As I understand it, pod tests. Needed deeper water to run them up to higher RPMs.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
weegee
Active Member
If she is being picked up soon, when will she be in Melbourne? What will the travel time be?
Yes that would make sense to me and to my eye (if i squint and stick my tounge out at the right angle) I think I can see exhaust fumes coming from the same spot in each of the photos.
weegee
Active Member
How long is that work expected to take? how long will she be in the sea trial stage too? Because at the last mention i think she is supposed to be in service by 2014? does everyone think this is still an option given that it now comes down to our shipyards to complete or stuff up? haha
Canberra will be loaded onto Blue Marlin at Coruna as there is not enough depth at Ferrol to complete "float on".
The transit is scheduled to take 45 days via the Cape of Good Hope in order to avoid sheduling delays at SUEZ and pirate risk off the Horn of Africa.
She is due to float off (another 2 days) at Williamstown 4th quarter of this year and will be handed over to the RAN one year later.
JP 2048 | Australian Defence News & Articles | Asia Pacific Defence Reporter
Although the superstructure blocks are all well into production a certain amount of cynicism remains about BAE's (Williamstown)ability to finish anything on schedule!
Cheers
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
That would be embarrassing, nothing a Clearance Diver security detachment couldn't fix though. :goodbad
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #8,868
Did the same for Choules, seems the safiest option even if we have a frigate that does escorts for high value cargo through the GOA
I have been doing a lot of reading lately on propulsion systems, and I was curious on everyones opinion of the feasability of using a modern Pump Jet Propulsion system on conventionally powered submarines ?
This is a system currently used on the US Virginia Class Nuclear Submarines, I do know earlier versions of this system were not very efficient, but improving technology is making them more so, are these a viable/possible option in the future
Cheers
This is a system currently used on the US Virginia Class Nuclear Submarines, I do know earlier versions of this system were not very efficient, but improving technology is making them more so, are these a viable/possible option in the future
Cheers
t68
Well-Known Member
Back in February this year the US Ambassador to Australia stated that the US was willing to assist Australia with nuclear powered submarines either leased or owed outright. With Australia not having a nuclear industry it would most probably struggle without US assistance, but one possible option was a US nuclear submarine base being established in Australia, if that was to happen would it be possible to establish one here without a nuclear power industry?
US floats nuclear subs option
US floats nuclear subs option
i think the Soviets/Russians experimented with pump jets on a Kilo at one stage. ill have a look and see if i can dig anything up.
Edit:here it is
Kilo Class Submarine "ALROSA" :: Black Sea Fleet, Russian Federation
if you flick to the photos tab you will find a whole heap of shots of the pump jet and internal propellor
Don't forget Red Oktober and its famous caterpillar drive - heh heh!
I still think nukes are off the table. Firstly if we got nukes would would get a lot less conventional submarines, which would make the conventional submarine program less viable. Like the UK's and the US, who then ditched the conventional.
I don't think there is any chance of a US nuclear submarine base being based in Australia. Its not needed (nuke subs are fast, they can be on station almost anywhere in a few days travelling 30+kts), we can't really offer them anything anyway (no nuke industry, very little submarine industry etc) and no doubt other issues (technology transfer, regional, political, environmental issues etc).
Nukes and conventional have different missions. That suits their advantages.
Also while the Australian program was going to cost a lot. Most of that money was going to be spent here, on Australian technology, Australian companies, Australian materials, Australian workers. All of which pay tax. Spending a billion dollars locally is a lot better than spending a billion dollars internationally. The government could expect say 20% ish to come back in taxes. But that money runs through the economy. An Australian submarine might have all major components locally made, except for the combat systems and weapons.
So its a bit more complicated than that. Canada I think would be in a much better position to go nuclear. It has a nuclear industry, it shares a boarder with the US, it needs nukes to patrol Arctic ice, its coming under direct pressure from Russia.
I don't think there is any chance of a US nuclear submarine base being based in Australia. Its not needed (nuke subs are fast, they can be on station almost anywhere in a few days travelling 30+kts), we can't really offer them anything anyway (no nuke industry, very little submarine industry etc) and no doubt other issues (technology transfer, regional, political, environmental issues etc).
Nukes and conventional have different missions. That suits their advantages.
Also while the Australian program was going to cost a lot. Most of that money was going to be spent here, on Australian technology, Australian companies, Australian materials, Australian workers. All of which pay tax. Spending a billion dollars locally is a lot better than spending a billion dollars internationally. The government could expect say 20% ish to come back in taxes. But that money runs through the economy. An Australian submarine might have all major components locally made, except for the combat systems and weapons.
So its a bit more complicated than that. Canada I think would be in a much better position to go nuclear. It has a nuclear industry, it shares a boarder with the US, it needs nukes to patrol Arctic ice, its coming under direct pressure from Russia.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Not necessarily. The French Rubis-class SSN is actually a slightly smaller (dimensions) and lower displacement at ~2,410 tons surfaced, vs. the ~3,050 ton displacement of the Collins-class SSG in RAN service. Given that the Rubis-class is a nuclear boat, I do suspect that the sustained power generation capacity would exceed that of a Collins-class SSG. I am not so certain how the Rubis-class power generation stacks up when compared to larger SSN's like the Los Angeles-class or Viriginia-class. Or how that power generation compared with the amount of power available to be drawn from the batteries aboard a Collins-class.
Then there is also the potentially quite significant issues associated with integrating the types of sensor systems the RAN wishes to use aboard a French/France-sourced sub. Unless the RAN opted to go for a wholely Euro and/or Australian solution in terms of sonars, sensors and combat data system, there would be integration issues. Particularly since the US would likely withhold at least some of the information.
Also, with something like the Rubis-class only ~80% the displacement, and ~4 m shorter in length when compared to a Collins-class, that could have a negative impact upon sonar ops, and/or acoustic treatments and reduction methods. As has been commented on before in this (and other RAN related) thread, certain materials, treatments and techniques are only effective when done on a certain scale.
I do not wish to harp on about this, but in terms of submarines, smaller does not automatically mean harder to detect/engage.
-Cheers
t68
Well-Known Member
Agree, it’s not feasible for Australia to run 2 submarine type fleet its one or the other. But if we did go to nuclear propulsion IMHO that would rule out a 2nd submarine base in the east, I for one cannot see them basing nuclear powered submarines in Sydney Harbour. If we had USN nuclear boats transiting in and out off Fleet base west that might drop the amount of boats needed for the RAN to a more manageable number, down to perhaps between 6 and 9 boats
If it’s not technically possible to set up a US submarine base (without local nuclear infrastructure) to support there own and Australian subs why would the ambassador bring it up as being doable?
There would have to been some sort of analysis by the Americans to even bring the subject up.
If it was not for nuclear issue I would suspect that a Virginia class boat would be the obvious choice for the RAN next generation submarine, combat systems wise it’s a known quantity compared to what we have on Collins class submarines.
Whether or not Australia could handle nuclear subs would actually fall back on to the US. If they were willing to offer the level of support that the ambassador indicates then it is possible. I can see how this would benefit the US and Australia.
Having said that I wouldn't put all my eggs in one basket and would still want to have conventional subs as well.
Having said that I wouldn't put all my eggs in one basket and would still want to have conventional subs as well.
The Americans are basically saying they are open to all possibilities. Nuclear or conventional. I don't think it was actually the ambassador who said specifically that a US nuclear naval base is do able or the way to go.
A dozen Virginia boats would be fantastic. Its pretty much everything we would want. However its not going to happen. Nuclear is basically off the table. The libs are possibly more inclined to talk about it, but neither is going make it happen.
John Newman
The Bunker Group
The pros and cons of Nuclear vs Non-Nuclear powered subs is a very long, deep and complex debate, which I'm certainly not qualified to enter into with any authority.
But one of the points that is always made is that Australia, or any country, would have to have a domestic Nuclear industry to support SSN's.
This has brought up a couple of questions in my mind that I'd like to know the answers to, if possible.
From what I have read the S9G reactor in a Virginia class sub does not need refueling for 33 years, eg, more than the operartional life of the sub.
For example, "If" Australia was to obtain Virginia SSN's direct from the US production line, operate them for 30 years, once decommissioned, send back to the US for dismantling, de-fueling, etc, what exactly would be required in country to support the Nuclear reactor during its life of service, especially since its does not need to be refueled?
How big or complex a Nuclear industry would be required to support it, what specifically would be required during those 30 years of operation.
Secondly, from what I undersand the Virginia SSN's have a crew of 135, about double that of a Collins, (yes, crewing is another issue altogether).
How many of that crew would be "nuclear specialists" whose role is specifically to manage and maintain the reactor?
Obviously those specialists don't grow on trees and the way I see it, that in itself would be a huge limiting factor for Australia being able to operate SSN's.
But one of the points that is always made is that Australia, or any country, would have to have a domestic Nuclear industry to support SSN's.
This has brought up a couple of questions in my mind that I'd like to know the answers to, if possible.
From what I have read the S9G reactor in a Virginia class sub does not need refueling for 33 years, eg, more than the operartional life of the sub.
For example, "If" Australia was to obtain Virginia SSN's direct from the US production line, operate them for 30 years, once decommissioned, send back to the US for dismantling, de-fueling, etc, what exactly would be required in country to support the Nuclear reactor during its life of service, especially since its does not need to be refueled?
How big or complex a Nuclear industry would be required to support it, what specifically would be required during those 30 years of operation.
Secondly, from what I undersand the Virginia SSN's have a crew of 135, about double that of a Collins, (yes, crewing is another issue altogether).
How many of that crew would be "nuclear specialists" whose role is specifically to manage and maintain the reactor?
Obviously those specialists don't grow on trees and the way I see it, that in itself would be a huge limiting factor for Australia being able to operate SSN's.
- Status