Australia’s Submarine Options

[highdiver_2000]

No, it's even smaller than a 209.

What Australians are looking for is a long-endurance ocean-going sub with a displacement of around 4,000 tons.

There are only two new large conventional subs entering service in 2020s that fits the bill, the follow-up to Soryu class and KSS-III. The third option is Russian.

If none of above suits Australian needs, then Australia must contract HDW to engineer one for them, all expenses paid by Australia.

I don't know where the "Dolphin class has long legs" talking point comes from. The Dolphins are actually quite short-ranged where it counts, they max out at 400 miles submerged and half the endurance of a Type 214, for instance. Large surfaced range numbers for SSKs are misleading for a number of reasons.

Thank you for the info.

[xav]

Australian Defence officials have revealed that at least two possible contenders for the navy's new submarine fleet, the Spanish S-80 and French Scorpene class boat, have been ruled out of the future submarine project.

Answering questions on notice from Opposition spokesman David Johnston, Defence said both vessels did not meet "Australia's broad needs as outlined in the Defence White Paper".

They are smaller than the Collins and the White Paper calls for 12 larger submarines to cost up to $36 billion.

http://www.navyrecognition.com/index...d=65&Itemid=93

Off course they are smaller so it is no very surprising. But look at all modern subs designs available for export (with AIP)... none of them displaces more than 3,000 tons

[xav]

Australia has asked three European companies to submit designs to replace its submarine fleet at a cost of up to A$36 billion ($36 billion) in a defence buildup aimed at protecting resource exports and countering an accelerating arms race in Asia.

French naval builder DCNS, part owned by Thales, Germany's Howaldtswerke-Deutsche Werft GmbH and Spanish state shipbuilder Navantia had been asked for information on conventional submarine designs, Australia's Minister for Defence Materiel Jason Clare said on Tuesday.

http://www.*******.com/article/2011/...7ND1W020111213

[shuredgefan]

http://www.*******.com/article/2011/...7ND1W020111213

Corrected link por favor.

[tluassa]

Re*ters + u

this forum somehow hates that newsservice

[shuredgefan]

Re*ters + u

this forum somehow hates that newsservice

Thanks, maybe Revters means "sh!t" in serbo-croat.

[Alfacentori]

Be interesting what types of designs they come up with, the required capabilities are bigger than anything Europe is used to building.

Alfa

[Chanan]

Just wondering now the Australian labour Government is changing its nuclear policies if a future nuke fleet is a potential. Australia bought Abrams tanks to be able to work with the US. 2RAR are to be mini-marines. What is the navy doing about inter-operability?

[SlowMan]

If the budget is $3 billion per sub, then go off the shelf nuclear. No need to come up with a design from scratch.

[Alfacentori]

As stated in previous threads, nuclear will NEVER happen, end of story. There is no political willpower or public support for it. Instead we will build the largest and most capable conventional boats in the world, and pay the requires $$$. In short we want a non-nuclear boat that can do most of what an SSN can do, and that's a tall, but necessary, order. They will also be built in Australia, no exceptions. We need the onshore skills/facilities to build, maintain, refit, and modify our own boats. Off-the-shelf will not do.


Alfa

[lords]

$36 billion is a lot of money.. you can build a small navy with it..

[RSone]

Be interesting what types of designs they come up with, the required capabilities are bigger than anything Europe is used to building.

Alfa

It's a shame Dutch sub building expertise went under. The Walrus class are built around the idea of long range patrol, and I believe the design( that or something derived from the Moray designs) was considered in the process that culminated in the Collins class.

[Flamming_Python]

Don't see what the damn big deal is about a nuclear-powered sub.

[Alfacentori]

Don't see what the damn big deal is about a nuclear-powered sub.

Politics....doesn't have to make sense, just is

An Aussie built Astute would have been perfect.

Alfa

[Chanan]

As stated in previous threads, nuclear will NEVER happen, end of story. There is no political willpower or public support for it. Instead we will build the largest and most capable conventional boats in the world, and pay the requires $$$. In short we want a non-nuclear boat that can do most of what an SSN can do, and that's a tall, but necessary, order. They will also be built in Australia, no exceptions. We need the onshore skills/facilities to build, maintain, refit, and modify our own boats. Off-the-shelf will not do.
Alfa

Very Kim Beazley. But he has moved on and so has the Australian Government. As to off the shelf won't do, when did that change? The original replacement for the Oberon class was to be a proven design. Proven means built and operational. If you mean built under licence , ok.