Naval Ship & Submarine Propulsion Systems

[Takao]

I don't think that there is any argument from anyone that submarines are essential.

The main point of concern within and without lies in the number. I think most are comfortable to say that 6 is the minimum. But 12 costs a hell of a lot - and we have forgone a reasonable amount of other 'stuff' to pay for those additional boats. Is that acceptable? Hmmm...

SEA 1000 offers an extraordinary large amount of potential and capability - including the National Shipbuilding capability. But boats 7 - 12 have cost the ADO a lot, including within Navy. A no-one has ever been allowed to debate that delta.

I agree with all the posts after this one - fleet management is better with 12, the NSB plan is better with 12, the overall capability is better and the like. And the plan is to have the majority in the fleet at once; obviously allowing for the deeper maintenance/upgrade program.

My point lies in the capability cost that we don't talk about. Every service has sacred cows that gobble up funding - SEA 5000 for Navy, AIR 6000 for Air Force and LAND 200 for Army. But SEA 1000 is a sacred....bullock? Elephant? Whatever comes after cow.

They are the only project that can bypass the capability manager and go straight to the Minister and they are the only project that gets the funding resources they want - with no explanation. They are a strategically vital and unique capability. But we have paid more than $80 b + $145 b for them. It's just that no one outside of a handful of people see what that additional cost is. It could have meant additional KC-30s or P-8s, new cyber tools, actual funding for IFVs - but boats 7 - 12 have said otherwise. Now, normally that is ok. Project A getting funding over Project B because A is better for the ADO as shown in significant amounts of work and internal debate. In this case though...

 

[John Newman]

In regard to Soryu, couple of things I remember from the time of it being considered:

Japan's Government and Industry Held an Industry Briefing on Soryu Submarine at PACIFIC 2015

The relevant quote:

According to Izumi Ishii, the submarine offered for the Australian SEA1000 program will be "a quite different submarine compared to the Japanese Soryu because of its American combat system, larger size and increase range but it will have some commonality with the Soryu".

Certainly not the out of the box solution as some may have forgotten.

Another thing I remember was the discussion regarding Soryu being 'double hulled', I remember numerous comments suggesting that the space in the boats 'inner hull' was rather tight too:

soryu class submarine double hull - Google Search

Cheers,

 

[Hazdog]

I believe there seems to be a little confusion in the genuine number of subs that the navy should have.

- When I say SHOULD, I mean the 'ideal' number of subs that are required to achieve all of our sea denial, ISR, ASW, and other wartime roles.

The current number of 12 planned submarines is average, it's not great and not bad.

Unofficially the navy 'should' operate 24 submarines. Enabling 8 submarines on deployment to meet each of the aforementioned roles; 8 submarines on workup/short-term maintenance and 8 submarines in longer-term refit and deep maintenance. Once again following the rule of three.

I understand this number seems completely out of reach for the RAN, but we should consider the thought that, as all government projects are, the capability is defined, refined and adjusted to fit in between the political and pragmatic needs of the nation. Thus why the genuine number of subs is much higher at 24 than the 12 being built (yes the point that these are not 12 at once but 12 overall is correct and disappointing).

The reason this number is not published often or ever is that neither the government or the navy could sell that number to the public as spelling this idea out would lead to severe backlash to the current and projected numbers through arguments such as: "If that's true why do we only have 6 at the moment?" or "How could such a small nation ever meet that number?".
Similarly, 18 submarines can sometimes be seen in the public domain but is also seen as unpopular with politicians and the public.

* Please consider this number of 24 submarines in the context of a conflict within the Asia Pacific region, do you really think that Australia could afford not to at least attempt to achieve a force strength of this size?
- The ADF 'should' be structured for a worst-case scenario to ensure the safety of all Australians, not a watered-down capability (submarine number-wise I mean, the submarines will be exceptionally capable) that is subject to interpretation.
SOURCE: The off-record conversation as indicated by my direct statement that it was "unofficial" was with a retired 2-star within the RAN submarine community. I do not wish to give their name as I wish not to have their name or reputation slandered or brought into question.
EDIT: John Newman's point that the Japanese submarines are "double-hulled" is most likely correct as they are, internal volume-wise, smaller than the Collins as they are currently outfitted.

 

[John Newman]

The reason this number is not published often or ever is that neither the government or the navy could sell that number to the public as spelling this idea out would lead to severe backlash to the current and projected numbers through arguments such as: "If that's true why do we only have 6 at the moment?" or "How could such a small nation ever meet that number?".
Similarly, 18 submarines can sometimes be seen in the public domain but is also seen as unpopular with politicians and the public.

What the?? Is it April Fools Day already??

Which conspiracy theory website did you get all of this from??

 

[Hazdog]

What the?? Is it April Fools Day already??

Which conspiracy theory website did you get all of this from??

No website at all, but talking to retired senior submarine officers does provide significant insight into the world of submarines.

 

[ngatimozart]

What the?? Is it April Fools Day already??

Which conspiracy theory website did you get all of this from??

No website at all, but talking to retired senior submarine officers does provide significant insight into the world of submarines.

If the source is a personal conversation then state it as so and name the participants in the conversation. If you don't want to name the sources, state that it as an off the record conversation with an anonymous 1 star etc., at such and such, so that people can assess the validity of the info for themselves.

 

[Takao]

I believe there seems to be a little confusion in the genuine number of subs that the navy should have.

- When I say SHOULD, I mean the 'ideal' number of subs that are required to achieve all of our sea denial, ISR, ASW, and other wartime roles.

The current number of 12 planned submarines is average, it's not great and not bad.

Unofficially the navy 'should' operate 24 submarines. Enabling 8 submarines on deployment to meet each of the aforementioned roles; 8 submarines on workup/short-term maintenance and 8 submarines in longer-term refit and deep maintenance. Once again following the rule of three.

I understand this number seems completely out of reach for the RAN, but we should consider the thought that, as all government projects are, the capability is defined, refined and adjusted to fit in between the political and pragmatic needs of the nation. Thus why the genuine number of subs is much higher at 24 than the 12 being built (yes the point that these are not 12 at once but 12 overall is correct and disappointing).

The reason this number is not published often or ever is that neither the government or the navy could sell that number to the public as spelling this idea out would lead to severe backlash to the current and projected numbers through arguments such as: "If that's true why do we only have 6 at the moment?" or "How could such a small nation ever meet that number?".
Similarly, 18 submarines can sometimes be seen in the public domain but is also seen as unpopular with politicians and the public.

* Please consider this number of 24 submarines in the context of a conflict within the Asia Pacific region, do you really think that Australia could afford not to at least attempt to achieve a force strength of this size?
- The ADF 'should' be structured for a worst-case scenario to ensure the safety of all Australians, not a watered-down capability (submarine number-wise I mean, the submarines will be exceptionally capable) that is subject to interpretation.

EDIT: John Newman's point that the Japanese submarines are "double-hulled" is most likely correct as they are, internal volume-wise, smaller than the Collins as they are currently outfitted.

Err...wha?

Where does 24 comes from? What strategic need is it meeting? Where does any hint of this need exist?

I get it, chatting with retired submariners, but the seeds to such an idea have to exist somewhere outside their own world. I cannot think of a single thing that suggests that Australia needs 24 submarines - and I can find strategic documentation that justifies aircraft carriers, multiple Divisions, a tripling of the F-35 fleet and a doubling of our DDG and FFG fleet. In fact, some of those I've actually sourced the justification for for the purposes of experimentation and the like. But nowhere can I think of something that justifies 24 boats. I'm struggling to find something (beyond a Government statement) that justifies 12 - but that's irrelevant. You say 18 boats is in the public domain - where?

Now - any senior submariner understands a hell of a lot more than driving a submarine or a sub squadron. The senior submariners I've dealt with in Russell are scary smart about a whole bunch of other fundamental inputs to capability. In fact, for my criticism of our SLG in some areas, they are almost all scary smart in these areas. I've seen x-stars reject even coffee-table discussion of a new/expanded capability because it's not possible and not needed. In this case, 24 boats would never be raised - it's not needed nor is it possible.

To give an idea - what would the additional boats need?
- infrastructure. There isn't enough in Stirling for 12 - so you need to quadruple the base or build another 2 - 3 somewhere in Australia
- people. Arguable one of the most demanding and narrow-gated trade scheme. Equal at least to a fast-jet pilot - if not more. With significant psychological and physiological requirements that aren't found in most of the population. So, noting the workforce for Collins is fragile - where does the 4x additional people come from? That's what - 3/4 of the current Navy?
- build. Attack is being built about as fast as we can. You need to double the infrastructure and find qualified workers, themselves a reasonably rare group of people. Specific hand skills + security classifications?

On top of all this is increasing SEA 1000's budget by ~2.5. Normally I'd do 1.8 as there is cost savings in greater numbers - but in this case we need to fund additional facilities, workers and crew. So we are looking at $200 bn in the next 20 years for acquisition. Now the good news is we can do this.

As long as you delete the surface fleet, reduce the RAAF to some Growlers, C-17s and no more than a Sqn of F-35 and make Army a light Bde.

No submariner beyond some junior jube would suggest such a thing. Defeating the ADF becomes really easy - just build an ASW force and be done with it.

This is like saying Army needs to be an Corps with 2 Inf Div, an Armoured Div, an Arty Div and enablers - a'la V Corps of 1989. Useful? No. Feasible? No. Logical? No. Needed? No. Justifiable? No. Ever said by any senior people? No....

Edit: Ahhh... I see @ngatimozart has brought out the bold green to ask the question. Delete this post if you need to, oh great moderator.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Chatting to retired submariners is as reliable to chatting with retire airforce (APA). There are of course those who would like to see ambitious dreams become reality. I think its important to hear them out, but not everything said is affordable or policy.

According to Izumi Ishii, the submarine offered for the Australian SEA1000 program will be "a quite different submarine compared to the Japanese Soryu because of its American combat system, larger size and increase range but it will have some commonality with the Soryu".

The larger size was mostly in the outerhull. The french hull is considerably larger. Habability was always going to be a struggle for the japanese design.
Why the Japanese proposal is low risk (part 1) | The Strategist

CONOPS between the Japanese and the Canadian are more similar. Colder water temperatures, sitting and waiting or moving slowly. Australia needs a submarine that can transit 20,000 km every mission. Ultimately the Japanese proposal would have trouble keeping up with the existing 3 engined collins. The Japanese aren't really interested in global power projection for their submarines, as mentioned, China is physically close, neither sub have to travel far (and Korea is even closer). I think a Japanese sub would probably suit the Canadians very well. If you want a diesel submarine to sit still or slowly move without surfacing, talk to the japanese.

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.

Something that can't be ruled out completely. If a war breaks out it would give options. Not so much for the war itself, but the powershift that would happen afterwards, when two major powers try to annihilate each other. We could choose between Brazil or France for the reactor tech. Or perhaps lithium will close the gap that its no longer relevant on a 60-80 day mission profile.

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".

But more than nuclear propulsion, being able to take MOTS SSN tech and stick it into a diesel sub is extremely attractive. While there is significant risk in the hull, once we are churning them out like sausages this risk fades very significantly and the costs are local (welding/steel/shaping etc). Then the life support risk is all about systems and growth volume/power. So the risk here is significantly in the early part of the project.

We have also been burned so many times building undersized for the capability we want and paid for that limitation very heavily.

nfrastructure. There isn't enough in Stirling for 12 - so you need to quadruple the base or build another 2 - 3 somewhere in Australia

I thought it was openly confirmed the east coast of Australia is getting a submarine base and the first 6 attack will be based there.

 

[Takao]

I thought it was openly confirmed the east coast of Australia is getting a submarine base and the first 6 attack will be based there.

It may be. There are two options, the Government has indicated that they are yet to make a decision.

I don't mean to tell anyone to suck eggs - but it is a different Government to this time last year. Political ideas change, especially those where no decision has been made.

 

[ASSAIL]

Australian bushfires have ZERO connection to coal fired power stations.

I’m talking about a change in attitude making it easier for the great masses to accept nuclear powered subs AND ipso facto, a nuclear energy grid.
The bushfires causes are discussed at length in a seperate thread and will be the topic of numerous inquiries both state and feds.
Suffice to say there are many causes but reducing emissions is an inevitable step.

 

[aussienscale]

SCIENCE says coal contributes to climate change effects.
Every scientific body in the nation accepts coal usage contributes to climate change effects, such as exacerbating drought, drying the environment, increasing bush fuel loads. there is not one that exists in the world that I know of that refutes it.

there is an argument that by scale we contribute negligible amounts.
We have a military less than 1% of the world militaries, we contributed a trivial numbers to WW2, it would’ve been won without us. But we don’t here the same claims echoed.
We contribute to a shared atmosphere that circulates and contributes to effects on us.
A visual representation is bushfire smoke circling the globe.

Any random claims by non-subject specialists should be considered just that.
This is a military based forum, I value contributions on topic from very clever ppl.
Let’s keep scientific diagnosis to the boffins shall we.

This is NOT going to happen on this forum, everyone leave this alone right now !!

Edit: This is not a crack at anyone in particular, but rather this is a very raw subject in the country at the moment, and arguments for or against climate change is not what this forum is about and a very slippery and emotional slope we do not need to go down !

 

[Brucedog]

@Brucedog ARE YOU PUSHING FOR A BAN?? I'VE DELETED THIS TXT TOO. THIS DISCUSSION IS ENDED AND THE MODERATORS WILL DISCUSS WHAT TO DO ABOUT THIS. I STRONGLY SUGGEST THAT YOU STAY AWY FROM THE TOPIC WHICH I HAVE PULLED YOU UP ON WHILST POSTING ON HERE. JUST TO REINFORCE THE REASON, IT IS BECAUSE IT IS HIGHLY POLITICAL IN AUSTRALIA AT THE MOMENT AND POLITICS IS FORBIDDEN HERE. FURTHERMORE IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE RAN SO IS COMPLETELY OFF TOPIC.

DON'T PICK A FIGHT WITH A MODERATOR BECAUSE THAT DOES NOT ALWAYS RESULT IN A GOOD OUTCOME.

Just for your info I have a post grad qualification in environmental science, so I follow the science, and insulting a Moderator won't do you any good, especially one with a reputation for being grumpy although the less grumpy of the two grumpy ones.
NGATIMOZART

 

[Calculus]

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

Yes, sorry, did not mean to imply it was the Type 29SS itself that Canada was interested in - it's the battery tech. The Japanese have shown a roadmap (see infographic below) that suggests battery tech (Lithium-Sulphur) around 2030 would give a medium-sized sub quite long submerged range, at reasonable speeds. That's attractive to Canada - gives the ability to patrol under the ice sheet in our sovereign northern territory.

Infographic source: SSK Soryu Class Submarines

 

[Calculus]

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)

A cautionary tale from our brief fling with nuclear boats. In the late 80s our government was in serious discussions with the Americans, Brits, and the French over the possible purchase of 10 to 12 nuclear powered subs (history here: Canada-class submarine - Wikipedia). This program was cancelled for a number of reasons, but one of the big ones was significant public opposition to anything nuclear. Also, the average Joe simply could not differentiate between nuclear powered and nuclear armed. It was a huge issue, and no amount of explaining could get through to the public that these boats were not going to carry nuclear weapons. The very word "nuclear" carries huge weight, and unfortunately, that weight is mostly negative.

I bring this up in the context of Attack to highlight the difficulty you also might have trying to "educate the masses", as you mention above.

 

[ASSAIL]

A cautionary tale from our brief fling with nuclear boats. In the late 80s our government was in serious discussions with the Americans, Brits, and the French over the possible purchase of 10 to 12 nuclear powered subs (history here: Canada-class submarine - Wikipedia). This program was cancelled for a number of reasons, but one of the big ones was significant public opposition to anything nuclear. Also, the average Joe simply could not differentiate between nuclear powered and nuclear armed. It was a huge issue, and no amount of explaining could get through to the public that these boats were not going to carry nuclear weapons. The very word "nuclear" carries huge weight, and unfortunately, that weight is mostly negative.

I bring this up in the context of Attack to highlight the difficulty you also might have trying to "educate the masses", as you mention above.

CAPT Christopher Skinner RAN(Retd.) has written an excellent piece in “The NAVY” Oct-Dec 19 Vol84 No4 titled “Nuclear Propulsion Roadmap for Australia-aDifferent Perspective”.
In it he mentions the Canadian experience as a cautionary tale. “Canada is a Tier 1 nuclear power nation conducting nuclear research and development and operating several nuclear power stations. In 1987 the Canadian Government decided it needed 12 nuclear submarines. As time went by and the programme was more closely examined, they withdrew from that decision due to the projected costs of the new nuclear qualified infrastructure and workforce.....”
Apart from workforce qualifications, both uniform and civilian, the infrastructure is substantial.
The reactor core temperature must be kept below a point where materials degrade or more drastically, liquify and that’s for the life of the reactor and that means constant cooling along with necessary redundancy.
When immobilised alongside, in dry dock or major refit the cooling supplies must be guaranteed, this means substantial investment.
Further, if an accident occurs the boat must be able to be relocated away from the civilian population.
This obviously poses a basing problem not encountered with conventional boats and carries cost and Manning implications.

I was going to précis the essay but I couldn’t do it justice without an almost verbatim approach so I highly recommend it.

 

[John Fedup]

That was the 1980s when GHG emissions were barely on the public’s radar. Properly presented, nuclear power and even green nuclear subs will start to look more attractive as warming, droughts, and perhaps worst of all rising sea levels become the norm. Anyways, back to RAN topics. BTW, the Li-S battery technology looks very promising

 

[StingrayOZ]

The very word "nuclear" carries huge weight, and unfortunately, that weight is mostly negative.
I bring this up in the context of Attack to highlight the difficulty you also might have trying to "educate the masses", as you mention above.

Well the two aren't completely disconnected given every operational nuclear submarine is fueled by weapons grade fuel. So creating an indigenous nuclear submarine program basically entails full latent nuclear weapons capability, at the very least. Given the cost of nuclear submarines, throwing in a discount nuclear weapons program may be seen as a plus. While Canada operates several nuclear reactors they famously don't need enrichment.

Which is why for both Canada and Australia you would have absolutely massive investments required. There really is no point talking about active nuclear submarine programs for countries like Australia/Canada until you are spending 5%+ (or 10%) GDP.

IMO I think Australia and Canada are in different spaces regarding acquiring nuclear capability, particularly if the NPT was completely broken and the US was to withdraw/undermine its umbrella. Particularly if a nuclear power started to lean heavy on say Australia. I think Canada is unlikely to ever be put into the same position. Any launch at Canada would essentially look like a launch on the US, Australia doesn't have that impossible to separate geographical fact. While both are impossibly far fetched, there are reasons why the British and the French have their own independent deterrent. Again, this is still very much in the realm of fiction. Australia however has toyed a bit with ambiguous legal latent capabilities.

There are a number of different AEGIS specs current at present; you select in or select out the BMD functionality depending on preference; the determinant is the “baseline” you are installing to which defines the capabilities you actively incorporate.

Australia is definitely in the BMD "in" group. Although at this stage it is more likely to just be SM-6. It is pleasing to see the ordering process start for this equipment. Even without SM-3 or even SM-6 Australia could make a very valuable contribution to a US/Japanese/Korean operation with sensor input.

 

[StingrayOZ]

It may be. There are two options, the Government has indicated that they are yet to make a decision.

I don't mean to tell anyone to suck eggs - but it is a different Government to this time last year. Political ideas change, especially those where no decision has been made.

True, but this has come more the the front recently.

Defence Connect (04 JULY 2018)
Defence Connect (20 SEPTEMBER 2019)
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/fed...next-fleet-of-submarines-20180703-p4zp7y.html (July 3, 2018)
Defence looking at Port Kembla for a new Navy submarine base (SEPTEMBER 19 2019)
All 2018-2019 (oct/sept 2019).

All pretty recent stuff. Port Kembla and Newcastle are quite likely front runners. Both have huge community support and plenty of sites coming up ex steel/coal. Also east coast basing would fix a huge amount of issues with recruitment as you are effectively recruiting from ~8 million+ instead of <1 million. Sydney and the east coast are also the historical center of the Navy and previously the submarine force. Thales is base here as are many of the companies based around submarine (and destroyer and LHD and frigate) support.

Also as the new attack classes will be based here, it is possibly one way the sea1000 program will be more closely eyeballed with the main navy base and Canberra a short drive away. If things need to be rectified or supported, that is going to be a lot easier on the east coast initially.

 

[ASSAIL]

Well the two aren't completely disconnected given every operational nuclear submarine is fueled by weapons grade fuel. So creating an indigenous nuclear submarine program basically entails full latent nuclear weapons capability, at the very least. Given the cost of nuclear submarines, throwing in a discount nuclear weapons program may be seen as a plus.

Again, from Capt. Skinners paper;
“Most current SSNs employ a Pressurised Water Reactor (PWR) for reasons of simplicity......and steam technology is well understood.
More recent interest is growing in the employment of advanced reactors such as the liquid fuelled molten salt reactor (MSR) which has the potential for refuelling while in service...MSRs also operate at ambient pressures and possess a high safety margin on temperature limits. They also provide the option of using thorium based fuel.”

Nuclear reactor fuel contains mainly U238 as well as small quantities of U235 but enrichment is low compared with nuclear weapons.

 

[StobieWan]

A cautionary tale from our brief fling with nuclear boats. In the late 80s our government was in serious discussions with the Americans, Brits, and the French over the possible purchase of 10 to 12 nuclear powered subs (history here: Canada-class submarine - Wikipedia). This program was cancelled for a number of reasons, but one of the big ones was significant public opposition to anything nuclear. Also, the average Joe simply could not differentiate between nuclear powered and nuclear armed. It was a huge issue, and no amount of explaining could get through to the public that these boats were not going to carry nuclear weapons. The very word "nuclear" carries huge weight, and unfortunately, that weight is mostly negative.

I bring this up in the context of Attack to highlight the difficulty you also might have trying to "educate the masses", as you mention above.

I did speak with an RN submariner at a social do in the Mess at Northwood and he introduced himself as being normally aboard a nuclear attack boat "nuclear powered, not armed" he hastily added. Turned out he does a lot of PR trips to schools etc and that was almost a by-rote disclaimer regarding the job.

Even the nuclear powered aspect is contentious - nuclear power generation has a very looming image problem after Chernobyl and Fukushima - somewhat unfairly I feel, given the numbers involved but it is what it is.