Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[Crusader2000]

The Australian governement has decided to build an indigenous submarine desgin rather than going with an off the shelf design such as the USN Virginia class or the RN Astute class.
Frankly by the time the new submarines will be in service these will be dated designs.

To be honest I don't see the need for nuclear power. The RAN will get very capable conventially powered submarines albeit with using new technologies.

I think the new Collins-replacement design will end up being larger and considerably more capable than the new Soryu class just entering service with the Japanese MSDF.

Well, if Australia plans on waiting 30 years before its new class enters service. You may have a point about the Virgina and Astute Class. As for Nuclear Power that is exactly what Australia needs. As its looking for a long range and high speed submarine. Not a SSK that will operate very close to home with in the Littorals.

 

[swerve]

... As for Nuclear Power that is exactly what Australia needs. As its looking for a long range and high speed submarine. Not a SSK that will operate very close to home with in the Littorals.

Australian SSKs are neither designed nor tasked to "operate very close to home with in [sic] the Littorals [sic]". They're large, long-range SSKs, designed to operate over considerable distances. There are many precedents for long-range SSK operations. It's nothing new. The proposed new submarines are expected to be larger & longer-range.

 

[Crusader2000]

Australian SSKs are neither designed nor tasked to "operate very close to home with in [sic] the Littorals [sic]". They're large, long-range SSKs, designed to operate over considerable distances. There are many precedents for long-range SSK operations. It's nothing new. The proposed new submarines are expected to be larger & longer-range.

Sorry, SSK's are hardly an ideal platform for Long Range Blue Water Operations.Which, is why countries like India and Brazil are acquiring Nuclear Submarines. (and why China is producing many more of them!) Because Conventional Subs just can't maintain the higher underwater speeds of a SSN and to operate on or near the surface would be suicide.


Further, you "say" they're many precedents for long range SSK's? Would you care to provide a few examples???? (i.e. Modern Day Examples)


Respectfully,


Crusader2000

 

[Todjaeger]

Sorry, SSK's are hardly an ideal platform for Long Range Blue Water Operations.Which, is why countries like India and Brazil are acquiring Nuclear Submarines. (and why China is producing many more of them!) Because Conventional Subs just can't maintain the higher underwater speeds of a SSN and to operate on or near the surface would be suicide.


Further, you "say" they're many precedents for long range SSK's? Would you care to provide a few examples???? (i.e. Modern Day Examples)


Respectfully,


Crusader2000

Actually, if one consults the NATO description of an SSK, it is designed for patrolling, not littoral operations.

As for examples... How about the sub fleet operated by Japan? They have amongst the most advanced diesel subs in service, and are large, ocean-going subs. Another example is Canada's Upholder/Victoria-class submarines. Whilst not having the best service history due to problems with having been laidup and then refitted... They are also large ocean-going patrol diesels.

Then of course there are the RAN Collins-class SSKs, which is what would be replaced.

By switching to a nuclear powerplant for RAN submarines, there are certainly some advantages which would be gained in terms of submerged endurance, power generation and speed. However, any advantages gained need to be weighed against the very real costs politically, economically and militarily.

What I would suggest, since there seems to be no movement on the part of the RAN, ADF or Government towards SSNs, largely IMO due to the above mentioned costs, would be to examine the nature and scale of those costs and come up with realistic ways to meet them. It is also possible that no realistic way exists, which I suspect is the case at present.

-Cheers

 

[swerve]

Sorry, SSK's are hardly an ideal platform for Long Range Blue Water Operations.Which, is why countries like India and Brazil are acquiring Nuclear Submarines. (and why China is producing many more of them!) Because Conventional Subs just can't maintain the higher underwater speeds of a SSN and to operate on or near the surface would be suicide.

"Ideal" differs depending on your circumstances. Australia does not have the nuclear industry of the USA, UK, Russia, France or China. It does not have the economic resources of India or Brazil, to build such an industry without finding the cost crippling. No other country will provide support for Australian SSNs, & therefore, without that (unaffordable) domestic industry, nuclear-powered vessels can not be built & supported. There are also powerful political pressures, both domestic (probably the most important) & external, against building SSNs. You do what you can, within the constraints you have.

Most SSKs can do pretty respectable submerged speeds. What they can't do is sustain them over long distances, because they have air-breathing engines.

The great value of nuclear submarines is not so much their submerged speed, as their submerged endurance. SSKs have to do long transits on the surface, or snorkelling. Surfaced transits are not suicide, though they are more risky than submerged.

 

[Crusader2000]

[/QUOTE]

Actually, if one consults the NATO description of an SSK, it is designed for patrolling, not littoral operations.

Are you saying that SSK's don't patrol the Littorals???

As for examples... How about the sub fleet operated by Japan? They have amongst the most advanced diesel subs in service, and are large, ocean-going subs. Another example is Canada's Upholder/Victoria-class submarines. Whilst not having the best service history due to problems with having been laidup and then refitted... They are also large ocean-going patrol diesels.

No, I am afraid that Japanese Subs are not designed as Large Ocean (Blue Water) going SSK's. The current Japanese Oyashio Class SSK is 81.7m x 10.3m x 8.9m @~2,700 tons (Surf) . While, an improved Russian Kilo is 73.8m x 9.9m x 6.6m @ ~ 2350 tons. BTW The Upholders are smaller yet 70.26m x 7.6m x 5.5m @ ~2185 tons. It is worth noting in all fairness. That the smallest SSN. Is the French Rubis Class. Which, is simlar in size. Yet, only carries 14 Torpedo's and has a slower speed than your average SSN. (i.e.28 kts surf. and 25 kts subm.) A typical US SSN is in the range of 6,000 -7,000 tons (surf.)

Then of course there are the RAN Collins-class SSKs, which is what would be replaced.

The future Australian Sub has a very different role than the current Collions-Class. Which, explains the large increase in displacement.

By switching to a nuclear powerplant for RAN submarines, there are certainly some advantages which would be gained in terms of submerged endurance, power generation and speed. However, any advantages gained need to be weighed against the very real costs politically, economically and militarily.

Well, I was just debating what Australia has stated as its requirement for a future submarine. Not what was politically or fiscally viable in todays Australia.

That said, things often change. As do Political Goverments, Preceived Threats (or otherwise), Economics, etc. etc. As a matter of fact just a couple years back Australia was going to replace its current F/A-18 Hornets and F-111 with a 100 F-35's. Now is getting brand new Super Hornets (as we speak) as a Stop Gap until the F-35's come on line. The Super Hornet were suppose to only be temporary. Yet, now the talk is they will be permanent! Man, sound like alot of things have changed to me! (and in a short time at that) Whole point is today rarely equals tomarrow.

What I would suggest, since there seems to be no movement on the part of the RAN, ADF or Government towards SSNs, largely IMO due to the above mentioned costs, would be to examine the nature and scale of those costs and come up with realistic ways to meet them. It is also possible that no realistic way exists, which I suspect is the case at present.

-Cheers

Funny, that Australia has put forward a requirement. That is not likely to be met by any current or future SSK????

 

[PeterM]

Here is a publication from the DSTO about air independant propulsion systems

DSTO > Publications > Fuel cell air independent propulsion of submarines
There is a 52 page document here with plenty of good information for those who are interested

and another abstract from DSTO
DSTO > Publications > Modelling of conventional submarine power and propulsion systems for future capability assessment

brief info from ASC (who will be building the new submarines)
ASC - Future Submarines

It certainly seems he RAN is looking at innovative solutions including alternative propulsion systems using emerging technologies and that they are definately not looking at nuclear power.

 

[Crusader2000]

"Ideal" differs depending on your circumstances. Australia does not have the nuclear industry of the USA, UK, Russia, France or China. It does not have the economic resources of India or Brazil, to build such an industry without finding the cost crippling. No other country will provide support for Australian SSNs, & therefore, without that (unaffordable) domestic industry, nuclear-powered vessels can not be built & supported. There are also powerful political pressures, both domestic (probably the most important) & external, against building SSNs. You do what you can, within the constraints you have.

Yet, it is possible that the US could provide Australia with the necessary Nuclear Power Plants for any future SSN. It could also support said power plants without Australia building up a large domestic industry. This of course would be vastly quicker and cheaper. My whole point beside the fact that a SSN is vastly better suited to the role.

As for Nuclear Power and the Political Opposition to it in Australia. Well, today you are likely right. (very likely) Tomorrow who knows? Especially, in this very volatile world we live in. Nonetheless, I wasn't arguing the politics of the issue. More the the point the advertised requirement and the best type (SSK or SSN) for that requirement.

BTW Defense Spending between Australia and Brazil is very close. Brazil has a slight lead of 2 Billion. (i.e. 24B vs 22B) Yet, Brazil has to support a large fleet of older equipment and also has a larger manpower requirement. So, basically dead even............and Brazil can afford to fund a SSN.

Most SSKs can do pretty respectable submerged speeds. What they can't do is sustain them over long distances, because they have air-breathing engines.

Exactly, fine for short distance sprints. Yet, hardly ideal for Blue Water Operations far from home.......

The great value of nuclear submarines is not so much their submerged speed, as their submerged endurance. SSKs have to do long transits on the surface, or snorkeling. Surfaced transits are not suicide, though they are more risky than submerged.

How are surface transits "not" suicidal??? German U-Boat in the last two years of WWII were nearly wiped out. Because they could be easily detected and attacked on the surface even at night. (and that was 60+ years ago). Today they can even detect periscopes at considerable distances.

BTW As long as you bring up "Snorkeling". A improved Kilo can snorkel at a maximum speed of 8-10 knots. I would guess that a snorkel is much easier to detect than a periscope too!


Respectfully,

Crusader2000

 

[Todjaeger]

Funny, that Australia has put forward a requirement. That is not likely to be met by any current or future SSK????[/QUOTE]

I still do not quite get where your belief that a diesel SSK is not able to conduct long range ocean-going patrols. Or where size or displacement determine whether or not a sub can operate in blue water environments.

The USN conducted wartime patrols throughout the Pacific during WWII using long-ranged subs. This was prior to the advent of nuclear power. Similarly, from what I understand RAN Oberon diesels (precursor to the Collins SSK) would sometimes engage in 'sneak & peak' missions to take snaps of Vladivostok during the Cold War. Given that port is on Russia's Pacific coast, it is not exactly close to Australia.

So far, you have made claims that diesels are inappropriate for long-ranged operations. Please provide examples to support this claim, as it runs counter to the operational practices of three current sub operating navies that immediately spring to mind, as well as historical operations.

Lastly, you seem to be stating that the appropriate type of sub to replace the Collins will be a SSN. Is this perception correct?

-Cheers

 

[Crusader2000]

Here is a publication from the DSTO about air independant propulsion systems

DSTO > Publications > Fuel cell air independent propulsion of submarines
There is a 52 page document here with plenty of good information for those who are interested

and another abstract from DSTO
DSTO > Publications > Modelling of conventional submarine power and propulsion systems for future capability assessment

brief info from ASC (who will be building the new submarines)
ASC - Future Submarines

It certainly seems he RAN is looking at innovative solutions including alternative propulsion systems using emerging technologies and that they are definately not looking at nuclear power.

Your are correct that as far as we know Australia is not looking at Nuclear Power as a serious option for its Future Submarine. Yet, can you honestly say that the future technology that you provided links for. Will mature to a satisfactory level to be incorporated in said Submarine???

Which, is not to say that I personally would discount it out of hand. Just at this stage it may or may not. Just as Australia may or may not procure Nuclear Power at some point.

Really, a major advancement would be to incorporate both..............

 

[PeterM]

Your are correct that as far as we know Australia is not looking at Nuclear Power as a serious option for its Future Submarine. Yet, can you honestly say that the future technology that you provided links for. Will mature to a satisfactory level to be incorporated in said Submarine???

I don't see any reason why these technologies won't pan out. Fuel cells for example have been around for a while now and are a reasonably mature technology.

Sweden and Japan are already bringing into service ships with this kind of technology; with another ten years or so of development before the RAN's new submarines come into service, there is plenty of time to resolve any issues. I don't see this as much of a risk.

There will undoubtedly be alot more classified information around about this, I have confidence that the RAN have this well under control, and that we will get an extremely capable platform to replace the Collins.

 

[swerve]

Yet, it is possible that the US could provide Australia with the necessary Nuclear Power Plants for any future SSN. It could also support said power plants without Australia building up a large domestic industry. This of course would be vastly quicker and cheaper. My whole point beside the fact that a SSN is vastly better suited to the role.

As for Nuclear Power and the Political Opposition to it in Australia. Well, today you are likely right. (very likely) Tomorrow who knows? Especially, in this very volatile world we live in. Nonetheless, I wasn't arguing the politics of the issue. More the the point the advertised requirement and the best type (SSK or SSN) for that requirement.

BTW Defense Spending between Australia and Brazil is very close. Brazil has a slight lead of 2 Billion. (i.e. 24B vs 22B) Yet, Brazil has to support a large fleet of older equipment and also has a larger manpower requirement. So, basically dead even............and Brazil can afford to fund a SSN.

How are surface transits "not" suicidal??? German U-Boat in the last two years of WWII were nearly wiped out. Because they could be easily detected and attacked on the surface even at night. (and that was 60+ years ago). Today they can even detect periscopes at considerable distances.


Crusader2000

The USA is forbidden by international agreements from supplying Australia with nuclear-powered submarines or their propulsion. The same agreements ban, for example, France from supplying Brazil with reactors for its planned nuclear submarines, & explain why the offered French development assistance does not include help with the reactors.

Brazil has a much larger economy, & (unlike Australia) a domestic nuclear power industry. It has lower internal prices than Australia, & sizable domestic defence industries, so that much of its military expenditure (e.g. supporting its equipment fleets, manpower costs) is at those lower domestic prices. Conversion at exchange rates therefore understates Brazilian expenditure relative to Australias. The budgetary bases also differ, & IIRC Brazilian reactor development is not paid for from the defence budget. BTW, when one looks at the actual Brazilian defence budget for 2009 (do you read Portuguese?), one finds that it is about USD30 billion, not the USD24 bn reported by Wikipedia. Maybe Wikipedia used the wrong exchange rate.

When German submarines in WW2 started losing the Battles of the Atlantic, they had to transit through waters patrolled by hundreds of ships & thousands of aircraft. Their bases, & therefor the start of their transits, were within range of WW2 fighter-bombers based in the UK, . In those circumstances, surfaced transits would be suicidal today - but who can create such conditions in open oceans today? Certainly not any potential enemy of Australia.

 

[Crusader2000]

Funny, that Australia has put forward a requirement. That is not likely to be met by any current or future SSK????

I still do not quite get where your belief that a diesel SSK is not able to conduct long range ocean-going patrols. Or where size or displacement determine whether or not a sub can operate in blue water environments.

Well, in War or Conflict any SSK would have to operate totally submerged 24/7. Which, for one it better be equipped with AIP. Otherwise, its likely to be destroyed either when snorkeling or surfaced while recharging its batteries.

Even if it is equipped with AIP. It could only patrol at very slow speeds. Which, is hardly ideal. As it can't cover great distances quickly. Which, has several disadvantages. For one you are to slow to catch a Fleet on the move. As they don't stand still and usually operate at 20 knots and likely higher if they perceive a threat from an SSK. Because the SSK can't sustain a high underwater speed. Nor, can you surface and follow on you diesel engines. (instant death) Now take that same limitation and say your submarine needs to get to Taiwan to repel a Chinese Invasion. What your going to putt along at 10 knots almost the whole way??? Sorry, by time your SSK arrives the War would be lost..........

The USN conducted wartime patrols throughout the Pacific during WWII using long-ranged subs. This was prior to the advent of nuclear power. Similarly, from what I understand RAN Oberon diesels (precursor to the Collins SSK) would sometimes engage in 'sneak & peak' missions to take snaps of Vladivostok during the Cold War. Given that port is on Russia's Pacific coast, it is not exactly close to Australia.

Sorry, you are somehow missing the point. Any submarine can go from point "A" to point "B". Yet, over long distances SSK's and not nearly effective as SSN's.

Let me try to put it another way? An SSK's would be very dangerous adversary creeping close to shore at a extremely quit 2-5 knots. Yet, would be hard pressed to move quickly to aid of a friendly nations hundreds or thousands of miles away. Or to catch a fast moving Convoy or Battle Group.

Also, as long as you bring up WWII. A diesel submarine had to be on the surface for any hope of catching a enemy merchant ship. (or directly in it path) As submerged they were way to slow to catch them. It was possible to follow surfaced at night during the early stages. Which, means you could "possibly" get into a firing position. Well, you could with a slow convoy. Yet, forget about catching a fleet of warships moving at speed. In short most submarine had to attack the enemy ship as it approached or pasted. Really, once a enemy surface ship was spotted. The Submarine Captain had to do some very quick calculations. To put his sub ahead of the approaching enemy and in its path to fire his torpedo's. If, he didn't the Convoy would pass by and the Submarine Commander was powerless to do anything about it.

So far, you have made claims that diesels are inappropriate for long-ranged operations. Please provide examples to support this claim, as it runs counter to the operational practices of three current sub operating navies that immediately spring to mind, as well as historical operations.

Yes, SSK's can perform long range patrols. If, higher speeds are never a requirement. Yet, in modern conflicts or wars that is rarely the case......The truth is SSK's are highly effective within the Littorals (Shallow Water) and SSN's are in Blue Water Operations (Deep Water).


BTW Long Range Missions are mostly Blue Water Operations.


Its worth noting that a Improved Kilo SSK has a snorkel range of 7,500 miles @ 7 knots and a Upholder Class has a range of 8,000 miles @ 8 knots. (submerged the Kilo can go 400 miles @ 3 knots) You can sprint at 20kts for a very short distance and could travel considerably longer if equipped with AIP. Yet, your speed is still extremely slow................

Lastly, you seem to be stating that the appropriate type of sub to replace the Collins will be a SSN. Is this perception correct?

-Cheers

[/QUOTE]

Yes, I believe it is. (IMO) Because Australia doesn't plan on replacing the Collins with a 21st Century Version of the Collins. Its visions appears to be of a far larger and more capable Submarine. One that operates at higher speeds and vastly longer ranges. With a greatly expanded armement.....

 

[Crusader2000]

The USA is forbidden by international agreements from supplying Australia with nuclear-powered submarines or their propulsion. The same agreements ban, for example, France from supplying Brazil with reactors for its planned nuclear submarines, & explain why the offered French development assistance does not include help with the reactors.

As always you bring up some excellent points and some that I was unaware of. That said, I will repeat I was not discussing the political view. More to the point that a SSN would be better suited to the requirement stated for Australia's Future Submarines. Regardless, while I don't consider it likely that the US would change the current international agreements as you've stated. Nor, the fact that Australia could politically embrace Nuclear Power for its Submarines at this time. You never know???

Regardless, if Australia does go the Conventional Route. It will be very interesting to see the end result??? Something not likely to be as effective within the Littorals as a SSK or a SSN in Blue Water Operations.

Sorry, doesn't sound like a good idea to me? Yet, to make any worth while assessment. We would need vastly more information. Sadly, that's many many years off.

Brazil has a much larger economy, & (unlike Australia) a domestic nuclear power industry. It has lower internal prices than Australia, & sizable domestic defence industries, so that much of its military expenditure (e.g. supporting its equipment fleets, manpower costs) is at those lower domestic prices. Conversion at exchange rates therefore understates Brazilian expenditure relative to Australias. The budgetary bases also differ, & IIRC Brazilian reactor development is not paid for from the defence budget. BTW, when one looks at the actual Brazilian defence budget for 2009 (do you read Portuguese?), one finds that it is about USD30 billion, not the USD24 bn reported by Wikipedia. Maybe Wikipedia used the wrong exchange rate.

My source was "globalfirepower.com" Which, compilies its information from several sources. As for the cost of Australia's Future Submarine. Its going to be extremely expensive and take decades to build and develope. Which, was part of my point with an American SSN's. As its already in production and the design is mature and ready. So, while Nuclear Submarines are expensive. The Future Submarine that Australia is talking about could very well be more expensive. Not counting the decades it will take to get it to maturity. (and it may not be as capable when it does enter service)

When German submarines in WW2 started losing the Battles of the Atlantic, they had to transit through waters patrolled by hundreds of ships & thousands of aircraft. Their bases, & therefor the start of their transits, were within range of WW2 fighter-bombers based in the UK, . In those circumstances, surfaced transits would be suicidal today - but who can create such conditions in open oceans today? Certainly not any potential enemy of Australia.

Most German Submarines left for there patrols from Western France. Which, is out of range for most fighter bombers of the period. Plus, they usually departed at dusk. Which, would give them a good 200-240 mile advantage before day light. Not knowing the precise route of the submarine and when it left of course. My detection pretty hard. Of course as time went and Allied Aicraft, Ships, and most importantly Radars improved. The tide change considerably.

As for potential threats and enemies. Any Submarine that operates in todays environment on the Surface. Would be in grave danger in my opinion.


Well, I have to go. Until next time!

 

[gf0012-aust]

Yes, I believe it is. (IMO) Because Australia doesn't plan on replacing the Collins with a 21st Century Version of the Collins. Its visions appears to be of a far larger and more capable Submarine. One that operates at higher speeds and vastly longer ranges. With a greatly expanded armement.....

based on what?

NONE and I mean absolutely NONE of any of the technologies and solutions we are looking at has even been remotely discussed in the public domain.

That team has been in place for a number of years, and not one ounce of information has been released.

All thats been realeased is a series of future concept models from ASC which have as much of a chance of getting up as a nuke does.

I'd be more cautious in making claims about how conventionals work in blue water. It does not reflect what we've been doing in real time for decades.

again. and with considerable emphasis, this govt will NOT look at nukes - and they were not regarded by the previous govt either. no nuke power plants at all - period.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Regardless, if Australia does go the Conventional Route. It will be very interesting to see the end result??? Something not likely to be as effective within the Littorals as a SSK or a SSN in Blue Water Operations.

based on what?

when you don't know how we operate now, let alone what is being looked at for 2020 its a brave and forthright comment.

you seem to be oblivious of the technology sets and what some subs can do already, and yet you make claims about warfighting in the littorals?

you do understand that the USN and RAN have been able to take large blue water subs into the littorals and fight small conventionals ever since we developed CBASS and ever since we upgraded our combat systems.

You really need to take more care as you are making claims which do not stand up against what capability we already have let alone the sensor and warfighting systems under development.

 

[knightrider4]

based on what?

when you don't know how we operate now, let alone what is being looked at for 2020 its a brave and forthright comment.

you seem to be oblivious of the technology sets and what some subs can do already, and yet you make claims about warfighting in the littorals?

you do understand that the USN and RAN have been able to take large blue water subs into the littorals and fight small conventionals ever since we developed CBASS and ever since we upgraded ourmotors combat system.

You really need to take more care as you are making claims which do not stand up against what capability we already have let alone the sensor and warfighting systems under development.

On the propulsion side of things is anyone looking at HTS motors and lithium ion battery tech?

 

[gf0012-aust]

On the propulsion side of things is anyone looking at HTS motors and lithium ion battery tech?

Heavily qualified. I looked at HTS engines about 3 years ago and provided commentary on T5C re the opportunities.

AIP is a fading tech. we had it in 87 and it didn't provide sufficient advantage to be used. the AIP module is sitting in the shed and won't end up in a sub. There are other solutions viable for 2020.

 

[swerve]

My source was "globalfirepower.com" Which, compilies its information from several sources.

It cites the CIA world factbook & Wikipedia as sources for military expenditure. The numbers for Brazil & Australia in 2009 are from Wikipedia, rounded to the nearest billion USD.

Most German Submarines left for there patrols from Western France. Which, is out of range for most fighter bombers of the period. Plus, they usually departed at dusk. Which, would give them a good 200-240 mile advantage before day light. Not knowing the precise route of the submarine and when it left of course. My detection pretty hard. Of course as time went and Allied Aicraft, Ships, and most importantly Radars improved. The tide change considerably.

My statement was qualified. Clearly you did not understand the qualification. Allied capabilities changed throughout the war. At the time the U-boats started losing the war, their bases were within range of fighter-bombers (& fighters) operating from the UK with drop tanks. By that time, many ASW aircraft had surface search radar.

BTW, if U-boats covered 200-240 miles from Brest before daylight, most of the year they'd be burning fuel fast. You're talking about maximum speed. Normal cruise speed would be more like 10 knots, which in midsummer would get them about 90 miles between sunset & sunrise, or a lot less during real darkness. Midwinter, maybe 180 miles sunset-sunrise. But maybe by 1943 they had to go hell for leather because it was so dangerous.

And, of course, we'd broken Enigma.

As for potential threats and enemies. Any Submarine that operates in todays environment on the Surface. Would be in grave danger in my opinion. )

You seem to have no appreciation of scale, geography, the capabilities of possible adversaries & where those capabilities are located (see scale & geography . . . ), all of which are relevant. There is no such thing as "Todays environment": there are many environments. Most of the ocean is completely safe for a surfaced submarine against almost any opponent.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Nor, the fact that Australia could politically embrace Nuclear Power for its Submarines at this time. You never know???

we do know. we have had the issue of nuke power revisted numerous times in the last 2 years. we have planned out what our mix is out to 2030. Nukes aren't an option.

Regardless, if Australia does go the Conventional Route. It will be very interesting to see the end result???

we are going non nuclear. the conventional options within that opportunity set are broad, some of which aren't in use.

Something not likely to be as effective within the Littorals as a SSK or a SSN in Blue Water Operations.

and to reinforce from my prev. Parche and her sisters plied their trade within soviet harbours in some of the most heavily wired up real estate on the planet. Ultimately Parche was a standard sub with lots of specops kit inside, but not much at all in the actual sub driving sensor side of the shop. nuke subs now are acoustically far superior to Parche on her best day.

Sorry, doesn't sound like a good idea to me? Yet, to make any worth while assessment. We would need vastly more information. Sadly, that's many many years off.

It took 30 years to discover that RAN subs used to take happy snaps inside Vladivostok when it was cleared for release. It took 40 years to find out what Parche did, and that was with the bulk of her missions still classified and never to be release as far as the US Admin is concerned.

quite frankly, the commentary you see on 95% of what subs can do and touted in the public domain is way off base.

Most German Submarines left for there patrols from Western France. Which, is out of range for most fighter bombers of the period. Plus, they usually departed at dusk. Which, would give them a good 200-240 mile advantage before day light. Not knowing the precise route of the submarine and when it left of course. My detection pretty hard. Of course as time went and Allied Aicraft, Ships, and most importantly Radars improved. The tide change considerably.

?? what do you think Black May signified? It was when the allies managed to develop an overlap box in the atlantic, german subs never recovered from Black May. that was with catalinas, sunderlands, liberaters, hudsons, privateers etc.... it was the opening years that gave the germans the advantage. that was gone with Black May

As for potential threats and enemies. Any Submarine that operates in todays environment on the Surface. Would be in grave danger in my opinion.

again, that is not so. in unmolested space (and thats probably 98% of the water surface, they can travel on the surface. be that as it may, travelling submerged means avoiding the vagaries of ocean behaviour so its less stress on the boat anyway (depending on conditions of course)