Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
I think the argument goes on Greece that he took troops away from Wavell in the desert and put them in Greece where they almost immediately had to be evacuated from the German advance. I am not surprised the Brits were so unprepared war in 1939 there were probably following the same closed minded/superior approach GF has on current defence procurement!
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
I would strongly recommend you re-think that last comment, as well as your tone and style of engagement. GF has demonstrated his expertise, you have not.
To state that someone has a closed-mind, and/or an attitude of superiority because they possess relevant expertise and non-public domain information and therefore disagree with ones assertions on ideas is IMO foolish.
With respect to subs, Australian requirements (as well as sensor & sig management tech) is in many respects different from most of the rest of the world's conventional sub operators. This means that a country or company with conventional sub design experience applicable to most of the world would not automatically have an advantage in meeting RAN conventional sub design requirements.
It is akin to asserting that because Airbus does a good business designing and building civilian/commercial jetliners, they could easily design and build a military airlifter... As recent history has shown with the A400M, this is not the case.
I again strongly urge one to re-think what and how one engages on DT.
-Cheers
NO Gf made a cheap comment about Churchill (a far from perfect man that despite his faults in his 90 years maybe is greater than any off us in this room) As for Airbus I think you will find the French have brilliantly built an aerospace industry on the backs of the rest of Europe. The A400M is not the best example but they have taken on Boeing (which to our shame the Brits have failed totally in the civll aerospace sector). Don't get me wrong I would buy C17 and C130s rather than the A400M
You know I don't disagree so much with the views in this room, I think you made the right call to build your own boats with very good support from Sweden and now the replacements will be mainly Austrailan designed. I merely say build a national capability supported by a healthy export market will reduce the cost of future construction and enable the RAN to operate a larger and more effective fleet.
.
Last edited by a moderator:
Okay, so your defence for your insulting comments is that GF said something you disliked about Churchill? Sorry but "he started it" isn't a valid justification. When you said:
What you were quite clearly doing was attempting to score points in an argument by taking a cheap shot at someone else's credibility.
To turn the implied question around, perhaps I can ask what qualifications and experience you have that make you feel you know enough to pass comments such as the above about a poster who, as Todjaeger pointed out, has established his expertise?
It's not a matter of whether or not "you have a right" to question people's views and statements. Of course you do. It's a matter of establishing why people should take your views seriously when the tone of statements like the one above indicates you're more interested in winning arguments than discussing topics.
I have checked what has been said on this long thread and I think you are being over sensitive. I have put forward a fairly logical argument about industrial choices. I actually don't disagree with much of what is said however I don't buy the: we can't question defence "experts" This is unhealthy, if you look at most war over the last 100 years much of the kit developed in peacetime is quickly discarded with wartime developed kit, either because it was developed around an incorrect theory or is good but just can't be mass produced in time. As much is over enginered as under and under funded. Please don't worry about the feelings of experts or outsiders worry about the guys who have to take kit to war.
Lateral thinking... but the Viking tracked vehicle used bu the Royal Marines in Afghanistan was I am sure procured by experts its just said that they were not forced to travel in them.
Lateral thinking... but the Viking tracked vehicle used bu the Royal Marines in Afghanistan was I am sure procured by experts its just said that they were not forced to travel in them.
the road runner
Active Member
Its obviouse, by the people in the know,that Australias future sub ,will be built in Australia,by Australians with help from Electric boat of the US.
Another point that keeps comming up is that Australia should be selling our futur subs on the world market......I use to be of this point of view.My mind was changed (throu comments made by DT professionals)when i realised that alot of countrys do not sell there Cutting edge equipment.
I am assuming our future subs will be our most important asset.An asset that is just kept for Australias need(and of course our closest allies).
As gf keeps pointing out,Australia has a unique requirement as it covers 1/9th of the worlds oceans with conventional subs.
1805 you really should listen to the members who have worked/served and have access to classified info,these people are in the know.Welcome to the forum mate,i see your a new member who joined in december 2009 and already has posted over 40 posts.......
1805 once again welcome to the forum
Regards
Another point that keeps comming up is that Australia should be selling our futur subs on the world market......I use to be of this point of view.My mind was changed (throu comments made by DT professionals)when i realised that alot of countrys do not sell there Cutting edge equipment.
I am assuming our future subs will be our most important asset.An asset that is just kept for Australias need(and of course our closest allies).
As gf keeps pointing out,Australia has a unique requirement as it covers 1/9th of the worlds oceans with conventional subs.
1805 you really should listen to the members who have worked/served and have access to classified info,these people are in the know.Welcome to the forum mate,i see your a new member who joined in december 2009 and already has posted over 40 posts.......
1805 once again welcome to the forum
Regards
Read my last post again. I made specific note that the issue of whether or not you can question people is NOT the point at all. Of course you can question the experts. The issue I have is when you respond to said expert with an underhanded insult to their expertise and motivations.
It's not a matter of me sticking up for someone or being sensitive. The fact is you said something completely obnoxious and deserved to be pulled up on it. I'm not a subject matter expert nor am I anything but a fellow user of these forums, but just as a bit of advice, you might want to think about the impression you're making when you start in with the insults. It doesn't reflect well on you.
I don't really want to argue with you all day so just take it or leave it. Your call.
Last edited:
hmm. churchill c0cked up gallipoli through persevering with his own strategy despite being counselled against it
churchill also wanted to leave behind commonwealth troops in greece f it meant that he could get british troops out instead
churchill also tried to hold onto his most experienced ME division (Edit correction. 6th and 7th Divs in actual fact, corrected by other member via PM) by telling the PM of this country that they were needed in Burma - this despite the fact that we were under imminent threat from Japan and that churchill has agreed to australian pulling back her troops when needed and if needed.
Now you may seek to look at him totally through rose coloured glasses, but if you knew anything about churchill and australia you'd know why at various points in time he's not held in high regard - irrespective of how you might want to gild his lilly.
Last edited:
why in all that is holy would we go with the swedes again?
10,000 welding errors in number 1, to the point where it almost was written off because it would not have survived an ASW attack in wartime. That bow section was completely done in Sweden. The Commonwealth had to force contract conditions to get it fixed.
they failed to manage Singer and blew out the times to build the combat system (eventually fixed by using a variant of the combat system used in the Seawolf and Virginias compliments of help from the USN)
they used the wrong material for the propellors (fixed after the USN provided blade technology from their SSN's). Kockums had the cheek to expect that they owned the blade IP by association and tried to stop the commonwealth from fixing it themselves
they didn't water tank the design. - fixed thanks to the US providing tank testing via Woods Hole, NAVSEA and Office of Naval Research
they didn't flow test the sail or aft for cavitation - fixed thanks to the US providing tank testing via Woods Hole, NAVSEA and Office of Naval Research
they didn't know how to get the anechoic tiles to fit properly - fixed by DSTO
employed a commercial diesel engine which has not been properly supported by the company and has had a lousy track record. in fact the two times where the boats were at risk of catastrophic events were because they non australian diesel engine provider stuffed up the connections and didn't pick it up when they did their safetys.. I have no problem using commercial engines, after all the spanish have done it with excellent maritime diesels through the likes of Guascor, or the Germans have done it with MTU.
on top of which the hull was acoustically managed and remapped using australian technology.
in fact every major fix in design was either done by ex australian sub mariners, DSTO (the aust equiv of DERA/Qinetic) or by the USG through the auspices of USN, NG, ONR , NOAA and NAVSEA
On top of which the final insult was that Gotland was the mini-me of Collins and my own belief (having worked on the project at a number of levels) was that we paid for some of Gotlands enhancements.
There is swedish kit I would most definitely buy - I would not buy another submarine through them ever unless the contract was so watertight we were adequately protected.
all of the above can be found in either Hansard recordings or in a recent history where the author was given access to unclassified material.
Last edited:
I have to say that I find this comment particularly odious. If the implication is that people in my position and profession are focussed on the gear rather than getting the best capability that we can to the warfighter - then you are way way off base and bordering on trolling.
Assuming that you are responding in a fashion as a form of being defensive rather than insightful, then you'd understand that our first priority is always the warfighter - not industry. You'd also understand that the warfighter is actually part of the continual review assessment and procurement process. Maybe they don't do that in the UK anymore, but they sure as heck did when I was there 2 years ago looking at some of their systems. IN australia, the determination, review, selection, testing and acceptance process involves the uniforms at every stage - not just critical stages.
we worry about them - not whether some company should get a body of work because of commercial opportunities
Last edited:
Actually, I've worked as a contractor, as a consultant, as a govt employee, as a defence industry private sector employee and I spent some 5 years attached to various ministers,
so you'll have to excuse me if I seek to bring some past historical on site experience into the debate.
if you think that providing factual responses is a sign of smugness, then you're looking for a fight rather than doing what everyone else does (including me) and seeking insight and coherent debate.
and yes, I've worked overseas - for approx 12 years - in the military systems design and weapons development sector.
1805 the reason we are not buying other peoples subs is because they simply are incapable of meeting our needs.1805 why is it you keep pressing the non-issue of why we aren't selling our Collins II submarines?
it is for the same reason America isn't selling minutemen missiles we don't want people to have what we have...
what we are building is like an unconventional(by virtue of what we are requiring of it) conventionally propelled submarine, it is to an extent going to be unlike any other submarine and this is why we need to build it ourselves ...
it is for the same reason America isn't selling minutemen missiles we don't want people to have what we have...
what we are building is like an unconventional(by virtue of what we are requiring of it) conventionally propelled submarine, it is to an extent going to be unlike any other submarine and this is why we need to build it ourselves ...
battlensign
New Member
Well this is all very interesting...........
Some thoughts:
1) 1805 is allowed to question the points made by GF, but is not allowed to be a dick about it and exchanging barbs about Churchill does nothing to further an argument that GF was in some way deficient in his general arguments .
2) Points have been made tangentially and perhaps 1805 needs them spelled out.
The rather unique geographical and geopolitical circumstances Australia finds itself in lead to specific determinations about the types of subs required.
These are long range missions that require considerable stealth, the ability to act as a sensor node (reciept and transmission) and carry a heavy warload. As the nuclear option is continually ruled out the only remaining option is large conventionals. Large conventionals are an accpetable, albeit expensive, alternative when there is less need for high-speed fleet escort/transit, although it is freely acknowledged that in some cases nuclear boats make more sense - whether one type is overall more stealthy is a matter of considerable debate. These types of boats rely on tech transfered or otherwise made available from countries that would take a very dim view of any attempt to on-sell. In terms of simply acquiring other people's MOTS boats I would remind you that only really the nuclear boats and Japan's boats would be right for us and Japan is prohibited from that sort of export industry.
Also, it has been noted that for reasons best left to engineers to argue, that boats are extremely difficult to simple 'scale' up or down. All of these factors, including the overall cost for an export deal buyer, serve to limit the capacity for attempting to coax together an export industry in submarines. This would be more easily achieved in an environment where there was a lot of shipbuilding activity generally. You will probably find we here on this forum are not against the idea of such an industry, but merely regard it as 'too hard/unfeasable'.
3) On the general issue of 'is the equipment designed and procured for the warfighter?', well the answer is clearly yes and no. Equipment is quite clearly designed and procured for the warfighter and warfighting in mind, but against who? with what weapons? in what intensity? to achieve what purpose? and what hedging is going on (budget/strategy etc)? The reasons that equipment is found deficient in war times is that it is factored on the above questions and those assumptions/parameters change during the conflct. Also note the saying: 'no plan survives first contact with the enemy'? What makes you think the plan there is only relating to the operational level tactics employed?
Brett.
Some thoughts:
1) 1805 is allowed to question the points made by GF, but is not allowed to be a dick about it and exchanging barbs about Churchill does nothing to further an argument that GF was in some way deficient in his general arguments .
2) Points have been made tangentially and perhaps 1805 needs them spelled out.
The rather unique geographical and geopolitical circumstances Australia finds itself in lead to specific determinations about the types of subs required.
These are long range missions that require considerable stealth, the ability to act as a sensor node (reciept and transmission) and carry a heavy warload. As the nuclear option is continually ruled out the only remaining option is large conventionals. Large conventionals are an accpetable, albeit expensive, alternative when there is less need for high-speed fleet escort/transit, although it is freely acknowledged that in some cases nuclear boats make more sense - whether one type is overall more stealthy is a matter of considerable debate. These types of boats rely on tech transfered or otherwise made available from countries that would take a very dim view of any attempt to on-sell. In terms of simply acquiring other people's MOTS boats I would remind you that only really the nuclear boats and Japan's boats would be right for us and Japan is prohibited from that sort of export industry.
Also, it has been noted that for reasons best left to engineers to argue, that boats are extremely difficult to simple 'scale' up or down. All of these factors, including the overall cost for an export deal buyer, serve to limit the capacity for attempting to coax together an export industry in submarines. This would be more easily achieved in an environment where there was a lot of shipbuilding activity generally. You will probably find we here on this forum are not against the idea of such an industry, but merely regard it as 'too hard/unfeasable'.
3) On the general issue of 'is the equipment designed and procured for the warfighter?', well the answer is clearly yes and no. Equipment is quite clearly designed and procured for the warfighter and warfighting in mind, but against who? with what weapons? in what intensity? to achieve what purpose? and what hedging is going on (budget/strategy etc)? The reasons that equipment is found deficient in war times is that it is factored on the above questions and those assumptions/parameters change during the conflct. Also note the saying: 'no plan survives first contact with the enemy'? What makes you think the plan there is only relating to the operational level tactics employed?
Brett.
just to clarify.
- 1st priority is tactical merit
- 2nd clearly stated principle as advised by Govt is that the future sub is a national interest project.
- 3rd is cost effectiveness (see first 2 as higher priority). In actual terms its referred to as "Value for Govt" - this can be very different from what the public denotes as "Value for Money"
- 4th. Export opportunity is not factored in when projects are in the national interest as the issue is solution, then internal industry capability
Last edited:
and I have pointedly stated where I will not pass comment.
Sig management effectiveness depends on location, on mission set, on specific performance parameters. It depends on boat design and its tech set. It depends on crew capability. It depends on command decisions
the sensor and ewarfare suite is significantly influenced by boat size. there's only 2 other conventionals remotely able to fit (let alone field) the BYG suite as fielded by the Virginias, Seawolf and 688I class (and Collins). Apart from system capability, there are other reasons why we field some US Nuke Sub systems.
there is ample historical evidence. upholders and collins are the obvious pair to look at
australia had a country willing to buy collins in the early 90's. it would have been a pointless exercise as the boat could and would not have been sold with an equiv fitout. as an analogy, its the same nonsense thats spouted about an export F-22. It looks good on paper, but when you get down in the technical weeds its a woftam
and some of that is inherently identified in the CLASSIFIED versions of the various trigger documents that are held to help decide issues such as orbat and force planning - in fact we plan out to 30-40 years ahead of the release date.
nobody with even a scintilla of access and privilege is even going to remotely discuss those things on the internet.
Last edited:
Where did you read all that nonsense? Australian military history 101 no doubt.
Mod, Text deleted. Your original pithy commentary is preserved in my response. Unfort for you I have responded about an individuals actions - you have demonstrated your own sense of smugness by denigrating a country. Feel free to take this as a warning. Read the rules before responding - and if you are going to respond you can do it to me via PM of via Webmaster.
Perhaps you could learn about restraint as well as understanding others when debating out of context
Last edited by a moderator:
actually, most of it came from Lord Beaverbrooks memoirs.
knock yourself out if you don't like someone elses opinion, but you'll find that in more than just "australian" military history books.
perhaps if you read history beyond your own shores for other perspectives you might have another insight rather than fluff up like some angry bantam just because you don't like the comment against one of your own.
if you want to continue your little tirade feel free to PM me rather than continue on with 1805s misdirection of the original topic.
or you can chat about churchill as much as you like in another thread of your own making
if you want to continue being a prat then feel free to continue on and roll the dice
the road runner
Active Member
Back to Australias future subs.I found a link,just scroll down and download if anyone is intrested
Strategic Insights 48 - How to buy a submarine: Defining and building Australia's future fleet
Australian Strategic Policy Institute
Pretty intresting Quote...........
"A deeply‑bespoke Australian
submarine, especially a very large
one, is unlikely to provide much of a
‘jumping‑off point’ for an Australian
entry into the world market."
Regards
Strategic Insights 48 - How to buy a submarine: Defining and building Australia's future fleet
Australian Strategic Policy Institute
Pretty intresting Quote...........
"A deeply‑bespoke Australian
submarine, especially a very large
one, is unlikely to provide much of a
‘jumping‑off point’ for an Australian
entry into the world market."
Regards
- Status