I have to agree with former DMO chief Warren King when he said recently that the replacement submarine CEP should be put back by a year to allow time for the 3 competing designs to mature. With the sort of money involved the Commonwealth needs to "de-risk" the many unknowns of this project.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
From what I have seen of Australian defence procurement many of what, in hindsight, would have been the best options have been eliminated from consideration quite early due to an exaggeration of the risks involved in those options verses what they perceive to be a fully sorted, proven and supported MOTS option. Throw in a an unhealthy disdain of local capability combined with too high an opinion of certain overseas sources of equipment verses others and an aversion to actually effectively measuring and analysing capability and performance we have wasted billions on well marketed MOTS/COTS platforms and /or equipment that has subsequently proven to be highly developmental, obsolescent or simply not fit for purpose.
weegee
Active Member
I came across this little info this morning regarding the 2 Cape class boats that the RAN will eventually be getting.
RAN to receive two new Cape-class patrol vessels by mid-2017 | IHS Jane's 360
RAN to receive two new Cape-class patrol vessels by mid-2017 | IHS Jane's 360
Chief of Navy Speeches: Naval Warfare Officers Association
I stumbled on this speech by the Chief of Navy at the end of October:
Chief of Navy Speeches: Naval Warfare Officers Association | Royal Australian Navy
Much of what is discussed is a reflection on what has recently been discussed in the thread.
I have not heard of "Plan Pelorus" before so it got my interest. The refocussing on ASW proficiency is applicable to the recent discussions.
The speech also discusses the upgrading of facilities to cater for new fleet units as well as raising the possibility of locating some of the new submarines on the eastern seaboard.
I stumbled on this speech by the Chief of Navy at the end of October:
Chief of Navy Speeches: Naval Warfare Officers Association | Royal Australian Navy
Much of what is discussed is a reflection on what has recently been discussed in the thread.
I have not heard of "Plan Pelorus" before so it got my interest. The refocussing on ASW proficiency is applicable to the recent discussions.
The speech also discusses the upgrading of facilities to cater for new fleet units as well as raising the possibility of locating some of the new submarines on the eastern seaboard.
For any one interested all of the Chief of Navy speeches can be downloaded from the Navy Website:
Chief of Navy Speeches | Royal Australian Navy
The speeches go back to 2010 and I am sure that collectively they will generate quite a bit of discussion.
Chief of Navy Speeches | Royal Australian Navy
The speeches go back to 2010 and I am sure that collectively they will generate quite a bit of discussion.
I think that politics will come to the fore, and current government will want to maximise the chances of winning SA seats by announcing build in SA is commited to.
This probably doesn't necessitate a decision on selecting the design - they could commit to build in SA as an election promise but would SA voters trust them enough to take such an election commitment as being necessarily worth much.
So governemnt may feel they have to announce winner and the build place before election.
I see labor is calling on the government to do more to challenge China's claims to the SCS, more freedom of passage stuff.
I doubt if Shadow Defmin Conroy has a clue about what the RAN and RAAF have been doing in the SCS. I assum he was briefed but that wouldn't stop that individual from trying to make political capital out of the situation.
Ha. He is a clown, anyone who picks up a paper can see the RAAF is certainly doing stuff out there, I would assume the RAN will be as well. No doubt he knows this too.
But I do find it interesting that labor strongly supports it. Which I hope means bypartisan support for actions and the platforms required to do it.
I imagine the RAN might be a bit stretched at the moment, but once the AWD's come online I would imagine this is the type of mission they may be tasked with. It would be good to see something like that then visits to S.Korea and Japan, to test interoperability with allies in the region.
In that context ABM, ASW, may become a much bigger priority.
Joe Black
Active Member
More news (rumours) on Sea 1000
Source: Australian submarine tender narrows to Japanese and French bids, Germans lose ground-sources | HotCopper - ASX, Share Prices, Stock Trading, Stock Market, Share Trading Forum
Source: Australian submarine tender narrows to Japanese and French bids, Germans lose ground-sources | HotCopper - ASX, Share Prices, Stock Trading, Stock Market, Share Trading Forum
Rumours has it that we are not comfortable at Type 216 as it is a vapourwear and TKMS does not have prior experience building anything close to a 4000tons sub.
The French option has similar issues in that the parent design is not yet in service and completion is a bit down the track. As such the builders have still not had an opportunity to trial it and work out the bugs.
Add to that there will be a significant redesign to replace the nuclear propulsion system with diesel electric and this will mess with weight distribution. Certainly doable but also adds greater risk to the project.
To my mind it will end up between the Japanese sub and an enhanced Collins. I suggest that an enhanced Collins will come back into the picture if other offers are not improving on the Collins class performance. An enhanced Collins with Japanese imput may be still viable.
John Newman
The Bunker Group
An enhanced or evolved Collins? Can't see that happening, unless the whole CEP process turns to crap and none of the three contenders come within cooee of the performance and capability requirements set by the Government for the Collins replacement, just can't see it happening.
Unless the Government decides to go back to square one and start this process all over again, and with all the delays that would come with doing that, would also be political suicide, I'd imagine that it would set the build process back many many years too.
If, and I say 'if', the Japanese offering is selected, an evolution of Soryu, if it meets all of the performance requirements, is probably the way things will go.
According to the recent Japanese defence budget announcement, Japan is now looking to increase it's 'active' submarine fleet from 16 to 22.
If Australia does look to produce somewhere between 8-12 Collins replacements and in conjunction with Japan's plan to increase it's submarine fleet, then 30+ submarines of a very similar configuration (probably with the exception of combat systems and weapons fit), seems pretty logical to me.
Moving forward into the future, if Australia and Japan are in lock step with our respective submarine fleets totalling 30+ boats, there are probably a lot more positives than negatives to that sort of ongoing relationship.
Anyway, just my opinion of course!!
A unified fleet, shared upgrades and improvements. Shared design capabilities for future subs. We won't be orphaned with a entirely unique platform and systems on that platform. Training. Logistics. Money will go a lot further. That's the dream.
John Newman
The Bunker Group
Agree 100%, exactly my thinking too.
There are very few nations on this planet that can actually produce a 'continuous' build program.
The USA of course with is various classes of SSN's, and when it comes to conventional boats, well that just about leaves Japan as the only other nation that we would ever consider dealing with.
Since 1971 Japan has produced five (5) separate classes of conventional submarines, to date 41 boats have been commissioned in 44 years, near enough to one a year, near enough to a 'continuous' build program.
The current Soryu class of a (currently) planned 12, saw the first boat commission in 2009 and so far 6 of the 12 have been commissioned, and from all that I've seen, a new Soryu will commission roughly 12 months apart, each and every 'March' of each year, pretty dammed impressive!!
If both future Australian and Japanese requirements can 'dovetail' together, at least as far as the basic submarine (yes of course we may end up with different, or slightly different, combat systems and weapons), but that may also eventually dovetail too, then the end result could be that we are deeply and heavily involved in a 'continuous' build program with one of our most trusted and closest allies, and with US involvement too.
Regardless of if the Soryu (or Son of, or Grandson of), is chosen for the Collins replacement, I'm pretty certain that Japan will continue on the way it has, each and every year a new and improved version of the previous class will hit the water.
I'd rather be part of that future than not!!!
It could be a good fall back plan, in that some or most of the IP will be owned by the CoA and that an evolved sub would be based on a known quantity and quality. I just think it shouldn't be discounted in case the other offerings fall over. Regarding the political risks, if it us presented in the correct context then it could result in a win win situation. A win for the pollies and a win for Australian industry.
Out of the current three options I think that the Japanese option would be the best, especially if there is a long term ongoing relationship regarding, continual build, upgrades and development. To me the big fly in the ointment is the political dimension, in that if such a program developed would there be the political will from all sides to carry on with such a long term program for say 30 or 40 years.
John Newman
The Bunker Group
Ng, mate, yes agree that an Evolved Collins is always a fall back plan, but I can only see that happening 'if' the CEP process turns out to be a dud and we have to start the whole process over again, and of course the delays (and most probable cost increases too, election year, shipbuilding jobs, etc, etc) and not to forget that it would end up being an 'orphan' program too.
We'll wait and see, but my money would still be on Japan coming up with the solution that will be chosen.
On the issue of a long term program, as you say 30 or 40 years or potentially even more, yes no doubt there is a political dimension to it.
But if history is anything to go by with both our Japanese and US relationships, at least over the last 50 years, then regardless of which side of politics is in power in our respective countries, then I don't see a huge problem.
As you would well know the extremes of the Right and Left in NZ politics is one thing, but in general the Left and Right of Australian politics doesn't appear to have any major differences (when it comes to Defence and Foreign Affairs matters), with either the Left and Right of politics in either the US or Japan.
I'd be far more concerned if Australia was to tie itself to a French or German boat, and if it developed into an 'almost' continuous build program with them, then in my opinion the extremes of the Left and Right and other factors in both those two countries would give me more concern than a tie up with Japan and with the US involvement too.
Anyway, time will tell!!!!
Just curious, but thought I had read before that the combat system that the Japanese use on their subs is actually based off/hybrid of the AN/BYG-1 ?
Can anyone recall this ? GF ? not sure if you can clarify, but if IIRC and that is correct, to my thinking, that is a pretty big tick to the Japanese.
Also from memory, where we stand with the IP of the Collins, I would not discount a Collins II, although remote, the physical platform, size etc are still very sound and very comparable to the Soryu. So to me it comes down to what is inside ?
And don't get me wrong, I am not under estimating the complexity of changing the internals, fitting out the design with more modern/up to date systems etc
Like I said, just curious
Cheers
Can anyone recall this ? GF ? not sure if you can clarify, but if IIRC and that is correct, to my thinking, that is a pretty big tick to the Japanese.
Also from memory, where we stand with the IP of the Collins, I would not discount a Collins II, although remote, the physical platform, size etc are still very sound and very comparable to the Soryu. So to me it comes down to what is inside ?
And don't get me wrong, I am not under estimating the complexity of changing the internals, fitting out the design with more modern/up to date systems etc
Like I said, just curious
Cheers
John Newman
The Bunker Group
Whilst I'm sure we are all keen to see which design is selected and obviously the number of boats, will it be 8 and 4 options, 9 and 3 options, etc, or a commitment to the full 12? Who knows!
The one thing that I'm very interested in knowing is the planned production schedule for the boats, commissioning dates, and especially the 'drumbeat', eg, the gap planned between each commissioning, will it be 12mths, 18mths or even 24mths??
Assuming the Soryu class is selected, it's interesting to look at the Japanese production schedules for their boats.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sōryū-class_submarine
Currently Japan commissions one new boat pretty well on schedule 12mths apart, but of course with two yards building, MHI and KHI, each yard is producing a boat every 24mths.
Looking at the info available on the Soryu boats, it appears that on average, it is four (4) years between laying down to commissioning, and you would probably add another two years prior to laying down for the first cutting of steel, would it be reasonable to assume that the time from steel cutting to commissioning is approx. six (6) years??
(As a side note the USN Block I Virginia boats took 7 years to construct and by the time of the Block II boats that was cut by 15mths, so a bit under 6 years construction time).
Assuming it is going to be 6 years from cutting steel to commissioning of the first Collins replacement (working backwards), if the first boat was to commission in 2026, then 2020 would appear to be when the first steel has to be cut, is that possible?
Is it more likely that the first boat would commission in, say, 2028 and therefore steel cutting would commence in 2022?
(Techport is going to be a pretty busy place, from what the Government said last year, the plan is for cutting of steel for the OPV's to commence in 2018 and for the Future Frigates in 2020, I'd imagine that block work for those two projects would also be spread around the country too).
Obviously at this stage the planned commissioning date of the first boat isn't overly clear, from what I have read in the past, Collins is due to decommission in 2025, will we see a capability gap? Or will the life of Collins and her sisters be extended?
The other thing that I'm particularly interested in is the 'drumbeat', the planned gap between the commissioning of each boat, as I mentioned above, Japan has two yards producing the Soryu class, each yard is currently operating to a drumbeat of 24 months between the boats produced out of those individual yards.
If the same production tempo was followed here, then it's going to take 10 years for the commissioning of the first 6 boats, if it's 8 boats, then its 14 years, 10 boats, 18 years and so on.
If the drumbeat was reduced to an 18mth gap for example, then 6 boats would take 7.5 years, 8 boats 10.5 years and so on.
If it was 24mths, well that sort of stuffs things up as far as timely replacement for the Collins boats (18mths would be more appropriate in that regard), but on the other hand 12 boats with a 24mth gap almost gets you to a 'continuous' build process timeframe, and especially if boats are built in evolving 'batches', with a bit of gap in between each batch too.
Anyway, it will be interesting to see what the drumbeat will be, and what can be achieved and how that is all going to tie in with the planned decommissioning dates of the Collins boats.
The one thing that I'm very interested in knowing is the planned production schedule for the boats, commissioning dates, and especially the 'drumbeat', eg, the gap planned between each commissioning, will it be 12mths, 18mths or even 24mths??
Assuming the Soryu class is selected, it's interesting to look at the Japanese production schedules for their boats.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sōryū-class_submarine
Currently Japan commissions one new boat pretty well on schedule 12mths apart, but of course with two yards building, MHI and KHI, each yard is producing a boat every 24mths.
Looking at the info available on the Soryu boats, it appears that on average, it is four (4) years between laying down to commissioning, and you would probably add another two years prior to laying down for the first cutting of steel, would it be reasonable to assume that the time from steel cutting to commissioning is approx. six (6) years??
(As a side note the USN Block I Virginia boats took 7 years to construct and by the time of the Block II boats that was cut by 15mths, so a bit under 6 years construction time).
Assuming it is going to be 6 years from cutting steel to commissioning of the first Collins replacement (working backwards), if the first boat was to commission in 2026, then 2020 would appear to be when the first steel has to be cut, is that possible?
Is it more likely that the first boat would commission in, say, 2028 and therefore steel cutting would commence in 2022?
(Techport is going to be a pretty busy place, from what the Government said last year, the plan is for cutting of steel for the OPV's to commence in 2018 and for the Future Frigates in 2020, I'd imagine that block work for those two projects would also be spread around the country too).
Obviously at this stage the planned commissioning date of the first boat isn't overly clear, from what I have read in the past, Collins is due to decommission in 2025, will we see a capability gap? Or will the life of Collins and her sisters be extended?
The other thing that I'm particularly interested in is the 'drumbeat', the planned gap between the commissioning of each boat, as I mentioned above, Japan has two yards producing the Soryu class, each yard is currently operating to a drumbeat of 24 months between the boats produced out of those individual yards.
If the same production tempo was followed here, then it's going to take 10 years for the commissioning of the first 6 boats, if it's 8 boats, then its 14 years, 10 boats, 18 years and so on.
If the drumbeat was reduced to an 18mth gap for example, then 6 boats would take 7.5 years, 8 boats 10.5 years and so on.
If it was 24mths, well that sort of stuffs things up as far as timely replacement for the Collins boats (18mths would be more appropriate in that regard), but on the other hand 12 boats with a 24mth gap almost gets you to a 'continuous' build process timeframe, and especially if boats are built in evolving 'batches', with a bit of gap in between each batch too.
Anyway, it will be interesting to see what the drumbeat will be, and what can be achieved and how that is all going to tie in with the planned decommissioning dates of the Collins boats.
Rumours has it that we are not comfortable at Type 216 as it is a vapourwear and TKMS does not have prior experience building anything close to a 4000tons sub.[/QUOTE]
That leaves two stated options the French or Japanese designs.
No matter which one is chosen Defense must ensure that we are not ripped off for spare parts.
What would be ideal is a "Son of Collins' since now that the problems have been mainly rectified (except the diesel engines) but our "pollie waffles" are more interested in spending taxpayers money overseas.
That leaves two stated options the French or Japanese designs.
No matter which one is chosen Defense must ensure that we are not ripped off for spare parts.
What would be ideal is a "Son of Collins' since now that the problems have been mainly rectified (except the diesel engines) but our "pollie waffles" are more interested in spending taxpayers money overseas.
- Status