Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
It's all part of the process to try and win over the politicians with the promise of export opportunities for Australia. BAE is giving away work on the UK Type 26 while Fincantieri are building an undefined number of cruise ship blocks, Have signed a contract with Bluescope steel for them to supply the metals for those blocks while also signing to contracts with Hoffmann Engineering for the construction of a bow thruster for an LPD destined for an ME navy and also signed an MoU with Hoffmann to participate in there $250m 5 year global market push to manufacture marine systems and components. They have also stated to list Fincantieri Australia on the ASX if they win making it a truly independent Aussie based company.
Not sure if Navantia have done anything similar, Haven't seen anything my self. Navantia for the most part has been purely based in Spain for most of it's life while BAE and Fincanteiri have spread globally giving them more scope to offer export opportunities.
Muar River
Member
I did past this link to the SMH article concerning Navantia and BAE bids. This comment from the Navantia chief operating officer is pretty pointed.
"In Australia I don't think the political relationship will make it; based on our experience with the AWD, you have to have the product."
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...re-all-nnn-nnn-vars-o&sa=D&usg=ALhdy28zsr6qiq
So do I. So what else was in the RFI that otherwise hasn't been released to the public until now? And what's in the tenders?
oldsig
Considering the Navy chose the Burke and the Politicians went with the F-100 I'd say politics plays a major part, Perhaps not directly in company to politician conversations but deffintly when it comes to politicians thinking they know what is best (ie: Thinking buying both the Destroyers and LHD's from Spain would be better then Destroyers from the US and LHD's from Spain).
Numerous examples of politics overriding defence acquisition choices, Politics always plays a part.
I dunno.
If it was purely a political decision you would think the Americans with the miniburke would have won.Choosing the F-100 was a surprising decision, as was I think the Submarine selection.
I think its fair to say that anything can and does happen.
Muar River
Member
I do agree politics plays a part but with this decision I want the best ship with the least risk. Exciting times ahead for Defence.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
At this point all the vessels in service with the Royal Danish Navy have sockets for one or more StanFlex containers. That would suggest such a modular approach does have some merit. At this point, the system has been in service for about 30 years.
A couple of key points regarding the viability of containerized VLS modules. If the extra missile capacity having a few modules fitted to a deployed ship is not routinely required for a ship of that class, then it would seem unnecessarily expensive and wasteful to permanently add the capacity across the entire class. Also to permanently mount something like a Mk 41 VLS is no small undertaking. OTOH, a StanFlex module can be swapped out in the span of a few hours with a crane.
By establishing a pool of modules, the RAN could potentially replicate what it does with the Mk 15 Sea Phalanx CIWS, but have more versatility and variety with the capabilities. At the same time the specific modules could be swapped out or around as needed for deployments or maintenance.
Additionally, if the modular concept was also applied to SEA 1180 then that same pool of modules could be used to increase the capability of the SEA 1180 vessels as operations requires.
This of course is all assuming that the StanFlex system was adopted and integrated into the designs of upcoming RAN ships. Adopting it for inclusion during the design phase should (assuming the designers do not stuff things up) account for power, control and cooling requirements, as well as potential buoyancy and topweight issues and of course weapon clearance.
My preference for the StanFlex system has to do with the system being a mature system that has already been in service for ~30 years. There is room for growth within the system as new capabilities can be designed and built to fit within the footprint of a module. At the same time though the modules are small/compact enough to prevent installing or removing them from being overly complex.
If we were to go for a Stanflex system I'd prefer it be for a fleet wide approach especially with the OPV's allowing them to switch from mild constabulary roles to semi useful escorts in war.
Long term see if the LHD's and AOR's could be modified to fit them etc.
My thinking is if we are going to outlay for the system lets not do it half a**ed, Do it once and do it right.
Long term see if the LHD's and AOR's could be modified to fit them etc.
My thinking is if we are going to outlay for the system lets not do it half a**ed, Do it once and do it right.
What the individual service chiefs want is sometimes trumped by what the joint chiefs and DoD want.
I suspect this is what happened with the F 100 where the joints thought a cheaper option would leave more in the pantry for distribution elsewhere.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
I am looking forward to seeing what OMT offers for the RCN's CSC program. Stanflex has a lot of merit. It is a shame Stanfex wasn't considered for our AOPS program. Would be nice to have on our AOR Berlin class ships as well (if they ever get frigging built).
Look at all the other Navies that use the StanFlex system after 30 years. Aside from Denmark I mean.
That would suggest to me that it's mostly a solution in search of a problem.
oldsig
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
If the Danes were the only ones that had pursued modular systems, then I might agree. Given that the RCN has several different types of MCM modules that can be fitted aboard a Kingston-class MCDV... Or the work which has been done on mission modules for the USN's LCS...
That to me at least, strongly suggests there is merit in the concept of modular systems. As does Airbus Military's FITS system architecture which enables aircraft to be re-tasked for airlift, surveillance, SAR, or MPA roles as needed by adding or removing palletized workstations. The USCG HC-144 Ocean Sentry is an excellent example of this capability currently in service.
Nevertheless, StanFlex has NOT been used by anyone else.
I agree with the concept, but it simply is not a zero sum game. Like anything, there are costs, both performance and financial, and whether you want to pay them will depend on whether you value flexibility over those costs While the US LCS program uses modular payloads, there are at least as many people decrying them as there are advocating them. It will be instructive to see how far they take the idea.
oldsig
Last edited by a moderator:
Stanflex doesn't work like that. The big box usually goes into a hole under the deck, with the necessary connections.The idea isn't that you routinely have nothing there, but that you can switch what you have there, & the maintenance cycles of the hardware in the module can be independent of those of the ship
If anyone was going to modularise Mk 41 VLS (real Mk 41, not the smaller self-defence VLS for which there are Stanflex modules) they'd have to make taller modules to fit into bigger holes.
Muar River
Member
Not RAN, but USN FFG(x) RFP and "parent design". If the USN has an interest In our programme, it will be for the FREMM and F100.
USN issues new frigate RFP
Michael Fabey - IHS Jane's Defence Weekly
07 November 2017
The US Navy (USN) issued a request for proposals (RFP) on 7 November for the future Guided Missile Frigate (FFG[X]) and, as expected, it calls for a simple and straightforward ship design.
The USN wants its FFG[X] to be based on what it calls a “parent design”, the RFP said.
“A parent design is defined as a design of a ship that has been through production and demonstrated [full scale] at sea,” the request explained.
“A ‘clean sheet, paper’, or developmental parent design, would not qualify under this definition and would not be accepted for consideration under the conceptual design solicitation,” the USN said in a solicitation clarification in October.
(133 of 567 words)
From what I can see modules like the Seasparrow and the harpoon launchers are above deck (completely with harpoon) or significantly (seasparrow). It also seems to take up a lot of space for just 6 seasparrows.
Penetrating a structure to fit a 3x3.5 stanflex for the full length of a tactical VLS would seem to be a big ask. No one seems to have done that.
Not even the danish with the Iver Huitfeldt-class frigate. You could swap harpoon for Mk56 as needed.
https://www.defenceconnect.com.au/m...ses-cost-and-risk-aspi#!/ccomment-comment=466
Any chance all 12 OPV are built in Perth and we bring forward the Sea5000 build?
Are we ready to roll with Sea5000?
Any chance all 12 OPV are built in Perth and we bring forward the Sea5000 build?
Are we ready to roll with Sea5000?
Some say it will be this month.
I wouldn't be surprised if we got a decision on SEA5000 this month. It would explain why we haven't had an announcement on SEA1180 yet.
Given that there does seem to be some urgency with SEA 5000 it also wouldn't be surprising if the OPVs were all built in Perth. After all tying the workforce up building two OPVs in SA might actually delay production of the first frigate.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
The ESSM can be twin-packed, so the six VLS cells in a StanFlex container can carry a dozen missiles.
Also worth noting that the StanFlex modules penetrate into the deck 2.5 metres, while a tactical length Mk 41 VLS needs 6.8 metres. The length and width required to fit a tactical Mk 41 VLS is comparable to that of a StanFlex socket.
As for the Harpoon not being fitted into a VLS... The USN did testing of VLS launches from surface vessels for the Harpoon, but never adopted it.
The portion of the StanFlex container which penetrates the deck houses houses systems which enable the kit to function, like electronics, cooling, power distribution and communications, machinery or even a magazine. It depends on just what type of module it is, and what systems are required.
- Status