Naval Ship & Submarine Propulsion Systems

[ASSAIL]

The issue is we do not really want to fight on our coast line with our Subs. They need to deploy to choke points and need to do so at a reasonable transit speed. This is where the AIP option falls down as the speed of advice is very low.


High absorbed power and high generation capacity are king in this regard and this was the rational behind the Collins. The idea was to be able to deploy independently and quickly and stay there for a long time.


The submarine tender is pointless in this scenario. If we are stuck a LOTE on Collins is really the only option ... with all the ramifications.

PS: such operations really would be well served by the nuke options but we all know that has not a snowballs hope in hell at the moment.

I don't suggest we fight on our coast, the proposition put forward by Hugh White, and I'm no fan, was to shorten the transit by acquiring the tender. My comments re the Oberons are topical, less performance than more modern small subs but still able to perform legendary patrols a long way from home.

What everyone has to come to terms with is schedule. If the first SEA 1000 doesn't come on line by 2033, if the drumbeat is more than 2 years and if the Collins are unable, for whatever reason, to extend, then what? We lose hulls faster than they can be replaced and we lose submariners. On a one for one replacement, with everything on schedule and no delays, the last Collins must extend to 2045 as it stands now. This was the point of the discussion.

OTOH, when I read Pynes comments (APDR) about how swimmingly the progress with DCNS is moving one would have to believe that all targets of schedule will be met; despite Suffren (first Barracuda) being over two years behind schedule with no hope of catching up. Apparently this has no flow on to SEA 1000, or so they say.

 

[CJR]

I 'spose a question also is, if Aus did opt to go with an interim order of 3-6 SSKs, what options are actually doable?

Given we'd want 'em quick (so probably tacking onto an existing program) and I'd presume relatively cheap (if they're replaced by Shortfin Barracudas' after a relatively short timeframe)...

The various Scorpone derivatives? Well, the Chilean and Malaysian orders yonks back took about 6 years from keel laying to commission, while the more recent Indian and Brazilian orders are going nowhere fast.

Spain's current S-80 effort is a bug riddled mess, with the first boat expected to commission 14 years after construction commenced.

Type 212s are running about 7-8 years in German and Italian yards. And at 300-600M Euros not cheap.

Type 214s are running at about 4-5 years in German and Korean yards.

Chang Bogo class (reheated Type 210)? The recent order for Indonesia is expect to deliver the first boat next year with construction started in 2012. So, 6 years for a relatively elderly design.

 

[vonnoobie]

No matter with which option we go for 6 - 8 years seems to be standard so if anything is to be done assuming a life extension isn't possible for the existing Collins class then we would have to literally start placing orders next year (2018).

Being interim I'd personnaly rule out anything that couldn't be easily onsold to an existing user so that leaves Type 212, 214 and 218 along with the Scorpene. Any of those can be onsold to friendly Asian, South American or European nations. Other option is straight up new build Collins class. Having the guys doing the FCD's in place we effectively already have a core work force experienced around the design, Already know all the in's and out's of the boat. May be just as cheap to new build them and bring gear across from the existing ones and/or use them as source of spare's going forward.

 

[StingrayOZ]

I don't suggest we fight on our coast, the proposition put forward by Hugh White, and I'm no fan, was to shorten the transit by acquiring the tender. My comments re the Oberons are topical, less performance than more modern small subs but still able to perform legendary patrols a long way from home.

What everyone has to come to terms with is schedule. If the first SEA 1000 doesn't come on line by 2033, if the drumbeat is more than 2 years and if the Collins are unable, for whatever reason, to extend, then what? We lose hulls faster than they can be replaced and we lose submariners. On a one for one replacement, with everything on schedule and no delays, the last Collins must extend to 2045 as it stands now. This was the point of the discussion.

OTOH, when I read Pynes comments (APDR) about how swimmingly the progress with DCNS is moving one would have to believe that all targets of schedule will be met; despite Suffren (first Barracuda) being over two years behind schedule with no hope of catching up. Apparently this has no flow on to SEA 1000, or so they say.

ABC coverage here with video:
Navy may be without submarine fleet for two decades due to replacement plan, experts say - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)


Suffren was already delayed before the decision.
A Collins life extension might be possible, but will be expensive and the workforce can only do so much and it will be expensive.

There are other ideas.

The french loan Aus or base out of Australia an active Barracudawith a mix of Australian and French crews. Work is conducted at French and Australian yards to bring build rates up.

Australian sub crews at seconded to the USN and the RN to familiarize themselves with systems incorporated on the new submarines. An arrangement is made to cover the short fall.

What will most likely happen is Australia will manage its sea time with Collins to make it fit. Not ideal. We should really be cutting steel now. But collins are in decent shape.

 

[John Fedup]

I think it was pointed out that due to the low availability in the first 15 years or so the boats actually have a lot of life left in them.

This is the same logic that Canada is using to run our Victoria class(UK Upholder) out to 2040, they weren't used much by the RN and were in storage for years while Canada decided on a purchase and then addtional years of non-use while they were modified. Whether this logic is valid or not I will leave for the more knowledgeable here to comment on.

 

[vonnoobie]

This is the same logic that Canada is using to run our Victoria class(UK Upholder) out to 2040, they weren't used much by the RN and were in storage for years while Canada decided on a purchase and then addtional years of non-use while they were modified. Whether this logic is valid or not I will leave for the more knowledgeable here to comment on.

I think part of it is also how well the respective boats where maintained. Has the Canadian's boats gone through anything comparable to the FCD Collins boats do?

 

[ADMk2]

Without getting into the whole Hugh White comments (personally can't stand the guy), it is interesting to look at the proposed gaps between commissioning of each Collins replacement.

On the one hand 30mths might seem a bit long and 18mths between commissioning of each boat a bit optimistic, it's interesting to look at Japan's production cycle of the Soryu class boats (or drum beat as I believe it is called).

Yes on the one hand they commission a new Soryu every 12 months, usually in 'March' of each year (the drum beats every year at the same time).

But in fact they have 'two' yards alternating production, each yard is producing a new Soryu every 24 months.

Could we produce a new sub every 24mths? Maybe, but the problem is then the size of the overall fleet.

We have a plan to have 12 subs, the Japanese on the other hand are increasing their fleet from 16 to 22 boats in commission at any one time.

Japan having a larger fleet can continue to have two yards producing a new boat every two years, keep them in commission for approx. 22 years and have a 'continuous' build process until the end of time (they may eventually increase the fleet size, but it will continue on and on).

For us here in Oz, the Government is no doubt caught between a rock and a hard place, firstly increase the size of the fleet from 6 to 12 boats and also at the same time introduce a 'continuous' built program.

If we can produce them at a shorter 'drum beat' then there will be significant gaps between the end of one class and the introduction of the next class, boom and bust, valley of death, etc, etc.

Or on the other hand, if the goal is to have a continuous build program, then the gap between commissioning between each boat has to be at least 30mths.

Gives you a headache thinking about it!! It's a no win situation for the Government.

Government could fund our defence properly and buy the number of ships, boats, tanks etc we really need, rather than imposing some arbitrary funding cap (and by default an arbitrary platform numbers cap) on defence, so they can properly support whichever pork-barrelling garbage they come up with next, as a way to resolve this ‘headache’ of their own making...

As for the idea of acquiring some sort of interim sub, I thought that employing the AN/BYG-1 submarine combat system and the MK 48 Mod (whatever) ADCAP torpedo was of crucial importance to our submarine capability? So much so, that we are already paying to integrate them onto a French sub after we have already done so on a Swedish designed sub? Should we pay to put them onto a third type of sub?

If so, which possible company could add that to an otherwise off the shelf acquisition for an interim sub? In what timeframe and at what cost? Or is RAN expected to go out and find a suitable sub combat system and a new weapons system and learn how to use them / develop a genuine operational capability for 10 years or so before the ‘permanent’ sub comes online and then switch back to the ‘old’ US designed system?

 

[alexsa]

Government could fund our defence properly and buy the number of ships, boats, tanks etc we really need, rather than imposing some arbitrary funding cap (and by default an arbitrary platform numbers cap) on defence, so they can properly support whichever pork-barrelling garbage they come up with next, as a way to resolve this ‘headache’ of their own making...

As for the idea of acquiring some sort of interim sub, I thought that employing the AN/BYG-1 submarine combat system and the MK 48 Mod (whatever) ADCAP torpedo was of crucial importance to our submarine capability? So much so, that we are already paying to integrate them onto a French sub after we have already done so on a Swedish designed sub? Should we pay to put them onto a third type of sub?

If so, which possible company could add that to an otherwise off the shelf acquisition for an interim sub? In what timeframe and at what cost? Or is RAN expected to go out and find a suitable sub combat system and a new weapons system and learn how to use them / develop a genuine operational capability for 10 years or so before the ‘permanent’ sub comes online and then switch back to the ‘old’ US designed system?

The combat system is actually missed in a lot of the discussion and it is the critical issue. The Collins have been upgraded to take this system and it is, for good reason, the system of choice for the new boats. It is also relatively large, a power hog and a massive heat source.

So the boat has to be able to take it. Not sure this is viable in a smaller euro nor is they any sense in stepping down from AN/BYG-1 in the Collins to something else in an interim boat only to go back to it.

I hope we can get our act together and hope the build cycle (drumbeat) is less than 24 months (noting the Collins were built faster than that).

The Oberons were a remarkable beast but the technology has moved on and they would struggle in the modern environment. Even from a acoustic aspect the mover from Oberon to Collins (I am waiting for the 'noisey sub' comment but it was more a case of what we did not know when we made the step change) was a dramatic changes .... with challenges.

A LOTE for a number of boats seems the best option pending the build getting into its strand 'if needed'. I hope it is not....... mind you I also hope the last 8 are build as SSN's but I see little likelihood of that.

The step to an interim boat would be a mistake. Mind you not perusing Collins Mk II years ago was also a mistake.

 

[oldsig127]

Government could fund our defence properly and buy the number of ships, boats, tanks etc we really need, rather than imposing some arbitrary funding cap (and by default an arbitrary platform numbers cap) on defence, so they can properly support whichever pork-barrelling garbage they come up with next, as a way to resolve this ‘headache’ of their own making...

That will never happen. Otto von Bismark said it best

Politics is the art of the possible, the attainable — the art of the next best

So long as there are competing requirements and a finite bucket of money to be spent by governments of any political persuasion, there will always be caps on spending somewhere to save money to spend somewhere else.

Just try to take away Medicare funding (for example) to buy extra subs and see how long the government would last. Self interest may well motivate the politicians, but it also motivates the electorate who are actually pretty generous to Defence in this country, but in times of relative peace and perceived falling prosperity, buying what we "really need" is a risky proposition - and when the government inevitably changes, what incentive would there be for the new government to continue with the purchases?

All that said - I couldn't agree more closely with your second and third paragraphs

oldsig

 

[weegee]

With all of this Sub talk it is good to see we're playing with the best in the business at the moment:
Key West joins Japanese, Australian subs in exercise | Commander, U.S. Pacific Fleet
HMAS Dechaineux is up in Japanese waters playing in some sub games atm. I have no doubt that she will hold her head high and punch above her weight as the Collins Class always seems to do.

 

[StingrayOZ]

I think the french aren't helping, the early reports regarding french defence work ethic aren't what people want to hear, champagne lunches and all that.
Lunch breaks and month-long holidays cause culture clash in sub program

Its not the cost that is really getting people, its what happens if we end up with a crappy product or even worse, late product. The alternatives people pull aren't typically aren't the low cost options, its stuff like US nuclear submarines (former liberal leader Hewson).
Defence Connect.

I was always quite surprised of the French selection, as it would be some time before it got up and working.

People do discuss defence spending. How many people are ex-ADF? How many have an interest in national security these days? its a hot topic. Chinese influence, US politics, people are concern and there is an ongoing public debate. 4 corners did a story on Chinese influence in the university sector. In dual use technology and on defense funded projects. On Chinese hacking.
Red Flags

The original need for the collins was 10 boats..

Initially, it was thought that the project might call for as many as 10 boats, each thought likely to cost over $100 million.(13) By early 1983, when the project cost was estimated at $1.5 billion, the program was considered more likely to cover four to eight boats.(14)

How Kockums was Selected for the Collins Class Submarine – Parliament of Australia

Australia gets excellent value out of the subs. We exist in an area that even SSN powered fleets find difficult to cover. 12 subs are really what is needed across the region if we want to be a key player in and around our own waters.

 

[StobieWan]

Well, that's an interesting cultural perspective. The idea of a month long halt to activities would drive most British customers to the exit door in a heart beat - we tend to work in teams that arrange ourselves around a constant availability barring small seasonal pauses like a few days around Christmas.

I was more surprised at the French selection simply because the Soryu looked like a shoe-in - it's in the water and works whereas the French offering still seemed to need to be worked on to get it to run as a conventional - or am I remembering that wrong?

 

[John Fedup]

I was under the impression much of Europe closed down for the “August” holiday. Am I wrong in this assumption? Anyways, wrt to the sub selection, many believed in the now closed submarine news thread that the Japanese were going to get the project. An assumption on my part, the French promised Australia the desired capability that the Japanese thought was unrealistic and hence lost the bid. Hopefully things work out as it will give Canada two choices for a long endurance boat. If not, hopefully this is determined sooner than later and Australia can go to plan B, a modified Soryu.

Note to moderator team, maybe GF’s sub news thread should be reopened.

 

[StobieWan]

I was under the impression much of Europe closed down for the “August” holiday. Am I wrong in this assumption? Anyways, wrt to the sub selection, many believed in the now closed submarine news thread that the Japanese were going to get the project. An assumption on my part, the French promised Australia the desired capability that the Japanese thought was unrealistic and hence lost the bid. Hopefully things work out as it will give Canada two choices for a long endurance boat. If not, hopefully this is determined sooner than later and Australia can go to plan B, a modified Soryu.

Note to moderator team, maybe GF’s sub news thread should be reopened.

I can't speak to the continent but the UK, yeah, more people take time off in the summer hols to coincide with the school cycle but businesses remain open in the UK. Ditto Germany as far as I can tell from dealings with them.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Well, that's an interesting cultural perspective. The idea of a month long halt to activities would drive most British customers to the exit door in a heart beat - we tend to work in teams that arrange ourselves around a constant availability barring small seasonal pauses like a few days around Christmas.

I was more surprised at the French selection simply because the Soryu looked like a shoe-in - it's in the water and works whereas the French offering still seemed to need to be worked on to get it to run as a conventional - or am I remembering that wrong?

It is an odd time (from Australia's view) for the entire team to take a break that long at such a critical juncture.

Soryu was less of a shoe in when it came to the details. The Japanese manufacturers weren't that interested in export or assistance. Their modified design was very lightly modified, things like diesel propulsion which was low on the Japanese priorities (china is close transits are short) were basically unchanged. Their mast was not photonic based but good old optical (again not a heavy use in japanese conops), which reflected the traditionalist approach to the design. In the end the Japanese made a nice fall back position because they were going to build it anyway. If for what ever reason the french are no longer an option I would imagine we would phone up Abe, and plead for the Japanese design.

The Attack class design is pretty epic. 5,500t (bigger than Sturgeons and a bit smaller than the Los Angeles class). SSN level everything (sonar, processing, endurance, habitability, mech services etc), fastest diesel transit submarine ever? 4 diesels. Room for a nuclear reactor if we ever wanted to go that way. Room for embarked forces, land attack missiles. Longer endurance than some SSN's. Pretty dreamy stuff. A lot of the US UK SSN gear would bolt straight into this, while the Japanese sub was all old school compact diesel. High capability but high risk.

Of course IMO.

 

[Calculus]

The Attack class design is pretty epic. 5,500t (bigger than Sturgeons and a bit smaller than the Los Angeles class). SSN level everything (sonar, processing, endurance, habitability, mech services etc), fastest diesel transit submarine ever? 4 diesels. Room for a nuclear reactor if we ever wanted to go that way. Room for embarked forces, land attack missiles. Longer endurance than some SSN's. Pretty dreamy stuff. A lot of the US UK SSN gear would bolt straight into this, while the Japanese sub was all old school compact diesel. High capability but high risk.

And there, respectfully, is the problem. A classic example of overreach. We do this ALL THE TIME in Canada. Given the tremendous cost, I would have to imagine that cooler heads will be evaluating the need for such "dreamy stuff".

 

[ASSAIL]

And there, respectfully, is the problem. A classic example of overreach. We do this ALL THE TIME in Canada. Given the tremendous cost, I would have to imagine that cooler heads will be evaluating the need for such "dreamy stuff".

I don’t think it’s overreach in fact it’s more “under” reach because what we needed was nuclear.
We cobbled together a nuclear capability then bent over backwards to make it non nuclear.
The only possible from this ridiculous dichotomy is the chance of an easy transition to SSN should TGOTD muster the strength and resolve to educate the masses to accept nuclear (and this equally applies to country wide electricity generation)
In a crazy kind of way the recent bushfires May finally convince our people that replacing coal with nuclear is actually a positive for the environment.

 

[Calculus]

Is there any possibilty that Canada at some point becoming involved in the this project as their own submarines near end of operations and the unique abilities of this class of submarine are more advantagous than other conventional submarines on offer by Europe ,

I believe there was interest at first, as we are also looking for a long-range patrol sub, around 2035, but at $6.5Bil each, there is no way Canada will be purchasing any of these boats. The consensus seems to be the Victoria class replacements would be in the 4000t class, and with some type of AIP system to allow for under ice patrolling in the Arctic. The main contenders seem to be the Type 216 and the A26 Oceanic ER, but the DCNS designs are in the running, and new Japanese Type 29SS is also getting some attention because of the battery technology. It is reputed that subs and battery tech were discussed when PM Abe was in Ottawa last spring.

 

[John Fedup]

I can’t help but think that the French decision was in part the desire to eventually see the program evolve into a nuclear version after 4-6 boats being completed. After the horrible fire season, any reduction in fossil fuel use should start to be sellable to the electorate and a nuclear sub fleet could provide the path for nuclear power generation for Australia’s electrical grid along with renewable sources. It would be interesting to see if the Australian people are rethinking nuclear power for electricity production.

 

[seaspear]

The Japanese type 29ss according to wiki (sorry) 3000トン型潜水艦 - Wikipedia claims it comes in at 3000 tons
one of the reasons Australia did not go with the Soryu class was a lack of range perhaps Canada,s need is not for a submarine to transit large distances , Im not aware of the unit cost of the Attack class submarines the costs of development and design and building infrastucture are of course expensive ,Another question might be is Canada prepared to build its own submarines ,there has also been no public discusssion of nuclearr power here to any real extent