territorial waters near the Senkaku Islands [near Miyako Island] in the East China Sea, the Defense Ministry said, prompting Tokyo to protest to Beijing over the sailing..." 

PETE'S COMMENT

The Japanese Navy has almost automatically assumed (or decided to announce) that because a Chinese (Type 054 or 054A) frigate was detected, the submarine must also be Chinese.

My alternative theory is that the Chinese Navy spotted a North Korean (NK) submarine. China wishing to avoid another Cheonan Incident pursued the NK sub to warn-off that sub. The Cheonan Incident  was when a NK submarine torpedoed a South Korean surface ship in 2010. An NK sub would also be a threat to Japanese surface ships.

The Chinese frigate's actions is part of China's new policy of pressuring NK to be less belligerent in its actions and threats. China wishes to de-escalate NK vs (South Korea, Japan, US) tensions.

Photo of the Chinese submarine that was forced or decided to surface in Japan's Senkaku Islands area, January 11, 2018.

---

Chinese submarine?

Comments, with links, received from readers since the first vague Japanese reports, strongly indicate it was a Chinese submarine that surfaced and showed the Chinese flag (above). The submarine appears to be a Type 093 (NATO designation "Shang" class SSN).

Another conclusion is that Japan is utilising its undersea sensor array to detect NK and Chinese submarines. See array MAP B below. The array includes seafloor hydrophones and other sensors, which is strung from the Japanese home islands, via Okinawa (main) Island and via Miyako (in Japan's Senkakus) Island etc. 

MAP A - Neatly illustrates the Japanese Senkakus vs Chinese Diaoyu Islands territorial dispute Significantly Taiwan is also in dispute against Japan. Taiwan calling them the Tiaoyutai Islands. (Map coutesy Malaysia Chronicle, January 18, 2018) 

---

The Chinese action could be a freedom of navigation exercise (FONOPS) against Japan's disputed Senkakus territorial claim. This may also be a Chinese method to test Japan's anti-submarine defences (including sensitivity of the Japanese seafloor SOSUS-IUSS array in detecting the Chinese sub). The Chinese frigate could also detect counter-moves by Japanese patrolling Soryu or Oyashio class submarines.

MAP B is from page 54 “Map 4. The US ‘Fish Hook’ Undersea Defense Line” in Desmond Ball and Richard Tanter, The Tools of Owatatsumi Japan’s Ocean Surveillance and Coastal Defence Capabilities (2015, ANU Press) http://press-files.anu.edu.au/downloads/press/p309261/pdf/book.pdf?referer=444. The map may depict past or current locations of the eastern Asia - inner western Pacific SOSUS-IUSS seafloor array. 

---

Pete