Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

Status
Not open for further replies.

old faithful

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Bugger, you guys beat me to it, was going to say something about geneticly modified platypus or some such rubbish, but......
 

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
If the Oberon could sail into russian ports and take photos of sub props, I hate to think what the Collins is doing
Driving journalists outside the heads?

Subs are a special asset because they are used all the time. So you don't need to be at war to be getting value from having them. Intelligence gathering, insertion, deterrence, training your navy to find subs and operate with and against subs, etc. If we look at Timor one of the concerns was if the Indonesians had a sub running about. It could make supplying troops in ET much harder, as the ships would be preoccupied looking and manoeuvring, and they haven't even fired a shot. The Americans had requirements in terms of screening for the cruiser, so assets that could have (or were thought) to be available for other duties were instead tied up screening.

So unlike 100 F-35's which will probably never be put in harms way, the sub is always moving about doing the thing they do without firing a shot.

Any time a new ship is put into the water you can bet there will be subs out there looking to acoustically map it and image its behind.
 

Abraham Gubler

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
If we look at Timor one of the concerns was if the Indonesians had a sub running about. It could make supplying troops in ET much harder, as the ships would be preoccupied looking and manoeuvring, and they haven't even fired a shot.
They did. Both of their Type 209 submarines were deployed into East Timor waters and both were detected. Once their position and a please explain had been forwarded to the Indonesian High Command they agreed to withdraw them from the area. But the RAN also had two subs in the area. Waller north and Farncomb south.
 

StevoJH

The Bunker Group
Driving journalists outside the heads?

Subs are a special asset because they are used all the time. So you don't need to be at war to be getting value from having them. Intelligence gathering, insertion, deterrence, training your navy to find subs and operate with and against subs, etc.
Subs are effectively always at war when at sea, or at least need to act like they are.
 
We all make the occasional gaff mate ,most defiantly me included :D. Yes the Donks are three abreast. Maybe the book mentions that only 2 MTU's could be fitted instead of 3 Hedemora's? Cheers
It was more MTU diesels, I remember that. There was a certain power generating requirement to charge the batteries at a given rate. The number they had was quite high and the per-unit power output of the MTU diesels was lower than the Hedemora requiring more units. Now that I'm typing it out it is becoming clearer. :frown Typical.
With 3 Hedemoras they could be put in side-by-side three abreast. With 4 (surely not more?) MTUs they couldn't go all four abreast, so a 2 x 2 configuration would have been needed.
 
Which is why I kinda like the idea of a gasturbine or two in the conning tower, where if you want to operate like that you can, and if the engine destroys itself its servicable, but that brings its own issues.
I like the idea of gas turbines for this situation. The compact size and weight for a given power output, lower vibrations/mechanical noise (!!) and lower maintenance requirements. The high fuel consumption may not be such an issue because it isn't being run constantly but being run intermittently to charge the batteries and turbines are good for that surge requirement. Intake and exhaust trunking greatly simplified eliminating the need to route it to/from the machinery space, which in turn can be reduced in size.

On the other hand there are some down sides that kill the idea. The fin is used heavily for optical and sensor masts, and I don't know enough about operating gas turbines to know if it would be suitable for snorkeling when the intake is intermittently cut by waves but I know the crew wouldn't be happy with the amount of air a gas turbine could draw from the hull even for a few seconds.

The big killer though is the air intake and exhaust requirements. Gas turbines need a lot of air fed to them which needs to be exhausted again, so the snorkel would have to be much larger and much more detectable. The exhaust gases would also be very hot, and unless it can be cooled first it is going to light up an IR sensor.

As I said, I kinda like the idea though, which is why I hope the Future Frigates are Diesel/Gas - Electric. All the benefits listed above with less issues. By the time a decision has to be made in 2022-2024 the use of IEP in combat ships (DDGs/FFGs) will be mature and the RAN will have experience with the LSD/LHDs.
I especially like how you can be a bit more creative with machinery arrangements regarding crew/weapon spaces, machinery can be acoustically isolated, deck arrangements optimised for intakes/exhausts and battle damage redundancy through separated power generation.
The QE-class carriers have their propulsion gas turbines separated under the islands and the diesels deep in the hull.
I can't help but think that if the Future Frigate is commissioned in 2026 and it is based on the F100 hull and machinery there is going to be Anzac-type upgrade problems post-2040 when choices regarding sensors or weapons are constrained by the hull/machinery, particularly the power generating capability.
 
Last edited:

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
It would require pretty big changes to the SOP and design of the sub.

Because its a turbine, intake and exhaust paths won't really permit it to be used for snorkelling, you would have to have the sail out of the water running effectively along the surface. There are issues with operating a submarine on the surface like that as they tend to pogo and bob around as they are not designed for surface running (unless we go away from teardrop back to WWII designs). Subs operating in quiet protected littorials might get away with it, blue water subs that presents lots of issues.

Optical and sensor masts are going completely electronic so its less of an issue, but would require a bold new design and high risk entailed with it.

Perhaps the turbine(s) could be completely dismounted onto something like a towed surface array. This would allow the sub to remain at a snokling depth (or deeper than normal). I would imagine this would also have issues and problems.

The anzac replacements are still up in the air, publicly we know of a rough size, but no doubt if we were to significantly vary from the F-100 design, propulsion would one of those. The F-100 design would need other designs more dramatic than those of the propulsion system.
 

the road runner

Active Member
http://media.bmt.org/bmt_media/resources/33/JB2010-02-05Pac10JBpaper03.pdf

Quote..."The Australian Collins class is one of the few SSK with three gensets: this is largely driven by her extended periods away from her base port and the enduring need to ensure that there is always one genset available to allow for the ability to steam home."

Im just reading up on diesel engines and this is probably one of the best articles i have read.I came away with the impression that (4)smaller turbocharged diesel engines are better suited to a sub compared with 2 larger engines.

Page 10 was an eye opener.So was(page11-13) the Range and patrol duration Vs Mission Duration.
 

rand0m

Member
I was watching a small clip on the replacement of the Collins class, there was mention of using a French nuclear sub hull as basis. If we were going to be using an off the shelf hull & build the rest ourselves, what would be ideal for us? Is it as simple as buying Virginia class hulls & converting them to what specs we want?
If the Canadians went down the path & purchased nuclear submarines (i know already discussed), what impact would this have on our future decision?
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
I was watching a small clip on the replacement of the Collins class, there was mention of using a French nuclear sub hull as basis. If we were going to be using an off the shelf hull & build the rest ourselves, what would be ideal for us? Is it as simple as buying Virginia class hulls & converting them to what specs we want?
nope, not that simple and we'd be throwing good money after bad getting a hacked rubis or scorpene (or S80)

If the Canadians went down the path & purchased nuclear submarines (i know already discussed), what impact would this have on our future decision?
nope, no impact
 

koxinga

Well-Known Member
Choules just turn on its AIS and she is...200 odd kms off Perth. Should be coming in in a day's time.

Welcome home!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top