Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[rockitten]

More interesting development with Option J....

Japan eyes British help to sink German bid for Australian submarine
https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/w...-german-bid-for-australian-submarine-sources/

It seems like it is more and more likely that we will see the likelihood of Australian built subs.

Well, from the article, it is the BAE and BIG had approached the consortium of Mitsubishi Heavy Industries and Kawasaki Heavy Industries with offers of help. And that makes sense: If TKMS won the bid, it is likely both SEA 1000 and SEA5000 will "fallen into German's hands".

If the "Anglo-Japanese Alliance" won the bid, they both get want they want: Japan get the submarine, British get the frigate. Oh, what's a remembrance of the 100 years anniversary of first world war.

Yet, will that mean local submarine, or just more work for suppliers, or will this alliance even works out or not, we have to wait and see.

And no-one takes the french bid seriously, we all know why.

 

[John Fedup]

It was purely and simply a break down in communication, we had always used inspection sheets, they never had and when we asked for them to be completed they had asked for an example and had simply followed the instructions we provided to them as they understood them. They had full ISO certification so we were not expecting a problem, unfortunately there was a very big one and we are lucky no one died.

ISO certification can also be considered as the ability to follow an incorrect process consistently with excellent producibility. As your comment referenced elsewhere, communication is so important and having components sourced as close as feasible isa big plus to making that happen.

 

[rockitten]

Britain and Australia May Share Modular Frigate Programme - Breitbart

" Although the first customer and commissioner of the craft will be Britain’s Royal Navy, the ship has been designed for – and long pitched to – ally navies like the Royal Canadian Navy, Royal Australian Navy and Royal New Zealand Navy.

All four navies are looking to replace their present frigate fleets at roughly the same time in the early to mid 2020s, and if Australia follows Britain it is likely the others will too.

Although they are being designed in Britain, the export orders can also be built in Australian shipyards, as was the case with the BAE fitted-out Canberra class landing helicopter dock, which suits the Australian doctrine of developing the indigenous defence industry. Further export orders – two ships for New Zealand, for instance – could also be completed in Australian yards."

A "common frigate" for the Empire, that's interesting. True, a highly possible export to the kiwis is absolutely more realistic than the "vision" from TMKS "vision". Any news from Canada?

 

[RobWilliams]

A "common frigate" for the Empire, that's interesting. True, a highly possible export to the kiwis is absolutely more realistic than the "vision" from TMKS "vision". Any news from Canada?

Last I heard, the Canadians discarded using the Type 26, since then it's reportedly been 'in the running' or other such terminology, but that's my last recollection of a major event in that regard. I could quite easily be out of touch though, haven't been keeping much of an eye on it.

Canada, U.K. won't collaborate on warships - Canada - CBC News

The fear apparently being that the UK would build Canadian ships in the UK, when in reality the biggest driver to that occurring is down to the actions of the Canadian Government buggering about with their own work in their own yards,

 

[John Fedup]

Last I heard, the Canadians discarded using the Type 26, since then it's reportedly been 'in the running' or other such terminology, but that's my last recollection of a major event in that regard. I could quite easily be out of touch though, haven't been keeping much of an eye on it.

Canada, U.K. won't collaborate on warships - Canada - CBC News

The fear apparently being that the UK would build Canadian ships in the UK, when in reality the biggest driver to that occurring is down to the actions of the Canadian Government buggering about with their own work in their own yards,

Irving Shipyards is the designated yard for the future Canadian surface combant ship platform. As for the actual design, Odense and Bath Iron works are consultants to this program. The forthcoming election in October could well trigger a design review or a requirement review that will further delay and perhaps sink Canada's RCN blue water capabilities forever.

 

[Muar River]

Last I heard, the Canadians discarded using the Type 26, since then it's reportedly been 'in the running' or other such terminology, but that's my last recollection of a major event in that regard. I could quite easily be out of touch though, haven't been keeping much of an eye on it.

The fear apparently being that the UK would build Canadian ships in the UK, when in reality the biggest driver to that occurring is down to the actions of the Canadian Government buggering about with their own work in their own yards,

My first contribution to the forum and I am always interested to read the differing views of members. My first offering. I hope it hasn't been posted before.

The slide presentation by TKMS on the A-400 evolved design is excellent. I must admit that I didn’t give the F125 fair consideration due to its low speed but note the evolved design is a 28knot offering, not the 26knot German ship.

The evolved design has a range of 8000nm, which differs from the F125. The operating costs, the reduction in crewing and our history with the Anzacs must surely make this ship a frontrunner.

The system won't allow me to post a link to the slides but if you google serach
A-400 evolved frigate you will find it. Very thorough and typical of German efficiency.

 

[vonnoobie]

Assuming the various speculation on the Japanese option is true then an option J is probably going to be one of the most globally diverse options around. Bringing in these other companies (Babcock, BAE and Saab) will make communication easier and reduce the risk of building a submarine not suited to Australia.

Only problem I can see now, Some will still be on the Option J is bad band wagon with out taking into account how vastly the proposal is changing from what it was less then 12 months ago.

 

[t68]

In today's CourierMail (QLD) a report by Ian Mcphedran in regards to HMAS Canberra, apparantly *she is confined to port with an inoperative stern door.

According to the article it was not a manufacturing fault but one of operator error and appears to be several*weeks before it becomes operational again. No actual price was put onto the miss hap but is expected to cost several thousand of dollars to fix.

Just goes to show problems can arise out of nowhere makes a good case for a 3rd platform if one is laid up from pre-planed maintenance*

CourierMail pg23 24-7-2015

 

[vonnoobie]

A third one would be ideal, But I imagine we are past the point of it becoming viable unless totally done over seas as the local work force is likely to have moved on by then without a miracle.

Better bet would be aiming for 2 or possibly even 3 of the planned strategic sea lift ships instead of 1. Wont be so large that the politicians think we can't build them, Yet be in number's that would make a local build viable.

 

[t68]

A pair would be ideal but has no chance of coming to fruition or even the third, whilst Choules is a welcome addition to the RAN and came at a time when Amphiboius capability took a serious hit. But for me I think Tobruk is going to be very sadly missed just the right size for a majority of operations around the Pacific Islands and large enough for RAN sealift needs. But to my mind a 4x enlarged Singaporean Endurance class would suit a mixed amphibious fleet for the RAN, whilst having the capacity to work as part of the ARG or upto independent Battalion sized operations for short durations.

SA Techport has a capacity to lift 9300ton and 156m long ships in its current configuration well within limits on the current sized vessels of the class and with their levels of automation have low crewing requirements.

With 2x Canberra's 1x Bay class LPD and 4x modified Endurance class vessel I believe it should meet the stratigic needs to be able to deploy and sustain a separate brigade and battalion size force in different regions, whilst also having a reach of 5000 nm distant from Darwin or Townsville,be able to disembark in austere port environments or over the shore, and have the additional capacity required to meet for a follow on force rotation needs as well as provide additional numbers for ship building sustainability.

 

[vonnoobie]

A pair would be ideal but has no chance of coming to fruition or even the third, whilst Choules is a welcome addition to the RAN and came at a time when Amphiboius capability took a serious hit. But for me I think Tobruk is going to be very sadly missed just the right size for a majority of operations around the Pacific Islands and large enough for RAN sealift needs. But to my mind a 4x enlarged Singaporean Endurance class would suit a mixed amphibious fleet for the RAN, whilst having the capacity to work as part of the ARG or upto independent Battalion sized operations for short durations.

SA Techport has a capacity to lift 9300ton and 156m long ships in its current configuration well within limits on the current sized vessels of the class and with their levels of automation have low crewing requirements.

With 2x Canberra's 1x Bay class LPD and 4x modified Endurance class vessel I believe it should meet the stratigic needs to be able to deploy and sustain a separate brigade and battalion size force in different regions, whilst also having a reach of 5000 nm distant from Darwin or Townsville,be able to disembark in austere port environments or over the shore, and have the additional capacity required to meet for a follow on force rotation needs as well as provide additional numbers for ship building sustainability.

I find the Endurance a little on the small side but it does have it's benefit's as do the other 2 realistic options, Enforcer design and the Foudre. Endurance the cheaper so safer option (Due to penny pinching politicians) and already in operation with a local ally, Enforcer design we already have in service with the Bay class so we would already have some knowledge of it and improve maintenance with a single class rather then two classes while the Foudre while being most range and best speed. At least that is the impression I get as an enthusiast.

Hard to pin point which exactly is the best until more is known about what exactly they are wanted to do.

 

[Bluey 006]

I find the Endurance a little on the small side but it does have it's benefit's as do the other 2 realistic options, Enforcer design and the Foudre. Endurance the cheaper so safer option (Due to penny pinching politicians) and already in operation with a local ally, Enforcer design we already have in service with the Bay class so we would already have some knowledge of it and improve maintenance with a single class rather then two classes while the Foudre while being most range and best speed. At least that is the impression I get as an enthusiast.

Hard to pin point which exactly is the best until more is known about what exactly they are wanted to do.

The Damen Enforcer series could be an option Link

Various size options and by the looks of things able to be fitted with a full size naval gun and potentially even VLS ( perhaps the 8-Cells from the ANZACS and FFGs) which could be very useful in certain situations, and may even give it the ability to operate without escorts.

maybe instead of one large ship we could look at two smaller ones, say the 9000 or 8000 series.

If fitted with a VLS and 5 inch gun etc it could fill the role of armed amphibious vessel , that many on this board not so long ago where spruiking the Absalon-class for.

Then of course there is the crossover series also, which has merit too.

On that note I have been toying with the idea of an ice strengthened version of the crossover series (Crossover 115 Security) as a solution for our Antarctica and southern ocean security responsibilities. Something that is bigger than an OPV but not as high end as a Frigate, to support the new ice breaker, because currently we have very limited capabilities in this area.

On the surface, it could be suitable for maritime policing, patrol and scientific research, resupply/logistics in the region. Unsure as to the effect Ice strengthening would have on its performance though. Any thoughts?

I guess they other issue is, is there a requirement for this capability? It is my understanding that the original requirement for OPV/OCV did not require them to operate in this region.

 

[40 deg south]

UPDATE 1-Undelivered Mistrals cost French shipbuilder DCNS 1 mln euro/mth | Reuters

DCNS chairman talking up French chances of winning the submarine contract, in an end-note to this unrelated but interesting article on the two unwanted Mistrals.

There's a thought - 'Buy our submarines and we'll throw in a pair of LPDs'.

 

[vonnoobie]

The Damen Enforcer series could be an option Link

Various size options and by the looks of things able to be fitted with a full size naval gun and potentially even VLS ( perhaps the 8-Cells from the ANZACS and FFGs) which could be very useful in certain situations, and may even give it the ability to operate without escorts.

maybe instead of one large ship we could look at two smaller ones, say the 9000 or 8000 series.

If fitted with a VLS and 5 inch gun etc it could fill the role of armed amphibious vessel , that many on this board not so long ago where spruiking the Absalon-class for.

Then of course there is the crossover series also, which has merit too.

On that note I have been toying with the idea of an ice strengthened version of the crossover series (Crossover 115 Security) as a solution for our Antarctica and southern ocean security responsibilities. Something that is bigger than an OPV but not as high end as a Frigate.

On the surface, it could be suitable for maritime policing, patrol and scientific research, resupply/logistics in the region. Unsure as to the effect Ice strengthening would have on its performance though. Any thoughts?

I guess they other issue is, is there a requirement for this capability? It is my understanding that the original requirement for OPV/OCV did not require them to operate in this region.

I do like the Enforcer, Seem's a good middle ground between the smaller Endurance and the larger Foudre, Only question is do we want something based off the Spanish, Dutch or British variants? or something set up exclusively to our needs utilizing the Enforcer platform?.

Agreed the VLS would be a benefit, Having CEAFAR radar and loaded with 32 RIM-162's would make for a very capable self defense capability especially in supporting forces moving ashore.

In regard's to Antarctica, I wouldn't recommend the crossover ice strengthened. We are better off getting a dedicated ice breaker with an optional second ship to fill that role, They would do it better as they are built for such conditions. Though at current rate getting even the first planned ice breaker not looking so good with a flawed procurement process apparently Australia risks getting 'dud' icebreaker to replace the Aurora Australis if sole bidder wins build contract, Andrew Wilkie says - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

 

[t68]

UPDATE 1-Undelivered Mistrals cost French shipbuilder DCNS 1 mln euro/mth | Reuters

DCNS chairman talking up French chances of winning the submarine contract, in an end-note to this unrelated but interesting article on the two unwanted Mistrals.

There's a thought - 'Buy our submarines and we'll throw in a pair of LPDs'.

Interesting they bring up Singapore as a possabile purchaser of the Mistral, can't see that happening considering that Singapore were talking about a hybrid Endurance class LHD.

 

[Bluey 006]

In regard's to Antarctica, I wouldn't recommend the crossover ice strengthened. We are better off getting a dedicated ice breaker with an optional second ship to fill that role, They would do it better as they are built for such conditions.

While there is no doubt we need a dedicated ice breaker, is an ice breaker going to be effective in fisheries patrol, law enforcement or search and rescue. Over the next 40 years or so this region may even become militarized and require ships with war fighting capabilities.

Something like the crossover can do all of that (patrol,war fighting, SAR, research, pollution control etc) and because of its size has a significant logistics/amphibious/deployment capability. Remembering that the crossover is a modular concept (all be it a good one) not an existing design so the ice strengthening can be added from the get go, with adjustments made accordingly.

The Knud Rasmussen-class is a good candidate but I had in mind something bigger could also do resupply and logistics, in addition to patrol functions.

 

[vonnoobie]

While there is no doubt we need a dedicated ice breaker, is an ice breaker going to be effective in fisheries patrol, law enforcement or search and rescue. Over the next 40 years or so this region may even become militarized and require ships with war fighting capabilities.

Something like the crossover can do all of that (patrol,war fighting, SAR, research, pollution control etc) and because of its size has a significant logistics/amphibious/deployment capability. Remembering that the crossover is a modular concept (all be it a good one) not an existing design so the ice strengthening can be added from the get go, with adjustments made accordingly.

The Knud Rasmussen-class is a good candidate but I had in mind something bigger could also do resupply and logistics, in addition to patrol functions.

I get where you are coming from and to an extent that need's to be taken into account, But the question is do we have the budget to expand such a fleet and what is the likely hood of militarization occurring? For Australia and New Zealand no one is close enough to actually support a military force permanently not to mention they would have to pass past Australia and/or New Zealand to get there in the first place, If they can make it past our main naval and aerial asset's then I don't see how a couple of ice strengthened armed ship's will make them turn away.

At best 2 vessels similar in size to the Aurora Australis and have the new icebreaker that is planned be larger and more capable, If we are going to bother about our claim in Antarctica at all it's time we stopped half a**ing it and did it right. Something like the John G. Diefenbaker being built for the CCGS would be a good start.

 

[t68]

Those Damen series of LPD look interesting something like the Enforcer 8000 would fit in very nicely, with hangers for 2x medium helicopter (MRH90) and heavy enough for Chinook.

It states the dock is capable of 2x LCM-1706 which I can't find any details on, does anyone know if they are comparable in size to the LCM-1E? Only other nitpick is the side ramps are rated at 50t Army has the Abrams at 62t

Certainly within the limits of building here at Techport. The "HNLMS JOHAN DE WItt“ is something the RNZN should look at for a Canterbury replacement if the powers to be put the kibosh on a LHD.

http://products.damen.com/~/media/P...anding_Platform_Dock_HNLMS_Johan_de_Witt.ashx

 

[Bluey 006]

I get where you are coming from and to an extent that need's to be taken into account, But the question is do we have the budget to expand such a fleet and what is the likely hood of militarization occurring? For Australia and New Zealand no one is close enough to actually support a military force permanently not to mention they would have to pass past Australia and/or New Zealand to get there in the first place, If they can make it past our main naval and aerial asset's then I don't see how a couple of ice strengthened armed ship's will make them turn away.

At best 2 vessels similar in size to the Aurora Australis and have the new icebreaker that is planned be larger and more capable, If we are going to bother about our claim in Antarctica at all it's time we stopped half a**ing it and did it right. Something like the John G. Diefenbaker being built for the CCGS would be a good start.

Yes I agree, they money isn't there and we have other priorities. I was thinking long term. However, nations don't need to place military forces there permanently to militarize the area. Consider fishing fleets supported by warships or mobile extraction platforms (after all Antarctica is one of the few untapped fishing spots in the world, as the global population expands - "When faced between staving and raiding, humans will always raid").

Nations like Chile or Argentina ( the closest nation) could certainly support military forces there, and when you consider what the UK did in the Falklands, nothing is impossible for great powers if the will is there.

But yes not an immediate threat - part of the problem with our defence planning over the years is that it is largely reactive rather than proactive.

 

[Bonza]

While there is no doubt we need a dedicated ice breaker, is an ice breaker going to be effective in fisheries patrol, law enforcement or search and rescue. Over the next 40 years or so this region may even become militarized and require ships with war fighting capabilities.

Something like the crossover can do all of that (patrol,war fighting, SAR, research, pollution control etc) and because of its size has a significant logistics/amphibious/deployment capability. Remembering that the crossover is a modular concept (all be it a good one) not an existing design so the ice strengthening can be added from the get go, with adjustments made accordingly.

The Knud Rasmussen-class is a good candidate but I had in mind something bigger could also do resupply and logistics, in addition to patrol functions.

I've got serious doubts about the viability of a crossover platform, specifically when it comes to acting as a dedicated warship. The next generation surface combatant should be just that, a dedicated warship, with ASW and long range strike capabilities, per the original intent of the thing. I'd hate to see the RAN get saddled with a handful of crossover platforms that do a little bit of everything and then see future frigate numbers be cut back even further. As far as I'm concerned there's still a need for 8 warships in the 6000-7000 ton range, with the aforementioned capabilities and embarked helo (or two?).

It's not that the idea itself is bad, as such - I'm just very leery of giving the government any excuse to reduce warship numbers, and I'm sure we'd be learning in that direction with the sort of platform you're describing.