Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[rossfrb_1]

Remembering Cockatoo Island

With all this discussion about Australian naval construction I thought this article from the 730 report apt. It covers the island's former naval history.
Remembering Cockatoo Island - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

The version I saw on TV finished with some footage of the launching of HMAS Success which doesn't seem to be in this video.

cheers
rb

 

[MickB]

Could the hopes for a OCV for the RAN be revived by a localy built version of Singapore's LMV.

 

[Massive]

Could the hopes for a OCV for the RAN be revived by a localy built version of Singapore's LMV.

Does the LMV (Littoral Mission Vessel) have the sea keeping and endurance the RAN would be looking for in an multi-role LMV? RAN may also be looking for a hangar.

Here's a couple of links with some information. I couldn't find much but someone else might have a better article/ description:

ST Marine lays keel for Singapore's first Littoral Mission Vessel - IHS Jane's 360

2013 Republic of Singapore Navy Littoral Mission Vessel, Singapore | xtemujin 360°Resources, Singapore

 

[the road runner]

ABC News just had a story regarding Soryu Subs for Australia.

Main points

* Will Japan share all the technology with Australia?
* All boats to be made in Japan as it will save construction costs
(20 billion if built in Japan compared to $40 billion built by ASC)
*1000-1500 people will need to be trained to maintain the Soryu
*Training will occur in Japan
*Japan and Australia having joint subs could antagonise China.

IMHO if this deal goes threw it will be give and take from both parties.
I honestly don't know why we don't go with the son of collins option.
Would rather we build up our own expertise in subs and of course ship construction.

Also saw a Japanese Asagiri(151) class destroyer in Sydney harbour today!

 

[gf0012-aust]

ABC News just had a story regarding Soryu Subs for Australia.

Main points

* Will Japan share all the technology with Australia?
* All boats to be made in Japan as it will save construction costs
(20 billion if built in Japan compared to $40 billion built by ASC)
*1000-1500 people will need to be trained to maintain the Soryu
*Training will occur in Japan
*Japan and Australia having joint subs could antagonise China.

IMHO if this deal goes threw it will be give and take from both parties.
I honestly i don't know why we don't go with the son of collins option.

the main issue with the soryus will be the tot for the steel they use. its regarded as the jewel in the crown.

a few years back they were nicknamed the "nuke killers" as they could take on russian and chinese nukes for diving depth etc....

their kinetic job was to kill nukes

 

[the road runner]

the main issue with the soryus will be the tot for the steel they use. its regarded as the jewel in the crown.

Always thought Australia was well placed for development's in steel threw company's like Bisalloy and BHP use of steel in their off shore oil rigs ect.

Cheers.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Always thought Australia was well placed for development's in steel threw company's like Bisalloy and BHP use of steel in their off shore oil rigs ect.

Cheers.

not the same "steel" though. this is about depth and pressure, its a combination of strength and elasticity at max depth.

IIRC Collins has over 38 different metal types within its build - and they all have to work together

 

[Lolcake]

ABC News just had a story regarding Soryu Subs for Australia.

Main points

* Will Japan share all the technology with Australia?
* All boats to be made in Japan as it will save construction costs
(20 billion if built in Japan compared to $40 billion built by ASC)
*1000-1500 people will need to be trained to maintain the Soryu
*Training will occur in Japan
*Japan and Australia having joint subs could antagonise China.

IMHO if this deal goes threw it will be give and take from both parties.
I honestly don't know why we don't go with the son of collins option.
Would rather we build up our own expertise in subs and of course ship construction.

Also saw a Japanese Asagiri(151) class destroyer in Sydney harbour today!

Does anyone know if they WILL share the full capability and tech of the Soryu?

 

[rockitten]

Couple of questions,

would the new australain subs use lithium ion batteries. If not is that due to fire risk. Second question, assuming that australia and japan build similar subs, could the australian sub have a plug in, that contains extra fuel below, and spare space above, like a 2m plugin, but with everything else being the same.

Japanese was planning to install Li-ion batteries on their 5th Soryu, but budget constrains deferred the modification to the 11th ship.

So just like Australian's AWD is actually based on F-105 rather than F-100, there is a potential that our new sub may tap on that modification too.

Regarding to the so-called range issue, too bad we can't base our subs in FBE, that will surely ease the crewing problem a lot

 

[gf0012-aust]

Japanese was planning to install Li-ion batteries on their 5th Soryu, but budget constrains deferred the modification to the 11th ship.

all the journo commentary re propulsion and drivetrain (and by association, range) is a bit silly - they're getting way ahead of themselves. Ignore 90% of the public and broadsheet commentary

Regarding to the so-called range issue, too bad we can't base our subs in FBE, that will surely ease the crewing problem a lot

See above. Range is not an issue despite all the ridiculous claims in the papers

eg claims Collins has double the touring range of Soryu is abject nonsense

 

[gf0012-aust]

Does anyone know if they WILL share the full capability and tech of the Soryu?

Its far too early to speculate on anything. Most of the regurgitated commentary has the same tone and flavour because most of them are copying and rewording what everyone else has said - and most of it is wrong to start with

its time to pause. the journos are getting ahead of themselves

 

[DaveS124]

GF - one them went to the trouble of actually speaking to people in RAN sub country:

The Australian submariner community is highly sceptical, as Japanese subs do not meet Australia’s unique requirements, and their much-touted air-independent propulsion is actually Swedish technology that would have to be bought directly from Sweden. The supposedly silent propulsion system, according to these submariners, also includes a modified French engine that is already out of date. While the upside of a Japanese agreement might include sharing valuable technical data, the Soryu subs are not the easy solution the minister is looking for.

The entire article can be seen (for free) on the 'Monthly' magazine's site. Author name is Claire Corbett.

It's reported elsewhere that she has subsequently been asked to speak at length on this matter in a formal speech in Sydney.

 

[hairyman]

"Son of Collin"s should be the way to go I would have thought, but using the best of Japanese technology in the design.

 

[ASSAIL]

GF - one them went to the trouble of actually speaking to people in RAN sub country:



The entire article can be seen (for free) on the 'Monthly' magazine's site. Author name is Claire Corbett.

It's reported elsewhere that she has subsequently been asked to speak at length on this matter in a formal speech in Sydney.

The Monthly is not a magazine that I would normally read, any publication that uses that pompous pr/ck David Marr turns me off.
However Corbett's (writer on strategic and defence matters) pieces are mostly more rational than the others and as a fluff piece, that speech was respectable

 

[gf0012-aust]

GF - one them went to the trouble of actually speaking to people in RAN sub country:



The entire article can be seen (for free) on the 'Monthly' magazine's site. Author name is Claire Corbett.

It's reported elsewhere that she has subsequently been asked to speak at length on this matter in a formal speech in Sydney.

In which case she has either misunderstood or not got the answers to the real questions

the issues re Soryu's have never been about AIP or propulsion systems

it would seem to me that she never asked the right questions in the first place
if she did she would have raised other tech sets as to what we are after.

the drivetrain is the least relevant issue in the discussions

 

[Joe Black]

Does the LMV (Littoral Mission Vessel) have the sea keeping and endurance the RAN would be looking for in an multi-role LMV? RAN may also be looking for a hangar.

Here's a couple of links with some information. I couldn't find much but someone else might have a better article/ description:

ST Marine lays keel for Singapore's first Littoral Mission Vessel - IHS Jane's 360

2013 Republic of Singapore Navy Littoral Mission Vessel, Singapore | xtemujin 360°Resources, Singapore

I suspect Singaporean's LMV wouldn't be suitable. One has to look at the spec and realise it is a little too short legged for RAN's need.

LMV
Length : 80 meters
Beam: 12 meters
Displacement :1150 tonnes
Speed : In excess of 27 knots
Range : 1,800 nautical miles
Crews: Up to 30 core crew
Up to 30 mission crew

Source: Navy Careers - Our Assets | Littoral Mission Vessel


Whereas, the Damen 2400 OPV is likely to be more suitable.

LENGTH O.A. 90.00 m
BEAM MLD. 14.40 m
DEPTH MLD. 7.00 m
DRAUGHT (DESIGN) 4.00 m
DISPLACEMENT 2400 t
PERFORMANCES
TRIAL SPEED (MAX.) 23.0 kn
ENDURANCE AT 12 KN 6000 nm, 40 days
Source: http://products.damen.com/~/media/P...PV 2400/Documents/product sheet OPV 2400.ashx


Strength of the LMV could include:
1. Faster speed
2. Capbility to launch the RHIBs faster through custom built launch facility
3. Integrated and possible superior sensors and weapon suite
4. Likely to be cheaper both from CAPEX and OPEX perspective

Strength of the Damen 2400 OPV would include:
1. Great range and endurance (more suited to the vast oceans surrounding Australia?)
2. Able to operate at a higher sea state (better suited for the Southern Ocean?)
3. Helo hanger for longer deployment of a helo onboard
4. possibly stronger and bigger deck space for MRH-90

Just my 2 cents thoughts

 

[alexsa]

I suspect Singaporean's LMV wouldn't be suitable. One has to look at the spec and realise it is a little too short legged for RAN's need.

LMV
Length : 80 metersBeam: 12 metersDisplacement :1150 tonnesSpeed : In excess of 27 knotsRange : 1,800 nautical milesCrews: Up to 30 core crew
Up to 30 mission crew Source: Navy Careers - Our Assets | Littoral Mission Vessel
Whereas, the Damen 2400 OPV is likely to be more suitable.

LENGTH O.A. 90.00 m
BEAM MLD. 14.40 m
DEPTH MLD. 7.00 m
DRAUGHT (DESIGN) 4.00 m
DISPLACEMENT 2400 t
PERFORMANCES
TRIAL SPEED (MAX.) 23.0 kn
ENDURANCE AT 12 KN 6000 nm, 40 days
Source: http://products.damen.com/~/media/P...PV 2400/Documents/product sheet OPV 2400.ashx


Strength of the LMV could include:
1. Faster speed
2. Faster facility to launch the RHIBs
3. Integrated and possible superior sensors and weapon suite
4. Likely to be cheaper both from CAPEX and OPEX perspective

Strength of the Damen 2400 OPV would include:
1. Great range and endurance (more suited to the vast oceans surrounding Australia?)
2. Able to operate at a higher sea state (better suited for the Southern Ocean?)
3. Helo hanger for longer deployment of a helo onboard
4. possibly stronger and bigger deck space for MRH-90

Just my 2 cents thoughts

Just a heads up, the Damen 2600 and 2400 are rated at 24 knots (with potential for 25) but the sustained speed to range is also critical so no huge speed advantage as you note.

Not sure we would want a better sensor suite but the integrated mast used on the Holland class can be fitted to the Damen so that is no big issue.

The Damen is not as sleathy in shaping and is quite a bit bigger but given the intended mission its large mission area, helo facilities and range make it a useful vessel. I agree it may be a better proposition from an RAN perspective.

 

[Blackshoe]

So, I noticed after a brief review of Wikipedia that Australia lacks an ASR. Is there any movement towards developing/acquiring this capability with the new submarine purchase, or is it viewed as not necessary?

 

[Gordon Branch]

I believe Australia's ASRV is the LR5 James Fisher Submarine Rescue System. I think it is operated on behalf of the RAN by DMS Maritime.

There is a new ASR vessel being built by Damen for DMS Maritime.

http://www.damen.com/en/news/2012/11/11-tugs-and-rescue-boat-for-dms-australia

Similar to this one: http://products.damen.com/en/ranges/multi-purpose-vessel/multi-purpose-vessel-8316

 

[Abraham Gubler]

So, I noticed after a brief review of Wikipedia that Australia lacks an ASR. Is there any movement towards developing/acquiring this capability with the new submarine purchase, or is it viewed as not necessary?

As part of the Collins class acquisition the Remora (Really Excellent Means Of Rescuing Aussies) submarine rescue system was introduced. It suffered a major accident in 2006 and was deemed as being 'unsafe' so a new project was launched to acquire a replacement. As an interim to this the LR5 was leased.