Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[Goknub]

I was hoping Brisbane could become the future home of an amphibious fleet. I think we will struggle to develop the amphibious fleet I believe we should whilst they are based down in Sydney.

The location is prime real-estate however and quite crowded.

 

[hypernova]

I would also like to think there was a very long term picture re SEA 1000 in developing our manufacturing base and skill set. Your correct in that Australias population will grow in the years ahead, so this submarine progran will transend a bigger Australia in the following decades.These are important big picture considerations....The RAN ambition of 12 submarines is greater than the fleet size of either the Royal Navy or France today. Maybe opton F will prove an intelligent move in preparing Australia manufacturing and training for the decades to come

I guess all I wanted to say is perhaps we need to view SEA1000 in much longer terms than the life and cost of the first boat, not to mention our relationships with all the great powers. Does Australia intend to be a regionally relevant maritime power in this century or not? If so we not only need to invest in our domestic defense industry but, given the metrics we face in the region and our reliance upon technological offsets, we also need to be tolerant of risk to maintain said technological advantage. Thus, having the Japanese construct a reasonably MOTS version of their boat really achieves neither, although it would have been the far easier and more certain path to delivering the baseline capability.

Obviously, having a ‘paper’ capability that is poorly delivered is worth less than a MOTS option that works – but in very general terms more advanced a technology is usually the greater the risk profile. Take the F-35A. In the mid-2000s the F-35 was clearly a high risk option. Had we gone with Typhoons, Rafales or F-15Es there undoubtedly would not be a single hornet in RAAF service in 2016 – no Super Hornet purchase, no HUG, probably no JASSM integration costs. Obviously the risk profile of that program cost the govt billions – but look at the capability we are getting, it’s literally world beating. Yes the French may end up being poor partners (though they may not considering their half century’s worth of experience as defence exporters and their relationship with Australia going all the way back to the Mirage IIIO) but they are committed to developing Australian industry and Australian shipbuilding. It was a core marketing point they were making IIRC. Developing a truly independent submarine capability and industry is a massive plus that transcends the project management issues which seem to dominate conversation here.

It was mentioned in the 2013 DWP something about a suitable 2nd submarine base, or a suplementry FBE north base. Not sure if it it was mentioned in the recent one. As had been dicussed with Australias tidal issues and cyclone prone far north, Brisbane is in theoryideal.

Darwin’s the clear choice. With the likelihood of increased USN presence there – IIRC there have been musings of the permanent deployment of a full amphib element around a battalion landing team with 3 LPDs – the investment in port infrastructure will be significant. Operationally Darwin is light years ahead of Brisbane. There’s not going to be a real threat emerging from the Coral Sea apart from some rusty Russian cruisers and their tug boat. The real action is in the SCS and it’s where our SSK/G fleet will be of most strategic weight: its where we can have real influence in the regional balance and where we can be of most assistance to our friends in South East Asia. Darwin is really going to be our Truk or Gibraltar. As for cyclones – if they can build sub pens which could withstand the RAF in 1942 they can build facilities which can handle cyclone Tracy.

Additionally surface warfare is becoming about area denial, when on the defensive operationally at any case, and in the case of high end conflict which could start rapidly you are going to want your boats – half of your A2/AD capability – positioned to rapidly engage surface threats as far from your bases and infrastructure as possible. This is another area where transit speed becomes increasingly important. In peacetime you can pre-position your assets so five to six knots is no big deal. But the war the USN is clearly expecting, from open source material anyway, is a rapid campaign by the PLA to secure its political objectives in the Ryukus, the SCS and Taiwan while it enjoys local naval superiority – read anything on AirSea battle to get a feel for this. Thus we simply may not have the luxury for several boats to steam at low speed all the way from Brisbane to the SCS to engage PLAN carrier groups. We cannot expect to have assets prepositioned to engage such threats which could be launching operations in the region or even against Australian infrastructure. So it has to be Darwin IMHO.

 

[TBLackey]

Hello

So yeah....subs gonna be built off a French design, correct?

What qualifications will I need to study to get involved...and where will the work be?.

edit: I'm a power engineer, looking for a career change.....

 

[Todjaeger]

I'd love the discussion to be technical, but then you post things like this:



How is that tech? If you're going to tell others to stick to the tech then do it yourself.

You're clearly displeased with the selection yet have openly stated you're not privy to the full details, how does that make any sense? How do you KNOW that it wasn't chosen for good reason? Gut feel? Or is this a case of "I know but I can't tell"?

It's making this discussion worthless, and you're adding to it.

I won't add to it any more myself, I'll bow out now and not bother with the subs topic.

Not RAN or sub related, but an example of a procurement decision being made based off politics and not what was most capable, and/or most cost-effective. The ADI (now Thales Australia) Bushmaster. The other contender for this particular programme was the Tenix S-600, which was based off the Unimog chassis. The two had very similar performances and met required spec, but the S-600 actually exceeded the MRAP spec in testing. One area of difference though was that being based off the Unimog, the S-600 could tap into Mercedes worldwide support/supply chain for many of the parts thus reducing support costs and increasing availability. AFAIK the Bushmaster uses a Timoney suspension designed initially by Shorts Brothers of Ireland, and manufactured in Bendigo. The Bushmaster ended up being selected because it did meet the required spec (though not exceeding it like the S-600) despite having a higher potential support cost and significantly less commonality with COTS kit available worldwide. The select decision was made, like the much later re-order despite the ADF already having examples parked and not in use because the inventory was greater than desired/needed, because the political seat in Bendigo was threatened. The S-600 would have been manufactured in a seat firmly controlled by the opposition, so the gov't of the day chose to protect 'their' interests, as opposed to selecting what would most likely have been an overall better piece of kit for the ADF.

This above is all an example of how, at times, the eval teams and technical recommendations can mean SFA when decision makers have 'other' considerations.

With DCNS having been selected, they, to my knowledge, have been chosen as the lead designers for the future submarine. This is not the same thing as the Short-fin Barracuda being selected as the design. Part of the next phase will cover the actual specifications for the design, and (hopefully ironclad) contract negotiations covering requirements like developmental costs, IP ownership, timeline/scheduling, planned availability rates and in-service dates, etc. All of the above would be occurring no matter who was selected (French, German, or Japanese).

As others have pointed out before, pumpjet technology certainly has applications for submarines, especially for nuclear-powered subs. To date, it has only been trialed aboard a (single IIRC) Russian Kilo-class diesel-electric sub, and this was about a decade ago. Which begs the question, if pumpjet technology is so advantageous for submarines, has no new French, German, or Japanese conventional/diesel-electric subs been fitted with it, or even trialed?

From my POV, that very strongly suggests that pumpjets require something which a nuclear-powered can have in abundance, but a diesel-electric sub would not. The first thing which springs to my mind is power. The energy budget for a diesel-electric sub, is quite different from that of a nuclear-powered sub.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Not RAN or sub related, but an example of a procurement decision being made based off politics and not what was most capable, and/or most cost-effective. The ADI (now Thales Australia) Bushmaster. The other contender for this particular programme was the Tenix S-600, which was based off the Unimog chassis. The two had very similar performances and met required spec, but the S-600 actually exceeded the MRAP spec in testing. One area of difference though was that being based off the Unimog, the S-600 could tap into Mercedes worldwide support/supply chain for many of the parts thus reducing support costs and increasing availability. AFAIK the Bushmaster uses a Timoney suspension designed initially by Shorts Brothers of Ireland, and manufactured in Bendigo. The Bushmaster ended up being selected because it did meet the required spec (though not exceeding it like the S-600) despite having a higher potential support cost and significantly less commonality with COTS kit available worldwide. The select decision was made, like the much later re-order despite the ADF already having examples parked and not in use because the inventory was greater than desired/needed, because the political seat in Bendigo was threatened. The S-600 would have been manufactured in a seat firmly controlled by the opposition, so the gov't of the day chose to protect 'their' interests, as opposed to selecting what would most likely have been an overall better piece of kit for the ADF.

on a side note, I was contracting to JRA on their Taipan bid which used the Unimog chassis.

We ended up selling 27 of them to the Kuwaitis as "police cars" (with .50 cal self protection!)

It was never "advertised" as the Govt of the day was not keen on Australia being seen as a weapons exporter.

Ironically a few went to SA Govt National Parks as fire trucks, but were deemed a risk as they were regarded as too safe and might make fire crews complacent and put themselves at risk....

we bought the Unimogs new, stripped the cabs and then did the armour conversion. the cabs were sent off for scrap as nobody wanted to but them. what a waste! The germans sent out their armour people and the test samples had a constant 24hr guard as the germans would not leave it unattended even though on a defence rated site that met all security requirements.

hell we even taught plastic welders how to weld armour (they were identified as the most relevant transferable tradesmen skill available)

one of my more interesting jobs....

 

[Redlands18]

Thank you GF for your wisdom and patience, you certainly have had a very full and interesting career.
Anyone who has any doubt how much work is still to be done on the future sub needs to remember that there is still 8-9 years before first steel is cut, that is the same time period as the Collins herself was downselected,laid down and commissioned. Gives you a scope on where we are at. One question i would like to ask could the RAN go with a normal propeller set up instead of the pump jet?

 

[swerve]

... AFAIK the Bushmaster uses a Timoney suspension designed initially by Shorts Brothers of Ireland, ....

I thought suspension was Timoney's main business. I never heard of Shorts designing suspensions. Are you sure? Main business was (& still is, as Bombardier) aircraft, though it built some armoured Land Rovers & Unimog-based APCs under the Shorland name.

NB. Timoney's in the Irish republic, Shorts in Belfast.

 

[hypernova]

I'll give you one example - there are a myriad more

SB Block 1A is a conventional conversion of the SB nuke
The drivetrain doesn't exist
No western country has used a DE drivetrain on a pumpjet - it has yet to be designed, tested and then developed - and that needs to be done before it goes into the last 3 sections
Look at the pumpjet on a nuke - its able to develop basically instant thrust - ie sprint and surge on demand - the best DE available can't do that - IOW there is an immediate change in performance and handling dynamics
then compare the drivetrain real estate issues on a nuke and compare it to a conventional

the nuke doesn't have to deal with any issues of changes of fuel state impacting upon handling
the nuke doesn't have the same real estate issues as there are no bunkerage issues and no battery issues commensurate with the drivetrain

ie all of that real estate advantage that is available to a boat with a small nuke changes dramatically with DE drivetrains

the handling issues are immediate
the acoustic management issues increase exponentially with DE compared to nukes

and then there are the energy management issues.

you just can't add 30% more KW based on a 30% increase in size.

I'm not dumb enough to talk about the classified issues - I'm only talking about the engineering realities

there's a difference between discussing capability issues and making claims about inherent performance

some of the discussion about pump jets is just tosh.

we avoid hypotheticals as much as possible on this forum for a reason - accordingly when people discuss things they tend not to make empirical claims - especially when this is actually a greenfields build

the only thing that will retain a probability of minimal change will be the outer shell - everything else changes.

I don’t mean to be flippant, but essentially all you have stated here is significant technological challenges remain for the Shortfin Barracuda to meets the public claims made by DCNS. In any case, I’m not sure how the above issues indicate that DCNS’s statements about the Shorfin Barracuda are inherently unachievable or technically unfeasible. Obviously, there’s much work to be done, but that stands for practically every element of the design. Are we to refrain from making claims whatsoever about the boats likely displacement given public statements by DCNS? Could be 6,000 tons? Could be 2,000?

In any case, not only does that not really challenge anything I have said in this thread – as I made NO hard claims about capability – but its entirely to be expected from a program this immature. The fact that you think taking a clear statement from DCNS about the platform’s intended performance equates to a ‘hypothetical’ is hardly consistent with the conversation not only in this thread – much of which is dedicated to carriers, F-35Bs, possible missile counts on SEA-5000 contenders and future force structure – but much of what I have read here. Take the extensive discussion in several airforce threads about likely capabilities of systems such as AN/APG-81, EODAS and EOTS in relation to the F-35. I fail to see how these discussions, which rely on exactly the same kinds of limited, open source, information, are somehow acceptable, but the above comments are not. If you go back far enough you see the program at the exact same phase of the development cycle.

It seems hard to explain this without special pleading, or are the rules applied selectively here?

I blame idiotic journos for some of the nonsense that we see, but its sites like this where we try and talk about defence issues with a dose of reality.

if you look at those with blue tags (eg) - they invariably qualify with caution - there's a reason why they do that. prev experience and a bit of circumspection.

I'd suggest reading through a number of posts in the RAN thread to get an indication of tone and intent - we've discussed subs in here over the last 10 years.

there's a wealth of knowledge from people who have actual sub design, industry and defence experience.

and I've worked on french built subs on tech transfer issues.....

I have no doubt of your experience in the industry, and I’m not questioning your expertise -but just FYI not only the members with blue tags are active in the strategic space. But that ‘wealth of technical knowledge’ has, IMHO, limited the discussion here to engineering and project management issues, where that wealth of experience lies. Reading back there really isn’t much discussion on geostrategic aspects of this deal such as entrapment, long term industry development and the second and third order strategic effects of said development.

There are other aspects to SEA1000 than simply building the submarines, which have seldom been discussed. Yet even without addressing these issues, there seems to have been a consensus on option J.

But it seems as though the only valid discourse on this topic in this thread is the technical reputations of the rival partners.

A contractor can claim whatever they want. Without a clarification of unspoken caveats, it's hard to know how much a statement really "means."

They can claim it matches the SSN variant's sustained transit speed.
Note they don't define the duration of "sustained." Or "comparable."

Until the heavy engineering work is done and the design is close to finalized, it's hard for even DCNS to know what's going to be the result..

Again, you probably need to appreciate the difference between an inference of likely capability from public statements made by a contractor and a hard truth claim. If we apply the rule that no statement from any contractor can be given any weight, then the majority of the capability discussions in this thread, and others, is worthless. Obviously, there is a real chance DCNS will not be able to meet this public ‘commitment’ – for lack of a better term – but clearly this statement indicates this is a capability objective for DCNS.

I am not speaking on GF's behalf, but a number of posters, usually newer posters, have offered commentary in this RAN thread recently that is quite enthusiastic about DCNS having been selected for the SEA 1000 programme. However, a number of comments have been made which, even if there is publically available information out there confirming, does not mean that is actually what is/will be taking place.

I guess I’ll just have to take the condescension with a grain of salt.

Take the 14 kts sustained transit speed as an example. The sustained transit speed the future RAN subs will operate at would be dictated by RAN CONOPS, not the sub design. In fact, the CONOPS requirement is what will drive the required sustainable transit speed (as well as what is considered a sustainable transit speed). Not being a marine/submarine engineer, I am making an assumption here, but I would assume that if a particular design can sustain a 14 kts transit speed (which would require nn amount of power) then the same design should be able to sustain a transit speed of 10 kts or 8 kts, which would require less power. This reduction in power consumption could easily be preferable for the RAN, since it could permit a lower indiscretion rate, permit more time on station, and/or maintaining a larger charge on the batteries for action.

You are essentially confusing doctrine with capability – the latter does not always follow the former. Take the F-35 as an example, AFAIK the original program requirements for AIR-6000 did not include VLO, EODAS and the AIM-9X BII combination, but you dont think the RAAF is now building doctrine around these capabilities? That VLO has no bearing on how the RAAF will employ the F-35 because it wasn't originally part of the AIR-6000 program requirements or RAAF fighter CONOPS in the mid 2000s?

Any coherent concept of operations is about how people can reliably leverage the technology at their disposal to achieve tactical, operational and thus strategic outcomes. IF the Shortfin Barracuda offers capabilities the Type 216 does not the RAN will alter its doctrine accordingly. We are not in the luxurious position – if any nation is – of bending technological tools to our doctrinal objectives. Everything is constrained by the technological environment it inhabits.

Blitzkrieg and Deep Battle did not drive the technological development of armor – they were doctrinal responses to technological development. Thus, claiming a platforms capabilities are irrelevant to how the user will employ it on doctrinal grounds mistakes what doctrine is and what it does.

 

[Todjaeger]

I thought suspension was Timoney's main business. I never heard of Shorts designing suspensions. Are you sure? Main business was (& still is, as Bombardier) aircraft, though it built some armoured Land Rovers & Unimog-based APCs under the Shorland name.

NB. Timoney's in the Irish republic, Shorts in Belfast.

Without looking at specific sources, I am going off a somewhat fuzzy recollection. The Bushmaster design might very well have been a Shorts Brothers design (of which the Shorland brand was taken over by Tenix...) and utilizing a Timoney suspension.

The main issue (from a support cost perspective) is that the base Unimog chassis and associated parts/components are readily available worldwide. The Timoney suspension parts not nearly as available, especially since the primary operator is nearly as far from the Irish Republic as possible. I have no inherent issue with the Bushmaster suspension, but the specific one selected increases the length of the supply chain.

And now back to the regularly scheduled RAN topic

 

[vonnoobie]

We do need to do something for both Japan and South Korea, Abbott's hand shakes and wink's just stuffed the relationship's all up.

While high speed rail is a possibility, other options could be the US-2 or the XC-2.

For South Korea im not sure.. Wouldn't mind an Australianised Tide class tanker/AOR

 

[ASSAIL]

For South Korea im not sure.. Wouldn't mind an Australianised Tide class tanker/AOR

Why? It's too big for the RAN, it's designed to support the QEs and we have already selected 2 X Navantia AORs
This is not a fantasy shop, why not throw in a QE while you're at it

 

[kaz]

Does it matter that much, do bilateral relations between nations rely solely on defense industrial co-operation? Japanese officials released a statement containing the same "deeply regrettable" phrase when they lost out on a (quite scandalous) Indonesian high speed rail project. IMO, it's textbook diplomacy.

They've only recently sent one of their helicopter carriers, a high-value asset, to an exercise in Indonesia this month and negotiated on better military ties. JMSDF officials have stressed before how vital Australia is to their strategy.

Getting back at Japan-Australia defense industrial ties, a convoy of shiny new Bushmasters were delivered to the JGSDF last year.

 

[hypernova]

For your information the Mods and the Blue Tags are Defence Professionals and some of them here are aware of more material than they can mention in public fora. All of us are well versed in our own fields and as I have already stated we cannot comment adequately on everything that people think should be commented on because of security requirements. We will not break those restrictions under any circumstances for anyone.

The second point that I want to make is that whilst robust debate is good, robustness does not equate to being combative on here. So dial it back and respect others views. They just may have access to material that you and I don't.

Regard this as a friendly reminder of the rules that we expect to be followed. I do mean ALL THE RULES too so I strongly suggest that you reacquaint yourself with them.

How do you send a private message on this site?

 

[gf0012-aust]

How do you send a private message on this site?

there is a 50 post minimum requirement for new posters - that was done for spam management and some admin demands on new members etc...

you can email me on bounce dot rubbish at gmail dot com

put your username in the subject line so that I can get the spam filter to let it through

 

[hairyman]

There was some talk recently of Japan building a 3000 ton fast frigate. Could this be of interest to the RAN instead of corvettes or OPV?

 

[oldsig127]

There was some talk recently of Japan building a 3000 ton fast frigate. Could this be of interest to the RAN instead of corvettes or OPV?

I shouldn't think so. Almost twice the displacement asked for, and an entirely different role. I suggest that speculation would be better directed towards the products of Lurssen, Damen and Fassmer which have actually been short listed.

oldsif127

 

[John Newman]

There was some talk recently of Japan building a 3000 ton fast frigate. Could this be of interest to the RAN instead of corvettes or OPV?

I think the simple answer to that is no, why would it be of interest?

In very recent times we have had the new DWP released, which clearly set the tone for the path ahead for the RAN.

We've also just seen recently the announcement by the Government for the short list of three contenders for both the OPV (ACPB replacement) and the three contenders for the Future Frigate.

For the Government (or Defence and the RAN), to now come out, in such a short space of time, and say "hang on, we are also going to introduce a requirement for a 3000t Patrol Frigate, that may sit in between the OPV's and the Future Frigates, or possibly replace one or the other".

Na, can't see it happening.

 

[rand0m]

Todjaeger - Surely you would assume that the people who made the decision were exposed to information that both you, I & the commoner are not privileged to.

Whilst I am as unhappy as anyone with the selection, surely the right people, in the right places with the necessary information have made the logical choice...

 

[Joe Black]

Yes I have seen the line of question from notable political reporters of the major broadsheets, but with the way a number of respected posters here saying over some quite time it dosnt seem to be logical as the design will be weighted on a conventional not suited to just pulling out the diesel and whacking a kettle in. Defeats the purpose from the little I understand.


If that is the long term planning seems to me the should have stuck with son of Collins then retendered in future for a nuc boat

It does beg to wonder if the selectors in the CEP progress is really given RAN the chance of building an "evolved" Collins using Shortfin Barracuda hull as the basis. Internal components (engines, gensets, etc etc) could be custom built to RAN's needs with DCNS' help. And I also have the feeling is that the option to one day go nuclear is the foundation of this selection as well. Guess only time will tell.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Just a small correction, Sorry to nit pick.

Where memeber's have stated that the Russian Kilo class pump jet (B-871 Alrosa) has been tied up unused for a decade is not quite accurate.

It has been in use, How much use I cant say but some of them were international exercises (2011 Bold Monarch).

Maybe Putin forced a lazarus

but she was up in the air for more than 6 years at one point. I had assumed that she'd run out of money

I'd add that all the industry and service comment offline at the time was that it was turning out to be a woftam - and thats still the noise I'm getting from old acoustics contacts (since I shifted jobs)