(Photo courtesy DSME via Naval Technology)
---
On August 4, 2022, Anonymous kindly provided the following links and comment:
Seoul
kicks off efforts to sell submarines to Australia [1]. This includes possible key technologies as Hyunmoo 4-4 SLBMs [2],
methanol reforming fuel cell AIP [3], and
LIBs by South Korean company Samsung [4]. Unfortunately the reliability of these
technologies has not yet been proven through practical applications.
[1]
https://www.kedglobal.com/aerospace-defense/newsView/ked202208030024
South Korea has embarked on efforts to export
domestically designed [Dosan Ahn Changho-class KSS-III] submarines weighing more than 3,000 tons
to Australia, while also in the final stage of bidding for a $4.6 billion
project to sell Redback armoured vehicles to [Australia], according to South
Korea’s defense procurement agency on [August 3, 2022].
[In July 2022], the Minister of South Korea’s Defense Acquisition Program Administration
Eom Donghwan visited Australia and met with officials of the Defense
Science and Technology Group (DSTG) and the Capability Acquisition and
Sustainment Group (CASG), part of Australia’s Defense Department….”
[2]
https://asiapacificdefencereporter.com/south-korea-expands-maritime-ambitions/
The
locally developed 3,000-ton class submarine is equipped with six vertical
launch tubes. After a round of additional tests, the SLBM will be mass produced
for deployment. The SLBM is believed to be a variant of the country’s
Hyunmoo-2B ballistic missile, with a flight range
of around 500 kilometres, and will be fitted with conventional warheads,
according to the sources. The missile has reportedly been codenamed, Hyunmoo4-4.
[3] https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2022/02/south-koreas-add-develops-critical-technology-for-submarine-aip/
According to South Korea’s Agency for Defense
Development (ADD), the use of “methanol-reforming plant [AIP] technology”, which
transforms methanol into hydrogen by altering its chemical structure, negates
the need for separate charging facilities and decreases charging times
significantly, in addition to allowing the submarine to operate submerged for
longer.
[4] https://www.ajudaily.com/view/20181107111119548
SEOUL
-- South Korea has finally achieved a technical breakthrough in developing a
workable lithium-ion battery [LIB] for a new generation of home-made submarines. The
project, which began in July 2016, involved five research bodies and six
companies including Samsung SDI, a top battery maker.
The [South Korean] Defense Acquisition Program Administration (DAPA), a state body controlled by the defense ministry, said Wednesday that lithium-ion batteries have passed its technical readiness assessment for 3,000-ton submarines under construction.
Pete Comment
If Australia opted for "Interim" conventional subs before, or instead of, AUKUS nuclear subs, then Japan, South Korea, Germany, France and Sweden might have claims to having built the best large, operational, conventional subs internationally.
Hi Pete,
ReplyDeleteIt seems that France has also proposed a bid to Australia French made another bid to Albanese to build submarines
"French President Emmanuel Macron proposed to Anthony Albanese that four conventionally powered submarines be built in France for the Australian navy to avoid a capability gap created by the AUKUS deal to acquire nuclear-powered boats.
Multiple sources said the offer from Mr Macron came when he hosted Mr Albanese in Paris last month, a crucial meeting that repaired bilateral ties between Australia and France that had ruptured when Scott Morrison axed the $90 billion French-designed submarine project."
/Kjell
Hello Pete
ReplyDeleteTOMORROW NEVER COMES
Poor Albo ! Poor Minister Marles !
History may record that they were shafted with a Scomo-endorsed proposal to deliver the RAN one or more nuclear propelled submarines (and the coalition with all the federal seats in South Australia) by the late 2030s.
An argument can be made that, given the rapid change in the geo-political facts on the ground, Scomo’s exciting nuclear submarine concept of 2021 is now imprudent and is becoming more imprudent every day. Trouble is – those who know this for a fact can’t utter a single (career ending) word on the matter.
Imagine if Prime Minister Menzies ordered eight Vanguard class battleships in January 1939 to enter service beginning in 1953; each to be constructed in Wollongong to a design incorporating quixotic local design changes – just because.
Menzies likely would have skipped the taskforce stage and pressed the “order” button . . . but (thank goodness) he prudently placed more weight on timely delivery of Hudson bombers, Sunderland ASW aircraft and munitions production equipment than on any hare-brained plans for sparkly defense materiel that could not be received for another fifteen years.
Of course, from the opposition benches, Albo neutralised the SSN issue, politically, by conditionally adopting Scomo’s plan. Which kinda ties him, and the party he leads, to the mast (periscope ?) . . . so, even following the election, the taskforce’s work goes on day and night.
Those of us more concerned with Australia’s order of battle in 2027 than in 2037 (or even 2047) are presently chewing our nails down to the knuckle at the idea that the taskforce will simply do what Scomo et al tasked them to do.
To us, the terms of reference given to the taskforce only make sense if a brace of SSNs can be at sea under the Australian ensign before 2027.
For such a miracle to occur by 2027, either Uncle Sam or the Olde Blighty must very soon be persuaded to loan the RAN a couple of existing US or UK nuclear boats. The quid pro quo for loaming the RAN these boats would be a juicy SSN construction contract and the associated forty year support deal.
In the case of the Royal Navy’s Astute class (boats six and seven), that would be in the form of a (very) wet lease, complete with crews and a detachment of maintainers to be stationed at fleet base west.
Meanwhile, our best and brightest branes are labouring over a plan to replace the long in the tooth Collins class with 8,000 ton golden bullets (aka modern SSNs) widely believed to be capable of :
(a) sneaking past the most sophisticated SOSUS-style sensor arrays;
(b) avoiding detection by the latest active and passive sonar systems;
(c) being invisible to purpose-built satellite tracking systems; and
(d) not being sunk at their moorings on “day one” of any attack.
Uh huh.
What are the chances that the taskforce has latterly been ‘encouraged’ to cost the SSN program at, say, $170 Bazillion, thus enabling the current PM to walk away from Scomo’s legacy project and reallocate the Bazillions (and the branes) to more timely, hence more prudent, acquisitions ?
The KSS-III (“as is”) and a couple of dozen P-8As come to mind. If being ready for bad news in 2027 is the ‘goalposts’, then pausing SSN acquisitions and reallocating the rivers of gold are the ‘forwards’ we need.
BUREAUCRATUS LEX AUGUST 07 2022
Anonymous, Bureaucratus Lex
ReplyDeleteSerious question - if Macron says France can build the RAN four SSKs straight away, we could ask if he can build four SSNs straight away for the RAN instead? If the answer is Yes, is not that the best option for immediate capability boost for the RAN?
Four SSNs built in France plus eight in Adelaide would be back to the 12 Subs planned in the Attack program but nuclear powered. Not as good individually as Astutes or Virginias but cheaper per boat, faster to acquire, cumulative capability similar and no time wasted on modifying designs. This assumes the work done to fit the US combat system, Mk48s and Tomahawks as per the Attack Class would be carried over.
There would be a saving in time and cost to build the first four in France, where we know the cost for French navy SSN builds (about 1.7 billion Euro or $3 billion AUS each).
Hi /Kjell [at Aug 6, 2022, 12:32:00 AM] and Anonymous [at Aug 7, 2022, 5:32:00 PM]
ReplyDeleteMacron's SSK and even SSN offer to Australia would probably both fall victim to the Australian "Build in Adelaide however late the subs are" Curse. This would almost guarantee:
- Australian built French SSKs only commissioned in the late 2030s, and
- Australian built French SSNs only commissioned in the 2040s
Build in Adelaide is especially sacred to the Federal Labor and South Australian State Labor governments' "manufacturers and unions are also sacred" policies.
Also the US alliance (in the Pacific and Indian oceans, in the Quad, AUKUS and ANZUS, Five Eyes) is much more important to Australia to be nurtured with submarine payments in comparison to occasionally "go own way" France which is not part of any of those associations.
I think the Barracuda refueling every 7-10 years in France would need to be resolved by refueling capabilities being shifted to Adelaide or Perth and France would need to offer Very low prices for Barracuda SSNs.
Regards
Pete
Hello Pete
ReplyDeleteTIMING, INDUSTRIAL STUFF, OFFSETS FOR OFF-THE-SHELF SUBS AND ANTI-LOTE
To be ready at sea for whatever arises in the period 2027 to 2037 matters much more than any elegant plans to be ready ten years later.
Yet the desired SSNs for Australia cannot be rushed, unless national panic results in a forest of money trees being found. Even then . . .
_______________
For Australia to respond favorably to the reported approach by South Korea, offering KSS-IIIs, there would have to be meaningful industrial offsets to benefit Australian defense industry workers and businesses.
Perhaps the South Korean army could order, say, 400 Redback IFVs from the Hanwa Australia armored vehicle plant now under construction in Victoria and the SK Air Force a few dozen Ghost Bat UAVs from Boeing Australia's new aircraft plant near Toowoomba.
Use mostly goods - not cash - to pay South Korea for the RAN's needs.
_______________
To prepare Australian industry for SSN production, later this decade, a few 'green water' coastal submarines could be built to the existing South Korean HDS-400+ design, but using the same high strength steel and welding technology that Australia's preferred SSN partner selects for the Collins class replacement SSNs Australia will eventually get.
These 400 to 500 ton coastal boats could prosecute fixed sensor array contacts in the Torres Strait, patrol the shallow seas of interest to Australia, provide a more available platform for special forces to practice their cross-beach and underwater skills and give initial command experience to new RAN submarine captains.
_______________
In an ideal world, the 2027 Australian submarine fleet might comprise:
(a) two (very) wet leased SSNs;
(b) two off the shelf KSS-IIIs; and
(c) four un-modified Collins boats.
Queue the howls of anguish at the logistic and training burdens this eclectic mix of equipment would place on the RAN. All can be borne IF the Commonwealth Govt is prepared to make RAN personnel pay deals that only a drongo would refuse.
The 2032 submarine fleet might comprise:
(a) 2 (much less) wet leased SSNs;
(b) 4 off the shelf KSS-IIIs; and
(c) 4 Australian built coastal submarines.
The 2037 submarine fleet might comprise:
(a) 2 Australian built SSNs - AU builds 4 fwd & the UK 4 aft hulls ?;
(b) 2 (slightly damp) leased SSNs;
(c) 4 off the shelf KSS-IIIs; and
(d) 4 Australian built coastal submarines.
The 2042 submarine fleet might comprise:
(a) 6 Australian built SSNs - ditto 2037(a);
(b) 2 off the shelf KSS-IIIs; and
(c) 4 Australian built coastal submarines.
The 2047 submarine fleet might comprise:
(a) 8 Australian built SSNs;
(b) 2 off the shelf KSS-IIIs; and
(c) 2 Australian built coastal submarines.
As the submarine taskforce will, it presently seems, recommend the UK SSN(R) design be co-produced at existing BAE facilities in Adelaide, Western Australia and the UK; the time between order and delivery will likely be quite a bit longer than early optimistic notions 'floated' on different parts of the internet.
_______________
Six warmed-over Collins LOTE boats will likely not appear especially menacing to any opponent considering whether or not to strike before 2037.
A thirty per cent larger 2027 submarine force with UVLS, three types of 21 inch torpedoes and a useful variety of shallow and deep water operational strengths may be harder for the opposing team's 'number crunchers' to account for.
Just saying !
BUREAUCRATUS LEX AUGUST 08 2022
Hi BUREAUCRATUS LEX AUGUST 07 and 08 2022
ReplyDeleteYep Australia could exceed the number of Chinese nuclear subs if Australia is prepared to spend 3% GDP on submarines alone.
Looking at your modest plan. That is 24 leased/built SSNs.
This is noting India spends aroud US$2 Billion for each 10 Year LEASED Russian SSN* of much lower quality than Astutes. So US$3 Billion for a merely 10 year leased Astute would be reasonable.
** see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_submarine_Nerpa_(K-152)#Lease_to_India
and, of course your, 24 Australian SSKs
I would add my own hobby horses - naturally 4 SSBNs for Australia
as SSBN protection is the No.1 role of US, UK, French, Chinese and Russian SSN forces.
and also add 20 of my large Orca 200 tonne UUVs.
__________________________________________________
A PS of 1% GDP for the rest of Australia's Defence Budget can be fought over by the non-sub afterthoughts of the RAN, RAAF and Army...
PPS - Closing a couple of large HOSPITALS in each of Australia's 8 capital cities (ie 16 hospitals) can cross-subsidize your modest plan for 48 RAN subs
We should invite Albo to order the Taskforce https://www.defence.gov.au/about/taskforces/nuclear-powered-submarine-task-force to take heed of 48 subs tomorrow.
Cheers Pete
With this huge suggested increase of SSNs and SSKs for Australia
ReplyDeleteI'm wondering what a leased SSN return to sender market
and resale of used SSKs market
Would look like?