Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[John Newman]

I still believe that the best outcome for the RAN would be eight or more subs built in Australia., and four built overseas, the four being nuclear. Virginia class would be good. I know we dont do nuclear, but we have had Lucas Heights for many years, and nothing bad has come out of that. It is about time Australia stood up.

Won't happen, not this time around anyway.

Maybe in about 30 years when we are looking for the 'replacement' for the 'Collins replacement' can I see nuclear being an option that is on the table.

Until we can have a mature and sensible debate in this country about nuclear powered naval vessels, then I can't ever see it being on the table.

It's going to require both major political parties to be 100% on the same page for such a thing to happen, otherwise I think it would be political suicide for either party to go it alone without bipartisan support.

Not saying that nuclear is right or wrong, but it's like discussing religion or climate change, people have very strong opposing views, which until the major political parties come together and have the courage to both support a sensible and mature discussion it's just not going to happen, in my opinion anyway!

Cheers,

 

[t68]

We have got the Japanese, German and French boats to consider, but can the current boats last long enough for a clean sheet design, or alternatively can we build 4 Collins MKII change out the problem ares in the existing fleet then go clean sheet

Do we really need all the others if the Americans showed the way forward to the Japanese on the existing hull why can't we do the same?

 

[rockitten]

We have got the Japanese, German and French boats to consider, but can the current boats last long enough for a clean sheet design, or alternatively can we build 4 Collins MKII change out the problem ares in the existing fleet then go clean sheet

Do we really need all the others if the Americans showed the way forward to the Japanese on the existing hull why can't we do the same?

If Labor launched the project 6 years ago, yes, that's a good idea. We keep the yards running, keep the engineering and R&D capability and get our subs in time, all based on what we have invested on the Collins. Even with the Germans&Swedes in-fighting and the issues on Collins' IP, it was doable.

But Labor didn't (in fact, they didn't placed ANY shipbuilding order at all) and the boat has sailed.

So instead of spending extra budget on a costly Collins life extension, the new PM opted to buy overseas.

 

[t68]

If Labor launched the project 6 years ago, yes, that's a good idea. We keep the yards running, keep the engineering and R&D capability and get our subs in time, all based on what we have invested on the Collins. Even with the Germans&Swedes in-fighting and the issues on Collins' IP, it was doable.

But Labor didn't (in fact, they didn't placed ANY shipbuilding order at all) and the boat has sailed.

So instead of spending extra budget on a costly Collins life extension, the new PM opted to buy overseas.

Surely we could do a MKII using all the preferred systems and using something other than the Hedemora's, RAN wanted Detroit originally but according to Kockums at the time said they would not fit, but the smaller Gotland's built around the same time had 2 set's of Detroit fitted, building 4then moving on with a clean sheet would be more desirable surely?

 

[Volkodav]

If Labor launched the project 6 years ago, yes, that's a good idea. We keep the yards running, keep the engineering and R&D capability and get our subs in time, all based on what we have invested on the Collins. Even with the Germans&Swedes in-fighting and the issues on Collins' IP, it was doable.

But Labor didn't (in fact, they didn't placed ANY shipbuilding order at all) and the boat has sailed.

So instead of spending extra budget on a costly Collins life extension, the new PM opted to buy overseas.

Its a recurring problem unfortunately, none of the three previous governments ordered any ships in their first two, or possibly even three terms (for those that lasted that long). Rudd got off to a good start with a pretty good DWP, but once Gillard, or more to the point Sussex Street took over defence went on the back burner, bloody stupid actually as kicking stuff off doesn't cost much but it does save huge sums if it's done in a timely manner.

 

[Volkodav]

Surely we could do a MKII using all the preferred systems and using something other than the Hedemora's, RAN wanted Detroit originally but according to Kockums at the time said they would not fit, but the smaller Gotland's built around the same time had 2 set's of Detroit fitted, building 4then moving on with a clean sheet would be more desirable surely?

The Collins is actually quite a different beast to the original Type 471 and could be evolved even further, i.e. new diesel generators (diesels and generators), possibly main motor, weight redistribution to permit a switch to lithium ion batteries (probably the most difficult and least likely upgrade), upgraded electrical systems, replacement of many hydraulic systems with electric motors, new generation compressors, air-conditioning, cooling, etc. New sonar was planned, I don't know what happened to that and a stretch would not have gone astray, perhaps to improve SOF support.

As well as capability improvements the modernisations would have been a life extension leaving the RAN with not just a fleet of enhanced submarines capable of remaining competitive well after the new fleet starts to enter service, they would also prove many of the systems and concepts planned for the next generation of boats. This was probably Labor's biggest stuff up on subs, kicking off an extensive upgrade and life extension would have had everything, including the design team, ready to go on a new sub.

All of this aside, the Collins remain one of the most capable submarines currently in service, due in part to the foresight of the initial RAN requirements, the quality Kockums design, and what many forget, a raft of improvements courtesy of the USN. The Fast Track program incorporated a raft of improvements, some lifted from recent US programs i.e. Seawolf and Virginia classes, hull streamlining, fairing the fin to the hull, propeller design and many others. The combat system is the current USN standard, as are the heavy weight torpedoes, coms and ESM / ELINT masts. With all of this the Collins are in some ways far in advance of any other conventional boat anywhere.

Personally I think it is the greatest shame that the platform upgrades didn't match the combat system ones and that the replacement program wasn't kicked off much earlier. IMO, political and media BS aside, ASC builds a great boat to as good a standard as anywhere and better than most, so long as the design and specified systems are up to scratch they will deliver a top quality product to any realistic schedule and budget.

 

[Stampede]

That's not as silly as its sounds, a trio of Cantabria for AOR (2x RAN 1x RNZN) or even the UK new Tides (MARS) and a trio of Karel doorman in strategic sealift role(RAN) & and a 3rd Canberra LHD(RAN) gift Choules to RNZN as a replacement for Canterbury, RSN-RNZN build 3x Endurance 160 LHD

Beefs up the Anzac amphibious options ARG(RAN)and JATF(NZ) 3x Canberra LHD and 1x Endurance 160(2x fingers crossed) Tides can be built in S Korea RAN strategic sealift could be built at an expanded tech port in SA

Hello to all,a first time post for me. The Karel Doorman srikes me as a very clever design by maintaining the traditional fleet replenishment at sea capabilities and adding significant aviation,hospital,logistical( 2000 lane metres) and additional personnel accomodation over and above what's needed for the crew. Well protected the Karl doorman is a good traditioanl AOR / strategic transport which IMO would have been the preferred choice to replace HMAS Success and Sirius. However as the Karel Doorman is not in the running and it will be down to either Daewoo's Aegir A 18A and Navantia's Cantabria,my question is; can some of the extra logistical features of the Karel Doorman ie aviation/medical/lane metres/additional personal accomodation be integrated into the competing designs?
I would also suggest three ships should be the minimum for Australia and maybe two for New Zealand. Who knows a future ANZAC class AOR/AOL/strategic transport might be a good fit for both sides of the Tasman. Commonality,economy of a multiple build and suggest, just as importantly sellable to respective governments/treasury /public.

 

[rockitten]

BYM Marine & Maritime News

That's interesting. I know BMT, I know DSTO, but ......Victoria University? If that's the one very close to Flinder st station in Melbourne, I wonder are they really that good in naval architecture? Or why that uni was chosen rather than RMIT, Monash or Melbourne Uni...............

 

[Joe Black]

Firescout and Future Frigate

Found these two pieces of articles that require premium subscription. Does anyone here have it and can share the content? Thanks.

Firescout for RAN?

10 Jun 2015

Julian Kerr | Avalon
According to CDRE James Borghardt US, deputy program manager for the MQ- 8C Fire Scout unmanned helicopter, several discussions have taken place between the US Navy and the RAN on this capability, including its potential use in the Sea5000 Future Frigate program.
Firescout for RAN?



The changing shape of Sea 5000
09 Jun 2015
Julian Kerr | Sydney

To no-one’s surprise, the primarily anti-submarine warfare (ASW) role originally envisaged for the Future Frigate replacement for the RAN’s workhorse Anzac class fleet has been superseded by much broader requirements, including area air defence.

The changing shape of Sea 5000

 

[vonnoobie]

Hello to all,a first time post for me. The Karel Doorman srikes me as a very clever design by maintaining the traditional fleet replenishment at sea capabilities and adding significant aviation,hospital,logistical( 2000 lane metres) and additional personnel accomodation over and above what's needed for the crew. Well protected the Karl doorman is a good traditioanl AOR / strategic transport which IMO would have been the preferred choice to replace HMAS Success and Sirius. However as the Karel Doorman is not in the running and it will be down to either Daewoo's Aegir A 18A and Navantia's Cantabria,my question is; can some of the extra logistical features of the Karel Doorman ie aviation/medical/lane metres/additional personal accomodation be integrated into the competing designs?
I would also suggest three ships should be the minimum for Australia and maybe two for New Zealand. Who knows a future ANZAC class AOR/AOL/strategic transport might be a good fit for both sides of the Tasman. Commonality,economy of a multiple build and suggest, just as importantly sellable to respective governments/treasury /public.

Agreed with commonality though will be hard to sell that to NZ, As to number of ships well I dont see Australia and New Zealand having a 3 - 2 split. New Zealand doesnt really need anything the size of the Aegir 18A, Unless Australia is willing to meet a portion of the cost I see the RNZ going for something like the Berlin class or the SPS Cantabria.

A few people seem to be thinking that NZ could have a sizable force. Very unlikely when you take into account the small budget, Issues in crewing vessels, the 'distance is my friend' view that has led to a reduction in the NZ armed forces etc.

Even if NZ was to match Australia number's wise at best it would still be an 80-20 split with Australia having the bulk.

 

[aussienscale]

Sea 1000

Interesting paper from ANI on Sea 1000, Its a pretty big PDF at 70 odd pages, I am about a third of the way through.

For anyone that has the time, would be interested in thoughts on this one ? The paper brings up some very good points, but is also making some pretty big assumptions, unless they get cleared up a bit further into it

Cheers

http://navalinstitute.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/SUBMARINE-DECISION-A-B-Thurs28May.pdf

 

[swerve]

Even if NZ was to match Australia number's wise at best it would still be an 80-20 split with Australia having the bulk.

NZ couldn't afford an 80:20 split.

Australia has 83.8% of the combined population, & NZ 16.2% - but it's 90.4%/9.6% for GDP (2013 World Bank estimates). At purchasing power parity, the NZ share of combined GDP goes up to 12.2% & Australia down to 87.8%, but imports have to be paid for out of current price GDP. PPP adjustment is only valid for domestic spending.

So, NZ could only pay for something between 9.6% & 12.2% of the combined military burden.

 

[cdxbow]

Interesting paper from ANI on Sea 1000, Its a pretty big PDF at 70 odd pages, I am about a third of the way through.

For anyone that has the time, would be interested in thoughts on this one ? The paper brings up some very good points, but is also making some pretty big assumptions, unless they get cleared up a bit further into it

Cheers

http://navalinstitute.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/SUBMARINE-DECISION-A-B-Thurs28May.pdf

Interesting read, good for us not in the biz. Very brave man who puts a 2.5% contingency on a project like the Collins, perhaps it was a typo and it should have been 250%.

As always good design is all about balance, and what compromises you make, or not. Unless I missed it they didn't talk about using lithium batteries/electric propulsion, which I would have thought was one of the big question marks as it would have such an impact on the design. They didn't really discuss AIP much either.

 

[Joe Black]

Interestingly, it seems like the govt is not interested in selling ASC.

Austal signals interest in buying government-owned defence firm ASC if privatised - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

 

[Volkodav]

Interestingly, it seems like the govt is not interested in selling ASC.

Austal signals interest in buying government-owned defence firm ASC if privatised - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Possibly because it would be much more difficult to use a private company as a stick to beat the previous government senseless with. There is a lot of politically motivated rhetoric and bs surrounding ASC, with ministers saying ( or worse doing) things that would result in protracted legal action if they tried the same with a privately owned or publicly listed company. With Labor you get budget cuts and micro management, while the Coalition stacks the board and launches politically motivated enquiries. End result ASC is never left to just get on with the job at hand.

 

[Stampede]

NZ couldn't afford an 80:20 split.

Australia has 83.8% of the combined population, & NZ 16.2% - but it's 90.4%/9.6% for GDP (2013 World Bank estimates). At purchasing power parity, the NZ share of combined GDP goes up to 12.2% & Australia down to 87.8%, but imports have to be paid for out of current price GDP. PPP adjustment is only valid for domestic spending.

So, NZ could only pay for something between 9.6% & 12.2% of the combined military burden.

Thanks everyone for the feedback and coming onboard for the discussion.
Swerve as you quite rightly mention re GDP and population of NZ, what is a realistic expectation of number and type of ship. I see the amalgamation of logistical support and traditional AOR in the one hull as a logical and flexible solution for the needs of small to medium naval forces. The infantry Company sized lift capacity of HMNZS Canterbury of vehicles and personnel, with the refueling capacity of HMNZS Endeavour in the one ship would in a two ship class provide a one for one replacement for the above ships.While Australias needs re fuel load would I suppect be greater than New Zealand's, a common class of basic ship could with
hull extention provide the needs for both counties.Three for Australia and two
( Canterbury/Endeavour.) for New Zealand.
I cannot see New Zealand getting a Landing ship dock or small LHD type of ship.
However desirable it's just not a political sell. The above (purple asset) might be.

I don't see much benefit in single ship capabilities as when ships go into short/long term refit and repair you lose that ships offering all together.Hence NZ 2 X ship.
In the Australian context the more stategic transport capacity the better. I can see the ships as an excellent complement to our new Canberra class as I envisage our LHD's being the most sort after and in demand ships in the fleet.
For Australia it looks like we are down to a chice of two ships. So maybe we concentrate on pushing for 3 ships,look at any options re increased stategic lift capacity (Germanys third ship of the Berlin class had increased accomodation re overseas experience ) and see if the winning design is scalable in size for both Australia and New Zealand.

 

[John Newman]

Interestingly, it seems like the govt is not interested in selling ASC.

Austal signals interest in buying government-owned defence firm ASC if privatised - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Joe, why is it (in your opinion), that the Government is 'not interested' in selling ASC? I'd like to hear your opinion on this one, ok?

Is there a gun at the head of the Government at the moment to rush through a sale of ASC? No I don't think so. Just because Austal comes along and says it is interested in 'acquiring ASC if the terms were right' does that mean the Government should be rushing around to give it away? No I don't think so.

The question should be, when (and if) is the right time to consider selling off ASC?


Just my opinion, I would think the 'right' time to consider selling off ASC, part or whole, will be when the winners are announced for both the Collins replacement and Future Frigates projects and not before.

It would appear at the moment that the 'two' current arms of ASC, Collins sustainment and maintenance, and the AWD project are in two different places, the Collins sustainment part of the business appears to be going along quiet well with what appears to certainly be a big improvements in Collins availability (regardless of whatever internal or external influences have contributed to that).

On the other hand the ASC part of the business involved in the AWD Alliance appears (rightly or wrongly) to be in a different space to the submarine sustainment side of the business, hopefully that is and will continue to improve too.

Anyway, I would think that once the winners for both the Collins replacement and the Future Frigates are known, then that should be the time that serious consideration should be given to privatising ASC.

For example, the Germans have already said that they would be interested in acquiring ASC to be able to build Submarines, Frigates and OPV's, well if they did in fact win all of those projects it may be a good idea to sell it off to them, it would mean they have more 'skin in the game' by being both the designer of the product and also the builder of the product, would have a lot more at stake.

On the other hand, if for example one nation's product wins the Collins replacement and another nations product win the Future Frigate, it may be more appropriate to 'split' ASC and sell the appropriate division to the relevant party involved.

Lets not forget that the Techport site is a 'multi-user' site and is owned by the SA Government and at the end of the day ASC and others are 'tenants', for a better word, on the Techport site. ASC may currently be the major tenant, but it's not the only one and doesn't have to be the only one. The site has plenty of space for a shipbuilder (or builders), a submarine builder and a submarine maintainer too.

 

[Joe Black]

Joe, why is it (in your opinion), that the Government is 'not interested' in selling ASC? I'd like to hear your opinion on this one, ok?

Is there a gun at the head of the Government at the moment to rush through a sale of ASC? No I don't think so. Just because Austal comes along and says it is interested in 'acquiring ASC if the terms were right' does that mean the Government should be rushing around to give it away? No I don't think so.

The question should be, when (and if) is the right time to consider selling off ASC?


Just my opinion, I would think the 'right' time to consider selling off ASC, part or whole, will be when the winners are announced for both the Collins replacement and Future Frigates projects and not before.

John, I do hope that this is what they are looking at doing as per your suggestion. However, in my opinion, they are not making the right noise about the potential sales of ASC. Perhaps they want to keep their game plan close to their chest.

Anyway, here's a success story coming from Austal that we can all be proud of:
"US shows faith: Australian shipbuilders can rule the waves" The Australian June 15 2015
http://www.austal.com/Libraries/New...-Defence-News/The-Australian-June-15-2015.pdf

 

[Joe Black]

French open to joint bid with Japan on submarines for Sea1000?

The French government is exploring the possibility of a collaboration with Japan to land Australia's $20 billion future submarine contract.

Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

I don't have a subscription with The Australian so I can't really cut and paste the entire article for all. Does anyone with a subscription be kind enuff to paste the article here.

Thanks

 

[John Newman]

John, I do hope that this is what they are looking at doing as per your suggestion. However, in my opinion, they are not making the right noise about the potential sales of ASC. Perhaps they want to keep their game plan close to their chest.

Joe, actually I think you are wrong about that, why does the Government have to be making the 'right noise' about a potential sale of ASC at the current time?

I'll give you an example of what I mean, for many years I was in the real estate industry and we had a number of sayings that apply to this.

There are 'buyers' markets and 'sellers' markets, in a buyers market the seller has to bend over backwards to make the sale enticing enough for the buyer to buy, quiet often there is only one buyer and that makes it even harder for the seller, eventually the seller has to drop their pants to get the sale done.

On the other hand when its a sellers market, the seller just has to wait there and watch the buyers jump all over each other, cutting each others throats, upping the ante with their bids till you have drained them all for their last dollar, then you sell it to them!

The other saying is 'he who talks first looses!', when I was selling houses, you sat there, kept your mouth shut, and let the buyer do all the talking and let them talk themselves into buying, spending more money than they really had to, lots of fun, great game if you play it right.

So what does that have to do with the Government and possibly selling ASC?

Well at the moment its a seller's market, and I see the Government as the 'seller' and the bidders for the various submarine and ship projects as the 'buyers'.

The Government is sitting there with a bunch of big carrots in its hands, worth many 10's of Billion of dollars, waving them in front of all the contenders that want to win the prizes (eg, submarines and ships).

We've already had the Germans say they are interested in ASC, we've just had Austal come out and say it is interested, who's next? The French? eventually the Japanese? And maybe other contenders who are after the Future Frigate project too.

To me the Government is doing the correct thing, dangle the carrots and let the buyers come up with their best offering to seal the deal.

Another old saying, 'you got to know when to hold and when to fold', at the moment with the cards the Government is holding, it doesn't have to fold, not yet anyway!!