Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[colay]

Here's what LM says. I think that a 200nm+ range for LRASM is fine for ASuW but could be problematic if striking land targets deep within hostile territory, specially when defenses my require you to launch from stand-off distances.


AirSea Battle Weapon?

AirSea Battle Weapon?

Lockheed Martin hopes to get on contract with the Navy in 2014 for a derivative of its Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile and JASSM-Extended Range system called the Long-Range Anti-Ship Missile, according to Dick Tate, the company's program manager for the new weapon. Developed as a DARPA project, LRASM has "the same mold line" and thus about the same stealth as the JASSM-ER, but replaces some of that weapon's internal fuel with avionics that permit man-in-the-loop "multimode" terminal guidance, said Tate last week at AFA's Air Warfare Symposium in Orlando, Fla. The sensors are designed to give the weapon capability against moving sea targets or mobile land targets. The JASSM-ER can go more than 500 miles, but LRASM would have close to the baseline JASSM's range of more than 200 miles, said Tate.

More...

 

[Abraham Gubler]

The land attack missile for RAN surface ship concept of operations is to primarily knock out enemy air bases. It is to deny the enemy the capacity to launch anti-ship strikes. It is bizarrely enough primarily an air defence weapon. So 370km will not be enough range. 1,000km like JASSM-ER is probably enough. TLAM only provides a range of 1,700km so it’s not a huge difference to JASSM-ER. But the extra size of the missile means extra payload. JASSM of course has the advantage of being more survivable.

 

[harryriedl]

I always wondered if an AEW version of the AW609 would be a better bet, it has a pressurized cabin which would make it more comfortable for the crew at altitude, it's closer in size to the E-2 which would make it a much better fit on a smaller LHD like the Canberra, plus has all the advantages of the MV-22, probably cheaper as well.

you do lose range and payload plus their is much greater development risk with AW609 plus the USA as the main customer means their is much more money (generally) involved in troubleshooting which could easily with the modifications exceed the cost of a MV-22(plus if you have a palletised AEW you can easily switch to tanking, and COD)

 

[ngatimozart]

I see Navantia have floated the first landing craft for the LHDs. Pacific Sentinel: Industry: Navantia setting afloat the first landing craft (for) Australia Another part slotting into place.

 

[Todjaeger]

I always wondered if an AEW version of the AW609 would be a better bet, it has a pressurized cabin which would make it more comfortable for the crew at altitude, it's closer in size to the E-2 which would make it a much better fit on a smaller LHD like the Canberra, plus has all the advantages of the MV-22, probably cheaper as well.

In terms of size, AFAIK the AW609 is a bit smaller than the V-22, which in turn is just about the same size as an E-2C Hawkeye. Also the MTOW of an AW609 ~7,600 kg, while the MTOW's for a V-22 and E-2C are 27,400 kg and 26,000 kg respectively.

Given the significant size difference, I do not think that the AW609 could mount the sensors, comms and workstations required to act as a full AEW system. At least not when compared to what an E-2 or potential EV-22 could provide in terms of capability.

-Cheers

 

[John Newman]

Just saw this article on The Australian today about :

THE $8 billion Air Warfare Destroyer program has been plagued with design changes "way beyond" expectations because of problems with Spanish designer Navantia, according to the head of the company building the vessels.

Steve Ludlam, chief executive of shipbuilder ASC, speaking for the first time about design revisions that have disrupted the building of the first of the navy's new destroyers, said that the experience should be a warning to Defence as it prepares to build its $30 billion future submarine fleet.

"We get the drawings, we start building to the drawings . . . and then we get the next update to the drawings and there is a lot of change. There is an enormous amount of change in that," he told The Australian yesterday.

"It is way beyond anybody's expectations. It has been very difficult to manage."

Mr Ludlam warned the ongoing problems made the 2017 schedule for the second destroyer's delivery "tight", raising fears of further delays to the nation's biggest defence project.

ASC, which is the lead shipbuilder in the AWD Alliance, had been forced to deal with revisions to the so-called "build to print" design drawings from Navantia on an ongoing basis, he said.

The navy's three new 6500-tonne destroyers, based on Navantia's F104 ship, have already been delayed by two years because of construction problems, budget cuts and skills shortages.

In 2011, the project was thrown into disarray when the central keel block of the first warship was built with a "distortion" at defence contractor BAE's Williamstown shipyard.

The construction fault sparked a rift between the government's Defence Materiel Organisation and BAE over who was to blame.

Last September, the then defence minister Stephen Smith announced a "re-baselining" of the project, which pushed delivery of the first ship back to 2016, with the third and final destroyer scheduled to be in service by 2019.

Mr Ludlam said while delivery of the third ship by 2019 "should be OK", he suggested the schedule might be disrupted by ongoing design revisions.

"The second ship shouldn't encounter those same issues, (but) it looks to be, on the current stated schedule, a bit tight," he said.

He urged the government to ensure the future submarine project involved the builder of the new fleet - likely to be ASC - in the design process to avoid similar problems occurring.

Sounds like the ground is being prepared for 'pointing the finger' if the AWD's start to run even further behind the already delayed delivery schedule.

It reminds me of many years ago when a mate of mine was working at Cockatoo Island when they were building HMAS Success, he used to tell me stories of how they had ongoing problems with the drawings from the French and they often had to stop at certain points, cut holes in the hull, make changes and continue on, I don't know how true that actually was about cutting the hull open on numerous occasions, but apparently it was true about all the issues over the drawings.

If there are further delays, it will give the new Government some political bullets to fire at the former Government over 'mismanagement', regardless of mismanagement or not under their watch.

 

[Trackmaster]

Just saw this article on The Australian today about :




Sounds like the ground is being prepared for 'pointing the finger' if the AWD's start to run even further behind the already delayed delivery schedule.

It reminds me of many years ago when a mate of mine was working at Cockatoo Island when they were building HMAS Success, he used to tell me stories of how they had ongoing problems with the drawings from the French and they often had to stop at certain points, cut holes in the hull, make changes and continue on, I don't know how true that actually was about cutting the hull open on numerous occasions, but apparently it was true about all the issues over the drawings.

If there are further delays, it will give the new Government some political bullets to fire at the former Government over 'mismanagement', regardless of mismanagement or not under their watch.

Glad you posted this...I meant to comment earlier, particularly on the photograph used.
Over the left shoulder of the guy quoted, you can see what looks like the back half of a Collins submarine. The prop has been removed, but the shaft is there...and the back half appears to have been separated from the rest of the hull.
I wondered about that.

 

[ausklr76]

Just saw this article on The Australian today about :




Sounds like the ground is being prepared for 'pointing the finger' if the AWD's start to run even further behind the already delayed delivery schedule.

It reminds me of many years ago when a mate of mine was working at Cockatoo Island when they were building HMAS Success, he used to tell me stories of how they had ongoing problems with the drawings from the French and they often had to stop at certain points, cut holes in the hull, make changes and continue on, I don't know how true that actually was about cutting the hull open on numerous occasions, but apparently it was true about all the issues over the drawings.

If there are further delays, it will give the new Government some political bullets to fire at the former Government over 'mismanagement', regardless of mismanagement or not under their watch.

Sorry don't know how you can blame the "former government" for mismanagement, as this was a Howard era project? They are the ones that signed the contract!

 

[aussienscale]

Sorry don't know how you can blame the "former government" for mismanagement, as this was a Howard era project? They are the ones that signed the contract!

John is not blaming the former Government, he is just pointing out the politics that will follow the change of Government, it is not relevant who started the project or signed off on the contract, it is about politics and what happened on their watch

Cheers

 

[Volkodav]

http://www.australiandefence.com.au/images/dmImage/StandardImage/_DSC5898_1_main.jpg
Don't think they cut the aft section off but there was this photo in ADM showing the sun roof they cut in Collins to access the diesels.

A number of very experienced and very smart people have been pushing for this forever but the risk adverse powers that be always opted for key hole surgery, driving up cost and blowing out schedules. Welding is something ASC does very well so cutting the hull and pulling the bits and bobs out to work on them makes sense.

 

[gf0012-aust]

http://www.australiandefence.com.au/images/dmImage/StandardImage/_DSC5898_1_main.jpg
Don't think they cut the aft section off but there was this photo in ADM showing the sun roof they cut in Collins to access the diesels.

A number of very experienced and very smart people have been pushing for this forever but the risk adverse powers that be always opted for key hole surgery, driving up cost and blowing out schedules. Welding is something ASC does very well so cutting the hull and pulling the bits and bobs out to work on them makes sense.

they were originally designed for a major cut. I remember when I was involved with 2,3,4 and 5 - 5 was pretty well open up while they were building the combat room inner plug

they'd already planned for that kind of maint surgery

 

[t68]

http://www.australiandefence.com.au/images/dmImage/StandardImage/_DSC5898_1_main.jpg
Don't think they cut the aft section off but there was this photo in ADM showing the sun roof they cut in Collins to access the diesels.

A number of very experienced and very smart people have been pushing for this forever but the risk adverse powers that be always opted for key hole surgery, driving up cost and blowing out schedules. Welding is something ASC does very well so cutting the hull and pulling the bits and bobs out to work on them makes sense.

Are they replacing the Troublesome hedemora and trialling the Japanese propolision systems or it's rebuilding the old?

Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

 

[gf0012-aust]

Are they replacing the Troublesome hedemora and trialling the Japanese propolision systems or it's rebuilding the old?

Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

one of the options is to kill off the hedemora and replace with an industry standard system.

hell, if they want to stay spanish they could use Guascor marine engines - they power over 70% of the euro heavy (deep sea) fishing fleet and have been around for over 40 years

even some of the biggest marine engine makers in the world use rebadged Guascors and pretend that its their own engines

 

[Volkodav]

It will make a difference just being able to access the generators from above with a crane. I wonder if they have finally got the go ahead to fit the electronic governor that was trialed and proven years ago.

 

[John Newman]

Sorry don't know how you can blame the "former government" for mismanagement, as this was a Howard era project? They are the ones that signed the contract!

I think you have misread and misunderstood what I actually said, part of which was "regardless of mismanagement or not under their watch."

As aussienscale pointed out on my behalf (thank you), I was making the point about the politics that will follow if the AWD project faces further delays.

As an example of this sort of politics, you only have to look back at the beginning of Rudd Government regarding their initial criticism of the Howard Governments decision to purchase the Super Hornets.

Not long after coming to Government they announced a review, citing concerns over operational suitability, the lack of a proper review process, etc. In the end Fitzgibbon said the Super Hornet was an 'excellent aircraft'.

But they also continued the political point scoring by saying, that the retirement of the F-111 had occurred in haste and was irreversible, they also said that cancelling the Super Hornet would bring significant financial penalties and create understandable tensions between the contract partners.

This is how politics is played, if there is an opportunity to blame your opponent, then do it!

Anyway..... What is interesting about the article, is why did ASC come out and say this now? Why not make these statements public before a change of Government?

I think the answer to that is pretty simple, they are playing politics too.

If there are further delays, ASC can blame Navantia and the new Government can blame the previous Government.

What was also interesting was the statement attributed to Steve Ludlam from ASC in the last paragraph: 'He urged the government to ensure the future submarine project involved the builder of the new fleet - likely to be ASC - in the design process to avoid similar problems occurring'.

Again a bit more politicking by ASC to the new Government about the position they want to be in for their involvement the future submarine project.

 

[the road runner]

There is a video of the Collins class being cut open on the ASC website.
Scroll to the bottom of the below link.

ASC - ASC innovates in submarine maintenance

 

[Gordon Branch]

There has been some discussion on the New Zealand Navy board about the pending sale of the Joint Support Ship Karel Doorman currently being built but now surplus to Dutch requirements.

How would the Karel Doorman fit into the Australian Fleet? Specifically as a Support ship to Australia's amphibious assets.

She's probably not exactly what the RAN was looking for as a Success/Sirius replacement but could actually provide more capability than is being envisaged by that project.

Thoughts?

 

[John Newman]

There has been some discussion on the New Zealand Navy board about the pending sale of the Joint Support Ship Karel Doorman currently being built but now surplus to Dutch requirements.

How would the Karel Doorman fit into the Australian Fleet? Specifically as a Support ship to Australia's amphibious assets.

She's probably not exactly what the RAN was looking for as a Success/Sirius replacement but could actually provide more capability than is being envisaged by that project.

Thoughts?

Personally I'm impressed with the Karel Doorman design, (her ability to carry a large load of helicopters, logistics, fuel and amphibious capabilities all in the one very big ship), but I can't see that the RAN would be chasing after her today.

Maybe if and this is a big 'if', if at the time of the LPA's early retirement she had already been in commission and if the Netherlands were selling and if Choules hadn't been available (yes a lot of 'ifs'!!), I would have thought, yes investigate price and availability, but that isn't or wasn't the case.

Here we are today, it's been confirmed (by the recent White Paper) that Choules will continue in service, Canberra is soon to enter service, Adelaide is to follow in 2016, so that's the amphibious side of things covered.

Yes Success and Sirius still have to be replaced, but the emphasis will no doubt be on local or part local construction, depending on which design is selected, to also be of a benefit to the local ship building industry too.

And on top of that from what others, with far more knowledge than I have, have said KD appears to be a bit light on when it comes to it's liquid fuel replenishment capabilities.

If not for Australia, who then?

She might be a good buy for Canada, they are in a bit of a 'catch 22' at the moment, they need to build replacement replenishment ships and also build an Arctic icebreaker too, but the problem they have is that with the one shipyard tasked to do both classes of ship they have to decide which gets built first, they can't start both classes at the same time.

So maybe KD would be a good gap filler to allow the icebreaker to be built first before they start on 2 replenishment ships, after that she could continue on as a back up to the replenishment ships and also give them an amphibious capability that doesn't currently exist.

Anyway, that's my 2 cents worth!!

 

[John Newman]

Article in The Australian this morning quoting the new Defence Minister:

Defending sea lanes 'a priority', says Defence Minister David Johnston

PROTECTING the massive resources projects in northern and Western Australia and export supply lines to China, Japan and South Korea will be a major Defence priority for the Abbott government.

New Defence Minister David Johnston told The Australian last night that this was one reason the navy needed highly capable long-range submarines to complement its surface warships.

"We have hundreds of billions of dollars' worth of investment in offshore developments, particularly in the north and northwest of Australia," Senator Johnston said.

Australia had a great deal of "skin in that game" in terms of its relationships with China and the US, he said.

Senator Johnston said the Defence chiefs had dealt impressively with massive budget cuts, but there was still a big gap between the equipment promised in Labor's two white papers and the money available to pay for it. The Coalition wanted to provide that equipment and had undertaken to increase Defence spending to 2 per cent of GDP so it could be done, he said.

"We do need to take a year or two to steady the ship and then we anticipate a consistent increase in the budget over time.

"The additional money had to come "in a way Defence could digest it", Senator Johnston said, and that would be mapped out in the new Defence white paper promised within 18 months.

Learning from Iraq and Afghanistan would be crucial to prepare the ADF for future operations that might again see it back in the Middle East. "If I had to choose a region where we would probably get the call again, it's got to be that region. It's got to be Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Syria, et cetera, I would have thought.

"So what we need to do is chew up and digest what we've been through in the last 10 to 15 years in the Middle East, take a lot from the process.

"With the reduction of troop numbers in Afghanistan, the ADF was shifting from a land insurgency issue to a maritime security issue, he said.

"We are a maritime trading nation so even our agriculture is exported. So coal, iron ore and oil and gas -- it's all on the water.

"We have got to take responsibility and say to our customers, particularly in South Korea, Japan and China, we will secure those sea lanes for you as best we can.

"To do that you need cutting-edge, cost-effective ships. I think you need to retain your ship-building capacity.

"The navy needed to consider vessels such as the small and highly manoeuvrable but well-armed littoral combat ships that were already being built in Australia for the US Navy.

"They are fast, cost effective and relatively easily built and very flexible and versatile. Our navy needs a suitable mix of high-end war-fighting capabilities, such as the Air Warfare Destroyers and smaller vessels such as patrol boats and light, fast frigates," Senator Johnston said.

The minister ruled out any possibility of moving the navy out of its base in Sydney Harbour, which he dismissed as a Kevin Rudd "thought bubble".

Senator Johnston said there were no plans to cut the size of the army after various troop drawdowns, and that the navy might even grow.

Some interesting comments from the new Def Min regarding the capabilities of the Navy, the main points that I noticed (in bold above) and listed below:

* The navy needed highly capable long-range submarines
* Need cutting-edge, cost-effective ships. I think you need to retain your ship-building capacity
* Well-armed littoral combat ships
* Our navy needs a suitable mix of high-end war-fighting capabilities, such as the Air Warfare Destroyers and smaller vessels such as patrol boats and light, fast frigates
* And that the navy might even grow

Now I know it's a bit early to be sitting here and reading the 'tea leaves' with the new White Paper still 18mths away, but it sounds like he is a fan of the Littoral Combat Ships (Austal version?), probably not surprising since he is WA Senator.

He also mentioned the need for highly capable long-range submarines, maybe that means he's not talking up the smaller European design subs now.

He talked of a 'suitable mix' for the fleet, AWD's at one end and 'light fast frigates' and PB's at the other end, does this mean the plans for the large Future Frigate is gone or significantly reduced (that capability replaced by the Littoral Ships perhaps?)

And lastly, he mentioned that the 'Navy might even grow', maybe that means a larger fleet of Littoral Ships / Light Fast Frigates sitting between the AWD's and the PB's (rather than the original plan of the Rudd Government to replace the ACPB's with OCV's, this might mean both PB's and Littoral Ships as enhanced OCV's?)



PS, did you spot the mistake in the article? "well-armed littoral combat ships that were already being built in Australia for the US Navy"

Gee! I didn't know we were secretly building them at Henderson for the USN!!

 

[hairyman]

David Johnson is now our Minister of Defence. Is that a good thing or a bad thing? From memory he did not set the world on fire as opposition defence spokesman.