Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Ok,i heared wrong then,my bad.

But still not a small,rangelimited european design(as some would suggest)
So can it transit 3,000 nautical miles, undertake its patrol, and then transit 3,000 nautical miles back to base without requiring outside support?
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
Ok,i heared wrong then,my bad.

But still not a small,rangelimited european design(as some would suggest)
I would argue that it would still fit some of those descriptors, but I would also suggest that they do not necessarily mean what one might think.

If one were to compare published ranges for both the Walrus- and Collins-class subs, one would see a "list" range of 10,000 n miles @9kts for the Walrus-class, while the Collins-class, with a surfaced displacement nearly 750 tonnes greater, has a listed range of 11,500 n miles @10 kts.

However, it does not show how quickly either sub class could make a routine long distance transit, or how much power either sub is capable of generating. Some materials for the RAN's Collins-class subs suggest an endurance of 70 days. Between that and the areas of interest for Australia, it does suggest that Australia has (and needs to have) a different CONOPS for subs than European sub users do, which would also cause the subs to have different capabilities.
 

John Newman

The Bunker Group
The Oz is running an article about speeding up the development of the Attack class Sub experts urge Scott Morrison to go on Attack (theaustralian.com.au) based on submariners recommendations. The main thing seems to be having 2 design teams in France and Oz and generally revving things up to get a 2030 delivery date. I think anything that get's them delivered quicker is desirable, the original time frame was at great risk of them missing the party.
The article is behind a paywall and can’t be read.

So who are these so called sub experts?
 

DDG38

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
The article is behind a paywall and can’t be read.
So who are these so called sub experts?
From the article : "Retired submarine commander Peter Briggs and retired submarine warfare expert commodore Terrance Roach, together with Anzac-class frigate shipbuilder John White, said dual design teams had been used successfully on the Collins-class design and could help deliver the Attack-class boats sooner."
 

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
Accelerating a design + build is very hard.
Particularly something that is basically clean sheet.

Subs are the hardest of all projects to accelerate. There are very few shortcuts you can take, margins but design are close and volume is tight.
I am sure there are ways to push it forward, but 5-8 years seems optimistic.
 

oldsig127

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
From the article : "Retired submarine commander Peter Briggs and retired submarine warfare expert commodore Terrance Roach, together with Anzac-class frigate shipbuilder John White, said dual design teams had been used successfully on the Collins-class design and could help deliver the Attack-class boats sooner."
To an extent this was always the plan. The intent is already to use the design and build process for Attack to establish an Australian capacity to design our own submarines. The only difference is what I'd judge to be an over optimistic expectation of how quickly that might be achieved (in the run up to, rather than by the end of Attack production)

oldsig
 

cdxbow

Active Member
The article is behind a paywall and can’t be read.

So who are these so called sub experts?
A friend can help
Accelerating a design + build is very hard.
Particularly something that is basically clean sheet.

Subs are the hardest of all projects to accelerate. There are very few shortcuts you can take, margins but design are close and volume is tight.
I am sure there are ways to push it forward, but 5-8 years seems optimistic.
Given the French have the nuclear version in the water undergoing sea trials, it's not as if it's a complete unknown or a unique clean sheet design. Add in all the benefits of modern digital engineering then 8.5 years to get a boat in the water shouldn't be impossible. The Collins class tender was chosen in May 1987, the first sub laid down in February 1990 and launched in August 1993 - admittedly unfinished and with issues. That was a bit over 6 years, with 1980 design technology. Different world now.
 

hauritz

Well-Known Member
The article is behind a paywall and can’t be read.

So who are these so called sub experts?
I think this is it.
Submarine program manager Greg Sammut said the program could be compressed if necessary. It would mean accepting more risk but given the deteriorating strategic environment risk might be unavoidable regardless of how you look at it..
Sub experts urge Scott Morrison to go on Attack

Ben Packham

Some of the nation’s most experienced submariners are urging the government to slash years from the delivery of the nation’s $90bn Attack-class submarines by designing the boats around the clock and dramatically reducing their construction schedule.

The plan, obtained by The Australian ahead of Scott Morrison’s meeting this week with French President Emmanuel Macron, calls for the government to pile pressure on France’s Naval Group to “expedite Attack” by requiring the company to run a design team in each time zone.

It also calls for the government to push the capabilities of its soon-to-be-built digital shipyard in Adelaide, reducing the construction “drum beat” to one year per boat after the first Attack-class sub is “debugged”.

The government would have to shoulder additional risk but the reward would be the first Attack commissioned as early as 2030 – rather than the scheduled 2034 – and potentially another eight produced by 2040.

Retired submarine commander Peter Briggs and retired submarine warfare expert commodore Terrance Roach, together with Anzac-class frigate shipbuilder John White, said dual design teams had been used successfully on the Collins-class design and could help deliver the Attack-class boats sooner.

“The best way out of the swamp we are in is to speed up the Attack-class program and make it work earlier,” Rear Admiral Briggs said.

The group said getting on with the Collins-class “life-of-type-extension” program was vital to address medium-term capability risks, and urged a “rapid assessment” of a new “Son of Collins” boat “to provide leverage over Naval Group” and hedge against failure of the Attack program.

It said after years of delays, “decisive” action was required.

The troubled Attack-class program, at an impasse over the price of the detailed design contract, will be top of the agenda when the Prime Minister meets Mr Macron in Paris on Wednesday (AEST).

Mr Morrison is expected to seek a commitment from the majority French government-owned Naval Group to dedicate more resources to the Attack-class program, and work more collaboratively with Defence.

It’s unclear whether the company will free-up the necessary capacity to work on the Australian boats, as its top priority will be the delivery of France’s next generation of ballistic missile submarines, due to enter active service in 2035.

Naval Group chief Pierre-Eric Pommellet said in February “the whole company will be mobilised” to deliver the new French subs.

Rear Admiral Briggs said running two design teams – one in Australia, one in France – would allow construction on the first boat to get under way sooner.

“The government has to force the French to put a second design team on the program, exploiting the time difference between the two countries to speed up the design process, but the design must be Australian-led,” he said.

The proposal follows a report by some of the country’s leading naval shipbuilders, revealed by The Australian last week, that warned that the Morrison government’s timeline for extending the life of the Collins-class subs was too ambitious, risking a major capability gap by the 2030s.

Senate estimates heard last October that the planned two-year construction drum beat for the Attack-class submarines was the result of workforce planning and the need to avoid a “valley of death” at the end of the program.

Submarine program manager Greg Sammut said the program could be compressed if necessary.

“The submarine construction yard will have the capacity to produce more than one submarine every two years,” he said.

Australian Strategic Policy Institute executive director Peter Jennings said the government needed to do everything it could to bring forward the Attack-class build. “I have never understood how … it is still a decade before you get to construction,” Mr Jennings said. “For God’s sake, we fought a war in that time.

“I would be saying to Defence, ‘Tell me how you can squeeze two years out of the waiting period before we start constructing’.

“Rather than 2034, what if we said 2031 was the objective?

“Defence would run around and tear their hair out and then ultimately come back with a plan saying ‘This is how you would do it. You will probably have to accept more risk, but that’s how it goes.’ ”

Mr Jennings said the two-year construction drum beat was “always about keeping industry going” and a “valley of death” at the end of the program could be avoided by building more than 12 submarines.

Rear Admiral Briggs is a former submarine commander who later oversaw the introduction into service of the Collins-class submarines from 1999 to 2001.

Commodore Roach is a former submarine warfare specialist and former director of Defence’s Submarine Warfare Systems Centre.

Dr White was chief executive of Transfield and Tenix Defence during construction of the Anzac-class frigates, and co-author of the White-Winter review to sort out problems with the navy’s Air Warfare Destroyers.
 

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
A friend can help

Given the French have the nuclear version in the water undergoing sea trials, it's not as if it's a complete unknown or a unique clean sheet design. Add in all the benefits of modern digital engineering then 8.5 years to get a boat in the water shouldn't be impossible. The Collins class tender was chosen in May 1987, the first sub laid down in February 1990 and launched in August 1993 - admittedly unfinished and with issues. That was a bit over 6 years, with 1980 design technology. Different world now.
As part of the review in Astutes/Virginias/Collins builds

Digital designs typically didn't shorten development cycles, it has other advantages, but noticeably shortening isn't one of them.
Also one of the lessons was to complete the sub design before building and not repeat the mistakes of the past.

The French sub may externally be extremely similar, but internally its going to be very different. Crew, bridge, engines, fuel, mechanical spaces, batteries. Yes, having a completed nuclear brother, it should assist the design cycle, but carving years is a big ask. I'm not saying its impossible, throwing more money, people and resources can help, and proper motivation can also be a factor.

Previous submarines were either a refresh or a stretch of previous designs. They were also meant to be simple low risk program.

US went as far to build a 1/3rd scale of a Virginia class, battery powered. Adoption of all digital design doesn't mean some well placed modeling and real simulations can't provide extremely valuable real data, to reduce risk and increase speed of the program.

10 years isn't uncommon for submarine designs to launch. 5 year design + 5 year build for first of class. Particularly for a new inexperienced non-hot yard.

I won't comment too much on the first collins boat in august 1993. But that boat they pushed out had timber sections painted black and missing a lot of pipework, systems etc. It wasn't ready until mid 1994, and we had to delay all other boats to get it ready by that date.

Lets not be overtly ambitious.
 

Git_Kraken

Member
As part of the review in Astutes/Virginias/Collins builds

Digital designs typically didn't shorten development cycles, it has other advantages, but noticeably shortening isn't one of them.
Also one of the lessons was to complete the sub design before building and not repeat the mistakes of the past.

The French sub may externally be extremely similar, but internally its going to be very different. Crew, bridge, engines, fuel, mechanical spaces, batteries. Yes, having a completed nuclear brother, it should assist the design cycle, but carving years is a big ask. I'm not saying its impossible, throwing more money, people and resources can help, and proper motivation can also be a factor.

Previous submarines were either a refresh or a stretch of previous designs. They were also meant to be simple low risk program.
I agree 100%. Using the design of a pre-existing submarine reduces risk, not necessarily time. You already know how the submarine will move, dive and surface. You already know the basics of its size, weight, hull form etc... Those are risks that have been removed or mitigated, as some of the performance dictated by the RAN will be met. Eg: You're less likely to build a sub with a too shallow depth rating because the pre-existing design meets that performance criterion.
 

ADMk2

Just a bloke
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
As part of the review in Astutes/Virginias/Collins builds

Digital designs typically didn't shorten development cycles, it has other advantages, but noticeably shortening isn't one of them.
Also one of the lessons was to complete the sub design before building and not repeat the mistakes of the past.

The French sub may externally be extremely similar, but internally its going to be very different. Crew, bridge, engines, fuel, mechanical spaces, batteries. Yes, having a completed nuclear brother, it should assist the design cycle, but carving years is a big ask. I'm not saying its impossible, throwing more money, people and resources can help, and proper motivation can also be a factor.

Previous submarines were either a refresh or a stretch of previous designs. They were also meant to be simple low risk program.

US went as far to build a 1/3rd scale of a Virginia class, battery powered. Adoption of all digital design doesn't mean some well placed modeling and real simulations can't provide extremely valuable real data, to reduce risk and increase speed of the program.

10 years isn't uncommon for submarine designs to launch. 5 year design + 5 year build for first of class. Particularly for a new inexperienced non-hot yard.

I won't comment too much on the first collins boat in august 1993. But that boat they pushed out had timber sections painted black and missing a lot of pipework, systems etc. It wasn't ready until mid 1994, and we had to delay all other boats to get it ready by that date.

Lets not be overtly ambitious.
I’m not sure overly ambitious is what we are being. 16 years from designer selection to the boat in the water doesn’t exactly scream that we’re in a hurry.

The manufacturing timeline is designed to avoid another “ship-building valley of death” not deliver us new submarines in anything close to as fast as possible.
 

Mikeymike

New Member
I think it is unlikely Australia will be able to bring the first of class forward by much.

Naval Group, if given the option seem to want to delay the build start date slightly so they can have a higher level of maturity in the design and try and make the time up in build. This is in line with the recommendations that came out of one of Collins Class build review that its better to spend time getting the design right than trying to fix once in build.

They still have to finish the design, finish building the shipyard, raise and train the workforce. This all for the most complex build ever done in Australian history that is currently seen as being 'high risk' for a reason. One way in which Defence are managing this risk is by putting all 6 Collins through LOTE, to try and minimize any gap. This LOTE will probably use a lot of the same suppliers/equipment at the Attack class as to further reduce risk.

While you could throw money at it to do these quicker, you would need to find that cash. This is on top of the reports that indicate there are already disagreements about the scope/cost of design work between Naval Group and Defence with it being more than budgeted.

In getting the subs delivered quicker the shipyard is being designed to be able to sustain a tempo of one boat every 18 months (as per senate estimate testimony) so the tempo could be increased from the current plan of 2 years, but would need something additional to be ordered to stop the valley of death at the end of the program. This costs money which is currently not planned within the Defence budget and if new money is put in, more subs are not necessarily the best place for it.

So unless Defence/Government want to put more money in to get the subs delivered sooner or they can find another nation to order 4 towards the 2040-2050 timeline (Canada?) the best plan is the current plan. Make Plan A work while putting all 6 Collins through LOTE to reduce risk. Possibly offer Canada a good deal if they sign up to replace the Victoria class with Attack's built in Adelaide with only minimal changes.
 

Git_Kraken

Member
So unless Defence/Government want to put more money in to get the subs delivered sooner or they can find another nation to order 4 towards the 2040-2050 timeline (Canada?) the best plan is the current plan. Make Plan A work while putting all 6 Collins through LOTE to reduce risk. Possibly offer Canada a good deal if they sign up to replace the Victoria class with Attack's built in Adelaide with only minimal changes.
Given the current timelines for the Victoria Class life extension our subs will be gone by the 2040 timeline. If Canada were to get Australian-built subs it would likely require us to jump the line to closer to the front. Similar to what has been done in both countries for aircraft purchases from the US. And given their history of "Canadianizing", everything extends the timelines even more.

Even so, I'm not sure it would help Australia in the short term. They will still accept all the risk and initial cost investments for the building program. Any purchases from outside of the initial program will be after the initial effort and won't reduce the per hull costs. The new purchaser will benefit much more from a reduced per hull cost than Australia would.

Of course, that's not including the industrial/economic benefits of billions of foreign dollars going into the yard and thus into Australia's tax coffers from that investment. A full balance sheet would look much different.
 

John Newman

The Bunker Group
"Now witness the power of this fully armed and operational landing craft" (sorry but being a Star Wars geek I couldn't help myself)

LLC from HMAS Canberra transporting an Abrams during during Exercise Sea Explorer (Image source - ADF Image library link)
View attachment 48276
I put this video up in the Army thread last night, it equally deserves to go here in the RAN Thread too:


Cheers,
 

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
I put this video up in the Army thread last night, it equally deserves to go here in the RAN Thread too:


Cheers,
Apparently the Royal Marine at the start of the Video forgot which Navy he was exercising with.
HMS!!!:eek: Canberra and HMS Choules
I’ll forgive him for the Choules as he has probably spent on her Sisters but Canberra
 
Last edited:

swerve

Super Moderator
Depends on how old he is (I've not watched the video). If he's been a marine long enough, he might have been on Largs Bay herself, not just her sisters.
 
Top