Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[alexsa]

Welcome to defencetalk. 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.

The F110 is smaller. At Pacific 2015 Navantia displayed their offering for SEA 5000 based on the F105 hull. Other information indicates it will have twin hangers and a potential growth path to 7500 tonnes and possible growth path to (maybe) 64 cells

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

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

 

[chis73]

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.

Hauritz,

Re: the OPV process: There has been a Competitive Evaluation Process (CEP) underway, since Nov 2015 I believe; basically a market survey of existing designs, with the aim to select something as off-the-shelf as possible. Current plans are for a down-select to 2-3 designs around the middle of this year, then a preferred tenderer put to government early 2017, and steel cut sometime in 2018.

Further details (and more on other naval projects such as AORs, submarines & frigates) are in yesterday's senate committee hearing (link). OPV discussion begins at 16:49. Don't watch the whole thing (4hrs+) unless you're a true glutton for punishment. :vamp

 

[Oberon]

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.

Another deficiency of the Huitfelds is ASW. The RAN needs a strong ASW frigate which the Huitfeldts are not. The design would need to accomodate two Seahawks helos and a towed array sonar would also have to be fitted.

Furthermore, have the Danes ever constructed a navy ship outside of Europe?

The price of the Huitfeldts are attractive when compared to other possible contenders but there is also the fixed cost of establishing a ship build facility in Australia to consider. But then again other competitors, such as the Meko 400, would also have to establish.

After a very successful Anzac ship build the Germans would have to be seen as a safe contender.

 

[t68]

its also "iceberg weight"

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

If you take out the ice strengthening out how much would you roughly gain?
Would that be enough for future growth margins?

 

[alexsa]

If you take out the ice strengthening out how much would you roughly gain?
Would that be enough for future growth margins?

You cannot simply remove ice strengthening. This is an integral part of the structure and internal arrangement and has an impact on stability and distribution of weight (noting the weight is low down). You would essentially need to use the same hull form and rework or the calculations and basically redesign the hull plating and framing. Not a simple job.

If these vessel are select then the least risk is to take the hull as is and try to work within its growth margins

 

[alexsa]

Further details (and more on other naval projects such as AORs, submarines & frigates) are in yesterday's senate committee hearing (link). OPV discussion begins at 16:49. Don't watch the whole thing (4hrs+) unless you're a true glutton for punishment. :vamp

Watched the hearing and was impressed by the new minister. Less impressed with the senate committee. I do wonder about there understanding of what actually goes into a ship!

 

[StingrayOZ]

If you take out the ice strengthening out how much would you roughly gain?
Would that be enough for future growth margins?

I think GF was refering to the "ice berg" effect of a gun which has above (some) and below deck concerns (more and complicated), not to ice strengthening. 20 round loader, plus additional rounds, space, handling concerns. Weight and weight distribution is pretty hard fought for. Ask NZ how important it can be and how difficult it can be to find. playing around with Ice strengthening can derail a project so contains significant risk. Are the Iver Huitfeldt-class frigates ice strengthend anyway?

I don't see anything smaller than the F-105 really getting much of a look in. We are already tooled up for F-105.

If you look at the Sea5000 F-105 proposal from Navantia, it makes the AWD seem positively light weight. Larger and taller radar and mast, 2 helicopters, potentially more VLS.

Meko is big, with modern propulsion. With many of the other proposals, they seem fine, if we weren't already in the F-105 production business they might have better odds.But even big Meko is only 3m longer, 20cm wider. But it is from a builder we had previous success with the ANZAC's.

 

[alexsa]

I think GF was refering to the "ice berg" effect of a gun which has above (some) and below deck concerns (more and complicated), not to ice strengthening. 20 round loader, plus additional rounds, space, handling concerns. Weight and weight distribution is pretty hard fought for. Ask NZ how important it can be and how difficult it can be to find. playing around with Ice strengthening can derail a project so contains significant risk. Are the Iver Huitfeldt-class frigates ice strengthend anyway?

I don't see anything smaller than the F-105 really getting much of a look in. We are already tooled up for F-105.

If you look at the Sea5000 F-105 proposal from Navantia, it makes the AWD seem positively light weight. Larger and taller radar and mast, 2 helicopters, potentially more VLS.

Meko is big, with modern propulsion. With many of the other proposals, they seem fine, if we weren't already in the F-105 production business they might have better odds.But even big Meko is only 3m longer, 20cm wider. But it is from a builder we had previous success with the ANZAC's.

I like a lot about the MEKO but I am not a fan of the gear box and gas turbine arrangement which is similar to the ANZAC and is a single point of failure risk in my opinion. It is also very complex.

 

[Joe Black]

Watched the hearing and was impressed by the new minister. Less impressed with the senate committee. I do wonder about there understanding of what actually goes into a ship!

Whilst I generally agree, but the senate committee do have a point that the 100m supposedly spent locally will not be true 100mil to the economy. The Saab 9LV Combat system has Australian content, code, Australian Tactical Interface embeeded, probably interfaced with the Sea Giraffe AMB radar doesn't really make it a true 100m worth of local investment though. I think there is a bit of spin in the 100m made out by the defense to appeal the public.

But heck, it is whatever best for the Navy right. We don't want to just subsidize Aussie shipbuilders just for the sake of keeping them afloat (pun intended).

 

[gf0012-aust]

But heck, it is whatever best for the Navy right. We don't want to just subsidize Aussie shipbuilders just for the sake of keeping them afloat (pun intended).

part of any acquisition assessment includes an element relating to australian industry involvement. - its mandatory for major acquisitions (and truth be told, is supposed to be factored in for all acquisitions)

there is an industry arm which is suppoed to have input into the process as well

the wildcard is when the executive decide to dip their oar into the water.

 

[ASSAIL]

Watched the hearing and was impressed by the new minister. Less impressed with the senate committee. I do wonder about there understanding of what actually goes into a ship!

I don't know how the defence personnel can sit through that idiotic questioning by Senator Conroy and not want to reach over and tape over his mouth.
The thought of that man ever becoming Defmin is terrifying, he has no idea nor is he willing to understand the acquisition process. Mind you Xenophon is not much better. That is an hour or three in the lives of those def personnel which they will never get back because it was totally wasted.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I don't know how the defence personnel can sit through that idiotic questioning by Senator Conroy and not want to reach over and tape over his mouth.

if he's doing the gig because he's the best one for the job then Labor are in for a rough ride

NFI even on his best days.

Payne is an unfair matchup on her worst day.

 

[ASSAIL]

Whilst I generally agree, but the senate committee do have a point that the 100m supposedly spent locally will not be true 100mil to the economy. The Saab 9LV Combat system has Australian content, code, Australian Tactical Interface embeeded, probably interfaced with the Sea Giraffe AMB radar doesn't really make it a true 100m worth of local investment though. I think there is a bit of spin in the 100m made out by the defense to appeal the public.

But heck, it is whatever best for the Navy right. We don't want to just subsidize Aussie shipbuilders just for the sake of keeping them afloat (pun intended).

Try adding up the wages of all those Australians at SAAB in Adelaide, at set to work trials, the bits of local content etc and you will find that little change will be forthcoming.
That line of questioning was all political spin and had no real impact. Conroy and Xenophon didn't even understand that the quoted $2b cost involved set to work and sustainment costs, they have no idea.
Can you imagine the sh$t fight at Techport with a pair of AORs building, OPVs, bits of, future frigates and subs all building at once.? Hopeless, no lift no big capacity cranes to turn the modules, "tell them their dreaming" thanks to The Castle.

 

[Volkodav]

Try adding up the wages of all those Australians at SAAB in Adelaide, at set to work trials, the bits of local content etc and you will find that little change will be forthcoming.
That line of questioning was all political spin and had no real impact. Conroy and Xenophon didn't even understand that the quoted $2b cost involved set to work and sustainment costs, they have no idea.
Can you imagine the sh$t fight at Techport with a pair of AORs building, OPVs, bits of, future frigates and subs all building at once.? Hopeless, no lift no big capacity cranes to turn the modules, "tell them their dreaming" thanks to The Castle.

Well actually a very large gantry crane plus the largest mobile crane in the southern hemisphere (so massive that very large steel plates need to be laid ahead of it as it moves so as not to damage the hard stand). The only bottle neck is the ship lift and that was designed to be upgraded to lift LHD and AOR sized shops.

 

[John Newman]

Well actually a very large gantry crane plus the largest mobile crane in the southern hemisphere (so massive that very large steel plates need to be laid ahead of it as it moves so as not to damage the hard stand). The only bottle neck is the ship lift and that was designed to be upgraded to lift LHD and AOR sized shops.

Probably all true, but.....

Defence Ministers » Minister for Defence – FIVEaa Radio Adelaide radio interview with Leon Byner

Above is a link to a transcript of an interview that the Def Min did on Adelaide radio last week.

The relevant paragraphs in relation to 'why' the AOR's are being build O/S are:

MINISTER PAYNE:

So Leon, I think if the people who are our political opponents are not prepared to deal in facts and tell the truth, then that certainly doesn’t help. But can I just explain one more thing about where we are in infrastructure at the Adelaide shipyards. So, we have the Air Warfare Destroyers underway being built there now. To actually have built these ships there at the same time we would have had to extend the shiplift itself. So that is a massive undertaking with potentially a very significant impact on the Port river.

We would also need to install new cranes which were capable of lifting the large blocks that are required for the supply ships and build a new wharf to accommodate the build. None of that can actually happen before the third Air Warfare Destroyer is completed and has undergone its testing. So those infrastructure upgrades couldn’t have been started before 2020.

Now, what we have tried to do is meet the capability needs of the Navy, and these supply ships are a priority. That we are continuing and finalising the build of the Air Warfare Destroyers in Adelaide in front of our eyes right now, and commissioning 12 Future Frigates with the cutting of steel in 2020 in Adelaide.

All sounds pretty reasonable to me, the RAN needs the two new AOR's asap, the infrastructure work the Def Min talked about (eg, to be able to build the two AOR's), couldn't be 'started' until 2020.

Which takes me back to previous comments that I've made, if the Rudd/Gillard/Rudd Governments had actually spent some of those GFC dollars back at the 'beginning' of the AWD build program, and had them completed 'before' the first AWD was launched, then maybe Techport would have been in a position to be able to build them.

If you believe what the current Def Min is saying (and I have no reason to believe that she is lying), then it's pretty clear that the timing of an infrastructure upgrade to Techport to be able to build the AOR's vs requirements of the RAN were never going to align.

NOTE:

You might notice in this extract she said '12 Future Frigates', if you read the whole transcript, she does correct herself and say nine.

 

[ASSAIL]

Well actually a very large gantry crane plus the largest mobile crane in the southern hemisphere (so massive that very large steel plates need to be laid ahead of it as it moves so as not to damage the hard stand). The only bottle neck is the ship lift and that was designed to be upgraded to lift LHD and AOR sized shops.

I read or saw somewhere that the biggest crane/ modules at Techport were 400 tonnes but needed to turn the AOR modules was 800 tonnes? My memory fades but the relativise are about correct.

 

[John Newman]

I read or saw somewhere that the biggest crane/ modules at Techport were 400 tonnes but needed to turn the AOR modules was 800 tonnes? My memory fades but the relativise are about correct.

Mate, see my post above, the Def Min said they would indeed need new cranes if the AOR project had been done at Techport.

And that is apart from the need to increase the capacity of the ship lift and increased wharf space too.

 

[Tasman]

I don't know how the defence personnel can sit through that idiotic questioning by Senator Conroy and not want to reach over and tape over his mouth.
The thought of that man ever becoming Defmin is terrifying, he has no idea nor is he willing to understand the acquisition process. Mind you Xenophon is not much better. That is an hour or three in the lives of those def personnel which they will never get back because it was totally wasted.

I watched all of the hearing and was appalled at the ignorance shown by Senator Conroy and his total inability to listen to answers, let alone to understand concepts like continuous build. I was impressed with the Def Min and admired the stoicism and patience shown by the senior naval reps. I wasn't surprised when the senior defence bureaucrat went close to losing it with the Senator. As others have said, heaven help us if Conroy ever becomes Def Min!

Tas

 

[John Newman]

I watched all of the hearing and was appalled at the ignorance shown by Senator Conroy and his total inability to listen to answers, let alone to understand concepts like continuous build. I was impressed with the Def Min and admired the stoicism and patience shown by the senior naval reps. I wasn't surprised when the senior defence bureaucrat went close to losing it with the Senator. As others have said, heaven help us if Conroy ever becomes Def Min!

Tas

Conroy is a fool, a complete fool, I cringe every time he opens his mouth, yes I might be biased because I'd never vote for the party he represents.

But I'd cringe even more at the thought that he would be the Def Min of a party that I would support.

Just shake my head!!!

 

[alexsa]

Try adding up the wages of all those Australians at SAAB in Adelaide, at set to work trials, the bits of local content etc and you will find that little change will be forthcoming.
That line of questioning was all political spin and had no real impact. Conroy and Xenophon didn't even understand that the quoted $2b cost involved set to work and sustainment costs, they have no idea.
Can you imagine the sh$t fight at Techport with a pair of AORs building, OPVs, bits of, future frigates and subs all building at once.? Hopeless, no lift no big capacity cranes to turn the modules, "tell them their dreaming" thanks to The Castle.

Yep, I liked the DEFMINs response to that but was appalled and the blank looks it got from those questioning. In essence it said there was a 10% offset for the ships with the other billion being infrastructure, training, support systems and so forth.

All quite tragic as I have seen 12 year olds ask more informed questions.