Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[oldsig127]

This all sounds like politics to get the French moving and start to achieve some project milestones. I’m sure this was a well timed “leak”. (Pun intended).

Except that they are *largely* meeting their milestones. Don't mistake a politician or journalist's interpretation of "progress" for fact

oldsig

 

[swerve]

Excuse my ignorance but wouldn't the conceptual type 216 have been closer to our requirements versus the type 214?

IIRC it was designed to meet the RAN's requirements (& potentially those of other countries such as Canada), so it should have been.

 

[ngatimozart]

I see that the ABC ran a story tonight claiming that the government is considering the German submarine option. They claim sources within defence, but maybe sources should be spelt sauce. They interviewed Rex Patrick and the ALP defence spokesman, both of whom didn't have a clue about what they were talking about.

This appears to be another Australian media campaign based on nothing but innuendo, political bias, misinformation, deceit, and ignorance. Because they don't have subject matter expertise they just make it up as they go. Unfortunately it is quite typical of Australian media and they no longer are reputable or reliable.

 

[Anthony_B_78]

Snipped

With respect, if a senior ABC reporter says sources inside the government, then I highly doubt they're making it up. If they were the government would skewer them with an outright denial. Earlier commentary on this by others in this thread was more to the point of what was likely happening. Pressure being applied on the seemingly rather recalcitrant French and/or Defence simply remaining abreast of other options. I agree the standard of defence reporting in this country is not high when it comes to technological knowledge. But the political journalism certainly is high, and that's the level this has come from.

 

[ngatimozart]

With respect, if a senior ABC reporter says sources inside the government, then I highly doubt they're making it up. If they were the government would skewer them with an outright denial. Earlier commentary on this by others in this thread was more to the point of what was likely happening. Pressure being applied on the seemingly rather recalcitrant French and/or Defence simply remaining abreast of other options. I agree the standard of defence reporting in this country is not high when it comes to technological knowledge. But the political journalism certainly is high, and that's the level this has come from.

I beg to differ and having observed Australian (and NZ) media reporting upon matters defence for, in Australia's case, the last 10 years I have a reasonably good understanding of their capabilities and the quality of defence reporting. Put it this way, if it floats and has a gun on it bigger than granddads hammer action shotgun then its a battleship. If it's painted green, moves, and has a gun on it bigger than granddads hammer action shotgun then its a tank. If it flies, is painted grey and has 2 or more engines it's a bomber. That's just to start with.

The political side is absolutely rubbish and Rex Patrick is pushing an idea that has no merit or sense. This whole German submarine idea has been a Rex Patrick and media beat up with no real facts to support their case. There is no German submarine that actually meets the RAN requirement. They are coastal subs, not deep blue water subs that have the range required. They don't even have 1/3 the range let alone half the range. That's why they never made the cut in the first place, so why would you all of a sudden want to introduce an unsuitable platform into the mix? It'd be like replacing the HRT Holden at Bathurst with a Morris Minor.

This whole German submarine option is being pushed by people who have no clues, no ideas, and are pushing it for purely political purposes and nothing else. Both the politicians and the media. The WA mafia are most likely to have their hands well and truly involved in this, and I don't believe in coincidences, especially where Australian politics and media are involved.

 

[Reptilia]

How much does it cost currently to get out of the French deal?
also, what cost if we reduce the number of subs by half to 6?

Do we need 12 subs with long range capability? or are we better off having 6 or so with a range of 33,000km and another class with 20,000km.
could we build 6 long range french subs and also attach ourselves to the future japanese sub program, have Japan build us some subs in the 2035-2045 range whilst we build 6 attacks till 2045. Further Construction of the jap submarines eventually being built here after attack class completed.
with battery tech advancements we could see both these classes have significant range increases. Better yet we would have 18(6/12) subs around 2055, not just 12 of the same type.

@Reptilia

There has been much discussion on why 12 boats are required and the reasoning behind the decision to build in Australia. You comments basically rehash old ground. Please also have a look at the previous comment regarding training and the impact of a mixed fleet. This reflects that the RAN will be running to classes for some time once the Attacks start to come on line and that will have an impact training and crewing... so again this has been discussed and if you are suggesting 3 classes you need to back this up.

Alexsa

 

[Anthony_B_78]

Snipped

I already said the Australian media are not great at defence reporting in terms of the technical knowledge, but this isn't about that. (Not sure it matters, but I've been observing defence reporting for more than 20 years and have a media and political background.) It's about the politics, and my point stands that a senior ABC reporter is unlikely to have just made it up. I agree that there may be people in Defence, government, parliament more broadly, and industry who are seeking to push their own agendas. I don't agree the ABC reporter is part of some conspiracy, if that's what you're implying. More likely someone may be seeking to use them for their own ends. But none of this means that the basis of the story is not accurate. Defence / government may well be looking at an alternative option. That doesn't mean they're looking hard, and it doesn't mean it has much likelihood of being pursued. The government is nervous about this program and with good reason. Public perception is that there is a history of wasting money on such projects. That's perception, not necessarily reality. It would remiss of government and Defence not to at least keep options open.

 

[Git_Kraken]

How much does it cost currently to get out of the French deal?
also, what cost if we reduce the number of subs by half to 6?

Do we need 12 subs with long range capability? or are we better off having 6 or so with a range of 33,000km and another class with 20,000km.
could we build 6 long range french subs and also attach ourselves to the future japanese sub program, have Japan build us some subs in the 2035-2045 range whilst we build 6 attacks till 2045. Further Construction of the jap submarines eventually being built here after attack class completed.
with battery tech advancements we could see both these classes have significant range increases.

Good questions to ask.

It seems like many countries buy ship classes in multiples of 3 or 4. That means one can be down for a work period, another can be transitioning to or from a work period and the last one is fully operational. Australia likely looked at how many operational submarines they needed to do the missions asked of them at one time. It probably came out as 4 or 5 operational at a time.

Math backward and you get 12 submarines to keep 4 at sea constantly. If you cut that in half to 6 submarines then you only have 2 or 3 available at one time. Two available strikes me as not enough for Australia's purposes to have a defensive submarine patrol area and be able to send one out on a mission elsewhere.

 

[Reptilia]

Current

Collins - Sweden

Displacement - 3,400 tons submerged, 3,100 surfaced.

Range - 22,000km surfaced

Speed - 20 knots submerged, 10 surfaced.

Depth - 250 metres +

Length - 77 metres

Endurance - 70 days

Complement - 60 crew

Propulsion - Propeller, 1x Schneider dc motor

VLS - No

Batteries - Lead Acid







Possibilities

Type 216 - Germany

Displacement - 4,000 tons submerged, 3,500 surfaced.

Range - 20,000km surfaced

Speed - 21 knots submerged, 12 surfaced.

Depth - 400 metres +

Length - 90 metres

Endurance - 80 days

Complement - 60 crew

Propulsion - Propeller

VLS - Yes

Batteries - Lithium Ion



Taigei - Japan

Displacement - 4200 tons submerged, 3,000 surfaced.

Range - 12,000km surfaced

Speed - 21 knots submerged, 13 surfaced.

Depth - 600 metres +

Length - 84 metres

Endurance - 70 days

Complement - 65 crew

Propulsion - Propeller, 2 Kawasaki, 4 kockums

VLS - No

Batteries - Lithium Ion



A26ER - Sweden

Displacement - 3,600 tons submerged, 3,100 surfaced.

Range - 22,000km surfaced

Speed - 21 knots, 12 knots surfaced.

Depth - 350 metres +

Length - 85 metres

Endurance - 70 days

Complement - 50 crew

Propulsion - Propeller, ?

VLS - Yes possible

Batteries - Lithium Ion



Attack - France

Displacement - 5,100 tons submerged?, 4,500 surfaced.

Range - 32,000km surfaced

Speed - 22 knots submerged, 12 surfaced.

Depth - 350 metres +

Length - 97 metres

Endurance - 80 days

Complement - 60 crew

Propulsion - Pump jet, mtu, jeumont?

VLS - Yes possible

Batteries - Lead Acid (upgraded to lithium ion 2nd batch likely, potentially solid state 3rd-4th batch)

@Reptilia

.... and your point is? It is helpful of you need to provide some commentary not just a splurge of specifications. You should also reference where you got the specifications from as there are differences depending on where they come from. As an exampled the Type 2016 in Wikipedia (not that I am advocating this as a source) has the crew as 23 and includes an external gun (a very unusual suggestion). Naval Recognition has slightly different figures. This is understandable as this vessel is a concept only.

Alexsa

 

[Reptilia]

Good questions to ask.

It seems like many countries buy ship classes in multiples of 3 or 4. That means one can be down for a work period, another can be transitioning to or from a work period and the last one is fully operational. Australia likely looked at how many operational submarines they needed to do the missions asked of them at one time. It probably came out as 4 or 5 operational at a time.

Math backward and you get 12 submarines to keep 4 at sea constantly. If you cut that in half to 6 submarines then you only have 2 or 3 available at one time. Two available strikes me as not enough for Australia's purposes to have a defensive submarine patrol area and be able to send one out on a mission elsewhere.

The ratio is now 3 / 2 / 1 or 4 / 1 / 1 with 6 subs - on duty/st maintenance/lt maintenance

12 subs
6/4/2 or 8/2/2 you’d think.

 

[Todjaeger]

The ratio is now 3 / 2 / 1 or 4 / 1 / 1 with 6 subs - on duty/st maintenance/lt maintenance

12 subs
6/4/2 or 8/2/2 you’d think.

Not quite. Subs do not generally follow the Rule of Threes, and instead tend to follow the similar Rule of Fours, which is one of the reasons why the RAN not having exercised the options for two additional Collins-class subs, has sometimes had issues with achieving the intended service outputs.

This is part of the reason why the intent is for a dozen Attack-class subs to be ordered, but people seem to keep overlooking the intended number to be in service. Yes, a dozen are to be ordered, but unless things have changed, the expectation is that the RAN is only going to have at most eight commissioned. This also makes sense if the intention is to help manage a national shipbuilding programme, as well as utilize batch builds to both reduce overall programme costs, but also to make it potentially easier to incorporate lessons learned and/or technological improvements in batches.

 

[spoz]

The whole premise of the alleged “study” is a bit strange, to put it mildly.

Apart from the unsuitability of the design for Australia, the average build time of a 214 in an established yard is 4-5 years. Given the lead time for Govt approval, to enter contract, and set up for construction, make the design mods which would be required by Aust and then cut steel is probably a minimum of 3 years, you are looking at a first boat delivery around 2028-29 - with the first ACSM due in around 2030. If it’s new yard add a couple more years. And, you’re introducing an additional training burden in an area where you are already trying to make the most efficient use of every single body.

So, is it probable that DGSM is keeping abreast of submarine developments? Yes, and that’s a totally appropriate thing to do. Is it likely that they have any serious interest in 214 for the RAN? No.

Does the FSP face difficulties and challenges? Of course it does, it’s extremely complex. Over its period will the CoA and NG have the occasional disagreement, even brawl? Of course they will - to expect anything else is naive. But the French have been building good submarines for about 120 years and no doubt in time this build will also be successful. There’s sufficient determination on both sides, I suspect, to ensure that.

The political opposition to the FSP is from the fringe of politics - Rex Patrick and the like; and they are pushing their own agendas. Production orders are starting to flow, and the ALP were the first to start mentioning the 12 submarine mantra. It would be an interesting call to terminate that program now, whatever the more hysterical elements of the press(and that includes the ABC) might occasionally suggest

 

[Stampede]

I already said the Australian media are not great at defence reporting in terms of the technical knowledge, but this isn't about that. (Not sure it matters, but I've been observing defence reporting for more than 20 years and have a media and political background.) It's about the politics, and my point stands that a senior ABC reporter is unlikely to have just made it up. I agree that there may be people in Defence, government, parliament more broadly, and industry who are seeking to push their own agendas. I don't agree the ABC reporter is part of some conspiracy, if that's what you're implying. More likely someone may be seeking to use them for their own ends. But none of this means that the basis of the story is not accurate. Defence / government may well be looking at an alternative option. That doesn't mean they're looking hard, and it doesn't mean it has much likelihood of being pursued. The government is nervous about this program and with good reason. Public perception is that there is a history of wasting money on such projects. That's perception, not necessarily reality. It would remiss of government and Defence not to at least keep options open.

I just don't know
Is our future Submarine running to schedule.
I just don't know.
What I do know is that this project is getting a lot of media attention.
Is it justified, is there actually a problem, are we looking for a Plan B.
I just don't know.

What I do know is that when things get aired repeatedly, then maybe there is some substances or maybe it's complete BS.
If the former, then the public will need to be engaged at some stage to give them some comfort that defence and government are in control.
If the later then the public need to be engaged at some stage to give them some comfort that defence and government are in control.

Mega expensive long term projects like SEA 1000 need to have the public on side.
The luxury of having a project like this in some sort of isolation bubble is just not practical.

Defence and government will need to spin this at some stage.


Regards S

 

[Reptilia]

Australia should focus on building a precinct for autonomous veichles for every domain.
a lot of recent talk about the Boeing orca.

 

[ngatimozart]

Australia should focus on building a precinct for autonomous veichles for every domain.
a lot of recent talk about the Boeing orca.

We deal in reality here, not in fantasy fleets or fanboi fantasies. You need to stop reading a whole lot of fantasy based what ifs and deal in realities. All of the blue tag members on here are defence professionals. As such we are vetted to make sure we are who we say we are. We run this forum professionally and most of the Moderators are defence professionals. Those who aren't have gained good overall knowledge of defence. There are senior members on here who, whilst not defence professionals are quite knowledgeable and highly respected.

We have rules which all members are required to follow and we enforce them. We do this because first and foremost this is a professionally run international defence forum. Now I am going to make these suggestions to you as a Moderator and if you wish to stay here you had better take them seriously.

1. Read the rules. A link to them is included in my signature.
2. Read back through the threads to inform yourself on what has been posted and you may find that a lot of your basic questions will have been asked and answered.
3. Many of the Defence Professionals and others who may know answers work in the real world so have limited time. Use a search engine and look for material from reputable reliable sources. Wikipedia and some media organisations are not regarded as reputable and reliable.
4. We really get sick of the same old topics being repeatedly brought up rehashed and thrashed to death for the umpteenth time. That's why the Moderators, Def Pros, and senior members quickly run out of patience. Go back to suggestion #2.

Follow these and you'll do ok. Don't follow these then your time on here may be short. The choice is yours.

 

[Massive]

Boeing orca.

Interesting to think as to how the Orca could be employed in an Australian context?

Imagine it could operate independently and also as a companion to a Collins/Attack.

Once armed then it becomes even more interesting, and potentially a way to quickly fill a potential gap in submarine numbers.

Thoughts?

Regards,

Massive

 

[thatsamguy]

I don't have a AFR subscription so can't read the whole thing, but is a 270t/3% margin ok if it's just for the first batch of the Hunters?

I imagine that their initial kit as "fitted with" should leave them highly capable anyway, but wondering if this would have other affects a la the ANZACs and ballast if we needed more topweight later in a mid life upgrade?

The ability to upgrade the navy’s future frigates with new weapons and systems could be crimped, with the Defence Department revealing the first batch of ships will have a weight margin of little more than 3 per cent for future growth.

With weight issues bedevilling the Hunter class frigate design, Defence has admitted to a Senate estimates committee the first batch of warships will have a weight margin of just 270 tonnes.

Design issues weigh down $45b frigate program

Experts fear the navy’s new frigates will have little margin for growth in coming years because of its weight.

www.afr.com

 

[ngatimozart]

Interesting to think as to how the Orca could be employed in an Australian context?

Imagine it could operate independently and also as a companion to a Collins/Attack.

Once armed then it becomes even more interesting, and potentially a way to quickly fill a potential gap in submarine numbers.

Thoughts?

Regards,

Massive

I'd be making sure that it had all the bugs sorted out and preferably FOC with the USN before considering it. Because if you don't you will end up going down a very expensive road, financially and time wise. The ADF has had enough bad experience of that in recent times.

 

[John Newman]

I don't have a AFR subscription so can't read the whole thing, but is a 270t/3% margin ok if it's just for the first batch of the Hunters?

I imagine that their initial kit as "fitted with" should leave them highly capable anyway, but wondering if this would have other affects a la the ANZACs and ballast if we needed more topweight later in a mid life upgrade?

Design issues weigh down $45b frigate program

Experts fear the navy’s new frigates will have little margin for growth in coming years because of its weight.

www.afr.com

Don’t have an AFR subscription? Probably a smart move.

There’s a number of publications, and journalists (and I use the term Journalist loosely, very loosely), who regularly have it in for defence, reporting is always in the negative.

The ABC and Andrew Greene, The AFR and Andrew Tillett, The Australian and certain journalists (there are some exceptions).

Whenever there is a ‘the sky is falling’ report, I always make the effort to look at as many media outlets as possible, especially the more professional Defence media.

And guess what I usually find? Go on, have a guess? Usually there is no similar report, even many days later too.

As to the alleged over weight problem, I read something a week or two ago (I think it was in the Defence special report in The Australian), where it was suggested by both Defence and BAE that there isn’t a problem.

Anyway, I tend to dismiss such reports.

Cheers,

 

[Anthony_B_78]

Snipped

Yeah, I get the hate towards media, and particularly defence reporting, but try to keep somewhat of an open mind, is my suggestion. In this case, the story - which I have read - is largely based on evidence given before a parliamentary committee. In other words, a matter of public record. Not sure I would readily dismiss this one. The issue may be overstated somewhat. But the facts given are those provided by Defence.