Australia to build world’s most lethal submarines

[Kapitan_Phillips]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

Yet

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]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

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]

Originally Posted by Kapitan_Phillips

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]

Originally Posted by Skybird

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! Stop it before my head explodes! It makes too much sense!

-S

[fatty]

Originally Posted by 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.

Not following you here. Provide examples perhaps?

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

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]

Originally Posted by Skybird

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




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]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

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]

Originally Posted by Kazuaki Shimazaki II

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]

Originally Posted by baggygreen

- 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.

Originally Posted by CCIP

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/...=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?