Naval Ship & Submarine Propulsion Systems

[gf0012-aust]

Ok I see, I don't know anything and just assumed that going full tit would only be for a short distance to get out of harms way, not something you would do over distance's more than a few KM.So in my uneducated mind a battery producing instant torque from 0 rpm allied to the fast reacting pump jet would be a great idea.

its also about things like outrunning a torpedo, outrunning a HK team. sprint and drift, staying on station in the littorals where you're sitting over an object of interest in ISR roles etc.....

storage and surge....

its one of the reasons why there's a development push to use Li batteries and "super" capacitors to replace battery banks.

ironic that the french dismissed the japanese Li solution as I've attended a few UDT's in London, Hawai'i and Rome where the french were spruiking Li developments for their own combatants.....

 

[gf0012-aust]

I'm completely with you on this. The anti-French brigade on here are acting all snappy and are jumping on any positivity whatsoever (helps when they're mods I guess).

If they weren't privy to the full details of the options then for all we know the J and G options may have had some critical failure in the proposal, but for some reason it's only OK here to speculate about that without evidence when it's about the French.

I think some self-moderation is in order.

be a bit more circumspect I think and I'd rethink your last comment - its uncalled for when its a reflection of your own issues

if you disagree with the tech issues raised then feel free to come back

so far its been apparent that the general public don't even understand the process and assume that RAN have done a full technical assessment - they haven't

that gets dealt with over the next 18 months

I've already provided evidence about the sub being a greenfield development - any engineer would tell you the same once the facts get explained to them

look at the example of nuke fitout impacts compared to diesel electric. all of that is real time examples - its not some fancy verbage done to impress anyone

if you don't like the answers then come up with counter facts

whinging because you don't like the fact that real issues are being raised doesn't add value

I'm happy to argue the technical issues within the spirit of an OSINT discussion anytime

the french selection is being discussed as its the principle contender until end 2017 and beyond unless it fails contract negotiations which will actually thrash out more technical specifics

 

[gf0012-aust]

the french selection is being discussed as its the principle contender until end 2017 and beyond unless it fails contract negotiations which will actually thrash out more technical specifics

just to reinforce the above

the very issues I have raised in here are the very things that will get raised by the maritime engineers and operators over the next 18months

so before anyone else gets snippy because they are unhappy about the tone and thrust of the issues being raised - it would be better that you asked the questions before getting offended so that you understand how its actually conducted

its pretty damn clear that there are some confused about what round 1 actually means and what it was meant to do

you can get grumpy after you ask the questions - but getting fractious when some of you don't understand the timeline is a tad rich and more than a bit cheeky if not rude

I'm more than patient if people ask and play nice - I have less tolerance when they get all antsy but don't even attempt to understand why the issues are even raised in the first place

the job is about ensuring that the warfighter gets the best that is possible - and its about protecting the commonwealth - its not about protecting the vendor

the same discourse would be in play if it was a german, japanese or martian sub

 

[gf0012-aust]

I'd love the discussion to be technical, but then you post things like this:


How is that tech? If you're going to tell others to stick to the tech then do it yourself..

seriously? have you not been listening to the politics in the last 9 months?
did you not read about all the examples given where the selection was clearly not based on technical emphasis.

I worked in Ministerial Support and I've done the Policy Secretariat gig, so I can add relevant insight

If you've been ignoring all the technical examples I've given to date then you are cherry picking to assuage your own irritation

You're clearly displeased with the selection yet have openly stated you're not privy to the full details, how does that make any sense? How do you KNOW that it wasn't chosen for good reason? Gut feel? Or is this a case of "I know but I can't tell"?

It's making this discussion worthless, and you're adding to it.

I won't add to it any more myself, I'll bow out now and not bother with the subs topic.

I am curious as to whether you have paid any attention to what I have said previously. Are you ignoring all the tech issues stated to date?

and stay civil, I can tolerate enthusiastic and opposing views/questions, but I have zero patience if you are going to be rude and say that my dialogue is worthless

lower the tone and adjust your own attitude

if you want happy hand clapping all the time then you're in the wrong forum

read the prev post #18696 for reinforced clarity

 

[Todjaeger]

Ok I see, I don't know anything and just assumed that going full tit would only be for a short distance to get out of harms way, not something you would do over distance's more than a few KM.So in my uneducated mind a battery producing instant torque from 0 rpm allied to the fast reacting pump jet would be a great idea.

If you could go far enough to get out of a search box before needing to recharge the batteries, then the capability could be useful. OTOH, if the use of pumpjets increased the noise of the sub, then instant acceleration is not as useful. Or if the power demand was such that they could not take the sub outside of a search box. An indiscretion to recharge the batteries, while within a search box, may well be much more dangerous than very slowly, very quietly, attempting to sneak away.

From open-source materials, the current Collins-class subs can sustain 4 kts for 100 hours on batteries. Something to consider, when contemplating how long (as opposed to fast or far) the RAN wants a sub to be able to quietly lurk on batteries.

 

[gf0012-aust]

As others have pointed out before, pumpjet technology certainly has applications for submarines, especially for nuclear-powered subs. To date, it has only been trialed aboard a (single IIRC) Russian Kilo-class diesel-electric sub, and this was about a decade ago. Which begs the question, if pumpjet technology is so advantageous for submarines, has no new French, German, or Japanese conventional/diesel-electric subs been fitted with it, or even trialed?

From my POV, that very strongly suggests that pumpjets require something which a nuclear-powered can have in abundance, but a diesel-electric sub would not. The first thing which springs to my mind is power. The energy budget for a diesel-electric sub, is quite different from that of a nuclear-powered sub.

that sub has been a harbour queen for a long long time - its actually a hulk. the pump jet was removed and the boat has been docked and "abandoned" ever since.. they never even tried to offer it to the Indians.

at the time I was contracting in acoustics - and we were furiously mapping Kilos so as to get comparison readings. In fact we sold export versions of Collins developed technology to a number of countries in anticipation of "super" kilos hitting the water. The tech was used on French, German, Swedish and Dutch boats.

an unheralded success story where the Australian company involved in development and selling it had no desire to have its name in lights in the Australian press and was and still is successfully kept out of the broader media

We built a solution at 1/15th of what the US, UK and France could do it for and with 95% of the performance gains that those more expensive programs attempted.

There is some seriously smart capability here so you can understand why comments from people like ex DefMIn Johnson went down like a lead balloon across the country within industry. even the anti-ASC (under commercial competitiveness) companies knew he'd crossed a bridge too far. By maligning one he by association maligned all as the general public already thought that they were expert engineers and force planners. Johnson caused that half witted view to foster and grow when it was the last thing needed

 

[vonnoobie]

In regard's to the French submarine, My understanding based off of what I have read here and a little common sense (Assuming I haven't misinterpreted anything in which case my apologies) is that we have basically chosen the French hull possibly because it was the closest in size comparisons (Not just displacement but internal height's and widths).

We will be getting the US combat and weapons systems.

The pump jet propulsion is up in the air for now, They may do some test's to find out it's feasibility but if it look's to be a long term development likely switch to standard DE propulsion methods. Time line too tight to be stuffing around with a maybe and I'm confident those involved know that.

The diesel engines, Currently it has the French diesels in it as far as I know.. Would we keep them or is there a chance of going to something more common such as one of the German diesels? generally far more of them in operation so better supply chain and far more combined hours on them to back up or discredit it's usefulness.. or is there another option I'm missing?

I'd imagine we will go for LI, judging by Japan being at the forefront they will most likely be who we talk to. Germany might be able to sneak in if they take a leap and incorporate LI into there own submarines to show there stuff off. France I'm not sure about, Not so much with there capability but rather lack of submarine number's (DE exports) to be able to fit LI into them in to show us.

AIP system.. Japan is scrapping there's in favor of LI.. Would we forgo an AIP system for pure LI or is it possible/beneficial to have both?

The periscope.. Would we go for the traditional system or is it possible we would look at something similar to the Astute class periscope?

Regards, Matthew.

 

[StingrayOZ]

I think shortfin got selected because as a hull it fits more in with the RAN CONOPs and what it wants/needs to be able to do. I think selections will be made to give these boats the capability to meet its doctrine. But I think that doctrine is very different from other SSk's. DCNS seems quite happy to go down that road.

Its quite interesting to re-read some older articles in todays light

Forward basing out of Guam, Transit speeds.
SEA 1000 - A RANGE OF SUBMARINE OPTIONS | Australian Defence News & Articles | Asia Pacific Defence Reporter

Probably one of the more detailed discussions of the DCNS option (with the others).
http://navalinstitute.com.au/wp-con...marine-Decision-A-B-25Jun15-no-logo-cover.pdf

 

[hypernova]

I think shortfin got selected because as a hull it fits more in with the RAN CONOPs and what it wants/needs to be able to do. I think selections will be made to give these boats the capability to meet its doctrine. But I think that doctrine is very different from other SSk's. DCNS seems quite happy to go down that road.

Again, there's a chicken and egg thing going on here regarding CONOPS and doctrine.

 

[ngatimozart]

I'm completely with you on this. The anti-French brigade on here are acting all snappy and are jumping on any positivity whatsoever (helps when they're mods I guess).

If they weren't privy to the full details of the options then for all we know the J and G options may have had some critical failure in the proposal, but for some reason it's only OK here to speculate about that without evidence when it's about the French.

I think some self-moderation is in order.

That's politics, and ultimately the details are always speculative. And I've never said politics doesn't alter decisions, it happens, and IMO in some instances it should (provided it's not which member/seat it helps etc). More importantly though it's certainly not technical - it adds nothing to the discussion, and this is specifically not meant to be a politics forum.



This though really gets to me. My responses have been written professionally and respectfully, it would be appreciated if you could do the same in return. I'm a professional in a highly technical field trying to engage in discussion, not a teenager giving bad attitude online.

Pull your head in quickly or you will be on a three month holiday from here. People have gone our of their way to explain the issues to you. It is not their fault or problem if you have trouble understanding or accepting them. You may be a respect professional in your field but any respect you have on here has to be earned and is not taken for granted despite how many academic letters you may have after your name.

Picking a quarrel with the moderators is a quick way of being deleted from here. Blue tags = Defence Professionals. We actually do know what we are talking about when it comes to our own specific fields. Because of the nature of some of the topics we cannot and will not be able to comment all topics due to security. If you don't like that build a bridge and get over it.

This is your final warning. No correspondence will be entered into or accepted

 

[StingrayOZ]

Again, there's a chicken and egg thing going on here regarding CONOPS and doctrine.

Aren't both evolving? Why would we choose a combat system from an american SSN instead of a convention SSK combat system, it wasn't native to any of the proposals. RAN CONOPs have always been quite different for subs. I would imagine we will keep developing doctrine with the US.

Regarding engines, as the Siemens article explained, man hasn't updated their engines for quite a while and doesn't seem interested in submarines with their new generation. I would think MTU would certainly get a look in.

I don't think we are overtly interested in AIP (CONOPs and that).

Doesn't Barracuda have a Sagem 30 SOM photonics mast already?

 

[hypernova]

Aren't both evolving? Why would we choose a combat system from an american SSN instead of a convention SSK combat system, it wasn't native to any of the proposals. RAN CONOPs have always been quite different for subs. I would imagine we will keep developing doctrine with the US.

As i stated above doctrine and CONOPS is about employing the technology available to achieve tactical and operational outcomes - it is thus technologically dependant. Yes, doctrine has an influence on force type and thus technology, but only within an overachieving technological environment winch is well beyond the control of the military.

Guardian didn't write Achtung Panzer to inspire engineers to invent the tank - it was a conceptual model of how to leverage the technological development the Panzer represented. Doctrine may well have influenced the design of specific tanks but only because of the technological limitations of the day: as technology developed independently the design compromises in WWII tanks essentially disappeared. The same stands for NCW and the communications revolution.

As a more extreme example I'm sure the USAF would love teleportation technology - it would revolutionise precision strike - but said technology is well beyond the capability of the wider industrial society to provide. So whether the USAF develops doctrine around teleportation, doesn't mean the capability will magically appear.

I'm sure the RAN has some idea of how it thinks it will employ these subs in the future, but current CONOPs and doctrine wont necessarily have a massive amount t do with it.

Not sure how BGY-1 is relevant to doctrinal development specifically - its just a combat system.

 

[t68]

Regarding engines, as the Siemens article explained, man hasn't updated their engines for quite a while and doesn't seem interested in submarines with their new generation. I would think MTU would certainly get a look in.

not 100% sure but I think it was you who said that MTU was the preferred set up for Collins until Kockums said they would not fit (or along those Lines), I imagine they will be very specific on what they want this time around

 

[CB90]

I don’t mean to be flippant, but essentially all you have stated here is significant technological challenges remain for the Shortfin Barracuda to meets the public claims made by DCNS. In any case, I’m not sure how the above issues indicate that DCNS’s statements about the Shorfin Barracuda are inherently unachievable or technically unfeasible. Obviously, there’s much work to be done, but that stands for practically every element of the design. Are we to refrain from making claims whatsoever about the boats likely displacement given public statements by DCNS? Could be 6,000 tons? Could be 2,000?

You can solve pretty much any technological challenge if you throw enough time and money at it.
I don't think there's much doubt on the technical ability of DCNS (or any of the big primes) to pull off the programs they contract for, it's whether or not they can do it without busting budget or schedule that gets people in a tizzy.

Again, you probably need to appreciate the difference between an inference of likely capability from public statements made by a contractor and a hard truth claim. If we apply the rule that no statement from any contractor can be given any weight, then the majority of the capability discussions in this thread, and others, is worthless. Obviously, there is a real chance DCNS will not be able to meet this public ‘commitment’ – for lack of a better term – but clearly this statement indicates this is a capability objective for DCNS.

I don't think you're getting the point I was making.

I can say "sustained transit speed" all day long.
If I don't actually define "sustained" I can pretty much make up whatever number I want. Even if that speed dumps the battery in an hour, it's "sustained".
Obviously exaggerating the problem, but I don't see the point in putting much stock in a very general statement of objective capability.
And it's not even a falsehood...you can easily come up with some operational justification for why a X hour timeline to sustain that speed qualifies as "sustained."

But from a physics/engineering standpoint, it should be obvious why interpreting that statement as if it was made in pure good faith would be iffy.

And I'm not picking on the French...pretty much everybody does it. What I usually struggle with is it's an issue of deliberate bullshitting or non-operational types (ie most of the management/PR types) not being able to deal with the depth when you go beyond talking point bullets.

To put it more succintly, if you're going to chase open source info, I'd at least wait for firm statements from government defense procurement than contractor PR releases.

 

[Joe Black]

On the note of the Japanese did not win the bid, is there a sweetener or consolidation price we could give them. I think they felt they were hard done by us when Abbott almost promised the deal and Abe made it happen by forcing a constitution change.

They now probably feel that we played them. How about obtaining some components from them and allow them some participation in the Sea1000 and sub contractors?

 

[Bluey 006]

On the note of the Japanese did not win the bid, is there a sweetener or consolidation price we could give them. I think they felt they were hard done by us when Abbott almost promised the deal and Abe made it happen by forcing a constitution change.

They now probably feel that we played them. How about obtaining some components from them and allow them some participation in the Sea1000 and sub contractors?

While it is not normal to offer a consolidation prize ( it is up to the company to win the bid, its not charity or under 8s football etc) in the case of the Japan, the policy situation and their culture - this is a pretty big snub.

Looks like they are not happy too - Japan angry at sub deal

I was actually thinking Melbourne -Canberra-Sydney- Brisbane High Speed Rail project might do the trick (sorry mods - off topic). Can't say they don't have experience in that.

 

[Todjaeger]

You are essentially confusing doctrine with capability – the latter does not always follow the former. Take the F-35 as an example, AFAIK the original program requirements for AIR-6000 did not include VLO, EODAS and the AIM-9X BII combination, but you dont think the RAAF is now building doctrine around these capabilities? That VLO has no bearing on how the RAAF will employ the F-35 because it wasn't originally part of the AIR-6000 program requirements or RAAF fighter CONOPS in the mid 2000s?

Any coherent concept of operations is about how people can reliably leverage the technology at their disposal to achieve tactical, operational and thus strategic outcomes. IF the Shortfin Barracuda offers capabilities the Type 216 does not the RAN will alter its doctrine accordingly. We are not in the luxurious position – if any nation is – of bending technological tools to our doctrinal objectives. Everything is constrained by the technological environment it inhabits.

Blitzkrieg and Deep Battle did not drive the technological development of armor – they were doctrinal responses to technological development. Thus, claiming a platforms capabilities are irrelevant to how the user will employ it on doctrinal grounds mistakes what doctrine is and what it does.

You seem to have missed the gist of what I was posting, so I will attempt to put it another way.

The Russian Su-27/30/35 Flanker family are noted for their maneuverability, and have often demonstrated the 'cobra maneuver' capability at airshows. However, this particular capability is basically of no use in air combat and if used, would actually be more likely to put the pilot and aircraft at risk, rather than escaping from it.

Now going back to what has been mentioned about pumpjets, they are a useful capability for a submarine with a sufficient power budget (i.e. SSN) to have. The power budget for a diesel-electric sub is considerably smaller. From my POV this would mean that either;

1. The RAN subs are fitted for/with pumpjets, but rarely if ever use them
2. The French pumpjets require a significantly lower power budget to be useful
3. The power generation & especially storage for the new sub will be dramatically greater, without a corresponding increase in base/hotel load

Note the last item on the this, and how this could involve CONOPS. As I mentioned previously, from existing open sources the Collins-class sub can sustain a 4 kts submerged transit for 100 hours. This means that in addition to power consumed propelling the sub at 4 kts for 100 hours, it also means operating the various pieces of kit which make up the base/hotel load for 100 hours. I would also imagine that there was some sort of emergency reserve of power factored in, in the event that the RAN sub had to engage (or was engaged by) a hostile. It would not do for a RAN sub to finish a 100 hour/400 n mile transit and need to snort to recharge the batteries and suddenly find itself being stalked by a hunter-killer group. With some of the numbers suggested earlier (take them with a large grain of NaCl...) where doubling the speed cubes the required power, then a sudden sprint sustained for perhaps two hours, would have a power requirement similar to 100 hours at 4 kts, if a Collins-class sub were to do it. There would of course be less power required for the base/hotel load, since there would only be two hours of that, but still, such a higher speed would drain the batteries at a tremendous rate. I admit I do not know the specifics for using a pumpjet, but I somehow doubt they are more energy efficient than a traditional propeller, otherwise there would not be just one conventional sub which was fitted. Where this gets into CONOPS is whether rapid acceleration at the cost of increased indiscretion rate is beneficial, a hindrance, or would make no difference in how the RAN will be operating the future subs.

As I mentioned before, if the capability delivered is insufficient to get a sub outside of a search box, then it might well be irrelevant for what the RAN is looking for.

As for much of the other commentary, about the strategic impact of the selection and rebuilding/sustaining the industries involved and required for building and sustaining submarines... IMO (and I suspect of others as well) DCNS should not get any particular credit, since it is likely that the offer from TKMS would have involved similar efforts, as would a domestic build of a Japanese-sourced design. Had one of the competitors won, they would be similarly involved. Assuming of course the contract negotiations are not a complete custer fluck...

 

[hypernova]

You can solve pretty much any technological challenge if you throw enough time and money at it.
I don't think there's much doubt on the technical ability of DCNS (or any of the big primes) to pull off the programs they contract for, it's whether or not they can do it without busting budget or schedule that gets people in a tizzy.

Well, that stands in direct contrast to the statements made above.

I don't think you're getting the point I was making.

I can say "sustained transit speed" all day long.
If I don't actually define "sustained" I can pretty much make up whatever number I want. Even if that speed dumps the battery in an hour, it's "sustained".
Obviously exaggerating the problem, but I don't see the point in putting much stock in a very general statement of objective capability.
And it's not even a falsehood...you can easily come up with some operational justification for why a X hour timeline to sustain that speed qualifies as "sustained."

But from a physics/engineering standpoint, it should be obvious why interpreting that statement as if it was made in pure good faith would be iffy.

Nope, I got you. And you are still making the same mistake as noted previously. Every single defence contractor can use semantics like this - no, um, how do I put this, crap. That's hardly news. But its common practice to use statements like this - including on this forum - to get an idea for potential capabilities. Go back and read what I wrote :

IIRC the Shortfin Barracuda is designed to have a much higher sustained transit speed – roughly double the Soryu’s at around 14 knots – with a smaller signature at those speeds. Again, piecing together what we can from open source.


The Barracuda may well be able to transit much faster and farther than the Collins,

How is that simply taking statements at face value or inferring hard claims on capability? Any open source material is limited, especially when coming from defence contractors, and thus we cannot make strong inferences about capability. I assumed that was obvious. That does not, however, mean these statements have zero value. DCNS have made public statements about this capability, any rational observer can infer some possibility from that. This thread is littered with similar reasoning. Taking the opposite stance essentially makes the claim that we cannot infer anything from any public statement made by any contractor. If that’s your position then you need to substantiate it beyond making generalisations about semantics. Again, you need to understand the difference between a hard and a soft claim.

In any case, this whole conversation is borderline pettifogging.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I think there's some cross purpose conversation happening

when technical issues are raised - its not about being an obstruction to whether it can be delivered - its about hilighting the risk attached to eventually getting that tech set to work

the more risk, the more likely delay - and the more likely integration issue creep in

on one hand they can be delivered, on the other hand it can be something that if unrecognised drives the project into the schitt list of projects of concern etc..... ultimately schedule gets whacked - now in the normal world where thats recognised early in contract negotiations you identify it, mitigate or minimise it and contractually keep it visible. That detail happens over the next 12-18months. If they can't have the contractual kumbayah moment then it can default to the next successful bidder.

my concern is and always about people trivialising this to the point where x has been chosen and the mistaken belief that the CEP addressed all the technical issues when coming to the decision point.

I have raised the policy and geo strategic influence elsewhere - these discussions don't just focus on the technical or the management - but as the services act as vehicles of govt policy direction, then they usually have zero influence on that part of the assessment. geo-strat gets dealt with by NSC, Cabinet in general but strongly influenced by DFAT, Attorneys General and PMO. Defence are expected to go out and unruffle any broken feathers. This has happened with Sth Korea, Singapore, Indonesia and now Japan.

many people get wrapped around the axles re geostrat influence so it rarely gets the same degree of attention. part of the reason is that in the very early days we had huge problems with members getting amped up and threads getting locked as they became a bit bolshie - hence why the Forum rules are pretty tight.

 

[hypernova]

You seem to have missed the gist of what I was posting, so I will attempt to put it another way.

The Russian Su-27/30/35 Flanker family are noted for their maneuverability, and have often demonstrated the 'cobra maneuver' capability at airshows. However, this particular capability is basically of no use in air combat and if used, would actually be more likely to put the pilot and aircraft at risk, rather than escaping from it.

No, I understand what you were saying, its just that you don't really understand the relationship between doctrine, technology and platforms. Let’s go back to basics. Doctrine at any level is about how people can reliably leverage the technology at their disposal to achieve tactical, operational and thus strategic outcomes – win wars. It is thus plastic to the wider technological environment which it inhabits, simply because the development curve of any platform is made unpredictable by macro factors in the wider technological environment. Put simply, even when you introduce a platform, you cannot know what technology it will have later in its development cycle, because technological development is inherently unpredictable.

This is why I brought up AIR-6000 – which you ignored: VLO was not a fundamental requirement for the tender process. It is essentially an additional technological capability the F-35A provides the ADF, which can be leveraged to produce those enhanced tactical, operational and thus strategic outcomes. ADF doctrine in the mid-2000s literally had nothing to do with it – doctrine is plastic to technological developments. What this means is your whole conception of doctrine is completely backwards. Any user of a new platform will not simply state a list of things it wants a new platform to do for the next 20 years and ignore any additional technological advantage the platform provides – write a concept of operations document and then ignore the platform’s actual capability. That idea is just plain silly. There are a million historical examples: Look at the relationship between the second offset and AirLand battle if you don’t like the Germans.

Now, pugachev's cobra, that old chestnut. This gets to the heart of the matter: if an additional capability a certain technology provides cannot be reasonably leveraged to achieve those achieve tactical, operational and strategic outcomes, doctrine will essentially ignore it. I completely agree. However, IF DCNS is able to provide a transit speed of 14 knots, is it equivalent to pugachev's cobra, only useful at air shows??? If you believe that, then you need to be introduced to the concept of operational – and potentially strategic – mobility.

Now going back to what has been mentioned about pumpjets, they are a useful capability for a submarine with a sufficient power budget (i.e. SSN) to have. The power budget for a diesel-electric sub is considerably smaller. From my POV this would mean that either;

1. The RAN subs are fitted for/with pumpjets, but rarely if ever use them
2. The French pumpjets require a significantly lower power budget to be useful
3. The power generation & especially storage for the new sub will be dramatically greater, without a corresponding increase in base/hotel load

Note the last item on the this, and how this could involve CONOPS. As I mentioned previously, from existing open sources the Collins-class sub can sustain a 4 kts submerged transit for 100 hours. This means that in addition to power consumed propelling the sub at 4 kts for 100 hours, it also means operating the various pieces of kit which make up the base/hotel load for 100 hours. I would also imagine that there was some sort of emergency reserve of power factored in, in the event that the RAN sub had to engage (or was engaged by) a hostile. It would not do for a RAN sub to finish a 100 hour/400 n mile transit and need to snort to recharge the batteries and suddenly find itself being stalked by a hunter-killer group. With some of the numbers suggested earlier (take them with a large grain of NaCl...) where doubling the speed cubes the required power, then a sudden sprint sustained for perhaps two hours, would have a power requirement similar to 100 hours at 4 kts, if a Collins-class sub were to do it. There would of course be less power required for the base/hotel load, since there would only be two hours of that, but still, such a higher speed would drain the batteries at a tremendous rate. I admit I do not know the specifics for using a pumpjet, but I somehow doubt they are more energy efficient than a traditional propeller, otherwise there would not be just one conventional sub which was fitted. Where this gets into CONOPS is whether rapid acceleration at the cost of increased indiscretion rate is beneficial, a hindrance, or would make no difference in how the RAN will be operating the future subs.

As I mentioned before, if the capability delivered is insufficient to get a sub outside of a search box, then it might well be irrelevant for what the RAN is looking for.

I’m not sure I even want to touch this. Apart from the earbashing people have had from mods in this thread regarding making claims about performance of a submarine which hasn’t even had the power plant selected – I’m not sure how that level of analysis is allowed to go unchecked – you have made no account for improved energy density improvements or AIP (seems like you have just attacked a pump jet to a Collins) not to mention the confusion of operational and tactical mobility and a totally unsupported tactical picture. Seriously, if people have an issue with DCNS making claims about Shorftin Barracuda capability I don’t know what to do with this level of speculation.

As for much of the other commentary, about the strategic impact of the selection and rebuilding/sustaining the industries involved and required for building and sustaining submarines... IMO (and I suspect of others as well) DCNS should not get any particular credit, since it is likely that the offer from TKMS would have involved similar efforts, as would a domestic build of a Japanese-sourced design. Had one of the competitors won, they would be similarly involved. Assuming of course the contract negotiations are not a complete custer fluck...

Maybe, maybe not. But the wider point isn’t “yay DCNS’: there is much more to all of this than simply who’s widget is better or whop seems to be the more reliable partner. The geostrategic impactions of SEA 1000 are hardly insignificant, neither is the impact on Australian industry or wider defence capability. These issues are every bit as important as the design of the boat or where it comes from.