Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
IIRC others have posted some time ago that the build philosophy is not particularly robust when compared with previous Brit and US designs. Is that the case?
If I recall correctly there was discussion of German F123 instead of a stretched Anzac when that was realised to be a non starter. It used meko design features and build strategies but was a much more polished warship over all. Not sure if this was government / Navy, industry or maybe even specialist press sourced though. The same article did mention the RAN desiring flight IIA Burke's as one for one replacements for the perths, irrespective of what replaced the early FFGs, all pre AWD of course.
To put a wet thumb in the air on this, ship hulls are designed around a series of calculations that rely on knowing certain aspect of the ships intended use.
An example would be the fleets of container ships that have been designed since the year 2000. Most of the big container ships that are sailing the oceans are currently less than 10 years old, as the design has evolved to take more containers, using less fuel, while getting there quicker.
This seem off on a tangent, but the explanation is coming...
Given enough time & enough money the ships that operated between 2000 & 2010 could have been taken out of the water, sectioned, new components added, strengthened & generally been made to a spec 'similar' to the newer Super panamax. But in reality it doesn't make sense.
Cutting a warship into 2, adding a centre section, strengthening the overall hull, then fitting newer equipment can be done but with modern build techniques, it is simply easier & cheaper to start with a fresh page of paper to design the ship for what you actually want, not adapting a current design & modifying it to suit your needs.
Overall length & width are the key factors as to how fast a warship can go & again the calculations ( the ratio) prove that thin ships of a set length, with shallow draft are better. Faster usually requires long, slender hulls, that are lightweight. Taking that hullform & 'plugging it' adds weight, , means more hull in contact with the water, means greater resistance, makes the engines have to work harder, means more fuel required, which means more weight = reduced speed.
The plugging means cutting through girders & stiffening, adding a section, then having to compensate around the x2 joints, by adding more plating, which means extra weight = reduced speed.
The numbers (financially) probably point towards double the cost of a brand new designed hull. Other key factors like Sovereign safety, the time available to complete the task, maintaining fleet numbers & generally balancing the books will help influence things. The bigger the warship, the more complex it is, the more cost is involved. That's why small ships like tugs & coastal freighters are often plugged, as the overall cost of doing do is CHEAPER than buying a new vessel.
Bang on noting hull plus would have to be in the middle of warships given the have a fine hull form and low block coefficient. The problem is the machinery space is not always sympathetic to such mods. And as pointed out by others it can have a really dramatic impact on longitudinal strength an resistance to torsional stress.
Even a smal ‘add on’ can have a pretty major impact with regard to bending forces. A really good example of the impact of trying to ‘add bits’ was gre first three FFG and the S70B. The required external hull reinforcement to deal with bending and torsional stress. It was expensive and less than designing it in at the onset as was the case with the last 3
Thanks all for the feed back.
The concept was certainly not one to cut the ship in two to insert a block, but rather to investigate if a small extension was both doable and beneficial, without being detrimental to ships performance.
The quest was really an exercise to find an additional 6 / 8 tonnes to carry either Phalanx or Sea Ram or a pair of Typhoon Bushmasters for added defence.
I appreciate the ANZAC's are what they are but they may need to bat above their weight within their lifetime.
Just working with the reality that our three Hobart's Class Destroyers and eight ANZAC's are our main combatants for the next decade.
The new Hunter Class are some way off and I'm guarded the delivery schedule will not be without some disappointment.
This may sound negative but it's a big project to run by itself, made even more difficult in conjunction with a dozen new OPV's and Submarines.
Regards S
The RAN has had a number of procurement successes regarding time and budget, the most notable was the Anzac fleet but also includes the Armidale, Fremantles, MCMs and the third DDG Sydney.
The problem with Australian builds has always been the stop start schedule or in the case of the AWD programme, withholding of funds by the Labor govt of the day and the systemic faults in the Alliance organisation.
The first Hunter has been described as the prototype and will take longer as has been allowed for and I think it’s ridiculous to lump in the new subs with the general building situation, of course the first of these will take longer than the follow on boats but there will be improvements as the USN Virginia class illustrates.
Naturally this is all with the caveat that the funds keep flowing
One can easily point to the industrial problems of the government owned shipyards of the past and be pessimistic but much has changed and we should respect the quality of work and the focus that today’s shipbuilders have displayed with the AWD and Anzac ASMD programmeS and I see no reason that effort won’t continue.
I like the positivity.
There is much to be positive about; both in the government opting to support a range of large naval builds, backed by some recent history of successful ship construction.
That aside these are massive projects.
I recall an article talking about the engineering needs for the submarine build alone. I can't recall the numbers but it truly is a national undertaking.
The building blocks today are the required increase in numbers of students looking at engineering right now for this one project. We are already looking light on! This doesn't even tackle every other trade and Tom Dick and Harry needed to make it happen.
Add in OPV's and Destroyers and the talent talent pool starts to shrink........... This is only for Navy.
Chuck in some big army land 400 stuff and things get interesting. Oh and the Air force have projects as well.
Defence is not the only employer.
Home state of Victoria is on a infrastructure explosion of rail and road projects running for decades.
Very big multi billion dollar jobs
These will devour skills of all levels and be very competitive to getting the qualified people it needs at all levels.
Some serious completion and you get to live and work in a major capital city.
Add the mining sector and others all looking for good people and we may find a challenge in getting the people required for our range of naval projects.
Suggest lumping Subs in with the general building situation is not ridiculous, but a reality and a challenge.
Good planning will get us there and it may all work.
However I will still will have my fingers crossed.
Regards S
Lumping submarine construction with the surface ships and generalising about delays and workforce shortages simplifies a complex issue.
Submarine construction is a different skill set, highly specialised and almost existing in a bubble, you can’t readily transfer personnel between the two in many instances.
There will be early production hiccups with both programmes but the differences this time is that the primes are responsible for performance and can transfer personnel from their offshore bases to overcome shortages.
Further, the new shipbuilding college will begin providing graduates and although this may not have effect in the early years, these projects last for decades and it will make a difference.
My main point is that the workforce has performed well in previous projects, including Collins, in much tougher circumstances. This time they have added advantages and can do so again.
T
I'm sure all on DT want success for these projects and I'll watch their progress with interest.
Regards S
Thanks Assail for the reply.
I'm sure all on DT want success for these projects and I'll watch their progress with interest.
Regards S
Here is a question, Unlikely it would ever happen but with Australia shifting towards a lower life cycle as we in the future remove those yet to be built ships they could theoretically still have a bit of life in them.
Could they theoretically form the back bone of a reserve fleet? Not so much sitting them in some river but more along the lines of lifting them out of the water and parking them on a hard stand.
Was just niggling at the back of my mind at the possibility of being able to field some extra combatants in a worst case scenario, even if they are relegated to Australian territorial waters as a defensive force freeing up the rest of the fleet in full for operations.
Off hand issues in my thoughts that I can see my self would be
Regards, von_noobie.
Could they theoretically form the back bone of a reserve fleet? Not so much sitting them in some river but more along the lines of lifting them out of the water and parking them on a hard stand.
Was just niggling at the back of my mind at the possibility of being able to field some extra combatants in a worst case scenario, even if they are relegated to Australian territorial waters as a defensive force freeing up the rest of the fleet in full for operations.
Off hand issues in my thoughts that I can see my self would be
- Crews (Would the permanent navy have the personnel to spare in a worst case situation, or could we conscript former personnel or even have reserves man them?)
- Maintenance (How much, How often and with what man power?)
- Upgrades/Refits (Would the hulls and equipment be good enough for rear guard, 2nd tier operations or would they have to go through major work?)
- Cost (If they are in good condition how much would it cost to maintain them annually or if they are in bad condition what would it cost to bring them to a useful level?)
Regards, von_noobie.
Not me, I remember the reserve fleet at Atholl dolphins as being incapable of any further useful service.
Not really a viable proposition - times have moved on since reserve fleets made much sense - and it's very common for ships to be stripped of a lot of assets to donate to their successors now.
The US was the last nation to maintain a large reserve fleet and they abandoned that many years ago. The UK's last flirtation with mobilising reserve assets was in the FI conflict in which everything bar the Mary Rose was looked at to see if it could feasibly be sent to sea.
Crewing the ships is your next challenge and the technical skills required today are too brittle to be easily recovered in a timely enough manner.
Taking ships out of the water and parking them in a high state of preservation would just be a diversion of funds from the active fleet.
If Australia keeps up with the continuous build program then I actually see a big opportunity to onsell these ships to other navies ... perhaps even regional navies.
That would give Australia the opportunity of recouping some of the costs associated with building these ships and if we managed to sell locally these ships would still be useful to Australia in countering Chinese expansionism.
That would give Australia the opportunity of recouping some of the costs associated with building these ships and if we managed to sell locally these ships would still be useful to Australia in countering Chinese expansionism.
Didn't think it would be feasable, I'd say the hardest factor would be the crews. Would need a naval reserve crew for each ship that if not practicing on a ship at least practices/trains on shore based simulators to keep there skill set up. Not impossible but is a long shot, Though one that would have a better chance of getting more ships to sea quicker then ramping up the production line and training crew from scratch.
On a plus side this was one of those out the box questions that we didnt take off into major fantasy land and derail the thread, Bravo xD
Cheers guys.
On a plus side this was one of those out the box questions that we didnt take off into major fantasy land and derail the thread, Bravo xD
Cheers guys.
- Status