Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[Volkodav]

Different hullforms do indeed perform differently. Of course the systems fitout has a larger role in most case, the hull everything gets packed into is important.

One of the British frigates, either the Type 21 or Type 23 (I forget which design) has been noted as being particularly quiet in the water. Part of the reason is that the design was to have an ASW focus, so that steps were taken to reduce the amount of radiated noise from the vessel, to improve the performance of sonars which would be used to hunt for subs.

Now a great hullform will not make up for a poor choice in machinery/mounting, but everything else being equal, one hullform can be better for ASW, one for speed, another for fuel efficiency, another for launching/recovery of smallcraft, etc.

Given the AAD focus of the AWD, a 'quiet' hull would not matter so much. However, if the follow-on frigate to replace the ANZAC-class is likely to have a greater emphasis on ASW, then IMO the design should get every potential advantage possible. To my way of thinking, this means a quiet hull and machinery setup, capacity for two helicopters, hull-mounted and towed sonar arrays, ship-mounted LWT's, and VLS sized to launch ASROC and the follow-on, in addition to the regular frigate features for GP operations.

As for Australian naval shipbuilding... If I had the option, I would place an order for a 4th AWD (likely too late by now...) which would provide a batch of 4 AWD's in service, and might, just might, shave a year or two off the shipbuilding Valley of Death. That might be enough time to either bring the frigate replacement programme forward, or an OPV/OCV build programme. In either case, the vessels should be ordered in lots of four.

As for resuming construction of large vessels in Australia... I have to ask if there is really going to be sufficient need to justify investing in the infrastructure necessary to do so? AFAIK there is at present no operational dockyard in Australia large enough to build a vessel on the scale of a desired AOR or LHD.

-Cheers

Ironically the AWD and ANZAC projects have shown Australia can do the platform side very well, where it fell down was procurement from overseas and initial coordination of subcontractors which they never caught up from. ASMD has shown that CS development is well on it's way as well. It really is to bad the government of the day didn't order a batch of stretched ANZAC FFGs or DDGs to follow the ANZACs instead of upgrading the FFGs and then following them with the AWDs later.

Now the best option would be a class of OPVs but I think the government is set on more patrol boats. An OPV is more expensive to buy up front but more durable, capable and better value for money through life. Wait and see.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Does the hull choice really mean that much at all? Apart for size and weight margins does it really dictate anything else? The selection of systems to fit within the hull seems like a much more important decisions to me.

Calling a hull design a dead end is a bit of a stretch, its far more important that the systems we select aren't dead ends.

I should clarify what I meant as a dead end. There is still development potential, and its a large hull. But if we go down that road we will more or less be on it on our own. The more we vary it from an AWD the more money we spend developing it the more expensive and risky the project becomes. We could turn a LSH into a frigate, but history shows that maybe thats not the best way of going about it.

If what we want is a AWD lite, then the AWD hull makes plenty of sense.-

 

[alexsa]

Different hullforms do indeed perform differently. Of course the systems fitout has a larger role in most case, the hull everything gets packed into is important.

One of the British frigates, either the Type 21 or Type 23 (I forget which design) has been noted as being particularly quiet in the water. Part of the reason is that the design was to have an ASW focus, so that steps were taken to reduce the amount of radiated noise from the vessel, to improve the performance of sonars which would be used to hunt for subs.

Now a great hullform will not make up for a poor choice in machinery/mounting, but everything else being equal, one hullform can be better for ASW, one for speed, another for fuel efficiency, another for launching/recovery of smallcraft, etc.

Given the AAD focus of the AWD, a 'quiet' hull would not matter so much. However, if the follow-on frigate to replace the ANZAC-class is likely to have a greater emphasis on ASW, then IMO the design should get every potential advantage possible. To my way of thinking, this means a quiet hull and machinery setup, capacity for two helicopters, hull-mounted and towed sonar arrays, ship-mounted LWT's, and VLS sized to launch ASROC and the follow-on, in addition to the regular frigate features for GP operations.



-Cheers

Sounds like the 23, vessel was no slouch either and the Batch III had many of the features of a very good GP frigate with ASW focus for the era.

With regards to Gas turbines I would love to see us move to a modern option such as the MT30 if it can be done. Have to change some time.

 

[Monitor66]

It annoyed me no end, an order for a half dozen OPVs, new supply ships, LCH replacements any of a number of different ships could have been made to keep the yards ticking over but not one thing in six years. The white paper laid out what was needed but when the red headed travesty took over defence and many other things took a back seat to wishy washy feel good policy generation and leftist grand standing. Not to order a single ship in six years and then complain about the black hole, hello pot I'm kettle.

With the Armidales fading rapidly it does look like their replacement will be fast-tracked outside of Sea 1180 (OCVs). Not sure where this leaves the OCV plan. The Huon's hull is still in good shape and the expectation is that the class can be upgraded to extend LOT.

The LCH replacement though really is a case of dropping the ball for local shipbuilding. With the last LCHs due to decommission by the end of this year and their replacement not scheduled to achieve IOC until 2022-2024 (a schedule from the 2012 DCP based on achieving First Pass approval right now!), there will be a capability black hole of at least 8 years, maybe even a decade. This in spite of the LCH replacement forming an important part of the ADAS concept.

The RAN has been looking at the LCH replacement capability for so long now (at least 7-8 years) that they must surely be in a position to put a case forward to go to tender and get the ball rolling very shortly; the market has certainly not produced any new designs that were worth waiting for. They are ideal craft to be built by an Australian yard, and could well present regional export opportunities with the right type of licensing agreement in place.

The very fact that the equipment acquisition schedule (from first pass to IOC)stretches a decade for just six large landing craft illustrates how difficult it is for local shipbuilders and why none can survive on naval shipbuilding alone.

 

[t68]

If a fourth AWD was built som are saying the systems will be different, would it really be that different, of so would it not be more benifical to build three for the two ocean fleet and leave the same hulls in either east/west fleet

Also from watching another site from someone with USN experience driving both Arleigh Burkes and the Oliver Hazard perry class boats he believes it is better to have a fleet of AB's which can work down, so for a small fleet like the RAN would we be better of with 12 AWD and no frigates?

 

[John Newman]

The reality is, given the time frame, two supply ships could not be built in Australia.
Just a quick summary of our current state and capability -
BAE Henderson, is busy with the Anzac upgrades until post 2017 and a synchrolift limited to 8,000 tons.
BAE Williamstown, busy completing Adelaide and would be available but building slip is limited to Anzac size ships. (My bet is they will get the replacement Pacific class or a new OPV programme yet to be announced).
Forgacs, again size limited and currently completing AWD modules. They don't have capacity for a supply ship
The logical AOR builder is ASC but they will be tied up with the AWD's and sub refits for another 4/5 years. In any case, they do not have the time to extend the synchro for 20,000 + tonnes and farm out the modules. It may have been different if the CUF/SA govt had already extended the synchrolift and given the govt a signal that they were ready. At the moment its in fairyland.

Therefor the only option open to govt was to either build overseas to completion or build the hull overseas and complete here. This last option is still a possibility if Navantia and BAE Williamstown can strike a deal.

So much for the opposition leaders shreeks of betrayal of workers, its not as if his mob ordered one single ship from Australian yards over the last 6 years.

Assail, your comments pretty well sum up the situation (you've taken the words out of my mouth).

I really don't think the Government had an option to build the AOR's anywhere but overseas (certainly not within a reasonable time frame too), and as you pointed out it would have also required the various expansions at Techport ready to go to accommodate such a build.

I think another point to consider is that when these two ships are built and commissioned, it's probably going to be at least another 20+ years before the RAN needs to look at building ships of this size again, probably not until an eventual replacement for Choules needs to be considered.

So for the next 20 years, is it necessary to have a facility that is any larger than is currently capable of building AWD / Future Frigate sized ships? Probably not.

As to the two contenders, the Spanish Cantabria and the BMT/DSME Aegir, most commentary seems to favour Cantabria, the existing relationship with Navantia, Cantabria's time in RAN service and the common systems with the LHD's and AWD's too, but I do remember (sometime in the last 12mths) that ASC countered some of the arguments regarding the 'common systems' by saying that the Aegir design could also be configured with those same common systems, so it will be interesting to see the outcome.

One other interesting thing is that the German Berlin class didn't get a look in, and it's even more interesting that our Canadian cousins passed over both Cantabria and the Aegir designs and selected the Berlin class to be built in Canadian yards, I wouldn't mind betting that our 'imports' (regardless of which is selected) will probably be well and truly in service before the Canadian built ships hit the water!!


The Future Frigates, right move or wrong move? Time will tell, most commentators here seem to favour the T26 (for all the reasons discussed here and on the RN thread), but it's probably not a bad idea for the Government to commit the $78.2m (a relatively small sum in the scheme of things) to see if the AWD hulls can be successfully adapted to the Future Frigates ASW focused role.

I don't think the Government is actually saying (or has said) that the door is closed to other options (and I'm specifically talking of the T26), anyway, I think it's a smart move from the point of view of having 'options' when the time comes.

Regardless of what is actually selected as the Future Frigate it was good to see that the Government was actually saying 'eight' ships, hopefully that puts to bed the confusion over the previous Def Min's (Smith) comments when he said 'half a dozen, six)!!!!


As to the class of 20 Pacific Patrol Boats, well maybe that is a bone that will be thrown in the direction of Williamstown to keep it busy till future work is available, just have to wait to see if there are any other naval announcements between now and the new DWP.


And finally the comments of the Opposition, yes it's a bit rich the noises coming from them, six years in Government and not one ship ordered for the RAN, not one!

Love or hate Abbott (and the Government), especially after the recent Budget, at least from the 'Defence' point of view, he and the Government gets a big 'tick' from me. Increased Defence spending (when most other portfolios have been cut), in the last month or so commitment to the P-8A's, Triton, F-35A's, the two AOR's, etc.

 

[Milne Bay]

Assail, your comments pretty well sum up the situation (you've taken the words out of my mouth).

I really don't think the Government had an option to build the AOR's anywhere but overseas (certainly not within a reasonable time frame too), and as you pointed out it would have also required the various expansions at Techport ready to go to accommodate such a build.

I think another point to consider is that when these two ships are built and commissioned, it's probably going to be at least another 20+ years before the RAN needs to look at building ships of this size again, probably not until an eventual replacement for Choules needs to be considered.

So for the next 20 years, is it necessary to have a facility that is any larger than is currently capable of building AWD / Future Frigate sized ships? Probably not.

As to the two contenders, the Spanish Cantabria and the BMT/DSME Aegir, most commentary seems to favour Cantabria, the existing relationship with Navantia, Cantabria's time in RAN service and the common systems with the LHD's and AWD's too, but I do remember (sometime in the last 12mths) that ASC countered some of the arguments regarding the 'common systems' by saying that the Aegir design could also be configured with those same common systems, so it will be interesting to see the outcome.

One other interesting thing is that the German Berlin class didn't get a look in, and it's even more interesting that our Canadian cousins passed over both Cantabria and the Aegir designs and selected the Berlin class to be built in Canadian yards, I wouldn't mind betting that our 'imports' (regardless of which is selected) will probably be well and truly in service before the Canadian built ships hit the water!!


The Future Frigates, right move or wrong move? Time will tell, most commentators here seem to favour the T26 (for all the reasons discussed here and on the RN thread), but it's probably not a bad idea for the Government to commit the $78.2m (a relatively small sum in the scheme of things) to see if the AWD hulls can be successfully adapted to the Future Frigates ASW focused role.

I don't think the Government is actually saying (or has said) that the door is closed to other options (and I'm specifically talking of the T26), anyway, I think it's a smart move from the point of view of having 'options' when the time comes.

Regardless of what is actually selected as the Future Frigate it was good to see that the Government was actually saying 'eight' ships, hopefully that puts to bed the confusion over the previous Def Min's (Smith) comments when he said 'half a dozen, six)!!!!


As to the class of 20 Pacific Patrol Boats, well maybe that is a bone that will be thrown in the direction of Williamstown to keep it busy till future work is available, just have to wait to see if there are any other naval announcements between now and the new DWP.


And finally the comments of the Opposition, yes it's a bit rich the noises coming from them, six years in Government and not one ship ordered for the RAN, not one!

Love or hate Abbott (and the Government), especially after the recent Budget, at least from the 'Defence' point of view, he and the Government gets a big 'tick' from me. Increased Defence spending (when most other portfolios have been cut), in the last month or so commitment to the P-8A's, Triton, F-35A's, the two AOR's, etc.

We seriously need a like button on this forum
Well said and commensurate with a large number of opinions here as well.
It has only become apparent since they left office just how badly Labour had emasculated Defence in its later term.
While I am probably classed as a classic swinging (thinking) voter, it will take a major major major stuff-up by the coalition for me to ever consider Labour again.
Back to navy - the decision on the AOR's will be interesting, but realistically either choice will be as good as the other.
Why there is not an LCH replacement building ATM is beyond comprehension.
MB

 

[John Fedup]

One other interesting thing is that the German Berlin class didn't get a look in, and it's even more interesting that our Canadian cousins passed over both Cantabria and the Aegir designs and selected the Berlin class to be built in Canadian yards, I wouldn't mind betting that our 'imports' (regardless of which is selected) will probably be well and truly in service before the Canadian built ships hit the water!!

Your imports will definitely be in the water first. More importantly, they will be less expensive and properly built.

 

[John Newman]

Your imports will definitely be in the water first. More importantly, they will be less expensive and properly built.

Hi John, my comments were a bit 'tongue in cheek' about Canadian procurement, but sadly its probably more accurate than that.

Every time I think that things are bad with Oz procurement, I see what you guys are putting up with and it doesn't seem so bad here after all.

Maybe when the 'new imports' make it into RAN service we could send you a couple of 'pre-loved' replenishment ships, one more pre-loved than the other!!

But seriously, what is the time frame for building and commissioning the two (maybe up three?) Berlin class ships?

I do remember a while ago that there was a debate about the fact that there was only one yard capable of doing the job and the argument was about what would be built first, the first urgent replacement AOR or an equally urgent ice breaker?

 

[Volkodav]

The problem IMO was Smith. He didn't want the job, didn't care about it and wasn't any good at it. He cut the upfront funding for AWD and slipped the schedule to make short term savings but increase costs, stuff productivity and reduce capacity and efficiency down the track.

Smith was the last Def Min who could have ordered a fourth AWD and he didn't.

 

[John Fedup]

But seriously, what is the time frame for building and commissioning the two (maybe up three?) Berlin class ships?

I do remember a while ago that there was a debate about the fact that there was only one yard capable of doing the job and the argument was about what would be built first, the first urgent replacement AOR or an equally urgent ice breaker?

There has been little information about the entire ship building program's progress other than the announced delay. With the HMCS Protecteur out of service (probably for good), the AOR will likely have priority over the icebreaker now. These ships will be built in the Vancouver yard whereas the surface combatant ships and Arctic patrol vessels will be built in Halifax. The HMCS Iroquois has severe hull cracking and it really can not be considered fit for duty nor will any repairs be likely due to its age. It is my understanding the patrol vessels are to be built first but maybe that will have to change so the navy can have another command ship. Even better would be a redirection of the Russian Mistrals to the RCN but that will never happen.

 

[aussienscale]

I think it is a bit early to be tipping the winner between Navantia and Daewoo, you need to know the actual requirements before you can say who has bolted out of the gates.

Yes there was some good reports on the Cantabria but it is easy to like when you can touch and drive, but opinions change when you hop into a top of the range model

There have been several, lets say, interesting public statements about potential future toys, has this been taken into account for growth/creep in the capabilities of these ships ?

I think the Cantabria Class is a great ship, fills (on the outside) the needs, but I also think the Aegir offer some great options for the 18's, in particular the 18R, having 12,000 m3 versus 8,920 m3 for Cantabria for fuel, more water, JP5 and general stores etc.

But at the end of the day it will be an epic bidding war with the mighty dollar being the winner as 2 of either of these ships will serve us well

Cheers

 

[Volkodav]

Interesting that the AEGIR was the ASC proposal if that gets up I wonder if they will still have any involvement, someone will have to maintain and sustain them.

 

[ASSAIL]

Interesting that the AEGIR was the ASC proposal if that gets up I wonder if they will still have any involvement, someone will have to maintain and sustain them.

Which is why I suspect that Cantabria/Navantia/BAE may have their nose in front after the reasonably successful LHD collaboration.
ASC is flat out with combat ships and subs.

 

[hairyman]

As far as the ship building Valley of Death is concerned, if ASC went straight from AWD's to submarines,it would erase the "valley of death". We are going to increase our submarine fleet anyway, so why not add a couple before the Collins start de-commissioning.

 

[StevoJH]

As far as the ship building Valley of Death is concerned, if ASC went straight from AWD's to submarines,it would erase the "valley of death". We are going to increase our submarine fleet anyway, so why not add a couple before the Collins start de-commissioning.

Because you need a design before you can start constructing something.

And as far as I know, they haven't got a design to build yet, and that will take even longer then getting a frigate design.

Honestly, they should either order some OPV's, or find out exactly where T-26 is at, since its probably the *closest* thing out there to meeting the requirements. MOTS ship designs available for construction now would be the German "cruiser", FREMM or LCS? I don't think either F-125 or LCS have good enough AAW capability though, since both use RAM as their primary anti-air weapon.

FREMM may not be an option due to Australia avoiding French equipment due to the US.

 

[Bonza]

Because you need a design before you can start constructing something.

And as far as I know, they haven't got a design to build yet, and that will take even longer then getting a frigate design.

Honestly, they should either order some OPV's, or find out exactly where T-26 is at, since its probably the *closest* thing out there to meeting the requirements. MOTS ship designs available for construction now would be the German "cruiser", FREMM or LCS? I don't think either F-125 or LCS have good enough AAW capability though, since both use RAM as their primary anti-air weapon.

FREMM may not be an option due to Australia avoiding French equipment due to the US.

Akizuki-class would be a potential candidate too if you take a quick look over its capabilities, although we'd probably want to swap out some of the electronics.

 

[alexsa]

Because you need a design before you can start constructing something.

And as far as I know, they haven't got a design to build yet, and that will take even longer then getting a frigate design.

Honestly, they should either order some OPV's, or find out exactly where T-26 is at, since its probably the *closest* thing out there to meeting the requirements. MOTS ship designs available for construction now would be the German "cruiser", FREMM or LCS? I don't think either F-125 or LCS have good enough AAW capability though, since both use RAM as their primary anti-air weapon.

FREMM may not be an option due to Australia avoiding French equipment due to the US.

I suspect that is why there is funding for a frigate based on the F100 (F105 really) as this s not such a large leap if you keep the changes simple. Assuming the drive and power train, VLS, aviation facilities and basic accommodation remains unaltered or largely unaltered then the main changes are systems and upper works which would be more manageable in a shorter time frame.

Critically it is not just the design but the tooling up for construction that would be simpler and cheaper in the short term,.

Some of the work on the ANZAC ASMD itself can also transition across. If the option was to move from the AWD to 4 F105 derivative FFH and then A batch of four SSG then yards will have work, particularly if the LCH and OPV are tossed into the mix for the smaller yards.

If the 8 FFH 's are realised then batching would allow two lots of 4 FFH, two or three lots of 4 SSG and follow on AWD to keep the yards going for quite some time with:

• The ability to switch deign between batches using evolved designs follow by new designs
• Reduce the risk of block obsolescence that has happened with the large batch of ANZACs
• Minimise the need for expensive upgrade in lieu of new build

........ even if we do not build the AORs

 

[htbrst]

Honestly, they should either order some OPV's,

Which is probably the only realistic short term export opportunity with NZ thinking about purchasing a third OPV. An existing "in production" OPV programme for NZ to tack onto and save some money might just push them over the line to actually purchasing one.

It's not much, but it would at least be one less ship that needed funding directly by Australia.

 

[Raven22]

As others have said, if starting to build the ANZAC replacements as quickly as possible to fill the valley off death is necessary, then splitting the ANZAC replacement over multiple classes is probably the best bet.

To start with, simply hit repeat on the AWD build, making whatever minimal changes are appropriate (I'd imagine mainly to the combat system, not the vessel itself). This would see a further three F100 based ships that would replace the first few ANZACs and fill the valley off death. You've then got all the time in the world to identify the most appropriate vessel to replace the remainder of the ANZACS (T26?) and start building those at the end of the F100 build.