Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

Status
Not open for further replies.

Stock

Member
Yes I've looked at these before, however better seakeeping for open ocean journeys is what the ran is after, and I'm not sure the Turkish craft, essentially flat bottomed and designed for the med is really going to deliver that. Also, not really that much difference in size between the two types....maybe only 4 lst100s to replace the lchs.
You might be right.

The govt recently stated that 6 LCH Replacements would be acquired, which of course means nothing really when the first of them won't enter service for another 7 years.

There is the Sea Transport Solutions stern landing vessel - designed in Oz - which achieves better speeds and seakeeping than flat bottomed, blunt bow landing craft. It has some support within Navy but has yet to gain much traction despite being around now in commercial service for several years in various configurations.

Sea Transport Naval Architecture
 
You might be right.

The govt recently stated that 6 LCH Replacements would be acquired, which of course means nothing really when the first of them won't enter service for another 7 years.

There is the Sea Transport Solutions stern landing vessel - designed in Oz - which achieves better speeds and seakeeping than flat bottomed, blunt bow landing craft. It has some support within Navy but has yet to gain much traction despite being around now in commercial service for several years in various configurations.

Sea Transport Naval Architecture
Thank you. Exactly the link I was trying to find. Someone on this board a while back, included a pdf document with some more military designs by the same company. They look viable to me.

EDIT; It was AG back in 2011. Link is now dead unfort
The RAN and Army actually have their own ideas for the LCH replacement (JP2048-5 "Independent Watercraft"). It will be a ship much bigger than the LCH at around 1,300 tonnes and able (working as a pair) to deploy a combat team sized force. The key requirement is being able to land the force and also provide sea going sailing. The BMT Caiman is close to the requirement and there are some interesting stern loaded ideas out there (the ramp is at the aft of the ship). The Australian designed SLV [Stern Landing Vessel] has generated a lot of interest in the RAN. The 65m hull looks designed for JP2048-5.

http://www.seatransport.com/files/pdf/COMPRESSED-Sea-Transport-Military-Solutions-Nov-2009.pdf
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
I could be wrong, but apart from community acceptance being an issue, there is almost a complete lack of corporate knowledge relating to the operation, in-service maintenance and deeper level support of nuclear powered submarines in the RAN. Not so long ago boats were being laid up because of a shortage of experienced, qualified technical sailors, an SSN, with their significantly larger crews (especially in their engineering departments), would require a larger number of even more highly trained, difficult to recruit technical sailors. Also in the USN submarine branch officers are trained in the operation of nuclear reactors and I believe are required to have either engineering or a physics major in a science degree.

It would take a couple of decades to build the sort of corporate knowledge required to operate SSNs proficiently. If we decided to go down that path we would still need a new generation of long range conventionals to cover the RANs needs while the nucs worked up.
Countries like the US, UK, France, Russia, and a few others that have nuclear power stations and/or nuclear industries clearly have an advantage as there will be a pool of trained nuclear personnel. Canada has such people available which is why the Mulroney government considered nuclear subs back in the at 1980s. Unfortunately, the idea died with his government and we ended up with 4 used subs that should not have been bought.
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Give him a hint - Something like a newer better Collins. Oh well ...and this guy wants to win a contract for multiple billions! FM twice.
That was one of the worst performances I've seen in decades

even as a GBE he should have been talking to potential competitors about a shared build opportunity

I'd suggest that his tenure is on short finals after that performance
he devalued the company - and blind freddy knows that Libs always consider flogging off Fed GBE's as part of ongoing policy forward planning
 

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
That was one of the worst performances I've seen in decades

even as a GBE he should have been talking to potential competitors about a shared build opportunity

I'd suggest that his tenure is on short finals after that performance
he devalued the company - and blind freddy knows that Libs always consider flogging off Fed GBE's as part of ongoing policy forward planning
It was bloody painful to watch (saw it on A-Pac on foxtel). His 2IC was trying to fix things, but bejesus, I thought he was going to purger himself when being asked about how collins was tendered when they used his own words.

Its quite clear they have been sitting on their hands (and both sides I don't think are happy about that) and didn't even seem clear about what was going on (even about stuff he should know).

Obviously ASC management isn't improving the situation it didn't seem eager to do anything.

It wasn't like they had a bunch of heavy weight hard hitter senators either.
 

ASSAIL

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
That was one of the worst performances I've seen in decades

even as a GBE he should have been talking to potential competitors about a shared build opportunity

I'd suggest that his tenure is on short finals after that performance
he devalued the company - and blind freddy knows that Libs always consider flogging off Fed GBE's as part of ongoing policy forward planning
Definitely time to wield the knife. Take ASC away from building surface ships (many of you have read the attached The Collins Class Submarine Story: Steel, Spies and Spin - Peter Yule, Derek Woolner - Google Books but the point that Woolner and Yule make so well is that a submarine construction and surface ship construction should be kept well apart.

If it pans out the way I suspect, the subs will be built by whoever buys out ASC (Kockums/Kawasaki, Mitsubishi/whoever) and (likely) BAE takes on the AWD and future frigates.

Interesting to note that Damen has partnered with Kockums to bid for the Netherlands Walrus replacement.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
I am absolutely enthralled by the Australian submarine debate. From a Canadian prospective, Australians are lucky there is consensus that subs will need to be replaced at some point. Canada will likely see submarine capability die with the Victoria class boats due to voter apathy. The Collins class investment has been substantial, just like Canada's investment in military aviation with the Avro Arrow back in the 1950s. We unwisely threw our investment away. Perhaps Australia will ultimately do better.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Definitely time to wield the knife. Take ASC away from building surface ships (many of you have read the attached The Collins Class Submarine Story: Steel, Spies and Spin - Peter Yule, Derek Woolner - Google Books but the point that Woolner and Yule make so well is that a submarine construction and surface ship construction should be kept well apart.

If it pans out the way I suspect, the subs will be built by whoever buys out ASC (Kockums/Kawasaki, Mitsubishi/whoever) and (likely) BAE takes on the AWD and future frigates.

Interesting to note that Damen has partnered with Kockums to bid for the Netherlands Walrus replacement.
The Woolner-Yule link is an interesting read.
 
Last edited:

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Definitely time to wield the knife. Take ASC away from building surface ships (many of you have read the attached The Collins Class Submarine Story: Steel, Spies and Spin - Peter Yule, Derek Woolner - Google Books but the point that Woolner and Yule make so well is that a submarine construction and surface ship construction should be kept well apart.

If it pans out the way I suspect, the subs will be built by whoever buys out ASC (Kockums/Kawasaki, Mitsubishi/whoever) and (likely) BAE takes on the AWD and future frigates.
His performance makes it extremely difficult to defend the company - and actually starts to vindicate Johnson even though his comment was intemperate and somewhat infused with colour and movement

Its even more extraordinary when you factor in that they could have easily countered with a number of facts which are incontestable against some of their likely competitors

eg availability rates, dimension control etc

anyway news is Kockums is out and ASC is also now out

ASC will get piece work

contest will be between germany france and japan with max aust involvement for sustainment
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Ok we appear to have movement and it is interesting.
Earlier reports that an Australian build had been ruled out appear to be incorrect however it is still extremely unlikely and the combat system side of it basically means a win for Raytheon meaning there are effectively no guarantees for ASC at all. My biggest take home is we are now talking A$50billion for an imported fleet.

Minister for Defence – Strategic direction of the Future Submarine Program


20 February 2015



Today the Government announces the acquisition strategy for the Future Submarine Program. This announcement sets out further details of the competitive evaluation process that will be undertaken by the Department of Defence.

Submarines are an essential component of Australia’s naval capability and the Government will ensure that the future submarine provides the best possible capability and value for money for Australian taxpayers while maximising the involvement of Australian industry.

Submarines are the most complex, sensitive and expensive Defence capability acquisition a Government can make.

Australia’s national security and $1.6 trillion economy depend on secure sea lanes. We need the best possible submarine to protect our trade and support our maritime security.

It must be delivered in time to avoid a capability gap in the mid-2020s when the Collins Class submarine is scheduled to be retired from service. The decisions we make on the Future Submarine Program will determine what kind of capability we have to defend Australia and Australian interests into the 2040s and beyond.

The process outlined by the Government today provides a pathway for Australian industry to maximise its involvement in the program, whilst not compromising capability, cost, program schedule or risk.

The Government expects that significant work will be undertaken in Australia during the build phase of the future submarine including combat system integration, design assurance and land based testing. This will result in the creation at least 500 new high-skill jobs in Australia, the majority of which will be based in South Australia.

The Future Submarine Program is the largest Defence procurement program in Australia’s history and represents an investment in the order of $50 billion in Australia’s security. These costs will be subject to refinement through the competitive evaluation process. A significant proportion of this investment will be spent in Australia during the lifetime of the future submarine.

Successive governments have used various kinds of competitive evaluation processes for major Defence capability procurements.

As part of this competitive evaluation process, the Department of Defence will seek proposals from potential partners for:

a) Pre-concept designs based on meeting Australian capability criteria;

b) Options for design and build overseas, in Australia, and/or a hybrid approach;

c) Rough order of magnitude (ROM) costs and schedule for each option; and

d) Positions on key commercial issues, for example intellectual property rights and the ability to use and disclose technical data.

In addition to this – and on the advice of Defence – the Government has endorsed a set of key strategic requirements for our future submarines:

a) Range and endurance similar to the Collins Class submarine;

b) Sensor performance and stealth characteristics that are superior to the Collins Class submarine; and

c) The combat system and heavyweight torpedo jointly developed between the United States and Australia as the preferred combat system and main armament.

Defence advises that for Australian industry to have the best opportunity to maximise their involvement in the Future Submarine Program, it needs to work with an international partner.

Based on work completed by Defence, France, Germany, and Japan have emerged as potential international partners. All three countries have proven submarine design and build capabilities and are currently producing submarines.

France, Germany and Japan will be invited to participate in this competitive evaluation process that will assess their ability to partner with Australia to develop a Future Submarine that meets our capability requirements.

The Department of Defence will invite potential international partners to seek opportunities for Australian industry participation in the Future Submarine Program.

The competitive evaluation process will help the Government balance important considerations including capability, cost, schedule, and risk. Interoperability with our alliance partner, the United States, will also be a fundamental consideration.

The competitive evaluation process will take around ten months, after which an international partner will be selected for Australia’s Future Submarine Program. Further details about Australian industry involvement are also expected to be known at that point.

The competitive evaluation process will ensure that capability, cost, schedule, and key strategic considerations, along with Australian industry involvement, are carefully and methodically considered, and avoid unnecessary delays to the Future Submarine Program.

The Department of Defence will soon be holding industry briefings to inform Australian industry about the process and how they can engage with potential international partners.

An expert advisory panel will also be appointed to oversee the competitive evaluation process. Further details about this will be announced once individual appointments are confirmed.
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Ok we appear to have movement and it is interesting.
Earlier reports that an Australian build had been ruled out appear to be incorrect
Nope, ASC are out of designing or building

Its the french, germans and japanese

kockums and ASC are out
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
His performance makes it extremely difficult to defend the company - and actually starts to vindicate Johnson even though his comment was intemperate and somewhat infused with colour and movement

Its even more extraordinary when you factor in that they could have easily countered with a number of facts which are incontestable against some of their likely competitors

eg availability rates, dimension control etc

anyway news is Kockums is out and ASC is also now out

ASC will get piece work

contest will be between germany france and japan with max aust involvement for sustainment
I am actually wondering if he was read the riot act during Andrews visit last week, something along the lines of "remember what happened to the last two CEOs when they didn't tow the government line", or "you can remain CEO of the maintainer or someone else can be".

I watched the piece on Youtube and was not impressed, it definitely stinks of him being told what to say, remember they are government owned. The bloke next to him is, or was the top ASC person in the alliance, which still means he answered to a variety of Raytheon and DMO people.
 

t68

Well-Known Member
I wonder if sports tab are taking bets?

What about you GF you a betting man, what do you reckon the odds will be?
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
I am actually wondering if he was read the riot act during Andrews visit last week, something along the lines of "remember what happened to the last two CEOs when they didn't tow the government line", or "you can remain CEO of the maintainer or someone else can be".

I watched the piece on Youtube and was not impressed, it definitely stinks of him being told what to say, remember they are government owned. The bloke next to him is, or was the top ASC person in the alliance, which still means he answered to a variety of Raytheon and DMO people.
true, as a GBE he has some constraints - but he could have put up a better display and talked about how good Collins actually is, and how good their actual capability is

the problem is that everyone has been a tad too polite out of necessity in the past - and I'm guessing thats why Kockums has now been given short shrift as "correctness" is now suspended
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
I wonder if sports tab are taking bets?

What about you GF you a betting man, what do you reckon the odds will be?

personal view based on dealing with other military projects before coming back to Govt.....

French are out and its a contest between germany and japan

politically I would see a preference for japan
 

ASSAIL

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
QUOTE]In addition to this – and on the advice of Defence – the Government has endorsed a set of key strategic requirements for our future submarines:

a) Range and endurance similar to the Collins Class submarine;

b) Sensor performance and stealth characteristics that are superior to the Collins Class submarine; and

c) The combat system and heavyweight torpedo jointly developed between the United States and Australia as the preferred combat system and main armament

None of this is surprising and should have been known by ASC. He was either being totally mischievous, having learned that he was sacked and trying to make govt. look bad or he is totally incompetent. Either way it was an incredibly poor performance
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
None of this is surprising and should have been known by ASC. He was either being totally mischievous, having learned that he was sacked and trying to make govt. look bad or he is totally incompetent. Either way it was an incredibly poor performance
Item C in that shortlist will be the kicker in the selection - and it will also impact on the construction model

you can't build the hull and then ship it here for a refit of the combat system
 

rockitten

Member
personal view based on dealing with other military projects before coming back to Govt.....

French are out and its a contest between germany and japan

politically I would see a preference for japan
Sounds like German is going to lost an Aussie sub deal to an export newbie not once, but twice.

In fact, it seems kicking out the only European bid that US may willing to share sensitive data with (Sweden) is to guarantee Soryu will win.
 

t68

Well-Known Member
Item C in that shortlist will be the kicker in the selection - and it will also impact on the construction model

you can't build the hull and then ship it here for a refit of the combat system
Anyhow does the US veiw Germany in regards to the combat system?

Or it's really a one horse race chasing the rising sun
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top