Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[t68]

just to clarify.

1. 1st priority is tactical merit
   
2. 2nd clearly stated principle as advised by Govt is that the future sub is a national interest project.
   
3. 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"
   
4. 4th. Export opportunity is not factored in when projects are in the national interest as the issue is solution, then internal industry capability

Thanks Gf0012-aust
The last few responses have made me open my eyes and made me realise i was looking it at as a taxpayer and not as i should be.
One can see why now that in another thread about the RN and the type 45 frigate has been built the way it is and not just for export opportunities.

 

[1805]

Guys I apologise if anything I have said has caused offence to anyone, it was not intended to be the case. I have enjoyed the debate and have learn things both from the knowledge of the forum members and it has encouraged me to research more on the internet about the Collins class. I did run into a review of the book: THE COLLINS CLASS SUBMARINE STORY
STEEL, SPIES AND SPIN which said: "A unique and outstanding military and industrial achievement, the Collins class submarine project was also plagued with difficulties and mired in politics. Its story is one of heroes and villains, grand passions, intrigue, lies, spies and backstabbing. It is as well a story of enormous commitment and resolve to achieve what many thought impossible.

The building of these submarines was Australia’s largest, most expensive and most controversial military project. From initiation in the 1981–82 budget to the delivery of the last submarine in 2003, the total cost was in excess of six billion dollars."

Does any one know if that is $6bn US Dollars and is it a realistic figure or does it include lots of other add on and infastructure?

 

[gf0012-aust]

Guys I apologise if anything I have said has caused offence to anyone, it was not intended to be the case.

No harm, no foul.

Does any one know if that is $6bn US Dollars and is it a realistic figure or does it include lots of other add on and infastructure?

Aust dollars and was initially a complete through life, raise train and sustain till first major service point (which is a drydocking and hacksaw job). costs had to be revised after the US stepped in and helped resolve some of Kockums hull and system design problems so that impacted upon the previous through life, RTS costs as different players had to be bought in.

 

[the road runner]

I did run into a review of the book: THE COLLINS CLASS SUBMARINE STORY.STEEL, SPIES AND SPIN which said: "A unique and outstanding military and industrial achievement, the Collins class submarine project was also plagued with difficulties and mired in politics. Its story is one of heroes and villains, grand passions, intrigue, lies, spies and backstabbing. It is as well a story of enormous commitment and resolve to achieve what many thought impossible.

Its a good book i really enjoyed it.Makes you realise how big a project it is.
Regards

 

[1805]

in the future is to operate 12 boats why not build and sub classes building on the lessons of the previous designs, 4 a decade is not an unreasonable build rate. If you not there might be a 20 year gap in construction, this would prevent building from scratch and the pain/cost. Assume wih exchange rates and overuns that is about pure guestimate of $300m USD a boat assuming the infastructure and corrections?

 

[the road runner]

Assume wih exchange rates and overuns that is about pure guestimate of $300m USD a boat assuming the infastructure and corrections?

$300 million is pretty cheap per boat IMO.

Post 3059 that i wrote has a link to an article that trys to Estimate Australias future subs.

Australian Strategic Policy Institute

Strategic Insights 48 - How to buy a submarine: Defining and building Australia's future fleet

Collins class subs was $360,000 per tonne in 2009 dollars

The article states a unit cost of APPROX..$1.4 billion dollars for each future sub.
With 12 units the cost is $16.8 billion in Todays dollar.That could be the most expensive defence project in Australias history.Even more than the JSF,but time will tell.

I have heard wispers of Australias future sub budget of approx $25-35 Billion dollars.

Regards

 

[NOMAD]

I've tried to work this one out. I don't have a clue. GF seems to have ruled out AIP and nuke (which is a form of AIP) and hints at some new magical advance that will give the subs all you could want.

So that leaves improved storage technologies (Li ion, Zebra, AGM, supercapacitors etc) which don't really offer much/anything over traditional storage, or some new advanced diesel (not Gas turbine either). And there haven't been any significant advances there either. I dunno solar powered submarines? Dismounted power (ie submarine cables?)???? Zero point energy, Farnsworth Fusors?

I don't expect anything revolutionary in terms of propulsion, I would expect a revolution in weapon systems that make the propulsion thing less relevant.

I just wish GF would spell it out. Or drop more hints.

Australia has always had hedging strategies in terms of nuclear power. ANSTO, laser refining, mining capability etc are part of that. We also previously were involved in several missile programs.

But Australia doesn't need Nukes, infact becoming a nuclear weapons owner would not be a good thing for us. We can over come almost any fanciful invader conventionally. It would justify the other locals getting nuclear technology, which would be a very bad thing.

Although RAN subs have never been involved directly in a war where they have sunk an enemy ship, they have seen plenty of "use". The incidences are numerous, and they are doing front line stuff every day that risks equipment and lives.

Except for the UK SSN's (faulklands), you could say every SSN in the world has never seen action.

StringrayOZ

If you have access to Volume 70 No.4 Oct-Dec 2008 edition of the "THE NAVY" magazine there is a very good article "SEA 1000 replacing Collins" by Abraham Gubler .

The article includes topics on propusion system e.g High Temperature Superconductor Motors, Storage batteries, Lithium - ion etc, RCS snorkles, and other topics.

May answer some of your questions.

Nomad

 

[icelord]

$300 million is pretty cheap per boat IMO.

Post 3059 that i wrote has a link to an article that trys to Estimate Australias future subs.

Australian Strategic Policy Institute

Strategic Insights 48 - How to buy a submarine: Defining and building Australia's future fleet

Collins class subs was $360,000 per tonne in 2009 dollars

The article states a unit cost of APPROX..$1.4 billion dollars for each future sub.
With 12 units the cost is $16.8 billion in Todays dollar.That could be the most expensive defence project in Australias history.Even more than the JSF,but time will tell.

I have heard wispers of Australias future sub budget of approx $25-35 Billion dollars.

Regards

Thats if they stick with the 12 planned, and not many in defence(down the hill)seem to think thats reachable with crewing numbers. The big problem is where to put them. If they split the subs East and West, then getting people into the subs may not be such a concern.

The biggest complaint ive heard from 'former' submariners now surface fleet is that they dont have much choice at postings, its Stirling or Cerberus.

As for basing them at HMAS Kuttabul...2 LHDs, 3 Anzacs, 1 AOR, 2 AWD, 1 RO-RO?, will be enough to fill the place, let alone the future FFH replacement and 4 subs. so another docking point in sydney harbour would be ideal...

I believe it was called HMAS Platypus, which was in Sydney when the "O" was around, but shut down and now left derelict much to the complaints from locals. With Subs in the East it would increase the surface forces training with these units from once in a blue moon to weekly "hunts", i know our experience with the few operational units has been minimal this year with forced dry dockings and changes in schedule.

The only time ive seen a sub in sydney this year was end of FCP during Freedom Of Entry, and the weeks leading in they were "out there"...

 

[Marc 1]

I believe it was called HMAS Platypus, which was in Sydney when the "O" was around, but shut down and now left derelict much to the complaints from locals.

Used to be quite a thrill to catch a glimpse of the boats as you drove down toward the harbour bridge. The 'Big Grey Warships' tied up at Garden Island - yeah, OK, but catching sight of the black hull and sail of a sub used to be far more interesting. Subs really are the 'chicken stranglers' of the sea.

Defence had so many great bases all over the harbour. I remember sinking quite a few beers one night at the 35 Water Tpt boozer at Woolwich. Never get tired of looking at the bridge and the harbour.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Thats if they stick with the 12 planned, and not many in defence(down the hill)seem to think thats reachable with crewing numbers.

Thats not what Tripovich and the current CASS (can't remember his name) are saying (as of 3 weeks ago when we had a briefing about future subs)

CASS is indicating that they are on track and believe that they will have a complete spare crew mid 11.

It's not exactly a blue/gold model, but the intent is to hit a complete spare crew and get 4 boats at an at sea availability level.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Used to be quite a thrill to catch a glimpse of the boats as you drove down toward the harbour bridge. The 'Big Grey Warships' tied up at Garden Island - yeah, OK, but catching sight of the black hull and sail of a sub used to be far more interesting. Subs really are the 'chicken stranglers' of the sea.

The small canteen inside gdn island sells decent food as well. so you can eat and watch when bored.

I was out at Potts a while back when they had a few come back from Talisman and there were probably 5-6 tied up.

V nice sight

 

[gf0012-aust]

StringrayOZ

If you have access to Volume 70 No.4 Oct-Dec 2008 edition of the "THE NAVY" magazine there is a very good article "SEA 1000 replacing Collins" by Abraham Gubler .

The article includes topics on propusion system e.g High Temperature Superconductor Motors, Storage batteries, Lithium - ion etc, RCS snorkles, and other topics.

May answer some of your questions.

Nomad

Abe and I spoke about some of this on T5C. I was able to see some of these HTS engines when in the US. They're approx 1/3rd equiv body mass and double the output on footprint compared to contemp engines.

Plus the US is doing some very very tricky stuff with dismounted blades (equiv maglev tech)

Future subs won't be anything like what we see now. Maybe not all of the current devs will end up in future Collins (as we want to see this gear already operational rather than go bleeding edge again)

 

[1805]

Just to be clear I was just guessing at $300m AUD don't quote me, but I do this the $1bn AUD quoted sounds high for the true cost of the boat if you take out the infastructure and rectification issues which. If you are talking $25-35bn prehaps a USN based SSN is an option, mind it is difficulit to know the additional costs involved.

I do think it is an issue that there will probably be a 20 year gap between the Collins being completed and the new boats construction

 

[Todjaeger]

Just to be clear I was just guessing at $300m AUD don't quote me, but I do this the $1bn AUD quoted sounds high for the true cost of the boat if you take out the infastructure and rectification issues which. If you are talking $25-35bn prehaps a USN based SSN is an option, mind it is difficulit to know the additional costs involved.

I do think it is an issue that there will probably be a 20 year gap between the Collins being completed and the new boats construction

I disagree on A$1 billion being 'too high' a price for the Collins II. The current USN Virginia SSN order has a per unit price of ~US$2 billion (AFAIK in 2007 dollars), and that for a 30 unit build. While I do expect that an SSN would be in some areas more complex and expensive than a conventional, a conventional sub is still amongst the most complicated warships around. This means that there are development costs for the design, equipment fitout, testing, etc. This development cost gets amortized across the entire design build, which is why drastic reductions in order numbers can trigger a dramatic per unit cost increase for complex equipment.

With the RAN only planning on ordering 12 submarines, then the development cost per sub is likely to be high, particularly since the Collins II is likely to have performance requirements similiar to some SSNs in service. Then there is what the actual equipment and constructions costs are likely to be in a decade or two. Taken all together, it adds up.

-Cheers

 

[1805]

I disagree on A$1 billion being 'too high' a price for the Collins II. The current USN Virginia SSN order has a per unit price of ~US$2 billion (AFAIK in 2007 dollars), and that for a 30 unit build. While I do expect that an SSN would be in some areas more complex and expensive than a conventional, a conventional sub is still amongst the most complicated warships around. This means that there are development costs for the design, equipment fitout, testing, etc. This development cost gets amortized across the entire design build, which is why drastic reductions in order numbers can trigger a dramatic per unit cost increase for complex equipment.

With the RAN only planning on ordering 12 submarines, then the development cost per sub is likely to be high, particularly since the Collins II is likely to have performance requirements similiar to some SSNs in service. Then there is what the actual equipment and constructions costs are likely to be in a decade or two. Taken all together, it adds up.

-Cheers

Sorry I was talking about the $1bn being the unit cost of the current Collins class which someone else quoted but I think this was the total progamme cost divided by 6, which take into account rectification issues.

 

[the road runner]

As for basing them at HMAS Kuttabul...2 LHDs, 3 Anzacs, 1 AOR, 2 AWD, 1 RO-RO?, will be enough to fill the place, let alone the future FFH replacement and 4 subs. so another docking point in sydney harbour would be ideal...

I believe it was called HMAS Platypus, which was in Sydney when the "O" was around

The old HMAS Platypus,great to see the O Boats back then.

What about HMAS Penguine,could they base ships/subs there?

 

[battlensign]

The old HMAS Platypus,great to see the O Boats back then.

What about HMAS Penguine,could they base ships/subs there?

No.

Brett.

 

[t68]

Would it be fair to say that ASC cannot at this time build the future submarine?

It seems from reading this forum and other’s ASC is not up to the task, from what i could see they have lost a lot of experience in sub building game. They also have let a lot of the workforce go some time ago or transferred to the AWD project.

With GF and Abraham Gubler going on about new tech in battery and propulsion design could the US move away from an all nuke sub fleet?
Also gf has with respect has a lot of praise for the US in deep blue ocean sub tech more than the Europeans which do not meet the requirements for the RAN.

What i am getting at, if it is the case that the US might move away from an all nuke fleet should the government look to having a partnership with electric boat company, say sell 49% of ASC at a discount rate to electric boat with hopefully with a continuation of more than the 12 boats the Australia is to build not only for Australia but also for the US.

This is not to say that the US is moving away from nuke tech it is purely an assumption on my part from what i have read in place's emerging conventional tech could surpass nuke tech in years to come.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Would it be fair to say that ASC cannot at this time build the future submarine?

As it stands today - no it can't

It seems from reading this forum and other’s ASC is not up to the task, from what i could see they have lost a lot of experience in sub building game. They also have let a lot of the workforce go some time ago or transferred to the AWD project.

they lost core experience years ago. a number of their best people have either been poached or have set up their own companies - in fact its the private companies that has done very well selling their experience and technology overseas. the existing mgt team IMO are incompetent and some of their engineers are not even remotely up to date with emergent tech etc... The sad thing is that this old cadre think that they are experts. They've misunderstood their role, what their involvement has been in rectifying the earlier probs (and it was fundamentally other australian companies, DSTO and US support via USN, SecDef, NAVSEA, DARPA and ONR that pulled it together.

With GF and Abraham Gubler going on about new tech in battery and propulsion design could the US move away from an all nuke sub fleet?

The US won't move away from nukes, as they provide significant benefit. the upside for the US is that the new propulsion solutions make dismounts etc far more viable. That means new concepts, new technology and new doctrine.

Also gf has with respect has a lot of praise for the US in deep blue ocean sub tech more than the Europeans which do not meet the requirements for the RAN.

it is their core business, by sheer mass and constant development they have stayed the big dog in what they play in.

What i am getting at, if it is the case that the US might move away from an all nuke fleet should the government look to having a partnership with electric boat company, say sell 49% of ASC at a discount rate to electric boat with hopefully with a continuation of more than the 12 boats the Australia is to build not only for Australia but also for the US.

US companies looked at ASC approx 4 years ago, and looked again taking the AWD project into consideration for value for money

This is not to say that the US is moving away from nuke tech it is purely an assumption on my part from what i have read in place's emerging conventional tech could surpass nuke tech in years to come.

nukes have their place. this tech does not compete with nukes, it competes with other conventional tech like diesels, hybrids, fuel cells etc...

 

[Bonza]

they lost core experience years ago. a number of their best people have either been poached or have set up their own companies - in fact its the private companies that has done very well selling their experience and technology overseas. the existing mgt team IMO are incompetent and some of their engineers are not even remotely up to date with emergent tech etc... The sad thing is that this old cadre think that they are experts. They've misunderstood their role, what their involvement has been in rectifying the earlier probs (and it was fundamentally other australian companies, DSTO and US support via USN, SecDef, NAVSEA, DARPA and ONR that pulled it together.

What's your take on Ludlam, if I can ask mate? From what I've read of him he seems well qualified for the top job, do you think he's a step toward rectifying the state of things at ASC?

Understand if you'd rather not comment, just curious.