depends which Damen hulls you are talking about - 2 of them aren't coming out of Defence funds and are nominally owned by other agencies
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
GF, I was refering to the 2400 that we ordered as a helo training ship.
Seems that there would be more suitable hulls, was wondering if that particular buy was a "back door" way of buying an OPV.
Also wondering if the 2400 we are getting as a helo training ship will be armed with the 76mm gun as advertised, or bought unarmed and kept that way?
Seems that there would be more suitable hulls, was wondering if that particular buy was a "back door" way of buying an OPV.
Also wondering if the 2400 we are getting as a helo training ship will be armed with the 76mm gun as advertised, or bought unarmed and kept that way?
three in total
it was a creative procurement exercise triggered by Govt
to be honest I can't remember the fitouts - have been off work for the last 3 weeks and can't remember the schematics - plus there is still, some deafening silence re release of available info
Two of the hulls are part sisters being one 83m and one 93m vessel based on an OSV hull design for submarine rescue (amoung other dutues) and will be run by DMS as commercial vessels. See page 5 and 8 of DMS scuttlebutt
http://www.dmsmaritime.com/docs/017_DMS_Scuttlebutt_December_2012.pdf
Not willing to provide any advice on the Helo training vessel until this is formally announced.
Its good to see us getting closer to the Japanese submarine drive trains. I believe they are the benchmark and I hope defmin and the snr sirs see the light.
I reckon some announcement is imminent regarding our co-op.
Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian
I reckon some announcement is imminent regarding our co-op.
Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian
Joe Black
Active Member
Why only the drive trains? Why not just import the entire hull design and put in Virginia class combat systems and other customise other bits? I also guess that RAN might also like to have the capability to fire AShM from the new subs, drop an SAS team, perhaps launch an UUV? These could come with help from Saab/Kockum.
I have no first hand knowledge of the hydrodynamic capabilities of either Soryu or Collins but from what I have learned on here I can suggest that Collins is very near as good as they come.
Collins already has the Virginia combat system and has the capability to fire AShM/Harpoon. It also has the capacity to "drop" an SAS team.
So where does that leave us? It leaves us with a fine SSG with a flawed drive train.
The "stealth" you read about with regards Soryu refers to the AIP system which was always an option for Collins, there is space and buoyancy available, but was rejected for additional battery and fuel loads.
Therefore, if we combine the best from both submarines we will end up with an immensly capable submarine.
Cheers
I believe the Japanese subs are slightly larger and slightly newer, also don't know if everything will just drop in to Collins, subs are a pretty tight fit for things.
I would also be interested in what they might be putting into the water come 2020. Which .might be newer still.
I would also be interested in what they might be putting into the water come 2020. Which .might be newer still.
Joe Black
Active Member
I am sure there are a couple of things that we can learn from the Soryu class other than the Stirling engine. BTW, it is good to see that the Soryu has Anechoic tiles on their Conning tower and presumably on the entire hull. RAN has developed its own Anechoic tiles too for the Collins and apparently exported to the Singaporean too.
Image of Soryu class
http://resources1.news.com.au/image...6989-b31154a0-f05c-11e3-929c-c6329f54425d.jpg
Collins is currently in FCD with the hull above the Main Generator Room cut out, this would permit the diesels to be changed out on the Class as part of a life extension.
ASC's innovation in submarine maintenance
Basically the Hedemoras suck and Australia never wanted them, preferring MTU, but was told by Kockums that Hedemoras were the only option. Within days of signing the contract tying us into the Hedemoras Sweden contracted MTU for their Gotland Class. The Australian team were ropable!
I wasn't suggesting that Collins be re-engined although that is a remote possibility, I was suggesting the replacement sub have Japanese sourced generators and motors.
A smart move would be to build up a rotable parts pool for the Collins Class including as many replacement items of equipment as possible then installing items from that pool in each boat as it comes into MCD or FCD. New diesels and generators could be part of this as technology has definitely advanced a lot since the boats were constructed in the first place.
that's the logical approach - except govt is unlikely to want to pay for anything beyond a kanban principle to minimise outgoings....
Joe Black
Active Member
Why not? If the Collins could go through a SLEP program, it might just give RAN sufficient time to design and build the next SSK properly. Besides, the Collins not all that bad, yes, the drive train could be improved with the Japanese drive train. Heck, I even think that RAN should toy with the Stirling engine, at least put one into one of them, add a plug in section like what Kockum did to their Västergötland cum Södermanland/Archer class.
I also agree that rather than signing a contract for all 12 boats (or how many the white paper think we need), we should rather just buy in smaller batches or 3 or 4 at a time and allow technology advancement to be incorporated in subsequent batches, something like the USN's Flights concept. RAN would never then face with the fleet obsolescence issue. Furthermore, it will guarantee there will always be work in a sustainable manner and the industry will never have to face the "valley of death" issue.
Joe Black
Active Member
Maybe the govt /ASC should practice lean/Kanban/Agile technique in their operations and project management process. In fact, I believe complex platforms should be built just enough to have the mininum viable product and each service cycle would seen new capability being added to the platform.
It doesn't matter what project managers or engineers might propose as best practice - Ministers can drop a bomb whenever they like - and have done so under the prev govt - as well as prev govt before that etc etc......
Adding a "plug" to any submarine is not a simple operation and upsets a plethora of performance criteria, buoyancy, stealth, power requirement etc It would require a total rebuild and that would not be cost effective for Collins and would detract from and delay the acquisition of their replacement.
The RAN has already bought 1 x Stirling unit IIRC and has chosen NOT to install it because it fails to provide any benefit for our submarine operational employment (CONOPS)
You seem to consider that changing and adding to these boats is as easy as changing a gun or missile system on a surface unit. These/subs are some of the most complex machines built and although it may have been easier on smaller subs as you indicated, they are not at the design limits of conventional power as is the case with Soryu and Collins.
There is a good reason why big boats are nuclear, it makes the power problem solvable
The RAN already trialled AIP on Collins - it was dropped shortly thereafter. AIP isn't a silver bullet and the advantages weren't sufficient to warrant the changes. There's some more info on the forum somewhere about this, but it's from a long time ago. The search function would be your best bet.
- Status