The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Could Australia's future submarines be nuclear-powered? > Comments

Could Australia's future submarines be nuclear-powered? : Comments

By Stefaan Simons, published 15/8/2013

Concerns over the ability of the Collins class submarines to meet Australia's defence requirements lead to the conclusion that nuclear-powered submarines should continue to be explored as an option for Australia.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. All
I read the linked report, and I agree with the points made. Technically it would be feasible to build nuclear powered submarines in Australia.

However, I would like to make the point that neither the report, article or comments really discuss how the decision is made regarding the size, type and capabilities of any future Australian submarine. The very fist question should be: what capabilities do we need to defend Australia's sovereignty and national interests? Once this question is answered, then we use this information to investigate what strategies and equipment are available to achieve these capabilities.

I am not an expert in Australian military strategy, but it seems to me that it is seen as important to our defense to have an independent submarine (and ship) building expertise and technology. As stated above this also has political importance (both SA and nuclear-phobia). It also appears that Australia has unique capability requirements. The European subs do not have the range that we require, due to the fact they are much close to the area of military interests. Very fast, attack type subs, such as the Astute/Virginia may be great at what they are designed for, but if we require are very quiet, intelligence gathering capability, then these would not be right for us. Perhaps the Japanese and/or Korean subs would be worth looking at, but currently we do not have the type of relationship to share VERY sensitive design info. Japan also restricts sale of military equipment such as this anyway.
Posted by Stezza, Friday, 16 August 2013 5:28:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Continued:
It also should be noted that the actual building strategy does not need to be a giant new project started up every 20-30 years. Countries like Korea (and Japan?) have a continuous build submarine system, where improvements are gradually implemented in every new model. This both avoids huge gaps in production, and allows a gradual evolution rather than the large risk with a brand new design.

Finally, I want to highlight that the initial problem with the Collins class were some initial design flaws in the prop, which was solved with help from our allies over the pond. Once this was sorted almost all further issues were due to the very flawed management of the maintenance process. The Collins class is widely regarded (to people to know what they're talking about) as a very good submarine for the role it was designed to do (refer to capabilities above). I believe it is true that one of the Collins class "sunk" a Nimitz-class carrier during exercises, but like I said earlier lets identify the capabilities we need and then chose the submarine best suited for this role. It doesn't really matter if X is faster or larger or has more weapons that Y, so lets avoid these sort of comparisons and chose/design whatever is best for our country.
Posted by Stezza, Friday, 16 August 2013 5:28:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Stezza,

You focus too much on the issues of “built” in Australia and neglect the fact that it is the “capability’ that counts and not where it is built. We could purchase for about $1.5Bn each, the capability to effectively defend our territory and threaten aggressors.

The biggest single threat to any military is quiet submarines. It remains absolutely futile to have any Navy capacity that cannot be defended. Our regional defense requirement is vast, the only advantage we currently have is the tyranny of distance. That distance can only be occupied by the threat of being sunk by a submarine.

A US Carrier squadron typically has between 10 and 25 vessels all operating under the carrier command under Aegis. Three or four of these vessels would typically be silent subs for protection (Hunter/Killer Class). Australia has not implemented Aegis capability.

Collins Class is adequate for “inshore” protection but not the vast expanses of the Indian and Pacific oceans. Our Naval capacity remains weak, vulnerable and totally inadequate. In serious conflict it would last for perhaps a week.

Diesel subs can be very quiet, nuclear subs even quieter however, submarine detection is not about the propulsion method, it’s about acoustics. A nuclear powered sub is much quieter than a diesel sub but both types are noisier than a sub that has no propeller, is pulse or pump driven.

Modern nuclear subs are the quietest at low speeds and they have the added capability of long endurance “on station”. This is absolutely critical for the region we have to threaten/defend. ASW destroyers are ace at detecting and eliminating the poor bastards that have short range detection, have to come to PD to “see” or deploy “towed arrays” or to vent at easily predicable intervals. If you can’t sit on a target, on station for weeks, even months you are gone.

The Collins Class had a one off hit against the US, she used the “wake” of the AC to mask her acoustic presence, it won’t happen again.

Give us the Astute Class capability. Please.
Posted by spindoc, Saturday, 17 August 2013 4:15:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It is interesting to see powers at play and the game played by the Poms' sales representative. But sorry, we are not watching Ashes, and Australian are not so naive to buy a US or UK sub on the shelf only based on the stamp on the hull.

Nonetheless here are some facts based on my experience of (nuclear AND conventional) submarine designer and builder in Europe:
- Yes, a nuclear submarine is a good system to answer Australia's operational need. No need to detail, we nearly all agree on that.
- No, I strongly disagree with that rubbish report nuclear subs are much more risky to design, to build and to operate. Not only the nuclear systems but all the other ones (such as cooling systems for the other parts) are designed specifically. There is a HUGE safety analysis to perform, TUNED to the country in which you are operating, maintaining.Aaah, that terrible picture of Astute stranded and waiting for some tug to help....
- No, come on, SSN are much more expensive to design, to build and to operate. Cost of the fuel, cost of the maintenance, cost of the premises, cost of the reprocessing...No need to refuel, bahh, and what about the ASME rules for pressure vessels inspections ? You have to open it. OOoops, I spilled radioactive water, where is my sponge...
- Yes, European diesel subs have long endurance at sea. A small 2,000 tons Scorpene for Brazil can stay more than 70 days at sea on normal mission. Imagine a bigger one the size of Japanese Soryu with batteries with high capacity...
- Yes, conventional subs are slower, but they are quieter and as deadly.
- I do esteem Poms and Yanks, but let's put in the basket the Frogs' Barracuda to get the big picture and compare. To plug a US combat system on a European platform is no bigger deal than on UK/US stuff.

In a word, please, let's use our brains and let us not be influenced by so-called experts who are only sales representatives and know so little os submarines.
Posted by MarkoRamius, Monday, 19 August 2013 9:19:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The primary role for Australia's submarines is surveillance and protection of sea routes. Conventional submarines are more than adequate for these tasks. Nuclear power would only be needed if Australia wishes to have a global strategic war-fighting role, which not make sense unless nuclear weapons were also acquired.

There are many viable non-nuclear submarine options available for Australia, mostly from Europe. The first option would be to buy Spanish submarines from the same company already selling Australia surface warships (partly built in Australia).

More at: http://blog.tomw.net.au/search/label/submarine
Posted by tomw, Monday, 19 August 2013 9:59:21 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Issues that need to be considered in the nuclear versus conventional propulsion debate include:

- advances in satellite technology, particularly China's, which will make the "indiscretion" rate for conventional subs much more serious. That is Chinese satellites and other sensor platforms will increasingly be able to detect our subs running on the surface or imagery of snorkels particularly during the long (relatively slow) 3,000-4,000 km transit voyage from Fremantle to stations north or far west of Australia.

- running diesels to recharge batteries is an essential but noisy process for conventionals even if battery operation is relatively quiet. Increasing numbers of Chinese submarines and perhaps Chinese SOSUS arrays will increasingly be able to detect noisy recharging.

- nuclear subs may be more expensive on a one to one basis with conventional but it is likely that far fewer (only four to six?) nuclear subs would be required instead of twelve conventional.

- Australian conventional subs won't/can't shadow nuclear subs over long distances in the open ocean. We remain dependent on US nuclear subs to do that.

Pete
Posted by plantagenet, Monday, 19 August 2013 12:06:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy