Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[t68]

If I am alive in thirty years to read the cabinet papers I bet Rudd, Fitzgibbon, Fergusson, Carr and others were probably in favour of a fourth AWD and say new AORs as part of the stimulus but Gillard, Swann, Conroy, Garret and the other anti-industry lefties canned it.

I have never heard anything to that effect but just have a feeling something like that went down. I was at the opening of the shipyard at Techport and listened to Rudd's speech, the whole thing seemed to be building to an announcement of a fourth ship and then nothing. It was almost like the speech was simply edited to drop the extra ship announcement from it instead of being rewriting when cabinet rolled him on it.

Then again I might be on drugs

That would not surprise me one bit

 

[Raven22]

I think the biggest problem with T26 is that it likely won't meet the requirements set for the ANZAC replacement. It's smaller than what is desired and doesn't carry enough VLS tubes. Enough development of the design might change that, but that is not going to happen quickly or cheaply.

 

[Milne Bay]

There will be a lot of "naval gazing" concerning whether the choice of the T26 is better than the possible AWD-hulled alternative.
A T26 will not be a possibility soon enough, and as already stated may well have deficiencies of its own.
The whole idea behind this propsal is to keep the skilled workforce that will be needed to build the Anzac replacement class - whatever the failings that led us to this point, the time is now and a decision has to be made.
Remember also:
Perfection is the enemy of good enough.
MB

 

[Volkodav]

The other side of that argument is what if CEAFAR didn't live up to expectations. You'd then be canning the government for going for the unproven, developmental CEAFAR solution instead of the off-the-shelf perfectly good enough AEGIS and saving ten years.

Like I said you can't make everybody (or in some cases anybody) happy. Personally, irrespective of the AEGIS decision , I believe the Kidds would have been better value for money than the FFGUP as originally planned, let alone how it actually panned out (as offered for transfer they were already more capable than the proposed upgrade would have made the FFG had it actually gone to plan).

Kidds aside, hindsight suggests we would have been better off going for an earlier build, of either several NTU level FFG /DDG, or a couple (three or four) license built Flight IIA Burkes at Williamstown, rather than spending much more money building a new shipyard and three smaller than desired (some would say needed) ships in Adelaide.

I have heard from gf, as well as from other places, that the setup trialed on Perth has already shown advantages over AEGIS and being a scalable system it is likely capable of supplementing and eventually replacing AEGIS. Too bad, again in hindsight, that we didn't have a larger platform to retrofit the system to than the ANZACs, or we may have seen the sort of capability the proposed ANZAC replacements may bring over a decade earlier.

You should know by now Raven, I am a malcontent and will always cane the government

 

[Joe Black]

The other side of that argument is what if CEAFAR didn't live up to expectations. You'd then be canning the government for going for the unproven, developmental CEAFAR solution instead of the off-the-shelf perfectly good enough AEGIS and saving ten years.

I agree. Hindsight is always 20/20. There was too much risk on CEAFAR when the Howard govt made the decision to go with the AWD rather than the Kidd class. Besides, the Aegis Baseline 7.1is a decent radar for fleet base defence. CEAFAR still at its infancy, albeit with great potential, will need to scale up quite a bit to match and/or surpass the Aegis air defence/ASMD capability. I think the decision made was the best decision at that point in time.

The question I do have in mind is, would things be different had we gone with the Australianised Burke class instead of F100 design? Having said this, I think it has been a fruitful relationship to have with Navantia...

 

[Joe Black]

I have heard from gf, as well as from other places, that the setup trialed on Perth has already shown advantages over AEGIS and being a scalable system it is likely capable of supplementing and eventually replacing AEGIS.

The only advantage I can see is with the CEAMount, providing multiple channel of fire rather than time-sharing of the 2 directors. In terms of detection range, I can't recall CEAFAR being more superior. Of course, I am no radar or EM expert, but I do hope that someone can educate us a bit here

 

[alexsa]

I think the 'catch 22' for this Government is, can the right ship be ordered for the Navy and can industry be assured of continuing work (after the AWD's) be fulfilled both at the same time?

On the one hand, can selecting a modification/evolution of the F-100/105 hull be successfully produced as the Future Frigate and end up with the 'right' ship for Navy.

And on the other hand ensure that when the AWD block work completes that industry can move 'seamlessly' onto construction of blocks for the Future Frigate without a production gap (without loss of jobs and skills) at the same time.

Just my opinion, but I think the relatively small amount of money ($78m?) being spent on preliminary design studies into adapting the F-100/105 for the Future Frigate is money well spent (especially when you look at the many Billions of dollars that the project will cost) is a smart move, if possible, great! If not then the T26 is probably the obvious candidate for the role.

The problem with waiting for the T26 (as I see it), is not that it won't be the 'right' ship, but it may not be the right ship at the 'right' time, I could imagine that until the UK has finalised their design, starts construction AND has a ship in the water conducting first of class trials, etc, then and only then would the Government order a class of Future Frigates based on the T26, and that might create 'too' much of a gap in production between the AWD's and the Future Frigates.

So that's the catch 22 as I see it, just my opinion of course!!

The problem is the T26 is not a mature design (equipment and detailed layout is still to be finalised) and we would still need to build the production process on top of this (and deal with the inevitable problems with hull one as the process beds down). This is a very big risk.

The F105 is in series production now, the hull blocks are a known quantity and we have just paid to fix the production process issues. Continuation and evolution of this process (noting you can change equipment) is much lower risk and the lead time is a lot shorter.

If we want to get out of the valley of death this really is your best option from a shipbuilding process perspective. If we sit around for 4 yeats trying to fix a new design and then build the process you will be at the mercy of cost over runs and run the risk that a change of government may scupper the whole thing.

Not convinced the subs are going offshore as we are having a policy debate in public as a result of disperate political interest. In simple terms no decision has been made but there is a lot os work looking for ideas.

An Australian built product using technology from the US and Japan (or Germany if thye get their way) is equally likely.

 

[Volkodav]

I agree. Hindsight is always 20/20. There was too much risk on CEAFAR when the Howard govt made the decision to go with the AWD rather than the Kidd class. Besides, the Aegis Baseline 7.1is a decent radar for fleet base defence. CEAFAR still at its infancy, albeit with great potential, will need to scale up quite a bit to match and/or surpass the Aegis air defence/ASMD capability. I think the decision made was the best decision at that point in time.

The question I do have in mind is, would things be different had we gone with the Australianised Burke class instead of F100 design? Having said this, I think it has been a fruitful relationship to have with Navantia...

The Kidds were offered to replace the Perth (Adams) class DDGs but the government decided to continue with the upgrade of the six Adelaide (Perry) class FFGs instead, even though the configuration of the upgraded FFGs would provide less capability at a higher cost than buying the Kidds which had all received NTU during the 90s. Both options were interim efforts to compensate for the fact the previous government (turfed out in 96) had failed to order a replacement for the RANs DDGs.

As it turns out the FFG upgrade or FFGUP (maybe F UP would have been more appropriate) was a WOFTAM with only four ships being upgraded, instead of six, for as much as all six were meant to cost (ie a 50% cost blowout). They were completed a lower level of capability than the Kidds offered, more expensive than the Kidds were expected to be and to cap it off, the FFGs have yet to be fully accepted back into service due to outstanding issues with the upgrade. Had the ANZAC ASMD not been so successful the RAN would have been left without effective surface combatants at all.

Like I said we were offered four ships that were more capable than the FFGs were planned to be post upgrade. The Kidds were offered to us as hot transfers for 40% of what the FFGUP was budgeted to cost. So without hindsight the Kidds were a better deal. With hindsight we know that FFGUP ended up 50% over budget, mitigated by cancelling the upgrade of one third of the fleet, and was several years late. Two if the four upgraded ships are shagged and in urgent need of replacement. The Kidds were in much better condition and would have lasted longer.

As I said both option were to provide an interim replacement for the DDGs, pending a permanent replacement. The acquisition of the Kidds would have permitted the immediate retirement of the oldest pair off FFGs and even the second oldest pair as well, without adversely affecting RAN force levels or capabilities as they would have actually had more ships, four of them far more capable than planned. They would have had sufficient life to have remained in service until even the Evolved AWDdesign, or three or four modified Flight IIA Burkes could have been built..

 

[Volkodav]

The only advantage I can see is with the CEAMount, providing multiple channel of fire rather than time-sharing of the 2 directors. In terms of detection range, I can't recall CEAFAR being more superior. Of course, I am no radar or EM expert, but I do hope that someone can educate us a bit here

Well CEA are working with NG on the next generation of radars for the USN, AUSPAR. Also, I believe, the 8x8 array (verses the 4x4 on the ANZAC ASMD) is considered a competitor if not a replacement for SPY-1. So if this is correct a scaled up version of the existing CEAFAR (exclusive of the added capability of CEAMOUNT) would provide the ANZAC replacements with the same or superior volume search capability to the SPY-1D(V) on the AWDs. The question is how will th upgraded SAAB 9LV CS perform?

 

[Punta74]

Both Navantia and Daewoo will have until spring to present a design for the two new supply ships, as well as an offer for their construction. The Australian Government will make the final decision in summer.

Australia becomes Navantia

 

[hairyman]

Hawke/Keating governments failed to provide a replacement for the DDGs. Come on Volkodav, show us the replacements Howard gave in his 11 years in government.

 

[Volkodav]

Hawke/Keating governments failed to provide a replacement for the DDGs. Come on Volkodav, show us the replacements Howard gave in his 11 years in government.

Tha Hawke government planned to replace the DDGs and oldest four FFGs with a class of six FFGs to follow straight on from the last ANZAC at Williamstown and upgrade the remaining pair of much newer Australian built FFGs. Keating dropped this plan and decided to instead upgrade to upgrade all six FFGs to cover the capability lost with the planned retirement of the DDGs and build a class of, much more capable, missile corvettes to replace the Fremantle class patrol boats and keep Williamstown busy. Howard chose to continue with the FFGUP, giving the contract to ADI to make them more attractive for , cancelled the corvettes and planned to upgrade the ANZACs into AEGIS FFGs, with SPY-1F, under the Warfighting Improvement Project (WIP).

As it turned out, the FFGUP ran so far over budget and begin schedule only four of the six ships were upgraded reducing DDG / FFG hull numbers from nine to four. ANZAC WIP was an unrealistic pipe dream as the ships were too small and had never been designed for such a system. Without the corvettes, Williamstown suffered a valley of death that meant by the time the AWD project came around they were no longer the obvious choice for the work as they had lost there edge, but had they got the work they would probably have gotten back up to speed. I don't know but they may actually have missed out on AWD as they were offering the JC1 which was the preferred design for the LHD project.

Not a fan of many procurement decisions made in the Howard years but they are far from the root of all evil as there were many shockers made before and after them. It is more the missed opportunity of so many years of growth, capped off by an unexpected mining boom, which with more vision could have funded much greater growth and set us up as an economic power house rivaling many larger countries for a generation. Instead all but niche and specialist manufacturing is moving off shore and our economy is built on a shakier, narrower base than it was in the 90s.

 

[gf0012-aust]

An Australian built product using technology from the US and Japan (or Germany if thye get their way) is equally likely.

aye to that

 

[ASSAIL]

aye to that

I just heard David Johnston being interviewed on Fox and he categorically ruled out an onshore design for SEA 1000. He stated that Collins must be retired by 2020 and that time was not available for a bespoke sub.
He stated that the tender would go through the standard 2 pass approval system and that a result would be known by the 1st Quarter next year.
What wasn't absolutely clear was whether the subs would be built here or offshore or a combination of both.
I reckon that puts HDW in the box seat

 

[gf0012-aust]

I just heard David Johnston being interviewed on Fox and he categorically ruled out an onshore design for SEA 1000. He stated that Collins must be retired by 2020 and that time was not available for a bespoke sub.
He stated that the tender would go through the standard 2 pass approval system and that a result would be known by the 1st Quarter next year.
What wasn't absolutely clear was whether the subs would be built here or offshore or a combination of both.
I reckon that puts HDW in the box seat

The HDW design is a paper design - the Soryu is an in service design

the problem for the HDW is that the govt is averse to vaporware (see prev)
the problem for the Scorpene is tech transfer and ITARs issues (more than other Euro offers)
the problem for the S80 is that spanish screwed the pooch on dimensions already

I still think that Soryu has the edge as long as the issue of integration and tech transfer is resolved.

The Soryu also traces its routes back to NAVSEA designs, so the US is not going to be as grumpy about tech sharing issues

 

[ASSAIL]

The HDW design is a paper design - the Soryu is an in service design

the problem for the HDW is that the govt is averse to vaporware (see prev)
the problem for the Scorpene is tech transfer and ITARs issues (more than other Euro offers)
the problem for the S80 is that spanish screwed the pooch on dimensions already

I still think that Soryu has the edge as long as the issue of integration and tech transfer is resolved.

The Soryu also traces its routes back to NAVSEA designs, so the US is not going to be as grumpy about tech sharing issues

Defmin did state that much data sharing had been achieved with the Japanese but my thoughts are that if Soryu is chosen that virtually wipes out any major construction in Aust. and leaves us with integration only. HDW would be more amenable to onshore build. I understand the vapour issue but do they revert to 212 and do it on the cheap? Have they learned anything from Collins? FIIK!

 

[Milne Bay]

The HDW design is a paper design - the Soryu is an in service design

the problem for the HDW is that the govt is averse to vaporware (see prev)
the problem for the Scorpene is tech transfer and ITARs issues (more than other Euro offers)
the problem for the S80 is that spanish screwed the pooch on dimensions already

I still think that Soryu has the edge as long as the issue of integration and tech transfer is resolved.

The Soryu also traces its routes back to NAVSEA designs, so the US is not going to be as grumpy about tech sharing issues

It is beginning to smell more and more like a nod to the Soryu type (2?) with perchance the first builds in Japan while the Australian team/location/plan is worked up, then the following builds in whole or part here.
Could do worse.
MB

 

[gf0012-aust]

Defmin did state that much data sharing had been achieved with the Japanese but my thoughts are that if Soryu is chosen that virtually wipes out any major construction in Aust. and leaves us with integration only. HDW would be more amenable to onshore build. I understand the vapour issue but do they revert to 212 and do it on the cheap? Have they learned anything from Collins? FIIK!

I don't want to be the thread pessimist, but IMO the Govt's motivation will be about selecting and building in the shortest safest time to try and ensure that they can be seen as "fixing the sub problem" over an Industry support issue.

I wouldn't be hanging my hat on the Govt at the Ministerial and NSC level staking Aust Industry involvement high on the decision matrix ladder....

although there is an obligation to look at Aust Industry Involvement in the procurement selection process - it does not bind the outcome - and has probably less traction with Dept Finance and their Defence Team than the general public would hope. Look at Rossi Boots for a recent example

Personally if the lead time wasn't so bad (and both sides had dirtied their oars in the water) I'd go with the HDW but would want to get the Soryu's metallurgical advancements and some of their digital capability....

I wouldn't like to put my money on a bet that AIC would triumph in a decision... but the other side of that equation is that if they kill AIC then they also kill off the saleability of ASC

a bad nostradamis punt would see the Govt wanting to tie the sale of ASC into the purchase and then trying to get ASC as a regional yard opportunity

the fastest growing sub market in the world is the pacific.... so lots of potential

 

[gf0012-aust]

and as most of us know - integration is the killer when all the sums are done up for the first third of the platforms life....

 

[ASSAIL]

I wouldn't like to put my money on a bet that AIC would triumph in a decision... but the other side of that equation is that if they kill AIC then they also kill off the saleability of ASC

a bad nostradamis punt would see the Govt wanting to tie the sale of ASC into the purchase and then trying to get ASC as a regional yard opportunity

the fastest growing sub market in the world is the pacific.... so lots of potential

I can't see a Japanese company buying ASC. Surely any export potential for submarines would be ramped up in Japan. OTOH if HDW bought it a gate for regional sales opens provided they keep cost parity with Germany and from what I have heard, that's more than possible.