I thought Westralia was a cert so for one of the reasons they named it Choules - to have a WA connection and media event.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
OpinionNoted
Banned Member
lol agreed and yeah no disrespect to the man.
How about we move on from the name. It's done and dusted and there's not much mileage left in it
You didn't rule out French designs???????????????? I can't wait, imagine all the integration issues when we try to shoe horn in a US combat system; ITAR and IP hell here we come. Is it possible to completely firewall a CS from a platform?
I actually like the Australian concepts that are starting to leak out, if you can call them Australian with all the UK and Swedish ( some Germans too I think) guys on the team, not to mention the Electric Boat (Virginia Class lead yard) tie in. The platform is the simple part its the systems and how they are put together and are able to work together that count.
Just remember Australia (RAN, ASC, DSTO etc) are the experts in building, maintaining and improving large conventional submarines designed to operate in Australias region and areas of interest. No other country has the holistic experience and understanding that Australia has.
Too bad politics and poor journalism will likely see us spending more money on a lesser capability than if we went for a local design incorporating the best and most suitable features and capabilities our alliances can provide us with.
and the french. we've got enough problems with french gear at the moment to rule them out for years....
yep, its the systems ontegration which is the issue - and some countries have got buckleys and none chances of working with the US systems that we may get.
and we have common combat room design advantages....
heaven help us if we go spanish or french... although the latter have done themselves no favours in a few recent programs.
the road runner
Active Member
Mate i have just been reading up on a DSTO report on the future subs for Australia.Okay, simply put, is there any new news on the RAN's future 12 submarine project and if so what is it; specifications, design, propulsion, etc
cheers!
It gives a History of the Collins Project and the evolution of it.
http://www.dsto.defence.gov.au/publications/3442/DSTO-TR-1622.pdf
http://www.dsto.defence.gov.au/publications/4897/DSTO-TR-1920.pdf
It is a very good read and gave a punter like me a greater understanding of the challenges that have been faced in the construction of Specific subs for Australia.
I found part 2 Rather interesting especially the bit about how a Round hull of approx 9.6 Meters in Diameter will allow (in some areas) 4 decks on the future sub.A 9.6 Diameter hull(with a contoured nose) will also give a 10% increase in endurance over Collins.
Another point i found eye opening is the size of the sail and how it affects Vibration,and the way that a smooth contour at the front of the sub all the way up to station 5000 will enhance the LO of the Sub.
I hope we dont buy any European design.Go you Son of a Collins.
I think i will read part 2 again.
Regards
Last edited:
the road runner
Active Member
Mate have you read "New Depth is Australia-US Relations,The Collins Class Project"
By Maryanne Kelton ?
New Depths in Australia-US Relations: The Collins Class Submarine Project Maryanne Kelton
Her View on the Combat system and other parts of the project that had pressure, placed on Australia, by the US, is written in a very articulated manner.She explains the politics behind the project rather well i think.
whenever I went to UDT Conferences, as soon as USN staff found out who I was contracted to I used to get free beer.
The general public is clueless about the capability of these subs, but it pi$$es me right off that its become politicised.
Its impossible to get intelligent debate on subs and Collins in the general mainstream media.
the road runner
Active Member
It seems that in the Collins project we chose the wrong combat system for the right reason,that being a close ally of the USA.This will pay off big time for us in our next sub i hope.whenever I went to UDT Conferences, as soon as USN staff found out who I was contracted to I used to get free beer.
The general public is clueless about the capability of these subs, but it pi$$es me right off that its become politicised.
Its impossible to get intelligent debate on subs and Collins in the general mainstream media.
The Choice of engines being an orphaned fleet in hindsight seems like a bad call,but what else could they have done? There was no other call to be made was there? I mean we needed an engine ,that specified a very long endurance that could push 3000 ton ,so i see the engine call as a "Catch 22" Hope we buy Japanese engines or have help from the Japanese with a future engine.
The choice of scaling up 471 SSK to make a Collins ,seems like a good call.Our subs have proven in exercises to be very hard to detect.I see a bright future in Australia next Subs.
The political game was played well i thought,we get access to US tech for collins and our future boats.Seems to me that the US are getting just as good a deal learning about collins and being involved in our future subs.Its a win win for all partys involved.
The Collins project is a winner in my view.Having built a capability of a sub that can go 10,000km + in an open ocean ,it pleases me to think that we will only build on this capability.
When we choose our next components,engines,weapons,batteries ect,i think we need to purchase off companys we know will be around in 20 years time.This seems to have been an issue with the engines on collins?
Off Topic . The Majority share of HDW was purchased by a US bank in early 2000?
Whilst it may seem harmless to post such information, it is against the rules and for people with clearances posting what may already be publicly available it is still fraut with risk. Sorry
one of the things that people often fail to understand is that the choice of a combat system is not just about that system, there are a whole pile of things and synergies that we leverage off the US - and which under other circumstances would not be available. Both the UK and Aust have some advantage in this. As good as the Euros tout their systems, they cannot even begin to compete against all the other gear and tech material that is made available to us - and well below mates rates. Often there is zero cost to us.
we could have chosen other maritime engines and done better. Guascor and MTU being obvious contenders
it paid off but it wasn't due to swedish ingenuity, most of those probs were fixed by DSTO and small companies run by australian ex submariners. The swedes said they could upscale and obviously couldn't. You just can't extrapolate measurements to make a larger vessel.
the international politics has been well played, but the local politics has been appalling. Both sides of politics should hld their heads in shame
yep, you can still get nailed for it irrespective of whether its in the public domain...
the road runner
Active Member
I will read upon these engines Thanx.
These engines were proven for large subs(im assuming no)? Would there have still been risk involved in these choices? Im assuming all of the choices would have had alot of risk involved,and that we will have less risk in a future engine because of all the lessons learned and the development in technology.
Hopefully this will cut down on risk,and we get very capable subs that are seen in the public eye as an Australian achievement.
I think everyone should be proven on how the preform,anyone who isnt productive should go no questions asked.Its to big a project
DSTO puts out some great articles ,with what they make public ,very professional,The knowledge they must have,what they have learnt from collins must be priceless for the construct of our future subs
Regards
Last edited:
treehuggingaj
New Member
Oh lawwwwd! Some of those comments man. Obviously as I post here, I am very pro defence. But I get really disheartened at some of the redneck comments that get thrown around. All part of being a "tree hugging AJ" I guess.The West Australian[/url]
Not sure whether to post this here or in the Army thread.
Scroll down to the comments for some laughs
Although in all seriousness I thought they would have picked 2RAR for the role, anyone know why they might have gone with 3RAR?
RE 3RAR, I think they just got their info a bit muddled up. They mean 3 Bde I am pretty sure.
gf0012-aust said:
There's the rub GF, how many major contracts are issued on true merit and not federal/state politics deciding the issue, is there even one ?
The major contractor subcontracting some of the work out to competent people is another matter and probably happens not often enough.
Last edited by a moderator:
No its just being informed. Who in the ADF thinks we are a few days away from fighting off an Indonesian invasion? No one. Unfort. lots of people in the public think this is Australia's strategic situ. Not helped along by anti VietNam War protesters masquerading as strategic advisers who have leveraged this indophobia to try and build out from the ADF any expeditionary capability. Got to defend the north! From who? Doesn't matter...
The problem is that one of the many possibilities is confirmed, probably the most known example is the f-22 pilot on forums that got severely slapped (though his name escapes me)
Sometimes it's even the supplier sprooking his product that puts the customer off side by what is said
- Status