What disclosure requirements are there for contracts? Are there any?
My guess for for the odd number is that 9+7=16 and 9+11=20 which gives a nice round number.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0
- Thread starter OPSSG
- Start date
What disclosure requirements are there for contracts? Are there any?
My guess for for the odd number is that 9+7=16 and 9+11=20 which gives a nice round number.
Correct, thanks for clearing that up, yes I was speaking specifically to the original option for the VLS in the ships upper island structure. Certainly plenty of options for the big girls for other systems.
Totally agree, has always astounded me why they do not have the self defence capability !!
Yeah I get what they are and what they are supposed to be....but why will it take 10 years to get the 1st Hunter in service?
Yeah, 1st of class and all that, prototype blocks are being made now, surely if Navy is in such a bad way, the build could be accelerated a tad?
I would have thought 5 years to build the 1st and 1 every 2 years after....
Because a succession of dumb pricks decided that the Australian economy should be based on mining and finance sectors and any trades and engineers we needed could be provided by immigration.
We have lots of bright young people coming up but there is a glaring gap across gen Y / Millennials for the simple reason there were not the opportunities that Gen X and Boomers had to build STEM careers.
Shipbuilding needs welders, fitters, machinists and electricians, not your average self employed tradie, but highly trained, highly experienced, technically competent specialists. A lot of the senior trades on Collins and AWD are now engineering and technical managers, the sort of people who until recently would not have chosen a trade career.
I should add, the US, UK and many other western nations are facing the same issues.
Yes to much mystery.
Really not to much in this review.
As I've stated previously they probably knew what they wanted and it couldn't of being nutted out in a afternoon with a coffee and a biscuit.
7 to 11 Tier 2 is a variance of five vessels why?
Can they not make up their mind.
Another year to select a ship /manufacturer.
Hunter time table? What!
Optional manned ship. Does anyone seriously think this will be in RAN service any time soon.
It's a concept.
US will build some. The easy part.
Then a long series of tests to prove the concept.
If successful , then production.
Any bets as to what year they will enter RAN service?
Need some concrete numbers and time tables
Cheers S
Last edited:
I think it's as simple as Hilarides recommended "minimum 7, optimally 11" and the Government in their response went with 11. See pages 9 and 16 of the Review.
I hope so.
Let's wait for the ink to dry on the contract for this new class of ships to see what is ordered.
Cheers S
OldTex
Well-Known Member
"Enhanced Lethality Surface Combatant Fleet" plan is nothing inspirational, rather it is aspirational. There are only "examplars" mentioned as part of the small picture big hands presentation. There is no new projects, and the requisite budgets, for any of the plan. The only existing projects and budgets have been curtailed or effectively terminated. What is now needed is the hard part, actually delivering on the aspiration. It needs not just the pathway of projects and budgets for the ships, but also the plans and budgets to effectively grow the manning and the supporting elements which are not combatants. The supporting elements will be needed to enable the available combatants to maximise their effectiveness.
devo99
Well-Known Member
I think it's more that previous governments have left it so late that there's no option to get ships into the fleet before current ships have to be decommissioned.
Supposedly they have all been returned to us, according to ADF’s own info…
Hobarts need 3. Supply Class have 1 each. Choules has 1.
Apparently we have 6x currently not being employed, except perhaps as rotational systems, ironically the exact number that were originally intended to go onto the 2x LHD’s.
I can only assume there is some design hold-up with integrating them…
In my book the OPV situation is a much worse cock-up than any of the prior programs including the Attack program. Poor requirements from Defence that did not anticipate changes in the strategic situation and did not build in any room for future growth in capability. Couldn’t even get the gun right. Then to top it off bad execution with the end product stuck pierside for the last 2 (!) years for mysterious reasons that no one wants to talk about.
Hunter heading down the same path with cost and schedule blowouts - first hull won’t be delivered until 2034?! (But it should be a great ship)
At least Attack was progressing towards a useful military capability (the switch to SSN was a reasonable call of course). And the people who were complaining about 60% domestic content and 2032 delivery timeline are now all strangely OK with a 2040+ delivery for AUKUS subs that will have much less Aussie content, so one might wonder if all the criticism was entirely founded.
It seems that there is absolutely no sense of urgency within the RAN and/or DoD to fit them Yet when the Adams class DDG, HMAS Brisbane, deployed for the first Gulf War way back in 1990, the RAN were able to fit 2 CIWS within weeks to a ship where, AFAIK, no other ships of her class in the USN or German Navy had ever been so fitted. In the case of the LHDs we have been waiting years and not even one CIWS has been fitted so far! I guess Choules was comparatively easy as the RFA had already fitted a CIWS to at least one of her sisters during a deployment (RFA Lyme Bay - Wikipedia), so integration issues had been solved elsewhere.
Tas
Last edited:
The OPV situation is concerning.
We have always needed a mixed fleet of inshore and off shore vessels. Three generations of patrol boats have realistically being supplement by major fleet units and other vessels of opertunity.
The ECapes will be fine for the inshore role. While only six OPVs is certainly better than the past it's not adequate going forward.
Remembering they were meant to free up the majors for their intended duty.
The Arafura class still has merit.
Not what we should of got but that's history.
The talk of their inadequacy for both constabulary and potential military roles is just political language of nonsense.
We work with what we have and that's it.
Two are in the water and four in various stages of production.
Unlike alot of the Review they are actually a reality.
We should capitalise on that reality for what it offers.
Additional stock standard OPVs with a 25mm bushmasters are much better than the alternative this side of 2030....................that been nothing.
Cheers S
CIWS was effectively FFBNW on the Bay class design from the get-go, so it literally was plug-n-play...
SA
The lack of urgency is compatible with a perception that the major threats to LHDs are underwater. Perhaps they are also more willing to operate Choules without DDG escort.
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
The Phalanx on the Supply class was fitted in a matter of weeks, after they arrived from Spain and before commissioning.
Actually I wonder if the Capes will now be commissioned and get some armament. Up until now they were probably considered as an interim measure until we got our full fleet of Arafuras. I am not even sure if the navy owns them or is leasing them.
Also there was some talk of using the Arafura as MCM and Hydro vessels. I wonder if those plans are changing.
Also there was some talk of using the Arafura as MCM and Hydro vessels. I wonder if those plans are changing.
Last edited:
Scott Elaurant
Well-Known Member
To me the budget would easily explain this. If the budget is fixed and we still don’t know the tender price for each of those four frigate options when fitted with required Australian systems (e.g. CeaFar, sonar, SAAB command system) and price when built here, then you can only guess how many ships will be affordable. IMO if this is the case then the Japanese and South Korean frigates are looking good. Both countries have heaps of shipbuilding capacity for rapid supply, and are far more cost competitive than EU builders.
Also, compared to the Soryu sub saga since then Japan and South Korea have both gotten more experienced at warship export. They have done so to several Asian countries they do not share a language with, including part local builds. I think they will be strong competitors.