Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[protoplasm]

Collins class availability

Isn't it amazing what happens when those who understand the weapons system are allowed to decide how best to support it. I find it interesting that this is being presented in the very mainstream media, I'm hopeful that this may indicate a change in the Australian media messaging about submarines and Collins in particular. As an Adelaideian I'm very keen for sub maintenance and sub building to be represented accurately rather than with an overlay of political BS.

Nocookies | The Australian

Subs 'mediocre to excellent' in four years

Max Blenkin, Defence Correspondent
Australian Associated Press
1:33PM October 21, 2016

From the dark days when the Navy was hard-pressed to sustain a single operational Collins submarine, it's now able to keep two and often three at sea while others undergo maintenance.

In the latest report card on Collins sustainment, UK submarine expert John Coles said few would have predicted the performance of the six Collins subs would graduate from mediocre to excellent in less than four years at almost level funding.

"If there were unit citation medals to be awarded, the Submarine Enterprise would surely qualify," he said in the report.

Collins availability would have been even better if not for a fire aboard HMAS Waller in February 2014. The sub didn't rejoin the fleet until mid-2016.

The latest review found two submarines were available for operations more than 90 per cent of the time, three for more than 50 per cent and four occasionally since January 2014.

Now that HMAS Farncomb has completed full-cycle docking - two years of top to bottom maintenance - four boat availability is expected to increase.

Previously full cycle docking took three to four years and was conducted every eight years. Now that's done for two years every 10 years.

In the 2012 review, Mr Coles compared Collins maintenance against international benchmarks for diesel electric submarines, finding Collins was wanting in key areas.

Now it's approaching or exceeding those benchmarks. Days lost due to defects is now a quarter what it was while maintenance overrun days is a fifth.

Submarine availability days are now more than 85 per cent of the international benchmark, up from 56 per cent.

Mr Coles said Collins availability should reach or better the international benchmark in the next 12 months.

"For the Submarine Enterprise to reach this level of performance is a significant achievement that has not received the attention that it merits," he said.

Defence Minister Marise Payne said submarines played a key part in national security.

"Improvements to the availability and reliability of the Collins Class submarines means that they can spend more days at sea conducting exercises and operations that directly contribute to our strategic defence capability," she said in a statement.

 

[Volkodav]

If Hobart sea trials continue to progress smoothly, this will be a positive for Navantia's design bid chances in the forthcoming RFP for the CSC design selection. Irving has consulted with both OMT and BIW but this does not really matter as it will be the government that selects the design.

Irving's performance on the AOPS will provide some indication as to how they will fare with the CSC.

Well in 2007 Navantia had never been involved in an overseas build, now they are managing one. Its been a steep leaning curve for all involved and what has been achieve is quite exceptional, particularly as the powers that be had no idea what they were signing up for when they (belatedly) launched the AWD project.

 

[Volkodav]

Volk,
all ways admired how you tell it warts and all and look forward to the next informative post from the inside. But wonder how big corporate dosnt try to step in and try to haul you over the coals. Sometimes I wonder if your doing yourself a disservice with CLM as GF likes to say.

Not on the inside anymore and am not likely to be for geographic reasons, i.e. moved a few years back for family commitments. If I ever return to the fold you will be able to tell because I will no longer discuss anything I have current intimate knowledge of.

 

[Volkodav]

Isn't it amazing what happens when those who understand the weapons system are allowed to decide how best to support it. I find it interesting that this is being presented in the very mainstream media, I'm hopeful that this may indicate a change in the Australian media messaging about submarines and Collins in particular. As an Adelaideian I'm very keen for sub maintenance and sub building to be represented accurately rather than with an overlay of political BS.

Nocookies | The Australian

Subs 'mediocre to excellent' in four years

Max Blenkin, Defence Correspondent
Australian Associated Press
1:33PM October 21, 2016

From the dark days when the Navy was hard-pressed to sustain a single operational Collins submarine, it's now able to keep two and often three at sea while others undergo maintenance.

In the latest report card on Collins sustainment, UK submarine expert John Coles said few would have predicted the performance of the six Collins subs would graduate from mediocre to excellent in less than four years at almost level funding.

"If there were unit citation medals to be awarded, the Submarine Enterprise would surely qualify," he said in the report.

Collins availability would have been even better if not for a fire aboard HMAS Waller in February 2014. The sub didn't rejoin the fleet until mid-2016.

The latest review found two submarines were available for operations more than 90 per cent of the time, three for more than 50 per cent and four occasionally since January 2014.

Now that HMAS Farncomb has completed full-cycle docking - two years of top to bottom maintenance - four boat availability is expected to increase.

Previously full cycle docking took three to four years and was conducted every eight years. Now that's done for two years every 10 years.

In the 2012 review, Mr Coles compared Collins maintenance against international benchmarks for diesel electric submarines, finding Collins was wanting in key areas.

Now it's approaching or exceeding those benchmarks. Days lost due to defects is now a quarter what it was while maintenance overrun days is a fifth.

Submarine availability days are now more than 85 per cent of the international benchmark, up from 56 per cent.

Mr Coles said Collins availability should reach or better the international benchmark in the next 12 months.

"For the Submarine Enterprise to reach this level of performance is a significant achievement that has not received the attention that it merits," he said.

Defence Minister Marise Payne said submarines played a key part in national security.

"Improvements to the availability and reliability of the Collins Class submarines means that they can spend more days at sea conducting exercises and operations that directly contribute to our strategic defence capability," she said in a statement.

Had the privilege of working with some pretty cluey people on the project back in the mid to late 2000s when the sustainment, including bums on seats, was being micromanaged from Canberra. The consensus of the expert community (ASC, RAN, DMSE/DMO and the capability partners from EB) was that what needed to happen was exactly what is happening now.

Coles came in, spoke to these people, listened and recommended that instead of telling the experts how to do their jobs the government should listen to them and accept their advice, the rest is history. It is however a sad state of affairs that there needs to be a report with the name and signature of an overseas expert on it, recommending that the government listens to the Australian experts who already work for them, before they actually believe what they have been told for years. Our politicians, like too many in the general public, seem to suffer from a cultural cringe and refuse to believe our scientific and technical communities are world standard.

 

[Stampede]

SH-60B Seahawk, MU90 torpedoes and Penguin missiles, even though it was known that either the NH90 or MH-60R would be selected and in service before Hobart was commissioned.

As neither future helicopter would fit in the original hanger and the type of missile and likely torpedo would change (MU90 is battery and Mk54 is Otofuel with different stowage and safety requirements) it was always known these blocks would have to be changed. The government was advised and the instruction was build to print and a new project, under the AIR 9000, would pay for the rework down the track. Again to someone uninitiated this would look like a stuff up be th shipbuilder but the fact is these compartment could not be outfitted prior to consolidation as it would have resulted in unacceptable delays.

G day Volk

Moving forward
From an engineering point of view, how would it be possible to accommodate TWO Romeo sized helicopters on the Hobart's and safely store its Mk 54 torpedoes?
Also looking at a second Phalanx upfront!
While I know what we could of had, the Hobart class are still big ships and I would imagine have some weight margin to grow.
Would one use the existing ship structure and reconfigure within or is it better to rebuild a new hangar and weapon storage blocks; install and sacrifice what is currently on ship.
A layman's question for sure but I'm interested if it's an option.

Based on the assumption time and money are not an issue.

Regards S

 

[chis73]

Fate of the RAN S-70B-2 Seahawks?

Having seen what appears to be a Seahawk on the flight deck of the RNZN's new tanker model at the recent Euronaval exhibition, it has me wondering if there has been any information released on the supposed fate of the RANs S-70B-2 Seahawks? Presumably they will be disposed of rather than kept on. I haven't heard any news of a sale.

There are 16 in total iirc. According to the ADF Serials website, one (001) is already in a museum. NZ might be interested in them just for parts (they share engines, FLIR & ESM systems with the SH-2G(I) Seasprite). T700-401 (not -401C) engines must be getting relatively scarce (the USN has retired all SH-60B; the USMC AH-1Ws are scheduled to retire by 2020 I think)

There is also a simulator to be disposed of.

Anyway, seeing the model at Euronaval got me thinking, could NZ be thinking of introducing a limited number of S-70Bs? It would solve a few problems (in the short term) on this side of the Tasman. Could be useful as cargo hacks for the new tanker and the Canterbury. The S-70B has a max slung load of 6000lb, which is substantially better than the Seasprite (but not as good as the 9000lb on the MH-60S). If you ripped out most of the internals (perhaps even the radar) you would have decent passenger capacity as well. RNZN use Decklock rather than RAST, so that would need modification.

 

[oldsig127]

From an engineering point of view, how would it be possible to accommodate TWO Romeo sized helicopters on the Hobart's and safely store its Mk 54 torpedoes?
Regards S

Bearing in mind that the design that Navantia has proposed for the new frigates is effectively the Hobart hull with a two helicopter hangar I suggest that it's possible.

As for growth margin, the Hobarts are supposedly 6,250 tonne full displacement and designed with enough growth margin to 7,000 tonnes. How swapping the AWD superstructure and SPY for CEA, new masts, hangar and other alterations in structure, machinery and equipment will affect that isn't worth my feeble guessing.

oldsig

 

[thatsamguy]

Is it all reasonable to think that Darwin and Melbourne will be out of commission before the first FF comes in? Or is my timeline out of whack?

I'm wondering if either may be considered for first of class naming.

 

[alexsa]

Bearing in mind that the design that Navantia has proposed for the new frigates is effectively the Hobart hull with a two helicopter hangar I suggest that it's possible.

As for growth margin, the Hobarts are supposedly 6,250 tonne full displacement and designed with enough growth margin to 7,000 tonnes. How swapping the AWD superstructure and SPY for CEA, new masts, hangar and other alterations in structure, machinery and equipment will affect that isn't worth my feeble guessing.

oldsig

Navantia have quoted about 70% commonality. This seems reasonable for the first batch as they will have to change our some machinery items if you plan to comply with MARPOL Annex VI. Hopefully future batches will be evolved.

It is not that easy to simply open up a second hanger and from what I have seen the internal structure of that deck, and the underpinning structure below, would need to be reworked (noting you need to carry through the structure between decks and you cannot simply pull out a partition.

Yes it could be done ...... but why bother. The future frigate will have room for two. The AOR's will have room for two. The Choles can also carry a number with the tent up. The OPV's will be helo capable (I would assume NH90 ..... one would hope) and then there are the LHD's. Assuming only half of the ANZAC II and AWD are in operation at any one time that will chew up 6 Romeo's if they only carry one...... 10 if some carry 2 and that is before we start looking at the other platforms. With 24 air frames we are going to run out PDQ noting other training and maintenacne obligations.

Add to that the suggestion that UAV will be carried (and I understand some versions may fit in the AWD hanger with a Romeo..... happy to be corrected) so it is not as if the AWD is limited to a single capability.

Personally I would love to see a LU Helo in the mix to provide basic search and low level operations (anti piracy) where I see a Romeo as a bit OTT, however, I doubt we will see that.

 

[Volkodav]

SH-60B Seahawk, MU90 torpedoes and Penguin missiles, even though it was known that either the NH90 or MH-60R would be selected and in service before Hobart was commissioned.

As neither future helicopter would fit in the original hanger and the type of missile and likely torpedo would change (MU90 is battery and Mk54 is Otofuel with different stowage and safety requirements) it was always known these blocks would have to be changed. The government was advised and the instruction was build to print and a new project, under the AIR 9000, would pay for the rework down the track. Again to someone uninitiated this would look like a stuff up be th shipbuilder but the fact is these compartment could not be outfitted prior to consolidation as it would have resulted in unacceptable delays.

G day Volk

Moving forward
From an engineering point of view, how would it be possible to accommodate TWO Romeo sized helicopters on the Hobart's and safely store its Mk 54 torpedoes?
Also looking at a second Phalanx upfront!
While I know what we could of had, the Hobart class are still big ships and I would imagine have some weight margin to grow.
Would one use the existing ship structure and reconfigure within or is it better to rebuild a new hangar and weapon storage blocks; install and sacrifice what is currently on ship.
A layman's question for sure but I'm interested if it's an option.

Based on the assumption time and money are not an issue.

Regards S

Hull stretch, major redesign replacing and rearranging many major systems, or a completely new design are the only options. The F-100 is a very tight design which caused great difficulty in making required updates for the current build, there is no easy way to fit a second helicopter as the compartments surrounding the hanger are packed tight with gear that would need to be relocated.

 

[spoz]

Having seen what appears to be a Seahawk on the flight deck of the RNZN's new tanker model at the recent Euronaval exhibition, it has me wondering if there has been any information released on the supposed fate of the RANs S-70B-2 Seahawks? Presumably they will be disposed of rather than kept on. I haven't heard any news of a sale.

There are 16 in total iirc. According to the ADF Serials website, one (001) is already in a museum. NZ might be interested in them just for parts (they share engines, FLIR & ESM systems with the SH-2G(I) Seasprite). T700-401 (not -401C) engines must be getting relatively scarce (the USN has retired all SH-60B; the USMC AH-1Ws are scheduled to retire by 2020 I think)

There is also a simulator to be disposed of.

Anyway, seeing the model at Euronaval got me thinking, could NZ be thinking of introducing a limited number of S-70Bs? It would solve a few problems (in the short term) on this side of the Tasman. Could be useful as cargo hacks for the new tanker and the Canterbury. The S-70B has a max slung load of 6000lb, which is substantially better than the Seasprite (but not as good as the 9000lb on the MH-60S). If you ripped out most of the internals (perhaps even the radar) you would have decent passenger capacity as well. RNZN use Decklock rather than RAST, so that would need modification.

The RAN S-70B-2 uses T700-401C engines. They were not interchangeable with the -401s in the Seasprite, at least when the latter aircraft were in RAN service, as the -401s were de-rated for use in the Seasprite.

However, from an airframe perspective the ex RAN S-70Bs would be quite a good buy. The avionics suite, which was a custom build for the RAN's requirements in the 1980s, not so much as it is getting long in the tooth; any future owner would probably need to look at a complete replacement fairly quickly.

 

[hauritz]

Is it all reasonable to think that Darwin and Melbourne will be out of commission before the first FF comes in? Or is my timeline out of whack?

I'm wondering if either may be considered for first of class naming.

Actually I wish the navy would take a break from naming its ships after capital cities. I would love ship names such as HMAS Vendetta, Vampire or Voyager. Those sort of names just sound a lot more badass.

 

[vonnoobie]

Hull stretch, major redesign replacing and rearranging many major systems, or a completely new design are the only options. The F-100 is a very tight design which caused great difficulty in making required updates for the current build, there is no easy way to fit a second helicopter as the compartments surrounding the hanger are packed tight with gear that would need to be relocated.

One of those times I'd gather where it would be cheaper to build a new ship and transfer across valuable hardware rather then modify an existing hull?

 

[chis73]

The RAN S-70B-2 uses T700-401C engines. They were not interchangeable with the -401s in the Seasprite, at least when the latter aircraft were in RAN service, as the -401s were de-rated for use in the Seasprite.

However, from an airframe perspective the ex RAN S-70Bs would be quite a good buy. The avionics suite, which was a custom build for the RAN's requirements in the 1980s, not so much as it is getting long in the tooth; any future owner would probably need to look at a complete replacement fairly quickly.

Thanks for the correction spoz, I live and learn. I guess you can't even trust the RAN's site to get it right (link). I assumed that the RAN S-70B-2 Seahawks were probably ordered too early (1986?) to get the -401Cs, and if they had -401s, that would explain the RANs enthusiasm for the Seasprite. According to Leyes & Fleming (The History of North American Small Gas Turbine Aircraft Engines, 1999, p. 352) the USN only got the -401C in 1988. The S-70B-2s were delivered 1988 through 1990 iirc; operational by 1992. The early USN SH-60Bs had the -401s, but these were gradually refitted with -401Cs (which, according to one source I've read, provided the supply of -401 engines for the SH-2Gs), while later production SH-60Bs came with -401Cs as standard.

 

[spoz]

Thanks for the correction spoz, I live and learn. I guess you can't even trust the RAN's site to get it right (link). I assumed that the RAN S-70B-2 Seahawks were probably ordered too early (1986?) to get the -401Cs, and if they had -401s, that would explain the RANs enthusiasm for the Seasprite. According to Leyes & Fleming (The History of North American Small Gas Turbine Aircraft Engines, 1999, p. 352) the USN only got the -401C in 1988. The S-70B-2s were delivered 1988 through 1990 iirc; operational by 1992. The early USN SH-60Bs had the -401s, but these were gradually refitted with -401Cs (which, according to one source I've read, provided the supply of -401 engines for the SH-2Gs), while later production SH-60Bs came with -401Cs as standard.

IIRC ours came with fitted 401Cs; I wasn't involved in the very early days in the US so they may have been fiitted with 401s then. Our first delivery to 'Tross, again IIRC, was in late '89; certainly it was SITU not 816 who initially went to the first Gulf War. They've been upgraded since of course with DECUs and the like. I'm not actually sure what version they are now, not having had anything to do with the bird farm for some years.

It's also important to remember that the S-70B-2 and the various US models of SH60 were quite different aircraft; in many airframe ways ours are closest to 60Fs rather than Bs although even there the similarity can be overstretched.

Yes, I'm pretty sure you right about the source of 401s for the SH2s; although of course our airframes wre remanufactured to the G standard, and the USN did have a lot of earlier models available to rabbit from. However, and I don't have the reference books, I seem to remember that each engine was derated by about 200 SHP from nominal for use in the Seasprite because of gearbox input limitations. When we looked at trying to commonalise the engine stock it wasn't worth it although of course they did share parts (as did, or rather do, the T700-701Cs in the Blackhawks)

 

[pussertas]

There are 16 in total iirc. According to the ADF Serials website, one (001) is already in a museum. NZ might be interested in them just for parts (they share engines, FLIR & ESM systems with the SH-2G(I) Seasprite). T700-401 (not -401C) engines must be getting relatively scarce (the USN has retired all SH-60B; the USMC AH-1Ws are scheduled to retire by 2020 I think)

There is also a simulator to be disposed of.

Would it be a better use of assets to use these Helicopters for bush-fire fire fighting? Manning to be by the Army Reserve?

In the 'off season' they could be deployed to fight fires in Canada.

 

[spoz]

Would it be a better use of assets to use these Helicopters for bush-fire fire fighting? Manning to be by the Army Reserve?

In the 'off season' they could be deployed to fight fires in Canada.

Interesting idea although I could foresee ITAR issues if they were used by anybody other than the ADF. I'm also not sure reserve units would have the skills to keep them serviceable.

Given the state of the airframes I always sort of hoped we might strip the combat system out of the 8 or 10 best, give them a basic avionics upgrade and keep them for use as utility cabs as we did with Wessex and SK in the past. It still seems a good idea, but I'm afraid it's not going to happen.

 

[rockitten]

Interesting idea although I could foresee ITAR issues if they were used by anybody other than the ADF. I'm also not sure reserve units would have the skills to keep them serviceable.

Given the state of the airframes I always sort of hoped we might strip the combat system out of the 8 or 10 best, give them a basic avionics upgrade and keep them for use as utility cabs as we did with Wessex and SK in the past. It still seems a good idea, but I'm afraid it's not going to happen.

Some nations, such as Taiwan, are still operating AH-1W and S-70s (both ASW, VIP and SAR versions). So they may be interested to purchase them through the Yanks for parts .

 

[Volkodav]

Interesting discussion on the SH-60B, thanks guys.

The thing I always recall when the Seahawk is being discussed is an article I read in the late 80s that discussed the costs of the project. From memory it was A$32m (late 80s dollars) per complete aircraft (vs A$20m at the time for Australian build Hornets and about A$40m a piece for new P-3Cs recently delivered) plus of course training and logistics overheads as well as structural modifications to HMAS Adelaide, Canberra and Sydney.

This is the bit I am a bit foggy on but over all the Seahawk acquisition was not only substantially more expensive than the competing Lynx (justified by the extra capability required to cover the loss of the carrier and its ASW aircraft), but possibly more expensive than acquiring Lynx as well as a ship (or ships) to operate the Sea Kings. The RAN SH-60B wasn't a FMS buy like the Romeo, it was as Spoz said a bespoke model developed specifically for Australian requirements, not a bad bit of kit by any means but very expensive. All in the past now but I have also read that Hermes for instance could have been accepted when offered and either retained in its ASW configuration or even refitted as a CTOL carrier able to operate Melbourne's airgroup, for less than the premium paid for the Seahawks.

 

[40 deg south]

Possible delay to start of Australian OPV construction | IHS Jane's 360

Possible delays in the OPV schedule according to Jane's. Apologies if this has already had coverage in Australian media.