Submarine news

[bdique]

The reason I gave earlier in this thread was that I believe that a growth path to a Nuclear option via the barracuda replacement may have been offered. Perhaps a collaborative approach to that follow on class. I too believe that the French option carries the most risk, however once again we are dealing with an experienced designer of conventional and nuclear boats, they aren't total Noobs. Then again just to give an out clause I could well be wrong.

Huh. Nuclear. So sometime down the road you think they'll strip out the diesel-electrics and...never mind. Thanks, that's all I needed to hear.

Mods, feel free to delete this. Will be watching further developments from the sidelines until I know enough to make further comment

 

[Redlands18]

there's always a superficial preference with what will be the most comfortable but its just that. the CFA DDG's are the standout example, ask anyone who served in them to comment on their habitability cf a Daring or River and they will tell you they were awful. Then ask them what they would prefer to serve and fight on and the CFA's were a clear winner.
Uniforms want reliable, superior capability above all else and I suspect that's the case for all fighting men and women.

I have walked through the Vampire at Darling Harbour and they were still using hammocks for the Sailors. Hammocks are great for a lazy warm Sunday afternoon in the backyard, trying to sleep in a heavy sea for months at a time no thanks!
Really what were the Darings good for by the mid 70s. They only thing they had in common with the CFAs was the designation of Destroyer. Though only a decade older they come from 2 very different eras.

 

[knightrider4]

Huh. Nuclear. So sometime down the road you think they'll strip out the diesel-electrics and...never mind. Thanks, that's all I needed to hear.

Mods, feel free to delete this. Will be watching further developments from the sidelines until I know enough to make further comment

Huh??? You may want to read my earlier posts. What I said was that in the future we may collaborate on the follow on SSN to the barracuda. Please tell me where I said we will strip the exisiting boats.

 

[ngatimozart]

Huh??? You may want to read my earlier posts. What I said was that in the future we may collaborate on the follow on SSN to the barracuda. Please tell me where I said we will strip the exisiting boats.

Keep it nice and civil. If / when Australia goes SSN you may find it will be with USN and possibly RN design and propulsion expertise rather than French.

 

[rossfrb_1]

The French bid I believe was based upon lead acid battery technology, whereas the Japanese was Lithium. I think the French consortium actually released a press statement at some point expressing concern about the possibility of burning/exploding lithium based batteries in confined spaces of a submarine.
I don't know the current state of play with the development of lead acid battery tech, but my understanding is that lithium is going ahead in leaps and bounds.
I find it hard to believe that when the new Australian submarine puts to sea in ~14 (?) years time it will have lead acid batteries.

The Germans have publicly expressed the desire to be included in the future submarine project
French bidder DCNS claims Sea 1000 honours

"TKMS said in a statement it respected the decision of the Australian Government to award Sea 1000 to DCNS.....We are naturally disappointed, but we stand ready to provide support for Australia’s Future Submarines project with our unrivalled experience, leading technology and track record in building submarines in the customer’s own country."

Just wondering whether the Japanese might do the same WRT to their lithium battery tech? After all they will have had over a decade's experience by then.
cheers
rb

 

[knightrider4]

Keep it nice and civil. If / when Australia goes SSN you may find it will be with USN and possibly RN design and propulsion expertise rather than French.

Always nice, civil and professional from my end.

 

[gf0012-aust]

everybody count to 500 before posting

there's no need for this to get out of control

time to move on

 

[ASSAIL]

I have walked through the Vampire at Darling Harbour and they were still using hammocks for the Sailors. Hammocks are great for a lazy warm Sunday afternoon in the backyard, trying to sleep in a heavy sea for months at a time no thanks!
Really what were the Darings good for by the mid 70s. They only thing they had in common with the CFAs was the designation of Destroyer. Though only a decade older they come from 2 very different eras.

Then you should have looked closer. The last destroyer to have hammocks was HMAS Anzac D59. I served in Anzac Perth and Vampire and had you ever slept in the aft seamans mess with 83 others in HMAS Perth D 39 you would understand.

 

[ASSAIL]

Really what were the Darings good for by the mid 70s. They only thing they had in common with the CFAs was the designation of Destroyer. Though only a decade older they come from 2 very different eras.

I will also take umbrage at your scathing remarks on the Darings capability. They were fine ships, possibly the most effective destroyer ever delivered by the RN.
Vendetta served effectively on the Gunline in Vietnam and was only hampered by a supply chain which was inadequate, conversely the DDGs were superbly supported by the USN during that conflict.
In reality, the Darings were such fine ships that they were to be refitted and upgraded with Tartar to upgrade their AAW capability. This was canned when the govt was going to order a fourth DDG, later cancelled.

Finally, you are wrong about timeline. The USN ordered the first DDGs in 1952 a 1954 only a few years after the Darings were ordered for the RN, 1948 IIRC.

Sorry to be OT, but neck hairs bristled

 

[ngatimozart]

I have walked through the Vampire at Darling Harbour and they were still using hammocks for the Sailors. Hammocks are great for a lazy warm Sunday afternoon in the backyard, trying to sleep in a heavy sea for months at a time no thanks!
Really what were the Darings good for by the mid 70s. They only thing they had in common with the CFAs was the designation of Destroyer. Though only a decade older they come from 2 very different eras.

It's somewhat different walking through a ship than living in one. Have you served in a ship and lived in a crowded mess deck? Serving at sea is different to serving on land in the air. I never used a hammock in my time at sea, but a lot of the old salts swore by them because they rocked you to sleep and you didn't get turfed out in roughers.

Be nice. Assail has done more sea time than most and is ex RAN. He is an old salt and a drop of skin from way back. Take this as a friendly reminder.

 

[ngatimozart]

Be nice people and be realistic in your posts. RAN SSNs are off the list as is any other fantasy ideas. If you want to discuss those go elsewhere. If it continues here, we can arrange for your removal from here very easily.

 

[gf0012-aust]

This thread is a generic submarine discussion area regarding all subs from all nations - I'd suggest that RAN sub related discussions and/or news be redirected back to the approp RAN thread

 

[aussienscale]

Then you should have looked closer. The last destroyer to have hammocks was HMAS Anzac D59. I served in Anzac Perth and Vampire and had you ever slept in the aft seamans mess with 83 others in HMAS Perth D 39 you would understand.

I hear you mate, many a fond memory of 163 mess on the mighty Hobart my bunk was on the Stbd side against the hull.

Very rude awakening one night after we had finished a night RAS with Success, back end got sucked in as we broke away and we slammed into the port quarter of Success !! scared the crap out of all of us, not fun to then hear the collision alarm whaling in the dark after that and scrambling up the hatch behind the ships laundry onto the quarterdeck !!

Cheers

 

[nathanmarcus]

Sea Hunter ASW Continuous Trail Unmanned Vessel (ACTUV), United States of America

Sea Hunter is an anti-submarine warfare (ASW) continuous trail unmanned vessel (ACTUV). It was christened at Caruthers Landing in Oregon in April 2016. The technology demonstrator is designed, developed and built by the Defense AdvancedResearch Projects Agency (DARPA) for the US Navy.

The autonomous unmanned vessel is intended primarily to track enemy diesel-electric submarines in shallow waters. It can also be used for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) tasks, unmanned underwater vehicle (UUV) / UAV launch and recovery, and transportation of vehicles and running logistics of the US Navy.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Sea Hunter is an anti-submarine warfare (ASW) continuous trail unmanned vessel (ACTUV). It was christened at Caruthers Landing in Oregon in April 2016. The technology demonstrator is designed, developed and built by the Defense AdvancedResearch Projects Agency (DARPA) for the US Navy.

The autonomous unmanned vessel is intended primarily to track enemy diesel-electric submarines in shallow waters. It can also be used for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) tasks, unmanned underwater vehicle (UUV) / UAV launch and recovery, and transportation of vehicles and running logistics of the US Navy.

there's some very sexy stuff coming out of NAVSEA. ONR and DARPA for the ASW and target tracking roles....

just as JSF has altered the warfighting construct to be around information management in a comms dome for all assets within that dome, then these 2nd and 3rd generation unmanned artifacts are going to have a huge impact on subs and sub warfare,

in absolute terms, you're really looking at the finessing of the underwater task force where the sub is the lead capital vessel and it can manage arrays of sensors, killers, unmanned warfare concepts and USV/UAV hybrids. Some of the developments in the last 3-5 years are force multipliers in their own right - let alone as part of a subs tool set

 

[KiwiRob]

With DCNA winning the Australian tender it throws an interesting product into the mix for the Norwegian replacement program. IMO as an armchair Admiral Norway needs a decent sized boat, one more suited to the North Atlantic and Barrets Sea than a boat for the Baltic. The Shortfin Barracuda IMO makes more sense to Norway.

 

[hairyman]

So the French have won!! If you remember our Mirage, which were also built here, they were not a dreadful machine. Apart from the French stopping us from taking them to Vietnam, I dont remember much wrong with them. Anybody know otherwise? They were a big step up from the Avon Sabre they replaced though.

 

[knightrider4]

So the French have won!! If you remember our Mirage, which were also built here, they were not a dreadful machine. Apart from the French stopping us from taking them to Vietnam, I dont remember much wrong with them. Anybody know otherwise? They were a big step up from the Avon Sabre they replaced though.

Those ATAR engines could be more than problematic from time to time.

 

[Redlands18]

I will also take umbrage at your scathing remarks on the Darings capability. They were fine ships, possibly the most effective destroyer ever delivered by the RN.
Vendetta served effectively on the Gunline in Vietnam and was only hampered by a supply chain which was inadequate, conversely the DDGs were superbly supported by the USN during that conflict.
In reality, the Darings were such fine ships that they were to be refitted and upgraded with Tartar to upgrade their AAW capability. This was canned when the govt was going to order a fourth DDG, later cancelled.

Finally, you are wrong about timeline. The USN ordered the first DDGs in 1952 a 1954 only a few years after the Darings were ordered for the RN, 1948 IIRC.

Sorry to be OT, but neck hairs bristled

My apologies ASSAIL maybe i should have done my homework a bit better. I thought i remember the guide on the Vampire saying they still slept in hammocks but i may have been wrong. Certainly the adition of a Tartar system would have improved them, by the mid 70s the lack of a modern AD system would have been a weakness.

 

[knightrider4]

So the French have won!! If you remember our Mirage, which were also built here, they were not a dreadful machine. Apart from the French stopping us from taking them to Vietnam, I dont remember much wrong with them. Anybody know otherwise? They were a big step up from the Avon Sabre they replaced though.

A bit of clarity regarding the timeline for contract signature.
France Celebrates ‘Historic’ Submarine Win in Australia