Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

Status
Not open for further replies.

icelord

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #481
We will have to reserve judgement on the ALP's handling of defence until after the election, if, as the polls suggest, they actually gain government. Whether they turn out to be good guys or bad guys so far as the ADF is concerned I would like to see the navy pull out all stops to get these contracts signed before the election is called. The usual convention is that no major contracts will be signed between the calling of an election and polling day so it needs to happen soon!

Tas
Agreed. but we gotta go with the track record here of the ALP, these are the guys that bought the Collins, 2nd hand LPDs and let the recruiting go to its lowest ever in the early 90s.
The problem we all have with the Rudd is that hes committed to nothing, given half hearted answers to questions and has not really shown an interest in the future of the ADF, only that 2000 people would some how make a difference protecting Australia if they stayed on their bases rather then deploy overseas.

What i was saying regarding the RNZN is that it is capable for its size. The Govt. at present does not exactly deploy their assets to missions of extreme danger where self protection is neccesary, and if they did, god help them. For patrols and fisheries, the OPV and IPV they are recieving are capable for long range, and relieve the ANZACs for operations other then Fishing expeditions. The Cantabury could use some more Armament, and hopefully some genius realises this before it sends troops to a high tempo region and gets a shot across the bow(or worse).
And hey, i'd be glad to see the RAN sell off an ANZAC, HMAS ANZAC would be most befitting, to the RNZN for perhaps a 5th AWD or if manning issues become more drastic.
 

Markus40

New Member
Yes, the RNZN is tiny in comparison to the RAN, but even for its size i still think it lacks capability. I agree with you that if the HMAS ANZAC was still available then we should buy it off the RAN. And i do agree that a 5th AWD would be really beneficial for the RAN.



Agreed. but we gotta go with the track record here of the ALP, these are the guys that bought the Collins, 2nd hand LPDs and let the recruiting go to its lowest ever in the early 90s.
The problem we all have with the Rudd is that hes committed to nothing, given half hearted answers to questions and has not really shown an interest in the future of the ADF, only that 2000 people would some how make a difference protecting Australia if they stayed on their bases rather then deploy overseas.

What i was saying regarding the RNZN is that it is capable for its size. The Govt. at present does not exactly deploy their assets to missions of extreme danger where self protection is neccesary, and if they did, god help them. For patrols and fisheries, the OPV and IPV they are recieving are capable for long range, and relieve the ANZACs for operations other then Fishing expeditions. The Cantabury could use some more Armament, and hopefully some genius realises this before it sends troops to a high tempo region and gets a shot across the bow(or worse).
And hey, i'd be glad to see the RAN sell off an ANZAC, HMAS ANZAC would be most befitting, to the RNZN for perhaps a 5th AWD or if manning issues become more drastic.
 

KiwiRob

Well-Known Member
Yes, the RNZN is tiny in comparison to the RAN, but even for its size i still think it lacks capability. I agree with you that if the HMAS ANZAC was still available then we should buy it off the RAN. And i do agree that a 5th AWD would be really beneficial for the RAN.
Getting a little ahead of yourself, the forth AWD hasn't been officially confirmed let alone talk about a fifth. A third ANZAC would be nice. I think people want the OPV to do more than what it was built for, its current state is good enough for chasing away poachers and such.
 

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
I think we can say the 4th AWD is pretty likely at this stage. Although not completely confirmed.

A 5th has not yet been preposed, as the 4th AWD is the wild dream that looks like making it to reality.

However looking at the timeline. A 5th AWD would be approximately 2025 which would be fighting time with the collins replacement at ASC.
 

KiwiRob

Well-Known Member
By 2025 the ran RAN and RNZN would be looking into replacing the ANZAC's as well, maybe this time the NZvGovt will get it right and build at least three frigates.
 

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
Yes indeed. To add a 5th destroyer would be too much I think. But then again, replacing frigates with destoryers wouldn't be the most terrible decision as long as surface unit numbers remained stable.

I could see the F-100 design being slightly scaled down for some sort of real frigate project. The resulting ship would still be very capable and large. Three vessels would be ideal.
 

alexsa

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Agreed. but we gotta go with the track record here of the ALP, these are the guys that bought the Collins, 2nd hand LPDs and let the recruiting go to its lowest ever in the early 90s.
Don't forget the other ALP highlights

1. ANZAC class (fitted for but not with)
2. Paying of HMAS Melbourne
3. Scrapping of fixed win RAN air (incuding the trackers)
4. Noting item 3, then allowing the farcical Aramn aviation contract for coastwatch is rubbish air craft while the S-2G's rotted.
5. Scaling back on the River Class upgrade (not that it provided that much in capability in any case) .... and the best
6. Sending the RAN to wear a rut in the ocean off Fiji during the coup and bemoaning the lack of capability.

Apparently PM Bob had it in his mind to do something but but the RAN capability had been run down so far as to render the whole operation futile. I beleive this is where the decision to purchase the rusty (but now very capable) LPD's came from.

The problem wiht teh ALP is they do not have a coherent policy on many things because of the influance of factions within the ALP. As a result the best you can hope for is the concensus keeps the current plans in place. I have my doubts.

I think the AWD's are safe because fo jobs in SA. I would not hold my breath for SM3 (or SM6) or Tomahawk, or gun upgrades on the ANZAC or any resolution on the ASMD issue. In fact given the new ships projected I would not expect any new weapons systems beyond those carried by these ships during their term in government.

ALP seem to like submarines (even with their previosu perforamnce in this regard) so son of Collins may be safe (particualry wiht jobs in SA) and I even think the LHD is safe given the work going to Victoria adn memeories of the last time they tried to project power, however I suspect it will carry nothing of note in the way of defencvie systems. I think the 'amphibious support ship' will get shelved in a hurry.
 

contedicavour

New Member
Though I certainly don't vote for them, fellow left wing parties close to ALP have at times strangely been supporters of the armed forces... in Italy expenses are increasing under the centre-left government despite some nutty hard left components. Reason why is that some important senators from the centre-left are elected from places where the defence industry matters a lot in terms of employment and taxes...
Same for the UK where after all these latest generation Labours have at long last agreed to the 2 new CVF/QE aircraft carriers...

cheers
 

Tasman

Ship Watcher
Verified Defense Pro
New submarines pledged by Rudd

The Australian today carried a story about the construction of follow on submarines to the Collins class. Both the Defence Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, along with his defence spokesman, indicated that the submarines will be built in Adelaide (no surprise there!). Defence apparently plans work to start about the same time as the AWD construction winds up in 2017. The Opposition has said that Labor would seek to begin work before the last AWD is launched and suggested that preliminary work should be beginning now.

Mark Dodd | August 20, 2007
A RUDD Labor Government would ensure the next generation of navy submarines are built in Adelaide maintaining the momentum of the state's involvement in high end defence construction work.

IF elected, The promise follows comments earlier today by Defence Minister Dr Brendan Nelson committing federal Government support for Adelaide as the best equipped site to do the work.

``I can't and I shouldn't make reckless commitments on behalf of the Australian taxpayers,'' Dr Nelson told ABC radio in Adelaide.

``But having said all that, you can bet London to a brick they (new submarines) will be built under our government by the Australian Submarine Corporation in Adelaide, South Australia.''

Defence planners expect construction of the first new submarines for the Royal Australian Navy (RAN) to start around 2017 about the same time as work winds up on the $6 billion Air Warfare Destroyer(AWD) contract.

In a joint statement Labor Leader Kevin Rudd and Opposition defence spokesman, Joel Fitzgibbon, said a Labor government would aim to have work start on the new generation RAN subs before the last AWD is launched.

"Starting the process this year will guarantee continuity of work for South Australia's defence industry and those employed in the sector.

"It will also provide a big boost to South Australia's growing knowledge and skills base and its reputation as the defence state,'' Mr Rudd said.

Labor would ensure that the necessary preliminary work on Australia's next generation of submarines is carried out in time for consideration by Government for first pass approval in 2011.

"There is widespread agreement that the Collins Class boats built by ASC in Adelaide are the best conventionally powered submarines in the world and that they provide a vital military capability in Australia,'' Mr Fitzgibbon said.

Work on the production of new submarines is a task essential to Australia's national security that the Howard Government has failed to tackle, he said.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22275156-11949,00.html

I thought there were several interesting things in this report. Firstly the ALP has made a public commitment re a major defence project and secondly, there was no mention from either Dr Nelson or Mr Rudd re the 4th AWD.

Tas
 

contedicavour

New Member
Well if the new subs are SSGs capable of launching cruise missiles then it makes sense to build them asap. Otherwise the AWDs and FFGs and especially the LHDs carry mugh higher priority for the sort of overseas deployments that will see the bulk of the Australian Navy's work ...

cheers
 

Tasman

Ship Watcher
Verified Defense Pro
Well if the new subs are SSGs capable of launching cruise missiles then it makes sense to build them asap. Otherwise the AWDs and FFGs and especially the LHDs carry mugh higher priority for the sort of overseas deployments that will see the bulk of the Australian Navy's work ...

cheers
I did think that the Rudd/Fitzgibbon statement seemed to ignore current priorities. As Alexsa said, the ALP seem to 'like submarines'. It is not as though there is no planning going on for the Collins replacement. The SEA 5000 project is in place for just that purpose.

I have noticed that the Adelaide Advertiser is still talking about the 4th AWD as a 'done deal' in its report about Labor's submarine plans.

MARK KENNY, POLITICAL EDITOR, CANBERRA, and AAP
August 20, 2007 12:30pm

A RUDD Labor government would build Australia's next generation of hi-tech submarines in Adelaide - and Defence Minister Brendan Nelson has pledged to match the deal.

The plan would cut through years of tender evaluation processes.

The surprise Rudd decision would ensure South Australia remained the centre of naval ship building beyond 2030 and guarantee thousands of jobs. And it would pump billions of dollars into the state economy.

And on radio in Adelaide today Mr Nelson said the government wanted to build the next generation of submarines and the most likely place to do the work was in Adelaide.

"I can't and I shouldn't make reckless commitments on behalf of the Australian taxpayers," Dr Nelson told ABC radio.

"But having said all that, you can bet London to a brick they will be built under our government by the Australian Submarine Corporation in Adelaide, South Australia."

However, the minister said the government would apply good financial rigour to the decision-making process.


The project could generate more than 5000 jobs, depending on the number of vessels ordered and their complexity.

It is likely the final contract for the new submarines could easily be up to $15 billion.

The choice of Adelaide without resort to a tender process also reflects the electoral importance of the state, which has five of the nation's most marginal seats.

The Labor initiative is the latest in an emerging bidding war for SA voters and comes just two days after Prime Minister John Howard pledged $100 million to upgrade the Southern Expressway, turning it into a dual carriageway.

The submarine announcement is also a major victory for incoming national ALP president, SA Premier Mike Rann.

The early declaration of Adelaide's ASC as the constructor for the major works places the Howard Government under political pressure to respond between now and the poll.

"There is widespread agreement that the Collins-class boats built by ASC in Adelaide are the best conventionally powered submarines in the world and that they provide a vital military capability for Australia," Mr Rudd said.

The lucrative contract would have major commercial implications for ASC, which is due to be privatised next year.

It will also come as unwelcome news to other hopeful companies, such as the Melbourne-based Tenix. ASC beat Tenix in 2005 to secure the then $6 billion contract to build the navy's new air warfare destroyers.

Labor wants construction of the first of the new submarines to begin as the fourth and last of the air warfare destroyers nears completion in 2017. This would be 30 years since the then Australian Submarine Corporation in 1987 won the $5 billion contract to build six Collins-class boats.

Labor plans to have the assessment process complete within three years to allow the federal government to give "first pass approval" in 2011.

The defence community has been aware of the eventual need for replacements for the Collins-class subs but no Government decision has been taken.

Opposition Defence spokesman Joel Fitzgibbon will tonight outline the plan and other aspects of Labor's defence thinking at a meeting of the Royal United Services Institute of SA.

Labor believes planning for the replacement vessels for the Collins-class submarines must begin immediately to take advantage of the flow of work and the retention of expertise associated with the air warfare destroyer contract.

That contract has been valued at $9.5 billion after the recent decision to build a fourth ship.

The decision is potentially a major boost for the state and cements it as the premier shipbuilding state into the future.

Labor's policy calls for the initial planning phase to begin immediately to identify the kind of vessels needed and the number to be built.

The Collins-class submarines, which in the early days of the project were beset with technical difficulties, are now regarded as the world's best conventionally powered submarines.

However, analysts advise the fast-moving nature of defence technology and the warfare it allows, means replacements must be planned for early.

SA's new Governor, retired Rear Admiral Kevin Scarce, recently said helping SA secure major defence contracts was part of his job.

He said there could be as much as $100 billion worth of defence work to tender for in coming years.

Defence Minister Brendan Nelson said the government wanted to build the next generation of submarines and the most likely place to do the work was in Adelaide.
"I can't and I shouldn't make reckless commitments on behalf of the Australian taxpayers," Dr Nelson told ABC radio in Adelaide today.

"But having said all that, you can bet London to a brick they will be built under our government by the Australian Submarine Corporation in Adelaide, South Australia."

However, the minister said the government would apply good financial rigour to the decision-making process.
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,22272130-5006301,00.html

At least the Labor Party is saying something positive about plans for naval procurement, even if there may be political motives behind it. :rolleyes:

Tas
 
Last edited:

Galrahn

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
AM I missing something here, why would the Collins class already need a replacement?

Also, given the mission profile of Aussie subs, why wouldn't the next class be nuclear powered?
 

Markus40

New Member
Not really. The 4th AWD is pretty much a done deal from the posts and information on the web. So not sure on your earlier comment, sorry. The third frigate option has been a debating point for a very long time on this forum so this is nothing new. I do agree that the OPVs could or should be fitted with better intelligence equipment and as well better defensive hardware.

Getting a little ahead of yourself, the forth AWD hasn't been officially confirmed let alone talk about a fifth. A third ANZAC would be nice. I think people want the OPV to do more than what it was built for, its current state is good enough for chasing away poachers and such.
 

Markus40

New Member
I think its quite pausible that a 5th AWD could be in store and in light of the RNZN in the hunt for a Meko design frigate to add to the two we have, could be a replacement AWD for one of the RANs ANZACs. Cheers.


Yes indeed. To add a 5th destroyer would be too much I think. But then again, replacing frigates with destoryers wouldn't be the most terrible decision as long as surface unit numbers remained stable.

I could see the F-100 design being slightly scaled down for some sort of real frigate project. The resulting ship would still be very capable and large. Three vessels would be ideal.
 

Markus40

New Member
The Collins currently are fitted with cruise Missile capability already in conjunction with the Harpoon. Although not with the weapon. So i think the collins can go the distance with the technology it has and is very capable along with the acquisitions like the AWD and LHDs and the current ANZACs. Therefore there isnt the urgency to replace the collins till 2017. Cheers.


Well if the new subs are SSGs capable of launching cruise missiles then it makes sense to build them asap. Otherwise the AWDs and FFGs and especially the LHDs carry mugh higher priority for the sort of overseas deployments that will see the bulk of the Australian Navy's work ...

cheers
 

Markus40

New Member
Yes, my sentiments entirely. The Collins currently are fitted with cruise Missile capability already in conjunction with the Harpoon. Although not with the weapon. So i think the collins can go the distance with the technology it has and is very capable along with the acquisitions like the AWD and LHDs and the current ANZACs. Therefore there shouldnt be the urgency to replace the collins till 2017.

As to the second suggestion i have some serious doubts about this one. This in light of having Nuclear Subs is going to cause an arms race in this region. Politically will also cause some issues and heavy opposition. Conventional Subs around the world are far quieter and far more technologically advanced in design and have a raft of advantages that have many equals to Nuclear powered technology. However the main disadvantage to conventional subs is its ability to stay under the sea for long lengths of time. (Snort Time) Cheers.



AM I missing something here, why would the Collins class already need a replacement?

Also, given the mission profile of Aussie subs, why wouldn't the next class be nuclear powered?
 

AGRA

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
Yes, my sentiments entirely. The Collins currently are fitted with cruise Missile capability already in conjunction with the Harpoon. Although not with the weapon. So i think the collins can go the distance with the technology it has and is very capable along with the acquisitions like the AWD and LHDs and the current ANZACs. Therefore there shouldnt be the urgency to replace the collins till 2017.

Dear god! No there’re not! Where are the two Tomahawk mission-planing consoles? Sea 1439/4A replaced the combat system with the US Navy’s AN/BYG-1(V)8 which is the same combat system as the Virginia SSNs. But by combat system they mean operating system, the tactical command and control system, not the exact same fit out as on a Virginia, it’s just the computer boxes and software that manage the ship’s mission systems.

http://www.defence.gov.au/dmo/msd/sea1439/images/RCS_MS_Physical_Architecture.JPG
Don’t see any Tomahawk here do you?

While its feasible the Collins could be upgraded to fire Tomahawks there would be a lot of work needed – modifications to the ship, training in Tomahawk operation, plus the actual missile acquisition and facilities to store and manage them ashore. Then you would need to work Tomahawk into the entire ADF structure – how would we use them.

Collins class life of hull will need replacement from 2020-25ish. In order to build submarines for this deadline serious work needs to start in the next five years.

People can sprout their fanboy opinion about this and that as much as they want but Defence actually has a timeframe, a strategy and so on. Its not secret you can find it out and download it from the net (try the CDE red book and blue book as a good start). If you want to make sense and some kind of contribution try and frame your opinions in terms of what is actually going on.
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
and suggested that preliminary work should be beginning now.
Tas

Thats already in play. They obviously are unaware of this.

Edit: Ignore this, according to Agra he seems to think that they've exercised a gazump of policy. and are thus already informed but making mileage.
 
Last edited:

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
AM I missing something here, why would the Collins class already need a replacement?

Also, given the mission profile of Aussie subs, why wouldn't the next class be nuclear powered?
They don't. They're tagged for replacement 2020-2025. The capability development team for "son of collins" has been in place for a few years.

They're already deep mission fleet subs, and are traversing the same area of ops potential as the Oberons (except for wandering into Soviet north eastern ports ;)).

I can't see them getting nukes at this point in time. They probably won't have props though if the advances in other techs bear fruition.

Personally, I'd like to see a marriage of EMP and pump jet hybrid technology. The power plant options will be much clearer by 2015-2020
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top