Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

Status
Not open for further replies.

Bonza

Super Moderator
Staff member
From Sydney Morning Herald



Is this true ??

I thought the problem with Collins has been taking care off. However if what's written here true, then Collins really still in troublesome state.
If any of this has any bearing, then it will raised another questions for RAN on using an unproven design for the next submarines.

Not trying to fanning anything, however when Australia decided on using large Kockums design as base for Collins, RAN actually in my oppinion gamble on the unproven design. With the amount of money RAN asked the Australian Tax Payers to Invest for the next batch of submarines, don't you guys think it's better for Australia on using a Proven design or trying to follow what the South Korea has been done on intergrating German desihgn to their need.
I'd prefer us to collaborate with the United States on a new large conventional design, personally. Remember these subs are destined for the 2030s and beyond so going with a design that's proven in the current day could potentially lead to early obsolescence down the road. And it wouldn't surprise me if the US looks to get back into the conventional game some time in the next ten to fifteen years. Given advances in propulsion and power generation I think the next generation of conventional subs will be nothing like what we see in the present day.

Mind you some of that is speculation so treat it accordingly. :)
 

alexsa

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
I understand the advantages of an helo, but imagine an unknown zone where you want your helo to work, with an undersea drone detector you risk much less, no loss of human lifes, no loss of helo, when you have enough info you can send the helos, also an helo can be 4 or 5 hours searching, a drone can be 24 hours alert at 0 expenditure of resources (man hours, hours of flight, fuel..), just imagine for the price of one helo (40 million dollar for example) you could have many drones, packed in standarized cargo containers, almost not ocuping space, like the uav´s but for the underwater space.




Have a nice weather.

Cheers.
An 15.5 foot Voyager 2 half cabin with a 130 hp and fuel for about 5 hours weighs in a two tonnes without bait and fat fishermen and with no sensors to speak of unless you count the fish finder. A smal vessel of this type has significant sea state limitations but is considered a good offshore boat. Its effective operating limits are smooth or partially mooth waters.

Your vessel will need a good stabel power source (24 hours remember) as well as sat coms and control system in addition to your sensors.... all adds weight.

In addition don't forget your sensors are not going to be happy if their reference point is a cork in a choppy sea.

Slewing cranes have an operating limitation of 5 degress max in heal (and it must be a modern unit to do that) and less than 1 degree in trim. They cannot be operated in dynamic conditions (i.e in a sea way).

Davit launch is really you only option and those are not light and take deck space and must also be motion compensating if you want to operate in a varity of sea states..

Forget the dock......it has siginficant operating limitations an it wouel be a brave captain who woule open it at sea in anything that is not smooth,

Containers, interesting concept.... where are you going to stow them and don't forget to factor in reinforcing for the deck. Racking forces will be in issue (on the container and deck fittings) as you dont want these things rampaging about.

Moving a 2 to 4 tonne boat in a sea way will need to be cone carefully and will again involve equipment.... you cannot simply push these things arond the deck

Sorry it remains a silly idea as a ASW platform.
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
From Sydney Morning Herald



Is this true ??
It is of course a beat up. The major mid-life docking cycle these submarines are undertaking take nearly 4 years each even with a proper workforce to manage it. The "2 year layup" is a consequence of ASC losing the majority of it's workforce and being simply unable to complete the work. The boats in the end will spend nearly 5 years each out of the water, but the 2 year delay per boat is ASC's workforce (or lack thereof) issue.

This 9 year figure is obtained by adding the length of time of the 2 boats are being worked on together, but only one boat is undergoing the docking cycle upgrade at a time.

RAN has 2x submarines at sea at present, which is the directed level of capability RAN is required to provide.

A 3rd submarine returned to sea last Friday according to defence to begin workups and a 4th submarine will be available by the end of the year.

RAN can mount 3x submarine crews at present and a 4th is apparently being stood up at the end of the year with the 4th boat, I'd suggest...

Again, media representations don't come close to the truth...

I thought the problem with Collins has been taking care off. However if what's written here true, then Collins really still in troublesome state.
If any of this has any bearing, then it will raised another questions for RAN on using an unproven design for the next submarines.
It is true if you conveniently ignore reality, don't bother looking at the facts and simply want controversy to sell copy...

Not trying to fanning anything, however when Australia decided on using large Kockums design as base for Collins, RAN actually in my oppinion gamble on the unproven design. With the amount of money RAN asked the Australian Tax Payers to Invest for the next batch of submarines, don't you guys think it's better for Australia on using a Proven design or trying to follow what the South Korea has been done on intergrating German desihgn to their need.
We did this. Kockums provided the boat from an existing design that we subsequently modified to our own preferred design. The problematic thing is that European designed engines and generators have been at the heart of the maintenance problems with these boats.

Malaysia has a brand new "off the shelf" European designed sub that reportedly can't even dive... I am sure there's another beat up there too, but it shows that even "MOTS" platforms can have issues...
 

Ananda

The Bunker Group
I'd prefer us to collaborate with the United States on a new large conventional design, personally. Remember these subs are destined for the 2030s and beyond so going with a design that's proven in the current day could potentially lead to early obsolescence down the road. And it wouldn't surprise me if the US looks to get back into the conventional game some time in the next ten to fifteen years. Given advances in propulsion and power generation I think the next generation of conventional subs will be nothing like what we see in the present day.

Mind you some of that is speculation so treat it accordingly. :)
Well in my oppnion you just have take a look on the Soryu's..and it's not speculations anymore for the advances on conventional subs technology.

It is of course a beat up. The major mid-life docking cycle these submarines are undertaking take nearly 4 years each even with a proper workforce to manage it. The "2 year layup" is a consequence of ASC losing the majority of it's workforce and being simply unable to complete the work. The boats in the end will spend nearly 5 years each out of the water, but the 2 year delay per boat is ASC's workforce (or lack thereof) issue.

This 9 year figure is obtained by adding the length of time of the 2 boats are being worked on together, but only one boat is undergoing the docking cycle upgrade at a time.

RAN has 2x submarines at sea at present, which is the directed level of capability RAN is required to provide.

A 3rd submarine returned to sea last Friday according to defence to begin workups and a 4th submarine will be available by the end of the year.

RAN can mount 3x submarine crews at present and a 4th is apparently being stood up at the end of the year with the 4th boat, I'd suggest...

Again, media representations don't come close to the truth
Thanks Aussie Digger..reading that articles without getting the rest of the fact really cornering the quality of Collins. That's why I asked the questions...surelly the problem was not really that dire.
However with the experience facing Collins, do you still think for the next batch submarines, it's still wise for the RAN to get a one-off submarines class like collins (which nobody else using) ??
 

Sea Toby

New Member
However with the experience facing Collins, do you still think for the next batch submarines, it's still wise for the RAN to get a one-off submarines class like collins (which nobody else using) ??
Australia requires a larger submarine to operate in the Pacific and Indian Oceans, which are considerably larger than the seas around Europe. Unfortunately, outside of Japan, nobody else is building large enough submarines suitable for Australia's needs. If Australia built small submarines which fit your billing, Australia's submarines would be curtailed to the seas around Australia: Timor, Arafura, Coral, Tasman, etc. I would think such a limited capability is unacceptable for Australia. Australia requires further reach, or range....

The Collins were designed to fulfill a mission of snorkeling 3500 nautical miles at 10 knots plus patrol submerged for 47 days on station at 4 knots. Smaller submarines couldn't possibly do this....
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
Thanks Aussie Digger..reading that articles without getting the rest of the fact really cornering the quality of Collins. That's why I asked the questions...surelly the problem was not really that dire.
However with the experience facing Collins, do you still think for the next batch submarines, it's still wise for the RAN to get a one-off submarines class like collins (which nobody else using) ??
Depends. If one wants a tiny little submarine unable to effectively patrol the distances or threats RAN is required to confront, but looks nice and shiny to show off on the occasion limited exercise and "show the flag" missions then sure, any of the current off the shelf European submarines will do fine.

If however you expect a submarine to do more than potter around the Australian coastline and actually be capable of engaging our threats at a considerable distance from Australia and actually attempt to defend our "air-sea gap" AND undertake the other (ISR mainly) long-ranged missions required of Australian submarines, then we need a long ranged submarine and no conventional submarine in the world meets these requirements.

It is no secret that our Oberon class subs used to travel VERY far north on operational missions and you can make a guess at what the larger Collins might do, then considering this, accepting a very much shorter ranged Euro sub, will be a massive step backwards in capability and will see RAN unable to do in future what it has been doing for the last 30 plus years...

The problem therefore is this. We cannot for political reasons use a nuclear powered boat. We must then use a conventional boat, but no off the shelf conventional submarine is capable of doing what is required in Australia's circumstances.

Therefore the 2 options we have, if we are to have a credible fleet submarine, is to modify an existing design to meet our requirements or create a new design, levering off existing tech and design capability wherever possible, which I'd almost bet my house THIS time around, will be almost exclusively American and domestic Australian based submarine tech...
 

agc33e

Banned Member
An 15.5 foot Voyager 2 half cabin with a 130 hp and fuel for about 5 hours weighs in a two tonnes without bait and fat fishermen and with no sensors to speak of unless you count the fish finder. A smal vessel of this type has significant sea state limitations but is considered a good offshore boat. Its effective operating limits are smooth or partially mooth waters.
Your vessel will need a good stabel power source (24 hours remember) as well as sat coms and control system in addition to your sensors.... all adds weight
.
Ok, maybe 5 tonnes maybe 10 tonnes, but i would think of it like an amphibious vehicle to come in/out of the dock, with wheels, a little engine for the wheels for that, but not for going into the road etc. If you want to put one above the other, you can use containers, if it fits, or if containers can be above other (144 containers total capacity).
With the wheels they could roll from the garage to the water through the two lcme1, well, i dont know if the last door can open to the angle need for going to the water of it is just horizontal for comunicating to the back lcme1. Anyway we can remove the lcme1. Imagine we want to be able to quickly launch the drones, then we use one channel for them, parked next to the ramp in the garage, the other channel with 2 lcm1e, and supercats, the free channel can be used for sports for the crew, tennis, basketball, futsal, bowling, etc.
The no danger sea state level of the lhd is 9, 5 for the helos operations (with the retractile fins), and 4 for the lcme1 and amphibious vehicles. Of course we can improved the release and recover of the drone like designing "rast" type mechanisms, ttied to the walls of the dock, etc.

In addition don't forget your sensors are not going to be happy if their reference point is a cork in a choppy sea.
Sorry i dont understand with they are going to be unhappy with an champaigne bottle opened...to celebrate the victory.


Slewing cranes have an operating limitation of 5 degress max in heal (and it must be a modern unit to do that) and less than 1 degree in trim. They cannot be operated in dynamic conditions (i.e in a sea way).
The heavy deck crane is a bridge crane, they say able to move any heavy load, i suppose they mean tanks as well, but as i see the height of the deck and one tank above other it seems very little space, i suppose is for moving them for parking, but anything in that size can be moved above the tanks, like the supercats, and the crane reaches the end of the dock.

Davit launch is really you only option and those are not light and take deck space and must also be motion compensating if you want to operate in a varity of sea states..

Forget the dock......it has siginficant operating limitations an it wouel be a brave captain who woule open it at sea in anything that is not smooth,

Containers, interesting concept.... where are you going to stow them and don't forget to factor in reinforcing for the deck. Racking forces will be in issue (on the container and deck fittings) as you dont want these things rampaging about.

Moving a 2 to 4 tonne boat in a sea way will need to be cone carefully and will again involve equipment.... you cannot simply push these things arond the deck
Sorry it remains a silly idea as a ASW platform
.
These drone are the same principle as uav´s, i am sure they are useful, also easier than uav´s because sea is easier than air complexity designing. The utility is fleet task in the ocean and in the coast as well, for making a total aware perimeter, in the coast the subs can hide behind the capes etc. In the ocean, when the fleet is stopped they will give you more sensors, information superiority for own subs and helos, while the fleet is moving they can follow the fleet for some hours i suppose, it depends it you add 1 tonne of fuel it migh be days fixed in the perimeter, then come back for refuelling. I suppose when the dock is floaded the ship can move, maybe a bit slower. You can use the drones for freeing the subs from defensive task and use them for attacking of being away of the fleet,etc.

Thank you.
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
There already is an unmanned small boat put out by Rafael called the Protector. However, I would imagine given what appears to be a fairly small size & displacement for the unmanned patrol boat, it would only be able to operate in relatively benign sea states.

As for what Alexsa was referring to when he mentioned the comms and electronics systems being 'not happy' I believe he meant that due to unmanned vessel pitching/rocking so much from the motion of the water (waves), it could be difficult for the comms and mission systems to stay aligned enough for them to continue operating. Could the vessel maintain a satellite link to a control centre if the satellite uplink transceiver is constantly moving a metre or more during a transmission?

I do like the idea of the LHD's having a few patrol boats like those linked about that can be deployed in the appropriate conditions (assuming the ability does not compromise primary taskings) if the USV displacement is reasonable. However, such a capability would be complimentary or supplementary to other systems and vessels, not in place of them.

-Cheers
 

agc33e

Banned Member
Australia requires a larger submarine to operate in the Pacific and Indian Oceans, which are considerably larger than the seas around Europe. Unfortunately, outside of Japan, nobody else is building large enough submarines suitable for Australia's needs. If Australia built small submarines which fit your billing, Australia's submarines would be curtailed to the seas around Australia: Timor, Arafura, Coral, Tasman, etc. I would think such a limited capability is unacceptable for Australia. Australia requires further reach, or range....

The Collins were designed to fulfill a mission of snorkeling 3500 nautical miles at 10 knots plus patrol submerged for 47 days on station at 4 knots. Smaller submarines couldn't possibly do this....
For example, the spanish s80, from the wiki:
20-30 days submerged at 4 knots, that is 4000-5000 kms, that is on the fuel, plus
+20 days on aip at 4 knots (from the tv interview to navantia engineers in youtube (type: submarino s80 and it is the first in the row of search), so another 4000-5000kms, and a total time submerged of 40-50 days.
With 2400 tonnes submerged.
Other thing is if you use the fleet as the base of the subs, in the fleet we have oilers, tankers, etc.
What is more important? To have a fleet task capable reliable sub, that can do many ranges, and if not it can refuell in the way anywhere..are we going to complicate our live for a bigger sub for just not making and stop and refuel anywhere before or after the special operation? Of course they can try, but maybe instead of costing 300 mill dollar it will cost 600 million dolar.

We will continue!
 

Sea Toby

New Member
For example, the spanish s80, from the wiki:
20-30 days submerged at 4 knots, that is 4000-5000 kms, that is on the fuel, plus
+20 days on aip at 4 knots (from the tv interview to navantia engineers in youtube (type: submarino s80 and it is the first in the row of search), so another 4000-5000kms, and a total time submerged of 40-50 days.
With 2400 tonnes submerged.
Other thing is if you use the fleet as the base of the subs, in the fleet we have oilers, tankers, etc.
What is more important? To have a fleet task capable reliable sub, that can do many ranges, and if not it can refuell in the way anywhere..are we going to complicate our live for a bigger sub for just not making and stop and refuel anywhere before or after the special operation? Of course they can try, but maybe instead of costing 300 mill dollar it will cost 600 million dolar.

We will continue!
We'll use your example. While the S80 may deliver up to 50 days on station submerged at 4 knots, more like 40 days on station really, it does not include any time to travel 3500 nautical miles to station. Or back. Where is that fuel, and where does the crew store their provisions?

Australia is a large country, an island continent. New Zealand is over 1000 nautical miles away from Sydney. Perth is even a longer distance away from Sydney. Australia needs a submarine which can stay awhile on station, not travel to station and return as quickly as possible.
 

hairyman

Active Member
As Japan is the only nation having a similar requirement in submarines to Aus,and we nowadays consider them an ally, we should make an approach to undertake a joint design with them.
 

PeterM

Active Member
As Japan is the only nation having a similar requirement in submarines to Aus,and we nowadays consider them an ally, we should make an approach to undertake a joint design with them.
There is alot of merit and mutual benefit for the idea of working with Japan (and likely the US) on a partnership for a new submarine design. I believe we already have decent defence ties, but a collaborative project on this scale would be a huge step.
 

agc33e

Banned Member
We'll use your example. While the S80 may deliver up to 50 days on station submerged at 4 knots, more like 40 days on station really, it does not include any time to travel 3500 nautical miles to station. Or back. Where is that fuel, and where does the crew store their provisions?

Australia is a large country, an island continent. New Zealand is over 1000 nautical miles away from Sydney. Perth is even a longer distance away from Sydney. Australia needs a submarine which can stay awhile on station, not travel to station and return as quickly as possible.
Yes, i am sorry, i think i have to rectify, again, provisions for 60 days at least, because navegation in surface is 50-60 days, so from australian-allied port it can go 20 days submerged at 4 knots, so 4000 kms, stay stopped and moving (aip half of the batteries=2000 kms) at 4 knots 20 days, and the rest of the fuel (10 days left=2000kms) plus the rest of the aip (half batteries=2000 km), so it is a deployment 4000 kms off australian coast with 20 days of patrol at the site zone,at four knots and taking into account just 60 days of provisions, imagine for 80 days of provision the amount of time stopped like a sentry etc...
India=5000kms from australia, vietnam=3000 kms, taiwan=4000 kms...

We know that the electric perturbation compared to nuclear of diesel gives advantage when using passive sonars, etc, they make less noise-etc.
A bigger submarine always has a bigger footprint of the different elements, imagine a bigger for example that is aip but has a bigger residual elements to waste to the sea, then you also need bigger equipments to stealth those residues and like all the rest..of course i understand the advantages of a bigger submarine, they should be impressive in a sizze type like collins..

Thank you.
 

agc33e

Banned Member
Let me point that in the s80 if they at diesel say 20-30 days submerged at 4 knots, and +20 days with aip at 4 knots, then the + of the aip can make the 30 days with diesel, i hope you know what i mean.

Other type of range is a touch and go: at 4 knots submerged from austraian port-fleet can make the range to 5000kms that are 25 days at 4 knots, so 25 go and 25 come back, plus 10 days stopped wherever, these 10 days can be used to reduce the speed from 4 to 3 knots, and make a pure touch and go visit, extending a bit more the range, say in 30 days you make the 5000 kms plus something, plus tactom for example, i think it was 1600 kms for the ones wanted by the spanish, so almost 7000 kms of reach, enough to begin the race in sidney and finish it in the great wall of china with 8 tactoms for example (apologies)..and come back...that multiplied for 1,8..., that is if they plan 6 collins II of the big size, then maybe they can build 10 s80´s, and also the time when having them, but this is other considerations not about the range, like the money or the number of subs.

Whenever we want a bigger endurance or time spent in the hot zone than an s80 can give, maybe we also want a fleet somewhere or design a little oiler dress up of fisherman ship somewhere in the pacific.

:jump2
 

agc33e

Banned Member
Another interesting considerations about the size of a sub, we know there satellites, from the films, that can detec the heat in the ocean, with the evolution of the sensors in the satellites how big is your sub and all the equipments working, it is your heat footprint, the magnetic footprint, sonar footprint, waste footprint, visible footprint when snorkling, if we want to send our subs very away for a long time without the air cover of the fleet (awd, helos, jets), the hostile might find (satellite, fixed wing aircraft, frigates, subs, spies..) them ....unprotected.

I dont know how the usa detected the last near visit from the russian submarine, do you?

Regards.
 
Last edited:

Lofty_DBF

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
What submarine CO wants to spends day transiting to your patrol area doing 4knots.
Get there as quick and safely as possible and spend maximum time on station.
 

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
Don't most diesels snorkel to station (weather permitting) at about 15 kts? Atleast while in the EEZ?

I think Australia is looking at 6,000-7,000t conventionals. Those sort of boats will have the legs to go anywhere we want. The S80 won't really be an advancement on the collins. With the ability to dismount UUAV's, 6-12 tactoms, torpedos,mines and smart mines, UAV's etc. ~48 SAS for insertion etc.

Given the issues they have had with engines, I think it might be worth while for a Gas turbine in the sail. allowing 30kt cruising to get near station then 15kt snorkelling to get on station then 5kt trawlling. Getting to station a week earlier means more useful sub time, better for the crew, in the sail engine means easier engine replacement, given the GT will be used much of the time the internal diesel engines will have less wear, less maintence.
 

Marc 1

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
Don't most diesels snorkel to station (weather permitting) at about 15 kts? Atleast while in the EEZ?

I think Australia is looking at 6,000-7,000t conventionals. Those sort of boats will have the legs to go anywhere we want. The S80 won't really be an advancement on the collins. With the ability to dismount UUAV's, 6-12 tactoms, torpedos,mines and smart mines, UAV's etc. ~48 SAS for insertion etc.

Given the issues they have had with engines, I think it might be worth while for a Gas turbine in the sail. allowing 30kt cruising to get near station then 15kt snorkelling to get on station then 5kt trawlling. Getting to station a week earlier means more useful sub time, better for the crew, in the sail engine means easier engine replacement, given the GT will be used much of the time the internal diesel engines will have less wear, less maintence.
Interesting idea, but wouldn't the thermal signature and amount of air required for the GT would mean either a massive schnorkel, or surface running? Better off with a larger diesel?
 

LancasterBomber

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
I think I have actually shifted on my views a lot in the last six months. I have looked at a lot of technologies and tried I guess to cross reference them with what makes sense strategically for Australia.

I genuinely do think that travelling wave (nuclear) reactors is the answer. There is just too much upside for a country like Australia with so much uranium and the ability to use the waste product as fuel again.

You can have a look at bill gates speech here:

Bill Gates on energy: Innovating to zero! | Video on TED.com

Or read a fairly light weight run down on it here:

http://www.intellectualventures.com/docs/terrappower/IV_Introducing%20TWR_3_6_09.pdf

It probably wont be the answer for Sea 1000 because of development timeframes. But IMO we should be heading down a transitional path towards travelling wave reactors (TWR) for the rest of this century.

There is some seriously amazing stuff being done in the US on battery technology and I respect that but the density of power relative to TWR just isnt in the ball park. Granted TWRs dont mitigate all of the risks but IMO it becomes a much more politically viable pathway.

What will kill all this is the coal lobby and (ironically) the greens. Sea Toby is right people just hear the word 'nuclear' and think 'Armageddon'.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top