New submarines now Australia's biggest ever military project

[Driller]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/02/24/2500218.htm

The replacement for the Collins class submarines is set to become Australia's biggest-ever military purchase, blowing the Joint Strike Fighter out of its expensive position of first place.

In an exclusive, the ABC has learnt that the Defence White Paper due in April will confirm more than $25 billion, and possibly up to $35 billion, will be spent on the project.

That is likely to allow the current fleet of six Collins submarines to be doubled.

The first of the submarines is due in the water sometime after 2020, so they are in service when the Collins fleet is retired in 2025.

Former submarine commander Peter Clarke says the expanded fleet will put Australia in the race in a region that is investing heavily in submarines.

"Twelve is many, many times better than six because of the greater flexibility it gives you," he said.

European-designed hulls will house US combat systems in the new submarines, which will be capable of running for weeks without surfacing.

The Navy will be the biggest winner of the multi-billion-dollar Defence shopping list to be released with the White Paper, which reflects the priority the Prime Minister gave to sea power last year.

The Minister has appointed Rear Admiral Rowan Moffitt to ensure sonar, combat and design secrets make it to Adelaide where American technology and European hulls will again be combined at the Australian Submarine Corporation shipyard.

Flawed history

The original fleet of Collins Class submarines was part of an ambitious plan to take Australia's Navy well into the 21st Century, replacing the Oberon class submarines.

However, the Collins Class have not been without their problems, with the project experiencing significant design and construction delays.

Although originally a fixed-cost contract, because of later upgrade specifications, the submarines' total cost snowballed to over $6 billion as of 2000, compared to the $3.9 billion stated in June 1987 by then prime minister Bob Hawke's government

Initially, the Collins Class leaked more than 300 litres per hour. This was eventually corrected to 3 litres.

The metal that was used in the propeller had not been thoroughly tested and was brittle and inadequate.

And the vessel's sound signature was not correct; it was noisy and could not adequately avoid detection.

The first of the submarines, HMAS Collins, was commissioned on July 27 1996, with HMAS Dechaineux, HMAS Farncomb, HMAS Rankin, HMAS Sheean and HMAS Waller all following in the years after.

[the road runner]

GREAT NEWS INDEED:)

I thought we would design our own sub hulls,but the article states that we will purchase a European Design.Hope they are wrong and we do design an evolved COLLINS 2 .

ASC has the capability to design a sub hull,and i would think that the money would be better spent by designing the sub in Australia.The European Design will be built by ASC ,but i am wondering why we, will not/can not, design this new sub in Australia?

White Paper is due out in April
Looking very good for Navy:D

[gf0012-aust]

GREAT NEWS INDEED:)

I thought we would design our own sub hulls,but the article states that we will purchase a European Design.Hope they are wrong and we do design an evolved COLLINS 2 .

ASC has the capability to design a sub hull,and i would think that the money would be better spent by designing the sub in Australia.The European Design will be built by ASC ,but i am wondering why we, will not/can not, design this new sub in Australia?

White Paper is due out in April
Looking very good for Navy:D

umm, I wouldn't be taking that article as gospel. there is no requirement to buy a european hull at all

we will be buying some euro fitout - but we definitely have not committed on a euro hull - and I would suggest that we won't for a number of reasons.

it's very very early days. ignore the press as they're jumping to lots of conclusions and without foundation.

[the road runner]

umm, I wouldn't be taking that article as gospel. there is no requirement to buy a european hull at all
:D Glad to hear

Will the White Paper give a greater understanding of the path that will be taken by government on the Design of the hulls?

[macman]

So we are talking about over $2 billion per sub minimum???

A little steep for diesel sub's, no matter how fancy - that's the cost of the new US nuclear Virginia class submarines.

You can pick up 3 Scorpenes or Type 214 sub's for about $1.2 billion.

[Unicorn]

Not that much actually.

It includes the R&D and development costs for a completely new class of submarine, budgetted 15 years out, in a time of rapid technological change involving new sensor technology, propulsion and battery advances and UAVs.

Given the rate of inlation that afflicts military projects world wide, I think they're actually being rather modest.

Unicorn

[enghave]

So we are talking about over $2 billion per sub minimum???


Sum of $2bn per boat in $AUD, not $USD.

Sum of $25bn AUD is approximately $16bn USD, a per boat cost of $1.3bn USD, which makes sense for diesel/electrics.

But a lot of things can happen in 15 years.

[StingrayOZ]

A billion a boat in USD is about right..

Owing and operating a cutting edge submarine fleet isn't cheap, and developing one costs even more. Look at the RN sub fleet, the USN, the french etc.. Even diesels cost big money, if you want them to be any good.

But if its anything like collins evolved into then they are exactly what we need. Anything that is easy proberly isn't worth doing, I just hope we have all learned lessons from collins (procurement, media, design, management, contracts, technology etc) and can apply them to the new boats.

Buying boats off existing manufacturers isn't always a good idea either (look at Canada!).



Scorpenes or 214 are not suitable for Australia. They would be less capable than the current Collins boats. We need long endurance blue water diesels of which there is nothing really out there.

12 sounds like a bold build, hopefully 6 will be located back at FBE.

If the navy gets the 2 LHD (1 current under construction), 4 AWD (3 currently agreed on) and 12 subs while still maintaining and later build additional frigates (as replacements) then the RAN is doing quiet well indeed. Double the tonnage? Infinately more capable ships. Some sort of fleet plan comming together with sustainable marine industry? Lets hope so!

Combined with a new F-35/F-18 SH RAAF with C-17 and hopefully some herc/bou replacement and a well sorted RAA, Australia will have an impressive defence force. Definately a major regional power, and big enough to have significant clout internationally. With capabilities only avalible to us through the UK or USA previously.

[riksavage]

Based on current reports (The Australian) only three Collins class are available for sea due to chronic crew shortages, how the hell is Australia going to find the manning for twelve? According to reports , submariners feel undervalued by the rest of the Navy, with a significant number looking to leave.

The only hope is that the Oz Government is planning to build twelve unmanned submersibles or a highly advanced design requiring absolute minimum crew levels or else we will see a white elephant fleet moored at Garden Island.

[Jon K]

Based on current reports (The Australian) only three Collins class are available for sea due to chronic crew shortages, how the hell is Australia going to find the manning for twelve? According to reports , submariners feel undervalued by the rest of the Navy, with a significant number looking to leave.

Well, you can always rig a global economic crisis which means that a military career is suddenly much more popular... ;)

Back to the issue, if it wasn't for certain pecularities, wouldn't a Japanese design suit Australian particular needs best? Their SSK's are large and suitable for open water operations. Despite arms transfer problems there's a large part of components which could be exported.

[gf0012-aust]

Back to the issue, if it wasn't for certain pecularities, wouldn't a Japanese design suit Australian particular needs best? Their SSK's are large and suitable for open water operations. Despite arms transfer problems there's a large part of components which could be exported.

There are quite a few in Japan who'd love to have a technical relationship involving Collins and the Oyashio upgrades.

Me? I'd do it in a heartbeat. Those things can poke a nuke boat at depths that other conventionals would start to trigger stress frame alerts....

It's the only other conventional that I see as competitive for our mission sets.

[gf0012-aust]

The only hope is that the Oz Government is planning to build twelve unmanned submersible or highly advanced designed requiring absolute minimum crews or else we will see a white elephant fleet moored at Garden Island.

The next sub will not be your traditional sub - and there are some very very tricky technologies that australia and a few of our allies are trying at the USV level. by 2025 those systems will be deployable and probably mature before the subs are even slipped.

traditional sub design is well on the way out.

[Feanor]

The next sub will not be your traditional sub - and there are some very very tricky technologies that australia and a few of our allies are trying at the USV level. by 2025 those systems will be deployable and probably mature before the subs are even slipped.

traditional sub design is well on the way out.

A very interesting statement. Could you please elaborate in detail?

[riksavage]

Well looking at recent trends, ASTUTE for example, the hull size is much larger than its predecessor, but the manning levels have decreased. I'm convinced this trend will continue as technology continues to evolve.

A large hull brings to the table a greatly increased weapon load. Again using ASTUTE as an example 38 (Tom/Torp/Harpoon) vs 18 on the new French Barracuda class. Even if Aus sticks with Diesels, the bigger the better in my humble opinion, particularly if they plan on conducting long patrols and/ or intend having a large area allocated for SF personnel and associated paraphernalia.

Hopefully they will learn lessons from the US & more recently the UK and build the sub's vertically in sections. Apparently this proved a real bonus, using gravity to install the internal subsections rather than tying to 'stuff a sausage' in the horizontal position.

[BLADE135]

Hi guys,

Just like to say this is great news about the submarines. But would like to add that the Collins Collins Class Subs and there crews have turned out to be a great conventionally powered team and have done us proud.

Hopefully we will be able to man them all, even with the technology that would help to reduce the need for manpower.

Do you think that ASC will get the contract to build them?

:)
Blade135

[Jon K]

There are quite a few in Japan who'd love to have a technical relationship involving Collins and the Oyashio upgrades.

Me? I'd do it in a heartbeat. Those things can poke a nuke boat at depths that other conventionals would start to trigger stress frame alerts....

It's the only other conventional that I see as competitive for our mission sets.

May I ask that do you mean that Japanese subs are only competitive to current Collins-class, or do you mean that in future SSK acquisition there would be some other suitable candidate?

New Japanese Soryu-class seems large enough for anybody, with 4200 ton submerged displacement it's of similar size as smaller, older, SSN's (Rubis: 2600tn, Alfa: 3200tn, Swiftsure: 4900tn). It also has a Stirling-engine for AIP.

But as Australian sub project is quite far into future, let's speculate about it. I, with my ignorance will start with what could be seen.

Armament:

1.) Conventional torpedo tubes with reloads (torps, mines, missiles, small AUV's.)

2.) Multi-mission bays similar to Trident-tube arrangement in converted Ohios. Capable of housing some VLS cruise missiles, larger AUV's, special force equipment + insertion vehicles + may be UAV's if they're available. More than one for flexibility.

[Unicorn]

Hi guys,

Do you think that ASC will get the contract to build them?

:)
Blade135

Who the hell else can do it in Australia?

They will be built at Osborne.

Unicorn

[zanzibeer]

As a non-military, completely ignorant civilian, I'm interested in "why subs?". I don't have a problem giving the Navy $25bn - and it will create a lot of new jobs in Adelaide - but do we actually use submarines for anything?

Given our military's role in the last decade seems to include a lot of peace keeping, conducting operations in countries like Afghanistan (which isn't exactly submarine territory) and border patrol (I watched Sea Patrol :)), are submarines really that practical?

The AWD's that ASC are currently building seem a lot more practical (and cheaper IIRC). Why not buy a hundred of those, or an Aircraft Carrier?

[Lofty_DBF]

Submarines do alot of different tasks such as training up other fleet and air units in anti submarine warfare.

gather intelligence;
undertake surveillance and carry out reconnaissance missions;
monitor the air, land and sea (both above the surface and below); and
act as force multipliers: forcing foreign military to launch several vessels in response to even the threat of a single submarine.

All these roles are carried out regardless of weather we are at war or peace.

read the article below.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/secret-spy-missions-forced-to-the-surface/2006/09/07/1157222265317.html

[Sea Toby]

Do you really think the Aussies would spend that much out of country? Do you think another shipyard in Australia can build the new submarines? Who owns the shipyard? Isn't the government building new AWDs at this shipyard so they can keep the shipyard workers on the payroll.

Yes, I believe so. Wouldn't make any sense to do all the others and not.

[gf0012-aust]

May I ask that do you mean that Japanese subs are only competitive to current Collins-class, or do you mean that in future SSK acquisition there would be some other suitable candidate?

Contemp sub comparison.

We trialled Stirling AIP. The module is sitting on a pallet as we did not find that it provided us with any operational gain. That has been confirmed on some specific events at RIMPAC against an aggressive opfor.

AIP as we know it is going to be a different beast by 2020-2025 as well.

[Aussie Digger]

As a non-military, completely ignorant civilian, I'm interested in "why subs?". I don't have a problem giving the Navy $25bn - and it will create a lot of new jobs in Adelaide - but do we actually use submarines for anything?

Given our military's role in the last decade seems to include a lot of peace keeping, conducting operations in countries like Afghanistan (which isn't exactly submarine territory) and border patrol (I watched Sea Patrol :)), are submarines really that practical?

The AWD's that ASC are currently building seem a lot more practical (and cheaper IIRC). Why not buy a hundred of those, or an Aircraft Carrier?

Intelligence and surveillance operations mostly at present, as well as training for wartime roles.

In a time of war, they would provide a VERY big stick indeed.

[OPSSG]

As a non-military, completely ignorant civilian, I'm interested in "why subs?". I don't have a problem giving the Navy $25bn - and it will create a lot of new jobs in Adelaide - but do we actually use submarines for anything?

1 British submarine caused Argentina's navy (moving to engage the British fleet) to return to port during the Falkland Islands war of 1982. Think of what 12 can do in war and the amount of naval resources necessary to counter such an underwater threat.

Sinking of the Belgrano

[Ananda]

We trialled Stirling AIP. The module is sitting on a pallet as we did not find that it provided us with any operational gain. That has been confirmed on some specific events at RIMPAC against an aggressive opfor.

AIP as we know it is going to be a different beast by 2020-2025 as well

If I may ask..why still SSK ?
I mean if the cost of getting SSK are increasingly comparable with SSN, why still bother with AIP, larger hull, more sophisticated sensors, etc..??

The info that I got show the lattest Japanese SSK are already reaching more than USD 1.0 bio per boat, close to what you expect with SSN.
From I read (from other threads, other forum, and Australian Publications), the Collins actually are good subs, it just that the expectations that coming (at least from my perspective), close to what expectations for what you can do of SSN.

So why not just getting SSN ?
We (Indonesia) will do it...if we got money and technology (like the Aussies do)..but considering our situations we'll be happy on getting Kilo's or Amur's.

[the road runner]

Ananda the reason Australia dose not choose a SSN is political.A large number of Australian citizens do not like the idea of having a nuclear sub parked in our city s harbour.Even more so ,alot of Australians hate the idea of nuclear reactors let alone nuclear weapons.

I would like to see ASC kept by the Australian Government and not sold off.I think having an asset like ASC owned by the Commonwealth is the way to go for the Australian(ADF) ship building industry.ASC will act as the project managers and client.Benefits include

1)Defence contractors will be more willing to share classified info with the Commonwealth than with another Defence contractor.

2)Cost of the project can be monitored and controlled by the Commonwealth

3)Ensure a skilled workforce for the future of Australian ship building

4)ASC will write the contract to construct the subs(a major advantage is having companies sign your contract instead of theres:))

5)Finger on the Pulse of the Project.(can trouble shoot any problems that arise ,thru good project management and time management)

6)Liquidated damages and time delays can be enforced by ASC or the commonwealth and back charges can be applied to contractors who do not provide the capability required.

7)Quality control to ensure the boats are built to there required specification.

I would hate to see ASC capability,that has been built up over time and has cost Australian tax payers, being sold off to a big defence company.With the ADF having a requirement/capability for a long range patrol sub.These requirements/capabilities are very unique to Australian conditions.(japan has similar requirements)

Having the capability to design/build and overhaul the subs in house is an asset that you cannot put a price on.
DONT SELL ASC as its an asset for the ADF and Australian tax payers!
comments welcomed:rolleyes:

[Ananda]

I have heard that many Aussies do not like having anything related to nuclear, so having SSN is not a politically viable option currently.
I've also read from other forum (Key Publishing Aviation Forum), an article from Herald Sunday that basiccaly state $ 20 - 25 bio for this Submarines projects are too expensive and basically create the most expensive SSK ever (in the world).

That's my point, if the Australian public realizing the costs, and say they still willing to pay the costs, the questions will they willing to pay for the most expensive SSK or just go for SSN ?

Afterall no matter how capablle and expensive a SSK, still it will have limitation compare to SSN. With China set to double their SSN fleet (even triple after 2020), and India determined to have at least half a dozen SSN on the next decade, will Australia follow the suit ?? (considering the budget Aussies Navy proposed on getting next gen submarines).

At least having SSN, does not necesseraly means you have to armed them with nuke too Right ??

BTW, do ASC and Australian defence industry will have local capability at this moment on integrating Nuclear reactor to the locally build submarines ? (considering US or UK willing to provide the reactors)

Cheers.

[the road runner]

The Herald is not the best form of NEWS in this country.I would not believe anything written in the Herald except fore sport:).The Australian i would consider a better paper.

Also the cost of 25 billion is in Australian dollars(about 16 billion USD)
Ananda i think you have not taken the exchange rate into account?(one US dollar,is roughly 0.66 Australian cents)

We must understand that the requirements for Australia is long range patrol and on station time.A SSN would be great but because of political reasons,i cannot see the government making a decision like that as it would be political suicide.Not to many Australians would vote for a Government who started talking about nuclear subs for Australia.

Australia dose not have nuclear weapons,and as gf has stated AIP will be a different beast in the 2020+ time frame. AIP and battery technology will be greatly enhanced by 2020.I think Australia will go down this path and not nuclear

Nuclear SSN is not gonna happen in Australia and ASC would not have the capability to intergrate a nuclear reactor into a sub without substantial help from our Allies the US and UK.

The senior members will hopefully comment on this:p:

[mickk]

Nearly 40 years ago, Lang Hancock stated the best way to defend Australia was 2 have 2 Nuclear Submarines. One hiding off the shelf, the other roaming.

40 years later, nothing has changed.

25 billion straight down the toilet. IF they ever get built, they will be 10 years behind schedule and out of date before they leave the shipyard.

We could have 2 or 3 CVNs complete with air wing for less than 25 billion.

We should have gone Nuclear in the 70s.

[Ananda]

Also the cost of 25 billion is in Australian dollars(about 16 billion USD)
Ananda i think you have not taken the exchange rate into account?(one US dollar,is roughly 0.66 Australian cents)

I believe I have put into the account that the amount is in Aus$ and not USD. But as you have put the number, USD 16 bio (or USD 1.3 bio per boat if it goes for 12 as plan) still a huge cost for SSK. Base on what I have read on Japanese sources, their lattest SSK cost 'only' roughly USD 1.0 bio, which is many sources now say 'the best SSK' at this moment.
This come from Japan that notoriously have 'overpriced' military equipment (at least in my oppinion) although off course very capables ones also.

The 1.3 bio price tag if I'm not mistaken is roughly at the same cost range on what the frenchie prepares for their 'Baracuda' new SSN.
Off course I can't speak for Australian on their reluctance for nuclear power, but in my oppinion, having nuclear power subs, is definetely not mean you go 'nuclear' armed forces.

AIP or other non nuclear propulsion technology is coming out, but at least again in my oppinion also still an unproven technology.
Unproven at the sense still do not warrant the additional cost it's incurred versa the additional potential it supposed to be given (compared to existing non AIP SSK).

It may be in 2020 the technology (AIP, Fuel CEll, etc) coming to full potential, still it might be not. However putting USD 16 bio - Aust $ 25 bio on still only promissing technology is a huge bet in my reccon.

Unless off course with that kind of money, Australia getting more than 12 boats.

[Falstaff]

I would like to see ASC kept by the Australian Government and not sold off.I think having an asset like ASC owned by the Commonwealth is the way to go for the Australian(ADF) ship building industry.

A few thougts: I do understand that you would like to keep ASC, however selling off ASC will probably have some very good reasons as well, esp. regarding costs.
First of all Australia is a relatively small country (population and economy) compared to the large national economies like e.g. the US or Japan and Germany and would probably have even more difficulties in supporting a government owned company the size of ASC in times of crisis.
Secondly and most important government owned companies have a history of catastrophic failure regarding cost and quality control, the same goes for "good project management and time management", as you put it. Effectiveness ("do the right things") and efficiency ("do things right") are not common among them. You really want politicians to control the company? Come on...
Another thing is that if a government owned company competes on the world market, there often are provisos with regard to competition laws.

ASC will act as the project managers and client.

I hope I get this right, it sounds like the total economical nightmare. Conflict of interests? Mighty thing.

That's my point, if the Australian public realizing the costs, and say they still willing to pay the costs, the questions will they willing to pay for the most expensive SSK or just go for SSN ?

Afterall no matter how capablle and expensive a SSK, still it will have limitation compare to SSN. With China set to double their SSN fleet (even triple after 2020), and India determined to have at least half a dozen SSN on the next decade, will Australia follow the suit ?? (considering the budget Aussies Navy proposed on getting next gen submarines).

Regarding costs, SSK's are much more cost effective than SSN's. Not only do you have to keep in mind what you want to do with the nuclear material after the sub's lifespan (and I guess the Australians wouldn't let them rot away in some harbour or just dump them in the sea) but you would have to set up a completely different infrastructure.
Apart from public mindset there are good reasons to go non-nuclear and I believe the Australians made a list with the pro's and con's and will chose what suits their requirements.
There are some countries that could very easily build SSN's if they wanted to, among them Japan and Germany, as they have the technology base to design and build or acquire what it takes. They won't however, and IMHO that's not only because the people won't allow it.

AIP or other non nuclear propulsion technology is coming out, but at least again in my oppinion also still an unproven technology.
Unproven at the sense still do not warrant the additional cost it's incurred versa the additional potential it supposed to be given (compared to existing non AIP SSK).

No, at least for fuel cells it's working perfectly well. And I don't know what gf was referring to (I wish I did, as always... sigh), but battery, fuel cell and generator/electric engine technology are making quantum leaps at the moment and will be smaller, lighter, more powerful and durable. Sooner or later the full hybrid will emerge and I even could imagine that one day there will only be a small diesel generator for hydrogen generation and emergency (just my opinion).

[Aussie Digger]

We could have 2 or 3 CVNs complete with air wing for less than 25 billion.



Yep, they'd look lovely tied to the docks at FBE or FBW...

The entire submarine force comprises 420 sailors at present with a full manning complement of 660...

A USN CVN has approximately 5000 pers...

[smellyjocks]

Aircraft carries are big targets.. they require escort vessels to protect them, 1X Carrier probably means our Navy will be all in one place when the Carrier is deployed.

Out of interest the 2500-7500 sailors required to man these things..is that inclusive of the personnel on the escort vessels? Or do we need to add another 1k odd sailors into the mix?

[StingrayOZ]

Our fleet is going to be fully used with the LHD's anyway.

2 x AWD a Frigate, subs doing their thing. Other frigates doing escort and patrolling duties etc. The LHD are going to be used together, any operation that big our whole ADF is going to be involved. Most likely most of our nearby allied neighbours are going to be in it as well.

[StingrayOZ]

Out of interest the 2500-7500 sailors required to man these things..is that inclusive of the personnel on the escort vessels? Or do we need to add another 1k odd sailors into the mix?

Nimitz about 3000 navy, 2,500 airwing. Then you add the crew of the escorts, 2 destroyers, a cruiser, subs, maybe a amphib (3,000 just for them!).. But a nimitz would have more power than raaf

[Alonso Quijano]

I do not like the new Spanish submarines and Lockheed Martin S-80 class?

have capabilities ocean AIP spit missiles and tomahawks.

are also very secretive.

Immersion Displacement: 2426 t
Area: 2.200t
Dimension Total Length: 71.05 m
Casco Hardy: 51.76 m
Breadth 11.68 meters
Draft 06.02 meters
Propulsion Propulsion Plant:
Main Power: 3,500 kW
Diesel Power: 3 x 1200 kW
AIP Reactor power: 300 kW
Surface speed 12 knots
50-60 Days Autonomía Navigation Area
20-30 Days Immersion Navigation
Moving Autonomy 8000 km
Autonomía Reactor AIP (not confirmed): 15 Days
Speed 3 knots on surface
Speed to 4 knots in Immersion
Crew 40 People
3 Officers
4 officiers
25 Ratings
8 Special Forces Soldiers.


Arms:

6 torpedo tubes of 533mm lance

Torpedoes DM2/A4 Multipurpose

Anti Mk48 torpedoes

Sub-Harpoon antiship missiles bolck II

Tac Tactical Tomahawk missiles - Tom

and the price is only about 450 million euros.

[Ozzy Blizzard]

From a geopolitical perspective, a CVN would be about as useful as tits on a bull for the ADF. Arguably Australia's next gen SSK/G is the single most important procurement program, and most of the R&D and design is domestic (awfully good for the future of Australia as a maritime power) which indicates how vital this form of technology is to us.

Developing extremely advanced next gen SSK/G's and building 8 to 12 is geopolitically vital for two reasons. Australia's greatest strategic fear is the rise of an East Asian maritime power that has the ability and intent to attack South East Asia. Very advanced SSK's are vital in this scenario for two reasons:


Advanced SSK's will pose a significant threat to any maritime expeditionary force intending to project power into the sea air gap and possibly Australian mainland. Even the threat of an advanced SSK's presence will severely limit an opponents options of maneuver increasing the effectiveness of air power, and the lethality these platforms bring to the maritime battle space mean they are vital for the defence of the Australian mainland.
Having enough Advanced SSK's to simultaneously keep enough boats in the Sea Air Gap to react to any maritime incursion (~4) and 2 boats to deploy on offensive missions will provide Australia with a strategic advantage far beyond our weight. This extra capability will give the RAN the ability to effectively close the Malacca straight. This is a vital capability because any East Asian power will be heavily reliant on hydrocarbons imported from the middle east. A successor to the mighty Collins will be truly lethal in such a noisy, shallow environment, and awfully hard to counter. Thus, this platform gives the RAN the ability to interdict the energy supply lines to East Asia, and that has extremely significant implications for any potential foe.


The Collins replacement is critical for the future of the ADF, and considering the success we have had with Collins it should be extremely capable.

[swerve]

I do not like the new Spanish submarines and Lockheed Martin S-80 class?

have capabilities ocean AIP spit missiles and tomahawks.
are also very secretive.

Immersion Displacement: 2426 t
Area: 2.200t
...
Moving Autonomy 8000 km
...
Australia is looking for bigger, longer-range submarines. I think they want something more like the Japanese Sōryū class (improved Oyashio) - about 4100 tons submerged.

[Alonso Quijano]

Australia is looking for bigger, longer-range submarines. I think they want something more like the Japanese Sōryū class (improved Oyashio) - about 4100 tons submerged.

Japanese submarines capable of attacking land?

[gf0012-aust]

Japanese submarines capable of attacking land?

yes - it's a fire control and fitout issue - not a contemp boat to boat comparison.

As far as being able to take on a nuke at deep water combat is concerned - the japanese are only one of 2 conventionals able to achieve similar depths and able to go deep to take the fight to the nuke.

IMO, NO european sub is as competitive. depth, energy state, fitout potential etc.... all are better served via Sōryū/Oyashio/Collinss sized vessels.

[Alonso Quijano]

yes - it's a fire control and fitout issue - not a contemp boat to boat comparison.

As far as being able to take on a nuke at deep water combat is concerned - the japanese are only one of 2 conventionals able to achieve similar depths and able to go deep to take the fight to the nuke.

IMO, NO european sub is as competitive. depth, energy state, fitout potential etc.... all are better served via Sōryū/Oyashio/Collinss sized vessels.

which reaches a depth and a Japanese submarine collins?

what type of weapons used to attack earth?

[Todjaeger]

which reaches a depth and a Japanese submarine collins?

what type of weapons used to attack earth?

If I understand the first question correctly, I cannot tell you the answer, as I do not know. I also expect that those who do know the answer within a certain margin will not say (or cannot say...) At a guess, I would think a dive depth in excess of 300ft/100m/50 fathoms would be a likely requirement. BTW I think the dept exceeds this.

In answer to the second question as to what weapons would be used for land attack (if I understand the question correctly) then any of the sub-launched land attack missiles should work, assuming proper fitout of the sub for launch tubes and FC systems. The later block Harpoons and Tomahawks come to mind, but these are not the only types available. These are likely just the ones with the most practical (or actual combat) useage at present.

-Cheers

[Alonso Quijano]

If I understand the first question correctly, I cannot tell you the answer, as I do not know. I also expect that those who do know the answer within a certain margin will not say (or cannot say...) At a guess, I would think a dive depth in excess of 300ft/100m/50 fathoms would be a likely requirement. BTW I think the dept exceeds this.

In answer to the second question as to what weapons would be used for land attack (if I understand the question correctly) then any of the sub-launched land attack missiles should work, assuming proper fitout of the sub for launch tubes and FC systems. The later block Harpoons and Tomahawks come to mind, but these are not the only types available. These are likely just the ones with the most practical (or actual combat) useage at present.

-Cheers

wanted to know the maximum depth of a Japanese submarine that our friend gf0012 said that it is immersed to a depth (I seem to understand) like a nuclear submarine to give battle.
scorpene a submarine or an S-80 would be able to sumergise till 300m and has capabilities to combat nuclear submarines.
anyone see a map of Australia who want to understand a lot of autonomy with submarines or SSN.
but the objective of Australia is to have a defensive or offensive weapon?
wonder why that kind of attack submarines will have to ground the Australians and Japanese, that a long-range submarine possibility of an attack on earth, is clearly an offensive weapon.

PS: I am delighted that Australians also renounce nuclear.;)

[Todjaeger]

wanted to know the maximum depth of a Japanese submarine that our friend gf0012 said that it is immersed to a depth (I seem to understand) like a nuclear submarine to give battle.
scorpene a submarine or an S-80 would be able to sumergise till 300m and has capabilities to combat nuclear submarines.
anyone see a map of Australia who want to understand a lot of autonomy with submarines or SSN.
but the objective of Australia is to have a defensive or offensive weapon?
wonder why that kind of attack submarines will have to ground the Australians and Japanese, that a long-range submarine possibility of an attack on earth, is clearly an offensive weapon.

PS: I am delighted that Australians also renounce nuclear.;)

Having an ocean-going or long-ranged submarine is IMO really a must do both Japan and Australia. Also given the area of operations (the Pacific Ocean) to operate effectively the subs would need to be fairly sizable to include the need crew, fuel, ordnance & supplies. After all the Pacific is a big place.

Given the different missions a sub can be used for like intel gathering, interdiction of shipping, landing of special forces, etc it to my mind makes sense to try and include as many options as reasonable in a vessel. For a number of the European designs, the situation is a bit different, as some of these would expect to be operating in shallower or more confining waters that like of the Baltic or Mediterranean Seas. With this sort of operational environment, the subs would likely always be comparatively close to a friendly port and likely having more frequent deployments of shorter duration.

As for the sub being offensive or defensive... It mostly depends on the doctrine, though some designs are really only defensive in nature. An Italian design I came across circa 2000 comes to mind when I post about a design being largely defensive. IIRC the vessel has a range of ~2,000 n miles, a crew of about 6 and a displacement somewhere between 100 and 200 tons. The design, based off the specs I read, was suited for mining harbours or acting as a defensive picket for ones own harbours, as it could carry a maximum of ~6 torpedoes in tubes. Any of the larger subs could possibly carry more weaponry, thus giving the option of taking battle to ones opponent, or waiting for an opponent to come to you...

-Cheers

[Alonso Quijano]

you're right.

[moahunter]

I can't help but think that both Canada and Australia have made a mistake in acquiring non-nuclear powered submarines. While fuel cell technology and similar is improving, the capabilities don't seem to be in the same league as a nuclear powered submarine.

At least in Canada's case, the cost (aside from the lives in the accident on delivery) has been relatively low by buying the used UK subs (even with all the upgrading going on). Canada originally planned to acquire nuclear submarines, and I suspect in the future, if the Conservatives maintain power (or gain it back), one day they will.

Australia is spending an awful lot of money though on this project. I guess it is hampered by political realities that Canada is not (nuclear power is not an issue in Canada), but even so, I can't help but wonder if a lot of this money isn't going to waste. It just doesn't make sense to me to try and build something from scratch, when instead they could be working with an ally like the US or UK.

[StevoJH]

I can't help but think that both Canada and Australia have made a mistake in acquiring non-nuclear powered submarines. While fuel cell technology and similar is improving, the capabilities don't seem to be in the same league as a nuclear powered submarine.

At least in Canada's case, the cost (aside from the lives in the accident on delivery) has been relatively low by buying the used UK subs (even with all the upgrading going on). Canada originally planned to acquire nuclear submarines, and I suspect in the future, if the Conservatives maintain power (or gain it back), one day they will.

Australia is spending an awful lot of money though on this project. I guess it is hampered by political realities that Canada is not (nuclear power is not an issue in Canada), but even so, I can't help but wonder if a lot of this money isn't going to waste. It just doesn't make sense to me to try and build something from scratch, when instead they could be working with an ally like the US or UK.

The problem with nuclear powered submarines is that you need speciallised shoreside machinery to refit them, particularly for dealing with the reactor, that makes them a very expensive proposition.

[Todjaeger]

I can't help but think that both Canada and Australia have made a mistake in acquiring non-nuclear powered submarines. While fuel cell technology and similar is improving, the capabilities don't seem to be in the same league as a nuclear powered submarine.

At least in Canada's case, the cost (aside from the lives in the accident on delivery) has been relatively low by buying the used UK subs (even with all the upgrading going on). Canada originally planned to acquire nuclear submarines, and I suspect in the future, if the Conservatives maintain power (or gain it back), one day they will.

Australia is spending an awful lot of money though on this project. I guess it is hampered by political realities that Canada is not (nuclear power is not an issue in Canada), but even so, I can't help but wonder if a lot of this money isn't going to waste. It just doesn't make sense to me to try and build something from scratch, when instead they could be working with an ally like the US or UK.

AFAIK Canada is not getting much capability out of the ex-Upholders, relative to the amount spent on them. IIRC only 1 or 2 of them are ever in service at the same time, and the HMCS Chicoutimi (the one which had the fire) has not yet entered service and is likely to remain drydock until 2010+...

-Cheers

[StingrayOZ]

I think in hind sight the Canadians should have bought in on collins.

The upholders are a bit of a WOFTAM. Then again with hindsight we would always make the right decision and given how much bad press the collins was getting at decision and selling time Canada would never had touched it.

Nuclear subs are a whole different kettle of fish and you now enter the world of money pits. This is fine for large nuclear powers (UK, Franch, USSR, USA) but for everyone else they are massive commitments.

While ideally nuclear would fill the void, these aren't easy decisions for governments to make. However you don't absolutely need it to make a very credable deterant.. Nuclear submarines aren't a easy thing to master, ask china. Or ask Russia how on going and decom costs are.

[Alonso Quijano]

I can't help but think that both Canada and Australia have made a mistake in acquiring non-nuclear powered submarines. While fuel cell technology and similar is improving, the capabilities don't seem to be in the same league as a nuclear powered submarine.

At least in Canada's case, the cost (aside from the lives in the accident on delivery) has been relatively low by buying the used UK subs (even with all the upgrading going on). Canada originally planned to acquire nuclear submarines, and I suspect in the future, if the Conservatives maintain power (or gain it back), one day they will.

Australia is spending an awful lot of money though on this project. I guess it is hampered by political realities that Canada is not (nuclear power is not an issue in Canada), but even so, I can't help but wonder if a lot of this money isn't going to waste. It just doesn't make sense to me to try and build something from scratch, when instead they could be working with an ally like the US or UK.


not everyone likes the position of having a nuclear threat in each port of your country, many opt for a better world.
nuclear submarines is true that they have more autonomy, and more rapid sea are able to carry weapons, it really is an offensive weapon.
But good SSK fleet can be better defensive weapon since they can be a great hunter, are much more secretive that the SSN, the SSN are vulnerable to bad noise.
once in the Strait of Gibraltar a Russian nuclear submarine, which shut down the engine tube and be carried away by strong currents of the Strait to enter without being seen in the Mediterranean.
I think a SSN if you have only served to protect settlements or are a great global power like the U.S. or Russia, which in case of war have to deploy their SSN in a strategic way for a war with nuclear missiles.
to defend your country with modern SSK is vastante and renounced nuclear contamination.
un saludo!

[Ananda]

Nuclear subs are a whole different kettle of fish and you now enter the world of money pits. This is fine for large nuclear powers (UK, Franch, USSR, USA) but for everyone else they are massive commitments.

While ideally nuclear would fill the void, these aren't easy decisions for governments to make. However you don't absolutely need it to make a very credable deterant. Nuclear submarines aren't a easy thing to master, ask china. Or ask Russia how on going and decom costs are.

True you don't need nuclear subs to do the job. However what the job that you really want ? Early on this thread I've ask what the Aussies really want with their Subs. Many answer coming showing aussies need subs to partrol the long coast of australia, but however it's also wants to go Indies and pacific.

Off course nuke's subs will be ecpensive to build, procured and maintains, it's going to be a money pit, well you bet it'is..If you only want to play patroling the aussies coast or playing hide and seek with our 209's, malay's new scorpene, running around in SEA sea lanes or occasionaly say hello to Indian & Chinese subs in bay of benggal and south china sea..than collins will be sufficients
However if you want to stalked indian coasts, take a peek to chinese bases or even try to see what's going on in Vladivostock..I think it's asked rather too much for collins.

Tha'ts why I asked with that kind of budgets being prepared..what really aussies wants..?? New and more sophisticated subs will come around in the regional waters..We're in the process of acquairing Kilo's..or 214..or the worst updated 209's..Malay's already get their scorpones..Sing will going to get new swede's dessign...Indian will get scorpenes in replacing their 209 and off course Nukes (and don't forget their fleets of Kilo's)...China continues wants to play catching up with US and Russia in the subs fleet...
So what aussies wants..??
Again collins will be well equiped to deal with new subs coming around in regional waters...however if the aimed to have definite regional superiority..If you really trying to match India and China..is it SSk really what you're looking for..??
Afterall..small SSN like the Brazil plan with enlarging Scorpenes hull..still within reach of your Aust$ 25 bio's budgets..and will have potential on any SSK's design in place or in the near future designs...
Off course unless magically the AIP can do 80%-90% of what the nuke's can do :)