the road runner
Active Member
Post deleted.
Last edited:
The German designed subs have been built in a number of different nations, from South Korea to Turkey to Italy. I can't think of anyone else who has had more built abroad. If anything, their record speaks otherwise, that they do transfer technology better than anyone.
A few things here. The issues with respect to the Collins-class are not all in the past, as the causes and solutions for many of these problems are well remembered as they should be.No one disputes that the Collins class of subs is very good. However what people almost always omit, is that it took many years for them to get very good. There was a time there when they had more than their fair share of problems. If Australia had been in a bad dispute in the window where the Oberons were gone, and the Collins were not up to speed, perhaps people would not be so flattering about them now.
Another aspect of the Collins class was that they were expensive. It may well be that the money was well spent, but the extra billions for these subs, means fewer billions of dollars for other things.
Either way, that is all in the past now.
Now with regards to Australia requiring a large sub instead of a smaller European design... Firstly remember that such a sub has four basic mission sets, anti-shipping, sea denial, strategic strike, and ISR. Having a larger sub can allow a greater mission endurance than is possible for some of the smaller subs out there. It is not just about which design can travel further, or has more fuel. It is about which designs can transit to an area and then remain on station for days or weeks if/when needed. Perhaps a more important reason for Australia going with a large sub design stems from power generation. Given the sensor and combat systems which Australia is interested for submarines require a great deal of power to operate continously. A small European sub design lacks the power generation capacity required to keep running the sensor and combat systems which Australia desires. In order for a European design to meet the power generation requirements, they need to either be increased in size, or have other onboard systems and crew cut back significantly to make room and have sufficient displacement.The question is, has Australia learnt enough lessons to build a new class of Submarines from scratch and get enough things right next time around?
From the little I know, HDW makes quite good submarnines, does anyone dispute that? It is true that they have not built a 4000t submarine yet.
It is a moot point now, however Australia seems set on getting a very large sub. Apparently there is a need for this large size. From what I can gather, there is a need (read essential) for the sub to travel to the South China Sea, or the NW Indian Ocean to perform some sort of strategic deterrent role. Now it may well be that this is essential, however the idea that this is essential is not really discussed, it is almost as if it is a given. A shorter ranged submarnine might only protect australian sea lanes, however it seems that with so many ships, the main role of large subs, is not defence as such, but more a strategic deterent. This may be fine, but for whatever reason, it does not seem to get much open discussion. Either way, that is all a bit of a moot point now, as we seem set on getting very large subs. Is this a taboo topic of discussion?
What is not often mentioned is that it is mainly thanks to the mineral boom, and our economy doing well, that Australia can afford such vessels. If the China boom had not eventuated and China had not modernised the way it did, there would have been a lot more aggravation about whether Australia can really afford such top of the line products as the Collins class. Remember before the mineral boom kicked in there were always budget cuts here and cuts there, it was always very difficult to balance the budget.
So Australia was lucky in a way, we did not get into a bad war in the timeframe before the Collins class were working well, and the mineral boom has given us the money to afford these vessels.
All I am saying, is that before HDW gets automatically rubbed out, at least see what they have to offer.
Once again you have totally missed the point of my original post, please show me where you think I have said any of this so I can correct your interpretation ?Now you are being condescending. So all of you believe Australians can design a brand new sub better than the Germans? I shall await the results before I agree. What I find disturbing is the out right dismissal before anyone has seen the design plans. None of you know how large the Type 216 design will be in any dimensions or whether it will meet every spec. I am not so sure only Australians can build to specification.
Toby mate methinks you need to back to basics and start again. As has been repeated here frequently for you benefit, you apparently do not appreciate the uniqueness of the Australian situation. Since I am not an Australian I maybe be able to suggest in terms that are not offensive to non Australians.The German Type 216 design from the news release/report IS being built at Adelaide, but with a German design supposed to meet every spec of the Australian tender requirement. If it turns out it doesn't meet every spec, well, that is another story isn't it? From what I read and understand, its not much different than building Spanish/Gibbs designed destroyers at Adelaide.
What I don't understand, and never will, is that only Australians are able to design a sub to Australian specs. That my folks is a red herring.
No doubt helped along by people who believe a Mercator projection is actually what the world looks like...I trust that this will give you a basic insight. Northern hemisphere types sometimes doen't grasp that conditions below the equator can be totally different. It is a common misunderstaning.
What’s ironic about it? You are pushing for a nuclear submarine and the ADA has had no noticeable impact on Australian defence policy. You may think otherwise but have presented no such evidence to support such a claim. I wouldn’t call having former defence ministers join your organisation an endorsement of a successful policy lobby. If you had a significant number of current ADF personnel join then that would be a good start. Nor have you presented any evidence to back up your attacks on me. All of which displays pretty poor form on your behalf.The irony of the Australia Defence Association (ADA) being criticised by Abraham Gubler is surely not lost on anyone who keeps up to date with informed public debate on Australian defence issues.
To respond to the juvenile spite in your post I read the article in the Australian linked to above. Since I challenged the reported statement of the ADA being called a “key” defence group I would think that was pretty obvious. If you go writing letters to people, even “letters-to-the-editor”, you shouldn’t expect everyone else to have read them all” [“letters-to-the-editor” is how you actually spell it not “edtor”, see how that’s a stupid game to play? typos are as common online as umms are in person.] Maybe if your name is Kim Jung and you live in North Korea you can make the assumption that everyone is reading your correspondence.Third, our letter-to-the-editor on the future submarine project sent to the "Australian" on 28 Dec 11 can be readily found on our website on the recent letters-to-the-edtor page (the forum software will not permit inclusion of the direct link). The newspaper edited the letter - which may partly explain Abraham's confusion although he appears not to have read the published version anyway.
The article indicates, as does your statement above, that the ADA is pushing for a nuclear submarine. Especially considered that’s what the entire article was about. If you have a problem with that take it up with Brendon Nicholson. He’s a nice guy and I’m sure will give you a hearing.Within the word-limits applying, this letter summarised recent public debate on the future submarine project. As part of a general discussion, it also suggested that any examination of options should at least look at the possibility of leasing some nuclear-powered boats from the US. This is obviously far removed from "pushing for a nuclear submarine" - just as we have not advocated any other particular option.
As an American I don't appreciate Australians preaching about long distances. Its not uncommon for US Coasties to deploy to Unalaska, Alaska for EEZ patrols some 2000 nautical miles from Alameda, California. Unalaska is 4700 flight miles directly from Key West, Florida. And by the way, Unalaska doesn't have a population of 5 thousand people.Toby mate methinks you need to back to basics and start again. As has been repeated here frequently for you benefit, you apparently do not appreciate the uniqueness of the Australian situation. Since I am not an Australian I maybe be able to suggest in terms that are not offensive to non Australians.
First of all you need to look at a chart (map for non saliors) and have a look at Australias physical position in the world. At the west it is bordered by the Indian Ocean and also at the North where it turns to the Arafura Sea (IIRC). At the East it is the Coral Sea and the Pacific Ocean. Finally to the South the Tasman Sea, Pacific Ocean and Great Southern Ocean. The current RAN sub base is at FBW which is near Perth in Western Australia. Perth is about a 5 hour Boeing 737 ride from Sydney or a 4 - 5 day car drive if you really push - and by the way you have to cross the Nullabor as well.
Perth is a nice place, but if you are from over east then all your friends and family are 2 time zones east and the distances in the above para away. There is not a lot in WA except Perth and surrounds. Up the hot end it's hot, dry, full of snakes (8 of the top 10 most venemous in the world) and ore mines. No tropical rainforests and fancy resorts like over east. So any RAN sub has to cruise around either the top end or the bottom end and up one side to get to its patrol area. Now I would hazard a guess that it is probably around 2500+ nautical miles to the Arafura Sea or the Coral Sea from FBW. Also the said subs have to operate anywhere from the equator to the Ice and all areas in between.
That is the basic spatial or geographic issue that the RAN is dealing with in its sub program. So you need to have a spatial understanding of Australia and the distances involved between places. It is not like the US or Europe where everything is closeby. Close by in Australian terms is probably within 100 miles. Nearby or down the road about 500 miles. Now another thing the RAN ,and us Kiwis as well, have to look at in our ships is there ability to handle conditions and seas which can be a tad large and very breezy. The Furious 50's and further south are aptly named because it is there where winds transit the whole Southern Ocean without being broken up by a land mass. So the fetch is extremely long and big seas can and do ensue. Australia also has cyclones to deal with as well in the top end during the summer.
I trust that this will give you a basic insight. Northern hemisphere types sometimes doen't grasp that conditions below the equator can be totally different. It is a common misunderstaning.
funny about that - we get americans on exercises (not just 3 months ago) who work on GIS issues. ie in a field where they are professionalsAs an American I don't appreciate Australians preaching about long distances. Its not uncommon for US Coasties to deploy to Unalaska, Alaska for EEZ patrols some 2000 nautical miles from Alameda, California. Unalaska is 4700 flight miles directly from Key West, Florida. And by the way, Unalaska doesn't have a population of 5 thousand people
Mate, an EEZ is not doing areas from the Eqauotor to the Ice over 2 different oceans in real blue water on 2 different oceans. EEZ is 200nm out from your coast and NZ has a large EEZ, Australias an order of magnitude larger, far larger than the US.As an American I don't appreciate Australians preaching about long distances. Its not uncommon for US Coasties to deploy to Unalaska, Alaska for EEZ patrols some 2000 nautical miles from Alameda, California. Unalaska is 4700 flight miles directly from Key West, Florida. And by the way, Unalaska doesn't have a population of 5 thousand people.
I do realize a sub's range is important for Australia. While current European subs fall short of the mark, I don't assume a Type 216 won't. Nor do I assume Europeans can't build or design a sub to Australian specifications either.
As has been noted in this thread, Europeans don't face such long ranges presently for their diesel subs, and those European nations which face such long ranges have nuclear propelled subs.
I agree, going nuclear isn't the answer. Notice how unwell the British are doing with the Astute program. And the British have experience and the infrastructure in place for nuclear submarines Australia doesn't.
Well as just about all Aussies will tell you and us Kiwis will back it we tend to get rather annoyed at outsiders who preach at us and do not have one iota of knowledge of our what geography is, where we live, who we are etc ., ad nausuem. What people have been trying to explain to you is the tyranny of distance and the operational conditions that the RAN operate under. You just have no idea about the vastness of Australia, the Pacific Ocean, the Great Southern Ocean and Antarctica. Yes the RAN and the RNZN operate there too (as well as USAF & RNZAF). So I strongly suggest that you take some time and read back through this thread with an atlas beside you and try and understand what people are saying. If you keep going on like you are, all you are doing is showing your ignorance. That is not a good look.As an American I don't appreciate Australians preaching about long distances.
Since when?Mate, an EEZ is not doing areas from the Eqauotor to the Ice over 2 different oceans in real blue water on 2 different oceans. EEZ is 200nm out from your coast and NZ has a large EEZ, Australias an order of magnitude larger, far larger than the US.
The US has 3 coastal margins of any consequense all on the North American continent. 1 on the east coast and 2 on the west coast. Then there are the Island groups of which Hawaii is the largest. Western Samoa affords the US very little of an EEZ. Again look at a map and the size of Australia. Even NZ has a longer coastline than the US. If you want you can use Google Earth to measure the coastlines and there EEZs. I'm sure there is a script out there somewhere that will do it. You will find that NZs EEZ will be larger than the US one is.Since when?
The US have a huge EEZ and have territories that stretch a long way from contiguous US. Some European navies might not operate in vast areas and a range of environments like Australia does, but I don't see how that applies to the US.
Not according to Wiki: US has the largest EEZ.The US has 3 coastal margins of any consequense all on the North American continent. 1 on the east coast and 2 on the west coast. Then there are the Island groups of which Hawaii is the largest. Western Samoa affords the US very little of an EEZ. Again look at a map and the size of Australia. Even NZ has a longer coastline than the US. If you want you can use Google Earth to measure the coastlines and there EEZs. I'm sure there is a script out there somewhere that will do it. You will find that NZs EEZ will be larger than the US one is.
Addition: And this is going off topic but you people should check charts / maps before rabbitting on about the RANs area of ops and whats good and not good for it, when you give the impression that you don't even know the basics like where Australia even is. Ngatimozart.
I stand corrected then. My apologies.The USA actually has the world's largest EEZ at 11 mil-sq-km compared to Australia's 8 mil. But 6 mil of Australia's EEZ is from the coast of the mainland where the USA's 'mainland' (lower 48) only generate 1-2 mil-sq-km of EEZ. The reason the US has such a big EEZ is they are able to enclose a huge area in the Bering Sea between Alaska at the Aleuts so they get the lot and because they can claim a huge ridge from Hawaii to Midway. Plus all the sea they get from dependencies in the Carolines and Marianas.
Outside of just four nations of the top 23 on that Wiki list, the US has mutual defense treaties with all of the rest as well. While we may not be directly involved with their EEZs, when the fat hits the fan we will be involved. Furthermore, there are huge gaps in the EEZ which at least sea lanes of communication have to be defended as well, say the huge gap between the California coast to the Hawaiian islands.The USA actually has the world's largest EEZ at 11 mil-sq-km compared to Australia's 8 mil. But 6 mil of Australia's EEZ is from the coast of the mainland where the USA's 'mainland' (lower 48) only generate 1-2 mil-sq-km of EEZ. The reason the US has such a big EEZ is they are able to enclose a huge area in the Bering Sea between Alaska at the Aleuts so they get the lot and because they can claim a huge ridge from Hawaii to Midway. Plus all the sea they get from dependencies in the Carolines and Marianas.
LOL, the threat to the US between Hawaii and California is huge! The issue here is all about spatial understanding. In particular the range demands for the RAN in operating submarines. Attached is an equal area map based on the Pacific Basin. Unlike the Mercator projection it gives a proper distance relationship between A and B.Outside of just four nations of the top 23 on that Wiki list, the US has mutual defense treaties with all of the rest as well. While we may not be directly involved with their EEZs, when the fat hits the fan we will be involved. Furthermore, there are huge gaps in the EEZ which at least sea lanes of communication have to be defended as well, say the huge gap between the California coast to the Hawaiian islands.
and where did that get us?Patrick said HDW wasn't the only player with an evolved long-range conventional design. ''Navantia and DCNS could offer larger conventional upsized S-80s or Scorpenes,'' he said. ''They just haven't gone public with their larger submarine design concepts. The original Collins was based on a scaled-up hull design from the Swedish manufacturer, Kockums.''