Another interesting read on AIP from Canada's perspective, with a focus on enabling technologies for under-ice operations: https://www.cfc.forces.gc.ca/259/290/405/192/meredith.pdf
Naval Ship & Submarine Propulsion Systems
- Thread starter rockitten
- Start date
DAVID DUNLOP
Active Member
Yes, I have read that one as well. Cdr Ertel also wrote a Service Paper in 2017-2018 on future Canadian Submarines called:
Red October for Canada's Submarines – the Future Is Under ...
Further to David's post 348.
Ballard Power of Burnaby, BC, is often cited as a potential supplier of fuel cells for future (and even existing) Canadian submarines. According to their website (https://www.ballard.com/docs/default-source/spec-sheets/fcvelocity-hd.pdf?sfvrsn=2debc380_4), they have developed a relatively small module for transit systems (buses, in other words) that can output 100KW of power, at a size and weight of 1200x869x487 mm and 61Kg. Assuming these can be combined and scaled, and used safely in the confined space of a submarine, you could conceivably get up to the holy grail of 1000KW (or 1333 HP), which would be enough to propel a 3000 ton sub up to 12 knots (or, guessing, a 4000 ton sub up to ~ 8 or 9 knots), if the estimates shown in Figure 2 of this study are correct: https://jmst.ntou.edu.tw/marine/26-5/657-666.pdf.
You would still need batteries (or a combination of batteries and super-capacitors), however, to enable sprints beyond that maximum AIP “cruise" speed, and probably a diesel engine, so space is still the biggest constraint when it comes to combining fuel cells, (and their fuel), with batteries. This strongly suggests the Australian approach of using a very large hull provides the most flexibility, especially if a final decision on a propulsion system has not been made. (It also suggests that a future Canadian sub, for years reputed to be in the 3-4000 ton range, may NOT be large enough to provide the enabling non-nuclear technologies to allow for extended patrolling beneath the ice cap).
It certainly looks like the fuel cell is still seeing steady development, and the issues of power density and longevity seen in the earlier versions look to be mostly conquered. Much promise to be had here, but the key enabling technology of an AIP system still seems very much to be the battery, and as of today, the LIB in particular. Given there is no reason to assume that the Japanese or Koreans value the lives of their submariners any less than other nations do, I think we can assume that they have overcome the explosive potential of LIBs, either through mitigation strategies such as active (or passive) cooling and cell isolation, or through the use of new technology such as the solid-state LIB chemistry. Either way, I think it is a good bet that LIBs are now very much a “good enough” solution, and will likely be part of a future Canadian AIP submarine, either as the main source of power, with fuel cells providing top-up to the LIBs, or as a secondary source of add-on power for higher speeds. As time marches on, both fuel cell and LIB technology will only get better, in terms of power density, safety, and longevity, so a Canadian submarine program maturing in the 2030s has a very real chance of delivering a submarine with substantially improved underwater performance, and perhaps even the ability to conduct sovereignty patrols beneath the ice cap. I think the holy grail for Canada would be a technology that can deliver sustained submerged speeds around 10 knots, for 3-4 weeks. Fuel cell + LIB + diesel may be that technology. So, as time marches on, the argument for nuclear gets harder to justify.
Ballard Power of Burnaby, BC, is often cited as a potential supplier of fuel cells for future (and even existing) Canadian submarines. According to their website (https://www.ballard.com/docs/default-source/spec-sheets/fcvelocity-hd.pdf?sfvrsn=2debc380_4), they have developed a relatively small module for transit systems (buses, in other words) that can output 100KW of power, at a size and weight of 1200x869x487 mm and 61Kg. Assuming these can be combined and scaled, and used safely in the confined space of a submarine, you could conceivably get up to the holy grail of 1000KW (or 1333 HP), which would be enough to propel a 3000 ton sub up to 12 knots (or, guessing, a 4000 ton sub up to ~ 8 or 9 knots), if the estimates shown in Figure 2 of this study are correct: https://jmst.ntou.edu.tw/marine/26-5/657-666.pdf.
You would still need batteries (or a combination of batteries and super-capacitors), however, to enable sprints beyond that maximum AIP “cruise" speed, and probably a diesel engine, so space is still the biggest constraint when it comes to combining fuel cells, (and their fuel), with batteries. This strongly suggests the Australian approach of using a very large hull provides the most flexibility, especially if a final decision on a propulsion system has not been made. (It also suggests that a future Canadian sub, for years reputed to be in the 3-4000 ton range, may NOT be large enough to provide the enabling non-nuclear technologies to allow for extended patrolling beneath the ice cap).
It certainly looks like the fuel cell is still seeing steady development, and the issues of power density and longevity seen in the earlier versions look to be mostly conquered. Much promise to be had here, but the key enabling technology of an AIP system still seems very much to be the battery, and as of today, the LIB in particular. Given there is no reason to assume that the Japanese or Koreans value the lives of their submariners any less than other nations do, I think we can assume that they have overcome the explosive potential of LIBs, either through mitigation strategies such as active (or passive) cooling and cell isolation, or through the use of new technology such as the solid-state LIB chemistry. Either way, I think it is a good bet that LIBs are now very much a “good enough” solution, and will likely be part of a future Canadian AIP submarine, either as the main source of power, with fuel cells providing top-up to the LIBs, or as a secondary source of add-on power for higher speeds. As time marches on, both fuel cell and LIB technology will only get better, in terms of power density, safety, and longevity, so a Canadian submarine program maturing in the 2030s has a very real chance of delivering a submarine with substantially improved underwater performance, and perhaps even the ability to conduct sovereignty patrols beneath the ice cap. I think the holy grail for Canada would be a technology that can deliver sustained submerged speeds around 10 knots, for 3-4 weeks. Fuel cell + LIB + diesel may be that technology. So, as time marches on, the argument for nuclear gets harder to justify.
Last edited:
This paper (linked below) discusses the importance of submarine energy management, and uses as its baseline for discussion a hypothetical hydrogen fuel cell/LIB AIP propelled 4000 ton class sub. Very relevant to current submarine development programs, and very informative.
DAVID DUNLOP
Active Member
Hi All! Nuclear propulsion is ideal for long distances and extended under-ice missions that are unique to Canada. But is there a better, more affordable and collaborative way? Off-the-shelf AIP submarine designs that are direct replacements to the Victoria class, such as the French Barracuda Block 1A being designed for Australia by DCNS or the Japanese Soyru class AIP design with Lithium Ion Battery (LIB) technologies are interesting alternatives that may extend the endurance of diesel submarines for short periods. But neither of these options will completely satisfactory Canadian submarine needs. The dominant paradigm for a modern nuclear-powered submarine is a steam generating reactor driving turbines that directly drive the propulsor or propeller. The French Shortfin Barracuda Block 1A being built for Australia offers a limited AIP design that enables electric propulsion for low speed cruising and turbo-mechanical drives at higher speeds, but is not competitive against nuclear-steam turbo-mechanical for blue water or arctic operations. Outrageous cost estimates for nuclear-powered submarines tend to cloud Canadian thinking for recapitalizing its submarine fleet. DND’s proposal for extending the lives of its four Victoria class conventional submarines for another 6-18 years appears to be a comparative bargain. But is there a better way?
In my opinion (IMO)The first challenge to costs is volume. Development, or non-recurring engineering and infrastructure costs make up a sizable percentage of the cost of a Submarine fleet. If an existing, proven, hull can be slightly modified, it would be a major cost saver. That will require DND to end the habit of imposing onerous modifications that inevitably cause costs to explode like the CSC or Maritime Helicopter program. Another route to substantial cost savings is to share the development costs of major items like the propulsion and power plant with partners. Technologies like air independent propulsion (AIP) and/or LIBs that extend the endurance of diesel submarines but introduce major compromises in performance. But neither of these options are satisfactory for Canadian naval requirements. With or without AIP, diesels are far too “short legged” – they are dependent on logistically complex supplies such as liquid oxygen that deplete quickly, may be unsafe and the engines are mechanically complex. Radar can pick out periscopes or snorkels. Then there is the deafening noise of diesels, even when equipped with the latest quieting technologies. These are distinct disadvantages given the long distances and extended under-ice missions that are unique to Canada.
IMO nuclear propulsion in some form is still ideal for Canadian requirements. Due to their endurance, nuclear submarines tend to be blue water, ocean-going vessels. Los-Angeles and Virginia class fast attack submarines displace 6-8,000 tons. French Barracudas are about 5,000 tons, UK’s Astutes are 7,000 tons, while the Shortfin Barracuda (conventional version) is about 4,000 tons. Compared to the Victoria class at about 2,500 tons, they are large vessels. A nuclear submarine (6-8,000 ton range) is neither necessary nor ideal for Canadian waters. A smaller Hybrid attack submarine that is large enough to support a good sized crew and carry unmanned systems would be ideal for Canada, but presently, none is available. Canadian submarines are most likely to operate in Canadian waters especially in the Arctic, Pacific and Atlantic coasts up to the relatively shallow continental shelf. A Hybrid submarine offers a novel solution. A fleet of Hybrid nuclear submarines (4-5,000+ tonne range) would be ideal for Canada. But building such a submarine with this kind of displacement with a 60 day endurance, transit speeds of 12-20+ knots, with burst speeds above 30 kts, and state of the art signature management technologies and support for unmanned platforms would be cost prohibitive for all but the largest Navies. Canada, does however, have excellent technologies that can contribute to a joint venture from say the USA, France or Japan for a new Hybrid nuclear/AIP/LIB submarine design such as the Canadian Safe LOW POwer (K)Critical Experiment, or “Slowpoke” reactor, that could be miniaturized for a smaller Hybrid/AIP/LIB powered submarine. A nuclear, battery-electric hybrid is also a potentially attractive alternative to the dominant nuclear turbo mechanical drive. One or more modular reactors could be used to generate enough power to drive generators or constantly top-up LIBs. The ability to completely shut down a reactor module, and tightly match energy demand with supply, reduces the amount of excess (waste) heat dumped. Machinery noise from the nuclear turbo-mechanical generator can be more readily controlled if the system is operated at, and optimized for a relatively narrow power band, with no requirements for rapid throttling as with a turbo-mechanical drive. Electricity generated can be stored in state-of-the-art LIBs. Reactor shielding can potentially make use of LIB cells doing double duty. Electric power from batteries driving propulsors offer the prospect of extreme low radiated noise and yet maintain a high degree of “throttlability” with only limited compromises in sustained high speed cruising that would be the function of a nuclear plant’s power ramp and maximum output. Making the propulsor jets steerable and eliminating control fins is an additional benefit in minimizing the active signature. One of the biggest advantages of a Slowpoke reactor in modern Hybrid AIP submarine designs would be that “snorting” of the submarine would be a thing of the past as energy would be continually stored in much improved LIBs for better under ice endurance. This would also open up potential lucrative markets for this Canadian nuclear technology. An upgraded Hybrid/AIP/LIB design using a Sl;owpoke High or Low Enriched Uranium (HEU-LEU) reactor, having the highest ratio of neutron production to fission power, with nominal power levels of 300-400KW range may be possible with further Canadian research. The main advantages of the Slowpoke reactor is the reliability and ease of use of this design. The Slowpoke could be made small enough and inexpensive enough to make it accessible for such a submarine. The Slowpoke reactor is the only type of nuclear reactor licensed in Canada for unattended operation in automatic mode.
Who might partner with Canada? France, Japan and Australia are all great potential partners. Each nation’s existing or planned submarine designs are potentially good candidates. A collaboration with Japan, which has begun work on its next generation of electric Soryu class AIP submarines, can contribute certain technologies, like LIBs in which they excel. If Canada contributed a major portion of the development costs of modular Slowpoke power plants for Hybrid submarines, it can be used to negotiate a better price on the subs, perhaps less than $1B CAD per sub (substantially lower than any standard nuclear sub being built today world-wide). It will also be the only small naval reactor power plant available that can potentially be used on surface vessels such as the Canadian Surface Combatant (CSC) or civilian vessels as well, reducing Green House Gas (GHG) emissions from shipping, potentially opening up lucrative markets for Canadian nuclear technology. The question is, can such a unique Hybrid sub design be built in quantity (more than 20) for less than 1B CAD a copy? The technology for the Slowpoke reactor is there, and has been constantly up-graded over the past several decades. A successful Hybrid submarine design would be a game-changer for Canada. A leap of faith in this program by Canadians and the government will forever banish the ghosts of the DeHavilland Arrow fiasco. It will be challenging, but IMO, Canadian ingenuity is up to it.
In my opinion (IMO)The first challenge to costs is volume. Development, or non-recurring engineering and infrastructure costs make up a sizable percentage of the cost of a Submarine fleet. If an existing, proven, hull can be slightly modified, it would be a major cost saver. That will require DND to end the habit of imposing onerous modifications that inevitably cause costs to explode like the CSC or Maritime Helicopter program. Another route to substantial cost savings is to share the development costs of major items like the propulsion and power plant with partners. Technologies like air independent propulsion (AIP) and/or LIBs that extend the endurance of diesel submarines but introduce major compromises in performance. But neither of these options are satisfactory for Canadian naval requirements. With or without AIP, diesels are far too “short legged” – they are dependent on logistically complex supplies such as liquid oxygen that deplete quickly, may be unsafe and the engines are mechanically complex. Radar can pick out periscopes or snorkels. Then there is the deafening noise of diesels, even when equipped with the latest quieting technologies. These are distinct disadvantages given the long distances and extended under-ice missions that are unique to Canada.
IMO nuclear propulsion in some form is still ideal for Canadian requirements. Due to their endurance, nuclear submarines tend to be blue water, ocean-going vessels. Los-Angeles and Virginia class fast attack submarines displace 6-8,000 tons. French Barracudas are about 5,000 tons, UK’s Astutes are 7,000 tons, while the Shortfin Barracuda (conventional version) is about 4,000 tons. Compared to the Victoria class at about 2,500 tons, they are large vessels. A nuclear submarine (6-8,000 ton range) is neither necessary nor ideal for Canadian waters. A smaller Hybrid attack submarine that is large enough to support a good sized crew and carry unmanned systems would be ideal for Canada, but presently, none is available. Canadian submarines are most likely to operate in Canadian waters especially in the Arctic, Pacific and Atlantic coasts up to the relatively shallow continental shelf. A Hybrid submarine offers a novel solution. A fleet of Hybrid nuclear submarines (4-5,000+ tonne range) would be ideal for Canada. But building such a submarine with this kind of displacement with a 60 day endurance, transit speeds of 12-20+ knots, with burst speeds above 30 kts, and state of the art signature management technologies and support for unmanned platforms would be cost prohibitive for all but the largest Navies. Canada, does however, have excellent technologies that can contribute to a joint venture from say the USA, France or Japan for a new Hybrid nuclear/AIP/LIB submarine design such as the Canadian Safe LOW POwer (K)Critical Experiment, or “Slowpoke” reactor, that could be miniaturized for a smaller Hybrid/AIP/LIB powered submarine. A nuclear, battery-electric hybrid is also a potentially attractive alternative to the dominant nuclear turbo mechanical drive. One or more modular reactors could be used to generate enough power to drive generators or constantly top-up LIBs. The ability to completely shut down a reactor module, and tightly match energy demand with supply, reduces the amount of excess (waste) heat dumped. Machinery noise from the nuclear turbo-mechanical generator can be more readily controlled if the system is operated at, and optimized for a relatively narrow power band, with no requirements for rapid throttling as with a turbo-mechanical drive. Electricity generated can be stored in state-of-the-art LIBs. Reactor shielding can potentially make use of LIB cells doing double duty. Electric power from batteries driving propulsors offer the prospect of extreme low radiated noise and yet maintain a high degree of “throttlability” with only limited compromises in sustained high speed cruising that would be the function of a nuclear plant’s power ramp and maximum output. Making the propulsor jets steerable and eliminating control fins is an additional benefit in minimizing the active signature. One of the biggest advantages of a Slowpoke reactor in modern Hybrid AIP submarine designs would be that “snorting” of the submarine would be a thing of the past as energy would be continually stored in much improved LIBs for better under ice endurance. This would also open up potential lucrative markets for this Canadian nuclear technology. An upgraded Hybrid/AIP/LIB design using a Sl;owpoke High or Low Enriched Uranium (HEU-LEU) reactor, having the highest ratio of neutron production to fission power, with nominal power levels of 300-400KW range may be possible with further Canadian research. The main advantages of the Slowpoke reactor is the reliability and ease of use of this design. The Slowpoke could be made small enough and inexpensive enough to make it accessible for such a submarine. The Slowpoke reactor is the only type of nuclear reactor licensed in Canada for unattended operation in automatic mode.
Who might partner with Canada? France, Japan and Australia are all great potential partners. Each nation’s existing or planned submarine designs are potentially good candidates. A collaboration with Japan, which has begun work on its next generation of electric Soryu class AIP submarines, can contribute certain technologies, like LIBs in which they excel. If Canada contributed a major portion of the development costs of modular Slowpoke power plants for Hybrid submarines, it can be used to negotiate a better price on the subs, perhaps less than $1B CAD per sub (substantially lower than any standard nuclear sub being built today world-wide). It will also be the only small naval reactor power plant available that can potentially be used on surface vessels such as the Canadian Surface Combatant (CSC) or civilian vessels as well, reducing Green House Gas (GHG) emissions from shipping, potentially opening up lucrative markets for Canadian nuclear technology. The question is, can such a unique Hybrid sub design be built in quantity (more than 20) for less than 1B CAD a copy? The technology for the Slowpoke reactor is there, and has been constantly up-graded over the past several decades. A successful Hybrid submarine design would be a game-changer for Canada. A leap of faith in this program by Canadians and the government will forever banish the ghosts of the DeHavilland Arrow fiasco. It will be challenging, but IMO, Canadian ingenuity is up to it.
Last edited by a moderator:
^^ David, 50% to 80% of your post contains either factual errors or is written in such a way that demonstrates a lack of complete understanding of submarine operations or the non trivial engineering work required in your proposal. This makes it hard to explain why you are wrong in drawing your conclusions.
Like you, some in this thread are so eager to share without the corresponding willingness to read (with understanding prior posts) or study in-depth the advantages and limitations of each sub-system, including the reason why some sub operators have elected not to install AIP systems.
For my attempt to post about submarines, see the effort made in the RSN capabilities thread. And by 2023 Singapore will operate 2 types of AIP submarines; with 2 Swedish built Archer class (with a 75 kW AIP plug) and 2 German built Invincible class (each with 2 HDW/Siemens PEM fuel cells of 120 kW) submarines. Together with German, Israeli and indigenously-developed systems integrated into the combat suite, the 2,200 ton Type 218SG will have enhanced situational awareness and accelerated decision-making support systems, allowing submariners to rapidly orientate themselves, decide on the best course of action, and act. Once the first 2 Invincible class enters service, Singapore can retire the last 2 Challenger class boats, which had insufficient automation.
The last 2 Soyru class boats, namely, JS Ōryū and JS Tōryū (with LIB) do not have an AIP system. The Japanese have very reliable boats that the USN benchmark against. The Japanese have capability that you in Canada can only dream of — I suspect that they have no desire to transfer such capability to Canada. But so much of their build program is classified that it is hard for a layman reading press reports to understand their true capability. I am sure they will be willing to sell 4 submarines to Canada but why would Japan need or want to form a JV with Canada (to build submarines, when you only operate 4 old subs)?
I will let others who are more qualified explain, if they can be bothered.
If you continue down this path, you will be getting multiple source changes from other members soon. Read, think and then post (after some reflection), please. I am writing to let you know, as I have not given up on you.
Like you, some in this thread are so eager to share without the corresponding willingness to read (with understanding prior posts) or study in-depth the advantages and limitations of each sub-system, including the reason why some sub operators have elected not to install AIP systems.
For my attempt to post about submarines, see the effort made in the RSN capabilities thread. And by 2023 Singapore will operate 2 types of AIP submarines; with 2 Swedish built Archer class (with a 75 kW AIP plug) and 2 German built Invincible class (each with 2 HDW/Siemens PEM fuel cells of 120 kW) submarines. Together with German, Israeli and indigenously-developed systems integrated into the combat suite, the 2,200 ton Type 218SG will have enhanced situational awareness and accelerated decision-making support systems, allowing submariners to rapidly orientate themselves, decide on the best course of action, and act. Once the first 2 Invincible class enters service, Singapore can retire the last 2 Challenger class boats, which had insufficient automation.
The last 2 Soyru class boats, namely, JS Ōryū and JS Tōryū (with LIB) do not have an AIP system. The Japanese have very reliable boats that the USN benchmark against. The Japanese have capability that you in Canada can only dream of — I suspect that they have no desire to transfer such capability to Canada. But so much of their build program is classified that it is hard for a layman reading press reports to understand their true capability. I am sure they will be willing to sell 4 submarines to Canada but why would Japan need or want to form a JV with Canada (to build submarines, when you only operate 4 old subs)?
I will let others who are more qualified explain, if they can be bothered.
If you continue down this path, you will be getting multiple source changes from other members soon. Read, think and then post (after some reflection), please. I am writing to let you know, as I have not given up on you.
Last edited:
DAVID DUNLOP
Active Member
Hello OPSSG.
You are absolutely correct. I am not a SME on nuclear subs let alone a new Hybrid design, however IMO this design may be feasible for Canada down the road. Most people don't understand the vastness of this country when trying to apply what requirements Canada needs in a modern submarine design (probably 12 of them as a minimum). We have three vast oceans here that need patrolling and protecting let alone our NATO and allied commitments world wide. With over 9,985,000 square kms, you could put over 13.5 thousand Singapore countries inside Canada and still not fill it up. If not a Hybrid design, then perhaps we could still collaborate with either Japan or France on a 'better" AIP/LIB design that might result in a Canadian new sub design that would give us prolonged under ice operations, with cruise and spurt speeds required in very harsh environments. The Soyus class or Barracuda 1A would be a good starting point to collaborate on with Canadian expertise. The last time Canada built submarines, was for the British during WW I. One thing is very clear though. New subs designs would have to be built here in Canada with foreign expertise. The Canadian public would not tolerate any vessel being built outside the country. Governments would fall because of it.
Last edited by a moderator:
Not sure I agree with that statement David. For one, the cost of building up a domestic capability is just as likely to bring down a government as an offshore build would be. For another, there are strategic and political points to be gained by getting our subs from another country that can't be discounted. And lastly, buying from an established line will ensure availability of parts and support at a better cost than an orphan bespoke Canadian sub program. Another equally important question is who would build these subs? NSS is built around the principal of "continuous build", such that when the last CSC is getting delivered, the follow-on design should be in the starting blocks at Irving already. Same story with the "non-combat" ships. Even if we add Davie as a third NSS yard, where is the capacity going to come from to build subs? It's a grand idea and all, but the cost of building such a specialized ship from scratch is, in my opinion, a waste of precious defence funding. Canada is a big country and definitely has some unique operational requirements, but there are conventional designs out there now from the German, Swedish, Japanese, and French builders that are big enough to satisfy most if not all of our requirements without having to reinvent the wheel. It would be good to collaborate with a designer to get what we think we need, including on the propulsion system, but designing from scratch makes so sense to me.
Last edited:
DAVID DUNLOP
Active Member
You make some great points Calculus, but have you taken a look at the Australian experience with the French building their 4000 Tonne Barracuda Blk 1A class AIP in Australia. Something like that could be built here in Canada as well. All three of our major shipyards could be involved in the bidding process. Don't know how the Japanese would react though. They could also be involved with their LIB expertise. I hear nothing from the government on a "continuous build" for the NSS of any vessel and who is to say that Irving will win a future contract to build follow-on ships or submarines. The Japanese and French are about the only countries capable of building the kind of submarine Canada will need, especially in the Arctic no matter what propulsion systems may be selected. The others are just not capable or have large enough sub designs required. Cheers!
This is a matter of debate more suited to the RCN thread, so I will only respond this one time here in this thread, but the NSS was absolutely designed to support a continuous build strategy, specifically to eliminate the "boom and bust" cycle.
About the National Shipbuilding Strategy - Canada.ca
Helping restore our shipyards, rebuild our marine industry and create sustainable jobs
@OPSSG, thanks for posting those links above in the RSN capabilities thread. Very interesting reading. The complexities of a submarine are a source of endless fascination.
I will have to respectfully disagree with you on your statement about Japan having no desire to transfer their submarine tech to Canada. It was widely reported when PM Abe visited Canada last year that on the table for discussion were closer defence industrial ties, and that both the aircraft and ship industries were part of those discussions. The first tangible output from this new openness was the recent approval by the GoC of the purchase, by Mitsubishi, of Bombardier's Regional Aircraft operations, a deal which was finalized June 1st of this year. (Bombardier and MHI close CRJ Series sale, MHI RJ Aviation begins operations - Wings Magazine). Discussions on submarine tech were understood to have taken place between the defence attaches of both countries, though the depth of those discussions was not revealed.
DAVID DUNLOP
Active Member
Hi Calculus. Only brought it up in response to your last post #354 on this Thread as it related to submarine propulsion systems and submarines in general. Yes, I have a copy of that PSPC statement but do not necessarily agree with all it's content. Construction of large vessels (more than 1,000 tonnes of displacement) could apply to submarines as well. Don't forget this statement was released over 10 yrs ago and out-dated. There are now 3 companies including Davies under the NSS umbrella.This is a matter of debate more suited to the RCN thread, so I will only respond this one time here in this thread, but the NSS was absolutely designed to support a continuous build strategy, specifically to eliminate the "boom and bust" cycle.
About the National Shipbuilding Strategy - Canada.ca
Helping restore our shipyards, rebuild our marine industry and create sustainable jobswww.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca
@DAVID DUNLOP The Moderators have had to counsel you previously about your posting behaviour including the posting of sources for claims that you make in your posts. Please adhere to the rules and ensure that your sources are reputable and valid. Just remember that you're talking to an international audience, not only domestic one and that applies to the rest of the Canadian posters as well as the Australian posters.
Therefore David the Moderators want to see an improvement in your posting quality, specifically around sources and quality of information posted.
Therefore David the Moderators want to see an improvement in your posting quality, specifically around sources and quality of information posted.
@DAVID DUNLOP
Our tolerance is being challenged by your refusal to read the threads you post in. Less nonsensical posts from you, please. Spend at least 24 hours reading on the subject before replying (i.e. no same day rely by you on any post in this thread for the next 7 days).
Your advocacy for nuclear propulsion in Canadian submarines lack — why and how. Why is the slow poke reactor better? And more importantly, how will going nuclear be better at Canada’s set tasking and CONOPS (when compared to the Victoria class submarines)?
If you don’t have a relevant link to support your view, don’t be surprised if it is deleted without ceremony.
Our tolerance is being challenged by your refusal to read the threads you post in. Less nonsensical posts from you, please. Spend at least 24 hours reading on the subject before replying (i.e. no same day rely by you on any post in this thread for the next 7 days).
Your advocacy for nuclear propulsion in Canadian submarines lack — why and how. Why is the slow poke reactor better? And more importantly, how will going nuclear be better at Canada’s set tasking and CONOPS (when compared to the Victoria class submarines)?
If you don’t have a relevant link to support your view, don’t be surprised if it is deleted without ceremony.
Last edited:
Post 1 of 3: An overview of Italian and Japanese build efforts
1. Italy’s Near Future Submarine (NFS) design will be slightly longer to accommodate a new intelligence gathering mast for ESM and EW.
Currently only Japan fields submarines with this battery technology, although South Korea is close behind.
3. I am a big fan of first ten 84 metre long Soryu class boats that used a Swedish ‘Stirling’ AIP system along with traditional heavy duty acid batteries. The ‘Stirling’ AIP system was first tested as a retrofit of the Japanese submarine Asashio. This means that the 4,200 ton (when submerged) Soryu class submarines can patrol longer without surfacing, giving them a superior indiscretion ratio, compared to the older the 4,000 ton (when submerged) Oyashio submarines in their fleet.
4. But the last 2 Japanese submarines of this class (boats 11 & 12) come with lithium-ion batteries. Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Japan’s top submarine builder has already unveiled the country’s next-generation submarine design, designated 29SS. The sub due in the late-2020s.
5. 29SS retains the general hull form with some important changes. The sail is substantially reduced and blended into the hull, which should reduce hydrodynamic drag. This will make the submarine quieter, perhaps a little faster, but also more energy efficient.
6. While high speeds may be employed for short bursts by Japanese 29SS submarines, this results in immense and rapid depletion of battery power. To get around this shortcoming, great care is taken in terms of positioning Japanese submarines. To increase their effectiveness, more often than not, the 29SS submarines have to be deployed within the operating radii of Japanese P-1 maritime reconnaissance aircraft that can cue them into an attacking position. If this is not feasible, by ASW helicopters, from Japanese helicopter carriers, or the alternative course of action is to deploy them in choke points where there is a high probability of encountering targets.
7. The Koreans of course see the growth of the Japanese submarines as a bigger threat than the rapid growth of Chinese submarine capability (and not in numbers) — creating a strange naval underwater arms race dynamics between the 3 countries that I can’t really understand. On 14 September 2018, the ROKN launched the first KSS-3 vessel —ROKS Dosahn Ahn Chango. The next batch of three submarines, also fitted with a six-tube vertical launch system, is slated to be deployed by 2025, while the last three boats, reportedly boasting a displacement of over 3,500 tons and equipped with 10 vertical launch tubes each, will all be delivered to the ROKN by 2029. Each batch will reportedly see a gradual increase in the number of indigenous components used for the various sub-systems of the boats — these later batches of KSS-3 submarines carry 6 to 10 vertical-launch tubes — which is not a capability targeted at the North Korean submarines or Chinese nukes and SSKs. Four KSS-IIIs have already been launched or are under construction, and a total of nine boats in this class is planned.
8. In contrast to the Korean lack of focus, the JMSDF’s plans are focused on their major area of responsibility — namely, the East China Sea and the Philippine Sea, or what Japanese naval strategists call the Tokyo-Guam-Taiwan Triangle.
1. Italy’s Near Future Submarine (NFS) design will be slightly longer to accommodate a new intelligence gathering mast for ESM and EW.
(i) This improvement is a parallel of Germany’s second batch of Type-212As, but with Italian systems and includes as Italian weapons like the Blackshark torpedo and the new TESEO MK.2E (unofficially called EVO) anti-ship missile by both MBDA and Marina Militare. The new missile’s seeker will mount a small sized AESA radar, the first of its class in Europe. MBDA Italy will utilise Leonardo’s experience to miniaturise an AESA radar.
(ii) More significantly, the NFS will incorporate Italian developed lithium-ion batteries in place of lead-acid. This is significant and is likely to be the first Western submarine to feature this technology.
Currently only Japan fields submarines with this battery technology, although South Korea is close behind.
2. Yes, it took me 4 to 5 years to just understand the basic terms with the guidance of multiple Australian and European members who took time to explain to me the different national requirements, required capability, likely tasking, and their CONOPS behind submarine operations.
3. I am a big fan of first ten 84 metre long Soryu class boats that used a Swedish ‘Stirling’ AIP system along with traditional heavy duty acid batteries. The ‘Stirling’ AIP system was first tested as a retrofit of the Japanese submarine Asashio. This means that the 4,200 ton (when submerged) Soryu class submarines can patrol longer without surfacing, giving them a superior indiscretion ratio, compared to the older the 4,000 ton (when submerged) Oyashio submarines in their fleet.
4. But the last 2 Japanese submarines of this class (boats 11 & 12) come with lithium-ion batteries. Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Japan’s top submarine builder has already unveiled the country’s next-generation submarine design, designated 29SS. The sub due in the late-2020s.
5. 29SS retains the general hull form with some important changes. The sail is substantially reduced and blended into the hull, which should reduce hydrodynamic drag. This will make the submarine quieter, perhaps a little faster, but also more energy efficient.
6. While high speeds may be employed for short bursts by Japanese 29SS submarines, this results in immense and rapid depletion of battery power. To get around this shortcoming, great care is taken in terms of positioning Japanese submarines. To increase their effectiveness, more often than not, the 29SS submarines have to be deployed within the operating radii of Japanese P-1 maritime reconnaissance aircraft that can cue them into an attacking position. If this is not feasible, by ASW helicopters, from Japanese helicopter carriers, or the alternative course of action is to deploy them in choke points where there is a high probability of encountering targets.
7. The Koreans of course see the growth of the Japanese submarines as a bigger threat than the rapid growth of Chinese submarine capability (and not in numbers) — creating a strange naval underwater arms race dynamics between the 3 countries that I can’t really understand. On 14 September 2018, the ROKN launched the first KSS-3 vessel —ROKS Dosahn Ahn Chango. The next batch of three submarines, also fitted with a six-tube vertical launch system, is slated to be deployed by 2025, while the last three boats, reportedly boasting a displacement of over 3,500 tons and equipped with 10 vertical launch tubes each, will all be delivered to the ROKN by 2029. Each batch will reportedly see a gradual increase in the number of indigenous components used for the various sub-systems of the boats — these later batches of KSS-3 submarines carry 6 to 10 vertical-launch tubes — which is not a capability targeted at the North Korean submarines or Chinese nukes and SSKs. Four KSS-IIIs have already been launched or are under construction, and a total of nine boats in this class is planned.
8. In contrast to the Korean lack of focus, the JMSDF’s plans are focused on their major area of responsibility — namely, the East China Sea and the Philippine Sea, or what Japanese naval strategists call the Tokyo-Guam-Taiwan Triangle.
Last edited:
Post 2 of 3: Understanding Japanese technology transfer considerations
9. I stand corrected but your Canadian view neglects the view from Japan. I am informed by other members of DT that Japan does have existing defense technology transfer (DTT) policies to promote (or hinder) international joint development or production that is guided by what their three principles policy. For a Canadian to claim that Japan has the desire to transfer submarine technology to Canada, you must show me proof that a DTT agreement between the parties has been signed. By way of background, I note that:
(i) in 1983, Japan opened the way for with its 1st DTT with the Americans. Following from that 1983 policy change, the Japanese slowly enacted DTT policies that apply to the British (2013) and the Australians (2014). In the realm of underwater warfare, they engage in DTT to benefit their future submarine build program, industrial base, national security and defence relationship. Each of these arrangements must benefit the Japanese and its foreign counterpart as peer level contributors;
(ii) the Japanese have shared information with the Americans (Virginia class) and the British (Astute class) for mutual benefit, as these two foreign countries have active nuclear submarine building programs. DTT between these parties is done on a peer level, with the Americans reaching out to the Japanese to increase their build reliability. Likewise the Japanese are reaching out at DTT level for American developments in the storage of energy, including the use of ultra/super-capacitors both for submarine propulsion and for use in torpedo developments;
(iii) of interest to the Japanese is American advances in creating a hybrid battery, with the features of both an electrochemical double layer capacitor (EDLC) and a battery connected in series. Graphene is used as the core material for both these devices. Graphene nanocomposites are used in the negative electrode and highly porous three dimensional graphene with a large surface area is used in the positive electrode; and
(iv) DTT policy considerations on the Japanese side are evaluated and filtered with respect to the capability of the partner country — ideally as a peer level sharing arrangement. However, on an exceptional basis, it also can be graduated based on the value of the intellectual property flow between Japan and the partner country.
10. With no active submarine build program, any claim of Canadian ability to contribute to the Japanese at a reciprocal DTT level, or even on an exceptional basis is not obvious to me. Certainly, without further details, I do not expect a JV. The nature of Japanese contact and exchanges with the Canadians at defence attaches level could simply be an exchange of relevant contacts in respective ministries or basic information required by the Japanese for a weapons or sensor sale — which is not an industrial base level discussion. Therefore, I would appreciate if you could explain in greater detail the submarine industrial base in Canada, for some of these core underwater technologies that are deserving of reciprocal DTT. With regards to underwater warfare technologies, let me share some stray thoughts for your consideration:
(i) Japanese builders and submarine tech suppliers do not need to export their systems intended for use in submarines as they have enough domestic demand from the JMSDF, due to their continuous build policy. My concern is that you misunderstand the importance of sovereign control. IMO control of key submarines technologies, like G-RX6 (as a successor to the Type 89 torpedo) and the latest propulsion motor SMC-8B in the Soryu class, are incredibly important to the Japanese — at the very least, Japanese suppliers want to black box solutions to foreign buyers. Even then not all black boxes are for sale, by the Japanese or the Americans.
(ii) Some things are just not shared even among allies. Anechoic tiles (along with its coatings) and EDLC technology is something the Americans are holding close to their chest. I certainly do not think that Japan will easily cede sovereign control over their battery tech, propulsion motor, which is the largest on a DE boat, or intellectual property related to their anechoic tiles, which are core technologies for the next class of Japanese submarines. IIRC, the Australians had to invent their own glue/coatings for anechoic tiles and the tiles themselves, for the Collins class because they could not manage to buy it.
(iii) On less important areas (such as periscopes or even coatings on periscopes), where the Japanese do not have a lead, they certainly can consider conducting some level of DTT to Canada if an agreement is signed and such acts of good will can lead to an eventual Japanese submarine sale to Canada. For exchanges of information to occur, the Japanese do not need to form a JV with Canada — please provide a relevant link, if you or any Canadian in this thread wants to make a claim of a JV.
11. I did not know that. Thank you for taking the trouble to explain.
Last edited:
DAVID DUNLOP
Active Member
OFF TOPIC reply deleted.
DAVID DUNLOP’s proposal for a “joint venture from say the USA, France or Japan for a new Hybrid nuclear/AIP/LIB submarine design with a ‘Slowpoke’ reactor... [whose reactor] can be turned-off” takes this thread into the realm of fantasy.
This sort of posting behaviour, where there is no mention whatsoever of requirements, capability, tasking, CONOPS and diving straight into nuclear is better, led to a chorus of disapproval by other professionals expressing their private frustration to the Mod Team. Therefore, we will not allow certain individuals to further lower the quality of discussion in this thread. In addition, thread vandalism will not be allowed and this includes putting a stop to:
Given that he was replied to by 3 different moderators, and that a clear request by the Mod Team was ignored, a ban of a year is awarded. This is upon review of his behaviour by impartial moderators (who have not commented in this thread). The decidedly lack of technical merit in his submarine proposals is noted for the record here.
Red ink instructions from the Mod Team are not optional.
DAVID DUNLOP’s proposal for a “joint venture from say the USA, France or Japan for a new Hybrid nuclear/AIP/LIB submarine design with a ‘Slowpoke’ reactor... [whose reactor] can be turned-off” takes this thread into the realm of fantasy.
This sort of posting behaviour, where there is no mention whatsoever of requirements, capability, tasking, CONOPS and diving straight into nuclear is better, led to a chorus of disapproval by other professionals expressing their private frustration to the Mod Team. Therefore, we will not allow certain individuals to further lower the quality of discussion in this thread. In addition, thread vandalism will not be allowed and this includes putting a stop to:
(i) replies that lack reality or technical merit from an engineering perspective; or
(ii) ungrounded speculation on subjects without any demonstrated expertise and the failure to cite evidence as a basis of reasoning (eg. Japanese defence tech transfer policies and agreements).
While it is good news that in 2019, the Canadian government has agreed to pay for a life-extension process for its fleet of four Victoria-class submarines, having a Canadian yard to maintain 4 old boats is different from having the expertise to design and build something as complex as a 2,000 to 4,000 ton conventional submarine with all the bells and whistles.Reading comprehension and a basic grasp of engineering reality seems to be an areas of weakness for DAVID DUNLOP. The Mod Team had hoped to solve this elegantly by asking him to pause for 24 hours before replying, to enable him to reflect and improve the quality of his posts.
Given that he was replied to by 3 different moderators, and that a clear request by the Mod Team was ignored, a ban of a year is awarded. This is upon review of his behaviour by impartial moderators (who have not commented in this thread). The decidedly lack of technical merit in his submarine proposals is noted for the record here.
Red ink instructions from the Mod Team are not optional.
Last edited by a moderator:
Post 3 of 3: European efforts that should inform Canadian sub replacement plans
With the 212CD project for building a total of six identical submarines for Norway and Germany, TKMS, together with its customers and partners, intends to create the European NATO standard of the future in the field of conventional submarines.
14. The groups given the Dutch B-letter are:
12. The German Navy already operates six Type 212 submarines, while Norway intends to acquire four units to replace the Ula-class submarines that were commissioned between 1989-1992. A contract is expected in the first half of 2020. Concurrently TKMS is building the third of 4 submarines for Egypt.
(i) The two navies selected the new Type 212 CD (Common Design) variant, which will have extended range, speed and endurance. Germany is procuring two submarines in a similar configuration to the four on order by Norway.
(ii) In Feb 2019, TKMS christened the first of a new class of 4 submarines custom designed for Singapore, whose names will be RSS Invincible, RSS Impeccable, RSS Illustrious and RSS Inimitable. In a departure from its usual ultra-cautious, value-seeking approach to platform acquisition, the Singapore Navy has ordered the 2,200 ton (when submerged) Invincible class submarines, in a matter of four years — interestingly in Sep 2019, TKMS unveiled its 4th Generation Fuel Cell (FC4G) following completion of a test programme for the propulsion system and has undergone in excess of 70,000 operating hours of testing. This is to be used as standard equipment from 2021 (coinciding with the 1st Type 218SG delivery). While the use of FC4G is currently not documented, I suspect that the FC4G is installed in the new Invincible class. Even if it is only two FCM 120 modules that are installed, Mindef does not want specific info on the AIP system in the Type 218SG released. I also note that the power rating of this new FC4G is not released.
(iii) The German designed fuel-cell system is quiet, cheaper, and easier to maintain, compared to the ‘Stirling’ AIP system in the Archer class. The PEM fuel cell on the Type 218SG only operates at 70 to 80 ° C reducing heat signature. The submarine classes 212A, 214, and Dolphin 2 are also equipped with PEM Fuel Cells modules. Each PEM Fuel Cell module can be operated at various static and dynamic load currents. Currents below 650 A for FCM 34 modules or below 560 A for FCM 120 modules can be applied in continuous operation. An AIP system with FCM 34 or FCM 120 modules can be added to existing submarines.
(iv) According to Dr J B Lakeman and Dr D J Browning, The Role of Fuel Cells in the Supply of Silent Power for Operations in Littoral Waters, (Gosport: 2004), in page 47-3, of the four AIP systems, fuel cells are the most efficient in oxygen consumption, consuming approximately 0.4 kilograms of oxygen per kilowatt hour (kgO2/kWh), compared to ~0.75 kgO2/kWh for the Closed cycle diesel, ~0.95 kgO2/kWh for the Stirling system, and ~1.1 kgO2/kWh for the MESMA system. The MESMA has a relatively small customer base having only been retrofitted into Pakistani submarines.
With the 212CD project for building a total of six identical submarines for Norway and Germany, TKMS, together with its customers and partners, intends to create the European NATO standard of the future in the field of conventional submarines.
13. In Post 1 of 3, I discussed relevant Italian and Japanese efforts. Now we move on to the Walrus SSK replacement programme. This is the most important Dutch procurement programme still in the bidding process. I am watching this program closely due to its future relevance to Canada to replace its existing submarines. The Dutch government wants to make sure that potential suppliers take into account as much involvement of local industry as possible. At the award of the B-letter, three shipyards (or combinations of those) are still in the running to build new Dutch submarines.
14. The groups given the Dutch B-letter are:
(i) the Naval Group from France along with Royal IHC — little is known about the plans;
(ii) the Swedish-Dutch combination Saab-Damen — the concept submarine has a displacement of 2900 tons and a length of 73 metres, with room for 34 to 42 crew members; and
(iii) TKMS from Germany teamed up with the maintenance site of the Royal Netherlands Navy in the Den Helder naval base — I suspect the concept submarine is evolved from the Type 212CD and has a displacement of at least 2400 tons. But in like the Type 212As with earlier generation FCM 34 fuel cells and 1 MTU engine, this batch is likely to use two FC4G PEM fuel cells and have at least 2 MTU 12V4000U83 engines (athough the Dolphin 2* has three older model MTU engines). TKMS says it is prepared to enlarge the design, so there is more room for fuel and crew members.
* Dolphin 2 class are larger than the batch 1, Type 212A German submarines. In October 2017, Israel and Germany confirmed that they have finalised a MOU for the purchase of three more Dolphin-class submarines to be delivered starting in 2027. These boats will replace the first three of the class which by then will be about 30 years old.
- Displacement: 2,050 tons surfaced, 2,400 tons submerged
- Length: 68.8m
- Beam: 6.8 m (22 ft)
- Draught: 6.2 m (20 ft)
- 3 MTU V-16 396 SE 84 diesel engines with three Siemens 750 kW alternators, and a Siemens sustained-power motor of about 3 MW output power
- Speed: 25 kts submerged
- Complement: 35 + 15 passengers
- Armament: Six 21" (533mm) torpedo tubes and four 26" (650mm) torpedo tubes.
Last edited:
Ananda
The Bunker Group
What The Ultimate Submarine Could Look Like In 20 Years
The U. S. Navy’s Virginia Class fast attack submarines of today are the apex predators of the deep. But a range of new technologies could allow radically different subs in the future.
www.forbes.com
Not want to talk on 'fantasy' realm, but seems this article on Forbes at least have some probable. Don't know about the new hull design and propulsion that seems taking on 'Red October' concept, but this magazines of multiple sizes torpedo and drones launcher have some merit.
Universal launchers can be used for varieties of torpedo sizes and drones, can be attractive to provide submarines on multi weapons answer for each scenarios.
Attachments
Ballard Power of Burnaby BC announced new fuel cell modules at 200KW, scalable to megawatts: Marine Modules - Fuel Cell Power Products | Ballard Power
This is pretty good power density - more than the fuel cells in the Type 212s, which are reputedly 120KW. Wonder if there could be applications to subs?
This is pretty good power density - more than the fuel cells in the Type 212s, which are reputedly 120KW. Wonder if there could be applications to subs?
Last edited: