Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

Status
Not open for further replies.

alexsa

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
They have more or less indicated that by the levels of enthusiasm generated whenever the japanese solution comes up.

Without wishing to be seen as flogging a dead horse, one only needs to look at the systems integration problems that have arisen out of some of the projects.... as opposed to integrating US gear where we stay within update and upgrade lockstep.

If we stay out of lockstep then we invite problems, and thats hardly the US's fault.

The US have made it abundantly clear that they see no problems helping the integration of their combat systems into a Japanese sub.

re Conroy its pretty apparent that he's not even getting decent advice - or if he's getting it that he can't comprehend context when drafting up his zinger questions for the Senate hearings.

He's no Faulkner or Combet by a long shot. He's obviously never sought input from Beazley either otherwise he wouldn't be asking such numpty questions.

He's reason enough to dissolve the Senate so that we can avoid getting half wits treading the halls of Parlt
I really wonder what the DEFMIN wrote on that note she gave him during the hearing about government advice that had back peddle, apologise and look contrite. For me it was the high point of the whole sad and miserable waste of time.

I am no fan of Barrett but he made a very good point on continuous build with reference to other government ships that was just missed. Noting Stoker, Besant and the new aviation training ship are all build overseas these vessel may also be replaced as part of this 'minor vessel' build programme. the only wrinkle being .... If they are commercial then Class and AMSA will have a significant say in compliance.

I don't see an issue in this as it would be good for the industry to understand commercial build and the need for strict adherence to mandatory conventions as it may open up other opportunities (not that I see us as a builder of bog standard cargo ships ..... We cannot compete in that market).
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
I really wonder what the DEFMIN wrote on that note she gave him during the hearing about government advice that had back peddle, apologise and look contrite. For me it was the high point of the whole sad and miserable waste of time.

I am no fan of Barrett but he made a very good point on continuous build with reference to other government ships that was just missed. Noting Stoker, Besant and the new aviation training ship are all build overseas these vessel may also be replaced as part of this 'minor vessel' build programme. the only wrinkle being .... If they are commercial then Class and AMSA will have a significant say in compliance.

I don't see an issue in this as it would be good for the industry to understand commercial build and the need for strict adherence to mandatory conventions as it may open up other opportunities (not that I see us as a builder of bog standard cargo ships ..... We cannot compete in that market).
Industry already understands (well elements of it does) with classing, as well as certification to treaties and agreements, the ability to class new ships being a desirable requirement. Gap analyses are done at design and during the build to determine what is needed to bring ships into class, what waivers will be required etc.

As the CoA is the Flag Authority they do not need to do this but have been attempting to do so. Some elements are sensible to comply, others it is stupid to try, i.e. rescue boats under SOLAS need to be orange/red, not a good look for a warship when a RHIB can do the job. MARPOL double hulling requirements are nice to have but to be honest pretty irrelevant for a warship with multiple small (by ship standards) tanks, distributed around the hull.

There is a view held by some that if you class a ship then maintenance automatically becomes cheaper and can be outsourced pretty much anywhere, this is not the case and can, as seen with the Armidales can lead to considerable issues. The problem is not that the design was classed but rather t was used as an excuse not to invest in the necessary engineering support a warship (with design faults) needed, to be able to operate at increased tempo, outside of their originally intended role.

This is the core of the problem, classing is great if you are going to be using ships for a set purpose, consistently, through their operational lives. The very nature of naval use means the ships often need to operate at higher tempos or outside of assumed areas of operation.

Alex this isn't for you because I know you know far more on this than I, this is to illustrate that when some get enamoured with an idea, particularly politicians, they often assume too much and this usually results in poor execution, cut corners, operational difficulties and even loss of life. I have worked in situations where non shipbuilders have attempted to class warships because they see it as a way of making ship maintenance and operation more like that of aircraft, i.e. it can be done by any certified maintainer. They completely missed the fact that The very nature of military operations means you need an extremely robust engineering capability to support warships through life, whether they are classed or not, that cannot effectively be outsourced to a classification society, they are the minimum necessary, warships need more than that minimum.
 

alexsa

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
The Iver Huitfeldt Class hulls meet DNV ice class C standards. Follow this link to get more information on the vessel concept: http://www.aspistrategist.org.au/wp...11/OMT-Dansh-Frigate-Programme-April-2014.pdf

The Iver Huitfeldt hulls are based on the Absalon Class and they have two hangars. If the Danes say they can supply a version with two hangars, then I am inclined to believe them.

I dont think we can look at the Iver Huitfeldts as an option in isolation. They are based around the Stanflex system and as far as I can ascertain they have an open computer architecture. This in itself is totally different to the latest Navy acquisitions.

To fully utilize any Stanflex module investment the OPV's would have to use this system as well. Any existing design would have to be heavily modified, so any decisions would not be made lightly.
As I said thy are impressive ships and built at a reasonable cost. However, some of that cost was offset by using modules take from other vessels.

However you have missed my point in relation to weight and growth margin. The system is a compromise (a very good one) but it provides less VLS strike length and less cells overall compared to other options. The missile load out flexibility is reduced the Mk56 cells and in any combination you carry less missiles than a vessel with 48 strike length and harpoon.

This and the need to increase aviation capacity, add ASW capability may limit their growth margin and may make them less capable than a larger options.

It is really a call for Navy and what is critical to them.
 

Alf662

New Member
As I said thy are impressive ships and built at a reasonable cost. However, some of that cost was offset by using modules take from other vessels.

However you have missed my point in relation to weight and growth margin. The system is a compromise (a very good one) but it provides less VLS strike length and less cells overall compared to other options. The missile load out flexibility is reduced the Mk56 cells and in any combination you carry less missiles than a vessel with 48 strike length and harpoon.

This and the need to increase aviation capacity, add ASW capability may limit their growth margin and may make them less capable than a larger options.

It is really a call for Navy and what is critical to them.
Hi Alexsa, didn't miss the point about weight and growth margin, got that but did not say so.

I was actually trying to point out that an Iver Huitfeldt purchase would require the adoption of Stanflex and it's associated system. This system would then need to flow through to the OPV's if it was to be fully utilised and not become an orphan system. If Stanflex was adopted the Navy would have two completely different and incompatible systems.
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
Hi Alexsa, didn't miss the point about weight and growth margin, got that but did not say so.

I was actually trying to point out that an Iver Huitfeldt purchase would require the adoption of Stanflex and it's associated system. This system would then need to flow through to the OPV's if it was to be fully utilised and not become an orphan system. If Stanflex was adopted the Navy would have two completely different and incompatible systems.
Not necessarily. Some ship systems should remain static/non-modular. The 5"/127mm gun, and large VLS arrays like a Mk-41 VLS, especially if in strike lengths and/or in multiples of 8-cells.

There is the potential for the RAN to adopt modular/containerized weapons packages aboard future warships to make it slightly easier to accent particular roles for deployments (i.e. an extra 6 or 12 cells of Mk 56 VLS, twin-packed with ESSM, extra LWT launchers, etc.) as well as potentially reducing the cost burden and easing maintenance. As Swerve had noted in the thread previously, one of the potential advantages to modular weapons is that if a module becomes inoperable requiring repairs, or needs to be taken offline for maintenance and upgrades, another module of the same type which is servicable can be swapped from a pool of modules instead of a particular vessel being held up while a weapon system is down for repairs. The RAN already does it to a small degree with the Mk 15 Phalanx CIWS, it just becomes a matter of adopting a systems architecture and modules to enable doing so with a greater range of systems.
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
I really wonder what the DEFMIN wrote on that note she gave him during the hearing about government advice that had back peddle, apologise and look contrite. For me it was the high point of the whole sad and miserable waste of time.
I came away with a greater sense of frustration after watching it. I kind of expected better from Xenophon, but was even more miserably depressed about the lack of comprehension and common sense in Conroy. He is seriously out of his depth. The last thing he should ever do is try to challenge Payne - esp in front of an audience. She is all over him and does it with a degree of panache which I thought was impossible to do in these events.

You could visibly see CN, CDF and Sec getting frustrated and see the incredulity in some of their responses.
 

rjtjrt

Member
Conroy is not a stupid man.
I guess he has no interest in defence and is skimming over his shadow portfolio, which he would regard as a most undisirable portfolio.
Conroy and Shorten are both Labor heavyweights in Victoria, and rivals for power. Shorten has been able to sideline Conroy into what most politicians regard as a carrier ending (dead end) portfolio.
 

John Newman

The Bunker Group
Conroy is not a stupid man.
I guess he has no interest in defence and is skimming over his shadow portfolio, which he would regard as a most undisirable portfolio.
Conroy and Shorten are both Labor heavyweights in Victoria, and rivals for power. Shorten has been able to sideline Conroy into what most politicians regard as a carrier ending (dead end) portfolio.
Conroy not stupid?

The person who created the NBN on the back of a beer coaster on a VIP flight with Rudd?

Yeah ok........
 

alexsa

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Industry already understands (well elements of it does) with classing, as well as certification to treaties and agreements, the ability to class new ships being a desirable requirement. Gap analyses are done at design and during the build to determine what is needed to bring ships into class, what waivers will be required etc.

As the CoA is the Flag Authority they do not need to do this but have been attempting to do so. Some elements are sensible to comply, others it is stupid to try, i.e. rescue boats under SOLAS need to be orange/red, not a good look for a warship when a RHIB can do the job. MARPOL double hulling requirements are nice to have but to be honest pretty irrelevant for a warship with multiple small (by ship standards) tanks, distributed around the hull.

There is a view held by some that if you class a ship then maintenance automatically becomes cheaper and can be outsourced pretty much anywhere, this is not the case and can, as seen with the Armidales can lead to considerable issues. The problem is not that the design was classed but rather t was used as an excuse not to invest in the necessary engineering support a warship (with design faults) needed, to be able to operate at increased tempo, outside of their originally intended role.

This is the core of the problem, classing is great if you are going to be using ships for a set purpose, consistently, through their operational lives. The very nature of naval use means the ships often need to operate at higher tempos or outside of assumed areas of operation.

Alex this isn't for you because I know you know far more on this than I, this is to illustrate that when some get enamoured with an idea, particularly politicians, they often assume too much and this usually results in poor execution, cut corners, operational difficulties and even loss of life. I have worked in situations where non shipbuilders have attempted to class warships because they see it as a way of making ship maintenance and operation more like that of aircraft, i.e. it can be done by any certified maintainer. They completely missed the fact that The very nature of military operations means you need an extremely robust engineering capability to support warships through life, whether they are classed or not, that cannot effectively be outsourced to a classification society, they are the minimum necessary, warships need more than that minimum.
Hi Volk

All cool. To be honest part of the problem is defence are both the regulator and client and that can lead to some pretty odd compromises. It gets critical when maintenance gets deferred for reasons of politics or expediency.

I agree the problem is a lack of robust technical capability in the Naval administration where they come to rely on class and don't maintain a robust in house capability to assess what they do. As a result they become reliant on Class who may not always understand the operational imperatives. Sadly this also goes for some flag states who find themselves flummoxed when something goes pear shaped and they are approached for a decision. Not helped when some class societies are also suffering dilution in technical skill.

The other issue is WHS legislations and how this impacts on ships being used by government. The red tape around that (which is not necessarily run by technical individuals) is eye watering and can only be dealt what by those who understand the applicable standards.

Having a ship building industry (this includes the naval arcs) that understand regulatory requirements (trust many don't) helps to build a skill bases for the industry as a whole and may open up opportunities to build specialised vessels here (particularly if they are for government).
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
Regarding SEA 1000

I would see more appeal in the country with less, not more political and strategic interests in our region helping us build locally our future submarines.
Of course the decision will be based on many critera and political dynamics.
Who knows the quality of the submarine may even come into it !!!!!

Just a thought
Auf Wiedersehen

S
Making a decision on this premise ignores a number of realities. If Australia's partner has no political or strategic interest involved, then the only interest would be industrial/commercial. This in turn would mean that the product (submarines) which Australia gets would whatever is in the best industrial/commercial interests of the partner nation, within the limits of the contract(s).

By partnering with a friendly/allied nation that has shared or similar strategic and political interests in the region, then there is the potential for the RAN subs to operate alongside with/in support of the partner nation. This would IMO increase the likelihood that the partner nation would want the product (again, subs) Australia gets to as good as possible since the partner nation might at some point be relying upon the RAN subs operationally. It would be in the strategic best interests of the partner for the RAN to get what it needed from the subs. This could also lead to the partner nation providing a level of assistance and support beyond what would be required by contract, to make sure that the RAN subs are up to scratch.

As an example of what I mean, look at the relationship between the ADF and US military, the USN in particular. When the decision was make within the RAAF/ADF that the F-111's day was done and the strike capability needed rapid replacement, the USN allowed the RAAF Superhornet order to 'skip' it's place in line and take production slots slated for the USN/USMC from a prior order. The USN did not have to do this, but it did because Australia is a US ally, and it is in the interests of the US for the ADF to be strong and not have a gaping capability hole.

Speaking about subs specifically, the USN and/or JMSDF might ask the ADF for ISR data which would require a sub to collect, or to have a sub sanitize an AoE of potentially hostile subs, or be positioned to 'deal with' unfriendlies which might impact a deployment or the SLOC's. If the RAN's sub is not capable enough, has too high a maintenance requirement, etc. then the allies might not be able to get such assistance from the RAN.
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
As an example of what I mean, look at the relationship between the ADF and US military, the USN in particular. When the decision was make within the RAAF/ADF that the F-111's day was done and the strike capability needed rapid replacement, the USN allowed the RAAF Superhornet order to 'skip' it's place in line and take production slots slated for the USN/USMC from a prior order. The USN did not have to do this, but it did because Australia is a US ally, and it is in the interests of the US for the ADF to be strong and not have a gaping capability hole.
it extends to USAF assistance with P8's
USN/DARPA/NAVSEA assistance with Collins
USG assistance with C-17's
US small army assistance
e-Warfare assistance

the list goes on and on....

I can't think of any total combined german or french "value add" that equals 12 months of what the US provides over and above in any given year
 

rjtjrt

Member
Conroy not stupid?

The person who created the NBN on the back of a beer coaster on a VIP flight with Rudd?

Yeah ok........
Unwise to underestimate an enemy.
Conroy is a loathsome, manipulative politician, and not someone you would want in the same room, but stupid he is not.
 

alexsa

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Unwise to underestimate an enemy.
Conroy is a loathsome, manipulative politician, and not someone you would want in the same room, but stupid he is not.
Then he is a bloody impressive actor or does not care much for his job or the task assigned to him (which is a poor reflection on him in any case) given his performance in Senates Estimates was poor suggesting he had a very poor grasp of the subject.
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Unwise to underestimate an enemy.
Conroy is a loathsome, manipulative politician, and not someone you would want in the same room, but stupid he is not.
I think you need to see if you can find some SkyNews clips when he was interviewed about subs - and then have a look at the first 3 hrs of Senate Estimates FADT 20160317

Thankfully he was gone from the last qtr.

If he's a smart man then he is singularly and persistently unimpressive - he's not a golden mile within Faulkner or Combet - and Payne reinforces it every time they're opposite each other. They are unfairly matched.

If you can't bring your "A game" to Senate Estimates when everything is stacked in your favour then heaven forbid.
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
Glutton for punishment that I am, I am halfway through watching the entirety of the FADT 20160317. I also have a class to teach in about four hours, and have not yet gone to bed...
 

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
Then he is a bloody impressive actor or does not care much for his job or the task assigned to him (which is a poor reflection on him in any case) given his performance in Senates Estimates was poor suggesting he had a very poor grasp of the subject.
Xenophon is understandable.Hes a leader of a single issue party that has nothing to do with defense and never claimed it did. He issues press releases daily on a dozen issues. Hes not and never will be minister or shadow minister of defence. As a minor party he isn't as resourced as even the most idiotic MP of a major party.

However, he was pretty much directly responsible for ousting Abbott. It was the SA libs that were scared shitless when he announced he would run people in their electorates. The voters and workers in these electorates were pissed. The average Australian was getting pissed off. Xenophon isn't a genius but hes a believer in what he is doing, hes not offensive, hes not Clive Palmer or those other numnuts. People can live with voting for that (particularly in SA). He gives Chris Pyne the heebiegeebies. Xenophon just has to be more likeable than Chris Pyne and he will remain an important influence.

Conroy is a butthole. He doesn't seem to understand anything that he is put in charge of. I'm not sure if its through arrogance (most likely) or intellectual limitations. Hes obviously capable as a political animal, just not one that can do anything. IMO he represents a lot that is wrong with labor. His red underpants comment says it all.

It doesn't matter because currently we have from many reports a very capable defence minister. I would imagine pretty much everyone in defence will try to keep her in that portfolio for as long as humanly possible. I would imagine her standing with Turnbull and within the party is very high. The biggest problem is that they will promote her.
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
It doesn't matter because currently we have from many reports a very capable defence minister. I would imagine pretty much everyone in defence will try to keep her in that portfolio for as long as humanly possible. I would imagine her standing with Turnbull and within the party is very high. The biggest problem is that they will promote her.
she's pretty impressive, knows her brief and it shows. she runs rings around shad defmin
 

John Newman

The Bunker Group
Unwise to underestimate an enemy.
Conroy is a loathsome, manipulative politician, and not someone you would want in the same room, but stupid he is not.
I don't think I have to say much more but to agree with the respective comments of the others here regarding Conroy.

I'm sure he is a very cunning 'politician', and knows how to work the backroom of the party machine that he is part of.

But as a Minister and a Shadow Minister, well his performance leaves a lot to be desired, to say the least too!
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Glutton for punishment that I am, I am halfway through watching the entirety of the FADT 20160317. I also have a class to teach in about four hours, and have not yet gone to bed...
don't take out any ill humour you generate on the class.. :)

his performance is embarassing - the look on the faces and the body language of the service chiefs and defsec are priceless

there are far too many times when you ask yourself "was that a serious question" for it to be funny though....
 

rjtjrt

Member
don't take out any ill humour you generate on the class.. :)

his performance is embarassing - the look on the faces and the body language of the service chiefs and defsec are priceless

there are far too many times when you ask yourself "was that a serious question" for it to be funny though....
My impression is Conroy doesn't want to be in Defence, has zero interest in his portfolio, and I have yet to get the impression he has any regard for, or respect for, defence force members.
Edit. Combet seemed smart and professional, not unlike current minister Payne.
Faulkner, to my great surprise, was a very decent man, as well as being smart and worked hard at a portfolio he was not naturally inclined towards. He was very impressive. I have high hopes for Minister Payne.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top