Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[Volkodav]

I am a believer in the "Steel is cheap and air is free" mantra and while I acknowledge that is is more complex than that, personally I would always prefer to see the larger more flexible platform be selected.
The real constraints should be through life cradle to grave cost of ownership, however politicians and the general public rarely get past the sticker, or acquisition costs.

If the new frigates are acquired after the corvettes logic would dictate that they had a new platforms using newer (as opposed to new)technology. I.e. Not the F-100 hull but maybe a Type26 , Type 45, DDG1000 based platform.

 

[hairyman]

What happened to the plan to build type 26 frigates for the Royal Australian Navy? I thought that was a logical idea.

 

[ASSAIL]

What happened to the plan to build type 26 frigates for the Royal Australian Navy? I thought that was a logical idea.

The T26 is a nice concept but I'm not clear why it is more "logical" than the other various options?
Can you expand on your thoughts please.
Chris

 

[Samoa]

The T26 is a nice concept but I'm not clear why it is more "logical" than the other various options?
Can you expand on your thoughts please.
Chris

BAE T26 concept for RAN is a based on a T26 for RN, but with advanced APAR evolution of CEAFAR. Platform design is superior in every way to F100.

 

[ASSAIL]

BAE T26 concept for RAN is a based on a T26 for RN, but with advanced APAR evolution of CEAFAR. Platform design is superior in every way to F100.

The choice of platform can't be summarized as "superior in every way".

T 26 is a concept not yet in production,
Will the systems be compatible with what will be supported in Australia in the future?
Where in Australia will it be built/assembled?
Are the shore training modules/simulators similar to the F105 and if not what are the cost penalties?
Is it acceptable to have entirely different platform systems for one half of a small fleet?
These are just some of the variables to be considered and then weighed up against possible alternatives such as;
Can the AWD Alliance adapt the F 105 design to a new frigate and enjoy the cost advantage of the current production system?
Is there an evolved Gibbs and Cox platform that aligns us to the US supply chain and systems development to build on what we already have?
These are just some of the questions needing discussion.

The answer to all these variables is not a simple one liner and if someone states that there is clear logic for choosing a particular platform, I for one would like to here their argument.

 

[StobieWan]

What happened to the plan to build type 26 frigates for the Royal Australian Navy? I thought that was a logical idea.

I'm sure the Type 26 is being actively marketed to Australia but there are no firm plans either way for anything as yet, I'm sure.

I'm a UK citizen, I'd love to see it happen of course, but it's not a slam dunk by any means.

 

[bobert]

joining the navy - police clearance / year 10 ??

Hi,

I am considering joining the navy next year to serve my country.

However, for around 9 months in 2011 I travelled through Thailand and Malaysia, then in August 2012 I worked in the Cayman Islands for a year as a scuba instructor.

It says that you need to have lived in Australia for the last 5 years, or have a checkable background.... I can provide a police clearance from the Cayman Islands for the period I was living/working there, but have nothing for the time I was travelling through Thailand and Malaysia. Would this be a problem?

Secondly, I do not have a year 10 certificate, but have complete a diploma in website development, along with a cert IV in administration and a few other computing credentials for the time I worked in IT. Would this be sufficient?

I am trying to work this out before I return back to Australia as I would hate to commit, and then attend a YOU session only to be told I cannot join....

Any help or advice would be awesome.

Thank you in advance

 

[gf0012-aust]

The choice of platform can't be summarized as "superior in every way".

T 26 is a concept not yet in production,
Will the systems be compatible with what will be supported in Australia in the future?
Where in Australia will it be built/assembled?
Are the shore training modules/simulators similar to the F105 and if not what are the cost penalties?
Is it acceptable to have entirely different platform systems for one half of a small fleet?
These are just some of the variables to be considered and then weighed up against possible alternatives such as;
Can the AWD Alliance adapt the F 105 design to a new frigate and enjoy the cost advantage of the current production system?
Is there an evolved Gibbs and Cox platform that aligns us to the US supply chain and systems development to build on what we already have?
These are just some of the questions needing discussion.

The answer to all these variables is not a simple one liner and if someone states that there is clear logic for choosing a particular platform, I for one would like to here their argument.

+1 x 100

 

[hairyman]

Cost advantage of the F105'? At 2.8billion dollars per ship I cant see much of a cost advantage. You could build a small aircraft carrier for that. Anyway, I was under the believe that the T26 was a more modern ship than the F100 which our AWD's are based on.:rel

 

[ASSAIL]

Cost advantage of the F105'? At 2.8billion dollars per ship I cant see much of a cost advantage. You could build a small aircraft carrier for that. Anyway, I was under the believe that the T26 was a more modern ship than the F100 which our AWD's are based on.:rel

Modernity is a double edge sword!

The RAN ships use the F104 as the baseline design and become the F105 with the mods described here Air Warfare Destroyer Alliance - The Project - The Hobart Class - Differences from the F100 Class

The costs involved include the establishment costs of the AW Alliance, payments to Navantia for design and other consultant work (including block construction), payment to the NATO consortium for the ESSM work and payments to the US for FMS gear Aegis etc. and costs indexed for inflation (nearly1bn AUD to date)

I agree that the costs are more than simply buying a completed vessel from the US or the UK but the extra costs remain within Australia and there has been some discussion on this forum which makes a case for local production.

Considering that there has been considerable expenditure on training facilities and support facilities for the Navantia ships I would expect that this would have to be repeated if we chose a completely different platform.

The start of this though, was that you stated it was "logical" to choose the T26. Whilst I neither agree nor disagree with the choice I simply requested that you expand on that statement so we can follow your logic.

 

[ADMk2]

Hi,

I am considering joining the navy next year to serve my country.

However, for around 9 months in 2011 I travelled through Thailand and Malaysia, then in August 2012 I worked in the Cayman Islands for a year as a scuba instructor.

It says that you need to have lived in Australia for the last 5 years, or have a checkable background.... I can provide a police clearance from the Cayman Islands for the period I was living/working there, but have nothing for the time I was travelling through Thailand and Malaysia. Would this be a problem?

Secondly, I do not have a year 10 certificate, but have complete a diploma in website development, along with a cert IV in administration and a few other computing credentials for the time I worked in IT. Would this be sufficient?

I am trying to work this out before I return back to Australia as I would hate to commit, and then attend a YOU session only to be told I cannot join....

Any help or advice would be awesome.

Thank you in advance

I would imagine those qualifications would be sufficient for many jobs within ADF, but there's only one way to be certain.

Create a profile on defencejobs and make the enquiries directly with a defence recruiter...

Find jobs in the Navy, Army and Air Force - Defence Jobs Australia

 

[gf0012-aust]

Australian Navy Apprehends Suspected Pirates

Australian Navy Apprehends Suspected

 

[OPSSG]

Australian Navy Apprehends Suspected

Bravo Zulu, to the crew and embarked personnel on HMAS Melbourne. Thank you for protecting the Indo-Pacific SLOCs with your naval presence.

BAE T26 concept for RAN is a based on a T26 for RN, but with advanced APAR evolution of CEAFAR. Platform design is superior in every way to F100.

T 26 is a concept not yet in production,
Will the systems be compatible with what will be supported in Australia in the future?

+1

ASSAIL, I totally agree with your method of questioning Samoa's approach to the discussion. The Type 26 is still a design and the future of the British export of warships (or its designs) by BAE is not as bright before. This is because BAE have started to loosen their iron grip some of their traditional naval markets to competitors (occupying different market niches), with Brunei Navy being one example, who are unlikely to acquire warships built by BAE from UK yards again. On the other hand, there are other European ship builders, and the Korean naval ship builders are in with a number of bids in the international naval market. Even a niche player like ST Marine has made some in-roads with the navies of Thailand (HTMS Angthong delivered to the Thai Navy on 3 April 2012) and Oman (Al-Ofouq-class patrol vessels to be delivered in 2Q 2015 and the 4th vessel in 3Q 2016).

 

[Samoa]

T 26 is a concept not yet in production,

True but major design decisions have been set. Whether or not these will match all Australian future requirements, time will tell. My statement was purely a simplistic answer to a what appeared to be a simple question. In general is the T26 a better design than the F100. Having compared both on paper, from hull design, propulsion, modularity, modern combat aspects, upgradability, in service cost estimations, manning, etc, overall the T26 ticks more boxes than an F100. But so it should it's a much more modern design. I can't and won't go into specifics, so there is no point asking, and as such you can dismiss my comments if you see fit. Can I prove my argument to yours and any body else's satisfaction, probably not.

Will the systems be compatible with what will be supported in Australia in the future?,

The design accommodates an ability to match existing RAN fits, such the GT (ie LM2500 vs RR), diesels, etc. Of course some less critical systems are different, but buy the time in is in service these "existing" platform equipment will be obsolete anyway. Deviating from the baseline design adds cost and rework, options offered would baseline and baseline deltas variants. Let the customer decide.

Where in Australia will it be built/assembled?

Mostly likely yes, I don't think any offer for T26 would be considered if it wasn't.

Are the shore training modules/simulators similar to the F105 and if not what are the cost penalties?

Not sure how the F105 ones are put together. Shore training facilities will be offered for both the propulsion/platform systems and the combat/comms systems.

Is it acceptable to have entirely different platform systems for one half of a small fleet?

Ask the Navy, ask DMO ? While commonality makes sense, it doesn't seem to have stopped cross pollination of different systems to date. Not only platform, but combat systems, comms systems, etc.

 

[t68]

Rumor on another site( poster appears to be Spanish in origin) is that Ausgov has placed an offer for SPS Cantabria, that’s one ship could we see a similar deal to that of the LHD for 2 more ships and fit out here in oz?

No official source just a rumor anyone here heard anything either way to confirm or deny.

 

[AegisFC]

The RAN ships use the F104 as the baseline design and become the F105 with the mods described here Air Warfare Destroyer Alliance - The Project - The Hobart Class - Differences from the F100 Class

Some of that information isn't entirely correct. From what I've been hearing it will be getting a modified variant of ACB08, not 7.1.

Changes to funnel tops to improve the ship’s air wake; and

Good. One of my biggest complaints for the F-100 was how badly the exhaust on the base F-100's stained the aft arrays black.


As for the T-26 it is beginning to sound a lot like the abortive NATO Common Frigate of the 90's. All the interested parties wanted it built in their own yards, with different engines, electronics, sensors and weapons fit out. Basically at the end it was decided that just having a "common" hull didn't save anyone any money if the insides were all different and no economies of scale could be introduced due to basically boutique orders.

 

[Volkodav]

A lot of it depends on timing.

The AWDs are using a lot of old technology old style diesels lacking common rail injection, old GTs lacking full digital control while other parts of it are state of the art. Some of these systems were selected or retained instead of more modern options to retain commonality with systems already found of the FFGs and ANZACs. This should provide some savings in training and logistics as well as taking off some of the load of introducing a highly complex new platform into service.

Should the RAN retain older, less efficient and less capable systems across the board because in service ships already have them? Probably then you are talking three new ships (fingers crossed on a fourth) and twelve old ships, eight of which will continue to serve along side the AWDs. Now when we are talking a larger number of new ships, complementing a small number of older ships is this as important? Maybe not.

Add in the possibility of the OCV being resurrected and built before the ANZAC replacement. These ships would likely be locally designed and developed and make use of newer technology for propulsion and auxiliary systems than the AWDs that you would imagine would flow onto the ANZAC replacements. Even if the OCV is dead there will be a replacement patrol boat and it will have new generation common rail diesels, it will have integrated UAVs, it will likely be classed and therefore have the latest in non-wary platform systems, those related to SOLAS and MARPOL etc.

Either way many of the systems used on the AWD will by the time the first ANZAC replacement enters service be out of production and possibly rated as obsolete. Newer systems will be common throughout the fleet and these systems will be easier and less expensive to maintain, more efficient to run and, considering the number of charge qualified technical CPOs and other technical sailors the PB group is producing there will be more qualified and experienced maintainers.

Like I said it all comes down to timing, unless the ANZAC replacement is ordered to follow the last AWD down the slips there is IMO little to be gained. It doesn't mean I am saying the type 26 is the way to go, just that I cant see much advantage in reusing the F-100 hull. Even Spain is moving on with the F-110 likely to be a considerably different design to the F-100.

 

[StobieWan]

Some of that information isn't entirely correct. From what I've been hearing it will be getting a modified variant of ACB08, not 7.1.



Good. One of my biggest complaints for the F-100 was how badly the exhaust on the base F-100's stained the aft arrays black.


As for the T-26 it is beginning to sound a lot like the abortive NATO Common Frigate of the 90's. All the interested parties wanted it built in their own yards, with different engines, electronics, sensors and weapons fit out. Basically at the end it was decided that just having a "common" hull didn't save anyone any money if the insides were all different and no economies of scale could be introduced due to basically boutique orders.

That'd put it on equal footing with the FREMM, F100 etc then - the UK attempts to market it have revolved around inviting any interested parties to embed personnel in the design team if they so wished and I understand we've had a few folk along from far flung parts of the world.

The main idea behind marketing it is to keep UK warship design alive and kicking - we're not going to see any UK build export models unless a nation wanted a "first in class" handed over. Most of the nations in the market for something that big and sophisticated will want native build.


26 will be very quiet, it'll be a fairly large box with flexible arrangements for weapons, sensors and so forth.As a GP frigate with a strong ASW focus, I think it'll be pretty good but it's one of a number of competitors for the various frigate replacement programs in the air today. We've lost Canada and Turkey for sure so far, let's see what else falls out..

I don't think the advantages of the F100 hull will translate over as the timing looks to be wrong so whatever Australia does will involve a re-learning process.

 

[Volkodav]

It is too bad the UK didn't have a similar attitude with the Counties, Type 42 / DDL, and Type 23 as they appear to now have with the Type 26. A willingness to tailor the design to meet the requirements of a non RN customer and local build would have won them orders for the RAN at the very least but likely others as well.

An Australian built steam powered, Tartar armed twin helo County instead of the Charles F Adams Class DDGs, with the possibility of a fourth hull being ordered to replace the lost HMAS Voyager instead of the final pair of DEs. Australian built DDL instead of the FFG-7 to replace the Daring Class DDs and the possibility of a Sea Dart armed variant instead of the Type 42 in the RN. A Mk 41 equipped Type 23 to replace the River class DEs instead of the MEKO 200 option for the ANZACs. also the possibility of a modified Type 21 acquired as a Patrol Frigate to build up numbers to the required 23 majors the RAN was said to have needed during the late 60s for the planned two ocean navy, and also the three aircraft carriers......Invincibles or a modified version for the RAN or even a VT Harrier Carrier.

I am dreaming I know and I am sorry but it is not too great a stretch to suggest that had the UK been able to provide suitable designs the RAN and Australian ship building would be in a much better state today. And that the Type 45 and Type 26 would both have been a sure thing for the RAN today.

 

[StobieWan]

We've not (in the past) been very good at marketing our ships in a very flexible way - you can have it the following configuration <RN Specsheet>

We might have been in a better position to flog a Type 45 if we'd pursued AEGIS in the RN back in the 1990's - it was looked at and it might have dovetailed with the RN picking up the Tico's offered up around the same time. Type 26 is better placed with a more open fit for all the bits that go in - this is without a doubt the best placed ship that the RN has taken on board which might compete in an export market.

It's unfortunately in a very competitive market - we'll see what the future brings I guess.