Australia future submarine decision making process is at the very basic stage of what do we want, when and why? The when is that the usual complex decision making cycle will mean the first of the new submarines to be launched on or after 2030 the last in about 2040. The six or more submarines will have the usual thirty year operating life meaning they will be with us until 2070.
It was assumed that such basic issues had been basically ironed out settled under the previous Labor government. However the new Coalition Government claims nothing has been resolved other than the future submarine being conventional diesel-electric, probably larger than the Collins, not necessarily 12 submarines, but they will probably assembled in Adelaide.
I think the major challenge for the future submarine will be improvements in anti-submarine sensor technology in the operating areas of Australia submarines. Australian submarines would be most vulnerable to detection if they were on the surface. Surface movement might have been possible in World War Two. But today surface movement would be too detectable even at night due to the growing capabilities of satellites, drones and aircraft and sensitive radar generally. Diesel electric submarines must "snort" that is suck in air while the submarine is close to the surface. The air is used principally to drive the diesel engines to recharge the batteries. The period of the snorting process renders the submarine vulnerable because the snorkel must be run on the surface, the submarine is running shallow and the diesel engined are relatively noisy when running. So the increased range will probably center on more deep diving underwater range.
The Australian solution might be AIP achieved by Stirling, Fuel Cell or MESMA and/or increased battery capacity (possibly Lithium ion). All these solutions add to the weight and size of the submarine.
Australia also has 6,000 km extra to/from transit range than is normal for 2,000 ton European design subs.
So all of the above explains why a European MOTS design will be inadequate. A long shot is Japanese Soryu MOTS.
Rather than really deep diving I mainly meant Australia's future submarines safely operating deeper than very shallow snorting depth.
If Australian subs from Sydney or Fremantle stopped at predictable refueling half way points this would significantly increases the chances of detection. Submarine tenders are very vulnerable.
More important than sheer range is the proportion of low detection range using AIP and/or batteries.
Combat system interoperable US Australia http://www.asiapacificdefencereporter.com/articles/50/SEA-1000
The expectation that they will be larger than the Collins weighing around 4,000 tonnes is likely to be in response to broader mission requirements and to the steadily increasing sensitivity of anti-submarine sensors. The larger a submarine the more energy it can carry allowing increased range and increased speed in very quiet modes. Energy can be considered oil, electricity and the various types of AIP propellant.
The most efficient energy source in terms of power to weight is nuclear but, of course Australia cannot consider it, full stop. That two powers in our region China and India are improving there nuclear propulsion for submarines and that Japan has the capability should be denied and disregarded. Through to 2070 it is taken as given that the nuclear propelled submarines of our American ally will make up for the open ocean speed deficiencies of our submarines.
It is true the Soryu-class would be built in response to different Japanese transit, snorting and fully submerged AIP requirements. This makes straight MOTS Soryu's unlikely, but 214s even less likely. Modified Soryus may be a possibility.
It was assumed that such basic issues had been basically ironed out settled under the previous Labor government. However the new Coalition Government claims nothing has been resolved other than the future submarine being conventional diesel-electric, probably larger than the Collins, not necessarily 12 submarines, but they will probably assembled in Adelaide.
I think the major challenge for the future submarine will be improvements in anti-submarine sensor technology in the operating areas of Australia submarines. Australian submarines would be most vulnerable to detection if they were on the surface. Surface movement might have been possible in World War Two. But today surface movement would be too detectable even at night due to the growing capabilities of satellites, drones and aircraft and sensitive radar generally. Diesel electric submarines must "snort" that is suck in air while the submarine is close to the surface. The air is used principally to drive the diesel engines to recharge the batteries. The period of the snorting process renders the submarine vulnerable because the snorkel must be run on the surface, the submarine is running shallow and the diesel engined are relatively noisy when running. So the increased range will probably center on more deep diving underwater range.
The Australian solution might be AIP achieved by Stirling, Fuel Cell or MESMA and/or increased battery capacity (possibly Lithium ion). All these solutions add to the weight and size of the submarine.
Australia also has 6,000 km extra to/from transit range than is normal for 2,000 ton European design subs.
So all of the above explains why a European MOTS design will be inadequate. A long shot is Japanese Soryu MOTS.
Rather than really deep diving I mainly meant Australia's future submarines safely operating deeper than very shallow snorting depth.
If Australian subs from Sydney or Fremantle stopped at predictable refueling half way points this would significantly increases the chances of detection. Submarine tenders are very vulnerable.
More important than sheer range is the proportion of low detection range using AIP and/or batteries.
Combat system interoperable US Australia http://www.asiapacificdefencereporter.com/articles/50/SEA-1000
The expectation that they will be larger than the Collins weighing around 4,000 tonnes is likely to be in response to broader mission requirements and to the steadily increasing sensitivity of anti-submarine sensors. The larger a submarine the more energy it can carry allowing increased range and increased speed in very quiet modes. Energy can be considered oil, electricity and the various types of AIP propellant.
The most efficient energy source in terms of power to weight is nuclear but, of course Australia cannot consider it, full stop. That two powers in our region China and India are improving there nuclear propulsion for submarines and that Japan has the capability should be denied and disregarded. Through to 2070 it is taken as given that the nuclear propelled submarines of our American ally will make up for the open ocean speed deficiencies of our submarines.
It is true the Soryu-class would be built in response to different Japanese transit, snorting and fully submerged AIP requirements. This makes straight MOTS Soryu's unlikely, but 214s even less likely. Modified Soryus may be a possibility.