See the Australian government owned ABC News article dated May 27, 2021.
PETE COMMENT
This ABC article is an Australian Government "we are pressuring Naval Group to speed up" beatup - for public consumption.
1. So called "interim subs" take a minimum of 7 years to plan and build (and even then by the politically impossible Build Overseas route). Then you need a plan to retain them for 20-30 more years or hope for a buyer (all very expensive and risky).
2. Interim is only quicker if Australia is buying large second hand subs (a la the Upholder/Victoria "solution" - a sad UK/Canadian failure.)
3. And besides, whatever happened to Australia's mid-life upgrade intention? This carries the odd name "life of type extension (LOTE)"). The LOTE interim solution should keep some Collins subs operational all the way from 2029 to 2050.
Some in the Australian Navy are looking at a modified (presumably very enlarged) TKMS Type 214. TKMS could call it the 4,500 tonne Type 216 again (history repeating itself?)
Also see H I Sutton's accurate doubts that Australia is bucking its LARGE 3,000 to 4,700 tonne submaine trend in contemplating a small 1,800 tonne Type 214 interim sub.
I also note that the 214 explicitly features air independent propulsion (AIP) - designed for short range missions - eg. for navies with such missions as sitting on the seafloor 100km from their main base. Examples are:
- Israel's AIP 212/214 2,200 tonne Dolphin 2 (nuclear missile armed) variants. These seafloor sit just outside their Haifa, Israel, main base.
and
- South Korea's (seafloor sit in the Yellow Sea and Sea of Japan) locally made 1,800 tonne 214 variants).
A 214 can be seen as a Type 209 with a 300 tonne AIP plug. .
AIP is something Australia has always seen as counter-productive for Australia's long (all the way from Fleet Base West (Rockingham) to the Malacca Strait? round trip) mission profile. An AIP's LOx and Hydrogen containers represent a dead weight for long range missions - particularly when the LOx and Hydrogen propellants are used up.
Furthermore (lets assume) in terms of Aus sub discretion risks we are generally talking "Indonesia-peacetime" as well as surveilling/tailing surface ships and subs transiting the Malacca Strait.
In contrast if Aus subs needed to stay on station in vastly more dangerous Chinese waters (anywhere near China's Hainan SSBN Base, Port of Hong Kong or Shanghai or the Taiwan Strait?) then AIP might be a good idea.
13 comments:
Check out this piece from HI Sutton on Australia looking to Germany
http://www.hisutton.com/Australian=Submarine-Options-Type-214.html
steve commented May 27, 2021
It just all sounds like a disaster waiting to happen. Pay the French off start again.
Thanks Nicky [at May 29]
You and I both noticed H I Sutton's article http://www.hisutton.com/Australian=Submarine-Options-Type-214.html where he (like I) also considered the German Type 214 to be far too small for Australia's needs.
I originally referred to H I Sutton's article in the text of MY May 28 article see https://gentleseas.blogspot.com/2021/05/australian-interim-subs-naval-group.html : "Also see H I Sutton's accurate doubts..."
Cheers
Pete
Hi steve
Any alternative (German? Japanese? Spanish? South Korean?) to France-Australia's Attack class (delivery 2033) would all suffer from today's design + build timings of a unique ultra large conventional sub = 15 years from now = 2021 + 15 years = delivery to the Australian Navy in 2036.
AND
Only France offers a nuclear version (maybe the Attack class second batch of 4, after 2040 will be nuclear) of the sub Australia is buying.
Regards
Pete
Hi Pete,
Maybe this Australia's Sovereign Naval Shipbuilding Capability: Interim Report can be of interest, I don't know if it has been covered already and haven't read it myself yet.
/Kjell
Hi Pete,
Some progress from the Walrus replacement.
Latest Update On The Netherlands’ Walrus-Class Submarine Replacement Program
"The Dutch Ministry of Defense on May 28 informed the House of Representatives about the progress of the Walrus-class submarines replacement program. It was followed by the first official communication on the Royal Netherlands Navy (RNLN) future submarine program since December 2019 and the release of the "B-Letter".
A so-called “basic report” was submitted to the Dutch representatives, offering an overview of the latest program developments. It appears now that the long-awaited decision on a winning bid is not expected before the end of 2022, confirming a one year delay in the process."
/Kjell
The interim road is wayward and leads to perdition. There may be value in taking a leaf out of the TNI's book and start making enquiries at Mitsubishi and BAE.
Hi Pete,
A tweet about plan B but not including TKMS
https://twitter.com/bennpackham/status/1399905485197778945
/Kjell
Thanks /Kjell
For The ALP Chaired and dominated
Australian Senate Economics References Committee's
"Australia's Sovereign Naval Shipbuilding Capability: Interim Report" of 65 pages
minor titled "Future Submarine Program: Ringing of Bells, Wringing of Hands"
of May 2021
at https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/committees/reportsen/024716/toc_pdf/Australia'sSovereignNavalShipbuildingCapabilityInterimReport.pdf
Becomes interesting on what is page 5 "Chapter 2 - Future Submarines Program: Up the Creek without a Canoe"
Report noting Naval Group won, with timeline of contractural stages
Pagbe 8: Japan's Soryu in favour with PM Abe's friend PM Abbott but Soryu, and Japan became out of favour once Abbott was dropped from the PM-ship.
Page 9. report adhered to my long recorded attitude, ie on page 9 "Picking DCNS over the Japanese proposal was politically more opportune for the then PM Malcolm Turnbull. With an election planned for 2 July 2016, the announcement that the 12 submarines in their entirety (save some specialised parts) will be built in Adelaide was seen as politically
advantageous."
Report mentions lack of Japanese industry experience, lack of Japanese industry and J MoD and other J bureacracy enthusiasm building Soryu's (or any sub) overseas.
Also J out of favour due to Soryu's shorter range [as if that couldn't be extended with a 8 meter plug!] than Aus wanted and shorter active service life (19 years) than the 30 years Aus wantwed [all recorded in SubMatts 2015-17]
Page 10 German TKMS 216 bid not chosen on for rather unconvincing reason of "noise issues"
Pete Comment - as if such issues couldn't be resolved (noting the orginal Collins' noise issues were resolved with minior design changes!)
MORE on this Senate report tomorrow.
Pete
The ones who are propposing a Type 214 solution for Australia probably smoked some funny grass.
Why not take the Argentinian TR1700 submarine design. The TR1700 is the fastest diesel-electric sub with a maximum speed of 25 knots and a max. cruising speed of 15 knots. This high max. cruising speed is important for a long range submarine. In order to keep the transit time as short as possible. The TR1700 max. range is 12.000 nm.
The TR1700 armament is very good: equipped with 6 torpedo launch tubes and maximally 24 torpedo's. The Shortfin Barracuda has only 4 torpedo launch tube's. Means less tactical flexibility.
Okay, the TR1700 design is quite a 'granny' isn't it ?
Well, let's modernize it by using Type 212A technology + hardware, a state-of-the-art combat system and an AIP plug.
We need to help the marketing branch and lets add some confusion to our opponents.
So we rebrand this boat as Type 218SG.
Locum,
(Revised)
As Japan had proposed submarine (SEA1000) satisfy RAN requirements such as extended range and longer service life than Soryu-class, criticizing SEA1000 by Soryu’s specification is not logical. Also, criticizing noise problem of TKMS 216 in design proposing stage is too much.
Instead of looking outward in ever decreasing circles, every country that has been a major sub producer has evolved their sub types. Surely SAAB and ASC could design and build the Collins 2.0 with our evolved needs. The A26 has so much of what we need, especially the ER. At least we know what the sub would be capable of and the weapons that are sacrosanct for that “Regional Superiority “ . The ASC has been working with SAAB for a long time. If that nuclear pathway is all that matters, then a dual build makes more sense than being elevated by the short and curlies that Naval is doing now. Just give us a nuclear Attack class and in the meantime let’s just build what we should have in the first place. The Attack class will still be delivered in the same time but nuclear.
Hi Locum [at Jun 6, 2021, 12:54:00 AM]
Existing TKMS designed subs (eg. TR1700s, 218s, Dolphin 2s) are all much too small for Australia missions needs which are much longer in days and nm. A much larger crew of around 70 is needed with enough space for bunks and other living space.
Regards
Pete
Post a Comment