Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

Status
Not open for further replies.
V

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
StingrayOZ said:
Look back to the AWD project. We wouldn't even accept a slightly modified Burke because of the risk. Althought there was a already in service ship in the F-100 design.

Given the choice I do wonder what will be chosen. IMO I can't see them going with something with only 2 diesels as it would be a significant decrease in capability. IMO I think that was the greatest capability Collins offered over every other design. Real snort speed and range. It puts Collins out in a weird little group by itself.

All the quietness, sensors, price means nothing if you can't even get to the area of operations.

Evolved Soryu or 216. As others have pointed out it will most likely come down to commerical and build program more than technical capability.
Click to expand...
The G&C International Frigate was a completely new design that had a Burke forward superstructure grafted onto 1 deck of the design rather than having to redesign wave guides for the radars etc. No detail design had been done, while it's final displacement and length had not been fixed and major errors were actually discovered in the types weight calculations. Its final iteration was actually as large as a DDG 51, but still less capable.

Japans Kongos and South Korea's much larger and more capable KDXIIIs have more in common with FlightIIA Burkes than any of the G&C International Frigates. In hindsight the"Baby Burke" was the wrong Evolved option and it's failure gave the Existing option the inside run to selection.
 
John Newman

John Newman

The Bunker Group
Joe Black said:
Just saw this piece of news, is this true, if so, it will be so disappointing:
Navy warships, Destroyer project, behind schedule
Click to expand...
Nothing really new in that article, it's been expected that further delays would be announced at some time or other, at least we now know its another 12 months, interesting that it was announced (according to the article) by a person from the DMO, wonder when there might be a comment from the Def Min?

If it's now $800m over budget (and add that to the initial project cost of $8.5B), it brings the project up to around $9.3B, still plenty of time to hit the $10B barrier!!!!

Makes you wonder how much the bill will eventually be for the 8 Future Frigates, the last published budget allocation that I saw in one of the DCP's a couple of years ago was '>$10B', I wonder how much 'greater' that will eventually be?


One other thing in McPhedran's article that I had a bit of a laugh about (the usual 'inaccurate' or 'misleading' reporting that one comes to expect from Defence journo's), he said (referring to the AOR's):

The Abbott Government said that local builders were not capable of handling 20,000-tonne plus vessels despite the fact that the two Landing Helicopter Docks (LHDs) being assembled by BAE Systems at Williamstown in Melbourne weigh in at 27,000 tonnes.
Click to expand...
Fair Dinkum! No wonder the average punter in the street get's totally confused when they read stuff like that, McPhedran would know only too well that the 'completed' hulls were built overseas and that Williamstown only built the superstructure blocks and then integrated them onto the completed hulls!
 
Trackmaster

Trackmaster

Member
alexsa said:
There is absolutely nothing in the press about this, where is this coming from? You would think this would be a major media circus.
Click to expand...
Maybe it's a fingers crossed moment...
But seriously....I agree. Would have thought there would have been some build-up. Hopefully there will be major media activity today.
 
aussienscale

aussienscale

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Can I just remind everyone to take mass media reporting on Defence matters with a rather large pinch of salt :)

Cheers
 
V

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Joe Black said:
More details on the AWD slippage:
Companies building multi-billion-dollar warships feared defects would damage their reputations, leaked documents show | ABC Radio Australia
Click to expand...
From before steel was cut on the first ship my old boss reiterated that the project would slip and every stuff up, no matter who was responsible, would blamed on ASC because they are the ship builder.

There is a common misconception held by many, including apparently a resent former defence minister and the vast majority of journalists, that ASC is the prime contractor and either actually does, is contractually responsible for or fills the roles of designer, combat system integrator, combat system designer and installer. It is assumed that ASC builds or fabricates every block and pipe segment, selects and specifies every system, component, piece of material. The truth is ASC is one of three alliance partners and ironically, being government owned, it would be expected that they have significant influence with government when the truth is they have less, which can be seen in how BAE, the party responsible for almost all the early quality issues and delays, has been contracted form to get the project back on track!
 
B

Beam

Member
Re: Future Frigate, has anyone seen the Thyssen Krupp submission posted on ASPI?

Shows a modified F125 frigate.

As a first time poster I can't post the actual link, but if you go to ASPI website and search for below you should find it.

__data/assets/pdf_file/0016/26503/Kamerman-The-German-experience-slides.pdf
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top