HK, you are right about that but these new systems, but these aren’t available for anyone outside the resident country to use atm. The RAN need experience on Nukes first, hence a loan of 688’s similar to India’s loan of an Akula II

J. A. Knock off the critisism of the grey brigade. Not all of us, including myself,are anti nuke. You would be surprised just how many are for it in either the subs or power generation.

Sorry Sir, it’s just that I speak with a lot of older generation people over here in Sydney including family and 99.9% are dead set against nuclear power of any sort- I’ve basically been disowned by my family for my stance on this matter. I would shake the hand of someone like you who welcomes the prospect of forward thinking! But lets move on from that, as you have after your cool down (personal thank you).

Having got that off my chest and cooled down, I have a question. I thought that as well as having speed and endurance nukes also have an annoying habit of being noisier then SSKs. Given the areas we operate in and our apparant expertise lying off a coast and listening, would nukes be appropriate?

As I proposed, the nukes in RAN service would actually do the long range patrol work, clearing the way for the LHD’s moving in. In this capacity maybe three boats (I’d prefer four) would be handy. SSK’s would be good for littoral and close in work- since these boats are quieter they can actually gather the needed intel pre-op. So as you can see, I am working on a dual layer ops plan for the next lot of boats.

IIRC noisier because of internal noise from reactor cooling systems which can’t be switched off even when you’re not driving anything, while a sub operating on batteries can be very quiet indeed. But I’m sure there are people here who are far better informed than I am.

This is true- reactors need constant cooling unlike conventional powered subs, but see above for my ops plan.

Ok Fed: yes I was leading into pointing that fact out- Currently the RAN deployment period for any sub is roughly 3-6 months depending on where they go. Now 6 months away from port is a long time for a D/E powered sub.

During the last days of our O-boat operations, we only had three ports outside Australia that could supply power to those boats- New Zealand, Singapore and Japan. Not even the US could supply shore power to them. So we needed a boat bigger for longer range patrols that could also self support in ports that couldn’t supply power to the boats- this is why the Collins is so big- to house more batteries.

Nuclear power would provide the power for long deployments without the need to stop in anywhere to top up fuel or supplies! I do realise 9despite what some of you may think) about the cost of setting up a nuke base and the logistics of such an excercise. Many of you veterans of this forum know me and know my insights to Naval ops and such, so you have a good understanding that I am not talking out the wrong end!

Dis: mate FB West has been welcoming CVN’s and SSN’s for many years now- people over there have no fears about nuclear power- they know that the people in thise tubs know their stuff, nothing is going to happen because these people go through many years of training to be where they are! (talking about the people who cover the reactors here).

Colombamike: those are the same three questions I have been asking myself mate- I still seriously doubt we will see that many boats in the RAN- it’s nice to know that the government thinks this part of the service is a priority, but a change of government will also change these ideas. The final model- well there is a little time before any decision is made and the market can change rapidly (look at the buy of the Type 471’s for example- prior to that announcement we were going to be getting Type 209/1500 which was also a new design on the board and the Poms were really pushing the Upholders on us- but the RAN wanted new boats and six of them, not second hand boats and only four- mind you, the Canadians have had their troubles with those boats too, more so since changing the weapons systems and FC computers.

The size increase is mostly to do with the length of the patrols envisioned coupled with the power storage/generation needed. Toss that out the window and use nuclear power and the boats can come back down to a smaller “Coastal” size- something I believe the French know all about!

Now as for the time frame of entry- it is already said that these boats will start to enter service around 2025 when the Collins will have used up their usefull service life (considering the problems they have, many believe they have already surpassed it).

Now if I was in the decision chair- I’d take a Singaporean* approach to the sub force and have a couple of large boats (SSN’s maybe) for the long range work and a small fleet of coast types for local work.

*For those of you who have been living under a rock for the past couple of years, the RSN has bought and refitted four of the Swedish A-14 (Sjoormen) class calling them the Challenger class and two A-17 (Vaastergotland) class subs calling them the Archer class. They use the Challenger class for inshore and training and the Archers for extended outter area work- very good idea and makes a lot of sence to me!

RSN Sub assets

As for the S-90, it does sound like what we need- I’d like to see some info on it

Mate you sound like it’s killing you- still kids will do that to you!