Gordon Branch
New Member
I can confirm from information I have from my previous incarnation as an employee of the Dept of Defence that the GA drawings for the class describe the structure as a "Frame for Flight Deck Lighting".
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
Muar River
Member
Would the RAN consider being the lead customer for the Type 26? Would the RAN have sufficient confidence in BAE to complete this project on time and within budget? I would really like to get some views on this matter. Would it be worth the risk to obtain a cutting edge design?
The FREMM is a surprising ship with a range of near 7000nm and a top speed of 30 plus knots utilising the LM2500 which is common to our fleet.
meatshield
Active Member
I am surprised the German type 125 didn't get a look in? I thought it ticked a lot of boxes
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
The Italian FREMM is a design which I would like Canada to consider. As our current government will likely postpone a frigate decision to 2020 or later, the Type 26 should still be in the running as it's deign should be finalized this year or early 2017. In Canada's case the bigger screw-up factor will be the the shipyards and RCN mods regardless of which design is selected. Australia's shipyards are much better prepared for major naval construction than Canadian yards. As for modifications to meet RAN or RCN specific requirements , not sure which navy would be a bigger PITA from a vendor pout of view, likely the RCN.
King Wally
Active Member
I actually thought the same thing... and it wouldn't surprise me if in a year or two someone modifies the plan mid election cycle when a little "bad news" can be taken on the chin more bluntly.
Smacks of political pork barreling to me. The AWD's and the LHD's are or were taken to Williamstowwn for completion. Now the new ships are to be taken to a yard that specialises in aluminium ferries for completion. Would the fact that WA has a conservative state government have anything to do with the decision?
You make some errors of fact.
The AWDs do not go to Williamstown for completion.
The OPVs are going to Henderson when the AWDs are finished, they are not going to Austal but it depends on who the partners are in the final selection and they might although I have my doubts, more likely to be BAE.
There's been much discussion and dissent about the PPBs not being built in Cairns however my argument in support of the govt is simply that we don't have the shipbuilding effort to build in more than 2 shipyards/shipbuilding centres.
Finally, pork barrelling is a fact of life when govt contracts are let so as long as there is some economic rationale for the decisions it can be tolerated.
It's not quite that black and white or political pork barreling.
AWD's were and are completed in Adelaide, the LHD's were completed in Williamstown.
Simply put Adelaide is running out of room with the planned fleet of 9 Frigates that will over time morth into a continuous build of 12 Frigates and Destroyers as well as a 12 strong submarine fleet. That yard is tapped out so no chance of building the OPV's there at all.
Williamstown, While being a Victorian I'd love to have seen us building them the yard is of an old layout. We are shifting more towards ship lift's the graving docks as such a system is better for the ships and the financials. Theoretically could we modify Williamstown to do that? Yes, Legally? No. The Alfred graving dock is heritage listed (rightly so seeing it was opened 143 years ago) so it would be impossible to build over it and create a ship lift.
That leaves Henderson (AMC - Australian Marine Comlex) and ignoring which company may get the work it is our best shipbuilding site infrastructure wise outside of ASC if not better.
Now will Austal get the work? At first I thought so due to the work being undertaken on other ships but as was rightly pointed out to me by alexsa the level of work being undertaken at the moment with the ASMD is not a job taken on often so may be room at BAE to do so.
In the end it will depend on if BAE invests the dollar's to expand there facility there or not. If they expand it then they will be the likely final assembler, If not then Austal is the only other choice.
While from what has been mentioned on here Austal management should be keelhauled that does not mean the facility is unable to produce steel hulled vessels. Steel is generally far easier to work with then aluminum, and there are a number of businesses around Henderson that do some excellent work with steel allowing Austal a starting work force.
The best option in my opinion might be to build another Hobart class destroyer and postpone the decision on the next frigate until the type 26 is further along its development phase.
The type 26 is perhaps the best option in the long run but it has to be the riskiest option at the moment.
Besides a mix of 4 AWD and 8 ASW frigates looks a better mix to me.
The type 26 is perhaps the best option in the long run but it has to be the riskiest option at the moment.
Besides a mix of 4 AWD and 8 ASW frigates looks a better mix to me.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Others should be able to confirm this, but that ship has well and truly sailed...
Some of the bits being used in the current AWD are no longer in production, and if an Aegis/SPY-1D array were to be sought, the lead time on that is 3+ years IIRC.
One of the issues Volk has mentioned is that some of the current gen sets are out of production, which would mean that a future design/build would need to use different engines and configuration. I am not opposed to a follow-on build of 3+ additional AWD hulls using up to date machinery, but I do not see how the three AWD's could be exactly re-done. At least not without restarting some closed production lines which would increase not only current/initial, but future costs.
If type 26 is chosen (if!), as our navy is ordering more hulls than RN (9 vs 8) will that make us have a bigger say in aspects such as final design, schedule priority or work share?
We are ordering more ( actually double) LHD and oilers than the Spanish, yet we didn't get half the work share.
We are ordering more ( actually double) LHD and oilers than the Spanish, yet we didn't get half the work share.
Surely that is because Spain took all the risk and cost of building first of class. In any case an ASC brochure on their AOR bid with DMS said they could only build the third of class - probably due to the effort to upgrade Techport.
we would run screaming from the room.... there is a very strong view about leading edge and bleeding edge when you become the lead customer....
thats why FMS contracts are so attractive as you can piggy back onto US development cycles. The main catch is that you need to stay within 2 generations of US developments otherwise you run the risk of falling too far behind. The downside is that to maintain relative development parity you need to have a govt thats prepared to spend the coin and understands the need to do so without letting domestic politics pollute the integrity of the process
Correct Tod, lead time for the SPY had a cut off of at least 3 years ago, not to mention everything else you have listed.
Point in case is the difference in the things you have noted between the AWD's and a possible future frigate by Navantia, gensets, diesel engines (which we changed for our AWD) etc.
Long time sailed and over the horizon
Cheers
Nice try by the chinese..... journo's my foot... 
Chinese state media journalists barred from vessel during Australia-Japan navy event - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
Chinese state media journalists barred from vessel during Australia-Japan navy event - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
Interesting design, is that a dock at the stern or does the RHIB release by winch etc? It looks as if the RHIB is stowed side on?
Regarding the enclosed focsle, what would the reasoning be as it looks rather high (can personnel even peer over the top)? Is the view from the aft-bridge somewhat limited as a result (eg when berthing)?
The stern arrangements is a knotch which the boats run up into. Getting this right can be tricky but the USCG Legend Class Cutters and the Damen OPV's (of most sizes) do use this system.
Bow height ........ Depends what you want to do with it but it provides hull strength continuity. If you cut it down then additional reinforcing may be required..... It really depends on end user requirements.
To what end. There has been a bit of time since gear was ordered who you may need to order equipment that would be used on the future frigate in any case. In this case you end up with a bit of an orphan .... Part future frigate part AWD.
As noted by others the lead time for the SPY and supporting systems is not short and the system we have procured is nolonger the benchmark employed by the USN so you have a situation where you build a ship that may required upgrade the day it enters services (aka HMAS Perth in its current iteration).
The future frigate appears to be proposes as batch production and this is a really good approach as it allows the vessel configuration and systems to be evolved over time meaning the last ship of the ramp in this run will be combat effective rather than in need of immediate upgrade.
The forth AWD is a dead duck ...... And probably not a bad thing if the CEA solution lives up to expectations.
Muar River
Member
There is also the possibility with rolling builds that the RAN builds hulls 10, 11 and 12 as AWD updates taking advantage of the economies of scale achieved with the Perth. The original three AWD could be attractive buys being sold off relatively early.
That's just too funny, but pretty normal for them too !!Nice try by the chinese..... journo's my foot...
Chinese state media journalists barred from vessel during Australia-Japan navy event - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
Most would be amazed at how brazen they are, just turning up like you are meant to be there works on occasion, I remember this one time........oops better not mention that
In Chinese circles they are pretty well paid and trained Journo's
- Status