link

Not convinced the requirements for fast travel and stealth above water can be applied without negatively impacting the requirements for fast travel and stealth below water. And the other way around.

 

My hunch is what is good for above surface will be bad for below surface.

 

 

the new drivetrain tech may not be nuke comparable, but it makes AIP look a bit passe.  In fact, we should sidestep AIP because it's already able to be surpassed.

ditto for weapons solutions.  the emphasis is on conformal pack solutions, swimmers, AI hives etc.... the sub is more about what it can manage in the future than what it can deliver as a single entity weapons and sensor platform

the reality of a sub managing a hive of dismounted weapons is far closer than we think.

G'day mate. In case you feel that it is hopeless that the light will dawn in Oz just like it has in PRC and Brazil recently that for submarine mobility and dived endurance the answer is nuclear propulsion then let me give you some hope for reason to prevail:

1. The Australian antipathy for nuclear energy is based more on the dependence on coal and LNG exports than it is on the inherent dangers in nuclear energy

2. Most of the world accepts that nuclear energy, notwithstanding the special measures needed to process and store waste products, is still a a carbon-neutral energy source and does not require any where the scale of carbon capture and storage [CCS] investment that will be necessary for the remaining years of fossil fuel consumption

3. So IMHO it is only a matter of time and compartive costs and risks before we wake up to the need to use the uranium for energy in the same way the countries to which e export are already doing

4. Once we commit to nuclear energy then we will need the safety and regulatory regimes to manage it safely. We might even do it as a profitable undertaking if we agree to accept the waste products back from the countries to which we export. We have ample geologically-stable areas in which to store the waste products underground, and at less cost and uncertainty than for CCS

5. Then there won't be any remaining problem with acquring nuclear submarines

 

So the solution boils down to the argument that uranium is a cleaner and safer fuel then diesel (let alone coal!)

the general public seem to automatically associate one with the other, so rational debate is somewhat challeneged

It could be a good design for the ASC to buy and re-export completed hulls, like we didn't manage to do with the Collins.

Maybe a sub can be resupplied by an UUV

 

 

 

thats why things like conformal weapons packs are a nice simple concept.  it would cut down on weapons reload times, cut down some of the location restrictions.  

adding in concepts like conformal sensor packs has the same advantages.

there's no reason why UUV's couldn't be used in the future for resuppply of some criticals...

there's no reason why UUV's couldn't be used in the future for resuppply of some criticals...