Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[splat]

Sure sounds like Australia is considering F-35B's to me. At least at some future date........


Canberra class Landing Helicopter Dock - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Seems that your right.Some segments of aus government and the RAN want f-35 capability and also a 3rd LHD.Just the money factor is in the way.Well that may or may not change in future as it might also be possible that govrnment may not want to cause our near neibhours concern at this present time in anouncing upfront a fixed wing aviation capabilty.Once the the first LHD is out of the spanish yards mabey that will be the time to place an order for the 3td hull.

 

[splat]

Seems that your right.Some segments of aus government and the RAN want f-35 capability and also a 3rd LHD.Just the money factor is in the way.Well that may or may not change in future as it might also be possible that govrnment may not want to cause our near neibhours concern at this present time in anouncing upfront a fixed wing aviation capabilty.Once the the first LHD is out of the spanish yards mabey that will be the time to place an order for the 3td hull.

OH crap...just came across aegis fc's warning of deletion and 1 weeking banning of members who post any more on the f35 lhd discussion.


But screw it.To many control freaks here(you and every one knows who you are)Its very transparent that the those who claim the high ground on all discussion on these threads with their employment ,previous employment or association with the military,are nothing more than bullies who let their bruised egos dictate the ebb and flow of any debate to be had here.

Mod edit: If a poster has a problem with a Mod, or even the whole Mod team, it can be brought to the attention of the Mod(s) in question, and/or the Webmaster. As for being "control freaks" the Mod team acts together and reaches a consensus, particularly on potentially problematic posts and/or topics.

In the case of the F-35B operating for RAN LHDs, the Mods together felt that further discussion would do nothing other than bring down the quality of debate with respect to the topic, namely the Royal Australian Navy. This viewpoint was reached for several reasons. One reason is that the topic had been discussed extensively earlier in the thread. Another is that a number of members have access to information of limited circulation regarding RAN/ADF plans, as well as the publically announced plans and they do not include the F-35B. A third consideration is that defence acquisitions are largely made with a system in place of a platform viewpoint.

A platform viewpoint largely considers the capabilities of a sole piece of equipment.

A system viewpoint considers how well a platform or platforms fit into the overall capabilities for a force or service.

By way of example, there has been recent discussion within the this thread on the merits of SSN vs. SSK for the Collins replacement submarine. In order to properly gauge which type of submarine such next enter Australian service, all implications need to be considered. It is insufficient to just compare the capabilities of a SSN vs. SSK (which are not quite as significant as some might think in a number of areas), due consideration needs to be given to what is required to see the different types enter service, as well as what support and infrastructure is required to maintain them (the submarines) and keep them in service.

This systemic consideration is needed because services and defence forces do not have unlimited resources and have numerous capability requirements to fufil. By devoting significant or perhaps excessive resources to achieve some capabilities, it requires either additional resources or the loss or degradation of other capabilities. Those who ignore this for whatever reason are not engaging in realistic discussion.
-Preceptor

 

[splat]

OH crap...just came across aegis fc's warning of deletion and 1 weeking banning of members who post any more on the f35 lhd discussion.


But screw it.To many control freaks here(you and every one knows who you are)Its very transparent that the those who claim the high ground on all discussion on these threads with their employment ,previous employment or association with the military,are nothing more than bullies who let their bruised egos dictate the ebb and flow of any debate to be had here.

Talk about alternatives to f35...lol.

Hope a certain manafacturer hasnt compromised the integrity of some of the posters here.

Admin: For someone who doesn't seem to appreciate how and why platform and system decisions are made, its a bit cute to throw out strawman commentary like this.


And kurt plummer or whatever his name is...Definately seee why your banned.
Your posts definately gave the impression of someone who new his stuff.Guess ths biggest egos here couldnt keep up.

Mod edit: The poster mentioned in question was a DefPro, and in terms of technical knowledge and background did know a great deal. The reason behind the banning for him, as for essentially everyone who does get banned is failure to abide by the forum rules with respect to posting behavior. It is not acceptable to make rude or derogatory comments about other posters, nations, cultures, religions, militaries, etc. For those who cannot remember what the rules are, or where they are, click here. Given the tone of recent posts here by you (Splat) being troll-like in nature and derogatory towards the Mod team as a whole, consider yourself on vacation. Permanently.
-Preceptor

 

[splat]

First of all i'd like to say "My bad" for opening up that last discussion about the LHD's, looks like it really opened up some real feelings from some of our members.

On another point in regards to the direction the white paper has gone, does anyone else in here think that the direction the government has taken to increase the size of sub force wrong.

While i understand that the sub force at the moment is one of our, if not our most leathal weapon come war time, wouldn't it be better to put the funds invested in the subs towards Frigates, destroyers, LHD's or other amphibious ships.

As a sub force is either a deterrant force or a weapon in war, while the surface fleet is more than just a deterreant and weapon in war, they help in disaster relief, humanitarian assistance, goodwill tours (i've never known of a sub entering an enemy harbour as a sign of goodwill, even with tensions between countries). Since for as long as i can remember RAN has been increasingly active in disaster relief in the South West Pacfic and devoating more and more time to this task it seems every year!!!


Sorry have to disagree...Surface ships in the australian context are nothing but floating targets.Any presence that needs to be shown can be provided by whats presently in service and above and beyond that in terms od hulls numbers can be provided by the proposed 2000 tonner pb,mcm,and survey/hdro replacements.
The subs are where its at for aus naval fire power so i fully support the propsed 12 collins replacement.
Id prefer to see about 30 of them be procurred.Build them at the rate of 1 a year.Nice and continuos build programme then.

 

[gf0012-aust]

On another point in regards to the direction the white paper has gone

The White Paper is presented to the public in an unclassified form. There are escalating clearance releases of the White Paper which are not for general release. In addition, the White Paper is based on input from a combination of other papers, inlcuding Plan Blue, Plan Green, a RAAF equiv and a series of restricted publications which cannot even be mentioned in public. So any assessment based on the publicly released version of the White Paper is going to be very very rough on granularity.

While i understand that the sub force at the moment is one of our, if not our most leathal weapon come war time, wouldn't it be better to put the funds invested in the subs towards Frigates, destroyers, LHD's or other amphibious ships.

and issues like that are discussed in other defence dept papers such as the Future Maritime Operating Concept 2025 etc.... Unfort, some of the very people who know what to say cannot because of the sensitivity of those papers, so when you malign the DefProfessionals in here who have access and do know some of the reasons, then you leave yourself wide open as a troublemaker rather than someone who understands the conditions we're required to work in and under.

As a sub force is either a deterrant force or a weapon in war, while the surface fleet is more than just a deterreant and weapon in war, they help in disaster relief, humanitarian assistance, goodwill tours (i've never known of a sub entering an enemy harbour as a sign of goodwill, even with tensions between countries). Since for as long as i can remember RAN has been increasingly active in disaster relief in the South West Pacfic and devoating more and more time to this task it seems every year!!!

You've over simplified the role of subs. They are nominally at constant war footing. They are fulltime ISR assets. They are not turned on and off but stay at high readiness - and hence why they and the Specforces are treated as separate autonomous entities in planning.

Sorry have to disagree...Surface ships in the australian context are nothing but floating targets.Any presence that needs to be shown can be provided by whats presently in service and above and beyond that in terms od hulls numbers can be provided by the proposed 2000 tonner pb,mcm,and survey/hdro replacements.
The subs are where its at for aus naval fire power so i fully support the propsed 12 collins replacement.

Floating targets for what and against what entity in our threat matrix? which nation in our area of management (and we have responsibility for managing 1/9th of the worlds blue water real estate) is a latent threat to our ability to move across our maritime protectorate with relative impunity?

Id prefer to see about 30 of them be procurred.Build them at the rate of 1 a year.Nice and continuos build programme then.

we don't have the industry or resources to build 1 per year at the volume you suggest. the US doesn't have the capacity to build at that rate in peacetime either.

 

[Pusser01]

Gday all,
This question is more aimed at GF, I was wondering what path you would like to see us following for a Collins replacement. I know that in the past you have mentioned a desire to collaborate with the Japanese, is this a possibilty now? I seem to remember reading an article that the Japanese were looking at relaxing their miliary technology exportation rules.
Based on your time with the Collins project, I am just interested in your broad opinion, at the moment it seems that we may be throwing all our eggs into the US basket, not that I am suggesting that this will be a bad thing.
Cheers

 

[PeterM]

I don't see all the fuss about the Collins replacement.

We know it will be conventionally powered and use the latest technologoes (some of which may be unique on subs). Lets be realistic here, we are talking about one of the first i n a new generation of conventional submarines.

I have confidence that the RAN has things well in hand. Of course most of the detail information is classified (and rightly so). The RAN are going to get extremely capable submarines to replace the Collins with and I expect their capabilities will be a lot more than we realise.

 

[StingrayOZ]

If the stuff they are rejecting (such as Jet turbines and Zebra batteries) then the stuff they are moving with must be pretty good to reach simular, better or higher criteria. Certainly the tech has moved on from collins, I just hope we get the project running right earlier on, glass, steel and diesel were pretty proven technology but in the context of a sub its a whole new ball game.

The government must be conviced otherwise they wouldn't have upped the order to a predicted 12.

I don't think we are putting all our eggs in the hands of the US. Its our submarine which we are going to build, our technology (or licenced to us), our design. We are just using US and I would imagine UK assistance to get it the best we can. How many major defence projects are entirely produced within a single country? Atleast the US is a reliable partner and offers real know how and leading experience (and companies that might buy ASC). In terms of what they can do they are the best in the business. Certainly better than involving some small, dying european company desperate for cash.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Gday all,
This question is more aimed at GF, I was wondering what path you would like to see us following for a Collins replacement. I know that in the past you have mentioned a desire to collaborate with the Japanese, is this a possibilty now? I seem to remember reading an article that the Japanese were looking at relaxing their miliary technology exportation rules.
Based on your time with the Collins project, I am just interested in your broad opinion, at the moment it seems that we may be throwing all our eggs into the US basket, not that I am suggesting that this will be a bad thing.
Cheers

I'd like to see us stay with the americans. after all, they fixed up the early probs that the swedes made, and the probs that ASC should have been able to fix.

I wouldn't let ASC run a tuck shop in a primary school. esp with their current generation of old guard engineers.

its laughable that some in ASC think that they are sub designers. the germans are sub designers, as are the french, the swedes, the poms and the yanks. we have a capability to build and improve - not to design. not with the current set of engineers in there anyway. esp the older ones who should be moved on.

unfort, we'll probably be stuck with ASC as the prime.

there are too many other things that we get from americans that would make one wonder why we would even remotely want to build a sub designed in any other country.

if we are to stay with deep strike blue water subs, then it is the americans. it's a tech fit, its a doctrine fit and its a design synergies fit.

 

[riksavage]

I'd like to see us stay with the americans. after all, they fixed up the early probs that the swedes made, and the probs that ASC should have been able to fix.

I wouldn't let ASC run a tuck shop in a primary school. esp with their current generation of old guard engineers.

its laughable that some in ASC think that they are sub designers. the germans are sub designers, as are the french, the swedes, the poms and the yanks. we have a capability to build and improve - not to design. not with the current set of engineers in there anyway. esp the older ones who should be moved on.

unfort, we'll probably be stuck with ASC as the prime.

there are too many other things that we get from americans that would make one wonder why we would even remotely want to build a sub designed in any other country.

if we are to stay with deep strike blue water subs, then it is the americans. it's a tech fit, its a doctrine fit and its a design synergies fit.

Submarines are outrageously complex systems, one step down from designing space craft. The transition from traditional draftsmen to cad-cam technology plagued the Astute programme because the software was overwhelmed by the complexity of the project. If Australia wants to design subs from scratch it will have to spend a fortune on design upgrades and head-hunt marine engineers from overseas with unique sub building experience. They are better off spending the money on the actual build unless they can justify a very expensive R&D / engineering design set-up.

The Aussies should think about tying up with the French, the new Barracuda class (being much smaller than the UK/US SSN's) may be a potential option in a non-nuclear conventional format. Large design, ideal for long patrols.

 

[StingrayOZ]

We should do something.

ASC should be a premier builder where first class skills are pioneered and then flow onto the rest of Australian industry. If it costs a bit more then it does, it would be worth it to have a first class design/build (or atleast improve build) capability within Australia.

Are the american's even interested in ASC. They should buy the dam thing cheap, gut it, fix it up and use it. Im sure the oz gov would do all it can. 12 subs is not a small build, plus the AWD, plus the LHD fitout, plus the upgradings/maintence and the ANZAC II.

 

[StevoJH]

The Aussies should think about tying up with the French, the new Barracuda class (being much smaller than the UK/US SSN's) may be a potential option in a non-nuclear conventional format. Large design, ideal for long patrols.

I thought the US didn't like the french regarding stuff like technology sharing etc? In which case, that would be a stupid move, because our current subs use US combat systems and weapons.

 

[LancasterBomber]

They (insert relevent American corporation) should buy the dam thing cheap, gut it, fix it up and use it. Im sure the oz gov would do all it can. 12 subs is not a small build, plus the AWD, plus the LHD fitout, plus the upgradings/maintence and the ANZAC II.

Concur.

 

[LancasterBomber]

I wouldn't let ASC run a tuck shop in a primary school.

Comedy gold.

.....esp with their current generation of old guard engineers.

its laughable that some in ASC think that they are sub designers.

Having just found the time to give the declassified Moffitt report (from earlier this year) a thorough reading it would appear much of the submariner grunt (Navy Officers and Sailors alike) would concur. They don't seem particularly enamoured with ASC. Although little reasoning behind this is disclosed.

Although the report has next to no direct relevance to the future sub platform - there are important lessons to be taken from it for any would be design team.

(Edit: Although of relevance is the fact Moffitt is also the Sea 1000 Project Manager)

 

[LancasterBomber]

Submarines are outrageously complex systems, one step down from designing space craft.

Cmon Mate. This country invented wireless broadband when the rest of the world couldn't. We may not have a space program but I am sure if we wanted to put vegemite on the moon we could. We are reasonably switched on....when we can be bothered.

 

[LancasterBomber]

Future sub/UUV propulsion?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbqHERKdlK8&feature=player_embedded]YouTube - iRobot's Soft Morphing Blob 'Bot Takes Its First Steps[/ame]

 

[gf0012-aust]

The Aussies should think about tying up with the French, the new Barracuda class (being much smaller than the UK/US SSN's) may be a potential option in a non-nuclear conventional format. Large design, ideal for long patrols.

The French aren't within a bulls roar with what the americans are doing. and I've worked with both on sub technology.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Cmon Mate. This country invented wireless broadband when the rest of the world couldn't. We may not have a space program but I am sure if we wanted to put vegemite on the moon we could. We are reasonably switched on....when we can be bothered.

I'd add that we've fixed up the cavitation problems that the swedes had with collins, we've exported that tech to a couple of allies (including being put on nukes) and we've go sensor technology that our bigger allies absolutely drool over.

we've got the capability to certainly come up with the gear - but IMO its not cost effective to do so esp when the amercians are giving access to tech (in exchange for some of ours) that other countries could only wish for in their wildest.

our sensor tech is second to none - and I'd argue that going outside of the US would be a retrograde step


btw, the Astutes had more than software probs, thats why they pulled in USN and NAVSEA support to fix other design issues.

small point, australia was the first country to actually develop a working anechoic tole that was seamless - well ahead of the nuke powers.

 

[riksavage]

I'd add that we've fixed up the cavitation problems that the swedes had with collins, we've exported that tech to a couple of allies (including being put on nukes) and we've go sensor technology that our bigger allies absolutely drool over.

we've got the capability to certainly come up with the gear - but IMO its not cost effective to do so esp when the amercians are giving access to tech (in exchange for some of ours) that other countries could only wish for in their wildest.

our sensor tech is second to none - and I'd argue that going outside of the US would be a retrograde step


btw, the Astutes had more than software probs, thats why they pulled in USN and NAVSEA support to fix other design issues.

small point, australia was the first country to actually develop a working anechoic tole that was seamless - well ahead of the nuke powers.

Most nations involved in complex engineering programmes will as part of the R&D process discover ground breaking innovations, which can be incorporated in the next generation of boats, whether that be the UK, US or Australia - e.g. acoustic tiles, the design of flank arrays, non-penertrating optic masts, post and pre- swirl propulsion systems etc., etc.. The issue is transfer of technology avoiding unnecessary re-inventing of the wheel. One assumes with the US, UK and Aussie industrial cooperation agreements in place, cleared at the very highest security levels, Australia can shop around for latest technology.

Thales (French) having already worked on the Collins and the UK Astute programme supplying the latest generation flank arrays and non-penetrating masts, they must be an option for supplying future boats. Out of interest do the current Collins have non-hull penetrating surveillance and intelligence gathering masts / systems? From photo's I note there are three separate masts on the Collins sail, conpared to sixteen on the new Astute.

It would be interesting to see if Australia goes for something radical along the lines of what BAE is proposing

http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/operati...vice/future-submarines/bae-concept-submarine/

 

[the road runner]

and we've go sensor technology that our bigger allies absolutely drool over.........our sensor tech is second to none

That a very big statement,and good to know that we can manufacture cutting edge sensors for our greatest asset.

we've got the capability to certainly come up with the gear - but IMO its not cost effective to do so esp when the amercians are giving access to tech (in exchange for some of ours) that other countries could only wish for in their wildest..

I read that The US and Oz are doing alot of join development in sub Technology.Is this true, and is this a better way to go,OR would it be wiser just to purchase american tech?

small point, australia was the first country to actually develop a working anechoic tile that was seamless - well ahead of the nuke powers.

Are anechoic tiles really an asset?I read that its very difficult to pinpoint where a target is,with all the noise clutter that is in our oceans?

PS i know i read to much:crazy

Regards..