Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[Volkodav]

Actually on aviation we often still assemble aircraft locally and quite often secure regional maintenance certification. We do supply a lot of components, usually complex, difficult and expensive to manufacture components, even contributing to the design of such. A lot of this capability exists as a result of deliberate efforts to retain the high tech, high value add work as the industry wound down after the Hornet program.

Aircraft are also very different to ships, they are usually built on production lines in their hundreds, if not thousands and aircraft within a batch are pretty much identical to one another, they can usually be broken down and easily transported to different locations for final assembly. No two ships, submarines even more so, of the same batch or flight are identical. While they can be built in blocks or sections these are still individually massive, literally bigger than a house and they are completely fabricated, no poured slabs or precast walls, just welded deck and bulkheads. They are measured with great precision because a block fabricated in Melbourne, Newcastle or Spain still needs to match it mating part close enough to be craned into place and welded. Every pipe joint and valve needs to be tested and passed, every cable join and termination needs to be tested and certified safe, all welds are inspected visually while a Lloyds certified weld inspection plan dictates which welds are critical and must be x-rayed.

The AWDs are the size of WWII light cruisers, they are the largest and most complex warships ever built in Australia and they are being built in a virgin yard, by a mostly new workforce after a significant shipbuilding blackhole. Anyone attempting this would encounter problems and actually the Tech Director for the first several years of the build, actually a senior BIW engineer who had been on the actual DDG-51 lead ship design and build, confirmed this. Things go wrong, the unexpected happens, sometimes the expected doesn't, you learn, you get better and you do better, then after a few ships you start building them better and quicker than you ever thought possible. Sensible little changes are introduced, some lead to efficiencies in the build some also lead to efficiency and improvements in operation of the ship.

All of this is dependent on a continuous, sustainable build, if you do it only once, or so infrequently you are effectively doing it only once, over and over again, you will never be able to apply the knowledge and experience you gained doing it the first time.

 

[John Fedup]

IMHO if Canada wants to spend 1 percent of GDP on defence then that is there business. Seriously, is there a nation on earth that has a stronger geographical security than Canada. Who is going to invade Canada? the only country is the US, and since 1812 they have decided not to. Canada has done its bit in WW1, WW2. Korea. They have participated in peacekeeping operations.

If say they spent 2 percent of GDP on defence, over decades that's hundreds of billions of dollars extra, and for what? Is there security any better.

Maybe they kept out of Iraq ( I don't know if they did or not), but was Iraq a threat to them.

More guns and bombs is not always the best way to fix the problems of the world. For the US, it would be harder to find a more benign neighbour than Canada.

They don't need a big military, so they have a small one, its their liffe

Canada in fact did not go to Iraq but rather went to Afghanistan instead. Chretien would have preferred to not go there either but the pressure was applied by the US for not joining the coalition of the willing in Iraq. As for defence spending, it is nice to have the advantage of being a superpower's neighbour but the US's difficult financial situation should be cause for Canada to help out in a bigger way. Currently our navy has no AORs or destroyers. Perhaps some more money would have prevented this situation although to be fair our horrible military procurement system may well have prevented ships from being acquired even if the money had been flowing into the RCN's budget.

 

[rockitten]

On the topic of evolved designs, what happened to the Kinnard processes where the prefered evolved or ideal design runs against the prefered MOTS option? How will we integrate the combat system locally if the hull has been fabricated overseas? We are not talking about software on a Blueray or USB stick that you upload later, we are talking cabinets, consoles, UPS (uninterruptable power supplies), specific cabling, integrated cooling for a start. Then there is the physical interface with the platform, equipment foundations, shock requirements, power supply, power requirements, cooling, heat load (conventional subs have a heat budget, as well as the more common power budget, if your systems exceed the budget something has to be shut down). The CS needs to be integrated with the selected sensor and weapon suites, not as straight forward as it sounds as based on the fact the RAN already has some of the leading systems currently available meaning we are again talking evolved as a minimum, rather than modified MOTS.

That's why in Tony Abbot's original plan was to build and assemble the WHOLE SUBMARINE in Japan. This "stupid arrangement" that you are now criticizing, is the outcome of some special interest groups in SA who see the project as their state's job-creation project. What we see, is SA hijacked the defence policy of the whole nation, jeopardizing procurement plans of our navy, and want the whole nation to pay for their failed economy.

And, many "green energy" or climate change stuff are Green's pet projects, the only reason for their existence is because Julia Gillard need to to woo the Greens to be able to hang on her seat. So many of them DESREVED to be scrapped.

If we want to say Soviet or North Korea, you better have a look how that department of climate change/climate change council were ridiculously run, or how they muted any projects/papers in CSIRO that questioned climate change.

Mate, like it or not, but compare with the last 2 governments, I think this Tony Abbot government is doing not bad on defence.

 

[vonnoobie]

That's why in Tony Abbot's original plan was to build and assemble the WHOLE SUBMARINE in Japan. This "stupid arrangement" that you are now criticizing, is the outcome of some special interest groups in SA who see the project as their state's job-creation project. What we see, is SA hijacked the defence policy of the whole nation, jeopardizing procurement plans of our navy, and want the whole nation to pay for their failed economy.

And, many "green energy" or climate change stuff are Green's pet projects, the only reason for their existence is because Julia Gillard need to to woo the Greens to be able to hang on her seat. So many of them DESREVED to be scrapped.

If we want to say Soviet or North Korea, you better have a look how that department of climate change/climate change council were ridiculously run, or how they muted any projects/papers in CSIRO that questioned climate change.

Mate, like it or not, but compare with the last 2 governments, I think this Tony Abbot government is doing not bad on defence.

I'm not so inclined to criticize Rudd on defense. While not ordering the 4th AWD was a mistake he wasn't sitting around doing diddly squat like Howard, He was starting work on replacement's for the submarines and AOR's among various other plan's and that was just the naval side of things.

One the biggest issue defense has is the politicians hate to follow the program of another, They need to do it there own way and make there own new DWP which causes a massive waste of time and uncertainty, DWP's should be the armed forces purview with the government limited to signing off on what they come up with.

 

[Volkodav]

I'm not so inclined to criticize Rudd on defense. While not ordering the 4th AWD was a mistake he wasn't sitting around doing diddly squat like Howard, He was starting work on replacement's for the submarines and AOR's among various other plan's and that was just the naval side of things.

One the biggest issue defense has is the politicians hate to follow the program of another, They need to do it there own way and make there own new DWP which causes a massive waste of time and uncertainty, DWP's should be the armed forces purview with the government limited to signing off on what they come up with.

Exactly, while Frazer actually continued with projects Whitlam had initiated before adding his own Hawke and Howard both terminated projects and made major changes to actual and planned force structures, causing huge upheavals in addition to delays. The really stupid thing is Gillard did the same to projects Rudd had or was about to kick off and even ordered a new DWP to justify her defence cuts.

It is hard not to discuss politics where defence is concerned because it has become so politicised over the last two decades with each "side" doing stupid and distuctive things for the sake of politics. Its not simply a case of Liberal Good, Labor bad or vice versa, that is just laziness.

 

[Raven22]

One the biggest issue defense has is the politicians hate to follow the program of another, They need to do it there own way and make there own new DWP which causes a massive waste of time and uncertainty, DWP's should be the armed forces purview with the government limited to signing off on what they come up with.

I very, very strongly disagree. Speaking about North Korea and the Soviet Union, this is exactly what they did/do, where the military effectively runs the country and tells the government how to do business, and exactly how much they should spend on defence etc (and, therefore, how much we must spend to defend against them).

This is NOT how democratic nations are supposed to operate, where the civilian government has primacy and tells the military what to do. It can be no other way. White papers should always be the purview of political leadership. They should get military advice on the art of the possible, but all the decisions must be made by civilians. The government tells the military WHAT to do, the military then fills in the HOW. This is where civilian interference is unwise, and military leadership should take primacy.

I agree about the wastefulness of multiple white papers by different flavours of government that constantly chop and change, but that is still far better than the alternative you describe.

 

[Raven22]

As an addition, even if it was the military making the decisions, it certainly wouldn't be the end of chopping and changing decisions and strategic direction. Military leaders can be just as guilty as civilian leaders of feathering their own nests. Imagine a Navy CDF with authority to write a new white paper. He might decide that carrier battle groups are the answer, and order a couple of those. The next CDF might be Air Force, and decide that actually bomber wings are the answer, and cancel the carriers. The next one might be army, and decide tank divisions are the answer. Stupidity and pettiness is not limited only to civilian leaders.

 

[t68]

I very, very strongly disagree. Speaking about North Korea and the Soviet Union, this is exactly what they did/do, where the military effectively runs the country and tells the government how to do business, and exactly how much they should spend on defence etc (and, therefore, how much we must spend to defend against them).
.

Agree to point, goverment sets the budget parameters and strategic guidence, defence should then set out a number of options set against the strategic parameters set by goverment, with an independant purple office away from the CDF

 

[vonnoobie]

I very, very strongly disagree. Speaking about North Korea and the Soviet Union, this is exactly what they did/do, where the military effectively runs the country and tells the government how to do business, and exactly how much they should spend on defence etc (and, therefore, how much we must spend to defend against them).

This is NOT how democratic nations are supposed to operate, where the civilian government has primacy and tells the military what to do. It can be no other way. White papers should always be the purview of political leadership. They should get military advice on the art of the possible, but all the decisions must be made by civilians. The government tells the military WHAT to do, the military then fills in the HOW. This is where civilian interference is unwise, and military leadership should take primacy.

I agree about the wastefulness of multiple white papers by different flavours of government that constantly chop and change, but that is still far better than the alternative you describe.

I may not have made my self clear enough, I did state that the government should sign off on what the armed forces (the ADF) come up with, I did not propose letting the military write them selves a blank check to do and buy as they please.

Rather my view is based on the ADF choosing when to write a DWP based on the changing military and external political situations rather then based on the internal Australian political situation.

 

[Raven22]

I may not have made my self clear enough, I did state that the government should sign off on what the armed forces (the ADF) come up with, I did not propose letting the military write them selves a blank check to do and buy as they please.

Rather my view is based on the ADF choosing when to write a DWP based on the changing military and external political situations rather then based on the internal Australian political situation.

I must say, I still disagree. You're separating military and politics - they are the same thing (cue quotes from Clausewitz). The whole purpose of the military is to achieve political aims. Those political aims are set by, funnily enough, politicians. It is they who decide what the nation must be able to achieve in a military sense. As political whims change, so must defence policy. At the risk of using another cliche, it is not the military's purpose to set policy, they enforce it.

The trick is not having the ADF drive defence policy, the trick is having politicians driving defence policy in the nation's interest, not in their own. Frank and fearless advice by the ADF is part of this, but the decision makers must always be civilian politicians.

 

[Stampede]

There's been a mountain of verbage written on these pages over the last few weeks about Australian warship and submarine builds. I have just come across this 11 minute ASPI recent video where Mark Thompson and Andrew Davies (two influential commentators) discuss these very issues and it would be a very useful pointer in the way the govt. will proceed with frigates and subs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WK4OtBx7L84&feature=youtu.be

Thanks ASSAIL for the ASPI you tube clip.

Reinforced alot of the challenges and I guess emotions that surrounds the future of shipbuilding within Australia. For myself they could have spoken a bit more on the ANZAC class ship build, expanded on the reasons for its success.and use that to provide a just a little bit more optimisim re our ship building future.
Other than this small criticism, it was a good view.

Thanks again S

 

[Volkodav]

Raven is spot on with this, in fact one of the primary reasons federation was so important and desired was to provide for national defence. The whole is driven by politicians and unfortunately professional advice is not always listened to.

Ideally policy should be formed through consulting stakeholders and experts to establish what it is we desire to be able to do, probably more a DFAT function, but also look at the importance of certain industries and their need to be defended (mining, oil and gas for instance), trade routes. Once that has been established DOD and others will advise on how policy can be implemented.

Unfortunately this process is highly politicised, not a recent thing, it was happening before WWI. Any political mileage that could be obtained was, which is sad because, bar aberrations such as DOA or Gillard, the major parties usually are not too different on policy and their views have often been interchangeable.

The comment ref what would happen if defence policy was run by the ADF is also true. While nowhere near as bad as it used to be there would likely still be rivalries and biases that would distort spending and acquisitions. Not only would we be talking service against service or corps or branch against corps or branch but potentially groups within a particular branch fighting each other.

The danger of this is these groups are so focussed on their own business that they miss the big picture and cause problems that could have been avoided. This is my concern when I read the APDR article on how the "Japanese" solution is a DFAT brainchild that is all about alliances and free trade agreements but nothing to do with the actual defence requirements for a replacement submarine. This article made so much sense to me as it is the sort of thing DFAT has been doing, and convincing successive governments to do for years, they have tunnel vision fixated on a particular goal and everything else is just a means to get there. They don't care how much damage they do to various industries, or even the economy as a whole, so long as they get that FTA or alliance, it doesn't matter if our car manufacturers shut down and tens of thousands lose their jobs, because they got the FTA signed, its someone else's problem so as far as they are concerned it is not a problem at all. If the ADF or a particular service or group within the a service has the same influence as DFAT it would be just as bad, possibly worse, because of the same sort of tunnel vision.

In theory having government ministers and parliamentary committees examining options, listening to advice, requesting reports, much of this can be avoided as those responsible for the big picture are the ones doing the sign off. Things still go wrong when a particularly forceful or convincing element manages to control the narrative, convince senior ministers that a course of action is correct, despite professional advice to the contrary. Sometime they win powerful allies for reasons that have nothing to do with the core capability in question, i.e. political horse trading.

 

[Stock]

Raven is spot on with this, in fact one of the primary reasons federation was so important and desired was to provide for national defence. The whole is driven by politicians and unfortunately professional advice is not always listened to.

Ideally policy should be formed through consulting stakeholders and experts to establish what it is we desire to be able to do, probably more a DFAT function, but also look at the importance of certain industries and their need to be defended (mining, oil and gas for instance), trade routes. Once that has been established DOD and others will advise on how policy can be implemented.

Unfortunately this process is highly politicised, not a recent thing, it was happening before WWI. Any political mileage that could be obtained was, which is sad because, bar aberrations such as DOA or Gillard, the major parties usually are not too different on policy and their views have often been interchangeable.

The comment ref what would happen if defence policy was run by the ADF is also true. While nowhere near as bad as it used to be there would likely still be rivalries and biases that would distort spending and acquisitions. Not only would we be talking service against service or corps or branch against corps or branch but potentially groups within a particular branch fighting each other.

The danger of this is these groups are so focussed on their own business that they miss the big picture and cause problems that could have been avoided. This is my concern when I read the APDR article on how the "Japanese" solution is a DFAT brainchild that is all about alliances and free trade agreements but nothing to do with the actual defence requirements for a replacement submarine. This article made so much sense to me as it is the sort of thing DFAT has been doing, and convincing successive governments to do for years, they have tunnel vision fixated on a particular goal and everything else is just a means to get there. They don't care how much damage they do to various industries, or even the economy as a whole, so long as they get that FTA or alliance, it doesn't matter if our car manufacturers shut down and tens of thousands lose their jobs, because they got the FTA signed, its someone else's problem so as far as they are concerned it is not a problem at all. If the ADF or a particular service or group within the a service has the same influence as DFAT it would be just as bad, possibly worse, because of the same sort of tunnel vision.

In theory having government ministers and parliamentary committees examining options, listing to advice, requesting reports, much of this can be avoided as those responsible for the big picture are the ones doing the sign off. Things still go wrong when a particularly forceful or convincing element manages to control the narrative, convince senior ministers that a course of action is correct, despite professional advice to the contrary. Sometime they win powerful allies for reasons that have nothing to do with the core capability in question, i.e. political horse trading.

Well said, Volkodav.

 

[vonnoobie]

The French company, DCNS, has released details of its plans for the new submarine it wants to build for Australia.

It’s a 4000 tonne, conventionally powered design based on of its Barracuda nuclear powered attack submarine.

DCNS will call the Australia version the Shortfin Barracuda after the local species PPP of the ferocious fish.

DCNS says it’s “pre-concept design” is for the world’s most advanced conventional submarines.

France, Germany and Japan are competing for the contract to build up to 12 submarines for the Royal Australian Navy worth more than $20 billion.

DCNS Australia CEO Sean Costello said the new submarine would be over 90 metres long and would displace more than 4000 tonnes when dived.

“If selected the Shortfin Barracuda will remain in service until the 2060s,” he said.

“In that time it would be updated and upgraded with new technology developed in France and Australia.

“The technical evolution of the submarine will be enabled by a strategic level Government to Government agreement between France and Australia.

“DCNS is the only submarine design company in the world to have design competencies in nuclear and conventional submarines, safely delivering submarines ranging from 2000 tons to 14,300 tons to navies all around the world.”

The Abbott government is confronting the uneasy task of juggling the futures of several of its MPs in South Australia while choosing a new submarine fleet that may be vital to the defence of the nation for decades to come.

There is a growing sense among Coalition members that unless a substantial amount of construction work on the new submarines is carried out in South Australia, they face a wipe-out in the next federal election.

The government is expected to order between six and 12 new submarines to replace the navy’s six Collins-class boats.

The government has invited Germany, France and Japan to provide detailed expressions of interest in building the new submarine fleet.

From the Australian, Apparently it's a slow new's day if they are reporting absolutely nothing we didn't already know.

 

[StingrayOZ]

From the Australian, Apparently it's a slow new's day if they are reporting absolutely nothing we didn't already know.

I wonder if the DCNS proposal would be interesting to other countries other than Australia? South American, Asian, etc.

There are crazier things. France and Australia at least share a territory boundaries.

 

[Joe Black]

From the Australian, Apparently it's a slow new's day if they are reporting absolutely nothing we didn't already know.

More on this story here:
No Cookies | The Advertiser

Or Australian's version of Soryu will be called "Goryu”, or “Australian Dragon”... interesting.

A bit about Goryu:
http://tfwiki.net/wiki/Goryu_(SG)

"Goryu is typical for a Dinobot in any universe: he's big and dumb. He has the ability to breathe ice. When in custody of the heroic Decepticons, he's a member of the Dinocons.
Me gore you!"

Goryu inadvertently creating his own name, "Dungeons & Dinobots"

 

[vonnoobie]

I wonder if the DCNS proposal would be interesting to other countries other than Australia? South American, Asian, etc.

There are crazier things. France and Australia at least share a territory boundaries.

Not much of a market for such large conventional submarines, Other then Australia countries that come to mind that may be interested going into the future are Canada and India, The rest they either don't export weapon's to (China) or find a 1,500 - 2,000t range submarine more suitable. Brazil may have been an option but they appear to be moving toward's an all nuclear fleet of submarines.

 

[Stampede]

From the Australian, Apparently it's a slow new's day if they are reporting absolutely nothing we didn't already know.

At least it keeps the subject of Australian defence in the news. May provide a thought bubble to some who are not that interested in the subject and may engender some more interest when the DWP is published.
Then again, it might just be as you said a slow news day!

 

[StingrayOZ]

Not much of a market for such large conventional submarines, Other then Australia countries that come to mind that may be interested going into the future are Canada and India, The rest they either don't export weapon's to (China) or find a 1,500 - 2,000t range submarine more suitable. Brazil may have been an option but they appear to be moving toward's an all nuclear fleet of submarines.

Im not sure if they will be all nuclear.

Brazil plans to expand submarine fleet - IHS Jane's 360

The Brazilian Navy confirmed long-term plans to build 15 diesel-electric propulsion and six nuclear-powered boats

Makes RAN submarine plans seem a little limp in comparison. But interesting none the less.

 

[swerve]

Well, Brazil is a bigger country in every way. Why shouldn't have a bigger navy?