SSN Design Challenge

[bezobrazov]

Absolutely awesome work, Brock! I love your subs! And it aint bad either that they are French! Your background story (though, being at work, I couldn't read it all yet...) is also intriguing and exceptionally well-researched and -written! Kudos, Man!

[eswube]

I concur! It's a very interesting design, especially since that unlike the others in this thread it isn't ultra-super-future stuff, but a "historical" (in AU sense) design.

[BrockPaine]

I concur! It's a very interesting design, especially since that unlike the others in this thread it isn't ultra-super-future stuff, but a "historical" (in AU sense) design.

Absolutely awesome work, Brock! I love your subs! And it aint bad either that they are French! Your background story (though, being at work, I couldn't read it all yet...) is also intriguing and exceptionally well-researched and -written! Kudos, Man!

Now THAT is some nice work!

Thanks, all. Glad you enjoy it.

Brock,
Nice to see you active on these boards again!

I lurk pretty regularly, but what with job-hunting, preparing for my wedding in a month, and a lot of other priorities, I've just not had time to be drawing anything, unfortunately. I've been a little more concerned with putting food in my kitchen...

I like the 1970 Design Study too, it looks very much like an enlarged Agosta and strongly reminds me of Redoubtable.

Well, it ought to remind you of Redoubtable. I kept Novice's drawing of Redoubtable open in another window as I drew all of these boats, but that one was more strongly influenced by the SSBNs than the others. When I got to the sail in particular, I tried to mimic some of the historical elements in order to keep it looking sufficiently "French".

I hope it's not a problem for the design contest, but I did use the propeller from Novice's Redoubtable. I wanted to actually look like the boat *had* a propeller - if I'd tried to draw it by eye, it would have looked like the box the propeller shipped in...

[BrockPaine]

I cast the spell THREAD NECROMANCY!

So, um... in my original post I mentioned I had another idea on my mind. After over a year of doing nothing with it, I figured I'd call it "Eh goodenough" and post. I'm not as happy with this little idea, but it's a thing. Maybe someone will enjoy it. If not, eh whatever. *Shrugs.*

Collins-class / DeWolf-class Nuclear-Powered Attack Submarine
or the Joint Australian-Canadian Nuclear Attack Submarine

Length: 96 m (315 ft)
Beam: 10.4 m (34 ft)
Draft: 9.75 m (32 ft)
Displacement: 5,400t surfaced - 6,250t submerged
Propulsion: Pressurized Water Reactor
Speed:
- 28-31 knots
Test Depth: 250 m (820 ft)
Crew: 120 men
Armament:
- 6 x 53cm (21") torpedo tubes firing Mk48 torpedoes, Sub-Harpoon missiles, or Stonefish mines
Ships in Class:
Australia:
- HMAS Collins (SSN-73)
- HMAS Waller (SSN-74)
- HMAS Rankin (SSN-75)
- HMAS Farncomb (SSN-76)
Canada:
- HMAS DeWolf
- HMAS Houghton
- HMAS Kingsmill
- HMAS Murray


HMAS Collins (SSN-73)


HMCS deWolf

Development
In the 1980s, the Australian and Canadian navies both discussed, on and off, their desire for nuclear submarines. This desire was particularly strong in Canada, which saw the utility of under-ice operations in the Arctic Ocean using SSNs. The Australians and Canadians were both in the process of planning replacements for their British-built Oberon class submarines, and a new proposal was sought for the next class. Although the RAN and RCN had reservations about nuclear power (caused in part by political positions adopted by parties in the various governments) discussions about a joint development project began in 1983. By 1985, both navies were closely involved in working out suitable specifications for a nuclear attack submarine, initially designated JACNAS (Joint Australian-Canadian Nuclear Attack Submarine).

In February 1986, Canada and Australia signed a memorandum of understanding agreeing to cooperate on the JACNAS project. The two parties agreed to share a set amount of joint design work, after which the national project teams would split and complete individualized designs tailored to each country's preferences. The base design shared many similarities with the British Trafalgar class submarine, with which the design team familiarized themselves.

Design
Among the RCN's primary interests was under-ice operation, and so a number of external features differed from the Australian boats. The deWolf class had a different sail, with the planes mounted low on the bow in order to protect them better when surfacing under the ice, and the X-tail, which the RAN insisted upon, was replaced with an American-style cruciform tail. Similarly, the bow sonar arrangements changed.

Design and construction was placed in the hands of a jointly-owned parastatal, the Australian-Canadian Submarine Corporation (ACSC), which would conduct the major design work, develop a purpose-built shipyard in Australia, and oversee the construction of major parts. The PWR pressurized water nuclear reactors were provided by Rolls-Royce, and shared many components with the reactors of the British Trafalgar-class.

Construction
Australia approved the start of construction on the first submarine, HMAS Collins, in April 1988, while the Canadian parliament did not authorize HMCS deWolf until March of 1989. Major construction took place at ACSC's shipyard in Osborne, Australia. All four of the Australian Collins-class boats were completely constructed at this facility, although a number of large subassemblies were manufactured in Canada and shipped to ACSC. The four Canadian submarines were built in six modular sections. Each section was then loaded loaded aboard a heavy-lift ship and transported to Halifax, where assembly and all further construction was undertaken by Irving Shipbuilding.

HMAS Collins was laid down on February 14th, 1990, but did not complete until 1996, only a month before HMCS deWolf, which was laid down a full year later. Construction generally took between four to six years for each boat. The Canadian boats, which incorporated more off-the-shelf technology acquired via the US and Britain, cost slightly less than the Australian boats, but took on average four to six months longer to complete.

[Rainmaker]

Very cool! Great to see a speculative design for a what-if Canadian nuclear submarine. The joint Australian-Canadian design seems like a very plausible back-story too. Not much to contribute from a design standpoint, but very impressive overall!

[BrockPaine]

Very cool! Great to see a speculative design for a what-if Canadian nuclear submarine. The joint Australian-Canadian design seems like a very plausible back-story too. Not much to contribute from a design standpoint, but very impressive overall!

Glad you like it.

[denodon]

Interesting design certainly. I agree with your thinking to in that the only way we Aussies would get a nuclear submarine would be through a joint project with another, most likely Commonwealth in origin.

[eswube]

That is a thread MEGA-necromancy, considering amount of time that has passed, but certainly very interesting one!

[Hood]

Indeed an interesting design and one that might have been possible. I was just wondering how that timeline might fit with a British W-Class Swiftsure successor to replace the Churchills and Valliants to make a tri-nation project.

[BrockPaine]

Indeed an interesting design and one that might have been possible. I was just wondering how that timeline might fit with a British W-Class Swiftsure successor to replace the Churchills and Valliants to make a tri-nation project.

I'd guess a British variant, if proposed and built, would probably look a little more like the deWolf (particularly with regard to the sail), but it would have a pumpjet, a la T-boat.