Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[gf0012-aust]

I'm unsure if this can be explained by those in the know in a public space, but

Are the power generation/drivetrain systems the main or majority area that need to be addressed if the Collins class boats are to go through for an additional complete refit? I vaguely remember hearing of a report that suggested that the boats could go through an additional refit cycle without structural risk, and that now that other systems are fairly well developed, a new drivetrain would complete a package that could go for another 10 years beyond current design life of type.

it "depends"

if Govt elected to go with a mid life upgrade/service life extension, then that would also imply that there was a preparedness to slip delivery of new replacement subs to the right

if we continue that assumption and that there is a willingness to extend Collins with such a mod, then that would come under the new timeframes for hulls out of the water (which almost reflect current nuke sub refurbs)

ie, subs under such a prog would be out of the water for (prob) 2-3 years.

major build progs to existings are (if new proposals get up) 3 year platform absences.....

at this point in time this is long distance and vague - so heavily wieghted on the "what options are there" magic fairy idea box.

there are 4 options, how they're firmed up is anyones guess

 

[protoplasm]

it "depends"

if Govt elected to go with a mid life upgrade/service life extension, then that would also imply that there was a preparedness to slip delivery of new replacement subs to the right

if we continue that assumption and that there is a willingness to extend Collins with such a mod, then that would come under the new timeframes for hulls out of the water (which almost reflect current nuke sub refurbs)

ie, subs under such a prog would be out of the water for (prob) 2-3 years.

major build progs to existings are (if new proposals get up) 3 year platform absences.....

at this point in time this is long distance and vague - so heavily wieghted on the "what options are there" magic fairy idea box.

there are 4 options, how they're firmed up is anyones guess

Yeah, I'd made an assumption that Govt would be considering sliding new hulls to the right significantly for economic reasons. I'd hope a SLEP could be done in 2 years per hull, but that still means the program would be running for a decade.

 

[Raven22]

I admit this confuses me as well since it doesn't seem like this would be that expensive to replace these craft and might provide some useful work for local industry.

I know a number of other members believe that the Balikpapan class are among the hardest working and most useful craft in the navy which makes it even harder to understand why the capability will be dispensed of for a period of nearly 10 years.

Perhaps some interim replacement such as a RoRo vessel might be sought at some point.

One of the problems with replacing the LPHs is that the crews are needed for the new LHDs. Hence why they are leaving service now, as the LHDs come online. Whether that was a smart move or not is up for debate though

 

[SamuraiBlue]

if we continue that assumption and that there is a willingness to extend Collins with such a mod, then that would come under the new timeframes for hulls out of the water (which almost reflect current nuke sub refurbs)

ie, subs under such a prog would be out of the water for (prob) 2-3 years.

major build progs to existings are (if new proposals get up) 3 year platform absences.....

I would like to point out that it only took 4 years from laying down to putting into commission for the Soryu Class.
[Mod edit: This is another clear cut example of a throw away comment. Build time is irrelevant to the discussion. You have been banned for 3 months to enable you to reflect on your behaviour and we note that:-

(i) your are dismissive of all responses to educate you about the issues involved. This pattern of behaviour is not acceptable; and

(ii) you continue to make throw away comments, despite being told not to do so.​

You also consistently failed to understand those answers given and resorting to trolling, as a response. If you don't want to change at the end of the 3 month period, don't come back.]

Why even consider placing such trouble when the hull only has about 15 years left (taking the Los Angeles class as example)? [Mod edit: The discussion thus far is about enhancing existing platform capabilities and efficiency. For that matter, any diesel electric submarine will need:

(i) Mid-life refits; and

(ii) Full cycle refits.​

The above is something that needs to be done to keep the submarine effective and threat relevant, for the duration of its service life (regardless of whether there is a service life extension planned). However, if there is a service life extension planned (which implies substantial yard work), then there is a preparedness for a later delivery of new replacement submarines. Navies plan for mid life upgrades and service life extensions because the hull is still useful even if the guts need changing over/upgrading.

You have provided no substance to your claims and make throw away comments despite the various attempts made by other members to provide sound reasons as to technical issues. ]

 

[justsomeaussie]

I heard this floated the other day regarding SEA1180, it's an interesting concept:

6 X mini LCS ships, essentially Austal's 80m MRV80 vessel with CEA's Minor War Vessel Radar on top. Capacity to land helos and mission modules on the deck, then utilise them internally via an elevator These vessels form the Offshore Combatant Vessel multi mission concept and pretty much a mothership role to the Cape Class.

12 X RAN variants of Custom's new 58m Cape Class Patrol Boat essentially Custom’s Cape Class with the 25mm gun on board and upgraded systems forming the patrol/constabulary force along with the rest of Customs 8 X Cape Class

It’s an interesting concept, but with this government, who knows.

Edit link for those interested in the radar:


http://www.armyrecognition.com/dsei...ion_phased_array_sensor_system_dsei_2011.html

 

[Volkodav]

I heard this floated the other day regarding SEA1180, it's an interesting concept:

6 X mini LCS ships, essentially Austal's 80m MRV80 vessel with CEA's Minor War Vessel Radar on top. Capacity to land helos and mission modules on the deck, then utilise them internally via an elevator These vessels form the Offshore Combatant Vessel multi mission concept and pretty much a mothership role to the Cape Class.

12 X RAN variants of Custom's new 58m Cape Class Patrol Boat essentially Custom’s Cape Class with the 25mm gun on board and upgraded systems forming the patrol/constabulary force along with the rest of Customs 8 X Cape Class

It’s an interesting concept, but with this government, who knows.

Edit link for those interested in the radar:


Northrop Grumman and CEA Scalable CEAFAR Next-Generation Phased Array Sensor System DSEI 2011 - Army Recognition

What would be interesting and possibly viable would be a build of 6 MRVs for the RAN with the intent to transfer them to Customs once a purpose designed and built OCV was available. This would take the pressure off the ACPBs giving the RAN and industry the time they need to formulate requirements, design and develop a true indigenous corvette along the lines of Turkeys MILGEM.

 

[alexsa]

I heard this floated the other day regarding SEA1180, it's an interesting concept:

6 X mini LCS ships, essentially Austal's 80m MRV80 vessel with CEA's Minor War Vessel Radar on top. Capacity to land helos and mission modules on the deck, then utilise them internally via an elevator These vessels form the Offshore Combatant Vessel multi mission concept and pretty much a mothership role to the Cape Class.

12 X RAN variants of Custom's new 58m Cape Class Patrol Boat essentially Custom’s Cape Class with the 25mm gun on board and upgraded systems forming the patrol/constabulary force along with the rest of Customs 8 X Cape Class

It’s an interesting concept, but with this government, who knows.

Edit link for those interested in the radar:


Northrop Grumman and CEA Scalable CEAFAR Next-Generation Phased Array Sensor System DSEI 2011 - Army Recognition

Begs the question why you would do it. The Cape class is a variation of the ACPB and offers no more capability. The MRV 80 also suffers from operational limitations given its light weight structure. Added to that they are not cheap.


Finally capability growth is constrained by limited dead weight. Better option......... Build a proper OPV (UT527 or the like) for patrol duties.

 

[rand0m]

Begs the question why you would do it. The Cape class is a variation of the ACPB and offers no more capability. The MRV 80 also suffers from operational limitations given its light weight structure. Added to that they are not cheap.


Finally capability growth is constrained by limited dead weight. Better option......... Build a proper OPV (UT527 or the like) for patrol duties.

Can't we just purchase another 24 x these?
http://www.seanews.com.tr/images/articles/2012_03/76007/u3_Australian-Government.jpg

I feel the ban hammer presence for even mentioning that :haha

 

[Milne Bay]

Can't we just purchase another 24 x these?
http://www.seanews.com.tr/images/articles/2012_03/76007/u3_Australian-Government.jpg

I feel the ban hammer presence for even mentioning that :haha

A Skandilous suggestion

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Begs the question why you would do it. The Cape class is a variation of the ACPB and offers no more capability. The MRV 80 also suffers from operational limitations given its light weight structure. Added to that they are not cheap.

Finally capability growth is constrained by limited dead weight. Better option......... Build a proper OPV (UT527 or the like) for patrol duties.

How about we just do what the Navy wanted before the Govt. stuck its nose into things. Build the Tenix OPC. They can be build fitted for not with the medium weapons to get them into service as patrol vessels ASAP.

 

[King Wally]

Can't we just purchase another 24 x these?
http://www.seanews.com.tr/images/articles/2012_03/76007/u3_Australian-Government.jpg

I feel the ban hammer presence for even mentioning that :haha

Honest to god that *thing* has to win the award for ugliest ship in the fleet hands down.... hell it may work just fine but damn its hard to look at.

 

[Volkodav]

How about we just do what the Navy wanted before the Govt. stuck its nose into things. Build the Tenix OPC. They can be build fitted for not with the medium weapons to get them into service as patrol vessels ASAP.

Or something akin to the MILGEM, design a proper corvette and leave the OPVs to Customs.
Build a second batch of three AWDs and then a dozen corvettes to replace the ANZACs with a common OPV platform to replace the MCMVs and survey vessels as well as an extra half dozen for Customs.
May, once the LHDs are operational and the extra AWDs in service look at building three or so Haruna type help carriers.

 

[John Newman]

Or something akin to the MILGEM, design a proper corvette and leave the OPVs to Customs.
Build a second batch of three AWDs and then a dozen corvettes to replace the ANZACs with a common OPV platform to replace the MCMVs and survey vessels as well as an extra half dozen for Customs.
May, once the LHDs are operational and the extra AWDs in service look at building three or so Haruna type help carriers.

Yes the Turkish MILGEM ships look very nice, but maybe the crewing requirement (according to Wiki) might be a bit high.

Or, how about this option?

We go to our nice Spanish friends and negotiate a bulk buy (hopefully with a big fat discount too) on the following:

* 20 Meteoro OCV's
* 2 - 3 Cantabria Oilers
* 4th AWD
* 3rd LHD

Co-production of all the ships both here and in Spain to speed up delivery to the RAN.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Yes the Turkish MILGEM ships look very nice, but maybe the crewing requirement (according to Wiki) might be a bit high.

Or we could just build the ship designed in Australia specifically for Australian conditions and ship building that can carry anything the Turkish ship could weapon wise if needed.

 

[rand0m]

Yes the Turkish MILGEM ships look very nice, but maybe the crewing requirement (according to Wiki) might be a bit high.

Or, how about this option?

We go to our nice Spanish friends and negotiate a bulk buy (hopefully with a big fat discount too) on the following:

* 20 Meteoro OCV's
* 2 - 3 Cantabria Oilers
* 4th AWD
* 3rd LHD

Co-production of all the ships both here and in Spain to speed up delivery to the RAN.

I would have thought the BAM's would be a little large for out liking (2,500t), crew numbers look a bit of a stretch too.
Something around the Protector class would be more suitable.

 

[King Wally]

* 3rd LHD

Personally I still think now we have Choules on top of the 2 planned LHD's that I'd rather an extra AWD over an extra LHD.

No good having all these massive amphibious assault ships if you can't effectively escort them.

 

[Volkodav]

Or we could just build the ship designed in Australia specifically for Australian conditions and ship building that can carry anything the Turkish ship could weapon wise if needed.

Agreed 100%, I was using the MILGEM as an example of the sort of size and capability I was thinking but the idea is to design an Australian corvette to RAN requirements while maintaining the construction skills base through building additional AWDs.

 

[John Newman]

Personally I still think now we have Choules on top of the 2 planned LHD's that I'd rather an extra AWD over an extra LHD.

No good having all these massive amphibious assault ships if you can't effectively escort them.

Wally,

Yes agree, we don't want to see the LHD's wondering around the ocean's all on their own.

But, I think you have taken the 3rd LHD that I mentioned out of context.

What my post was actually suggesting is a 'bulk' buy from Spain.

I also put them in some sort or order too, eg, 20 OCV's, 2 AOR's, a 4th AWD and finally a 3rd LHD.

The reality, especially with what might come up in the Budget and new White Paper is that we will probably see the AOR's happen, and there was talk a few months ago about a 4th AWD.

But I think the real chances of a 3rd LHD are probably pretty low.

It will also be interesting to see if the 20 strong class of OCV's survives the new White Paper and DCP too.

 

[John Newman]

Or we could just build the ship designed in Australia specifically for Australian conditions and ship building that can carry anything the Turkish ship could weapon wise if needed.

Abe,

What you said does of course make sense, the point I was making was that the Turkish ships seem to have quiet a large crew requirement compared to the Spanish ships, (again, according to Wiki).

What I think will be interesting is, if SEA1180 survives the upcoming White Paper in it's present form, is how many different designs will be submitted.

Compared to the competitions for the LHD's and AWD's where there was 2 or 3 contenders, I can imagine that there will be a very very long list of submissions for SEA1180.

How many of those make it through to a short list is anyone's guess.

 

[justsomeaussie]

I think people a losing a bit of perspective here. 20 80m plus OCVs have a number of problems:

1. We can't afford anything that large at those numbers
2. We don't have the industry to build or sustain it
3. We don't have the ability to crew anything that big
4. We couldn't even berth them without huge dockside changes

What are they going to be used for 99% of the time. Patrol. Just like the Armidales they primarily be replacing (but still noting MW and droggy). That is if we keep droggy as a military role or just as REA inside of MW.

So why do we need such large vessels doing patrol and surveillance?

I'd much prefer a make up of smaller vessels in larger numbers doing the patrol work with 6 or so vessels doing the MW and "combat" work.

Out of interest below is a video Customs just released of the Cape Clas during sea trials.

Cape St George - YouTube