Go Back   Defense Technology & Military Forum > Global Defense & Military > Navy & Maritime
Forgot Password? Join Us! Its's free!

Defense News
Land, Air & Naval Forces






Military Photos
Latest Military Pictures

IMG_0616.JPG

IMG_0615.JPG

IMG_0614.JPG

IMG_0613.JPG
Defense Reports
Aerospace & Defence







Recent Photos - DefenceTalk Military Gallery





Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

This is a discussion on Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates within the Navy & Maritime forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; The crewing issue for SSNs is a major stumbling block (amongst many) and while gross numbers would be a problem ...


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 36 votes, 4.14 average.
Old November 13th, 2012   #9826
Defense Professional / Analyst
General
Abraham Gubler's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 3,126
Threads:
The crewing issue for SSNs is a major stumbling block (amongst many) and while gross numbers would be a problem so to would be skills development. How many reactor watch qualified personnel does the RAN have? You can't just walk two crews off a Collins and have them crew a Virginia. Nulcear submarines require a huge investment in re-training and skills development that would take decades. That is even without building the boats, acquiring LEU (or HEU in the face of the NPT) and sustaining them.
Abraham Gubler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 13th, 2012   #9827
Defense Professional / Analyst
Lieutenant General
No Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 2,631
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Massive View Post
There has been a surprising amount of commentary in the AFR in support of the Virginia class SSN option in recent days.

This has been dismissed by our political leadership on the basis that it would result in 2500 less jobs in SA. It is a pity that they were unable to make this case on the basis of capability requirements.

Regards,

Massive
The Virgina option for the RAN strikes me as being quite similar in concept to the F-22 option for the RAAF, nice to have but not available and, to be honest, lacking in some key capabilities that the ADF needs. We need something with very long range, a low discretion rate, capable ot deploying SOF and above all be able to complement our allies by doing things they can't, i.e. silent running. The Virginias are without a doubt very quiet for a nuc but not in comparision with a modern DE, it only makes sense, everything yopu can do to make a nuc quiet you can also do with an DE, the difference is an electric motor running on batteries is quieter than a reactor producing steam to drive a turbine to drive the shaft.
Volkodav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 13th, 2012   #9828
Defense Professional / Analyst
Lieutenant General
No Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 2,631
Threads:
On the crewing side the issue the RAN has is its failure to retain senior technical sailors, there are plenty of jouniors and trainees, this problem is there is a lack of supervisors and mentors to makesure the work gets done right. An example of the concerns seen currently is what happens in the airline industry when experienced staff are made redundant and are replaced by cheaper jounior staff, aeroplanes crash and people die.

The key difference is the senior staff are leaving for more money and better conditions and the people managing the capability would rather hold a boat back than send it out without enough competent senior people on board. The catch 22 is that if the boats dont go out then the new guys don't build experience. A larger crew, providing a greater depth of technicl knowledge and a critical mass of personel so as not to over work and piss off the people you can't do without.
Volkodav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 13th, 2012   #9829
Ship Watcher
Brigadier General
Tasman's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
Posts: 1,934
Threads:
Success at sea again

It was good to see HMAS Success visit Hobart for Remembrance Day celebrations.
I was wondering if Success is now regarded as a fully operational unit or whether she is still limited in capability?
Tas
________________
Learn from the past. Prepare for the future

Last edited by Tasman; November 13th, 2012 at 05:40 AM.
Tasman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 13th, 2012   #9830
Defense Professional / Analyst
Lieutenant Colonel
icelord's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Darwin, Australia
Posts: 1,207
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tasman View Post
It was good to see HMAS Success visit Hobart for Remembrance Day celebrations.
I was wondering if Success is now regarded as a fully operational unit or whether she still limited in capability?
Tas
Ahem, no comment....
icelord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 13th, 2012   #9831
New Member
Private
No Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 38
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthernSky View Post
Would anyone care to speculate what the panel extruding from the front of the superstructure underneath the bridge of Canberra might be?
Couple of guesses... both incorrect. It is the attaching foundation for a forward RAS station.
Samoa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 13th, 2012   #9832
Senior Member
Colonel
StevoJH's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Coffs Harbour, NSW
Posts: 1,597
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tasman View Post
It was good to see HMAS Success visit Hobart for Remembrance Day celebrations.
I was wondering if Success is now regarded as a fully operational unit or whether she still limited in capability?
Tas
I guess the test will be how long she spends tied up alongside before her next visit to the open ocean.
StevoJH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 13th, 2012   #9833
Super Moderator
Major General
OPSSG's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Singapore
Posts: 2,489
Threads:
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by alexsa View Post
17 posts, alienated much of the population and then banned. That is some sort of record.
Quote:
Originally Posted by t68 View Post
Dam missed it would have been nice to see what he wrote. But I reckon your right alexsa would have to be a record for this thread.
We aim to please. Deleted posts reinstated for your reading pleasure.
________________
“Terrorism is the tactic of demanding the impossible, and demanding it at gunpoint.”
Christopher Hitchens
OPSSG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 13th, 2012   #9834
Defense Professional / Analyst
Lieutenant Colonel
aussienscale's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Northern Rivers, NSW
Posts: 1,077
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Samoa View Post
Couple of guesses... both incorrect. It is the attaching foundation for a forward RAS station.
Why would it be that ? does not make sense when the original design has a RAS station in it ? There has been reports that the RAS station has been removed on the Canberra class, so does not make sense that they would delete that from the original design to ad it to a totally impractical area of the ship ?
aussienscale is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 13th, 2012   #9835
Defense Enthusiast
Corporal
Blas de Lezo's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 134
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by aussienscale View Post
Why would it be that ? does not make sense when the original design has a RAS station in it ? There has been reports that the RAS station has been removed on the Canberra class, so does not make sense that they would delete that from the original design to ad it to a totally impractical area of the ship ?
This is the same position at JCI

http://i52.tinypic.com/16jm2c.jpg

It could be the BAE´s way of fitting the same?!
Blas de Lezo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 13th, 2012   #9836
New Member
Private
No Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Australian Capital Territory
Posts: 33
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by aussienscale View Post
Why would it be that ? does not make sense when the original design has a RAS station in it ? There has been reports that the RAS station has been removed on the Canberra class, so does not make sense that they would delete that from the original design to ad it to a totally impractical area of the ship ?
Could it be that even though the outgoing RAS Station has been deleted from the Canberra Class, the incoming RAS Station is at the front of the island? (Sorry I do not know the correct terminology for these positions)
Gordon Branch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 13th, 2012   #9837
Defense Enthusiast
Sergeant
No Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 278
Threads:
Here is the official line in subs as of today

Defence Ministers » Minister for Defence Materiel – Submarine Institute of Australia, 6th Biennial Conference

VADM Raymond Griggs, Chief of Navy.

Senior officers of the Australian Defence Force.

Representatives of other military forces.

Ladies and Gentlemen.

58 sailors in a steel hull 78 metres long, 8 metres wide, hundreds of feet below the surface of the ocean for weeks at a time.

That’s why we are here today.

Those sailors rely on us to deliver to them the capability they need to do their job.

It’s an important job.

Submarines are our most important strategic defence asset.

So we must get it right.

The Future Submarine Project will be the biggest and most complex defence project Australia has ever embarked upon.

It will involve thousands of workers and hundreds of companies.

It will involve Federal and State Governments, Defence and industry, universities and technical colleges working together.

By the time all 12 are built – we will need to replace the first.

That means it’s not like other defence projects.

We are not just building 12 submarines – we are building an industry.

One that could potentially last for a century or more.

This is a big and expensive task. Before we embark on it there are a number of questions we have to answer.

First, why do we need submarines?

Second, why should they be built in Australia?

And third, how we are going to do it?

That’s what I want to talk to you about today.

1. Why do we need submarines?

This is a question everyone in this room knows the answer to.

But it is a question that must be asked and answered. We are talking about a lot of taxpayer’s money. Potentially tens of billions of dollars.

If we are going to invest that sort of money in new submarines we need to explain why we need them and why they are so important.

Australia is an island.

Our geography – the vast territorial sea that surrounds us – is our best defensive asset.

Any country that seeks to attack us has to cross the sea. Submarines make that very difficult.

Submarines are like underwater snipers. Once they dive they are very difficult to detect and very deadly.

They do more than this, but it is their most important role.

Finding them requires an enormous amount of resources.

This makes submarines a very real deterrent to any country thinking about harming us. That’s why we need submarines.

They don’t and can’t do this on their own. They are a part of a layered approach to intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance and anti-surface and anti-submarine warfare.

But you can’t properly defend an island continent, or its trade routes, without them.

They are integral to the defence and security of Australia.

Our geography also helps shape the sort of submarine we need.

To do this job submarines need to do more than just sit off the coast of Sydney or Perth. To be effective they need to be able to travel long distances and stay there.

They need to be able to undertake extended clandestine patrols over the full distance of our strategic approaches and in operational areas.

To do this, a submarine needs to be large.

That’s why we currently operate the Collins class, one of the largest conventional submarines in the world.

If we expect the replacement to the Collins to do similar work, we will require another large submarine.

A large submarine to defend Australia is an expensive enterprise, but an important one. There are no shortcuts.

2. Why should they be built in Australia?

If we need submarines, the next questions are how many and what sort.

The answer to the first question is found in the 2009 White Paper. The answer to the second is currently underway. That work is being led by the General Manager Submarines David Gould and Rear Admiral Rowan Moffitt with the help of many people in this room

I will talk a little more about that in a moment.

The next question is who builds them. More particularly should we build them here? To my mind, this is an easy question.

The first and most obvious reason we should do as much of this project here as possible is this is a multi billion dollar project – potentially the same size as the National Broadband Network.

It will create thousands of jobs and work for hundreds of Australian companies.

More than this it will create a new Australian industry.

This is not just an ordinary defence project. Most acquisition projects involve the purchase of equipment over a relatively short period of time – and then we maintain that equipment here in Australia.

This is different. It will take decades to build 12 submarines, and by the time the last is built the first will need to be replaced. It’s not a short project. It will go on and on. It will create an industry that could last for a century or more. That industry should be here.

That industry also has flow on benefits. It will build skills useful for other industries and technology that can be applied elsewhere.

It will also build the capabilities and skills of our universities and our technical colleges.

There are also important strategic reasons why we should do as much of this work here as we can.

Given their strategic importance it is important we have an indigenous capability that can design, develop, build and maintain submarines.

That is not something we can or should do on our own. We will need to draw heavily on the skills and expertise of our allies and partners. But we also can’t, and shouldn’t, outsource the whole task to them.

Submarines are not mass produced. Even the world’s largest submarine builder, the United States, builds on average around one to two submarines a year.

Building submarines requires intense collaboration between the designers, builders and ultimate users and maintainers. It is very difficult to do this if the project is based overseas.

US and UK experience shows that the best way to build submarines is to slowly evolve their design – to build in batches of three or four. This means obsolete equipment can be replaced and capability upgrades made progressively when equipment has been designed, produced, tested and is ready to install.

If we want a design and construction system that can evolve the design of our future submarines to meet our specific needs, it makes sense for that work to happen here.

3. How are we going to do it?

The next question is how are we going to do this. This is a project that will occur over many decades but in the next 12 months we will make four important decisions.

Future Submarine Industry Skills Plan

First we will make a series of decisions to ensure we have the skills we need to build the future submarine in Australia.

In December last year, I announced the development of a Future Submarine Industry Skills Plan.

It will determine the type of skills, the size and the profile of the workforce required as well as the capacity and capability of the Australian shipbuilding industry to successfully deliver the Future Submarine.

I will receive this plan in December and its recommendations will feed into the development of the 2013 White Paper.

Land Based Test Site

The second decision the Government will make involves the establishment of a Land Based Test Site.

The design, construction, setting to work and operation of a submarine is an incredibly complex task. Success relies on reducing risk wherever possible.

One of the key ways to do this is with a land based test site. It is arguable that many of the emergent problems with the Collins Class would have been identified by a land based test facility.

In November last year, Babcocks were contracted to carry out a feasibility study into the development of a Submarine Propulsion Energy, Support & Integration Facility.

This report is still being reviewed by Defence but I can confirm that it makes it clear that such a facility is essential.

The propulsion, energy and drive-train system is a key part of any submarine and a land based test site will enable this system to be developed, tested and proved before it is installed into the submarine.

Regardless of the submarine design option that is ultimately chosen, this will significantly reduce the risk of delay and cost blowouts, poor availability and increased operating and sustainment costs, loss of capability and most importantly, the risk of a catastrophic accident caused by the power and energy systems.

The report outlines a number of options.

It also recommends locating the facility close to where people with the necessary expertise and skills are located and where the main users of the facility are located.

In the next 12 months we will make decisions about the form, function and location of the land based test site.

Combat, sensors and weapons systems

The third decision is the combat, sensors and weapons systems the future submarine will have.

This is a critical decision. It is crucial to interoperability with our allies and partners.

It makes sense to make this decision early as we did with AWD.

In the AWD project the early decision on the combat systems meant the combat system team could start the development of sub-systems before the ship design was determined and before construction started.

It meant the detailed design of equipment such as compartment arrangements, equipment foundations, main cable routes, and the fundamental space, weight, cooling, power and other services requirements could be determined.

Trying to design platform and combat systems simultaneously is very difficult, and typically results in increased risk and schedule delays.

Initial pass

Fourth, and most significantly, the Government will make an initial pass decision on the future submarine project.

In May, the Prime Minister, Defence Minister and I announced the approval of $214 million for detailed design studies, modelling, analysis and scientific and technological studies focussed on four options.

This work is proceeding well. It will confirm a set of critical requirements for things such as stealth, range, habitability and interoperability.

Based on this work, more detailed work will occur on fewer options.

One option that is not on the table is a nuclear powered submarine.

The United States has never exported or leased a naval nuclear reactor.

Acquiring nuclear powered submarines would therefore involve outsourcing the construction, maintenance and sustainment of the submarines to another country.

The submarines would have to be built overseas, they would have to be fuelled, docked, defueled and disposed of overseas.

That means tens of billions of dollars for acquisition and sustainment over decades that could be invested in Australia, spent overseas.

If we want a design and construction system that can evolve the design of our future submarines to meet our specific needs, it makes sense for that work to happen here.

3. How are we going to do it?

The next question is how are we going to do this. This is a project that will occur over many decades but in the next 12 months we will make four important decisions.

Future Submarine Industry Skills Plan

First we will make a series of decisions to ensure we have the skills we need to build the future submarine in Australia.

In December last year, I announced the development of a Future Submarine Industry Skills Plan.

It will determine the type of skills, the size and the profile of the workforce required as well as the capacity and capability of the Australian shipbuilding industry to successfully deliver the Future Submarine.

I will receive this plan in December and its recommendations will feed into the development of the 2013 White Paper.

Land Based Test Site

The second decision the Government will make involves the establishment of a Land Based Test Site.

The design, construction, setting to work and operation of a submarine is an incredibly complex task. Success relies on reducing risk wherever possible.

One of the key ways to do this is with a land based test site. It is arguable that many of the emergent problems with the Collins Class would have been identified by a land based test facility.

In November last year, Babcocks were contracted to carry out a feasibility study into the development of a Submarine Propulsion Energy, Support & Integration Facility.

This report is still being reviewed by Defence but I can confirm that it makes it clear that such a facility is essential.

The propulsion, energy and drive-train system is a key part of any submarine and a land based test site will enable this system to be developed, tested and proved before it is installed into the submarine.

Regardless of the submarine design option that is ultimately chosen, this will significantly reduce the risk of delay and cost blowouts, poor availability and increased operating and sustainment costs, loss of capability and most importantly, the risk of a catastrophic accident caused by the power and energy systems.

The report outlines a number of options.

It also recommends locating the facility close to where people with the necessary expertise and skills are located and where the main users of the facility are located.

In the next 12 months we will make decisions about the form, function and location of the land based test site.

Combat, sensors and weapons systems

The third decision is the combat, sensors and weapons systems the future submarine will have.

This is a critical decision. It is crucial to interoperability with our allies and partners.

It makes sense to make this decision early as we did with AWD.

In the AWD project the early decision on the combat systems meant the combat system team could start the development of sub-systems before the ship design was determined and before construction started.

It meant the detailed design of equipment such as compartment arrangements, equipment foundations, main cable routes, and the fundamental space, weight, cooling, power and other services requirements could be determined.

Trying to design platform and combat systems simultaneously is very difficult, and typically results in increased risk and schedule delays.

Initial pass

Fourth, and most significantly, the Government will make an initial pass decision on the future submarine project.

In May, the Prime Minister, Defence Minister and I announced the approval of $214 million for detailed design studies, modelling, analysis and scientific and technological studies focussed on four options.

This work is proceeding well. It will confirm a set of critical requirements for things such as stealth, range, habitability and interoperability.

Based on this work, more detailed work will occur on fewer options.

One option that is not on the table is a nuclear powered submarine.

The United States has never exported or leased a naval nuclear reactor.

Acquiring nuclear powered submarines would therefore involve outsourcing the construction, maintenance and sustainment of the submarines to another country.

The submarines would have to be built overseas, they would have to be fuelled, docked, defueled and disposed of overseas.

That means tens of billions of dollars for acquisition and sustainment over decades that could be invested in Australia, spent overseas.
justsomeaussie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 13th, 2012   #9838
Defense Enthusiast
Corporal
No Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 153
Threads:
Quote:
It also concludes that the current blue collar work force is limited with production supervisors and electrical trades being the weakest skill areas.

The key to building these skills is a continuous ship building plan with long term, predictable work.

We don’t have this now. Instead we have got a valley of death.

We have got a valley of death between the last AWD and the start of construction of the first future submarine.

It’s a valley where jobs are lost and the skills we need will disappear.
Perhaps this is a hint that there could be an additional AWD or LPH ordered next year.

It is good to hear that there is still a commitment to 12 new subs. Also that it will be an ongoing build program and not just a stop/start affair. It sounds like the idea is to build in batches of 3 or 4 subs spread over 30 years.
hauritz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 13th, 2012   #9839
New Member
Private
No Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 31
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abraham Gubler View Post
The crewing issue for SSNs is a major stumbling block (amongst many)
Thanks Abe,

I agree up to a point.

My point is more that the crewing issue is not the main reason for not going for an SSN. There are plenty of others and that these are the deal breakers, not crewing.

If the RAN decided that 12 SSN were what is required crewing these boats would be more challenging than crewing 12 SS (SSG or whatever their designation would be) both numerically and with resepct to skillset.

However, this should not be the deciding factor. Appropriate recruitment and retention strategies would need to be put in place and while it may take some time, sufficient crews with appropriate skills could be recruited, trained and retained.

Regards,

Massive
Massive is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 13th, 2012   #9840
New Member
Private
No Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 31
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volkodav View Post
...lacking in some key capabilities that the ADF needs...
Thanks Volkadov.

Agreed. And you make the point very nicely.

Regards,

Massive
Massive is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:23 PM.