Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
You're making a few assumptions about build capability - that seems to me that you've swallowed the media spin on the ills of the Collins program - which is an interesting exercise in demonstrating that some journalists are very good at promoting technical fairy stories in the absence of truth in information sharing...
We definitely won't be buying any of the current builds or designs - they're not up to warfighting as we see it in the next 14-45 years.
For what we want? another 35 years at least, and at that point we will be looking at complimentary assets.
The most capable USV I've seen weighed 8 tonnes but had less than 4 hrs duration. The longest autonomous USV has over 40 hrs of free ranging ability - but it can't do 99% of what manned subs need to do.
Manned subs are far from dead - they'll be viable for a looooong time yet.
t68
Well-Known Member
Hi Stingray
Can you explain what a fuel cell / AIP systems is?
I take it as something along the lines a torpedo as it has some sort of toxic chemical in the fuel so it can burns underwater? (I can’t remember it name)
If so would that be the case to discard 1 of the diesels, as the diesels would only be there as a back up?
Would it be better to have tomahawk or just the upgraded harpoon in your opinion?
Collins currently has a displacement of 3,000 tonnes you would like 4,000/4,500 tonnes that appears to be a lot for a submarine
But time will tell if we get another Collins stuff up with the new tech or a far better sub than we have at present
Regards,
Tom
No offence, but I get really brassed off when people make comments like this as though they are evidence of fact.
Invariably its because they're sprouting the rubbish that they read in the local rag.
These subs are some of the best in the world, acoustically they use signature management solutions that are typically only found on their nuke powered sisters.
The bottom line, is that if you want to run hi powered combat systems like BYG-1 then you need a large conventional or a nuke - smaller conventionals don't cut it for a variety of reasons.
We went to a large fleet submarine for a reason.
btw, I was involved with the Collins project.
I feel inadiquate to explain it with so many other experts here. AIP stands for Air independant propulsion. Essentially any form of propulsion that doesn't specifically require air intake from the surface to generate power. It inparticular refers to sterling engines, fuel cells, closed cycle diesel (diesel that generally run off liquid oxygen) and generally excludes nuclear power.
At the moment they are fairly marginal, you can stay underwater (slightly) longer as long as you are not going anywhere (sitting duck?). But the space used may be better served with more batteries etc. There may be more gain in better battery technology (like AGM or Lithium Ion). I belive the germans have prototyped a liquid Hydrogen/oxygen fuel cell sub that completely dispenses conventional diesels (source -the submarine magazine for exsubbies my old man gets). Problem with all these liquifying fuels is that they tend to be pretty harzardous (super cold, flamable, explosive, explosive if pressure builds up etc) and need lots of protective measures, again wasting space.
The Harpoon at a pinch can do the Tomahawk role if you can locate yourself close to the target. Not a huge problem for us because most targets are island based and usually just a few miles from shore, within range of Harpoon. Tomahawk comes into its own with long range strikes.
What Tomahawk would buy us is being able to locate our vessel far far away so that it can fire it and be safely long gone before anyone can find where our sub is. It would also mean we could deploy our few assets far away from possible strike zones to deal with a certain threat and still able to strike.
Harpoon is not a terrible compromise, but Tomahawk would give us greater flexability. Politically there would be some unrest about Australia getting a Tomahawk, I don't see it happening with our current government. Not to say Harpoon couldn't be further enhanced, and if there was a capability gap with the F-111 being decomissioning, Tomahawk could be used to plug it.
We need blue water subs, they tend to be bigger. Longer range, more sensors, more capability. Not many other countries would ever concider firing Harpoon land strike, harpoon shipping, Tomahawk, as well as heavy weight torpedos and mines and UUV's from their small little littorial subs. Yet australia may want to do all this, while inserting a SAS section/platoon at the same time, 5,000 km from its home port.
As GF said, bigger subs mean you can play with proper toys. Collins is very capable. As a project it was actually one of the better defence ones. Seasprites wasted nearly half the Collins budget on a few non working helicopters. Collins gave Australia the best submarine Australia could have ever got and a company that can build other naval assets.
t68
Well-Known Member
Hi Gf
I was not trying to brass off anyone i was just going by the research paper I came across this is what I am basing my assumptions on from the early days of the project, and with hindsight some things could have been handled a bit better.
I do not have the inside information i can only base my opinion with the information that is available in the public domain
I do not doubt that the Collins class submarines are not capable, nor was i making a statement on the intelligence of people associated with the project.
My comment about being a stuff up was in hoping people can learn by past mistakes and not rush the introduction on new technology, and have bit more thought on how things fit in the general scheme of things if it take a bit longer to get the right fit the first time then take bit longer
Please do not take this as an attack on you as this is not my intension.
Regards
Tom
Ps
Here is the research paper on the Collins that I based my thoughts on
http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rp/2001-02/02rp03.htm
No foul, no harm done.
I arc up at references to the problems with the Collins when the articles are generally ill informed and still perpetuate the mythology of the severity of problems.
I get really cranky when I've been to Intn'l conferences and hear how others regard them - and their curiosity at the continuing sniping of the local press.
There will be a bucket load of info and commentary on here re Collins and why I tend to amp up quickly when I see "dud sub" type references that view the sub project through a selective prism.
There's only one other conventional that i consider as an all round competitor - and thats based on the fact that I still have involvement with acoustic and signature management programs - not on internet comment.
But as I said, no harm done or offence taken...
I think this is an excellent summary of the RAN's need for large submarines and of the tremendous benefits the Collins class project has brought to Australian industry and future submarine design and construction capability.
With the new Defmin publicly advocating an early start with the work needed to get the next generation of submarines ready for construction as an immediate follow on to the AWD project, this is an exciting time for the RAN's submarine service. Hopefully, as the Collins class does now, the next generation of submarines will continue to provide a highly effective and potent force in the years ahead.
Tas
t68
Well-Known Member
Hi Guys
I have been having a little look into AIP systems on the net, what I have found is probably not new to a lot of people here.
Having a look at Kockums own site the AIP system it could be possibly be placed onto the Collins class by placing a new section onto it.
http://www.kockums.se/pdf/submarine.pdf
Gf do you think this is feasible to do or would it be too large an undertaking as what I can see Kockums sister boats are smaller and the system might be in keeping size with them?
I have also came across a video footage of HMAS Gotlands on you tube with USN have been studying the sub to find ways of stopping it
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Khaa3y0i87s"]
Kockums is looking at building a new submarine Viking class this is with Finland, Denmark, Norway and Sweden. It is only 1100/1700tons of displacement.
http://www.kockums.se/pdf/viking.pdf
In your opinion could this be expanded to suit our needs or would we be looking at a completely different design?
I also read some where a while a go that we have taken the propellers to the US to get some sort of work to done to them and Kockums was not impressed about this.
Would this have affected our dealing with kockums for the Collins class and for any future project we might have with kockums in the future?
Regards,
Tom
Ps
Sorry for cutting part of the url for the you tube site it was too large when I put on post preview and was not sure if I was aloud to do it like that?
I have been having a little look into AIP systems on the net, what I have found is probably not new to a lot of people here.
Having a look at Kockums own site the AIP system it could be possibly be placed onto the Collins class by placing a new section onto it.
http://www.kockums.se/pdf/submarine.pdf
Gf do you think this is feasible to do or would it be too large an undertaking as what I can see Kockums sister boats are smaller and the system might be in keeping size with them?
I have also came across a video footage of HMAS Gotlands on you tube with USN have been studying the sub to find ways of stopping it
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Khaa3y0i87s"]
Kockums is looking at building a new submarine Viking class this is with Finland, Denmark, Norway and Sweden. It is only 1100/1700tons of displacement.
http://www.kockums.se/pdf/viking.pdf
In your opinion could this be expanded to suit our needs or would we be looking at a completely different design?
I also read some where a while a go that we have taken the propellers to the US to get some sort of work to done to them and Kockums was not impressed about this.
Would this have affected our dealing with kockums for the Collins class and for any future project we might have with kockums in the future?
Regards,
Tom
Ps
Sorry for cutting part of the url for the you tube site it was too large when I put on post preview and was not sure if I was aloud to do it like that?
Collins was already designed to take AIP. The RAN conducted tests and determined that the efficiency of the Collins battery and charging system was more than sufficient. Bear in mind that the Collins was designed during the cold war and was going to be a fleet capable asset as well as a long range striker. The recently partialy declassified documents on the RAN missions during the cold wat showed that the Oberons used to run missions up to Vladivostok (and beyond). Collins was designed to outperform them by an order of magnitude.
The AIP module is sitting on a pallet at ASC and has been there ever since I can recall (over 9 years).
The Collins designated AIP space is used for "other things".
Be that as it may the Collins replacement design has included AIP as part of the technology review. That doesn't necessarily mean that it will get up, as there are other drivetrain solutions that will also be included (not nuke power unless there is an absolute change of philosophical and idealogical heart on the side of the Govt)
Kockums no longer exists. Its part of of HDW. The irony is that the preferred design by Navy was the modified 209 (an upsized version for blue water fleet support). So the worm has turned full circle.
If Kockums did exist as an individual entity for a new submission, IMO I would reject them outright for a number of reasons. The issue of IP ownership was one that is fractious. Thats because the major repairs that were required of Number 1 were due to poor initial workmanship on the bow section. ASC had to repair the off country work significantly. The mods that were made to improve low detection were australian made (and thus the swedes had no claim on the signature management tech). The latter hull mods were US sponsored and done in their tank test facilities plus the migration of some of the tank test data from their early nukes - Kockums didn't do any tank testing and as such had no rights to ownership of the mods that were shared by the americans. As was the prop design. The US redesigned props were also legacied from USN data. Kockums can keep their prop designs. They were fine for 1985. They're useless against contemp prop designs.
The RAN future sub is highly unlikely to have much european influence. There are a number of reasons for this.
Larger subs enable larger drivetrains, and also allow for larger power generation/curve. Large power generation is required for some of the more complex EWarfare systems. (its why we went for a 3000 tonner in the first place). The US combat systems (BYG-1 and it's future derivatives) will migrate to Collins 2. Smaller subs cannot fit these systems, maintain power and still run the other electronics that we want in place.
Small subs are effective but do not suit our requirement. European subs are effective, they just don't meet our requirements.
Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
Gf, will Collins gen 2 be fitted for TLAM or at least have any space/weight/tubes allowed for such a weapons system? I never like the idea of sacrificeing torpedoes for TLAM's, LA class SSN's have the right idea.
Weapons fit is a long way out, suffice to say that it will by nature be more complex.
Howdy all
From what i understand, the orignal collins - class was a flop, particularly the combat control systems. However after an extensive upgrade anf fix of the fleet, the submarines are now very capable, sharing many of their systems with the larger SSN, a good exampleof this is the AN/BYG-1 shared by bot hte collins and i belive the virginia class american SSN's.
The point is the collins class was bad but now they are good
From what i understand, the orignal collins - class was a flop, particularly the combat control systems. However after an extensive upgrade anf fix of the fleet, the submarines are now very capable, sharing many of their systems with the larger SSN, a good exampleof this is the AN/BYG-1 shared by bot hte collins and i belive the virginia class american SSN's.
The point is the collins class was bad but now they are good
Last edited:
t68
Well-Known Member
Hi Guys
Just going over the latest news it seems the Australian defense association (ADA) says the next submarine will be unlikely to be nuke powered, but not ruling it out either
http://www.bigpond.com/news/breaking/content/20071226/2127332.asp
I tried to get more info off the ADA site but can’t find any thing about it; maybe the ABC has got it mixed up with someone else which would not surprise me
Like GF said I can’t see us go down the nuke way unless a major shift in government thinking
Regards
Tom
Just going over the latest news it seems the Australian defense association (ADA) says the next submarine will be unlikely to be nuke powered, but not ruling it out either
http://www.bigpond.com/news/breaking/content/20071226/2127332.asp
I tried to get more info off the ADA site but can’t find any thing about it; maybe the ABC has got it mixed up with someone else which would not surprise me
Like GF said I can’t see us go down the nuke way unless a major shift in government thinking
Regards
Tom
I agree with you and GF that nuclear powered submarines in the RAN are highly unlikely given the ideological stance towards nuclear power of the current Australian government.
I also think that conventionally powered submarines will continue to have much to offer the ADF. The Collins class provides an excellent capability at present and an evolved class should continue to do so well into the future.
Tas
- Status