Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[Volkodav]

The T45 will still be sorting deficiencies in power and undergo retrofit weapons capabilities for many years. Yes they came into service at a price but they were far from what the RN wanted as a finished product and will continue to cost for years to come.
Methinks Volk, you paint too much gloss on that project and as Blas says if you measure reliability the F100 has been performing.
What the RAN wanted was a Baby Bourke and if that happened we would not be having this discussion.
But, having got to where we are at Techport it seems stupidity if we did not cash in on the pain we've had and not build a Flt II AWD of a further 3 or so hulls (non Aegis) while the other proposals mature.

To be honest that was the first I had heard about problems with the WR21 or the all electric propulsion system and I will have to look into it further. Interesting as I had heard of problems with the related MT30 as fitted to the Freedom Class LCS (now FF), some may recall reports of issues during trials then on the first deployment to Singapore.

One thing struck me reading the comments section following the story, it was like reading the comments in the Murdoch press about the AWD or Collins, so obviously the UK has their fair share of uninformed but highly opinionated individuals too. Then again I long ago stopped participating in many US based forums due to the same sort of thing where the LCS is concerned. Same comments, different countries and different projects.

 

[StingrayOZ]

If the choice is F-125 or evolved F-105 the I think either way we would get a very capable ship.

I like FREMM, but its not much newer or bigger than the F-105 hull which we are already tooled up for.

If we had gone the baby burke, we would now be looking at a baby baby burke for the frigate replacement? I think probably not, as it was going to be pretty pricey (although the AWD did end up pretty pricey).

 

[Volkodav]

To be honest that was the first I had heard about problems with the WR21 or the all electric propulsion system and I will have to look into it further. Interesting as I had heard of problems with the related MT30 as fitted to the Freedom Class LCS (now FF), some may recall reports of issues during trials then on the first deployment to Singapore.

One thing struck me reading the comments section following the story, it was like reading the comments in the Murdoch press about the AWD or Collins, so obviously the UK has their fair share of uninformed but highly opinionated individuals too. Then again I long ago stopped participating in many US based forums due to the same sort of thing where the LCS is concerned. Same comments, different countries and different projects.

OK not the WR21 but the Wartsila diesel generators, still haven't dug out all the details but apparently they are considered under powered and reliability has suffered as a result. The fix, described in the media as replacement of the propulsion system, is actually going to be either replacement of the existing generators with a more powerful type, or as I have read in the BBC report, fitting of an additional generator. Interesting because that is the same issue that has had many old hands on AWD concerned, if your DGs don't give you enough power you need to push them harder and that effects durability.

Type 45 destroyers: UK's £1bn warships face engine refit - BBC News

I'm surprised that this still occurs as insufficient power generation has been a limiting factor of warships forever. This is actually what all electric is meant to fix, letting you use propulsion plant directly generate power, I would have thought this would be a bigger issue if it was a CODLAG or hybrid electric system that relied on the generators to provide propulsion at low speeds as well as power generation.

It appears to be yet another example of how government penny pinching has limited an outstanding platform and can be bundled in with the initial lack of Phalanx, Harpoon and CEC. This is the opposite of the AWD project which has seen a perfectly adequate older design adopted and partially adapted to fill requirements that really needed a larger more modern design. The Type 45 has been let down by cost cutting and leaving stuff off, the problem with the Hobarts (and from what I have heard of F-105) is they have tried to turn a 1990s frigate into a 2020s destroyer.

 

[Volkodav]

The only MARPOL issue wouel be annex Vi and units constructed after 2000 should be complaint (at least to the relevant tier). What you say simple supports my point in that systems need to be updated iteratively in batches. Even versions of the same DG and GT will have common elements and ..... Better still ..... If they have the same foot print may allow for upgrades. However if you have to cut access into the hull for DG's that is not cheap.

Sorry Alex, missed this earlier. The issue was emissions (VW anyone?).
Anyway as designed there was no problem but the standards changed meaning a certain percentage of each ships hull had to be fabricated before a particular date for it to be able to slip in under the old standard. From memory ships one and two were ok but ship three was not meaning technically the propulsion diesels either had to be replaced or de-rated (an option some were seriously proposing).

None of this would have been an issue had more modern diesels been selected in the first place, not just for their improved emissions but primarily for their improved performance and lower fuel consumption.

 

[StingrayOZ]

None of this would have been an issue had more modern diesels been selected in the first place, not just for their improved emissions but primarily for their improved performance and lower fuel consumption.

Engines are a critical part of any powered thing. Really they should be considered as if not more important than radars and weapons.

Given the CONOPs of the RAN more diesels make a lot of sense.

What are the chances that the reworked F-105 has a CODLAG propulsion setup? For a ASW specialist, it would seem to be a very useful change.

IMO the biggest short comings from the F-105 are the crewing and the propulsion.

If these issues can't be addressed then you might as well build a F-125 variant as your on going costs are likely to offset any purchase savings, plus operational advantages.

 

[ASSAIL]

OK not the WR21 but the Wartsila diesel generators, still haven't dug out all the details but apparently they are considered under powered and reliability has suffered as a result. The fix, described in the media as replacement of the propulsion system, is actually going to be either replacement of the existing generators with a more powerful type, or as I have read in the BBC report, fitting of an additional generator. Interesting because that is the same issue that has had many old hands on AWD concerned, if your DGs don't give you enough power you need to push them harder and that effects durability.

Type 45 destroyers: UK's £1bn warships face engine refit - BBC News

I'm surprised that this still occurs as insufficient power generation has been a limiting factor of warships forever. This is actually what all electric is meant to fix, letting you use propulsion plant directly generate power, I would have thought this would be a bigger issue if it was a CODLAG or hybrid electric system that relied on the generators to provide propulsion at low speeds as well as power generation.

It appears to be yet another example of how government penny pinching has limited an outstanding platform and can be bundled in with the initial lack of Phalanx, Harpoon and CEC. This is the opposite of the AWD project which has seen a perfectly adequate older design adopted and partially adapted to fill requirements that really needed a larger more modern design. The Type 45 has been let down by cost cutting and leaving stuff off, the problem with the Hobarts (and from what I have heard of F-105) is they have tried to turn a 1990s frigate into a 2020s destroyer.

One article that I've read postulates that not only are the Wartsila (now built in India) gensets underpowered but also large amounts of cabling and switchgear will need to be upgraded. The ships have a regular history of tripping out on overload.

 

[Volkodav]

Inexcusable really, I bet if you could read the CDR there would have been comments / suggestions predicting just this situation, wise old heads pushing the adoption of three or four Paxmans (as used by the Type 23) instead of just the pair of Wartsilas. The propeller heads would have pointed out that with the WR21s serving as generators too that there was actually an excess of power available and that two DGs was more than sufficient. The bean counters would have been satisfied that these shiny new ships would never need to tool around in constabulary roles as there would always be more than enough "lesser" platforms for that.

That's how CDRs go, issues get brought up, sometimes they're taken on board, sometimes not. It was at the AWD CDR that, very fortuitously, one individual successfully pushed the need for a robust build assurance capability. The Armada, like the USN, has an in-house quality and survey function, the RAN does not and this had not been factored or costed into the build, the assumption being all design data would be complete and correct, all approved suppliers and subcontractors, would deliver conforming product, and all supervisors would (on top of everything else they had to do) serve as front line quality inspectors. In hindsight the only one of those that almost panned out was the supervisors and workforce, stepping up, ironically they are also the ones being blamed by some politicians media and public.

The build assurance capability was established but it had it's growing pains as all the what, where's and hows were worked out, its workforce recruited and trained. It didn't help that as they were about to stand up and take on their full role, they had to be thrown into Williamstown full time to fix the debacle over the first several blocks. Infact, not only were the quality and build assurance team working almost exclusively at BAE, many ASC supervisors, inspectors, engineers and technicians were also over there sorting BAEs stuff ups, training and certifying BAEs workforce, finding and fixing problems, instead of doing the jobs they were meant to be doing, both in Adelaide and with other contractors and suppliers.

I wonder how costs nlew out and the schedules slipped, oh yes that's right, ASC can't be trusted to build a canoe.

 

[weegee]

So I came across this today:
Civmec acquires shipbuilding company and facilities | Naval Today

It seemed to happen very quickly? What does this mean for shipbuilding regarding the programs going forward? Does this mean that Forgacs will be pushing for bigger pieces of the Australian ship building pie I wonder?

 

[ASSAIL]

I agree with John, I scribbled the exact same list in my note pad last year before the RAP.

However speaking to a Captain who had attended one of the, basically, round table discussions on the 2 options for Sea 1654 said that while either would be a huge advance on the capabilities of Success and Sirius on paper the Cantabria derivative seems to be ahead. Other factors will surely influence the outcome (Time, Cost, Strategic Relationships etc).

I was a bit slow to answer this re SEA 1654 but I have to agree that, on paper, the Cantabria seems to be better suited to supporting a navy with a pair of LHDs sporting multiple rotary wing assets ( 1,500 tonnes JP 5 cf 450 tonnes in the Aegir).
It also has a higher max speed (20 vs 18) using less power therefore more economical.
I would love to hear from serving members who know of or had experience on Cantabria when she was in OZ, it certainly appeared to be a highly successful deployment.

 

[Stampede]

I rarely buy a Newspaper these days yet alone read the letters to the editor section but on Monday there was a small piece in The Australian titled, British Submaine option.
It got my attention and to para phrase in short it was suggested that Australia look at the British Astute class and went on to suggest the merits of said option.
Now personally I'm not for the nuclear option and I cannot see the Astute class getting the gig. However what intrigues me is that the letter was written by S.A. Family First Senator, Bob Day.
I know we can read too much into that what if's of our Collins class replacement but the mention of the Astute is new to me. Certainly the Virginia class has come up for discusion on this thread,but not the British! so what next?

I am puzzled as to the timing of the Article as surely in 2016 its down to only three countries / companies,in Germany,France and Japan.
So what is our S.A Senator trying to gain from the article.
You would seemingly think it's a waste of time
But then again this submarine acquisition might be a longer process than we think.
Maybe thats not a bad thing: or maybe there will be a decision this year and it's done ansd dusted............Some how I doubt it
It's a big project to get right and it's also an election year
DWP ?.
Regards S

 

[John Newman]

I rarely buy a Newspaper these days yet alone read the letters to the editor section but on Monday there was a small piece in The Australian titled, British Submaine option.
It got my attention and to para phrase in short it was suggested that Australia look at the British Astute class and went on to suggest the merits of said option.
Now personally I'm not for the nuclear option and I cannot see the Astute class getting the gig. However what intrigues me is that the letter was written by S.A. Family First Senator, Bob Day.
I know we can read too much into that what if's of our Collins class replacement but the mention of the Astute is new to me. Certainly the Virginia class has come up for discusion on this thread,but not the British! so what next?

I am puzzled as to the timing of the Article as surely in 2016 its down to only three countries / companies,in Germany,France and Japan.
So what is our S.A Senator trying to gain from the article.
You would seemingly think it's a waste of time
But then again this submarine acquisition might be a longer process than we think.
Maybe thats not a bad thing: or maybe there will be a decision this year and it's done ansd dusted............Some how I doubt it
It's a big project to get right and it's also an election year
DWP ?.
Regards S

Without delving into the specific motivation of an independent Senator from SA, I think the very first thing that has to happen, before Nuclear submarines are even discussed, is that we (Australia), have to have an open discussion and debate regarding the Nuclear question in general.

And that is only going happen if both sides of politics (the sides that can form Government, eg the LNP Coalition and Labor), are on a joint ticket, both sides would have to be clearly on the same page, currently that's not the case.

Have a look at this link:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Australia


Looking at the stats of in favour (or not) of nuclear power stations, in the three polls mentioned, 1979, 2007 and 2009, those in favour has grown from 34% to 49%, so obviously there is growing support in the Australian community.

But when it comes down to who is in favour, based on their politics in a 2007 poll, then there is a significant gap, only 30% of ALP voters support nuclear power, 59% of the LNP Coalition voters support nuclear, and only 22% of Greens support nuclear.

So what does that tell you?

It basically says that the two major political parties that can form Government are on different pages, and until they are on the same page (and both will support a mature rational discussion), well I can't ever see the Nuclear question being seriously considered, submarines, power or a processing and storage industry.

It almost falls into the same category of when there is a referendum to change something in the Constitution, unless there is 'bi-partisan' support, then referendum questions are usually doomed to fail.

If one party supported the acquisition of Nuclear submarines, and the other side didn't, well that would be doomed to fail too!!!

 

[alexsa]

Without delving into the specific motivation of an independent Senator from SA, I think the very first thing that has to happen, before Nuclear submarines are even discussed, is that we (Australia), have to have an open discussion and debate regarding the Nuclear question in general.

And that is only going happen if both sides of politics (the sides that can form Government, eg the LNP Coalition and Labor), are on a joint ticket, both sides would have to be clearly on the same page, currently that's not the case.

Have a look at this link:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Australia


Looking at the stats of in favour (or not) of nuclear power stations, in the three polls mentioned, 1979, 2007 and 2009, those in favour has grown from 34% to 49%, so obviously there is growing support in the Australian community.

But when it comes down to who is in favour, based on their politics in a 2007 poll, then there is a significant gap, only 30% of ALP voters support nuclear power, 59% of the LNP Coalition voters support nuclear, and only 22% of Greens support nuclear.

So what does that tell you?

It basically says that the two major political parties that can form Government are on different pages, and until they are on the same page (and both will support a mature rational discussion), well I can't ever see the Nuclear question being seriously considered, submarines, power or a processing and storage industry.

It almost falls into the same category of when there is a referendum to change something in the Constitution, unless there is 'bi-partisan' support, then referendum questions are usually doomed to fail.

If one party supported the acquisition of Nuclear submarines, and the other side didn't, well that would be doomed to fail too!!!

The discussion needs to get a lot more informed and while we have the greens and the uniformed not really understanding the nuclear power options both as the reactor type and material used then it will take a while to progress this.

I doubt that many engaged in the debate understand

• What ores can be used to produce nuclear fuel (Uranium and Thorium)
• Why enrichment of U-238 is required wiht U-235 is required to allow a self sustaining reaction and what level of enrichment is required in what sort of uranium based reactor.
• What a critical or sub-critical reactor arrangementis (noting the latter is thorium fuelled system) and the different characteristics of each both from safety and the ability to weaponise the resultant daughter isotopes

The fact that there is a fundamental difference between a moder open pool light water reactor is not understood when discussing disasters .... They are all seen in the same light.

I think thorium is a good option for Australia given it runs subcritical and it is much more difficult to weaponise the waste (dirty bomb not a nuke) notng you use 100% of the material in the process. Enriched uranium reactions only use 1% as it is the U235 that is the critical ingredient. However, a modern open pool light water reactor is probably more efficient form a pure energy out put point of view.

Finally very few people I talk to ahve nay comprehension of what reprocessing is and what the advantage of it is .... Certainly for long term safe storage.

Sadly I have the feeling the majority of Australians have little knowledge beyond the Simpons and still believe radiations is green

Rant over ...... Sorry

 

[the road runner]

Id just like to see us build a conventional sub ,don't know if anyone watched "Catalyst " last night ,but there was an Australian Professor who has made a bit of a break threw with battery technology. Using Zinc Bromine batteries and a Gel instead of a liquid for the battery. The benefit's include quick charging ,fire retardant gel and a 90% battery efficiency rate. I am wondering how this type of technology could be used in a future sub for Australia


The Zinc Bromide Gel battery starts at 23.40 minute mark

Catalyst - Episode 1 Batteries 24 Hour Renewable Power : ABC iview

 

[Stampede]

Thanks for the reply.
The nuclear / non nuclear debate is always interesting.
However what got my attention was the suggestion of the British Astute class sub and the timing of the article given the selection process is semmingly down to three contenders.
I do wonder how this year pans out for GOOD decision making re SEA 1000 as the Fed election could well have an influence in the choice. In a perfect world both parties would be on the same page and the decision would be made on merit.
I hope it still is.
I trust their is some maturity and common sense from both sides of politics but I do fear the submarines may become a bit like Canadas F35 purchase and increasingly become a political hot potatoe as the election looms.
I had know idea famly first were soo interested in submarines..........Is it a family activity?
Probably its a South Australian activity!!!!!!
Speculation of course but SEA 1000 is a big decision that needs to be made for the correct reasons.
It should be an interesting year ahead.
Stampede

 

[John Fedup]

Thanks for the reply.
The nuclear / non nuclear debate is always interesting.
However what got my attention was the suggestion of the British Astute class sub and the timing of the article given the selection process is semmingly down to three contenders.
I do wonder how this year pans out for GOOD decision making re SEA 1000 as the Fed election could well have an influence in the choice. In a perfect world both parties would be on the same page and the decision would be made on merit.
I hope it still is.
I trust their is some maturity and common sense from both sides of politics but I do fear the submarines may become a bit like Canadas F35 purchase and increasingly become a political hot potatoe as the election looms.
I had know idea famly first were soo interested in submarines..........Is it a family activity?
Probably its a South Australian activity!!!!!!
Speculation of course but SEA 1000 is a big decision that needs to be made for the correct reasons.
It should be an interesting year ahead.
Stampede

I don't think the submarine debate in Australia would ever fall to the level of the F-35 debate in Canada, even when debating nuclear versus conventional. Both the the pollies and citizens in Australia have more sense.

As for the comments regarding thorium, MOX, or enriched U235 fuels, this only is relevant to power plants as the reactors in nuclear subs are U235. Should Australia consider the nuclear option, the U.K. and BAE would be interested I would think. Even the US would likely be supportive as the reactor design is theirs. The USN wouldn't have to worry about delayed Virginia production due to a potential US nuke purchase.

As for public concern about nuclear power, there is a difference between a plant built at a fixed site on Australian soil versus a mobile sub which will spend most of its time away at sea. As Australia has no nuclear energy industry, any purchase would have to include waste disposal and support being done in the US or UK which would further ease public concerns. If civilian nuclear power plants are on the table in the future then waste issues will be a bigger factor.

The Astute class had some initial problems but these have been sorted and it is an impressive boat that would certainly address Australia's range and endurance requirements.

 

[alexsa]

I don't think the submarine debate in Australia would ever fall to the level of the F-35 debate in Canada, even when debating nuclear versus conventional. Both the the pollies and citizens in Australia have more sense.

As for the comments regarding thorium, MOX, or enriched U235 fuels, this only is relevant to power plants as the reactors in nuclear subs are U235. Should Australia consider the nuclear option, the U.K. and BAE would be interested I would think. Even the US would likely be supportive as the reactor design is theirs. The USN wouldn't have to worry about delayed Virginia production due to a potential US nuke purchase.

As for public concern about nuclear power, there is a difference between a plant built at a fixed site on Australian soil versus a mobile sub which will spend most of its time away at sea. As Australia has no nuclear energy industry, any purchase would have to include waste disposal and support being done in the US or UK which would further ease public concerns. If civilian nuclear power plants are on the table in the future then waste issues will be a bigger factor.

The Astute class had some initial problems but these have been sorted and it is an impressive boat that would certainly address Australia's range and endurance requirements.

Yep, aware of the limits on Thorium for maritime applications, my point essentially is if we cannot cannot have a mature discussion on power generation based on fact not assumptions ...... We have no chance for nuclear submarines. Personally I would like to see Australia have such assets but I don't see it happening.

 

[John Fedup]

Yep, aware of the limits on Thorium for maritime applications, my point essentially is if we cannot cannot have a mature discussion on power generation based on fact not assumptions ...... We have no chance for nuclear submarines. Personally I would like to see Australia have such assets but I don't see it happening.

Yes a mature discussion would help. Are you saying Australia needs to have power plants in order to get nuke boats? Frankly, I think nuke boats would be an easier sell than power plants at the moment even if NG prices were much higher.

 

[StingrayOZ]

We won't be looking at Astutes. We would look at Viriginias if we were to look. Which we aren't. Astutes are all basically under construction or finished. You would have to start long lead items again.

However if you had a mixed fleet of nuclear and diesel, the Barracudas would make more sense. I don't think for Australia, but Brazil may struggle to fill its nuclear ambitions (budget wise - lots of issues) and could possibly go for a mixed fleet in the future or a capable diesel sub. A mixed fleet based off the same hull makes loads of sense in that case. I would say the case for a short fin barracuda for Brazil makes its case stronger everyday given the economic situation. Tourism is going to go very badly for Brazil in the near future, the corruption issues aren't dissolved either.

Brazil could build a short Fin Barracuda with possible a "tea kettle" <1MW reactor. Removing some/all of the six diesel engines would create space for a small replaceable reactor. A far less expensive and less ambitious program than developing unique full nuclear reactor. Limitations to sustained top speed would be a small trade off. It may be able to adapt the Scorpene to a tea kettle design.

Im sure I read somewhere than DCNS would share nuclear sub secrets if we wanted them. So DCNS has offered turnkey nukes?

Argentina drew up plans to build tea kettle mini nukes (CAREM- the Argentinian atomic agency) into the 1700 subs which were are the core of the Thyssen Nordseewerke design for the original Collins class, and now its replacement.

An Argentine company (owned by the Argentinian government) designed and built the new 20MW Nuclear Reactor at Lucas Heights.

What about this for flights of nuclear fancy, a ThyssenKrupp submarine, with an Argentinian nuclear reactor for the Collins replacement. Build a paper sub with a paper reactor from somewhere else, that has to be low risk.

South Australia has been mooted for a site for waste reprocessing/storage using Silex technology.

Nuclear: Australia's wasted opportunity | afr.com

 

[alexsa]

Yes a mature discussion would help. Are you saying Australia needs to have power plants in order to get nuke boats? Frankly, I think nuke boats would be an easier sell than power plants at the moment even if NG prices were much higher.

Nope my point is we are ideally placed to use Nuclear power (noting coal fired generation makes up a large proportion of our generation capacity) given our resources and space. Even a small number of plant for base load would go a long way to resolving a green house gas issues that have the greens in a spin but the options is simply 'not on the table' due to the nature of the debate in Australia and the sheer volume of inaccurate information (a lot of it is simple hysteria and/or nonsense).

Can you image the uproar of we had nuclear submarines ...... bit like cargo ships running aground ........... they are all referred to as tankers. Well all SSN's will be (and are in the case of visiting US ships) seen as SSBNs or a potential Fukushima.

 

[John Newman]

Yes a mature discussion would help. Are you saying Australia needs to have power plants in order to get nuke boats? Frankly, I think nuke boats would be an easier sell than power plants at the moment even if NG prices were much higher.

John,

Does Australia have to have nuclear power stations (and an expanded nuclear industry) in place to have nuclear submarines? I think from a pure 'technical' point of view the answer is probably 'no', (but we would have to have a hell of a lot of support from our US and UK friends to be in a position to do so).

The question is more about the politics of 'nuclear', nuclear in all it's forms in this country.

From a pure political point of view we don't have 'majority' agreement amongst the major political parties, simple as that.

The 'far right' and 'centre right' of politics could reasonably go to the their voters and say we are going to have Nuclear submarines, and they probably wouldn't loose any votes by having that position (are they going to go further to the 'right'? I think not).

On the other hand the 'centre left' and the 'far left' is a whole different kettle of fish, the 'far left', the Greens, will always say NO! NO! NO!, to anything nuclear, simple as that, its in their DNA.

The 'centre left', the ALP has been fundamentally opposed to Nuclear power in Australia, whilst that is still a policy, then (in my opinion), they would never advocate the acquisition of Nuclear Submarines, the word 'nuclear' would just drive the more left of their support to the far left, eg, the Greens.

As we all know, political survival comes before anything else with political parties.


A good example of 'bi partisan' support is the difference between the F-35 acquisition in Australia vs the F-35 acquisition in Canada.

In Australia, both the LNP Coalition and the ALP are on the same page when it comes to the F-35, both support the acquisition, neither party risks the possibility that either party will cancel the choice of the other, (the Greens don't have a say and it doesn't matter what they think, the majority rules).

Canada on the other hand, appears to have a fundamental difference between the right and the left, the right should have ordered the F-35 (but didn't have the balls), the left said they wouldn't select the F-35 and select another alternative.

And the saga continues to drag on, simply a fundamental difference between both sides of politics.

So what would happen in Australia if the LNP said 'yes we are ordering Nuclear Submarines'?

The ALP would most likely oppose such a decision, based on their 'nuclear' position and also fear of loosing even more votes to the Greens.


Maybe I'm right (maybe I'm wrong), but I just can't see that either major political party would go down that path (a bloody big path to go down), unless they knew the other side would support such a decision.


Nuclear submarines for Australia? Not until both major sides of politics are on the same page!!

Just my opinion of course!!