Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
Gents, having been a resident of the Western Suburbs of Melbourne all my life, I have watched ships being built at the old Williamstown Dockyard from HMAS Derwent to the LHDs and it is sad to see it so empty at the moment. Now that BAE has the contract to build the Hunter Class Frigates, can anyone see it having a role in the building process or should I save my money to buy a new unit there with city and bay views when it is sold for housing?
t68
Well-Known Member
Well here the PROJECT OVERVIEW AND STATEMENT OF REQUIREMENTS, I haven’t seen this before I’ll read it when I get a chance hopefully it will make it clearer
http://www.defence.gov.au/FOI/Docs/Disclosures/321_1617_Documents.pdf
Had a quick scan can’t see where it says anything about number of mk41
http://www.defence.gov.au/FOI/Docs/Disclosures/321_1617_Documents.pdf
Had a quick scan can’t see where it says anything about number of mk41
Last edited:
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
Under the 2016 IIP we are due to order more Naval Missiles in the early 20s, probably include a small number of the very expensive SM-6, certainly more SM-2 and ESSM, possibly SM-3, not sure whether this program includes AShMs or not.
Got no idea when the ships are loaded and with how many Missiles(would be classified). My supposition would be the Ships sitting idol at GI would be empty the ones going to RIMPAC would be loaded to some degree.
I have just been browsing over the departments web site fro the Sea 5000 tender and in their unrestricted document there is some interesting reading. Mind you the whole document is 293 pages long.
One section covers the build timeline, the other covers the possible batch builds, and I quote:
"c) Ship batches Due to the duration of the Project, the design and configuration of the Ships may change over time, as required by the Commonwealth, including in relation to function and performance requirements. The Ships will be built in a number of batches, with each batch consisting of Ships with the same functional baseline. Tenderers should assume there will be three batches, with three Ships in each batch."
The other states:
"a) Drumbeat The Ships are to be built at a "drumbeat" or rate of two years (i.e. 24 months between the start of construction of each ship). This drumbeat is based on RAND's estimates of the rate that should sustain a healthy and cost-effective shipbuilding industrial base (RAND Corporation, Australia’s Naval Shipbuilding Enterprise: Preparing for the 21st Century, 2015)."
I apologise if these have been referenced previously but the whole document makes interesting reading. Specifics to the tender are restricted and redacted so no information on the required technology or warfighting capabilities. It definitely shows there will likely be an evolution so that the final ship may be well advanced in technological as well as weapon and load out capability compared to the first ships.
The link is below.
http://www.defence.gov.au/FOI/Docs/Disclosures/089_1718_Documents.pdf
One section covers the build timeline, the other covers the possible batch builds, and I quote:
"c) Ship batches Due to the duration of the Project, the design and configuration of the Ships may change over time, as required by the Commonwealth, including in relation to function and performance requirements. The Ships will be built in a number of batches, with each batch consisting of Ships with the same functional baseline. Tenderers should assume there will be three batches, with three Ships in each batch."
The other states:
"a) Drumbeat The Ships are to be built at a "drumbeat" or rate of two years (i.e. 24 months between the start of construction of each ship). This drumbeat is based on RAND's estimates of the rate that should sustain a healthy and cost-effective shipbuilding industrial base (RAND Corporation, Australia’s Naval Shipbuilding Enterprise: Preparing for the 21st Century, 2015)."
I apologise if these have been referenced previously but the whole document makes interesting reading. Specifics to the tender are restricted and redacted so no information on the required technology or warfighting capabilities. It definitely shows there will likely be an evolution so that the final ship may be well advanced in technological as well as weapon and load out capability compared to the first ships.
The link is below.
http://www.defence.gov.au/FOI/Docs/Disclosures/089_1718_Documents.pdf
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
I would say that prior to building in the flexibility for future options, it first would need to be designed in. While the Luerssen design is a significant patrol capability improvement over the old ACPB and FCPB, I have to wonder just how flexible the design is? Especially if one were to look at adding capabilities which could significantly improve it's primary intended role.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Did you link the correct document? I downloaded it and it was only 92 pages long, with about half redacted and originally marked restricted.
I should think that all the announcements saying that they would be built by ASC in South Australia would be a fair tip not to waste any money at the TAB betting on Williamstown.
oldsig
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
How are you going to use them in a Shooting War? Low top speed makes them vulnerable to enemy Guns as well as AShM SeaRAM and Nulka won't stop 76mm Rounds and your going to have to fit them with CIWS, Decoys and a decent Radar to protect against Missiles, how much room does that leave for AShM. The only possible use i can see for them is as a ISR asset and the only advantage over the Subs is they could launch UAVs.
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
Williamstown is as dead as a Naval shipyard as Cockatoo Island. We will not have another Ship build announcement now to the Choules replacement later next decade and that will be in a Overseas yard(we don't have the capacity).
Sorry Assail,
Below is the area of the ship I am referencing to:
(Picture was taken from the RAN Facebook page)
John Newman
The Bunker Group
Mate, have a look at my post above, and specifically the quotes of Samoa that I reproduced.
Specifically:
So, should the CoA decide after building FOC, or anywhere during the drumbeat that it would like to double the cell load-out it can, and know that it’s going to have to a high level of confidence that this can be done without unacceptable loss of other capabilities, and furthermore and significantly so that this can be done within the drumbeat cycle and not halt the ‘continuous’ build cycle.
The graphic you have attached, with the area marked in Red, is possibly the likely spot where such a thing could be done.
But again, it's one thing to get the cutting torch out and cut a big hole in a 'flat' part of the deck, it's another thing to have at least 8m of available space below to fit those extra Strike Length VLS cells.
Personally I'm more than happy with what we have seen to date regarding the configuration of the Hunter class, the fact that we don't know the 'specifics' of how many VLS (or how many AShM) is not going to cause me any lost sleep in the years ahead.
Cheers,
Yes the F-124 with SPY-1F was a nice looking ship but less capable than the desired SPY-1D(v) which wouldn't have fit the smaller hull. Again it was an evolved option not fitting the existing mantra.
Colleague's of mine were involved in an unsolicited offer of a Type 45 with SPY-3. I can't help but wonder if risk mitigation surrounding the fitting an advanced, power hungry, US combat system, may have discovered and fixed the designs power issues.
John Newman
The Bunker Group
Hi Mate, yes it is interesting.
As you pointed out, Samoa suggested that it would be a 'continuous' evolution, from ship to ship, rather than batches, suppose it's a matter of 'watch this space' as the build process gets under way!!
I couldn’t open that file but these pictures clearly show the placement of those mid ships SeaCeptor VLS
Type 26 GCS
These have been posted a few days ago
Also note that some of the pics seem to be the proposed RCN version without the midships launches and with SeaRam and not Phalanx
Joe Black
Active Member
Yea, looks like the proposed GCS for RCN.
Just wondering if the Sea Ceptor VLS could be replaced by LM's ExLS, and for the RAN Hunter Class, it wouldn't be too bad if the ExLS actually used for both VL RAM Blk2 and quad packed Nulka.
And from this article:
Extensible Launcher Could Transform Weaponization Flexibility of Surface Combatants | Defense Update:
"The ExLS launcher is built of lightweight composite structure attached with drop-in/snap-in connectors and mechanical interfaces as the existing canisters. The launcher features Open System Architecture and Open Software and Cell Based Electronics. For rapid interface with the ship’s combat management system. This design enables the rapid deployment of completely assembled weapons and munitions, such as the Nulka, developed BAE Systems Australia, RAM Block II short range air defense missiles or Precision Attack Missiles (PAM), to augment traditional weapons designed for the VLS missions – such as the Standard SM-2 and 3 andTomahawk, Evolved Sea Sparrow (ESS) and Anti-Submarine VL-ASROC weapon."
It will really give RAN the options to increase and mix-and-match both the number of hard-kill and soft-kill systems. Imagine being able to be armed with both RAM and ESSM Blk 2, plus vast increase number of Nulka per ship.
Thanks Spoz, my understanding was also that the Type 45 was out of the running early on.
I find it an intriguing reflection that circumstances have changed have changed so significantly since SEA4000 with BAE, industry opportunities, economics, conops, risk tolerance etc.
I don't disagree that we have a very capable system with the Hobart class.
- Status