RAN Dreamland Thread

[vonnoobie]

And just because I had time to kill before dinner..

Fantasy fleet came in at:

12 x Astutes
3 x Canberra's
3 x Bay class
9 x Type 26's
6 x Type 45's
20 x BAM class

With a combined operating and acquisition cost of $1,752 million and $44,930 million respectively. (Based around rough calculation of 1 Gbp to 2 AUD)

 

[ngatimozart]

Correct in there present state and the Stanfex modules the don't have strike lenght MK41, but I did find a proposal (not official) for a modified Canadian Absalon with MK41 as their next gen Destroyer. My thinking is that the modified Absalon could also hold a couple of CB90 Assualt craft for independent action away from the main body for raids or pirate hunting etc whist also supporting with the JSM or Tac-Toms

Multi-role Destroyer - Canadian Surface Combatant - Danish Absalon - Area Air Defence Destroyer - CASR Modest Proposal - Canadian American Strategic Review - Royal Canadian Navy - RCN Fleet - Destroyer Replacement - Absalon Class - Support Ship - Spe
The Absalon is not a one ship that fits all navies platform. It was specifically designed to meet the conops of the RDN (Royal Danish Navy) which is a small navy. Yes, it is innovative and yes, they have the the Stanflex capability, but that is not a cure all to end all. Personally I do not think strike length Mk41 VLS would necessarily be efficient or effective in a Stanflex concept. Secondly, the Absalons by their very nature aren't designed for hot high intensity combat. They don't have the same level of protection that frigates have. There most certainly is not a place for them in an RAN context because they do not meet the requirements of the RAN conops and the RAN is a medium navy, hence it having other vessels which already cover any capabilities that an Absalon would offer. However there may be use for one in the RNZN fleet IF a case could be made and the expenditure could be justified, because the RNZN is a small navy.
Ngati,*
agree on ADF being nuclear armed that ship sailed long ago,
as to two long range and endurance submarine one being nuclear powered and the other conventional don't really sea the need on that one also. But if he had suggested submarine force of 12 nuclear and 6 small conventional I could see the logic, On nuclear subs don't need to point there role but those *6 conventional would have a dual role of clearing the space out of the barn for the nuc's and also a training capabilty for the surface fleet in the littorals, 3 boats East/West

Now to the enlarged surface fleet, would love to see big catobar carriers(Ford) but for our own stragic needs they are obviously too large. Smaller Cavour or America class carrier will have a utilty in that they cover a number of roles within the fleet/ task force and our primary partner in the Pacfic the US 7th Fleet. Unless the elephant in the room feels that an expansion is needed for our resources their is no direct threat to the continent and as such would favour an operation *more of a containment would keep us at bay, therefore we need to have overwhelming superiority in our are air-sea gap as well as a capabilty to push further if need as part of our expeditionary focus.*

We have seen Chinese expansion with soft power in our region what the long term ramifications *are still to be determined, AusGov/NZG are slowly see our influence in the Pacific dwindle, I would imagine once these smaller countries are depended on China they may want some quid pro Que.in regards to a defence presence,*and we have also seen then start to dominate the africain continent in Djibouti and the resurgent Russian influence in Pakistan, indo-Pacfic region is no longer the calm we have come to expect over the last couple of decades.
*
My rational for the 5x Cavour's is far in excess of current needs, but I do believe we should have the capacity for independent action of our own Anzac task force which provides the Amphiboius task force with ASW- CAP & CAS. In ASW role we could have 12x F35B plus 9x MH-60R and 2x MRH, in the strike role they would have 18x F35B 2x MH-60R & 2x MRH for 2x units East/West with the fifth in heavy maintenance.*

We know that the ability for the RAAF to maintain a presence over the task force beyond 400nm with out using up all our AAR assets and time on station is another problem using up airframe hours just for the transits.*

There is no way the the RAN could ever operate five Cavour type vessels in peacetime. Maybe in wartime if the war went long enough. Same with 18 SSKs. You would even be pushing it with Rudds 12.

Yes there are changes on the geopolitical and geostrategic front that need to be addressed. However in the current economic climate you will be pushing $hit uphill to obtain any substantive increase in Australian defence spending increase to fund anything like what is suggested. I realise that this is a fantasy thread and I am of the view that if you post something, even in a fantasy thread, that pertains to the real world, then you are subject to real world impacts, effects, laws and rules.

 

[gf0012-aust]

there is no way in hades that RAN would have 18 subs - the 12 propositioned by Rudd were based on a through life acquisition - IOW a max of 8 ever in service at any point in time.

ditto for multiples of LHA's or similar - the fleet could not run and is not even remotely resourced for it

your task force costs basically triple once you form fixed groups.

a navy based on those numbers would kill off major acquisitions across all 3 services

 

[vonnoobie]

there is no way in hades that RAN would have 18 subs - the 12 propositioned by Rudd were based on a through life acquisition - IOW a max of 8 ever in service at any point in time.

I'm probably just confusing my self so apologies in advance, When you say 8 do you mean the other 4 are in various stages of maintenance?

In regards to how many we could operate, realistically that is something we can't really debate, as one it is a project going so far into the future none of us can reliably predict crewing capabilities for the RAN and two the various submarines on proposal have crew numbers from 33 through to 65.. Until any particular submarine is nailed down and we get a hold of a crystal ball none of us is in a position to say with any clarity or basis in fact our ability to or not to man 12 submarines. Just my 2cents.

Regards, Matthew.

 

[StobieWan]

You could take a look at the challenges of manning the current fleet and extrapolate however.

There have been significant challenges in recruiting and retaining enough crew for the existing, much smaller fleet of Collins boats.

 

[vonnoobie]

You could take a look at the challenges of manning the current fleet and extrapolate however.

There have been significant challenges in recruiting and retaining enough crew for the existing, much smaller fleet of Collins boats.

That is true to an extent, Though best I can find out is number from 2007 when we had around 350 (RAN Submarine Service should be 500 strong), Back then though the Collins class wasn't as reliable as they are today. Do we have any idea what the situation is like now?

 

[t68]

You could take a look at the challenges of manning the current fleet and extrapolate however.

There have been significant challenges in recruiting and retaining enough crew for the existing, much smaller fleet of Collins boats.

Problem is it's not just one issue in regards to the manning issue, being in one location and such a small specialist group for which it's operational tempo is not doing it any favours, expanding it would take time and with expansion would actually make the position more desireable in lifestyle choice.

Can we also get something straight, I have never advocated 18 submarine I have referred to them from others posts relating to it and to a thesis I found sometime ago ( for which I can't find now as it was saved to an old PC that died)

In relation to five ASW carriers I know we are not going to get them not even one in peacetime and you certainly won't be able to procure them in war time, we don't have the infrastructure nor the equipment to place on them. In a hot war with a neer peer adversary I would imagine with equipment be so technological advanced even to US would have trouble replacing kit let alone supplying the ADF for attrition purposes.

You got to war with the kit you have, plan for the worst & hope for for the best

 

[Volkodav]

That is true to an extent, Though best I can find out is number from 2007 when we had around 350 (RAN Submarine Service should be 500 strong), Back then though the Collins class wasn't as reliable as they are today. Do we have any idea what the situation is like now?

In 2007 the government laid up a serviceable submarine early to free up crew for one that had just completed FCD. This continued for several years with each submarine coming in for Pre-FCD and then, worse, lay-up prior to pre-FCD, several months before the FCD was due to begin. This was to free up crew for the active boats, reduce operating costs and to provide components, taken from the laid up boat, to complete the one coming out of FCD.

Basically from 2007 until the early 2010s instead of one submarine out of six in FCD there would be too plus a third laid up or being striped in pre-FCD, primary for crewing reasons. When the media was full of BS stories about submarine serviceability and only one boat being available literally half the fleet was out of the water in Adelaide with only one of the three actually being worked on. As to why this happened, very simple, the mining industry was poaching qualified technical sailors faster than the navy could train them and without them the boats could not go to sea.

The other factor was government attempted to reduce costs by reducing money spent on maintenance planning and project management, spares holdings and the ordering of materials and equipment experience had demonstrated would be needed (i.e. no rotable parts pool). This meant every major availability suffered delays and cost over runs. Its all in the Coles Report, if you want a fleet of six submarines you need to pay to maintain a fleet of six submarines, any cost cutting with compound into increased costs and availability issues in the future.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I'm probably just confusing my self so apologies in advance, When you say 8 do you mean the other 4 are in various stages of maintenance?

no, they're in various stages of build, deep maint or completion. Its a through life build philosophy. At the tail end of acquisition, subs would be decommissioned and the slack taken up. There would never be 12 at once.

In regards to how many we could operate, realistically that is something we can't really debate, as one it is a project going so far into the future none of us can reliably predict crewing capabilities for the RAN and two the various submarines on proposal have crew numbers from 33 through to 65.. Until any particular submarine is nailed down and we get a hold of a crystal ball none of us is in a position to say with any clarity or basis in fact our ability to or not to man 12 submarines. Just my 2cents.

Regards, Matthew.

we can debate it as we know the constraints. and some of us are in a position to pass comment due to the benefit of being there prev, or knowing what the limitations are

there is no correlation between reduced crew meaning the opportunity to build more.

salaries are the lowest embuggerance on the sustainment matrix.

I'd bet my left nut that we can't and won't get 12 at once

 

[StingrayOZ]

You got to war with the kit you have, plan for the worst & hope for for the best

The only time that its a little difference from that is if a friend, who is not yet involved decides to offload something before it comes on board.

UK was able to able to acquire 50 destroyers (and an addition 10 cutters) in 1940 from the US. Which then freed the US up to start new builds. Pretty poor deal for the UK (and cost them nearly every overseas base they had), but started to get america invested in the war.

If a region was to heat up, I would imagine there would be some nations not yet involved that may sell/gift so to support an ally and then modernise or prepare for their own efforts if things escalate.

For the US, giving a CNV to anyone would pretty much bankrupt them. Even in war time no one has that much man power, the expertise, the training, the axillary and logistic support to make use of one. Its the perfect example of how the US is just in a completely different league in terms of capability.

An america class. Well, while still a huge resource burden, someone like UK or Japan, India could probably make use of that under war like conditions. I doubt Australia could even under conscription and war economy operate such a ship effectively.

I sometimes wonder if Russia had signed a deal for the Juan Carlos design instead of the Mistral design, would we now be looking at picking up another JC1 if it was effectively say half price. Could we even use it if it was gifted to us? Would it be more useful as a hull that you would rotate through to lessen the ongoing cost of the other 2.

With subs, I like to think as planning for 12 rather than operating 12. You might have 10 actual hulls 2 subs in various states of build.

Last time we set the target for 8, and got 6. If we target 12 we might actually get 8-10 operational. That's still depending on how you look at it a ~50% increase in numbers.

 

[t68]

.
With subs, I like to think as planning for 12 rather than operating 12. You might have 10 actual hulls 2 subs in various states of build.

.

That's something to what I envisaged out of the 12, 8 could be avalible for tasking with 4 in various stages of maintenance. And out of the 12, 2 or 3 could be set up for specialist intelligence operations. I would imagine something like this is happening with Collins but that would come under OPSEC

 

[gf0012-aust]

With subs, I like to think as planning for 12 rather than operating 12. You might have 10 actual hulls 2 subs in various states of build.

no, you'd lose a quarter on through life builds

the max adelaide could build was 3 at once (when I was involved with subs)

its a 25% rotation. start, mid, commissioned, decommissioned
and within that cycle is also a SLE or MLU which is also the intent on volume builds

No 4 is highly unlikely to be a clone of No 1

 

[Volkodav]

no, you'd lose a quarter on through life builds

the max adelaide could build was 3 at once (when I was involved with subs)

its a 25% rotation. start, mid, commissioned, decommissioned
and within that cycle is also a SLE or MLU which is also the intent on volume builds

No 4 is highly unlikely to be a clone of No 1

Of the Collins class only Dechaineux and Sheean were meant to have a common as built baseline and even then there were differences.

Collins was finished to an initial (I believe interim) standard, Farncomb was probably closest to the intended design baseline and bar the combat system performed quite well, while Waller trialled many improvements incorporated in the later boats during build. Rankin, the final boat, was the first to be completed to the new improved standard, ideally she would have been the first of a subclass of three but it wasn't to be.

 

[rockitten]

I sometimes wonder if Russia had signed a deal for the Juan Carlos design instead of the Mistral design, would we now be looking at picking up another JC1 if it was effectively say half price. Could we even use it if it was gifted to us? Would it be more useful as a hull that you would rotate through to lessen the ongoing cost of the other 2.

Well, some say the "Russian Mistral" was modified to accommodate Russian helicopters and tanks, so if that's the same for the "Russian JC1", RAN should just order an extra Canberra instead.

However, if (if!) the Spanish Armada wants to offload/decommission the JC1 early due to budget constrain, that will be an interesting opportunity for RAN to get the third LHD.

Or even better, an opportunity for a light carrier.

 

[t68]

Well, some say the "Russian Mistral" was modified to accommodate Russian helicopters and tanks, so if that's the same for the "Russian JC1", RAN should just order an extra Canberra instead.

However, if (if!) the Spanish Armada wants to offload/decommission the JC1 early due to budget constrain, that will be an interesting opportunity for RAN to get the third LHD.

Or even better, an opportunity for a light carrier.

Don't like your chances of that happening any time soon, as the Spanish have increased the defence budget slightly. but that's more to do paying existing suppliers on the books for A400,Eurofighter etc.

with only 3 amphibious ship on the books 1x JC1 & 2x Galicia I don't see how they could give her up.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Of the Collins class only Dechaineux and Sheean were meant to have a common as built baseline and even then there were differences.

Collins was finished to an initial (I believe interim) standard, Farncomb was probably closest to the intended design baseline and bar the combat system performed quite well, while Waller trialled many improvements incorporated in the later boats during build. Rankin, the final boat, was the first to be completed to the new improved standard, ideally she would have been the first of a subclass of three but it wasn't to be.

Collins was lucky to have turned into a real sub in the first place after the swedes buggered up the bow section - it was almost a consideration as to whether she would become a pier side training hulk as the welds were so bad.

people forget that those "fundamental" probs were fixed in australia - and it wasn't australian workmanship that caused it in the first place.

 

[Volkodav]

Collins was lucky to have turned into a real sub in the first place after the swedes buggered up the bow section - it was almost a consideration as to whether she would become a pier side training hulk as the welds were so bad.

people forget that those "fundamental" probs were fixed in australia - and it wasn't australian workmanship that caused it in the first place.

Saw the weld map of all the repaired and replaced welds on Collins, it describes the form of the entire bow and section 400 (escape trunk). This is what annoys me most about some of the comments, particularly from Japanese"experts" about Australian industrial capability.

Australian industry, not just ASC, has proven time and time again to be capable of worlds best practice, Australian workers have consistently stepped up and done as well or better than their, often, far more experienced, overseas counterparts. This is not just welders but, fitters, machinists, electricians, technicians, designers, engineers, even planers and project managers. Where they fall down is is leadership, in particular political leadership, government sector, company boards, imported experts in non-core / non -technical areas.

These are the movers and shakers and decision makers, the people being paid top dollar to guide and lead the talented"doers". These "experts" are often non-technical, arts, accounting, commerce, business, or law graduates who in addition to lacking any real concept of the skills of or technical people and automatically defer to overseas "experts" and consultants rather than home grown ones. This imported talent is often biased, parochial or has financial incentive to find fault with local capability and disturbingly often end up with lucrative contracts to "fix" problems(real or imagined) with the local capability.

It is often a challenge to pick the Australian accent at senior levels in anything being directed by government and it is often the imported egos that screw things up with local subordinates having to step up and fix things, only to be sidelined and replaced by another imported"expert".

In my experience many Australian success stories are actually those where the doers are also the decision makers and they are able to avoid contamination and derailing by biased, imported, experts. These experts may be individuals from the appropriate field overseas, another industry, or even ex defence, but are not as senior or knowledgeable as the powers that be believe. They are given authority and big pay cheques but often bring very little, if anything to a project, sadly, sometimes they even do damage.

Rant over.

 

[t68]

Saw the weld map of all the repaired and replaced welds on Collins, it describes the form of the entire bow and section 400 (escape trunk). This is what annoys me most about some of the comments, particularly from Japanese"experts" about Australian industrial capability.

Australian industry, not just ASC, has proven time and time again to be capable of worlds best practice, Australian workers have consistently stepped up and done as well or better than their, often, far more experienced, overseas counterparts. This is not just welders but, fitters, machinists, electricians, technicians, designers, engineers, even planers and project managers. Where they fall down is is leadership, in particular political leadership, government sector, company boards, imported experts in non-core / non -technical areas.

These are the movers and shakers and decision makers, the people being paid top dollar to guide and lead the talented"doers". These "experts" are often non-technical, arts, accounting, commerce, business, or law graduates who in addition to lacking any real concept of the skills of or technical people and automatically defer to overseas "experts" and consultants rather than home grown ones. This imported talent is often biased, parochial or has financial incentive to find fault with local capability and disturbingly often end up with lucrative contracts to "fix" problems(real or imagined) with the local capability.

It is often a challenge to pick the Australian accent at senior levels in anything being directed by government and it is often the imported egos that screw things up with local subordinates having to step up and fix things, only to be sidelined and replaced by another imported"expert".

In my experience many Australian success stories are actually those where the doers are also the decision makers and they are able to avoid contamination and derailing by biased, imported, experts. These experts may be individuals from the appropriate field overseas, another industry, or even ex defence, but are not as senior or knowledgeable as the powers that be believe. They are given authority and big pay cheques but often bring very little, if anything to a project, sadly, sometimes they even do damage.

Rant over.

I don't 100% agree with that as I have seen some totally incompetent Australians screw industry over in my time, to an extent that the one profitable company collapsed into oblivion all because of the ego of one person who would not listen to the lower rank and file who foresaw the outcome.

 

[gf0012-aust]

This is what annoys me most about some of the comments, particularly from Japanese"experts" about Australian industrial capability.

my exp has been that the japanese are far more circumspect about this - and have been somewhat surprised at ASC's capability.

I found far more pointy noses from colleaagues in "old europe"

the americans, who have been closely involved with hull mods, propulsion mods and where some australian companies have been involved in sig mgt have been far more positive and certainly don't subscribe to the silliness that its getting wafted about at the moment - esp by some idiot armchair experts touting wares for contenders.

kind of funny that its australian tech thats been used by some other countries to counter the Kilo brigade and not homegrown tech. - it shows how much some of those experts know about their own countries capabilities in UD technology

 

[Joe Black]

I think the concerns the Japanese raised was around the high tensile steel wielding experience ASC current has.

I don't know what HY steel Collin class uses (reported to be some micro-alloy steel developed by the Swedish and improved by BHP - which was lighter and easier to weld than HY-80 and HY-100 used by the Americans), but it was reported that the Soryu's utilise HY-156 steel.

It will be interesting to see if the Japanese pitches an Australianised Soryu (Goryu) that will utilise the same HY-156 steel or yet again a modified version of that.