Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

Status
Not open for further replies.
One does wonder how they can get away with such clownish "journalism". I never did have much respect for that publication; what I did have just got decreased, again. Regrettably though there are those who will see it as a reputable source and quote it as authoritative, particularly if it suits either their ideology or the tactical needs of the moment.
 
alexsa said:
Wow .... all I can say is this is largely rubbish in the current context. Yes there were issues with build and yes it took time to fix .... but it was fixed and they are certainly not 'rebranding' the Collins as the Attack Class (as evident by announcements and images provided by defence and the minister). That error alone should provide a basis to how this article should be viewed ................... I suggest that is 'very dimly'.
Click to expand...

Such major errors are unforgivable. The author's credential "Robert Green is a former mechanical engineer within Navy Strategic Command, Royal Australian Navy, and freelance writer." is dubious at best.

Anyway, proud of ASC and RAN to have sorted all these issues with the Collins, and the class is now one of the best large size SSK in the world. The recent photo of 4 of them sailing off together near Rottnest island is a great testimony of the great work RAN and ASC have put in. BZ to them all.

More photos here:

aust-subs-4.jpg


aust-subs-5.jpg


aust-subs-1.jpg
 
Last edited:
StingrayOZ said:
Australia's Collins-Class Submarines Enter a 20th Year of Trouble

Australian Defense Minister Darren Chester is currently managing the renewal of the country’s submarine fleet, after 20 woeful years. The relatively small fleet of hunters has been plagued with such a flurry of technical and management problems that Australia has outright decided to re-brand the entire class, along with the change of models, with the unimaginative name: Attack-class. Tom Lewis, a former intelligence analyst for the Australian navy, writes “The Collins though wasn’t just a Swedish design assembled here. It was fiddled with; more capability was needed for one thing. It had to go further and stay there longer. And not having built submarines before – more complex machines than spaceships – we had a lot of problems.” And that’s putting it lightly.

Wait, so the Collins class is now the Attack class?
I thought Pyne was defense minister? Chester was assistant?
Click to expand...
Quoting Tom Lewis was enough for me to disregard the entire article, he should stick to reporting on historic naval events such as the “Bombing of Darwin”. His currency on anything else is as stale as week old milk.
The whole thing is a cluster of factual errors with no reference to the decades long effort to turn the subs into highly effective platforms which have outperformed most of their peers.
When mud is thrown for political purposes, continually for a decade, it’s hard to change the bias by the uninformed.
I worry that a “naval mechanical engineer” could write such crap but it may be a case the the “engineer” was, as in the case of Rex Patrick, a rating ME with little real sub experience. I’ll go hunting unless anyone knows to the contrary.
 
On other note, TKMS just launched Singapore's first Type 218SG "Invincible" class submarine. I always wonder what could have happened had we gone with the Type 216 bid. Would RAN get their "Attack" class a few years earlier albeit at a lesser capability. TKMS seems to be able to produce submarines at an incredible rate.
 
No engineers named "Robert Green", either PNF or RANR, in any recent Navy List so far as I can see; nor can I find a DoD civilian who fits the description. Suspect an MTP, a civvy who has left, or a contractor. If an MTP who worked in Strat Command, suspect it would probably have been in postings or some such.

On Singapore's boats, they were ordered in 2013 with the first to be delivered in 2021. That's not all that fast for what seems to be largely a modification of an existing design that the yard was already building. It's not slow, either; just not that spectacular. They're also only about 2000 tons surfaced, so nowhere near the size of Collins, let alone Attack.
 
Last edited:
The MT30 turbine is utilized on the Freedom class littoral ship. IEP with MT30 turbines is utilized in the Zumwalt and QE bearers so it will intrigue perceive how IEP works out in the last two boats. The MT30 or LM2500 decision is up to the RAN, whichever way is great.
 
Robert Hallman said:
The MT30 turbine is utilized on the Freedom class littoral ship. IEP with MT30 turbines is utilized in the Zumwalt and QE bearers so it will intrigue perceive how IEP works out in the last two boats. The MT30 or LM2500 decision is up to the RAN, whichever way is great.
Click to expand...
Are you asking wether the RAN is going to put MT30s or LM2500s n the Hunters? The RN Ships are getting MT30s. What do you mean by the IEP in the last 2 Boats?
 
Guessing he could mean either the 2 QE or the 2 other Zumwalt ships, Moonsoor and LBJ as these are the only military IEP ships using MT30s. As for T26 ships, the RN and RCN will use the MT30 with a CODLOG propulsion setup. The Hunter will be CODLOG as well I assume but not sure about the RAN’s GT choice.
 
John Fedup said:
Guessing he could mean either the 2 QE or the 2 other Zumwalt ships, Moonsoor and LBJ as these are the only military IEP ships using MT30s. As for T26 ships, the RN and RCN will use the MT30 with a CODLOG propulsion setup. The Hunter will be CODLOG as well I assume but not sure about the RAN’s GT choice.
Click to expand...
The RAN fact sheet for the Hunter class states that it will be the MT30 gas turbine.
 
John Fedup said:
Guessing he could mean either the 2 QE or the 2 other Zumwalt ships, Moonsoor and LBJ as these are the only military IEP ships using MT30s. As for T26 ships, the RN and RCN will use the MT30 with a CODLOG propulsion setup. The Hunter will be CODLOG as well I assume but not sure about the RAN’s GT choice.
Click to expand...
I don't know if Crew Members of the QE and Zumwalt classes would take to kindly to their Ships being called Boats though, that is where the confusion comes in, normally when someone uses the term Boats its in reference to either small Vessels or Submarines not Carriers, Destroyers and Frigates.
 
Earlier this week the Senate Estimates Foreign Affairs Defence & Trade Committee heard from CN VADM Noonan that between three and six Collins class will be upgraded to avoid any capability gap prior to the Attack class entering service in the mid-30s.

Collins-class submarine fleet to be kept at sea longer, navy chief says. Australian Financial Review 20 Feb 2019.
(Apologies, Unable to save to file or provide a link - nada subscription)

Of interest, regarding the Pacific support ship, Secretary of Defence Moriarty said the construction of the new naval vessel that is intended to provide a semi-permanent presence to help south-west Pacific Islands has forced other defence projects to be delayed.

Officials told Senate estimates plans for the build were still in the early stages with decisions yet to be made on size and capability, although it was expected to be lightly armoured and “won't need to be a particularly sophisticated vessel.”

The PM and Christopher Pyne previously advised the ship would be a "large-hulled" naval vessel to help with humanitarian and disaster relief missions. (That was when we all became excited at the prospect of a third LHD)

So, it appears the RAN will be obliged to operate a large-hulled, lightly-armoured (armed) and unsophisticated vessel in the Pacific, on a semi-permanent basis while other planned projects are probably bumped a bit to the right.

It would’ve been sort of okay if the the Defence budget was increased to crew and operate the vessel (or if were funded by the Foreign Affairs Dept).

It is always good to see the RAN increase in size and capability, but until the design of this new unit is announced and we learn just what other projects are being bumped to facilitate it, I remain somewhat apprehensive.
 
I think it would be prudent to upgrade all six at this stage. Given we want to grow our fleet, given we won't see hull 6 IOC for decade(s) best case and the recent developments.

I don't see the Pacific ship being too troublesome for the RANs involvement, RAN crew could be as small as 12-30. I imagine someone might come up with a whole entity this would.

The suggestion about a 3rd LHD wasn't specifically about the LHD being the pacific ship. But Choules would become the pacific ship with it being replaced by a 3rd LHD. I don't think anyone said the pacific ship would be a "LHD", that wouldn't make any sense. Choules could be manned with auxiliary levels like the UK did (a few dozen commercial sailors), while the LHD requires about 280+ military personnel. This would then improve the amphibious capability.

However, I think a local build a Henderson is more likely and Choules stay where it is, for now. Choules may be around the pacific taking on the role until something more specialized is IOC. The RAN intends to have a permanent detachment to the south pacific this year.
 
I have not come across this in the fact sheets for the Hunter class ,but does the Hunter class have an infra red search and tracking system like the Sagem,s Vampir in the Hobart class or does it use something else ?
 
spoz said:
No engineers named "Robert Green", either PNF or RANR, in any recent Navy List so far as I can see; nor can I find a DoD civilian who fits the description. Suspect an MTP, a civvy who has left, or a contractor. If an MTP who worked in Strat Command, suspect it would probably have been in postings or some such.
Click to expand...
Its the Diplomat after all. The person often wont exist but is a Undergrad paid for content creation. The modus operandi is to rip off the work of legitimate credentialed authors, often out of context, and re-hash it for online content.
 
aussienscale said:
Attached, States the RR MT-30 GT, also has a few other tid bits as well :)

http://www.defence.gov.au/casg/Multimedia/Hunter_Class_FFG_Fact_Sheet-9-9243.pdf
Click to expand...

Two bits in the fact sheet that interest me.

It clearly states 30mm for the short range gun. Maybe suggestive of a future calibre for across the fleet.
The other is the mission bay can store a second helicopter.
For the later I would like some clarity if this second helicopter is of the same size and weight as the MH60R. ( I have my doubts )
I know the unmanned thing has a future but for a ship of this size I would of liked this capability to be in addition to a second helicopter, not at the expense of one.
Surely at a full load displacement of 8800 t and with a beam of 20m they could of had accommodation for two helicopters side be side and still of had a mission bay forward of this space.

Thoughts

Regards S
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top