Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[Volkodav]

Was just reading an article in The Australian on our future subs. And Ross Babbage founder of the Kokoda Foundation thinks that we should have 12 nuclear subs. I wanted to know if we would be able to do it? Our locally built 12 that are currently planned are going to cost 30 billion plus and atm a USN Virginia class submarine is only 1.8 billion in 09, so even simply rounding it off to roughly 2 billion for inflation and possibly problems along the way. Would it be easier to buy 12 nuclear subs (and more efficient) than manufacture our own here which will cost significantly more?

If you think this is a good idea, I got a question, Astute or Virginia class?

Saw it, read it, left a comment suggesting they check their facts before publishing.


Apart from the crewing and sustainability issues one of the greatest fictions in or about the submarine world is that the Collins class somehow have an unacceptably low availability rate in comparison to other classes. To my knowledge the only class to have a better availability rate than the Collins is the RN Vanguard Class SSBN, in that they consistently maintain one hull at sea out of a class of four. The USN to my knowledge doesn't come near either the Vanguards or Collins in comparison. As for the rest of the world......

End of the day Australia did an exceptional job on the Collins, irrespective of the fact it was our first submarine build. With the lesson learnt and two decades of operating and maintaining the Collins, what ever follows will be better still.

Just waiting for battery technology to provide a power density close enough to diesel so we can ditch most of the dead weight of the diesel generators and fuel bunkerage.

 

[t68]

Saw it, read it, left a comment suggesting they check their facts before publishing.


Apart from the crewing and sustainability issues one of the greatest fictions in or about the submarine world is that the Collins class somehow have an unacceptably low availability rate in comparison to other classes. To my knowledge the only class to have a better availability rate than the Collins is the RN Vanguard Class SSBN, in that they consistently maintain one hull at sea out of a class of four. The USN to my knowledge doesn't come near either the Vanguards or Collins in comparison. As for the rest of the world......

End of the day Australia did an exceptional job on the Collins, irrespective of the fact it was our first submarine build. With the lesson learnt and two decades of operating and maintaining the Collins, what ever follows will be better still.

Just waiting for battery technology to provide a power density close enough to diesel so we can ditch most of the dead weight of the diesel generators and fuel bunkerage.

Have you got a link to the report as his name came up with some thing i was reading but got called away and could not find what i was reading again.:drunk1

 

[SASWanabe]

is this the same bloke that says we need 300 combat aircraft and 30 subs?

for all who are inerested
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/time-to-beat-china-at-its-own-game/story-e6frg6zo-1226000381520

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/defence/defence-must-arm-up-for-asian-threat/story-e6frg8yo-1111115878268

report itself comes out tommorow


Edit: added link

 

[SASWanabe]

i think its worth adding that both the UK and French who have/had ~3x more defence funding and civil nuclear power have less than 12 nuke subs, granted they both have 4 BM subs

 

[RubiconNZ]

is this the same bloke that says we need 300 combat aircraft and 30 subs?

for all who are inerested
Time to beat China at its own game | The Australian

Defence must arm up for 'Asian threat' | The Australian

report itself comes out tommorow


Edit: added link

Thanks for those links, the first one especially it will be interesting to see the reaction from these paper, discussion about Australia's future strategic position is important, and this will certainly cause alot of it.

 

[kato]

Standard SM-2 significantly outranges any Harpoon variant (besides SLAM-ER)

And it still delivers only half the payload.

 

[Aussie Digger]

And it still delivers only half the payload.

And shoots down jets just fine at beyond 150nm and has to overcome the issues with vertical launch which Harpoon does not, yet it still achieves Mach 3.5. Harpoon even in air-launched configuration manages what, 130k's at Mach 0.9 at best?

Is it so surprising that neither can do what the other can, when they are designed for different things? I own a relatively new car, that has what I consider a fair bit of performance, but I don't expect it could out-perfom a Formula One car...

My earlier point was addressing the perceptions in some quarters that Western anti-ship missiles are subsonic because "The West" somehow manages to lack the engineering capability to deploy a supersonic anti-ship missile.

So I provided an example of a Western built missile that weighs 700kgs, achieves a speed of Mach 3.5 during it's flght and has a range beyond 150nm, to disprove these sorts of statements and support MY point.

So what is your point exactly? That "The West" couldn't do so such a thing with a missile that has a slightly larger warhead?

Ok, how about considering the Trident II then? That missile weighs 58,000kgs, travels at 13,600mph, has a range of 4000nm and can carry up to 8x 360kg warheads and has been deployed since the late 80's.

Is this sort of performance enough to suggest "The West" probably wouldn't struggle to build a missile with a 250kg - 500kg warhead that can travel 300k's at up to Mach 2.8 today, if it NEEDED to do so?

 

[swerve]

You probably mean ANF there.

And as there are no conventional warheads for ASMP and ASMP-A (the two supersonic missiles) those are more like last-resort weapons against ships...

ANS is given in many English-language sources as the designation of the Franco-German joint project of the early 1990s, but yes, I meant the all-French ANF project.

I know ASMP-A lacks a conventional warhead, but that's not relevant to the claim that western countries have not built supersonic anti-ship missiles because they can't. ASMP & ASMP-A prove that France can build a supersonic air-ground missile large enough & with enough range to be an effective anti-ship missile, if wanted. French industry has demonstrated the technical ability to build conventional warheads & guidance which could be put on ASMP-A to make it effective against ships. Not doing so is a matter of choice, not inability.

The UK or Germany could also build such missiles if they were thought necessary.

 

[kato]

the Franco-German joint project of the early 1990s

Which was effectively just a try to salvage the previous Franco-British project, AMS.

Is this sort of performance enough to suggest "The West" probably wouldn't struggle to build a missile with a 250kg - 500kg warhead that can travel 300k's at up to Mach 2.8 today, if it NEEDED to do so?

Of course the West can build such a missile. It's not exactly hard to strap a guidance system and a warhead on a ramjet engine launched by a booster rocket. May take a decade to fine-tune it to a point where it doesn't randomly plunge into the sea of course.
Of course "The West" would then have to also build ships that could carry such a missile. Because - VLS for a 3-5 ton missile? Forget it.

ASMP gets away with low weight by using a relatively light-weight warhead - and is still the size of a Tomahawk. The weight of the TN81 warhead is of course classified, but the mid-90s concept of turning it into a conventional anti-radar missile with a 200 kg HE warhead with less range speaks volumes.

 

[gf0012-aust]

i think its worth adding that both the UK and French who have/had ~3x more defence funding and civil nuclear power have less than 12 nuke subs, granted they both have 4 BM subs

Funding is directly attributed to a countries perceived requirements against a perceived threat.

Australia on ratio to other partners is doing a whole lot better than most.

what have numbers of nuke subs for UK and France have anything to do with the strategic vision for ADF/RAN out to 2045?

 

[StingrayOZ]

I do find it interesting, I suppose with supersonics they are going to follow a more predictable ballistic path, I assume subsonics have a great advantage in this area ever since radar controlled guns/antimissiles appeared (70's?). Obviously the Russians think they are building to their strengths, and the West believes they are building to theirs.

Its interesting but wrong to compare SM-2, Harpoon and say Tomahawk, as they all different aims and infact ships often carry all three. While there is some capability overlap, you would have to agree that they serve different purposes. Even more so when you start swapping warheads, guidance etc.

Things like bloodhound were developed in the 50's by the UK, achieved Mach 2.7 (admittadly over a short range). Some were even nuclear equiped.. They evolved beyond this a long time ago.

 

[SASWanabe]

nothing much really, i just thought it was worth noting that countries with larger populus, economys and military budgets operate less than 12 nuke subs.



heres another article

China biggest security challenge since WW2

now that i see the full picture i kinda agree with him. raise defence spending 30-40% over next 20 years, then buy the subs, maybe someone in government will agree with him

theres still no chance of it ever happening tho, unless we build them ourself, which isnt entirely impossible. just highly improbable

 

[south]

And shoots down jets just fine at beyond 150nm and has to overcome the issues with vertical launch which Harpoon does not, yet it still achieves Mach 3.5. Harpoon even in air-launched configuration manages what, 130k's at Mach 0.9 at best?

Got a source for that? (150NM) Impressive if true but given the USN website is mentioning 40-90NM it seems a bit exaggerated. Edit - 60-100NM for the SM2ER

Navy Fact File: Standard Missile

 

[RubiconNZ]

Got a source for that? (150NM) Impressive if true but given the USN website is mentioning 40-90NM it seems a bit exaggerated. Edit - 60-100NM for the SM2ER

Navy Fact File: Standard Missile

If you go to the actual navy.mil USN fact page site for the Standard Missile you will see the figures as provided below.

General Characteristics, SM-2 Block IV Extended Range
Primary Function: Fleet and extended area air defense.
Contractor: Raytheon Missile Systems.
Date Deployed: 1998
Propulsion: Two-stage solid fuel rockets.
Length: 21 feet 6 inches with booster (6.55 meters).
Diameter: 21 inches (booster) (34.3 cm).
Wingspan: 3 feet 6 inches (1.08 meters).
Weight: 3,225 pounds (1466 kg).
Range: 100-200 nautical miles (115-230 statute miles).
Guidance System: Semi-active radar homing.
Warhead: Radar and contact fuse, blast-fragment warhead.

The USN site tends to be updated a little more often. These figures will also likely be on the conservative side.

 

[south]

Nice, did not realise it was such a "big stick".

Is the RAN running with the ER variant?

 

[RubiconNZ]

Nice, did not realise it was such a "big stick".

Is the RAN running with the ER variant?

The FFG's are running with the SM-2 MR at the moment to the best of my knowledge, though the AWD's are slated to carry the SM-6 which will have a similar range to the ER version.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I do find it interesting, I suppose with supersonics they are going to follow a more predictable ballistic path, I assume subsonics have a great advantage in this area ever since radar controlled guns/antimissiles appeared (70's?). Obviously the Russians think they are building to their strengths, and the West believes they are building to theirs.

there's actually some parallel issues with respect to fast jets and fast weapons.

the west moved away from high mach speed jets for similar reasons that they elected not to pursue supersonic cruise weapons and went down the subsonic path.

bear in mind that the soviet supersonic threat in the cold war represents a capability that both india and china nowhere near approach in performance terms today.

high speed means more "tells" going off.

 

[aussienscale]

Nuship Canberra

For those interested here are some recent pics of Nuship Canberra, paintwork going on prior to her launch on the 17th Feb, she will then be alongside for further fitout prior to being piggy backed on the Blue Marlin to Williamstown

fotosdebarcos.com / fotosdebarcos.org :: Ver tema - HMAS Canberra

Cheers

 

[Aussie Digger]

The FFG's are running with the SM-2 MR at the moment to the best of my knowledge, though the AWD's are slated to carry the SM-6 which will have a similar range to the ER version.

RAN has the SM-2 Block IIIA integrated onto our Adelaide Class FFG's. Block IIIA is apparently the newest generation Standard missile they can run from the FFG's.

SM-2 Block IIIB is on order for initial fitout with the Air Warfare Destroyers, with the Government's intention to upgrade to SM-6 when available.

FMS: Australia Requests Sale of 17 Standard SM-2 Block IIIB Missiles

Regards,

AD

 

[OpinionNoted]

In the opinion of def pros here,what would cause the least heartache to aquire...10 to 12 virginias or 12 son of collins?
An australian collins 2 build with all the associated risks of a new class of submarine or an american virginia build with the associated reskilling of ran to nuclear sub tech?
Also just reading the virginias have been built at 1 per year and will increase to 2 boats per year from 2011/12 therby reducing the cost per unit,so add to that 1 ran boat per year to bring the output to 3.
Mabey has to be an expansion of us yards to move from 2 to 3 boats per year thereby incurring increased costs?
Mabey 2 usn and 1 ran virginia per year would still be cheaper than australian build collins 2 replacements and usn benifits from a higher builder programme thereby reducing their virginia aquisition costs?
Dont know the through life costs of 10 to 12 virginias versus 12 collins 2 and the amount of time and costs to skill ran personell to nuclear submarines but is it something that is no greater or less of a risk than australian build collins replacements?

edit-add to that the level of infrastructure needed here to support ran virginias.