ADF General discussion thread

[ngatimozart]

That has been the plan since the very first day it was announced. There may be some changes (maybe there will be some kit we want from one nation in the hull of the other nations boat, Or maybe we want the Astute boat with the S9G reactor, who knows, still TBD) but they will try their utmost to keep them to the bare minimum required atleast for the earliest boats (ie: Only changes where its easier to do before they are built rather then potentially having to rip boats apart to retrofit them) but overall they will be the same boats with maybe a BBQ added and getting rid of the British tea/Crappy US coffee and putting our own good coffee in it (Maybe with a dash of bourbon to give it a kick).

Jeez you're a fussy girl. What's wrong with the juice of the Empire (tea)? Totally agree about Americans and their coffee. They wouldn't know a good brew if it struck them in the face. Mind you Kiwi coffee beats Aussie coffee Prefer juice of the Empire myself - the blacker and the stronger the better.

I think that all we are doing at the moment is really guessing and trying to read the tea leaves. We know very little of the details except what's been publicly released by the three governments. We can guess until we are blue in the face, but we'll be none the wiser. It may be best that we wait until the Australian government makes an announcement after they have completed their assessment.

 

[ddxx]

SSKs are great for collecting intelligence and ambushing adversaries in choke points

Roles which XLUUVs are likely to play a large role in over the coming decades.

 

[Boagrius]

I recently listened to an interesting podcast from the Australian Naval History Podcast on the RAN in the Cold War. Commodore Kim Pitt spoke about his experience in the Oberon SSKs tracking Soviet SSNs. One comment that stood out was that while we could certainly track them for a short time, we didn’t have the speed or endurance (in terms of battery capacity) to maintain that contact for long.

I think that’s the point about acquiring SSNs. For the first time we will be able to match the best submarines of any potential adversary. SSKs are great for collecting intelligence and ambushing adversaries in choke points. However when they are up against SSNs they are like mobile mine fields.

Makes me wonder if they ever crossed paths with the Alfa class subs. Must have been like chasing an F1 car in a trusty Holden Commodore

 

[hauritz]

Not sure if this should be posted here or RAN:

Australia looking at existing design to ‘accelerate’ delivery of nuclear-powered submarines (smh.com.au)

So it looks like an existing design is the preference(no surprise).

They may talk about existing designs but the nuclear reactor for the Astute class is no longer being built. If we do go with the Astute it will probably be with a new reactor and an American Combat System so it won't exactly be MOTS. The Virginia class is bigger, more expensive and needs a bigger crew so I wouldn't be surprised if we didn't end up modifying that design either.

I think a realistic goal for Australia at the moment would be to simply have one or two hulls under construction by the early 2030s.

 

[Stampede]

I recently listened to an interesting podcast from the Australian Naval History Podcast on the RAN in the Cold War. Commodore Kim Pitt spoke about his experience in the Oberon SSKs tracking Soviet SSNs. One comment that stood out was that while we could certainly track them for a short time, we didn’t have the speed or endurance (in terms of battery capacity) to maintain that contact for long.

I think that’s the point about acquiring SSNs. For the first time we will be able to match the best submarines of any potential adversary. SSKs are great for collecting intelligence and ambushing adversaries in choke points. However when they are up against SSNs they are like mobile mine fields.

Thanks for the comment and observation.
I acknowledge the SSN advantages. Your correct to highlight their strengths.
Hopeful in a hot war scenario the "mobile mine field" has done its job and the SSN doesn't get to sail away.


Regards S

 

[Boagrius]

The thing that has long occurred to me is that the PLAN does not *yet* possess an SSGN comparable to the USN Virginia Blk V or Russian Yasen/Yasen-M. The appearance of such a vessel in our region could have significant ramifications, since one or more of them could hold at risk more or less the entire continent. The RAAF/RAN fleets, supporting infrastructure (both military and civilian) - the whole kit and kaboodle. At present, the PLAN SLCM threat is hamstrung by the limited size of their SSN fleet and the small number of VLS cells it posesses. I would expect this, among other things, to change within the lifetime of the Collins class successors (if not before it) and I can see how an RAN SSN fleet could be an indispensable part of the counter to this. With a PLAN SSGN that can readily swing east of PNG in transit to its launch point(s), the traditional choke points that an RAN SSK would normally wait in may not apply.

Speculation on my part of course, but something to consider.

 

[ngatimozart]

The thing that has long occurred to me is that the PLAN does not *yet* possess an SSGN comparable to the USN Virginia Blk V or Russian Yasen/Yasen-M. The appearance of such a vessel in our region could have significant ramifications, since one or more of them could hold at risk more or less the entire continent. The RAAF/RAN fleets, supporting infrastructure (both military and civilian) - the whole kit and kaboodle. At present, the PLAN SLCM threat is hamstrung by the limited size of their SSN fleet and the small number of VLS cells it posesses. I would expect this, among other things, to change within the lifetime of the Collins class successors (if not before it) and I can see how an RAN SSN fleet could be an indispensable part of the counter to this. With a PLAN SSGN that can readily swing east of PNG in transit to its launch point(s), the traditional choke points that an RAN SSK would normally wait in may not apply.

Speculation on my part of course, but something to consider.

Just to be the devil's advocate, if the PRC and Russia decide to be allies, the VMF definitely does have more than one SSGN capable class, and they aren't exactly small either. I also wouldn't discount the probability of the PLAN going down the SSGN track at some stage.

 

[Boagrius]

Just to be the devil's advocate, if the PRC and Russia decide to be allies, the VMF definitely does have more than one SSGN capable class, and they aren't exactly small either. I also wouldn't discount the probability of the PLAN going down the SSGN track at some stage.

Yes that would certainly be a nightmare scenario. Unfortunately, there seem to be a number of those that could very well materialize before Collins is fully replaced. For example:

- PLAN starts churning out Type 095 subs with an elongated hull and a large VLS capacity (SSGN variant) for CJ-10 derivatives and/or subsequent (V)LO SLCMs.
- PLAN fits that same class of vessels with long-range hypersonics - say a navalised DF-17 or at least an analogue to the US IRCPS.
- PRC gains a military foothold in the South Pacific.
- Significant expansion of the PLAN SSN fleet, freeing up their vessels to patrol our immediate neighbourhood and bypassing the Indo/Malay archipelago (traditional Collins stomping ground?) en route.

Any one of these events could, in my view, significantly influence our strategic calculus in quite a fundamental and dramatic way, let alone a combination of two or more. From this perspective an RAN SSN fleet makes sense to me, assuming it is in fact achievable.

 

[alexsa]

I recently listened to an interesting podcast from the Australian Naval History Podcast on the RAN in the Cold War. Commodore Kim Pitt spoke about his experience in the Oberon SSKs tracking Soviet SSNs. One comment that stood out was that while we could certainly track them for a short time, we didn’t have the speed or endurance (in terms of battery capacity) to maintain that contact for long.

I think that’s the point about acquiring SSNs. For the first time we will be able to match the best submarines of any potential adversary. SSKs are great for collecting intelligence and ambushing adversaries in choke points. However when they are up against SSNs they are like mobile mine fields.

Your assumption that SSKs are great for collecting intelligence and ambushing adversaries in choke points appears to be based on past history. T

Some SSK's were very good at intelligence gathering in their day (as noted by Kim Pitt) It is a much more dangerous place and some of the operations undertaken in the past would not be that easy (actually very very difficult) and I see autonomous unmanned underwater vehicles filling this role (and those are better supported by an SSN in my view).

Added to that the modern SSN's are a different kettle of fish (particularly the Astute, the Virginia and the Seawolf).

As noted by others, I don't see any advantage an SSK would have in a choke point. The problem with choke points is the opposition will assume there is a boat there and will seek to sanitise the area before going through. This may include putting their own SSK's and SSN's in the area.

In a choke point slow sustained underwater speed and higher indiscretion ratio would put them at risk from a capable ASW force as the SSK needs to gets its attack in and cannot redeploy as quickly as SSN. The SSN would be better in such locations. Added to that the transit to these choke points is not short ... again a reason for having an SSN without going into the benefits derived from no shortage of power (the AN-BTG-1 is a energy pig and modern sensors like a bit of energy as well) and reasonable living conditions. The Oberon's on patrol duties were not comfortable..... at all.

The Attack was going to be as close to SSN as possible in a conventional hull. It seems that close enough is not good enough any more.

Finally, maintenance. I suspect our SSN's will do deep cycle maintenance and any thing beyond on board maintenance in Adelaide. If it was moved to WA then you would need teams in both places. Noting the current reach of our countries of concern there is a case for east coast boats to cover the Coral Sea and island chains to the NE.

 

[alexsa]

They may talk about existing designs but the nuclear reactor for the Astute class is no longer being built. If we do go with the Astute it will probably be with a new reactor and an American Combat System so it won't exactly be MOTS. The Virginia class is bigger, more expensive and needs a bigger crew so I wouldn't be surprised if we didn't end up modifying that design either.

I think a realistic goal for Australia at the moment would be to simply have one or two hulls under construction by the early 2030s.

The reported dived displacement of the Astute is 7800 tonnes. The reported dived displacement of the Virginia is 7900 tonnes (wiki) or 7800 (global security). This means there is very little difference in the internal buoyant volume. A lot of the Virginia is free flood but the hull is longer that the Astute but is 1.3 narrower than the Astute ... hence the relatively similar internal buoyant volume. The US reactor should fit. Given the information to date and the make up of AUKUS it seems possible that it will be a US reactor no matter which option we take.

looking at the combat system: Our SSN will carry the AN-BYG-1, that has already been decided. This is the same system fitted to the Collins (which is quite a bit smaller than the Astute). Fire control are power hogs but space will not be an issue. As a side issue the Astute already carries the sensor fitted to the Collins (or planned for its LOTE) so the integration is done or being done.

This is not advocating that the Astute will get it but just to put the issues into perspective.

 

[swerve]

Re reactors:
Dreadnought prototype review exposes flaws in naval reactor programme - Nuclear Information Service
Expert review supported the decision not to build a prototype PWR3, & seems to have approved those parts of the design examined in detail, but expressed concern over Navy culture (a 'culture of optimism' which led to potential problems being ignored) & government/MoD failure to maintain a steady flow of work to keep skills in place.

 

[ngatimozart]

There's a new resilience report out which should be read because it will help inform an overall National Security Strategy for Australia. Once you have that sorted then you can determine a defence strategy and after that what capabilities best meet your requirements.

Australia – A Complacent Nation: Our reactions are too little, too late, and too short-sighted (pdf file)

More detailed reports can be found here:

IIER -Australia — JBCS Pty Ltd

The Institute for Integrated Economic Research (IIER) - Australia was founded in 2018. It conducts and supports research in order to contribute to an improved understanding of how Australians can plan for, and navigate, the significant transitions in Energy, Environment and Economic Systems over for

www.jbcs.co

 

[spoz]

Hm, they may be a professional body with a high reputation (I really have no idea, never heard of them before, which probably means very little) however a lot of that seems to be self promotion (look how good we are) and they seem to use both emotional and in some case pejorative language to make their case where I would have thought demonstrated objectivity and neutrality of language would be more likely to carry the argument. Doesn't mean they are wrong, of course.

 

[d-ron84]

The reported dived displacement of the Astute is 7800 tonnes. The reported dived displacement of the Virginia is 7900 tonnes (wiki) or 7800 (global security). This means there is very little difference in the internal buoyant volume. A lot of the Virginia is free flood but the hull is longer that the Astute but is 1.3 narrower than the Astute ... hence the relatively similar internal buoyant volume. The US reactor should fit. Given the information to date and the make up of AUKUS it seems possible that it will be a US reactor no matter which option we take.

looking at the combat system: Our SSN will carry the AN-BYG-1, that has already been decided. This is the same system fitted to the Collins (which is quite a bit smaller than the Astute). Fire control are power hogs but space will not be an issue. As a side issue the Astute already carries the sensor fitted to the Collins (or planned for its LOTE) so the integration is done or being done.

This is not advocating that the Astute will get it but just to put the issues into perspective.

My semi-educated guess is that it will be an Australianised Astute: AN-BYG-1 Combat System with MK48's and tube launched TLAM's; PWR3; and it'll have an X-Rudder.
Lets see how well this comment ages in about 18 months.

 

[ADMk2]

My semi-educated guess is that it will be an Australianised Astute: AN-BYG-1 Combat System with MK48's and tube launched TLAM's; PWR3; and it'll have an X-Rudder.
Lets see how well this comment ages in about 18 months.

I tend to agree. Boris was just too damned happy about this for the UK to have no role whatsoever in this decision, not to mention the other not so subtle hints with an Astute on the front page of the defence website and Dutton himself turning up to an Astute port visit… If we think France’s tantrum is noteworthy, I imagine Britain will feel at least as aggrieved if we simply got straight off the shelf Virginias with no role for the UK to play in this…

Then there are more practical matters, such as crewing size and so forth to argue … On the less practical side is the Astute program winding down and all that entails and SSN(R) just beginning…

But as you say, time will tell.

 

[John Fedup]

Yes, hard to believe the UK won’t have a significant role given Boris’s political situation and the USN demand for Virginia SSNs ASAP. Interesting question will be the reactor now that PWR2 is no longer an option. PWR3 or just go with a US reactor? Assuming Astute is the choice, how many before serious consideration is given to SSN(R)? It is unfortunate there seems to be no long term interest by Canada to acquire SSNs for the RCN. Having two additional partners in the SSN(R) program should allow for better pricing allowing all nations to actually obtain the number of required boats. However, between Canadian political opposition and the likely US veto on sharing naval nuclear technology with Canada, the UK’s next generation sub will be a UK-AU venture or sole UK project.

 

[alexsa]

My semi-educated guess is that it will be an Australianised Astute: AN-BYG-1 Combat System with MK48's and tube launched TLAM's; PWR3; and it'll have an X-Rudder.
Lets see how well this comment ages in about 18 months.

I am interested the X rudder comment, can you please justify this for me?

The X rudder is very useful with highly skewed propellers and slow speed operation as it limits interaction with the propeller (hence less noise) . The Astute is fitted with a propulsor (pump jet) which limits the risk of cavitation and allow for very quite operations at higher speed. In this case there appears to be no advantage of going to the X pattern system, Noting both the Astute and Virginia are fitted with the cruciform rudder and planes with forward hydroplanes set low (not on the fin as is the case for the Collins class) .... mucking about with this will effect the entire hydrodynamic design of the vessel and add risk. Hence the request to justify this.

If you are willing to pay for the conference papers there is good research on this by Dr Renison of the Australian Maritime College

eCite - Submarine manoeuvring and appendage design - what is the best option for a large SSK? (utas.edu.au)

 

[d-ron84]

I am interested the X rudder comment, can you please justify this for me?

The X rudder is very useful with highly skewed propellers and slow speed operation as it limits interaction with the propeller (hence less noise) . The Astute is fitted with a propulsor (pump jet) which limits the risk of cavitation and allow for very quite operations at higher speed. In this case there appears to be no advantage of going to the X pattern system, Noting both the Astute and Virginia are fitted with the cruciform rudder and planes with forward hydroplanes set low (not on the fin as is the case for the Collins class) .... mucking about with this will effect the entire hydrodynamic design of the vessel and add risk. Hence the request to justify this.

If you are willing to pay for the conference papers there is good research on this by Dr Renison of the Australian Maritime College

eCite - Submarine manoeuvring and appendage design - what is the best option for a large SSK? (utas.edu.au)

My thoughts on the x-rudder is purely from a safety perspective. The advantage of an x-rudder is that if you lose either upper or lower control surfaces you still have the ability to ‘point up’ and assist in surfacing.

As the Dreadnought has an x-rudder and the PWR3, the aft design, at least internally, is a known quantity. I know it’s not a straight swap, but at least there is a design to work off.

 

[alexsa]

My thoughts on the x-rudder is purely from a safety perspective. The advantage of an x-rudder is that if you lose either upper or lower control surfaces you still have the ability to ‘point up’ and assist in surfacing.

As the Dreadnought has an x-rudder and the PWR3, the aft design, at least internally, is a known quantity. I know it’s not a straight swap, but at least there is a design to work off.

OK .... if you have lost both lower control surfaces you have taken a big hit from something. And if you can .... will be surfacing anyway and blowing ballast will achieve that out come irrespective of the state of the after planes .... and you still have the fore planes if the boat is driving itself up.

You can also change the angle of attack of the boat using internal trimming tanks and ballast (as an example: The Oberons had a Q tank for this as they were designed for a rapid dive. In addition they could transfer weight on longitudinally with internal ballast and could pump ballast out of other internal tanks to keep the boat neutrally buoyant).

We are looking at an existing design and mucking about with the hydrodynamics is probably not a good idea.

 

[d-ron84]

OK .... if you have lost both lower control surfaces you have taken a big hit from something. And if you can .... will be surfacing anyway and blowing ballast will achieve that out come irrespective of the state of the after planes .... and you still have the fore planes if the boat is driving itself up.

You can also change the angle of attack of the boat using internal trimming tanks and ballast (as an example: The Oberons had a Q tank for this as they were designed for a rapid dive. In addition they could transfer weight on longitudinally with internal ballast and could pump ballast out of other internal tanks to keep the boat neutrally buoyant).

We are looking at an existing design and mucking about with the hydrodynamics is probably not a good idea.

Actually it’s as simple as a hydraulic burst, it’s what we train for. And if you are in an unintended sudden deep dive, you want your control surfaces to help your emergency blow. Hence my preference of the x-rudder over the crucible design.
But you are right about not wanting to muck around to much with the design.