Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

Status
Not open for further replies.
spoz said:
Above the HCO positon and below the CIWS is the SGSI bar. The thing shown on the Spanish drawing below the pic of the two ships seems to be a figment of their imagination. In reference to the previous comments on RAS equiment there is a sliding padeye amidships; but there are also a couple of RAS(L) points one on the after end of the forward superstructure and the other abreast the aft illuminator.
Click to expand...

Ah, got you. I was looking at the photos not the shadow drawing below. You are right, it certainly does look like a fictional addition.
 
ngatimozart said:
The CN, VADM Tim Barrett, talking about Plan Pelorus which is the naval variant of Plan Jericho. Plan Pelorus, Integration Design Requirements of Navy’s Future Ships & Combat Systems was a speech given at the Williams Foundation Seminar: New Approaches to Air-Sea Integration in the Evolving Extended Battlespace on 10 August 2016.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the post

Will be interesting as to how the Navy evolves.
While we have a good idea as to the types and quantities of new ships to be built it will be interesting to see that they are deployed in a all of defence holistic approach to meeting a desired outcome.
Just wondering as to how the Navy today structures its squadrons and how this will evolve into the future. I kind of get the impression that a on going task force will become the norm and speculate this will evolve around a core group of a AWD and a couple of frigates ( initially ANZAC's then future destroyer).Such a force could operate on its own or form the base for additional assets depending on the contingency.
I might be on the wrong track, but I would like to see something like Army's plan Beersheba with a Ready .Reading and reset Phase.
It appears that today we have our de facto AWD in the FFG's in Sydney with ANZAC"S split between two bases. Our Submarines located in one location and our Amphibious group also in one spot.
Maybe our current East / West basing structure may need to change to accommodate a more balanced future task force based on a cycle of threes.

Maybe it already exists
would appreciate any feedback

Regards S
 
alexsa said:
Nice shot of Brisbane and Hobart together ...... pity ASC still cannot put images up of these two and Sydney as they progress ..... come on ASC prove me wrong!

NUSHIP 'Hobart' - D 39 e NUSHIP 'Brisbane' - D 41, Fitting out no estaleiro ASC Pty Ltd. - Poder Naval - A informação naval comentada e discutida
Click to expand...

These ships aren't even finished fitting out and the refits have already stated, most of the lighting for the Hobarts is being updated to LED, the Canberras will also have there lighting upgraded.
 
KiwiRob said:
These ships aren't even finished fitting out and the refits have already stated, most of the lighting for the Hobarts is being updated to LED, the Canberras will also have there lighting upgraded.
Click to expand...

The decision was made at the start of the project to buy much of the equipment for all three ships upfront in bulk to "save money". The people behind this decision forgot to account for warehousing and in store maintenance, obsolescence and in some cases even shelf life and warranty duration. Senior activation, test and engineering managers were ignored and as per usual, blamed, when their warnings came to fruition, while the responsible supply chain and contracts SMEs had moved on to screw up their next project to jump ship yet again before the powers that be started looking for someone to blame.

The thing to be considered is sometimes you need to install what you have so as not to interfere with the master schedule. There were more than enough delays from late design changes from Navantia and also from build issues where Navantia had changed something but not the mating area.
 
Hans Ohff has written a piece on the ASPI website suggesting that the size of Shortfin Barracuda may be excessive for our requirements, suggesting the smaller SMX3.0 as a good fallback option.

Curious as to the thoughts of those here with relevant expertise? Could the larger size not still be handy as a future proofing measure? I would have thought it could be desirable when using UUVs or the like...

https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/australias-future-submarine-class-no-equals/
 
Boagrius said:
Hans Ohff has written a piece on the ASPI website suggesting that the size of Shortfin Barracuda may be excessive for our requirements, suggesting the smaller SMX3.0 as a good fallback option.

Curious as to the thoughts of those here with relevant expertise? Could the larger size not still be handy as a future proofing measure? I would have thought it could be desirable when using UUVs or the like...

https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/australias-future-submarine-class-no-equals/
Click to expand...

Not an expert so my view doesnt mean diddly squat but my 2 cents.. The bloke did a good job in his day and probably knew plenty for the time but he is out of touch with the modern world (similiar to 4th gen fan boy's dissing 5th gen aircraft). His criticism of the board choices for naval shipbuilding in Australia though are justified.

There also is the matter that we are looking to fit more equipment into our submarines which requires more room.. Current Collins class is 3,100 tons, Going for a smaller boat means less equipment which means we wont be able to do what we need in the future (deploying drones, possible VLS, extra toy's that would get you shot at for peaking into etc).

His claim of the 5,000 strong work force in one yard seems out of touch, last I checked the government was looking to spread the work around with the ASC being the end location etc..

Some things in the article hold merit, other things are just out of touch.. I'd rate it better then your average media article but not by much.
 
Boagrius said:
Hans Ohff has written a piece on the ASPI website suggesting that the size of Shortfin Barracuda may be excessive for our requirements, suggesting the smaller SMX3.0 as a good fallback option.

Curious as to the thoughts of those here with relevant expertise? Could the larger size not still be handy as a future proofing measure? I would have thought it could be desirable when using UUVs or the like...

https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/australias-future-submarine-class-no-equals/
Click to expand...

In the article, Hans Ohff says lead acid rather than lithium batteries have been selected.
Is this the case?
 
rjtjrt said:
In the article, Hans Ohff says lead acid rather than lithium batteries have been selected.
Is this the case?
Click to expand...


he's playing the nostradamus card - NOTHING has been set in stone

I'd suggest he's suffering from relevance deprivation syndrome
 
I don't know enough about the Barracuda shortfin design to comment on its, suitability, capabilities or potential shortcomings ... but what does worry me is the sheer scale and complexity of the program.

This is an ambitious program done on a very tight schedule.

DCNS are shooting to have the first Barracuda in the water by 2030/31 by which time most of the collins class will be in excess of 30 years old. Any slippage and Australia could find itself short of subs right at the time that the whitepaper identified as a period when tensions in the region might start to come to a peak.
 
hauritz said:
I don't know enough about the Barracuda shortfin design to comment on its, suitability, capabilities or potential shortcomings ... but what does worry me is the sheer scale and complexity of the program.

This is an ambitious program done on a very tight schedule.

DCNS are shooting to have the first Barracuda in the water by 2030/31 by which time most of the collins class will be in excess of 30 years old. Any slippage and Australia could find itself short of subs right at the time that the whitepaper identified as a period when tensions in the region might start to come to a peak.
Click to expand...

I think that tensions in the region will peak well and truly before 2030.
The main issue will be the South China Sea and Chinese hegemony of course. The Australian government needs to start developing a realistic foreign policy towards China that is not solely tied to the needs and wants of the USA. RAN will be a tool of the government of the time, and for their sake the Australian government has to get it right.
MB
 
hauritz said:
This is an ambitious program done on a very tight schedule.

DCNS are shooting to have the first Barracuda in the water by 2030/31 by which time most of the collins class will be in excess of 30 years old. Any slippage and Australia could find itself short of subs right at the time that the whitepaper identified as a period when tensions in the region might start to come to a peak.
Click to expand...

things will be going pear shaped in the region before 2030
 
I agree that things will start to heat up before then and Australia does need to put its own interests first. At the moment we are stuck well and truly in the middle between the interests of the US and China. Australia would really prefer not to pick sides although if push came to shove we all know that Australia would side with its ANZUS partner.

We can only be thankful that the US has elected such a tactful and level headed leader to see us through these trying times :rolleyes:
 
By 2030 all six boats of the Collins class will have gone through full cycle docking and some/(all?) will be lining up again or completed for the second or third time. The issue will be whether to continue with these 10+2 cycles or to start de-commissioning boats. This will depend on whether the new Shortfin Barracuda class is on schedule of course.
Out of interest, is the new class going to continue to be called the shortfin barracuda class or will it take on the class name from its first boat ala Collins class?
MB
 
The end of the third full cycle docking for each of the Collins subs will see the boats through to ...

Collins 2026
Farncomb 2028
Waller 2030
Dechaineux 2032
Sheean 2034
Rankin 2036

Whether all of the Collins subs go through a fourth cycle remains to be seen ... but in theory it could see them through to 2038 - 2048

Milne Bay said:
Out of interest, is the new class going to continue to be called the shortfin barracuda class or will it take on the class name from its first boat ala Collins class?
MB
Click to expand...

The fish it is named after is endemic to Australia. I kind of like the name actually. It is a mean, ugly and dangerous fish. Submarines should have menacing names.

HMAS Barracuda has a nice ring to it.
 
hauritz said:
The end of the third full cycle docking for each of the Collins subs will see the boats through to ...

Collins 2026
Farncomb 2028
Waller 2030
Dechaineux 2032
Sheean 2034
Rankin 2036

Whether all of the Collins subs go through a fourth cycle remains to be seen ... but in theory it could see them through to 2038 - 2048



The fish it is named after is endemic to Australia. I kind of like the name actually. It is a mean, ugly and dangerous fish. Submarines should have menacing names.

HMAS Barracuda has a nice ring to it.
Click to expand...

Thank you for the schedule.
I expect that not all boats will line up for a fourth FCD, but if it is the case that some must, then the oldest boats will likely still be in service while some of the newer ones will be retired (going by the cycle dates listed anyway).
Will the new class get ten years of service before a full cycle docking I wonder.
More? Less?
MB
 
gf0012-aust said:
things will be going pear shaped in the region before 2030
Click to expand...

Without wanting to sidetrack the thread, what would fall under the banner of "pear shaped?". Sounds rather ominous - I have always regarded the possibility of things going kinetic in the region as being a remote if important one.
 
The biggest issue IMO is getting the subs quickly enough. My personal opinion is we should be cutting steel at about now.

We are going to have life extend Collins IMO.

Any chance we could get a short lease on some Rubis submarines as they are coming offline?

IMO Lead acid will have to make out some of the batteries for some of the class, as I am not sure lithium is tooled up/cheap enough/proven enough/low fire risk enough for an all lithium boat. You don't have to replace all of your battery with lithium ion. I'm not even sure anyone has an all lithium boat on the design boards.
 
StingrayOZ said:
The biggest issue IMO is getting the subs quickly enough. My personal opinion is we should be cutting steel at about now.

We are going to have life extend Collins IMO.

Any chance we could get a short lease on some Rubis submarines as they are coming offline?

.
Click to expand...

If there is a need, then sticking with the Collins class is a no brainer in my opinion.
Training is well established, parts and service expertise are in place and there is a well developed understanding of capablity and competence.
RAN does not need an orphan class between Collins and the shortfin barracuda.
MB
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top