Defence deals with that on every offshore acquisition
CDF Binskin is basically reinforcing what the RADM Submarine Squadron repeatedly tells SIA industry members - in fact he's a tad more blunt
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
CDF Binskin is basically reinforcing what the RADM Submarine Squadron repeatedly tells SIA industry members - in fact he's a tad more blunt
I think the statement was straight forward; meaning, Australia is quite capable of sustaining a highly complex defence asset even though it was not built here. Being Air force, he knows that fact very well, all our major RAAF assets,;C-17, Growler, Shornet, etc. are all built overseas and they have no problem sustaining them.
Guess it depends a bit on your maintenance and supplier though. Those examples are all designed to be so, with reliable companies experienced in doing so. We are moving into apple and orange comparisons.
Of course if we put F-111 (a RAAF asset that became a pain in the bum and needed lots of local solutions) or B2 or space shuttle, same or similar companies, but there are a bunch of issues supporting each of those if your not the US and outside of the time period that they are viable. Thats not to say that they are insurmountable but I don't think we should get too caught up on C-17 is the same as collins replacement, to service/replace an engine you don't have to cut a C-17 in half or bring spares through the cockpit window. A submarine is comparable to that of a space shuttle in many ways (Astute was touted as more complex).
IMO it would be best to have local suppliers or local subsidiaries look after sustainment. I do believe its not a requirement and may involve alternatives.
Also to counter Binskin, I offer Cosgrove 2013.
SEA 1000 WHY OUR SUBMARINES NEED TO BE BUILT IN AUSTRALIA | Australian Defence News & Articles | Asia Pacific Defence Reporter
So I can see why some in the SIA might think the jury isn't out, apparently the "army" (or at least the GG) is on their side.
Did I read it incorrectly or did Biskin suggest local systems integration as a possibility? This would be worse than a local build.
Now I fully understand that we do not need to have manufactured an aircraft an armoured vehicle, or even a MOTS frigate (such as theFFGs) to be able to maintain it however a bespoke submarine is very different matter. With the other types the ADF can often hook into mature support systems, not so with a submarine designed for the RANs unique requirements. I would love it if there was an FMS option for subs but there isn't unless we go nuclear.
Actually talking about the importance of support systems, it has been immature, poorly developed, or poorly contracted support systems that have been the bane some of our MOTS or supposed MOTS acquisitions such as the Tiger and MRH90.
Now I fully understand that we do not need to have manufactured an aircraft an armoured vehicle, or even a MOTS frigate (such as theFFGs) to be able to maintain it however a bespoke submarine is very different matter. With the other types the ADF can often hook into mature support systems, not so with a submarine designed for the RANs unique requirements. I would love it if there was an FMS option for subs but there isn't unless we go nuclear.
Actually talking about the importance of support systems, it has been immature, poorly developed, or poorly contracted support systems that have been the bane some of our MOTS or supposed MOTS acquisitions such as the Tiger and MRH90.
Noting GF's comments I will also add ..... What nuclear plant??? We would not prduce the fuel systems in country or reprocess the wastes. Even for OPAL (Open Pool Australian Light Water Reactor) at Lucus Heights the rods are produced overseas and reprocessed overseas.
The reactors don't need refuelling in their lifetime which leaves the major hurdle being ongoing maintenance and decomissioning of the reactor. The latter is not to be underestimated as all waste material would come back to Asutralia even if this was done overseas (and the whole process is not cheap).
Much as I would love nukes I agree with GF on this one
So that appears to be an arguement for buying a nuclear powered submarine that is in service with another operator, such as US. It would avoid the pitfalls you nominate with operating a bespoke fleet.
I am not wedded to nuclear option, just object to us ignoring a potential solution for reasons of politics (can't face the green opposition to anything nuclear being mentioned in Australia). If nuclear fits the bill, we should bite the bullet and do it.
t68
Well-Known Member
Agree, if it meets the requirments of the RAN and we could support it it should be in incontension nothing should be ruled in or our just because of politics
Wonder what the general consensus with the public would be, the vocal minority or the silent majority?
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
If the nuke option were to be considered, a Virginia purchase would likely include decommsioning of the reactor and retention of the rod waste in the US. The USN and DOE have the skills and security in place, better for the U.S. and Australia.
t68
Well-Known Member
Thanks GF , that puts that to bed no more talk of nucs from me
Agree decommissiong would occur in the US (on the IF this ever happened which is unlikely) but the waste would be repatriated if current international agreements are ahered to.
As an example the reprocessed waste from HIFAR (the predecessor to OPAL) will be repatriated to Australia for storage under these arrangements.
I could be wrong, but apart from community acceptance being an issue, there is almost a complete lack of corporate knowledge relating to the operation, in-service maintenance and deeper level support of nuclear powered submarines in the RAN. Not so long ago boats were being laid up because of a shortage of experienced, qualified technical sailors, an SSN, with their significantly larger crews (especially in their engineering departments), would require a larger number of even more highly trained, difficult to recruit technical sailors. Also in the USN submarine branch officers are trained in the operation of nuclear reactors and I believe are required to have either engineering or a physics major in a science degree.
It would take a couple of decades to build the sort of corporate knowledge required to operate SSNs proficiently. If we decided to go down that path we would still need a new generation of long range conventionals to cover the RANs needs while the nucs worked up.
It would take a couple of decades to build the sort of corporate knowledge required to operate SSNs proficiently. If we decided to go down that path we would still need a new generation of long range conventionals to cover the RANs needs while the nucs worked up.
gawd, the ASC executive were woeful at the senate enquiry
if they can;t deal with a senator who is completely green and has no idea how the hell are they going to deal with seasoned opposition in industry
they hardly inspired confidence
however, reinforces what some of us have said about the ability of the ASC executive
if they can;t deal with a senator who is completely green and has no idea how the hell are they going to deal with seasoned opposition in industry
they hardly inspired confidence
however, reinforces what some of us have said about the ability of the ASC executive
Did you catch the name of who was there from ASC because Stuart Whiley did ok last time?
Stuart Whylie was the lead, and he had his 2IC with him
it was excriciating - and the senators line of questioning was so amateurish he should have been able to answer
ASC came out looking a tad ordinary
I wonder if he has had his wings clipped by the board after embarrassing the government last time he was up when he contradicted them over the cost of building in Australia. I am very surprised at what he said about not having a design as DBT was running for several years, specifically to design a new submarine for the RAN, before being reintegrated with the submarine engineering group in 2013 to prepare for the anticipated replacement project. Reading what was said he makes it sound like they have gone backwards in the last year or two, I am confused, or perhaps not, they are government owned after all and every ASC CEO who hasn't done and said what he was told to has ended up looking for a new job..........hows that for a conspiracy (Sophie Mirabella is on the board)
Senator Conroy - "so you have no idea what type of submarine the RAN want"
Answer - "No"
Senator Conroy - "No idea of displacement"
Answer - "No"
Conroy - "Speed"
Answer - "No"
Conroy = "Range"
Answer - "No"
Hardly inspiring was it?
Give him a hint - Something like a newer better Collins. Oh well ...and this guy wants to win a contract for multiple billions! FM twice.
Damen LST100
16 knots
4000nm range
Up to 1300t deadwt
Up to 235 troops
18 crew
2 LCVPs
Front and rear ramps (70t capacity)
It really does seem tailor made for the RAN
FYI, Damen now has all the details on its website
16 knots
4000nm range
Up to 1300t deadwt
Up to 235 troops
18 crew
2 LCVPs
Front and rear ramps (70t capacity)
It really does seem tailor made for the RAN
They are nice looking ships. But not sure I would agree that the LST-80 or LST-100 is what the RAN has in mind for the LCH Replacement. Seems too much ship for mine.
A simpler and most cost-effective option might be the Turkish Landing Craft Tank from the ADIK yard (link below). As the name implies it is more landing craft than ship, which I believe is what Ph 5 of JP 2048 (LCH Replacement) will deliver. More landing craft than landing ship me thinks.
Anadolu Den. Ins. Kiz. San ve Tic. A.S. | Furstrans Group | LCT | LST | Shipyard
Yes I've looked at these before, however better seakeeping for open ocean journeys is what the ran is after, and I'm not sure the Turkish craft, essentially flat bottomed and designed for the med is really going to deliver that. Also, not really that much difference in size between the two types....maybe only 4 lst100s to replace the lchs.
- Status