Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

StingrayOZ said:

Traditional AIP is not relevant for Australia. Anything with liquid oxygen for example will have boiled off weeks before in tropical waters way before getting on station. The AIP power output is also not relevant. Australia runs and will run nuclear class sensors, systems and tempo. There are other issues.

For Australia lithium technologies are probably the future direction. But it may not be from France. Japan is a likely place for Australia to have a conversation about lithium batteries in large submarines and operational issues and advantages and design. Shortfin will be a very, very large submarine. It isn't a certainty that it will be smaller than the Barracuda baseline.

Click to expand...

Just following on the lithium theme, today’s Defence Connect has a piece from Senator Rex Patrick (ex RAN with Oberon experience) about the prospects of Naval Group and lithium power.

The article is here: A French-led lithium revolution for Australia - Defence Connect

He states “Naval Group’s Australian Industry Plan for the $50 billion future submarine, tabled by government against its will in the final moments of the last Senate sitting week, making mention of French intentions to establish a Lithium Ion Battery Centre-of-Excellence/Innovation Cluster”.

ASSAIL said:

For those interested there is a good pic of the new CEAFAR L mast in this RAN report on HMAS Arunta and the AMCAP upgrade.

Arunta upgrade marks milestone for frigates

As an aside, the true cost of buying a "cheap" Frigate such as was envisaged when the Anzacs were ordered is now patently apparent. If you include the costs of the ASMD and the AMCAP and other upgrades over time it proves to be a totally false economy.
Politicians take note!

Click to expand...

The new mast hasn't actually been installed yet, the picture shows the existing forward mast with scaffolding all over it. Cheers

Pusser01 said:

The new mast hasn't actually been installed yet, the picture shows the existing forward mast with scaffolding all over it. Cheers

Click to expand...

Four thumbnails off to the right of the main pic. Click on the rightmost. Is that the upgraded mast?

oldsig

pgclift said:

Just following on the lithium theme, today’s Defence Connect has a piece from Senator Rex Patrick (ex RAN with Oberon experience) about the prospects of Naval Group and lithium power.

The article is here: A French-led lithium revolution for Australia - Defence Connect

He states “Naval Group’s Australian Industry Plan for the $50 billion future submarine, tabled by government against its will in the final moments of the last Senate sitting week, making mention of French intentions to establish a Lithium Ion Battery Centre-of-Excellence/Innovation Cluster”.

Click to expand...

I would be interested to see what type or types of lithium ion battery are planned since the actual chemistry involved impacts a number of different performance metrics. These different performance sets could in turn direct the operational capabilities of the future submarine, as well as if/when certain deep maintenance activities need to take place.

I have no idea what the specifics are for the batteries currently used aboard the Collins-class SSG, but a standard, deep cycle sealed lead-acid battery typically has a max depth of discharge of 50% and a useful lifespan of five years. Go past either that discharge percentage or the lifespan of the battery and cell chemistry will be impacted, resulting in a partial or total loss of power storage capacity. Some of the lithium ferro-phosphate batteries are supposed to have a 20% depth of discharge (meaning 80% of the stored power is available for use without impacting cell lifespan) and an overall lifespan of a decade or more. Of course one of the other potential issues is that battery chemistry dictates not only storage and discharge capacity, the battery chemistry also can limit how quickly the batteries can be recharged.

Pusser01 said:

The new mast hasn't actually been installed yet, the picture shows the existing forward mast with scaffolding all over it. Cheers

Click to expand...

Look at the image icons to one side of the report. There is quite a good shot of the mast. It is quit a substancial piece of kit.

Sorry, I was typing while the response was being posted by oldsig

I hope they get the message from the old mast and do the right thing; ie paint it's upper parts black , as we did in the past, rather than grey so that the exhaust stains are not quite so visible!

oldsig127 said:

Four thumbnails off to the right of the main pic. Click on the rightmost. Is that the upgraded mast?

oldsig

Click to expand...

Correct

Todjaeger said:

Of course one of the other potential issues is that battery chemistry dictates not only storage and discharge capacity, the battery chemistry also can limit how quickly the batteries can be recharged.

Click to expand...

Lithium batteries will likely be a game changer for conventional subs. But it is likely to develop over time. And other systems like generators and power distribution systems will need to develop over time as well. Its not just energy density but the ability to discharge and take in large amounts of current quickly. They are still an evolving technology, particularly in submarines and military applications.

Rex I think has some interesting views on Lithium Ion.

However, it will be up to Australia if we choose Naval group batteries or another battery type. The Japanese are already heading in that direction for their subs replacing the sterling AIP and they operate a very large sub fleet. It may make more sense to partner with them than develop new technologies with the French through Naval. The lithium chemistry will most likely need to be tweaked depending on the type of submarine. The french won't be operating any large conventional submarines, so it may not make sense to go with them.

There is plenty of speculation about the Japanese lithium sub technology. Submarine Matters: Two types of Japanese Lithium-ion Batteries Being Considered .

Some interesting Li ion info in your post. Battery advancements, largely influenced by the automotive sector, will probably greatly benefit the SSK market if the promised performance is actually achieved. This may even see the RN and USN consider SSKs to compliment their SSN fleets for operations closer to home.

John Fedup said:

Some interesting Li ion info in your post. Battery advancements, largely influenced by the automotive sector, will probably greatly benefit the SSK market if the promised performance is actually achieved. This may even see the RN and USN consider SSKs to compliment their SSN fleets for operations closer to home.

Click to expand...

Definitely not for the RN - we're stacking up at 7 Astute and 4 SSBN's which is a small fleet - the conventional sub training school was shut down many years ago and spending money on an SSK would take manpower and funds away from the SSN fleet - there's a reason the USN and RN both dropped conventionals. Well, actually there's several but you get my drift.

I can't see the benefits of running an SSK fleet mixed with SSN's with such a small amount of boats. Pick one or the other..

Isnt it a matter of efficiency? arent you using SSN's for jobs that a modern SSK can do for a way smaller budget?

StobieWan said:

Definitely not for the RN - we're stacking up at 7 Astute and 4 SSBN's which is a small fleet - the conventional sub training school was shut down many years ago and spending money on an SSK would take manpower and funds away from the SSN fleet - there's a reason the USN and RN both dropped conventionals. Well, actually there's several but you get my drift.

I can't see the benefits of running an SSK fleet mixed with SSN's with such a small amount of boats. Pick one or the other..

Click to expand...

IMO the same applies to the USN, even though the USN operates a significantly larger submarine force. By way of illustration, the USN has not commissioned a new class of non-nuclear powered submarines since the Barbel-class of the mid-to-late 1950's, with the last sub of that class (and the last non-nuke sub apart from specialty subs) decommissioning in 1990. After that point, the US became an all-nuclear sub navy.

Meriv90 said:

Isnt it a matter of efficiency? arent you using SSN's for jobs that a modern SSK can do for a way smaller budget?

Click to expand...

Indeed it was a question of efficiency, that is why the USN, RN, and French Navy all moved to all-nuclear sub fleets.

The cost to maintain kit and personnel for two completely different types of submarine power plants was too high for the benefits having conventionally powered submarines provided.

There are capabilities the power generation available aboard nuclear subs provide, that just cannot be equaled with conventional subs.

A nuclear sub can remain submerged for weeks at a time, far longer than the two week voyage an AIP-powered Type 212A completed in 2006, and that IIRC was a record for longest submerged transit for a non-nuke sub. With the extra generation capacity from an on board nuclear reactor, a nuke sub could maintain a much higher sustained transit speed, likely in the neighbourhood of 18 kts. The primary limiting factor in that would be what was the fastest speed the sub could operate at without generating excessive noise. If I am correct about the speed btw an SSN could have made the same transit the Type 212A sub did in less than four days, instead of the two weeks it took. Further more, an SSN would have been able to remain completely submerged and on-station for as long as victuals lasted.

The other area where nuke boats have a significant advantage is the power budget available to both power and cool the sub's sensors and CMS, with sensors having more flexibility in drawing power since there is more available.

WIth all these advantages, it is little wonder why these navies went for all-nuclear sub fleets.

There is an article in the UK Defence Journal about the UK MOD looking at frigate numbers with a view to increasing the order for Type 31s. There is speculation in the comments section that this is the first stage in cutting Type 26 orders to 6 with some of the additional 31s fitted for ASW presumably with surplus equip.

There is also a SEA 5000 article on UK Defence Journal. Nothing particularly new (I think it may be a rehash of an earlier article) but the comments are always interesting. One link in the comments confirms that the Canadian CSC decision has been postponed until next year.

Jack Wyatt said:

Commonality with the Hobart design is one of the strengths of the F5000. Sure, more powerful and efficient LM2500s and diesels if necessary but major changes should be limited to those which are essential and roll back those improvements in the Hobarts during refits. A homogenous fleet of 12 Aegis ships armed with 48 Mk41 and CEAFAR L2 is an impressive contribution in our region.

Click to expand...

If this is the outcome, would the Future Frigates be considered Hobart flight 2. And later batches with ongoing gradual improvements become flights 3, 4 etc.

Any opinion on why the decision wasnt taken today?

Jack Wyatt said:

There is an article in the UK Defence Journal about the UK MOD looking at frigate numbers with a view to increasing the order for Type 31s. There is speculation in the comments section that this is the first stage in cutting Type 26 orders to 6 with some of the additional 31s fitted for ASW presumably with surplus equip.

There is also a SEA 5000 article on UK Defence Journal. Nothing particularly new (I think it may be a rehash of an earlier article) but the comments are always interesting. One link in the comments confirms that the Canadian CSC decision has been postponed until next year.

Click to expand...

I couldnt find the link on the postponed CSC decision, the only one is an old 2017 article that postponed it to 2018. May you link the article ?

thanks.

Jack Wyatt said:

There is an article in the UK Defence Journal about the UK MOD looking at frigate numbers with a view to increasing the order for Type 31s. There is speculation in the comments section that this is the first stage in cutting Type 26 orders to 6 with some of the additional 31s fitted for ASW presumably with surplus equip.

There is also a SEA 5000 article on UK Defence Journal. Nothing particularly new (I think it may be a rehash of an earlier article) but the comments are always interesting. One link in the comments confirms that the Canadian CSC decision has been postponed until next year.

Click to expand...

At the moment it is just speculation that the T-26 order may be cut ... but it doesn't help their case. It seems to be conceded that the T-26 would be the most expensive option and every cutback will further drive up the unit cost.

In fact when you think about it the UK has only really committed itself to three T-26 at this stage. It could be a disaster for Australia if the UK were to decide to not place a follow on order for the T-26 and go for a bulk buy of T-31 instead.

MickB said:

If this is the outcome, would the Future Frigates be considered Hobart flight 2. And later batches with ongoing gradual improvements become flights 3, 4 etc.

Click to expand...

Meriv90 said:

Any opinion on why the decision wasnt taken today?


I couldnt find the link on the postponed CSC decision, the only one is an old 2017 article that postponed it to 2018. May you link the article ?

thanks.

Click to expand...

Off the UK Journal Article on Type 26 – comments section


A link to the launch of Sydney –


Global Naval Forces - News and Defence Headlines | Jane's 360


A link to an article on the FFG(x) – particular attention to comments on the F100


Navy’s Frigate Competition: Handicapping the Finalists | National Review


Canadian decision


Design decision on new navy frigates delayed until next year | CBC News

hauritz said:

At the moment it is just speculation that the T-26 order may be cut ... but it doesn't help their case. It seems to be conceded that the T-26 would be the most expensive option and every cutback will further drive up the unit cost.

In fact when you think about it the UK has only really committed itself to three T-26 at this stage. It could be a disaster for Australia if the UK were to decide to not place a follow on order for the T-26 and go for a bulk buy of T-31 instead.

Click to expand...

It is a bad position for the RN to be in having invested so much into the T26 and the QEs. It is all about balance.

Meriv90 said:

Any opinion on why the decision wasnt taken today?


I couldnt find the link on the postponed CSC decision, the only one is an old 2017 article that postponed it to 2018. May you link the article ?

thanks.

Click to expand...

The official position was always that a decision would be made in the second quarter. I think a newspaper article suggested that the decision was imminent ... but the press aren't always that reliable a source.

The decision may happen today or it may happen sometime in June.