Australia to build world’s most lethal submarines

[Onkel Neal]

According to Subsim's World Naval News, (http://www.subsim.com/index.php) there's a big storm brewing Down Under over the next gen of Aussie subs. The Defence Minister has targeted $25 billion for this, and some are pushing for nukes to replace the current six diesel boats, while others are insistent that the Aussie sub force remain conventional. For that kind of money, Australia should be able to build nuke fast attacks that are not surface dependant, possibly eight or ten.

[SUBMAN1]

I agree. 25 Billion is a Virginia scale project.

-S

[fatty]

Canadian and Australian navies are in pretty similar situations - huge amounts of coastline to cover; similar fleet sizes, compositions and budgets; looming strategic predicaments (the Arctic and East Asia, respectively) - and as a result we frequently co-operate and exchange ideas and personnel. An Australian presents a defence workship at least once a year to the department I study in.

Noting these similarities, I think it's worth analogizing Canada's quest to acquire a dozen or so SSNs in 1987. The idea was to use plans for an existing foreign class - either the U.K. Trafalgar or the French Rubis - and build them in Canada.

The plan failed almost immediately for three reasons. First, the money was not there. The government was posting enormous deficits in the late 1980s (into the tens of billions) and producing an extra few billion to build and maintain the subs would have taken a miracle. Second, the cost was highly underestimated. If memory serves the procurement costs were expected to be in the rather modest $8-10b range, but these figures did not take into account the enormous tasks of shore support and training for an entirely new kind of platform. Third, the opposition turned nuclear propulsion into a straw man, convincing themselves and much of the public that atomic power = atomic weaponry.

So can Australia pull through with a new fleet of nuclear subs? Unlike my country in 1987, the Australian governments have done well to balance their books, posting a surplus for the past several years. Yet while $25b is a lot of money, for state of the art nuclear subs it disappears fast. The VA class are around $2.5b a pop, and if you build ten there goes your $25b with nothing left for shore support and training. As for sentiments against nuclear power, my fingers are not on the pulse of Australian society enough to know for certain, but I suspect like any good liberal democratic nation they have a solid demographic that, while perhaps not so knowledgable in the realms of military affairs, is strongly opposed to military use of nuclear energy. Stances like that easily bubble over into election issues overnight.

One of those news releases on the front page (http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/world-news/australia-to-build-worlds-most-lethal-submarines_10010196.html) says Australia is looking at the "most lethal conventional submarine fleet" instead, and it seems a lot more realistic and worthwhile to me that use their $25b to produce world-class conventional subs instead of a nuclear fleet hamstrung by budgetary limits and public opinion. I'm sure that, in the strategic context, a big powerful fleet of SSNs would be primo, but I don't think it to be something that Australia can make a reality.

Edit: This dissertation (http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/npr/vol07/71/hym71.pdf) claims that Australia has been a large figure in non-proliferation movements since the 1960s and might be a better indication of the Australian public's nuclear mood than I can provide. Perhaps a good, long read if anyone is really interested in the topic.

[TarJak]

Public opinion is fairly strongly against the use of nuclear power in most of it's forms at present and it is doubtful that the present Labour government would embrace the technology even for powering future subs unless they can be convinced that there are votes in it.

I agree with fatty's assessment that a very strong conventially powered sub fleet is more likely to be looked at than SSN's.

[SUBMAN1]

Might be so, but here in America, the perception of Nuke power is changing drastically. We are once more building nuke reactors, and not simply tiny ones - massive ones! Our new Cruiser also has a nuke power mandate from Congress, make it what? 25,000 tons? They should increase the displacement and add 5 inches of armor, but what do I know? To me, its a massive taget for a torp, but I guess I have no say on the issue.

-S

[Pioneer]

Australia has just had a change in government, and one of the first things the incoming party did was withdraw from Iraq.

Factor that into the equation too.

[SUBMAN1]

Just factored. The end result is America left to defend the world. Everyone else balling up in a don't hurt me fetal position, except for China, Russia, and the middle east out looking to exploit the liberal food population. Don't eat the goo - you can guess what it might be.

-S

[fatty]

Australia has just had a change in government, and one of the first things the incoming party did was withdraw from Iraq.

Factor that into the equation too.

True, but on the other hand - unless the new government plans to rearrange and scrap some defence priorities set out by their predecessors - then Australia has a long list of procurement projects already on hand. The Defence Capability Plan (http://www.defence.gov.au/dmo/id/dcp/DCP_2006_16.pdf) posits main battle tank replacements, air warfare destroyer projects, ASW helo replacements, amphib replacements, etc etc. It's a lot to juggle.

[mcf1]

The German type 212A is the world's most technologically advanced uboat. I read that one of them managed to sneak through a heavilly escorted U.S carrier and took pictures of it at a distance of 200m it also remained under the carrier for 2 hours undetected. Small but lethalhttp://img165.imageshack.us/img165/4483/212alk9.jpg

[NiclDoe]

I will be :lol: my butt off when i see the US navy or any other navy just kills the subs

[CCIP]

I will be :lol: my butt off when i see the US navy or any other navy just kills the subs

Yea, except that same US navy is having lots of trouble trying to find a counter to SSKs at the moment :hmm:

If not nuclear, what are the chances of it turning into a big, advanced AIP sub?

I would be curious how that'd work for Australia's requirements. If they do go for it and it actually works for them, that would be an interesting alternative to US and Britain's all-nuclear navies, and might give those arguing for new diesel subs there some new arguments too.

[Kapitan_Phillips]

What are SSKs? Hunter-Killers?

[CCIP]

What are SSKs? Hunter-Killers?
In this case I meant conventional-powered hunter-killer subs, yea. See the head-scratching that seems to be going on in the navy regarding the Gotland right now for example.

[Venatore]

Just factored. The end result is America left to defend the world. Everyone else balling up in a don't hurt me fetal position-S
Mate as an Australian soldier (Infantry) trust me we do not take a step back from our responsibilities in the world, in particular our SAS.

With East-Timor, Solomon Island, Fiji all in desperate trouble in our own backyard and the Japanese killing whales in Australian water which has now devoted our Navy to shadowing their boats.

Having an Australian Defence Force of a total strength of a mere 51,000 full-time active-duty personnel, we ourselves are doing our bit at this end of the world,

Let me make it very clear to you SUBMAN1; we Australians are NOT as you say "balling up in a don't hurt me foetal position".
You are not left to defend the world as you say again, if you think you are then get your arse down to East Timor, Solomon Island, Fiji and take over so we can kick back and drink beer and have BBQ s.

Oh by the way just so you know; I've done my part in helping the USA, I was not home from 1999 - 2003 every bloody Christmas because I was overseas on operational deployments.

PS: compare our numbers to yours; our total infantry would fit in one of your infantry brigades; factor that.

[Tchocky]

What are SSKs? Hunter-Killers?
In this case I meant conventional-powered hunter-killer subs, yea. See the head-scratching that seems to be going on in the navy regarding the Gotland right now for example.
Sweden - Um, any chance of getting our sub back?

USN - Aaahhh, well, give us another year, k? Aside: Curse those crafty Swedes!

[Kapitan_Phillips]

What are SSKs? Hunter-Killers?
In this case I meant conventional-powered hunter-killer subs, yea. See the head-scratching that seems to be going on in the navy regarding the Gotland right now for example.


Ah thanks. CCIP, again a bastion of knowledge in an otherwise dense world. :rotfl:

[Skybird]

I will be :lol: my butt off when i see the US navy or any other navy just kills the subs
Laugh at yourself! A single swedish sub leased by the navy - the Gotland Tchocky mentioned - since over one years evades successfully any training efforts of the Navy to find and kill it. The crew of it said in an interview on german Tv they could sail up and down the mississippi - and the Navy being unable to do anything about it. A german type-212 has been reported to run circles around a CBG at will and without the carrier being aware that it was there. A german-built type-209, owned by Southafrica, just weeks ago in exercises off the coast of southafrica has completely wiped out a NATO task force of 15 ships, including American and British combat vessels - without ever having been detected once.

It makes sense, imo, to invest in sub technology. since years I think thta like WWII saw the battleships going nto useums and carriers becoming the most important weapon, in the future the importance (in war) of carriers are completely inferior to that of subs - even more so since today combat units are no longer produced in so massive quantities like in WWII. The german in the Atlantic were close to strangle Britain, and the ameircans succeeded with that task and brought japan's economy to it's knees - with submarines.

The future war at sea will be decided by submarines - not by carriers and air power.

[Rotary Crewman]

Just factored. The end result is America left to defend the world. Everyone else balling up in a don't hurt me fetal position-S

Let me make it very clear to you SUBMAN1; we Australians are NOT as you say "balling up in a don't hurt me foetal position".
You are not left to defend the world as you say again, if you think you are then get your arse down to East Timor, Solomon Island, Fiji and take over so we can kick back and drink beer and have BBQ s.


:hmm: Hmm, as a member of Her Majesty's Royal Air Force I would like to just also add that we're still involved in 'The War Against Terrrorism' and you're not 'Left to Defend the world'

Thanks

[Hakahura]

Just factored. The end result is America left to defend the world. Everyone else balling up in a don't hurt me fetal position-S

Let me make it very clear to you SUBMAN1; we Australians are NOT as you say "balling up in a don't hurt me foetal position".
You are not left to defend the world as you say again, if you think you are then get your arse down to East Timor, Solomon Island, Fiji and take over so we can kick back and drink beer and have BBQ s.


:hmm: Hmm, as a member of Her Majesty's Royal Air Force I would like to just also add that we're still involved in 'The War Against Terrrorism' and you're not 'Left to Defend the world'

Thanks


I'll 2nd that Rotary!
I 've been wearing the same uniform as you for the past 19 years, I know where your coming from.
Nice to see one of our cousins across the pond, recongnising our efforts.
Got to spend yet more time in the Gulf again this year and I'm so looking forward to my return visit in 2008.
I wonder why so many people around the world have low opinions of America?
Subman?

[SUBMAN1]

Just factored. The end result is America left to defend the world. Everyone else balling up in a don't hurt me fetal position-S

Let me make it very clear to you SUBMAN1; we Australians are NOT as you say "balling up in a don't hurt me foetal position".
You are not left to defend the world as you say again, if you think you are then get your arse down to East Timor, Solomon Island, Fiji and take over so we can kick back and drink beer and have BBQ s.

:hmm: Hmm, as a member of Her Majesty's Royal Air Force I would like to just also add that we're still involved in 'The War Against Terrrorism' and you're not 'Left to Defend the world'

ThanksYet

[SUBMAN1]

I personally think it is about high time the US pull up and go home from every portion of the world. Pull our troops in from Japan, from Europe, from the middle east, and let everyone to their own devices.

Pre WWII is where America needs to go. We are only being criticized for what we do anymore anyway. It is far easier to go back to the criticism of pre WWII in which they said we weren't doing anything. Screw the world. :D

-S

[Rotary Crewman]

Dont remember people of the armed force in this thread critising the Americans.

Subman, calm yourself, think about your posts and remember that there are people out there serving and losing their lives across the world with and alongside the Americans. Stop thinking that everyone thinks your country is the bad guy and that we all hate you.

Come here, lets have a hug

[SUBMAN1]

Dont remember people of the armed force in this thread critising the Americans.

Subman, calm yourself, think about your posts and remember that there are people out there serving and losing their lives across the world with and alongside the Americans. Stop thinking that everyone thinks your country is the bad guy and that we all hate you.

Come here, lets have a hugSuppose I don't want a hug? :D jk!

ANyway, in this forum, most foreigners hate Americans, so there ya go. What better way to show our love back than to let them have the world? Simple solution to a complex problem!

-S

[Tchocky]

ANyway, in this forum, most foreigners hate Americans, so there ya go.

Wahey.


:dead:

[TarJak]

How about we stay on topic for once? (A novelty for the GT threads I know...:roll:),

There is pretty much no way Australia will be buying Nuke subs regardless of the budget being spent. One factor to consider is that the new Defense Minister here is the local member for an area that has had considerable experience in ship building and only this week was seen on local TV spouting how local industry should be gearing up for this project.

I may be wrong but it looks more like posturing by a local member of Parliment making good spin on his election promises to reinvigorate local industry.

[CCIP]

ANyway, in this forum, most foreigners hate Americans, so there ya go. What better way to show our love back than to let them have the world? Simple solution to a complex problem!

-S

Who told ya that :doh:

Another case of confusing the disdain for policies of that or other fragment of the political spectrum (most frequently neocons and/or religious fundamentalists) for dislike of americans.

As I posted in the Thanksgiving thread last month, I love Americans. Too many of my friends are Americans for me to even begin to dislike them. And I'm sure most of of the other non-americans here feel the same!

YES BACK ON TOPIC

Either way I'll be watching this one carefully. There was extensive Swedish advice on the Collins class when that was being built, and I certainly expect that it may come in here again. In which case it's not unlikely that we will see something like a Swedish AIP sub being developed here.

[baggygreen]

IMHO, $5b of that $25b should go to submarine personnel retention. Now we've gotten rid of the dud sub problem, they're mainly sitting in dock in WA without crews!

There is no way that we'll be getting nuclear subs, not with the current govt. One of Krudds promises was not to build the nuclear power stations which would help ease our reliance on coal and reduce our emissions now that he's signed us up to Kyoto too... He certainly won't go building nuke subs. At the very least we should be leasing 1 or 2, to supplement the conventional fleet. With the steadily growing arms race in SE Asia it'd be nice to have something that can sit unseen for weeks or even months on end to monitor the Indonesians, for example.

Id like to see what exactly they propose for this new fleet... i've read they're intending to put both long and shrt range cruise missiles in its armament as well as AIP. Oughta make it a pretty interesting design - a helluva lot bigger than the current boats!

[Onkel Neal]

I've always been interested in nuke sub vs conventional sub tatics and theory. True, a lot of people state that "this conventional sub" evaded "some naval group", but I'm pretty skeptical (the Mississippi? Say what? :lol: ) . In war exercise conditions, with rules and boundaries, conventional subs look viable. But in general enagements, those capabilities would be stretched. I've talked to a few naval people, and they coyly suggest tactics that would make any non-nuke sub null and void, a nonfactor. Even with 2 week AIP capability, the diesel sub is limited in speed and range. And if the US were to engage a country in war, those subs would be tracked and targeted pretty quickly. They have to snorkel sometime and when the do, they aren't silent--they would be taken out by combined forces.

Of course, US sub officers and captains I've talked with will be biased toward their branch of the service. Even so, I spent an hour discussing everything I could think of regarding sub tactics and capabilities with the Captain of the Texas, and the XO and PCO, among others. I just don't see a diesel sub posing a threat of any kind to a Virginia class except in very limited, special circumstances. And they made it clear they have options to avoid those type of situations.

[fatty]

Of course, US sub officers and captains I've talked with will be biased toward their branch of the service. Even so, I spent an hour discussing everything I could think of regarding sub tactics and capabilities with the Captain of the Texas, and the XO and PCO, among others. I just don't see a diesel sub posing a threat of any kind to a Virginia class except in very limited, special circumstances. And they made it clear they have options to avoid those type of situations.

That's how it goes. SSKs are silver bullets in the right spots and against the right enemy. They might not be as flexible as SSNs but for a country without a defence budget greater than most African nations, they are a cheap and mostly effective way of extending naval capability and putting additional pressure on foreign strategists.

The Pacific's a big ocean and I'm sure our Australian allies would make good use of long-range SSN patrols, but I never realized until just now the extent of Australian involvement in the East Indies. In this theatre, I think SSKs meet Australian security needs quite well.

[Konovalov]

How about we stay on topic for once? (A novelty for the GT threads I know...:roll:),

There is pretty much no way Australia will be buying Nuke subs regardless of the budget being spent. One factor to consider is that the new Defense Minister here is the local member for an area that has had considerable experience in ship building and only this week was seen on local TV spouting how local industry should be gearing up for this project.

I may be wrong but it looks more like posturing by a local member of Parliment making good spin on his election promises to reinvigorate local industry.

Couldn't agree more with your sentiments. But hey, I would love to see Mr Midnight Oil's face, Peter Garrett's face if labour did sign up to nuke subs. :lol:

We have just sorted out the problems with our Collins. I can't see why we shouldn't be able to stretch them out a bit to perhaps past 2030. Look at the great service that the Oberons gave our country. I just want value for money.

[Kapitan_Phillips]

Just factored. The end result is America left to defend the world. Everyone else balling up in a don't hurt me fetal position-S

Let me make it very clear to you SUBMAN1; we Australians are NOT as you say "balling up in a don't hurt me foetal position".
You are not left to defend the world as you say again, if you think you are then get your arse down to East Timor, Solomon Island, Fiji and take over so we can kick back and drink beer and have BBQ s.

:hmm: Hmm, as a member of Her Majesty's Royal Air Force I would like to just also add that we're still involved in 'The War Against Terrrorism' and you're not 'Left to Defend the world'

ThanksYet


I'm sorry but the RAF always has been and still is the finest airforce in the world.

[Kapitan_Phillips]

Sorry for the double post, but does anyone know how these proposed Aussie subs would compare to your Akulas, 688is and Trafalgars?

[Skybird]

Even with 2 week AIP capability, the diesel sub is limited in speed and range. And if the US were to engage a country in war, those subs would be tracked and targeted pretty quickly. They have to snorkel sometime and when the do, they aren't silent--they would be taken out by combined forces.

AIP subs do not snorkel. ;) And all people's eyes currently move towards AIP.

A nation planning to defend a limited body of water, or a smaller coastline, is better of with such a modern conventional u-boat-design. A nation planning to fight around the globe or needing to defend a huge area in the ocean, or a very long coastline, is better off with SSNs, for purely logistical reasons. If subwarfare is about silence, than the more silent a boat is, the better it is and the higher it's chances. And seen that way, AIPs are winners of SSNs. the US navy already does not find a Gotland offcoast america inside a defined area, now imagine how it would be if that Gotland is defending the street of Hormuz, or is playing cat and mouse in the fjords of the Norwegian coast.

Maybe there is no such thing like "the best boat", and it always comes down to have the one that is best suited for a clearly defined mission profile. Then we talk about leadership and strategy, and when it comes to battle, we talk about tactics. With reagrd to one potential hotspot one could wonder if the US navy would be well advised trying to break through the hormuz strait and be present inside the gulf. I doubt it. But if the navy is kept out of the gulf, then the strategy of Iran to station SSKs in the gulf and missiles in huge quantities near the entry into the Gulf was - successful. They certainly do not plan to hunt down American CBGs far away in the Indian ocean. It is more like crocodiles lying motionless in wait underwater near the ford the buffalos must cross. SSK don't chase their prey (at least when the prey is warships) - they plan to make the prey coming to them.

[fatty]

Sorry for the double post, but does anyone know how these proposed Aussie subs would compare to your Akulas, 688is and Trafalgars?

There are two issues with your question. First, comparing SSKs to SSNs is like apples and oranges. They're just different boats with different missions, but the new boats could generally be assumed to be slower with shorter range yet more quiet and less expensive to build and maintain. Second, these new boats won't hit the drawing boards for a few years and won't be ready until at least 2025, so there are ~20 years of technological advancements to try and forecast. By then, you could hazard a guess that AIP might advance to a stage where the new subs will surpass the SSNs you list in all respects.

[SUBMAN1]

By the way, do not put it past the US Navy to not let you think an Ace is up your sleeve. What you really have is a joker, and a joker that is not in play in the current deck. America is notorious for counter tactics and not showing you their true hand. They have been playing this game with the best in the world for half a century, so do not think for one second that your AIP boat is a clear cut winner. The truth of the matter is, the US Navy led you to believe it is, so that you do not build a better boat.

The point is, if the US Navy and its near limitless resources (as compared with any other country) thought it a credible threat, we would already be operating AIP's. Neal's words above might hint at what I am saying here.

Just putting logic into the fire.

-S

[Torpedo Fodder]

Laugh at yourself! A single swedish sub leased by the navy - the Gotland Tchocky mentioned - since over one years evades successfully any training efforts of the Navy to find and kill it.
Except active sonar, which is almost never used in exercises because it might kill whales, or something like that.

The crew of it said in an interview on german Tv they could sail up and down the mississippi - and the Navy being unable to do anything about it.
Obvious hyperbole: most of the Mississippi is too shallow for submarines anyway.

A german type-212 has been reported to run circles around a CBG at will and without the carrier being aware that it was there.
I find that hard to believe, as a Type 212's flank speed is barely as high as a carrier's cruise speed, and the sub can only maintain that speed on batteries for an hour or so. In a situation in the open sea, where a diesel submarine does not know the carrier's location and course, it would be hard pressed to find the carrier at all, and even if it did know, it'd have to be in the right position to put itself in the carrier's path, not an easy task given the carrier's far higher speed and endurance. And thus is the problem of a disel sub hunting down a carrier group: Unless the sub knows where and when the carrier will be, it has no hope of hunting it down.

A german-built type-209, owned by Southafrica, just weeks ago in exercises off the coast of southafrica has completely wiped out a NATO task force of 15 ships, including American and British combat vessels - without ever having been detected once.
You do understand that large exercises like this are heavily scripted, right? Most larger exercises need to be scripted, because naval exercises cost alot of money, and thus the participants cannot be given free reign to act exactly as they please. For example, in a large ASW exercise such as that, what would be the point of the exercise if the surface ships and the submarine never encountered each other at all? This means, that the surface group must follow a scripted course, and the sub will know exactly where and when the surface ships will be. If the skimmers cannot change their course and speed, and cannot use active sonar, while the submarine can simply lie and wait for them, that imposes a huge handicap on them right there.

It makes sense, imo, to invest in sub technology. since years I think thta like WWII saw the battleships going nto useums and carriers becoming the most important weapon, in the future the importance (in war) of carriers are completely inferior to that of subs - even more so since today combat units are no longer produced in so massive quantities like in WWII.There are many things a carrier can do that a submarine simply cannot, such as project force deep over land or a radius hundreds of miles around itself at sea. Submarines cannot sustain continious combat operations for as long due to their limited payload, meanwhile a carrier can load enough ordinance to decimate a small country. Claiming that subs make carriers obsolete is like claiming that man-portable AT weaponry makes tanks obsolete, an argument that's almost as old as tanks themselves. Sure, a sub can kill a carrier if it finds it, but the carrier can also bomb the submarine's port facilities and support infrastructure to dust. Do not underestimate how hard it would be to find a surface vessel in the open sea, especially one that doesn't want to be found: Do you remember those NATO naval PSYOP exercises that immeditatly preceded ABLE ARCHER '83? In one case, a large fleet of US (including the USS Eisenhower) and various other NATO ships, managed pass through the GIUK gap, eluding the Soviet Navy's best efforts to locate them, and positioned themselves just outside Soviet territorial waters off Murmansk. Very few navies have the resources to search the open ocean like the Soviets (who also had RORSATs at their disposal) did, so you can see how hard it'd be for a single or small handful of submarines, who would have no reconnisance support from aircraft, by virtue of them being shot down by the Carrier's CAP.

Sure it's important to invest in submaries and ASW technolegy, because subs are still a serious threat to surface warships, and I'm not claiming otherwise. But they are by no means the unstoppable carrier killing uber-weapons of doom you seem to be making them out to be either.

The german in the Atlantic were close to strangle Britain, and the ameircans succeeded with that task and brought japan's economy to it's knees - with submarines.
First, the Germans chances of strangling Britain probably ended when ships began travelling in effectivly organized convoys; the U-boats could still kill some of the freighters, but never enough to truly strangle Britain. As for Japan, I think Curtis LeMay's B-29s systematically turning Japan's cities to ash had a big role in collapsing their economy as well.

[SUBMAN1]

The logic of this thread is becoming unbearable! It is so unlike the GT forums! :D Stop it before my head explodes! It makes too much sense! :up:

-S

[fatty]

By the way, do not put it past the US Navy to not let you think an Ace is up your sleeve. What you really have is a joker, and a joker that is not in play in the current deck. America is notorious for counter tactics and not showing you their true hand.
Not following you here. Provide examples perhaps?

They have been playing this game with the best in the world for half a century, so do not think for one second that your AIP boat is a clear cut winner. The truth of the matter is, the US Navy led you to believe it is, so that you do not build a better boat.

The point is, if the US Navy and its near limitless resources (as compared with any other country) thought it a credible threat, we would already be operating AIP's. Neal's words above might hint at what I am saying here.


This assumes the U.S.N. is some divine and ultimate source of inspiration for the world, which it isn't. It makes mistakes, under/over-estimations, and is subjected to constraints and demands from higher powers. Further, it does not point directions out to other navies. Navies that operate SSKs have their own ships and sensors that they can experiment with. They don't need to get a pat on the back from an American commander to be led to believe they have build a good boat/

No, the pressure that the U.S. has put on her allies to get SSKs involved in training exercises is the most telling indicator of the SSK issue's magnitude, I think. As I have said here before, the subs aren't silver bullets but in our 'CNN effect' lifestyles where a couple of casualties equates to thousands of lost votes, a real screw-up - a lost cruiser - would be a political death sentence.

[CCIP]

Also "credible threat" doesn't neccesarily translate into "operating AIPs". All they have to do is counter them.

I certainly don't think anyone, including Swedish AIP crews, are under the illusion AIP subs are a panache to everything. Nor is there really an impetus to switch to them for now, especially with what can rightly be considered a very fine nuclear fleet that is working well. However I think it's undeniable that they are a credible threat and possibly a very good future-proof alternative to nuclear subs.

As fatty VERY rightly pointed out, we're talking 20 years into the future here, and we're talking about Australia's fleet whose main potential opponent certainly won't be the US. How about instead of arguing over whether Swedish or Australian subs beat the US subs, we think about what they could bring to the table against actual likely opponents? :hmm:

I would thing the very first thing in mind for this design would be how good it would be against China's arsenal, for one.

[Onkel Neal]

Even with 2 week AIP capability, the diesel sub is limited in speed and range. And if the US were to engage a country in war, those subs would be tracked and targeted pretty quickly. They have to snorkel sometime and when the do, they aren't silent--they would be taken out by combined forces.

AIP subs do not snorkel. ;) And all people's eyes currently move towards AIP.


They do snorkel, if they plan to leave the immediate vicinity of their homeport. The Gotland is very quiet but it sure isn't going to be transitting to the mid Atlantic on AIP. AIP power trains are limited to "weeks", and I imagine much of that is performed at minimal operations, so the sub is just a manned floating mine platform. They are potentially powerful if used close to home, but after four to eight weeks, they will be just the same as a conventional diesel sub-- a target :)

The US Navy leased one to study and test. According to the journalist, it "sank" several US nukes... hmmm... color me very doubtful. If the exercise conditions favor the Gotland's strengths, sure. But in real world conditions? I smell a little hype here :lol:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Khaa3y0i87s (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Khaa3y0i87s)



I think the main use for these boats is for small countries with limited budgets. If an AIP only costs $250 million, I huess they they can be considered successful (and expendable) if they can kill a nuke at a 3-to-1 ratio.

One thing is certain, this is where Sonalysts needs to expand their brand, this would make great subsim scenarios :hmm:

[Onkel Neal]

BTW, I think it would smashing cool if the Aussies built their own nuke sub, what a great way to anchor the Pacific security concerns.

[baggygreen]

Sky said it well - SSKs are well-suited to countries with small coastal areas, with defensive postures where they can wait for the enemy to come to them, ourtesy of their limited range and endurance

Australia is unfortunately not in this category - we're the biggest bloody island in the world, and we have an enormous length of coastline - IIRC, we're only behnd Russia and Canadia...

I think we've got a perfectly valid reason to have SSKs, they are bloody quiet and a lot of the areas of operation are in littoral waters - around indonesian islands and malaysia particularly. But, as i said before, we need nukes for the endurance, speed and performance. Hell, if you ask me we need a few carriers too, at least amphibious assault ships... but i fear the intent of our neighbours much more than most people. Anyway, thats anothere topic.

I steadfastly stand by that a combined fleet of SSN and SSK is the way we need to go. Predominantly SSKs, they are better suited to most operating environments. a few SSNs fr longer range or longer duration patrols, and lets be honest, with the size of our coast and our 'sphere of influence' (or interests, depending n your terminology) there is a need for that.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

They do snorkel, if they plan to leave the immediate vicinity of their homeport. The Gotland is very quiet but it sure isn't going to be transitting to the mid Atlantic on AIP. AIP power trains are limited to "weeks", and I imagine much of that is performed at minimal operations, so the sub is just a manned floating mine platform. They are potentially powerful if used close to home, but after four to eight weeks, they will be just the same as a conventional diesel sub-- a target.
The problem is that diesels, like their steam counterparts, can be muffled. These days, apparently even diesel operation is comparable to SSN operation in terms of noise.
In 8 weeks, even a SSN will start to miss home.
The US Navy leased one to study and test. According to the journalist, it "sank" several US nukes... hmmm... color me very doubtful. If the exercise conditions favor the Gotland's strengths, sure. But in real world conditions? I smell a little hype here
Actually, there has been a long history of diesels beating nukes, enough that it is hard to keep burying your head in the sand and insist that the diesels have been given an unfair advantage every time it happened.

[CCIP]

The US Navy leased one to study and test. According to the journalist, it "sank" several US nukes... hmmm... color me very doubtful. If the exercise conditions favor the Gotland's strengths, sure. But in real world conditions? I smell a little hype here Actually, there has been a long history of diesels beating nukes, enough that it is hard to keep burying your head in the sand and insist that the diesels have been given an unfair advantage every time it happened.

Let's just say this: I think there's hardly any doubt that in a 1-on-1 knife fight, all other factors being equal (which includes quality of crew and sensors), a conventional sub will always have an advantage. I just can't see how science would ever totally shut up that noisy sucker (nuclear reactor)!

But in terms of power projection, a nuke holds advantage. The key, I think, is for Australia to define what it has to face. Which is where I again make my poke and ask if those better-informed than me could speak to the potential threats that Australia will have to design against :hmm:

[TarJak]

- we're the biggest bloody island in the world, and we have an enormous length of coastline - IIRC, we're only behnd Russia and Canada...

I think we've got a perfectly valid reason to have SSKs, they are bloody quiet and a lot of the areas of operation are in littoral waters - around indonesian islands and malaysia particularly. But, as i said before, we need nukes for the endurance, speed and performance. Hell, if you ask me we need a few carriers too, at least amphibious assault ships... but i fear the intent of our neighbours much more than most people. Anyway, thats anothere topic.

I steadfastly stand by that a combined fleet of SSN and SSK is the way we need to go. Predominantly SSKs, they are better suited to most operating environments. a few SSNs fr longer range or longer duration patrols, and lets be honest, with the size of our coast and our 'sphere of influence' (or interests, depending n your terminology) there is a need for that.
I'm in agreement with you on this, however it will always come back to the problem of manning whatever we have. We can barely man the subs we have now so considering there will need to be a phase in period where we have the existing Collins class subs and the new whatever they turn out to be, we will be hard pressed again to man both types with experienced and good trainee troops.

Yet again Australia's biggest problem is the size of the island compared to the sparse population added to the fact that retention in the forces, particularly the submarine force, is abysmal.

I'd love to see some form of return to a mixed fixed wing and rotary Fleet Air Arm as well as a mixed fleet of SSN and conventional subs, but having all the coolest toys in the world will not fix the retention problem.

The $5bn suggested earlier to go towards retention is a great idea, but I'm not sure that it will be enough with a booming mining industry taking great pains to pay just about anything to get good skilled workers. Funnily a lot of the skills needed are similar enough and the money is certainly good enough to attract enough people away from the forces who simply cannot compete just on a wages and conditions basis.

ut in terms of power projection, a nuke holds advantage. The key, I think, is for Australia to define what it has to face. Which is where I again make my poke and ask if those better-informed than me could speak to the potential threats that Australia will have to design against

These guys can provide most of the details, but in short the precis is contained in the Executive Director's Introduction to this document which outlines the most recent strategic international conference held in Canberra in July 2007:
http://www.aspi.org.au/publications/publication_details.aspx?ContentID=145&pubtype=5

To quote him directly:
"Our focus was on some of the bigger strategic issues we see shaping
Australia’s future and, principally, the emergence of trends such as:
challenges to the order and international norms that have underpinned
behaviours over the past fifty years; global phenomena such as the
rise of fundamentalist movements and potential security impacts
of climate change; shifting power dynamics, globally, regionally and
particularly in East Asia; questions surrounding social, economic
and environmental sustainability, particularly in Australia, in our
near neighbourhood, and in the South West Pacific; and finally, the
responses to these trends within the prevailing world order. Our
interest was in understanding more the implications of these forces for
Australia’s relevance and role in global and regional security affairs and
the strategic choices we might face.

Three broad themes emerged from our discussions. First: whilst we are
living in a period of transitions in power relativities with the emergence
of China and India, the ‘normalisation’ of Japan, and a possibly
resurgent Russia, the United States is expected to remain the leading
power for the foreseeable future, rejecting isolationism and remaining
intimately engaged in the evolving world order. Second: a recognition
and desire for lesser powers, particularly in this region, to ease and
help those power transitions unfold, operating beneficially to manage
friction points. Third: acknowledgement that the measures necessary
to meet contemporary security challenges—embracing the full range
of issues raised in the conference agenda—remain unresolved; a
work-in-progress warranting attention from both policy makers and
research institutes."

What does this mean? IMHO Australia sees itself as a major participant in Western Pacific political influence and to maintain that position will require a good defensive posture supported by and supporting the US. (Note this was certainly the position of the Howard government at the time of this conference. There is some doubt over how much the Rudd government will be supportive of the US in the future).

The key areas of likely conflict raised in the conference were increased Chinese and Russian posturing and a less stable Pacific region with a number of governments in small Pacific nations calling for Australian intervention in their security affairs.

Dr Masashi Nishihara ( http://www.wmdcommission.org/sida.asp?ID=46 ), said in his address: "I am hopeful that this (US/Japan/China), triangular relationship will become stable, despite the many areas of uncertainty—the Korean peninsula, the Strait of Taiwan, and China’s military posture and capabilities. In the future, the rivalry between the US and Chinese navies may become more intense, and the Japanese, Indian, and Australian navies may join them. And new tensions may also arise between Chinese and US and Japanese missile defence systems."

Should a conflict of this sort emerge in the region properly manned SSN's would be an ideal platform for Australia to project force and to provide significant sting to the defensive tail. Convential subs would also be able to be put to good use in the littoral waters around South and East Asia. The question is how likely do the Australian Government think this will be and is it worth spending on the programme required to comprehensively deal with a crisis of this nature?

[Skybird]

They do snorkel, if they plan to leave the immediate vicinity of their homeport. The Gotland is very quiet but it sure isn't going to be transitting to the mid Atlantic on AIP.

You are aware that a 212 travelled from the Baltic sea (Eckernförde) to Rota, Spain...? That is close to Cadiz, on the south-western coast near Gibraltar. Two weeks nonstop and without surfacing ever? And then travelled back?

If they used the English chzannel, took the shortest way to cross the bay of Biskaya and followed the Portuguese coast closely, that is a distance of around 2000 nm. Passing that in 14 days, brings you to an average medium speed of 6 knots, maintained for 14 days, without snorkeling ever.

If they took the longer trip around the Britsh islands, avoliding the channel, the distance maybe was around 2400 nm, which gives you an avergae speed of 7 knots.

As far as I know the boat travelled back withiut thew AIPs being resupplied (they cannot be loaded like accumulators during the voyage, they can only be refitted in harbour).

The known maximum speed underwater is 20 kn. One of course assumes that the real value is secret.

The 212 are not compared to the 206/209 in range and mission profile. the older boats where for local defense, namely in the baltic and northern sea. The new boats are meant to give germany global operation range (for intel gathering and special opeations). and some month back, in another thread on the 212, I linked a text describing that on AIP the speed of these boats is not just sneaking low, but they can reach and maintain medium speeds - without being noisier.

There is a reason or two why these boats are so much wanted. ;) You Americans even once tried to buy the whole dockyard and company in order to get control of the blueprints and systems, and prevent them to others! :D The German government intervened back then. Forgiven, not forgotten. :lol:

One thing is certain, this is where Sonalysts needs to expand their brand, this would make great subsim scenarios :hmm:
Any other, but please - not Sonalysts again! :lol: Even Godot has long since left. :-j

[Skybird]

As for the australians, they seem to be happy with their conventional Collins for longer patrols, so if I were them I would expand the size (and range) of a conventional design, add AIP or something like that, and so would not compromise the superior silence of conventional boats over nuclear boats, while still getting the range needed to operate in the Indian ocean and a good part of the Pacific as well. I do not expect to see the australian navy becoming a global patrol service with a battle group standing on duty in the Northern Atlantic (why should they?), so I cannot see them in any need for having boats with according range. and if even 212s, wich are much smaller in size, now give almost global operation ranges, I cannot see why Australian engineers should not be able to come up with something comparable - while using even bigger boats, with more room for fuel tanks.

[Rotary Crewman]

I'm sorry but the RAF always has been and still is the finest airforce in the world.

Sorry to drag it off topic but...

:oops: We're honoured ;)

[Torpedo Fodder]

If they used the English chzannel, took the shortest way to cross the bay of Biskaya and followed the Portuguese coast closely, that is a distance of around 2000 nm. Passing that in 14 days, brings you to an average medium speed of 6 knots, maintained for 14 days, without snorkeling ever.

And an SSN can transit the Atlantic (a journey nearly twice as long) in half that time.

[CCIP]

If they used the English chzannel, took the shortest way to cross the bay of Biskaya and followed the Portuguese coast closely, that is a distance of around 2000 nm. Passing that in 14 days, brings you to an average medium speed of 6 knots, maintained for 14 days, without snorkeling ever.
And an SSN can transit the Atlantic (a journey nearly twice as long) in half that time.
And an AIP sub would probably be infinitely quieter while transiting!

Again, apples and oranges. One's stealth, one's power projection. In all actuality, the real issue is that both have their very different uses. Nukes are good at being in the right place at the right time. These other guys meanwhile are good at making the place they are already in vicinity of a very bad place for anyone who decides to approach.

Seriously, why are we still stuck on "my sub is better than yours"? Isn't this about assessing the actual requirements of the situation?

[Torpedo Fodder]

Seriously, why are we still stuck on "my sub is better than yours"? Isn't this about assessing the actual requirements of the situation?
Well, yeah. But if Skybird is seriously going to present the Type 212 as being capable of global power projection (though technically, no submarine is really capable of power projection and sea control, which is why they will never eclipse surface ships), someone has to point out that a nuke will always be better in that role, which is why every country that seriously wants a true blue-water navy will favour nukes, while brown water navies will favour diesels. Others, depending on their requirements, like to have a mix of nukes and diesels (the Russians are like that, as was the RN during the Cold War)

[kiwi_2005]

At least Australia got subs! We got no airforce, 5000man army and 2 or is it 3, Frigates we call NZNavy. When National was in govenment they were going to expand our navy and upgrade our airforce we were going to buy 22 US fighter aircaft F16's i thing it was, and expand our navy with a overeas contract to build new ships and i was hoping one day they would move to the collins submarines like aussies have. But Noooooo, poxy Labour govenment wins the election and our glorious leader sells up the airforce sending good pilots to Australia, and cancels the Navy contracts. :nope::damn:

[Sea Demon]

One thing is certain, this is where Sonalysts needs to expand their brand, this would make great subsim scenarios :hmm: Any other, but please - not Sonalysts again! :lol: Even Godot has long since left. :-j
What "other"? :lol: I wasn't aware anybody else is producing modern naval sims.

At any rate, in modern naval warfare, I doubt the SSK, AIP, etc. would be very useful in the long run. Sure in the opening days or weeks, they would have alot of impact. But given time, they become much more dependant on a logistics line than an SSN. SSN's have been known to be out on 5-6 month Westpacs without resupply of any substantial kind. Plus, if the conventional subs logistics infrastructure is "challenged" or outright destroyed, they wil be unable to operate at all after a given period of time. They would be rendered obsolete within 30-45 days if the game is played correctly. In this regard, I feel the SSN is a much superior platform for sustained global combat. They also carry more weapons, and usually more capable sensor packages. Plus with the use of new UAV's and other neat tools the SSK will not likely be carrying, I doubt the SSK will ever really confront an SSN in open ocean combat. As was said above, the SSK/AIP's strength lies in it's ability to defend or operate in the littorals. Not go out and work itself like an offensive nuclear platform. I also think that SSN;'s operating in a large, yet fixed battlespace may be able to wait out SSK's before attacking them while they are doing their snorkeling/diesel ops. I don't think the SSK vs. SSN battle would be as linear or as well defined as some seem to think it is.

[Onkel Neal]

One thing is certain, this is where Sonalysts needs to expand their brand, this would make great subsim scenarios :hmm: Any other, but please - not Sonalysts again! :lol: Even Godot has long since left. :-j
What "other"? :lol: I wasn't aware anybody else is producing modern naval sims.



There is no "other", Skybird has had a long time grudge against Sonalysts for some obscure reason. Kind of the opposite to his love affair with the 10 year old Steel Beasts game, I guess they cancel each other out. ;)



At any rate, in modern naval warfare, I doubt the SSK, AIP, etc. would be very useful in the long run. Sure in the opening days or weeks, they would have alot of impact. But given time, they become much more dependant on a logistics line than an SSN. SSN's have been known to be out on 5-6 month Westpacs without resupply of any substantial kind. Plus, if the conventional subs logistics infrastructure is "challenged" or outright destroyed, they wil be unable to operate at all after a given period of time. They would be rendered obsolete within 30-45 days if the game is played correctly. In this regard, I feel the SSN is a much superior platform for sustained global combat. They also carry more weapons, and usually more capable sensor packages. Plus with the use of new UAV's and other neat tools the SSK will not likely be carrying, I doubt the SSK will ever really confront an SSN in open ocean combat. As was said above, the SSK/AIP's strength lies in it's ability to defend or operate in the littorals. Not go out and work itself like an offensive nuclear platform. I also think that SSN's operating in a large, yet fixed battlespace may be able to wait out SSK's before attacking them while they are doing their snorkeling/diesel ops. I don't think the SSK vs. SSN battle would be as linear or as well defined as some seem to think it is.

Exactly, thanks for putting it clearly. Yeah, as Kazuaki put it, the SSN may begin to "miss home" after 8 weeks, but it sure won't need to leave station, while an AIP sub will have to leave, and somewhere along the way be taken out.

As far as I know the boat travelled back withiut thew AIPs being resupplied
Well, I think it's fairly relevant to this discussion to know if this epic voyage was taken to and from, solely on silent/AIP/submerged without snorkeling, that's why I said these conventional subs are not the equivalent of SSNs. I agree with Sea Demon, the SSN can wait out the SSK, every time.

[PeriscopeDepth]

I wonder if used LA class subs will ever be considered by any Allied countries?

PD

[Skybird]

Well, yeah. But if Skybird is seriously going to present the Type 212 as being capable of global power projection (though technically, no submarine is really capable of power projection and sea control, which is why they will never eclipse surface ships), someone has to point out that a nuke will always be better in that role, which is why every country that seriously wants a true blue-water navy will favour nukes, while brown water navies will favour diesels. Others, depending on their requirements, like to have a mix of nukes and diesels (the Russians are like that, as was the RN during the Cold War)
They are not my subs - the German navy claims them there own, and has defined them to give them a global operation range within the intended mission profile for the 212: that is intel gathering and special ops in the first and main . Of course it can fire it'S twelve torpedoes while underway, but i can hardly imagine it to become a common practice in a war that German subs hunt down enemy ships in let's say the Southern Atlantic. Nevertheless the class is fully blue water-capable without being nuclear. Hell, some years ago a german 206 made it into the caribean, participated in exercises, and then drove back, although I wpuld be careful to clal that trip a joyful experience, regarding the minimum size of these things.

To me the main advantage of the SSNs is their higher speed - it is payed for with higher basic noise levels. I think for germany it is the much wiser choice to move slower, but unheared. For global actors like the US, SSNs make sense, yes, for their Navy wants to cover much more ground, and travels much longer distances regularly. But for short and medium range missions and regionaol defense, AIP and SSK are the better choice, I think.

There is no "other", Skybird has had a long time grudge against Sonalysts for some obscure reason. Kind of the opposite to his love affair with the 10 year old Steel Beasts game, I guess they cancel each other out.
The obscure reason has driven several old subsimmes away, that obscure it was. ;) It's just that I consider a waiting time of one year (SC) and almost two years (DW) for essential patches being unacceptably long and customer-hostile - massive forum presence does not chnage that. I must expect by earlier experiences that if they release a new sim, again it would last an eternity until the sim got rid of some major issues. The reasons why that is so, has been explained, but a.) other sin their situation nevertheless perform better in that vregard, and b.) it is their reasons, not that of their paying customers. and since you compared to SBP, eSim is in obligations to it's professional customers like Sonalysts is, but eSim is smaller, still managed to fire off a better first release with far less major problems, and delivered at least patches for major issues very, very soon. where Sonalysts took two years to come up with a patch that fixed the last showstoppers, eSim in the same period of time not only released four major patches, but also one complete and one beta addon - being smaller a team, and being under high pressure by military customers all the time. - buit maybe that comparison between SBP and DW is not making all that sense at all, don't you think? After all, both have nothing to do with each other.

BTW, the first feedback-review here http://www.amazon.de/Rough-Trade-Software-Games-Dangerous/dp/B000FO433Q/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=videogames&qid=1198924517&sr=8-1 - under my avatar name, is by me, in German language. As you see, I attacked them over their customer-hostile patching manners, nevertheless gave the package after that final patch the maximum possible score. ;) so I mentioned the light, and the shadow. anyway thinking that is unfair...?

Well, I think it's fairly relevant to this discussion to know if this epic voyage was taken to and from, solely on silent/AIP/submerged without snorkeling, that's why I said these conventional subs are not the equivalent of SSNs. I agree with Sea Demon, the SSN can wait out the SSK, every time.
Well, even the one way-trip already is the current world-record for such a kind of trip. As I remember it, they were supplied in Rota with food and stuff, but not with new AIP cells, since these must be delivered in ready-to-use status and cannot be loaded up in any harbour, like accumulators. It is also a safe assumption that they wanted to demnsotrate that world record, but nevertheless did no wish to give away how long for real the sub can stay submerged and being manouverable at reasonable speeds. We also do not know if they had constant speed all the time, or chnaged speeds. I would expect that the power consummation is rising nonlinear the higher the speed, so if they varied the speed, it also would mean that they would have been able to move on submerged for even longer.

An SSN can wait out a SSK, yes. but it will only wait if it knows or suspects the SSK is there. So, entrance and exit at harbours remains critical - which is true for SSNs as well. And even when just floating, a SSN is noisier than the SSK. as for the 212, I randomly read repeatedly (they also said it on TV), that the boat does not become noisier when accelerating from slow to medium speeds. Only at top speeds it is becoming louder.

Concenring your earlier remark on the Gotland, that the exercises are tunred in it'S favour, I remeber the request by the navy being founded on different explanations: that they wanted to learn how to find it at all - so tuning conditions in favour of the Swedes is not necessary to illustrate the problem the Navy has with this kind of boats. As I said, the crew is boasting with pride, and metaphorically they are pumping their chest, laughing, as they put it short in that Mississippi-comparison. Maybe it is wise not to look down on these exercises as being tuned in favour of the SSK, while still thinking that if only you do your job right, your SSN or ASW group will beat any SSK "not made in america" nevertheless. The problem with technological progress is, that the higher developed it is, the smaller the future gains are that can be acchieved by the higher additional efforts, while at the same time technological standards become more and more wide-spread and available to others. It all means teczhnological dominance does not last forever, but slowly but constantly looses the decisive lead, until the lead is so small, that it does not have the meaning of earlier times anymore. the swedes are damn good in milizary tech. Their stealth ships, and the designs of the Norwegians, are leading the global competition. They designed one of the world's top class IFVs, and took the best-balanced tank in the world - and made it even better protected in design. Their fighters also are top class at their time of entrance, and always introduced many firsts that later were copied by Russian and Western producers.

just thinking they sub is winning time and again becasue the exercise rules are in its favor is probably a bit unfair, Neal! Maybe they are just better than your guys.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Well, even the one way-trip already is the current world-record for such a kind of trip. As I remember it, they were supplied in Rota with food and stuff, but not with new AIP cells, since these must be delivered in ready-to-use status and cannot be loaded up in any harbour, like accumulators. It is also a safe assumption that they wanted to demnsotrate that world record, but nevertheless did no wish to give away how long for real the sub can stay submerged and being manouverable at reasonable speeds. We also do not know if they had constant speed all the time, or chnaged speeds. I would expect that the power consummation is rising nonlinear the higher the speed, so if they varied the speed, it also would mean that they would have been able to move on submerged for even longer.

It is not hard to use the basic output parameters and deduce that 6-7 knots is pretty close to the limit of that sub on AIP.

as for the 212, I randomly read repeatedly (they also said it on TV), that the boat does not become noisier when accelerating from slow to medium speeds. Only at top speeds it is becoming louder.

You actually take the propaganda they put on TV 100%? It'll be quite the violation of the laws of physics if they managed THAT! I can buy that the noise level does not have a sudden "jump" when placed on a log chart, but that's far from it not getting louder.

[Skybird]

You actually take the propaganda they put on TV 100%? It'll be quite the violation of the laws of physics if they managed THAT! I can buy that the noise level does not have a sudden "jump" when placed on a log chart, but that's far from it not getting louder.

? Tell us what do you now? Special hull coating? Sound dampening? Did you know that the one really big secret of the 212 is not the AIP, but the propeller, described to be the most silent in the world?

Mathemtically I expect like you that the sub is the loiuder the faster it travels. It's just that probably with present sensors, the increase nevertheless is beyond the treshold level as that it could be detected that early as you seem to expect.

Law of physics, hm, careful with such suggestive phrasing. Dolphins reach speeds of up to 50 km/h under water - noiselss, due to their smooth skin. sharks use another type of skin, which is not smooth like a dolphin'S, but is very rough with many little "teeth" that cause a "whirling" that helps the aerodnamics of the animal, and allow it to reach high speeds, again, noiseless. :lol: such artificial skins as swimsuits are used for swimmers at competitions, too. 212 are made of amagnetic steel (that is forbidden to be used for the export version 214), and a several centimeters-thick coating of what usually is called rubber. Anyone here thinking it is just "rubber"? Finally, the engine has alwqys been described to be extremely quiet, i do not know anything about mechnaical engine designs, but it is a different design than most standard engines, same is true for the Gotland, and one or two others as well. Beyond which threshold value/speed setting it becomes noticable outside the hull is not nown, but obviously the treshhold is the higher, the better the sound dampening has been designed, and the more silent the engine has been designed.

[Lurchi]

I agree with what some members said here: The 212A subs are indeed a little bit hyped - especially on german TV which pumped out several documentations about these new submarines which are propagated as some sort of wonder weapon in order to get more money from german tax payers. I have no doubt that they are certainly the most silent when running on electric and their crews are justifiably enthusiastic about their abilities and luxury (for the first time every crewmember has his own bunk) especially in comparison to the austere 206 boats.

But the 212 submarines also have some serious weaknesses: It has been emphasized that this submarine class is much better suited for surveillance operations (to justify them as usable for this ominous "war on terror" i think). Now, if this is true then one can ask the question why these boats are unable to deploy special forces like the german SEALs (Kampfschwimmer) while submerged. They cannot do this because of their new water pressure torpedo tubes (They also left away the diver's chamber due to budget constraints). The same tubes are -at the moment- also unable to deploy mines so these two important missions for a submarine are still left to the old 206 boats.

In the end the 212 is just the best you can get for a limited amount of money, a "nuclear submarines for the poor" one could say. This makes it also a desired equipment to be sold to other navies. Personally i would prefer Germany entering the nuclear club: France and the UK have them already so should be technically an easy task for this country. But it is all about money and how you sell such an investment to your own population.

I don't believe that Australia will get nuclear submarines. They don't have the needed nuclear infrastructure and the experience in building such subs. Of course, Australia can all achieve this but it will cost them billions - not to forget the enormous amount of money to maintain a nuclear fleet. And when it comes to crews, well, even the most modern nuclear submarines all have a crew of at least 100 men - the 212 on the other hand has only 25. I would say that Australia will get a new generation of AIP submarines and it seems to me that 12 of these submarines suit them much better than 4 nuclear ones.

P.S. Peter Garrett is Australia's minister for environmental issues? The one from "Midnight Oil" - now, how cool is that! (But i doubt if he will be very fond of nuclear submarines and their waste)

[Skybird]

I thougt the issues with mines had been solved meanwhile. If Lurchi is right, I stand corrected.

Just one word on my TV-submarine-habits. I do not base my opinion on it, i know and expect much of it to be - well, not precise. for the most I base my opinion on random readings, sometimes searched readings from internet sites. So for the most i mean official wbsites of manufacturers, the defense ministry, dedicated defense websites. But I read all that unsystematically, I do not claim to be an expert. the TV docus, two of which I saw, i only take into account if what they said I have read in other sources as well.

[SUBMAN1]

I'm sick of hearing that every country in the world claims their subs have some uber secret propeller making them the quietest in the world - suuurrreee! :D Propoganda.

-S

[Lurchi]

I thougt the issues with mines had been solved meanwhile. If Lurchi is right, I stand corrected. I got this information out of Rösslers book about the new submarines. However the book is now 2 or 3 years old so the minelaying problem might be solved by now.

I'm sick of hearing that every country in the world claims their subs have some uber secret propeller making them the quietest in the world - suuurrreee! :D Propoganda. Your point? The 212 is most probably the quietest submarine in the world (on electric power). Why? Because it is the latest western design together with the Scorpène. Admittedly one cannot be sure about the newest russian design and there is not so much information about the japanese submarines. The 212 is also more quiet than the Gotland - it's design is a little bit older than the 212. Another reason for this claim is that the swedish Shipyard (Kockums) which built the swedish and developed the australian subs is part of the german Thyssen Krupp company so their features are known and taken into consideration during the 212s development.

A nuclear sub is always potentially louder than an electrical powered one, if everything else like propeller is on the same high standard. This doesn't has to do so much with the reactor but with a nuclear submarine's relatively high-rev steam turbine and its associated reduction gear. The latter is not needed by an electric engine with its massive torque at low revs.