Australia to looking at buying/leasing nuclear subs to counter PLAN Subs?

Jeff Head

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
TerraN_EmpirE said:
There is also the German U214 and U216 type offerings the 216 was actually created too meet the Ausies own requirements.
214 is start of the Art more or less and in service 216 is still conceptual but based on proven tech and adds VLS.
Scorpène class is a great seller but not quite the youngest bell at the ball.
S-80a Class is state of the art and might have a edge form the fact that the Ausies also use a Spanish based design for there Canberra class. Synergy and all.
Click to expand...
Agreed, the German U212 (the U214 is the initial export version without the non-magenetic hull, and 216 is the larger export version tageted at the Australikan bid, double hulled, but aalso lacking the non-magnetic hull) and the Spanish S-80 (1st is now building) are also state of the art AIP deisgns along with the Japoanese Soroyu, any one of which the US Navy could take as a template to design their own state of the art AIP diesel electric. I would love to see that.

But the nuclear club has an absolute hammerlock on US Navy planning, and it is not likely because it would be seen as competing for Nuclear Submarine money and killed before it ever got rolling. Although there are
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
.

I believe mainatinaing a force of 18+ of these would be good choice and very cost effective and very applicable to the litorals...and then say maintaining a force of 50 nuclear attack subs.

For the Aussies and SSKs, teaming with the Spanish on their new design could probably make very good sense and net them some significant discounts and/or input to the design since they already have the in with the Spanish on the Canberra's being derived from the Juan Carlos LPD...and the Australians will have two of them while Spain just has the one.

Same here. The Spanish are building four S-80s, and the Aussies might add a dozen.
 
Last edited:
Jeff Head

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
TerraN_EmpirE said:
Correction 212 is the German version 214 is the Export and 216 is a new larger version aimed for export
Click to expand...
That is correct. My bad too.

The U212 is the German state of the art AIP and uses a non-magnetic hull so that magnetic alloy detection cannot work on it. The 214 is the initial export version of that design with high grade steel hull, and the 216 is the larger, new export version aimed at the Australian bid and other markets like Canada and India. The 216 still does not have that special non -magnetic hull, but it is a double hull, high strength steel design.
 
P

Pointblank

Senior Member
TerraN_EmpirE said:
That plan was Scrapped April 1989 in favor of the Upholder class. Canada Operates NO Nuclear Submarines.
Click to expand...

Actually, the evolution of a proposed Canadian purchase of nuclear submarines is more complicated than that...

The US during the 1980's were more than willing to sell their nuclear submarines to us; however the problem was that they could not accommodate us (some thought they did not want too, but in fact, it was height of Cold War and the Reagan era defence buildup and they were cranking out their own nuke boats as fast as they could), but they did authorize the Brits to sell us their subs, which required US authorization because Brits use power reactors derived from US technology and designs.

The short listing was between the British Trafalgar class submarines and the French Rubis class submarines, with the French submarines being given more consideration because the French were not only willing to let us license build them, but also provide technology transfer compared to the Brits who would only sell us a complete submarine.

I've cut out a lot of details for the sake of brevity, but in the nutshell, there was a lot of thought and consideration behind a proposed Canadian nuclear submarine purchase during the 1980's.
 
Jeff Head

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
Equation said:
OT

LOL...alright Jeff! I thought I will never see the day where he'll use this hip hop terminology! That's pretty rad dude!;)
Click to expand...
Hehehe...thanks for the props!

My wife and I raised five kids, the first born in 1979 and the fifth born in 1989..so he (the youngest) is now 23 going on 24 years old. So, you learn a few things.

And now, on top of that, we have eight, soon to be nine, grandkids and the oldest is eleven, and he and his nine year old brother spend a lot of time with me building models...so I try to keep a handle on all the rap of my peeps!
 
S

Scratch

Captain
A few days later and I can't really find any follow ons suggesting the nuclear idea is gaining traction. In fact, I rather seem to find articles in wich comentators & officials alike explain why that option is unlikely to come to fruitation.
Cost is one factor, with the current budget and the other australien commitments (F-35, Canberra, P-8...) the required investment would probably be too much.
Technology access is another point, the US most likely will not transfer full know-how over the tech. That means maintanence will have to be done in the US. That is a lot of money being spent overseas. And it's also a qeustion of sovereignty if the RAN doesn't have controll over such strategic assets. Both are important points from the political perspective and have therefore already been mentioned by officials.

A cooperation with the the japanese (if they ever go so far as to adjust their policies in that regard, wich I think they may) would probably be a good idea. Especially since since interests are close enough, I guess, to support that.
Or buy european if they want to.
Plus, defence policy wise, a security cooperation with Indonesia, regarding the survaillance of those areas of the sea, might also help their situation.
 
P

paintgun

Senior Member
Norway has recently floated an RFI for submarines, pretty much includes most European manufacturers, and also DSME Korea.

But Australia has the requirement for bigger boats
 
TerraN_EmpirE

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
Too compare
HMAS Waller (Last of the Class)
Collins Class
Type
Guided Missile Submarine, Diesel-Electric (SSG)
Pennant
SSG 75
Motto
Tenacity
Home Port
Fleet Base West
Builder
Australian Submarine Corp, Adelaide
Laid Down
19 March 1992
Launched
14 March 1997
Commissioned
10 July 1999
Dimensions and weights
Displacement
surfaced: 3,100 tonnes
dived: 3,407 tonnes
Length 77.8 metres
Beam 7.8 metres
Draught 7 metres
Performance
Speed
top speed: 20 knots
dived: 20 knots
surfaced: 10 knots
snorting: 10 knots
Range
surfaced: 11,500 nautical miles
dived: 400 nautical miles
snorting: 9,000 nautical miles
Complement
Crew
crew: 58
officers: 8
Propulsion
Machinery
3 Hedemora/Garden Island Type V18B/14 diesels
3 Jeumont Schneider generators
1 MacTaggart Scott DM 43006 hydraulic motor for emergency propulsion.
Armament
Missiles McDonnell Douglas Sub Harpoon Block 1B (UGM 84C); active radar homing
Torpedoes 6-21 in (533 mm) fwd tubes. Gould Mk 48 Mod 4/6/7; dual purpose; wire-guided; active/passive homing
Mines 44 in lieu of torpedoes.
Physical Countermeasures Decoys: 2 SSE.
Electronic Countermeasures ESM: Condor CS-5600; intercept and warning.
Radars Navigation: Kelvin Hughes Type 1007; I-band.
Sonars
Thomson Sintra Scylla active/passive bow array and passive flank, intercept and ranging arrays.
Thales SHORTAS retractable, passive.
Weapon Control Systems AN-BYG 1. Link 11.

SS-501 Soryu / 16SS / SS 2,900 ton Class
Specifications
Standard Displacement 2,900ton surfaced / 4200t submerged
Boundary Dimension Length: 275'5"
Width: 29'8"
Depth:27'9"
Draft:
Boat Shape
Machinery
Diesel-electric with AIP:
2 Kawasaki 12V diesels + 1 Kawasaki 4V-275R AIP engine,
1 8000H Fuji electric motor,
1 shaft w/CP prop
AIP endurance (est.) 6100NM @ 6.5kts
Diving depth 900' test, 1000' crush
Maximum Speed 13kt (surfaced)
20kt (submerged)
SENSORS-Radar ZPS-6B (I) surface / low-alt air search (range, bearing)
SENSORS-EW
ZLR-3-6 ESM
U/W countermeasures launcher
SENSORS-Sonar ZQQ-7 suite:
Bow array
LF hull array
Towed array
WEAPONS
x6 21" tubes
Type 89 torpedoes
UGM-84 Sub-Harpoon missiles
mines
Crew 65 (9 officers, 56 enlisted)

Uboat type 214
Displacement: 1,690 t surfaced / 1,860 t submerged
Dimensions: length 213 feet 3 inches (65 m) / beam 20 feet 8 inches (6.3 m) / draught 19 feet 8 inches (6 m)
Pressure hull: HY-100[16]
Armament: 8 x 533 mm torpedo tubes, 4 subharpoon-capable
Propulsion: low noise skew back propeller
Diesel engines: 2 x MTU 16V-396 (3.96 MW)
Charging generators: 2 x Piller Ntb56.40-10 0.97 MW
AIP system: 2 x HDW PEM fuel cell module BZM120 (120 kW x 2) [17]
Electric motor: 1 x Siemens Permasyn (2.85 MW)
Speed: 12 kt surfaced / 20 kt submerged
Speed on fuel cells: 2-6 kt estimated
Range surfaced: 12,000 miles (19,300 km)
Range submerged: 420 nmi @ 8 kt (780 km @ 15 km/h)
Range on fuel cells: 1,248 nmi @ 4 kt (2,310 km @ 7 km/h)
Mission endurance: 12 weeks
Submerged without snorkelling: 3 weeks
Operating depth: more than 250 m officially, 400 m estimated
Complement: 5 officers + 22 crew
Navigation radar: SPHINX-D with 4Kw pulse and tactical LPI radar sensor [Thales Deutschland Kiel]

S80 class
Class overview
Builders: Navantia, Cartagena
Operators: Spanish Navy
Preceded by: Agosta class submarine
Cost: €2,212m for four (~US$700m/boat)
Built: 2007–2018
In commission: 2015 (planned)
Building: 4
Planned: 4
Completed: 0
General characteristics
Type: Submarine with AIP
Displacement: 2,200 tonnes (2,200 long tons; 2,400 short tons) surfaced
2,426 tonnes (2,388 long tons; 2,674 short tons) submerged
Length: 71.05 m (233.1 ft)
Beam: 11.68 m (38.3 ft)
Draught: 6.20 m (20.3 ft)
Propulsion: 1 shaft diesel-AIP
3 Bio-ethanol engines (3 x 1,200 kW)
1 electric motor (3,500 kW), 1 AIP fuel cell unit (300 kW)
Speed: 12 kn (22 km/h; 14 mph) surfaced
19 kn (35 km/h; 22 mph) submerged
Complement: 32 (plus 8 troops)
Armament: 6 x 533 mm torpedo tubes with DM2A4 torpedoes and Harpoon missiles

And Projected
Uboat type 216
Name: Type 216
Preceded by: Type 212 submarine
Type 214 submarine
Active: None
General characteristics
Type: Submarine
Displacement: 4,000 metric tonnes[1]
Length: 89 m
Beam: 8.1 m
Draft: 6.6 m
Propulsion: Diesel-Electric with AIP
Speed: over 20 knots (37 km/h)
Range: 10,400 nautical miles (19,300 km) at 10 knots
Endurance: 80 days
Complement: 33 + Additional berths for Special Forces, Specialists, and Students
Armament: 6 x 21-inch (533 mm) torpedo tubes (18 torpedoes/anti-ship missiles or mines)
Vertical Launch System
Swimmer Delivery Vehicle
Notes: Design concept only. No vessels yet ordered.
 
P

Pusser01

Banned Idiot
TerraN_EmpirE said:
Too compare
HMAS Waller (Last of the Class)
Collins Class
Type
Guided Missile Submarine, Diesel-Electric (SSG)
Pennant
SSG 75
Motto
Tenacity
Home Port
Fleet Base West
Builder
Australian Submarine Corp, Adelaide
Laid Down
19 March 1992
Launched
14 March 1997
Commissioned
10 July 1999
Dimensions and weights
Displacement
surfaced: 3,100 tonnes
dived: 3,407 tonnes
Length 77.8 metres
Beam 7.8 metres
Draught 7 metres
Performance
Speed
top speed: 20 knots
dived: 20 knots
surfaced: 10 knots
snorting: 10 knots
Range
surfaced: 11,500 nautical miles
dived: 400 nautical miles
snorting: 9,000 nautical miles
Complement
Crew
crew: 58
officers: 8
Propulsion
Machinery
3 Hedemora/Garden Island Type V18B/14 diesels
3 Jeumont Schneider generators
1 MacTaggart Scott DM 43006 hydraulic motor for emergency propulsion.
Armament
Missiles McDonnell Douglas Sub Harpoon Block 1B (UGM 84C); active radar homing
Torpedoes 6-21 in (533 mm) fwd tubes. Gould Mk 48 Mod 4/6/7; dual purpose; wire-guided; active/passive homing
Mines 44 in lieu of torpedoes.
Physical Countermeasures Decoys: 2 SSE.
Electronic Countermeasures ESM: Condor CS-5600; intercept and warning.
Radars Navigation: Kelvin Hughes Type 1007; I-band.
Sonars
Thomson Sintra Scylla active/passive bow array and passive flank, intercept and ranging arrays.
Thales SHORTAS retractable, passive.
Weapon Control Systems AN-BYG 1. Link 11.

SS-501 Soryu / 16SS / SS 2,900 ton Class
Specifications
Standard Displacement 2,900ton surfaced / 4200t submerged
Boundary Dimension Length: 275'5"
Width: 29'8"
Depth:27'9"
Draft:
Boat Shape
Machinery
Diesel-electric with AIP:
2 Kawasaki 12V diesels + 1 Kawasaki 4V-275R AIP engine,
1 8000H Fuji electric motor,
1 shaft w/CP prop
AIP endurance (est.) 6100NM @ 6.5kts
Diving depth 900' test, 1000' crush
Maximum Speed 13kt (surfaced)
20kt (submerged)
SENSORS-Radar ZPS-6B (I) surface / low-alt air search (range, bearing)
SENSORS-EW
ZLR-3-6 ESM
U/W countermeasures launcher
SENSORS-Sonar ZQQ-7 suite:
Bow array
LF hull array
Towed array
WEAPONS
x6 21" tubes
Type 89 torpedoes
UGM-84 Sub-Harpoon missiles
mines
Crew 65 (9 officers, 56 enlisted)

Uboat type 214
Displacement: 1,690 t surfaced / 1,860 t submerged
Dimensions: length 213 feet 3 inches (65 m) / beam 20 feet 8 inches (6.3 m) / draught 19 feet 8 inches (6 m)
Pressure hull: HY-100[16]
Armament: 8 x 533 mm torpedo tubes, 4 subharpoon-capable
Propulsion: low noise skew back propeller
Diesel engines: 2 x MTU 16V-396 (3.96 MW)
Charging generators: 2 x Piller Ntb56.40-10 0.97 MW
AIP system: 2 x HDW PEM fuel cell module BZM120 (120 kW x 2) [17]
Electric motor: 1 x Siemens Permasyn (2.85 MW)
Speed: 12 kt surfaced / 20 kt submerged
Speed on fuel cells: 2-6 kt estimated
Range surfaced: 12,000 miles (19,300 km)
Range submerged: 420 nmi @ 8 kt (780 km @ 15 km/h)
Range on fuel cells: 1,248 nmi @ 4 kt (2,310 km @ 7 km/h)
Mission endurance: 12 weeks
Submerged without snorkelling: 3 weeks
Operating depth: more than 250 m officially, 400 m estimated
Complement: 5 officers + 22 crew
Navigation radar: SPHINX-D with 4Kw pulse and tactical LPI radar sensor [Thales Deutschland Kiel]

S80 class
Class overview
Builders: Navantia, Cartagena
Operators: Spanish Navy
Preceded by: Agosta class submarine
Cost: €2,212m for four (~US$700m/boat)
Built: 2007–2018
In commission: 2015 (planned)
Building: 4
Planned: 4
Completed: 0
General characteristics
Type: Submarine with AIP
Displacement: 2,200 tonnes (2,200 long tons; 2,400 short tons) surfaced
2,426 tonnes (2,388 long tons; 2,674 short tons) submerged
Length: 71.05 m (233.1 ft)
Beam: 11.68 m (38.3 ft)
Draught: 6.20 m (20.3 ft)
Propulsion: 1 shaft diesel-AIP
3 Bio-ethanol engines (3 x 1,200 kW)
1 electric motor (3,500 kW), 1 AIP fuel cell unit (300 kW)
Speed: 12 kn (22 km/h; 14 mph) surfaced
19 kn (35 km/h; 22 mph) submerged
Complement: 32 (plus 8 troops)
Armament: 6 x 533 mm torpedo tubes with DM2A4 torpedoes and Harpoon missiles

And Projected
Uboat type 216
Name: Type 216
Preceded by: Type 212 submarine
Type 214 submarine
Active: None
General characteristics
Type: Submarine
Displacement: 4,000 metric tonnes[1]
Length: 89 m
Beam: 8.1 m
Draft: 6.6 m
Propulsion: Diesel-Electric with AIP
Speed: over 20 knots (37 km/h)
Range: 10,400 nautical miles (19,300 km) at 10 knots
Endurance: 80 days
Complement: 33 + Additional berths for Special Forces, Specialists, and Students
Armament: 6 x 21-inch (533 mm) torpedo tubes (18 torpedoes/anti-ship missiles or mines)
Vertical Launch System
Swimmer Delivery Vehicle
Notes: Design concept only. No vessels yet ordered.
Click to expand...

Just a couple of things, Rankin is actually the last in class, commissioned in 2003.
All these other classes of submarines are pretty good, the trouble is other than a follow on class to the Soryu, none of the the European one's currently fulfil the requirements for the Collins replacement. A couple of them will apparently match the range or endurance.
Australia is looking for a class that will have a crew of at least 60+, preferably a higher number as they are looking at a 3 watch rotation while at sea to combat fatigue. Also the new class will need a weapon load similar or greater than the Collins which currently stands at 22. Noting Australia has long standing plans for Tomahawk, the higher capacity the better I think.
My question about the various AIP's in use is whether they will be able to fulfil the power requirements required to operate a combat system like AN/BYG-1 or its follow on. This combat system was intially designed for use on a nuke boat thus with no worries regards power generation. The Collins are apparently able to use it but does drain the batteries a bit quicker.
Cheers
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top