Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[alexsa]

Interesting to think as to how the Orca could be employed in an Australian context?

Imagine it could operate independently and also as a companion to a Collins/Attack.

Once armed then it becomes even more interesting, and potentially a way to quickly fill a potential gap in submarine numbers.

Thoughts?

Regards,

Massive

Communication and control will be the interesting bit. Submarine comms are an order of magnitude more difficult than surface ships. Real time is not easy. LF loops and trailing wires have limitations (trailing wires in still conditions provide a wonderful ‘here I am’ indicator if anybody flies over your sub).

Satcom has improve things greatly but you need to be at PD. Putting a mast up in certain environments is not a good idea (noting the idea is to minimise the indiscretion ratio). I suspect it is more complex if you want to rely on a drone in a real time engagement as the shooter. Until you can resolve this I see the drone as a surveillance asset in the submarine world.... it may also provide a mechanism to distract ASW forces if you at putting an SSN or SSK into an area.

Either way .... interesting times

 

[John Newman]

Yeah, I get the hate towards media, and particularly defence reporting, but try to keep somewhat of an open mind, is my suggestion. In this case, the story - which I have read - is largely based on evidence given before a parliamentary committee. In other words, a matter of public record. Not sure I would readily dismiss this one. The issue may be overstated somewhat. But the facts given are those provided by Defence.

Hate towards the media? Who said that? Not me, they are your words not mine, overstated somewhat?

And that is exactly what certain sections of the media do, they overstate, selectively quote, etc.

The problem with most of the media today, and how they report, is that it’s all about the headline.

If you wish to place faith in accurate Defence reporting by AFR and ABC for example, then go for your life.

Cheers,

 

[Anthony_B_78]

Hate towards the media? Who said that? Not me, they are your words not mine, overstated somewhat?

And that is exactly what certain sections of the media do, they overstate, selectively quote, etc.

The problem with most of the media today, and how they report, is that it’s all about the headline.

If you wish to place faith in accurate Defence reporting by AFR and ABC for example, then go for your life.

Cheers,

I apologise if I mischaracterised your thoughts, John. It's not black and white, and I can appreciate that you may not "hate" the media as such, just as I expect you can appreciate I don't place faith in accurate defence reporting (by anyone). As someone who has spent a career in the media, I do appreciate that consumers have their opinions on the challenges it faces.

 

[ngatimozart]

I apologise if I mischaracterised your thoughts, John. It's not black and white, and I can appreciate that you may not "hate" the media as such, just as I expect you can appreciate I don't place faith in accurate defence reporting (by anyone). As someone who has spent a career in the media, I do appreciate that consumers have their opinions on the challenges it faces.

You will find that many of the Defence Professionals and senior members on here have very little time for the MSM because of their continual lack of factual and unbiased reporting. We have little or no faith or trust in them as reliable sources. The media have bought this upon themselves. They don't even bother to fact check basic items any more and it shows. Gone are the days when names were spelt correctly, and it was very rare to find a proofing error in the text. Now it's relatively common down to basic spelling mistakes. For gawds bloody sake the word processing programs have spell check in Australian English, NZ English, UK English etc., and all you have to do is set it to the right language and turn it on. However todays journos are either to lazy, to arrogant, or a combination thereof. So if they can't do that, then it shows just what they think of their occupation.

 

[Anthony_B_78]

You will find that many of the Defence Professionals and senior members on here have very little time for the MSM because of their continual lack of factual and unbiased reporting. We have little or no faith or trust in them as reliable sources. The media have bought this upon themselves. They don't even bother to fact check basic items any more and it shows. Gone are the days when names were spelt correctly, and it was very rare to find a proofing error in the text. Now it's relatively common down to basic spelling mistakes. For gawds bloody sake the word processing programs have spell check in Australian English, NZ English, UK English etc., and all you have to do is set it to the right language and turn it on. However todays journos are either to lazy, to arrogant, or a combination thereof. So if they can't do that, then it shows just what they think of their occupation.

Yes, I've observed that, but that's not unique to any one group in the community. There's a reason why the media is rated down the list of trusted professions. Public perception is considered the reality in regard to the media and politics. Same with some other sectors where individuals' experiences and observations are all the evidence one needs. I could tell you that people who talk about today versus yesterday in respect to the media are wearing rose-coloured glasses when looking back. (For example, I could tell you that there were as many mistakes in the past as today, and yet today journalists are publishing their work online, with little to no subediting.) I could also outline how the media has changed; where the drivers are and why. (Including, for example, the workloads many have compared to the past.) I could tell you too that it's a bad idea to rely on word processing programs because invariably the mistakes are not in spelling words that are in their dictionaries, but are, for example, using the wrong word altogether. All of this and more I could tell you, but at the end of the day you have your perspective and I doubt I'm going to change that. What I would say is that I absolutely agree with taking an open-minded approach when consuming media, and particularly in relation to defence. You can, of course, readily find information for yourself, as well as consuming a wide cross-section of media, and you can differentiate in your own mind what is factual and someone's opinion.

 

[cdxbow]

Communication and control will be the interesting bit. Submarine comms are an order of magnitude more difficult than surface ships. Real time is not easy. LF loops and trailing wires have limitations (trailing wires in still conditions provide a wonderful ‘here I am’ indicator if anybody flies over your sub).

Satcom has improve things greatly but you need to be at PD. Putting a mast up in certain environments is not a good idea (noting the idea is to minimise the indiscretion ratio). I suspect it is more complex if you want to rely on a drone in a real time engagement as the shooter. Until you can resolve this I see the drone as a surveillance asset in the submarine world.... it may also provide a mechanism to distract ASW forces if you at putting an SSN or SSK into an area.

Either way .... interesting times

Significant autonomy is needed to reduce the need for constant and revealing communications. Subsurface is a less challenging domain than on land and you ***should*** be able to do obstacle avoidance, autonomous navigation etc pretty easily, which for surveillance may fill most or your needs. The other issue with large autonomous UUV like the orca is their slow speed, to get them on station in a timely manner they are going have to be carried/towed.

 

[Reptilia]

Interesting to think as to how the Orca could be employed in an Australian context?

Imagine it could operate independently and also as a companion to a Collins/Attack.

Once armed then it becomes even more interesting, and potentially a way to quickly fill a potential gap in submarine numbers.

Thoughts?

Regards,

Massive

8 mins 50 secs into.

@Reptilia Copying and pasting of items and posting without at least two lines of original input from the poster is against the rules. If you haven't read the rules you should do so before you post again.

Ngatimozart.

 

[alexsa]

Significant autonomy is needed to reduce the need for constant and revealing communications. Subsurface is a less challenging domain than on land and you ***should*** be able to do obstacle avoidance, autonomous navigation etc pretty easily, which for surveillance may fill most or your needs. The other issue with large autonomous UUV like the orca is their slow speed, to get them on station in a timely manner they are going have to be carried/towed.

I think you missed my point. Irrespective of the autonomy of the system ... if you want to use the UUV as a shooter then you are going to need to be in communication at ... or quite near to ... the point you wish to fire (and afterwards for damage assessment). This would be necessary is sensitive situations, to avoid blue on blue engagements, to avoid engaging neutral targets or to ensure the HVU is targeted. This may be a challenge as you may not wish to rely on AI alone if the role was to engage other submarines or vessels. Fixed or reassigned targets would be easier.

This point is made by James Goldrick in the video linked above

I don't see the Orca in this role as it is a slow speed surveillance item based on the information in the public domain. This means it could not work 'with' an Attack or a Collins as 'part of a swarm' as it is just too slow.

 

[StingrayOZ]

I don't have a AFR subscription so can't read the whole thing, but is a 270t/3% margin ok if it's just for the first batch of the Hunters?

I imagine that their initial kit as "fitted with" should leave them highly capable anyway, but wondering if this would have other affects a la the ANZACs and ballast if we needed more topweight later in a mid life upgrade?

Certainly this is been something the AFR are always jumping on.

However, unlike some of the crazy stuff, there is some evidence to go on, as the 270t comes from the senate estimates committee. The opposition is probing, this is what defence bipartisan looks like I guess. AFR is building panic out of a half fact.

But I don't take this as the deal breaker the AFR makes it out to be. New baselines can be made, without any hull design changes. The RAN has had heaps of input into the type 26 and was believed to be one of the key drivers that made it so large in the first place. We have done this in the past, Anzac class is a case, although one where things were very tight.

AFR has another bit as a follow up

‘Higher risk’ looms if frigate construction not delayed

Defence officials are preparing options for government in case construction of the $44 billion future frigate project needs to be pushed back from late 2022.

www.afr.com

Also while BAE advises the UK type 26 has a margin of around 10%, with multinational projects you have to keep in mind different countries have different specs and different expectations. In the UK it may be politically useful for the maximum margin to be 8800t (small, light and cheap!), in Australia the same design may be fine to be 9200t. Spain calls the F-105 a frigate, we call ours a destroyer. Ours magically displaces exactly 7,000t (which I believe is its growth margin inc) theirs 6,391t . I wouldn't be surprised if the huge radar does eat into margin on the Hunters, and its no longer 8800t. Putting it all top side is never optimal for margins, but that is exactly where you want your radar.

IMO there is little reason to be coy about the numbers in Australia. The Hunters have an absolutely massive radar setup, many times the volume of either the Canadian CSC or the UK type 26. Sticking the big radar on it to begin with makes sense to me. There is no bigger design Australia could have selected for the hull. The Italian, the Spanish etc were all considerably smaller (and some sported radars that may have gone turtle if actually built). Other designs like the US, were significantly more expensive and more manpower intensive.

However, as the ship is still in design phase we can still position equipment and make decisions before the first steel is cut. I have no doubt people designing it know what they are doing and politicians (or worse, journalists) doing engineering design by estimate committee is absurd. If its within margins, its within margins. IMO the first 3 ships might have limited growth margins, not really a huge issue if the ships are quite capable to begin with.

A better headline may read "RAN to get superior radar in biggest Type 26 variant". Or "Australia to get biggest Frigate in the world!". If I was government I would then have some announcement how future batches will evolve the design and increase in size. Cause that can happen. No one said for the next 20 years we are building exactly the same hull.

 

[Git_Kraken]

Announcing tonnages a fai de accompli in this stage of the project is a bit premature. That ship is still being designed and likely outside of margins right now until they cut and paste to get it right.

I would not be surprised with some capability loss as the project moves forward (perhaps the L band portion of the radar suite?) to stay inside the margins. There's a lot of weight way up high and that comes at a cost in ballast (aka... wasted tons) to counteract. The ship was not originally designed for that kind of radar and that brings all kinds of complications.

 

[Black Jack Shellac]

Tonnage is a vague term. Every navy, builder, designer etc reports it differently. With fuel, full load, with ammo, empty, without ammo, standard load. Even trying to compare tonnages between the various T26 (RAN, RCN and RN) the numbers are all over the place.

What we do know is Canada increased the length of the T26 by 1.5 m to 151.4 m. Possibly this was to increase the displacement to accommodate the heavier radar Canada chose, or possibly for the towed array sonar. I could easily see Australia doing the same. And it is certainly not a show stopper, likely costing minimal more.

If they need to adjust the hull to accommodate the load, now is the time to do it, before they start cutting steel. And it is not a big deal, despite what naysayers would have you believe.

 

[Git_Kraken]

Tonnage is a vague term. Every navy, builder, designer etc reports it differently. With fuel, full load, with ammo, empty, without ammo, standard load. Even trying to compare tonnages between the various T26 (RAN, RCN and RN) the numbers are all over the place.

What we do know is Canada increased the length of the T26 by 1.5 m to 151.4 m. Possibly this was to increase the displacement to accommodate the heavier radar Canada chose, or possibly for the towed array sonar. I could easily see Australia doing the same. And it is certainly not a show stopper, likely costing minimal more.

If they need to adjust the hull to accommodate the load, now is the time to do it, before they start cutting steel. And it is not a big deal, despite what naysayers would have you believe.

Agreed. Weight margins are likely not the limiting factor anyway.

Historically it was tons that limited what a ship could do. Armour, guns, ammo, engines. Then in the 60's this changed to volume as analog computational and electronic systems were very big and took up a lot of space. Today it's upper deck space to put all the various sensors and weapons and equipment without interfering with each other.

In the Australian example the ANZAC frigates with the CEAFAR upgrade and the challenge in designing that mast (which personally I think is the true genius behind implementing that radar).

 

[alexsa]

Ok, the comment on tonnage is not strictly correct .... tonnage is a very defined term in a legislative and conventions sense. There are rules surrounding Net and Gross tonnage (as well as specific coastal requirements such as Suez and Panama tonnage). Designers use a range of tonnages but light ship, deadweight and displacement are well defined. Light ship is the weight of the ship when it was built in the shipyard including all framing, machinery, decking. It does not include the weight of any consumable such as fuel, water, oil, or supplies ..... or munitions.

Displacement is a definite calculation as it is the measure of the water the vessel physically displaces at a given draft (and time).

I agree the issue may not be the weight margin but the location of the weigh in relation to the CoG may result in tweaking of the design. Adding length to the ship will lower the CoG in both the transverse and longitudinal planes and in most cases (provided you don't add even more topweight). Increasing beam does the same but has a greater impact on traverse stability.

Third hand information suggests that there may be more scope to alter the design of the batch I group of vessels. This may have something to do with the current strategic conditions. I cannot give a reference for that as it arose in discussion so you can treat this as speculative.

In sort, the commentary from AFR and Mr Tillet has been negative for months now and I would not rely on it as being accurate.

 

[Reptilia]

[/QUOTE]

I think you missed my point. Irrespective of the autonomy of the system ... if you want to use the UUV as a shooter then you are going to need to be in communication at ... or quite near to ... the point you wish to fire (and afterwards for damage assessment). This would be necessary is sensitive situations, to avoid blue on blue engagements, to avoid engaging neutral targets or to ensure the HVU is targeted. This may be a challenge as you may not wish to rely on AI alone if the role was to engage other submarines or vessels. Fixed or reassigned targets would be easier.

This point is made by James Goldrick in the video linked above

I don't see the Orca in this role as it is a slow speed surveillance item based on the information in the public domain. This means it could not work 'with' an Attack or a Collins as 'part of a swarm' as it is just too slow.

2027 is expected to be the year of full rate solid state battery production in both the u.s and Japan. Much greater energy density than lithium ion, up to 40% reduction in weight and size. Should be able to go faster with more batteries in same space and keep the current range of xluuv or keep its current 3-8 knt speed and triple the range. The orca currently has an 18kw battery, range of 12,000 km and weighs 50 tons with a diving depth of over 3000 metres. Solid state changes this significantly.


This is your 4th warning for Inappropriate Behaviour and your fifth overall. Since you appear to have trouble following the rules you are banned for two weeks and 12 demerit points have been awarded against your for one year. Any further breaking of the rules by you on your return from this ban will result in a permanent ban.

Ngatimozart.

 

[ADMk2]

Defence Secretary Mr Moriarty confirmed in Senate Estimates this morning, the Department is indeed now looking at alternatives to the entire Attack Class due to ‘tensions’ with Naval Group…

What a mess…

 

[alexsa]

2027 is expected to be the year of full rate solid state battery production in both the u.s and Japan. Much greater energy density than lithium ion, up to 40% reduction in weight and size. Should be able to go faster with more batteries in same space and keep the current range of xluuv or keep its current 3-8 knt speed and triple the range. The orca currently has an 18kw battery, range of 12,000 km and weighs 50 tons with a diving depth of over 3000 metres. Solid state changes this significantly.

The faster your go the the faster the battery runs down ..... it is not linear due to the impact of water resistance.

Sorry, you are not going to get Submarine speed and persistence out of a UUV working solely on batteries. I suspect any weaponised UUV will work with a mother ship (submarine) and be released from it. The Orca is a surveillance unit according to the material to hand and does not need to go fast. Don't forget speed increases vessel noise (flow and radiated) and the potential for detection increases.

Even weaponizing a UUV has complications. A MK 48 weighs in at over 1.6 tonnes and is a big beast in size. That size and the need to compensate vessel trim when firing would make using a heavy weight torpedo 'interesting'. That would point to using the UUV itself as a weapon.

Basically in proposing solutions you need to be cognisant of the limitations.

 

[John Fedup]

Defence Secretary Mr Moriarty confirmed in Senate Estimates this morning, the Department is indeed now looking at alternatives to the entire Attack Class due to ‘tensions’ with Naval Group…

What a mess…

This article indicates alternatives are being explored in the event of a collapse of the Naval Group deal. The debate here is really the intensity of the “exploration”. The numerous stories in the media are either headline hype or reports on smoke indicating there may be an emerging fire. I suspect the outcome of all of this noise will be known by year’s end.

Defence eyes alternatives to French subs

Defence secretary Greg Moriarty has confirmed his department is looking at alternatives to French-designed submarines in case the...

www.westernadvocate.com.au

 

[StingrayOZ]

"It became clear to me we were having challenges with the Attack class program over the last 15 to 12 months," he said.

"So, of course, you do reasonably prudent thinking about what one of those options might be or what you might be able to if you are unable to proceed.

"The department is doing prudent contingency planning, a number of offices, not just the navy, other parts of the department are involved from time-to-time in discussions."

The department secretary insisted, however, that Defence was determined to proceed with the plan to build 12 conventionally powered Attack-class submarines based on a French design.

"The government is absolutely committed to trying to work through with Naval Group and build a regionally superior submarine in Adelaide," Mr Moriarty said.

Defence confirms it's 'contingency planning' if $90b French submarine program fails

The Defence Secretary says he is thinking more about alternative submarine options as tensions with the French company designing Australia's future fleet continue to simmer.

www.abc.net.au

So still building attack class
Doing prudent contingency planning - probably based around life extension of Collins bringing it forward to 2024/2023
The French are painful
Designing new subs is hard and can't be sped up
2034 is still 2034
The sky is blue
Water is wet

 

[John Newman]

"It became clear to me we were having challenges with the Attack class program over the last 15 to 12 months," he said.

"So, of course, you do reasonably prudent thinking about what one of those options might be or what you might be able to if you are unable to proceed.

"The department is doing prudent contingency planning, a number of offices, not just the navy, other parts of the department are involved from time-to-time in discussions."

The department secretary insisted, however, that Defence was determined to proceed with the plan to build 12 conventionally powered Attack-class submarines based on a French design.

"The government is absolutely committed to trying to work through with Naval Group and build a regionally superior submarine in Adelaide," Mr Moriarty said.

Defence confirms it's 'contingency planning' if $90b French submarine program fails

The Defence Secretary says he is thinking more about alternative submarine options as tensions with the French company designing Australia's future fleet continue to simmer.

www.abc.net.au

So still building attack class
Doing prudent contingency planning - probably based around life extension of Collins bringing it forward to 2024/2023
The French are painful
Designing new subs is hard and can't be sped up
2034 is still 2034
The sky is blue
Water is wet

I agree.

To most people the sky is blue, but to ‘Chicken Little’ type of people it’s different.

To them it’s ‘the sky is falling, the sky is falling!’.

This reminds me of the F-35 program and all the negative reporting, but guess what? It was too big to fail.

And that’s what I believe is the same with the French Attack class design, yes there appears to be problems and issues, but it’s way too big to fail, this is ultimately a Government to Government project.

Some say we should have a ‘plan B’, I think the real Plan B will be to ensure Plan A doesn’t fail.

Cheers,

 

[StingrayOZ]

Plan A - Build attack subs with naval group
Plan B - Build attack subs with naval group with a very tense relationship with lots of pushing and shoving
Plan C - take work done and paid for so far, go to the Americans to help finish, go back to the French and build attack class
Plan D - take the work done and paid for so far, go to the Americans build without the French involved at all.
Plan E - Build more enhanced Collins - Would only happen if the design had terminal issues that were irresolvable.

Research

Research

www.aph.gov.au

We have been here before.
F-111, Collins, F-35, E7 wedgetail, pretty much every big military program. Not just Australia, every bloody country that tries and ambitious program. Not just defence. Harbor bridge and the Opera house had their fair share of dramas as well.

Submarines are important. Failure is not an option. Double your efforts.