Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[John Fedup]

This article discusses MOF (metal organic frameworks). MOFs could be a more effective way to scrub carbon dioxide from subs.

Qinetiq, CSIRO to boost Australian Future Submarines’ CO2 capturing tech

 

[aussienscale]

So what does this mean for ASC if DCNS are building a new yard at Osborne ?

I am guessing that obviously what is there now is needed to maintain the Collins until the Barra's take over, and maybe not big enough etc, but what is the detail on how this is going to work ?

Naval Group Partners with KBR for Australia’s Future Submarine Facility Design

 

[vonnoobie]

Could mean anything really, Only time will tell. If we dont sell ASC then I imagine the Perth facility has a decent chance at a future (Will need to maintain the submarines somewhere be they Collins of Shortfin) especially as there isnt much in the way of free space with out DCNS buying some one out (Always a possibility).

ASC North (Submarine production and FCD facility) is the tricky matter. Dont see it being used to build any submarines however it could find its self work in either building blocks for the Shortfins or even providing FCD work.

ASC South has a better chance at survival then North as land is quickly dissapearing there so any Sea5000 contender if not being allowed to buy them out will have to work with them in some manner. ASC South will also have the benefit that it's skill set spreads across a far larger industry (Ships which between Naval and Civilian is a lot more then ASC North with 6 - 12 submarines.

 

[ASSAIL]

Could mean anything really, Only time will tell. If we dont sell ASC then I imagine the Perth facility has a decent chance at a future (Will need to maintain the submarines somewhere be they Collins of Shortfin) especially as there isnt much in the way of free space with out DCNS buying some one out (Always a possibility).

ASC North (Submarine production and FCD facility) is the tricky matter. Dont see it being used to build any submarines however it could find its self work in either building blocks for the Shortfins or even providing FCD work.

ASC South has a better chance at survival then North as land is quickly dissapearing there so any Sea5000 contender if not being allowed to buy them out will have to work with them in some manner. ASC South will also have the benefit that it's skill set spreads across a far larger industry (Ships which between Naval and Civilian is a lot more then ASC North with 6 - 12 submarines.

The press releases don't make it clear whether the new Naval Group, KBR yard will be part of the ANI stable and long term leased to Naval Group, preferable, or whether Naval Group takes ownership?

 

[Volkodav]

We are talking a continuous build which will keep the build yard busy, while FCDs and MCDs on Collins alone already keep Adelaide and Henderson busy. I would not be surprised if the existing facilities are also expanded to accommodate the increased sustainment work as the fleet size increases.

 

[spoz]

“ASC South”, the shipyard, no longer exists, in that form in a physical sense. All the infrastructure, including the CUF and the wharf, is owned by ANI (Australian Naval Infrastructure), the concept being that programs will effectively lease the facility for the duration of their program, starting with 1180. Sea 4000 are still using the facility (obviously) and that is under ASC’s direction but I’m afraid I don’t know what, if any, commercial arrangements have been made.

 

[pussertas]

Just when one thought that the RAN were getting some headway with the proposed OCV this comes along


Navy Rolls Out New Unmanned Sub Hunter

 

[spoz]

The RAN is getting an OPV, the OCV concept died some time ago. What’s the connection? This is a concept development vehicle and it’s some years away from becoming a production capability, if it ever does. The USN and DARPA run them all the time and a fair few, maybe the majority, die after a few years of experimentation. It will have zero effect on the OPV program, or even on Sea5K for that matter, at least in its esrlier stages. It may be an issue for the mid 20s.

 

[t68]

An interesting little article on the state of play for T26, nothing new to a majority of users here. Fingers crossed that we get the best design for RAN

The Australian Frigate Competition: Getting the right ship for the right deal

 

[ASSAIL]

An interesting little article on the state of play for T26, nothing new to a majority of users here. Fingers crossed that we get the best design for RAN

The Australian Frigate Competition: Getting the right ship for the right deal

That article reiterates many of the points I have consistently made here as to why Navantia is the best choice for the RAN.
System compatibility, less risk, design compliance, training and posting flexibility etc. etc.
The actual differences in capability between the three designs are not significant enough to overcome these compelling advantages.

 

[Joe Black]

That article reiterates many of the points I have consistently made here as to why Navantia is the best choice for the RAN.
System compatibility, less risk, design compliance, training and posting flexibility etc. etc.
The actual differences in capability between the three designs are not significant enough to overcome these compelling advantages.

I'll only partially agree. Whilst if the requirement were to have 9 general frigates, a jack of all trade frigate class, then the F-5000 would be the best choice. But here we are after an ASW first, with additional AAW/BMD capability, you can argue T-26 would be the best on paper. Why I say on paper is because it is still a paper ship, and wouldn't be operational for a few year and will require a few more years to rid all the first of the class bugs, defects.

Thus for Sea5000, my personal opinion is to either have a split buy of 3x F-5000, 6x T-26, or simply go with 9xFremm (but a slightly enlarged version with 48 VLS cells).

 

[t68]

I'll only partially agree. Whilst if the requirement were to have 9 general frigates, a jack of all trade frigate class, then the F-5000 would be the best choice. But here we are after an ASW first, with additional AAW/BMD capability, you can argue T-26 would be the best on paper. Why I say on paper is because it is still a paper ship, and wouldn't be operational for a few year and will require a few more years to rid all the first of the class bugs, defects.

Thus for Sea5000, my personal opinion is to either have a split buy of 3x F-5000, 6x T-26, or simply go with 9xFremm (but a slightly enlarged version with 48 VLS cells).

Agree to a point while I would have like to see a Flight II AWD maybe they should have built a fourth AWD hull as a demonstrator for all the goodies for cefar 2 and BMD let the UK build the first T26 and see what needs twicking or maybe an enlarged T26?

 

[ADMk2]

I'll only partially agree. Whilst if the requirement were to have 9 general frigates, a jack of all trade frigate class, then the F-5000 would be the best choice. But here we are after an ASW first, with additional AAW/BMD capability, you can argue T-26 would be the best on paper. Why I say on paper is because it is still a paper ship, and wouldn't be operational for a few year and will require a few more years to rid all the first of the class bugs, defects.

Thus for Sea5000, my personal opinion is to either have a split buy of 3x F-5000, 6x T-26, or simply go with 9xFremm (but a slightly enlarged version with 48 VLS cells).

Been said a few times, but a split buy has repeatedly been dismissed as an option... The Fremm offered may well be enlarged anyway, all we are seeing are models the proposals are based on...

Having read up a bit lately, I’m not sure there is all that much difference in ASW capability between the candidates...

 

[hauritz]

Been said a few times, but a split buy has repeatedly been dismissed as an option... The Fremm offered may well be enlarged anyway, all we are seeing are models the proposals are based on...

Having read up a bit lately, I’m not sure there is all that much difference in ASW capability between the candidates...

I agree that any of the candidates could do the job.

I have a feeling that politics will play a major role in this. Put simply the Poms have a lot more political clout than the Italians or Spanish.

 

[weegee]

I agree that any of the candidates could do the job.

I have a feeling that politics will play a major role in this. Put simply the Poms have a lot more political clout than the Italians or Spanish.

Are we still expecting an announcement by the end of April? I think that was the last I had heard, but you never know these things tend to move a round a fair bit.
I like the Type 26 proposal and for once a UK ship that looks good to boot, I just worry that: A) she'll be expensive B) Have a lot of bugs to iron out during production and then end up costing WAY more than originally proposed.

In my humble opinion I just think we should go ahead with she Spanish option. They're a known quantity as in operating the ships will be familiar with RAN crew. Production is going to be familiar as in we will have a little insight and know what to expect with potential production issues.

 

[Wombat000]

ok, im confused (not unusual sadly).
Lots of confidence re T26 ASW capability being touted.
But it hasnt been built yet.
Claims of its excellence are made from ‘the brochure’, from those who wish to sell it, correct?
Why is everyone so confident its claims will actually be fulfilled??
Cheers.

 

[ASSAIL]

ok, im confused (not unusual sadly).
Lots of confidence re T26 ASW capability being touted.
But it hasnt been built yet.
Claims of its excellence are made from ‘the brochure’, from those who wish to sell it, correct?
Why is everyone so confident its claims will actually be fulfilled??
Cheers.

Your confusion can be explained by the oft quoted British mantra that their products are the"best in the world". Not "one of the best" or "up there with the best" But the BEST.
We've heard it about the T45, Typhoon, QE Class, Sea Dart, Challenger and so on, the list is endless, all claims which are rarely supportable and purely jingoistic chest thumping.

T26 may end up being a fine Frigate and every indication todate is that it will be but it is one of many fine modern frigates being built today.

 

[hauritz]

Are we still expecting an announcement by the end of April? I think that was the last I had heard, but you never know these things tend to move a round a fair bit.
I like the Type 26 proposal and for once a UK ship that looks good to boot, I just worry that: A) she'll be expensive B) Have a lot of bugs to iron out during production and then end up costing WAY more than originally proposed.

In my humble opinion I just think we should go ahead with she Spanish option. They're a known quantity as in operating the ships will be familiar with RAN crew. Production is going to be familiar as in we will have a little insight and know what to expect with potential production issues.

Will the Type 26 really be that much more expensive than the other contenders?

The first batch of Type 26 frigates being built for the RN is estimated to cost £3.7bn ($AU5.9bn). Australia's batch of 3 Hobart Destroyers will cost over $AU9bn and the budget for SEA5000 is estimated to be worth more than $AU35bn so I don't imagine that costs will be a big issue.

Regardless of which hull is selected they would all be expected to mount the same sensors and weapons so given that the hull is often the cheapest component I don't imagine the costs will be that much different in the end. You might save a little money initially on the F-5000 given that it is fairly closely related to the Hobart class but then you have to factor in operating costs which may well be lower for newer designs such as the FREMM or Type 26.

The risk of a new design such as the type 26 will be the toughest sell for the British.

 

[Jack Wyatt]

[

ok, im confused (not unusual sadly).
Lots of confidence re T26 ASW capability being touted.
But it hasnt been built yet.
Claims of its excellence are made from ‘the brochure’, from those who wish to sell it, correct?
Why is everyone so confident its claims will actually be fulfilled??
Cheers.

I'm glad you have mentioned the hype surrounding the Type 26. I share your concern.

The design being offered to us is effectively a sub type of the Type 26 of which not one example is in service.

I'm just a taxpayer but the Navantia design which comes with Aegis, MK41, LM2500gts etc is proven and near sisters are in service with the RAN.

 

[Todjaeger]

Will the Type 26 really be that much more expensive than the other contenders?

The first batch of Type 26 frigates being built for the RN is estimated to cost £3.7bn ($AU5.9bn). Australia's batch of 3 Hobart Destroyers will cost over $AU9bn and the budget for SEA5000 is estimated to be worth more than $AU35bn so I don't imagine that costs will be a big issue.

Regardless of which hull is selected they would all be expected to mount the same sensors and weapons so given that the hull is often the cheapest component I don't imagine the costs will be that much different in the end. You might save a little money initially on the F-5000 given that it is fairly closely related to the Hobart class but then you have to factor in operating costs which may well be lower for newer designs such as the FREMM or Type 26.

The risk of a new design such as the type 26 will be the toughest sell for the British.

From memory, that figure of AUD$9 bil. was for the SEA 4000 AWD programme as a whole, and included a number of sunk costs which should not be recurring costs for future projects, unless (or until?) gov't does something stupid. An example of something stupid would be establishing an entirely new ship construction facility beyond what is needed to deal with an enlarged continuous build cycle, or relocating the main construction site to some place like Melbourne, Newcastle, or Henderson, and then needing to either relocate, or train new yard workers, etc.

Also part of the reason the total cost was so high for the SEA 4000 project was how it was managed along with decisions by government to slow production, which reduced the costs at the time, but triggered higher future costs. If memory serves, that was because the gov't at the time was trying to get or maintain a surplus, while having social spending as a priority at the expense of defence spending.