Fitting suitable diesels to Medium & Large Submarines, LIBs

Following MTU 4000s maybe on Type 218SG & future Type 212CD submarines of February 26, 2019 Anonymous commented:   

2 x 2000 kW diesels for middle sized (2,000 ton) and 2 x 3000 kW diesels for large sized (4,000 ton) SSKs especially if the SSKs are equipped with advanced Lithium-ion Batteries (LIBs). Currently German made MTU or MAN diesels, each around 1,300 kW for submarine, are underpowered if the submarine wishes to achieve optimal quick charging performance for LIBs. 

However [having 2 of] Japan's new KAWASAKI 12V25/31 (mechanical output 3,100 kW) would be most suitable for large (4,000 ton) submarines. From the viewpoint of power performance, a combimation of Toshiba NTO-LIBs and KAWASAKI 12V25/31s is better than Saft Lithium Iron Phosphate (LFP) LIBs married to MTU or MAN diesels.

BTW, on February 26, 2019, Toshiba announced the successful development of a new LIB anode for electric vehicles. The new battery a has higher capacity and longer life. This LIB is Toshiba’s second generation SCiB Niobium Titanium Oxide (NTO) battery. Toshiba aims for mass production in the early 2020s.

Anonymous 
(with some rearranging by Pete)

Submarine Pressure Hull Steel (Tables) Especially Swedish

Pete Comment

All submarines have pressure hulls that are made of special steel alloys. In the past the Soviets/Russians bankrupted their economy by also using Titanium alloys. Essentially pressure hulls protect the crew, sensors and engines from excessive water pressure and provide the airtight conditions the crew rely on to breathe.

Pressure hulls need special high yield steel alloys that are flexible enough to:

-  contract as water pressure increases (during diving), 

-  is also strong enough to stop contracting (at maximum diving depth) and

-   can then expand as water pressure reduces on the way to the submarine surfacing.  

High proof or yield steel for submarines can be measure in pounds per square inch (psi), (eg. HY80 = 80,000psi) or Mega/million pascals (MPa) with this conversion
 https://www.unitconverters.net/pressure/megapascal-to-psi.htm.

A submarine can only go through a limited number of contraction-expansion cycles (especially if it has to deep dive) before it loses flexibility, putting it in danger of metal fatigue.

For a diesel-electric submarine with AIP (eg. a Swedish Gotland class ) on a typical short 12 day mission in the Baltic Sea it may dive and the operate on its Stirling AIP for 10-12 days. It then surface only once = 1 cycle. Perhaps its pressure hull is good for 200 cycles (?) - although its service life is more rapidly limited by hull rust and corrosion - all contributing to a 34 year service life. 

ANONYMOUS' TABLE 1.

Many thanks to Anonymous advising that the pressure hull details in Table 1. below apply to the:

-  Swedish (Gotlands, future A26s), 
-  Swedish designed Australian Collins, and
-  future SAAB-Damen entry for the Walrus Replacement competition 

In the [cylinder like] design of a submarine, the diameter of a pressure hull significantly effects on many other feature of a submarine [including space, propulsion choices and acoustics]. In terms of diameter (which may sometimes equal Beam) Gotland's are 6.2m, A26s 6.75m, Collins 7.8m and 8m for a SAAB-Damen Walrus replacement. Part outer hulls and sonars on hulls will effect the overall beam of a submarine.

Table 1 Similarity of pressure hull of Swedish and Australian submarines

Submarine	Pressure hull steel	Proof (or Yield) strength of steel [MPa]	Beam [m]	Diameter of pressure hull	Estimation
Gotland	Weldox700EM [1]	700	6.2	Same	In A26, sound absorption rubbers (thickness 100mm) are presumably attached on the surface of prssue hull. In A19, no sound absorption rubbers are attached, or very thin rubbers are used.
A26	Strenx700E	700	6.75
Collins	BIS 812 EMA	700	7.8	Same	Difference in beam is due to difference in position or shape of flanl arry sonar.
SAAB-Damen Walrus Replace-ment	Strenx700E	700	8

[1] Weldox is old brand name of Strenx.

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

Below is a broader comparison of Chinese, Russian & Western Submarine Pressure Hull Steel Strengths originally published on July 20, 2015. Note the Swedish measure Weldox700 and Australian BIS 812 EMA in both Tables with both at 700MPa equivalent to HY100..

TABLE 2.

YS = Yield Strength or proof stress. HY = High Yield

YS	US	UK	France	Germany	China	Russia and India	Japan	Australia	Sweden
550MPa	HY80	Q1N		1.3964		India DMR- 292 #	* 1) NS56
590MPa			60HLES		921A TA5-A	AK-25 48-OT3
630MPa				1.3974
690MPa	HY100	Q2N				AB-2	* 2) NS70
700MPa			80HLES					BIS812 EMA	Weldox 700
785MPa					980	AK-29	NS80
890MPa	HY130		100HLES		*4) Ti80	AB-3?	NS90		Weldox 900
980MPa						AK-33
1075MPa						AK- ??
1178MPa	HY156						* 3) NS110

* 1) steel of 550MPa and NS56 is equivalent to HY80 grade steel.

* 2) steel of 690MPa and NS70 is equivalent to HY100 grade steel.

* 3) steel 1078MPa and NS110 is equivalent to the HY156 grade steel.

* 4) Ti80 Titanium alloy under development 880MPa equivalent to NS90 or HY128 steel - source.

The Table is from towards the end of Japanese Document "High-tensile steel Summary of national submarine" or Summary of High Tensile Steel for Submarines by Country 2013 http://seesaawiki.jp/w/doramarine/ .
---

COMMENTS FOR TABLE 2.

The higher the yield (stronger) the steel alloy or Titanium alloy in a submarines pressure hull the deeper it can dive in operations. As well as alloy strength other factors also influence diving depth including:

- supports for the the pressure hull

- compartments or multiple pressure hulls, and

- strength of the welds used to join sections of the pressure hull.

It is not possible to verify the accuracy of most of the figures. Commenters who know more are invited to supply corrections.

FURTHER READING

See  Soryu Submarine Steel Details - Japan Offer to Australia, January 20, 2015

Anonymous and Pete

Singapore and US Share Close Defense and Intelligence Relations.

In response to Jack the Unknown's misinformed comment of March 7, 2019 where he says: 

“Hi pete. Singapore and USA do Not have official defense ally agreement.
Anyone can speculate under table secret agreement.but I think it's unprofessional. Jack
https://www.state.gov/s/l/treaty/collectivedefense/”

The following document, dated February 2018 is written by the

US Embassy in Singapore.

https://sg.usembassy.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/197/Fact-Sheet-Defense-Cooperation.pdf

"DEFENSE COOPERATION

Singapore and the U.S. have a strong bilateral defense partnership, underpinned by the 1990 Memorandum of Understanding and 2005 Strategic Framework Agreement, and most recently elevated by the 2015 enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement.

Under the enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement, both sides agreed on a broad framework for defense cooperation in five key areas, namely in the military, policy, strategic, and technology spheres.

Under the technology sphere, the U.S. and Singapore collaborate in 10 distinct bilateral dialogues through forums, committees, and workshops under the oversight of the Defense Cooperation Committee (DCC). The DCC is the senior bilateral science and technology forum between the U.S. Department of Defense and the Singapore Ministry of Defense. Both sides also cooperate against non-conventional security challenges, such as piracy and transnational terrorism.

Singapore has also contributed to the U.S.-led coalition to counter the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) since December 2014. Both sides also agreed to enhance cooperation in new areas, including humanitarian assistance and disaster relief (HADR), cyber defense, biosecurity, and public communications.

The annual Shangri-La Dialogue held in Singapore promotes dialogue among policymakers in the defense and security community in the region. The United States has welcomed Singapore’s initiative to promote better coordination of regional militaries’ HADR efforts through the establishment of the Changi Regional HADR Coordination Centre (RHCC) in 2014.

The U.S. Department of Defense and Singapore Armed Forces work closely to equip Singapore's sailors, soldiers and airmen with the latest in state-of-the-art weapons systems, sophisticated sensors, and smart munitions through an extensive Foreign Military Sales program.

BY THE NUMBERS:

·       36 Years of Exercise Tiger Balm, a bilateral exercise between the U.S. and Singapore armies

·       1 Singapore is the only Pacific country that holds annual unilateral training exercises in the U.S.

·       3 Littoral Combat Ships rotationally deployed to Singapore since 2013

·       12 Bilateral military forums focused on science and technology collaboration

·       1,000 Singaporean personnel train in the U.S. each year

·       29 Years Singapore has operated advanced fighter jet detachments in the continental U.S.

DEFENSE THREAT REDUCTION AGENCY

The Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) collaborates with Singapore on various research and development projects,as well as Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and high-yield Explosives (CBRE) and Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) Awareness training. To help ASEAN countries develop or improve their core capacities to meet international health regulations, DTRA has partnered with Singapore via the Third Country Training Program to build laboratory and epidemiologic capacity, as well as training scientists and physicians from partnering countries.

OFFICE OF NAVAL RESEARCH GLOBAL

Since 2000, the regional Office of Naval Research Global (ONRG) in Singapore has supported emerging science and technology (S&T) globally to address the technological needs of the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps. The office identifies and funds research and development to enable future Naval missions and capabilities. ONRG actively collaborates with government, industry, and academia on key S&T of mutual benefit to the U.S. and its strategic partners including Singapore.

NAVY MEDICAL RESEARCH CENTER

Navy Medical Research Center - Asia (NMRCA), located in Singapore with a detachment in Cambodia, consists of 120 scientists, research physicians and support staff that work in partnership with host nation military and civilian institutes to conduct research and surveillance of infectious disease threats. The command focuses on threats of public health and military relevance throughout the U.S. Pacific Command's area of operation.

ARMY INTERNATIONAL TECHNOLOGY CENTER - PACIFIC (ITC-PAC)

Since 2004, the Southern Asia Regional Office of ITC-PAC as part of the Army's Research, Development and Engineering Command (RDECOM) has promoted Science and Technology (S&T) collaboration with partner countries, to include Singapore, in areas that are relevant to the overall needs of the U.S. Army. The goal of the office is to identify emerging technology (basic research) by supporting cooperative development initiatives and identifying innovative foreign technology solutions."

ENDS

PETE COMMENT

Also see:

Lynn Kuok’s, The U.S.-Singapore Partnership: A Critical Element of U.S. Engagement and Stability in the Asia-Pacific, Brookings Institution, July 2016, https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Paper-6.pdf  

The following is a Joint Statement on the 4th United States-Singapore Strategic Partnership Dialogue, 22 January 2016, Singapore https://2009-2017.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2016/01/251668.htm

Please click: The US and Singapore also share close intelligence relations.

Pete

Trump Does Well Talking To North Korea

Despite international media reports that the Second Trump-Kim Summit (Hanoi, February 27-28, 2019) was a failure I think it was successful.

Yes I think the US intelligence community is right in saying there is very little possibility that North Korea will de-nuclearize. Trump, working, within that assessment, is making the situation less dangerous.

As I argued on May 24, 2018 North Korea needs a nuclear deterrent more than most countries because all of its neighbours and the US, have invaded it many times. After decades of building up a nuclear deterrent at great sacrifice, North Korea is not about to disarm and thereby make itself vulnerable to takeover.

As well as deterring invasion nuclear weapons reduce the chances of large-scale conventional war.

The real danger is how nuclear armed countries threaten to use their nuclear weapons.

The problem with North Korea is not that it HAS nuclear weapons but how often it has threatened to use nuclear weapons. 

North Korea and especially the latest Kim suffer from immaturity and an inferiority complex.

I think continuing to work on the ego of Kim, by allowing Kim to talk in Summits with the world's most powerful leader (Trump) is the best way to address North Korea's need to be noticed.

These Summits (with the first one being in Singapore, June 12, 2018) seem to be working. Have you noticed there has been no tension raising North Korean ICBM tests, nuclear weapon tests, or threats to use nuclear weapons since the Summits began in June 2018?

For all Trump's international mistakes he has been doing well over North Korea.

Pete

"German" Diesels to be on Australia’s future Attack class submarines

ARTICLE

In a notable article INDAILY Adelaide’s independent news, February 21, 2019 reported :

That Jean-Michel Billig, Executive Vice President, Future Submarine Program [Naval Group] and Member, Naval Group Executive Board in translation, made the very significant comment that:

“Diesel generators [for Australia’s future Attack class submarine] will be German...”

COMMENT

[At 4,500 tonne (surfaced) the Attack class submarines will probably need to achieve a diesel output of 6,000kW requiring at least 4 x 1,500kW diesels]

From the "will be German" diesel statement Anonymous [with some further translation by Pete into more correct English] on February 27, 2019 calculated Australia’s future Attack class submarines may use the following German diesel designs:

A.   MTU diesels (MTU based in Friedrichshafen, Germany)

       specifically the MTU 12V 4000 (mechanical output=1300kW, 

       Mean Effective Pressure (Pme) = 27.9MPa [1])

OR

B.  MAN Energy Solutions (MAN based in Augsburg, Germany)  formed 2010 from merger of
      MAN Diesel and MAN Turbo.

      specifically the MAN 12 PA4 V200SMDS (1330kW, 25.8MPa).

Note that the MAN 12 PA4 V200SMDS has a slightly lower Pme and a longer but lower rotation or piston speed (1300rpm, 9.1m/s) than the MTU 12V 4000 (1800rpm, 11.2m/s). But if the 12 PA4 V200SMDS is modified (such as common rail injection system), it may achieve about 1500kW of mechanical output by 10% increase in Pme. Higher boost modification depends on the selling price.

It is unlikely the older MTU 16V396 will be used as its Pme is low at 20.5MPa.

[1] see Mean effective pressure (Pme) is a valuable measure of a reciprocating engine's capacity to do work that is independent of engine displacement. Higher Pme means better performance. Pme = 8 x E / (3.14 x N x S x D^2 x H). Where, Pme = brake mean effective pressure, E = mechanical output, N = number of cyliders, D = cylinder bore, H cylinder stroke.

PETE COMMENT

Penske Power Systems supplies MTU and MAN diesels for marine and defence applications in Australia with branches all over Australia including Adelaide (where the Attack class submarines are being built).

Anonymous and Pete

Indian MiG-21 uses Russian missiles to improve chances against Pakistani F-16

There are many aspects of the latest India, Pakistan confrontation. There being no submarines showing their hand (so far) below I am looking at the Pakistan F-16 vs Indian MiG-21 (called “Bison” not NATO designation “Fishbed” in India). 

It would seem that India has made its aging MiG-21s more formidable by arming them with Soviet/Russian developed air-to-air missiles (AAMs) that are proving better than US developed AAMs.

Russia Today (RT) March 1, 2019 reports:

“Could Indian MiG-21 have downed Pakistani F-16? Military expert says it’s up to pilot, not plane

India’s claim that its MiG-21 fighter jet shot down a more modern Pakistani Air Force F-16 [on Thursday 28 February 2019] seems surprising at first, but a military expert tells RT there is more to the Indian Air Force than meets the eye.

The [Indian Air Force] IAF confirmed that one of its MiG-21 fighters downed a PAF F-16 on Thursday, two days after Pakistan said that it had shot down two Indian jets as tensions continue to mount between the two nuclear powers over the disputed territory of Kashmir.

News reports from battle zones often contain “inaccuracies or deliberate disinformation,” but it doesn’t mean that a MiG-21 couldn’t have hit an F-16, even though the two planes are of completely “different generations,” Mikhail Khodarenok, military expert and retired colonel who served in Russian missile defense forces, told RT.

MiG-21 is a third-generation supersonic jet fighter and interceptor aircraft, which was introduced into the Soviet military in 1959. The F-16 is a fourth-generation supersonic multirole fighter, which entered service with the US Air Force almost two decades later.

Obviously, the F-16 has much more advanced characteristics, including the combat radius of 547 km, compared to 370 km of MiG-21.

However, Khodarenok explained that the MiG-21-93 ‘Bison’ used by the Indian Air Force is

“a largely modernized version of the aircraft. Its ‘Spear’ radar system allows tracking down incoming enemy aircraft at a distance of up to 57 kilometers  in the front and up to 30 kilometers in the rear. It can track eight targets at the same time, with the quick search and automatic capture of visually observed targets in close combat mode concluding with the use of guided missiles or cannon.”

MiG-21 Bison boasts medium-range R-77 air-to-air self-guided missiles as part of its arsenal. They have a range of 110 kilometers and can reach the speed of 4250 km/h, while carrying a 22-kilogram warhead, he said.

“So MiG-21-93 could’ve well shot down an F-16. And could’ve done it easily,” Khodarenok said. “Besides, the best plane is the one with the best pilot inside. The rest is details.”

 ENDs

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

Separately, below is a relevant youtube, although it features an AIM-120D AMRAAM, which is more modern and capable than Pakistan’s US supplied AIM-120C-5.