Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[gf0012-aust]

I'm a little surprised that nobody seems to have noticed the lifting of the Japanese arms export ban the day before yesterday. The implications for Australia's future submarine programme are obvious. Japan has exactly the sort of submarines Australia wants, & co-development of a submarine with Australia is exactly the sort of programme that should pass the remaining (& still pretty stiff) Japanese restrictions.

So, when will the Australian government start talking to Mitsubishi Heavy Industries about an Australianised Sōryū derivative?

it was exciting for me

 

[gf0012-aust]

Why do you believe the HDW Type 216 design won't do the job when it hasn't been revealed yet? I hear from my US naval submariner friends that they are impressed with the German Type 214 submarines they have seen.

because its the same damn problem that put us in this initial design pickle - the same problem that would have buggered up the super 209, and the same problem that the 216 has.

its another "we have a solution for you on paper - trust us as this didn't come from a rehashed existing design that we just want to upsize"

FMD, we've travelled this road before.

and if you have mates who are USN dolphins you'll also know that they regarded Collins as superior to the 214's - or in fact any of the current builds from any of the contenders.

subs are not "big macs" where you can upsize and think its the cheapest safest solution. Thats just errant rubbish

 

[aussienscale]

Why do you believe the HDW Type 216 design won't do the job when it hasn't been revealed yet? I hear from my US naval submariner friends that they are impressed with the German Type 214 submarines they have seen. Finally, any new Australian designed submarine is unproven, unbuilt, and untested as well. When it comes to the bottom line, it appears buying a submarine from a source with much more submarine knowledge and expertise for a fourth of the price may be a better option. A video of the German Type 212 which have not been exported.

Type 212 Most Advanced Submarine.mp4 - YouTube

Toby, you obviously did not either read my post or understand it ? Or you are trolling and deliberately mis-quoting me ? Either way the others have pointed out to you what everyone else seems to understand and have said numerous times since Sea 1000 started. I think you are trolling ! You should know by now what the Australian requirements are and you should know that the Euro subs do not meet those requirements, you also seem to show a complete lack of knowledge of Australia as a country, have you Googled it ? Australia, southern hemisphere, sits right in between the Indian and Pacific Oceans, we are not in Europe as many American's seem to believe, and seem to confuse us with Austria, that's where Arnie comes from, you know Arnie ? Ex Governer of California, I believe its a suburb in Mexico

 

[Sea Toby]

Toby, you obviously did not either read my post or understand it ? Or you are trolling and deliberately mis-quoting me ? Either way the others have pointed out to you what everyone else seems to understand and have said numerous times since Sea 1000 started. I think you are trolling ! You should know by now what the Australian requirements are and you should know that the Euro subs do not meet those requirements, you also seem to show a complete lack of knowledge of Australia as a country, have you Googled it ? Australia, southern hemisphere, sits right in between the Indian and Pacific Oceans, we are not in Europe as many American's seem to believe, and seem to confuse us with Austria, that's where Arnie comes from, you know Arnie ? Ex Governer of California, I believe its a suburb in Mexico

Now you are being condescending. So all of you believe Australians can design a brand new sub better than the Germans? I shall await the results before I agree. What I find disturbing is the out right dismissal before anyone has seen the design plans. None of you know how large the Type 216 design will be in any dimensions or whether it will meet every spec. I am not so sure only Australians can build to specification.

 

[phreeky]

Now you are being condescending. So all of you believe Australians can design a brand new sub better than the Germans? I shall await the results before I agree. What I find disturbing is the out right dismissal before anyone has seen the design plans. None of you know how large the Type 216 design will be in any dimensions or whether it will meet every spec. I am not so sure only Australians can build to specification.

Thing is if you're going to build a new design why not do it locally? Costing more is a non-argument - it might look worse on paper and in a short term budget but keeping the money in the Australian economy is a pretty big advantage.

 

[Sea Toby]

Thing is if you're going to build a new design why not do it locally? Costing more is a non-argument - it might look worse on paper and in a short term budget but keeping the money in the Australian economy is a pretty big advantage.

The German Type 216 design from the news release/report IS being built at Adelaide, but with a German design supposed to meet every spec of the Australian tender requirement. If it turns out it doesn't meet every spec, well, that is another story isn't it? From what I read and understand, its not much different than building Spanish/Gibbs designed destroyers at Adelaide.

What I don't understand, and never will, is that only Australians are able to design a sub to Australian specs. That my folks is a red herring.

 

[Bonza]

The German Type 216 design from the news release/report IS being built at Adelaide, but with a German design supposed to meet every spec of the Australian tender requirement. If it turns out it doesn't meet every spec, well, that is another story isn't it? From what I read and understand, its not much different than building Spanish/Gibbs designed destroyers at Adelaide.

What I don't understand, and never will, is that only Australians are able to design a sub to Australian specs. That my folks is a red herring.

Man, you're very, very good at missing the point when you put your mind to it, aren't you? Seriously, all the detailed posts you've gotten from GF and others in the know, and the best response you can muster is that it's all a "red herring"?

A more cynical man would think you were trolling when you trot out nonsense like that in response to what's been posted, when you've had any number of opportunities to give detailed responses to some very credible points.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

What I don't understand, and never will, is that only Australians are able to design a sub to Australian specs. That my folks is a red herring.

No one has actually said that except you. So if you don't understand your own rambling how can the rest of us?

 

[Todjaeger]

Now you are being condescending. So all of you believe Australians can design a brand new sub better than the Germans? I shall await the results before I agree. What I find disturbing is the out right dismissal before anyone has seen the design plans. None of you know how large the Type 216 design will be in any dimensions or whether it will meet every spec. I am not so sure only Australians can build to specification.

The issue is not whether Australia can design a 'better' sub than the Germans or not. It is whether Australia can in partnership with others, design a sub meeting RAN requirements better than the Germans, Swedes, French or Spanish can. As myself and others have stated repeatedly and has been demonstrated by the difficulties Kockums encountered when they increased the size of their Type 471 submarine, experience in designing and building subs for operations in the Baltic, North and Mediterreanan Seas does not translate into experience designing and building fleet subs for operations in the Pacific.

To go with an automotive analogy since people seem to grasp that, automatically assuming that European sub designers and builders can meet the RAN's future sub requirements is kind of like assuming that the automotive company Lotus can design and build a competitor to a Titan Heavy Haul from Mack Truck without encountering significant issues.

The German Type 216 design from the news release/report IS being built at Adelaide, but with a German design supposed to meet every spec of the Australian tender requirement. If it turns out it doesn't meet every spec, well, that is another story isn't it? From what I read and understand, its not much different than building Spanish/Gibbs designed destroyers at Adelaide.

The other piece which seems to be either misunderstood or is being ignored is that so far what has been getting suggested in the Australian papers is that a MOTS European sub could/would get selected for the follow-on to the Collins-class. If there were to be a Type 216 on offer from Germany which was designed to meet RAN requirements, then unless/until someone else ordered the Type 216 and the class entered production then the design would not be a MOTS sub.

This has been where the issue lies, what is available in terms of MOTS sub designs do not meet RAN requirements apart from some of the Japanese subs. Therefore if a European sourced design was selected, either the RAN would be getting a sub which is not designed to meet their requirements but is MOTS, or the design is all new there will be programme exposure to risk, require systems integration, etc. Just like if there were an Australian design selected, but the designer would have more historical sub design experience, but less experience designing and working with subs of the scale that the RAN wants.

Now if Germany did/does go ahead and design a Type 216 which has a displacement of 3,000+ tons surfaced, with the sort of range and power generation capacity which the RAN wants, that is fine. However, apart from Australia, Canada and Japan, there is not much market for conventional subs that large. Which means that Germany would not likely build up or retain significant experience working with subs quite that large.

-Cheers

 

[peterAustralia]

No one disputes that the Collins class of subs is very good. However what people almost always omit, is that it took many years for them to get very good. There was a time there when they had more than their fair share of problems. If Australia had been in a bad dispute in the window where the Oberons were gone, and the Collins were not up to speed, perhaps people would not be so flattering about them now.

Another aspect of the Collins class was that they were expensive. It may well be that the money was well spent, but the extra billions for these subs, means fewer billions of dollars for other things.

Either way, that is all in the past now.

The question is, has Australia learnt enough lessons to build a new class of Submarines from scratch and get enough things right next time around?

From the little I know, HDW makes quite good submarnines, does anyone dispute that? It is true that they have not built a 4000t submarine yet.

It is a moot point now, however Australia seems set on getting a very large sub. Apparently there is a need for this large size. From what I can gather, there is a need (read essential) for the sub to travel to the South China Sea, or the NW Indian Ocean to perform some sort of strategic deterrent role. Now it may well be that this is essential, however the idea that this is essential is not really discussed, it is almost as if it is a given. A shorter ranged submarnine might only protect australian sea lanes, however it seems that with so many ships, the main role of large subs, is not defence as such, but more a strategic deterent. This may be fine, but for whatever reason, it does not seem to get much open discussion. Either way, that is all a bit of a moot point now, as we seem set on getting very large subs. Is this a taboo topic of discussion?

What is not often mentioned is that it is mainly thanks to the mineral boom, and our economy doing well, that Australia can afford such vessels. If the China boom had not eventuated and China had not modernised the way it did, there would have been a lot more aggravation about whether Australia can really afford such top of the line products as the Collins class. Remember before the mineral boom kicked in there were always budget cuts here and cuts there, it was always very difficult to balance the budget.

So Australia was lucky in a way, we did not get into a bad war in the timeframe before the Collins class were working well, and the mineral boom has given us the money to afford these vessels.

All I am saying, is that before HDW gets automatically rubbed out, at least see what they have to offer.

 

[rand0m]

Sorry to take this discussion down a few notches but do we have any idea on the name the Collins replacement will bare? Will it be Collins II or could it change to something along the lines of the Cosgrove class submarines?

 

[the road runner]

All I am saying, is that before HDW gets automatically rubbed out, at least see what they have to offer.

I think the Point people are making here,is that IF HDW design a 3000-5000 ton sub ,its is not Off the shelf.There will be risk involved.

 

[OpinionNoted]

Sorry to take this discussion down a few notches but do we have any idea on the name the Collins replacement will bare? Will it be Collins II or could it change to something along the lines of the Cosgrove class submarines?

god i hope not,there operating domain is the oceans,so there names should hopefully this time round reflect that.

 

[Sea Toby]

I think the Point people are making here,is that IF HDW design a 3000-5000 ton sub ,its is not Off the shelf.There will be risk involved.

The same risk applies to an Australian design as well. There is nothing wrong with another shipyard tendering an offer. May the best sub win.

 

[the road runner]

The same risk applies to an Australian design as well. There is nothing wrong with another shipyard tendering an offer. May the best sub win.

True ,the only difference is if HDW design and build collins 2 ,then there workforce dies a slow death after the builds have been completed.

If we build in Australia ,hopefully we will foster a group of people who will become an asset to Australian defence industry.

I hope the best sub dose win,and if that is the case id be looking to Japan.

Enjoying the discussion

Regards

 

[ADA]

Explaining the obvious

Calling the ADA a "key" defence group is a bit rich. They may get plenty of play in the media desperate for defence commentators but have had no discernable impact in Canberra on defence issues. Since they are pushing for a nuclear submarine I can't see their track record changing for the better.

The irony of the Australia Defence Association (ADA) being criticised by Abraham Gubler is surely not lost on anyone who keeps up to date with informed public debate on Australian defence issues.

We agree with Abraham though about the general poor quality of media coverage of defence issues in Australia - including by professed defence industry journalists such as himself.

Abraham has based his attempted criticism of the ADA on insufficient research.

First, the ADA's longstanding contributions to informed public debate stem from our role (since 1975) as the national, independent, community-based, non-partisan public-interest watchdog for defence and wider national security matters.

Second, our media work comprises only a small amount of our activities to ensure Australia is adequately and efficiently defended. That Abraham has admitted to being unaware of this says much more about him than it does about us.

As for his opinion as to our "discernible impact" (to spell it correctly), the fact that the ADA membership comprises a broad cross-section of the defence and wider Australian communities nationally speaks for itself. Including, for example, recent MInisters for Defence from both sides of politics who so respected our contributions that they joined after retiring as the minister. Those who know about informed debate in Australia respect the ADA for our effectiveness and for our candour, discretion and public-interest integrity.

Third, our letter-to-the-editor on the future submarine project sent to the "Australian" on 28 Dec 11 can be readily found on our website on the recent letters-to-the-edtor page (the forum software will not permit inclusion of the direct link). The newspaper edited the letter - which may partly explain Abraham's confusion although he appears not to have read the published version anyway.

Within the word-limits applying, this letter summarised recent public debate on the future submarine project. As part of a general discussion, it also suggested that any examination of options should at least look at the possibility of leasing some nuclear-powered boats from the US. This is obviously far removed from "pushing for a nuclear submarine" - just as we have not advocated any other particular option.

As the relevant national public-interest watchdog the ADA naturally continues to view the various claims for home-grown, European and other submarine designs with some scepticism. All claims need to be tested, especially for as yet unbuilt and unproven designs.

Our scepticism also includes due care when reading the unsupported claims by defence industry journalists with or without "skin in the game".

Neil James
Executive Director
Australia Defence Association
(web then ada.asn.au)

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Sorry to take this discussion down a few notches but do we have any idea on the name the Collins replacement will bare? Will it be Collins II or could it change to something along the lines of the Cosgrove class submarines?

Names are usually decided a few years before the lead ship is laid down. This decision is as long as ten years from now. It was navy policy to name submarines after former submarines and RAN personnel of distinction. But with the political level involved anything is possible as seen in the ridiculous name of HMAS Choules. HMA Submarine Cosgrove is actually possible if we dies around the time one of the submarines is set to be laid down and the politicians want an extra headline or two. But most likely these submarines will follow the Collins tradition with additional names from the RAN’s roll of honour.

 

[Sea Toby]

True ,the only difference is if HDW design and build collins 2 ,then there workforce dies a slow death after the builds have been completed.

If we build in Australia ,hopefully we will foster a group of people who will become an asset to Australian defence industry.

I hope the best sub dose win,and if that is the case id be looking to Japan.

Enjoying the discussion

Regards

Unfortunately, the Australian taxpayer doesn't necessarily have to supply defense related jobs to those who aren't cost effective and/or productive. The Australian taxpayers don't owe anyone a job.

As long as a German designed sub is built in Australia, I don't see many of those shipyard workers being sacked.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

The same risk applies to an Australian design as well. There is nothing wrong with another shipyard tendering an offer. May the best sub win.

Actually there is a lot less risk with an Australian design. Because Australian designers are more familiar with the ability of Australian yards and suppliers to build a ship than designers in Germany. Also they have all the experience and hard earned know how from the Collins build.

The only thing an OTS license design brings to the table is knowledge that if built right it will actually work. But there is little or no confidence that the actual technology transfer will work well. This issue has been proved the hard way multiple times in Australia in the last few years and most significantly right now with the F100 solution for the AWD. Of course when the design is unproven and the technology transfer unproven that’s two strikes compared to just one (for Australian designed).

 

[Sea Toby]

Actually there is a lot less risk with an Australian design. Because Australian designers are more familiar with the ability of Australian yards and suppliers to build a ship than designers in Germany. Also they have all the experience and hard earned know how from the Collins build.

The only thing an OTS license design brings to the table is knowledge that if built right it will actually work. But there is little or no confidence that the actual technology transfer will work well. This issue has been proved the hard way multiple times in Australia in the last few years and most significantly right now with the F100 solution for the AWD. Of course when the design is unproven and the technology transfer unproven that’s two strikes compared to just one (for Australian designed).

The German designed subs have been built in a number of different nations, from South Korea to Turkey to Italy. I can't think of anyone else who has had more built abroad. If anything, their record speaks otherwise, that they do transfer technology better than anyone.