Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[gf0012-aust]

Three Points:

1) Tell that to the RAN NMPs Team!
2) What happens when the project is simply never initiated/implemented?
3) Could you please identify, by name, which elements of the ADO are entirely happy with their funding based on their own realistic assessments of their needs?
4) Is it really that extreme to suggest that the governments such as the UK who could find 4.5% of GDP for defence in the late 80's and now whinge about cost pressures whilst spending 2.3%, and the Australian Government who spend 22.69 Billion out of a total Commonwealth revenue of 319.5 Billion (08/09) might be lying when they say that they can't find any more money for defence?

4 Points:

1. Tell that to any Team. Whats your experience in Procurement? I've just canned an item because an assessment was done on cost - thats not what we're allowed to do. It's BS for anyone to argue that item
2. Projects get canned all the time - ours have just been accelerated. A whole raft have just gone to the NSC and got ticked. The NSC is not just pollies
3. Are you serious? In an open forum. I wouldn't ferkin tell you unless you were in my building and you had a right to know. You know the ferking rules so don't chuck that schitt into an open forum to score a point.
4. Finally - don't use the UK as an example - their procurement is up the spout - and theres a big lesson about what not to do in times of crisis. Welcome to John Nott II

I get right royally pi$$ed off at people who try to argue about how we do this stuff and obviously don't know what processes we are bound by.

It's not ferking woolworths :lul:lul

/rant off.

This is my last on this. Any more questions will have to be PM'd and through the right emails. I'm not going to get tied up in some fanciful crap session wish list theoretical on such a complex issue.

 

[battlensign]

4 Points:

1. Tell that to any Team. Whats your experience in Procurement? I've just canned an item because an assessment was done on cost - thats not what we're allowed to do. It's BS for anyone to argue that item
2. Projects get canned all the time - ours have just been accelerated. A whole raft have just gone to the NSC and got ticked. The NSC is not just pollies
3. Are you serious? In an open forum. I wouldn't ferkin tell you unless you were in my building and you had a right to know. You know the ferking rules so don't chuck that schitt into an open forum to score a point.
4. Finally - don't use the UK as an example - their procurement is up the spout - and theres a big lesson about what not to do in times of crisis. Welcome to John Nott II

I get right royally pi$ off at people who try to argue about how we do this stuff and obviously don't know what processes we are bound by.

It's not ferking woolworths

Sorry, that 3rd one was cheap. Removed.

Regards,

Brett.

 

[splat]

VLS cells aren't the be all and end of destroyers important. Yes but Radar and other equipment is as important as VLS. The F100 AEGIS system is higher up on the superstructure which gives it higher horizon than an AB. the F100 is as good a choice as small AB.

true,but if you got twice as many weapons to fire then so much the better.

 

[splat]

Upgrade ................ How? If we are talking the evolved AB you could not upgrade it to a Burke. the point you miss is that the ANZAC currently has on 8 VLS, the total missile capability of the FFG7 (modified is basicaly the saem as the AWD. If you construct the ANZAC replacemetn on the F100 and keep the number of cells the over all number of cells wiht AWD and ANZAC replacement is much higher (12 x 48) than any thing we have now.

Just becasue the ANZAC replacement does not have AEGIS does not mean it cannot carry SM-2 for cued firing by the AWD and the addition SM-6 (if adopted) would give it a credible area defence capabiltiy in its own right.

The aquisition of the F100 IP rights opens up some very useful opportunities for the deveopment of the RAN.



What are you suggesting? It seems to be a suggestion we get the bomb.

my mistake.my preference is for a hobart awd with matching vl cell fit as usn arleigh burke.but at the same time evolved arleigh burke awd has 2 heli versus the 1 on usn burkes,so for loss of vl cells for gain of 1 heli id like to hear the comments of those who are or have served in navy.what would yu go for...the xtra cells or heli?

about the nukes...when push comes to shove no one can be trusted nor should be trusted with australias ultimate fate.the current status quo just amounts to hollow promises.

 

[splat]

Good grief, this is just absolute rubbish. I am incredibly curious to know what your experience is in weapons and systems procurement, or whether you've ever been on any form of systems evaluation team to make such stupid comments.

In an evaluation we're not allowed to make cost the critical determinant for a systems assessment/procurement.

The issue is always capability - and against selection criteria determined by the user community.

Politicians don't get near the platform assessment, evaluation - period.

If you're going to slag off at the people who make the assessment on capability for their fellow australians (and the assessment process includes people who use the damn things) - then I sure as hell hope you have a damn good employment history to sit on the internet and slag off at people who do this for a living and are often ex warfighters/users.

I suggest you calm down in your unbridled enthusiasm because you're sure as hell are starting to pi$$ off the professionals who do drive bys in here and who actually have functional experience.

where in this world did u get me taking the position of attack against those in evaluation and those in uniform?im talking about the self serving managers in canberra.those poloticians who are content to not rock the finacial boat.

 

[Beagle]

my mistake.my preference is for a hobart awd with matching vl cell fit as usn arleigh burke.but at the same time evolved arleigh burke awd has 2 heli versus the 1 on usn burkes,so for loss of vl cells for gain of 1 heli id like to hear the comments of those who are or have served in navy.what would yu go for...the xtra cells or heli?

about the nukes...when push comes to shove no one can be trusted nor should be trusted with australias ultimate fate.the current status quo just amounts to hollow promises.

First up the AWD have 6VLS the Burkes have 8VLS to so its not quite half. I think your clearly missing the point GF was subtley (or not) trying to make. The navy have professionals to determine threats and what is required to counter them, be it 6VLS or 8VLS. Something also to remeber is the AWD have some design allowance room built in so maybe 2 more VLS can be installed but those in the know obviously don't think its nessicary.

Secondly why on earth would you want a second hanger? Its a AWD with AAW as it primary role and ASW as it seconday role. Remember its meant to be escorting a LHD with plenty of helo space available.

About Nukes...They are expensive to develop, build, and maintain through the various security requirements. There is money for a 4th maybe a 5th AWD right there. We have enough big friends with nukes who would not like to see our large uranium deposits fall into the wrond hands.

As the saying goes....

Optimists see the glass half full, pesimists half empty, engineers see it as twice the size it needs to be.

 

[kato]

A standard AB DDG has a 4x8 launcher section forward, and a 8x8 section aft (each section with 3 cells used for reloading crane, hence 29+61).

 

[Salty Dog]

A standard AB DDG has a 4x8 launcher section forward, and a 8x8 section aft (each section with 3 cells used for reloading crane, hence 29+61).

AFAIK the reloading crane has been removed from some older Mk-41 VLS systems and not fitted in newer Mk-41 systems.

 

[alexsa]

Strictly speaking, we do not know what the future ANZAC replacement will look like and although current indications are positive (indigenous developments in tech and political support) your assumptions are condition precedent, in that the numbers of cells and hulls of the ANZAC replacement and weapons fit need to be determined before anyone can say that the SEA 4000 project is sufficient in its current format.

Sorry I take umbrage.

What part of If you construct the ANZAC replacement on the F100 did you presume to convert to a statment of intent as is suggested by you tone. It was and observation that IF used the F100 hull (and there is a possibility) and IF we keep the number of cells the over all number of cells with AWD and ANZAC replacement is much higher (12 x 48) than any thing we have now.

Secondly again I am not claiming there is any decision about the ANZAC replacment carry SM-2, however, IF we used the F100 and arrangement of cells there is nothing to preclude it.

As a point of order, if the F100 IP rights are old what would you call those of the Burke by the way. I doubt the US would use your approcah in tis respect.

Basically the post was mooting possibilities, something you are free to do in your post, without condecending denegration.

 

[AegisFC]

AFAIK the reloading crane has been removed from some older Mk-41 VLS systems and not fitted in newer Mk-41 systems.

It has not been removed, maintenance is no longer done on them and are no longer supported for parts.

 

[battlensign]

Sorry I take umbrage.

What part of If you construct the ANZAC replacement on the F100 did you presume to convert to a statment of intent as is suggested by you tone. It was and observation that IF used the F100 hull (and there is a possibility) and IF we keep the number of cells the over all number of cells with AWD and ANZAC replacement is much higher (12 x 48) than any thing we have now.

Secondly again I am not claiming there is any decision about the ANZAC replacment carry SM-2, however, IF we used the F100 and arrangement of cells there is nothing to preclude it.

As a point of order, if the F100 IP rights are old what would you call those of the Burke by the way. I doubt the US would use your approcah in tis respect.

Basically the post was mooting possibilities, something you are free to do in your post, without condecending denegration.

Alexsa,

1) Feel free to take umbrage, but the italics were merely for emphasis rather than to imply 'condecension'. I was perfectly happy with your reasoning. I only wished to point out that it was purely postulation rather than a facts-based projection etc. All I said was that your 'assessment' (for lack of a better word) of a possible future RAN with respect to the sufficiency of Mk 41 VLS cells, utilising an F100-based AWD, was contingent on the assumption of an ANZAC replacement based on a F100 hull and VLS loadout. Should the ANZAC replacement tend towards general purpose frigate then the conclusions regarding the F100 AWD and VLS sufficiency would necessarily change. Surely this isn't akin to an intellectual b**chslap....?

2) Your 'possibility' would essentially (if the ANZAC replacement incorporated APAR) mean an RAN orbat of 12 destroyers, which would be very useful but also expensive. Perhaps this makes it unlikely, particularly with a powerful "Submarine Lobby" and the ANU SDSC.

3)
A) Don't points of order refer to procedural issues rather than substance? In which case, given the concern over substance in your question relating to comparative ages of the AB and F100 designs, wouldn't that be a point of information........?

B) AB design 1980-83. F100 unsure (mid 90's?:unknown). But there have been flights I, II & IIA since then, and are the US planing to still be launching them in 2025? Wouldn't a assumed life of 25 years mean that at the end of its life the first ANZAC replacement would have a concept of operations 70 years old? And a basic hull designed 55 years ago?


Brett.

 

[gf0012-aust]

where in this world did u get me taking the position of attack against those in evaluation and those in uniform?im talking about the self serving managers in canberra.those poloticians who are content to not rock the finacial boat.

What self serving managers?
Where are they?
What particular projects have they influenced?
What projects have had political intervention (on the inference/interference issues you suggest)? They might come in if its going pear shaped - or because someone has got irritated and done a selective leak - but on an issue of influencing the decision based on money? I've yet to see any that get "hit" like that.

Lets also consider that if we didn't have some Politicians making a noise then there would have been few advocates for "son of Collins" etc....
We wouldn't have fast tracked the C=17's
We wouldn't have had Bushmaster (saved from the tannery because it was in a sensitive political seat - nothing to do with capability)
or we wouldn't have had the leverage to get the pretend carriers.

It's yin and tang - but direct political intervention in the project space based on money is not possible. (and if it goes to the NSC for review then there are whole pile of other issues in play)

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Secondly why on earth would you want a second hanger? Its a AWD with AAW as it primary role and ASW as it seconday role. Remember its meant to be escorting a LHD with plenty of helo space available.

A second hangar would not automatically imply a second helicopter. The Naval Aviation 2020 plan is to have each ship flight equipped with a multi-role reconfigurable naval helicopter and a UAV capability of some sort. The later hasn't been determined but it could be some kind of shipboard UAV or UAVs like Fire Scout and would require additional hangar space.

There is also project Sea 1778 for organic deployable MCM. While this will be going in on the LHDs and is likely to consist of some sort of unmanned boat or submersible some of this capability could be provided by air - helos or UAVs. Having a second hangar on your AWD and ANZAC replacement provides space to carry the Sea 1778 vehicles.

The second hangar is the one big cross in the box for the AF-100. However it's hangar can be expanded in size to a hangar and a half. Not as good as the evolved AWD but may allow a full NA2020 flight to be carried on board depending on the UAV solution.

 

[splat]

First up the AWD have 6VLS the Burkes have 8VLS to so its not quite half. I think your clearly missing the point GF was subtley (or not) trying to make. The navy have professionals to determine threats and what is required to counter them, be it 6VLS or 8VLS. Something also to remeber is the AWD have some design allowance room built in so maybe 2 more VLS can be installed but those in the know obviously don't think its nessicary.

Secondly why on earth would you want a second hanger? Its a AWD with AAW as it primary role and ASW as it seconday role. Remember its meant to be escorting a LHD with plenty of helo space available.

About Nukes...They are expensive to develop, build, and maintain through the various security requirements. There is money for a 4th maybe a 5th AWD right there. We have enough big friends with nukes who would not like to see our large uranium deposits fall into the wrond hands.

As the saying goes....

Optimists see the glass half full, pesimists half empty, engineers see it as twice the size it needs to be.

first up awd has 6vls the burkes have 8. well yeah what of it?

as far as the f100 awd having upgrade for extra vls,well if upgradable still aint coming close to a usn burke weapons fit is it.

and those in the know dont find it neccesary...hmm...i assume your refering to the users of the ships?well i rekon if it was up to them they would definately have chosen a design with more weapons capacity potential.

in regards to the second hanger,well i was asking for the opinion of navy personell(both current and former)if theyd go for the second heli or the extra vlt's.

and the nukes...big friends hey...so your quiet happy to leave our ultimate security guarantor status up to our big friends as opposed to taking resposibilty for self...is that how it was in the playground for u.

and our big friends wouldnt want to see our uranium deposits fall into the wrong hands..so what your saying is that in the eyes of our big friends australian uranium in australian hands in the form of australian nuclear weapons is the wrong hands?well how in your eyes could they be our big friends?

 

[splat]

What self serving managers?
Where are they?
What particular projects have they influenced?
What projects have had political intervention (on the inference/interference issues you suggest)? They might come in if its going pear shaped - or because someone has got irritated and done a selective leak - but on an issue of influencing the decision based on money? I've yet to see any that get "hit" like that.

Lets also consider that if we didn't have some Politicians making a noise then there would have been few advocates for "son of Collins" etc....
We wouldn't have fast tracked the C=17's
We wouldn't have had Bushmaster (saved from the tannery because it was in a sensitive political seat - nothing to do with capability)
or we wouldn't have had the leverage to get the pretend carriers.

It's yin and tang - but direct political intervention in the project space based on money is not possible. (and if it goes to the NSC for review then there are whole pile of other issues in play)

well i obviuosly hit a nerve with u didnt i.youve taken my attack on canberra as an attack on your very being...tell me this...who at the end of the day decides how much money to commit to defence?

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Dear Splat,

On the surface your intuitions may seem accurate but in the real world of people who actually do stuff they aren't.

For example nuclear weapons. No country in the world needs Australia's uranium in order to make nuclear bombs. Uranium can be found in enough quantities from just about anywhere in the world to make bombs. Even tiny little North Korea has enough domestic, extractable uranium for as many bombs as they can produce. Australia's large scale uranium supply is needed for economical, competitive nuclear power, which burns up far more uranium than making bombs. It only takes 5 tonnes of Uranium Oxide to make a bomb but 200 tonnes to run a 1,000 MW reactor for a year.

As for VLS cells on AWDs the USN has a very different doctrine of shooting missiles as do the Spanish and Australians. Because they are doing different things, such as the difference between defending an aircraft carrier and an amphibious landing group. The details of these tactical differences are best left outside open source discussions like this.

Also the USN carries many more of different types of missiles in their VLS cells than does Australia. The F-100 in Spanish service carries 32 SM-2 and 64 ESSM missiles or 8 TLAM, 24 SM-2 and 64 ESSM. A typical early DDG-51 in a strike destroyer configuration might carry 32 TLAM, 16 VL ASROC and 42 SM-2. You’d be surprised at just how many TLAMs are onboard USN destroyers...

So really you have no idea about what you are talking about. Which isn’t so bad if only you could be polite about it. Since you won’t this will be the last answer you will ever get from me.

 

[battlensign]

Dear Splat,

As for VLS cells on AWDs the USN has a very different doctrine of shooting missiles as do the Spanish and Australians. Because they are doing different things, such as the difference between defending an aircraft carrier and an amphibious landing group. The details of these tactical differences are best left outside open source discussions like this.

Also the USN carries many more of different types of missiles in their VLS cells than does Australia. The F-100 in Spanish service carries 32 SM-2 and 64 ESSM missiles or 8 TLAM, 24 SM-2 and 64 ESSM. A typical early DDG-51 in a strike destroyer configuration might carry 32 TLAM, 16 VL ASROC and 42 SM-2. You’d be surprised at just how many TLAMs are onboard USN destroyers...

Hey, I just said that....... (admittedly in a less missile-specific manner)

Brett.

 

[AegisFC]

true,but if you got twice as many weapons to fire then so much the better.

What will Australia load all those extra cells with, what real need does it have for 90 or more cells? The USN loads its Burkes out with 2 or 3 VLA and the rest with SM-2's of various flavors and Tomahawks. Australia can't afford nor does it need to fill all those cells, especially if they don't install Tomahawk on the AWD's.
One of the main complaints wasn't that it only had 48 cells, it was that it had them all in one launcher, 2 smaller launchers forward and aft would of been better from a damage control and maintenance prospective but everything in ship design is a compromise and the Spanish went with one larger launcher for whatever reason.

my mistake.my preference is for a hobart awd with matching vl cell fit as usn arleigh burke.but at the same time evolved arleigh burke awd has 2 heli versus the 1 on usn burkes,so for loss of vl cells for gain of 1 heli id like to hear the comments of those who are or have served in navy.what would yu go for...the xtra cells or heli?

You should think about learning how to correctly type and learn when to capitalize, do so and your posts will be a LOT easier to follow. Also learn how to spell, do so or your posts will start to be deleted. We assume the posters on this forum are adults and expect them to have the spelling and grammar of one.

Flight II Arliegh Burkes have 2 hangars for no loss of VLS cells.

First up the AWD have 6VLS the Burkes have 8VLS to so its not quite half.

What in the heck are you going on about? 6VLS, 8VLS?

The F-100 has a single 48 cell launcher. The Flight I and II Burkes have a 29 cell launcher up forward and a 61 cell back aft for a grand total 90 cells, a newer Flight IIA has 96, I don't know what you are getting at but a F-100 has just slightly more than half the number of a Burke.

 

[Beagle]

first up awd has 6vls the burkes have 8. well yeah what of it?

as far as the f100 awd having upgrade for extra vls,well if upgradable still aint coming close to a usn burke weapons fit is it.

and those in the know dont find it neccesary...hmm...i assume your refering to the users of the ships?well i rekon if it was up to them they would definately have chosen a design with more weapons capacity potential.

in regards to the second hanger,well i was asking for the opinion of navy personell(both current and former)if theyd go for the second heli or the extra vlt's.

and the nukes...big friends hey...so your quiet happy to leave our ultimate security guarantor status up to our big friends as opposed to taking resposibilty for self...is that how it was in the playground for u.

and our big friends wouldnt want to see our uranium deposits fall into the wrong hands..so what your saying is that in the eyes of our big friends australian uranium in australian hands in the form of australian nuclear weapons is the wrong hands?well how in your eyes could they be our big friends?

Of course operators would like more missles to fire if they have the option but there are practical and monetary realities. Operators don't always get all the background information, they give input which is hopefully fully valued, but they are not the sole source for purcument and capability descions. If you don't know how the criteria is determined and evaluated, don't speak garbage.

Since when was a USN AB in the running! Previous to my last response the discussion was on the mini burke offered to OZ, since then I have noticed it has evolved into a USN AB discussion. Hence refering your response about the Burke having twice the firepower is not correct, when considering what was actually evaluated.

As for Nukes, they are a deterance weapon that I hope never actually have to be used. I am saying that our associations are a deterance factor in its self. Hence militarily, polictically and most of all financially I do not see them being worth the investment.

AG well put, you said it all.

AG the second hanger comment was in response to splat's comment on a 2nd helicopter. I got carried away and should have said helicopter rather than hanger (as the space is also usefull for more than just deployable weapon systems). I was trying to imply that for the AWD's there are alternatives to a second helicopter on board, so its not the be all and end all when considering its primary role.

FC yes it does, my terminology mistake. I was thinking in Sylver terminology where each VLS is in 8 cell modules. The evaluated Burke only had 64 cells.

 

[alexsa]

Alexsa,

1) Feel free to take umbrage, but the italics were merely for emphasis rather than to imply 'condecension'. I was perfectly happy with your reasoning. I only wished to point out that it was purely postulation rather than a facts-based projection etc..

Given the use of the term IF I don't see how you could have suggested otherwise.

All I said was that your 'assessment' (for lack of a better word) of a possible future RAN with respect to the sufficiency of Mk 41 VLS cells, utilising an F100-based AWD, was contingent on the assumption of an ANZAC replacement based on a F100 hull and VLS loadout. ..

There has been discussion on the use of the F100 hull (in the same manner an evolved MEKO was originally considered a possibility for the AWD whent he ANZAC project commenced) so this is certainly something that could be considered.

Your 'possibility' would essentially (if the ANZAC replacement incorporated APAR) mean an RAN orbat of 12 destroyers, which would be very useful but also expensive. Perhaps this makes it unlikely, particularly with a powerful "Submarine Lobby" and the ANU SDSC.

The ANZAC replacement will need sensors and given the work currnetly underway by CEA (provided it works) goes beyong just the ASMD. Since thsi project is not intended for the AWD it is reasonable to suggest it will find a home on our next surface combatant (again provided it works). As such the combination of a known hull (in construction at the time and for which we do not have to pay deveopment rights for an evolved design) 'maybe' a similar Mk41 fit and APAR is a possbility. Ths does not make it an AWD but would be a very good surfce combatant. I struggle to see why the submarine lobby woule object. The alterantive is a new desing with a greater degree of risk.

A) Don't points of order refer to procedural issues rather than substance? In which case, given the concern over substance in your question relating to comparative ages of the AB and F100 designs, wouldn't that be a point of information........?

B) AB design 1980-83. F100 unsure (mid 90's?:unknown). But there have been flights I, II & IIA since then, and are the US planing to still be launching them in 2025? Wouldn't a assumed life of 25 years mean that at the end of its life the first ANZAC replacement would have a concept of operations 70 years old? And a basic hull designed 55 years ago?


Brett.

err you cannot have it both ways. You were derisive of the benifit of having IP on a 30 YO design (by the way the decision to buit this was taken in the mid 90's but design work did not complete untill 1998 or 1998 so 30 years is a bit of a stretch) yet somehow this does not apply the AB which is an older design and concept of operations. As you note the AB has evolved and the F100 is similarly evolving over its production run. If we were to sue the hull form and parts of the gneral lay out it doesnot make this less effective that other options and needs can be worked into the design (as you point out the USN will keep getting AB until 2025)

If we had built the G&C evolved burke I suggest we wouel ahve been required to pay plenty if we decied to use the hull for the next class of warships. In this sense the IP rights are of considerable benifit IF we decide to go down this track,