Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
I think that this has been suggested in the past. One other key contribution from the Japanese submarine would be power generation for onboard systems.
From my memory of past posts, these were the key elements that could be obtained from this source.
It would seem this is where OTS would be fantastic. For sub systems like this. From the conversation from before about this the general feel would be Japanese engines/generator would be a big improvement and address some of the operational issues with Collins.
the road runner
Active Member
It would have to be a goer.I think the navy has learnt a lot with its exercises with the USA.Its good that Australia has realised it needs a test site to ensure the engines/drive train that we purchase for our future subs will be tested.
Navy/Government should have a greater understanding of the capability/service requirements of the future engine for our sub fleet.
I recall the engine on Collins main issue is not having the original contractor supporting its engine(for parts ect) as it no longer exists.Hope we choose a Kawasaki/Toshiba type engine as we know these company's will be alive in 20 plus years.
I recall GF stating that the Japanese would bring "metallurgy" to the table, That is of course if we decide to go with a Japanese engine.
Last edited:
They make the diesel generators fitted onboard all the USN nuclear submarines as emergency genset backups for whent he reactor is crammed. Three of which would probably be suitable for powering a SEA 1000 submarine.Do Catapiller make a suitable marine diesel? Submarine diesels supported by Westrac?
The Japanese diesel generators were all originally license German engines. Of course they would have done a lot of work to them over the years.
The diesels fitted to the USN boats are tiny as they only have to charge a small battery.
There other use is for smoke clearance.
We already have 3 twin turbo V18 diesels fitted to Collins, replacement collins will have bigger capacity batteries so will need large output generators.
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
Who will supply the engines though? The supplier who provided the Collins engines is no longer in business, which may explain some of the engine issues in the recent past.
I assume the RAN or ASC have a CNC machine and the plans though, so I assume spare parts made to order shouldn't be a major drama.
I assume the RAN or ASC have a CNC machine and the plans though, so I assume spare parts made to order shouldn't be a major drama.
The diesel on the Virginia is a Caterpillar 3512B with 1.7 MW output (vs 1.4 MW on the Collins generators). The guy who designed the control panel is so proud of it he has a whole webpage detailing it:
Virginia SSN-774 DGCP Diesel Generator Control Panel
All that being said as I've posted here before (probably more than once because these threads are so cyclic) probably the best submarine engines are from the Germans (MTU). They are well proven in the emergency stop start condition that submarine generators find themselves in. Though with a bigger boat like a SEA 1000 type they may not make them big enough for a set of three to provide the right amount of power. But there has been some work at looking at a four generator arrangement to provide the power. BMT did a study on this and I would be surprised if a far more detailed copy is not sitting on a desk somewhere in the SEA 1000 project office.
I think a 4 engine setup would be better from a redundancy POV, but also space requirements as well. The MTU's are also more suited to the rigours of snorkling as well, the CAT's are good, but not designed in the electric sub world
Caterpillar also charge ridiculous prices. granted they counter that they have a broad support base etc.. but when I worked overseas I was shocked at the gap between the distributor price and the consumer buy price
German and Spanish gensets were from 50-24% cheaper for equiv oiutput - and had the same parts turn around guarantees
Spanish marine diesels had higher availability rates as well. They were also a proper marine engine in the sense that the engine could almost be completely pulled down and worked on if you were stuck in the middle of the ocean. We could do full inspections while the engines were running - ie taking off inspection plates and replacing components. The same applies to MTU. Cats do require some more ground based TLC
John Newman
The Bunker Group
Goodbye to LCH as amphibious capability grows - What??
Just came back from 6 weeks in Europe and was catching up on news, went to the Navy website to look at the latest edition of "Navy News", and came across this one:
Defence Newspapers | Navy News
See page 6. (have also attached a JPG of the article too).
Did I miss something while I was away? Amphibious capability growth?
Last I knew we had 2 dead LPA's, Choules still out of action, and Tobruk just limping along, oh yes, almost forgot we also have ADV Ocean Shield, how could I forget!
Three LCH will be decommissioned by the end of this year and the remaining 3 by end 2014.
Is this been in planning for a while? I hadn't heard a thing about it, I would have though that the last thing we would see is cuts to the amphibious capability, especially with all the problems of the last couple of years, and current problems too.
Looking at the current DCP, the planned replacements for the LCH's fleet is still 10-12 years away, with IOC somewhere between 2022-2024.
Just came back from 6 weeks in Europe and was catching up on news, went to the Navy website to look at the latest edition of "Navy News", and came across this one:
Defence Newspapers | Navy News
See page 6. (have also attached a JPG of the article too).
Did I miss something while I was away? Amphibious capability growth?
Last I knew we had 2 dead LPA's, Choules still out of action, and Tobruk just limping along, oh yes, almost forgot we also have ADV Ocean Shield, how could I forget!
Three LCH will be decommissioned by the end of this year and the remaining 3 by end 2014.
Is this been in planning for a while? I hadn't heard a thing about it, I would have though that the last thing we would see is cuts to the amphibious capability, especially with all the problems of the last couple of years, and current problems too.
Looking at the current DCP, the planned replacements for the LCH's fleet is still 10-12 years away, with IOC somewhere between 2022-2024.
The Ocean Shield is pretty much the pride of the amphibious fleet at the moment.
There doesn't seem to be any urgency to replace the LCH. Surprises me a bit since it is claimed they are extremely useful vessels. I would have thought that they would be reasonably cheap to build, and would help provide some work for shipyards while we are waiting for other shipbuilding programs to kick in.
There doesn't seem to be any urgency to replace the LCH. Surprises me a bit since it is claimed they are extremely useful vessels. I would have thought that they would be reasonably cheap to build, and would help provide some work for shipyards while we are waiting for other shipbuilding programs to kick in.
Im surprised so much of the Collins media reports are so negative. Doesn't anyone in the RAN actually tell the media the deterrent effect per $$ these types of boats have. Most of all in such a contentious region with such a growing chance of conflict.
OK. There are problems with the generators. I get it. But that doesn't mean the boat has failed in its mission, that subs arent more then worth their money deterrence-wise, and it doesnt explain the problems with recruitment in what should be an elite service. It would seem the 2nd problem could be solved with $$ and it had better be solved. If it isnt the question of a next gen boat is meaningless.
And Thats! a problem. Almost as big a problem for America as it is for Australia. Why else would we offer a SSN when we arent exactly in the habit of doing so?
Dial back 30 to 40 years when, and I bet most Yanks dont remember, much NATOs submarine force was also made up of very talented, and capable, German, Norwegian, Brit, Italian,Canadian, and Dutch boats each of whom would play a vital role if hostilities broke out. Like ours "theirs" was a hidden service but played a vital deterrent role in preventing war that History will probably forget. And like the RAN today the Euro boats surprised many a USN commander during yearly exercises. These were real fighting boats manned by real fighters and had important war time missions. Most of all in the vital choke points of the North Atlantic, Baltic, Black sea, and Mediterranean. And the Soviets knew it.
So it seems to this Yank that your Govt. isn't getting the message across of the importance of a continued 1st rate submarine force. Its seems to me it almost as important to America as it is to Australia, and American assistance of any kind should be assured.
And you should make it yourself. To RAN specifications. With USN assistance. And a class of 8 to 10 boats. I just dont see a future RAN without submarines as an option, nor is another foreign build an option.
OK. There are problems with the generators. I get it. But that doesn't mean the boat has failed in its mission, that subs arent more then worth their money deterrence-wise, and it doesnt explain the problems with recruitment in what should be an elite service. It would seem the 2nd problem could be solved with $$ and it had better be solved. If it isnt the question of a next gen boat is meaningless.
And Thats! a problem. Almost as big a problem for America as it is for Australia. Why else would we offer a SSN when we arent exactly in the habit of doing so?
Dial back 30 to 40 years when, and I bet most Yanks dont remember, much NATOs submarine force was also made up of very talented, and capable, German, Norwegian, Brit, Italian,Canadian, and Dutch boats each of whom would play a vital role if hostilities broke out. Like ours "theirs" was a hidden service but played a vital deterrent role in preventing war that History will probably forget. And like the RAN today the Euro boats surprised many a USN commander during yearly exercises. These were real fighting boats manned by real fighters and had important war time missions. Most of all in the vital choke points of the North Atlantic, Baltic, Black sea, and Mediterranean. And the Soviets knew it.
So it seems to this Yank that your Govt. isn't getting the message across of the importance of a continued 1st rate submarine force. Its seems to me it almost as important to America as it is to Australia, and American assistance of any kind should be assured.
And you should make it yourself. To RAN specifications. With USN assistance. And a class of 8 to 10 boats. I just dont see a future RAN without submarines as an option, nor is another foreign build an option.
Last edited:
Don't forget the Danes! No subs now, but used to have a few Type 205. And the Portuguese had a few Daphne class, & in the Med the Greeks & Turks had ex-USN subs until they started building German designs in the 1970s.
Last edited:
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #9,536
While in singapore i managed to pick a copy of the US Navytimes paper, and found it perhaps the best example of how RAN Navy news should be. Front page was a critical analysis of the budget, and how it effects the USN. Going through was more in depth critical stories. I recall the German Armed forces have a similar style magazine, which has a mix of serving personnel and civilians(a story was in a local def mag, unable to recall which). The key points of both were they did not act as a PR front for their respective forces. The opinions were factual, honest and got the story across.
Within defence, we see the newspapers published as a way to get beers from someone for a photo(big thanks john, 3 of my crew are in this edition!) and not much else, other then take up to much space in the mess. If they continue to be funded, why not make the editior someone outside of defence, and allow stories of critique that would be interesting. The ADF as a whole would love some form of newspaper in this country that could give an article without rolling eyes because its either a beat up of us, or complete rubbish. The ADF newspapers could be able to get our story across, while also bringing forward issues that we are not aware of, or frustrated by, ie budget, uniforms, capability. Whilever a person of rank oversees these papers, i would suggest they use better paper cause when we run out of toilet paper onboard may need an alternative...
tigerstripes
New Member
Navy Times is owned by a private company that specializes in covering the various branches of the US military and they are pretty good.
The USN's "official" magazine "All Hands" is pretty much garbage.
SEA 1180 from left field? No problems with the Southern Ocean...
Vigor Offshore Patrol Cutter (OPC) with the Ulstein X Bow being offered for USCG.
Offshore Patrol Cutters - Vigor Industrial
Vigor Offshore Patrol Cutter (OPC) with the Ulstein X Bow being offered for USCG.
Offshore Patrol Cutters - Vigor Industrial
Definitely not a good looker, but interesting. I presume that since it's being offered to the USCG it would be ice strengthened (thinking of RNZN requirements). You definitely couldn't miss it sailing up the Sydney Harbour.
- Status