Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[gf0012-aust]

It may also be because the RAAF has proven itself to be far more astute at selling its requirements to government than the other two services.
MB

RAAF have had the luxury of being able to get access and support very quickly from the USN and USAF, so their acquisitions have been painless.

They also have had the capacity as a result to get production assets so minimised delay and reduced the risk accordingly.

as a result, when they get to the gate reviews its a home run event more than a "do not go past go" scenario - and when you rack up 3-4 of those in a row, you've already dealt enough good hands to get treated differently by central agencies. IMO anyway

 

[the road runner]

there's a raft of reasons why the Soryu's are the better choice IMO, but the debate has already turned into a circus by the way that the whole sub procurement process has been articulated

gf Can you elaborate on these points ?
You have said the metallurgy of the Soryu's are cutting edge ...
What would be some of the other points?

i think most of the defprofs and snr members stated concerns on and offline months if not years ago about our concerns of future subs reqs getting damaged and mishandled by govt and the broader media - and unfort we've all been proved right.

You guys need your own facebook page titled "Australia's future sub's"
There is so much interest on defence matters in Australia ... the biggest problem is most people get info from the press who have no technical experience what so ever on these matters.Your only as good as your teachers !

It would be great to see a number of defence pros pooling their experience on multimedia and actually educating the australian public on defence matters
I believe facebook could be a great source ...

Edit ... just found DT on facebook

 

[Volkodav]

Industry would have preferred building Burkes, not baby Burkes, but full blown Flight IIA Arliegh Burkes with all the bells and whistles as well as every improvement in efficiency and manpower reduction the design authority had at the time. Just look at the ASC shipyard, its very heavily based on BIWs yard that they completely upgraded, specifically to build Burkes, hardly surprising as BIW was their capability partner, including providing key management and engineering personnel who were imbedded in the project, one of them has in fact just been made MD of ASC. This included people who were on the first of class DDG-51 build and multiple other Burkes. The entire ASC operation was basically set up to seamlessly build Burkes and then we order a unique design from a designer and builders that had never exported a design before. Even the baby Burke would have been more difficult than a standard one.

 

[old faithful]

RAAF are blessed with "no Brainer" decisions, JSF, or Rafale/Typhoon?
C17 or A400? etc etc

Army, are to blessed, but somewhere in the mix, alternatives "that might be more suited to our needs" pop up.....Tiger(perceived longer range than competitors), MRH90....not sure why it was selected in the 1st place.....in fact if it was just because of increased lift, then it was a mistake, a better mix of CH47,s and blackhawks would be better suited, mostly because of supply train.
Then we look at Armour, SPG,s, SAM,s. Radars, light vehicles, Small arms, Ammunition, Rations,boots and uniforms, LBE, Night vision, and countless other smaller projects that eat up so much time and effort.

RAN, as ship building is a great concern and Australia,s ability to manufacture anything erodes, RAN pays the penalty of delays and tender process,s that to me at least, seem to be done pretty well, considering the time frames given.
The thing that holds RAN back in IMHO, is the reluctance to make quick decisions, and settle on designs that keep everyone happy, industry and RAN.
The MRH for navy IMO again was a mistake.

 

[John Fedup]

RAAF are blessed with "no Brainer" decisions, JSF, or Rafale/Typhoon?
C17 or A400? etc etc

Army, are to blessed, but somewhere in the mix, alternatives "that might be more suited to our needs" pop up.....Tiger(perceived longer range than competitors), MRH90....not sure why it was selected in the 1st place.....in fact if it was just because of increased lift, then it was a mistake, a better mix of CH47,s and blackhawks would be better suited, mostly because of supply train.
Then we look at Armour, SPG,s, SAM,s. Radars, light vehicles, Small arms, Ammunition, Rations,boots and uniforms, LBE, Night vision, and countless other smaller projects that eat up so much time and effort.

RAN, as ship building is a great concern and Australia,s ability to manufacture anything erodes, RAN pays the penalty of delays and tender process,s that to me at least, seem to be done pretty well, considering the time frames given.
The thing that holds RAN back in IMHO, is the reluctance to make quick decisions, and settle on designs that keep everyone happy, industry and RAN.
The MRH for navy IMO again was a mistake.

Canada's RCAF, like the RAAF, has fared much better in procurement than the RCN (even if we don't get F-35s). I believe our Cyclone helicopters (CH-148) will be a bigger disappointment than your MRHs. Canada and Australia would have been better served with EH101s IMO. Not sure about Australia's army but in Canada's case the Afghanistan mission resulted in new kit that likely would never have been acquired had it not been for that deployment. Sadly, this is the only positive result I can see regarding that deployment.

 

[old faithful]

Yes, Our Army did benefit from the operational cycles as far as new equipment goes, always has.
Guess the point I was making about Army procurement, is its a bit like death from a thousand paper cuts.
There are so many small projects going on, as well as some pretty major ones, handled by many different people, who all see their projects as important, and rightly so. This exposes many junior managers to administration duties, which is a positive.

 

[Joe Black]

A write up of the Shortfin Barracuda:
Submarine Matters: Will the Shortfin Barracuda Design Be Too Heavy = Costly?

Personally, I think there is a good case to go with shortfin Barracuda if the issue of installing AN/BYG-1 can be resolved, ie. no French involvement. Having said this, this is probably the biggest hurdle I see in the French winning the CEP. I do like the range and the possibilities of what the Shortfin Barracuda might present....

I also like the fact that the Shortfin Barracuda will have a pump jet propulsion system.

 

[gf0012-aust]

A write up of the Shortfin Barracuda:
Submarine Matters: Will the Shortfin Barracuda Design Be Too Heavy = Costly?

Personally, I think there is a good case to go with shortfin Barracuda if the issue of installing AN/BYG-1 can be resolve, ie. no French involvement. Having said this, this is probably the biggest hurdle I see in seeing the French win the CEP. I do like the range and the possibility of what the Shortfin Barracuda might present....

I also like the fact that the Shortfin Barracuda will have a pump jet propulsion system.

I wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot pole

 

[t68]

I wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot pole

care to expand on your reasoning, build quality, systems level or political?

 

[pussertas]

When French designed Mirage's were built in Australia there was (I am told) a constant problem of translating technical French into technical English.

This was even more of a problem with the upgrades.

 

[oldsig127]

When French designed Mirage's were built in Australia there was (I am told) a constant problem of translating technical French into technical English.

This was even more of a problem with the upgrades.

Will the same issues apply with technical German and technical Japanese? Did it apply with technical Swedish?

This is a genuine question by the way. It there a long history of problems with one language that doesn't apply to others?

oldsig

 

[gf0012-aust]

care to expand on your reasoning, build quality, systems level or political?

because too many maritime engineers I know of have worked on evaluations of french gear - including the Mistrals and Scorpenes
because a complex platform relationship with the french will face significant ITARs issues
because I know of no country that has been successful in firewalling IP from the french in a manner that doesn't slow down or compromise the build issues
because I used to be employed by a company that were agents for french gear and it was a continual headache
because it tends to be one sided even though they court you with gusto and whisper sweet technical nothings in your ear
because french gear is not all its cracked up to be at the overall platform level.

I could go on for another 500 words but there is no point....

 

[Stock]

Will the same issues apply with technical German and technical Japanese? Did it apply with technical Swedish?

This is a genuine question by the way. It there a long history of problems with one language that doesn't apply to others?

oldsig

Not with TKMS (Germans) it won't. All technical/engineering documents and drawings are drafted in English from the outset, reflecting their strong export focus. Docs/drawings only produced in German when they build for the German Navy.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Will the same issues apply with technical German and technical Japanese? Did it apply with technical Swedish?

This is a genuine question by the way. It there a long history of problems with one language that doesn't apply to others?

oldsig

I've dealt with danes, germans, norwegians, spanish, french, dutch, russians, indians, pakistanis, israelis, chinese and japanese.

any one of them can get issues and problems and tech papers across - some are harder to deal with on technical translation issues

I don't subscribe to some of the nonsense promulgated by vested interests in SA especially that as the japanese have not been involved in military tech transfer that it will result in a tech translation issue

that is abject nonsense - and its selective xenophobia geared for their own reasons - they need to look at all the complex projects the japanese have done overseas. Its errant nonsense

its an issue that can be managed with any non english speaking partner

 

[oldsig127]

that is abject nonsense - and its selective xenophobia geared for their own reasons - they need to look at all the complex projects the japanese have done overseas. Its errant (sic) nonsense

its an issue that can be managed with any non english speaking partner

This is what I was getting at. After leaving my service I worked for years with a company using mechanical, electrical and electronic equipment designed and manufactured in a range of European and Asian countries. We had no issues with any of them, including Alcatel - a French company - aside from support issues that related to time zones, not language.

oldsig

 

[swerve]

...
I don't subscribe to some of the nonsense promulgated by vested interests in SA especially that as the japanese have not been involved in military tech transfer that it will result in a tech translation issue

that is abject nonsense - and its selective xenophobia geared for their own reasons - they need to look at all the complex projects the japanese have done overseas. ...

On Friday, I was on a train to London, & passed a complex of buildings with "Hitachi" on them, & rails running into them. Biggest supplier of trains to the railways here now, I think, & that was a big maintenance depot - run by Hitachi, for Hitachi trains made here in the UK.

Honda, Nissan, & Toyota all build cars around the world, in some cases in joint ventures. Toyota has a design office in France, an R&D centre in Belgium & has a model which is shared with Peugeot-Citroen - built in the Czech Republic. Another Toyota model uses a BMW engine - & that project is managed by a Turk.

The Japanese armed forces use (& long have done) a lot of stuff either made abroad or designed abroad, & Japanese adaptations of foreign designs. Licence-built F-4E & F-15 (replaced licence-built F-86 & F-104), F-1/T-2 & F-2, Japanese designs incorporating technology from the Jaguar (e.g. licence-built Adour engines) & F-16, Olympus & LM2500 GTs in Japanese warships, licenced Thales technology in Japanese shipborne radars, lots of US stuff in Japanese warships including submarines. Somehow, it all gets translated & everything.works.

I agree, the idea that Japanese firms would have difficulty with technical translations is nonsense, & has a strong whiff of racism.

BTW, the work I'm doing nowadays is proofreading & a little editing of translations, mainly for government agencies & universities. A little between Spanish & English, but mostly into English from the native language of the firm which is supplying me with work. Its HQ is in Tsukiji. There's a very good & reasonably priced fish restaurant round the corner.

 

[Oberon]

When French designed Mirage's were built in Australia there was (I am told) a constant problem of translating technical French into technical English.

This was even more of a problem with the upgrades.

It was a similar situation with the AOR (HMAS Success) build at Cockatoo Island in the '80s

 

[ASSAIL]

I've dealt with danes, germans, norwegians, spanish, french, dutch, russians, indians, pakistanis, israelis, chinese and japanese.

any one of them can get issues and problems and tech papers across - some are harder to deal with on technical translation issues

I don't subscribe to some of the nonsense promulgated by vested interests in SA especially that as the japanese have not been involved in military tech transfer that it will result in a tech translation issue

that is abject nonsense - and its selective xenophobia geared for their own reasons - they need to look at all the complex projects the japanese have done overseas. Its errant nonsense

its an issue that can be managed with any non english speaking partner

You would think that SA's long association with Mitsubishi would have given its interested parties comfort with co-manufacturing with Japanese firms.

On a very minor scale, I ran a pearling fleet with all Japanese gear for 30 years, companies such as; Furuno, JRC, Yanmar, Niigata, Nico, and numerous pump manufacturers, refrigeration systems, air compressors ad infinitum. All run from remote Darwin, all with excellent English documentation, in fact most better than local docs.
Electrical wiring in fishing vessels, all armoured cabling on cable trays, something never seen on Australian built fishing vessels, fantastic reliable switching gear and switchboards all making Australian built look like jerry built house installations.

If they do this for fishing/pearling ships I have no doubt that Japanese design for combat ships will be top shelf.

 

[vonnoobie]

Seem's to me that all of the contender's have there weak points.

France having a poor history of building ships abroad with shoddy plans

Germany building abroad quite well, But in doing so a good chunk of the tech we would rely on other nations would also have.. Has its advantages but also hs its disadvantages.

and Japan, I don't see there plan's being of poor quality, Rather there biggest flaw is there inexperience in such project's on an international scale compared to locally as can be read here Japan's poor submarine pitch deters Australian industry | The Japan Times.

With France and Germany already in the process of talking with local industry to ascertain what capability we have as such what we can do here our selves and Japan not doing so, Leaves them behind a bit. Not too late and on some level I do like the Soryu but they have some catching up to do in the aspect of actually selling there product.

 

[t68]

Seem's to me that all of the contender's have there weak points.

France having a poor history of building ships abroad with shoddy plans

Germany building abroad quite well, But in doing so a good chunk of the tech we would rely on other nations would also have.. Has its advantages but also hs its disadvantages.

and Japan, I don't see there plan's being of poor quality, Rather there biggest flaw is there inexperience in such project's on an international scale compared to locally as can be read here Japan's poor submarine pitch deters Australian industry | The Japan Times.

With France and Germany already in the process of talking with local industry to ascertain what capability we have as such what we can do here our selves and Japan not doing so, Leaves them behind a bit. Not too late and on some level I do like the Soryu but they have some catching up to do in the aspect of actually selling there product.

Maybe they see as the product sells its self with meeting most of the MOTS requirements, with ASC being goverment owned I guess they have to work with who they are told is that the case?