Actually, there must be something that sucks power like crazy aboard French SSNs. Otherwise you can't really explain why - sizewise - they're going from the current Rubis K48 reactors that have 150% of the output of a Virginia's S9G to a design for the Barracuda that has 500% of an S9G's output.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
I can only asume that the EW suite is giganticly complex and powerfull, thats the kind of thing I would expect from the French Navy.
Or maybe they run at much faster speeds, and hence need lots of power...?
I have to admit that my limited knowledge is all about surface ships...
Yeesss . . . but the Rubis class is no longer being built, or available to buy. The last was commissioned 20 years ago, & later this decade they'll start being replaced by the Barracuda class, of which the first two are now building. It's 20m longer than Collins, & 2000 tons heavier.
t68
Well-Known Member
An interesting analysis by the Kokoda Foundation in respect to the future submarine project, it forms the opinion that Collins should be used as the basis of an improved design one which we have a deep knowledge with.
It also rules out nuclear propulsion as it will increase cost by about 30/40% of the project not with standing that we don’t have a home grown nuclear capability, I assume that the reason for the increase is not the boat its self but the accompanying infrastructure to maintain those boats.
It’s interesting they believe if we used Collins as a benchmark for an evolved design up to 3800tonnes might be achievable for half of the earlier estimates or 18 Billion AUD (2011) for 12 submarines, if that is correct it might have merit for a continuously evolving design once we get to the last 4 boats, 8 boats of Collins MKII the a complete fresh design and continues on from there.
http://www.kokodafoundation.org/Resources/Documents/KP17.pdf
It also rules out nuclear propulsion as it will increase cost by about 30/40% of the project not with standing that we don’t have a home grown nuclear capability, I assume that the reason for the increase is not the boat its self but the accompanying infrastructure to maintain those boats.
It’s interesting they believe if we used Collins as a benchmark for an evolved design up to 3800tonnes might be achievable for half of the earlier estimates or 18 Billion AUD (2011) for 12 submarines, if that is correct it might have merit for a continuously evolving design once we get to the last 4 boats, 8 boats of Collins MKII the a complete fresh design and continues on from there.
http://www.kokodafoundation.org/Resources/Documents/KP17.pdf
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
The publically stated power generation capacity of such reactors is one of those figures which I take with a very large grain of salt.
Someone might perhaps use the Rubis-class SSN because it happened to be the SSN in the warship recognition guide one grabbed when looking for specs of subs to compare... Granted such a guide is a little out of date, being copyright 2006, but one can get a general idea...
-Cheers
One of the reasons nuclear is not an option is the government(s) will no longer be able to take the same funding, crewing and maintenance short cuts they have with the Collins class. You can't just pull a nuc out of the water and lay it up without maintneance because money is short (blaming the contractor for lack of availability at the same time), you can't just put them to sea with inexperienced crews because you haven't fixed the retention issues. Basically no Australian government will go nuclear because in addition to all the other reasons mentioned in public, they just will never commit to the level of oversite and accountability into maintenance and operations a reactor will entail.
It has to be the ovens and cooking stoves in their galleys. Remember they are French and their food will be the most important priority, unlike other navies
If governments of either colour aren't willing to commit to the levels required we may as well pack up our bongos and go home.
Be it nuc or evolved Collins it will be one of the most expensive defence projects ever undertaken in Australia (say $20b at today's dollars). It will need many of the planning and oversite innovations discussed in the paper to be realised.
However, for an advanced economy, this is not a daunting task. By contrast, the development of the Ichthys gas field in the Browse Basin INPEX: Ichthys, the largest ever offshore condensate plant (FPSO)and the 800 km undersea pipeline to Darwin is a $34b project that draws expertise form across the globe and uses a substantial input by Australian labour and industry.
One can only hope that politicians and their advisors read the Kokoda paper and others like it (referring to the future subs and Aus defence sustainment - RAND report) and agree on some bi-partisan long term defence procurement.
Last edited by a moderator:
The issue with defence projects is:
a) the government controls the purse strings,
b) defence is more akin to insurance than infra structure (i.e. it doesn't turn a profit) and
c) government ministers are not defence experts
If the government controlled all industry in Australia it would all end up pretty much like defence. Mirco managed by people who are not experts and accordingly no where near as efficient and capable as the sum of its parts (staff, infra structure etc.) would indicate it should be.
Last edited by a moderator:
Which is exactly the point that the Kokoda paper is making. Its time to change the procurement and sustainment system and use examples across the contempory business and defence world such as; the "Virginia Class" procurement model from the USN.
Its not about discarding all that is old. its about taking the good from existing arrangements and melding them with what's good in modern industry project management.
Last edited by a moderator:
I know this is from a while back but I was reading up on the CEA radars and Saab 9LV and was wondering if we have progressed on the interoperability stakes AWD vs Anzac upgrade, Link16/CEC?
CEC is separate to Link 16 and its (CEC’s) data distribution system (C Band) is just used to share the radar dwells of cooperating units (CU). Each CU generates its own air picture onboard but because they use all the same data and algorithms each ship’s air picture is identical. As opposed to Link 16 which sends out command information and shares radar tracks and the like. 9LV would not have too much to do with making CEC happen as its (CEC’s) cooperative engagement processer does all the grunt work to generate the common air picture.
AFAIK the Anzac class is not being fitted with USG-2 to provide CEC and some software work would have to be done to make it possible. That is integrating the CEA FAR arrays into CEC as it includes software that ‘rates’ radars based on their accuracy. Perhaps more important for the ADF is integrating USG-3 (CEC for aircraft) onto Wedgetail. If all this is realised then the CEC of an ADF naval task force will be hugely boosted.
Don't hold your breath.
You will be an old man before all that happens..... if ever - IMHO
I would imagine if the Phalanx becomes obsolete as a front line CIWS (replaced by lasers or what not) then it may still be worthwhile on the LHD to deal with asymmetric threats, rpgs and what nots. Perhaps around 2050? They do have the mini typhoons, so they won't be completely helpless, and I would imagine every where the LHD goes, a couple of frigates if not a couple of frigates and a AWD will follow. The mini typhoons will be to mop up anything that gets through or while at port etc. The CIWS are better dismounted off on the escorts than on the LHD herself. More likely to safely stop and less interference to flight ops.
Wonder if Choules highlights the need for redundancy and having enough ships to ensure your capability. I wonder if the LHD program is highly successful, low cost, etc, helping both Spain and Australia, if we instead of loaning/giving the EU money instead just buy another to make 3. It could be called HMAS Queanbeyan.
I believe things like JORN have been integrated into a single radar image with other systems (I believe it can link in to the US global network). I would imagine JORN, Wedgetail and a AWD would provide a pretty significant image with two providing information worthy of targeting, and JORN providing near global strategic view.
Not every unit needs CEC. The AWD will have it. Wedgetail I would imagine will get it. Then as frigate replacements turn up, them having it might be useful. At least we would get some use out of them. The Anzacs aren't getting any younger and we are already pencilling replacements. By the time the last AWD is in the water those frigates will start becoming dive wrecks.
I think we'll see 16 Air-Land Regiment standing on the flight decks with their RBS-70's before we see any of that, apart maybe from Phalanx Block 1B...
Hmmm.... Ships uniform: Mismatched trackie dacks with a packet of Drum tabacco under he sleeve.. And before anyone decides I'm being a tad hard on the place , I live there and had to step around the blood where my next door neighbour was stabbed last Wed night. It turns out that Queensland supporters with a belly full of idiot soup turn nasty when their team loses Sate of Origin.
Stop you there. You clearly don’t understand what CEC does and how that’s different to sharing tracks.
- Status