Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[ASSAIL]

I can’t recall seeing any previous discussion on the adequacy of the T26 hanger arrangement.
This article The hangars on the Hunter class frigates are inadequate - Australian Defence Magazine questions the current design and proposes modification to side by side doors such as are seen on the FREMM.
I don’t think the RAN intends to deploy two ASW helos from the Hunter but I do think that the modification makes sense in order to carry two large helos without compromising the space forward needed to carry either containers or cargo especially when deployed for HADR ops.
Has there been any further discussion regarding the hanger arrangement?

 

[Stampede]

I can’t recall seeing any previous discussion on the adequacy of the T26 hanger arrangement.
This article The hangars on the Hunter class frigates are inadequate - Australian Defence Magazine questions the current design and proposes modification to side by side doors such as are seen on the FREMM.
I don’t think the RAN intends to deploy two ASW helos from the Hunter but I do think that the modification makes sense in order to carry two large helos without compromising the space forward needed to carry either containers or cargo especially when deployed for HADR ops.
Has there been any further discussion regarding the hanger arrangement?

Agree totally

Side by side Hangar with both having access to the flight deck with a mission bay forward of this space.
Surely we can have our cake and eat it to!!!!!!
Flexibility is key and yes I acknowledge the ships will often currently embark only one helicopter.
But the above arrangement future proofs the ships ability to both carry and operate multiple combinations of helicopters and UAVs much more effectively than the current configuration.
I'd suspect in a true hot war situation two helicopters plus UAV's would be carried at all times.
Conflict has a way of rectifying training expectations in peace time!

Certainly worth a look and I doubt it would be too problematic to change the design at this stage of the project.


Regards S

 

[vonnoobie]

There are multiple problems with permanent bases in the north.
It’s hard enough to maintain retention levels with them based in the west, remember being a submariner limits your seagoing posting to one place only and if that was away from the main population areas, from family and friends there’s hurdles aplenty.
Lack of industrial support including docking facilities is also a problem. To give you some idea of the remoteness of the N/NW coast, if you combine the population of all coastal towns between Darwin and Perth there are less than 250,000 and half of those are in Darwin.
The biggest problem though is strategic. Submarines departing from say Darwin have to transit over 500nms in shallow water before they can become invisible and by that time Red Force can take counter measures and has a fair idea of intent.
Sailing from Fleet Base West or East a boat can disappear 5miles from the coast not to be seen again until it reappears in the same place.
This also explains the transit/endurance/indiscretion ratio equation.

I know Darwin is a no no just too much shallow water but had there been any thought in regards to the Cocos Keeling islands not so much as a permanent base but rather is a midrange refueling, stopover etc base? I know there are plans or is a project underway to expand the aviation facilities to allow the P-8's to be used from there is it time we just went in and turned it into a joint force 'bare base'.

 

[ASSAIL]

I know Darwin is a no no just too much shallow water but had there been any thought in regards to the Cocos Keeling islands not so much as a permanent base but rather is a midrange refueling, stopover etc base? I know there are plans or is a project underway to expand the aviation facilities to allow the P-8's to be used from there is it time we just went in and turned it into a joint force 'bare base'.

I can’t see any strategic value in what you propose.
You have to assume Indian Ocean islands such as Cocos are under constant surveillance and once a sub exposes itself there, any advantage is lost, “ah, there’s an Australian submarine in the North Indian Ocean” not good for onward tasking as all surprise and deterrent is neutered.
If they can’t see it they have to assume one is there and act and plan accordingly.
I don’t think fuel will ever be a problem for the Attack class, endurance will be determined by other factors such as food and stores and crew fatigue depending upon the intensity of the tasking.

 

[Volkodav]

I can’t see any strategic value in what you propose.
You have to assume Indian Ocean islands such as Cocos are under constant surveillance and once a sub exposes itself there, any advantage is lost, “ah, there’s an Australian submarine in the North Indian Ocean” not good for onward tasking as all surprise and deterrent is neutered.
If they can’t see it they have to assume one is there and act and plan accordingly.
I don’t think fuel will ever be a problem for the Attack class, endurance will be determined by other factors such as food and stores and crew fatigue depending upon the intensity of the tasking.

Yes and the other factor is how much extra range could we build into our subs with the money saved not having to build, maintain, supplysupp defend a remote base?

 

[alexsa]

Agree totally

Side by side Hangar with both having access to the flight deck with a mission bay forward of this space.
Surely we can have our cake and eat it to!!!!!!
Flexibility is key and yes I acknowledge the ships will often currently embark only one helicopter.
But the above arrangement future proofs the ships ability to both carry and operate multiple combinations of helicopters and UAVs much more effectively than the current configuration.
I'd suspect in a true hot war situation two helicopters plus UAV's would be carried at all times.
Conflict has a way of rectifying training expectations in peace time!

Certainly worth a look and I doubt it would be too problematic to change the design at this stage of the project.


Regards S

Hmm.... if you look at the aft structure you are going to make some very significant changes and this will have significant implications. I supect it will cost you the aft port boat space and the torpedo rooms.

Lets be clear on this you can carry two helos but one will be on the multi mission space. The fact is we are unlikely to carry two as we simply don't have enough. We are very likely to carry UAV and there is ample space for these. In addition the flight deck is much larger than our current vessels that will faciliate respoting of aircraft.

Nt worth the cost and lost capability in other areas IMHO

 

[Redlands18]

Hmm.... if you look at the aft structure you are going to make some very significant changes and this will have significant implications. I supect it will cost you the aft port boat space and the torpedo rooms.

Lets be clear on this you can carry two helos but one will be on the multi mission space. The fact is we are unlikely to carry two as we simply don't have enough. We are very likely to carry UAV and there is ample space for these. In addition the flight deck is much larger than our current vessels that will faciliate respoting of aircraft.

Nt worth the cost and lost capability in other areas IMHO

The T26 Flight Deck is supposed to be Chinook capable, gives an idea of how large it is.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Hmm.... if you look at the aft structure you are going to make some very significant changes and this will have significant implications. I supect it will cost you the aft port boat space and the torpedo rooms.

Lets be clear on this you can carry two helos but one will be on the multi mission space. The fact is we are unlikely to carry two as we simply don't have enough. We are very likely to carry UAV and there is ample space for these. In addition the flight deck is much larger than our current vessels that will facilitate respoting of aircraft.

Nt worth the cost and lost capability in other areas IMHO

Agreed. However, it doesn't preclude altering the arrangement in later builds, possibly with other modifications. Really the exact configuration is really just for the first 3 ships, I wouldn't be surprised if there are a variety of modifications to the original design over the build process. I actually think the current arrangement is quite neat, and allows most flexibility with out limiting maximum capability. The 2nd hanger on Australian ships is sometimes used as a 2nd hanger, but by reports its more often used for other things. While two helos fit, its very cramped and difficult operationally.

The flexible space can do more, like carry multiple drones (aviation or UUV), containers, house people, supplies, embarked forces/equipment etc. Its one of the key strengths of the Type 26 design.

Yes and the other factor is how much extra range could we build into our subs with the money saved not having to build, maintain, supplysupp defend a remote base?

Our remote base is Singapore. It comes with its own airforce, submarines and surface ships and army. The other remote base is likely to be Japan, which again comes with its out defense force, and are busy ports which provide lots of cover for operating subs. Other places can be Guam, Hawaii and Diego Garcia, which again have their own protection.

Christmas Island and Manus Island are likely to be key forward airbases particularly for P8's and Wedgetails. Cocos doesn't really give anything that Christmas isn't better setup for. Both of these are very secondary to Butterworth, but if Malaysia was to drop into Political chaos (quite possible) or take on tremendous pressure from China these other points would become more critical.

Far more critical is the sub base on the east coast.

 

[Stampede]

Hmm.... if you look at the aft structure you are going to make some very significant changes and this will have significant implications. I supect it will cost you the aft port boat space and the torpedo rooms.

Lets be clear on this you can carry two helos but one will be on the multi mission space. The fact is we are unlikely to carry two as we simply don't have enough. We are very likely to carry UAV and there is ample space for these. In addition the flight deck is much larger than our current vessels that will faciliate respoting of aircraft.

Nt worth the cost and lost capability in other areas IMHO

The current space within the hangar / mission bay is substantial.
The graphics of the layout have been posted before of this large area and it certainly offers many configurations to various combinations of helicopters / UAV's boats and BBQ's plus whatever else will fit this space.
Its a space for stuff.
I'd just see an advantage to optimise it for the flying stuff................." When that role is needed"
There should be with smart design no loss to other non helicopter configurations. After all it can hold two medium helicopters in tandem as is.
For want of a better description just give the hangar a do-si-do.front to back!!!

Same space,same needs,same flexibility.
In practicality two helicopter sized doors to the flight deck not one.

The Hunter Class are bloody big ships.
No steel has being cut and I'm not the first to beg the question.

It's a win / win


Regards S

 

[hauritz]

This ship has been designed from the beginning to have a single hanger. The Mission Bay Handling System not only works in the mission bay but can also reach into the hanger. The whole system is intended to make moving equipment around the mission/hanger bay as quick and easy as possible. The system also allows the ship to load and unload itself in austere docks.

Adding a second hanger would at best not really be necessary and at worst could involve a redesign of this system. Not really worth it for the rare occasions that the navy would want to operate a second helicopter.

 

[ngatimozart]

I can’t see any strategic value in what you propose.
You have to assume Indian Ocean islands such as Cocos are under constant surveillance and once a sub exposes itself there, any advantage is lost, “ah, there’s an Australian submarine in the North Indian Ocean” not good for onward tasking as all surprise and deterrent is neutered.
If they can’t see it they have to assume one is there and act and plan accordingly.
I don’t think fuel will ever be a problem for the Attack class, endurance will be determined by other factors such as food and stores and crew fatigue depending upon the intensity of the tasking.

The Cocos Islands runway is being upgraded to allow for P-8A Poseidon operation, with construction expected to start next year and completed within about two years. Fulton Hogan, a Kiwi company, is the contractor and the work is subject to govt and parliamentary approval. Cocos (Keeling) Islands runway upgrade for Poseidon - CONTACT magazine.

 

[ASSAIL]

Another beat up by economist and self proclaimed submarine expert Robert Gottliebsen in the “Australian” today claiming that SEA1000 is a disaster because of the mix between a French boat and a US combat system. (Can someone link please)
He claims that the US has never trusted France and the combination is a cock up waiting to happen.
This bloke really should stick to his mates at APA, his intrusion into naval matters only displays his lack of understanding of the acquisition process.

 

[ngatimozart]

Another beat up by economist and self proclaimed submarine expert Robert Gottliebsen in the “Australian” today claiming that SEA1000 is a disaster because of the mix between a French boat and a US combat system. (Can someone link please)
He claims that the US has never trusted France and the combination is a cock up waiting to happen.
This bloke really should stick to his mates at APA, his intrusion into naval matters only displays his lack of understanding of the acquisition process.

Sometimes I wonder if some of these so called "experts" that certain publications use, have ever been to sea in their lives - that is gone out past the heads in to water with a depth greater than 50 m, let alone set foot on a naval vessel.

 

[hauritz]

Another beat up by economist and self proclaimed submarine expert Robert Gottliebsen in the “Australian” today claiming that SEA1000 is a disaster because of the mix between a French boat and a US combat system. (Can someone link please)
He claims that the US has never trusted France and the combination is a cock up waiting to happen.
This bloke really should stick to his mates at APA, his intrusion into naval matters only displays his lack of understanding of the acquisition process.

Link won't work unless you have a subscription ... but this isn't worth paying for.

Eminent advisory group warned of submarines debacle

Buried deep in the Auditor General’s report on Australia’s $220bn submarine agreement with the French Government’s Naval Group is a clear warning to the Australian nation from one of the most highly qualified independent boards of advice ever assembled in Australia.

The so called “Naval Shipbuilding Advisory Board” consists of seven of the most experienced and talented American defence and defence equipment experts and five very talented Australians.

In announcing appointments to the board in 2016 the then minister for defence, Christopher Pyne said: “The establishment of the Advisory Board is an important milestone in the Government’s naval shipbuilding strategy, ensuring expert, independent advice on all aspects of this historical national endeavour.

”The Advisory Board is representative of Australian and international expertise and will be a valuable asset in supporting the government’s plans for a secure, sustainable, long-term future for the Australian naval shipbuilding industry.”

I set out the members of the board below but this was a board that was not a rubber stamping body but one that had ability and took its mandate very seriously.

The Auditor General reveals that defence records indicate that the Naval Shipbuilding Advisory Board met 11 times from June 2017 to February 2019 to consider Defence’s naval construction programs. During the negotiation period, the board considered eight submissions from the Future Submarine Program on the progress of negotiations.

Defence reporting to the board included both Defence’s assessment of significant risks to the Future Submarine Program and risks involved in entering into the Strategic Partnering Agreement with Naval Group.

Australia has been ‘dudded’ over nuclear submarines
Gary Johnston from Submarines For Australia says the reason America’s submarines are cheaper, nuclear, and are made faster is because Australia has been “dudded, right royally...

I add my comment that this incredible group of US and Australian talent by emphasising again that the board considered eight submissions and met 11 times. I would suggest that the talents on that board were at least equal to and – given their breadth of experience – possibly better than the Australian navy.

The Auditor General reveals:

”In September 2018, the Board recommended to government that Defence examine alternatives should negotiations not succeed in the achievement of its requirements for the Strategic Partnering Agreement.

“The Board also commented that Defence should assess whether program risks outweighed the benefits of proceeding even if negotiations succeeded on the Strategic Partnering Agreement”

The navy and the government ignored those risks and proceeded.

Unfortunately the Auditor General does not spell out the risks the board isolated that may outweigh “the benefits of proceeding”

But given the fact that there were seven Americans on the board who are very well connected to the US defence establishment this was a very clear warning to the Australian nation of reaching an agreement with the French.

As I revealed on December 10, US defence and security people have never trusted the French since US defence secrets were leaked to Russia during the reign of President de Gaulle. That distrust has grown in the decades that followed and intensified when the base design of the proposed Australian submarine was leaked prior to the deal.

Scared of their secrets leaking, the Americans would only supply a combat system to the project if the US had a separate deal with Australia.

And so, the $220bn submarine development is two deals — one for the basic design between Australia and France and one for the combat system between Australia and the US. Accordingly the French will have restricted indirect access to the combat system proposed for the submarine they are designing.

The Auditor General’s report has a diagram showing how the deal is supposed to operate. Remember this is the he most complex construction the Australian navy has ever undertaken. The base submarine has highly controversial technology and the first vessel will not be delivered until well into the 2030s, when many believe it will be obsolete.

But to have a combat system that the Americans do not want to share with the French designers takes risk to a crazy level. Despite what the agreements may say, my guess is that the US will find a way to give us a combat system that is old technology. And to defy the Americans in this way may even ultimately put the alliance at risk.

The original base costs have already blown out from $50bn to $90bn and the total outlay estimate of $220bn is likely to be low. This is a vital matter for all members of the Australian parliament, government opposition and cross benchers.

For the record here are the members of the Naval Board:

The US contingent comprises Professor Donald Winter (chairman), Rear Admiral Thomas Eccles (Ret); Vice Admiral William Hilarides (Ret);. Irwin Edenzon; Vice Admiral Paul Sullivan (Ret) Ms Becky Stewart; and Emily DeRocco. I will not list all their experience and qualifications but they cover the operation and construction of submarines plus and incredible depth of defence supply knowledge. This was a hand-picked group of Americans with unique skills.

But the Australians on the board also have a wide array of talent which again I will not detail. They include Martin Bean; Mike Burgess; Ronald Finlay Lisa Paul and Dr Lesley Seebeck.

They have done their job and warned the nation of the risks. We chose to ignore those risks.

 

[alexsa]

The current space within the hangar / mission bay is substantial.
The graphics of the layout have been posted before of this large area and it certainly offers many configurations to various combinations of helicopters / UAV's boats and BBQ's plus whatever else will fit this space.
Its a space for stuff.
I'd just see an advantage to optimise it for the flying stuff................." When that role is needed"
There should be with smart design no loss to other non helicopter configurations. After all it can hold two medium helicopters in tandem as is.
For want of a better description just give the hangar a do-si-do.front to back!!!

Same space,same needs,same flexibility.
In practicality two helicopter sized doors to the flight deck not one.

The Hunter Class are bloody big ships.
No steel has being cut and I'm not the first to beg the question.

It's a win / win


Regards S

The design implications are significant and will result in considerable weight redistribution. Sure it could be done but it will take time to redesign and reassess the design and then set up for construction. Basically you are going to delay introduction and add a great deal to the cost.

The vessel has considerable internal space designed to be flexible. It allows for two helps and UAV and boats .... containers ... USV etc etc. A conventional side by side hanger will compromise that for no real advantage given the ship can carry two helicopters.

 

[Todjaeger]

Link won't work unless you have a subscription ... but this isn't worth paying for.

Eminent advisory group warned of submarines debacle

Buried deep in the Auditor General’s report on Australia’s $220bn submarine agreement with the French Government’s Naval Group is a clear warning to the Australian nation from one of the most highly qualified independent boards of advice ever assembled in Australia.

The so called “Naval Shipbuilding Advisory Board” consists of seven of the most experienced and talented American defence and defence equipment experts and five very talented Australians.

In announcing appointments to the board in 2016 the then minister for defence, Christopher Pyne said: “The establishment of the Advisory Board is an important milestone in the Government’s naval shipbuilding strategy, ensuring expert, independent advice on all aspects of this historical national endeavour.

”The Advisory Board is representative of Australian and international expertise and will be a valuable asset in supporting the government’s plans for a secure, sustainable, long-term future for the Australian naval shipbuilding industry.”

I set out the members of the board below but this was a board that was not a rubber stamping body but one that had ability and took its mandate very seriously.

The Auditor General reveals that defence records indicate that the Naval Shipbuilding Advisory Board met 11 times from June 2017 to February 2019 to consider Defence’s naval construction programs. During the negotiation period, the board considered eight submissions from the Future Submarine Program on the progress of negotiations.

Defence reporting to the board included both Defence’s assessment of significant risks to the Future Submarine Program and risks involved in entering into the Strategic Partnering Agreement with Naval Group.

Australia has been ‘dudded’ over nuclear submarines
Gary Johnston from Submarines For Australia says the reason America’s submarines are cheaper, nuclear, and are made faster is because Australia has been “dudded, right royally...

I add my comment that this incredible group of US and Australian talent by emphasising again that the board considered eight submissions and met 11 times. I would suggest that the talents on that board were at least equal to and – given their breadth of experience – possibly better than the Australian navy.

The Auditor General reveals:

”In September 2018, the Board recommended to government that Defence examine alternatives should negotiations not succeed in the achievement of its requirements for the Strategic Partnering Agreement.

“The Board also commented that Defence should assess whether program risks outweighed the benefits of proceeding even if negotiations succeeded on the Strategic Partnering Agreement”

The navy and the government ignored those risks and proceeded.

Unfortunately the Auditor General does not spell out the risks the board isolated that may outweigh “the benefits of proceeding”

But given the fact that there were seven Americans on the board who are very well connected to the US defence establishment this was a very clear warning to the Australian nation of reaching an agreement with the French.

As I revealed on December 10, US defence and security people have never trusted the French since US defence secrets were leaked to Russia during the reign of President de Gaulle. That distrust has grown in the decades that followed and intensified when the base design of the proposed Australian submarine was leaked prior to the deal.

Scared of their secrets leaking, the Americans would only supply a combat system to the project if the US had a separate deal with Australia.

And so, the $220bn submarine development is two deals — one for the basic design between Australia and France and one for the combat system between Australia and the US. Accordingly the French will have restricted indirect access to the combat system proposed for the submarine they are designing.

The Auditor General’s report has a diagram showing how the deal is supposed to operate. Remember this is the he most complex construction the Australian navy has ever undertaken. The base submarine has highly controversial technology and the first vessel will not be delivered until well into the 2030s, when many believe it will be obsolete.

But to have a combat system that the Americans do not want to share with the French designers takes risk to a crazy level. Despite what the agreements may say, my guess is that the US will find a way to give us a combat system that is old technology. And to defy the Americans in this way may even ultimately put the alliance at risk.

The original base costs have already blown out from $50bn to $90bn and the total outlay estimate of $220bn is likely to be low. This is a vital matter for all members of the Australian parliament, government opposition and cross benchers.

For the record here are the members of the Naval Board:

The US contingent comprises Professor Donald Winter (chairman), Rear Admiral Thomas Eccles (Ret); Vice Admiral William Hilarides (Ret);. Irwin Edenzon; Vice Admiral Paul Sullivan (Ret) Ms Becky Stewart; and Emily DeRocco. I will not list all their experience and qualifications but they cover the operation and construction of submarines plus and incredible depth of defence supply knowledge. This was a hand-picked group of Americans with unique skills.

But the Australians on the board also have a wide array of talent which again I will not detail. They include Martin Bean; Mike Burgess; Ronald Finlay Lisa Paul and Dr Lesley Seebeck.

They have done their job and warned the nation of the risks. We chose to ignore those risks.

How much of this is the article, and how much is your own commentary? I ask because I do not have a subscription (nor am I interested in paying $20 to read a single article...) and want to make sure any commentary and/or responses I make are directed to the correct party.

Side note, I believe this is a link to the ANAO report on the Future Submarine capability.

 

[ASSAIL]

Link won't work unless you have a subscription ... but this isn't worth paying for.

Eminent advisory group warned of submarines debacle

Buried deep in the Auditor General’s report on Australia’s $220bn submarine agreement with the French Government’s Naval Group is a clear warning to the Australian nation from one of the most highly qualified independent boards of advice ever assembled in Australia.

The so called “Naval Shipbuilding Advisory Board” consists of seven of the most experienced and talented American defence and defence equipment experts and five very talented Australians.

In announcing appointments to the board in 2016 the then minister for defence, Christopher Pyne said: “The establishment of the Advisory Board is an important milestone in the Government’s naval shipbuilding strategy, ensuring expert, independent advice on all aspects of this historical national endeavour.

”The Advisory Board is representative of Australian and international expertise and will be a valuable asset in supporting the government’s plans for a secure, sustainable, long-term future for the Australian naval shipbuilding industry.”

I set out the members of the board below but this was a board that was not a rubber stamping body but one that had ability and took its mandate very seriously.

The Auditor General reveals that defence records indicate that the Naval Shipbuilding Advisory Board met 11 times from June 2017 to February 2019 to consider Defence’s naval construction programs. During the negotiation period, the board considered eight submissions from the Future Submarine Program on the progress of negotiations.

Defence reporting to the board included both Defence’s assessment of significant risks to the Future Submarine Program and risks involved in entering into the Strategic Partnering Agreement with Naval Group.

Australia has been ‘dudded’ over nuclear submarines
Gary Johnston from Submarines For Australia says the reason America’s submarines are cheaper, nuclear, and are made faster is because Australia has been “dudded, right royally...

I add my comment that this incredible group of US and Australian talent by emphasising again that the board considered eight submissions and met 11 times. I would suggest that the talents on that board were at least equal to and – given their breadth of experience – possibly better than the Australian navy.

The Auditor General reveals:

”In September 2018, the Board recommended to government that Defence examine alternatives should negotiations not succeed in the achievement of its requirements for the Strategic Partnering Agreement.

“The Board also commented that Defence should assess whether program risks outweighed the benefits of proceeding even if negotiations succeeded on the Strategic Partnering Agreement”

The navy and the government ignored those risks and proceeded.

Unfortunately the Auditor General does not spell out the risks the board isolated that may outweigh “the benefits of proceeding”

But given the fact that there were seven Americans on the board who are very well connected to the US defence establishment this was a very clear warning to the Australian nation of reaching an agreement with the French.

As I revealed on December 10, US defence and security people have never trusted the French since US defence secrets were leaked to Russia during the reign of President de Gaulle. That distrust has grown in the decades that followed and intensified when the base design of the proposed Australian submarine was leaked prior to the deal.

Scared of their secrets leaking, the Americans would only supply a combat system to the project if the US had a separate deal with Australia.

And so, the $220bn submarine development is two deals — one for the basic design between Australia and France and one for the combat system between Australia and the US. Accordingly the French will have restricted indirect access to the combat system proposed for the submarine they are designing.

The Auditor General’s report has a diagram showing how the deal is supposed to operate. Remember this is the he most complex construction the Australian navy has ever undertaken. The base submarine has highly controversial technology and the first vessel will not be delivered until well into the 2030s, when many believe it will be obsolete.

But to have a combat system that the Americans do not want to share with the French designers takes risk to a crazy level. Despite what the agreements may say, my guess is that the US will find a way to give us a combat system that is old technology. And to defy the Americans in this way may even ultimately put the alliance at risk.

The original base costs have already blown out from $50bn to $90bn and the total outlay estimate of $220bn is likely to be low. This is a vital matter for all members of the Australian parliament, government opposition and cross benchers.

For the record here are the members of the Naval Board:

The US contingent comprises Professor Donald Winter (chairman), Rear Admiral Thomas Eccles (Ret); Vice Admiral William Hilarides (Ret);. Irwin Edenzon; Vice Admiral Paul Sullivan (Ret) Ms Becky Stewart; and Emily DeRocco. I will not list all their experience and qualifications but they cover the operation and construction of submarines plus and incredible depth of defence supply knowledge. This was a hand-picked group of Americans with unique skills.

But the Australians on the board also have a wide array of talent which again I will not detail. They include Martin Bean; Mike Burgess; Ronald Finlay Lisa Paul and Dr Lesley Seebeck.

They have done their job and warned the nation of the risks. We chose to ignore those risks.

The above is Robert Gottliebsen’s take on the AG’s report.

 

[Todjaeger]

The above is Robert Gottliebsen’s take on the AG’s report.

I have to wonder then, if the Australian would respond to a mail/email commentary campaign which pointed out some of the flaws in Mr. Gottliebsen's writings on defence matters? Particularly if such commentary also highlighted the damage to the reputation of the Australian by printing problematic materials on defence and how that causes people who read rubbish, and who know it to be rubbish, to stop reading the Australian.

I will have to finish reading the ANAO report in detail, but one of things which leaped out was the fact that there would be systems integration issues regardless of who the prime vendor was, simply because the combat system has been specified to be American (like the one currently in use aboard the Collins-class subs), when the US no longer produces diesel-electric subs. That means a foreign/non-US sub design would be required...

I also noticed what @hauritz had in his point did not, at least to my notice, offer any sort of suggestions of alternatives or why xx would have been a better choice than then yy which has now been designated as the Attack-class submarine.

 

[ASSAIL]

How much of this is the article, and how much is your own commentary? I ask because I do not have a subscription (nor am I interested in paying $20 to read a single article...) and want to make sure any commentary and/or responses I make are directed to the correct party.

Side note, I believe this is a link to the ANAO report on the Future Submarine capability.

I’m no acquisition expert but my reading of the ANAO report that you have linked gives me confidence that the programme managers have learned much from the mistakes in both the Collins and AWD programmes and that these early delays will do much to ease the construction phases.
It’s certainly not all doom and gloom as trumpeted by those with an agenda to push such as “why aren’t we building nukes”

 

[StingrayOZ]

As for the combination of French sub and US combat system. I have total faith in LM in integrating everything they need to. I think sling mud their direction is pretty stupid, because if you look at what they are up to project wise, they are not the concern. AFAIK they have hit pretty much every milestone they have needed to.

As for the Americans dudding us on combat, you have got to be kidding. Everyone knows it was the US talent and generosity that saved Collins, not only that they also saved Astutes and other nations programs owe a great debt of gratitude. They have proven they will go the extra mile to ensure project success.

With the french, well we will squeeze them until we get our sovereign capability.

Some parts of the program are just total wins.. MTU supported by Penkse. Nobody is worried about that. Everybody wants that on the Collins boats. Everyone wants that on basically every ship in the Navy. Other nations are envious of that kind of capability. There is a whole local logistics chain setup from commercial applications in industry and mining etc. Navy just fits into that massive established, professional, well oiled local capability.

Just because things come from different companies and different countries does not mean it doesn't get along.