Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[StingrayOZ]

The GT would be in the sail so yeh, basically surface running, at 30kts. Sail could be a lot taller than normal so most of the sub is submerged. If we can get enough diesel engines into the sub to cruise at 30kt snorkling then obviously that would be a very good thing, hopefully they can do that in a 7,000t sub. With advanced turbo diesels with direct injection it may be possible to get that kind of power density. The key component is 30kt sustained cruise. While very visible when doing this, it will be worth it for the longer on station time, greater operational range etc.

In the nuclear box there are some really viable options we could use. Even if its just a nuke/diesel combined boat. But I think its highly unlikely.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I think Australia is looking at 6,000-7,000t conventionals.

No, we're not

 

[StingrayOZ]

So approximately collins size then as I can't imagine OZ with anything larger.

Curious. I wonder where the leap in capability will come from? I had assumed the best way to increase capability with minimal risk was in size. If this is incorrect then I would assume through improved technologies. Diesels are limited by lots of hard limits that improvements and developments will only be small incrimental advancements. Batteries have only had marginal improvements in the last 100 years. Diesels have also only had marginal improvements. Fuel cells, super capacitors, nukes, gas turbines, etc all seem to have not make the grade.

But I don't know where the increase will come from. GF, you have ruled out many promising techologies that would seem to be likely possibilities. Im stumped, I hope thats a good thing. I look forward to see how it all unfolds.

 

[FluffyThoughts]

I thought you Aussies were looking at a ~4000-tonne vessel. Could you not purchase (for a peppercorn-rent) the Swiftsure/Trafalgar designs and modify them for your conventional needs?

 

[gf0012-aust]

So approximately collins size then as I can't imagine OZ with anything larger.

A size range has been flagged, nothing is confirmed, but the discussions are not about 7000+ tonners

Curious. I wonder where the leap in capability will come from?

you don't need a 7000 tonne sub to do the missions envisaged

I had assumed the best way to increase capability with minimal risk was in size. If this is incorrect then I would assume through improved technologies.

last statement is correct

Diesels are limited by lots of hard limits that improvements and developments will only be small incrimental advancements. Batteries have only had marginal improvements in the last 100 years.

not true. diesel tech in isolation has limits. batteries are making demonstrable improvements along with associated sympathetic tech.

Diesels have also only had marginal improvements. Fuel cells, super capacitors, nukes, gas turbines, etc all seem to have not make the grade.

who has said any of that?

But I don't know where the increase will come from. GF, you have ruled out many promising techologies that would seem to be likely possibilities. Im stumped, I hope thats a good thing. I look forward to see how it all unfolds.

I haven't ruled out anything except nuke power. I certainly have not passed any comment on a whole raft of tech that I've seen thats available for subs now and by 2025.

On top of which, actual decision points have not been set or made - so in theory all is on the table. Idealogically you can count this govt out on nukes - and I seriously doubt that the current opposition wants to ride that horse in public either.

all of the other techs are on the table.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I thought you Aussies were looking at a ~4000-tonne vessel. Could you not purchase (for a peppercorn-rent) the Swiftsure/Trafalgar designs and modify them for your conventional needs?

Not even remotely interested in getting those designs - let alone reconfiguring.

The USN, NAVSEA had to fix the Astutes, so we would be looking at the US as a priority because they have gear and systems which are more likely to be included in a spec for the future capability.

.

 

[FluffyThoughts]

Not even remotely interested in getting those designs - let alone reconfiguring.

The USN, NAVSEA had to fix the Astutes, so we would be looking at the US as a priority because they have gear and systems which are more likely to be included in a spec for the future capability.

.

Fair dinkum,

I thoughts BAe Barrow's problems were managerial - which way to put the pieces up - not design-based. I understand that the Swedish design did not prove ideal for your navy but I thought the S/T boats were considered a good-design.

Considering BAe's interests in Aus/UK/US I'd assumed that the vessels would offer an affordable solution, I can't see Australia getting twelve boats starting from scratch; just look at the problems we had with the Astutes.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I thoughts BAe Barrow's problems were managerial - which way to put the pieces up - not design-based.

BAe have historically had a few managerial issues - and having worked with them many moons ago I'd have to say that I don;t have fond memories of the way that they treated their poor staff. They were 10-15 years behind the americans as far as HR issues are concerned...

I understand that the Swedish design did not prove ideal for your navy but I thought the S/T boats were considered a good-design.

there's some blame on both sides for Collins (actually 3 ways) - but a high proportion of engineering ineptitude stems from the fact that rescaling designs is just plain dumb. It does not extrapolate out literally and thats what was done at a few levels. The swedes made recommendations for equipment which were rejected time and time again (COTS concerns) - and which are coming home to roost now.

Considering BAe's interests in Aus/UK/US I'd assumed that the vessels would offer an affordable solution, I can't see Australia getting twelve boats starting from scratch; just look at the problems we had with the Astutes.

I think 12 boats is a pipe dream. be prepared to see that number chopped in pretty short order.

 

[Lofty_DBF]

Ssgt

A article i found on submarine GT propulsion.


BMT Group Ltd - News - New High Mobility Submarine Designed By BMT

 

[gf0012-aust]

A article i found on submarine GT propulsion.


BMT Group Ltd - News - New High Mobility Submarine Designed By BMT

They had a rather busy stand going at PACNAV 2010... They even had submarine design classes advertised.

 

[Aussie Digger]

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.

So what you are saying is essentially this: "the bigger the sub the more detectable it is."

Is this correct?

 

[LancasterBomber]

So what you are saying is essentially this: "the bigger the sub the more detectable it is."

Is this correct?

Its correct if we are on the set of 'Mission Impossible IV'.

You can track subs via Satellites in real time streaming to your Apple Ipad....even diving off the continental shelf. Give me another 12 seconds to hack into the onboard comms as well.

In cinemas soon!

 

[LancasterBomber]

On top of which, actual decision points have not been set or made - so in theory all is on the table.

Thanks for the update GF! Much appreciated to hear your input. :dance3

 

[swerve]

The swedes made recommendations for equipment which were rejected time and time again (COTS concerns) - and which are coming home to roost now.

Can you clarify that, please? Well, as far as you can. It sounds interesting.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Can you clarify that, please? Well, as far as you can. It sounds interesting.

probably the easiest one to talk about which is in the public domain has been the use of powerplant. there was a very very very strong preference to go with the german generators and gensets as they were a known reliable and proven capability.

the swedish company however thought that they had competitive a product as what the spanish had done with Guascor (ie use a commercial solution in a military environment - unfort the difference is that Guascor (as an example) had a huge credible footprint with runs on the board - the swedish solution did not. those engines have been the bane of our life - and esp when the company has responsibility for maintaining their own product and yet can't put things back together in the right order. Its a good savage lesson on why we shouldn't outsource everything and why we shoild maintain within the service for some requirements.

and I've probably said too much as it is...

 

[Marc 1]

probably the easiest one to talk about which is in the public domain has been the use of powerplant. there was a very very very strong preference to go with the german generators and gensets as they were a known reliable and proven capability.

the swedish company however thought that they had competitive a product as what the spanish had done with Guascor (ie use a commercial solution in a military environment - unfort the difference is that Guascor (as an example) had a huge credible footprint with runs on the board - the swedish solution did not. those engines have been the bane of our life - and esp when the company has responsibility for maintaining their own product and yet can't put things back together in the right order. Its a good savage lesson on why we shouldn't outsource everything and why we shoild maintain within the service for some requirements.

and I've probably said too much as it is...

We seem to have recurring problems in this area don't we? The Tobruk I was lead to believe years ago had regular engine problems because instead of a proper maritime propulsion diesel, we allowed diesels that were normally speced to be run at constant rpm as gen sets. Don't know how much of that is true...

 

[Alonso Quijano]

Chacon and Australian Foreign Minister discusses industrial cooperation with Navantia

17/02/2010 (Infodefensa.com) Madrid - The defense minister, Carme Chacon, analyzed together with the Australian Foreign Minister Stephen Smith, co-operation regarding defense industry between the two countries and, specifically, the construction of three frigates and two strategic projection ship commissioned by the Australian Government to the company Navantia.

Smith, who is a first official visit to Spain, also addressed industry issues with his counterpart Miguel Angel Moratinos stressing collaboration between the Australian Defense Force as both Navantia with Airbus Military (ex EADS CASA).

In November 2007, the Australian Government Navantia hired to build two amphibious ships, based on the design of the LHD Juan Carlos I of the Spanish Armada. Navantia is responsible for the design and construction, as well as equipment and engine integrated control system platform. The Spanish shipyard is working on this project with BAE Systems Australia Defense in a sharing of 80-20%, respectively. The LHD are multi-purpose vessels for both military missions and civilian.

As for the three frigates, are based on the F-100 series tailored to the needs of the Australian Navy. Navantia participates in this project by providing design and technology transfer. The construction of these vessels will, however, entirely in the ASC shipyard in Australia.

It is recalled that in April last year, the Spanish shipyard was submitted to tender for construction of 12 submarines convened by the Australian Navy. The final decision is scheduled for November 2011, which would fit with the work load of the Spanish public company as it coincides with the completion of S-80 submersible that makes for the Spanish Armada. The S80 features a combat system and sonar equipment developed jointly between Navantia and Lockheed Martin.

Bilateral Summit

In another vein, Chacon and Smith have discussed other issues of common interest to both countries, including the fight against piracy in the Indian Ocean, the situation in Afghanistan and industrial cooperation.

Regarding combating piracy off the Somali coast, both have agreed on the need to complement the efforts of different actors deployed in the area (European Union, NATO and third countries).

On Afghanistan, Carme Chacon and Stephen Smith have highlighted the new strategic model and the desirability of further progress in the process of Afghanization through economic development, reconstruction and strengthening of governmental institutions.

Navantia in Australia

Navantia attended the biennial conference Royal Australian Navy's Sea Power, held in Sydney between 27 and 29 January. According collects DefenceNews, Gonzalo Mateo Guerrero, the Spanish shipyard office in Australia has highlighted the System Air Independent Propulsion (AIP) of S80, emphasizing the use of ethanol and liquid oxygen for propulsion. Mateo Guerrero said that ethanol is cheap, plentiful and as common as gasoline and diesel for cars. It is also a safe to store more fuel than other substances used for the AIP.

Australia is in the process of expansion assessments on a fleet of 12 new submarines, 8 new frigates and 20 rig support vessels.

8 frigates more???:eek2

did not know that Australia plans to acquire more 8 frigates, someone knows something about this?

 

[Todjaeger]

8 frigates more???:eek2

did not know that Australia plans to acquire more 8 frigates, someone knows something about this?

Yes, it is actually quite well known. The RAN is (or at least should be) drawing up mission requirements for the follow-on to the Anzac frigate, which is likely to start being replaced in the ~2020 time frame. Based off the recent White Paper and some other comments made in various places, the replacement frigate is going to be quite large (as frigates go), and possibly sharing a common hull with the Hobart-class AWD, and likely using the Auspar radar system.

There is a similar story with the 20 other planned vessels for the RAN, they have been referred to as OCVs earlier in this thread.

-Cheers

 

[agc33e]

I have to say two theaters:
-a bigger sub facing a smaller sub, or our subs attacking an hostile perimeter, all is influenced by the quality of the aip, with a noisy aip like the greek u boats problems have or had, or not working well (it can happen to anyone), or how much electricity you require, how much air conditioned etc will tell the hostile sonar that you are there 4 o 5 seconds before you know it, if your sub is bigger probably you will make more noise even stopped.

-let add that we can use active sonars in the amphiobious drones, making a perimeter able to catch at any diving depth of the hostile, an active sonar perimeter, and active sonar able to move and discover the hostile subs perimeter, one of these tries to eliminates the drone, but this is protected by a couple of subs, here is where start winning fleet battles.

-looking sizes of ships: of 5 tonnes, with 500 litres of fuel, 2 engines of 190 hp, for a range of 400-600 kms, so we can imagine a drone of 3 tonnes the electronic and hull, 1500 litres of fuel would give an enoumous autonomy, an enormous flexibility to move, stay, attack, wait until better sea state and come back to the ship.., if we pay many millions for the work a sub can give, would we pay a galicia class ship full of drones which almost cost the same and gives you the same info that gives a sub but multiplied by 15 drones and some helos?

ope

 

[agc33e]

I am a bit surprised, probably there is a misunderstood, but when i pasted info about the nh90 helos wanted by spain, it says like one torpedo but i suppose that for the tactical transport version, not for the nfh90 the frigate type ... now i past this of the helo sh3 sikorski sea king because i dont know exactly what is the present day version:


It was designed for shipboard operations, as the five main rotor blades as well as tail section with its five blades can be folded for easy stowage. Because of its amphibious hull, the Sea King has the ability to land on water. However, this is a risky maneuver and used only in emergencies, as the hull can only remain watertight for a limited period of time.[citation needed] The sponsons were fitted with deployable airbags to enhance floatation.

Armaments and equipment of Sea Kings vary widely with their role. Typical armaments can be four torpedoes, four depth charges or two anti-ship missiles (Sea Eagle or Exocet). A large Chaff Pod was sometimes carried for anti-ship missile defense of the Carrier Battle Group. ASW equipment included AQS-13B/E dipping sonar with a 500 foot cable, 5000 watts of power and a Sonar Data Computer for processing sonar and sonobuoy data, 21 sonobuoys (various models), ARR-75 Sonobuoy Receivers, ASQ-81 Magnetic Anomaly Detector (MAD Bird) and AKT-22 Data link to transmit sonar and sonobuoy data to the rest of the Fleet. In the Search and Rescue role the cabin can accommodate 22 survivors or nine stretchers and two medical officers. In the troop transport role 28 soldiers can be accommodated.



It says four torpedos, i suppose the naval variant of the nh90, the nfh90 will have more than one torpedo, but i cant find info.

Regards.