Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[alexsa]

So if there were issues identified early, why wasn't it picked up during OT&E and rectified for ships 2-14? How did Navy and DMO allow these vessels to be built for years if they were so unfit for purpose?

[Mod edit: Please re-consider your approach in your discussions with a number of others in the forum, across different threads. Less of the sharp elbow approach in your replies, would be appreciated. Many thanks for your patience.]

The vibration issue certainly was picked up but these were a growth design from the Bays and not all issues can be fixed without significant change. Assail really hits the point, these seem to have good sea keeping ability but are built on a light weight hull form. Aluminium does not have the same scope for elastic deformation as steel and the design appears to have a number of stress points.


The Fremantles had issues as well (weight in the first instance) but the steel hull (albeit thin) was flush decked and performed quite well. Some of the decisions around the APE and the main engine configuration (did away with the v- drive from the 37.5 m design they were based on resulting in quite and acute shaft angle) we less than ideal. While they appear to have been well and truley knackered after 23 years of service but certainly earned their keep.


You appear to be quite taken with the Bay Class. A lot are and they look a lot better than the ACPB, however, a 10 year life is not good bang for buck. From my perspective (and the whole point of this discussion) the options should be carefully considered and it should not be assumed that Austal will again get the contract simply because they are in WA and are building the Capes.


I final issue, the role is not just picking up boat people and until the 90's the main role of the patrol boats was fisheries. Tailoring a capabiltiy to that role (noting the Cape Class certainly have a lot of their design focused on this) would be flawed.


I am all in favour of a more robust (and bigger) patrol vessel, however, I also note there were some good designs ignored in the Cape Class tender that may offer a more flexible capability to the RAN.


In short, why should we assume the Cape Class is it........... irrespective of what Austal may wish to think.

 

[Volkodav]

I believe that the project resulting in the ACPB included a given number of sea days with the tenderers specifying the number of hulls required to achieve this. The ACPB tender was for 12 (later increased to 14) hulls while most (if not all) the other tenders included 18-20 hulls to achieve the same number of sea days.

The ACPB design was aluminium permitting a greater size for a given displacement or more to the point lower weight, hence less fuel usage for a given size. I imagine the composite hull offered by ADI would have had a similar benefit but was much more expensive upfront, the steel hulled options were probably cheaper per unit than the ACPBs but would have been heavier and used more fuel increasing in service costs (there was also the factor of more hulls in the competing tenders).

Long story short the ACPB was cheaper on paper but not in reality.

 

[icelord]

Perhaps one should take a look at what the ACPB's are being required to do, and then go from there? Or possibly take a look at what the actual FCPB replacement programme had been back in the 90's.

If one looks at a number of the SIEV's over the last decade or so, several (many?) have been unseaworthy and had to have passengers/crew evacuated to Australian assets. AFAIK this has not caused Australian casualties or a loss of vessel, yet...

Even with the Cape-class Customs Vessels being able to handle ~60 SIEV passengers, that means SFA if the SIEV has 3x that number. While an argument could potentially be made that having a smaller capacity but more vessels to cover a single SIEV that IMO is insufficient. In order for greater numbers of smaller capacity vessels to fufill the need, the numbers of vessels on hand needs to be sufficient. If a SIEV is stopped and the people need to be taken off, having additional patrol boats within a day or two transit time will not keep the responding vessel from becoming overloaded.

My first boarding was 132 PII on a Siev that that was a SAR so they were brought onboard, and i thought that was ridiculous, beat that next patrol with 150 and less kids then there first, so space became beyond a joke. just for kicks we pulled into CI to find out that the detention centre was full and we had to hold them overnight(this is common). During the night i had security watch and we had several incidents where fights occured, but were settled when a tired angry sailor would walk in, drag out one of the problem PII and then wait hour for next drama, Thankfully by 2am they gave up and slept. we cleaned the boat following morning, had a nap then went for the next boat as is standard operations at CI now.

Holding 150 some what compliant PII with a small complement of crew is not ideal, and if at any stage they stop becoming compliant, we could be in big trouble. Its constantly on our minds whenever we have to bring them over, and thats without problems of sea state, kids, food, 20 questions and delays at CI. We have minimal room to move. We tend to find that while we come across a boat with 100+ we cannot alway rely on another asset in the area, as for a while the sri lanka corridor was 2 boats a day with Indo every 2nd day. We are under the pump, and the ACPB while doing the job, is being held together with duct tape. The adapt and overcome attitude we have is what is really destroying the fleet, and it does not look like its getting better any time soon.

 

[justsomeaussie]

The vibration issue certainly was picked up but these were a growth design from the Bays and not all issues can be fixed without significant change. Assail really hits the point, these seem to have good sea keeping ability but are built on a light weight hull form. Aluminium does not have the same scope for elastic deformation as steel and the design appears to have a number of stress points.


The Fremantles had issues as well (weight in the first instance) but the steel hull (albeit thin) was flush decked and performed quite well. Some of the decisions around the APE and the main engine configuration (did away with the v- drive from the 37.5 m design they were based on resulting in quite and acute shaft angle) we less than ideal. While they appear to have been well and truley knackered after 23 years of service but certainly earned their keep.


You appear to be quite taken with the Bay Class. A lot are and they look a lot better than the ACPB, however, a 10 year life is not good bang for buck. From my perspective (and the whole point of this discussion) the options should be carefully considered and it should not be assumed that Austal will again get the contract simply because they are in WA and are building the Capes.


I final issue, the role is not just picking up boat people and until the 90's the main role of the patrol boats was fisheries. Tailoring a capabiltiy to that role (noting the Cape Class certainly have a lot of their design focused on this) would be flawed.


I am all in favour of a more robust (and bigger) patrol vessel, however, I also note there were some good designs ignored in the Cape Class tender that may offer a more flexible capability to the RAN.


In short, why should we assume the Cape Class is it........... irrespective of what Austal may wish to think.

I'm not a particular fan of the Bay's at all, as been pointed the operating profile and crew between the Navy and Customs are quite different.

As I've said before I'd before something in the margin of a 2000 ton vessel to fit combat side of our OCVs would be far more suitable in the mother ship type role but the moment we simply don't have enough operational boats in the water.

What I'm not a fan of is just focusing on the problems rather than the solutions. It's easy to lay the blame on "stinking contractors" when it's never black and white. In my time in Defence I've seen a considerable number of "failed" projects where everyone is to blame from CDG, DMO, ADF and the contractors. But noting that we've had systemic failures on the Armidales and that means that the DMO has failed to keep Austal in check according to the requirements that CDG set.

If there isn't enough holding space for PII its hardly Austal's fault as they built a boat that won the contract and was accepted into service. It was only later that the "flood" of SIEVs started turning up. Then again illegal immigration has been growing worse each year so the RAN should of seen this coming.

I prefer to look at what problem do we need to solve in ten years and focus our force structure on that. Rather than look at the boats available today and try to apply them to today's problems.

The "new" word in government is total cost of ownership so things like up front construction costs and through life fuel and support costs do make big differences. It's not just the purchase price

This is what frustrates me, if Austal built an inferior vessel then they would be in breach of contract and penalties would have applied. This doesn't appear to have happened because they took the same design updated it to Customs requirements and rolled it out again. So it's no use today trying to blame the contractor well after all 14 vessels have been delivered. Someone somewhere screwed the pooch with this one.

The contractors will build whatever we want. We just have to give them good, quality requirements that are somewhat future proof and able to be adapted if the situation changes.

 

[Volkodav]

My understanding is each PB division has two ACPBs and three crews to maximise the use of the boats, i.e. the boats go out more often than the crews.

People are surprised the boats are wearing out?

Easy fix, the spare crews already exist, build extra boats but ensure these ones are designed to handle sea state 7, large numbers of PII and preferably also able to operate or at least lily pad a large helo, i.e. design them to meet current, demonstrated operational requirements.

Why lily pad a large helo? Well CASVAC, SAR come to mind.

 

[icelord]

My understanding is each PB division has two ACPBs and three crews to maximise the use of the boats, i.e. the boats go out more often than the crews.

People are surprised the boats are wearing out?

Easy fix, the spare crews already exist, build extra boats but ensure these ones are designed to handle sea state 7, large numbers of PII and preferably also able to operate or at least lily pad a large helo, i.e. design them to meet current, demonstrated operational requirements.

Why lily pad a large helo? Well CASVAC, SAR come to mind.

Correct. The rotation is 8 weeks on a boat, 4 weeks off for leave, courses etc.

The original plan was either 2 weeks maintanence local ops, then 5 weeks availability for patrol then last week preps for handover and maintanence issues found over last 5 weeks. Atm its take over, 2 days sorting out, sail if your lucky. Any issues are fixed on the run, dockings have moved to priority from when they were only urgent fixes to regular maintanence schedules. some crews, mostly cairns based, have spent 8 weeks at sea, hand over the boat, do 2 weeks maintance sail for 6, hand over and sail if no major defects for 8 weeks. This is how wear and tear is coming on crews, as some key personnel can be op reliefed out during their 4 weeks at short notice with little ability to refuse.

The navy has turned around and now enforced scheduled maintanence, but that does not mean it will happen as quickly as they want it. At times the contractors are working on a boat that has come in with a urgent defect, and that lapses anothers MA. This leads to delays, which then forces a boat to remain on station when it should be coming back. Its a continuous cycle of issues, and Navy are only now trying to sort it all out compared to previous years of "she'll be right"

 

[Volkodav]

I'm not a particular fan of the Bay's at all, as been pointed the operating profile and crew between the Navy and Customs are quite different.

As I've said before I'd before something in the margin of a 2000 ton vessel to fit combat side of our OCVs would be far more suitable in the mother ship type role but the moment we simply don't have enough operational boats in the water.

What I'm not a fan of is just focusing on the problems rather than the solutions. It's easy to lay the blame on "stinking contractors" when it's never black and white. In my time in Defence I've seen a considerable number of "failed" projects where everyone is to blame from CDG, DMO, ADF and the contractors. But noting that we've had systemic failures on the Armidales and that means that the DMO has failed to keep Austal in check according to the requirements that CDG set.

If there isn't enough holding space for PII its hardly Austal's fault as they built a boat that won the contract and was accepted into service. It was only later that the "flood" of SIEVs started turning up. Then again illegal immigration has been growing worse each year so the RAN should of seen this coming.

I prefer to look at what problem do we need to solve in ten years and focus our force structure on that. Rather than look at the boats available today and try to apply them to today's problems.

The "new" word in government is total cost of ownership so things like up front construction costs and through life fuel and support costs do make big differences. It's not just the purchase price

This is what frustrates me, if Austal built an inferior vessel then they would be in breach of contract and penalties would have applied. This doesn't appear to have happened because they took the same design updated it to Customs requirements and rolled it out again. So it's no use today trying to blame the contractor well after all 14 vessels have been delivered. Someone somewhere screwed the pooch with this one.

The contractors will build whatever we want. We just have to give them good, quality requirements that are somewhat future proof and able to be adapted if the situation changes.

I am just curious to what you think we have been saying?

The general consensus as I read it is

• The RAN wanted a corvette
• The RAN got a life extension on the Freos
• The RAN needed a corvette or OPV
• The RAN got a bigger patrol boat
• The RAN wanted and needed a corvette or OPV (OCV)
• The RAN will likely get a bigger patrol boat

Now lets go back just over a year and have a look at what was posted by StevoJH in post 9425 of this very thread

For people wondering about the 1990's Transfield OPV/Corvette, I found this just before:
Page 10: http://navyleague.org.au/wp-content/...Part2-1996.pdf

Better scan here: RAN Transfield OPV in The Commonwealth Navies Forum

This is what we should have had in service instead of:

• the Freo life extension
• the ACPB
• the ACPB replacement PB class
• the eventual replacement PB class replacement

Unless I am greatly mistaken these "fit for purpose" ships, entering service through the second half of the last decade (incidentally preventing the valley of death for our ship builders) would be good well into the 2020s when even the ACPBs replacement will be shagged if the government repeats the same mistakes.

The government of the day, not the RAN, not Austal, not DMS, not DMO stuffed up and now the government of today may be making the same stuff up.

Proper (larger) ships are more effective, more capable, more durable and when you look at the cost of one class, of a dozen or so hulls, lasting 20-30 years verses three or four successive classes, each of a dozen or so hulls, to fill the same gap they are also cheaper.

Add in the industry factor and the cost benefit equation definitely falls on the side of the larger more capable corvette / OPV / OCV.

Before anyone arcs up about missiles, radars and over kill with the 80m corvette all I have to say is remember the "for but not with" concept that was the go back then.

 

[alexsa]

I'm not a particular fan of the Bay's at all, as been pointed the operating profile and crew between the Navy and Customs are quite different.

As I've said before I'd before something in the margin of a 2000 ton vessel to fit combat side of our OCVs would be far more suitable in the mother ship type role but the moment we simply don't have enough operational boats in the water.

What I'm not a fan of is just focusing on the problems rather than the solutions. It's easy to lay the blame on "stinking contractors" when it's never black and white. In my time in Defence I've seen a considerable number of "failed" projects where everyone is to blame from CDG, DMO, ADF and the contractors. But noting that we've had systemic failures on the Armidales and that means that the DMO has failed to keep Austal in check according to the requirements that CDG set.

If there isn't enough holding space for PII its hardly Austal's fault as they built a boat that won the contract and was accepted into service. It was only later that the "flood" of SIEVs started turning up. Then again illegal immigration has been growing worse each year so the RAN should of seen this coming.

I prefer to look at what problem do we need to solve in ten years and focus our force structure on that. Rather than look at the boats available today and try to apply them to today's problems.

The "new" word in government is total cost of ownership so things like up front construction costs and through life fuel and support costs do make big differences. It's not just the purchase price

This is what frustrates me, if Austal built an inferior vessel then they would be in breach of contract and penalties would have applied. This doesn't appear to have happened because they took the same design updated it to Customs requirements and rolled it out again. So it's no use today trying to blame the contractor well after all 14 vessels have been delivered. Someone somewhere screwed the pooch with this one.

The contractors will build whatever we want. We just have to give them good, quality requirements that are somewhat future proof and able to be adapted if the situation changes.

Short answer, Austal delivered a solution at a cost. It was accepted. Both before and after the ACPB became a reality OCVs were looked at but dropped.


I would hate to think we follow on to the Cape (which except for the hull is a different animal to the ACPB .......... and not everyones first choice I understand) when more capability is required.


While an OCV may be out there are PB options beyond the Capes............... we only wait to see the nature of the tender.

 

[MickB]

To be honest I think a Absalon can fit into a RAN fleet but not for the likes of Sea 1180. The anology of the ute is something that can quite usefull in context, if you take what the Absalon can deliver in flexibility it can swing between inserting and supporting SOC in combination with CB-90 in either a raiding party or with its company strong infantry/helicopter hold a vital piece of infastrucure and have the abilty to support with NGS,with the same sustainable support(CB-90)it can also do the job of anti-piracy it also has the abilty to escort the LHD.The way I look at it it can do the job of the MRV -80 but with the ability to self escort and support the operation at hand with its combat suite and defence/offensive armament.

For a real balanced force structure for the RAN this would entail bring up defence spending to a level which no one would contemplate. Australia with its 2ocean fleet policy needs flexibility in its assets and I believe an Absalon can give the RAN a flexibility for a middle player, if it was me the RAN should look similar to this composition,

3x LHD
8x AWD
3x Absalon
9x BAM
2x Cavour (ASW/F35B)
14x River PB(HMS Clyde)
4x MRV-80(mine,survey)
9x LCH
2x Bay (sealift)
12x SSG

Although its an expensive fleet but it's a flexible fleet for a middle power, being an island nation Navy should be as capable and flexable as it can be. I was in two minds in regards to ASW either an 3x Hygua or 2x Cavour but the prospect of F35B for fleet defence was to hard to ignore as it can free the RAAF for long range strike without using it limited assets for fleet defence when it could be put to better use.

I agree with most of what you said, but you need to provide this flexable fleet within a workable budget. Also as much as I like the BAM and belive that it could become a good ASW corvette, it is no replacement for a GP Frigate.

I would envisage something more like-
6 x Evolved Collins
6 x AWD
4 x Support Ship/ Patrol Frigate (Absalon) Based on F100 Hull.
Reduce armament, remove gas turbines, enlarge hanger and landing pad, add mission bay. Continunity of build, compatability with AWD.
6 x Type 26 Frigate
2 x LHD
20 x BMT Venator
1 x Bay
2 X Evolved Cantabria
6 x BMT Caimen LCT
20 x CB90
1 x Tanker

I, like many others like the idea of a light carrier, but belive it will not happen.
But I will revisit this subject if Spain elects to replace its flagship with a new carrier in the future. This may open the way for a joint build and thus reduce costs for both countries.

I have gone for British designed ships as the RNs and RANs needs have been similar and I belive these can adapted for Australian service with the minimun number of changes.

I would retain the CAMM missile silos on both the T26 & Venator. These could suppliment the ESSM.

As stated on a previous post, I would adopt the pallet based CAMM launcher, designed for the British army, into the Australian army. In addition to its normal duties it could then be used to provide point defence for the LHDs, similar to to the what the RBS 70s have done in the past on Bill & Ben.

 

[old faithful]

Geez I hate wish lists.
Both of those navy lists could move an Army brigade, of which we have 3 under strength ones(regular) to have a navy like that would mean increasing the size of the other 2 services to support it, or more to the point, be able to restructure the Army around a marine doctrine, and give the air force the tools to protect it, eg more MRTT,s, maybe more P8,s and a couple more Wedgetails, a massive spènd on defence, when we a looking down the barrel of an 11- 17 bn$ deficit, and probably a change of govt, who will need to clean up the mess left behind.

What I think will happen,navy will get stuff for boarder protection, for now, a supply ship, and that's about it, the white paper won't change much, no absolams, no 3rd. LHD, no 4, 5 and 6 AWD, maybe a few more subs, but I doubt it, the new govt has all the excuses it needs to spend SFA on defence, with no iminant threat to our shores.

 

[hauritz]

There isn't really a problem with having an ongoing build program replacing your patrol boat fleet every 10 to 15 years.

It provides ongoing work for industry and always ensures that the navy has reasonably up to date equipment.

I am just a little disappointed that a few OPVs couldn't have been thrown into the mix.

I think people need to get a bit of a grip on budgetary constraints as well. With the Australian economy about to head into a hole the problem might be maintaining what the navy already has. Other navies have suffered big cut backs. So far the RAN has managed to avoid the worst of this.

However we will soon see the 4 FFGs replaced with 3 AWDs and I suspect that we might not see a one for one replacement for the ANZACs. The 12 subs might happen but expect the build time to be spread out over a couple of decades and the first new boats not hitting the water for perhaps another 20 years.

 

[John Newman]

There isn't really a problem with having an ongoing build program replacing your patrol boat fleet every 10 to 15 years.

It provides ongoing work for industry and always ensures that the navy has reasonably up to date equipment.

I am just a little disappointed that a few OPVs couldn't have been thrown into the mix.

I think people need to get a bit of a grip on budgetary constraints as well. With the Australian economy about to head into a hole the problem might be maintaining what the navy already has. Other navies have suffered big cut backs. So far the RAN has managed to avoid the worst of this.

However we will soon see the 4 FFGs replaced with 3 AWDs and I suspect that we might not see a one for one replacement for the ANZACs. The 12 subs might happen but expect the build time to be spread out over a couple of decades and the first new boats not hitting the water for perhaps another 20 years.

Sure its not a problem replacing kit every 10 to 15 years 'if' that had been the plan from day one, but it wasn't.

The last DCP plan was that the SEA1180 OCV's would have an IOC ranging from 2018-19 to 2020-21, that's up to 8 years from now.

The new DCP should be release around mid year, we'll then see when the replacements are due to start building.

Obviously with all the problems the Armidale's appear to be having, regardless of where the faults lie, eg, overworked, poor maintenance, design issues, etc, etc.

The Government has decided to move the goal post on what was the original plan by bringing the ACPB replacement forward and moving the OCV's off into the never never to be revisited again by by some other Government way in the future.


As far as the Australian Economy goes, and how that effects the Defence Budget, the Government is still getting increased revenue each year (unlike some other countries around the world), the problem is, it spends more than it gets, not to mention all the waste too!

A country like Australia should be able to well afford at least 2% of GDP on Defence if it managed things better, anyway, that's another argument for another place.


As far as the number of Future Frigates to replace the ANZAC's, the one thing that concern's me is what Def Min Smith said last year when the UK Def Min was here.

I remember in a joint press conference both were discussing the possibility of the Type 26 Frigate being used by the RN and the RAN, below are a couple of paragraphs:

JOURNALIST: So it seems like a very much British-lead relationship, as you’ve been talking about procurement. What does Australia bring to this relationship that Britain perceives?

PHILIP HAMMOND: Well, on the frigates program our requirements for frigates, I think, yours would be around-do you have a number?

STEPHEN SMITH: Frigates?

PHILIP HAMMOND: Yeah.

STEPHEN SMITH: Half a dozen, six.

PHILIP HAMMOND: Half a dozen. We have a requirement for about 13, so clearly if you’re planning to build a program of 19 frigates you have a lot more potential economies of scale in that, and we will both benefit from those economies of scale.


So when Smith said "half a dozen, six', that opened my eyes!

That statement is at odds with the 2012 DCP which states that "a fleet of eight new Future Frigates will be acquired".

I also saw mentioned in a UK Naval magazine that reported on the UK Def Min's visit and it also mentioned the possible number of RAN T26 as being '6'.

So have they changed the requirement from 8 to 6? Or is it that Smith just can't count and it was a slip of the tongue?

Again, just have to wait and see what the mid year DCP has to say about the Future Frigates.

 

[hauritz]

I remember in a joint press conference both were discussing the possibility of the Type 26 Frigate being used by the RN and the RAN, below are a couple of paragraphs:

JOURNALIST: So it seems like a very much British-lead relationship, as you’ve been talking about procurement. What does Australia bring to this relationship that Britain perceives?

PHILIP HAMMOND: Well, on the frigates program our requirements for frigates, I think, yours would be around-do you have a number?

STEPHEN SMITH: Frigates?

PHILIP HAMMOND: Yeah.

STEPHEN SMITH: Half a dozen, six.

PHILIP HAMMOND: Half a dozen. We have a requirement for about 13, so clearly if you’re planning to build a program of 19 frigates you have a lot more potential economies of scale in that, and we will both benefit from those economies of scale.


So when Smith said "half a dozen, six', that opened my eyes!

I heard the same thing and I don't think it was a slip of the tongue. If it was then Smith is even more incompetent than I thought he was.

I guess that means we could see the destroyer/frigate fleet drop to 9 units over the next couple of decades.

Unfortunately I don't see much change coming from the other side of politics. They made some vague promise to raise the defence budget but added that the size of that rise depended on the state of the economy.

I agree that the future of the OCV is looking pretty grim at the moment.

 

[John Newman]

I heard the same thing and I don't think it was a slip of the tongue. If it was then Smith is even more incompetent than I thought he was.

I guess that means we could see the destroyer/frigate fleet drop to 9 units over the next couple of decades.

Unfortunately I don't see much change coming from the other side of politics. They made some vague promise to raise the defence budget but added that the size of that rise depended on the state of the economy.

I agree that the future of the OCV is looking pretty grim at the moment.

Well I hope it was a slip of the tongue, it appeared likely when the UK Def Min asked Smith the question, it may have caught him off guard and he just blurted out his half a dozen, 6, line.

I'm sure that if out of the blue last year a decision to reduce the Future Frigate fleet by 25% would have made the news in defence circles.

I'm also sure the Navy League for one, would have and continue to be screaming blue murder about it too.

Just have to wait till mid year when the 2013 version of the DCP is published and see if the numbers have changed.

 

[MickB]

Geez I hate wish lists.

I don't see it so much as a wish list list as an invitation to a discussion. I mostly just listed types already ordered or identified as a requirement eg: Sea 1180.

Sure I fiddled with the numbers a little but I took from one to add to another. 6 subs not 12, 6 frigates not 8 to allow for 3 extra AWD and 4 Absolons.

I also suggested types of vessels to fill these requirements in the hopes of hearing others opinions.

This is how I learn. How can people show me the flaws in my thinking if I don't tell them what I am thinking.

 

[alexsa]

I don't see it so much as a wish list list as an invitation to a discussion. I mostly just listed types already ordered or identified as a requirement eg: Sea 1180.

Sure I fiddled with the numbers a little but I took from one to add to another. 6 subs not 12, 6 frigates not 8 to allow for 3 extra AWD and 4 Absolons.

I also suggested types of vessels to fill these requirements in the hopes of hearing others opinions.

This is how I learn. How can people show me the flaws in my thinking if I don't tell them what I am thinking.

While they are capabile ships I would question why we would Absolons where (for the size of the RAN) we will have quite a good capability with the Amphib fleet and what may (depending on what they pick) come of the support vessel fleet and these 4 platforms would detract from the MFU numbers.


Two barches of 4 large ANZAC replacements (on the same hull) would be a better outsome for maximum commonality.


We are note going to get 8 AWD in a pink fit. 4 would be good.

 

[StevoJH]

Agreed with Alexsa with regards to the Absalon class, Denmark has a much smaller navy then we do, I struggle to identify a requirement for that style of ships when we already have Choules and a pair of LHD's coming online.

Now for New Zealand on the other hand......

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Agreed with Alexsa with regards to the Absalon class, Denmark has a much smaller navy then we do, I struggle to identify a requirement for that style of ships when we already have Choules and a pair of LHD's coming online.

Absalon type surface combatants have advantages over traditional surface combatants in just about every mission we’ve (Australia) deployed our frigates on for the past 20 years. Also for smaller scale land force deployments like many of the peace ops in the South Pacific an Absalon can deploy the combat team sized force needed.

The additional internal volume and facilities needed to provide an Absalon sized lift capability to a frigate are not so significant to as completely change their cost bracket or negatively impact their fighting capability. The space for the cargo deck, joint force command centre and accommodations can also be used for considerable growth in naval warfare capability. Such as a standoff MCM or ASW capability.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

While they are capabile ships I would question why we would Absolons where (for the size of the RAN) we will have quite a good capability with the Amphib fleet and what may (depending on what they pick) come of the support vessel fleet and these 4 platforms would detract from the MFU numbers.

Actually building Absalon class would be crazy. But incorporating their mission/cargo deck, joint force command centre and 200 or so additional accommodations into the Anzac replacement would be a good idea. Making them in effect more of a cross with an Absalon as opposed to a copy. It might add 1,000-2,500 tonnes to gross displacement but it would be a signficiant addition to fleet flexibility.

 

[alexsa]

Actually building Absalon class would be crazy. But incorporating their mission/cargo deck, joint force command centre and 200 or so additional accommodations into the Anzac replacement would be a good idea. Making them in effect more of a cross with an Absalon as opposed to a copy. It might add 1,000-2,500 tonnes to gross displacement but it would be a signficiant addition to fleet flexibility.

I have no problem with that an it would give credence to batch building the ANZAC replacement as one batch could have this capability built in while other could have an alternative specialist focus,


I am aware I am day dreaming