Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

Status
Not open for further replies.

alexsa

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Actually, the original funnel on F100 was short; it was lengthened on all of the class then in commission in the mid naughties.

Yes and this was done to improve air flows for a range of reasons including soot build up on the SPY faces. The F105 funnel was a better fix that did not require the higher sloped skirt. If you look at early images of the F100 and those of the F105 and Hobart you can see the funnel top (prior to the skirt being fitted) was lower on the F100. The top of the intakes are a good reference point.


 

ASSAIL

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Yes and this was done to improve air flows for a range of reasons including soot build up on the SPY faces. The F105 funnel was a better fix that did not require the higher sloped skirt. If you look at early images of the F100 and those of the F105 and Hobart you can see the funnel top (prior to the skirt being fitted) was lower on the F100. The top of the intakes are a good reference point.


Thanks for that, I hadn't appreciated the detail.
 

aussienscale

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Yes, should have gone with the evolved Collins quite some time ago .... but did not. Labor bear much of the responsibility for this.


Sorry I have a jaundiced view of unsolicited bids and quoted amounts. Kockums did not exactly bath themselves with glory with the Collins (noting they were certainly not entirely responsible for some of the issues). Eventually the Collins were upgraded to the point they are and extremely potent vessel.


As we do not know what was in the bid in so far as combat system, integration and weapons/sonars it is hard to judge the value. Not sure the unsolicited bid include the selected fire control system either noting this is a space and power hog.


In the new vessel they are looking greater absorbed power and range. The Stirling engines simply do not make sense for Australia given the distances the vessel are expected to deploy and speeds desired. The best fit is a nuke ... the alternative is what we are getting.
Exactly, the $20bn is based on what now ? so it is comparing apples and oranges with no detail other than what was leaked/made up by the media with very little detail.

One of my other pet hates is the miss quoting of the cost of the current program, the $50bn price tag is the upper limit of the entire program cost across the entire LOT, this constant misrepresentation that this is somehow the cost just to build the submarines is a joke and has no bearing on the actual cost of the submarines or what has been proposed by the French.

Cheers
 

rockitten

Member
Yes, should have gone with the evolved Collins quite some time ago .... but did not. Labor bear much of the responsibility for this.


Sorry I have a jaundiced view of unsolicited bids and quoted amounts. Kockums did not exactly bath themselves with glory with the Collins (noting they were certainly not entirely responsible for some of the issues). Eventually the Collins were upgraded to the point they are and extremely potent vessel.
And many fix-up of the Collins was in no small part by a helping hand of USN.....

I always wonder, if our nation wants to remains in submarine business, should we license EB, LM or the John bull to design a baseline model of our short fin replacement?

I know the most logical option should be an evolved short fin, but let's me be bold, I just don't trust the frogs, and I would expect our partnership on short fin will ended up to be an unhappy one.
 

t68

Well-Known Member
I know the most logical option should be an evolved short fin, but let's me be bold, I just don't trust the frogs, and I would expect our partnership on short fin will ended up to be an unhappy one.

Agree, they are willing to sell the gear but if its not in there interests they wont back you either. I think there's more to the Australian story than most recognise

https://quadrant.org.au/french-put-indigne-de-confiance/

https://www.jta.org/1969/01/08/arch...eriel-as-move-to-weaken-israel-win-arab-favor
 

hauritz

Well-Known Member
Agree, they are willing to sell the gear but if its not in there interests they wont back you either. I think there's more to the Australian story than most recognise

https://quadrant.org.au/french-put-indigne-de-confiance/

https://www.jta.org/1969/01/08/arch...eriel-as-move-to-weaken-israel-win-arab-favor
There is a lot to be said for just dealing with nations that you share strategic interests with.

In that regards France is a bit of a wild card.

It would have been so much simpler had we just went ahead and developed the Collins.

We could have simply built a new batch of Collins subs incorporating the improvements and fixes made to the original class and then taken our time in developing a more advanced version for delivery in the late 2030s.

Instead we our now engaged in this battle against a clock, with perhaps an unreliable partner, to get a completely new submarine design in service by the early thirties.
 

t68

Well-Known Member
There is a lot to be said for just dealing with nations that you share strategic interests with.

In that regards France is a bit of a wild card.

It would have been so much simpler had we just went ahead and developed the Collins.

We could have simply built a new batch of Collins subs incorporating the improvements and fixes made to the original class and then taken our time in developing a more advanced version for delivery in the late 2030s.

Instead we our now engaged in this battle against a clock, with perhaps an unreliable partner, to get a completely new submarine design in service by the early thirties.
That was the original way we where going to do it, untill Rudd/Gillard raided the kitty pushed pre planning back so far we ended up having to go down this route. From my perspective I believe we should have offered Electric Boat a 49% stake in ASC.
 

ASSAIL

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Agree, they are willing to sell the gear but if its not in there interests they wont back you either. I think there's more to the Australian story than most recognise

https://quadrant.org.au/french-put-indigne-de-confiance/

https://www.jta.org/1969/01/08/arch...eriel-as-move-to-weaken-israel-win-arab-favor
The argument would carry more weight if we simply purchased boats from the French however that will not be the case although I agree that some extremely important components still have to be resourced from France.
The whole point of SEA 1000 is for Australia to acquire sovereign capability, sourced and sustained with the RAN acting as the parent organisation, not France.

The link also ignores the strategic circumstances which make it highly unlikely that France will ever embargo Defence exports and that is; France has large and important Pacific interests, her possessions depend on trade and resources many of which come from Australia.
Australia's foreign policy Rarely if ever clashes with Frances interests so it seems illogical that actions such as those against Israel will ever take place.
 

hairyman

Active Member
That was the original way we where going to do it, untill Rudd/Gillard raided the kitty pushed pre planning back so far we ended up having to go down this route. From my perspective I believe we should have offered Electric Boat a 49% stake in ASC.
Why on earth would we do that? When was the last time Electric Boat built a diesel submarine?
And I dont understand why Kockoms was not included in the companies the design was to be chosen from. Could it be because they dealt with the ALP government of the day with the Collins? I hope not, surely the government could not be that mean spirited. could they?
 

spoz

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
From what is available to the public, I would say that if you take a look at what has been going on with Kockums and the A26 saga you might get an idea of at least one reason why they were not shortlisted.
 

alexsa

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
The argument would carry more weight if we simply purchased boats from the French however that will not be the case although I agree that some extremely important components still have to be resourced from France.
The whole point of SEA 1000 is for Australia to acquire sovereign capability, sourced and sustained with the RAN acting as the parent organisation, not France.

The link also ignores the strategic circumstances which make it highly unlikely that France will ever embargo Defence exports and that is; France has large and important Pacific interests, her possessions depend on trade and resources many of which come from Australia.
Australia's foreign policy Rarely if ever clashes with Frances interests so it seems illogical that actions such as those against Israel will ever take place.

Thank you, saved me saying this. Certainly this is one of the reasons for having a living breathing ship building/defense industry designed for the long term rather than one that get resuscitated each time we have a project.
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
Why on earth would we do that? When was the last time Electric Boat built a diesel submarine?
And I dont understand why Kockoms was not included in the companies the design was to be chosen from. Could it be because they dealt with the ALP government of the day with the Collins? I hope not, surely the government could not be that mean spirited. could they?
Saab (the owners of Kockums since July 2014) did submit a bit for SEA 1000 in December of 2014.

While I have no details on what the bid covered or included, I would not be at all surprised if those reviewing the bid were wary of the submission. After all, there had been conflict between Kockums former owners, the German conglomerate ThyssenKrupp AG which gained control of Kockums when it acquired HDW. Also given Kockums history of having been acquired by HDW in 1999, there was apparently concern about whether Sweden could independently design a sub meeting Australia's requirements.
 

spoz

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Pity it contains a number of small errors - the table which claims to show the launch dates of the ANZACs actually shows commissioning dates; Darwin is described as an ANZAC when of course she is an FFG; Dartmouth is called a “base” when it is actually a College and the Establishments at which the OW Course was conducted are called Colleges when the were not, that sort of thing. While the big themes seem right and a lot of the quotes sound authentic to the individuals that type of error is irritating and it does implant a seed of doubt. Plus, it’s a bit “wham, bam thank you ma’am” in style
 
Last edited:

CJR

Active Member
Fraud allegations in relation to the Collins replacement project...
Future Submarines program hit by fraud allegations
By Defence reporter Andrew Greene

Australia's $50 billion Future Submarines program has been hit by allegations of fraud, with a Commonwealth official being investigated for misappropriating funds.

The investigation has been confirmed by senior defence officials following questioning from South Australian Senator Rex Patrick during a Senate estimates hearing in Canberra.

"Defence is conducting an investigation into some allegations in relation to financial management," Defence Department Secretary Greg Moriarty told the committee.

"I don't want to go into further detail while there is a proper process underway," Mr Moriarty added.

It is believed the Defence Department employee under investigation was involved in the establishment of Australia's Future Submarine Office in France.
 

aussienscale

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Do you have any commentary on this ? do you have an opinion ? it is frowned upon to just paste a link to an article with no commentary from the poster. And at the end of the day it has nothing to do with Sea 1000, It is a civil matter for a public servant who has committed fraud.

It does not cast any doubt of the project, it just so happens the public servant works or did work on the program, so not really Defence related.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top