Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[hauritz]

Here's something Submarine related for everyone to get their teeth into:

https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/ad-aspi/2018-10/SR 128 Thinking through sub transition.pdf?hBI2AIjcgfCmWfgSWQTwaTl5fiQoCgkm

A report just released on the ASPI website, "Thinking Through Submarine Transition", 46 page PDF.

Enjoy!

I have finally had a chance to read the entire thing. If nothing else it gives you an idea of the enormity of the challenge of bringing a new generation of submarines into service.

One thing I didn't realise is that defence has already conceded that the delivery of the first 3 submarines will probably be at three year intervals meaning that at best only three of the new submarines will enter service in the 2030s. Even that might be optimistic. The first of the new French navy's subs will take 12 years from when it is laid down to its commissioning. If Australia follow the same construction schedule could see the introduction of the first sub pushed out to the mid 30s.

Any way you look at it the Collins subs will be battling on until the 2040s.

Initially I thought the Collins might have to remain in service for 35 years but it now looks more and more like they will have to serve well over 40 years.

It looks like all those years of procrastination on the submarine replacement program have now come back and bit us in the ass. This is clearly a project that we should have started about a decade ago.

 

[t68]

If the RAN is ten years behind the curve, doesn’t bod too well for the Canadians Upholder/Victoria class I think from memory are old then Collins. Will be interesting to see what they do.

 

[ngatimozart]

If the RAN is ten years behind the curve, doesn’t bod too well for the Canadians Upholder/Victoria class I think from memory are old then Collins. Will be interesting to see what they do.

For entertainment purposes, I suppose we could run a book on it. I do have a cuzzie, up in the Kimberley, who's a retired bookie Trouble is by the time our Canuck cuzzies actually get their first boat into the water, would any of us be around to collect?

 

[hauritz]

If the RAN is ten years behind the curve, doesn’t bod too well for the Canadians Upholder/Victoria class I think from memory are old then Collins. Will be interesting to see what they do.

If recent history is anything to go by the Canadian plans to replace the Upholders ... assuming they even have any ... will end in complete disaster. In fact, had the Upholders not been available I am not sure that they would even still be in the submarine business.

 

[Redlands18]

For entertainment purposes, I suppose we could run a book on it. I do have a cuzzie, up in the Kimberley, who's a retired bookie Trouble is by the time our Canuck cuzzies actually get their first boat into the water, would any of us be around to collect?

Recent history suggests they may just ask Australia for 2nd hand Collins class Subs around 2035

 

[John Fedup]

Remember, the Upholders were hardly used. The problem was they were not mothballed as the RCN planned to buy them but it took years for PM Chrétien to order them. They are actually starting to perform now. That being said, Canada won't be buying used subs again, it will be new build or nothing.

 

[MickB]

I have finally had a chance to read the entire thing. If nothing else it gives you an idea of the enormity of the challenge of bringing a new generation of submarines into service.

One thing I didn't realise is that defence has already conceded that the delivery of the first 3 submarines will probably be at three year intervals meaning that at best only three of the new submarines will enter service in the 2030s. Even that might be optimistic. The first of the new French navy's subs will take 12 years from when it is laid down to its commissioning. If Australia follow the same construction schedule could see the introduction of the first sub pushed out to the mid 30s.

Any way you look at it the Collins subs will be battling on until the 2040s.

Initially I thought the Collins might have to remain in service for 35 years but it now looks more and more like they will have to serve well over 40 years.

It looks like all those years of procrastination on the submarine replacement program have now come back and bit us in the ass. This is clearly a project that we should have started about a decade ago.

If we applied the same life span to the O class boats then the Orion and the Otama would still be in service today.
With that in mind it shows how difficult the task of keeping the Collins current will be.

 

[MickB]

Here's something Submarine related for everyone to get their teeth into:

https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/ad-aspi/2018-10/SR 128 Thinking through sub transition.pdf?hBI2AIjcgfCmWfgSWQTwaTl5fiQoCgkm

A report just released on the ASPI website, "Thinking Through Submarine Transition", 46 page PDF.

Enjoy!

Several places in this article it talks of acheiving and operating a fleet of 12 subs. Going back through previous posts I understood most to think that the 9 or 10 was the most likely number to be operational at any one time. The construction drumbeat would allow the first to be retired as the last come online.

To continue this pace of production the decision on a replacement should be made during the construction of boat 8 or 9.

 

[StingrayOZ]

It is more important that operational capability is high, the actual number of boats is less important. I would expect the first of the new subs to quickly rack up a significant amount of usage during the phase out of Collins, they might also spend some time forward deployed to maximise usage and coverage.

I really do think an additional sub base, on the East is going to be needed. Imagine how that could cut transit times to Rimpac, SCS, Japan, current commitments etc. So if something like that was to happen, then perhaps a period of forward deployment, all of a sudden you can get a lot more on patrol than you ever could out of Collins in the current arrangement. This could also be arranged in conjunction with allies to ensure overall capability is there. New subs are likely to be significantly faster in transit too. So giving Collins a role with less transit and giving the new subs the more demanding transit is also likely going to be an additional benefit you don't see when just counting hull numbers. I wouldn't be surprised if the last years of Collins is just spent as a training sub for sub crews and surface crews, freeing up the other subs for actual missions.

 

[seaspear]

I believe there was also an option for having the first submarine to be built overseas ,but this was knocked back ,this may have improved the delivery process

 

[MickB]

Several places in this article it talks of acheiving and operating a fleet of 12 subs. Going back through previous posts I understood most to think that the 9 or 10 was the most likely number to be operational at any one time. The construction drumbeat would allow the first to be retired as the last come online.

To continue this pace of production the decision on a replacement should be made during the construction of boat 8 or 9.

On rereading I shall reword, by 9 or 10 operational I meant to say 9 or 10 total in RAN service at any one time.

 

[StingrayOZ]

I think the first build sub was more for the Japanese option. Which seemed to be very much, a modified sub of an existing class.

For the French and German options, the sub is pretty much unique. No real benefit in building it in an existing yard. It would buy a bit more time to get your crew up to speed, but not much. As with Collins, it may be advantageous to have blocks or sections made in France. Then again, with Collins the bow section made in Sweden was a complete cock-up and took more work to fix it than if it had been made in Aus. The French haven't really be blowing people's mind with their productivity and yard speed on the submarine build, although it looks at this stage they have built the sub well ahead of the reactor, both are miles off the original schedule. The current best guess is the first one will be finished in 2020, 3 years behind schedule. Thats delivery, not FOC, which is likely to slip much further behind. Hopefully, First of class will have spent significant time in the water before the first Australian sub comes off the line, which hopefully has learnt a lot from the first French sub. But you don't really want to jump a head of that because you starting running into first of class type issues you really want to learn from. Particularly around things like hull design, but also component issues which our subs will use a lot of.

France to build fifth nuclear Barracuda-class submarine

Same with the Type 26. We have pushed that as far forward as we can, any further and you are basically going to have to buy a UK type 26 and early class of that as well, with those issues built in.

FOC takes on significant risk, sometimes they can be quite limited and often require expensive and time consuming refits to rectify. Australia's small fleet, you want to avoid that as much as possible.

 

[aussienscale]

On rereading I shall reword, by 9 or 10 operational I meant to say 9 or 10 total in RAN service at any one time.

Correct, GF had spoken about this some time ago, the number 12 in a continuous build program will give you 9 at best at any given time, which is the intention.

Cheers

 

[oldsig127]

Hopefully, First of class will have spent significant time in the water before the first Australian sub comes off the line, which hopefully has learnt a lot from the first French sub. But you don't really want to jump a head of that because you starting running into first of class type issues you really want to learn from. Particularly around things like hull design, but also component issues which our subs will use a lot of.

France to build fifth nuclear Barracuda-class submarine

Same with the Type 26. We have pushed that as far forward as we can, any further and you are basically going to have to buy a UK type 26 and early class of that as well, with those issues built in.

FOC takes on significant risk, sometimes they can be quite limited and often require expensive and time consuming refits to rectify. Australia's small fleet, you want to avoid that as much as possible.

You need to realise that the Australian submarines will not just be conventionally powered versions of a nuclear powered Barracuda. The Barracuda is in effect a reference design, which Naval Group will use to inform the design of our subs. In practice, a grab bag of designs and techniques and equipment which will be used as building blocks. While the hull shape might be similar, it's likely to be smaller, and the arcane business of fluid dynamics and the need to fit everything that Australia demands will decide just how far it can be "pantographed down" and how far 1:1 scale water effects will require changes.

In other words,, we will still have significant FOC issues, and no-one but an incurable optimist could gainsay Murphy.

On another subject MickB is quite correct, there has been official information passed that intention is to have approximately 9 in service at the zenith (probably in Senate estimates on the subject of continuous builds if I remember correctly)

oldsig

oldsig127

 

[vonnoobie]

In regards to the follow on and when we should have a replacement chosen you really want that long before the 9th submarine. Need to remember that once things get going the plan is for one every 2 years I believe, At the 9th submarine that gives you only 6 - 8 years depending on when decision is made. Im sure that is a fine time table if the will just evolve the Shortfin somewhat but if it is a new class you also need to allow time for contracts, advanced design etc etc. We chose our new submarine in 2016? and wont have the first one for at least a decade and a half, Really we need to have a decision made around boat number 3 in whether we evolve or new design, If new design one chosen by launch of boat 4. Any later and we risk a fall off in work which starts to put us back into the past and present issues.

 

[oldsig127]

If new design one chosen by launch of boat 4. Any later and we risk a fall off in work which starts to put us back into the past and present issues.

Not entirely. The new subs will evolve over time anyway, so that boats 10-12 will already be far different from 1-3. The next sub may just be a further evolved example anyway, or at worst building a 13th or even 14th would maintain the tempo, and the continuous build with little loss of capability while the first new sub iis introduced to the production line

oldsig

 

[StingrayOZ]

You need to realise that the Australian submarines will not just be conventionally powered versions of a nuclear powered Barracuda. The Barracuda is in effect a reference design, which Naval Group will use to inform the design of our subs. In practice, a grab bag of designs and techniques and equipment which will be used as building blocks. While the hull shape might be similar, it's likely to be smaller, and the arcane business of fluid dynamics and the need to fit everything that Australia demands will decide just how far it can be "pantographed down" and how far 1:1 scale water effects will require changes.

I am skeptical that the Australian submarine will be a pantographed down version of the Barracuda hull. Information from DCNS indicated that during the selection process, the proposal put forward was the same diameter and in length was stated approximately 1 meter shorter although it is unclear if that was due to any changes in the hull itself. Scaling up existing designs are fraught with huge difficulties, as we experienced with Collins. With Barracuda, or any engineering design, scaling down is almost impossible without essentially starting from scratch, and that is before any fluid performance is looked at.

There is also no reason why Australia would be looking at a specifically smaller hull volume than the existing Barracuda design. I don't know why people believe that would be the case. At no stage did DCNS propose a scaled design. It would be extremely beneficial to keep the volume and hull form extremely similar to the existing design. Neither did the Japanese. Australia's requirements are very significant and in some areas exceed existing SSN designs.

In other words,, we will still have significant FOC issues, and no-one but an incurable optimist could gainsay Murphy.

There will be significant issues with any new submarine, even of an existing class, from a proven and experienced yard.

However, there is hope Australia can improve on the currently expected 12 year build speed of the current first in class Barracuda submarine. Or the Brazillian build speed. The first subs of the Australian design is likely to be closer in design to french subs 5 and 6 than it will be to french sub 1. They will still be very different to the French SSN baracuda class, but they will base or benchmark the existing French hull and equipment from DCNS catalog. A catalog which is in development with many ongoing builds, including SSN and SSK designs. In addition, UK sensors, US systems and weapons, there is nothing stopping from Australia from selecting a Japanese, American or UK technology where it feels those would be more sensible than the French option if available.

It is quite likely the first in class will take longer than the desired drum beat. Then as often with manufacturing, production speed and efficiency can be improved.

 

[vonnoobie]

Not entirely. The new subs will evolve over time anyway, so that boats 10-12 will already be far different from 1-3. The next sub may just be a further evolved example anyway, or at worst building a 13th or even 14th would maintain the tempo, and the continuous build with little loss of capability while the first new sub iis introduced to the production line

oldsig

May be, But if the plan after the shortfins isn't for an evolution but rather complete new design then you want that decision made a lot earlier which I did mention in my previous post. We need to know earlier rather then later what the plan will be even if it is just to have another batch build of evolved shortfins to give more time to make a decision.

 

[ASSAIL]

The recent posts discuss a number of issues regarding design, drumbeat, follow on type etc but let’s all remember that there’s an existing role model to follow, the Japanese submarine enterprise.
They’ve been through their evolution of type with both incremental and substantial improvements and we should analyse what they have done when considering future builds.
We, the RAN, have done the exact opposite through a lack of vision and constant procrastination from our political masters. We have no evolutionary process but that doesn’t mean it can’t begin with the next generation.

It would have been nice to evolve Collins beginning as soon as they were completed (in fact we did evolve them, sort of, due to the cockups in the CMS) and that could have led to a less riskier SEA1000 but that’s history.
Let’s hope we’ve absorbed that history and don’t repeat the agonising transition from Collins to Shortfin and beyond.

 

[t68]

In regards to hull size length and diameter in regards to our own boats, I recall something what GF said many years ago that using a nuclear boat and converting to diesel electric is not a matter of just stuffing new internals in the hull, the hull form is based on weight calculations and boyance of the kettle, taking that weigh out and placing somewhere else may make the difference to wether the boat sinks or swims. I think it was the French Scorpene submarine for the Spanish had those problems and had to be lengthened. I also recall that Collins was able to be lengthened further with a hull plug for the AIP if RAN wanted but was deemed not necessary.


Correct me if I have that all mixed up as those post by GF was many years ago.