Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[t68]

So as not to go off topic in the RAAF thread have moved the conversation here,

Just imagine if we had actually acquired the two ships we originally flagged, the ones that were in good material condition and didn't need extensive repairs just to make them seaworthy. They could have been in service sooner, after far less expensive and time consuming upgrades (due to less repairs and refurbishment being required) and could probably also have remained in service until the LHDs entered service. Great opportunity, poorly executed.

Wasn't awere that they had a choice of better hulls, what's was the story behind that deal?

I do know that the main reason behind it was the goverment of the day bulked at the price of mil spec ship, from memory it's was a Harpers Ferry class LSD which we could have bought in the end for the price of the Bill&Ben

 

[John Fedup]

No luck either. The whole page won't load.
Could it be that the site can not be accessed from outside Australia?

It loads ok here in Canada.

 

[Volkodav]

So as not to go off topic in the RAAF thread have moved the conversation here,



Wasn't awere that they had a choice of better hulls, what's was the story behind that deal?

I do know that the main reason behind it was the goverment of the day bulked at the price of mil spec ship, from memory it's was a Harpers Ferry class LSD which we could have bought in the end for the price of the Bill&Ben

A competent team selected the two best hulls available but due to delays in signing off on the decision they were no longer available and another two ships were selected by less competent people. The two ships actually bought looked pretty enough (new paint) but had severe corrosion issues, i.e. the bilge was full of concrete and the shell plating had completely rusted through in many areas.

 

[t68]

A competent team selected the two best hulls available but due to delays in signing off on the decision they were no longer available and another two ships were selected by less competent people. The two ships actually bought looked pretty enough (new paint) but had severe corrosion issues, i.e. the bilge was full of concrete and the shell plating had completely rusted through in many areas.

Thanks for that, so the slow wheels of procurement was the main reason for getting what we got, as they say first in best dressed

 

[Volkodav]

Thanks for that, so the slow wheels of procurement was the main reason for getting what we got, as they say first in best dressed

Ah huh and it also predisposed future governments against surplus gear, meaning we missed out on the superb Kidd class destroyers that had already received the New Threat Upgrade making them much better value than the FFG UP.

 

[ASSAIL]

The attached aspi paper is a dispassionate appraisal of strategic issues concerning the possibility of the RAN co-operating with Japan for the FSM.

The authors make the point that few of the strategic positives are ever discussed but the negatives always are.
I found it a refreshing discussion.https://www.aspi.org.au/publications/the-strategic-dimension-of-option-j-australias-submarine-choice-and-its-security-relations-with-japan/SI85_Submarines_option_J.pdf

 

[ASSAIL]

When risk aversion defies common sense

I had an interesting conversation with one of our customers during our Easter cruises on Darwin harbour. This chap has some involvement with the Armidale class PB refits in Darwin and as we passed HMAS Coonawarra, the refit shed was empty and a PB was sitting in the boat park with a large white tent covering her.
Being an inquisitive soul I asked the rhetorical question, why is this so??? It was unexpectedly answered thus - Since the HMAS Bundaburg fir at Aluminium Boat Builders in Brisbane last year, the RAN/Austal are not allowed to use the refit shed because it is not fitted with fixed fire suppression equipment!
The result is that current refits are now being conducted in the wet season rain in a tent despite the shed having a clean record over the last 30 years.
TOTAL mind numbing BS IMHO naturally.

 

[t68]

I had an interesting conversation with one of our customers during our Easter cruises on Darwin harbour. This chap has some involvement with the Armidale class PB refits in Darwin and as we passed HMAS Coonawarra, the refit shed was empty and a PB was sitting in the boat park with a large white tent covering her.
Being an inquisitive soul I asked the rhetorical question, why is this so??? It was unexpectedly answered thus - Since the HMAS Bundaburg fir at Aluminium Boat Builders in Brisbane last year, the RAN/Austal are not allowed to use the refit shed because it is not fitted with fixed fire suppression equipment!
The result is that current refits are now being conducted in the wet season rain in a tent despite the shed having a clean record over the last 30 years.
TOTAL mind numbing BS IMHO naturally.

Certainly not hard to run some 3in pipe with sprinkler heads and a couple of water cannons at either end, but you would think that would be mandatory when considering the possible fire hazards in the work area anyway.

 

[Joe Black]

The attached aspi paper is a dispassionate appraisal of strategic issues concerning the possibility of the RAN co-operating with Japan for the FSM.

The authors make the point that few of the strategic positives are ever discussed but the negatives always are.
I found it a refreshing discussion.https://www.aspi.org.au/publication...tions-with-japan/SI85_Submarines_option_J.pdf

And the counter points are quick to come too....
The strategic risks of Option J

I am starting to think that the best option for Australia is to build our own subs with foreign help. Utilise the Soryu's hull and drivetrain, do the rest with help from TDW or Saab.

 

[Punta74]

Excuse me if this has been asked before, but what would be the logistics in using the Virginia hull with Japan propulsion ?

 

[ASSAIL]

Certainly not hard to run some 3in pipe with sprinkler heads and a couple of water cannons at either end, but you would think that would be mandatory when considering the possible fire hazards in the work area anyway.

I think that if it was that simple it would have been done. The attached shows my old girl inside the shed in 1983 and you can see from the red pipes that a firemain is fitted.
Territory Stories: HMAS Assail (P89) patrol boat / Bert Wiedemann

I still can't cop that what has been good for 30+ years is now unsatisfactory, stupidity of the first order

 

[protoplasm]

Excuse me if this has been asked before, but what would be the logistics in using the Virginia hull with Japan propulsion ?

Virginia is over 7,000 tons, Soryu is a bit over 4,000 submerged. They are totally different sizes, different layout, you'd be starting from scratch anyway to design and engineer a powertrain swap.

 

[weegee]

Hi Guys,

I came across this video from Facebook today. A nice little aerial video show the 2 Hobarts under construction at ASC. It looks like Brisbane is going well? how is her schedule going compared to the first one?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYAQa5s0DLE

 

[Punta74]

Virginia is over 7,000 tons, Soryu is a bit over 4,000 submerged. They are totally different sizes, different layout, you'd be starting from scratch anyway to design and engineer a powertrain swap.

Is it primarily just the back end that would need to be re-designed ? Could you keep most of the rest the same ?

Even with a MOTS like Soryu, from what i read it's still going to require significant design for US combat systems etc.

In theory what is easier ?

 

[alexsa]

Is it primarily just the back end that would need to be re-designed ? Could you keep most of the rest the same ?

Even with a MOTS like Soryu, from what i read it's still going to require significant design for US combat systems etc.

In theory what is easier ?

Weight distribution is a critical starting point, I suggest it would be a significant design (new design based on some elements of the old) with considerable risk.

 

[Todjaeger]

Is it primarily just the back end that would need to be re-designed ? Could you keep most of the rest the same ?

Even with a MOTS like Soryu, from what i read it's still going to require significant design for US combat systems etc.

In theory what is easier ?

When you modify a design, especially a sub, any significant changes in overall vessel displacement impact how a vessel floats in the water. Have too great a percentage of overall displacement aft and the stern will ride lower vs. the bow.

To some degree this can be fine or even preferred (depending design, role, etc) however, have too great a percentage can result in the vessel being unseaworthy.

Or in the case of a sub, either a design that cannot dive, or can only dive once, because it will never come back up again.

 

[StingrayOZ]

When you modify a design, especially a sub, any significant changes in overall vessel displacement impact how a vessel floats in the water. Have too great a percentage of overall displacement aft and the stern will ride lower vs. the bow.
.

There will be a significant redesign, because it is not really suitable for operating from Australian waters as it will be slower than Collins getting to/from station with two engines approximate power/size of two of the 3 from Collins and with reduced range.

While the Japanese have refitted Li-batteries to the AIP section, we might need another engine, more diesel which will most likely would need to come at the cost of the lead acid batteries giving some up for combat systems, engines, diesel and weapons. I would hazard we would need to give up (for example) Li batteries and some of the lead acid to get the capability we would want.

Then you have the risk of trying to integrate US systems with Japanese systems. Who builds and manages the project design, build and integration and how that will work.

 

[Punta74]

Then you have the risk of trying to integrate US systems with Japanese systems. Who builds and manages the project design, build and integration and how that will work.

Won't this element of integration still be major risk if Soryu is chosen anyway ?

 

[rand0m]

Hi Guys,

I came across this video from Facebook today. A nice little aerial video show the 2 Hobarts under construction at ASC. It looks like Brisbane is going well? how is her schedule going compared to the first one?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYAQa5s0DLE

Why couldn't we just have bought the baby Burke's and have done with it!

 

[John Fedup]

Is it primarily just the back end that would need to be re-designed ? Could you keep most of the rest the same ?

Even with a MOTS like Soryu, from what i read it's still going to require significant design for US combat systems etc.

In theory what is easier ?

As others have already commented, weight distribution is critical. Read about Navantia's minor calculation problem with the S-80 sub for Spain. A 75 ton increase resulted in a sub that would sink. An expensive redesign by Electric Boat solved the problem for Navantia. If a Virginia size boat is needed then buy the nuke power plant and save a lot grief, perhaps some money too in the long run.