In the competitive bidding process for a $50 billion ($38.8 billion) contract to build Australia’s new submarine fleet in partnership with Australian industry, Germany appears to be losing over technical concerns, according to industry sources interviewed by Reuters.
“The German proposal is an enlarged version of a smaller existing submarine, and that technically is risky,” one source told Reuters. German defense contractor Thyssen Krupp Marine Systems (TKMS) is offering Australia a scaled-up version of its 2,000-ton diesel-electric Type 214 submarine, equipped with lithium-ion battery technology. As I reported previously, TKMS is offering the 4,000-ton HDW class 216, specifically designed to meet Australia’s needs.
In February 2015, the Australian government asked Germany, France, and Japan to bid for the country’s largest defense procurement program (the so-called SEA-1000 acquisition project)—a contract to build up to 12 new submarines for the Australian Royal Navy, replacing the six Collins-class submarines currently in service.
The requirements outlined in the bid including a 4,000-ton displacement, a range and endurance similar to the Collins-class submarines, sensor performance and stealth abilities better than the Collins, and a combat system and heavyweight torpedo developed jointly by the U.S. and Australia as the preferred combat system and armament, makes an off-the-shelf solution not an option.
All three contenders–TKMS, Japan’s Mitsubishi Heavy Industries and Kawasaki Heavy Industries, and French defense contractors DCNS –have agreed to build the submarines in Adelaide, the home base of the Australian Submarine Corporation (ASC).
As The Diplomat reported previously, DCNS is offering a 4,000-ton version of the French Navy’s Barracuda-class nuclear powered attack submarine, dubbed the Shortfin Barracuda Block 1A.
Japan, with its brand new 4,000-ton Soryu-class stealth submarines outfitted with a new lithium-ion battery propulsion system, appears to still be the frontrunner, however, as I pointed out previously, the submarine may not be the best option for Australia:
>[O]n average Japanese subs are constructed to last for around 19 years, whereas the Australian governments expects at least a 30-year active service life span. The Japanese boats also have much less accommodation space than Collins-class submarines.
>Additionally, the much talked about air-independent propulsion (AIP) system is actually Swedish technology. However, the Australian government has so far not shown any interest in AIP, preferring a lithium-ion battery option, which will be built into the next batch of Soryu-class subs. Nevertheless, advanced lithium-ion batteries are one of Japan’s top military secrets and it seems unlikely that Tokyo has agreed to share this sensitive technology with Canberra despite media reports.
>The Japanese subs also allegedly have less range than the current Collins-class submarines in service. Furthermore, another concern is the integration of a U.S. combat system and weapons ( Mk 48 Mod 7 CBASS heavyweight torpedoes) into the Japanese hull.
In fact, in November 2014, Australia’s Senate Economics Legislation References Committee, rejected the Japanese submarine as an option.
When asked about Germany losing the bid, TKMS Australia Director Jim Duncan told Reuters that “[t]he rumors could well be right. Who knows. My only advice, having spent many years in this environment is: believe nothing that you hear and only half of what you see.” Like with most major defense deals, at the end, the decision will be political and only partially influenced by technical considerations.
I think Americans have taken over policy planning and want the subs to have if not an international presence then at least a capability across the pacific which is why they're going to be so big - and so many too
We can barely man 6 how do we man twice as many lol
the displacement is all about range. Australia is very large, especially in a circumnavigate sense, but only has two major fleet bases, each on opposite sides of the country and south from its interests in asia.
If they werent such cucks they'd get nuclear boats so range wouldn't be an option, but instead they spend more money than is necessary making a diesel boat pretend to be nuclear.
Also the only reason we cant man six is because theyre all based in perth. Not even perth, rockingham. Nobody wants to live in fucking rockingham, its a shitheap and stirling somehow manages to make it an even worse proposition. If they reopen platypus in sydney or make a submarine base in brisbane they will have no trouble crewing them.
We have fucking massive range requirements due to the size of our coastline and the approaches to it. Nuclear would suit the requirement, but there are two good reasons we haven't gone that way - we don't have a civil nuclear program to support it (which is a mistake, but another story) and more importantly, it suits the US Navy to have a friendly ally in SE Asia with a high quality conventional submarine capability to complement their nuclear fleet.
For example, during the Cold War our old Oberon boats made several patrols up to Cam Ranh Bay in Vietnam where the Soviets had a fleet base, and where the Australian submarines took hull shots of Russian vessels and established acoustic profiles.
What about Saab-Kockums?
It's funny Australia and The Netherlands have never thought about working together for a new sub class, since they want about the same. The Netherlands is looking for a new AIP sub with at least 3000t displacement and a similar or bigger range as their current Walrus-class subs have (>10,000 nmi)
and you only need subs on the north-west, nobody is coming in south-east
>but instead they spend more money
Virginia class 7,900 tons and costs 1.8 billion
>Also the only reason we cant man six is because theyre all based in perth. Not even perth, rockingham. Nobody wants to live in fucking rockingham, its a shitheap and stirling somehow manages to make it an even worse proposition.
Might safety have a factor in that?
>If they reopen platypus in sydney or make a submarine base in brisbane they will have no trouble crewing them.
What year is?
You talk about them being isolated, but basing them in Sydney would have them doing nothing. No conceivable threat could ever get all the way around Australia to come at the East coast.
This is why the moved all the bases out of Victoria and NSW to NT and WA and QLD
They're in SA cause thats where the ABC dock is
I wish my fellow bongposters weren't fucking stupid.
Aussies have a very good reason why *not* to buy British subs. Last time we sold them something we totally dicked them over.
Eh, that's not true at all.
The Astute class is a brand new spanking class.
It's not that we're afraid of nuclear power - we have an experimental nuclear reactor in our biggest city - the big issue is that we have pretty much no nuclear industry. That means that if we started right now, we'd need to wait about a decade before we have enough personnel in the ADF and local contractors trained to transport, store, handle, operate, troubleshoot, fix, etc nuclear fuel / reactors. All that work doesn't come cheap either, especially trying to snag nuclear engineers (in a country with practically no nuclear industry) that want to live in a metal tube that's surrounded by thousands of tons of water trying to crush you. There would definitely be some, but those that also meet physical and psychological requirements, as well as enough to man several submarines? Not happening any time soon unfortunately.
Yeah they're out of the race unfortunately, their proposal was to take the Collins design and expand it
UK hasn't built conventional submarines in decades and hasn't built for export since the Oberon
Germany exported the Type 209 to 13 countries + modified it to the Dolphin for Israel.
The Type 212 they're building for themselves and Italy, the Type 214 for Korea and Greece and Portugal. A modified 214 is their bid.
the last conventional sub they built was a competitor to the 209 and was sold to five countries
But they've been nuclear since then and their bid is to take their nuclear sub and scale it down and run it on diesel which sounds rather dubious to me
thats a 20mw research reactor. This reactor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grafenrheinfeld_nuclear_power_plant - the first picture in the wikipedia page for nuclear power plant) runs at 1350mw. I'd guess most people dont even know that experimental reactor exists.
you are correct about the lack of skilled personnel within the navy to operate them, but how did the US crew their first nuke boats?
I don't think so, we already mine plenty of uranium, have a nuclear reactor less than 30km from the Sydney CBD, run a shit ton of fossil fuel power plants and aren't New Zealand. There'd obviously be opposition, but I think the majority wouldn't care or would support it - if anything it could be twisted as a way of covering up for China's taking of our jobs in mining.
Except the only submarine base is in rockingham in perth, which is a closer to the conceivable defence points than sydney, but just as far from asia, and further than brisbane is. Whats the point of having subs already in postion if there's no crew on them though? You'd hope your intelligence would give you two or three days you'd need to bring your sub around from brisbane if ever it were needed anyway.
ASC is in SA, and there is permanently one sub there, but its not operational, its just that ASC is so slow an inefficient that by the time the sixth boat is done with maintenance its time for the first one to go back in.
We dont have the technical base or industry to build commercial nuclear power stations
We cant take that non existent technical base and nuclear power station designs and scale them down to a reactor for a submarine
Bit unfortunate as it was their own fault.
Both them and Aus (who instantly NOPEd the fuck out of there) did a thorough examination and knew how bad their condition was.
Canada continued to fuck around and let them deteriorate even more before purchasing them, then bitched and moaned when they had problems.
>tfw the only party with a sensible military policy is the pacifist libertarians
>Listen cunts, stop being softcocks about our army, you wanna defend Australia? Get nukes.
Otherwise cut the fucking defence budget and lower my goddamn taxes.
>Most of the navy’s surface fleet would be sold to help fund new acquisitions.
>Most of the full-time Army would be disbanded
>responsibility for the defence of Australia’s landmass should be transferred to a part-time force
>A combined-arms, air deployable Australian International Brigade of mainly foreign volunteers would be created
Haha what the actual fuck
>Literally wants to sell the navy
>Sensible military policy
>>responsibility for the defence of Australia’s landmass should be transferred to a part-time force
Switzerland is of course entirely reserve based
But that reserve is also national service
I think thats the only way you could do a reserve based defensive military
Well it makes sense, the aus navy is so small that apart from being a dune-coon suppression force, in any sort of serious engagement the only good the ships will do is to serve as artificial reefs.
Nuke subs and atom bombs all the way.
>I think thats the only way you could do a reserve based defensive military
The real reason of course is that it is nestled deep in the middle of Europe and therefore makes attacking it basically impossible
>Most of the navy’s surface fleet would be sold to help fund new acquisitions. Some patrol boats and frigates may be kept to establish a coast guard while hospital, supply and amphibious capability may be retained for humanitarian disaster relief.
That makes no sense. The bulk of the surface navy is made up of frigates and patrol boats. The only other things are mine clearers, oceonography, oilers & tenders, and troop transports.
You need mine clearers. You need oilers & tenders. So that leaves only the troop transports. But they would qualify for humanitarian and hospital.
So this is just empty rhetoric.
Or the spiel of someone who doesn't know what they're saying
Hadn't heard of this one and a lazy google shows up fuck all besides Victorian Police, details?
Holy fuck that is delusional.
>The LDP does not support artificial maintenance of a domestic defence industry. Defence procurement should be based on buying the items best suited to the defence tasks required, from the most competitive suppliers in Australia or overseas. However, the LDP does recognise the need for strategic stockpiling of war materiel to insure against hostilities disrupting foreign supplies.
>the need for strategic stockpiling of war materiel to insure against hostilities disrupting foreign supplies.
And thats why you build locally you knobs
The RAAF and Army are the ones mainly deployed in the middle east, not the RAN. Your main point is also garbage rhetoric seeing as the defense force can already beat any aggressors in SEA 1v1 and with the upcoming 2 LHDs, 3 Destroyers, 100 F-35s and other projects we'll be far and away the dominant power in the region.
Yeah that was another fuck up, selling those heaps of shit to NZ now at least.
This shouldn't be surprising. The Australians *hate* British military gear, they always buy American or from any European country that isn't the UK.
I'm not entirely sure why they hate buying stuff from us, maybe we're just shit and haven't realised? Lel.
>The Australians *hate* British military gear, they always buy American or from any European country that isn't the UK.
RFA Largs Bay/HMAS Choulas
Just been a matter of whats been needed I think
Britain doesn't have anything to compete for the LAV, nothing to compete with the F-35 they're buying them too, no LHD design or AEGIS destroyer under construction, etc
Challenger (and Leopard 2) should have been contenders for the MBT deal
The engineering might of been closed but the the Nuclear science degrees are still going strong, plenty of options for master level stuff here. not completely the same thing but its keeping the field alive, and there
are plenty of budding nuclear physicist like myself here.
>nothing to compete with the F-35 they're buying them too
Erm we're not buying F-35As, we're buying the STOVL version. We are using and exporting Typhoons for the interceptor role AND multi-role
Because that's American. We have Sea Viper on our destroyers.
>Challenger (and Leopard 2) should have been contenders for the MBT deal
Those were considered, but both Germans and Bongs lack capability deliver lot more of 'em later on if required.
oh please, if we could get around the social issue of Nukes, we wouldn't be going for a clean slate design, we would buy the knowledge, designs and reactors from other countries. we don't have to develop the industry from scratch with no outside help.
>see not producing what they want
That's what I said in the first place. See my post >>28664835
The anon who replied not telling the truth. If we aren't making anything that can compete with the F-35, why do we have the Typhoon and F-35B for completely different roles? And why would you expect Britain to producing AEGIS destroyers when we have our own system Sea Viper which is, contrary to what he implied, excellent at the same job?
Is Canada still in? Thought Weedman was going to ditch them for some cheap Gripen shit and give the money to rapefugees.
Other then you know, china and India and Pakistan and japan and just about any other nuclear nation that only recently developed there nuclear industries.
you say nobody else does it, but literally everybody outside of the nations that originally developed the own tech do it.
>The real reason of course is that it is nestled deep in the middle of Europe and therefore makes attacking it basically impossible
Tell that to the French Empire and the Prussians, who both failed to invade it at the height of their power.... because the Swiss are armed to the teeth.
Will he actually go back on his campaign rhetoric though?
>Tell that to the French Empire and the Prussians, who both failed to invade it at the height of their power
Please open a book. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switzerland_in_the_Napoleonic_era
>In 1798, Switzerland was completely overrun by the French and was renamed the Helvetic Republic.
No they use theirs much close to the coast than Australia.
>They're too slow, they can't function as attack submarines.
Incorrect, and nuclear subs don't travel any faster on patrol than diesel ones. Diesel subs also have the enormous advantage of not having to operate reactor cooling pumps 24/7/365, and are much quieter because of this.
He will - they have the means to justify their decision. Even if they don't, you can bet people will speculate that Trudeau just happened to get some kind of discount for Canada by "scaring the US" or something (like their 65 aircraft matter in a buy of 3200).
>and they are quieter because reactor pumps
Source? You know the American and British nuclear submarines shield the heat and noise of the reactor, right?
>Deterrence and the ability to operate in shallow waters/littoral zones even far from home
But their endurance is limited compared to nuclear subs. If you go far from home, you can't stay there very long. And most importantly you can't hunt! That's the entire point of an attack submarine, it's supposed to be a predator not a fucking speedbump
>Incorrect, and nuclear subs don't travel any faster
You're a liar
Type 212: 20 knots
Soryu: 20 knots
Upholder: 20 knots
Astute: 30 knots
I'm not the same guy, but diesel subs have been able to sneak through carrier battle group defences plenty of times in the past.
Yes, they are difficult to detect. That doesn't mean they're MORE difficult to detect than the best nuclear submarines.
And can I make the glaringly obvious point that a carrier battle group could easily outrun a conventional submarine because they're too slow to catch up. Speed is something that no one talks about but it's almost as important as the stealth.
If you are commanding a carrier group and you suspect the enemy will have a convention sub in the area, you can simply move somewhere else and wait for the submarine to go home or snorkel (and then track it). If your enemy has nuclear submarines this is NOT an option because it will hunt you down
But the thing is that you will need to be able to confirm that there is submarines in the area, which currently, is either extremely difficult or even impossible against a modern AIP submarine. Nuclear subs are inherently noisier than its AIP counterparts. They are also often much larger, which increases turbulence.
The endurance of a nuclear sub is not endless either, it's limited by consumables. And with AIP modern diesel-electric subs can stay under water pretty long, and in areas a SSN can't reach.
But it's pointless to compare. Displacement, role, crew size, costs, etc are totally different.
>You're a liar
A submarine in operation doesn't travel faster than a handful knots. After a moderate pace of 8 knots the noises of flow is so loud that it would render the submarine useless.
>That would imply that CBGs exist today. Which they don't.
Sorry what? Anyway it doesn't matter, replace CBG with "almost any surface ship". Even the Royal Navy's old and un-sexy type 23 frigates can go faster than the BEST conventional submarines in the world
>but they're not chasing
Your problem is that unlike a nuclear-powered submarine the AIPs can't lurk for long. Germany's vaunted Type 212 submarine can only go 3 weeks without snorkelling. 3 weeks! Then it has to show itself, and if it's seen by the enemy it's too slow to get away from something as old and busted as the Duke Class frigate.
See above. Having to snorkel regularly means that you cannot lurk for long. Also you have no support for this assertion that the best nuclear submarines are noisier. A lot of effort has gone into making them very quiet and stealthy.
>The endurance of a nuclear sub is not endless either, it's limited by consumables.
Yes, limited by consumables, which is a limit of a few months on something like an Astute Class. That's miles better than an AIP submarine
>But it's pointless to compare.
No it isn't. If people are claiming that AIP submarines are better, a comparison is necessary. It can't sustain itself for long, it can't hunt, it can't get away if detected.
I'll tell you what AIP submarines are useful for. Pure defence if you're lucky enough to have a bottleneck to defend. That is about it.
Using archaic terms derails your whole argument. I'm telling you that if you want to shitpost at least be factual.
The fact that you think the decision to use an incorrect term is semantics is concerning to say the least.
>Even the Royal Navy's old and un-sexy type 23 frigates can go faster than the BEST conventional submarines in the world
And a suitable plane can outrun any ship ever built. What's your point there? Are you admitting that surface ships are obsolete or something? :^)
>A submarine in operation doesn't travel faster than a handful knots. After a moderate pace of 8 knots the noises of flow is so loud that it would render the submarine useless.
Explain why the best navies in the world spend ungodly amounts of money to make sure the hunter-killer submarines can go fast, if going fast is useless? This is going to be good.
You're comparing multi-billion dollar SSNs with AIP subs that cost a fraction of the price. If money was no issue we'd all be having SSNs and you guys would have nuclear carriers without a fucking ramp.
But I can see you literally only care about numbers and know nothing about actual sub ops
The proposal was not to expand the collins class (or rather, that was a proposal after your PM for some reason decided to denounce SAAB in public). The proposal was an enlarged A26, which will be the successor to the Gotland-class. It will also be the next sub for the dutch navy.
>You're comparing multi-billion dollar SSNs with AIP subs that cost a fraction of the price.
I was replying to OTHER anons who were making that comparison and saying the AIP submarines were superior because "le reactor is noisy and le shielding doesn't exist"
I'm making the assertion that for blue water operations, where you don't have the luxury of bottlenecks to camp in, AIP submarines are not very useful. What are you going to do in a blue water operation if you can't even keep up with the enemy?
>If money was no issue we'd all be having SSNs and you guys would have nuclear carriers without a fucking ramp.
Nice try at changing the subject, but do you see me saying a carrier with a ramp can launch a wider variety of aircraft than catapults? No. And if someone said that I'd expect them to be told they're an idiot.
People saying AIP submarines can do a nuclear submarine's job are being just as stupid. There's a REASON why they're more expensive.
Yep - the 2 problems though:
1. Nuclear power is expensive and while we're a G20 nation, we also have a heap of coal that's cheaper to run and also has the advantage of killing the environment.
2. There's been one or two uranium mining disasters - just where tailings dams break or something and spread toxic shit everywhere - a lot of our rural water also (or at least did) come from an underwater basin as well - don't want to fuck that up.
that comment wasnt about naval reactors, its about australia having a research reactor in its largest city not meaning australia isnt faggots about nuclear power. They have a teeny tiny 20mw reactor, its small enough that most people dont even know its there, and I bet if the media wanted to they could get it shut down in three months.
Pathetic. You can't even form an argument. We're meant to just believe you're right because you've declared I have 0 knowledge.
Someone explain how an AIP submarine can do anything in blue fucking water if it's too slow to keep up with surface ships, and has a few weeks' endurance before snorkelling.
if you look in that other submarine thread talking about actual capable submarines you'll see that nuclear subs can turn off the coolant system when operating on a lower enough power that natural circulation does that job. The quoted figure for the virginia is 8 knots with (some random anon) guesses up to 15 knots.
>explain how an AIP submarine can do anything in blue fucking water if it's too slow to keep up with surface ships
Easy as fuck- submarines do _not_ operate in battlegroups with surface ships. The only time this was even attempted was in the 1930's, and it didn't work.
>Easy as fuck- submarines do _not_ operate in battlegroups with surface ships.
Where did I suggest they operate in battlegroups with surface ships you moron? I'm talking about keeping up with ENEMY surface ships.
The A26 is too small for the Dutch, they also want something bigger (>3000t). For now nothing is known yet, but Saab will probably propose the enlarged A26 as they did with Australia. DCNS and TKMS are yet to come out with a proposal.
Any nuclear sub is slower than a surface fleet too, what kind of argument is that?
>Any nuclear sub is slower than a surface fleet too, what kind of argument is that?
Wrong. They are faster than most surface ships, especially the ones which operate across blue water
>Easy as fuck- submarines do _not_ operate in battlegroups with surface ships
>keeping up with ENEMY surface ships
Ever heard of ambushes? It's literally how subs were used in WW2- sit someplace where you know ships will transit, then sink the enemy ones. It's like you're talking out of your arse based purely on stats you got off google.
A nuclear sub can't tail a surface fleet going full power for a longer period of time. It will be blind, deaf and will be easy to detect
You really have completely idiotic idea of sub ops, based on nothing but numbers
>Ever heard of ambushes? It's literally how subs were used in WW2- sit someplace where you know ships will transit, then sink the enemy ones.
Yes I have heard of ambushes. That's why, if were capable of reading, you'd have seen me say that AIP subs are useful for bottlenecks >>28665126
I'm saying that AIP subs are NOT useful for BLUE WATER operations. Do you understand what that means?
>A nuclear sub can't tail a surface fleet going full power for a longer period of time. It will be blind, deaf and will be easy to detect
Explain why the best navies spend ridiculous amounts of money to ensure the submarines can go fast, if this capability is useless. Please, I'm dying to know.
I'm amazed how you conflate blue-water transits in benign territory with combat operations in contested territory. If you're such an expert on submarine operations, please: enlighten us with your detailed analysis of how high-speed maneuvering is used in a combat environment by submarines. You _obviously_ have commanded an SSN for YEARS to continue to debate this point, so why not inform us poor plebs with your understanding of this complex and technical subject???
today you learn the torpedos are incredibly short ranged and boosting away at 30 knots while it chases you a 50 knots may be the only thing that saves you.
Also sprint and drift.
>It doesn't matter how silent your submarine is, it's the water around the submarine that creates the noise.
The design of the submarine and materials used affects how much noise is created and how the water moves around it
Why do you think combat operations can't happen in the open sea? Why do you think weak endurance is not important if you're operating across blue water?
Ability to hunt the enemy
Ability to get away
All these things are fucking important, you don't need to be an SSN commander to realise that.
>torpedos are incredibly short ranged
But torpedos are not the only armament submarines carry. And 25 to 50km is hardly short-ranged for a torpedo, and missiles reach to over 300km.
Face it, you're talking shit.
By the way, page 133 of The Silent Deep by Peter Hennessy and James Jinks says EXPLICITLY that the Royal Navy was attracted to nuclear-powered submarines because it improved ATTACKING capability
So don't take it from me, retards
They wouldn't for just that reason. Because near everything of value is concentrated into a relatively small number of cities considering the overall size of the country that's all you need to attack as the aggressor. If you want to go full retard and nuke your own (few) cities in defense then ok, otherwise if those primary coastal cities fall enjoy trying to mount an insurgency from the nothing in most of the rest of the country. The only notable singular things of value away from major cities are mines, which are entirely reliant on resupply from outside and would be of no use in resisting an invasion.
I posted that because people here are saying that when a submarine goes fast it becomes useless. In fact the speed is vital for attacking and counter-attacking
>Nuclear carriers with CATOBAR also improve endurance and attacking capability yet you guys didn't build one
Why do you keep bringing this up? Of course they would improve endurance and attacking capability. I'm NOT claiming the opposite.
If you want a carrier thread so badly, go and make one.
>The design of the submarine and materials used affects how much noise is created and how the water moves around it
There are limits, you can only slightly reduce the turbulences.
It's basic physics.
>he speed is vital for attacking and counter-attacking
The only thing they use higher speeds for is transiting in secure areas and evasion once their location is compromised because of their reactor pumps.
The rest of the time, they stay at low knots.
max range 22km.
uh-huh. The point of the missile is to get it within 22km of the sub, its not drop it on top of the sub accurate, not unless there's three units providing info on the datum.
The longest ranged torpedo you linked has a top speed of 44kts (81 km/h) and our nuclear sub can move at 30kts (55km/h). with a different in speed of 26km/h the torpedo closes 4km every ten minutes. At a diesel sub speed of 20kts the speed difference opens up to 44km/h and for every ten minutes to torpedo closes 7km. Just being in a nuclear sub gives you 3km every ten minutes of not exploding.
A quote without context proves that? Dude, again, you have no idea how sub ops work. You're literally just bringing up numbers thinking they define the capabilities of a submarine. Nuclear subs have their role and so do diesel-electric ones
>sub vs sub encounter
I really appreciate that you didn't go and look up sprint and drift when it was mentioned earlier. I get that there's two uses for the term and that probably confused you and scared you off. When used offensively by a submarine in means manipulating the thermal layer to close distances rapidly by sprinting, then crossing the layer and 'drifting' in order to provide targeting data for your own sensors. Subs absolutely use their top speed while sprinting on the other side of the layer from their target in order to move into an optimal position. With the range of torpedos being so critical (as seen in >>28665530) gaining the optimal position is critically important.
Thanks, I'll ignore these respected authors who had unprecedented access to the Royal Navy to write this book, and believe you instead
>Nuclear subs have their role and so do diesel-electric ones
Explain why the USA, with its $600 billion defence budget, builds 0 (zero) diesel-electric submarines if they have their own useful role that nuclear submarines are incapable of?
>I'll ignore these respected authors who had unprecedented access to the Royal Navy to write this book, and believe you instead
No worries, you believe those authors who were given that "unprecedented access", no doubt under the condition that they write it in a way that hides REAL operational procedures and tactics, and think whatever you want. It's a free country, after all.
honestly how do you think helicopters and surface ships engage subs.
Do you think a helicopter locates a sub in the middle some random patch of water and laser accurately drops a depth charge on it? Or do you think it drops torpedos with seekers in the vicinity and that torpedo maybe tracks the target but then is also subject to these range issues (not to mention loosing contact through; thermal layers, sprinting, decoys, etc)
Do you think ships sail directly over the top of the ship and sailors in their white uniforms with their fancy neckerchiefs drop depth charges over the side? Or do you think they have torpedo launchers on the upper decks?
Do you really think the rockets carrying the torpedos dive into the water and continue towards the sub at mach speeds? in incompressible water?
>I don't think anyone in their right mind considers wargames to be realistic, but more of an anecdote than proof either way.
Are you implying that navies purposefully conducts training that doesn't resemble actual combat operations?
>Explain why the best navies spend ridiculous amounts of money to ensure the submarines can go fast, if this capability is useless. Please, I'm dying to know.
I guess you have never seen a car driven at speed that is lower than it's top speed.
22km max range at 81km/h gives it a run time of approx 18 minutes. Since it only closes 4km every ten minutes, if the torpedo is dropped from 8km away and both a diesel sub and a nuclear sub turn and run from it, the nuclear sub will outrun the torpedo and the diesel sub will explode. Why would you ever want to be on a diesel sub.
Why did you deliberately choose the older model torpedo for the range example? The type 65 has a 50km unclassified range.
Also, the diesel sub is quieter. Something you (assuming you're the asshat from earlier) can't seem to understand.
You've resorted to implying I said submarines always travel at their top speed when I did no such thing. Hah, you guys are getting desperate. This AIP IDF is looking pathetic now.
I like that one. Funnily enough they do not need any defending since any military sees them as a threat already. That's why the US loves to train with and against modern AIP subs
eh, it was the first link. The idea is still the same, with the newer torpedo it closes at 6km/ten minutes for the nuke and 10km/ten for the diesel.
Nuclear subs can shutdown the coolant pumps under low power loads (ie low speed) and rely on natural circulation to cool the reactor, making them just as quiet as diesels.
And SUBROC. Not to mention rocket-launched depth charges and dpth-chage mortars:
>Nuclear subs can shutdown the coolant pumps under low power loads (ie low speed) and rely on natural circulation to cool the reactor, making them just as quiet as diesels.
Where did you get this info? And why, then, does the US Navy still consider AIP/Diesel subs quieter than nuke subs?
I was providing one stupid answer to satisfy your silly depth charge comment and then one realistic answer, I too believe that surface ships engage submarines with torpedos, hence your comment 'sub v sub warfare, kek' is stupid af because its still torpedo vs sub. regardless of whether it is sub v sub, sub v surface or sub v helo.
>That's why the US loves to train with and against modern AIP subs
The US doesn't have much a choice, it would be stupid NOT to train against something that a potential enemy has.
If AIP subs are such a threat, IF they had so much useful capability that nuclear subs lack, then WHY don't the Americans build any? No one has been able to answer this.
Are you fucking kidding me? You're saying the US Navy thinks there is SUPERIOR technology that is much CHEAPER than it what builds, but chooses NOT to build them itself? How stupid can you be?
I wasn't the one talking about depth charges senpai
I made that comment about sub vs sub since that's a very unlikely scenario to happen. At least one of them will have a surface fleet nearby or a maritime patrol craft circling around
>with the newer torpedo it closes at 6km/ten minutes for the nuke and 10km/ten for the diesel.
So how does the nuke sub get away from the ShKVAL?
At least the diesel sub can go undetected.
>it would take a generation
It would take 6 years to start brand new, it would take 2 years to cross train.
Bottom line they are spending 4.1 billion a sub and even with the conversion it's still more expensive than a new Virginia class.
>WHY don't the Americans build any?
Range mostly. US wants global reach, not regional.
Also size is limited in Diesel or AIP subs compared to nukes, which leaves less room for SSBMs.
>dont say to their allies 'yeah really, your thing is shit hey, but thanks for playing'
I guess that's why there's so many photos of US carries hanging in submarine crew's mess bars that were taken through periscopes well within the carrier group's cordon?
>Range mostly. US wants global reach, not regional.
But the AIP defence force has been telling me that AIP submarines are fine for operations that involve blue water transit. And the USA has naval bases all over the world, they can base these AMAZINGLY QUIET submarines in South East Asia if they wanted.
No, someone explain this bullshit. You morons are saying that the USA can have STEALTHIER submarines for a FRACTION of the cost, but they choose not to have them.
People on this board can't be THAT stupid.
You use decoys and sprint and drift tactics to make sure you kill the shkval launcher before it kills you. There's a point where some tactics dont work yes, but you would you rather have that tactic available to you or not?
The only reason diesels might be harder to detect is because they're smaller. Less machinery, less people making noise, smaller surface for sonar returns and less metal for metallic anomaly detection, but that's all you get in exchange for being slower, having less range, having less firepower, having fewer sensors and smelling like fucking diesel all the time. Is it really worth losing all those high tier capabilities in order to be a little bit smaller? that's like saying the grippen is better than the f-15 because its RCS is smaller.
>If an enemy sub can take pictures of your carrier in a CBG while on full alert, i wouldn't call it anecdotal.
It is when you tell the enemy the exact time and location of your CBG limit the top speed of the CBG, tell the subs to turn on noise makers and down rate the subs and escort's detection gear.
The point of an exercise is to get practice. Not to just curb stop every engagement and learn nothing.
There's actually a pretty strong call for the US Navy to have diesel-electric subs.
And you should know by now that the US Navy does not spend it's money wisely. It's the only branch they're lagging behind in. Also the complete clusterfuck resulting in the Zumwalt and LCS says enough.
>So why didn't EVERY sub-using nation just build themselves a few dozen Typhoon/Akula-type subs?
Because not EVERY sub-using nation has a defence budget like the USA's. In fact only the USA has that kind of budget.
Submarines are arguably THE most important vessels for naval warfare, in a modern navy it is the submarine that rules the waves, it is the submarine technology more than anything else that the world class navies pour resources into in order to have the edge.
This argument that the US Navy considers foreign budgets to have cheaper + superior technology in the most important branch of naval warfare, but allows OTHER navies to have the edge, is just mindblowingly dumb. Sorry but you need to get a fucking grip.
I wasn't aware those cities were 1000s of miles from the coast. There's zero reason for any notional invader to cross the Australian interior at all until they have the coastal cities under control, at which point it's more of a policing operation notifying anyone left who they pay tax too now.
This is where a decent sub force potentially works so well, the most logical and way to attack is via the sea leapfrogging between major cities, and whilst doing super long range patrols far away is nice and all, the ability to be super sneaky over less exceptional distances is exactly the niche in which diesel/electric subs can excel in.
Why is this thread about Australia's next DE sub full of maximum sperg over nuclear capability?
TKMS submarines are shit. Low endurance, small, slow.
DCNS want to do a dodgy modification to their nuclear subs to make it conventional rather than design something new. Typical cutting corners from the frogs, it's the reason why the Charles de Gaulle carrier is shit
In late May 2000, Waller became the first Australian submarine to operate as a fully integrated component of a United States Navy carrier battle group during wargames. Waller’s role was to search for and engage opposing submarines hunting the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln, a role in which she performed better than expected. A few days later, as part of the RIMPAC 2000 exercise, Waller was assigned to act as an 'enemy' submarine, and was reported to have successfully engaged two USN nuclear submarines before coming into attacking range of Abraham Lincoln. Waller performed similarly during the Operation Tandem Thrust wargames in 2001, when she 'sank' two USN amphibious assault ships in waters just over 70 metres (230 ft) deep; although the submarine was 'destroyed' herself later in the exercise.
>submarine that rules the waves
Kek. You know they have literally no idea what's going on above them when they're submerged, right? CBGs/CSGs rule the waves.
>it is the submarine technology more than anything else that the world class navies pour resources
Yet the US says they have a submarine shortage, despite the Virginia-class being cheaper than the Seawolf-class.
>allows OTHER navies to have the edge
Aegis still uses PESA radar. US Navy is retarded with spending, tell us something new.
Thats the crux of the issue, no matter who they go with, its going to be another debacle of getting a special snowflake combat system that uses american weapons with euro equipment. Because that worked out really well last time.
>In exercises, AIP and diesel subs have proven their worth. While exercuses are usually scripted (sometimes to an extent of being completely unindicative of actual combat capabilities of different weapons – this is case with USAF exercises involving 5th generation fighters), it was known for submarine commanders to deviate from script, with deviations producing rather interesting results.
They are not shit. You could buy good TKMS/DCNS subs off the shelf for cheap but Australia wants a 4,000 ton DE sub that is purpose-built just for them. Recipe for delays, failures and cost increases.
This. With 50 billion dollars you buy 60 type 214 off the original plan. Maybe buy twenty and save enough money to maintain them for the service life. Stupid special snowflake fucks.
>the US says they have a submarine shortage
The branches of the US military regularly say they have a shortage of pretty much everything. It happens in every military in the world. Take a wild guess why
Go ahead, tell me why putting a nuclear reactor designed for a submarine into an aircraft carrier is a good idea. Tell me that needing to refuel a NUCLEAR carrier every SEVEN years isn't ridiculous when it's your only carrier.
Not that it would happen (geopolitics, ofc), but with 50 billion dollars you could buy 150 Lada-class subs and all their components, and everything you need to build them and maintain them, and then you are in a position to start designing your own.
>charles de gaule don't do the job against ISIS
>charles de gaule didn't do the job in lybia
>DCNS isn't one a the few serious subs manufacturer
Seriously, you're an embaressment for all of us.
Hahaha, you really want to do this huh? Ok then. Let's take one of your examples
>charles de gaule didn't do the job in lybia
Ah yes, Libya. The military intervention in 2011. How long was that campaign again?
>19 March – 31 October 2011
But what about trusty old Charles de Gaulle "doing the job"?
>Charles de Gaulle was then withdrawn for maintenance at Toulon on 10 August.
Try again you ignorant retard. You've just proved my point exactly.
Nukes are also much more expensive. Has there been any thought given to submersible submarine tenders to extend effective range via at sea resupply? It might be possible to gut the old collins class boats and use them for this less demanding duty with skeleton crews.
>You've resorted to implying I said submarines always travel at their top speed when I did no such thing.
Nuclear submarines use their high speed for two things, for transit and to get fuck out of dodge if they get detected. Most of time in patrol area they usually sail at speed that allows 'em to remain hard to detect and allows use of sensors. Usually few knots.
>Are you fucking kidding me? You're saying the US Navy thinks there is SUPERIOR technology that is much CHEAPER than it what builds, but chooses NOT to build them itself? How stupid can you be?
It's all about priorities and politics. US Navy doesn't need defensive area denial capabilities, main role of diesel submarines. USN is also unwilling to invest R&D funds for diesel submarines, nuclear submarines are cheaper than having both nuclear and diesel submarines.
That causes a minor strategic problem as essentially all US allies refuse to sell their diesel subs to Taiwan, as trade relations with China are more important than a minor sale to country they won't give a single fuck about. As result Taiwan still operates couple WWII-era US submarines, 80's they managed to buy couple new Dutch submarines, but Dutch refused to sell 4 more submarines in early 90's.
>mfw Norway will get more F-35 per capita than the US.
Would be good if they kept the build jobs for people in Adelaide/any where else in aus like they said they would. I live in Adelaide and know of more than a few who are losing work because we aren't building them