Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[Volkodav]

With the best will in the world, the LCS is NOT an ASW frigate, and the "new frigate program" doesn't actually have a design, much less a ship in the water so it hardly "uses" it yet.

If you want to wander off at a tangent, feel free, but don't quote me first when it's nothing to do with what I said

oldsig

My apologies for disagreeing with a retired admiral who also has extensive experience in capability development, shipbuilding, etc.

Just one point, one of the key roles of the LCS from its inception is ASW. Argue your semantics as much as you like, accuse me of misquoting you or flying off on tangents, it doesn't change facts.

Basically you are not an expert, you have no relevant experience, industry, or service and your condescending attitudes to other members you disagree with is getting very wearing. You may not have noticed from your armchair but most members, whether professionals or just people with an interest in the topics discussed are actually much more polite and modest in their dealings with others, even those they disagree with, than you are.

You don't like me and as a result of your persistent, petulant sniping and childish one-upmanship, I don't particularly rate you either. But being an arrogant Walter Mitty type doesn't make you right.

 

[Goknub]

It probably would be slightly more expensive than just building nine frigates to a common design, but the scheduling advantages of building more ships as soon as possible as well as having a mature Type 26 to choose would counter balance that.

I just don't see the advantages of moving to the Type 26 design over evolving the F-100. A key advantage of the continous build plan is the accumulation of skills and knowledge of building that particular design. I would assume that by the end of the first batch it would be quicker and cheaper to update the design to a Flight ll than start over.
The only real advantage I could see is if the size (and capabilities) were vastly greater than the F-100, say around 9,000t. Even then, I would be willing to bet that designing/building a super-sized F-100 would be the better option considering the workforce would be all over that design. The Type 26 just doesn't seem to offer the clear advantages that would justify the split logistical and training costs.
These arguments would be the same if the Type 26 was selected so this isn't an anti-Type 26 thing.

 

[alexsa]

I just don't see the advantages of moving to the Type 26 design over evolving the F-100. A key advantage of the continous build plan is the accumulation of skills and knowledge of building that particular design. I would assume that by the end of the first batch it would be quicker and cheaper to update the design to a Flight ll than start over.
The only real advantage I could see is if the size (and capabilities) were vastly greater than the F-100, say around 9,000t. Even then, I would be willing to bet that designing/building a super-sized F-100 would be the better option considering the workforce would be all over that design. The Type 26 just doesn't seem to offer the clear advantages that would justify the split logistical and training costs.
These arguments would be the same if the Type 26 was selected so this isn't an anti-Type 26 thing.

Again trying to be pragmatic in this. The evolved F105 is at least 70% common with the Hobart DDG so you will have 6 hulls that are pretty close to each other. The T26 does offer a lot but the design couldn't be called mature.


Noting the batch build intent keeping the door open is not a bad idea, especially if it some logistics mandarin buying 9 ships set of gear on day one with the inevitable result that a lot of this will be obsolete by ship 9.

 

[oldsig127]

I think you are widely over estimating the problems of a split buy. All it does is move the split from hull four to hull seven.

Perhaps, but I'm old enough and was serving for long enough to see from inside the way politicians can derail the best laid plans and I hope they aren't given the extra opportunity. A well oiled bandwagon seems more likely to run down interlopers than switching to a new path half way. We shall see I guess.

oldsig

 

[StingrayOZ]

The displacement of the evolved F105 has been increased over the Hobart AWD, as such this may not be strictly correct and is based on assumption.

Yes of course, I should have phrased that in a more speculative way, I am not actually attacking the F-105 design or its suitability to meet the requirements of Sea5000. I am not too concerned with growth margins on a F-105 based sea5000 frigate than with certain aspects of the design as primary being focused on its air role. IMO we should build 3 new frigates off this design, and then it should be the fall back design if anything arises with the Type 26 which at this stage is entirely possible.

Really ... more than twice. This is down to the operating arrangements of the service and what gear is carried. look at Choules .... as an RFA it had a crew of 65 and has over 100 in RAN service.

Well that is me falling for marketing hype. I don't have access to any figures of what a type 26 in a RAN configuration compared to a simular tasked AWD. The type 26 (and other designs) seemed to imply serious savings in crewing.

How do you know this?

Again I apologize for implying fact in this regard. it would be interesting to compare the pool of diesels, and a single large turbine over a comparable modern fitout of a reworked F-105. Certainly there would be significant scope to rework the F-105. It would be interesting to see if they could match the Type 26 propulsion and systems. Then again, as shown with the type 45, with great change comes great risk. I will be watching closely what the reworked f-105 has in this department.

What dismounted systems and how do you know they cannot operate them????

All very speculative on my part. It would certainly be interesting to benchmark the two designs (and FREMM).

But really we are talking about two ships that exist in different times. The F-105 is here and now (in AWD form), we are already building them. The Type 26 is only now having steel cut. It seems like Australian isn't likely to put off the Sea5000 build no matter how hard the type 26 consortium push.

My point is don't try. Australia should be continuously building ships.

Sorry for setting everyone off.

 

[ASSAIL]

Again trying to be pragmatic in this. The evolved F105 is at least 70% common with the Hobart DDG so you will have 6 hulls that are pretty close to each other. The T26 does offer a lot but the design couldn't be called mature.


Noting the batch build intent keeping the door open is not a bad idea, especially if it some logistics mandarin buying 9 ships set of gear on day one with the inevitable result that a lot of this will be obsolete by ship 9.

The other factor in favour of a batch build, which has not yet been mentioned, is batching keeps the prime "honest" with their pricing. This was a factor described by ASPI's Andrew Davies in a paper last year when he was advising against the sale of ASC to a single prime thereby virtually giving the prime a monopoly. This has already happened in the U.K and many commentators suggest that BAE has taken full advantage and is not necessarily giving best value for money. This can be avoided by batch ordering and keeping the competition keen.

 

[Volkodav]

Again trying to be pragmatic in this. The evolved F105 is at least 70% common with the Hobart DDG so you will have 6 hulls that are pretty close to each other. The T26 does offer a lot but the design couldn't be called mature.


Noting the batch build intent keeping the door open is not a bad idea, especially if it some logistics mandarin buying 9 ships set of gear on day one with the inevitable result that a lot of this will be obsolete by ship 9.

Ironically the reason the F100 was seen as less risky is because it was a slightly modified repeat of an in service design with a concurrent (slightly advanced) build of a slightly modified version in Spain that would ensure the design data was correct, the supply chain was up to speed and Australian personnel could observe the build, it also meant not as many designers, engineers and quality assurance people would be needed locally. In hindsight these assumptions were all wrong and a substantial local effort was needed to overcome the unexpected shortcomings of the existing design and its designer.

The situation now is the Navantia evolved Hobart is even more different to the existing Hobart than it was to theF104/F105 and many of the experianced workforce have already moved on. Technically speaking the project is even worse off than they were at the start of the AWD project.

 

[spoz]

Indeed. The last of the major systems for the DDGs must have been purchased in around 2012; the Sea 5K stuff will start purchasing in what, 2021? After 9 years there will be very little still common. And, anyway, legislative requirements have moved on in a number of areas and that of itself would probably require considerable change.

As for the combat system, I would think that is largely platform agnostic.

 

[Volkodav]

Indeed. The last of the major systems for the DDGs must have been purchased in around 2012; the Sea 5K stuff will start purchasing in what, 2021? After 9 years there will be very little still common. And, anyway, legislative requirements have moved on in a number of areas and that of itself would probably require considerable change.

As for the combat system, I would think that is largely platform agnostic.

Ships two and three were technically non compliant to MARPOL as the requirements changed after the machinery had been purchased but before sufficient structural material has been fabricated and assembled to allow the regulators to deem construction to have started. There were numerous examples of things like this, as well as procured items becoming obsolete, or warranties expiring before they could even be fitted to the ships.

 

[Beam]

Just saw a news conference on APAC Channel with Chris Pine and his UK counterpart Michael Falkon.

I think the type 26 may now be the top contender, Pine mentions capability as first consideration not less than 3 times, and Fallon stated that as of today, 2 Aus companies have been awarded contracts in the construction of the type 26 in UK, and likely there will be another dozen contracts awarded to other Aust. Companies.

These will be irrespective of whether Australia choose the type 26 for the ffp.

Fallon also mentioned that there will be an announcement on the type 36 in the next few weeks.

 

[swerve]

Did he really say Type 36, or Type 31?

 

[swerve]

The only real advantage I could see is if the size (and capabilities) were vastly greater than the F-100, say around 9,000t. Even then, I would be willing to bet that designing/building a super-sized F-100 would be the better option considering the workforce would be all over that design.

How much similarity would there be between a standard RAN AWD & one 50% bigger? Propulsion? No, it'd need redesign. Hull layout? No, it'd need redesign. Lots of extra internal spaces, changed dimensions, on top of needing to accommodate ASW kit.

Unless you keep the AEGIS system, which is a bit OTT for an ASW frigate (& doesn't Australia want to use some of its own kit?), where's the commonality?

 

[Beam]

Did he really say Type 36, or Type 31?

Sorry, he did not mention the type, just said there would be an announcement on surface combatants in the next few weeks.

My post was late at night and the Glenlivet bottle level was somewhat diminished....

 

[Muar River]

Sorry, he did not mention the type, just said there would be an announcement on surface combatants in the next few weeks.

My post was late at night and the Glenlivet bottle level was somewhat diminished....

Was it Christopher Pyne who provided the advice about the announcement? If so would it be the announcement of the successful bidder? Interesting that the RFI's had to be submitted by last Monday.

 

[Beam]

Was it Christopher Pyne who provided the advice about the announcement? If so would it be the announcement of the successful bidder? Interesting that the RFI's had to be submitted by last Monday.

No, he was asked that question by a journalist and replied he would not be drawn into who he favoured, but Fallon then added the bit about aussie companies becoming included in the 26's supply chain.

 

[hauritz]

No, he was asked that question by a journalist and replied he would not be drawn into who he favoured, but Fallon then added the bit about aussie companies becoming included in the 26's supply chain.

Certainly the British are in a position where they can apply a certain amount of political pressure on Australia to buy the Type 26. Moreso than the Spanish or Italians.

The offer by the British to beef up their military presence in this region at a time when tensions in the region are rising won't go unnoticed in Canberra or Washington.

With two huge aircraft carriers at their disposal, the British are once again in a position where they influence events in this part of the world.

 

[Muar River]

No, he was asked that question by a journalist and replied he would not be drawn into who he favoured, but Fallon then added the bit about aussie companies becoming included in the 26's supply chain.

Thanks for the advice.

 

[rjtjrt]

You may not have noticed from your armchair but most members, whether professionals or just people with an interest in the topics discussed are actually much more polite and modest in their dealings with others, even those they disagree with, than you are.

Self righteous and hypocritical post from Volkodav. One rule for others, and another for Volk.

 

[Volkodav]

Self righteous and hypocritical post from Volkodav. One rule for others, and another for Volk.

And the other serial clown pokes his head up for a dig. Big tough man with lots of opinions from behind the key board but nothing to back it up.

You may not have worked it out yet, although it has been stated by the mods often enough but the blue tags mean the member has been vetted by senior members and is a proven current or former defence professional. A number of us even know each other personally, professionally and others on LinkedIn etc.

The other thing you don't appear to get is the pattern is although some discussions here get a little passionate, even heated, most members still make the effort to be civil. However when someone starts playing the man they will get slapped down very quickly. If it is settled then or in PMs then the mods let play continue, but when individuals choose to weigh in, or to continue carrying on, the mods give them a holiday.

Your twos cents is nothing but stirring the pot and doesn't even pretend to contribute anything to the discussion. Why, because you picked a fight about something I can't really recall the details of, months, or even a year or more a go and got slapped. Seriously, you need to get a life, I have forgotten what it was you were wrong about, and had even forgotten it was you who got so uppity until you stuck your nose in now, I think the mods had forgotten too, but I wouldn't be surprised if one or other of them is reading back right now.

Pull your head in, leave the schoolyard stuff in the schoolyard, and get back to discussing the stuff this site is about before you get slapped down again.

 

[alexsa]

Perhaps, but I'm old enough and was serving for long enough to see from inside the way politicians can derail the best laid plans and I hope they aren't given the extra opportunity. A well oiled bandwagon seems more likely to run down interlopers than switching to a new path half way. We shall see I guess.

oldsig

I hear you and agree the pollies can be a problem. The reason I can see some sense in a transition is we will need a new hull for the follow on AWD and 'perhaps' the T26 template can evolve for that. I just have concerns that the best way forward at this stage is the evolved F105 as it is more of a known quantity...... even if some of the workforce have gone.