To fit VLS the new sub would need a substantial amount of free flood space or a large (SLBM size) tube holding several missiles. A better option may to pack the missiles (and most of the torpedos) in external launchers designed into the casing. Conventional tubes and weapons storage arrangements would still be retained but likely designed to handle, launch and recover a variety of payloads of significantly larger diameter.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
The future sub concepts are looking at dismounts.
the only way you could stick slbms into a hull the size of Collins is via PLS.
in short, woftam.
I do like the arrangement of the Block II Virginias but agree space will be an issue on a new design SSG.
Not going to happen but an SSG designed along the lines of EBs Tango Bravo concept would be interesting. Dismounted launch tubes, non penetrating masts and that sweet stern located lockout chamber.
the specwarries will be happy as well...
the virginias have some very very nice design elements in them, but I suspect that the NIH syndrome will kick in....
How difficult would it be to have a removable insert behind the sail. Dry-dock for SF/DSRV/SDV interchangeable with pre-loaded vertical launch TLAM missiles? The stations required to fire the TLAM would be fitted as standard, once the TLAM module is inserted it would simply be hard-wired into the existing subs fire control system. Depending on the mission the sub would be configured accordingly - SF or deep strike. Keep the bow layout as standard fitted for harpoon II/conventional torpedo's. By taking this approach you keep the sub displacement down, but retain the flexibility to transport a respectable number of SF plus gear in dry-dock.
too hard to do. you'd have to basically open up the sub and cut into the stainless steel combat room. thats a huge plug - close to 1/3rd of the sub and would mean a major rebuild and rebalance.
it would also impact on the acoustic/sig map..
not worth doing. better off going to a new sub purpose built.
Meant complete new design, next generation. Basically adapting the modular approach now favoured for surface combatants.
the virginias are the benchmark for modular design.
they are real plug and play with only minor fitout involved after bolting together. skimmers have been plugging and playing longer, but the americans literally threw away the drawing boards for the virginias because they were being component built east coast - west coast current skimmer plug and play still requires fitout. whereas the virginias have wet pipes and electricals all in place.
they are seriously a work of art and make the skimmer shipbuilding techniques (even the cruiseliners which are way way ahead of naval ship builders for engineering advances and efficiency)
the virginias are also the benchmark on how to model modular change in a sub hull as it literally means that they could design plugs and change mission intent during the build.
EB are quite proud of the Virginias but acknowledge that there is still improvements that can be made in terms of modularity. Interesting what you were saying about pipes and electrical, I was under the impression that that is how it is done these days. Maybe I have just been spoilt.
The Virginias have a higher level of completion with their plug and play. the germans and norwegians do some tricky modular builds with cruiseliners, but they're almost regarded as rolls royce builds in comparison to (eg) Incat and skimmers.
when you consider that the virginias were the first complete digital build, they did pretty well on first try. the americans never had an alignment problem, and were able to identify plug issues early. every other modular build I know of has required some panel beating...
EB know how to use CATIA and experienced none of the pipe modelling issues some others have had. Their processes are exceptional, they actually build their hull sections vertically, lowering the decks and equipment in using overhead cranes. Quicker, easier, safer and has the added advantage of avoiding a cumulative magnetic set on the hull sections from the earths magnetic field.The Virginias have a higher level of completion with their plug and play. the germans and norwegians do some tricky modular builds with cruiseliners, but they're almost regarded as rolls royce builds in comparison to (eg) Incat and skimmers.
when you consider that the virginias were the first complete digital build, they did pretty well on first try. the americans never had an alignment problem, and were able to identify plug issues early. every other modular build I know of has required some panel beating...
peterAustralia
Member
A quick 2 points
I read this in the age today
Fatal accident fears over neglected navy fleet
jist of it is that both Kanimbla and Manoora are unlikely to sail again. I recall at the time they were bought, there was some discussion that it would have been possible to buy a new build ship from Singapore for the same price. It seemed the Navy wanted something to be operable in short term, and perhaps it turned out to be a false economy?
In a totally differnent topic. I was reading a magazine in the library on the weeked, it could have been APDR or it could have been armed forces journal. There was an article about the replacement for Collins class submarines.
One point made in the article, was that it was perhaps more cost effective to buy an 'off the shelf' submarnine design, such as the type 214. One of these with air independent propulsion sailed from the Baltic to the Mediternaean (Greece?) submerged and without using its desiel engines.
Just an idea, and please dont laugh, but if you wanted a longer range type 214 sub, would it be possible for the submarnine to tow a 200 tonne mini sub that was 90 percent fuel. Fuel could then be pumped from the towed vessel to the main sub. The mini sub would be unmanned and have some small trim tanks.
Submarnines in WW2 used fuel tanks that were outside the pressure hull, so getting fuel from tanks outside the pressure hull should be reasonably easy to do.
Perhpas the unmanned mini sub could have some small engines. It could be programmed so that after it is dropped off from the main sub, first it spends 2 weeks going nowhere, and then it slowly makes it's way back to the Aust coast to be picked up and be used again. It cant be that high tech. Columbian drug runners are using unmanned semi submersibles.
Idea would be like a drop tank on aircraft, use the fuel from the external vessel first, and then discard it. After separating, the submarnine would be clean, and topped up with fuel. Perhaps it could also have a supply of oxidizer for an AIP. The plus of this idea is that it would potentially save billions of dollars by going with a state of the art existing submarnine, without the design risk of developing a unique design.
It is just a thinking out loud idea, please be gentle with your 'constructive criticism'
In the article, it was mentioned that not one Collins class submarine has ever undertaken a voyage close to its full endurance. So the question needs to be asked, is really really long endurance, that essential. Perhaps the idea is to go up to China or India? If there going up to China, cant they refuel at Guam. or does that let everyone know where they are? Submarnine to submarnine refuelling perhaps, dock wiht an unmanned 'milch cow' and refuel under water.
No I have not been smoking 'substances of interest'
I read this in the age today
Fatal accident fears over neglected navy fleet
jist of it is that both Kanimbla and Manoora are unlikely to sail again. I recall at the time they were bought, there was some discussion that it would have been possible to buy a new build ship from Singapore for the same price. It seemed the Navy wanted something to be operable in short term, and perhaps it turned out to be a false economy?
In a totally differnent topic. I was reading a magazine in the library on the weeked, it could have been APDR or it could have been armed forces journal. There was an article about the replacement for Collins class submarines.
One point made in the article, was that it was perhaps more cost effective to buy an 'off the shelf' submarnine design, such as the type 214. One of these with air independent propulsion sailed from the Baltic to the Mediternaean (Greece?) submerged and without using its desiel engines.
Just an idea, and please dont laugh, but if you wanted a longer range type 214 sub, would it be possible for the submarnine to tow a 200 tonne mini sub that was 90 percent fuel. Fuel could then be pumped from the towed vessel to the main sub. The mini sub would be unmanned and have some small trim tanks.
Submarnines in WW2 used fuel tanks that were outside the pressure hull, so getting fuel from tanks outside the pressure hull should be reasonably easy to do.
Perhpas the unmanned mini sub could have some small engines. It could be programmed so that after it is dropped off from the main sub, first it spends 2 weeks going nowhere, and then it slowly makes it's way back to the Aust coast to be picked up and be used again. It cant be that high tech. Columbian drug runners are using unmanned semi submersibles.
Idea would be like a drop tank on aircraft, use the fuel from the external vessel first, and then discard it. After separating, the submarnine would be clean, and topped up with fuel. Perhaps it could also have a supply of oxidizer for an AIP. The plus of this idea is that it would potentially save billions of dollars by going with a state of the art existing submarnine, without the design risk of developing a unique design.
It is just a thinking out loud idea, please be gentle with your 'constructive criticism'
In the article, it was mentioned that not one Collins class submarine has ever undertaken a voyage close to its full endurance. So the question needs to be asked, is really really long endurance, that essential. Perhaps the idea is to go up to China or India? If there going up to China, cant they refuel at Guam. or does that let everyone know where they are? Submarnine to submarnine refuelling perhaps, dock wiht an unmanned 'milch cow' and refuel under water.
No I have not been smoking 'substances of interest'
I am a retired Coastie without much knowledge of submarine operations, but what little I have says its impossible to refuel submarines at deep depths under the sea, and fuel cells/AIP operations are at very slow speeds and with very short ranges, so low a big diesel submarine such as Collins probably have the same or more battery life.... Something, by the way, you failed to mention...
Outside of Japanese submarines, there aren't any diesel submarines in the world large enough with the range and endurance Australia requires... Furthermore, Japan doesn't export its military gear... Either Australia develops its large diesel submarines or buys US, UK, or French nuclear submarines, its really that simple...
The Pacific and Indian Oceans are much, much larger than the Baltic, North, and Mediterranean Seas... The German or Swedish submarines may be suitable for the Tasman and/or Coral Seas, but not for the Pacific and Indian Oceans...
I suggest you study and research a bit about submarines and their operations before commenting... Much information has already been revealed in this thread, why not start at this thread's beginning?
Getting back to the defence Minister Stephen Smith commenting on the condition of the Manoora abd the Kanimbla, and blaming defence for the maintaining of the ships, surely the condition that these two ships were in when purchased from America would have a lot to do with their present condition? They were rust buckets from the start and should never have been bought.
Its been a while, but as I recall the ADF wished to buy Whitbey Island LSDs during the early 1990s... By the time the Aussies bought the ex-Newports and remodeled them, along with their cost over runs, they would have been better off buying new...
But the water is over the bridge, a long time ago... While there are many young cream puffs out there, there aren't any old cream puffs of twenty years in age unless grandma drove it to church and the grocery/drug store once a week...
Earlier posts wondered why the third amphibious ship wasn't purchased when the LHDs were... Now there isn't much choice but to purchase/lease the Largs Bay, time has run out...
The Aussies are fortunate the Bay is available, British surplus, otherwise an old Austin LPD would have to be bought most likely to fill the gap... The Austins are as old as the Newports...
Last edited:
This has been the subject of discussion both here and on other boards many times in the past.
At the time, it was Kanimbla and Manoora or nothing; we had just had the purpose built THSS knocked back. And the ships have now provided many years of good service in a number of operations ranging from the NWIO through the tsunami to Fiji and others.
That they would need to be replaced fairly quickly was known when they were acquired; but we had to prove the need. We did that and the LHDs are the result; but it would have been better if we had them completed 5 years earlier than they will be. And we still need to secure the third ship, whether that be Largs Bay or something else; one of the lessons of the LPAs was the need for at least three ships hence Tobruk's reprieve in the very late 90s and the early part of last decade.
Whether the current problems have roots in the acquistion is something which we will undoubtedly find out in due course; but remember part of the cost overrun was the need to do major maintenance to the ships systems after they were acquired. However, the current issues may be more about available funding, time and expertise for in service maintenance than it is the initial start state; I'm not close enough to the current problems to know.
peterAustralia
Member
I dont want to get into a slanging match, I will just make my point and then dissapear.
from wikipedia
Type 214: range 19,300km, endurance 12 weeks, 2310 km on fuel cells,
Collins: range 20,000km, enurance 10 weeks, 890km on batteries.
Conclusion, from endurance, type 214 comes out slightly better. Probably due to being a more modern design, using AIP.
Underwater refuelling, it could be done at say 50m depth. The vessel that went down 12km to the ocean floor used petrol as it's primary means of ballast. The petrol was not kept in a pressure hull. (they had tonnes of it). Submarines in WW2 pumped deisel from outside the pressure hull to inside it, because the fuel tanks were external.
Now some may argue that the 214 range of 20,000km is not long enough. Perhaps a slightly enlarged 214 or more modern 214 would have longer range still?
As to 'non experts' commenting in this thread, for starters there is nothing in the website that says you must work in the field to have permission to post, my understanding was that this forum was open to all.
I have personnally spent an entire day reading a book on the Collins Class submarnine project. I would like to think I know more than the person on the street, but of course I know much less than the experts. My job is paint chemisty, we can talk about that if you like, I know a lot about that...
From the book, and other sources, I gathered the idea that there was a significant gap between the retiring of the Oberons, and when the Collins were really up to speed. What would have happened if we were in a bad war during that time? my guess is that we would have been stuffed.
I am not saying that the 214 will be a better sub than a purpose designed australian sub, but that when the time comes to get a replacement getting the best commerically off the shelf conventional submarine in the world, might be something worth considering. The 214 in ten years from now, might be much better than the 214 that can be had now.
Reading between the lines, I get the feeling that the Navy wants a submarine that can go up to China and 'deter' them.
The risk in developing a new class of subs just for Australia, is that they will cost a lot more (read double the cost) and run the risk of technical challenges delaying it many years. This is what happened with the Collins, the same could happen (it may not) with the replacement sub.
Would you like to elaborate on why refuelling from a towed mini-sub which is carrying fuel in a non pressurised vessel would be difficult. To me it just seems to be a question of hoses and pumps. Not super easy, but should be doable. Refuelling at 30m to 50m underwater might be relatively simple.
As to nuclear, my guess is that it would cost a fortune. Do we really need it? Perhaps if the idea is to protect Taiwain, but to protect Australia, hmmm. In 10 years fuel cells are likely to be even better than they are now.
Getting back to 'non-experts' making the occasional post. Remember 'sparky', one thing he advocated was simpler lighter COIN aircraft, he also advoated light armourned tracked vehicles. What is happening several years later... the US air force is looking at turboprop light attack aircraft because they are cheaper to run compared with fast jets. The British Army is building new 'light tanks' based on the Scorpion tank hull (albeit with 30mm cannons, not 76mm) and not building the 30t to 40t FRES projects they were contemplating. So perhaps in these 2 things Sparky was right. My point is that a 'non-expert' can sometimes have valid things to say.
For the record, I think sparky was a bit rambling and slightly off balance, but he seemed a nice enough fellow and well intentioned. He got a lot of stick because he did not come from a military background.
long live Sparky!
from wikipedia
Type 214: range 19,300km, endurance 12 weeks, 2310 km on fuel cells,
Collins: range 20,000km, enurance 10 weeks, 890km on batteries.
Conclusion, from endurance, type 214 comes out slightly better. Probably due to being a more modern design, using AIP.
Underwater refuelling, it could be done at say 50m depth. The vessel that went down 12km to the ocean floor used petrol as it's primary means of ballast. The petrol was not kept in a pressure hull. (they had tonnes of it). Submarines in WW2 pumped deisel from outside the pressure hull to inside it, because the fuel tanks were external.
Now some may argue that the 214 range of 20,000km is not long enough. Perhaps a slightly enlarged 214 or more modern 214 would have longer range still?
As to 'non experts' commenting in this thread, for starters there is nothing in the website that says you must work in the field to have permission to post, my understanding was that this forum was open to all.
I have personnally spent an entire day reading a book on the Collins Class submarnine project. I would like to think I know more than the person on the street, but of course I know much less than the experts. My job is paint chemisty, we can talk about that if you like, I know a lot about that...
From the book, and other sources, I gathered the idea that there was a significant gap between the retiring of the Oberons, and when the Collins were really up to speed. What would have happened if we were in a bad war during that time? my guess is that we would have been stuffed.
I am not saying that the 214 will be a better sub than a purpose designed australian sub, but that when the time comes to get a replacement getting the best commerically off the shelf conventional submarine in the world, might be something worth considering. The 214 in ten years from now, might be much better than the 214 that can be had now.
Reading between the lines, I get the feeling that the Navy wants a submarine that can go up to China and 'deter' them.
The risk in developing a new class of subs just for Australia, is that they will cost a lot more (read double the cost) and run the risk of technical challenges delaying it many years. This is what happened with the Collins, the same could happen (it may not) with the replacement sub.
Would you like to elaborate on why refuelling from a towed mini-sub which is carrying fuel in a non pressurised vessel would be difficult. To me it just seems to be a question of hoses and pumps. Not super easy, but should be doable. Refuelling at 30m to 50m underwater might be relatively simple.
As to nuclear, my guess is that it would cost a fortune. Do we really need it? Perhaps if the idea is to protect Taiwain, but to protect Australia, hmmm. In 10 years fuel cells are likely to be even better than they are now.
Getting back to 'non-experts' making the occasional post. Remember 'sparky', one thing he advocated was simpler lighter COIN aircraft, he also advoated light armourned tracked vehicles. What is happening several years later... the US air force is looking at turboprop light attack aircraft because they are cheaper to run compared with fast jets. The British Army is building new 'light tanks' based on the Scorpion tank hull (albeit with 30mm cannons, not 76mm) and not building the 30t to 40t FRES projects they were contemplating. So perhaps in these 2 things Sparky was right. My point is that a 'non-expert' can sometimes have valid things to say.
For the record, I think sparky was a bit rambling and slightly off balance, but he seemed a nice enough fellow and well intentioned. He got a lot of stick because he did not come from a military background.
long live Sparky!
peterAustralia
Member
Just a little little bit more
The type 212 has its fuel and oxidizer tanks stored outside of the pressure hull, and then they are pumped in. source wikipedia 212 submarine
[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_212_submarine"]Type 212 submarine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:U_Boot_212_HDW_1.jpg" class="image"><img alt="U Boot 212 HDW 1.jpg" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/50/U_Boot_212_HDW_1.jpg/300px-U_Boot_212_HDW_1.jpg"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/5/50/U_Boot_212_HDW_1.jpg/300px-U_Boot_212_HDW_1.jpg[/ame]
thats it from me..will leave you all to it, my apologies for replying to my own post
The type 212 has its fuel and oxidizer tanks stored outside of the pressure hull, and then they are pumped in. source wikipedia 212 submarine
[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_212_submarine"]Type 212 submarine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:U_Boot_212_HDW_1.jpg" class="image"><img alt="U Boot 212 HDW 1.jpg" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/50/U_Boot_212_HDW_1.jpg/300px-U_Boot_212_HDW_1.jpg"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/5/50/U_Boot_212_HDW_1.jpg/300px-U_Boot_212_HDW_1.jpg[/ame]
thats it from me..will leave you all to it, my apologies for replying to my own post
the danger of wikipedia.....
probably 4 people in here have served or are serving on the Collins class
at least 2 people in here have worked on Collins at a build level
at least one person on here has been a supplier to the Collins project
we'd dispute the endurance ranges.
capability in large submarines lies in the less publicly acknowledged issues of on board power. the capability of the combat suite, the sensor suite has a relationship to onboard power
214's just don't have the juice to do the same missions, and as much as wiki is being cited as the reference source, the 481's have greater range, and still have sensor superiority. Subs that operate in our waters have far greater demands on crew conditions, and the onboard power and real estate limitations of smaller subs means that you have to sacrifice capability to meet the same conditions
Hopefully RAN has learnt its lesson (as Kockums did and ASC should have) about upscaling smaller sub designs to meet deep blue fleet capabilities.
If you've read about Collins then you'll also have read that smaller sub designs had limits in the tropics, something that Kockums never appreciated until too late, they didn't factor in power demands (air-cond, sensor suite demands, combat suite demands etc...)
small subs look good on paper. the reality when you factor in pacrim, indian ocean and sth china sea conditions is different.
As a non-expert who is quite comfortable with commenting on this board, I can tell you that in my opinion your comments about Mike Sparks are incredibly misplaced.
"A nice enough fellow" and "well intentioned" doesn't begin to describe the kind of disrespectful, malicious and pig-headed behaviour in which he engaged, and why you bring him up is beyond me.
Of course non-experts can comment, and plenty do. However don't you think it would be reasonable to listen to what those with significant experience have to say on the topic? It's a lot more reasonable than basing your conclusions on the range of military submarines on information you found on wikipedia, and then extrapolating that range characteristic to be synonymous with mission suitability, to my mind.
I don't say this to mock you but as a serious and honest observation. I hope you take it in such a way.
"A nice enough fellow" and "well intentioned" doesn't begin to describe the kind of disrespectful, malicious and pig-headed behaviour in which he engaged, and why you bring him up is beyond me.
Of course non-experts can comment, and plenty do. However don't you think it would be reasonable to listen to what those with significant experience have to say on the topic? It's a lot more reasonable than basing your conclusions on the range of military submarines on information you found on wikipedia, and then extrapolating that range characteristic to be synonymous with mission suitability, to my mind.
I don't say this to mock you but as a serious and honest observation. I hope you take it in such a way.
- Status