Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
If Japanese is happy to allow the modified Soryu to be built in ASC, or we are going to have 12 sub regardless how much it cost, I wonder if we (not just this forum, but our country as well) will have this debate at all.
The reason I raised all this question is, now we are unlikely to have 12 and Japanese seems reluctant for a local built. Then between a locally built European design, which may ended up only 8 and is a less ideal starting point for the modifications, or overseas built Soryu but we can/may afford 10 and has much better potential for our modifications. Which one is a better choice for our Navy and/or Australia?
It is like, if German is bidding for RAAF's Hornet's replacement with GAF built Australianised EF2000, and US is bidding with Texas built F-22 modified to suit RAAF requirements for a lower price. GAF and Victoria will say EF2000, but I am sure RAAF is more willing to pick F-22.
t68
Well-Known Member
If we build in Australia a modified Jalpanese submarine I fail to see why can't modifiy an American submarine.
Also that article GF posted about staging USN boats here and to up grade FBW is about a billion from memory why is a joint nuclear sub pen in the mix, they might base the boats here but the crews will rotate thru. Only going by the article which alludes to an upgrade of DBW for a permanate nuclear presence
Also that article GF posted about staging USN boats here and to up grade FBW is about a billion from memory why is a joint nuclear sub pen in the mix, they might base the boats here but the crews will rotate thru. Only going by the article which alludes to an upgrade of DBW for a permanate nuclear presence
In short: If we can buy more and better submarine by overseas built, should we go for it or not.
SA surely says nay but probably not so for our navy and treasury
I am not sure if I have previously posted this, but my preference would be to buy four Virginia class subs from the Yanks, and to build eight deisel subs of a design that will suit the RAN. I believe S.A. would be prepared to build a nuclear plant to enable us to look after our our nuclear subs. The timing of the new class of diesel subs would fit in with the retirement of the Collins class subs.
forget nukes
- Navy doesn't want them
- they provide no significant improvement to force structure and commitments around the CONOPs
- Both parties don't want the public fractious debate that would follow
- you can't buy a turnkey MOTS submarine
- every one of the new euro designs proposed is vaporware - its a cold design that either requires forming or is based on a smaller sub that needs to be upscaled - the very thing that the media commentariat happily latch their swags onto the Collins as being a fundamental problem
- the japanese have the only in service large fleet submarine - and that still requires some drivetrain mods, and we don't know whether the japanese are going to hand over their acoustic sig mods or whether they will even hand over the materials science issues surrounding hull metallurgy - something that they are highly protective over as they developed it themselves
- 75% of the euro companies that have been touted in the press as gods answer to australias sub building dilemma have had construction and dimension issues
ignore the chatter in the press - its invariably half baked - and as you've seen even some of the ASPI stuff can make your eyes bleed
An article in Defence Technology Review (Oct 2014) on the Soryu-MOTS issue:
Defence Technology Review : DTR OCT 2014, Page 1
Does anybody know which option the RAN wants as its Future Submarine? Do they have a preference for a modified Soryu?
This was raised when the American and Australian ministers met in Perth years ago but was knocked down by the Premier at the time. I thought since then the idea died a slow death. Is there any chance of basing anything American at Stirling?
Doubt it, they would be more interested in having a footprint in Darwin. they can rotate a wider variety of platforms and its close to the other strategic partners in a more immediate area of strategic interest
What is it that needs to be changed in the Collins hull apart from the obvious technological advances?
I was under the impression that the Collins was one of the quietest large conventional hulls out there.
Do we need to reinvent the wheel or just build a better wheel on our base hub (the Collins) with upgraded propulsion, jap metallurgy, USA weapons systems ect.
Weapons and systems always change but boat hulls are there to cut through the water and haven't really changed for hundreds of years.
Cheers Chris
its the "knowns and unknowns" issue
RAN hasn't committed to a design as they've been working on a variety of things including future force structure and how everything else fits without breaking the bank and having a balanced force
PM&C will do what they want - but they also have someone from Defence attached to the office
The Soryu isn't a thought bubble - as everyone knew about how good the predecessor was but Japans constitution and politics of the time always made it a none starter
from a private perspective and my own time working on sub technologies prior to coming back into Govt, I know there was some outright hostility towards some options as people considered that evaluating those bids in a constrained tender would just delay the overall process - and that was usually around integration and broader primary partner issues
it was also around some international companies making an absolute hash of some projects here and overseas and yet they were wearing a path to the Minister sand bagging ASC when their own track record in building to spec and on time and within budget made some of our projects look like exemplars
unfort some in the executive are too easily seduced by the claims about capability and the special roadshows, and then have a cloth ear when it comes to being advised otherwise by the very people who have to use said platform.
subs are turning into another cluster.
eg wtf is a competitive open evaluation - bearing in mind why the govt has to set constraints so that we don't get some numpty company trying to flog us off their own tech so that we pay for their own ongoing developments, big pause and big wink towards europe
and then we get some of the half witted commentary coming out of weatherill and xenophon when they could quite easily prosecute a case without reverting to theatrics
I need a scotch
Painful to watch. Be hilarious if the outcome wasn't so important.its the "knowns and unknowns" issue
RAN hasn't committed to a design as they've been working on a variety of things including future force structure and how everything else fits without breaking the bank and having a balanced force
PM&C will do what they want - but they also have someone from Defence attached to the office
The Soryu isn't a thought bubble - as everyone knew about how good the predecessor was but Japans constitution and politics of the time always made it a none starter
from a private perspective and my own time working on sub technologies prior to coming back into Govt, I know there was some outright hostility towards some options as people considered that evaluating those bids in a constrained tender would just delay the overall process - and that was usually around integration and broader primary partner issues
it was also around some international companies making an absolute hash of some projects here and overseas and yet they were wearing a path to the Minister sand bagging ASC when their own track record in building to spec and on time and within budget made some of our projects look like exemplars
unfort some in the executive are too easily seduced by the claims about capability and the special roadshows, and then have a cloth ear when it comes to being advised otherwise by the very people who have to use said platform.
subs are turning into another cluster.
eg wtf is a competitive open evaluation - bearing in mind why the govt has to set constraints so that we don't get some numpty company trying to flog us off their own tech so that we pay for their own ongoing developments, big pause and big wink towards europe
and then we get some of the half witted commentary coming out of weatherill and xenophon when they could quite easily prosecute a case without reverting to theatrics
I need a scotch
Last edited by a moderator:
I've just had one and it did help.I need a scotch
It's true Collins could have been done better and very nearly was. ASC and RAN wanted MTU but Kockums insisted on Hedemoras, the RAN evaluation team recommended an evolved version of the combat system the Dutch used on their Walrus class but the project team pushed the bespoke, conceptional Rockwell system instead. Actually, a version of the large, proven Walrus design was offered to the RAN but not short listed, this design, like the Japanese designs of the time, owed more than a little to the US Albacore design and the following Barbel class which the old school RAN submariners were quite fond of.
All of this could be written off as hindsight or pointless complaining about things in the past, I prefer to look at it as lessons learned (or that should have been learned). Basically, as we have now, back then there were competent and capable professionals making recommendations on what could and should be done but were ignored. There was a pretty good platform on offer that required a minimum of work to meet the stated requirements verses the vapourware options actually shortlisted. There was an existing shipyard, very experienced submarine maintenance and upgrades that was overlooked and eventually shut down. Too late to go back and build a slightly enlarged Walrus or modernised Barbel at Codock but, after much pain, ASC is now the experienced yard and Collins the proven design. Also in the opinion of BIW, ABS and other experts, including Lloyds ASCs welders working on the AWD are among the best in the world, the quality of the work is second to none, the issue is the design data and project management.
Do we repeat the same mistakes or do we learn the lesson and build on our successes?
What's the real reason for Swedish design being shortlisted anyway? I can understand why German got shortlisted and lucky we dumped the Upholder and French, but not much is mentioned about the Dutch or Swedish.
Now Labor and many of those who don't want option J happens, really love referencing Japan inexperience in arm export to the shambles in Collins. Yet, in terms of design, option J is the only real fleet large sub (other than Collins) available. And to make matter worse, Japanese's stand on overseas built and technology transfer gave those muppets extra ammo to make hay.
Too factors have been mentioned in the selection. First was the Swedish industrial model and build strategy was more advanced and actually turned out to be a massive boon to the Australian economy getting rid of demarcation disputes and introducing TQM and ISO to Australian manufacturing in a big way for the first time.
The other factor was Kockums actually listened to what the RAN wanted and delivered options to meet the specified CONOPS while IKL simply told the Australian government the RAN had is wrong and that wasn't the way submarines were operated. The IKL design would not have been as capable as the Type 471, especially in terms of crew facilities which would greatly impair the ability of the design to deploy the long distances required.
The other factor was Kockums actually listened to what the RAN wanted and delivered options to meet the specified CONOPS while IKL simply told the Australian government the RAN had is wrong and that wasn't the way submarines were operated. The IKL design would not have been as capable as the Type 471, especially in terms of crew facilities which would greatly impair the ability of the design to deploy the long distances required.
The attached is Mark Brinstin's interview with the ABC and simply and un-emotively explains the current status of the sub acquisition process. Not much new but a refreshing change from the hand wringing and jingoism surrounding this subject.
No security imperative to build new submarines in Australia, Defence Chief Mark Binskin says - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
No security imperative to build new submarines in Australia, Defence Chief Mark Binskin says - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
ah, good to see the boss spell out publicly what some of us have been saying over and over . ie the first priority is about getting the best capability. where and how its raised, trained sustained follows on from that
CREF my earlier about prosecuting the case without the theatrics
Bluey 006
Active Member
I watched this interview and it seemed as if he didn't understand the question posed by the journalist or he did understand it and ignored it, answering a different question (like politicians do).
In my opinion when the journo asked about the national security implications of building overseas he was referencing the potential for the sub systems and build to be physically compromised by a foreign power or intelligence service if built in another country, rather Chief Binskin answered as if it was relating to the knowledge aspect of not building in Australia therefore the national security implications of not being able to sustain it.
"I don't believe you have to build to be able to sustain in the country," Air Chief Marshal Mark Binskin said.
I was sitting there thinking I am not sure that's what he meant ..Sir.
Yes getting the best capability comes first... but you lose all of that capability in an instant if a kill switch or backdoor of sorts has been embedded during construction because another nation other than your own was responsible for the cyber security,security protocols,physical facility security and vetting of personnel etc
- Status