Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

Status
Not open for further replies.

oldsig127

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Anyone have any thoughts on potential of using Tesla batteries instead of lead acid in the Attack Submarines?
Is the technology mature enough?
This is a subject that has been discussed here at some length from time to time. You can probably find quite a lot of expert material with a quick search for "lithium" batteries and "attack". If my memory isn't failing, details of what will be used isn't public yet, and the intent to build the boats in tranches which use improved technology over time may mean that start out with lead acid and finish building the last few boats powered by a technology currently not even being discussed.

oldsig
 

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
The swap over from B1 to B2 for the DDGs is done.
I‘m only going on the DOD link provided by @Stampede above which has initial material release, system 1 delivered back to Australia achieved/forecast Oct 2019 and systems 2,3,4 in Mar 2020. That article also has the Hobarts with the block 1B1 standard as against the FFGs had the Block 1A standard.
 

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
Hi Seaspear
A link that may be of interest re Phalanx on the LHD's.
I think it has been posted before.



If I'm correct, only the Hobart Class have Phalanx at the moment.
I have not spotted it on any of the other current ships in today's fleet.
The former FFG's and HMAS Success have carried this CIWS in the past.

My reading is we should have 8 to 9 systems ( Upgraded / not upgraded ) in country at the moment.
Regardless of previous discussions re close in defence options, I trust these existing units are installed on the Canberra Class this year.


Regards S
Bill and Ben carried 1 each as well.
 

Stampede

Well-Known Member
Recent articles in 's APDR and ASPI comment on the perceived need, or not of a Plan B for our future submarines.
The comments, in part are a response to a recent publication from a group called, "Submarines for Australia"

Their full publication on this subjected is posted below


A substantial read that continues to raise some interesting questions.

It covers many points, but one that I found of Interest was a table displaying the transition form the Collins Class to the Attack class.
If correct, it shows that submarine numbers will not actually increase in real terms to 7 + until the mid 2040's.
This assumes a successful LOTE for the Collins Class and no delays in the Attack Class.

I wonder what the Geo political situation will look like in 25 years.

A scary proposition!

Suggest that the submarine conversation will not go away unless some positive feed back on the project is made public.
If the public are not on side this project may suffer.




Regards S
 

Hazdog

Member
And how are you going to pay for and crew these extra subs? What other capabilities are you going to deep six to fund these? The ADF doesn't have a never emptying pot of money from which it can just magic out treasure to pay for wish lists. If that was the case they'd have Galaxy class starships, Star destroyers and Battle Stars.
Of course, the ADF doesn't have a never emptying pot of money.

In reality, the way to increase the number of submarines to 18 is to follow the described transitions and plans in the March 2020 "Submarines for Australia" article. Therefore, using fixed-price models, using competition to reduce the price of each design and to move to develop the capability for nuclear submarines in Australia. One could easily get a capability of 18 submarines for a cost under the maximum $225 billion estimate that has been thrown about.

Again the navy is expanding from 15,000~ up to 20,000~ sailors, indicating that a reasonable increase in the submarine force is achievable, also knowing that this last year the navy grew by 1,500 sailors.
 

spoz

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
I’d never heard that Access Economics had any expertise in Defence matters and this report doesn’t change my view of that. It’s contains a number of errors of fact - to take one that is open source, our submarines’ main role is not to support US intelligence gathering 3500 miles from home - and regurgitation of old material. Not impressed.
 

John Newman

The Bunker Group
Recent articles in 's APDR and ASPI comment on the perceived need, or not of a Plan B for our future submarines.
The comments, in part are a response to a recent publication from a group called, "Submarines for Australia"

Their full publication on this subjected is posted below


A substantial read that continues to raise some interesting questions.

It covers many points, but one that I found of Interest was a table displaying the transition form the Collins Class to the Attack class.
If correct, it shows that submarine numbers will not actually increase in real terms to 7 + until the mid 2040's.
This assumes a successful LOTE for the Collins Class and no delays in the Attack Class.

I wonder what the Geo political situation will look like in 25 years.

A scary proposition!

Suggest that the submarine conversation will not go away unless some positive feed back on the project is made public.
If the public are not on side this project may suffer.




Regards S
I think the kindest thing I can say about this new mob, Submarines for Australia, is that they are the naval equivalent of APA and the Goon Squad (well not very kind of me really).

Somehow I don't think too many people will loose much sleep mulling over this garbage, if people do, well that shows the level of their mentality (just my opinion of course).

On the other hand I think the ASPI-Strategist article by Peter Jennings is much more balanced:


And especially the point he made, 'the best Plan B is to make Plan A work', that is much closer to reality and the truth.

As for the other mob, we all know what the letters SFA stands for: 'Sweet Fu$k All'

Cheers,
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Of course, the ADF doesn't have a never emptying pot of money.

In reality, the way to increase the number of submarines to 18 is to follow the described transitions and plans in the March 2020 "Submarines for Australia" article. Therefore, using fixed-price models, using competition to reduce the price of each design and to move to develop the capability for nuclear submarines in Australia. One could easily get a capability of 18 submarines for a cost under the maximum $225 billion estimate that has been thrown about.

Again the navy is expanding from 15,000~ up to 20,000~ sailors, indicating that a reasonable increase in the submarine force is achievable, also knowing that this last year the navy grew by 1,500 sailors.
And this groups expertise is ???????? I take it they have full unfettered access to all the information on the Attack class submarine data, the govt negotiations with Naval Group and everything else tied up with SEA1000.
 
Last edited:

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
Anyone have any thoughts on potential of using Tesla batteries instead of lead acid in the Attack Submarines?
Is the technology mature enough?
Tesla's technology isn't really designed around sealed applications. Their design and chemistry is focused around the applications they currently do, light vehicles and power smoothing. Its not miles off, but its not the same. They mostly manage the risks of lithium ion batteries through battery management, cooling and being double fused. Fine in the applications they currently use which tend to be well ventilated. Not ideal in a submarine.

Also the usage in a submarine is different. So its not just the batteries, is battery management, charging systems, packaging etc.

As mentioned the Japanese are already well underway into putting Lithium Ion based batteries into sub. It will happen, but like tesla, they will tweak the production, chemistry, packaging for the application. However, they do have the potential to really be game changers.

And especially the point he made, 'the best Plan B is to make Plan A work', that is much closer to reality and the truth.
Plan A is plan B and plan C. completely ditching plan A and the French hull doesn't happen until multiple failures have happened. Changing designs now is too late.
 

ASSAIL

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
I’d never heard that Access Economics had any expertise in Defence matters and this report doesn’t change my view of that. It’s contains a number of errors of fact - to take one that is open source, our submarines’ main role is not to support US intelligence gathering 3500 miles from home - and regurgitation of old material. Not impressed.
The report was commissioned by SFA whose Principals include those well known “experts” shopkeepers Gary Johnston, CEO of Jaycar and his mate Dick Smith.
The reference group for the AE report did however include well credentialed submarine experts; RADM Peter Briggs RAN Retd ex CO Subforce and Head Sub Capability Team, CDRE Terry Roach RAN Retd ex Director Sub Policy and Warfare, CDRE Paul Greenfield RAN Retd ex Chief Engineer Subforce and Dr Andrew Davies ASPI.
I think all of the above are known advocates of SSNs
The ref group also included Hugh White who advocates for hordes of small SSKs as long as they’re built by TKS in Germany.
The proviso in the report states that not all of the reference group agree with the entirety of the report.

The point I’m making is that the report is influenced by a powerful agenda which disagrees with the direction taken with the Attacks but it denies the current political reality.
I have to agree with the findings that nukes are what’s needed but I understand that desire has to wait for its time which I hope is in one of the later “flights” of the Attacks.
 

Hazdog

Member
And this groups expertise is ???????? I take it they have full unfettered access to all the information on the Attack class submarine data, the govt negotiations with Naval Group and everything else tied up with SEA1000.
"Inter alia, this group includes:
  • Dr Michael Keating AC, former Secretary of the Department of Prime Minister and
    Cabinet and head of the Australian Public Service
  • Professor Hugh White AO, Emeritus Professor of Strategic Studies at the Australian
    National University and former Deputy Secretary of the Defence Department
  • Rear Admiral RAN (Retired), Peter Briggs AO, former commanding officer of Oberon class submarines and CO of the Submarine Force, Director of Submarine Warfare and Head of the Submarine Capability Team
  • Rear Admiral RN (Retired), Chris Stanford CB, former anti-submarine warfare expert and NATO squadron commander
  • Commodore RAN (Retired), Paul Greenfield AM, former Engineering Officer in the Submarine Force, and a principal of the Coles Review into Collins class sustainment
  • Commodore RAN (Retired), Terence Roach AM, former commanding officer of two Oberon class submarines, former Director Submarine Policy and Warfare, Director General Naval Warfare and Director General Maritime Development
  • Dr Hans J Ohff, Visiting Research Fellow at the University of Adelaide, Managing Director and CEO of the Australian Submarine Corporation from 1993 to 2002
  • Dr Andrew Davies, Senior Fellow, Australian Strategic Policy Institute."

It seems like a pretty well-informed group to me.

They may not have unfettered access to the data, but as outlined within their piece, little of that data is actually defined and set.
 

vonnoobie

Well-Known Member
Good group but I would actually like to see exactly what those gentleman actually agreed on and disagreed on in the report. Not including there differing views could very well change the outcome of the report entirely from what this group wanted.

When all said and done no one has a conventional submarine today that can meet our needs except for literally us with the Collins so its that and trying to slap modern gear into what will become an aging platform (Fine for an interim fix but long term nope) or build the next generation of conventional submarines. Nuclear at this stage just wont happen. If we wanted nuclear we should have started the ground work after the Collins class came in but we didnt, Even with full national and political support its just too long a process that will give us a capability gap they go on about. An no we cant get anyone else to build them because the US is booked out till the early 2040's and UK and French industry really is set up to their own needs with I imagine no room for effectively double the production if supplying Australia too.

Stick with what we have, If need be scale back the capabilities on the initial batch to get them into service, get things right on the second batch and maybe on third batch go nuclear if we are lucky?

My 2 cents
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Agree, US or UK SSN sourcing is not possible given the production demands on current builds and the forthcoming Dreadnaught and Columbia programs. The other hurdle is would the US allow reactors to be sold or licensed built in Australia for a locally built SSN. The answer for Canada in the 1980s was no and this was probably to keep us in the dark as to what US SSN/BNs were up to in Canadian Arctic waters. Australia might be fare better as an effective allied sub fleet in the western Pacific is in America’s interest.
 

Richo99

Active Member
Does anyone know if the HMAS Bundaburg fire in 2014 destroyed the onboard 25mm Typhoon ? I assume it did, but haven't been able to confirm.

Also, what happened to the 25mm Typhoons that were mounted on Kanimbla/ Manoora/ Tobruk ? Did they just go into storage? I have seen photos of the respective setups, but I think they were removed reasonably quickly.

R.
 

spoz

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Sydney was provisionally accepted from the AWD Alliance by the Commonwealth a couple of weeks ago and is currently still alongside at Osborne with her crew in charge of the ship. There was TV new footage at the time, but the most recent from the Alliance was this:

Supply is supposed to arrive in the west sometime in the next few months. The most recent on her is this:

 

JBRobbo

Member

Does anyone think that we could purchase these cheap like we did Largs Bay/Choules and make them useful? Normally, i wouldn't even mention a littoral combat ship but for what you would assume to be a bargain price, and with small manning requirements, I think there's potential there.

If they were based in Darwin, it would help overcome their relatively shorter range which is still comparable to the Arafura's and their shallow draft would be best suited for ops in the archipelagos, straits and shallow seas to Australia's north anyway.

Strip the two Independence class ships of most of their US armament bar the Mk110 57mm and just use them as a lightly armed multirole patrol, fast ro-ro transport and aviation training ships.

The two steel-hulled Freedom vessels have more potential in my opinion, as they're practically identical in size to an ANZAC frigate but their aluminium superstructure is sure to reduce the centre of gravity issues found in the ANZACS. As such, i would fit the Freedom's with 2x8 Mk41 strike-length VLS for 8x LRASM/32x ESSM, in the modular space used for the twin aft Mk46 30mm guns as well as NULKA launchers immediately forward of the VLS as has been alluded to in the past for retrofit into existing vessels, b. remove the Hellfire VLS and RAM launcher and replace with a single 40mm Oto Marlin RCWS to help mitigate the added top-weight of the Mk41's and provide an aft facing gun, c. replace the TRS-3D and modify the forward mast for a Vampir-NG IRST, ES-3701 ESM and a navalized version of the lightweight CEAOPS radar with four smaller fixed X-band faces rather than C-band in the Army version for ESSM/SM-2 illumination/short range surveillance + the same single larger slewed/rotating dual S/L-band array for long range surveillance, d. add the Saab 9LV Australian tactical interface to the COMBATSS-21 combat system. Retain most of everything else like the 57mm gun, EO/IR sensors.

ASW would be a toss up for me, twin MH-60R's is fantastic and they've fiddled around with a few towed arrays including CAPTAS4, but I don't think much thought of acoustic dampening was put into a design meant to fly at 45kts. If an active hull mounted sonar like Kingklip Mk2 could be fitted that wouldn't severely interfere with the crafts high speed then i would do so along with two topside Mk32 triple tube mounts for MU90 either side and aft of the 57mm gun. If that were unfeasible you could fit a quad pair of RGM-184 Naval Strike Missile in the same locations as the proposed Mk32 SVTT's, and just use them as giant fast attack craft/missile boats with potential loadout of 24x AShM's.

You must understand that this would never be a first choice. I understand their poor survivability and damage tolerance, but even a Hobart or Hunter would be mission killed by a single AShM hit. I also understand that Independence, Freedom, Coronado and Fort Worth have been classified as test ships and that these hulls are the ones that exhibited problems that would need to be rectified as well, as they were in following ships (bridge wings, improved corrosion resistance, cross-connect gearbox issues, axial-flow waterjets etc.)

For me, in the end it would come down to how cheaply something along these lines could be done. Something based in Darwin with ESSM would also provide a handy local area defence capability for the city's RAN and RAAF infrastructure as well.
 

oldsig127

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro

Does anyone think that we could purchase these cheap like we did Largs Bay/Choules and make them useful? Normally, i wouldn't even mention a littoral combat ship but for what you would assume to be a bargain price, and with small manning requirements, I think there's potential there.

(snip for brevity)

For me, in the end it would come down to how cheaply something along these lines could be done. Something based in Darwin with ESSM would also provide a handy local area defence capability for the city's RAN and RAAF infrastructure as well.
Barge pole material. They're being decommissioned because they are kludges; disimilar to each other and to the general production LCS because they were used as production prototypes to develop solutions to problems arising from what was a new and misunderstood role. Neither fish nor fowl, I wouldn't touch them. Too hard to sustain, undoubtedly too expensive to convert to our needs if we even have a need. And the usual caveats apply - just what do we give up in order to get them? Remember that when we got Choules we had a major unfilled gap due to the retirement of Bill and Ben, both themselves USN castoffs

oldsig
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top