Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

Status
Not open for further replies.

knightrider4

Active Member
Defmin did state that much data sharing had been achieved with the Japanese but my thoughts are that if Soryu is chosen that virtually wipes out any major construction in Aust. and leaves us with integration only. HDW would be more amenable to onshore build. I understand the vapour issue but do they revert to 212 and do it on the cheap? Have they learned anything from Collins? FIIK!
I get a really bad feeling about the 216 clean sheet design. The figures quoted for range performance is based on what exactly. There is a lot of money on offer here and companies will say pretty much anything to get that contract. As for technology I would go with Lithium Ion batteries over Sterling AIP any day of the week. The Europeans have a habit of talking big and failing to deliver. Look at the dramas the Hellenic Navy has had. The 216 is essentially a clean sheet design much more to submarine building than stretching the hull as we should know.
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
The Europeans have a habit of talking big and failing to deliver. Look at the dramas the Hellenic Navy has had. The 216 is essentially a clean sheet design much more to submarine building than stretching the hull as we should know.
to be fair to HDW some of the Greek problems might have something to do with the fact that the Govt was in a downhill deficit slide and were looking at any way to get out of major expense contracts etc....

I'm far less disposed towards the Hellenic subs having actual technical probs as opposed to looking for an excuse to bail out and save govt coffers
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
From memory Collins was originally scheduled to serve through to 2026(30 years) with a replacement due 2027. Each boat was intended to receive an FCD every six years, now stretched to eight years and four FCDs. A comprehensive review, released last year, indicated the class could be life extended with another FCD, this would indicate 2032 or 2034 as the retirement date so I am confused as to why the sudden urgency to replace them six years earlier than originally planned, instead of getting the extra life out of them that was said possible so recently.

If I didn't know better I could be mistaken for wondering if this is a deliberate, politically motivated exercise designed to forever kill Australian submarine construction and possibly the first stage in an effort to permanently kill ship building in Australia as well.

They used to talk about quotas for the number of women in parliament, maybe we need quotas for engineers and scientists now.
 

cdxbow

Well-Known Member
From memory Collins was originally scheduled to serve through to 2026(30 years) with a replacement due 2027. Each boat was intended to receive an FCD every six years, now stretched to eight years and four FCDs. A comprehensive review, released last year, indicated the class could be life extended with another FCD, this would indicate 2032 or 2034 as the retirement date so I am confused as to why the sudden urgency to replace them six years earlier than originally planned, instead of getting the extra life out of them that was said possible so recently.

If I didn't know better I could be mistaken for wondering if this is a deliberate, politically motivated exercise designed to forever kill Australian submarine construction and possibly the first stage in an effort to permanently kill ship building in Australia as well.

They used to talk about quotas for the number of women in parliament, maybe we need quotas for engineers and scientists now.
Science and scientists are not very popular with our current government, nor does it seems is local industry. The sudden rush to replace the Collins subs doses seem strange. Probably best to follow the money.
 

swerve

Super Moderator
...The Europeans have a habit of talking big and failing to deliver. Look at the dramas the Hellenic Navy has had. ....
As said, oddly coincidental with the government being desperate to cut spending.

BTW, who are "[t]he Europeans" you refer to? AFAIK the buyers of German, French & Dutch submarines have been happy with them. The Germans (especially) & French have sold a lot, quite a few to repeat buyers, which doesn't suggest a failure to deliver. The UK used to have contented customers, until Upholder - & that looks like a problem of retired subs being stored carelessly & the buyer not being diligent (caveat emptor!). The Oberon class did OK for the RAN, didn't it? Singapore, well-known for high standards, has bought modernised (by Kockums) ex-Swedish navy subs - twice.

Looks to me as if "the Europeans" have a pretty good record, overall. But I wouldn't buy Spanish subs (I'd buy their surface ships).
 

t68

Well-Known Member
As said, oddly coincidental with the government being desperate to cut spending.

BTW, who are "[t]he Europeans" you refer to? AFAIK the buyers of German, French & Dutch submarines have been happy with them. The Germans (especially) & French have sold a lot, quite a few to repeat buyers, which doesn't suggest a failure to deliver. The UK used to have contented customers, until Upholder - & that looks like a problem of retired subs being stored carelessly & the buyer not being diligent (caveat emptor!). The Oberon class did OK for the RAN, didn't it? Singapore, well-known for high standards, has bought modernised (by Kockums) ex-Swedish navy subs - twice.

Looks to me as if "the Europeans" have a pretty good record, overall. But I wouldn't buy Spanish subs (I'd buy their surface ships).

I believe it boils down to perceptions in the ADF's case from the original fit out of the Collins class to MRH-90 & ARH Tiger compared to OTS kit from the US, ie Super Hornets Romeo' and the fixes on Collins submarines
 

alexsa

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
I believe it boils down to perceptions in the ADF's case from the original fit out of the Collins class to MRH-90 & ARH Tiger compared to OTS kit from the US, ie Super Hornets Romeo' and the fixes on Collins submarines
Be careful not to generalise too much on this as a lot of this has to do with procurement process and buying immature platforms or modify the design so much the integration cost over run. One of our most contentious buys of the past was the F111 so it really depends on circumstance. The F18F buys was an aircraft of mature design in the middle of its production run ...... all good. You could argue that the F35 on the other hand falls into the same category of the Euro options you identify. Before people scream, this is not a condemnation of the F35, but you need to be a tad careful in making sweeping generalisations.

Collins was a paper boat and this has colour views as all the risk was borne by the Australian project for the six vessels produced. They are now a very capable boat but the move from theory to reality was painful. If there is an existing hull form and systems that can be relied upon as the basis of the next boat this will be attractive to the risk adverse.

The same goes for the T26 advocated by so many. This is likely to be a very capable platform but is still only a vessel on paper where the design is being progressed. Being on the bleeding edge of finalising a design in build holds risks and past experience colours views.
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
The biggest single issue with the Collins class was the selection of a conceptional, bespoke, US combat system, being developed by a contractor, new to the field and out of their depth, instead of the perfectly adequate proven European (Dutch) solution. To replace it we selected an in service USN option although there was another, perfectly adequate European (German this time) option on offer that was a little over half the price, available earlier, easier to retrofit and recommended by DSTO as the best solution.

The Germans in particular have an extensive, proven track record of successful technology transfers and support for foreign builds. The UK, France, Italy and the Netherlands all, also, have long and successful histories of exporting defence equipment, with or without foreign builds. To date, every time we have gone for a supplier who hasn't exported anything before we have had serious issues due in part to a serious lack of applicable engineering and project management skills in the RAN and army (the RAAF being a lot better in this regard).

Many issues we have had have been due to our own failings in understanding the risk and even the status of the project we are buying into, i.e. we have bought a lot of gear assuming it is MOTS or a minor modification of such, when in actual fact it is still developmental and as such we assign insufficient project management an technical support resources to the procurement and also are overly optimistic on schedule. We also often rule out ultimately more honest and realistically coated and scheduled options because they are more expensive and riskier on paper, yet may have been the better option in a more competently evaluated tender. In other words politicians should listen to service experts, technical professionals and defence scientists over accountants.
 

t68

Well-Known Member
Be careful not to generalise too much on this as a lot of this has to do with procurement process and buying immature platforms or modify the design so much the integration cost over run. One of our most contentious buys of the past was the F111 so it really depends on circumstance. The F18F buys was an aircraft of mature design in the middle of its production run ...... all good. You could argue that the F35 on the other hand falls into the same category of the Euro options you identify. Before people scream, this is not a condemnation of the F35, but you need to be a tad careful in making sweeping generalisations.

Collins was a paper boat and this has colour views as all the risk was borne by the Australian project for the six vessels produced. They are now a very capable boat but the move from theory to reality was painful. If there is an existing hull form and systems that can be relied upon as the basis of the next boat this will be attractive to the risk adverse.

The same goes for the T26 advocated by so many. This is likely to be a very capable platform but is still only a vessel on paper where the design is being progressed. Being on the bleeding edge of finalising a design in build holds risks and past experience colours views.

Oh completely agree with what you and Volk has said. Whilst we do buy what seems like large orders but compared to US- Europ defence forces the ADF needs to have more mature systems when we take them out of the box in regards to big ticket items, but unfortunatly that's not always the case(Collins) but in regards to MRH-90 sometimes it's best to stick with the tried and tested(Blackhawk)

I was actually quite surprised that the Howard goverment put all our eggs in the one basket in regards to JSF and to get them so early when at the time was such a bold and risky move
 

Magoo

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
I don't think it is a "sudden" rush to get the new subs - such a project takes a long time to get a boat in the water, and the right design needs to be chosen carefully. The project has already been dragging on for too long.

The U216 looks the goods on paper and will likely be easier to build locally, and HDW certainly has a great sub building legacy. But the Soryu (or its development) is a proven design and will likely lend itself better to a US-sourced combat system, plus will facilitate closer ties with Japan.
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
I was actually quite surprised that the Howard goverment put all our eggs in the one basket in regards to JSF and to get them so early when at the time was such a bold and risky move
The skeptics and faint of heart change their minds about their level of commitment once they see the classified briefings

I don't know of any politician who was opposed to JSF not changing their minds once they had their briefs
 

the road runner

Active Member
I am a bit confused on the issue of Australia and Japan's collaboration on hydrodynamics. Is this for a future sub design that both parties will invest seed money into?
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
I am a bit confused on the issue of Australia and Japan's collaboration on hydrodynamics. Is this for a future sub design that both parties will invest seed money into?
Not sure how that would work - the Oyashios were considered to be the "best" of the conventionals when it came to issues of acoustic management - and they're the legacy design for Soryu

when I was contracting in the acoustic managing space we were told at the time that only one other sub was superior - and that was a nuke of a specific class and type

again, the issues that we regarded that the japanese were superior at to everyone else was in metalurgy and some of their digital systems.

they were always regarded as better nuke killers due to diving strengths and other things like acoustic management

at a hydrodynamics level the issue becomes one about current japanese sub performance parameters in some of our patrol zones

bear in mind that it was DSTO that identified and resolved some of the performance parameter issues in our patrol areas for Collins - and something that swedes managed badly up until then.

the tech transfer and IP sharing issues will be somewhat complex
 
Last edited:

t68

Well-Known Member
The skeptics and faint of heart change their minds about their level of commitment once they see the classified briefings

I don't know of any politician who was opposed to JSF not changing their minds once they had their briefs
Just to clarify,I am not surprised Howard got on board with program more surprised with getting them so early in production slots more of getting the aircraft Post block 3F so all problems are sorted.
 

Magoo

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
I don't know of any politician who was opposed to JSF not changing their minds once they had their briefs
Except one junior pollie, although I suspect he has ulterior motives. I was there when he was taken into the small room for his brief, and apparently he said all the right things and made all the right noises. He then went quiet for a few months, but was soon back at it. Perhaps the dark lord turned him back to the dark side...
 

Joe Black

Active Member
Except one junior pollie, although I suspect he has ulterior motives. I was there when he was taken into the small room for his brief, and apparently he said all the right things and made all the right noises. He then went quiet for a few months, but was soon back at it. Perhaps the dark lord turned him back to the dark side...
Well you can't argue against an ex CSIRO scientist can you. ;)

BTW, F-22 Raptors still rein supreme except no foreign countries can get any of them.
 

t68

Well-Known Member
Well you can't argue against an ex CSIRO scientist can you. ;)

BTW, F-22 Raptors still rein supreme except no foreign countries can get any of them.
For the US that's correct, but unfortunatly the RAAF won't be doing 1st day of conflict senerios where the F22 will be out in front of the F35.

Now if the FB-22 was built it would have made an ideal F111 replacement, if only
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top