Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

Status
Not open for further replies.

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
Apparantly future helicopter capabilty calls for both manned and unmanned and ADF has shown interest in the MQ8C Fire Scout. If and it's a big if we did go for the damen 1400 according to the brochure it has a flight deck capabilty of 6000kg which is the max take off weight of MQ-8C but that leaves no room for expansion at a later date. Scuttlebutt has pointed towards something like the Damen 2400 which would give us a future growth path
While the bigger ships are certainly more capable. I'm not sure if we would be getting many/any of those.We were looking at <2000t.

I agree that the 1800 would seem to be a better fit, sea axe bow, order 20 of them. Replace patrol, surveys, mine hunters etc. Seems odd then that the 1400 model and regular bow has been modelled up for display. That said I still like th 1400, it would still over loads more capability than what we have today.
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
I see Damen has prepared a little showing for a conference soon

Damen Shipyards at Pacific Sydney 2015

Patrol 5009 - Pacific boat? Patrol Boat? Coast Guard?
OPV - 1400 - New OPV/OCV ? - I quite like this one. It seems to do everything Australia needs in a Patrol ship.
won't do them much good

everyone has been told to stay away from anyone in industry who currently has skin in the game

and as Damien have been building ships for HMAS DFAT for the last 5 years (the navy when we don't want a navy) - then their show and tell stand will only be visited by people who have no influence in current procurement activities....
 

t68

Well-Known Member
While the bigger ships are certainly more capable. I'm not sure if we would be getting many/any of those.We were looking at <2000t.

I agree that the 1800 would seem to be a better fit, sea axe bow, order 20 of them. Replace patrol, surveys, mine hunters etc. Seems odd then that the 1400 model and regular bow has been modelled up for display. That said I still like th 1400, it would still over loads more capability than what we have today.
Would the Sea Axe design be applicable to the RAN as a majority of the time they would just be puttering around at low speeds, what would the price deviation be from a Sea Axe design to a traditional design.

Don't really know anything about that sort of thing from a sea keeping point of view if the Sea Axe design is better for the RAN
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
TKMS propose the sub can be build in WA.....
https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/wa/a/29720117/german-company-backs-wa-for-subs/

I still prefer the option J rather than Type 216, but building the submarine in WA, in close proximity to FBW does has its merits.

The evolution of the West Australian naval-support industry | Australian Naval Institute

No no no no no!

Closing Codock and concentrating shipbuilding at Williamstown was bad enough, then staving Tenix out of the business by moving the lions share of shipbuilding work to a greenfields site in Adelaide (after a completely unnecessary shipbuilding blackhole) was even worse, moving the construction of submarines, or major combatants, to WA would be nothing short of wasteful stupidity. I can see it now, we move everything to WA then wonder why the brand new facility is not as capable as the existing one and is nowhere near worlds best practice, the media has a field day and it all becomes a political football with SA, VIC and NSW pollies going gang busters hammering WA and trying to secure the next big contract over WA.

Basically moving subs and/or skimmers to WA would just be repeating the same stupid mistakes of the last fifty years, chopping and changing yards, ordering classes from overseas then rebuilding the industry locally, splitting builds between yards, failing to provide any yards with a sustainable amount of work and then complaining about how expensive and inefficient the whole thing is.

No, never, ever again!
 

vonnoobie

Well-Known Member
This is just getting ridiculous, It is literally just traveling around Australia from one major state city to the next.. at this rate I'm going to be investing in Darwin because they are likely to get the next major naval project down the track.....

Yes Henderson has some great naval shipbuilder's and various other very capable companies, They could easily be pulled into the supply chain however they are in no way set up to produce the submarine in full. Want to increase maintenance facilities, Go for it, Want to even start full cycle dockings there, Possibly feasible so look into it, But in no way build them there. We would literally be throwing away one of the world's most advanced facilities for a lower quality one.

Naturally it will come down to politics, those from WA have b****ed and moaned about such project's over time, but soon as something comes out that they might get it they jump on board with praise a plenty for it.
 

40 deg south

Well-Known Member
I understand that DMS Maritime (a Serco company) is buying a couple of submarine escape/gear rescue ships from Damen's Vietnam yard.

Have any prices for these vessels ever been released? The larger platform could be a solid contender for NZ's LIttoral Operations Support Vessel if the price is right.
 

Jezza

Member
If the politicians had some brains,......lol

The work should be shared out and keep everyone happy.
But alas that's in a perfect world.
 

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
Would the Sea Axe design be applicable to the RAN as a majority of the time they would just be puttering around at low speeds, what would the price deviation be from a Sea Axe design to a traditional design.

Don't really know anything about that sort of thing from a sea keeping point of view if the Sea Axe design is better for the RAN
I would imagine it would really depend on the conops setup in the whitepaper. I could certainly see it worth for a percentage of the RAN patrol ships to have a sea axe design. But it really depends what they are really intending to use them for. Is the size being driven by helo/systems or endurance/seakeeping/patrol issues.

everyone has been told to stay away from anyone in industry who currently has skin in the game
I imagine many in industry would like to have a good eyeball and chin wag. Still they aren't playing hardball. Its not like they have hired all the ex-brass as consultants and are running fortnightly press releases for media and flying scribes over to "have a look" in between leaving messages at the PM's office or doing it through diplomatic links.
TKMS propose the sub can be build in WA..
I would expect WA to have anything but a minor role. Despite what jounos in WA papers might want to read into it. Really, who honestly believes Austal (eyeroll) is going to build subs with all the unemployed from mining. I think such flights of fancy died with Johnstone being kicked out with comments about a canoe.

If WA businesses want to partner on aspects of the build then they should do it the same way as Sydney or Melbourne suppliers do, not by moving the whole build to WA. Its not like 100% of every component is going to be built in South Australia and nobody else gets anything.
 

vonnoobie

Well-Known Member
Everything will turn out okay. The RAN will have aluminium submarines, that's all.:eek:nfloorl:
.. Ok I have to ask.. Would an aluminium submarine work well? if at all. Guess it would have an advantage in avoiding magnetic mines etc but oh well, If it aint broke no need to reinvent it.
 

Oberon

Member
.. Ok I have to ask.. Would an aluminium submarine work well? if at all. Guess it would have an advantage in avoiding magnetic mines etc but oh well, If it aint broke no need to reinvent it.
A shallow water sub, perhaps.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
.. Ok I have to ask.. Would an aluminium submarine work well? if at all. Guess it would have an advantage in avoiding magnetic mines etc but oh well, If it aint broke no need to reinvent it.

Aluminium is much more expensive than steel and titanium even more so. The Russians went with titanium so I am guessing aluminium is not optimal for the high pressures encountered during dives. There are likely other disadvantages as well.
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
.. Ok I have to ask.. Would an aluminium submarine work well? if at all. Guess it would have an advantage in avoiding magnetic mines etc but oh well, If it aint broke no need to reinvent it.
AFAIK (and someone like Alexsa would certainly know better) but for something like a sub, a soft steel hull, or something similar is desired. This is one of the reasons why some of the hard steels (which can/are more brittle) care not used.

Due to a sub submerging, surfacing, and the different pressures exerted on the hull depending on depth and water conditions, a certain amount of flexibility is needed in the hull. Otherwise the hull can start cracking, which as I understand it, submariners tend to find very distressing since their vessel will begin to full up with water inside the hull...

Aluminum tends to be even more brittle than steel, meaning that either significant extra reinforcement is required to avoid/prevent cracking, or a different material needs to be used.

Honestly if the RAN were to look at a non-steel hull for the future submarines, then I would think that titanium might get looked at. The Soviets managed to construct their Project 705/Lira submarines (NATO Alfa-class designation) using a titanium alloy, however I believe that subsequent Soviet/Russian sub designs and construction have used steel hulls. That suggests that the advantages gained using a non-ferrous material are outweighed by the increased costs and difficulties.
 

vonnoobie

Well-Known Member
Thank's for all the replies, Little bit of history for those that didn't know but aluminium submarines existed in WWII in the form of the Type XXI submarine, They never really seen any combat (Only 4 had been fitted out) so no idea of there true capabilities under real world conditions.

Probably for the best, in comparison to what the Germans had and the allies these things were a massive leap in capability.
 

rockitten

Member
Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

The proposal from Japanese bid is really really well thought. I like the idea of boat zero, so anything screw-up on by the Aussies will ended up on the mock boat rather than the first commissioned one. That is, of coz, at the cost of tax payer's money though.

Again, just in case anyone who cannot by-pass the subscription cookies

"Japan: language, culture no barriers to success on submarines

Japan has issued a strong public rebuke to critics of its $20 billion bid to build the navy’s new sub*marines, saying it is wrong to suggest that Japanese language and cultural issues pose an obstacle to building a new fleet in Australia.

The blunt comments, by senior defence official Masaki Ishikawa, came as Japan publicly unveiled details of its bid for the first time, revealing a sophisticated plan to build the world’s largest conventional submarine in Australia using new specialist design, training and sustainment centres in both countries.

The details of the Japanese bid have been eagerly awaited given that the other two contenders for the $20bn contract, Germany’s TKMS and France’s DCNS, have been actively marketing their detailed proposals for months.

Japan’s move to release details of its bid at the Royal Australian Navy’s Seapower Conference in Sydney was accompanied by a *robust defence against claims that its bid was hampered by language difficulties and a different corporate culture from that of Australia.

“I don’t like such arguments,” Mr Ishikawa told the briefing. “Japan is the second largest trading partner with Australia and the third largest foreign investor.”

He said Japan had a long, successful history of working closely with Australian companies and Mitsubishi, which has built submarines for 60 years, had successful defence partnerships with countries around the world.

Japan is moving to market its bid more heavily after a slow start that had seen it struggle to sell its bid publicly in the face of slick marketing campaigns by Franceand Germany. “We have accelerated our effort to make a concrete idea on how to involve Australian industry and companies,” Mr Ishikawa said.

“Also we created this idea to set up three centres and we think we are now very much prepared for building submarines in Australia by utilising this kind of technology transfer.”

Mr Ishikawa rejected speculation that the removal of Tony Abbott as prime minister would undermine Japan’s bid, given that it was Mr Abbott, in conjunction with his counterpart Shinzo Abe, who drove the Japanese bid. Mr Ishikawa said a change of prime minister did not change the underlying strategic relationship between Australia and Japan and that Mr Abbott’s demise had “no impact on our proposal”.

He said Japan was willing to build all of the new submarines in Australia and would seek to heavily involve Australian industry “from the design phase throughout the program”.

He said Japan would give Defence a state-of-the-art submarine concept that that be larger than Japan’s existing 4000-tonne Soryu-class submarine with a longer range to meet Australian needs.

He said it would be the only submarine in the world to have a high capacity lithium-ion battery that allowed for longer periods underwater. It would also have an all-weather snorkel system and “ultimate stealth technology” with sound absorbing hulls.

The Japanese plan includes having a dual design centre in Japan and Australia, as well as a training plan under which Australian shipbuilders initially would be trained in Kobe, Japan, before constructing the sub*marines in Australia. If an all-Australian build was chosen by the government, Japan would start with a “mock-up” boat, called Boat Zero, in Australia to allow shipbuilders to learn how to build the new design, rather than make teething mistakes on the first boat of the fleet, as so often happens in first-of-type submarine builds. If a hybrid option were chosen, whereby Japan built the first boat in Japan and the rest in Australia, there would be no need for a mock-up boat in Australia.

The Japanese bid would build sustainment support centres in Japan as well as in Adelaide and Perth.

Toyko says it is seeking expressions of interest from Australian companies that want to work with Japan should it win the bid.

All three bidders have recently lodged their draft shipbuilding plans with Defence and are due to submit their final completed bids by the end of next month, with the government due to select the winner early next year."
 

40 deg south

Well-Known Member
Singapore steps up its bids for RAN contracts. Working with ASC for the PPB, no partner named for SEA 118.

Pacific 2015: ST Marine unveils design for Pacific Patrol Boat replacement programme - IHS Jane's 360

IHS Jane's first reported in May 2015 that the shipbuilder was in talks with Texas-based engineering company Kellogg Brown & Root (KBR) to jointly bid for the programme. The consortium now includes South Australian shipbuilder Adelaide Ship Construction International (ASCI)....

The vessel has a length of 40 m, a beam of 8 m, a draught of 2.5 m, and a top speed of 20 kt. The standard range is 2,500 n miles at 12 kt. The vessel will displace about 274 tonnes and can accommodate one rigid hull inflatable boat or unmanned surface vessel at its stern. It can be fitted with 12.7 mm gun mountings.]
Pacific 2015: ST Marine positions Fearless 75 design for Australia's SEA 1180 - IHS Jane's 360

The Fearless 75 is a longer variant of the 55 m Fearless-class vessels currently in service with the Republic of Singapore Navy and built by ST Marine. Singapore currently operates a fleet of 11 such ships that were commissioned between 1996 and 1998...

The Fearless 75 design displaces approximately 1,100 tonnes and accommodates a crew of about 60 including officers. The platform has a top speed of 27 kt and can attain a standard range of 3,000 n miles at 16 kt. The design provides for the installation of a 76 mm cannon as a primary weapon.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top