Possibly the best available diagram of the Soryu? It has a very rough indications of the locations of such combat system components. See names of some components in red at the base of this article.
---
MHalblaub on November 29, 2014 said
"This is again the old discussion about what is compatible. The [floating communications bouys deployed by submarines] are just dumb radio transmitters. With an US radio on board there would be no difference which bouy would send the signals.
The problem for an US combat system on any submarine from DCNS, Saab-Kockums, TKMS or Mitsubishi/Kawasaki will be a huge price difference between inherent system and US system. Not to mention the delays for introduction into service due to modifications on both sides.
The SeaFox is in use by Royal Navy, Thai Navy and US Navy just to name a few.http://www.marinelink.com/news/america-seafox-atlas347530.aspx [the latter link didn't seem to work but this did http://www.navaldrones.com/seafox.html ][on SeaFox Pete replies "Yes I agree PORTIONS of a combat system might be shared but a whole combat system is more built around weapons and sensor networks."]
The SeaFox is maybe to cheap for RAN and ASC."
--------------------------------------
Pete replies November 30, 2014
"I agree with your points about the bouys.
However the combat system is a much more comprehensive item that must interface with weapons. Australia is highly unlikely to put the US weapons on the scrap heap and change to German or French. Japanese weapons are sometimes the same as [Harpoon missiles] or similar [the torpedos, maybe mines] to the Australian weapons. Australia also wishes to operate the US Tomahawk. See "Australia and the United States Navy are in a partnership for the cooperative development, production, and through-life support of a replacement Heavyweight Torpedo (HWT)." at: http://www.dsto.defence.gov.au/projects/heavyweight-torpedoes#sthash.UbEKNZ5J.dpufAustralia has spent around 10 years working with the US Navy to develop the combat system used in the Collins with the longer term plan of migrating this system (including the weapons) to the Future Submarine. See http://www.dsto.defence.gov.au/projects/collins-class-submarine-replacement-combat-system
See this extended discussion on Australia future combat system issues http://www.asiapacificdefencereporter.com/articles/193/SEA-1000-COMBAT-SYSTEMS-SELECTION-FOR-SEA-1000 which supports and refutes some of our arguments.
The combat system is also designed to interface with US undersea sensor arrays, surface, air and satellite sensor networks. I don't know how intensive this interface is. I don't know how easily German, French or Japanese combat systems could be used instead. I also don't know whether the US would be willing to share US-Australian version of the AN/BYG-1 combat system with Germany, France or Japan.
I also assume that the Japanese submarines interface with US sensor network.
As well as electronic efficiency interoperability with the US is an important consideration.
See in the article below's discussion of the combat systems frequently used by:
- TKMS - the ATLAS ELEKTRONIK ISUS
- DCNS - SUBTICS
- used in the Collins - General Dynamics AN/BYG-1
- while not mentioning othe overall term for the Japanese Soryu combat system is thought to be of mainly of Japanese design but incorporates (right-hand sidebar of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C5%8Dry%C5%AB-class_submarine ):
| Sensors and processing systems: | ZPS-6F surface/low-level air searchradar Hughes/Oki ZQQ-7 Sonar suite: 1× bow-array, 4× LF flank arrays and 1×Towed array sonar |
| Electronic warfare & decoys: | ZLR-3-6 ESM equipment 2× 3-inch underwater countermeasure launcher tubes for launching of Acoustic Device Countermeasures (ADCs) |
| Armament: | 6×HU-606 21 in (533 mm) torpedo tubes with 30 reloads for: 1.) Type 89 torpedoes [similar to Collins Mark 48 torpedo] 2.) UGM-84 Harpoon Mines [type unknown] |
Pete