Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[old faithful]

IMO, and i have been frequently wrong!, I think thqat the way that Australia conducts buisness, regarding productivity, is why we are not competitive.
It is rare that a major project is on time, or on budget in this country.
The unons have made it so hard to comply with over the top safty regulations, risk assesments and employing people to hold a sign and wear a vest and other PPE that it takes 3 days to complete a days work, after the site induction etc.
Its no wonder that major projects go over seas.
Inpex in darwin is unbelievable as far as wasted time goes as the new prison being built here, already 2 months behind.....

 

[t68]

You just described the majority of industries/businesses, gov departments included.

I can most certainly relate to that at them moment, a company that was founded after WWII from ex military equipment is being brought to its knees by someone who does not have a clue and will not take advice from anyone.

Sorry not the place to rant about it

 

[alexsa]

The government owes no one a good paying job. We live in a global economy today. Governments worldwide are deciding who they will subsidize. The governments don't mind subsidizing efficient proficient industries, but do mind when they aren't proficient. When it becomes cheaper for the government to put you on the dole than pay the subsidy, any sound government will choose to do so. The taxpayers demand this. Yes, it is better to subsidize and keep the money inside a nation, but there is a limit to the subsidy.

Be careful of generalisations and it dies not always related to subsidies. Government can be very effective in building industry, provided it is done professional and along business lines, though investment bodies. Singapore has been very successful in this regard. Sadly to date I don't think Australia have been particularly brilliant in this regard.

 

[alexsa]

In this era of technology to have 2 systems operated incorrectly and fail seems absurd. Things like that should surely require a specific override (i.e. to trigger a "this might be a bad idea" thought), and so to me sounds like a bit of a design oversight. This is especially true for the thrusters which should need nothing more than a software feature.

Utter rubbish. Believe me the level of automation you are talking about exists but will not stop idiots or the untrained making mistakes. We would never have an air crash if that was the case.

A fully automated system is great except when it goes wrong you always need an override for the occasion when the system crashes or you have damage and wish to make the command decision to bash on regardless. The ship was in sea trails and we have no visibility of how the system was set up so to suggest this is a design issues is nonsense.

 

[hairyman]

A frigate based on the AWD hull sounds like a good idea, as long as it is properly armed. The way our penny-pinching governments behave its main armament will probably be a 25mm gun!

 

[gf0012-aust]

Be careful of generalisations and it dies not always related to subsidies. Government can be very effective in building industry, provided it is done professional and along business lines, though investment bodies. Singapore has been very successful in this regard. Sadly to date I don't think Australia have been particularly brilliant in this regard.

The US Govt also intervenes in industry when required.

I had some association with people in the USN when they invoked BPM
Also had some very clear briefings on the Virginias when in Hawai'i for UDT Conferences. The Virginia's also had Govt step in and direct a position.

 

[hauritz]

When the Defence Minister talks about bringing forward the preliminary design work of the future frigate in Australia it makes me wonder whether or not we might be bringing forward the entire future frigate project.

Certainly the building of two new supply ships overseas won't help the local industry.

The twenty new patrol boats might stave off some problems for a while, but in order to survive the industry probably needs a big project to work on before the the middle of the next decade.

 

[StevoJH]

When the Defence Minister talks about bringing forward the preliminary design work of the future frigate in Australia it makes me wonder whether or not we might be bringing forward the entire future frigate project.

Certainly the building of two new supply ships overseas won't help the local industry.

The twenty new patrol boats might stave off some problems for a while, but in order to survive the industry probably needs a big project to work on before the the middle of the next decade.

As long as they can then find something for them to build after the frigates, that is the main thing.

I honestly think that trying to repurpose the Hobart Class hull into a GP/ASW frigate is a bad move.

I think it would have been a better idea, and far lower risk idea, to take T-26 as is, and replace Artisan for CEAFAR (or AUSPAR), and the forward Sylver VLS for Mk.41 VLS. Combat system by SAAB rather then BAE.

 

[ASSAIL]

When the Defence Minister talks about bringing forward the preliminary design work of the future frigate in Australia it makes me wonder whether or not we might be bringing forward the entire future frigate project.

Certainly the building of two new supply ships overseas won't help the local industry.

The twenty new patrol boats might stave off some problems for a while, but in order to survive the industry probably needs a big project to work on before the the middle of the next decade.

The reality is, given the time frame, two supply ships could not be built in Australia.
Just a quick summary of our current state and capability -
BAE Henderson, is busy with the Anzac upgrades until post 2017 and a synchrolift limited to 8,000 tons.
BAE Williamstown, busy completing Adelaide and would be available but building slip is limited to Anzac size ships. (My bet is they will get the replacement Pacific class or a new OPV programme yet to be announced).
Forgacs, again size limited and currently completing AWD modules. They don't have capacity for a supply ship
The logical AOR builder is ASC but they will be tied up with the AWD's and sub refits for another 4/5 years. In any case, they do not have the time to extend the synchro for 20,000 + tonnes and farm out the modules. It may have been different if the CUF/SA govt had already extended the synchrolift and given the govt a signal that they were ready. At the moment its in fairyland.

Therefor the only option open to govt was to either build overseas to completion or build the hull overseas and complete here. This last option is still a possibility if Navantia and BAE Williamstown can strike a deal.

So much for the opposition leaders shreeks of betrayal of workers, its not as if his mob ordered one single ship from Australian yards over the last 6 years.

 

[Goknub]

The reality is, given the time frame, two supply ships could not be built in Australia.

That is my understanding of the situation. It's good the government is using this as means to get industry lift their game rather than just announcing a competition this the inevitable winner being a foreign yard.

-------------

I know the Brits are pretty keen to make this a "Commonwealth" frigate but the T-26 is still in early development with plenty of risk involved. Especially if we require many of the most critical systems to be replaced.

I favour an all-F100 hull fleet because it opens the possibility of moving to a continuous-build program like the US ABs. I view this as the best way to eliminate the boom-bust cycle and get the ships produced on time/on budget. A fleet of 12 would give us the quantity to do this and there would still be plenty of competition for production of modules.

 

[alexsa]

As long as they can then find something for them to build after the frigates, that is the main thing.

I honestly think that trying to repurpose the Hobart Class hull into a GP/ASW frigate is a bad move.

I think it would have been a better idea, and far lower risk idea, to take T-26 as is, and replace Artisan for CEAFAR (or AUSPAR), and the forward Sylver VLS for Mk.41 VLS. Combat system by SAAB rather then BAE.

It would be nice to see if we could batch build in lots of 4 for the follow on frigate, the SSG and the OCV.

If this the case then the F100 hull for four large frigates makes sense as it will allow a reasonably rapid transition to build provided the most significant change is the systems and the upper works to house them. To put this in context the base design of the Burke is considerably older than the F100 (this is not to say I am a raging fan of the F100 noting it shares a similar design philosophy to the Burke and generation capacity will be an issue into the future).

Even with the current hull form it is still possible to "go electric" by ending the shaft line at a high induction motor and fitting a modem regenerative gas turbine ..... but this will likely involve some internal changes that would not be simple.

But if four large GT frigates were produced as a follow on to the AWD (and themselves be followed by an OCV or SSG batch) it would keep the yards working and allow time for the T26, or other hull forms, to mature to form the next batch of Frigates and AWD's. I would also avoid the block obsolescence issue we have with 8 ANZAC's essentially requiring upgrade even before the last hull hit the water.

Batches allow changes in requirements and technology to be iteratively applied.

Ah but I suspect I am day dreaming.

 

[Tasman]

It would be nice to see if we could batch build in lots of 4 for the follow on frigate, the SSG and the OCV.

If this the case then the F100 hull for four large frigates makes sense as it will allow a reasonably rapid transition to build provided the most significant change is the systems and the upper works to house them. ..

... if four large GT frigates were produced as a follow on to the AWD (and themselves be followed by an OCV or SSG batch) it would keep the yards working and allow time for the T26, or other hull forms, to mature to form the next batch of Frigates and AWD's. I would also avoid the block obsolescence issue we have with 8 ANZAC's essentially requiring upgrade even before the last hull hit the water.

Batches allow changes in requirements and technology to be iteratively applied.

One of the most sensible suggestions I've seen but as you hint maybe it is too sensible to be adopted!
Tas

 

[gf0012-aust]

I know the Brits are pretty keen to make this a "Commonwealth" frigate but the T-26 is still in early development with plenty of risk involved. Especially if we require many of the most critical systems to be replaced.

I wouldn't be predicting anything with the curr govt as it could turn left or right at the drop of a hat

eg they've had chats to the canadians recently - the canucks are hurting big time and they have a looming problem in asserting and defending the north.

we could well end up with a commonwealth solution tying in canada, UK, aust and at a long shot - NZ

 

[StingrayOZ]

I wouldn't be predicting anything with the curr govt as it could turn left or right at the drop of a hat

eg they've had chats to the canadians recently - the canucks are hurting big time and they have a looming problem in asserting and defending the north.

we could well end up with a commonwealth solution tying in canada, UK, aust and at a long shot - NZ

I don't see any reason to completely drop out of the type26/commonwealth solution. Im just not sure it will be ready in a timeframe/risk that we would want it to be.

The F-100 hull frigate is acceptable but really a bit dead end, more so if no one else follows us down it. But as I said you could make something decent out of those pieces and some commonality with the 3 awd would be good.

It will be interesting to see how the Global combat ship turns out and who jumps in. Propulsion wise, it hasn't gone all electric, and we would want to use ESSM rather than sea ceptor (canada might be of the same mind?). There could be ~30 of them which means the shared development costs, possibly market for Australian upgrades to other users.

But if Canada, or anyone else doesn't join the party is it worth sticking to a platform we will have to intergrate all the stuff on we want that has no commonality with anything we currently have.

 

[RobWilliams]

Radars - BAE + CEA have teamed up in the past to demonstrate that the Type 26 could take CEA radars

Main gun - By all accounts the RN will be going BAE 5in anyway

Silos - There's been no statement from the RN about what they want in there, but there is a choice between Mk41 and A70. You'd end up getting more Mk41 in the space of the A70 potentially because of the density of the cells.

GT - LM2500 is a physically smaller GT than the RR MT30

Surface launched torps - NFI if the RN will take it, they should pull it through from the Type 23's, but not that huge of a hurdle

 

[jeffb]

The F-100 hull frigate is acceptable but really a bit dead end, more so if no one else follows us down it. But as I said you could make something decent out of those pieces and some commonality with the 3 awd would be good.

Does the hull choice really mean that much at all? Apart for size and weight margins does it really dictate anything else? The selection of systems to fit within the hull seems like a much more important decisions to me.

Calling a hull design a dead end is a bit of a stretch, its far more important that the systems we select aren't dead ends.

 

[Volkodav]

So much for the opposition leaders shreeks of betrayal of workers, its not as if his mob ordered one single ship from Australian yards over the last 6 years.

It annoyed me no end, an order for a half dozen OPVs, new supply ships, LCH replacements any of a number of different ships could have been made to keep the yards ticking over but not one thing in six years. The white paper laid out what was needed but when the red headed travesty took over defence and many other things took a back seat to wishy washy feel good policy generation and leftist grand standing. Not to order a single ship in six years and then complain about the black hole, hello pot I'm kettle.

 

[gf0012-aust]

It annoyed me no end, an order for a half dozen OPVs, new supply ships, LCH replacements any of a number of different ships could have been made to keep the yards ticking over but not one thing in six years. The white paper laid out what was needed but when the red headed travesty took over defence and many other things took a back seat to wishy washy feel good policy generation and leftist grand standing. Not to order a single ship in six years and then complain about the black hole, hello pot I'm kettle.

wasn't helped by having Smith on the job either. Heaven help us if Conroy ever gets the gig if Lab ever win Govt

 

[Todjaeger]

Does the hull choice really mean that much at all? Apart for size and weight margins does it really dictate anything else? The selection of systems to fit within the hull seems like a much more important decisions to me.

Calling a hull design a dead end is a bit of a stretch, its far more important that the systems we select aren't dead ends.

Different hullforms do indeed perform differently. Of course the systems fitout has a larger role in most case, the hull everything gets packed into is important.

One of the British frigates, either the Type 21 or Type 23 (I forget which design) has been noted as being particularly quiet in the water. Part of the reason is that the design was to have an ASW focus, so that steps were taken to reduce the amount of radiated noise from the vessel, to improve the performance of sonars which would be used to hunt for subs.

Now a great hullform will not make up for a poor choice in machinery/mounting, but everything else being equal, one hullform can be better for ASW, one for speed, another for fuel efficiency, another for launching/recovery of smallcraft, etc.

Given the AAD focus of the AWD, a 'quiet' hull would not matter so much. However, if the follow-on frigate to replace the ANZAC-class is likely to have a greater emphasis on ASW, then IMO the design should get every potential advantage possible. To my way of thinking, this means a quiet hull and machinery setup, capacity for two helicopters, hull-mounted and towed sonar arrays, ship-mounted LWT's, and VLS sized to launch ASROC and the follow-on, in addition to the regular frigate features for GP operations.

As for Australian naval shipbuilding... If I had the option, I would place an order for a 4th AWD (likely too late by now...) which would provide a batch of 4 AWD's in service, and might, just might, shave a year or two off the shipbuilding Valley of Death. That might be enough time to either bring the frigate replacement programme forward, or an OPV/OCV build programme. In either case, the vessels should be ordered in lots of four.

As for resuming construction of large vessels in Australia... I have to ask if there is really going to be sufficient need to justify investing in the infrastructure necessary to do so? AFAIK there is at present no operational dockyard in Australia large enough to build a vessel on the scale of a desired AOR or LHD.

-Cheers

 

[Volkodav]

Labor are in desperate need of parliamentary members who are neither Left or NSW Right affiliated, non-union would help too. Too many affiliated members who owe there as assession to out side forces is a bad thing when they are dumb f*ucks to boot even worse. We need a worthwhile opposition and eventually an alternative government, not a repeat of last time that takes the bar even lower.

Sad that good members with brains lost their seats or retired while idiots and Machine Men stayed. To very good future Def mins are no longer in parliament.