Go Back   DefenceTalk Forum - Military & Defense Forums > Global Defense & Military > Navy & Maritime

Defense News
Land, Air & Naval Forces






Military Photos
Latest Military Pictures
Defense Reports
Aerospace & Defence


Submarine news

This is a discussion on Submarine news within the Navy & Maritime forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; Originally Posted by Blackshoe There are people who make that argument? Seriously? I mean, it's not like Mitsubishi and Kawasaki ...


Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old March 13th, 2016   #16
Defense Professional / Analyst
General
No Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,398
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackshoe View Post
There are people who make that argument? Seriously?

I mean, it's not like Mitsubishi and Kawasaki have no business dealings outside of Japan and thus can't figure out translation...
We've actually had for more issue translating French data than anyone else's. Success based on Durance was a classic example and the entire blame was dumped on Codoc resulting in the cancellation / non order of a much needed, easily justified second AOR that would have proceeded far more "success"fully than the first as Codoc had sorted all the issues by then. What happened then is happening again now people, sometimes decision makers with no or limited technical knowledge for some reason rate Euro equipment over US or Asian, even though the Euros, with the exception of some of the Brits and Germans, have a far worse record of technology transfer and support, across various types of industry, of overseas contracts than US or Japan.

I confess to being unimpressed with the attitudes and culture at MMC but then they were usually overruled by Mitsubishi Corporation who have a pretty good handle on things, especially after MMC were caught falsifying certification reports. It was mea culpa, they got on with it and fixed things, as did Toyota with their unintended accelerations (I suspect it was more driver error to be honest). my experience of many Euro operators is the attitude starts with "there is no problem", then "you can't prove there is a problem", to "ok you can but its not what it seems, its actually the victims fault", and "ok we have sacked the powerless underling we have chosen to blame and our CEO has taken a very attractive golden hand shake" with no real effort put into fixing things or even providing others with the data they need to fix them themselves.

The experience I base this on is primarily from automotive and defence but also general hi-tech manufacturing. While I have had some pretty spectacularly bad experiences with some Asian products and have encountered arrogance bordering on dismissive bigotry from some Japanese it had nothing on the level of dismissive contempt from many European suppliers and designers. Australian technicians reported problems with a factory acceptance text (the product did not conform to requirements and was not fit for purpose) and the supplier concerned complained about the techs and refused to have them back on sight. near enough is good enough is meant to be an Australian attitude but I can assure you it is very prevalent in the European naval supply chain, if not industry in general.

Though Japan has never exported defence tech before I anticipate, based on my experiences in other industries, that they will do a much than a lot of there continental competition.
Volkodav is offline  
Old March 13th, 2016   #17
Defense Professional / Analyst
Brigadier General
ASSAIL's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Darwin NT Australia
Posts: 1,932
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volkodav View Post
We've actually had for more issue translating French data than anyone else's. Success based on Durance was a classic example and the entire blame was dumped on Codoc resulting in the cancellation / non order of a much needed, easily justified second AOR that would have proceeded far more "success"fully than the first as Codoc had sorted all the issues by then.
Well a great deal of the blame can be placed directly to Codock. Success took over 11 years to build and was 4 times over budget, there was no money left and there was no way the govt was going to repeat the effort with another hull. That government owned facility was atrociously inefficient. The record with the Battles, the Anzacs, the Q conversions and the Darings, they all speak for themselves at both dockyards.
I have no doubt the French documentation contributed to Success' failure but they were by no means the major mess.
I had the misfortune to do refits both there and at Williamstown when they were government owned, late, half completed, poor workmanship. It took the crew all the way to the next refit to sort the mess. Mind you that's when engineers were trained and capable. They also had an excellent FMU Fleet Maintenance Unit, mostly based on Stalwart, to help them

Last edited by ASSAIL; March 13th, 2016 at 11:43 PM. Reason: Included FMU
ASSAIL is offline  
Old March 14th, 2016   #18
Defense Enthusiast
Sergeant
No Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 223
Threads:
Do the Japanese plan on using cruise missiles in conjunction with the Soryu? Will Australia forgo the requirement if they go with the Soryu based design?
rand0m is offline  
Old March 14th, 2016   #19
Defense Professional / Analyst
Brigadier General
ASSAIL's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Darwin NT Australia
Posts: 1,932
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by rand0m View Post
Do the Japanese plan on using cruise missiles in conjunction with the Soryu? Will Australia forgo the requirement if they go with the Soryu based design?
Soryu can fire sub harpoon which is a requirement for SEA1000.
There has been some talk of a future TLAM capability but I can't remember seeing any confirmation of that.
Can anyone add to that?
ASSAIL is offline  
Old March 14th, 2016   #20
Defense Enthusiast
Corporal
No Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: qld
Posts: 182
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ASSAIL View Post
Soryu can fire sub harpoon which is a requirement for SEA1000.
There has been some talk of a future TLAM capability but I can't remember seeing any confirmation of that.
Can anyone add to that?
The only weapon system mentioned in the DWP was the MK 48 ADCAP, no mention at all of Land attack or even a AShM so not quite sure what the thinking is. Of course that doesn't rule out those capabilites and sooner or later the USN will be looking at replacements, especially for the Harpoon with a replacement for the Harpoons on surface combatants on the horizon.
Redlands18 is offline  
Old March 14th, 2016   #21
Defense Aficionado
Lieutenant General
StingrayOZ's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Sydney
Posts: 2,672
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ASSAIL View Post
Soryu can fire sub harpoon which is a requirement for SEA1000.
There has been some talk of a future TLAM capability but I can't remember seeing any confirmation of that.
Can anyone add to that?
Australia's proposed subs won't be Soryu, but similar to Soryu replacement (but bigger).

I believe Tomahawks could be sub launched through Tubes (encapsulated?). Most subs have 6 tubes (American SSN's only have 4), so could launch Tomahawks from a reload batch of 30 (shared with torpedoes). Potentially. Not sure who launched Tomahawks from tubes anymore. Royal Navy?

Not sure if any will definitely include VLS tubes, probably not the 12 the US SSN's have these days. (Harpoon/Tomahawk)

Not sure if we have the imperative to launch 12 harpoons or 12 Tomahawks all at once (only launching 6 at a time through tubes). Obviously that isn't something Japan would probably put on their subs, we may want something like that on ours, but I wouldn't see it as a need at this stage (expense, risk, time etc).

Last edited by StingrayOZ; March 14th, 2016 at 01:31 AM. Reason: "proposed"
StingrayOZ is offline  
Old March 14th, 2016   #22
Potstirrer
General
Todjaeger's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: not in New England anymore...
Posts: 3,755
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by StingrayOZ View Post
Australia's proposed subs won't be Soryu, but similar to Soryu replacement (but bigger).

I believe Tomahawks could be sub launched through Tubes (encapsulated?). Most subs have 6 tubes (American SSN's only have 4), so could launch Tomahawks from a reload batch of 30 (shared with torpedoes). Potentially. Not sure who launched Tomahawks from tubes anymore. Royal Navy?

Not sure if any will definitely include VLS tubes, probably not the 12 the US SSN's have these days. (Harpoon/Tomahawk)

Not sure if we have the imperative to launch 12 harpoons or 12 Tomahawks all at once (only launching 6 at a time through tubes). Obviously that isn't something Japan would probably put on their subs, we may want something like that on ours, but I wouldn't see it as a need at this stage (expense, risk, time etc).
Given the choice, I would prefer that RAN subs be kitted with VLS for Harpoon and/or Tomahawk launches. Any tube-launched ordnance would be at the expense of torpedoes, and I would rather the RAN able to have both in sufficient numbers.

Also, if the RAN needed to carry out some sort of land attack mission, rapid delivery of 12 (or 18) missiles via VLS and perhaps torpedoe tubes can permit a hefty strike.
________________
Beware of Mr. Grumpy...
Todjaeger is offline  
Old March 14th, 2016   #23
Grumpy Old Man
General
gf0012-aust's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 17,997
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by StingrayOZ View Post
Australia's proposed subs won't be Soryu, but similar to Soryu replacement (but bigger).
there's nothing in the public domain

however, whats known is that ERM is looking at a body plug, the body plug is also an unknown as the drivetrain has not been defined. So the plug could be for batteries, AIP. or the SF habitat

everything is speculation as nothing has been or will be released for some time
________________
A corollary of Finagle's Law, similar to Occam's Razor, says:

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
http://au.linkedin.com/pub/gary-fairlie/1/28a/2a2
http://cofda.wordpress.com/

gf a.k.a. ROBOPIMP T5C
gf0012-aust is offline  
Old March 14th, 2016   #24
Super Moderator
Lieutenant General
RobWilliams's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 2,757
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by StingrayOZ View Post
Potentially. Not sure who launched Tomahawks from tubes anymore. Royal Navy?
.
RN use tube launched TLAM from the Trafalgars/Astutes.
RobWilliams is offline  
Old March 14th, 2016   #25
Defense Enthusiast
Sergeant
No Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 223
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Todjaeger View Post
Given the choice, I would prefer that RAN subs be kitted with VLS for Harpoon and/or Tomahawk launches. Any tube-launched ordnance would be at the expense of torpedoes, and I would rather the RAN able to have both in sufficient numbers.

Also, if the RAN needed to carry out some sort of land attack mission, rapid delivery of 12 (or 18) missiles via VLS and perhaps torpedoe tubes can permit a hefty strike.
Wouldn't VLS take up precious room that could be used for fuel/stores?
rand0m is offline  
Old March 14th, 2016   #26
Defense Professional / Analyst
General
No Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,398
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ASSAIL View Post
Well a great deal of the blame can be placed directly to Codock. Success took over 11 years to build and was 4 times over budget, there was no money left and there was no way the govt was going to repeat the effort with another hull. That government owned facility was atrociously inefficient. The record with the Battles, the Anzacs, the Q conversions and the Darings, they all speak for themselves at both dockyards.
I have no doubt the French documentation contributed to Success' failure but they were by no means the major mess.
I had the misfortune to do refits both there and at Williamstown when they were government owned, late, half completed, poor workmanship. It took the crew all the way to the next refit to sort the mess. Mind you that's when engineers were trained and capable. They also had an excellent FMU Fleet Maintenance Unit, mostly based on Stalwart, to help them
The facility was government owned but privately operated and while far from perfect it was no as bad as made out. I used to believe they were shocking inefficient until having the pleasure of working with a number of outstanding individuals who were trained there who proved to be as good as the best I have worked with from anywhere else, including BIW, Govern or VT.

Like any yard their performance was due to a multitude of factors over and above the usually blamed poor management and union idiocy.. Major factors at Codock were related to workforce levels priorities, something I became very familiar with at ASC. The number and type of workers was micro managed and they were pulled off one job and put on another at the whim of the customer, the CoA. Submarine refits, maintenance and upgrades pretty much had priority over the same for skimmers, which in turn were prioritised over new construction. Jobs already started were slowed or suspended to provide resources for higher priority work, or even worse, when money was short and planned work deferred.

I used the word "priority" a lot and it could be determined "urgency" or "importance", with urgent/high priority things not necessarily being truly important. This meant projects like ASW upgrades and conversions of WWII frigates and destroyers had priority over new construction, hence the delays to the Darings and River class DEs, even though many of the converted /upgraded ships saw limited if any service.

Sadly there were also sacrosanct sections and capabilities that were always fully manned and funded, even when they had nothing to do. Then there were vital niche capabilities that were let whither and die before rebuilt over and over again.

Codock was a vastly more capable than Williamstown and no more difficult to fix. What's more it could have built every ship and submarine the RAN has commissioned since it the yard was closed. All that was needed was the same sort of reorganisation, including consolidation of unions to remove demarcation disputes, that saw such success at Williamstown and ASC, followed by a continuous build of surface combatants, submarines, amphibious and support ships. Codock was more than capable of building either Oberons or even better Barbels for the RAN.
Volkodav is offline  
Old March 14th, 2016   #27
Defense Aficionado
Lieutenant General
StingrayOZ's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Sydney
Posts: 2,672
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by gf0012-aust View Post
there's nothing in the public domain

however, whats known is that ERM is looking at a body plug, the body plug is also an unknown as the drivetrain has not been defined. So the plug could be for batteries, AIP. or the SF habitat

everything is speculation as nothing has been or will be released for some time
I should really signature my posts with speculation disclaimers. Doesn't Soryu already has a AIP area (well for the current stirling AIP solution)? I would assume engines would be a likely area to address, given soryu has less engine than Collins, U214, Shortreality Dreamacuda?

I certainly don't see the availability of VLS on some designs as a key point in choosing. I would assume the Americans and the Japanese could come up something.

Quote:
Given the choice, I would prefer that RAN subs be kitted with VLS for Harpoon and/or Tomahawk launches. Any tube-launched ordnance would be at the expense of torpedoes, and I would rather the RAN able to have both in sufficient numbers.
30 is a reasonable mix of both, I don't believe with modern torpedoes we usually have to fire off a salvo of 6 just to hit one target, like everything things are much more efficient now. So the ability to carry 30 odd tomahawks or harpoons or torpedos would seem to be ok. If we were to get VLS I would think 4-8 would be more the number we would be looking at. HDW VLS tubes I believe can be substituted for Special forces, mines, autonomous vehicles, or 24 tons of fuel.
SEA 1000 SUBMARINE TACTICAL LAND STRIKE | Australian Defence News & Articles | Asia Pacific Defence Reporter

Looks like the RN doesn't see the value in it for her boats at this stage. I would be surprised if we fall over ourselves to include it. The US has SSGN's, the ability to launch 157 tomahawks in ~4 minutes from a single SSGN. Of all the capabilities we can focus on, I don't think the ability of only launching ~6 Tomahawks at a time is a huge issue. However, it would probably piss off China, so there is that.
StingrayOZ is offline  
Old March 14th, 2016   #28
Super Moderator
General
swerve's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Reading, Berkshire
Posts: 6,625
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by StingrayOZ View Post
I believe Tomahawks could be sub launched through Tubes (encapsulated?). Most subs have 6 tubes (American SSN's only have 4), so could launch Tomahawks from a reload batch of 30 (shared with torpedoes). Potentially. Not sure who launched Tomahawks from tubes anymore. Royal Navy?
The RN & the USN's Seawolf SSNs have tube-launched Tomahawks - & Seawolf has eight torpedo tubes, with up to 50 reloads.
swerve is offline  
Old March 14th, 2016   #29
Grumpy Old Man
General
gf0012-aust's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 17,997
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by rand0m View Post
Wouldn't VLS take up precious room that could be used for fuel/stores?
they don't have to use VLS necessarily either - quite a few developments have occurred with swimmers and floaters

TLAMS for all intents and purposes are "swimmers"
________________
A corollary of Finagle's Law, similar to Occam's Razor, says:

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
http://au.linkedin.com/pub/gary-fairlie/1/28a/2a2
http://cofda.wordpress.com/

gf a.k.a. ROBOPIMP T5C
gf0012-aust is offline  
Old March 14th, 2016   #30
Defense Professional / Analyst
General
No Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,398
Threads:
What I would love to see is the external conformal weapons stowage put forward by EB years ago. Basically encapsulated missiles etc. are carried in and fired from tubes lying flush with the casing, raised fired then retracted as required.
Volkodav is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:02 AM.