Nothing concrete on what has been happening but as I understand it LI batteries are so much lighter than lead acid for a given volume that you would require a very major redesign on the platform to maintain stability. The Collins class for instance almost certainty could not be fitted with LI batteries due to stability I.e. external ballast may be required.One step closer for an Australian Soryu: Japanese is building new Soryu with Li batteries instead of lead batteries +AIP....
One would have thought that any competent government would have directed DSTO/RAN to experiment with Li-iro and NiMH batteries.
When negotiating it's always best to be knowledgeable in the area under discussion! It leads to a lower pricing in an exchange of technologies.
Then again DSTO may have being researching these batteries for some years but be constrained by secrecy instructions?
Does anyone know?
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
knightrider4
Active Member
knightrider4
Active Member
Good to hear and pretty much the direction ASC and DSME have been going for years. As gf and others mentioned previously Australia looked at and rejected AIP as unsuitable for RAN evolutions. Much better performance can be achieved using powerful diesel generators to rapidly charge massive batteries.
Interestingly Pacific Marine Batteries have developed innovative light weight batteries that would have been ideal for an evolved Collins, the trouble is a lack of vision by successive governments meant, although there was a need for additional submarines to meet operational requirements and in particular to ensure there were sufficient hulls available once the class started cycling through FCDs, they were never ordered.
There are so many improvements, developed by ASC, DSTO and other groups, that could have been incorporated into a second batch and even more into a third had they ever been ordered. Had we initially ordered two batches of three submarines over ten years or two of four over twelve years many improvements could have been incorporated into the second batch. A third batch could have followed for a total of nine hulls over fifteen years or twelve over eighteen years, the choice can then be made as to whether upgrade or replace the first batch. Obviously with nine hulls replacement wouldn't be possible unless the existing boats were sold on, with twelve hulls you could conceivably replace the first batch as they hit twenty years each, for a continuous build, maybe still selling the old boats.
This wouldn't be cheap but it would definitely have provided the capability required by the Australian government without the issues encountered with the current fleet. Improvements would have been built into the next batch rather than boats being taken out of service, out of schedule, for longer than intended, to incorporate improvements not anticipated in the initial design. Deficiencies unacceptable over a thirty year life would likely be put up with if an improved batch was scheduled to enter service in several years after which you could decide on a major midlife upgrade involving gutting and rebuilding the boats or simply replacing them with a new batch, more expensive but twice the life.
Interestingly Pacific Marine Batteries have developed innovative light weight batteries that would have been ideal for an evolved Collins, the trouble is a lack of vision by successive governments meant, although there was a need for additional submarines to meet operational requirements and in particular to ensure there were sufficient hulls available once the class started cycling through FCDs, they were never ordered.
There are so many improvements, developed by ASC, DSTO and other groups, that could have been incorporated into a second batch and even more into a third had they ever been ordered. Had we initially ordered two batches of three submarines over ten years or two of four over twelve years many improvements could have been incorporated into the second batch. A third batch could have followed for a total of nine hulls over fifteen years or twelve over eighteen years, the choice can then be made as to whether upgrade or replace the first batch. Obviously with nine hulls replacement wouldn't be possible unless the existing boats were sold on, with twelve hulls you could conceivably replace the first batch as they hit twenty years each, for a continuous build, maybe still selling the old boats.
This wouldn't be cheap but it would definitely have provided the capability required by the Australian government without the issues encountered with the current fleet. Improvements would have been built into the next batch rather than boats being taken out of service, out of schedule, for longer than intended, to incorporate improvements not anticipated in the initial design. Deficiencies unacceptable over a thirty year life would likely be put up with if an improved batch was scheduled to enter service in several years after which you could decide on a major midlife upgrade involving gutting and rebuilding the boats or simply replacing them with a new batch, more expensive but twice the life.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
There was an article in Slate that referenced a new Lithium battery being developed at Nanyang Technical University in Singapore. A new anode design using nanotubes of titanium oxide allow for rapid charging and much longer lifetimes.
knightrider4
Active Member
The fact that HDW has come out all guns blazing with articles basically demanding an open bid seems to indicate that the Soryu is so far in front that they are worried. I'll go out on a limb if noone else will and say that the Soryu with Li-On batteries is a shoe in. All the other are being quoted with AIP. Game over I think. However Ive been wrong before and may well be wrong again. How's that for an out clause?
With the thought bubble defence procurement out of Canberra over the last decade or more I wouldn't doubt for a second that the entire procurement process would be ignored by the government and a winner selected without evaluation.
I'm not saying its a bad option just that without a proper evaluation and even more importantly a proper risk assessment of the different options we don't really know that it is the best option. We also don't know if there is something that we don't know that is going to bite us down the track because the highly experienced professionals who should be involved in the evaluation are not involved.
The last thing we need is another F-100, MRH-90, Tiger, MU-90, ACPB, FFGUP, or Sea Sprite where we thought we were getting a bleeding edge bargain with zero risk and it turned out anything but because risks were not understood and in some cases professional advice was ignored. Japan has never exported defence equipment, you would think after the experience with Kockums and Navantia alarm bells would be ringing. Then again, place the order now it will be several years before we see the first new sub so any problems will be someone else's problem to fix or ignore.
the road runner
Active Member
If anyone is interested BAE has posted NuShip Canberra acceptance ceremony video on youtube
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Po7fhhHzrCI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Po7fhhHzrCI
Joe Black
Active Member
More RAN news today...
From Navantia:
Pacific Sentinel: Industry: Australia NAVANTIA firm a contract to develop new frigates
and Naval-Technology's take on the Subs:
Turning Japanese: Australia
From Navantia:
Pacific Sentinel: Industry: Australia NAVANTIA firm a contract to develop new frigates
and Naval-Technology's take on the Subs:
Turning Japanese: Australia
Sounds like an attempt to placate the local industry. No local submarines but the Future Frigate program might be bought forward.
CEAFAR is touted as a modular, scalable system so I am guessing that there won't be too many issues with installing it onto the Hobart Hull.
t68
Well-Known Member
I can see the attraction on using the Hobart hull it would preety much just a continuation of the production line, only hesitation I have is the design it he basic design is now twenty years old now, how much of a compromise is using the F100 hull compared to Type 26 design wise?
John Newman
The Bunker Group
I think the 'catch 22' for this Government is, can the right ship be ordered for the Navy and can industry be assured of continuing work (after the AWD's) be fulfilled both at the same time?
On the one hand, can selecting a modification/evolution of the F-100/105 hull be successfully produced as the Future Frigate and end up with the 'right' ship for Navy.
And on the other hand ensure that when the AWD block work completes that industry can move 'seamlessly' onto construction of blocks for the Future Frigate without a production gap (without loss of jobs and skills) at the same time.
Just my opinion, but I think the relatively small amount of money ($78m?) being spent on preliminary design studies into adapting the F-100/105 for the Future Frigate is money well spent (especially when you look at the many Billions of dollars that the project will cost) is a smart move, if possible, great! If not then the T26 is probably the obvious candidate for the role.
The problem with waiting for the T26 (as I see it), is not that it won't be the 'right' ship, but it may not be the right ship at the 'right' time, I could imagine that until the UK has finalised their design, starts construction AND has a ship in the water conducting first of class trials, etc, then and only then would the Government order a class of Future Frigates based on the T26, and that might create 'too' much of a gap in production between the AWD's and the Future Frigates.
So that's the catch 22 as I see it, just my opinion of course!!
t68
Well-Known Member
Well thought out post, agree about the money aspect just wondering about the design being old and outdated before we start. I guess that what the design feasibility program will find out,
John Newman
The Bunker Group
Hopefully the relatively small amount of money being spent (out of an almost $30B annual defence budget) on design studies gives the correct answer!
The thing that annoys the crap out of me is that if the idiots running the previous Government, Rudd/Gillard/Rudd, had spent less time stabbing each other in the back for six years and more time on what was needed we may not be in this position.
If during the early days of the GFC a few lousy $Billion (out of all those wasted hundred of $Billions), had been spent on expanding Techport maybe the two replacement AOR's might actually be under construction, or if the 4th AWD had been ordered, or 'god forbid' the 20 OCV's were starting construction, then maybe the problems of having to find a solution that satisfies Industry and Navy for the Future Frigate wouldn't be a problem that has to be considered now and could be left for the future.
Anyway, this is the reality that the current Government no doubt faces, find a solution to satisfy the Navy and also satisfy Industry too!
Won't it be embarrassing if CEAFAR results in a better capability than RANs AEGIS at a much lower price? The question will be why, when this system was just around the corner did we spend so much on AEGIS when we could have bought something cheaper and perfectly good enough, i.e. the Kidds, (we could have acquired and ungraded all four for less then we spent on upgrading four inferior FFGs) to get us through until CEAFAR was ready.
You can never make everyone happy so I thought I'd just throw that in the mix.
If I am alive in thirty years to read the cabinet papers I bet Rudd, Fitzgibbon, Fergusson, Carr and others were probably in favour of a fourth AWD and say new AORs as part of the stimulus but Gillard, Swann, Conroy, Garret and the other anti-industry lefties canned it.
I have never heard anything to that effect but just have a feeling something like that went down. I was at the opening of the shipyard at Techport and listened to Rudd's speech, the whole thing seemed to be building to an announcement of a fourth ship and then nothing. It was almost like the speech was simply edited to drop the extra ship announcement from it instead of being rewriting when cabinet rolled him on it.
Then again I might be on drugs
The other side of that argument is what if CEAFAR didn't live up to expectations. You'd then be canning the government for going for the unproven, developmental CEAFAR solution instead of the off-the-shelf perfectly good enough AEGIS and saving ten years.
John Newman
The Bunker Group
V,If I am alive in thirty years to read the cabinet papers I bet Rudd, Fitzgibbon, Fergusson, Carr and others were probably in favour of a fourth AWD and say new AORs as part of the stimulus but Gillard, Swann, Conroy, Garret and the other anti-industry lefties canned it.
I have never heard anything to that effect but just have a feeling something like that went down. I was at the opening of the shipyard at Techport and listened to Rudd's speech, the whole thing seemed to be building to an announcement of a fourth ship and then nothing. It was almost like the speech was simply edited to drop the extra ship announcement from it instead of being rewriting when cabinet rolled him on it.
Then again I might be on drugs
I suspect you are correct, hopefully I'm around (be in my mid 80's by then!) to read those Cabinet papers too!!
I remember, at the time of the GFC, reading an article in Navy News about the German Government order a 3rd Berlin Class AOR as a job creation measure and I thought to myself, why don't these idiots do something along the same lines!!
Whilst the Rudd 2009 DWP might have looked like an impressive document on paper, unfortunately that's all it turned out to be, words on paper and nothing else!!
- Status