Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[John Newman]

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.

If the German boat is vapourware, then the French Shortfin Barracuda really isn't far behind.

The Nuclear powered version of the Barracuda still hasn't been launched for sea trials and is not scheduled to commission until 2017 (assuming there are no major problems discovered during the sea trials), then of course will be the design exercise to modify that from nuclear to conventional powered, and no doubt all the other necessary changes that would be involved too.

Realistically the only boat that isn't vapourware is the Soryu, of which six (6) boats have been commissioned so far since 2009.

Yes the version of Soryu that we would be looking at probably wouldn't be the current production standard, but is probably based on Japan's next evolution of the Soryu.

It's probably reasonable to suggest that the Soryu is requiring the least modification, and probably even less to the overall hull form of the boat.

On the issue of spare parts and support, again if the Soryu is the basis for the Collins replacement, I'd imagine that by the time the first Australian boat hits the water we may see at least another 10 Soryu's (or evolutions of) commissioned by Japan (they commission a new boat every year, regular as clockwork!), which should allow us to piggy back onto the Japanese supply chain too.


How does a 'Son of Collins' stop taxpayers dollars being spend overseas?

Regardless of which design is chosen, and even if an evolution of Collins was included, there will be a certain percentage of the build cost spent locally, most notably would be the actual construction of the hull itself and certain fittings and fixtures.

But equally whichever design is chosen, things like the combat and weapons systems, sensors, and probably major components such as engines, batteries, etc, are probably all going to be sourced from overseas.

Some of the proposals probably have a higher Australian content that others, but I'd still imagine that there will be a significant dollar spend on overseas sourced systems (as mentioned above), regardless of which design is chosen.

 

[rockitten]

If the German boat is vapourware, then the French Shortfin Barracuda really isn't far behind.

The Nuclear powered version of the Barracuda still hasn't been launched for sea trials and is not scheduled to commission until 2017 (assuming there are no major problems discovered during the sea trials), then of course will be the design exercise to modify that from nuclear to conventional powered, and no doubt all the other necessary changes that would be involved too.

Realistically the only boat that isn't vapourware is the Soryu, of which six (6) boats have been commissioned so far since 2009.

Yes the version of Soryu that we would be looking at probably wouldn't be the current production standard, but is probably based on Japan's next evolution of the Soryu.

It's probably reasonable to suggest that the Soryu is requiring the least modification, and probably even less to the overall hull form of the boat.

On the issue of spare parts and support, again if the Soryu is the basis for the Collins replacement, I'd imagine that by the time the first Australian boat hits the water we may see at least another 10 Soryu's (or evolutions of) commissioned by Japan (they commission a new boat every year, regular as clockwork!), which should allow us to piggy back onto the Japanese supply chain too.


How does a 'Son of Collins' stop taxpayers dollars being spend overseas?

Regardless of which design is chosen, and even if an evolution of Collins was included, there will be a certain percentage of the build cost spent locally, most notably would be the actual construction of the hull itself and certain fittings and fixtures.

But equally whichever design is chosen, things like the combat and weapons systems, sensors, and probably major components such as engines, batteries, etc, are probably all going to be sourced from overseas.

Some of the proposals probably have a higher Australian content that others, but I'd still imagine that there will be a significant dollar spend on overseas sourced systems (as mentioned above), regardless of which design is chosen.

If my memory serve me correctly, TKMS claimed that 80% of parts on Type216 will be the same as Type 214, so "theoretically", we can source parts from S. Korea if the German sub is chosen. But I agree with you, IMHO evolved Soryu, no matter if all boats will be constructed in Australia or not (may be the 1st boat being built in Japan with lots of Aussies involved), is the best option for RAN, both on performance and strategic reasons.

Regarding to the "evolved Collins", if my memory served me correctly again, it will be an extensively modified Collins (enlarged, and with new torpedo tubes arrangements...etc), which makes the amount of work (and risk) not much difference from designing a new submarine (which mean, just another vaporware).

By the way, for a good fall back plan, how about a nuclear option? (I know it is a pipe dream)

Nocookies | The Australian

"Many defence experts believe that the obstacles that sunk the nuclear submarine option this time around would not be present in the following cycle — about the middle of the century — when we will once again replace our submarine fleet.

“My view is not to close off the possibility of that batch because the reality is the capability we want from our submarines does point you in the direction of nuclear propulsion,” says Jennings. “We should be building some basic *expertise in this area and keeping our future options open.”

 

[vonnoobie]

I wouldn't bother with the nuclear option, While the general public is becoming more open to it (or a minority is just becoming very out spoken) defence in either Australia or the US don't care that much for it.

Nuclear and conventional boats both have there strengths and weaknesses with one being able to perform task's that the other could only dream about, In effect the complement each other. If we go nuclear then all we are doing is acquiring the exact same capability as the US while denying our selves (and by extension the US) a capability that is much sought after especially in our region.

There also comes into play a political aspect, If we acquire nuclear boats (most likely from the US) then Australian-US defence relations go into the big leagues, We aren't just a nation with strong trade ties with China and reasonable defence relations with the US but firmly be seen to be putting our hat in with the US no hold back, It will destroy our relations with China and by extension the sort of middle man role we play between Washington and Beijing.

That all aside the question needs to be asked since such boat's would almost certainly be built in the US could the US actually supply us with our needs? At current there production is not keeping up with there demand, and things will only get worse once the Ohio replacement comes into play, if they can barely keep up with there own demand in there existing facilities then there is no chance of them being able to supply us short of building an entirely new shipyard (Which will add mega bucks to the program cost).

In essence its just a moot point as it will deny certain capabilities to acquire ones we already have access to, it will destroy diplomatic relations which are just as important at averting conflict as having the biggest gun and there is literally no place to build them.

Cheers, Matthew.

 

[SpazSinbad]

Oz sub tender ‘narrows to Japanese and French, Germans losing’
Oz sub tender ‘narrows to Japanese and French, Germans losing’ | Australian Naval Institute

 

[Volkodav]

The irony is we have apparently accepted the proposition that a non-nuclear Barracuda is lower risk than a scaled up 214 (the Gotland class could be described as a scaled down Collins) yet discussion of a conventionally powered version of the Virginia was effectively shut down and forgotten.

It was the USN and EB that helped the Collins become what it is today with their propeller and hydrodynamic knowhow, it was the combat system from USN Virginia class that modernised the Collins class fleet and made it world class. It was the successful partnership between ASC, DSTO, EB, RAN and USN that overcame the mismanagement of the Australian submarine program by successive governments to get to where we are today.

Why was not more thought given to extending that existing, successful tie-up between those parties rather than throwing away everything that had been achieved and doing it better than before based on past experience? Could it be that reports that strategic economic and defence ties were rated higher by Canberra than sovereign, strategic capability? If this deal is so important for Australia and Japan , maybe they need to sweeten the deal an move some or all of the automotive industry they relocated to Thailand back to Australia now the dollar has dropped and the FTAs have matured.

 

[t68]

The irony is we have apparently accepted the proposition that a non-nuclear Barracuda is lower risk than a scaled up 214 (the Gotland class could be described as a scaled down Collins) yet discussion of a conventionally powered version of the Virginia was effectively shut down and forgotten.

It was the USN and EB that helped the Collins become what it is today with their propeller and hydrodynamic knowhow, it was the combat system from USN Virginia class that modernised the Collins class fleet and made it world class. It was the successful partnership between ASC, DSTO, EB, RAN and USN that overcame the mismanagement of the Australian submarine program by successive governments to get to where we are today.

Why was not more thought given to extending that existing, successful tie-up between those parties rather than throwing away everything that had been achieved and doing it better than before based on past experience? Could it be that reports that strategic economic and defence ties were rated higher by Canberra than sovereign, strategic capability? If this deal is so important for Australia and Japan , maybe they need to sweeten the deal an move some or all of the automotive industry they relocated to Thailand back to Australia now the dollar has dropped and the FTAs have matured.

It's most probably not the case, but the perception we don't seem too big on offsets when it comes down to defence dollars.

I remember reading or someone saying that when the SPG was under consideration that it was important to Sth Korea as a way of getting trade imbalance sorted as they buy more from us then we do them.

 

[swerve]

Why would South Korea worry about a trade imbalance with Australia when it has healthy surpluses with many other countries, & overall? It's irrational to try to get trade in balance with every country one trades with.

 

[ASSAIL]

Oz sub tender ‘narrows to Japanese and French, Germans losing’
Oz sub tender ‘narrows to Japanese and French, Germans losing’ | Australian Naval Institute

I think the only salient quote from that article is " believe nothing what you hear and half of what you see"

 

[StingrayOZ]

Why was not more thought given to extending that existing, successful tie-up between those parties rather than throwing away everything that had been achieved and doing it better than before based on past experience? .

I think the real problem would be who would drive the project? ASC? Government? EB? Does EB want to do that? EB or the USG could have put in a expression or a tender just like the french the Germans and the Japanese did. In this case you have to look at what is in it for the Americans, probably a lot of head ache and some annoyed Germans, French and Japanese. IMO Virginia would be too big as a diesel and there would be very little left of the original Virginia to get something like what we want.

With an upgraded Collins is highly likely that ASC would have to run that, and I don't think the government ultimately wants something of that structure to exist and for it to be ultimately responsible for it.

Plus I think there is a push to get off an orphaned platform. If Japan and Australia can get together, then any US engineering assistance to that project is magnified across two important allies and a much bigger fleet.

Merging the Australian and Japanese programs could be quite beneficial long term. IMO both Australia and Japan would end up with better subs. Same with the French, you at least get an ongoing partner to develop the platforms. Its not clear what they germans have in that regard.

Of course the Japanese are in a different case to the French and the Germans. They want more subs, they are already planning 20, which may be very close to maxing out their production capabilities, unless they go setup a new yard and try to balance it across 3.

IMO there is a real possibility that Australia could end up making submarines (or parts) for the Japanese. Or some sort of workforce sharing to improve production. The impact of that goes beyond a couple of extra bucks into the economy, but a really deep defense relationship.

All opinion and speculation though.

 

[SpazSinbad]

I think the only salient quote from that article is " believe nothing what you hear and half of what you see"

Heheh... fair enough

 

[ngatimozart]

I think the real problem would be who would drive the project? ASC? Government? EB? Does EB want to do that? EB or the USG could have put in a expression or a tender just like the french the Germans and the Japanese did. In this case you have to look at what is in it for the Americans, probably a lot of head ache and some annoyed Germans, French and Japanese. IMO Virginia would be too big as a diesel and there would be very little left of the original Virginia to get something like what we want.

With an upgraded Collins is highly likely that ASC would have to run that, and I don't think the government ultimately wants something of that structure to exist and for it to be ultimately responsible for it.

Plus I think there is a push to get off an orphaned platform. If Japan and Australia can get together, then any US engineering assistance to that project is magnified across two important allies and a much bigger fleet.

Merging the Australian and Japanese programs could be quite beneficial long term. IMO both Australia and Japan would end up with better subs. Same with the French, you at least get an ongoing partner to develop the platforms. Its not clear what they germans have in that regard.

Of course the Japanese are in a different case to the French and the Germans. They want more subs, they are already planning 20, which may be very close to maxing out their production capabilities, unless they go setup a new yard and try to balance it across 3.

IMO there is a real possibility that Australia could end up making submarines (or parts) for the Japanese. Or some sort of workforce sharing to improve production. The impact of that goes beyond a couple of extra bucks into the economy, but a really deep defense relationship.

All opinion and speculation though.

In my opinion the Germans are deleted because there is little commonality in fleet types, so you still have an orphaned platform. Ditto the French unless they can develop another customer for the platform. Secondly there is the IP issue regarding sensitive US equipment on the sub. Hence that's the French deleted. Sacre bleu.

This leaves the Japanese option which on the face of it is the best option for reasons already outlined above. Long term besides subs, such a program could result in other mutually beneficial defence programs and research interests. I also believe that Australia has more of a community of interest with Japan in defence than it does with either France or Germany.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Duplicate post

 

[t68]

Why would South Korea worry about a trade imbalance with Australia when it has healthy surpluses with many other countries, & overall? It's irrational to try to get trade in balance with every country one trades with.

Don't know the whole reasoning behind it, but they were less than impressed with us at the time.Considering it was only a 225 million dollars project, a drop in the ocean when you take into account the trade between us

https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/22482950/bid-for-korea-guns-and-billions/

 

[StingrayOZ]

In my opinion the Germans are deleted because there is little commonality in fleet types, so you still have an orphaned platform. Ditto the French unless they can develop another customer for the platform. Secondly there is the IP issue regarding sensitive US equipment on the sub. Hence that's the French deleted. Sacre bleu.

There is a number of issues with the French. The french subs are already over time and over budget. They just put new people in charge of their project. Ip issues, logistic issues, technology issues, integration issues, cost issues (the French design is/would be the most expensive IMO, but they would argue its the most capable to act like a SSN).

It really just depends when do you start eliminating contestants on what basis.

But this is a huge project. Australia needs to do this right. There is the possibility any one of the three could pull out for any number of reasons, internal/external etc, or be eliminated on a seemingly unrealised deal breaker.

None is perfect, you need to understand what your getting into with a project this big $30-$50billion that will be in service out to 2070 and will mostly business model its replacement.

So obviously with something that big, going for an orphan platform is a huge issue. Think about how much money that its going to take to keep Australian subs at the sharp and pointy end past 2070. If some of that can be shared (across an even larger fleet) then that's a huge advantage.

Purchase price is only part of the mix. Its not even the biggest part.

Upgraded Collins is a backup possibility, but below each of the 3 offers we are looking at currently (IMO). Obviously things can change.

Obviously someone else ordering 216 or shortfin barracuda would change things significantly. While unlikely, its not impossible. And in military procurement, almost anything is possible.

 

[ASSAIL]

Sea 5000

The link is a presentation by Rear Admiral Kamerman delivered in Canberra I April 2015. I apologise if this has been posted before but I really can't remember seeing it.
All the focus has been on subs over the last days so a refreshing change this is.
I haven't heard much re the CEP for the future frigate but this MEKO offering is, I presume a hot contender. The T26 seems to be delayed, the evolved Navantia seems to be out of favour so I thought discussion on the German offering is timely. It certainly ticks many boxes and given that it will be on the end of an evolving design, the risks are diminished.
Pages 14 to the end are most relevant.

https://www.aspi.org.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0016/26503/Kamerman-The-German-experience-slides.pdf

 

[John Newman]

The link is a presentation by Rear Admiral Kamerman delivered in Canberra I April 2015. I apologise if this has been posted before but I really can't remember seeing it.
All the focus has been on subs over the last days so a refreshing change this is.
I haven't heard much re the CEP for the future frigate but this MEKO offering is, I presume a hot contender. The T26 seems to be delayed, the evolved Navantia seems to be out of favour so I thought discussion on the German offering is timely. It certainly ticks many boxes and given that it will be on the end of an evolving design, the risks are diminished.
Pages 14 to the end are most relevant.

https://www.aspi.org.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0016/26503/Kamerman-The-German-experience-slides.pdf

Hi mate, yes that has been linked here before (I keep a link to it in my favourites in my browser!!).

But yes, it is an impressive looking and well equipped ship.

Couple of things that I find interesting, the two island concept, including splitting the VLS systems and having a separate ship control location, etc.

The other interesting aspect is the crewing, the F-124 has a crew of 235, but the F-125 has a crew of only 120, with the idea that the crew is swapped out every four months when on deployment.

I wonder if same crewing concept would also apply to the Meko A-400 offering for the RAN?

 

[alexsa]

Hi mate, yes that has been linked here before (I keep a link to it in my favourites in my browser!!).

But yes, it is an impressive looking and well equipped ship.

Couple of things that I find interesting, the two island concept, including splitting the VLS systems and having a separate ship control location, etc.

The other interesting aspect is the crewing, the F-124 has a crew of 235, but the F-125 has a crew of only 120, with the idea that the crew is swapped out every four months when on deployment.

I wonder if same crewing concept would also apply to the Meko A-400 offering for the RAN?

Impressive yes, but also a significant redesign from the F-125 to become what they are offering. I also have reservations about the gear box arrangement. they go to a lot of trouble to separate the prime movers but then run the whole through a grouped gear box (aka ANZAC). It heavy and a single point of failure.

In addition it is still only 48 cells. Depending on what we put in these cells there is certainly a case for more if only to provide additional shots for the
AWD (if we ever get CES)

 

[John Newman]

In addition it is still only 48 cells. Depending on what we put in these cells there is certainly a case for more if only to provide additional shots for the AWD (if we ever get CES)

Putting aside the US, Japanese or South Korean DDG hulls with their larger quality of VLS cells, I don't think I've seen any of the Future Frigate contenders with more than 48 strike length VLS cells.

The Spanish F-105 hull, if evolved for the Future Frigate, is 48 cells, the UK Type 26 doesn't appear to have any more than 24 strike Length cells and FREMM appears to have 2 x 16 VLS.

 

[ngatimozart]

Impressive yes, but also a significant redesign from the F-125 to become what they are offering. I also have reservations about the gear box arrangement. they go to a lot of trouble to separate the prime movers but then run the whole through a grouped gear box (aka ANZAC). It heavy and a single point of failure.

Would it be a major problem to change this so that they don't run through a single grouped gearbox?

In addition it is still only 48 cells. Depending on what we put in these cells there is certainly a case for more if only to provide additional shots for the
AWD (if we ever get CES)

IIRC ESSM is supposed to be quad packed into one cell therefore 16 cells will give you 64 ESSM' which leaves 32 cells; so 16 LRASM (or what ever replaces Harpoon); and leaves 16 for SM2. That's not a bad load out - double the number of surface missiles and ESSM than what the ANZAC Class is capable of and it gives you 16 SM2, which the ANZAC doesn't have. Plus I believe that the AWD have 48 cells so depending on mission could have same load out as an AWD.

They do look like nice ships and the two tower concept is, I think a good one.

My 1 cents worth.

 

[ASSAIL]

Impressive yes, but also a significant redesign from the F-125 to become what they are offering. I also have reservations about the gear box arrangement. they go to a lot of trouble to separate the prime movers but then run the whole through a grouped gear box (aka ANZAC). It heavy and a single point of failure.

In addition it is still only 48 cells. Depending on what we put in these cells there is certainly a case for more if only to provide additional shots for the
AWD (if we ever get CES)

I'm no engineer but I assume that if the gearbox failed 20 kts would still be possible through the direct drive from the electric motors?
TKS also claim an 80% commonality with F 125 and so are suggesting by 2017 it will be MOTS.
We've all heard the spin so you're right to be cynical