Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[Todjaeger]

May be a crazy idea, but, if most of us agreed that the f100 hull is an dead end for any major improvement in the future. How about local build/FMS 3 Burke flight llA or flight lll?

Yes, then the shipyard has to be retooled, but at least we can have a better ship with much less pain to upgrade.

Part of the issue is the amount of time it would take to re-tool, get/establish the requisite plans, etc.

While the design would be good, it would also not be (without a good deal of force structure planning) part of an overall coherent plan. And that planning takes time.

Right now, it seems that the naval force structure has taken some hits in overall numbers, and while capabilities are beginning to increase, the options for future growth seem a bit... stunted. It would seem better to spend some money now to get some kit to keep things moving in the correct direction albeit not enough in terms of degree, than figure out exactly where things should end up, while allowing a multi-year gap to occur which would require even greater funding and time to attempt to plug.

 

[John Newman]

Couple of interesting articles I've come across regarding the enlargement of current Soryu to make it suitable for the RAN:

Japan steps up bid for Australia sub contract; willing to share secret stealth tech | The Japan Times

The relevant paragraph is:

"According to the report, Japan is offering to build a new Soryu-class sub with its hull extended 6 to 8 meters to carry more batteries and fuel to take into account the massive distances the Australian Navy travels."

And the other one was a closer read of the report from 'Pacific 2015'

Japan's Government and Industry Held an Industry Briefing on Soryu Submarine at PACIFIC 2015

The relevant paragraph is:

"According to Izumi Ishii, the submarine offered for the Australian SEA1000 program will be "a quite different submarine compared to the Japanese Soryu because of its American combat system, larger size and increase range but it will have some commonality with the Soryu"."

What I'd be interested to understand is, if the 'enlarged' Soryu will be specific to Australia, or if also in the future as Japan evolves the current Soryu, if they will also adopt that enlarged version too?

If we do end up selecting the Soryu design as the basis for the Collins class replacement, it will be interesting to see if Australia and Japan share the same hull configuration or not.

Cheers,

 

[gf0012-aust]

If we do end up selecting the Soryu design as the basis for the Collins class replacement, it will be interesting to see if Australia and Japan share the same hull configuration or not.

Cheers,

I imagine it will identical except for a plug.

the long shot on this is that its also suitable for canada, damn shame is that the canuck govt has killed that acquisition goose

 

[John Newman]

I imagine it will identical except for a plug.

the long shot on this is that its also suitable for canada, damn shame is that the canuck govt has killed that acquisition goose

I'd say you are probably correct on that.

From what I have read about Soryu, the last few units (starting from boat number 11) of the current approved 12, will possibly see the AIP removed and have lithium-ion batteries installed (and presumably more fuel capacity too?).

So it probably means that the evolved Australian version might have the same modification as those last few units 'plus' an additional plug of even more lithium-ion batteries and more fuel storage capacity too.


And as for our Canuck cousins, what can you say? Time will tell if they will or won't (probably won't) replace the Victoria class (wouldn't hold my breath).

Might work out good for Oz, we could possibly snag some of those eventually 'unemployed' Canuck submariners in the future as the Collins replacement fleet grows past six boats!!!


On a side note, came across this today:

Time for a new battery for the RCN submarine HMCS Windsor | Ottawa Citizen

Not having much luck with that fleet are they??

 

[oldsig127]

I imagine it will identical except for a plug.

the long shot on this is that its also suitable for canada, damn shame is that the canuck govt has killed that acquisition goose

And yet....

"According to Izumi Ishii, the submarine offered for the Australian SEA1000 program will be "a quite different submarine compared to the Japanese Soryu because of its American combat system, larger size and increase range but it will have some commonality with the Soryu"."

First up, for several reasons, I believe that the Japanese submarine option is the correct one from the perspective of one who has no visibility of the actual evaluation nor any responsibility to pay for it or convince the electors that they should keep the government that chooses it long enough for it to become fact rather than speculation

However I find it quite entertaining that the Japanese themselves are claiming "some commonality" and we're willing to accept this as near enough for government work to being MOTS, yet in other cases (not necessarily submarines) it's far too risky.

That's okay though. We can expose our biases at will. Those evaluating the responses can't. Politicians DO show bias, and we crucify them for it. Funny old world, isn't it.

oldsig127

 

[Stampede]

Not having much luck with that fleet are they??[/QUOTE]

Thanks John
My feeling is that the more I read and research SEA 1000 the more complex and difficult it is to come to a conclusion as as to the best choice. I have not been a fan of plan J for geopoitical reasons and also over concerns of Japans lack of depth in defence exporting compared to the Europeans. Also there is still uncertainty within Japan as to Its international defence posture and it's new openness to military exports.Japans National Diet may prove to be problematic in long term defence manufacturing projects. Not a varible I would want in SEA1000.
Now I'm sure many will argue and give examples of political leverage against importers of defence hardware conducted over the years by the Europeans. Its been discussed on here before and I would guess known to most with an interest in such matters.This will be a concern and taken into account by the buyer and will also be a frustration to the seller. SEA 1000 is a big project by any standard and it's a high stakes game on many levels both political and commercial.
It's not an easy decision.
While I appreciate that the vibe on this thread is generally in favour of the Soryu. I can't help but feel at this stage the safest option is with a European design and that would be the one from a country that has been involved with providing over 50 submarines to over a dozen countries during the past three decades.
If I'm correct Japanese submarine export numbers are......................Zero!
Not a good selling point.
And yes I appreciate It's probably an excellent sub.
For myself I would be confident of a good German out come, and would suggest that the French would eventully get it right, but yes they do have that political legacy of trust.
I realise that this can be an imotive subject and I don't express my view for anything more than to have a healthy discussion.

Ps Over a decade ago I would happily have gone with a Japanese sub as I felt they would be both a good design and fit for the RAN.
Not now. Option J is more than a submarine purchase and North Asia just scares me on many levels.


Regards S

 

[alexsa]

May be a crazy idea, but, if most of us agreed that the f100 hull is an dead end for any major improvement in the future. How about local build/FMS 3 Burke flight llA or flight lll?

Yes, then the shipyard has to be retooled, but at least we can have a better ship with much less pain to upgrade.

On what basis do you say it is dead for any major improvement. The design has already evolved from F100 to F105 and then to the Hobart Class. A follow on frigate design (which they have showcased) is a further evolution. In this case the deisgn changes to two helicopter hangers, new systems and some talk of additional cells.

The vessel has a current growth margin to 7500 tonnes. Noting the CEA radar suite is (supposed to be) lower weight and slightly less power hungry then the margin may be greater.

However, if we are going down a continous build programme then we should not see half life upgrades ..... Rather and improved or new design would be built.

By comparison the T26 is around 6000 tonnes ...... If fitted with the same systems then you may have less margin in the newer design.

Starting the follow on frigate on the Hobart hull provides for continuity even is we only build one or two batches then evolve to a different design.

I like some of the features of the A-400 but the gearbox arrangement and the level of engineering redesign to have 48 cells and Australian specific needs worry me.

T26 looks interesting but is still a paper vessel as it is no in production and there will also be design complexity in reconfiguring it for Australian systems.

In both cases we need to retool and reset the logistics Chian before we start.

 

[Volkodav]

On what basis do you say it is dead for any major improvement. The design has already evolved from F100 to F105 and then to the Hobart Class. A follow on frigate design (which they have showcased) is a further evolution. In this case the deisgn changes to two helicopter hangers, new systems and some talk of additional cells.

The vessel has a current growth margin to 7500 tonnes. Noting the CEA radar suite is (supposed to be) lower weight and slightly less power hungry then the margin may be greater.

However, if we are going down a continous build programme then we should not see half life upgrades ..... Rather and improved or new design would be built.

By comparison the T26 is around 6000 tonnes ...... If fitted with the same systems then you may have less margin in the newer design.

Starting the follow on frigate on the Hobart hull provides for continuity even is we only build one or two batches then evolve to a different design.

I like some of the features of the A-400 but the gearbox arrangement and the level of engineering redesign to have 48 cells and Australian specific needs worry me.

T26 looks interesting but is still a paper vessel as it is no in production and there will also be design complexity in reconfiguring it for Australian systems.

In both cases we need to retool and reset the logistics Chian before we start.

The F-100 was tight, the Hobarts (based on the F-104 plus some F-105 and specifically Australian changes) and F-105 were tighter still, they really are frigates not destroyers. They also have design features that are not that desirable in comparison to many of their contemporaries, let alone newer designs coming online.

Some of the things they needed to do to fit the longer SH-60R were not desirable but there was no choice as limited space prevented anything else. Power generation will likely be challenging, as will corrosion. The generators were fine fore the 90s and maybe 2000s but 2020s/30s/40s? Plate thickness was to spec, if there was no corrosion but many structures have suffered considerable corrosion prior to being sent to Adelaide, will the remaining thickness of material be sufficient to last the planned life or will they need to be held together with patches and paint?

Australia learned a lot of lessons on the DDGs, FFGs and ANZACs and knew exactly what they wanted and needed, either lots of frigate sized air defence ships or a smaller number of much more capable destroyers, what they got was a small number of big frigates.

 

[alexsa]

The F-100 was tight, the Hobarts (based on the F-104 plus some F-105 and specifically Australian changes) and F-105 were tighter still, they really are frigates not destroyers. They also have design features that are not that desirable in comparison to many of their contemporaries, let alone newer designs coming online.

Some of the things they needed to do to fit the longer SH-60R were not desirable but there was no choice as limited space prevented anything else. Power generation will likely be challenging, as will corrosion. The generators were fine fore the 90s and maybe 2000s but 2020s/30s/40s? Plate thickness was to spec, if there was no corrosion but many structures have suffered considerable corrosion prior to being sent to Adelaide, will the remaining thickness of material be sufficient to last the planned life or will they need to be held together with patches and paint?

Australia learned a lot of lessons on the DDGs, FFGs and ANZACs and knew exactly what they wanted and needed, either lots of frigate sized air defence ships or a smaller number of much more capable destroyers, what they got was a small number of big frigates.

The fact is the F100 series has greater deadweight than either the T26 or the
A-400. We have no visibility on the growth margins on the baby Burke.

Corrosion ..... Interesting issue but surface corrosion should not diminish thickness provided it is not allowed to pit, then you have issues. However this may not effect the follow frigate if there is sensible control over coating of modules and if we have a problem here it may effect any design.

Agree on the generators but there are new models that fit the same foot print as the current units wiht greater output. There is absolutely nothing stopping the project changing the gen sets for higher rated units.

The power will more of an issue on the AWD as the system fitted is very power hungry ...... More so that the baseline fitted on the Spanish units. To be honest the Australian vessels should have change the spec on the DG's ans should do it for the future frigate.

The evolved proposal has two hangers (meaning some internal rearrangement). If there is a sensible approach to the evolved design (such as not necessarily sticking to gear used in the AWD) it may prove to be a much better design than most predict.

 

[Muar River]

If it hasn't already been posted, the news last night reported the White Paper is to be released well ahead of the budget this week. Apparently answers to how many P8s, subs, frigates etc will be provided.

 

[Oberon]

If it hasn't already been posted, the news last night reported the White Paper is to be released well ahead of the budget this week. Apparently answers to how many P8s, subs, frigates etc will be provided.

Thanks for that, Maur River. I just saw it on ABC iview. There's been so many contradictory statements about the White Paper's release that I've given-up holding my breath. Hopefully ABC news is correct on this occasion.

 

[Oberon]

I don't think it would be a bad thing if Australia when with a continuous build programs for Ships and Subs.

Rather than mid-life refits, we just build a new. I would imagine it would be more expensive for refits, but new builds should be significantly cheaper.

Even with a continuous build program, if a ship is still to last 25 to 30 years wouldn't that require a half-life refit to keep up with advances in weapons and systems improvements?

 

[vonnoobie]

Even with a continuous build program, if a ship is still to last 25 to 30 years wouldn't that require a half-life refit to keep up with advances in weapons and systems improvements?

That assumes you want the vessels to last that long, Take Japan for instance with them building there submarines to last 18 years (possibly a little longer with future vessels). Australia if choosing to replace vessels earlier rather then provide a midlife upgrade could theoretically lower the cost with increased continuous production (A major surface combatant every 18 - 20 months assuming a dozen are fielded) and the lower requirements of the ship its self (Can build it to last 20 years rather then 30+) to make it financially viable for which it would have two very positive effects for Australia, the industry would be at its most stable then ever before with continuous steady work flowing through allowing for the full productivity to be gained (imagine the Anzac class, specifically HMAS Perth compared to HMAS Anzac) which in its self could make us more competive in the export market and build up over time our own soveriegne R&D capability for the full build, along with allowing the most modern developments to be fielded for the RAN without hinderance (ie: trying to fit modern tech into an old hull that is either not suited or lacks the room [ie: The Hobart class in the next 20 years -_- ]).

Under such a system you would be roughly acquiring 50% more assets over the same time period so if you could reduce the costs per an asset by atleast 33% then you are already paying the same cost over the life time for a more stable and productive system.

 

[Volkodav]

There used to be a paper released by ASC back in the mid 2000s that explained in detail how such builds work. It details how MLUs increase capability but never to the level of a new ship and due to the aging platform that improved capability degrades faster than on a new ship. From memory graphics show the number and extent of maintenance periods required for fifteen, twenty, twenty-five and thirty year lifespans, as well as estimates of through life costs of each option.

As I recall the paper estimated that replacing ships more frequently would be more expensive, but not significantly so, while delivering much better capability, availability and accordingly, value for money. This did not factor in the cost of rebuilding industrial and technical capability as no one though we would be stupid enough to repeat the mistakes of the past.

 

[vonnoobie]

There used to be a paper released by ASC back in the mid 2000s that explained in detail how such builds work. It details how MLUs increase capability but never to the level of a new ship and due to the aging platform that improved capability degrades faster than on a new ship. From memory graphics show the number and extent of maintenance periods required for fifteen, twenty, twenty-five and thirty year lifespans, as well as estimates of through life costs of each option.

As I recall the paper estimated that replacing ships more frequently would be more expensive, but not significantly so, while delivering much better capability, availability and accordingly, value for money. This did not factor in the cost of rebuilding industrial and technical capability as no one though we would be stupid enough to repeat the mistakes of the past.

Just did a quick google search before heading out the door, Would this happen to be it? https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjwuuLN74rLAhXLkZQKHW-0Bz0QFggsMAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aph.gov.au%2F~%2Fmedia%2Fwopapub%2Fsenate%2Fcommittee%2Ffadt_ctte%2Fcompleted_inquiries%2F2004_07%2Fshipping%2Fsubmissions%2Fsub17_pdf.ashx&usg=AFQjCNEItpjnMPY9ma6zfMsqLlsCylX5Sg&sig2=rnBOca_KQrDrMlmU5K_cIg

 

[t68]

Just did a quick google search before heading out the door, Would this happen to be it? www.aph.gov.au/~/media/.../shipping/submissions/sub17_pdf.ashx

Link not working coming up as a 404 error

 

[vonnoobie]

The new link should work, Tested it for my self..failing that just do a google search for 'asc shipbuilding mid life refit' and click on the PDF link that should be titled 'Submission - Inquiry into naval shipbuilding in Australia'.

The analysis in this case suggests that the optimum value annuity is achieved with a ship life closer to twenty years, but replacement earlier than this can be justified on wider fleet capability management or industry grounds.

Need to read through it fully as I only skimmed it however this quote (page 57) pretty much sums it up that there is a case for replacing vessels rather then having a midlife upgrade.

For submarines, the modelling shows that the effective cost (cost annuity) of retaining a vessel in the fleet is still declining, though slowly, out to 30 years, driven mainly by the high capital cost and the assumption of zero residual cost. This means that the current replacement strategy of retaining the submarines in service out to 27 - 30 years is the low cost approach, but it also delivers the lowest minimum value of the vessel. Replacement at 21 years, without upgrade, provides maximum value over the life of the vessel.

And an argument for Submarines to be replaced around that same time frame.

Will be an interesting read when I have time to read it fully and might be worth while dropping it into the lap of some politician as this does help everyone from the tax payers to the serving members of the navy considering what would be the result of lower purchasing costs and more up to date equipment and tech (not to mention a ship hull not struggling through its last decade in service).

 

[ngatimozart]

The new link should work, Tested it for my self..failing that just do a google search for 'asc shipbuilding mid life refit' and click on the PDF link that should be titled 'Submission - Inquiry into naval shipbuilding in Australia'.



Need to read through it fully as I only skimmed it however this quote (page 57) pretty much sums it up that there is a case for replacing vessels rather then having a midlife upgrade.



And an argument for Submarines to be replaced around that same time frame.

Will be an interesting read when I have time to read it fully and might be worth while dropping it into the lap of some politician as this does help everyone from the tax payers to the serving members of the navy considering what would be the result of lower purchasing costs and more up to date equipment and tech (not to mention a ship hull not struggling through its last decade in service).

Link worked fine for me. Good find and it looks interesting. I did have a quick skim and just to throw something out there, I wonder if a long term agreement was reached between Australia and NZ on ships that it could work out even better in the long term for both countries and navies. Just a thought.

 

[vonnoobie]

Link worked fine for me. Good find and it looks interesting. I did have a quick skim and just to throw something out there, I wonder if a long term agreement was reached between Australia and NZ on ships that it could work out even better in the long term for both countries and navies. Just a thought.

There might be room for it but I don't think the Oz government would calculate NZ into it or hold there breath out for it, With how the politics is there and how much some people fight against replacing equipment long past its use by date in only a one for one basis its just too much of an uncertainty. Don't get me wrong they would build stuff for NZ and even work NZ companies into the supply chain but I reckon they would view NZ as more of icing on the cake from time to time then set guaranteed work.

 

[Oberon]

There might be room for it but I don't think the Oz government would calculate NZ into it or hold there breath out for it, With how the politics is there and how much some people fight against replacing equipment long past its use by date in only a one for one basis its just too much of an uncertainty. Don't get me wrong they would build stuff for NZ and even work NZ companies into the supply chain but I reckon they would view NZ as more of icing on the cake from time to time then set guaranteed work.

Yes, I think it would be like the Anzac frigate negotiations between Au and NZ all over again. Weren't they originally going to take 4?