Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

Status
Not open for further replies.

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
I think that if the CofA held a 51% share of ASC with Mitsubishi and Kawasaki having 26% and the remaining 23% held by Aussie interests then you would have a win win situation. I do agree with some of Volks comments about the union issues and whilst I used to be a union rep myself, I believe that the unions and their members have to be given a dose of reality. However I would urge some caution because you don't want to end up where you go to far the other way so there has to be some safeguards. You pay what's fair but some of the things are a bit ludicrous and you do need to watch costs, because it will get to a point where all the benefits of an Aussie build project will not be viable, economically or politically and an overseas build will make far more sense.
when I worked on the project with ASC they had already established a separate engineering division ASCE which was used to undertake mainly mining and oceanic engineering projects - all the staff were employed under a completely different contract model. ASCE had far fewer union problems than ASC

To give an example of ASC problems

Workers were able to "play" with offcuts under a wink wink basis. It was hoped that this would give them associated skills by being able to weld and play with titanium on their own time

Unfort one of the welders was a bikie and had abused the process by deciding to go into production and make titanium kick plate covers for harleys. when ASC mgt found out they fired him. As a result the entire Ti welding team went on strike and insisted on reinstatement.

after a week of striking they were given multiple choice - strike and don't get paid and lose the wink wink deal or let the other bloke go and retain the wink wink offcut deal. They let their mate go

ASCE never had those problems
 

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
gee zuz wept

why can't journos do decent research. there are technical claims in that article that just make you want to cry.

no wonder the general public are effing clueless about submarines in general
Japanese submarines are disposable?
Vietnam is considering Japanese subs?
China exporting subs?
Countries cross shopping Kilo and Soryu?
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Japanese submarines are disposable?
Vietnam is considering Japanese subs?
China exporting subs?
Countries cross shopping Kilo and Soryu?
At 4,200 tons submerged, the Soryu-class is considerably larger than either the Type 214, Scorpene, or Improved Kilo, and can carry a much heavier weapons load. This size also makes them quieter and longer-ranged than the other boats on the market.

and this

Many export customers will expect a longer life from their boats, and Japanese industry will have to adjust accordingly with respect to equipment, repair, and spare part requirements. Unlike the Germans, French, and Russians, the Japanese have little experience with managing the long-term maintenance requirements of sophisticated weapon systems in foreign service.

and this

The United States, of course, hasn’t had a piece of this market in decades, as no U.S. yards build diesel-electric subs.

When I worked in the US I spoke to people from 3 different companies who were actively courting countries and were keen to migrate their nuke sub expertise into large conventionals.



:eek:nfloorl:
 

John Newman

The Bunker Group
One part of the article caught my attention:


One caveat is longevity. The JMSDF has historically only expected its subs to operate for about 20 years. Many export customers will expect a longer life from their boats, and Japanese industry will have to adjust accordingly with respect to equipment, repair, and spare part requirements.

I may be wrong, but I would suspect the 20 life span is by design, and I don't mean by a lack of built quality, etc.

It would reasonable to assume that the Japanese probably worked out that the best way to keep 'continuous' production happening and avoid a 'stop / gap / start' building process (and all the extra costs associated with that) was to keep the boats in commission for around 20 years.

I would imagine that by having a service of 20 years, a lot of money is also saved by cutting down the amount of refits and docking cycles too.

So maybe 20 years is the 'sweet spot' and is the right time to decommission and replace, keep repeating continuously.

Wonder if that would work for us too??
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
I may be wrong, but I would suspect the 20 life span is by design, and I don't mean by a lack of built quality, etc.

It would reasonable to assume that the Japanese probably worked out that the best way to keep 'continuous' production happening and avoid a 'stop / gap / start' building process (and all the extra costs associated with that) was to keep the boats in commission for around 20 years.

I would imagine that by having a service of 20 years, a lot of money is also saved by cutting down the amount of refits and docking cycles too.

So maybe 20 years is the 'sweet spot' and is the right time to decommission and replace, keep repeating continuously.

Wonder if that would work for us too??
That could work for the RAN if, and only if, the current reqs for a defence programme get sorted. At present, it seems to take an average of about 14 years between the start of a programme (i.e. programme idea and definition) to entry into service. With that long a lead time on when things need to get underway in order to have a major piece of kit in service by a specific date...it does not allow much margin for errors or delays.
 

John Newman

The Bunker Group
That could work for the RAN if, and only if, the current reqs for a defence programme get sorted. At present, it seems to take an average of about 14 years between the start of a programme (i.e. programme idea and definition) to entry into service. With that long a lead time on when things need to get underway in order to have a major piece of kit in service by a specific date...it does not allow much margin for errors or delays.
Tod, I don't doubt what you are saying for one minute, you are probably 100% correct.

But assuming it does take all that time to get this ball rolling, is there are way to keep it rolling indefinitely? I suppose that's the question for me.

It would probably take a firm ongoing bipartisan commitment from both sides of politics, regardless of who was in Government at the time, it would probably also take an Act of Parliament to be written in stone or a Constitutional change too!

Just seems to make sense to me that if we do get into a partnership with Japan on submarines, that maybe we can learn something from them and create a continuous process, a win win for everyone!

Yes I know, I'm probably dreaming!!
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
Tod, I don't doubt what you are saying for one minute, you are probably 100% correct.

But assuming it does take all that time to get this ball rolling, is there are way to keep it rolling indefinitely? I suppose that's the question for me.

It would probably take a firm ongoing bipartisan commitment from both sides of politics, regardless of who was in Government at the time, it would probably also take an Act of Parliament to be written in stone or a Constitutional change too!

Just seems to make sense to me that if we do get into a partnership with Japan on submarines, that maybe we can learn something from them and create a continuous process, a win win for everyone!

Yes I know, I'm probably dreaming!!
Unfortunately it would not be a win for everyone. Special interests with "their" pet rock programme and/or cause might lose out. As might elected officials, MP's and others in threatened seats. Since such individuals and groups have so much influence, then what is good for the CoA must also be "good" for them in order for it to occur.
 

t68

Well-Known Member


When I worked in the US I spoke to people from 3 different companies who were actively courting countries and were keen to migrate their nuke sub expertise into large conventionals.



:eek:nfloorl:

Don't know why we just can't use the Virginia Class with a Japanese backend
 

Joe Black

Active Member
Don't know why we just can't use the Virginia Class with a Japanese backend
arhhhh... no I think.. Soryu is a 4200 tons boat. Virginia is a 7900 tons boat. Putting the drive trains of Soryu into the Virginia, the boat will go no where.
 

t68

Well-Known Member
arhhhh... no I think.. Soryu is a 4200 tons boat. Virginia is a 7900 tons boat. Putting the drive trains of Soryu into the Virginia, the boat will go no where.
The Virginias have a back up diesel Cats if memory serves right wonder if they could be made the main propulsion, remember the diesel are their to charge the batteries their not their to turn the screws
 

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
I assume companies like Mitsubishi/Kawasaki would find it relatively easy to add a military division to extensive global heavy machinery logistics, parts and service (which at least for Mitsubishi is quite extensive locally). I would imagine they would rank fairly high against particularly the Russian and the French or say the Swedish. Particularly given how much trade occurs between japan and aus.

I would have thought that would have been a strength, not a negative.
 

alexsa

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
The Virginias have a back up diesel Cats if memory serves right wonder if they could be made the main propulsion, remember the diesel are their to charge the batteries their not their to turn the screws
This is a ridiculous oversimplification.

Seriously the reactor weight is considerable and is part of the balance of the whole design from a weight, hydordynamic and balance perspective. You cannot simply cut and shunt and think it will work.

Boats have to be neutrally bouyant at diving with trimming tanks used to compensate for balance, changes in bouyance (water density) and hull compression (which reduces buoyant area). You are looking a a significnat redesign and it is not a case of cutting off the back end (design wise) and grafting on another.
 

t68

Well-Known Member
This is a ridiculous oversimplification.

Seriously the reactor weight is considerable and is part of the balance of the whole design from a weight, hydordynamic and balance perspective. You cannot simply cut and shunt and think it will work.

Boats have to be neutrally bouyant at diving with trimming tanks used to compensate for balance, changes in bouyance (water density) and hull compression (which reduces buoyant area). You are looking a a significnat redesign and it is not a case of cutting off the back end (design wise) and grafting on another.
Never said it was easy just wondered if it was practical or not
 

rockitten

Member
My guess would be not the physical size but the complexity. I think the RAN boat would be the hull and the drive train. ASC and Raytheon would then be tasked to fit the combat system, and possibly integrating with non Japanese sonars (bow and flank array). It would also be interesting to see if the Australianised Soryu class were to have a towed array sonar as well. Other changes might be a lock out chamber for SAS, etc.

These are just my guesses...
The Japanese Soryu already has tower array sonar already, so at least, the room for such equipment is already built in.

From different news so far, seems "evolved Collins" is a dead end because Kockums still holds the IP of Collins, an their German directors are more keen to sell their Type216 then the Sweedish stuff. French Scorpene option just silent without trace (I don't like that option too), Spanish S-80 is now off-favored as Navantia is struggled to make the sub float.

So right now, it seems only 3 options: Type 216, Soryu variants or joint-developed new sub with Japan still on the table.

While HDW has a proven history of exporting submarines, either build in-house or overseas, The design is an extended Type 214, which is practically a downgraded Type 212 for export. It has a fuel cell based AIP, lithium cell batteries, and VLS for SAS or land attack missiles (which is a pre-request for Sea1000). It is also modular so it is easy to install your own stuff, which Turkish has just done it on their Type 214 (everything Turkish except the hull and drive train). However, the Type 214 (which Type 216 is based on) is mired with unresolved design flaws that S. Korea complains a lot. Also, their fuel cell AIP, while silent when operating, has a low power output which can only sustain a few knots for cruising. "Cruising" at 3 knots may be good enough for German as their submarine just leave the port and then "sitting at the bottom", 3 knots is good enough for stay in position against the current. But for Australia, we need to transit 1/4 of the world to our designated patrol, so it is no way desirable.

Soryu class has its issue too. While it has the right size, it is a proven design with American based sensor and weapons, their Stirling engine AIP is more suit for Australian needs and, if build in Japan, it is way cheaper. However, its weapon system is not designed for land-attack missiles or special forces. But, at it has NATO-standard 533mm torpedo tubes, it can fit in a few tomahawk or for SAS divers to swim-out. IT doesn't have the Lithium-ion batteries as in the (still on paper) Type 216), although Soryu was planned and design to carry such battery on their 6th ship, but not implemented due to budget constrain. In order to fit-in the AIP system, the living space on board is know to be very cramp even for Japanese, so it will be a challenge to find some space for the SAS, the console for the tomahawks, and crew morale. Compare with the price Egypt paying for their Type 209 ( $460M each), $500M for a much more capable Soryu class is a fxxking good deal for Australia.

So, overall, I would rather to have a off the shelf Soryu build in Japan (with minimal changes for tomachawk and Asutralian power sockets) as one reason why Soryu is so cheap is because all R&D cost has already been paid for (by Japanese own subs). And then use the saved budget to kick-start the 2000tonne ANZAC replacement in order to shut the union up. Or, an enlargen Soryu co-developed with Japan and both country build their own submarine. The worse case will be let RAN playing that sort of "cherry picking" the features and merge it into a design and then expecting the project is still risk free and derailed just like the Super Sea Sprite...........

-
BTW, I still think Australia should close down more shipyard and concentrate all defense ship-building to ASC........
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Never said it was easy just wondered if it was practical or not
the boat has to be designed from the outset to run multiple drivetrains

only one company offers a multi-drivetrain solution (on paper)

rockitten, not sure where you got your information, but a significant number of your claims are incorrect.....
 

ASSAIL

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Hasn't it been an exciting few hours on the RAN thread, I left for work 7 hrs ago and 2 pages of posts later... but really, there seems to be a lot of misconceptions and misinformation floating around here probably not helped by the shite in the Diplomat article which I read this am.
IMHO the crux is this;
Government has to make a decision on whether or not to extend the lives of Collins. There is a fair body of opinion that says we should cut and run on Collins as the fundamental orphan problems will continue and they will continue to suck sustainment funds at an accelerating rate.

Some form of Japanese option is currently at the fore at a price ex Japan of $500m each (12 subs for $6b sounds a whole lot better than $40b) but I really can't see this government abandoning building them in Adelaide. After the plethora of industrial shutdowns the political pain will be too great and as the mining industry matures the drain on skilled workers is reversing.

However, ownership and industrial practices at ASC must change and that won't happen under a EU (or AUS) led consortium by HDW or BAE or Kockums and that leaves Japan who can begin in a relatively short time and nullify the expense and time in upgrading Collins. No other option can do that.
There's a lot of sovereign premium to be used up between $6b and $40b
 

Pusser01

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
A senate committee wants to reopen tenders for replacing the navy's supply ships.

Committee says reopen ship tender

There may be some benefits in building in Australia, but I think the argument that these ships are probably too big to be built locally has a lot of merit. These ships will be getting up around the size of Australia's LHDs ... which of course were built overseas because of their sheer size.

Australia needs yet another budget blowout for a shipbuilding program like a hole in the head.
Was wondering if anyone had a link to this Committee on Hansard. I've had a look but can't find it.
Cheers
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top