Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[weasel1962]

Re:

The last thing we need is another french asset where we get screwed on through life costs and broken promises on capability.

besides we don't need nukes.

Some people did disagree with that view in 2006.
Submarine fleet 'should go nuclear' - National - theage.com.au

Personally, I think the next gen subs should be constructed in-country on a collins-based platform. Its already taken a huge amount of effort to get to a workable sub. Starting from scratch could be a waste of all that effort.

As mentioned, the Jap soryus are probably the only sub design that can fit the anticipated requirement. So off-the shelf could be a step backwards.

I'd consider building another 6 Collins Mk IIs, then because its a collins based platform, retrofit as much of the new tech into the older collins as possible before working on a Mk III to replace the Mk Is. When doing so, the next replacement only needs to replace 6 at a time instead of having all 12 facing obsolescences towards end-life.

Building it in-country does have economic advantages. It allows foreign participation eg Singapore, Taiwan etc which can reduce cost through economies of scale.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Some people did disagree with that view in 2006.
Submarine fleet 'should go nuclear' - National - theage.com.au

The Age is hardly a reference site for technical expertise. After all at one stage they had carlo Kopp as their aviation love child. Need I go into the number of recent articles they've done on special forces and operational issues in Afghanistan where they've been palpably wrong?

Personally, I think the next gen subs should be constructed in-country on a collins-based platform. Its already taken a huge amount of effort to get to a workable sub. Starting from scratch could be a waste of all that effort.

they will be

As mentioned, the Jap soryus are probably the only sub design that can fit the anticipated requirement. So off-the shelf could be a step backwards.

backwards? the japanese have got capability on these subs that puts a few nukes to shame. they can outdive some of them and were designed to be able to kill them - much like Collins. A Soryu with BYG-1 and CBASS would be a better sub than Collins in absolute warfighting terms. At a digital suite level I'd rather have a Soryu than quite a few of the current nukes in service.

I'd consider building another 6 Collins Mk IIs, then because its a collins based platform, retrofit as much of the new tech into the older collins as possible before working on a Mk III to replace the Mk Is. When doing so, the next replacement only needs to replace 6 at a time instead of having all 12 facing obsolescences towards end-life.

the class won't be built at once, they would be staged and that means that No1 would be different from No12. The same as No1 Collins class is not the same as No6.

we aready trial new systems on first of class (or whatever comes next) so nothing will change in that respect. If we do it now, we will certainly be doing it before No1 hits the water in 2020-2025

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Gent's a question may I Ask ? Is this cost calculation can be justified ? I Mean if not mistaken the initial plan for this subs will costs Australian Tax Payers $2 bio each, now it's going to be $ 3 bio each ?

No it’s just made up. In the past 10 years the CDG/DMO has been pretty good on scoping big budget projects. The cost of the AWD was pretty spot on from the idea “lets have thee Aegis destroyers” to signing contract. Our cost predictions for F-35 have been proven to be much better than the Americans (though this probably has a lot to do with different selling to government cases).

Also a significant issue when you spend this kind of money is where you spend it. If you build in Australia cost may be inflated but a high proportion of the funds stay in country. When you import all that hard currency is going overseas into another country’s tax and employment base.

Personally, I think the next gen subs should be constructed in-country on a collins-based platform. Its already taken a huge amount of effort to get to a workable sub. Starting from scratch could be a waste of all that effort.

There comes a point where you need to start with a clean sheet to avoid the problems of the past generation and incorporate new technology. Otherwise we would all still be driving Ford Model Ts but with air bags. I think a repeat class of Collins would be much harder than a new design.

As mentioned, the Jap soryus are probably the only sub design that can fit the anticipated requirement. So off-the shelf could be a step backwards.

Well I’ve had my solution out there in print for two years now: a conventional, short full version of the USN’s Virginia. Which by coincidence or convergent evolution aligns very closely with Professor Joubert’s ideal hydrodynamics study.

A lot of commentators seem to think the US doesn’t know how to build diesel electric submarines. Apart from only the Germans and Soviets having built more of this type a nuclear submarine is also a diesel electric submarine. The Virginia has a diesel generator onboard as big as the primary engines of most SSKs. With their move to replace direct shafting in nuclear submarines they have all the ingredients needed to make the world’s best long range conventional submarine.

Building it in-country does have economic advantages. It allows foreign participation eg Singapore, Taiwan etc which can reduce cost through economies of scale.

Involving those countries would be a disaster politically and I don’t mean with China but with the USA. Not to mention they would want a totally different submarine, 1/3 to ½ the size. If we want to build the SEA 1000 with a US combat system, and we’d be crazy to do otherwise, we need to talk with the US, Japan and that’s about it.

 

[Todjaeger]

Involving those countries would be a disaster politically and I don’t mean with China but with the USA. Not to mention they would want a totally different submarine, 1/3 to ½ the size. If we want to build the SEA 1000 with a US combat system, and we’d be crazy to do otherwise, we need to talk with the US, Japan and that’s about it.

Canada might be another possibility, assuming they decide to keep a sub capability and replace the Upholder/Victoria-class which are currently "in service". Given the potential areas of operation, as well as the need to be able to engage nuke boats on equal terms the platform requirements would likely be similar.

Whether Canada would actually want to/be able to fund a submarine purchase from an Australian yard it another question entirely... But it could perhaps allow some economy of scale.

-Cheers

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Canada might be another possibility, assuming they decide to keep a sub capability and replace the Upholder/Victoria-class which are currently "in service". Given the potential areas of operation, as well as the need to be able to engage nuke boats on equal terms the platform requirements would likely be similar.

The international history of joint projects doesn't really indicate you save much money. Whatever savings via shared development and scale tends to be consumed by managing the jointness.

One of the advantages for Australia to build a conventional version of the Virginia is we can leverage US investment and supply chain into the non propulsion side of the Virginia. This is our best change for savings via wider scope.

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

The Age is hardly a reference site for technical expertise. After all at one stage they had carlo Kopp as their aviation love child. Need I go into the number of recent articles they've done on special forces and operational issues in Afghanistan where they've been palpably wrong?

Its not the Age but Radm Peter Briggs who made the submission.

http://rusi.org.au/bios/bio_Briggs_RADMPeter.pdf

Funny, I don't see him as a Peter Goon equivalent when he suggested considering nuke subs. Its an interesting submission. Having said that, I think when the Howard govt decided not to proceed with nuclear energy, the same arguments pretty much put paid to any nuclear propelled subs.

I think its not a nutter where suggestions go. If the US were really to offer their Virginias, I'd be surprised if anyone in the RAN would find it a dumb idea.

backwards? the japanese have got capability on these subs that puts a few nukes to shame. they can outdive some of them and were designed to be able to kill them - much like Collins. A Soryu with BYG-1 and CBASS would be a better sub than Collins in absolute warfighting terms. At a digital suite level I'd rather have a Soryu than quite a few of the current nukes in service.

It may be so, but the Japs aren't allowed to export their tech. So that's a no-go. Can't see any other off-the shelf package matching up to the Collins.

In any case, from what I'm reading, domestic construction is probably a given then.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I think its not a nutter where suggestions go. If the US were really to offer their Virginias, I'd be surprised if anyone in the RAN would find it a dumb idea.

I doubt that. The cost of operating nuclear submarines would be much higher than conventional ones. They require a lot more crew to safely operate the reactor who require specialised training. An entire new supporting infrastructure – and that is without any production or refuelling capability - would be needed. So you would have a submarine that costs two to three times as much to acquire and two to three times as much to operate.

But in an all other things being equal even based nuclear vs diesel electric Virginia gives us what extra capability? It would cut transit time in half and enable surface fleet escort and hold at risk stalking of other nuclear submarines. As to countering the hold down threat the kind of battery you could fit into a conventional Virginia (it’s just a benchmark) significantly reduces this as well compared to the rest of the world’s diesel electrics.

Now our submarines don’t have an escort or a hold at risk mission. So all we have is reduced transit time. Which would probably save a month in a year of high tempo ops making them 8% more efficient. But since you can only buy half as many in the first place you still have a net loss. For the RAN a nuclear reactor in our boats would mean a reduction in on patrol capability of 45% on equal funding.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

It may be so, but the Japs aren't allowed to export their tech. So that's a no-go. Can't see any other off-the shelf package matching up to the Collins.

You’re out of date. The Japanese can export weapons to America and Australia.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Its not the Age but Radm Peter Briggs who made the submission.

http://rusi.org.au/bios/bio_Briggs_RADMPeter.pdf

Funny, I don't see him as a Peter Goon equivalent when he suggested considering nuke subs. Its an interesting submission. Having said that, I think when the Howard govt decided not to proceed with nuclear energy, the same arguments pretty much put paid to any nuclear propelled subs.

I attended the last SIA on australias future subs, the RADM who ran that (and is ultimately responsible for determining what capability we need) made it pretty clear to all and sundry why nukes aren't suitable.

Like any service there are supporters and detractors of nukes, conventionals, french, swedish, german, american, UK, spanish solutions, there are also senior sirs who don't want subs.

at some point its pretty imprtant to look at all the drivers of what capability we need, and a RADM with one view who is no longer in uniform doesn't carry as much clout as those at rank and in service.

esp when the public arguments presenrted in support are devoid of the critical info which would pollute their argument.

 

[gf0012-aust]

It may be so, but the Japs aren't allowed to export their tech. So that's a no-go. Can't see any other off-the shelf package matching up to the Collins.

In any case, from what I'm reading, domestic construction is probably a given then.

The DIET passed a change in their exprt provisions on military technology earlier this year.

In addition, Japan has been involved with hypersonic weapons development in australia for the last few years - if anyone thinks that we're playing with hypersonics to launch micro satellites into space to relay 3G, 4G and/or GSM signals, then they've been ignoring all the developments in the weapons space. ie the japanese have been playing with us for years - and they are keen to fuither it, hence the constitutional shift/

 

[aussienscale]

Its great to see the strength in the debate regarding sub' for Australia, numbers, size, propulsion, off the shelf, Australian buitl etc etc etc.
But the question still remains, if the magic 12 is the end result, how are we going to man the subs, and from where ?
Anyone with any insights please enlighten us ! because unless we can get the manpower to get the dolphins swiming it will be a huge waste of time, money and resources.
Not really interested in the usual tripe of "we have plans in place to boost recruitment" etc, because the same crap statement has been made time after time after !! well you get my point.
You can point at statistics to say we are on the up for numbers, but we all know that it ebs and flows. But realistically the last 30 years has been a real struggle.
What can we do differently to change this, becuase until this factor changes, regardless of the need for them, I would strongly oppose them

 

[Abraham Gubler]

how are we going to man the subs, and from where ?

www.defence.gov.au/.../SubmarineWorkforceSustainability.pdf

 

[aussienscale]

http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/n...v.au/.../SubmarineWorkforceSustainability.pdf

Link not working Is this what you were talking about ?

http://www.defence.gov.au/publications/SubmarineWorkforceSustainability.pdf

 

[swerve]

The DIET passed a change in their exprt provisions on military technology earlier this year.

In addition, Japan has been involved with hypersonic weapons development in australia for the last few years - if anyone thinks that we're playing with hypersonics to launch micro satellites into space to relay 3G, 4G and/or GSM signals, then they've been ignoring all the developments in the weapons space. ie the japanese have been playing with us for years - and they are keen to fuither it, hence the constitutional shift/

It's not a constitutional shift. It's not even a legislative shift. It's a policy shift.

Japan has laws regulating the export of weapons & defence-related technology. In theory, anything is allowed, but it requires a permit. There are policies regarding the granting of permits - and the main policy is that in almost all cases, permits will not be granted. In practice, it's not worth any Japanese firm applying for one. If export is allowed, they'll be told without asking.

Approval of the Diet for arms export policy changes is a political necessity, because the government is fragile & the policy change is controversial. It's not a constitutional or legal necessity.

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

You’re out of date. The Japanese can export weapons to America and Australia.

Someone may need to update the Japanese vice-defence minister then cos he's not aware either.

Japan Should Ease Weapons Export Ban, Defense Official Nagashima Says - Bloomberg

My understanding is that joint development of arms have been eased eg missile defence. Not weapons export (which includes subs).

Its not exactly a straightforward issue.
Japan should maintain weapons export ban - The Mainichi Daily News

The policy which still stands...
MOFA: Japan's Policies on the Control of Arms Exports

 

[swerve]

My understanding is that joint development of arms have been eased eg missile defence. Not weapons export (which includes subs).

This was done a long time ago, but very narrowly. Joint developments need export permits, as technology will necessarily be transferred, & components will have to be transported abroad. The policy was first changed (in 1983, as the MOFA statement describes) to allow exemptions to the usual 'no permits' rule to be made for joint developments with the USA, & such exemptions have since been granted for specific projects, e.g. the F-2 & ballistic missile defence. The policy was further relaxed, in theory, to allow joint projects with selected non-US nations, but that theoretical policy has not gone into effect. It seems that it may have been bypassed in some cases, by putting technology developments under civilian headings, but nothing explicitly military has been allowed, except with the USA.

No change has been made in the general arms export policy. No weapons or military equipment may be exported, or licenced for manufacture abroad, or made in Japanese-owned factories abroad. No military technology may be transferred abroad, except under specific approved joint developments with the USA.

It's bloody complicated. As it's just a policy, in theory all that's needed is an executive decision to change the rules for granting permits, & tell officials to apply the new rules, but in practice, approval by the Diet would be needed.

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

I doubt that. The cost of operating nuclear submarines would be much higher than conventional ones. They require a lot more crew to safely operate the reactor who require specialised training. An entire new supporting infrastructure – and that is without any production or refuelling capability - would be needed. So you would have a submarine that costs two to three times as much to acquire and two to three times as much to operate.

Not necessarily. The barracudas are expected to have a crew of 60 (the earlier rubis = 68). The collins had to increase crew to 58. Not exactly a lot more crew.

Nuke boats cost a lot more upfront due to reactor cost. However, that's made up with fuel cost savings thereafter. So it really depends on usage.

As mentioned in the SSBN thread, newer subs do not require expensive refuel cycles cos the reactors now last as long as the sub. I agree maintenance tech is still an issue. But if one can get a nuke sub, one will ensure it can be maintained.

But in an all other things being equal even based nuclear vs diesel electric Virginia gives us what extra capability? It would cut transit time in half and enable surface fleet escort and hold at risk stalking of other nuclear submarines. As to countering the hold down threat the kind of battery you could fit into a conventional Virginia (it’s just a benchmark) significantly reduces this as well compared to the rest of the world’s diesel electrics.

The biggest value added capability of nuke subs is endurance. Specifically, underwater endurance which is extremely important vis a vis an aggressor that has strong maritime patrol capability. AIP has closed the gap somewhat but that's again is a trade off between speed and endurance. One can probably do a couple of weeks at 2-3 knots. But as speed goes up, endurance drops eg 15 knots can possibly suck up the battery within a day. That's definitely not an issue for nuke propelled subs.

That's why conventionals are still for the littorals. If Australia wants to project submarine power beyond the littorals, you can do it with conventionals but its way more effective with nuke-propelled. Same reason why the US, UK and France goes with all nukes.

Now our submarines don’t have an escort or a hold at risk mission. So all we have is reduced transit time. Which would probably save a month in a year of high tempo ops making them 8% more efficient. But since you can only buy half as many in the first place you still have a net loss. For the RAN a nuclear reactor in our boats would mean a reduction in on patrol capability of 45% on equal funding.

Again it depends. If because of endurance, a sub can spend more than double the time at sea, one could effectively make up the operational time on patrol difference.

Having said that, like the RAN CV argument, its a moot point. The next gen subs won't be nuclear-propelled.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Not necessarily. The barracudas are expected to have a crew of 60 (the earlier rubis = 68). The collins had to increase crew to 58. Not exactly a lot more crew.

That’s not an even benchmark and the Collins does not have a crew of 58 it has 58 people assigned to it but they all don’t go to sea when it sails. Fact is a nuclear reactor is a lot more labour and quals intensive to operate than a diesel. Also the reactor has to be crewed 24-7-52 even when not operating.

Nuke boats cost a lot more upfront due to reactor cost. However, that's made up with fuel cost savings thereafter. So it really depends on usage.

That’s not true in the slightest. Some rather elastic and pessimistic reports have been written in the US to justify building a CGX as a nuke because of rising fuel costs but it bears little to the fuel consumption of a SSG/SSN and the cost rises are inflated.

As mentioned in the SSBN thread, newer subs do not require expensive refuel cycles cos the reactors now last as long as the sub. I agree maintenance tech is still an issue. But if one can get a nuke sub, one will ensure it can be maintained.

If we had to refuel the cores I would have added another times two to the increase in cost. I was benchmarking on the Virginia which doesn’t need refuelling. But there is a significant increase in cost of maintenance core fuelling or not. This doesn’t pay for itself by good intentions.

Diesel subs have endurance too… But you are referring to hold down risk which I addressed. AIP is merely a hold down response. The stay at sea argument is really only for SSBNs which have the food and accommodation standard to do so.

There are many real strong reasons for the RAN staying clear of nuclear power for submarines other than political romanticism.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Link not working Is this what you were talking about ?

Nothing to do with me its the forum stuffing up the hyperlink.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Someone may need to update the Japanese vice-defence minister then cos he's not aware either.

Japan Should Ease Weapons Export Ban, Defense Official Nagashima Says - Bloomberg

Like I said "Australia and America" your link has nothing to do with that. When the Japanese MINDEF was in this country recently he was talking up their capacity to supply Australia. Of course there are layers of complexity but certainly SEA 1000 is something that Japanese industry could be invovled in.