The French and Germans are competing because Australia has made selections such as the Tiger, MRH-90, F-100 AWD, MU90, etc. against professional and operator advice in the past. They know that politicians can be swayed from what the services want or even actually need, just need to get the right people onside at the right time and the government can be turned from even the most logical path.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
The French and Germans are competing because Australia has made selections such as the Tiger, MRH-90, F-100 AWD, MU90, etc. against professional and operator advice in the past. They know that politicians can be swayed from what the services want or even actually need, just need to get the right people onside at the right time and the government can be turned from even the most logical path.
I don't know details outside what is available on public forums but I do know that the senior maintainers hate them as I know a few of them socially. It is the same old story, we were sold a highly developmental platform as a MOTS solution and by the time it achieves FOC it will be desperately in need of a mid life upgrade to keep it relevant.
This is where a replacement rather than an upgrade becomes attractive as not all issues have been sorted, performance and especially availability, specifically vendor support have been well below par and what the ADF requires from the platform has also changed.
At this point the question has to be asked is it better value for money to rotate the already small fleet through a comprehensive upgrade to gain another decade of service, or would it be better value for money acquiring a new fully compliant, fully certified type, that will do everything we need it to do better than Tiger for thirty years, without taking a hit on availability as it replaces the Tiger. It this type is an FMS type, procurement and through life support will likely be much easier, less risky and cheaper than the best we could hope for from Eurocopter.
The UK was or is examining the possibility of replacing their very successful and capable, battle proven WAH-64 Apaches with AH-64E instead of carrying out an MLU for similar reasons to those I outlined above. While they have apparently been very happy with the availability and performance of the WAH, its bespoke systems require a bespoke upgrade and bespoke support and will likely deliver no advantage over the AH-64E at greater cost and risk and a definitely shorter service life than replacement airframes.
The Zulu has been suggested for the ADF because as a USMC platform it is fully certified for the roles that we will need our ARH fleet to undertake, i.e. we could do a straight MOTS buy through FMS. Now assuming the UK goes for the Echo over a WAH MLU, there is the possibility the ADF could hook into the UKs certification process for the type as their requirements include operating their attack helos in maritime environments (currently from ocean but in future from the QECs).
Overall looking to replace rather than upgrade the Tiger is a sensible plan and something we should do more often. IMO we should always examine the cost effectiveness of replacement over upgrade or refurbishment, I am not saying we should always do it but that the option should always be examined and costed verses our often painful and ultimately pointless, if not detrimental, experiences with MLUs.
Of the three attack helicopters in question (Tiger, AH-1Z, AH64) are any of them marinised for marine and sea basing activities.
I imagine the AH-1Z would be due to its US Marines pedigree and it also has a semi automatic folding system to assist with on board storage. I do not know if the Tiger or AH64 have these attributes, may be some one with a bit more knowledge can help?
CREF what volk said previously.
what adds to the cost burden with complex platforms is invariably the comms and battlespace integration issues
that becomes more complex depending on the platforms country of origin - and the flow on as to its stage in the integration dev cycle
in the case of Tiger its an integration issue into the rest of the joint battlespace comms
its not rocket science to work out that an apache would have cost far less in integration costs and timeframes to get certified and to talk to the "comms de main"
just as an aside, there seems to be a view that procurement failures are due to perhaps a lack of uniforms being involved in the critical layers of selection - thats just outright tosh. uniforms are embedded at every layer and are involved at each review - so they have high visibility of the problems and failures of processes along the way
In fact at some levels they can override a decision based on some factors which I won't discuss in the open
In addition - I have been involved in projects where the informs enforced their views on selecting a platform which was not the choice across various other elements. Ultimately they got their way - and ultimately the platform turned into a major phuque up. It doesn't always happen that way, but in this case it was an really really adverse choice against the recommendations
"Suits" in the selection process cannot enforce their views - at any stage (and I've seen it lots and lots of times) they can and will be overridden by govt, other govt agencies and by uniforms exercising their wild cards
when things go belly up - its never in the media about which area had directly triggered the decision failure - it invariably gets sheeted back to the tender eval or project team, despite them being overridden and having to "wear" it
what adds to the cost burden with complex platforms is invariably the comms and battlespace integration issues
that becomes more complex depending on the platforms country of origin - and the flow on as to its stage in the integration dev cycle
in the case of Tiger its an integration issue into the rest of the joint battlespace comms
its not rocket science to work out that an apache would have cost far less in integration costs and timeframes to get certified and to talk to the "comms de main"
just as an aside, there seems to be a view that procurement failures are due to perhaps a lack of uniforms being involved in the critical layers of selection - thats just outright tosh. uniforms are embedded at every layer and are involved at each review - so they have high visibility of the problems and failures of processes along the way
In fact at some levels they can override a decision based on some factors which I won't discuss in the open
In addition - I have been involved in projects where the informs enforced their views on selecting a platform which was not the choice across various other elements. Ultimately they got their way - and ultimately the platform turned into a major phuque up. It doesn't always happen that way, but in this case it was an really really adverse choice against the recommendations
"Suits" in the selection process cannot enforce their views - at any stage (and I've seen it lots and lots of times) they can and will be overridden by govt, other govt agencies and by uniforms exercising their wild cards
when things go belly up - its never in the media about which area had directly triggered the decision failure - it invariably gets sheeted back to the tender eval or project team, despite them being overridden and having to "wear" it
Muar River
Member
Probably well known but Flash Traffic in the latest Navy League magazine states that "the US was unlikely to release its Combat System for fitting in German or French boats". Apparently this was made known to the PM on his visit to the US in January.
Parramatta has completed is ASMDA upgrade with only the Stuart remaining to be upgraded.
Parramatta has completed is ASMDA upgrade with only the Stuart remaining to be upgraded.
If I put on my prev contracting hat - and when I worked with a french company when I was in europe - I can tell you that number 2 on the list would definitely have problems from the US re exposure to their combat systems and moreso from the US State Dept view (which counts even more on a few fronts) - irrespective of what the talking heads and their paid shills say in the broader media, the IP firewalls would not be enough for State. I could see it becoming a congressional problem as well.
and I've had personal experience as a contractor with these issues.
I wouldn't bother talking about it with a Govt hat on as it would be a 1st order CLM.
On IP fire walls, and other factors determining what actually goes into your new submarine.
Imagine you have an ideal state of an ultimate dream team system of systems submarine design. It uses the very best individual components, no matter where they come from, the concept being it has the very best sensors, hull, weapons, propulsion and auxiliaries available, all operating seamlessly with the very best ships operating system and combat system.
Sounds great but then you need to start applying fixed factors such as the government had specified that the new submarine will be conventionally powered and will use the current USN combat system, USN spec coms and electronic surveillance systems. This automatically entails power and heat budget issues on the design that simply are not a problem for the USN as their boats have such a surplus of power generation they can run virtually everything simultaneously, including such powerful and effective air-conditioning and cooling systems they need to install heaters to make their subs habitable. DEs are very different, especially operating in the tropics where their maximum cooling capacity is governed buy surrounding water temperature, run too many systems concurrently and you cook the boat systems and crew as well as drain the batteries / exceed to output of you AIP.
Then there is the issue of the various systems being scaled to suit your application without compromising their performance, it can work out better to compromise on your selection of the "best" in favour of perfectly good enough and it fits than to compromise on using something that's performance has been degraded to make it fit.
Then there is the espionage issue. Nation states and competing companies spy on each other, it's a simple fact. That spying can take the form of code with in the operating software of a piece of equipment, or even can be hard wired into a the control hardware. This could even, in extremes be an active, or offensive element, able to impair, damage or destroy ship systems, but is more usually used to collect data.
The US has legitimate concerns about integrating competing OS systems with their cutting edge systems. Its not just competitive advantage but operational security at risk, imagine how much China would pay for insights to how the USNs subs do things. It need not even be technically stolen data provided for sale but more likely competing systems, incorporating features and capabilities gleaned from the Australian integration project, an awful lot can be determined from interfaces.
To prevent this from happening there can be no direct integration, rather there must be a firewall or an overarching system that both the US and other systems plug into that prevents the flow of any data from the US to the other systems. Both add complexity and cost, both add inefficiencies and prevent full, seamless integration not just of different elements of the CS but of the CS to the platform. A French or German hull has French or German diesels, motors, electrical systems, auxiliaries etc. each with their own control systems, cabinets, racks, cards, processors, controllers and software, so many different places intelligence gathering could covertly take place. Imagine a condition monitoring system on one of the systems that was over looked that passively collects data from any and all systems it is cross connected to. It is a nightmare.
Imagine you have an ideal state of an ultimate dream team system of systems submarine design. It uses the very best individual components, no matter where they come from, the concept being it has the very best sensors, hull, weapons, propulsion and auxiliaries available, all operating seamlessly with the very best ships operating system and combat system.
Sounds great but then you need to start applying fixed factors such as the government had specified that the new submarine will be conventionally powered and will use the current USN combat system, USN spec coms and electronic surveillance systems. This automatically entails power and heat budget issues on the design that simply are not a problem for the USN as their boats have such a surplus of power generation they can run virtually everything simultaneously, including such powerful and effective air-conditioning and cooling systems they need to install heaters to make their subs habitable. DEs are very different, especially operating in the tropics where their maximum cooling capacity is governed buy surrounding water temperature, run too many systems concurrently and you cook the boat systems and crew as well as drain the batteries / exceed to output of you AIP.
Then there is the issue of the various systems being scaled to suit your application without compromising their performance, it can work out better to compromise on your selection of the "best" in favour of perfectly good enough and it fits than to compromise on using something that's performance has been degraded to make it fit.
Then there is the espionage issue. Nation states and competing companies spy on each other, it's a simple fact. That spying can take the form of code with in the operating software of a piece of equipment, or even can be hard wired into a the control hardware. This could even, in extremes be an active, or offensive element, able to impair, damage or destroy ship systems, but is more usually used to collect data.
The US has legitimate concerns about integrating competing OS systems with their cutting edge systems. Its not just competitive advantage but operational security at risk, imagine how much China would pay for insights to how the USNs subs do things. It need not even be technically stolen data provided for sale but more likely competing systems, incorporating features and capabilities gleaned from the Australian integration project, an awful lot can be determined from interfaces.
To prevent this from happening there can be no direct integration, rather there must be a firewall or an overarching system that both the US and other systems plug into that prevents the flow of any data from the US to the other systems. Both add complexity and cost, both add inefficiencies and prevent full, seamless integration not just of different elements of the CS but of the CS to the platform. A French or German hull has French or German diesels, motors, electrical systems, auxiliaries etc. each with their own control systems, cabinets, racks, cards, processors, controllers and software, so many different places intelligence gathering could covertly take place. Imagine a condition monitoring system on one of the systems that was over looked that passively collects data from any and all systems it is cross connected to. It is a nightmare.
EX-HMA SHIPS TOBRUK AND SYDNEY to be offered AS DIVE WRECKS
Great to see that Tobruk & Sydney are going to be used as dive wrecks. Good for recreational divers and tourism, it will be interesting to see where they end up being scuttled.
Defence Ministers » EX-HMA SHIPS TOBRUK AND SYDNEY to be offered AS DIVE WRECKS
Great to see that Tobruk & Sydney are going to be used as dive wrecks. Good for recreational divers and tourism, it will be interesting to see where they end up being scuttled.
Defence Ministers » EX-HMA SHIPS TOBRUK AND SYDNEY to be offered AS DIVE WRECKS
A bigger question is how much does it really matter? Neither MRH-90 nor CH-47F are 'marinised' and I doubt the future SOCOMD 'light' helo will be either, so why does the ARH of whatever make, have to be marinised?
Marinisation as I understand it, is mostly about corrosion control and I honestly wonder how frequently these machines will be at sea anyway?
Short term deployments (confirmed through ADF interviews) through increased washing routines, so for training and whatever maritime bases operations we actually send an ARH to (if ever) I think we can make do without a dedicated marinised ARH version.
Thanks for clarifying that. I didn't know how much of an issue the marinisation would be.
If it was deemed critical I would have thought that the AH-1Z would have been favoured. Having done a bit of research, my understanding is that neither the ARH or the AH64 are marinised.
With the ARH up for replacement, the only real contenders that I know of are the AH-1Z and the AH64
Its more a case of certifying their safe operation from particular marine platforms than any particular modifications to the aircraft themselves although folding rotors and corrosion resistant materials are always a bonus in the tropics (being able to fit more aircraft under cover and everything rusts wicked with the humidity.
Little Birds were used extensively from ships and marine platforms during the Tanker War, and Blackhawks were used from a Nimitz class carrier for the intervention in Haiti during 1994 without major issues. The ADF used Blackhawks from Bill and Ben for years and the only corrosion issues I heard about related to them being stationed in the tropics.
I have however heard the Tiger and MRH90 have both had corrosion problems with their engines requiring the procurement of multiple high end video scopes to conduct additional inspections worked into the maintenance regimes.
I would love to see a buy of Echo Apaches and Sierras to support or increasingly expeditionary brigades. I suppose we will just have to wait and see.
I don't imagine the Armed helos would have to be completely marinised. UK I believe uses its (older) Apache's from ships. Certainly from the LHD I don't think there is a need for anything specific.
I would imagine the Zulus are going to be nice when operating with the USMC more than anything. Zulus I think would be cheaper/easier? I can see the ADF leaning heaviliy to USMC gear in the future. Particularly in cross decking etc.
Why the Japanese proposal is low risk (part 1)
Japan is weighing in now at a political level now the french and the germans are too. Would like to read part 2 though.. The Japanese play cards very closely to their chest.
I would imagine the Zulus are going to be nice when operating with the USMC more than anything. Zulus I think would be cheaper/easier? I can see the ADF leaning heaviliy to USMC gear in the future. Particularly in cross decking etc.
Why the Japanese proposal is low risk (part 1)
Japan is weighing in now at a political level now the french and the germans are too. Would like to read part 2 though.. The Japanese play cards very closely to their chest.
Amanda Vanstone has written an anti-japanese purchase in The Age
multiple flaws in her logic as well, as well as the feeble example of legal precedence she tries to use as weight
multiple flaws in her logic as well, as well as the feeble example of legal precedence she tries to use as weight
IIRC the British WAH-64 has some features which make it more suitable for maritime operations than a standard AH-64, e.g. folding blades.
I tend to reject any statements from SA politicians of all colours. It all started with the Robert Hill period and the saga of the AWD selection process, of which Vanstone was an integral,part. Their modern equivalents are no better.
I guess the same sentiments apply to the WA mob. Abolish state governments, now there's a thought
peterAustralia
Member
I did not read Amanda Vandstone'e piece in the paper, however she has a regular show on abc radio called counterpoint. She comes across as very intelligent. Possibly she is not a defence expert, but she does not come across as a dill.
If I recall correctly there was an episode on her show a couple months back, there was an expert on and he said that in decades to come manned subs would carry smaller unmanned vessels that could swim into the shallows, from there they could feed back information to the submarine itself.
I guess my question is, how big will these mini-subs be. Will they be launched from a torpedo tube, or will they be bigger and fit onto the aft deck. I assume they could send back information via passive sonar, and perhaps occasionally surface and send back video information from a periscope. Possibly better to send a 50t mini sub to somewhere very dangerous, and not a 4000t manned sub proper. Information could be sent back via fiber optic cable..
Is this science fiction? Does it happen already? Is is practicable? would it be worthwhile?
If I recall correctly there was an episode on her show a couple months back, there was an expert on and he said that in decades to come manned subs would carry smaller unmanned vessels that could swim into the shallows, from there they could feed back information to the submarine itself.
I guess my question is, how big will these mini-subs be. Will they be launched from a torpedo tube, or will they be bigger and fit onto the aft deck. I assume they could send back information via passive sonar, and perhaps occasionally surface and send back video information from a periscope. Possibly better to send a 50t mini sub to somewhere very dangerous, and not a 4000t manned sub proper. Information could be sent back via fiber optic cable..
Is this science fiction? Does it happen already? Is is practicable? would it be worthwhile?
I don't see how that couldn't be done. I don't know if it already does happen, however if somebody told me it did then I'd believe them.
The size, the tech/sensors on board, the connectivity (radio/GPS/tethered/etc), power source, range, and launch method could be all sorts things. I suppose it would come down to what the mission is, what risk there is of them being lost through various means, the chance of that tech ending up in somebody else's hands - there would have to be a whole host of things to consider.
There's also a very good chance that they could be launched from surface or air vehicles, perhaps even themselves being unmanned and possibly acting as comms links.
TBH I'd be disappointed if the RAN isn't playing with such ideas. And I'd expect that all of the unmanned solutions to develop relatively rapidly, at least to a proof-of-concept stage, as the risk to people isn't there. I also don't see why there wouldn't be the skillsets available within the country - there is already plenty of private-sector development of autonomous vehicles in Aus (i.e. for mining), and those engineers are running out of work.
I doubt that anybody who actually knows what is being worked on is going to tell you though, so all that we could do is speculate.
The size, the tech/sensors on board, the connectivity (radio/GPS/tethered/etc), power source, range, and launch method could be all sorts things. I suppose it would come down to what the mission is, what risk there is of them being lost through various means, the chance of that tech ending up in somebody else's hands - there would have to be a whole host of things to consider.
There's also a very good chance that they could be launched from surface or air vehicles, perhaps even themselves being unmanned and possibly acting as comms links.
TBH I'd be disappointed if the RAN isn't playing with such ideas. And I'd expect that all of the unmanned solutions to develop relatively rapidly, at least to a proof-of-concept stage, as the risk to people isn't there. I also don't see why there wouldn't be the skillsets available within the country - there is already plenty of private-sector development of autonomous vehicles in Aus (i.e. for mining), and those engineers are running out of work.
I doubt that anybody who actually knows what is being worked on is going to tell you though, so all that we could do is speculate.
the developments to date are not torp tube launched. the design concepts and mules were around conformal advances and as remora launches
I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss australian capability - eg in underwater spectrum specific (wavelength) comms, swarm management, AI developments, australia has been well ahead of others - and in fact some of those have perked up the interest of prinicple allies
eg every year the US brings out a Joint team + State and Dept of Commerce staff to attend CTD discussions - and some of them have been picked up and offers of co-funding and development have been triggered.
think of what some of the primary roles of a sub are beyond being a covert shooter - and you can start to add up bits of the above with what future USV developments are aligned to.
V
The almost "group think" here about Japanese sub being essentially the only choice is concerning.
Whilst I find the case for Japanes sub to be strong, I think a German sub as proposed would likely be a suitable solution as well, albeit probably somewhat more risk involved. Germans have been very good at sub building, and sub design, and are most likely able to produce a suitable vessel for our requirments. However, given if is a new design, we would expect significant problems would pop up during the build, that would likely make cost estimates pre build look optimistic.
Obviously there are pros and cons with each proposal.
French proposal to me is much much more problematic.
What I would most like to see is that the decision by government is not skewed by industrial considerations rather than capability considerations. That is why I hope no decision on final platform selection is made before election.
Finally, the Japanese have apparently become much more respectful of their customer than they appeared to be at first when the captains pick was in place. How much that respect lasts once a contract is signed, if they get it, remains to be seen. We should guard against a major change of attitude occuring, and write a very careful contract to avoid undertakings being reneged on, by whomever wins.
The almost "group think" here about Japanese sub being essentially the only choice is concerning.
Whilst I find the case for Japanes sub to be strong, I think a German sub as proposed would likely be a suitable solution as well, albeit probably somewhat more risk involved. Germans have been very good at sub building, and sub design, and are most likely able to produce a suitable vessel for our requirments. However, given if is a new design, we would expect significant problems would pop up during the build, that would likely make cost estimates pre build look optimistic.
Obviously there are pros and cons with each proposal.
French proposal to me is much much more problematic.
What I would most like to see is that the decision by government is not skewed by industrial considerations rather than capability considerations. That is why I hope no decision on final platform selection is made before election.
Finally, the Japanese have apparently become much more respectful of their customer than they appeared to be at first when the captains pick was in place. How much that respect lasts once a contract is signed, if they get it, remains to be seen. We should guard against a major change of attitude occuring, and write a very careful contract to avoid undertakings being reneged on, by whomever wins.
Last edited:
I've always advocated for a tender process. While the Japanese proposal has a lot going for it, there are issues, its not a MOTS, and we should certainly look at any proposal critically.
I don't think the Japanese were the problems with a captains pick, I think the captain was. It seemed like he wanted an off the shelf Japanese build, which realistically was never going to happen. Sure Japan wants to help, but they aren't likely to stuff around with their builds to get that to happen, and at the moment Japan needs every sub the make. Plus they knew an OTS Soryu wasn't going to cut it for Australia's purposes. It made no sense for them to set Australia up with a fail project that wasn't going to meet key objectives.
I find all 3 very interesting, as they cover the 3 main arguments for subs.
1) Partner with Japan - currently operating the largest conventionals, in our region, with unique capabilities and technologies.
2) German build - Arguably the biggest builder of conventional, decent operation, they have some good technologies, plenty of build experience, tender experience. Still basically a clean sheet paper boat.
3) French - why not just diesel a nuclear sub. If Australia was seriously considering this, then the French proposal is exactly that. High risk, high cost. With all the benefits and flaws that go with that concept.
I hope after the process we can finally decide and answer the question once very clearly.
There really isn't enough information in the public domain to assess the Japanese proposal, other than its very interesting.
I'm sure all three would love to get the job. Its quite clear, which ever one we go with we would be getting the most capable conventional sub ever built. Its quite likely that Australia will keep that lead driven by its requirements.
- Status