Do you have a link to the other ship designs from Forgacs/AMECON/ASC?
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0
- Thread starter OPSSG
- Start date
Tenders Submitted by ASC and ForgacsDuring the initial 2001–2003 evaluation phase for Project SEA 1444 (the Armidale-class procurement), a total of 15 distinct bids were submitted across nine different prime contractors.
Both ASC and Forgacs were heavily involved in trying to secure this minor warship program, offering steel-hulled alternatives that were ultimately rejected by Defence in favour of Austal’s lightweight, fuel-efficient aluminum design.
The exact tenders put forward by ASC and Forgacs for the project included:
ASC (Australian Submarine Corporation) Tender:
The Design: ASC proposed a 55-metre steel-hulled monohull based on a heavily modified version of a commercial or existing European offshore patrol platform.
The Proposition: ASC pitched their bid on highly durable structural integrity (which would have avoided the exact cracking issues the Armidale class later suffered) and leveraged their advanced engineering workforce at the Osborne shipyard in South Australia.
Why It Was Rejected: At the time, Defence placed a high premium on lower lifecycle fuel costs and transit speeds. ASC's heavy steel design required greater engine power and fuel consumption compared to the lighter aluminum hull chosen.
Forgacs Shipyard Tender:The Design:
Forgacs submitted a tender based on a 52-metre or 56-metre steel hull design, partnering with international naval architects to adapt a proven regional patrol layout.
The Proposition: Forgacs aimed to build the vessels at their Carrington and Newcastle shipyards in New South Wales, presenting a lower-risk construction plan rooted in traditional steel shipbuilding.
Why It Was Rejected: Like ASC's bid, Forgacs was out-competed on pure operating economics. The commercial assessment concluded that Austal’s semi-displacement aluminum hull would save millions in fuel over its lifespan—a decision that was later heavily scrutinized when the aluminum hulls prematurely degraded.
Both ASC and Forgacs were heavily involved in trying to secure this minor warship program, offering steel-hulled alternatives that were ultimately rejected by Defence in favour of Austal’s lightweight, fuel-efficient aluminum design.
The exact tenders put forward by ASC and Forgacs for the project included:
ASC (Australian Submarine Corporation) Tender:
The Design: ASC proposed a 55-metre steel-hulled monohull based on a heavily modified version of a commercial or existing European offshore patrol platform.
The Proposition: ASC pitched their bid on highly durable structural integrity (which would have avoided the exact cracking issues the Armidale class later suffered) and leveraged their advanced engineering workforce at the Osborne shipyard in South Australia.
Why It Was Rejected: At the time, Defence placed a high premium on lower lifecycle fuel costs and transit speeds. ASC's heavy steel design required greater engine power and fuel consumption compared to the lighter aluminum hull chosen.
Forgacs Shipyard Tender:The Design:
Forgacs submitted a tender based on a 52-metre or 56-metre steel hull design, partnering with international naval architects to adapt a proven regional patrol layout.
The Proposition: Forgacs aimed to build the vessels at their Carrington and Newcastle shipyards in New South Wales, presenting a lower-risk construction plan rooted in traditional steel shipbuilding.
Why It Was Rejected: Like ASC's bid, Forgacs was out-competed on pure operating economics. The commercial assessment concluded that Austal’s semi-displacement aluminum hull would save millions in fuel over its lifespan—a decision that was later heavily scrutinized when the aluminum hulls prematurely degraded.
For the original Project SEA 1444 (which created the Armidale class), Defence received seven proposals
While the successful choice was the aluminum-hull variant from the Austal/DMS partnership, several specific alternative designs were tendered but rejected:
1. Australian Defence Industries (ADI)
TenderThe Design: ADI proposed a platform based on the Royal Danish Navy's Flyvefisken-class patrol vessel.
The Material: Unlike the aluminum hull chosen, ADI's design featured a glass-reinforced plastic (GRP) hull. This concept was heavily modeled after ADI’s construction of the Royal Australian Navy's Huon-class minehunters.
2. Tenix Defence TenderThe Design: Tenix proposed a variant of a 56-metre Search and Rescue (SAR) vessel.
The Background: This design was already in production and had been constructed by Tenix for the Philippine Coast Guard.
3. Austal/DMS (Alternative Steel Hull Tender)
The Design: Interestingly, the winning Austal/DMS partnership actually submitted two distinct proposals for their 56-metre platform—both based on an expanded version of the Bay-class patrol boat used by Australian Customs.
The Rejection: They offered one steel-hulled design and one aluminum-hulled design. Defence rejected their steel option and chose the aluminum proposal because it promised a 21% reduction in fuel consumption—ironically selecting the material that would later lead to the fleet's structural cracking and fracturing issues.
While the successful choice was the aluminum-hull variant from the Austal/DMS partnership, several specific alternative designs were tendered but rejected:
1. Australian Defence Industries (ADI)
TenderThe Design: ADI proposed a platform based on the Royal Danish Navy's Flyvefisken-class patrol vessel.
The Material: Unlike the aluminum hull chosen, ADI's design featured a glass-reinforced plastic (GRP) hull. This concept was heavily modeled after ADI’s construction of the Royal Australian Navy's Huon-class minehunters.
2. Tenix Defence TenderThe Design: Tenix proposed a variant of a 56-metre Search and Rescue (SAR) vessel.
The Background: This design was already in production and had been constructed by Tenix for the Philippine Coast Guard.
3. Austal/DMS (Alternative Steel Hull Tender)
The Design: Interestingly, the winning Austal/DMS partnership actually submitted two distinct proposals for their 56-metre platform—both based on an expanded version of the Bay-class patrol boat used by Australian Customs.
The Rejection: They offered one steel-hulled design and one aluminum-hulled design. Defence rejected their steel option and chose the aluminum proposal because it promised a 21% reduction in fuel consumption—ironically selecting the material that would later lead to the fleet's structural cracking and fracturing issues.
I has discovered AI is great for finding and collating information I have seen in the past.
The trick is remembering enough to be able to ask the right questions. So reading, listening, understanding is still critical.
Unfortunately, the same mediocre twits who don't or can't do any of that, seem to think AI can replace it
The trick is remembering enough to be able to ask the right questions. So reading, listening, understanding is still critical.
Unfortunately, the same mediocre twits who don't or can't do any of that, seem to think AI can replace it
Fantasicing as I mentally formulate an alt history.
- ADI is selected for SEA 1444.
- OMT buys ADI instead of Thales
- OMT buys ASC
- A class of eight modified Absalons is ordered instead of the LHDs and as a part replacement for the FFGs.
- Four improved Burkes, incorporating all the proposed USN upgrades (crew saving automation, Hybrid Electric Drive etc. Maybe a hull stretch and incorporation of additional systems as per Japanese and Korean developments) are ordered instead of the F-100.
- The ANZACs are replaced by improved Iver Huitfeldts (SAAB 9lv and CEAFAR) numbers are increased to twelve
- Eight Hunters are ordered to serve alongside the Burkes.
- The Absalons are reclassifed as multirole support ships.
- The PBs are replaced with a class of larger multi mission ships, designed to incorporate the new cube system replacing Stanflex.
Agree we need to not dismiss the small end of the navy.
Patrol, MCM ,survey, escort duty’s ,still need good numbers of Cape / Arafura sized vessels.
Manned vessels that form the mother ship to the growing unmanned space.
Mission bays in much larger ships are a complement not a substitute for the work done by smaller vessels
Begs the question what replaces the Huon and Leeuwin Class ships?
Cheers S
Ironically the stanflex 300 could have covered all those roles, especiallyif there were Absalons to back them up.
A two tier navy based not on size but role.
A fighting tier of large capable high end destroyers, cruisers and frigates, suppoeted by GP frigates/light destroyers and small combatsnts. Then a presence tier with large, medium and small vessels.
Last edited:
iambuzzard
Well-Known Member
Thanks Volks, your explanation of the tenders is brilliant. It shows the class of pea brains we have had in the upper echelons of Defence for the last few decades (personnel in areas where it matters excepted of course)!
The senior sirs wanted a bigger steel ship with, if not helicopters, at least the ability to fly and recover UAVs. It isnt what government wanted to pay for.
Remember, these were meant to be missile corvettesxwith missile armed helicopters, but ended up as cheap PBs less sturdily built than their predicessors and intended to be leased for fourteen years, then replaced.
Last edited:
Sharp sticks and harsh language.
Takao
The Bunker Group
Yes...... but, also no
There are plenty of resource issues that have severely curtailed said platform. Delaying the M113 replacement in the 90s, sticking with AS4, only purchasing 1/3 of the needed fleet for L400-3, before culling to the bare minimum. Overall, our mech inf capability has about 10% of the firepower it needs.
But, as you show, the decision to go with less cost up front for S1444 + the lack of willingness to stick to combatants and the fact that the RAN actual use case didn't match the contracted use case (my gosh; we have never seen those three combined before, or since....) still don't explain how OPVs cannot be fitted with a medium calibre cannon at least.