FedaykinHi Jonesy, I actually take the reverse view. About a week ahead of the choice I was pondering the three choices and personally concluded the DCNS was the best choice with TKMS second and the Soryu in third.
Against this the Soryu is virtually a de-risked hull. Its designed for precisely the self same, warmer, waters that the RAN operate in, so the power budget for HVAC under real conditions is a known quantity, and is optimised for essentially the same sensor/weapon fit that the RAN have experience with and want to use.
Looking at more recent reporting the Soryu was not as de-risked as first suggested. It had the shortest range and required a hull plug, it had a shorter designed life span and like the other options required a US Sonar and combat system integrated. I don’t think the Japanese Submarine industry has as much project management experience integrating third party technology as TKMS or DCNS.
Looking at what Australia wanted they clearly wanted a Nuclear Submarine without the nuclear bit. Both the Soryu and Type 216 required hull plugs and significant reworking whilst the Shortfin Barracuda whilst being the largest actually get a small hull shrink.
I agree that there is a fair amount of risk adapting a nuclear design, lets hope for Australia it is not insurmountable but add in the build fully being in Australia in the run up to an election and the DCNS solution is attractive.
On Canada when the DCNS solution was announced I also thought that it would be a very interesting solution for them, the Upholder are less than ideal for their patrol area and a larger longer ranged design with a US combat system and Sonar must be attractive. Canada has no chance of building a domestic submarine so its an off the shelf solution, Shortfin Barracuda is the only design which has US fighty bits! Considering Australia is going to struggle immediately integrating double the amount of Submarines into their navy isn’t there an opportunity for Canada to slip in an order for three to four Shortfin to Australia to be delivered about mid program. This would allow the Australians to iron out the bugs, extend their order book and allow their navy more time to build up to the full fleet. Canada could support the adoption into service of the first Australian boats with crew transfers of key personnel.
Just an interesting set of musings!
On a final side note the Shortfin Barracuda is by far the most attractive design on offer!
FedaykinThe USN identified there was a requirement in 2008 for a Super Hornet replacement of some kind from 2025 on. In 2012 the USN issued an RFI asking for an Air Superiority multi role type that would replace the Super Hornet and Growler from 2030 onwards and compliment the F-35C and UCAVS.
In 2013 DARPA started a study to bridge USN and USAF sixth generation requirements, rather than a shared design they were looking at sharing technologies like engines, Radar and associated electronics.
It is a bit up in the air at the moment as to quote elsewhere “the USAF announced a change of course in 2016 to pursue “a network of integrated systems disaggregated across multiple platforms” rather than a “sixth generation fighter” in its Air Superiority 2030 plan.”
Boeing, Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman are all doing studies to flesh out what a sixth generation design could include. There is also a parallel next generation engine program that P&W, GE and Rolls Royce submitted concepts to.
Frankly it is a long way off from anything concrete at the moment and with new drone concepts alongside the effectiveness of the Super Hornet and a whole load of F-35C coming soon I don’t think we will see anything serious for a few more years.
Fedaykindumb, they should’ve ordered Japanese submarines like Australia
As of yet Australia has not ordered a Japanese submarine, TKMS and DCNS are putting up strong bids.
FedaykinWell it rather confirms they saw too much risk on the A26 from SAAB Kockums, it looks like they want a minimum risk hassle free procurement.
Isn’t the 212 not an export product per say from TKMS? I would guess a 214 variant would be the most likely option they would offer to Norway.
FedaykinI was expecting him to come out of retirement for the Queen Elizabeth Class deck landing trials with the F-35B!
A great loss!
FedaykinWhat I am waiting for is other nations in the area starting to do the same thing and start creating their own Islands and facilities in the disputed area.
FedaykinSorry to revive an old thread but I got back from a business trip today and found my latest copy of AFM on the doorstep matt. As I was idly flicking through the news brief on page 8 caught my eye. 38+48 has now been allocated her UK military serial number ZK848. Lets hope that Hunter aviation get some MOD contracts and she gets some airtime.
I wonder if there are any Phantom drivers and back seaters knocking on Hunters door saying “Give us a job pleeeeeaaaaasssseeeeee”!
One thing I bet the makers of Phantom Phinale never imagined that there would ever be a Phantom back flying with a UK military serial, I say they should make another one. I even have a title, considering the new film out on Thursday from a Galaxy far far away how about “Phantom Phinale, The Phorce Awakens” 😉
FedaykinThere is something else that could be pulled off the retiring Tariq class to finalise the weapons fit of the PNS Alamgir, the LY-60 SAM system. Bolt the box launcher forward of the Harpoon launchers. Then get the MK92 radar to talk to the missile system.
FedaykinDiesel submarines regularly come out well against Nuclear submarines but only when they work to their advantages. This is close to shore in shallow water where their quiet nature comes to the fore and the nuclear submarine can’t use its advantage of speed and unlimited endurance.
When you get into blue water conditions nuclear submarines can literally run rings around diesel subs as they can use their speed and endurance to engage and disengage at will.
In blue water the nuclear submarine can sit back listening with their more powerful sonar array and wait for the diesel sub to go shallow and run her diesels or snort to top up Oxygen. They can then move in quick taking advantage of the situation and launch torpedoes at long range and then retire before the diesel sub can return fire.
FedaykinI will tell you the thing that puzzles me about the SC130, if you look at the Powerpoint it involves significant pull through of systems from the current P-3. Considering the P-3 is on the way out this is a puzzling decision considering what was on the table in the 90’s.
If people will indulge me a moment to talk about the contest that led to Nimrod MRA 4, we need to think about the Loral P-3 Valkyrie.
The aircraft bid:
British Aerospace Nimrod 2000
Lockheed Martin Orion 2000
Dassault Atlantique 3
Loral P3 Valkyrie
Now the Loral offering reused refurbished P3B airframes combined with new engines and most interestingly a variant of the systems fitted to the new HM1 Merlin. Near the end of the contest Loral got absorbed into Lockheed Martin Tactical Systems UK, in effect Lockheed was bidding the contest with two different parts of their business.
Now roll onto now, Lockheed Martin are offering the C130 fitted with P3 systems whilst they are the prime contractor on the Merlin HM2 update. Which begs the question why are they not offering a C130 variant that like the Valkyrie in the 90’s uses the state of the art systems fitted to Merlin HM2 that they have helped develop and integrate? This would also offer the advantage of connecting together SC130 and HM2 upgrades with the obvious cost savings that could entail.
FedaykinWell i don’t think I am saying that Marshalls can’t take our elderly C.5 and refurbish them into SC-130J or some kind of MPA variant. The risk is lower than what went on with Nimrod 2000 (MRA4), overhauling and updating C130 as a global business offer by several companies is mature.
Nevertheless we can’t ignore that these are the oldest C130J around and built using C130H tooling and jigs. They are unique and there is a fair amount of risk reworking, it has Nimrod written all over it in a press sense.
If SC130 is the way I would much prefer parting out the retiring RAF Hercules and buying new airframes from Lockheed Martin.
I regard Scorpion as a distraction, the RN tested it as the aircraft was in town with some interesting features. If we want a small cheap MPA then there are better options imho.
FedaykinDo you think it will happen?
Will they go for another US design or build their own?
Will it be a like for like replacement?
Sigh
Conservatives have a majority and a significant number of Labour MP also support the deterrent so currently it will happen.
Conservative policy is for a like for like replacement of the Submarines.
Trident OSD isn’t until 2040. The Trident II D5 UGM133A ballistic missile is currently going through a life extension program to meet that projected OSD. The warheads fitted to British Trident missiles are being refurbished as per their support program.
What the UK is replacing is the four Vanguard class SSBN, the Successor class submarine will be a British design evolved from Astute, using a British built derived variant of an American reactor called PWR3 and it will use the new American common missile compartment.
So the title of this thread is wrong, it isn’t a UK Trident replacement. It is a UK replacement of the launch platform the Vanguard class SSBN.
FedaykinWell that pretty much confirms it, unless it is an assault ship with a large hanger deck it is a carrier, pretty much 99.9% certain of that.
FedaykinConsidering how threads entitled “Typhoon vs Rafale” go I would say this is the best response:
DON’T LOOK AT IT KEEP YOUR EYES SHUT as the fiery fanboy wrath melts peoples faces off!
Still that is still more constructive then any thread with F35 in the title…
FedaykinHQ-182 ” Ha Noi ”
Last picture rather reminds me of this scene from a particular submarine related film!
Sign In
