Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[Marc 1]

Navy league is of the opinion of having a small amount of F35B aboard which clearly government and defence professionals on this site and other’s think it is not necessary luxury. It is offering an alternative to an expensive F35B in the CAS role.

The problem is it doesn't offer any appreciable advantage over the Tigers. Only disadvantages. The flight deck needs to be cleared for the Bronco's to takoff and land. That means even if the Bronco's were put into the air ahead of an amphibious landing that they would need to come in to refuel and rearm after only a couple of hours - that would interrupt the landing of follow on forces or a second wave. It would interrupt the casevac of casualties back to the fat ships. And why do we need that heartache? Because they offer more loiter ability? (because that would be the sole advantage seeing the Tigers carry the same ordinance). The Tigers will fit in with the other aviation operations on the Canberra's the Bronco's won't - the Bronco's were considered a safety risk - and we are more risk averse that our US cousins.

Frankly the F-35B's had a better chance of becoming a reality than the Bronco.

 

[t68]

We possibly wouldn't be deploying both Canberras at the same time. What If one was in refit?



QUOTE]


HMS Conqueror was tied up undergoing repair/maintenance in 1982 when she was ordered to store for war, from memory she was listed for repair/maintenance for three months’ she got under way approximately a couple of weeks later carrying war stock plus 9t of additional equipment for the SBS amazing what can happen when one has to be pressed into service in short notice.

You have got me stumped on all other points, maybe you should give Navy League some advice, would have thought they would think it thru better

 

[StingrayOZ]

We possibly wouldn't be deploying both Canberras at the same time. What If one was in refit?

Actually I belive the origional requirement is to deploy both at the same time for an amphibious landing. While one will be generally ready to go, if we are going to deploy an amphibious landing we should know in enough time to be able to have both ready and a 3rd sealift ship to assist and resupply.

The problem is it doesn't offer any appreciable advantage over the Tigers.

I think this will kill any chance of the OV-10 or the Tucano. The tigers have excellent range for a helo, are inservice now, and do many roles (except dropping dumb 500lb bombs) well. And any thing else UAV's with hellfires or simular would be able to do better. How many UAV's could we get for $10million? UAV can operate closer to troops and enemy fire than any manned platform.

An updated OV-10 or a Tucano is not cheap, a F-35B would offer way more capability and could offer fleet defence where a OV-10 or Tucano can't. There is currently no OV-10 that is suitable and the Tucano isn't a proven naval asset.

 

[Kilo 2-3]

Actually I belive the origional requirement is to deploy both at the same time for an amphibious landing. While one will be generally ready to go, if we are going to deploy an amphibious landing we should know in enough time to be able to have both ready and a 3rd sealift ship to assist and resupply.



I think this will kill any chance of the OV-10 or the Tucano. The tigers have excellent range for a helo, are inservice now, and do many roles (except dropping dumb 500lb bombs) well. And any thing else UAV's with hellfires or simular would be able to do better. How many UAV's could we get for $10million? UAV can operate closer to troops and enemy fire than any manned platform.

An updated OV-10 or a Tucano is not cheap, a F-35B would offer way more capability and could offer fleet defence where a OV-10 or Tucano can't. There is currently no OV-10 that is suitable and the Tucano isn't a proven naval asset.

I know this has been brought up already in regards to the CV-22, but the F-35B is going to have the same deck melt problems. While the deck can be heatproofed, it's going to add cost, and extra cost is definitely going to be resisted.

 

[StingrayOZ]

I believe it will be surfaced regardless. I would imagine the JCI will be surfaced specifically for heat and I would believe the Canberra class would recieve the same treatment. South Korea thought it was worthwhile even tho they have no hope of operating a F-35 or even a harrier from their LHD. It would seem to be an area where you would want the most durable surfacing avalible. A type proven on UK or US ships would be ideal as future helos, VTOL and UAV will be designed to work on these types of vessels.

 

[riksavage]

Slightly off topic, but based on recent press releases I think it's time to raise the issue again. The following link provides a very balanced view concerning Australia's current Collins Class issues and asks some serious questions, which need to be answered reference the procurement of 12 newer generation submarines. The one critcal factor associated with whether a programme succeeds or fails appears tobe maintaining a steady 'drumbeat' of hulls, thus ensuring expertise and knowledge is not lost between the completion of one class and design / construction of the next (same problem occurred in the UK, too bigger gap between Vanguard and Astute design/construction programmes). I can't see how Australia is going avoid throwing billions and billions of extra funds (above current estimates) at the expense of everything else, it's just too big a quantum leap - 6 to 12. The logical solution must be to simply buy an existing sub from the US, bite the bullet and finally go nuclear?

Australia’s Submarine Program In the Dock

 

[StingrayOZ]

The RAN isn't going to go nuclear.

Submarines are certainly are a problem. Skills and knowledge are so specific and specialised that they are easily lost, submarines themselves are inherently complicated and every part is critical.

I think with the next generation of submarines they take a conservative approach and adopt low risk technologies and proven equipment. 12 hulls will help absorbs costs in development across greater number of hulls, these costs would exists if there was 4 boats or 12 boats.

12 boats allows you to spread out the construction in a more sustainable manner.

Australia has been talking about 8 submarines for a very long time. The Oberons were ment to be 8 subs, collins was ment to be 8 subs. Going from 6 to 12 is not impossible in the next few decades. First one won't be commisioned until 2025 and then only 1 max a year to be built, your talking about 2035 assuming everything is on time to get up to 12. No one crewing a Collins now would be expected to kick in much time on its replacement.

Nuclear submarines aren't without issue and would hardly be a cost saving.Brazil has spend $10billion on 4 conventional submarines with nuclear transfer agreements. They already have a decent domestic nuclear industry so you can easily add $10 billion on minium capability for Australia.

 

[riksavage]

The RAN isn't going to go nuclear.

Submarines are certainly are a problem. Skills and knowledge are so specific and specialised that they are easily lost, submarines themselves are inherently complicated and every part is critical.

I think with the next generation of submarines they take a conservative approach and adopt low risk technologies and proven equipment. 12 hulls will help absorbs costs in development across greater number of hulls, these costs would exists if there was 4 boats or 12 boats.

12 boats allows you to spread out the construction in a more sustainable manner.

Australia has been talking about 8 submarines for a very long time. The Oberons were ment to be 8 subs, collins was ment to be 8 subs. Going from 6 to 12 is not impossible in the next few decades. First one won't be commisioned until 2025 and then only 1 max a year to be built, your talking about 2035 assuming everything is on time to get up to 12. No one crewing a Collins now would be expected to kick in much time on its replacement.

Nuclear submarines aren't without issue and would hardly be a cost saving.Brazil has spend $10billion on 4 conventional submarines with nuclear transfer agreements. They already have a decent domestic nuclear industry so you can easily add $10 billion on minium capability for Australia.

You say the first won't be commisioned until 2025, I have my doubts, with only one active Collins boat and more issues with reliability involving long periods in deep maintenance (possible cutting open of hulls), it might get to the stage where a new buy has to be brought forward simply because there is no other option.

One active boat out of six is unacceptable for the defence of a country the size of Aus. The way things are going sub crews will start losing confidence in the platform and will not want to deploy far from home for safety reasons, combine this with the recent problems associated with the Aussie submarine rescue system and the silent service suddenly appears an unattractive employment option.

When the LHP's are built and deployed you will need to have at least one Collins to cover the ARG & support SF beach recce operations, not forgetting any other covert long endurance tasks supporting strategic intelligence gathering in support of the nations national interests. I would have thought you need a minimum of three active: one in reserve / training, one transitting to/from a deployment area, and one on active deployment.

 

[LancasterBomber]

You say the first won't be commisioned until 2025, I have my doubts,

Talk about alarmist paranoia....you arent British by any chance? :hul

Wally Waller and Frenchie Dechaineux are fully operational and all upgrades completed. Irrespective of the Fearless Farnie Farncomb's gen fault they will push on "full tilt". You or anyone else are free to send down any naval adversary to take them on. Be my guest. :ar15

Fearless will likely go in for a quick fix and then resume light duties to facilitate ongoing training before going in for a bigger fix slotting in after Sheean's upgrade perhaps.

We arent about to wet our pants and go buying second hand gear (or first hand but second rate) just because one geno bites the dust. We will back ourselves and build our own subs.

Come and talk to me in 10 years time. I bet I am still driving around a Collins. I bet its still world class as well.

 

[riksavage]

Talk about alarmist paranoia....you arent British by any chance? :hul

Wally Waller and Frenchie Dechaineux are fully operational and all upgrades completed. Irrespective of the Fearless Farnie Farncomb's gen fault they will push on "full tilt". You or anyone else are free to send down any naval adversary to take them on. Be my guest. :ar15

Fearless will likely go in for a quick fix and then resume light duties to facilitate ongoing training before going in for a bigger fix slotting in after Sheean's upgrade perhaps.

We arent about to wet our pants and go buying second hand gear (or first hand but second rate) just because one geno bites the dust. We will back ourselves and build our own subs.

Come and talk to me in 10 years time. I bet I am still driving around a Collins. I bet its still world class as well.

Anglo-Australian actually. My comments were driven by the article attached to my initial comment, which does not represent your typical press bull-shit. I don't doubt the Collins Class is the best conventional submarine in the world when WORKING, however they appear to have a nasty habit of either breaking down or suffer from substandard equipment (generators being the latest issue). So go grab your teddy and put it back in the pram! If you think the current state of affairs with the Collins is acceptable then fine, however I doubt the RAN high command is, they must be getting a bit fed-up of digging around in the parts bin for quick fixes for a brand new class of boat?

 

[Lofty_DBF]

Talk about alarmist paranoia....you arent British by any chance? :hul

Wally Waller and Frenchie Dechaineux are fully operational and all upgrades completed. Irrespective of the Fearless Farnie Farncomb's gen fault they will push on "full tilt". You or anyone else are free to send down any naval adversary to take them on. Be my guest. :ar15

Fearless will likely go in for a quick fix and then resume light duties to facilitate ongoing training before going in for a bigger fix slotting in after Sheean's upgrade perhaps.

We arent about to wet our pants and go buying second hand gear (or first hand but second rate) just because one geno bites the dust. We will back ourselves and build our own subs.

Come and talk to me in 10 years time. I bet I am still driving around a Collins. I bet its still world class as well.

Are you a submariner mate? And where are you getting this information from?

 

[LancasterBomber]

Anglo-Australian actually. My comments were driven by the article attached to my initial comment, which does not represent your typical press bull-shit. I don't doubt the Collins Class is the best conventional submarine in the world when WORKING, however they appear to have a nasty habit of either breaking down or suffer from substandard equipment (generators being the latest issue). So go grab your teddy and put it back in the pram! If you think the current state of affairs with the Collins is acceptable then fine, however I doubt the RAN high command is, they must be getting a bit fed-up of digging around in the parts bin for quick fixes for a brand new class of boat?

Yeah you are right they will be getting a bit fed up with continuously having to overcome issues. Cant dispute that. I was only stirring you up a little. I will take back the "are you British" line!

Its just a bit early to say we should 'throw in the towel' on our own development plans IMO.

 

[LancasterBomber]

where are you getting this information from?

I went fishing for it for you but I cant find it. I was confident I read Dechaineux was on schedule and expected to finish its rotation last week of January 2010. Feel free to correct me on that though because I cant find where I read it. It was in one of the trade mags I thought.

 

[FluffyThoughts]

The RAN isn't going to go nuclear.
...First one won't be commisioned until 2025 and then only 1 max a year to be built, your talking about 2035 assuming everything is on time to get up to 12....

Australia are planning to build one-a-year max? Surely one every two years will be more sensible and sustainable for your submarine industry?

Assuming that the first boat is delivered in 2025, the last will be available in 2047, by which time the lead-boat's replacement will be well under-development. Assuming a 25/30-year service-life building all the boats by 2040-tops could leave Australia with a build-gap (like we had with the Astutes) and could damage your ability to build vessels at cost.

I am assuming eight-boats max will be on readiness at any one time. Surely streaming a new-build to cover mid-life upgrades would be a sensible option?

 

[Lofty_DBF]

I went fishing for it for you but I cant find it. I was confident I read Dechaineux was on schedule and expected to finish its rotation last week of January 2010. Feel free to correct me on that though because I cant find where I read it. It was in one of the trade mags I thought.

I wont be making any corrections or comments on a public forum that are not public knowledge.
I currently enjoy my job and don't want the sack.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Australia are planning to build one-a-year max? Surely one every two years will be more sensible and sustainable for your submarine industry??

1 a year in a best case situation. 2 a year as a reasonable assumption on average.

People think the subs are like helicopters, and next week we will have 12 subs but no one to crew them because we have too many too soon. We wont have a crewing crisis until 2035 at the earliest about additional crewing requirements which is plenty of time to fix things.

The problems Collins is having is comparible to issues many subs have, Canada has how many upholders avalible? They require more maintence than other vessels. Im not saying its perfect, but having 2 or so subs operation out of 6 isn't exactly unheard of.

 

[alexsa]

Where are the enriched uranium fuel rods, coming from perchance? Should our "strategically vital" submarine capability be totally reliant upon foreign powers?

Can a foreign power even legally export enriched uranium to Australia???

..

Just for clarifcation... all the fuel rods for OPAL come from overseas as we do not, currently, have enrichment facilities in country. True we are talking about a small medical research reactor but the control mechanisms are in place.

 

[alexsa]

I will take yours and gf words for it,as i am not an operator or i have not served.
I just read books,websites to get my info and i have to trust the Author is well educated on the matter.

Enjoying and learning alot from this discussion

Regards

As an analogy a small object painted day glow red (i.e it is not very discrete) is going to be much easier to see than a large object that is lost/blended into the background.

It is not the size that matter it is just how easy it is to see (detect)

 

[StingrayOZ]

Has GLE/Silex been given the go ahead overseas?

If we were to get into the nuclear game, such refinement technology would make it infinately cheaper and more efficient than other methods. They were talking about a production date in 2012 with the inital demo loop completed this or last year. So building a leading edge refinery would be <3 years.

With an Australian enrichment, we could significantly value add to our exports by not just exporting ore, but exporting useable product. By needing less ore and energy we can offer the product significantly cheaper than other sources.

Also concider not every country with an extensive nuclear industry has nuclear subs. Germany and Japan come to mind as being major submarine powers and major nuclear technology heavy weights yet no nuclear submarines.

 

[alexsa]

Has GLE/Silex been given the go ahead overseas?

If we were to get into the nuclear game, such refinement technology would make it infinately cheaper and more efficient than other methods. They were talking about a production date in 2012 with the inital demo loop completed this or last year. So building a leading edge refinery would be <3 years.

With an Australian enrichment, we could significantly value add to our exports by not just exporting ore, but exporting useable product. By needing less ore and energy we can offer the product significantly cheaper than other sources.

Also concider not every country with an extensive nuclear industry has nuclear subs. Germany and Japan come to mind as being major submarine powers and major nuclear technology heavy weights yet no nuclear submarines.

Last I heard Silex development has gone from ANSTO to the US. I understand it has very good prospects.

I believe the reason it has moved is our very low demand for fuel rods (OPAL has a very small core) but I would hesistate to ask for this to be confirmed. Another issue would be the current governments reluctance to enrich in this country. From contacts in indsustry I note that industry are opposed to downstream processing wiht the export of rods and prefer to ship just UOC and would avoid concentrating the uranium if they could. When the UIF was put in place by the Howard government they were very blunt in ther desire not to get into enrichment, however, there is a profit motive in this.