Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[Todjaeger]

What is it with this inclination - not just by you - to consider buying ships in penny packets and change mid stream for the sake of a few percent - maybe - better performance? Consider that there would be a great financial capital cost of change, lengthy delays and all followed by an increased operating cost with a fleet of bits and pieces. Not to mention that at every "wait and see" we give the political and bureaucratic establishments the opportunity to reduce the numbers built, and the press the chance of some more idiotic beat ups.

How about they make up their minds which ship offers the best solution over the lifetime of the class, and if someone comes up with a better mousetrap, add that in later tranches?

Of course, this approach doesn't feed my own impulse towards paper fleets made real so that I can add to my life long list of ship types visited, but it's a lot more like the way a first world navy acts and a lot less like a third world one made up of many orphaned cast offs with uncertain logistic support

oldsig

I believe one of the main concerns about ordering the class "all at once" as it were, is that could and IIRC has led to subsystems being ordered all together, when some subsystems will not be needed during the programme build for years. If there could be a way to commit to ordering a certain minimum number of a class, with the builds being done in flights or tranches of perhaps 3 or 4 vessels, one ever 18 months or so, with options to order 2nd, 3rd, and/or 4th tranches as the programme ticks along.

This could also permit incremental improvements and updates. Using a nine ship class as an example, with a new vessel being launched every 18 months, by the time the last vessel is launched, the first vessel will be almost 15 years old and just about due for a major update and/or MLU. With the prospect for a MLU on the horizon, it would seem sensible to already have some planning work done on what such an MLU would look like. At the same time, it would also seem sensible to incorporate some of the planned MLU upgrades into ships that are still under construction when/where possible.

 

[hauritz]

What is it with this inclination - not just by you - to consider buying ships in penny packets and change mid stream for the sake of a few percent - maybe - better performance? Consider that there would be a great financial capital cost of change, lengthy delays and all followed by an increased operating cost with a fleet of bits and pieces. Not to mention that at every "wait and see" we give the political and bureaucratic establishments the opportunity to reduce the numbers built, and the press the chance of some more idiotic beat ups.

How about they make up their minds which ship offers the best solution over the lifetime of the class, and if someone comes up with a better mousetrap, add that in later tranches?

Of course, this approach doesn't feed my own impulse towards paper fleets made real so that I can add to my life long list of ship types visited, but it's a lot more like the way a first world navy acts and a lot less like a third world one made up of many orphaned cast offs with uncertain logistic support

oldsig

In all likelihood, any ship that won selection for the first batch would win selection for the rest of the order. The concern is that this order will be stretched out over a couple of decades. Not only does technology move on but also strategic circumstances change.

If this were a case of these ships being built and delivered over a 10 or 12 year period I would be inclined to say just build a pick a ship and go with it. However the current plan is to deliver a ship every 2 years starting from around the mid 20s. Logically the government would want Sea 5000 to transition into the replacement of the AWD so they may well stretch the build times out even further.

The first of the F-100 class may well be decommissioning before the keel of the final future frigate is even laid.

 

[Joe Black]

Why not break the 9 FF into 3 Flights, with each Flights an improvement of the equipment, replacing obsolete components, and incorporate lessons learnt and small design modification if necessary to make it better than the previous flight.

 

[Todjaeger]

In all likelihood, any ship that won selection for the first batch would win selection for the rest of the order. The concern is that this order will be stretched out over a couple of decades. Not only does technology move on but also strategic circumstances change.

If this were a case of these ships being built and delivered over a 10 or 12 year period I would be inclined to say just build a pick a ship and go with it. However the current plan is to deliver a ship every 2 years starting from around the mid 20s. Logically the government would want Sea 5000 to transition into the replacement of the AWD so they may well stretch the build times out even further.

The first of the F-100 class may well be decommissioning before the keel of the final future frigate is even laid.

Part of it will depend on the rate of construction, which I suspect will be one vessel every two years, on average. So the last vessel should launch ~18 years after the first vessel did. That suggests a couple of things. First, that the first in class vessel should be either about to undergo a MLU, in the process of receiving a MLU, or just completed a MLU when the last in class is completed. Second, on average major Oz defence projects take ~14 years between the idea and the first unit entering service. This in turn means that if there is going to be a third major warship class in Oz service in addition to the AWD's and 3-6 SEA 5000 frigates, then the ideas for that need to start immediately, if it is not already too late.

IMO realistically, absent a major new development in naval technology, the cost to change over to a third class to 'benefit' from any design advantages, plus the increased demand for training and lack of commonality across classes, would outweigh potential benefits in breaking up the number of vessels ordered for SEA 5000.

 

[ASSAIL]

Why not break the 9 FF into 3 Flights, with each Flights an improvement of the equipment, replacing obsolete components, and incorporate lessons learnt and small design modification if necessary to make it better than the previous flight.

I would hope this occurs in any case, particularly when ordering critical equipment.
We should have learned from the AWDs that because of the delays in construction our bulk ordering forced obsolescence before they even commissioned.
The difference with the FF is that the first vessel has been slated as a "prototype" which is probably wiggle words to suggest that we accept some delay in her construction. I suggest the subsequent ships will run more smoothly so that ordering in groups of three allows equipment to be ordered to suit the timing of the build programme allowing for modifications and updates to occur as you suggest.

 

[Massive]

Why not break the 9 FF into 3 Flights, with each Flights an improvement of the equipment, replacing obsolete components, and incorporate lessons learnt and small design modification if necessary to make it better than the previous flight.

Exactly.

I would also like to see the Barracuda being built in a series of flights as well.

Regards,

Massive

 

[Massive]

FREMM 1st, T26 2nd and F-5000 last

No truly bad option in any of those though.

Given the fit out would be virtually bespoke I am not convinced there is a huge difference.

Regards,

Massive

 

[ASSAIL]

No truly bad option in any of those though.

Given the fit out would be virtually bespoke I am not convinced there is a huge difference.

Regards,

Massive

There is a huge difference in detail although not in capability if you ignore the F5000 48 cell VLS cf 32 for the others.

What Is different and makes a real difference to manning and training is the detail inside.
This can be minimised by mandating the type of equipment and systems already installed in the Hobarts but this may prove problematic.
We have never had Italian equipment, we have not had British equipment since the Rivers but we do have Spanish systems.

Large navies don't have these problems because all their ships are common, a sailor leaving one ship can walk onto another of a different Class and still be familiar with his systems and eqiuipment, where these change from Class to Class the posting authority tends to,stream sailors,and officers, particularly technical specialists in order to minimise pre posting training and that reduces efficiency and flexibility.
This can be dealt with but if we have a chance to avoid it we should

 

[Joe Black]

There is a huge difference in detail although not in capability if you ignore the F5000 48 cell VLS cf 32 for the others.

What Is different and makes a real difference to manning and training is the detail inside.
This can be minimised by mandating the type of equipment and systems already installed in the Hobarts but this may prove problematic.
We have never had Italian equipment, we have not had British equipment since the Rivers but we do have Spanish systems.

Whilst I agree in general of the points you have made here, I think as for the AWD/DDG, what is truly "Spanish systems" are really not that many or any of them critical to be honest. The main complex components are mostly sourced all over the world. Combat System and sensors are basically American and French, main engines are Americans, main weapon systems are mainly US, etc

I think you will probably find that the Type 26 would probably have similar fitouts whereby different components will come from all over the world, but mainly from the Europeans and the Americans.

The Fremm frigate will have much higher European contents, with some major components coming from Italy. This is where some of these components will be foreign to us.

The Fremm frigate will also likely have the least capability to grow compared to the other two. However, it is perhaps the most proven platform when it comes down to ASW warfare with their electric motors (incidentally, similar Jeumont Electric electric motors or permanent magnets might be found on the Shortfins).

 

[Systems Adict]

Whilst I agree in general of the points you have made here, I think as for the AWD/DDG, what is truly "Spanish systems" are really not that many or any of them critical to be honest. The main complex components are mostly sourced all over the world. Combat System and sensors are basically American and French, main engines are Americans, main weapon systems are mainly US, etc

I think you will probably find that the Type 26 would probably have similar fitouts whereby different components will come from all over the world, but mainly from the Europeans and the Americans.

As a common practice in Naval contracts with foreign suppliers, many 1st world countries will negotiate with the designers / manufacturers in an attempt to have some form of commonality with current fleet systems / weapons equipment, unless of course the ships that are replacing current fleet stock are a 'step change in technology'.

The commonality obviously reduces long term spares / maintenance & training costs, which allows systems to be used for much longer. There is also a habit of removing systems from older ships & retrofitting them to new hulls.

With respect to RAN, I get the feeling that some of the kit that is being specified from the govt / Navy will tie in with the commonality theme, but will be additional new purchases from equipment suppliers, rather than from the foreign designers / builders.

 

[alexsa]

Whilst I agree in general of the points you have made here, I think as for the AWD/DDG, what is truly "Spanish systems" are really not that many or any of them critical to be honest. The main complex components are mostly sourced all over the world. Combat System and sensors are basically American and French, main engines are Americans, main weapon systems are mainly US, etc

I think you will probably find that the Type 26 would probably have similar fitouts whereby different components will come from all over the world, but mainly from the Europeans and the Americans.

The Fremm frigate will have much higher European contents, with some major components coming from Italy. This is where some of these components will be foreign to us.

The Fremm frigate will also likely have the least capability to grow compared to the other two. However, it is perhaps the most proven platform when it comes down to ASW warfare with their electric motors (incidentally, similar Jeumont Electric electric motors or permanent magnets might be found on the Shortfins).

I think you find you are oversimplifying the impact. Sure you can supply your own portable key but machinery and fitted systems (pumps of all types, valves, sanitary systems, bridge navigational systems and consoles, lighting tansformers etc etc etc) are a little trickier and commonality has massive advantages. This can still be achieved when fitting more moder geat by simply using an unrated version of the same kit.

And don’t forget we are talking about commonality between the DDG, LHD and AOR as well as the future frigate (destroyer ...... seems silly to call it a frigate when it is bigger than the DDG by weigh)

Certainly defence is trying to get some commonality by specifying some of the major machinery but this does not address the supporting systems.

Personnally I think the FREMM is a stalking horse (but I have been wrong before) and it will will be a toss up between the F-5000 and T-26 but note that we do no know what is in the RFPs. The offer of the UK to buy the CEA radars may be a factor.

In so far as ASW is concerned we also have to balance this against the increased focus on anti air and anti missile. this may give the F-5000 and edge give the 33% increase in cells over the other two (with a potential growth margin to 64 according to some sources when it was first mooted).

 

[PeterM]

I saw this yesterday and was wondering if infact it is going to be such a big deal in the end? Or perhaps its just another carrot to try and clinch the Sea5000 Deal?

Growth in Australian Sovereign Capability as Navantia Designates Australia Class Manager for Hobart Class Family - Navantia Australia

It could be significant, particularly if there are IP or industry opportunities.

“This transfer means that the design of the Hobart Class and its future developments will all be managed from Australia. This includes the F-5000 we are offering as Australia’s future frigate, as well as export variants.”

The Canadian Surface Combatant bid is based on the F105, presumably that would be one of the export variants.

It may provide an advantage for Navantia with their US and Canadian bids.

As always, the devil is in the detail, but I would imagine there is a significant benefit in it for both Australia and Navantia, otherwise why do it.

 

[hauritz]

It could be significant, particularly if there are IP or industry opportunities.

“This transfer means that the design of the Hobart Class and its future developments will all be managed from Australia. This includes the F-5000 we are offering as Australia’s future frigate, as well as export variants.”

The Canadian Surface Combatant bid is based on the F105, presumably that would be one of the export variants.

It may provide an advantage for Navantia with their US and Canadian bids.

As always, the devil is in the detail, but I would imagine there is a significant benefit in it for both Australia and Navantia, otherwise why do it.

I wouldn't assume that they were giving away the IP for the f-105. They were probably being very deliberate when they said "Hobart" and "F-5000".

As far as I can see they have already offered an F-105 variant to Canada and the US. Since I can't see any other potential customers outside the US and Canada I would say the offer made by Natavia isn't worth a cracker.

 

[John Fedup]

Wouldn’t NZ be a possible candidate for the F-105 design sometime in the future?

 

[hauritz]

Wouldn’t NZ be a possible candidate for the F-105 design sometime in the future?

Very remote chance ... I think they are more likely to be looking at something about the size of their current ships. I can't imagine NZ with Aegis and a 32 to 48 VLS equipped frigates.

 

[ngatimozart]

Very remote chance ... I think they are more likely to be looking at something about the size of their current ships. I can't imagine NZ with Aegis and a 32 to 48 VLS equipped frigates.

We might if the price was right. A South Korean built AEGIS equipped ship would be quite a lot cheaper than an Australian, UK, US, Canadian or European build.

 

[alexsa]

We might if the price was right. A South Korean built AEGIS equipped ship would be quite a lot cheaper than an Australian, UK, US, Canadian or European build.

If the vessel is to remain at 4000 tonnes or there about then fitting AEGIS (and a suitable radar) may be a squeeze unless you when for a derivative such as the COMBATSS 21. They system is a power and space hog and the Hobart DDG just squeezed SPY and AEGIS in.

Certainly if you plumb for a different combat system then this would not be an issue.

On cost .....if the Naval Shipbuildng programmes progresses (and I hope it does) and noting the new shipyards is much more automated then the unit cost further down the line of build should be more competitive. I would also note that most prices quote for ship builds are not necessity based on the same metric.

 

[Massive]

Given current planned numbers I think it will be very difficult for the RAN to escort convoys in any significant numbers.

RAN currently on a realistic trajectory to be able to sustain a single escort group (4 AWD/FFX) - this would allow one convoy at a time.

Hard to see a path to numbers that would allow more than this.

We need a navy to protect our supply routes | The Strategist

Thoughts?

Massive

 

[aussienscale]

Given current planned numbers I think it will be very difficult for the RAN to escort convoys in any significant numbers.

RAN currently on a realistic trajectory to be able to sustain a single escort group (4 AWD/FFX) - this would allow one convoy at a time.

Hard to see a path to numbers that would allow more than this.

We need a navy to protect our supply routes | The Strategist

Thoughts?

Massive

Don't think much of it really, the link you have that is.

Very basic fundamental errors in thing he has quoted, mostly pulled from Wiki me thinks a lot of assumptions and no real regard for what is it we would be facing not just in the immediate future, but 10-20-30 years down the track ?

No mention of the increase in the submarine fleet not only in numbers but capability, no mention of what the trajectory is of our potential foe's ?

Yes we have to secure our SLOC's etc etc, but against what ? you can't suggest what we need when it is not being stacked up against what the reality is, suggestions of making the LHD's ASW platforms ? really ? This has been discussed and put down so many times, it is not going to happen.

Do I think we need this capability ? absolutely we do, it has been missing since we lost Melbourne. And when you look at the fact that about 2/3 of all submarines to be built over the next 50 years will be in the SEA, we don't need ad hoc solutions, we need dedicated platforms and the correct asset's to go on them.

Cheers

 

[ASSAIL]

Given current planned numbers I think it will be very difficult for the RAN to escort convoys in any significant numbers.

RAN currently on a realistic trajectory to be able to sustain a single escort group (4 AWD/FFX) - this would allow one convoy at a time.

Hard to see a path to numbers that would allow more than this.

We need a navy to protect our supply routes | The Strategist

Thoughts?

Massive

I think this is a terribly naive article.
There is no conception or allowance for continuing presence, deployment cycles ie sustaining the effort. He simply assumes it can be done.
His alternative routing of convoys and fuel tankers is navigationally dumb. He assumes that these can simply be thrown through the Banda Sea and then line up in column to proceed through the Torres Strait and Barrier Reef Inner Route with impunity. Mining is obviously last century's problem, really.
His assumptions that the Army can change CONOPS to morph into the USMC and that the LHDs can easily morph into CVSs is fairy at the bottom of the garden stuff ( are we sure he's not a Green Party plant?).
He has obviously never read a Marine Hull & Macinery Insurance contract as they all specifically are voided by "an act of war"
If, as his final point suggests and given the navigational stupidity, the fuel tankers are considered to be a seperate problem to normal convoys it would simply double the need for escorts.

This is one ASPI paper that I'll happily consign to the bin.