Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[aussienscale]

LPD 17 is way overkill for sealift role. The volume of the hull is quite considerable it is only <20m shorter than the JCI LHD with same beam and draft. Things like garage space are adjustable to need if you are redesigning it. By LPD 17 LHD I would mean reconfigured with a full length flight deck and starboard island. Effectively such a ship would be very similar to the JCI LHD except designed to milspec down to the keel not just the waterline. Wasp or Makin Island (GT wasp) is way to big for the Australian ADAS requirement.

Yeah probably agree for the sealift role, something along the lines of the (Don't start !) Galicia Class size would probably be more suitable.
Not sure about what you mean by a GT Wasp being too big for Aus ? Yes displacement v the Canberra Class is different but this is displacement we are talking about here, has nothing to do per say with the size of the ship. The physical dimmensions between the Canberra/JC1 and the Wasp are not that much different. The difference is in (as you said) build philosophy.
The American's have deliberately built these things like an Aircraft Carrier, just as their philosophy in manning requirements and damage control etc, so is the way in which they build ships. Heavier displacement=Build, Design, Standards, Fitout etc suited to the US needs, just as an Aus modified version of them would be different due to different requirements ?

Correct me if I am wrong, but I was under the impression that the Canberra Class are to be built to Lloyd's Naval Standards ? and that it was the JC1 in it's original design that was to the waterline ?

 

[Aussie Digger]

The way budget previews are done in Austrlia, like the recent Sikorsky request, contains the price for the asset and the total life cost of the asset, whatever that includes, and GF said that generally is like 3 or 4 times the initial cost of the asset. As i said before, 750 mill. euro for F105 asset, times 3 is 2200 mill euro times 3 units is 6600 mill euro which is similar to 8000 mill aust dollars. Maybe.

Not really. The Super Hornet is the only acquisition that I recall that contained ALL the TLS funding needed and that was a special case. Normal Australian acquisitions don't include funding for TLS, perhaps beyond an initial period.

That $8billion IS just the acquisition cost...

That 3-4x the cost is what it takes to run the capability for the next 30-40 years...

 

[Marc 1]

Yeah probably agree for the sealift role, something along the lines of the (Don't start !) Galicia Class size would probably be more suitable.
Not sure about what you mean by a GT Wasp being too big for Aus ? Yes displacement v the Canberra Class is different but this is displacement we are talking about here, has nothing to do per say with the size of the ship. The physical dimmensions between the Canberra/JC1 and the Wasp are not that much different. The difference is in (as you said) build philosophy.
The American's have deliberately built these things like an Aircraft Carrier, just as their philosophy in manning requirements and damage control etc, so is the way in which they build ships. Heavier displacement=Build, Design, Standards, Fitout etc suited to the US needs, just as an Aus modified version of them would be different due to different requirements ?

Correct me if I am wrong, but I was under the impression that the Canberra Class are to be built to Lloyd's Naval Standards ? and that it was the JC1 in it's original design that was to the waterline ?

Guys, I have a shaky understanding of being built to naval standards, correct me if I'm wrong here but at the micro level, using an external light fitting as an example, normal maritime standards would be a waterproof fitting. Naval standards would mean waterproof, guaranteed to still work if the ship rolled 360, able to operate on variable voltages, and even able to brew coffee (OK that last bit may be artisic licence).

How do you build to one set of standards down to the waterline, then just clad the bottom presumably. by comparison in tinfoil. Surely, if its worth building the above water components to a standard then its also worth finishing the job to the same standard. My analogy would be that Volkswagen engineers did not design the Bugatti Veyron with a unique 4 turbo 1000bhp V16 engine, flappy paddle gearbox, sophisticated 4wd system, then stick a set of 13 inch 4 inch wide 80 section crossplies under it....

What gives and why?

 

[swerve]

Yeah probably agree for the sealift role, something along the lines of the (Don't start !) Galicia Class size would probably be more suitable.

That's in the size range the RAN has specified, as is the Bay class. And they're both a small fraction of the cost of an LPD-17.

 

[SASWanabe]

My analogy would be that Volkswagen engineers did not design the Bugatti Veyron with a unique 4 turbo 1000bhp V16 engine, flappy paddle gearbox, sophisticated 4wd system, then stick a set of 13 inch 4 inch wide 80 section crossplies under it....

What gives and why?

W16 (2 Twin Turbo V8s bolted together)

on the note of ships i would just assume its cheaper and they forgot the fact that torpedos are still used. could be something to do with fuel storage and double hulls, something along those lines probably...

 

[gf0012-aust]

How do you build to one set of standards down to the waterline, then just clad the bottom presumably. by comparison in tinfoil. Surely, if its worth building the above water components to a standard then its also worth finishing the job to the same standard. My analogy would be that Volkswagen engineers did not design the Bugatti Veyron with a unique 4 turbo 1000bhp V16 engine, flappy paddle gearbox, sophisticated 4wd system, then stick a set of 13 inch 4 inch wide 80 section crossplies under it....

What gives and why?

The one who is best placed and actually does have first hand operational experience re this is Alexsa, and AMPT10 hopefully they will do a driveby

 

[aussienscale]

That's in the size range the RAN has specified, as is the Bay class. And they're both a small fraction of the cost of an LPD-17.

Yes, agree and I think probably more suited for us. Isnt the Bay Class just a larger version of the Galicia/Rotterdam class with each type made to the countries requirements ?


With regard to the JC1 as I understand it the hull from the keel up to the waterline is to standards but then everything above is civ spec ? The Canberra class has this all the way through ?

I posted some pretty in depth links in the JC1 sea trial thread that go into Lloyd's Naval Standards if you are interested in a read

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Not just overkill, but at a budget-busting price. The USN is asking for US$2,040.6 million to buy the 11th ship. Even allowing for the large savings (more than the redesign cost) which could be made by deleting a lot of equipment not needed in a sealift ship, that is not affordable.

When Northrop offered the LPD 17 to JP 2048 for the LHD they brought the price down to around $1 billion per ship. This is because the USN spec includes a lot of stuff no other navy would want. Including a service life of 40-50 years which requires titanium piping (!) plus the far more capable combat system and self defences than a Juan Carlos I or Mistral LHD. An LPD 17 with a less capable combat system and a 25 year service life is much, much cheaper.

You could get 10 new-built Bay class for that, with change.

You get what you pay for. To position a Bay class close inshore of a medium/high level threat is asking for a Bluff Cove repeat (or worse). To use a LPD 17 to ferry cargo from the main logistics port to the sea base/beach head is a massive waste of capability and sunk investment. Obviously the LPD 17 is not being seriously considered for the RAN’s sealift ship just as the Bay class was not considered for the LHD role.

Not sure about what you mean by a GT Wasp being too big for Aus ? Yes displacement v the Canberra Class is different but this is displacement we are talking about here, has nothing to do per say with the size of the ship. The physical dimmensions between the Canberra/JC1 and the Wasp are not that much different. The difference is in (as you said) build philosophy.

The difference between a Wasp and a Canberra is a lot more than build or use philosophies. As I said multiple times in the debate of Wasp vs JCI the former is much, much bigger and can carry a lot more stuff. In particular a much larger air wing. The extra displacement is all about size not just a higher attention to survivability. Because of its greater size the Wasp would even gain a range of efficiency advantages over the smaller LHDs and be proportionately able to carry more stuff.

 

[Jaimito]

Not really. The Super Hornet is the only acquisition that I recall that contained ALL the TLS funding needed and that was a special case. Normal Australian acquisitions don't include funding for TLS, perhaps beyond an initial period.

That $8billion IS just the acquisition cost...

That 3-4x the cost is what it takes to run the capability for the next 30-40 years...

The 8 bill. bill is not very well known where it goes, but:

-Bae yard is getting 300 m $ for 1/3 of all 3 ships hulls, so like 300 per hull.
-Navantia price for F105 was 750 m euro, or 1050 m $, or 2010 price say 1150 m $.
-Navantia is not going to make much cheaper the hull than those 300 m $ (210 m euro).
-This means the proper acquistion cost for one Awd wont be bigger than 1300 m $ let´s include the enhacements equipment wrt F105.
-Total of 4000 m $ (3 Awd).
-Where is the other 4000 m $? It´s either in the Bmd or is it in some sort of technology transfer related to Combat system, i refer to Aegis, the figure was 1.2 bill. $ for Raytheon Australia, and that is apart from the purchase of all the systems to Lockheed Martin (it seems).
-So it´s Australia investing nowadays in platform building and Combat system expertise for having stronger Anzac 2 as well?
-Or it´s that 8 bill. hiding the 4th Awd? Or some initial time running cost of assets?

 

[Aussie Digger]

The 8 bill. bill is not very well known where it goes, but:

-Bae yard is getting 300 m $ for 1/3 of all 3 ships hulls, so like 300 per hull.
-Navantia price for F105 was 750 m euro, or 1050 m $, or 2010 price say 1150 m $.
-Navantia is not going to make much cheaper the hull than those 300 m $ (210 m euro).
-This means the proper acquistion cost for one Awd wont be bigger than 1300 m $ let´s include the enhacements equipment wrt F105.
-Total of 4000 m $ (3 Awd).
-Where is the other 4000 m $? It´s either in the Bmd or is it in some sort of technology transfer related to Combat system, i refer to Aegis, the figure was 1.2 bill. $ for Raytheon Australia, and that is apart from the purchase of all the systems to Lockheed Martin (it seems).
-So it´s Australia investing nowadays in platform building and Combat system expertise for having stronger Anzac 2 as well?
-Or it´s that 8 bill. hiding the 4th Awd? Or some initial time running cost of assets?

I can only refer you to the official announcements. That $8 billion does not include the through life support or later refit/upgrade contracts.

At a cost of nearly $8 billion, and subject to successful contract negotiations, Navantia will work with the AWD Alliance (Defence Materiel Organisation, ASC and Raytheon Australia) to deliver three AWDs to the Royal Australian Navy.

Australian Industry will deliver products and services for around 55 per cent of the $6.6 billion AWD Programme over the next 15 years which will be followed by high value through life support contracts into the middle of the century.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

The 8 bill. bill is not very well known where it goes, but:

There is NO hidden money in the AWD contract for BMD or a 4th ship. The cost of building in Australia is higher than in Spain for a range of reasons including establishing the shipyard which is new build. Also the combat system for the Hobarts is quite significantly more capable and expensive to the F100/105. There is an additional littoral warfare sensors and weapon suite (SPQ-9B, Phalanx, Typhoon) and the force level ASW system.

 

[Jaimito]

There is NO hidden money in the AWD contract for BMD or a 4th ship. The cost of building in Australia is higher than in Spain for a range of reasons including establishing the shipyard which is new build. Also the combat system for the Hobarts is quite significantly more capable and expensive to the F100/105. There is an additional littoral warfare sensors and weapon suite (SPQ-9B, Phalanx, Typhoon) and the force level ASW system.

Wrt the cost of building by Navantia or Australian yards:
-As a said, 300 mill $ for each hull (Shipyard on uneven keel after all hull breaks loose in navy order | The Australian), builded in Australia from the reference i gave, which coincides in proportion to other hull built by Navantia, 360 mill. euro for Juan Carlos 1, or with years 4xx mill euro for 1 Canberra hull, 400 mill. euro is 680 m. $, and compared hull sizes and complexities, now yes say that Navantia builts it 130 m. $ cheaper than Australian yards, so the figure for acquisition cost given before by me would be:
-1300 + 130 = 1430, that is without the Bmd update, F105 is ready for it, it supposed to track well but i think it lacks of something wrt Bmd, maybe integration of weapon..but i am not sure. Note that is it added like 300 m $ per ship wrt F105´s hypothetical price (more expensive yard and enhancement not related to Aegis).
-so 1430 x 3 = 4300, plus i think 270 mill euro for Navantia by the transfer, is 460, say 500 so
4800 so far.
-now 1200 for Raytheon but in aust $ 1400, so 6200 (Billion Dollar Australian Air Warfare Destroyer Program Begins Construction)
-so there is left 1800 m $, for adapting yards and extra facilites, extra engenering, Bmd and "superior" combat system update, and money still in the pocket, or maybe yards price is still higher because it doesn´t include some subassemblies with gear..and also these numbers are mixed between Australian and American $.

But the Combat system in F105 i don´t thik it is less capable than Hobart because they were bought in the same batch, the 3 Awd combat systems plus the F105 combat systems cost like 260 mill $, all of them:
LOCKHEED MARTIN AWARDED $260 MILLION FOR AEGIS WEAPON SYSTEMS FOR AUSTRALIAN AND SPANISH SHIP PROGRAMS
But that link does not ensures me.

This other states that Lockheed Martin is with +1 bill. $, and Raytheon with other other +1 bill.,so maybe it is not the Combat System from Lockheed in Hobart what it is more more expensive than in F105, it is the political and crucial transfer item, probably the first in the world, that is the transfer on Combat system tech and software and data, probably missiles, Vls launcher, helos, electronic warfare, asw warfare, etc...and when i mean data i mean software, hardware config..talking hypotetically.
Defence fears over $8.4bn ship deal | The Australian
Worth to note as Lockheed is a bit on negotiations with Raytheon to hand over whatever they transfer! As they compete in the Us.

 

[gf0012-aust]

sweet mother mary and joseph.

we are not , I repeat NOT getting a 4th AWD.

can we stop the chatter on this as its turning farcical.

 

[Aussie Digger]

sweet mother mary and joseph.

we are not , I repeat NOT getting a 4th AWD.

can we stop the chatter on this as its turning farcical.

A sticky perhaps? No matter how many people state we ARE NOT getting a 4th AWD or ANY F-35B's on the Canberra Class, people just don't seem to want to be convinced...

 

[hairyman]

Well they are replacing the Charles F Adams Destroyers, and we only had three of them. Some people seem to believe they are replacing the OHPerrys, but from my uinderstanding the two oldest will retire when the Hobarts are commissioned, but the two Australian made ones will remain in service until about 2020. Correct me if I am wrong.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Well they are replacing the Charles F Adams Destroyers, and we only had three of them. Some people seem to believe they are replacing the OHPerrys, but from my uinderstanding the two oldest will retire when the Hobarts are commissioned, but the two Australian made ones will remain in service until about 2020. Correct me if I am wrong.

It’s pretty hard to replace something that was retired 15 years before hand… The replacement for the AAW capability of the DDGs was the FFG upgrade. The Navy did have a “Plan Blue” for a 15 strong force of surface combatants (3 AWD, 4 FFG, 8 FFH) but had to scrap it due to personnel issues and the desire to provide multiple crews per ship to ensure retention of trained crews. So the FFGs will have to go as the AWDs are launched because their crews will be needed to man the AWDs. So even if there is still life in the FFGs they will be disposed of. In case of an emergency if they are still on hand they could be returned to service as surplus crews will be available.

 

[icelord]

It’s pretty hard to replace something that was retired 15 years before hand… The replacement for the AAW capability of the DDGs was the FFG upgrade. The Navy did have a “Plan Blue” for a 15 strong force of surface combatants (3 AWD, 4 FFG, 8 FFH) but had to scrap it due to personnel issues and the desire to provide multiple crews per ship to ensure retention of trained crews. So the FFGs will have to go as the AWDs are launched because their crews will be needed to man the AWDs. So even if there is still life in the FFGs they will be disposed of. In case of an emergency if they are still on hand they could be returned to service as surplus crews will be available.

All lanes are moving towards Newcastle being decommissioned in 2017-2018. Being the Last FFG she will be last to go.
The AWD was stated from the start to be a replacement for the FFGs, and typical chatter continues on when they will start removing the last FFGs, with Northern Trident (AKA World trip) was expected to be sydneys last big voyage.

Melbournes rotation in the MEAO will be the last we see of her up there if they can get Darwin or Newcastle capable for the deployment(well, more capable then melbourne really shouldnt be too hard). Getting Melbourne on Op Slipper was more for the brass to say "we got the FFG in the area". While up there we joked with afew gold shoulders about her replacing us, to which it was stated they had every desire to see an FFG in the MEAO again, other then that by the looks of future planning they dont care. It was all to get one up there to show the FFG Downgrade wasnt a complete waste of time and money...

There are people currently in the US and Spain who came from FFGs learning AWD roles and equipment(Aegis) so that they can post straight to HMAS Hobart for commissioning.
The Anzacs are keenly awaiting the results of HMAS Perths upgrade to see how it all goes, so far ive heard mixed reports, Alexsa may know better but calls from West to East are so-so.

 

[gf0012-aust]

It was all to get one up there to show the FFG Downgrade wasnt a complete waste of time and money...

unfort sad but true, it was a last hurrah to show that the woes at willy were not a woftam and that the money spent was worth it.

everyone is impressed with how capable they are now, but their relevance was 5+ years ago.

it kept primes in industry from storming the hill, it kept the SME's at bay and it showed what could be done - albeit 5 years too late in real terms.

 

[icelord]

The 8 bill. bill is not very well known where it goes, but:

-Bae yard is getting 300 m $ for 1/3 of all 3 ships hulls, so like 300 per hull.
-Navantia price for F105 was 750 m euro, or 1050 m $, or 2010 price say 1150 m $.
-Navantia is not going to make much cheaper the hull than those 300 m $ (210 m euro).
-This means the proper acquistion cost for one Awd wont be bigger than 1300 m $ let´s include the enhacements equipment wrt F105.
-Total of 4000 m $ (3 Awd).
-Where is the other 4000 m $? It´s either in the Bmd or is it in some sort of technology transfer related to Combat system, i refer to Aegis, the figure was 1.2 bill. $ for Raytheon Australia, and that is apart from the purchase of all the systems to Lockheed Martin (it seems).
-So it´s Australia investing nowadays in platform building and Combat system expertise for having stronger Anzac 2 as well?
-Or it´s that 8 bill. hiding the 4th Awd? Or some initial time running cost of assets?

Could it be possible some bean counter looked at the fact there was no way this thing was coming in under any budget?
What you see in the public realm as price and what the DOD get charged are very different. And once you start fitting out the little thing, they amount to $10m alone. Tools for stokers will be new(hopefully) Laves, wrenches all are of good quality and dont come cheap. kits for greenies will not come easily, and Bosun's store will be expensive to acquire new equipment, Jet RHIBs and alike. it all slowly adds up per ship.
They allotment is easy to price rather then random buys. If you budget it into a new ship you avoid just going through stores, which dont set a price limit but have a budget of their own which gets Audited.
Not every part is provided by the ship building, once its out of dock the entire AWD Alliance work goes into it, all the companies start providing everything the Navy ordered to go with the Ship. You will see this during refits and alike where 10-20 different contracting companies come into to work on different things, as it was provided and maintained by contract.

Being $1 billion in Europe means squat when they already had a running ship building industry, for ASC there was a long delay between Collins and AWD. plus new gear and New build crane provided to put the blocks together slowly builds the cost. Workers Salarys would come under the contract, you have to pay people to build it right? Min. Wage would be different between spain and Aus, as well as the qualification bonuses and alike. There is more money being thrown at this project to get started then to build the damn boats, so thats where it all goes. When they were discussing a 4th AWD(Sorry GF, part of the incoming argument:argue) the proposal added a 4th would be cheaper as all start up costs would have been completed by this stage, and was spread across the 3 planned for ships. A 4th was going to cost slightly less(only slightly!)

 

[Volkodav]

Being $1 billion in Europe means squat when they already had a running ship building industry, for ASC there was a long delay between Collins and AWD. plus new gear and New build crane provided to put the blocks together slowly builds the cost. Workers Salarys would come under the contract, you have to pay people to build it right? Min. Wage would be different between spain and Aus, as well as the qualification bonuses and alike. There is more money being thrown at this project to get started then to build the damn boats, so thats where it all goes. When they were discussing a 4th AWD(Sorry GF, part of the incoming argument:argue) the proposal added a 4th would be cheaper as all start up costs would have been completed by this stage, and was spread across the 3 planned for ships. A 4th was going to cost slightly less(only slightly!)

A fourth AWD would likely have cost less than the FFG Upgrade and as far as I can tell the only thing of value the upgrade project provided was upskilling a handfull of talented people who are now applying lessons learnt at Forgacs and ASC.

Its been done to death else where but the best option would have been to buy and upgrade the four ex USN KIDD class DDGs to replace the our ADAMS class DDGs and retaining the FFGs only as a gap filler until the KIDDS were ready.