tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19245896.post2711669883454173794..comments2024-03-28T21:57:32.099+11:00Comments on Submarine Matters & Australian Nuclear Weapons: Nuclear Propelled Australian Submarines (work in progress)Pete2http://www.blogger.com/profile/06134037393078707072noreply@blogger.comBlogger38125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19245896.post-38590411639964943732016-05-19T00:24:12.309+10:002016-05-19T00:24:12.309+10:00Dear KQN,
the assumption was the Brazilian tactic...Dear KQN,<br /><br />the assumption was the Brazilian tactic to deploy SSN and that small SSK could do the job better with less men.<br /><br />The not distributed basing is a big tactical an strategic Australian fault. <br /><br />Sydney and Perth a nowadays within reach of Australia's big opponents. Distributed basing makes preemptive strikes harder to coordinate and to be successful. Some tender would also useful.<br /><br />It is also an advance to have bases all other Australia to refuel an rearm submarines and ships. <br /><br />Christmas Island to Jakarta: 300 nm<br />Christmas Island to Lombok Straight: 600 nm<br />Darwin to Hong Kong: 2,500 nm<br />Darwin to Tianjin: 3,500 nm<br />Guam to Hong Kong: 2,000 nm<br />Guam to Tianjin: 2,000 nm<br />Diego Garcia to Sri Lanka: 1,000 nm<br />Australia may ask its allies for bases before buying far to big submarines.<br /><br />Small submarines are also far better for intelligence gathering. Would you rather risk a $250 million submarine with a crew of 21 or $2 billion SSN with 125 men close to the shores? With an US SSN you probably would need clearance for every mission.<br /><br />Missions with a duration of more than 30 days are delicate due to crew requirement. With sorter turns the Australian submarines could be more attractive for sailors.<br /><br />You may remember this:<br />http://www.news.com.au/national/russian-warships-show-how-exposed-australia-is-and-raise-china-issue/news-story/26213cfda80cf65c26a8a859274c2ed1<br /><br />Even an SSN would need 4 days from Perth to Coral Sea. From Brisbane 1 and 1/2 days with SSK.<br /><br />In may opinion Australia needs many submarines and not a big few. This would also be cheaper and easier to maintain a constant submarine production. Finally Australia could protect the seas around itself. <br /><br />Regards,<br />MHalblaubMHalblaubhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14234020711635190127noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19245896.post-82172632907784958282016-05-18T19:52:29.823+10:002016-05-18T19:52:29.823+10:00The SSN-SSK analysis assumes distributed basing wh...The SSN-SSK analysis assumes distributed basing which is not the case today in Australia.<br /><br />And then Australia's strategy (Pete can correct me if I am off) is not to protect its coast lines, it is protecting its far flung approaches to its sea lanes and to collect intelligence at the outer edges, so whether SSK or SSN, they all have to make first a long transit before they can reach their patrol area.<br /><br />KQNAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19245896.post-23892553544228338622016-05-18T04:00:53.832+10:002016-05-18T04:00:53.832+10:00I believe latest generation of SSNs are all capabl...I believe latest generation of SSNs are all capable of turning off their pumps and rely on free circulation, including the Virginias, and even the Russian Yasen.<br />KQNAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19245896.post-53140288095292553002016-05-18T00:53:37.846+10:002016-05-18T00:53:37.846+10:00Dear Pete,
I found a nice picture about the Brazi...<br />Dear Pete,<br /><br />I found a nice picture about the Brazilian SSN use:<br />http://visualoop.com/media/2015/04/The-first-nuclear-submarine-built-in-Brazil.jpg<br /><br />Interesting is the small picture top left. 3 SSNs will patrol about 500 nm before the coast covering a span of about 4,000 nm span.<br />SSN: Crew 95; speed ~36 kn<br />Brazilian Scorpéne: Crew 66; speed 20 kn <br /><br />Lets have a look to Australia. <br />Three SSN out of 6 would have to cover about a distance of 7,500 nm. Due to the fact that Australia is an "island" the 3 SSN could always be spaced 2,500 nm<br />Worst case distance 1,250 nm<br /><br />6 big SSK spaced 1,250 nm<br />Worst case distance 625 nm<br /><br /> 10 small SSK spaced 750 nm<br />Worst case distance 375 nm<br /><br />Time to target: <br />3SSN @ 36 kn: 35 hours<br />6 SSK @ 12 kn: 52 hours<br />10 SSK @ 12 kn: 31 hours<br /><br />At 36 kn a pump jet will not prevent the rest of the submarine to be silent. At such speeds there will be turbulence around e.g. the sail. <br /><br />An enemy will hear a fast SSN coming especially in the silent waste of sea around Australia. Speed kills.<br /><br />You may remember that the Type 210mod just needs 21 crewmen for a three watch system: 210 crewmen<br /><br />Big SSK: 360 men + women<br />SSN (F): 285<br />SSN (US): 390<br /><br />As long as Australia has no nukes an SSN makes no sense just like a big SSK. <br /><br />Regards,<br />MHalblaubMHalblaubhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14234020711635190127noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19245896.post-83907603211409181582016-05-18T00:40:04.422+10:002016-05-18T00:40:04.422+10:00Pete,
This site talks about the Los Angeles class...Pete,<br /><br />This site talks about the Los Angeles class and the age of respective SSN at retirement.<br /><br />http://navy-matters.blogspot.fr/2015/08/los-angeles-class-overhauls-and.html<br /><br />I am off a bit, the average retirement age is 21 years out of a cycle life of 34 years (although an overhaul can stretch this to 40+ years). Still Australia can choose to lease an SSN with a mere 17 years of service so there is still 1/2 life left, and with an overhaul prior to lease, 60% of its life left.<br /><br />KQNAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19245896.post-56861526743629257252016-05-17T21:54:49.654+10:002016-05-17T21:54:49.654+10:00Getting into the nuke vs conventional noise argume...Getting into the nuke vs conventional noise argument just slightly (a book could easily be written).<br /><br />Concerning self noise generation, the nuke definitely has several types of plant noise it generates that the D/E does not have to deal with, and it generally always has to be making this noise as opposed to a D/E operating solely on batteries. However as to whether this make it 'noisier', that depends on 1). whether the plant noise is the loudest thing on the boat in its current state - ie, transients, flow noise, and propulsor noise are more minor contributions to the boat's sound signature in its current maneuver and environment and 2). the degree to which effort has been made the silence said noise (noise generation versus *radiated* noise).<br /><br />Clearly there is some break away point where the nuke isn't putting more noise into the water than a diesel depending on the two boats being compared - is a Virginia more noisy than Type VIIC on battery? The USN uses a number of suppression techniques to quiet its boats of which we know of rafting and the rather misnamed anechoic coatings. We can probably safely assume several other sound insulation technologies along with active noise cancellation, the later being particularly effective with constant frequency noise like turbines. Pump noise has been solved in Ohio class boats using free circulation; its not clear if any SSNs use this technique but it seems likely some other roughly equivalently quiet method is used, or else free circulation would likely be employed in SSNs despite the size and complexity penalty.<br /><br />So ignoring the tactical advantages (higher dash speed, available higher patrol speed, no indiscretion time, unlimited hotel power) and the strategic advantages (shorter transit times, longer patrol times, less forward infrastructure, no reliance on tenders, fewer boats needed), it is not clear that a particular model of nuke boat compared to a particular model of D/E necessarily results in the D/E being quieter, particularly at any speed above patrol, while maneuvering, or changing depth (conditions where the plant noise often isn't the strongest self generated noise to begin with).<br /><br />That said I think it would be very challenging for the RAN to acquire nuclear boats for political and cost reasons. I don't think it is a realistic goal at this time.<br /><br /><br />Cheers,<br />JoshJoshnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19245896.post-58394162224641367392016-05-17T17:30:37.653+10:002016-05-17T17:30:37.653+10:00Hi KQN and BK
On "regionally superior submar...Hi KQN and BK<br /><br />On "regionally superior submarine" the first use of that wording I can see was September 8, 2014's <br /><br />https://www.aspi.org.au/publications/the-submarine-choice-perspectives-on-australias-most-complex-defence-project/Strategy_submarine_choice.pdf <br /><br />page 10: "regionally dominant superior conventional submarine capability"<br />page 18: "regionally superior conventional submarine capability, principally enabled through<br />continued access to sensitive American and British technologies"<br /><br />Interestingly mention of "conventional" was dropped from the "regionally superior" phrase from the February 2016 Defence White Paper onwards - and continued to be absent in Turnbull's April 26, 2016 (DCNS has won) announcement.<br /><br />I think dropping "conventional" allows in the possibility of nuclear submarines in future Australian Government decision making, doesn't it?<br /><br />Regards<br /><br />PetePetehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02624742078679760819noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19245896.post-38419077125704581062016-05-17T17:03:12.961+10:002016-05-17T17:03:12.961+10:00Hi KQN [16/5/16 4:50 AM]
I'm interested in L...Hi KQN [16/5/16 4:50 AM] <br /><br />I'm interested in Los Angeles of Virginia class leasing.<br /><br />What websites mention "USN is putting into storage 688i SSN with more than 60% of life left in the product cycle."? Is that just one 688i or several?<br /><br />Regards<br /><br />Pete Petehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02624742078679760819noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19245896.post-83786961375364689482016-05-17T10:32:07.700+10:002016-05-17T10:32:07.700+10:00KQN,
clearly, and in the context of the CEP, &quo...KQN,<br /><br />clearly, and in the context of the CEP, "Region" is defined as the Indo-Pacific Region. <br />That said, it leaves us with a SSN. But my question is if that's what the Australian politicians have in mind when they talk about a regional superior submarine? Clearly, they must have been given advice on what a superior submarine needs to be capable of. And obviously, the French bid was and is, according to the Australian PM, the only one to guarantee that superiority.<br />So where is the benchmark?<br /><br />Regards,<br /><br />BKBKnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19245896.post-47353337033350257062016-05-17T01:37:19.851+10:002016-05-17T01:37:19.851+10:00BK
That is a political statement and the answer de...BK<br />That is a political statement and the answer depends on how you define the "Region". <br /><br />Quite a few multinational corporations define Australia to be part of Oceania (which also includes NZ, all the way to the Marquesas) from a business P&L, separate from ASEAN, China, North Asia and South Asia.<br /><br />If we lump all the above in 1 region, then I agree with Pete, SSN.<br /><br />But this why none of us are politicians.<br />KQN<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19245896.post-83347815692321329742016-05-16T19:10:16.062+10:002016-05-16T19:10:16.062+10:00Hi F [16/5/16 2:03 AM]
Thanks for the article.
M...Hi F [16/5/16 2:03 AM]<br /><br />Thanks for the article.<br /><br />Much as I suspected, particularly on Australia's lack of interest in AIP.<br /><br />Regards<br /><br />PetePetehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02624742078679760819noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19245896.post-86976302806142510732016-05-16T11:45:10.874+10:002016-05-16T11:45:10.874+10:00KQN, Froggy,
taking your points, can you define R...KQN, Froggy,<br /><br />taking your points, can you define Regional Superior Submarine? After what Pete has said, regional superiority only makes sense with a SSN.<br /><br />Regards,<br />BKBKnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19245896.post-72446924081109548352016-05-16T04:50:41.675+10:002016-05-16T04:50:41.675+10:00If Australia is going an SSN route, then one does ...If Australia is going an SSN route, then one does wonder why an interim SSK, the best approach is to lease one 688i SSN class from the USN. USN is putting into storage 688i SSN with more than 60% of life left in the product cycle. Then after that learning period, one can slide seamlessly into a number of Virgina SSN at $2B a piece with the provision that Australia can return them to the US for decommissioning at the end of product cycle so there is no need to set up and deal with recycling nuclear waste. One can work the maintenance issues in with USN.<br /><br />Frankly, whether SSK or SSN, no weapon system can truly influence the issues in the SCS outside of a political solution. <br /><br />The western world, and Australia never had to deal with a strong Imperial China in previous centuries and in their histories. In the coming decades and centuries, we will all have to live with and deal with that. And it does pay to be able to negotiate from a position of relative strength. In any negotiations, you always need bargaining chips that matter (to the other side at the table) and may be you will be left alone. In this regard, the SSN option carries strategic weight.<br /><br />Another way to look at it, is the region is increasingly militarized and going nuclear is already here to stay, whether with China or India. I would not even be surprised if a Kilo with a nuclear AIP option shows up one day. Then others will join the fray.<br /><br />And then there is the issue of global warming. If the agreements set at COP21 are to be in place, the vast majority of the fossil fuel reserves must stay put. It is also possible that a greater number of electric cars can unsettle the oil economy and drive up diesel prices (there was an interesting article on Bloomberg recently on this). Then what, after all we cannot look back at sails for warships.<br />KQN<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19245896.post-86812350895559096552016-05-16T02:03:26.798+10:002016-05-16T02:03:26.798+10:00Hi pete,
This is a DCNS chairman interview :
htt...Hi pete,<br /><br />This is a DCNS chairman interview :<br /><br />http://www.lepoint.fr/editos-du-point/jean-guisnel/herve-guillou-dcns-les-industriels-sont-galvanises-car-le-drian-s-engage-personnellement-11-05-2016-2038527_53.php#xtatc=INT-500<br /><br />Le point : There are rare country where france accept tu sale a SSN, Australia is one, why this option wasn't discuss ?<br />Herve Guillou : From 2011, the australian request is a SSK, so we don't pitch the nuclear option.<br /><br />Le point : Have you proposed AIP ?<br />Herve Guillou : In the beginning we discussed AIP, but australians want long range patrolls. It's better to have 1000t fuel than a 1000t AIP system which permit slow speed, in the end you decrease the range.<br /><br />FFroggynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19245896.post-19722157132148806822016-05-15T20:33:35.659+10:002016-05-15T20:33:35.659+10:00Hi BK [15/5/16 5:37 PM]
"Regionally superior...Hi BK [15/5/16 5:37 PM]<br /><br />"Regionally superior" was most bandied about in the February 26, 2016's Defence White Paper<br /><br />I concentrated on this in an article 2 days later:<br /><br />"Australia's high cost, less than "regionally superior" Future Submarines", February 28, 2016 http://gentleseas.blogspot.com.au/2016/02/australias-high-cost-less-than.html with the comment:<br /><br />The Turnbull Government's 2016 Defence White Paper (DWP) (PDF 10MB) includes breathtaking dollar figures calculated to win votes for the imminent Election. But unfortunately the submarines will not be “regionally superior” (claimed on DWP pages 19, 21, 90, 91 and 115). They will, however, be the most expensive conventional submarine in world history.<br /><br />It is unfortunate that the upfront cost of Australia’s 12 Future Submarines will be unusually high for mere conventional diesel-electric submarines, at A$55 Billion or more (see Table below). As they will be conventional they will not be “regionally superior.” The "superior" accolade goes to the nuclear propelled attack submarines (SSNs) belonging to China, Russia, (in future India), France, UK and the US that frequent or at least transit the Asia-Pacific (frequently called "Indo-Pacific") Region.<br /><br />In terms of China - perhaps the most likely future enemy - China’s Type 093 SSNs will remain superior in the critical areas of range, speed and fully submerged (not loud diesel) operation. China's future Type 095 SSNs (likely to be launched before 2030 (long PDF 10MB, December 2015, CRS Report RL33153 to Congress, page 87)) will be even more regionally superior than Australia’s shorter range, slower, noisier (when on diesel) and more vulnerable (when snorting) Future Submarines. Friendly India is also planning to build SSNs before 2030. So Australia's "regionally superior" claim will turn out even more wide of the mark."<br /><br />The US was copied in on the CEP because:<br /><br />1. the US, unlike Australia, has a long history of successful submarine building (including SSKs and nuclear) so the US has assessment experience to share,<br /><br />2. the US is providing the most sensitive part of the sub - the Combat System, so will need to know the winning design intimately anyway. <br /><br />There is a shrewd Australian and US development strategy to all this, which I cannot reveal.<br /><br />Regards<br /><br />PetePetehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02624742078679760819noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19245896.post-26041385034040936602016-05-15T17:37:43.754+10:002016-05-15T17:37:43.754+10:00Hi Pete,
by the "community" I was think...Hi Pete,<br /><br />by the "community" I was thinkingn more about the people in this forum...<br /><br />But thanks for this explanation. I am surprised that during the last 15 months, nobody picked up on this line of Australian Government officials. No one even tried to explain this term, no one even tried to discuss it - at least not that I have heard that. Maybe someone else has a reference?<br /><br />If regional superior submarine means SSN, why is the GOvernment even considering other options? And of this definition is true, I would almost go as far to say that the whole CEP is therefor at least questionable.<br /><br />In another issue, I found some references in the last two weeks saying that two former US admirals and the RAND cooperation have reviewed the CEP bids. I always thought that the decision was a pure Australian one - that could be questioned now, right?<br /><br />Regards,<br />BKBKnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19245896.post-69290381073074868912016-05-15T17:15:23.044+10:002016-05-15T17:15:23.044+10:00Hi MHalblaub [15/5/16 8:10 AM]
Yes countries with...Hi MHalblaub [15/5/16 8:10 AM]<br /><br />Yes countries with a truly autonomous defence force need SSBNs or at least Israeli-style SSGKs with nuclear tipped missiles. <br /><br />SSNs protect SSBNs but apart from that only SSNs can fight other SSNs on equivalent terms. <br /><br />And only an SSN can Discretely protect a battle group that is moving at normal speeds (say, 15 knots) or more.<br /><br />If an SSK is in an obvious chokepoint or, at least in front of an SSN, it may well be able to torpedo the SSN. But the difficulty of an SSK sitting behind from chasing an SSN may frequently/usually put an SSK at a disadvantage.<br /><br />Regards<br /><br />PetePetehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02624742078679760819noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19245896.post-83989674942398251302016-05-15T17:00:07.843+10:002016-05-15T17:00:07.843+10:00Hi HDG
No serious scholars of subs see SSKs as su...Hi HDG<br /><br />No serious scholars of subs see SSKs as superior (I reckon).<br /><br />Regards<br /><br />PetePetehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02624742078679760819noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19245896.post-24276778255044474842016-05-15T16:56:48.086+10:002016-05-15T16:56:48.086+10:00Hi BK [14/5/16 11:56AM]
"a regional superior...Hi BK [14/5/16 11:56AM]<br /><br />"a regional superior submarine" is certainly not an SSK. This is because SSNs are superior in discretion at the mid-higher speed ranges that Aus subs will increasingly be called on to attain. A Shortfin will also carry far fewer heavyweight shots (especially land attack cruise missiles) compared to Russian and Chinese (and maybe Indian) SSNs and SSGNs that will more frequently ply the Indo-Pacific.<br /><br />"a regional superior submarine" may be code for Lets buy a batch of SSNs as opposition subs become more formidable.<br /><br />"the community" (especially in Adelaide") want the Federal Government to spend as much money for SSK sub building JOBS in Adelaide as possible. It would be more difficult for France, UK or US to justify SSN building in Australia for political, security, safety and economies of scale reasons.<br /><br />Regards<br /><br />PetePetehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02624742078679760819noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19245896.post-50760712670399429192016-05-15T16:38:05.518+10:002016-05-15T16:38:05.518+10:00Hi Robin [at 14/5/16 7:34 AM]
I think Australia c...Hi Robin [at 14/5/16 7:34 AM]<br /><br />I think Australia can only justify nuclear subs in the longer term eg. after 2035 if there is a sufficient intensifying of strategic problems (eg. stronger and more hostile Chinese Navy, with a US Navy declining in relative power). <br /><br />At lower speeds nuclear subs are reputedly noiser than SSKs. US cessation of SSK building appears to be for many strategic + tactical + technical reasons, but also for political, career and economic (including profit) reasons. <br /><br />Australia indeed has "an abundance of shallow waters to patrol, lots of narrow straits and such" but also long distances requiring fast transit (eg. Fleet Base West to Fleet Base East (Sydney).<br /><br />US SSNs and SSGNs do visit Fleet Base West (Rockingham, near Perth, Western Australia) which, due to distance, is more secure from air and cruise missile attack. Darwin, as discovered with Japanese bombing in WWII, is too exposed to air attack and Darwin Port is owned by a Chinese company... There have been talks about more frequent US use of Fleet Base West - a possibility if Trump permits.<br /><br />So for the short-medium term conventional Aus subs only are justifiable.<br /><br />Regards<br /><br />PetePetehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02624742078679760819noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19245896.post-11326362434213429272016-05-15T16:10:55.144+10:002016-05-15T16:10:55.144+10:00Hi KQN [at 14/5/16 1:59 AM]
Thanks. I'll work...Hi KQN [at 14/5/16 1:59 AM]<br /><br />Thanks. I'll work your response into the text under questions 3, 4 and 5.<br /><br />Regards<br /><br />PetePetehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02624742078679760819noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19245896.post-29250700522370774522016-05-15T08:10:09.846+10:002016-05-15T08:10:09.846+10:00There reason are the SSNB. You still need a nuclea...There reason are the SSNB. You still need a nuclear propelled submarine to position your balistic missiles for months somewhere in the oceans. <br /><br />The only way to find these SSNB is to follow them right from their horbour. Therefor a SSN is required.<br /><br /> Another reason is to protected a big battle group with an as fast submarine as the surface ships.<br /><br />There the illogic starts. The SSK just waits for the loud and fast SSN. With electric torpedoes the SSN will not even hear something until it is to late. <br /><br />Regards,<br />MHalblaubMHalblaubhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14234020711635190127noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19245896.post-65025885857331353592016-05-15T05:39:32.338+10:002016-05-15T05:39:32.338+10:00Oh dear lord. I'm loving it.
A small 20m coun...Oh dear lord. I'm loving it.<br /><br />A small 20m country which has constant problems crewing its six conventional subs wants to buy twelve to operate as far as South China Sea and counter China and perhaps even turn them into SSNs to do it better!<br /><br />Either someone here is really stupid or someone here has a small penis complex! <br /><br />Either way Australia is done for with this approach.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19245896.post-44548174648932231922016-05-14T19:39:46.047+10:002016-05-14T19:39:46.047+10:00Hi,
Just a question, if SSK are so better than SS...Hi,<br /><br />Just a question, if SSK are so better than SSN as every ones here implied, why all mightiest navies like US, Russia, France, UK and China use SSN instead?<br /><br /><br />Regards,<br />HDGAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19245896.post-17026251666294812212016-05-14T11:56:22.897+10:002016-05-14T11:56:22.897+10:00Pete,
Because it is repeated many many times, but...Pete,<br /><br />Because it is repeated many many times, but has not been defined yet - or at least not publicly: how is a regional superior submarine defined??<br /><br />I think this is a very important questions at this time, and IWonder qhat the community has to aay about this..<br /><br />Regards,<br /><br />BKBKnoreply@blogger.com