This is a discussion on Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates within the Navy & Maritime forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; I read that The US and Oz are doing alot of join development in sub Technology.Is this true, and is ...
I read that The US and Oz are doing alot of join development in sub Technology.Is this true, and is this a better way to go,OR would it be wiser just to purchase american tech?
I think its important we develop it with them. I think we should concider ourselves lucky that the US wants to involve us so deeply in this fantastic opportunity (and others such as hypersonics). Building stronger US/AU scientific/engineering and defence relationships. The benefits are potentially huge for the AU industry and defence.
Look at CBass, without being a little bit in development we most likely wouldn't have it. The best stuff you work with the US to make, not just buy OTS (which doesn't exist for us except in some small specific subsystems).
The more we work with the US the better our understanding of the technologies we use, can develop from and better knowledge of what to purchase.
While it brings us close, I think the AWD shows that we don't have to buy US. (even tho if we had miniburkes it would have made ASC possibly more saleable to the US). Tiger too (which intergrating hellfires was pure genius). We get the best of both worlds.
Most nations involved in complex engineering programmes will as part of the R&D process discover ground breaking innovations, which can be incorporated in the next generation of boats, whether that be the UK, US or Australia - e.g. acoustic tiles, the design of flank arrays, non-penertrating optic masts, post and pre- swirl propulsion systems etc., etc.. The issue is transfer of technology avoiding unnecessary re-inventing of the wheel. One assumes with the US, UK and Aussie industrial cooperation agreements in place, cleared at the very highest security levels, Australia can shop around for latest technology.
There is a significant degree of sharing across 4/5I's A/US, A/UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by riksavage
Thales (French) having already worked on the Collins and the UK Astute programme supplying the latest generation flank arrays and non-penetrating masts, they must be an option for supplying future boats. Out of interest do the current Collins have non-hull penetrating surveillance and intelligence gathering masts / systems? From photo's I note there are three separate masts on the Collins sail, conpared to sixteen on the new Astute.
Thales picked up involvment through buying up the companies that did the initial work. They've done bugger all with Collins and they are an embuggerance because the US is twitchy about them being involved where their own tech is involved. I would hope that we don't go anywhere near Thales for any sub technology. There is better about. Eg the sensor tech that Thales crows about as there own was initially developed in Aust as part of a DSTO commercial arrangement. Thales did ZERO development and picked it up by proxy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by riksavage
It would be interesting to see if Australia goes for something radical along the lines of what BAE is proposing
Again, what the US was doing with Tango Bravo 4 years ago is a golden mile ahead of any of our other allies.
________________ A corollary of Finagle's Law, similar to Occam's Razor, says:
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
Are anechoic tiles really an asset?I read that its very difficult to pinpoint where a target is,with all the noise clutter that is in our oceans?
PS i know i read to much
Regards..
A sub is a tranducer. anything that disrupts its surface is a potential transmitter. the soviets/russians/chinese had lousy tiles for years - think of a piece of skin flapping in the wind. there's a similar analogy.
________________ A corollary of Finagle's Law, similar to Occam's Razor, says:
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
Look at CBass, without being a little bit in development we most likely wouldn't have it. The best stuff you work with the US to make, not just buy OTS (which doesn't exist for us except in some small specific subsystems).
Not sure if I'm misreading your response. But CBASS was primarily australian data and software married to US tech.
Its a shared development
________________ A corollary of Finagle's Law, similar to Occam's Razor, says:
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
Again, what the US was doing with Tango Bravo 4 years ago is a golden mile ahead of any of our other allies.[/QUOTE]
The Tango Bravo 4 objective of bringing Virginia Class capabilities to a platform half the size would probably be about right for Aus. However I can't see the Yanks wasting any time developing non-nuclear propulsion technology, so that will have to be sourced from elsewhere unless the Aus Gov suddenly changes its policy, which I doubt.
Again, what the US was doing with Tango Bravo 4 years ago is a golden mile ahead of any of our other allies.
The Tango Bravo 4 objective of bringing Virginia Class capabilities to a platform half the size would probably be about right for Aus. However I can't see the Yanks wasting any time developing non-nuclear propulsion technology, so that will have to be sourced from elsewhere unless the Aus Gov suddenly changes its policy, which I doubt.
The US is already developing electrical solutions which stand a good chance of usurping conventional sub tech.
I think you're missing the point of the non nuke developments for the americans (and for its like minded allies)
Those techs mean that future subs with dismounted weapons can start to act like controllers.
Hive technology is not that far away. I think I've stated before, but a few years back I witnessed USV tech that had 8hrs endurance. That same capability is now tripled. By 2020, the tech will be well on the way to mature and gold release.
Aerodynamics and fluid dynamics are kissing cousins. there are substantial similarities in some of the future operational opportunities.
eg fighters managing hives of UAV's
eg subs managing hives of USV/UUSV/AIW dismounts.
The americans have been working on non nuke powerplants for a reason. most people have looked in the wrong direction.
Go to the UDT conferences and everyone is on a similar page.
subs are changing
________________ A corollary of Finagle's Law, similar to Occam's Razor, says:
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
The US is already developing electrical solutions which stand a good chance of usurping conventional sub tech.
I think you're missing the point of the non nuke developments for the americans (and for its like minded allies)
Those techs mean that future subs with dismounted weapons can start to act like controllers.
Hive technology is not that far away. I think I've stated before, but a few years back I witnessed USV tech that had 8hrs endurance. That same capability is now tripled. By 2020, the tech will be well on the way to mature and gold release.
Aerodynamics and fluid dynamics are kissing cousins. there are substantial similarities in some of the future operational opportunities.
eg fighters managing hives of UAV's
eg subs managing hives of USV/UUSV/AIW dismounts.
The americans have been working on non nuke powerplants for a reason. most people have looked in the wrong direction.
Go to the UDT conferences and everyone is on a similar page.
subs are changing
I have a lot of time for this post because it reinforces my own 'concepts' which is often a nice feeling to hear from someone else far closer to the coal face.
My own view is that weaponry should never (or rarely) be launched from your 'hive' or mothersub (last resort only). Also future weaponry 'capacity' of a sub ought be extremely difficult to ascertain. Your hivesub or mothersub may be able to carry 10-20 weapon launching UUVs into theatre but has the capacity to 'engage' with dormant UUVs strategically placed on the seabed at a prior time.
So attacking a slow moving 'hivesub' (massive hull displacement) can be a very dangerous exercise if you choose to track and follow (if you can). It may well drag you into a zone whereby it can pick up signal and control of secondary grouping of weapons which could completely devastate.
The ideal threat is the unknown threat or a continuously changing threat matrix. It ought to be a whole new tactical field of play to explore.
You could also 'pass off' weaponry control between hivesubs (where you have intersecting control signals) during battle effectively daisy chaining hive subs to ferry additional weaponry to the hivesub that has been engaged and wishing to control sea position. Like a 'ring' defence of sea position/territory whereby you can add firepower (weapon loaded UUVs) without increasing your human capital exposure to the engagement and allowing you to maintain the initial broad sea coverage of the daisy chained hivesubs.
That might be enough of my inane ramblings for one day.
A slight change of subject from the technical side to the time frame. I would like to see us commence construction of the new subs earlier than planned, so that we have a few in the water before the first Collins is de-commissioned, therefore increasing our sub fleet from the start of production, not as likely otherwise when the 7th new sub is commissioned. I imagine that the new subs will not be produced much quicker if at all than the Collins were, so we wont be able to increase our numbers until the 7th sub otherwise. By starting production earlier than presently planned we could have a fleet of 7 or 8 subs before HMAS Collins is decommissioned.
Totally off topic, but may be a possible option for the new LHD's - half hovercraft / half landing craft being trialed. Design increases speed and ability to extract itself off the beach. Would fit most existing LHD's in service today
Totally off topic, but may be a possible option for the new LHD's - half hovercraft / half landing craft being trialed. Design increases speed and ability to extract itself off the beach. Would fit most existing LHD's in service today
That is a very intriguing development, I am keen to kind out more information on it.
I am not sure it is an option for the RAN at this stage, they have ordered the LCM-1E for the Canberra class.
Assuming the design pans out, I guess it could be a future option with the Strategic sealift ship; possibly a mix with the LCM-1E accross all three ships?
Last edited by PeterM; October 15th, 2009 at 01:43 AM.
That is a very intriguing development, I am keen to kind out more information on it.
I am not sure it is an option for the RAN at this stage, they have ordered the LCM-1E for the Canberra class.
Assuming the design pans out, I guess it could be a future option with the Strategic sealift ship; possibly a mix with the LCM-1E accross all three ships?
55t max load, so I can't transport M1A1, Automatic Disqualification unless it could be scaled up further.
55t max load, so I can't transport M1A1, Automatic Disqualification unless it could be scaled up further.
The Spanish require them to carry a Leopard 2E, i.e. 63 tons - metric. I don't know what the sea state limits on that load are, but carrying a Spanish army Leopard 2E to a beach has been demonstrated to the RAN. There are pictures, further back in this thread.
Sorry, I meant the Royal Marines demonstrator, not the spanish LCM.
Quoted the wrong post.
Ooops!
Yeah, the "PACSCAT" would have to be scaled up for Oz. I think the RMs don't mind not being able to carry Challengers. We have other ways to get them ashore.
