RAN's Collins class replacement

[gf0012-aust]

In the short term I think you are right about the Brazilians.
They may be thinking into the future as the Chinese reach out in say the next twenty years? The Chinese have been attempting to gain influence in Central and South America. How many SSN's will the Chinese have in that twenty year window? will they be operating in the South Atlantic?
The Brazilians would rather go to nuke school before they find the Chinese in their backyard.

I seriously can't see the Brazilians planning 30 years ahead for china, their primary goal and implied manifest destiny is to be the pre-eminent power in sth america. argentina, chile, venuzuela and at a pinch bolivia. they're keen on managing ecuador and venzuela and by proxy keeping the mexicans at bay. they're a regional power.

as for australia, she dropped her nuke weapons program in the early 70's as a result of US discussions with Aust and West Germany on the NPT. ie if we dropped nuke weapons development the US would cover us both under her nuclear umbrella. That resulted in RAAF F-111's becoming expensive dumb iron trucks (and dumb early gen guided munition trucks)

[surfgun]

Those F-111's, included a lot of spare parts at reasonable prices! Not to mention the complimentary tech manuals.
Those 1970's treaties were operating under the matrix of the threat coming from the Soviet Union. The threat matrix has most definitely changed.
Re: Brazil envisions itself much more than a regional power, and at it's current pace will become very powerful indeed.

[gf0012-aust]

Those F-111's, included a lot of spare parts at reasonable prices! Not to mention the complimentary tech manuals.
Those 1970's treaties were operating under the matrix of the threat coming from the Soviet Union. The threat matrix has most definitely changed.
Re: Brazil envisions itself much more than a regional power, and at it's current pace will become very powerful indeed.

australia is subject to the NPT and that governs political atttitude re nukes

Brasil may well envisage itself as more than a regional power, but the rubber hits the road when you do the analysis.

[surfgun]

Perhaps, a couple Spanish built LHD's will make Brazil more than a regional power? Just kidding.

[JRT]

Perhaps, a couple Spanish built LHD's will make Brazil more than a regional power? Just kidding.

There is also Brasil's NAe São Paulo (A12), the old French Foch CATOBAR carrier.

Not sure when they are going to buy some modern 4th gen planes.

[Chunder]

Perhaps, a couple Spanish built LHD's will make Brazil more than a regional power? Just kidding.

The Brazilian navy is more often than not given a lot more political support through political networking than the other services. It's politicking is much more entrenched. I didn't ever see a reason for Brazil to have nuke subs on the agenda. When it got tracking I just thought of it as another golden spoon for the Navy - it was so out of left field at the time.

Foch was always a bad buy for the Brazilians.

[JRT]

we aren't going to get nukes - no matter what the "noise" coming from interest groups

Looks like there has been some more of that noise recently.

Won't happen, but it would be interesting to see an SSGN from OZ, maybe sharing some technology from UK's SSBN(R) Vanguard replacement program.

(Collins Class) Sub costs twice as much as US nuclear version
Ian McPhedran, Defence Writer From: The Advertiser October 17, 2011 12:00AM


AUSTRALIA'S Collins Class submarines are more than twice as costly to operate as US Navy nuclear submarines.

New figures obtained by The Advertiser show the six Collins boats cost about $630 million a year or $105 million each to maintain, making them the most expensive ever put to sea.

At present, just two of the fleet of six boats could go to war and with a maximum of three available at any one time, the costs are even higher when applied to serviceability.

The annual price for "sustainment" (maintenance and support) is $415.9 million for 2011-12, with operating costs (fuel, rations, wages, weapons) running at $213.4 million.

By comparison, a US Navy Ohio Class nuclear attack submarine, which is more than three times the size of a Collins boat, costs about $50 million a year.

The disturbing cost figures come as Defence officials revealed that at least two possible contenders for the navy's new submarine fleet, the Spanish S-80 and French-Spanish Scorpene class boat, have been ruled out of the future submarine project.

Answering questions on notice from Opposition spokesman David Johnston, Defence said both vessels did not meet "Australia's broad needs as outlined in the Defence White Paper".

They are smaller than the Collins and the White Paper calls for 12 larger submarines to cost up to $36 billion.

In 2008, an embarrassed navy brass ceased to report on the performance of the Collins fleet in the Defence annual report.

The 2007-08 performance outcome for the Collins fleet showed that it achieved just 64 per cent of its mission capability or 559 days of actual availability.

Since then the figures have been classified as "secret", but assuming a similar outcome then sustainment and maintenance of the subs now cost taxpayers a total of $1,643,835 a day for the six vessels or $273,972 a day each.

With only two or three available for duty that cost blows out to more than $500,000 a day.

Senator Johnston accused the Government and Defence Minister Stephen Smith of taking their eye off the ball when it came to the submarines.

A decision on the direction of the future submarine project is due to be made late this year or early in 2012.

[gf0012-aust]

Looks like there has been some more of that noise recently.

Won't happen, but it would be interesting to see an SSGN from OZ, maybe sharing some technology from UK's SSBN(R) Vanguard replacement program.

McPhedran is not exactly someone that is a reference source. He's a newspaper journo who's been pulled up before for misquoting even after getting a direct briefing.

again, we're not getting nukes. the Left will never do it, the Right will struggle because the general public is ill informed and can't separate nuclear power with nuclear weapons.

I can confidently tell you that the UK will not be a primary source for sub technology, it will be the US because of interoperability and extant tech transfer issues that we get through ITARS etc.... We look to the UK for solutions just like we look to other countries - we are not looking to the UK for sub solutions. They're not on the same page when it comes to the build and tech advances that the US has consistently demonstrated with the Virginias. They are the gold standard on sub project mgt.

The fact that it was the USN and NAVSEA that were instrumental in fixing problems with the Astutes should not be lost on people either.

i've said here and elsewhere over the last 3 years that the S80's and Scorpenes were not preferred hulls

[Aussiegunner]

I'd bet my job, my house and my 3 cars on the fact that we won't get nuke subs.....

If I had my "drothers" I'd love to see some flying the RAN ensign.... SSGN's though. not SSN's

What about your left testicle?

[gf0012-aust]

What about your left testicle?

left and/or right :)

[JRT]

...again, we're not getting nukes. the Left will never do it, the Right will struggle because the general public is ill informed and can't separate nuclear power with nuclear weapons.

I can confidently tell you that the UK will not be a primary source for sub technology, it will be the US because of interoperability and extant tech transfer issues that we get through ITARS etc.... We look to the UK for solutions just like we look to other countries - we are not looking to the UK for sub solutions. They're not on the same page when it comes to the build and tech advances that the US has consistently demonstrated with the Virginias. They are the gold standard on sub project mgt.

I get that politics are not going to let it happen, though it should happen. On your end the left won't accept anything nuclear powered. On the US end, acquiring KAPL's SG9 could be as difficult as acquiring the F-22.

China will likely continue maturing their high altitude reconnaissance drones beyond their current Chengdu Xianglong, will continue to mature their JL-2 SLBM, and will continue to mature the ASBM technology currently used in their DF-21D. It remains to be seen if they will transition that ASBM technology from the DF-21D to the longer ranged JL-2, for a submarine launched anti-ship ballistic missile (why not?). If and when that ever does happen, the pragmatic attitudes of the political center may change in belated reaction. Time will tell.

[gf0012-aust]

I get that politics are not going to let it happen, though it should happen. On your end the left won't accept anything nuclear powered. On the US end, acquiring KAPL's SG9 could be as difficult as acquiring the F-22.

the fundamental issue is that both UK and Aust are fast track partners on ITARs issues. Both countries get access to gear and systems which don't ever appear in the public domai, or even in "trade" journals (even subscriber restricted pubs). There are any number of techs and software sols that the I see in open forum discussions wher commentators confidently talk about being embargoed but which I know from first hand experience are in use/service.

China will likely continue maturing their high altitude reconnaissance drones beyond their current Chengdu Xianglong, will continue to mature their JL-2 SLBM, and will continue to mature the ASBM technology currently used in their DF-21D. It remains to be seen if they will transition that ASBM technology from the DF-21D to the longer ranged JL-2, for a submarine launched anti-ship ballistic missile (why not?). If and when that ever does happen, the pragmatic attitudes of the political center may change in belated reaction. Time will tell.

time will tell, but the prudent side of me also remembers during the cold war (esp maritime and air issues) where the US at a congressional level were wringing their hands about a soviet capability gap where the US was vulnerable, and yet over the last 10 years as docs are progressively declassified, we find out that the US actually knew all along hpw to deal with and had superiority against the very systems thrown up as threats. ie they ran a bait and switch. The US Army right up until the early 80's was literally vulnerable, but the gap changed dramatically by 1989. By 1991, the US had changed warfighting constructs to a level that was almost akin to the arrival of the first dreadnought - the RMA effects are still reverberating today and have been singularly responsible for china revisiting how she intends to fight.

my caution is that irrespective of the claims made re the DF21, we are still yet to see any evidence of a test against a mobile let alone static target that even remotely represents a ship underway let alone under intelligent evasive manouvre, let alone with self protection systems awake.

anyone who has been involved in weapons evaluation, weapons testing, systems eval and systems testing will tell you that you can have 95% successful testing and on the day the system goes gold is the day that you discover a new problem in deployment and activation.

is the tech viable and a threat? - no doubt, is it achievable? - no doubt, is it a game changer? - not IMO because it assumes that for the 5 years that the western govts have elected to talk about this capability publicly has also seen them become agents of inertia and that the affected services and industty players have not done anythingt to improve and/or develop defeat mechanisms.

its akin to a "how long is a piece of string" question. At so many other levels the US has a lead over mainland china, and silver bullet solutions ignore the reality of how countries in modern warfighting constructs will be playing the game. a weapons system is but one discrete element of a systems response. china as an example is a one sided maritime regional power with notional hostile neighbours who are becoming more and more distrustful (eg the russians have placed CBM's in the east visibly for the first time ever) Short of total war and the violence of a full blown nuclear onslaught, the US has so much redundancy of capability, delivery and geographical, force level geographical advantage (not in the terran sense) that its not funny.

the US as a counter has a demonstrated capacity to fight multi-theatre geographically dispersed conflicts, had the advantage of reach (at a real tri-service level), has mature tech able to deliver those solutions, and has an ewarfare cohort that can literally reach out and see anyone virtually anywhere at virtually anytime - china has yet to demonsntrate that capability at the regional power level, let alone global level

a little bit of considerd perspective needs to kick in when we talk about latency of threat...

so on subs, being aligned with a country that already gives us access to capabilities and solutions that some NATO members would only dream about, being geographically placed near our principle warfighting partners largest force element (7th Fleet/PACOM) gives Aust a "leg in" that is of some advantage. The USN for example has been singularly responsible in a number of tech areas of lobbying USG to get tech to Australia which even at a country to country level might not have been done - or done within the preferred time frame. The reality of our relationship with PACOM and USMC in the PACRIM cannot be overstated or measured accurately, but suffice to say that there would be less concern about getting what we'd like to have than what we can't "have."

[JRT]

RAN's Collins class subs and the subject of postponing replacements are back in the news.

Subs may go 7 more years

by John Kerin and Lucille Keen
December 13, 2012 Thursday
Australian Financial Review, Second Edition

The Royal Australian Navy can keep its troubled submarine fleet in service an extra seven years because the vessels have spent so much time out of the sea being repaired.

The second instalment of a review of the fleet by John Coles published yesterday found systemic failings over 17 years had bedevilled the submarines and left only one or two available at times.

A separate analysis for the Defence Department says the first of the Collins class subs will not have to be retired until 2032 instead of the current 2025. It gives Defence Minister Stephen Smith extra time to make a decision on the next generation of submarines, which could cost up to $36 billion.

"It shows that there is no reason why that life of service could to be extended for one full operating cycle, some seven years excluding a period of full or deep maintenance," Mr Smith said.

Defence sources said the review should be enough to ensure the government rules out using an updated Collins as the model for a new submarine.

But Mr Smith declined to rule out the option of proceeding with an updated Collins submarine for Australia's new submarine even though the report found their performance among the worst of comparable navies.

Defence sources said one of the reasons the Collins life could be extended was because the submarines spend so much time out of the water due to frequent systems failures and reduced wear and tear on the hulls.

Releasing the second phase of the Coles review of the troubled fleet, Mr Smith said the submarines fell short of acceptable international performance benchmarks but that did not mean he should rule out the Collins as the starting point for the new submarine project.

"There is nothing in the reports today which puts us off the build of the future submarine program," Mr Smith said in Adelaide.

The government is planning to build 12 submarines to replace the six ageing Collins class boats. A decision is set for 2017.

In his report, UK submarine expert John Coles confirmed findings revealed in The Australian Financial Review that the "Collins class achieves slightly over half the availability performance of comparable international navies".

Mr Coles said the submarines, of which less than two are available at times, spend on average a third more time in maintenance.

Mr Coles' report blames the lack of an overall maintenance plan for the fleet since its inception in 1996, lack of a performance-based ethos within the Navy and ASC and unclear lines of responsibility between the Defence Material Organisation, the Navy and Adelaide submarine maintainer ASC as all contributing to the poor maintenance performance.

He made 25 recommendations aimed at improving reliability and performance and set out a plan to ensure the Collins class met international standards by 2016.

"The current availability of the Collins class submarines is poor in absolute terms and relative to the performance of comparable submarines operated by other Navies. Australia should have three or four submarines available to the Navy fleet commander at one time," he wrote. Reliability has been the poor relation and will need far more serious attention and resources."

Mr Coles recommended the Navy should aim to have two submarines available all the time, three submarines 90 per cent of the time and four submarines 50 per cent of the time.

Australian Strategic Policy Institute analyst Andrew Davies said the report pointed overwhelmingly to management failings rather than problems with the subs that could not be fixed, meaning the updated Collins should remain in contention.

A defence analysis released with the Coles review found that the operational life of the Collins class of 28 years could be extended by up to seven years.

Mr Smith also announced a submarine land-based test site will be built in South Australia, making an "irresistible" case for future submarines to be built in South Australia, Premier Jay Weatherill says.

The test site will enable some prospective on-board systems including propulsion and drive systems to be tested on land rather than problems emerging after installed in the vessels.

The $100 million site decision is good news for South Australia, which has been battered by significant job losses at the local General Motors plant, the deferral of BHP's Olympic Dam expansion and the loss of the state's triple-A credit rating.

.

More criticism unleashed on Collins-class subs in final damning report

12/17/2012
Jane's Navy International

Australian Navy's six-strong Collins class submarine fleet has been just over half that achieved by comparable international submarine programmes, according to a second and final report on Collins' sustainment released on 12 December by Australian Defence Minister Stephen Smith.

The report by John Coles, a former chief executive of the UK Warship Support Agency, also disclosed that the time spent on planned maintenance was about a third greater than other nations, while maintenance overruns and percentage days lost due to defects were approximately double that of comparable programmes.

The low level of sustainment was blamed by the report on unclear operational requirements, lack of a performance-based culture, blurred lines of accountability, poor planning, and lack of a single set of accurate information to inform decision making.
The report suggested that target availability levels for a six-submarine fleet should be set at two submarines deployable 100% of the time, three submarines available 90% of the time, and four submarines available 50% of the time.

Some 25 recommendations intended to restore the Collins fleet to an international benchmark by 2016 included reducing the length of full cycle docking from three to two years, having only one submarine at a time undergoing this major refit, and introduction of a 100-day plan and a Transformation Programme Manager.

A separate report into the service life of the Collins fleet, also released on 12 December, found no single technical issue that would fundamentally prevent a life extension of one operating cycle - currently about seven years excluding full life-cycle docking - for the fleet.
The current on-paper service life of the Collins boats runs from 2024 to 2031.

The ability to extend this by an operating cycle should probably be sufficient to cover any potential capability gap between withdrawal of the Collins fleet and the introduction into service of the first batch of the 12 conventionally-powered Future Submarines intended under Project Sea 1000 to begin replacing the Collins boats around 2025.

In a linked development, Smith announced that a land-based submarine propulsion, energy, support and integration test site for the Future Submarine programme is to be established, primarily in Adelaide, where the Future Submarines will be built, although some elements would be located in Western Australia and Victoria.

He did not give any details of the construction schedule.

.

[gf0012-aust]

RAN's Collins class subs and the subject of postponing replacements are back in the news.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]31252[/ATTACH]

Unfort most of the way that this has been reported is wrong - and/or misiniterpreted

eg Sub availability is not due to sub mechanical probs but because the Govt itself tried to save money to hit a financial surplus and put haldf the fleet into9 deep maintenance. As you just can't turn them back on at a whim, that means that the boats are offline for min 12-18months at a time

if submariners aren't doing their job (submarining) then they get unhappy - guess what happened?

also ASPI has as much credibility on defence issues as The Guardian has on writing positive reviews about The Republicans.

They're a think tank, partially funded by Govt (parasiting is what some in the Services term it) and they make comments about capability which often have no reflection on the way any of the war planners/fighters think we will be doing. Without fear or favour I can think of no one within Defence who has anything positive to say about them - except that we could use the money they get funded with to fix up some of the Govt stuff ups which nobody appears to want to talk about loudly

Collins will be a continuing political football - thats the sad thing. This kind of dross is an example of the rubbish we're likely to see in the public domain for the next 15 years until No 1 Ser 2 ghets launched

[zraver]

which great economic powers never went to war in their ascendancy.....

Transistion from a UK dominated world to a US dominated one is the only peaceful rise I can think of.