Naval Ship & Submarine Propulsion Systems

rockitten

Member
This thread on Naval Ship & Submarine Propulsion Systems covers everything from oars, paddles through to nuclear power plants, but excludes flux capacitors and the like.

The discussions here have been split off from the Australian and Canadian Navies threads, at the request of members.


US navy's SOSUS in East Asia. Wonder what if Indonesia request "assistance" to monitor Aussie submarines as a quid pro quo.

http://gentleseas.blogspot.com.au/2015/09/how-to-trap-chinese-dragon-seawebs.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
US navy's SOSUS in East Asia. Wonder what if Indonesia request "assistance" to monitor Aussie submarines as a quid pro quo.
Quid pro quo where?

the US and Aus have interoperability for a reason, they have common strategic and tactical interests.

I've never seen any indons in any planning events or major international exercises - more to the point is the indons have no leverage with the US ...

i assume you're being ridiculous for a reason?

when the indons get treated at the same milshare levels as we do with the 38+ treaties and military agreements that Aust has with the US.....trailing sentence invoked
 

rockitten

Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #3
Quid pro quo where?
i assume you're being ridiculous for a reason?

when the indons get treated at the same milshare levels as we do with the 38+ treaties and military agreements that Aust has with the US.....trailing sentence invoked
Friends of your friend doesn't always also your friends. Just like Japan is using the SOSUS not just to monitor submarines from China, but also those from S. Korea and Taiwan.

Initially, I just wonder if that SOSUS around Indons picked up signals from an Aussie submarine, will Indons get the info. Of coz, now as you have explained, if US does not requires Indons cooperation/consent for the southern lines, then that is not an issue.
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Friends of your friend doesn't always also your friends. Just like Japan is using the SOSUS not just to monitor submarines from China, but also those from S. Korea and Taiwan.

Initially, I just wonder if that SOSUS around Indons picked up signals from an Aussie submarine, will Indons get the info. Of coz, now as you have explained, if US does not requires Indons cooperation/consent for the southern lines, then that is not an issue.
are you trying to engage in serious debate? you've said a couple of things in the last few posts which are making me question how much you understand about subs and sub detection issues in general.

and having spoken to the authors on different occasions (and coincidentally but specifically about the old SOSUS network), I'd suggest that the bloggers cut down on their own assessments and read the book a little harder. some of their statements are borderline nonsensical

the chinese have been building their own SOSUS type network since the late 90's, they were buying equipment banned under military dual use provisions but which were allowed to counter maritime terrorism issues for the olympics,
 
China has a massive disadvantage in geography if it wants to get its sea assets into the open oceans without interference. I am sure this drives the chinese admirals mad. Perhaps one reason China is developing long range aircraft and anti ship missiles is that even if one of their subs is detected, opposing forces still need to sink it. If that surface vessel or aircraft that is trying to sink the sub, can be destroyed first, then detection is kinda moot.

The US, Australia, Canada, India and the UK are quite well served geographically if they want to get their ships and subs into the open oceans undetected

As China's economy grows and grows, I am sure they will attempt to obtain naval bases far afield, and would be prepared to pay for the privledge.

Imagine some of the poor countries is east africa, with a GDP of $500 per person per year, and China says, hey we can lease a small island for 150 million dollars a year, many countries would be very very tempted to take the money. Of course the diplomatic and economic aggravation that poor nation would get from allowing a Chinese base would outweigh the money that China could offer. However as China gets richer and richer, and becomes more and more the preferred trading partner of many poor nations, then there is the temptation for some governments to say hey,,,, lets go with China, they are offering big big dollars, and stuff the west.

It could be the Seychelles, Tanzania, Mozambique, Sri Lanka, Angola, Burma, Bangladesh, Yemen, Somalia or Pakistan or maybe a small poor pacific nation like Kiribati or Tuvalu

With a naval base outside the inner waters, the Chinese navy could outflank the net. As China gets more and more money, more and more diplomatic kick, more and more technology, the temptation to go with China will get more and more.

To counter that, you can bet the west will be using a huge swathe of political pressure, economic pressure, espionage, bribery, coercion etc (not that these tools are in any way limited to the west, they are of course universal) tools to try and stop China getting the go ahead from a government to set up a Chinese Naval base far far afield.

Stuff like this is not talked about, but I would be certain such conversations are had regularly behind closed doors, that is how to prevent or delay Chinese overseas naval bases. It might be a small factor as to why the west does not recognise the sovereignty of Somaliland and Puntland, which are independent and stable. Maybe the west does not want to run the risk of having two independent nations that could in decades to come be tempted by the dollars China would be willing to spend to lease a base. (a thinking out loud idea)

I am sure that if a cash strapped nation in east africa ever decided it wanted the money to lease a few square miles of territory so that China could build a large naval base, China would go for it. I am pretty sure those poor nations dont do it at the moment because the downside in aggravation from western governments would be big time, and just maybe China is not quite ready to make that leap. However in decades to come, China is going to become increasingly annoyed at being hemmed in, and my guess is that they will start to make strong efforts to see if they can get an oveseas base to outflank the net
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
I am sure that if a cash strapped nation in east africa ever decided it wanted the money to lease a few square miles of territory so that China could build a large naval base, China would go for it. I am pretty sure those poor nations dont do it at the moment because the downside in aggravation from western governments would be big time, and just maybe China is not quite ready to make that leap. However in decades to come, China is going to become increasingly annoyed at being hemmed in, and my guess is that they will start to make strong efforts to see if they can get an oveseas base to outflank the net
Getting a bit OT for the RAN thread, but there have been a number of reports of growing dissatisfaction with mainland China in Africa. This is due to a variety of reported causes, amongst them Chinese manufacturers flooding local African markets with "knockoff" copies of traditional manufactured goods like handmade shoes. There are also reports that a number of the infrastructure projects in Africa have not gone according to plan, like bridges failing/collapsing after only a few years of use, roadways, etc.
 

Joe Black

Active Member
The French are on charm offensive.

-------------
<Right mouse click on the URL and open it in Incognito window>
https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&...yd0IRwHNbm7paGKWw&sig2=IV6nuzbMykrm5dI2tWG_8Q

Future Submarines: French delegates visit Adelaide

FRENCH defence technology is “the best” and their submarines offer “life insurance”, the visiting head of a Senate Committee says.

A high-powered delegation of French Senators and the French Ambassador will visit Adelaide on Wednesday to talk about submarines and wine, among other topics.

In Canberra on Tuesday the President of the French Senate’s Committee on Economic Affairs, Jean-Claude Lenoir, said he chose Adelaide over Melbourne for a range of factors including our economic doldrums, the $50 billion Future Submarines project and our “outstanding” wine.

“Others wanted me to go to Melbourne,” he said.

“I believe (we) had good reasons to come to a territory where we know it’s been harshly hit by industrial developments, by restructuring, by job losses in the industry, a phenomenon that we (know) have to be the target of an active and imaginative policy.

“I am here to look into what we can compare.”

Senator Lenoir said the French company bidding for the submarines contract, DCNS, was a state-owned company, and that South Australians could be assured France had bipartisan support for building submarines.

“(And) the French technology is most certainly the best … we have a national defence force that rests on the principle of nuclear deterrent and the pillar of the nuclear deterrent is the submarine,” he said.

“Submarines are our life insurance. It is thanks to submarines that we have managed to preserve our total independence,” he said.

He said he understood Australia did not need nuclear-powered submarines.

France is one of three international partners vying to work with Australia on the submarines.

France, Germany and Japan will each have to provide three options — an onshore build, an offshore build, and a hybrid build — and the Government will then choose one of those. That choice will affect how many jobs are created in South Australia.

The delegation comprises Senator Lenoir and four of his committee colleagues and Ambassador of France to Australia Christophe Lecourtier.

They will be in South Australia for two days and will meet Premier Jay Weatherill and other ministers and will visit shipbuilders ASC and Jacob’s Creek, and discuss business and climate change.

Mr Weatherill welcomed the visit.

“What has impressed me is their understanding of the importance of sovereignty capability, which is an imperative of the French,” he said.

“They also have a corresponding willingness and capacity to transfer technology.”

The Federal Government is set to release its Defence White Paper in the coming weeks, and the competitive evaluation process will wind up at the end of the year, making an announcement of an international partner likely in the first half of next year.

They have already announced that the lucrative $20 billion Future Frigate program — for which France is also likely to bid — will be based in Adelaide.

------------

Oh la la.... I love the way they brought up Jacob’s Creek. Surely they haven't tried WA Margaret River's wines! :)
 

vonnoobie

Well-Known Member
Oh even the Germans are on a charm offensive, And I honestly prefer there's. We will over the next 5 - 10 years have at various stages 50,000 odd skilled worker's being made available as they pointed out so we don't lack the qualified work force. And cost wise that are willing to bear 100% of the risk of any cost blow out and that is for a product built in Australia.. That and the Germans like there beer so they get my vote ;)
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
my prefs under the current loaded bases

1 japan
2 germany
3 anyone but france

my prefs if it was based on an actual capability req

1 japan
2 sweden
3 germany
4 anyone but france
 

Joe Black

Active Member
I wouldnt mind putting $ on Option J as the winner of the fair evaluation process, after the trade agreement just the same.
It seems like a retro tender to me, surprised the french havnt pulled out.
I think each of the vendors have pitched their product with some unique strengths and features.

I like the Shortfin Barracuda, and had it not been from the French, it would probably be my preferred submarine to go with for the RAN. Just look at the range and it's transit speed. Plus the fact that it has many unique features, and probably the best platform to support special forces.

The major drawback obviously is that it is probably going to be the hardest to put in American technology given the Yanks and the French are not always the best of friends and putting in an American combat system into the Shortfin Barracuda would be a tough ask.

I have also wondered why the Japanese model of their Soryu submarine showcased in Pacific 2015 does not have propellers, unlike the German's model.

See the Sea1000's Soryu model here:
http://adbr.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/japan_sub-2-crop.jpg

And the Type 216 model here:
http://adbr.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/T_krupp_1-crop.jpg

I also wonder if Japan has not considered going with pumpjet propulsion.
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
I have also wondered why the Japanese model of their Soryu submarine showcased in Pacific 2015 does not have propellers, unlike the German's model.

See the Sea1000's Soryu model here:
http://adbr.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/japan_sub-2-crop.jpg

And the Type 216 model here:
http://adbr.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/T_krupp_1-crop.jpg
its pretty basic - nobody shows their real propellers - the japanese don't even show facsimiles

all the other props you see on sub models are meaningless

outside of sig mgt tech - propulsion is the next biggest black block for UDT security
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Although I believe the nuclear option is the best solution for the RCN's next submarine because of under ice considerations, whatever Australia decides upon will be Canada's front runner for non-nuke sub replacement IMO.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
DCNS have submitted their final proposal to the CoA for the SEA1000 Future Submarine Program. It was delivered on Friday 27/11/2015.
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
DCNS have submitted their final proposal to the CoA for the SEA1000 Future Submarine Program. It was delivered on Friday 27/11/2015.
germans and french submitted theirs on the same day - japanese submitted theirs to govt a few days ago
 

vonnoobie

Well-Known Member
I'll stick money on the team with a real sub that's not a drawing.
I thought none of them had a real submarine? All 3 proposal's are based off of an evolution or modification of an existing design, But nothing that is actually in service today will be used.
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
So that's no-one then? Even the Japanese sub needs massive changes to meet the published requirements.

oldsig
The japanese are the only ones with a real foundation sub in service - the others are vapourware - ironically thats the very thing that a lot of the journos and politicians used to get hysterical about with respect to Collins development model

short memories and convenient loss of it when it suits the narrative
 

Joe Black

Active Member
The japanese are the only ones with a real foundation sub in service - the others are vapourware - ironically thats the very thing that a lot of the journos and politicians used to get hysterical about with respect to Collins development model

short memories and convenient loss of it when it suits the narrative
I would suggest that the Shortfin Barracuda can't be classified as a vapourware as it is based on the existing Barracuda but a scaled down version. The Japanese Soryu would need to scale up for an Australianised Soryu ("Goryu").

The Type 216 is probably a "scaled up" derivative version of Type 214/218 anyway, so a semi-vapourware. If anything, this is the only real "paper sub".
 
Top