Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[Oberon]

Yes because naturally the newest and shiniest must be the best choice

In regards to them, While its to late to order a 4th to keep the line open are 3 AWD's enough to suit our needs/requirements? While far superior to the Perth's and Adelaide's that they are replacing I do wonder if we will be lacking in actual numbers especially once you account for transit time, maintenance schedules, etc etc

From memory, it was quite a bit cheaper

 

[Oberon]

Back in 2006 I was told by an academic with a line into capability development that no matter how defence crunched the numbers three AWDs would be insufficient due to the amount of time each ship would have to spend in the US for maintenance and upgrade of the AEGIS system as the government had originally planned to have this work done in the US to keep cost and complexity down. I have never been able to discover if this was actually the case and the government changed their mind and funded a local capability, or rather if they just decided to wear the risk.

If the F105 hull is eventually chosen for the future frigate program, could a fourth AWD be the first ship built?

 

[AegisFC]

In both cases, BMD will be a "pay to have it yourself"

SPY-1D(V) is getting BMD with one of the Baseline 9's. So its sorted, just have to buy it.

 

[Volkodav]

One of the differences between the Hobarts and the F-104/5 is the Australianised combat system that exists to interface between AEGIS and any systems Australia may elect to integrate outside of the USN spiral development of AEGIS. I had forgotten this when I posted the previous but it may have been part of the mitigation of future maintenance and upgrade issues. Either way it was an additional cost and a change to the simple, build to print, existing option, the government thought they had selected.

 

[StobieWan]

SPY-1D(V) is getting BMD with one of the Baseline 9's. So its sorted, just have to buy it.

Ah, wasn't sure - thought that Open Aegis wasn't funded for BMD which would have put Australia in the same boat as Korea in terms of the upgrade being unfunded. Correction noted

 

[AegisFC]

Ah, wasn't sure - thought that Open Aegis wasn't funded for BMD which would have put Australia in the same boat as Korea in terms of the upgrade being unfunded. Correction noted

Korea uses an older COTS variant that chances are won't be supported for BMD. The AWD's use a newer COTS variant that is pretty close to Baseline 9. The USN ships with this variant are being upgraded to BL9 software.

 

[vonnoobie]

I recently made the mistake of replying to a comments section relating to the Collins replacement and another member of the internet sprouting out nuclear was the only option :crazy.

Nuclear and non nuclear are like apples and oranges, Both have there strengths and weaknesses so to claim nuclear is the be all end all shows your unwillingness to actually dive deeper into the topic.

The most simple bare bone explanation is that nuclear submarines are good for long range ocean use while non nuclear generally is suitable to shallow water environments.

For the Indian and Pacific oceans nuclear boats are best in broad terms, however if you want to get into coastal range or area's such as the Persian gulf or the waters through out South East Asia then non nuclear boats are best.

One needs to identify what your requirements are and what the strengths and weaknesses of the proposed assets are. For Australia we are already allied with a nation that has literally dozens of nuclear boats in the Indian and Pacific oceans, While at the same time being literally on the door step to a relatively shallow region of water.

If we went nuclear we would be losing several advantages to gain a different set of advantages that we already have access to, At the same time our ally (USA) would lose the current advantages we bring to the party.

Make no mistake about it, The USN likes us having non nuclear boats as it allows them access to a platform that can do stuff that there nuclear boats could only dream about which is why the USN has been so helpful in maintaining and building up our submarine capability.

For Australia non nuclear is best, having nuclear boats would be an advantage however on the grand scale we would lose more capability then we gain.

That all aside, We wouldn't actually be able to get our hands on any of them. Not because the US wouldn't allow it but rather because they can't actually build them quick enough to replace there LA class so they literally have no room on the production line for us to slip into. As its sits they are not certain they will be able to build there Ohio replacements in the time frame they want because of a lack of capacity.

As to if one Virginia is worth several Collins, Well look at the naval war games and the success the Collins has had. Depending on the environment they are generally on a 1 for 1 basis.

Regards, Matthew.

Apperantly my post is all based off of my own assumptions with no basis in fact while I'm also naive in both political and defence matters. on the outset I don't agree with him but then again who ever likes to be told there wrong, So i figured i'd ask those that actually have or do work in the field as to how close or far off the mark I am, Where am I right, where am I wrong? I'd appreciate if any one could help to improve my knowledge and nip bad habits in the butt.

Cheers, Matthew.

 

[Oberon]

I recently made the mistake of replying to a comments section relating to the Collins replacement and another member of the internet sprouting out nuclear was the only option :crazy.



Apperantly my post is all based off of my own assumptions with no basis in fact while I'm also naive in both political and defence matters. on the outset I don't agree with him but then again who ever likes to be told there wrong, So i figured i'd ask those that actually have or do work in the field as to how close or far off the mark I am, Where am I right, where am I wrong? I'd appreciate if any one could help to improve my knowledge and nip bad habits in the butt.

Cheers, Matthew.

Well, leaving the political ramifications of going nuclear aside, I think the number one impediment to going nuclear is that there is no domestic nuclear industry in Australia to support and maintain nuclear submarines (apart from the research facility at Lucas Heights which does manufacture isotopes for nuclear medicine).

All the Western nations ( France, Britain, the US) which operate nuclear powered boats have a sizeable domestic nuclear industry with experienced workers and management. The cost of setting up such an industry in Australia would be costly and require political support.

 

[vonnoobie]

Well, leaving the political ramifications of going nuclear aside, I think the number one impediment to going nuclear is that there is no domestic nuclear industry in Australia to support and maintain nuclear submarines (apart from the research facility at Lucas Heights which does manufacture isotopes for nuclear medicine).

All the Western nations ( France, Britain, the US) which operate nuclear powered boats have a sizeable domestic nuclear industry with experienced workers and management. The cost of setting up such an industry in Australia would be costly and require political support.

That is the crux of the matter when it is all said and done, Though not in the essence you put forth. More often nuclear boats are being made to last there full length with out any work being performed on the reactor so we don't so much need an industry to maintain them but rather as I mentioned with the US not having the capacity to fulfill any exports we would have to build them our selves which would require a lot more in both the industrial and political sense. (That is at least how I understand the US builds there modern reactorsfor the Virginias, Correct me if im wrong).

 

[Volkodav]

I would love Australia to lease Virginas, Astutes, or even Baracudas but it would require a sustained, bipartisan political commitment on funding, sustainment and crewing, the like of which we have never seen. The issues with the Collins were less than those encountered on the vast majority of submarine projects globally but were amplified, blown out of all proportion or even fabricated by political interests and motivations.

 

[t68]

but it would require a sustained, bipartisan political commitment on funding, sustainment and crewing, the like of which we have never seen. .

Yep if there is not commitment from both sides of the house it's a non- issue in my book, but then on the other hand it would force funding to be kept up at all times as they just can't pull them out of the water sit them on blocks and walk away till such time as the next goverment comes in with more funding

 

[John Fedup]

That is the crux of the matter when it is all said and done, Though not in the essence you put forth. More often nuclear boats are being made to last there full length with out any work being performed on the reactor so we don't so much need an industry to maintain them but rather as I mentioned with the US not having the capacity to fulfill any exports we would have to build them our selves which would require a lot more in both the industrial and political sense. (That is at least how I understand the US builds there modern reactorsfor the Virginias, Correct me if im wrong).

IIRC both Electric Boat and Newport News build nuclear subs. The Virginia program is by all accounts one of the US's most successful military procurements so perhaps there is an export capability. As Canada has a nuclear industry I would like to see this as a future consideration for the Victoria replacment but like Australia the politics will be an issue.

 

[ASSAIL]

We tend to become very introspective and critical about our industry's efforts to deliver the new AWDs to the RAN and we fail to recognise that other countries also experience cost overruns, capability shortfalls and late delivery. Once the hype delivered by host nations is dissected we find that our own efforts aren't as bad as we think.

I wasn't sure to put this post in the RN thread but decided this was more pertinent.
The attached link shows that the T45 build experienced very familiar problems that are found at ASC and possibly other ship builders as well. (an oldy but a goody)£1.1bn Royal Navy warship finally armed, sort of • The Register

 

[StobieWan]

Lewis Page strikes again What a f*cking idiot. He's ex- RN, a diver I think, despises anyone below his former rank, hates anyone *above* his former rank and frequently um..stretches a point too far. Or put another way, he's got so many things wrong with that article it's practically a howler a paragraph.

I'm liking his assertion that the Aster missile wasn't ready til 2011 when the first test firings actually occurred in 2001 and the missile has been in service with the French Navy for a decade or more.

But no, risky project with far too many new items coming together in one package. We may well have done better to go with the hull and propulsion but to have gone with Aegis/CEC/Standard and had the ships in the water a few years earlier as a result. SAMPSON is supposed to be very good mind you.

 

[Oberon]

We tend to become very introspective and critical about our industry's efforts to deliver the new AWDs to the RAN and we fail to recognise that other countries also experience cost overruns, capability shortfalls and late delivery. Once the hype delivered by host nations is dissected we find that our own efforts aren't as bad as we think.

I wasn't sure to put this post in the RN thread but decided this was more pertinent.
The attached link shows that the T45 build experienced very familiar problems that are found at ASC and possibly other ship builders as well. (an oldy but a goody)£1.1bn Royal Navy warship finally armed, sort of • The Register

h

Upon first reading the article the delays seem quite serious; but then when you realise the piece was written I n 2011 the delay doesn't seem so bad after all. What is a concern is that the effectiveness of the missile system appears below par, at least when compared with what the Americans have and what Australia should have when the Hobarts enter service.

 

[ngatimozart]

Lewis Page strikes again What a f*cking idiot. He's ex- RN, a diver I think, despises anyone below his former rank, hates anyone *above* his former rank and frequently um..stretches a point too far. Or put another way, he's got so many things wrong with that article it's practically a howler a paragraph.

I'm liking his assertion that the Aster missile wasn't ready til 2011 when the first test firings actually occurred in 2001 and the missile has been in service with the French Navy for a decade or more.

But no, risky project with far too many new items coming together in one package. We may well have done better to go with the hull and propulsion but to have gone with Aegis/CEC/Standard and had the ships in the water a few years earlier as a result. SAMPSON is supposed to be very good mind you.

Bubble heads eh. Always a worry that lot. Not a very well written article and he does illustrate his lack of knowledge about the subject quite well. Howler might be an understatement. I don't understand why you would want an Aster 30 SAM to be capable of taking out a small fast surface target. Sea Ceptor can do that and it's cheaper. Are they going to fit Sea Ceptor to the Type 45s? Would be very silly not too.

 

[ASSAIL]

Bubble heads eh. Always a worry that lot. Not a very well written article and he does illustrate his lack of knowledge about the subject quite well. Howler might be an understatement. I don't understand why you would want an Aster 30 SAM to be capable of taking out a small fast surface target. Sea Ceptor can do that and it's cheaper. Are they going to fit Sea Ceptor to the Type 45s? Would be very silly not too.

I've never heard of Register Magazine but the bloke is the Editor and he is a commentator on various matters (I read his bio after Stobie's comments)
He is an ex serving RN officer so must have some appreciation of naval matters.
The point he made and I agree with is that the RN has a long history of bringing ships into service fitted "for but not with" and it takes an inordinate amount of time and expense (in addition to the original cost) to bring them up to acceptable levels.
Daring was in commission for 3 years before she became useful.
As for specific weapons, he has gone over the top but he does have a valid point re The missile system. Being in service with the French doesn't exactly prove the system in the RN, different sensor and combat system and a total system integration package virtually creates a new capability as the 50% weapon failure rate during initial testing implies.

 

[RobWilliams]

I don't understand why you would want an Aster 30 SAM to be capable of taking out a small fast surface target. Sea Ceptor can do that and it's cheaper. Are they going to fit Sea Ceptor to the Type 45s? Would be very silly not too.

when he talks about striking surface targets, I believe he means a traditional AShM. That's been fixed (sort of) with 4 of 6 ships recieving 2 quad-launchers for Harpoon. At one point I believe the intention was to swap the sets around such that deployed ships take equipment sets from ships alongside.

Crappy way to go about things, sure.

As for Sea Ceptor, I believe it's possible in theory. MBDA are doing some qualifying work with Lockheed to prove CAMM on their Mk41 but I don't know if it's qualified for the A70. Haven't heard there's any work going on in that direction either.

His comment that Sea Viper will never be BMD capable is horseshit. MBDA are working on the missile and the UK has been trialling (and continues to trial) the SAMPSON radar in that role. Last I heard, SAMPSON detected the launch and tracked a BMD target in flight in the Pacific a while back.

 

[StobieWan]

I've never heard of Register Magazine but the bloke is the Editor and he is a commentator on various matters (I read his bio after Stobie's comments)
He is an ex serving RN officer so must have some appreciation of naval matters.
The point he made and I agree with is that the RN has a long history of bringing ships into service fitted "for but not with" and it takes an inordinate amount of time and expense (in addition to the original cost) to bring them up to acceptable levels.
Daring was in commission for 3 years before she became useful.
As for specific weapons, he has gone over the top but he does have a valid point re The missile system. Being in service with the French doesn't exactly prove the system in the RN, different sensor and combat system and a total system integration package virtually creates a new capability as the 50% weapon failure rate during initial testing implies.

If I seem overly harsh with Page it's from previous articles, in that he's an established track record of writing about things from a very peculiar slant. One frequent rant he'd go off on was that the RN were buying "the wrong type of ships" which distilled down to "it'd be cheaper to buy a container ship and put the sensors and missiles on that" instead of using some terribly expensive frigate things, which as I'm sure you're aware makes little sense as the major cost of a warship is in fact the sensors, CMS, weapons systems etc.


I read his comments on Aster as driving more at the missile itself than the systems but it's worth noting that multiple firings were carried out from Longbow, a trials barge with a full radar and CMS system which was purchased for the exact purpose of testing the whole shebang end to end. Aster is basically a sea going SAMP-T and they've been test fired since the 1990's against Mirache drones, Longbow fired off a number of missiles, uncovering a production issue which was fairly easily corrected.

Daring firing a missile in test is obviously a part of commissioning and useful but all the complex work had been executed in full several years earlier using a full replica of the affected systems so I think he's being unfair here.

As to surface to surface weaponry, the ship the 45's are replacing had none - Type 45 is an air warfare ship first and foremost and like the Type 42 before them, their surface warfare capability came from a helicopter firing missiles at range. Don't get me wrong, I'm pleased to see Harpoon on four of them now but slating them for not having a capability not required by CONOPS seems unfair.

Page also flags them for not having Phalanx (incorrect) and as Rob notes, testing vs supersonic targets happened the year after, and in any event, a block 2 Aster has been demonstrated against an SRBM simulator much earlier.

I'm all for a spot of healthy self examination here but Page usually writes with a somewhat aggrieved agenda.

 

[t68]

interesting news being generated about costs for the future submarine and a possible saving of 5 billion. don't know how much stock to put on this but if true might go to some way of getting 10-12 submarines hope so


No Cookies | The Advertiser