South Korea’s 3000 ton class Submarines and Licencing

 Anonymous on August 6, 2021 kindly provided the following information   :

This is a latest information on South Korea’s 3000 ton-class (aka KSS-3 or Dosan Ahn Changho-class) submarines [1]. Its air independent propulsion (AIP) consists of 4 x PH1 PEM Fuel Cells each generating 150kW. This AIP is produced by South Korea's Bumhan Industries [2] based on GS Caltex’s fuel cell technology. The AIP uses single-stage or multi-stage fuel cell stack technology [3]. 

How the key fuel cell hydrogen supply and storage system technologies work is not clear. Siemens provides hydrogen storage using a metal hydride cylinder system to TKMS designed submarines. But Siemens does not provide it for KSS-3s. So another system (such as pure hydrogen cylinders) may be used fro the KSS-3s.

The submarine is presumably powered by 4 x MTU 16V-396 (3.96 MW) diesels, with the permission of MTU and TKMS.  But South Korea's DSME, which builds the KSS-3s, does not provide details of TKMS licencing (eg. for the diesel mounting sysytem) or that of  German component makers (eg. diesels designed by MTU)? [4]

First DSME KSS-3 named Dosan Ahn Changho (SS 083)
---

[1] Excellent website from South Korea with many KSS-3 "Dosan Ahn Changho" details. Also see Wikipedia. 

[2] Highly detailed South Korean Bumhan Industries media release.

[3] Patent of Bumhan.

[4] MTU submarine diesels are protected by many of patents. TKMS has a patent for the diesel mounting system.

Pete Comment

As South Korea’s DSME exported 3 whole TKMS designed Type 209 variants (aka Improved Jang Bogos) to Indonesia DSME must have a legal licence from TKMS to export TKMS designed submarines. This is probably only to Indo-Pacific regional countries. The Improved Jang Bogos DSME exported to Indonesia also have 4 x MTU 12V 493 diesels and 1 x Siemens electric motor. So DSME must also have, at least, a regional licence from MTU and Siemens to export.

Also Indonesia may have separate MTU and Siemens licences for its DSME built submarines. See "mtu SUBMARINE ENGINES" brochure which says “Globally, over 20 naval forces have equipped their submarine fleets with mtu diesel engines.” At the website mtu "GLOBAL LOCATIONS"  click on "North East Asia without China" - see MTU (which is part of Rolls-Royce) has an office at "Busan, South Korea". Busan is a South Korean Naval Base port city. For separate Indonesian licencing of mtu diesels for submarine click on "South East Asia with India" which reveals MTU Indonesia [at] Balikpapan on Kalimantan (was Borneo). Balikpapan hosts an Indonesian naval base.

TKMS is competing to export submarines to India in the Projecy-75I (for India) competition. DSME is also a competitor and a certain level of DSME's offer (which is reportedly a KSS-3) was invented by TKMS. So DSME may have bought regional licence approvals from TKMS to export to India.

By Anonymous and Pete

New Yuan 039D submarine may have Lithium-ion Batteries

Minnie Chan for the now China ruled Hong Kong South China Morning Post (SCMP) August 8, 2021, has written a most complicated and excellent article:

"New submarine hints at China’s search for stealth ahead of potential Taiwan war: analysts" 

French and American submarine watchers note features of a new Type 039A Chinese sub would make it quieter and more agile

‘To some extent, the revision and design told us that Taiwan is the top target of the Type 039 subs,’ says Macau-based expert

There is much speculation about the Type 039D Chinese Submarine that appeared on social media on May 12 and what the latest modifications might mean for its battle capacity. 

China’s move to create quieter submarines by reconfiguring its Type 039A diesel-powered submarines would aid the Chinese navy in a possible war for Taiwan reunification and territory conflicts in the East and South China seas, according to military analysts.

The PLA Navy now owns one more advanced new variant of the Type 039A submarine featuring an unusual sail [photo above courtesy Twitter via SCMP], which appears to increase its agility and stealth, according to a recent collaborative study by Eric Genevelle, a French submarine encyclopaedia author, and Richard W. Stirn, a former sonar technician submariner working for the United States Navy.

The Type 039A is China’s first conventional submarine equipped with air-independent propulsion (AIP). It was designed mainly as an anti-ship cruise missile (ASCM) platform capable of hiding submerged for longer in difficult-to-access shallow coastal areas.

The new variation, which the authors called Type 039D, features a distinctively stealthy sail – an angled upper section with a ridge running along it – and was first pictured and posted on Chinese social media platforms on May 12, days before its launch in a shipyard in Wuhan, Hubei province, according to the analysis article published on the authors’ personal websites.

 “The shape of the sail seems to have been studied to allow better reflection of radar waves on the surface,” Genevelle wrote, adding that the coating of the anechoic – or free from echo – tiles on the sail looked different and outlines were much less visible.

Dome covers, rudder, navigation lights, observation windows on the sail and even an exhaust grid and other parts on the hull were all modified, according to the authors.

With a higher exhaust diffuser on the sail, the Type 039D was the first AIP-powered submarine developed in China and was believed to be one of the quietest diesel-electric submarines in service, the article said.

The angled sail was similar to the design of the future Swedish A26 Blekinge-class submarine, which is expected to be launched as early as 2024, raising speculation about whether the PLA Navy was again catching up to leading submarine technologies, wrote defence analyst H I Sutton, in an article published on the military website Naval News in June.

Genevelle, who in December published an encyclopaedia detailing submarines built around the world since World War II, found the sub with the unusual sail was just one of the more than 30 variants of conventional Chinese subs based on the Type 039A over three decades, with shapes of the sail, locations of limber holes for water flow, rudders, and other designs being modified, according to his study with Stirn. 

All those changes were based on designs aimed at making the diesel-powered submarines quiet, the report added.

Western sub observers such as Genevelle criticised China for not revealing all its successes to the outside world, including whether the AIP subs were supported by lithium-ion battery technology.

Zhou Chenming, a researcher from the Yuan Wang military science and technology institute in Beijing, said the Type 039A had been equipped with the lithium-ion battery to support the AIP system since the new marine propulsion technology was applied to the vessel.

Macau-based military expert Antony Wong Tong said the revised Type 039A was aimed at the Taiwan contingency, which the PLA had been preparing for decades.

“From the designs and revision of rudder, sail and vents, limber holes, we can see the development of the subs has focused on snorkel operation [for shallow littorals operation], which is so different from the US and Russian deep-diving types,” Wong said.

“To some extent, the revision and design told us that Taiwan is the top target of the Type 039 subs.”

Beijing-based naval expert Li Jie agreed with Wong, adding that the revision could be seen as the PLA’s answer to the US Navy’s modernisation plan for its four operational nuclear-powered submarines – the Ohio, Los Angeles, Seawolf and Virginia – in the next two decades at an estimated cost of US$15 billion.

“Once there is a Taiwan contingency, the US will definitely deploy nuclear-powered subs to the Asia-Pacific region due to the long journey, but the PLA just needs to send the Type 039 subs to cope with them because it’s happening just on the doorstep,” Li said.

A military source told the South China Morning Post that Beijing aimed to build the world’s largest conventional-powered fleet led by the Type 039, but declined to say how many 039s there would be.

 “China has kept going to revise and upgrade the Type 039, with some little revision for every two hulls, meaning there are so many variants,” said the source, who requested anonymity because of the sensitive subject.

“Submarine design and operations should be a country’s top secret. All the new models of the Type 039A described by the Western experts – like the Type 039B, 039C or even 039G and 039AG – are not correct, because you can see China never announced that, just saying they are the variants of the Type 039.”

Zhou said the variants of the Type 039A would focus on offshore surveillance and necessary “surprise attacks” against intrusive foreign ships in shallow waters about 100-200km (62-124 miles) along the East and South China seas.

In 2006, a PLA Navy older model Type 039 diesel-electric submarine surfaced within 5 nautical miles (9km) of the USS Kitty Hawk when the aircraft carrier was on a training exercise in the East China Sea between Japan and Taiwan.

In October 2015, officers on the aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan were shocked to discover a PLA attack submarine had sailed “very close” to it near Japanese waters." 

ENDS
----------------------------

P.S. As I write this HMS Queen Elizabeth is reportyed by MarineTraffic as porting at Guam naval base - see https://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/details/ships/shipid:5618808/mmsi:235107775/imo:4907892/vessel:HMS_QUEEN_ELIZABETH

Australian Sub HMAS Waller's 2014 & 2021 Electrical Fires

HMAS Waller's 2014 Electrical Fire Incident

Australian Defence Magazine (ADM), August 26, 2021, reports an earlier, 2014 electrical fire on Australia's Collins-class submarine HMAS Waller:

"In February 2014 a fire broke out in a starting resistor cabinet for Waller’s main propulsion motor in the aft compartment of the 3,407 tonne submarine while surfaced off the West Australian coast.

The fire was smothered by an emergency fire suppression system but four crew were evacuated by helicopter after inhaling halon gas from the suppression system.

Repairs were carried out in conjunction with a scheduled major docking which was advanced by several months, and the submarine was out of service for about two years."

Pete Comment/Questions

Did the major 2014 fire incident weaken or damage Waller's electricals increasing Waller's vulnerability to the second (2021 flood) impact on Waller's electricals? Put another way - did the 2014 fire make the 2021 fire more likely? 

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

HMAS Waller's 2021 Electrical Flood then Fire Incident

Andrew Tillett for Australia's Financial Review, has written an excellent article dated April 6, 2021. Here is part:

"New doubts over ageing submarines after floods, fire onboard"

"One of the Navy’s ageing Collins class submarines flooded twice in the weeks leading up to an electrical fire on board that has taken it out of action for months.

In response to [the Australian Labor Party's] questions on notice asked at Senate estimates, the Defence Department revealed HMAS Waller will return to service in September after undergoing extensive repairs following the fire on April 8, [2021] when it was docked at Perth’s naval base.

Defence said the the fire was caused by a flash-over of an electrical motor in what it described as an auxiliary machinery space.

While the fire was extinguished, it reignited several hours later before finally being put out. The air compressor motor and damaged electrical cables needed to be replaced.

“The root cause of the electrical fault, leading to the flash-over, is still under investigation,” Defence said.

But the department also revealed there had been two floods on board HMAS Waller in March.

In the first incident on March 22, HMAS Waller was surfaced off the West Australian coast when water flowed into the submarine through the conning tower hatch.

“All procedures and safety systems operated correctly. However, this water ingress caused numerous electric failures that required the submarine to return to Fleet Base West for repairs,” Defence said.

“The water ingress was caused by the combination of a large sea and swell allowing a wave to enter down an open hatch. This happened during a surfaced training activity being conducted at night.”

‘Sketchy details’

Four days later, during a diving exercise, a seawater pump failed, resulting in some flooding of the bilge.

“All procedures and safety systems operated correctly [Pete comment: except for the seawater pump failing?] and the submarine returned to the surface,” Defence said.

The department said procedural changes had been made to ensure training was conducted during appropriate weather conditions..."

SEE THE WHOLE EXCELLENT FINANCIAL REVIEW ARTICLE HERE
--------------

Waller is due to return to service in September 2021.

2015 Fire Now Haunting Russian Submarine Orel?

Drawing from information from The Barents Observer August 4/5, 2021 and Submarine Matters' records.

Orel, is a nuclear propelled Oscar II-class SSGN home based at Russia’s Northern Fleet Arctic Ocean complex. Orel had been attending a fleet review at St Petersburg in the Baltic. It, in company with Russian Navy surface vessels, was returning surfaced (while traversing the narrows at the mouth of the Baltic) on its way back to its Arctic Base.

On July 30, 2021, in the narrow mouth of the Baltic Danish naval vessels noticed Orel had stopped and was drifting towards the small Danish island of Sejerø. Around 10 Orel crew members were seen on the casement in front of Orel’s sail possibly ready to tie down a tow line rocket "thrown" from a rescue vessel. That vessel was the nearby 5,000 ton Russian naval tug Altay which drew close. But Orel soon communicated it no longer needed assistance.

Orel, still surfaced, resumed movement under its own power. It and accompanying Russian vessels moved west through the mouth of the Baltic then north into the North Sea. Here Orel submerged but probably remained shallow for safety reasons.

NATO sensors (on the seafloor, surface ships and submarines including the Norwegian Navy’s Ula-class subs) would be able to estimate if Orel was (or is) moving at reduced speed.

Orel may have lost propulsion for many reasons. One possibility is a non-radioactive pipe or boiler leak from one of Orel’s two reactors. For subs with the luxury of two reactors a leak can demand an emergency shutdown of the effected reactor, called a “SCRAM”. 

Some limited battery backup for Orel could maintain “hotel load” services for a short time. Additionally if Orel has one or more diesel engines for backup (as most nuclear subs have)  then hotel load and some propulsion could be achieved – maybe for a few days. In any case if one of Orel's reactors remains operational it can run submerged, to save face, and at slow speed (perhaps 10 knots?) while remaining close to the tug Altay.

Circle at the top of the yellow-green trace indicates position 20 hours ago of Norwegian Coast Guard vessel KV Bergen (photo inset) shadowing the Russian flotilla probably assisting Orel. KV Bergen has since turned around. (Map above is a screenshot from MarineTraffic via Barents Observer.)
---

Orel’s age, 29 years since being launched in 1992, shouldn’t be a problem if she was regularly serviced and suffered no major damage.

BUT OREL DID SUFFER MAJOR DAMAGE A FEW YEARS AGO

Regular Submarine Matters readers may recall Orel suffered a serious fire in early April 2015. See Submarine Matters “Russian Submarine Fire - Orel Perhaps a Write-Off?”  of April 8, 2015. The fire occurred above the rear section of Orel, above the reactor and other propulsion machinery (like the reduction gears and key electrical motors and wiring).

Also the 2015 fire, which occurred between the outer hull and pressure hull of double hulled Orel, could have caused lasting damage to the outer hull that Russia's maintenance/repair system didn't detect. If there was cracking of the outer hull on July 30, 2021 this could have let in an unexpected weight of seawater not managed by Orel's buoyancy system. Orel may have needed to stop and drift while the seriousness of any buoyancy surprise was assessed. Some reprogramming of the buoyancy computer system may have been needed. 

Cracking of the outer hull may have also caused part deformation of that hull, which could cause extra hydrodynamic "drag" and noise.

A photo and account of the fire from Pravda, released on April 8, 2015, indicated a much more serious fire on Orel than Russian media were prepared to reveal earlier that day.

---

So Orel’s 2015 fire may have done delayed damage to Orel's propulsion, buoyancy or deformation drag. These may be the products of the Russian Navy's accident prone maintenance system, again apparent today.

Up to 40% Female Crew on US SSN

Submarine Matters has covered the increasing trend toward women in subs for 6 years.  

Now Matt Kelley, for RADIO IOWA, reports, August 2, 2021 that up to 40% of officers and crew in USS Iowa (SSN-797) and presumably later USN submarines, may be female, in years to come:

"USS Iowa submarine will be first built for coed crew"

"When the U.S. Navy submarine that’ll be named after the state of Iowa sets sail for patrol duty in about two years, it will have an important distinction from all previous vessels in the fleet, according to Tom Hudson, executive director of the USS Iowa’s commissioning committee.

“Iowa will be the first submarine specifically built for females on board,” Hudson says. “The Navy has been placing females on submarines for about ten years, but it’s been in a retrofit condition. Iowa will be the first submarine physically built to accommodate female sailors and we’re really excited about that.”

Space is at a premium onboard a submarine, Hudson says, with practically every square inch serving a specific purpose. That’s why it’s so monumental for women to have their own space onboard the sub.

“Curtains typically separate the berthing quarters from main passageways but in this case, there will be specific doors, hard doors, bifold accordion doors like you’d find on an airplane,” Hudson says. “There’ll be separate berthing quarters, or sleeping quarters, and also shower and bathroom facilities, specifically for females.”

The submarine will have a crew of 120 enlisted personnel and 14 officers. Eventually, between 20 and 40-percent of the crew will be female, but Hudson says the premier crew will be more lopsided toward men with perhaps just ten-percent female.

“Right now, Iowa is slated to have one female officer arriving and reporting for duty this next month in August,” Hudson says. “By the time she goes to sea, probably one to two officers, one or two senior enlisted and one or two junior enlisted at this point.”

The USS Iowa will be christened in Connecticut in the spring of 2022, but it likely won’t be commissioned and begin patrol duties until the summer of 2023 — an event which Hudson hopes will take place in Los Angeles Harbor beside the previous USS Iowa, the retired battleship."

Wonderful world of Naval Mines: Against China?

Naval mines are an unglamorous, little discussed, range of weapon types. They are very cheap and effective, being unmanned - compared to all types of labour intensive weapons (ship, submarines and naval aircraft).

Here and below is a quick history of naval mines up to modern times:

MORE DETAIL

Wikipedia has many entries on mines, such as:

Types of naval mines including Influence Mines 

[Influence mines] mines are triggered by the influence of a ship or submarine, rather than direct contact. Such mines incorporate electronic sensors designed to detect the presence of a vessel and detonate when it comes within the blast range of the warhead. The fuses on such mines may incorporate one or more of the following sensors: magnetic, passive acoustic or water pressure displacement caused by the proximity of a vessel.... 

Modern influence mines such as the BAE Stonefish are computerised, with all the programmability this implies, such as the ability to quickly load new acoustic signatures into fuses, or program them to detect a single, highly distinctive target signature. In this way, a mine with a passive acoustic fuze can be programmed to ignore all friendly vessels and small enemy vessels, only detonating when a very large enemy target passes over it. Alternatively, the mine can be programmed specifically to ignore all surface vessels regardless of size and exclusively target submarines.

Even as far back as WWII it was possible to incorporate a "ship counter" function in mine fuzes. This might set the mine to ignore the first two ships passing over it (which could be minesweepers deliberately trying to trigger mines) but detonate when the third ship passes overhead, which could be a high-value target such as an aircraft carrier or oil tanker. Even though modern mines are generally powered by a long life lithium battery, it is important to conserve power because they may need to remain active for months or even years. For this reason, most influence mines are designed to remain in a semi-dormant state until an unpowered (e.g. deflection of a mu-metal needle) or low-powered sensor detects the possible presence of a vessel, at which point the mine fuze powers up fully and the passive acoustic sensors will begin to operate for some minutes. 

It is possible to program computerised mines to delay activation for days or weeks after being laid. Similarly, they can be programmed to self-destruct or render themselves safe after a preset period of time. Generally, the more sophisticated the mine design, the more likely it is to have some form of anti-handling device to hinder clearance by divers or remotely piloted submersibles."

USE AGAINST NORTH VIETNAM - ONE DAY CHINA?

Even during the Vietnam War (49 years ago) US mines were highly complex, including those used in  American Operation Pocket Money 
In early May 1972 "There were 37 foreign-flag ships in Haiphong [North Vietnam's main naval and civilian harbour] : 16 Soviet, 5 Chinese, 5 Somalian, 4 British, 3 Polish, 2 Cuban, and 1 East German. The mines were set with a series time fuze delay of 72 hours to allow these neutral ships time to leave port, and another series time fuze would disable the mine after 180 days...

Results

"On 4 August 1972 dozens of the mines spontaneously detonated. The U.S. Navy determined this was caused by magnetic radiation from a geomagnetic storm triggered by a coronal mass ejection on the Sun; this was confirmed by scientific research in 2018.^[9][10]

One British and four Soviet ships left Haiphong before the mines' time fuzes armed. The remaining ships were immobilized for 300 days while the port of Haiphong was closed."
----------------------------

Against China?

If/when China attempts to invade Taiwan US mining of Chinese naval bases (often also part/near civilian ports) is an option. There would be an impact on non-Chinese flagged vessels, of course.