About subs, military/naval, missiles, nuclear weapons & politics. New Aussie subs have been just talk since 2009. Collins upgrades of partial help. UUVs help more. POTUS may cancel AUKUS Virginias in 2031 as the USN needs all SSNs to the 2040s. Australian Gov ignores US higher priority Columbia SSBNs (one/year being commissioned 2029-2041). Meaning no new Virginias 2030-41? Shawn C and Gessler are excellent authors. Pete.
Uploaded on Nov 19, 2009 "The latest German submarines.
Virtually undetectable, unlike diesel or nuclear submarines that generate more
noise and/or higher heat signatures." ---
Admiring a TKMS-HDW Type 216 (foreground), in the ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems (TKMS) Endeavour program for Australia’s future submarine are: (left) Dieter Rottsieper, Deputy Chairman, Executive Board, TKMS; Vice Admiral Andreas Krause, Chief of the German Navy; and (right) Dr John White, Chairman, TKMS Australia. AType 212A is behind the 216. (Photo courtesy Australian Defence Business Review). ---
Uploaded on Feb 5, 2009. U-32 (S182) is the second Type 212A submarine of the
German Navy. U-32 is powered by one diesel engine and an electric
motor driven by two fuel cells and features a cavitation-free screw, making it
virtually undetectable. U-32 was the first non-nuclear submarine to stay
submerged for two weeks. ---
Germany hardly mentioned in 2016 Defence White Paper
[You will find the document is 15 pages of overheads (with photos, text, tables and diagrams) all in Japanese. If you right-click mouse - select "Translate to English" much is translated. Unfortunately the text seems to be lost if converted to .jpg pictures]
Author: Toru Sato (Department of Naval Systems Development, Technical Research
and Development Institute, Japanese Ministry of Defense [MOD]:
Feature: The history of submarine built after WWII in our country will be
reviewed from a technical standpoint.
Abstract: [the Japanese Navy] JMSDF
has built about 50 submarinesfrom the first Oyashio-class
[a one submarine “class” SS-511, Laid down December 1957] which was [Japan’s
first post war domestically built] submarine to the latest Soryu-class.
were underwater cruising-oriented submarines based on the pre WWII hull form.
Graph similar to page 3 of the Japanese document. The steady evolution of Japan's submarines. Long history by class, elsewhere in Submarine Matters here. (Graph courtesy Australia's news-com-au)
---
From 1967, Uzushio-class,
Yushio-class
and Harushio-class were continuously built with tear drop shaped hulls, which were underwater speed-oriented. From 1993 to present (2012), [the second
Oyashio-class and Soryu-class] with cigar shaped hulls were built. A partial single hull structure was adopted.
[Over the 1957 to 2012 period] various technical evolutions have
been experienced, i.e:
- increase in submerged depth by improvement of steel welding technology and others;
- improvement in battery performance;
- extension of submerged period by using AIP and other measures;
- equipment of [towed array sonar system] TASS and flank array
sonar;
- [combat system improvements in terms of] improvement of sonar
search and detection attack abilities by increase in processing speed;
- reduction of underwater radiation noise by reduction of
equipments and adoption of damping steel alloy and material.
Our submarines have continuously evolved depending on the operation aspects,
considering request of operators [Japanese Navy customer] and taking in latest
technology. The direction of this evolution can be expressed as “stronger”,
“longer” and “more silent”.
On that day, from a technical standpoint, all submarines of
JMSDF will be visually introduced. [This is expressing the technical evolution of
Japanese Navy submarines in visual terms].
------
[On the Relatively Short Operational Life of Japanese Submarines]
S comments:
“Many people think short commission period of Japanese submarine is due to its
short life time caused by degradation, fatigue, corrosion, and so on. But they
are perfectly wrong, the short commission period results from require for
continuous evolution.
From standpoint of material science and design, designing
and building of the weak structure which regularly degrades within defined
period are much more difficult than those of the strong structure. In the
former structure, perfect control and insight of key elements including
prediction of future warfare, which are extremely difficult, is needed.
As
Japan unfortunately has not such high technology and insight, it can only build
the strong structure.”
S (with some further translation and links by Pete)
Youtube description "Published on Mar 10, 2016. Echo Voyager, Boeing’s latest unmanned undersea vehicle (UUV), can operate autonomously for months at a time thanks to a hybrid rechargeable power system and modular payload bay. The 51-foot-long [15.5 m] vehicle is the latest innovation in Boeing’s UUV family, joining the 32-foot Echo Seeker and the 18-foot Echo Ranger."
---
Echo Voyager may be the largest of a rapidly expanding group of Large Diameter (or Displacement) Unmanned Underwater Vehicles (LDUUVs).
Much more sensor and propulsion capability for its small size can be packed into the Voyager because there is no need for manned life support equipment (no oxygen, water, food, or air conditioning) and far fewer safety measures.
"Missions", 0:55 seconds into the Youtube, are displayed very briefly - so here they all are for slower reading:
- Anti-submarine Warfare Search and Barrier. A small towed sonar array working with hull and bow sonars might be useful particularly against an opponents' SSKs and other large UUVs.
- Submarine Decoy. Acting like a slow moving or stationary submarine
- Mine Countermeasures. Detecting and perhaps destroying mines
- Battlespace Preparation. Gaining intelligence (eg. signals intercept and optical (via photonics mast) prior to a special forces operation on a beach or port
Improvements in the electrics, electronics and communications to UAVs
will accelerate the development of UUVs like Echo Voyager. How autonomous Echo Voyager is
will depend on the mission - particularly if it is used as a weapon (weapon uses would require closer human supervision). Its endurance of around 4 months and 5,000nm (max) will
depend on its energy source. Lithium-ion Batteries (LIBs) may be standard. But a choice of hydrogen/LOX fuel-cell or small diesel engine may recharge the LIBs.
ASW Uses
The increasing size and capabilities of LDUUVs are coming at a time when the capabilities of anti-submarine warfare (ASW) sensors and weapons are also increasing.
SeaWeb ASW sensors summarised as "eyes in the sky" and "ears in the sea" are becoming more sensitive perhaps making ever larger submarines all the more detectable. These are all putting traditional manned submarine operations at greater risk particularly slower moving conventional diesel-electric submarines (SSKs). An SSK moving at its most efficient LIB or AIP speed of 4 knots may not realise that a very large LDUUV like the Echo Voyager has tailed it (in its "baffles") for two weeks. A 51 foot Echo Voyager is much smaller in length (hence stealthier) than a submarine. Even a
WW2 Japanese
2 man submarine was 78 feet long.
An Echo Voyager may look large by UUV standards but it may be very difficult to detect if it is dull gray/black, remains at about 600 meters or deeper, has an anechoic coating and is its discrete propulsion. Different Propulsion Solutions Propulsion may come in at least three modes, depending on use and level of quietness (discretion) required: 1(a). Maximum discretion might be achieved by advanced battery only (including lithium-ion batteries). A mother submarine (eg. USS Jimmy Carter) could recharge Echo Voyager while Voyager's is sitting on "Jimmy's" back behind the sail.
Delta IV BS-64 Podmoskovye is likely alternatively based at Russia's Northern Fleet when tapping Atlantic undersea cables and with the Pacific Fleet (after Pacific cables).
2. To tail a submarine or reconnaissance near an opponent's coast considerable discretion but also greater range might be required. A hybrid advanced battery and fuel-cell AIP solution may quietly extend range.
- A diesel-snorkel combination (to recharge batteries) instead of fuel-cell AIP may be appropriate (though noisy at times).
- Reliance on fuel-cell with batteries that are only for backup is another combination.
3. For non-military uses quiet (discrete) operation is far less important. A different hybrid solution may be appropriate. This time an advanced battery together with regular surfacing to run a diesel engine to recharge the batteries may be appropriate.
Sideview of an Echo Voyager (Photo courtesy Boeing)
--
Other major points about Echo Voyager are:
- A military Echo Voyager could extend its range and mission capabilitities if it is considered disposable - on a one way mission. At the end of a mission non-explosive self-destruct equipment could be used to erase its hard disks and destroy other classified equipment.
- Voyager could use its antenna to regularly receive encrypted data to give it further instructions.
- It could use small periscopes. - An unescorted, $multi-million Echo Voyager, when surfaced to run a diesel, may be rammed by a boat or ship. It could also be snagged (at any depth) by a trawl net. It could intentionally be "kidnapped" by economic opponents. So there are even civilian risks of unescorted operation.
- Sea trials of the Echo Voyager are planned to take place off the coast of California in June-August 2016.
Australia's future submarines will operate against a much more formidable strategic opponent (China). China is developing and installing much better sensors to detect the sound of the loud (heavy truck like) submarine diesel engines that the future submarine needs to run about once every two days. China is filling out the strategic South China Sea with increasing numbers of anti-submarine sensors. This Sea may become a standard operating area for our subs.
When the diesels are being run is called low discretion. Ways to improve discretion include choosing nuclear propulsion, using better batteries and/or using Air Independent Propulsion (AIP).
Australia's future submarine debate appears to involve unquestioned assumptions of rejecting AIP in favour of a new fairly untested battery type, Lithium-ion Batteries (LIBs), that have never been used operationally.
Choosing Japan will involve choosing LIBs and rejecting AIP because Japan is specifically rejecting AIP.
Germany (TKMS) and France (DCNS) may adopt or retain AIP and use the old lead-acid battery type or, if encouraged, adopt LIBs.
To rejects AIP while adopting LIBs is a $Multi Billion dollar gamble for Australia.
This makes it all the more important to revisit (now and then) the relatively arcane subject of AIP - below . AIP Section
Loudness
In recentSubmarine
Matterscomment threads
there has been increasing discussion about the comparative loudness or silence
of AIP systems. This has come from comments of
observers standing in submarines AIP sections on Youtubes or by viewers of the
Youtubes.
There are several variables which could distort the sound
for listeners within AIP sections including:
- their hearing adjusting up or down (were they last in
quieter front of sub or in louder engine room)
- is the AIP being run near its max workload, low
workload, or basically in neutral or turned off?
- how close are they to the AIP engine?
- is their hearing focussing more on the AIP because
they've been asked to focus on it?
To someone listening to the AIP on Youtube variables can
be:
- the sound quality/distortion/age of the Youtube
- how loud they've turned the Youtube up
- are they relying on a mic within the AIP section?
- do they already know through knowledge/reading
whether the average loadness of an AIP is higher or lower than other AIP systems?
At what submarine speeds (4 knots? 7 knots?).
1. Are there any good online links comparing AIPs (with
tables, graphs and curves)?
2. What real significance does the sound of an AIP have
to an observer within the submarine anyway?
3. Isn't the main attribute the ability of a strategic
opponent's fixed or mobile passive sonar/SOSUS/microphones to hear the sound of
AIP?
presented an interesting Youtube commentary on
Air Independent Propulsion Submarines" on May 1, 2010.
Most of the information seems up to date. As the US isn't building
AIP for submarine an American perspective may be more neutral.
(David Schueler's Youtube starts off quietly.
Sound kicks in at 00:25 (25 seconds).
---
First 14 minutes maybe less interesting is about:
- fairly well accepted (non-nuclear) definition of
AIP.
- danger of 1940s onward for German, US, UK,
Russian experiments with hydrogen peroxide AIP
- US, Russia then UK steadily adopted nuclear
"AIP" then US-UK full use of nuclear.
- up until about the 1980s no safe, practical AIP
for submarine.
Youtube most
interesting:
14:25 - detailing
and implicitly comparing current AIP systems
15:05 -Closed Cycle Diesel Enginesno-one using – trialled many on years ago on a
Type 205 but never adopted. Still offered by German Nordseewerke (?) for
retrofitting?
17:00 -Closed Cycle Steam Turbinesystem engine active in French MESMA many
efficiency limitations. High power delivery. Three Pakistani Agostas using.
18:55 -Stirling Engines. Simple mechanism, quiet. But large for
limited power output, LOX heavy with usage effecting whole submarines buoyancy. Since
2010 Saab involved in development of more advanced Stirling.
[Existing use by
Sweden and Singapore. For 2010 very advanced information on then new use
on Soryu and on Chinese Type 041 Yuan.
China may have
reverse engineered, autonomously researched and parallel engineered, bought or
illegally acquired dual use technology from Sweden. Or all of these
methods.]
23:00 -Fuel Cells(Polymer Electrolyte Membrane (PEM)) only
exhaust product is water, low heat, stackable parallel arrangements depending
on electrical need. Low power output (not good for high power use Combat
Systems).
[Used on TKMS Type
212, Italian Todaro class, Dolphin 2, Type 214 (and soon 218). MaybeLada using but insufficient information. Since
2010 increasing interest in developing more stableDirect Methanol Fuel Cell (DMFC).
Alsosee. Likely future/current
Chinese and Russian interest.]
26:45 -what AIP can do and not do. Good for slow gradual (no quick acceleration)
movement. Not good for quick sprints. Pure hydrogen or pure oxygen can be
dangerous.
Pete's Comments
The ease or
difficulty a strategic opponent in a military setting can hear AIP counts more
thanreporter's perceptions in AIP sections.
Variables for a
strategic opponent may include ability to hear your AIP under different
conditions of distance, direction, AIP sub hiding in holes and behind rocks
(littorals), behind icebergs, depth/water pressure, water temperature, salinity
differences(?):
Sound detection
devices and networks available to strategic opponent:
- the
sensitivity of passive sonar/SOSUS/microphones of (say):
=
one listening submarine using bow and hull sonars and/ortowed array sonar
=
SeaWeb collection of many microphones on many platforms to triangulate
your AIP.
Basically it seems
there is continuing interest in Stirling (with unknown Chinese adoption).
Sweden and maybe China are steadily improving Stirling.
Main interest in
Fuel Cell (including from French, Russian and Spanish(?)) especially Direct
Methanol Fuel Cell (DMFC). US and Japanese civilian interest and
development as well. Germany busy improving submarine uses.
Australia does not
appear to be interested in AIP for the future submarine. This may prove
dangerous for any 2+ week Australian missions in the South China Sea or further
north than that.
Modern SeaWeb (mostly underwater communications, detection and database) systems are no longer restricted to Cold War era seafloor wired together SOSUS sensors. As the diagrams below show - there is likely to be much greater use of multiple sensor (eg. LIDAR, infrared, magnetic anomally and sound) nodes that work to may platforms (submarines, UUVs, UAVs, USVs, surface ships, shore stations, patrol aircraft and satellites).
Nodes may be fixed seafloor, tethered, surface floating, many platform mobile, popping-up to send data bursts to satellite (eg. wavegliders) etc.
Underwater communications/relays between the nodes may be much more dependent on VLF-ELF radio waves or sound waves rather than cumbersome SOSUS cables.
All major naval powers have their research and installation programs. This continues with varying degrees of secrecy depending on national security culture. China and Russia maintain tight security while Japan or the US security may not be so tight (for reasons including commercial opportunities, organisational pride, and justifying taxpayer funding).
Discovered today is some interesting diagrams (below) from Japan's Ministry of Defense (MOD). Two from the Acquisitions, Technology and Logistics Agency (ATLA) http://www.mod.go.jp/trdi/saiyou/kenkyu.html.
(Translation from Japanese by right-click mouse "Translate to English" and then by Pete)
Title Research of
advanced underwater acoustic communication network technology (warships
equipped Research Institute)
In comparison with strong radio wave linear propagation, a sound wave in the sea is refracted in accordance with the change in
the water temperature and water pressure. Sound wave propagation follows a complex path. Thus
in order to stretch a digital communication using sound waves in the sea, it is necessary to
suppress the influence of multiple reflections bouncing off the sea surface and the
seafloor.
Therefore, in this Japanese Defense Institute - to suppress the influence of
multiple reflections, we conducted a study on advanced underwater acoustic
digital communications that enables telecommunication.
(Translation from Japanese by right-click mouse "Translate to English" and then phrase order rearrangements by Pete)
Research of next-generation radar warning and control
(electronic equipment Institute). We aim to further improve the performance of warning and
control radar needed to respond in the future of stealth aircraft and ballistic
missiles.
Unlike previous performance improvements, which were acheived by the size of the antenna, a distributed network of small antennas can be electronically configured to take account of the size of the attacking aircraft or missile. We are studying a distributed radar network to achieve what can be considered a large-scale radar equal to or
higher than current detection performance.
Thus we shall apply the most
advanced MIMO (Multi-Input Multi-Output) Radar techniques to achieve an equivalently large antenna optimally combining signals from a network of
small antennas.
PETE'S COMMENT SeaWeb - If readers type in seaweb on the upper left seach box of Submarine Matters they will see several detailed articles (words, diagrams, map) in English on SeaWeb. These are mainly from the US also from Singapore and Japan. Radar Against Stealth - Presumably China and Russia (Iran?) are working on
similar radar concepts as an air/missile defence priority. China and Russia have to face current Western stealth jets (F-35, F-22s and B-2s) while the West may still have 10 years until Russian and Chinese stealth jets become fully operational.
CORRECTION - JAPANESE SUBMARINES EXTENSIVELY USE ELASTIC/RUBBER MOUNTS FOR SOUND DAMPENING
There have been anonymous statements around the Web that claim Japanese submarines
have no elastic mounts. Such statements are
incorrect.
Retired Vice Admiral Masao Kobayashi, former Commander
Japanese Submarine Service, reportedJanuary 18, 2015, concerning the extensive sound reduction measures on Japanese
submarines:
Pointing “to the ceiling lights in the quiet interview
room and said: “Take those fluorescent lights, for example. Any fluorescent
light generates sound.”
Other
than our voices, there were no other sounds in the room.
“Fluorescent
lights generate extremely small vibrations. We take anti-vibration measures for
every single light in a submarine,” he said.
Japan’s
engineers have painstakingly worked to minimize the vibrations given off by the
multitude of components in submarines to prevent even those undetectable by the
human ear from being picked up by the super-sensitive sonars of enemy subs and
sonobuoys from anti-submarine aircraft, Kobayashi said.
Noisy
components include fans, pumps, motors and fluorescent lights. Some are
carefully muted with vibration-damping rubber, he said.
“The
quiet submarines we have today are the result of numerous long, patient
efforts,” Kobayashi said.
In December 2015 Takehiko Hirama, Commander of the Soryu
submarine SS Kokuryu reported:
"We can go into enemy territory without being found
out because we emit very little sound."
Every piece of the submarine is designed to minimise
sound signatures or vibrations...All the electronics are also covered in rubber to mute
any noise, and even the light bulbs have had their sound signatures extracted.”
Japanese Ministry of Defence (MoD) standards since 1970 have
required Japanese naval vessels (ships and submarines) to have anti-vibration
rubber. The aim of these standards is reduction of underwater radiation noise. These standards are based on two US Military Standards:
- MIL-M-17191D(SHIPS)(MOUNT, RESILENT, PORTSMOUTH BONDED
SPOOL TYPE, and
Another Japanese MoD standard for anti-vibration rubber is NDS (Standards for Mod) F 7501D “Anti-vibration rubber of
equipment for warship”. On page 18, 1. “This standard aims reduction of
underwater radiation noise in warship” and page18, 2.(1)(c) “Conventionally, scope was limited to hull and main and
auxiliary propulsion,
In terms of auxiliary propulsion the standard NDS F8004 2 covers anti-vibration rubber in relation to the Stirling AIP
engine.
To calculate the Soryu's real size estimates were made using standard published information. On the basis of the cut-aways (top) and other published diagrams a side drawing, with meter measurements, (immediately above) was created. This is all part of reverse-engineering the Soryu's principal particulars.
The conclusion (in summary) was:
- difference between calculations and standard published
information is 800 to 1,100 tonnes and
- the Soryu is bigger by 25% to 33% in reality.
A heavier submarine requires more engine power and fuel to achieve speed-range requirements. The disparity in surface displacement (2,900 tonne published, but 3,700 tonnes estimated) would particularly impact the Soryu's surfaced, speed-range.
Difference between calculations and standard published information:
800 to 1,100 tonnes!
Soryu is bigger by 25% to 33% in reality.
ANONYMOUS COMMENT
"So that tells you something about Soryu's real
size... The reserve of buoyancy is indeed 13-15% on that
submarine (500/3700). Sorry, not possible to add more ballast tanks, because
your submarine would be too high on the water. And the pictures tell us that
Soryu's draught is around 7.6-7.8 m. So I made the calcs on my software tool,
they check out. !
And yes, these two diesel engines (Kawasaki 12Ｖ 25/25 SB-type)'spower is unknown.
Anyway, it will be less power in total than on Collins (with Collins 3 × Garden Island-Hedemora HV V18b/15Ub (VB210) 18-cylinder diesel motors),
even with a favourable de-rating due to shorter life-expectancy. Shorter life expectancy raises
another interesting point: the Japanese keep the same 2 Kawasaki
diesel-generators sets on Australian Soryu but claim to extend Future Submarine life to 35
years; so either you de-rate their power by, say 50% and there is little left,
or you ditch the engines every 15 years (current life span of Japanese
boats)? by cutting the hull (can their steel accommodate that?). At the end of
the day, the winner is: higher indiscretion ratio than Collins!
And fuel storage: largely inferior to what is needed. you
would need to add 50% for the 3rd diesel and double the lot to have Collins
legs. Issue: Soryu's design would become infeasible and diverge due to added
length and drag etc... SIMILAR DOUBTS
“Modern European submarine construction uses a single
pressure hull, while the Soryu class uses a combination of double pressure
hulls for the forward and aft compartments, but with a different steel alloy
from single pressure hulls for the intermediate four compartments. Does this
create differential expansion/cracking and corrosion problems at the dissimilar
metal junction and is this the reason why Soryu has a 20 year life, not the 30
required by Australia?
While double pressure hulls increase a submarine’s
reserve of buoyancy, they also increase cost and complexity of manufacture,
probably give a shorter planned sea life, and increase the wetted area of the
submarine requiring more energy to propel the vessel underwater.
A 4,200 tonnes Soryu has a crewing capacity around the
same as Israeli Navy’s 2,400 tonnes Dolphin 2 Class submarines. The physical
layout inside the current Soryu won’t meet ergonomic standards for future RAN
submariners, affecting their alertness, health and welfare during a long
range/endurance mission. Arguably the current Japanese internal design is
inefficient and a poor starting point for an evolved Soryu detailed design.”
PETE'S COMMENT
The Anonymous calculations and observations tend to reinforce comments I made in a Submarine Mattersarticle of February 12, 2015 where I wrote:
"One additional issue is that the Japanese Navy has been running its submarines with the assumption the service life is 15-20 years - while Australia assumes submarines should be in service for at least 30 yours. This may or may not be a problem. After 15-20 years moving parts may or may not start to wear out. This may be most significant in the submarine's diesel engines and the very large electrical motor. Changing engines-motors is very heavy maintenance involving cutting into the submarine hull. This might only be possible in Japan for the Soryu? Maintenance realities may or may not be a problem.
Admiring a TKMS-HDW Type 216 (foreground), in the ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems (TKMS) Endeavour program for Australia’s future submarine are: (left) Dieter Rottsieper, Deputy Chairman, Executive Board, TKMS; Vice Admiral Andreas Krause, Chief of the German Navy; and (right) Dr John White, Chairman, TKMS Australia. A Type 212A is behind the 216. (Photo courtesy Australian Defence Business Review).
