Which Way to the Future?

INTERNATIONAL FLEET REVIEW
CANADIANS
UNDER ROCKET
ATTACK
USA WARNS
EUROPE TO
BOOST DEFENCE
ARGENTINA TO
EXPLOIT UK
WEAKNESS
www.warshipsifr.com
AUSSIE
SUBMARINES
WHICH WAY TO
THE FUTURE
UK ADMIRALS
BROADSIDE FOR
SEA BLIND GOVT
August 2011 £4.10
ITALIAN NAVY 150…SUBMARINE RESCUE…BAHAMAS FLEET PROFILE…HMAS YARRA CO INTERVIEW

AUSTRALIAN FUTURE SUBMARINES
WHICH WAY TO
The Future
USMAN ANSARI REPORTS ON HOW DELAYS IN
BEGINNING CONSTRUCTION OF AUSTRALIA’S NEXT
GENERATION SUBMARINES PROBABLY RESULT FROM
THE ALMOST UNIQUE OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENTS
FACED BY THE RAN’S SUBMARINE FORCE. HE ALSO
LOOKS AT SOME SURPRISING SOLUTIONS ON OFFER.
Fears Australia’s technological
edge is being eroded by the
proliferation of advanced
submarines in Asia-Pacific
continue to drive calls for
construction to commence on
Australia’s next generation boat.
Improving airborne Anti-
Submarine Warfare (ASW)
capability and upgrading the
Collins Class submarines may
help, but fears of a capability gap
are hard to ignore. Considering
Australia’s somewhat unique
operational circumstances, the
delays while a variety of
requirements undergo scrutiny
are understandable. Endurance
and range sufficient for
operations across the region
imposes the so-called ‘tyranny of
distance’, which necessitates
Australia acquiring a vessel quite
unlike European built or designed
submarines, which operate
relatively close to their own home
bases. As suggested in articles
published in preceding editions of
this magazine, a nuclear-powered
attack boat (SSN) would seem a
sensible solution, providing range
and speed. However, political
opposition to nuclear power
currently rules out nonconventional
submarines - the
idea of having nuclear refuelling
facilities on Australian soil is a
non-starter - but a lack of such
supporting civilian nuclear
infrastructure need not in itself
hinder acquisition of SSNs. The
UK-origin Astute’s Rolls Royce
PWR-2 and the Virginia’s S9G
reactors will not require refuelling
during their operational lifetimes,
therefore they could theoretically
be operated without the nuclear
support infrastructure. The
Kokoda Foundation has
recommended purchase of
Virginia Class submarines due to
the benefits of joint support
inherent with working closely
alongside the US Navy. However,
the Astute should perhaps not be
overlooked. With its economy in
dire straits the British government
may well look favourably on an
Australian request if only to
reduce the unit cost of providing
the Royal Navy with is seven
examples of the SSN type.
Compared to the Virginia Class,
available figures show the Astute
to be smaller, faster, and having
a slightly smaller complement.
The possibility of carrying out
some of the build in Australia is
quite feasible, due to the modern
modular construction methods. It
would safeguard the skills and
submarine construction
infrastructure, ensuring the
capability of being able to carry
out indigenous refits and of
course refuelling would not pose
an obstacle. Politically and
economically industrial offsets are
also factors, and there are wider
benefits to be had for Australian
industry that could, for example,
come from acquiring advanced
steel fabrication and welding
techniques.
Industrial and operational
benefits aside however, nuclear
submarines are still expensive to
acquire, need larger crews than
conventional boats (raising longterm
running costs), and could
perhaps lead to a smaller number
procured due to costs. Therefore
if the aim is to keep force levels
up, crew sizes down but still
maintain endurance, range and
speed, is it possible after all that
there could be a conventional
solution Continuing
improvements in battery
technology and Air Independent
Propulsion (AIP) systems may
deliver a reasonable capability in
a conventional submarine
(especially one of 4,000 tons). Or
perhaps radical new technologies
will provide a performance
comparable to non-conventional
submarines BMT Defence
Services Ltd has explored
concepts that could provide the
answers, resulting in the Vidar-36
and Ship Submersible Gas
Turbine (SSGT) designs.
Developed in conjunction with
Rolls-Royce, the SSGT mounts a
pair of twin independent gas
turbines in a fin-top ‘bulb’.
Burning a mixture of
kerosene/paraffin and air drawn
in from an extendable mast, the
submarine acts as a semisubmersible
and can make
extended high-speed transits of
6,000 nautical miles at 20 knots.
Contrastingly, the given range for
a submerged Collins Class
submarine at 21 knots is 32.6
nautical miles. Additional stealth
in transit is provided by reformed
kerosene in the fuel stacks being
used to produce hydrogen that is
combusted during ‘snorting’,
resulting in a range of 13,000
nautical miles at ten knots.
Stored liquid oxygen can also be
used in conjunction with the AIP
system to propel the submarine
at ten knots. Equally remarkable
is the SSGT’s submerged ‘sprint’
speed of 30 knots when powered
by its ZEBRA batteries. Coupled
with advanced electronics and
sensors, six 21-inch torpedo
tubes, eight external Vertical
Launch System (VLS) tubes for
heavier ordnance like cruise
missiles, 12-man Special Forces
support capability (with
equipment stored under casing
and ability to carry Swimmer
Delivery Vehicles), plus a small
complement of 25, the SSGT
seems worth considering. Like all
radical new technologies,
however, the SSGT, (or variant
thereof) if chosen could take
some time to come to maturity in
technological terms, so could
push back filling of the Australian
submarine gap even further. Also,
being only semi-submerged for a
long distance transit, regardless
of the speed, is perhaps a notion
submariners are uncomfortable
with. With advanced battery and
AIP technologies the Vidar-36
may perhaps be regarded as a
‘safer’ alternative. The
conventional modular design
seems to offer an affordable
ocean-going submarine that
takes the latest commercial offthe-shelf
technology (COTS) to
produce a 3,600 tons submarine
with a range of 9,000nm
(snorting). Options are available
to further increase range and the
design is capable of being
tailored to meet specific customer
requirements. It also allegedly has
highly-capable land attack and
ASW/Anti-Surface Warfare
(ASuW) capabilities, enhanced
communications and network
centric capabilities. There are also
facilities to support special
operations by embarking a tenman
special forces team with
their equipment and the ability to
launch and recover tethered and
autonomous Unmanned
Underwater Vehicles (UUVs).
Just what form Australia’s new
submarines will take therefore
remains to be seen, but if
meeting the operational
requirements means pushing the
boundaries of technology,
construction is likely to be
delayed for some time yet,
meaning that the Collins Class
will have to soldier on.
PUTTING RADICAL MOVES INTO THE MIX
TIM HARDY, SENIOR NAVAL ENGINEER OF BMT DEFENCE SERVICES
WRITES ABOUT HIS COMPANY’S INNOVATIVE DESIGN PROPOSALS,
WHICH COULD ATTRACT THE RAN.
The Vidar-36 and SSGT were developed with an eye on such markets
as Australia and both designs continue to attract interest. The SSGT
was developed as a mechanism for us to understand and investigate
how more novel technologies could be combined into a submarine
platform to deliver effect comparable to a SSN. We also wished to
challenge traditional thinking on diesel-electric attack submarine (SSK)
propulsion by introducing a number of innovations which, while
unproven together, were based on known technology programmes.
We used the exercise to help us expose various design constraints and
by easing some of them a little could determine what effect such an
approach would have on the overall submarine design. One outcome
of such an approach was our acceptance that we would never meet
the Indiscretion Ratios (IR) - the ratio of time spent at periscope depth
snorting to time completely submerged - that an SSN achieves. By
introducing a more integrated propulsion system matched to an
appropriate hull form that maximised the submarine’s near-surface
mobility characteristics we began to counter the obvious SSK versus
SSN (IR) shortfalls during transit to and from an area of operations. The
Ship Submersible Gas Turbine (SSGT) remains an interesting concept for
conventional submarines requiring the capability to transit vast
stretches of ocean and high performance capability. It should, however,
be recognised that a number of the underpinning technologies we
have proposed are still at low maturity levels and would need
significant technology development programmes to bring them to a
level where confidence in the feasibility of the concept could be gained.
Clearly, many navies are developing very stretching requirements that
current off-the-shelf SSK designs may struggle to meet. We use designs
such as Vidar-36 to emphasise that we understand such needs and also
turn people’s attention to our core submarine market offering, namely
whole submarine design and our ability to advise customers on the art
of the possible with novel requirements. The Vidar-36 should be viewed
as a design point rather than a design solution; we recognise that client
nation needs vary and a single solution is unlikely to meet a specific
requirement. Therefore we use concept designs such as Vidar-36 as a
starting point to investigate design trade-offs to meet more specific
capability requirements.
SUBMARINE
SOLUTIONS
HMS Astute, first of a new breed of
British SSN, could also be the answer
for the RAN
Photo: LA(Phot) A.J. Macleod/RN.
Left, inset: USS Virginia, a potential
alternative solution for Australia.
Photo: William Pittman/US Navy.
Left: An artist impression of the
revolutionary SSGT concept offered.
Image: BMT Defence Services.
38 39