That would pretty much be code for the German's winning ... wouldn't it?
I don't think any nation has more experience building naval equipment overseas than the Germans.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
I don't think any nation has more experience building naval equipment overseas than the Germans.
Basically, it repeats what the ABC has reported but the reasons given vary. AFAIK, all contenders have proposed the ideas such as skills transfer and the so-called maritime engineering hub to an outright purchase of domestic corporations. As the companies' respective representatives have stated, it's still way too early to call it.
Well, firstly, with a new US Administration in place this time next year the Americans might not like NZ's continued refusal to host US nuclear ship visits and respond accordingly.
Secondly, yes, in 15 years time the AWDs will be nearing mid-life upgrade; but I still don't see the kiwis having a requirement for an AWD.
Yes, that's my take on it too. Has France any experience in building submarines offshore?
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
Thanks for your prompt reply Oberon much appreciated.
One thing i am certain about we won't get an announcement of either Japan or Germany winning the sub contract on Monday. That would be in very bad taste, i could just see the RSL screaming about that.
One thing i am certain about we won't get an announcement of either Japan or Germany winning the sub contract on Monday. That would be in very bad taste, i could just see the RSL screaming about that.
I am posting this again as its pretty bloody apparent that some are getting a bit carried away with whats coming up in the press and have no idea how tender evaluations especially around critical strategic issues are managed.
no matter what talking heads in the papers are saying - no-one in the ADO is going to risk their jobs leaking to the press. There are approx 4 gaolable statutes that could be invoked
No-one is that dumb. No one in the NSC will be leaking as they can also be charged - and none of the NSC attendees staff are made aware of the dealings within the NSC
and I say that from real world first hand experience
everyone getting animated needs to take a bex and lie down.
wait and see, rinse, repeat, goto start and run again
You're right, of course. It's speculation at this time not just by us but by various journalists as well. Hopefully the decision will be announced next week and we'll all be put out of our speculative misery.
mate I work one floor away from all the activity - every one of those blokes is staying absolutely mum. there are people I completely trust and know well in there and they are staying completely zipped up about the outcomes - and the bottom line is that whatever has been decided by the process can be turned on its head by the NSC and then the full hearing by cabinetYou're right, of course. It's speculation at this time not just by us but by various journalists as well. Hopefully the decision will be announced next week and we'll all be put out of our speculative misery.
we just all need to be patient.
for any journo to say that they know something is first class BS - they might be guessing - but as I said before, they have a 33% chance of being right even without a leak.
quite frankly no-one attending the NSC is that dumb either. the judicial and legal plus contractual implications backfiring on the Commonwealth would make anyone who knows anything and who has half a brain glue their own lips shut
Yes; and it would be very embarrassing for a leaker if a decision was subsequently overturned by Cabinet!
Of course, back in my day in Defence procurement there used to be a saying: "there's no such thing as a secret in the Department of Defence"
in a previous life I did security and ministerial support - when there's a leak you can invariably track how and who and when it was done
we had people dismissed - and they even lost their Super after being charged. some even had the pleasure of ending up as guests of her majesty....
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Given the RAN's preference for the 'Baby Burke' over the Navantia F-100 series design, it would seem that the RAN would prefer to have more VLS cells, or at least the option for more VLS cells, than just 48.
From some potential missile loadouts, there is definite merit in having more cells IMO. Some cells (8, 16 perhaps) might be quad-packed ESSM, along with maybe 8 or 16 SM for air defence. Depending on area of operations and mission, there might be a call for some land attack missiles of some sort, plus either ASROC, or whatever new missile/LWT combo the US is developing to replace ASROC. Given that VLS cells cannot be replenished at sea, I can see situations where plenty of loaded cells might be wanted/needed.
One of the other potential reasons to increase the VLS count is to split the cell bank locations fore and aft. Right now all the VLS cells for the AWD are by the 'A' position IIRC, which means any damage or malfunction there could take the entire VLS cell bank out of service, which means no capability from that AWD. What the USN and S. Korean Navies (and the JSMSDF too I think) is split their larger cell counts into a cell bank forward, and a second cell bank aft. The advantage of this sort of arrangement is that all VLS are less likely to be taken out of service by a problem in just one part of the vessel, apart from in the sensors/electronics/CIC areas.
I believe the RAN were quite annoyed that when they got the money to upgrade the ANZACs into proper GP frigates they rapidly discovered that they simply weren't big enough to carry everything they needed to carry. The harpoons had to be installed forward because there wasn't sufficient stability to put them where every other MEKO 200 customer puts them, same with the planned second eight cell VLS and one or two Phalanx. The model on display at contract signature may have had all the fruit but the truth of the matter is the ships were never big enough to take it all.
A stretched ANZAC as was intended to replace the DDGs and first four FFGs was a different matter entirely as it would have been built with 32 to 48 strike length VLS and likely space and weight for SPY-1F, definitely enough reserve stability for CEAFAR. It seems to me that someone somewhere got confused and mistook this proposed ship for what we actually bought when formulating the original ANZAC WIP (Warfighting Improvement Program). Who knows there did seem to be a big disconnect between what we had and what the powers that be thought we had in the late 90s early 2000s, i.e. we have a brigade that has tanks, therefore we must have an armoured brigade, we have ships called frigates that were built "for but not with" therefore it must be possible to turn them into destroyers.
Could it be government/political leak to prepare the Japanese press, etc for the previously assumed shoe in to miss out? Japanese relationship massaging by preparation.
In regards to the VLS and what number of cell's is optimal.. Quite frankly I'd listen to the RAN then any member on here (no offence) and if I can't see them jumping up and down screaming that they are in death trap's then I don't see this as an issue.
Would more VLS be better, Sure. Could it be better layed out? Sure, Splitting it into 2 locations rather then 1. Is it still a hell of a lot better then what we have had in the past? At our height in 1998-9 between 3 Perth's, 6 Adelaides and 2 Anzac's we had a total missile load out (including Mk 13's and 41's) of 376, with 12 future ship's averaging 48 cell's each we will still have 576 cells, or over 65% more. if we exclude the Mk 13's then we only had in 2014 a whopping 96 VLS cells, meaning our future fleet will be 500% greater in capacity.
Like it or not we are having a massive improvement in capability over what we had, Sure we could have more but that saying could be applied to everything. If we went for the biggest and shiniest we would have Gerald R Ford class Aircraft carriers and America class LHD's, instead of Hobart's (F-100's) we would have Zumwalt's etc.. except for maybe the Zumwalt's none of them are feasable even in a fantasy world.
This entire debate though all stimpulates that the RAN wont make incremental changes to the designs going forward with every new batch. i'd argue it's safer to build the initial batch with the 48 cell's as such a design will be as close to the original blue print's as possible and as the work force gain's experience and productivity then start to expand on it. Trying to change the ship from the out start risk's voiding any support you can get from over seas as you risk creating an entirely new design that the former worker's from over seas would have no knowledge of for us to tap into.
--------------------------
In regards to the Submarines and future costing's, I recall a while back that one of the member's on here informed me that the $50 billion also likely included inflation and future cost's (ie: Not in todays dollars but future dollars), If that is the case and assuming I haven't over simplified the math's allowing a 2.5% inflation rate the $30 billion becomes $50 billion in 21 years, Could there be talk of moving our sub life's closer in line with Japans even if we don't end up choosing them?
Would more VLS be better, Sure. Could it be better layed out? Sure, Splitting it into 2 locations rather then 1. Is it still a hell of a lot better then what we have had in the past? At our height in 1998-9 between 3 Perth's, 6 Adelaides and 2 Anzac's we had a total missile load out (including Mk 13's and 41's) of 376, with 12 future ship's averaging 48 cell's each we will still have 576 cells, or over 65% more. if we exclude the Mk 13's then we only had in 2014 a whopping 96 VLS cells, meaning our future fleet will be 500% greater in capacity.
Like it or not we are having a massive improvement in capability over what we had, Sure we could have more but that saying could be applied to everything. If we went for the biggest and shiniest we would have Gerald R Ford class Aircraft carriers and America class LHD's, instead of Hobart's (F-100's) we would have Zumwalt's etc.. except for maybe the Zumwalt's none of them are feasable even in a fantasy world.
This entire debate though all stimpulates that the RAN wont make incremental changes to the designs going forward with every new batch. i'd argue it's safer to build the initial batch with the 48 cell's as such a design will be as close to the original blue print's as possible and as the work force gain's experience and productivity then start to expand on it. Trying to change the ship from the out start risk's voiding any support you can get from over seas as you risk creating an entirely new design that the former worker's from over seas would have no knowledge of for us to tap into.
--------------------------
In regards to the Submarines and future costing's, I recall a while back that one of the member's on here informed me that the $50 billion also likely included inflation and future cost's (ie: Not in todays dollars but future dollars), If that is the case and assuming I haven't over simplified the math's allowing a 2.5% inflation rate the $30 billion becomes $50 billion in 21 years, Could there be talk of moving our sub life's closer in line with Japans even if we don't end up choosing them?
I wouldn't think so. As GF said, they could take legal action (unlikely but possible) and we would be back at the beginning.
We really did need a process to look at the details and make an informed decision. IMO its not clear who will win. The Germans came hitting out hard from the beginning hired most of the local talent and pressed the right buttons, the Japanese were a bit slow to warm up.
We won't have long to wait, its just days away. Speculation now is just to sell paper IMO. No doubt when its announced it will have a double page lift out. Claiming a European is likely to get it means you have a 66% chance.
That was certainly the idea, the ASW problem in ET was huge, and created a lot of tension, between Oz and the US and the US and Indonesia. Its screening requirements were almost impossible. Certainly in that type of scenario, 48 VLS would be ideal. More than the VLS we needed something that could have the command space, which is why the US sent a cruiser.ASSAIL said:
However, what we needed in 1999, is different from what we may need in 2030. Im not saying buy the missiles today, I am saying allocate the space/weight for the VLS. I would be surprised if in 2025 we are still building ships with 48 VLS.
If there is no room for boxed harpoons (or in the future when Harpoons are replaced), then 16 missiles (LRASM) would need to go into the VLS. Most ships these days have 16 cells for ESSM. Leaving 16 Cells for Sm-2, Sm-6, Nulka, Tomahawk.
This would seem to be a marginal sidegrade on a FFG which had 8 cell for ESSM, but 40 missile magazine.
Certainly doesn't leave a lot for a greater ESSM load in the future, or a BMD setup, or NSM or anything else we are likely to want to put in there in the future.
The type 26 strongest features have nothing to do with its VLS capacity, but its other functions, its massive central flex deck, large dual hanger, landing area big enough for a chinook (or a V-22?). Ability to deploy 100 marines. Its not really a frigate or destroyer or amphibious ship, it has elements of all of these. Why not allocate Space/weight now, which would cost very little and take nothing away from these other capabilities.
A cautionary tail from the mid-80s when common wisdom was that the HDW Type 2000 was preferred to the Kockums design.
In about May 86 I visited the Campbell Offices (DoD Canberra) library and saw 2 staff reviewing a TV report of a visit to HDW and Kcockums. I was surprised to see the staff fast forward past HDW section and spend their time on the Kockums segment - my first inkling that common wisdom might not be correct.
In 1988 a leak revealed the WHY of the Kockums selection. The HDW bid offered greater full compliance to the spec. But then a detailed review by an independent US expert revealed the German work standards bidded were less stringent than those of the Swedes and many of the Swedish non-compliance statement were only marginally inferior to the spec requirements.
unlikely? - its happened before and all the bidders can then recover their submission costs against the Commonwealth
Conversely you have the other scenario where a well known and respected h German company with over 150 years of experience advised the Commonwealth through backdoor channels that they would never deal with us again if a certain company was the prime. Said Oz company then had a glorious future phuqueing up other major projects.
on a major capital submission thats over $5m each - and out to $10-12m depending on the vendor
if an individual is caught leaking a commercial in confidence result, then apart from all the statutes breached, potential gaol term against each violation - guess what the Commonwealth is likely to do against the leaker......
Noting the RAN are not talking about this it is a bit rich to preach that we listen to them. While you may have meant 'no offence' that is unnecessary tone.
Add to this that there is a political angle as well.
When the AWD was being selected the FMS request for Mk41 cells indicated 64 for each vessel (suggesting they were catering for there baby Burke's if this option was selected), however, the F100 base option was picked up. There was a lot of suggestion that they would end up with four and that mitigated concerns .... but we know how that panned out.
48 cells appears to be a common assumption (and I have contacts who would prefer more) but we have no visibility of what is being considered.
The Italian FREMM currently only has 16 A50 VLS (which is shorter than the A70) and there is no indication as to the number and type (length) of MK41 VLS it will be fitted with. (it could be 48 but who knows).
For the T26 it is reported that on Mk41 VLS will be fitted but not hard data on the number. or type (length)
The F105 derivative has been displayed with 48 strike length VLS (and oddly what appeared to be the OTO 127mm gun ... good gun too IMHO). However, it has been reported this has a growth path to 64 cells.
Australia Shortlisted Navantia Fincantieri and BAE Systems for the SEA5000 ASW Frigate Program
Basically until we have a preferred tenderer this will be paly very close to the chest so we just need to wait and see.
No offence - but a lot of those blue labelled members, some of the greens and some of the mods are ex or current RAN
the current serving members and ADO staff with a direct appreciation of events aren't going to say squat on an open forum....
in security parlance, need to know, need to share and close hold.
I can tell you that having more than 48cells has had force planners run screaming from the room - and thats before DoFD's defence analysis team even gets a look
- Status