Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
Another problem could be that the LOTE may not be achievable in a two year time frame. A LOTE will involve replacing almost all the major systems and is far more complex than your standard two year full cycle docking. From what I read it sounds like the entire submarine will be cut open, gutted and rebuilt which I admit does sound only slightly less complex than building a new sub.

If the LOTE cannot be achieved with in two years it could be disastrous as it means a number of the Collins class could run out of life before LOTE work could commence on them.

It looks like Australia might have yet again left a decision too late and should have commenced LOTE work several years ago.

For the benefit of those who can't get through the paywall here is an abridged version.
I see that Andrew Davies has a book coming out on the Collins Class, this will be interesting.
 

vonnoobie

Well-Known Member
On the other hand this may if done right allow us to build up the work force and the experience of it that could then minimise production faults on the attack class and even allow for efficiencies to be attained sooner.

As with most things it will be a wait and see as to what exactly will happen.
 

alexsa

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Another problem could be that the LOTE may not be achievable in a two year time frame. A LOTE will involve replacing almost all the major systems and is far more complex than your standard two year full cycle docking. From what I read it sounds like the entire submarine will be cut open, gutted and rebuilt which I admit does sound only slightly less complex than building a new sub.

If the LOTE cannot be achieved with in two years it could be disastrous as it means a number of the Collins class could run out of life before LOTE work could commence on them.

It looks like Australia might have yet again left a decision too late and should have commenced LOTE work several years ago.

For the benefit of those who can't get through the paywall here is an abridged version.
We seem to be allowing the press to run this show. The SWUP programme on the Oberon was pretty successful and had similar time frames. The first will be an pathfinder but you would hope that lesson are learned and the subsequent vessels move through the process at a pace. The ANZAC ASMD programme, the FFGUP (at the end of the process) and the Oberon Class upgrades all followed this trend. Once the package is agreed it is the logistic trail that needs to keep up.

BUT….. noting the pace of change in technology (and looking at the ANZAC and DDG build issues caused by pre-pruchase of systems and gear) hopefully the upgrade will be done in batches of three.
 

Joe Black

Active Member
Another problem could be that the LOTE may not be achievable in a two year time frame. A LOTE will involve replacing almost all the major systems and is far more complex than your standard two year full cycle docking. From what I read it sounds like the entire submarine will be cut open, gutted and rebuilt which I admit does sound only slightly less complex than building a new sub.

If the LOTE cannot be achieved with in two years it could be disastrous as it means a number of the Collins class could run out of life before LOTE work could commence on them.

It looks like Australia might have yet again left a decision too late and should have commenced LOTE work several years ago.

For the benefit of those who can't get through the paywall here is an abridged version.
If were to do that, why not build new Collins based on the same hull shape and hull design?
 

alexsa

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
If were to do that, why not build new Collins based on the same hull shape and hull design?
Setting up for the hull build from the get go is a significant task. The includes the logistics of producing the steel which is not a simple process as it is quite specialised for these vessels. The time frame for a Collins clone and the Attacks would be the same so you would be better going for the more capable option.
 

hauritz

Well-Known Member
We seem to be allowing the press to run this show. The SWUP programme on the Oberon was pretty successful and had similar time frames. The first will be an pathfinder but you would hope that lesson are learned and the subsequent vessels move through the process at a pace. The ANZAC ASMD programme, the FFGUP (at the end of the process) and the Oberon Class upgrades all followed this trend. Once the package is agreed it is the logistic trail that needs to keep up.

BUT….. noting the pace of change in technology (and looking at the ANZAC and DDG build issues caused by pre-pruchase of systems and gear) hopefully the upgrade will be done in batches of three.
I am afraid I still remain sceptical as to whether the Australian Shipbuilding industry has the actual capacity to handle all of the work coming its way over the next decade.

By 2028 Australia will be building perhaps two attack class submarines, laying down its third and maybe fourth Hunter class frigate, working on one or two larger ships and then of course you still have ongoing ship building programs such as the new OPVs, Mine Hunters and Hydrographic vessels. Now the government has thrown a Collins class LOTE on top of all that.

While I have never worked in the shipbuilding industry I have worked in IT recruiting and I can tell you that finding experienced skilled workers is tough at the best of times ... but to have so many programs starting up at the same time it may be near impossible. The government has already started the ball rolling by spending money on training and education but that doesn't buy you experience. That only comes with time.

If Peter Dutton actually had any hair he would no doubt be pulling it out by now.
 

John Newman

The Bunker Group
I am afraid I still remain sceptical as to whether the Australian Shipbuilding industry has the actual capacity to handle all of the work coming its way over the next decade.

By 2028 Australia will be building perhaps two attack class submarines, laying down its third and maybe fourth Hunter class frigate, working on one or two larger ships and then of course you still have ongoing ship building programs such as the new OPVs, Mine Hunters and Hydrographic vessels. Now the government has thrown a Collins class LOTE on top of all that.

While I have never worked in the shipbuilding industry I have worked in IT recruiting and I can tell you that finding experienced skilled workers is tough at the best of times ... but to have so many programs starting up at the same time it may be near impossible. The government has already started the ball rolling by spending money on training and education but that doesn't buy you experience. That only comes with time.

If Peter Dutton actually had any hair he would no doubt be pulling it out by now.
Mate, you really are a ray of sunshine today, sounds like the sky is about to fall, hey?

Ok, let’s go through your list.


Osborne SA:

Yes a workforce has to be created for the Attack class build, well known.

Collins LOTE, there is already an ASC workforce at Osborne North that performs the two year FCD on the Collins class, no doubt they will be the workforce to perform LOTE, which in effect will be an ‘enlarged FCD’, in other words, no newly created work force required, yes there may well be an expansion of that workforce.

Hunter class, the ASC workforce at Osborne South building OPV 1&2 will transition to Hunter and expand, again well known.

Now for the West:

Currently at Henderson, we have Austal building PBs, we have BAE Systems Australia performing upgrades on the Anzac class, ASC has a workforce performing MCD and other maintenance on the Collins fleet, and lastly the Civmec workforce building OPVs 3-12.

So moving forward, I would imagine that Austal will have involvement in future Army and Navy watercraft and other PB type projects.

ASC West will continue Collins MCD, probably eventually Attack class MCD.

Civmec will continue on the Arafura OPVs, and versions of the OPVs for mine warfare and hydrographic work.

That leaves the BAE workforce, if there are no further major upgrades for the Anzac class I could imagine they could be the ‘core’ of the future JSS and other large RAN support ship projects.

We still await the update of the 2017 Naval Shipbuilding Plan, hopefully it is released soon now that a decision has been made on the LOTE for the Collins fleet.

I suspect the update will have the answers, or plans to be implemented moving forward.

Cheers,
 

rand0m

Member
Setting up for the hull build from the get go is a significant task. The includes the logistics of producing the steel which is not a simple process as it is quite specialised for these vessels. The time frame for a Collins clone and the Attacks would be the same so you would be better going for the more capable option.
I know it has been discussed at length in this thread but would bringing in an 'interim sub' like the type 214 ever be a cost or time efficient option? Without going into a A vs B scenario, the information available to the public suggests that the Type 214 and Collins may have similar capabilities in terms of endurance, speed and range (again I emphasize 'may'). I know the requirements of the future sub/Attack class are something completely different, but I question whether it would be a safer bet buying an off the shelf platform that could be brought in sooner than LOTE for Collins.
 

protoplasm

Member
I know it has been discussed at length in this thread but would bringing in an 'interim sub' like the type 214 ever be a cost or time efficient option? Without going into a A vs B scenario, the information available to the public suggests that the Type 214 and Collins may have similar capabilities in terms of endurance, speed and range (again I emphasize 'may'). I know the requirements of the future sub/Attack class are something completely different, but I question whether it would be a safer bet buying an off the shelf platform that could be brought in sooner than LOTE for Collins.
No

No, again

There is no gain in capability for Australia in buying a small Euro sub. It doesn’t achieve anything, that won’t be achieved with CCS LOTE, then Attacks after that. The announced plan is the sensible plan that utilises the expertise we do have, and allows us to then grow the design expertise that we need.
 

John Newman

The Bunker Group
I know it has been discussed at length in this thread but would bringing in an 'interim sub' like the type 214 ever be a cost or time efficient option? Without going into a A vs B scenario, the information available to the public suggests that the Type 214 and Collins may have similar capabilities in terms of endurance, speed and range (again I emphasize 'may'). I know the requirements of the future sub/Attack class are something completely different, but I question whether it would be a safer bet buying an off the shelf platform that could be brought in sooner than LOTE for Collins.
Simple answer, NO.
 

ASSAIL

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
I know it has been discussed at length in this thread but would bringing in an 'interim sub' like the type 214 ever be a cost or time efficient option? Without going into a A vs B scenario, the information available to the public suggests that the Type 214 and Collins may have similar capabilities in terms of endurance, speed and range (again I emphasize 'may'). I know the requirements of the future sub/Attack class are something completely different, but I question whether it would be a safer bet buying an off the shelf platform that could be brought in sooner than LOTE for Collins.
NO
 

hairyman

Member
I dont know why we never went with Kockums from the start. They were never even considered. Was this because of their particiption in the Collins build? Which the conservatives here have always associated with the ALP and have been duty bound to knock it. About time party politics were put aside. This issue is too important to our future security.
 

hairyman

Member
Kockums with the submarine it is building for the Dutch navy, has the closest fit to our requirements, yet we never considered for our new sub project. Why was this? What has our government got against the Swedes?
 

hauritz

Well-Known Member
According to the French it was because Kockum simply hadn't designed any submarines for 20 years and at the time really had nothing new to offer.

I would love to read the rest of this article to get a French perspective on what is happening with the Attack program. I get the impression they might be a little ticked off with our press. They seem to make the perfectly valid point that our press aren't experts when it comes to talking about defence matters. We sometimes forget that stories have two sides.

Who is maneuvering to discredit Naval Group in Australia? - Meta-Defense.fr
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
I dont know why we never went with Kockums from the start. They were never even considered. Was this because of their particiption in the Collins build? Which the conservatives here have always associated with the ALP and have been duty bound to knock it. About time party politics were put aside. This issue is too important to our future security.
AND

Kockums with the submarine it is building for the Dutch navy, has the closest fit to our requirements, yet we never considered for our new sub project. Why was this? What has our government got against the Swedes?
I would suggest taking a look back at Kockums, the company's history from the last ~20 years, and the timeline for the SEA 1000 programme.

For instance, Kockums was a Swedish subsidiary of the German shipbuilder HDW from 1999 until Jan 2005 when HDW became a subsidiary of ThyssenKrupp AG. It was not until July 2014 that Saab was able to purchase Kockums so that Swedish control of the company was re-established.

It was once Saab took control of Kockums that the A26 project was restarted in early 2015, and IIRC it was after the Abbot gov't announced the CEP.

With some of the issues which Australia ran into with Kockums during the Collins-class build programme, and then the need for the existing plans for the A26 to be completed with modifications to meet Australian service requirements, all while Kockums was re-emerging as a Swedish company and had not actually designed & built it's own new sub class in 20 years (most recent of the Gotland-class subs launched in Sept 1996), I see little reason why Australia would seriously consider Kockums.
 

vonnoobie

Well-Known Member
The Dutch program really isn't ideal to Australia in any case. What their replacement boat will be is for all intents and purposes pretty much a Collins class size boat. Hell if we had updated it we could have bidded the Collins class as a possible contender for the Dutch program and in my opinion probably a boat with the least risks.

One shouldn't also assume that Kockums has the closest fit to our requirements, their Dutch proposal is a heavily modified version of the A26. Stretching it from 63m X 6.4m to 73m X 8m and increasing the weight by 50% and all that to get a design that is still smaller then the Collins.

We did have another option beyond France, Germany and Japan and that was simply the Collins class. Nothing else out there had our requirements or the capability and experience to offer a potential solution to us.

For better or worse Germany was knocked out, was the design sound apperantly not but at an industry level they would have been so much easier to work with, Japan well design, industry and politics really made that a non starter. France is what we are stuck with, our only other option beyond that is to build new Collins class boats, anything more is asking for trouble.

We won't be getting an interim submarine to fill any gap, the Collins LOTE is the interim solution, what comes after that is what will be the final solution.
 

walter

Active Member
To be fair,from what i know,(as a Dutchie ;) )

I read here regurlaly,that the Australians don't want a small European design,which is true,but as we all know at the time of choosing a replacement

for the Oberons(i think)the Dutch design was the runner up.

Why?

Very simple it was the only design that even came close to what the Australains wanted,and had the prefered CMS(SEWACO),at least that's what i

heared.(also one of the deepest diving conventionals,on par with Soryu,believe it or not)

But it was a very expensive design(probably the reason it wasn't chosen)

So in short,in my view The Dutch Navy is probably one of the few Navies that does things like the Australian Navy with their boats,so to disgard them

as "another short transit"Navy is,well not true.(

But as said The Australians choose the French design and have to stick with that.

And yes The stretched A-26,if chosen, is in the same weight class as the Collins is now(about 3200 tonns),so indeed it would be a sort of Collins 2.0 for

the Australians.;)

I hope that the Attack class will become everything they visioned for capabillity wise,and for us i hope we choose wisely(and go for the A-26,the only

real option for us,in my view.

gr,walter
 

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
To be fair,from what i know,(as a Dutchie ;) )

I read here regurlaly,that the Australians don't want a small European design,which is true,but as we all know at the time of choosing a replacement

for the Oberons(i think)the Dutch design was the runner up.

Why?

Very simple it was the only design that even came close to what the Australains wanted,and had the prefered CMS(SEWACO),at least that's what i

heared.(also one of the deepest diving conventionals,on par with Soryu,believe it or not)

But it was a very expensive design(probably the reason it wasn't chosen)

So in short,in my view The Dutch Navy is probably one of the few Navies that does things like the Australian Navy with their boats,so to disgard them

as "another short transit"Navy is,well not true.(

But as said The Australians choose the French design and have to stick with that.

And yes The stretched A-26,if chosen, is in the same weight class as the Collins is now(about 3200 tonns),so indeed it would be a sort of Collins 2.0 for

the Australians.;)

I hope that the Attack class will become everything they visioned for capabillity wise,and for us i hope we choose wisely(and go for the A-26,the only

real option for us,in my view.

gr,walter
Actually the runner up was a variant of the Type 209, the Walrus design was rated as fair
 
Top