Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[rockitten]

I wonder what we would have done differently if the AWD were 10 years ahead of where they are now (ie building them in 2005). With only a gap of maybe 12 months between the Anzacs and the AWD. Particularly if we had built 4 of them.

I wonder if we would have been tempted to do a completely local build of the LHD following that. Oh well, too many what ifs.

Loss of carrier and reduction of the submarine force (planned) had a pretty big impact for the RAN. We would be one of the key players in both subs and carriers in the region. The usa for example might have been a much stronger partner in ET if we had two carriers and 8 subs from which to bring to the party. Its not like those capabilities would have been beyond our means either (either then or now).

I see Tony has held onto the reigns, so does this mean a local build of the subs is now much more likely? It would seem to be politically ideal if they could lock in construction of at least 8 subs (option of 4 more?) in the next 12 months. Ie before the next election.

Well, we nearly got a replacement carrier until the Labor axed it......

But, I always wonder, if Australia has to choose between getting 8 more capable submarine build in Japan or 6 less capable submarine European submarine build in ASC, which one is better choice for the NAVY and Australia?

Personally, I would go for option J.

 

[rockitten]

B
There definitely would have been a mid life update for the ANZACs but what would it have been if there were three (or more) Burkes / AWDs in service and a replacement for the FFGs under way? The ANZACs are too small for ASMD without major compromises, pretty much like the combat system (in particular the radars) on the FFGs limited the performance of SM-2, both upgrades cost a lot but IMO didn't deliver value for money.

Had the RAN managed to retain a proper DDG capability there would have been no need for ASMD and maybe a second fire control channel and a Phalanx would have sufficed. If there was a replacement for the FFGs following on from the DDGs / AWDs the ANZACs wouldn't even have needed that and could have had platform and propulsion upgrades instead to take them through until they could be replaced with OPVs, light frigates, or even multirole vessels down the track.

On the 1970s our NAVY had plenty of slave sailors from the conscripts to man the ships, now they don't so unless our population increased 10 fold or there is a patriotic fever for joining the blues, I wonder if the NAVY can maintain the fleet size as in the 1970s even without those budget constrains and mismanagement..............

But I do agree that axing the carrier and not buying the Kidds, all due to political "atmosphere" at the time rather than any professional think through, and caused much more damage than a pissed off sailor had done to the tracker fleet.........

 

[ASSAIL]

On the 1970s our NAVY had plenty of slave sailors from the conscripts to man the ships, now they don't so unless our population increased 10 fold or there is a patriotic fever for joining the blues, I wonder if the NAVY can maintain the fleet size as in the 1970s even without those budget constrains and mismanagement. QUOTE]

Not only do you insult those of us who served (or as you put it "slaved" in the 70's, you are factually incorrect.

For the record, there were no conscripts in the RAN in the 70's and there were plenty of volunteers to enjoy the life of opportunities the Navy offered.

"Patriotic fever" has nothing to do with people joining the service. Most see it as a contribution to the country, a career that is secure, exciting and relatively well paid. Try it if you haven't, you may even like serving your country, a country that provided you a free education and kept you safe.

 

[Volkodav]

Option A local design tying together a us combat system and a Japanese propulsion system. The hull is the easy part, systems integration is the killer and the most experienced and capable systems integrator where the required combat system is concerned is the Raytheon / ASC partnership on the Collins. The most experienced designers where RAN designs are concerned are ASC, EB and Kockums (and that's only because the Swedes who were working for ASC went home when Gillard started stuffing around with ASC.

 

[hairyman]

I see the sub numbers are now eight with an option for a further two, so even if the option were taken up it is a reduction on Rudd's 12.

 

[StingrayOZ]

I see the sub numbers are now eight with an option for a further two, so even if the option were taken up it is a reduction on Rudd's 12.

If they are 10 very capable subs, then while its a reduction 10 is better than 8 which is better than 6. We have been trying to get more than 8 subs for a very long time. The 60's? We have seen multiple governments and dozens of defence minsters struggle with the issue of subs.

It also depends on how quickly they want to get rid of collins. We have 6 of an existing class, given an overhaul they could operate for a significantly longer period.

 

[t68]

I see the sub numbers are now eight with an option for a further two, so even if the option were taken up it is a reduction on Rudd's 12.

Is this from the live feed on yahoo news, ninemsm always freezes on my iPhone now yahoo doing it to annoying.

So anyway is it now official 8 with two options?

Also how does the nuclear option look now that SA are having some sort of debate on nuclear power?

 

[StingrayOZ]

Defence Minister Kevin Andrews takes backward step from 'open tender' commitment to submarines - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

South Australia still thinks it 12. An offical cut would fire up things to a different level.
Its now looking a whole lot more likely that they are going involve some sort of local build IMO.

Submarines will be a hugely important issue. With manufacturing dying the government has manufactured a desperate state, further random changes in direction, additional pressure, and as the finance minister said theres been NO decision on submarine procurement.

 

[StingrayOZ]

8 submarines rumor believed to come out of news
Secret Japanese submarines

 

[old faithful]

read that article about 2 hours ago, didnt think much about it....McPhedron article...

 

[Stock]

read that article about 2 hours ago, didnt think much about it....McPhedron article...

To give McPhedran his due, he does have a habit - sometimes - of uncovering smoke where there is fire. The issue of the Japanese providing full access to its Soryu-class design data is a real one. They have never done it before and we have never worked with them on a defence procurement program before. Risk factors in themselves.

Re numbers, it will be interesting to learn whether the RAN and Canberra believes it can really afford and man 12 boats.

 

[Volkodav]

Is this from the live feed on yahoo news, ninemsm always freezes on my iPhone now yahoo doing it to annoying.

So anyway is it now official 8 with two options?

Also how does the nuclear option look now that SA are having some sort of debate on nuclear power?

I was wondering about the nuclear option as well. I believe the direction of the enquiry is to be more along the lines of a nuclear waste dump and possibly uranium enrichment aimed value add to the states existing industry, make up for the loss of automotive manufacturing and potentially shipbuilding. However, if the nuclear energy industry is expanded, including power (Port Augusta?), enrichment / processing and safe waste storage / disposal, this would provide the infrastructure and knowhow required to support the nuclear option for future submarines.

Obviously it would be too late to affect the current submarine project (assuming something is actually happening at the moment) but would open up options going forward. While I see a local design and build as the best conventional option a local nuclear industry would make FMS Virginia class an even better choice.

Assuming the nuclear industry expansion gets off the ground it would make sense to upgrade and life extend four to six Collins class boats while building additional four to six enhanced Collins and then procuring late block Virginias to progressively replace the remaining original Collins class boats. With the latest USN spec SSNs coming on line the cost benefit of a paper Euro or an Australianised Japanese design just wouldn't be worth it making an evolution of the Collins a less risky, more sensible way forward.

 

[Volkodav]

To give McPhedran his due, he does have a habit - sometimes - of uncovering smoke where there is fire. The issue of the Japanese providing full access to its Soryu-class design data is a real one. They have never done it before and we have never worked with them on a defence procurement program before. Risk factors in themselves.

Re numbers, it will be interesting to learn whether the RAN and Canberra believes it can really afford and man 12 boats.

One of the issues the RAN has had with crewing submarines is insufficient hulls to permit adequate training. Increasing the number of hulls would mean the RAN would be able to assign a submarine to training and certification of crews relieving the current bottle neck that sees the RAN unable to qualify their existing trainees quickly enough.

 

[Stock]

One of the issues the RAN has had with crewing submarines is insufficient hulls to permit adequate training. Increasing the number of hulls would mean the RAN would be able to assign a submarine to training and certification of crews relieving the current bottle neck that sees the RAN unable to qualify their existing trainees quickly enough.

Ack. Would definitely like to see the full 12 boats on order. But 10 would do, and 8 is still better than 6.

 

[rockitten]

One of the issues the RAN has had with crewing submarines is insufficient hulls to permit adequate training. Increasing the number of hulls would mean the RAN would be able to assign a submarine to training and certification of crews relieving the current bottle neck that sees the RAN unable to qualify their existing trainees quickly enough.

In that case, while we are having 8+2 new sub, it that possible to keep one or 2 Collins as training vessels?

 

[t68]

In that case, while we are having 8+2 new sub, it that possible to keep one or 2 Collins as training vessels?

That now becomes a matter of logistic ( parts) and if the training syllabus can be used on both platforms. No sence training on Collins if the systems within are chalk and cheese compared to the new.

 

[t68]

Agree Volk, wasn't sure what the SA proposal was as I was walking out the door to work when they started talking about it, didn't the Howard goverment do a paper on it exploring the nuclear option, can't remember the out come of that one.

 

[the road runner]

The 7.30 Report on ABC is doing a story on future subs

 

[gf0012-aust]

Re numbers, it will be interesting to learn whether the RAN and Canberra believes it can really afford and man 12 boats.

The 12 is about a LOT build

 

[gf0012-aust]

In that case, while we are having 8+2 new sub, it that possible to keep one or 2 Collins as training vessels?

there will be 2 types in transition. it can't be avoided