t68
Well-Known Member
and when have you known a pollie to do just that?
Submarine news
- Thread starter gf0012-aust
- Start date
- Status
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #143
funny, but 90% of the people I know prev involved with building subs - and including nukes all put the french offer last.
however, refer to my Richard III quote in the RAN thread.
decisions made, now we run with it good or bad.
funny that the steel required to run deep isn't a problem with the french as we're using australian steel and yet with the japanese it was a ToT - and that the Japanese subs can outdive french nukes.....
but, the bread has been bought, now we have to make the scones.
from this point on I'm for "king and country" and you'll see nothing but optimism from me in the public domain......
Looking at it through the prism of the Collins selection and where we were three years ago this actually makes sense. The RAN actually use their subs for active sneaky stuff over very long distances, back in the late 80s the Swedes listened to this and shaped their design accordingly while the Germans apparently told the Australian government that no one operates submarines the RAN claim to operate theirs and that only they could provide the RAN with the sub they really needed and teach them how to use it too. I suspect that maybe that was the sort of line we were getting from the Japanese too, the statements from Mitsubishi and JMSDF reps hinted at such and maybe the Germans hadn't entirely learnt their lesson from Collins either.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #145
well, we'll find out in 30 years - and I'll be concentrating on how to chew my food by then
knightrider4
Active Member
The reason I gave earlier in this thread was that I believe that a growth path to a Nuclear option via the barracuda replacement may have been offered. Perhaps a collaborative approach to that follow on class. I too believe that the French option carries the most risk, however once again we are dealing with an experienced designer of conventional and nuclear boats, they aren't total Noobs. Then again just to give an out clause I could well be wrong.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #147
I don't want to stay all negative as whats done is done, but some of the claims are just errant BS - this notion that we have a path to nukes is and was always an engineering canard. You just can't pop out the nuke and pop in a diesel (and a bloody diesel solution when there was a whole pile of other options to consider!)
this is a re-engineering job, what you see in the brochures is not what has to happen in real life.
and to say that the french have more experience than the germans is basically laughable. the french have built 100 subs since the beginning of WW1 - the germans - well, you could quintuple that - and the germans designed the ancestor for all modern subs. Then you have the japanese, they've got a higher error free build rate than anyone - including the americans. Add in the fact that the Virginias were built around japanese design philosophies (and clearly articulated by the USN Project Manager lead when discussing the success of the Virginias) ...
still the stone has been cast.
We now have to live with the NSC and Cabinet decision and work towards making it all tickety boo
knightrider4
Active Member
I didn't say that anyone is more experienced than the other. What I said was that perhaps there may have been consensus between France and Australia at a srategic level that when the shortfin barracuda is up for replacement, there maybe an opportunity to collaborate with the French on the next generation SSN.
Again no one especially myself is saying that it is an easy integration and engineering issue. But the people making the decisions are far more intelligent than I and are privvy to information that none of us in this forum would be. I guess you have to have faith in those making the call.
Hmmmm you still have not figured it out yet have you ?
Sorry Mods for the one liner, delete if you wish
knightrider4
Active Member
No I obviously have not. Everyone is an incompetent boob in the decision making process and clearly have no idea what they are talking about. Is that somewhere near it?
the road runner
Active Member
I think Aussienscale is saying that gf is one of the guys here that dose have inside info on defense related matters. gf boss was standing next to the PM when the call was made to buy French.
You will find a lot of the guys with "blue" names are either serving in government or defense or have served
No apology required. Your comment was a necessity. I think that he unwittingly used a quasi oxymoron there. The term intelligent associated with pollies.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #153
without having a seat at NSC I don't know what drove the end decision.
I can only cast opinion on what I actually know - and I have zero visibility into the final suit decision - which has previously and regularly over-ridden the uniform decision
I'm talking about executive govt suits - not ADO suits.
I spent a number of years in Ministerial support under Govts of both persuasions - I'm not overcome with confidence that the Govt of the day is different from prev Govts I worked to when I was in a policy secretariat area.
But this is done, so its now up to everyone involved to ensure that the commonwealth is protected from any decisions that are not intrinsically in our favour.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #154
Good god no.... I have no inside knowledge of how this process was bought to closure. However, I and some others in here have worked on subs, more than just Australian subs, have long experience with capital projects, have worked offshore on major projects or are ex uniform - and as such we have a long memory of promises to keep etc etc......
I think thats what some members forget. we don't tend to comment unless we have direct experience or are compelled to add clarity.
by the time these subs come out I'll be sucking fluids instead of eating solids - and by then I'll be struggling to walk unassisted
so I'm commenting while my brain is clear.The other thing is that the end decision is an NSC and then Cabinet decision - don't assume that the military choice got up.
The biggest obvious example of that is HQJOC at Bungendore. A purely political selection and where the site wasn't even on the short list (or any list)
t68
Well-Known Member
Said it awhile ago, as I saw the annoucement live on the ABC the CN was not overly impressed. He knows which way his bread is buttered and won't rock the boat.
But sometimes you wish you can be a fly on the wall in some of these meetings
Joe Black
Active Member
I saw the news clip. I didn't think VA Tim Barrett look uncomfortable. In fact, I think he would have understood the decision and would have somewhat supported it. I think a decision of this magnitude does not purely take a platform into consideration, but the whole growth potential and ongoing sustainment, cost and opportunities, political implication both local and international, and ultimately technology changes.
I suspect the German is pitching a sub that looks really good on paper, but the CEP selectors have real doubt on the German's experience in delivery anything bigger than a 2000 ton subs like the Israeli's Dolphins. The Soryu on the other hand lacks range plus the technology is evolutionary, and by the time Australia is ready to cut steel, most of the technologies are no longer forefront and would provide RAN an edge.
I can see that the selectors are seduced by the pump-jet technology, plus a boat big enough to one day turned into a nuclear powered one. The French definitely caught on the RAN's key requirement of the transit speed and range. I believe the former CN had often stressed the need to have long range and relative high transit speed. This is definitely a capability the Soryu is seriously lacking.
FWIW in the announcement both the PM and DefMin explicitly note that the NSC okayed the CEP as it was presented to them.
Outright lies I expect
oldsig
I watched the entire announcement myself. CN is a thoroughly professional man who looked no different than he'd appeared at earlier announcements. He may have been unimpressed by the result, but I don't claim to read his mind on the basis of body language which could just as easily said "Get this over for Christ's sake, I have more important things to do"
oldsig
I don't know what they were presented with but would be very surprised if it was along the lines of "this is the only way to go". I would expect it would have been as its name suggests, an evaluation of the three options and a synopsis of the plusses and minuses of each.
Probably being a little factitious here but based on my past experience with the RAN all other factors being the same extra weighting would have gone on the option with the best accommodation and decor. On a more serious note, as none of the options were what the RAN really wanted, then the preference would go to the one with the most usable volume and highest power budget, because that would give them the best option to fit the gear they need to conduct the required mission sets, gear that none of the parent navies have.
there's always a superficial preference with what will be the most comfortable but its just that. the CFA DDG's are the standout example, ask anyone who served in them to comment on their habitability cf a Daring or River and they will tell you they were awful. Then ask them what they would prefer to serve and fight on and the CFA's were a clear winner.
Uniforms want reliable, superior capability above all else and I suspect that's the case for all fighting men and women.
- Status