Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[StingrayOZ]

Some positive press for the navy. Doesn't look like all outlets are running with the story yet. News corp seems to be running a US lesbian navy photo. Dealing with the relevant issues for Australia there..

I also notice that a Nimitz bridge isn't that much taller than the LHD/Choules. I suppose that is the right height for ships in open waters. The LHD deck as I recall is also simular in height to a full sized carrier. I would imagine with the skijump out front seaspray would be very minimal on ships of that size.

 

[alexsa]

ABC News Story on the arrival Navy's newest ship ready for action - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

great press but..................... reality check. for an Australian warshp, yes she is big. As a merchant ship the panamax box boats and aframax tankers in Botany are bigger (by quite a tonnage and size margin) but they are just not visible to the general public in an awareness sense.

 

[StevoJH]

Is the Captain of HMAS Choules an American import?

 

[ThePuss]

Is the Captain of HMAS Choules an American import?

A Cunck, but has been in OZ for quite a while

 

[icelord]

Is the Captain of HMAS Choules an American import?

Previous CO of Sirius and Recruit school(way back when i went through)
There are a few Canadians around the fleet, PWOs find it easy to jump across, do a course here inbetween.
The majority of overseas personnel remains Ex-RN, who are scattered around. With our LHDs, the first AVN are all former RN who will be instructors and alike, to train us in a lot of their procedures for moving Aircraft around.
I met a Yank in the NZ Air force(who fly for the navy) who moved to NZ because in the US they dont fly as much after 35. He would rather move country then stop flying, which was impressive. but he did go from Seahawks to Seaspirtes...thats a downgrade.

 

[SASWanabe]

U-boats may be on navy's shopping list

HDW has released details of a concept design, designated the Type 216, for a long-range conventional submarine.

Experts say the design, based on the successful Type 214, is specifically targeted at Sea 1000 - Defence's future submarine program.

yes! upscale a Euro sub, it worked so well on the Collins when Kockums did it.

also for anyone interested in a bit of a laugh:

Nuclear subs an option

Push for nuclear submarines gaining momentum

 

[Sea Toby]

U-boats may be on navy's shopping list



yes! upscale a Euro sub, it worked so well on the Collins when Kockums did it.

also for anyone interested in a bit of a laugh:

Nuclear subs an option

Push for nuclear submarines gaining momentum

Its not as if the Collins has impressed anyone. How many submarines has Australia built, and how many submarines has HDW built? Several hundred compared to six. At the present time the Type 214 is by far the largest selling export submarine built worldwide. The mistake Australia may have made in the past was to go with a Swedish sub instead of a German sub.

 

[Todjaeger]

Its not as if the Collins has impressed anyone. How many submarines has Australia built, and how many submarines has HDW built? Several hundred compared to six. At the present time the Type 214 is by far the largest selling export submarine built worldwide. The mistake Australia may have made in the past was to go with a Swedish sub instead of a German sub.

Umm... Actually, the Collins-class has managed to impress a number of people AFAIK.

Remember, the USN within the last decade has/had basically leased a Swedish conventional sub for use as an OpFor. Something caused the USN to realize that against well handled conventional subs US ships were vulnerable in some circumstances.

/rant on

For whatever reason most people, including some posters here on DT apparently, only seem to remember the beatup pieces which have been appearing for years in regular Australian news outlets. For some reason those same people cannot remember any of the successes which have been claimed albeit quietly, with the Collins programme. What I find bothersome though, is that people here on DT who seem to remember the beatup pieces can never seem to remember the shyte quality and total ignorance exhibited in defence reporting as done by those same regular Australian news outlets. It is one thing for the average person to not realize that a particular journo does not know what they are talking about when they call something like a LAV or APC a 'tank'. However, for those who should know better, why should they give any more credence to what a journo reports on when they are slamming a particular programme or piece of kit, when the journo or media outlet has previously demonstrated ignorance of the topic? Why do people believe a 'bad' report when the person/people doing the reporting likely have no understanding of the information which they are in turn reporting to the public is 'bad'?

/rant off

 

[the road runner]

Its not as if the Collins has impressed anyone. How many submarines has Australia built, and how many submarines has HDW built? Several hundred compared to six. At the present time the Type 214 is by far the largest selling export submarine built worldwide. The mistake Australia may have made in the past was to go with a Swedish sub instead of a German sub.

After reading a few posts here i was under the impression if we do buy an off the shelf 214 we will still have to spend alot of coin to get the acoustics right for Australian waters?

When you compare a 1600 ton sub to a 3000 ton sub ,were comparing apples with oranges here.How many 3000 ton subs has HDW built?

As for Collins, its to much of a political football,but i for one would build a Collins 2,as we know the thing like the back of our hand.Australia's problem is we had never built a sub before,but we have now,we should build on this capability.
The Collins has done well in war games with other country's so it must not be a complete dog!The US have praised it.

Hatch man signing off!

 

[gf0012-aust]

Its not as if the Collins has impressed anyone.

good grief, I assume you are referring to the mass media reports - as opposed to those on exercise in other navies who have been signularly impressed.

we've been over this nonsense so many times its not funny.

one of the things I repeatedly got from USN colleagues was the dismay about how hostile the local media was and how clueless the general public were, but how damned good they considered them to be, That wasn't people blowing smoke either, as they were senior enough to not a give a $hit whether they needed to be polite or civil to some bloke from Oz - and from a navy which they nicknamed the RAN the "US 7 and a 1/2 Fleet"

The reason why the US leased Gotland was because it was the mini-me version of the 471 but with AIP, so they wanted to see what it would be like against a different adversary, this was after repeatedly getting their hat handed to them in proscribed boxes where the defender has the advantage.

under different govts we could have sold on aspects of Collins tech to various countries who have recognised how good they are when on the job.

I expect more sensible analysis out of a forum like this than I do from idiots on youtube or those who write spam letters to various editors.

I'll let the industry def profs point out in their own worlds what has been achieved when compared to various other sub programs - and from countries where they build subs for a historical living.

the woulda coulda shoulda comments on going with a larger gernan sub would have been counterbalanced by the australian company that would have been prime. Having worked with the CEO of that company on various mech engineering projects both in Oz and overseas over the years - all I can say is we dodged a bullet.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

yes! upscale a Euro sub, it worked so well on the Collins when Kockums did it.

also for anyone interested in a bit of a laugh:

Nuclear subs an option

Push for nuclear submarines gaining momentum

Calling the ADA a "key" defence group is a bit rich. They may get plenty of play in the media desperate for defence commentators but have had no discernable impact in Canberra on defence issues. Since they are pushing for a nuclear submarine I can't see their track record changing for the better.

Also as to HDW offering the Type 216 compared to the Type 214 it kind of sinks the OTS Euro sub option being pushed around the place if OTS Euro sub builders are offering a different solution... Maybe they know something the pundits don't? Anyway all good stories for the slowest, least noticed week of the news year.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Its not as if the Collins has impressed anyone. How many submarines has Australia built, and how many submarines has HDW built? Several hundred compared to six. At the present time the Type 214 is by far the largest selling export submarine built worldwide. The mistake Australia may have made in the past was to go with a Swedish sub instead of a German sub.

The problems with the Collins build would most likely have been replicated if the design agent was German rather than Swedish. Since the German offering was deficient in its ability to support the required level of combat system then there would have been bigger long term problems built into the design. Also the Swedish offer used more advanced ship design and build technology (CAD, etc) which made transferring technology easier.

I remain at a loss as to why you keep hanging around and posting in all the Australian themed threads when you constantly display how little you know about the subject matter. Are you really this thick or do you just enjoy trolling?

 

[Milne Bay]

I realise that one of the biggest issues in this project will be the integration of the combat system with the chosen platform.
Is the HDW Type 216 - which might meet the specs for range and endurance - a serous contender, given that the combat system may possibly be an iteration of the existing Collins system?

MB

 

[aussienscale]

Also as to HDW offering the Type 216 compared to the Type 214 it kind of sinks the OTS Euro sub option being pushed around the place if OTS Euro sub builders are offering a different solution... Maybe they know something the pundits don't?

Take note of that comment ! It speaks volumes of where we really are and the level of crap in the current media. If the builder of the "best" (and I use that loosely) conventional submarine feel that they have to offer and un-proven, un-built and un-tested platform as an offer to their "proven" platform, they know their systems do not stand up to what is required.

Toby, seriously ? Do I need to say more ?

 

[Sea Toby]

Take note of that comment ! It speaks volumes of where we really are and the level of crap in the current media. If the builder of the "best" (and I use that loosely) conventional submarine feel that they have to offer and un-proven, un-built and un-tested platform as an offer to their "proven" platform, they know their systems do not stand up to what is required.

Toby, seriously ? Do I need to say more ?

Why do you believe the HDW Type 216 design won't do the job when it hasn't been revealed yet? I hear from my US naval submariner friends that they are impressed with the German Type 214 submarines they have seen. Finally, any new Australian designed submarine is unproven, unbuilt, and untested as well. When it comes to the bottom line, it appears buying a submarine from a source with much more submarine knowledge and expertise for a fourth of the price may be a better option. A video of the German Type 212 which have not been exported.

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8QKbeS-flM"]Type 212 Most Advanced Submarine.mp4 - YouTube[/nomedia]

 

[swerve]

I'm a little surprised that nobody seems to have noticed the lifting of the Japanese arms export ban the day before yesterday. The implications for Australia's future submarine programme are obvious. Japan has exactly the sort of submarines Australia wants, & co-development of a submarine with Australia is exactly the sort of programme that should pass the remaining (& still pretty stiff) Japanese restrictions.

So, when will the Australian government start talking to Mitsubishi Heavy Industries about an Australianised Sōryū derivative?

 

[Volkodav]

Its not as if the Collins has impressed anyone. How many submarines has Australia built, and how many submarines has HDW built? Several hundred compared to six. At the present time the Type 214 is by far the largest selling export submarine built worldwide. The mistake Australia may have made in the past was to go with a Swedish sub instead of a German sub.

Cherry, Greatwall and Proton export more cars than GM Holden or Ford Australia, does that make their products superior?

On selecting the German design over the Swedish, well thats what I used to think too, when I was an outsider looking in, now I know different!

 

[Trackmaster]

Cherry, Greatwall and Proton export more cars than GM Holden or Ford Australia, does that make their products superior?

On selecting the German design over the Swedish, well thats what I used to think too, when I was an outsider looking in, now I know different!

One of the issues is the ability to be ..Shhhooshhhh.. in your ocean environment. The Baltic and surrounds are different to the tropical ocean environment that surrounds the Big Island. Tropical waters have some fascinating layers. And then you talk about range, sensors and what is required to do once you start deploying significant distances from FBW.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

When it comes to the bottom line, it appears buying a submarine from a source with much more submarine knowledge and expertise for a fourth of the price may be a better option.

If that’s your bottom line then good luck because it’s not a solid line, just pure fiction. First of all on cost there is no way a Type 216 built in Australia would cost ¼ of a “Son of Collins” submarine. You might be able to buy a Type 216 built in Germany for ½ to 2/3s of the cost but that does not take into account much higher sustainment costs and the net cost to Government of importing compared to spending their money in Australia. The program only exists because it is built in Australia.

On the issue of submarine knowledge and expertise that is wrong as well. While HDW has built many more submarines than ASC this hasn’t happened in the lifetime of their current operation. Building 200 submarines in WWII does not provide them with anything today except some nice models in the foyer. Further in terms of their relevant company expertise today they have no practical experience in building long range fleet submarines for South East Asian service. ASC on the other hand has built six boats of this type and carried out the equivalent of over 10 extensive submarine mid life upgrades.

Why am I not surprised that Sea Toby has made another contribution devoid of any local understanding? It’s also quite perplexing that if he had actually been reading the rest of this thread during the time he has been active here he would know all of these things? None of this is new knowledge and all this ground has been covered quite a few times in this thread in the past year or so.

 

[gf0012-aust]

One of the issues is the ability to be ..Shhhooshhhh.. in your ocean environment. The Baltic and surrounds are different to the tropical ocean environment that surrounds the Big Island. Tropical waters have some fascinating layers. And then you talk about range, sensors and what is required to do once you start deploying significant distances from FBW.

IN fact thats the same problem that the Swedes had initially with Collins - and fixed in the end by some input by DSTO.

The USN had similar problems with Gotland, and the malays similar probs with their french kit. The sings had the same problems with their subs - until funnily enough, fixed by an australian small company that also funnily emough did work on Collins.

The media dumbing down the debate again unfort will gether currency and relevancy as its far easier to think that there is a magical solution that RAN havn't been smart emough to think of and which is supposed to be "oh self evident"