Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[rockitten]

If anyone want to have a good laugh, take a look.

Well, IMHO, if the strongest is referring to "cheating", "backstabbing" or "international political-whoring", I would say the report is damn right, the French is the strongest....As a supplier for our submarine? Well, let's say TB won't get my vote if option F is chosen.

"Japan’s subs bid is seen as the weakest
Nocookies | The Australian

Japan’s bid for the $50 billion submarines contract is understood to be considered the weakest on the table as cabinet’s Nationa*l Security Committee finali*ses its decision on who will design the navy’s new fleet of 12 boats.

Companies from Japan, France and Germany are lobbying hard in an 11th-hour push to win what is, even by international standards, a massive defence contract.

The Australian has been told the Japanese bid was considered the weakest and that of the French company, DCNS, the strongest.

The NSC set aside much of Tuesday and yesterday to examine a recommendation by an expert* Defence Department panel headed by former submarine commander Rear Admiral Greg Sammut, considered one of the Australian Defence Force’s smart*est, most diligent officers.

Rear Admiral Sammut gave the ministers a lengthy and highly detailed briefing on the three options. The NSC recom*mendation still has to go to the full cabinet.

A Japanese official in Tokyo told The Australian that while he was confident his country had the best submarine, he felt its lack of experienc*e in exporting military material may have resulted in it submitting a weaker bid than the other two contenders.

Missing out on the contract would be seen as very serious in Japan, which views the bid as the cornerstone of a closer defence relationshi*p with Australia.

For a time, with Tony Abbott as prime minister, it appeared that Japan was set to be awarded the contract without any competition.

If Japan loses, Malcolm Turnbull will be at pains to stress to his counterpart Shinzo Abe that the defence and security relationship will strengthen whoever builds the submarines.

The head of the Australian operati*ons of Germany’s shipbuilder TKMS, John White, has strongly rejected claims that it would cost up to 30 per cent more to build the submarines in Aus*tralia rather than overseas.

Dr White told The Australian his company had assured the government it could build the submar*ines in Australia for $20bn, the same price as they’d be built for in Germany. “We made it clear that the project could be under*taken in Australia at a price no more than $20bn and that price would not vary,” Dr White said.

“With our vast experience of building submarines both in our Kiel shipyard and for foreign navies in their own countries, we have adopted a proven approach using a digital shipyard system which means no cost variations unless the customer has changed its technical requirements during the *design and build process.”

Dr White, who headed the very successful Anzac frigate program, said contrary to some claims, an Australian workforce — likely to be 1200 to 1500 people — would cost 11 or 12 per cent less than the TKMS workforce in Germany and would be as productive.

Herve Guillou, the global chairman and chief executive of the giant French DCNS group, said the new submarines must be built in Australia to ensure such a vital strategic asset could be maintained and modernised here.

“After 10 years you have to upgrade things as technology improve*s to keep up your regional superiority. You need not only a database and a supply chain, you also need engineering know-how and know-why,” Mr Guillou said."

 

[vonnoobie]

While I'm going with the ignore any media praise of the French and media criticism of the Japanese options about the only thing I can agree with in there is John White.

Under a reliable management leadership and with a continuous build strategy we have in the past and will be able to do so in the future build product's comparable in quality and cost to other nations, if not better.

If there has been one thing that has annoyed me most about this is the complete and utter lack of faith in Australian industry, It is odd when other nations and competing companies actually praise us more then we praise our guys and girls

 

[aussienscale]

unlikely? - its happened before and all the bidders can then recover their submission costs against the Commonwealth

Conversely you have the other scenario where a well known and respected h German company with over 150 years of experience advised the Commonwealth through backdoor channels that they would never deal with us again if a certain company was the prime. Said Oz company then had a glorious future phuqueing up other major projects.

on a major capital submission thats over $5m each - and out to $10-12m depending on the vendor

if an individual is caught leaking a commercial in confidence result, then apart from all the statutes breached, potential gaol term against each violation - guess what the Commonwealth is likely to do against the leaker......

Ditto GF !! As you know, having worked at DSB, I can 100% vouch for what you are saying, ANYTHING of this nature turns to custard very quickly and can cost Gov a hell of a lot more than just recovered funds to the associated bidders !!

Ramifications are far ranging and very far reaching into so many areas that people can't even comprehend !!

People, please take a breath and pause, of course one of these muppet reporters will get it right, they have a 1 in 3 chance, the one that flukes his line right will spruke forever in a day that they had it right and had inside information, the rest will be forgotten into history

Please give us some form of sanity and try and keep your eyes on the ball, same goes for the Future Frigate's, sensible discussion is fine, but talking of us getting some form of quasi cruiser with more VLS than the 3 AWD's combined ? Please

 

[rossfrb_1]

TKMS next generation submarine add

Interesting
SWMBO was talking to me and an add came on TV for TKMS and the next generation submarine (as described in the add).
I missed the finer detail.
However it intrigues me that given the decision on the SEA 1000 bidder is expected any time soon that TKMS would start with an advertising campaign now.
I don't know if these adds have been running before - but it is the first I've seen of them.
rb

 

[vonnoobie]

Up until now it would have been some what pointless while the CEP was going on, Now that it is nearing the end it's getting to the point where expert's hand over control to the children in Canberra. At this point public opinion start's to matter because sadly more and more often our politicians have been caring more about getting reelected rather then doing what right and best for Australia even if it's unpopular.

At this point if TKMS can get enough public to start noticing then the politicians will notice too. It's also at this point that Japan should really have gotten a publicist to market there product because on a public perception scale they are doing shockingly bad.

 

[kaz]

At this point if TKMS can get enough public to start noticing then the politicians will notice too. It's also at this point that Japan should really have gotten a publicist to market there product because on a public perception scale they are doing shockingly bad.

I beg to differ, MHI ran newspaper ads a while ago pitching not only subs and shipbuilding but space and aircraft as well. IMHO, everything I've seen in the media is undermining their bid by using the same old arguments even when more information about each of the pitches have now appeared.

 

[phreeky]

If ads on TV are having any effect then the tender process is severely broken. Surely not??? The media campaigns sound like a waste of time/money.

 

[ADMk2]

If we move away from Harpoon and go with the Norwegian ASM which we have an interest in, they use VLS cells, so there would go 8 or 10 cells straight away. 48 does not seem enough.

NSM can be and is usually box-launched...

http://youtu.be/JE17MP8PyOk

 

[swerve]

Yes, that's my take on it too. Has France any experience in building submarines offshore?

Yes. Four Agosta class were built at Cartagena for the Spanish navy in the 1980s. India's building the Scorpene class, but it's a long way behind schedule..

Not in the same league as German experience..

 

[John Fedup]

Yes. Four Agosta class were built at Cartagena for the Spanish navy in the 1980s. India's building the Scorpene class, but it's a long way behind schedule..

Not in the same league as German experience..

Brazil is another customer for French subs but given the current political situation there and other corruption issues, many defence issues on being put on the back burner according to the link attached. As it is somewhat dated, it doesn't take into account that one of Brazil more successful programs (KC390) has resumed flight testing.

Odebrecht's Submarine Dreams Threatened by Brazil Spending Cuts - Bloomberg

 

[StingrayOZ]

If ads on TV are having any effect then the tender process is severely broken. Surely not??? The media campaigns sound like a waste of time/money.

The real test is in South Australia.

Due to the lack of communication/politics Japan subs initially meant = off shore build.The europeans then dribbled all over that with technical stuff (Germans) or crazy stuff (french). I honestly don't believe the Japanese were really ever that interested in an offshore build of 12 subs all in japan. Doesn't matter, that was the perception.

The subs is what really killed Tony Abbotts political career. The offshore build triggered a huge wave in south Australia, combined with the loss of auto manufacturing basically was going to result in liberals losing so badly in SA they would be de-registered as a party. Xenaphon was likely to be anointed king, and labor would be swept into victory for decades. Xenaphon would likely hold the balance of power federally, and businesses were going to back either Labor or Xenaphon.

This started an all out revolution with the S.A liberals. They hadn't just pissed off a few stupid unionists, they had pissed off businesses, small and large, the average person on the street etc. It was also going to have a profound affect on Victoria as well. There was a growing fear that Adelaide would be Australia's Detroit. Or more like some sort of Mad Max apocalyptic aftermath.

Eventually the shit hit the fan and Christopher Pyne was going to loose so badly, even he was telling people to vote labor over independents.
Nocookies | The Australian

Now S.A labor premier loves Christopher Pyne so much he wants to award him a medal.
Submarine delay would be 'politically suicidal' for Liberal Christopher Pyne, Labor leader says - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

"We want to knock him off [at the election], but I think he has done a great job," Mr Weatherill said.

"I'm a Labor bloke and I've got a Labor candidate running against him and we want him to win but look credit where it's due, he's done a fantastic job here.

"I'm grateful that the Premier Jay Weatherill has given me credit for the offshore patrol vessels and I thank him for that," he said.

"It is important that South Australians, proud South Australians like he and I work for our state not our political parties."

The ads aren't really to sway the key decision makers directly, but to clear up the fear, uncertainty and doubt that has been echoing for years and been designed by masterful PR teams.

Obviously if they make the right choice but the entire populace thinks its the wrong one, they will vote them out and who ever gets voted in will overturn it.

Look at the F-35. Luckily in Australia, we were sensible. Labor reviewed it and came to the same decision, F-35 is the only choice. More information has come out that the F-35 isn't a piece of crap, it is in fact awesome, and its now flying and accepted by many nations. Canada, they ran an election on getting rid of it, even if there are no viable alternatives. It won't be for every defence issue, but sexy platforms or big projects get the publics attention.

The sub thing was looking at going the same way. You need to eventually convince the public. Doesn't matter how capable your platform is, ultimately they have the final say and will pay for it. Either at an election or your party will do you in before it.

The more pressure the more interest. Subs are very hot at the moment, there is probably a story in every australian paper every day now. China has people genuinely concerned on multiple levels. $50 billion is a lot of money. Defence pacts with Japan/Germany or France are big decisions. Its not just in the defence section of the news paper, but everywhere. Morning television, youth radio, church sermons, lunch rooms. If no one is keeping the public informed enough, someone will make a business about using their ignorance to drum up an issue. Probably not in a good way (Super mega F-111 stealth plane anyone?).

The circus about subs is well underway. The circus about future frigates is just starting. VLS size will be a hot topic.

 

[cdxbow]

The circus about subs is well underway. The circus about future frigates is just starting. VLS size will be a hot topic.

Mines bigger than yours sort of thing?

Overall the 3 designs look very, very similar, it would be interesting to know the major points of difference and what in particular the RAN would be looking for.

 

[Bluey 006]

Mines bigger than yours sort of thing?

Overall the 3 designs look very, very similar, it would be interesting to know the major points of difference and what in particular the RAN would be looking for.

While the FREMM is an amazing warship it would require a lot of customization of systems and weapons to fit Australia needs. As other have mentioned an ASW F-100 would also require new internal systems, making them unique from the AWD F-100. Less risk as we know what we are dealing (prime/Hull etc) with but still some risk and if we were going to run with that option probably should have done so 3-4 years ago.

That leaves the Type 26 which is still in the design phase and allows for Australian involvement before the design is finalized. It is also produced by our cultural parent and nation which we share the language and values.

Also another point which might be worth noting regarding "paper designs". I was recently reading an article from RAND that says "a mature design is one where 80% of the design work is done" - DefPros -Perhaps this is why T26 got in over others?

 

[knightrider4]

While the FREMM is an amazing warship it would require a lot of customization of systems and weapons to fit Australia needs. As other have mentioned an ASW F-100 would also require new internal systems, making them unique from the AWD F-100. Less risk as we know what we are dealing (prime/Hull etc) with but still some risk and if we were going to run with that option probably should have done so 3-4 years ago.

That leaves the Type 26 which is still in the design phase and allows for Australian involvement before the design is finalized. It is also produced by our cultural parent and nation which we share the language and values.

Also another point which might be worth noting regarding "paper designs". I was recently reading an article from RAND that says "a mature design is one where 80% of the design work is done" - DefPros -Perhaps this is why T26 got in over others?

I don't think the FREMM requires anymore customization and carries anymore risk than a T 26. Both probably on par. The ASW variant (Italian) is indeed a amazing warship.

 

[Muar River]

While the FREMM is an amazing warship it would require a lot of customization of systems and weapons to fit Australia needs. As other have mentioned an ASW F-100 would also require new internal systems, making them unique from the AWD F-100. Less risk as we know what we are dealing (prime/Hull etc) with but still some risk and if we were going to run with that option probably should have done so 3-4 years ago.

That leaves the Type 26 which is still in the design phase and allows for Australian involvement before the design is finalized. It is also produced by our cultural parent and nation which we share the language and values.

Also another point which might be worth noting regarding "paper designs". I was recently reading an article from RAND that says "a mature design is one where 80% of the design work is done" - DefPros -Perhaps this is why T26 got in over others?

What worries me about the T26 is the potential for an enormous cost increase. The last outcome the RAN needs is another project with cost overruns.

Navantia has indicated 70 per cent commonality between the AWD and future frigate. This must be attractive to the RAN together with the lessons learnt from the AWD.

 

[alexsa]

While the FREMM is an amazing warship it would require a lot of customization of systems and weapons to fit Australia needs. As other have mentioned an ASW F-100 would also require new internal systems, making them unique from the AWD F-100. Less risk as we know what we are dealing (prime/Hull etc) with but still some risk and if we were going to run with that option probably should have done so 3-4 years ago.

Since you quote this .... what internal systems and why is it 'quite a lot' compared to the others? ....... essentially how is this any different to the re-plumbing of the T26 and FREMM.

While we don't know what the must haves are for this decision I find the suggestion that more work is required for the F105 derivative very odd.

All ships will need to be rejigged for the radar and combat system. Nobody is certain what Sonar and towed array is being considered (but there is a good change the latter will be the same as the AWD) but this may not be common to any of the designs. I would hope the gensets will be updated but it is equally possible that defense wants the same units as the AWD for at least the first batch ...... again all speculation.

The fact is continuous build to the F105 hull is lower risk as the problems are known for much of the internal arrangement and construction. If this is sufficient for this to be the preferred platform is again speculation.

But to suggest a vessel that 80% designed but not built .... is lower risk is pure nonsense. The F100 was in service when we started on the AWD and that was not enough to prevent issues. In fact when transferring production there is always a risk, but this increases where the vessel is essentially first of class (which it would be in essence given the first RN unit will be in production about the same time).

Both the T26 and FREMM appear to be impressive platforms (noting for the former this is only on paper), however, what is selected will really depend on what the NSC see as critical from both a defense and government perspective.

We will just have to wait and see.

 

[Alf662]

What worries me about the T26 is the potential for an enormous cost increase. The last outcome the RAN needs is another project with cost overruns.

Navantia has indicated 70 per cent commonality between the AWD and future frigate. This must be attractive to the RAN together with the lessons learnt from the AWD.

I would agree with this if the amount of commonality is actually 70% (even 50% would be pretty good) as it reduces the overall cost of ownership. I also understand that their is also a reasonable amount of commonality with the new AOR's.

I would imagine that it may also provide an upgrade path for the AWD with relation to some of the obsolete equipment that has been installed and may need to be replaced.

The Type 26 and FREMM would need to have some major advantages over the Navantia offering.

 

[Bluey 006]

Since you quote this .... what internal systems and why is it 'quite a lot' compared to the others? ....... essentially how is this any different to the re-plumbing of the T26 and FREMM.

While we don't know what the must haves are for this decision I find the suggestion that more work is required for the F105 derivative very odd.

All ships will need to be rejigged for the radar and combat system. Nobody is certain what Sonar and towed array is being considered (but there is a good change the latter will be the same as the AWD) but this may not be common to any of the designs. I would hope the gensets will be updated but it is equally possible that defense wants the same units as the AWD for at least the first batch ...... again all speculation.

The fact is continuous build to the F105 hull is lower risk as the problems are known for much of the internal arrangement and construction. If this is sufficient for this to be the preferred platform is again speculation.

But to suggest a vessel that 80% designed but not built .... is lower risk is pure nonsense. The F100 was in service when we started on the AWD and that was not enough to prevent issues. In fact when transferring production there is always a risk, but this increases where the vessel is essentially first of class (which it would be in essence given the first RN unit will be in production about the same time).

Both the T26 and FREMM appear to be impressive platforms (noting for the former this is only on paper), however, what is selected will really depend on what the NSC see as critical from both a defense and government perspective.

We will just have to wait and see.

Alex,

Never do I say "quite a lot" of the internal systems need to be replaced. I said "ASW F-100 would also require new internal systems" ( which is true). I did not say it requires more work than the others. I fact if you read the post , I say its less risk!

I also never said T26 was lower risk - it is obvious to everyone that T26 involves significant risk.

The comment about " 80% designed vessel is a mature design" was a question regarding a RAND statement that i was seeking validation for!

The point I am actually making is all the options involve risk

 

[alexsa]

Alex,

Never do I say "quite a lot" of the internal systems need to be replaced. I said "ASW F-100 would also require new internal systems" ( which is true). I did not say it requires more work than the others. I fact if you read the post , I say its less risk!

I also never said T26 was lower risk - it is obvious to everyone that T26 involves significant risk.

The comment about " 80% designed vessel is a mature design" was a question regarding a RAND statement that i was seeking validation for!


The point I am actually making is all the options involve risk

Actually you do suggest the F105 derivative 's time has passed and we should have run with this 3 to 4 years ago ..... Not a judgement you apply to the others. And this is related to the fact the design will be different from the AWD.

Yes it will be different but not to the same degree as either the FREMM or the T26. The F105 derivative is reported to be at least 70% common with the AWD and the passing of time does not impact on that figure. You certainly do not make that point.

The point is ...... None of us know what factors the NSC will consider as crutial and what the intended design upgrade during the life of the build means.

Finally the suggestion that 80% is a mature design is questionable on the basis of the entire platform (yes I note that this is not your claim). Looking at LCS, mature design, perhaps but they are still going through OT&E and the supporting packages are not in place. Ditto T45 noting current issues.

80% complete for T26 may mean it will move and navigate but it does not mitigate risk as this does not ensure a mature build process .... We are just getting to that point with the AWD.

 

[vonnoobie]

Look's like the leak's that we had written off as being pure media BS guesswork may have some truth to them.

Submarine program: AFP confirms investigation into second leak of classified information - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Still very hush hush so could be something has been leaked (Hope not due to reasons already listed by the experts on here, Mainly leading to possible destruction of all the work done so far) or that with the media claims they are being cautious (rightly so) and checking if there is anyone actually talking to the media or if it is all BS media talk (preferred option).