Aussie News, Broad spectrum

http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e314/MAC1966/S-80A.jpg

This is our S-80A model, surely will be offered to Australia

Problem is that it would involve a lot more than just a hull plug and would still be expensive to stretch a U214, and I’m guessing the RAN would want the U212, not the down spec 214. The Collins was an evolutionary extrapolation of Kockums sub designs and turned into an expensive clean sheet design. If the RAN want new subs, and they clearly do, then they just have to accept it’ll be hugely expensive and that for their own requirements the only existing suitable designs are nuclear (or Japanese) so that if they don’t want to go nuclear it means another new design like the Collins.

Back to Submarines if people don’t mind.

I think a Scorpene or U214 (U216?) stretch with AIP would surely meet Australia’s needs (endurance etc…).

I would think that western sub design houses will bend over backwards to meet Australias needs.

I doubt the Japanese government would allow co-production of one of their designs but I think other designs could meet the requirement.

Personally I would lean towards an increased endurance version of the U214 with the American combat systems that Australia prefers. On that note I have always wondered why other countries haven’t requested the magic bullet that the Bae Systems Spearfish is, as far as I can make out it’s the most sophisticated torpedo on the market. But then again is it the UK’s version of the F22…..our toy only boys and girls!:diablo:

That is what I am suggesting – supplementing them.

There will be many occasion I would imagine that it would make more sense to send a smaller ship that the LHDs, such as to the Solomons etc. Unless we are going to invade them, then the LHD would be more appropriate. But for the policing type tasks in our region the LHD’s would be overkill.

Sorry, I thought you meant ‘instead of’. 🙂

It would be nice to be able to operate a two tier amphibious force but it would be a tough ask for the RAN to find the money and the manpower.

There are usually a number of fast ferries between leases at Incat and these could be put into service fairly quickly in the event of a major conflict arising. I don’t know about the situation with Austal. The experience gained with the Jervis Bay lease and leases of several vessels to the US military would prove useful if this was to happen. I suspect that manpower shortages would make it difficult at present to maintain such ships in regular service as well as the large amphibious ships. In the years ahead the navy is likely to be flat out just manning and operating the LHDs efficiently (as well as overcoming manpower shortages in other areas (submarines for example).

Tas

That is what I am suggesting – supplementing them.

There will be many occasion I would imagine that it would make more sense to send a smaller ship that the LHDs, such as to the Solomons etc. Unless we are going to invade them, then the LHD would be more appropriate. But for the policing type tasks in our region the LHD’s would be overkill.

A few fast ships from Incat of about 15 – 17’000 tonne size would have more use than the two Spanish amphibs.

In what way would they be more useful than the LHDs?

In my opinion the LHDs will provide the RAN with a quantum leap in its capability to deploy and support the army. In fact, one LHD will arguably provide the equivalent capability of the three existing amphibious ships. Despite their age the existing LPA’s and Tobruck are among the hardest worked ships in the fleet but the navy, after leasing and operating Jervis Bay for a couple of years, evidently decided that, whilst it filled a useful niche role, it lacked the all round versatility provided by larger vessels.

As well as their primary role the LHDs will be able to operate as mother ships for vessels engaged in patrol or mine warfare operations and will provide a huge capability in areas outside of defence, such as disaster relief. Fast vessels from Incat or Austal may well find a useful role supplementing the work of the LHDs but not as alternatives to them.

Tas

I would like to see Australia do something radical with their warships. We have Incat and Austal that the Americans have been looking at their products, and apart from Jervis Bay during the East Timor thing 9 – 10 years ago, Australia has totally ignored.
A few fast ships from Incat of about 15 – 17’000 tonne size would have more use than the two Spanish amphibs.
We could have produced a great looking AWD based on the Austal trimarine that the yanks are looking at. If one was built to about 4’000 tonnes it could carry everything the AWD can, plus more missiles. And it would be a lot faster also.
Years ago Incat had a design for a 112m mini- aircraft carrier. Maybe we could also build some bigger versions of this, since Incat have enlarged their ship building site to 150m.
Oh well, we can all dream.

I’m sorry, but the Incat range of pseudo ‘warships’ are anything but.

To acheive the performance they do, they are built light, both structurally and from lightweight materials such as aluminium. Ask the USN or RN about the issues with aluminium vessels and battle damage / fire. Above a certain temperature, aluminium burns / melts.

The RAN investigated the use of Incat style fast cats, but unfortunately to achieve their performance, their engines are optimised for two speeds, stopped and flat out at over 40 knots. The vast majority of the time warships tend to troll around at less than 20 knots, only occaisionally sprnting at a higher speed. The engines Incat proposes are very thirsty at high speed and positively voracious at slower speeds.

As for some fantasy of building an Aegis style frigate on a 4000 tonne displacement, go ask the Norwegians about how well that is working out. The answer is not all that well. To fit a ship with offensive capability, defensive systems, the Aegis system, and a useful range of capabilities on a seaworthy hull requires a minium base hull size, if only to deal with high seas states and remain functional. That size seems to be around 6-7000 tonnes.

The 113m (or even 150 metre) Incat aircraft carrier has been pretty comprehensively looked at by a number of navies, and the concensus that each of them came to was that it looks good on the CGI and on paper, but it had significant limitations as an operational concept beyond providing a modest helicopter deck.

It was not really suitable for CTOL or even VSTOL ops, for a range of reasons, including hull motion, stability issues, susceptibility to asymetrical damage, the risk of fire fed by JP5 on an aluminium hulled vessel, the issues of at sea replenishment of a ship with extremely high fuel consumption (and thats before the aviation fuel requirements of embarked aircraft) and integration operations with conventional warships.

On that last the Incat vessel had a much higher economical (and I use that term advisedly) speed than other, conventional hull ships, and they would not be able to keep up with it. If it slowed to task force speed it ran through fuel way too quickly.

Conversely, the limits of sea-keeping for an Incat hull are much lower than for a conventionally built monohull.

There are uses for the Incat design, but it isn’t as some kind of pocket carrier or a replacement for multi-role warships.

Unicorn

I would like to see Australia do something radical with their warships. We have Incat and Austal that the Americans have been looking at their products, and apart from Jervis Bay during the East Timor thing 9 – 10 years ago, Australia has totally ignored.
A few fast ships from Incat of about 15 – 17’000 tonne size would have more use than the two Spanish amphibs.
We could have produced a great looking AWD based on the Austal trimarine that the yanks are looking at. If one was built to about 4’000 tonnes it could carry everything the AWD can, plus more missiles. And it would be a lot faster also.
Years ago Incat had a design for a 112m mini- aircraft carrier. Maybe we could also build some bigger versions of this, since Incat have enlarged their ship building site to 150m.
Oh well, we can all dream.

“the SDF is not allowed to possess ICBMs, long-range strategic bombers or offensive aircraft carriers.”

Interesting. Japan does not exclude building defensive aircraft carriers. :diablo:

Although ‘defensive’ aircraft carriers could be argued to mean ASW helicopter-carrying destroyers, and not an actual aircraft carrier just embarking interceptors (otherwise you could buy a Nimitz and just embark Hornets with the attack circuits removed, like the old Finnish ones).

…
The answer here is the obvious one – become instant best mates with the Japanese and ask to license the plans for the Improved Oyashio class. You modify to Aussie specifications and build them locally. Job literally done…as stated not many people want oceanic-range SSK’s anymore, but, luckily, for the RAN, the people who do still build them build very good ones.

I reckon licencing the Improved Oyashio (lets call it Sōryū, after the lead boat) would be acceptable under the Three Principles, because although Australia is involved in international conflicts, they 1) don’t include the use of submarines 2) have been supported by Japanese navy support ships & 3) are the same ones as the USA is involved in, so it could be argued that they are indirectly in support of the MDA. Therefore the only barrier to the export permits needed for technology transfer would be the political furore it would kick up. Unfortunately, that would need a very determined Japanese government to stand up to.

http://www.mofa.go.jp/policy/un/disarmament/policy/index.html

Nice idea, though. Oh – one thought – wouldn’t the Japanese be working on the successor to the Sōryū by the time Oz wants new subs? Therefore, it should really be “post-Sōryū”. 😀

PS. Do you think they’ll call the next one Hiryū? Which name, along with Sōryū, brings me to this digression – from http://www.mod.go.jp/e/d_policy/dp01.html

“the SDF is not allowed to possess ICBMs, long-range strategic bombers or offensive aircraft carriers.”

Interesting. Japan does not exclude building defensive aircraft carriers. :diablo:

The idea of ‘conventionalising’ an existing SSN design into a ‘large SSK’ is an odd one in the extreme. Just powering a Traf’s HVAC and sensor/processing suite would place an immense demand on battery storage. It would be necessary to start with, basically, an empty hull and try and work it all out from scratch?. Why bother!?.

The answer here is the obvious one – become instant best mates with the Japanese and ask to license the plans for the Improved Oyashio class. You modify to Aussie specifications and build them locally. Job literally done…as stated not many people want oceanic-range SSK’s anymore, but, luckily, for the RAN, the people who do still build them build very good ones.

Studies I have done show very few designs able to meet the RAN’s requirement and taking all this into account, it leaves out the German 212/214 classes or the new “Cheap Sub” from France DCN, given relations over the Type 471’s in RAN service- it is highly doubtful that Australia will return to Sweden anytime soon for sub designs. This leaves three logical and possible solutions; 1. Electric powered Virgina class from the US (in the past the USN has offered the RAN D/E powered LA boats but were turned down due to the cost of refitting the design for such power), 2. Electric powered Astute class boats from the UK (similar problems as those faced coming from the US, 3. Spain is known to posses a Scorpean design that is bigger and does incorperate TLAM’s and AIP. Now having a pure electric motor does negate having AIP, the fact that this design includes TLAM’s seems to open a few eyes.

Ja, while existing TKMS and DCNS SSK designs are too small for requirements here they may both be eyeing a larger boat, and TKMS as of 2007 has a “large submarine” on their roadmap. You can have a debate about the many other factors in this, however from a technical standpoint do not leave out the new French SSN, Barracuda (Suffren class). This is smaller (4,700t) than the UK and US SSNs and already has a “hybrid” nuclear-electric propulsion system that just might take alternative prime movers.

Something else that bugs me with this announcement is the figure of AUD25billion being thrown around. Let’s say this figure is derived at in a similar way to the recent Canadian programmes which total up acquisition cost and cost of operation for 25-year period.

it will have to be a variant of an off the shelf design to meet that target date in my mind.

This is the RAN’s problem, unless they decided to go with a SSN there aren’t any off the shelf designs that meet their requirements, it was true when the Collins were selected and unless there are major new SSK programs around the corner in Germany, France or Spain it’ll probably be true in 2018 unless by some miracle Japan were to look for an international submarine partner, which isn’t going to happen as they’re the only other country with SSK requirements close to those of the RAN. This is why I think a lot of the criticism of Kockums is unfair, OK the Collins could have been better managed, but given the demanding requirements etc. I really don’t see DCN, HDW, Navantia or anybody else would have done much better.

Whilst a small force of F35B’s would make sense in respect of offering the RAN organic air support, it’d be expensive and it’d be at the expense of amphibious ops as the vessels being built are amphibs OR CVL’s, not both, something the spanish have been quite open about.

The newer AIP systems are fantastic giving near nuclear capabilities, its one of the reasons I think that the Royal Navy should go back to a mixed nuclear/conventional sub force. Something along the lines of Astute light, a smaller version of the nuclear design with diesels and and an AIP system. Actually that would be along the lines of what Australia wants…

The RN should never have abandoned the T2400/Upholder class, which were basically a Trafalgar lite. Those boats have now got a bad name thanks to the never ending saga of their Canadian service, but they were extremely capable and powerful boats, it isn’t their fault they were never properly commissioned by the RN and that Canada hasn’t been able to manage doing it. The big advantage nuclear still has is endurance and fast transit speeds, but for inshore ops and defensive ops the SSK is the way to go.

I think all this just goes to emphasis that Australia has to get its act of Defence together and in order.

The issue of defence in ADF and in our Federal Politics has to be a more cohesive matter of importance.
Every time we have a swing of government, one of new incoming government’s priority’s seems to be yet another ‘White Paper’ review of defence and the IDF.
This has to stop!
I think that defence has to have a review at least every 5-years, so as to give the ADF a health check of the current threats, and trends in warfare and technology changes.
But this is purely for the good of defence as a whole, and not a political tool.

I have to back the current Federal government’s new directive that Ministers holding portfolios will have to wait a minimum of 18-months before being able to be employed or financially involved with business which involves this portfolio.
As I have stated in another previous subject topic – there are too many ex-ministers that have rolled over to comfortably into the defence sector over the past.

I think the previous out going Federal Government was a perfect example (and the worst I can recall) of this political medaling and toying with Australia’s Defence.
The previous (out-going) Prime Minster John Howard and his Right-Wing hardliners, over night (after the 9/11 attack) obsessively transformed the ADF onto an anti-terrorist war footing as a knee jerk reaction. This act was detrimental to what the ADF had been geared for under a previous ‘White Paper’ review, and for what the majority of the ADF had been training and equipping itself.
To continue his want-to-be knee jerking reactions self claimed ‘Sheriffs’ to the United States-
At the blink of an eye, John Howard committed us to a war in Iraq.
This required the already over stretched ADF (especially the Army) which was committed to ops in East Timor and Afghanistan to swing back to a conventional war scenario.
Then as this war progressed into an occupation force, the ADF has had to swing its training and equipment back to urban insurgency warfare scenario.
Then as the United States began to up the anti, with North Korea and its ballistic missile development, John Howard decided that the new ‘Air Defence’ ships needed to be in the ABM game – so he announced that we would be part of the Standard 3 / ABM umbrella program – just like the big boys club
This knee jerk decision will cause the new ‘Air Defence’ ships (the Spanish designed F100 Frigates) to be far more costly than first planned, as well as the last 13-years have testified – will more than likely cause technical integration problems, and most importantly a critical time delay of these important ships into operational service and or the scenario of being put into service, before all their systems are working 100% (i.e. the Collins Class sub, Adelaide Class FFG, and the SeaSprite program have been examples of these disastrous, costly and detrimental programs for the IDF)
No we need a transparent ‘White Paper Review’ which can not be scraped, or pillage by what ever government comes into power, without a thorough and comprehensive investigation / senate inquiring, which would include the ADF and Australian defence industries, which are able to speak freely, without politic constraint, as to what new governments new wants or proposed changes will do to the ADF’s existing acquisition, research and development programs, training and very importantly moral and efficiency of the ADF as a whole.

For at the end of the day the ADF is a small, but professional force which has to be flexible, and exercise initiative while being reasonable with what it would like and what it can realistically have when it comes to weapon systems and weapons platforms.
For traditionally once chosen, these systems have to be kept and used for longer periods of time than other military force would, and yet kept combat efficient over this period of time.

Regards
Pioneer

There is no ‘sad end’ for the Collins, with them remaining in service with upgrades until 2025. That will see a service live of 35 years.

There is no in-service date of 2018 for the new subs. The date beng considered is 2025. 2018 is the date for fixing the design. This has been previously announced by the former government but the new Labour government is trying to make itself appear as if it has new ideas.

The likelyhood of a fouth AWD is receding, not getting stronger, with the new Treasurer looking at slashing current government expenditure to fund the new governments programs. There is nothing so vulnerable as an as-yet unordered, un-contracted military procurement.

The name Australia is currently reserved for a major surface combatant, which the LHD’s does not comprise. There may be rumours, but the section that handles naming of new ships (Naval Historical Section) confirms that Australia is not under consideration for the LPA’s.

As for the public pushing for name changes, the public barely knows about the RAN’s new building program,let alone get excited about naming. Sounds like some collumnest getting themselves lathered up about nothing.

The robotic systems are not on the menu for the RAN, the manufactuer is talkig up the possibility however it is a non-starter for a few reasons. There is negligable pirate activity in Australian territorial waters, which means the only place these would be used is in other people’s territorial waters (Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore). These nations have shown themselves to be VERY reluctant to allow other navies to undertake anti-piracy operations within their waters, let alone the use of deadly force. Now we are supposed to believe that not only will they authorise deadly force but that they will allow someone else’s UAVs to do so. Nah, not going to happen this decade.

There has been no order for F35Bs, I don’t know where your getting your info Ja, but they should try a reality check. There has been no contract signing for the actual order of F35s, let alone an order for a sub-group of B models. Australia has signed a MOU for F35s however no contract for acquisition has been signed.

The RAAF is opposed to a split buy of A and B models, and Navy is painfuly aware it does not have the personnel to reconstitute the fixed-wing FAA, leaving it reliant on the RAAF for pilots and MX.

Talk has been going on that NH-90s were gong to be acqured to replace the Super Sea Sprites for at least five years, pre-dating the MRH-90 buy. At this stage it is possible that the new government may junk the aircraft, blaming its failures on the previous government and order something new, but no decision has yet been made by the Minister or CDF or CN.

Unicorn

I stand happily corrected!;)

A 2025 in service date makes far more sense anyway especially as the Collins are going through a rolling upgrade program at the moment.

Wow! Thats quite a sad end to the Collins class saga, I presumed that they would be in service for longer with AIP being introduced at a later date.

A 2018 in service date will require a very tightly run program, it will have to be a variant of an off the shelf design to meet that target date in my mind.

Expect every conventional western sub design houses to be offering increased endurance versions of their current designs. Certainly will be interesting:)

There is no ‘sad end’ for the Collins, with them remaining in service with upgrades until 2025. That will see a service life of 35 years.

There is no in-service date of 2018 for the new subs. The date beng considered is 2023. 2018 would be launch date for the first. This has been previously announced by the former government but the new Labour government is trying to make itself appear as if it has new ideas.

The likelyhood of a fouth AWD is receding, not getting stronger, with the new Treasurer looking at slashing current government expenditure to fund the new governments programs. There is nothing so vulnerable as an as-yet unordered, un-contracted military procurement.

The name Australia is currently reserved for a major surface combatant, which the LHD’s does not comprise. There may be rumours, but the section that handles naming of new ships (Naval Historical Section) confirms that Australia is not under consideration for the LPA’s.

As for the public pushing for name changes, the public barely knows about the RAN’s new building program,let alone get excited about naming. Sounds like some collumnest getting themselves lathered up about nothing.

The robotic systems are not on the menu for the RAN, the manufactuer is talkig up the possibility however it is a non-starter for a few reasons. There is negligable pirate activity in Australian territorial waters, which means the only place these would be used is in other people’s territorial waters (Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore). These nations have shown themselves to be VERY reluctant to allow other navies to undertake anti-piracy operations within their waters, let alone the use of deadly force. Now we are supposed to believe that not only will they authorise deadly force but that they will allow someone else’s UAVs to do so. Nah, not going to happen this decade.

There has been no order for F35Bs, I don’t know where your getting your info Ja, but they should try a reality check. There has been no contract signing for the actual order of F35s, let alone an order for a sub-group of B models. Australia has signed a MOU for F35s however no contract for acquisition has been signed.

The RAAF is opposed to a split buy of A and B models, and Navy is painfuly aware it does not have the personnel to reconstitute the fixed-wing FAA, leaving it reliant on the RAAF for pilots and MX.

Talk has been going on that NH-90s were gong to be acqured to replace the Super Sea Sprites for at least five years, pre-dating the MRH-90 buy. At this stage it is possible that the new government may junk the aircraft, blaming its failures on the previous government and order something new, but no decision has yet been made by the Minister or CDF or CN.

Unicorn

Ja, you know the 1928 Australia was a Heavy cruiser! 😉

What order, any info?

AIP is still possible, it just means no direct-drive option… they power electric generators.

The newer AIP systems are fantastic giving near nuclear capabilities, its one of the reasons I think that the Royal Navy should go back to a mixed nuclear/conventional sub force. Something along the lines of Astute light, a smaller version of the nuclear design with diesels and and an AIP system. Actually that would be along the lines of what Australia wants…

Wow! Thats quite a sad end to the Collins class saga, I presumed that they would be in service for longer with AIP being introduced at a later date.

A 2018 in service date will require a very tightly run program, it will have to be a variant of an off the shelf design to meet that target date in my mind.

Expect every conventional western sub design houses to be offering increased endurance versions of their current designs. Certainly will be interesting:)