Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
knightrider4
Active Member
Soryu SSG
Not convinced that our limited sub numbers are the best platforms for cruise missile strikes. A conventional boat just does not have the persistent escape speed to leave the launch area all that safely. Much better platforms for cruise missile strikes IMHO.
Not convinced that our limited sub numbers are the best platforms for cruise missile strikes. A conventional boat just does not have the persistent escape speed to leave the launch area all that safely. Much better platforms for cruise missile strikes IMHO.
Not sure what you're implying? The SSG Collins replacement has always had TLAM as a capability requirement and "escape" speed is irrelevant if the target is hundreds of miles away
Tricky part is that a submarine needs to remain relatively steady in the water during the firing phase and gives away its position when the missile penetrates the surface of the water, the implication being a ship or aircraft or whatever sees/detects the launch then they may persecute the target of opportunity so high speed would - in that instance - be a useful trait for the escape.
But that's a very iffy scenario
Firstly if there are surface/sub surface or aerial contacts so close to the launch vehicle then why would they launch in the first place? Or commanders put the submarine in a position where there is the risk of it being attacked upon launching?
Secondly in the more likely scenario of a non-peer conflict this becomes significantly less of a risk as the OPFOR don't have the assets to be able to patrol at the required distances or at least not on an enduring basis for any significant time in a conflict involving the US and coalition air forces.
Thirdly cruise missile strikes these days are done under very select circumstances involving several stages of planning, it's not a case of launching one on the fly, meaning the submarine would be able to conduct several hours of patrols in their zone to determine if the area is clear. This is partly due to the construction of TLAM IIRC as it currently can't prosecute moving targets or update in flight (although i'm not so sure on the last point come to think of it), two characteristics which are necessary for eliminating targets of opportunity in most cases.
AFAIK that's accurate, although i'd appreciate being pointed in the right direction if not.
But that's a very iffy scenario
Firstly if there are surface/sub surface or aerial contacts so close to the launch vehicle then why would they launch in the first place? Or commanders put the submarine in a position where there is the risk of it being attacked upon launching?
Secondly in the more likely scenario of a non-peer conflict this becomes significantly less of a risk as the OPFOR don't have the assets to be able to patrol at the required distances or at least not on an enduring basis for any significant time in a conflict involving the US and coalition air forces.
Thirdly cruise missile strikes these days are done under very select circumstances involving several stages of planning, it's not a case of launching one on the fly, meaning the submarine would be able to conduct several hours of patrols in their zone to determine if the area is clear. This is partly due to the construction of TLAM IIRC as it currently can't prosecute moving targets or update in flight (although i'm not so sure on the last point come to think of it), two characteristics which are necessary for eliminating targets of opportunity in most cases.
AFAIK that's accurate, although i'd appreciate being pointed in the right direction if not.
Given the dismantling of Australian manufacturing with the massive labour costs Australia has and the "level playing field" politics I cannot see how we can afford to build them ourselves. I would rather spend $20 billion on Japanese subs than $40 billion on Australian built ones and divert the saving to other projects.
With all A$20 billion leaving Australia as opposed to A$35 billion (number picked from the air) staying in Australia? Buying OTS from Japan means the money is as good as gone, in house means that whilst the Govt is spending 'more' money a significant proportion of that money is returned to government through various methods of taxation.
The shipbuilder gets paid, he spends his money on whatever, utilities, gas, whatever. Purchases goods and services with his money boosting the economy and the government gets the money 'back' through taxes. It's not simply a case of spending more is bad, it's a case of how it's being spent. Course, depends how forward looking the government is at the time if they care or not. The ripple effects of national shipbuilding should not be underestimated if properly sustained, whole communities can be created based off of that industry and all the while paying tax to the Government.
Plus savings can lead to the whole "I gave you $10, you only needed $5, so next time you're going to get $5", unless your DefMin is particularly active about pushing against that kind of thinking,
The shipbuilder gets paid, he spends his money on whatever, utilities, gas, whatever. Purchases goods and services with his money boosting the economy and the government gets the money 'back' through taxes. It's not simply a case of spending more is bad, it's a case of how it's being spent. Course, depends how forward looking the government is at the time if they care or not. The ripple effects of national shipbuilding should not be underestimated if properly sustained, whole communities can be created based off of that industry and all the while paying tax to the Government.
Plus savings can lead to the whole "I gave you $10, you only needed $5, so next time you're going to get $5", unless your DefMin is particularly active about pushing against that kind of thinking,
the road runner
Active Member
With Japan easing its restrictions on defence related matters and Australia signing a free trade agreement , i think we are headed in the right direction for our future sub.
The Government has stated a number of times that the future Sub's, will be built in Australia.How true this will be,time will tell.
Japanese defence officials have toured ASC. To me ,it seems we could put a number of Japanese who work on Soryu in project management positions at ASC,have some parts ,such as gen sets purchased in Japan and have the hull built in Australia.
If we go down Collins 2 path we just purchase gen sets from Japan and install them in the future subs we produce here. Very exciting times for Australia and our submariners
The Government has stated a number of times that the future Sub's, will be built in Australia.How true this will be,time will tell.
Japanese defence officials have toured ASC. To me ,it seems we could put a number of Japanese who work on Soryu in project management positions at ASC,have some parts ,such as gen sets purchased in Japan and have the hull built in Australia.
If we go down Collins 2 path we just purchase gen sets from Japan and install them in the future subs we produce here. Very exciting times for Australia and our submariners
Joe Black
Active Member
Australia in talks to buy Japanese submarines to upgrade fleet (News.com.au)
ALMOST 72 years after Japanese midget submarines attacked Sydney Harbour killing 21 sailors, Australia could buy Japanese subs for its $30 billion replacement program.
Possible access to Japanese technology and even a so-called “military off-the-shelf” deal to buy the boats is on the agenda during high-level defence talks in Tokyo between Prime Minister Tony Abbott and senior Japanese officials.
Mr Abbott’s talks follow a top-secret mission to Japan in February by the nation’s defence purchasing guru and head of the Defence Materiel Organisation Warren King to open negotiations with Japan’s defence agency for possible access to its Soryu Class submarines.
Defence Minister David Johnston has also met Japanese officials to discuss submarines and senior navy officers have been on board the Japanese boats to examine technologies such as the Swedish-designed air independent propulsion (AIP) system.
The AIP system allows the diesel-electric vessels to remain submerged for long periods of time without the need for fresh air for diesel power-plants.
When asked yesterday what aspects of the Japanese boats might be included in an Australian design, a senior government source replied: “Everything.”
When pressed on whether that included buying the boats off-the-shelf from the Japanese the answer was an emphatic “yes”.
At a submarine conference in Canberra tomorrow Senator Johnston will tell Defence and industry that “all bets are off” when it comes to options for the future Australian submarine fleet.
He will also debunk the myth that Australia needs 12 submarines and will make it plain that the government is not a job-creation agency for local shipbuilders.
That means shipbuilder ASC would need to prove its credentials as a competitive and skilled shipyard.
Japanese officials have visited the ASC shipyard at Port Adelaide, where the navy’s six Collins Class boats were built.
The Japanese vessels cost about $600 million each, or less than half the price of an Australian-made alternative.
The 4200-tonne (submerged) Soryu submarines would be an ideal fit to replace the ageing 3400-tonne Collins boats.
It is understood the Japanese technology could also be used to extend the life of the Collins boats beyond the late 2020s.
Senator Johnston will also urge Defence to get moving quickly so a decision can be taken by March 2015.
He will point out that it took Singapore just 10 months to move from concept to decision for its new submarine.
Australia has been examining alternatives for almost seven years.
ALMOST 72 years after Japanese midget submarines attacked Sydney Harbour killing 21 sailors, Australia could buy Japanese subs for its $30 billion replacement program.
Possible access to Japanese technology and even a so-called “military off-the-shelf” deal to buy the boats is on the agenda during high-level defence talks in Tokyo between Prime Minister Tony Abbott and senior Japanese officials.
Mr Abbott’s talks follow a top-secret mission to Japan in February by the nation’s defence purchasing guru and head of the Defence Materiel Organisation Warren King to open negotiations with Japan’s defence agency for possible access to its Soryu Class submarines.
Defence Minister David Johnston has also met Japanese officials to discuss submarines and senior navy officers have been on board the Japanese boats to examine technologies such as the Swedish-designed air independent propulsion (AIP) system.
The AIP system allows the diesel-electric vessels to remain submerged for long periods of time without the need for fresh air for diesel power-plants.
When asked yesterday what aspects of the Japanese boats might be included in an Australian design, a senior government source replied: “Everything.”
When pressed on whether that included buying the boats off-the-shelf from the Japanese the answer was an emphatic “yes”.
At a submarine conference in Canberra tomorrow Senator Johnston will tell Defence and industry that “all bets are off” when it comes to options for the future Australian submarine fleet.
He will also debunk the myth that Australia needs 12 submarines and will make it plain that the government is not a job-creation agency for local shipbuilders.
That means shipbuilder ASC would need to prove its credentials as a competitive and skilled shipyard.
Japanese officials have visited the ASC shipyard at Port Adelaide, where the navy’s six Collins Class boats were built.
The Japanese vessels cost about $600 million each, or less than half the price of an Australian-made alternative.
The 4200-tonne (submerged) Soryu submarines would be an ideal fit to replace the ageing 3400-tonne Collins boats.
It is understood the Japanese technology could also be used to extend the life of the Collins boats beyond the late 2020s.
Senator Johnston will also urge Defence to get moving quickly so a decision can be taken by March 2015.
He will point out that it took Singapore just 10 months to move from concept to decision for its new submarine.
Australia has been examining alternatives for almost seven years.
knightrider4
Active Member
I'm thinking that an enemy would have a fair idea of the maximum speed of a collins class boat and endurance related at that speed. Taking into account the known range of the cruise missile in question, wouldn't one be able to work out the maximum distance the boat could have traveled in what time frame? Would not the enemy work a circular patrol area and work this to the centre. I would think that would be a reasonable search pattern. At the very least you would not waste time looking in dead space. Stand to be corrected as always by the learned gentlemen here though.
Please, please, don't call them flights. Batches, or whatever else - but not that silly USNism.
cdxbow
Well-Known Member
Cut, cut that Virginian.....
GF referred to the possibility of a 'Frakensub' consisting of a Virginia front with an AIP propulsion. A later post pointed out that the Virginia were quite a bit larger than the Collins and Soryu subs. However about 60% or more of the Virginia length is the reactor and drive chain. I would presume that this would make up even more of the weight given its a heavy stuff like a reactor with shielding etc. I tried to find a schematic of a Virginia, but could only find a 3/4 view - first sub in the att. image. I tried to make up a side view schematic (sub 2) and finally came up with the last, using a bit of stuff from a Los Angeles class schematic. It is only moderately accurate. Assuming the sub weighs 8000t, forward of the cut line would be around 3000t and the aft part around 5000t. I don't know how many tons of AIP/diesels/batteries would be enough to push this Frakensub around, but I suspect it would be less than 5000t.
GF referred to the possibility of a 'Frakensub' consisting of a Virginia front with an AIP propulsion. A later post pointed out that the Virginia were quite a bit larger than the Collins and Soryu subs. However about 60% or more of the Virginia length is the reactor and drive chain. I would presume that this would make up even more of the weight given its a heavy stuff like a reactor with shielding etc. I tried to find a schematic of a Virginia, but could only find a 3/4 view - first sub in the att. image. I tried to make up a side view schematic (sub 2) and finally came up with the last, using a bit of stuff from a Los Angeles class schematic. It is only moderately accurate. Assuming the sub weighs 8000t, forward of the cut line would be around 3000t and the aft part around 5000t. I don't know how many tons of AIP/diesels/batteries would be enough to push this Frakensub around, but I suspect it would be less than 5000t.
See Rob William's post above.
You assume that an orange unit would see the launch, no undersea commander would allow themselves to be in that situation and in any case TLAM would not be used for close targets, there are other weapons for that.
Even if sub launched Harpoon is used for intermediate ranges, the submarine would only fire if discretion was assured.
He seems more focussed on drawing radius circles as a guidelines for asw operation locations, however that relies on two critical assumptions.
That the exact date and time of the sub deployment are known and that the assumption is one deploying from port as opposed to using a boat already at sea
Which brings us back to discretion rates, a particular strength of Collins and the reason why AIP was not fitted but greater battery capacity and fuel was fitted in lieu.
Absolutely, although the ability to remain submerged for long loiter periods should not be forgotten either and is a particularly desirable trait if the submarine is on call for TLAM strikes.
It seems like the ideal solution is simply an increase in tonnage to get the increased range and endurance similar to the Soryu class but then it leads onto if those are the desired requirements then why not nuclear? Then there's that whole debate.. . . . .
But in any case, taking the Collins design, reworking it using lessons learned from build process and operation & incorporating Japanese propulsion technology seems like the result which is the best solution, sure it would cost more than buying OTS from Japan but see above reply of mine to see how i feel about defence spending internally.
It seems like the ideal solution is simply an increase in tonnage to get the increased range and endurance similar to the Soryu class but then it leads onto if those are the desired requirements then why not nuclear? Then there's that whole debate.. . . . .
But in any case, taking the Collins design, reworking it using lessons learned from build process and operation & incorporating Japanese propulsion technology seems like the result which is the best solution, sure it would cost more than buying OTS from Japan but see above reply of mine to see how i feel about defence spending internally.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
You seem to be missing (or perhaps forgetting) a few of the key factors behind a TLAM launch. At present, it seems likely that a TLAM in RAN service would be a member of the Tomahawk family of missiles. Those have a max range of ~900 n miles, 1,000 miles, or 1,600 km, and it can take ~2 hours between TLAM launch striking a target at max range. This in turn also means that unless the ADF/RAN is trying to strike a target that is very far inland, a RAN sub (or surface vessel for that matter) can be well away from a coastline during the launch.
Unless the targeted group or nation had surveillance assets in place which detected the TLAM at launch, at the point of launch, and can get then ASW assets to the launch site quickly, trying to backtrack to find the launch site is IMO largely an exercise in futility.
Now, let us use the coastline nation of Turaqistan, and to simplify the problem, a single RAN sub launching a TLAM strike on a single target 300km inland, without any allied support or strike missions being launched by allies (esp the UK and US), and the RAN is launching a TLAM Block IV (max range ~1,600 km).
Unless Turaqistan had a vessel or aircraft in the vicinity of the launch site, during the launch, then Turaqistani forces will not detect in the inbound TLAM until it is ~40km from the coast. Assuming that Turaqistani forces are able to track the TLAM all the way to the target but not successfully engage/intercept, then Turaqistan will have track data for about 23 minutes/340km out of a max flight of ~108 minutes/1,600km.
For those interested in drawing range rings, that means starting from the first known detection of the inbound TLAM, and from there drawing a circle with a radius of ~1,260km, and then eliminating from that areas where the launch would have been detected. There is also the little matter of Turaqistan not knowing what the max range could be, until the TLAM strikes the target, which is a minimum of 23 minutes after launch, which means that the sub would have had between 23-108 minutes to move, before the target nation could determine a range distance for potential launch sites. That time could allow a Collins-class sub to travel up to ~36 n miles from the launch site, or an additional ~66 km. If you look at those numbers, you can see it is an enormous area where the launching sub could potentially be.
To muddle things even further, the targeted nation will most likely not be able to tell the type of inbound missile, which means that guestimates on what the max launch range, location of launch, or even launching platform getting even fuzzier. Was it a TLAM, or a JASSM-ER? How about a SLAM-ER or Scalp? Was the launch platform a sub, surface vessel, or aircraft? Realistically, unless the launch itself was detected or other assets detect the sub, not much can be done to prosecute an attack, simply because of the number of variables involved and the sheer potential volume of air/sea which would need to be searched.
-Cheers
the road runner
Active Member
Do you think AIP will be fitted to our future Subs?
Just curious if AIP has developed to the point of what is needed for the RAN.
I do recall a number of Def pros stating AIP would be a waste to install in Collins due to your above points.
Cheers
Thanks for your confidence but I'm not qualified to make comment. Is AIP or another system desirable? probably but only if endurance is not compromised which is the case with Soryu. AIP takes up a large amount of space so if fuel and battery capacity are needed in excess, then size becomes an issue for conventional propulsion
gf is your best source although he may well be restricted in what he can reveal in a public forum.
the road runner
Active Member
Soryu has a 9 mtr beam so 10mtrs of hull equates to about 140 m3 of hull volume, a significant figure in submarine terms. (An average gravel truck is 6 mtrs)
- Status