I hear the DSR suggests disbanding the Army to pay for the other two services.............
‘Impactful projection’
We'll see next month.
Cheers S
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0
- Thread starter OPSSG
- Start date
‘Impactful projection’
We'll see next month.
Cheers S
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
The article itself is behind a paywall, and TBH I have no intention of giving any money to Murdoch. Having said that, for those who can read the entire thing, does Sheridan provide any sort of timeline or timeframe for when he thinks new destroyers would be ordered for the RAN, or corvettes replacing the OPV's, or even when the last three Hunter-class frigates would be 'cut'?
I ask because of the headline with the article that "Australia must increase military power- and fast." With some of what is on that list, it involves things which are years away. For instance, if the plan for the Hunter-class order and the National Shipbuilding Plan remains essentially the same, it will likely be nearly 20 years before the last of the Hunter-class frigates is laid down. Whether or not the number is kept at nine or cut to six, those vessels are not scheduled to start construction until the middle of next decade Those last three FFG's are not going to be any part of a rapid buildup of Australian military and naval power.
As for the RAN getting another three AWD's... I had thought the Hobart-class DDG's were now just referred to as DDG's and the term AWD was a thing of the past. Having said that, I have already raised, repeatedly, some of the issues with getting the kit or at least comparable kit, to fit to another class of DDG. If such a class were to be built for the RAN and intended to provide area air defences, then it seems unlikely that it would be fitted with a CMS other than Aegis or a derivative. Such systems take time to get.
As for a class of missile-armed corvettes replacing some of the planned numbers of OPV's... that would run into such issues as what design to use, how it would fitted out, where it would be built, and where the systems to be fitted would come from.
Again, these are all things which could happen, but a harsh reality many such speculators keep seeming to ignore is that if a rapid buildup is to happen, then anything which takes time to really set or accomplish is not viable. For instance, if gov't/the RAN had already selected a corvette design to serve as the base for an FSG and had an idea of what the minimum fitout would be, then contract work for the detailed design could be issued. Once that detailed design was completed, then orders for materials and systems could be placed and initial construction could begin but that likely would not be before the middle of 2024 at the earliest. That is also assuming that the RAN, CASG and gov't had been quietly running a major procurement programme in the background which had already completed first and second pass approvals and it would likely have needed to have been running for ~three years to get this far.
So, without being able to read the actual article, it looks like quite a bit of speculation involved and not grounded in realistic time constraints.
Additional Hobarts and cancelling three Hunters makes no sense to me.
Would a government who's main platform would seem to be to "Build in Australia" cancel three locally built Hunters for three overseas built Hobarts?
Alternatively if the Hobarts were intended to replace the early Hunters in the production line would they realistically be delivered any quicker than the first tranche of Hunters?
Would a government who's main platform would seem to be to "Build in Australia" cancel three locally built Hunters for three overseas built Hobarts?
Alternatively if the Hobarts were intended to replace the early Hunters in the production line would they realistically be delivered any quicker than the first tranche of Hunters?
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Well, the first steel was cut in December for the lead Hunter-class frigate... Since additional Hobart-class DDG's built to the existing vessel plans is not AFAIK possible since there would need to be some changes to their fitout, I just do not see a realistic way for any more Hobart-class DDG's or DDG's that are similar to be finished before the lead FFG is.
Technically not first steel cut as it’s still officially a prototype block which they *intend* to utilise in the lead if all goes to plan.
Re Navantia’s offer, It’s Ship only - $2b per unit plus GFE. It’s not quite the steal it may appear.
Their ‘corvette/light frigate’ offer is arguably even worse, $600-800m + GFE.
After weapons, sensors, CMS etc you’d be looking at potentially over a billion for a platform with rubbish range, low endurance, no space for HADR TEUs, no dedicated space for UXVs, and no real through-life adaptability margins.
Navantia promised a lot of things.
Interesting fact, several AWD blocks were built in Spain, including some of the same specific ones for each of the three ships. Remembering that Spain had built five of their own F-100s, before building these identical blocks for the Australian ships, it is fact that they were all different to each other.
There was no change in the design, no deliberate configuration change, no requirement to do anything differently at all. What happened is the yard got the design and decided to do it their own way for their own reasons. Basically old school steel bashing shipyard with none of this new (1970s and 80s) stuff or following design data and providing feedback to the design team of and need to change things during build.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
I was going off the Defence site for SEA 5000. However, on double checking that site, the content was current as of 14 Jan 2021... <le sigh> Prototyping was to have started 18 Dec 2020 though, so there is that.
Mate the whole project has been so misty and lacking in basic transparency. Heck, the official specs still haven’t been updated to reflect what was drawn out in Senate Estimates over a year ago. I’m hopeful the DSR will finally give context.
I can’t think of another major combatant program in a partner country which equals the lack of basic transparency with Hunter.
One of the reasons why I’d be concerned if BAE also was the prime for our SSNs.
Last edited:
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
I would say the CSC comes in as a close second wrt transparency, however that is SOP for all Canadian governments, provincial and federal, regardless of political favour of the day.
No difference between this and previous projects in the detail being provided.
A very big difference is they are doing lots of prototyping to verify processes as well as their actual infrastructure, while continuing to complete detail design and set a baseline.
This alone is a massive improvement over the supposed "existing" Hobart's, where production was often held up waiting design data from Spain, or more to the point and explanation of when something that is in the design data literally doesn't work.
BAE has set up a digital shipyard where the production trades get to walk through their job on the model before doing it on the build. Everything will be done vertically before it happens on the actual ship. The complete opposite to the 1950s experience of working with Navantia.
If BAE have done it properly the Hunter build should be a reasonably trouble free process. They have a digital double of the ship which isn't just a blue print but a virtual copy of the actual ship that should allow enginneers and builders to plan every step of its construction. Added to that Osborne is arguably one of the most technologically advanced shipyards in the world. A lot of the processes are highly automated which means it is essentual that you have a digital version of the ship.
The technology is mind boogling. Imagine a welder with a VR helmet being able to see exactly what the finished product should look like before making their first weld. You could see exactly how sections of the ship would join up with a level of precision previous generations of shipbuilders could only dream of.
If a decision was made to put construction of the Hunter on hold and go back to building the old Hobart class means going back to building it the old fashioned way with lots of errors, reworks, delays and budget overruns.
The technology is mind boogling. Imagine a welder with a VR helmet being able to see exactly what the finished product should look like before making their first weld. You could see exactly how sections of the ship would join up with a level of precision previous generations of shipbuilders could only dream of.
If a decision was made to put construction of the Hunter on hold and go back to building the old Hobart class means going back to building it the old fashioned way with lots of errors, reworks, delays and budget overruns.
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
No Submarine announcement this week, Albanese is off to India on Thursday for 4 days, apparently the Cricket is more important than Subs
Not working in ship building, but surely this isn't a new advent and would have been around for Canberra, Hobart etc?
3D models have been around for a long time in general large scale construction in Australia.
Or are you specifically talking about the integration of VR from the 3D modelling to the general workforce?
Ironically Canberra and Hobart builds were in many ways a step back in time.
We assumed there would be a CAD model, there were PDF 2D drawings. There were also big gaps between the provided design data and what was actually used for production in Spain.
Australia ended up having to employ a significant number of engineers and designers to "red pen" the drawings, send them to Spain to get navantia to sign them, then build in accordance with. Very 1990s.
That is quite worrying tbh......
Can you elaborate on "we assumed there would be a CAD model"? and what do you mean by, there were only "PDF 2D drawings"?
Were the CAD mirrors of the 2D design documents never provided by Navantia? Are you telling me Aus engineerings and designers had to reproduce all of the PDF's in DWG for Canberra or you simply worked off PDF's for a $3B naval construction project? Either way, neither option is a good one for a project of that size.
In regards to the first point, this is a fairly clear and basic contractual understanding/requirement on most major builds, would have this been clear above your position and you were just assuming CAD models would have been provided on the job and were unaware of the contractual obligations of Navantia? Or that the Australian side just assumed Navantia would be providing CAD models and only got 2D PDF's?!
No idea on the Canberra's but know the original plan for Hobart was built to print. If I recall correctly, eventually local designers had access to update drawings and get sign off by a local Navantia team.
I was gone before Navantia took over the build, so can't comment on what happened once they had skin in the game.
I understand we have one Phalanx on each of the Hobart Class.
One on HMAS Choules and one on each of the Supply Class.
If the math is correct, that's 6 active units across the fleet.
If I recall we have 12 units with talk of an additional two.
Total inventory others could advise, but I'd suggest we have some spare capacity to deploy with the Canberra Class.
Why this has not being taken up is a mystery.
While there are arguments for and against Phalanx, it's certainly more capable than the LHD's 25mm Bushmasters.
Not quite sure if the DSR will shed any light on this subject!
Cheers S
Aardvark144
Active Member
Maybe this weekend or early next week seeing as the UK PM is travelling to DC this weekend according to the UK press.No Submarine announcement this week, Albanese is off to India on Thursday for 4 days, apparently the Cricket is more important than Subs
HMAS Canberra is on her way to Vanuatu fully loaded with HADR