Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joe Black said:
This report from APDR.......
Click to expand...
I sincerely hope that the Australian Labor Party paid ADBR for running a full, pointless advert dressed as a media release that did not actually address the issue at all. The only thing missing was "Vote [1] Labor" at the bottom.

Might be an idea for the ADBR editor to leave his personal political preferences at home if he wants the rebooted ADBR to work. A political straight bat is king in these matters.

Just sayin'
 
Volkodav said:
I have nothing concrete to add, other than even those I know on the project have no idea what the French are doing (or going to do). One thing I am fairly sure of though is following the experience with the Tiger, MRH and MU90 (as well as with Navantia to be honest), the likely hood of an Australian government signing a deal with any prime, but particularly a European / French prime, that doesn't force them to have skin in the game, is approximately zero.

One thing that does come to mind is BAE has demonstrated how it should be done. The had diabolical trouble with the hull blocks for Hobart, this cause pain and embarrassment and saw the head shed send in the reapers to clean out Williamstown and get back on track. My understanding is that by the end of the build they were pretty much out performing everyone where Forgacs was still plodding along and Navantia had managed to introduce their own funny methods into Adelaide making them not as bad as Ferrol, but not as good as they had been. Out of the options out there I would now rate BAE up with BIW as the best partner, which considering my opinion of them when I was seeing the excrement they built for ship one, is a massive turn around. Same workers, just much better management.

This raises an interesting possibility, or perhaps a what if, i.e. BAE and a conventional evolution of Astute? I don't think the French are gone yet, and to be honest I believe they will fold and come back in line, but if were are going clean sheet there are still a lot of Poms in ASC with Astute experience and a repommification could be easier than a frogification, and definitely less painful and soul destroying than the Spanish experience. There could even be synergies and savings from BAEs involvement in the Frigate project.
Click to expand...
If things fail with the French then Australia is in a bit of a bind. The Japanese have had very little experience in managing international defence projects particularly something the scale of SEA 1000. The Germans have had a lot of experience building small subs but whether or not they would scale up is another thing. Even the British and Americans haven't had any recent experience building large conventional submarines.

So let's see now ... which country do we know that probably has had more recent experience building large conventional submarines than the Germans, French, British, Americans or Swedes, that has English as their first language, that is familiar with the Australian work culture and already has access to a submarine design that could be modified to meet our requirements. If we could find that country they would be the obvious people to partner up with.
 
IMO wrangling out a deal with the french was always going to be non-linear. Issues with the French build were well known before and during the process. This isn't surprising new information, and I would imagine was well addressed before the decision was made. Not just the french issues, the Brazillian ones too.

While the Japanese aren't used to running big international defence projects, Americans are. If the French continue to become difficult the Japanese have openly expressed a willingness politically to work on something, and the Americans could always be the great enabler.

The more painful the French are, the more it might drive other options. A combined Japanese/American bid, that is a more extensive change of the Japanese design would be a wholly new proposal, and could be quite competitive. The selection process I think highlighted, very quietly to the Japanese some of the design and function issues they might want to address for international sales or even for near term future development.

For example, going from a regular and very traditional optical periscope to a full phontics mast. US has tech, Japanese would also obviously also be able to develop something that could perhaps be incorporated in other allied designs (US, UK, AU). The Japanese certainly have extensive experience and capability in this area, and really there was previously no impetus to get entities to work together. That might change. Other customers, other opportunities.

So the more belligerent the french are in negotiations, the more other options will be facilitated. Not just for Australia, but for the wider defence market, which the French compete in.

Japan hasn't been standing still, they have supercharged their submarine program, which operates a much larger fleet of subs than France, and have really doubled down in the future on increasing their technological edge over adversaries. Losing the selection might be the best thing to happen to Japans defense industry as they will start heavily bench-marking not just production but capability, and look at adapting capability for a different Japan than what exists now or in the past.

The French have been plodding a long being very French.

Remember this is the organisation who boldly told the world they had won not just the selection, but for eternity, and started making lowball offers to buy the competing German company for cents on the dollar. The French have a very complex view of themselves and their tech. There is a lot of ground between the two negotiating parties.

Australia choosing not to go forward with the French would be a terrible blow to them. Credibility would be tremendously eroded, particularly in the light of recent events.
 
  • Like
Reactions: t68
Stampede said:
I'm sure your correct in that there is a Plan B for SEA 1000 locked in a draw somewhere.
The devil is time.
This project was late to start with, so rumours of pending bad news is not a positive sign what ever the reality.
In a perfect world, given we want to enlarge the submarine force, construction would have started years ago with the first boat already in the water working up to IOC as we speak.
I hope plan B has time on it's side, because Plan A's timing looks a worry even if all goes well.

Regards S
Click to expand...

It really depends on what plan B is. (should it be needed)

What we don't know is how the other tenders were assessed for SEA 1000. If they met the tender requirements, it may be possible to resurrect either the Japanese or German proposals. Either proposal will require development of a new design, but both have experience with current conventional designs; whereas the Shortfin Barracuda is a new conventional version of a brand new SSN design which is not yet in service (and has experienced delays) which does significantly increases the technical risks as well as risks of delays or cost over runs.

Thinking on this a little further, both the French and Japanese solutions seem a little 'inexperienced' with strict commercial contract style arrangements with penalty clauses etc. In both cases they are essentially national companies committed to the success of their indigenous design; they will keep working on it until everything is sorted. TKMS have a lot more commercial experience (including fixed price contracts) with a wide range of customers, including the RAN with the ANZAC class. ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems (TKMS) through its Howaldwerke-Deutsche Werft (HDW) subsidiary has delivered 161 diesel-electric submarines to 20 navies since 1960. Of these, 123 have been built for international customers including six NATO navies.

We will see what happens with the Shortfin Barracude, hopefully everything gets sorted; if not we will see what plan B is.
 
Last edited:
PeterM said:
It really depends on what plan B is. (should it be needed)

What we don't know is how the other tenders were assessed for SEA 1000. If they met the tender requirements, it may be possible to resurrect either the Japanese or German proposals. Either proposal will require development of a new design, but both have experience with current conventional designs; whereas the Shortfin Barracuda is a new conventional version of a brand new SSN design which is not yet in service (and has experienced delays) which does significantly increases the technical risks as well as risks of delays or cost over runs.

Thinking on this a little further, both the French and Japanese solutions seem a little 'inexperienced' with strict commercial contract style arrangements with penalty clauses etc. In both cases they are essentially national companies committed to the success of their indigenous design; they will keep working on it until everything is sorted. TKMS have a lot more commercial experience (including fixed price contracts) with a wide range of customers, including the RAN with the ANZAC class. ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems (TKMS) through its Howaldwerke-Deutsche Werft (HDW) subsidiary has delivered 161 diesel-electric submarines to 20 navies since 1960. Of these, 123 have been built for international customers including six NATO navies.

We will see what happens with the Shortfin Barracude, hopefully everything gets sorted; if not we will see what plan B is.
Click to expand...

Yep it's all a bit of a mystery
Or are we really making something out of nothing.
Not sure!
Maybe it's some serious dollar investment in the Collins Class to extend their life and a couple of ( Relatively ) off the shelf subs built overseas to tie things over.
A bit like the F111 to F35 transition with the Super Hornet acquisition.
Not optimal, but maybe prudent to get through the late 2020's early 2030's.
Eight subs in service and a French defence contractor aware that they don't have it all their own way.

Thoughts S
 
Stampede said:
Yep it's all a bit of a mystery
Or are we really making something out of nothing.
Not sure!
Maybe it's some serious dollar investment in the Collins Class to extend their life and a couple of ( Relatively ) off the shelf subs built overseas to tie things over.
A bit like the F111 to F35 transition with the Super Hornet acquisition.
Not optimal, but maybe prudent to get through the late 2020's early 2030's.
Eight subs in service and a French defence contractor aware that they don't have it all their own way.

Thoughts S
Click to expand...

As stated above not optimal but extending the Collins and a COTS design based in Sydney ( resupplied at Manus Island to extend its endurance) may offset a capability shortfall if the sub build is greatly delayed.
 
Interested in reading ABC news reports of cyber break in at Austal who it says builds "frigates" for the RAN.
Did they get that from Austal's own press release?
 
DaveS124 said:
I sincerely hope that the Australian Labor Party paid ADBR for running a full, pointless advert dressed as a media release that did not actually address the issue at all. The only thing missing was "Vote [1] Labor" at the bottom.

Might be an idea for the ADBR editor to leave his personal political preferences at home if he wants the rebooted ADBR to work. A political straight bat is king in these matters.

Just sayin'
Click to expand...
If recent polls are anything to go by then Labor id a very good chance of gaining power next year. If there is a problem in sorting out the contract with the French it may well be the Labor party that will deal with the problem. That does concern me somewhat.

I would hope that all of these issues will be sorted out before the next election.

The government has said that it expects an agreement to be reached by years end which may be code for that being the deadline.

When you think about it this deal has already dragged on for 2 years and so so far no actual agreement has been signed. The first steel for the new subs might not be cut until 2023 and it will take 10 years to bring it into service and that is assuming that there will be no delays. This seems like an unnecessarily drawn-out process to me.
 
A report from the ADM website that is a bit more balanced and less of the Sky is Falling!

Progress but no deadline for Future Submarine agreement - Australian Defence Magazine

Below is the text of the article:

Protracted negotiations between Defence and French submarine maker Naval Group on a vital Strategic Partnering Agreement (SPA) are making progress but no timeline has yet been set for their completion, Rear Admiral Greg Sammut, head of the Future Submarine program, told ADM.

“We haven’t put a timeline on it because it’s more important to get the agreement right. Of course we want to conclude it as soon as possible. We’re at stages now where we’re dealing with the remaining difficult issues,” he said.

“Naturally the Commonwealth team has focused on ensuring we have the appropriate allocation of risk in the program and that those matters are managed in an equitable way throughout the life of this long contract.

“We must ensure there is an equitable set of arrangements in place such that both parties can continue to work together through problems, not end up with a contractual impasse where we can’t manage the issue and have to halt work because we have to renegotiate terms and conditions that didn’t exist.

“Naval Group is similarly focused and this shouldn’t be a surprise when we’re talking about a program of such magnitude.”

The overarching SPA is intended to set out terms and conditions that will endure for the entire $50 billion Future Submarine program, avoiding the need to renegotiate a known set of provisions as work transitions from phase to phase.

Negotiations on the SPA began in early 2017 and were intended to have been completed during that year.

Then Vice-Chief of the Defence Force Vice Admiral Ray Griggs told Senate Estimates on 28 February this year that he saw no reason why SPA negotiations should not be completed “before the middle of the year.”

Secretary of Defence Greg Moriarty added that “another month or two” beyond that on a contract of such consequence was likely to get a reasonable hearing from government.

RADM Sammut said work on the Future Submarine’s design had continued unimpeded under the Design and Mobilisation Contract (DMC) signed in September 2016. This $500 million agreement was originally intended to be succeeded before 2019 by the Submarine Design Contract (SDC), which itself will sit under the yet-to-be-agreed SPA.

However RADM Sammut said the DMC had been set up so it could be extended. The ongoing flow of work included the transfer of the necessary intellectual property to the Commonwealth and to combat systems integrator Lockheed Martin.

Current work is focused on finalising the Concept Design so more resources can be moved in 2019 to Basic Design, which itself would move to Detailed Design around 2022.

Other work undertaken during the DMC phase had included progressing the design of the submarine construction yard at Osborne North to the extent that ground works could begin there in December.

Steel qualification work had continued with Bisalloy and BlueScope, and the latter had produced a first heat of 212 tonnes of steel to the HLES specification – steel of particular properties used in the construction of French submarines.

That heat had passed and in a number of cases exceeded required standards in tests in Australia. According to RADM Sammut, further tests would be undertaken in France, primarily on its ability to be welded.


Cheers,
 
Thanks John, a much more balanced and critical discussion around the SPA.
Let’s be totally clear, Defence has had too many expensive failures in contract terms in the past and spending as much time as is necessary to ensure all fractious issues are covered in the SPA will save millions of hours and dollars during the construction should such issues be avoided in order to get a quick signature now.
I’m glad they have learned from previous failures and all speculative commentary and hand wringing should cease and wait for the process to run its course.
 
ASSAIL said:
Thanks John, a much more balanced and critical discussion around the SPA.
Let’s be totally clear, Defence has had too many expensive failures in contract terms in the past and spending as much time as is necessary to ensure all fractious issues are covered in the SPA will save millions of hours and dollars during the construction should such issues be avoided in order to get a quick signature now.
I’m glad they have learned from previous failures and all speculative commentary and hand wringing should cease and wait for the process to run its course.
Click to expand...

Thanks mate,

Yes the 'hand wringing' has started to get to fever pitch a bit of late, time for everyone to have a Bex and a good lie down too!
 
Well the Navy has just advertised two of the Huon class Minehunters for sale. So that's two less hulls that will need to be replaced in the future I suppose.
 
StevoJH said:
Well the Navy has just advertised two of the Huon class Minehunters for sale. So that's two less hulls that will need to be replaced in the future I suppose.
Click to expand...
Quite possibly be the last specialist Mine Hunters we will ever have as the future seems to be with Mine Hunting Drones that can be controlled by Mother Ships from well outside the Mine Field such as OPV/OCVs and even Hunter class Frigates. You can use any Ship that can Launch one and carrying the necessary equipment and Specialist Crew to operate the Drone.
 
Redlands18 said:
Quite possibly be the last specialist Mine Hunters we will ever have as the future seems to be with Mine Hunting Drones that can be controlled by Mother Ships from well outside the Mine Field such as OPV/OCVs and even Hunter class Frigates. You can use any Ship that can Launch one and carrying the necessary equipment and Specialist Crew to operate the Drone.
Click to expand...
If you visit the navy site you will see that the OPVs have already been allocated the minehunter role.
Offshore Patrol Vessel (OPV) | Royal Australian Navy
I suspect that the OPVs will be the testbeds for new technologies while the Huons will more or less be there as cover until they are replaced in the 2030s.
 
hauritz said:
If you visit the navy site you will see that the OPVs have already been allocated the minehunter role.
Offshore Patrol Vessel (OPV) | Royal Australian Navy
I suspect that the OPVs will be the testbeds for new technologies while the Huons will more or less be there as cover until they are replaced in the 2030s.
Click to expand...
That is a very interesting Link to the Navy site, because it actually says the OPV80 will replace the Armidale & Cape class(2 Navy ones), Huon Class, Leeuwin Class and the AGSC a total of 26 Ships. Rudd's original DWP actually called for 20 OPVs. 12 OPVs surely can't be expected to replace 26 Ships, simply not enough Hulls to do the Tasks.
 
They’re going to need more than 12 hulls to discharge those functions as well as the national tasking. I wonder if the OPV contract contains option for more?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top