Naval Ship & Submarine Propulsion Systems

[vonnoobie]

Simple numbers really, With a surface asset your adversary need only deploy one asset to shadow it, two to give it a challenge and three to over whelm it where as with a submarine your adversary will have to deploy half a dozen or more assets just to try and locate it.

In regards to submarine cost's well that should all be taken with a grain of salt as there is I'd imagine a lot of worst case scenario costings mixed in with far too much unfounded media speculation (dramatization to sell papers). Historically and this applies to the Collins class too we have been able to bring down each successive ship price with long production runs, If reports are to be believed from the AWD alliance even a 3 ship run has almost seen costs halve (Though the first one probably only cost that much due to management stuff ups) between the first and last ship.

@Todjaeger, I'm not so sure your speculated 8 in commission would occur or even be practical, While batches of 3 - 4 are likely not all of them will be laid down at once but rather one every two or so years. We can only slow the build of a submarine so much so unless we plan to retire our submarines when they are 6 - 8 years old before doing a mass decommissioning and mass commissioning such a speculation isn't possible.

Ideally I'd like them to be commissioned every 18 months with a service life of 18 years, though keep some around longer and actually get the badly needed training submarine!.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Simple numbers really, With a surface asset your adversary need only deploy one asset to shadow it, two to give it a challenge and three to over whelm it where as with a submarine your adversary will have to deploy half a dozen or more assets just to try and locate it.

thats very very conservative. its not just physical assets, its the impact on red teams planners, the impact on rerouting at risk assets, the need to bolster HV fleet units within a notional range ring, the impact on merchant support, the need to try and task land based air to provide BAMS type tasking etc....

the impact is exponential way beyond the need to physically counter subs by HK assets

In regards to submarine cost's well that should all be taken with a grain of salt as there is I'd imagine a lot of worst case scenario costings mixed in with far too much unfounded media speculation (dramatization to sell papers). Historically and this applies to the Collins class too we have been able to bring down each successive ship price with long production runs, If reports are to be believed from the AWD alliance even a 3 ship run has almost seen costs halve (Though the first one probably only cost that much due to management stuff ups) between the first and last ship.

Costs include contingency - and that can be 30-50%. Its also out to 2045 and uses a formula to include variances to exchange rates. The numbers are conservative and weighted to the right to factor in those margins

@Todjaeger, I'm not so sure your speculated 8 in commission would occur or even be practical, While batches of 3 - 4 are likely not all of them will be laid down at once but rather one every two or so years. We can only slow the build of a submarine so much so unless we plan to retire our submarines when they are 6 - 8 years old before doing a mass decommissioning and mass commissioning such a speculation isn't possible.

Ideally I'd like them to be commissioned every 18 months with a service life of 18 years, though keep some around longer and actually get the badly needed training submarine!.

the through life build rate is about the modelling that Tod talks about - the tail and the head builds will see vessels decommissioned as replacements come on line - or they'll see new new vessels covering tails as they go into deep maint (2 year process)

it also incudes margins for SLEP, iterative developments to the class - in service developments.

I'd say that 8 is more or less spot on

 

[gf0012-aust]

I don't know how the French can say that, its not clear what the Japanese are doing in terms of diesels. The Japanese have been pretty secretive with their bid. I believe the Germans are intending or offering to fit lithium batteries too. I would imagine their boats are going to explode too. All submarines are going to explode apart from the French ones.

maybe its time to remind the french when they were bragging about their new lithium battery technology at the Hannover Messe and that their batteries will be exploding as well - or is it only french lithium batteries that are safe /sarcasm off

maybe they should be telling the americans that their new induction and super conductor motors are also doomed to fail as the batteries will be exploding

what a bunch of tossers

 

[John Newman]

I would like to know if the Japanese are going with 2 or 3 or 4 diesel engines. And how much lithium capacity and where they will be located (in the main bank at the bottom, or in the AIP space).

And don't forget that the Japanese have also been talking about a 6-8m plug to be inserted into their Australian submarine bid too.

Removing AIP and inserting that plug, possibly allows for more generating capacity, an increased fuel load and of course the change of battery set up too.

As for the French, sounds like they are getting a bit desperate!

 

[SteveR]

maybe its time to remind the french when they were bragging about their new lithium battery technology at the Hannover Messe and that their batteries will be exploding as well - or is it only french lithium batteries that are safe /sarcasm off

maybe they should be telling the americans that their new induction and super conductor motors are also doomed to fail as the batteries will be exploding

what a bunch of tossers

French SAFT Li batteries are in use on the F-35 and have been selected for eventual use on the A350 Airbus - so yes the French do have experience and US credibility with their Li technology.

 

[gf0012-aust]

French SAFT Li batteries are in use on the F-35 and have been selected for eventual use on the A350 Airbus - so yes the French do have experience and US credibility with their Li technology.

did you see my sarcastic reference

the japanese have been using their lithium tech for quite a while - and its well known by ONR and NAVSEA

the french are behaving a tad ridiculous to make their claims

edit:

lets hope the japanese don't resort to reminding defence how successful all their (ie french sourced) recent programs and platforms have been

playing these golf strokes in the court of public appeal doesn't work or help companies positions with the acquisition teams...

 

[John Newman]

Was having a look at the Japan Times this morning.

Here's an article where the German's are 'having a go' too, this ones about warning Australia against choosing the Japanese boat:

German submarine-maker warns Australia against choosing Japan | The Japan Times

The relevant quote is:

Hans Atzpodien, the German company’s chairman, described the Japanese bid as a choice for Australia between its relationship with China, its biggest trading partner, and Japan, its second-biggest partner.

“Maybe it is an advantage dealing with us not to be in a position where you have to — let’s say — decide between certain heavyweights of the Pacific area,” Atzpodien told Australia’s National Press Club.

Another article from the Japan Times is of interest too:

Toshiba reportedly mulling battery plant in Australia as Japan seeks sub deal | The Japan Times

The Japanese Government is talking to Toshiba about building a factory in Australia to make lithium-ion batteries.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Lets kill this off for the umpteenth time

• Australia is not in the market for nukes
• There's no political appetite by any side for nukes
• There is no logic in getting decommissioned nukes even if the first 2 issues were addressed
• Australia won't be getting new Virginias - that class is finished with, planning is underway for the next generation
• I'd also add that the USN bags its decommed nukes anyway - they go into reserves in case they need to reactivate them - and reactivation is a long long long process
• The new nukes are looking at a $6bn price tag each - so not a hope in hell even if 1 and 2 were addressed

 

[StingrayOZ]

The US might be willing to expand Australia's sub manufacturing capability for SSNs as it would provide the USN with a "on the other side of the world support facility".

The US really has every thing she needs, and Australia will help them to that ends as will most other allies. I don't see a far flung SSN workshop being that useful for them. They can literally deploy more subs to anywhere on the planet to cover losses or damages.

Japan doesn't. Japan doesn't have global reach in terms of its military. We are much better off partnering with Japan IMO than anyone else and working together to build real capable regionally base capability. Japan is already at their maximum capability in terms of sub output, and they would like more subs. They are also very exposed if thing did start flying, or SCS are physically contested to have a manufacturing capability (and a capable allied nation) based on a continent far enough away to be able to help.

Australia and Japan having capability somewhat in-dependant of the US can also be useful. This kind of collaboration also breaks down the notion that the US is the key and holds everyone together, if they were sidelined for what ever reason (politically, economically etc), we would all be unable to do anything and bow to the next great power. That nations can fix and be responsible for their own problems and their own region. It can make Japan (and others) feel less alone and threatened in its region and bring very tangible benefits.

Whats going to defeat China's attitude is not some sort of super weapon that lays waste to all in front it. But nations working together. Soryu is a very capable platform, I would imagine the type Zero mega weapon that will evolve from it for the RAN will be significantly more capable. But its the collaboration between Japan and Australia that will make things much more difficult. Having ~32+ very potent submarines operating in an area where previously there was only a pool of ~16 to call on is a huge change. Obviously what the US has is on top of that, and they have enough SSN's to handle any SSN specific missions. Having the RAN and the JSDF Navy working together operationally both nations collaborating on projects is not what China was hoping for.

No diesel subs is where its at. Right weapon. Sitting in silence in the SCS, watching and waiting. In large numbers. Working together. Japan of all nations could build a nuclear sub. They don't.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Whats going to defeat China's attitude is not some sort of super weapon that lays waste to all in front it. But nations working together. Soryu is a very capable platform, I would imagine the type Zero mega weapon that will evolve from it for the RAN will be significantly more capable. But its the collaboration between Japan and Australia that will make things much more difficult. Having ~32+ very potent submarines operating in an area where previously there was only a pool of ~16 to call on is a huge change. Obviously what the US has is on top of that, and they have enough SSN's to handle any SSN specific missions. Having the RAN and the JSDF Navy working together operationally both nations collaborating on projects is not what China was hoping for.

No diesel subs is where its at. Right weapon. Sitting in silence in the SCS, watching and waiting. In large numbers. Working together. Japan of all nations could build a nuclear sub. They don't.

Spot on.

I'd not want to be a chinese AWO/PWO trying to work out from his library whether the sub appearing and disappearing from his headset was from - if the library is incomplete it could be from one of many.... shoot the wrong one and you trigger an unfortunate event.

Submarine Strength Strength by Country

 

[vonnoobie]

Lets kill this off for the umpteenth time

• Australia is not in the market for nukes
• There's no political appetite by any side for nukes
• There is no logic in getting decommissioned nukes even if the first 2 issues were addressed
• Australia won't be getting new Virginias - that class is finished with, planning is underway for the next generation
• I'd also add that the USN bags its decommed nukes anyway - they go into reserves in case they need to reactivate them - and reactivation is a long long long process
• The new nukes are looking at a $6bn price tag each - so not a hope in hell even if 1 and 2 were addressed

110% agree, not to mention the fact that for our main area of operation nuclear submarines would be a step back. As it is between our conventional submarines and the US nuclear submarines we complement each other nicely to perform any role that could pop up. If we went for nuclear submarines then all that would occur is we get a fraction of what is needed due to the costs involved and we would be doubling up on capabilities already available to us via our alliance with the US while losing capabilities far more useful for our region of the world.

 

[hauritz]

Spot on.

I'd not want to be a chinese AWO/PWO trying to work out from his library whether the sub appearing and disappearing from his headset was from - if the library is incomplete it could be from one of many.... shoot the wrong one and you trigger an unfortunate event.

Submarine Strength Strength by Country

So the number two submarine operator in the world is North Korea ... I didn't see that one coming.

 

[vonnoobie]

With a year of internet admiral's touting either nuclear submarines or USV's as the 'logical' successor to the Collins class because well, conventional subamrines are so last century and if aircraft can be unmanned then so could submarines... It's great to come across an article in the new's that is actually fair and not necesarily bad in it's view.

Key points in it:
- The Collins class sucked in the 90's, but since then has improved to be a very good submarine though at a cost
- USV's may make useful ISR vessel's but only in conjunction with a manned subamrine
- Point's out the limitations and risks with USV's between them not being able to be controlled deep under water while also said control's opening up risk's between being easily located or worse yet hacked and taken over.

Could robot submarines replace the ageing Collins class?

It does mention a smaller repalcement fleet (number's notm entioned) of manned submarines backed up by USV's filling the ISR role, While I don't agree with reducing the manned fleet I do find it interesting in incorporating USV's into the ISR role.

Thoughts?

 

[gf0012-aust]

With a year of internet admiral's touting either nuclear submarines or USV's as the 'logical' successor to the Collins class because well, conventional subamrines are so last century and if aircraft can be unmanned then so could submarines... It's great to come across an article in the new's that is actually fair and not necesarily bad in it's view.

Key points in it:
- The Collins class sucked in the 90's, but since then has improved to be a very good submarine though at a cost
- USV's may make useful ISR vessel's but only in conjunction with a manned subamrine
- Point's out the limitations and risks with USV's between them not being able to be controlled deep under water while also said control's opening up risk's between being easily located or worse yet hacked and taken over.

Could robot submarines replace the ageing Collins class?

It does mention a smaller repalcement fleet (number's notm entioned) of manned submarines backed up by USV's filling the ISR role, While I don't agree with reducing the manned fleet I do find it interesting in incorporating USV's into the ISR role.

Thoughts?

I was looking at "robot" subs 8 years ago - there were already swimmers in development then - we're a long way away from current utility - and there are far more important things on the horizon to bring into being before unmanned subs become mainstream

in fact the genesis of all the "new discussions" can be traced back to Deepwater and NAVSEA.

there's a bit of desperation coming out in some of these clickbaits

 

[hairyman]

Getting back to the build rate and timing of our new subs, I would like to see us commence submarine build six or seven years before the retirement date of the first Collins class, and the third new sub to replace the first Collins retired. That way we would have a fleet of eight submarines right through the years of the build.

(I think I may have posted this before).

 

[gf0012-aust]

Getting back to the build rate and timing of our new subs, I would like to see us commence submarine build six or seven years before the retirement date of the first Collins class, and the third new sub to replace the first Collins retired. That way we would have a fleet of eight submarines right through the years of the build.

(I think I may have posted this before).

A through life build of 12 boats is designed to have 8 boats in service at any one time

 

[Volkodav]

A through life build of 12 boats is designed to have 8 boats in service at any one time

To put it in context, the current six boat fleet was meant to have four in service, one in FCD and one in MCD with the boats in these long maintenance cycles being in the maintainers material control rather than in commission with the RAN. This is why the decisions to lay up boats in "Pre-FCD", and "Pre-Pre-FCD" while another was in FCD and a fourth was due MCD, was so stupid, it meant only a maximum of three could possibly be in service and usually only two, to meet all operational and training requirements.

This put added loads on the crews, reduced training berths and training opportunities, resulted in deferal of planned maintenance, through certification extension dockings etc. In turn this resulted in higher separation rates among overworked qualified crews, low moral in trainees, greater eear and tear on the in service boats, hence higher break down rates and its all the fault of the designer, builder/maintainer and previous government.

Its the equivalent of buying a top of the line Landcruiser, servicing it infrequently, if at all, not topping up the oil or even checking tire pressures and running it on cooking oil scavenged out of a fish and chip shop deep frier instead of low sulfur diesel them blaming Toyota when it become unreliable.

 

[Punta74]

To put it in context, the current six boat fleet was meant to have four in service, one in FCD and one in MCD with the boats in these long maintenance cycles being in the maintainers material control rather than in commission with the RAN. This is why the decisions to lay up boats in "Pre-FCD", and "Pre-Pre-FCD" while another was in FCD and a fourth was due MCD, was so stupid, it meant only a maximum of three could possibly be in service and usually only two, to meet all operational and training requirements.

This put added loads on the crews, reduced training berths and training opportunities, resulted in deferal of planned maintenance, through certification extension dockings etc. In turn this resulted in higher separation rates among overworked qualified crews, low moral in trainees, greater eear and tear on the in service boats, hence higher break down rates and its all the fault of the designer, builder/maintainer and previous government.

Its the equivalent of buying a top of the line Landcruiser, servicing it infrequently, if at all, not topping up the oil or even checking tire pressures and running it on cooking oil scavenged out of a fish and chip shop deep frier instead of low sulfur diesel them blaming Toyota when it become unreliable.

That makes sense.

So would that mean we'd expect the first Collins to be decommissioned roughly after the 3rd/4th new boat is in the water ?

Common sense to me says you'd want 1 or 2 new boats at FOC before reducing. Though looking back at the Oberon -> Collins transition it appears we Decommissioned 3 boats by the time the first Collins was commissioned - is that right ?

 

[swerve]

According to Janes, Japan's provided some technical details of the sub design offered to Australia.

Does anyone have access to the full article?

 

[gf0012-aust]

According to Janes, Japan's provided some technical details of the sub design offered to Australia.

Does anyone have access to the full article?

http://www.aspistrategist.org.au/why-the-japanese-proposal-is-low-risk-part-1/

http://www.aspistrategist.org.au/why-the-japanese-proposal-is-low-risk-part-2/