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 > Future submarines: Australia's $40 billion risk > Comments

Future submarines: Australia's $40 billion risk : Comments

By Peter Coates, published 21/7/2014

At current estimates the cost of 12 locally built submarines may amount to $40 Billion. With the global financial crisis and the end of the mining boom Australia doesn't have that kind of money to spare.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. All
It probably doesn't matter much what we buy/build, they will not operate successfully for long. The billion a year Gillard/Swan ripped out of the defense budget has not been replaced.

Our engineers running some of our small ships can not get the budget to buy the oil to change their oil in their engines at the proscribed time. Ships are becoming inoperable due to lack of maintenance. Some maintenance is 12 & 15 month overdue, & it is going to get worse.

Stokers, the engineers that run the ships are resigning at an increasing rate due to frustration.

With the subs we do have, even if we could find the crew to fight the ships, we can't find the engineers to make more than a couple go at any one time.

The idea of a dozen, or even half a dozen serviceable subs is nothing but a pipe dream, we will never achieve.
Posted by Hasbeen, Monday, 21 July 2014 9:14:36 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
SORYU EXPORT MATTERS

Matters that probably need to be raised about the Soryu (or perhaps Japan's post 2030 follow-on submarine design) include:

Does, or will, the Japanese submarine have the capabilities Australia may well want, including:

- Lithium-ion batteries - for longer fully submerged range and slightly higher fully submerged speed.

- a vertical multi-purpose lock (VMPL) for increased flexibility in deploying divers, UUVs and extra Tomahawks for quick launch.

Regarding the Soryu's propulsion-drivetrain, issues include:

- if Kawasaki Heavy Industries merely holds a licence for the Stirling engine AIP (owned by Sweden's FMV and Saab?) could Japan export Stirlings to Australia?

- if the Japanese Soryu builders only part own the rights to the Kawasaki diesel generators, is permission from the German designers (MAN or MTU?) required to release the "Soryu" generator to Australia?

- any multi-country licensing of the 5.9 MW Fuji Electrics main motor driving a (German designed?) seven bladed propeller is another unknown.

Pete
see http://gentleseas.blogspot.com.au/2014/06/increasing-australian-interest-in.html
Posted by plantagenet, Wednesday, 23 July 2014 1:33:46 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
G'dayBruce, trying to do that got a hell of a lot of our airman killed in WW11.

We killed dozens just by not supplying beaufighters with contra rotating engines. You can't get much more careless or incompetent than that.

We built Collins so noisy anyone within a hundred miles or so could hear them coming. Perhaps we thought that would frighten them away.

When I was doing my flying training it was a standing joke that we numbered out Winjeels from 400. We reckoned it was to frighten the Russians that we had lots of the things.

We could I suppose hide those Collins, & make any enemy think they were out at sea waiting for them. Na, wouldn't work. When they did not turn up broken down in Broom, for a 2 month refit, they would know they hadn't gone to sea.

Thank god my son has put in his resignation.
Posted by Hasbeen, Wednesday, 23 July 2014 2:10:44 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
Hi Hasbeen

Thanks for sharing:

"When they did not turn up broken down in Broome, for a 2 month refit, they would know they hadn't gone to sea."

As I have no contact with submariners (and don't seek it - due to overt only) I frequently wonder if I have a decent picture of Australian submarine operations. The experience in Broome confirms that hunches may be true.

I've also looked at the history of US subs operating out of Fremantle in WWII. Some operated from Frremantle, with one refueling in Exmouth, as far as the Sea of Japan - a pointer to the capabilities of today's subs.

Regards

Pete
Posted by plantagenet, Thursday, 24 July 2014 3:04:24 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
Now and then former US submariners provide some convincing arguments in favour of buying US SSNs.

On 20 April 2012 (in response to one of my posts) a former US nuclear submarine officer provided interesting comments on Australia's Future Submarine acquisition choices. Specifically he commented on the many drawbacks of diesel-electric propulsion given Australia's long-distance geostrategic situation.

The information in his advice (see http://gentleseas.blogspot.com.au/2012/04/former-us-nuke-submarine-officer_1.html ) is all Open Source. I've seen it elsewhere on the internet in fragments. But I've never seen such consolidated comments with such a good feel for the subject. Below are his comments:

"I think it's very desirable that Australia invest in nuclear submarines - if not US, then French or British.

Diesel boats are quiet when running on their batteries or on their AIP systems (air-independent propulsion such as fuel cells). Unfortunately, such subs can only creep at very low speeds -- just a few knots. Traveling from Perth to Darwin might take 2+ weeks using AIP and/or a battery (except the battery doesn't have anywhere near that range).

Diesel subs can stay submerged and run on their diesels using a snorkel, but there are still problems. First, diesel engines are extremely noisy and easy to detect, acoustically. Second, snorkeling exposes a mast to radar, generates smoke, and produces a very visible wake. Third, snorkeling limits the boat's speed to under 10 knots to avoid snorkel mast problems.

Diesel boats are great for countries like Singapore, Sweden, Germany, and Israel that use them close to their own waters to passively "lurk". They're lousy for sending distances of more than a few hundred km.

If it was just about any other country, I'd say buy diesels, but Australia has such long distances to contend with, even in its own coastal waters."

MORE OF THE SUBMARINER'SCOMMENTS TO FOLLOW
Posted by plantagenet, Thursday, 24 July 2014 3:28:31 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
CONTINUED FROM ABOVE

"Tellingly, when new diesel boats are sent from the shipyard to faraway customers, they're sometimes shipped in floating drydocks -- it's faster and easier than sending them under their own power.

Much has been made of Australia's lack of a civilian nuclear power industry -- the US didn't have one either when it developed nuclear submarines.

Australia can get its supplier to help it build the domestic infrastructure to maintain these boats.

If the US will sell Australia its Virginia class boats, it's a very good financial risk. That program is very economically stable (unlike so many other defense programs like the F-35). They've been making these boats for a while. You can probably get them under $2 billion each. The maintenance and life cycle costs will also be very predictable.

You've had a hard time retaining your submariners but that's a very fixable problem that the US has dealt with for years.

Finally, if you buy nukes, you probably won't need 12 nukes to get the same coverage as 12 diesels. The diesels would waste much of careers time at sea just creeping to and from their destinations. Nukes would have much more useful time on station."

MY COMMENT

Thinking outside the Jobs for South Australia box may produce more capable submarines, at lower risk and bought probably at a lower price than building more obsolescent SSKs. Buying US would even more firmly cement us to our main ally. The inter-operability of Australian Virginias with US SSNs would also make sound military sense.

Pete
Posted by plantagenet, Thursday, 24 July 2014 3:28:57 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