Hi Pete,

"Oberons 67 -90 never at war!

Perhaps but not really accurate and yes they have fired in anger. It's just not unclassified yet!

For my two cents worth, consider the longer-term threat environment and build or buy accordingly.

Variants of the smaller French, proven, attack nuke boats and inclusion of the larger Brit built nuke boats for strategic force projection come to mind.

Forget ASC they have ballsed up every contract they have had with the Commonwealth. Go international, straight off-the-shelf and save Billions.

Geoff

Dear Pete,

Norway (population 5 million) operates 6 small Type 210 submarines to defend the over 1,250 nm long Norwegian coastline operating out of Haakonsvern and also to defend the gap between Norway and Greenland. In 2004 the submarine KNM Utvær was disqualified from NATO exercise “Joint Winter”. During the exercise this submarine did nearly “sink” the complete fleet including the HMS Invincible without being detected. The landing operation was then performed without submarine disturbance.

Type 210 submarines have a range of 5,000 nm. A Type 210mod with better engines, AIP or lithium batteries would have much more range.
Distance from Christmas Island or Darwin to South Chinese Sea is about 1,500 nm. Distance to important choke points is even less. I just cannot see necessity for excessive range or speed.

For sure one Type 214 (8+13?)/ Dolphin (10+13?)/ Collins (6+16)/ Soryu (6+24)/ Scorpene (6+12) submarine carries more weapons (ready+reload; “?” because this is known reload for smaller Type 212). Ula offers just 8 torpedoes tubes and 6 reloads. This is less than half compared to Soryu-class but you should look at the price tag. Ula-class offers the same torpedo load for about the same price but on more submarines. With more submarines more sea space could be controlled.

In case of an encounter the size of a submarine is not important because all torpedoes have the same size. The size of the submarine fleet is far more important. In case you lose one submarine it is important how many operational submarines you have left. Just one or two like today or 7 Type 210mod (fleet of 24). 8 more could be available soon by cannibalizing the remaining 8.

Regards,
MHalblaub

Hi LEGO

Yes just 6 subs makes sense due also to the advantages of network centric warfare which can direct weapons and platforms more precisely. Another example is the ability of just 6 Aussie Super Hornets to range over Iraq instead of a need for 6 squadrons.

Nuclear powered subs would be preferable but even THE MAN, Abbott, lacks the stamina to push that need.
---

Hi Geoff of Perth

Re: Oberons? Assuming a torpedoing would be too noticed and newsworthy... Mine-laying by sub? Not only by aircraft? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Pocket_Money ?

I also agree that nuclear propelled would be preferable.
---

Hi MHalblaub

I think most sub-owning countries are ordering new subs much larger than the 1,000 ton HDW 210 for good reasons. Reasons include greater range (eg. Pacific Ocean), greater warload (South China Sea is a long way from Aussie port replenishment), need for adequate crew size (for 70+ day missions). Even Germany decided to build HDW 212 for German needs - a fair bit larger than the 210s.

The 210 is ideal for Norway's Baltic and fairly narrow North Sea operating areas. But Aus missions may be 5 times further out into the Pacific and Indian Oceans.

As well as the 214 the Dolphin 2's range capacity, warload, and submerged speed of 25 knots is worth a look by SEA 1000 selectors - see photos here http://gentleseas.blogspot.com.au/2014/11/submarine-institute-of-australias.html .

Regards

Pete

Dear Pete,

I just can’t see a reason for big Australian submarines.

Germany did operate a fleet of 18 Type 206 to control the Baltic Sea and the North Sea. This type was a digest of a submarine: crew 27 men, 8 torpedoes, no reloads and surfaced displacement of just 450 t. Type 206 was sufficient to keep the Soviet Union at distance. It would have been a success if one submarine could have launched all torpedoes. Reload was at sea by tenders because harbors were expected to be extinguished.

The new Type 212 was build for quite different operation areas like Mediterranean Sea or Arabic Sea. Due to that the range was quite doubled to at least 8,000 nm. Crew size stayed the same.

Oberon-class did inherited 10,000 nm range from German Type XXI with range of 14,000 nm. I guess nobody ever thought about the need of such range for Collins-class design. The Type XXI was designed to reach the Gulf of Mexico, patrol there for a while without any aid and sail back. Distance is about 5,000 nm one way via Caribbean Sea. What is quite the same distance as from Garden Island to Bohai Gulf. The difference is German Navy had no base closer to the US than La Rochelle. Distance from Darwin to Bohai Gulf is just 3,500 nm.

There is no need for excessive range for RAN. Intelligence gathering somewhere along the Chinese coast could be done by a small Type 210mod far better than with a big nuke. Distance is no problem. RAN just needs a tender somewhere in the Philippine Sea. Such a tender is easy to detect? So what? Philippine Seas are international waters.

Oh, tenders are vulnerable in case of a conflict. In case of a conflict RAN may operate with a tender called Guam. In case of a conflict RAN submarines should control the straits and protect Australian harbors against enemy submarines.

...to be continued...

...

“Aus missions may be 5 times further out into the Pacific and Indian Oceans.”
Submarine patrols somewhere in the vastnesses of the Oceans are military nonsense. A submarine may detect another fast moving submarine 10 nm away but that’s it. Maybe RAN does such patrols because it is the only useful thing Collins-class can do. To cover the waste area around Australia the P-8 Poseidon was ordered.

In case a P-8 detects something how will RAN get a submarine there in time? Maybe something unusual like a small fleet is cruising in the Coral Sea. A submarine based in Garden Island would need 5 days at 30 knots. A submarine based at Brisbane would need 2.5 days at 10 knots to reach the middle of the Coral Sea.

In case of a conflict Australia needs a fleet of 6 operational submarines to control own important harbors and about another 3 or 4 to control the choke points like Gulf of Aden, Strait of Malacca, Sunda Strait or Lombok Strait and a few to operate in the South Chinese Sea. Therefore Australia would need a fleet of 24 submarines.

Germany was able to provide about 9 Type 206 with just 8 torpedoes (72) through a total displacement of 8,100 t. RAN operates a submarine displacement of 18,000 t and is lucky to provide 3 submarines with 66 weapons. In case of just one loss just 44 are left…

A Type 210mod is far enough to protect Australia and affordable. What else should RAN do? Capsize some container in Shanghai harbor? Any direct attack against China would be useless. China is dependent to open seas. China is vulnerable there and therefore Australia needs many submarines.

The Type 210mod would just raise the displacement from 18,000 to to 24,000 t and not to 48,000 t. Big submarines are for Admirals with a small ego or something else underdeveloped.

Regards,
MHalblaub

Hi MHalblaub

Australia's current-future submarine needs are far different from Germany's previous (206) situation. For Germany the proof that Germany decided to replace 206 with the much larger 212 is compelling.

I would say that Germany was forced to build a small, defensive 206 in the 1960sbecause the most powerful countries in NATO (UK, US and France) did not want Germany to have larger oceanic submarines (of large WW2 U-boat size) that could again pose a threat to those countries.

After these NATO restrictions wwwere lifted Germany reverted to its optimum submarine tonnage - much larger than the 206s.

Australia having, say 12 HDW 210s, would not be a simple question of lower cost, crew and tonnage. All of these savings result in mission limitations, noting:

1. An Australian submarine tender sitting beside the South China Sea is not a serious solution as it would be under permanent Chinese satellite or "fishing boat" surveillance. This could escalate to permanent, dangerous, Chinese (or Russian?) SSK surveillance.

2. the ability of an Australian sub to rapidly move unrefueled from Fremantle to the mid South China Sea, operate there for 2-3 weeks and return to Fremantle is essential. This is something the lower range and small tired crew of a HDW 210 couldn't do.

3. Unlike Germany Australia does not have the large population and technical density to provide full submarine service ports for 210s in Broome, Darwin, Townsville, Cairns etc.

Regards

Pete