Andrew and I had some philosophical disagreements on some of the options...
still, none of the details around the ultimate NSC decisions will come out for at least 30 years.
Naval Ship & Submarine Propulsion Systems
- Thread starter rockitten
- Start date
still, none of the details around the ultimate NSC decisions will come out for at least 30 years.
Be nice people and be realistic in your posts. RAN SSNs are off the list as is any other fantasy ideas. If you want to discuss those go elsewhere. If it continues here, we can arrange for your removal from here very easily.
Pull your head in and be less combative or you will find yourself on a short holiday from here.Napoleonic Wars the British(and the colony of NSW) were allies with the Germans and enemys of the French.
Time of the Spanish Armada the British were enemys of both France & Spain.
In WW1 we were also allies of Italy.
We had better buy nothing but British or American from now on, no wait we can't buy American either they fought a war against Britain in 1812 when we were a colony. We won't be able to buy anything built in Scotland either.
This site has been discussed numerous times, IIRC, most agreed it is unsuitable, not enough room, etc. Financially, well forget that too.
But from a purely operational point of view, Brisbane river is too restrictive, the run out of the river, the shallows of Moreton Bay before you get out create a bottleneck for current shipping activities as it is, let alone adding a growing navy to the problem.
As for Subs ? forget it, they want to go deep pretty quickly and quietly, Brisbane is not suitable
Cheers
I am sure Australia made the right choice . Britain and the US don't produce diesel electric subs since how many decades I don't know, USS Virginia or HMS Astute would have been too much for your navy so the choice was between German ,Japanese and French.. Although the German technology is still considered the best in the world, ( MTU still makes the best diesel engines in the world ) they couldn't offer subs in + 4000 tons category. Barracuda class is the latest and the most advanced sub of all and if the French really agree on 100% technology transfer on everything so that Australia can build all 12 subs locally with components mostly made in Australia than its a fantastic deal.. Congrats !!
I would suggest that you have a go at reading previous comments to get a better background awareness - especially around the tone and tenor of some of the more experienced members......
I have to respectfully disagree with you over Darwins suitability as a submarine base. Surface units are different and it would be the obvious choice to use as a forward base for ops in the SE Asia theatre.
Darwin is confined by hydrography. Shallow warm water, less than 100 mtrs deep and in many areas less than 50 mtrs exist all the way westward for 450 nm before the continental shelf falls away to deep water in the Timor Sea. If you transit North West deep water is closer but then you are confined to the narrow bottle neck of the Timor Trench which is easy work for red subs to lurk.
The transit west is vulnerable to underwater mine laying and any number of ASW embuggerances, so, no, Darwin is not suitable. I have transited these waters both in uniform and out for my entire working life and although I would love to see subs here it would be tactical suicide.
If, and that's a big if, a forward base was considered, and there's no reason for it, the most suitable port is Yampi Sound. Deep water is close, the Sound is easily defended, it offers superb protection from cyclones ( I've done that on several,occasions) and it's suitable for support from a large Submarine Tender.
In summary, Darwin NO, FBW YES and Yampi Sound POSSIBLE.
Last edited:
You dont have to be respectful!
Murmasnk and the Barrents Sea generally face similar issues - that didn't stop the Soviets from staging a leg of their triad from there. Obviously the water is much colder so you will get layer effects at higher depths but it certainly isn't perfect submarine territory. Additionally with all the noise the ADF is making about theatre ASW - additional P8s and bottom arrays ect - I would assume the timor sea is going to become a much more dangerous place for your average Type 095 nuke. Those very issues - warm water & shallow depth - make Darwin's littorals extremely difficult for hostile boats to operate in. Proximity, or lack-thereof, also drastically reduces the threat of mine-laying. Unless we are talking about fighting the Indonesians you are going to have to be one ballsy H-6M pilot to try and mine Darwin's littorals. Thus, although I agree Darwin isn't the ideal submarine base, these problems aren't insurmountable.
That being said the major point i wanted to make is if you are going to build either a dedicated submarine base, or a kind of FOB, the only places which make any sense operationally are the Territory or northern WA. There is no point whatsoever that I can see to staging submarines in Brisbane - the transit distance to the SCS is hardly any better than from FBW.
The Kimberly is awfully remote - i cannot see how you are going to sustain a fleet base away from a major population centre. Unless you are considering a 'bare base' type arrangement where the infrastructure is in place but minimal personnel are stationed there. Yampi Sound sounds very much like a Scarpa Flow - an operational base which makes sense. But if that’s the case it doesn’t really help in the case of a rapid escalation: the RAAF’s bare bases work because you can mass a squadron there in 24 hours or so. It’s going to take a week to move your assets from Perth to the Kimberly, and at that point the boats may as well keep steaming north. In any other contingency it works well, assuming you can supply it.
Darwin has the population and the naval infrastructure already in place.
I don't imagine particularly with the new subs there will be many issues with long transits, they are going to be significantly faster (and better suited) than Collins on long transits, which is significantly faster than other diesel subs.
I wouldn't be surprised if they could potentially keep up a very high sustained speed.
Stirling will be fine. More so than ever. I don't imagine there would be much money or interest in building new submarine bases anywhere, not even on the east coast.
I wouldn't be surprised if they could potentially keep up a very high sustained speed.
Stirling will be fine. More so than ever. I don't imagine there would be much money or interest in building new submarine bases anywhere, not even on the east coast.
Joe Black
Active Member
I second this opinion, my take is that the Shortfin Barracuda was the chosen platform because it would provide the highest transit speed and endurance not to mention the size of the boat indicates better growth potential. I do hope that the shortfin will utilise the best diesel engines (MTU?) and genset in the market though.
IIRC the Shortfin Barracuda is designed to have a much higher sustained transit speed – roughly double the Soryu’s at around 14 knots – with a smaller signature at those speeds. Again, piecing together what we can from open source.
The Barracuda may well be able to transit much faster and farther than the Collins, but the problem is you can’t really compare what we are facing in the region over the life of this boat to the opening decades of this century. We all need to wrap our heads around the fact that by 2030 – given work already on the books – we are facing a potential adversary that will enjoy local naval superiority over the entire US alliance. Not only that, but stands behind the world’s most technologically sophisticated and deep A2/AD architecture designed to isolate Japan and the Seventh Fleet. What this means is we now face the real possibility of fighting a high intensity naval campaign to defend ourselves from a power with naval superiority who may well launch a short, aggressive campaign to achieve stated political objectives throughout the region. The very notion that we could be confronted with such a situation when the Collins was designed or FBW designated as our primary sub base would have been laughable.
Thus, you just can’t look at the last 20 years to predict how we need to operate our assets over the next 20. If the above worst case kicks off, there’s every chance Australian infrastructure - specifically our bare bases – are going to be targets for naval and air power because of the threat the USAF poses to the PLAN. To defend them we need to engage hostile forces as far away from these assets as we can – at the edge of JORN’s footprint if possible. That set of operational challenges makes a northern operating base favorable for submarines, simply because the PLA as the potential aggressor would enjoy the material and readiness advantage.
The idea of a northern base was mentioned in the 2013 DWP IIRC, so clearly the ADF is musing these ideas.
But those advantages would only be magnified by a northern forward operating base would they not? Even quicker response, even longer patrols, even greater areas where the RAN poses a threat to shipping and high value infrastructure. I don’t see why they are mutually exclusive.
I am trying to keep my counsel here as I realise that the enthusiasm on actually making an acquisition decision on the subs is injecting some fervour and optimism
but for crying out loud, some of the claims around metrics such as speed and range are seriously unsubstantiated
"geebuz wept" there is NO metric to estimate the performance capabilities of the proposed subs - the requirements as established for CONOPs won't ever be released and as such there are some really really bold assumptions
I don't want to look as though I'm raining on the parade here - but get a grip
anyone who has worked in engineering will understand why I am having tics and conniptions here.
go back and look at exactly what the french have offered - and apply some logic as to what the impacts are in defining the build
lets not get carried away - I don't want to look like a bear which hasn't eaten for a week, but there really is a need to sprinkle some of the responses with a a few megatons of reality.
apply some critical thinking around the engineering issues - don't let joie de vivre about the 1st stage of this process mar the capacity to have a quality debate based on real constraints.
but for crying out loud, some of the claims around metrics such as speed and range are seriously unsubstantiated
"geebuz wept" there is NO metric to estimate the performance capabilities of the proposed subs - the requirements as established for CONOPs won't ever be released and as such there are some really really bold assumptions
I don't want to look as though I'm raining on the parade here - but get a grip
anyone who has worked in engineering will understand why I am having tics and conniptions here.
go back and look at exactly what the french have offered - and apply some logic as to what the impacts are in defining the build
lets not get carried away - I don't want to look like a bear which hasn't eaten for a week, but there really is a need to sprinkle some of the responses with a a few megatons of reality.
apply some critical thinking around the engineering issues - don't let joie de vivre about the 1st stage of this process mar the capacity to have a quality debate based on real constraints.
I'm not sure what else we can do in an open forum but work off statements made in open source material. That is how everyone conducts research without a security clearance, all the way up to a PHD. I assume this is directed at me considering I'm the only one talking about transit speeds, and I'm assuming the coloured text means you are saying this as a mod?
DCNS are on the record stating publicly that the Shortfin Barracuda will have comparable sustained transit speeds to the Barracuda - which is reportedly around 14 knots. Given the above supposing a comparable transit speed is hardly an uncritical use of open source material to infer likely capabilities. I clearly stated the limitations of this information and never claimed these were hard facts. We are forced to rely on statements from every defense contractor and supplier to infer likely capabilities. This stands for DCNS, LM, BAE, Boeing Mitsubishi, whoever. If we are to fall back on certainty then there is no point having any kind of discussion about any of this in an open forum, not to mention the impact of RCS reduction in 5th generation air combat considering we don’t know what the true RCS levels are or kinematics of BVR missiles ect ect. We must do the best with what we have in a forum like this.
If you have good reason to doubt these claims then by all means address these concerns - isn't that what these forums are for? Open discussion? But I have no idea how the utilization of open source material in this manner could possibly provoke a response from a moderator as a moderator.
I'll give you one example - there are a myriad more
SB Block 1A is a conventional conversion of the SB nuke
The drivetrain doesn't exist
No western country has used a DE drivetrain on a pumpjet - it has yet to be designed, tested and then developed - and that needs to be done before it goes into the last 3 sections
Look at the pumpjet on a nuke - its able to develop basically instant thrust - ie sprint and surge on demand - the best DE available can't do that - IOW there is an immediate change in performance and handling dynamics
then compare the drivetrain real estate issues on a nuke and compare it to a conventional
the nuke doesn't have to deal with any issues of changes of fuel state impacting upon handling
the nuke doesn't have the same real estate issues as there are no bunkerage issues and no battery issues commensurate with the drivetrain
ie all of that real estate advantage that is available to a boat with a small nuke changes dramatically with DE drivetrains
the handling issues are immediate
the acoustic management issues increase exponentially with DE compared to nukes
and then there are the energy management issues.
you just can't add 30% more KW based on a 30% increase in size.
I'm not dumb enough to talk about the classified issues - I'm only talking about the engineering realities
there's a difference between discussing capability issues and making claims about inherent performance
some of the discussion about pump jets is just tosh.
we avoid hypotheticals as much as possible on this forum for a reason - accordingly when people discuss things they tend not to make empirical claims - especially when this is actually a greenfields build
the only thing that will retain a probability of minimal change will be the outer shell - everything else changes.
I blame idiotic journos for some of the nonsense that we see, but its sites like this where we try and talk about defence issues with a dose of reality.
if you look at those with blue tags (eg) - they invariably qualify with caution - there's a reason why they do that. prev experience and a bit of circumspection.
I'd suggest reading through a number of posts in the RAN thread to get an indication of tone and intent - we've discussed subs in here over the last 10 years.
there's a wealth of knowledge from people who have actual sub design, industry and defence experience.
and I've worked on french built subs on tech transfer issues.....
A contractor can claim whatever they want. Without a clarification of unspoken caveats, it's hard to know how much a statement really "means."
They can claim it matches the SSN variant's sustained transit speed.
Note they don't define the duration of "sustained." Or "comparable."
Until the heavy engineering work is done and the design is close to finalized, it's hard for even DCNS to know what's going to be the result.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
I am not speaking on GF's behalf, but a number of posters, usually newer posters, have offered commentary in this RAN thread recently that is quite enthusiastic about DCNS having been selected for the SEA 1000 programme. However, a number of comments have been made which, even if there is publically available information out there confirming, does not mean that is actually what is/will be taking place.
Take the 14 kts sustained transit speed as an example. The sustained transit speed the future RAN subs will operate at would be dictated by RAN CONOPS, not the sub design. In fact, the CONOPS requirement is what will drive the required sustainable transit speed (as well as what is considered a sustainable transit speed). Not being a marine/submarine engineer, I am making an assumption here, but I would assume that if a particular design can sustain a 14 kts transit speed (which would require nn amount of power) then the same design should be able to sustain a transit speed of 10 kts or 8 kts, which would require less power. This reduction in power consumption could easily be preferable for the RAN, since it could permit a lower indiscretion rate, permit more time on station, and/or maintaining a larger charge on the batteries for action.
With a new potential sub design, there is so much which is not known, and has not been specified (as in, contracted) that making capabilities claims at this point is IMO very premature. To whit, we have no idea what sort of power budget the future sub will have, what sort of reserves, etc. all of which will drive a number of the performance metrics.
Now if the RAN were to come out and state that a requirement for the future sub was a 14 kts sustainable speed, that would be one thing. For the manufacturer to make such a statement means SFA, because that does not necessarily have any relationship to how the RAN will actually operate the subs.
t68
Well-Known Member
now the shock of the French winning the tender has passed, I was hoping that the powers to be must know something we don't, but jeez you just gave me the hebejebes about the whole thing. All I can think about is how much are the French going to screw us for extra $$$$$$$ all because of a glossy brochure.
Can the French pull it off?
there's 12 months worth of contract negotiation about to start - and that should be about holding their feet to the fire if they can't meet RAN performance and ADO contracting constraints
if the contract is paid on meeting technical and engineering KPI's and penalties for a non excusable delays - then that starts to add comfort.
I have more concerns over greenfields projects than improving an established in water solution - I have even more concerns when there is a techset that puts us on the bleeding edge. leading edge aversion exists because it can easily migrate to bleeding edge - and there has been a philosophy to walk away from bleeding edge when you're the lead customer.
the risk matrix for this on a number of issues keeps on hitting the top right corner for me - but as long as there are ways to minimise and mitigate the risk, then the risk matrix start heading back to the centre.....
its not about bagging the french - its about making sure that as the lead customer on a greenfields solution our feet don't get burnt before the builders.
as I and others have repeatedly said, the cost killers in primary capital acquisitions always has higher risk vectors at the integration points.
recognise it, cover it and you still get to walk away with your pants on - if you don't then you then invite the political silliness that has crippled the Collins in the publics eyes, despite the fact that it is still one of the best fleet conventionals in the world - and can outperform some nukes in some discretionary warfighting roles.
The last thing I want to see is this turned into is another circus.
If you don't want the heebee geebees then don't read some of the Drum articles on subs. Its an unfortunate representation of how many morons we have in the country who seem to think that they are defence acquisition experts, force planning experts, and maritime engineers.