Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[John Newman]

As you have said for the most part Defence is not a game of Political Football and i hope it doesn’t turn into one but just because it isn’t right now doesn’t mean that won’t change especially in the time frame we are talking about.
I totally agree with the current Shipbuilding plan but i am not naive enough to believe there is not rocky roads ahead both Politically and Technically. We are still 15 or so years away from commissioning the 1st Boat and a lot of things can happen in 15 years.

Mate, again, no offence, but I'm not as pessimistic as you are in this regard, we've got a glass in front of us, and you are seeing it as half empty, and I'm seeing it as half full (we are going to agree to disagree in the long run). You appear to be assuming that things are going to go pear shaped, I'm not.

The problem is that both you and I (and all here on DT), have a deep interest in defence.

I can only talk for myself, but I do read all defence related reporting, especially the 'negative' shit from the usual suspects (eg, ABC, Guardian). Conversely, I also read the opposite side of the media, and guess what? Those 'negative' Defence media reports don't exist, virtually not at all. (As ASSAIL said above, think F-35).

Should we (who are interested), keep a keen eye on the Attack class program? Of course we should, should we be getting too overly excited by certain media reports at this early stage? No I don't think so.

Anyway, as I usually say, just my opinion.

Cheers,

 

[Volkodav]

This hand wringing about costs for sophisticated capability is started to sound familiar, F35, Collins anyone?
If Australia’s strategic circumstance (the subject of much discussion and general agreement) requires a modern submarine force to counter the influence of growing and existential threat of Chinese expansionism in SEAsia and the Pacific, then the cost is must be accepted.
The alternative and feel good option for the self obsessed, entitled section of our community is for Australia to reshape the ADF to a few light Infantry Btns, some transport aircraft and a few patrol vessels and only spend 1% or less GDP and that doesn’t win friends or influence people in the grown up world of international affairs.

If we wish to remain a strategic player of note in this part of the world we accept the cost of SEA1000 and try to make the acquisition as efficient and painless as possible.

To quote my old boss when talking about the Coles Review into submarine maintenance, if you want a fleet of six submarines, you need to fund the sustainment of a fleet of six submarines. It cost what it costs, spend any less than that and you lose capability.

 

[Redlands18]

Mate, again, no offence, but I'm not as pessimistic as you are in this regard, we've got a glass in front of us, and you are seeing it as half empty, and I'm seeing it as half full (we are going to agree to disagree in the long run). You appear to be assuming that things are going to go pear shaped, I'm not.

The problem is that both you and I (and all here on DT), have a deep interest in defence.

I can only talk for myself, but I do read all defence related reporting, especially the 'negative' shit from the usual suspects (eg, ABC, Guardian). Conversely, I also read the opposite side of the media, and guess what? Those 'negative' Defence media reports don't exist, virtually not at all. (As ASSAIL said above, think F-35).

Should we (who are interested), keep a keen eye on the Attack class program? Of course we should, should we be getting too overly excited by certain media reports at this early stage? No I don't think so.

Anyway, as I usually say, just my opinion.

Cheers,

No offence taken at all John. I don’t think i am assuming things will go Pear Shaped but I’m probably being more cautious thats all, more than being pessimistic. We will just need to see what happens over the next few years.
I think its a great move by the Government to put up a long term Shipbuilding plan and i hope that future Governments are able to stick with it.

 

[Volkodav]

Mate, no offence, but you are dead wrong, Joe/Joanne public doesn't need the submarine project (or any other current defence project) explained to them properly, all the information is in the public domain IF they want to know about it, and they don't because they have no interest whatsoever.

You get 100 punters in a room, how many do you think have any real ideal about Defence policy, Defence spending, DWPs, DIIPs, etc? You'd be lucky to have 10%, max, have any real knowledge or interest.

As long as they all continue to receive their middle class welfare, life is good, they are more likely to talk about the waste of money that the NBN is (and the way the project cost estimates dramatically blew out), but these days how many people talk about the NBN? I haven't heard it discussed for years and years.

And on top of that, Defence for the most part is not a game of political football in this country (certainly compared to Canada for example).

Yes it a scary amount of money, but what isn't these days? And mentioning 2080, well that's even more 'who cares', most people think about next week or next month, certainly not 60 years from now.

Cheers,

Interesting point on the NBN, it is the perfect example of what happens when a holistic project is fragmented to cut costs, you end up with increased costs, lower performance and a totally trashed schedule. Then there's the fact the poorer performing hybrid system is proving less reliable, more expensive to maintain, and more expensive to upgrade than the original fibre to the home set up some areas still received.

It is pretty much the same pattern that is seen with most mega projects, short term cost cutting and politicisation drives up costs, causes delays, and reduces performance.

 

[Takao]

I don't think that there is any argument from anyone that submarines are essential.

The main point of concern within and without lies in the number. I think most are comfortable to say that 6 is the minimum. But 12 costs a hell of a lot - and we have forgone a reasonable amount of other 'stuff' to pay for those additional boats. Is that acceptable? Hmmm...

SEA 1000 offers an extraordinary large amount of potential and capability - including the National Shipbuilding capability. But boats 7 - 12 have cost the ADO a lot, including within Navy. A no-one has ever been allowed to debate that delta.

 

[oldsig127]

I don't think that there is any argument from anyone that submarines are essential.

The main point of concern within and without lies in the number. I think most are comfortable to say that 6 is the minimum. But 12 costs a hell of a lot - and we have forgone a reasonable amount of other 'stuff' to pay for those additional boats. Is that acceptable? Hmmm...

SEA 1000 offers an extraordinary large amount of potential and capability - including the National Shipbuilding capability. But boats 7 - 12 have cost the ADO a lot, including within Navy. A no-one has ever been allowed to debate that delta.

Just how many submarines will be in service at the same time was discussed in this forum when the number of boats was first published. If my memory is correct, the plan is for the first to be retired when the ninth is commissioned. It was suggested that the contract isn't for simultaneously fielding twelve, but for building twelve, probably in tranches, so that the last tranche of four will likely be better than the first by some margin. Choosing to do it this way was said to increase certainty within the project and enable the continuous build program with the last boats forming a bridging capacity to a next generation.

This somewhat fits in with the intention of having at least eight Collins class in the early 1980s, later trimmed to six.
(Yule&Woolner, Collins Class Submarine Story ISBN-13: 978-0521868945) Sorry, I don't know how to link an actual book

That said, I'm relying on memory, and can't immediately find the discussion, nor whatever source was quoted, so I may be guilty of an attack of Oldtimers Syndrome

oldsig

 

[John Newman]

I don't think that there is any argument from anyone that submarines are essential.

The main point of concern within and without lies in the number. I think most are comfortable to say that 6 is the minimum. But 12 costs a hell of a lot - and we have forgone a reasonable amount of other 'stuff' to pay for those additional boats. Is that acceptable? Hmmm...

SEA 1000 offers an extraordinary large amount of potential and capability - including the National Shipbuilding capability. But boats 7 - 12 have cost the ADO a lot, including within Navy. A no-one has ever been allowed to debate that delta.

Mate, agree with you, but of course things are and get complicated in the real world.

If my memory holds up (I'm 61 today!!), back in the day (in the '60s) there was a proposal/plan at various stages, to increase the planned fleet of Oberon class subs from 6 to 8, same can be said for the Collins class, we ended up with 6 too, but I think Beasley was pushing for 8. Today, I agree, 6 is a minimum, 12 is? maybe somewhere in the middle is just right.

So why are we at this magical number of 12? Well firstly the 2009 Rudd DWP proposed 12, the 2013 Gillard DWP also said 12, and the 2016 Abbott/Turnbull DWP also said 12 too. Then of course the Continuous Naval Shipbuilding Plan confirmed all of that.

If I put my cynic hat on (and yes I'm 100% cynical and a grumpy old bastard), the figure of 12 subs just about allows for the 'continuous' build of submarines, the increase of future frigates from the original 8 to 9 also allows for continuous build too, in conjunction with 3 DDGs (eg, 12 major surface combatants). All tied together with a 'longish' drumbeat between each boat/ship (build, repeat, build, repeat, etc, etc).

On the one hand I'm a fan of the NSP, but on the other hand I'm fully aware that it is as much of a 'political' document as it is an 'industrial' job creation for ever and ever document.

On the one hand we can go back to the 100 year tradition of building a 'class' of subs/ships with a max of 12-18mths between them, have a 'valley of death' situation, then start from scratch again.

Or... we (the Government) commit to a large enough class of ships/subs (at the appropriate drumbeat and cost overhead), and say we have a 'continuous' NSP??

Again with my cynical hat on, I say we are caught between a rock and a hard place, the old Catch 22!!

Cheers,

 

[Volkodav]

From memory the old RN submarine flotilla structue was meant to be ten boats and a tender, (destroyers was eight and a tender). This was to support the deployment of squadrons of a tactically useful size factoring in time in dock yards for refits and upgrades.

Submarines need more maintenance than surface vessels hence the greater numbers required to generate a capability in the old UK model. The highest level of availability I am aware of is one always on patrol out of a fleet of four for the Vanguard Class SSBN, with the next best being the Collins class (from Steve Ludlum, former head of RR Nuclear reactors/submarines and then ASC).

As a rule of thumb to ensure one platform at sea you need three total, oneoat seas one in port and one in refit or reserve. For two you need five, two at sea, to in port, one in refit or reserve, three you need eight total, four needs ten. For every even number at sea you need a multiple of five, every odd number three or a multiple of five plus three.

Not across the calcs but subs are more complex and have far more stringent maintenance and recertification requirements than skimmers, hence are probably closer to one at sea out of four and seven or eight to guarantee two at sea. A total fleet of twelve subs only gives us three to four subs on station.

 

[Stampede]

The average Joe public discussing Attack class submarines at a BBQ? Seriously??

Just because you, I and others here on DT take notice of Defence and Defence spending, doesn't mean the average punter in the street has any idea of what is going on with Defence.

There is a lot of the 'sky is falling' reports and hand wringing going on by certain sections of the media, but my experience over the years and decades past is that the average punter has absolutely NFI about Defence.

I think it's time to take a deep breath, take a Bex and have a good lie down too.

The average Joe doesn't need to know anything about defence.
They just hear big buck's, bla bla bla, Defence, Bla Bla Bla, Submarines!
Anyway

Happy Birthday!

Regards S

 

[Volkodav]

The average Joe doesn't need to know anything about defence.
They just hear big buck's, bla bla bla, Defence, Bla Bla Bla, Submarines!
Anyway

Happy Birthday!

Regards S

Something I've noticed with big ticket items in defence, for supporters on the government who signed to contract the more it costs the better it proves the government's commitment to defence and keeping us safe. Same people, same project, but signed off by the other side, it's a poorly conceived, badly managed waste if money.

 

[John Fedup]

Is there any possibilty that Canada at some point becoming involved in the this project as their own submarines near end of operations and the unique abilities of this class of submarine are more advantagous than other conventional submarines on offer by Europe ,

If the geopolitical situation continues to decline then a RCN submarine renewal becomes more likely. Certainly the Australian project would get careful consideration. Japan would be another option. Both have specification goals that make them more suited for Canada’s three oceans environment. Nuclear boats would be even better but IMO Virginia and Astute boats are not available.

 

[John Fedup]

Something I've noticed with big ticket items in defence, for supporters on the government who signed to contract the more it costs the better it proves the government's commitment to defence and keeping us safe. Same people, same project, but signed off by the other side, it's a poorly conceived, badly managed waste if money.

Our pollies sing the same songs.

 

[StobieWan]

You're not wrong about the average punter and defence (or any particular field that doesn't directly and explicitly affect them) - I've had at least one conversation about the Apache in UK service and had to explain "yes, we did have some delays in getting them into service due to pipeline problem with training, no, they're not parked in a shed, yes, they're in service and doing a damn fine job thank you".


Same with F35, was sitting with a friend chatting when her boyfriend piped up that the F35 cost "four times as much as the normal aircraft" - one short guided tour around the program structure and a quick trip to the LRIP figures for that year and he'd piped down (my friend was in stitches as she'd not seen me in facts and figures mode)

Unfortunately it takes a bit to dig into what these figures mean - it's like the cost and accounting study by Canada on the F35 - no such study had been done on any other competing jet on a like for like basis so all people had to work with was "F35, expensive"

 

[John Newman]

The average Joe doesn't need to know anything about defence.
They just hear big buck's, bla bla bla, Defence, Bla Bla Bla, Submarines!
Anyway

Happy Birthday!

Regards S

Mate, thanks for the Birthday wish.

My Birthday is now yesterday's news, just like the 24hr news cycle we live with today, here today, gone and forgotten tomorrow.

Yes there will be regular-ish news in the Defence media for SEA 1000, but in the general media virtually never.

I'll stick with my belief that the average punter won't know, hear or discuss anything defence or big bucks submarine related.

Cheers,

 

[ngatimozart]

Mate, thanks for the Birthday wish.

My Birthday is now yesterday's news, just like the 24hr news cycle we live with today, here today, gone and forgotten tomorrow.


Cheers,

Happy birthday old fulla. Hope that you didn't fall off the zimmer frame when you got a whiff of the barmaids apron.

 

[John Newman]

View attachment 47064
Happy birthday old fulla. Hope that you didn't fall off the zimmer frame when you got a whiff of the barmaids apron.

F#ck you, you old sheep shagging Kiwi bastard, ha ha!!

No I didn't get a wiff of her apron, but I got a sniff of something else!!

 

[Brucedog]

@Brucedog THE TEXT OF YOUR POST HAS BEEN DELETED. GIVEN THE CURRENT AUSTRALIAN SITUATION YOUR POST IS HIGHLY POLITICAL AND BROKE THE RULES ON POLITICS. ANY FURTHER POSTS OF SUCH NATURE WILL RESULT IN THE MODERATORS CONSIDERING FURTHER ACTION AGAINST YOU. THIS IS NON NEGOTIABLE AND NO CORRESPONDENCE WILL BE ENTERED INTO.

NGATIMOZART.

You are a new poster on here and newbies are required to post at least two lines of text that explains what they think about the topic that they are posting on.

 

[Wombat000]

Australian bushfires have ZERO connection to coal fired power stations.

SCIENCE says coal contributes to climate change effects.
Every scientific body in the nation accepts coal usage contributes to climate change effects, such as exacerbating drought, drying the environment, increasing bush fuel loads. there is not one that exists in the world that I know of that refutes it.

there is an argument that by scale we contribute negligible amounts.
We have a military less than 1% of the world militaries, we contributed a trivial numbers to WW2, it would’ve been won without us. But we don’t here the same claims echoed.
We contribute to a shared atmosphere that circulates and contributes to effects on us.
A visual representation is bushfire smoke circling the globe.

Any random claims by non-subject specialists should be considered just that.
This is a military based forum, I value contributions on topic from very clever ppl.
Let’s keep scientific diagnosis to the boffins shall we.

Edit: just noticed mods responding to comment I replied to.
I’ve stepped off my box, safety moved to safe.
Have a lovely evening to all.

 

[aussienscale]

Now back to Defence related matters, nice little shopping list in this DSCA release

https://dsca.mil/major-arms-sales/australia-australia-surface-combatant-asc-program

A lot of stuff we already knew about and alluded too, for both the Hobart Class upgrades, and the Hunters.

Good to see confirmation of CEC for the Hunters, I know has been talked about for some time, but don't recall seeing it on paper anywhere ? could be wrong of course

This part took my interest though:

"Defence services for development and integration of a capability upgrade for the installed AEGIS Combat System on the Hobart Class Destroyer, including Integrated Air and Missile Defence capability and growth capability for Ballistic Missile Defence"

But only for the Hobart Class at this stage is the way I read that ? So potential SM-3 for Hobart's only ?

Would this see a different role/use for the Hobart Class once we start to see the Hunters enter service ?

Cheers

 

[ngatimozart]

Now back to Defence related matters, nice little shopping list in this DSCA release

https://dsca.mil/major-arms-sales/australia-australia-surface-combatant-asc-program

A lot of stuff we already knew about and alluded too, for both the Hobart Class upgrades, and the Hunters.

Good to see confirmation of CEC for the Hunters, I know has been talked about for some time, but don't recall seeing it on paper anywhere ? could be wrong of course

This part took my interest though:

"Defence services for development and integration of a capability upgrade for the installed AEGIS Combat System on the Hobart Class Destroyer, including Integrated Air and Missile Defence capability and growth capability for Ballistic Missile Defence"

But only for the Hobart Class at this stage is the way I read that ? So potential SM-3 for Hobart's only ?

Would this see a different role/use for the Hobart Class once we start to see the Hunters enter service ?

Cheers

The Hobarts currently have an older system to what the Hunters will have, so maybe it's part of the package for updating the Hobarts. Wouldn't the BMD capabilty be part of the AEGIS CLS that is now used regardless of platform? I was reading that the ABM capability is part of the AEGIS CLS in material posted on the RCN thread and that the RCN CSC will have the capability of SM-2 / 3 / 6 if so desired.