Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[John Newman]

One of the latest CG rendering for F110 can be seen here:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/images/f110-image03.jpg
and
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/images/f110-line1.gif

The hull looks somewhat evolved from the F105, a little more LO design incorporated, or so it seems.

Everything that I've read about the F-110 points to it being a scaled down version of the F-105, more along the lines of the Norwegian Fridtjof Nansen-class frigates.

If that's the case, then it's a backward step in my opinion, cuts down the potential for growth in the years ahead, same problem the Anzac's suffer from too.

In some situations, 'size does count!'.

 

[John Newman]

I would not write an evolution of the F105 hull off just yet noting Navantia have displayed a 'future frigate' version of the the F105 last year. This option has not been formally ruled out by defence and there is some suggestion it is still firmly in the race. There are some significant benifits to continuing wiht the current hull form in getting this project up and running for a first Steel cut in 4 years.

Certainly wouldn't disagree with you, especially since the plan to start cutting steel has been brought forward to 2020.

My comment is purely based on what I had read (if that can be believed) that the evolved AWD hull for the Future Frigate appeared to be dropped or out of favour.

And if that is the case, then to me the Meko A-400 would probably be the choice over the remaining contender, the French FREMM.

Time will tell!

 

[alexsa]

Everything that I've read about the F-110 points to it being a scaled down version of the F-105, more along the lines of the Norwegian Fridtjof Nansen-class frigates.

If that's the case, then it's a backward step in my opinion, cuts down the potential for growth in the years ahead, same problem the Anzac's suffer from too.

In some situations, 'size does count!'.

That and the fact the project definition phase was only reported as being approved in October 2015 meaning this is very much a paper vessel. Steel cutting in 2020 would mean the design will need to be mature well before that date to set up for build.

 

[alexsa]

Certainly wouldn't disagree with you, especially since the plan to start cutting steel has been brought forward to 2020.

My comment is purely based on what I had read (if that can be believed) that the evolved AWD hull for the Future Frigate appeared to be dropped or out of favour.

And if that is the case, then to me the Meko A-400 would probably be the choice over the remaining contender, the French FREMM.

Time will tell!

To be honest I would not mind if the first batch were on F105 hull and the morphed to anther design while batch 1 is in build. However, retooling, always has an impact.

Building the same design over a long period has advantages but you need to update the equipment carried as the hulls come off the building way. The batch process addresses that. Failure to do that means that the last vessel may carry a lot of obsolete gear from the day they commission.

Basically long term configuration management and batch variation appears to be something we need to build into this.

I suspect I am overly optimistic

 

[John Newman]

To be honest I would not mind if the first batch were on F105 hull and the morphed to anther design while batch 1 is in build. However, retooling, always has an impact.

Building the same design over a long period has advantages but you need to update the equipment carried as the hulls come off the building way. The batch process addresses that. Failure to do that means that the last vessel may carry a lot of obsolete gear from the day they commission.

Basically long term configuration management and batch variation appears to be something we need to build into this.

I suspect I am overly optimistic

I'm in two minds about the F-105 hull being reused for the Future Frigate.

On the one hand bringing forward the cutting of steel to 2020 would appear on the surface to point to the fact that it would be 'continuation' of much of the AWD work that has gone before.

But, this is the big 'but' to me, how many of the people that were cutting the first steel and building the blocks for the AWD's still be around to start the whole 'almost repeat' process over again? I suspect not.

As it is now, Hobart is in the water, Brisbane is getting close to complete block consolidation and Sydney is probably well on her way.

Everything is a process and there are stages of the process, I would imagine that 'cutting of steel' is pretty well done and dusted, block manufacture would be getting pretty close to winding up too, but of course block consolidation still has a way to go.

My point is basically, with all the various stages that a ship is constructed (using today's methods), how many of the people that were involved in the first stage still around? And more importantly how many will be around in 2020??

So does it really matter that much, is it critical that from a continuity point of view that the AWD hull be chosen for the Future Frigate?

If back in the Rudd/Gillard Government days a 4th AWD had been ordered, then the processes above would still be happening and if the Future Frigate was still starting the 'cutting steel' process in 2020, then it would be more of a continuous process.

Anyway, just a thought.

 

[ngatimozart]

To be honest I would not mind if the first batch were on F105 hull and the morphed to anther design while batch 1 is in build. However, retooling, always has an impact.

Building the same design over a long period has advantages but you need to update the equipment carried as the hulls come off the building way. The batch process addresses that. Failure to do that means that the last vessel may carry a lot of obsolete gear from the day they commission.

Basically long term configuration management and batch variation appears to be something we need to build into this.

I suspect I am overly optimistic

Just playing a bit of a devils advocate here.

If you went ahead with a F105 hull build wouldn't that be advantageous in that, apart from the hull shape, you basically will be starting with a clean sheet and can then construct the class to all your specs, without having to adapt another design, say the F125, Meko A400 or the T26 etc,? What I'm getting at is, you get to stipulate everything from power plants / power sources to sensors etc., and how the ship is fitted out right from the beginning. Small and not so small things like cable and pipe placements so that they are easily accessible without having to pull down bulkheads, decks and deckheads just to change them, placement of mission bays etc., without that being predetermined by a foreign supplier etc.

 

[ASSAIL]

Just playing a bit of a devils advocate here.

If you went ahead with a F105 hull build wouldn't that be advantageous in that, apart from the hull shape, you basically will be starting with a clean sheet and can then construct the class to all your specs, without having to adapt another design, say the F125, Meko A400 or the T26 etc,? What I'm getting at is, you get to stipulate everything from power plants / power sources to sensors etc., and how the ship is fitted out right from the beginning. Small and not so small things like cable and pipe placements so that they are easily accessible without having to pull down bulkheads, decks and deckheads just to change them, placement of mission bays etc., without that being predetermined by a foreign supplier etc.

The modern design philosophy is modular therefor the customer can choose the power configuration, sensors etc.
The basic platform spends years in the design stage using CAD for all the various requirements such as those you mention, cable and pipe runs, especially penetrations etc.
An experienced builder will have already used those platform drawings and determined where the hiccups are, such as where any deviation from the drawings is required ad nauseum. Most times it's the production foremen who find and solve those hiccups which cannot be perceived from the drawings and this takes time to rectify and document. This is why the build gets easier and quicker as the numbers and experience increase. It's the design as well as the workforce which finesses.
Such will be the case for FREMM, F125/MEKO 400 and T26 (if a few have been built before our build commences).
If we have an evolved F105 with a different propulsion system, our build will be the first of type and all the problems will reappear.
So, if our polices decide on anything other than MOTS there's trouble awaiting. Let the "evolved" part be in sync with the modularity and leave the basic platform alone.

 

[Blas de Lezo]

One of the latest CG rendering for F110 can be seen here:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/images/f110-image03.jpg
and
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/images/f110-line1.gif

The hull looks somewhat evolved from the F105, a little more LO design incorporated, or so it seems.

I am afraid that is just a design made for ( what they call) project 11x by a couple of very talented rendering "aficionados " called Santi and RGS3. Nothing to do with Navantia.
It looks more to do with the Navantia LF4000 of Light Frigate or the project for SA, 5 light frigates (corvettes) on steroids. It is said that contract is very close to be signed.

The most likely look for the F110 if CeaFar is chosen by Armada will be something like this
http://www.navantia.es/ckfinder/userfiles/files/sala_pr/fragatasf110.pdf
However, There were some comments in the local press ( Galician press) about the offer to Australia being of a bigger ship than the F110, some sort of evolved 105 , bespoke for Australia and using as many commonalities as possible or required.

But...... We are not getting much of the way of news coming out from both projects since the CNI- CESID ( Spanish Inteligence) detected a special interest from one of your big northern neighbours.

El CNI se moviliza para proteger la fragata F-110 contra el espionaje

Last we know about Sea 5000 is the presentation during pacific 2015

Navantia presenta su modelo de fragata para el programa SEA 5000 australiano - Noticias Infodefensa España

PACIFIC 2015: Pictures of the Contenders for the Australian Navy SEA5000 ASW Frigate Program

 

[StingrayOZ]

IMO I would not be surprised if the frigate replacement was as big if not bigger than the AWD. As much as there was feedback that 7,000t is "too big" I think that is realistically, the small size. If 7,000t is too expensive, then the F-105 has a running head start.

I think the F-105 concept has merit, but depends how its done and how extensive. Best case scenario, you have a very cheap and near instantaneous build, with all the features and system we want, with great commonality. What you save on the hull you can throw into systems, sensors or missiles or what ever.

I guess its like anything, the devil is in the execution and the details. I think the F-125 is the benchmark, if we were deciding in a vacuum, and cost was irrelevant, it is probably the newest hull shape, ticks all the key boxes, two helos, ASW, 48 cells, flex deck, low crewing, high availability, newest systems out of the box.

Then again I think what could be achieved with an updated F-105. However, to fit things on our frigates I wouldn't be surprised if you had to lengthen it if your going to keep the same VLS and other features (which we would). I wonder if they can get the crewing down to that ~125 odd.

What we want is a F-105 evolved. Much like the F-125 evolved from the F-124. But will the hull basically the same (longer?) but everything else modern and improved.

Either way, RAN would look pretty formidable with either packing SM-6, Auspar, Tomahawk, etc.

 

[swerve]

Certainly wouldn't disagree with you, especially since the plan to start cutting steel has been brought forward to 2020.

My comment is purely based on what I had read (if that can be believed) that the evolved AWD hull for the Future Frigate appeared to be dropped or out of favour.

And if that is the case, then to me the Meko A-400 would probably be the choice over the remaining contender, the French FREMM.

Time will tell!

There's also the Italian FREMM. Fincantieri is pitching it separately from DCNS. It's not identical.

 

[Volkodav]

I would like to see a an evaluation of how much a second batch of two or three full blown Hobarts would cost verses the various frigate options being discussed. If its cost is not too far of the frigate cost then order them and use the extra time to better evaluate the frigate options before ordering six or so of them. I wouldn't be surprised, so long as too much damage hasn't already been done to the shipbuilders here, that three plus three Hobarts, plus six new frigates, without a shipbuilding black hole may not be much, if any more expensive than the current three Hobarts, blackhole, three rushed OPVs and a rushed frigate project.

 

[John Fedup]

There's also the Italian FREMM. Fincantieri is pitching it separately from DCNS. It's not identical.

The Italian FREMM has some interesting differences besides being a little heavier. The Italian build program is currently outpacing the French program. Surprising it doesn't get the attention the French version gets.

 

[vonnoobie]

I would like to see a an evaluation of how much a second batch of two or three full blown Hobarts would cost verses the various frigate options being discussed. If its cost is not too far of the frigate cost then order them and use the extra time to better evaluate the frigate options before ordering six or so of them. I wouldn't be surprised, so long as too much damage hasn't already been done to the shipbuilders here, that three plus three Hobarts, plus six new frigates, without a shipbuilding black hole may not be much, if any more expensive than the current three Hobarts, blackhole, three rushed OPVs and a rushed frigate project.

Agreed, It is the only solution that we could start on immediatly without any major risks involved. While many would have moved on there should still be enough around to get the production lines back up with resonably reduced risk.

Only issue I see occuring is it possibly pushing back the Frigate built which is good for the design/risk mitigation factors but bad for the Anzac's as they will end up being kept in service much longer.

 

[rockitten]

I would like to see a an evaluation of how much a second batch of two or three full blown Hobarts would cost verses the various frigate options being discussed. If its cost is not too far of the frigate cost then order them and use the extra time to better evaluate the frigate options before ordering six or so of them. I wouldn't be surprised, so long as too much damage hasn't already been done to the shipbuilders here, that three plus three Hobarts, plus six new frigates, without a shipbuilding black hole may not be much, if any more expensive than the current three Hobarts, blackhole, three rushed OPVs and a rushed frigate project.

The AWD project has got such a bad name now, it will be hard to sell this idea to the politicians.

BTW, now USN is switching to AMDR for their Burke flight III, does AEGIS system (SPY-1 family) still in production?

 

[vonnoobie]

The AWD project has got such a bad name now, it will be hard to sell this idea to the politicians.

BTW, now USN is switching to AMDR for their Burke flight III, does AEGIS system (SPY-1 family) still in production?

Technically still in production, Just not mass production. All future SPY-1 family Aegis systems will rely in export's unless there is a change in future USN acquisition.

Still a half dozen or so on the drawing board with the South Korean KDX-IIA (planned for 6 but not confirmed). It may make it more costly to acquire SPY-1 due to ordering to build rather then buying off of a relatively continuous production line.

 

[John Newman]

The AWD project has got such a bad name now, it will be hard to sell this idea to the politicians.

BTW, now USN is switching to AMDR for their Burke flight III, does AEGIS system (SPY-1 family) still in production?

Talking about AEGIS, have a look at this:

Japan – DDG (guided missile destroyer) 7 and 8 AEGIS Combat System (ACS), Underwater Weapon System (UWS), and Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) | The Official Home of the Defense Security Cooperation Agency


As you will see this is from the US DSCA website, Japan has ordered two AEGIS combat systems from the US for it's 7th and 8th AEGIS Destroyer (with all the other associated equipment too).

The cost of those two systems is US$1.5B, or at the current A$ exchange rate (US$1 is equal to A$.70), end result is, A$2.13B.

Japan is paying just over A$1B per system for those two ships, and yes it does include a lot of other equipment and systems associated with AEGIS, but still A$1B per ship.

So before you even talk about the hull itself and all the other things associated with building that hull, the bill will start off with an approx. A$1B per ship for AEGIS and it's associated systems.

Not exactly small change!!!

 

[vonnoobie]

It is not just Aegis systems being acquired, a quick glance through the list will show VLS systems, BMD capabilities and all the other various systems that go into outfitting a ship so it is no $1 billion per an Aegis system. Everything ordered is a large chunk of what you would need to outfit a ship so the cost is actually quite reasonable.

If cost of the Aegis is what you are after then a better source to find out the cost of a first time customer would be the Auditor general report on the AWD (2013-14) http://www.anao.gov.au/~/media/Files/Audit%20Reports/2013%202014/Audit%20Report%2022/AuditReport_2013-2014_22.pdf, Check out page 236 to be exact as it breaks down the cost of it between management, acquisition, technical support etc etc. Excluding all other costs just to buy the systems (along with support equipment and spares) you are looking at $231.1 USD million a piece.

 

[John Newman]

It is not just Aegis systems being acquired, a quick glance through the list will show VLS systems, BMD capabilities and all the other various systems that go into outfitting a ship so it is no $1 billion per an Aegis system. Everything ordered is a large chunk of what you would need to outfit a ship so the cost is actually quite reasonable.

If cost of the Aegis is what you are after then a better source to find out the cost of a first time customer would be the Auditor general report on the AWD (2013-14) http://www.anao.gov.au/~/media/Files/Audit%20Reports/2013%202014/Audit%20Report%2022/AuditReport_2013-2014_22.pdf, Check out page 236 to be exact as it breaks down the cost of it between management, acquisition, technical support etc etc. Excluding all other costs just to buy the systems (along with support equipment and spares) you are looking at $231.1 USD million a piece.

If you actually read what I said, it wasn't 'just' the AEGIS system, I clearly said (without listing everything single piece, because it was listed in the DSCA website link), "with all the other associated equipment too".

My point was, and still is, that there is approx. A$1B in expenditure 'before' you talk about the hull itself.

 

[vonnoobie]

If you actually read what I said, it wasn't 'just' the AEGIS system, I clearly said (without listing everything single piece, because it was listed in the DSCA website link), "with all the other associated equipment too".

My point was, and still is, that there is approx. A$1B in expenditure 'before' you talk about the hull itself.

Actually you implied it all to be related to Aegis

and yes it does include a lot of other equipment and systems associated with AEGIS

when quite a bit of it has nothing at all to do with Aegis.

That all aside, $1 billion AUD per a ship is no great expenditure, It is generally well within the norm's. As it is the 2 ships they are purchasing are planned in at just under $1.5 billion USD each for a BMD capable ship is a bargain, There is literally nothing that we can nit pick at about the purchase.

 

[Volkodav]

This is why I suggested an evaluation into how much it would cost to order an additional batch of AWDs vs proceeding with the current frigate replacement schedule. My thinking is determine the extra cost of the AEGIS specific items, less the SEA5000 specific items an AEGIS ship wouldn't require, then take the resulting figure and compare to to the anticipated costs of having to rebuild capability for SEA5000, estimated delays, schedule slips, cost over runs experienced in the early AWDs as well as the Australian built FFGs, compared to the ANZAC project that had the advantage of starting on a hot line, straight after the FFGs.

I am suggesting we look at the big picture over the long term, something our governments (well actually the bureaucracies, consultancies etc.) have not traditionally proven too good at doing. Some of the additional AWDs could be factored in as replacements for early ANZACs resulting in the same overall numbers, just a different mix of types.