France least efficient Attack Submarine Builder - much more than "three-year delay"

On February 6, 2019 I wrote: “France's Barracuda SSN Submarine Launching in 2019 – Maybe at https://gentleseas.blogspot.com/2019/02/barracuda-ssn-submarine-launching-in.html with the text:

“The launching of France's delayed (laid down 2007) first of class Barracuda-Suffren class SSN will free up a good part of Naval Group's design and construction labour force.

...Once freed up the Naval Group design and construction labour force can begin to fully address Australia's huge Shortfin Barracuda (Attack class) SSK Program."

Six days later, Australia’s ABC “France maintains it will deliver Australia's $50 billion 'Barracuda' submarines on time” of February 12, 2019 at  https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-02-12/barracuda-delay-and-impact-on-australian-program/10800794 includes:

"France's visiting Defence Minister Florence Parly has assured Australia the future submarine program will run on time, despite a similar build project [of the Barracuda SSN] running three years late in her country.

In France, Naval Group has faced serious delays with another [the Barracuda] submarine project, the construction of new 'Barracuda' nuclear-powered submarines.

Despite Naval Group's three-year delay with its project in France, Ms Parly says there will be no flow on effects for Australia's program.

"It's very much related to the nuclear part of our submarines and related to new norms and controls that did not exist before," she said."

PETE COMMENT

France's current attack submarine delay is much more than a "three-year delay".  The US and UK have built nuclear attack submarines in less time. Why can't France? Is France having trouble funding or prioritising its whole submarine program?

Comparing the latest Japanese, US, UK and French attack submarine builds on a time, efficiency basis:

-  the Japanese laid down first of class Soryu in 2005 and launched in 2007 = just over 2 and 2/3

   years

-  the US laid down first of class Virginia in 1999 and launched in 2003 = 4 years,

-  the UK laid down first of class Astute in 2001 and launched in 2007 = 7 and 1/2 years

   and even that UK period to launch was considered excessive and embarrassing with “cost

   overruns and delays”

Compare the above to France’s first Barracuda Suffren laid down December 2007 and not yet launched as at March 2019 = 11 and 1/4 years (so far). 

So compared to the most efficient Japanese and the efficient (4 years) US we enter the less efficient, zone of the UK (7 and 1/2 years) with the French being the least efficient at "11 and 1/4 years (so far)".

This French inefficiency does not bode well for France’s next attack submarine build, which just happens to be Australia's future submarine. France's next domestic submarine project is to build a new ballistic missile submarine (SSBN) class. 

Australia's future submarine will need to compete for limited French resources with that future French SSBN.

Pete

Interesting Saab-Damen Presentation on their Walrus Replacement Plan

(Courtesy Saab), the following is an infographic, text and Youtube presentation of some Saab-Damen industrial plans to replace the Netherland's 4 Walrus submarines. Pete has added some background and comments in square [...] brackets.

"How the Saab-Damen consortium will meet the Dutch requirement in replacing the Walrus class

02 March 2019:

See larger, clearer infographic here.

---

Saab and Dutch shipbuilder Damen Shipyards Group [website] have joined forces to develop an expeditionary submarine for the Netherland´s Walrus Replacement Programme (WRES). 

[Backgound on the Netherland's Walrus subs and replacement here. Pete comment - there will most likely be 4 Walrus replacement subs, (weighing 2,350 - 2,650 tons) in service in the early 2030s.]

Take a look at the infographic above to get an overall understanding of the various steps of the program, or watch the film below. The production process will see sections made in Sweden and then assembled in Vlissingen in the Netherlands.

3 minute Saab youtube published March 15, 2019.
---

“Replacing the Walrus-class submarines requires a unique approach. Swedish modular submarine design and production techniques coupled with the Dutch shipbuilding tradition bring together the capabilities needed to deliver an assured operational capability”, says Gunnar Wieslander, Senior Vice President, head of business area Saab Kockums.

The Expeditionary Submarine builds on the capabilities of the Swedish A26 [Saab is building 2 x A26s for the Swedish Navy - see some Saab details] combined with Dutch Submarine technology and puts into practice the experience of the Dutch designed Walrus submarine class and of the Swedish designed Collins-class submarine [Wiki] in-service with the Australian Navy.

“The result of the collaboration will be a customer-adapted submarine for expeditionary missions. This will ensure that the Royal Netherlands Navy continues to play an important role in European waters as well as globally”, says Hein van Ameijden, managing director of Damen Schelde Naval Shipbuilding.

In addition, the Walrus replacement will also benefit from the operational lessons reflected in the Swedish Navy’s Gotland [Mid Life Upgrade]. As a result the Expeditionary Submarine will be equipped with state of the art technology whilst benefiting from de-risking on four submarine classes. Saab and Damen are thereby creating one of the most modern [Saab ("Kockums") Stirling] Air Independent Propulsion (AIP) submarines in the world, which if selected by the Royal Netherlands navy, will be done in consultation with the customer using a ‘design to cost’ approach.

Having secured the cooperation of many Dutch companies, Saab and Damen are set to enhance the domestic submarine competence. This cooperation will also extend beyond the Dutch submarine project, as the two companies see a growing market for this type of advanced conventional submarines.

Both Saab and Damen are based in relatively small countries, which means that both companies must naturally be extremely good at collaboration to be able to operate successfully on an international level; it almost seems to be embedded in the DNA of both organisations. This in combination with a similar design philosophy based on cost-efficient quality and adaptive modularity means that Saab-Kockums is a perfect partner within the Dutch triple helix."

See the original on the Saab WEBSITE: at https://saab.com/stories/2019-03/how-the-saab-damen-consortium-will-meet-the-dutch-requirement-in-replacing-the-walrus-class/

Russian Submarine AIP project “Suffocating” due to "Underfunding"

"Soumarsov", an expert on submarines built by Russia, has pointed Pete to a Russian language FlotProm (FP) article written by Dmitry Zhavoronkov, dated March 7, 2019 indicating:

The development of Russian air independent propulsion (AIP) for submarine is “suffocating” due to underfunding. [Modern AIP allows a diesel-electric submarine to remain fully submerged for around 3 weeks rather than about 3 days].

Russian companies involved in AIP development, “have suspended work due to underfunding.” According to sources in Russia's Rubin Submarin Design Bureau and the Central Research Institute of Ship Electrical Engineering and Technology (TSNII SET).

This underfunding situation has occurred for 18 months.

The difficult to translate FP article appears to indicate underfunding may delay AIP for Russia’s Lada class submarine (Project 677) until 2027.

In January 2018, industry sources told FP  the Malakhit Central Design Bureau (part developer of AIP) was waiting for funds to continue work on its part of the AIP Project. “More than a year later” [in March 2019?] “the situation has not changed”.

Hard to translate words maybe implying: India’s Defence Research and Development Organisation
(DRDO) might help fund Russia’s AIP Project as Russia’s Lada (export design Amur-1650 )
submarine is a competitor in India’s Project-75(I) for 6 AIP conventional diesel electric submarines (SSKs) for India.

See more on the Indian-Russian Lada-Amur connection in this Russian language FlotProm (FP) article of February 22, 2019.

PETE COMMENT

With Russia's limited GDP, stretched defence budget and inefficient system of competing design bureaus, Russia has had trouble finding the money for all submarine sectors. This means Russia's highest priority is:
-  nuclear submarine development, 
-  then non-AIP Kilo (Project 877 and 636) diesel-electric submarine upgrades
-  and finally a relatively small budget is being shared among competing design bureaus for AIP
    (Lada class Project 677-Amur) development. However Russia has a chicken-and-egg problem in
    trying to export Amur submarines (with AIP being the main selling point) before Russia has
    actually developed AIP. 

Understandably there have been no serious Amur buyers (not even Morocco). Hence Russia has received no AIP development funding from Amur export sales.

India has bought many high priced Russian weapons systems, even part funding Russia's troubled stealth fighter program. But even India's DRDO might hesitate to fund Russian AIP. This is because AIP takes decades to develop and only Germany, Sweden and maybe China have developed modern AIP.

FURTHER READING

see this August 5, 2014 Submarine Matters article in part on the "Russian Kristall-7E AIP"

Pete (with much help from Soumarsov's tipoff)

Australia's future Attack class submarine needs 6,000kW electrical output

Australia’s future Naval Group Attack class submarine design which may be 4,500 tonnes (surfaced) may require diesels with a total electrical output of 6,000kW. This is noting that the 6,000kW is not only for propulsion, but also for the “hotel load” (eg. electrical power for combat system electronics and air-conditioning).

After SubMatt’s article of March 5, 2019 on German (MTU or MAN) diesels for the Attack class Anonymous commented with a range of figures to air issues:

To achieve a total 6,000kW electrical output, 6 diesel generators (probably German designed MTU or MAN) are needed [1].

The Attack class design (beam 8.8m) could arrange its 6 x diesel generators in 2 parallel rows of 3 diesel generators [2].

In comparison the length of Japan’s unselected entry (J-SEA1000) for Australia Attack class SEA1000 competition may have involved these measures. J-SEA1000 without AIP but with 4 x higher powered Kawasaki diesel generators would have been 90-92m long. Naval Group’s Attack class design is 97m long so it may possibly have AIP.

In the case of the Attack class with 6,000kW diesel generators, indiscretion ratio (IR), may all point to a performance index of a  submarine is very roughly estimated to be 3% [3], and in the case of non-AIP it may be 4-5%. This is a pretty good performance index.

An MTU 12V4000U83 for submarine (Courtesy Penske Power Systems (Australia and New Zealand website)).

---

[1] The MTU V12 4000 U83 (diagram above) has a mechanical output of 1,300kW and electrical output of 1040kW. 

The MAN 12 PA4V200 SMDS (diagram below) has a mechanical output of 1330kW and electrical output of 1064kW.

The MAN 12 PA4V200 SMDS (preceding link is about 5MB PDF) submarine diesel. May be used on Australia's future Attack class and the Netherland's Walrus replacement. 

---

[2] Estimated cross section of Attack-class from various pictures: diameter of pressure hull (d) = 8.8m, thickness of hull steel (a) = 0.05m, thickness of sound absorbing rubber (b)= 0.10 m, width of hull stiffener ring (c) = 0.25m, width of diesel (f) = 1.7m, average distance between diesel-diesel or diesel – hull stiffer (Y). Then, Y=(d-2a-2b-2c-3f)/4= (8.8-2x0.05-2x0.1-2x0.25-3x1.7)/4 =0.72m.

As Y=0.4m for Walrus-class (3 x diesel generators  arranged in parallel) and Y=0.5m for SAAB-Damen submarine design (beam 8m, maybe 2,300 tonne surfaced?) (3 x (MTU or MAN(?)) diesel generators arranged in parallel)

The beam of the Australian Collins-class (7.8m) is slightly less than that of SAAB-Damen submarine (8m). I believe diameters of the two submarines are same, and difference in beam is due to position and shape of flank array sonars of the two submarines.

Last year, the Australian Submarine Corporation (ASC) entered into an agreement with SAAB for the provision of a range of services. The experience of ASC with the Collins-class not only supports the A26 Project but also will be useful for design and building of the SAAB-Damen submarine. The future SAAB-Damen submarine design will be based on the existing and reliable submarine (Collins) platform to some extent.

[3] Calculation in the case of 100MW AIP and 6MW GEs

(1) AIP: 100MW

(2) Energy consumption per day ca.6MW =[hotel load (180kW) + propullsion 60kW] x 24 hours

(3) Operation 10 weeks = surveillance 7weeks (ca.50days) + transition 3weeks (ca.20days)

(4) Required battery energy per day for surveillance = Energy consumption per day – energy suppled from AIP = 6MW-100MW/50days = 4MW

(5) Charge period = (4)/electrical output of GEs x 1hour =4MW/6MW x 1hour = 0.67 hours

(6) IR = charge period (hours) / 24 (hours) x100 (%) = 2.8%=0.67/24 x 100 =2.8%

Anonymous
(with some rearranging by Pete)

AIP & LIBs difference on Japanese Submarines - Table

Following an article of February 28, 2019 Anonymous provided the comments below:

Currently, Japan [J] has three kinds of submarine, Oyashios (non-AIP, with Lead-acid Batteries (LABs)), Soryu MkI (Stirling AIP, with LABs) and is building Soryu MkII (non-AIP, with Lithium-ion Batteries (LIBs)) (see Table below). The operational period of J-submarines are as long as 70 days, mainly limited by amount of food [1].

A Soryu MkI's AIP use will end once the LOx is used up. But in a Soryu MkII (with LIBs) there is no such limitation and the underwater mission is carried out after recharge of LIBs in quiet sea area [2]. The operation of an AIP Soryu MkI suffers due to huge 100 (?) ton LOx tank it has to carry for AIP. In contrast the lack of a LOx tank on a LIBs Soryu MkII provides more space for crew accommodation making MkII's more suitable for the mixed male/female crewing that Japan is introducing.

[Comments on SAAB-Damen and ASC-Collins will be published separately on March 15, 2019.] 

[1] The range of J-submarines (maybe 6,000nm) is considerably shorter than the Australian Collins-class (around 10,000nm with longer transit legs within same operational period of 70 days). Presumably, J-subamarines sit, monitoring, on the seafloor for long periods. Hence less mobile J-subs do not need extra fuel.

[2] Information from retired submarine Admiral, Masao Kobayashi.

TABLE.  Japanese Soryu and Oyashio Programs as at November 7, 2019 

SS No. Diesel Type Motor	Build No Name	Pennant No.	MoF approved amount ¥ Billions FY	LABs, LIBs, AIP	Laid Down	Laun -ched	Commi ssioned	Built By
5SS Oyashio 2 Toshiba motors	8105 Oyashio	SS-590/ TS3608	¥52.2B FY1993	LABs only	Jan 1994	Oct 1996	Mar 1998	KHI
6SS-15SS Oyashios  10 subs 2 Toshiba motors SMC-7?	8106 -8115 various	SS-591-600	¥52.2B per sub FY1994-FY2003	LABs only	15SS Feb 2004	15SS Nov 2006	15SS Mar 2008	MHI & KHI
16SS Soryu Mk I 12V25/25SB SMC-8	8116 Sōryū	SS-501	¥60B FY2004	LABs + AIP	Mar 2005	Dec 2007	Mar 2009	MHI
17SS	8117 Unryū	SS-502	¥58.7B FY2005	LABs + AIP	Mar 2006	Oct 2008	Mar 2010	KHI
18SS	8118 Hakuryū	SS-503	¥56.2 FY2006	LABs + AIP	Feb 2007	Oct 2009	Mar 2011	MHI
19SS	8119 Kenryū	SS-504	¥53B FY2007	LABs + AIP	Mar 2008	Nov 2010	Mar 2012	KHI
20SS	8120 Zuiryū	SS-505	¥51B FY2008	LABs + AIP	Mar 2009	Oct 2011	Mar 2013	MHI
No 21SS			No 21SS built
22SS	8121 Kokuryū	SS-506	¥52.8B FY2010	LABs + AIP	Jan 2011	Oct 2013	Mar 2015	KHI
23SS	8122 Jinryu	SS-507	¥54.6B FY2011	LABs + AIP	Feb 2012	Oct 2014	7 Mar 2016	MHI
24SS	8123 Sekiryū	SS-508	¥54.7B FY2012	LABs + AIP	15 Mar 2013	2 Nov 2015	13 Mar 2017	KHI
25SS	8124 Seiryū	SS-509	¥53.1B FY2013	LABs + AIP	22 Oct 2013	12 Oct   2016	12 Mar 2018	MHI
26SS end of SMC-8s	8125 Shoryū	SS-510	¥51.7B FY2014	LABs + AIP	2014	6 Nov 2017	18 Mar 2019	KHI
27SS First Soryu Mk II 12V25/25SB  diesel first SMC-8B motor	8126 Oryū	SS-511	¥64.4B FY2015	LIBs only (NCA type)	2015	4 Oct 2018	Mar 2020?	MHI
28SS  Second Soryu Mk II 12V25/25SB SMC-8B	8127 Toryu	SS-512	¥63.6B FY2016 around $496 million	LIBs only (NCA type)	Jan 2017	6 Nov 2019	Mar 2021?	KHI
29SS First Soryu Mk III 12V25/31S SMC-9?	8128	?	¥76B FY2017	LIBs only?	?	?	2022?	MHI?
30SS Second Soryu Mk III 12V25/31S	8029	SS-514	¥71.5B or ¥69.7B? FY2018	LIBs only?	Jan 2019?	2021?	Mar 2023?	KHI

Table from information exclusively provided to Submarine Matters. LABs = lead-acid batteries, AIP = air independent propulsion, LIBs = Lithium-ion Batteries. ¥***B = Billion Yen. MHI = Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, KHI = Kawasaki Shipbuilding Corporation of Kawasaki Heavy Industries. Numbers before "SS" refer to "Heisei" the year of the reign of Japan's previous Emperor Akihito who abdicated on 30 April 2019. Hence "30SS" refers to the last year (the 30th year) of Akihito's reign. The next year will likely be "1SS" and will likely be called a new submarine class name (ie. not "Soryu").  

---

Thankyou Anonymous (further translation by Pete).