Swedish engine flaws restricting Australian submarines

[Giles]

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/st ... 71,00.html

Engine problems cripple Collins-class submarines EXCLUSIVE: Patrick Walters, National security editor | October 21, 2009
Article from: The Australian

THE navy's $6 billion Collins-class submarines face serious operational restrictions after being hit by a run of crippling mechanical problems and troubling maintenance issues.

Some senior engineering experts now contend that the Swedish-supplied Hedemora diesel engines may have to be replaced - a major design and engineering job that could cost hundreds of millions of dollars and take years to complete.

The Australian understands that in recent times only a single Collins-class boat has been available for operational duties but it is unclear whether this involves more than extended training missions.

One senior Defence source characterises the level of concern in senior government ranks about the availability of the Collins submarines as "extreme".

"We spend a lot of money on this core defence capability and they aren't working properly."

Defence Minister John Faulkner and Defence Materiel Minister Greg Combet have now demanded monthly updates from the navy and Defence about the operational state of the Collins-class vessels.

ASC, the Adelaide-based builder and maintainer of the Collins class, is now working through a range of mechanical issues affecting the performance of the six submarines with the state of the diesel engines a fundamental concern.

The trouble-plagued diesel engines are expected to last at least another 15 to 20 years before they are progressively replaced by the planned next-generation submarine from 2025.

While ASC believes they can still last the expected life-of-type and has called in a Swiss consultant to advise on a long-term remediation plan, other external experts believe there may be no option but to start planning for their eventual replacement.

The Hedemora diesel engines have never functioned well from the start and there are now real doubts that they are robust enough to see out the life of the Collins boats.

Other mechanical issues include the performance of the electric motors, batteries and generators but ASC sources are confident that these glitches are being satisfactorily resolved.

HMAS Collins is undergoing repairs on its diesel engines and there are temporary restrictions on two other boats while the bands on their electric motors are fixed.

Ever since they were launched, the Collins boats have been plagued by mechanical problems.

As early as June 1999, a report to the Howard government found a range of serious technical defects in the Collins boats, three of which had been delivered to the navy by that time. These included problems with the diesel engines as well as noise propagation and the performance of propellers, periscopes, masts and the combat system. By far the most expensive fix was the the combat system. The original system never worked and was eventually replaced at a cost of close to $1 billion.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collins_class_submarine
Propulsion
Each submarine is equipped with three Garden Island-Hedemora HV V18b/15Ub (VB210) 18-cylinder diesel engines, which are each connected to a 1,400 kW, 440-volt DC Jeumont Schneider generator.[55][63] The combined electrical generation capability of each submarine is 4.2 megawatts.[142] The Hedemora diesels were chosen because of modular construction, which made servicing easier; they could be installed three across in the available space, while other contenders required at least two banks of two; and they ran with turbochargers driven by the exhaust gas.[143] Fifteen diesel fuel tanks are located throughout the submarine: they must be used in specific sequences to preserve the submarine's buoyancy and trim.[144]

Electricity is stored in four 400-tonne lead-acid batteries assembled by Pacific Marine Batteries, a joint venture between VARTA of Germany and Pacific Dunlop of Australia.[23][35] These supply a single Jeumont Schneider DC motor, which provides 7,200 shaft horsepower to a single, seven-bladed, 4.22-metre (13.8 ft) diameter skewback propeller.[23][63]


Diesel engines and propulsion
During trials of the first submarines, the engines were found to be prone to failure for a variety of reasons.[93] Most of these failures were attributed to the fifteen-tank diesel fuel system: the tanks were designed to fill with salt water as they were emptied to maintain neutral buoyancy, but water would regularly enter the engines due to a combination of poor design of the fuel system, gravity separation being insufficient to keep the water and fuel from mixing, and operator error resulting from poor training.[93] Problems were also caused by bacterial contamination of the diesel, which, along with the salt water, would cause the fuel pumps to rust and other components to seize.[94] The fuel-related issues were solved by installing coalescers in the submarines, improving training and operational procedures, and adding biocides to the fuel.[94]

Propeller shaft seals were a significant problem on Collins and Farncomb.[95] Although designed to allow for a leak of 10 litres (2.2 imp gal; 2.6 US gal) per hour, during trials it was found that the seals would regularly misalign and allow hundreds of litres per hour into the boat—on one occasion during a deep diving test the flow rate was measured at approximately 1,000 litres (220 imp gal; 260 US gal) a minute.[95] ASC claimed that solving these problems could be done by manually adjusting the seals as the submarine dove and rose, but this would have required a sailor dedicated solely to that task, affecting efforts to minimise the required number of personnel.[95] It was found that the problem could be temporarily alleviated by running the propeller in reverse for 100 revolutions, pulling the seal back into alignment, although a permanent solution could initially not be found, as ASC refused to accept responsibility for the problem, and the original manufacturer of the seals had closed down.[95] New suppliers were found, with modified seals fitted to the first two submarines in late 1996, before completely re-designed seals were fitted to the boats in late 1997, solving the problem.[96]

Other engine problems included excessive vibrations at certain speeds which damaged various components (which was attributed to the removal of a flywheel and to corrosion caused by the fuel problems), and excessive fuel consumption in Collins at high speed (found to be caused by manufacturing problems with the turbines and turbochargers).[97] The propulsion system was also found to be a secondary source of noise: poor design of the exhaust mufflers, weight-saving measures in the generator mountings, and an incorrect voltage supply to the battery compartment exhaust fans were noise-creating factors found and eliminated during studies by the Defence Science and Technology Organisation.[98]

[Verbal]

They should have picked the Norwegian submarine contractor.

[J]

Should have used Fairbanks Morse engines.

[Sickbag]

During trials of the first submarines, the engines were found to be prone to failure for a variety of reasons.[93] Most of these failures were attributed to the fifteen-tank diesel fuel system: the tanks were designed to fill with salt water as they were emptied to maintain neutral buoyancy,

This sounds like a really bad idea.

Serves the Australians right, they should of brought British subs, like the Canadians.

[Cam]

During trials of the first submarines, the engines were found to be prone to failure for a variety of reasons.[93] Most of these failures were attributed to the fifteen-tank diesel fuel system: the tanks were designed to fill with salt water as they were emptied to maintain neutral buoyancy,

This sounds like a really bad idea.

Serves the Australians right, they should of brought British subs, like the Canadians.

Yea, that worked out well for us....

[Giles]

TOTAL SEA DISASTER!!!!!!!!!

[Thunder Down Under]

.......ammmazzzzing......what can be expected.....could have bought German submarines 'off the shelf'.......nah, give the contract to people who have never built one before....meanwhile the polictician who oversaw this debacle has now got himself a nice cruisy job at the U.N.......bloody tossers!

TDU

[Ancient Mariner]

They should have picked the Norwegian submarine contractor.

Actually, if you read the whole thing, you'll find that the main problem was the combat system. Who supplied it? The Americans, amongst them.......read on

Despite the public focus on the various physical issues with the boats, the major problem of the design and construction of the submarines was the development of the Rockwell combat system.
SNIPPED
, when Singer Librascope and Thomson CSF, who were partnering with Rockwell
SNIPPED
In 1996, Rockwell sold its military and aerospace business, including responsibility for the Collins combat system, to Boeing .
SNIPPED
Boeing attempted to produce a workable combat system, but......
SNIPPED
Boeing then requested assistance from Raytheon,
SNIPPED
Boeing sold its naval systems division to Raytheon in May 2000, making the latter company solely responsible for completion of the combat system.

Us Norskies have been screwing up big time lately, what with crap torpedo boats made in Norway, Spanish built frigates and now ordering the JSF kite from the US, but this story from Down Under is just great reading.
This is the classical How Not To Do It exercise. Good on 'ya, mate!

PiS

[Sir Gallivant]

This whole contract determining who did what on this project must have been made by the same people who thought it was a brilliant idea to let AnsaldoBreda build a completely new train for Denmark.....

[Ancient Mariner]

This whole contract determining who did what on this project must have been made by the same people who thought it was a brilliant idea to let AnsaldoBreda build a completely new train for Denmark.....

Mus be contagious, didn't we sign a contract with them as well?
Per

[OldSowBreath]

Why didn't they go with the far simpler and cheaper nukes?

[DeskFlyer]

Why didn't they go with the far simpler and cheaper nukes?

There's the general mentality in Aus that anything new-klee-ur is bad bad pie, erroneous or not.
Call it dead in the water.
Ironingly, just like the Collins Class.

[Digger]

Giles wrote:
During trials of the first submarines, the engines were found to be prone to failure for a variety of reasons.[93] Most of these failures were attributed to the fifteen-tank diesel fuel system: the tanks were designed to fill with salt water as they were emptied to maintain neutral buoyancy,

Getting back to this, for a moment, as someone who has run diesel powered equipment for more than half my life, I simply can't imagine intentionally introducing a contaminent, any contaminent, into my fuel supply system, especially if it might mean I'd have to swim home.

Per, I'd be especially interested in any further comment you might have on that. Obviously, the goal of maintaining neutral bouancy is a good one, but there has to be a better compromise. Doesn't there?

[Ancient Mariner]

Giles wrote:
During trials of the first submarines, the engines were found to be prone to failure for a variety of reasons.[93] Most of these failures were attributed to the fifteen-tank diesel fuel system: the tanks were designed to fill with salt water as they were emptied to maintain neutral buoyancy,

Getting back to this, for a moment, as someone who has run diesel powered equipment for more than half my life, I simply can't imagine intentionally introducing a contaminent, any contaminent, into my fuel supply system, especially if it might mean I'd have to swim home.

Per, I'd be especially interested in any further comment you might have on that. Obviously, the goal of maintaining neutral bouancy is a good one, but there has to be a better compromise. Doesn't there?

To me, seawater in fuel is the biggest no-no-no ever. Salt, water, bacteria, fungus.........boy you're asking for trouble. I don't know if these guys used centrifugal separators or filters only, but regardless I can't see how they have enough time for the water to settle to the bottom of the fuel tanks for draining. After draining they need to run all the fuel once from the settling tank(s) to the recirculation tank which should have one separator running continuously on recirculation and then you use another separator to transfer the fuel from the recirculation tank to the day tank, from there via filters to fuel pump and injectors. And that would be the standard procedure without introducing additional seawater to the fuel tanks.
Mind you, this is the NAVY and the NAVY always have their own mysterious procedures penned by deskflyers with no hands on experience. In the Merchant Navy we based all on experience, we were in the business of making, not wasting money.
PiS

[DeskFlyer]

Mind you, this is the NAVY and the NAVY always have their own mysterious procedures penned by desksailors with no hands on experience. In the Merchant Navy we based all on experience, we were in the business of making, not wasting money.
PiS

Fixed

[Ancient Mariner]

Mind you, this is the NAVY and the NAVY always have their own mysterious procedures penned by desksailors with no hands on experience. In the Merchant Navy we based all on experience, we were in the business of making, not wasting money.
PiS

Fixed

Thank you, Deskie. I was counting the hours and you did not let me down.
Per

[BrianB]

Salt water compensated fuel oil storage tanks have been in use for over 30 years in the US Navy.
Spruance class destroyers, Ticonderoga class cruisers, Arleigh Burke class destroyers all use them.

The storage tanks, not the service tanks are compensated with salt water. A large centrifugal purifier is used to transfer the fuel from the storage tank to the service tank. There are redundant service tanks, so one tank is on "suction" while the other is being filled / recirculated.

Once the offline service tank has been filled, it is placed on a recirculation circuit through the same transfer purifier for a minimum of 3 hours.

Fuel drawn from the service tank to supply propulsion engines go through both a pre-filter and a filter-separator (coalescer). The filter-separator contains a membrane that repels water.

We had to maintain less that 2.64 mg/l of sediment and less that 40 parts per million of water for fuel servicing main propulsion and electrical generation engines.

If this system was properly designed, I don't see how salt water compensated fuel oil storage tanks are the issue.

[Marc 1]

Why didn't they go with the far simpler and cheaper nukes?

Because they are not simpler or cheaper when you have no domestic nuclear industry (bar one research reactor that produces medical isotopes), nobody has the necessary training and we lack the capabilty to install or service and relife nuclear cores. To establish such a capability would be prohibitively expensive if we were to do it domestically, or result in being dependent on a foreign power if we chose not to. Besides, there is a massive political anti - nuclear undercurrent - no political party would risk losing an election over the issue.

Our existing conventionals are state of the art (when in the water) and as details of missions performed years ago during the cold war are starting to surface (such as photographs taken inside Vladivostok harbourin the 1980's) with the O boats, you do not need a nuclear power plant to have a capable submarine.