Ok, 10% over budget, for sub that was pretty useless at the time.
How much more money was required to get it nearly right, another 15-25%?
How much more money was required to get it nearly right, another 15-25%?
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
An thought provoking blog post on ASPI today about the recent flurry of discussion about the Japanese submarine option.
Some very interesting comments about RAN and Defence behavior and the impact on the submarine decision debate.
Making sense of the Japanese submarine option | The Strategist
Regards,
Massive
Some very interesting comments about RAN and Defence behavior and the impact on the submarine decision debate.
Making sense of the Japanese submarine option | The Strategist
Regards,
Massive
Interesting. We do need the one clear plan. I hope too the pressure being applied can make that one true plan appear, preferably from those who know what will work.
The elements are there for a realistic and useful solution, something that can be applied to other projects into the future.
I think there are real benefits of using a Japanese yard as a benchmark. Both the US and Japan use two builders for subs, and its been highly successful, if we can benchmark our builds against Japanese builds. While no one would expect a new build in a new yard to meet or exceed highly experienced builders off the bat, you can manage and benchmark performance between sites. The ultimate stick to drive efficiency being you can limit risk/costs by utilising the other yard.
Look at the construction of Choules/Largs Bay as an example of what I am talking about (ie when things go wrong).
This way you can manage a project to stay within contingencies and improve and identify where the real issues are.
The Japanese aren't just offering a basic hull design, they are offering the way to build that hull efficiently. Way more strategically important than merely purchasing 12 subs off the rack (or 20 or 30 subs).
What is being offered is more akin to the Meiji period of Japans history.
The elements are there for a realistic and useful solution, something that can be applied to other projects into the future.
I think there are real benefits of using a Japanese yard as a benchmark. Both the US and Japan use two builders for subs, and its been highly successful, if we can benchmark our builds against Japanese builds. While no one would expect a new build in a new yard to meet or exceed highly experienced builders off the bat, you can manage and benchmark performance between sites. The ultimate stick to drive efficiency being you can limit risk/costs by utilising the other yard.
Look at the construction of Choules/Largs Bay as an example of what I am talking about (ie when things go wrong).
This way you can manage a project to stay within contingencies and improve and identify where the real issues are.
The Japanese aren't just offering a basic hull design, they are offering the way to build that hull efficiently. Way more strategically important than merely purchasing 12 subs off the rack (or 20 or 30 subs).
What is being offered is more akin to the Meiji period of Japans history.
Unfortunately Kym Bergmanns piece is also replete with errors.
People who are unfamiliar with platform capability shouldn't make empirical statements
They especially shouldn't make comments about design competency when its been local engineers and scientists who often identified and developed local solutions to fix designs made by "experts"
This is the kind of over simplified printed rubbish that continues to dumb down the publics understanding of the issues
Well, regarding to Australian's ship building industry, why INCAT and Austal can be so successful but the others are not?
I took the chance and ask this question to a few "quest" in the white paper consultations. Some referenced the NBN co. as an example and claim why state owned monopoly enterprises/business will never be efficient or competitive, some compared Toyota and Holden/Ford and suggested a sustainable manufacturing business in Australia should be orientated for export markets from right start.
And, from some article in ASPI I went through, there are articles suggested that , to create a continuous ship building programme, RAN's force structure and replacement plan may in got hijacked. At the end, RAN may get ships they don't want, or have to retire some vessel too early, just because the ship yards need some work.
So, what kind of defence industry does Australia really want?
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Incat and Austal are in a specific niche of shipbuilding, namely aluminium, and their larger vessels are often multi-hulled vs. monohull. The build standards are also to HSC, which means operating within fairly short transit times to refuge. There is a small amount of application with respect to Defence, but that is mostly for fast ferries, or coastal/inshore patrolcraft. For longer ranged vessels, and/or operations in rougher conditions (assuming longevity is desired) then an appropriate steel monohull is called for.
Also while I do not know how Incat is doing, Austal is IIRC shifting non-defence shipbuilding for the civilian market out of the country. Only defence related projects would be done in Australia. One of the concerns about that is that WA politicians might be pressured to direct defence acquisitions Austal's way to keep their Australian facility open, when Austal does not really have products appropriate for RAN needs.
Both manufacturers are under pressure and Austal have all but left as you note. Even work in existing commercial vessels is being done in the Phillipines.
INCAT are still building but it is sporadic
Trackmaster
Member
On the submarine issue...It's not as if someone in a white suit is going to turn up at a Japanese shipyard and say "I'll have 12 of those please..in grey....delivery by the end of the decade".
It is my understanding we don't have the capacity to design, project manage and build a unique class of submarine, despite what some in Adelaide are saying and yelling.
There is a workforce engaged on the AWD...and maintenance and upgrading is on-going on the Collins fleet. No one is building submarines in Australia at the moment and that appears to have been missed by some folks. That capacity would have to be re-built and that could be a long, expensive and bumpy road as the wheel is re-invented.
If we are going to maintain a submarine capability, we have to engage with an existing builder and the Japanese appear to have an appropriate vessel in production, with a proven history of upgrading in "flights", to use an American term.
Again, from what I can understand, there may be an intention to engage with the Japanese industry.
IMHO...we need to get over the FJ Holden mentality and look at the benefits of participating in a series build of a new class of boats.
It is my understanding we don't have the capacity to design, project manage and build a unique class of submarine, despite what some in Adelaide are saying and yelling.
There is a workforce engaged on the AWD...and maintenance and upgrading is on-going on the Collins fleet. No one is building submarines in Australia at the moment and that appears to have been missed by some folks. That capacity would have to be re-built and that could be a long, expensive and bumpy road as the wheel is re-invented.
If we are going to maintain a submarine capability, we have to engage with an existing builder and the Japanese appear to have an appropriate vessel in production, with a proven history of upgrading in "flights", to use an American term.
Again, from what I can understand, there may be an intention to engage with the Japanese industry.
IMHO...we need to get over the FJ Holden mentality and look at the benefits of participating in a series build of a new class of boats.
Last edited:
Joe Black
Active Member
Australia reaffirms submarine domestic build plans - IHS Jane's 360
"Australian Defence Minister David Johnston has reaffirmed a commitment to build the "bulk" of Australia's future submarines indigenously following intense speculation within the country that the boats will be constructed by Japan."
I suspected from this comment it could be a Japanese designed boat, some of them built in Japan and fitted out in ASC, followed by complete built by ASC for the rest of the fleet. I hope that no more than 6 Soryu will be built and the next 6 boats will be the son of Soryu.
"Australian Defence Minister David Johnston has reaffirmed a commitment to build the "bulk" of Australia's future submarines indigenously following intense speculation within the country that the boats will be constructed by Japan."
I suspected from this comment it could be a Japanese designed boat, some of them built in Japan and fitted out in ASC, followed by complete built by ASC for the rest of the fleet. I hope that no more than 6 Soryu will be built and the next 6 boats will be the son of Soryu.
Joe Black
Active Member
Faster, quieter — and able to movein short bounds
Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian
--
Interesting read, especially the following sections to note:
"Using an AIP system requires the storage of large amounts of liquid oxygen and other gases that take up considerable space in the boat.Australian submarines travel much of the way to their areas of operation at periscope depth so they can raise a snorkel to suck in the air needed to run their diesel engines. To extend their range, Soryus bought for Australia could have space for AIP fuel replaced with storage for extra diesel or batteries."
"Japan is working on a new class of submarine and it is anticipated Australia will benefit from research being done for those vessels."
"The Japanese designers are masters at adding improvements as new boats are built. The Soryu is 6m longer than the Collins. Australian and American submariners who have operated with Soryus say they are very quiet and hard to detect. Both types of boats can travel at 20 knots on the surface but the Soryu is slightly faster submerged, at 12 knots compared with 10 knots."
Like what has been discussed in this forum, the writer also noted the following:
Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian
--
Interesting read, especially the following sections to note:
"Using an AIP system requires the storage of large amounts of liquid oxygen and other gases that take up considerable space in the boat.Australian submarines travel much of the way to their areas of operation at periscope depth so they can raise a snorkel to suck in the air needed to run their diesel engines. To extend their range, Soryus bought for Australia could have space for AIP fuel replaced with storage for extra diesel or batteries."
"Japan is working on a new class of submarine and it is anticipated Australia will benefit from research being done for those vessels."
"The Japanese designers are masters at adding improvements as new boats are built. The Soryu is 6m longer than the Collins. Australian and American submariners who have operated with Soryus say they are very quiet and hard to detect. Both types of boats can travel at 20 knots on the surface but the Soryu is slightly faster submerged, at 12 knots compared with 10 knots."
Like what has been discussed in this forum, the writer also noted the following:
- AIP is not likely to be feature in Australianised Soryu
- Extra fuel and battery as per Collins class setup
- Soryu is faster underwater
- Soryu is very quiet - probably more so than the present Collins (which the American had difficulties hunting during the RIMPAC exercises)
- Japan is planning a new class of submarine and Australia would love to work with the Japanese in the area of hydrodynamics
seriously, some of these journos need to slow down, most appear to have gone to fav sources and then tried to cobble together an article.
Its pretty damn apparent that most of them have no idea what they are trying to regurgitate as factual information
there are some silly assumptions - and some very silly extrapolations coming out
With public discussion like this there is no wonder defence procurement is such a mess.
Wrong
Wrong
With them learning from us.
http://www.unimelb.edu.au/unisec/calendar/honcausa/citation/joubert.pdf
Wrong
Worst idea ever. A simple way to significantly reduce the effectiveness of your submarine and make them very vulnerable to attack during any war.
we've probably got another 10 years of journalistic indolence re sub discussions.
oh joy
John Newman
The Bunker Group
Look on the bright side.... at least it's made the subject of the LHD's being turned into aircraft carriers armed with squadrons of F-35B's disappear from discussion!
Oops! Hmmmm, maybe I shouldn't have reminded people of that? Oh well...
But seriously, unlike the day to day issues of health, education, taxation, etc, etc, the average punter in the street has NFI when it comes to defence and therefore the so called defence journos can get away with blue murder with what they report, the average punter just accepts it because they don't know the difference.
I'm sure if journos reported a story with all the 'technical' detail, people would just glaze over, it would be all too much.
But I'm sure there is a way for the defence journos to convert the 'tech stuff' into a more simple 'human' readable form, but it just doesn't happen and probably won't unfortunately!!
I'd like to post a link to an opinion piece discussing the pros and cons of domestic, Japanese and German submarines for the Collins replacement. I have made some comments on the article in the comments section of the link, but there are obviously much more informed people than me here I would like to hear from on this.
onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=16672
*cant post links yet so please add www for correct link, or someone else can repost for me please!
onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=16672
*cant post links yet so please add www for correct link, or someone else can repost for me please!
peterAustralia
Member
Couple of questions,
would the new australain subs use lithium ion batteries. If not is that due to fire risk. Second question, assuming that australia and japan build similar subs, could the australian sub have a plug in, that contains extra fuel below, and spare space above, like a 2m plugin, but with everything else being the same.
would the new australain subs use lithium ion batteries. If not is that due to fire risk. Second question, assuming that australia and japan build similar subs, could the australian sub have a plug in, that contains extra fuel below, and spare space above, like a 2m plugin, but with everything else being the same.
its a regurgitated article
the media are still copying each others claims about range issues and larger subs. it demonstrates a significant lack of understanding of why larger subs are preferred - and that has little to do with range issues.
I've hit the point that as soon as i see an article that regurgitates the technical line about size and range then I dismiss the rest of the article and assume the rest will be just as technically deficient in content
the information coming out in the press is basically incorrect in the first place.
subs of similar displacement have some fundamental equivalencies
you don't get subs which are comparatively close in performance having one with "double" the range of the other
journos are copying things from open sources but are not understanding that some of that public data (and thus the journos claims) are nonsensical
Last edited:
The problem is a great many people believe that they are experts to the point I dread it if it comes out in company that I worked on the Collins class.
I have pretty much learned to keep my mouth shut when people are launching into "dud sub" tirades, saying how Australia couldn't possibly build a replacement for the Collins because they were such a failure / disaster / waste of money etc. But when some people find out I was on the project I cop it and if I attempt to set the record straight I am basically called a liar or deluded, if I am lucky, otherwise I get a lecture about being a unionised thief of tax payers money who expects hard working Australian to subsidise my excessive salary.
It seems everyone has an opinion and is allowed to express that opinion, no matter how inaccurate, unfair or insulting it is, unless of course you actually have first hand knowledge of the project / topic, in which case you are not allowed to have an opinion let alone state facts.
A considered contribution from Andrew Davies of ASPI on the Japanese option for the submarine choice.
Getting the submarine we want | The Strategist
Roughly in line with some of the concerns expressed by the Def Pros on DT.
Thoughts?
Massive
Getting the submarine we want | The Strategist
Roughly in line with some of the concerns expressed by the Def Pros on DT.
Thoughts?
Massive
- Status