Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

Status
Not open for further replies.
IIRC, the RN shyed away from IEP for the Type 26 because of cost but also the Darling class problems. The latter issue was more about too small diesel gen sets and WR21 GT problems rather than the IEP concept itself. Both the QE carriers and the Zumwalt ships use IEP with MT30 GTs so hopefully IEP with prove itself with these ships.

The Type 26 will have 4 diesels with a MT30 in a CODLOG configuration. Perhaps a second batch could have IEP. Lasers, railguns, and IEP will be the future for many warships.
 
ASSAIL said:
I'm in total agreement with this philosophy mainly through derisking and commonality of the huge collection of basic ship systems.
Further, if we stay with the G&C design philosophy upgrades to further batches are evolutionary not revolutionary and provide a continuum to industry.
Given that philosophy, batch 3 of the Future Frigate may even look similar to the AB cousins Kongo or KDX although Secdef Richardsons view is that anything over 6000 tonnes is unnecessary, let's hope he's changed his mind.
Click to expand...

Richardson was apparently one of the key players behind the Soryu fiasco. It was all about alliances' and trade deals with no consideration given to the actual requirements of the RAN, or the damage the deal would do to Australia's strategic shipbuilding capability. A skilled bureaucrat, diplomat and deal maker, as demonstrated by his almost successful play to Abbott, Johnston and Corman on the Japan sub deal, his lack of technical understanding in regards to life cycle costs and capability definitely show through with the 6000t ceiling.

I see the ANZACs as a missed opportunity, the MEKO design was fully modular, meaning a batch build would have been dead easy and more to the point, evolving the design to meet changing requirements through batches would have been a no brainer. Instead we had HMAS ROTABLE PARTS POOL (PERTH), and a class of ship in need of serious upgrade before the last one commissioned.

A common sense approach could have seen the second batch completed with a larger MEKO hull, second GT and systems recycled from the DDGs to provide the RAN with a perfectly good enough evolved FFG or DDG variant. A third batch could have then been built instead of upgrading the FFGs. By the time the last of the FFG replacements were ordered we would likely have been in a position design a MEKO based AWD to replace Melbourne and Newcastle then progressively the Batch one ships.
 
rjtjrt said:
gf0012.
Congratulations on your moderating style.
Effective without being a screaming skull.
Respect!!
Click to expand...

We do need a like button, I always appreciate forum moderation that doesn't go off the deep end too early. Moderation feedback should always be about getting the desired response from the OP, rather than an expression of frustration from the moderator.
 
alexsa said:
Here the T26 has an advantage given its beam. It could more easily take a hull plug (in the design phase) to increase displacement with less risk of adversely changing the rolling or torsional characteristics. Mind you full electric drive would help a lot as you don't have to worry as much about shaft lines when tinkering with the hull lay out.
Click to expand...

The type 26 seems to be the dark horse long term. If it is meant to allow 8,000t in its current config, I think realistically you could push out to make a much longer vessel. But that width is going to be crucial and noticeably bigger than the AWD's. Bigger and higher radar, more space on the bridge, more deck space for more and bigger weapons etc. 72 VLS at even its standard length.

But they aren't cutting steel until summer this year. Who knows when IOC and it becomes a sorted low risk platform and even if it delivers on its potential.
 
Speaking of age, this septegenarian can't remember whether I've posted these concerns regarding the Lurssen OPV before and if I have I can't remember where;
Just imagine these protruding bridge wings alongside Broome or Darwin during a strong SE breeze, it would take less than 5 mins to wipe them out with the wharf deck level higher than the bridge at LW. Some consideration needed if selected.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/royal_australian_navy/9728493826/
 
ASSAIL said:
Speaking of age, this septegenarian can't remember whether I've posted these concerns regarding the Lurssen OPV before and if I have I can't remember where;
Just imagine these protruding bridge wings alongside Broome or Darwin during a strong SE breeze, it would take less than 5 mins to wipe them out with the wharf deck level higher than the bridge at LW. Some consideration needed if selected.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/royal_australian_navy/9728493826/
Click to expand...

If the bridge wings extend beyond the tumble home of the hull and superstructure ... I agree with you. Ugly ship but impressive capability. Personnaly I prefer the 85m version.
 
StingrayOZ said:
The type 26 seems to be the dark horse long term. If it is meant to allow 8,000t in its current config, I think realistically you could push out to make a much longer vessel. But that width is going to be crucial and noticeably bigger than the AWD's. Bigger and higher radar, more space on the bridge, more deck space for more and bigger weapons etc. 72 VLS at even its standard length.

But they aren't cutting steel until summer this year. Who knows when IOC and it becomes a sorted low risk platform and even if it delivers on its potential.
Click to expand...

Any thoughts on the type 26 developing into a competitive option for Australia? It looks like a good option, just hampered by not already being in the water already. With the number of hulls we are looking at you would think we could have a fair bit of input into how it develops.
 
alexsa said:
If the bridge wings extend beyond the tumble home of the hull and superstructure ... I agree with you. Ugly ship but impressive capability. Personnaly I prefer the 85m version.
Click to expand...

They very are almost level if not proud of the tumble home but quite irrelevant when pitching and rolling in a 20 kit SE slop alongside, even the old Bay class Customs PBS had trouble with their wings.
 
Mark_Evans said:
Any thoughts on the type 26 developing into a competitive option for Australia? It looks like a good option, just hampered by not already being in the water already. With the number of hulls we are looking at you would think we could have a fair bit of input into how it develops.
Click to expand...

I'd say they have as much chance as any of the shortlist. You've highlighted one problem, the MoD have been stuffing around for so long the odds are increasing with the risk and second, after the underwhelming result with the T45 we could get gunshy, we don't have a decade to sort out all the problems and shortcomings which will linger well beyond a decade for the RN
 
ASSAIL said:
Speaking of age, this septegenarian can't remember whether I've posted these concerns regarding the Lurssen OPV before and if I have I can't remember where;
Just imagine these protruding bridge wings alongside Broome or Darwin during a strong SE breeze, it would take less than 5 mins to wipe them out with the wharf deck level higher than the bridge at LW. Some consideration needed if selected.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/royal_australian_navy/9728493826/
Click to expand...

You have and its a valid concern the tides are really something to be seen at Coonawarra. Had a huge laugh couple of years back when a USN LCU got caught on the boat ramp at low tide, boy did they stir up the silt while, unsuccessfully, trying to reverse of the ramp. The base will need some serious work before it can handle OPVs anyway, maybe there are some mods they can do to mitigate the issue of bridge wings.
 
ASSAIL said:
They very are almost level if not proud of the tumble home but quite irrelevant when pitching and rolling in a 20 kit SE slop alongside,
even the old Bay class Customs PBS had trouble with their wings.
Click to expand...

And the Fremantle's if you were not careful. The very small wings were in from the side but depending how the boat was berth you needed to be careful at some berths,
 
Hazdog said:
Have a look at this page, Australian LHD's commencing Tiger ARH sea trials.


Canberra sees the eye of the Tiger | Navy Daily.

Can't wait to see them being deployed into action.
Click to expand...

Hmmm - given their availability rates and the fact that they still don't meet operational requirements, it may actually never happen.
Most bets are on them being replaced early in their lives rather than spend any more money on a platform that has failed to deliver anything like what was promised by the supplier when it won the contract.
MB

PS I am assuming that you refer to the Tigers of course :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top