Ozymandias
Banned Member
.
quotes don't work
quotes don't work
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
Here is a pretty big read (over 100 pages) it is a paper from the Kokoda Foundation on our future submarines, I have not read it all yet, but seems to have some good information on our strategic outlook etc and what is happening in the region.
Others on here with more knowledge than me may be able to pic it apart a bit more, and no doubt (have not got to the end yet) I would not be surprised if the end recomends Australia getting Virginia's, One of Ross' pet projects. So apart from that, I think it has some good background strategic information regardless of the obvious outcome, would be interested in opinions
http://www.kokodafoundation.org/Resources/Documents/KP17.pdf
Others on here with more knowledge than me may be able to pic it apart a bit more, and no doubt (have not got to the end yet) I would not be surprised if the end recomends Australia getting Virginia's, One of Ross' pet projects. So apart from that, I think it has some good background strategic information regardless of the obvious outcome, would be interested in opinions
http://www.kokodafoundation.org/Resources/Documents/KP17.pdf
In that case you got out for the wrong reason - you realise that the paraphrase was from RADM M?*yawn* this is the attitude why I got out of the industry. It makes me happy that I never have to speak to DMO ever again.
Again, DMO doesn't define the specs - the services define the capability that they want
quite frankly, I've seen some clearly stupid suggestions coming from industry on what RAN should get - as they're driving the subs, and as they liaise closely with a whole pile of other users in other navies, then they do have a clue.
The RAN (or any of the services) isn't/aren't a guinea pig for the good idea fairies in industry
its interesting that the usual wisdom is that its DMO's fault when some in industry clearly don't understand that DMO manage the requirements defined by and accepted by the users.
at the end of the day, the job is about supporting the warfighter - not about supporting industry.
in fact I've seen some projects where DMO was blamed and the selection was out and out a service selection
Or in recent times, The Govt has suddenly decided that a background in managing money, foreign affairs or running the cabinet means that they're eminently qualified to make their own down selection choices.
and we've seen a few of those in the last 3 years - and they've come home to roost
I can't help but wonder if one of the issues we have with defence procurement is the fact that we compartmentalise our talent to such a degree, creating team upon team of "clerical engineers" who don't actually have any say what so ever in designing or improving the product. Industry is contracted to build in accordance with the design (which the government of the day has often selected against professional advice), DMO are tasked to deliver the compliant product to the ADF, the ADF are tasked to use it, where ideally all three would be working together to ensure there are no surprises. I suppose it works for the government as there are three separate groups to cop the blame before anyone actually steps back and asks who made the original decission and why.
If we want to fix things I would go so far as to suggest that the government should look at forming something akin to NAVSEA SUPSHIPS and actually work with industry to make sure they get what they want and more to the point know, intimately, what they are getting. In addition it would help if the best design was selected and funded appropriately from the start along realistic schedules and appropriate lead times. We seem determined to keep building ships in this country, maybe its time we started investing some brains in it as well.
If we want to fix things I would go so far as to suggest that the government should look at forming something akin to NAVSEA SUPSHIPS and actually work with industry to make sure they get what they want and more to the point know, intimately, what they are getting. In addition it would help if the best design was selected and funded appropriately from the start along realistic schedules and appropriate lead times. We seem determined to keep building ships in this country, maybe its time we started investing some brains in it as well.
Fleet review
This sounds like it will be fun:
Ships to honour Navy in harbour armada - Entertainment - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
Is there any significance in using a police helicopter "launching" the international fleet review - or just that there were no navy helicopters available for the occasion ?
This sounds like it will be fun:
Ships to honour Navy in harbour armada - Entertainment - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
Is there any significance in using a police helicopter "launching" the international fleet review - or just that there were no navy helicopters available for the occasion ?
It was a very interesting read and covers the many build/contract method/risk mitigation/role of defence etc etc issues that are intimately part of the whole replacement question.
My reading is that it points to an evolved "Collins" as the only logical solution.
It also dispels many of the misconceptions trumpeted by the unimformed regarding the Collins project.
Another paper that should be read in conjunction with the above is the RAND corps analysis of the Astute's design and build and the lessons to be learned from that experience.
I cannot get the link to work but I'll give it for others to search and read
www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/1211/RAND_MG1128.3pdf
Alternatively, google Astute problems rand.
Have been trying to make it work for two days!
Last edited:
Not to speak on behalf of GF, but from an RAN perspective the design limitations of the Astute or the Virginia or any other nuke boat are probably highly academic, because as you said in your first sentence, Australia isn't getting nuclear submarines. So the details of any differences between such boats (which aren't going to get discussed in an open forum anyway) isn't really relevant to an RAN thread.
I wouldn't take GF's commentary to be aimed at anything but the standard of reporting.
Cheers for that ! another 100 pages
will be an interesting read when I get to it, The Kokoda report was interesting in that they held the US Virginia as an example of how to get it right so will be good to read about the flip side.Found it ok, here is the link I have
http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2011/RAND_MG1128.3.pdf
Cheers
I was lucky enough to attend some of the "invite" briefings on the Virginias at various UDT Conferences in Hawai'i and Rome (and prior to me working in Govt)Cheers for that ! another 100 pages
Found it ok, here is the link I have
http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2011/RAND_MG1128.3.pdf
Cheers
As an aside it was in the period when some of my friends in APA accused me of working for DMO and pushing JSF - when I was actually working in Germany and the US as a contractor on subs and sig management for small skimmers. My passport doesn't lie but that doesn't stop the APA jihad against their opponents...
The focus on the USN to get it right, and pay attention to the shortfall mistakes of the Seawolf class was pretty rivetting
At the same time the US Dept of Commerce gave an additional brief on the problems had with the Astutes - and introduced members of the USN Team involved with sorting them out. (RN attending ranks looked a bit squeamish when this happened)
We were supposed to have learnt from the probs that caused UK Govt and the RN grief. You'd have to be an optimist to say that we have.
The Dept Commerce brief is not the RAND brief but I don't think its gone into the public domain
Sig management is a very interesting side of the field, below the water, on the water and above itI was lucky enough to attend some of the "invite" briefings on the Virginias at various UDT Conferences in Hawai'i and Rome (and prior to me working in Govt)
As an aside it was in the period when some of my friends in APA accused me of working for DMO and pushing JSF - when I was actually working in Germany and the US as a contractor on subs and sig management for small skimmers. My passport doesn't lie but that doesn't stop the APA jihad against their opponents...
The focus on the USN to get it right, and pay attention to the shortfall mistakes of the Seawolf class was pretty rivetting
At the same time the US Dept of Commerce gave an additional brief on the problems had with the Astutes - and introduced members of the USN Team involved with sorting them out. (RN attending ranks looked a bit squeamish when this happened)
We were supposed to have learnt from the probs that caused UK Govt and the RN grief. You'd have to be an optimist to say that we have.
The Dept Commerce brief is not the RAND brief but I don't think its gone into the public domain
I still get rather amused at people that think taking some measurements and angles from a picture is enough to work out the RCS of an aircraft for instance, school boys, what do you do It is a real pitty we dont seem to be getting it right, especially as I understand it, that the US are ready with so much help for us to get it right. The US has not been shy in recent times to politely point out some things to the Government, they don't seem to be listening.
My fear is that with the way this is being handled and the possible outcomes and flow on ramifications, could this be a future Hawke moment that leads to killing of a capability ? Maybe an over reaction, but I just don't have a good feeling about this one
Cheers
I have some fond memories of Hawai'i. Once the USN sub geeks found out who I was contracting to I never once paid for a beer.
If you were from Oz and worked in the sub industry they fell over backwards to be nice - It always cracks me up when you see "dud sub" commentary in Oz papers - these blokes lived and breathed UDT and sub warfare and they were highly respectful of Collins capability - and for that matter - some of the Australian niche expertise in modifying sensor capabilities. They had a lot of time for DSTO and to my mind seemed far more keen to listen to them rather than attend the NAVSEA briefings
But, both the major parties have contributed to the public perception that the subs are no good, and that we can't build them properly. I hate going home at christmas and having half arsed conversations with my mates when they bag our capability and expertise - but they're media consumers of TDT and APA
It frustrates me no end
I hear you, I know from my work early on in the piece while at DSB how good they are, issues ? yes, but mate it puts so many others to shame, it is a real pitty Defence in this country does not have a voice to stand up for them, instead its wankers in the mass media who's sole job is to make up stories to sell papers to make money, don't let the actual story or truth get in the way of money making.
It really tick's me off to see the same crap reporting day after day on TV and in Print, and not only in Defence either, it is pathetic, but because of this they have given, I believe, the public a very low opinion of anything Defence in this country.
It was this same spiral that turned public opinion against a carrier capability for Australia and the public percetion of Melbourne "The Jinxed Ship of Doom"
Rant over
just a bit over it and this spineless pathetic excuse of a GovernmentAlways fun being told how it really is by someone whos whole book of knowledge comes from Ian McPhedrans ramblings. Try and expain that the capability is world standard and you get told there are no subs at sea, try telling them that that is not true and is a politically inspired press beat up and you get shouted down or worse accussed of being some sort of oxygen thief earning a living off wasted tax payers money. Everyone with no real knowledge is an expert and anyone who actually knows what they are talking about has a vested interest looking after their own hide.
Joy, here we go again!
Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian
I wonder if the poeple putting these ideas forward actually understand what is involved and how this will distort the entire defence budget.
That said, if it could be done for the price they postulate (highly doubtful) I suppose the A$10 billion in savings could be used to update the entire major surface combatant force to at least AWD standard or maybe reintroduce carrier airpower to the RAN....
:daz
Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian
I wonder if the poeple putting these ideas forward actually understand what is involved and how this will distort the entire defence budget.
That said, if it could be done for the price they postulate (highly doubtful) I suppose the A$10 billion in savings could be used to update the entire major surface combatant force to at least AWD standard or maybe reintroduce carrier airpower to the RAN....
:daz
For those of us who don't have an account at The Australian, the Centre for Independent Studies report is here: Publications - Future Submarine Project Should Raise Periscope for Another Look O yes the author is a lawyer
Thanks for that, the other thing that works is highlighting the title, right click and google search, which will usually bring up the full text. Just don't tell Rupert!
If not for Lawyers, teachers, unionists, ex-public servants and failed small business people the benches of parliament and the offices of Left and Right wing think tanks would be very empty.
Cool thanks for that wee trick. I'm not knowledgeable on subs let alone nucs but I could pick a few sizeable holes in that story. Like "These subs don't carry nuclear weapons ..." They carry the Tomahawk which IIRC is quite capable of being armed with a nuclear warhead. Go figure - thats very basic research.
weegee
Active Member
I wonder where we would get the man power to staff the Virginia Class???? don't they use crap loads of personnel compared to the Collins? Not to mention all the different jobs there are on a Nuke Sub that are not on the Collins! In my uneducated military eyes getting a Nuke sub would take years and years of training just to operate them and put them to sea I think a lot of people(jurno's) just think a sub is a sub and that's it! they all go under water don't they?
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Some of the it is likely due to the differences in crewing doctrine between the US and allied navies. The US tends to have crew dedicated to damage control while other navies (RN, RAN, etc) seem to have damage control performed by crew as an additional function.
I agree that the USN does seem to use less automation than others, which could cause crew requirements to be even higher, but IMO that is not the 'real' reason why the RAN would not get the Virginia-class SSN, the real reason being that it is an SSN.
-Cheers
- Status