Australia is very very keen to develop a free trade agreement with the UK.
Selection of the Type 26 could be a part of a much wider agenda.
MB
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
Selection of the Type 26 could be a part of a much wider agenda.
MB
weegee
Active Member
Hi Guys just changing the convo a little.
Rimpac does anyone know what we're sending? I know Adelaide is going and I assume Hobart is going too?
Could this be the first real time a LHD (carrier) strike group could be used together? Obviously a perfect time to play with others in the region.
i.e HMAS Adelaide
HMAS Hobart
2 X Anzac's?
1 X Collins?
1 X Success?
Just wondering as the only real commitment to a ship that I have seen is HMAS Adelaide.
Rimpac does anyone know what we're sending? I know Adelaide is going and I assume Hobart is going too?
Could this be the first real time a LHD (carrier) strike group could be used together? Obviously a perfect time to play with others in the region.
i.e HMAS Adelaide
HMAS Hobart
2 X Anzac's?
1 X Collins?
1 X Success?
Just wondering as the only real commitment to a ship that I have seen is HMAS Adelaide.
Indeed, this seems to have been discussed in a recent meeting between UK and Aus PMs:
PM meeting with Prime Minister Turnbull: 21 April 2018
"They confirmed their shared ambition to form a new bilateral UK-Australia Free Trade Agreement after leaving the EU."
"Acknowledging that the two countries already enjoy a close defence relationship, the Prime Minister welcomed increased cooperation on defence and security, including on equipment programmes and noted the merits of the Type 26 frigate and its anti-submarine warfare capability."
I believe it's Adelaide, Success, Melbourne, Toowoomba and Rankin. Looked everywhere for the info a while back and eventually skimmed it from the Defence Parliamentary Program 2018. It makes sense as all four surface vessels are currently creeping across the south pacific, engaged in Indo-Pacific Endeavour 18.
It happened with CVF, they knocked significant amounts of time off the build process for Chuck compared to Liz.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
I would hardly hold up the CVF build programme as a demonstration of build process that would be applicable to any RAN orders. For one thing, there were changes to the CVF plans made after construction of the QE started going from a CTOL to a STOVL design. Secondly, the carriers were/are (PoW has been floated out but is not commissioned yet) built in a UK yard, which means the UK yard workers are building up experience which can enable latter versions of the same design to progress a little faster.
Any such experience would not transfer to an Australian yard, and ships for the RAN are not going to be built in the UK, even if an Australian version of the Type 26 were to be selected. As a side note, it is virtually certain that the fitout for Australian and British Type 26 frigates are going to be different, given what the specified RAN systems are to be, and what the RN typically uses. This in turn means that experience gained with the British version of the Type 26 fitout would not include the RAN specified systems unless the British were also using them.
Fir
The only caveat to that would be that workers and supervisors familiar with Navantia design philosophy could possibly be more productive on the prototype if F5000 was selected. If the government rates risk has a high priority this could be a factor favouring the Spaniard.
However, that advantage won't last past the first two or three ships.
First of Class is always going to be a relatively slow build no matter which ship is chosen and the reason why the RAN has labelled it "prototype"
The only caveat to that would be that workers and supervisors familiar with Navantia design philosophy could possibly be more productive on the prototype if F5000 was selected. If the government rates risk has a high priority this could be a factor favouring the Spaniard.
However, that advantage won't last past the first two or three ships.
Nope.
The ships were planned to be STOVL, with the possibility of future conversion to CTOL. Construction of QE began in 2009 to a STOVL design. In 2010 Liam Fox, the new Conservative Minister of Defence, one of the worst tossers in Parliament (I wonder what he's got on people, to keep getting nominated for a safe seat & getting ministerial jobs: he was once notorious for having overclaimed & been forced to pay back more expenses than any of his Shadow Cabinet colleagues) ordered them to be built as CTOL, placed an order for one set of EMALS & matching arresting gear, & had the F-35B order changed to F-35C.
While re-design was being done, QE continued in build to the original plans.
After 18 months Fox was sacked as MoD for a very dubious friendship with a lobbyist*. The new MoD looked at the cost of Fox's decision (taken before any costings, estimates of delays, etc. - both of which turned out to be a few times what Fox had allowed for), & flinched, & it was reversed.
So we went back to STOVL. The F-35Cs, EMALS parts, etc. with our name on went to the USN. I think Fox's Folly cost us between £100 & £200 million, but luckily not much delay on the ships.
The build process would have been fine if the original build plans had been stuck to throughout. The most expensive political meddling wasn't Fox's Folly but Gordon 'Prudent' Brown slowing down building to save money in the short term, causing a big increase in total cost.
*Adam Werrity - a close personal friend who he'd met when Werrity was a student & Fox was an MP. Werrity seems to have built his career around privileged access granted to him by Fox. He lived rent-free in Fox's taxpayer-subsidised London flat in the early 2000s, accompanied Fox on official visits abroad (including in meetings with foreign government ministers), shared hotel rooms with Fox, etc. & had been allowed into the MoD building many times & into meetings despite having no security clearance.
weegee
Active Member
I thought Hobart was going? Ithought I read somewhere she was staying on after to fully test out her systems at the missile Range off Hawaii.
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
She goes to San Diego late this year for Aegis Qualification i believe, that may be what you heard about.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Ah, my mistake then. I had been under the impression that construction had been to the CTOL design initially and not the original STOVL design and that in addition to the wasted funding, it had cost some additional time for construction and redesign, beyond what would normally be expected in a fist of class vessel.
I am aware that first of class vessels typically take longer due to there being a learning curve with the construction of a new class. The area I have issues with the logic behind some of the claims which have been made about the Type 26 is that due to construction underway in the UK by BAE for the RN, that the Type 26 has been able to be "de-risked" and/or the construction time will be lessened for Type 26 frigates built in yards outside the UK, and to different configurations from those ordered by the RN.
I understand how later ships of the same class, ordered from the same yard, can be constructed in a shorter period of time, and at a lower unit cost because of the experience, supply chains and non-recurring costs have been built up and paid for. What I do not understand, is how or why experiences gained by BAE shipyard workers in the UK in fitting both 24 Mk 41 and 48 Sea Ceptor VLS cells in the Type 26 frigates for the RN would provide any edge to Australian shipyard workers in Osborne if they were to be working on fitting 32 Mk 41 VLS cells into a Type 26 frigate for the RAN. I would have the same question for any other differences in kit where there was a difference in weight, space/volume, power, cooling, emissions or control systems required.
My comment was supporting your previous post and I totally agree, the British build has no relevance to the physical build here, where it is relevant is for proven design and the production drawings for most the bones of the ship.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Sorry if I did not make it clear, but my response was more questioning whether or not I was being stupid and failing to understand a basic and obvious concept, or if someone was telling porkies.
The claims about the British work on the Type 26 honestly reminded me of some of the claims Saab and various Swedish supporters had been making about the Gripen NG was it was first being developed and a Gripen D model was being modified as a testbed for some of the planned NG systems. This would probably have been about a decade ago IIRC. The basic gist that I recall was that the Gripen NG was being touted as a lower costing, less risky alternative to the F-35 because it would use MOTS systems, but that it would be just as advanced as the F-35 excepting for LO features.
I had a problem with such claims then, since it would be illogical to believe that using already developed MOTS systems would be as capable as the systems under development to replace existing, developed systems.
Some of the more recent claims about the Saab Swordfish MPA on the Global 6000 platform seem to be along the same vein and it makes me wonder if this is a marketing tactic used by some defence sales staff.
weegee
Active Member
Cheers thanks for the clarification.
For now the only European navy with 30 or more escort ships for the period 2020-2030 (on the paper) will be the Italian navy:
10 FREMM frigates;
8 PPA (5,500 ton frigate, the forecast is for 10 (7+3 optional already approved by parliament), but 8 is more realistic as final number + 2 DDX destroyers)
8 PPX (3,500/4,000 ton light frigate/corvette) (maybe a joint project with French Navy - a merge FTI frigates)
2 Horizon destroyers
2 De la Penne destroyers (replaced by 2 DDXs late '30)
2 DDX (10,000 ton destroyer) (maybe a joint project with French Navy)
Last edited:
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
No offense, but what does a list of ships in the Italian Navy have anything to do with the Royal Australian Navy, which is the title and subject of this thread?
The comment you replied to referenced how many escorts the Royal Navy would likely require, if it were to resume deployments to areas of interest to the RAN.
No offense, but i found a bit offensive your remark… is only a piece of information (no spam or a long dick contest), but if you think that have polluted this thread with my post, sorry.
Peraphs as joke it is more likely, as the Royal Navy now shadowing Russian warships in the channel with fishing patrol boats that the RAN need starts deployments to areas of interest to the RN.
Peraphs as joke it is more likely, as the Royal Navy now shadowing Russian warships in the channel with fishing patrol boats that the RAN need starts deployments to areas of interest to the RN.
Todjeager as a long time senior member on this forum was correct. He picked it up and called you out on it before I and other Mods did. As Mods we cannot be everywhere and we rely on respected senior members and tagged DefPros to assist us Mods in managing the forum.
A list of Italian vessels with no context to the RAN thread as a piece of information is extraneous. You needed to apply that information to the RAN.
Hopefully as that has been explained to you as a new member we can move on to substantive discussion relating more directly to the RAN on this thread.
MrC
Sorry Todjaeger but not being english my mother language I found kinda hard to understand your post on BAE experience and its effects on australian shipyards.
If I got it correctly what you meant to say is that the quality of the UK shipyards isnt significant if the drawings are good since when built in Australia the workforce and shipyards will be completely different correct?
If I got it correctly what you meant to say is that the quality of the UK shipyards isnt significant if the drawings are good since when built in Australia the workforce and shipyards will be completely different correct?
- Status