Replacement of Australia's Collins Class Submarines

Various people have suggested reasons Australia might prefer a US boat or a UK one, but I've not seen any discussion of whose operating practises the RAN submarine force is closest to, USN or RN? Anyone know?

Someone is going to have to take RAN SSK drivers and turn them into RAN SSN drivers, and whether you run them through Perisher or its US equivalent is probably going to shape what they want from their boats.
 
DWG said:
Someone is going to have to take RAN SSK drivers and turn them into RAN SSN drivers, and whether you run them through Perisher or its US equivalent is probably going to shape what they want from their boats.
Click to expand...
A significant number of RAN SSK drivers are ex RN SSN drivers. I have had the pleasure of working with some of them, they definitely leave the run of the mill RAN operator / maintainers for dead.

The trouble is its the run of the mill RAN operators / maintainers who end up in pivotal roles in industry and government, delivering advice and making decisions that they mistakenly believe they are qualified to provide because of knowledge and experience they mistakenly believe they have.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
GTX said:
Oh not disagreeing there - have often said "What's the single common element in all Defence failed/troubled projects? Defence!" - but I think in many cases both sides are partially to blame if we're completely honest.
Click to expand...
Remember some of the worst in industry and government are ex defence. More to the point they are ex operators and maintainers who for whatever reason, did not progress to senior rank, or even to higher professional assignments while in defence.

They were never technical managers, design acceptance representatives, capability managers, senior or chief engineers etc. They always worked under direct supervision, with their work reviewed and reworked before progressing. They are often at best, glorified maintenance supervisors and managers who provide admin for technical personnel who are not qualified trades, conducting work in accordance with standard activities. All more complex work is undertaken by civilian contractors.

These people are then appointed to the Public Service and industry, in management roles, often being gifted engineering delegation far beyond their actual experience and competence, based on their defence service.

There are some very good ex ADF personnel as well, they are the ones who have taken professional development seriously and have worked hard to fill gaps in their knowledge and experience rather than feeling entitled because they used to wear a uniform.
 
DWG said:
Various people have suggested reasons Australia might prefer a US boat or a UK one, but I've not seen any discussion of whose operating practises the RAN submarine force is closest to, USN or RN? Anyone know?
Click to expand...

Suspect it's closer to the RN than the USN.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Volkodav said:

These people are then appointed to the Public Service and industry, in management roles, often being gifted engineering delegation far beyond their actual experience and competence, based on their defence service.
Click to expand...
Can't help but wonder if some sort of certification system wouldn't help address this very real problem.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ahhhh......

If there is a bunch of ex-RN personnel, and sub-drivers too boot in the RAN.....

Then it all starts to clarify.
 
DWG said:
Various people have suggested reasons Australia might prefer a US boat or a UK one, but I've not seen any discussion of whose operating practises the RAN submarine force is closest to, USN or RN? Anyone know?
Click to expand...

I would imagine it would mimic the UK structure but this wouldn’t limit them from using an American boat, from a technical perspective.

Submarine and surface ship organization (at least for officers) for the Australian Navy are far closer to the UK than the US. In Australia and the UK, an officer specializes in a career path (weapons engineering, marine engineering & warfare) with only the warfare officer generally being able to command a warship. In the US, our unrestricted line officers are generalist who work in all departments and who can all potentially command a ship someday. We rely on our enlisted personnel to be the technical experts and the officers are just managers. For example, a Annapolis graduate with a history degree could spend his initial division officer tour in the weapons department and his department head tour as the engineer officer before becoming XO/CO of a submarine.
 
Though in practise, there is a lot of siloing between submarines, the surface fleet, and naval aviation/carriers.
 
jeffb said:

Can't help but wonder if some sort of certification system wouldn't help address this very real problem.
Click to expand...
There is but its a bit iffy. Engineers Australia has Chartered Technical Officers, Technologists and Engineers, the idea being they assess the persons actual skill and experience, not just their qualification. It falls down when dealing with defence personnel because they equate rank with knowledge and experience, i.e. you are a Warrant Officer so here is your Chartered Technical Officer status, don't worry about getting a Diploma, we will just assume your promotion courses are equivalent. Oh you were a Lieutenant and have a degree, we will just assume you are equivalent to a civilian Mechanical engineer with 20 years experience and masters.

Conversely they give zero recognition to civilians who haven't completed qualifications at institutions they recognise, irrespective of their knowledge and experience. For example I worked in Test and Evaluation and other systems engineering specialities and many of our best people had come up through trade. They had diplomas but not Associate or Advanced Diplomas and had also done extensive professional development that some of them were able to articulate into post graduate certificates, diplomas and masters in engineering. RINA and other organisations recognised the but Engineers Australia wouldn't even assess them.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Volkodav said:
Conversely they give zero recognition to civilians who haven't completed qualifications at institutions they recognise, irrespective of their knowledge and experience. For example I worked in Test and Evaluation and other systems engineering specialities and many of our best people had come up through trade. They had diplomas but not Associate or Advanced Diplomas and had also done extensive professional development that some of them were able to articulate into post graduate certificates, diplomas and masters in engineering. RINA and other organisations recognised the but Engineers Australia wouldn't even assess them.
Click to expand...
The UK engineering institutions have gone the same way, my dad was a Chartered Civil Engineer, but got there from starting as an engineering apprentice and skilling up through night school classes during the 60s and 70s. That had ceased to be a possibility long before he retired, and he retired at 50. Nowadays it's a degree or nothing.

For me, as a software engineer, there just wasn't any reason to pursue chartered status, the company would support you to do it, but I'm not aware of any of the software or systems engineers ever taking them up on it, because the company itself didn't value the status.

Of the most impressive managers I dealt with, one had an HNC from the college across the road (two steps down from a degree) and the other was an ex-RAF tech sergeant and I'm not sure he had any formal quals beyond his original RAF technical apprenticeship. One ended up as company CTO/BAE-wide troubeshooter, and the other was running Typhoon acceptance for the RAF.
 
UK prime Minister:
“I just think it’s time for some of our dearest friends around the world to prenez un grip about this and donnez-moi un break,” Johnson told reporters outside the Capitol building.
Click to expand...

Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

www.bloomberg.com

As a matter of fact, even the French Mod was conspued in the senat... While some other are calling to retract from the NATO alliance!
 
Last edited:
DWG said:
The UK engineering institutions have gone the same way,
Click to expand...
Different countries have different ways, UK is fairly open to skilled people moving into management. A german colleague explained to me that he would never ever be a manager, because he went to an 'Gymnasium' which to UK, would I think mean college, as apposed to University.

I've met engineering graduates that I would not trust with a blunt screwdriver. And 'unqualified' people that can strip a huge diesel engine and repair it without reference to any instruction manual.

Paper qualifications will get you through a basic 'sift' for a new job, but after that you still need to get through an interview.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
French Government: We will force the EU-China Comprehensive Agreement on Investment through the EU commission before Joe Biden is inaugurated

Also the French Government: We are committed to the security of the Into-Pacific region which is under threat from Chinese aggression and military expansion, we will work as closely as we can with our Allies there, please invite us to join your Five-Eyes arrangement

The French government a bit later: If you cancel this single commercial contract (within your contractual rights), that has been running late, over budget and no longer meets your needs, we will withdraw our ambassador, block your free trade deal and cancel numerous bilateral meetings with both you and the countries you have sought an alternative solution from in addition to openly and arrogantly insulting you

It is not a good look.
 
Fluff said:
DWG said:
The UK engineering institutions have gone the same way,
Click to expand...
A german colleague explained to me that he would never ever be a manager, because he went to an 'Gymnasium' which to UK, would I think mean college, as apposed to University.
Click to expand...
en.wikipedia.org

Gymnasium (Germany) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

German selective school for the brighter set. AIUI Germany's more focused on the Dr. (Ing) qualification at the management level, so you need an advanced degree, not just a bachelor's. And if you don't have either....
 
There are parallels with the UK adoption of Polaris in the leap forward required for an RAN SSN programme. Not least will be knock-on impact on RAN procurement and wider defence budget.
The RN Polaris project team did an excellent job and there might be lessons to be learned from this for the RAN.
 
www.foreignminister.gov.au

The Australia-U.S. Ministerial Consultations Joint Statement: An Unbreakable Alliance for Peace and Prosperity

Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin hosted Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Women Marise Payne and Minister
www.foreignminister.gov.au

TLDR:
"The Secretaries and Ministers endorsed the following areas of force posture cooperation
  • Enhanced air cooperation through the rotational deployment of U.S. aircraft of all types in Australia and appropriate aircraft training and exercises.
  • Enhanced maritime cooperation by increasing logistics and sustainment capabilities of U.S. surface and subsurface vessels in Australia.
  • Enhanced land cooperation by conducting more complex and more integrated exercises and greater combined engagement with Allies and Partners in the region.
  • Establish a combined logistics, sustainment, and maintenance enterprise to support high‑end warfighting and combined military operations in the region."


    There's a US quote I've seen reported on twitter but not tracked down to who said it that adds maintenance to 'logistics and sustainment' for US submarine and surface forces, which IMO takes it past just US vessels using Australian bases.

    https://twitter.com/x/status/1438643174029758464
    View: https://twitter.com/ashleytownshend/status/1438643174029758464
 
Interesting piece by 60 minutes Australia after the announcement re the elephant in the room.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kA2KaEKs1LA


---
From the article above in #538. Emphasis mine.

"The Secretaries and Ministers signed a classified Statement of Intent on Strategic Capabilities Cooperation and Implementation, which will further strengthen capability outcomes, deepen our Alliance, and strengthen our cooperation to meet emerging challenges, and support regional stability.

The Secretaries and Ministers discussed Australia’s intent to establish a Guided Weapons and Explosive Ordnance Enterprise. They committed to cooperate on delivering this complex, long-term endeavor, which will complement the United States industrial base and assure defense supply chains in the Indo-Pacific.

The principals also discussed the importance of strong and resilient supply chains and will pursue long term, sustainable Maintenance Repair and Overhaul capabilities in Australia."

---

"... a classified Statement of Intent on Strategic Capabilities Cooperation and Implementation" is a broad statement. Pretty clear to me that Aukus is not only about forward basing more (even if rotationally) US and possibly UK forces, certainly ships, subs, and planes of all types, but long term Maintenance, Repair, and Overhaul as stated. Which Strategic Capabilities I wonder.

I wouldn't have believed it possible but could there be a Virginia-class Block VI (for lack of a better name) that is built by GDEB/HII and BAE (both UK and A yards) and shared by all three navies? If not, perhaps they share the next gen VPM and other enabling technologies. It's an interesting thought exercise.
 
JFC Fuller said:
French Government: We will force the EU-China Comprehensive Agreement on Investment through the EU commission before Joe Biden is inaugurated

Also the French Government: We are committed to the security of the Into-Pacific region which is under threat from Chinese aggression and military expansion, we will work as closely as we can with our Allies there, please invite us to join your Five-Eyes arrangement

The French government a bit later: If you cancel this single commercial contract (within your contractual rights), that has been running late, over budget and no longer meets your needs, we will withdraw our ambassador, block your free trade deal and cancel numerous bilateral meetings with both you and the countries you have sought an alternative solution from in addition to openly and arrogantly insulting you

It is not a good look.
Click to expand...
I applied for a role with Naval Group much earlier this year, before I was warned off them. I didn't hear anything and forgot about it.

Today I received an email informing the role was no longer being recruited, fair enough, it then launched into a diatribe I have yet to manage to finish reading. What a bunch of self entitled sooks, nothing is their fault, they know more about submarines that the US or UK, Australia is stupid because they need DE subs, not SSNs. etc. etc.
 
Volkodav said:
I applied for a role with Naval Group much earlier this year, before I was warned off them. I didn't hear anything and forgot about it.

Today I received an email informing the role was no longer being recruited, fair enough, it then launched into a diatribe I have yet to manage to finish reading. What a bunch of self entitled sooks, nothing is their fault, they know more about submarines that the US or UK, Australia is stupid because they need DE subs, not SSNs. etc. etc.
Click to expand...
Talk about burning bridges!!!
 
DWG said:

German selective school for the brighter set. AIUI Germany's more focused on the Dr. (Ing) qualification at the management level, so you need an advanced degree, not just a bachelor's. And if you don't have either....
Click to expand...
Engineers Australia ignore the higher degree whether you have a bachelor or not. The bachelor is the entry ticket and the be all and end all.

The dumb part is many of the Post Graduate by Course Work programs have the same courses, taught by the same lecturers, often they are the same classes as the under graduate engineering degree, the difference is they are graded harder. i.e. a pass in the post grad course would get the student a Credit in the undergrad and a Credit would be worth a distinction.

Engineers Australia however recognise the pass in the undergraduate qualification but not the high distinction in the post grad. This is ridiculous as all post grad students have either a degree plus several years experience or have extensive verifiable expertise in the field (over a decade for non degree applicants) just to gain entry to the program.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Just reread it, apparently I was short listed, and now I remember what the role was I am disappointed. It was a two year trainee / internship to France to learn how to be a designer instead of a test and systems wonk. They would have paid for me to upgrade my Dip Eng to a B Eng (Mech Design). Now I feel the butt hurt, Karma can be a b!tch. Guess i need to wait and see if EB or BAE offer something similar or just stick to clerical, whoops i mean systems, engineering
 
Archibald said:
Blame Macron own character instead - he can be an arrogant prick at times, there is no question about it.
Click to expand...

Put him in a turtleneck, give him a pack of Gauloises and you've got a François Truffaut character; what's not to like?

But yeah, apart from the sous-marins, the heritage of Cousteau and all that there are a) very real concerns going forward that any strategic level deal with France can be similarly put at risk and b) it is truly somewhat astounding, no matter the perspective, how unconsidered (I'm refraining from using stronger words here) the actions were. Besides that, I'm not yet at all convinced that, technologically speaking, Australian SSNs are any closer this way than converting the French deal into a nuclear powered one (U.S basing options apart).
 
Volkodav said:
I applied for a role with Naval Group much earlier this year, before I was warned off them. I didn't hear anything and forgot about it.

Today I received an email informing the role was no longer being recruited, fair enough, it then launched into a diatribe I have yet to manage to finish reading. What a bunch of self entitled sooks, nothing is their fault, they know more about submarines that the US or UK, Australia is stupid because they need DE subs, not SSNs. etc. etc.
Click to expand...

Reminds me of the Winchester Sour Grapes Letter:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHU4dyfrOBk


TLDR: When John Moses Browning severed his relationship with Winchester because they wouldn't give him royalties on sales instead of a lump sum, the same terms he already got from Colt and FN, Winchester's President sent a letter to their distributors - who were understandably a bit perturbed - saying it wouldn't make any difference, Browning wasn't that talented and the guys in the Winchester prototyping shop did all the real work.

The gun they rejected was the Auto 5 shotgun, which stayed in production for almost a century.

*Headdesk*
 
Volkodav said:
Just reread it, apparently I was short listed, and now I remember what the role was I am disappointed. It was a two year trainee / internship to France to learn how to be a designer instead of a test and systems wonk. They would have paid for me to upgrade my Dip Eng to a B Eng (Mech Design). Now I feel the butt hurt, Karma can be a b!tch. Guess i need to wait and see if EB or BAE offer something similar or just stick to clerical, whoops i mean systems, engineering
Click to expand...
It's not impossible BAE might, my immediate boss got some support (day off a week IIRC, probably fees paid) to upgrade his HND to a degree. But that's the kind of thing that could be organised within one subsidiary for an existing employee without being company wide.
 
TomcatViP said:
It's probable that France would have refused to share nuclear technology given the mystic love affair b/w French politicians and the brutal Chinese regime...
Click to expand...
Unlikely. I remember reading when the French won the contract that one of the reasons they won was the future path to a nuclear submarine. I believe the French / Naval Group even explicitly said this.
 
I red that inside the UN security council France, UK and US are used to bound together against Russia and China as some kind of liberal / democratic block.

Make no mistake, it is no teletubies no bed of roses - but has been working for quite a long time and will carry on this way. Even if France is often bothered / isolated by that "special relationship" lasting since 1962 and the Nassau Agreement. And rather pissed by events like that AUKUS / submarine thing.

There is no other solution... Russia is kind of Nelson Muntz bully, and China is not much better.
 
Put him in a turtleneck, give him a pack of Gauloises and you've got a François Truffaut character; what's not to like?
Click to expand...

Truffault has been dead since 1984. Brigitte may remember him, but Macron was only 7 years old.
 
H_K said:
TomcatViP said:
It's probable that France would have refused to share nuclear technology given the mystic love affair b/w French politicians and the brutal Chinese regime...
Click to expand...
Unlikely. I remember reading when the French won the contract that one of the reasons they won was the future path to a nuclear submarine. I believe the French / Naval Group even explicitly said this.
Click to expand...

And this make the entire case even more damaging - all the way from Australia (starts from scratch all over again) to NG (missed a golden opportunity) to our very own @Volkodav :p (job opportunity lost).
 
I imagine there will soon be jobs for everyone including @Volkodav at Electric Boat or BAE Systems, better paid and without the cultural challenges of working for a French company… ;-)
 
zen said:
GTX said:
NeilChapman said:
More significantly the last two boats of the class are being built and there is nothing in the pipeline until the successor design is completed.
Click to expand...
Hmmm...random idea: I wonder if either Agamemnon or Agincourt could be redirected to the RAN and replacements sought? Would allow BAE Systems' yard to keep going longer, would get quicker solution for RAN and would provide pattern for future Australian builds.
Click to expand...
This is an interesting issue.
RR gave run down long lead elements of PWR-2 reactor production and are ramping up for PWR-3 instead.
This limits the number of Astutes with PWR-2 to the planned production run for the RN.

A major gap is opening up as Astute production runs down prior to Dreadnought production.

So arguably the fastest option for the RAN to get an Astute is one of the Current Build.
But to fill that gap in the RN, more, new SSN production is needed and this cannot be with PWR-2 reactors.
So a modified Batch II Astute with PWR-3 reactor is on the cards....possibly needing a larger diameter hull.
De-risking Dreadnought reactor and propulsion i
Click to expand...

GTX said:
Bhurki said:
jeffb said:
why Australia, given the decision to "go nuclear", didn't simply approach the French for Suffren-class SSNs retrofitted with US combat systems?
Click to expand...
Short answer - This isn't just about submarines.
Click to expand...
Exactly!
Click to expand...
Right on! As a aviator this isn't my field so I am not qualified to give a judgement, just a general defence opinion. The broader plan is to keep the peace by pulling our own weight and doing our job in the region - we could not do that without this revision of planning.
 
Parliamentary committee discussed plan B option openly as early June 21:

For the Australians

ParlView

ParlView
parlview.aph.gov.au parlview.aph.gov.au

For the Frenches:

Sous-marins : dès le 2 juin, le ministère de la Défense australien dit travailler sur une "alternative"

DOCUMENT - Dix jours après le début de la crise des sous-marins et la rupture du contrat qui liait l'Australie à Naval Group, des propos tenus par le numéro 2 du ministère de la Défense lors d'une audition au Sénat australien montrent que la France aurait dû s'inquiéter au moins dès le 2 juin 2021.
www.franceinter.fr www.franceinter.fr

Honestly, I don't see how this story could not end by public excuses formulated by the French foreign office...

Also
www.reuters.com

At Quad, Japan's Suga welcomed Australia submarine partnership

At a meeting of the Quad group of countries on Friday, Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga welcomed the establishment last week of a trilateral partnership to provide Australia with nuclear submarines, a Japanese government official said.
www.reuters.com www.reuters.com
 
Last edited:
TomcatViP said:
Parliamentary committee discussed plan B option openly as early as June
Click to expand...
Rumors of a Plan B were officially denied multiple times by Australian defence officials, including in that video session. It was broadly perceived as a negotiating tactic by the incoming Defence minister who wanted extra leverage in contract negotiations particularly on work share. It’s standard practice anytime there’s new leadership to question previous decisions… 99% of the time it’s ego-driven showboating that leads to no change.

The official message (backed by the auditor general’s report) was that the submarine program was progressing and on track despite some months delay to get all the contractual ducks in a row.

That said there were continuous press and political attacks and posturing claiming cost blowouts and delays that didn’t exist… the AUS government’s inability / unwillingness to set the record straight leaves a strong suspicion that there were people in the government actively trying to torpedo the deal. Most likely with the green light from high up.

Not kosher at all.
 
There is always a Plan B on the customer side. There is no fool play in that. Fool play is when deliverables are not acknowledged or not payed for example.
Contractors always have to stick to how they answered the RFP or better it.
On the NG side, there is no official complaints and nobody claims they've lost 60B$... You have to wonder what's then motivated the French administration in this outburst of bad manners.

I would suggest to pass a couple of high ranking officials on the French side through a business school or some refresh in economics.
 
It’s been explained before and probably best addressed in another thread but this spat has nothing to do with the contract itself and economic losses (which are minor). The reason the French are upset are strategic and diplomatic.

Strategically the US is creating a new Anglo block which will decide questions of war & peace in the Indo-Pac region without involving the French, who have as much a right to be there as the UK. This undermines all the work the French have done to align themselves militarily with the US, as well as their standing with other partners such as India, China, the other Europeans etc.

Diplomatically, the message is that is that the French can be lied to and strung along with no consequence. This is a sensitive topic both for domestic politics but also because the French already feel taken advantage of in a number of negotiations with other partners, particularly when it comes to defense (eg. Germany on FCAS, Italy on naval construction etc).
 
Are 60B$ related to any geopolitical variable? Because that's what we have heard exclusively until the wording was altered. Not a diplomatic message.

France has 2 Millions citizen in that region of the Pacific. They should rejoice that this reinforced alliance will bring increased leverage to tackle the bully that is China and their actions in the region, something never seen since the dark hours of 1930's...

Withdrawing their ambassadors tells a different story. As does the dirty talking and trolling behavior we have been given to see since.

I do not condemn the fact that anyone can be pissed off, but the wording and the inappropriate actions that are even counterproductive for France and their industry.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom