You've quoted an article from the Weekend Australian, why? what's your comment or opinion? Many of us have read the paper and formed opinions, in many cases unprintable here.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
Joe Black
Active Member
Well, I didn't see it being mentioned, so I thought I post it up as a reference point for further discussion.
Anyway, here's my thought, it is definitely an interesting play by the Swedes. From a political perspective, I don't know going with yet another Swedish sub design will play well in the public after the challenges faced building the Collins class. Well, I know many of the forumers might well be informed that there were various reasons, and wouldn't necessary point fingers at Kockum, or the Swedes, but I feel that the general public, nor some of the less well informed press, might not necessary see it in the same light.
I believe that the HDW Type 216 class or the Japanese's Soryu have the greatest potential to succeed but deep down, I still think that going with the Swede has the potential to yield greater benefits in terms of technological transfer and really firming up the technological know how in submarine building. I also think that it gives us greater potential to even onsell the design to the Canadians in the future. Who knows.
Will be the most interesting to see how the event will unfold. The only thing I think RAN nor Australia can do is to procrastinate further. Just make a decision soon I hope.... and don't god plate everything. Buying 2 subs at a time has a great merit. Just see how the Singaporean did their buy, two Type 218S at a time for an eventual 6 boats.
the road runner
Active Member
Post deleted
Fellas I am a long time lurker and first time poster.
I have 2 questions for you. I am interested to know why Angus Houston has been appointed to be in charge of the search for MH370. Not that I have anything against him and I am sure he is very competent but I would have thought that in a maritime environment and with the number of RAN and overseas naval resources involved that a senior RAN Officer would be the logical choice.
I have always wondered about the arrangements which are put in place for payment when foreign ships are replenished by our tankers such as Success and Sirius and vice versa when our ships are replenished at sea by other navy's ships. Does the host nation pay such as Australia in the search for MH370 and other exercises such as RIMPAC or does each navy pay its own expences.
I think he's barking up the wrong tree completely with regard to the RAN's interest in AIP technology. I've seen consistent commentary from people in the position to know that AIP isn't the silver bullet it's made out to be when the mainstream media reports on subs. In fact if I recall correctly there were a couple of AIP sets acquired for trials with Collins - these same sets are to the best of my knowledge currently gathering dust in RAN storage somewhere. Apparently AIP wasn't considered sufficiently beneficial/relevant to Collins, and so the sets were left out of the fleet entirely.
I don't know about whether there have been any game-changing advances in AIP technology since then, but as I said the commentary I've seen doesn't seem to indicate much interest on the part of the RAN. I'd be more curious to learn about new technologies related to conventional power generation and battery capacity/life, as I think this might prove far more relevant to future Australian submarine designs. As I've learned on here, power generation is a key enabler of a submarine's other capabilities, more so than one might initially think - which sounds a bit silly (of course power generation is vital) but it's relevant in more ways than one.
This is one area where Collins (if memory serves) is considered very capable, in that it can generate sufficient power to operate as a fleet submarine rather than a 1500 ton littoral hunter/killer. I believe the Japanese take a similar approach to their submarine fleet - hence the relatively large size (for conventional subs) of the Oyashio and Soryu classes.
I just hope the RAN end up with a large conventional that's purpose designed rather than repeating history with an "upscaled" variant on a much smaller submarine... I know the Germans are pitching the notional Type 216 as appropriate to the requirement, but personally I'd rather see collaboration with the Japanese, seeing as they're the only other nation that's in the business of big conventional boats.
I will focus on the first
It is a coordination role and he has quite a reputation. This is a civilain function being assisted by military assets and the search, recovery (with luck) and investigation would normally remain under civilian control.
As and ex-CDF he makes a good coordinator and has presented well in the role. As serving military officer would appear to be inappropriate.
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
They are a company that has never built submarines before, poaching staff from an existing submarine manufacturer does not instantly turn them into a first class shipbuilder.
On the other hand, if ASC which has now got a 25 year old history of building/maintaining submarines were to hire on people from HDW, BAe, Electric Boat etc, they would be integrating into an existing team with a clear idea of what the RAN needs (since they have been working with them for the last 25 years or so).
Umm... what you just said but drop the if and slot have been in place of were. ASC has more talent in long range conventional submarine design than many or even any of the competition, they are also the only conventional sub designer with reach back into EB and USN for sub and combat system design. Also through their new senior management and other staff they have not insubstantial links to the Astute, T, and V class (upholders too but we try and forget them), as well as other very experienced staff with backgrounds in the cancelled Viking Submarine Program for the Nordic navies, not to mention very experienced Dutch and Russians.
Also there are a multitude of Australians each with more than a decades (some more than two decades) experience of designing, building delivering and sustaining a world beating class of submarine to the most demanding, inconsistent, inconsiderate, back stabbing, self-serving, politicising, customer and / or owner in the history of submarine construction, the Commonwealth of Australia.
No company on the face of the planet is better positioned to deliver the next generation of conventional submarine to the RAN than ASC. That is why the government will probably send the whole project off shore or build a new green fields site in WA part owned by Austal to deliver a class of trimaran aluminium submarines :finger
Joe Black
Active Member
:rolling You are killing me.... :rolling
On a serious note, I do have serious doubt that just having built 1 class of submarine, ASC would be able to design a brand new class of sub independently. I think getting a well established company like TKDM or Mitsubishi Heavy Industries/Kawasaki Shipbuilding Corporation to help in the design of the new "sons of Collins" will ensure that the project will have less design issues, especially on the hull. Components are most likely going to be sourced from foreign firms US/UK/European/Japanese. Don't think ASC has any proven track record in designing the hull or the screw...
Just my 2 cents
Joe Black
Active Member
Sweden: Saab Eyes Purchase of ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems AB
Just came across this news, apparently Saab is buying back Kockums from ThyssenKrupp.
See this news
Sweden: Saab Eyes Purchase of ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems AB >> Naval Today
Just came across this news, apparently Saab is buying back Kockums from ThyssenKrupp.
See this news
Sweden: Saab Eyes Purchase of ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems AB >> Naval Today
The point I am trying to make is its not the company so much that matters as the people or the talent and I can assure you there are more talented submarine people at ASC with experience in big ocean going conventional submarines than in any other company with the "possible" exception of MHI/KSC. They do not do combat systems but Raytheon do, they do not do diesels but MHI, MAN, MTU and other do. What they do extremely well is hulls and submarine systems integration. ASC identified and fixed the structural problems on the Kuckums built sections of the first boat. ASC built six boats, rated amongst the best in the world using techniques and materials developed by DSTO and others, incorporated modifications developed in conjunction with the USN and EB that are beyond what the Swedes, Japanese, Germans or French have access to.
I will repeat myself, no other player has the experience and the reach back to worlds best practice that ASC has. The only hole was in propulsion diesels and the tie up with Japan may fix that. ITAR alone guarantees neither the Germans or French can offer what ASC can, only the Brits and Canadians can match us there but neither of them build long range conventional submarines.
The only reason Australia will not go for a local design is because of government timidity yet a local design is the least risky way to go to meet the requirements unless the government decided to go nuclear instead. Go nuclear and buy 8 or 9 Virginias or go an Australian conventional, those are the two best choices yet the two least likely.
I will repeat myself, no other player has the experience and the reach back to worlds best practice that ASC has. The only hole was in propulsion diesels and the tie up with Japan may fix that. ITAR alone guarantees neither the Germans or French can offer what ASC can, only the Brits and Canadians can match us there but neither of them build long range conventional submarines.
The only reason Australia will not go for a local design is because of government timidity yet a local design is the least risky way to go to meet the requirements unless the government decided to go nuclear instead. Go nuclear and buy 8 or 9 Virginias or go an Australian conventional, those are the two best choices yet the two least likely.
Another point I should make is one of the reasons the government don't think we can design our own submarines is a 2011 RAND study that found that Australia's workforce was very small and inexperienced therefore incapable of conducting such an exercise without a huge influx of imported talent. That study was highly flawed and poorly conducted and RAND are well I better not say what I think as they may sue.
Basically in the US a diploma is what you get when you finish high school in Australia its what you earn from a technical college or university after having already finished high school and / or a trade that signifies you are a qualified paraprofessional technician, technical officer or technologist in one or more of a range of disciplines including design, drafting, materials, electrical / electronics, controls, mechanical systems etc.. Basically RANDs "study" consisted of a questionnaire given to all ASC employees asking what our highest level of education was Diploma, Certificate, Batchelor, Masters, etc. Well most of us put down Diploma, covering our various diplomas, advanced diplomas, associate diplomas, graduate diplomas etc. So the brains trust at RAND dumped 70%+ of the most skilled and talented ship and submarine people in the country into a bucket labelled along the lines of "high school graduate with no formal technical qualifications"!
I would hate to think how much the morons in the Australian Government paid the morons in RAND for that waste of time and effort. Sad thing is we asked the question on the miss match of RAND options to Australian qualifications and were told to just fill it out as best we could.
What chance do you have when the idiots and morons in Canberra hire clowns like RAND to report on stuff they do not understand.
Basically in the US a diploma is what you get when you finish high school in Australia its what you earn from a technical college or university after having already finished high school and / or a trade that signifies you are a qualified paraprofessional technician, technical officer or technologist in one or more of a range of disciplines including design, drafting, materials, electrical / electronics, controls, mechanical systems etc.. Basically RANDs "study" consisted of a questionnaire given to all ASC employees asking what our highest level of education was Diploma, Certificate, Batchelor, Masters, etc. Well most of us put down Diploma, covering our various diplomas, advanced diplomas, associate diplomas, graduate diplomas etc. So the brains trust at RAND dumped 70%+ of the most skilled and talented ship and submarine people in the country into a bucket labelled along the lines of "high school graduate with no formal technical qualifications"!
I would hate to think how much the morons in the Australian Government paid the morons in RAND for that waste of time and effort. Sad thing is we asked the question on the miss match of RAND options to Australian qualifications and were told to just fill it out as best we could.
What chance do you have when the idiots and morons in Canberra hire clowns like RAND to report on stuff they do not understand.
Vaguely recall reading somewhere that Saab had poached 100 designers from Kockums already which was the reason they were pretty confident in going for the deal in the first place.
EDIT: Turns out it was right above me in the thread, whoops.
EDIT: Turns out it was right above me in the thread, whoops.
Does it strike you as a bit lop sided that SAAB can supposedly design a suitable submarine for Australia with a couple of hundred poached designers and no background in submarine design yet Australia can't do the same themselves even with hundreds of their own experienced people hundreds of foreign experts, assistance from the USN, EB, UK and Japan?
I am starting to over use the word moron but seriously is the cultural cringe so bad we actually believe crap from Germans and Swedes who have never done what we have done telling us they can do it better and that we will stuff it up if we try it without them. US combat system and various other suitable systems, Japanese propulsion and other systems, applicable Euro systems and an Australia hull.
ASC have built and maintained these hulls they haven't, ASC are the designer they are not, ASC has the expertise and experience they do not. They are chasing the dollars and lying through their teeth to get the sale, just like last time.
I am starting to over use the word moron but seriously is the cultural cringe so bad we actually believe crap from Germans and Swedes who have never done what we have done telling us they can do it better and that we will stuff it up if we try it without them. US combat system and various other suitable systems, Japanese propulsion and other systems, applicable Euro systems and an Australia hull.
ASC have built and maintained these hulls they haven't, ASC are the designer they are not, ASC has the expertise and experience they do not. They are chasing the dollars and lying through their teeth to get the sale, just like last time.
The article linked to upthread says that SAAB & TKMS are negotiating over the possible sale of Kockums to SAAB. That's a very different scenario than what you describe.
Many Kockums designers chose to work for ASC instead of TKMS while others went to the Viking Project. I have some of them on Linkedin. Some undoubtedly will return to ASC given the choice.
That's the point I am trying to get across, ASC and Kockums had a very strong relationship going back to the original Collins design with many of the designers having worked in Australia and others having left Kockums to work for ASC. These are the same people that when they work for Kockums, TKMS or SAAB they are world leading experts, when they work for ASC their brains apparently fall out and their qualifications and experience mean nothing. (according to RAND and elements in Australia).
They can't have it both ways, if SAAB can do it with no submarine building experience why can't ASC, an experienced designer and builder with far greater reach back do it?
That's the point I am trying to get across, ASC and Kockums had a very strong relationship going back to the original Collins design with many of the designers having worked in Australia and others having left Kockums to work for ASC. These are the same people that when they work for Kockums, TKMS or SAAB they are world leading experts, when they work for ASC their brains apparently fall out and their qualifications and experience mean nothing. (according to RAND and elements in Australia).
They can't have it both ways, if SAAB can do it with no submarine building experience why can't ASC, an experienced designer and builder with far greater reach back do it?
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
One of the linked articles seemed to convey the notion that Saab felt it could design/build subs in Sweden and/or Australia if it could purchase Kockums from the Germans, and the subs would be suitable for use by Sweden, Australia, and possibly export to other nations.
IIRC the article was written by McPhedran who either has NFI what he is talking about, or has been put deep into Saab's pocket.
All of the above and is deeply pernicious
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Something which constantly gets overlooked, especially by the public, press and pollies, is the (ir)relevance of how well-established some of the sub producing firms are.:rolling You are killing me.... :rolling
On a serious note, I do have serious doubt that just having built 1 class of submarine, ASC would be able to design a brand new class of sub independently. I think getting a well established company like TKDM or Mitsubishi Heavy Industries/Kawasaki Shipbuilding Corporation to help in the design of the new "sons of Collins" will ensure that the project will have less design issues, especially on the hull. Components are most likely going to be sourced from foreign firms US/UK/European/Japanese. Don't think ASC has any proven track record in designing the hull or the screw...
Just my 2 cents
If one looks, there are a number of convention Euro subs out there, still in production. However, those Euro designs are/were based off the capability needs of the various European navies, and their respective areas of operation, which means SFA given the much larger area of RAN operations, as well as the considerably greater variety in marine environment that RAN subs might operate in.
The only nation which has consistent experience building conventional subs of approximately the right size and capability that the RAN is looking for, is Japan.
Having the proper experience building the 'right' sized sub is important, because as much as Spain, France, Germany or Sweden might like to tout their respective sub design and construction capabilities, if the design is not of the right size, then the experience does not really count. Stretching the design of a sub is not an easy task, because the dimensions and displacement all impact on design performance.
Perhaps defence personnel should put it to these so-called 'reporters' and the pollies, that they are doing the equivalent of advocating awarding a contract to produce heavy duty specialty construction vehicles to a motor vehicle firm which specifically makes high end motorcycles. There is a similar difference between what the RAN needs a sub to be able to do, and European sub needs, that the ability to design for one does not really translate into the ability to design for the other. Plus there is the whole issue of the RAN wanting/needing a US combat system, and US reluctance to allow non-ABCA based sub manufacturers access to US combat systems.
-Cheers
Before you sink even further into bad assumption scenarios - you do realise that all the bad welding which almost resulted in Number 1 being written off was corrected in Australia:rolling You are killing me.... :rolling
On a serious note, I do have serious doubt that just having built 1 class of submarine, ASC would be able to design a brand new class of sub independently. I think getting a well established company like TKDM or Mitsubishi Heavy Industries/Kawasaki Shipbuilding Corporation to help in the design of the new "sons of Collins" will ensure that the project will have less design issues, especially on the hull. Components are most likely going to be sourced from foreign firms US/UK/European/Japanese. Don't think ASC has any proven track record in designing the hull or the screw...
Just my 2 cents
You do realise that the acoustic management advances were all australian designed and developed (and in fact export derivative tech was sold to 2 x other navies)
You do realise that spinoff tech from sig management by australian companies developed for the class was also sold offshore
You do realise that some of the very people that SAAB has "acquired" with sub expertise are the same people that were on the Collins teams in the first place.....
You do realise that all those journos who were crowing for the S80 as an immediate hail mary solution have been spectacularly quiet since the S80's were found to be a tad fat and out of whack?
There's a reason why defence journalism in Australia is generally regarded within industry as a joke - ie they have NFI what they write about.
- Status