Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

Status
Not open for further replies.

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
My impression is Conroy doesn't want to be in Defence, has zero interest in his portfolio, and I have yet to get the impression he has any regard for, or respect for, defence force members.
not too dissimilar to Stephen Smith

Edit. Combet seemed smart and professional, not unlike current minister Payne.
Faulkner, to my great surprise, was a very decent man, as well as being smart and worked hard at a portfolio he was not naturally inclined towards. He was very impressive. I have high hopes for Minister Payne.
Combet was an engineer in a prev life - so knew how to cut to the chase and asked pertinent questions
Faulkner was harsh but fair and fought for the ADO
Payne has been singularly impressive - in fact I can't think of any in recent times who performed as well in the start of their job.

Defence has had a raft of duds in the last 20 years, its about time they got a smart operator who was both across their brief and articulate as well.

Conroy spends too much time trying to come across as clever when he is DADS
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
Conroy spends too much time trying to come across as clever when he is DADS
Just finished watching the entirety of FADT20160316 and now I have a headache. Not sure if it is due to lack of sleep, or the goings on during the hearing.

Impression I got from Conroy and to a lesser extent Xenophon, is that they were trying to engage in 'gotcha' posturing and political grandstanding. Trying to get representatives from Defence to confirm of commit to where naval work in the future will be done, how much money will be for Australian products, etc.

Little apparent understanding or care about how the different projects discussed will impact the national security of Australia. I do wish I knew what was written on that note passed to Conroy though...
 

ASSAIL

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
she's pretty impressive, knows her brief and it shows. she runs rings around shad defmin
The Weekend Oz ran a column by Greg Sheridan casting aspersions on the ability of Payne. I can't link but he continues to wage the war against Turnbull and his acolytes by even saying that Shorten and Conroy are far more across Defence and Strategic assessments than Payne and Bishop. I couldn't believe that a conservative warrior like He could stoop so low. I thought he was brighter than that.
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Hi Volk

All cool. To be honest part of the problem is defence are both the regulator and client and that can lead to some pretty odd compromises. It gets critical when maintenance gets deferred for reasons of politics or expediency.

I agree the problem is a lack of robust technical capability in the Naval administration where they come to rely on class and don't maintain a robust in house capability to assess what they do. As a result they become reliant on Class who may not always understand the operational imperatives. Sadly this also goes for some flag states who find themselves flummoxed when something goes pear shaped and they are approached for a decision. Not helped when some class societies are also suffering dilution in technical skill.

The other issue is WHS legislations and how this impacts on ships being used by government. The red tape around that (which is not necessarily run by technical individuals) is eye watering and can only be dealt what by those who understand the applicable standards.

Having a ship building industry (this includes the naval arcs) that understand regulatory requirements (trust many don't) helps to build a skill bases for the industry as a whole and may open up opportunities to build specialised vessels here (particularly if they are for government).

The sad thing is the gutting of naval engineering as well as shipbuilding results in people without a back ground in either being brought in to fill roles that they lack, if not the qualifications for, then the experience. This leads to people who don't really know making decisions, often not necessarily mistakes but rather their lack of experience leads to a poor understanding of the real risks and hence over confidence, or sometimes even worse a low risk appetite and inappropriate caution.

Too many non technical managers, administrators, politicians and their advisors, do not trust the competent and capable technical people doing the work. Sometimes the naysayers have technical backgrounds but from aviation, or manufacturing / mass production of simple products and think they understand how things work and are actively, even arrogantly dismissive of the opinions and advice of the shipbuilders.

Examples that come to mind include a non defence senior supply chain manager from a non defence, non complex, manufacturing industry that basically used turnkey plant, materials and consumables from a small number of well established suppliers, FIGJAM. He would not listen, could not comprehend what he was being told anyway and was particularly dismissive of people from submarines because they were "overly fussy and spent too much time worrying about unimportant and irrelevant things that did not add value" completely ignoring the fact that all of those things were either actually contracted, or were known from experience toa be critical.

Then there was a risk manager who could not be convinced that non conforming product had nothing to do with a material change and was rather a direct result of the contracted supplier subcontracting the work to an overseas supplier whose plant and processes were incapable of producing product to the contracted specification. He was hammering engineering for making a change required and approved by the customer and missing the point that the real issue was supply chain had relied upon document reviews, certificates and signed affirmations, predominantly through Navantias existing supply chain rather than a robust SQA, test, inspection and audit program.

A senior lead in the Alliance (as opposed to the shipbuilding) engineering team, came from an aviation background ( he had worked for NHI in Europe on the NH90 during design and preproduction) was of the opinion that anyone who had done a trade had obviously not gone to university because they were not smart enough to have done so, hence they obviously were barely literate, incapable of reading instructions or filling out paperwork. So he would automatically trust an engineer or manager at a supplier/subcontractor etc. but would disbelieve the word of a tradesman, technician, technical officer, supervisor, manager (who had come up through trade) because they were obviously incompetent.

If Australia adequately supported our strategically vital shipbuilding industry it would be training its own specialists in support and administration functions and thus would not be let down by the people and organisations they have to rely on instead. Continuity would provide the experienced people required to prevent the mistakes of the past, people who know which risks are worthwhile and which out way the benefits. The would be able to confidently provide advice that the decision makers would happily accept and perhaps most importantly, this expertise and confidence would flow into sustainment, procurement and other industries, improving performance and delivering better value for money.
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
she's pretty impressive, knows her brief and it shows. she runs rings around shad defmin
It is a pleasant change, while Labor has had some very impressive defence and assistant defence ministers (yes there have been some shocking exceptions to the rule) the LNP has traditionally used defence as a departure lounge, or car park for out of favour individuals. The current situation is pretty much the reverse of the norm and I really don't understand why Conroy is shadow, it isn't just his apparent lack of understanding of the portfolio, it is his pretty obvious disinterest in it and disdain for those who dedicate their lives to it. I was particularly unimpressed with Smith but Conroy makes him look much better than he actually was.

The issue I fear is that Labor is still being run by the backroom power brokers, meaning its still all about what is happening inside the party and specifically in Sydney, a very Sussex Street centric view of the world. This is the world that sees Julia Gillard as more popular than Kevin Rudd, Rudd and Latham as a better options than Beazley (probably the best PM we never had). Conroy is a failure, he had a winning nation building project to sell and screwed it to the degree that people still think it is a bad thing even as it is transforming the way businesses and households are doing thing and as the supposedly cheaper and quicker to rollout alternative hits problem after problem. Now in defence he had the perfect opportunity shine against the incompetent, biased anti industry (unless it was in WA) Johnston and the completely lack luster Andrews, but manages to make both look much better than they were. He completely screws up the shipbuilding debate, Johnston plus Abbotts captains calls have lumbered Payne with some pretty difficult to defend decisions but Conroy is so inarticulate that people not only accept the current government narrative, they now blame labor for decisions that were ferked up under Howard.
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
The Weekend Oz ran a column by Greg Sheridan casting aspersions on the ability of Payne. I can't link but he continues to wage the war against Turnbull and his acolytes by even saying that Shorten and Conroy are far more across Defence and Strategic assessments than Payne and Bishop. I couldn't believe that a conservative warrior like He could stoop so low. I thought he was brighter than that.
Unfortunately the conservative fringe appears more and more to prefer the idea of losing the election, proving that Turnbull was a failure so they can claim Abbott should never have been replaced. They would rather spend the next parliament in opposition, doing to Shorten what they did to Gillard, effectively denying Australia good governance for another three years, than stay in power under Turnbull. They are every bit as bad as Labors faceless men.
 

swerve

Super Moderator
It is a pleasant change, while Labor has had some very impressive defence and assistant defence ministers (yes there have been some shocking exceptions to the rule) the LNP has traditionally used defence as a departure lounge, or car park for out of favour individuals. The current situation is pretty much the reverse of the norm and I really don't understand why Conroy is shadow, it isn't just his apparent lack of understanding of the portfolio, it is his pretty obvious disinterest in it and disdain for those who dedicate their lives to it. I was particularly unimpressed with Smith but Conroy makes him look much better than he actually was..
OT, but there have been worse in some countries. Consider Norbert Darabos, Austrian Minister of Defence from 2007 to 2013. He worked very hard to minimise Austria's military capability, & get officers promoted who supported his party.
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
The Weekend Oz ran a column by Greg Sheridan casting aspersions on the ability of Payne. I can't link but he continues to wage the war against Turnbull and his acolytes by even saying that Shorten and Conroy are far more across Defence and Strategic assessments than Payne and Bishop. I couldn't believe that a conservative warrior like He could stoop so low. I thought he was brighter than that.
good grief, on any given day that would be an unfair matchup....

I would have expected better from Sheridan
 

Stampede

Well-Known Member
If the RAN's sub is not capable enough, has too high a maintenance requirement, etc. then the allies might not be able to get such assistance from the RAN.
Thanks very much for the time and effort with your reply.

The points raised are all very valid and need to be in the broad mix of the decision process.For many on this thread it would seem that Plan J is the obvious choice, but for me and what ever reason it's an uncomfortable fit and would suggest an alternative choice.
Now as to vapourware European alternatives, I'm not qualified to say however potentialy bad such an option would be. If it's a proven platform thats the deal breaker then use one the older proven designs and embrace the limits of that design with the security it will hopefully be a trouble free platform delivered on time and within budget. As to US combat systems well that maybe the challenge.
At the end of the day I'm not that excited by the numbers and the expense of the submarine replacement and can see a potential for it to be a monetary black hole in the quest for a BALANCED fleet.
I would be quite happy to sacrifice Sub 9,10,11,12 and redirect resources to a third LHD, AOL, round out the OPV's with decent and dedicated aviation, add 2 to 3 dedicated ice capable patrol vessels and finally replace the LCH's .Also build up the port and airstrip infrastructure to our north and our Island territories and use these facilities to there fullest.

Do the above and we will have a much more capable and relevent RAN for our region and still have ADF assets to support the US alliance.
Eight subs will still be a decent sized force and suggest prove enough in numbers for an efficent manufacturing build

As they say, In my opinion.

Regards S
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Eight subs will still be a decent sized force and suggest prove enough in numbers for an efficent manufacturing build
it would be worth listening to the chiefs speak re the requirement on the Senate FADT Hearing

Its about coverage and tempo

Subs have the largest single disproportionate effect on an enemies maritime movements - be they naval or merchant. Its an order of magnitude that dwarfs the "fright" of a skimmer in the same area of interest. It causes an enemy to allocate resources way beyond what normal opposition would generate

Just to reinforce the issue surrounding japanese subs, there are a few on here who have been talking about this for the last 8 years - its not a fad comment coming up from the current acquisition hoo har. Its based on long term involvement and knowledge well before it became a public talking point

I would rather have 12 subs causing disruption, dislocation and destruction on an enemy force than more skimmers.

12 subs is also about a through life rate - its not about 12 subs at once
 

Goknub

Active Member
Do the above and we will have a much more capable and relevent RAN for our region and still have ADF assets to support the US alliance.
Eight subs will still be a decent sized force and suggest prove enough in numbers for an efficent manufacturing build
Regards S
I would also like to see a reduced sub fleet. I would much rather see the resources go to a complete amphibious capability, ideally moved away from Sydney so it's not playing second fiddle to the surface fleet and a 4th combat brigade. This would give the ADF the ability to surge an under-sized Division anywhere in our region and sustain a Brigade.

There is too much focus on DOA and Air-Sea Gap, I would favour a more Forward Defence posture. The Chinese have taken control of the SCS with dredging barges and amphibious ships.

I'm quite aware that this is not likely to happen however.
 

Delta204

Active Member
@Todjaeger, I'm not so sure your speculated 8 in commission would occur or even be practical, While batches of 3 - 4 are likely not all of them will be laid down at once but rather one every two or so years. We can only slow the build of a submarine so much so unless we plan to retire our submarines when they are 6 - 8 years old before doing a mass decommissioning and mass commissioning such a speculation isn't possible.
... to add to this discussion about tempo ect., the USN has an operational rate of ~ 20-25% for their SSN's on any given day; with the ability to surge to ~75% in a time of crisis. I doubt the RAN would be able to beat these readiness numbers (although I'm not sure if there are big differences in readiness rate re: SSN's vs. SSK's) so it's easy to see why 12 are needed.
 

hauritz

Well-Known Member
DCNS expect Australia to announce its official shortlist for its new frigates by the end of the month. This story further speculates that the Kiwis might select the same ship for its own navy.

It is actually tricky coming up with a shortlist of three.

Out of the FREMM, MEKO 400, upgraded F105, type 26 and Iver Huitfeldt perhaps the first three would be the strongest contenders.

DCNS Targets Australian Frigate Tender
 

40 deg south

Well-Known Member
DCNS expect Australia to announce its official shortlist for its new frigates by the end of the month. This story further speculates that the Kiwis might select the same ship for its own navy.

It is actually tricky coming up with a shortlist of three.

Out of the FREMM, MEKO 400, upgraded F105, type 26 and Iver Huitfeldt perhaps the first three would be the strongest contenders.

DCNS Targets Australian Frigate Tender
hauritz

Someone here linked to video of an ASPI conference last year featuring a RNZN speaker. He mentioned in passing that NZ was beginning to scope ANZAC replacements. He stated that NZ would need to weigh up something custom-built to our requirements, an existing in-production design from elsewhere (I think he referenced the T26) or whatever Australia selected for SEA5000.

So purchasing the next generation of Australian frigates is officially a possibility. Two big issues are timing and budget. Australia wants to being replacing ANZACs in the mid 20s (I understand) whereas NZ expects them to continue until at least 2030 (probably longer). It would still be possible for NZ to slot onto the tail end of an Aussie build, I guess.

Budget is likely to be a more significant problem. Australia has the means and willingness to buy a higher-spec frigate than NZ is willing to pay for. Additionally, Australia has traditionally been willing to pay a significant premium for local production - there are no political brownie points in this for a NZ politician.

So while a joint purchase is a possibility, I would think its a very long way from being a sure thing.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
hauritz

Someone here linked to video of an ASPI conference last year featuring a RNZN speaker. He mentioned in passing that NZ was beginning to scope ANZAC replacements. He stated that NZ would need to weigh up something custom-built to our requirements, an existing in-production design from elsewhere (I think he referenced the T26) or whatever Australia selected for SEA5000.

So purchasing the next generation of Australian frigates is officially a possibility. Two big issues are timing and budget. Australia wants to being replacing ANZACs in the mid 20s (I understand) whereas NZ expects them to continue until at least 2030 (probably longer). It would still be possible for NZ to slot onto the tail end of an Aussie build, I guess.

Budget is likely to be a more significant problem. Australia has the means and willingness to buy a higher-spec frigate than NZ is willing to pay for. Additionally, Australia has traditionally been willing to pay a significant premium for local production - there are no political brownie points in this for a NZ politician.

So while a joint purchase is a possibility, I would think its a very long way from being a sure thing.
The two RNZN ANZAC FFHs are due for retirement in 2027 and 2029 respectively. From what I understand, the current intention is for steel to be cut on the first RAN ANZAC FFH replacement in 2020. I do not think that a comment by a RNZN officer at a seminar or conference can be taken as an official NZG position on the matter because the NZG has not yet made a determination regarding the RNZN ANZAC FFH replacement. Finally this is hijacking the RAN thread and should be in the RNZN thread, so any replies to this and previous post should be in the RNZN thread please.
 

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
I would also like to see a reduced sub fleet. I would much rather see the resources go to a complete amphibious capability, ideally moved away from Sydney so it's not playing second fiddle to the surface fleet and a 4th combat brigade. This would give the ADF the ability to surge an under-sized Division anywhere in our region and sustain a Brigade.
I hope they aren't mutually exclusive. I believe there is a need and the eventual budget to do both.

With the ARG work up and the possible eventual establishment of some sort of ESG capability within the ADF still being the ultimate aim. It won't be there 100% of the time, but I would imagine we would work at improving its availability. There are some signs that the ADF is seeking door kicking amphibious capability (arming the LHD's new landing craft), not just an amphibious landing. IMO a 3rd LHD is a great way to provide that particularly going into the future. Its more about the ADF and Australia as a whole willing to step up to a 3rd LHD concept, and making ARG capability much more than a one off hail mary (perhaps working out a specific plan with the USMC to plug availability gaps within the ADF). Obviously you would also have to equip and strengthen the Army to be able to do that, but I believe that is possible and also happening.

Ultimately we need something more capable than Choules and thats a pretty short list. But there is time to work on that.

12 subs are expensive, but its needed capability. Particularly if we want to deploy our ARG/ESG capability in something other than a completely benign region (which it may permanently become).
 

ASSAIL

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
DCNS expect Australia to announce its official shortlist for its new frigates by the end of the month. This story further speculates that the Kiwis might select the same ship for its own navy.

It is actually tricky coming up with a shortlist of three.

Out of the FREMM, MEKO 400, upgraded F105, type 26 and Iver Huitfeldt perhaps the first three would be the strongest contenders.

DCNS Targets Australian Frigate Tender
DCNS are trying very hard. On the one hand they want to sell the FREMM design and on the other they are busily bagging the Japanese on the danger to Oz of taking a risk on Li ion batteries in Soryu. Obviously the Soryu is nowhere near as risk free as the Shortfin B.:rolleyes: Can't link the article in the Weekend Oz.
 

John Newman

The Bunker Group
DCNS are trying very hard. On the one hand they want to sell the FREMM design and on the other they are busily bagging the Japanese on the danger to Oz of taking a risk on Li ion batteries in Soryu. Obviously the Soryu is nowhere near as risk free as the Shortfin B.:rolleyes: Can't link the article in the Weekend Oz.
The SMH also published a similar article with the French raising the issue of 'exploding batteries':

Claims Australian navy will be at risk from 'exploding batteries' if subs built by Japanese

Certainly getting down and dirty now that the finish line is in sight!!
 

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
SMH Story said:
Ms de Bailliencourt said Japan was proposing to fit lithium ion "because they cannot complete the design of their boat on diesel engines".
I don't know how the French can say that, its not clear what the Japanese are doing in terms of diesels. The Japanese have been pretty secretive with their bid. I believe the Germans are intending or offering to fit lithium batteries too. I would imagine their boats are going to explode too. All submarines are going to explode apart from the French ones.

Obviously with 6 diesel engines and the most generative capability from a diesel submarine that has ever been proposed they hope that this fear campaign will assist their lithiumless bid.

I would like to know if the Japanese are going with 2 or 3 or 4 diesel engines. And how much lithium capacity and where they will be located (in the main bank at the bottom, or in the AIP space).
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
The Japanese Government is talking to Toshiba about building a factory in Australia to make lithium-ion batteries.
which will be interesting as there is a clear shift towards AUV's and UUV's as future (and companion) sub capabilities.

the tech has leaped ahead in duration and persistence levels.

whats more important is the fact that new generation tech + lithium is a huge bonus for onboard sensor and combat systems.

its a pity the journos aren't smart enough to work this out - they're still carrying on about the need for big subs and don't understand the issues around energy management for combat/sensor fitouts - and more importantly, the common combat room issues between USN/RN nukes and RAN
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top