Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[Todjaeger]

As for the combination of French sub and US combat system. I have total faith in LM in integrating everything they need to. I think sling mud their direction is pretty stupid, because if you look at what they are up to project wise, they are not the concern. AFAIK they have hit pretty much every milestone they have needed to.

As for the Americans dudding us on combat, you have got to be kidding. Everyone knows it was the US talent and generosity that saved Collins, not only that they also saved Astutes and other nations programs owe a great debt of gratitude. They have proven they will go the extra mile to ensure project success.

With the french, well we will squeeze them until we get our sovereign capability.

Some parts of the program are just total wins.. MTU supported by Penkse. Nobody is worried about that. Everybody wants that on the Collins boats. Everyone wants that on basically every ship in the Navy. Other nations are envious of that kind of capability. There is a whole local logistics chain setup from commercial applications in industry and mining etc. Navy just fits into that massive established, professional, well oiled local capability.

Just because things come from different companies and different countries does not mean it doesn't get along.

Part of the commentary about the combat system got me as well, as it seemed that Gottliebsen was implying that the US might/would sell a less capable combat system to Australia. This manages to miss or ignore the fact that the current Collins-class subs use a version of the BYG-1 combat used in USN Virginia-class SSN's. In essence, the author seems to be suggesting that the US would permit Australia to purchase a combat system worse than one already in service with the RAN, that was also sourced from the US.

I also found it rather curious that the author seemed so concerned about issues with risk, difficulty and projected costs, without offering any alternatives or listing what capabilities are required, and also no mention what it would cost to bring any alternate sub class into active RAN service.

 

[oldsig127]

I also found it rather curious that the author seemed so concerned about issues with risk, difficulty and projected costs, without offering any alternatives or listing what capabilities are required, and also no mention what it would cost to bring any alternate sub class into active RAN service.

Not terribly curious. At base, he's an accountant. Read any four of his defence oriented posts and inevitably the theme of at least three is "we coulda got it cheaper off the shelf"

Bugger worrying about whether it's actually fit for our purpose, or whether it might cost Australian lives or whether he has all the facts, or indeed, any of them. Any number of crew lives lost are easily balanced by a $1B saving and approval from Uncle Rupert in his version of risk analysis.

oldsig (and hell, yes, I'm cynical. Don't get me started on Judith Sloane)

 

[StingrayOZ]

Part of the commentary about the combat system got me as well, as it seemed that Gottliebsen was implying that the US might/would sell a less capable combat system to Australia. This manages to miss or ignore the fact that the current Collins-class subs use a version of the BYG-1 combat used in USN Virginia-class SSN's. In essence, the author seems to be suggesting that the US would permit Australia to purchase a combat system worse than one already in service with the RAN, that was also sourced from the

Hes so off base on this.. The problems with the Americans isn't that they foist old and limited stuff on you, its that they move along so fast most other countries can't keep up and that they are too big and powerful for what most nations need and require more upgrades and refits than most nations would prepare for. If it was up to the Americans we would all be on the latest full flavors of Aegis and other systems.

I also found it rather curious that the author seemed so concerned about issues with risk, difficulty and projected costs, without offering any alternatives or listing what capabilities are required, and also no mention what it would cost to bring any alternate sub class into active RAN service.

Hes just throwing shit IMO to sell papers. He hints at getting SSN's, but everyone knows thats a furphy. Disposal costs alone would be equal to our projected build costs. Plus which SSN's? French? Doesn't that just take us back to the same problems we are currently having? US? Oh just a little matter of the 135 crew for each sub... Before you even get to build costs and nuclear tech issues. Which is why we won't be building diesel versions of US subs. Like why we don't build diesel versions of US CVNs.

 

[ngatimozart]

Not terribly curious. At base, he's an accountant. Read any four of his defence oriented posts and inevitably the theme of at least three is "we coulda got it cheaper off the shelf"

Bugger worrying about whether it's actually fit for our purpose, or whether it might cost Australian lives or whether he has all the facts, or indeed, any of them. Any number of crew lives lost are easily balanced by a $1B saving and approval from Uncle Rupert in his version of risk analysis.

oldsig (and hell, yes, I'm cynical. Don't get me started on Judith Sloane)

Yes, Uncle Rupert. It's getting to the point where I might consider asking the other Moderators to consider treating any of the Murdoch owned media as unreliable sources, like RT, Pravda, Xinhua, Global Times etc., and about as useful as the NZ green party defence policy.

 

[ASSAIL]

Yes, Uncle Rupert. It's getting to the point where I might consider asking the other Moderators to consider treating any of the Murdoch owned media as unreliable sources, like RT, Pravda, Xinhua, Global Times etc., and about as useful as the NZ green party defence policy.

Don’t forget Gottliebsen is freelance and ventures forth in a number of rags.
Our media have become increasingly partisan, the public broadcaster, 9 Fairfax and 10 all line up on one side with Murdoch media the Lone Ranger on the other.
I stopped watching Q&A a long time ago.

 

[Todjaeger]

Not terribly curious. At base, he's an accountant. Read any four of his defence oriented posts and inevitably the theme of at least three is "we coulda got it cheaper off the shelf"

Bugger worrying about whether it's actually fit for our purpose, or whether it might cost Australian lives or whether he has all the facts, or indeed, any of them. Any number of crew lives lost are easily balanced by a $1B saving and approval from Uncle Rupert in his version of risk analysis.

oldsig (and hell, yes, I'm cynical. Don't get me started on Judith Sloane)

For an accountant though, one would think that before making comments about a programme having costs out of control, one would also list the estimated costs for "better" alternatives. Preferably realistic costs. So far it just reads to me like someone bagging the selection, without providing any alternatives and how/why those alternatives might be "better".

His failure to also even remotely address what the RAN and ADF need in the Future Submarines in terms of capabilities does not help his arguments either.

 

[Stampede]

Another recent article on our future submarines, this one is from the ABC

Defence Minister warns France over local work on $80b subs program


We may or may not like this negativity regarding SEA 1000, but for the majority of the population who get little exposure to defence issues then this sort of press has an impression.

If this negative coverage continues to get traction with other media outlets then this perception may need to be addressed.
Some positive spin may be in order.

Regard S

 

[StingrayOZ]

Another recent article on our future submarines, this one is from the ABC

Defence Minister warns France over local work on $80b subs program

We may or may not like this negativity regarding SEA 1000, but for the majority of the population who get little exposure to defence issues then this sort of press has an impression.

This is really a separate issue to the subs themselves. There is an issue over local work and local content on the subs. Yes, I think we do need to be vigilant on local content. Talking to potential local suppliers, they aren't that happy at this stage. Naval group is 63% owned by the French government, and the French government has as its priority French people and french jobs. Companies that did work on Oberon and Collins are getting turned away at the door. If you go to the public/commercial consultation you can feel the heat on this issue. Its growing as the project comes on as it becomes clearer that local content isn't growing as much as it should.

Of course you ask Naval group to show you the detailed plan of how they intend to build local capability and "sovereign capability" and they look at you blankly and say that is your job. I believe the AU staff of Naval is trying, but at the end of the day there is only so much they can do, and I am not convinced the French are helping that process. I am not convinced its in the French interest to help that process, because if things can't be found then it goes back to being a french sourced thing.

Lockmart, has quarterly open sessions where anyone can bid on work, and companies/organisations do and it is working. Its clear, transparent, etc. There is funding to develop capabilities within Australia, there is a long list of companies they have already signed on for work. LM job is probably a bit easier from that point of view and there are more transferable skills more and sizable modules that the project can be broken down into etc.

IMO this is where the Collins refit comes into play.. Oh photonic mast? Collins will need that. Lets get it locally made (assembled at least) and done and the french can't knock it back because its in service on a submarine. The engines upgrade to MTU like I said is a slam dunk, and gets us out of the awful dead end Hedemora (which even sweden junked). However, if the decision was up to naval I am sure they would prefer the SEMT Piesltick stuff... And who the hell runs them?

Edit :On reflection I will post this Naval Groups release:

Joint Statement with the Department of Defence - Australian industry involvement in the Attack Class Submarine Program - Naval Group Australia

Joint Statement with Naval Group - Australian industry involvement in the Attack Class Submarine Program | Defence News

Looking through the 137 companies I encourage people to make up their own minds how many of these are providing hard physical tangibles for the submarine and not just office services. While early days, I would hope this a very preliminary list, and it grows to include many great Australian companies and organisations that provide, actual objects for the submarine.

 

[Ananda]

Australian submarine fleet scheme ‘should be scra…:

This is video from Sky Network..I'm putting this Video not on the matter of discussing their opinion on Australian Future Subs program (SEA 1000), but as non Australian, I just wonder how big the chances of those who oppose the SEA 1000 choice (including those who promote nuclear subs) has on ditching the program ?

Just to be clear I don't want to question or support the interview contents of the video (as I don't have enough knowledge on the matter anyway), but just wonder on this stage can this program be ditched as they're suggesting?

Thanks

 

[ngatimozart]

Australian submarine fleet scheme ‘should be scra…:

This is video from Sky Network..I'm putting this Video not on the matter of discussing their opinion on Australian Future Subs program (SEA 1000), but as non Australian, I just wonder how big the chances of those who oppose the SEA 1000 choice (including those who promote nuclear subs) has on ditching the program ?

Just to be clear I don't want to question or support the interview contents of the video (as I don't have enough knowledge on the matter anyway), but just wonder on this stage can this program be ditched as they're suggesting?

Thanks

It's a load of absolute rubbish. Their so called expert is an ex army intelligence officer - an oxymoron - who knows jack shit about subs and things that float. It comes just after The Australian article from earlier this week that had an accountant as their expert. Both are Murdoch media enterprises and it's starting to look like a Murdoch campaign against the subs for some reason.

 

[ASSAIL]

Australian submarine fleet scheme ‘should be scra…:

This is video from Sky Network..I'm putting this Video not on the matter of discussing their opinion on Australian Future Subs program (SEA 1000), but as non Australian, I just wonder how big the chances of those who oppose the SEA 1000 choice (including those who promote nuclear subs) has on ditching the program ?

Just to be clear I don't want to question or support the interview contents of the video (as I don't have enough knowledge on the matter anyway), but just wonder on this stage can this program be ditched as they're suggesting?

Thanks

Andrew Bolt is a conservative political commentator who has very strong “opinions”.
First, he was a strong supporter of a precious PM, Tony Abbott who was a fan of the Soryu class boats.
Abbott was knifed by the next PM, Turnbull and this led Andrew Bolt to detest him, Turnbull was also a very progressive conservative which heightened the dislike.
So, when Turnbull’s team chose Naval Group over Mitsubishi/Soryu there was an instant disdain for anything “Turnbull” and that included the Attacks.
Second, Bolt has always been a strong protagonist for Nuclear power and that extended to submarines and he has found a number of well credentialed supporters who agree with him including many retired uniforms. (I also hold this view but as discussed many times, it won’t happen until there’s bipartisan agreement, highly unlikely)

I’m not surprised by his rant, it’s true to form.

 

[Stampede]

Australian submarine fleet scheme ‘should be scra…:

This is video from Sky Network..I'm putting this Video not on the matter of discussing their opinion on Australian Future Subs program (SEA 1000), but as non Australian, I just wonder how big the chances of those who oppose the SEA 1000 choice (including those who promote nuclear subs) has on ditching the program ?

Just to be clear I don't want to question or support the interview contents of the video (as I don't have enough knowledge on the matter anyway), but just wonder on this stage can this program be ditched as they're suggesting?

Thanks

Thanks for the post

If all I knew about our future submarine was from this video from Sky, I'd be very perplexed and concerned.

Defence and naval group may want to "sell" this project.

This dry media release may not cut the mustard in this age of sensational news grabs.

Just a thought


Regards S

 

[Ananda]

Thanks Gent's on the insight of the debate. For me, if I can comment on the interview, they talk about how more cost effective introducing Nuclear Subs to Australia Navy compared to the SEA 1000 choosen Subs. Still they don't talk on the Investment cost need to be beared on SSN support infrastructure and comparing Virginia Class SSN cost occurred in USN will not be the same if Australia buy Virginia class SSN.

A neutral Journalism should compared all the cost and benefits between the two choices. The interview clearly one sided, but I do believe it is very hard to find balance Journalism in the world today. Most media in the world now tend to be one sided on each their own view.

Just wondering actually if Australian public is begin to be more Nuclear powered leaning. I'm supporter of nuclear energy, but I know that view still controversial and sensitive by some part of public especially in some countries that haven't introduce commercial Nuclear power or Nuclear power vehicles.

 

[John Fedup]

Won’t dwell much on nuclear options in this thread but with respect to public opinion on all things nuclear I think climate change could be the driver towards a more favourable view for nuclear options. Improved reactor designs would help as well.

 

[Takao]

Just to be clear I don't want to question or support the interview contents of the video (as I don't have enough knowledge on the matter anyway), but just wonder on this stage can this program be ditched as they're suggesting?

Thanks

To paraphrase a very, very senior officer:

There is one project of national significance and strategic importance - SEA 1000 (Attack)
There are two of national significance - SEA 5000 (Hunter's) and AIR 6000 (JSF)
Everything else is flexible.

From a slightly different point of view, if you wanted to change / reduce the funding of any of those three you will get significant pushback - but only one is immune. So our actions reflect the above view.

As for details, they've been covered enough. There are many advantages to building in Australia, even if it costs more. There are so SSN's for lease or sale in the near term. There are advantages to SSKs in SE and NE Asian waters. Navy workforce is tracking well against DWP 16 and any future growth - noting we would have years to build the Attack crews. It's likely to be expensive, but those figures haven't changed (sold poorly yes...changed? no). There are likely to be delays and cost increases - but these aren't houses we are building, they are much more complex. And even houses blow out in time and $$!

Beyond that 'stuff', submarines are unique capabilities that provide a non-nuclear power the only form of actual deterrence they can get. Especially for a maritime nation. So, for all the nay-sayers, if SSNs aren't available because the USN desperately needs them - what do you do instead? Making Collins the answer gets us to the position of Army using M113s today - dangerous and stupid. Of course - all this requires thinking beyond a headline.

 

[76mmGuns]

There's something I'm curious about. I'm a bit hesitant to ask as this forum doesn't like "what if" questions, but I want to know- is there any benefit to having multiple classes and sizes of subs for Australia? I know we have limitations both in terms of money and crew, but say we operated 2 sizes. One was like the German Type 214, the other is the much larger and longer ranged Attack class.

The one similar to the Type 214 has reasonable range (on paper at least), can be made quickly, and could be used for patrols around Australia. It needs less crew, can be built faster, can give decent abilities. The Attack class could be used literally anywhere else in the world, and perhaps can be customised for long journeys (I don't know what, but I assume so)

 

[John Newman]

There is a simple solution to all the crap that is in the media regarding the subs, a very simple solution, stop reading the $hit in the first place!

Many years (and decades, late 60's and 70's) ago, I would read the morning newspaper going to work (front cover to back cover and back again), I'd read the afternoon newspaper going home (back in the day when we had morning and afternoon newspapers here in Sydney), then I'd watch the TV news, all the news at different times, and all of the current affairs programs too.

I would consume anything 'news', (not saying that the quality of the news was great back then, but the quality today is $hit, absolutely and completely $hit!!).

Now I simply don't bother, don't buy and read newspapers (well occasionally glance through a 'free' copy when I'm at a Café, but not in depth), I don't watch the TV news anymore, don't watch all of the crap current affairs programs (especially the ABC and SBS), I hardly even browse the news apps on my iPhone.

And do you know what??

My stress levels have decreased, my blood pressure is down too (wonder why?? ha ha!).

What I 'do do today' is read specialist media reporting, if I want to know about defence matters, I read the specialist defence media (certainly not the F*&king ABC!), if it's something else, I try and read something that is going to produce a reasonably balanced media report.

There is way way too much 'the sky is falling' reporting today, I simply choose to NOT listen to that crap!

Cheers,

 

[John Newman]

There's something I'm curious about. I'm a bit hesitant to ask as this forum doesn't like "what if" questions, but I want to know- is there any benefit to having multiple classes and sizes of subs for Australia? I know we have limitations both in terms of money and crew, but say we operated 2 sizes. One was like the German Type 214, the other is the much larger and longer ranged Attack class.

The one similar to the Type 214 has reasonable range (on paper at least), can be made quickly, and could be used for patrols around Australia. It needs less crew, can be built faster, can give decent abilities. The Attack class could be used literally anywhere else in the world, and perhaps can be customised for long journeys (I don't know what, but I assume so)

I think the simple answer to that is, how many nations are currently (and can afford) to produce TWO distinct classes of submarines concurrently? None I suspect.

Unless you are one of the very few nuclear powers that are operating both ballistic missile subs and non-ballistic subs, then again I suspect the answer is none.

Cheers,

 

[Todjaeger]

I think the simple answer to that is, how many nations are currently (and can afford) to produce TWO distinct classes of submarines concurrently? None I suspect.

Unless you are one of the very few nuclear powers that are operating both ballistic missile subs and non-ballistic subs, then again I suspect the answer is none.

Cheers,

There are a couple of nations which produce concurrent sub classes, Russia, China, India and France come to mind as builders of multiple classes of both conventional and nuclear-powered subs. Germany also produces a number of different diesel-electric subs, though the range of classes IMO has more to do with meeting the needs for different customer-nations, i.e. Type 212 for domestic needs, Type 214 for certain export orders, Type 218/Invincible-class for yet other exports(Singapore), and the Type 800/Dolphin-class for Israel, etc.

Japan also I believe operates more than one diesel-electric sub class, but as I understand it, this is at least in part due to Japan's submarine build and service life-cycle where Japan will start building a follow-on sub design prior to completely finishing production of the design it is replacing. From a purely cost perspective this might not be the most efficient, it does ensure that there is a steady stream of serviceable submarines while also maintaining a shipyard workforce trained to build subs, as well as likely providing a greater opportunity to incorporate incremental improvements into the sub classes.

With respect to Australia potentially choosing to operate more than one diesel-electric sub class, the questions I would be asking are, what are the circumstances, and what are the net advantages if any? I personally expect that the RAN will operate two different classes of submarine at the same time, at least for a short while as the Attack-class is being stood up while the Collins-class starts decommissioning.

I otherwise see no advantage to Australia in deliberately trying to keep two different sub classes in active service concurrently, and there would almost certainly be several different disadvantages in terms of production, training, support and sustainment costs. Also given the reality that small/coastal subs, contrary to common/popular belief, are not automatically harder to detect than larger subs, then there is not a real capability advantage to going with two (or more) classes.

 

[John Newman]

There are a couple of nations which produce concurrent sub classes, Russia, China, India and France come to mind as builders of multiple classes of both conventional and nuclear-powered subs. Germany also produces a number of different diesel-electric subs, though the range of classes IMO has more to do with meeting the needs for different customer-nations, i.e. Type 212 for domestic needs, Type 214 for certain export orders, Type 218/Invincible-class for yet other exports(Singapore), and the Type 800/Dolphin-class for Israel, etc.

Japan also I believe operates more than one diesel-electric sub class, but as I understand it, this is at least in part due to Japan's submarine build and service life-cycle where Japan will start building a follow-on sub design prior to completely finishing production of the design it is replacing. From a purely cost perspective this might not be the most efficient, it does ensure that there is a steady stream of serviceable submarines while also maintaining a shipyard workforce trained to build subs, as well as likely providing a greater opportunity to incorporate incremental improvements into the sub classes.

With respect to Australia potentially choosing to operate more than one diesel-electric sub class, the questions I would be asking are, what are the circumstances, and what are the net advantages if any? I personally expect that the RAN will operate two different classes of submarine at the same time, at least for a short while as the Attack-class is being stood up while the Collins-class starts decommissioning.

I otherwise see no advantage to Australia in deliberately trying to keep two different sub classes in active service concurrently, and there would almost certainly be several different disadvantages in terms of production, training, support and sustainment costs. Also given the reality that small/coastal subs, contrary to common/popular belief, are not automatically harder to detect than larger subs, then there is not a real capability advantage to going with two (or more) classes.

Mate, I think you missed the point I was making.

I'm not saying that other nations don't operate more than one class of submarine (ballistic or non-ballistic).

I said currently developing two classes concurrently, didn't say operating multiple classes, two different things.

Is there a nation today that is developing more than one ballistic sub and also developing more than one class of non-ballistic sub concurrently? Again, I don't think so.

Cheers,