Australia Names New Attack Submarine The, Uh, Attack

[Onkel Neal]

https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/au...ack-1831068586

Australians the world over are known for being, well, let’s just say uncomplicated. So it’s fitting that it has decided to name the first submarine slated to replace its current slate of Collins-class attack submarines with a new generation of attack subs, starting with the HMAS Attack.

[Onkel Neal]

Diesel sub. Cheaper to build, much cheaper to run. Super quiet when running silent on batteries. But at some point it has to come up for air, and then it's noisy. And dead. A nuke sub can run silent for 6 months. It can outlast a diesel sub. Debate!

[Vannevar]

Is this where we post those nice pictures the HSwMS Gotland kindly took of the USS Ronald Reagan?

[Cybermat47]

Originally Posted by Vannevar

Is this where we post those nice pictures the HSwMS Gotland kindly took of the USS Ronald Reagan?

Or that time a Collins “killed” a Los Angeles, after previously sneaking into attack range of the Abraham Lincoln?

This will actually be the second HMAS Attack, and the second class of ship called Attack. The Attack-class patrol boats served from the 60s to the 90s. One, HMAS Advance, is currently a museum ship.

[Skybird]

I would assume the Australians assessed the likelihood of penetrating deep into Chinese waters versus the likelihood of the Chinese coming into 'Australian interest zones, and found that the shorter legs of a Diesel may find compensation by the result of this assessment. also, the Chinese navy is - not so slowly - changing into a real highb tech navy, and with plenty of subs of their own, The additional stealth of a Diesel also may come handy here.

Finally, its about money. I assume a nuclear design and its maintenance costs more than a Diesel.

Precise data is not known, of course,l but the German 212s can stay submerged for over one and a half month, it was demonstrated some years ago with a long submerged journey down into the south, all done on battery, and I think without snorkeling.

A formidable unpredictability. Already the rumour fo such a boat beign around can bust an enemy aggressive operation, the boat must not even be around for real. You cannot afford to ignore such a threat.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Cybermat47

eviously sneaking into attack range of the Abraham Lincoln?

This will actually be the second HMAS Attack, and the second class of ship called Attack. The Attack-class patrol boats served from the 60s to the 90s. One, HMAS Advance, is currently a museum ship.

Makes me wonder whether there will be boats with names like "Go ahead" or "Keep on moving" ?

[Jimbuna]

Will there be sufficient numbers of crew members this time?

[Kapitan]

Originally Posted by Onkel Neal

Diesel sub. Cheaper to build, much cheaper to run. Super quiet when running silent on batteries. But at some point it has to come up for air, and then it's noisy. And dead. A nuke sub can run silent for 6 months. It can outlast a diesel sub. Debate!

Well for a start its a fairly good move for the Aussies not to select to go nuclear on many grounds.

firstly the Australians do not have the facilities to maintain upgrade over haul or even fuel these types of warships, on top of that Australia has only a single reactor in the whole country despite them being one of the largest exporters of Uranium.

Secondly it would be an issue of man power and also trained nuclear man power as well something the Australians don't have, they currently have issues with man power in their submarine service and have done for some time, each Collins class has a crew of roughly 42 people a nuclear boat would need at least double that if we go on western crewing figures so simply it wouldn't work right now.

Thirdly the nuclear option is widely rejected in the Australian region with the Kiwi's firmly anti nuclear and with them both being in a close alliance i don't think it would be wise to upset them or the electorate of Australia who have no desire to go nuclear.

The cost of building the facilities would run into the tens of billions of dollars and that's without laying down a single vessel, the other side to it would also be that a nuclear boat would be some where in the region of $1bn USD and for that the Australians would likely have only been able to build and operate four boats not the twelve they pledged.

Australia doesn't have a need really for nuclear boats yes they are isolated down there but they often like the UK operate in coalition strike groups where other nations such as the Royal Navy and United States Navy have nuclear submarines.

I am dubious about the short fin barracuda class submarine i am skeptical about this this type of submarine and i personally do not think it is a good match for the Australians, if i am honest i would have said they should have gone for a enlarged German type 216 design with AIP systems in place this could have been a better option for near nuke performance.

I also have reservations about upping the fleet from 6 to 12 boats not just on cost but also because of crewing requirements, this comes about because recently the Australian government has purchased some high end equipment which need quite a few crew, again i think they were wrong possibly in purchasing the Juan Carlos type vessels and should have taken the French Mistral design instead, unless they wish to reinforce the flight decks and operate a handful of F35B from them which could be done in the future.

Over all i have concerns but lets see what the future holds for these new boats.

[Catfish]

As we heard recently, nuclear subs can be tracked by other submarines due to the traces they leave in the water like radioactive particles (don't quite understand that one, does the radiation ionize the seawater around the reactor compartment's hull? There is almost no insulation around the reactor, only forward and rear), but also other elements that betray it.
On the other hand a Diesel sub probably also leaves some traces, but have not heard yet about tracking those.
I would go with AIP subs, when it comes to countries with smaller navies, and budget.

[Mr Quatro]

What year is this all suppose to go down?

I agree with diesel boats if your not into protecting the whole damn ocean and just care about your own home waters.

Plus they make great protectors of surface ships.

Don't they have to build an entire shipyard to build the new submarines?

[Kapitan]

Originally Posted by Catfish

As we heard recently, nuclear subs can be tracked by other submarines due to the traces they leave in the water like radioactive particles (don't quite understand that one, does the radiation ionize the seawater around the reactor compartment's hull? There is almost no insulation around the reactor, only forward and rear), but also other elements that betray it.
On the other hand a Diesel sub probably also leaves some traces, but have not heard yet about tracking those.
I would go with AIP subs, when it comes to countries with smaller navies, and budget.

During the reaction process excess hydrogen is built up around the system and subsequently this is discharged into the ocean, this hydrogen will be radioactive at slightly above background limits (from my understanding)

In most reactors you get a build up of other elements if you look at the discharge from chernobyl you will find Caesium 137 iodine 131 strontium 90 Thorium 137 Bromide and other gasses such as Krypton and argon.

Conventional submarines will leave trace elements of oils and fuels just imagine the exhaust of a truck as it goes down the road pouring out smoke well the same happens in the submarine but when underwater i would assume that some of that left over particles will escape into the sea (this is just my theory)

And im not sure if they do need to build a construction dock i would assume that BAe systems Australia may port over systems from the UK if they do.

[em2nought]

It's a better name than Boaty McBoatface.

[Catfish]

Originally Posted by em2nought

It's a better name than Boaty McBoatface.

Yeah they let them vote and it ended in "Boaty MacBoatface", so they found it unfitting and stopped it. Next vote brexit, and I guess leaving an international trade organisation to be alone against China, Russia and the US made so much more sense

[THE_MASK]

How long did it take us to name the bridge over the Sydney harbor .

[Cobber]

Originally Posted by Kapitan

Well for a start its a fairly good move for the Aussies not to select to go nuclear on many grounds.

firstly the Australians do not have the facilities to maintain upgrade over haul or even fuel these types of warships, on top of that Australia has only a single reactor in the whole country despite them being one of the largest exporters of Uranium.

Secondly it would be an issue of man power and also trained nuclear man power as well something the Australians don't have, they currently have issues with man power in their submarine service and have done for some time, each Collins class has a crew of roughly 42 people a nuclear boat would need at least double that if we go on western crewing figures so simply it wouldn't work right now.

Thirdly the nuclear option is widely rejected in the Australian region with the Kiwi's firmly anti nuclear and with them both being in a close alliance i don't think it would be wise to upset them or the electorate of Australia who have no desire to go nuclear.

The cost of building the facilities would run into the tens of billions of dollars and that's without laying down a single vessel, the other side to it would also be that a nuclear boat would be some where in the region of $1bn USD and for that the Australians would likely have only been able to build and operate four boats not the twelve they pledged.

Australia doesn't have a need really for nuclear boats yes they are isolated down there but they often like the UK operate in coalition strike groups where other nations such as the Royal Navy and United States Navy have nuclear submarines.

I am dubious about the short fin barracuda class submarine i am skeptical about this this type of submarine and i personally do not think it is a good match for the Australians, if i am honest i would have said they should have gone for a enlarged German type 216 design with AIP systems in place this could have been a better option for near nuke performance.

I also have reservations about upping the fleet from 6 to 12 boats not just on cost but also because of crewing requirements, this comes about because recently the Australian government has purchased some high end equipment which need quite a few crew, again i think they were wrong possibly in purchasing the Juan Carlos type vessels and should have taken the French Mistral design instead, unless they wish to reinforce the flight decks and operate a handful of F35B from them which could be done in the future.

Over all i have concerns but lets see what the future holds for these new boats.

I was going to make similar comments, you my friend, have good grasp of the Australian situation. We are currently building, or intending to build a large number of platforms. I have no idea how they RAN intends to man them; it has been an issue for years.