Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[spoz]

Plan E would almost certainly be unachievable; we do not currently have the submarine design capability required - part of the FSP is to change that so far as we can. Plus, the changes due to equipment obsolescence in everything from main engines to hull valves would be virtually impossible to overcome.

 

[Stampede]

I feel with the submarine conversation there still appears a lot of speculation without some actual substance to the programs perceived failings.
Lets see how the year plays out to see if anything comes to light.

Regards S

 

[ASSAIL]

This is a rerun of the F111 acquisition.
The doomsayers were out in force, it will never fly the wing transfer boxes continually fail, it’s a dog, we should have bought TSR2 blah blah blah.
I’m sure the Goon show were critics back then but suddenly....light!...the road to Damascus.

 

[John Fedup]

Dealing with the French is sometimes like fitting a square peg into a round hole. That being said, the economic consequences (and military) of allowing this program to become a cluster would be a disaster for both countries. Probably will be a bumpy ride for awhile but the pressure on both parties to succeed is immense.

 

[Git_Kraken]

Dealing with the French is sometimes like fitting a square peg into a round hole. That being said, the economic consequences (and military) of allowing this program to become a cluster would be a disaster for both countries. Probably will be a bumpy ride for awhile but the pressure on both parties to succeed is immense.

I was shocked when Australia took the French offer for a submarine. Because trying to get technology transfer out of them is almost impossible. The French will happily sell you a ship but they want to do all the maintenance and refits and control "their" technology.

They are experts in Foreign Military Sales. This sort of partnership with another country is very new to them.

 

[John Fedup]

There really wasn’t much choice, only France offered a large conventionally powered sub design that could likely meet Australia’s requirements. Any alternative Japanese or German options coming close to meetings requirements at present are paper thin.

 

[ngatimozart]

They are experts in Foreign Military Sales. This sort of partnership with another country is very new to them.

Is it? I seem to remember the Mistral deal with the Russians. If that had been completed as agreed and signed the Russians would have been building ships 3 and 4 in Russia. Then there aare the joint ventures that they have done, such as Concorde, the SEPECAT Jaguar and the Transall C-160 just to name a few. Then of course is Airbus and NHI which manufacture the NH90 helicopter.

 

[John Fedup]

Is it? I seem to remember the Mistral deal with the Russians. If that had been completed as agreed and signed the Russians would have been building ships 3 and 4 in Russia. Then there aare the joint ventures that they have done, such as Concorde, the SEPECAT Jaguar and the Transall C-160 just to name a few. Then of course is Airbus and NHI which manufacture the NH90 helicopter.

Not a naval vessel but didn’t the Queen Mary 2 get built in France?

 

[Git_Kraken]

Is it? I seem to remember the Mistral deal with the Russians. If that had been completed as agreed and signed the Russians would have been building ships 3 and 4 in Russia. Then there aare the joint ventures that they have done, such as Concorde, the SEPECAT Jaguar and the Transall C-160 just to name a few. Then of course is Airbus and NHI which manufacture the NH90 helicopter.

That's just the ship. The Russians were putting in all their own electronics. It's the same situation for the FREMM with the US though that one is Italian driven. The deal with Australia includes a full technology transfer AFAIK. All of it. Sonars, combat systems, etc... This means IP transfer to Australia.

That gives risk to the French who's naval industry is nationalized, unionized and has large political influence (most of their aircraft joint projects were contracts with multinational corporations so it was a matter of joint funding and economic benefits, not IP). If Australia has all the IP access and can build/maintain their own stuff what's to stop Australia from building submarines for someone else or repairing a neighbours submarines that were originally French? Thus cutting the French out of potential sales to pay their nationalized workforce.

If France can retain control they will. They may see it as their best interest to lose the contract vs lose control.

 

[hauritz]

Plan A - Build attack subs with naval group
Plan B - Build attack subs with naval group with a very tense relationship with lots of pushing and shoving
Plan C - take work done and paid for so far, go to the Americans to help finish, go back to the French and build attack class
Plan D - take the work done and paid for so far, go to the Americans build without the French involved at all.
Plan E - Build more enhanced Collins - Would only happen if the design had terminal issues that were irresolvable.

The requested content has been archived

This content has been archived in the Parliamentary database: ParlInfo. You can use the advanced search to limit your search to Bills Digests and/or Library Publications, Seminars and Lectures as required. ParlInfo search tips are also available. Otherwise click here to retu

www.aph.gov.au

We have been here before.
F-111, Collins, F-35, E7 wedgetail, pretty much every big military program. Not just Australia, every bloody country that tries and ambitious program. Not just defence. Harbor bridge and the Opera house had their fair share of dramas as well.

Submarines are important. Failure is not an option. Double your efforts.

Yeah where stuck with the French design now. But with the benefit of hindsight wouldn't it have been easier to just continue building the Collins class. We could have just built them in several tranches incorporating improvements and upgrades with each new batch. Unfortunately the Collins got a ridiculous amount of bad press at the time which pretty much made the Son of Collins untenable.

To expand on your star wars analogy the attempt to build a bigger and better death star turned out to be disastrous. All they really needed to do was build a newer version of the original death star and just made sure they covered the thermal exhaust port.

 

[Redlands18]

That's just the ship. The Russians were putting in all their own electronics. It's the same situation for the FREMM with the US though that one is Italian driven. The deal with Australia includes a full technology transfer AFAIK. All of it. Sonars, combat systems, etc... This means IP transfer to Australia.

That gives risk to the French who's naval industry is nationalized, unionized and has large political influence (most of their aircraft joint projects were contracts with multinational corporations so it was a matter of joint funding and economic benefits, not IP). If Australia has all the IP access and can build/maintain their own stuff what's to stop Australia from building submarines for someone else or repairing a neighbours submarines that were originally French? Thus cutting the French out of potential sales to pay their nationalized workforce.

If France can retain control they will. They may see it as their best interest to lose the contract vs lose control.

The Combat Systems are actually US not French, they are getting the same CMS as the Virginia class, the AN/BYG-1 and at this stage they will be carrying the US Harpoon SSM and MK 48 HWT.

 

[Git_Kraken]

That's good to hear. CMS is covered under ITAR rules. Which is likely going to be integrated by an Australian subsidiary of whoever makes that CMS (Lockheed?). Is the sonar French?

Weapons are covered under Foreign Military Sales and are very different than CMS type integration work.

 

[Redlands18]

That's good to hear. CMS is covered under ITAR rules. Which is likely going to be integrated by an Australian subsidiary of whoever makes that CMS (Lockheed?). Is the sonar French?

Weapons are covered under Foreign Military Sales and are very different than CMS type integration work.

The Bow Sonar is German(Atlas Electronik) Flank Sonars are French(Thales)
Australia uses the MK 48 ADCAP HWT for which it is a co designer, so I’m not sure it does fall under FMS.

 

[ASSAIL]

Today marks the 52nd anniversary of the collision between HMAS Melbourne CVS 21 and USS Frank E Evans DD 754
74 American lives were lost in this tragedy and for those of us who were there, their memory lives on.
May they Rest In Peace.

uss frank e evans - Google Search

www.google.com

 

[alexsa]

If France can retain control they will. They may see it as their best interest to lose the contract vs lose control.

This is a hell of a claim and you have provided nothing to justify this. The other point you missed is one of the sticking points in the negotiations was the desire of the Naval Group for the transfer of Australian IP to the Naval Group. This was not agreed to and did hold things up.

This is a major contract for the Naval Group .... if they cannot deliver it will have ramifications for them so I see no evidence of them giving up unless they have complete control (they don't have that now). The fact that Australia are considering contingencies should put pressure on the Naval Group to get this sorted.

 

[Git_Kraken]

The Bow Sonar is German(Atlas Electronik) Flank Sonars are French(Thales)
Australia uses the MK 48 ADCAP HWT for which it is a co designer, so I’m not sure it does fall under FMS.

Canada is part of the ESSM consortium and ESSM purchases are FMS. If it's not built in Australia and both have worked on the project it's likely an easy putt FMS case. ITAR rules. As long as US Congress thinks there is US IP in something it belongs solely to the US and they control it. They sign off on whether Australia can purchase any Torps at all from whatever company builds them. Kinda like what I was talking about with French IP.

This is a hell of a claim and you have provided nothing to justify this. The other point you missed is one of the sticking points in the negotiations was the desire of the Naval Group for the transfer of Australian IP to the Naval Group. This was not agreed to and did hold things up.

This is a major contract for the Naval Group .... if they cannot deliver it will have ramifications for them so I see no evidence of them giving up unless they have complete control (they don't have that now). The fact that Australia are considering contingencies should put pressure on the Naval Group to get this sorted.

So on one hand you accuse me of no justification for France looking out for their own interests and in the next sentence you point out that they were trying to get their hands on Australian IP? So their plan wasn't to retain their own IP it was to grab someone else's? Freely given industrial espionage, well done France! Apparently, my speculation was backwords.

France has a history of looking out for France and not giving two hoots about anyone else. Leaving NATO, the CFA franc policy, selling weapons to anyone (as long as they were built in France). Also, everything Charles de Gaul did. France epitomizes the phrase no allies only interests. And Naval Group is owned by the French Gov't and therefore a potential extension of French Foreign policy.

Look I'm not saying they are up to something, I just understand French geopolitics and politics. If they decide something is not in their best national interest then they will walk away despite the pain. France is like China in this regard. Now that being said the contract is huge, it may open more markets for them and likely they will make a deal. But I believe they are going to try and make this run their way as much as possible.

 

[hairyman]

How come the Swedes and Kockums never get mentioned when we are talking about submarines? After all, the Colins was a Kockums design was it not?

 

[alexsa]

Canada is part of the ESSM consortium and ESSM purchases are FMS. If it's not built in Australia and both have worked on the project it's likely an easy putt FMS case. ITAR rules. As long as US Congress thinks there is US IP in something it belongs solely to the US and they control it. They sign off on whether Australia can purchase any Torps at all from whatever company builds them. Kinda like what I was talking about with French IP.


So on one hand you accuse me of no justification for France looking out for their own interests and in the next sentence you point out that they were trying to get their hands on Australian IP? So their plan wasn't to retain their own IP it was to grab someone else's? Freely given industrial espionage, well done France! Apparently, my speculation was backwords.

France has a history of looking out for France and not giving two hoots about anyone else. Leaving NATO, the CFA franc policy, selling weapons to anyone (as long as they were built in France). Also, everything Charles de Gaul did. France epitomizes the phrase no allies only interests. And Naval Group is owned by the French Gov't and therefore a potential extension of French Foreign policy.

Look I'm not saying they are up to something, I just understand French geopolitics and politics. If they decide something is not in their best national interest then they will walk away despite the pain. France is like China in this regard. Now that being said the contract is huge, it may open more markets for them and likely they will make a deal. But I believe they are going to try and make this run their way as much as possible.

Australia has its own IP on systems and equipment developed in Australia. The Naval Group are contracted to hand over the IP on the design of the Attack Class but were not to be given Australian IP for future use in different projects. Sensible precaution really.

What I was calling you out on was the claim that Naval Group will walk away if they don't have full control. How do you justify this given they do not have full control now and never will on this project.

 

[StingrayOZ]

How come the Swedes and Kockums never get mentioned when we are talking about submarines? After all, the Colins was a Kockums design was it not?

Bad memories.

We had a very similar fight with the swedes over who owned the IP.

Collins IP: Australia and Sweden bury the hatchet | The Strategist

The Australian and Swedish Defence Ministers produced a joint communique today on the subject of intellectual property rights for submarine design and technology. That mightn’t sound like a ‘tear down the front page’ story, but ...

www.aspistrategist.org.au

PM to talk to French President.

French subs, UK trade deal on PM’s European fix-it list

Australia is prepared to walk away from a free trade deal with Britain rather than sign a flawed agreement.

www.afr.com

 

[spoz]

That's good to hear. CMS is covered under ITAR rules. Which is likely going to be integrated by an Australian subsidiary of whoever makes that CMS (Lockheed?). Is the sonar French?

Weapons are covered under Foreign Military Sales and are very different than CMS type integration work.

Lockheed Martin Australia is the contracted combat system integrator. Effectively, Naval Group supply the boat and LMA, both direct and via FMS, provide the combat system.