Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[Bob53]

The process is to ensure that we spend money neither unwisely, nor in a manner unfair to those offering us goods and services. And the definition of “unwisely” has expanded every time there is any sort of problem, while “unfairly” expands each time an unsuccessful bidder complains. Both are often as the result of an ANAO audit, typically conducted for the most part by young, and admittedly smart, recent graduates with little real world experience. In turn the press picks up the story and paints those doing the procurement as a bunch of idiots. That is far from the truth, but it sticks and yet another regulation and review process is put in place to prevent it happening again. Result? Those doing procurements become increasingly risk averse, and that means they seek to eliminate every risk. And, apart from actually being impossible, that just adds unnecessary layers, and therefore time, to the process.

In times of emergency a rapid acquisition process gets around a lot of that. Down the track problems sometimes emerge, commonly with support packages, but the procurements are done fast. One I am aware of, for a reasonably complex weapons systems was done, and the weapon fielded, in about 10 weeks from the time the operational commander identified the need. And we did have problems later, but the warfighters got what they needed.

So the solution to the problem is to accept that perfect processes are impossible, and that issues will arise. Attempt to mitigate, but not eliminate, the risk; and don’t react with changed regulation and more levels of review to every report in the media that a risk has been realised.

But that doesn’t mean complex acquisitions can be done over night. The technical and commercial assessments of such things take time, and some governance of that process is essential. So deciding on a ship to buy is never going to happen over night; it normally going to take months just to read and assess all the submitted documentation.

Slightly OT but refers above…. I am seriously worried about the people going through university and working in the Canberra or public service bubble. I thought I was in the middle having voted both sides. My mates son and daughter in law. Both Melbourne Uni law graduates. Both went and worked in Canberra for 4 years. One now in vic Gov pursuing rezoning land tax claims. Their opinions are so far left it’s frightening.

They are of the opinion ( and apparently they have a lot of friends in the party they belong to )that farmers should not be allowed to pass on farm land to their family. Any time a farmer dies that land should be handed back to the government and if sold the money should be distributed the people in the local township.
These are incredibly smart kids…..around 29 I think ….both DUX of their schools brought up by middle of the road families.

 

[iambuzzard]

Slightly OT but refers above…. I am seriously worried about the people going through university and working in the Canberra or public service bubble. I thought I was in the middle having voted both sides. My mates son and daughter in law. Both Melbourne Uni law graduates. Both went and worked in Canberra for 4 years. One now in vic Gov pursuing rezoning land tax claims. Their opinions are so far left it’s frightening.

They are of the opinion ( and apparently they have a lot of friends in the party they belong to )that farmers should not be allowed to pass on farm land to their family. Any time a farmer dies that land should be handed back to the government and if sold the money should be distributed the people in the local township.
These are incredibly smart kids…..around 29 I think ….both DUX of their schools brought up by middle of the road families.

I won't go off topic and comment on that. If they're the type of Uni graduates making decisions on our defence procurements we are in deep trouble.

 

[SammyC]

The process is to ensure that we spend money neither unwisely, nor in a manner unfair to those offering us goods and services. And the definition of “unwisely” has expanded every time there is any sort of problem, while “unfairly” expands each time an unsuccessful bidder complains. Both are often as the result of an ANAO audit, typically conducted for the most part by young, and admittedly smart, recent graduates with little real world experience. In turn the press picks up the story and paints those doing the procurement as a bunch of idiots. That is far from the truth, but it sticks and yet another regulation and review process is put in place to prevent it happening again. Result? Those doing procurements become increasingly risk averse, and that means they seek to eliminate every risk. And, apart from actually being impossible, that just adds unnecessary layers, and therefore time, to the process.

In times of emergency a rapid acquisition process gets around a lot of that. Down the track problems sometimes emerge, commonly with support packages, but the procurements are done fast. One I am aware of, for a reasonably complex weapons systems was done, and the weapon fielded, in about 10 weeks from the time the operational commander identified the need. And we did have problems later, but the warfighters got what they needed.

So the solution to the problem is to accept that perfect processes are impossible, and that issues will arise. Attempt to mitigate, but not eliminate, the risk; and don’t react with changed regulation and more levels of review to every report in the media that a risk has been realised.

But that doesn’t mean complex acquisitions can be done over night. The technical and commercial assessments of such things take time, and some governance of that process is essential. So deciding on a ship to buy is never going to happen over night; it normally going to take months just to read and assess all the submitted documentation.

I think to provide some comparison with civilian industry norms. I am part of a civilian project that would have a similar value to a small combat ship (say a single good looking corvette). We initiated a project approx 7 years ago, will commence construction this year, and will have it finished by first quarter 2027. So not a disimilar timeframe with it taking more than 10 years from go to wo.

The GPF program is an order of magnitude more than the above example. Gorgon (perhaps WAs largest progect, and of a similar size to the Hunter and GPF programs) took forever to go from initiation to first production, and had massive technical and cost problems (still does).

I would view that Defence is mostly on par with civilian projects for completion timeframes.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Guys, keep it focused on the Navy stuff. I don't believe defence has been infiltrated with looneys.

But Ships are complicated things to build. They always have been. Shipwrights were always very valued professions, and the properties of ship mean that its all curvy and not a box, which makes designing, building, fitting them out, always much harder. These skills are highly valued outside of naval circles, shipwright carpenters are phenomenal and are used on very complex projects on land involving curves and non-typical builds.

We need good selection and commitments to keep a stable industry and because these things take so long to build. It isn't like buying a Hilux down at a dealership, even with foreign builds. See our procurement issues for our icebreaker and AORs. From experienced builders. Unfortunately many of the political class do not have experience with multi decade acquisitions. Politicians are mostly decent from law, not from STEM fields, where such skills in decade long project management is common. Both sides should seek to bolster their ranks with skilled people or upskill existing.

Inevitably it is our political commitment that poisons these projects both local and overseas. Politicians interfering or slowing or cutting money has cost us dearly. Breaking production and training pipelines causes generational gaps and losses that take generations to repair.

I was quite surprised by the fact that some believe Sea3000 isn't going to be announced this year. It should be aiming for a mid year announcement, at least of the down selection of the platform, that may still mean TKMS/Mitsubishi is involved, but SME and others can start preparing a for a project that is actually underway. I think we are often too focused on a winner takes all approach, where in reality, we need many winners to make a project like this happen in Australia. It is more about picking different entities for different roles, than a single "winner".

Complicated engineering projects are hard. Take for example Berlin Airport. Germans are pretty famous for their engineering, how many billions, and they still struggle to make it even operate, and it is just a building. Australia actually has a good record of infrastructure and large engineering projects. While time and cost targets are often ambitious and therefore not met, which is a flaw in the tender process that rewards such behavior and it is often known by the customer that is the case, often the end product is very good.

The hobart class, collins class, build, while initially problematic, once up and running, delivered great ships with impressive efficency and speed. The Anzac builds, with warmer yards, were impressively fast and efficent.

Arguably the biggest flaw with all three is that we did not order enough. We would have been much better building 8 collins, 4-5 Hobarts, 12 Australian anzacs, etc. The additional costs would have been trivial in terms of the project, and even if we didn't fully crew them but just used them to manage availability and platform life. By procuring too few platforms, we operate them too intensely and we wear them out that they are essentially broken at the end.

 

[Sandson41]

I'm starting to wonder if AUKUS might be replaced with just AUK, or even FrAUK, JAUK or FrAJUK.
I've been a believer, but at this point it seems... dangerous, to proceed on the assumption that Virginias will be available, and the US will honour its commitment.

What then for the navy's submarine fleet? Can Collins soldier on to the first SSN AUKUS, or whatever it winds up being?
Are we truly willing to sponsor an American submarine presence here instead of maintaining our own force? Could we trust them to deliver in event of conflict? Isn't that why we built a navy of our own?
Are SSNs even what we want, if the alliance is truly faltering? Is projection into the SCS what we need? Because we'd have to focus on what we NEED, nothing else.

Or is it all over-reaction?

Articles like these actually make me feel better, because at least I'm not alone in at least starting to ask these questions.
Surface tension: could the promised Aukus nuclear submarines simply never be handed over to Australia? | Aukus | The Guardian

From a different angle (and paywalled), but the title says it all.
ANZUS and AUKUS will never be the same

and
AUKUS risks are piling up. Australia must prepare to build French SSNs instead | The Strategist
I still think the idea of buying French subs is a non-starter, but I understand the appeal.

I keep thinking of Marles' comment about deterrence, and the importance of submarines. Will we be better off investing in missiles and attack boats, after all? I loathe the idea, but again, I understand the appeal.

I know what my humble recommendation would be, but don't want to say it out loud yet.

 

[Stampede]

I'm starting to wonder if AUKUS might be replaced with just AUK, or even FrAUK, JAUK or FrAJUK.
I've been a believer, but at this point it seems... dangerous, to proceed on the assumption that Virginias will be available, and the US will honour its commitment.

What then for the navy's submarine fleet? Can Collins soldier on to the first SSN AUKUS, or whatever it winds up being?
Are we truly willing to sponsor an American submarine presence here instead of maintaining our own force? Could we trust them to deliver in event of conflict? Isn't that why we built a navy of our own?
Are SSNs even what we want, if the alliance is truly faltering? Is projection into the SCS what we need? Because we'd have to focus on what we NEED, nothing else.

Or is it all over-reaction?

Articles like these actually make me feel better, because at least I'm not alone in at least starting to ask these questions.
Surface tension: could the promised Aukus nuclear submarines simply never be handed over to Australia? | Aukus | The Guardian

From a different angle (and paywalled), but the title says it all.
ANZUS and AUKUS will never be the same

and
AUKUS risks are piling up. Australia must prepare to build French SSNs instead | The Strategist
I still think the idea of buying French subs is a non-starter, but I understand the appeal.

I keep thinking of Marles' comment about deterrence, and the importance of submarines. Will we be better off investing in missiles and attack boats, after all? I loathe the idea, but again, I understand the appeal.

I know what my humble recommendation would be, but don't want to say it out loud yet.

Distance is an interesting dynamic for Australia re defence.
It’s both an attribute and a challenge.
For navy to sail from FBE to FBW it’s about 4000km , to then sail to Darwin another 3500 km.
These distances get you into Asia from Darwin

No one would deny our ability to sail around our coastline ,but it needs vessels of such size to comfortably transit these distances.
Just as we can transit our own coast our vessels have the capability to conduct operations at distance from our shore.
Decent sized frigates destroyers subs and support vessels.
Our SSN venture I want to like.
It does distance speed and much more.
I’m a reluctant supporter.
I’m also reluctant to think it’s not without its challenges.

As such I’ve always being 51 to 49% in favour
Yes that’s a lack of enthusiasm!
Not sure if that percentage is the same after the last month but what should we do

I guess try and stay positive

Cheers S

 

[Bob53]

Distance is an interesting dynamic for Australia re defence.
It’s both an attribute and a challenge.
For navy to sail from FBE to FBW it’s about 4000km , to then sail to Darwin another 3500 km.
These distances get you into Asia from Darwin

No one would deny our ability to sail around our coastline ,but it needs vessels of such size to comfortably transit these distances.
Just as we can transit our own coast our vessels have the capability to conduct operations at distance from our shore.
Decent sized frigates destroyers subs and support vessels.
Our SSN venture I want to like.
It does distance speed and much more.
I’m a reluctant supporter.
I’m also reluctant to think it’s not without its challenges.

As such I’ve always being 51 to 49% in favour
Yes that’s a lack of enthusiasm!
Not sure if that percentage is the same after the last month but what should we do

I guess try and stay positive

Cheers S

Trust levels getting hammered ATM.

 

[Bob53]

The Japanese’s are not mucking around …. Japan's ASEV Super Destroyer: Fresh Details Unveiled - Naval News

 

[Reptilia]

The Japanese’s are not mucking around …. Japan's ASEV Super Destroyer: Fresh Details Unveiled - Naval News

design and build 2 asevs in under 6 years, meanwhile…

 

[Morgo]

I'm starting to wonder if AUKUS might be replaced with just AUK, or even FrAUK, JAUK or FrAJUK.
I've been a believer, but at this point it seems... dangerous, to proceed on the assumption that Virginias will be available, and the US will honour its commitment.

What then for the navy's submarine fleet? Can Collins soldier on to the first SSN AUKUS, or whatever it winds up being?
Are we truly willing to sponsor an American submarine presence here instead of maintaining our own force? Could we trust them to deliver in event of conflict? Isn't that why we built a navy of our own?
Are SSNs even what we want, if the alliance is truly faltering? Is projection into the SCS what we need? Because we'd have to focus on what we NEED, nothing else.

Or is it all over-reaction?

Articles like these actually make me feel better, because at least I'm not alone in at least starting to ask these questions.
Surface tension: could the promised Aukus nuclear submarines simply never be handed over to Australia? | Aukus | The Guardian

From a different angle (and paywalled), but the title says it all.
ANZUS and AUKUS will never be the same

and
AUKUS risks are piling up. Australia must prepare to build French SSNs instead | The Strategist
I still think the idea of buying French subs is a non-starter, but I understand the appeal.

I keep thinking of Marles' comment about deterrence, and the importance of submarines. Will we be better off investing in missiles and attack boats, after all? I loathe the idea, but again, I understand the appeal.

I know what my humble recommendation would be, but don't want to say it out loud yet.

FAUK is the only acceptable alternative from a branding point of view.

In all seriousness, the way things are going JAUKEU may be a very compelling proposition.

 

[iambuzzard]

design and build 2 asevs in under 6 years, meanwhile…

We could do with a few of those.

 

[Volkodav]

Slightly OT but refers above…. I am seriously worried about the people going through university and working in the Canberra or public service bubble. I thought I was in the middle having voted both sides. My mates son and daughter in law. Both Melbourne Uni law graduates. Both went and worked in Canberra for 4 years. One now in vic Gov pursuing rezoning land tax claims. Their opinions are so far left it’s frightening.

They are of the opinion ( and apparently they have a lot of friends in the party they belong to )that farmers should not be allowed to pass on farm land to their family. Any time a farmer dies that land should be handed back to the government and if sold the money should be distributed the people in the local township.
These are incredibly smart kids…..around 29 I think ….both DUX of their schools brought up by middle of the road families.

What makes you think the average public servant has been to university or even has a trade?

The techos and professional officers do, but most of them are treated like labour hire or consultants and have no career path. In fact, no public servant has a career path as the "appearance" of "merit" has become so ridiculous that there is virtually no way to train, coach and mentor competent people and then promote them.

Every role literally has to be advertised or filled from "merit pools" where interview performance, confidence and often delusion, count more than demonstrated skill, knowledge experience and competence. "Fit" and perception are rated higher than talent and ability.

Personally, I would prefer a return to psychometric testing and maybe introduce some sort of work sampling.

 

[John Fedup]

FAUK is the only acceptable alternative from a branding point of view.

In all seriousness, the way things are going JAUKEU may be a very compelling proposition.

Certainly Japan, UK, and Australia but the EU (Italy excepted), probably not.

 

[Morgo]

Certainly Japan, UK, and Australia but the EU (Italy excepted), probably not.

How so? I expect the EU is about to become the center of one of the most rapid rearmaments in history. There are going to be significant spillovers in terms of capacity and innovation.

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

How so? I expect the EU is about to become the center of one of the most rapid rearmaments in history. There are going to be significant spillovers in terms of capacity and innovation.

Security for a start. The EU has pro-Russian nations.

Then there's actual need. Most of the EU neither will not want or cannot afford SSNs. The only EU member other than Italy that could afford or want SSNs is France, and they won't share technology or sovereignty over their boats.

 

[Stampede]

FAUK is the only acceptable alternative from a branding point of view.

In all seriousness, the way things are going JAUKEU may be a very compelling proposition.

Does John Fedup want a C in the proposed name???

Cheers S

 

[John Fedup]

Security for a start. The EU has pro-Russian nations.

Then there's actual need. Most of the EU neither will not want or cannot afford SSNs. The only EU member other than Italy that could afford or want SSNs is France, and they won't share technology or sovereignty over their boats.

That is part of it (security) but I think workshare is an issue as well which explains the two 6th gen projects to a certain extent and the reason for my comment. Most EU nations don't need SSNs. Maybe Denmark needs some for defending Greenland

Does John Fedup want a C in the proposed name???

Cheers S

I do but but SSKs are needed now. We should certainly get involved in the development for SSNs and acquisition post 2050.

 

[John Fedup]

Security for a start. The EU has pro-Russian nations.

Then there's actual need. Most of the EU neither will not want or cannot afford SSNs. The only EU member other than Italy that could afford or want SSNs is France, and they won't share technology or sovereignty over their boats.

A bit OT but France has been paying for its nuclear subs and WMD on its own and it is a huge expenditure. The UK benefits from its US partnership wrt SSN technology transfer. France might not be interested in EU partners but with the US becoming unreliable, perhaps Japan and SK could be useful partners and Australia if AUKUS gets derailed. I think France would have entertained a technology transfer with Australia had they decided on SSNs at the time (not to mention delivery likely would be faster).

 

[Sender]

A bit OT but France has been paying for its nuclear subs and WMD on its own and it is a huge expenditure. The UK benefits from its US partnership wrt SSN technology transfer. France might not be interested in EU partners but with the US becoming unreliable, perhaps Japan and SK could be useful partners and Australia if AUKUS gets derailed. I think France would have entertained a technology transfer with Australia had they decided on SSNs at the time (not to mention delivery likely would be faster).

HI Sutton had an article on SK's interest in nuclear power for their KSS-111s. He posited that France would be the logical partner. If that were to transpire, it could create an opportunity for many nations to get a capability that is largely free of ITAR restrictions.

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

perhaps Japan and SK could be useful partners and Australia if AUKUS gets derailed

It's important to keep a sense of proportion and not get hysterical. The really important part of AUKUS - Australia's involvement with construction and operation of the new submarine class - can only fail if Australia pulls out. The Royal Navy will replace Astute. It's implausible that part of the agreement could be derailed by an external power.

Even the Trump administration has said it supports AUKUS. The only issue is whether Virginia-class boats will be sold. It would suck big time for the RAN if they weren't sold, and the Collins boats had to soldier on. But that wouldn't stop the rotational USN/RN submarine visits, training for Australian submariners or the work to get Australia ready for the building of the new boats.