Requirements for Australia's new submarines

 
  woodford Chief Commissioner

AN interesting article describing some of the unusual requirements submarines for our navy require.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-26/shortfin-barracuda-submarine/7356060

The collins class while heavily criticised is actual a very good submarine, the navy management though does not appear to have apreciated some of the qualities required for there crews, which meant lack of people availible for there crews.

How about that another management failure, fancy that!

Apparently learning from this the new submarines have been designed for a much larger crew (to allow multiple shifts) and quite a few comforts for the crews, the actual submarine design selected by Australia being a slightly scaled down nuclear submarine but diesel powered.

THe new submarine (apparently to be called the Barracuda class) is to be much bigger than the Collins class (97 metres longs as compared to 77.42 metres)

woodford

Sponsored advertisement

  Valvegear Dr Beeching

Location: Norda Fittazroy
For what conceivable reason do we need submarines?
  RTT_Rules Dr Beeching

Location: Dubai UAE
AN interesting article describing some of the unusual requirements submarines for our navy require.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-26/shortfin-barracuda-submarine/7356060

The collins class while heavily criticised is actual a very good submarine, the navy management though does not appear to have apreciated some of the qualities required for there crews, which meant lack of people availible for there crews.

How about that another management failure, fancy that!

Apparently learning from this the new submarines have been designed for a much larger crew (to allow multiple shifts) and quite a few comforts for the crews, the actual submarine design selected by Australia being a slightly scaled down nuclear submarine but diesel powered.

THe new submarine (apparently to be called the Barracuda class) is to be much bigger than the Collins class (97 metres longs as compared to 77.42 metres)

woodford
woodford

From my reading
- The Shortfin-barracuda is the diesel version of the nuclear model currently being built for the French Navy. The original design always allowed both power options, not a change for Australia. The Canadian's are likely to jump on the bandwagon and buy the same model as Australia's diesel models.

- The French sub was specifically choosen over the alt options, namely English, German and Japanese models because
if the requirement was to change in the future, the later models could be supplied nuclear powered to give a longer range capability and thus make the sub more an offensive weapon rather than a defensive weapon. The diesel are however quieter underwater. Remember this is a 25-30 project from when it starts, lets not pretend what the Australian population will tolerate in another generation, however the govt is keeping its options open.

- No American supplier bid and their submarine technology is generally not for sale especially the nuclear models as America sells no nuclear power vessels of any kind (that I could find), just like you cannot buy a Ford Class Aircraft carrier or a F35 or even some of the their retired military hardware, some things they like to keep for themselves.

Why do we need sub's?

- From what I can see its a govt commitment to increase Australia's military spending to 2.1%(I think) of GDP. I'll take a guess and say its in response to China's expansion and while Australia will never win a fight against China, Australia if we want support from Yanks (again), we need to fund our part. Just like Trump is telling the bulk of the NATO's countries to achieve their commitments of military spending as % of GDP, most are below the agreed targets.

Looking across the pond, even NZ seems to moving to increase military spending, likely acknowledging that China will not give a rats smeg about their anti Nuclear policy and potentially sail a Nuc powered and missile equipped Aircraft carrier into their waters and there is not a damn thing they can do about it without the support of the Yanks and Australia.

- Submarines have certain stealth capabilities that surface vessels don't.

- Comparing Australia to similar sized economies, its more common than not to own a few military subs
  woodford Chief Commissioner

AN interesting article describing some of the unusual requirements submarines for our navy require.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-26/shortfin-barracuda-submarine/7356060

The collins class while heavily criticised is actual a very good submarine, the navy management though does not appear to have apreciated some of the qualities required for there crews, which meant lack of people availible for there crews.

How about that another management failure, fancy that!

Apparently learning from this the new submarines have been designed for a much larger crew (to allow multiple shifts) and quite a few comforts for the crews, the actual submarine design selected by Australia being a slightly scaled down nuclear submarine but diesel powered.

THe new submarine (apparently to be called the Barracuda class) is to be much bigger than the Collins class (97 metres longs as compared to 77.42 metres)

woodford

From my reading
- The Shortfin-barracuda is the diesel version of the nuclear model currently being built for the French Navy. The original design always allowed both power options, not a change for Australia. The Canadian's are likely to jump on the bandwagon and buy the same model as Australia's diesel models.

- The French sub was specifically choosen over the alt options, namely English, German and Japanese models because
if the requirement was to change in the future, the later models could be supplied nuclear powered to give a longer range capability and thus make the sub more an offensive weapon rather than a defensive weapon. The diesel are however quieter underwater. Remember this is a 25-30 project from when it starts, lets not pretend what the Australian population will tolerate in another generation, however the govt is keeping its options open.

- No American supplier bid and their submarine technology is generally not for sale especially the nuclear models as America sells no nuclear power vessels of any kind (that I could find), just like you cannot buy a Ford Class Aircraft carrier or a F35 or even some of the their retired military hardware, some things they like to keep for themselves.

Why do we need sub's?

- From what I can see its a govt commitment to increase Australia's military spending to 2.1%(I think) of GDP. I'll take a guess and say its in response to China's expansion and while Australia will never win a fight against China, Australia if we want support from Yanks (again), we need to fund our part. Just like Trump is telling the bulk of the NATO's countries to achieve their commitments of military spending as % of GDP, most are below the agreed targets.

Looking across the pond, even NZ seems to moving to increase military spending, likely acknowledging that China will not give a rats smeg about their anti Nuclear policy and potentially sail a Nuc powered and missile equipped Aircraft carrier into their waters and there is not a damn thing they can do about it without the support of the Yanks and Australia.

- Submarines have certain stealth capabilities that surface vessels don't.

- Comparing Australia to similar sized economies, its more common than not to own a few military subs
RTT_Rules
One of a number of changes Australias navy is asking for for the subs to the torpedo tubes, the Baracuda's existing tubes cannot fire the American type 84 torpedo which our navy uses and apparently had a hand in developing it.

woodford
  petan Chief Commissioner

Location: WW1 ended with Treaty of Versailles 28 June 1919

- No American supplier bid and their submarine technology is generally not for sale especially the nuclear models as America sells no nuclear power vessels of any kind (that I could find), just like you cannot buy a Ford Class Aircraft carrier or a F35 or even some of the their retired military hardware, some things they like to keep for themselves.
RTT_Rules
Ummm, perhaps RTT maybe a typo as the RAAF has quite a few Yankee F35 planes on order https://www.airforce.gov.au/technology/aircraft/strike/f-35a-joint-strike-fighter
  kitchgp Assistant Commissioner

F22?
  RTT_Rules Dr Beeching

Location: Dubai UAE

- No American supplier bid and their submarine technology is generally not for sale especially the nuclear models as America sells no nuclear power vessels of any kind (that I could find), just like you cannot buy a Ford Class Aircraft carrier or a F35 or even some of the their retired military hardware, some things they like to keep for themselves. Ummm, perhaps RTT maybe a typo as the RAAF has quite a few Yankee F35 planes on order https://www.airforce.gov.au/technology/aircraft/strike/f-35a-joint-strike-fighter
petan
Yeah thanks, F22 Raptor was what I meant. Banned from export.

Interesting fact, F22 production run was cut short due to development delays in Chinese and Russian equivalents.
  Big J Assistant Commissioner

Location: In Paradise

- No American supplier bid and their submarine technology is generally not for sale especially the nuclear models as America sells no nuclear power vessels of any kind (that I could find), just like you cannot buy a Ford Class Aircraft carrier or a F35 or even some of the their retired military hardware, some things they like to keep for themselves. Ummm, perhaps RTT maybe a typo as the RAAF has quite a few Yankee F35 planes on order https://www.airforce.gov.au/technology/aircraft/strike/f-35a-joint-strike-fighterYeah thanks, F22 Raptor was what I meant. Banned from export.

Interesting fact, F22 production run was cut short due to development delays in Chinese and Russian equivalents.
RTT_Rules
I put money that F22 will be back in production in the next 10 years with strike capability, once the Chinese shake out the bugs in their 5th Gen attempt.

Also I am sure the US will be working on the replacement for the F22 and a surprise reveal will be made once the J20 hits IOC (Initial Operational Capability).
  petan Chief Commissioner

Location: WW1 ended with Treaty of Versailles 28 June 1919
How soon I wonder before they admit they are working on an underwater drone version of a submarine in the same way the P-8A aircraft and MQ-4C Triton Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) will replace the AP-3C Orions in RAAF service.
  kitchgp Assistant Commissioner

A fully-submersed submarine drone would be impossible to control in real time, due lack of a suitable radio frequency range for the data-link (VLF unsuitable). It would have to use an antenna at periscope depth, which sort of defeats the purpose.
  neillfarmer Train Controller

For what conceivable reason do we need submarines?
Valvegear
Somebody probably asked the same question about fighter aircraft in 1935.
  woodford Chief Commissioner

For what conceivable reason do we need submarines?
Somebody probably asked the same question about fighter aircraft in 1935.
neillfarmer
They did, when Hawker built the Hurricane at first the air ministry said they were not required, Hawker though built 200 with there own money. If they had not done that there would have been a good chance that Britain would have lost the battle of Britain.

woodford
  M636C Minister for Railways

When I go to the original link all I find is an illustration....

Peter
  arctic Assistant Commissioner

Location: Zurich
For what conceivable reason do we need submarines?
Valvegear
A couple of reasons:
-Protection of trade routes?
-ability to interdict a seaborne invasion force?
-protection of the Navy surface ships from other submarines?

I don't really want to get into defense policy here and you might argue these reasons but they are for sure "conceivable" Smile.
  woodford Chief Commissioner

When I go to the original link all I find is an illustration....

Peter
M636C
The text has been removed, if one does  search on  Australia's new submarines one will come up with a wealth of data. A lot of this from my view is criticism be some people that 1: have little understanding of engineering and 2: little to no undersstanding of Australia's somewhat unusual requirements for submarines.

I will see if I can find a decent reference...................

woodford
  M636C Minister for Railways

When I go to the original link all I find is an illustration....

Peter
The text has been removed, if one does  search on  Australia's new submarines one will come up with a wealth of data. A lot of this from my view is criticism be some people that 1: have little understanding of engineering and 2: little to no undersstanding of Australia's somewhat unusual requirements for submarines.

I will see if I can find a decent reference...................

woodford
woodford

I can probably find suitable references.
I suspect that some data was thought to be classified by some authorities

There are good reasons for Australia to have submarines, not least because many other countries in our region have submarines.
The construction of submarines in South Australia is basically support for the South Australian economy from the Federal Government. We could obtain submarines more quickly and at lower cost from Japan, or France or Germany.
But we would not necessarily get better workmanship if we bought overseas. It would be quicker and cheaper.

I believe that more jobs could have been maintained in SA at much lower cost by continuing to subsidise production of automobiles.
At least Holden would have had to keep selling cars commercially and this would have ensured a degree of commercial reality.
If you are building ships for the Federal Government, with one supplier and one customer there is nothing to control the costs.

Peter
  woodford Chief Commissioner

A couple of references.

The Short fin Barrcuda 1A specs (section 4)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Barracuda-class_submarine

General discussion on why the Short Fin Barracuda 1A was selected.

https://thediplomat.com/2016/04/why-japan-lost-the-bid-to-build-australias-new-subs/

woodford
  RTT_Rules Dr Beeching

Location: Dubai UAE
When I go to the original link all I find is an illustration....

Peter
The text has been removed, if one does  search on  Australia's new submarines one will come up with a wealth of data. A lot of this from my view is criticism be some people that 1: have little understanding of engineering and 2: little to no undersstanding of Australia's somewhat unusual requirements for submarines.

I will see if I can find a decent reference...................

woodford

I can probably find suitable references.
I suspect that some data was thought to be classified by some authorities

There are good reasons for Australia to have submarines, not least because many other countries in our region have submarines.
The construction of submarines in South Australia is basically support for the South Australian economy from the Federal Government. We could obtain submarines more quickly and at lower cost from Japan, or France or Germany.
But we would not necessarily get better workmanship if we bought overseas. It would be quicker and cheaper.

I believe that more jobs could have been maintained in SA at much lower cost by continuing to subsidise production of automobiles.
At least Holden would have had to keep selling cars commercially and this would have ensured a degree of commercial reality.
If you are building ships for the Federal Government, with one supplier and one customer there is nothing to control the costs.

Peter
M636C
Issues with Collins Class, welding done in Sweden was substandard (partial penetration) and alot had to be repaired at significant cost. Welding done in Adelaide was found to be fully compliant (100% penetration).

German sub offer is not in production or has been built. Its an off the drawing submission for a boat much bigger with greater range than they normally build, its one of those trust us, it will work!

The Japanese sub offer had significant short comings in crew comfort intended for long range subs used by Australia, as a starter.

France is still building their 6 boats, they would need to have another production line for Australia's order.

Canada is considering buying the same boat in smaller numbers as Oz, "potentially" they may have it built in Australia?

The French boat allows the option to convert later models wit nuclear powered.

Building in Adelaide will set Adelaide up for more than a generation with near 10,000 good jobs that may expand in future to building other vessels and boats for other nations.

The ongoing support for the car industry (of which only Holden was in SA, others in Vic) is a completely separate issue and should not be part of the Sub debate. It was never subs or Cars. The problem with the cars is building cars people want to buy, which is why the production numbers were shrinking.

Speed of delivery was not an issue, the existing subs have many years of life left, however you need to make a start and we are doubling the size of the sub fleet, you don't do that over night. 20 years is sufficient unless there is a war. Just build one at a time and do it well so we don't have the same issues as Collins Class. Remember they started looking at the next generation of submarine the day after the last Collins Class hit the water because the active life of a military sub is generally less than 20 years.

The key advantage of this project is that its govt, thus provides alot of security. Yes its potentially possible that future govt may truncate the sub program, but remember the only certainties in this world is death and taxes. Australia needs to get back into manufacturing, large govt projects usually provide platforms for others to work from, as the Americans do quite successfully.
  woodford Chief Commissioner
  M636C Minister for Railways

The ongoing support for the car industry (of which only Holden was in SA, others in Vic) is a completely separate issue and should not be part of the Sub debate. It was never subs or Cars. The problem with the cars is building cars people want to buy, which is why the production numbers were shrinking.

You may choose to believe that if you wish. It is true that the submarines would need to be ordered sooner or later. However the timing of the announcement was very much based on indicating continuing work for South Australia.

It isn't just the submarines. the Frigates and Offshore Patrol Vessels had to be built in Adelaide, almost to the extent of determining some of their characteristics.

But you seem to have missed my main point. The car industry did try to build cars that people would buy at a competitive price. Holden had a production line of the small Cruze model which sold well but has now been replaced by imported vehicles from Europe (and it had been dropped before the Commodore production ceased.)

But there is nothing to ensure competitive prices in shipbuilding. We have one supplier and one customer and the supplier can charge pretty much what they want. The price being paid for the Hobart class Destroyers bears no relationship to the competitively tendered price at the time of selection.

All I am saying is that more jobs would have been provided throughout Australia in suppliers to the automobile industry as well as the workers in SA and Victoria in the actual factories, had more incentives been provided to that industry.

The taxpayer gets fewer jobs per dollar of subidy in Naval shipbuilding.

There are presumably other strategic considerations, but a Government whose mantra is "jobs, jobs, jobs" may not be getting best value for our dollars.

Peter
  woodford Chief Commissioner

I do not believe its fair to compare building defence systems to building cars. A new car breaking down is a pain in the neck, a weapon system breaking down in a war means losing our freedom. Weapons simply HAVE to work reliably. The Australian Submarine Corperation in Adeliade, is well known to be able to do a high class job. ONe of the reasons why both the Japanese and German subs were rejected is both of them were paper designs only and there was significant doubt that either country could build our 12 submarines to the required standard in the time availible.

Note: The Short Fin Barracuda 1A also is effectively an "On paper only" design, but it is only a Nuclear powered Barrcacuda, with the 10Mwatt reactor and associated systems removed and replaced with 4 2.5Mwatt diesel engines, so the deisgn mostly does exist as hardware, although doing all the required modifications is never quite as simple as it sounds.

woodford
  RTT_Rules Dr Beeching

Location: Dubai UAE

You may choose to believe that if you wish. It is true that the submarines would need to be ordered sooner or later. However the timing of the announcement was very much based on indicating continuing work for South Australia.

It isn't just the submarines. the Frigates and Offshore Patrol Vessels had to be built in Adelaide, almost to the extent of determining some of their characteristics.

But you seem to have missed my main point. The car industry did try to build cars that people would buy at a competitive price. Holden had a production line of the small Cruze model which sold well but has now been replaced by imported vehicles from Europe (and it had been dropped before the Commodore production ceased.)

But there is nothing to ensure competitive prices in shipbuilding. We have one supplier and one customer and the supplier can charge pretty much what they want. The price being paid for the Hobart class Destroyers bears no relationship to the competitively tendered price at the time of selection.

All I am saying is that more jobs would have been provided throughout Australia in suppliers to the automobile industry as well as the workers in SA and Victoria in the actual factories, had more incentives been provided to that industry.

The taxpayer gets fewer jobs per dollar of subidy in Naval shipbuilding.

There are presumably other strategic considerations, but a Government whose mantra is "jobs, jobs, jobs" may not be getting best value for our dollars.

Peter
M636
Its completely irrational to compare the Subs with the Cars.

Australia was making cars people didn't want. in 2015, Commodore was No.6 and Camry No.7, the Camry at least was far cheaper to make due to much lower over heads and exports not part of the Australian count. The other three cars including the Cruz were out of the top 10 and minimal if any exported. There were 125k Cruz's made in 6 years, Tesla will have made more Model 3's by Xmas.

The Australia car companies are now nothing more than importers, doesn't sell, simply stop and find another model. They are not compelled to bring in only what head office has on offer and can pick and choose even production lines of same model.

The Destory's project were started long before the Australian car industry started to collapse during the mining boom. Its very easy to compare unsuccessful tenders with completed actual and go look Maa, we bought the wrong one. Look at the American's big military hardware projects, for which Australia is a partner in some, they are nearly always over budget and over time. Remember your making a killing machine that has to be better than the other guys, or you risk your sovereignty.

The only guaranteed way to get a large military hardware project completed on time and budget is to buy yesterdays technology, as we are not the third world, we get the latest and greatest, taking risks and wearing the cost over runs along the way. Yanks do the same.

The Collin's Class components built OS were the actual problem for that project, not the home grown.

The Sub project would have gone to Adelaide regardless of what happened to the Commodore and Cruz production lines, the rest of the car industry is in Vic and look how Geelong is booming without it.

But there is nothing to ensure competitive prices in shipbuilding.
Very much untrue.
- Competitive tender to select the designer and the builder.
- Competitive tender for the builder to select the materials to be used, labour, contractors, contracts.
The buyer is also competing for the time and skills of its service providers with other customers.

The Sub project will provide jobs for x 10 the car industry for next 25 years.

We could have built them OS, sending billions OS or build them here and create up to 10,000 jobs, the govt is going to spend the money regardless, its not about Car vs sub. Even if it costs a bit more, how much is saved in welfare payments?

Sponsored advertisement

Subscribers: Big J, RTT_Rules

Display from: