Naval Ship & Submarine Propulsion Systems

[Joe Black]

Second, you think the Shortfin Barracuda is not bad? On what basis, it doesn't exist and the Barracuda currently in production in France is way over time and budget? You have no reason to believe anything about a derivitive, you speculate.

Finally, why would you risk changing a proven performer, the Soryu hull and propulsion method. The risks and costs are enormous, something to be done just because it seems trendy? No way .

I am not suggesting to go with Shortfin Barracuda if that is what you are trying to infer. DCNS has certainly put in some nice pitch for potential capabilities (especially in support for the SOF front). I do understand that in terms of maturity, it would rank very much less matured than an evolved Soryu. I am not disputing any of gf's comments and in fact I think as gf has stated, the smart money will go with Soryu. I get that.

None of the 3 solutions are complete MOTS solutions. Soryu by far is most likely to be the least risky, and I totally and whole heartedly agree. And with US subtle and probably not so subtle prompting to go Soryu, I think we will be silly not to.

Having said this, there are definitely stuff that we can learn from both the French and the German's offerings. We could see where they are taking SSK technology forward and probably should start thinking that an evolved Soryu could or should start having them as well. I am referring things like swim out chamber for SOFs, perhaps ability to dock SOF submersible vehicles, ability to carry submarine launched SAM, etc are some examples.

I won't blame you for mis-reading my sentiment, I'm all for Soryu but I am also open to see what capabilities the proposed Shortfin and Type 216 would provide that the evolved Soryu could consider adding in the future.

 

[gf0012-aust]

And yet....



First up, for several reasons, I believe that the Japanese submarine option is the correct one from the perspective of one who has no visibility of the actual evaluation nor any responsibility to pay for it or convince the electors that they should keep the government that chooses it long enough for it to become fact rather than speculation

However I find it quite entertaining that the Japanese themselves are claiming "some commonality" and we're willing to accept this as near enough for government work to being MOTS, yet in other cases (not necessarily submarines) it's far too risky.

That's okay though. We can expose our biases at will. Those evaluating the responses can't. Politicians DO show bias, and we crucify them for it. Funny old world, isn't it.

oldsig127

The thing that isn't common to Soryu will be the US nuke sub common combat system - so the combat cell will need to be custom built - as that is normally an internal plug anyway, then I don't see it as significantly different from any other integration - bearing in mind that we know that the US will assist as much as possible to ensure a smooth integration into other fitout issues.

I'm not sure you could guarantee that with the other partners - in fact I'm pretty confident that it wouldn't be as easy as we know that the US already has some IP firewall concerns elsewhere.

the major engineering issue will be the plug. all of a sudden any room for special forces will now be easier to deal with

the energy management and generation system is the thing that I'm looking forward to seeing. it defines the sub

the chat about range which gets flogged in the press is really a bit tiresome as they're missing the bigger picture by some margin

the japanese are not big on talking about any of their gear - so I don't put any stock in any public commentary as its almost meaningless.

 

[John Newman]

And yet....



First up, for several reasons, I believe that the Japanese submarine option is the correct one from the perspective of one who has no visibility of the actual evaluation nor any responsibility to pay for it or convince the electors that they should keep the government that chooses it long enough for it to become fact rather than speculation

However I find it quite entertaining that the Japanese themselves are claiming "some commonality" and we're willing to accept this as near enough for government work to being MOTS, yet in other cases (not necessarily submarines) it's far too risky.

That's okay though. We can expose our biases at will. Those evaluating the responses can't. Politicians DO show bias, and we crucify them for it. Funny old world, isn't it.

oldsig127

I think one of the things to keep in mind with the Japanese submarines, is they are not 'constant' and are always evolving (they have completed a bit more than 40 submarines in a bit more than 40 years, approx. one per year).

Lets not forget that the 'current' Soryu is a evolution of the previous 11 Oyashio class, and lets not also forget that of the current 12 approved Soryu that at least the last two are going to change with removal of AIP and possibly going and having lithium-ion batteries installed.

So whilst the Australian version has, as the article said, 'some commonality' with Soryu, it in fact may have 'more' commonality with what Japan has planned for the future.

It's a bit like the old days of car manufacture, at the time the 'new' current model was being released for a 3 or 4 year model run, the 'next' version was just about completed from a design point of view.

Of the currently approved 12 Soryu, 6 have commissioned, it's fair to say that by the time No 12 hits the water it will most likely be different to Nos 1-6 at the very least. And by the time that No 12 hits the water, that will be 2021.

As long as we are part of the 'evolution' process, does it really matter that an Australian version would be different to today's Soryu? I think its more important that it is more closer to tomorrow's Soryu, or son of, or grandson of!!

 

[gf0012-aust]

While I appreciate that the vibe on this thread is generally in favour of the Soryu. I can't help but feel at this stage the safest option is with a European design and that would be the one from a country that has been involved with providing over 50 submarines to over a dozen countries during the past three decades.
If I'm correct Japanese submarine export numbers are......................Zero!
Not a good selling point.

I'll refer back to my prev comments about the USN project team that built the Virginias - the decision was to go to a completely digital solution.

The USN went to Japan for answers - not Germany, not France.

The japanese have a higher availability rate than any one else, they have had no production and delivery issues

I don't see the defence export vector as a valid query (usually proffered up by their opponents) as the japanese have been involved in building major capabilities across the world - in fact a high number of power stations in australia are japanese designed, and no one saw those projects failing due to translation issues.

The subs with the highest availability rates are the Oyashios, Soryus and Virginias - not german subs, not french subs

they've been perfecting that class for basically 3 generations as the baseline was the last of the non nuke designs for the USN - killed off by Rickover only because he wanted an all nuke sub force

 

[Todjaeger]

The thing that isn't common to Soryu will be the US nuke sub common combat system - so the combat cell will need to be custom built - as that is normally an internal plug anyway, then I don't see it as significantly different from any other integration - bearing in mind that we know that the US will assist as much as possible to ensure a smooth integration into other fitout issues.

I'm not sure you could guarantee that with the other partners - in fact I'm pretty confident that it wouldn't be as easy as we know that the US already has some IP firewall concerns elsewhere.

the major engineering issue will be the plug. all of a sudden any room for special forces will now be easier to deal with

the energy management and generation system is the thing that I'm looking forward to seeing. it defines the sub

the chat about range which gets flogged in the press is really a bit tiresome as they're missing the bigger picture by some margin

the japanese are not big on talking about any of their gear - so I don't put any stock in any public commentary as its almost meaningless.

I would respectfully disagree about people (at least those who would be in a position to know) considering the potential Japanese offering being a MOTS solution. In fact, there are no new conventional sub designs that really match the RAN submarine needs. Not to re-open discussion on it, be the subs which most closely approximate what seem to be RAN sub mission profiles, are nuclear powered, they have the range, persistence, and power-generation capabilities (and corresponding system capabilities) that the RAN seems to desire.

Of the western/allied nations the Japanese and Canadians seem to have the potential operating conditions and roles for their subs which most closely resemble those of the RAN.

From the same pool of nations, of those who design/build subs, the Japanese have conventional subs which seem to most closely resemble what the RAN is looking for in a sub design.

Germany certainly has a wealth of experience designing and building subs for other nations, but the conditions which these subs would seem to operate under are quite different to how the RAN would operate. In order to meet RAN needs, the Type 216 has been designed, which on paper is ~twice the displacement of the most recent German sub designs (the Type 212 & Type 214) and ~50% greater length.

As was found when the Swedes basically doubled or tripled the scale of their Västergötland-class sub to make the Collins-class, such an expansion of a design impacts how the sub performs. What is appropriate or works well for one scale, does not necessarily translate into a different scale.

As for the French proposal... Given the RAN preference for US kit, and the issues the US has/would have with integrating their kit onto French kit... This is a potentially large problem both up front, as well as for long-term operations and sustainment. Then is also the little matter of the impact upon a design one has, if it was originally designed to be a nuke boat, but was switched to a conventionally powered diesel-electric.

Nothing out there quite matches what the RAN wants, but what the Japanese are doing seems closest.

 

[John Newman]

Ps Over a decade ago I would happily have gone with a Japanese sub as I felt they would be both a good design and fit for the RAN.
Not now. Option J is more than a submarine purchase and North Asia just scares me on many levels.


Regards S

Mate, seriously?? Well if what is happening in North Asia scares you, then maybe it's time to sell up and move to the Greek Islands (I hear some are going real cheap, just have to watch out for all of the refugees landing on your little island is all!!!).

Yes it is true Japan has not exported one single submarine, all true, but lets not forget that they have produced 'more' than 40 submarines for home use over 40+ years too, year in, year out, and are going to continue to evolved each class as one follow the other. Each time, larger and more capable than the last (March of every year a new submarine commissions, next month the 7th Soryu commissions).

Is there a problem with that? Sorry but I can't see the problem.

And I think we have a 'mature' enough relationship with China to make our case for our Soverign rights to decide what is best for us too if we do in fact select 'option J'.

The Germans (and French too), so how many submarines do they have in commission in their 'own' navies compared to how many they have built for export?

Not knocking what Germany and France do, but how many conventional submarines have they built that come even a 'little' bit close to the size and capabilities that we require? Nil I think is the answer.

As for our chosen combat and weapons systems, well I think our US friends are going to be far more inclined to deal with Japan (far less issues and restrictions) that with our French and German friends.

I could go on, but I won't!

Bagettes? No!

Schnitzel? No!

For me it's Sushi!!!

Cheers,

 

[oldsig127]

I don't see the defence export vector as a valid query (usually proffered up by their opponents) as the japanese have been involved in building major capabilities across the world - in fact a high number of power stations in australia are japanese designed, and no one saw those projects failing due to translation issues.

Entirely true, but the Japanese constitution has prevented them exporting weapons and soldiers, not power stations and Toyotas. The political issue is that Abe is somewhat internally isolated in his determination to change the restrictions on Japan, and any change of government may bring a severe problem for Australia.

oldsig127

 

[gf0012-aust]

Entirely true, but the Japanese constitution has prevented them exporting weapons and soldiers, not power stations and Toyotas. The political issue is that Abe is somewhat internally isolated in his determination to change the restrictions on Japan, and any change of government may bring a severe problem for Australia.

oldsig127

the constitutional debate was relevant 3 years ago - its not now
this should be weighted towards the issue of the best capability that can be delivered to the RAN to meet our strategic and tactical requirements.

political issues should come way down the ladder of fitting and kitting.

the japanese are if anything, honourable, out of any of the potential partners I cannot see them reversing a prev held position on a change of govt - they would lose face and thats not something they take lightly

french committment and honouring of contracts can be easily paraded in front of the israelis as an example of how internal politics will dishonour and render an agreement as worthless even when the client paid in advance and was all paid up. Cherbourg and Dassault should be bookmarks for all on what happens when you have fairweather friends.

 

[Volkodav]

Entirely true, but the Japanese constitution has prevented them exporting weapons and soldiers, not power stations and Toyotas. The political issue is that Abe is somewhat internally isolated in his determination to change the restrictions on Japan, and any change of government may bring a severe problem for Australia.

oldsig127

Reality check on what is MOTS, MOTS Plus and what is developmental.

The German option is for a substantial increase in diameter and length which, specifically the increase in diameter will entail a massive rearrangement of equipment to maintain stability and weight control (think S80 and its issues).

The Short Fin goes the opposite way in being a cut and hog tied version of a larger design with a totally different propulsion system. This is often much harder than stretching a shorter design as it requires the same rearrangement of equipment but a more limited volume to work with, limiting the use of permanent ballast and the space to move gear within the hull for stability. The other issue is batteries and fuel tanks take up a lot of space, shortening the hull will make arranging these considerable volumes very challenging (again look at how badly the S80 was stuffed up and it was a stretch of the Scorpion).

With Japan opting for a plug I am waiting for the inevitable comments that its not MOTS, its a new design, too risky etc. while completely ignoring the fact that there is far less commonality on the French and German options, with neither being a MOTS option in any way. A Soryu with a plug for extra fuel and batteries, plus the required combat system is still a Soryu even if MOTS plus rather than just MOTS. On the combat system, this is the lowest risk part because Australia has sovereign capability in integrating this system into an existing platform, doing the work at design phase will be even easier (so long as the Japanese actually listen, this being my only real concern)

 

[StingrayOZ]

I don't think it would be a bad thing if Australia when with a continuous build programs for Ships and Subs.

Rather than mid-life refits, we just build a new. I would imagine it would be more expensive for refits, but new builds should be significantly cheaper.

IMO I don't think the RAN will be disappointed with Japans Sea1000 or the F-105 Sea5000 proposals. Both would be light years ahead of what we have now.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I am either confused or don't understand the scenario re Collins replacement, from what I've read quite a lot of people are totting the Soryu as the safer option of the other two options, yet if we did go down the Soryu path it would not likely be a mots buy and would be an evolved Soryu, isn't this the exact same concept re sizing up the Type 214 into a type 216? Essentially taking a current sub/tech and evolving into an evolved/larger version?

Its the largest conventional available that can take the combat system we need without intruding on real estate - not sure how many more times I need to say this - but the other subs do NOT exist. They are vapourware.

Its in service - its not a paper submission - its a real "in the water" solution
no sub is pure MOTS they are all modified for an end user - its the degree of modification and integration that is the issue

you can't just resize or upscale a sub - no matter what swill is thrown into the public media, its not that simple and far from being easy. you cannot extrapolate a small sub reqs literally into a larger version.

why in gods name would we buy a critical asset like a sub from companies where their only interest is as a box flogger? they have no strategic interest in the region - unlike the japanese who have a vested interest, politically, strategically, tactically etc etc.... france and germany do not

and the bigee - we know that the principle supplier of our critical combat and ISR systems is more than happy to have the japanese in as partners - they do not have the same level of happiness and confidence with the others - and in one case there will be intellectual firewalls in place - something that is undesirable and which slows down build and eventually delivery.


FMD this is a broken record explanation...

 

[gf0012-aust]

Are you sure about France, or has French Polynesia and New Caledonia escaped your attention. They have nearly 600,000 citizens living in our part of the world.

no, it hasn't escaped my attention - france was always the euro country that wanted to release china from dual use export restrictions - so the colour of their political intent has been well on display.

just because we have their officers on our customs vessels and vice versa does not a mutual military admiration society make

after all the experiences a number of us have had dealing with french companies at the acquisition and build level - I would have thought that we'd learnt our lessons on french gear by now

one of the 3 sub projects I worked on overseas was for a french sub. so I've traveled this road before

 

[John Newman]

Its the largest conventional available that can take the combat system we need without intruding on real estate - not sure how many more times I need to say this - but the other subs do NOT exist. They are vapourware.

Its in service - its not a paper submission - its a real "in the water" solution
no sub is pure MOTS they are all modified for an end user - its the degree of modification and integration that is the issue

you can't just resize or upscale a sub - no matter what swill is thrown into the public media, its not that simple and far from being easy. you cannot extrapolate a small sub reqs literally into a larger version.

why in gods name would we buy a critical asset like a sub from companies where their only interest is as a box flogger? they have no strategic interest in the region - unlike the japanese who have a vested interest, politically, strategically, tactically etc etc.... france and germany do not

and the bigee - we know that the principle supplier of our critical combat and ISR systems is more than happy to have the japanese in as partners - they do not have the same level of happiness and confidence with the others - and in one case there will be intellectual firewalls in place - something that is undesirable and which slows down build and eventually delivery.


FMD this is a broken record explanation...

FMD? Agree, I'm constantly saying FMD too!!

GF, correct me if I'm wrong (and putting aside the vapourware of the French and the Germans).

What we are talking about with Soryu is an 'evolution' upon an 'evolution' of Soryu as the boat that is being offered to the RAN.

Japan commissioned 11 Oyashio boats between 1994 and 2008, those boats were then followed by an 'evolution' of that hull/boat with the currently approved 12 Soryu boats, of which seven (7) hulls have now been commissioned (and regular as clockwork in March of each and every year too).

Japan is now in the process of 'evolving' the current spec Soryu by removing AIP (as has been reported) and installing Li-Ion batteries in place of.

This 'evolution' of the basic Soryu will be reflected in the last five (5) boats currently approved, and the last boat of the currently approved 12 will hit the water around 2021, assuming Japan continues to commission a new boat every year as it currently does.

No doubt that Japan is working of the next 'evolution' of Soryu beyond 2021 too, (maybe future evolutions might be closer in configuration to the RAN offering too?).


As I understand, from all that I've read, the boat that is being offered to the RAN, to accommodate the range requirements, will have a hull 'stretch' of 6-8m (a plug that will increase the length), which I would assume is far more achievable, and less risk, than and 'upsize' or a 'downsize' of a particular hull design.

And again, as you have pointed out, is all separate to the integration of the Combat Systems too, which in the Japanese submarine should have the full support of the US too.

GF, is my reading of this reasonable and reasonably accurate too?

 

[gf0012-aust]

FMD? Agree, I'm constantly saying FMD too!!

GF, correct me if I'm wrong (and putting aside the vapourware of the French and the Germans).

What we are talking about with Soryu is an 'evolution' upon an 'evolution' of Soryu as the boat that is being offered to the RAN.

Japan commissioned 11 Oyashio boats between 1994 and 2008, those boats were then followed by an 'evolution' of that hull/boat with the currently approved 12 Soryu boats, of which seven (7) hulls have now been commissioned (and regular as clockwork in March of each and every year too).

Japan is now in the process of 'evolving' the current spec Soryu by removing AIP (as has been reported) and installing Li-Ion batteries in place of.

This 'evolution' of the basic Soryu will be reflected in the last five (5) boats currently approved, and the last boat of the currently approved 12 will hit the water around 2021, assuming Japan continues to commission a new boat every year as it currently does.

No doubt that Japan is working of the next 'evolution' of Soryu beyond 2021 too, (maybe future evolutions might be closer in configuration to the RAN offering too?).


As I understand, from all that I've read, the boat that is being offered to the RAN, to accommodate the range requirements, will have a hull 'stretch' of 6-8m (a plug that will increase the length), which I would assume is far more achievable, and less risk, than and 'upsize' or a 'downsize' of a particular hull design.

And again, as you have pointed out, is all separate to the integration of the Combat Systems too, which in the Japanese submarine should have the full support of the US too.

GF, is my reading of this reasonable and reasonably accurate too?

spot on

a real tangible sub, in the water, on the way to its third generation, originally acoustically mapped by the USN as the last legacy US conventional if they'd decided to keep on running conventionals in concert with nukes. In my time with sub acoustics the Oyashios were regarded as acoustically near perfect across various critical test parameters. and this was prior to the St Andrews mods.

and in case its been missed by the causal observer, hull developments that appeared on US nukes appeared fairly quickly soon after on the Oyashios and Soryus - well before the french, germans and or swedes made similar mods

 

[gf0012-aust]

and the political awakening happens to catch fire now.....

Germany argues political incentives in bid for submarine contract - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

 

[rand0m]

and the political awakening happens to catch fire now.....

Germany argues political incentives in bid for submarine contract - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

TKMS bagging out the opposition to influence the decision, sounds like politics. I guess at the of the day I guess it's difficult to compete when the Japanese are deploying the sub down here on exercise..

Thanks for the info

 

[gf0012-aust]

TKMS bagging out the opposition to influence the decision, sounds like politics. I guess at the of the day I guess it's difficult to compete when the Japanese are deploying the sub down here on exercise..

Thanks for the info

Its a very subtle way for the japanese to reinforce the fact that they actually have a sub meeting a lot of the critical requirements already in the water - and that its a generational improvement on what has been regarded as the best large conventional in the world. When I worked in acoustics the Oyashios were highly regarded, they were the benchmark on a number of critical vectors.

if state based politicians are able to suspend their bias (based on companies promises to keep on what they'll do for their respective states) then it will also be self evident to them as well.

 

[SouthernSky]

Beijing's hand wringing will count for nought in the process of deciding Australia's next submarine purchase. No matter how much it doth protest. And nor should it.

 

[ngatimozart]

Are you sure about France, or has French Polynesia and New Caledonia escaped your attention. They have nearly 600,000 citizens living in our part of the world.

If you have been following the sub discussion in this thread you will note that multiple times it has been stayed that the RAN combat system is the USN submarine one and that will create IP and other problems if the French are involved in the Collins sub replacement build. The French colonies in the South Pacific maybe important to them to a certain degree but the French are not that fussy on which countries they sell hi tech and advanced weapons systems too, sometimes to the detriment of their friends and allies.

 

[Todjaeger]

I would also like to see a reduced sub fleet. I would much rather see the resources go to a complete amphibious capability, ideally moved away from Sydney so it's not playing second fiddle to the surface fleet and a 4th combat brigade. This would give the ADF the ability to surge an under-sized Division anywhere in our region and sustain a Brigade.

There is too much focus on DOA and Air-Sea Gap, I would favour a more Forward Defence posture. The Chinese have taken control of the SCS with dredging barges and amphibious ships.

I'm quite aware that this is not likely to happen however.

Note what GF has said about the impact a sub has on maritime activity, both naval and merchant. That does not even get into the ISR value a sub has, or the ability to deploy/retrieve 'specials'.

With a 12 sub fleet for the RAN, I suspect there would only ever be about 8 subs in commission at any given time. If done in builds of four, the initial subs could be commissioned and brought into service as the most utilized of the Collins-class are being decommissioned. Then as the last set of four are being built (likely to an improved variant of the initial four) the first four of the replacement subs could be decommissioned. Of course depending on service, ADF, and Gov't needs, the RAN sub service could get built up sufficiently to support a dozen subs in service, which should provide enough for three on patrols or deployment at any given moment and a few more which could potentially be surged.

As for the impact a sub has, a potential adversary for Australia would have, to the best of their abilities, account for RAN subs which could wreak havoc upon an adversary's naval forces and the SLOC. If there is a contested area which Australia is passing through or is operating in (as part of an international deployment or due to treaty obligations), then critical shipments which the ADF would be interested in seeing never arrive would demand a significant ASW escort if there was the potential for a Collins-class sub to be present. The adversary is basically forced to assume that a sub is in the area, and operate accordingly. Having more subs in service makes the need to assume a RAN sub presence even greater, as well as the potential for multiple ASW escort deployments if there are ships/assets transiting different routes or with different destinations.

Look at the 1982 Falklands War for instance, the RN sub HMS Conqueror encountered and sunk the Argentine cruiser ARA General Belgrano. One of the results from that was that the Argentinian Navy remained in port for the rest of the conflict. This because of the presence of one and perhaps more RN subs in theatre. Had the Argentinian Navy been free from sub threat, to actively involve itself then the RN task force to retake the Falklands and South Georgia would have faced a serious, perhaps insurmountable threat.

The RAN can have a similar sort of situation where adversary ships which might be used to attack a RAN task force centered around an LHD and AWD plus other escorts. With an adversary knowing that a RAN sub could be shadowing them to a degree, relaying positional information and/or waiting for a time to strike, then the adversary could deem the risks too high and not deploy to engage the RAN task force. Or they could deploy and end up losing one or more of their own assets, potentially well before they could even begin to threaten the RAN surface vessels.