Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[Volkodav]

I would suggest if the future frigate were to comprise just two or three vessels, there would be benefits in using a design with AWD commonality.

But for a 7-8+ ship class, the desired economies of scale will be realised through that class's own build run.

I think we're much better off looking at a Type 26 or enhanced LCS type of capability which is designed from the keel up to accommodate a CEAFAR style sensor suite and for the mission sets the future frigate will be tasked with.

Where's that like button?

Yes I agree totally, this is a big build that is likely to run for about a decade from first steel cut to last ship deliver. It really should be a new design and on the LCS reference it would make sense that whatever design is adopted it should have a mission bay or mission bays designed for USN LCS Mission Modules to permit the base ship to be adapted for mission requirements now the OCV seems to have died. This would provide an expeditionary MCM, force protection, enhanced anti-surface and ASW capability as required in support of the LHDs or coalition forces.

 

[StingrayOZ]

I would suggest if the future frigate were to comprise just two or three vessels, there would be benefits in using a design with AWD commonality.

Common hull is probably a bit of misnomer as the hull won't be exactly the same (possibly even below the waterline), and the systems and fit out will be significantly different. I would imagine the F-10x would be the basic starting point for an evolved design with modern propulsion (as mentioned should be a relatively straight forward new unit) and systems and fit out. Also obviously fit out would be suitable for a frigate rather than a AWD. I think the idea is that it will be as close to a AWD (or what a AWD might be upgraded to) as possible.

There was some agreement signed with the UK about Type 26 and shared information. Haven't heard much more about it, but the UK and Australia seemed to have very different visions for a frigate both in mission and systems. Its not like people make the decisions wouldn't have access to eye the T26.

The original Rudd WP had 7000t frigate capable of ABM, ground attack, maritime etc (seemed to be the most capable high end frigate possible), 20x ocv's (that were also highly capable 2000t ships) and 12 x subs. In that kind of context a AWD hull makes more sense, as your really building AWD or evolved AWD with expanded mission profiles.

But without a WP giving clear context where a type of design fits its hard to say what is good and what is not good IMO.

Do we know if the OCV's are still in the mix?
Are the OCV's the ones taking on the LCS concept with flexible mission modules? As the idea was to replace patrol, mine, survey etc ships with a single OCV hull.

 

[John Newman]

Maybe the T26 is probably the best option for the longer term, but I think the current Government is in a bit of a 'Catch 22' position, in my opinion anyway.

Not wanting to sound too political, but it's now seven years (June 2007) since the Howard Government announced the selection of the 3 AWD's and 2 LHD's, and since that time not one ship has been ordered from an Australian yard, nil, zero, zip!

During the six years of the Rudd/Gillard/Rudd Governments nothing happened.

When the 2009 DWP was produced the possibility of the 4th AWD was still an option, and there was the announcement of the class of 20 OCV's, but by the time the 2013 DWP was released, the 4th AWD had disappeared and the 20 OCV's disappeared way into the distance (gone forever?) and of course there was still no decision on the replacements for Success and Sirius either.

So maybe if the 4th AWD had been ordered, way back when, these discussions of the suitability, or not, of a modified AWD hull for the Future Frigates wouldn't even be an issue or being discussed.

Maybe if Federal Labor and the SA State Labor Governments had poured some money into Techport, eg, enlarged the shiplift, increased the hard stand areas, more fabrication sheds, etc, there could have been the possibility (probably remote) that the replacements for Success and Sirius could now be under construction and block work spread around the other yards (but now because of the tight time frame for entry into service, those two ships will be built O/S) and those enlarged facilities could have also come into use when Choules is eventually replaced too.

And of course there are (or where) the 20 OCV's too.


So as I said, that's the Catch 22 I see the Government finding itself in, does it investigate (as it is now doing), the possibility of modifying the AWD hull for the Future Frigate so that block work can start sooner rather than later to keep naval shipbuilding (and jobs) going, or does it wait much longer till the first UK T26 hits the water (I think the first is to commission in 2021), see how it performs and then start construction of an Australian version of the T26?

Are there other alternatives, or solutions, to keep industry going till the Future Frigates (as per the original time table) and Collins replacements start construction?

The 20 Pacific Patrol Boats would supply some work (but I don't know the planned start date or how stretched out the construction period is intended to be), there is of course the replacements for the LCH fleet and the very remote possibility that the OCV's could end up back on the table too.

Obviously till we see the 2015 DWP (and the DCP too), all those questions (and answers) will still be up in the air!!

Cheers,

 

[Punta74]

Is there a timeline on when tender for replenishment ships is due and winner announced?

 

[Volkodav]

Maybe the T26 is probably the best option for the longer term, but I think the current Government is in a bit of a 'Catch 22' position, in my opinion anyway.

Not wanting to sound too political, but it's now seven years (June 2007) since the Howard Government announced the selection of the 3 AWD's and 2 LHD's, and since that time not one ship has been ordered from an Australian yard, nil, zero, zip!

During the six years of the Rudd/Gillard/Rudd Governments nothing happened.

When the 2009 DWP was produced the possibility of the 4th AWD was still an option, and there was the announcement of the class of 20 OCV's, but by the time the 2013 DWP was released, the 4th AWD had disappeared and the 20 OCV's disappeared way into the distance (gone forever?) and of course there was still no decision on the replacements for Success and Sirius either.

So maybe if the 4th AWD had been ordered, way back when, these discussions of the suitability, or not, of a modified AWD hull for the Future Frigates wouldn't even be an issue or being discussed.

Maybe if Federal Labor and the SA State Labor Governments had poured some money into Techport, eg, enlarged the shiplift, increased the hard stand areas, more fabrication sheds, etc, there could have been the possibility (probably remote) that the replacements for Success and Sirius could now be under construction and block work spread around the other yards (but now because of the tight time frame for entry into service, those two ships will be built O/S) and those enlarged facilities could have also come into use when Choules is eventually replaced too.

And of course there are (or where) the 20 OCV's too.


So as I said, that's the Catch 22 I see the Government finding itself in, does it investigate (as it is now doing), the possibility of modifying the AWD hull for the Future Frigate so that block work can start sooner rather than later to keep naval shipbuilding (and jobs) going, or does it wait much longer till the first UK T26 hits the water (I think the first is to commission in 2021), see how it performs and then start construction of an Australian version of the T26?

Are there other alternatives, or solutions, to keep industry going till the Future Frigates (as per the original time table) and Collins replacements start construction?

The 20 Pacific Patrol Boats would supply some work (but I don't know the planned start date or how stretched out the construction period is intended to be), there is of course the replacements for the LCH fleet and the very remote possibility that the OCV's could end up back on the table too.

Obviously till we see the 2015 DWP (and the DCP too), all those questions (and answers) will still be up in the air!!

Cheers,

OCV is probably dead but a class of OPVs is likely affordable and would provide the required work to keep shipbuilding ticking over. The trouble is I don't feel it is politically acceptable as the conservative side of politics seems to have always favoured an all high end combat force with a low end PB force where the alternative side seem to like intermediate combatants in favour of high end ones. I'm greedy, I want both a decent number of high end vessels supported by mid level ones.

 

[John Newman]

OCV is probably dead but a class of OPVs is likely affordable and would provide the required work to keep shipbuilding ticking over. The trouble is I don't feel it is politically acceptable as the conservative side of politics seems to have always favoured an all high end combat force with a low end PB force where the alternative side seem to like intermediate combatants in favour of high end ones. I'm greedy, I want both a decent number of high end vessels supported by mid level ones.

V, I'm the same that I think there should be high end and a middle, and there is also a place for the low end too, but maybe its time that the 'low' end be passed over from Navy control to a Customs/Border Protection force for example (not necessarily saying that we should have a Beazley type Coast Guard), anyway, that's an argument for another time!!!

I don't necessarily agree with you that the Conservative side has one agenda/position and the 'other' alternative (Labor) side has another, There are always difference 'flavours' of both sides of politics.

For example, to me at least, there was a stark difference between the Rudd and Gillard Governments, Rudd appeared to want 'high' and 'mid' level capabilities (but didn't deliver), and it appeared to me that Gillard walked away from the middle (especially) by canning the OCV's and instead said that a 'new' class of PB's would be eventually built to replace the ACBP's.

My whole point was, not so much political, but historically factual, the last Government (Rudd/Gillard/Rudd) did sweet FA when it came to ordering ships for the Navy, not one single ship was ordered, high, middle or low capability!

And putting our various political views aside, I just hope that the current Government can actually deliver, but we will all just have to wait and see what the new DWP and DCP delivers by mid next year.

 

[Volkodav]

V, I'm the same that I think there should be high end and a middle, and there is also a place for the low end too, but maybe its time that the 'low' end be passed over from Navy control to a Customs/Border Protection force for example (not necessarily saying that we should have a Beazley type Coast Guard), anyway, that's an argument for another time!!!

I don't necessarily agree with you that the Conservative side has one agenda/position and the 'other' alternative (Labor) side has another, There are always difference 'flavours' of both sides of politics.

For example, to me at least, there was a stark difference between the Rudd and Gillard Governments, Rudd appeared to want 'high' and 'mid' level capabilities (but didn't deliver), and it appeared to me that Gillard walked away from the middle (especially) by canning the OCV's and instead said that a 'new' class of PB's would be eventually built to replace the ACBP's.

My whole point was, not so much political, but historically factual, the last Government (Rudd/Gillard/Rudd) did sweet FA when it came to ordering ships for the Navy, not one single ship was ordered, high, middle or low capability!

And putting our various political views aside, I just hope that the current Government can actually deliver, but we will all just have to wait and see what the new DWP and DCP delivers by mid next year.

Agreed, Gillard and her useless defence minister appeared to have no interest in defence at all. I feel had Rudd survived the tankers, OCVs and LCH replacements would respectively be under construction, on order and at first pass by now. I would not be at all surprised if when the cabinet papers are eventually released they will show Rudd wanted a fourth AWD but was overruled by Gillard and co. as he was on the carbon trading scheme.

 

[alexsa]

I would suggest if the future frigate were to comprise just two or three vessels, there would be benefits in using a design with AWD commonality.

But for a 7-8+ ship class, the desired economies of scale will be realised through that class's own build run.

I think we're much better off looking at a Type 26 or enhanced LCS type of capability which is designed from the keel up to accommodate a CEAFAR style sensor suite and for the mission sets the future frigate will be tasked with.

Don't disagree, On a number of occassions I have suggested builds of 4 with rotation of types in the process. Four large frigates with a large cell capacity would tide us over until the next class.

 

[JohnT]

So as I said, that's the Catch 22 I see the Government finding itself in, does it investigate (as it is now doing), the possibility of modifying the AWD hull for the Future Frigate so that block work can start sooner rather than later to keep naval shipbuilding (and jobs) going, or does it wait much longer till the first UK T26 hits the water (I think the first is to commission in 2021), see how it performs and then start construction of an Australian version of the T26?

It seems that if the Type 26 is being considered then rather than waiting until the first UK T26 enters the water, surely it would be better for Australia to look into working with Britain on the design of the ship, with the aim of developing UK and AU variants which could then be build in their respective countries. I know the British government is looking to export the Type 26 so I'm sure they would be open to this. It would mean the RAN would get their ships 4-5 years earlier and they would be more tailored to their requirements, rather than bolting on/discarding features after the ship has already been finished.

 

[StevoJH]

The problem is that the design probably needed to be decided 2-3 years ago at the latest, with construction to follow on from the completion of AWD block construction.

Do BAe or ASC have time to wait another 5 years for an order?

At the moment I don't see how another steep learning curve can be prevented unless a design that needs absolutely minimal design work can be picked *now*.

 

[John Newman]

It seems that if the Type 26 is being considered then rather than waiting until the first UK T26 enters the water, surely it would be better for Australia to look into working with Britain on the design of the ship, with the aim of developing UK and AU variants which could then be build in their respective countries. I know the British government is looking to export the Type 26 so I'm sure they would be open to this. It would mean the RAN would get their ships 4-5 years earlier and they would be more tailored to their requirements, rather than bolting on/discarding features after the ship has already been finished.

I just can't see the Australian Government being prepared to go down that path.

If such a thing happened we would end up as a lead (or co-lead) yard for construction and entry into service for a T26 and I'm sure the Government would want to see a UK T26 in the water first.

Let them sort out the 'first of class' issues that would usually follow, not suggesting that there would be a huge amount of problems, but I'm sure you understand what I mean.

I'm sure that they would want to see a 'proven' design in testing/trials or operation for some period of time before following.

And that's where, as I see it, the 'timing' problem is, as far as starting on the Future Frigate at the end of the AWD's production run.

 

[Raven22]

I just can't see the Australian Government being prepared to go down that path.

If such a thing happened we would end up as a lead (or co-lead) yard for construction and entry into service for a T26 and I'm sure the Government would want to see a UK T26 in the water first.

Let them sort out the 'first of class' issues that would usually follow, not suggesting that there would be a huge amount of problems, but I'm sure you understand what I mean.

I'm sure that they would want to see a 'proven' design in testing/trials or operation for some period of time before following.

And that's where, as I see it, the 'timing' problem is, as far as starting on the Future Frigate at the end of the AWD's production run.

I still think he best bet is to build 3 AWD derived frigates at the end of the current production run to fill the valley of death. This will buy time to evaluate other options for the remaining 5-6 hulls, probably T26. Best of both worlds I reckon, and would help avoid block obsolescence issues in the future.

 

[old faithful]

I still think he best bet is to build 3 AWD derived frigates at the end of the current production run to fill the valley of death. This will buy time to evaluate other options for the remaining 5-6 hulls, probably T26. Best of both worlds I reckon, and would help avoid block obsolescence issues in the future.

Raven, thats by far the best suggestion Ive seen yet.

end up with 6 x F100 ish hulls and 6 x T26, s.
Great for logistics, CEA radars on 3, Not sure if any commonallity could be made with the type 26, s, but im sure there could be some systems tailored to our needs with 6 hulls.

 

[Volkodav]

The problem is that the design probably needed to be decided 2-3 years ago at the latest, with construction to follow on from the completion of AWD block construction.

Do BAe or ASC have time to wait another 5 years for an order?

At the moment I don't see how another steep learning curve can be prevented unless a design that needs absolutely minimal design work can be picked *now*.

This is why an OPV to replace the ACPB would be good, simple, inexpensive and necessary but involving far more shipbuilding effort than just another class of PBs. With ASMD and the AWDs coming online, the ANZACs are not in urgent need of replacement but the PBs on the other hand are.

 

[RobWilliams]

Great for logistics, CEA radars on 3, Not sure if any commonallity could be made with the type 26, s, but im sure there could be some systems tailored to our needs with 6 hulls.

CEA teamed up with BAE in the past in a marketing effort saying that integrating CEA products in the mast of a Type 26 won't be a problem and that there's plenty of room to do so.

 

[StobieWan]

Yeah - position up until recently and I doubt it's changed is, if it's an export order, you can have it anyway you like..No gherkins? Hold the gherkins..more onions? You got it..CEAFAR? Supersize with that?

Sure thing...

There have been mockups with a four panel array already shown, and we know the entire mast is modular - you can pull it and replace it with a different item without much fuss - the usual stability calculations and stuff but in terms of fitting it and servicing it with power and cooling water if needed, pretty straight forward. Particularly if you wanted the same kit as went into the Anzac mods - you could fit it higher given the larger size of type 26.

 

[Volkodav]

I still think he best bet is to build 3 AWD derived frigates at the end of the current production run to fill the valley of death. This will buy time to evaluate other options for the remaining 5-6 hulls, probably T26. Best of both worlds I reckon, and would help avoid block obsolescence issues in the future.

That is a good idea, keep the yards ticking over until there is strategic direction available on what to follow them with.

 

[MickB]

This is why an OPV to replace the ACPB would be good, simple, inexpensive and necessary but involving far more shipbuilding effort than just another class of PBs. With ASMD and the AWDs coming online, the ANZACs are not in urgent need of replacement but the PBs on the other hand are.

Agree totally, the OPVs and a LCH replacement are more important than an immediate frigate build. But if these are not enough to keep the yards functioning until the T26 is mature enough for a decision to be made then additional work should be created.

I have previously proposed that an Absalon style patrol frigate/support ship based on the F100 hull might be a useful addition to the RAN.

Reduce armament, remove gas turbine, increase size of flight deck and hanger and install mission deck.

Such a ship could complement the main fleet units in disaster relief, EEZ and anti pirate patrols and handle small amphib or SF insertions.

Future modular mission packages, such as ASW would make this a very versitile ship.

A class of 2 or 3 would keep the yards in work for several years.

 

[Gordon Branch]

HMAS BUNDABERG Damaged by Fire

There is a lot on the news feeds about HMAS BUNDABERG being damaged by fire during maintenance. Some of the pictures I have seen show extensive damage. Other reports indicate she is going to be written off. http://www.news.com.au/national/que...hemmant-shipyard/story-fnii5v6w-1227020479222

 

[Punta74]

With US defence and Secretary of State in Australia this week, Going to be interesting to see what occurs over the next few years. Realisitically seems a posibility that HMAS Stirling could host an (ARG) Amphibiious Ready Group.

At AUSMIN 2014, let's talk about naval force posture