Major Soryu hull life issue? - Maintenance/Emergency Welding in Japan only?

The following discussion of the Soryu hull, short operational life and welding in Japan only issues arises from "S"'s and my discussions on June 3-4, 2015 see Comments section for http://gentleseas.blogspot.com.au/2015/06/problems-with-submarine-purchase-from.html.

"S" explained on June 3, 2015, that one of the key technologies for the Soryu is the hull design and way of building it - which includes welds. "Submarine structure is made of series of cylindrical hulls reinforced by beams. Joints between hulls, connection of seam in hull, and connection between hull and beams are welded."

"In the case of [the] Collins submarine, GMA (Gas Metal Arc) welding was used for these hull buildings.[also called hull sections]"

"But it is not the case for Soryu submarine, GMA welding [is only?] used for hull-beam connection, [while] GTA (Gas Tungsten Arc) welding [is] used for hull-hull joint and seam connection in my opinion. [The] quality of GTA welding is superior to that of GMA welding, this technology is quite difficult to learn and it’s welding speed is very slow. There is no GTA welding technology in Australian submarine building sector. So hull building in Australia is rather risky and I can not recommend it in terms of Aussie submariners’ safety.

I then asked S "is Japan's hull making and welding practices designed for 20 years of submarine operational use, with problems developing if there are 10 more years of use?" [This is important because Japanese subs are typically operational for 20 years while Australian subs are ideally designed for 30 years service.] 

On June 4, 2015 S indicated:

"I think that [the Soryu] submarine may have material degradation issues for very long time use.

1. Fatigue which is structural damage from repeated loading: Submarine is exposed to very high pressure repeatedly. Sometimes tiny crack generates, propagates and finally leads fracture.

2. Corrosion which is damage caused by electrochemical reaction: Especially non-uniform corrosion like pitting is very dangerous. In the case of Soryu type subs, we’d better...pay special attention to the situation of interfaces [with the] anti-vibration rubber/hull.

3. We also must pay attention to stress corrosioncracking (SCC), the growth of crack formation under corrosive (sea water) and stress condition.

Prediction of these damages is difficult. But in the case of Soryu subs, JMSDF [the Japanese Navy] may accumulate important material data including degradation thanks to long operational experiences and consecutive building one of same type of submarine." [There is a life extension program for the Oyashio class (that precedes the Soryu class) but it is not known whether life extensions will be successful.] 

QUESTIONS

I would be most grateful for answers to:

Noting Submarine Matters records January 20, 2015 indicate the strength of steel used in the Soryu is "NS110" (equivalent to HY-156). This is much stronger and harder to weld than most submarines (including those from TKMS) which have a HY-80 strength rating. The safe depth most submarines can dive may be around 400 meters - but Soryus with their stronger steel may be able to dive to 600 meters.

1.  Is the high yield strength (equivalent to HY-156) of Soryu pressure hull steel the reason why GTA (Gas Tungsten Arc) welding is used?

2.  Or has GTA became the standard Japanese submarine welding method for other reasons?

3.  Does the deeper diving ability of the Soryu come at the expense of shorter 20 year old operating life?

4.  Put another why does the use of HY-156 (NS110) which allows deep diving put extra stress on the hull effectively shortening operational life to 20 years?

5.  If "[GTA] technology is quite difficult to learn and it’s welding speed is very slow. [And] There is no GTA welding technology in Australian submarine building sector. So hull building in Australia is rather risky and I can not recommend it in terms of Aussie submariners’ safety." Then

5(a)  How can deep maintenance, involving cutting and rewelding a Soryu hull, be done in Australia?

5(b)  If there is major battle damage to an Australian Soryu requiring cutting and rewelding the hull, how can that be done in Australia?

Pete

Advisory Panel for future Australian sub project - US Panellist Winter the Most Senior

The senior member of an Australian panel and former US Secretary of the Navy, Donald C. Winter will bring a wealth of US defence supplier experience (including Corporate Vice President Northrop Grumman). The "competitive" evaluation process has already selected the US made combat system. (Photograph Courtesy Northrop Grumman)

---

COMMENT

Submarine Matters on March 26, 2015 indicated Defence Minister Andrews' intention to appoint an expert advisory Panel for the "competitive" evaluation process. 

The biggest surprise among the four Panellists selected is that the most senior is an American Donald C. Winter, "senior" by virtue of his position as a former senior politician (US Secretary of the Navy).  A foreigner would normally bring a degree of disinterested neutrality. However Defence Minister Andrews has already indicated that the future submarine's combat system (20% to 30% of the project?) is to come from American defence companies. On February 20, 2015 Defence Minister Andrews declared:

"...the Government has endorsed a set of key strategic requirements for our future submarines:...c) The combat system and heavyweight torpedo jointly developed between the United States and Australia as the preferred combat system and main armament." 

This makes Winter (with his business background) an interested party. It should be noted that Winter held senior positions in Northrop Grumman which may well supply systems and sensors to the Australian submarine. It is appropriate to ask "will the Panel be involved in vendor participation and pricing issues involving US vendors or with BAE Systems Australia" (see below)?

DEFENCE MINISTER ANDREWS MEDIA RELEASE - June 5, 2015

Defence Minister, Kevin Andrews has released "Transcript – Expert Advisory Panel on the Future Submarine Competitive Evaluation Process – 5 June  2015  http://www.minister.defence.gov.au/2015/06/05/minister-for-defence-transcript-expert-advisory-panel-on-the-future-submarine-competitive-evaluation-process-5-june-2015/ :

"...The Expert Advisory Panel will assure the Government that the competitive evaluation process remains sound, is conducted in accordance with probity and accountability principles, and that participants have been treated fairly and equitably.

The members of the Expert Advisory Panel are:

• Professor Donald Winter [an American businessman, academic and] former Secretary of the United States Navy; [well placed to represent US political and US business interests - including the pre-determined US Combat System that will be incorporated into the Soryu.] 

• The Honourable Julie Anne Dodds-Streeton, a former Justice of the Federal Court of Australia;[well placed to anticipate some of the inevitable legal battles including those with the US (see Donald Winter).]

• Mr Ron Finlay, one of Australia’s leading infrastructure specialists with very extensive legal experience; and

• Mr Jim McDowell, who was a member of the First Principles Review team with very extensive Defence experience. [former Chief Executive, BAE Systems Australia. Now currently listed as CEO BAE Systems, Saudi Arabia.]

Collectively, these advisers share experience in complex military acquisition programs, legal and probity matters, and major projects...."

Pete

If Soryus Sold to Australia - secrets leaking to China part of business

As ill-feeling in Australia grows due to Japanese unwillingness to share Soryu construction - Japan will need to become used to age-old Australian worries about the Japanese militarists (current or retired officers) returning to power in Japan. Minister Nakatani being a former soldier. Japanese naval officers increasingly vocal.

--- 

COMMENT

Selling major weapons systems involves some political and security downsides and distortions. Japan will need to become accustomed to this. The arms business can lead to an odd situation like Stirling AIP engines being sold to China. 

Captain Toshihide Yamauchi's worries (in the article below) about Australia's ability to safeguard sensitive Japanese intellectual property are well founded:

-  Australia is closer economically to China than it is to Japan

-  Selling Japanese submarine steel composition and welding details to China would be lucrative to a  selling company

-  An Australian change of Government to Labor would bring in some politicians who still prize their socialist comradely relations with China

-  Some Australian companies that would be involved in a submarine enterprise have links to China

-  Australia cannot ban ethnic Chinese-Australians from working in the submarine commercial or related government defence sector

-  A previous Minister judged to be too close to Chinese interests was removed years ago

ARTICLE

The Reuters article, June 4, 2015, http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/06/04/australia-japan-submarine-idUSL3N0YQ08120150604 is:

"Australian senator slams Japan over submarine capability comments

SYDNEY, JUNE 4 | BY MATT SIEGEL

An influential Australian senator on Thursday hit out at Japanese defence officials over comments that Australia was incapable of building a version of a high-tech Japanese-designed submarine at home.

Germany's ThyssenKrupp and France's state-controlled naval contractor DCNS separately are competing with a Japanese government-led bid for Australia's A$50 billion ($38.84 billion) next generation submarine project.

Japan, which had been the front-runner in the planned sale of about 12 vessels to replace Australia's ageing Collins class submarines, is under pressure to build at least some of the boats in South Australia.

But on Wednesday, the former commander of the Japanese submarine fleet, Masao Kobayashi, cast doubt on Australia's ability to build them.

"They don't have enough skilled workers to fashion the high-tension steel; it's even hard to do in Japan," he told the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC).

Another Japanese submarine captain, Toshihide Yamauchi, raised concern to the ABC about Australia's ability to safeguard sensitive Japanese intellectual property.

"We're worried about leaks to China once our technology is in Australia," he said.

Independent South Australian Senator Nick Xenophon hit back over the comments, calling them a "disgrace".

"It's widely known that both the German and French teams are ready, willing and able to build state-of-the-art, ultra-reliable submarines on Australian soil," Xenophon said.

"The Japanese appear to be trying to find excuses to have $50 billion worth of Australian taxpayers' money spent largely entirely in Japan."

A deal to supply a variant of Japan's 4,000 tonne Soryu-class submarine would give Japan its first major overseas deals after Abe eased curbs on arms exports last year that had isolated defence contractors for seven decades.

Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott is eager to deepen security ties with Japan, reflecting a U.S. desire for its two allies to take a bigger security role in Asia as China's military might grows.

Eager for that deeper cooperation, the United States is backing the Japanese-built submarine packed with American surveillance, radar and weapons equipment, sources familiar with Washington's thinking have told Reuters.

But Abbott is facing intense domestic political pressure to secure the thousands of manufacturing jobs that the build would bring, and Japan had previously seemed willing to compromise over where the submarines would be built.

Xenophon said the comments showed that Japan was not ready to take part in the biggest defence procurement project in Australian history.

"The Japanese have not exported submarines before and these comments show that they are simply out of their depth," he said. ($1 = 1.2875 Australian dollars) (Editing by Robert Birsel)"

Pete

Problems with submarine purchase from Japan emerging

The reluctance of Japan to share full technical details of the Soryu with Australia is a major problem for Australia. The Soryu's operating life of only 20 years is another major problem, but this is under-rated by Australian selectors.

---

This article from ABC Online, June 3, 2015 appears to be accurate in what the 3 representatives of Japan say and when Defence Minister Andrews said:

"the submarine was about the size Australia is looking for, but required some alterations, and the purchase of the subs has the personal backing of Prime Minister Tony Abbott."

The thread for the article is  http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-06-03/australia-not-capable-of-top-secret-soryu-submarine-build/6517730 :

"Submarines program: Adelaide shipyard not capable of building Soryu subs, former Japanese commander says"

"Adelaide's shipyard is not capable of building Japan's Soryu submarines, a former Japanese submarine commander says.

The assessment comes as Defence Minister Kevin Andrews visits Japan to inspect Soryus, tipped as the preferred option to replace Australia's Collin Class fleet.

Mr Andrews said the submarine was about the size Australia is looking for, but required some alterations, and the purchase of the subs has the personal backing of Prime Minister Tony Abbott.

But former commander of the Japanese submarine fleet Masao Kobayashi said he was not sure the high-tech build could be successfully carried out in the Adelaide shipyards.

"They don't enough skilled workers to fashion the high-tension steel; it's even hard to do in Japan," he said.

[Submarine Matters records indicate the strength of steel used in the Soryu is HY-156. This is much stronger and harder to weld than most submarines (including those from TKMS) which have a HY-80 strength rating. The safe depth most submarines can dive may be around 400 meters - but Soryus with their stronger steel may be able to dive to 600 meters.]

Captain Hisayuki Tamura from the Japanese Ministry of Defence also said Japan was best placed to build the high-tech submarines.

"It's the best conventional non-nuclear submarine and we have the best technology to build them," he said.

Another former Japanese submarine captain, Toshihide Yamauchi, said it was still to be negotiated just how much of the top secret Soryu technology can be handed over.

Releasing the core technology is not an option for Japan. We're worried about leaks to China once our technology is in Australia.

Former Japanese submarine captain Toshihide Yamauchi

"Releasing the core technology is not an option for Japan," he said.

"We're worried about leaks to China once our technology is in Australia.

"We need to sort out expectations from both sides."

Mr Andrews said deciding how much of the secret technology was shared with Australia would be part of the competitive evaluation process.

"What we need to know is what they are at the outset, have an understanding of what's involved in making those design modification changes and ultimately we need to know what the cost is as well," he said.

The contract to build Australia's next fleet of submarines, worth about $50 billion, is between Japan, France and Germany.

Mr Andrews said a deal with any of the countries could involve the long-term training of staff in Adelaide."

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

Submarine Matters biodata file photo and description of former commander of the Japanese submarine fleet Vice Admiral ("retired") Masao Kobayashi indicates that he is not fully retired. Kobayashi remains an adviser to Japan's National Security Council.

 Vice Admiral Masao KOBAYASHI, JMSDF (Retd) photo (above) courtesy Sub Summit

Masao Kobayashi is now an adviser to Japan's National Security Council. "Masao graduated from the Japanese Defense Academy in 1973 and commenced a career in the JMSDF submarine service. 

He had held many posts in the submarine force. Shore billets included Submarine Branch Head in the Ship Systems Section in the Maritime Staff Office and Operations Officer in the Fleet Submarine Force. He has commanded TAKASHIO SS-571, (Uzushio class), and has been the Commander of Submarine Division Two. In 2001/2 he was the Commander of Submarine Flotilla One, and was Coordinator of Exercise at sea for Pacific Reach 2002. 

Masao’s last post was as Commander of the Fleet Submarine Force. He retired from the MSDF in 2009. Vice Admiral KOBAYASHI served with distinction in the Japanese Maritime Self-Defense Force (JMSDF) and is well regarded as an authourity in the submariner community." See Kobayashi's comments on submarines to the Japanese press - reported January 18, 2015.

Pete

Senator Xenophon indicates "competitive" evaluation process "facade" to favour Japan

Senator for South Australia, Nick Xenophon - not happy.

---

James Hancock of Australia's ABC Online reported June 2, 2015  http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-06-02/xenophon-grills-defence-officials-over-submarine-tender-process/6516018 :

[Australia's] Senate estimates: Tender winner may not be chosen to build submarines, Senator Xenophon warns

By James Hancock

"The winner of the Federal Government's "competitive evaluation process" on who will build Australia's next submarine fleet may lose out to strategic considerations, Independent senator Nick Xenophon says.

The South Australian senator has grilled defence officials about the process during a late Senate estimates hearing in Canberra on Monday, pointing to a 2001 competitive evaluation process where a German company won the right to build a submarine combat system.

Despite winning the right, a United States company was awarded the contract on "strategic grounds".

Senator Xenophon today said it did not seem to matter if a tender could build the best value, "most capable submarine on Australian soil".

"Ultimately you could lose out on the vagaries of 'key strategic considerations'," he said.

He feared the competitive process to build Australia's next submarine fleet was just a facade and Japan was already the preferred bidder over France and Germany.

Senator Xenophon added that the Navy could no longer confirm it would still need 12 submarines, despite the 2009 and 2013 Defence White Paper saying a fleet of 12 was required for future strategic requirements, and despite "an increase in regional tensions since those papers were released".

Strategic decisions to be 'taken into account'

Defence Department submarines general manager David Gould told the hearing that strategic considerations would be taken into account.

"I don't know if there'll be a clear winner," he said.

"I suspect it's much more likely that there'll be a series of considerations of differently valid risks."

He said the task would be to reconcile recommendations "with broader strategic considerations".

Defence Department secretary Dennis Richardson said Senator Xenophon's questioning was hypothetical.

"You could develop all sorts of hypothetical scenarios in relation to the future submarine and the competitive evaluation process that would give you different answers," he said.

"I think it's far too premature for us to be engaging on speculation about hypothetical scenarios that may or may not come to life."

Federal Attorney-General George Brandis said the outcome of the 2001 competitive process was not very instructive.

"All of these decisions tend to turn on their own particular facts," he said.

Federal Industry Minister Ian Macfarlane last week said South Australian shipyards might not make the first of the nation's next submarines, but he remained optimistic about Australian prospects down the track."

Pete

Li-S or Lithium Sulfer Batteries (LSBs) for Submarine On the Way

Energy density diagram comparing batteries including Lead Acid (LABs), Lithium-ion (LIBs) and Li-S or Lithium Sulfer (LSBs)  in watt-hour per kilogram (Wh/kg) and watt-hour per litre (Wh/l). LSBs are projected to be superior. (Diagram courtesy Oxis Energy)

---

In late May 2015  “S” and I discussed Lithium Sulphur Batteries (LSBs) in the Comments section.

Currently diesel-electric operate using Lead-acid Batteries (LABs). From the 2020s some new-build submarines (including Soryu Mark 2s (28SS) will be utilising Lithium-ionBatteries (LIBs). If HDW 216 or Conventional Barracuda are ever built Australia is probably expecting them to have LIBs.

So Japan has decided to adopt LIBs for the next batch of Soryus the “Mark 2s” (first named here on November 5, 2014 :-). LSBs are intended to have a higher energy density than LIBs or, of course, LABs. However the reliability and safety of all battery types in submarines are essential traits. S advises that GS Yuasa Corporation will be the LIBs supplier for the Soryu Mark 2 which will deliver the LIB sample by 2020. I think this may delay the launch of the first Soryu Mark 2 (28SS) until 2021?

So LIBs may be the new in-operation batteries for submarine from the 2020s while LSBs may be the next advance in batteries for use from the 2030s.

Submarine generational turnover is less a problem in subs for the Japanese Navy (continuous build, one per year with 20 year operating life) than it is in the Australian Navy (non-continuous build, batches of 6 to 12? 30 year operating life).

For Australia it will be a major issue whether retrofitting LSBs in subs already fitted with LIBs will be a practical option. If a sub's whole electrical system (wiring etc) needs to be upgraded then LSBs might need to await the next generation of new-build submarines (2050s on). Australia may be more interested in nuclear propulsion by that time.

If upgrading with LSBs in the 2040s? after 15 years? is considered advantageous by Australia this may perhaps be done during "deep maintenance" when the hull is cut anyway - to replace major engine components.

Probably no-one knows how many years LIBs for submarine will remain efficient. Hence decisions on LSB replacement are far in the future.

Several companies worldwide are researching-developing LSBs. This includes UK company Oxis Energy Ltd. Oxis has provided the diagram above and the description below http://www.oxisenergy.com/technology/ which explains:

"Sulfur represents a natural cathode partner for metallic Li and, in contrast with conventional lithium-ion cells, the chemicals processes include dissolution from the anode surface during discharge and reverse lithium plating to the anode while charging. As a consequence, Lithium-Sulfur allows for a theoretical specific energy in excess of 2700Wh/kg, which is nearly 5 times higher than that of Li-ion.

Oxis’s next generation lithium technology platform offers the highest energy density among lithium chemistry:

-  300 Wh/kg achieved at cell level in 2014

-  400 Wh/kg forecast in 2016

Oxis patented chemistry provides inherent safety allowing it to meet international standards concerning shock, crush, thermal stability and short circuit...Thanks to its two key mechanisms, a ceramic lithium sulfide passivation layer and a non-flammable electrolyte, our cells can withstand extreme abuse situations such as bullet and nail penetrations with no adverse reaction."

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

Naturally companies need to sell their product and many details need to be worked out with new technologies.

For submarine use batteries need to be very safe (under normal and abnormal conditions) and reliable. Other issues under Australia mission conditions are their:

-  weight

-  charge speed to minimise indiscretion

-  rate of self-discharging

-  memory effect

-  propensity to surge

-  discharge rates (speed, volume, percentage)

-  cycle life and operational life 

-  degree of maintenance needed

It would be interesting which German, French and US companies are developing LSBs?

Pete