Technical considerations Collins-class submarine replacement project

1 technical considerations

1.1 propulsion
1.2 batteries
1.3 weapons capabilities

technical considerations
propulsion

deciding future submarines propulsion system closely tied determining operational range, endurance , stealthiness. 2 basic options presented in submarine propulsion: nuclear propulsion, , conventional, diesel-electric propulsion. option of nuclear propulsion gives submarines unlimited range , endurance, restrained maintenance , human crew requirements resupply , rest, , removes necessity surfacing recharge batteries, unstealthy , risky process. australian governments have repeatedly rejected nuclear propulsion option due lack of australian nuclear power industry (australia non-nuclear nation operate nuclear submarines), related issues of operational sovereignty australia operate american nuclear powered submarine such virginia class, rendering dependent on american technical support, , public opposition nuclear technology.

the second alternative operate conventional diesel-electric submarine sufficient fuel , battery power transit large operational ranges required australia, , provide maximum range, endurance , stealth (operating underwater), before having resurface snorkel , recharge batteries. previously, design brief led construction of relatively large conventionally powered submarine, collins-class, possessing large diesel electric engine, fuel load , sufficient batteries capable of transporting submarines remote location @ hmas stirling operational areas, without having resurface extended periods.

a further innovation in diesel electric propulsion might considered collins-class replacement air independent propulsion, not operated in existing collins-class, operated in number of more recent submarine designs including german type 214, japanese sōryū-class, , french scorpène-class. air independent propulsion performs role of auxiliary engine, providing submarines increased stealth allowing them operate submerged longer. german type 214 submarine employs advanced polymer electrolyte membrane fuel cells assist in delivering comparable range , endurance collins-class.

batteries

batteries important component of diesel-electric submarines, allowing them operate underwater extended periods of time before having resurface recharge them. improvements in battery technology in recent years have allowed smaller diesel-electric submarines operate improved range , endurance. future submarine designs might use improvements in lithium-ion battery technology. collins-class replacement might operate battery technology superior of existing collins-class.

the australian government s announcement on 20 february 2015 future submarines have similar range , endurance collins-class increases possibility evolved mots or new design selected.

weapons capabilities

the 2009 defence white paper identified land strike capability important addition torpedo, mine , anti-ship missile weapons. in february 2015 australian government identified preference future submarines have weapon system , heavyweight torpedo.

torpedo.
mine
anti-ship missile
land attack cruise missile




^ dibb, paul; brabin-smith, richard (19 january 2012). need submarines, not subservience . australian. retrieved 14 may 2016. 
^ http://www.industry.usa.siemens.com/verticals/us/en/marine-shipbuilding/brochures/documents/sinavy-pem-fuel-cell-en.pdf
^ buckingham, john; hodge, christopher; hardy, timothy (january 2008). submarine power , propulsion – trends , opportunities (pdf). paper on submarine power , propulsion presented @ pacific 2008 in sydney, australia. bmt defence services. 
^ cite error: named reference archive.defensenews.com invoked never defined (see page).
^ cite error: named reference 2009 defence white paper, p. 70 invoked never defined (see page).