Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[hauritz]

Secondly, the Government will create a sovereign submarine industry and avoid a submarine capability gap.
.

I think the phrasing is very deliberate.

The long term plan should be to create a sustainable ship building industry ... but that doesn't necessarily mean all the boats need to be built in Australia.

The last of the Collins subs probably won't be replaced until the mid to late 30's and the up to 6 additional subs might not be built until the 40's ... so there is plenty of time for the local industry to get its act together.

Perhaps key personnel could work beside the Japanese for the first few boats to build up the skill base before moving production to Australia.

 

[Volkodav]

Just a suspicion but a sovereign submarine industry, intended to maintain foreign built boats rather than build boats locally, could probably be established in WA, based on the ASC facility there and run by BAE, Raytheon or even Austal. I can imagine the announcement now, unfortunately ASC has consistently failed to meet expectations, we really wanted them to succeed but they have let us down over and over again, it is now time to cut our losses and build a world standard capability on the excellent facilities existent in Western Australia and conveniently close to HMAS Stirling, the home of the navy's submarine force.

It was reported a few months ago that Johnston was under pressure as well as in favor of shutting ASCs Adelaide operations down and moving all submarine maintenance to WA, this could well be his way of achieving this.

 

[Milne Bay]

Just a suspicion but a sovereign submarine industry, intended to maintain foreign built boats rather than build boats locally, could probably be established in WA, based on the ASC facility there and run by BAE, Raytheon or even Austal. I can imagine the announcement now, unfortunately ASC has consistently failed to meet expectations, we really wanted them to succeed but they have let us down over and over again, it is now time to cut our losses and build a world standard capability on the excellent facilities existent in Western Australia and conveniently close to HMAS Stirling, the home of the navy's submarine force.

It was reported a few months ago that Johnston was under pressure as well as in favor of shutting ASCs Adelaide operations down and moving all submarine maintenance to WA, this could well be his way of achieving this.

Except that ASC is/was being groomed for sale to private enterprise. Currently it isn't worth much, I expect, but shutting it down makes it worthless.
MB

 

[Joe Black]

I think the phrasing is very deliberate.

The long term plan should be to create a sustainable ship building industry ... but that doesn't necessarily mean all the boats need to be built in Australia.

The last of the Collins subs probably won't be replaced until the mid to late 30's and the up to 6 additional subs might not be built until the 40's ... so there is plenty of time for the local industry to get its act together.

Perhaps key personnel could work beside the Japanese for the first few boats to build up the skill base before moving production to Australia.

I would like the idea of getting first 3 boats built in Japan, the rest here in Australia. With the 3rd boat, it would be Japanese built modules and ASC assemble it together. 4th boat would be built with heavy Japanese supervision. 5th would be built with Japanese QC in place and the 6th boat totally ASC's responsibility. I would imagine the 7th boat would incorporate technical updates from son-of-Soryu with heavy Japanese involvement again, and the cycle goes again.

 

[Volkodav]

Except that ASC is/was being groomed for sale to private enterprise. Currently it isn't worth much, I expect, but shutting it down makes it worthless.
MB

Unfortunately politics and parochialism often wins over vision and commonsense, just look what happened to Tenix after proving themselves on AFP and ANZAC projects, they were starved of work resulting in the sale of Williamstown to BAE and the dispersal of their experienced and capable, world standard workforce. There is nothing stopping the government from doing the same to ASC now, particularly when you look at how many senior ministers are from WA.

 

[ASSAIL]

Except that ASC is/was being groomed for sale to private enterprise. Currently it isn't worth much, I expect, but shutting it down makes it worthless.
MB

There is so much noise being generated about what will happen that I'm reluctant to add to it but here goes;
It seems that by bringing Navantia, Raytheon and BAE into the AWD build it in some way releases ASC from surface ships and concentrates them on their prime expertise. Far from being shut down, this makes ASC a more attractive sales target and as it appears the euros are out of the equation, the only buyers could come from two groups. Mitsubishi and Kawasaki on one hand or HII or GD Electric Boat on the other.
I don't think a total offshore build is an option, I think that would be political suicide but a mixture of offshore/onshore would appear likely.
The Soryu suitable modified seems to be the only option, there's no time for anything else.

 

[StevoJH]

I would suggest another possible buyer. BAe Systems Australia. They already own Williamtown, they may want to add Adelaide to it.

 

[StingrayOZ]

If you remove AIP, you remove firstly the propulsion system as a whole as well as the oxidiser and instead you carry more fuel. More fuel = more range and probably more speed as you can crank up the speed with less concern about fuel burn because you've got X tons more of it.

IIRC that's the reason why the current Collins class hasn't got it despite a set hanging around somewhere. The trade off - what you'd have to bin to get AIP - wasn't worth the submerged loitering capability.

Just as an layperson..

Can just convert the AIP to a diesel fuel storage area? In the Soryu it is towards the back of the submarine, I would imagine it would be a significant amount of weight shifting putting diesel in there, possibly to fairly large affect on boyancy. Given the difference in design we would want to put a lot back there(30%?). But may we be better off putting another engine (or two) in there?

Getting the submarine we want | The Strategist

Indicated we might be able to convert ballast tanks to fuel tanks?

Even with extra fuel, they will still be trawling around slower, with longer snort times. 6000Nm @ 6.5 kt verse 9000Nm @ 10kt.

The Soryu suitable modified seems to be the only option, there's no time for anything else.

Collins and the afterlife | The Strategist

Modified Soryu or Modified Collins (IMO). Soryu you keep the basic hull, bin the AIP, stick in fuel tanks, maybe an extra engine, change combat systems. Collins use the Japanese engines, then what? A few minor/nonstructural improvements/updates (most likely from the Japanese).

Not only that, the work you do to put those engines into a collins Hull means you can life extend the Collins fleet to buy time to get 12 operational subs up and running.

The biggest problem with a Collins modified would be who we get to run it.

So instead we go for the riskier less appropriate sub?

 

[ASSAIL]

I would suggest another possible buyer. BAe Systems Australia. They already own Williamtown, they may want to add Adelaide to it.

The thing which would seem to mitigate against this is firstly, BAE could be intimately involved with the Anzac 2 and secondly Techport is a common user facility so they would not get total control over the facility

 

[ASSAIL]

The crux of the following link is that the sixth Soryu will be Li ion, nothing new there but what I was unaware of was that they also will dispense with using AIP as the technology is ageing and maintenance intensive.
If this is so it makes Soryu #6 an even more desirable option for the RAN.

Japan To Make Major Switch on Sub Propulsion | Defense News | defensenews.com

 

[Milne Bay]

The crux of the following link is that the sixth Soryu will be Li ion, nothing new there but what I was unaware of was that they also will dispense with using AIP as the technology is ageing and maintenance intensive.
If this is so it makes Soryu #6 an even more desirable option for the RAN.

Japan To Make Major Switch on Sub Propulsion | Defense News | defensenews.com

Yes, this has been known for some time.
The Soryu's are evolving as each batch is built.
By the time the RAN is ready for a submarine to replace the Collins, the Soryu will be into yet another iteration - maybe mark III or IV or V.
It is this incremental growth that is attractive to the gov't ATM.
MB

 

[aussienscale]

The crux of the following link is that the sixth Soryu will be Li ion, nothing new there but what I was unaware of was that they also will dispense with using AIP as the technology is ageing and maintenance intensive.
If this is so it makes Soryu #6 an even more desirable option for the RAN.

Japan To Make Major Switch on Sub Propulsion | Defense News | defensenews.com

I find this part interesting

" Japan’s Defense Ministry has just requested 64.4 billion yen (US $589.5 million) to start building one new 2,900-ton Soryu submarine from April 2015"

US $600 Million seems to be the quoted price from a search, wonder what we would pay per unit ?

 

[Volkodav]

I would suggest another possible buyer. BAe Systems Australia. They already own Williamtown, they may want to add Adelaide to it.

The problem is BAE are the company that took over arguably the best shipbuilder in country and proceeded to stuff up the project protector OPVs for NZ, completely mess up the keel of the first AWD and deliver the first LHD a year late with a litany of faults.

We hear all the time how bad ASC is but their performance has never been as bad as BAE Australia's shipbuilding arm has been since its inception. Come to think of it BAEAustralia have a pretty consistent track record f stuffing up. They were the original winners of a big slice of LAND 121 but when they delivered their first trucks they were so fragile and unfit for purpose the government tore up the contract and put the project out for tender again. Then there is project Wedgetail, behind schedule and significantly over budget, from what I understand a big part of the problem was one of the subcontractors, BAE Australia, sound familiar, the prime cops all the flack and BAEgets off pretty much Scott free?

BAE taking over ASC could be the very worst outcome as I would not trust BAE Australia to run a contract cleaning service.

 

[RobWilliams]

Just as an layperson..

Can just convert the AIP to a diesel fuel storage area? In the Soryu it is towards the back of the submarine, I would imagine it would be a significant amount of weight shifting putting diesel in there, possibly to fairly large affect on boyancy. Given the difference in design we would want to put a lot back there(30%?). But may we be better off putting another engine (or two) in there?

...

Modified Soryu or Modified Collins (IMO). Soryu you keep the basic hull, bin the AIP, stick in fuel tanks, maybe an extra engine, change combat systems. Collins use the Japanese engines, then what? A few minor/nonstructural improvements/updates (most likely from the Japanese).

Ok, I don't have a clue as to what the main thrust of your posts have been, please forgive me.

On one hand, you disagreed that removing AIP and using the volume used to store the oxidiser to store fuel would either increase range or speed. I could concede speed as I don't claim to be well versed on submarine kinematics, but the range is an obvious one.

How does removal of AIP solve the range issue? The range and transit speed are both issues for the RAN.

Then the other hand you appear to be proposing the exact same solution? "Bin AIP, stick in fuel tanks".

 

[John Fedup]

A quote from the Defence News article;

“They are giving up a secondary power generation device by removing the AIP. In exchange, they intend to enlarge and extend their current power storage devices by going from lead-acid batteries to Lithium-ion batteries,” Stitt said. “Lithium-ion batteries offer much greater energy density than current lead-acid batteries. They will have to develop some redundant safety electronics as well to monitor the stability of each battery cell.”

I am no expert but it would seem to me that better batteries along with extra space for diesel fuel is a reasonable trade off for giving up the Sterling engine and its fuel requirements. Range instead AIP. The superior battery technology will partially offset the loss of the Sterling.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Ok, I don't have a clue as to what the main thrust of your posts have been, please forgive me.

On one hand, you disagreed that removing AIP and using the volume used to store the oxidiser to store fuel would either increase range or speed. I could concede speed as I don't claim to be well versed on submarine kinematics, but the range is an obvious one.

Then the other hand you appear to be proposing the exact same solution? "Bin AIP, stick in fuel tanks".

I do agree the AIP is not useful for Australia (and Japan is moving away from it as well). I am talking about where fuel tanks can be added (in the AIP space), and what else above and beyond fuel tanks would need to be added to make the sub suitable for Australia. IMO it is not as simple as putting some fuel tanks in the AIP space.

Very rough back of the placemat calculations.

Say it takes 4000 miles to get onto station (approximately the distance from Perth to South China Sea). If you are travelling at 6 kts (speed of Soryu) it will take over 24 days to get on station. It would then take 24 days to get back. 22 Days on station (assuming an endurance of 70 days like Collins, which is unlikely - I've heard its ~50 days giving 2 days on station - but lets be generous).

Collins at 10 kts takes 14.5 Days to get to station and another 14.5 to get back. Gives you over 41 days on station given 70 days endurance.

If we wanted say 365 day sub in that region, you would need 9 Collins. For Soryu you would need 17. More subs, more crews, more money. Unless we are basing our subs in Singapore or Japan, never to have them operating in Australia's waters, this issue remains.

As flawed and as inaccurate as my calculations are, they highlight why an off the shelf Soryu with only 2 engines would/may actually be a significant decrease in capability for Australia, we would need 12 to get the capability we had with 6 subs. It has the same flaws are the European submarines we have been offered in the past.

Lithium ion batteries do not recover this deficit, the help on station, but not getting to it.

 

[ASSAIL]

I do agree the AIP is not useful for Australia (and Japan is moving away from it as well). I am talking about where fuel tanks can be added (in the AIP space), and what else above and beyond fuel tanks would need to be added to make the sub suitable for Australia. IMO it is not as simple as putting some fuel tanks in the AIP space.

Very rough back of the placemat calculations.

Say it takes 4000 miles to get onto station (approximately the distance from Perth to South China Sea). If you are travelling at 6 kts (speed of Soryu) it will take over 24 days to get on station. It would then take 24 days to get back. 22 Days on station (assuming an endurance of 70 days like Collins, which is unlikely - I've heard its ~50 days giving 2 days on station - but lets be generous).

Collins at 10 kts takes 14.5 Days to get to station and another 14.5 to get back. Gives you over 41 days on station given 70 days endurance.

If we wanted say 365 day sub in that region, you would need 9 Collins. For Soryu you would need 17. More subs, more crews, more money. Unless we are basing our subs in Singapore or Japan, never to have them operating in Australia's waters, this issue remains.

As flawed and as inaccurate as my calculations are, they highlight why an off the shelf Soryu with only 2 engines would/may actually be a significant decrease in capability for Australia, we would need 12 to get the capability we had with 6 subs. It has the same flaws are the European submarines we have been offered in the past.

Lithium ion batteries do not recover this deficit, the help on station, but not getting to it.

Firstly, your basic assumption that Soryu has a transit speed of 6 kts comes from where? There is no reason why she can't be similar to Collins.
Second, the reason why Soryu # 6 becomes an attractive proposition is that I assume the engineering/design solutions surrounding the removal of the 4 x AIP units have been solved. If the Japanese wish to use the space for other purposes (SOF/Fuel/VLS) it gives a wide range of options.
Third, I have no idea about the re-charge rates of Li-ion batteries. If they need a third generator to lower the indiscretion rate then that becomes a possibility for the RAN.

In view of those three propositions I see no reason why endurance and performance would be significantly different to a Collins and therefor your assumptions on numbers would not apply.

 

[gf0012-aust]

A quote from the Defence News article;

“They are giving up a secondary power generation device by removing the AIP. In exchange, they intend to enlarge and extend their current power storage devices by going from lead-acid batteries to Lithium-ion batteries,” Stitt said. “Lithium-ion batteries offer much greater energy density than current lead-acid batteries. They will have to develop some redundant safety electronics as well to monitor the stability of each battery cell.”

I am no expert but it would seem to me that better batteries along with extra space for diesel fuel is a reasonable trade off for giving up the Sterling engine and its fuel requirements. Range instead AIP. The superior battery technology will partially offset the loss of the Sterling.

AIP is not a panacea for a submarines mobility ills - unfortunately its become the new buzzword "bling" that seems to be stuck in the discussion loop

Various subs in Collins Class have shown that not having AIP is a disadvantage) albeit even if they were in defined kill boxes)

I've seen USV/ROV's literally extend their ranges 10 fold with new lithium tech solutions

part of the reason why some of us get frustrated about the chatter around issues of range is that it completely ignores what the primary driver is - and this governs overall combat capability and tactical utility.

its about inboard energy management. this impacts upon how far the sub can drive under various scenarios, it defines and confines the combat systems, it defines and confines the ISR suite, "stealthiness" etc....

its a nonsense argument getting promulgated by vested interest parties that Soryu is range limited etc.... in the current Japanese CONOPs it is because their requirements are different - but its not difficult to change the battle tempo options by changing out some drivetrain elements

In fact some of the euro vendors are being incredibly mischievous and cavalier with their protestations and (mis)representations about Soryu because (1) most of their proposals are vapourware) (2) they don't qualify their claims about capability limitations and/or benefits


personally, I'd be remembering which countries are bullschitting about their subs capabilities and shortlisting them out in advance.

if they're going to spin bullschitt now, imagine what they'll be like when they get into contract

 

[StingrayOZ]

Firstly, your basic assumption that Soryu has a transit speed of 6 kts comes from where? There is no reason why she can't be similar to Collins.
Second, the reason why Soryu # 6 becomes an attractive proposition is that I assume the engineering/design solutions surrounding the removal of the 4 x AIP units have been solved. If the Japanese wish to use the space for other purposes (SOF/Fuel/VLS) it gives a wide range of options.
Third, I have no idea about the re-charge rates of Li-ion batteries. If they need a third generator to lower the indiscretion rate then that becomes a possibility for the RAN.

In view of those three propositions I see no reason why endurance and performance would be significantly different to a Collins and therefor your assumptions on numbers would not apply.

I am certainly not talking from an authoritative point of view, and am definitely seeking enlightenment regarding these issues and opinions.

I am basing it off Peter Briggs piece.
Option J for FSM
He doesn't reference where he got his data, its looks fairly generic open specs for the two subs. It may be completely pissing in the wind, no doubt they aren't the true figures, but the difference is significant. Peter Briggs seems like a very credible source for submarine information.

But fundamentally, the Soyru are two engined subs, while Collins has three (publically - each of the same output). Sustaining a discrete high transit speed, invariably the engines are going to power it, as the batteries will be depleted in a tiny fraction of that distance. It would seem logical to me that Collins with 3 engines of the same output, would be able to sustain a higher transit speed over a longer distance. Peter seems to indicate this is the case:

Taken in combination, this is a more demanding regime than maximum range frequently quoted in specifications or cited by advocates for European boats. Such figures tend to be based on a non-operational scenario, with transits completed at an optimum, low speed with prolonged and predictable periods for recharging batteries.

Its quoted as 6000nm at 6.5kt. While Collins is 10,000 at 10kt. Even at 6.5kt it would seem from the public data, that we would need to increase the fuel load by some 65+%. That seems to be a significant increase/modification, particularly for a submarine, one I imagine may not be met by simply using the AIP space. I would assume it would need to be much larger than 65% to match Collins at 10kts. Which it may not be able to do because it only has two engines. Adding a 3rd (or 4th) would no doubt take up much interior space, making increasing the fuel load even more difficult.



Colour me skeptical.

 

[gf0012-aust]

It would seem logical to me that Collins with 3 engines of the same output, would be able to sustain a higher transit speed over a longer distance. Peter seems to indicate this is the case:

the bear in the woods is fuel fraction and running issues.

it gets down to engine efficiency factors ....