Pretty much my attitude except for the fact we will never buy all our ships overseas and will always try to build ships here. It is the rebuilding that costs the money and efficiency not the actual building of ships in Australia. What we need is consistency and we need to avoid building small classes of ships. IMO the AWD should have been at least six and preferably eight hulls in a continuous build, followed by a corvette or OPV replacement for the ACPBs and then the ANZAC replacements, in turn followed by the eventual AWD replacement.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Australia is doing a better job than Canada in building naval ships. You've hit the nail on head with your rebuilding comment. Canada is currently spending a $hitload of money just getting the two designated shipyards ready for our build. You can just imagine the future these yards have once the build is completed. a rapid decline followed by bankruptcy. Thirty years later, this same wasteful process will be repeated.
Agree all.
Its a bit more than just reduced platform as well. eg The Chief for USAF has indicated that they need to reduce platform types that are niche and that the niche roles should be distributed across platforms
his example is the A-10. ie every platform that has a weapons mount should be able to contribute to CAS - ie its not the platform, it about the capability. In light of that the argument is that even a reduced fleet still generates disproportionate maint/sustainment costs and that reduces overall effectiveness as monies chewed up by niche sustainment impact on the broader force
There's a rough parallel for USN where they face similar ideological disconnects wrt to Battleships and LCS
Unfort when the budgets are tight, then harder decisions (but more sustainable decisions) need to be made.
Its why newgen platforms such as JSF and LCS are so polarising. Unfort ideology can also pollute the capability and requirement debate
With the AWD i don't really understand why they went with 3. To go all that expense to build just 3 ships.
I would assume with movement in the FFG replacements utilising the AWD hull and systems would go a long way to improve commonality if ~11 of the largest and most complex ships shared propulsion, electrical, subsystems, and could eventually evolve into a more homogeneous platform when the AWD are mid-lifed.
As for the LCS, I wonder if people would be more happy if it was seen being more conventional (steel) and more like a Oliver Hazard Perry-class frigate. LCS is seen as too much to quick too focused on speed over everything else.
I would assume with movement in the FFG replacements utilising the AWD hull and systems would go a long way to improve commonality if ~11 of the largest and most complex ships shared propulsion, electrical, subsystems, and could eventually evolve into a more homogeneous platform when the AWD are mid-lifed.
As for the LCS, I wonder if people would be more happy if it was seen being more conventional (steel) and more like a Oliver Hazard Perry-class frigate. LCS is seen as too much to quick too focused on speed over everything else.
Joe Black
Active Member
I suspect the AEGIS combat system and the associated AN/SPY-1D radar are expensive. Thus, RAN is looking at using the Hobart sea frame as the basis for the the future frigate, coupled that with CEA CEAFAR/CEAMount and you get a near perfect solution. I would suspect if successful, this would probably be the best solution to both solve the "Valley of Death" situation, scale of economic and a platform suitable for future upgrade.
cdxbow
Well-Known Member
The Hobart Family
It's a good idea to try to standardise hulls, and the Hobart may prove to be a very good hull, and suitable for a family of warships. So with all the recent discussion about using the Hobart hull for other ships, I have tried to illustrate some. See attachment.
The first nuship is the 'Recycled frigate'. I have loped off the Aegis radar, and kitted it out with bits mainly from the Anzacs, plus a full length VLS and a good towed array sonar. Makes a decent ship. Of course, it's 15 or so years before the Anzacs appear in the recycle bin, so if you wanted to do it now you would have to use all new bits. If you are going to build a whole new ship, with all it's expense, why not just build another Hobart?
The second nuship is an Absalom like command vessel. I have illustrated it with a VLS, so it's got some bite. This is backed up by a Millenium Gun (too cool not to have, and possibly actually works), Stanflex modules and a naval gun. The main change is the flight deck and hangar have been raised to provide a large cargo area. There should be a significant weight saving, especially top weight, with the removal of the Ageis system. A landing dock would be ideal but I don't know how much it would affect performance of the hull. A ship like this would be capable of many different mission sets.
The last nuship is a low observable version, with a bit of hull shaping and shrouding. In terms of gear it's not too different from the recycled frigate, except it's got the first gen AUSPAR radar. Significant attention has not only been paid to minimising it's EM signature, it is also very quiet. Probably needs some work on the bow to make it practical. Can't wait to see what how the Zumwalts handle.
It's a good idea to try to standardise hulls, and the Hobart may prove to be a very good hull, and suitable for a family of warships. So with all the recent discussion about using the Hobart hull for other ships, I have tried to illustrate some. See attachment.
The first nuship is the 'Recycled frigate'. I have loped off the Aegis radar, and kitted it out with bits mainly from the Anzacs, plus a full length VLS and a good towed array sonar. Makes a decent ship. Of course, it's 15 or so years before the Anzacs appear in the recycle bin, so if you wanted to do it now you would have to use all new bits. If you are going to build a whole new ship, with all it's expense, why not just build another Hobart?
The second nuship is an Absalom like command vessel. I have illustrated it with a VLS, so it's got some bite. This is backed up by a Millenium Gun (too cool not to have, and possibly actually works), Stanflex modules and a naval gun. The main change is the flight deck and hangar have been raised to provide a large cargo area. There should be a significant weight saving, especially top weight, with the removal of the Ageis system. A landing dock would be ideal but I don't know how much it would affect performance of the hull. A ship like this would be capable of many different mission sets.
The last nuship is a low observable version, with a bit of hull shaping and shrouding. In terms of gear it's not too different from the recycled frigate, except it's got the first gen AUSPAR radar. Significant attention has not only been paid to minimising it's EM signature, it is also very quiet. Probably needs some work on the bow to make it practical. Can't wait to see what how the Zumwalts handle.
Also a tile 'debonding' process.
https://www.asc.com.au/en/News-Media/Latest-News/Tile-removal-creates-savings/
From 17 hours down to 35 mins per tile. That's got to be a major bonus.
No idea who is claiming the credit for that idea.
Anyone have any more public info on this?
Google is pretty scant.
cheers
rb
I would have assumed that it's tied into the same dev shop in DSTO
(ie based on understanding what the core bonding agents were comprised of)
Fixed that for you.
Interesting.
You should watermark it to protect your IP.
Goodness knows Kopp did for a lot of his 'concepts'
rb
I think we have missed the boat as far as the F-100 is concerned, where a direct follow on from the ANZACs, to replace both the Perth Class DDGs and Adelaide Class FFGs, would have made sense.
How much cheaper and more efficient would the build have been using an up to speed, proven yard?
How many more hulls could have been afforded if the black hole had been avoided, the FFGUP never proceded with and more hulls orded upfront?
Would we need the ANZAC ASMD if the RAN had half a dozen F-100s?
How much cheaper and more efficient would the build have been using an up to speed, proven yard?
How many more hulls could have been afforded if the black hole had been avoided, the FFGUP never proceded with and more hulls orded upfront?
Would we need the ANZAC ASMD if the RAN had half a dozen F-100s?
TheRealist
Member
The realist in me tells me its pretty obvious options two and three would be a no go. If anything from your list is chosen it would be the recycled frigate option minus the 8 cell Mk48.
The hull is too old now, ten, fifteen years ago not a problem but now there are many more modern, capable designs out there with much lower cost of ownership. Remember what replaces the ANZACs with still be in service post 2050 and we don't really want to be stuck with yesterday's platform so far into the future.
Joe Black
Active Member
Well, I bet to differ. TKMS still offers the A200 design:
https://thyssenkrupp-marinesystems.com/en/blohmvoss-mekor-a-200-class-frigate.html
I was referring to the F-100 hull not the MEKO, that aside though a MEKO 200 ANZ is not an A-200. To be honest I am really not sure what you think you are differing with me on.
As Volkodav pointed out, TKMS are offering a relatively NEW A 200 design that is totally different from the B&V Meko 200 offered to Noah to escort the Ark (and the RAN)
cdxbow
Well-Known Member
T26 for the RAN, how would it look?
The T26 will certainly be looked at for the 'future frigate', if it works as advertised it would be a good choice, a much newer hull than the Hobart class. Even better if a number of navies picked them up, and it's been suggested in these forums that Canada & NZ, might select them. If they did it would mean a world wide fleet of about 30 hulls, providing expertise & support. Makes an attractive proposition.
So how would an Oz T26 look? I have first illustrated an RN ship, next the 'australianised' version, followed by Canadian & NZ offerings. Because it's all the old empire, I have called it the Commonwealth class.
Added: some of the numbering is incorrect on the items labelled on the RN ship. You can work them out still.
The last is another 'recycled frigate', using mainly the Anzac bits, as done with the Hobart illustrations I posted earlier.
The T26 will certainly be looked at for the 'future frigate', if it works as advertised it would be a good choice, a much newer hull than the Hobart class. Even better if a number of navies picked them up, and it's been suggested in these forums that Canada & NZ, might select them. If they did it would mean a world wide fleet of about 30 hulls, providing expertise & support. Makes an attractive proposition.
So how would an Oz T26 look? I have first illustrated an RN ship, next the 'australianised' version, followed by Canadian & NZ offerings. Because it's all the old empire, I have called it the Commonwealth class.
Added: some of the numbering is incorrect on the items labelled on the RN ship. You can work them out still.
The last is another 'recycled frigate', using mainly the Anzac bits, as done with the Hobart illustrations I posted earlier.
Last edited:
Reminder: I understand you might like to do these drawings Cdx but they have to be based in reality and reasoning like "I'm going to include this CIWS because it's cool and might work" is the antithesis of that. Please read up on the topic, do what you can to understand it and treat it accordingly - turning an F-100 hull into an Absalon or a mini-Zumwalt is just not realistic.
I don't want to put a damper on your enthusiasm but this forum is reserved for serious discussion of real defence issues. Its not a forum to promote photo shopped designs of imagined future ships and individuals wish lists, it drives the Moderators nuts.
If we all stick to reality it helps. Naval acquisitions are years in planning, fine tuning and dealing with political cycles, not 5 minute art work.
- Status