Saturday, December 31, 2011

Few realistic options for the Collins sub replacement

If one wants to dream about unobtainable submarine capability for Australia, look no further than here.

With the Defence, DMO and RAN management in a mess, we will be lucky to have any replacement for our 5 defective Collins boats (the 6th one being a source of parts).

Because Defence gave up our long range F-111 strike capability on a lie, that is it. We have none. Those thinking of using a submarine as some kind of long range punitive strike weapon are off their rocker. Note the mention of cruise missile capable subs in the above linked article. Only an aircraft gives you the ability to hit numerous targets: per day. A submarine is not a replacement for this ability. It can only be value-added.

Considering the past dumbassery from the certain think-tanks that our government officials listen to we might be seeing some hope. There is noise from those circles that the moronic 2009 Defence White Paper may be faulty; that building 12 subs at home to replace the Collins nightmare might be unworkable. Good on them. A small hint of progress.

There is other noise of nuclear subs as one option. This political climate makes that idea impossible.

Which leaves us with few options. Those few are as follows:

A German 214 class. It is powerful with knowns. It is doubtful that even the DMO could ruin this idea. The advantages are to get some consistency into the submarine workforce. A handful of these boats would have predictable mission and repair schedules. And, it has killing power to aid in securing our Northern approaches. Notice I said “aid”. You need air power so that your own anti-submarine aircraft can do their work unmolested. Add some 214s at choke points an now you have a workable defence plan. Air domination is linked to submarine capability. Unless you enjoy the idea of enemy anti-submarine aircraft fishing for your subs.

Once the RAN is stable (workforce/logistics/readiness consistency) with that, you can press ahead with other specialist subs. If one wants something more they should look no further than the Spanish effort known as the S-80.

The submarines of the S-80 class are designed to better complete their mission in threat scenarios. Their operational mobility will allow them to operate in remote areas, traveling discreetly at high speeds. Their air independent propulsion (AIP) system will ensure their ability to remain long periods of time in an area without being detected and their ability to operate in possible conflict zones.

Their capabilities include:

* A combat system for multiple target acquisition in different scenarios
* The ability to transport personnel, including special operations forces
* Low noise and magnetic signatures in order to minimize detection
* Low radar and infrared signatures in order to minimize detection


Risk alert. The production of this boat is not complete. However that beats the other loony ideas floated by some. And it even knocks down those that claim only a Collins-like ability will work for Australia. This last one of course used as a club by the rent-seekers when lobbying government.

Some advisors to our government are fixated on the unobtainable and unrealistic. This disease has to be broken. Or, we can just continue the laughing stock which is synonymous with the words “submarine” and “Defence” in the Australian public mind.

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

I for one would look at U-214, Scorpene, Gotland. These are tested ship with known upgrade path. So If Australia decide to splurge, might as well also invest and do join development with people who already have proven design.

Other submarines, but Australia probably doesn't have enough diplomatic relationship to buy them.

- Amur class (russia)
- Soryu (japan)

Netherland, spain do have submarine design, but they haven't build them in large quantity in long time. untested.

NGF said...

Eric,
Ely provided this interesting info in repsonse to an earelier post:

HDW have announced a 216 concept reportedly specifically aimed at SEA 1000. See http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/national/national/general/uboats-may-be-on-navys-shopping-list/2405653.aspx

I mentioned another option - Japan is building a new class of large conventional submarines. Now that Tokyo has eased its arms export rules, Australia should at least explore working with Japan to design a Collins Class replacement. Link:

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/awx/2011/12/28/awx_12_28_2011_p0-409793.xml&headline=Japan%20To%20Ease%20Arms%20Export%20Ban

Thoughts?

goldeel1 said...

Yeah my money would be on the HDW Type 216. It seems to fit what we need and as long as the Germans are allowed to run the program it shouldn't get screwed up. it will probably turn out cheaper than the projected "locally developed" Collins replacement as well. It will have a lower compliment of 33 versus 42-58 for Collins. has greater displacement of 4,000 tons and projected endurance 0f 80 days versus 70. The only thing I am unsure of is the projected range. HDW claim 10,400 NM at 10 kts but dont state if that is surfaced range or snorkel range. If it is the former then it is in the ball park of the Collins anyway which is given as 11,000 NM surfaced (9,000 NM snorkel). However HDW talk of this range being "extendable and 10,400 NM is the minimum, so it looks like this sub may be superior to a Collins in every way. It will be interesting to see what comes of this.

Ely said...

Eric,
I agree that we seem now to be in a 4000t "Aus Pacific boat" mindset. Interesting coverage here of what a Type 800 Dolphin (based on 209) operator has done with its boats to enhance capability options when not "pottering about the Med" as our DMO friend put it I recall. http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htsub/articles/20111223.aspx And I doubt the article covers the half of things. Though I am not suggesting this route for SEA 1000 needs must is a powerful influence when you do not have the luxury of being able to accept our apparent risk thresholds.
Regards & all the best for 2012
Ely

Perplexed said...

Eric, I believe you are incorrect about DMO.
The expertise is there, but you are unaware of the hidden talents.
I have just read, that amongst many other achievemnets Gary Fairlie of DMO, GF0012-Aust built them(th Collins Class) and actually did the welding on most of them.
He also stated that he worked for all of the European manufacturers before returning to Australia to fix up the fleet.
See , all is well.

nico said...

http://livefist.blogspot.com/2011/12/finally-indian-navy-gets-russian-nuke.html

Looks like Indian Navy got their SSN, finally. Maybe Australia should lease one too....

Bushranger 71 said...

Anonymous; until recently, Japan was Australia's foremost trading partner and diplomatic relations seem very sound.