Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
Yes - happening progressively across the fleet
MB
Nope, they based the contract on the used the original BPC build contract which specified those colours and I understand there was a cost difference changing. I would not discount the comment by Assail in this regard either as these vessel are a short term fix while the ACPB have remediation work done and to replace HMAS Bundaberg which was destroyed by fire.
Add to that warships 'may' be gray but the can be a bunch of other colours as well. Look at the military ice breakers as an example. There is no restriction on cargo ships going grey either (and some are) but upper works are often white as it reduces heat soak in warmer climate.
What makes a "naval vessel" what it is driven by domestic law not its colour. The two Capes are financed by the NAB as Trackmaster notes but they are still "naval" ships irrespective of ownership or, indeed, if they are actually commissioned as section 10 of the Navigation Act 2012 states
10 Act does not apply to naval vessels etc.
This Act does not apply to, or in relation to:
(a) a warship or other vessel that:
(i) is operated for naval or military purposes by Australia or a foreign country; and
(ii) is under the command of a member of the Australian Defence Force or of a member of the armed forces of the foreign country; and
(iii) bears external marks of nationality; and
(iv) is manned by seafarers under armed forces discipline (however described); or
(b) a Government vessel that is used only on government non‑commercial service as a naval auxiliary; or
(c) a vessel used by a foreign country for customs or law enforcement purposes.
So in this case these vessel are 'warships" but not commissioned. While not necessary for a warship, these two will be maintained in the same manner as the Customs Capes (maintaining compliance with commercial certification .... with out the certificates issued under the Act) to allow them to be handed back when no longer needed.
Construction of the new frigates for the RAN could be delayed until 2022 ... at least according to Andrew Davies.
https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/future-frigates-not-fast/
He actually makes a good point in that it does seem to be very ambitious to have first steel cut within a couple of years of the design being selected.
With the Hobart class the initial design was selected back in 2007 and construction didn't commence until 2012. The Anzacs were selected in 1989 with construction commencing in 1993. So it would seem that history is against this happening.
The best chance of an early build would be if the the modified Hobart proposal got the nod.
It might be sensible to come up with a plan B just in case there are delays in this program. Perhaps a fourth Hobart might not be off the table.
https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/future-frigates-not-fast/
He actually makes a good point in that it does seem to be very ambitious to have first steel cut within a couple of years of the design being selected.
With the Hobart class the initial design was selected back in 2007 and construction didn't commence until 2012. The Anzacs were selected in 1989 with construction commencing in 1993. So it would seem that history is against this happening.
The best chance of an early build would be if the the modified Hobart proposal got the nod.
It might be sensible to come up with a plan B just in case there are delays in this program. Perhaps a fourth Hobart might not be off the table.
A 4th Hobart has been off the table for at least 3 years, not an option at all. Lead in requirements shut down long ago, and the time to activate that again would be way too long, IIRC, it was close to 4 years ago just to get the combat system/Aegis etc.
I would be pretty confident to bet my left one that the modified option from Navantia will get up.
Cheers
Except that in the case of the evolved F105 the historical AWD time line is not a good bench mark as the hull form of he AWD and the evolved vessel is the same and the hull modules are not significantly different. What the timeline does do is give the F105 a theoretical advantage, however, the winding down of work with the yards that built the modules may delay start up a bit.
Certainly from an ASC perspective this would be a more expedient approach given the skill sets are in place and a rapid transition would help minimize the loss of trained workers.
You never know, maybe we will have a split build of evolved F105s followed by something else. I have given up trying to guess what the outcome will be.
Post Script ...... I would also note the Andrew Davies has been wrong in the past, however, the proposed slippage may be due to the mooted selection of a new design .... as I said until the announcement is made I would bet money in any direction.
Apparently Defence has issued a statement confirming that the ships were maintained and operated in accordance with the builders' specifications, including the oils and lubricants used in their operation.
Looks like they might be shifting the blame to Navantia.
https://www.defenceconnect.com.au/maritime-antisub/637-shipbuilder-faces-uncertainty-for-ffp-bid
Austal Fassmer OPV proposal shows BAE 40mm gun
The following Austal report on setting up its office in Adelaide shows an image of its Fassmer OPV80 proposal with a BAE 40mm turret:
https://navaltoday.com/2017/05/05/australian-opv-contender-austal-sets-up-design-office-in-adelaide/
The following Austal report on setting up its office in Adelaide shows an image of its Fassmer OPV80 proposal with a BAE 40mm turret:
https://navaltoday.com/2017/05/05/australian-opv-contender-austal-sets-up-design-office-in-adelaide/
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
I guess Navantia will be leaning on Siemens, the POD subcontractor. Tried to find out if the Juan Carlos had any POD issues but didn't find any. Several cruise ships have had problems with other POD manufacturers though.
meatshield
Active Member
This next statement is completely unsubstantiated. But......
I mate of mine was on a plane heading out of Sydney the other day and sat next to an oil company guy. The conversation about the LDH's kicked off and this oil guy mentioned that the fuel oil supplied to the ships was contaminated somehow and there is now metal filings throughout the engines on both ships.
Like I said unsubstantiated.....
And likely irrelevant to the issues anyway, unless they've somehow morphed from electric azipods, or the engine problems have nothing to do with what has been reported (and discussed here)
oldsig
Flexson
Active Member
The Spanish only operate Juan Carlos for like 40 or 50 days a year, where we have operated Canberra for well over 200 days a year. We are pretty much the lead operator of this class of ship now, the Spanish will be learning of any emergent issues off of us.
Given the tight schedule for production of the future frigate and potential for delay, I wonder what sort of life is left in the remaining Adelaide class?
With HMAS Darwin the sole remaining FFG of the original batch of 4 one would guess there is not too much life left in her, however the two younger ships HMAS Melbourne and Newcastle should still have some potential to "soldier on".
Maybe these last two FFG's might remain in service well into the 2020's.
I guess it will all depend on how well both the OPV and future frigate schedule pans out.
Time will tell
Regards S
I would have thought that their replacements are the AWDs, not the new frigates. With the first of those likely to be commissioned in the relatively near future I suspect Darwin's not too distant future is as a dive wreck, not a bandaids and baling twine place holder.
oldsig
Flexson
Active Member
Darwin is scheduled for Decommissioning end of this year, Melbourne next year and Newcastle 2019. Any delays in the production of the future frigate won't change this. Despite what the AWD's/DDG's were originally envisioned to replace they are now replacing the FFG's and the FFG's will be decommissioned as the AWD's/DDG's are commissioned.
Thanks for the reply.
I guess I see the younger FFG's as a bit of insurance. Replacing 75% of your frigates / destroyer force and your patrol boat force within a decade and hoping that there is no slippage in what most would consider a tight schedule leaves a lot to chance.
Maybe some merit in at least keeping the two FFG's in reserve.
Regards S
I wouldn't be surprised if once the decision is made to build three F-105 based frigates (with Aegis, two helos). I would imagine things will move pretty fast. I don't see it taking as long as the AWD's. I would imagine the government would be taking steps to accelerate things as quickly as possible. You are talking about building the same basic ship hull down.
If the Canberra's are off line that will stuff things up. Maybe Australia will rent JC1 for Talisman sabre 2017 if one of the Canberras can't be made operational in time.
Gotta say the Canberras get quite the hammering in the media for their avalibility. It seems as if they loose their mind every time they aren't out and about.
- Status