UK Defence Forum

whilst this hypothesis is a couple of years old it looks at the historical prospective of Astute Class submarines for the RAN, I found it quite interesting politics aside of the end game.

http://www.kokodafoundation.org/Resourc ... ynolds.pdf

would the Australian public want an SSK(N) or could astute design evolve into SSK diesel Electric?

marktigger wrote:would the Australian public want an SSK(N) or could astute design evolve into SSK diesel Electric?

Without going to a plebiscite I guess we will never know, but the left/green vote will be the loudest voice, just like the referendum for Australia to become a republic it's all a matter how it's worded

On the matter of converting the Astute to a conventional submarine, I suppose it could happen it's just a matter of how much money you want to throw at it.

Isn't the non-nuclear Barracuda already in the running, as a paper design?

ArmChairCivvy wrote:Isn't the non-nuclear Barracuda already in the running, as a paper design?

I believe so, but you can pretty much discount it from a perspective in allowing them access to integration of American combat systems, or in other words the yanks don't trust the frogs

A distinct possibility... but they did allow the Spanish (who adapted their sub design from a French one; or was it a joint project that they then conveniently nicked?).

Replacing any of the Barracuda sensors and other items with equipment that is similar to a Virginia class could be done at a later date , certainly the R.A.N has had some significant missions with conventional submarines that a large nuclear submarine could not .

Not 100% sure on the Spanish S-80, it appears the Americans had a lot of input into the submarine. Doubt it's a version of AN/BYG-1 as it pretty power hungry, I do know that the Spanish went to the Americans when the project ran into weight problems.

Seems the Americans are deft hand in fixing submarine problems as they have an input into most major allied submarine program's.

Seaspear I can't see AusGov spending money twice on a combat system and the later replacing it with modern version of AN/BYG that would be an extremely expensive exercise cutting into the hull. Who ever gets the contract knows from day one which combat system that they have to deal with and have to adjust the planing accordingly. I am actually surprised that the French will bid with a conventional Barracuda, be Intersting to find out if the already had a plans for a conventional or they are spending a significant amount of money in a redesign.

R686 wrote:Not 100% sure on the Spanish S-80, it appears the Americans had a lot of input into the submarine. Doubt it's a version of AN/BYG-1 as it pretty power hungry, I do know that the Spanish went to the Americans when the project ran into weight problems.

Seems the Americans are deft hand in fixing submarine problems as they have an input into most major allied submarine program's.

Seaspear I can't see AusGov spending money twice on a combat system and the later replacing it with modern version of AN/BYG that would be an extremely expensive exercise cutting into the hull. Who ever gets the contract knows from day one which combat system that they have to deal with and have to adjust the planing accordingly. I am actually surprised that the French will bid with a conventional Barracuda, be Intersting to find out if the already had a plans for a conventional or they are spending a significant amount of money in a redesign.

I believe that American input into the S-80 programme has been mostly been to fix problems with the design. I remember reading a while ago that the combat system was a Lockheed Martin system adapted from the one used on the Seawolf and Virginia classes. Most of the sonar systems were also from Lockheed Martin if I remember correctly. There's also been British involvement in the S-80, with QinetiQ assisting Navantia in the design phase and supplying their towed array sonar; BAE Systems designing and building the forward and aft pressure domes, with the sets for the first two boats being built entirely at Barrow, and the other two partially at Barrow and completed in Cartagena by Navantia; and some of the equipment, like the torpedo tubes, was from Babcock I think.

As I understand it, the design of the S-80 is based on the DCNS Scorpène-class, which Navantia helped develop and was the submarine Spain was set to order until the Spanish Navy changed its requirements in the early 2000s, shifting its submarine doctrine from the Cold War defensive, ASW focus of the Scorpène to one of power projection, insertion of special forces. contribution to amphibious landings, task group protection etc, which resulted in a much more ambitious design being sought out for a larger, more capable submarine, with AIP for longer submerged endurance (which had only been an "option" before then) and land attack missiles.

"Weight problem" is a bit of an understatement lol - a submarine not being able to surface after submerging, allegedly due to someone misplacing a decimal point and adding an unexpected 75 tons is a quite a major cock up. Navantia signed on General Dynamics Electric Boat in 2013 to help them fix the issue - the solution was to lengthen the boats by 7 metres to create additional buoyancy, at I believe something like £5 million per metre. The first of class was already quite advanced in its build and so it was decided to retrofit that one last - originally meant to be handed over to the Armada in 2012, it will now not be delivered until 2020 at least, the second boat will be the first to be delivered, currently expected around 2017.

There were also problems with the AIP system which was not able to meet the Spanish Navy's requirement for being able to remain submerged for 28 days - not sure what progress there has been on that front, last I heard the Armada was just going to accept the 20 days it is currently able to achieve and scale back its requirements. The ageing Galerna-class will have to soldier on for a while longer (the oldest has already been in service for 32 years and was set to be decommissioned in the next couple of years, and one decommissioned due to budget cuts, leaving two old boats in service until the arrival of the S-80). There were even some murmurs of them purchasing or leasing second hand submarines from foreign navies in the event of further setbacks.

That paper reads to me like it was written to fit a conclusion which was narrowly defined as: make a case for why Australia should field SSNs without the US. Not to say it doesn't have valid points and concerns, but it doesn't sell me as a whole. I can can totally understand the desire to not be marginalized by US strategy or policy, but there's an element of "throw the baby out with the bathwater" when those concerns are cited as a reason to step the RAN-USN relationship backwards. It also gives no real analysis of the lease long-term option, which appears to be favored here in the US.

I wasn't suggesting to get both sets of equipment but to purchase without those that are likely to be developed elsewhere, in this case with the partnership of the U.S.N

I've never truly understood the Australian aversion to nuclear power. These buggers are sitting on like 30% of the entire world's uranium reserves and produce the largest amount a year, yet they seem to run on decades old equipment with little desire to improve their position

Going back to the sixties there was a real interest in the development of atomic weapons all sorts of testing was carried out ,Australia had the resource's and technology to produce these weapons but didn't

going back to the 50's their was a big potential of Australia going nuclear, we weren't letting the UK blow things up out in the desert for nothing.

PM Howard tried to get it on the agenda again in the near the end of his term in office. But Labor and the greens shut that down.

http://www.foe.org.au/anti-nuclear/issues/oz/ozbombs

Reading this article you would believe the study was theoretical and no actual research had been carried out .

R686 wrote:whilst this hypothesis is a couple of years old it looks at the historical prospective of Astute Class submarines for the RAN, I found it quite interesting politics aside of the end game.

http://www.kokodafoundation.org/Resourc ... ynolds.pdf

After a full decade this wine has improved and is ready for consumption