Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

geomil said:

The only thing i know is that for Australia, Norway and the many countries that are going to make queue the s80b is going to be a bit more expensive than the initial s80, but not much more, a few meters of steel and better aip plant.


Hurry up because Navantia is going to have a lot of customers.

Click to expand...

By just bracketing Norway and Australia together for a submarine type you are displaying a profound ignorance (in the nicest and literal sense) of the strategic and geographical realities of submarine capabilities and operations.
Think; small country, large country. Common sea border with Russia, thousands of sea miles to area of operations. Cold water, very warm water to warm water.
etc etc.
Does this sound like a one size fits all? Obviously not. There is a history of countries (Sweden, Norway, Holland, Germany and yes, even Spain, with common strategic environments who produce excellent small submarines to operate in near coastal and intermediate oceanic areas, and all have a long history of doing so.

Given the above, how on earth could our strategic needs be common to these?
So, when you venture forth and couple Norway and Australia, ancient Anti Submarine Warfare Officers like myself suspect that you know very little and need to follow advice and immerse yourself in the very intelligent comments made in the body of this thread and stop reading BS which gets cycled from snake oil salesmen from various interest groups and their press acolytes.

Go easy on the guy, hes from "Murica" so he probably thinks Australia is part of Europe.

It is kind of curious how Australian shipbuilding can be in such a bad state at the same time as our responsibilities at sea seem to be growing, not in the sense that we are expanding our reach but the seas are seeing much more use over time. You would think that patrol, mapping, arctic shipping would be able to keep a reasonable amount of ship builders afloat easily with those builders being able to build modules for larger vessels when required. Seems like such a simple equation on the surface, its crazy long term ship building plans & schedules cant be put in place to create stability. It would be the perfect project for any politician yet none of them want to touch shipbuilding... really makes you wonder why.

jeffb said:

Go easy on the guy, hes from "Murica" so he probably thinks Australia is part of Europe.

It is kind of curious how Australian shipbuilding can be in such a bad state at the same time as our responsibilities at sea seem to be growing, not in the sense that we are expanding our reach but the seas are seeing much more use over time. You would think that patrol, mapping, arctic shipping would be able to keep a reasonable amount of ship builders afloat easily with those builders being able to build modules for larger vessels when required. Seems like such a simple equation on the surface, its crazy long term ship building plans & schedules cant be put in place to create stability. It would be the perfect project for any politician yet none of them want to touch shipbuilding... really makes you wonder why.

Click to expand...

Use Google Earth or Maps and visit the locations of the South Korean shipyards of their southern coast to the shipyards of Australia. The South Korean shipyards are huge in comparison, they operate with three shifts, not one. I don't think some Aussie's comprehend how much difference there is in quality of the labor force, much less the value in price. To the point it is more practical and economical to buy ships from South Korea over and above the benefits of subsiding building in Australia. Defence spending should be about equipping the armed forces, not as a pork barrel works/jobs program.

Having said the above, Australia requires long range submarine assets and may have no other choice but to build submarines designed for Australia's needs. But I do wonder whether Australia would be better off designing and fitting out the subs in Australia and allowing other shipyards to build them. In the same manner as the Canberra LHDs.

Sea Toby said:

Use Google Earth or Maps and visit the locations of the South Korean shipyards of their southern coast to the shipyards of Australia. The South Korean shipyards are huge in comparison, they operate with three shifts, not one. I don't think some Aussie's comprehend how much difference there is in quality of the labor force, much less the value in price. To the point it is more practical and economical to buy ships from South Korea over and above the benefits of subsiding building in Australia. Defence spending should be about equipping the armed forces, not as a pork barrel works/jobs program.

Having said the above, Australia requires long range submarine assets and may have no other choice but to build submarines designed for Australia's needs.

Click to expand...

I'm a tea pot, I'm a tea pot!:fingerdaz

geomil said:

The only thing i know is that for Australia, Norway and the many countries that are going to make queue the s80b is going to be a bit more expensive than the initial s80, but not much more, a few meters of steel and better aip plant.


Hurry up because Navantia is going to have a lot of customers.

Click to expand...

my impression is that its still a bit broken what with the US still needs to fix the design. 75 Tones overweight and having various other issues. The RAN might as well have anyone else do it. Never mind that it completely unsuitable for the RAN. It also a rather crippling cost the Spanish Navy as like most programs it jumped in cost. It still nice Euro design although I can't think why if you were looking for a Euro DE sub you would chose it over Type212/214 or Scorpene

Spain Asks U.S. for More Help to Fix Flawed Sub | USNI News
"The submarine was found to be up to 75 tons overweight, according to local press reports.
Last week, Navantia told Jane’s the problem with the submarine should be solved by June, “when it expects to be able to release details about the extent of the redesign, the time needed to sort it out, and the extra costs involved.”"

Briefly recall reading GF talking about the S-80 specifically a few months ago, the general point being that the idea being looked at as being the most favourable was a stretched hull costing multiple millions of pounds per meter.

Neither cheap nor easy but a neccesity. Keep away. Although they couldn't ask for anyone better than Electric Boat to fix a submarine design.

EDIT: Just throw this in, to mix things up a bit

http://www.bmtdsl.co.uk/media/1056784/BMTDSL-SSGT-Datasheet.pdf

Sorry for the mistake, the data of S80b is not from Navantia, its a particular person creation called Santi and Rgss. So forget that data as Navantia´s, its a person estimation. I was confused by the person presenting it. The guy put another aip plant in the modified s80b space added by modification.

We knew it was 28 days at 4 knots the original S80 in aip (official), that is 4000-5000 kms in aip. In diesel should have more or quite more than in aip by principles of proportion.. so dont rule out +8000 kms in diesel.

Soriu submarine has 4 stirling 75 kws each according to internet, so 300 kws aip for 4200 tonnes submerged. Original S80 300 kws for 2400 tonnes, have to wait for modified S80.

Sea Toby said:

Use Google Earth or Maps and visit the locations of the South Korean shipyards of their southern coast to the shipyards of Australia. The South Korean shipyards are huge in comparison, they operate with three shifts, not one. I don't think some Aussie's comprehend how much difference there is in quality of the labor force, much less the value in price. To the point it is more practical and economical to buy ships from South Korea over and above the benefits of subsiding building in Australia. Defence spending should be about equipping the armed forces, not as a pork barrel works/jobs program.

Having said the above, Australia requires long range submarine assets and may have no other choice but to build submarines designed for Australia's needs. But I do wonder whether Australia would be better off designing and fitting out the subs in Australia and allowing other shipyards to build them. In the same manner as the Canberra LHDs.

Click to expand...

Give me a break. These yards do not all have the capability of building submarines or warships. They are big because they produce ULCC and large bulk carriers almost on a production line. they are very effective at this and, usually, their product lines have a fairly common design for each type of ship.

Look at China, they also have massive ship yards but this does not mean they are all 'warship' capable or that the product is always of good quality ........... although it is cheap in relative terms.

It is also worth notng that a lot of shipyards in China and Korea are in financial difficulties or have significant liabilities arising our of late delivery. Have a look at the STX group as an example.

To compare Australian military ship building with large commerical yards dedicated to commerical builds is rubbish. I have no problem is you compare apples with apples (i.e Navnatia or South Korean yards that do build warships or miliatry support vessesl) but such a general comment is nonsense.

geomil said:

Sorry for the mistake, the data of S80b is not from Navantia, its a particular person creation called Santi and Rgss. So forget that data as Navantia´s, its a person estimation. I was confused by the person presenting it. The guy put another aip plant in the modified s80b space added by modification.

We knew it was 28 days at 4 knots the original S80 in aip (official), that is 4000-5000 kms in aip. In diesel should have more or quite more than in aip by principles of proportion.. so dont rule out +8000 kms in diesel.

Soriu submarine has 4 stirling 75 kws each according to internet, so 300 kws aip for 4200 tonnes submerged. Original S80 300 kws for 2400 tonnes, have to wait for modified S80.

Click to expand...

No harm no foul

What you have to understand and realise, especially about this site that makes it very different from most, is that it does have many current serving, ex serving members. There are also Defence civilian professionals and people with relevant experience in the private sector as well.

If you read through the site info and rules it will give you a better understanding of what this site is about, and that is factual, considered and accurate discussion on Defence. You will notice that the people with "Blue" names are listed as "Defence Professional/Analyst" ? to obtain this listing on the site claims of prior or current service, employment within the Defence industry or related professional experience must be vetted and proven to the site by supplying certificates of service, relevant professional documents etc.

Also if you read back through the thread you will realise if you can put 2 and 2 together, that there are members on here who have actually worked on numerous submarine projects around the world, so listen and learn

So coming back to the subs, don't take it as an all out jibe at the S-80, yes it does have some major problems, yes they are being worked on, but it will be some time and a lot of money spent with Electric Boat to fix. 75+ Tonnes overweight is not an easy fix for a submarine, and it is not as easy as adding an extra section, it has some major ramifications to the entire design and integrity of the sub.

Will it (and for that matter other Euro Subs) end up being a good design ? yeah more than likely, but the simple matter is they do not suit the needs of the RAN. Do a quick google search for a European map overlay on Australia and you will understand the distances involved, have a look at some of the stated capabilities of the Collins (noting that they are just publicly released capabilities) and compare that to the distances Euro subs can do, time on station etc.

And that is just the start, that and many other capability requirements have been repeated numerous times on here, read up, and if you have any questions, you will find people here are more than willing to help.

Everyone has their favourite piece of kit, but you have to keep that in check with reality, and if you wish to discuss your favourite make it relevant

Cheers

aussienscale said:

And that is just the start, that and many other capability requirements have been repeated numerous times on here, read up, and if you have any questions, you will find people here are more than willing to help.

Click to expand...

To take a broader sweep of the brush - you've hit the nail on the head on how platform debate can be seduced and deduced on the obvious

I think for those without a familiarity of Australia or Australian defence drivers the following should be taken into account

Australia has management and surveillance responsibility for 1/9th of the worlds major oceans and waterways
Australia has a population smaller than Mumbai
Australia (like NZ) has greater than 98% of absolute trade come by sea\
Australia is an island continent - the earths largest island continent
Australian focus has been on long range surveillance - eg look at JORN and our integration into US sat systems
Australia was initially the developer of a BAMS solution, manned and unmanned (which has now become a US construct)
Submarines are one of if not the most capable enemy force disruptor in a nations arsenal - they cause disproportionate force reconstruction and deployment, they cause the most grief to the reallocation of an enemies maritime resources - both merchant and naval

Now if you look at the above at more than just a series of abstract vectors, them why does Australia want a large submarine?

Once you've worked out the above it becomes a bit more obvious as to why the big sub, long range proponents have only grasped a fraction of the functional requirements that is driving the debate

gf0012-aust said:

Now if you look at the above at more than just a series of abstract vectors, them why does Australia want a large submarine?

Once you've worked out the above it becomes a bit more obvious as to why the big sub, long range proponents have only grasped a fraction of the functional requirements that is driving the debate

Click to expand...

The questions we have to ask then is, what do we want the submarines to do, how big do we want them to be, how many of them should we have, and finally, can we afford them?

Joe Black said:

The questions we have to ask then is, what do we want the submarines to do, how big do we want them to be, how many of them should we have, and finally, can we afford them?

Click to expand...

the answers are in those bits of abstract "trivia"

large subs are not just about range

Joe Black said:

The questions we have to ask then is, what do we want the submarines to do, how big do we want them to be, how many of them should we have, and finally, can we afford them?

Click to expand...

As I understand it (GF and others, please chime in to correct me where wrong) is that submarine size is really dictated by the desired capability set, and not a service saying, "we want a sub of nn size."

AFAIK the only time that size might really be a determining factor is if the service wants a sub which will be operating in a green/brown water environment. For instance, being able to enter an enemy harbour to lay mines while submerged. Depending on the harbour, that might require a small or 'midget' sub.

OTOH if the desire is for a sub to be able to operate offshore of a significant sized enemy coastline, harvesting intel and having the potential to threaten shipping across a broad maritime area, then a sub requires persistence, and a sensor/electronics suite which is up to the task. Such a suite is also likely to have high power requirements, which then means the sub design needs to factor that into the required battery capacity and electricity generation capacity of the diesel engines (plus the amount of onboard fuel).

-Cheers

Todjaeger said:

As I understand it (GF and others, please chime in to correct me where wrong) is that submarine size is really dictated by the desired capability set, and not a service saying, "we want a sub of nn size."

AFAIK the only time that size might really be a determining factor is if the service wants a sub which will be operating in a green/brown water environment. For instance, being able to enter an enemy harbour to lay mines while submerged. Depending on the harbour, that might require a small or 'midget' sub.

OTOH if the desire is for a sub to be able to operate offshore of a significant sized enemy coastline, harvesting intel and having the potential to threaten shipping across a broad maritime area, then a sub requires persistence, and a sensor/electronics suite which is up to the task. Such a suite is also likely to have high power requirements, which then means the sub design needs to factor that into the required battery capacity and electricity generation capacity of the diesel engines (plus the amount of onboard fuel).

-Cheers

Click to expand...

Which is where, as I understand it, we are not interested in AIP Tech ? for the given space and weight it takes on a sub, that space is better used for current/on coming battery tech and fuel storage as both have a higher energy yield for the given space compared to what AIP can offer.

aussienscale said:

Which is where, as I understand it, we are not interested in AIP Tech ? for the given space and weight it takes on a sub, that space is better used for current/on coming battery tech and fuel storage as both have a higher energy yield for the given space compared to what AIP can offer.

Click to expand...

Other factors include improved diesels mean less volume taken up by the generators better fuel economy means less volume required for fuel, more volume can be given over to batteries. Better batteries mean a given volume provides more power over same time or same power for longer bigger volume means more of both, bigger sub means more of both.

Subs are unusual as increases in size permit better isolation of systems and better signature reductions vs a smaller platform. More space also mean potentially lower sustainment costs as greater size eases maintenance and upgrades. Also greater size also give greater flexibility ref heat and power budgets on board.

Greater size, particularly in terms of an indigenous design can also give greater flexibility to incorporate externally mounted weapons and ROVs as well as the requisite size to incorporate the USN Virginia Payload Modules and a decent sized integrated lock out chamber for special forces.

With an indigenous design ITAR is much more straight forward, de-risking the integration path for many of the must have and desirable systems that the RAN wants.

That said I would still go as many Block III, IV, or V Virginias as we could afford at the drop of a hat, but no way should we drop back to a small (though excellent in their own environments) Euro type or a high risk foreign paper boat.

Volkodav said:

That said I would still go as many Block III, IV, or V Virginias as we could afford at the drop of a hat, but no way should we drop back to a small (though excellent in their own environments) Euro type or a high risk foreign paper boat.

Click to expand...

100% Agree, I have been a long time fan of the Virginia's as a solution, if they fit our requirements, I don't pretend to know the in's and out's, but I don't have a problem with us going Nuke, it can be done. But lack of political will on all sides...........

Going for a nuke powered sub, in my belief, would send us back decades in so far as operating our fleet.
we would have to completley re think our tactics, and then train for them, then get really good at it.
then there is learning how operate and maintain nuke reactors, and retaining those who are trained on them, keeping in mind that we would only have a very limited number of nuke trained engineers to take if say 2 really good ones decide they have had enough of navy and discharge, its not like they can pull a couple from the surface fleet to replace rhem.
no, Im not for nukes, as much as they are and offer us, for a small conventional navy, i reckon they are NOT for us.

old faithful said:

Going for a nuke powered sub, in my belief, would send us back decades in so far as operating our fleet.
we would have to completley re think our tactics, and then train for them, then get really good at it.
then there is learning how operate and maintain nuke reactors, and retaining those who are trained on them, keeping in mind that we would only have a very limited number of nuke trained engineers to take if say 2 really good ones decide they have had enough of navy and discharge, its not like they can pull a couple from the surface fleet to replace rhem.
no, Im not for nukes, as much as they are and offer us, for a small conventional navy, i reckon they are NOT for us.

Click to expand...

Fair points and I admit it wouldn't be easy, for instance there would need to be a long term exchange program initiated with the US and or UK to train the engineers as well as to ensure trained engineers are on the boats. the Boats would also have to be introduced into service slowly as in only one every two or three years to ensure the crews could be ramped up in time to do the job.

I believe it could be done but know it would not be cheap or easy. Then again any program, conventional or nuclear that introduces / maintains a meaningful submarine capability will be anything but cheap or easy. Either way more than six boats are needed and more conventional boats will be required than Nucs.

I just hope the RAN get the numbers and the design they need to get the job done. I also hope that government current and future don't for get the rest of the fleet either as OPVs/ corvettes are desperately needed as are tankers, heavy landing craft or similar, new surface combatants, improved ASW capabilities, land attack capabilities just to name a few. MCM and survey, although not sexy also needs to be maintained.

Develop a sustainable domestic build program for these and we will never have another valley of death and will never have to listen to the google maps inspired ramblings of Sea Toby again. We will reap the savings of having a sustainable industry as well as having a new source for qualified and experienced trades and engineers to replace the doomed automotive industry so we don't need to import labour every time we have a construction boom.

We may even be able to become a net designer and exporter as South Korea did from a much lower base during the 80s and 90s. i.e. the built, nurtured and grew an industry from nothing just as we were killing our existing industry in the 70s and 80s, continued to grow theirs as we rebuilt and then killed our industry again in the 90s and 2000s.

old faithful said:

Going for a nuke powered sub, in my belief, would send us back decades in so far as operating our fleet.
we would have to completley re think our tactics, and then train for them, then get really good at it.
then there is learning how operate and maintain nuke reactors, and retaining those who are trained on them, keeping in mind that we would only have a very limited number of nuke trained engineers to take if say 2 really good ones decide they have had enough of navy and discharge, its not like they can pull a couple from the surface fleet to replace rhem.
no, Im not for nukes, as much as they are and offer us, for a small conventional navy, i reckon they are NOT for us.

Click to expand...

The issue of retaining highly trained naval personnel is a problem Canada faces as well. Should Canada ever be able to acquire nuclear subs (unlikely), the problem of retaining nuclear engineers would be more difficult as Canada has a commercial nuclear industry for sailors to migrate to whereas Australia does not.

Sea Toby said:

To the point it is more practical and economical to buy ships from South Korea over and above the benefits of subsiding building in Australia. Defence spending should be about equipping the armed forces, not as a pork barrel works/jobs program.

Having said the above, Australia requires long range submarine assets and may have no other choice but to build submarines designed for Australia's needs. But I do wonder whether Australia would be better off designing and fitting out the subs in Australia and allowing other shipyards to build them. In the same manner as the Canberra LHDs.

Click to expand...

This is true for Canada as well but politics over rules common sense. Our National Ship Building Program for naval ships insists on obsolete Canadian shipyards being upgraded (at taxpayer expense) to build over priced hulls in Canada. The approach Australia took with the Canberra LHDs is the way to go. Build the hulls offshore and outfit at home with as much local input as possible.