Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[Redlands18]

This can't be understated, and if there ever was a program akin to the Apollo Space Program this would be it for Australia. Strong leadership is needed to make it a true National endeavor and get everyone on board, especially in these times. Australian interests come first and foremost and your either for Australia or your not and honestly I'm not sure where Naval Group stands and hope others can enlighten me if they can.


I like the adage 'to know enough that you think your right, but not enough to know your wrong'.
Without inside info, you just don't have enough to get the whole picture. A puzzle without all the pieces.

Senator Rex Patrick tries to break down problems with Cost, Schedule, Performance and Industry.

At the end of the day, there is a true COST in dollars leaving Australia that is acceptable to all?
There is also the cost of time and what this means if it drags on.

I'm not trying to stir up anything, just concerned if all the parties are on the same page. and what can be learned from this.

Like any marriage, if you constantly have to work at it, you know there is something fundamentally wrong. Many marriages do well when you work as a team and help each other.
Is this the program Australia really wanted and is Naval Group a trusted company that will have your back and Australia's best interests now and the coming generations? What is Naval Groups track record so far, and are you beating a dead horse to make it work?
If necessary, Is it really too late to switch horses?

I'm not suggesting you do switch but anything that can speed up the process of getting your subs is advantageous in cost and having high-end assets in the field sooner can only help.

Technology is changing at an alarming rate and it stands to reason that the first sub will be different from the last one produced because of advancing technology. Those who can adapt with new technology quickly, such as technological advances in AI, computing power, battery chemistry and sensor advancements will have an advantage if incorporated into a continuous updated design process.

Just my 2 cents but it seems the Japanese are more aligned with Australian needs by having an advanced submarine already in continuous production and and therefore should be easier to set up tooling with lower risk because of this.
If Australia through Government to Government negotiations were to use the latest Soryu design should speed up the start of construction and be much lower risk because of a mature modern in production design. This would allow Australia to research and develop technology to be inserted for the second boat of the class.

To be honest I would put as much or more research and development into very large heavily armed long endurance uuvs as Hunter Killers. A pair of these sent out ahead and controlled by a Collins class sub would enable a much larger, clearer sensor net and if equipped with 21 in torps under your command will enable you to prosecute targets from extremely long range. While Subs are very complex, a huge amount of the complexity is taken out of large uuvs by not needing all the associated equipment and space needed for human habitation.

A collaboration including New Zealand and Canada would spread the cost out for rapid development and prototyping.

Sorry to ramble on and having so many of the pieces missing from the puzzle is almost a fools errand in trying to figure out.

New Zealand? They do not nor have they ever operated Submarines and there is no publicly stated intent to do so in the future. The Soryu aren’t really that suitable for the RAN, they are designed around a very different mission, to get down deep and hunt SSNs. The Attacks are designed around being ultra long range(up to 18,000nm) and long endurance(70+days).

 

[alexsa]

A submariner yes, but, as indicated, at the operator level. He had no involvement in requirements development, contract negotiation or management, or management of major projects at this level or of this scale. His PM experience is of an entirely different order, and largely revolved around provision of training services in the area of sonar - which he was pretty good at.

Of course he is entitled to his opinion, as am I of him. As a senator, if one who was appointed, not elected, and inherited Nick Xenophon’s sway over certain, fairly small, sections of the SA public he has a better platform than most. He held the same views before he became a senator but at that time nobody paid him much attention.

On the substance of the issues; all large and complex projects go through difficult periods. But it is worth remembering that the French have been successfully designing and building submarines for well over 110 years. There is no reason to doubt that they can do so in this case, and that those submarines will meet Australia’s current needs. The details, including the costs, will undoubtedly be argued over by the actual SMEs, who will then advise the masters (on both sides) how to proceed. They should be left to do their jobs.

I agree, this should be left to the SME's .... I also agree Australia should have started this process a lot earlier. There is no use bemoaning that now.

I don't claim to have in depth knowledge of the current status of the project and what the issues are (nor should I). However, in my view, the suggestions by Senator Patrick that we go down the type 218 or Type 216 (which he appears keen on) or Soryu class ignores the reality of our situation and that is range and persistence are critical. Transit speed is important as this vessel will need to travel some distance in any scenario you care to look at (hence AIP provides little advantage). I have served on Oberon's and understand the logic that led to the Collins class.

The Oberon's did conduct some very long range operations but this was with the loss of some capability (less weapons carried) in order to conduct such operations.

 

[Volkodav]

A constant theme is irrespective of technical merit, the French management style and blase attitude to contractual requirement is causing serious friction.

I was at lunch with a couple of former colleagues after I left the destroyer program but before Naval Group were selected as the designer for SEA 1000 and to my surprise one of my colleagues who was working on SEA 1000 told us that technically Shortfin was looking like the best option of the three with major design elements of the competing designs making them riskier and less able to deliver the required capability.

I expressed my concern as there had been a recent track record of the French over selling products as MOTS when they were still highly developmental (Tiger, MRH, MU90, KC-30), meaning, irrespective of the eventual capability delivered the cost and schedule were miles off. At the time I believed the Australian government would never be dumb enough to go french again.

Flash forward, french are in cost has blown out and schedule is God knows where. Technically, because our politicians don't trust our own people, don't invest consistently and don't provide realistic timings, the French are now the only option if we want an effective submarine capability.

The only option is to play hard ball and make them stick to the contract, including if necessary, criminal investigations if they sabotage their own ability to meet contractual obligations to force out comes on the CoA. What does that mean? Deliberately breaking up teams and down grading their ability to fullfil contracted obligations then telling the customer they need to do without, do it differently, pay more money or all of the above. Not just the French but a very dodgy, probably criminal technique that is too prevalent in industry.

 

[ngatimozart]

This can't be understated, and if there ever was a program akin to the Apollo Space Program this would be it for Australia. Strong leadership is needed to make it a true National endeavor and get everyone on board, especially in these times. Australian interests come first and foremost and your either for Australia or your not and honestly I'm not sure where Naval Group stands and hope others can enlighten me if they can.


I like the adage 'to know enough that you think your right, but not enough to know your wrong'.
Without inside info, you just don't have enough to get the whole picture. A puzzle without all the pieces.

Senator Rex Patrick tries to break down problems with Cost, Schedule, Performance and Industry.

At the end of the day, there is a true COST in dollars leaving Australia that is acceptable to all?
There is also the cost of time and what this means if it drags on.

I'm not trying to stir up anything, just concerned if all the parties are on the same page. and what can be learned from this.

Like any marriage, if you constantly have to work at it, you know there is something fundamentally wrong. Many marriages do well when you work as a team and help each other.
Is this the program Australia really wanted and is Naval Group a trusted company that will have your back and Australia's best interests now and the coming generations? What is Naval Groups track record so far, and are you beating a dead horse to make it work?
If necessary, Is it really too late to switch horses?

I'm not suggesting you do switch but anything that can speed up the process of getting your subs is advantageous in cost and having high-end assets in the field sooner can only help.

Technology is changing at an alarming rate and it stands to reason that the first sub will be different from the last one produced because of advancing technology. Those who can adapt with new technology quickly, such as technological advances in AI, computing power, battery chemistry and sensor advancements will have an advantage if incorporated into a continuous updated design process.

Just my 2 cents but it seems the Japanese are more aligned with Australian needs by having an advanced submarine already in continuous production and and therefore should be easier to set up tooling with lower risk because of this.
If Australia through Government to Government negotiations were to use the latest Soryu design should speed up the start of construction and be much lower risk because of a mature modern in production design. This would allow Australia to research and develop technology to be inserted for the second boat of the class.

To be honest I would put as much or more research and development into very large heavily armed long endurance uuvs as Hunter Killers. A pair of these sent out ahead and controlled by a Collins class sub would enable a much larger, clearer sensor net and if equipped with 21 in torps under your command will enable you to prosecute targets from extremely long range. While Subs are very complex, a huge amount of the complexity is taken out of large uuvs by not needing all the associated equipment and space needed for human habitation.

A collaboration including New Zealand and Canada would spread the cost out for rapid development and prototyping.

Sorry to ramble on and having so many of the pieces missing from the puzzle is almost a fools errand in trying to figure out.

I am going to suggest that you read right back through this thread and any others regarding RAN subs, in order to gain a good understanding of the topic. This saves a lot of old issues being rehashed and regurgitated. There has been quite a substantive discussion on it.

WRT NZ participation in any sub program, we have never operated subs, they aren't part of our CONOPS, and we don't have any plans to operate any. They wouldn't provide VfM (Value for Money) in a NZ context.

I would be very wary of entering into a sub development program with Canada because of Canada's dysfunctional defence procurement system. The risk would be far to great for Australia.

Finally when discussing Australian sub requirements you must also look at a map as well because the transit distances between the sub base and their areas of operation are significant. The most of any SSK in any navy. That is why a SSK MOTS solution is not the most appropriate choice, and a bespoke design has to be built.

 

[shadow99]

This saves a lot of old issues being rehashed and regurgitated. There has been quite a substantive discussion on it.

Apologies to all to rehash and regurgitate old issues and not being clearer and will end with this.

I'm trying to be logical and if War was to break out tomorrow ...

You only have the tools and weapons that you have now, and the extremely long time from a submarines conception to entering service is daunting to say the least. Time is against us (allies) and with Chinas industrial capacity and the rate of production of military equipment works against us.
With time against us it seems logical to go the route that gets your subs in the water quickest and if it turned out that the Soryu Class or latest version could be in the water years earlier would be a game changer for Australia, would it not?

Finally when discussing Australian sub requirements you must also look at a map as well because the transit distances between the sub base and their areas of operation are significant. The most of any SSK in any navy. That is why a SSK MOTS solution is not the most appropriate choice, and a bespoke design has to be built.

Thank you and I'm well aware of the distances involved as are those Officials that proposed Soryu for Australia to begin with and obviously had plans in place to rectify the range issues had Australia gone down this route. I would think being able to get longer range would be easier than converting a nuclear powered sub.

WRT NZ participation in any sub program, we have never operated subs, they aren't part of our CONOPS, and we don't have any plans to operate any. They wouldn't provide VfM (Value for Money) in a NZ context.

I would be very wary of entering into a sub development program with Canada because of Canada's dysfunctional defense procurement system. The risk would be far to great for Australia.

Apologies again for not being clearer but I never suggested NZ to participate in a manned sub program.
The suggestion was "research and development into very large heavily armed long endurance uuvs as Hunter Killers " They are smaller and easier to build than manned submarines and in NZ case could be controlled from a ship or operate autonomously gathering intel. Looking for VfM would this not apply for NZ and be a force multiplier in a cost effective way.

While Canada's Defense procurement is embarrassing to say the least, research and development is what Canada does well and participates world wide in successful Military high tech collaborations with many countries and shouldn't be overlooked.

To end this I will not bring the topic up again of Australian subs, apologies to all.

 

[swerve]

....
The only option is to play hard ball and make them stick to the contract, including if necessary, criminal investigations if they sabotage their own ability to meet contractual obligations to force out comes on the CoA. What does that mean? Deliberately breaking up teams and down grading their ability to fullfil contracted obligations then telling the customer they need to do without, do it differently, pay more money or all of the above. Not just the French but a very dodgy, probably criminal technique that is too prevalent in industry.

I've encountered teams being broken up in the middle of programmes in telecoms, banking & others, in circumstances where there was no possibility of it being done to screw an external customer. I've also heard of failed attempts to do it, e.g. one where the two technical people in a meeting spent about six hours of what had been scheduled as a two hour meeting arguing with a proposal to sack an entire IT support team & replace them, on cost grounds. And even then all they got was a review of the proposal which would take into account severance & recruitment costs, & include verified market rather than assumed pay rates for the new staff (e.g. ask some recruitment agencies & look at some adverts). That was a successful financial business in the city of London. I knew one of the two technical people & by chance ran into him on his way home, badly in need of a drink & someone to vent to.

Usually, it's either new management trying to mark their territory, or sheer stupidity, e.g. someone believing a management consultant who says that senior & experienced staff are doing work that's technically no different from what more junior staff or outside contractors are doing, & can be replaced by cheaper people . . . . so business knowledge, process knowledge & the like goes out of the window . . . .

It amazes me at times, but there really are people in management even in successful businesses who think that having technically good programmers or engineers is all that's needed for successful projects.

It isn't necessarily always malice.

 

[spoz]

Poor quality photo of Arafura taken today

 

[DDG38]

Meanwhile in the working Navy at night :
"HMAS Sirius conducts a RAS with HMAS Anzac during the ships' deployment to Southeast Asia and the Northeast Indian Ocean.
Image source : ADF Image Library - link

 

[t68]

Meanwhile in the working Navy at night :
"HMAS Sirius conducts a RAS with HMAS Anzac during the ships' deployment to Southeast Asia and the Northeast Indian Ocean.
Image source : ADF Image Library - link
View attachment 48219

Mmm hadn’t really thought about RAS at night only ever seen photos of daylight RAS, perked my curiosity to lighting when conducting the evolution under tactical situations, where as land vehicles use blackout lights I imagine ships would have something similar. Would be interesting to see how it’s conducted as I have heard that someone smoking on deck in the night that it lights up and can be seen for miles in the pitch black, never seen it for myself just from what I’ve been told.

 

[Milne Bay]

Mmm hadn’t really thought about RAS at night only ever seen photos of daylight RAS, perked my curiosity to lighting when conducting the evolution under tactical situations, where as land vehicles use blackout lights I imagine ships would have something similar. Would be interesting to see how it’s conducted as I have heard that someone smoking on deck in the night that it lights up and can be seen for miles in the pitch black, never seen it for myself just from what I’ve been told.

Would it be correct to assume that the christmas lights forward of the bridge are there as an aid to station keeping, or is there another purpose?
MB

 

[alexsa]

Would it be correct to assume that the christmas lights forward of the bridge are there as an aid to station keeping, or is there another purpose?
MB

These are navigation lights required under the International Collision Regulations (COLREGS) Convention. They provide an indication of the orientation of the vessel and any special circumstances (not under command, restricted in ability to manoeuvre, fishing, mine sweeping etc). This allows vessels to determine which vessel has right of way and gives an early indication if a vessel is altering course (assuming the officer of the watch has their head out of the displays and is looking outside).

Warships are required to comply with this conventions in so far as the tactical situation requires it.

PS - Sorry .... you mean the small lights .... should have been more careful. These indicate distance apart between the two ships. It is a distance line. I suspect the lights are light sticks.

 

[ASSAIL]

These are navigation lights required under the International Collision Regulations (COLREGS) Convention. They provide an indication of the orientation of the vessel and any special circumstances (not under command, restricted in ability to manoeuvre, fishing, mine sweeping etc). This allows vessels to determine which vessel has right of way and gives an early indication if a vessel is altering course (assuming the officer of the watch has their head out of the displays and is looking outside).

Warships are required to comply with this conventions in so far as the tactical situation requires it.

PS - Sorry .... you mean the small lights .... should have been more careful. These indicate distance apart between the two ships. It is a distance line. I suspect the lights are light sticks.

The distance line is marked every 20ft (or was) with coloured flags during the day and lights at night.
The order is Red (starting at 20’) Yellow, Blue, White, Green then repeated.
One thing has stuck in my geriatric mind after all these years is how we remembered the order, “Rub Your Bum With Grease”

 

[Volkodav]

The distance line is marked every 20ft (or was) with coloured flags during the day and lights at night.
The order is Red (starting at 20’) Yellow, Blue, White, Green then repeated.
One thing has stuck in my geriatric mind after all these years is how we remembered the order, “Rub Your Bum With Grease”

You sure you weren't a stoker?

That's the sort of stuff that got the marine techs on success in such trouble, well probably more that they were doing it to others without consent rather than saying it as a joke.

 

[ASSAIL]

You sure you weren't a stoker?

That's the sort of stuff that got the marine techs on success in such trouble, well probably more that they were doing it to others without consent rather than saying it as a joke.

I never thought about it in that light Had it been remembered by some characterless words I probably would have forgotten it years ago.

 

[spoz]

The people who were really covered in grease were the gun busters (I spent a, fortunately very short, period as a goonery officer and experienced it). The bosun's party used to do pretty well, too, particularly when greasing cable. Not usually near their bums, though.

Funny what sticks in your head - "pee for bees" - stripping order of a Bren gun (Pistol (Grip), Barrel. Butt, Body, Bipod). It's at least 50 years since I had occasion to use that!

 

[Systems Adict]

Mmm hadn’t really thought about RAS at night only ever seen photos of daylight RAS, perked my curiosity to lighting when conducting the evolution under tactical situations, where as land vehicles use blackout lights I imagine ships would have something similar. Would be interesting to see how it’s conducted as I have heard that someone smoking on deck in the night that it lights up and can be seen for miles in the pitch black, never seen it for myself just from what I’ve been told.

Light on warships at night - rule of thumb is that on a moonless night, far from land (so you don't get any of that nasty orange haze / light pollution), a sailor lighting a cigarette using a match can be seen as far away as 10 miles. In conflict, that sorta info can make u a target very quickly, even in passive / non-transmission mode.

Over the last 20 years I've spent many a nightshift at sea, sailing round an anchored warship on trials, with an inspection team scanning every door / hatch / air vent jalousie, to see if visible light (usually white) can be seen emminating from the warship, at various ranges from the ship. It's part of the reason the RED lighting is used after dark (usually switching to darken ship mode at sunset). Red isn't as visible at longer distances & I think its probably down to a max range of about 3 miles??

Modern warships may also have to deal with helo ops at night & this has led to Blue lighting being introduced in specific / key areas (it helps with spacial awareness, I believe - there more info here - RED, BLUE & WHITE Lighting). The latest tech is actually using white LED's, & the ability to dim the LUX level down to extremely low levels has proved that they can be even better than RED lights, while still giving operators NVG compatibility.

 

[t68]

Royal Australian Navy ship HMAS Sydney linked to deaths of two whales (msn.com)

Apparently HMAS Sydney has been involved in the death of two whales when she dock in the US, how often would this occur in the civilian martime fleet as they are blaming Sydney's 7m draft which is not that deep when you consider a Nimitz class over 11m and MV Seawise Giant has a draft of 24m. They say in the story up to 50 strike per year, i imagine that not resulting in the death of the whales each strike

 

[aussienscale]

Royal Australian Navy ship HMAS Sydney linked to deaths of two whales (msn.com)

Apparently HMAS Sydney has been involved in the death of two whales when she dock in the US, how often would this occur in the civilian martime fleet as they are blaming Sydney's 7m draft which is not that deep when you consider a Nimitz class over 11m and MV Seawise Giant has a draft of 24m. They say in the story up to 50 strike per year, i imagine that not resulting in the death of the whales each strike

Marine animal strikes are more common than people may think, off the top of my head I can think of over a dozen incidents in my time at sea and heard of many more with other ships, can include whales of different types, pilot whales were are common one on the EAXA, dolphins, turtles, seals etc

Cheers

 

[meatshield]

Marine animal strikes are more common than people may think, off the top of my head I can think of over a dozen incidents in my time at sea and heard of many more with other ships, can include whales of different types, pilot whales were are common one on the EAXA, dolphins, turtles, seals etc

Cheers

This is the perfect time to introduce a marinisied bullbar for boats

 

[koala]

I was crossing Sydney Harbor bridge today and noticed HMAS Supply in full tow with a tug towing her from the bow and several tugs at her stern, I thought she would have used her own steam with tug support (but what would I know) also noticed HMAS Choules on a swing mooring in Chowder Bay, seems the fleet is getting moved all around the Harbor of late.