d-ron84
Member
Definitely a bad Plan
The Attack Class was a great idea in theory, however the execution (or lack there of) by the French side was terrible.
We will have an RAN Virginia before we would have had an Attack Class the way it was going.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0
- Thread starter OPSSG
- Start date
The Attack Class was a great idea in theory, however the execution (or lack there of) by the French side was terrible.
We will have an RAN Virginia before we would have had an Attack Class the way it was going.
There was a lot of development required for that sub. We were basically intending to do it by contracted variations. Probably the biggest flaw in that plan was the way the design contracts were structured. Imagine buying the designs for a 3 story house, and converting it into a single story factory, but by contract variation, every item that is changed is individually costed and accounted, then designed, separately. Then there were issues about sovereignty and Australian content. I wonder if it was built to fail in the contracts deliberately.
The idea of a 100m conventional submarine with 4 or 6 diesels engines, a huge modern battery, would have still been a very promising concept. The concept should have probably just been a clean sheet~6000t submarine, with an ultra low drag hull, with at least 4 large diesels, compartmented/cooled lithium phosphate batteries. Basically snorted with something like a 50% indiscretion rate at ~15kts its way to the area of operations, then putted around at say 8kts on storage, with maybe handful of snorts, then snorted back. Its not a SSN, but it would be tangibly much faster than regular subs, and much faster than collins.
Albacore set a few records for submarine speed and endurance with her silver zinc batteries.
USS Albacore (AGSS-569) - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Having a lot of diesels, means when you are charging, you can put huge currents into batteries if they can handle it. So with 6 diesels, you can charge 300% faster than just with two diesels, so much shorter indiscretion rates while on station, or much faster transits etc. I believe the original attack was going to have 6 diesels, this got shifted to four. This gives a much larger power budget, and transit speed. Most subs have two, Collins has 3. Barracuda is a pretty low drag submarine, the french had to give up a lot of SSN "features" to get unenriched uranium reactors working well, because you trade so much power density.
Again, I think for subs, we are better thinking about sitting around choke points in Sunda, Malacca etc. In cooler deep water. With a sub with really quality sensors, long range vertical launch strike, able to hunt shipping around the choke points. A conventional could definitely do that. Being able to fire off ~32-64 VLS of tomahawks, or drones, or UAV's or UUVs or LRASM, or NSM. But also hunt shipping. Listen, watch, be present but pretty much undetectable once it gets to the AOO.
The US has real strategic issues making more subs. the AUKUS or Virginia sub should not be a given.
IT rubs up against very expensive things like shipyards and nuclear fuel production etc.
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
There was a lot of development required for that sub. We were basically intending to do it by contracted variations. Probably the biggest flaw in that plan was the way the design contracts were structured. Imagine buying the designs for a 3 story house, and converting it into a single story factory, but by contract variation, every item that is changed is individually costed and accounted, then designed, separately. Then there were issues about sovereignty and Australian content. I wonder if it was built to fail in the contracts deliberately.
The idea of a 100m conventional submarine with 4 or 6 diesels engines, a huge modern battery, would have still been a very promising concept. The concept should have probably just been a clean sheet~6000t submarine, with an ultra low drag hull, with at least 4 large diesels, compartmented/cooled lithium phosphate batteries. Basically snorted with something like a 50% indiscretion rate at ~15kts its way to the area of operations, then putted around at say 8kts on storage, with maybe handful of snorts, then snorted back. Its not a SSN, but it would be tangibly much faster than regular subs, and much faster than collins.
Albacore set a few records for submarine speed and endurance with her silver zinc batteries.
USS Albacore (AGSS-569) - Wikipedia
Having a lot of diesels, means when you are charging, you can put huge currents into batteries if they can handle it. So with 6 diesels, you can charge 300% faster than just with two diesels, so much shorter indiscretion rates while on station, or much faster transits etc. I believe the original attack was going to have 6 diesels, this got shifted to four. This gives a much larger power budget, and transit speed. Most subs have two, Collins has 3. Barracuda is a pretty low drag submarine, the french had to give up a lot of SSN "features" to get unenriched uranium reactors working well, because you trade so much power density.
Again, I think for subs, we are better thinking about sitting around choke points in Sunda, Malacca etc. In cooler deep water. With a sub with really quality sensors, long range vertical launch strike, able to hunt shipping around the choke points. A conventional could definitely do that. Being able to fire off ~32-64 VLS of tomahawks, or drones, or UAV's or UUVs or LRASM, or NSM. But also hunt shipping. Listen, watch, be present but pretty much undetectable once it gets to the AOO.
The US has real strategic issues making more subs. the AUKUS or Virginia sub should not be a given.
IT rubs up against very expensive things like shipyards and nuclear fuel production etc.
Home Meta-defense.fr - Defense news and analysis
All the defense news and analyses, in Europe and around the world, on Meta-defense.fr
meta-defense.fr
No matter which way we went with submarines it was and is going to be costly. End the day all programs came too damn late leaving less then zero breathing room, Could have stuck with Shortfin but that would have had it's own head aches, costs, risks and drawbacks, gone ahead with AUKUS but still has its own head aches, costs, risks and drawbacks.... In a fantasy world we would have followed on the Collins build with R&D/build of Son of Collins build, potentially several different batches each better then the last, Less risky, costly, and could have given us something to build right up until day first AUKUS boat rolled out of Osborne... but that chance passed long ago and left us with two bad options... Conventional boat available MAYBE in a decade at a big cost that may or may not be suitable for the future, or nuclear boat in decade or two at bigger cost that more likely to be more secure in future. Flip a coin solid argument can be made why both are bad choices yet only options available.
How much will LOTE end up costing? It was supposed to be $6+ billion.
Like the Tier 2 Frigates, would have been nice to get a few interim D/E submarines built overseas and have a few built here prior to SSN AUKUS.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
From a Canadian perspective, it will be interesting to see what NG actually delivers to the Netherlands. If it contains considerable design DNA from the Attack class and is over 4000 tons then it could be a potential superior candidate for the RCN as compared to the SK option. Either choice needs to dive and surface before buying though.We may see the Shortfin Barracuda get built yet, with reports it has been selected by the Netherlands to replace the ageing Walrus class.Home Meta-defense.fr - Defense news and analysis
All the defense news and analyses, in Europe and around the world, on Meta-defense.fr
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
One interesting thing to see with the Dutch Subs will be what combat systems they go with, they use US weapons, Mk 48 HWT and Harpoon SSM in the Walrus class with a homegrown CMS called GYPSY.From a Canadian perspective, it will be interesting to see what NG actually delivers to the Netherlands. If it contains considerable design DNA from the Attack class and is over 4000 tons then it could be a potential superior candidate for the RCN as compared to the SK option. Either choice needs to dive and surface before buying though.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Switching to the US CMS could be an option depending on how much development work NG accomplished for the Attack class prior to the cancellation. Not sure how difficult US approval for this would be though.
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
We may see the Shortfin Barracuda get built yet, with reports it has been selected by the Netherlands to replace the ageing Walrus class.Home Meta-defense.fr - Defense news and analysis
All the defense news and analyses, in Europe and around the world, on Meta-defense.fr
Naval Group Offering Barracuda Family Submarine to the Netherlands - Naval News
The French shipbuilder Naval Group is offering the Royal Netherlands Navy a conventionally-powered submarine design from its Barracuda family
www.navalnews.com
The contract for the combat system was with Lockheed Martin; not sure how much NG would know about it. They may well just have been given space, weight, power and cooling requirements type information. Anecdotal evidence is that the US is not particularly keen on sharing much with French organisations, and that might well be an issue if the Dutch wanted to go that way,
This article is relatively upbeat about AUKUS progress
www.aspistrategist.org.au
Parker‘s point is that US domestic political wrangling can be overshadowed by the strategic importance of Australia for the US.
One year along Australia’s optimal pathway to nuclear-powered submarines | The Strategist
Today marks 12 months since the release of the ‘optimal pathway’ Australia needed to follow to acquire a force of nuclear-powered and conventionally-armed attack submarines (SSNs) under the AUKUS agreement with the United States and ...
www.aspistrategist.org.au
Parker‘s point is that US domestic political wrangling can be overshadowed by the strategic importance of Australia for the US.
While there is always the possibility that a change of policy from the US could impact negatively on the program I think it is unlikely to happen. It is obviously important for Australia. Both our main political parties and the public at large realise that. There is an awareness in the US as well that they are no longer the undisputed superpower they once were. They need their allies.This article is relatively upbeat about AUKUS progress
One year along Australia’s optimal pathway to nuclear-powered submarines | The Strategist
Today marks 12 months since the release of the ‘optimal pathway’ Australia needed to follow to acquire a force of nuclear-powered and conventionally-armed attack submarines (SSNs) under the AUKUS agreement with the United States and ...
Parker‘s point is that US domestic political wrangling can be overshadowed by the strategic importance of Australia for the US.
The US obviously wants to lift production to cover for the 3 to 5 SSNs that Australia will be receiving but regardless of whether those production goals are met having a strong ally in this region is probably more important.
The US needs to be seen as a strong and reliable ally. If they fail to honour their commitment to providing SSNs to Australia just about every other ally and potential adversary would sit up and take notice.
I wonder how much of the R&D we paid on those subs. Pretty good chance they may win other orders on the back of this as well. Canada for example.We may see the Shortfin Barracuda get built yet, with reports it has been selected by the Netherlands to replace the ageing Walrus class.Home Meta-defense.fr - Defense news and analysis
All the defense news and analyses, in Europe and around the world, on Meta-defense.fr
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
Hard to say, I would expect significant internal differences to the Attack design. Almost certainly a different CMS, will probably have an AIP (French MESMA?) engine, different Diesels?, Australia was working on developing our own batteries. Remember Australia wanted 60% Australian made. A lot of the R&D Australia paid was for Australianisation of the design.
India had them short-listed a couple of years ago but I'm not sure what is happening with that project.
Ditto for the Wedgetail. We really need to get better at retaining ownership of IP we pay to develop.
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
The point I was making is, how much Australian IP is going into the Dutch Submarines? Won't be made with Australian steel, unlikely to have the US CMS, won't be fitted with Australian developed batteries, are likely to have a propulsion system that Australia was never going to fit. Despite them both using the same baseline hull design, they will be significantly different Subs.
The work on the combat system isn't wasted, some of that can apply to AUKUS, collins and Virginia submarines.. Lockmart was doing it afaik..
I hope the design on shortfin continues and its a successful program. The Dutch are probably better placed to deal with the French and a more cleansheet arrangement, and with less ambitious Australian targets and pressures, it probably will be a very capable project. The problem with Attack, wasn't the design of such a sub, it was contracting, it was French, it was we really wanted a SSN, and we wanted a closer, more involved relationship with the US. It never really got into meaty core engineering or build issues to derail the project, it was other issues, afaik the engineering that was occuring, was fine, but minimal.
If AUKUS falls through, or the US collapses, US pulls out of aukus, or nuclear issues aren't solved, US needs subs directly, or decommissioning issues aren't addressed, of if SSN become unsuitable because of drones/automation/AI it would be nice for that program to be going forward. That kind of capabilities should be explored in the allies network. If China/russia ever goes down that road, it would be nice to have a tech tree already developing in that space.
Maybe they will look at work that was done on the bridge and crew quarters, some computing and wiring. I wouldn't expect much but token payments. If they use it. We wanted out of that project, we weren't particularly worried about retention of IP.
There is IP in the combat system. That goes forward. I don't expect big payments either, but gets us credibility with our American cousins, and they are in turn offering SSNs to us, which is absolutely priceless capability, and speaks volumes about US confidence in Australia as an international actor and allied nation. These are things beyond money. We are still paying for them, but getting them from the cousins, and being let into the secret back room and in the exclusive VIP club is much more important than $50m a yeh in IP payments. $50m is nothing, it we would spend $60m to administrate the receiving/auditing of that $50m.
Looking back on it, an Australian/Dutch combined development, in conjunction with the French may have been a more successful project. We would have had a European partner on our customer side of the table, we could have shared development costs, while our ambitions would have be tempered by the Dutch, we would broadly want similar things fundamentally from the project. Normally adding more nations to a defence project just makes a mess, but in that case, you would have two middle powers, about projecting, similar needs wants costs etc, counter balancing the larger French build/design partner. While not everything would have been made in Australia, sourcing from the dutch would be much more comforting that French single source everything. We would have had a lot more bargaining power, and the Dutch can be tough negotiators and they know subs, and they know how to cross shop with germans on items and technologies.
Four supply chains instead of three, not a good idea.
We could potentially end up with six submarines with two of each different type.
Scott Elaurant
Well-Known Member
THis is not defending the current or former government. My comments on the DSR and Andrew Hastie’s comments
1. Every party promises lots in opposition that rarely survives first contact with a budget deficit when in government.
2. I think the current government has cooled on spending more on defence for a simple reason - the economy. The previous government ran up debt considerably. Federal debt increased by 50% under Morrison, more than it did during the GFC. That might not have mattered if interest rates were low. But since the Ukraine War started interest rates are higher world wide and so government is now paying a lot more interest on its debt. This hurts government as much as households, so they have cut spending. In my own field (infrastructure) tens of billions have been cut.
On Andrew Hastie’s statement:
3. The reason why there will be no new ships delivered this decade is that 3 successive Liberal governments stalled new orders for ships. No fourth AWD, then delay on Hunter frigate program. Likewise with subs. The Japanese sub fiasco wasted four years. Despite the grandiose promises with AUKUS, in the short term cancelling the Attack Class saw a budget saving of $2 billion per annum, which was immediately put into other areas. So is a bit rich of Hastie to complain about the gap now, when it was created by former governments he was in. Conversely Labor rejected plans for a 4th AWD under Gillard which would have been invaluable now. So I personally think looking at either side as “better” on defence is niaive. They both react to circumstances.
Last edited: