Ive never come across a company with so few technical people as Austal, besides most of the welders were here on 457 visas last I heard. Its a lot cheaper to train people in the Philippines and bring them here as required than the other way around.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
Ive never come across a company with so few technical people as Austal, besides most of the welders were here on 457 visas last I heard. Its a lot cheaper to train people in the Philippines and bring them here as required than the other way around.
They needed to say that to get the pacific patrol boat build. It will be interesting to see how they come out in practice
You need to be tad careful here. AMSA don not 'restrict' them because of design issues. Rather they apply the High Speed Craft (HSC) Code which was developed for such vessels and reflects their design philosophy. Basically they need a permit to operate and the vessels ..... in commercial service (noting the USNS is a government non commercial service) is that the vessel must be on an approved operation that has it within 4 hours of a safe haven or sheltered waters for PAX and 8 hours for cargo.
Australia were instrumental in getting this code up and it reflects that HSC are essential connectors for short haul RO-RO, RO-PAX and PAX operations where speed is a real benefit. Where placed on a suitable route they are very effective.
It is interesting this has not translated to a great deal of use of the larger versions (70m and upwards) as conditions and the operating requirements mitigated against them. The "SeaCat" was trial on the Tasmania run but was found to be too weather restricted (and costly) and the exiting large ferry and the SeaCat were replaced by two high speed RO-PAX ferries (that do over 25knots and are not built to the HSC Code but are full SOLAS).
It really is what suits the trade and the sleek impressive looking HSC is not always going to be it ...... irrespective of the marketing hype
Last edited:
Sea 5000
This article suggests a new defining factor to which the future frigate will selected, Crewing size.
The current crew sizes of each proposal are:
FREMM : "131 GP version / 133 ASW version; add 14 crew for one helo on board or add 23 crew for two helos on board" Wikipedia.
Type 26 : A crew complment of 118 and a capacity for 208.
Navantia : (based off of the Hobart class) 186 + 16 aircrew
Accommodation for 234 Wikipedia.
This would highlight the Type 26 as an leader in the selection on this basis, hopefully putting the design back in the lead.
SEA5000 CEP: critical capability considerations for the future frigates | Australian Naval Institute.
This article suggests a new defining factor to which the future frigate will selected, Crewing size.
The current crew sizes of each proposal are:
FREMM : "131 GP version / 133 ASW version; add 14 crew for one helo on board or add 23 crew for two helos on board" Wikipedia.
Type 26 : A crew complment of 118 and a capacity for 208.
Navantia : (based off of the Hobart class) 186 + 16 aircrew
Accommodation for 234 Wikipedia.
This would highlight the Type 26 as an leader in the selection on this basis, hopefully putting the design back in the lead.
SEA5000 CEP: critical capability considerations for the future frigates | Australian Naval Institute.
spent the previous week in Coolangatta, woke up on the 4th to Canberra on the horizon. thx to DT, I knew what she was probably up too(ARH and MRH90 deck trials). and marinetraffic confirmed her ident.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?...-2207520000.1489388996.&type=3&size=1440,1080
Am in Sydney and no LHDs.
Garden Island just doesn't look the same.
Not a lot in Garden Island actually - looking very bare.
One of the pleasures of visiting Sydney denied.
Regards,
Massive
Melbourne's Williamstown dockyard was not that long ago quite interesting with both LHD's being fitted out and looking quite majestic across the bay.
Now very much a case of days past.
Alas ,not expecting a great shipbuilding future for this part of the country.
So Massive,don't worry your ships will return.
Regards Stampede
Nick underscore
Member
Canberra and Choules heading south, just of Newcastle currently. Adelaide was docked in Freeo just yesterday, probably still there..
Like everything in life... Timing
The Navy are flat out preparing for the Sea series of exercises at the moment, so FBE is probably going to be pretty bare for a few months. Next month the ARG does a dress rehearsal for Talisman Sabre by conducting a landing at Bowen, and then in July is the all singing all dancing landing near Shoalwater Bay as a demonstration and certification of the amphibious capability.
Also interesting that the Cristobal Colon is embedded in the fleet playing AWD. I hear it is working pretty well except for the afternoon siestas getting in the way,
Also interesting that the Cristobal Colon is embedded in the fleet playing AWD. I hear it is working pretty well except for the afternoon siestas getting in the way,
I hope the TS17 gets sufficient media coverage, its going to be pretty impressive by the sounds of it.
I am impressed with the Spanish. For an out of area country they have been fairly regular in region during the AWD and AOR processes.
Wonder if a joint Spanish/Australian amphibious training exercise will ever happen. It would be nice to see all three LHD's and combined surface fleets.
Exercise Meat pie Paella? Bundy Sangira?
Tal Sabre will get plenty of media coverage - perhaps too much. The main effort, particularly for the ARG, is to publically demonstrate the capability, so it will be staged to the point the training outcome will suffer, albeit for a good reason. There are 35 000 people playing on Tal Sabre this year, so it is probably the largest and most complicated exercise held in Australia since WWII.
I think the reason the Spanish navy is hanging around Australia is simply a matter of money - we have it and they don't. We are effectively leasing parts of the Spanish navy to cover our own shortfalls in capability. A good result for both parties really.
Bit of a dated article noting it was in support of the MEKO 400 which has not been shortlisted.
A few issue you may wish to consider:
1. We are still not privy to what changes will be made to the designs to cater for Australian requirements. some (such as increased remote monitoring) my reduce crew size, others may result in an increase. Add to this is 'how the service operates and its process .... this is not so much a design considerations as a process issues ..... which leads me to the next point....
2. Crew size is driven by Navy as much as the design. If you done't believe me look at RAN crew on Choules compared to RFA manning. (The frustration with this has been shared by some of my Naval contacts). Some of this arises from different work practices and the fact it is treated as warship ....... but not all as far as I am aware.
3. Numbers in the RAN. The Navy Web site indicated there are 'over 16000 personal' while other sites indicate there 14215 serving members in the RAN not including reserves. This is more that we had in the late 80's ..... and crews were bigger then!
Not the outcome of the submarine selection I am refraining from predicting the outcome. There are some very logical reason for seeing the evolved F105 being a front runner (even if it is for one or tow batches) but I would not put too much stock on the opinions of independent analysis trying to promote a particular position.
Future AWD upgrades
I know it is very early to be on this topic, but could the AWD's be retrofitted with CEA radars?
Is this not possible because of compatibility issues with the Aegis Combat system.
Also what improvements would the replacement radars bring if this were hypothetically upgraded?
Please understand this is hypothetical, so don't quote this as a reference.
I know it is very early to be on this topic, but could the AWD's be retrofitted with CEA radars?
Is this not possible because of compatibility issues with the Aegis Combat system.
Also what improvements would the replacement radars bring if this were hypothetically upgraded?
Please understand this is hypothetical, so don't quote this as a reference.
I cannot imagine this happening. The full suite of the CEA radars are still being developed. The AWD is structurally attuned to the SPY1D and a 'conversion' would entail risk ..... which would be unnecessary if you simply built a new hull rather that undertake a significant conversions.
Finally by the time the future frigate run has finished they will be looking a new AWD (we hope) and technology will have moved on
It is something that is already been looked at as CEA is/was working on an 8x8 tile radar which with it's size would have made it a viable competitor if not out right replacement for the SPY-1 radar (Some or all variants, hasn't been mentioned in detail).
Assuming the 8x8 system keep's similar chararestics to the 6x6 system then it will end up having 4 times the S-band T/R modules, possibly the same for the X-band modules.
CEAFAR and CEAMOUNT is the future I'd say, An extremey scalable system that can be adapted from our future OPV's all the way up to our largest ships and that doesnt even take into account it's land based uses (Has already been tested succesfully in South Africa with the IRIS-T SLM).
As to if it can be retrofited to the AWD's, technically maybe however realistically is there enough room to make the modifications needed? (Space is tight so much harder to work around existing infrastructure) Is the cost/benefit worth while trying to modify 3 existing ship's already viewed as to small worth it rather then building such a system onto new ships in the line?
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
The Ceafar/Aegis combination is still in contention for the future Frigates, up against the 9LV/Ceafar combo, so definitely shouldnt rule out replacing the Spy-1 radars with a Cea family Radar for the mid life DDG upgrade.
For Petes sake...... on what basis do you say this! On what performance metric are stating we should 'definitely not rule this out'. The capabilities of the CEA suite and the The SPY family are different and .... at this stage the CEA suite cannot provide all the funactionality we get with SPY. Unless you have evidence (which I suspect you don't) that the CEA family of radars can do everything the SPY - Aegis combination (including the range and discrimation of the SPY radar) will then you cannot make this arguement.
The other issue that is being missed here is Aegis is a power and space hog and is to be upgraded (which is already in the pipeline). The SAAB option does not present the same issue and is already in use with the CEA suite ...... as such it present a lower risk and is already widely fitted in the fleet. You should not assume the Aegis is a shoe in.
Finally ..... why would you go through the pain of a complex and expensive midlife upgrade to remove a capable radar system ...... when the intent of the continuous build programme is to avoid such expensive dalliances noting they have a history of being expensive and not giving value for money.
By the time we get to the point the AWD (DDG) is around the 20 year mark technology will have moved on and what goes into the air warfare vessel may be substantially different.
I see CEAFAR and SPY1 as complimentary.
SPY1 is going to be in the US mix (and the JSDF, and SK and Spains, etc) for a long time. It is also quite capable.
Money time and energy would be better spent else where, replacing far less capable systems with far better systems.
SPY-6(v) would be the SPY1 replacement, which is meant to be 30 times more powerful. However, I doubt that they will try and cram that into an existing F-105 hull. Power, weight, volume, thermals would be a nightmare.
20 years (30+ if you think about the F-105 design) is a long time in Radars.
IMO you want a nice big wide ship so you can fit a nice big radar, up high.
SPY1 is going to be in the US mix (and the JSDF, and SK and Spains, etc) for a long time. It is also quite capable.
Money time and energy would be better spent else where, replacing far less capable systems with far better systems.
SPY-6(v) would be the SPY1 replacement, which is meant to be 30 times more powerful. However, I doubt that they will try and cram that into an existing F-105 hull. Power, weight, volume, thermals would be a nightmare.
20 years (30+ if you think about the F-105 design) is a long time in Radars.
IMO you want a nice big wide ship so you can fit a nice big radar, up high.
- Status