This is a discussion on Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates within the Navy & Maritime forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; From what I have read, the government has stated that the propulsion systems it is looking at are more modern ...
From what I have read, the government has stated that the propulsion systems it is looking at are more modern that AIP. I know it wont be nuclear, but what it will be I have no idea. Does anybody have any ideas, or is it hush hush?
I've tried to work this one out. I don't have a clue. GF seems to have ruled out AIP and nuke (which is a form of AIP) and hints at some new magical advance that will give the subs all you could want.
So that leaves improved storage technologies (Li ion, Zebra, AGM, supercapacitors etc) which don't really offer much/anything over traditional storage, or some new advanced diesel (not Gas turbine either). And there haven't been any significant advances there either. I dunno solar powered submarines? Dismounted power (ie submarine cables?)???? Zero point energy, Farnsworth Fusors?
I don't expect anything revolutionary in terms of propulsion, I would expect a revolution in weapon systems that make the propulsion thing less relevant.
I just wish GF would spell it out. Or drop more hints.
Australia has always had hedging strategies in terms of nuclear power. ANSTO, laser refining, mining capability etc are part of that. We also previously were involved in several missile programs.
But Australia doesn't need Nukes, infact becoming a nuclear weapons owner would not be a good thing for us. We can over come almost any fanciful invader conventionally. It would justify the other locals getting nuclear technology, which would be a very bad thing.
Although RAN subs have never been involved directly in a war where they have sunk an enemy ship, they have seen plenty of "use". The incidences are numerous, and they are doing front line stuff every day that risks equipment and lives.
Except for the UK SSN's (faulklands), you could say every SSN in the world has never seen action.
So that leaves improved storage technologies (Li ion, Zebra, AGM, supercapacitors etc) which don't really offer much/anything over traditional storage, or some new advanced diesel (not Gas turbine either). And there haven't been any significant advances there either. I dunno solar powered submarines? Dismounted power (ie submarine cables?)???? Zero point energy, Farnsworth Fusors?.
I assume that power storage, especially with Li-ion batteries, or newer technoligies, would be part of a more advanced sub design?
Quote:
Originally Posted by StingrayOZ
I don't expect anything revolutionary in terms of propulsion, I would expect a revolution in weapon systems that make the propulsion thing less relevant.
I would assume some Advances in propulsion tech,maybee Hydrogen or magnetic engines or a form of effecient fuel...
Even power devices that that renew energy from moving parts.
I've tried to work this one out. I don't have a clue. GF seems to have ruled out AIP and nuke (which is a form of AIP) and hints at some new magical advance that will give the subs all you could want.
Nope, I am saying that AIP has been looked at before by RAN, that we have been able to prove that AIP is not critical to how we already employ one of if not the worlds longest ranging conventionals
I'm stating that other techs exist and that they have greater utility and applicability.
Quote:
Originally Posted by StingrayOZ
I just wish GF would spell it out. Or drop more hints.
Thats not going to happen.
1) because I can only tell you what clearly is not being considered (nukes)
2) that all other options are on the table as they get assessed and then removed from consideration (and we still have 5-6 years grace)
3) that nothing will be released to the public
4) that industry has already been told that its not their job to tell Navy what sub and what design they need
etc etc......
Quote:
Originally Posted by StingrayOZ
you could say every SSN in the world has never seen action.
I think the americans would take issue with that. USS Parche and her sisters would definitely take issue. Parche played inside territorial waters where exposure could have led to war. I think you'll find stories emerge over time how both the US and USSR took it up and where those events were deliberately buried.
bear in mind that subs (certainly in western navies) are on constant footing. its why they have separate independant commands etc.... when compared to other service elements.
In fact subs and special forces are unique in that respect. (and subs are seen as defacto special forces)
________________ 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 very simple Germany that knows a thing or two about non nuclear subs (having built over 80 post WW2 and has 40+ on order, says the future is Fuel Cells, I am inclined to agree with them. Now Australia that has build 6 boats with Swedish assistance, and they have had issues? Sweden has also gone down another AIP system (closed cycle??). Just buy the best or customise the best or you will end up like the the poor old RN with c3 subs
Without reading the article, most likely Carbon Nanotube Supercapacitor's. Much higher power densities then batteries, but still with energy densities much too low to make them a possible replacement for traditional batteries in the near future.
Long story short, they can be recharged much quicker then "traditional" batteries because of the increased power density, but on something like a submarine would give nowhere near the endurance underwater.
.....
And after reading the first paragraph or so, yup, super capacitors. I wrote an essay on them for one of my units last semester.
Look very simple Germany that knows a thing or two about non nuclear subs (having built over 80 post WW2 and has 40+ on order, says the future is Fuel Cells, I am inclined to agree with them. Now Australia that has build 6 boats with Swedish assistance, and they have had issues? Sweden has also gone down another AIP system (closed cycle??). Just buy the best or customise the best or you will end up like the the poor old RN with c3 subs
An issue with selecting an off the shelf solution is that there is no conventional subs with the desired requirements.Australias subs, are very unique.(like Japans subs too)
Your aware that Collins displaces approx 3000 tonnes while a 212 is about 1800 tonnes.
I hope we stay away from 212,they are very good subs,but not the capability Australia seeks.
Look very simple Germany that knows a thing or two about non nuclear subs (having built over 80 post WW2 and has 40+ on order, says the future is Fuel Cells, I am inclined to agree with them. Now Australia that has build 6 boats with Swedish assistance, and they have had issues? Sweden has also gone down another AIP system (closed cycle??). Just buy the best or customise the best or you will end up like the the poor old RN with c3 subs
Indeed, Germany (Sweden to a lesser degree too) has a great deal of experience designing and building diesel subs. One needs to remember the environment which the submarines were designed for though. The Swedish subs were essentially designed for Baltic ops, and the German ones seemed to be principally for the Baltic and North Seas.
The RAN (Japan and possibly Canada too) needs long-range, high endurance fleet submarines, capable of potentially transiting the Pacific. To achieve this, the RAN diesels are big, close to twice the displacement of many other diesels and even larger than some of the smaller SSNs.
As for Germany being able to design such a large sub, I am certain they could. What I am less certain of is whether or not their collective knownledge of diesel sub design would be all that applicable. After all, size does matter...
Something to keep in mind. IIRC the RAN to purchase a Stirling engine to test AIP systems on a test rig. While the specific results of those tests were not to my knowledge released to the public, the Stirling engine itself was crated up and a plug was not put into the Collins for the AIP system.
-Cheers
________________
"I'm doing the same thing I do every night, Pinky..." comment from one lab mouse to another.
I think the americans would take issue with that. USS Parche and her sisters would definitely take issue. Parche played inside territorial waters where exposure could have led to war. I think you'll find stories emerge over time how both the US and USSR took it up and where those events were deliberately buried.
bear in mind that subs (certainly in western navies) are on constant footing. its why they have separate independant commands etc.... when compared to other service elements.
In fact subs and special forces are unique in that respect. (and subs are seen as defacto special forces)
Actually if one looks, some US SSNs do have battle stars. Some participated in GWI as firing platforms for Tomahawk cruise missiles.
I also agree with GF's thinking that as time progresses, information detailing US submarine ops during the Cold War might be a little more exciting than are currently believed.
-Cheers
________________
"I'm doing the same thing I do every night, Pinky..." comment from one lab mouse to another.
Im assuming baring any dramatic new table shifting technology then Collins II will be larger than Collins I.
While Australia does seem to be limited to conventional choices, I see no issue with Australia operating a 5,000 or 6,000t sub. If we are looking for additional capability then the best way that is significantly going to happen is a larger sub.
While added benefits from new technologies will offer incrimental improvements, for the capability we are looking for a larger conventional will offer that to us.
in reference to australia's nuclear capability's or potential one i would suggest doing a little
more research into Lucas heights and there history with enrichment...
Look very simple Germany that knows a thing or two about non nuclear subs (having built over 80 post WW2 and has 40+ on order, says the future is Fuel Cells, I am inclined to agree with them.
yes, for <2000 tonne displacement subs they certainly do know about subs
BTW, I've been to any number of Fuel Cell Conferences in Hannover, Hamburg and Frankfurt over the last few years - its been pretty damn apparent to all the navy staff and military geeks attending that fuel cells can be complimentary, but they can't fulfill the requirements of large boats with complex deep blue designed combat and sensor systems. the only country that has the generator technology to make fuel cells useful as an adjunct is the US - and they're already trialling those systems on other assets. Fuel cells will be excellent for dismounts - but for full blown subs with complex systems and designed to do 60 day missions? I doubt it when there are better opportunities already available for some US allies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1805
Now Australia that has build 6 boats with Swedish assistance, and they have had issues? Sweden has also gone down another AIP system (closed cycle??). Just buy the best or customise the best or you will end up like the the poor old RN with c3 subs
ah yes, you don't seem to be aware that some of the initial design problems were because the number crunchers hadn't factored in pacific water conditions and that threw a lot of the data and design out. in fact its the australian research that identified the early problems. its the australians who first developed proper fitting anechoic tiles - much to the surprise of some of our cousins using larger displaced assets - and that tile fitment and management is critical to acoustic mapping?
and you seem to be oblivious to the fact that the sig management and acoustic mapping was australian developed.
if you like I can give you the horror stories about the upholders and what we knew in 1999 even before the canadians bought them.
you do realise that AIP was trialled an abandoned by the RAN because it provided minimal benefit for the type of taskings we employ - and the fact that in a number of RIMPACs that USN ASW HK teams have been surprised a number of times as they assumed that diesel subs would need to come up for air and used as part of their prosecution sets, needless to say it hasn't worked.
you seem to be oblivious as why we need large subs, what large subs bring to the picture and some of the interoperability issues that we consider along wth what widgets we want. Common combat rooms, common combat systems, common training, an ability to "borrow" systems from our nuke fitted cousins etc all factor into the picture. quite frankly a 214 would not be able to support the combat system and sensor suite that we use in pacific waters.
I suggest that you actually read and learn about what some posters backgrounds are before you trot into a forum carrying on about subject material that you're pulling off the internet.
before people get excited about technology, subs are first and foremost about training and crew competency.
if you doubt that then let me remind you about the North Korean Romeos off the west coast of africa and the embuggerance that they caused.
Even crap boats well crewed will sink ships if the opportunity presents itself.
________________ A corollary of Finagle's Law, similar to Occam's Razor, says:
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
This thread has some good information and links about the general merits of well trained and competent crews in a weapon system which has proven that it can punch far above its weight and force a reaction disproportional in effort.
The ratio of GF's arguments seems to be, as far as i understand it, sensible enough.
Firn
________________
"The first criterioun in war remains decisive action. Everyone, from the highest commander down to the youngest soldier, must constantly be aware that inaction and neglect incriminate him more severely than any error in the choice of means.
