Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

It was the Spanish S80 and it's problems were due to a calculation error.

With all marine platforms weight distribution is critical, not just the mass of an item but where it is located, its even more important on submarines as they need to adjust their buoyancy to dive, surface, change depth etc. even firing torpedoes requires weight compensation through the use of specific ballast tanks.

Nuclear boats are quite difficult to design as they have a concentrated, indivisible mass, i.e. the reactor section. It just is, it weights what it weighs and pretty much everything else has to be arranged around it to maintain stability.

On a diesel boat the only thing that is fixed is the main motor, although even that can be adjusted using different length shafts in design phase. Diesel generators can be arranged in different ways, their numbers can be changed i.e. Collins have three abreast while I believe Scorpien has two rows of two smaller diesels.

Then there is the factor of energy storage, nucs its the reactor producing steam (or whatever) to drive a turbine, conventional its diesels burning hydrocarbons to generate electricity which is stored in batteries for submerged operations. This means a conventional sub has massive amounts of easily divisible mass that can be distributed around the hull to maintain stability.

In many ways its much easier to adjust and fine tune a conventional than a nuc.

ASSAIL said:

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.

Click to expand...

The Collins had three distinct as built baselines.

Collins was basically a prototype with all the associated issues.
Farncomb and Waller were the intended production baseline but with the flawed combat system and actually performed extremely well in trials and exercises despite the CMS.

Dechaineux and Sheean were the Fast Track twins introducing most of the USN/EB soursed upgrades and improvements and have pretty much been upgraded as a pair through their lives.

Rankin was the fully sorted, fully Fast Tracked boat with all the improvements (less CMS) that a follow on batch would have needed. She was the standard the others were progressively brought up to through their first Full Cycle Docking, with the addition of Replacement Combat System and Heavy Weight Torpedo from Wallers first FCD.

t68 said:

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

Click to expand...

I won't speak for GF. But there are plenty here including Volk who have extensive experience with Collins having worked and/or sailed on them.

But the hull shape and form for hydrodynamic purposes does not mean the same hull for structural purposes. Bulkheads and structures may or may not be in the same positions or of the same dimensions. But it would be highly advantageous for the exterior volume/dimensions and shape to be the same. It is easily going to be the largest conventional submarine in operation in the world, and that volume is a huge selling point for its selection and for the RAN. I see no benefit in reducing volume and no indication that it is part of the selection to do so.

We have seen furious public discussions about even removing the pump jet verse a conventional propeller.
We won't be putting diesel engines on the mounting points of the reactor and rolling them out the door, internally they will be very different.

The two subs are likely to be significantly different above and beyond the powertrain. With different weapons, combat system, sensors, electrical generation and distribution, diesel tanks, batteries, crew size, crew stores, layout, toilets, fittings, mech services etc all being reconfigured, or alternate design or adjusted. In going with the french option, we are building a new class, but based around concepts and technologies and the hull shape/volume of the barracuda, from what I can see.

Everything is somewhat speculative, as the design is still an ongoing process that is not in the public domain.

StingrayOZ said:

I am skeptical that the Australian submarine will be a pantographed down version of the Barracuda hull..

Click to expand...

Just to make it clear, this is exactly what I said. I may have needed a few dancing banana emojis to be a bit more obvious. As a thick engineer, I consider a pantograph as a means to copy, not just to reduce and that sentence was intended to say (and did) that the new RAN subs will not merely be a Barracuda with diesels.

oldsig

I have seen this today on both ABC and now the Diplomat:
Japan Offers to Build Australia’s $50 Billion Submarine Fleet If French Deal Falls Through

I wonder if this will put a rocket under the French to know that we have other options on the table even if in all reality this option wouldn't be taken up. In other words they're not holding all the cards to force our hand.

weegee said:

I have seen this today on both ABC and now the Diplomat:
Japan Offers to Build Australia’s $50 Billion Submarine Fleet If French Deal Falls Through

I wonder if this will put a rocket under the French to know that we have other options on the table even if in all reality this option wouldn't be taken up. In other words they're not holding all the cards to force our hand.

Click to expand...

I do think that a Plan B is now warranted. What if we can't resolve the IP and warranty impasse with the Naval Group, wouldn't it be prudent to have a Plan B?

Joe Black said:

I do think that a Plan B is now warranted. What if we can't resolve the IP and warranty impasse with the Naval Group, wouldn't it be prudent to have a Plan B?

Click to expand...

Absolutely we should always have a plan B. DCNS was selected as our preferred international partner for the design of the 12 Future Submarines, subject to further discussions on commercial matters. In other words Australia can back out at any time if they can't come to an agreement with the French.

Our least risky plan B should be an upgrade to the Collins class. Both the Japanese and German still required as much work as the French boats while the Collins already meets our requirements, Is in service and we have plenty of experience with. While you can some what guess negotiation wise how a German deal would occur (When it comes to submarine exports they really do have it down pat so paper work with them wouldnt be much of an issue) with the Japanese not counting the work needed to modify there offering we really have no idea how any contract would pan out, Would they be better or worse then the French?

Realistic plan B, Go straight back to Sweden, Acquire the full IP rights for Collins and maybe throw them a bone by jointly investing in submarine tech that we 'may' utilize in future.

To light a fire under Frances rear you need to give them a threat that they think is actually a threat, Us playing the Japanese as a plan B to them could be viewed as all show as all the same risks that caused Japan to lose would still exist and may do nothing to motivate France what so ever while giving us no real Plan B.

hauritz said:

Absolutely we should always have a plan B. DCNS was selected as our preferred international partner for the design of the 12 Future Submarines, subject to further discussions on commercial matters. In other words Australia can back out at any time if they can't come to an agreement with the French.

Click to expand...

Indeed. We already have a plan B. As Hauritz says, it's why we have negotiations before we sign a contract. Goodness, and I'll bet that someone has even got a plan for if plan B fails.

It's not until Plan Q that we start doing things according to random comments on a discussion forum. At least that's a lot higher up the planning heirarchy than doing things the way that the Greens, the ABC, Kopp and Goon and News Limited's "Defence Experts" would rate.

oldsig

vonnoobie said:

while the Collins already meets our requirements, Is in service and we have plenty of experience with.

Click to expand...

Pretty confident statement there Does it ? what the Collins may or may not meet in present day has no bearing on what the requirements are going into the future.

Not just from a platform ability perspective, but overall CONOPS, force structure etc. You can upgrade the Collins, modernise the platform and build a batch 2, but does it have the legs for the future intended use and requirements ? Because if you can't fit it into the current hull, you are designing a brand new sub and starting at the same place

Cheers

Independent of the progress of the future submarine.
If a life extension of the Collins Class for all six in the fleet was to be undertaken,how long would this take?
What number of boats would be out of the water at a given time and by default what availability in submarine numbers would this give the RAN to send to sea.

Even if the French option is a modal build of design and manufacturing efficiency, without a single hiccup in the decades long build, it will still be some time to when we expand the fleet to Seven subs and beyond.
If I understand correctly that's not until the late 2030's.
I cannot envisage the geopolitical dynamics that far away, so I suggest what ever we do, some serious consideration is given to the timetable of submarine availability for the next two decades, and look at what options will ensure deterrent submarine numbers are in the water earlier, not later.

We cannot go back a decade and say we should of done this, but we can today appreciate the gravity of the Submarine transition and make some choices that are good both for manufacturing and also our immediate strategic need.
This may unfortunately mean an injection of cash for a Collins upgrade concurrently with a shortening of the short fin build timetable in the early years.

Not the situation we want to be in but the 2020's look uncertain.

Thoughts.

Regards S

Stampede said:

Independent of the progress of the future submarine.
If a life extension of the Collins Class for all six in the fleet was to be undertaken,how long would this take?
What number of boats would be out of the water at a given time and by default what availability in submarine numbers would this give the RAN to send to sea.

Even if the French option is a modal build of design and manufacturing efficiency, without a single hiccup in the decades long build, it will still be some time to when we expand the fleet to Seven subs and beyond.
If I understand correctly that's not until the late 2030's.
I cannot envisage the geopolitical dynamics that far away, so I suggest what ever we do, some serious consideration is given to the timetable of submarine availability for the next two decades, and look at what options will ensure deterrent submarine numbers are in the water earlier, not later.

We cannot go back a decade and say we should of done this, but we can today appreciate the gravity of the Submarine transition and make some choices that are good both for manufacturing and also our immediate strategic need.
This may unfortunately mean an injection of cash for a Collins upgrade concurrently with a shortening of the short fin build timetable in the early years.

Not the situation we want to be in but the 2020's look uncertain.

Thoughts.

Regards S

Click to expand...

A guess ... but I think any life extension might simply be included as part of the Full Cycle Docking so there shouldn't be any effect on the availability of the rest of the fleet.

Not an ideal situation but provided it is properly managed the RAN should be able to maintain some sort of capability until the new subs start entering service.

What are you guys basing all these suppositions on? We all are aware that during any negotiations for a contract of something this large, both parties are going to play hard ball intending to obtain the best deal for themselves, with the French having centuries of experience in this game. No matter how many times you read the tea leaves, the cockatoos droppings or the drop bears entrails, you are going to come up with zilch, nada because we aren't privy to the discussions between the two negotiating parties. No doubt the CoA will have a Plan B, however the contents of that plan are not in the public domain, so again conjecture and ongoing discussion about its contents are about as useful as the collective APA F-35 expertise.

I think the recent press about the Japanese subs is about putting pressure back on the French.

Even though we didn't select the Japanese subs, they are full steam with their program. There is I am pretty sure, nothing stopping us adopting Japanese technologies, such as batteries and prop if we find the French tech unfitting, too limited or with too many strings, just as we will us US and UK technologies. I am sure the Japanese are more than happy to bench mark with us to improve our targets and performance.

The main interesting part about the Japanese news is the standing forces agreement is apparently still in progress. This will no doubt be significant for RAAF and RAN people.

StingrayOZ said:

I think the recent press about the Japanese subs is about putting pressure back on the French.

Even though we didn't select the Japanese subs, they are full steam with their program. There is I am pretty sure, nothing stopping us adopting Japanese technologies, such as batteries and prop if we find the French tech unfitting, too limited or with too many strings, just as we will us US and UK technologies. I am sure the Japanese are more than happy to bench mark with us to improve our targets and performance.

The main interesting part about the Japanese news is the standing forces agreement is apparently still in progress. This will no doubt be significant for RAAF and RAN people.

Click to expand...

The professional opinion is that the only way the Japanese design could meet RAN requirements is if there is a substantial transfer of Australian IP to Japan. The French design also requires Australian input but not as much.

StingrayOZ said:

I think the recent press about the Japanese subs is about putting pressure back on the French.

Even though we didn't select the Japanese subs, they are full steam with their program. There is I am pretty sure, nothing stopping us adopting Japanese technologies, such as batteries and prop if we find the French tech unfitting, too limited or with too many strings, just as we will us US and UK technologies. I am sure the Japanese are more than happy to bench mark with us to improve our targets and performance.

The main interesting part about the Japanese news is the standing forces agreement is apparently still in progress. This will no doubt be significant for RAAF and RAN people.

Click to expand...

On what ground do you assume the ‘tech’ that Japan has is not already known to our main partners (the US) or to the French. The Japanese appear to have wanted to offer their product on their terms judging by the commentary and media (working only on open source here). From my understanding there would have had to be a transfer of information on AUS/US technology to them to build the boat (particularly in the area cancellation of generated noise) and if that IP was not protected .... or the IP Australia needed to evolve the design in the future was to be withheld .... then that may have been the reason the Japanese option was not taken up.

Unless those issues are resolved I suggest the Option J may still be out.

Post Script .... Sorry Volk, missed your response

alexsa said:

On what ground do you assume the ‘tech’ that Japan has is not already known to our main partners (the US) or to the French. The Japanese appear to have wanted to offer their product on their terms judging by the commentary and media (working only on open source here). From my understanding there would have had to be a transfer of information on AUS/US technology to them to build the boat (particularly in the area cancellation of generated noise) and if that IP was not protected .... or the IP Australia needed to evolve the design in the future was to be withheld .... then that may have been the reason the Japanese option was not taken up.

Unless those issues are resolved I suggest the Option J may still be out.

Post Script .... Sorry Volk, missed your response

Click to expand...

I would assume most tech is available through the Americans, as in many cases that where the roots of the tech are sprouted from. But in some cases the Japanese have specifically developed and implemented tech that may be relevant for us and our applications. Even if it isn't perfected for our application, it would be perfected enough to be used a negotiating leverage with the French. The French, who are notorious, having something to bash them over the head with is going to be handy.

The whole Japanese proposal was a very interesting thing to watch. While there seemed significant political will, the industry will seemed lacking. It may in fact be easier for some Japanese tech to filter through an American production. In other cases, it might speed things up to be able to use off existing Japanese production if it possible. The Japanese were also very focused and singular minded in their approach, and they had obviously prioritised some technologies greatly, and in others were traditional. I think the Japanese would like another opportunity to have a go at another proposal. But as you suggest, it would likely have to address many aspects differently, perhaps even with a different approach.

The IP issues were always likely to be extremely difficult. The Japanese have interest beyond flogging a whole design. When an agreement with Naval group happens, it doesn't has to mean the Japanese are totally out of the picture.

Reading between the lines the reason the US was so keen on the Aust Japan tie up may have been to improve the quality of Japan's much more substantial submarine fleet. My understanding is the Japanese metallurgy is world class but many other design features of their boats were evolutionary in nature and inferior to the technically older Collins design.

What is often lost in the politics and headlines surrounding the Collins Class is that they were bleeding edge, completely new and in some ways so far ahead of their time that certain features were unworkable and had to be downgraded from the original requirements, i.e. the original combat system. They were more advanced than anything the Swede's had ever built and actually trailblazers for the following kockums designs. The Japanese boats are the result of the continual evolution of a design derived from the US Barbel class, so while very advanced in some ways, they are evolved from a US 1950s SSK concept.

Check out this awesome Saab/Kockum video on their A26 submarine build.

I do wonder ASC and Saab could continue to collaborate in maintaining the Collins class, if the ASC would be able to continue learning from Saab.

Volkodav said:

Reading between the lines the reason the US was so keen on the Aust Japan tie up may have been to improve the quality of Japan's much more substantial submarine fleet. My understanding is the Japanese metallurgy is world class but many other design features of their boats were evolutionary in nature and inferior to the technically older Collins design.

What is often lost in the politics and headlines surrounding the Collins Class is that they were bleeding edge, completely new and in some ways so far ahead of their time that certain features were unworkable and had to be downgraded from the original requirements, i.e. the original combat system. They were more advanced than anything the Swede's had ever built and actually trailblazers for the following kockums designs. The Japanese boats are the result of the continual evolution of a design derived from the US Barbel class, so while very advanced in some ways, they are evolved from a US 1950s SSK concept.

Click to expand...

The Collins class got so much bad press that I feel that it became politically untenable to consider developing it any further. Such a pity really. All the work that was put in and all of the lessons learnt seem to have been tossed aside just because of the lack of the political will to continue developing the class.