RAN Discussions on SSNs only

Status
Not open for further replies.

OPSSG

Super Moderator
Staff member
This thread is for RAN Discussions on SSNs only.

1. If it is a fantasy discussion on the surface fleet (to increase the number of VLS or we need more guns), please go
here. All discussions on carriers moved to Fantasy RAN thread (Carriers only). In a near peer war, any proposed RAN LHD or carrier automatically becomes a high value target — for US super carriers to survive, even they need to operate in 3s, and in shifts; not sure how a proposed baby carrier would really survive.

2. The Mods also created a daughter thread related to submarines in
Naval Ship & Submarine Propulsion Systems, here.

3. All other RAN discussions can be found in the
original mother thread.
 
Last edited:

Larso66

New Member
Excuse my ignorance on this topic. Yesterday's news about Australia's intention to obtain nuclear submarines has prompted me to ask these.

I understand the traditional strength of submarines has been their ability to hide under the surface. It's hard to get out of my head though, those WW2 actions where escorts would launch depth-charge attacks. Surely it's different now? Indeed, is technology getting to the point that, like in the Matrix, frigates etc will be able to launch active drones of some sort that find hiding submarines so they can be destroyed?

Also, rather than remain passively submerged, are modern submarines able to fire munitions from their upper tubes (?) to destroy any surface combatants hunting them? Almost to the point that the submarine has the advantage?

Happy to be pointed to other threads that answer these.
John
 

DDG38

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
I suggest you go do some reading on modern ASW (anti-submarine warfare) first, or if you're of that generation, go watch some primer videos on YouTube that explains the complexity of ASW. It's not a video game.
The submarine always has the advantage while in passive mode, they are a hole in the water. Firing missiles from tubes or VLS immediately exposes their position so after the first strike they are more vulnerable.
 

Boagrius

Well-Known Member
Yep, far more to undersea warfare nowadays than was the case in WW2. The technology has moved on in leaps and bounds. Subs are probably the most survivable naval platform you could bring to the Pacific in many respects. Former USN Sonarman Aaron Amick runs a fun YouTube channel where he spells out some of the basics:


He also uses the "Cold Waters" computer game to illustrate some of the concepts. A handy starter for laymen like ourselves.


Hope that helps!
 

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
Excuse my ignorance on this topic. Yesterday's news about Australia's intention to obtain nuclear submarines has prompted me to ask these.

I understand the traditional strength of submarines has been their ability to hide under the surface. It's hard to get out of my head though, those WW2 actions where escorts would launch depth-charge attacks. Surely it's different now? Indeed, is technology getting to the point that, like in the Matrix, frigates etc will be able to launch active drones of some sort that find hiding submarines so they can be destroyed?

Also, rather than remain passively submerged, are modern submarines able to fire munitions from their upper tubes (?) to destroy any surface combatants hunting them? Almost to the point that the submarine has the advantage?

Happy to be pointed to other threads that answer these.
John
Submarine Warfare changed completely in the decade 1945-55, before that Subs were Surface Ships that spend most of their time on the Surface that could submerge for tactical reasons, after that they were true Submarines that only surfaced for mainly non Tactical reasons. The changes come about due to the work down by German Engineers which resulted in the Type XXI
For the first time you had a Submarine that was faster underwater then on the Surface. By the early 1950s using captured Personnel and material, the US and UK were rebuilding large numbers of WW2 built Subs to this standard and designing new Subs. the tactic of dropping Depth Charges off the back of Escorts simply no longer worked as the Subs could simply outrun Escorts, especially the WW2 built, Frigates and Corvettes. This meant that the Escorts needed to be faster and needed to carry Weapons with an increasing range, such as Anti Submarine Mortars, fast Lightweight Torpedoes, systems like Ikara and ASROC that could carry a Lightweight Torpedo well away from the Ship and of course the introduction of Helicopters brought a whole new dimension.
 

OPSSG

Super Moderator
Staff member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #9
What's the feasibility of special forces insertion by sub?
1. Feasibility is high. But more than just insertion, NATO have used submarines to monitor pirate activity off the coast of Somalia and and <delete country> have used submarines to monitor pirate activity off <delete location monitored to avoid offending observed country>, to vector a naval response. In the case of NATO, after the submarine was done with the intelligence gathering on a known pirate base, the navy went ashore and destroyed the pirate skiffs. These were extremely successful counter-pirate operations due to the quality of information gathered by these submarine crews.

2. There is a whole range of special forces missions (along with very high end and niche capabilities maintained by Australian, American, French, German, Italian, and Israeli frogmen), in the real world where submarines are used for conventional and unconventional operations. Diver-propulsion devices come in difference sizes and training to use it is not difficult, compared to combat diver qualification. Divers can be used for beach and harbour reconnaissance — in the case of Vietnam, they put divers in the water against Chinese oil rigs, which prompted withdrawal.

3. Shayetet-13, have acquired Italian-built Deep Guardian Shelter, to insert combat divers into Gaza and Lebanon, for numerous operations that resulted in the deaths of terrorists (see: H I Sutton - Covert Shores). But there is risk and in Sep 1997, a force of 16 from Shayetet-13 was ambushed by fighters from local militant groups Hezbollah and Amal while on a mission deep in Lebanon. 11 of the commandos were killed in the firefight that ensued, including force commander Lt. Col. Yossi Korakin, as well as a doctor from a rescue force dispatched to their aid. Hezbollah revealed that they knew the Shayetet-13 insertion point in advance thanks to the interception of video footage broadcast by Israeli UAVs that were hovering over the area in the days before the mission. 20 years later, the IDF finally confirms Hezbollah was able to intercept intelligence while being transmitted from an Israeli drone, giving it advance knowledge of naval commando operation deep inside Lebanon.

Is that a realistic useful thing these days?
4. Yes it is realistic and useful. In Mar 2015, Maj. Gen. James S. Hartsell went to observe diver insertion training between US and Singapore, during Exercise Sandfisher, where combat divers were training to operate in the littorals.

5. I have spoken to Buds and other combat diver qualified operators to help me understand Australian, Singaporean, Taiwanese and American underwater capabilities. Read up on the US Navy’s SEAL Mini Sub — the SDV, for their conventional operations capability. Hope this helps.
 
Last edited:

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
The best form of defence against SSNs is another SSN, seems that the RAN acquiring them makes more and more sense all the time.

It is good to see we are finally paying attention to out national defence from actual, rather than politically convenience threats. i.e., look at a map, look at who is doing what, determining how the actions of other impact on us, determine how best to protect our interests.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
The best form of defence against SSNs is another SSN, seems that the RAN acquiring them makes more and more sense all the time.

It is good to see we are finally paying attention to out national defence from actual, rather than politically convenience threats. i.e., look at a map, look at who is doing what, determining how the actions of other impact on us, determine how best to protect our interests.
The other thing they will offer as well is as Escorts, able to consistently maintain speed with the Phat Ships especially.
 

SD67

Member
The figures for Astute are a little misleading. The start date listed is really just procurement of long lead items. When I was there around 2012 there was not much activity on boat four.
As others have said the reasons are the need to maintain continuous build, plus, in the past, the restricted ability of Rolls to mass produce PWR2, which was at the end of its development life and becoming a limiting factor on the program.
If Australia go down the "Astute +" route there's the opportunity to bring it up to a much more economic level of activity and cut the build times.

But no-one is ever going to get close to the US, which is a completely different model, more like a car factory. They bulk-procure material safe in the knowledge that there's another five boats coming up soon, it would only work in the US.
 

Stampede

Well-Known Member
The figures for Astute are a little misleading. The start date listed is really just procurement of long lead items. When I was there around 2012 there was not much activity on boat four.
As others have said the reasons are the need to maintain continuous build, plus, in the past, the restricted ability of Rolls to mass produce PWR2, which was at the end of its development life and becoming a limiting factor on the program.
If Australia go down the "Astute +" route there's the opportunity to bring it up to a much more economic level of activity and cut the build times.

But no-one is ever going to get close to the US, which is a completely different model, more like a car factory. They bulk-procure material safe in the knowledge that there's another five boats coming up soon, it would only work in the US.
Glad to see "HMAS Sirius doing good work.
I trust it gets a new lease of life after retirement from the RAN.


Regards S
 

aussienscale

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
The figures for Astute are a little misleading. The start date listed is really just procurement of long lead items. When I was there around 2012 there was not much activity on boat four.
As others have said the reasons are the need to maintain continuous build, plus, in the past, the restricted ability of Rolls to mass produce PWR2, which was at the end of its development life and becoming a limiting factor on the program.
If Australia go down the "Astute +" route there's the opportunity to bring it up to a much more economic level of activity and cut the build times.

But no-one is ever going to get close to the US, which is a completely different model, more like a car factory. They bulk-procure material safe in the knowledge that there's another five boats coming up soon, it would only work in the US.
Exactly, different programs, different countries with different reporting and gates for what determines their build progress

Virginia Block IV ordered April 2014, first laid down Feb 2017, but contract for long lead items and material was issued in 2012.

Just like trying to compare prices, it is truly a mixed fruit salad, there are no direct like for like comparisons.

Cheers
 

hauritz

Well-Known Member
Well we only just found out its going to happen in Osborne the other day.

The LOTE of collins is looking pretty huge.

- New Diesel engines (MTU)
- New Generators
- New electric motor (permanent magnet)
- Optronic masts (no more periscope)
- New Sonar setup
- New revision of combat system
- New power distribution system (new lead acid batteries?)
That is more extensive than I thought it would be.

Perhaps an indication that we may need to lease one or two submarines while they are undergoing LOTE because I am not sure they will be able to accomplish all that in two years.
 

Mark_Evans

Member
But the only reason the RAN Nucs are possible is PWR3.
The Opposition Labor Party would never agree to a reactor that needed refuelling on doctrinaire lines and without a local industry it would not be possible anyway.
Our PM has categorically stated that there will be no nuclear industry although this surely is a pragmatic approach delivering what is possible not what’s needed.
I thought the pwr2 h model was good for life if the sub?
I appreciate wikipedia is not exactly the best source of information but supposedly the Astute class is whole of life.
 

John Newman

The Bunker Group
I thought the pwr2 h model was good for life if the sub?
I appreciate wikipedia is not exactly the best source of information but supposedly the Astute class is whole of life.
True, but the suggestion is the fuel life of PWR2 is considerably shorter than PWR3.

Up to 25 years (maybe?) vs 30 years.

If true, a PWR2 equipped sub would have a significantly shorter service life.
 

ASSAIL

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
I thought the pwr2 h model was good for life if the sub?
I appreciate wikipedia is not exactly the best source of information but supposedly the Astute class is whole of life.
I’m no expert but from what I remember from various comments, the earlier pwr2 models had some safety issues, later models have a different core and longer life.
Still better than the French reactors which require refuelling every 5 - 7 years and are the reason why the nuc version of the Barracuda/Suffren was not considered.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top