Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[aussienscale]

I presume whether the German HDW Type216 may be suitable for Australia? While it may not, I shall await seeing the designs before I dismiss it. Others have already dismissed it without even a glance, much less studying it.

Interesting video:

Defence plans Collins class replacement - YouTube

This is the whole point Toby, you have not understood my original post which has resulted in page after page of posts that have gone way off track. Myself and others have not dismissed the HDW design, how can we when there are very little details about it in the public domain.

My original post was pointing out to the proponents and media in general who keep up this crazy notion of OTS Euro subs. They do not meet our requirements, straight and simple. That does not mean we are bagging them or calling them crap platforms, they are just not what we need. And I was hightlighting a comment from Abe that if a company like HDW are offering an upsized version of their sub, they know OTS is not even being looked at by the RAN.

Re-read the post, take it in context and you will see what we are trying to say. If you are wondering why people seem to be having a go at you, how about when people on here try and point out your misunderstanding of a post, instead of getting defensive and reading to much into it, go over the posts and if you still think you may have it wrong, ask a question ? quote specific sentences and ask for clarification, then we continue on with the discussion

Edit: With regards to the video you posted from the ABC, you obviously don't know about the ABC ? List every point you would like to make about comments in the video and discuss and myself and others (including people in the know) will correct every misleading statement in that story. Here is the first one for you :
"The Navy had to replace out of date combat systems" ? Really does a statement like this even need to be pulled apart ?

 

[the road runner]

Defence plans Collins class replacement - YouTube

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6XG1Y3K3dU&feature=relmfu"]Defence experts say Australia can go it alone - YouTube[/nomedia]

ABC isnt the best News source,but above is part 2 of the the video you posted.

If you listen to what Mr Robert Hill(old defence minister) is saying,he talks about our Subs being complimentary to the US,and he also wants the Boats built in Australia,he explains why in this video.
QUOTE from video ..

"Navy s traditionally develop there own(sub)
1.It has to fit in their operational parameters,
2.you have to maintain and further develop the sub over its life"

The first point is why i dont see a Euro "off the shelf "design winning

EDIT: IS HMAS Choules still in sydney harbour? and if so dose anyone know where?Just wanted to take a few Kodak moments

 

[Abraham Gubler]

And why on Earth would we want to lease nuke subs? To "test" for ourselves whether or not we can make use of them, when we aren't ever GOING to make use of them?

No nuke industry in Australia = no nukes...

Next useless topic to pursue?

One element of the ‘lets consider nukes’ argument I just don’t get is the assumption that all we have to do is ask and the Americans (or British) will supply us with nuclear boats. The S9G and PWR2 (Core H) reactors of the Virginia and Astute classes are >30 year life reactors. To achieve this they use highly enriched uranium fuel. Enriched to the same level of early nuclear bombs. Exporting this type of nuclear fuel is highly sensitive.

The US has only exported nuclear submarine reactors twice to the UK and France in the 1960s. This was a crucial part of their containment strategy against the Soviet Union. The UK is tied up with the Americans on nuclear submarine technology and would need their approval to export. To export these boats to Australia would severely undermine the Americans anti proliferation arguments around the world. Without a vital strategic need they just won’t do it. Even asking the US officially if nuclear boats could be supplied would be highly sensitive. The state department would flip out and if it leaked would cloud Australian-American relations for years.

Australia is far more likely to be able to acquire nuclear submarines from France or Russia than the US and UK. This would be older technology (requiring frequent refuelling) and in the Russian case dubious safety. The French Barracuda class would by far be the best bet but at 1.5 billion Euros apiece with refuelling every 10 years the cost to build and operate would be around 3-4 billion a year for the life of type. And would have to be integrated with a domestic nuclear fuel and reactor industry. That’s about a third of the current spend on defence capability.

 

[ADMk2]

One element of the ‘lets consider nukes’ argument I just don’t get is the assumption that all we have to do is ask and the Americans (or British) will supply us with nuclear boats. The S9G and PWR2 (Core H) reactors of the Virginia and Astute classes are >30 year life reactors. To achieve this they use highly enriched uranium fuel. Enriched to the same level of early nuclear bombs. Exporting this type of nuclear fuel is highly sensitive.

The US has only exported nuclear submarine reactors twice to the UK and France in the 1960s. This was a crucial part of their containment strategy against the Soviet Union. The UK is tied up with the Americans on nuclear submarine technology and would need their approval to export. To export these boats to Australia would severely undermine the Americans anti proliferation arguments around the world. Without a vital strategic need they just won’t do it. Even asking the US officially if nuclear boats could be supplied would be highly sensitive. The state department would flip out and if it leaked would cloud Australian-American relations for years.

Australia is far more likely to be able to acquire nuclear submarines from France or Russia than the US and UK. This would be older technology (requiring frequent refuelling) and in the Russian case dubious safety. The French Barracuda class would by far be the best bet but at 1.5 billion Euros apiece with refuelling every 10 years the cost to build and operate would be around 3-4 billion a year for the life of type. And would have to be integrated with a domestic nuclear fuel and reactor industry. That’s about a third of the current spend on defence capability.

That's exactly what I was referring to. Whilst it's awesome that Australia's "(ADA) has long been Australia’s only truly independent, non-partisan, community-based, public-interest watchdog and ‘think-tank’ on defence and wider national security issues" one might assume (or at least hope) that such a self-titled "think tank" might actually put some thought into their comments.

Unfortunately that does not seem to have been the case for some time with this mob...

I think it's fantastic that wider national security issues seems to have devolved into nothing more than, "I reckon we should have platform X, then we'll be safe from the evil hordes..."

 

[hairyman]

Does anyone feel that it would be an idea to start producing the new class of submarines a few years earlier than intended, so that we increase the size of our fleet to 7 or 8 before the first Collins class is retired. At this stage it is my understanding that the intention is to have the first new submarine commissioned about 2025, when HMAS Collins is due to retire. If we started production earlier that would be our second or third new submarine replacing Collins.:dbanana

 

[Vanguard]

I would guess that if they could find the funds to do such a procurement plan they would have to bring forward the decommissioning of the Collins class to save money on the maintenance. Knowing what happened last time one would hope that defence does plan to get the new submarines scheduled to be ready and prepped for service before the others bow out.

 

[Milne Bay]

. Knowing what happened last time one would hope that defence does plan to get the new submarines scheduled to be ready and prepped for service before the others bow out.

Yeah - that's going to happen!
Look at the DDG's, the LHA's, Caribou .................

 

[StingrayOZ]

Yeah - that's going to happen!
Look at the DDG's, the LHA's, Caribou .................

Maybe Collins will be life extended and we won't need to replace them. I would imagine we could make them permanently unmanned, just dispose of them in the water at strategic locations. Saving billions.

 

[Vanguard]

Yeah - that's going to happen!
Look at the DDG's, the LHA's, Caribou .................

A bit optimistic I know.

 

[Milne Bay]

A bit optimistic I know.

Even the transition from Oberons to Collins wasn't smooth. I recall the cannibalisation that took place to keep the last of the Oberons in the water. IIRC even the HMAS Otway which was a static display in Holbrook, had to be raided for parts.

 

[lopez]

That must of been some extreme stuff when the stripped otway in holbrooke. To me it looks like a caste of a submarine the thing is hollow and the texture of it doesn't seem legit. felt to me like fiberglass.

 

[StingrayOZ]

That must of been some extreme stuff when the stripped otway in holbrooke. To me it looks like a caste of a submarine the thing is hollow and the texture of it doesn't seem legit. felt to me like fiberglass.

The hull is concrete and fake and yes, its fiberglass, they really were made out of fiberglass.. Take a look at Oberon at AMM at darling harbour. As I recall it was a periscope or and maybe something else (prop?). I believe they actually took the periscope off the display and swapped it.

Oberons weren't trouble free their whole life either. Comparing one platform that is brand new to one that has had 30 years of development through rose coloured glasses is unfair. Oberons initially were tricky to maintain and Australia had to develop a lot of local solutions and upgrades (sound familiar?).

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Its a bit of a fraud to say the Otway is at Holbroke. All that is there is the casing and the sail. The 1,000 tonne hull that is the boat never left the sea side.

 

[Milne Bay]

Its a bit of a fraud to say the Otway is at Holbroke. All that is there is the casing and the sail. The 1,000 tonne hull that is the boat never left the sea side.

Perhaps, but the parts that were taken, were taken from what was lying at Holbrook.

 

[hairyman]

Holbrook, not Holbroke. Named after the Captain of an Australian submarine in World War I or II, Before that the town was called Germantown. Three guesses why they changed the name. And you can see the association with Submarines. Not sure if Captain Holbrook was a local. Anybody with more knowledge on the subject?:dance2

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Perhaps, but the parts that were taken, were taken from what was lying at Holbrook.

I've stopped off at the inland "sub" before and remember this story. They actually have the aft compartment of the Otway there as well but not connected to the casing and sail on the false concrete hull. From memory the part needed was to do with the steering gear for the rudder which was intact on the aft compartment at Holbroke. There is also a complete O Boat at Darling Harbour but I guess it was easier to get the part from Holbroke.

 

[hairyman]

I have answered myself by having a quick read.
The Officer was Lt. Norman Douglas Holbrook of the Royal Navy. He commanded HMS B11, and was awarded the Victoria Cross.
When HMAS Otway was being decommissioned in 1995, the Navy gifted the fin from the submarine to the town. The people of Holbrook then raised $100'000 (of which a substantial amount was donated by the widow of Lt. Holbrook) and attempted to buy the submarine, but it was not enough. They did negotiate with the scrap yard that bought it, and the whole outer skin above the waterline was purchased, and that is what is on display at Holbrook.

There you go.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

and the whole outer skin above the waterline was purchased, and that is what is on display at Holbrook.

That's not remotely true. They have the casing that goes on top of the hull. "The outer skin above the waterline" would include a fair amount of an O Boat's hull. They have none of hull apart from the aft compartment which is located nearby the thing embedded in the ground. Which is a concrete shape moulded to look like the top of a submarine hull and painted black on top of which is mounted the Otway's casing and sail.

 

[StingrayOZ]

I've stopped off at the inland "sub" before and remember this story. They actually have the aft compartment of the Otway there as well but not connected to the casing and sail on the false concrete hull. From memory the part needed was to do with the steering gear for the rudder which was intact on the aft compartment at Holbroke. There is also a complete O Boat at Darling Harbour but I guess it was easier to get the part from Holbroke.

Onslow is an intact museum piece while Otway is a childs jungle gym (i believe you can still look through the scope, its been a while since I actually got out and had a look). Why ruin a completely intact boat when you have a concrete decorative boat to scavenge from.

Previously Holbrook only had a ~6 ft long submarine model in the town park. The full sized submarine is actually a pretty big unique draw card and makes a nice stop on the way from Sydney to Melb if you have kids in the car.

My old man was ex-onslow so we spent a lot of time visiting this and K13 at Carlingford in Sydney. K13 commemorates another RN sub (and all submariners), that went down, but on sea trials.

Info on K13 HERE
I still find Canada's stories the best where they raided the Oberon for parts to get the new Victoria class up and running. Akin to using F-111 parts to get a F-35 up in the air.

 

[ThePuss]

[RANT ON] Ok this is getting ridiculous!....Has the conversation really degenerated this far?....I think this forum needs a break from Submarines for AT LEAST 24 HOURS.[RANT OFF]