Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[SASWanabe]

hey, i was wondering if anyone could explain the decision making in the choice of buying F100 over Arleigh Burke for the AWD. I have been looking at statistics for both vessels and in almost all categories the Burke either Matches or outdoes the F100.

i understand the navy has modified the design of the F100 for australian purposes but it appears the Burke would be closer in competition.

 

[icelord]

hey, i was wondering if anyone could explain the decision making in the choice of buying F100 over Arleigh Burke for the AWD. I have been looking at statistics for both vessels and in almost all categories the Burke either Matches or outdoes the F100.

i understand the navy has modified the design of the F100 for australian purposes but it appears the Burke would be closer in competition.

Time for delivery and price, its kinda cheaper.
It was to be introduced at least 2 years before "baby burke" which is the big thing the RAN looked at. Most people, including previous CN preffered the US over F100, but time was not on its side. Building in the US was ruled out completely, as it requires aus industry.
I was all for a burke, visited one last year and got easily lost in its size, althout when F100 was in Aus 2 year ago did impress alotta people.

 

[RubiconNZ]

hey, i was wondering if anyone could explain the decision making in the choice of buying F100 over Arleigh Burke for the AWD. I have been looking at statistics for both vessels and in almost all categories the Burke either Matches or outdoes the F100.

i understand the navy has modified the design of the F100 for Australian purposes but it appears the Burke would be closer in competition.

I'm sure some senior members could explain it more eloquently but in my understanding there were three main reasons that come to mind.

1) "Off the Shelf" vs. Concept, the F100 was a proven class verses the more conceptual ship plan for the Gibbs and Cox Evolved Arleigh.

2) Manning Requirements and Crew size the F100 was seen as more efficient as it has a much smaller manning requirement than the Arleigh Burke. 180 vs 260 odd.

3) Cost the Evolved Burke was to be more expensive IIRC, not to through life cost due to higher personnel costs, size, requirements etc.

Personally I believe the "Evolved" Arleigh had more growth capacity & capability, though the RAN and ADF seemed content with the F100 fulfilling the RAN's needs through a lower risk lower cost project.

Edit:
Beat me to the punch Icelord, but since I wrote it I might as well I'll leave it.

 

[Sea Toby]

Its not a child's game of I got more than you do... Both AWDs have the same Aegis radar, SM 2 and ESSM SAMs, capable of tomahawk and harpoon SSMs, ASW helicopter and torpedo tubes, etc., etc. Basically with the same quality, but different in quantity of missile cells... A ship hit by a cruise missile could sink whether it has 90 missile cells or 80 missile cells...

I am sure the perceived value for the money spent went for the F100... Its really that simple...

 

[gf0012-aust]

hey, i was wondering if anyone could explain the decision making in the choice of buying F100 over Arleigh Burke for the AWD. I have been looking at statistics for both vessels and in almost all categories the Burke either Matches or outdoes the F100.

i understand the navy has modified the design of the F100 for australian purposes but it appears the Burke would be closer in competition.

In the end it was politics. Australian Industry Content was probably the single biggest influence.

considering what we ended up with at an AIC level, it's a bloody joke.

 

[hairyman]

What worries me is that we seem to be downsizing the RAN. In the future we are going to be left with 3 AWD's, two OHP's, and 8 Anzacs. A total of 13 surface ships.
I originally thought the 3 AWD;s were to replace the 3 CF Adams Missile Destroyers, and we would also have 6 OHP's or equivilent, plus the 8 Anzacs, 17 surface ships. There is talk of a new class of ship to replace the Anzacs based on the F100 hull, but the larger frigate (OHP) is being forgotten. Or am I wrong?

 

[Aussie Digger]

What worries me is that we seem to be downsizing the RAN. In the future we are going to be left with 3 AWD's, two OHP's, and 8 Anzacs. A total of 13 surface ships.
I originally thought the 3 AWD;s were to replace the 3 CF Adams Missile Destroyers, and we would also have 6 OHP's or equivilent, plus the 8 Anzacs, 17 surface ships. There is talk of a new class of ship to replace the Anzacs based on the F100 hull, but the larger frigate (OHP) is being forgotten. Or am I wrong?

It's worse than that. The AWD's are going to replace the FFG-7's. Our surface combatant force looks headed for only 11x platforms under current plans...

Pretty measly for a country with one of the longest, if not the longest coastline in the world...

12x platforms with a 4th AWD added to the current plan, should be the minimum fleet size not the objective fleet size...

Hopefully the OCV would address the issue somewhat, but you'll have to excuse me for not holding my breath waiting for THAT project to provide more combat capability than the Armidales do...

 

[Ozymandias]

It's worse than that. The AWD's are going to replace the FFG-7's. Our surface combatant force looks headed for only 11x platforms under current plans...

Pretty measly for a country with one of the longest, if not the longest coastline in the world...

12x platforms with a 4th AWD added to the current plan, should be the minimum fleet size not the objective fleet size...

Hopefully the OCV would address the issue somewhat, but you'll have to excuse me for not holding my breath waiting for THAT project to provide more combat capability than the Armidales do...

How do you figure 11=insufficent, 12=enough?

RAN would have an easier time staffing a larger surface fleet than 6 more subs, though.

 

[Aussie Digger]

How do you figure 11=insufficent, 12=enough?

RAN would have an easier time staffing a larger surface fleet than 6 more subs, though.

Remember that bit where I wrote that 12x should be the MINIMUM major surface combatant fleet size for the RAN?

Obviously I believe we can and should increase our frigate force beyond 12, not decrease it even further than now. We are a major maritime nation afterall...

I think a Frigate/Destroyer force of 16x vessels would provide the capability we need.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Remember that bit where I wrote that 12x should be the MINIMUM major surface combatant fleet size for the RAN?

Obviously I believe we can and should increase our frigate force beyond 12, not decrease it even further than now. We are a major mairitime nation afterall...

I think a Frigate/Destroyer force of 16x vessels would provide the capability we need.

agree,

to have effective coverage and maintain both fleet bases while still effecting deep maintenance, we need 6 a side. that would leave 4 operational a side. it still only means 2 per quadrant.

if only one per side is in deep maint then it leaves 2 for northern australia

 

[Ozymandias]

Remember that bit where I wrote that 12x should be the MINIMUM major surface combatant fleet size for the RAN?

Obviously I believe we can and should increase our frigate force beyond 12, not decrease it even further than now. We are a major maritime nation afterall...

I think a Frigate/Destroyer force of 16x vessels would provide the capability we need.

Minimum = enough, by definition.

I understand you think Australia needs more surface combatants, I am interested to know why you think that is so. Leaving aside manpower and cost issues, what could the Navy do with 12-16 ships that they can't do now?

 

[Aussie Digger]

Minimum = enough, by definition.

And 11x is certainly enough to provide a veneer of a capability and provide a rotational frigate capability to the Gulf, provided little to no warfighting is actually required, not enough to provide a sustainable warfighting capability...

I understand you think Australia needs more surface combatants, I am interested to know why you think that is so. Leaving aside manpower and cost issues, what could the Navy do with 12-16 ships that they can't do now?

The reason why I think we need more hulls, is the same reason Rudd used to justify 12x subs and that is to raise the number of operational hulls.

11x hulls gives us what? 7-8 boats at best in the water at any one time allowing for maintenance, crewing and training activities? Add a frigate deployed virtually permanently to the Gulf and we have maybe 6 frigates for our domestic naval capability... Does anyone truly believe this is adequate to defend our air sea gap, let alone our SLOC?

DoA is our PRIMARY defence task, but which part of of Australia we are going to defend is what we'd have to decide with this force structure...

Navy is by no means unique in this matter. ADF as a whole is being downsized with the capabilities needed in the modern battlespace being bought in miniscule levels hardly enough to even satisfy Government's own deployment requirements...

 

[knightrider4]

And 11x is certainly enough to provide a veneer of a capability and provide a rotational frigate capability to the Gulf, provided little to no warfighting is actually required, not enough to provide a sustainable warfighting capability...



The reason why I think we need more hulls, is the same reason Rudd used to justify 12x subs and that is to raise the number of operational hulls.

11x hulls gives us what? 7-8 boats at best in the water at any one time allowing for maintenance, crewing and training activities? Add a frigate deployed virtually permanently to the Gulf and we have maybe 6 frigates for our domestic naval capability... Does anyone truly believe this is adequate to defend our air sea gap, let alone our SLOC?

DoA is our PRIMARY defence task, but which part of of Australia we are going to defend is what we'd have to decide with this force structure...

Navy is by no means unique in this matter. ADF as a whole is being downsized with the capabilities needed in the modern battlespace being bought in miniscule levels hardly enough to even satisfy Government's own deployment requirements...

Funnily enough I was watching Yes Prime Minister the other night and they were discussing the nuclear deterrent and Humphrey was highlighting the fact that the Russians knew that Britain was indefensible however the public needed to believe that the opposite was true. Everyone on this forum knows that Australia couldn't possibly defend itself against a remotely competent enemy certainly not with the curent funding levels. The public doesn't look at numbers they pay attention to the word association you say frigate or tank or gunship and they think everythings fine. If the public knew the truth they'd have a collective heart attack.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Funnily enough I was watching Yes Prime Minister the other night and they were discussing the nuclear deterrent and Humphrey was highlighting the fact that the Russians knew that Britain was indefensible however the public needed to believe that the opposite was true. Everyone on this forum knows that Australia couldn't possibly defend itself against a remotely competent enemy certainly not with the curent funding levels. The public doesn't look at numbers they pay attention to the word association you say frigate or tank or gunship and they think everythings fine. If the public knew the truth they'd have a collective heart attack.

I agree. Things area abysmal and getting worse, thanks to the SRP. Defence has to find $20b in savings, how many other Government Departments do though and why? Government is telling us all how well we survived GFC isn't it? So why are the savings so necessary? They weren't beforehand apparently...

The usual rubbish about 'injecting it back into the frontline' will be trotted out, be know that is absolutely rubbish and that money won't be seen again by Defence...

 

[Sea Toby]

I agree. Things area abysmal and getting worse, thanks to the SRP. Defence has to find $20b in savings, how many other Government Departments do though and why? Government is telling us all how well we survived GFC isn't it? So why are the savings so necessary? They weren't beforehand apparently...

The usual rubbish about 'injecting it back into the frontline' will be trotted out, be know that is absolutely rubbish and that money won't be seen again by Defence...

The major problem worldwide in the Western nations has been the credit crunch and the DEEP recession. During small market corrections in the past the market rebounded within a couple of years. Unfortunately. this time its lasted twice as long affecting the budgets and tax revenues of every government department. Not only have we seen layoffs in the private sector, the public sector have seen layoffs.

When the lefties favorite programs are getting hammered by budget cuts, their prime suspect for deeper cuts have been defense. The righties are more worried about the national debt and are pushing for budget cuts across the board, including defense. In this political climate defense is cut, there is no voice to curtail the cuts.

Another major problem is that when the public sector's budgets are cut in a mild recession, they get their funding restored quickly. Unfortunately again, when the defense budgets are cut their funding is not restored much at all...

 

[SASWanabe]

What i like is how Gillard can find $43bn for a national broadband network but not 1-2bn for a 4th AWD...

Just to put my 2 cents in, i Think the navys fleet should look something like this : 4 AWD, 10 ANZAC II, 8 Collins Replacement, 2 LHD and sumthing along the lines of 4-5 Australianised Kara/Kynda Class Cruiser for multipurpose missions... ASW or Backup AWD.

 

[icelord]

The main issue is you never actually have 12 ships available at any one time,
At best you get 10 with 2 in Ship Maintance period, or Dry dock for upgrade,
When i can delete some of my old photos ill put up a brilliant one of 25% of the RAN surface Combatant fleet in FBE dry dock last year.
Then you count 1 is on deployment, 1 is getting ready to replace and 1 has returned in last few months, you get 3 more that are off task. So your looking at half the fleet laid up and thats without excercises and Local tasking(op resoloute from time to time, Long N, PWO week, FCP) so you start getting less flexible for emergencies or SAR. Count Bersama lima/shield, Talisman Sabre RIMPAC more and more ships are off the Australian station as well.
FBE every few weeks has 1 ship alongside as everyones out for one of the mentioned activities. thats out of 11 Major ships.
Next years plan is packed as its the 100th anniversary of RAN and all ships will be visiting major cities.:australia
In the future we will be seeing the FFH start Upgrade with new mast etc much like HMAS Perth, so looking at 6-9 mths per ship out, with 1 about to upgrade, 1 in dock and 1 starting work up, theres another 3 out of rotation, with FFG slowly starting to be worked to its last days for AWD replacement.
The more ships you have, the less sea time is required for each ship. Coming back from 6mth deployment we leave again start of next year for 5mths before then another 6mth deployment is on plan for end of year. For crew rest, courses, rotations etc that sucks. i planned 3 courses start of year that are now on hold till mid year, so we could use more ships.
As for manning, theres more people ashore then there needs to be, so lets drag some of those useless shorehuggers out to sea, you join the navy to go to sea, its that simple. :nutkick

 

[Aussie Digger]

The major problem worldwide in the Western nations has been the credit crunch and the DEEP recession. During small market corrections in the past the market rebounded within a couple of years. Unfortunately. this time its lasted twice as long affecting the budgets and tax revenues of every government department. Not only have we seen layoffs in the private sector, the public sector have seen layoffs.

When the lefties favorite programs are getting hammered by budget cuts, their prime suspect for deeper cuts have been defense. The righties are more worried about the national debt and are pushing for budget cuts across the board, including defense. In this political climate defense is cut, there is no voice to curtail the cuts.

Another major problem is that when the public sector's budgets are cut in a mild recession, they get their funding restored quickly. Unfortunately again, when the defense budgets are cut their funding is not restored much at all...

Except our GDP still grew, even in the middle of the GFC, Government revenue grew and the Australian defence budget is larger than previous years too. But for some reason Defence still have to find $2b a year in savings, which of course will predominantly come from such non-essential items as training courses, training days and exercises, ordnance and ammunition holdings, platform fleets, future capability acquisitions and possibly 'if' the Defence supoort mechanism, including the civilian bureaucracy can possibly 'stand' being pared back any more, there might be a few pennies found there too...

 

[Roglyn]

Except our GDP still grew, even in the middle of the GFC, Government revenue grew and the Australian defence budget is larger than previous years too. But for some reason Defence still have to find $2b a year in savings, which of course will predominantly come from such non-essential items as training courses, training days and exercises, ordnance and ammunition holdings, platform fleets, future capability acquisitions and possibly 'if' the Defence supoort mechanism, including the civilian bureaucracy can possibly 'stand' being pared back any more, there might be a few pennies found there too...

My conceren is the amount of outsourcing that the ADF is being forced to accept. For example a company Like ESS provides the following services;
• Catering

• Housekeeping

• Accommodation management

• Supply chain & Logistics

• Firefighting & Rescue services

• Stores

• Recycling support

• Laundry services and more...

Has anyone done a costing on these service providers’ verses ADF supplying personnel to provide these services? I have never seen one but it seems to me that the ADF is losing its sovereignty in its own establishments and is at the beck and call of these providers.

 

[t68]

My conceren is the amount of outsourcing that the ADF is being forced to accept. For example a company Like ESS provides the following services;
• Catering

• Housekeeping

• Accommodation management

• Supply chain & Logistics

• Firefighting & Rescue services

• Stores

• Recycling support

• Laundry services and more...

Has anyone done a costing on these service providers’ verses ADF supplying personnel to provide these services? I have never seen one but it seems to me that the ADF is losing its sovereignty in its own establishments and is at the beck and call of these providers.

Yeah, I am with you on this i have never really understood the gains with witch government make from privatize things as the provider has to make a profit on things, but it moves other personnel into front line units. I used to work for the old DAS distribution, the governments own storage and transport company but no longer exits and have seen all the old work go to private industry witch still had the same operating cost but make a paper profit when all work was government related so money was going from one government dept to another so in fact the only cost to government was wages fuel and equipment plus asset service’s. I shook my head when i saw how much it was costing to government to do what we in fact were doing for about half the price used to move a lot of the ADF ordnance by road. DAS went private then broken up ordnance hen went to Helidon carrying company, then on sold to Mitchell transport from WA.

But in saying that I have seen some wonderful people who unfortunately have had an accident or some other problem that still could make a vital contribution to defence but were pensioned off, but still wanted to serve in some form of capacity.

Saw a media alert that HMAS Kanimbla had a minor fire on board, any news on the extant of damage or cause of the fire.
MSPA 448/10 Tuesday, 21 September 2010

Minor fire in HMAS Kanimbla

A small fire occurred in HMAS Kanimbla this afternoon in the vicinity of Sydney Heads.

There was a brief loss of power while efforts to extinguish the fire took place, causing Kanimbla to drift towards North Head.

Sydney Ports Corporation and Svitzer Corporation were contacted just prior to
4.00 pm to provide tug support as a precaution. This support was not required as the ship subsequently restored power and proceeded to sea, clear of the entrance to Sydney Harbour and other navigational hazards.

No one was injured in the incident and no external assistance was required.

Kanimbla is conducting an initial damage assessment at sea. If necessary, the ship will return alongside to Fleet Base East, Garden Island to conduct further damage assessment.