From some comments on down from MHalblaub's comment (of February 19, 2020 at 7:05 AM)
HOW MANY AUSTRALIAN FUTURE SUBMARINES?
The Australian Navy (RAN) has had continuous problems since the 1970s finding commanders and crew for more than 5 submarines.
- Commanders must now pass the conventional submarine Dutch Navy "Perisher" Submarine
Command Course and about 40% fail. The UK RN used to run the course but no longer since the
UK went all nuclear subs.
- the shortfall in numbers of Australian submarine commanders has been partly met by
ex UK Royal Navy submarine commanders.
- A Commander for a small Baltic 1,000 tonne sub needs to be as well qualified (hence is as hard to
find and train) as a Commander for a 4,500 tonne (surfaced) Attack class sub. So Australia
finding 20 commanders, for any suggestion of 20 small submarines, is an illusion.
- due to the hardship of long missions underwater (away from family) and higher paying jobs in the
mining industry the RAN has been unable to raise crews to rotate (on missions/on courses/on
leave) more than 4 submarine equivalents at any one time.
So suggestions we should have 12 submarines might only be justified during a time of medium-long term increase in the threat environment to Australia. A training effort would need to be more than doubled which involves training on surface fleet ships before transitioning to submarines.
In the current threat environment I think the RAN has followed the standard practice of talking more submarines (12) than it expects to receive (8).
You will note I wrote on another website in December 2014:
No navy is launching 2 conventional classes of small and large submarines because it complicates training (for crews and commanders), HQ command, control, basing slots and deployment. It also increases costs of basing (again), training (again), maintenance, repair, overhaul and spare parts.
--------------------------------------------------------
BASING?
Basing is much more complex than how far north(?) and sea depth issues. Its all about people.
To get a handle on just some of the aspects it pays to read the Australian Department of Defence Future Submarine "FSM BASING STUDY" dated 2011 via the "Wayback Machine" is at https://web.archive.org/web/20210804160533/https://www.defence.gov.au/FOI/Docs/Disclosures/373_1718_Documents.pdf
HOW MANY AUSTRALIAN FUTURE SUBMARINES?
The Australian Navy (RAN) has had continuous problems since the 1970s finding commanders and crew for more than 5 submarines.
- Commanders must now pass the conventional submarine Dutch Navy "Perisher" Submarine
Command Course and about 40% fail. The UK RN used to run the course but no longer since the
UK went all nuclear subs.
- the shortfall in numbers of Australian submarine commanders has been partly met by
ex UK Royal Navy submarine commanders.
- A Commander for a small Baltic 1,000 tonne sub needs to be as well qualified (hence is as hard to
find and train) as a Commander for a 4,500 tonne (surfaced) Attack class sub. So Australia
finding 20 commanders, for any suggestion of 20 small submarines, is an illusion.
- due to the hardship of long missions underwater (away from family) and higher paying jobs in the
mining industry the RAN has been unable to raise crews to rotate (on missions/on courses/on
leave) more than 4 submarine equivalents at any one time.
So suggestions we should have 12 submarines might only be justified during a time of medium-long term increase in the threat environment to Australia. A training effort would need to be more than doubled which involves training on surface fleet ships before transitioning to submarines.
In the current threat environment I think the RAN has followed the standard practice of talking more submarines (12) than it expects to receive (8).
You will note I wrote on another website in December 2014:
"A requirement for twelve submarines was an
uncosted, minimally justified, extravagance included in the 2009
White Paper (page 70,
section 9.3) drawn up under the Rudd Government. There appears to be a
historical trend of shooting high in Australian submarine numbers.
No navy is launching 2 conventional classes of small and large submarines because it complicates training (for crews and commanders), HQ command, control, basing slots and deployment. It also increases costs of basing (again), training (again), maintenance, repair, overhaul and spare parts.
--------------------------------------------------------
BASING?
Basing is much more complex than how far north(?) and sea depth issues. Its all about people.
To get a handle on just some of the aspects it pays to read the Australian Department of Defence Future Submarine "FSM BASING STUDY" dated 2011 via the "Wayback Machine" is at https://web.archive.org/web/20210804160533/https://www.defence.gov.au/FOI/Docs/Disclosures/373_1718_Documents.pdf
Also see this 2022 article.
The takeaways include an Australian submarines base on the East Coast (or whole new Fleet Base East) needs to be in commuting distance to large urban areas/cities:
- for families and specialist naval and civilian personnel, for administration, housing, maintenance, training, submariner retirement or part-time work and many other functions
- protected by several surface ships (and I'd add maritime patrol aircraft) for that vulnerable travel
leg immediately outside bases
- large cities already includes Sydney. Maybe Brisbane or even Gladstone, Queesland) for the many support industries needed and (healthcare, education, jobs, inexpensive housing for) families and submariner retirement options.
Darwin is not viable as it is too small to for the full range of support services needed. It is also too exposed to possible future Chinese air and naval bases in close by East Timor, Solomons or PNG. Also the shallow nature of Darwin Port, tides and 100 year lease to a Chinese company (required under Chinese rules to be close to the Chinese Government) don't help.
So Australia submarines need to be permanently based in/near to cities over a million (fairly standard for other navies worldwide).
Pete
4 comments:
I really enjoyed the YouTube videos on establishing Oberon by UNSW Canberra.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-rljMe2lqvQ&t=1s
I feel I need to say it again but stretched variants of a boat aren't another class.
As you said in your last reply to my last comment the RAN will be lucky to get 8.
I do wonder if we will be able to keep 2 Astute at sea with only 6 (7-ish) hulls. We would have been safe with 8. (Astute is very much a 'prototype' as much as there can be one with a small SSN program like ours. She won't be in service long I bet one the last A-boat commissions.)
Hi Pete,
Here you can see the German submarine U32 crowded space including "beer torpedoes", now in English.
/Kjell
Thanks /Kjell
For "U32 - German Submarine Soldiers | Full Documentary" at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcgDyxADsiM&feature=youtu.be
I don't understand the chant? in German, 15 seconds in, when officer Lenthe is at the periscope.
I'll look and comment on more in 3 days.
Regards
Pete
Hi Steve
True that "stretched variants of a boat aren't another class" but the stretch can hide many rearrangements inside the sub, especially of fuel and ballast/water tanks, more sleeping and mess room, more torpedoes. more powerful diesels etc.
If Australia went shopping for SSNs, then buying US or UK SSNs (with whole of life fuel in their reactors) may be better than (refuel every 10 years in France!) Barracuda SSNs.
Regards
Pete
Post a Comment