Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Australia Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Latest Defence Budget and Collins Replacement Alternatives
Kirkzzy    5/20/2011 10:49:18 AM
So as you all know, defence will not be getting its 3% budget increase this year. And... as such The Australian has gone on with its usual load of crap. Blaming the government and ADF. (no offence intended, I try to keep an open mind and read right and left newspapers) http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/commentary/defence-cuts-cripple-the-nations-options/story-e6frgd0x-1226057808643 http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/budgets/plane-truth-is-our-force-2030-is-missing-in-inaction/story-fn8gf1nz-1226053596400 Pretty much they're saying that because of one missed increase the future submarine project other defence acquisitions are going to fail. (they themselves not realising that money not spent now will mean bigger increases in the future, as the Defence min has indicated)Anyway to the point, pretty much it is like their usual rant of "We need more guns, planes, subs, etc..." (which is getting old),only allowing comments on a story that sides with them and saying that we will not be able to get 12 of the future subs in time... etc What I wanted to know was, in a way it is a big project and 12 subs is going to cost a lot of money. What alternatives would there be? I mean for deterrence, lets say we go with 8 future subs instead like they wanted/were thinking of doing with the Oberons and Collins IIRC (possible nukes). What would be able to fill the gap for deterrence, as the F-111 with its incredible range is gone... what have we got now? Or what could we get? (using the money saved on not buying as many subs.. this can also open the door to getting a 4th AWD) TL;DR version: Options for Australia's future deterrence.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3   NEXT
gf0012-aust       5/23/2011 4:22:31 AM
Sticking a plug in it to put in a bigger larder and another generator sounds a lot easier to me than designing an entirely new sub. They extended the 209's on enough occasions to showthat it can be done. As for the tropical operations stuff, we now know about that so could contribute to ensure that it is addressed while being built. Again, easier than building an entirely new sub.

In any case, the other  issue for me is that there are heaps of other things that we can do with the extra $31 million billion, either in defence, somewhere else or left in taxpayers pockets. To put that in context, that is almost double the entire JSF buy. AFAIC the capabilty advantages that the "big sub" proponents claim just isn't worth the expense



the problem with the COTS argument about being easier just doesn't stand up to the reality of what you have to do for engineering certification.  (another problem as most don't realise that the engineering certification is not just navy, but civilian engineers where the vessel has to be accredited to Lloyds and/or Norde Veritas standards.  Military vessels can be exempt, but they have not been for a while due to pollution and EPA requirements (eg double hulling for skimmers is a good example).  if you don't meet certification, you don't get to enter their territorial waters - and we've banned ships ourselves for not complying.  it causes grief even when those vessels are stripped of their penant.

in the case of subs you just can't get an extant design and plug it.  again its a lesson that the swedes learnt the hard way when they tried to upsize the base design into collins, despite  being confident that it was just an extrapolation exercise it isn't.  eg changing hull length impacts on acoustic transmission and triggers different cavitation issues, - to manage the caviitation might mean that the hull length has to be "x" when all you actually want is "y" to deal with putting in a special forces plug, or a VLS plug of SR/MR missiles. as soon as you factor in the plug it is a complete recertification process

in actual fact it is cheaper to build a purpose built bigger sub from scratch - the recert process, the re-engineering issues are common knowledge within the shipbuilding.industry

whats not common knowledge and where it would be useful to have an understanding is that in actual fact the costs associated with building collins are actually lower than every other major greenfield sub build - and that includes the Scorpenes and 214's

The only sub program in modern times that come in on time and relatively on budget are the SSGN's and thats because the USN had some savage lessons learnt in the Seawolf and Virginia class - and Virginia until recently was regarded as the bench mark
COTS/MOTS is seriously misunderstood, classic examples for Australia are Land 17 - where thye requirements were less about what the military needed but by what the vehicles had to comply with at a civilian certification level including federal legislation on OH&S issues (I kid you not) and in meeting ADR compliance requirements directed by Govt.  ie they had to meet some passenger vehicle ADR's - this for a 155mm mobile howitzer.

the cost of COTS is that you still have to integrate it - and in a weapons system that means a whole pile of safety critical issues that COTS solutions don't even include in their engineering models. (ie human factors and danger to individuals under common vignette usage scenarios).  The money is not about the metal and silicon, its about integration.  If you look at all the major programs (here and overseas) where they're slipping on schedule and ballooning on cost - its the ones requiring integration.  Invariably its about safety critical issues and the clear disconnect between civilian safety standards and military standards where the latter is part of meeting the engineering requ
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain       5/23/2011 5:25:11 AM




in actual fact it is cheaper to build a purpose built bigger sub from scratch - the recert process, the re-engineering issues are common knowledge within the shipbuilding.industry


and

whats not common knowledge and where it would be useful to have an understanding is that in actual fact the costs associated with building collins are actually lower than every other major greenfield sub build - and that includes the Scorpenes and 214's
Given that the Collins was a highly modified evolution of an existing design, aren't those statements contradictory?




 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain       5/23/2011 5:35:58 AM
In any case even if you are right and putting a plug in an existing design is too expensive, I'd rather see us just buy the existing design as it is and go without some capability. Being able to do a bit of peacetime acoustic intel in the South China Sea out of Stirling and being able to lob a dozen Tomahawks just isn't worth an extra $31 bil. The basic capability that we need is to interdict action against Australia and to the islands to our north as well as landing special forces. We can do that with more smaller subs, even if they have shorter ranges, by sending more, rotating them more frequently and/or by providing a tender. 
I'd rather see the vast amount of extra money spent on all the other priorities like earlier introduction of the smaller subs, an extra AWD or 3, coastal corverttes/OHP's, extra aerial refuelling tankers, a spy satellite above the region, extra Chinooks, an extra battalion or two, a modern tracked armoured fighting vehicle, extra ARH's, a squadron or two of Reapers/Predators, the offensive jamming equipment to turn the F-18F's into EF-18G's, fast catamarans for transport .... I could go on but I think you get the picture.
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       5/23/2011 6:45:22 AM





in actual fact it is cheaper to build a purpose built bigger sub from scratch - the recert process, the re-engineering issues are common knowledge within the shipbuilding.industry

and
whats not common knowledge and where it would be useful to have an understanding is that in actual fact the costs associated with building collins are actually lower than every other major greenfield sub build - and that includes the Scorpenes and 214's

Given that the Collins was a highly modified evolution of an existing design, aren't those statements contradictory?


Nope.  the blowout costs for Collins revolved around a number of things. 

1) the swedes assumed that they could upscale a smaller design (precursor gotland) into a larger sub
2) the engineering process was compromised because it required extensive development to fix what they assumed were extrapolated changes - and upscaling is not exponential - eg hull length and acoustic/cavitation impact being one example 
3) pt 2 under any other circumstances would have probably raised questions early about the bow - one of the first things that they buggered up - in fact apart from weld defects it triggered cavitation anomalies.  the legacy bow is that shape because of sensor and torpedo fitout and relates to basic things like speed against typical profile.  Collins was designed to have a higher performance across the range - including duration as well as absolute range.  In absolute tactical parameters Collins can stay out and fight longer and further than a 214, despite the marketing blurb.  ie close to nuke duty cycles
4) find a sub that we klnow is designed to deal with our notional enemies capability.
5) build a sub where we still hold the card of dictating the fight.  larger subs give you that flexibility.

IMO the savage lessons learnt includes the fact that 
1) don't take the vendors word
2) look at a proven design (eg australian scientists  fixed the cavitation issues,, hull management, signature management, anechoic tiles, even material science issues, Kockums raped us and we effectively hel;ped the Swedes develop their future subs.  We would have been better off taking a different approach
3) buy a large sub from scratch if thats the tactical advantage we want.  I'm not a fan of smaller subs despite the advertised ferry range of the 214's, they are limited in fitout, in sensor power, in onboard generation, and certainly that impacts on broader ISR capability.
4) IMO, if want a large sub then partner with the Japanese.  They use a proven acoustically sound, deep diving conventional that can go out and kill a nuke, faster, deeper, further than any of the current conventionals, and I'd argue that they have it all over a Scorpene, an S80 and the like
5) partner with a nation who provides us with the technology advantages that we seek to fight under 2020-2060.  Thats at a systems level, at a purple level and at a level where we can exchange technology and materials and capability with basically an unfettered manner.  I seriously do not see any euro technology in UDT that provides us with any advantages in a big picture level, and I've worked with a couple of euro builders and am not hostile to technology engagements.  I don't see the value add.  They're behind our principle partner in sensors, behind in the power of the combat suites, behind in material science developments (in fact we run neck an neck and in some areas like ceramics, we surpass our principle partners
6) whether we accept it or not, we don't just buy a platform, we buy access into or buy continuing access, or broaden our access into companion systems (eg look at CBASS, designed to kill enemy small subs in the littorals/green, none of the euro partners have anything similar where a large sub can actually chase, fight and kill a smaller sub in the green - and that previously was regarded as a small subs get out of gaol card ...
<
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       5/23/2011 6:46:22 AM





in actual fact it is cheaper to build a purpose built bigger sub from scratch - the recert process, the re-engineering issues are common knowledge within the shipbuilding.industry

and
whats not common knowledge and where it would be useful to have an understanding is that in actual fact the costs associated with building collins are actually lower than every other major greenfield sub build - and that includes the Scorpenes and 214's

Given that the Collins was a highly modified evolution of an existing design, aren't those statements contradictory?


Nope.  the blowout costs for Collins revolved around a number of things. 

1) the swedes assumed that they could upscale a smaller design (precursor gotland) into a larger sub
2) the engineering process was compromised because it required extensive development to fix what they assumed were extrapolated changes - and upscaling is not exponential - eg hull length and acoustic/cavitation impact being one example 
3) pt 2 under any other circumstances would have probably raised questions early about the bow - one of the first things that they buggered up - in fact apart from weld defects it triggered cavitation anomalies.  the legacy bow is that shape because of sensor and torpedo fitout and relates to basic things like speed against typical profile.  Collins was designed to have a higher performance across the range - including duration as well as absolute range.  In absolute tactical parameters Collins can stay out and fight longer and further than a 214, despite the marketing blurb.  ie close to nuke duty cycles
4) find a sub that we klnow is designed to deal with our notional enemies capability.
5) build a sub where we still hold the card of dictating the fight.  larger subs give you that flexibility.

IMO the savage lessons learnt includes the fact that 
1) don't take the vendors word
2) look at a proven design (eg australian scientists  fixed the cavitation issues,, hull management, signature management, anechoic tiles, even material science issues, Kockums raped us and we effectively hel;ped the Swedes develop their future subs.  We would have been better off taking a different approach
3) buy a large sub from scratch if thats the tactical advantage we want.  I'm not a fan of smaller subs despite the advertised ferry range of the 214's, they are limited in fitout, in sensor power, in onboard generation, and certainly that impacts on broader ISR capability.
4) IMO, if want a large sub then partner with the Japanese.  They use a proven acoustically sound, deep diving conventional that can go out and kill a nuke, faster, deeper, further than any of the current conventionals, and I'd argue that they have it all over a Scorpene, an S80 and the like
5) partner with a nation who provides us with the technology advantages that we seek to fight under 2020-2060.  Thats at a systems level, at a purple level and at a level where we can exchange technology and materials and capability with basically an unfettered manner.  I seriously do not see any euro technology in UDT that provides us with any advantages in a big picture level, and I've worked with a couple of euro builders and am not hostile to technology engagements.  I don't see the value add.  They're behind our principle partner in sensors, behind in the power of the combat suites, behind in material science developments (in fact we run neck an neck and in some areas like ceramics, we surpass our principle partners
6) whether we accept it or not, we don't just buy a platform, we buy access into or buy continuing access, or broaden our access into companion systems (eg look at CBASS, designed to kill enemy small subs in the littorals/green, none of the euro partners have anything similar where a large sub can actually chase, fight and kill a smaller sub in the green - and that previously was regarded as a small subs get out of gaol card ...
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust    typos and sequencing   5/23/2011 7:11:27 AM
mismatches in 1st half and 2nd half but I'm sure you'll work it out
 
Quote    Reply

Kirkzzy       5/26/2011 3:54:05 AM
So we can build them.. at a high cost (yet it is a nation building task and will prove Australia's worth as a country)... but what about crewing them.
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       5/26/2011 4:38:21 AM

So we can build them.. at a high cost (yet it is a nation building task and will prove Australia's worth as a country)... but what about crewing them.

CMDR Sub Squadron doesn't think it will be a problem, and from the current attrition rates they're building.
 
crew numbers will in all probability be smaller due to some of the new system solutions
 
the biggest problem is morale, a few are fed up with the negative press and the fact that they can't respond, (for a variety of reasons)
 
the general publics understanding about these subs capability is via the media, so they're on a hiding to nothing.  funny how our overseas partners have a very very high regard...
 
its even more bizarre when you consider that when AIPM (Aust Inst Project Managers) reviewed Collins against other countries sub building programs, we come out ahead in unit cost and capability.
 
unfort there's no sensible debate on subs in this country as its become a political football and the press are not interested in the good news that comes out from overseas - we've even posted them good news stories from various conferences and operations but they never print them
 
go figure.

 
Quote    Reply

Kirkzzy       5/26/2011 7:12:16 AM



So we can build them.. at a high cost (yet it is a nation building task and will prove Australia's worth as a country)... but what about crewing them.



CMDR Sub Squadron doesn't think it will be a problem, and from the current attrition rates they're building.

 

crew numbers will in all probability be smaller due to some of the new system solutions

 

the biggest problem is morale, a few are fed up with the negative press and the fact that they can't respond, (for a variety of reasons)


 

the general publics understanding about these subs capability is via the media, so they're on a hiding to nothing.  funny how our overseas partners have a very very high regard...

 

its even more bizarre when you consider that when AIPM (Aust Inst Project Managers) reviewed Collins against other countries sub building programs, we come out ahead in unit cost and capability.

 

unfort there's no sensible debate on subs in this country as its become a political football and the press are not interested in the good news that comes out from overseas - we've even posted them good news stories from various conferences and operations but they never print them


 

go figure.



Your always going to have the media giving their misinformed interpretation on things. The Australian practically goes on about the Subs program being behind all the time (I don't think they realise that our current 6... or 3 if your counting active subs... will all be replaced in time and the extras will just be a bit longer. So technically they will be replaced on time, and then the extra subs will be well.. extra!), and how the JSF is a "so called fifth-generation fighter" that is facing massive delays and that we should spend more and more... etc..  

Most people I speak to, especially people that pretend to have a great deal of knowledge don't look at Collin's capabilities but its delays. As does the media.. However IMO there are some availability issues (recent embarrassment with HMAS Dechaineux), although when available I hear they do quite well. (especially against US carriers.)

But yes, my main issues with the program is cost and crewing (even with the high attrition rates, we only have enough people for 3 subs currently active and with current plans this needs to quadruple.).

Like having 12 would make Australia look like the strongest naval power in the South Pacific/Southern hemisphere (which to my knowledge... probably already is). Yet cutting 2-4 could mean we would be able to get possibly more JSF/strategic bomber, surface ships and maybe even a better fleet air arm then current (with jets...). (I am not advocating, only suggesting)

Although then again 12 subs seems to be pretty cutting edge anyway... it all depends on what we want to focus on. It seems the air force however always seems to come out on top of the other services and I like seeing the navy take charge for once, seeing as we are a maritime nation.
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       5/26/2011 7:44:23 AM


Your always going to have the media giving their misinformed interpretation on things. The Australian practically goes on about the Subs program being behind all the time (I don't think they realise that our current 6... or 3 if your counting active subs... will all be replaced in time and the extras will just be a bit longer. So technically they will be replaced on time, and then the extra subs will be well.. extra!), and how the JSF is a "so called fifth-generation fighter" that is facing massive delays and that we should spend more and more... etc..  

well, not all the media are misinformed, but the dailys tend to go for sound bite specials - that pretty apparent when you look at the daily briefings.  there is a paucity of decent military journalism in the dailys, but the specialist media unfort only get sound bites once per month and their viewer base is substantially smaller.  JSF btw is 5th Gen, its referred to as such in internal planning docs - its not actually a lockmart created expression, but now the urban myth is that it is a marketing term.  It was used internally years before industry turned it into a buzz word


Most people I speak to, especially people that pretend to have a great deal of knowledge don't look at Collin's capabilities but its delays. As does the media.. However IMO there are some availability issues (recent embarrassment with HMAS Dechaineux), although when available I hear they do quite well. (especially against US carriers.)

subs like SF are by nature quiet achievers, it is anathema for them to go out and talk about what they can do, and like the public haranguing of US SF when things go bad, they never get to hear what they do well.  eg the US public know more about Deltas problems in the desert because thats all they hear.  The OBL raid was a shift in US media handling on SF and even then they nearly c0cked up the success story.  Subs operate in the same media vacuum.  On one hand you don't want the public to know what they can do, OTOH it gets tiresome as the bad news is the only filter that people see and it means that they actually get a distorted perspective.  Its made worse when Govt and Defence start to consider the media as the enemy.  Its quite funny as their a brace of journos that join every year - and when they're attached to the Ministers office, you suddenly see them turn against people in their profession on the outside.   even the pacifists get protective. :)

But yes, my main issues with the program is cost and crewing (even with the high attrition rates, we only have enough people for 3 subs currently active and with current plans this needs to quadruple.).
 
actually we don't.  there is crewing for 4+1 and that fits within the main cycle.  You never have full; availability and one "crew" goes off.  I don't see anyone panicing about whether we can crew 12, in fact the confidence is quite high that we can.


Like having 12 would make Australia look like the strongest naval power in the South Pacific/Southern hemisphere (which to my knowledge... probably already is). Yet cutting 2-4 could mean we would be able to get possibly more JSF/strategic bomber, surface ships and maybe even a better fleet air arm then current (with jets...). (I am not advocating, only suggesting)

There are over 150 subs in the regions we sail in.  12 gives us capability, it does not make us the more powerful regional play.  Granted we would be in the southern hemisphere, but thats like saying that you're the biggest goldfish in the fishtank.  meanwhile the fishtank next door is 10 times bigger and has carp in it.  ADF does not take a service centric view, so all the services get to have a say at the table.  except subs and SF because they are the two force structures that are considered our fulltime frontline strikers. Subs and SF answer to the overall joint commander, they are not answerable per say to their service heads..  subs are considered by both sides of govt to be unique for a number of reasons

Although then again 12 subs seems to be pretty cutting edge anyway... it all depends on what we want to focus on. It seems
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics