tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19245896.post4972088045950557563..comments2024-03-29T21:56:20.645+11:00Comments on Submarine Matters & Australian Nuclear Weapons: Australian SEA 1000 future submaine - an S-80 development or HDW 216?Pete2http://www.blogger.com/profile/06134037393078707072noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19245896.post-63816443097597212232013-11-29T14:44:42.898+11:002013-11-29T14:44:42.898+11:00Hi MHalblaub
You've made many good points whi...Hi MHalblaub<br /><br />You've made many good points which I need to consider before responding fully.<br /><br />With part of the response to include Japan's Soryu Class and DCNS' Brazilian evolution process of Scorpene to nuclear Scorpene (a la Barracuda).<br /><br />Regards<br /><br />PetePetehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02624742078679760819noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19245896.post-82573715814417498942013-11-28T20:14:32.651+11:002013-11-28T20:14:32.651+11:00Dear Pete,
our view coincide that SEA 1000 is a v...Dear Pete,<br /><br />our view coincide that SEA 1000 is a very ambitious project. Just like the F-35. Ambitious defense projects tend to be delayed and more expensive than expected. In my opinion both projects are far too ambitious. <br /><br />That any submarine has to use a Lockheed Martin SUBIC combat system will not enhance the development time. The decision to use this combat system is not based on requirements. In my opinion it is only based on cronyism because nobody tried to ask if Australia could get better insight in another system. <br /><br />A vertical launch system (VLS) is nice to have in case of a real big submarine like the Vertical Multi-Purpose Lock (VMPL) on planed Type 216. You said many missiles could be fired at once from one submarine. My argument is that for one big SEA 1000 submarine at a cost of A$3 billion each Australia could buy 4 small submarines instead with capability to fire even more missiles at once. <br /><br />For a "piggyback" submarine a VMPL is also unnecessary. A26 or 210mod are planned with a big “torpedo” tube for special purpose. http://www.thyssenkrupp-marinesystems.com/en/hdw-class-210mod.html A smaller submarine can get closer to the shore and the "piggyback" sub doesn’t have to be big.<br /><br />You have the fear an "interim" sub could become a permanent fix. My fear is that without an interim solution Australia will have no operational submarine in the future. A big submarine even with support by DCNS or HDW and interference by ASC will not be ready before 2030. Navantia is troubled to get the S-80 working. A sole Australian submarine solution might be ready in 2040 (IOC). A small “Off The Shelf” (OTS) solution could be built fast in case no big changes were made to sonar system, command and control system, torpedoes …<br /><br />I also doubt the claim it would be uneconomic to operate two types of submarines at once. At the moment RAN operates one very uneconomic type of submarine. Does RAN also operate just one type of surface ships because this is more economic? Do you think the F-35 will be the only fighter aircraft for RAAF?<br /><br />Even with SEA 1000 RAN will operate two types at once for a while. I expect it will be a very unreliable Collins-class with incredible maintenance costs and a troubled SEA 1000 program with many delays. <br /><br />What about politics? Do you think Australia could use an US built nuclear submarine for any mission without restrictions from Washington? Maybe the best solution would be two or three Virginia-class submarines and a fleet of “cheap” small submarines.<br /><br />Missile systems:<br />The seeker system of a Popeye missile was build to hit land targets while the Harpoon was initially built against ships. Therefore I think Israel did use Popeye missiles with a 50 % bigger and better suited warhead.<br /><br />Regards,<br />MHalblaub<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com