Just trying to understand if the AIP is as much value to the RAN compared to other Navy's. Would that area the AIP takes up be better used to have fuel,battery's,better living area for the crew,more food storage,weapons such as TLAM ,special forces,ect.
I do recall gf talking about an AIP being not as useful for the RAN
Just curious if this is still true
Cheers.
Unless there has been some significant improvements in AIP systems, then I do not think AIP would be a net benefit for the RAN. Part of the issue has to do with the energy density of AIP fuels vs. marine/naval diesel, and the other is the rate of energy generation from AIP systems vs. diesel-electric systems.
As Euro subs have demonstrated an AIP equipped sub can make a three week transit IIRC from a port in the Atlantic/North Sea to the Med, completely submerged, albeit the transit was slow. One of the other significant issues for RAN subs, is that the combat systems, sensors, etc in use as well as the machinery require significant amounts of power. AFAIK the power requirements far exceed what current AIP systems can generate, which means drawing on the batteries (like regular diesel-electrics do) until needing to surface/snort to recharge the batteries. As I understand it, with the current gen-set a Collins-class SSG can quickly recharge the batteries with a comparatively small indiscretion rate.
The government may just be making noise re purchasing off the shelf Japanese subs. I personally would like to see our new subs built here, in groups of three, with each three being an improvement on the last, 9 Subs would be the minimum I would imagine. This government would never order 12, simply because that is the number Kevin Rudd wanted.
I think groups of four would be better, not three. Most pieces of military kit follow the rule of three, one in refit, one in training/workup for an op, and the third available or deployed on operations. Subs tend to follow a rule of four, so I think having the builds done in groups of four makes more sense.
-Cheers
