Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[Redlands18]

gf and volk, you guys are too mad to comment?

It's probably because swearing is not aloud on this site.

 

[t68]

Option G is unproven.

and what does that say about Option F, four years late and counting.

 

[Punta74]

and what does that say about Option F, four years late and counting.

First of class - If you look at Astute for instance - Ordered 3/97 laid down 1/01, commissioned 27/8/10.

Suffren laid down 12/07 - 10 years seems normal for the first boat ?

 

[ngatimozart]

Let's wait and see what information the CoA release, rather than going off the main stream media dribble, before everyone has collective apoplexy and over taxes the health system. There will be very specific reasons why the Navy prefer this option over the others. I would suggest one may be the actual size of the boat. It is a big one isn't it?

 

[StingrayOZ]

First of class - If you look at Astute for instance - Ordered 3/97 laid down 1/01, commissioned 27/8/10.

Suffren laid down 12/07 - 10 years seems normal for the first boat ?

I don't know if it's normal or common.

Certainly the French design had its strengths, last I looked it had 6 engines, very large and could probably sustain (Imo) a very high transit speed and low indiscretion rate. The design was arguably the largest and most ambitious.

 

[gf0012-aust]

yep hope they put huge penalty clause in the contract, on time on budget and most of all meets spec laid down.

is the government gluttons for punishment dealing with the French again?

yep, quite a few engineers I know are on "suicide watch"

oh well. lets hope contracting lock up the KPI's and the IP firewalls to the US can be negotiated

 

[gf0012-aust]

gf and volk, you guys are too mad to comment?

let me quote from Shakespeare - Richard III

"We speak no treason, man: we say the king is wise and virtuous"

 

[Boagrius]

let me quote from Shakespeare - Richard III

"We speak no treason, man: we say the king is wise and virtuous"

So you're on suicide watch as well then - gotcha :

(DW mods, no more one liners out of me :goodbad).

 

[rand0m]

And all you guys got excited over the white paper! #whatajoke

 

[John Fedup]

As a member of the public, and a tax payer, I was blind sided. I was sold on option J, and I really hoped that was the choice.
I pray that the Barracuda (short finned, longfinned, foulmouth or whatever) is not a Tiger, NH90 or Styer. I have to wonder if this project might lead to a French ANZAC replacment?
Getting used to this though, hoped for a Bourke with 2 helo, s, got an F100 with one. Hoped for Apache, got Tiger. Hoped for new gen blackhawk, got NH90, s. Hoped for SPG, got s.f.a.

If DCNS can win a RAN sub contract, IMHO, the chances of them winning a ANZAC replacement with their FREMM now seems like a real possibility. It may even be a possibility for the RCN's future frigate.

 

[rockitten]

If DCNS can win a RAN sub contract, IMHO, the chances of them winning a ANZAC replacement with their FREMM now seems like a real possibility. It may even be a possibility for the RCN's future frigate.

Hang on, isn't the ANZAC replacement is shortlisted into T26, F100ASW and the ITALIAN FREMM, the French and German were out?

 

[t68]

let me be clear re previous discussions on sub choices.

The decision is made, so its now up to everyone involved to ensure that we hold the development and build promises to account. tally-ho and all that.

But I get more than a little twitchy when I see comments which apply some kind of pixie dust to the solution selected as though its an unimpeachable and totally meritorious choice and that we should accept claims made as entirely accurate.

anyone with a background in engineering would also be raising the flag at this point as some statements are just abject nonsense from a selection and assessment perspective.

by all means lets clap and cheer that a decision has been made - but for goodness sake, lets not turn into the emperor with no clothes on and abandon logic for wishful thinking.

just for clarity - the selection of the prime is just the beginning
all the issue around tech selection and design now become part of the contract negotiation - none of the australian requirements have been confirmed - all thats been confirmed is the selection of the prime to undertake the development and build to australian requirements, cost issues, kpi's, milestone issues, training, development, sustainment, critical maint cycle issues etc....

none of the above has occurred, so any claims about whats going in these boats (outside of the mandated BYG issue) is yet to be started.

more to the point, you can't lay any steel until all this is done as there is an order in how and what you build for subs....

and then there's the subcontractor involvement, certification of sub contractors, acceptance of sub contractors, indemnity against sub contractor work (ie prime has overarching responsibility etc....)

none of the above is trivial - and steel won't be cut until the early 2020's.

So are saying untill all the t are crossed and the i dotteted it still could fall over in the negotiation stages if things don't go our way?

So would we have signed some sort of preliminary contract?

 

[John Fedup]

Hang on, isn't the ANZAC replacement is shortlisted into T26, F100ASW and the ITALIAN FREMM, the French and German were out?

I believe you are correct on the French FREMM but things can change. As the Type 26 is well north of 1 billion £ and the design is still not finalized I am a bit surprised it made the cut (although it shows great promise). As the sub award shows, WTF knows what lies ahead?

 

[knightrider4]

the operational constraints applied to Collins are even less relevant now, so without seeing the CONOPs then a larger conventional sub will have to still meet the requirement.

AIP may well be designed into the drivetrain remapping that has to take place - whether AIP generators can fit into the same module space as the diesel electric drivetrain is unknown as basic details around what drivetrain is being offered has yet to be established.

I would question whether MESMA and the DE will fit in the same drivetrain space as the existing nuke module

Had a quick browse at gentleseas blogspot some commentators think there wont be enough space to fit it. BAKST Engineering has an interesting article on MESMA. My bad its PEMFC not MESMA.
http://www.bakstengineering.com/dfa...ture-of-submarine-smx-ocean-concept-part-1-2/

 

[gf0012-aust]

bear in mind that the DCNS proposal involves building a new facility.... and I suspect that this means that DCNS are lining themselves up as a future acquisition bidder for ASC

there is a huge amount of work to be defined here, its not just about building boats

workforce stucture, workforce training, contractual arrangements with sub contractors, financial investigations against all contracting parties, (yet to be determined), facility construction etc etc.....

the design of the sub is probably the last thing on peoples minds ....

 

[gf0012-aust]

Had a quick browse at gentleseas blogspot some commentators think there wont be enough space to fit it. BAKST Engineering has an interesting article on MESMA.

which basically fits in with what I've been saying

a bigger conventional sub meeting RANs energy management requirements means that the assumed economies of space that nukes provide will not exist in this design

As Volk and I have repeatedly said over the last few years - you cannot just convert a nuke to conventional specs . the UK tried that with the Upholders and it was an abysmal result - so bad that we rejected them as a 2nd or interim squadron option in 1998

people are going to be very surprised at how much the free space will shrink once you redesign it to take a DE drivetrain.

anything that chews up space required by SOCOMD will be pretty unattractive

 

[knightrider4]

bear in mind that the DCNS proposal involves building a new facility.... and I suspect that this means that DCNS are lining themselves up as a future acquisition bidder for ASC

there is a huge amount of work to be defined here, its not just about building boats

workforce stucture, workforce training, contractual arrangements with sub contractors, financial investigations against all contracting parties, (yet to be determined), facility construction etc etc.....

the design of the sub is probably the last thing on peoples minds ....

Yep the hard stuff is all to come.

 

[ASSAIL]

bear in mind that the DCNS proposal involves building a new facility.... and I suspect that this means that DCNS are lining themselves up as a future acquisition bidder for ASC

the design of the sub is probably the last thing on peoples minds ....

Particularly the final decision makers.
The whole choice reeks of political advantage, whether it's constructing Neverland at Osborne or lining up a buyer for ASC, not offending the Chinese or "we've got one bigger than yours".
The only way this makes sense for me is that we are buying a shell and all the rest is open to Australian design input.

Anyway, as you say. "Tally -ho" and all that and please remind the engineers on Success to save all the Pielstick spares when she decommissions.

 

[oldsig127]

we (Defence staff) were told less than 2 weeks ago that steel won't be cut until 2024, 2025

That can't have come as any surprise, unless you (the defence staff) hadn't read the White Paper. Actual delivery of boat number one isn't envisaged in the DWP until around 2030

oldsig

 

[duplex]

Don't forget India choosing the Rafale as their future MRCA Fighter, supposed to have been 126 aircraft, some built in France then the rest in India. The entire program fell apart at the contract stage.

This is actually what the French wanted to achieve from the very beginning.. The entire program has been revised and the French will only produce 36 fighters in France and thats it. I know a Frenchman who is working in French defence company Thales who told me that it is much better for us to produce 36 fighters locally in France instead of giving away out technology to India for licence manufacturing of 126 fighters so the French are very very happy with the outcome ! and similar will happen in AUSTRALIA, the Aussies are too naive if they really believe the French will transfer all its sub technology to build all 12 subs in Australia by Aussie engineers ??? will never happen !