F-35 Joint Strike Fighter - Abbott agrees to buy more, more, more.

[Herne Hill Hammer]

lol

I wasn't aware of that. was that ovens or oxley?

I'm struggling to remember the other boats.....otama, orion?, otway? and onslow

Otama

 

[Elroo]

The story I always liked was that when the Collins was first commissioned and it was having issues, We had no sub coverage. The last O boat that was decommissioned, was dismantled and all the parts labelled. Unfortunately, they decided to then acid wash said parts and all of the markings came off.

It was decided to re-assemble it to give us sub coverage, the problem now was they didn't know how to re-assemble it.

They brought original designers / engineers out from England, who were in their 80s, to oversee the re-assembly.

The story relates to the Otama and occurred circa 1992 at Garden Island in Sydney. Went in for a 6 month maintenance period around 1989-90 and finished around 92.

It didn't leave us without submarine coverage as the last of the O boats were still in service till 2000 which was after the 1st 3 Collins had been commissioned.

O boat decommissioned

Oxley Decommissioned Feb 1992
Otway Decommissioned Feb 1994
Ovens Decommissioned Dec 1995
Orion Decommissioned 1996
Onslow Decommissioned Mar 1999
Otama Decommissioned Dec 2000

Collins Class commisioning

Collins commissioned 1996
Farncomb commissioned 1998
Waller commissioned 1999
Dechaineux commissioned 2001
Sheean commissioned 2001
Rankin commissioned 2003

 

[Elroo]

Both.

You need 18 crews for 6 subs........we have one crew

Fortunately we only have one operable sub meaning we are only two crews short rather than seventeen short.


So why are we getting new subs if we don't and haven't had the crews to man them? This has been an issue since the 80s

You really talk some rubbish; we dont have only 1 crew for our Collins class; another made up story from you.

 

[Max zero]

You really talk some rubbish; we dont have only 1 crew for our Collins class; another made up story from you.

So how many do we have? Is it enough to keep all subs in service?

 

[Elroo]

So how many do we have? Is it enough to keep all subs in service?

We have been having 3-4 submarines fully operational with the remaining 2-3 either going into or coming out of their SMP's.

Same process they use for the FFG's, ANZAC' & patrol boats.


Navy capability

Published on 21 January 2014 Vice Admiral Ray Griggs Chief of Navy (author), LS Nina Fogliani (photographer)

HMAS Waller, HMAS Dechaineux and HMAS Sheean in formation.

The article in the Sydney Morning Herald entitled ‘Submarine fleet a gold plated farce facing a reckoning’ which appeared on Monday 20th January contains a number of errors of fact.

There is no ingrained ‘culture of delusion and arrogance’ within the Australian Defence Force when it comes to the development of capability requirements. Defence works as a department in a contestable, considered and methodical manner when it comes to future capability requirements.

Contrary to claims in the article, that the military consistently produces gold-plated, high maintenance capabilities, it has for many years now utilised military off-the-shelf (MOTS) capabilities where practical and Defence has also been successfully reducing the cost of maintenance.

Recent successful examples of MOTS purchases include the multi-million dollar purchases of MH-60R helicopters and C-17 Globemaster aircraft.

The Royal Australian Navy’s replenishment ship HMAS Sirius has, and will continue to operate in all sea conditions within her designed limits. The ship is not being decommissioned this year, and will serve into the 2020s.

In response to comments on the submarine workforce my predecessor commissioned a review of the role of engineering in generating naval capability in May 2009.

He accepted 67 of the 76 Recommendations in the report in June 2010. Mr Rizzo’s review broadly identified the validity of the recommendations accepted from the Strategic Review of Naval Engineering and recommended that the remedial activity be completed in conjunction with any action consequent to his review. This review was always intended as an internal Navy review.

While we do not comment on the operations of the submarine fleet there have been numerous periods when up to four submarines have been in service. In fact for most of the last two years Navy has continuously had four submarines in service.

R J Griggs
Vice Admiral
Chief of Navy

 

[Max zero]

We have been having 3-4 submarines fully operational with the remaining 2-3 either going into or coming out of their SMP's.

Same process they use for the FFG's, ANZAC' & patrol boats.


Navy capability

Published on 21 January 2014 Vice Admiral Ray Griggs Chief of Navy (author), LS Nina Fogliani (photographer)

HMAS Waller, HMAS Dechaineux and HMAS Sheean in formation.

The article in the Sydney Morning Herald entitled ‘Submarine fleet a gold plated farce facing a reckoning’ which appeared on Monday 20th January contains a number of errors of fact.

There is no ingrained ‘culture of delusion and arrogance’ within the Australian Defence Force when it comes to the development of capability requirements. Defence works as a department in a contestable, considered and methodical manner when it comes to future capability requirements.

Contrary to claims in the article, that the military consistently produces gold-plated, high maintenance capabilities, it has for many years now utilised military off-the-shelf (MOTS) capabilities where practical and Defence has also been successfully reducing the cost of maintenance.

Recent successful examples of MOTS purchases include the multi-million dollar purchases of MH-60R helicopters and C-17 Globemaster aircraft.

The Royal Australian Navy’s replenishment ship HMAS Sirius has, and will continue to operate in all sea conditions within her designed limits. The ship is not being decommissioned this year, and will serve into the 2020s.

In response to comments on the submarine workforce my predecessor commissioned a review of the role of engineering in generating naval capability in May 2009.

He accepted 67 of the 76 Recommendations in the report in June 2010. Mr Rizzo’s review broadly identified the validity of the recommendations accepted from the Strategic Review of Naval Engineering and recommended that the remedial activity be completed in conjunction with any action consequent to his review. This review was always intended as an internal Navy review.

While we do not comment on the operations of the submarine fleet there have been numerous periods when up to four submarines have been in service. In fact for most of the last two years Navy has continuously had four submarines in service.

R J Griggs
Vice Admiral
Chief of Navy

What is their definition of continuous service? Does that mean for the last two years 4 subs have been on constant full operational duty or that they have been operational at least once in the last two years? By the Admirals own admission the best case scenario is 66% operational effectiveness. If we expand on our submarine fleet will we maintain or even reach that?

 

[Elroo]

What is their definition of continuous service? Does that mean for the last two years 4 subs have been constant full operations duty or that they have been operational at least once in the last two years? By the Admirals own words the best case scenario is 66% operational effectiveness. If we expand on our submarine fleet will we maintain that or even reach it?

You never have 100% of your fleet assets at the highest operational level except maybe in time of war or a national crisis.

In peacetime you will at any one time have a certain number of assets at the highest level of operational readiness. At the same time you will have other assets going from operationially ready to a maintenance period, & assets going from a maintenance period working up to operationally readiness.

Its how the ADF operates with all their assets including the army and air-force.

 

[Max zero]

You never have 100% of your fleet assets at the highest operational level except maybe in time of war or a national crisis.

In peacetime you will at any one time have a certain number of assets at the highest level of operational readiness. At the same time you will have other assets going from operationially ready to a maintenance period, & assets going from a maintenance period working up to operationally readiness.

Its how the ADF operates with all their assets including the army and air-force.

Yes I get that but how does best case (ie it's usually much lower that) 66% ultilisation compare to other branches of the Australia military or to that of other countries?

Do we require an expansion of the submarine fleet?

 

[Elroo]

Yes I get that but how does best case (ie it's usually much lower that) 66% ultilisation compare to other branches of the Australia military or to that of other countries?

Do we require an expansion of the submarine fleet?

Other arms of the ADF as i previously explained operate the same way, as do other countries defence forces.

 

[Max zero]

Other arms of the ADF as i previously explained operate the same way, as do other countries defence forces.

I am asking if 66% utilisation (at the best of times pre the previous two years it was 33%) is reasonable and whether we should expand our submarine fleet.

 

[Elroo]

I am asking if 66% utilisation (at the best of times pre the previous two years it was 33%) is reasonable and whether we should expand our submarine fleet.

Yes-an operational readiness of 3-4 units of the 6 is standard or actually the normal required as per previous comments.

Its actually a greater % than the Army and Air-force.

And yes we should expand our submarine force with a new generation submarine

 

[Max zero]

Yes-an operational readiness of 3-4 units of the 6 is standard or actually the normal required as per previous comments.

Its actually a greater % than the Army and Air-force.

And yes we should expand our submarine force with a new generation submarine

Do we have the staff levels needed to maintain appropriate readiness levels for an increased number of submarines?

Previous staffing problems were due to an unwillingness of enlisted personnel to work on submarines how will this be fixed?

 

[Elroo]

Do we have the staff levels needed to maintain appropriate readiness levels for an increased number of submarines?

Previous staffing problems were due to an unwillingness of enlisted personnel to work on submarines how will this be fixed?

Am i your HR department representative ?

Does the ADF have sufficient staffing levels to main all the designated units in the ADF?


You appear to be a poster with a pre-determined opinion who will ignore any responses you receive and keep asking questions until the response is the answer you want.

 

[Max zero]

Am i your HR department representative ?

Does the ADF have sufficient staffing levels to main all the designated units in the ADF?


You appear to be a poster with a pre-determined opinion who will ignore any responses you receive and keep asking questions until the response is the answer you want.

I'm asking because they did have staffing problems before when The Collins class first came in.

If we expand the fleet by a significant margin why wouldn't it happen again?

From a retired Collins class submarine captain:

http://www.asiapacificdefencereporter.com/articles/226/Reflections-of-a-Collins-Submarine-Captain

 

[Elroo]

I'm asking because they did have staffing problems before when The Collins class first came in.

If we expand the fleet by a significant margin why wouldn't it happen again?

From a retired Collins class submarine captain:

http://www.asiapacificdefencereporter.com/articles/226/Reflections-of-a-Collins-Submarine-Captain

No you are not asking from a staffing level-your asking because you have a pre-determined opinion you want to justify.

You also appear to think if we cant man 6 collins class submarines we should get more of the gen 'x' submarines.

Also here is is the org structure for the army; note the 1st division.

 

[Max zero]

No you are not asking from a staffing level-your asking because you have a pre-determined opinion you want to justify.

You also appear to think if we cant man 6 collins class submarines we should get more of the gen 'x' submarines.

Also here is is the org structure for the army; note the 1st division.

View attachment 151932

You seem rather evasive.

It's pretty straightforward.

We had trouble staffing 6 submarines as said by one of those captains.

You want to expand the submarine fleet. Has submarine work suddenly become more attractive? Why wouldn't the same staffing issues come up?

 

[Elroo]

You seem rather evasive.

It's pretty straightforward.

We had trouble staffing 6 submarines as said by one of those captains.

You want to expand the submarine fleet. Has submarine work suddenly become more attractive? Why wouldn't the same staffing issues come up?

Zero evasive response; fairly simple for anyone who has a basic understanding of ADF.

We dont fully man all 6 submarines or any other ADF asset in peace time- as told to you multiple times.

Your seem to think the collins class submarines manning levels and support levels equal any new submarines???

You also appear to think if we cant man 6 collins class submarines we should get more of the gen 'x' submarines.

Once again here is is the org structure for the army; note the 1st division,

 

[Max zero]

You also appear to think if we cant man 6 collins class submarines we should get more of the gen 'x' submarines.

Quote where I said this. In fact you said this:

And yes we should expand our submarine force with a new generation submarine

My point is if we can't man 6 why earth would we expand even further?

I personally think our non special forces land units and manned fighter aircraft are borderline obsolete now. To me the Collins class is merely an extension of that. Just like the F35 is for the air force.

 

[Elroo]

Quote where I said this. In fact you said this:



My point is if we can't man 6 why earth would we expand even further?

I personally think our non special forces land units and manned fighter aircraft are borderline obsolete now. To be the Collins class is merely an extension of that.

As per my multiple posts coĺlins class submarine manning does not equal the same manning levels on a future submarine-not sure why you refer to that or your previous comments on only having 4 out of 6 submarines fully operational.

 

[Max zero]

As per my multiple posts coĺlins class submarine manning does not equal the same manning levels on a future submarine-not sure why you refer to that or your previous comments on only having 4 out of 6 submarines fully operational.

And how much less are you expecting exactly? If we add another 6 Submarines (the replacement program talks about 12 submarines) do you think they will require half the crew?

Current Collins class submarines run on 58 crew. Which replacement submarine do you think will run on 28 crew? One possible replacement considered was the Japanese Soryu class which caused a lot of drama. They have a crew requirement of 65.

 

[Elroo]

And how much less are you expecting exactly? If we add another 6 Submarines (the replacement program talks about 12 submarines) do you think they will require half the crew?

Current Collins class submarines run on 58 crew. Which replacement submarine do you think will run on 28 crew? One possible replacement considered was the Japanese Soryu class which caused a lot of drama. They have a crew requirement of 65.

Your asking for a hypothesis now?

 

[Max zero]

Your asking for a hypothesis now?

Your the one claiming that future submarines staffing requirements will be different so any staffing problems on Collins class is irrelevant.

One of the leading replacement designs is the Soryu class. If we buy 12 (which is what the Collins-replacement program is discussing) then the fact that they have higher staffing requirements on a per submarine basis is already an issue.

 

[Elroo]

Your the one claiming that future submarines will require less crew so any staffing problems on Collins class is irrelevant.

One of the leading replacement designs is the Soryu class. If we buy 12 (which is what the Collins-replacement program is discussing) then the fact that they have higher staffing requirements on a per submarine basis is already an issue.

Ive never claimed future submarines require less crew; your comments seem to have gone from the operational readiness level of the entire ADF and worldwide defence forces to whatever springs into your mind.

 

[Max zero]

Ive never claimed future submarines require less crew; your comments seem to have gone from the operational readiness level of the entire ADF and worldwide defence forces to whatever springs into your mind.

Your right already edited my post.

But you did claim that since the new submarines will have different crew requirements that any shortage on Collins class didn't matter.

Well if we do go the Soryu class route and buy 12 it is going to matter isn't it?

 

[Elroo]

Your right already edited my post.

But you did claim that since the new submarines will have different crew requirements that any shortage on Collins class didn't matter.

Well if we do go the Soryu class route and buy 12 it is going to matter isn't it?

Show me where i stated that "since the new submarines will have different crew requirements that any shortage on Collins class didn't matter"?