Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

Scott Elaurant

Well-Known Member
Further to Alexsa’s comments we need to remember that the original reason for building Collins (and Sea1000) in Australia in the first place was not to create local jobs or save money. It was so that we would have the skills to sustain complex state of the art submarines available locally. It was about capability. That meant we could keep operating them reliably. Oberons were great boats in the 1970s but they suffered terribly from being out of service for long periods to have any major work done.

SSNs are far more complex than Oberons and these issues apply doubly so now. ASC won’t be building reactor compartments here but everything else - pressure hull, turbines, battery, accommodation, command, comms and weapons systems - should be built here, so that we can maintain and if needed repair them here. That capability to maintain and repair is valuable and will lead to US and possibly UK basing SSNs here as well. Look at the backlog in sub maintenance for both the RN and the USN SSNs to see how critical this is. Some US boats have been tied up for a couple of years.

Seen in this light, in my view anything that avoidably delays ASC from learning how to build SSNs is a distraction. The same applies to getting old second hand SSNs we don’t know how to maintain. The LOTE work on Collins is needed but after that is should be all hands on deck to build SSNs. If we can get a UK made Astute or US made Virginia as a starter boat that would be useful to begin working up crews and maintenance teams, but only in the context of being a “first in class”. That was how the Germans helped start the Korean sub building program by building the first two boats in Germany then the following six of the same design in Korea. Since then the Koreans have gone from strength to strength with a continuous build of their own boats to a gradually improving local design.

So whichever SSN design Australia selects, I’d say pick one and stick to it, and learn to build and maintain as much of it as possible locally as fast as possible. Personally I do hope it is a “batch 2 Astute” for many reasons, but whichever design we choose, I hope we do it properly and know how to back those boats up locally. No point getting state of the art Virginia block Vs if we can’t maintain the VLS tubes or repair the fancy optronic masts locally.

This is an engineers view of the world, not a submarine sailors’, but I think it is important In this case.
 
Last edited:

Stampede

Well-Known Member
If the first AU built vessel will be operational (an important disticttion

OK ... why and what does getting the HMS Astute achieve? If the Virginia is selected (I have my doubts) what is the point. If the Astute is selected with the US reactor ... and (noting the governments worst case outcome) this operational before 2040 ..... why pick up an old boat.

For what ever we select training will start well before the hull hits the water. If you had suggested the first SSN would roll off the UK production line before construction moves to Australia I could see this. It would still need to be a new (probably US) reactor.

The US reactor in the Astute hull is a real possibility IMHO noting the submerged buoyant volume (depending on which open source you rely on) is pretty much the same. The Astute is shorter and but with more beam. The last Astute is now rolling down the line. The build jigs and supply lines are in place.

Australia need to be building capacity and capability .... renting an orphan from either side (refuelled LA or HMS Astute ... noting the UK may still want the Astute at this time) is not an option for a delivery over a decade away.

Building a USN reactor for hull 1 (if Astute is the selected option) in the UK and migrating production to Australia has a lot of attraction.

But we are all spit balling .... myself included.

Renting old submarines with different systems does not appear to offer much. You could get the same benefit from sea-riding RAN on the selected design.
Yep we are spit balling.

I wonder if defence and government know today what the broad SSN plan is going forward?
I would suspect / expect that having made the announcement last year, they already know exactly which submarine is the way forward ,its major internal systems and a predicted timetable for entering service.
While it is a very complex program, surely the basics would be known today by a select few.


Regards S
 

spoz

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
There were a couple of Hams as well, used as diving tenders and torpedo recovery vessels. I got my self lectured over the tons at one point, told off by and ex PO when I commented on the being our last wooden ships, I was told very firmly that I was talking out my backside as they were steel!
Really? I must have imagined the one I served in was made of wood, then!

The Hams were used as diving tenders; like the (steel!) TRVs they weren’t commissioned, but we didn’t bother calling them “ADVs” in them thar days.
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
I understand that the 3 Diesel engines and electric motor are to be replaced with more modern & more reliable ones which will require the hull to be separated but I don’t believe they plan to extend the Collins hull as they are not fitting an AIP system.
I was referring to constructing an entirely new section with generators, tanks, ancillaries already fitted and tested, cutting the old section out and welding the new section in. It may or may not prove cheaper than striping the old systems out and refuting new, it will definately be quicker.
 

Scott Elaurant

Well-Known Member
Oberons were never “shipped back to the UK to have major work done” - all major O boat refits, including SWUP, were done in Aust.
SPOZ thanks. I had misunderstood a comment I read about the difficulties of working on Oberons. I have edited my post.
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Oberons were never “shipped back to the UK to have major work done” - all major O boat refits, including SWUP, were done in Aust.
Legend has it refitted using the Olympic system ;) . Who ever got to the boat first did their bit first, leading to dead straight easy cable runs and pipe fitter having to work around.
 
This is my first post however I’ve been following this thread for some time, and appreciate the thoughts and insights of the collective knowledge base.

There’s been a few very common recurring themes, namely; not enough hulls for the current deteriorating regional landscape, negative RAN past experiences purchasing second hand ships, limited construction capacity, and the dreaded debates over Arafura and what that class should and shouldn’t be that appear on loop.

It appears the US Navy is proposing to begin decommissioning Freedom Class LCS ships in FY23, and whilst the LCS have regularly been argued as a dead duck for the USN, and whilst many here have argued against buying ex USN ships, would these potentially be an interim capability whilst we Hunter gets underway?

Whilst designed for the littorals this may suit patrolling our northern waters allowing ANZAC and Hobart to undertake the SE Asian regional presence deployments.

Whilst second hand they are all built this millennium, they pack a bunch of kit this forum often refers to as the baseline needs such as hangar, SeaRAM, NSM. Second hand and set to be decommissioned may make the price right as an interim capability to get quickly and operate for a decade or so until we transition to Hunter.

Additionally providing a pipeline of sailor experience and command opportunities.
 

Going Boeing

Well-Known Member
The Freedom class LCS have a major problem with the combining gear in the drivetrain & it has been a costly exercise to try to rectify it - I personally wouldn’t touch them as they would rarely go to sea.

THE Independence class LCS have overcome their initial problems with corrosion in their aluminium hulls and are being fitted with some additional firepower (NSM) so they may become useful to the USN. They have a very large helicopter deck which gives them a lot of flexibility. The first 2 of the class are being retired because it’s too expensive to upgrade the electronic systems to the level fitted to later vessels in the class.
 
Last edited:

Anthony_B_78

Active Member
Interesting tidbit in the budget papers - The government purchased a Pacific support ship in February. It will be upgraded in Australia. I can't find any news reports about this. Though looking back through this thread it seems one or two knew about it. Not surprising really. Will be interesting to see when they announce what they bought.
 

alexsa

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
This is my first post however I’ve been following this thread for some time, and appreciate the thoughts and insights of the collective knowledge base.

There’s been a few very common recurring themes, namely; not enough hulls for the current deteriorating regional landscape, negative RAN past experiences purchasing second hand ships, limited construction capacity, and the dreaded debates over Arafura and what that class should and shouldn’t be that appear on loop.

It appears the US Navy is proposing to begin decommissioning Freedom Class LCS ships in FY23, and whilst the LCS have regularly been argued as a dead duck for the USN, and whilst many here have argued against buying ex USN ships, would these potentially be an interim capability whilst we Hunter gets underway?

Whilst designed for the littorals this may suit patrolling our northern waters allowing ANZAC and Hobart to undertake the SE Asian regional presence deployments.

Whilst second hand they are all built this millennium, they pack a bunch of kit this forum often refers to as the baseline needs such as hangar, SeaRAM, NSM. Second hand and set to be decommissioned may make the price right as an interim capability to get quickly and operate for a decade or so until we transition to Hunter.

Additionally providing a pipeline of sailor experience and command opportunities.
While agreeing with the comments already made in respect to the issues with the Freedom Class, the other significant issue is these vessels are designed around mission modules. The development of these has been as much of an issue as the reliability of the LCS.

These are light weight vessels designed for speed. That comes with compromise and the weapons and sensor fit, even with the surface warfare package, is less capable than the ASMD ANZAC. These are expensive beasts to run and have issues ……. They are not really an option any sane person would want to take up.
 

Morgo

Well-Known Member
IMG_0790.jpg

The flagship looking pretty sharp parked in White Bay this morning.

Which made me think two things:
1. Of how big an asset Sydney harbour and its broader infrastructure is. Very handy to have a few more places close by to FBE to tie up. And even better for the USN or other allies if they need it.
2. Will the construction of the new sub base over the next decade at seemingly either Wollongong or Newcastle, is this going to lead to renewed calls from various vested interests (ie the cruise industry) to relocate FBE wholesale out of Sydney harbour? I hope not, but I fear yes.
 

DDG38

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
2. Will the construction of the new sub base over the next decade at seemingly either Wollongong or Newcastle, is this going to lead to renewed calls from various vested interests (ie the cruise industry) to relocate FBE wholesale out of Sydney harbour? I hope not, but I fear yes.
If I was the RAN I'd say to the cruise industry that they're welcome to take over FBE the minute after they finish construction on a CCD replacement that they paid for.
 

spoz

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Not to forget the several other billion dollars worth of assets on the Island......
 

ddxx

Well-Known Member
Interesting tidbit in the budget papers - The government purchased a Pacific support ship in February. It will be upgraded in Australia. I can't find any news reports about this. Though looking back through this thread it seems one or two knew about it. Not surprising really. Will be interesting to see when they announce what they bought.
Yes, I'm very keen to see more on this too - Let's hope it's not a token effort. I wonder if it will be a HMAS or ADV?

Does anyone have any 'guesses' as to the type of ship / possible contenders?
 

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
Yes, I'm very keen to see more on this too - Let's hope it's not a token effort. I wonder if it will be a HMAS or ADV?

Does anyone have any 'guesses' as to the type of ship / possible contenders?
Can't see it being a Commissioned Ship of the RAN. I think it will have a smallish core crew and have mainly Civilian specialists come on board for set periods to carry out Trg, log, construction tasks etc.
Type of Ship
Well going on released information, it could be a Top Secret, ultra Stealth ship with Cloaking Technology considering we know less about it then the SSNs and FFGs.:rolleyes:
 

ddxx

Well-Known Member
Can't see it being a Commissioned Ship of the RAN. I think it will have a smallish core crew and have mainly Civilian specialists come on board for set periods to carry out Trg, log, construction tasks etc.
Ideally, it will be a semi-temporary platform to be eventually replaced with a multirole support ship of the same class as the future JSS.

There's certainly come logic in building a single class of three to four Joint/Multirole support ships equiped for different roles, but with the same baseline capabilities. Benefits for shipbuilding, unit cost, sustainment, operations and training.
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
Ideally, it will be a semi-temporary platform to be eventually replaced with a multirole support ship of the same class as the future JSS.

There's certainly come logic in building a single class of three to four Joint/Multirole support ships equiped for different roles, but with the same baseline capabilities. Benefits for shipbuilding, unit cost, sustainment, operations and training.
Not necessarily. A great deal would depend on the where/when/why/how gov't plans to utilize the "Pacific support ship". If the plan is for Australia to operate a hospital ship doing port calls to provide medical care to various Pacific Islands, then a JSS-type vessel with extra capabilities not needed for hospital care would be overkill. Not to mention the cost of building such a vessel would likely be significantly more expensive. Same goes for the support vessel if the intent to provide an essentially seagoing school.
 

oldsig127

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Not necessarily. A great deal would depend on the where/when/why/how gov't plans to utilize the "Pacific support ship". If the plan is for Australia to operate a hospital ship doing port calls to provide medical care to various Pacific Islands, then a JSS-type vessel with extra capabilities not needed for hospital care would be overkill. Not to mention the cost of building such a vessel would likely be significantly more expensive. Same goes for the support vessel if the intent to provide an essentially seagoing school.
This matter of this being a hospital ship keeps coming up like a bad penny. Can you please give me a link, any link, to a government requirement that the ship be anything of the sort? Or a school for that matter. I can't find it.

oldsig
 
Top