SouthernSky
Member
I think you're wandering off on a tangent with little to no substance. Nothing has been officially announced.
I think your car analogy leaves a bit to be desired too.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
I think your car analogy leaves a bit to be desired too.
no, its more than that, but what the frak would I know?
I've only worked on 3 classes of subs in a few countries - and specifically have been involved in acoustic mapping of changed platforms
getting the balance of an old and a new drivetrain sorted is the least of the problems to deal with
saying it can't be done with Collins is just abject nonsense,
there are multiple options for Collins/"Son of" - all have technical merit, all are feasible
the end state is about risk against all the options that are available to deal with our current and future sub force
I've modified a few engines and vehicles in my time (and had some in van and street car magazines in the 80's), at no point would I even remotely consider that all the engineering work I did with them was a parallel to what we do with ships and boats
at a rudimentary level yes, beyond that they diverge at a rapid rate of knots irrespective of basic engineering principles
I'm not sure that any maritime engineer would consider that shunting a hull is basic structural engineering - and that ignores the tribalism that exists within the engineering disciplines
If you do seriously doubt that, they you are wrong. Reckon there might be some difference between a late 70's / early 80's Hedemora diesel engine and a suitable 2013 diesel engine?
Surely you looked into the difference between 70's engines and 21st century engines at your automobile club, didn't you?
I would imagine that 40 years of engine development might include such things as size and weight reductions, efficiency, reliability, power improvements and so on, wouldn't you?
SamuraiBlue
New Member
It's not the reliability of the engine nor the chassis itself I am talking about. It's how the engine is situated within the chassis to obtain balance as a whole.
The biggest problem would be inertia, even if the fixture of the engine is reinforced if the chassis as a whole is not designed to withstand the force as a whole then the chassis becomes warped. Off course you can place ad hoc reinforcement at various points but it may interfere with other equipment with the sub as space is a premium.
That is the problem I can foresee in placing a complete different drive train into a already built chassis.
I would like to point out that I am not saying it will certainly fail, I am saying there is large problem and will for certain shorten the chassis life span and will not able to obtain full design potential.
They aren't HQ Holdens mate and bush mechanics won't be installing them...
When one doesn't have the faintest idea of a platforms ability to accept re-engining, I wouldn't be the one to make definitive claims about what it can and can't accept...
One might be out of their depth if they did...
I heartily recommend this, if you want the best open source available on these platforms:
The Collins Class Submarine Story: Steel, Spies and Spin
By Peter Yule, Derek Woolner
Last edited:
SamuraiBlue
New Member
Whether it be Holden, Toyota and/or Kawasaki they will tell you the same since neither have an idea of what the balance of the system as a whole is. It will be the same with the people who had designed the Collins since they do not have the specs for the power train of the Soryu either.
Until they do it's up in the air for anyone's guess.
Tried to check your profile to see what sort of forum member would post such unmitigated processed horse feed.
You obviously have little or zero knowledge of the principles of naval and marine engineering otherwise you wouldn't keep delivering this pointless comparison with motor vehicles.
Do us all a favour, read the suggested material and only make a contribution when you have some idea of the subject matter.
I apolagise for being harsh but you haven't taken the hints so far.
Maybe its got more in common with the wing ribs of a cessna 152 and its ....oh, sorry....
fftopic
fftopicSamuraiBlue
New Member
Oh please spare me this not in the club patronizing. I have enough knowledge as well as experience in mobile structural engineering to foresee probabilities. Without the details to actually calculate the margin within the chassis you cannot say with certainty that it will work or not.
For example can you really tell me the weight ratio of the Soryu engine and the comparison with the Collins?
Don't think so.
Sam, may I call you Sam?
There are people on this forum that have worked on the design and instalation of systems on the Collins class, and who are part of the team finding a replacment or other options for he Collins. they know ....stuff....and a lot of it can't bè talked about outside of that team. One of those guys has tried to hint that there are options, but you are not listening.
There are people on this forum that have worked on the design and instalation of systems on the Collins class, and who are part of the team finding a replacment or other options for he Collins. they know ....stuff....and a lot of it can't bè talked about outside of that team. One of those guys has tried to hint that there are options, but you are not listening.
I have zero knowledge in either doing engine transplants in cars or submarines.
That said both are basic engineering problems. If you do turf the 4 cylinder in the from your Morris Marina and slot in a V8, then yes you will substantially alter the balance of the car. You will probably find that the transmission, driveshaft, diff, halfshafts and hubs will need to be changed. The body/chassis may need reinforcing too, the brakes upgraded, even down to the suitability of the wheel/tyre combo..
But it is not impossible. Ford Australia took the 4 cylinder cortina and slotted in the cast iron 3.3 and 4.1 litre 6 cylinder motors. GMH turned the 4 cylinder torana into a 6 and an 8 cylinder vehicle. Now the Cortina was reputed to be a bit of a lead sled in the handling stakes, but it can be done reliably. Your average backyard tinkerer is not going to have deep enough pockets or the time or probably the necessary engineering qualifications testing gear or tools to make all the changes that Ford and GM no doubt made to make these vehicles. Hell, Land rover took the weedy little 4 and 6 cylinder petrol engines in the series 2 then 3 land rovers and turfed them for V8's (and an Isuzu 4 cylinder here in Oz). Nobody would argue that the series 3 land rover is a better vehicle than the LR110, so engine changes can be done it just takes money and engineering.
Now, let's switch the argument to subs. Do you think that this modification if done (and from what I can see that's a big 'if') will be done by the chief engineer, and a few stokers (ratings? What do you call the grease monkey's in the engine room?) over a couple of weeks with the sub up on blocks? Or do you think that there will be a host of engineers working on weight, envelope, intake and exhaust compatibility, fuel tank size/compatability, torque ratings of gearboxes engine rpm operating ranges and the implication of gearing for the generators. Different vibration and resonance characteristics, etc. In short it will be a major redesign which will then be performed in a fully equipped facility (Adelaide). It's this issue of cost and time on an already 20(?) year old design which is why i'm doubting this going ahead unless the issue with the Hedemora's is worse than I thought.
In short, it's not impossible, it just will require time and money.
Who said anything about re-engining the Collins Class with the powerplant from the Soryu Class?
AFAIK, there is a proposal in existence at present to replace the Hedemora diesels on the Collins as part of a life extension for the whole class. I don't believe any details of such an upgrade have been released publicly, other than the mooted idea (perhaps more than mooted if you move in the right circles - ASC, DSTO etc) to replace the existing propulsion system, being brought up before the Senate Estimates Committees.
So the only details we are lacking in the public space are 1. Is any life extension program going to be performed? 2. What upgrades will be conducted? Without knowing these, obviously it is in reality a little bit difficult to confidently propose what impacts any of these unknown upgrades might have on the rest of the hull.
Proposing otherwise is just ridiculous.
How ironic, you note that something "cannot be said with certainty" yet your previous posts certainly indicated certainty on your behalf. As for the rest, I think you'd be better off listening to people instead of proclaiming automotive club experience as some kind of credibility with regards to how and why a submarine refit is undertaken.
Unless you're trolling. Either way the result's the same, in the end.
Mate, you've had people attempting to explain things to you. This includes one Mod who has professional knowledge and experience working on sub programs. Now another has spoken rather more directly. I'd listen to him and read what he states very carefully especially the bit I've highlighted in red because he's not known for his extreme patience.
So SamuraiBlue my advice to you like others here have said, is listen and learn. If you are a professional engineer then that should be a core part of your professionalism, because we are always learning regardless of how well educated and knowledgable we think we are. Long story short, in this case, if you don't Bonza or another Mod will get cranky and your time on here will be very short indeed.
and who in here has said that the Soryu/Oyashio drivetrain is in consideration?
there are same basic "points" here
1) The Japanese have a strong relationship with us
2) The Japanese have indicated a change in their attitude to sharing and/or exporting military technology - they have indicated also that upsetting the chinese in SEA is not in anyones interests, but that other countries may well be interested in Japanese tech for their own political needs - this is primarily but not restricted to patrol boats at the maritime level - it could also be maritime patrol aircraft, it could be digital technology, it could be sensor systems
3) There are very few conventional fleet subs that can readily be compared to the Collins mission set - the primary ones are Oyashio/Soryu and the Upholders on Blue team, after that, it goes to nukes, which are used in some of the baseline comparisons across a number of performance vectors
4) Drivetrain tech for subs in the last few years alone has changed dramatically. Available engines with similar energy figures are 1/3rd smaller and generating 50% more power
5) Subs are not designed primarily around engine systems, their capability is designed around the energy demand/requirements first, then its against likely drivetrain, then the sub is sized against that requirement. We don't design and spec a sub size and then try to squash the capability into that predetermined space - which is why the broadsheet chatter about getting 21nn class subs is utter rubbish because it immediately bypasses the capability design constraints which are operational scenarios and capability needs.
6) Conventionally powered subs are critically constrained by energy requirements, the drivetrain selection has less focus on sheer performance and is more heavily aligned to what ISR/INT roles and sensor systems are needed, churn, burn, range come after that.
As for dismissing responses as "club mentality", well when you have a number of people in here who are maritime engineers, who have worked in sub projects and/or who have worked in subs, worked in major weapons projects and then who try to impart the basics to assist in learning but then get comments thrown back which don't stand up to known real world analysis, then the courtesy issues also take a hammering.
if you're an engineer and you're making some of the comments to date as an example of engineering analysis, then some are immediately questioning competency against this subject material because they just don't add up.
subs more than any other platform are critically dependant on being designed around the concept of operations as that determines basic elements like size and powerplant
dismissing a replug on the issue of difficulty in remanaging the subs footprint, acoustic sig, handling issues etc is less than genuine comment because it conveniently ignores the fact that any replacement drivetrain options are lilely to include a drivetrain set that can offer similar energy management reqs in a smaller more efficient package - and that means that something as basic as more available internal real estate changes the dynamics and patrol options of the sub - that can mean longer patrol times, crew format issues, additional sensor capability in additional space, fuel load options etc....
so when you make throw away comments baselined against your experience in re-engining cars, then significant doubt creeps in about your engineering credentials against this capability req.
and the above is an example of considerations against one sub solution option
a mid life platform extension will be risk assessed against the 3 other options
but you don't select an alternative drivetrain based on it conforming to existing absolute weight and distribution issues.
My suggestion is that you read more, ask more questions and ratchet back on the attitude, because you haven't convinced anyone in here who is a real engineer that you understand the broader design issues.
Continuing to engage as you have been will not end well.
Last edited:
protoplasm
Active Member
Collins refit
I'm unsure if this can be explained by those in the know in a public space, but
Are the power generation/drivetrain systems the main or majority area that need to be addressed if the Collins class boats are to go through for an additional complete refit? I vaguely remember hearing of a report that suggested that the boats could go through an additional refit cycle without structural risk, and that now that other systems are fairly well developed, a new drivetrain would complete a package that could go for another 10 years beyond current design life of type.
I'm unsure if this can be explained by those in the know in a public space, but
Are the power generation/drivetrain systems the main or majority area that need to be addressed if the Collins class boats are to go through for an additional complete refit? I vaguely remember hearing of a report that suggested that the boats could go through an additional refit cycle without structural risk, and that now that other systems are fairly well developed, a new drivetrain would complete a package that could go for another 10 years beyond current design life of type.
While it may be a relatively simple mechanical task to cut the submarine in half, pull out the three main generators, the main motor and the electrical bus and then replace them with robust new equipment (and then re weld the two halves together) the engineering task doesn’t end there. Submarines need to be silent and a whole range of systems on-board need to be tweaked and/or replaced to be able to operate with a new propulsion system. It’s a major rebuild and is certainly a lot more than a typical, historical destroyer re-boilering or even the previous submarine upgrade with the new combat system. Interestingly the Japanese approach to submarine fleet management which ASC has been proposing for some time is to entirely dispense with any attempt at mid-life upgrade and only build the submarine for a 15 odd year life time. However the ‘don’t look back’ approach seems to be the complete opposite of what all Australian governments seem to want out of their defence procurement.
Does anyone have any insight into the progress of the Balikpapan class replacement/JP 2048 Phase 5?
I've been reading conflicting stories but the below suggest the replacement IOC would be 2022 - 2023, surely that would have to be brought forward? If the remaining three ships are decommissioned within the next two years that leaves a large gap in our amphibious capability for a long time.
Defence Capability Plan 2009 - Public Version - December 2010 Update
I've been reading conflicting stories but the below suggest the replacement IOC would be 2022 - 2023, surely that would have to be brought forward? If the remaining three ships are decommissioned within the next two years that leaves a large gap in our amphibious capability for a long time.
Defence Capability Plan 2009 - Public Version - December 2010 Update
I was thinking along the same lines but couldn't put it so eloquently.
It is no simple task to cut and plug a submarine, and the time taken to complete the process and the testing must surely eat into the expected ten year LOT extension that is hoped for.
It will likely be cheaper and end up with a much better result, if the Collins class limps along on what it has, and Collins Series 2 is built with the projected improvements in powertrain and generating capacity.
I truly hope that the decision makers aren't sold on the idea of another Seasprite-type adventure.
I admit this confuses me as well since it doesn't seem like this would be that expensive to replace these craft and might provide some useful work for local industry.Does anyone have any insight into the progress of the Balikpapan class replacement/JP 2048 Phase 5?
I've been reading conflicting stories but the below suggest the replacement IOC would be 2022 - 2023, surely that would have to be brought forward? If the remaining three ships are decommissioned within the next two years that leaves a large gap in our amphibious capability for a long time.
Defence Capability Plan 2009 - Public Version - December 2010 Update
I know a number of other members believe that the Balikpapan class are among the hardest working and most useful craft in the navy which makes it even harder to understand why the capability will be dispensed of for a period of nearly 10 years.
Perhaps some interim replacement such as a RoRo vessel might be sought at some point.
- Status