Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[John Newman]

Interesting that both the Defmin Smith and Foreign Affairs Min Carr are visiting ROK for 3 days next week and then on to Japan.
For those of us who believe in conspiracy theories, does this mean the there will be discussions re the Aegir BMT replacements for Success and Sirius?
John has commented on the RNZN thread re Norway's decision and I wonder if this may be used to fill the "valley of death" in shipbuilding with a meaty announcement pre election. $215m seems too good to be true.
Still. I would bet my left n..t that Cantabria class would be the go

Here a link to the ASC brochure on their offering:

http://www.asc.com.au/cms_resources/documents/ASCAegirBrochure_FINAL.pdf

They are proposing 3 ships, two built in Korea and the third build here in Oz, considering the budget allowance currently in the DCP, between $1-$2 Billion, three ships certainly 'appears' to be affordable.

And talking of conspiracy theories, they are also visiting Japan, so maybe Submarine design and propulsion systems might be on the agenda there.

 

[t68]

Here a link to the ASC brochure on their offering:

http://www.asc.com.au/cms_resources/documents/ASCAegirBrochure_FINAL.pdf

They are proposing 3 ships, two built in Korea and the third build here in Oz, considering the budget allowance currently in the DCP, between $1-$2 Billion, three ships certainly 'appears' to be affordable.

And talking of conspiracy theories, they are also visiting Japan, so maybe Submarine design and propulsion systems might be on the agenda there.

Why build 2 in Korea and 1 here why not build all three here if we have the spare capacity, or are the time line for replacement to constricted for home build?

 

[StingrayOZ]

Why build 2 in Korea and 1 here why not build all three here if we have the spare capacity, or are the time line for replacement to constricted for home build?

Do we have spare capacity? only really during the valley of death period from what I recall, then there is a ship building boom at which we will be flat out.

Unless we can build 2 at the same time... Maybe 2 locals and an off shore?

 

[buglerbilly]

Do we have spare capacity? only really during the valley of death period from what I recall, then there is a ship building boom at which we will be flat out.

Unless we can build 2 at the same time... Maybe 2 locals and an off shore?

WHY would the BMT & the Koreans allow ASC to build more than the one they have noted so far?

A small thing, it doesn't make Commercial sense to them!

The fact that ASC gets to build one I thought unusual, it'd be cheaper and quicker to get all three built in Korea...........

 

[John Newman]

At the time of either the new White Paper or the recent Defence budget regarding the replacement of Success and Sirius the Government said it would look at a broad range of options as to the build locations for their replacements.

If I remember correctly, the options were either: to build overseas, build here, part built OS, part build here, or a combination of all of the above.

So looking at what ASC is proposing, it fits in well with the Governments stated position of being prepared to accept a combination of build locations, eg, build 2 in Korea and do a 'complete' build of a third here to fill the gap between the AWD's and the new Submarines.

Looking at other contenders I would imagine that BAE would offer the Cantabria design and probably do something similar to what has been done with the LHD's, eg, build the hulls in Spain and complete in Williamstown, again this would fit in with the Governments position too.

I would assume a third contender might be the German Berlin Class, which the Canadians have just selected, if selected, the questions would be where would they be built and who here in Australia might they form a partnership, maybe Forgacs for example?

I know all of the above is just speculation on my part. In the public arena at least, we haven't seen any short list or tenders released yet, but I'm sure the various contenders would be working on their offerings, as ASC appears to be doing.

It's interesting that ASC is offering three ships when the requirement is only for two, but if the cost and timing were right, it might be worth seriously considering their offer, having three of the same class should allow for two to be in service at any one time.

The first of the two built in Korea, I would imagine, could be delivered quiet quickly to allow for the retirement of Success, the second for Sirius and the third build here to maintain skills and avoid the valley of death.

 

[John Newman]

A couple of bits of news today regarding the MH-60R's:

Defence Ministers » Minister for Defence Materiel the Hon. Dr Mike Kelly AM MP – Romeo

The first of the 24 MH-60R's has completed its first flight and apparently 6mths ahead of schedule too, I wonder if the USN gave up some production slots for this to occur?

It's interesting to see how smoothly the various recent 'off-the-shelf' FMS purchases appear to happen, eg, C-17A's, F/A-18F's and now the Romeo's too.

Certainly make a good case for going down this path, if the equipment matches the requirement, as opposed to some other equipment decisions.

Also from the DSCA website:

http://www.dsca.osd.mil/PressReleases/36-b/2013/Australia_13-37.pdf

A press release regarding the purchase of an additional 100 Mk 54 Torpedoes and other related equipment for $83m (according to Wiki there has been a previous purchase of 200 Mk 54's) to be used by the MH-60R's and eventually the P-8A's too.

Good to see some things progressing well.

 

[StevoJH]

Also from the DSCA website:

http://www.dsca.osd.mil/PressReleases/36-b/2013/Australia_13-37.pdf

A press release regarding the purchase of an additional 100 Mk 54 Torpedoes and other related equipment for $83m (according to Wiki there has been a previous purchase of 200 Mk 54's) to be used by the MH-60R's and eventually the P-8A's too.

Good to see some things progressing well.

You could just about think that the RAN is taking ASW seriously!

That's 12.5 Torpedo's per Helicopter, and presumably the Mk.54 will be in production for quite a while longer, so I doubt that is inventory to last the whole lifespan of the MH-60R in service!

 

[ASSAIL]

You could just about think that the RAN is taking ASW seriously!

That's 12.5 Torpedo's per Helicopter, and presumably the Mk.54 will be in production for quite a while longer, so I doubt that is inventory to last the whole lifespan of the MH-60R in service!

Seems crazy though, to have two different LWT's, 54 and 90. Still better than trying to make one size fit all I guess.

 

[Todjaeger]

Seems crazy though, to have two different LWT's, 54 and 90. Still better than trying to make one size fit all I guess.

IIRC the issue (and interest in) the Mk 54 LWT is that the cost is significantly less than the Mk 50 or MU90 lwt. Enough of a cost difference per torpedoe that having two different sets in inventory is sensible.

There is also future systems integration to consider. The P-8 Poseidon will also at some point have LWT's and the ADF could either pay to integrate the MU90, or let the US integrate the Mk 54...

-Cheers

 

[Abraham Gubler]

You could just about think that the RAN is taking ASW seriously!

They always have (and ASW is a joint role with both the RAAF and RAN). Just because some lobby groups and think tanks say they don't take it seriously doesn't mean it is so.

That's 12.5 Torpedo's per Helicopter, and presumably the Mk.54 will be in production for quite a while longer, so I doubt that is inventory to last the whole lifespan of the MH-60R in service!

10-15 torpedoes per helicopter is a pretty standard warload for LWTs.

 

[ASSAIL]

Fleet Base East

Every time I see a chart of Garden Island I'm astounded that Navy has not built a finger jetty on the East side of the drydock in the position once occupied by building 215 (HMAS Stalwart) ie just south of the boat pound.
It worked so well during the 70's and 80's. If you look at the attached chart its an absolute gift and finger wharves are relatively inexpensive in that depth of water.

Increased Naval Movements Around Garden Island | Navy Daily

 

[rand0m]

Does anyone have any updates on HMAS Canberra (LHD)? It looks like it's come a long way since it arrived, is it still set for delivery in March 2014? When do sea trials begin and where abouts will they take place?

 

[KiwiRob]

The first of the two built in Korea, I would imagine, could be delivered quiet quickly to allow for the retirement of Success, the second for Sirius and the third build here to maintain skills and avoid the valley of death.

Or one of the three is built and delivered to NZ, most likely one of the Korean vessles, it would be win win for both countries.

 

[John Newman]

I went over the ANZAC Bridge today and notice that Kanimbla and Manoora are no longer tied up against the former container wharf as they have been for the last 6months or so.

Must have only happened in the last few days, if I get down on the harbour this weekend I'll try and see where they have gone too, maybe back to FBE?

The time must be getting close for their big trip back across the Pacific.

 

[John Newman]

Evolved Collins or new design, where does the line get drawn?

I came across this article on the APDR site regarding the Collins replacement:

Australia's Future Submarine | Australian Defence News & Articles | Asia Pacific Defence Reporter

Below are the relevant paragraphs that caught my attention, most notably the last sentence, (the comments are by David Gould, GM for Submarines in the DMO):


Mr Gould said the new boats would have to be larger than the 3500-tonnes Collins.

"It will be in my opinion larger, much larger. That's the work we are doing at the moment," he told an Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) national security lunch.

Mr Gould said Australia had reached agreement with the government of Sweden on intellectual property rights to allow a start on concept designs for an evolved Collins.

That work would be undertaken by German shipbuilder TKMS, now the parent of Swedish firm Kockums, the original Collins designer.

Mr Gould said TKMS would have to correct known defects with Collins and propose improvements.

"But we will not allow them to increase the diameter of the pressure hull - to do so would clearly cross the threshold of a new design," he said.


I've often wondered, in relation to the 'evolved' option, is how far can the existing design be 'modified' before the Collins replacement is considered a 'new' design?

In my ignorance of these matters, I've assumed that an evolution, to get to the size of boat required, would see an increase in length for things such as an AIP system, allowance for more powerful propulsion and power generation systems and probably an increase in length to allow, for example, a larger weapons load to include Cruise Missiles to add to the existing MK48 torpedo and Harpoon missile loads too.

I've also wondered if an evolution of the existing design 'could' also include an increase in the diameter of the hull too, eg, an 'x' percentage enlargement in both length and diameter of the existing design.

If I'm reading the article right, an increase in the hull diameter is excluded as an option for the 'evolved' design, If that is the case, I'd assume that increasing the length is the only option to get to desired or required size if the 'evolved' path is chosen.

My question is, and I hope some of the Def Pros can shed some light on this for me, is restricting an 'evolution' of the existing design to an increase in length only, going to create the desired result? Or is a far more radical increase in overall size/dimensions going to be required to get to where we need to get too?

In regard to Cruise Missiles, which the Government has said the Collins replacement will be armed with, will they be tube launched or launched by a VLS system, such as is to be fitted to the Virginia Class SSN's?

Is the diameter of the existing Collins hull deep enough to take a cruise missile VLS system?

 

[protoplasm]

I came across this article on the APDR site regarding the Collins replacement:

Australia's Future Submarine | Australian Defence News & Articles | Asia Pacific Defence Reporter

Below are the relevant paragraphs that caught my attention, most notably the last sentence, (the comments are by David Gould, GM for Submarines in the DMO):


Mr Gould said the new boats would have to be larger than the 3500-tonnes Collins.

"It will be in my opinion larger, much larger. That's the work we are doing at the moment," he told an Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) national security lunch.

Mr Gould said Australia had reached agreement with the government of Sweden on intellectual property rights to allow a start on concept designs for an evolved Collins.

That work would be undertaken by German shipbuilder TKMS, now the parent of Swedish firm Kockums, the original Collins designer.

Mr Gould said TKMS would have to correct known defects with Collins and propose improvements.

"But we will not allow them to increase the diameter of the pressure hull - to do so would clearly cross the threshold of a new design," he said.


I've often wondered, in relation to the 'evolved' option, is how far can the existing design be 'modified' before the Collins replacement is considered a 'new' design?

In my ignorance of these matters, I've assumed that an evolution, to get to the size of boat required, would see an increase in length for things such as an AIP system, allowance for more powerful propulsion and power generation systems and probably an increase in length to allow, for example, a larger weapons load to include Cruise Missiles to add to the existing MK48 torpedo and Harpoon missile loads too.

I've also wondered if an evolution of the existing design 'could' also include an increase in the diameter of the hull too, eg, an 'x' percentage enlargement in both length and diameter of the existing design.

If I'm reading the article right, an increase in the hull diameter is excluded as an option for the 'evolved' design, If that is the case, I'd assume that increasing the length is the only option to get to desired or required size if the 'evolved' path is chosen.

My question is, and I hope some of the Def Pros can shed some light on this for me, is restricting an 'evolution' of the existing design to an increase in length only, going to create the desired result? Or is a far more radical increase in overall size/dimensions going to be required to get to where we need to get too?

In regard to Cruise Missiles, which the Government has said the Collins replacement will be armed with, will they be tube launched or launched by a VLS system, such as is to be fitted to the Virginia Class SSN's?

Is the diameter of the existing Collins hull deep enough to take a cruise missile VLS system?

IIRC TLAM is a bit over 6.2m in height with the booster, so it'd be tight to fit in a VLS within the Collins hull. A Defpro would be able to confirm, but I believe that the Collins has 7.5m in vertical height available in the hull.

 

[the road runner]

Australia Pacific Defence Reporter are not the best people to be quoting on Collins replacement.I assume we will get a "plug" put in the collins and extend the length of the original design ,replace all the analogue equipment with digital,new engines ,drive train and batteries ,evolution of the combat system.

I recall the BAE periscope replacement have saved weight in the new design.We could expect all of the analogue gear/engine replacement would save weight with more modern equipment.

I assume what is happening to the Spanish S-80 design being extended in length is what we will be doing with Collins 2.Would be good if the Def pros were in a position to comment.

 

[rand0m]

In regard to Cruise Missiles, which the Government has said the Collins replacement will be armed with, will they be tube launched or launched by a VLS system, such as is to be fitted to the Virginia Class SSN's?

Is the diameter of the existing Collins hull deep enough to take a cruise missile VLS system?

I doubted you for a second, I was under the impression that it mentioned that they 'might' include 'cruise missiles' but it actually states it in the White Paper 2009. I still wouldn't bet on it though, it might be seen as too much of an 'offensive asset' that could upset our northern neighbours.

9.74 The Government places a priority on broadening our strategic strike options, which will occur through the acquisition of maritime-based land-attack cruise missiles. These missiles will be fitted to the AWD, Future Frigate and Future Submarine. Defence will it the necessary control and iring systems to the AWD as an early enhancement. The incorporation of a land-attack cruise missile capability will be integral to the design and construction of the Future Frigate and Future Submarine. We will not seek to retroit this capability to the Collins submarine leet.

9.4 The Future Submarine will be capable of a range of tasks such as anti-ship and anti-submarine warfare; strategic strike; mine detection and mine-laying operations; intelligence collection; supporting special forces (including iniltration and exiltration missions); and gathering battlespace data in support of operations.

Source: 2009 White Paper

 

[John Newman]

Australia Pacific Defence Reporter are not the best people to be quoting on Collins replacement.I assume we will get a "plug" put in the collins and extend the length of the original design ,replace all the analogue equipment with digital,new engines ,drive train and batteries ,evolution of the combat system.

I recall the BAE periscope replacement have saved weight in the new design.We could expect all of the analogue gear/engine replacement would save weight with more modern equipment.

I assume what is happening to the Spanish S-80 design being extended in length is what we will be doing with Collins 2.Would be good if the Def pros were in a position to comment.

I agree with you about APDR, I've read enough of their articles to see that they 'appear' to push a certain point of view, but the difference with this article was that the quotes were reported to be attributed to a senior person from within the DMO, not just an 'opinion' piece as is the norm, that's why it caught my attention.

Like you, I'd like to see what the Def Pro's have to say about the article.

 

[gf0012-aust]

.......the difference with this article was that the quotes were reported to be attributed to a senior person from within the DMO, not just an 'opinion' piece as is the norm, that's why it caught my attention.

None of the stuff I see quoted in the mags comes out of from people inside the Subs shops - and none are dumb enough to chatter about what they're looking at. I suspect that the article is more about "beating the brushes"

I struggle to see how anyone from within DMO would be making empirical comments about whats in and whats coming as it sure as heck hasn't been decided by anyone - except that there is a preference to build locally, build long (time frame) and to take advantage of existing relationships in designing and fitting out.

widgets to go inside, hull details etc are yonks away.....