Australia Selects Shortfin Barracuda, Hands DCNS A$50 Billion On A Platter



The DCNS Shortfin Barracuda Block 1A SSK. Image : DCNS Australia

SEA1000 Future Submarine Program

Merci! That's the least the French could say. Ouch! That's the pain that would come from parting with A$50 billion, after the initial euphoria is over. And Oh ****! would be the response with the realization of the enormity of the task ahead.

Australia's quest to replace its current fleet of six Collins-class conventional diesel electric attack submarine is officially known as the SEA1000 Future Submarine Program. It aims to provide the Royal Australia Navy with " an affordable, regionally dominant, conventional submarine capability, sustainable into the foreseeable future ", so that it can safeguard its sea lines of communication and its economy which is worth A$1.6 trillion annually.

The Aussies wanted them BIG and they wanted them quick. Twelve boats are needed in total. They have to be constructed locally in Australia and they had to have American combat and weapon systems. As there were no off-the-shelf options that can fulfill Australia's unique operational requirements, they began looking for an international partner to design and build their next generation boats, the details of which can be found here. After a long drawn competitive evaluation process, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull announced last week that the French Shortfin Barracuda designed by DCNS had been selected, thus ending months of speculation by defense analysts as well as the general public alike.

DCNS Shortfin Barracuda Block 1A

The Shortfin Barracuda is actually a conventionally powered variant of the Barracuda-class nuclear attack submarine ( SSN ), specially customized for Australia. It is brilliantly named after the Australian Barracuda or Shortfin Barracuda whose scientific name is Sphyraena novaehollandiae.

French national ship builder DCNS needs no further introduction. Malaysia's Gowind-class frigates and Scorpene-class SSK, Singapore's Formidable-class stealth frigates, and the Mistral-class BPC so coveted by Mr Putin, were all constructed by this innovative company.

The Barracuda-class submarine currently under construction for the French Navy is France's second generation nuclear attack submarine meant to replace their six Rubis-Amethyste-class SSNs. It displaces 5300 tons submerged and 4765 tons surfaced and measures about 100m in length. Its nuclear reactor provides an unlimited range, requiring refueling and complex overhaul ( RCOH ) only once in ten years. Its endurance is about 70 days, the limiting factor being the amount of food it can carry for its crew. It is extremely stealthy and quiet, featuring pump jet propulsion instead of propellers. It can be armed with a variety of weapons including torpedoes, mines, SM39 block 2 Exocet anti-ship missiles and SCALP Naval land attack cruise missiles. First-in-class FS Suffren is scheduled for launch in 2017 and the six boats cost the French government €9.9billion.


The Shortfin Barracuda debuted as the SMX-Ocean SSK at Euronaval 2014 and quickly evolved into its current form as the world's most advanced conventional submarine customized for Australia's needs. It will be slightly shorter than the Barracuda SSN at 97m and also smaller, displacing some 4500 tons when surfaced and " more than 4000 tons ", probably closer to 5000 tons, submerged. Powered by diesel engines and advanced fuel cell air-independent propulsion system, it can remain underwater for up to 3 weeks and has a range of 18000nm ( 33300km ) at 10 knots and an endurance of 80 days at sea. Maximum diving depth is 350m or deeper and its maximum speed will be 20knots. It will have a complement of 60 officers and ratings, plus it can carry another 20 special forces personnel.

It will have " the most powerful sonar ever produced for a conventional submarine " and the same pump-jet propulsion system and the same enhanced stealth features inherited from its nuclear cousin. Pump-jet technology is said to make propellers obsolete, as they can be a thousand times quieter and achieve much higher speeds before cavitation ( bubbling phenomenon ) occurs. It also allows for high maneuverability with the addition of a steerable nozzle, creating vectored thrust. However, it can be less efficient than propellers at low speeds. Other notable features include an X-rudder like the Japanese Soryu boats where the four blades can twist and turn in different permutations and provides superior maneuverability especially in shallow waters, retractable hydroplanes which reduces drag and noise, non-hull penetrating optronic masts and special hull hatches for easy upgrading in the future.

Its combat system and weapon systems will be American, as the Aussies value interoperability with their closest ally the United States. So we can expect an improved version of the AN/BYG-1 combat system, Mk48 Mod 7 Common Broadband Advanced Sonar System ( CBASS ) heavy torpedoes jointly developed by the US and Australia, UGM-84 submarine launched harpoon missiles, UGM-109E Tomahawk land attack cruise missiles, Mk60 CAPTOR mines, Mk67 submarine launched mobile mines and such. Swimmer delivery hatches, unmanned underwater vehicles ( UUV ) will probably be part of the package as well.

At A$50 billion, it is Australia's single biggest defence procurement to date, though this spending will be spread out over the next thirty years or so. At least two thirds of this money will be allocated for future upgrades, sustainment, operations and in-service support of the submarines which means the initial builds would cost A$20 billion or less.

Here's a video of the Shortfin Barracuda from DCNS.






The Shortfin Barracuda : Australia's Future Submarine. Image : DCNS

The Shortfin Barracuda with tiny hydroplanes extended. Image : DCNS

X-rudders and pump-jet propulsion. Image : DCNS

The original SMX-Ocean SSK and the Barracuda SSN side by side. Image DCNS

Why The French Won

The Swedes were eliminated early in the race, due largely to the fact that they had not built a single submarine independently for the past two decades, and perhaps also because they were the designers of Collins-class submarines which were giving the RAN so much trouble.

Of the three that made it to the competitive evaluation process phase, the Germans were dropped for concerns that they had not built anything more than 2000 tons so far, even though they were the most prolific boat builders, supplying more than 160 modern SSKs to navies worldwide.

The Japanese Soryu-class submarine was not chosen purportedly because it lacked the range that the Aussies desired. The berthing compartment is also too small for the Australian sailor who typically have a taller stature compared with their Japanese counterparts, this even after a 6 to 8m hull lengthening modification.

The French design, on the other hand is not only super stealthy but also technologically the most advanced, and most importantly has the range equal to or exceeding those of the existing Collins-class boats. DCNS had also the expertise in building submarines up to 14000 tons in the form of nuclear ballistic missile submarines ( SSBN ) or boomers, like the four Triomphant-class boats currently in service with the French Navy.

 

You can see for yourself why the Shortfin Barracuda could have been so appealing to the Aussies through the above video made by DCNS on the operational capabilities of the SMX-Ocean some months ago.

Constructing the Shortfin Barracuda

All the construction of the Shortfin Barracuda submarines will be done in Australian naval shipbuilder ASC's Adelaide shipyard with the help of DCNS. The project can generate 2900 jobs locally and will no doubt be a great boost to the South Australian economy for many years to come. Because submarines are among the most complicated machines that humans have ever designed, the task ahead for ASC is huge and they know it, describing the construction of the Collins-class SSK as an unprecedented feat of engineering, design and logistics in Australia. Work had to be co-ordinated with 150 major contractors and hundreds of smaller suppliers and many modules were constructed off-site and then shipped to Australia for integration at ASC. Some 33000 drawings and 5000 work orders had to be issued before work could even begin and each submarine required 250000 man-hours over 60 months to assemble. The Shortfin Barracuda is light-years ahead of the Collins in terms of complexity and the question now is whether ASC is up to the job. DCNS Australia describes the task as mammoth and at least twice as big as the Collins project.

For A$50 billion, France has promised the Australians full transfer of stealth technology utilized in their SSN and SSBN submarines, the crown jewels of their submarine designs that they have never shared with anybody else before. Even though the submarines are to be constructed in Australia, another 4000 jobs will be created in France itself in support of the Shortfin Barracuda project.

Looking ahead, contract signing will probably take place in 2017, construction will start between 2022 to 2024 and the first submarine will probably launched in 2028 and be commissioned by 2030. The Shortfin Barracuda is expected to remain cutting edge in terms of operational capabilities until 2060 and will probably in active service until 2070. If the Collins boats were to be retired starting from 2025 as planned, there will be a capability gap which the RAN has to address. The most likely solution will be to have some sort of life extension program to postpone the decommissioning of the Collins-class, but then again, I'm not sure if that's tantamount to flogging a dead horse.

The Shortfin Barracuda firing a presumably Mk48 Mod 7 CBASS torpedo. Image : DCNS

Winners and Losers

Apart from France, South Australian politicians and the naval shipbuilding industry of Australia are big winners as they successfully canvassed for the submarines to be completely constructed in Australia, never mind the competency of the local work force or the available infrastructure. The construction and more importantly the sustainment of the submarine fleet meant that a constant flow of jobs and money into South Australia will be almost a guarantee for the next fifty years.

The Royal Australian Navy could be big winners with the chance of a lifetime to once and for all rectify all the misgivings of the Collins and acquire an underwater capability way beyond their current level and maintain it that way for decades to come, but only if the submarine construction goes smoothly. Chances of that happening is almost close to zero, if historical events could be used as a gauge. Not only had ASC bungled the Collins construction and their subsequent upgrading and sustainment, they have, as part of a consortium, continued to mess up the until now the most expensive defence procurement - the A$8 billion SEA4000 Air Warfare Destroyer project. The Hobart-class AWD are 3 years late with an estimated A$1.2 billion in cost overruns. Its going to be difficult even just to be cautiously optimistic.

Japan was the early favorite in the race for SEA1000, with Shinzo Abe and Tony Abbott being good pals and the inking of a contact for joint development of submarine technology in 2014. Even the Americans also favoured the Japanese since they too have a direct stake in this mega-project as the provider and integrator of the combat and weapons system and would have to work with whoever the Australian chose. An American-Australian-Japanese alliance would also be a good thing to check Chinese ambition in the South China Sea. However, lack of experience with international arms deals and the subsequent ousting of Tony Abbott as prime minister probably doomed the Japanese effort. Japan did not agree to support full construction of the submarines in Australia until very late in the game, after France and Germany had indicated their willingness to do so. Their team of negotiators sent to Australia was said to be comprising of a mix of business executives and Ministry of Defence bureaucrats who had never worked with each other before. Of course the oriental way of business conduct, where a handshake alone would seal a deal, where trust and honour is valued above all else, might be perceived very differently in western cultures.

It is not surprising that Japan was rather peeved to learn that the deal had gone to their competitor when they had invested so much time and effort and that just slightly more than a year ago, they were the front runners. Turnbull will have a great time trying to pacify them and manage the fallout. While the two countries pledged to continue their co-operation in defence research the relationship will never be the same. Hopefully Japan will learn from this experience and turn failure into success in future deals.

Best Submarine at the Best Price?

That was what Tony Abbott promised the Australians but that's not what they are going to get. The entire project had been hijacked by the politicians who have their own agendas to field and don't give a damn what happens a decade or two in the future when they will probably no longer hold office. Building the submarines in Australia is widely reported to carry with it a 30% to 40% premium as opposed to constructing them in their country of origin. The risk of delays and cost overruns is extremely likely given the size and complexity of the project as well as the quality of the local work force. Even if the French design had been chosen on merits of technological advancement, the Aussies could have at least let the French handle the construction in France. What's the use of the best submarine in the world if it can't be put to sea half the time and the other half of the time is spent combating defects?

A procuring a submarine fleet is a long term investment, a strategic partnership that will bind the two countries, in this case France and Australia, for the next 50 years. Good or bad the Aussies would have been stuck with the deal for the next half a century. These submarines are not disposable if anything goes wrong since they are highly customized for Australia's needs and probably nobody else can afford them anyway. The Australian Navy will really have to keep its fingers crossed. As the quest for better submarines continues, we can only wish the RAN Bon Voyage!





Who Doesn't Want A$20Billion?

Background

This is an update to my article " Japan's Soryu Class : Collins Replacement Prime Contender ". A quick recap : Australia has a fleet of 6 Collins Class conventional diesel-electric guided missile submarines that needs to be replaced starting from the year 2025. These boats were designed by the Swedish ship builder Kockums AB and built in Australia by a newly formed joint venture the Australian Submarine Corporation. The entire Collins project was riddled with delays and huge cost overruns. Even to this day the submarines still suffer from multiple defects and have serious availability issues.




Digital Image of what Australia's future submarine might look like, as seen on ship builder ASC Pty Ltd's website.



The Royal Australian Navy is looking to replace them with 10 to 12 new submarines by the year 2030 to 2040, at an initially estimated cost of between A$36 to A$44 billion. The ruling Liberal Party came to power promising domestic construction of these future submarines but until recently looks likely to break that promise by buying direct from Japan. That development had prompted German, Swedish and French boat builders to come up with their own unsolicited offers, initiating a submarine bidding war down under, making the Soryu deal less of a certainty.

What's At Stake for Australia

The future of Australia's shipbuilding industry is at stake, as Australia might lose her capability to construct submarines and warships should the contract go to a foreign shipyard there by forcing ship builder ASC to retrench skilled labour or worse, go into receivership. It would be difficult and time consuming to rebuild a new team of professional workers once the existing ones have found work elsewhere.

Jobs could be at stake, as domestic construction at ASC's Adelaide facility could generate and support 3 to 4 thousand jobs.

At least A$20 billion or more is at stake for the winner. This is by far the single most costly defense related procurement by Australia, ever. Even the follow on order of 58 F-35A Joint Strike Fighter announced in April 2014 would "only" cost A$11.5 billion. The Australian Dollar has depreciated significantly in the past 2 or 3 years but is still worth USD0.77 as of today.

Prime Minister Tony Abbott's reputation could be at stake if he reneges on pre-election promises to have the submarines built in Australia, though adept politicians always have ways to wriggle themselves out of such situations.

Gimme Twenty Billion

AUD$20 billion is the magic figure quoted by all the potential submarine makers. Of course everybody wants A$20 billion, who doesn't? SAAB Kockums of Sweden, TKMS of Germany and DCNS of France have all come up with proposals and have indicated their willingness to work with Australia's ASC, giving Japan Inc. a run for their money.

 

SAAB Kockums : The Come Back Kid

Kockums AB of Malmo, Sweden was the original designer of the Collins Class submarines and the Stirling air-independent propulsion engine used in the Soryu Class boats. It was acquired by its German rival Howaldtswerke-Deutsche Werft (HDW) in 1999. Then HDW was itself bought by the German conglomerate Thyssen Krupp in 2005 and they all became a big dysfunctional family known as ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems ( TKMS ).

While all these mergers and acquisitions was happening, Kockums was working on the next generation submarine for the Swedish Navy with several innovative and advanced features, the A-26 Class with air-independent propulsion. However, the development of the A-26 was derailed by TKMS due to long standing conflict of interests. The Swedes believed that they have a great design on hand and wanted it developed not just for the Royal Swedish Navy but for worldwide export as well. The German masters of Kockums on the other hand are worried about cost escalation on a risky new project and cannot come into agreement with the Swedish Defense Ministry on how such additional costs should be managed between the two parties. Although 2 boats have been approved the Swedish by Parliament in 2010 for completion by 2020, long drawn contract negotiations between the Defense Ministry and TKMS came to nothing before failing completely in Apr 2014. Without any contracts to build Sweden's ( or anybody's ) next generation submarines, Kockums looked likely to have to lay off marine architects, engineers and technicians. And as Kockums go under,  the Swedish Kingdom looked set to lose its sovereign capability of building submarines and warships.



Kockums A-26. Source : SAAB

Added to this mess is the uncertainty as to who actually owns the intellectual property rights to the Collins design, is it Kockums / TKMS or is it the Swedish State ( through the Swedish Defense Materiels Administration or FMV ). This has resulted in Kockums being overlooked by Australia in its initial search for suitable supplier for the Collins replacement project.

The loss of the deal to supply the Republic of Singapore Navy with 2 new submarines in late 2013 and the Russian annexation of the Crimean Peninsula earlier last year was a rude wake-up call to the Swedes who realized that they had do something fast to reclaim their ship building industry and to safeguard the defense of their Kingdom.

Negotiations to buy Kockums back began between the Swedish defense conglomerate SAAB and TKMS. Things did not move until Sweden seemingly deployed strong arm tactics, including the FMV's raiding of the Kockums / TKMS office with armed military personnel to forcefully remove highly sensitive materials pertaining to the A-26 and Stirling air-independent propulsion engine designs, taking back what rightfully belonged to the Swedish State. SAAB also embarked on a widely publicised exercise that poached the entire technical management team at Kockums including the manager for the submarine division and more than 200 of Kockums' existing pool of engineers, effectively removing its core workforce. Facing such hostile acts, it is not surprising that TKMS threw in the towel shortly after and agreed to sell Kockums to SAAB.

SAAB has since completed the acquisition of Kockums on 2nd Jul 2014 and the new entity is called SAAB Kockums. This paved the way for the stalled and severely delayed A-26 project to move forward and for SAAB to offer a 4000 tonne version to Australia as the Collins replacement submarine. In the words of the CEO Håkan Bushke " ... the Swedish Kingdom now controls the intellectual property for Australia's currently-serving Collins class submarines. If there is an open competition, SAAB Kockums will be in it."

SAAB Kockums in its last minute declaration of interest on the Collins replacement project has also offered to take Australia's shipbuilder ASC and Royal Australian Navy engineers and technicians to work on the Swedish Navy's 3000 tonne A-26 of which five were to be built, with the first boat due to be operational by the year 2023. CEO Bushke said that SAAB's solution will be affordable and will be able to match the $20 billion price tag of its Japanese and German rivals.

Kockum's resurrection from a moribund subsidiary of ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems to becoming part of the Swedish defense giant SAAB within the span of a few months is nothing short of spectacular. It would be even more incredible if they could win this submarine bidding war and become the supplier of Australia's future submarines. Being a completely new design, the A-26 offer carried with it unknown risks of cost escalation and timeline slippages. Add to that volatile mix the uncertainty of ASC's competency as a ship builder and the RAN could end up in a very dangerous situation, third time in a row.

ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems : The Old Favourite



TKMS Logo. Source : Wikipedia

TKMS was until Jul 2014 the parent company of Kockums. It used to be the front runner for an evolved-Collins submarine that will see TKMS build on the strengths of the existing Collins Class and rectify known short comings and defects, since the Collins boats were designed with the help of Kockums in the first place.

The main stumbling block for the evolved Collins Class was that the ownership of the intellectual property rights for the Collins submarine as well as the Stirling AIP engine that will be installed in the future submarines, was in dispute as the spat between the Swedish government and TKMS escalated. Australia understandably have no wish to be caught in the crossfires of a patent ownership war and have ultimately looked towards Japan which has a fleet of the world's most advanced non-nuclear submarines, incidentally also using Kockums / TKMS's Stirling air-independent propulsion system.




TKMS Operational Headquarters, Essen, Germany. Wikipedia.

Another deep seated issue was that TKMS has been constantly stifling Kockums all these years after the merger, intending for kockums only to produce small submarines while its German subsidiary HDW will get to build the big submarines for export. It probably was never quite keen for an evolved Collins boat, preferring rather to have a German solution for the Australians. In fact TKMS already had a Collins replacement concept in existence for sometime. It is the HDW Type 216 diesel-electric submarine with air-independent propulsion. Its design is based on the smaller Type 212A and Type 214 submarines current in service with the German and Italian navies, using HDW's proprietary fuel cell AIP system.




HDW's Fuel Cell Air-Independent Propulsion System. Source : TKMS

Now that Kockums had been sold to SAAB, TKMS can no longer be involved in any evolved Collins design. Nonetheless TKMS has still indicated that it can help Australia build her fleet of 10 to 12 next generation submarines domestically and within the budget of A$20 billion, presumably with the HDW Type 216 design.




HDW Type-216 SSK. Source TKMS

The Type 216 looks good on paper, but is again a yet to be built design and with so much uncertainties, nobody, not even TKMS can guarantee that the entire project could be on time and on budget, especially in the hands of an inept shipbuilder like ASC.

DCNS : Non-nuclear SSN?!

The latest to join the fray is the French ship builder DCNS with its SMX-Ocean diesel-electric submarine with air-independent propulsion. First revealed at the Euronaval 2014 exhibition in Paris in October, it is essentially a non-nuclear version of the Barracuda class SSN which DCNS is building for the French Navy. Although DCNS did not officially state that the SMX-Ocean concept was specifically created for the SEA1000 Collins replacement project, we all know what its purpose is. Incidentally DCNS opened a new subsidiary in Australia on 19th Nov 2014, DCNS Australia Pty Ltd, which just shows how badly they wanted a slice of the multi-billion dollar pie.




DCNS's SMX Ocean SSK ( Top ) and Barracuda SSN ( Bottom )

The SMX-Ocean is a huge boat at 4750 tonnes and 100m long. It is powered by conventional diesel-electric power-plants and a second generation air-independent propulsion system. It can carry a load of 34 weapons including torpedoes, mines, cruise missiles, anti-ship missiles and anti-air missiles. It will incorporate vertical launchers, a UUV Dock, SDV, dry dock shelter and lock-out chamber for up to 8 divers.

Its maximum diving depth is 350m. Its new generation fuel cell will enable a underwater endurance of 21 days. Maximum submerged speed is 20 knots while its usual transit speed will be 14 knots. Endurance at sea is up to 90 days with a maximum range of 18000 nautical miles ( 29000Km ) at 10 knots.

If Australia is going to buy into this mad French scheme, she might as well request the US to convert their Virginia-class SSN into SSKs, just pluck out the General Electric S9G reactor and replace it with the Stirling AIP engine and you can have the frequently craved for 100% compatibility in operations with the USN. No?

Kawasaki / Mitsubishi : Caveat Emptor?

Although the option of a modified Soryu Class built in Japan looks like the safest bet for Australia's Collins replacement project so far, skeptics have plenty of arguments against taking such an option.

First, Japan's war time past has come back to haunt her as pointed out that as recent as 70 years ago Japan and Australia were enemies at war with each other. The Japanese have even bombed Darwin in 1942, ahead of a land invasion which fortunately never materialized. And Australia had lost more than 300 ships to the Imperial Japanese Navy during World War II. To me that is at best a weak case against the Japanese because, well, times have changed. Australian skiers form the largest foreign groups at the Japanese ski resorts of Niseko in Hokkaido and Hakuba in Nagano every winter. Try convincing these Aussies to ski elsewhere. If one does not buy Japanese, then the Germans should also be excluded in the deal because they were part of the Axis powers with Japan and Italy during WWII!

Skeptics are also concerned if Japan will remain a staunch American ally throughout the projected life of the future submarines, and whether Japan's constitution will again be changed to prohibit arms export in the future.

Australia's opposition Labour Party has pre-emptively said that they would cancel any deal with the Japanese should they come into power after the next election.

In response to the flurry of unsolicited offers from the European boat builders, the Japanese have indicated that they too are willing to co-operate with the Australians to help the Aussies develop the special steel required for submarine construction. Assembly will still be done in Japan.

ASC Pty Ltd : Can't Be Trusted To Build A Canoe!!

ASC screwed up the entire Collins project. They then went on to mismanage the upgrade and maintenance programme of the Collins boats. Now the same story is repeating itself with the Hobart-class air warfare destroyers.

Late last year Australia's ex-Defence Minister David Johnston was censured by the Senate after saying he wouldn’t trust would-be contender for Australia’s new submarines, the government-owned ASC, to build a canoe. He later expressed regret that his remarks could have offended anyone, that he had expressed frustration over ASC's past performance in what PM Abbott had described as a rhetoric flourish. He further said that he was directing his remarks at a legacy of issues and not at the workers in ASC, whom he considered world class, eventually putting all blame on the former Labour government for mismanaging the troubled Air Warfare Destroyer programme.

Having barely survived a no-confident vote and in a move to save his own career as the Prime Minister, Tony Abbott had given in to political pressure and had promised that the procurement of the future submarines would be subjected to a "competitive evaluation process" and ASC would be allowed to bid for it. It will not be an open tender, meaning not everybody is welcome to bid, certainly not Dear Leader Kim, or Bloodymir Pootin, or Xi Jinping for that matter. So the Japanese are now not guaranteed to win the Collins replacement deal and they are extremely confused and worried at the moment about Australia's sudden change of heart.

What A$20 Billion Can Buy

Should Australia be spending A$20 billion on a dozen super-sized conventionally powered submarines with air-independent propulsion? Would she be better off buying a larger fleet of smaller submarines while at the same time constructing more submarine bases? Something like the HDW Type-218SG SSK might cost "only" 500 million Euros each. Buying fifteen of these smaller SSKs instead of the Soryu-class or similar to populate five submarine bases will probably save Australia enough money to construct the new submarine bases along the eastern, northern and western coastlines. Tony Abbott can then also sort of keep his electoral promise of local construction. You couldn't pre-fabricate submarine pens in Japan and then ship it over to Australia for assembly, or could you?

Update 26th April 2016

The Race is over. DCNS won the A$50 billion contract with its Shortfin Barracuda, aka SMX Ocean.

Japan's Soryu Class Submarine : Collins Replacement Prime Contender

The Collins Class Submarine

 

HMAS Sheean SSG-77 conducting air sea safety assessment with a Seahawk helicopter from HMAS Adelaide off Garden Island, Western Australia. RAN Photo.

 

The Royal Australian Navy (RAN) currently has a fleet of 6 Collins class diesel-electric hunter-killer submarines (SSK) in its arsenal. They were designed in collaboration with Kockums AB of Sweden and largely built in New South Wales, Australia, by the then newly formed Australian Submarine Corporation. They are essentially enlarged versions of the original ( non-AIP )Vastergotland class submarine which then served the Royal Swedish Navy. The RAN classifies them as " Guided Missile Submarine, Diesel-Electric " or SSGs, obviously referring to the Sub Harpoon missile launching capability. The are named after distinguished former members of the Australian Navy. They have pennant numbers from SSG-73 to SSG-78.

At 3100 tonnes surfaced and 3400 tonnes submerged, they were then the world's largest modern non-nuclear submarines. Among the first to be totally designed with computer-aided techniques, they were supposed to be highly automated, have long endurances, quiet, fast and pack a powerful punch. From the RAN webpage "Designed to be as quiet as advanced technology can achieve, Collins Class submarines have been developed from five generations of submarines designed and built by the Swedish Navy."

However, the reality was that the entire Collins project was fraught with problems and delays right from day one and even to this day. The Aussies made the fundamental mistake of taking a completely new submarine design and having it built domestically at a new boat yard with no prior history or experience of submarine construction.

First of class HMAS Collins was laid down in 1990 and commissioned in 1996 while the 6th boat HMAS Rankin was laid down in 1995 and commissioned in 2003. Shortly after that in 2005 the boats were to undergo extensive upgrades to the combat control system just to remain operational, although they also gained additional weapons capabilities like the Mk 48 ADCAP torpedoes.

With availability between 0 to 2 boats at any one time in the past few years, the RAN's submarine force only exist on paper. It is no wonder that the planning for the Collins replacement started as early as 2009, barely 6 years after the last boat HMAS Rankin was commissioned.



SSG-78 HMAS Rankin, the newest of the six Collins class SSK. Royal Australian Navy Photo.

 

 

 

 

 

Ship's Crest of all six Collins boats according to seniority from top to bottom. Source : RAN

Australia's SEA1000 Future Submarine Project




Boldly sailing into the sunset? HMAS Waller SSG-75 off the Fremantle coast in preparation for submarine escape and rescue exercise. RAN Photo

 

The SEA1000 Collins replacement project, otherwise known as the コリンズ級潜水艦更新計画 to the Japanese, aims to have the 6 troubled Collins Class conventionally powered submarines replaced by 10 to 12 boats by the year 2030 - 2040. It is expected to cost the Australian Government an estimated A$36 to A$44 billion. The four broad options they have would include :

- Buying military off the shelf designs. Though safest might not meet RAN requirements.
- Buying military off the shelf designs modified to Australian specifications and built in the country of origin. This mitigates some of the risks relating to both the design and the construction.
- Buying military off the shelf designs modified to Australian specifications and built in Australia. Deja vu.
- Commissioning a completely new design solely for the RAN built anywhere. Synonymous with kamikaze.

With the Collins fiasco still fresh in their minds, the Aussies naturally would want to focus on a proven design this time round. To have made the same mistake twice would be really moronic and unforgivable. So the most likely option to be selected would be the modified off the shelf design built elsewhere.

 Like I have mentioned in my previous article, there are not many options when shopping for a submarine as there are only a handful of exporters worldwide. In the past 20 years since the commissioning of HMAS Collins, the submarine's designer Kockums AB had become part of the German ship building conglomerate ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems (TKMS) through a series of mergers and acquisitions. The submarine's builder the Australian Submarine Corporation which initially started out as a joint venture between Kockums AB, the Australian Industry Development Corporation and 2 other private companies was also nationalised and is currently known as ASC Pte Ltd.

TKMS actually has a design that is supposedly catered for Australia's special needs in its subsidiary Howaldtswerke-Deutsche Werft's (HDW) Type 216 diesel-electric submarine. Although its design is somewhat based on the existing Type 212A used by the German and the Italian navies, the Type 216 is substantially bigger ( 4000 tonnes versus 1800 tonnes ) and has yet to be built. That alone would make it much lass palatable to the Aussies.



Artist's impression of the TKMS HDW Type 216 SSK Source : TKMS

To sum it up, Australia needs a conventional diesel-electric submarine (SSK) with almost the size of a nuclear powered submarine (SSN), this to enable it to have the range and endurance to patrol her vast coastline. Australia also needs it fast, like yesterday. Ok I exaggerate, by 2025 or thereabouts, when the first Collins boat are due to retire, not a lot of lead time by naval procurement timelines actually. Lastly Australia is looking for a proven design, and that sole candidate came from an until recently unexpected source - Japan with her Soryu class ocean going fleet submarine with air-independent propulsion (AIP), quiet, big, lethal, in operation since 2009.

As an added bonus to the Aussies, the Soryu class SSKs have onboard the Sterling AIP engine made by Kockums AB / TKMS so in that sense there would be some continuity with the Collins class should the Soryu be chosen. Japanese? Hey, these guys were building fleet carriers during our grandfather's time.

The History of Submarine Building In Japan

Japan has a long history in submarine construction which started as far back as 1904 when 5 Holland  Class submarines were bought from the United States of America. They were originally built at the Fore River Ship and Engine Company in Quincy, Massachusetts and shipped to Yokohama in knock-down kit form from Seattle. They were assembled at the Yokosuka Naval Arsenal (横須賀海軍工廠), then Japan's largest naval shipyard, with the assistance of an American naval architect Arthur Leopold Busch.



The first Japanese submarine of the Holland Class, aka Type 1 Submarine ( 第一型潜水艦 Daiichi Gata Sensuikan ). Photo : Wikipedia

 

That same year, the Kawasaki Dockyard Company or Kawasaki Zosensho (川崎造船所) as it is known in Japanese, purchased modified plans of the Holland Class submarine from the designer John Philip Holland directly and went on to build 2 boats with the help of 2 American engineers who had been Holland's assistants.

The following year, Japan bought 2 British C class submarines from the shipbuilder Vickers, Sons and Maxim and went on to assemble another 3 from kits at the Kure Naval Arsenal, Kure Kaigun Kosho (呉海軍工廠),, as it is known in Japanese. By 1909, Japan had launched her first submarine tender ( support / supply ship ) and had built a sizeable fleet of ocean going submarines before World War I had ended.

As one of the Allied victor countries at the end of World War I, Japan not only took control of the numerous German territories in the Southern Pacific like the Caroline Islands ( modern day Micronesia and Palau ) as mandated by the League of Nations, she was also given several captured German submarines as the spoils of war. This greatly accelerated her submarine design and building efforts and by the outbreak of World War II, the Imperial Japanese Navy (IJN) would have the greatest variety of submarines available for all sorts of mission. From fleet submarines that could cross oceans to transport and supply submarines, mine laying submarines, even aircraft carrying monsters like the 6500 tonne I-400, midget submarines that are designed to infiltrate naval bases and harbours and eventually to suicide submarines like the Kaitens towards the end of the War.



Kaiten Type 1 human torpedo displayed at the Yasukuni War Memorial Museum in Tokyo. Kaiten (回天) literally means return to heaven but the name actually originated from an older man-of-war of the Edo era, a wooden steamer known as the Kaiten Maru (回天丸). Photo : Wikipedia 

  

The I-400 sea plane carrier submarine. Note the aft deck gun and the crane for lifting the Aichi M6A Seiran seaplane (see below). Photo : Wikipedia

  

The Aichi M6A1 Seiran (晴嵐) seaplane. The I-400 can carry 3 of these seaplanes internally. One of the M6A actually carried out a bombing raid on continental US, attempting to start a forest fire in Oregon by dropping incendiary bombs. Photo : Wikipedia

 

Following her defeat in World War II, the naval yards in Sasebo, Kure and Yokosuka were either converted to commercial entities or became facilities to support and maintain the ships of the US Navy and the newly formed Japan Maritime Self Defense Force (JMSDF), also known as the Kaijojieitai (海上自衛隊) in Japanese. There was a lapse of more than ten years where Japan did not build any submarines. That changed in 1957 when the first generation Oyashio (おやしお) class submarine was constructed by the Kawasaki Heavy Industries in Kobe based on the old IJN I-200 design and some US innovations.

 

SS-511 JDS Oyashio ( first generation ) : The first post war Japanese built submarine. Source : Wikipedia

 

Since then, there had been several successive generations of diesel-electric submarines constructed by Japan, including the Oshio class (1963), the Arashio class (1964), the Uzushio class (1968), the Yushio class (1976), the Harushio class (1987), the new generation Oyashio class (1994) and of course the latest Soryu class (2005) with air-independent propulsion.




The new generation Oyashio Class SSK currently in service with the JMSDF. Photo : JMSDF




The new generation Oyashio Class SSK performing the emergency main ballast blow maneuver. Photo : JMSDF 

The Soryu Class SSK

The Soryu class submarine is the latest generation of conventionally powered hunter killer submarine with air-independent propulsion built for the JMSDF. It has a displacement of 2900 tonnes surfaced and 4200 tonnes submerged, the largest displacement of any submarine used by post war Japan. Although all previous generations of JMSDF submarines have been named after ocean currents ( 潮 shio in Japanese means current ), the Soryu class breaks away from this half a century old tradition by being named after auspicious mythical creatures, some of which might include the dragon, the phoenix, the pheasant and the kirin. In this case, the entire class is named after dragons (竜 ryu).

SS-501 Soryu ( そうりゅう, in kanji 蒼竜 ) Blue Dragon
SS-502 Unryu ( うんりゅう, in kanji 雲竜 ) Cloud Dragon
SS-503 Hakuryu ( はくりゅう, in kanji 白竜) White Dragon
SS-504 Kenryu ( けんりゅう, in kanji 剣竜) Sword Dragon
SS-505 Zuiryu ( ずいりゅう, in kanji 瑞竜) Auspicious Dragon
SS-506 Kokuryu ( こくりゅう, in kanji 黒竜) Black Dragon
SS-507 Jinryu ( じんりゅう, in kanji 仁竜) Humane Dragon
SS-508 Sekiryu ( せきりゅう, in kanji 赤竜 ) Red Dragon  ( named on 2nd Nov 2015 )

SS-509 is under construction and yet to be named. SS-510 and SS-511 are planned. Now I am no naval historian or ship naming expert but if I were to hazard a guess, likely names for these future boats may include Shoryu (翔竜) Flying Dragon, same pronunciation but in different kanji character, Shoryu (祥竜) Blessed Dragon, Hiryu (飛竜) Soaring Dragon, Tenryu (天竜) Heavenly Dragon, Kairyu (海竜) Sea Dragon.

Update 7th Jan 2017 - SS-509 had been launched on 12th Oct 2016 and is named the Seiryu ( せいりゅう, in kanji 清瀧, after 清瀧権現 Seiryugongen, the guardian goddess of a Kyoto temple ). The character 清 means clear but could also mean pure. So Pure Dragon be it. Note that 竜 and 龍 both mean dragon and could be pronounced as ryu. With three additional dots used to denote something to do with water, 瀧 could mean water dragon but is much more commonly used in everyday life to mean a waterfall ( 瀧 or 滝 pronounced taki ). Confused? Nevermind, that's Japanese for you.

Update 8th Nov 2017 - SS-510 had been launched on 6th Nov at KHI's Kobe facilities. It was named Shoryu, blessed dragon. Shoryu is expected to enter service with the JMSDF in 2019.

Note that the name Soryu had previously been used on 2 predecessors, including the World War II Imperial Japanese Navy fleet carrier the IJN Soryu, which took part in the Pearl Harbour Raid in Dec 1941 and was sunk during the Battle of Midway in Jun 1942.



The Soryu Class SSK underway. It has a conning tower with a shape resembling that of the Virginia Class SSN, minus the hydroplanes. JMSDF Photo.



Third of class SS-503 JDS Hakuryu arriving at Joint Base Pearl Harbour - Hickam, Hawaii for RIMPAC exercises.

Photo : USN / Wikipedia

 

Soryu Class Characteristics

Length : 84m
Beam : 9.1m
Draught : 8.5m
Displacement : 2900 Tonnes Surfaced
                         4200 Tonnes Submerged
Propulsion : 2 x Kawasaki 12V 25/25 SB-type diesel engines
                    4 x Kawasaki Kockums V4-275R Stirling engines ( air-independent propulsion )
                    producing 3900hp surfaced and 8000hp submerged

Speed : 13 knots Surfaced
             20 knots Submerged

Range : Unpublished but estimated at 6100 nautical miles at 6.5knots with AIP

Operational Depth : Unpublished but estimated at 500m.

Complement : 65 ( 9 officers 56 enlisted )

Radar : ZPS-6F Navigation / Surface Search Radar

Sensors : Hughs/Oki ZQQ-7B Sonar Suite with
               1x Bow Array
               4x Low Frequency Flank Array       
               1x Towed Array

Countermeasures :

ZLR-3-6 electronic support measures (ESM) system
2x 3 inch Underwater Countermeasure Launcher Tubes for acoustic device countermeasures (ADCs).                      
Torpedo Countermeasure System (TCM) for SS-508 and later

Communications :

X-band High Speed Satellite Communications Device for SS-507 and later

Armament :

6 HU-606 21 inch ( 533mm ) torpedo tubes with 30 reloads for the following
     
Boeing UGM-84C Submarine Launched Harpoon SSM
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Type-89 Heavy Weight Torpedo
Mines

Construction :

Kawasaki Ship Building Industries, Kobe (川崎造船 神戸工場)
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Kobe (三菱重工業 神戸造船所)



SS-502 JDS Unryu being launched. JMSDF Photo.

The Soryu Class SSK in ceremonial light-up. JMSDF Photo. 

Soryu Class : A Formidable Naval Deterrence

The Soryu Class submarine is the world's largest submarine equipped with air-independent propulsion, and it has been in serial production since 2005, in other words, a well proven design. This represents a tremendous leap in capability for the JMSDF as they never had such AIP capable boats before. Collaborating with Kockums AB to licence produce the Stirling AIP engine was a smart move that allowed immediate access to a relatively risk-free proven technology. Kockum's proprietary Stirling Engine is a silent and vibration-free external combustion engine that had already been installed on the Gotland Class SSK and was also later retrofitted on the older Swedish Navy Vastergotland Class and Singapore Navy Archer Class SSK. The air independent propulsion system drastically reduces the need for frequent battery charging with the air breathing diesel generator which requires the submarine to be either surfaced or in snorkeling mode. It effectively increases the submerged endurance of the submarine and makes its detection much more difficult.

Its large displacement translates to having an extremely long range of close to 11000km, exactly what the JMSDF needs to patrol the vast open ocean between the Ryukyu Island Chain ( Okinawa ) and mainland Japan. For littoral operations, like patrolling the shallow Seto Inland Sea, the Soryu is fitted with an X rudder to provide high manoeuvrability to the submarine when operating very close to the seabed. This X rudder configuration was initially developed by Kockums for the Swedish A-19 Gotland Class SSK.




The X Rudder of SS-505 JDS Zuiryu seen clearly in this JMSDF photo.



Close-up view of the X rudder. Photo : Wikipedia

The quietness of the air-independent propulsion and the advanced sonar suite would allow the Soryu to stalk Chinese ballistic missile boats and SSKs with relative ease.

They are armed with Japan's Type 89 torpedo which is wire-guided with both active and passive acoustic homing modes and has very similar characteristics as the USN's Mk 48 ADCAP ( Advanced Capability ) heavyweight torpedo. With a diameter of 533mm, a length of 6.25m and a weight of 1760kg, this torpedo has a 267Kg High Explosive warhead. The effective range is said to be 27 nautical miles (nm) at 40 knots (kts) or 21 nm at 55 kts. The maximum speed is in the range of 70 kts and the operational depth is up to 900m.

These very same torpedo tubes can also launch the Boeing UGM-84L Harpoon Block II all weather, over the horizon, submarine launched anti-ship missile which also has a land attack capability. So the Block II Harpoon is essentially a cruise missile in disguise. It has a range of 124km and will post a serious threat to any Chinese or North Korean surface ship or land installations. It is guided by a GPS/INS unit and also has active radar terminal homing. The Block IIs being available to the USN since 1998, I am assuming that Japan has already either bought the newer version or had already upgraded her Block I Harpoons to Block II standard by now. South Korean certainly had!

The only glaring deficiency of the Soryu Class is the lack of Tomahawk tactical cruise missile launching capability. This is most likely a self-imposed limitation as the Post War Constitution forbids Japan from arming herself with offensive weapons.



RGM-84 the surface launched version of the Harpoon anti-ship missile being fired from the decks of the USN Arleigh Burke Class destroyer USS John S.McCain ( DDG-56). USN Photo

The First Post War Major Weapon System Export?

The 1947 Japanese Constitution is most famous for its renunciation for the right to wage war contained in Article 9. Its recent reinterpretation by the Abe government also allowed an easing of the self imposed blanket ban for arms export which had been enforced since 1976. It made possible the July 2014 agreement between Japan and Australia to partner on marine hydrodynamics ahead of a replacement for the Collins-class boats which quickly morphed into what might become an outright buy of 10 to 12 submarines from Japan.  If this export deal is realized, it would the first and most significant post war foreign military sales by Japan and is said to be worth about 20 billion dollars, hard cash which Japan desperately needs for rebuilding after the Tohoku earthquake and reforming to cater to a rapidly ageing population. It would also be a devastating blow to the Australian ship building industry who in my opinion really deserves losing the deal.

Although the Abbott government had previously said that the Collins replacements would be domestically built, consistent poor performance by the state-owned ASC on not only the entire Collins project and its subsequent upgrade works but also on the current Hobart Class air warfare destroyer project which is suffering from delays and huge cost overruns ( A$600 million over budget and 3 years late ), makes it much easier for them to justify an outright purchase from Japan.

Also, to have the Soryu built in Australia would incur a much higher cost, with some estimates at AS80 billion, almost double the original estimate of A$36 to A$44 billion. As Prime Minister Tony Abbott puts it, "The most important thing is to get the best and most capable submarines at a reasonable price to the Australian taxpayer". It would be really tragic if all that money is paid and the RAN gets another 12 Collins II instead. With the quest for precision and quality being almost a national obsession, you can be assured that anything that is made in Japan is nothing short of perfection. The Soryu Class will be no different. The Japanese worker takes tremendous pride in his work. The Aussies shall not regret that decision should Tony Abbott make that announcement by year end.

But all is not lost for the ASC. With the projected savings from buying directly rather than building domestically, there may be plans to fast track the Australian ship building industry by getting ASC to build new "super" frigates using the hull design of the 6500 tonne Hobart Class destroyer. ASC will likely get service and maintenance contract for the upkeep of the new boats.

The extra money saved could also be used to fund further purchase of the F-35 joint strike fighter which the Australian government had already pledged to buy. Another likely development could be the creation of a new submarine base, possibly at HMAS Coonawara in Darwin, New Territories, though I really do not know how *. With 12 boats projected, the current submarine base at HMAS Stirling in Perth, Western Australia will be swarmed. Having a northern base in Darwin will greatly reduce the transit time to the area of operations in South East Asia and the Australian East Coast.



Aerial view of HMAS Coonawara. Darwin City's CBD can bee seen in the background 2km away. RAN Photo.

* HMAS Coonawara is currently a small naval base supporting 8 Armidale Class patrol boats, within walkable distance of Darwin's central business district and close to the famous Doctor's Gully fish feeding attraction. The seabed will have to be dredged, the Larrakeyah Barracks and the marina next door will possibly have to be relocated to make way for the submarine pens.

Possible Modifications of the Soryu for SEA 1000

The operating range of the Collins Class SSK is in the region of 11830 nm (21000km) at a speed of 10.5 kts while that of the Soryu Class is about 6100 nm at 6.5 kts. The Aussies will likely want a bigger boat with longer range. The magnitude of increase may well be determined by whether a new submarine base is going to be built in Darwin.

The Aussies will also want "inter-operability" with their greatest ally the US Navy. So sensors and weaponry will have to be as identical as possible. The Type 89 torpedoes may have to give way to Mk 48 ADCAPs which the Americans use and which the RAN already has a stockpile of.



A Mark 48 ADCAP heavyweight torpedo being offloaded from the Los Angeles Class nuclear attack submarine USS Oklahoma SSN-723. USN Photo.

 

The ability to fire torpedo tube launched (TTL) Tomahawk Block IV cruise missiles on the Collins replacement could also be a likely modification. Unlike the Los Angeles Class Flight II boats and the follow-on improved Los Angeles Class boats which all have a 12 tube vertical launch system (VLS) for launching Tomahawk cruise missiles, the Soryu Class lacks such a capability. It would be expensive to integrate a VLS into a mature design if not technically difficult. Fortunately the TTL version exist and is currently used on the Royal Navy's Astute Class SSN.



Model of the Tomahawk Block IV tactical cruise missile. USN Photo.



Vertical Launch System (VLS) in the fore section of the Los Angeles Class nuclear attack submarine USS Santa Fe (SSN-763) Photo : USN

 

 

Final Words

The Collins project and the resulting 6 boats are a blemish to the proud reputation of Australian Navy and a disgrace to the entire ship building industry of Australia. It is a sad chapter in the long and illustrious history of the RAN that is best forgotten. The Australians should learn from their numerous mistakes committed in the past 2 decades and simply move on to the next chapter without making the same mistakes again. 12 boats sound like a huge fleet but I assure you it is not. Australia is Big, and the surrounding seas even BIGGER.

To Tony, please buy from the Japs, because if anything were to go wrong this time, it will be their problem, not yours.

To Abe the travelling salesman, you have done the sales pitch, please deliver well when the first order arrives, hopefully by Christmas. And may there be many more new orders for you to fulfill in the future.