Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

Status
Not open for further replies.

Pancake

New Member
Hi pancake..

alexas has a wealth of knowledge, when it comes to navy and especially in the design and constructions of naval vessels ... He does this for a living and is a known contributor to this forum and has shed light on many a naval issues. A lot of the senior members get pretty sick of people spouting un educated views and fiction as fact..

As for our future sub deal.. it is still being designed ..of course it was won by the French ..Australia's requirements are for an ocean going sub ,that have massive transit times to get on station for patrols.. This puts us in a 4000-5000 ton plus boat. We want to compete with nuke boats by using a conventional sub ..but also preform in the tropics and in shallow waters... The only other boats that would come close to what we seek would be the Japanese O boats and later Soryu class ...but yet we also seek a boat that can fire land attack weapons ....

Australia really does have a rather unique requirement for a conventional sub..

Cheers
Thankyou road runner I guess many of the posters work in this field for a living. I certainly do. As a new poster I am giving my first impressions and to be frank I am shocked at the negativity. I merely pause here to note that the advantages of a civil discussion far outweigh the momentary pleasure of an assault as it is far more engaging for all and will thus encourage more posters therefore ensuring the longevity of the forum. I hope you understand where I am coming from. I hesitate to make an obsevation about anything defence related now to avoid an attack and I am sure others feel the same so I hope you understand why the tone of a few can have very negative consequences for the many.
 

76mmGuns

Active Member
Hi pancake..

alexas has a wealth of knowledge, when it comes to navy and especially in the design and constructions of naval vessels ... He does this for a living and is a known contributor to this forum and has shed light on many a naval issues. A lot of the senior members get pretty sick of people spouting un educated views and fiction as fact..

As for our future sub deal.. it is still being designed ..of course it was won by the French ..Australia's requirements are for an ocean going sub ,that have massive transit times to get on station for patrols.. This puts us in a 4000-5000 ton plus boat. We want to compete with nuke boats by using a conventional sub ..but also preform in the tropics and in shallow waters... The only other boats that would come close to what we seek would be the Japanese O boats and later Soryu class ...but yet we also seek a boat that can fire land attack weapons ....

Australia really does have a rather unique requirement for a conventional sub..

Cheers
With those large range of features needed, I was wondering if Aussie subs are able to refuel and rearm at any allied ports, or do they have to return to Oz to do that?
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Pancake play nice and be courteous with other posters. The blue tags are verified defence professionals and they have years of experience within defence. Alexas is an expert on naval matters, both ship operation and ship building and still works in the field. I strongly suggest that you apologise to Alexas and dial back the attitude or your time on here will be short. This is a warning.
 

the road runner

Active Member
With those large range of features needed, I was wondering if Aussie subs are able to refuel and rearm at any allied ports, or do they have to return to Oz to do that?

I know the Mod7 CBASS were a joint development between the US and Australian Governments.. I recall that Australia can arm US subs with torps and vice versa threw an agreement signed by our two Governments.. The US and RAN are pretty close and use the same combat systems and Torps. This will continue into our future Subs..
 

the road runner

Active Member
Thankyou road runner I guess many of the posters work in this field for a living. I certainly do. As a new poster I am giving my first impressions and to be frank I am shocked at the negativity. I merely pause here to note that the advantages of a civil discussion far outweigh the momentary pleasure of an assault as it is far more engaging for all and will thus encourage more posters therefore ensuring the longevity of the forum. I hope you understand where I am coming from. I hesitate to make an obsevation about anything defence related now to avoid an attack and I am sure others feel the same so I hope you understand why the tone of a few can have very negative consequences for the many.
No Problems mate .. we are all here to learn and sometimes "peoples attitude" can not be read behind a keyboard..better to play the ball and not the man..Verified Defence pros really are a asset to this forum

Cheers
 
Last edited:

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Just a point, the three short listed frigate designs are the ones that best satisfied the CoAs requirements, anyone one of which will provide great service to the RAN.

As I see it the government is looking to learn from the mistakes (and successes of the past) and use this project as a cornerstone of a reguvinated shipbuilding sector. Unlike the Hobarts (but like the ANZACs) they are looking to build a robust domestic supply chain, hardly surprising considering the issues encountered with navantias supply chain and the great difficulty in dealing with overseas suppliers who literally didn't give a stuff what our requirements and standards were.

The other thing learned was the designer needs skin in the game, if they are just a sub contractor they don't give a stuff and will play the short game, prevaricating, if not outright lying, if they think they will be home clear before they are found out. Navantia weren't just given their expanded role to "fix" AWD, it was also to make them accountable and do what they were expected to do on the original contract but failed to. It's amazing just how much quicker they responded to design issues when contractually bound to and being thumped by the CoA.

I look forward to SEA5000 progressing, irrespective of which design us chosen, as I believe we may finally be doing things the right way and sorting this very necessary strategic capability (shipbuilding that is)
 

hairyman

Active Member
If it is a split buy I would go for three Navantia or Fremm first up followed by six T26. To see the T26 actually float would be the only reason for a split buy.
 

ASSAIL

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
If it is a split buy I would go for three Navantia or Fremm first up followed by six T26. To see the T26 actually float would be the only reason for a split buy.
Can we please put to bed the split buy theme, that would be a disaster, double the integration, double the risk, double the design philosophy, train the workforce twice and the list goes on. It would be prove to be a mess whichever angle it's viewed from.

On the other hand building the ships in "flights" of three is a sensible option.
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
Really stop, i wasnt going to say anything at all, I just wanted the info nothing else.

Since you were going from a nuclear to non nuclear I just wanted to know if you were in design phase or if it was sorted nothing else. SEA1000 has already been awarded so why would I discuss it.

And I can't have national pride in the sector since we are operating a sub with a majority of german tech. (Nothing bad in it, I would also preferwd the Leo2 in place of developing the Ariete but that is OT)
From what I remember, the SEA 1000 contract has not actually been awarded yet. The CEP awarded the design of the sub to DCNS (now Naval Group) and a contract was signed 30 Sept. 2016 for to commence design, as the submission for the CEP was a concept as opposed to an actual design. As I understand it, there is still the potential for the Naval Group design to fail to meet Australian requirements, which could then lead to another company designing the future Australian sub.

Until the actual design work has been completed and accepted, there is a ways to go before things get to the point of signing contracts ordering subs and/or contracting builders for them.
 

Meriv90

Active Member
Thanks for the answers. I imagine you are going for AIP, If i'm not wrong the french dropped the MESMA for FC correct?
 
Last edited:

oldsig127

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Thanks for the answers. I imagine you are going for AIP, If i'm not wrong the french dropped the MESMA for FC correct?
I wouldn't go assuming that we'll be using AIP. It has advantages and some serious disadvantages for our needs. Too bulky, too slow, and with the improvement of battery technology not necessarily preferable for subs that need to work at extreme ranges

oldsig
 

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
Traditional AIP is not relevant for Australia. Anything with liquid oxygen for example will have boiled off weeks before in tropical waters way before getting on station. The AIP power output is also not relevant. Australia runs and will run nuclear class sensors, systems and tempo. There are other issues.

For Australia lithium technologies are probably the future direction. But it may not be from France. Japan is a likely place for Australia to have a conversation about lithium batteries in large submarines and operational issues and advantages and design. Shortfin will be a very, very large submarine. It isn't a certainty that it will be smaller than the Barracuda baseline.

Split buy makes no sense IMO. If you like the Type 26 or FREMM's propulsion system, incorporate it (or something like it) into the F-5000 design. It isn't clear exactly what is being put forward in terms of the F-5000 propulsion system. It might have a very high level of commonality with the Type 26. Or the Japanese 25DD/27DD system. Or FREMM. Or custom.

Adelaide Advertiser and SBS are saying Spanish odds on. Based on the ASPI report.
Spanish bid tipped to win frigate design
No Cookies | The Advertiser

Pure clickbait speculation. However, the announcement seems imminent. Recent events make this looking more significant.
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
Thanks for the answers. I imagine you are going for AIP, If i'm not wrong the french dropped the MESMA correct?
There has been no word on AIP for SEA 1000 and given that Stirling engines were trialed on a testbed to give the Collins-class SSG an AIP capability and subsequently the engines have been sitting packed in a crate somewhere...

From my POV, improved batteries and energy generation/storage are far more valuable for the future sub than AIP. systems because the energy density of AIP is just not competitive with diesel-electric propulsion.

AIP can work for Euro subs because of the tactical and strategic environment they are expected to operate in, it is quite different from what the RAN subs will be operating in. This is also why there are no existing designs which meet RAN requirements, though some of the recent Japanese designs come close.

To illustrate the scale of the difference, a German Type 212A sub with AIP, U-32 sailed ~1,500 n miles from the Baltic Sea to Rota, Spain in 2006 without either surfacing or snorkeling, instead using AIP to make the two week voyage, which works out to an underway speed of ~4.5 knots.

The distance between the port of Adelaide SA and Fremantle/Perth WA is ~1,418 n miles, or to put it another way, the yard where the future subs will be built, and likely where most deep maintenance/docking cycles will occur, and the location of Fleet Base West (FBW), is close to the same distance. Neither port is anywhere near either a choke point or an area the RAN would want to engage hostile forces with. Just to give a better idea of the distances RAN subs would need to transit, from FBW to an area in the SCS just west of the southwestern most Spratly Island and roughly equidistant between Ho Chi Minh City/Saigon and the Riau Islands is ~2,750 n miles, or nearly twice the distance U-32 transited using AIP. To further illustrate this, RAN Oberon-class subs are now known to have done sneak-and-peek missions to take photos of Soviet naval forces in and around Vladivostok during the Cold War, a distance of greater than 4,500 n miles from RAN bases one-way, and triple the distance U-32 transited.

With the above factors in mind, any RAN sub would be expected to transit long distances to the needed areas of operation quickly and unobtrusively, be able to remain on-station in the area of operations for a useful period of time in a condition to operate/fight, and then return to base. Given that RAN subs are also expected to be able to engage hostile nuclear subs, the expectation is that they will have comparable diving and sensor capabilities with the sensor capabilities typically having a power demand greater than AIP systems provide. This in turn would mean that in order for an AIP system to be fitted, space and especially displacement would required to fit the AIP fuel and engine/power generator, most likely at the expense of either space/displacement for batteries, or diesel fuel and engines.
 
Traditional AIP is not relevant for Australia. Anything with liquid oxygen for example will have boiled off weeks before in tropical waters way before getting on station. The AIP power output is also not relevant. Australia runs and will run nuclear class sensors, systems and tempo. There are other issues.

For Australia lithium technologies are probably the future direction. But it may not be from France. Japan is a likely place for Australia to have a conversation about lithium batteries in large submarines and operational issues and advantages and design. Shortfin will be a very, very large submarine. It isn't a certainty that it will be smaller than the Barracuda baseline.

Split buy makes no sense IMO. If you like the Type 26 or FREMM's propulsion system, incorporate it (or something like it) into the F-5000 design. It isn't clear exactly what is being put forward in terms of the F-5000 propulsion system. It might have a very high level of commonality with the Type 26. Or the Japanese 25DD/27DD system. Or FREMM. Or custom.

Adelaide Advertiser and SBS are saying Spanish odds on. Based on the ASPI report.
Spanish bid tipped to win frigate design
No Cookies | The Advertiser

Pure clickbait speculation. However, the announcement seems imminent. Recent events make this looking more significant.
Commonality with the Hobart design is one of the strengths of the F5000. Sure, more powerful and efficient LM2500s and diesels if necessary but major changes should be limited to those which are essential and roll back those improvements in the Hobarts during refits. A homogenous fleet of 12 Aegis ships armed with 48 Mk41 and CEAFAR L2 is an impressive contribution in our region.
 

Meriv90

Active Member
Not being an expert so it could sound and be pretty stupid what I'm going to write.

On the Subs and the distances.

What about forward bases? Fake empty cargo ships to supply the subs?

Like what we did in Gibaltar

Italian auxiliary ship Olterra - Wikipedia



Olterra’s hidden hatch
At the same time, another officer of the Italian special unit, Lieutenant Licio Visintini, himself a veteran of previous submarine incursions against the "Rock", learned about Olterra and conceived the idea of a secret mother ship for the maiali. Maiale (literally "pig") is the Italian nickname for the human torpedoes. Under the pretext of raising the ship to sell it to a Spanish owner, a team of members of the Decima, disguised as Italian civilian workers, took control of the tanker. The ship was towed to Algeciras, where "repairs" were started.[13] The Italian Navy personnel were helped by two civilian members of the crew. They had remained on board the half sunken oiler along with a Spanish guard for more than two years, in order to protect the rights of the Italian company which owned Olterra.[14] Once at docks, some of Olterra's cargo holds and a boiler room were modified by Visintini men into a workshop for the assembling and maintenance of human torpedoes. An improvised observation post was also mounted on the forecastle to watch the Bay of Gibraltar and the Allied ships at anchor there. A scene of civilian sailors working to overhaul the ship was meanwhile set up for the outsiders, in order to deceive both British and Spanish authorities.[13] The torpedoes (in spare parts) and other equipment were smuggled into Spain by men of the Decima under the pretense of being materials for the ‘works’ on board Olterra.[15] Finally, a sliding hatch was opened with a cutting torch six feet below the waterline. This would be the exit door of the manned torpedoes, which would launch their attacks from the flooding bilge, right beneath the workshop.[1] The special unit in charge of the operations was dubbed Squadriglia Ursa Major, after the constellation of the same name.[16][17][18]
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
Not being an expert so it could sound and be pretty stupid what I'm going to write.

On the Subs and the distances.

What about forward bases? Fake empty cargo ships to supply the subs?

Like what we did in Gibaltar
Reconsider that idea, keeping in mind modern sensor footprints. What worked in WWII would have a much harder time working today given the increased capabilities or aerial and space-based surveillance systems.

I have considered the idea of a sub tender/floating dock/lift ship, but IMO such a capability would be more suitable for moving smaller vessels (60 m or less LOA) across long stretches of open ocean, and/or being able to 'retrieve' and possibly repair a damaged sub or surface vessel.
 

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
Australian ships and submarines regularly visit Singapore and will in future Japan, particularly once we have a standing forces agreement.

Forward deploying the submarines is less of an issue, particularly if they are going to be able to transit as fast as some have speculated, at 15-20kt.

If your interested in Collins AIP there is a government report on what was looked at:
Lessons of the Collins Submarine Program for Improved Oversight of Defence Procurement – Parliament of Australia

One of the facts that came out of the Lowry analysis is that Australia has very strong joint operations with non aligned nations and with aligned nations. Joint operations and re supply won't generally be an issue for Australia. We have friends and most platforms have tremendous range.

Asia Power Index
 
Last edited:

PeterM

Active Member
With the SEA5000 decision, there will be a lot of factors that will be considered in a addition to the capability itself including risk, IP, opportunities for Aust business in addition to building and operational costs and capabilities. Are there future export opportunities for Australian industry for example.

On the surface the Navantia Navantia would seem to have an advantage given our experience.

But we need to be aware, we don't know what is in the RFT, how the RAN assesses the technical options, the criteria the government is assessing the bids or the weighting of each criteria. Then there are the tangible and intangivle factors in each bid.

We dont even know what risk appetite is for this project. That will influence how bids are evaluated.

Those who are in a position to know, won't be in a position to enlighten us.
 

ASSAIL

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
For those interested there is a good pic of the new CEAFAR L mast in this RAN report on HMAS Arunta and the AMCAP upgrade.

Arunta upgrade marks milestone for frigates

As an aside, the true cost of buying a "cheap" Frigate such as was envisaged when the Anzacs were ordered is now patently apparent. If you include the costs of the ASMD and the AMCAP and other upgrades over time it proves to be a totally false economy.
Politicians take note!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top