Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[Vivendi]

AFAIK the Norwegians involved in the Nansen class project with Navantia were less than impressed by N. performance-- I don't know much details however I believe there were issues at different levels.

OTOH the issues were not so serious that they threatened to kill or seriously hamper the project. Also there were steady improvements. From a Norwegian on-line journal:

The second vessel was delivered, it was found 50% less error than the first frigate. Error rate was also cut a lot further in the series. - We are extremely pleased with the vessel we now have handed over, "said Stensønes

Helge Ingstad (10/2009) - Maritimt Magasin


One should perhaps also point out that there may also be "cultural differences" between Norway and Spain that possibly induced some of the issues, I don't know if this could also be a factor for Australia?

AFAIK we are now quite happy with our Nansen class frigates. (although many refer to them as "KNM Weaponless" due to the fact that they are currently somewhat lacking in arnament, but that's of course a completely separate issue)

 

[gf0012-aust]

AFAIK the Norwegians involved in the Nansen class project with Navantia were less than impressed by N. performance-- I don't know much details however I believe there were issues at different levels.

There was no shortage of input from the Norwegians to Australia about how unhappy they were at some of the build and partnering stages - IIRC I stated this some years ago and on here.

 

[Jaimito]

AFAIK the Norwegians involved in the Nansen class project with Navantia were less than impressed by N. performance-- I don't know much details however I believe there were issues at different levels.

I have not heard the Spanish navy had complaints wrt Navantia works, and they send people to inspect the works as well.

OTOH the issues were not so serious that they threatened to kill or seriously hamper the project.

But the block/s made in Norway were unusable and there had to be unconfortable (not easy agreement) negotiations to solve the money of those block/s. Will Williamstown yard ask for money to Navantia? Or maybe they have clear whose mistake or misunderstood is and have agreed to say less as possible of it? You can´t trust in unofficial info.

Apart there is the first Canberra with most of blocks done, mounted and probably inspected by Australian people, they have been done to Lloyd´s standards and so far Australian are ok.

 

[Jaimito]

Ferrol and Fene; on the other hand, have a long proud history of production workers doing what they think is right, even if the naval architects and structurals think otherwise. Which results in lots of configuration management problems (product not matching the drawings), and sometimes they stuff it up because they think they know better than the engineers; but often problems are fixed before it's too late to prevent rework.

Hehe that is the reason why they make blocks so fast and exact enough to use them.

 

[Jaimito]

from a build model defined by Govt that may be so - but from a capability level, not in my opinion.

I've seen some of the output on selection and it cranks me up that we have another decision made in absentia of a few critical warfighting suggestions.

we went cheap again, and we will pay the price as we always change the design enough to make it more expensive than the tactically preferred solution.

we always do this.
we don't bloody learn
we allow political process to intervene beyond acceptable levels
we pretend that we made the right choice to keep the govt of the day looking good

a bad baseline decision decided by money - and which will laughably end up costing more than the more capable option and a vessel with less development flexibility.

all this despite some coherent and persistent concerns about local industry competency and the contracting model - and not just from within.

all IMO of course.

sadly it won't be the last time we buy the wrong box to fit in the designated hole.

I suppose you are refering to Arleigh Burke? It is 9000-10000 tonnes, almost double the F105, 2 more gas turbines, that is double life cost expense related, 100 more people, that is 50% more manning cost related, and the ship itself completed, from Us webs, is 2200 millions dollars. F105 is estimated 750 mill. euro total price today´s price. If you had go for Burkes then you´d be mortgaging future ADF budget flexibity, just imagine to be mortgaged like that and sudden strong crisis appears...eg total lifecycle cost is like 3 times asset initial cost.
Burke´s 9.3 draft.
Now if Evolved Burke is to be reduced a bit up to 8000 tonnes, a bit cheaper initially, but Arleigh Burke´s had more than 20 months of delay, so you could expect the Evolved design not to be a path of roses...just imaging the same block problem in Burkes, just it would have bigger worst consequences.
And not to speak if you want an Anzac 2 on 9000 tonnes or have to go for other design.
The main difference between them is Burke´s on 96 cells in Vls.
Just putting 48 cells in Awd and Anzac 2 and Australia will be the 2nd strongest navy in the world, but probably you can put more than 48 cells (each module for Vls´s has 8 cells).

Edit: say 3 times total life cycle cost then: 3 Burkes: (1 Burke 2200 mill. $ for development and delays from Evolved Burke) 6600 mill $ times 3 is 20000 mill $.
3 Awds: (1 Awd 750 mill euro) 2200 mill euro times 3 is 6600 mill $, so the Adf has saved 13400 mill $/euros plus the money and time saved on Anzac 2 replacement and commonality, maintenances, spares, flexibility on crew substitution...

 

[Todjaeger]

I suppose you are refering to Arleigh Burke? It is 9000-10000 tonnes, almost double the F105, 2 more gas turbines, that is double life cost expense related, 100 more people, that is 50% more manning cost related, and the ship itself completed, from Us webs, is 2200 millions dollars. F105 is estimated 750 mill. euro total price today´s price. If you had go for Burkes then you´d be mortgaging future ADF budget flexibity, just imagine to be mortgaged like that and sudden strong crisis appears...eg total lifecycle cost is like 3 times asset initial cost.
Burke´s 9.3 draft.
Now if Evolved Burke is to be reduced a bit up to 8000 tonnes, a bit cheaper initially, but Arleigh Burke´s had more than 20 months of delay, so you could expect the Evolved design not to be a path of roses...just imaging the same block problem in Burkes, just it would have bigger worst consequences.
And not to speak if you want an Anzac 2 on 9000 tonnes or have to go for other design.
The main difference between them is Burke´s on 96 cells in Vls.
Just putting 48 cells in Awd and Anzac 2 and Australia will be the 2nd strongest navy in the world, but probably you can put more than 48 cells (each module for Vls´s has 8 cells).

Edit: say 3 times total life cycle cost then: 3 Burkes: (1 Burke 2200 mill. $ for development and delays from Evolved Burke) 6600 mill $ times 3 is 20000 mill $.
3 Awds: (1 Awd 750 mill euro) 2200 mill euro times 3 is 6600 mill $, so the Adf has saved 13400 mill $/euros plus the money and time saved on Anzac 2 replacement and commonality, maintenances, spares, flexibility on crew substitution...

A few comments and corrections here. The proposed G & C 'Baby Burke' was essentially a smaller version of the Arleigh Burke-class DDG, more inline with the Japanese Kongou-class DDG which IIRC was itself a G&C design.

In terms of the higher crew requirement, that has very much to do with USN doctrine, particularly with regards to damage control. USN vessels tend to be crew heavy compared to similar vessels operated by other navies. While these numbers might be off (I am doing this from memory) a USN FFG-7/Oliver Hazard Perry-class FFG would deploy with something like 300-320 crew aboard. Meanwhile, a RAN Adelaide-class FFG (the Australianized version of the OHP frigate) would deploy with ~220 crew aboard. Same ship, very similar fitout in terms of sensors, electronics and machinery, but the USN frigate would have nearly 50% more crew. That has very much to do with US experience handling damage control.

As such, I would expect that the 'Baby Burke' would have a similar crew requirement to that of the now chosen Hobart-class AWD version of the Navantia F100 design.

Some advantages that the 'Baby Burke' had over the F100, is that the design being newer and larger would allow for more room for 'futureproofing' the design. If at some future date the RAN decided (or found out...) that the AWD needed additional VLS cells on deployments, the current F100 design does not really have much additional room to install them. An Arleigh Burke-class DDG OTOH has two separate sets of VLS, one fore and the other aft, and AFAIK the 'Baby Burke' was to have a similar arrangement available. This would mean that if it was decided to have the AWD fitted 'for, but not with' the max allotment of VLS cells, more could potentially be added without requiring something drastic like a hull plug. Additionally, by having a pair of VLS cells located on opposite ends of the ship, damage to the vessel is less likely to achieve a complete mission kill. In an F100, if there is significant damage to a vessel's bow/forecastle, then it it quite likely that the 5" gun as well as the VLS would be rendered inoperative.

Altogether, going with a smaller vessel design can make it less expensive to purchase, it might also impact the long-term operational viability of the design. Unfortunately, the rather complex question of which design would be the better choice can really only be known in hindsight.

-Cheers

 

[sandman]

In terms of the higher crew requirement, that has very much to do with USN doctrine, particularly with regards to damage control. USN vessels tend to be crew heavy compared to similar vessels operated by other navies. While these numbers might be off (I am doing this from memory) a USN FFG-7/Oliver Hazard Perry-class FFG would deploy with something like 300-320 crew aboard. Meanwhile, a RAN Adelaide-class FFG (the Australianized version of the OHP frigate) would deploy with ~220 crew aboard. Same ship, very similar fitout in terms of sensors, electronics and machinery, but the USN frigate would have nearly 50% more crew. That has very much to do with US experience handling damage control.

Not correct. USN crew numbers onboard OHPs are more or less the same as those of the RAN.

 

[icelord]

In terms of the higher crew requirement, that has very much to do with USN doctrine, particularly with regards to damage control. USN vessels tend to be crew heavy compared to similar vessels operated by other navies. While these numbers might be off (I am doing this from memory) a USN FFG-7/Oliver Hazard Perry-class FFG would deploy with something like 300-320 crew aboard. Meanwhile, a RAN Adelaide-class FFG (the Australianized version of the OHP frigate) would deploy with ~220 crew aboard. Same ship, very similar fitout in terms of sensors, electronics and machinery, but the USN frigate would have nearly 50% more crew. That has very much to do with US experience handling damage control.

Where the hell did they put them?!? i remember on Newcastle struggling with an additional 30 people during a Long N course, with students sleeping in the hanger, LeutCommanders and above sleeping in Jnrs messes and bunks in every spare compartment onboard, and that was with some crew on leave to make room...thankfully there was no embarked Flight during that time, otherwise it could have struggled.

If a FFG requires more room for deployment they place an accomadation module in the spare hanger of the ship, with the other for Helo. I know the FFH sturggles when surging people onboard for operations or VIP guests. We lost our Tv so they could fit another bunk for translator in the MEAO. But to be fair the bunk system on Anzac is much better then FFG, as i can roll over in my pit and actually sit up as well

The US also dont multi task when it comes to equipment like the RAN and other navies do. We have a stoker trained to repair multi componants on a ship, with a Leading hand able to specialise in that piece of equipment, but still maintain knowledge of other sections. The USN have stokers trained for their kit, and little else. Without covering whole ship Equipment. Same goes with Greenies(electrical technicians for the unsalted) ours are split into sections, but are capable to work on multiple systems without too much head scratching(well, theres still some but mostly from the maintainer himself)

Oddly enough, the only one who gets wholeship training and knowledge is their officers, while ours are trained in either weapons electrical, seamanip, mechanical and supply. Then specialise within their branch. USN do 'jack of all trades, master of none'

 

[gf0012-aust]

As such, I would expect that the 'Baby Burke' would have a similar crew requirement to that of the now chosen Hobart-class AWD version of the Navantia F100 design.

RAN did some heavy engagement with the USN and with G&C on crewing issues, the numbers were coming down.

either way, the reality is that we purchased these due to political imperative - not tactical competency and through life advantages.

nice ships - just not for us.

anyway, the deals done and we have to live with these for the next 30+ years. In the first 10 years we'll discover that they cost more to build and maintain than the alternative - and will have less upgrade potential.

$hitt happens, and we'll live with it - again.

 

[Todjaeger]

Not correct. USN crew numbers onboard OHPs are more or less the same as those of the RAN.

AND

Where the hell did they put them?!? i remember on Newcastle struggling with an additional 30 people during a Long N course, with students sleeping in the hanger, LeutCommanders and above sleeping in Jnrs messes and bunks in every spare compartment onboard, and that was with some crew on leave to make room...thankfully there was no embarked Flight during that time, otherwise it could have struggled.

As I said, I was doing that from memory. I will check with an ex-USN crewmen when I get a chance to double check numbers. I do quite distinctly remember though that USN OHP's did have a significantly higher number of crew vs. similar RAN FFG's, and that was due to different doctrine re: crew roles.

-Cheers

 

[aussienscale]

AND



As I said, I was doing that from memory. I will check with an ex-USN crewmen when I get a chance to double check numbers. I do quite distinctly remember though that USN OHP's did have a significantly higher number of crew vs. similar RAN FFG's, and that was due to different doctrine re: crew roles.

-Cheers

I would have to agree with you Tod, when I was in the Puss IIRC our FFG's were around the 180 mark and having done in company time with US Carrier Groups their FFG's were around the 220 mark, give or take. Our ships did have a different fitout as far as messing arrangements went. When I was on the Hobart we had some US Comms operators do a crossdeck and they said that even the DDG (by which time the US did not even have any left in service) had better accomodation than their ship, much more room and better facilities. This goes back to the early 90's though so not sure what current arrangements are

 

[gf0012-aust]

As I said, I was doing that from memory. I will check with an ex-USN crewmen when I get a chance to double check numbers. I do quite distinctly remember though that USN OHP's did have a significantly higher number of crew vs. similar RAN FFG's, and that was due to different doctrine re: crew roles.

-Cheers

US ships tend to have larger crews as they have different philosophies wrt to fire and damage control.

I'd be very surprised if the crewing was identical as its not my experience that this is so.

 

[Aussie Digger]

RAN did some heavy engagement with the USN and with G&C on crewing issues, the numbers were coming down.

either way, the reality is that we purchased these due to political imperative - not tactical competency and through life advantages.

nice ships - just not for us.

anyway, the deals done and we have to live with these for the next 30+ years. In the first 10 years we'll discover that they cost more to build and maintain than the alternative - and will have less upgrade potential.

$hitt happens, and we'll live with it - again.

Given all they'll probably ever have to do is visit RIMPAC and a few other ex's, maybe chase a few wooden Dhows around the Middle East and probably be drafted in to help deal with refugee problems, they'll probably suffice...

 

[Vivendi]

I have not heard the Spanish navy had complaints wrt Navantia works, and they send people to inspect the works as well.
.

And to my knowledge the Swedish Navy never complained much about the subs made by Kockums -- still the Collins class had a number of issues.

Of course the Collins class is quite different from the Swedish subs (that was part of the problem) but then again there are numerous differences between F100 and Nansen -- seems to me the differences are larger and more numerous between the F100 class and Nansen than between the Hobart class and F105 (although I may be wrong). Dimensions are different, radar is different, Nansen was strengthened to get som limited "ice-breaking" capabilities, etc.

AFAIK the Hobart class will have the same dimensions as the F100 class, is this correct?

 

[Vivendi]

Just putting 48 cells in Awd and Anzac 2 and Australia will be the 2nd strongest navy in the world, but probably you can put more than 48 cells (each module for Vls´s has 8 cells).

Are you saying that the F100/Hobart class can fit more than 48 cells? Where would they go?

At the risk of starting a pissing contest; the comment on "2nd strongest navy" is just ridiculus. I suggest you check some of the other navies out there, e.g. the Japanese navy, the South Korean Navy, and the Chinese Navy,

 

[gf0012-aust]

At the risk of starting a pissing contest; the comment on "2nd strongest navy" is just ridiculus. I suggest you check some of the other navies out there, e.g. the Japanese navy, the South Korean Navy, and the Chinese Navy,

absoluetly agree. It is nonsense

 

[gf0012-aust]

And to my knowledge the Swedish Navy never complained much about the subs made by Kockums -- still the Collins class had a number of issues.

if the swedes had ended up with over 10000 defect welds in Gotland, then they would have reacted - and Collins bow was completely fabricated in sweden - it was not made in australia - and kockums acknowledged their defects and were forced to fix it.

Of course the Collins class is quite different from the Swedish subs (that was part of the problem)

yes, you just can't upscale a gotland class to a 3000 tonne LR conventional without looking at the fact that there are exponential impacts .

Kockums should,have realised this and we should have done our homework a bit harder.

 

[LancasterBomber]

I wont be launching fish from the mothership in 2025. I refuse. 2

 

[AegisFC]

I suppose you are refering to Arleigh Burke? It is 9000-10000 tonnes, almost double the F105, 2 more gas turbines, that is double life cost expense related, 100 more people, that is 50% more manning cost related, and the ship itself completed, from Us webs, is 2200 millions dollars. F105 is estimated 750 mill. euro total price today´s price. If you had go for Burkes then you´d be mortgaging future ADF budget flexibity, just imagine to be mortgaged like that and sudden strong crisis appears...eg total lifecycle cost is like 3 times asset initial cost.

I don't know where you got your information but you are wrong a Flight IIA Burke is costing the US about $1.3 Billion a ship.
Also thanks to an effort to reduce manning most Burkes have about 250 people on them these days.

Burke´s 9.3 draft.
Now if Evolved Burke is to be reduced a bit up to 8000 tonnes, a bit cheaper initially, but Arleigh Burke´s had more than 20 months of delay, so you could expect the Evolved design not to be a path of roses...just imaging the same block problem in Burkes, just it would have bigger worst consequences.
And not to speak if you want an Anzac 2 on 9000 tonnes or have to go for other design.
The main difference between them is Burke´s on 96 cells in Vls.
Just putting 48 cells in Awd and Anzac 2 and Australia will be the 2nd strongest navy in the world, but probably you can put more than 48 cells (each module for Vls´s has 8 cells).

Edit: say 3 times total life cycle cost then: 3 Burkes: (1 Burke 2200 mill. $ for development and delays from Evolved Burke) 6600 mill $ times 3 is 20000 mill $.
3 Awds: (1 Awd 750 mill euro) 2200 mill euro times 3 is 6600 mill $, so the Adf has saved 13400 mill $/euros plus the money and time saved on Anzac 2 replacement and commonality, maintenances, spares, flexibility on crew substitution...

I suggest you do a search of this forum. There is a great thread where the F-100 and the "Baby Burke" were compared in detail, you are off on quite a few assumptions.

 

[Jaimito]

Are you saying that the F100/Hobart class can fit more than 48 cells? Where would they go?

At the risk of starting a pissing contest; the comment on "2nd strongest navy" is just ridiculus. I suggest you check some of the other navies out there, e.g. the Japanese navy, the South Korean Navy, and the Chinese Navy,

Not as designed now, maybe some more externally, but there is a Korean 5500 t. frigate with 64 cells in the fore, the Chungmugong. F100 with Spy might need some more tonnes and longer fore part, maybe, to carry 64 instead of 48, but Anzac 2 without Spy might be even easier to adapt.

I was referring to Vls cells wrt:
-Cec through Aegis management.
-self defence Spy´s-Aegis.
-strike to ship missiles.
So i don´t take into account, other frigates that can have single sm2 launchers or a few cells for essm and harpoons or similars, nor subs, nor amphibious vessels or carriers or suicidal boats, helos or jets. I rule them out because, probably, they can launch single or a few antiship missiles but not coordinate them to a simultaneous attack, and antiship missile its the easiest for trying to hit other ships, at least the furtherst. And also because the antiship missile system they have it is not Spy/Aegis, I don´t mean they won´t be useful against some missiles, but keep on Spy/Aegis.

Then the Japan navy has:
-2 Atago (96) so 192 cells.
-4 Kongo (90) so 360 cells.
-and out of Aegis/Spy 5 Takami (32) so 160 cells for self-defence, anti air and antiship missiles, which use an Mk Vls, and unknown if could be coordinated, just by being Vls and same weapons, with the Japanese Spy/Aegis ships.
So at least 552 Spy/Aegis cells in 6 ships.

The Korean navy has:
-2 Sejong (80 cells on Mk Vls, and 48 on Korean Vls) so 160 cells on Mk Vls, and 96 on KVls (which we don´t know if can be coordinated with the Mk Vls for simultaneous.
-and non-Spy/Aegis 6 Chungmugong (32 cells in Mk Vls and 32 in KVls).
So at lest 160 Spy/Aegis cells in 2 ships.

Future Ran will have:
-3 Awd (48 cells) so 144 cells.
-4 future Adelaide (48 or 64) so 192 or 256.
-8 Anzac 2 (48 or 64) so 384 or 512.
So 720 or 912 Cec cells, 144 of which are Spy/Aegis, in 15 ships.

So the Ran wins by:
-number of coordinated Mk Vls, this the Mk Vls has a limit launching missiles, it has a max frequecy for launching them which affects both the 6 Japan ships and the 15 Australian ships, but 15 is more than 6 which will be able to launch bigger massive attacks. What i mean is that the Mk Vls could launch say 6 antiship missiles in a fast row and programme them to have different speeds and be able to reach the same point at the same time, "could". As example, say the Mk Vls can launch 16 antiship missiles and be well programmed, that is the 17th will not be simultaneous, but yes the 16 previous they will be end simultaneous, so 16 times 15 would give a simultaneous attack of 240 antiship missiles, no Spy/Aegis could defend that.
-so it is very important to know first where the hostile ships are.

Now if Ran would have gone for 3 Evolved Burke´s, these would be more expensive, and so not having during the next 30 years those like 13000 mill $ saved in the life cycle, and those 3000 mill $ saved in the purchase of F100 design (which cost a bit more than 200 mill.), so 16000 mill $ avalaible for the Anzac 2 and future Adelaide.

Of course i am ready to be corrected, i understand Evolved Burke might be cheaper, proportionally.