Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[Milne Bay]

Thanks Joe
MB

 

[Stock]

Plans to choose a new submarine for the navy are bedevilled by the wrong but apparently unshakable view that the Collins-class submarine is a “dud sub”.

Current and former submarine commanders in the Royal Australian Navy say the Collins is a very good submarine and for Australia’s purposes probably the best of its type in the world.

It can certainly do some major things no other conventional *submarine can do: travel at more than 20 knots submerged and patrol off the coast of China without refuelling.

According to former submarine commanders such as Matthew Keough and Rod Fayle, the Collins is remarkably effective.

Keough, who heads the Australian Submarine Institute, says the Collins is an excellent submarine that is serving the nation well.

Given these uncertain times and increasing friction over territorial claims in the South China Sea, it is vital that Australia has a strong force with 12 long-range and highly capable submarines, Keough says: “A strong submarine force gives you the ability to do more than just ‘shirt-front’ your enemy — it allows you to rip their arms off!”

Fayle was driven by years of frustration recently to write an open letter in which he said the Collins was arguably the world’s best diesel electric submarine.

“What started as an orches*trated misinformation campaign against the Collins submarine has now spilt over to the next generation of submarines,” Fayle wrote.

“Why is it so? Our defence policy is based on deterrence and modern, capable submarines provide a very powerful deterrence. But, repeatedly, we are being told that our Collins submarines are ‘duds’, that the ‘building of those submarines in Australia was an expensive disaster’, and now ’we are going to do it again’.”

Fayle says the Collins project is, in many ways, a remarkable success, both as an industrial build and operationally, having produced a highly effective submarine. There were problems but they were identified and fixed, Fayle says.

In the early days a poorly manufactured propeller and water flow issues caused noise problems.

“These were both solved long ago, and for many years the boats have been exceptionally quiet,” Fayle says.

“The noise levels are so low that it has been very difficult to find an area where we can measure their noise. The boats are quieter than the background noise in the ocean.

“Playing politics with a major part of Australia’s Strategic Defence should not occur. Have an informed debate, by all means, but keep the politics out of it.”

There is no diesel electric submarine available “off the shelf” anywhere that has the range and endurance the navy needs. That means whatever boat is chosen will have to be significantly redesigned — or built from scratch with an ally.

Even Japan’s much-praised Soryu-class submarine would have to be heavily modified.

The Soryu is a very good submarine but it was designed to deal with Japan’s concerns about Russia, and before tensions arose with China.

It has the range to get to its patrol areas off those two nations, remain quietly “on station” there, then return home.

While there is little information about the Soryu publicly available, The Australian has been told it lacks the range our navy needs. As it is now designed, a Soryu would be able to sail from the HMAS Stirling naval base, just south of Perth, as far as Darwin — and then would have to refuel.

The Collins, on the other hand, has the range to patrol far up into Asian waters without refuelling. The best weapon to destroy a submarine is another submarine and the best place to do that is off the enemy submarine’s home port.

The head of the navy’s Future Submarine project, Rear Admiral Greg Sammut, has rejected suggestions that Australia is committed to buy a Japanese submarine.

Sammut stresses that the government’s competitive assessment process to choose the new design will be rigorous and fair.

Most modern submarines are extremely quiet, and among the quietest of them is the Collins. That makes them very difficult to find once they are on the loose in a vast ocean.

In times of war, Australia’s submarines would join their US counterparts sitting quietly off the naval bases of a potential enemy waiting for its submarines to emerge.

If the unthinkable happened and tensions with China increased dramatically, an obvious target for this activity would be the People’s Liberation Army Navy submarine base on Hainan Island.

A recently retired American submarine officer tells The Australian the US wanted Australia to have “a world-class submarine force that would prevail in combat” to supplement its own attack submarine forces.

He says advanced conventional submarines were potent and very effective.

“To us you are a force multiplier,” the officer says. “The US Navy cannot be everywhere at all times.”

Australia is a well-trusted ally with forces tailored to operate with US forces, the former officer says: “When you show up to the fight you are instantly part of the battle group.

“A capable 21st-century capable RAN submarine force is essential for peace and stability in Southeast Asia,” he adds.

“Six submarines that are world-class, albeit conventional, would represent 10 per cent of our attack force. Twelve submarines would represent 20 per cent of our attack force.

“That’s a significant force multiplier, especially when you are operating in the waters you are most familiar with.”

He says a conventional submarine could “absolutely” be effective in a war against nuclear submarines.

Given the possibility that after the current assessment process Australia may buy a Japanese submarine, the officer raises another issue that has not been discussed widely.

Every class of submarine has a sound “signature” that can be recorded and stored by enemies and friends alike during the peacetime intelligence-gathering missions that are the daily work of the world’s undersea fleets.

When a submarine is located, even heard briefly, in wartime the faint noise made by its engines and other equipment can be fed into a database and a match found to identify the boat.

“If a Japanese submarine does something untoward, how does Australia like the possibility that China thinks that was done by an Australian submarine?”

Much of the original criticism of the Collins came from a small number of officers in the navy’s surface fleet, resentful of what they saw as the focus of the commanders and then defence minister Kim Beazley on submarines over surface warships.

The “dud subs” tag was used later by Coalition defence minister Peter Reith to bash Beazley’s reputation at a time when the Labor leader appeared to be heading for an election victory; the tag has persisted even while the Collins boats have been on operations far up into Asia.

Submarines are highly complex machines and require comprehensive maintenance that takes them out of action for lengthy periods.

During World War II the US never had more than a third of its submarines on patrol. Australia’s navy now regularly has three of its six submarines at sea.

Australia can build submarines; the country’s submariners insist it has built a perfectly good one in the Collins but as a nation we have convinced ourselves otherwise.

Through politics and in-service rivalry we have accepted that an extremely difficult project was a disaster. It wasn’t.

Major problems emerged but they were certainly no worse than the technical issues, cost overruns and delays that have stricken US and British submarine projects.

The British Astute nuclear submarine program ran six years behind schedule and its budget blew out by 50 per cent. Even the vaunted US Virginia-class had serious problems in its early days.

Spain was building its latest submarine when engineers worked out it would certainly be able to submerge but lacked the buoyancy to ever surface again.

Nothing remotely as bad has ever happened to the Collins.

There is no diesel electric submarine available off the shelf anywhere that has the range and endurance the navy needs. That means whatever boat is chosen will have to be significantly redesigned — or built from scratch with an ally.

While Australia can build a submarine, it does not have the skills to design one and that just means choosing a partner from among the Japanese, Germans, French or the Swedes, who so far have been cut out of the assessment and selection process.

The three European nations all say they can build the submarines, or most of them, in Australia.

Japan may want to build them all in Japan.

Navy chief Tim Barrett has warned that any new submarines must come with the complete knowledge to operate and repair them in Australia.

Wherever the submarines are built, they will be maintained in Australia. It would be strategically dangerous and highly impractical to send them thousands of kilo*metres away to be repaired.

The Abbott government is impressed by the Japanese process of producing a submarine each year in what has been called a “rolling build”, to give the industry continuity and make it more sustainable in the long term.

That example is being considered by Defence Minister Kevin Andrews as the key to ultimately saving Australia’s naval shipbuilding industry.

Apart from the submarines, another major project on the horizon is the purchase or building or purchase of new frigates for the navy.

The government is considering a number of options. One is to build eight frigates based on the same hull design as the three air warfare destroyers now nearing completion, but packed with anti-submarine equipment and an Australian-designed anti-missile system.

Another option is the British Type 26 frigate, which could be built here. Yet another is a joint European design.

At the Australian Strategic Policy Institute conference in Canberra this week, Andrews sent a strong signal to industry that if it did improve its performance the government would have the frigates built in Australia.

Excellent piece. Who is the author?

 

[John Fedup]

The author was Brendan Nicholson.

 

[Stock]

The author was Brendan Nicholson.

OK cheers.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Interesting article.

Seems to hint at a shift in future plans. I hope realization of the issues discussed in the article are understood by the captains making this call on subs and frigates.

 

[Stock]

Interesting article.

Seems to hint at a shift in future plans. I hope realization of the issues discussed in the article are understood by the captains making this call on subs and frigates.

The Japanese option has red flags all over it for mine, mostly from a commercial perspective rather than technical.

I do hope the politicians listen to the RAN and other subject matter and industry experts and select the best balanced option and not play the politics card. And I hope the captain stays out of it.

 

[Joe Black]

The Japanese option has red flags all over it for mine, mostly from a commercial perspective rather than technical.

I do hope the politicians listen to the RAN and other subject matter and industry experts and select the best balanced option and not play the politics card. And I hope the captain stays out of it.

I bet the Captain will argue that with the new Lithium-ion batteries instead of Stirling AIP, Soryu will be suitable for RAN. I've got the feeling Soryu is done deal unless the Japanese are not keen to make the deal.

Personally, I kinda like the concept of the SMX Ocean, and the flexibility it presents for deploying special forces plus the ability to launch cruise missiles in a vertical launch tube. If ASC could employ the hull design with American AN/BYG-1 combat management system, plus fire the Mk 48 Mod 7 CBASS heavyweight torpedo, Harpoon Block II and Tomahawk, then it is probably a winner. However, the reality is that it will be hard getting the Americans and the French to work together to resolve the IP issue and preventing industrial espionage.

 

[aussienscale]

However, the reality is that it will be hard getting the Americans and the French to work together to resolve the IP issue and preventing industry espionage.

Got it in one

Plus that fact that going a clean sheet/paper design is not a risk I think we are willing to take.

 

[Stock]

Got it in one

Plus that fact that going a clean sheet/paper design is not a risk I think we are willing to take.

I have also heard the US will not be keen on a French connection due to those issues.

So between the Germans and Japanese, which is the better option and why? There are some deeply experienced sub folk on this forum and I'm keen to understand what the key technology and capability issues boil down to.

 

[Bluey 006]

I have also heard the US will not be keen on a French connection due to those issues.

So between the Germans and Japanese, which is the better option and why? There are some deeply experienced sub folk on this forum and I'm keen to understand what the key technology and capability issues boil down to.

Given that our connection and Interoperability with US has such strong influence on this decision (I am not disputing it should). I can't understand why we couldn't go to market for propulsion systems, engines and so forth then engage a US designer or shipbuilder to assist with the design (to suit) and build (probably in Australia)

I understand that US doesn't build non nuclear submarines but Newport News Shipbuilding and General Dynamics Electric Boat Company built a quarter-scale version of a Virginia-class.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Got it in one

Plus that fact that going a clean sheet/paper design is not a risk I think we are willing to take.

Look back to the AWD project. We wouldn't even accept a slightly modified Burke because of the risk. Althought there was a already in service ship in the F-100 design.

Given the choice I do wonder what will be chosen. IMO I can't see them going with something with only 2 diesels as it would be a significant decrease in capability. IMO I think that was the greatest capability Collins offered over every other design. Real snort speed and range. It puts Collins out in a weird little group by itself.

All the quietness, sensors, price means nothing if you can't even get to the area of operations.

Evolved Soryu or 216. As others have pointed out it will most likely come down to commerical and build program more than technical capability.

 

[Bluey 006]

Given that our connection and Interoperability with US has such strong influence on this decision (I am not disputing it should). I can't understand why we couldn't go to market for propulsion systems, engines and so forth then engage a US designer or shipbuilder to assist with the design (to suit) and build (probably in Australia)

I understand that US doesn't build non nuclear submarines but Newport News Shipbuilding and General Dynamics Electric Boat Company built a quarter-scale version of a Virginia-class.

US to assist Taiwan build SSKs

 

[ADMk2]

I bet the Captain will argue that with the new Lithium-ion batteries instead of Stirling AIP, Soryu will be suitable for RAN. I've got the feeling Soryu is done deal unless the Japanese are not keen to make the deal.

Personally, I kinda like the concept of the SMX Ocean, and the flexibility it presents for deploying special forces plus the ability to launch cruise missiles in a vertical launch tube. If ASC could employ the hull design with American AN/BYG-1 combat management system, plus fire the Mk 48 Mod 7 CBASS heavyweight torpedo, Harpoon Block II and Tomahawk, then it is probably a winner. However, the reality is that it will be hard getting the Americans and the French to work together to resolve the IP issue and preventing industrial espionage.

Happy to be corrected, but I wasn't aware Harpoon Block II had been integrated onto the subs? I was under the impression they were still using Block IC?

Also by the time the future sub is ready, would it still be worth our while to make room for Harpoon?

Personally with the anti-ship missile options being added to Tomahawk, why would you waste space on something like Harpoon? TacTom can do the missile part of the job (ie: an ability to strike at range) and wouldn't the Mk 48 be the primary anti-ship option anyway?

 

[John Newman]

Happy to be corrected, but I wasn't aware Harpoon Block II had been integrated onto the subs? I was under the impression they were still using Block IC?

Also by the time the future sub is ready, would it still be worth our while to make room for Harpoon?

Personally with the anti-ship missile options being added to Tomahawk, why would you waste space on something like Harpoon? TacTom can do the missile part of the job (ie: an ability to strike at range) and wouldn't the Mk 48 be the primary anti-ship option anyway?

Agree, but.....

To throw a couple of other 'potential' future alternatives into the sub launched ASuW role, consideration should be also given to both the LRASM and JSM.

LRASM has been tested from aircraft, been tested from Mk41 VLS systems and can still potentially be sub launched.

JSM will fit internally in an F-35, externally on a Super Hornet, has the potential to be Mk41 VLS launched and one could assume could also be sub launched too.


Unlike today where the ADF's anti-ship missile of choice is Harpoon (regardless of Block), in the near future when the ADF's assets include F-35A's, F/A-18F's, P-8A's, AWD's, Future Frigates and of course the Collins submarine replacements, then the ASuW weapon of choice could in fact be not just one missile, eg Harpoon, but a combination of missiles that can be: air, surface and sub launched.

Will the ADF want multiple types of ASuW missiles in it's inventory, or will it pick 'one' type for all of the platforms that will be capable of doing so?

Interesting question!

 

[Stock]

Happy to be corrected, but I wasn't aware Harpoon Block II had been integrated onto the subs? I was under the impression they were still using Block IC?

Also by the time the future sub is ready, would it still be worth our while to make room for Harpoon?

Personally with the anti-ship missile options being added to Tomahawk, why would you waste space on something like Harpoon? TacTom can do the missile part of the job (ie: an ability to strike at range) and wouldn't the Mk 48 be the primary anti-ship option anyway?

Harpoon will be well and truly out of US Navy service by the time the first of the RAN's new subs hits the water.

Tomahawk Block IV is looking promising as an ASM, with massive range (1,600km). See link below re testing earlier this year of the ship-launched version:

Defence Technology Review : DTR MAY 2015, Page 1

You would expect the USN will be working on a sub-launched version also. Land attack and maritime strike in one!

 

[ADMk2]

Agree, but.....

To throw a couple of other 'potential' future alternatives into the sub launched ASuW role, consideration should be also given to both the LRASM and JSM.

LRASM has been tested from aircraft, been tested from Mk41 VLS systems and can still potentially be sub launched.

JSM will fit internally in an F-35, externally on a Super Hornet, has the potential to be Mk41 VLS launched and one could assume could also be sub launched too.


Unlike today where the ADF's anti-ship missile of choice is Harpoon (regardless of Block), in the near future when the ADF's assets include F-35A's, F/A-18F's, P-8A's, AWD's, Future Frigates and of course the Collins submarine replacements, then the ASuW weapon of choice could in fact be not just one missile, eg Harpoon, but a combination of missiles that can be: air, surface and sub launched.

Will the ADF want multiple types of ASuW missiles in it's inventory, or will it pick 'one' type for all of the platforms that will be capable of doing so?

Interesting question!

Indeed and I'm not ruling anything out, because I think it an awesome topic that gets very little 'shrift'.

Personally if TacTom is the 'strike' future weapon of choice, then I think it should absolutely be the 'overall' naval long ranged weapon of choice, given it can be sub-VLS launched or encapsulated as required.

LRASM only exists as an air-launched weapon. JSM is only surface and air launched. Neither has been developed as an encapsulated or sub-VLS weapon as yet.

 

[ADMk2]

Harpoon will be well and truly out of US Navy service by the time the first of the RAN's new subs hits the water.

Tomahawk Block IV is looking promising as an ASM, with massive range (1,600km). See link below re testing earlier this year of the ship-launched version:

Defence Technology Review : DTR MAY 2015, Page 1

You would expect the USN will be working on a sub-launched version also. Land attack and maritime strike in one!

It most definitely is. Raytheon is also working on networking, LO, warhead effects and propulsion improvements (to include supersonic dive terminal attack, reportedly) and if so, what more would you want?

 

[Stock]

It most definitely is. Raytheon is also working on networking, LO, warhead effects and propulsion improvements (to include supersonic dive terminal attack, reportedly) and if so, what more would you want?

Agree all.

 

[Bluey 006]

Indeed and I'm not ruling anything out, because I think it an awesome topic that gets very little 'shrift'.

Personally if TacTom is the 'strike' future weapon of choice, then I think it should absolutely be the 'overall' naval long ranged weapon of choice, given it can be sub-VLS launched or encapsulated as required.

LRASM only exists as an air-launched weapon. JSM is only surface and air launched. Neither has been developed as an encapsulated or sub-VLS weapon as yet.

JSM sub launched is in development Link

 

[Stock]

JSM sub launched is in development Link

JSM is a dead cert for RAAF's F-35 JSF.