Replacement of Australia's Collins Class Submarines

GTX

GTX

All hail the God of Frustration!!!
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
15 April 2006
Messages
7,753
Reaction score
10,959
Website
beyondthesprues.com
Two News Reports regarding the replacement of Australia's Collins Class:

Australia to sign new submarines deal with Japan as Prime Minister Shinzo Abe visits Tony Abbott in Canberra

New Japanese submarines to cost Abbott Government $20 billion

It is increasingly looking like Australia will select the Japanese-built Soryu Class submarine to replace locally built Collins Class boats. It ill be interesting to see what modifications, if any they receive should this become reality.

Specs for each (according to GlobalSecurity.org):

Soryu Class

Collins Class
 
It ill be interesting to see what modifications, if any they receive should this become reality.
Click to expand...
IMHO, the next submarine class for Australia should have VLS on board to launch up to 4 cruise-missiles (Future: 2 super-/hypersonic missiles) or to hold Swimmer Delivery Vehicles and gear. Just like the German Type 216 submarine proposal. ;)
Yeah, I know, my idea for the next Australian submarine class just sounds like a non-nuclear version of the Virginia Class submarine.
 
There are lots of things Australian subs "should" have, but given their budget and political situation they are making a choice. Sōryū is in service and it's an excellent class of submarine, arguably the best non-nuclear boats in the world. Japan and Australia have an important and growing defense partnership, and a shipyard in Japan is a lot more convenient to the RAN than one in Germany. It's a good choice, if not the one everyone will be happy with.
 
I don't know much about subs, but would the 6100NM distance at 6.5 knots for the Soryu be it's maximum range (with 6.5 knots being it's most efficient speed)? If so, any idea how feasible it would be to bump that up to closer to the Collins' 9000NM through modifications? If not, any guesses at what it's max range would roughly be?
 
Dragon029 said:
I don't know much about subs, but would the 6100NM distance at 6.5 knots for the Soryu be it's maximum range (with 6.5 knots being it's most efficient speed)? If so, any idea how feasible it would be to bump that up to closer to the Collins' 9000NM through modifications? If not, any guesses at what it's max range would roughly be?
Click to expand...
There's a lot that goes into the endurance rating for a submarine, so it would depend on what the current design's limits are and how growth-capable the design. My best guess is that it's likely feasible from an engineering standpoint, the question is whether Australia will pay for such a modification. Or perhaps Japan and Australia will share costs for an enhanced-endurance Sōryū, the JMSDF buying it as well as Australia after the initial batch production has finished. But it appears more likely the basic design will be maintained and a refueling facility will be constructed in Darwin instead.
 
The major problem with the Soryu class is it's comparatively short range. Collins class has a range of 9,000 nautical miles (Snorkeling). Soryu has a range of only 6,100 nautical miles (using AIP). This would mean that the RAN would need a submarine base in the Top End to reach Asian waters. It presently doesn't have one.
 
browsing at Soryu class specifications, i noticed an unusual thing, with 2900 ton of surfaced displacement and 4200 ton of submerged displacement, she has fantastic ROB (Reserve of Buoyancy) Of 45 %

That kind of ROB means that she has high tolerance of flooding and able to get to surface with some of its compartement flooded (but main ballast tank intact)

This kind of ROB so far i'm only see at Russian submarines which are double skin (well because calling it double hull may seem to be confusing it refers to catamaran)

Is Soryu a double skin submarine ? Or i did the math wrong ?

I did the math by subtracting that "submerged weight" with "surfaced weight" The result is the volume (or weight of water) of Main Ballast Tank.

Then i divided that volume with surfaced displacement to get Reserve of Buoyancy.

So the process is basically :

(4200-2900)/2900=0.45 or 45%

So far the equations works fine for US and Russian and EU submarines, but for Japanese hmmm it just might seems Japanese have its own definition of submerged displacements. Based on what i read from submarine design papers at dtic and elsewhere, there are basically three kinds of displacement for submarine namely the :

-Surfaced displacements :Displacement of submarine with empty main ballast tank
-Submerged displacements : Displacement of submarine with ballast tank filled and submerged
-Envelope displacements : "Total" Displacement of submarine underwater, a sum of submerged displacement with free flood volume.

Free flood volume itself is basically space in submarine that is not a part of ballast tank nor watertight, when submarine surfaced it would be empty, when submerged however it would be flooded.

I wonder if the japanese definition of submerged displacement is actually equal to the envelope displacement, or perhaps yes.. Soryu is double hull sub.
 
I suspect the surface displacement is wrong. It is also reported as standard displacement, which would be displacement fully loaded and equipped but without fuel.
 
The only way that ASC is likely to get this overturned is to pool it's resources, call in every marker it has, and build a fully operational demonstrator to prove it's enemies dead wrong.
 
Grey Havoc said:
The only way that ASC is likely to get this overturned is to pool it's resources, call in every marker it has, and build a fully operational demonstrator to prove it's enemies dead wrong.
Click to expand...


Given that ASC is Government owned, the chances of that are nil.
 
Speaking allowed, I personally am thinking alongb the lines of:
* I'm happy if the Liberal's have reneged their 'wet-dream' of nuclear-powered subs for the RAN!

* 12 subs is overly ambitious in my opinion. We have had major issues manning 4 out of the 6 subs we have now at any one time!

* I can see issues of the 'Collins class' repeating itsel, regarding the intergration of U.S weapons & systems with that of Japanese (just as there were issues of intergrating U.S weapons & systems with Swedish!)

* I see an issue of the 65 x crew of the Soryu class, when compared to the 45 x crew of the Collins class - again manning is a big issue within the RAN subs. equate this with a 12 x sub purchase .......

* I see many potential issues with maintanace of the Soryu class sub's in general!

* Any design chosen by the RAN should have a proven AIP operating history!

Im wonderingif it would be viable with all the lessons and mistakes identified in the Collins class balls-up, whether it would be viable to 'build new' Collins class subs? What with the money, facilities and technical skills which have been sunk into the Collins class program. After all its my understanding (don't forget I'm a grunt and not a sailor :eek: ) that the Collins class as a submarine is a very capable design. With most of the problem / issues of the Australian-built Collins being the fault/over ambitious muckups of the RAN, Australian Government and of course corportaions :mad:

Regards
Pioneer
 
Hi! Soryu class submarine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C5%8Dry%C5%AB-class_submarine
 

Attachments

  • 1.jpg
    1.jpg
    1 MB · Views: 388
  • 8.jpg
    8.jpg
    365.9 KB · Views: 44
  • 7.jpg
    7.jpg
    409.3 KB · Views: 45
  • 6.jpg
    6.jpg
    612.6 KB · Views: 42
  • 5.jpg
    5.jpg
    694.2 KB · Views: 313
  • 4.jpg
    4.jpg
    396.5 KB · Views: 320
  • 3.jpg
    3.jpg
    518.6 KB · Views: 339
  • 2.jpg
    2.jpg
    321.2 KB · Views: 362
Hi!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1hdGOnbUx8
 

Attachments

  • 0839_00000068674.jpg
    0839_00000068674.jpg
    118 KB · Views: 125
  • blog_import_5139b1f18d8a5.jpg
    blog_import_5139b1f18d8a5.jpg
    104.1 KB · Views: 110
  • 1109-2-2.jpg
    1109-2-2.jpg
    120.5 KB · Views: 93
A Soryu type submarine is the largest in the world so as a submarine of the usual power which is not an atomic submarine.
Usually, a power type submarine has 2000 tons or less a common underwater displacement.
So, the Soryu type is no less than 4200 tons, and is equipped with sufficient capability to use it in an open sea.
Moreover, a power type submarine is usually powered by a battery, while generating electricity by a diesel engine, accumulating it in a battery and going underwater under it.
Therefore, if a battery is run out, you have to turn and generate an engine again.
Several days are a limit staying underwater under the power of a battery.
However, an AIP (non-air dependence promotion) system is so carried in the Soryu type, and power is generated by using fuel for exclusive use.
Thereby, the going-underground period which was several days is two weeks or more only by the battery.
That into which the tactical control system called world top class with the predecessor's coconut model was also further developed is carried.
Usually, as a power type submarine, it could be said also in the world that it is the performance of the highest peak.
Although it is comparison with a kilo class submarine, the kilo class is divided into three subtypes, and is famous for silence being high.
Moreover, an underwater displacement is also as large as 3000 tons, and has sufficient strategy capability in an open sea like the submarine of the Self-Defense Forces.
Since the kilo class does not carry the AIP organization, it is farther than a Soryu type short so during the underwater action.
Moreover, Noise pattern is important by detection of a submarine.
This is a pattern of sound generated from a propeller etc., and the Self-Defense Forces have collected the noise patterns of the Russia submarine from the cold war era.
If sonar detects sound, it will be disclosed that a kilo class submarine is immediately.
Although neither of torpedo tube changes in the field of armaments at six gates, the Soryu type can employ so the antiship missile which can attack an aquatic naval fleet from the water.
There is no performance of an antiship missile in the kilo class.
First of all, obsoleting of the performance at the time of [ newest ] comparing with a Soryu type so could not be denied since the kilo class is the ship designed in the 70s.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wG04ozlLh8k
AIP
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air-independent_propulsion
 
Pioneer said:
Speaking allowed, I personally am thinking alongb the lines of:
* I'm happy if the Liberal's have reneged their 'wet-dream' of nuclear-powered subs for the RAN!

* 12 subs is overly ambitious in my opinion. We have had major issues manning 4 out of the 6 subs we have now at any one time!

* I can see issues of the 'Collins class' repeating itsel, regarding the intergration of U.S weapons & systems with that of Japanese (just as there were issues of intergrating U.S weapons & systems with Swedish!)

* I see an issue of the 65 x crew of the Soryu class, when compared to the 45 x crew of the Collins class - again manning is a big issue within the RAN subs. equate this with a 12 x sub purchase .......

* I see many potential issues with maintanace of the Soryu class sub's in general!

* Any design chosen by the RAN should have a proven AIP operating history!

Im wonderingif it would be viable with all the lessons and mistakes identified in the Collins class balls-up, whether it would be viable to 'build new' Collins class subs? What with the money, facilities and technical skills which have been sunk into the Collins class program. After all its my understanding (don't forget I'm a grunt and not a sailor :eek: ) that the Collins class as a submarine is a very capable design. With most of the problem / issues of the Australian-built Collins being the fault/over ambitious muckups of the RAN, Australian Government and of course corportaions :mad:

Regards
Pioneer
Click to expand...

Manpower is the major concern for the RAN submarine force. However, with the ending of the mining boom, that could well be overcome. The lure of the mines is decreasing, as wages come down while the Submariners' allowances remain high.

Range is another important factor, with the Soryu, despite being nearly 10 metres longer than a Collins, has a substantially shorter range. Operating in Asian waters from Australian bases becomes more difficult. A new submarine base would need to be established and there are no ports in the Top End which offer ease of access to deep water.

The integration problem is indeed a difficult one. However, the RAN rather shot itself in the foot with that one, over the Collins class, preferring a fixed price contract over a variable one, so ASC delivered what was ordered. Unfortunately technology had rapidly advanced from time of order to time of delivery and the control and weapon systems were rather outdated. Sound wise the Collins are subtantially quieter than their predecessors, they just didn't achieve the "twice as quiet" intended goal.

The main problem for the Collins class was that the Keating Government decided to get rid of a large number of middle-ranking officers, seeing the services (especially the Navy) as "top heavy", and they were annoyed at forced retirement and knew where the skeletons were buried and were only too willing to air their grievances in the media, so a lot of unnecessary bad press resulted. The Collin's reputation was tarnished as a result from a lot of ignorance media speculation.
 
Australia wants such submarines
(1) for activities in a vast ocean submarine
(2) equipped with AIP engine which has the superiority for noise reduction.
(3) available with anti-ship missiles, Tomahawk, is equipped with weapons is substantial.
Compared with the submarines of Germany and Sweden, Soryu is large.
Both submarines, compared with both the water displacement in the 2000 tons or less so over 4000 t sōryū.
The difference in size influences armed and driving performance, operational days.
Instead of small submarines based on work in different geographical conditions, since land near Baltic Sea and North Sea
Would be that it wants to make that assumption in the vast waters of the Pacific submarine.
"Soryu" class submarine is now the world's large conventional submarines and advanced, performance of each district is very good both, and also its dimensions to satisfy Australia Navy. AIP large conventional submarines look to the world, and currently selected international submarine market for Australia to provide Japan's "soryu" not only KSS-3 and Korea (export type referred DSX-3000AIP submarines).
However, KSS-3 is only drawn, currently running is only Soryu class submarine to meet the demands Australia.
Similar geographical conditions in Australia and Japan
Submarine blockade strategy is reasonable in on to defend the island area of territorial waters.
According to the report of Reuters, there are conditions of 4,000-ton class in the succeeding submarine of the Collins class submarine.
Australia has a strong large-sized submarine intention.
Except for the submarine of nuclear propulsion, the submarine with 4,000-ton class of a displacement is not made except Japan now.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kL5hqTTAbIk
 
That is a pretty nice submarine cutaway presented in an odd way. Here it is rejoined with a few specifications.
 

Attachments

  • JMSDF Soryu-class cutaway.JPG
    JMSDF Soryu-class cutaway.JPG
    741.7 KB · Views: 357
I was at the defence+industry conference in adelaide not more than 8 weeks ago and the man in the white uniform was still taking about building subs in adelaide.
I wonder what changed in the last few weeks or if he knew something he didn't want to talk about in adelaide of all places.
 
http://the-japan-news.com/news/article/0001624220

9:16 pm, October 07, 2014



The Yomiuri Shimbun

Japan is expected to begin discussions with the Australian government about exporting domestically developed submarine technology, including the state-of-the-art Soryu Class submarine, which would be the first of its kind, The Yomiuri Shimbun has learned.

The two countries are likely to reach an agreement to begin discussions on the joint development of submarines at a meeting between Defense Minister Akinori Eto and his Australian counterpart, David Johnston, who will probably visit Japan later this month, according to sources.

With an eye on China’s maritime expansion into the Asia-Pacific region, the government aims to step up security cooperation with Australia through the provision of advanced submarine technology, the sources said.

The Maritime Self-Defense Force’s Soryu Class submarine is a diesel motor submarine with a displacement of about 3,000 tons, and is the largest conventional submarine in the world. Its technology level — the depth to which it can submerge, the cruising distance and silent movement — is world class. Five Soryu Class submarines have been deployed since 2009 at a cost of about ¥50 billion each.

Given China’s accelerated military expansion, the Australian government had shown interest in Japanese submarine technology to help replace its aging submarines. However, many officials in the Japanese government are worried about exporting submarine technology, given the high confidentiality involved.

Even at a summit meeting between Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott in July, they did not agree to anything beyond joint research of defense equipment and technology, including hydrodynamics.

When the government exports submarine technology, anticipated risks such as the outflow of technologies to third party countries should be avoided, based on the Three Principles on Transfer of Defense Equipment and Technology, which was adopted by the Cabinet in April. If two nations jointly develop submarines that have designs and capabilities different from the original vessels, the government will not consider it a violation of the three new principles. In anticipation of the joint research, the senior officials of the ministry and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. visited Australia in August.

The government is to make a final decision on the export based on the results of upcoming talks with the Australian government.

Based on the three principles, the government has approved of exporting parts for the Patriot Advance Capability-2 — or PAC-2 — surface-to-air missile system to the United States, as well as joint research on the technology of missiles carried on an F-35, the next-generation fighter jet, with Britain.

The envisaged defense cooperation with Australia would be the third case of transferring defense equipment and technology under the new rules, but it would be “the first case for Japan to export defense equipment in such a serious manner,” a senior Defense Ministry official said.
Click to expand...
 
Good for Australia to see this fight going on, hopefully it results in the best deal they can get.
 
 
Kadija_Man said:
Defence Minister David Johnston indicates new submarine fleet will not be designed in Australia.
Click to expand...
"When I got into Government, when I said, 'tell me about [the] C1000 [submarine building program], tell me how far along the track we are,' [I was told] 'we're not far at all – there's not a contract, there's not an obligation, there's not a design'."
Click to expand...

I really hope that this was just a misunderstanding by the interviewing reporter, and not a Defence Minister that can't be even bothered to get the project designation right (SEA 1000). The smell of horse manure is already bad enough.
 
I'm sure the wrong designation comes from the reporter, not the minister. They sound the same, after all.
 
You would want to hope this is part of some deliberate strategy, possibly trying to keep potential contractors off balance to get into a good bargaining position, otherwise it's a bit of a mess.

I know the subcorp would definitely like to know what's going to happen, nailing down whether or not local construction is a requirement should be fairly straightforward by this stage even if they haven't decided on an actual design or specification.

I'd be very curious to know how realistic from the US perspective the idea of leasing/buying Virginia class subs is. I know it won't happen but I'd like to know if we could get them if we pursued them.

I always figured if they wouldn't give Australia the raptor they certainly wouldn't give us nuclear attack subs but apparently they were quite possibly prepared to make an Australian raptor along the lines of an f-15j or k. Maybe they would make a Virginia AU class?
 
Australia is making noises like they want a Soryu without AIP, but rather a larger lithium ion battery pack for primary energy storage. The belief being that AIP special fuels limit replenishment and patrol time, but a huge lithium battery pack could provide near equivalent performance and can be recharged at sea during convenient snorkeling times, and diesel replenishment at sea or at conventional ports is easy.
 
German Firm Says It Can Build Subs In SA

(Source: Australian Associated Press; published Dec 17, 2014)

German submarine builder ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems says it can build 12 subs in Australia on time and for $20 billion or less.

The company insists its long experience as a designer and commercial submarine builder, with 161 boats constructed for 22 countries since 1960, make it a low risk for Australia - far lower than Japan whose Soryu-class submarines have never been exported.

"It is our core business to sell a submarine which our customer wants, build it in their country and transfer technology and know-how," a source close to the TKMS bid said on Wednesday.

The government is considering what submarine will replace the navy's six Collins boats that reach retirement age from 2026.

Labor's 2009 and 2013 Defence white papers propose 12 advanced new subs assembled in South Australia where the Collins boats were built.

The coalition has hedged on committing to an Australian build with a final decision tipped for the new Defence White Paper next year.

Two years ago, there were no foreign contenders able to meet Australia's requirements. But now there are several, from France, Germany, Sweden and Japan, whose Soryu-class boats are regarded as closest to Australia's specifications.

Some media reports suggest Soryu is a done deal, although it would still require substantial modification.

TKMS is proposing its Type-216, a 4000-tonne scaled up version of its widely used 1860-tonne Type-214. That gives it a range of 13,000 nautical miles and endurance of 80 days.

The Type-216 doesn't actually exist yet, although it's 80 per cent in the water. The company says it could produce the first boat in time for decommissioning of HMAS Farncomb in 12 years.

"That means getting a contract in the next year or two, in 2016 or thereabouts, but we can meet that schedule," the source said.

The $20 billion price tag is regarded as the ceiling and final costs could be less.

TKMS could build in either Germany or Australia. The company, which briefly owned Collins parent Kockums, is familiar with Australian facilities and shipbuilder ASC.

"Our position is simply we can build in Australia because we have a proven track record in places such as Greece and Turkey and Korea," the source said.

-ends-
Click to expand...
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom