Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[Aussie Digger]

I wonder if we could apply the steel is cheap and air is free mantra to the future OPCs and ensure they had a decent logistics support capability to prevent this block obsolescence thing ever happening again. A sort of modern day APD that would provide us with multiple hulls capable of a Company lift, operate a couple of helicopters and carry a couple of LCVPs or CB-90’s and a large multi function space similar to the LCS concept or perhaps even a mini version of the Danish Absalons.

Always found this concept amusing - "steel is cheap and air is free".

It's true as far as it goes, I guess, but I wonder how cheap it is when all that extra space starts filling with additional capabilities and CDG start to develop "stars in their eyes" at all the additional roles it can take on board, if it has so much space...

All that extra room isn't much use unless you do something with it...

 

[Volkodav]

Always found this concept amusing - "steel is cheap and air is free".

It's true as far as it goes, I guess, but I wonder how cheap it is when all that extra space starts filling with additional capabilities and CDG start to develop "stars in their eyes" at all the additional roles it can take on board, if it has so much space...

All that extra room isn't much use unless you do something with it...

These are meant to be multi role vessels so extra space and weight is part and parcel of the concept.

All I am suggesting is providing more space and weight, i.e. a multi purpose (or vehicle) deck, a larger hanger and flight deck. These are design features that would enable the ships to be depoyed in a variety of roles as required and if at some point in the future there was a need to use some of the extra margin to improve their combat capabilities.

Isn't it better that is easy and cheap to upgrade or rerole these ships rather than either doing without the capability or having to prematurely replace hulls due to an inability to upgrade them?

Besides I wasn't refering to space and weight for combat systems but rather adding a capacity to carry and deploy a variety of vehicles, personnel and other mission related equipment. Possible examples, Engineers, their plant and equipment as well as perhaps support for a MRH-90 or even Chinnook for disaster relief; fast interceptor craft, Firescouts and Seahawks for anti piracy patrols; CB-90s or LCPVs, RHIBs and MRH-90s to provide a company lift for raids or rescue operations.

 

[Volkodav]

seems to me like your hinting at one of Austal's MRVs

http://www.austal.com/download.cfm?DownloadFile=8CD0409E-65BF-EBC1-23F60FE851E1F144

i wonder if that deck crane can handle a CB90

Yes but bigger, maybe something based on a diesel powered LCS 2, however I still like the idea of a mini Absalon.

 

[SASWanabe]

it would be interesting to know how much the Stanflex system costs, the ships themselves were about 180m each, not bad for their size.

if you think about it if their complement could be lowered they would be almost perfect as is, a 15-20 ship class isnt unimaginable over 10-20 years worth of budget

 

[Sea Toby]

it would be interesting to know how much the Stanflex system costs, the ships themselves were about 180m each, not bad for their size.

if you think about it if their complement could be lowered they would be almost perfect as is, a 15-20 ship class isnt unimaginable over 10-20 years worth of budget

Not quite correct... From this website the Absalons' cost Canadian $ 565 million each, fully equipped... Keep in mind the Canadian dollar is usually within ten percent of the US dollar either above or below depending on the foreign exchange market at the time...

Danish Naval Projects - Absalon Class - Command and Support Ship - Transport Frigate - NATO Comparisons - CASR - Canadian American Strategic Review - Danish Ships - Standard Flex - Command Staff - Vehicle Transport - Containerized Hospital - Leopard

The Danish did not build this ship significantly less than what any other Western European yard can do...

 

[swerve]

That actually says the programme, not per ship.

Grand Danois gave a similar figure as the total programme cost, meaning each ship cost half that. Other figures I've seen (are in the same range.

Better to stick to the original currency figure, which was given in the article. Gives you fewer conversion errors. 2.7 bn DKR = $510 mn US at the moment, or $255 mn per ship.

That includes sensors & fixed weapons, but AFAIK not the STANFLEX modules. They're not allocated to particular ships, but moved around as needed, so aren't included in the costs of individual ships. Some of those which have been fitted to the Absalons were taken from older ships which were being retired, for example.

 

[Sea Toby]

That actually says the programme, not per ship.

Grand Danois gave a similar figure as the total programme cost, meaning each ship cost half that. Other figures I've seen (are in the same range.

Better to stick to the original currency figure, which was given in the article. Gives you fewer conversion errors. 2.7 bn DKR = $510 mn US at the moment, or $255 mn per ship.

That includes sensors & fixed weapons, but AFAIK not the STANFLEX modules. They're not allocated to particular ships, but moved around as needed, so aren't included in the costs of individual ships. Some of those which have been fitted to the Absalons were taken from older ships which were being retired, for example.

Maybe, but I would prefer the exchange difference of several years ago when the ships were built... I haven't a clue how much change up or down the US dollar has fared against the Danish DKR through the last several years, but I do know the US dollar has done considerably better than the Euro, which has fallen like a rock...

If a country is going to buy the Absalons, current exchange rates compared to today's DKR's worth will be what the ship will sell for, not to mention the ongoing inflation rate... The sale price won't be the price of several years ago...

 

[hairyman]

For which project would Absalons be considered, replacement FFG, or the Patrol Boat/Hydrographic 20 boats?

 

[swerve]

If a country is going to buy the Absalons, current exchange rates compared to today's DKR's worth will be what the ship will sell for, not to mention the ongoing inflation rate... The sale price won't be the price of several years ago...

True. It's bound to be more. And a fully-equipped ship would need some Stanflex modules with weapons, which would put the price up further.

IIRC Maersk might not be able to use the Odense yard any more*, & might have to farm out final assembly (building of blocks can be done in the Baltic states, as with the Ivar Huitfeldt class). Dunno what that would do to the price, but calculating it'd be complicated by having to factor in Estonian kroons & Lithuanian litai, at least.

*Sad to see the end of shipbuilding at Odense. Some of my ancestors were shipwrights there, 200 years ago.

 

[SASWanabe]

For which project would Absalons be considered, replacement FFG, or the Patrol Boat/Hydrographic 20 boats?

the hobarts replace in reality the FFGs, but in role they replace the Perths.

i was thinking ~12 to replace Armidales, ~8 for Huon, Leeuwin and Paluma.

no need to fully kit out all of them, just get 5-6 full hydro module loads and 2-3 full combat module loads (for deployments to gulf) just leave the rest as is, even without any modules theyre still a step up from their predecessor


i was taking my info from here
http://www.amiinter.com/samples/denmark/DA6001.html

 

[Volkodav]

the hobarts replace in reality the FFGs, but in role they replace the Perths.

i was thinking ~12 to replace Armidales, ~8 for Huon, Leeuwin and Paluma.

no need to fully kit out all of them, just get 5-6 full hydro module loads and 2-3 full combat module loads (for deployments to gulf) just leave the rest as is, even without any modules theyre still a step up from their predecessor


i was taking my info from here
AMI International

I was thinking of a 2000 to 3000 tonne ship similar in layout to the Absalon as an option for the OPC project. It wouldn't be as large or capable as Absalon but would have similar if lesser capabilities.

 

[SASWanabe]

something along the lines of the Thetis class?

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thetis_class_frigate"]Thetis class frigate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Text_document_with_red_question_mark.svg" class="image"><img alt="Text document with red question mark.svg" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a4/Text_document_with_red_question_mark.svg/40px-Text_document_with_red_question_mark.svg.png"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/a/a4/Text_document_with_red_question_mark.svg/40px-Text_document_with_red_question_mark.svg.png[/ame]

doesnt have enough room for a company or CB90s, but then again how hard would it be to put a couple bunks in one of the modules?

 

[swerve]

The Thetis class is rather specialised. It's ice strengthened, long endurance, intended for arctic patrol. The RAN might find a few similar ships handy for the deep south, but I don't think it's ideal for patrolling all of Australia's coasts.

There are more OPV designs available than I can recall. Basically, choose what parameters you want (range, endurance, hangar/helicopter deck/not, etc) & there's probably something to fit it out there. For oceanic patrol, something like the Spanish BAM (Meteoro class) might fit the bill: 2400 tons, hangar big enough for NH-90, standard fit a 76mm, 2 x 20mm & 2 x 12.7mm, with the platform being designed to be suitable for a variety of roles including survey. But there are plenty of other candidates, depending on what the exact requirement is.

 

[Volkodav]

The Thetis class is rather specialised. It's ice strengthened, long endurance, intended for arctic patrol. The RAN might find a few similar ships handy for the deep south, but I don't think it's ideal for patrolling all of Australia's coasts.

There are more OPV designs available than I can recall. Basically, choose what parameters you want (range, endurance, hangar/helicopter deck/not, etc) & there's probably something to fit it out there. For oceanic patrol, something like the Spanish BAM (Meteoro class) might fit the bill: 2400 tons, hangar big enough for NH-90, standard fit a 76mm, 2 x 20mm & 2 x 12.7mm, with the platform being designed to be suitable for a variety of roles including survey. But there are plenty of other candidates, depending on what the exact requirement is.

BAM is a nice design, too bad they got port and starboad mixed up when installing the diesels on the first one.

Australia has some unique requirements, we would probably be better off doing our own design or contracting someone for a new design incorporating our requirements rather than buying OTS. We need a hull that can do its job in colder waters than the Danes and warmer waters than the Spanish, that alone rules out most if not all MOTS options on material grade and structural issues alone.

 

[swerve]

We need a hull that can do its job in colder waters than the Danes and warmer waters than the Spanish, that alone rules out most if not all MOTS options on material grade and structural issues alone.

Colder waters than the high Arctic? The Thetis class ships aren't for patrolling local waters around Denmark. They're more usually seen off Greenland. And warmer waters than the Spanish? BAM is meant to be able to chase pirates in the Red Sea & Gulf of Aden, not just pootle around the Bay of Biscay.

It could be a mistake to try to use the same ship for Antarctica as Australian home waters. You want something ice strengthened down there, & that means costs & performance penalties.

 

[SASWanabe]

this is another one of those times that i wonder why we arnt working with the Canadians. we are both looking for large OPVs and AORs at the same time, makes you wonder what the politicians are thinking...

 

[gf0012-aust]

this is another one of those times that i wonder why we arnt working with the Canadians. we are both looking for large OPVs and AORs at the same time, makes you wonder what the politicians are thinking...

we already work closely with the canadians.

what makes you think that the politicians direct Navy about what baseline assets we get?

they might exert governance influence during the process, but they take their lead and direction from the services about what to get in the first place...

 

[Volkodav]

Colder waters than the high Arctic? The Thetis class ships aren't for patrolling local waters around Denmark. They're more usually seen off Greenland. And warmer waters than the Spanish? BAM is meant to be able to chase pirates in the Red Sea & Gulf of Aden, not just pootle around the Bay of Biscay.

It could be a mistake to try to use the same ship for Antarctica as Australian home waters. You want something ice strengthened down there, & that means costs & performance penalties.

What I was trying to get across is Australia unique environment, there are many issues not widely appreciated that cause issues for MOTS solutions in RAN service. In general our ships need to be able to effectively opperate in both warmer and colder waters than most navies. Think in terms of thermal expansion and the associated stresses on welded seams, think corrosion and micro-biological attack, think the high usage of assets by a small to medium navy.

Our gear has a hard life in a challenging environment and as such MOTS, while cheaper and less risky up front, can end up costing more when even the grade of steel the hull is made out of can't hack it in the variety of waters we operate in. You change the hull material, you also change the production processes required to build it and start seeing problems the experts overseas haven't encountered before.

 

[swerve]

What I was trying to get across is Australia unique environment, there are many issues not widely appreciated that cause issues for MOTS solutions in RAN service. In general our ships need to be able to effectively opperate in both warmer and colder waters than most navies.

Yes, but 'most navies' are customers, not suppliers. What you need to look at is not whether (e.g.) the Thai navy operates in the same range of temperatures as the RAN does, but whether the builders who are offering you ships understand the temperature differences & how to deal with them, & build ships which work for those navies that do operate in the extremes.

Look at Fassmer OPVs, for example. Currently operating or being built for Latin American countries which operate them from Antarctica to the tropics. Do you think Fassmer doesn't understand thermal expansion & contraction issues, just because it isn't Australian? And so on, and so on. Look at the range of customers for each builder, & look at where their vessels already operate.

 

[Volkodav]

Yes, but 'most navies' are customers, not suppliers. What you need to look at is not whether (e.g.) the Thai navy operates in the same range of temperatures as the RAN does, but whether the builders who are offering you ships understand the temperature differences & how to deal with them, & build ships which work for those navies that do operate in the extremes.

Look at Fassmer OPVs, for example. Currently operating or being built for Latin American countries which operate them from Antarctica to the tropics. Do you think Fassmer doesn't understand thermal expansion & contraction issues, just because it isn't Australian? And so on, and so on. Look at the range of customers for each builder, & look at where their vessels already operate.

If a design is created or adapted to satisfy RAN requirements is it still a MOTS solution? The Gibbs & Cox evolved design was not MOTS while the F-100 was but with quite a few changes to make it suitable for the RAN, is it still MOTS?

Who does the design or build is irrelevant it is whether the design is in service or production for another nations defence force that determines whether it is MOTS or not.