Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
Yes and this was done to improve air flows for a range of reasons including soot build up on the SPY faces. The F105 funnel was a better fix that did not require the higher sloped skirt. If you look at early images of the F100 and those of the F105 and Hobart you can see the funnel top (prior to the skirt being fitted) was lower on the F100. The top of the intakes are a good reference point.
Thanks for that, I hadn't appreciated the detail.Yes and this was done to improve air flows for a range of reasons including soot build up on the SPY faces. The F105 funnel was a better fix that did not require the higher sloped skirt. If you look at early images of the F100 and those of the F105 and Hobart you can see the funnel top (prior to the skirt being fitted) was lower on the F100. The top of the intakes are a good reference point.
Exactly, the $20bn is based on what now ? so it is comparing apples and oranges with no detail other than what was leaked/made up by the media with very little detail.
One of my other pet hates is the miss quoting of the cost of the current program, the $50bn price tag is the upper limit of the entire program cost across the entire LOT, this constant misrepresentation that this is somehow the cost just to build the submarines is a joke and has no bearing on the actual cost of the submarines or what has been proposed by the French.
Cheers
Seven news said it was destined to be scrapped or sunk.
I think the Polish are more interested in the newer ships.
And many fix-up of the Collins was in no small part by a helping hand of USN.....
I always wonder, if our nation wants to remains in submarine business, should we license EB, LM or the John bull to design a baseline model of our short fin replacement?
I know the most logical option should be an evolved short fin, but let's me be bold, I just don't trust the frogs, and I would expect our partnership on short fin will ended up to be an unhappy one.
t68
Well-Known Member
Agree, they are willing to sell the gear but if its not in there interests they wont back you either. I think there's more to the Australian story than most recognise
https://quadrant.org.au/french-put-indigne-de-confiance/
https://www.jta.org/1969/01/08/arch...eriel-as-move-to-weaken-israel-win-arab-favor
There is a lot to be said for just dealing with nations that you share strategic interests with.
In that regards France is a bit of a wild card.
It would have been so much simpler had we just went ahead and developed the Collins.
We could have simply built a new batch of Collins subs incorporating the improvements and fixes made to the original class and then taken our time in developing a more advanced version for delivery in the late 2030s.
Instead we our now engaged in this battle against a clock, with perhaps an unreliable partner, to get a completely new submarine design in service by the early thirties.
t68
Well-Known Member
That was the original way we where going to do it, untill Rudd/Gillard raided the kitty pushed pre planning back so far we ended up having to go down this route. From my perspective I believe we should have offered Electric Boat a 49% stake in ASC.
The argument would carry more weight if we simply purchased boats from the French however that will not be the case although I agree that some extremely important components still have to be resourced from France.
The whole point of SEA 1000 is for Australia to acquire sovereign capability, sourced and sustained with the RAN acting as the parent organisation, not France.
The link also ignores the strategic circumstances which make it highly unlikely that France will ever embargo Defence exports and that is; France has large and important Pacific interests, her possessions depend on trade and resources many of which come from Australia.
Australia's foreign policy Rarely if ever clashes with Frances interests so it seems illogical that actions such as those against Israel will ever take place.
Why on earth would we do that? When was the last time Electric Boat built a diesel submarine?
And I dont understand why Kockoms was not included in the companies the design was to be chosen from. Could it be because they dealt with the ALP government of the day with the Collins? I hope not, surely the government could not be that mean spirited. could they?
Thank you, saved me saying this. Certainly this is one of the reasons for having a living breathing ship building/defense industry designed for the long term rather than one that get resuscitated each time we have a project.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Saab (the owners of Kockums since July 2014) did submit a bit for SEA 1000 in December of 2014.
While I have no details on what the bid covered or included, I would not be at all surprised if those reviewing the bid were wary of the submission. After all, there had been conflict between Kockums former owners, the German conglomerate ThyssenKrupp AG which gained control of Kockums when it acquired HDW. Also given Kockums history of having been acquired by HDW in 1999, there was apparently concern about whether Sweden could independently design a sub meeting Australia's requirements.
Joe Black
Active Member
Rearming the Anzac - this is such a good read
Folks, this is a real good read about the entire history, politics and project execution of the ANZAC ASMD upgrade.
https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws...ANZACs_2.pdf?G0G_0ze9aRzOlyuH50Ye54OTon7H186Z
Folks, this is a real good read about the entire history, politics and project execution of the ANZAC ASMD upgrade.
https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws...ANZACs_2.pdf?G0G_0ze9aRzOlyuH50Ye54OTon7H186Z
Pity it contains a number of small errors - the table which claims to show the launch dates of the ANZACs actually shows commissioning dates; Darwin is described as an ANZAC when of course she is an FFG; Dartmouth is called a “base” when it is actually a College and the Establishments at which the OW Course was conducted are called Colleges when the were not, that sort of thing. While the big themes seem right and a lot of the quotes sound authentic to the individuals that type of error is irritating and it does implant a seed of doubt. Plus, it’s a bit “wham, bam thank you ma’am” in style
Last edited:
the road runner
Active Member
Good video of the AWD in review for 2017 posted by awdalliance
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipQdR2qPbnc&t=0s
And another video of AWD Warrant Officer
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C68JGLDxXq8&t=0s
2017 was a great year for the AWD alliance
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipQdR2qPbnc&t=0s
And another video of AWD Warrant Officer
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C68JGLDxXq8&t=0s
2017 was a great year for the AWD alliance
Do you have any commentary on this ? do you have an opinion ? it is frowned upon to just paste a link to an article with no commentary from the poster. And at the end of the day it has nothing to do with Sea 1000, It is a civil matter for a public servant who has committed fraud.
It does not cast any doubt of the project, it just so happens the public servant works or did work on the program, so not really Defence related.
The RAN posted this piece of history on their Facebook page this am
https://www.facebook.com/RoyalAustralianNavy/posts/1969977146350309:0
This is how she looks today
https://www.facebook.com/RoyalAustralianNavy/posts/1969977146350309:0
This is how she looks today
- Status