Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[iambuzzard]

It might be interesting to explore how some future changes might impact the SSN program. Below are a few that I can think of.

• Trump gets elected. Pressures Australia to buy American rather than Brittish gear at double the price. We agree to buy five Virginias rather than three under a deal like nobody's ever seen before. We continue with the AUKUS program, and then sell the Virginias back to the US when our own subs come online 10 years later. The Americans have a shortage of hulls after selling five to us, so they agree to pay three times the original cost to have them back.
• The UK struggles to fund their part of the AUKUS program. Australia takes the lead, with key British personnel emigrating to Australia enmass for work. Turns out they think Adelaide is waaay better than Barrow and all apply for Australian citizenship. BAE and RR move their headquarters to Australia, with Australia getting access to early manufacturing slots for long lead equipment. The first AUKUS hulls come out of Osborne, at about the same time as the first hull would have been completed in the UK. We have five in the water before they get their first and charge the UK design royalties.
• The Americans struggle to increase the Virginia build tempo, and elect to not transfer the three to Australia. Australia buys four Astute hulls at a bargin price as the British can't staff or fund them and put them in mothballs. Australia recalls all of its USN SSN sailors to crew the new Astutes, resulting in five USN Virginias being tied up due to crew shortages.
• China strikes Taiwan in 2027. The world goes to war. We all return to the stone age. Submarines don't matter.
• Greens win the federal ballance of power. The submarine program gets entirely cancelled, and all army equipment (tanks, IFVs, CRVs, HIMARS, Hawkeis and Bushmasters) gets donated to Ukraine without replacement.

Feel free to add any others that I might have missed.

Sammy, you very funny!!!!

 

[StevoJH]

In all seriousness, I would consider the AUKUS SSN to be a safer prospect then getting Virginia Class submarines out of the US if their can't get their ship building industry up to speed.

The UK has everything to gain and nothing to lose by helping the RAN as it significantly reduces their R & D spend and also amortises the cost of that spend over a greater number of units. Rolls Royce have already committed (and begun works) to significantly increase the scale of their reactor production facilities for starters.

Just talking about reactor plants, adding 8 RAN submarines increases the number of future PWR3 plants from 11-12 to 19-20, even if the RN don't increase their own Submarine fleet.

 

[John Fedup]

In all seriousness, I would consider the AUKUS SSN to be a safer prospect then getting Virginia Class submarines out of the US if their can't get their ship building industry up to speed.

The UK has everything to gain and nothing to lose by helping the RAN as it significantly reduces their R & D spend and also amortises the cost of that spend over a greater number of units. Rolls Royce have already committed (and begun works) to significantly increase the scale of their reactor production facilities for starters.

Just talking about reactor plants, adding 8 RAN submarines increases the number of future PWR3 plants from 11-12 to 19-20, even if the RN don't increase their own Submarine fleet.

Absolutely the Australian AUKUS SSN additions will lower the overall costs per unit for the UK, a real bonus given the current budget pressures their MoD is facing.

 

[aviation_enthus]

Great to see this weeks announcement - it certainly exceeded what I had expected in terms of scale.

Would the presence of a significant number of nuclear powered submarines and capable surface ships be enough of a deterrent and offer enough protection to cover the Henderson Defence Precinct + HMAS Stirling?

Or is it time to consider the possible future need that fighters may be required to be permanently based at RAAF Pearce to deter and protect these critical national and allied defence assets?

I get that we will likely have advanced notice of traditional threats and could scramble assets as required, but not providing suitable in-situ protections would seem like an own goal waiting to happen.

I have wondered this as well. Such a squadron (or two) could also support a move north to Learmonth & Curtin to assist any forward posture.

My 2c? Move the training to Geraldton (they’d love the influx of government $$$) plenty of airspace up there. New squadron of F-35’s, drones, Wedgetails etc. Would also solve the airspace issues around Perth airport caused by all the Pearce restricted zones…

 

[DDG38]

I have wondered this as well. Such a squadron (or two) could also support a move north to Learmonth & Curtin to assist any forward posture.

My 2c? Move the training to Geraldton (they’d love the influx of government $$$) plenty of airspace up there. New squadron of F-35’s, drones, Wedgetails etc. Would also solve the airspace issues around Perth airport caused by all the Pearce restricted zones…

Sure, except good luck recruiting and retaining ADF personnel that would want to live in Geraldton. Fact of life, no point parking gear in remote areas if no one wants to move their families there.

 

[StevoJH]

I have wondered this as well. Such a squadron (or two) could also support a move north to Learmonth & Curtin to assist any forward posture.

My 2c? Move the training to Geraldton (they’d love the influx of government $$$) plenty of airspace up there. New squadron of F-35’s, drones, Wedgetails etc. Would also solve the airspace issues around Perth airport caused by all the Pearce restricted zones…

Why is this needed during peacetime? It’s a long way from Perth to anywhere, that is its main advantage.

Any attack on Perth is unlikely to be a bolt out of the blue.

In case of a conflict things might be different. But any threat is likely to be from Submarine launched missiles, likely cruise or (later) hypersonic.

And to get to Perth, it has to get through multiple choke points or circumnavigate Australia. Better to focus efforts on those choke points.

 

[Underway]

Engineering question for those who have sailed on the ANZAC class.

What are some of the pros and cons of the unique drive system. Exhaust out the stern, water jet propulsion with GT etc...

My experience is from a CODOG and CRPP configuration with a classic exhaust and intake system and am curious about it.

EDIT: ignore.the quotes. My info was faulty as pointed out by @Sandson41 below

 

[Sandson41]

Engineering question for those who have sailed on the ANZAC class.

What are some of the pros and cons of the unique drive system. Exhaust out the stern, water jet propulsion with GT etc...

My experience is from a CODOG and CRPP configuration with a classic exhaust and intake system and am curious about it.

Pardon my ignorance, but I didn't think the Anzacs (MEKO 200) had any of those features? The South African Valour class (MEKO A200) have waterjets and waterline exhausts, if I understand correctly. Could that be what you're thinking of?

 

[d-ron84]

Great to see this weeks announcement - it certainly exceeded what I had expected in terms of scale.

Would the presence of a significant number of nuclear powered submarines and capable surface ships be enough of a deterrent and offer enough protection to cover the Henderson Defence Precinct + HMAS Stirling?

Or is it time to consider the possible future need that fighters may be required to be permanently based at RAAF Pearce to deter and protect these critical national and allied defence assets?

I get that we will likely have advanced notice of traditional threats and could scramble assets as required, but not providing suitable in-situ protections would seem like an own goal waiting to happen.

A-10 Warthogs Escorting A Ballistic Missile Submarine Is Certainly Different

The A-10 is highly capable of force protection, including against boats that could threaten a submarine loaded with nuclear-tipped missiles.

www.twz.com

This is the first thing that came to my mind when reading your comment

 

[Underway]

Pardon my ignorance, but I didn't think the Anzacs (MEKO 200) had any of those features? The South African Valour class (MEKO A200) have waterjets and waterline exhausts, if I understand correctly. Could that be what you're thinking of?

No you're right. Edited my post. I was watching a video on MEKO A200 and didn't make the connection with the A...

 

[SammyC]

Engineering question for those who have sailed on the ANZAC class.

What are some of the pros and cons of the unique drive system. Exhaust out the stern, water jet propulsion with GT etc...

My experience is from a CODOG and CRPP configuration with a classic exhaust and intake system and am curious about it.

ANZACs run a CODOG propulsion train with a twin shafts, each with a controllable pitch propeller (CPP). It allows for efficient cruising at about 18kts on the diesels or high speed on the GT. It's built in redundancy (via a crossover gearbox) enables any engine to power either shaft. It's advantage is that it is all relatively simple, standard and robust. It's disadvantage is that this configuration does not enable simultaneous diesel and gas (so lower instataneous power output) and looses some efficiency by using the same propeller for two different engine types.

The water jet option is on the Algerian and Egyptian versions in a CODAG configuration. The diesels drive their own shafts with CPPs as per the ANZACs. The difference is that the GT drives its own shaft into a water jet. This configuration enables the diesels and GT to operate simultaneously and independently on all three shafts and is why it can get a couple more knots of speed than an ANZAC. It also allows the propeller design to be matched more precisely to each engine, improving efficiency. Waterjets are able to put out more power with lower cavitation than a comparable traditional unshrouded propeller. They are a good option for high speed requirements, but the benefits are less at lower speeds. It's disadvantage is that its a lot more complex and there is more stuff to break.

My personal view is that the small increase to top speed (which is rarely used) does not outweigh the complexity of the waterjet system. I would stick with the ANZAC system with a few minor changes. But maybe I'm just old and dislike change. It does produce a nice rooster tail though....

My preferred propulsion is electric. These systems do away with gearboxes and have an electric motor attached directly to the shaft. They generally don't need CPPs either as electric motors have very wide torque/efficiency bands (diesels don't). Their advantage is that there are very few moving parts, nothing to break and the engines can be mounted anywhere in the ship. They are quiet as there is no engine or gearbox vibration on the shaftline. The disadvantage is they are more expensive due to all that copper.

 

[John Fedup]

My preferred propulsion is electric. These systems do away with gearboxes and have an electric motor attached directly to the shaft. They generally don't need CPPs either as electric motors have very wide torque/efficiency bands (diesels don't). Their advantage is that there are very few moving parts, nothing to break and the engines can be mounted anywhere in the ship. They are quiet as there is no engine or gearbox vibration on the shaftline. The disadvantage is they are more expensive due to all that copper.

Agree, IEP is the future, especially if energy directed weapons happen.

 

[Underway]

ANZACs run a CODOG propulsion train with a twin shafts, each with a controllable pitch propeller (CPP). It allows for efficient cruising at about 18kts on the diesels or high speed on the GT. It's built in redundancy (via a crossover gearbox) enables any engine to power either shaft. It's advantage is that it is all relatively simple, standard and robust. It's disadvantage is that this configuration does not enable simultaneous diesel and gas (so lower instataneous power output) and looses some efficiency by using the same propeller for two different engine types.

The water jet option is on the Algerian and Egyptian versions in a CODAG configuration. The diesels drive their own shafts with CPPs as per the ANZACs. The difference is that the GT drives its own shaft into a water jet. This configuration enables the diesels and GT to operate simultaneously and independently on all three shafts and is why it can get a couple more knots of speed than an ANZAC. It also allows the propeller design to be matched more precisely to each engine, improving efficiency. Waterjets are able to put out more power with lower cavitation than a comparable traditional unshrouded propeller. They are a good option for high speed requirements, but the benefits are less at lower speeds. It's disadvantage is that its a lot more complex and there is more stuff to break.

My personal view is that the small increase to top speed (which is rarely used) does not outweigh the complexity of the waterjet system. I would stick with the ANZAC system with a few minor changes. But maybe I'm just old and dislike change. It does produce a nice rooster tail though....

My preferred propulsion is electric. These systems do away with gearboxes and have an electric motor attached directly to the shaft. They generally don't need CPPs either as electric motors have very wide torque/efficiency bands (diesels don't). Their advantage is that there are very few moving parts, nothing to break and the engines can be mounted anywhere in the ship. They are quiet as there is no engine or gearbox vibration on the shaftline. The disadvantage is they are more expensive due to all that copper.

I wonder about the A200 exhausting system as well. Stern exhaust instead of aloft exhaust makes me think if maintenance issues (you can crane large bits of equipment in or out of the engine spaces through the stack) and safety issues (hot exhaust at water level while doing basin trials or needing a tug astern). Also lower stack feels less safe in high seas (water ingress when getting pooped!)

Advantages are more deck space for sensors and weapons and a better Citadel configuration.

Might be better for a corvette sized ship as the extra speed and noise reduction from pumpjet would actually be higher impact.

 

[Going Boeing]

The government is spending $7 Billion to buy SM-2 IIIC & SM-6 missiles for the RAN. Numbers not shown but it’s likely to be more than just for the Hobarts.

https://www.minister.defence.gov.au...ing-australians-boost-air-and-missile-defence

Australia buys $7 billion worth of US missiles for ‘greatest arms race’ since World War II

Australia buys $7b of US missiles in massive arms race

 

[SammyC]

I wonder about the A200 exhausting system as well. Stern exhaust instead of aloft exhaust makes me think if maintenance issues (you can crane large bits of equipment in or out of the engine spaces through the stack) and safety issues (hot exhaust at water level while doing basin trials or needing a tug astern). Also lower stack feels less safe in high seas (water ingress when getting pooped!)

Advantages are more deck space for sensors and weapons and a better Citadel configuration.

Might be better for a corvette sized ship as the extra speed and noise reduction from pumpjet would actually be higher impact.

Underwater exhausts are very popular with small civilian boats where the alternative is a stern exhaust. Underwater systems reduce noise and remove exhaust gasses from where people are located (in the cabin or deck area), and they are really good at it. For anybody who has sat at the stern of a fishing boat with an inboard motor and stern exhaust, it can ruin the experience.

Note that underwater exhausts work on an eductor principle, and need running water to draw out the exhaust. They therefore only work at speed, and typically have a side above water exhaust for slow speed, or in harbour. There is usuallly a flapper valve that keeps the system from backflooding.

For a military vessel, an under water exhaust reduces the IR signature, so it improves protection from airbourne threats. Mind you modern anti ship missiles can still pick up on the heat signature of the rest of the ship, so the benefit is minimal. Some missiles are also optical, as well as IR, further negating this approach.

The underwater exhaust however pumps a lot of noise energy into the water. They are typically unmuffled. While they might be quiet above water, they are not below. As such they are not a good option for a ship configured for anti submarine warfare.

From a damage control point of view, they are another hole below the waterline, and another way for water to get into the engine space.

The concept might work for a small vessel configured for primarily anti air or ship warfare that needs to zoom around in shallow waters.There are very few large military vessels that have this system.

 

[seaspear]

I understood some of the benefits of the Meko A were the reduced heat signature as per this article

MEKO A Class Combat Ship Family

The MEKO A combat ships, designed by Blohm and Voss, are evolved from the MEKO family of ships. MEKO A Class Combat Ship is operational with various navies.

www.naval-technology.com

 

[SammyC]

OK, slight correction to my above, the Egyptian/Algerian MEKO vent above the waterline, not below. The below link provides some good general arrangements for the propulsion plant and the exhaust system.

In focus – the MEKO A-200 Type 31e frigate candidate | Navy Lookout

The turbine vents out the stern and the diesels vent out the side (see the big black patch area).

Yes it does reduce the IR signature, I'm just doubtful of the benefit this provides over modern missiles.

 

[Underway]

OK, slight correction to my above, the Egyptian/Algerian MEKO vent above the waterline, not below. The below link provides some good general arrangements for the propulsion plant and the exhaust system.

In focus – the MEKO A-200 Type 31e frigate candidate | Navy Lookout

The turbine vents out the stern and the diesels vent out the side (see the big black patch area).

Yes it does reduce the IR signature, I'm just doubtful of the benefit this provides over modern missiles.

IR isn't just about modern missiles, it's about IR detection as well as IR is a passive sensor. Passive reduction isn't the worst idea, though it might have diminishing returns with modern sensors. Still a published 75% reduction because they push sea water mixed into the exhaust is a big reduction.

 

[ADMk2]

The government is spending $7 Billion to buy SM2 IIIC & SM6 missiles for the RAN. Numbers not shown but it’s likely to be more than just for the Hobarts.

https://www.minister.defence.gov.au...ing-australians-boost-air-and-missile-defence

Australia buys $7 billion worth of US missiles for ‘greatest arms race’ since World War II

Australia buys $7b of US missiles in massive arms race

Still no mention of SM-3…

 

[Going Boeing]

Still no mention of SM-3…

No, but looking at the radar antenna configuration on the Hunters, SM-3 might be more effectively used on them in comparison to the Hobarts. I think that it will be ordered in the future.

At least full-rate manufacturing of the SM-3 Block IIA has commenced at Raytheon.

RTX's Raytheon SM-3® Block IIA achieves full-rate production approval

SM-3 Block IIA production reaches full-rate production

https://defence-blog.com/raytheon-enters-full-rate-production-for-sm-3-block-iia/