christopher j. skinner 2016-02-01 bsc(eng) mengsc ... - engineers … · •preparations for naval...

Christopher J. SKINNERBSc(Eng) MEngSc MIEAust CPEng

Captain RAN (retired)[email protected]

Australian Society for Defence Engineering, NSW

2016-02-01

Photo: Navy

2016-02-011Development of Australia's Future

Submarines - CJSkinner

http://news.usni.org/2015/02/24/document-australian-submarine-acquisition-strategy/20130322ran8083167_121-jpghttp://news.usni.org/2015/02/24/document-australian-submarine-acquisition-strategy/20130322ran8083167_121-jpgmailto:[email protected]

Disclaimer & Introduction

• This presentation describes the challenges for the engineering profession to contribute to the successful development of Australia’s future submarine force

• The timing and scope of the Future Submarine and Collins life extension are extraordinary opportunities for the engineering profession

• Views expressed are solely those of the author and should not be attributed to any other source

• Author: weapons and electrical engineer with experience in • Program management• Combat systems design & operation• Weapons integration• Test and evaluation

• Author is not a submarine engineer, and not a submariner

• Committed to ensuring the engineering profession contributes to the successful development of Australia’s submarine force


Submarines - CJSkinner2

Submarine roles – recap

• Anti-submarine warfare [ASW]

• Anti-shipping– line of sight [LOS]

– over-the-horizon [OTH]

• Response to higher authority strategic orders

• Close support for surface task forces



• Intelligence gathering (sometimes involving landing and extraction of special forces), surveillance and reconnaissance [ISR]

• Strategic deterrence –with or without land-attack missiles such as Tomahawk [T-LAM]

Introduction

• Based on a paper that is directed to the engineering profession collectively

• The Competitive Evaluation Process [CEP] is underway to select a design partner for the Future Submarine Program [FSP]

• Concurrently the service life of the Collins class submarines must be extended – a challenging undertaking in its own right

• All engineering disciplines are involved in submarine engineering design, construction, operation and sustainment



Future Submarine Program [FSP]

DCNS (France( TKMS (Germany) Japan (MHI) Existing

Proposed design Short-fin

Barracuda

Type 216 (based

on type 214)

Evolved Soryu Extended Collins

Current service Barracuda SSN in

construction

Type 214 in

service

Soryu in service

with JMSDF

Collins class in

RAN only service



DCNS

(France(

TKMS

(Germany)

Japan

(MHI)

Existing

Proposed

designShort-fin

Barracuda

Type 216

(based on

type 214)

Evolved

Soryu

Extended Collins

Current

serviceBarracuda

SSN in

constructi

on

Type 214 in

service

Soryu in

service

with JMSDF

Collins class in RAN

only service

French SSN – BARRACUDA





BARRACUDA – aft



BARRACUDA – mid



BARRACUDA - forward

Discussion Topics

• Command, Control, Communications and Intelligence [C3I]

• Hull, Mechanical & Electrical [HM&E] and Payloads

• Submarine Design Process

• Program Timeline

• Research, Development, Test & Evaluation [RDT&E] Challenges for Submarines

• Engineering Innovation for Submarines



http://australianmadedefence.com.au/continuous-build-of-future-submarines/

The Timeline – as seen in 2014



From ‘SEA 1000 – A Hybrid Build Précis’’ Raytheon Australia

Time for engineers to lead the debate as did Rickover



‘... Inputs from Australian science, including the translation of science knowledge into useful knowledge, the application of useful knowledge into economic inputs and the use of the inputs’ (The Australian 2015-03-25)

‘The understanding of natural phenomena developed by science enables engineers to envision and create concrete realities. Admiral Rickover did not invent or discover nuclear power, but he made it a reality. It was as an engineer that he was uniquely effective.’’(Rockwell 1992)

Engineering Design for Submarines 1/2

• GABLER, Ulrich 2000) provides the following Design Principles for development of air-independent, non-nuclear submarines (p135):– Strong weapons payload– Modern weapon control system– High-performance passive/active/intercept sonar systems– Low displacement – to reduce target strength for active sonar

detection– Single hull construction– Single propeller– Hydrodynamically optimised lines– Location of bridge fin amidships– High performance electrical propulsion system



Engineering Design for Submarines 2/2

• GABLER, Ulrich 2000) provides the following Design Principles for development of air-independent, non-nuclear submarines (p135): (continued)– Maximum speed submerged for at least one hour– Extensive degree of automation, for example unmanned engine

room– Multiple use of space and weight, for example battery and fuel

provide most of stability ballast– Minimum inert ballast for reserve stability– Adequate design reserves to permit later modernisation– Balanced safety and rescue concept– Cost-effective design and construction methods– Rational construction procedure



Engineering Innovation

• SUBS in Schools

• Lithium battery technology

• Human systems integration [HSI]

• Combat Systems Management

• External C3I – Connectivity v Stealth

• Autonomous vehicle development

• Preparations for naval nuclear propulsion



Lessons from Recent Programs 1/2

• Establish the Roles and Responsibilities of the Government and Private Sector organisations

• Take a Long-Term Strategic View of the Submarine Force and the Industrial Base

• Remember that the Submarine is an Integration of Various Systems

• Understand the Current State of Technology to Control Program Risks

• Determine how to Test for the Achievement of Desired Operational Requirements

• Consider a Single Design/Build contract for the First-of-Class



Lessons from Recent Programs 2/2

• Decide on Government Furnished Equipment (in a timely manner and then ensure deliveries are on time)

• Develop a Timely Decision-making process to Manage Change

• Complete the Majority of Design Drawings before Start of Construction

• Design for Removal and Replacement of Equipment

• Establish a Strategic Plan for Through life Sustainment during the Design Phase



References• ANDREWS, David. ‘Creative Ship Design.’ Transactions of Royal Institute of Naval Architects, Vol.

123, 1981. Cited in BIRKLER, John et al (2011)• BIRKLER, John; SCHANK, John F.; RIPOSO, Jessie; ARENA, Mark V.; BUTTON, Robert W.; DeLUCA

Paul; DULLEA, James; KALLIMANI, James G.; LEADMON, John; LEE, Gordon T.; McINNIS, Brian; MURPHY, Robert; PREDD, Joel B.; WILLIAMS, Raymond H. Australia’s Submarine Design Capabilities and Capacities. Challenges and Options for the Future Submarine. RAND Corporation, Santa Monica. 2011

• DEPETRO, Aidan. ‘Future Submarine – Fire Risk Analysis and Evaluation of Emerging Technologies’. BMT Design & Technology. 3rd Submarine Science, Technology & Engineering Conference, Adelaide. 2015

• EVANS, J.H. ‘Basic Design Concepts.’ Naval Engineers Journal Vol. 71, No. 4, November 1959. Cited in BIRKLER, John et al (2011)

• GABLER, Ulrich. Submarine Design. Bernard & Graefe Verlag, Bonn. 2000• OLIVER, Michael D. (Lockheed Martin Mission Systems and Training, Manassas) & MAULDIN, Ron

(General Dynamics Electric Boat, New London). ‘Land-Based Combat System Integration, Test and Evaluation from a Combat System Developer’s Perspective.’ 2nd Submarine Science, Technology & Engineering Conference, Adelaide. 2013

• SCHANK, John F., LACROIX, Frank W., MURPHY, Robert E., ARENA, Mark V., LEE, Gordon T. Learning from Experience. Lessons from the Submarine Programs of the United States, United Kingdom, and Australia. RAND Corporation, Santa Monica. 2011

• SKINNER, Christopher J. ‘Australia’s readiness for Naval Nuclear Propulsion.’ Unpublished. 2015• YATES, Athol. Government as an Informed Buyer. Engineers Australia, Canberra. 2012



DISCUSSION



[email protected] for copies of the supporting paper

mailto:[email protected]

Submarine Nuclear Propulsion



US Navy Leadership & Governance• Issues for Australian

Adoption of Nuclear Power: A Checklist

• Australia might well wish to move to nuclear propulsion rapidly but for this to occur requires a very thorough going analysis of benefits, costs and risks.

• The following is a first cut at this based on a list compiled by Admiral F. L. Bowman USN (quoted in Erickson (2007) An overview of the PLA-N Submarine Force)



Checklist 1/2 – from Adm F.L.Bowman USN



ITEM COMMENT

1. Select, then train, the best people to operate the

equipment.

This took several years in the USN

2. Establish high standards of continuous training

and qualification.

Nuclear engineering will need to be

taught much more widely than is

currently

3. Demand the highest possible quality and

reliability of submarine components and equipment. This also will take some time but is achievable

4. Establish centralized control of submarine systems

and components.

This will be a challenge and should

be addressed with an independent

authority that covers naval and civil

reactors

5. Learn from experience – adopt an honest acceptance

that mistakes will occur and set up a well-defined system

for critique, feedback, and corrective action.

Room for improvement judging by

the COLLINS experience

Checklist 2/2 – from Adm F.L.Bowman USN



ITEM COMMENT

6. Require redundancy in critical systems. Yes

7. Design a layered defence for safety Yes, even more critical in

submarines 8. Face the facts. Do not let factors such as cost or schedules lead to accepting questionable actions or to short-cutting established policies.

Yes, and that is why we must take

the full time to do the job 100%

correctly – safely, efficiently and

sustainably

9. Agree up front that the approach used will not require highly enriched uranium (CJSkinner)

Removes many of the existing

objections to nuclear power in

Australia

10. Work with overseas experts to design a reactor that is mostly common for civil and naval use (CJSkinner)

Design to ensure core is easily

replaced for submarines

History of Submarine Nuclear Power



DATE EVENT COMMENT

1946-04 Captain Rickover USN assigned to Oak Ridge National Laboratory

With other USN personnelto study nuclear energy

1954-09-25 USS NAUTILUS commissioned First SSN – modified conventional SS

1955-01-17 NAUTILUS underway on nuclear power

1957-04 NAUTILUS refuelled

1957-12-18 Shippingport Nuclear Power Station delivers electrical power to the grid

Rickover managed this development also

1957 USS SEAWOLF starts sea-trials Sodium-cooled reactor

1958-12 SEAWOLF starts conversion to PWR

1959-12-30 First USN SSBN commissioned

1963-04-10 USS THRESHER lost at sea Non-nuclear accident

Nuclear Propulsion Fuel Options

• Low Enriched Uranium

– Not weapons grade (the level that is being proposed for Iran)

– Not restricted by NPT

– Re-fuelling every ~10 years

– Used by French, Russian, Indian, Brazilian and Peoples Liberation Army navies

– Suitable for Small Modular Reactors [SMR]



• Highly Enriched Uranium [HEU]

– Weapons grade ~95% pure

– Controlled under Non-Proliferation Treaty [NPT]

– Avoids need for mid-life refuelling assuming a ~30 year life of type [LOT]

– Used by US Navy and by UK Royal Navy

• Unnecessary risk for RAN

A top nuclear engineer who commissioned and ran eight

nuclear reactors in Britain and

the Opal reactor at Lucas

Heights says Australia should

pursue air-cooled, small-

scale reactors...



christopher j. skinner 2016-02-01 bsc(eng) mengsc ... - engineers … · •preparations for naval...

Documents