Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[gf0012-aust]

Seem's to me that all of the contender's have there weak points.

France having a poor history of building ships abroad with shoddy plans

no, there are other issues as others have pointed out

Germany building abroad quite well, But in doing so a good chunk of the tech we would rely on other nations would also have.. Has its advantages but also hs its disadvantages.

what disadvantages? - the germans are probably the best technical contenders for an organic build - its more involved than that thouigh

and Japan, I don't see there plan's being of poor quality, Rather there biggest flaw is there inexperience in such project's on an international scale compared to locally as can be read here Japan's poor submarine pitch deters Australian industry | The Japan Times.

Sorry, the issue of tech transfer and international experience with large scale tech programs is absolute nonsense - they're actually bigger than france in large tech projects.

With France and Germany already in the process of talking with local industry to ascertain what capability we have as such what we can do here our selves and Japan not doing so, Leaves them behind a bit. Not too late and on some level I do like the Soryu but they have some catching up to do in the aspect of actually selling there product.

and that information is coming from the media isn't it - because the reality of what the japanese have apparently done in discussions is not even remotely accurate in the press

if you believe in the broader media providing any meaningful commentary you will be sorely disappointed in the long run - they have no idea - and I'd bet my left nut on the accuracy of their claims about what has been discussed, to who and under what circumstances and conditions any of the bidders have offered up.

95% of the commentary in the broader media is just horse $hit at the moment - and for those who are older and who'd gone through this merry go round prev its pretty apparent that its colour and movement and severe absence of accuracy.

None of those journos have any idea of what's been discussed, not matter how loud and confident they are in their articles.

I susbscribe to JT and have done so for a long while - they're generally cautious and a good read - but on defence matters none of the JMSDF would be remotely discussing what has been going on - its not in their nature to do so

 

[StingrayOZ]

Maybe they see as the product sells its self with meeting most of the MOTS requirements, with ASC being goverment owned I guess they have to work with who they are told is that the case?

I think its more of a case of the Japanese not understanding the rules and conditions of this whole process or implementing them differently.

Thats fairly understandable. Until recently, a defence minister, federal mps, DMO, state premier, ASC, RAN and the media and Australian public didn't know the rules or conditions of this process. Its not like they have a partner they can go to do help them with this, the Gov isn't going to hold hands.

TKMS would be all over this (and have been from day zero). They were aggressive before, when the promise an unbelievable fixed price for locally built subs. They knew they weren't going to have to honour that, but would mean they would have to be considered in any process.The public would demand it.

If TKMS can out manoeuvre Australia's PM, I don't think the Japanese really knew what they would be up against. TKMS will be trying every trick in the book. At this stage its less about the building of subs as landing the contract. TKMS are a capable outfit, they aren't going to lie down on this. This is possibly the biggest contract of this type that will ever exist, ever.

 

[swerve]

...
On a very minor scale, I ran a pearling fleet with all Japanese gear for 30 years, companies such as; Furuno, JRC, Yanmar, Niigata, Nico, and numerous pump manufacturers, refrigeration systems, air compressors ad infinitum. All run from remote Darwin, all with excellent English documentation, in fact most better than local docs.
Electrical wiring in fishing vessels, all armoured cabling on cable trays, something never seen on Australian built fishing vessels, fantastic reliable switching gear and switchboards all making Australian built look like jerry built house installations.

If they do this for fishing/pearling ships I have no doubt that Japanese design for combat ships will be top shelf.

Right now I'm taking a snack break from checking corporate profiles in English, for 17 Japanese firms with offices or factories in Thailand. It's depressing - because small companies (smallest checked so far has 30 employees, making a centrifugal filter of their own design) have an international presence, websites translated into English (not faultlessly, but good enough: & no probs at all with the technical stuff), etc. & there are so many of 'em in one small area of the Tokyo suburbs. I can't help comparing it with British industry - or what there is left of it.

 

[Stock]

Link to latest (September) issue of Defence Technology Review below:

Defence Technology Review : DTR SEP 2015, Page 1

 

[gf0012-aust]

The Diplomats comment on future subs...

Failure to Communicate: Will Japan Fall Behind on Australia’s Collins-replacement Contract? | The Diplomat

 

[gf0012-aust]

The Diplomat ... AUSINDEX

Australia, India to Hold First Ever Naval Exercise Amid China Concerns | The Diplomat

 

[weegee]

RAN's new colours

Hey guys,

I just came across this image on facebook from the BAE page stating how HMAS Ballarat had completed ASMD upgrade and HMAS Toowoomba getting ready to start hers.
What I found interesting is that this is the first image I have seen of the new RAN colours in comparison to old RAN colour scheme. Don't think I mind it to be honest.

 

[Nick underscore]

Hey guys,

I just came across this image on facebook from the BAE page stating how HMAS Ballarat had completed ASMD upgrade and HMAS Toowoomba getting ready to start hers.
What I found interesting is that this is the first image I have seen of the new RAN colours in comparison to old RAN colour scheme. Don't think I mind it to be honest.

Thanks for the side-by-side. Contrasting differences IMV, both the paint job and the upgrade.

Not sure I'm a fan of the new colours. For some reason in reminds me of European Navy's (Germany in particular)

 

[Flexson]

Hey guys,

I just came across this image on facebook from the BAE page stating how HMAS Ballarat had completed ASMD upgrade and HMAS Toowoomba getting ready to start hers.
What I found interesting is that this is the first image I have seen of the new RAN colours in comparison to old RAN colour scheme. Don't think I mind it to be honest.

Two of the SML's have been painted as well, there was a photo on the RAN facebook page of the two wearing Haze Grey parked behind the two wearing Storm Grey.

Hope they get around to changing the colour on the domes as well.

 

[Volkodav]

With France all I can think of is Tiger, MRH90 and MU90, lets not forget KC-30. Not bad platforms / systems but each was sold to Australia as a low risk, turn key MOTS option and each turned out to be highly developmental, resulting in significant delays (years not months) compromises in the level of capability available at the much delayed IOC, the need for Australia to step up and take the lead in certification work just to get the platform into service and the need to compromise on the level of capability available to the ADF due to lack of support.

In recent decades to buy French was to risk delays, performance shortfalls, cost over runs, lack of support / spares and to be left without a required capability for years (sometimes almost a decade) or far too often, to have to scale back the original requirement and supplement it with a suitable alternative. Cheaper, easier, less risky and faster to buy elsewhere, no matter how sexy the French gear appears.

 

[vonnoobie]

my prefs under the current loaded bases

1 japan
2 germany
3 anyone but france

my prefs if it was based on an actual capability req

1 japan
2 sweden
3 germany
4 anyone but france

When you get the time any chance you could expand on that? Curious as to in your informed opinion what makes which better then the other and so on.

Cheers

 

[John Fedup]

With France all I can think of is Tiger, MRH90 and MU90, lets not forget KC-30. Not bad platforms / systems but each was sold to Australia as a low risk, turn key MOTS option and each turned out to be highly developmental, resulting in significant delays (years not months) compromises in the level of capability available at the much delayed IOC, the need for Australia to step up and take the lead in certification work just to get the platform into service and the need to compromise on the level of capability available to the ADF due to lack of support.

In recent decades to buy French was to risk delays, performance shortfalls, cost over runs, lack of support / spares and to be left without a required capability for years (sometimes almost a decade) or far too often, to have to scale back the original requirement and supplement it with a suitable alternative. Cheaper, easier, less risky and faster to buy elsewhere, no matter how sexy the French gear appears.

I understand the disappointment with the items you mention except for the KC-30 tanker. It's development has been a lot smoother than its troubled alternative and it offers higher capacity.

 

[gf0012-aust]

reminds me of my negotiation skills training when I was contracting...

its been said before but to recap

• the swedes can't understand why you think you're being screwed
• the germans can perfectly explain in technical terms why you're being screwed
• the french seduce you into thinking that you wanted to be screwed and that you were fully aware of it so they're not responsible
• the poms will go off and argue that screwing you wasn't identified and that its now a contract variation - and as you raised the issue you get to pay for it
• the americans give you what you want but then add a fortune to upgrades and then delay them anyway so that they always stay 2 software generations ahead. by the time you rake uo the cash for the upgrades, they're now 4 generations ahead and you've lost interoperability...

and there are variations of the above.

no disrespect intended for non-oz members from the above countries, but there's a whole pile of truth in some of the above statements

 

[vonnoobie]

reminds me of my negotiation skills training when I was contracting...

its been said before but to recap

• the swedes can't understand why you think you're being screwed
• the germans can perfectly explain in technical terms why you're being screwed
• the french seduce you into thinking that you wanted to be screwed and that you were fully aware of it so they're not responsible
• the poms will go off and argue that screwing you wasn't identified and that its now a contract variation - and as you raised the issue you get to pay for it
• the americans give you what you want but then add a fortune to upgrades and then delay them anyway so that they always stay 2 software generations ahead. by the time you rake uo the cash for the upgrades, they're now 4 generations ahead and you've lost interoperability...

and there are variations of the above.

no disrespect intended for non-oz members from the above countries, but there's a whole pile of truth in some of the above statements

Can we please please add a 'like' button for some of the posts?

 

[t68]

the americans give you what you want but then add a fortune to upgrades and then delay them anyway so that they always stay 2 software generations ahead. by the time you rake uo the cash for the upgrades, they're now 4 generations ahead and you've lost interoperability...

Does that still apply to the current generation of weapons/systems for AWD, P8 Super Hornet. I was under the impression that we will get the same systems and have access to the same upgrade path in a similar deal to the C17 global sustainment project.

 

[StingrayOZ]

The french have a Je ne sais quoi with their proposal. Its a nuke with potentially without nuke prices/issues. I can see why the want to run with it. There may be other countries that would consider them and its important that they are seen to be in the mix.

But you would imagine the adf and the Australian government can remember back to every time we have dealt with french procurement (Mirages?) and think why would they want to go back there?

 

[John Fedup]

reminds me of my negotiation skills training when I was contracting...

its been said before but to recap

• the swedes can't understand why you think you're being screwed
• the germans can perfectly explain in technical terms why you're being screwed
• the french seduce you into thinking that you wanted to be screwed and that you were fully aware of it so they're not responsible
• the poms will go off and argue that screwing you wasn't identified and that its now a contract variation - and as you raised the issue you get to pay for it
• the americans give you what you want but then add a fortune to upgrades and then delay them anyway so that they always stay 2 software generations ahead. by the time you rake uo the cash for the upgrades, they're now 4 generations ahead and you've lost interoperability...

and there are variations of the above.

no disrespect intended for non-oz members from the above countries, but there's a whole pile of truth in some of the above statements

Indeed, and the American upgrade path history could be the ammunition a future Canadian left-wing govt (increasingly likely) will use to reject the right choice for Canada's future fighter jet.

 

[aussienscale]

Does that still apply to the current generation of weapons/systems for AWD, P8 Super Hornet. I was under the impression that we will get the same systems and have access to the same upgrade path in a similar deal to the C17 global sustainment project.

Without going into too much detail from my experience in Communications gear, we may have the same "System" but what GF is getting at is the internals don't match

Cheers

 

[Joe Black]

Can we please please add a 'like' button for some of the posts?

Like +2

plus.... what about ourselves Aussies? or the Japanese?

 

[gf0012-aust]

Does that still apply to the current generation of weapons/systems for AWD, P8 Super Hornet. I was under the impression that we will get the same systems and have access to the same upgrade path in a similar deal to the C17 global sustainment project.

nah, the cousins are pretty good now, there are some horrror stories, but at the end of the day I would suspect that its crap Australian negotiation and definition skills that have put us in a pickle in the first place

not to put too fine a point on it - but if you're prepared to drop your pants at the first pretty girl who makes a pass at you and then wonder how she managed to walk off with your wallet and half your house - then who's to blame

unfortunately, all this schmoozing going on with some companies should be raising alarm bells about promises to keep

one SA senator has been shown to be sharp as a billiard ball - one SA senator is a rank opportunist and has been swallowing some of the swill about japanese capability as gospel (to paraphrase bugs bunny - "what a maroon")

The Gropers and Vics have their own variations of the above...

if we want a better outcome then we should be banning politicians from making capability decisions as they are effing clueless.

and to be blunt. the current crop of suitors are trying to pull their collective pants down with somewhat gay abandon (to use the old terminology)