Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[Todjaeger]

Mate, I think you missed the point I was making.

I'm not saying that other nations don't operate more than one class of submarine (ballistic or non-ballistic).

I said currently developing two classes concurrently, didn't say operating multiple classes, two different things.

Is there a nation today that is developing more than one ballistic sub and also developing more than one class of non-ballistic sub concurrently? Again, I don't think so.

Cheers,

This might then turn upon the definition of "developing", which to me at least, would also include active build programmes as there is typically at least a little room for some iterative improvements during vessel/boat builds. With that definition in mind, then India, China (PRC) and Russia all have multiple classes of either diesel-electric and/or nuclear non-SSBN subs either in development or already actively under construction or in production. If one were to include nations that were building subs for export markets and not for domestic use, then France and Germany would also make those lists.

 

[John Newman]

This might then turn upon the definition of "developing", which to me at least, would also include active build programmes as there is typically at least a little room for some iterative improvements during vessel/boat builds. With that definition in mind, then India, China (PRC) and Russia all have multiple classes of either diesel-electric and/or nuclear non-SSBN subs either in development or already actively under construction or in production. If one were to include nations that were building subs for export markets and not for domestic use, then France and Germany would also make those lists.

Mate, lets try to not get bogged down in semantics, but developing a new class and developing more than one class concurrently are two different animals, in my opinion.

Whist France and German shipyards have developed and offered differing classes of submarines for export, both of those nations only operate one class type of submarine, France has one type of SSBN and one type of SSN in service, Germany has only one type of SS in service.

Russia is a hard one to quantify, there appears to be many submarine/ship classes that have been in stop/start building mode almost since the fall of the USSR, what is old? what is new? what is a rehash of old to new? I don't know!

Cheers,

 

[t68]

It's a load of absolute rubbish. Their so called expert is an ex army intelligence officer - an oxymoron - who knows jack shit about subs and things that float. It comes just after The Australian article from earlier this week that had an accountant as their expert. Both are Murdoch media enterprises and it's starting to look like a Murdoch campaign against the subs for some reason.

I think you might be onto something here but I might be venturing far from reality here.

I cant really say its definite but the Murdoch media might have an ulterior motive , with the uptick in offside media reporting against a French firm I cant help wondering if it is a bit of a by product of Brexit and the aggressive media tone between EU/UK which is currently happening overseas. Its no secret about the EU complain about the bias media reporting from the Murdoch media. Could be a way to plant seeds of doubt and payback against the French with an added bonus if Australia kills off the French giving the UK a headstart with Astute if nuclear gets on the table. After all BAE have a large presence in Australia

 

[John Newman]

I think you might be onto something here but I might be venturing far from reality here.

I cant really say its definite but the Murdoch media might have an ulterior motive , with the uptick in offside media reporting against a French firm I cant help wondering if it is a bit of a by product of Brexit and the aggressive media tone between EU/UK which is currently happening overseas. Its no secret about the EU complain about the bias media reporting from the Murdoch media. Could be a way to plant seeds of doubt and payback against the French with an added bonus if Australia kills off the French giving the UK a headstart with Astute if nuclear gets on the table. After all BAE have a large presence in Australia

I really don't have a problem with the views of the privately owned media, regardless of it being left or right in its leaning. It's not hard to see which way the wind is blowing from their reporting. As long as one is aware of the leaning of the parent organisation, you can sort out the wheat from the chaff.

On the other hand, I absolutely hate the fact that the publicly owned media in Australia (ABC and SBS) is so far off centre it's not funny, and let's be even more honest, it is so far off to the left it's even more not funny, balanced reporting is something that they both don't do very well at all.

If either of the above organisations news rooms disappeared off the earth tomorrow, I certainly wouldn't shed a tear (and I don't think I'd be alone either).

 

[oldsig127]

Its no secret about the EU complain about the bias media reporting from the Murdoch media. Could be a way to plant seeds of doubt and payback against the French with an added bonus if Australia kills off the French giving the UK a headstart with Astute if nuclear gets on the table. After all BAE have a large presence in Australia

I think it's more likely that Murdoch's mates are still ticked off that PM Abbot didn't get his Captain's pick, and they looked stupid to Abe.

There won't be a change unless WW3 happens, for all the reasons succinctly put by Takao further up the page but given that the chance of a change to nuclear gets on the table is so slim as to be invisible, having News Corp pushing it would certainly strain the fairly bipartisan political outlook since one side of politics can't abide them and would certainly reduce the chance of a UK purchase to less than nothing.

oldsig

 

[StingrayOZ]

Putting the nuclear issue aside for 1 second.

Virginias crew 130. Virginias came out of the seawolf program, which was too expensive for even coldwar America. They can build them cheaply because they are america and building 50 of them. America also builds CVN's most efficently in the world, should we acquire 12 of them? We have no way to crew such a item. Or pay for the overall operating costs. That is ignoring the nuclear question.

Remember no one ever said the Astutes were cheap (weren't boats 1-3 something of the order of $7 billion each and 58+ months late), they also require 100 crew per sub, so you are doubling the operational costs right there, as one of the most significant costs is crew. Your purchase price is also ~3 times as much.

Attack is about the same size as the preceding Trafalgar class SSN's the Astutes are replacing.

Subs are expensive. They can break the backs of superpowers.

As for local content. Australia doesn't do a lot of global defense commercial competition. Much like the F-35 program there are a few expert things we do, and that would be focused on something like that, but smaller companies just don't have the expertise and the motivation to go bid on defence programs. Theres no medium players that go around and facilitate smaller companies. And if the primes don't do it, no one else will.

 

[swerve]

Japan also I believe operates more than one diesel-electric sub class, but as I understand it, this is at least in part due to Japan's submarine build and service life-cycle where Japan will start building a follow-on sub design prior to completely finishing production of the design it is replacing. From a purely cost perspective this might not be the most efficient, it does ensure that there is a steady stream of serviceable submarines while also maintaining a shipyard workforce trained to build subs, as well as likely providing a greater opportunity to incorporate incremental improvements into the sub classes.....

I think "incremental improvements" is a big part of that. They don't do revolutions. Each class has something new, but no class has too much, so development risk is reduced.

Haven't they recently been increasing their submarine force without increasing the building rate? They can do that because they're retiring subs which still have life in them: they just delayed retirement. They have to increase operational expenditure, e.g. more crews, but no extra building costs.

 

[John Fedup]

@StingrayOZ .. my understanding is the Seawolf was deemed too expensive once the Cold War ended. Had the Cold War continued, I think more would have been built and follow-on block builds would have been enhanced just like the Virginia class. Enhanced Seawolfs, frigging awesome I would suspect.

 

[John Newman]

I think "incremental improvements" is a big part of that. They don't do revolutions. Each class has something new, but no class has too much, so development risk is reduced.

Haven't they recently been increasing their submarine force without increasing the building rate? They can do that because they're retiring subs which still have life in them: they just delayed retirement. They have to increase operational expenditure, e.g. more crews, but no extra building costs.

You're correct, they haven't been increasing the build rate.

What Japan was doing, when the fleet level was set at 16 boats, was that each year a new boat commissioned, the oldest dropped off the bottom 'one in, one out' and that maintained the active fleet of 16.

With the announcement a couple of years back to increase the active fleet to 22 boats, they started performing life extensions to the oldest of the Oyashio class still in commission. When the latest of the Soryu class commissions next month (March) the total active fleet will increase to 20 (11 Soryu and 9 Oyashio). Over the years ahead they will have to perform life extension to all of the older boats at some stage to allow for that new service life of 22 years.

What I think is impressive with the Japanese submarine build program is that they have their two yards, MHI and KSC, producing a new boat that commissions in March of every year, each yard has a 2 year drumbeat, but they alternate, one yard is doing odd years, 1, 3, 5, etc, the other even years, 2, 4, 6, etc.

It's worth having a look back at the various classes, starting with Soryu and see how regular they are at commissioning a new boat every year:

Sōryū-class submarine - Wikipedia

Have a click in the link in the side box for the preceded by class, you can do this for each previous class (you can pretty much go back 40 years and regular as clock work a new boat produced, prior to that it wasn't exactly yearly).


For the RAN and the future Attack class, it will be interesting to see how regular and sustained the construction/commissioning drumbeat will be. If the future HMAS Attack is to be launched in 2030, commission in 2032 and be operational by 2035 and the last boat launched in 2050, then the drumbeat has to be a bit less than 2 years (on average over the construction of the class).

Cheers,

 

[Todjaeger]

I think "incremental improvements" is a big part of that. They don't do revolutions. Each class has something new, but no class has too much, so development risk is reduced.

Haven't they recently been increasing their submarine force without increasing the building rate? They can do that because they're retiring subs which still have life in them: they just delayed retirement. They have to increase operational expenditure, e.g. more crews, but no extra building costs.

My take is that incremental improvements between blocks/sub-classes within an overall vessel class are sensible, but when changing between overall classes it would be better to incorporate more of the major changes/improvements, especially those involving materials/metallurgy and shaping/structure that cannot really be incorporated in a small change. Looking at the Japanese subs, a good example of this would be the 'conventional' diving plane found on Oyashio-class subs vs. the X-planes incorporated into the later Soryu-class subs. For whatever reason, Japanese sub building was a bit late to the party in adopting the X-planes configuration with the RAN's Collins-class SSG being laid down four years prior to the first Oyashio-class sub, but already incorporating the X-planes configuration.

 

[hauritz]

I think "incremental improvements" is a big part of that. They don't do revolutions. Each class has something new, but no class has too much, so development risk is reduced.

Haven't they recently been increasing their submarine force without increasing the building rate? They can do that because they're retiring subs which still have life in them: they just delayed retirement. They have to increase operational expenditure, e.g. more crews, but no extra building costs.

Truth is I think this is what Australia should have done with the Collins class.

The original plans were for eight boats. We could have been building those extra boats now and then just kept the production line going with incremental improvements. It feels to me that all the anti-Collins hysteria built up by the press made this option politically untenable. Of course many of the problems suffered by this class were identified and fixed a long time ago and any new build would incorporate those fixes.

Regardless of how successful or not the Attack class turns out I will continue to look back at "Son of Collins" as a lost opportunity.

 

[StingrayOZ]

@StingrayOZ .. my understanding is the Seawolf was deemed too expensive once the Cold War ended. Had the Cold War continued, I think more would have been built and follow-on block builds would have been enhanced just like the Virginia class. Enhanced Seawolfs, frigging awesome I would suspect.

There were concerns of the seawolfs costs before the end of the cold war. The Virginia class was a specific response to the costs and project issues of Seawolf. Seawolf was a significant increase in cost per unit. My point was there are submarine programs that both the US and the soviets had to abandon because of costs.

The Japanese have a really neat way to build submarines. However they are strictly evolutionary. Their subs suit their CONOPs very well. As a build program you really want to benchmark them. They have ~20 very capable submarines. However, they do not have to go far to engage with their opposition. They aren't interested in mission with 10,000 km transits or chasing the enemy into the littorals.

They haven't updated their periscope to a photonics mast, because well they probably don't use the periscope much if at all. Its not that they don't have the technology, they just don't see a reason to change it.

The original plans were for eight boats. We could have been building those extra boats now and then just kept the production line going with incremental improvements. It feels to me that all the anti-Collins hysteria built up by the press made this option politically untenable. Of course many of the problems suffered by this class were identified and fixed a long time ago and any new build would incorporate those fixes.

Regardless of how successful or not the Attack class turns out I will continue to look back at "Son of Collins" as a lost opportunity.

Every dark cloud has a silver lining. The issues around the Attack program, the Collins upgrade program has gained momentum.
It has become apparent to everyone the Attack class capabilities won't be significantly available to the ADF for decades. The only other real option to improve Australia's submarine capability is to perform a significant upgrade in every way on the Collins.

• New Sonar (yes)
• New Diesel engines (MTU's)
• New batteries (propulsion and lv systems).
• Complete redo of some internal spaces and things like fridges/HVAC etc.
• New photonics mast (maybe)
• Perhaps even a hull lengthening? (the original AIP designed space, but fitted with lithium batteries)

Really instead of doing the OPV's at ASC we should have started build on 2 new Collins. The Attack selection was done very late, both parties dragged on this decision. This would have at least ignited existing suppliers about restarting production lines/capability for Attack. We could have bought all the welding and steel work up to spec on a known quantity on sub work rather than surface patrol ship work.

But Collins exist. We will have them for decades to come.

 

[oldsig127]

We could have been building those extra boats now and then just kept the production line going with incremental improvements. It feels to me that all the anti-Collins hysteria built up by the press made this option politically untenable.

I agree absolutely about the effects of political and press hysteria, but you also have to acknowledge that incremental programs have disadvantages as well as advantages. At some stge you find yourself driving an FJ Holden with Mag wheels, chrome exhaust and double foxtails on the radio antenna, and wondering whether a beaded seat cover or sheepskin will be best to keep her in service for another ten years.

Sometimes it's counterproductive. Military history is filled with losers who decided to build still more of a slightly better version of an old weapon only to discover that they should have been looking forwards as well as backwards for enlightenment

oldsig

 

[alexsa]

There were concerns of the seawolfs costs before the end of the cold war. The Virginia class was a specific response to the costs and project issues of Seawolf. Seawolf was a significant increase in cost per unit. My point was there are submarine programs that both the US and the soviets had to abandon because of costs.

The Japanese have a really neat way to build submarines. However they are strictly evolutionary. Their subs suit their CONOPs very well. As a build program you really want to benchmark them. They have ~20 very capable submarines. However, they do not have to go far to engage with their opposition. They aren't interested in mission with 10,000 km transits or chasing the enemy into the littorals.

They haven't updated their periscope to a photonics mast, because well they probably don't use the periscope much if at all. Its not that they don't have the technology, they just don't see a reason to change it.


Every dark cloud has a silver lining. The issues around the Attack program, the Collins upgrade program has gained momentum.
It has become apparent to everyone the Attack class capabilities won't be significantly available to the ADF for decades. The only other real option to improve Australia's submarine capability is to perform a significant upgrade in every way on the Collins.

• New Sonar (yes)
• New Diesel engines (MTU's)
• New batteries (propulsion and lv systems).
• Complete redo of some internal spaces and things like fridges/HVAC etc.
• New photonics mast (maybe)
• Perhaps even a hull lengthening? (the original AIP designed space, but fitted with lithium batteries)

Really instead of doing the OPV's at ASC we should have started build on 2 new Collins. The Attack selection was done very late, both parties dragged on this decision. This would have at least ignited existing suppliers about restarting production lines/capability for Attack. We could have bought all the welding and steel work up to spec on a known quantity on sub work rather than surface patrol ship work.

But Collins exist. We will have them for decades to come.

Good day

Building two new Collins would not be easy and you would be re-establishing a capability that is intended to be built into the new yard. I doubt the support infrastructure exists noting the equipment and material requirements.... in other words a lot of greif for two boats out of sync with the rest of the class. This will take time and is one of the things the Naval Group are attempting to use in respect of Australian content.

GoA have always been poor planning replacement tonnage and maintaining capability ... hence the loss of some capability. The batch build process on the Attack should (hopefully) resolve this as the vessel should evlove between batches. Until then a half life refit of Collins is the only option.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Building two new Collins would not be easy and you would be re-establishing a capability that is intended to be built into the new yard. I doubt the support infrastructure exists noting the equipment and material requirements.... in other words a lot of greif for two boats out of sync with the rest of the class. This will take time and is one of the things the Naval Group are attempting to use in respect of Australian content.

But we would still be further along than where we are now. I might have also stopped WA/SA tearing each other apart over the collins support work. I can appreciate the who two boats out of sync component. We could decommissioned the first two Collins boats. The four remaining updated to the modern standard. Probably not cheaper or easier, but would have possibly helped on the time component.

Collins production supply lines are pretty cold now, many went cold when the building was occurring, and companies have tighter margins and costs compared to back in the 80's, we have also seen a lot of loss of production capability compared to the 80's when Collins project was finding local suppliers. So we are often starting pretty far back in terms of being ready for sovereign sub building capability.

Eventually the Attack program will fix all these problems. But its going to have to ride some rough seas to get to that point.

 

[Todjaeger]

But we would still be further along than where we are now. I might have also stopped WA/SA tearing each other apart over the collins support work. I can appreciate the who two boats out of sync component. We could decommissioned the first two Collins boats. The four remaining updated to the modern standard. Probably not cheaper or easier, but would have possibly helped on the time component.

Collins production supply lines are pretty cold now, many went cold when the building was occurring, and companies have tighter margins and costs compared to back in the 80's, we have also seen a lot of loss of production capability compared to the 80's when Collins project was finding local suppliers. So we are often starting pretty far back in terms of being ready for sovereign sub building capability.

Eventually the Attack program will fix all these problems. But its going to have to ride some rough seas to get to that point.

Would Australia really be further along? I personally doubt that given the length of time that has passed. Had the two options been exercised sometime by 2004, then an extra boat or two could likely have been constructed, possibly incorporating some tweaks.

Attempting to start construction of two new subs at this point would IMO have been a massive waste of resources. The first of the two Arafura-class OPV's was laid down less than a year ago and the two vessel build run is IIRC expected to be finished by ~2022 permitting the Hunter-class FFG to start. The newest Collins-class SSG was commissioned nearly 17 years ago, which means both the skilled workforce and supply chain for parts and material are effectively non-existent. They could of course be re-assembled and reconstituted, but that would have required pre-planning work. Likely several years in fact. Not to mention the fact that modern subs are inherently a more complex build project than an OPV, which would most likely mean more time required to complete them, which would push back the start of construction for the Hunter-class and the resulting replacement of the ANZAC-class frigates even further...

This would also require that Australia have possessed at set of currently buildable plans for the Collins-class and IIRC one of the disputes between Australia and Kockums had been over who had some of the IP. In addition, some redesign work would have been required in order to use replacements for some systems which were no longer available (like the Hedemora diesels). Basically much of the prep work which needs to be done in order to support the Attack-class build like establishing a properly skilled workforce, supply chains, boat design, etc would also be required to build two more, somewhat different Collins-class boats after such a long hiatus. And then once the actual build for the Attack-class gets started, everything would need to happen all over again since the first of the new class is not expected until sometime in the 2030's.

 

[Hazdog]

In other news.

Warships depart Sydney for first major Fleet exercise of 2020. HMA Ships Hobart and Arunta are deploying within the first major fleet exercise of 2020.

As such, does anyone know how the new radar fitted to HMAS Arunta compares to the SPY-1 of the Hobart?

 

[StingrayOZ]

As a purely hypothetical exercise when could have we have built 2 more Collins class.

Ideally as part of the first batch. This really would have required work laying down around 95 or 96 for boat 1 and boat 2 around 97 or 98. Actual ordering and planning would have to go back to the mid 90's, the original option for 8 expired while Beasley was still defmin, and he regrets it.

The other time to have done it was in or before 2009 when we announce sea1000. In ten years we could have primed the pump planned, designed it to fit around the AWD/Hunter builds and done it that way. This would have basically been a mini-son of collins. So pretty much all the upgrades we now want and have to do, but in two new builds. This would have included time to get the whole thing sorted before upgrading the existing boats. The two older boats could then have been sold onto Singapore pushing the swedes out.

Pretty much all the things you otherwise mention need to happen anyway now we are going to have to substantially modernize Collins, and build Attack class. It would have just happened earlier. It would also highlight how much effort its going to take to get the industry side all together.

In addition, some redesign work would have been required in order to use replacements for some systems which were no longer available (like the Hedemora diesels)

The first thing that will be pulled out of Collins and driven out to sea and pushed off is the Hedemora diesels. Many of Collins problems will be solved by deep sixing those boat anchors.

 

[76mmGuns]

Thanks all for the submarine debate. Been quite informative

 

[StingrayOZ]

As such, does anyone know how the new radar fitted to HMAS Arunta compares to the SPY-1 of the Hobart?

I don't imagine anyone is going to reveal any secrets. But given the hope that newer versions of Ceafar will eventually replace SPY-1 and also feature on the new Hunter class. Quite favorably. I imagine its probably not as blaringly powerful as SPY1 but probably makes up with sensitivity and ability to track and general flexibility. For the job the frigates need to do its probably one of the best small frigates in terms of sensors.

Total weapon capability is a bit short. But as a sensor platform, quite good.