Showing how debates in Submarine Matter's reflect more broadly held naval debates, below is part of Andew Greene's and David Lewis' excellent article in Australia's Government owned ABC News:
“Prime Minister urged to examine 'plan B' for
submarines”
A group of retired naval officers who served at the
highest levels has warned Australia is spending an "excessive" amount
of taxpayers' money on its new submarines.
Rear Admiral Peter Briggs, Commodore Paul Greenfield, and
Commodore Terence Roach have signed a joint letter [see their Media Release and the
Joint Letter at http://journalists.medianet.com.au/DisplayAttachment.aspx?j=909495&s=2&k=7250264 ] to Prime Minister Scott Morrison urging him to change course.
Joint Letter at http://journalists.medianet.com.au/DisplayAttachment.aspx?j=909495&s=2&k=7250264 ] to Prime Minister Scott Morrison urging him to change course.
In the letter, the former officers urge the Government to
consider commissioning a new generation of the Collins Class fleet.
"We are strongly of the view that the Government
should evaluate a second option, at very low cost and without impeding the
present approach," the letter states.
"The alternative option, that we believe could be
cheaper, quicker and less risky and offer a greater level of Australian
industry participation, is to build an evolved version of the Collins Class.''
The group has asked the Government to invest $50 million
in a two-year study to assess the merits of building a so-called "son of
Collins"..."
@ Pete:
ReplyDeleteIs this a remotely realistic possibility, both politically (government acknowledging program problems) and practically (contract obligations and penalties)?
Cheers,
Josh
Hi Josh
ReplyDeleteNo. Penalties are likely (now and rising) if we rejected Naval Group. TKMS and Japan would be Plan Bs with the legitimacy of being invited to the submarine competition (CEP).
Saab-Kockums, which wasn't invited (due to problems with Collins I), would fall to Plan C.
Regards
Pete
I think they are refering to an ASC Collins II, not a Kockums Collins II, though I am sure SAAB would be interested. However this boat has already sailed. ASC were activly working on this while everything was up in the air. However they never got the go ahead & disbanded the unit once it became clear that the government of the day could not make up its mind in the timeframe required (Labour) & the new government was not interested. Some of these people were originally from Sweden & joined SAAB, others were Australians that SAAB were happy to offer jobs to. Other Australians stayed with ASC rather than make that sort of move overseas, working on Collins sustainment & upgrades. Its these last lot that has seen the recent ASC - SAAB co-operation agreements. There is still knowledge & ongoing experiance with large d/e subs & Swedish designs at ASC that is especially relevent to their A26 ER version & adds re-assurance to the likes of Netherlands. To try to restart Collins II now would probably actually take longer than a Shortfin. This was doable 10 to 15 years ago. We no longer have the people that could have done it.
ReplyDeleteHi Pete
ReplyDeleteFrom the view point of regional superiority, Japanese subamarine is better. Because it shows continual evolution. Japanese Ministry of Defence has already started development of next generation batteries for submarine, which are smaller and more efficient than current LIBs. Related preceding study was conducted in FY2017 and 2018. Production of prototype batteries (budget of 1 billion A$) and testing are going to be conducted from 2019 to 2022 and in 2023, respectively. Also, new silent propulsion is going to be developed. These two technnogies may be applied for post-post Soryu or late type of post-Soryu.
Regards
The government can say what it wants, though if a physical model of what a modern 21st century “Collins II” is presented with plainly demonstrative concepts of all the desired components this would create pressure to at least consider a parallel alternative.
ReplyDeleteProof of this is reflected by the Naval Group’s concept Barracuda block 1a video presentation which has been the desired tool to gain the impetus of design choice. If an ongoing campaign was waged in parallel, the least it would do is show what the “Collins” gap response could achieve between now and 2035. If Australians can see and appreciate what is achievable the door is not shut to debate. See https://youtu.be/ZPgzsaY9g5Q as a basis.
Hi Anonymous [at 14/12/18 11:41 AM]
ReplyDeleteIf legal and business undertakings as well as policies (with Naval Group, failing that TKMS and Japan) were discarded then Collins II (via ASC, Saab and Kockums) might be viable.
Cheers
Pete
Hi Anonymous [at 14/12/18 1:11 PM]
ReplyDeleteJapan's current or next generation LIBs may prove a very appropriate technolony for Australia's needs.
Even if Australia didn't buy a Japanese sub Japan could sell LIBs technology to Naval Group and other middlemen for a great deal of money.
Regards
Pete
Thanks Lee [at 14/12/18 1:44 PM]
ReplyDeleteA good model or animation of a surfacing A26 at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPgzsaY9g5Q&feature=youtu.be
If Saab Kockums chose the right MAN, MTU or Kawasaki long distance diesels and also built for Indo-Pacific salinity that might leap the biggest Collins-historical hurdles.
Jens at 2min 15sec looks formidable - as Chief of Swedish Navy. Looks younger than his 50 years https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jens_Nykvist
Regards
Pete
Any good lawyer should be able to negotiate out contractual penalties when a supplier misses commitments or presents slipping schedule even before the project starts.
ReplyDeleteDoes anyone have great confidence that Shortfin will show up on whatever said date? when no one can say when will Barracuda be launched. One could end up with the same fiasco as the Flamanville EPR or the EPR in Finland.
KQN
I am not sure that Japan is actually that far ahead of everyone else when it come to LiB. They’re just the first to actually put some in a sub. Plenty of countries are doing research, including both Australia & France. Every major country involved in d/e subs is looking at it. It will take a few years before all the results are in. In some ways it’s an advantage to install on a known design. The true loads & usage are known & the designs are already there if it turns out you need to do a u-turn. If you designed your entire sub around LiBs originally, it might be a problem trying to backpedal.
ReplyDeleteThe Naval Group led effort is called LIBRT & includes battery manufacturer Saft & several reputable high tech r&d companies. I would expect trials from the French to be in Scorpene before risking the Australian subs (replacing a customers 1,500 - 2,000t submarine because you got it wrong is way cheaper than an Australian 5,000t sub).
Hi KQN at 14/12/18 8:19 PM
ReplyDeleteI don't think the Shortfin will be operational until the late 2030s.
The "Attack-class" attack submarine is likely to be as overpriced,
overbudget, with the same degree of problematic choice
as Australia choosing Kockums for the Collins.
The only redeeming outgrowths may be the better
opportunities for Australia to then buy 4 to 6 Barracuda
SSNs and buy French nuclear weapons.
Hi Anonymous at 14/12/18 9:15 PM
ReplyDeleteActions not just words.
Meaning while Japan has actually launched a LIBs submarine - Naval Group has just talked about LIBs,
Naval Group LIBs may be at the same stage as France's post-MESMA, 2nd generation AIP (since the 2000s). They have gone nowhere in a full sized sub.
Hi Pete
ReplyDeleteJapan has two kinds of LIBs for subamrine, NCA (Lithium Nickel Cobalt Aluminum Oxide) by GS Yuasa and LTO (Lithium Titanate, SCiB) by Toshiba. The former, which is used for Soryu MKII and post-Soryu, features high energy energy density, but shows relatively short cycle life and less stability. The latter, which Japan proposed for SEA1000 submarine, features longest cycle life and highest stability, but shows low energy density.
Last year, Toshiba has successfully developed the second generation SCiB, (NTO=Niobium Titanium Oxide) whose energy density is twice higher than current SCiB (LTO) keeping long cycle life and high stability of LTO. Toshiba contracted deal with Brazilian Miner for mass production of NTO in 2020 (https://www.energytrend.com/news/20180627-12359.html). NTO (energy density 160-200Wh/kg?, cycle life 5000) is superior to LFP (Lithium Iron Phosphate, energy density 90-120kWh/kg, cycle life 1000-2000) which SAFT is developing.
Regards
Hi Pete,
ReplyDeleteIMO, Australia needs something like a Non nuclear version of the Virginia class SSN. Something like SMX Ocean would have fit the Australians.
Thanks Anonymous [at 15/12/18 7:56 PM]
ReplyDeleteI'll use the Japanese LIBs info in an article soon.
Regards
Pete
Hi Pete,
ReplyDeleteit doesn't seems that you did put up the link to the actual SUBMARINES FOR AUSTRALIA Media Release and letter to the PM maybe this link is more straight forward which only has the media release but links to the 181212 Submarine Release + Letter to PM which include some interesting information.
/Kjell
Hi Nicky K.D Chaleunphone [at 16/12/18 7:54 AM]
ReplyDeleteThe Shortfin Attack class that Naval Group is designing is actually a more mature version of DCNS SMX Ocean 2014 concept sub https://gentleseas.blogspot.com/2014/10/revised-frances-dcns-announces-smx.html
The US wouldn't release even the non-nuclear tech of the Virginia to Australia. Also the 8,000 tonne, 135 crew, Virginia PROBABLY NEEDING 10 DIESEL ENGINES?, is too big in non-nuclear form.
Thanks /Kjell [at 16/12/18 2:05 PM]
ReplyDeleteFor the Senior Officers':
- Media Release https://www.medianet.com.au/releases/170900/
and
tightly written 13 page letter http://journalists.medianet.com.au/DisplayAttachment.aspx?j=909495&s=2&k=7250264
I've put them in the article text.
Perhaps the key to Naval Group's win was quoting the (counter-intuitive) HIGHEST sum of $50 Billion. This implied a $50 Billion Federal subsidy to the needy South Australian economy.
The $50 Billion "promise" was essential to buy votes in Adelaide. Ultimately essential to the Turnbull Coalition Government's July 2016 Election win.
Saving money was never an objective.
Regards
Pete
It is fair to say that Lithium batteries will be a given, and that the desired capability will be available well within 5yrs. The capabilities will only strengthen, but the the added weight/power delivery over Lead Acid will be baseline preset before hand. The physical battery size and weight factor will change little. Only time will ad modest incremental gains. These dramatic advantages automatically pencil in a lot more battery potential and dramatic weight and space advantages. So much so that both AIP, weapons and greater platform capability through physical dimensional increases is obvious.
ReplyDeleteWe are at that crossroads that give dramatic design change. There is other battery types that will apparently be able to be recharged in 1/10th of the time now needed by Lithium batteries, with greater capacity and working life. Designed here for the solar industry.
The future for DE subs will be governed by battery technology, but we should not let that tech hold back a design but factor in those incremental changes, not hold up a set capability target.
I am quite amazed that there is no real plan B, in that we will less the 6 subs on active duty during the Shortfin build. Is our government that short sighted that we only, potentially have 4 or five Collins on active service.
ReplyDeleteWe are placing total faith in the Naval group not to leverige advantage, we really look like complete “Mugs” with our posteriors skywards with the obligatory “ Kich Here” sign strategically positioned.
To keep Naval group honest, a parallel design should run parallel to the Shortfin..
Saab is a long term player in the Australian defence landscape, what is the harm in having a contract with them to design the enlarged A26 with all the prerequisites desired for the “Shortfin”.
ReplyDeleteWhy you ask? . Well their concept of modularity and stealth is the natural evolution of what “Collins Evolution” needs to be. Not only that but if anyone could produce it more rapidly, it would be shortsighted not to.
Saab/ Kockums and ASC would be more viable, why not at least produce a smaller model and attain the data.
SAAB / Kockums with Damen & ASC input are already designing the A26 ER on the hopes of SAAB selling it to Netherlands. It’s a 3,000+t submarine putting it into the current Collins class bracket. This is the nearest we could get to a Collins II in a timeframe that we could use. However, why would we pay to do this while SAAB is currently doing it for free? If Australia were to build any, it may have to do it in WA if there is not enough space alongside the Shortfin build. What would be better is for SAAB & ASC to sell some A26-ER to someone like Chile (ASC is one of the few to have actually built d/e subs in this class). That would really make things interesting.
ReplyDeleteHi Anonymous [at 30/12/18 10:50 AM]
ReplyDeleteSure A26-ERs could be built in Fremantle, Western Australia, sooner, cheaper and more easily than the Shortfin Attack class in Adelaide (from around 2023).
But for Australia to pursue the less problematic A26-ER route would defy the true intent of Australia Future Submarine Program...
...That true intent is to provide massive Federal Government subsidies to Adelaide South Australia regardless of budget blowouts and missed deadlines. This subsidy of $100 Billion over 60 years is effectively to buy votes to win Federal Elections. South Australia being a pivotal balance of power State for Federal seats/electorates.
Happy New Year to you and to Australia's vote buying Submarine Budget
Pete