Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

knightrider4 said:

The Soryu is widely acknowledged as the most advanced conventional submarine in existance at the moment. What will be offered to us will be a far different beast to the current Soryu Class. How is a European option safer? Their is certainly a commercial risk with the German offering in so far that TKMS is looking to offload HDW at some stage in the future and then waht. We are left with an orphan submarine and serious sustainment and IP issues. The French SMX is in my view pie in the sky stuff, but gives you a glimpse of what technologies may be available in the future. All three options share risk, just the Japanese option carries less risk in my opinion.

Click to expand...

I don't see any where that the Soryu is regarded as the most advanced submarine in the world, Quite simply there is nothing to back such a claim up and when no evidence exist's that something is the best then that does not mean it is the best. So far best as I can tell with the Soryu is the Japanese are better at keeping stuff secret then any one else.

While TKMS has expressed willingness to sell HDW in the future in no way would that affect us, We would not be left with a purely orphan submarine as system's and tech is/would be based off of current systems/tech that is being fitted to boat's today (South Korean type 214's, Future Singapore type 218's), Not to mention that such a submarine of our inclined size would suit the need's of a number of countries that cant exactly go all nuclear (India and Canada could both show interest if we bring it to maturity).

In regard's to sustainment and IP issues, How did you arrive at that? Sustaining the boat's wont be an issue as they are more likely to be built here with a greater Aussie industry involvement, And even if HDW is sold off how would that affect part's we may need from them? They won't want to sell and make a profit off there invesment?? Sustaining them wont be an issue. IP right's also is a non starter as TKMS has already stated publicly they will give us full 100% IP rights to the boat's so no matter what happens with HDW the contract still applies unless the new owner and the Federal government both agree to renegotiate.

Yes all three share risk, The French is for the time being a pie in the sky proposal but if they manage to get people in the industry veteran's of the conventional submarine market then they could bring it to fruition .

The Japanese option may or may not be best conventional submarine out there but you can't look purely at the Soryu and say yep, It works that will be fine for us. It isn't the Soryu we are getting, We are getting the future evolution of the Soryu for which we know even less about then the Soryu. Combine that with Japan's non existent export of military hardware, and the rocky situation that the politics sit's on in regard to that and that also makes the Japanese option one of the riskiest. They have given no indication on supporting our need for full IP right's and what are we to do if they reinstate the ban on weapon's export's? We would be buggered.

The type 216 does have it's risk's and perhaps may not be the best submarine on the market but the design risk's with this and the future Soryu replacement are largely the same, What isn't a risk is being able to import/build these submarine in Australia as Germany has a good history with that and the best when it comes to Submarine export's. Being given 100% IP right's also protect's us from future changes abroad be the business or political in nature. The German option in regard's to the export history and the IP right's is actually the safest option.

vonnoobie said:

I don't see any where that the Soryu is regarded as the most advanced submarine in the world, Quite simply there is nothing to back such a claim up and when no evidence exist's that something is the best then that does not mean it is the best. So far best as I can tell with the Soryu is the Japanese are better at keeping stuff secret then any one else.

While TKMS has expressed willingness to sell HDW in the future in no way would that affect us, We would not be left with a purely orphan submarine as system's and tech is/would be based off of current systems/tech that is being fitted to boat's today (South Korean type 214's, Future Singapore type 218's), Not to mention that such a submarine of our inclined size would suit the need's of a number of countries that cant exactly go all nuclear (India and Canada could both show interest if we bring it to maturity).

In regard's to sustainment and IP issues, How did you arrive at that? Sustaining the boat's wont be an issue as they are more likely to be built here with a greater Aussie industry involvement, And even if HDW is sold off how would that affect part's we may need from them? They won't want to sell and make a profit off there invesment?? Sustaining them wont be an issue. IP right's also is a non starter as TKMS has already stated publicly they will give us full 100% IP rights to the boat's so no matter what happens with HDW the contract still applies unless the new owner and the Federal government both agree to renegotiate.

Yes all three share risk, The French is for the time being a pie in the sky proposal but if they manage to get people in the industry veteran's of the conventional submarine market then they could bring it to fruition .

The Japanese option may or may not be best conventional submarine out there but you can't look purely at the Soryu and say yep, It works that will be fine for us. It isn't the Soryu we are getting, We are getting the future evolution of the Soryu for which we know even less about then the Soryu. Combine that with Japan's non existent export of military hardware, and the rocky situation that the politics sit's on in regard to that and that also makes the Japanese option one of the riskiest. They have given no indication on supporting our need for full IP right's and what are we to do if they reinstate the ban on weapon's export's? We would be buggered.

The type 216 does have it's risk's and perhaps may not be the best submarine on the market but the design risk's with this and the future Soryu replacement are largely the same, What isn't a risk is being able to import/build these submarine in Australia as Germany has a good history with that and the best when it comes to Submarine export's. Being given 100% IP right's also protect's us from future changes abroad be the business or political in nature. The German option in regard's to the export history and the IP right's is actually the safest option.

Click to expand...

I too would like to see who exactly regards the Soryu-class the best of breed and why. What makes the Soryu better than other late generation diesel electrics? I ask that genuinely because I don't know.

Expect any contract with the preferred submarine designer to include a long-term partnership commitment clause, much like Defence is asking of the Land 400 bidders. Doesn't stop the company closing or being sold off but increases comfort factor I guess.

DCNS is not offering the SMX (although initially I believe this was the option), but a conventional iteration of the French Navy's nuclear Barracuda-class.

One minor but far ranging aspect of any TKMS build program is that all original engineering drawings, models and documents are created in English, essentially because they are export focussed. Only those drawings for vessels destined for the German Navy are in German. I expect DCNS would be similar.

This might not sound like a big deal but it is. Ask anyone with experience in the building of HMAS Success to French designs (provided in French!).

There is no best. The forum does not support top 10 or this verse that platform for a very good reason. It is a waste of Time.

The Japanese subs are very good. For Japan and its needs. They will need substantial modification to meet Australian requirements unless we base them in Japan and only look after Japanese interests and operate them in the same way. As the subs currently are built, they would not even make it to the area of operation from Australia. So unless we want to patrol NZ and Tasmania or Christmas island only they will be quite a different sub by the time they were in-service with us. You might as well say the Virginas are the best sub in the world, they would be great for Australia. As soon as we make them 2,000t smaller, change to a diesel power plant, reduce crewing, etc.

Anyone see Brendan Nicholsons front page stories in the Australian today? About how ANZUS is dead because the US is moving out of the region, and the bit that is left sees Indonesia as far more important than Australia. After all why would the US stick its neck out for Australia, there are more important and bigger players in the region with better locations and in more precarious positions. Thailand, Indonesia, Japan. In that context we might as well be on another planet.

Last time we saw anything like this it was the British in asia in WW2. I would assume we all know how it ended up for the ex-colonies/allies in that situation.

So as we watch nations turn away from the West and face the East, we watch the US reorganise itself, we should be trying to cut our costs and capability?

Agreed, There is no best because conventional submarines perform in so many differing environment's with differing circumstances one being good in one area could be absolutely useless in another.

As to ANZUS being dead, I didn't get that impression from the article, Impression I got is that it has never been stronger.

Australia quite simply is too vital, Being closer to various bases in the pacific the mainland US, being able to support operations in the Indian ocean (Should the Suez canal ever become an issue again) and in a prime position to blockade the majority of China's trade should it ever come to that.

vonnoobie said:

As to ANZUS being dead, I didn't get that impression from the article, Impression I got is that it has never been stronger.

Click to expand...

On the front page there were two stories in print. Indon*esia may supplant Australia as the go-to ally for the US in the Asia-Pacific region, says a new report

Its more about how the US will change its relationships with nations in the region and what that means for Australia. Its not that ANZUS will evaporate, but it will change.

Has ANZUS passed its use-by date?
https://theconversation.com/the-anzus-ascendancy-continued-44554
Understanding ANZUS: Unpacking Australia's Treaty Commitments - Australian Institute of International Affairs
ANZUS alliance amnesia: the US needs Australian alliance more than ever

A lot of Australians seem to think that ANZUS means us assets when ever we want 24/7/365. It was never like this.

Part of the reason Indonesia and Thailand may be viewed as more important to the US than Australia is, apart from the obvious one of demographics, is that while they are modernising and growing their manufacturing, heavy engineering, technical and scientific sectors, Australia is shrinking theirs, be it through neglect, or deliberate action. Seriously, when a partner deliberately hobbles various industries and strategic capabilities, expecting another to pickup the slack, while neighbouring nations are modernising and growing the same as fast as they can, why would you choose the freeloader over the lifter?

Volkodav said:

Part of the reason Indonesia and Thailand may be viewed as more important to the US than Australia is, apart from the obvious one of demographics, is that while they are modernising and growing their manufacturing, heavy engineering, technical and scientific sectors, Australia is shrinking theirs, be it through neglect, or deliberate action. Seriously, when a partner deliberately hobbles various industries and strategic capabilities, expecting another to pickup the slack, while neighbouring nations are modernising and growing the same as fast as they can, why would you choose the freeloader over the lifter?

Click to expand...

This is nonsense. I would bet a good deal of money that not a single policy maker in the USA would have the foggiest what the manufacturing sector was like in Australia. Perhaps more to the point, why would Australia's manufacturing capacity have any relevance to the strategic outlook (from the US POV) in Asia? Do they expect Australia to build weapons for the USA in the event of the next war? Perhaps equally, the US has reduced their own manufacturing just as much as we have - they are hardly in a position to saddle up the high horse.

I don't understand what is with all the hand wringing here. We currently have 20 000 US servicemen here in Australia conducting a bilateral exercise, yet we are concerned the US is turning it back on us? Australia has never had such a high profile on the international stage. The first ever exercise between US and Chinese troops happened here, in Australia. It will happen again this year. We are conducting exercises/exchanges with more nations than we ever have before. It's haddly evidence that Australia is being isolated or forgotten.

Sometimes I think I love in a different world to a lot of people on this forum, one where Australia isn't among the richest, most prosperous, most happy nations on the planet. It's not perfect, but I bet there are a lot of nations out there that wished they had our 'problems'. Some perspective from time to time would be useful.

I view commentary about the end of ANZUS or a US pivot away from Australia as about as far from reality as you can get.

Much is made of the US Marines and Navy participation in Talisman Sabre 15 for example but it is also now being used by the US Army to certify I Corps pivot to Asia/Pacific. That's approx 40,000 additional troops fighting against "Kamaria". Simulated for cost.

The actions of the US (and Australia) simply reflect the current situation. The threats are now Islamic extremism and China. The first requires closer relations with Indonesia and Malaysia to counter. The second requires SE Asia mutual support. I wouldn't be surprised if the 5 Powers Defence agreement becomes 6 in the future.

The China v. Australia naysayers need to take note of what respected commentator/DWP Expert Panellist Peter Jennings has written today in the Oz (no link I'm sorry) titled "Don't fear what China may think".
Here's a few cherries; "Foreign observers who know China well puzzle about Australian views of the country, an Oz military exercise with the US - won't the Chinese see that as provocation? Our navy needs subs - surely that will enrage the PLA-N? Academics warn us not to get close to Japan and to reduce US Alliance ties because these might not play well with Beijing, etc. etc.

"After years of participating in and then leading senior defence talks with PLA counterparts, my observation of dealing with Chinese leaders is they understand very well Australia has a strong alliance relationship with the US and that wont be broken by a preference in Beijing that Cold War alliances wither away. The Chinese understand the US strategic presence in Asia has been the basis of post war stability and therefor of Chinese economic growth. - China pragmatically acknowledges the value the US alliance delivers to Australia's role in the Asia Pacific but as an opportunistic actor, China wont hesitate to play up to the instincts of Australian commentators always looking for ways to make Canberra rather than Beijing the problem in regional security.
An Australian approach based on arguing for our strategic interests is unlikely to damage bilaterat ties with Beijing. On the contrary, it makes us look like a country that is predictable, open and knows its own mind."

An altogether thoughtful and unambiguous article that should be the Australian position whatever govt. holds the Treasury benches.
As an aside, the ramifications of this Australian position would necessitate a strong re-investment in the ADF, particularly in the RAN and any lingering sensitivity regarding possible Japanese submarine co-operation is put to rest

I don't discount that the US will start having closer ties with various nations such as Indonesia but ANZUS being dead is as far from reality as ever before.

More war games larger in size, Australia being the main go between between US and Chinese forces in war games, US enlarging there presence in Australia through more common larger rotations while looking at increasing both rotating and even possible permanent naval presence, increasing use of Australia to support Indian ocean operations over Europe etc etc

One need's to remember this is an alliance that has been built up for the last 59 years not counting the proceeding years in the 40's and first half of the 50's. Only in the last decade or so has it been discussed about enlarging it and that is for nations that we have been friendly with for decades or longer, Indonesia will have growing ties with the US but they are a long long long way off of joining the Five eyes as a member, At best there will be some cooperation but that is about it for the foreseeable future. Singapore and South Korea have worked with five eyes and Japan has only been asked to help but no confirmation on what occurred after.

As to the manufacturing sector in Australia, True it is shrinking but at the same time it is changing, We are moving away from trying to mass manufacture various product's to manufacturing high quality specialized product's. If recent talk about the shipbuilding industry/RAN pan's out then our naval manufacturing sector will be it's strongest and most stable since WWII, While our aerospace industry has been helping to create fixes for EU aircraft and is helping to develop some groundbreaking aircraft. No, Manufacturing may not be a large scale employer any more but it (when the dollar is at it's true value) is only getting stronger especially in regard's to the defense sector.

Raven22 said:

This is nonsense. I would bet a good deal of money that not a single policy maker in the USA would have the foggiest what the manufacturing sector was like in Australia. Perhaps more to the point, why would Australia's manufacturing capacity have any relevance to the strategic outlook (from the US POV) in Asia? Do they expect Australia to build weapons for the USA in the event of the next war? Perhaps equally, the US has reduced their own manufacturing just as much as we have - they are hardly in a position to saddle up the high horse.

I don't understand what is with all the hand wringing here. We currently have 20 000 US servicemen here in Australia conducting a bilateral exercise, yet we are concerned the US is turning it back on us? Australia has never had such a high profile on the international stage. The first ever exercise between US and Chinese troops happened here, in Australia. It will happen again this year. We are conducting exercises/exchanges with more nations than we ever have before. It's haddly evidence that Australia is being isolated or forgotten.

Sometimes I think I love in a different world to a lot of people on this forum, one where Australia isn't among the richest, most prosperous, most happy nations on the planet. It's not perfect, but I bet there are a lot of nations out there that wished they had our 'problems'. Some perspective from time to time would be useful.

Click to expand...

Actually they know a lot about our strategic capabilities and several years ago were looking at using Australia as a base to conduct crew swaps for major fleet units, as well as using Tech Port as a maintenance and repair facility for a variety of fleet units, including AEGIS cruisers and destroyers. There was a considerable EB and BIW presence at ASC for many years that has now whittled down to almost nothing. Things we assumed we would be doing for the USN are now looking like going to Singapore and some actually already have (we are actually doing a fair bit of PB maintenance there ourselves now).

I am not suggesting that ANZUS is over, or even being cut back, rather that expanded involvement, due to the US pivot to Asia and the Pacific, that was pretty much ours for the taking is now going elsewhere. Considering we have stupid comments such as, "I wouldn't trust them to build a canoe", as part of a long drawn out undermining and neutering of sovereign capability a past government that didn't order any ships and an existing one that seems to want to buy everything off shore, can you blame the US for holding back? If our own government doesn't support or have faith in our capability why should the US?

Look at it this way, successive governments chose not to deploy tanks (Leopards or Abrams), artillery, Blackhawks, or Tigers to Afghanistan or Iraq, the RAR were used in mentoring roles but not deployed in the same manner as many other nations infantry. What if this government, or their predecessors, instead of telling it as it is, explaining why we sent what we did and why we didn't use these other capabilities, chose the spin, or sex things up to achieve a political end, i.e. cutting back, restructuring, or even dispensing with some of these capabilities. Say they lied and said these capabilities, these units, these people, could not be trusted to do a necessary job because they were not good enough? Yep, just imagine the government, for political reasons, slandered, undermined, belittled and setup our troops to fail in the same way they have our shipbuilding industry, ASC in particular, the same as they did to the automotive industry and now the renewable energy sector. Just imagine if our soldiers and their leaders were subjected to the same vicious untrue attacks for years on end as some of our industries have been. Imagine that they have been given a near impossible task, signed off, or even instigated, by clueless individuals who have ignored professional advice, then when they have gone above and beyond to overcome a multitude of difficulties their political masters never anticipated, instead of being thanked, praised or rewarded, they are instead blamed, threatened and punished.

Think on it, because that is what is happening, pretty much like it do did in Stalin's USSR, or todays North Korea but without the executions, imprisonments and exiles.

Volkodav said:

Think on it, because that is what is happening, pretty much like it do did in Stalin's USSR, or todays North Korea but without the executions, imprisonments and exiles.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry to say Volk, but you and I must live on two very different planets.

There's been a mountain of verbage written on these pages over the last few weeks about Australian warship and submarine builds. I have just come across this 11 minute ASPI recent video where Mark Thompson and Andrew Davies (two influential commentators) discuss these very issues and it would be a very useful pointer in the way the govt. will proceed with frigates and subs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WK4OtBx7L84&feature=youtu.be

Volkodav said:

Part of the reason Indonesia and Thailand may be viewed as more important to the US than Australia is, apart from the obvious one of demographics, is that while they are modernising and growing their manufacturing, heavy engineering, technical and scientific sectors, Australia is shrinking theirs, be it through neglect, or deliberate action. Seriously, when a partner deliberately hobbles various industries and strategic capabilities, expecting another to pickup the slack, while neighbouring nations are modernising and growing the same as fast as they can, why would you choose the freeloader over the lifter?

Click to expand...

A freeloader gets chosen when a border is shared which explains why Canada has gotten away with defence spending at barely 1% of GDP for years.

Goknub said:

The security implications of purchasing a Japanese option is certainly worth debating. When China, Japan and the USA are our top 3 trading partners (with South Korea taking the 4th spot) it is in our interests to be aware of the impact.

It is the wise cracks and passive-aggressive quips that get to me. The ADF has an anti-American sub-culture within it, particularly the Army. This has had a negative impact on our ability to learn lessons and source suitable equipment. Thankfully this is passing as the older generation of military members who were influenced by the Vietnam War are replaced by those that have served alongside the US in Iraq and Afghanistan.

If there are points for or against the Japanese submarine option then please make them, including the geopolitical impacts.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the reply Goknub
Was not aware of any current anti -American sub-culture, If thats the case I agree it's disappointing. My limited military experience was six years in the reserves back in early 80's.Didn't pickup too much anti American bias back then. More beer and giggles during student days and some great friendships and experiences wearing green.
I'll stop boring you and everyone with the geopolitical and look forward to catching up on todays naval news
Regards S

Raven22 said:

I'm sorry to say Volk, but you and I must live on two very different planets.

Click to expand...

Think I'm wrong, look at the changes to the CEFC, the government wants to shut it down but its profitable and popular so unable to shut it down they have instead banned it from participating in its most profitable and popular business activities. End result, without the ability to invest in large-scale wind farms and domestic solar, the CEFC will become unprofitable, less popular and ripe for shutting down.

No convoluted conspiracy theories, this is what the PM said he is trying to do specifically because his upfront attempts to shut the fund down were blocked by the senate. Its a political technique used by all, going back forever, Labor did it to ASTA (Aero-Space Technologies Australia) formerly GAF and other government owned aviation companies and workshops, it was required to be profitable but everytime it was about to win a tender the government ordered it to increase its bid to give less efficient privately owned firms the work by default, it then became unprofitable and Hawke got the ok he had previously been denied to sell it. They also starved Cockatoo if work so they could start to shut it down and give remaining surface combat work to Williamstown and sell it.

All facts and the guilty actually brag about how clever they have been to kill off, or at least severely damage businesses or facilities they want closed down. So we live in the same world, I've just had more exposure to a more cannibalistic and insane side of it. I admit the Stalin and North Korea references were over the top, I used them in attempt to get my point across at how pointless and wasteful I believe this behaviour to be.

ASSAIL said:

There's been a mountain of verbage written on these pages over the last few weeks about Australian warship and submarine builds. I have just come across this 11 minute ASPI recent video where Mark Thompson and Andrew Davies (two influential commentators) discuss these very issues and it would be a very useful pointer in the way the govt. will proceed with frigates and subs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WK4OtBx7L84&feature=youtu.be

Click to expand...

Assail, mate, as usual you are far too much of a gentleman and polite when you talk about the 'mountain of verbage written on these pages over the last few weeks', I would actually be a bit more black and white and call it a 'mountain of garbage' written in recent times.

Seriously, is this thread the "RAN thread" or the "RAN shipbuilding at all cost and anti-Japanese submarine thread?" I'm certainly beginning to wonder which it is!

Sure we all want a vibrant and strong Australian shipbuilding industry, but (and maybe I'm starting feel a bit alone on this one), but isn't the single most important point is that the RAN 'actually' gets all the ships/subs on budget and on time when it needs them to do it's primary job of protecting Australia?

Why is it that whenever the Government procures an 'aviation' asset for the ADF (regardless of which branch), especially an FMS product from the US, we all say very sensible, great decision, it doesn't seem to matter how many 10's of billions of dollars we spend to keep US aerospace workers in a job, it's all OK because we are going to get the appropriate product delivered here to Oz on time and on budget too? Why is it that the Australian aerospace sector doesn't matter, but somehow the Australian shipbuilding sector is some sacred cow that it doesn't matter how much over a fair price is paid or how late it is, it just doesn't matter? I just don't get it one little bit, maybe I am totally stupid!!!

Anyway, think I may have to give myself a little enforced holiday for a few months or so from replying to anything in the RAN thread (or what used to be the RAN thread), until 'well after' the DWP, DCP, Naval shipbuilding plan and the future submarine selection has been made so I can at least keep some level of sanity!!!!

John Fedup said:

A freeloader gets chosen when a border is shared which explains why Canada has gotten away with defence spending at barely 1% of GDP for years.

Click to expand...

IMHO if Canada wants to spend 1 percent of GDP on defence then that is there business. Seriously, is there a nation on earth that has a stronger geographical security than Canada. Who is going to invade Canada? the only country is the US, and since 1812 they have decided not to. Canada has done its bit in WW1, WW2. Korea. They have participated in peacekeeping operations.

If say they spent 2 percent of GDP on defence, over decades that's hundreds of billions of dollars extra, and for what? Is there security any better.

Maybe they kept out of Iraq ( I don't know if they did or not), but was Iraq a threat to them.

More guns and bombs is not always the best way to fix the problems of the world. For the US, it would be harder to find a more benign neighbour than Canada.

They don't need a big military, so they have a small one, its their liffe

John Newman said:

Assail, mate, as usual you are far too much of a gentleman and polite when you talk about the 'mountain of verbage written on these pages over the last few weeks', I would actually be a bit more black and white and call it a 'mountain of garbage' written in recent times.

Seriously, is this thread the "RAN thread" or the "RAN shipbuilding at all cost and anti-Japanese submarine thread?" I'm certainly beginning to wonder which it is!

Sure we all want a vibrant and strong Australian shipbuilding industry, but (and maybe I'm starting feel a bit alone on this one), but isn't the single most important point is that the RAN 'actually' gets all the ships/subs on budget and on time when it needs them to do it's primary job of protecting Australia?

Why is it that whenever the Government procures an 'aviation' asset for the ADF (regardless of which branch), especially an FMS product from the US, we all say very sensible, great decision, it doesn't seem to matter how many 10's of billions of dollars we spend to keep US aerospace workers in a job, it's all OK because we are going to get the appropriate product delivered here to Oz on time and on budget too? Why is it that the Australian aerospace sector doesn't matter, but somehow the Australian shipbuilding sector is some sacred cow that it doesn't matter how much over a fair price is paid or how late it is, it just doesn't matter? I just don't get it one little bit, maybe I am totally stupid!!!

Anyway, think I may have to give myself a little enforced holiday for a few months or so from replying to anything in the RAN thread (or what used to be the RAN thread), until 'well after' the DWP, DCP, Naval shipbuilding plan and the future submarine selection has been made so I can at least keep some level of sanity!!!!

Click to expand...

That was five paragraphs John, or is there only a word count on posts you disagree with

You have made a lot of valid points and I agree the primary concern should be that the RAN gets the best tool for the job. I have previously stated that I would be supportive of an FMS buy of Virginia's, would even have supported an FMS buy of three or four Flight IIA Burkes and actually asked a couple of MPs and senators, back in the late 90s, why we weren't buying the already upgraded Kidd class DDGs instead of upgrading the inferior FFGs. FMS is not an option for a non-nuclear design so irrelevant when discussing submarines for the RAN, to be honest no submarine currently in service or entering production meets the requirements indicated, not just by the RAN but the government to date, which rules out MOTS. This means, as an absolute minimum, we are talking about modified MOTS, add in the government preference that the combat systems be integrated locally that modified MOTS is starting to look more like an evolved design.

On the topic of evolved designs, what happened to the Kinnard processes where the prefered evolved or ideal design runs against the prefered MOTS option? How will we integrate the combat system locally if the hull has been fabricated overseas? We are not talking about software on a Blueray or USB stick that you upload later, we are talking cabinets, consoles, UPS (uninterruptable power supplies), specific cabling, integrated cooling for a start. Then there is the physical interface with the platform, equipment foundations, shock requirements, power supply, power requirements, cooling, heat load (conventional subs have a heat budget, as well as the more common power budget, if your systems exceed the budget something has to be shut down). The CS needs to be integrated with the selected sensor and weapon suites, not as straight forward as it sounds as based on the fact the RAN already has some of the leading systems currently available meaning we are again talking evolved as a minimum, rather than modified MOTS.

Its not just who builds the most capable or most affordable boat, or even where it's going to be built that matters, its the program as whole. It may be cheaper and lower risk to buy a MOTS Soryu than to build it locally but is it still cheaper when it becomes an evolved design, or when combat system integration is specified to be done locally, or when we need to include the cost of a new facility being built? There is so much more to this than many, or even most realise, just look at almost every non-FMS procurement in the last twenty years to see what I'm talking about. FFGUP, MU90, Super Sea Sprite, Tiger, MRH90, M-113 upgrade, all make the Collins project look pretty good without even factoring the difficulty and complexity of a submarine verses the other projects.

I'll add one more for the sake of my opening comment about paragraphs. My back ground isn't just automotive and shipbuilding / submarines, it's R&D, testing, design, quality, certification, configuration management, requirements management, change management, continuous improvement, risk management. Not trying to big note myself, I would be embarrassed to, considering the calibre of many of those I have had the good fortune to have worked with and for over the years, but I feel the need to point out that I am not an armchair expert or web warrior. Most of my opinions are based on my experience and also my anger and frustration at some of the total BS, not just online and in forums but in the mainstream media and even coming straight from the mouths of politicians who should know better. I'm no longer in the industry so it's not self interest driving me, more my passion and patriotism as well as my total disbelief at how many complete untruths are being presented and accepted as fact.

Volkodav said:

Think I'm wrong, look at the changes to the CEFC, the government wants to shut it down but its profitable and popular so unable to shut it down they have instead banned it from participating in its most profitable and popular business activities. End result, without the ability to invest in large-scale wind farms and domestic solar, the CEFC will become unprofitable, less popular and ripe for shutting down.

No convoluted conspiracy theories, this is what the PM said he is trying to do specifically because his upfront attempts to shut the fund down were blocked by the senate. Its a political technique used by all, going back forever, Labor did it to ASTA (Aero-Space Technologies Australia) formerly GAF and other government owned aviation companies and workshops, it was required to be profitable but everytime it was about to win a tender the government ordered it to increase its bid to give less efficient privately owned firms the work by default, it then became unprofitable and Hawke got the ok he had previously been denied to sell it. They also starved Cockatoo if work so they could start to shut it down and give remaining surface combat work to Williamstown and sell it.

All facts and the guilty actually brag about how clever they have been to kill off, or at least severely damage businesses or facilities they want closed down. So we live in the same world, I've just had more exposure to a more cannibalistic and insane side of it. I admit the Stalin and North Korea references were over the top, I used them in attempt to get my point across at how pointless and wasteful I believe this behaviour to be.

Click to expand...

Your Stalin and North Korea reference was over the top, But when you go further into it I agree, Federal government's and agencies under them all too often stick there noses into various government owned businesses just because they want to get rid of them.

In regard's to CEFC I wouldn't hold my breath on Abbott succeeding in his quest as every time he has tried they have sought legal advice and generally came out on top. The idiot wanted them to increase profit's for the same amount invested with out increasing the risk.. No one in the industry thought that was possible and sane business practice.

'John Newman', In regard's to ship building vs aerospace, Among the general public it does beg the question of why fight for one and not the other especially when often ten's of billions are involved, However for those that bother to do the research wanting to build the aircraft in Australia would be a negative affect. We have a strong aerospace sector that is tied in with the global production of aircraft both civil and military, And is only growing. Building then entirely here would cost more job's then it would create over the long term.

Economic's aside, In a worst case situation a nation whose life line is the ocean want's a strong naval deterrent and the industry to sustain it. Having a strong stable shipbuilding industry is a benefit especially when one consider's the distances involved between our allies compared to our potential adversaries. On the other hand the aerospace industry locally is well established while the time frames for importing needed part's etc is vastly different then that of the naval sector. Need an aircraft part, We can have it in 24 hours from any place in the world if it's in stock, Need to fix your ship and could be week's alone in transit time.