Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[StingrayOZ]

S80 and collins have simular crewing requirements. (32 ish verse 46 ish).

While that maybe the level of operations for the Spanish navy I don't think that is the level of operations for the RAN. The RAN has always been pretty active with its submarines, proberly more so than many other navies. We like to pretend they are SSN's and send them out, way out frequently. Yes training does occur on the coast, but this is more than a few days IMO its more like weeks. However this is not first hand information of what the RAN is currently doing.

Subs also allow training of surface ships, on ASW, so simulators can't do that effectively.

i don't think the RAN is looking at the S80. I don't think that is really a viable option for them.

 

[gf0012-aust]

This thread is not about the Juan Carlos. It's not about the S80.

Get back on track.

 

[StevoJH]

With respect to crew problems for the subs, what about make the life of the subber very good, like going out to sea 1 month per year just, and the rest of the time with simulators and going out maybe 2 or 3 days, for example once or twice a month for 4 days plus the big out of one entire month, in peace time, so the subber has lot of spare time, good money, most of time at home, you can have many subbers able to rotate using the subs, so less time per crew at the sub...also for the crew number of smaller subs, for ex the s80 has 32 crew, so one collins crew gives for 2 s80´s, and if smaller than s80 maybe still less. But for that you need good simulators, for ex the s80´s tactical sim: type in youtube "SIMULADOR TÁCTICO DE ADIESTRAMIENTO PARA LOS SUBMARINOS DE LA SERIE S-80A" .

Also you can type in youtube "LHD JUAN CARLOS I segundas pruebas de mar" for the second sea trials of the jci with interesting movements.

I think you underestimate the amount of time the Collins class spend at sea. Attending RIMPAC for example at SSG transit speeds would take quite a long time. And they attend more then one exercise per year. For example, Fleet concentration period is a month or two each year as well.

Edit:sorry, had the posting window open for a while and didn't see gf's post.

 

[agc33e]

Ok let´s say the ran plans 3 long exercises for a sub during one year, then we can put 3 crews for that sub for making the ratio 1 per year, or 2 crews and make 1,5 per year, this type of job has the quality intrinsic to it with the free time at home so we can pay less money even to compensate more crews.

And there is not just tactical simulators, the spanish have ones for the galerna sub type that for more mechanical aspects of the sub, and the sonar and periscope.., it is in youtube also, type "Simulador S-70", this related to navantia or the companies involved in it, giving you a bit more info on the subs market companies.


I saw the video about the 2nd sea trials of the lhd, with fast changing of the ballast, very fast.. like the boss is a bit drunk..

 

[agc33e]

S80 and collins have simular crewing requirements. (32 ish verse 46 ish).

While that maybe the level of operations for the Spanish navy I don't think that is the level of operations for the RAN. The RAN has always been pretty active with its submarines, proberly more so than many other navies. We like to pretend they are SSN's and send them out, way out frequently. Yes training does occur on the coast, but this is more than a few days IMO its more like weeks. However this is not first hand information of what the RAN is currently doing.

Subs also allow training of surface ships, on ASW, so simulators can't do that effectively.

i don't think the RAN is looking at the S80. I don't think that is really a viable option for them.

I dont know the level of operation of the spanish navy in terms of days of deployment for subs but for an example they put a 30 year sub to 300+ mts of depth frequently, until the limit until they break it.

 

[Lofty_DBF]

The terms "hovering" or "hover" as used herein and as understood in the art of a submarine vessel operating condition wherein the vessel is ballasted in such a way that its depth below the water surface remains substantially constant and the horizontal velocity of the vessel is substantially zero with respect to the surrounding water.

Inability to adjust ballast due to damage?

You are the expert. Feel free to school me. I am only learning about this stuff!

Collins class submarines can not hover like a SSBN when they blow main ballast it only removes 70% of the water the rest is pumped out on the surface.

The submarines have a lot of built in redundancies they can use to surface.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Last warning.

This is not about the Spanish navy.

This is not about Spanish CONOPS

This is not about Spanish doctrine.

Any further breaches and posts will be deleted and bans considered.

and lastly.

there are people on here who have actually served or serve on subs. so telling members what subs can or can't do is a brave thing to do.

Its probably wise to look at LancasterBombers last comment.......

 

[agc33e]

admin: deleted as irrelevant

If you want to talk about the Spanish Navy you are welcome to start another thread - but you will be expected like everyone else to stay on topic in subject specific threads. There will always be degrees of interruption from the main topic, but there is a sense that you are walking the fine line as another senior member has stated prev.

I would suggest that you couch your responses a bit more carefully - eg you make claims about subs and sub technology which some of those who have served on, or those who have been involved with submarine warfare and technology would regard as just plain enthusiasm and certainly not based on fact and/or personal experience.

remember that there are a number of people on here who have either served on, or been involved with building subs - and not just in australia



Continuing with the subs:
-for a budget to give for 6 subs or 8 depending on size and capabilities maybe it is not a big difference and is preferred to have bigger capabilites for the 6, for ex, the subs without the aip capability are much cheaper, and going for the basic, these would give many numbers, now in the same sub platform we can have with and without aip, cheaper and less cheaper, ones for fleet escort, the aip ones for more silent or independent missions. If i have to choose 6 vs 8 i dont know, but if it is 6 vs 10 for the smaller (with/without aip, with/without tactoms) i would say 10, we can have some "basic" subs for the fleet for the undersea perimeter and attack without aip and without tactoms.
-for the crewing issue, the subs deployment is parallel to surface ships one (at least when mini fleet), plus the independent missions, but a sub is more unconfortable, so their crew can have less days of mission per year than in surface ships so there is a m argin to make the subs more attractive than surface ships.

Best regards.

 

[agc33e]

Yes, sometimes my statements are very "maybe", for ex., subs to launch tactical missiles, to be discovered by an hostile ship or aircraft should not be an easy task really, and if launched from different points still more difficult, if we launch further than 300 kms from the nearest opponent´s helo, they will not have time to detect the sub, and for fixed wing aircraft like a cn-295 persuader or similar, their sensors are acoustic, magnetic and by sight, so probably with a silent sub and with good range, also they would be difficult to detect, probably.

Cheers.

 

[StevoJH]

So....back on topic....

Any new news on the Sea Lift ship listed in the White Paper? Or the LCH replacements?

Also, has anyone heard if there have been any problems with Perth or if its all going well?

 

[Sea Toby]

So....back on topic....

Any new news on the Sea Lift ship listed in the White Paper? Or the LCH replacements?

Also, has anyone heard if there have been any problems with Perth or if its all going well?

The latest news came from the White Paper. Another ship will be bought and put into service after 2018 in the neighborhood of 12-14k tons. Since these ships take two to three years to build, I won't expect much more information to be released until 2015-16. At the moment the RAN is in the process of building 2 LHDs and 3 DDGs. A third new amphibious ship isn't needed until when the last ex-Newport is retired. Currently the last active ex-Newport is the third ship...

Expectations are the third ship will be a either a LPD or LSD type of ship.... I suspect a Dutch Enforcer type or something similar will be acquired. But that is only speculation.... The RAN is doing what it has done in the past again, stretching out a new shipbuilding program to avoid block obsolescence at a later date. Something I feel is wise...

 

[StevoJH]

The latest news came from the White Paper. Another ship will be bought and put into service after 2018 in the neighborhood of 12-14k tons. Since these ships take two to three years to build, I won't expect much more information to be released until 2015-16. At the moment the RAN is in the process of building 2 LHDs and 3 DDGs. A third new amphibious ship isn't needed until when the last ex-Newport is retired. Currently the last active ex-Newport is the third ship...

Expectations are the third ship will be a either a LPD or LSD type of ship.... I suspect a Dutch Enforcer type or something similar will be acquired. But that is only speculation.... The RAN is doing what it has done in the past again, stretching out a new shipbuilding program to avoid block obsolescence at a later date. Something I feel is wise...

Yeah, I wouldn't be surprised about that. The thing about their build program that annoys me is that the ANZAC's were built in Melbourne from memory, and now they have built a complete new shipbuilding yard in Adelaide alongside the existing submarine building facilities at ASC in order to build the AWD's, wouldn't they be better to use the existing facilities?

I agree, hopefully the Sea Lift ship will be something along the lines of a Bay class or one of the other ships of the Enforcer series.

Icelord et al, how'd the rest of the Concentration period go? or if it hasnt finished, how is it going?

 

[Todjaeger]

Yeah, I wouldn't be surprised about that. The thing about their build program that annoys me is that the ANZAC's were built in Melbourne from memory, and now they have built a complete new shipbuilding yard in Adelaide alongside the existing submarine building facilities at ASC in order to build the AWD's, wouldn't they be better to use the existing facilities?

I agree, hopefully the Sea Lift ship will be something along the lines of a Bay class or one of the other ships of the Enforcer series.

Icelord et al, how'd the rest of the Concentration period go? or if it hasnt finished, how is it going?

From what I remember, Tenix Defence (the then owners of the Williamstown Dockyard) and VIC pollys did lobby for the assembly of the AWD. Ultimately though was awarded to ASC. From what I remember, there was some concern that the yard/graving dock at Williamstown Dockyard would not be large enough for the AWD and that the cost/work required to upgrade the facility would be too high.

From what I understand, it was felt that a brand new facility next to the sub facilities in SA would be better overall I admit though I do not know just how much of this was due to an unbiased analysis and how much was a result of politicking. If ASC was a lock for the Collins II build programme, I would understand. However, based upon comments made here and elsewhere by those whom are or have been involved in the Collins, it seems that ASC (as the entity currently exists) is not viewed favourably re: the Collins.

-Cheers

 

[gf0012-aust]

From what I remember, Tenix Defence (the then owners of the Williamstown Dockyard) and VIC pollys did lobby for the assembly of the AWD. Ultimately though was awarded to ASC. From what I remember, there was some concern that the yard/graving dock at Williamstown Dockyard would not be large enough for the AWD and that the cost/work required to upgrade the facility would be too high.

From what I understand, it was felt that a brand new facility next to the sub facilities in SA would be better overall I admit though I do not know just how much of this was due to an unbiased analysis and how much was a result of politicking. If ASC was a lock for the Collins II build programme, I would understand. However, based upon comments made here and elsewhere by those whom are or have been involved in the Collins, it seems that ASC (as the entity currently exists) is not viewed favourably re: the Collins.

-Cheers

Tenix offered a sub-standard (comparitively deficient) facility compared to the SA Techport facility.

In addition, the Vic govt submission was absolutely deficient, they assumed that they would get it and never even offered a proper proposal (faxed). The SA Govt on the otherhand pulled in and developed a proper Def-Industry Team headed by an Admiral, and they offered a precinct for all other sub contractors to establish next to the prime. The SA presentation was a proper publication - as is the standard seen in major projects overseas

It was a chalk and cheese comparison. The Vics never had a chance when they demonstrated contempt by the quality of their submission,

On top of which, even if they had managed to make the effort, the industry base was just not presented effectively or co-ordinated. The Sth Australians had some 12 years exp in teaming (through the DTC) so actually knew how to do a proper co-ordinated team submission.

In short, the Vic proposal was amateurish

 

[Todjaeger]

Tenix offered a sub-standard (comparitively deficient) facility compared to the SA Techport facility.

In addition, the Vic govt submission was absolutely deficient, they assumed that they would get it and never even offered a proper proposal (faxed). The SA Govt on the otherhand pulled in and developed a proper Def-Industry Team headed by an Admiral, and they offered a precinct for all other sub contractors to establish next to the prime. The SA presentation was a proper publication - as is the standard seen in major projects overseas

It was a chalk and cheese comparison. The Vics never had a chance when they demonstrated contempt by the quality of their submission,

On top of which, even if they had managed to make the effort, the industry base was just not presented effectively or co-ordinated. The Sth Australians had some 12 years exp in teaming (through the DTC) so actually knew how to do a proper co-ordinated team submission.

In short, the Vic proposal was amateurish

Okay, thanks for that. If SA did their homework and developed a proper plan, that is worlds different than some polly going, "Williamstown doesn't vote our way, so they can s*d off..."

As I understand it, a situation like this arose with the choice between the Thales Australia (then ADI) Bushmaster and the Tenix S600 for the IMV programme.

-Cheers

 

[gf0012-aust]

As I understand it, a situation like this arose with the choice between the Thales Australia (then ADI) Bushmaster and the Tenix S600 for the IMV programme.

-Cheers

I was actually initially contracted to JRA on the S600 proposal

Its true re ADI though. They were in an at risk electorate, and the govt wanted to swing it.

 

[swerve]

The latest news came from the White Paper. Another ship will be bought and put into service after 2018 in the neighborhood of 12-14k tons. ..

Expectations are the third ship will be a either a LPD or LSD type of ship.... I suspect a Dutch Enforcer type or something similar will be acquired. But that is only speculation.....

12-14K tons is about the size of Rotterdam or Galicia. An austere version would be adequate for sealift, perhaps with a smaller dock, like the Bays, to maximise cargo space.

 

[Ozymandias]

Does anyone have any unclass knowledge on how the SRP is going to affect RAN and their supporting private industry? Is their scope for "efficiency" or will their have to be cuts in capability?

 

[LancasterBomber]

Collins class submarines can not hover like a SSBN when they blow main ballast it only removes 70% of the water the rest is pumped out on the surface.

The submarines have a lot of built in redundancies they can use to surface.

Ok thanks for clearing that up. Its obviously a small boost to morale for our boys knowing we have the LR5 capability locally on hand now.

 

[LancasterBomber]

A bit off topic (but lets face it with agc33e around when are we ever on topic lol) but I was reading this article today and pondering it in the context of new naval bases.

If the WA govt is in the mood to build ports would there be any broader national strategic utility in looking at a naval base (be it subs and/or skimmers) in the Pilbara?

On the upside it sends a very strong message about our willingness to protect our assets (at least mitigating any first strike/mover advantage in the region should a country decide to get very very cheeky on the resources front). The other upside might be the opportunity to really invest heavily in a new port that the RAN can structure around our long term hardware plans i.e its a greenfield site we can get a lot of free reign to customise to our explicit needs.

Downsides being it would be nuts to base our boys in the middle of mining boom (potentially getting them cherry picked again like last time). Total sausage fest with no access to the hot chicks (i.e quality of life is low in such an isolated area). Would the base be too far away from our centres of population and therefor leaving our industrial trade ports more vulnerable? Not sure on that one.

Building brand new naval bases probably isnt on the minds of NGN cost cutters or fed govt or just about anyone but we do have probably 200 billion in raw assets sitting on or off the pilbara and although im sure we can project force quite nicely from FBW perhaps the RAN can piggy back the WA govt with some extra federal dollars to modernise and restructure our basing right across Australia to better project our force into the future (Aren't we a bit top heavy in the south east region?)

I am not necessarily suggesting anything is drastically wrong with how we set up right now but sometimes when these greenfield site opportunities come up it might present an opportunity to review and take stock of how we want to shake down any would be invasion force moving forward.

I guess I bring this up in reference to our recent discussion on basing subs on the east coast. And I do take the point that a new base in the Pilbara doesnt solve the recruitment issue for subbies in any way shape or form. In fact posting blokes to the Pilbara region would probably be as well received as Icelord belting out karaoke tunes at 3am after a night on the piss. :gun

(I have no evidence Icelord would behave in such a manner!)

Appears as though I am not alone in a strategic rethink on ADF basing....

Security issues for Indian Ocean coastline: report - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)