According to UDT Asia, Japan will soon have the advanced Soryu we could have had with all Lithium batteries I recollect:
https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/defence-notes/udt-asia-japan-boosts-submarine-technologies/
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/defence-notes/udt-asia-japan-boosts-submarine-technologies/
Cant recall where I seen it but I did see mention of first steel apperantly being cut in the early 2020's.
Cutting steel now would be a pointless task as technically the boat we will have has not yet even been designed, Would be the same issues we had with the Hobart AWD's on an even bigger scale.
Over the next half decade or so contrat's will be ironed out, designs started and finished (as much as one can finish a design that in theory will be constantly updated every batch of boats) and the system's to fill them selected. No small task any of that and I'm sure I've missed quiet a bit more involved so can't rush into the build.
I don't think leasing the Rubis class would be either ideal force wise seeing as they are nuclear powered thus we would lack the crew for them.. Would spend more time training our blokes up in how to use them then there would be a capability gap in available submarines. Not to mention cost's involved or the political and social side of things. Most wouldnt want nuclear powered boat's in Oz and the rest would be jumping up and down screaming about why we didnt just go buy/lease nuclear boat's if we already (under this scenario) leased them from the French. At there age they would also likely need refueling which I have read can be anywhere from $200m to $800m each..
I reckon the planned time frame is the best option, It leaves room to work out all the little kinks in the design and fix them in the single vessel rather then starting work of 3 or 4 of them and then having to go back and fix all of them at greater cost and even greater down time.
Had not read that one. Good article.
Lithium will free up space in the hull. But a 3000t submarine that doesn't exist yet is not the future. We would be better off going J option its bigger and its less of a paper boat.
I think for Australia, one of the weakness of the Japanese option was the lack of generator diesels. While lithium are going to have a huge impact on diesel subs, Australia still has tremendous range. We will still want to do more with our subs. A 5000t sub is going to give the kind of room Australia needs.
This has been said before, there won't be a fatigue problem taking the Collins boats into the 2030's, the first 20 years of their lives was very easy.
Provided ship management and weapons systems and sensors remain topical and are refreshed as needed, they will remain competent boats.
Nick underscore
Member
Spot on wrt both comments.
Leave them until the 's/f barracuda' come online. Collins should still be relevant.
40 deg south
Well-Known Member
French, Australian Schools to Perform Joint Research for Sub Program
More Franco-Aussie links on sub research.
Pierre Tran at Defense news has done some solid coverage of things from (presumably) the French end.
More Franco-Aussie links on sub research.
Pierre Tran at Defense news has done some solid coverage of things from (presumably) the French end.
Plus modernisation of systems can have some additional benefits.
Australia’s Submarine Program in the Dock
This from the 2014 sonar upgrade
"The custom-designed processing boards in the Scylla Signal Processing Cabinets will be replaced with commercial alternatives, sharply reducing the number of boards while improving capacity. These changes will require re-hosting the software on a different system, but the payoffs will include reducing electronics that aren’t manufactured any more, improving reliability, lowering power consumption, taking up less space, and saving about a tonne of weight."
rb
Trackmaster
Member
Good questions MB.
I saw a passing comment months ago on another site that things were underway on the ships. What grabbed my attention was the comment that modifications had been made to the Spanish design, specific to Australia.
I search for details on what those changes were, without success.
According to this site (Ran it through google translator)
https://translate.google.com.au/translate?hl=en&sl=es&u=http://www.defensa.com/frontend/defensa/navantia-sistemas-raytheon-australia-firman-contrato-sobre-aor-vn20398-vst156&prev=search
Raytheon and Navantia have signed a contract for the former to design, manufacture and test unspecified communications equipment so that may be one part of the Australian specific modifications.
Saab has also been contracted to instal the combat system for it which is a logical move as there system is already in the Anzac's and Canberra's.
Further searching has just come across this article from Jane's 360
Navantia, Australia release further dates and details on RAN tanker programme | IHS Jane's 360
Both ships will be handed over in August 2019 and May 2020 with first steel cutting to commence in June 2017.
In my googling did go by the Navantia facebook page and even though I reckon our AWD's are too small to be future proofed they are still bloody big ships based on the pic I seen.
Thank you vonnoobie
Sea 1654
An image I saw on the internet (that I cannot link due to unknown whereabouts) shows a Phalanx CIWS on the bow of the proposal by Navantia, has this been backed up by our order; and with the LHD's, Future frigates, AWDs and these ships would Australia have enough Phalanx's to equip the vessels? I have seen the words "Australia possesses a pool of 12 CIWS" this pool would have to be increased in order to keep up with demand. Is this assumption right? BTW I am going off the maths of Total CIWS is/will be 3X2 (LHD's) =6 + 3 (AWD's) = 9 + 9 (Future frigates BAE and Navantia) = 18 + 2 (Sea 1654) = 20.
An image I saw on the internet (that I cannot link due to unknown whereabouts) shows a Phalanx CIWS on the bow of the proposal by Navantia, has this been backed up by our order; and with the LHD's, Future frigates, AWDs and these ships would Australia have enough Phalanx's to equip the vessels? I have seen the words "Australia possesses a pool of 12 CIWS" this pool would have to be increased in order to keep up with demand. Is this assumption right? BTW I am going off the maths of Total CIWS is/will be 3X2 (LHD's) =6 + 3 (AWD's) = 9 + 9 (Future frigates BAE and Navantia) = 18 + 2 (Sea 1654) = 20.
Upgraded Phalanx for LHDs in 2018
In regards to the Phalanx side of thing's it is becoming quite interesting. We currently have a batch of 12 upgraded/being upgraded systems 3 are to go towards the Hobart's, 6 will be for the LHD's (3 each) and there will be 1 each for the AOR's and Choules. 2 more Block 1B baseline 2 mounts are to be acquired to help inform the self defence requirements of the future Frigates..
Seem's we have scrapped the Phalanx capability of the Anzac's so they either didnt have the funds to fit all the ships out, some one made a short sighted decision or the ASMD upgrades have performed well enough that we can forgo the Phalanx as an anti missile defence capability and have the typhoons filling in our close in defence requirements (Against small craft and the like).
In regards to the two mounts being acquire for the future Frigate's.. not sure which way to read it honestly. Could be they are deciding to either keep or scrap the capability entirely and have greater use of missiles stripping away the last ditch self defence layer or they are leaving there options open to integrate a new idealy superior system which could be either missile based (Rim 116 RAM?) or cannon based (Millennium gun?)... All speculation.
Forget about the CIWS for the Anzacs, the top weight margins are far too tight for a few tons sitting on 01 deck.
Is the RIM 116 quoted from somewhere or just speculation because it would be a good addition to the future frigate no matter which is chosen, the Millennium gun seems to me to be a fall back option of the two due to the fact that it relies on a separate fire control radar which can fail with nothing to fall back on in terms of missile attack which could increase risk, but who knows could even see both if someone was lucky.
RIM 116 and Millennium gun are both just speculation on my part. All that is known or can be safely assumed is that the future Frigates will have a CEAFAR radar system, Mk41 VLS (Strike or tactical length I dont know), Typhoon weapon mounts and Nulka's.. Beyond that it's all a guess.
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
Would love to see the HMAS Anzac preserved at the Australian Maritime Museam in Sydney when she decommissions. It's easy to forget that Gallopili is still the largest Amphibious operation Australian Military units have taken part in and i think it would be a great way to commemorate the actual landing.
Not forgetting her part in the battle of Al Few in 2003 when she provided gun fire support to Allied troops and received the Meritorious Unit Citation for her role.
Not forgetting her part in the battle of Al Few in 2003 when she provided gun fire support to Allied troops and received the Meritorious Unit Citation for her role.
- Status