Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

Status
Not open for further replies.

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
I am either confused or don't understand the scenario re Collins replacement, from what I've read quite a lot of people are totting the Soryu as the safer option of the other two options, yet if we did go down the Soryu path it would not likely be a mots buy and would be an evolved Soryu, isn't this the exact same concept re sizing up the Type 214 into a type 216? Essentially taking a current sub/tech and evolving into an evolved/larger version?
No because the Soryu is already a platform that is mature, closer to the Australian requirements than anything that the Europeans can offer or hope to offer, is a very highly regarded boat by the USN, operates in a similar operational environment to the RAN requirements, and the Japanese run a continual build and upgrade with them, hence in many ways it's the best option. Finally and most importantly out of all the contenders it is the least risky option because it is in the water, doesn't involve a major upscaling of an existing design which is quite risky and is not a paper boat.
 

KiwiRob

Well-Known Member
why in gods name would we buy a critical asset like a sub from companies where their only interest is as a box flogger? they have no strategic interest in the region - unlike the japanese who have a vested interest, politically, strategically, tactically etc etc.... france and germany do not
Are you sure about France, or has French Polynesia and New Caledonia escaped your attention. They have nearly 600,000 citizens living in our part of the world.
 

vonnoobie

Well-Known Member
An article in the Australian, For those that have issues getting that single free daily read here it is. Appears the Danes have thrown there hat into the ring with the Iver Huitfeldt class frigate.

Navy frigates in a $30bn race to the future


Denmark is offering its 6650-tonne Iver Huitfeldt frigates, modified with the antisubmarine warfare focus Australia wants.

Denmark’s biggest selling point is that the Iver Huitfeldt boats are significantly cheaper to build.

Denmark is offering its 6650-tonne Iver Huitfeldt frigates, modified with the antisubmarine warfare focus Australia wants.

Denmark’s biggest selling point is that the Iver Huitfeldt boats are significantly cheaper to build.
12
Images

Per Hesselberg leans forward in his chair, a portrait of his queen *behind him, and explains why Denmark should design our new fleet of warships. “We are the country of Lego,’” the Danish navy captain says with a smile.

“And our frigates are like Lego frigates … they are built from blocks and are flexible, multi-role ships, so that you can pluck and play with and create exactly the warship you want.”

Outside Hesselberg’s office, winter rain sweeps across the *Korsor Naval Base in a remote pocket of *Denmark, almost obliterating the giant grey frigate moored in the distance.

If Denmark has its way, that frigate will form the rump of Australia’s future navy.

It’s the least they could do, the Danes joke, for Australia giving them their beloved Tasmanian-born princess Mary.

To do this, Denmark will need to fend off at least five other larger nations circling like vultures to grab the second largest Defence contract in Australia’s history, the $30 billion project to build nine new frigates.

Since the defence white paper was released last month, the headlines have been all about the $50bn future submarines — while the *Future Frigate project largely sails under the radar.

But in many ways the stakes *involved in building the fleet of navy frigates to replace the eight Anzac-class frigates are just as high as for the submarines — and certainly more immediate.

Unlike the future submarines, which will not be built until the early 2030s, the government promises it will begin cutting steel on the new frigates in Adelaide in 2020 — almost tomorrow in shipbuilding terms.

What’s more, the success or failure of this project will determine the future of the nation’s struggling shipbuilding industry and thousands of jobs.

For the first time, it will herald the start of a continuous shipbuilding project, ensuring a rolling-*production line of frigates into the future.

The glittering prize of the *Future Frigate contract has *captured attention at the highest levels in Paris, Madrid, Rome, London and Copenhagen as each capital steps up its lobbying campaign to seduce Australia’s Defence officials.

Yet already the project is *tainted by controversy and shrouded in secrecy. Defence will barely speak about it — it took four days for The Australian to *elicit fundamental answers about the *project.

Defence refuses to say which countries are bidding or even what size warships the navy wants. The Australian understands there are five defence giants and one minnow in the race. These *include the industrial powerhouses of *Britain, France, Germany, Italy and Spain.

Then there is Denmark, the enfant terrible of the competition and a country with a proud sea*faring tradition. “Why not Denmark,” Hesselberg asks as we lunch in the naval base’s Viking room under a painting of a Viking boat in stormy seas.

“We have come up with a *frigate where you get value for money and which can match anything with the capability of its weapons, its stealth, acoustics, sensors and its endurance. You can sail from Denmark here to Indonesia on one tank of fuel. That is very unusual.”

As with almost every aspect of Australia’s troubled naval shipbuilding industry, the project to *replace the navy’s Anzac frigates from the mid-2020s, known inside Defence as SEA 5000, is buffeted by politics and controversy.

In 2014, the government was unnerved by the huge blowouts in cost and schedule for the building of the three air warfare destroyers in Melbourne and *Adelaide. (The three AWDs and nine new frigates will form the firepower of the future surface fleet.)

So it commissioned a study to see if it could create some economy of scale by using the same hull of the AWD, designed by Spanish shipbuilder Navantia, as the base for the Future Frigate.

Other *competitors for the frigate contract cried foul, saying that this gave Navantia an unfair *advantage. Navantia claims this study showed that its AWD hull could be adapted to meet the *requirements of the Future Frigate program, but Defence refuses to *divulge the results of the study, which concluded in September, saying only, “No decision has been made on whether this particular option will progress.”

Also, early last year, there was an internal row within Defence over the frigates.

The navy presented Defence Secretary Dennis Richardson with a plan that called for its new frigates to be super warships, at twice the size and with twice the firepower of the Anzac-class boats.

Richardson threw the proposal back at the navy, asking it to refine its wishlist to a more affordable ship.

Even so, the final negotiated outcome for the Future Frigate is understood to be a substantially larger warship, in the range of 6000 tonnes to 7000 tonnes, compared with the 3800-tonne Anzac boats.

The Future Frigates will have more firepower than any previous Royal Australian Navy *warship — a capability the navy believes is essential when China is investing billions on *developing a navy that can project power far from its shores.

By *having a strong antisubmarine focus, the frigates will be able to complement and support the navy’s 12 new submarines.

In August, the Future Frigate program was again turned upside down when Tony Abbott became panicked by poor opinion polls in the shipbuilding state of South Australia. The then prime minister rewrote the shipbuilding schedule to try to save jobs and win votes by bringing forward the construction schedule for the new frigates by two years, from 2022 to 2020.

Experts say that by fast-tracking such a complex project for political purposes the government has increased the risk and dangers associated with the future frigate program.

The government said the move would save more than 500 jobs by reducing the gap *between the end of the AWD project and the start of the frigate construction, which will be a rolling build.

But, shipbuilding expert Mark Thomson of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute says: “The frigate project is at least as risky, if not more risky, than the AWD project.” He says the expectation that the frigates will need to be modified to fit US combat and weapons systems and the CEAFAR radar used on the Anzacs was already risky enough without bringing the schedule forward.

“We are going to cut steel on the frigates earlier than we would have, not because there is anything wrong with the Anzacs,” Thomson tells The Australian.

“I don’t think it is a dark secret that this is all about addressing South Australia’s expectations about being provided a more or less continuous line of work to keep things going.”

The Abbott decision to bring forward the project means that Defence has had to rush its processes. In October, a few months after Abbott’s announcement, *Defence began its so-called competitive evaluation process — a global search for the right frigate for *Australia.

The secretive Rand Corporation was engaged to help evaluate suitable designs from around the world, and through this process a long list of potential bidders was drawn up. This also has annoyed some of the larger bidders for the project. They say Rand Corp had asked them for details of highly sensitive stealth features of their boats — details some were reluctant to provide.

“The Rand Corp was engaged to assist with the gathering and analysis of information to support the analysis of alternatives,” a *Defence spokesman says.

“The first step is identification of the mature ship design options available in the market, and then narrowing of the field of designs for further development. A number of designers/builders are involved in this process but their names cannot yet be made public.”

The defence white paper provided little detail on the *frigate *project beyond saying that Australia will build nine new frigates in Adelaide configured *especially for antisubmarine warfare operations.

Australia has been weak on *antisubmarine warfare capabilities for many years, when the number of submarines, especially Chinese submarines, in the Indo-Pacific is fast rising.

The government says that later this year it will narrow the field of contenders for the Future Frigates — most likely to a shortlist of three — before deciding the winner in 2018, barely two years before construction is scheduled to begin.

Britain is offering Australia its yet-to-be-built Type 26 frigate; Germany wants to sell an anti-submarine warfare variant of the MEKO 400 family of frigates; Spain is offering a frigate based on its F-105 AWD hull; and France and Italy are offering their own variants of the FREMM European multi-role frigate.

Denmark is offering its highly capable 6650-tonne Iver Huitfeldt frigates, three of which are in service with the Danish Navy.

The ship’s designer, Odense Maritime Technology, is proposing to modify the design to give it the antisubmarine warfare focus that Australia wants, by expanding its helicopter hangar to hold two ASW choppers and installing a towed array sonar to hunt subs.

Denmark’s biggest selling point is that the Iver Huitfeldt boats are significantly cheaper to build — and to maintain — than comparative frigates.

This is largely because Denmark, home to the world’s largest commercial shipbuilding company, Maersk Group, uses its own commercial shipbuilding practices and parts for its frigates, driving down the cost of production.

The Danish Navy also managed the project as the prime *contractor, rather than another defence company, which keep costs lower.

These factors, coupled with highly efficient shipyards, meant Denmark built its frigates for $US340 million each, less than half the projected costs of the other SEA 5000 competitors.

The ship also includes a modular design allowing for the wholesale replacement of units such as guns, computers and other equipment, reducing maintenance costs.

These cost factors alone will ensure the Danish bid is closely scrutinised by Australian Defence officials, who have visited Denmark four times in the past 18 months, with another visit due next month.

“We think the frigate platform Denmark has developed fits pretty well with the requirements that Australia has for frigates and we believe we can transfer that production capability to Australia,” says OMT chief executive Kare Christianson, who oversees Denmark’s frigate bid from an old whitewashed thatched cottage north of Copenhagen.

Denmark’s Chief of Navy, Rear-Admiral Frank Trojahn, tells The Australian that he hopes Australia closely examines the Danish *option.

“I know we do have a good product, it has shown its worth in exercises, in live operations, and the Americans trust it 100 per cent; so from my point of view that is a stamp of guarantee,” he says.

John White, who oversaw the successful construction of the Anzac frigates in the 1990s, says the Future Frigate project must be carefully managed to avoid the mistakes of the past.

“The success of the Anzac frigates project was based on using a privatised shipyard organisation in Australia to team with an overseas design-and-build partner that had proven, successful experience in designing similar vessels,” White says.

White is an optimist. He believes that, despite the problems of the past, Australia’s naval shipbuilding industry has a bright future. The frigate project will be its first big test.

“It will provide a sovereign Australian naval industry to meet our *future strategic requirements.”
I do hope the get selected down to the final 2 or 3 because while there design is different from other's there are merits to it especially with the Danes ships being built to be easily upgraded compared to conventional naval ships. I find it to be a class that may (just hypothesizing, I don't know as a fact) be less capable then a few of the other options but long term will be the easiest to keep maintained and upgraded.

Also love the range on her, Shame we couldn't get a few with Aegis.

------

Apologies, Accidentally put Dutch in place of Danes, Sorry.
 
An article in the Australian, For those that have issues getting that single free daily read here it is. Appears the Dutch have thrown there hat into the ring with the Iver Huitfeldt class frigate.



I do hope the get selected down to the final 2 or 3 because while there design is different from other's there are merits to it especially with the Dutch ships being built to be easily upgraded compared to conventional naval ships. I find it to be a class that may (just hypothesizing, I don't know as a fact) be less capable then a few of the other options but long term will be the easiest to keep maintained and upgraded.

Also love the range on her, Shame we couldn't get a few with Aegis.
The Dutch????
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
The Iver Huitfeldt has been mentioned as a possible candidate for Canada's new combatant surface ship. The Defence Spending - Military Procurement - Arctic Sovereignty - Canadian Forces - Aerospace Industry - CASR Index - Canadian American Strategic Review - Military Vehicles - Military Aircraft - Armoured Vehicles - CASR Background - In Detail - Modest P site also mentions this along with a paper discussing a modified (lengthened) up powered Absalon as a destroyer.

Haven't heard anything further on the design choice but a single hull design is favoured and will be fitted out for application. This would seem to eliminate the modified Absalon which is a shame because it would be an interesting alternative.
 

KiwiRob

Well-Known Member
If you have been following the sub discussion in this thread you will note that multiple times it has been stayed that the RAN combat system is the USN submarine one and that will create IP and other problems if the French are involved in the Collins sub replacement build. The French colonies in the South Pacific maybe important to them to a certain degree but the French are not that fussy on which countries they sell hi tech and advanced weapons systems too, sometimes to the detriment of their friends and allies.
That's not the point I was making you're going off on a tangent. Maybe if you read the post I quoted you would have picked that up. :D
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
An article in the Australian, For those that have issues getting that single free daily read here it is. Appears the Danes have thrown there hat into the ring with the Iver Huitfeldt class frigate.



I do hope the get selected down to the final 2 or 3 because while there design is different from other's there are merits to it especially with the Danes ships being built to be easily upgraded compared to conventional naval ships. I find it to be a class that may (just hypothesizing, I don't know as a fact) be less capable then a few of the other options but long term will be the easiest to keep maintained and upgraded.

Also love the range on her, Shame we couldn't get a few with Aegis.

------

Apologies, Accidentally put Dutch in place of Danes, Sorry.
I do like the Ivers very much and the Danes have been quite innovative with them especially in the design and build philosophy. Most definitely well worth a good look at and even if not chosen there are some ideas in the build methodology that are worth investigation. They are a ship that I believe the RNZN should acquire three of.
 

alexsa

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
An article in the Australian, For those that have issues getting that single free daily read here it is. Appears the Danes have thrown there hat into the ring with the Iver Huitfeldt class frigate.



I do hope the get selected down to the final 2 or 3 because while there design is different from other's there are merits to it especially with the Danes ships being built to be easily upgraded compared to conventional naval ships. I find it to be a class that may (just hypothesizing, I don't know as a fact) be less capable then a few of the other options but long term will be the easiest to keep maintained and upgraded.

Also love the range on her, Shame we couldn't get a few with Aegis.

------

Apologies, Accidentally put Dutch in place of Danes, Sorry.
A couple of things we need to consider when salivating over these ships

1. They are between 500 and 1000 tonnes lighter than the other larger offerings and will have less growth margin (basically in swapping modules you have to rob Peter to pay Paul)
2. They only have 32 strike length MK41 VLS. Other offerings have 48 strike length and a possible growth path to 64.
3. They have 12 MK56 VLS for 24 ESSM (not quad packed) and if you want more ESSM then the Harpoon has to go. The total missile load out on some of the larger offerings is greater.
4. They are currently designed with the 76mm. Upgrading to 127mm will cost you a lot in weight ...... Remember that growth margin.
5. Currently only housing a single helicopter where competing designs now have two

Impressive ships but cheaper to build where ....... Remember when building a new design a lot of the cost is in the setting up and this is also where the majority of the risk lies.

Rest assured the designs will be compared agains what is wanted and desired. However, a critical issue is how soon these can get into production. The time in the schedule for tooling up is very short.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
A couple of things we need to consider when salivating over these ships

1. They are between 500 and 1000 tonnes lighter than the other larger offerings and will have less growth margin (basically in swapping modules you have to rob Peter to pay Paul)
2. They only have 32 strike length MK41 VLS. Other offerings have 48 strike length and a possible growth path to 64.
3. They have 12 MK56 VLS for 24 ESSM (not quad packed) and if you want more ESSM then the Harpoon has to go. The total missile load out on some of the larger offerings is greater.
4. They are currently designed with the 76mm. Upgrading to 127mm will cost you a lot in weight ...... Remember that growth margin.
5. Currently only housing a single helicopter where competing designs now have two

Impressive ships but cheaper to build where ....... Remember when building a new design a lot of the cost is in the setting up and this is also where the majority of the risk lies.

Rest assured the designs will be compared agains what is wanted and desired. However, a critical issue is how soon these can get into production. The time in the schedule for tooling up is very short.
Sorry to nitpick, from what I understand the design is for the 127mm gun, however the 76mm gun(s) are temporary. When the 127mm guns are installed on the A gun mount the 76mm gun on B gun position will be replaced with a Millennium gun. I agree that if the ships are built in Australia the build costs would be significantly higher. From memory the ships do have quite a bit of room for upgrades.
 

hauritz

Well-Known Member
Just on a bit of a tangent here ... does anyone know what sort of tender process there will be for selecting the new frigate and OPV?

Considering that first steel will be cut for the new frigate in 2020 and the new OPV in 2018 I would have thought that they would at least have an official shortlist by now.
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
Are you sure about France, or has French Polynesia and New Caledonia escaped your attention. They have nearly 600,000 citizens living in our part of the world.
While this is somewhat OT, I feel that either you are ignoring context, or trolling. With that in mind, I pose this question.

Which hypothetical nation would have greater economic, political, and strategic interests in the Asia/Pacific region;

Nation A, with 99%+ of population/~127 mil. citizens that reside in the region, that has all the land and EEZ claims within the region, and that all critical SLOC's are through the region, and that the majority of it's GDP is USD$4.8 tril. GDP is sourced within the region

Or Nation B, with ~0.8% of population/552,537 citizens residing in the region, that has only ~3% of total land area/22,885.42 sq. km. within the region, and some EEZ claims (but by no means all national EEZ claims), that has no critical SLOC's for the majority of it's population in the region, and that only USD$17.2 bil. out of a total GDP of USD$2.8 tril. (or ~0.6% of total GDP)?

Realistically, which nation has an interest in the region?
 

John Newman

The Bunker Group
Just on a bit of a tangent here ... does anyone know what sort of tender process there will be for selecting the new frigate and OPV?

Considering that first steel will be cut for the new frigate in 2020 and the new OPV in 2018 I would have thought that they would at least have an official shortlist by now.
Whilst the CEP for the submarines now appears to be closed and the Government is evaluating the responses, I don't know if the CEP for the OPV's and Future Frigates has been closed.

Very little information has been published in the public domain, probably still a way to go yet before any official announcement.
 
A couple of things we need to consider when salivating over these ships

1. They are between 500 and 1000 tonnes lighter than the other larger offerings and will have less growth margin (basically in swapping modules you have to rob Peter to pay Paul)
2. They only have 32 strike length MK41 VLS. Other offerings have 48 strike length and a possible growth path to 64.
3. They have 12 MK56 VLS for 24 ESSM (not quad packed) and if you want more ESSM then the Harpoon has to go. The total missile load out on some of the larger offerings is greater.
4. They are currently designed with the 76mm. Upgrading to 127mm will cost you a lot in weight ...... Remember that growth margin.
5. Currently only housing a single helicopter where competing designs now have two

Impressive ships but cheaper to build where ....... Remember when building a new design a lot of the cost is in the setting up and this is also where the majority of the risk lies.

Rest assured the designs will be compared agains what is wanted and desired. However, a critical issue is how soon these can get into production. The time in the schedule for tooling up is very short.
Excellent post. I do like the fact the RAN is very definite about its requirements.
 

Stampede

Well-Known Member
While this is somewhat OT, I feel that either you are ignoring context, or trolling. With that in mind, I pose this question.

Which hypothetical nation would have greater economic, political, and strategic interests in the Asia/Pacific region;

Nation A, with 99%+ of population/~127 mil. citizens that reside in the region, that has all the land and EEZ claims within the region, and that all critical SLOC's are through the region, and that the majority of it's GDP is USD$4.8 tril. GDP is sourced within the region

Or Nation B, with ~0.8% of population/552,537 citizens residing in the region, that has only ~3% of total land area/22,885.42 sq. km. within the region, and some EEZ claims (but by no means all national EEZ claims), that has no critical SLOC's for the majority of it's population in the region, and that only USD$17.2 bil. out of a total GDP of USD$2.8 tril. (or ~0.6% of total GDP)?

Realistically, which nation has an interest in the region?





Regarding SEA 1000

I would see more appeal in the country with less, not more political and strategic interests in our region helping us build locally our future submarines.
Of course the decision will be based on many critera and political dynamics.
Who knows the quality of the submarine may even come into it !!!!!

Just a thought
Auf Wiedersehen

S
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Regarding SEA 1000

I would see more appeal in the country with less, not more political and strategic interests in our region helping us build locally our future submarines.
Of course the decision will be based on many critera and political dynamics.
Who knows the quality of the submarine may even come into it !!!!!

Just a thought
Auf Wiedersehen

S
and in that case we need to pay lots of attention to past performance for companies trumpeting previous work and history

the reality is often at odds with the marketing and public pronouncements
 

alexsa

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Sorry to nitpick, from what I understand the design is for the 127mm gun, however the 76mm gun(s) are temporary. When the 127mm guns are installed on the A gun mount the 76mm gun on B gun position will be replaced with a Millennium gun. I agree that if the ships are built in Australia the build costs would be significantly higher. From memory the ships do have quite a bit of room for upgrades.
I don't disagree, but it is still weight. If you want to add additional capability this will reduce your weight margins.

The point I am making is it is an impressive ship but that does not meant it will tick all the boxes desired and may not have the growth margin to do it.
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
I don't disagree, but it is still weight. If you want to add additional capability this will reduce your weight margins.
its also "iceberg weight"

ie above deck and below deck weight distribution - and the follow on impact on the rest of the vessels design.
 

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
for sea5000 is navantia offering the f105 hull or are they going with the newer f110?
Welcome to defencetalk(don't forget to read the rules).
Nothing has been released publicly about what is being offered, there are about 6 European designs that could be offered. The Australian govt started a project a couple of years ago to look at the possibilty of using the AWD design as a base but nothing has been mentioned since.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top