Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[aviation_enthus]

I am incredibly glad the government made the decision (and appears to be following through) to go down the “continuous build” path.

Either we want a ship building capability or we don’t. Australian maritime industry is not big enough to support multiple (or even one) major shipping yard. So if the government (and by extension society) thinks a ship building capability is in the national interest, this is the only way.

IMHO we need this capability. By extension NZ and our various South Pacific friends need us to have this capability as well.

The article was a good read, I caught the bit at the end that notes:

“Based on the Luerssen OPV90 design, the first two Arafura class vessels are currently being constructed at Osborne in Adelaide, while the remaining vessels plus additional mine countermeasures and survey vessels of a similar design will be built at Henderson.”

This is the capability a continuous build program should give Australia, the ability to add on varying ships with modified capability Eg survey vessels. The skill base and materials will already exist.

With time we should get better value, better quality and perhaps even allow these ship builders to use their skilled workforce to win competitive commercial contracts for ship building in Australia.

An Update on the Next Generation Australian OPV: March 2021 - Second Line of Defense

A year ago, I was in Australia and working on my Australian OPV report. I visited Western Australia and then returned to Canberra to discuss the acquisition with a number of DoD officials. That report highlighted how the new-build OPV set in motion the new shipbuilding strategy for Australia...

sldinfo.com

@aviation_enthus Please read through the previous posts because this is the third time this link has been posted in the last few days. It is the subject of current discussion.

Ngatimozart.

Admin: I know it’s the subject of current discussion, that’s why I was commenting on it. I included the link to make it clear which article I was referring to. Last time I made a similar post without a link, I received an Admin comment as well. Just trying to stick to the rules

 

[DDG38]

An interesting design, given the numerous references in various press releases to Naval design and operations, I look forward to seeing this being trialed at sea on a DDG or FFH to see it's sea keeping abilities.
"The Whiskey Project Group, has been awarded a 7.35 million contract to develop a fit for purpose line of next-generation tactical watercraft, using cutting edge construction and a highly innovative hull form. Minister for Defence Industry, Melissa Price, welcomed the opportunity to partner invest in technology with the Veteran-owned company to develop an advanced maritime capability. The Whiskey Project’s watercraft design will use composite material technology and a novel ‘sea blade’ hull design that offers enhanced stability, and reduced shock and vibration exposure to occupants."
Image source : ADF Imagery Library link :

 

[rand0m]

This could go in any one of the ADF categories. Is there any scope for operating a UCAV off the LHD's? If so, with the Turkish political issues aside, this would be an interesting one to watch given the similarities between the Anadolu and Canberra class.

Turkish BAYKAR Company to develop specific UCAV for LHD Anadolu - Naval Post- Naval News and Information

BAYKAR Company has been developing a new Unmanned Combat Air Vehicle (UCAV) model to land and take of Turkey's future LHD Anadolu, the CEO of the company stated in an interview.

navalpost.com

Turkey plans to deploy attack drones from its amphibious assault ship

The Turkish government hopes to transform its landing helicopter dock Anadolu into a carrier ship for attack drones, and has already begun tests to see if the dock ship is strong enough for the mission.

www.defensenews.com

 

[Redlands18]

This could go in any one of the ADF categories. Is there any scope for operating a UCAV off the LHD's? If so, with the Turkish political issues aside, this would be an interesting one to watch given the similarities between the Anadolu and Canberra class.

Turkish BAYKAR Company to develop specific UCAV for LHD Anadolu - Naval Post- Naval News and Information

BAYKAR Company has been developing a new Unmanned Combat Air Vehicle (UCAV) model to land and take of Turkey's future LHD Anadolu, the CEO of the company stated in an interview.

navalpost.com

Turkey plans to deploy attack drones from its amphibious assault ship

The Turkish government hopes to transform its landing helicopter dock Anadolu into a carrier ship for attack drones, and has already begun tests to see if the dock ship is strong enough for the mission.

www.defensenews.com

Recovery will be the biggest issue with anything that does not land Vertically or uses a capture system which can be set up on the flight deck ie : Scan Eagle. I’m only guessing here but any Aircraft using the capture system would have to be size restricted to something no bigger then a Scan Eagle.

 

[cdxbow]

Recovery will be the biggest issue with anything that does not land Vertically or uses a capture system which can be set up on the flight deck ie : Scan Eagle. I’m only guessing here but any Aircraft using the capture system would have to be size restricted to something no bigger then a Scan Eagle.

I was intrigued when I saw the Turks are looking at using 'attack drones' off their LHD. I couldn't find anything specific about the TB3 variant that was suggested will be used. The base TB3 is still under development. It got me thinking how short a runway can an aircraft land on?

A. Just over 9ft is the shortest landing of a manned fixed wing craft. You can watch it here Video: A world record setting STOL landing — General Aviation News Yes, they are very specialist aircraft, but I can't see why a UAV couldn't be made to perform similarly, or at least manage to land with 200+m of LHD deck. A big winged, well sprung Loyal Wingman MkIII with a good set of brakes perhaps?

 

[DDG38]

Meanwhile, in the working Navy :
HMAS Sydney fires an Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile for the first time during Combat System Sea Qualification Trials in the Southern Californian Exercise Area off the coast of the United States. (Image source ADF Image Library - linky)

 

[shadow99]

Defence Connect has an Op=Ed by Senator Rex Patrick outlining Australia's future sub project.

Op-Ed: Industry confidence in future submarine project sunk

Senator Rex Patrick submitted the following opinion piece detailing his analysis on the recent submarine program. We’re six years and two billion dollars into the project and Australian Industry is

www.defenceconnect.com.au

"The cost has blown out, it’s not on schedule, the likelihood of a regionally superior submarine is highly questionable and Australian industry are being stabbed in the back. If that’s not concerning enough, Plan B for the submarine is “make Plan A work”.

He breaks the issues down to Cost, Schedule, Performance and Industry,
He states at the end "I’m going to continue shining a big light on the project and be a vocal advocate for Australian defence industry".

As always there are lessons to be learned and hopefully Canada is keeping a close eye on this if we ever go down this road.

 

[John Fedup]

Junior keeping an eye on anything...good luck with that. WRT the article, can’t really say I can comment other than it seems to be a hot button issue for many in OZ. Have to admit the point about sourcing lead acid batteries from Greece instead of from the Australian company is rather bizarre. I seem to recall Canada recently ordered replacement batteries from Australia for one of our Victoria class boats. If Canada buys new subs, the quantity would be minimal so no local build just a straight import.

 

[spoz]

Defence Connect has an Op=Ed by Senator Rex Patrick outlining Australia's future sub project.

Op-Ed: Industry confidence in future submarine project sunk

Senator Rex Patrick submitted the following opinion piece detailing his analysis on the recent submarine program. We’re six years and two billion dollars into the project and Australian Industry is

www.defenceconnect.com.au

"The cost has blown out, it’s not on schedule, the likelihood of a regionally superior submarine is highly questionable and Australian industry are being stabbed in the back. If that’s not concerning enough, Plan B for the submarine is “make Plan A work”.

He breaks the issues down to Cost, Schedule, Performance and Industry,
He states at the end "I’m going to continue shining a big light on the project and be a vocal advocate for Australian defence industry".

As always there are lessons to be learned and hopefully Canada is keeping a close eye on this if we ever go down this road.

Rex Patrick is not a credible commentator when it comes to the future submarine program.

 

[Boagrius]

Another interesting piece, this time on the AWD.

Will defer to the resident experts on its accuracy.

 

[Takao]

Rex Patrick is not a credible commentator when it comes to the future submarine program.

Fact check: TRUE

When you can't tell the difference between outturned and constant, how am I meant to take anything else you say seriously? Especially as a Senator.

And that's before we turn to the idea that he can't put Australian interests over SA. Yes, as an SA Senator he fights for the State. But at some point you have to let it go and go with what supports Australia the best.

 

[ngatimozart]

Rex Patrick is not a credible commentator when it comes to the future submarine program.

So his submariner expertise doesn't count for anything? Surely that should give him some credibility? What I am getting at is don't necessarily discount his argument because you don't agree with him not towing the party line, especially if he's a SME. I don't know him and he could be completely wrong, but if you are going to counter his argument, use your own arguments to prove him wrong whilst educating the rest of us at the same time. I realise that OPSEC will apply so it will test skills in creative writing

 

[oldsig127]

So his submariner expertise doesn't count for anything? Surely that should give him some credibility?

Sure. He was an electronics technician who specialised on sonar systems once he joined the submarine branch.

Mind you, if there's not a lot more that isn't in the public record it's a bit like getting expert advice on building skyscrapers from a chippie.

oldsig

 

[MrConservative]

So his submariner expertise doesn't count for anything? Surely that should give him some credibility? What I am getting at is don't necessarily discount his argument because you don't agree with him not towing the party line, especially if he's a SME. I don't know him and he could be completely wrong, but if you are going to counter his argument, use your own arguments to prove him wrong whilst educating the rest of us at the same time. I realise that OPSEC will apply so it will test skills in creative writing

Indeed. I would be interested in others to point out what is fact and what is fiction about his particular claims. It is after all currently expected to be an $80 Billion + project so scrutiny of what is taxpayers money needs to be well squared away.

I note that he is an opposition politician from a minor party and that he has previously been a submariner. I would also note that sometimes politicians are approached with views and opinions in confidence from insiders who are unhappy with the party line or how things are unfolding, particularly if they have some knowledge in an area. I also realise that he has a rather parochial S.A outlook and being a politician mountains are made out of molehills for the opportunity of column inches.

 

[Volkodav]

Sure. He was an electronics technician who specialised on sonar systems once he joined the submarine branch.

Mind you, if there's not a lot more that isn't in the public record it's a bit like getting expert advice on building skyscrapers from a chippie.

oldsig

Don't know him either but the submariners and submarine engineers I do know, who have discussed him, don't have a very high opinion of him.

A lot of this stuff is very emotive, everyone has as opinion but some are definately based more on knowledge than others.

I work on a platform along with quite a few ex technicians, even engineers with sea going experience, a common factor I have noticed is if they left service without significant experience in a SPO at WO or at least LCDR they have very limited, mono dimensional knowledge and experience.

There are so many who think they know it all for the simple reason they have never been exposed to the big picture. People who think they know CM because because they assisted with a physical config audit once, or worse, did a couple of hours on it in a promotion course. The people who think they are test directors because they've been on couple of post refit trials.

They have no idea that these are specialities that much smarter people spend years working on and still don't pretend they know it all. There's a reason a lot of technical people don't progress very far in defence and why they struggle to get any role on complex projects but always seem to arse it into senior roles on minor ones.

 

[MARKMILES77]

Upgrade looms for submarines, frigates amid rising regional tensions

A major review is expected to result in recommendations Australia improves its anti-submarine warfare capabilities.

www.afr.com

Article in the AFR 1 May by Andrew Tillett. Few interesting points:
Federal Govt has another contract dispute with Naval Group. Apparently Naval Group's estimate of the likely cost of the next stage of the project is beyond what the Government will pay and Naval Group have been advised to wind back activity on the project.

Naval Group has been instructed to put on hold a major ramp up from June in staff numbers and conduct only a limited number of activities worth just 15 percent of it's planned budget.

Also seems to be saying that there will be more emphasis on improving capabilities in the short to medium term rather than long term. hence the plan to add a towed array sonar to the ANZAC frigates and bringing forward upgrades on the Collins Class.

Strengthening Australia's ASW capability has gained new urgency since last year's Defence Strategic Update... However...the first Attack class submarine (is not expected )...not until the mid 2030s.

The implication in the article, or at least my interperetation, is the Attack Class will be too late.

 

[spoz]

A submariner yes, but, as indicated, at the operator level. He had no involvement in requirements development, contract negotiation or management, or management of major projects at this level or of this scale. His PM experience is of an entirely different order, and largely revolved around provision of training services in the area of sonar - which he was pretty good at.

Of course he is entitled to his opinion, as am I of him. As a senator, if one who was appointed, not elected, and inherited Nick Xenophon’s sway over certain, fairly small, sections of the SA public he has a better platform than most. He held the same views before he became a senator but at that time nobody paid him much attention.

On the substance of the issues; all large and complex projects go through difficult periods. But it is worth remembering that the French have been successfully designing and building submarines for well over 110 years. There is no reason to doubt that they can do so in this case, and that those submarines will meet Australia’s current needs. The details, including the costs, will undoubtedly be argued over by the actual SMEs, who will then advise the masters (on both sides) how to proceed. They should be left to do their jobs.

 

[shadow99]

... go with what supports Australia the best.

This can't be understated, and if there ever was a program akin to the Apollo Space Program this would be it for Australia. Strong leadership is needed to make it a true National endeavor and get everyone on board, especially in these times. Australian interests come first and foremost and your either for Australia or your not and honestly I'm not sure where Naval Group stands and hope others can enlighten me if they can.

There are so many who think they know it all for the simple reason they have never been exposed to the big picture

I like the adage 'to know enough that you think your right, but not enough to know your wrong'.
Without inside info, you just don't have enough to get the whole picture. A puzzle without all the pieces.

Senator Rex Patrick tries to break down problems with Cost, Schedule, Performance and Industry.

At the end of the day, there is a true COST in dollars leaving Australia that is acceptable to all?
There is also the cost of time and what this means if it drags on.

I'm not trying to stir up anything, just concerned if all the parties are on the same page. and what can be learned from this.

Like any marriage, if you constantly have to work at it, you know there is something fundamentally wrong. Many marriages do well when you work as a team and help each other.
Is this the program Australia really wanted and is Naval Group a trusted company that will have your back and Australia's best interests now and the coming generations? What is Naval Groups track record so far, and are you beating a dead horse to make it work?
If necessary, Is it really too late to switch horses?

I'm not suggesting you do switch but anything that can speed up the process of getting your subs is advantageous in cost and having high-end assets in the field sooner can only help.

Technology is changing at an alarming rate and it stands to reason that the first sub will be different from the last one produced because of advancing technology. Those who can adapt with new technology quickly, such as technological advances in AI, computing power, battery chemistry and sensor advancements will have an advantage if incorporated into a continuous updated design process.

Just my 2 cents but it seems the Japanese are more aligned with Australian needs by having an advanced submarine already in continuous production and and therefore should be easier to set up tooling with lower risk because of this.
If Australia through Government to Government negotiations were to use the latest Soryu design should speed up the start of construction and be much lower risk because of a mature modern in production design. This would allow Australia to research and develop technology to be inserted for the second boat of the class.

To be honest I would put as much or more research and development into very large heavily armed long endurance uuvs as Hunter Killers. A pair of these sent out ahead and controlled by a Collins class sub would enable a much larger, clearer sensor net and if equipped with 21 in torps under your command will enable you to prosecute targets from extremely long range. While Subs are very complex, a huge amount of the complexity is taken out of large uuvs by not needing all the associated equipment and space needed for human habitation.

A collaboration including New Zealand and Canada would spread the cost out for rapid development and prototyping.

Sorry to ramble on and having so many of the pieces missing from the puzzle is almost a fools errand in trying to figure out.

 

[StingrayOZ]

The implication in the article, or at least my interperetation, is the Attack Class will be too late.

The attack class is 10+ years too late. You can't rush build a sub. We should have built 7 and 8 collins, and then flowed onto their replacement class immediately.

There are legitimate industry involvement issues. Naval group listing pizza companies as local suppliers, because they cater their lunches isn't helping matters. I hear there is a rift between Thales and Naval group. Thales employing 4,000 people in Australia and working with 3,000 SME's is surprisingly absent from contracts related to the Attack class. Really the flank array (signed in dec 2020) was the first significant contract. Anyone who has any contact with defence industry or attends an industry briefing can feel the tension in the room. Things are getting better, but people are not happy. Who would have thought building the worlds most advanced diesel sub, the largest western diesel sub, in a country with effectively no current sub building experience, was hard.

Rex doesn't represent the RAN or the sub community as a whole. He has a genuine interest in submarines, and as better grasp of the basics than most politicians, but that doesn't give him magical powers, and its not like he has a huge team behind him advising him. He basically expresses S.A industry fears + alternative non-government fears. It doesn't mean he is right, but government should address the issues he is raising before they gain more traction.

 

[John Fedup]

This can't be understated, and if there ever was a program akin to the Apollo Space Program this would be it for Australia. Strong leadership is needed to make it a true National endeavor and get everyone on board, especially in these times. Australian interests come first and foremost and your either for Australia or your not and honestly I'm not sure where Naval Group stands and hope others can enlighten me if they can.


I like the adage 'to know enough that you think your right, but not enough to know your wrong'.
Without inside info, you just don't have enough to get the whole picture. A puzzle without all the pieces.

Senator Rex Patrick tries to break down problems with Cost, Schedule, Performance and Industry.

At the end of the day, there is a true COST in dollars leaving Australia that is acceptable to all?
There is also the cost of time and what this means if it drags on.

I'm not trying to stir up anything, just concerned if all the parties are on the same page. and what can be learned from this.

Like any marriage, if you constantly have to work at it, you know there is something fundamentally wrong. Many marriages do well when you work as a team and help each other.
Is this the program Australia really wanted and is Naval Group a trusted company that will have your back and Australia's best interests now and the coming generations? What is Naval Groups track record so far, and are you beating a dead horse to make it work?
If necessary, Is it really too late to switch horses?

I'm not suggesting you do switch but anything that can speed up the process of getting your subs is advantageous in cost and having high-end assets in the field sooner can only help.

Technology is changing at an alarming rate and it stands to reason that the first sub will be different from the last one produced because of advancing technology. Those who can adapt with new technology quickly, such as technological advances in AI, computing power, battery chemistry and sensor advancements will have an advantage if incorporated into a continuous updated design process.

Just my 2 cents but it seems the Japanese are more aligned with Australian needs by having an advanced submarine already in continuous production and and therefore should be easier to set up tooling with lower risk because of this.
If Australia through Government to Government negotiations were to use the latest Soryu design should speed up the start of construction and be much lower risk because of a mature modern in production design. This would allow Australia to research and develop technology to be inserted for the second boat of the class.

To be honest I would put as much or more research and development into very large heavily armed long endurance uuvs as Hunter Killers. A pair of these sent out ahead and controlled by a Collins class sub would enable a much larger, clearer sensor net and if equipped with 21 in torps under your command will enable you to prosecute targets from extremely long range. While Subs are very complex, a huge amount of the complexity is taken out of large uuvs by not needing all the associated equipment and space needed for human habitation.

A collaboration including New Zealand and Canada would spread the cost out for rapid development and prototyping.

Sorry to ramble on and having so many of the pieces missing from the puzzle is almost a fools errand in trying to figure out.

Collaboration with NZ and Canada, setting aside the political obstacles, the combined numbers of boats these two countries might consider won’t do much for R&D costs or production. As much as I admire the Japanese approach, they have their own pressing needs and sub technology is closely held although they probably wanted an export deal with OZ. The UK and US SSN were non-starters, neither had the capability or interest for export. France and Germany were both keen for partnership deals.