Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[ThePuss]

Global downturn sinks Australian submarine float
02.26.09, 03:14 AM EST

By James Grubel

CANBERRA, Feb 26 (Reuters) - Australia's government on Thursday dropped plans to sell its defence ship builder, Australian Submarine Corporation (ASC), saying the global economic downturn may affect a successful sale.


Yahoo! BuzzAnalysts had said the ASC, which built and maintains Australia's fleet of six Collins-class submarines, was worth about A$300 million ($194 million). The company also has a contract to build the navy's three air warfare destroyers.

'It is unfortunate that the current economic climate presents significant risks to a successful sale of ASC,' Finance Minister Lindsay Tanner said in a statement. 'In addition, a sale in the short term could complicate the operations of the company given ASC is currently building the Royal Australian Navy's air warfare destroyers and likely to be considered in any future submarine build programme,' he said.

Australia may build up to 12 new submarines, at a cost of up to A$25 billion, under a new defence strategic review to be outlined in April, according to local media reports. The Adelaide-based ASC may win some of those contracts.

The sale process began under the former conservative government, but is complicated because the ASC has access to high-technology U.S. weapons systems. That means any buyer would need U.S approval to access sensitive technology.

Australia's push to boost the submarine fleet separately faces a major hurdle, with the navy struggling to find enough submariners to crew its existing six submarines.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Call me old fashioned but I don't feel comfortable with our domestic arms and munitions manufacturer base being foreign owned.

If we don't sell it off then they need to go through the ASC executive with a fire hose. WOFTAM 1st class.

I have no objections to the US having majority ownership because of a few other things that they bring to the table. I would not want Thales to get it. We don't have to worry about Sweden anymore as its now a german outfit.

It's the US for me on preference as we get a whole pile of gear and access way beyond what any of the others (combined even) could bring to the table.

It's not just about subs - its about the next boats and ISR capability across a number of dimensions.

quite frankly, the fixes made to collins (iteration 1) at the major technology level were american initiated and at no cost to us. they were significant changes - and we got access to some technology fixes and solutions that only exist on Seawolf/Virgina/Florida (and I'm not referring to BYG)

 

[ThePuss]

quite frankly, the fixes made to collins (iteration 1) at the major technology level were american initiated and at no cost to us. they were significant changes - and we got access to some technology fixes and solutions that only exist on Seawolf/Virgina/Florida (and I'm not referring to BYG)

Agreed and the only reason why we got these upgrades was because the America was happy the technology would not leak as the yard was wholly government owned by this stage. Also agreed that if the yard was American owned they would also transfer technology to us but I would still prefer to have the yard Australian owned.

In saying this I am not a supporter of "Buy Australian" at all cost. We could of retired all the FFG's and saved the money spent on their upgrades and have four flight II Arleigh Burke's strait of the American production line by now.

 

[gf0012-aust]

In saying this I am not a supporter of "Buy Australian" at all cost. We could of retired all the FFG's and saved the money spent on their upgrades and have four flight II Arleigh Burke's strait of the American production line by now.

I'm a strong supporter of buying australian where they are competitive and of tangible strategic interest.

I'm a strong believer that the executive at ASC should go because of performance during the production and since number 6 came off.

The americans and germans (let alone the japanese) would smarten up some of the idiotic practices they have - and some of the original engineers should really be sent to the paddock. they're still stuck on large mini nuke sized subs with pump jets and alpha sails.

they need to get out more and see what tech is in the pipeline - and they certainly need a reality check as to their capability

 

[Jon K]

The americans and germans (let alone the japanese) would smarten up some of the idiotic practices they have - and some of the original engineers should really be sent to the paddock. they're still stuck on large mini nuke sized subs with pump jets and alpha sails.

they need to get out more and see what tech is in the pipeline - and they certainly need a reality check as to their capability

What you're proposing? As layman, if you're referring to capabilities delivered by SDV's (equivalent), AUV's and other drones, won't they demand quite a large submarine to act as a mother ship anyway?

 

[gf0012-aust]

What you're proposing? As layman, if you're referring to capabilities delivered by SDV's (equivalent), AUV's and other drones, won't they demand quite a large submarine to act as a mother ship anyway?

again my opinion.

Collins were originally designed for a blue/gold crew mentality (it was the cusp of the end of the cold war) They were designed to go for 45+ day missions (and actually mission sets that were as long as nukes at wartime)

the reason for the larger sub was that we have jurisdiction for almost 1/9th of the worlds claimed waterways (including all our territories). large subs are necessary. I'm not against large subs for RAN, I'm opposed to some of ASC's future designs as they don't take into account things that are happening here and now in future tech.

eg the americans have VLS launched Reaper sized UAV's from their subs recently

we are better off with large subs to fulfill our maritime protection and maritime strategic needs - I just think that ASC's current theoretical proposals are rubbish - and are reflective of maritime engineers who have not been paying attention to future capability demos (even just watching USS Florida over the last 5 years as a conventional and as a SSGN would give some clues)

 

[LancasterBomber]

Hi All,

I am going in for my follow up testing for AWA position application in RAN. All I have been told is that it is role specific testing to see if I am a suitable candidate.

Can anyone shed any light on what I could reasonably expect? Is it aptitude testing? I would love to prepare as best I can.

If anyone can give me some little tips or even a generic reference point as to what is involved I would greatly appreciate it.

Cheers!

 

[rockitten]

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25130628-31477,00.html

"THE global financial crisis has forced the Defence Department to shelve plans to buy billions of dollars' of military equipment, including a new $5 billion maritime surveillance system.

The economic downturn will also mean the navy will not exercise the option to acquire a fourth air warfare destroyer worth $2 billion, and could force a one-year delay in plans to spend $16 billion on 100 F-35 joint strike fighters. "

-
Oh no~! It will be the first time RAN doesn't have a HMAS Melbourne as their 1st tier combatant......

 

[blueorchid]

-
"Oh no~! It will be the first time RAN doesn't have a HMAS Melbourne as their 1st tier combatant......"

I do not seem to remember a HMAS Melbourne as a 1st tier combatant during WW2.

At the start of WW2 - Australia,Canberra then Sydney,Perth & Hobart were the 1st tiers.

Cheers

 

[Sea Toby]

The first RAN battlecruiser was HMAS Australia, the first Town class cruiser was HMAS Sydney, the first County class heavy cruiser was Australia, the first Modified Leander class light cruisers was HMAS Hobart, the first Majestic class carrier was HMAS Sydney, the first Majestic class carrier with an angled deck was HMAS Melbourne, the first Adams class destroyer was HMAS Perth, the first Perry class frigate was HMAS Adelaide, the first air warfare destroyers will be HMAS Hobart, and the first LHD will be HMAS Canberra.

If any city hasn't been rewarded with a class name, its Brisbane. Since the town class there have been a considerable bit of time when Perth, Melbourne, Brisbane, Adelaide, Hobart, Canberra, and Sydney have not had a ship named after them. It must be Melbourne's time.

Keep in mind only Adelaide and Canberra Perry class frigates have been stricken. Sydney, Melbourne, Darwin, and Newcastle are still in the fleet, along with the last Anzac, Perth.

Thus, the next class of ships will most likely will be named Melbourne, if not the last air warfare destroyer. The situation don't look great now, but who knows what may happen wthin eight to ten years. The Liberal party could be in power again, ordering a fourth AWD.

 

[Aussie Digger]

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25130628-31477,00.html-
Oh no~! It will be the first time RAN doesn't have a HMAS Melbourne as their 1st tier combatant......

Nonsense. HMAS Melbourne is one of the 4 upgraded FFG Frigates...

 

[rockitten]

Nonsense. HMAS Melbourne is one of the 4 upgraded FFG Frigates...

What I mean is : when this HMAS Melbourne (the FFG) is retired, the replacement HMAS Melbourne (if there is any) will not be a 1st tier combatant in the fleet.....
-
The previous HMAS Melbourne was the flagship and the pride of the fleet for 38 years, and this HMAS Melbourne is at least one of the strongest in the fleet. As a Melboureian, it is sad for me too see a HMAS Melbourne as a 2nd class ship.....

 

[PeterM]

What are likely to be the most practical solutions for replacement of the
8 Anzac class frigates?

Obviously this is a little way into the future, but it isn't too far away that replacement option may need to start to be considered.

 

[rossfrb_1]

RAN aviation

This is an interesting, if not worrying report on the status of RAN aviation.
One hopes that the soon to be released defence white paper, clearly (and decisively) addresses some if not all of these issues.
Otherwise if they hold off on a descision for much longer,
the Seahawks will be running out of hours and the incumbent government will have to make a rushed choice.
Since the Seasprite fiasco has seen the RAN short of 10 choppers for almost decade now, I'd like to see a decision to
buy at least 24 new frames (probably NFH with active dipping sonar). I won't be holding my breath though.
Numbers wise this is still below 16 Seahawks, 10 Seasprites and the handful of Seakings.


http://www.aspi.org.au/publication/publication_details.aspx?ContentID=200


rb

 

[the road runner]

What are likely to be the most practical solutions for replacement of the
8 Anzac class frigates?

Obviously this is a little way into the future, but it isn't too far away that replacement option may need to start to be considered.

I am under the impression that the F-100(AWD) hull,minus AEGIS and other equipment, will be the next frigate hulls for for Australia.(i have no link,but read it in DT magazine)

rossfrb_1, the NH90 will probabley be chosen as our next RAN helicopter(see AIR 6000) but NATO navies will be the first to recieve the NH 90 naval helicopter.

I would like to see the Tiger ARH intergrated with an ASM like Penguine/Harpoon(but dont know if these ASM could be intergrated with the Tiger:unknown)I wonder could this be done????? I am thinking the Harpoon will be to heavy and large but Penguine may fit???

 

[Todjaeger]

What are likely to be the most practical solutions for replacement of the
8 Anzac class frigates?

Obviously this is a little way into the future, but it isn't too far away that replacement option may need to start to be considered.

I believe that the RAN has started considering what would be needed for the Anzac follow-on frigate. From what others with experience in the Oz Gov't/Defence industry have indicated, there is generally a 10-14 year gap between the initial consideration for a procurement programme and the initial entry into service. At least for large-scale/Capital purchases like aircraft, vehicles or vessels. Granted, the C-17 and the pending F/A-18F/(mini-G) do not follow this pattern, these were purchased following a critical need fast track purchase. They were also purchased from the US where production is ongoing and the US allowed the RAAF to take some of their assigned production slots. Given that the current timeline has the first Anzac decommissioning ~2020-2022, now is roughly the time when some discussion would begin on what sort of capabilities are planned for the new Anzac.

-Cheers

 

[Todjaeger]

I am under the impression that the F-100(AWD) hull,minus AEGIS and other equipment, will be the next frigate hulls for for Australia.(i have no link,but read it in DT magazine)

rossfrb_1, the NH90 will probabley be chosen as our next RAN helicopter(see AIR 6000) but NATO navies will be the first to recieve the NH 90 naval helicopter.

I would like to see the Tiger ARH intergrated with an ASM like Penguine/Harpoon(but dont know if these ASM could be intergrated with the Tiger:unknown)I wonder could this be done????? I am thinking the Harpoon will be to heavy and large but Penguine may fit???

I personally doubt that a Harpoon could be safely carried by a Tiger ARH, the weight of a single Harpoon would comprise over 1/10th the maximum takeoff weight of a Tiger, as well as more than half of the max listed ordance weight that can be carried. This is amount (1,000 kg) would also normally be distributed between 4 pylon/hardpoints, as well as the chin turret. If a single hardpoint could bear the weight of a Harpoon, I would expect that the pilot would find it difficult to fly with such an unbalanced (and unwieldly) weapon load.

As for mounting the Penguin... I am not sure that would make sense for the Tiger. While a Tiger could likely carry 4 of them, these are short-ranged AShM with a ~50 kg warhead. As such, they would be of little use when operating over land, and really overkill for dealing much of the littoral FACs which a Tiger might be used again. This is largely why the US developed a version of the Hellfire, the AGM-114M which is being tested/used from USN Seahawks. Since the Tiger is already fitted to carry Hellfires, it might be sensible to see what other modifications are needed to use some of the newer, multi-purpose Hellfires if the Tiger is not already able to do so.

-Cheers

 

[AegisFC]

As for mounting the Penguin... I am not sure that would make sense for the Tiger.

It doesn't make sense for a Tiger to carry Penguin.

This is largely why the US developed a version of the Hellfire, the AGM-114M which is being tested/used from USN Seahawks.

I think the kit is in limited service. From what I've heard that kit is swapped from helo to helo as they deploy, which is common for certain pieces of gear.

 

[Aussie Digger]

I am under the impression that the F-100(AWD) hull,minus AEGIS and other equipment, will be the next frigate hulls for for Australia.(i have no link,but read it in DT magazine)

rossfrb_1, the NH90 will probabley be chosen as our next RAN helicopter(see AIR 6000) but NATO navies will be the first to recieve the NH 90 naval helicopter.

I would like to see the Tiger ARH intergrated with an ASM like Penguine/Harpoon(but dont know if these ASM could be intergrated with the Tiger:unknown)I wonder could this be done????? I am thinking the Harpoon will be to heavy and large but Penguine may fit???

All of RAN's Penguin ASM's are going to be sold with the Seasprites.

 

[Marc 1]

It doesn't make sense for a Tiger to carry Penguin.

It wouldn't make sense for the Tiger to carry a grand piano either for obvious reasons. Given that the ARH may be operated off the new LHD's to support amphibious ops can you elaborate on why the Pinguin would not make sense?