Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[weasel1962]

Re:

It was necessary in 1999.

Minister for Defence: Collins Class Submarine Report 1 July 1999

Things were difficult because problems weren't getting fixed.

Problems get fixed over time. That's something that some people still don't realise happened to the Collins...

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

The ANAO report is an interesting read as an update after 10 yrs...
ANAO - Management of the Collins-class Operations Sustainment

The main beef last yr would be lack of crew rather than any technical difficulties.

Every programme will face the occassional maintenance issues eg engines etc. The qn is what is being done about it. DMO's project 1439 ensures that the Collins maintain its combat edge with upcoming sonar replacement and other obsolescence management programmes. There appears to be $$$ going to ensuring that the Collins are combat ready and effective.

Looking at the Collins from a 1999 perspective will result in a skewed perception of the Collins.

 

[hairyman]

Correct me if I am wrong, but is'nt it true that very few of the defects in the Collins Class were due to Australian workmanship, but moreso to the overseas participation, such as sub-standard Swedish welding on the Collins itself, problems with the propellors which I doubt were made here, and with the original electronics fit from the USA?

 

[gf0012-aust]

Correct me if I am wrong, but is'nt it true that very few of the defects in the Collins Class were due to Australian workmanship, but moreso to the overseas participation, such as sub-standard Swedish welding on the Collins itself, problems with the propellors which I doubt were made here, and with the original electronics fit from the USA?

The bow section of No1 was completely done in Sweden. It had over 10,000 defects and was fixed by Kockums in Sweden under their performance obligations.

the welds were so bad that the sub could have been inop and just used for light training

the hull was also not tuned for our conditions, so required some rework.

a considerable number of the original design issues were identified and fixed by DSTO and 3rd party australian companies (usually set up by ex submariners)

 

[cpt007]

I know its too early but is US based Prompt Global Strike option being considered for the successor of Collins Class.

 

[LancasterBomber]

I know its too early but is US based Prompt Global Strike option being considered for the successor of Collins Class.

Pretty much never going to happen. Not on my watch. I'm sure others would love it but from a strategic policy perspective I think it would be a disaster not to mention a 'waste' on Collins Mark 2.

^^^IMO

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

I think currently the only missile envisaged for the sub-launched option of PGS is the trident. Don't think the RAN will be introducing tridents into its subs anytime in the next few decades.

Australia does have some participation in the PGS oplan (with training for the B-?/?? bombers).

 

[StevoJH]

I know its too early but is US based Prompt Global Strike option being considered for the successor of Collins Class.

Prompt Global Strike, probably the most insane government plan ever.

How are Russia, India and China supposed to know that its a conventional warhead?

 

[PeterM]

Why do we need PGS or some derivative for the future submarines?

Isn't a LACM capability such as tomahawk on the table? Surely that would be more than sufficient.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Why do we need PGS or some derivative for the future submarines?

Isn't a LACM capability such as tomahawk on the table? Surely that would be more than sufficient.

we're only looking at SLCM to fulfill LR strike

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

LACM will equip both future sub, future frigate and probably retrofit into AWD but not collins. See point 9.74.

http://www.defence.gov.au/whitepaper/docs/defence_white_paper_2009.pdf

"9.74 The Government places a priority on broadening our strategic strike options, which will occur through the acquisition of maritime-based land-attack cruise missiles. These missiles will be fitted to the AWD, Future Frigate and Future Submarine. Defence will fit the necessary control and firing systems to the AWD as an early enhancement. The incorporation of a land-attack cruise missile capability will be integral to the design and construction of the Future Frigate and Future Submarine. We will not seek to retrofit this capability to the Collins submarine fleet."

 

[gf0012-aust]

LACM will equip both future sub, future frigate and probably retrofit into AWD but not collins. See point 9.74.

http://www.defence.gov.au/whitepaper/docs/defence_white_paper_2009.pdf

"9.74 The Government places a priority on broadening our strategic strike options, which will occur through the acquisition of maritime-based land-attack cruise missiles. These missiles will be fitted to the AWD, Future Frigate and Future Submarine. Defence will fit the necessary control and firing systems to the AWD as an early enhancement. The incorporation of a land-attack cruise missile capability will be integral to the design and construction of the Future Frigate and Future Submarine. We will not seek to retrofit this capability to the Collins submarine fleet."

I've said before that LACM is not going on Collins.
I'm talking about SEA 2000

That said, the capacity to get Collins to fire LACM is not difficult - the combat room solution set included it.

btw the public white paper is a motherhood document - its designed to vaguely inform the public. there are 2 other clearance level governed white papers beyond what is publicly available.

I'd add that stuff all of what is being looked at for SEA 2000 (or "son of collins") is in the public domain - most of what is quoted as coming is pure speculation if not BS

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Agreed. More to iterate that its not just sub-based but also surface based LR strike capability.

A 1,200 to 1,600km strategic strike capability is pretty formidable for any vessel, sub or surface.

The white paper is public clearance but when even that doc states it that clearly, the confidential papers won't contradict it. A change of government might but I think both sides share common ground on the intended LACM capabilities.

 

[cpt007]

Why do we need PGS or some derivative for the future submarines?

Isn't a LACM capability such as tomahawk on the table? Surely that would be more than sufficient.

The problem with tomahawk is that eventhough it has range it is slow.By the time successor of collins hits the water, tomahawk may not be a sensible option.

 

[Aussie Digger]

The problem with tomahawk is that eventhough it has range it is slow.By the time successor of collins hits the water, tomahawk may not be a sensible option.

It's subsonic because people to to notice objects screaming across the countryside at supersonic speeds.

As Navies have shown, short reaction times hardly mean a threat can't be engaged, so by going the supersonic route you are betting all upon the idea that your speed will allow your weapon to outrun defences, whereas a Tomahawk type capability is relatively quick (high subsonics) in the overall scheme of things, but will have a much lower signature. The idea being of course, that not being noticed in the first place provides greater survivability in the current climate.

I'd suggest the Tomahawk could use some 'stealthing up' within a few years, but speed won't be all that important until hypersonics can be reliably managed.

It is illuminating that the overwhelming majority of current and development standoff attack weapons by ALL Countries are subsonics and only those seeking some sort of an assymetric advantage are pursuing supersonics...

 

[StingrayOZ]

Tomahawk is still relevant today particularly in our region. USN still has what nearly 3500 of them. They could be upgraded with bits/knowledge from AGM-129 ACM or simular, the US definately has the ability to do this, they just don't want to or need to deploy it, yet.

IF you look at the number of VLS avalible to Australia in the 2020 time frame, we will have the numbers to make sure if we want we can deploy effectively.

 

[hairyman]

Taken from Janes
Australia's political parties agree on indigenous sub build, disagree on specifics

By Jon Grevatt
20 August 2010

.
The two main parties competing in Australia's general election on 21 August have outlined a commitment to build the Royal Australian Navy's (RAN's) next-generation submarines in Australia, although they appear at odds over their support for indigenous content.

Australia's programme to acquire 12 Future Submarines is likely to be the country's biggest-ever single defence programme, with an estimated cost of around AUD36 billion (USD32.4 billion). The boats will not enter service before 2025 but the next government will be expected to make a number of key decisions about the level of the Australian defence industry's input into the programme.

A spokesman for Greg Combet, Australia's Minister for Defence Materiel and Science, told Jane's on 19 August that the ruling centre-left Labor Party has already made a commitment to build the submarines in South Australia, although it has not made a decision to build the boats at state-owned ASC (formerly Australian Submarine Corporation).

The government has previously indicated that, although ASC would be in a strong position to build the submarines, competition is expected from other companies in the South Australian region. The government has also previously indicated its support for foreign submarine designs and technologies.

However, a spokesman for Shadow Defence Minister David Johnston told Jane's that if the centre-right Liberal/National Coalition Party wins the election it will look, as a priority, for the Australian defence industry to play a more significant role in the programme.

"The Coalition is a supporter of the submarines being built in Australia by ASC," the spokesman said. "If we could, we would look for an Australian-designed and -built submarine, but of course we would look at options as well."

 

[StevoJH]

Do we have the capacity to design a submarine ourselves though? Possibly with the input of BAe and/or Electric boat?

 

[gf0012-aust]

Do we have the capacity to design a submarine ourselves though? Possibly with the input of BAe and/or Electric boat?

ASC think so.

I wouldn't let them design a sub if I had to get into it though...

 

[LancasterBomber]

ASC think so.

I wouldn't let them design a sub if I had to get into it though...

Arrgghhh to be honest this does my head in. The last thing I want is a sh1t fight between two stakeholder parties to the platform. Govt department against a Govt owned private corporation.

I really think you need to come out and lay on the line what are the organisational and design (ideological) issues which are causing the conflict.

If you cant do it in public then email me at work. I would appreciate it.

Look from my perspective I think we need to quarantine the existing operational support for the Collins platform away from the development of the new platform.

Let ASC and DSTO carry on their existing support programs/structures but suck the best intellectual capital from both into a newly formed 100% govt owned corporation.

It may be 80% dominated by DSTO I dont care I just want the right people. (As a side note it gives us an opportunity to strategically leave behind some of our 'media' legacy issues.)

We need to reassess who are our best and brighest, who are our key project management drivers - bring them all together and give them clear control. I want them left alone to do what they do best with a virtually unlimited budget.

This is a long term 'rolling' research and development project. It is a science and engineering research project. It is not a standard defence contract.

Personally I couldn't give a rat's arse if we have to re-write our entire doctrine and CONOPS. RAN is there as parent Navy to feedback updated CONOPS to the project office. It is not there to mandate or dictate doctrine circa 2010 for a platform coming online 2025.

We go to war with what our scientists and engineers can give us. Our doctrines follow. Sure 'continuity' is nice but not at the expense of being obstructionist to the open minds of our intellectually most gifted.

So RAN has a clear role to play but the key move for me is a real need to utterly cannibalize ASC and to a degree DSTO so we get early momentum and (open minded) direction free from as much political bickering as possible.

Having said all this I have really no understanding of how DSTO structures its platform support and how fluid it can be shifting people into the right areas.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Arrgghhh to be honest this does my head in. The last thing I want is a sh1t fight between two stakeholder parties to the platform. Govt department against a Govt owned private corporation.

and the other fiefdoms.....

I really think you need to come out and lay on the line what are the organisational and design (ideological) issues which are causing the conflict.

If you cant do it in public then email me at work. I would appreciate it.

back at my usual place of work in 48hrs. can do it then. I won't do it in here.

Look from my perspective I think we need to quarantine the existing operational support for the Collins platform away from the development of the new platform.

agree

Let ASC and DSTO carry on their existing support programs/structures but suck the best intellectual capital from both into a newly formed 100% govt owned corporation.

agree

It may be 80% dominated by DSTO I dont care I just want the right people. (As a side note it gives us an opportunity to strategically leave behind some of our 'media' legacy issues.)

DSTO are incapable of running projects, it's not what they do, and they don't play in the same sandpit. Agree on the last half of the above

We need to reassess who are our best and brighest, who are our key project management drivers - bring them all together and give them clear control. I want them left alone to do what they do best with a virtually unlimited budget.

we need to also stop ministerial interference and executive seagulls who are tactically clueless as well. I'm sure you're aware of how ministerial intervention has ferked up existing major programs

This is a long term 'rolling' research and development project. It is a science and engineering research project. It is not a standard defence contract.

agree

Personally I couldn't give a rat's arse if we have to re-write our entire doctrine and CONOPS. RAN is there as parent Navy to feedback updated CONOPS to the project office. It is not there to mandate or dictate doctrine circa 2010 for a platform coming online 2025.

Some in navy get that - not all do.

We go to war with what our scientists and engineers can give us. Our doctrines follow. Sure 'continuity' is nice but not at the expense of being obstructionist to the open minds of our intellectually most gifted.

the geeks sometimes need the reality check though - for too long they have designed capabilities looking for a platform and not the other way around - ie a capability around a future identified requirement. however, they do an amazing job, DSTO geeks have made advances in acoustic warfare that the americans (eg) didn't think possible.

So RAN has a clear role to play but the key move for me is a real need to utterly cannibalize ASC and to a degree DSTO so we get early momentum and (open minded) direction free from as much political bickering as possible.

Having said all this I have really no understanding of how DSTO structures its platform support and how fluid it can be shifting people into the right areas.

break up the fiefdoms and redo the culture and they'll get better, at the moment they are a ship with intermittent rudder control.