Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[aussienscale]

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.

I agree, the Wasp can carry a lot more people, has more JP5, Amo etc, but this still comes down to the fitout of the ship, it is not much much bigger:
Lenght - Canb 230 mtrs V Wasp 257 mtrs = 27 mtrs longer to Wasp
Beam - Canb 32 mtrs V Wasp 32 = Zip
Draught - Can 7.18 mtrs V Wasp 8.2 mtrs= 1.02 Deeper to Wasp
Vehicle storage - Canb 3290 sqm V Wasp 2320 sqm= 970 sqm to Canb
Hangar - Canb 990/2879 sqm V Wasp 1922 sqm= 932sqm to Wasp or if light vehicle deck used by the Canberra then 957 to Canb

Excuse the english, but I know this is a piss against the wall comparo, the Wasp does have a better capacity and carries more troops/JP5/Ammo but it does come down to fitout, the physical differences between the 2 really are not that different. Can you imagine the difference in habitability, was always the number one thing I alway had USN sailors say when they were on our ships was the space and quality of our messes, particulary the accomodation, they are packed in like sardines

But is it a much larger ship from the point of view of capacity, crewing requirements, operational costs, does it carry more troops than we need ? it certainly carries more Fuel and Ammo than we would probably ever need ?
So I am assuming you mean much much much bigger from an operational and capacity point of view ?

 

[Aussie Digger]

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.

It created a handful of jobs to allow the mouthpieces to spruik off about "local content". That's got to be worth something, right?

It is becoming an interesting viewpoint. Anything that NEEDS to work (ie: for "immediate" deployments) is coming off the shelf, ie: C-17's, more C-130J-30's, Shadow 200's, Heron's, CRAMM systems etc.

Anything else can have local industry content that keeps people employed in Australia and can drag on interminably for all the Government really cares, as long as they can avoid any great political fallout... When the political fallout starts getting a bit painful they can just excise that pain and move on.

No problem then...

 

[Volkodav]

It created a handful of jobs to allow the mouthpieces to spruik off about "local content". That's got to be worth something, right?

It is becoming an interesting viewpoint. Anything that NEEDS to work (ie: for "immediate" deployments) is coming off the shelf, ie: C-17's, more C-130J-30's, Shadow 200's, Heron's, CRAMM systems etc.

Anything else can have local industry content that keeps people employed in Australia and can drag on interminably for all the Government really cares, as long as they can avoid any great political fallout... When the political fallout starts getting a bit painful they can just excise that pain and move on.

No problem then...

Well the C-130J-30's did take a very long time to get up to speed; they proved to be anything but the simple update that we were promised would hit the ground running.

Aside from that the issue is not so much whether the capability is MOTS, FMS designed for us or designed by us but how disciplined we are on setting and meeting requirements. Scope creep, no matter where the capability is sourced from, is the killer and as there is more freedom to fiddle with clean sheet designs than with say FMS we tend to have more problems.

A properly managed clean sheet design can deliver better results (cost, schedule and capability) than a modified MOTS solution so long as a baseline is set and met and political interference kept to a minimum.

 

[Volkodav]

It created a handful of jobs to allow the mouthpieces to spruik off about "local content". That's got to be worth something, right?

It is becoming an interesting viewpoint. Anything that NEEDS to work (ie: for "immediate" deployments) is coming off the shelf, ie: C-17's, more C-130J-30's, Shadow 200's, Heron's, CRAMM systems etc.

Anything else can have local industry content that keeps people employed in Australia and can drag on interminably for all the Government really cares, as long as they can avoid any great political fallout... When the political fallout starts getting a bit painful they can just excise that pain and move on.

No problem then...

Well the C-130J-30's did take a very long time to get up to speed; they proved to be anything but the simple update that we were promised would hit the ground running.

Aside from that the issue is not so much whether the capability is MOTS, FMS designed for us or designed by us but how disciplined we are on setting and meeting requirements. Scope creep, no matter where the capability is sourced from, is the killer and as there is more freedom to fiddle with clean sheet designs than with say FMS we tend to have more problems.

A properly managed clean sheet design can deliver better results (cost, schedule and capability) than a modified MOTS solution so long as a baseline is set and met and political interference kept to a minimum.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I agree, the Wasp can carry a lot more people, has more JP5, Amo etc, but this still comes down to the fitout of the ship, it is not much much bigger:

Your measurements only included three out of four cardinal points. You forgot up… The Wasp hull and superstructure (island) encloses a lot more volume than a Juan Carlos I. Further you comparison of various garage, cargo bays does not take into account the total amount of stuff (payload) the ship can carry. While the Juan Carlos I could enclose as much air (but it doesn’t) as a Wasp it would not be able to carry as much stuff in this air without losing buoyancy and sinking. The Wasp has a net payload (design) of 12,300 tonnes whilst the Juan Carlos I class has a payload (design) of 8,800 tonnes. So that is 50% more payload for the Wasp which is unsurprising considering its gross displacement is 50% higher.

So please no more rather pointless and misinformed attempts to quantify based on ignorance. Very similar to Jamito’s ridiculous cost analysis of the AWD build.

So I am assuming you mean much much much bigger from an operational and capacity point of view ?

Well apart from your various qualifications about carrying capability which are wrong (see above) the USN type LHA/LHD has a totally different role within an amphibious landing group. As I mentioned before in one of these first posts about this Juan Carlos I ‘Uber Alles’ argument. If a Wasp LHD was given the role of carrying an Australian amphibious landing group it could carry most of it by itself.

 

[aussienscale]

Your measurements only included three out of four cardinal points. You forgot up… The Wasp hull and superstructure (island) encloses a lot more volume than a Juan Carlos I. Further you comparison of various garage, cargo bays does not take into account the total amount of stuff (payload) the ship can carry. While the Juan Carlos I could enclose as much air (but it doesn’t) as a Wasp it would not be able to carry as much stuff in this air without losing buoyancy and sinking. The Wasp has a net payload (design) of 12,300 tonnes whilst the Juan Carlos I class has a payload (design) of 8,800 tonnes. So that is 50% more payload for the Wasp which is unsurprising considering its gross displacement is 50% higher.

So please no more rather pointless and misinformed attempts to quantify based on ignorance. Very similar to Jamito’s ridiculous cost analysis of the AWD build.



Well apart from your various qualifications about carrying capability which are wrong (see above) the USN type LHA/LHD has a totally different role within an amphibious landing group. As I mentioned before in one of these first posts about this Juan Carlos I ‘Uber Alles’ argument. If a Wasp LHD was given the role of carrying an Australian amphibious landing group it could carry most of it by itself.

Like I said, excuse the english, but for lack of a proper term, its a pissing against the wall comparo, and as you would have seen in some of my previous post's I do understand this, and I have stated previously that the Wasp does have a totally different role to the JC1/Canb.
And yes I do understand how displacement works before a ship sinks, just because my nick is not in blue it does not mean I am a fan boi, so don't assume, just as everyone in blue does not have an expert opinion or the relevant experience in every field of discussion in here.
Maybe you should be a bit clearer in the way your ignorant wording comes across to other people reading your posts, to use your example the Wasp is much much bigger ? In what respect ? that type of statement can be taken in many ways, I took it as you stating that the Wasp was physically larger than the JC1 ? As you have then pointed out bigger can mean many differnt types of things in terms of physical size, capacity, displacement, payload etc, and to be honest I was arogant in my response as well.
So in future when I am responding to posts on this site I will endeavour to explaing my position better just to stop this stupid type of argument

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Mod edit:

Alright guys, that is enough. We are getting a few too many complaints over the current style of debating.

We can continue discussing or arguing in a respectful manner can't we?


AD.

 

[aussienscale]

Mod edit:

Alright guys, that is enough. We are getting a few too many complaints over the current style of debating.

We can continue discussing or arguing in a respectful manner can't we?


AD.

 

[Blas de Lezo]

@ Mr Gubler

But you in all your knowledge are free to state that G&C designed the F100 for Navantia 15 years ago without any back up info, just your "knowledge"......... I am mostly just a reader in this forum but man.. you stretch that card quite thin many times.

Your manners and................... ups I have seen aussienscale's last post , enough said.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Well the C-130J-30's did take a very long time to get up to speed; they proved to be anything but the simple update that we were promised would hit the ground running.

Sorry, I was referrring to the planned new ones under Fitzgibbons White Paper...

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Maybe you should be a bit clearer in the way your ignorant wording comes across to other people reading your posts, to use your example the Wasp is much much bigger ? In what respect ? that type of statement can be taken in many ways, I took it as you stating that the Wasp was physically larger than the JC1 ? As you have then pointed out bigger can mean many differnt types of things in terms of physical size, capacity, displacement, payload etc, and to be honest I was arogant in my response as well.

I meant bigger as in every accepted understanding of the word bigger: bigger in volume, bigger in weight, bigger in size.

The USN LHA/LHD type (Tarawa, Wasp, Making Island and American classes) are much bigger than the Juan Carlos I class LHD. The numbers quoted above in previous posts to imply equal size are incomplete and in many cases misrepresented. The Wasp is 15% longer in the hull than the Juan Carlos I. Counting the extended takeoff ramp as part of the “size” of the ship is very inaccurate. The Wasp is also 10% higher from keel to flight deck than the Juan Carlos I. This results in a 40% increase in volume inside the hull. Which aligns to the 50% increase in payload and overall displacement.

These are hard facts and not open to interpretation.

PS: This is a basic repeat of the post deleted by the mods above but with some of the more condescending remarks removed…

 

[Abraham Gubler]

But you in all your knowledge are free to state that G&C designed the F100 for Navantia 15 years ago without any back up info, just your "knowledge"......... I am mostly just a reader in this forum but man.. you stretch that card quite thin many times.

Has anyone asked me to back that up? I don’t make stuff up, nor am I informed by surfing the internet. Since clearly you don’t believe me when I say Gibbs & Cox had a major, guiding hand in the F100 then let me elaborate.

Gibbs & Cox have had a Ferrol office since the 1970s where they sold the designs for the SCS, FFG and FF 1052 to Spain. They also provided design support on most Spanish navy projects since then. Including the F100 which was also a collaborative with other European propulsion and technology programs. No surprise since the F100 was launched after the collapse of the NATO NFR90 frigate program (designed by Gibbs & Cox!). But like Lockheed with the combat system and Bath with the ship build knowhow it was G&C who showed Bazan (now Navantia) how to build these ships. Of course Navantia own the design because they paid for the contract. When the F100 was selected by Australia who did the design work in Ferrol for Navantia for the AF100 modifications? Gibbs & Cox… They also designed the F310 for Norway!

Your manners and................... ups I have seen aussienscale's last post , enough said.

In case you’re wondering I care little for what you or others think in relation to my apparent “manners”. Calling people out for major mistakes is not rude its doing them a favour even if they don’t realise it. The level to which people inject their ego into their opinions in online forums is a constant amazement to me. Especially when their opinions are so consistently formed on a very limited knowledge base.

 

[Jaimito]

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.

F100 is 206 complement, but Anzac 2 wont carry Spy and its part of Aegis, so maybe they can be substantially reduced, Norwegian frigates have a complement of 120. If a reduced Anzac 2 complement then more crews avalaible for commandos, and more sailors for more Anzacs.

Apart, wrt growth possibility in Anzac 2 or Hobarts, there is places that say F100 is 5900 t. others it is 6250 t., other says F105 is 6050 t., one linked i posted before says Hobart 6500 t., and even mentions in the past that they could be upto 7000 t.:
-for Anzac 2 it wont be need more crew that for Hobarts.
-so there is a growth potential in tonnage for more equipment, etc.
-about the vertical launcher, there is room enough surrounding the Vls 48 cells, for putting 64, i am talking from an exterior view, compared with the tight it is in a Ticonderoga in which is just centimeters from the Harpoons. That is external view, internally if they have space and weight reserve i dont know, but i paste some pictures. Known that there is substantial tonnage growth, and also space with respective design mods, maybe no problem with more cells.

F100 already have antiballistic capabilities because they can launch the Sm2 Block IV.

 

[Jaimito]

I past some nice pics, one of them with the washing or decontamination or hull cooling working.

 

[Blas de Lezo]

Has anyone asked me to back that up? I don’t make stuff up, nor am I informed by surfing the internet. Since clearly you don’t believe me when I say Gibbs & Cox had a major, guiding hand in the F100 then let me elaborate.

Gibbs & Cox have had a Ferrol office since the 1970s where they sold the designs for the SCS, FFG and FF 1052 to Spain. They also provided design support on most Spanish navy projects since then. Including the F100 which was also a collaborative with other European propulsion and technology programs. No surprise since the F100 was launched after the collapse of the NATO NFR90 frigate program (designed by Gibbs & Cox!). But like Lockheed with the combat system and Bath with the ship build knowhow it was G&C who showed Bazan (now Navantia) how to build these ships. Of course Navantia own the design because they paid for the contract. When the F100 was selected by Australia who did the design work in Ferrol for Navantia for the AF100 modifications? Gibbs & Cox… They also designed the F310 for Norway!



In case you’re wondering I care little for what you or others think in relation to my apparent “manners”. Calling people out for major mistakes is not rude its doing them a favour even if they don’t realise it. The level to which people inject their ego into their opinions in online forums is a constant amazement to me. Especially when their opinions are so consistently formed on a very limited knowledge base.

Step by step.

The relationship between G&C and Navantia is well known, dates back to the fifties and has been a fruitful and productive one. No need to pull off the net knowledge, is there for anybody to see or research.
The problem with your statement, G&C designed the f100, is just that you went to pick the wrong vessel, you went to pick specifically the vessel that represented design independence for Navantía.

article_shipbuildingchile_ferriero_dec09.html

This link although written by an American (the spanish view would have been slightly different) it is quite accurate and would help to understand a bit more.

I do not know your background and as you say often, this is internet so frankly I do not care since, like in the rest of internet, I have no way of checking if is true or not.
In this case your statements are made of some knowledge and a awful lot of assumptions, hear say is the same on internet and within the industry, this industry is just that ... an industry.
I work for Coca Cola so I know a lot about milk in China is what I read here many times.

This is internet so "apparent manners" is all there is, If no etiquette is kept then frankly it becomes unpleasant.

Best regards.

 

[gf0012-aust]

This thread will be closed for 24hrs to take the heat out of it.

A little bit of civlity will go a long way.

the process should be read, pause, type - NOT read, pause, react

Just a small point to add. There are a small number of people in here who are ex-service, or ex-industry, but for various reasons of either personal choice or timing have not transitioned to the Def Professionals Group (Blue title). Now although it should become apparent after a while because of tone, intent and content, some may not be aware.

The bottomline, is that irrespective of whether people are Blue (DefProfs) or Green (Senior Members), all are entitiled to consideration and respect.

This post (and many others) will generate passion and robust engagement, and at times we will skate along the edges, but there is a need to not to make adversarial engagement the primary means of debate. Its not helpful. I say this as someone who has been just as guilty in the past, and as someone who does need to pull their own head in when I get frustrated.

finally, although its convenient to want to state that facts are only based on what's in the public domain and ipso facto what's on the internet - most of you will understand (esp those who are service/ex service, industry) that this is abject nonsense. The debate should then fall back to considered logic and merit of content.

let's try to avoid falling into using the oft trotted out canard that "if it aint published it aint so" - that may suit the weekend warriors who tag up youtube videos etc but it shouldn't get a run in forums like this.

we're all on here to either share from real experiences or to learn. No one has a monopoly on experience,

 

[gf0012-aust]

Now open again. Please read previous chat on how to engage

 

[ThePuss]

Jaimito, You posted some very low resolution internal layout drawings of a F100, I would love to view them in a higher resolution. Would you be able to post a higher quality version or tell me where I can find it?, Cheers.

On another note I found online an interesting shot of an F100 and a MEKO 200 (Portuguese version).
View attachment 4295

Much longer and wider by the look of it, but not much of a higher super structure (If you discount the F100's MASSIVE Mast!)

 

[Jaimito]

Jaimito, You posted some very low resolution internal layout drawings of a F100, I would love to view them in a higher resolution. Would you be able to post a higher quality version or tell me where I can find it?, Cheers.

On another note I found online an interesting shot of an F100 and a MEKO 200 (Portuguese version).
View attachment 4295

Much longer and wider by the look of it, but not much of a higher super structure (If you discount the F100's MASSIVE Mast!)

This is the web: Asociación Milicia Naval Universitaria

 

[gf0012-aust]

Jaimito, You posted some very low resolution internal layout drawings of a F100, I would love to view them in a higher resolution. Would you be able to post a higher quality version or tell me where I can find it?, Cheers.

The walls in one corridor at R3 had the full blown engineering lineart on show. ie 2-3m engineering drawings.

I've seen the fatship engineering lineart as well out at CP