"Australia’s New Submarines: The World’s Best..." Topic

… Non-Nuclear Subs?.

"There has been considerable public debate about Australia's future submarine program with much of the focus being centered on whether submarines should be produced locally or procured offshore. But surprisingly little of the debate has touched on the imperative to avoid a capability gap once the Collins-class submarines begin to be retired from service in the latter half of the next decade, nor on how Australia might best utilize existing sovereign submarine capabilities to achieve that.

Given the unique nature of the Australian requirement, it seems highly unlikely the solution for Australia's future submarine would be either an "off-the-shelf" purchase from an offshore supplier or an onshore design-and-build activity. Notwithstanding the fact that Australia doesn't have the design capabilities to go it alone on the future submarine program, any existing design would need to be customized with a US combat system and weapons while an appropriate indigenous design would obviously have significant cost, risk and time implications. Instead, the optimum acquisition strategy for Australia's future submarine program is likely to fall somewhere between those two approaches as part of a "hybrid" design-and-build process…"
Full article here
link

Amicalement
Armand

They're planning on retiring the Collins class already?

Man, I am old, and they don't build stuff like the used to, for a bit of longevity.

If I was Oz, I'd be looking at the Israeli Dolphin 2-class (enlarged HDW Type 212/214).

Shame that the Aussies aren't up to building nuclear subs, but you can make diesel-electrics work in the Pacific (US did in WW2).

I'd add the 30mm cannon and UAVs in a mast, and if someone could figure out how to make small-ish SAMs work when fired from underwater… Though those SAMs would need rather large warheads, a Stinger isn't going to force down any MPA and might not even bring down a helo.

I'd want a few VLS tubes for Harpoons, too, which will free up hull space for heavyweight torpedoes. Probably wouldn't need 12 VLS tubes like the Virginia-class, but ~4-6 harpoons or equivalent would probably suffice.

@Mako: they are coming up on 20 years in service. The Ohio-class SSBNs were only designed for a 20-year life (though we kept them in good enough shape that the hulls are now rated for 42 years), and so were the 688s.

Interesting. Could be that the Aussies are assuming that their subs probably wouldn't venture out of the archipelagos between them and Asia – and that the longer-ranged blue-water stuff would all be handled by the USN.

Germany, and Sweden seem to be the best builders of non-nuke subs, so I'd be wanting to partner with them.

Interestingly, old Type 21 U-Boats had plans for 30mm guns in the sail. Now, we have the tech to make them workable, fired by remote control, and accurate, I suspect, along with a RIM missile launcher, too.

Its a hot potato over here. The preference so far is the Japanese model, however the Australian Submarine Corporation employs a lot of people and so the govt. is being pressured to share the building / design locally. So far the whole thing is farcical unfortunately.

link

I thought they were having problems finding enough crew to even man the subs they have now.

They have the same problem most countries have, the 'we must build them here' snobbery. Costs soar and quality may not be as good as the sub builders they bought the designs from. Subs are not as easy to build as any other ship.

I am actually surprised that Canada doesn't get together on a common design to save some cash, but that would make too much sense. Nobody but nukes go into the deep arctic anyway.

Don't forget some of the other contenders here.
Japan-pretty high on the list possible winner here.

Sweden-not bad but after the Collins, I can't see them being too high on the list.

Germany-fair design, but enough range for Pacific and Indian Oceans?

Holland-very nice and under appreciated ships.

France and Spain have a design they build for themselves and even offshore like Chile.

Japan is going to be a non-starter, they are prohibited from exporting arms, no matter how nice their subs are (and they ARE nice, make no mistake about it).

I suspect the German designs will get stretched a bit for larger fuel bunkerage and more food stores onboard. The Krauts have no issues with doing country-specific mods (Israeli Dolphin-1 class is so far from a Type-209 that they're not even considered the same class, and the Dolphin-2s are ~13m longer and 500 tons heavier than the Type 214).

Besides, the Type 214/216 with the Muraena Gun (RMK-30 recoilless autocannon) and 3 small UAVs in a mast would be excellent in the western Pacific around the Philippines and further south.

Hopefully the Australian Submarine Corporation won't be involved. Those guys are the byword for industrial incompetence. And the government knows it all too well – indeed one minister said he wouldn't trust them to build a canoe let alone a warship.

Nuclear subs are a must-be-built-here item. Nobody is willing to share the tricks to making a high power reactor fit in a small pipe, since a lot of that gets into how you keep your own subs quiet.

However, diesel-electric subs are not something that MUST be built locally. Heck, the Germans are selling their Type 212/214 to most of Europe (and Israel). Not cheap, but they are apparently very well built and reliable.