Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

John Fedup said:

An article discussing possible ways to fast track Australia's future submarine capability. From my perspective the RAN has a lot less to worry about than the RCN. Is the current Colin's upgrade plan sufficient until new boats start to arrive?

https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/time-fast-forward-future-submarine

Click to expand...

Yeah ... I am amazed at the lack of urgency Canada has shown in regards to the eventual replacement of their subs.

In the case of the Collins replacement, it is possible that submarine availability will drop in the 2030s. When you sit down and calculate the out of service date of the Collins class, even with life extension, it would seem pretty touch and go whether or not the Barracudas will enter service quickly enough to replace them.

If the first of the new boats will be available from 2032 and you have a new sub delivered every 2 years you may only have 4 or 5 in service by the end of that decade. If there are any delays that number could drop. Even if Collins class life is extended they probably won't last much beyond the late 30s.

Building extra Collins class subs, buying off-the-shelf short term replacements or accelerating the delivery schedule of the Barracudas may fix the problem ... but I imagine it would be very expensive.

The idea put up in that article of building up to three Collins II appeals to me. It would give us a fleet of nine submarines while we are waiting for the French to do their job Unless of course the Collins ll was such a success that the French sub was not needed.

hauritz said:

Yeah ... I am amazed at the lack of urgency Canada has shown in regards to the eventual replacement of their subs.

In the case of the Collins replacement, it is possible that submarine availability will drop in the 2030s. When you sit down and calculate the out of service date of the Collins class, even with life extension, it would seem pretty touch and go whether or not the Barracudas will enter service quickly enough to replace them.

If the first of the new boats will be available from 2032 and you have a new sub delivered every 2 years you may only have 4 or 5 in service by the end of that decade. If there are any delays that number could drop. Even if Collins class life is extended they probably won't last much beyond the late 30s.

Building extra Collins class subs, buying off-the-shelf short term replacements or accelerating the delivery schedule of the Barracudas may fix the problem ... but I imagine it would be very expensive.

Click to expand...

Shift production of the Sea5000 to Perth, turn Adelaide into a purely a sub building yard. Double the production line, Putting a new sub in the water every 12 months. Bring the project 12 months forward. Of course this then screws up the sustainable build process unless you want more submarines or have other work the yard can do.

Building a new Collins class sounds like an easy idea. But it isn't. The last Collins build was launched in 2001. Your then left with this small orphaned sub class for decades.

hauritz said:

Yeah ... I am amazed at the lack of urgency Canada has shown in regards to the eventual replacement of their subs.

In the case of the Collins replacement, it is possible that submarine availability will drop in the 2030s. When you sit down and calculate the out of service date of the Collins class, even with life extension, it would seem pretty touch and go whether or not the Barracudas will enter service quickly enough to replace them.

If the first of the new boats will be available from 2032 and you have a new sub delivered every 2 years you may only have 4 or 5 in service by the end of that decade. If there are any delays that number could drop. Even if Collins class life is extended they probably won't last much beyond the late 30s.

Building extra Collins class subs, buying off-the-shelf short term replacements or accelerating the delivery schedule of the Barracudas may fix the problem ... but I imagine it would be very expensive.

Click to expand...

You've made a lot of assumptions based on what? You don't have detailed info on the progress of the design. You have no idea of the planned life extensions for Collins nor its timeframe. You are making assumptions about the introduction schedule for SEA 1000 based on what?

At the start of SEA 1000 it was made clear that the problems associated with Collins would not be repeated, one of those was the beginning of the build before all the design work had been completed and this lead to problems and time delays.
But remember this, the cost and schedule of building Collins was very good. I'm talking about the actual hull and machinery which was completed within 10% of budget and basically on time. The other well known problems, CMS, propellers, noise etc took years to finalise but then only through DSTO in partnership with the US rather than Kokums.

Consequently I have little,concern over the capacity of Australian industry to build the boats provided all the ancilliary and important design features are settled. Time spent before the build is critical to its success.

Finally you say the boats will be lucky to run past 2030, again based on what? Remember that the first 15 years of their lives was marked by very little,use due to the many unsolved issues and due to a lack of funds willing to be committed to them by various governments.

Australian sailors and industry have both the capacity and experience to build and run these boats in fact Japan is the only other country which has produced an 8 metre diameter conventional sub over the last 30 years.

The main reason for The poor perception of both Collins and the build process was purely political. The coalition has a lot to answer for by calling them Labor's "Dud Subs". It's a pity that few politicians from either side had the vision the "Bomber Beasley" displayed when introducing Collins.

StingrayOZ said:

Building a new Collins class sounds like an easy idea. But it isn't. The last Collins build was launched in 2001. Your then left with this small orphaned sub class for decades.

Click to expand...

I agree it wouldn't be easy. It's taken the RAN nearly 20 years to come to terms with being the design authority for our submarines and it's taken the same time for governments to commit the funds and effort to sustain them. Let's not loose that by derailing the SEA 1000 programme through lack of political will caused by loss,of public support. It's already a tough task,given the shallowness of most media participants

ASSAIL said:

You've made a lot of assumptions based on what? You don't have detailed info on the progress of the design. You have no idea of the planned life extensions for Collins nor its timeframe. You are making assumptions about the introduction schedule for SEA 1000 based on what?

At the start of SEA 1000 it was made clear that the problems associated with Collins would not be repeated, one of those was the beginning of the build before all the design work had been completed and this lead to problems and time delays.
But remember this, the cost and schedule of building Collins was very good. I'm talking about the actual hull and machinery which was completed within 10% of budget and basically on time. The other well known problems, CMS, propellers, noise etc took years to finalise but then only through DSTO in partnership with the US rather than Kokums.

Consequently I have little,concern over the capacity of Australian industry to build the boats provided all the ancilliary and important design features are settled. Time spent before the build is critical to its success.

Finally you say the boats will be lucky to run past 2030, again based on what? Remember that the first 15 years of their lives was marked by very little,use due to the many unsolved issues and due to a lack of funds willing to be committed to them by various governments.

Australian sailors and industry have both the capacity and experience to build these boats in fact Japan is the only other country which has produced an 8 metre diameter conventional sub over the last 30 years.

The main reason for The poor perception of both Collins and the build process was purely political. The coalition has a lot to answer for by calling them Labor's "Dud Subs". It's a pity that few politicians from either side had the vision the "Bomber Beasley" displayed when introducing Collins.

Click to expand...

I am not making that many assumptions. The publicly available information points to construction starting sometime in the early 20s with an in-service date sometime in the early 30s.

How long the Collins last may be open to some speculation but the full-cycle docking schedule is also in the public domain.

https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/planning-for-failure-the-oberon-to-collins-transition/

It may well be possible that the Collins class will enter a fourth FCD ... but in my opinion that is as big an assumption as anything else.

My 2 cents

- Building a Collins II depends on how different the boat is. If they build it to the same level as what we are upgrading the current boats to then there is no difference, They will still have the exact same systems, If they build it with systems intended for the Shortfin then it gives us earlier experience and a solid training asset for our future submarines, If they use systems that are neither present in the Collins or shortfin then it is a waste of time and money.

- Shifting production of the Frigates to Perth would be a mistake, We have the demand for one major and one minor yard, There would be a cost premium to do so.

- Lowering production of the Shortfin down to 12 months would also be a mistake, Optimal life span of a conventional submarine (and surface ship) is 18 - 21 years. Current plans call for a 24 month build cycle though Naval Group says that can be lowered to 18 months, At 18 months the life cycle is 18 years (with continuous production). At 12 months you either end up with a submarine building gap or early replacement of a submarine two thirds that way through it's minimum optimal life.

My view is we should build 3+ Collins II fitted with the systems we plan to incorporate into our current boats, Lower production time of the Shortfin to 18 months and keep production of all major combatants in the one yard.

Delusional

I’m sorry but some people on here are getting a bit carried away with what they want from a medium sized military with a modest budget and what is essentially a fledgling ship building industry (due to numerous ‘valley of death’ incidents)
Let’s build a 3 new subs from a 15 year of design with absolutely no lead time for components and materials for literally no gain whatsoever. Also if anyone actually thinks we are going to have 12 shortfins kicking around at the same time is delusional, we can’t man our boats and ships now, let alone in the future with more platforms that will have higher manning requirements.
I normally don’t write any comments due to den restrictions but I had enough and had to log in on my phone
Sorry for the rant but I thought this was a place for constructive, reasonable and realistic discussions

vonnoobie said:

- Lowering production of the Shortfin down to 12 months would also be a mistake, Optimal life span of a conventional submarine (and surface ship) is 18 - 21 years. Current plans call for a 24 month build cycle though Naval Group says that can be lowered to 18 months, At 18 months the life cycle is 18 years (with continuous production). At 12 months you either end up with a submarine building gap or early replacement of a submarine two thirds that way through it's minimum optimal life.
.

Click to expand...

It would be worse because the only way to be building 1 every 12 months is to basically double your workforce. So not only do we no longer have a sustainable build process, when we run out of work it hits doubly hard. Even moving to 18 months on a single line I would assume would result in a larger workforce, I think its more of a future option than an immediate current one. If we wanted to increase build rates due to war etc.

New build Collins would be very difficult. While we have a logistics setup to keep them going, its not very deep and doesn't include non consumables. Costs would be very high to restart production, and not realistic for 3 boats as Collins has a lot of unique gear most of the stuff just isn't OTS anymore.

We can shift projects/work between yards. Henderson or East coast yards could assist by creating modules for the frigates or the subs.

You could build a small batch of OPV's then shift more workers onto future frigates or Sub projects. Its inefficient but its doable. If we start building more of something, we start building less of something else. I could see sea1180 being wound back a bit to speed up sea5000, shifting prioritise.

But the pie is the pie. What you build now is something you won't be building later. If you build something new entirely it comes out of that pie.

StingrayOZ said:

It would be worse because the only way to be building 1 every 12 months is to basically double your workforce. So not only do we no longer have a sustainable build process, when we run out of work it hits doubly hard. Even moving to 18 months on a single line I would assume would result in a larger workforce, I think its more of a future option than an immediate current one. If we wanted to increase build rates due to war etc.

New build Collins would be very difficult. While we have a logistics setup to keep them going, its not very deep and doesn't include non consumables. Costs would be very high to restart production, and not realistic for 3 boats as Collins has a lot of unique gear most of the stuff just isn't OTS anymore.

We can shift projects/work between yards. Henderson or East coast yards could assist by creating modules for the frigates or the subs.

You could build a small batch of OPV's then shift more workers onto future frigates or Sub projects. Its inefficient but its doable. If we start building more of something, we start building less of something else. I could see sea1180 being wound back a bit to speed up sea5000, shifting prioritise.

But the pie is the pie. What you build now is something you won't be building later. If you build something new entirely it comes out of that pie.

Click to expand...

You dont actually have to double the work force. As with everything it becomes about efficiency and finding the right balance. Not sure it exactly flows across to shipbuilding but in my industry my personnel experience has been 1 man can do 1 job, 2 men can do 3 jobs and 3 men can do 6 jobs. Could be a partial increase in personnel employed or it could very well be you are able to do the extra work with no increase at all through build efficiency.

True it wouldnt be easy and while there would be a cost to restarting Collins class production if you timed it right with the right number of orders laid out you could (I stress could) flow that same work force onto the Shortfin build negating both start up costs and project risk due to the work force already attaining required experience.

True you could shift production between yards and as a Melbournian I'd love for Williamstown to get some of the blocks but that also comes with a cost premium. It is cheaper, more efficient and less risky building the ships entirely in one yard then having them spread out over half a dozen sites.

Issue with building a small batch of OPV's then shifting onto something else is that SEA1180 becomes over worked, The ACPB's have no more life left in them so the full fleet of SEA1180 is required. Building a small batch would be cost prohibitive (Spending X amount to be spread across Y amount of ships rather then Z amount of ships) while also forcing the navy to divert those future frigates to continue to perform EEZ roles wasting the investment into them.

Building all major and all minor vessels in Adelaide and Henderson respectively is the best way to reduce the risk and cost allowing for money to be saved and spent else where, It also reduces the ship prices to such an extent we would become globally competitive.

vonnoobie said:

My 2 cents

- Building a Collins II depends on how different the boat is. If they build it to the same level as what we are upgrading the current boats to then there is no difference, They will still have the exact same systems, If they build it with systems intended for the Shortfin then it gives us earlier experience and a solid training asset for our future submarines, If they use systems that are neither present in the Collins or shortfin then it is a waste of time and money.

- Shifting production of the Frigates to Perth would be a mistake, We have the demand for one major and one minor yard, There would be a cost premium to do so.

- Lowering production of the Shortfin down to 12 months would also be a mistake, Optimal life span of a conventional submarine (and surface ship) is 18 - 21 years. Current plans call for a 24 month build cycle though Naval Group says that can be lowered to 18 months, At 18 months the life cycle is 18 years (with continuous production). At 12 months you either end up with a submarine building gap or early replacement of a submarine two thirds that way through it's minimum optimal life.

My view is we should build 3+ Collins II fitted with the systems we plan to incorporate into our current boats, Lower production time of the Shortfin to 18 months and keep production of all major combatants in the one yard.

Click to expand...

Could Australia build a small batch of "Collins II" subs? The answer is, "yes."

However, if one is being realistic and instead asked if Australia would or should launch such a project, the answer IMO would instead be, "no."

One of the very first things people need to remember is that the notional "Collins II" is not an actual sub or completed sub design, at least not yet. What that means if that if Gov't were to decide today to initiate a new SEA project to get an interim sub in service prior to the shortfin Barracuda, is that a set of specifics would need to be decided upon by Gov't, the ADF, the RAN, and other relevant bodies.

Basically the type of information that was found in the RFI or RFP's which led to the proposals back from the industry which led to DCNS getting selected to design a version of the shortfin Barracuda... It would take time for Gov't to decide what information would need to go into an RFP in order for designers to finish the Collins II, so that Gov't could decide on whether a contract could/should/would be signed to start construction. All of that needs to be completed before a contract could be signed, which in turn needs to happen either on or before a workforce is assembled, and certainly before steel could be cut and parts/systems ordered for any Collins II.

To provide some perspective on the time it takes, DCNS was selected as the preferred bidder for the Collins-class sub replacements in April, 2016. It is now over 18 months later and there has been no announcement of a contract being signed to start construction, or of the design having been finalized and accepted.

At this point, if an interim sub project was started, it is very likely that by the time everything had been finished and the project progressed to the point of signing contracts to order interim subs, the SEA 1000 project would have either also progressed to the point of signing contracts to order the replacement subs, or more likely, the SEA 1000 project contracts would already have been signed.

I can definitely see efficiency throughout the 12 shortfin sub build. But it will take time, after all we are basically re-establishing the submarine manufacturing capability.

I do think work will or could be juggled between yards.That is not always a bad thing.

Having the capability to do sustainment and builds at multiple yards is a good thing as long as it doesn't errode the capability of the other yards.

If you look at the ship building plan as a whole, we could shuffle work forward. With the OPV's we could start work very quickly. Perhaps with the frigate replacement program as well. We have shifted the selection process forward, I think depending on the ship design the first 2 OPV will be shifted off ASC and go straight to Henderson, and we will start work on one of the two in the water hulls frigate hulls right away.

The subs are more difficult. I do think we will be life extending Collins. But that will be the existing hulls.

As with most projects, time is the most precious resource.

Things could be worse.. Last I hear Brazil was shelving their SSN program, a program..

StingrayOZ said:

I can definitely see efficiency throughout the 12 shortfin sub build. But it will take time, after all we are basically re-establishing the submarine manufacturing capability.

I do think work will or could be juggled between yards.That is not always a bad thing.

Having the capability to do sustainment and builds at multiple yards is a good thing as long as it doesn't errode the capability of the other yards.

If you look at the ship building plan as a whole, we could shuffle work forward. With the OPV's we could start work very quickly. Perhaps with the frigate replacement program as well. We have shifted the selection process forward, I think depending on the ship design the first 2 OPV will be shifted off ASC and go straight to Henderson, and we will start work on one of the two in the water hulls frigate hulls right away.

The subs are more difficult. I do think we will be life extending Collins. But that will be the existing hulls.

As with most projects, time is the most precious resource.

Things could be worse.. Last I hear Brazil was shelving their SSN program, a program..

Click to expand...

Building submarines is not the same as building ships. You don't simply hand out work to any yard of shipbuilders, it's a highly skilled trade with welding standards far ahead of your average steel fabricator. So no, it all stays in adelaide.

We won't be starting from scratch either. Although maintaining submarines is very different fro building them the full cycle refits carried out on Collins can almost be categorised as a total,rebuild and the trades involved in that have permeated through the industry. Even though half cycle docking occur in Henderson they have no where near the structural work that happens at ASC Osborne

Building sections in different places further complicates productivity and more importantly quality control and sending inspection teams to several,place on multiple occasions . Delivery of special steel to different places, moving the skills around the country disrupting their domestic arrangements, it just would be a total cluster to control.

We've done it with Collins so why change and disrupt.

As far as Williamstown goes forget it it's way too risky because within 10 years all inadustry will be forced out and the yard will become the playground for the inner city elites and latte sippers.

ASSAIL said:

As far as Williamstown goes forget it it's way too risky because within 10 years all inadustry will be forced out and the yard will become the playground for the inner city elites and latte sippers.

Click to expand...

I am a "melbournian (in exile)" myself, but IMHO, if there is an "extra/separate" yard should be in Newcastle. Not Williamstown or Brisbane. It is close enough to FBE, and our industrial base. And the land is still cheap.

Fremantle WA would be a tricky option, yes, it is next to FBW, but Perth so isolated to any industrial base or "hub of excellence", and shipping anything from east coast to Perth would be a pain in the a$$.......

I am not kidding, it is cheaper to ship 2 standard container of stuff from Perth to Singapore than from Perth to Melbourne.................

Not sure if this has been posted before, interesting video apparently from Austal about the Fassmer 1180 offering https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQkzdRUdGkc, although no real new information

Smart SA: Defence industry naval projects jobs boost Adelaide South Australia

Information about future happening and events in Adelaide. Its a wierd read.

Also how Adelaide and Perth are really fighting over the submarine maintenance contract.

Personally I think Submarine maintenance should be done in SA. Ideally with a new east coast submarine base.

Intermediate and Mid cycle dockings can take place at the home naval base as already takes place, However Full cycle dockings should be restricted entirely to Adelaide as the work required is all but that same as what is needed to build a new submarine. Those same workers building the submarines can also be performing FCD's creating greater efficiency's.

In regards to the prices quoted, Why is the media and politicians making numbers up when nothing official has been released by any of the experts except that during questioning one of our admirals stated that only a portion of the $50b would be for the build.

At this rate Naval Group is thinking they can charge a larger premium (percentage wise) then Navantia did.....

spoz said:

Not sure if this has been posted before, interesting video apparently from Austal about the Fassmer 1180 offering https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQkzdRUdGkc, although no real new information

Click to expand...

Thanks for the post,

I had not seen that vid so thanks again as it was a good look at what is on offer, assuming it is their honest representation for SEA 1180. Interestingly they chose to depict a UAV and not a helicopter in the clip. Probably political expediency.

Will we find out the winner of Sea1180 before Christmas?
Hopefully yes

Regards S

Stampede said:

Thanks for the post,

I had not seen that vid so thanks again as it was a good look at what is on offer, assuming it is their honest representation for SEA 1180. Interestingly they chose to depict a UAV and not a helicopter in the clip. Probably political expediency.

Will we find out the winner of Sea1180 before Christmas?
Hopefully yes

Regards S

Click to expand...

The UAV is specifically mentioned in the sea1180 requirements. There is another project to procure UAV's specifically for these ships.

Project SEA 129 Phase 5 Stage 1
https://www.tenders.gov.au/?event=public.atm.showClosed&ATMUUID=066B7E90-B9FC-C043-7DA2FDC5CCB9D24D

It is what these ships will carry initially most of the time. It makes them far, far more useful for OPV work.

The video highlights the massive hangar which is suitable for manned helicopters, or multiple UAV's, or possibly a UAV and a small manned helicopter.

For sea rescue for example you could have the UAV do most of the flight hours searching, then put up a manned helicopter for an actual rescue.

The Fassmer design would be suitable to operate something like the MQ-8C firescout, which the Damen and Lurrsen OPV's for 1180 can not.

StingrayOZ said:

The UAV is specifically mentioned in the sea1180 requirements. There is another project to procure UAV's specifically for these ships.

Project SEA 129 Phase 5 Stage 1
https://www.tenders.gov.au/?event=public.atm.showClosed&ATMUUID=066B7E90-B9FC-C043-7DA2FDC5CCB9D24D

It is what these ships will carry initially most of the time. It makes them far, far more useful for OPV work.

The video highlights the massive hangar which is suitable for manned helicopters, or multiple UAV's, or possibly a UAV and a small manned helicopter.

For sea rescue for example you could have the UAV do most of the flight hours searching, then put up a manned helicopter for an actual rescue.

The Fassmer design would be suitable to operate something like the MQ-8C firescout, which the Damen and Lurrsen OPV's for 1180 can not.

Click to expand...

Noting this assumes the Damen offering is based on the Stanpatrol as opposed to the OPV1400 or OPV1800. So far the nature of the Damen offering has been speculation noting all three have been 'reported' as the one being offered.


We will have to wait and see.