Another torpedo counter measure that the R.A.N may consider is the one being applied to all of the U.S.N carriers then to the LHDs is the counter measure anti torpedo actually fired out from the vessel at incoming torpedoes these were first started being added to the carriers five years ago
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
I take your point that the result might not be worth the cost, but I did not suggest doing it first then hoping for a sale.
I suggested it as an optional extra. I thought at the purchasers cost was implied.
And if the development work for this extra is a help to other defence sales then that is a bonus.
WSJ has a think on the sea5000 program republished in the Australian.. no access 
I think it is a light weight piece, summary for those not familiar.
Seems to feel like its dragging on forever.
I think it is a light weight piece, summary for those not familiar.Seems to feel like its dragging on forever.
Jack Wyatt
Member
That seat held by Rebekha Sharkie for the Xenophon Party in SA may have something to do with the announcement's delay.WSJ has a think on the sea5000 program republished in the Australian.. no access
Seems to feel like its dragging on forever.
RAN related question. Why would the by-election have anything to do with the "delay" ? Although I can guess the logic as being "everything is screwed up because...politicians"
Newsflash! Politicians are elected by voters. If they're stupid, self serving clowns, so are we.
oldsig
I certainly hope that the decision isn't being delayed for the by-elections as they won't be held until the end of July.
Jack Wyatt
Member
The Conservatives want to win their old seat back previously held by Alexander Downer. Why give Rex Patrick more to hit them over the head with in the lead up to the ballot by announcing the winning bid prior to the poll? Just my two cents and probably wrong.
Last edited:
In other words, everything comes back to a political motive. Except...the announcement is expected to be in Q2 (which is still this month), and the polls, which could have been held much earlier, aren't to be held until July, so Rex Patrick gets his wish despite the Conservatives having been able to hold the ballot before the announcements.
Not everything comes down to politics, except paranoia apparently.
oldsig
Agree ....... but I will be the bunny and pose the question, has there been a delay? I may have missed something but they have not actaully annouced the decision date (noting it is expected by the end of this month) and it may still happen.
If there has been some announcement I would be happy to be advised.
Post script .... and I see Old Sig, you asked the same question ... sorry did not get to the end before posting.
StingrayOz, I have a subscription to the Australian but I can't find the story. If you can post the URLs I'll do a cut and paste to this forum.WSJ has a think on the sea5000 program republished in the Australian.. no access
Seems to feel like its dragging on forever.
Trackmaster
Member
In the Business pages from the Wall Street Journal.
But very lightweight, apart from some nice graphics comparing some of the major points...length, range, VLS etc
Interesting to see what the US press has to say:
Defense Firms Vie to Build New Pacific Fleets
U.S. allies are bulking up on frigates and submarines to counter territorial disputes in Asia
A FREMM vessel designed by Fincantieri in Sydney’s harbor. Photo: Fincantieri
By
Rob Taylor
Rob Taylor
The Wall Street Journal- BiographyRob Taylor
- @WSJRobTaylor
- [email protected]
29 COMMENTS
- Save Article
Save Remove View Saved Articles
- Save
- Copy Link Link copied …
Contracts valued at about $70 billion are up for grabs from Australia to Canada, as governments update aging fleets to protect shipping lanes and their territorial waters.
While defense spending globally had fallen over the past decade, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute expects spending this year to be the highest since the close of the Cold War. Nations in Asia and the Middle East are leading the charge.
That is a potential windfall for companies such as Lockheed Martin Corp. and Huntington Ingalls Industries Inc. in the U.S., Britain’s BAE Systems PLC and Europe’s biggest shipbuilder, Fincantieri SpA. The new contracts could secure thousands of jobs and guarantee a pipeline of work for at least a decade.
Western navies are rebuilding their Pacific fleets as China and Russia challenge their dominance in the region. China is asserting more dominance over the South China Sea, tensions on the Korean Peninsula are high, and Russia is showing renewed interest in Asia. Late last year, a Russian navy ship docked in Papua New Guinea for training and Russian bombers visited Indonesia.
The U.S. has urged its allies to spend more on defense. President Donald Trump has called for a U.S. naval fleet of 350 ships. The current fleet of 273 ships is the smallest since 1916. Last year collisions between U.S. guided-missile destroyers and merchant ships that left 17 sailors dead prompted criticism that the fleet is stretched too thin, resulting in cutbacks on training and certifications.
Fighting Frigates
Australia’s frigate contest will kick off a $70 billion wave of decisions in the U.S. and Canada.
Note: Figures are estimates for BAE Systems and Navantia, images are renderings.
Sources: Navantia, BAE Systems, Fincantieri, Australian Strategic Policy Institute.
Defense companies say the coordinated buildup among allies is also an opportunity for Western allies to build a common warship. By adopting similar designs, they say, countries could share the cost of future ship upgrades, with spare parts and maintenance available at a wider range of global shipyards.
“To have the Canadian navy, the Australian navy, the Royal Navy, the New Zealand navy, operating the same frigate, that’s not an impossible dream,” said BAE’s managing director Nigel Stewart, who is leading the firm’s bid in Australia.
Australia within weeks is due to award a $26 billion contract for nine frigates, one of he biggest defense deals in the country’s history. BAE, Fincantieri and Spain’s Navantia SA are competing for the deal.
Warren King, chairman of Navantia’s Australian unit, said the purchases create some momentum for Canada and the U.S. to buy the same ships. Navantia and BAE are vying for a Canadian contract to build 15 frigates valued at as much as $46 billion.
While frigates are among the smallest warships in the U.S. fleet, they are the backbone of allied navies. Australia wants its new ships to be almost as large as U.S. destroyers, capable of hunting submarines and equipped to defend against ballistic missiles like those test-fired this year by North Korea.
Around 250 new submarines are expected to enter service in Asia in the next decade as nations including Australia and Japan seek to counter China’s militarization of atolls in trade lanes running through the South China Sea.
“By 2025, half of the world’s submarines will be operating off Australia’s eastern seaboard,” Mr. Stewart said.
Frigates are also becoming more important for the U.S. Navy as the Pentagon seeks warships that are cheaper than destroyers but carry more firepower than its smaller Littoral Combat Ships. Each new frigate costs about $950 million, the U.S. Navy estimates. A completely outfitted destroyer costs around $1.8 billion.
A multibillion-dollar Pentagon program to commission 20 missile frigates for construction in the U.S. has pitted Fincantieri against Austal USA, Lockheed, General Dynamics Bath Iron Works teamed with Navantia, and Huntington Ingalls.
In a sign that Australia’s choice could inform the U.S. competition, a board advising Australian defense officials is stacked with experts from the U.S. including former secretary of the U.S. Navy Donald Winter and Irwin Edenzon, the former president of Ingalls shipbuilding.
“The whole world is looking at Australia now,” said Dario Deste, chairman of Fincantieri in Australia.
Write to Rob Taylor at [email protected]
An interesting piece on modern replenishment ships in the Warship 2018 annual. What I zeroed in on was the opinion that the Cantabria is perhaps the oldest, least advanced design being evolved from Dutch designs of the 1960s, while NZ new tanker is one of the most advanced and innovative.
To be honest while I had some knowledge of the Aegir option I hadn't really paid much attention to the project after the Navantia option won. According to the article our new AORs are likely to have higher operating and through life costs than the alternatives and are less maneuverable and durable (due to their single screw design). They are also said to be approximately 50% more expensive than the Aegir.
End of the day the RAN are getting two new tanker that can do the required job, I just find it interesting that there is so much discussion about why this frigate or submarine is better than that one yet no one (not even whingy me) paid much attention to the AORs. Could you imagine the angst and outcry if there was any evidence that we had selected a warship, sub or combat aircraft that was 50% more expensive to buy, more expensive to operate, less survivable and less advanced than the losing contenders?
To be honest while I had some knowledge of the Aegir option I hadn't really paid much attention to the project after the Navantia option won. According to the article our new AORs are likely to have higher operating and through life costs than the alternatives and are less maneuverable and durable (due to their single screw design). They are also said to be approximately 50% more expensive than the Aegir.
End of the day the RAN are getting two new tanker that can do the required job, I just find it interesting that there is so much discussion about why this frigate or submarine is better than that one yet no one (not even whingy me) paid much attention to the AORs. Could you imagine the angst and outcry if there was any evidence that we had selected a warship, sub or combat aircraft that was 50% more expensive to buy, more expensive to operate, less survivable and less advanced than the losing contenders?
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Apparently constructing AORs that are way past being 50% more expensive is not a problem for the G of Canada or the RCN.I just find it interesting that there is so much discussion about why this frigate or submarine is better than that one yet no one (not even whingy me) paid much attention to the AORs. Could you imagine the angst and outcry if there was any evidence that we had selected a warship, sub or combat aircraft that was 50% more expensive to buy, more expensive to operate, less survivable and less advanced than the losing contenders?
Ironically, prior to the ANZAC program (and possibly prior to the carrier retirement decision) the plan was to acquire ten FFGs, i.e. six built locally. Now that would have been interesting, just imagine the six local builds getting a full ASMD or ASMD+ fit instead of the ANZACs.
Others may have specific knowledge of the FFG build plans but I believe prior to the decision not the replace Melbourne skimmer numbers were set at about a dozen, i.e. three DDG plus ten FFG supporting a carrier. With Melbourne gone the plan became to increae skimmer numbers but with a cheaper design than the FFG, hence the ANZACs. Roll forward to today, the upgraded FFGs are proving cheaper to sustain than the ANZACs, I wonder if this difference is great enough to actually make the life of type costs lower as well?
The article did mention that the Berlins were incredibly flexible and capable while being hideously expensive.Apparently constructing AORs that are way past being 50% more expensive is not a problem for the G of Canada or the RCN.
In my commercial experience I have yet to see a single screw ship which is more expensive to maintain than a twin screw.An interesting piece on modern replenishment ships in the Warship 2018 annual. What I zeroed in on was the opinion that the Cantabria is perhaps the oldest, least advanced design being evolved from Dutch designs of the 1960s, while NZ new tanker is one of the most advanced and innovative.
To be honest while I had some knowledge of the Aegir option I hadn't really paid much attention to the project after the Navantia option won. According to the article our new AORs are likely to have higher operating and through life costs than the alternatives and are less maneuverable and durable (due to their single screw design). They are also said to be approximately 50% more expensive than the Aegir.
End of the day the RAN are getting two new tanker that can do the required job, I just find it interesting that there is so much discussion about why this frigate or submarine is better than that one yet no one (not even whingy me) paid much attention to the AORs. Could you imagine the angst and outcry if there was any evidence that we had selected a warship, sub or combat aircraft that was 50% more expensive to buy, more expensive to operate, less survivable and less advanced than the losing contenders?
One of the biggest expenses during a refit, setting aside weapons and sensors, is the shaft and rudder repair/refit.
I'm not sure about Class rules (help Alex) but an AMSA requirement is to pull the shaft for inspection twice every five years. This involves shaft and rudder bearing refurbishment, taper adjustments and realignments, all very expensive.
In a single screw ship that cost falls once, in a twin screw ship the cost doubles no matter what size of shaft.
Further, in most cases machinery costs are double as well. To maintain Class, most engines must be pulled down and rebuilt every 5 years (again Alex help).
It becomes very obvious that the reason why most large commercial ships are single screw - cost to sustain.
Manoeuvrability is also a furphy, all AOR ships will always use tugs to berth even though they have bow thrusters which enable them to complete the job without.
I think the only advantage for twin screw in a replenishment ship would be to enable them to return to port unassisted if they sustained battle damage. It would be a brave TG Commander that allowed them to remain with the force if they had lost a shaft.
As to procurement cost, it was my understanding that we paid a very competitive price of $634m for a pair of ships and that compared very favourably with the alternatives purchased by other navies.
Maybe there's a hint of self justification in the Warships item?
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Assuming the currency is Australian dollars, that price seems to work out to about AUD$100 mil. more for the project than two RFA Tide-class AOR's would have costed, had Australia had them built in S. Korea like the UK did, with fitout to take place in Britain.
The Tide-class AOR does appear to have about half the crew complement of the Spanish Cantabria AOR, though I am uncertain if that is due to Spanish Armada doctrine, or just that the ship itself is a more crew intensive design.
The way I read the information is that there were other options which were potentially less expensive to initially acquire. Ongoing and sustainment costs I am uncertain about, since using the Tide-class as an example, they are substantially larger vessels, having ~5m greater beam, 2m greater draught, ~30m greater length, and displacing about twice (20,000 tons more) than the Cantabria.
Me being me, while I appreciate that the RAN has formed an association with a Euro ship designer/builder, I would rather Australia look to shipyards based in the Pacific for build work that is not appropriate or efficient to do in Australia. A good trading and defence partnership between Australia and S. Korea is of greater value IMO than between Australia and Spain.
Although I’m not across the details, the AOR contract does include some through life support costs. Plus, of course, the cost of establishing the support system.
As has been noted on numerous occasions on this board, comparing warship acquisition projects between nations is a fraught exercise as one never knows if one is comparing apples with apples.
Finally, RFA manning as in the Tides always requires less onboard manpower than Naval manning; but a Naval ship’s company provides more versatility in capability terms.
As has been noted on numerous occasions on this board, comparing warship acquisition projects between nations is a fraught exercise as one never knows if one is comparing apples with apples.
Finally, RFA manning as in the Tides always requires less onboard manpower than Naval manning; but a Naval ship’s company provides more versatility in capability terms.
Agree cost comparisons are fraught with apples v oranges. In this instance, cost of Australian steel to Spain, Comms and combat systems. On the RFA side, costs incurred by Appledore, remediation etc.
We really aren't sure of like v like.
- Status