Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

Status
Not open for further replies.

vonnoobie

Well-Known Member
Most logical choice if they are moving thing's forward would be to go with the Frigates first and choose a variant of the Hobart's more dedicated to ASW.

Would be the quickest program to implement with the least hassle while allowing time to properly select the best OPV (Or design one from scratch if needed).
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Most logical choice if they are moving thing's forward would be to go with the Frigates first and choose a variant of the Hobart's more dedicated to ASW.

Would be the quickest program to implement with the least hassle while allowing time to properly select the best OPV (Or design one from scratch if needed).
Only worth doing that if the planned service lives is cut from 30+ to 25 max years, as the F-100 platform will be hopelessly out of date before it is supplemented, let alone replaced. What I wouldn't mind seeing is three batch II AWDs followed by half the planned OPVs, then six new majors, finally the second half of the OPVs, before the AWD replacements kick off.
 

vonnoobie

Well-Known Member
Only worth doing that if the planned service lives is cut from 30+ to 25 max years, as the F-100 platform will be hopelessly out of date before it is supplemented, let alone replaced. What I wouldn't mind seeing is three batch II AWDs followed by half the planned OPVs, then six new majors, finally the second half of the OPVs, before the AWD replacements kick off.
Having the industry go from building 7,000t ships some years then to building 2,000t ships other years will still cause the issue of job losses/retraining. Won't be as bad as at the moment but will still be there.

Considering the AWD and Frigate fleet sizes they alone can be built continuosly.

With the 20 planned OPV's they too could be built continuously.

No need or benefit in the industry switching back and forth between larger and smaller ships.

That all aside I'd agree with a batch II AWD, avoid's the valley of death and gives time to evaluate options for the future.
 

t68

Well-Known Member
What I wouldn't mind seeing is three batch II AWDs followed by half the planned OPVs, then six new majors, finally the second half of the OPVs, before the AWD replacements kick off.
Agree seems the way to go and if they keep the same numbrs a ASW frigates also increases overall fleet numbers. Also they need to look at replacing every 20 that's the only way to guarantee a sustainable industry
 

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
Agree seems the way to go and if they keep the same numbrs a ASW frigates also increases overall fleet numbers. Also they need to look at replacing every 20 that's the only way to guarantee a sustainable industry
It makes the most sense to do this. We have previously spending large amounts for upgrades of existing hulls. Subs and surface fleet could be a 20 year cycle.

We are all tooled up for F-100's and will already have them in the fleet. But we could certainly look to another design for the future. 20 OCV are needed but also would provide enough consistent work that core employees would have permanent work and contractors could possibly move around to follow peak periods at different yards. Which is a heck of a lot better than what happens now.

Heres hoping the WP brings back 7000t frigates, 20 ocv's and 12 subs. That sounds like a capable RAN and sustainable work for local yards.
 

t68

Well-Known Member
Only thing I fear the most is that they will finally give the shipbuilders a plan to move forward untill the next change of goverment comes in and unravels the plan, whish there was some way to mandate a certain level of commitment from whoever is in power at the time
 

hairyman

Active Member
Why do we need 7'000 ton frigates? I fancy the T26 design, which has everything the Hobart class ships have. Are the Hobarts as well armed as the Spanish F100's?
 

oldsig127

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Why do we need 7'000 ton frigates? I fancy the T26 design, which has everything the Hobart class ships have. Are the Hobarts as well armed as the Spanish F100's?
The Type 26 IS a 7,000 ton frigate (or will be)

The RAN AWD and the Spanish sister ships are armed close enough to identically - same gun, VLS, and Harpoon, but different torpedoes (MU90 vs Mk46)

There will be minor differences in light calibre weapons

oldsig127
 

hairyman

Active Member
From what I have just read the F100 was 5'800 tonnes, the F105 just over 6'000 tonnes. How has the Hobart class reached 7000 tonnes?
 

oldsig127

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
From what I have just read the F100 was 5'800 tonnes, the F105 just over 6'000 tonnes. How has the Hobart class reached 7000 tonnes?
Yes, displacement is about 7,000 *short* tons, so 6,200 tonnes or thereabouts which accords with you, though I never mentioned the AWD desplacement.

My point was (for the previous poster) that the Type 26 as currently envisioned is not a smaller vessel with a displacement in the 6500 tonne range (edit: if weight doesn't creep)

oldsig127
 
Last edited:

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
From what I have just read the F100 was 5'800 tonnes, the F105 just over 6'000 tonnes. How has the Hobart class reached 7000 tonnes?
7,000t with its growth margins.

Most multirole frigates are now in the 5-7,000t region. They are all within a few metres of each other in dimensions. The F-125 frigate, which I would certainly would be in consideration is 7,200 t. Big frigate ~150m long 19m wide. Which is about 20cm wide and 3m longer than a F-105.
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Why do we need 7'000 ton frigates? I fancy the T26 design, which has everything the Hobart class ships have. Are the Hobarts as well armed as the Spanish F100's?
Because larger ships can do things smaller ships can't, they are more flexible, capable, easier to maintain and upgrade as well as easier to adapt to changing requirements. While it is nice to have a large fleet with a sufficient number of tailored platforms for each job the fact is the RAN will likely never have more than about a dozen major surface combatants, meaning each of them needs to be as capable and flexible as we can afford.
 

Stampede

Well-Known Member
7,000t with its growth margins.

Most multirole frigates are now in the 5-7,000t region. They are all within a few metres of each other in dimensions. The F-125 frigate, which I would certainly would be in consideration is 7,200 t. Big frigate ~150m long 19m wide. Which is about 20cm wide and 3m longer than a F-105.
If the report comes true then exciting days ahead for the Navy.
While I appreciate that the valley of death is to alliviate any lull and loss of skill in the ship building industry.
My question is, what sort of life is left in the two younger FFG's Melbourne and Newcastle and also that of the ANZAC class?
I understand that with the upgrade to the FFG air warfare capability together with their strong existing ASW capacity the ships are still some of the best in this part of the world and if so, suggest still have some relevence.
The ANZAC's are currently progressing through what appears to be a very successful upgrade to their air defence system and as such are a much improved and potent warship.
I do understand the needs and benefits of larger ships and of course we cannot predict the future and our naval defence needs.
However whats the main driver?
Is it preventing the valley of death or is it a need for better ships now?
I'm not of an opinion one way or the other but some knowlegde of our existing fleets longevity may give us some options as to what to build and when.
 

Punta74

Member
Subscribers only. Is it possible to give a slightly more expansive summary?

oldsig127
AFR article.

by*John Kerin

Prime Minister Tony Abbott has promised to ensure a constant flow of work to shipyards to ensure the Royal Australian Navy is equipped to meet any seaborne threat.

Three*major shipbuilders, Melbourne based BAE Systems Australia and Newcastle based Forgacs and Adelaide based ASC, are all laying off staff due to*the stop start nature of warship work.

The layoffs have been triggered by a wind-down in work on the*$9 billion project to build three air warfare destroyers for the Navy.*

Mr Abbott, in a speech on the future of defence in Canberra on Thursday, said the Abbott government would soon have more to say on a plan to restructure shipbuilding to ensure there were no gaps between projects to avoid layoffs.

The government is expected to outline how it will manage the $25 billion program to build up to nine frigates for the Royal Australian Navy.

Mr Abbott said notwithstanding the "cost blowouts and delays" associated with the $9 billion Adelaide*based program the govenrment remained committed to a local naval shipbuilding*industry.

He also made special mention of Perth based shipbuilder Austal which is building littoral combat ships and frigates for the US Navy which he said demonstrated "Australia can successfully build surface warships under the right conditions".

ASX listed*Austal has indicated*it is interested in buying Adelaide based shipbuilder ASC*and it is understood the firm*has*urged the federal*government to consider*the aluminium hulled*warships it is building for the US Navy for the Royal Australian Navy frigate project - though it is also willing to build conventional steel vessels.

The Department of Finance is examining options for the future sale of ASC including hiving off the*shipbuilding and submarine businesses.*

"It is the government's intention to develop continuous build of major warships in Australia to avoid the unproductive on-again off again cycle that has done the industry so much damage," Mr Abbott said on Thursday.

"There will be further announcements about naval shipbuilding in the next few weeks," he said.

Mr Abbott in a speech to build on the government's dominance on national security also pledged it would stick to its promise in a defence white paper to be released later this year to boost defence spending to 2 per cent of GDP or more than $50 billion a year by 2022-23.

The defence whitepaper will lay*out the government's vision for the nation's security*over the next 20 years and will include an ambitious $275 billion plus weapons wishlist including new ships, fighter jets and armoured vehicles.

"First and foremost our armed forces should be capable of successfully repelling any regional adversary and inflicting very severe damage on any attacker," Mr Abbott said.

"But because Australia does have global interests, our armed forces should be capable of contributing proportionately to our allies military operations around the globe," Mr Abbott said.

But the Labor Opposition has complained Mr Abbott's shipbuilding plan*has come too late with BAE laying off hundreds of workers and considering closing its Melbourne shipyard, Forgacs threatening to close by Christmas and Adelaide based shipbuilder shedding*120 jobs.

In a joint statement, Shadow defence spokesman Stephen Conroy and assistant defence spokesman David Feeney said the government's decision last year to award a refuelling ship tender to an offshore contractor had "sent shockwaves through the shipbuilding industry".

"The Abbott government is decimating Australia's sovereign shipbuilding capabilities," it said.

A review of the shipbuilding industry carried out by the US based Rand Corporation released in April said the industry needs to rationalise, lift productivity and be provided with a constant flow of new projects to be viable.

It said*the industry needs to shrink from its current size of about 5000 workers down to 2000 long term, comprising no more than one or two shipbuilders to build some of the $80 billion work of warships the country needs over the next two decades.

*
 

Bluey 006

Active Member
AFR article.

by*John Kerin

Prime Minister Tony Abbott has promised to ensure a constant flow of work to shipyards to ensure the Royal Australian Navy is equipped to meet any seaborne threat.

Three*major shipbuilders, Melbourne based BAE Systems Australia and Newcastle based Forgacs and Adelaide based ASC, are all laying off staff due to*the stop start nature of warship work.

The layoffs have been triggered by a wind-down in work on the*$9 billion project to build three air warfare destroyers for the Navy.*

Mr Abbott, in a speech on the future of defence in Canberra on Thursday, said the Abbott government would soon have more to say on a plan to restructure shipbuilding to ensure there were no gaps between projects to avoid layoffs.

The government is expected to outline how it will manage the $25 billion program to build up to nine frigates for the Royal Australian Navy.

Mr Abbott said notwithstanding the "cost blowouts and delays" associated with the $9 billion Adelaide*based program the govenrment remained committed to a local naval shipbuilding*industry.

He also made special mention of Perth based shipbuilder Austal which is building littoral combat ships and frigates for the US Navy which he said demonstrated "Australia can successfully build surface warships under the right conditions".

ASX listed*Austal has indicated*it is interested in buying Adelaide based shipbuilder ASC*and it is understood the firm*has*urged the federal*government to consider*the aluminium hulled*warships it is building for the US Navy for the Royal Australian Navy frigate project - though it is also willing to build conventional steel vessels.

The Department of Finance is examining options for the future sale of ASC including hiving off the*shipbuilding and submarine businesses.*

"It is the government's intention to develop continuous build of major warships in Australia to avoid the unproductive on-again off again cycle that has done the industry so much damage," Mr Abbott said on Thursday.

"There will be further announcements about naval shipbuilding in the next few weeks," he said.

Mr Abbott in a speech to build on the government's dominance on national security also pledged it would stick to its promise in a defence white paper to be released later this year to boost defence spending to 2 per cent of GDP or more than $50 billion a year by 2022-23.

The defence whitepaper will lay*out the government's vision for the nation's security*over the next 20 years and will include an ambitious $275 billion plus weapons wishlist including new ships, fighter jets and armoured vehicles.

"First and foremost our armed forces should be capable of successfully repelling any regional adversary and inflicting very severe damage on any attacker," Mr Abbott said.

"But because Australia does have global interests, our armed forces should be capable of contributing proportionately to our allies military operations around the globe," Mr Abbott said.

But the Labor Opposition has complained Mr Abbott's shipbuilding plan*has come too late with BAE laying off hundreds of workers and considering closing its Melbourne shipyard, Forgacs threatening to close by Christmas and Adelaide based shipbuilder shedding*120 jobs.

In a joint statement, Shadow defence spokesman Stephen Conroy and assistant defence spokesman David Feeney said the government's decision last year to award a refuelling ship tender to an offshore contractor had "sent shockwaves through the shipbuilding industry".

"The Abbott government is decimating Australia's sovereign shipbuilding capabilities," it said.

A review of the shipbuilding industry carried out by the US based Rand Corporation released in April said the industry needs to rationalise, lift productivity and be provided with a constant flow of new projects to be viable.

It said*the industry needs to shrink from its current size of about 5000 workers down to 2000 long term, comprising no more than one or two shipbuilders to build some of the $80 billion work of warships the country needs over the next two decades.

*
Nine frigates sounds promising, I have long felt that nine was the right number for the frigates, makes the "rule of thirds" a lot more workable
 

ADMk2

Just a bloke
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Because larger ships can do things smaller ships can't, they are more flexible, capable, easier to maintain and upgrade as well as easier to adapt to changing requirements. While it is nice to have a large fleet with a sufficient number of tailored platforms for each job the fact is the RAN will likely never have more than about a dozen major surface combatants, meaning each of them needs to be as capable and flexible as we can afford.
For a nation our size. I think a dozen warships with capability equal to or greater than the AWD's provide, is probably the best we can expect. Especially if we have to build them locally under the conditions we seem to build them under and the premium that seems to incur, rather than those (politically motivated...) that actually make for efficient ship-building.

What we really need then is enough subs to provide a truly potent force (with appropriate long range strike capabilities in varying domains) and an Ocean going patrol fleet (OCV if you will) that can take the 'Constabulary' role off the frigates we currently use for the job.

I think then we should be looking for an airborne sensor capability that can go with our frigates to sea, to maximise the range of our future SM-6 capability and investigate a NIFC-CA type capability for joint air defence between our platforms and allies.

If we can get all that in place and sorted, maybe then we can look into F-35B's again...

:D
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
For a nation our size. I think a dozen warships with capability equal to or greater than the AWD's provide, is probably the best we can expect. Especially if we have to build them locally under the conditions we seem to build them under and the premium that seems to incur, rather than those (politically motivated...) that actually make for efficient ship-building.

What we really need then is enough subs to provide a truly potent force (with appropriate long range strike capabilities in varying domains) and an Ocean going patrol fleet (OCV if you will) that can take the 'Constabulary' role off the frigates we currently use for the job.

I think then we should be looking for an airborne sensor capability that can go with our frigates to sea, to maximise the range of our future SM-6 capability and investigate a NIFC-CA type capability for joint air defence between our platforms and allies.

If we can get all that in place and sorted, maybe then we can look into F-35B's again...

:D
What I would really like to see, once shipbuilding is moving at a sustainable takt (takt time-the average unit production time needed to meet customer demand) is the development of a DDH to, as an absolute minimum, embark a flight of AEW helicopters and additional naval combat helicopters (MH-60R) and VTOL UCAV. Such a ship could be substantially cheaper than an AWD or new generation frigate and could actually be significantly smaller (think Chakri Naruebet) but ideally would share common systems with the destroyers / frigates, including propulsion, but potentially also combat system, including sensors and some weapon systems.

I am not saying these ships should be built immediately but rather, once the continual build strategy has settled down, that the surface combatant force be supplemented with DDHs which would make up between a fifth and an third of the major combatant fleet. Basically they should be built instead of three destroyers / frigates or in addition to them, i.e. replacing existing majors 3 DDH and 9 DDG, 4 DDH and 8 DDG, or if numbers are increased 3 DDH and 12 DDG, or my preferred 5 DDH and 10 DDG. I have used DDG because logically the new frigates should be at least as capable as the AWDs. They would be ideal for deploying new generation UCAVs as well as the more obvious Romeos, Sierras, Crowsnest and F-35Bs.

The next step would be to progressively evolve the OPV into OCV / LCS or light frigates, improving each generation as experience building, maintaining and operating the type increases confidence and highlights areas the type could expand to fill.

Remember technology is continually improving, propulsion systems providing more power for lower fuel burn and greater reliability, smaller crews, improved sensors, all for lower comparative cost. Just look at the capability ASMD delivers the ANZACs it is not difficult to imagine this could be exceeded by a system on a 2000t combatant within 20 years.
 

vonnoobie

Well-Known Member
For a nation our size. I think a dozen warships with capability equal to or greater than the AWD's provide, is probably the best we can expect. Especially if we have to build them locally under the conditions we seem to build them under and the premium that seems to incur, rather than those (politically motivated...) that actually make for efficient ship-building.

What we really need then is enough subs to provide a truly potent force (with appropriate long range strike capabilities in varying domains) and an Ocean going patrol fleet (OCV if you will) that can take the 'Constabulary' role off the frigates we currently use for the job.

I think then we should be looking for an airborne sensor capability that can go with our frigates to sea, to maximise the range of our future SM-6 capability and investigate a NIFC-CA type capability for joint air defence between our platforms and allies.

If we can get all that in place and sorted, maybe then we can look into F-35B's again...

:D
Personally I reckon we could handle more then a dozen large combatants but that would involve a 30 year build up plan and having politicians keep there mouth's shut (Im dreaming I know). I reckon we could handle up to 18 Destroyers/Frigates but I'll agree a force that size is unlikely to ever occur.

Since we are likely to only have the 12 I reckon the 20 or so OPV's/OCV's should at least be fitted for (but not with) Harpoons, MU90's, Towed sonar and a VLS system, Likely loaded with ESSM's and a CEA radar (Scaled down version of one being fitted to the Anzac's). In a worst case scenario they could make decent enough escort's.

As to the submarines, From my understanding rule of thumb say's that we can only have a third of them deployed outside of Australia's region at any one time, Rather then having politicians tells us we need 6, 8, 10 or 12 does any one have a rough idea on the minimum number we need actively deployed at any one time outside of Australia?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top