Australian navy's hunt for new sub to replace Collins class

[Colin Parkinson]

Face saving for the Japanese to blame a failure on China?

 

[OTR1]

China behind Australia's rejection of the Soryus?

Utter drivel.

The end.

 

[CougarKing]

DCNS and Lockmart collaboration:

Defense News

DCNS Satisfied With Australia's Pick of Lockheed for Sub Project
By: Pierre Tran, September 30, 2016
PARIS — DCNS has warmly greeted Australia’s signing of a design contract with the French naval shipbuilder and choice of Lockheed Martin for its partner on the Barracuda Shortfin 1A, a planned ocean-going attack submarine.

“DCNS welcomes the signature of the first operational contract for the Australian Future Submarine Program and the selection of Lockheed Martin as the program combat system integrator,” the French company said in a statement Thursday.

(...SNIPPED)

 

[MarkOttawa]

RAN subs latest--note long lead time:

Australian PM in France to launch 'most ambitious military project' in his country's history

Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull is in France on Sunday to announce work on a new fleet of French submarines that will form the centrepiece of Australia’s defence strategy for decades to come.

Australia selected French naval contractor DCNS, last month renamed Naval Group, in April 2016 to build a new fleet of 12 submarines. The French industrial group, which is 62 percent owned by the French state, beat out competitors in Japan and Germany, winning one of the world's most lucrative defence contracts.

"This is the largest and most ambitious military project in Australia’s history," Turnbull told reporters at a joint press briefing with French President Emmanuel Macron at the Elysée Palace in Paris on Saturday.

France said it was ready to do everything necessary to meet the requirements of the contract, the Sydney Morning Herald reported.

Naval Group was left fuming after details from more than 22,000 pages of documents relating to submarines it is building for India were published in The Australian newspaper, leading to concerns about its ability to protect sensitive data.

Australia's new submarine fleet is the focal point of its defence strategy unveiled in February 2016, which called for an increase in military spending of nearly AU$30 billion over the next 10 years to protect strategic and trade interests in the Asia-Pacific region.

The first submarines are expected to be ready by the early 2030s, with the the last ones finished by 2050 [emphasis added]. Following their conception in France, they will be principally constructed in Adelaide in southern Australia, which is home to Australia’s naval defence and the ASC shipbuilding organisation.

Building these submarines in Australia, along with the government's naval shipbuilding strategy, which begins with offshore patrol vessels and frigates, is estimated to create more than 5,000 jobs across Australia.

France and Australia formally signed the inter-governmental contract, worth A$50 billion, or €34 billion, last December [emphasis added].

The future submarines, called Shortfin Barracuda, are based on France’s Barrucuda submarines (99 metres long and weighing 4650 tons), which are nuclear attack subs. The Shortfin variant for the Australian Navy will see a conversion of the propulsion system to a conventional diesel electric bid equipped by Lockheed Martin, the combat systems integrator...
http://www.france24.com/en/20170709-australia-france-submarines-contract-defence

Doubt will be exports.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[suffolkowner]

http://gentleseas.blogspot.ca/2017/07/ex-pm-abbott-doubts-wisdom-of.html

I think a lot of these issues will arise with any Victoria class replacement, but how picky are we?

 

[Colin Parkinson]

The reality is there are no existing subs that meet our needs, so we will be in the same boat, we might as well get involved with the Aussie deal so we have a shoulder to cry on and they have as well.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

http://gentleseas.blogspot.ca/2017/07/ex-pm-abbott-doubts-wisdom-of.html

I think a lot of these issues will arise with any Victoria class replacement, but how picky are we?

Good link, this article on the pros and cons of various AIP systems is informative http://gentleseas.blogspot.ca/2014/08/air-independent-propulsion-aip.html

 

[suffolkowner]

Good link, this article on the pros and cons of various AIP systems is informative http://gentleseas.blogspot.ca/2014/08/air-independent-propulsion-aip.html

Colin, I think it's a good site, but I really don't have the expertise to question too much of what is discussed. It's not very pro AIP in general preferring a nuclear solution for Australia.

 

[suffolkowner]

The reality is there are no existing subs that meet our needs, so we will be in the same boat, we might as well get involved with the Aussie deal so we have a shoulder to cry on and they have as well.

There are pretty much the same options Australia had
Soryu
U-216/218
Walrus replacement sub
it would be nice to have a shared parts supply

or we could go nuclear through DCNS either the Brazilian scorpene derivative or the Barracuda 

I can see some significant teething issues in the Australian plan especially with regards to the propulsion

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Yes whichever one we go for, make sure we are not the only ones...

 

[MarkOttawa]

Aussies almost there:

Australia, Naval Group [ex-DCNS, note French company now has English-only name] conclude sub negotiations

Australian Defence Minister Christopher Pyne confirmed that the Australian government has finally concluded negotiations for the formal signing of a strategic partnering agreement for 12 large conventionally-powered attack submarines from Naval Group.

Australia is acquiring the vessels under its $50 billion (U.S. $36.12 billion) Project Sea 1000 (Future Submarine) to replace its existing fleet of six Collins Submarines from the early 2030s. The subs will be the ‘Attack’ class with the lead vessel named HMAS Attack. They will be fabricated in Australia to a design previously known as the Shortfin Barracuda 1A.



Recent local media reports have suggested that negotiations between the parties had stalled, placing the government’s timeline for the Collins replacement in jeopardy, but Pyne said on Thursday the program was still on track.

“There’s been a lot of ill-informed mythmaking around the negotiations but I’m very happy to say today the negotiations are complete,” Pyne said during sod-turning event at the site of the Future Submarine Construction Yard at Osborne in South Australia. “The strategic planning agreement will be signed in February next year and we can continue to get on with the submarine project, which has been under the design and mobilization contract for the last two years.”

Declining to provide details of the intricacies of the agreement due to their commercial nature, Pyne said the negotiations were officially concluded at an Australian Government National Security Committee meeting in Melbourne on Dec. 10...
https://www.defensenews.com/global/asia-pacific/2018/12/14/australia-naval-group-conclude-sub-negotiations/

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Colin Parkinson]

We should buy hull # 4, 6, 8 and 10.

 

[Dale Denton]

Seems like there should be an arctic capability for any future RCN sub.

How much further can an Attack Class go without breathing than a Victoria? Maybe an AIP version or Lithium Ion?

 

[suffolkowner]

I think there's a lot more issues with the Australian sub buy than the article suggests. It seems to me that the Australians tend to jump in on procurement a little quicker than us Canadians :rofl:

http://gentleseas.blogspot.com/2018/12/australian-future-submarines-to-be-2.html

http://gentleseas.blogspot.com/2018/12/thoughtful-comment-on-australian-future.html

http://gentleseas.blogspot.com/2018/12/retired-senior-naval-officers-propose.html

I'm not sure if the gentleseas blog author is anti DCNS or maybe just pro nuclear, but I think that there will be significant development issues with the Shortfin-Attack design. Perhaps Australia's always interesting politics will interrupt things as well

http://gentleseas.blogspot.com/2018/12/australias-new-underwhelming-future-sub.html

 

[Sub_Guy]

The Aussies certainly do jump on things quicker.  However, every once in a while someone will come on here and tell us their procurement system has issues. 

All I know is they seem to be kitted out quite nicely and usually in a timely manner.  We can’t get our shit together at all.  Then when we get something, like the AOPs or FWSAR we are supposed to jump up and down with excitement. 

I personally think we will get out of the submarine game, there’s no political will to announce a that Canada is shopping for new boats.  The only effective way to work under ice is with a SSN.  That’s it.  It’d be nice to piggy back on the Aussie program, but that won’t work because someone will say “it doesn’t meet our needs”.  Just what exactly are “our needs?” 

 

[suffolkowner]

The Aussies certainly do jump on things quicker.  However, every once in a while someone will come on here and tell us their procurement system has issues. 

All I know is they seem to be kitted out quite nicely and usually in a timely manner.  We can’t get our crap together at all.  Then when we get something, like the AOPs or FWSAR we are supposed to jump up and down with excitement. 

I personally think we will get out of the submarine game, there’s no political will to announce a that Canada is shopping for new boats.  The only effective way to work under ice is with a SSN.  That’s it.  It’d be nice to piggy back on the Aussie program, but that won’t work because someone will say “it doesn’t meet our needs”.  Just what exactly are “our needs?”

As far as jumping i kinda meant that they seem to commit to things before crossing their T's and dotting their I's whereas we spend so much time and money on the T's and I's that it becomes a significant part of the entire program. I remember reading some time ago (which I've probably mentioned here before) about a program where the lead up (definition etc..) cost over 10% of the proposed procurement that was in the end cancelled. How could that possibly be justified or defended? Canadian procurement is such a disaster and we are so far behind that short of sole sourcing a bunch of purchases and pushing them through I don't see how we can ever catch up.

If you look at the wikipedia pages for Australian Army and Air Force equipment

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_Royal_Australian_Air_Force_aircraft

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_equipment_of_the_Australian_Army

and compare it to Canada's I can't help but feel embarrassed

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_Canadian_military_aircraft

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_equipment_of_the_Canadian_Army

From my uneducated eyes the Australian fleets some much easier to rationalize but I am only an interested member of the public although I still have a few friends and family in the Army
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_equipment_of_the_Australian_Army


I am curious as to the nature of submarine operations in the Arctic as the archipelago would seem too shallow, narrow and congested at anytime of the year and the deeper basins too heavily ice covered in the winter at least

 

[RDBZ]

As far as jumping i kinda meant that they seem to commit to things before crossing their T's and dotting their I's whereas we spend so much time and money on the T's and I's that it becomes a significant part of the entire program. I remember reading some time ago (which I've probably mentioned here before) about a program where the lead up (definition etc..) cost over 10% of the proposed procurement that was in the end cancelled. How could that possibly be justified or defended? Canadian procurement is such a disaster and we are so far behind that short of sole sourcing a bunch of purchases and pushing them through I don't see how we can ever catch up.

If you look at the wikipedia pages for Australian Army and Air Force equipment

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_Royal_Australian_Air_Force_aircraft

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_equipment_of_the_Australian_Army

and compare it to Canada's I can't help but feel embarrassed

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_Canadian_military_aircraft

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_equipment_of_the_Canadian_Army

From my uneducated eyes the Australian fleets some much easier to rationalize but I am only an interested member of the public although I still have a few friends and family in the Army
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_equipment_of_the_Australian_Army


I am curious as to the nature of submarine operations in the Arctic as the archipelago would seem too shallow, narrow and congested at anytime of the year and the deeper basins too heavily ice covered in the winter at least

Seems like there was a lot of "t crossing"  and "i dotting" by some very experienced and independent people as part of the RAN future submarine selection process:  http://www.defence.gov.au/casg/NewsMedia/News/DCNS_announced

 

[suffolkowner]

Seems like there was a lot of "t crossing"  and "i dotting" by some very experienced and independent people as part of the RAN future submarine selection process:  http://www.defence.gov.au/casg/NewsMedia/News/DCNS_announced

Maybe ? I clicked on the link hoping for some new information but alas, the link was not new nor the information it.

Not being Australian my interest in their procurement policies is slightly cursory mostly as an interesting comparison to our own, as a trusted ally and perhaps shared operator of equipment. It's not my money after all.

We'll see if the Australian government can and or will actually follow through with this purchase.
Maybe DCNS will get a Barracuda in the water for some initial design comparisons and hull data generation?
Maybe DCNS will finalize he reactor design/installation so they can do the above?
After the above are done sometime in early 2021 to my understanding, maybe they can move forward in deciding whether Li batteries will be installed, whether the submarine will have a pump-jet and how to power that pump-jet.

It would be nice if the Australian sub was far enough along that it could be considered as a successor to our Victoria's

 

[Cloud Cover]

Somewhere in these threads is a recent link to a defence document that indicates there is no plan to replace the Vic’s, and without a plan, they will service life expire and so will that part of the RCN. This is perhaps why there is more open and transparent dialogue about the activities of the little fleet. We use these as more than just training vessels (Korea etc. recently), and the subs could put, for example, an enemy carrier, submarine, destroyer or supply ship on the bottom. Or, it can take useful imagery and collect ELINT etc. and no hostile force would be wise to it.  I don’t know if Canada needs aggressive SSK like the RAN is pursuing, but a more stealthy version of the Victoria class with an enhanced surveillance suite is a strategic asset that Canada needs as much as need surface ships and fighter aircraft.

 

[Retired AF Guy]

Somewhere in these threads is a recent link to a defence document that indicates there is no plan to replace the Vic’s, and without a plan, they will service life expire and so will that part of the RCN.

I found this from the Wiki article on the Upholder/Victoria-class submarines: "Canada announced plans for a major life extension for the class on 7 April 2015, possibly to start in 2020. The estimated cost for the program would be between $1.5 and $2 billion CAN.[33]"