t68
Well-Known Member
you would never know it was the same ship, someone's got some $$$
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
you would never know it was the same ship, someone's got some $$$
The submarine AE-1 has been found lying in 300m of water.
Australian submarine found: Missing vessel discovered after 103 years
Australian submarine found: Missing vessel discovered after 103 years
Well done to Pete Briggs and his team for their persistence over many years. It's good to have her found at last; and apparently in about the position everybody thought she was in. Looks from the very limited info available that some kind of explosive event might have been the cause; but at 300m and after 103 years it's going to be difficult to discover.
RIP LCDR Besant and his ship's company.
RIP LCDR Besant and his ship's company.
Sorry I keep doing this ............. but to be clear ... we cannot assume an explosive event. Damage may also (more likely) have been caused by implosion (crushing) if the vessel was taken below her maximum survivable depth. Essentially if the crew lost control of the boat either through
- the boat being heavy and unable to correct
- the boat taking in water
- the boat becoming uncontrollable
- the crew being incapacitated due to issue with atmosphere or a significant event.....
The failure mode should be ascertainable from the wreak ..... i.e. did it implode. Exactly why it got into a situation may not be easy to determine.
By way of example of what can be determine from a wreak with a scattered debris field have a look at the investigation into the loss of the Derbyshire
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tN4xROtMjI
The wreak of AE1 (from the limited images available) appears to be lying in one place and has not suffered from extensive marine organism growth. Some of the images that look bad are of the casing of the submarine. This is a free flood area and is thinly constructed compared to the pressure hull.
Was mentioned in the Australian Army thread but thought if the conversation is going to take place best to move it aross to here as it is navy centric at current.
2. You made the claim previously we could have got the 3 ships from Spain for $3 billion - That is factually incorrect as the F-105 came in near $1 billion USD, coverted to AUD for 3 ships you are looking closer to $4 billion AUD and that is on the assumption there is no $1 billion AUD paid to Navantia as has been mentioned in here before so could be $5 billion all up, Of the $9.1 billion AUD that we will pay out, How much will be gained back in taxes, How much will be gained from flow on effects of the job employments, how much flow on effects from companies doing work on the AWD being able to tap into global work from that, How much national benefit did we gain from constructing a world class fully modern shipbuilding facility that many shipbuilders can only dream about?
3. There is little straetgic benefit in assembling our own ships in my view - Incorrect. I do recal this being debated last year I believe and the differences between aircraft or vehicles etc. Arguments being along the line we dont build our own aircraft so why should we build our own ships. Aircraft are relatively easy to get into Australia, Fly them in and your done, parts for them are small so they also can be flown in and your done and all that can be done in a day literally. Ships on the other hand in a worst case situation take longer to be bought in, if you dont have the shipbuilding industry then the sustainment industry also suffers so you risk having to send them overseas to be looked after or repaired. If Australia was in a hypothetical war with China where do we send our ships.. Singapore? In range of Chinese attack, India? industry not yet up to scratch, New Zealand? No, US? Too far away. Australia is far away from our enemies yes but we are also far away from our allies, those we are close to are them selves even closer to any possible threat of ours. Building them here is in our national interest cause if we dont we risk being able to sustain said ships in a major war.
4. We don’t ‘make’ them, let alone design them, so let us not kid ourselves that we could actually make ships from scratch with the ‘capability’ we have invested in if needed. We can only ‘make’ major defence platforms when they are almost entirely designed elsewhere, with all the major systems on them also made elsewhere. - Yes and No. At present we arent 100% self sufficient but that is where continuous shipbuilding comes into play. When you build them continuously you gain certainty, certainty leads to more companies doing more work in Australia because they know there investment will reap dividends for decades. That is a greater Australian content in the ships. It also leads to the ability to keep a design team employed continuously updating your vessels, As for engines, While no we dont build our naval engines we can actually build them. There are literally dozens of Austrlaian companies involved globally with building various types of engines so if it ever came down to it yes we could do them in Oz. There are many many things we can do in Oz for little to no extra cost then over seas, All that is required is certainty..
5. Repair, refit, upgrade facilities, fine - Except those skills outside of submarines are stop start. You dont have shipbuilding going continuously and those guys doing that work disapear, then you need to hire and train new guys leading to delays and cost premiums. Unless we are willing to have an overhaul/maintenance cycle with our surface ships like we have with our submarines said work will always cost us a preium and take longer with greater risks.
6. An argument could even be made that such decisions are a strategic impediment, rather than a benefit, given warfare now is largely a ‘come with what you have’ affair. - No it couldnt. History has shown already when done right Australia costs no more then others, We are applying those lessons with future builds. There is literaly no argument to be made that it is not in our interests to build them here. A. We have the numbers to be able to sustain a continous build B. We are cost competitive against other nations when we do work continuously C. Our quality and standards are just as good if not even higher then others D. We are to far away to be sustained by anyone else in a worst case scenario E. A continuous build where we can meet the quality and costs of other nations allows to retain the workers who would also sustain said vessels allowing that work to be done more productively and at a cheaper price then stop start sustainment work.
1. You state we are paying huge overheads - Do you know exactly what was purchased? To make the claim we are paying huge pvereads requires having a like for like purchase in product.
2. You made the claim previously we could have got the 3 ships from Spain for $3 billion - That is factually incorrect as the F-105 came in near $1 billion USD, coverted to AUD for 3 ships you are looking closer to $4 billion AUD and that is on the assumption there is no $1 billion AUD paid to Navantia as has been mentioned in here before so could be $5 billion all up, Of the $9.1 billion AUD that we will pay out, How much will be gained back in taxes, How much will be gained from flow on effects of the job employments, how much flow on effects from companies doing work on the AWD being able to tap into global work from that, How much national benefit did we gain from constructing a world class fully modern shipbuilding facility that many shipbuilders can only dream about?
3. There is little straetgic benefit in assembling our own ships in my view - Incorrect. I do recal this being debated last year I believe and the differences between aircraft or vehicles etc. Arguments being along the line we dont build our own aircraft so why should we build our own ships. Aircraft are relatively easy to get into Australia, Fly them in and your done, parts for them are small so they also can be flown in and your done and all that can be done in a day literally. Ships on the other hand in a worst case situation take longer to be bought in, if you dont have the shipbuilding industry then the sustainment industry also suffers so you risk having to send them overseas to be looked after or repaired. If Australia was in a hypothetical war with China where do we send our ships.. Singapore? In range of Chinese attack, India? industry not yet up to scratch, New Zealand? No, US? Too far away. Australia is far away from our enemies yes but we are also far away from our allies, those we are close to are them selves even closer to any possible threat of ours. Building them here is in our national interest cause if we dont we risk being able to sustain said ships in a major war.
4. We don’t ‘make’ them, let alone design them, so let us not kid ourselves that we could actually make ships from scratch with the ‘capability’ we have invested in if needed. We can only ‘make’ major defence platforms when they are almost entirely designed elsewhere, with all the major systems on them also made elsewhere. - Yes and No. At present we arent 100% self sufficient but that is where continuous shipbuilding comes into play. When you build them continuously you gain certainty, certainty leads to more companies doing more work in Australia because they know there investment will reap dividends for decades. That is a greater Australian content in the ships. It also leads to the ability to keep a design team employed continuously updating your vessels, As for engines, While no we dont build our naval engines we can actually build them. There are literally dozens of Austrlaian companies involved globally with building various types of engines so if it ever came down to it yes we could do them in Oz. There are many many things we can do in Oz for little to no extra cost then over seas, All that is required is certainty..
5. Repair, refit, upgrade facilities, fine - Except those skills outside of submarines are stop start. You dont have shipbuilding going continuously and those guys doing that work disapear, then you need to hire and train new guys leading to delays and cost premiums. Unless we are willing to have an overhaul/maintenance cycle with our surface ships like we have with our submarines said work will always cost us a preium and take longer with greater risks.
6. An argument could even be made that such decisions are a strategic impediment, rather than a benefit, given warfare now is largely a ‘come with what you have’ affair. - No it couldnt. History has shown already when done right Australia costs no more then others, We are applying those lessons with future builds. There is literaly no argument to be made that it is not in our interests to build them here. A. We have the numbers to be able to sustain a continous build B. We are cost competitive against other nations when we do work continuously C. Our quality and standards are just as good if not even higher then others D. We are to far away to be sustained by anyone else in a worst case scenario E. A continuous build where we can meet the quality and costs of other nations allows to retain the workers who would also sustain said vessels allowing that work to be done more productively and at a cheaper price then stop start sustainment work.
So the warehouses in South Australia that were full of systems we bought from overseas, such as the entire sensor fit, combat system, EW systems, comms systems, weapon systems, launch systems, aviation facilities, the engines, props, firefighting equipment and so on, in short basically EVERY single thing on the ship, besides the basic hull and superstructure could instead all be made from scratch rapidly in Australia in a time of dire strategic need, could they?
Because that is what a ‘strategic’ capability to ‘manufacture’ a modern warship to the standard of an AWD would require and why I say we assemble ships in this country.
We buy everything a warship needs to be a warship from overseas, we warehouse it here until we have spent enough time dithering around with basic, hull work on these platforms, to install all the systems they need to actually be a functioning ship, which we always have to acquire from elsewhere.
That does not fit the definition of ‘make’ in my opinion and given the secure trade lines we need in order to be to ‘make’ under these circumstances and the huge impost this style of manufacture puts on the capability of the final product (I’ve lost count of how many times you have bemoaned the choice of the F-100 series frigate when we could have had Australian-ised Arleigh Burkes much quicker and for less overall) to the point where we end up with far less capable ships and other platforms to the ultimate detriment of our ‘strategic’ capability.
We could NOT have had the “Australianised Arleigh Burke”, in fact a largely new design that being why it was described as the “evolved” option at the time, quicker and for less money.
And by that definition of “make”, which I largely accept, there are very few countries which do much more than assemble. The US, USSR, UK, China, to some extent Korea, Japan and France, to a lesser degree Germany and Italy, possibly the Netherlands - that’s about it.
And by that definition of “make”, which I largely accept, there are very few countries which do much more than assemble. The US, USSR, UK, China, to some extent Korea, Japan and France, to a lesser degree Germany and Italy, possibly the Netherlands - that’s about it.
Last edited:
t68
Well-Known Member
its for that reason a MOTS DDG 51 Flight II would have been preferred, we did we need to reinvent the wheel?
I wasn’t suggesting we could have had the ‘Baby Burkes’ made the way we have made AWD’s for less money and quicker than the AWD’s. Quite the opposite, I accept they were the riskier, more costly option the way we try to ‘make’ major warships. What many have pointed out is that we could have had real Arleigh Burkes straight off the US production line for less money and much quicker than we got AWD’s and these would have had Australian options fitted, much as we fit Australian spec Comms systems and so forth to other platforms we purchase wholly from overseas producers.
Yep, which is partly why I say thst it is a fools errand for everyone here except a politician, if the argument is about delivering defence capability...
In an ideal world a government may simply purchase all equipment offshore provided it could be bought cheaper however what is the definition of cheaper? This method simply sees all capital purchase costs lost to overseas and could not be supported by the electorate despite their seemingly lack of interest in defence matters.
By creating an industry that provides jobs, stimulates the economy and leads to far more efficient sustainment the sovereign benefit far outweighs the perceived cost benefit of direct foreign purchase.
Further, Australia can dictate when and how acquisitions are made, we can demand specific requirements and we can control quality.
We can remain a dependent military just as we were for most of the 20th century or we can develop a shipbuilding industry which gives us expertise and ultimately an export potential or we can remain subservient to the will of allies, I know which I prefer for the 12th largest economy in the world. We often speak of countries such as Israel, Sweden, Finland, Singapore and the Netherlands (all significantly smaller economies than our own) as having excellent military industries and I'm rather impressed that we have finally matured enough to aspire to joining those very successful ranks
I struggle to see who is going to buy an AWD or Short Fin Barracuda from Australia though?
Probably no one but when you have an efficient and established Naval shipbuilding industry there are a number of designs ranging from patrol craft through small amphibious to smaller escorts.
Lineal thought won't cut it, the builders/designers need to innovate which they can't do without an industry to back them
AWD - No one
Shortfin - Maybe Canada, possibly a design export to South Korea and India as both are gradually increasing the size of there conventional submarines.
Other then that the entire point of building the stuff in Australia continuously is it allows us to retain the design team from whome we can design anything and everything concievebly from patrol boats up to LHD's and AOR's.
--------------------
History has shown that when done right with a build phase over a long period we can and do meet and even exceed global standards and costs. With the size of our navy and the plans being put in place to continuously produce minor vessels, surface combatants and submarines Australia will be able to achieve what we did with the Anzac class and then some.
Yes the AWD's were stuffed up but that is the bad example, if you only ever look at the worst case and base every decision off that then you are doomed. Our best case examples have put us on level with the best in the world. The only thing we lacked that they had/have is continuous work, Something that we will be acquiring. When you can meet the cost, When you can meet the quality, When you create the flow on benefits of an indiginous design capability, local jobs, local taxes, exports, etc for no more cost then a ship built in Spain or the US and possibly even less then there is nothing to lose and everything to gain. We have shown we can do it, We are taking the lessons both good and bad and implementing them to ensure we dont stuff up again. Lets not fall into the Journolistic mentality of 'If its Australian built its over priced, delayed and defective'. Thats all false. have some pride in our local capabilities as they have been proven time and time again.
t68
Well-Known Member
I have no doubt that Australia can produce a quality product in the end, as most here know we have enough shipping to sustain local build of minor and major warfare vessels.Other than the submarines which was a lost opportunity due to government mishandling I don't really think we should have a design team unless you want to expand another 30%, even then its a lot of money being put into R&D. A prime example is the UK look at the sunk costs from moving from design to shipbuilding when problems arise it can lead to a loss of units, building them is one thing but taking the risk of design when their are a number of others doing exactly that is another. I would prefer the R&D money be used to expand not just major fleet units but give the minor and logistics the money it needs to do justice for our men and women of the ADF.
Edit
when I refer to design team I refer to ship design, I have no problems with increasing capability thru local innovation such as the ASMD upgrade. if we can make a good product better.
Last edited:
Most Countries only build for their own naval forces.
It's interesting to look at the list of top ship exporters.
List of countries by ship exports - Wikipedia
Nigeria exports more ships than the USA or UK.
Nope.
You seem to have this idea that fabrication, pre fit out, erection, consolidation, integration of CoA required systems, activation and testing is nothing, or at most a minor part of the process, also following your definitions Navantia was more an assembler than a builder of the Amarda's ships. You seem to have a mindset that Australians are not capable of doing this type of work, when in actual fact we are very good at it, I suppose its a cultural cringe thing that ignores the fact that different people have different strengths and abilities but even the best can not shine when some dipstick ignores professional advice and doesn't let the experts do the job they have trained to do.
There were too many people on the project from outside of defence and engineering fields who thought they knew better than the experts, they were the ones who made mistakes and missed the stuff ups from suppliers and subcontractors because they assumes a signed affirmation was sufficient evidence that what was being supplied was to spec and fit for purpose. People who assumed there was no need for a vendor QC/QA function, nor a build assurance, or even design assurance one. I didn't know this stuff but I was at some the meetings and reviews (many before any steel was cut) where RAN, DMO and industry people with years of experience on similar projects brought up this stuff and were mostly ignored.
It would be quite easy though also a pointless waste of money to have manufactured the GTs etc locally with the planned buy of three hulls, but with a continuous build the numbers may work out differently. You don't seem to realise just how much work goes into looking after stuff in a warehouse, or how many issues it causes when multiple shipsets are ordered from overseas suppliers at the start of a project, sometimes it is definitely neither the cheaper or less risky option. If the overseas suppliers were actually as good as they were expected to be there would have been less pain but seriously in my personal experience many of them would not have made the cut as supplier to the now deceased Australian passenger car industry, let alone a major naval program with Australian engineering control.
This issue is if we don't build our own ships our ability to maintain and upgrade them is diminished, as is our ability to actually ensure the suppliers we are forced to rely on are competent or even honest. If we don't build our own ships we don't grow the experts we need to get everything else done through the life of the capability and onwards ensuring the mistakes of the past are not repeated. I am being panelled for a couple of roles on new projects at the moment because of the skills and experience I gained on AWD and other projects, it is that experience that is the key, not what I have read or discussed on internet forums, not what I learnt at school TAFE or UNI, it is experience I would not have had the AWDs not been built in Australia, and I am one of many. I am currently working about as far away as you can get from shipbuilding, in a project that seems to fit your idea of what the RAN should be doing, i.e. a minimum change MOTS solution with the overseas designer / builder controlling just about everything bar first line maintenance, and I know which model I prefer.
Interestingly had we taken the workforce model for the evolved team, with its greater assurance and risk mitigation focus and applied it to the AF100 (or any of the other existing or even some of the other less drastic evolved designs) the project would have run much more smoothly with fewer surprises.
You probably know more about what I'm about to dribble a couple of paragraphs on but many others here don't because they have likely never come across it, so not aimed at you or others with experience.
There was so much that was meant to build to print on the AWD that was anything but, so many equipment's that were meant to be to spec and basically plug and play that were nothing like we ordered (i.e. dodgy OS suppliers not just substituting material for us but also for the same supplier for F105). When you are worried about something you watch it closely and can fix things early, if you assume all is good, because someone you don't know signed a piece of paper, you are more likely to get caught out and have to wear cost and schedule pain to fix it. There were many assumptions made somewhere (whether PM&C, Cabinet, the Alliance board room, DMO, I don't know) that by selecting the F-100 and the Navantia supply chain, they were mitigating all risk and we would just be able to build to print, without the expensive overheads of a significant engineering, quality and build assurance capability on the project. The planned workforce model was slammed by experienced people from BIW, ABS, RAN, ASC etc. who pointed out that not having these function in a greenfields shipyard with an unproven designer for export, especially for a customer with no equivalent to NAVSEA SUPSHIPS or other external assurance capability was courting disaster. There were not listened to until later in the project when the problems had already started.
On the Collins project there were multiple examples of major concerns working out because the required attention and resources were applied from the start but also of other things that were assumed to be ok going pear-shaped. The welding of the Australian built sections was very closely watched and inspected and ran smoothly, the sections entrusted to Kockums experienced work force were faulty and required expensive and time consuming rework in Australia (because this was fixed in Collins FCD after acceptance it all became ASCs fault so instead of a pat on the back for fixing someone else's problem it was a slap in the face for the FCD going over time and budget). The combat system was seen to be a mess quite early on but the powers that be assumed that Rockwell (being a renowned US defence contractor) would sort it and the issues were allowed to ride. The project wanted MTU, Kockums pushed Hedamora, how did that work out? The Shaft seals that leaked were from an experience overseas supplier, as were very many other faulty equipments, they weren't things were ever considered manufacturing here as there were OS suppliers who had been providing for other navies for decades that had problems.
Australians aren't perfect but be aren't worthless incompetents either, all major projects have issues, no matter where they originate, just read up on the LPD 17, a great capability now but a shocking mess to start with, the lead ship of the DDG 51 class, CG(DDG)-47 all late and over budget, the first several Los Angeles Class SSNs were constructed from the wrong grade of steel and had diving depth restrictions throughout their service lives. The Daring Class anyone? How about Frances CdeG CVN and its various problems. What needs to be done is suitably experienced, competent and capable people need to be available in sufficient numbers to mitigate as much risk as possible, risk that will always exist but that you don't always have visibility of, let alone control over.
Volk,
Far from being concerned, I agree with the vast majority of what you have said in your last two posts. And the points you make in the first one on integration, T & A etc are very much to the point,
Of course we can do things better if we have the ongoing build program (it’s well known that max shipyard efficiency only comes with the 4th hull built to the same design), and AWD suffered when we forgot the lessons of the past. But the AWDs will be, as the Collins have been and continue to be, a great capability for Aust. It’s just a pity that the initial problems are always simplified and then used to characterise the class.
And as noted towards the end of your second post, almost all shipbuilding programs have problems they need to overcome either in their early stages or when the ships are in service and something that hadn’t been anticipated appears. In addition to the ones you noted, you could have picked the ANZACs, the CG 47s, FFG7s, Type 42s, Type 21s, and on and on. STAAG on the Battles in the 50s anyone? Unexpected corrosion in the Type 12s? The loiter engine in the Freos?
Far from being concerned, I agree with the vast majority of what you have said in your last two posts. And the points you make in the first one on integration, T & A etc are very much to the point,
Of course we can do things better if we have the ongoing build program (it’s well known that max shipyard efficiency only comes with the 4th hull built to the same design), and AWD suffered when we forgot the lessons of the past. But the AWDs will be, as the Collins have been and continue to be, a great capability for Aust. It’s just a pity that the initial problems are always simplified and then used to characterise the class.
And as noted towards the end of your second post, almost all shipbuilding programs have problems they need to overcome either in their early stages or when the ships are in service and something that hadn’t been anticipated appears. In addition to the ones you noted, you could have picked the ANZACs, the CG 47s, FFG7s, Type 42s, Type 21s, and on and on. STAAG on the Battles in the 50s anyone? Unexpected corrosion in the Type 12s? The loiter engine in the Freos?
- Status