Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
12 submarines is hardly "limited numbers", hell even 6 isn't. I don't see this as simply a "job creation" exercise, far from it, if we're going to buy subs that meet our requirements then why should we design & build them overseas? Were there any faults in the Collins caused by poor Australian workmanship? Sure we may need help from foreign companies to get our industry back up to speed quickly but that does not mean that we cannot complete this project.
It always comes back to politics with submarines in Australia unfortunately, lots of opinion with no understanding of what is actually involved, what 'proven kit' would you have us buy that meets requirements CAGSATCO? Why can't the 'yanks' afford a diesel-electric submarine? What exactly are you claiming Canberra, the Navy or the DMO has dreamt up here?
At the end of the day I'll be surprised if the original plan gets up, but at this point the project is close to the only thing that Defence has a proper budget and sound plan for.
Why do you consider Australian build a waste of tax payers money ? When we already have the industry here to make it happen, is it because of the overall cost ?
As far as getting 7's or the eventual EFV mutation, no official plans as yet, but the Army do love putting 7's into most of their powerpoint presentations
If you're still connected in any form or fashion you'll realise that none of the proposals came from Navy or DMO. The numbers and bright ideas came from Govt. Navy didn't propose the numbers or the options
In fact DMO is not even remotely part of the capability definition proposal process
She'll be right, we can just lease Blue Marlin to transport our new mini subs anywhere we need to deploy them just like the Swedes did when the USN leased a Gotland as a training asset.
Mate, the Marlin could carry at least 3 each trip, so we can then batch build MOTS Euro subs, which will save money, then we save money on the transportation costs by delivering batches of 3 (sic)
I know I have been a bit tongue in cheek with some of my comments in reaction to the cutbacks announced yesterday. However, as far as the submarine project is concerned there are no European boats that meet the RAN's needs other perhaps than unproven paper designs that I am unaware of. The USA doesn't build non nuclear powered submarines and the UK is also no longer building conventional subs. From what I have read in this thread it seems that most of the initial problems with the Collins class were rectified not by Kockums but by Australian industry with help from the USN.
Personally I like the idea of an evolved Collins and I believe the submarine program has the potential to be Australia's greatest ever defence project. But for this to happen we must not go down the European OTS route and buy a design that will be totally unable to meet Australia's requirements. Australia has learned a tremendous amount from the construction and subsequent development of the Collins class. IMO now is the time to put that hard won knowledge and skill to good use.
Tas
From my previous posts you know that I am a believer of a substantial sm force.
I also would not wish a MOTS Euro sub on the RAN.
We have learned too much through the Collins sustain/build era to let that atrophy like all other stop go build programmes.
The logic of building a large SSG, in my mind, goes like this;
what is the one defence project that we don't duplicate our closest ally's order of battle? and further, that could add value to the alliance in the way that no other project could (with apologies to Nulka and other smaller programmes).
The answer has to be conventional subs with state of the art combat systems. It sets the bar at a level with which the USN can test its ASW competency and it compliments and improves their fleet numbers in all tasks apart from CV escort.
Given that scenario, they have and will continue to provide access to their expertise and research that we have rarely experienced.
My only regret is the stupid dogma screeching against all things nuclear. Ahh, but then we would be accused of being their seventh and a half fleet
Cheers
I also would not wish a MOTS Euro sub on the RAN.
We have learned too much through the Collins sustain/build era to let that atrophy like all other stop go build programmes.
The logic of building a large SSG, in my mind, goes like this;
what is the one defence project that we don't duplicate our closest ally's order of battle? and further, that could add value to the alliance in the way that no other project could (with apologies to Nulka and other smaller programmes).
The answer has to be conventional subs with state of the art combat systems. It sets the bar at a level with which the USN can test its ASW competency and it compliments and improves their fleet numbers in all tasks apart from CV escort.
Given that scenario, they have and will continue to provide access to their expertise and research that we have rarely experienced.
My only regret is the stupid dogma screeching against all things nuclear. Ahh, but then we would be accused of being their seventh and a half fleet
Cheers
my main grief is that we are now going to be subject to another decade of moronic sage advice about how bad the subs are from people who are absolutely ferking clueless about actually how combat effective they are.
and as usual, those are remotely able to correct the incoming idiocy will suck it in and shutup to comply with the policy of /ignore the comments and we'll ride it out attitude - and worse, they're not allowed to defend themselves
I'm fed up to the ferking gills about people (media et al) who bitch about who's done what and yet obviously have no clue about the actual process that Govt defines thats imposed on the Services, CDG, DMO etc....
some of these morons need an educayshun
From my direct involvement - Kockums had stuff all to do with fixing any of the critical problems which they had designed in the first place
we can thank DSTO, USN, NAVSEA, Australian SME's who were invariably ex submariners and various individuals in ASC for the solution fixes
getting a MOTS small euro sub is the dumbest thing anyone could throw on the table - there's enough evidence coming from a whole pile of extant sub projects which clearly shows what NOT to do
some bright spark needs to actually make the effort to go an compare sub build projects world wide and see how they panned out. the number of successful ones doesn't exceed the number of thumbs on any given primates hand - and its not european
For some reason though the customers of problematic sub projects seem to be overwhelmingly members of the Commonwealth* - if we really want to peg it on that kinda thing.
Kidding aside, we never had any problems with 212As. Or 209s. Or 206As. Or Rubis. Or Sauros. Or Daphnes. Wait, is that already more than five?
* no, seriously - Australia's Collins, Canada's Victorias, British Astutes, Indian Akulas, Malaysian Scorpenes - that's five out of iirc eight Commonwealth members with subs...
I thought that's what the USN has been using NATO for for the past 60 years
I've worked on 3 sub projects involving other countries and 2nn series subs. we get the same data from those countries when we interoperate and share integration problems
it might not be as public as the crap we see on collins, (and we rejected the upholders in 1999) but they sure as hell have delivery problems, and they sure as heck have integration issues.
the only sub program that has delivered within boundaries is not european (or commonwealth)
every french program I worked on (including acoustically modifed agostas which we rated better than 209's) had problems, so the scorpene issue is an industry common knowledge event as well.
industry box floggers, govt brochures, marketing etc can sell as much spin as they like - the people who do know are the people on board and those who have to make them work beyond the glossy brochures. 2nn series subs have had just as many probs getting in on time and working as spec'd as everyone else, albeit with less fanfare
Sure, but then you have those kind of little problems with every single MOTS piece ever bought anywhere - no matter what, ships, aircraft, vehicles, electronics, munitions... It's in this regard mostly a matter of whether the customer actually has requirements - if they do the chance of them not being fulfilled in exact accordance with plans tends to be 90+% for MOTS (COTS too for that matter). And it has to be viewed on a long-term basis - Euro hardware may have some increased teething problems, but it tends to be usable for the next three to four decades afterwards. Can't say the same for e.g. US hardware.
Don't know how many times this has to be said, NO ONE apart from Japan and Australia, has built LARGE (3000 ton +) MODERN (combat and weapon systems requiring extraordinary amounts of electrical power) conventional submarines.
ALL the proposed Euro MOTS suitable for the RAN are paper proposals and this was the primary cause of problems that needed years of rectification (not by Kockums) with Collins - been there done that.
The actual building of the fleet came in on cost or close enough to it.
ALL the proposed Euro MOTS suitable for the RAN are paper proposals and this was the primary cause of problems that needed years of rectification (not by Kockums) with Collins - been there done that.
The actual building of the fleet came in on cost or close enough to it.
The USN certainly helped with the combat systems in the Collins class and I would envisage that apart from the hull and power plant the RAN would be drawing heavily on US assistance. I agree that Japan seems to be the country with recent conventional sub building experience whose needs most closely match ours so far as size and range is concerned. So it is strange that Japan was not mentioned in the Minister's statement.
As you say the European proposals are paper designs and I believe an Evolved Collins would be a safer proposition.
Tas
and thats just pure balderdash...
we have a ewarfare fiutout requirement that precludes using euro and UK builds - the sooner the opposition grip that up the less stupid they'll sound as well when they talk about MOTS euro subs.
the UK hasn't built a sub for yonks, in fact their industry was in such a parlous state that US Dept Commerce wrote a lessons learnt brief which was also provided to Aust.
why in gods name we would get anyone to design any sub when they have not been intimately involved with one physically (ie cradle to grave) isn't one of lifes mysteries.
their most recent experience was upholder, which we comprehensively rejected in 99
lets just try and stay on reality and not urban mythology
what we get access to from the US is way more than just subs - and at a systems issue level that has far more critical impact than just "buy the boat" from xx because it might be cheaper
it is the fringe benefits from our partners that is just as if mot more than critical than the actual sub.
we're not buying a car
before anyone gets wrapped around the axles about the technical merit of euro subs vs US or local builds lets focus on the salient requirements
its not about an emphasis on shooting and range
its about onboard power relative to the primary mission set
there's some deeeeeep hints in the last - and I'm not alluding to depth
its not about an emphasis on shooting and range
its about onboard power relative to the primary mission set
there's some deeeeeep hints in the last - and I'm not alluding to depth
the road runner
Active Member
So the main requirement is for "power" than can be generated for the combat system/sensors ect?
Edit.I understand that we use the US Combat system,and as such all US boats are Nuclear powered(power being generated by nucler reactor).A luxury Australia Collins dose not have.
- Status