Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[Jaimito]

The length of an M1A1 with gun pointed aft and locked in the travelling position is 9.03m.

The length of a Leopard 2 with L44 gun (2A4, 2A5) pointed aft and locked in the travelling position is 8.49m. Leopard 2 with L55 gun (2A6) has a travel length (gun aft) of 9.81m.

So that Spanish Leopard 2e you refer to must have its turret removed to be only 7.7m long. Is this the standard configuration of Spanish tanks? Doesn’t seem like a very practical idea to me… Cuts down on their length sure but kind of defeats the purpose.

Wiki doesn´t quote config of the measure of the tank, with or witout turret.

But you say 9.81 for Leopard 2, and Wiki 9.78 for Abrams, and afaik from Lhd tanks capacity for Abrams or Leopards 2e, the Canberras were going to carry less Abrams, a few less, 6-10 less, than Spanish capacity for Leopard 2e. So prefer this source from Lhd capacity than Wiki´s or your figures to say that Abrams 2 should be bigger than Leopard 2, not 2 meters probably.

I might not matter much, but if Largs Bay has rotary platform for moving tanks i expect little difference in Challenger or Abrams don´t notice. As an example of detail engeneering thought for one or the other.

Spanish army is very complete, 500-600 heavy vehicles with turrets, Leopards, Ascods, Centauros, M60´s. Simulations system sold worlwide for the different clases, for tanks or artillery. With ground command and control and comms sold worldwide also, and also to control amphibious deployments, which Adf assessed in the past.

 

[Jaimito]

Are you sure about that ? I heard a really good buzz that the S-80........

You´ve heard that buzz. I have heard buzz that Navantia has been asked by a foreign navy to design the S80 but without the Aip. In this forum i heard buzz that people in the Adf considered not worthy some old Aip systems.

S80 price some years ago was 400 mill euro. with Aip, say without aip is 325 mill. euro, plus inflation for some year up to today´s price say 425 mill euro per S80 without aip, so 580 aus dollar, say 600 Aus dollar.
Say Adf is interested in transfer for own building, and maybe some built from Navantia as well. Then Adf probably would be interested in the S80 without aip for own building, since transfer of aip is more complex because it is not yards things but other company´s top modern developments, and also more expensive.

Recall budget for Collins replacement was 25 billion Aus dollar, 25000 divided by 600 mill is 41 subs...most of them build in Australia, and some of them with an impresssive aip built from Navantia. But have to pay the transfer, and have to adapt whatever needed. Lessons learnt from the Awd interchange also.

Maybe you don´t know but the S80 is expected to dive +400 mts. amongs many other qualities and systems. And it is official the Aip in the Spanish navy site, more than 28 days depending on the speed. Apart the diesel.

Edit: so the S80 is some 5-7 mts longer than Chilean or Malasyan Scorpene, and those mts are more or less the Aip module in the S80. But the S80 is +-2mts wider than Scorpene. And this has 8500 nm range probably in surface, in diesels. So can guess if S80 similar range on diesel to Scorpene, gives an endurance of:
28 days at 4 knots aip, 4700 kms submerged on aip.
Say 7000-8000 nm surfaced.

So probably if S80 without aip maybe similar ranges to nowadays Collins (20000 kms surfaced).

Note that the electric transmision in T45 it is said to be very economic in fuel. Also so it is the electric magnetic transmision in the Canberras, that´s because they have big endurance. And the S80 similarly has fully electric magnetic transmision engine.. so even probably taking the most of the fuel.

Edit 2: but probably the buzz you´ve heard is more related to the sensors and combat systems similars some of them to Los Angeles ssn or Virginias, but instead being mounted in a nuclear, in a diesel/aip, the less noise you produce from your sub, the more your passive sensors listen. And when facing vs other subs.

 

[Todjaeger]

Australia bought the M1A1 AIM main battle tank, which was upgraded with selected components of the TUSK - Tank Urban Survivability Kit.

Chief of Army advised the "standard" weight of these vehicles are 62,000 kilograms.

http://www.defence.gov.au/media/download/2004/aug/040804/abrams_M1A1.ppt



TUSK yes, SEP no.

Regards,

AD

Thanks for that AD. I suspected my memory was a bit faulty, since I remembered there was a specific name for the Aussie Abrams, but I could not remember the acronym for it (AIM).

-Cheers

 

[Todjaeger]

You´ve heard that buzz. I have heard buzz that Navantia has been asked by a foreign navy to design the S80 but without the Aip. In this forum i heard buzz that people in the Adf considered not worthy some old Aip systems.

S80 price some years ago was 400 mill euro. with Aip, say without aip is 325 mill. euro, plus inflation for some year up to today´s price say 425 mill euro per S80 without aip, so 580 aus dollar, say 600 Aus dollar.
Say Adf is interested in transfer for own building, and maybe some built from Navantia as well. Then Adf probably would be interested in the S80 without aip for own building, since transfer of aip is more complex because it is not yards things but other company´s top modern developments, and also more expensive.

Recall budget for Collins replacement was 25 billion Aus dollar, 25000 divided by 600 mill is 41 subs...most of them build in Australia, and some of them with an impresssive aip built from Navantia. But have to pay the transfer, and have to adapt whatever needed. Lessons learnt from the Awd interchange also.

Maybe you don´t know but the S80 is expected to dive +400 mts. amongs many other qualities and systems. And it is official the Aip in the Spanish navy site, more than 28 days depending on the speed. Apart the diesel.

Edit: so the S80 is some 5-7 mts longer than Chilean or Malasyan Scorpene, and those mts are more or less the Aip module in the S80. But the S80 is +-2mts wider than Scorpene. And this has 8500 nm range probably in surface, in diesels. So can guess if S80 similar range on diesel to Scorpene, gives an endurance of:
28 days at 4 knots aip, 4700 kms submerged on aip.
Say 7000-8000 nm surfaced.

So probably if S80 without aip maybe similar ranges to nowadays Collins (20000 kms surfaced).

Note that the electric transmision in T45 it is said to be very economic in fuel. Also so it is the electric magnetic transmision in the Canberras, that´s because they have big endurance. And the S80 similarly has fully electric magnetic transmision engine.. so even probably taking the most of the fuel.

The comment about the RAN looking at the S-80 was a joke which apparently did not translate well.

The Collins-class SSG, a conventionally powered diesel-electric submarine is ~40% greater in displacement than the planned AIP S-80 subs for the Spanish Navy. In addition to differences is range and endurance, there is a difference in dive depth and also likely a difference in power available.

Given what Australia is looking to be able to do with their future submarines, this seems to require a conventionally-powered submarine in the ~4.000 ton range. Part of this is to provide the desired range and endurance for the sub, but part is also to allow for sufficient power systems and dive depth to 'compete' as it were with nuclear submarines.

Australia has also already undergone the experience of a company 'upsizing' an existing design to something on the scale Australia is looking for. This occurred on the Collins-class SSG, and while the sub, now, is very capable there were a number of initial troubles which stemmed from the design process. It is not just a simple matter of increasing the length, beam or draught and also increasing the displacement. All of these impact how a sub functions. Also there needs to be sufficient power for the electronics which might very well be the same sub electronics suite used in USN SSN's of the time, like how the Collins-class now uses a Virginia-class SSN combat suite.

Two things to keep in mind for the future. The first is that Wikipedia is not a good source to use for anything other than basic information on systems, or potentially links to legitimate sources. The second is that even making minor changes to a design can cause significant problems. Making very major or fundamental changes to designs can cause even greater differences in how the design operates. Therefore before making suggestions on how designs are 'scalable' consider what needs to be changed. So far, what seems to have been suggested could be done, but it would either not be very easy to do, and/or not provide the desired end result.

-Cheers

 

[Jaimito]

Therefore before making suggestions on how designs are 'scalable' consider what needs to be changed. So far, what seems to have been suggested could be done, but it would either not be very easy to do, and/or not provide the desired end result.

-Cheers

In the case of S80 without aip asked by a navy, it means, as i understood it, in the same displacement remove the aip module and increase the diesel fuelage but keeping the same displacement, which is not to scale up the sub.
I havent said anything wrt scale the S80.

The thing is the S80 with Usa systems it is just for a full nato member navy or similar.

 

[Todjaeger]

In the case of S80 without aip asked by a navy, it means, as i understood it, in the same displacement remove the aip module and increase the diesel fuelage but keeping the same displacement, which is not to scale up the sub.
I havent said anything wrt scale the S80.

The thing is the S80 with Usa systems it is just for a full nato member navy or similar.

The points which I was trying to make appear to not have been understood. The S-80, with or without an AIP module, is considerably smaller than what the RAN is looking for. Part of what the RAN is looking for has to do with range/endurance, which removing the AIP module and replacing with additional fuel bunkerage might (emphasis MIGHT) resolve. The other area where the RAN is looking is for the associated combat systems, which then require the submarine to have certain power generation capabilities. The smaller non-nuclear submarines do not appear to have sufficient power generation capacity in addition to the required range and endurance.

-Cheers

 

[gf0012-aust]

In the case of S80 without aip asked by a navy,

lets narrow this rumor down immediately otherwise we are going to have a variation of the threads that ended up getting closed by an earlier spanish member.

RAN has not gone to ANY, I repeat ANY vendors for specs.

The sub project is still chewing through requirements options and without any parameters are unable to ask anyone for anything.

eg no conops papers means no design requirements.

the rumours are just that rumours - and more to the point - absolutely baseless.

 

[Jaimito]

lets narrow this rumor down immediately otherwise we are going to have a variation of the threads that ended up getting closed by an earlier spanish member.

RAN has not gone to ANY, I repeat ANY vendors for specs.

The sub project is still chewing through requirements options and without any parameters are unable to ask anyone for anything.

eg no conops papers means no design requirements.

the rumours are just that rumours - and more to the point - absolutely baseless.

Probably i doubt Adf has asked Navantia a cheaper S80 without aip, maybe more other countries interested in less sofisticated sub,not just about aip, and as cheap as possible. But a couple of things, Adf went to Cartagena to see in situ the works on S80, some months ago, and Aussienscale heard some buzz, joke or not Aussienscale can say it, i didn´t launch the rumour.

 

[Jaimito]

The points which I was trying to make appear to not have been understood. The S-80, with or without an AIP module, is considerably smaller than what the RAN is looking for. Part of what the RAN is looking for has to do with range/endurance, which removing the AIP module and replacing with additional fuel bunkerage might (emphasis MIGHT) resolve. The other area where the RAN is looking is for the associated combat systems, which then require the submarine to have certain power generation capabilities. The smaller non-nuclear submarines do not appear to have sufficient power generation capacity in addition to the required range and endurance.

-Cheers

As a commercial example re processor power needs, a fast powerfull processor like modern Amds with +4 gigahertz processor need motherboard suply of 0.5-0.7 kwatts, and diesel subs have diesel engines able to give +3000 kwatts. Aip for S80 is rumoured at +320 kwatts.

But there are many other equipment consuming electricity, comms....

 

[gf0012-aust]

Probably i doubt Adf has asked Navantia a cheaper S80 without aip, maybe more other countries interested in less sofisticated sub,not just about aip, and as cheap as possible.

they haven't. - period

But a couple of things, Adf went to Cartagena to see in situ the works on S80, some months ago, and Aussienscale heard some buzz, joke or not Aussienscale can say it, i didn´t launch the rumour.

it's a rumour - RANs primary focus is Navantia. the s-80 isn't in the picture. no sub is because they're still working out basic details.

the only contact will be when vendors are asked to respond to an RFQ - not an RFT

 

[gf0012-aust]

As a commercial example re processor power needs, a fast powerfull processor like modern Amds with +4 gigahertz processor need motherboard suply of 0.5-0.7 kwatts, and diesel subs have diesel engines able to give +3000 kwatts. Aip for S80 is rumoured at +320 kwatts.

But there are many other equipment consuming electricity, comms....

FOR CRYING OUT LOUD,

its not the processors that are the power hogs.

 

[Lofty_DBF]

FOR CRYING OUT LOUD,

its not the processors that are the power hogs.

Lucky the Collin class has 3 V18 generators to power the combat system.

 

[Volkodav]

Lucky the Collin class has 3 V18 generators to power the combat system.

To bad they are outmoded, unreliable, difficult to maintain and a crappy design to start with.

When the generator problems arose they should have planned to cut the hull at the main motor room and slide everything aft of the escape tunnel out of each boat to replace the diesels at the next FCD.

New diesels, generators, main motor and which ever auxiliaries you choose to update could be fitted on new platforms built up activated and tested before the sub even docks ready to swap in. Take it a step further and do the same for the forward platforms, slice off the bow and replace the old platforms with new. Do all the building and testing off ship and swap over when the sub docks, this will save time, money and ensure a greater number of subs are available at any given time.

 

[Jaimito]

An interview to Mr Moffin re future subs:

Thoughts on the Future Submarines Program - Royal Australian Navy

 

[Abraham Gubler]

An interview to Mr Moffin re future subs:

If you can cut and paste the link right you could at least do the same courtesy for the name of subject:

Rear Admiral Moffitt

Does Jaimito ever wonder why he is so unpopular in this thread?

 

[Lofty_DBF]

To bad they are outmoded, unreliable, difficult to maintain and a crappy design to start with.

When the generator problems arose they should have planned to cut the hull at the main motor room and slide everything aft of the escape tunnel out of each boat to replace the diesels at the next FCD.

New diesels, generators, main motor and which ever auxiliaries you choose to update could be fitted on new platforms built up activated and tested before the sub even docks ready to swap in. Take it a step further and do the same for the forward platforms, slice off the bow and replace the old platforms with new. Do all the building and testing off ship and swap over when the sub docks, this will save time, money and ensure a greater number of subs are available at any given time.

I have been involved (on the tools) in the Generator replacement program it was a massive job.
Cutting a sunroof in the Main Generator room was a option but had a huge time frame to do so all maching work was conducted in-situ so stator and rotors would fit out thru the MGR hatch.

 

[Jaimito]

If you can cut and paste the link right you could at least do the same courtesy for the name of subject:

Rear Admiral Moffitt

Does Jaimito ever wonder why he is so unpopular in this thread?

Apologies to Mr. Moffitt, i didnt confuse it voluntarily.

I feel popular in this forum. I´ll keep making corrections. I´ll keep giving lessons.:rotfl:rotfl

 

[gf0012-aust]

An interview to Mr Moffin re future subs:

Thoughts on the Future Submarines Program - Royal Australian Navy

Excellent.

I was at that presentation.

I was also at his predecessors speech to the SIA about the future sub where VADM Matt Tripovich told industry that they should focus on providing what RAN wants and not try to tell RAN what they need.

There's a hint in there somewhere for those in industry that are astute enough....

please stop derailing the thread at every available turn by making it a brochure for the spanish shipbuilding industry.

it is becoming irritating and patience is running out with a number of posters.

 

[Volkodav]

I have been involved (on the tools) in the Generator replacement program it was a massive job.
Cutting a sunroof in the Main Generator room was a option but had a huge time frame to do so all maching work was conducted in-situ so stator and rotors would fit out thru the MGR hatch.

There seems to be an almost institutional aversion to cutting the hull by everyone bar the structural authorities.

While I agree the generator repairs were urgent there is a point where the sum of the required repairs, upgrades and refurbishments makes cutting the hulls worth while and I believe that point has been reached. Plan it in for Collins second FCD, build the new platforms and turn the FCD into a changeout of old for new. After all if there is one thing ASC is extremely good at it is welding.

 

[gf0012-aust]

After all if there is one thing ASC is extremely good at it is welding.

My first job wrt Collins was identifying and sourcing accredited welders. the nightmare ones were the overhead and underwater welders, we basically had to rape the mining industry and oil rig service sector. they were like hens teeth. we had some probs with TIG welders as well, but thats because we busted some of the hands making and selling titanium spinner plates for nearby harley davidson owners.... (hint hint)

re cutting the hull, I was around when 2,3 and 4 were in build and 5 was starting up.
the section of the hull that I recall everyone was nervous about was the combat room due to its own skeleton (and materials made out of)