Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[Perlon]

If all goes well and the Damen aviation training ship is found to be a suitable replacement for the ACPB I do wonder if the RAN would go for the 1800, 2400 or 2600 OPV.The 1800 has lowest crew requirements and fits in the stated 2000t OPV
displacment. The 2400 and 2600 have the same crew size with the 2600 offering a higher top speed and range. Could additional systems/weapons be fitted to any of them if required? Would 2 container mission modules be enough for non patrol roles?

Considering the size over the ACPB, where would they be berthed?

First time posting and a long time lurking......so hi all.

Im also wondering how big these will be and how many will be required. The crew numbers of the current vessels that the OPV's will replace:

ACPB 14*21=294
Huons 4*40=160
Leeuwin 2*56=112
Paluma 4*14=56

Total crew = 622
Total number of vessels = 24

Damen 1800t has a crew of 46. That is 13 * Damen1800t that comes close to the 622 crew total.

If they order the original number of 20 OPV's where would they get the extra 300 crew? And the cash to cover the extra 300 crew?

If they keep the number at 13 * 1800t OPV's I would base them at:

2 in Sydney
3 in Cairns
3 in Darwin
3 in Karratha or Port Hedland
2 in Perth

If they stick to 20 OPV's:

4 in Sydney
4 in Cairns
4 in Darwin
4 in Karratha or Port Hedland
4 in Perth

When will the white paper be release in '15?

 

[gf0012-aust]

ugly news

Japan gains traction as builder of new Australia subs | The Japan Times

 

[StobieWan]

Disappointing - with a 12 boat order, I'd have thought domestic build at the very least was an option.

 

[rand0m]

ugly news

Japan gains traction as builder of new Australia subs | The Japan Times

Won't buying the direct OTS Soryu mean we're stuck with a lesser range than Collins? Also, out goes the "land attack" and "mini sub" capability? And a life of 15 years?

 

[gf0012-aust]

Won't buying the direct OTS Soryu mean we're stuck with a lesser range than Collins? Also, out goes the "land attack" and "mini sub" capability? And a life of 15 years?

well, we're still in silly season, so lets hope that we're watching colour and movement driven by the 4th estate.

 

[RobWilliams]

Won't buying the direct OTS Soryu mean we're stuck with a lesser range than Collins? Also, out goes the "land attack"

Take out AIP and that lessens the range issue, Soryu has 533mm tubes so they could launch TLAM through those, that's how the UK gets that capability rather than through dedicated VLS.

 

[old faithful]

Could have been worse news, like we were to get 6 australian builds of an upgraded collins.....

 

[Volkodav]

Could have been worse news, like we were to get 6 australian builds of an upgraded collins.....

Well considering the Collins has only recently been superceded as the most capable conventional submarine in the world we could do a lot worse than an evolution of that design. We know what works and what didn't, which contractors and suppliers to stick with, what the RAN needs and want and above all that six hulls has never been enough to do the required job.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Take out AIP and that lessens the range issue, Soryu has 533mm tubes so they could launch TLAM through those, that's how the UK gets that capability rather than through dedicated VLS.

How does removal of AIP solve the range issue? The range and transit speed are both issues for the RAN.

I don't think Vertical TLAM tubes a hugely important requirement in the current climate. The RAN has been able to launch land attack Harpoon from tubes since the 80s(?)?

So biggest defense order pretty much ever doesn't even go to tender? While labor deserves a lot of criticism, all this time in opposition and they don't seem to be that much closer to a real plan either. I wouldn't say they have been clear and decisive.

One wonders what they would have done if Japan hadn't been overtly generous.

 

[Nick underscore]

With success by the USN on MQ-8B, is RAN (officially) looking at acquiring ship based UAV's in the near term? Army has theirs, as will RAAF, but haven't heard any solid rumours regarding this capability as yet.

 

[RobWilliams]

How does removal of AIP solve the range issue? The range and transit speed are both issues for the RAN.

If you remove AIP, you remove firstly the propulsion system as a whole as well as the oxidiser and instead you carry more fuel. More fuel = more range and probably more speed as you can crank up the speed with less concern about fuel burn because you've got X tons more of it.

IIRC that's the reason why the current Collins class hasn't got it despite a set hanging around somewhere. The trade off - what you'd have to bin to get AIP - wasn't worth the submerged loitering capability.

 

[ADMk2]

If you remove AIP, you remove firstly the propulsion system as a whole as well as the oxidiser and instead you carry more fuel. More fuel = more range and probably more speed as you can crank up the speed with less concern about fuel burn because you've got X tons more of it.

IIRC that's the reason why the current Collins class hasn't got it despite a set hanging around somewhere. The trade off - what you'd have to bin to get AIP - wasn't worth the submerged loitering capability.

RAN bought a Stirling AIP system for testing in the early days on Collins. It was tested, then packed on a crate, where it remains to this day...

The addition of an AIP capability wasn't considered worth what would have had to be forgone in order to include it...

 

[RobWilliams]

RAN bought a Stirling AIP system for testing in the early days on Collins. It was tested, then packed on a crate, where it remains to this day...

The addition of an AIP capability wasn't considered worth what would have had to be forgone in order to include it...

Ah, thanks for the specifics!

 

[Ausbloke]

re: story in Japanese Times.

That story has come off the back of a Joe Hockey outburst... I wouldn't take it as a given. If the govt were going to buy soryus then they might as well bring back the Oberons as they were better suited. The soryus should not even be considered as they are simply not suitable regardless if they are in service already or not. At what point during this whole project is common sense going to prevail...?

 

[gf0012-aust]

re: story in Japanese Times.

That story has come off the back of a Joe Hockey outburst... I wouldn't take it as a given. If the govt were going to buy soryus then they might as well bring back the Oberons as they were better suited. The soryus should not even be considered as they are simply not suitable regardless if they are in service already or not. At what point during this whole project is common sense going to prevail...?

It might pay to have a read of earlier comments re the Soryus

you're a bit innaccurate

unlike some of the public commentary where there is a confict of interest, some of the comments around Soryus in here are based on some relevant involvement

and contrary to some of the nonsense in the media, the Soryus and Oyashios were superior in many many areas to some of the vaporware trying to be sold to RAN as working viable "turnkeys"

in fact some of the noise on the Soryus absolutely contradicts what I personally know from acoustic management programs I was involved with comparing subs for other countries as a contractor

I'd add that 99% of the commentary dismissing Soryus has come from people that wouldn't know one if it hit them in the head - they're parroting stuff they've heard from others who have their own agenda

from a capability perspective there are a number of countries which regard them as nuke killers - and they can outperform a number of the aspirants by a golden mile

that includes acoustic radiation at a number of key operational depths, absolute depth, overall acoustic suppression (they make some of the Euro proposals sound like Ladas with bad timing) and in their weapons and combat systems fitout are a golden mile ahead, esp in digital systems

the chatter about range is just rubbish

 

[ADMk2]

re: story in Japanese Times.

That story has come off the back of a Joe Hockey outburst... I wouldn't take it as a given. If the govt were going to buy soryus then they might as well bring back the Oberons as they were better suited. The soryus should not even be considered as they are simply not suitable regardless if they are in service already or not. At what point during this whole project is common sense going to prevail...?

So what is proposed exactly? Tell us all seeing as though you clearly understand all the capability issues with this boat.

What modifications will be applied to new build boats? Will they be EXACTLY the same as the ones now, or will they be an enlarged design?

How will they be configured and so on.

Please enlighten us with specifics on these matters so we can have a robust debate. That is the point of the TALK in this website's name afterall...

 

[weegee]

Came across this today:
Defence Ministers » Creating a sustainable naval shipbuilding industry

It almost sounds like they are gearing up to buy off the shelf subs form ? (Japan) but offsetting that bad news with "but we are building the frigates here and now". Then they will use the excuse that the industry could not support to big builds at once, so something has to give oh and look it has to be the subs. Just the little bits of info here and there seem to be painting that picture at least for me anyway. I suppose the picture will be coloured in when white paper is released with a lot of people saying yeah that's what I thought.

 

[oldsig127]

Came across this today:
Defence Ministers » Creating a sustainable naval shipbuilding industry

It almost sounds like they are gearing up to buy off the shelf subs form ? (Japan) but offsetting that bad news with "but we are building the frigates here and now". Then they will use the excuse that the industry could not support to big builds at once, so something has to give oh and look it has to be the subs. Just the little bits of info here and there seem to be painting that picture at least for me anyway. I suppose the picture will be coloured in when white paper is released with a lot of people saying yeah that's what I thought.

And yet, this line from the release says

Secondly, the Government will create a sovereign submarine industry and avoid a submarine capability gap.

That seems to me to say fairly clearly that the intent is to continue building subs in Australia - though it doesn't say whether that means ALL of them.

oldsig127

 

[Milne Bay]

And yet, this line from the release says



That seems to me to say fairly clearly that the intent is to continue building subs in Australia - though it doesn't say whether that means ALL of them.

oldsig127

A sovereign submarine industry does not necessarily mean a sovereign submarine building industry.
Clearly, if we are to operate submarines then we must have the industry to sustain them efficiently. AFAIK we sustained the Oberon class very successfully, and of course they were built elsewhere. This is where I see the industry heading with the likely Soryu derivatives.
MB

 

[weegee]

A sovereign submarine industry does not necessarily mean a sovereign submarine building industry.
Clearly, if we are to operate submarines then we must have the industry to sustain them efficiently. AFAIK we sustained the Oberon class very successfully, and of course they were built elsewhere. This is where I see the industry heading with the likely Soryu derivatives.
MB

I kind of took it the same way. I think it is a cleaver use of words that eludes or allows you to think that they will build them but in the end they are really meaning that we will be able to sustain and maintain the subs here and into the future.