Innovations & Tech Australia's future Submarine Fleet

[freebloke]

The electric part is quiet but the diesel is noisy, limits the operational capability, makes them vulnerable and easily spotted by satellite and a massive health hazard to the crew.

And nuclear isn't a health hazard to the crew!?

Nuclear subs are also easily spotted because of the heat signature.

The whole point is the sub can dive quickly and run on electric motors when danger is around 5% of the time.

 

[Mofra]

I'd say the main driver of going diesel electric is not having to deal with the nuclear fuel cycle.

And the noise and heat signatures are much less.

The major issue with diesel subs is the need to surface to provide oxygen for the diesel gens to re-power the electric motors, even just having to snort provides some opportunity for detection.
Diesel subs are almost always regarded as short range because of this while nuke subs are limited by crew rotation / food.

Nothing beats a diesel sub for covert ops which is what we have traditionally used the subs for however our main strategic reason for maintaining a sub fleet is protection of sea lanes (esp. Singapore) as our refining capacity is limited in Oz and we tend to keep lower fuel reserves than many OECD nations.

 

[Power Raid]

And nuclear isn't a health hazard to the crew!?

Nuclear subs are also easily spotted because of the heat signature.

The whole point is the sub can dive quickly and run on electric motors when danger is around 5% of the time.

Do the maths on the range and speed of a torpedo and that of nuclear subs and diesel.

A diesel is essentially an observation platform. Great for information but useless in warfare. The only issue is, this information is now collected in other ways.

 

[Kangaroos4eva]

A nuclear based sub that can actually carry long range missiles (that can attack strategic targets) is of strategic value to Australia. The problem is with the diesel models we are continuing to use now and into the future is that they only have tactical value.

We already orienate much of our naval tech towards having high interoperability with USA defence systems, technology and operations. I.e. Patrol subs, intelligence gathering and support, like the globe master iii's and posieden aircraft we are getting.

We aren't getting nuclear tech handed to us and I doubt we'll ever push to develop it ourselves, due to many reasons including funding and developing nuclear infrastructure. So I suppose going down the path of using American tech is going to continue for a long while.

 

[Power Raid]

And nuclear isn't a health hazard to the crew!?

It's safer than working in a government office or working for a professional business like PWC or EY. It doesn't mean it's not an issue but on a relative basis they are safe, especially compared to health concerns for conventional powered subs.

 

[BomberThom]

Diesal 'electric' are the quietist sub.

Because of the greens, we cant bring in any boats that have 'nuclear' attributes.

If we had nuclear power today like everyone else we wouldnt have greenies whining about emissions.

Damned you do, damned you dont.

 

[BomberThom]

Im surprised there arent ethanol hydrogen fuel cells on board. Water is the emission. No noise.

 

[Russian Demon]

I've got a bit of an interest in submarines in general, but a few comments about the discussion so far...

1) Yes i agree nuclear in Australia would be great. But its not just spending or anti-nuclear folks that hold it back. The delivery time on a workforce who can handle power stations or boats is 20 years away. Physics departments have to be re-opened, as there are 2 generations of Australian scientists who have nearly no radioactivity experience.

2) Yes diesels are quieter. Yes they are better in shallow water. In Australia, our primary hot spots are to the north in SE Asia. Through this mess, there are about 4 choke points for all shipping. A stealthy submarine's job is to create uncertainty and insecurity for a potential threat in these choke points.

3) ICBMs just don't make any sense for us. If we're shooting off a missile from the sea, might as well shoot it from Darwin. Anything deep into mainland China is out of our reach anyway.

4) Hydrogen fuel cells are efficient, but its the storage of hydrogen and liquid oxygen to fuel them that makes it tricky. Basically, the math works out that you need a whole other submarine just to carry the fuel if you want any sort of range.

5) Submarines have 2 jobs. Intelligence and convoy hunting. Unless WW3 breaks out, convoy hunting is only a secondary requirement. Anti-sub technology on destroyers is now at the point that if a sub has given up stealth, it has to run.

 

[Dan Baker]

I think he is talking about ethanol fuel cell generators. They have them for camping. So the fuel is ethanol that produces hydrogen electricity generation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct-ethanol_fuel_cell

Making submarine screws is an interesting exercise.

I've got a bit of an interest in submarines in general, but a few comments about the discussion so far...

1) Yes i agree nuclear in Australia would be great. But its not just spending or anti-nuclear folks that hold it back. The delivery time on a workforce who can handle power stations or boats is 20 years away. Physics departments have to be re-opened, as there are 2 generations of Australian scientists who have nearly no radioactivity experience.

2) Yes diesels are quieter. Yes they are better in shallow water. In Australia, our primary hot spots are to the north in SE Asia. Through this mess, there are about 4 choke points for all shipping. A stealthy submarine's job is to create uncertainty and insecurity for a potential threat in these choke points.

3) ICBMs just don't make any sense for us. If we're shooting off a missile from the sea, might as well shoot it from Darwin. Anything deep into mainland China is out of our reach anyway.

4) Hydrogen fuel cells are efficient, but its the storage of hydrogen and liquid oxygen to fuel them that makes it tricky. Basically, the math works out that you need a whole other submarine just to carry the fuel if you want any sort of range.

5) Submarines have 2 jobs. Intelligence and convoy hunting. Unless WW3 breaks out, convoy hunting is only a secondary requirement. Anti-sub technology on destroyers is now at the point that if a sub has given up stealth, it has to run.

 

[Power Raid]

just heard this week from the german's that the French Aussie subs will be nuclear

 

[Kangaroos4eva]

just heard this week from the german's that the French Aussie subs will be nuclear

The yanks would chuck a hissy fit in terms of defence trade if true.

 

[Power Raid]

The yanks would chuck a hissy fit in terms of defence trade if true.

the germans are pissed and may sue. They feel they tendered fairly for a conventional sub and both the french and the germans don't believe the winning sub can be built, as a conventional, unless the size is reduced by 40-50%.

The only solution is to make it nuclear and thus the germans feel the tender process and outcome was not in good faith.

 

[Benny78]

50 billion is a joke. Why not 500 trillion for only 4 submarines? We should just buy like 80 737's and just kamikaze them into the enemy on autopilot instead.

 

[Power Raid]

50 billion is a joke. Why not 500 trillion for only 4 submarines? We should just buy like 80 737's and just kamikaze them into the enemy on autopilot instead.

Worse the 18 subs for $50b will turn out to be 6 subs for $50b

 

[Power Raid]

Estimates for working out what we have asked for can't be achieved is $5b alone