Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

RAN's Collins class replacement

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Originally posted by Monash View Post

    There are two big issues that have been hinted at in the press in the past that I am aware of. One is technical, the other contractual. What I don't know is which party is more to blame albeit give the money that's been spent (and will still have to be spent on a failed project) there's more than enough 'blame' to go around.

    Firstly the overall cost of the project had as you say gone up steeply. On this issue I suspect (but cannot prove) that the French 'oversold' just how easy it would be to convert their (or any SSN) platform for that matter) over to a diesel/electric design and along with that how long it would take for the necessary design changes to be worked through. The only thing this French hull really had going for it was that it was bigger and gave more endurance than the other competing bidders who were trying to sell us modified versions of existing operational air breathers. So I think the design phase more or less started falling way behind schedule from day one. And after 4 years? I'm guessing Australian engineers and on the ground in France were starting to report back in panic about just how far behind schedule they were. It didn't help that the French contractors apparently worked at the 'French pace' and the Australians wanted things done faster.

    The second issue (and this may be more Australia's fault - not that any lawyers will ever get the blame) was that key parts of the contract may have been poorly worded from Australia's perspective. From the onset the idea was supposed to be that 60% of the total value of the work would be done in Australia. I recall last year (I think) that the French were pushing back on this issue and disputing how much or at least what type of work would be done in Australia. Don't no if they got greedy, saw holes in the definitions of 'work' etc or just didn't want to transfer certain key technologies. Anyway it was definitely an area of dispute.

    Well the French are known to work more slowly than others especially when compared to us. They also believe strongly in 35 hours per week and when work ends, work ends. I'm surprised about the comment regarding the contract. Usually French businessmen like an agreement to be officially formalized in a comprehensive, precisely worded contract. They also prefer long term relationships so maybe they thought they had one and when altered, stabbed in the back as they say, they no longer trust Oz and are now throwing a temper tantrum and will make sure everyone knows and knows, and knows...

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by Chunder View Post
      I do believe viewing the subject from the position of just how seemingly impossible this seemed politically just a few years ago to be the primary concern for the way this has been handled.

      Happy the opposition is on board. Happy with the Biden administration. Happy that it seems the government has done it this way.
      Well played by ScoMo. Maybe this won't become the issue it was for Thatcher in the 80s and her decision to go with Trident.

      That your people remember this in the polls next year and retain ScoMo.

      If there's any doubt maybe your people should be made aware of the open threats that China is giving out.

      AUKUS to bring ‘nuclear-powered submarine fever’ across globe: Global Times editorial | GT | Sept 16 2021

      The world sees them.

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
        Well played by ScoMo. Maybe this won't become the issue it was for Thatcher in the 80s and her decision to go with Trident.

        That your people remember this in the polls next year and retain ScoMo.

        If there's any doubt maybe your people should be made aware of the open threats that China is giving out.

        AUKUS to bring ‘nuclear-powered submarine fever’ across globe: Global Times editorial | GT | Sept 16 2021

        The world sees them.
        Much ado about nothing if they think every "middle" level country will now want theirs. From who might I ask as it won't be the US or UK supplying them. Oops, guess who?

        I'm sure Australia will love knowing they are middle level.

        In some ways the Chinese, French, and North Koreans are very similar when they have a shitty fit.

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by tbm3fan View Post

          Much ado about nothing if they think every "middle" level country will now want theirs. From who might I ask as it won't be the US or UK supplying them. Oops, guess who?

          I'm sure Australia will love knowing they are middle level.

          In some ways the Chinese, French, and North Koreans are very similar when they have a shitty fit.

          The problem for China has is the same one the US and Britain and Russia for that matter have. There may well be plenty of middle sized nations who would like to buy SSN's if they could. But there are dam few of them who can be trusted not to leak vital core technologies to their political opponents. The only exception I can think of was India's lease of Russian subs. Those countries have had close defense ties for generations and India has been the largest foreign customer for Russian defense equipment and a vital source of foreign revenue now for decades. But it took how long for India to get its hand on Russian nuclear subs? And even those were hand me downs not cutting edge. (I believe they've been returned now haven't they?)

          That's why this deal is such big news. Perhaps Canada could join the 'club' but given the potential security issues I think it would be hard even for most NATO members to get an invite (assuming of course they wanted 'in' to begin with). But outside of that group? And China? Who amongst their client states (oop's sorry I means allies) would you trust to hand over that kind of tech to?
          Last edited by Monash; 18 Sep 21,, 03:59.
          If you are emotionally invested in 'believing' something is true you have lost the ability to tell if it is true.

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
            Well played by ScoMo. Maybe this won't become the issue it was for Thatcher in the 80s and her decision to go with Trident.

            That your people remember this in the polls next year and retain ScoMo.

            If there's any doubt maybe your people should be made aware of the open threats that China is giving out.
            Defence matters rarely ever decide elections in Australia. I see this as no different as ballsy as it is.

            It's 50/50 as to whether he will retain government. ? I don't know, I suck at political commentary.

            I think the read population acknowledges China as a real problem, I was shocked to read an article in 'The Gaurdian' of all places in favour of this path, and I do mean the word shocked.
            Ego Numquam

            Comment


            • #81
              There are few things I'm very curious about, in this whole deal and story.

              -If Australia wanted nukes, why didn't they stated so in the Collin's replacement project? Or did they suddenly changed opinion overnight?

              -Afaik, Australia has no infrastructure to support nuclear reactors; wonder how much extra that will cost?

              -Is the UK or the US actually going to sell Australia military nuclear technology (even if "just" propulsion-related)? This would be a first, right? I thought both countries had laws preventing this?

              -Assuming the boats are built in Asutralia, would this also mean the reactors? This would mean Australia building an entire new industry to build and maintain these 12 reactors (assuming the same number of boats of the canceled contract). While expensive, it would at least mean givig australian personnel hands-on experience on the reactors from the groundup. The alternative would be to have them built in the US or UK and then moved down under, with all the political, security and logistical problems this woule entail. In this case, either australian staff would have to live in the US/UK for a considerable period (something I think will have to happen anyway), or risk getting to know their charges only after arrival).

              -How long is this going to take, considering the program has been basically restarted? The canceled program was supposed, afaik, to have boats in the water by 2031 (?). Now a new class will have to be designed, new contracts drawn, shipyards and subcontracters selected... one way to cut down time would be to directly buy either Astute-class or Virginia-class boats, but that would mean scrapping not only the joint US/UK colaboration but also the "build in Australia" part. So... extra more years?

              -Meanwhile... the Collins class. Can it be kept working that long?

              -Finally, will the RAN find the crews to man so many boats? Weren't they having problems even many 3-4 Collins? Now they want to man 12 boats?

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by tbm3fan View Post

                Much ado about nothing if they think every "middle" level country will now want theirs. From who might I ask as it won't be the US or UK supplying them. Oops, guess who?

                I'm sure Australia will love knowing they are middle level.

                In some ways the Chinese, French, and North Koreans are very similar when they have a shitty fit.
                Search for the word 'mercy' in that article and read the para in which you find it. That was the intent of posting that article.

                I've decided to adopt the practice of your previous SECSTATE which is, to point out any and every time these people talk out their sides
                Last edited by Double Edge; 18 Sep 21,, 15:08.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by Chunder View Post
                  Defence matters rarely ever decide elections in Australia. I see this as no different as ballsy as it is.

                  It's 50/50 as to whether he will retain government. ? I don't know, I suck at political commentary.
                  In these times, the world needs more decisive leaders like him. Not many would have taken the risks he has and he's set an example that others must follow.

                  Originally posted by Chunder View Post
                  I think the read population acknowledges China as a real problem
                  At what point in time did you notice this shift. Any watershed moments that turned your people against China.

                  Back in 2010 it was a very different picture compared with recent years.

                  Originally posted by Chunder View Post
                  I was shocked to read an article in 'The Gaurdian' of all places in favour of this path, and I do mean the word shocked.
                  They were pointing out this was the first major foreign policy move of post brexit UK. Maybe it came as a relief for them
                  Last edited by Double Edge; 18 Sep 21,, 18:58.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Indonesian reaction appears to be diplomatic. Won't upset the Aussies and keeps the Chinese off their back.

                    Morrison-Joko meeting called off before Australian submarines announcement | SMH | Sept 17 2021


                    Prime Minister Scott Morrison’s plan to stop off in Jakarta on the way back from Washington next week was cancelled after President Joko Widodo opted to instead visit provinces outside the capital, while Indonesia reacts with alarm to Australia’s plan to arm itself with nuclear-propelled submarines.
                    I can't take this seriously. It's not like the Chinese aren't bothering the Indonesians in Natuna. I've noticed interviews with Indonesian ambassadors where they insist on being very nuanced about China. Not saying anything blunt, at least in public.
                    Last edited by Double Edge; 19 Sep 21,, 13:32.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Labor says it wouldn't back this deal unless the government said no to nuclear power facilities and no to nuclear weapons too and the prime minister agreed



                      Q. Can you explain to me why we even thought that a diesel submarine was the way to go five years ago ?

                      A. Five years ago i don't think we could have cemented the deal we've now got. It's taken that time and the changes in the environment, the strategic environment to reach a point where you've got both the US and the UK prepared to to back us
                      This needs more unpacking. The opposition wasn't coming from the Aussie side under Abbott. That part is clear.

                      It was the American side that needed time to decide. Couple of clues.

                      The irate French foreign minister decried how "Trumpian" in style this move was and that the French were shocked to discover this deal was 15 months in the making !!! Meaning French intel had no clue.

                      If its Trumpian in style that's because it was Trump's administration that got it going

                      All Biden did was review whatever the previous administration agreed and green light it.

                      Trump's administration brought in the Indo-Pacific construct and figured the Aussies needed a leg up. They figured ALL of their partners and allies need the ability to make this region free & open, a reality.


                      Q. One of the key failures of the previous deal's that we wouldn't get the first submarine until the mid 30s the last one the mid 50s. Obviously the need is great, the need is now. How fast can we get the first one. A nuclear-powered submarine under this new deal ?

                      A. i don't think it's going to be fast. Unfortunately, one of the most challenging bits of the transition is the personnel. And not only do you need more qualified submariners but the mix is quite different. A nuclear attack submarine has two qualified commanding officers and five qualified marine engineers compared to the one of each in a conventional.

                      So there's a quite a dramatic manpower bill and transition to be undertaken.
                      Doesn't answer :|

                      Q. Have you got any idea when the first one might be on our shores ?

                      A. From the manpower training perspective, you're looking at something like 15 years to the first commissioning.

                      You can probably shorten that with a pile of cooperation from both the US and the UK. In particular, the senior technical personnel supervising the capability ashore who take 15 or 20 years to train. We won't be able to do that from scratch and so borrowing those qualifications and that experience would enable us to fast track it.

                      We have something like 900 qualified submariners today which is a great effort. Training from four operational submarines, we're going to have to double that to man what i think will be the government saying at least eight

                      I would say you need at least 10 to actually have a sustainable manpower base,
                      So no ships ahoy until 2035 then

                      This whole experience has given me an insight into how to deal with people that insist we build at home instead of buying from abroad. In limited instances we can.

                      Well, the Aussies decided to do just that. Build at home under license. Turn defense projects from warfare into industrial welfare as advocated under Turnbull & Pine.

                      Spend 15 years redesigning a worse sub than the one on offer today
                      Last edited by Double Edge; 19 Sep 21,, 13:17.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by jlvfr View Post
                        There are few things I'm very curious about, in this whole deal and story.

                        -If Australia wanted nukes, why didn't they stated so in the Collin's replacement project? Or did they suddenly changed opinion overnight?

                        -Afaik, Australia has no infrastructure to support nuclear reactors; wonder how much extra that will cost?

                        -Is the UK or the US actually going to sell Australia military nuclear technology (even if "just" propulsion-related)? This would be a first, right? I thought both countries had laws preventing this?

                        -Assuming the boats are built in Asutralia, would this also mean the reactors? This would mean Australia building an entire new industry to build and maintain these 12 reactors (assuming the same number of boats of the canceled contract). While expensive, it would at least mean givig australian personnel hands-on experience on the reactors from the groundup. The alternative would be to have them built in the US or UK and then moved down under, with all the political, security and logistical problems this woule entail. In this case, either australian staff would have to live in the US/UK for a considerable period (something I think will have to happen anyway), or risk getting to know their charges only after arrival).

                        -How long is this going to take, considering the program has been basically restarted? The canceled program was supposed, afaik, to have boats in the water by 2031 (?). Now a new class will have to be designed, new contracts drawn, shipyards and subcontracters selected... one way to cut down time would be to directly buy either Astute-class or Virginia-class boats, but that would mean scrapping not only the joint US/UK colaboration but also the "build in Australia" part. So... extra more years?

                        -Meanwhile... the Collins class. Can it be kept working that long?

                        -Finally, will the RAN find the crews to man so many boats? Weren't they having problems even many 3-4 Collins? Now they want to man 12 boats?
                        I can't answer all of those questions, but I'll give it a go.

                        There has been back and forth among those looking at replacements for the Collins about the value of nuclear subs. Part of tha twas about whether or not the capability was required, the other was about the insustry required to support the nuclear technology. The current offer involves us obtaining reactors tha tare basically 'plug and play'. We aren't required to build, fuel or decommission them. That will be done before & after we get them. I assume we will be trained to maintain them, but that doesn't require a civilian nuclear industry. The AUKUS agreement is supposed to involve a fair bit of technology transfer both as part of the sub program and beyond it.

                        It isn't yet clear how much of the construction will be in Australia. With the French deal we started out at 90%, the French 'negotiated' us down to 60% and apparently they were trying to get our % down ever further. I would hope we will be closer to 90% than 60% o nthis project, but obviously that won't include the reactors. Personally I would prefer to buy off the shelf. It would likely be quicker and higher quality, but there is a LOT of politics in this. The current government has basically stripped most of what remained of our industrial base. This is one of the few things left and it is politically advantageous to keep it going. The plan is to buy/build 8 boats rather than 12. I am hoping for Virginias simply because more have been built so there is a lot more information on how to do it well.

                        Whatever the original deal said, there wasn't going to be a thing in the water by 2031. It took 3 years just to negotiate the contract and it was only finalized in 2019. Nothing was going to be launched before the mid 2030s and I wouldn't have been shocked if it was vry close to 2040, which is the proposed date for the first sub launch here. Of course, that may also bow out. There is also a plan to upgrade the Collins class, but they won't be in grea tshape by the time the yare finally decommissioned in the 2040s.

                        I think that is all correct. Hope it helps.

                        sigpic

                        Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by Double Edge View Post

                          At what point in time did you notice this shift. Any watershed moments that turned your people against China.
                          I didn't. At least not to this extent. I used to be a voracious reader of Real Clear Defence and had an account at some niche Defence forums and ghosted on others. My personal views about China definitely soured in the mid second term of Obama. When Trump got elected I switched off altogether, I remember disagreeing strongly with the likes of Kim Beazley at that point in time, but as a Nation? I'm not sure. There's something for everyone. If you're a University Student, through to a Professional. If you're a Business Man / Woman through to a diplomat. If you live in the electorate of Melbourne or the other side of the country in the Pilbara. A first generation immigrant from South Easy Asia or a 5th Generation wheat farmer, an environmentalist or a capitalist, someone that's never left Australia, or an returning expat, there's something for EVERYONE to dislike. My partner, definitely Left of Center Hates the CCP - disclosure I'm right of centre. I've read people who vote green more prepared to talk about nuclear safety on submarines than the one the greens leader is currently talking about, whose currently calling them floating Chernobyls.

                          Back in 2010 it was a very different picture compared with recent years.
                          I grew up fascinated by China, in the 2000s I had a real contempt for the neocon approach. Remember the moniker Chicoms? I still cringe. Fast forward 15 years and I've been unable to rationalise those thoughts over a developing feeling of just how one party states act and trend in reality regardless of what they call themselves. There is some really bad tendencies which just increasingly manifest themselves - I'm not altogether sure that as a system it's ever able to check itself because of the culture it breeds, and what one must become to be successful in that political mechanism. A self fulfilling prophecy where the culture guides the necessary statement regardless of fact or sensibilities. However not the thread, nor have I the IQ to flesh these thoughts out.

                          IN 2003 I flew SYD to LAX alongside a HK businessman. Being most interested in China I asked him about HK, I remember his viewpoint 'it's very bad, and it is going to get worse' he said. His wife agreed.



                          Ego Numquam

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Always good to hear from Captain James Fannell



                            Q. There's been much talk in the past about the so-called pivot to Asia. A lot of people disappointed it hasn't been as obvious. This would seem to be obviously a pivot to this part of the world by the US because there's only one other country you've shared this technology with before and that of course is the UK ?

                            A. right, this is a major demonstration of a commitment beyond just a power point bumper sticker as the pivot in many ways was. So this is something that i think people will be able to in Australia. the United States and UK, tangibly measure whether or not progress is being made.

                            With the experience of the French deal i think there's going to be a lot of pressure now on all concerned to not have another episode like that.
                            Important. The Aussies pissed of the Japs when they went with the French and then again when they switched to the Americans.

                            They have two choices to make. Virginia or Astute. Pick one and go with it.

                            Don't try to redesign an already working design. Just decide how and where and then get on with it.

                            Given the long time line to get the first ship and three year Aussie election cycles, there is the potential for confusion and delays so care needs to be taken not to allow that to happen.

                            Only thing missing in this discussion is the cost ?

                            Click image for larger version  Name:	cost.jpg Views:	0 Size:	20.2 KB ID:	1576586

                            Looks like closer to $40bn AUD for 8 subs
                            Last edited by Double Edge; 19 Sep 21,, 15:35.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by tbm3fan View Post

                              The French are now being... well very French!
                              For starters they

                              - were made to retrofit an SSN into a conventional diesel and spent more than five years at it. Refit a working proven design into an unproven one. How THAT decision was taken i do not know !!! I hear Turnbull had something to do with it and Pine, the then defense minister from South Australia with an obvious conflict of interest. He wanted the subs made in his state. Those three seats from SA were necessary to save Turnbull's prime ministership (!)

                              French could have sold them nuclear powered subs at the outset. Where did the objection come from ?


                              - they feel squeezed out by a cabal of allies with common interests. This more than anything has got them upset and is the bigger issue with ramifications further afield.

                              Which begs the question if the Aussies could have got a nuclear sub from either party why it had to be American/UK ?

                              Nuclear subs allow longer trips at sea. Either party could have provided them.

                              Is American war planning so hard boiled as to be incapable of accommodating non-American hardware ? obviously not.

                              What then ?

                              Aussie sub deployments could be subject to the whims of Paris which introduces an unwanted dependency for Washington.

                              Yeah but is that such an issue ? French have been reliable to date from India's experience.

                              French have the most overseas territory in the Indo-Pacific of any Euro power. French and Australia have common concerns here.

                              They do not integrate as well as. Yeah but there is more going on here and its political.

                              The simple answer is the Americans don't trust the French and it was insane to go with a sub designed by the French and then integrate an American combat system on top when the two host countries do not talk to each other.

                              Aussies knew this when they entered into the deal with the French and yet they still went ahead.
                              Last edited by Double Edge; 19 Sep 21,, 17:04.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by tbm3fan View Post

                                The French are now being... well very French!
                                France spent years designing a submarine for Australia, to australian specs. Which included "no nuclear". Then Australia signs a contract acepting the french deal. Now suddenly Australia rips the contract apart, after all this time and money, because... they want what they said they didn't want?...

                                How would the US or UK react to this, I wonder? I would certainly not be happy with someone to goes back on a contract...

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X