Australian sea 1000 project

Well to play devils advocate was any of the issues with the Collins class to do with up-scaling a prior design?

Most of them stem from that.

Major issues as far as I can see were:

1) Defective welding

Specifically the parts of HMAS Collins fabricated by Kockums

2) Noise due to the nose being changed to accommodate a different sonar, model tests were done with the old design but not revised when the changes were made to sonar fit

Also related to the scaling up of the design.

3) Propulsion system

Related to scaling up the design. In order to get enough generating capacity to get the required charging rate an extra engine had to be shoehorned in, with a clean sheet design the engine room size constraints may have been avoidable.

4) Periscopes and masts – RAN requesting a dubious redesign of the periscope from base design to allow the optical view when the scope was raised

No comment.

5) CMS – the biggest problem in many ways and utterly avoidable if they had gone for an off the shelf system (as they did in the end)

A beyond state of the art CMS when the project began that was never worked out completely and ended up obsolescent. Rectified through refitting with the Virginia class CMS.

Aside from point 2 none of these issues are due to scaling up the design and I would argue point 2 was utterly avoidable if they had done hydrodynamic model testing of the redesigned hull.

You sure about that?

Scaling up and scaling down submarines is a fairly common process and if managed properly should not throw up too many issues.

Not to the extent that it was done with Collins. Collins was three times the displacement of the original base design. The largest displacement of the Type 209 submarine was by comparison 50% heavier then the lightest displacement varient.

Edit: @ Pioneer, more spacing please!! Wall of text = not cool.

My 20-cents worth………

For a start, I think Australia seriously has to grow up and start looking at its defence in an individual sense, which is then and only then complemented by its political and military alliance arrangements!
I’m somewhat embarrassed to say that we haven’t learn the lessons from our balls-and-all reliance and faith in the Singapore Strategy of the 1930-1942. Where we put all our faith in our primary Allie Britain coming to our defence. Hence our political masters neglect of our individual defence needs and requirements for the sake of $$$$ and want to please our masters.
I do not see our 21st century defence posture is to different to that of the pitiful Singapore Strategy – except our prime allie is now that of the United States in place of Britain.
For me I would like to see both sides of Federal politics grow up and grow a pair and smell the roses! The reality is that both sides of Federal politics (along with the ADF’s top brass) have become completely and utterly imbedded and infatuated with the United States.
Dare I say, we have become the United States Deputy 🙁
I truly think that Australia needs to take a leaf out of Singapore’s book when it comes to not just developing its defence but effectively implementing it. One only needs to look at Singapore’s realistic indigenous weapons and equipment programs! Weapons and equipment specifically designed, developed and delivered for it’s own military’s needs and requirements. How much money does the ADF have to spend in modifying and adapting U.S and European designed equipment for our unique requirements and environments? Add to the the often over looked importance that such an effective and efficient military industry gives to the general economy of small country’s like that of Israel, South Africa, Singapore etc…. This type of industry is not just about guns and bombs and death, as the technological expertise is adopted and implemented into other non-military industries.
I will not pretend that this would be easier done than said – especially with Australia itself beginning to fall into the perils of a miniature Military Industrial Complex, where political fraternization with military industry has not just distorted the true operational needs of the ADF, but has shown itself to have cost the ADF in both terms of cost and capability – i.e Collins Class SS’s, Kaman SH-2G Seasprite, F-35 JSF….. oh and politician’s fraternisation the likes of Andrew Peacock (President of Boeing Australia), Peter Reith (Tenix)
One only needs to see and witness the waist of money, time, resources and probably most importantly skilled labour when it comes to the Australian Government, along with the ADF’s detrimental process of employing a so-called competitive tendering process for the building of such important, expensive and technologically advanced weapons platforms such as the Collins Class submarines, ANZAC class Frigates, Navantia (Canberra class) LHD’s, then there is the Hobart class AWD’s. It’s both derogative and embarrassing as an Australian to see State politician’s when not in bed with private military industry, or grovelling to Federal politicians to compete for the location of these important and costly national interests to be built in their State. When the building of not just these ships, but the true creation, neutering and expanding a solid and continues state-of-the-art facilities and expertise should be consolidated in the national interest! Now some might argue that one specialised ship-building facility could not handle all these projects simultaneously – and they would be right to say and think this! But the fact of the matter is that the Australian Government (predominantly the Howard Government) should not have waited then decided spontaneously to not just build but have all these classes of advanced ships enter service at the same time – (my wife shops and buys with more discipline than this!!). For what become of the ultra modern and ultra expensive facilities in South Australia, which were used to construct the Collins class subs. More importantly what has come of the expertise of the specialist which built these submarines? Common sense dictates that these same facilities employed in the building of the Collins class sub’s will (and should) be fully utilised in (and if) the overly ambitious desire to acquire twelve new and advanced submarines under Sea 1000 project at a staggering £20 billion. For both the Australian Government and ADF to consolidate and nurture a focused defence industry like that of ship/sub construction, could also afford the stimulation and creation of a town/city which stimulates maritime engineering and construction as an industry, which would also stimulate an ongoing industry base where skilled workers will automatically continue their skills, training and expertise to the next naval construction program(s). In having such a sensible industry arrangement, it would potentially (if the Australian Government is smart and sensible) spill over to education and commercial fields.
But ales, I am a realist! I cannot see Australian politician’s thinking past their own inflated political careers and after politics employment prospects. State Governments will continue to near on knife one another to gain contracts in their own States, at the detrimental cost of the nation well being and national defence needs. Military industry will feed on the so-called structural make up of the Commonwealth of Australia, whilst sadly our potential adversary’s will bewilder at a Government, it’s people and its capitalist industries wiliness to put politics and profit before the importance of defence.
Finally my question has to focus on how Australia / ADF is going to be able to not just man these new submarines, but also how will they support them? Does the proposed £20 billion cost of these twelve new subs factor in operational costs and maintenance? If the ADF truly plans to operate and maintain twelve operational advanced submarine – be them diesel-electric or nuclear – would they be willing to support them with ocean going support ships, or will their operational capability be diminished by the need for them to return to Australia when in need of refuelling, re-arming, replenishing……?
It’s sad for me to say, but I truly think that the ADF and Australian politicians alike have become infatuated with modern weaponry which we have witnessed whilst working with our allies the United States and Britain. I cannot blame, I have myself seen and operated with both these allies, and to have been impressed! But the ADF is not the U.S Army USAF or USN. The Australian people – nor Government (although they are getting there!) have the stomach for an imbedded military psyche or a self propitiating military industrial complex on which the country’s employment and revenue relies upon. Hell the only significant military account the average Australian can recall is that of the 25 April – ANZAC Day, and sadly it’s not just because of its Australian military significants – I’m embarrassed to say it’s because it’s a public holiday, for which everyone plans around.
I for one do not see how we need the likes and size of Spanish Navantia (Canberra class) LHD’s! I for one cannot see an Australian Navy commander employing them in the full order of what they were designed and intended to perform, let alone putting them in harm’s way with 4 x 25 mm Deck Guns as their prim defence (escorts or no escorts!!) The designs excellent flight deck will not be utilised by VSTOL aircraft like the F-35C – let alone the cheaper and perfectly expectable AV-8B Plus to support amphibious ops or to provide air-defence to the beach-head area. Their use of LCM’s will dictate the LHD’s having to come closer to hostile shore and enemy defences than what is sensible. I personally favour 3-4 LPD’s the size of the (but not necessary) Bay class (HMAS Choules), which had to be purchased it in a hurry (only after more modifications) by the Australian Government, due to neglect and oversight of its existing dilapidated amphibious assault fleet and the yet to be build Canberra class ships.
I personally agree with the selection of the Spanish designed Hobart class AWD’s over that of the more expensive U.S Arleigh Burke destroyer design. My only complaint and concern with the entirety of this long over-due and needed air-warfare capability, is that once again we have succeeded in purchasing an existing and operated design for a given price (which was cheaper of the two contending bids). But now the RAN is doing its common trait (as it had done with the Collins class subs and the SH-2G Seasprite….) of trying to add something to an existing and perfectly working combat system, which is not broken. This added system is the Australian Government and RAN wet dream to once again be one of the big boys and add a Anti-ballistic missile (ABM) capability to the Álvaro de Bazán class design. It will be interesting to see how much this want of an ABM capability is going to detrimentally add to this important classes over-all costs, and what impact it will have on its service entry date. The other thing that deeply concerns me with this ABM capability, is if this capability will effect/dictate the operationally flexibility of this AWD! For will it mean that the Australian Government & RAN will be more inclined to keep this class of ship tethered close to Australia, so as to provide a ABM capability in Australia’s defence, compensating for the ADF as a wholes neglect of an adequate – if any ground-based air defence network – AAA & SAM’s, bar a literal handful of point-defence RBS-70’s. But don’t get me started on the ADF complete and utter lack and neglect of ground-based air-defences!!

Regards
Pioneer

^^^ But they keep buying the Sonys, Toyotas, Hondas, Mitsubishis etc…
Can’t say the same for those claiming and counter claiming some islands however.

Don’t project your own attitudes onto all Australians.

WW2 is history. Few people remember it. None of those in decision-making positions remembers it.

The Poles have bought German tanks, German ships, German-modified Russian fighters, etc. The Dutch, Belgians, Danes, Norwegians & Greeks have been buying German weapons for decades. The French have been engaged in joint weapons developments with Germany for many years. Look up what the Nazis did in those countries.

This isn’t the first time you’ve made this claim. Every time, others point out the flaws in it. You don’t respond with reasoned argument, you simply repeat it.

but in Asia, they remember Japan every single day :diablo:

As long as there are living veterans from WWII then it wont even be considered. Period.

Don’t project your own attitudes onto all Australians.

WW2 is history. Few people remember it. None of those in decision-making positions remembers it.

The Poles have bought German tanks, German ships, German-modified Russian fighters, etc. The Dutch, Belgians, Danes, Norwegians & Greeks have been buying German weapons for decades. The French have been engaged in joint weapons developments with Germany for many years. Look up what the Nazis did in those countries.

This isn’t the first time you’ve made this claim. Every time, others point out the flaws in it. You don’t respond with reasoned argument, you simply repeat it.

As long as there are living veterans from WWII then it wont even be considered. Period.

Absolute rubbish, using that thinking we would never ever buy anything from any former foe full stop !! do we have Anzac Frigates ? mmmmm now where do they come from ? How much European gear do we have ? Would you like a list ? How many WWII Vetrans have I seen using Japanese technology in camera’s, cars, computers, tv’s, dvd players etc etc etc Period

As long as there are living veterans from WWII then it wont even be considered. Period.

Why not?

In Europe we have for the most part finalized WW2 several decades ago, and buying German subs was e.g. not a problem for Norway.

As long as there are living veterans from WWII then it wont even be considered. Period.

[QUOTE=Ja Worsley;1866446]I don’t think it is a company who is being spoken to- more like the RAN speaking to the RN about design, employment (mission profiles) and on going support of the new boats.QUOTE]

I can see the RAN talking to the RN in general terms, but I do not see the RN being able to offer much in the way of design, employment and on-going support for any new class we build ? They frankly have much less experience in our operating environs, the RAN has shown a distinct preference for the US combat systems and equipment and US tech in general.

I also agree, as stated, the RAN will not license build Soryu, or for that matter any current gen Euro subs. The Collins replacement is from ~2025, making any current design well and truly out of date when required. So the fans of any current European sub can forget us building a 2000-2005 (or earlier for some designs) designed submarine for first of class commisioning ~2025. Now I am not knocking some of the Euro subs, but they just can’t do what is needed, the distances involved are huge, and seem to be something people just do not grasp !
http://blog.australian-native.com.au/2009/12/03/australia-europe-comparison-map/

So what will Australia build ? We either do a Collins Mk II to back onto what we already know and have experience in. Or we have to join in a project that suits our requirements and environment, which pretty much only leave us backing onto the Japanese Soryu replacement. I know a lot has been said about this, and to be blunt the crap about Australians cracking it over us joining the Japanese because of WWII is a load of rubbish

I figure talks with the Brits boil down to this: conversations with BAE about selected design and construction elements and capabilities. Unless someone is confusing this with Babcock, who are under contract for development of a propulsion test site? And there is BMT, who are offering full DE submarine designs.

I don’t think it is a company who is being spoken to- more like the RAN speaking to the RN about design, employment (mission profiles) and on going support of the new boats.

I read an interesting article in “Defence Today” (Vol 9 #3- Dec 2011), about the new program. The article was the Magazine speaking with the current President of the Submarine Institue of Australia- Mr Peter Horobin and he states that any new project becomes the responcibility of the parent country. Australia used to buy most of it’s vessels from over seas sources- thus they were the parent countries. If we had an issue with maintenance or upgrades, we would consult the parent country about these issues. Buying the Type 471’s (Collins Class) we became the parent country and it threw us out of our comfort zone. We had a step learning curve to get these boats into a decent working order. Now that we are experienced enough with being a parent country, the new boats should have fewer problems (provided we have learnt the lesson and not forgotten them).

He also shares that if we are smart, we would model our efforts on the Japanese one where the lead boat is launched, trialed and problems corrected before the second vessel is built. Traditionally Australia has pumped out vessels on a timeline basis to complete upgrade conversions as quick as possible. Taking the Japanese model we are able to build, sustain and improve designs during a projects entire life cycle. This has the added bonus of keeping key personnel employed right through generations (another issue we have here in Australia- with the end of the Anzac Project, we are having issues with ship building and this has affected both the LHD and AWD projects due to lack of trained ship builders here who were laid off after HMAS Parramatta was completed. We now have “Start up” issues with personnel, which has forced delays in both these programes.

If Australia is to undertake such a huge program as SEA1000, it must look deeply at the project from project definition right through to final retirement.

I figure talks with the Brits boil down to this: conversations with BAE about selected design and construction elements and capabilities. Unless someone is confusing this with Babcock, who are under contract for development of a propulsion test site? And there is BMT, who are offering full DE submarine designs.

A new Super Conducter electrical system being worked on that is 1/3 the size of a similar system using the standard Copper Coil electrical system.

I understand the compulsion that people have with the Barracuda, it does seem like a nice fit- but the RAN have already started talks with the Poms about designing the next boat. We have a history with great boats from the UK (operating the O-boats), the Swedes haven’t been up to the challenge so Kockums is out, Spain is supplying the AWD’s and LPH’s and the American’s can’t supply what we need. Will be interesting to what the Brits come up with.

Im looking forward to what BAE comes up with too. The French may have been a more logical choice as they produce both a design that fits requirements (Barracuda) and D/E subs still, but BAE have a wealth of knowledge and experience that will prove very interesting, and hopefully, valuable to the RAN.

What is this?

A new Super Conducter electrical system being worked on that is 1/3 the size of a similar system using the standard Copper Coil electrical system.

An Astute D/E derivatives ? now that’s interesting. However isn’t the ex RN Upholder class now in Canada also a derivatives of RN nuke’s (if not mistaken the design is derivatives of Swiftsure class).

Still if want to use SSN as based, why not also considered Barracuda ? I know I seems belong to the guys that think Barracuda can be a fit based for next RAN SSK, solely based on assumption that Barracuda design fit (at least from the outset) the parameter that RAN wants. But again it’s only an observation from a fan boy 😀

I understand the compulsion that people have with the Barracuda, it does seem like a nice fit- but the RAN have already started talks with the Poms about designing the next boat. We have a history with great boats from the UK (operating the O-boats), the Swedes haven’t been up to the challenge so Kockums is out, Spain is supplying the AWD’s and LPH’s and the American’s can’t supply what we need. Will be interesting to what the Brits come up with.

Someone call? :D:D:D

The design of these news subs will be massive, we have a vast area to cover, but manning them will be interesting- there is a call for an unprecidented level of automation in the new boats, thus reducing the crew levels from the 72 in Collins down to the same levels seen in the Israeli Dolphins. People talk about the S-80, Barracuda, and others- truth is, the new subs will actually be designed specifically for the RAN as the requirements specified do not reflect any current design. To this end talks have already started with BAE Naval Systems in England (designers of the new Astute class), so from this I can only conclude that the new boats will be an offspring of the Astutes. People are wondering why we aren’t going to the US, truth is that the designs the US have are not flexible enough for modification to RAN standards and the US are not interested in looking at D/E powering options.

An Astute D/E derivatives ? now that’s interesting. However isn’t the ex RN Upholder class now in Canada also a derivatives of RN nuke’s (if not mistaken the design is derivatives of Swiftsure class).

Still if want to use SSN as based, why not also considered Barracuda ? I know I seems belong to the guys that think Barracuda can be a fit based for next RAN SSK, solely based on assumption that Barracuda design fit (at least from the outset) the parameter that RAN wants. But again it’s only an observation from a fan boy 😀

The RAN is really watching the development of solid state electrics- the Northrop Grumman MW-1 Super Conductor is really showing promise.

What is this?

Its a pity Ja Worsley isn’t making much of an appearance at the moment as I think he might give us some clarity over the thinking around SEA-1000.

Someone call? :D:D:D

Hey guys, sorry been really busy of late with starting my photography business.

I do have a few pics to share for you all but had to make sure they found print first. See seperate post.

OK so we’re talking about SEA 1000 and what it means.
The project calls for 12 D/E powered boats using the latest and greatest tech (AIP, TLAM, UUV’s).

Firstly let me talk about the propulsion: untill the recent events in Japan- Australia was starting to warm up to Nuke power, calls for it’s use on these new vessels was growing support in government circles with even the Defence Minister even saying it had possibilities. Due to recent political events Steven Smith has been religated to a smaller profile which has caused huge resentment in defence because finally we had a politician who understood his profile. With Fukashima going into melt down, nuke power has been given a back seat again.

The RAN is really watching the development of solid state electrics- the Northrop Grumman MW-1 Super Conductor is really showing promise.

AIP has been touted for some time here in Australia- A Sterling system was trialed in HMAS Collins some time ago (our subs have been built for but not with AIP). It is hoped to install this system on the next class.

TLAM is becoming a must for power projection with navies lacking a carrier. The RAN has had the notion of incorperating this in to the service for sometime (the Collins Class was originally supposed to carry 6 TLAMS in an upgrade but due to the complex issues of these boats, that desire had to fall off the project list).

UUV’s are a new idea, the navy is looking at this development closely due to the areas we operate in. A UUV will be very important in areas like the Great Barrier Reef, or many of the Pacific Island nations shores.

The idea of having 12 vessels in service is interesting. Already there is talk of cutting the requirement down to 8.

The design of these news subs will be massive, we have a vast area to cover, but manning them will be interesting- there is a call for an unprecidented level of automation in the new boats, thus reducing the crew levels from the 72 in Collins down to the same levels seen in the Israeli Dolphins. People talk about the S-80, Barracuda, and others- truth is, the new subs will actually be designed specifically for the RAN as the requirements specified do not reflect any current design. To this end talks have already started with BAE Naval Systems in England (designers of the new Astute class), so from this I can only conclude that the new boats will be an offspring of the Astutes. People are wondering why we aren’t going to the US, truth is that the designs the US have are not flexible enough for modification to RAN standards and the US are not interested in looking at D/E powering options.

The Project is still going through it’s first diffinition stage, it’s reassuring that the person running it has a deep understanding of Sub ops.

A thought just occured. Now that Japan has decided to open itself up to arms co-operation, Australia and Japan could collaborate with Japanese navy who have a similar requirement.

I reckon he has more familiarity with those boats than you & I and is aware of all those upgrades.

Ah no ! Wrong, he doesn’t to put it bluntly. Also take into account the reference here as well. The Canberra Times is a joke of a publication and the defence writers are clueless, and continually mis-quote people all the time, it is not credible

Of course Mr Ohff has a sound understanding of the basic Collins platform, I’m not certain he’s such an authoritative source on the modern Collins submarine capability.

Since he’s left, they’ve received an entirely new combat system, a new sonar system, new radar absorbent materials on the boat’s hull as well as new overall signature management system, a new torpedo system, an upgraded anti-ship missile system, a new Electronic Warfare and ESM system and new Electro-Optical sensors.

In other words, he has no familiarity at all with the boats combat capability as they are today, besides the basic hull and propulsion elements.

I reckon he has more familiarity with those boats than you & I and is aware of all those upgrades.

While there may not be any current applications, vessels & operating concepts for refuelling diesel submarines at sea were thoroughly developed, tested, & used intensively in war by the Kriegsmarine 70 years ago, so I don’t think that’s true.

And not just by the Kriegsmarine:

Japan had what was easily the most diverse submarine fleet of any nation in the Second World War. These included manned torpedoes, midget submarines, medium-range submarines, purpose-built supply submarines (many for use by the Army), long-range fleet submarines (many of which carried an aircraft), submarines with high submerged speed, and submarines that could carry multiple bombers.
…
Worse from a naval perspective, Japanese submarines were increasingly employed in running supplies to the starving garrisons of isolated islands. The Japanese expended hundreds of sorties in this way, which might have otherwise been used offensively against the Allied war effort. A submarine’s cargo capacity was much less than that of a relatively inexpensive freighter. However, Japan was understandably reluctant to let island garrisons starve. Additionally, many practically unarmed submarines (including 26 built for Army use) were built specifically for the supply role, consuming production resources as well.

http://www.combinedfleet.com/ss.htm

Some suggested the use of high speed surface vessel for sub resupply

The JHSV is adapted from Austral’s civilian high speed ferry design.
…
The JSHV could be used by Australia to resupply the Collins class submarine replacement, allowing fewer, smaller, less expensive submarines to be acquired (such as the Spanish S-80 Class from Navantia).

http://blog.tomw.net.au/2010/11/high-speed-resupply-for-new-australian.html

The key role of intelligence and espionage in submarine warfare is often neglected:

All of the German ‘milch cow’ resupply submarines were lost due to communication intercepts

http://books.google.nl/books?id=SjfgOfV8Am0C&pg=PA7&lpg=PA7&dq=’resupply+submarine’&source=bl&ots=vFoMK23aop&sig=6-8ra5Rn2mT6ApRyRn3-pnfEfuo&hl=nl&sa=X&ei=9ntOT7fACMmVOqnT5KcI&ved=0CEQQ6AEwBDgU#v=onepage&q=’resupply%20submarine’&f=false

I also wonder why no ships/operating concepts have developed to allow diesel/AIP subs to refuel while at sea?

While there may not be any current applications, vessels & operating concepts for refuelling diesel submarines at sea were thoroughly developed, tested, & used intensively in war by the Kriegsmarine 70 years ago, so I don’t think that’s true.