[capt_starlight]

Navy's new lethal subs

Quote

AUSTRALIA will build the world's most lethal conventional submarine fleet, capable of carrying long-range cruise missiles and futuristic midget-subs, to combat an expected arms race in the region.

New Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon has ordered planning to begin on the next generation of submarines to replace the Royal Australian Navy's Collins-class fleet with the aim of gaining "first pass" approval for the design phase from cabinet's National Security Committee in 2011.

The 17-year project will be the largest, longest and most expensive defence acquisition since Federation, potentially costing up to $25 billion.

It comes at a time when regional navies such as Indonesia's, China's and India's are seeking to drastically expand their submarine fleets, potentially altering the balance of naval power in the region.

"There is widespread agreement that submarines provide a vital military capability for Australia," Mr Fitzgibbon told The Australian.

"The development of new submarines requires long-term planning and needs to progress quickly, and that's what I have asked for."

Defence planners have examined two key studies this year - one by independent think tank the Kokoda Foundation - which have concluded that strategic shifts in the region will make submarines a more vital cog in Australia's defence than ever before.

Defence will study a wide range of futuristic options for the new submarines, which will be built in Adelaide and will replace the six Collins-class submarines when they are retired in 2025.

The new submarines will almost certainly be built by the builder of the Collins-class fleet, the Australian Submarine Corporation, once the government-owned ASC has been privatised.

"South Australia is the only credible location for the construction of Australia's next generation of submarine," Mr Fitzgibbon said.

The aim will be to create the world's most deadly conventional submarine fleet to allow Australia to maintain its strategic advantage over fast-growing rival navies in the region.

Although Defence has not yet ruled out the possibility of Australia acquiring nuclear-powered submarines, this option is considered highly unlikely on strategic, practical and political grounds.

Instead, defence planners will focus on producing a larger, quieter, faster and more deadly version of the existing six Collins-class submarines, which, after a troubled birth in the 1990s, have proved to be one of the country's most important defence assets.

It is not known how many of the new submarines will be built.

Defence has confirmed that one of the options to be considered for the new submarine fleet will be small unmanned mini-subs that can be launched from the "mother" submarines.

"Technological developments such as unmanned vehicles would probably offer complementary capabilities to any future underwater warfare platform," a Defence spokesman said.

These unmanned mini-submarines, crammed with high-tech sensors, could travel remotely tens of kilometres away from the mother vessel to conduct surveillance, detect enemy submarines or carry an SAS team.

Another priority for the new submarines will be the new generation air-independent propulsion systems, which allow conventional submarines to stay underwater for longer periods, greatly increasing operational effectiveness. Defence says the new post-Collins submarines will have more flexible designs, allowing them to be quickly reconfigured for different types of missions, from intelligence gathering to strategic strikes.

The new submarines will be able to carry a greater variety of long-range weapons, possibly including long-range cruise missiles as well as short-range tactical land-strike missiles. They will also be configured to facilitate the secret transporting of SAS squads into regional hot spots.

In a study earlier this year, the Kokoda Foundation estimated that building, arming and supporting a new, fully modernised submarine fleet could cost between $20 billion and $25 billion, making it the largest defence project in Australia, dwarfing even the $15 billion Joint Strike Fighter project.

The Government hopes to complete its initial research into the options for the new submarines by 2011, when cabinet will give "first pass" consideration to the plan.

In 2014-15, the Government is due to give "second pass" consideration to the project, resulting in contracts and the eventual construction of the submarines, with sea trials tentatively scheduled for 2024.

The submarine-replacement project will be included in the next Defence Capability Plan.

Interesting comment I suppose on the much maligned Collins Class submarines.....

Wonder what designs are on offer for conventional submarines in the timeframe mentioned ? While a long lead time much in the submarine world is also of similar lead time.....

[capt_starlight]

New subs unlikely to go nuclear: ADA

And for a very valid couple of points on the new submarines....

Quote

The Australian Defence Association (ADA) says it is unlikely the next generation of submarines will be nuclear-powered.

A report in The Australian newspaper today says the Federal Government has ordered planning to begin on the new submarines to replace the Collins Class fleet in 2025.

While the Australian Defence Force (ADF) reportedly is not ruling out the new submarines being nuclear-powered, ADA spokesman Neil James says it is unlikely.

"There are two big arguments against it - first of the cost, but secondly, it's the complexity," he said.

"The real problem of Australia having a nuclear submarine force is that we don't have a nuclear industry in this country.

"There's no example in the world of a nuclear submarine operator only having nuclear engineering in its Navy."

[Luke Y]

Quote

Interesting comment I suppose on the much maligned Collins Class submarines.....

By all accounts the Collins are excellent boats these days.

As for these "mini-subs" they sound like wireguided remote sonar sensors that have been in use for years.

As for cruise missiles, the Collins are capable of firing them all they need is the missile mission plannin systems.

All said, the idea of increasing the sub-fleet is a good one, they are the most effective tool avaliable to us.

I wonder whats the status with the AIP plugs for the collins?

[capt_starlight]

From later ABC story:

"....Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon says planning to replace the Royal Australian Navy's Collins Class submarines should have started 12 months ago...."

Politics or facts ?

As to AIP refit - seems to have gone very quiet.....

[jakec]

Of course Australia could opt for the "nuclear" technology that is all the rage for subs at the moment: some sort of RTG in what is basically still a diesel-electric design to give a super-AIP system. The Russians have just completed their first boat with this technology - Sarov (or something like that, the name appears to change with the weather) - and the Chinese are purportedly doing it with their Yuan class.

This post has been edited by jakec: 26 December 2007 - 0041 AM

[Argus]

I understand the planning has been going on for years at a low level so who knows if Fitzy is playing politics or is just full of spin.

AIP was off the adjenda for the very practical reason that it costs a bombs and is of limited use (or so I was told). As it was explained to me, AIP is great for sneaking about, but when a sub really needs speed over time and risks running out of charge (as in it's being hunted to destruction etc), no AIP can produce enough amps to make a difference. There's no AIP that can realy turn a DE into a poor mans green nuke, and for the same added displacment you can get a lot of batteries and other 'neat' stuff.

shane

[BansheeOne]

That's correct. Current AIP systems only have enough continuous power output for patrol speed. You will still have to discharge batteries for sprints in evasive maneuvers and similar. OTOH, no amount of batteries is going to have enough juice for submerged transit (especially if you look at Pacific ranges), and sprinting will still drain them in short order.

Contending outside designs would be the usual suspects (U 212/214, Scorpene, A 26, Moray - I think we can exclude Russian designs), but they're all smaller than the current Collins', let alone a "larger version". In the end, the Collins' were a custom design to meet Australia's specific needs. Kockums is part of Thyssen Krupp Marine Systems now, and a recent TKMS "family tree" graphic shows a "large sub" of 2,500 ts plus projected for about 2020 - that might be meant as a Collins successor.

Of course ASC could just try and enlarge the existing design on their gathered knowledge alone, but I think there will still be outside proficiency involved.

jakec Wed 26 Dec 2007 0640 said:

Of course Australia could opt for the "nuclear" technology that is all the rage for subs at the moment: some sort of RTG in what is basically still a diesel-electric design to give a super-AIP system. The Russians have just completed their first boat with this technology - Sarov (or something like that, the name appears to change with the weather) - and the Chinese are purportedly doing it with their Yuan class.

That's interesting. I've thought for some time that subs with RTGs could have been the small man's quasi-nukes even some decades back.

[Josh]

Luke_Yaxley, on Wed 26 Dec 2007 0255, said:

As for these "mini-subs" they sound like wireguided remote sonar sensors that have been in use for years.

I've assumed that such platforms exist but seen nothing in official literature. Do you have a source?

[capt_starlight]

jakec, on Wed 26 Dec 2007 1640, said:

Of course Australia could opt for the "nuclear" technology that is all the rage for subs at the moment: some sort of RTG in what is basically still a diesel-electric design to give a super-AIP system. The Russians have just completed their first boat with this technology - Sarov (or something like that, the name appears to change with the weather) - and the Chinese are purportedly doing it with their Yuan class.

Both countries can produce the necessary RTG materials (and theoretically) dispose of the by-products - having a civil\military nuclear industry. Australia does not.

I think Neil James (quoted above) is correct. Non-nuclear in any form.

[Luke Y]

BansheeOne, on Wed 26 Dec 2007 0925, said:

That's correct. Current AIP systems only have enough continuous power output for patrol speed. You will still have to discharge batteries for sprints in evasive maneuvers and similar. OTOH, no amount of batteries is going to have enough juice for submerged transit (especially if you look at Pacific ranges), and sprinting will still drain them in short order.

Contending outside designs would be the usual suspects (U 212/214, Scorpene, A 26, Moray - I think we can exclude Russian designs), but they're all smaller than the current Collins', let alone a "larger version". In the end, the Collins' were a custom design to meet Australia's specific needs. Kockums is part of Thyssen Krupp Marine Systems now, and a recent TKMS "family tree" graphic shows a "large sub" of 2,500 ts plus projected for about 2020 - that might be meant as a Collins successor.

Of course ASC could just try and enlarge the existing design on their gathered knowledge alone, but I think there will still be outside proficiency involved.
That's interesting. I've thought for some time that subs with RTGs could have been the small man's quasi-nukes even some decades back.

Odds on it will end up being a repeat of the collins tender, with an enlargened version of some SSK from Kockums or another of the European design houses.

ASC is more a building consortium than a design group, they haven't done anything but the collins AFAIK.

As for time on station etc the thing people often forget is how big the Collins' are, they're bigger than a lot of earlier SSN's, almost twice the displacement of a Skipjack.
The design for the collins (from memory) called for a return transit of something like 3500nm and 3 or 4 days on station at 4kts batteries only with a dash period of 20 mins or something.
What other SSK's are comparable even today with AIP and hi capacity batt's etc yet alone in 1993?

This post has been edited by Luke_Yaxley: 26 December 2007 - 2017 PM

[capt_starlight]

Luke_Yaxley, on Thu 27 Dec 2007 1216, said:

ASC is more a building consortium than a design group, they haven't done anything but the collins AFAIK.

Prime contractor for the Novantia designed AWD "Hobart" Class. These subs will neatly dovetail onto the construction "Hobarts".

ASC was a builder specifically created for the "Collins" class and at a greenfields site.

[dpapp2]

Luke_Yaxley, on Wed 26 Dec 2007 1716, said:

As for time on station etc the thing people often forget is how big the Collins' are, they're bigger than a lot of earlier SSN's, almost twice the displacement of a Skipjack.
The design for the collins (from memory) called for a return transit of something like 3500nm and 3 or 4 days on station at 4kts batteries only with a dash period of 20 mins or something.
What other SSK's are comparable even today with AIP and hi capacity batt's etc yet alone in 1993?

Well, she's also bigger (3300t) than the French SSN Rubis (2600t).

What I don't understand, isn't the new Australian government supposed to be "left-wing" (whatever that means) and anti-military?

[BansheeOne]

Luke_Yaxley, on Thu 27 Dec 2007 0216, said:

The design for the collins (from memory) called for a return transit of something like 3500nm and 3 or 4 days on station at 4kts batteries only with a dash period of 20 mins or something.
What other SSK's are comparable even today with AIP and hi capacity batt's etc yet alone in 1993?

I can see the four days at four knots plus 20 minutes sprint on batteries alone easily, but is the 3500 nm transit meant to be included in the battery requirements (i.e., no snorkeling)? At 4 kts that would be 36 days on battery, and the power drain increases exponentially with speed. I'd have a hard time believing that (U 32 set a new record for non-nuclear subs when it stayed submerged for 14 days transiting from Eckernförde to Rota/Spain last year). I don't doubt the Collins' have the largest battery capacity of any conventional (and probably a lot of nuclear, too) subs, but as size goes up, so do power requirements.

[Xavier]

BansheeOne, on Thu 27 Dec 2007 0912, said:

I can see the four days at four knots plus 20 minutes sprint on batteries alone easily, but is the 3500 nm transit meant to be included in the battery requirements (i.e., no snorkeling)? At 4 kts that would be 36 days on battery, and the power drain increases exponentially with speed. I'd have a hard time believing that (U 32 set a new record for non-nuclear subs when it stayed submerged for 14 days transiting from Eckernförde to Rota/Spain last year). I don't doubt the Collins' have the largest battery capacity of any conventional (and probably a lot of nuclear, too) subs, but as size goes up, so do power requirements.

From my limited knowledge about subs I'd say that 3500 nm on battery power is completely impossible and anything over 500 unlikely without a decent AIP

[capt_starlight]

dpapp2, on Thu 27 Dec 2007 1823, said:

Well, she's also bigger (3300t) than the French SSN Rubis (2600t).

What I don't understand, isn't the new Australian government supposed to be "left-wing" (whatever that means) and anti-military?

Don't fall into the trap of convenient political labels (usually applied by the opposition - philosophical and political).

Rudd's Australian Labor Government is about as right of "centre" as one can get without being labelled 'conservative". One of the ploys of the election (and it appears to be holding good for the period of government at least initially) was to out 'conservative' the "conservative" government. The breaking point (IMHO) was when Rudd deliberately promised less - for fear of inflation than the so-called "fiscally responsible' government of Howard.

In any case - the "Collins' were started under an ALP govenment as were the F/A 18 (original purchase) and many other 'big ticket' items.

Militarily, the difference between governments will probably be a more selective commitment of those forces under Rudd rather than size and 'shape' at least for some years to come.

[Bearded-Dragon]

Labor governments have also traditionally been much more independently minded in their defence procurement and strategy options than Australian conservative governments. The conservative Liberal-National Party Coalition governments have tended to prefer to purchase overseas, off the shelf items rather than build up Australian industry and have tended to shop almost exclusively with their "great and powerful friends", as Prime Minister Menzies called the US once. They've tended to justify it on reasons of "interoperability". The ALP on the otherhand, has done the reverse, looking often towards both the US/UK and other less traditional sources.

[Luke Y]

BansheeOne, on Thu 27 Dec 2007 0912, said:

I can see the four days at four knots plus 20 minutes sprint on batteries alone easily, but is the 3500 nm transit meant to be included in the battery requirements (i.e., no snorkeling)? At 4 kts that would be 36 days on battery, and the power drain increases exponentially with speed. I'd have a hard time believing that (U 32 set a new record for non-nuclear subs when it stayed submerged for 14 days transiting from Eckernförde to Rota/Spain last year). I don't doubt the Collins' have the largest battery capacity of any conventional (and probably a lot of nuclear, too) subs, but as size goes up, so do power requirements.

The 3500nm (or thereabouts) is definately with snorkelling. As far as I know there isn't a submarine on Earth that could do that on batt's alone, and if there is i'd go to gaol for saying it! :P

Quote

Labor governments have also traditionally been much more independently minded in their defence procurement and strategy options than Australian conservative governments. The conservative Liberal-National Party Coalition governments have tended to prefer to purchase overseas, off the shelf items rather than build up Australian industry and have tended to shop almost exclusively with their "great and powerful friends", as Prime Minister Menzies called the US once. They've tended to justify it on reasons of "interoperability". The ALP on the otherhand, has done the reverse, looking often towards both the US/UK and other less traditional sources.

That is a myth.
The vast bulk of defence purchases over the last decade have been non-US.
The Air Warfare DD's, Carriers, A-330 Tankers, Tiger's, NH-90's, the list goes on.

Virtually everything with a competition went to non-US sources.
The M1 Abrams is is more of an anomaly than the norm.
Most of the vehicles in australian service are of non-US origin.
The F-35 was a shoe-in, the only real competition to it was the F-22 given the requirements the Typhoon and Rafale weren't contenders despite their whinging.

If anything it was Labor that was overly US centric in defence procurement.

This post has been edited by Luke_Yaxley: 28 December 2007 - 2315 PM

[Bearded-Dragon]

Luke_Yaxley, on Sat 29 Dec 2007 1314, said:

The 3500nm (or thereabouts) is definately with snorkelling. As far as I know there isn't a submarine on Earth that could do that on batt's alone, and if there is i'd go to gaol for saying it! :P
That is a myth.
The vast bulk of defence purchases over the last decade have been non-US.
The Air Warfare DD's, Carriers, A-330 Tankers, Tiger's, NH-90's, the list goes on.

Virtually everything with a competition went to non-US sources.
The M1 Abrams is is more of an anomaly than the norm.
Most of the vehicles in australian service are of non-US origin.
The F-35 was a shoe-in, the only real competition to it was the F-22 given the requirements the Typhoon and Rafale weren't contenders despite their whinging.

If anything it was Labor that was overly US centric in defence procurement.

I was taking a longer-term view than just the last decade. If you look back over the whole 100+ years since federation and the formation of the Australian military, you'll see that for most of it, the conservative governments bought from the UK or the US, when we were closely allied to them and the ALP governments bought from elsewhere for their big ticket items. Look at the 1960s, when the RAN changed over from RN to USN ships, the RAAF from British to European/US aircraft and the Army from UK to US small arms for their main suppliers. Remember, I'm talking trends - generalities - not necessarily specifics.

And speaking of aircraft, is there any more news whether Joel is reconsidering the F/A-18Es?

[Luke Y]

Bearded-Dragon, on Sat 29 Dec 2007 0536, said:

I was taking a longer-term view than just the last decade. If you look back over the whole 100+ years since federation and the formation of the Australian military, you'll see that for most of it, the conservative governments bought from the UK or the US, when we were closely allied to them and the ALP governments bought from elsewhere for their big ticket items. Look at the 1960s, when the RAN changed over from RN to USN ships, the RAAF from British to European/US aircraft and the Army from UK to US small arms for their main suppliers. Remember, I'm talking trends - generalities - not necessarily specifics.

And speaking of aircraft, is there any more news whether Joel is reconsidering the F/A-18Es?

I still have to disagree though.
The vast bulk of our equipment has always come from British/European suppliers, whether its cars and light trucks, rifles, machine guns, the lot.

The real exception is the period of labour government in the 80's and 90's when we stocked up on big-ticket american equipment.

Has, historically from a political aspect Australia generally cosied-up to America from a defence point of view under Liberal governments compared to labor goverments? Generally, yes.

But to say that liberal governments tend to buy american and labor ones don't is simply false.
Just because they're politically on closer terms doesn't, and hasn't equated to favouritism in arms purchases.

As for the F/A-18F's we're buying, I don't know what the Ruddmeister will do, its a bit of a conundrum, the hornets are struggling at the moment so there will be a very real air power gap until the F-35's show up vs any potential, hypothetical (if exceedlingly unlikely) encounter against indonesian or other South East Asian Flankers, personally I would've thought something like Singapore or the RoK's Strike Eagles would've been a better option, the alternative being we just put in for F-22's now and they will be in service within five years. (assuming the sep's sell them to us)
The hornets are a pretty average and expensive decision, but its a rapidly changing region.

Personally i've always maintained that the RAn equipped with CV's should the the primary operator of combat aircraft with a NAS in Darwin to northern Ops and the RAAF primarily a support arm.

But thats a bit extreme for msot :)

This post has been edited by Luke_Yaxley: 29 December 2007 - 0215 AM

[Bearded-Dragon]

I've been thinking about the various "big ticket" procurement decisions that have been made since WWII and which nation they were awarded to.

RAAF:
Lincoln (although that one might be a WWII decision) - ALP - UK
Canberra - Coalition - UK
Meteor - Coalition - UK
Sabre - Coalition - US
Caribou - Coalition - Canada
C-130 - Coalition - US
Mirage - Coalition - French
Iroquois - Coalition - US
Chinook - ALP - US
F-111/F-4 - Coalition - US
F/A-18 - ALP - US
C-130J - Coalition - US
F-35 - Coalition - US
WEDGETAIL - Coalition - US
C-17 - Coalition - US
KC-30B - Coalition - Europe

RAN:
Daring Class - Coalition - UK
HMAS Supply - Coalition - UK
Oberon Class - Coalition - UK
Perth Class (Charles F Adams) DDG - Coalition - UK
HMAS Westralia - Coalition - UK
HMAS Success - ALP - France
Invincible Class - Coalition - UK
Oliver Hazard Perry Class FFG - Coalition - US
Huon class - ALP - Italy
ANZAC Class - ALP - Germany
Kanimbla class - ALP - US
Collins Class - ALP - Sweden
Hobart Class - Coalition - Spain
Canberra class - Coalition - Spain
Seasprite Helicopters - ALP - US
Seahawk Helicopters - ALP - US
NH-90 - Coalition - Europe

Army:
Centurion - Coalition - UK
SLR rifle - Coalition - UK
M60 GPMG - Coalition - US
105mm Pack How - Coalition - Italy
105mm M2 - Coalition - US
Landrover - Coalition - UK
International Harvester Medium Truck - Coalition - Australia/US
M113 - Coalition - US
M16 rifle - Coalition - US
Leopard I - ALP - Germany
Unimog Medium Truck - ALP - Germany
Mack Heavy Truck - ALP - US
Steyr Rifle - ALP - Austria
FN-MAG GPMG - ALP - Belgium
FN Minimi LMG - ALP - Belgium
M1 Abrahms - Coalition - US
Blackhawk Helicopter - ALP - US
Aussie Tiger attack helicopter - Coalition - Europe
NH-90 - Coalition - Europe

Throughout most of the post-war history, the Coalition governments as I mentioned invariably turned to the traditional alliance partners for their defence procurement decisions whereas the ALP did not.