Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

Status
Not open for further replies.

Stampede

Well-Known Member
So just maybe the BAe Williamstown yard becomes very expensive waterfront multi-story apartments, and future investment in shipyards will be in South Australia. I wonder how many apartments they can fit on the site, at say 700k apiece, might be a nice earner
Not sure at this stage if Willianstown is still in the ship building game or not. Will just have to wait and see what comes from the DWP.
Something I do know is that if ship building was to go from Willie it want be as interesting.
Always a nice place to visit and yes it's a prime bit of realestate.
$$$$$$$$$$$$

Regards S
 

Stampede

Well-Known Member
Selling them off to other navies is not actually a long shot, I don't see Taiwan being likely with China unless we strip them down to the base bones and Pakistan could be a hard sell considering the countries current issues and there cozying up to China. In Europe could be Romania, Poland or Turkey as the most likely candidates, Least likely being Portugal and Greece (Both operating variants but economies not so crash hot). A couple South American countries could be interested or even a few of the more stable democratic countries in Africa.



1. I hope that it doesn't mean the Submarines are being built over seas. As long as we are being fully informed then the CEP is still under way and no decision has yet to be made either in the short or long term.

2. Existing frigates will get first pick, I imagine if they don't meet requirements without major modifications we will end up with one of them. If major modifications are required then a paper design would likely be considered equally along with it.

3. FREMM isn't the only mature design, Just the one most talked about recently. There still is the F-100 or a variant of it even though some think because we put Destroyer in the title that it can't do a frigates job... A few other's do exist around that have been introduced over the last decade, while the German F-125 should be commissioned some time next year leaving that as another contender.

Speculation only at this stage

But wonder if some of the ANZAC's could transition to fill in the OPV role as the new destroyers come into service.Would maybe provide a OPV bridging capabilty until the full compliment of new build OPV,s are completed.
Either they sail as is with a basic crew for ship / helicopter plus light weapons only.Or alternatively cannibalise weopons / systems, for other platforms and have them as a large OPV until substitiutes come into service.
Maybe something to look at in the 2020's depending on the progress of OPV / Destroyer production and strategic need.

Regards S
 

rockitten

Member
Nothing much new, but an interesting mention of a new candidate for the SEA5000: Denmark is offering Iver Huitfeldt frigate.

Again, just in case anyone who cannot by-pass the subscription.
Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian
"Tony Abbott fires first election salvo with navy gamble

The Australian
August 05, 2015 12:00AM

Brendan Nicholson
Defence Editor
Canberra

Tony Abbott has launched his first big promise for the next election with an ambitious $89 billion gamble on new warships and sub*marines for the navy, but questions remain about how many jobs will be created or saved.

Promising a fleet of sophisticated “future frigates” will be built in South Australia to replace the navy’s Anzac warships three years ahead of schedule, the Prime Minister unveiled phase one of an election pledge that he vowed would award the battered manufacturing state “first prize”.

The government said the plan would modernise the navy but it also hopes to shore up political support.

Conceding it was too late to stop some job losses in the shipbuilding industry because of existing projects coming to an end, Mr *Abbott said the former Labor government had caused the problem by failing to order any new ships during its six years in power

GRAPHIC: Overhauling the navy
Interactive Container

He said 2500 jobs would be created or saved as a result of yesterday’s pledge, under which about nine frigates would be built at a cost of about $20bn in South Australia from 2020. But the current workforce of 2000 is expected to drop to 1000 before increasing. The government was unable to say exactly where the 2500 shipbuilding jobs would be located.

The Prime Minister did not say whether the announcements could save Melbourne’s Williamstown dockyard, employing 1000 people, or the 500 jobs at the Forjacs shipyard in Newcastle, which both face closure for lack of work.

The plan to upgrade the navy also includes about $50bn devoted to building and maintaining a fleet of new submarines, which is a hotly contested contract among bidders from Japan, Germany and France. Mr Abbott and Defence Minister Kevin Andrews also announced plans to spend about $19bn for an undisclosed number of offshore patrol vessels, or corvettes, which will be smaller than frigates but bigger than the navy’s existing Armidale Class patrol boats. It has not been decided where these vessels will be built but The Australian understands there are likely to be about a dozen of them. Mr Andrews said more information would emerge in the defence white paper, which is expected next month.

Mr Abbott strongly rejected suggestions that the massive spending commitment amounted to pork-barrelling to shore up his government’s flagging support in a state badly bruised by the loss of manufacturing jobs.

His personal ratings, measured by Newspoll, show his satisfaction in South Australia in the March quarter hit the lowest level for any prime minister in any state in 20 years before partially recovering in the June quarter. “I’m worried about the defence of our country and I’m worried about making sure that government does not shirk the decisions needed to keep our defences in the best possible order,” Mr Abbott said.

Labor’s assistant defence spokesman, David Feeney, said the government’s numbers did not add up. “This is a bogus exercise that was purely about politics and not policy,” he said. “There’s nothing in these announcements to save Williamstown dockyard or Forjacs in Newcastle.

“And, worse, there is no prospect of this work starting in Adelaide until 2020, by which time shipyards across Australia will have been idle for years.”

Australian Strategic Policy Institute analyst Andrew Davies said the announcement left a lot of unanswered questions. “This is a very big vote of confidence in an industry that has been underperforming,” Dr Davies said. “The government is making a substantial bet that by locking in work, they can get rid of a lot of the in*efficiencies that we’ve seen. That remains to be seen. Some things will get better and we’ll avoid start-up costs but this is untested.”

Mr Abbott said the precise number of jobs for South Australia would depend upon which vessel was chosen but the projects announced yesterday would save 1000 jobs that would otherwise have been lost.

“But the yard for building major surface ships will be here in Adelaide, because the infrastructure’s here,” he said. “Now, the subordinate yard may be in South Australia, it may be somewhere else, it may be at Williamstown, for instance, but the major focus for surface shipbuilding will be here in Adelaide.”

The key would be to get shipbuilding on to a sustainable “continuous build” program, Mr Abbott said.

He did not say how many of the new frigates, designed to destroy submarines and protect the fleet from air and missile attacks, would be built but The Australian revealed this week there were likely to be nine.

The naval shipbuilding industry fears massive job losses due to the so-called valley of death when current programs to build three air warfare destroyers and two giant landing ships are complete.

The government also confirmed yesterday it was putting an additional $1.2bn into the struggling Air Warfare Destroyer project, which has been stricken by delays and cost blowouts. Construction of the frigates is scheduled to begin once the third AWD is delivered.

“This is a historic day and this is a historic announcement,” Mr Abbott said. “What we are announcing today is basically a fleet build here in Australia, centred on South Australia, because we have confidence that a restructured domestic surface naval shipbuilding industry can be competitive, can give us the best possible ships, at the best possible price, maximising the local build.”

The British Type 26 Global Defence Ship is considered a likely option for the new frigate but while design work is complete, building of the first vessel in the class has not yet begun.

Two other European options are Germany’s very large Blohm and Voss MEKO A-400 RAN built by TKMS and the French FREMM multi-mission frigate.

Denmark is offering its hi-tech but low-cost Iver Huitfeldt frigate.

The promised white paper, now delayed until next month, will provide details of further projects including how many new submarines will be bought, at least eight, and possibly 12.

Japan, France and Germany are engaged in a competitive evaluation process and by late this year they must each submit options to build them in Australia, in their home country or in a *“hybrid” mix of both."
 

vonnoobie

Well-Known Member
Speculation only at this stage

But wonder if some of the ANZAC's could transition to fill in the OPV role as the new destroyers come into service.Would maybe provide a OPV bridging capabilty until the full compliment of new build OPV,s are completed.
Either they sail as is with a basic crew for ship / helicopter plus light weapons only.Or alternatively cannibalise weopons / systems, for other platforms and have them as a large OPV until substitiutes come into service.
Maybe something to look at in the 2020's depending on the progress of OPV / Destroyer production and strategic need.

Regards S
Quite a likely option, With only having an intended 15 year life span or so, Them being used more heavily then ever anticipated thus reducing there life we are getting into a replacement issue.

The ACPB's being commissioned over a 32 month period, yet would take 6 - 12 years to replace, We will need a stop gap measure be it utilizing the Anzac's, leasing some PB's from elsewhere or ordering a small number of vessels similar in size to the ACPB's (Possibly based off the future PCPB replacement).
 

alexsa

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Quite a likely option, With only having an intended 15 year life span or so, Them being used more heavily then ever anticipated thus reducing there life we are getting into a replacement issue.

The ACPB's being commissioned over a 32 month period, yet would take 6 - 12 years to replace, We will need a stop gap measure be it utilizing the Anzac's, leasing some PB's from elsewhere or ordering a small number of vessels similar in size to the ACPB's (Possibly based off the future PCPB replacement).
Sorry ....... why is this a likely option. Large crew, large fuel burn and over equipped for the OPV role. The vessel will need to fill their role as an MFU until replace and depending on which speculative press report you look at that may be a little down the track.
 

vonnoobie

Well-Known Member
Sorry ....... why is this a likely option. Large crew, large fuel burn and over equipped for the OPV role. The vessel will need to fill their role as an MFU until replace and depending on which speculative press report you look at that may be a little down the track.
Fair enough, I did over step by saying 'likely', rather just it being 'an option'.

That aside, What exactly is the fuel burn rate compared to various OPV's that we may acquire?

What makes you assume they are over equipped? Officially we are looking for something along the lines of an OPV/OCV/Corvette type vessel and the weapons systems on the Anzac's are weapons found commonly on corvettes.

As to crew, You make the assumption that crew size would have to be the same size, Not saying that it wouldn't have to be but may not have to be as well. Several systems may be removed for use else where reducing crew's need for them.
 

Stampede

Well-Known Member
Sorry ....... why is this a likely option. Large crew, large fuel burn and over equipped for the OPV role. The vessel will need to fill their role as an MFU until replace and depending on which speculative press report you look at that may be a little down the track.
I mention the ANZAC's as a potential OPV only as a plan B should the build cycle of new destroyers and OPV either slip in schedule or strategic necessity suggests that we need the destroyers doing big ship stuff and as a consequence not be taken away to perform off shore constabulary duties.
Totally agree the ANZAC's are probably too big and expensive to be a OPV but it's been done before and at least a future government has this option in the future.
It's just pragmatisim, thats all!
It's a nice problem to have; having too many ships and options in the 2020,s rather than as the RAAF experienced recently with the bridging gap of transition from F111 to JSF needing to purchase the Super Hornet.

It looks like we might be on the correct path to a balanced navy and ship building industry. There is a lot we still need to know but it appears government and as a consequence the oppostion are putting defence on the radar.
Must say I heard the Defence Minister on radio this morning and was impressed with his handling of the questions and knowledge of the above issues.
I say this not because I voted for this government but becuse I did'nt.
Credit where credits due.
I'm not counting my eggs until their hatched but as far as our future fleet goes it looks like we at least have chickens and they are starting to lay.
There is alot to still be answered but at this stage I'm goiing to keep it glass half full and say for the navy there are hopefully very exciting times ahead.

Regards S



.
 

alexsa

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
I mention the ANZAC's as a potential OPV only as a plan B should the build cycle of new destroyers and OPV either slip in schedule or strategic necessity suggests that we need the destroyers doing big ship stuff and as a consequence not be taken away to perform off shore constabulary duties.
Totally agree the ANZAC's are probably too big and expensive to be a OPV but it's been done before and at least a future government has this option in the future.
It's just pragmatisim, thats all!
It's a nice problem to have; having too many ships and options in the 2020,s rather than as the RAAF experienced recently with the bridging gap of transition from F111 to JSF needing to purchase the Super Hornet.

It looks like we might be on the correct path to a balanced navy and ship building industry. There is a lot we still need to know but it appears government and as a consequence the oppostion are putting defence on the radar.
Must say I heard the Defence Minister on radio this morning and was impressed with his handling of the questions and knowledge of the above issues.
I say this not because I voted for this government but becuse I did'nt.
Credit where credits due.
I'm not counting my eggs until their hatched but as far as our future fleet goes it looks like we at least have chickens and they are starting to lay.
There is alot to still be answered but at this stage I'm goiing to keep it glass half full and say for the navy there are hopefully very exciting times ahead.

Regards S:rolleyes:



.
Sorry, how is it pragmatic to suggest a 4000 tonne frigate with a crew of upwards of 160, CODAG propulsion and a 6000 nm range at 18 knots is a stand in for a 2000 to 2400 tonne OPV powered by diesels with a range of 6000nm at 12 knots (burning a LOT less fuel) but with a maximum crew of 60!!!

Looking at the Damen 2400 this has an installed power of just 9400 kw for a max speed of 23 knots. The ANZAC has a combined installed power of around 35500kw with each individual propulsions diesels roughly 2/3 of the entire installed power of the OPV. Bigger ship, more resistance, bigger electrical load (we have to factor power generation into this) and bigger engines really does add up to large fuel burn.

That is before we factor in the maintenance costs.

If you look at more recent OPV designs such as the sea axe hull form then the difference is even more stark.

This thread is currently mired in a lot of ill-informed speculations dressed up as fact and suggestions that would not pass even the simple scrutiny of a little research based on publicly sources information.

Roll on the detail of the shipbuilding plan so the speculation will stop:lul
 

rockitten

Member
I mention the ANZAC's as a potential OPV only as a plan B should the build cycle of new destroyers and OPV either slip in schedule or strategic necessity suggests that we need the destroyers doing big ship stuff and as a consequence not be taken away to perform off shore constabulary duties.
.
China does convert some of their not so capable frigates as OPV for their coast guard, and they are now regularly participating china's aggressions in south china sea and Senkaku islands. But to be honest, if the frigate and OPV project get delayed just like the AWD and Collins did (which is very likely), we may see the ANZACs have to soldier-on pretty close to 30 years. So the ANZACs may "ended up" as "potential OPV" : the real OPVs are yet to be available.

IMHO, the most low risk choice for the OPV will be the Liberty class from Austal, the design has been proven and USN will develop most of the modules we need.

And vonnoobie, selling stuffs to Taiwan may not be as hard as you think, what we need to do is stripped-off any non US equipments, and then sell it back to US and then Yanks will re-sell them to Taiwan. In fact, that is how Taiwanese arm forces sourcing spares for their arsenal.
 

John Newman

The Bunker Group
Sorry, how is it pragmatic to suggest a 4000 tonne frigate with a crew of upwards of 160, CODAG propulsion and a 6000 nm range at 18 knots is a stand in for a 2000 to 2400 tonne OPV powered by diesels with a range of 6000nm at 12 knots (burning a LOT less fuel) but with a maximum crew of 60!!!

Looking at the Damen 2400 this has an installed power of just 9400 kw for a max speed of 23 knots. The ANZAC has a combined installed power of around 35500kw with each individual propulsions diesels roughly 2/3 of the entire installed power of the OPV. Bigger ship, more resistance, bigger electrical load (we have to factor power generation into this) and bigger engines really does add up to large fuel burn.

That is before we factor in the maintenance costs.

If you look at more recent OPV designs such as the sea axe hull form then the difference is even more stark.

This thread is currently mired in a lot of ill-informed speculations dressed up as fact and suggestions that would not pass even the simple scrutiny of a little research based on publicly sources information.

Roll on the detail of the shipbuilding plan so the speculation will stop:lul
Agree 100%.

Some of the recent speculation has really stretched the boundaries in a big way.

Realistically (and yes I'm speculating now too), but if the Government decided that it needed to ensure that a full PB capability was to be available till sufficient OPV's are in service, there is a relatively quick and inexpensive way to achieve that goal.

I think the most cost effective way would be to extend the order with Austal for a couple more Cape Class PB's, say 2 or 3. The RAN is already down one ACPB (HMAS Bundaberg), an additional hull would make good that loss and another two would also take the load off the remaining ACPB's.

By the time sufficient OPV's are in service to take over the roles of the ACPB fleet, those few additional Cape Class PB's could then be transferred to Customs and Border Protection.

Looking forward to the DWP and DCP!!!
 

Stampede

Well-Known Member
Sorry, how is it pragmatic to suggest a 4000 tonne frigate with a crew of upwards of 160, CODAG propulsion and a 6000 nm range at 18 knots is a stand in for a 2000 to 2400 tonne OPV powered by diesels with a range of 6000nm at 12 knots (burning a LOT less fuel) but with a maximum crew of 60!!!

Looking at the Damen 2400 this has an installed power of just 9400 kw for a max speed of 23 knots. The ANZAC has a combined installed power of around 35500kw with each individual propulsions diesels roughly 2/3 of the entire installed power of the OPV. Bigger ship, more resistance, bigger electrical load (we have to factor power generation into this) and bigger engines really does add up to large fuel burn.

That is before we factor in the maintenance costs.

If you look at more recent OPV designs such as the sea axe hull form then the difference is even more stark.

This thread is currently mired in a lot of ill-informed speculations dressed up as fact and suggestions that would not pass even the simple scrutiny of a little research based on publicly sources information.

Roll on the detail of the shipbuilding plan so the speculation will stop:lul

Suggest you read the post again!
 

aussienscale

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
I think some people on here need to pull their heads in and take a breath !! In case some have not noticed there are people on here who have many combined years in Defence and relevant industry, that is why some people have the blue tags on their names, it means the moderators and Webmaster have vetted these people (myself included) for proof of prior/current Defence experience, what we did, where and when.

This discussion has turned into a school yard, armchair general BS with suggestions being made that are not based on any form of reality or any obvious understanding of Defence acquisition processes, planning requirements, operating costs, manning, maint, strategic policy, Conops etc etc etc

I would suggest some re-read the forum rules and abide by them, if you are going to make claims, back them up with fact, this is a discussion board. If you are going to make claims of prior service, relevant industry experience or try to allude to it back it up !!

I am sick of the yappy replies some are making to the Defpro's, watch your tongue, you have been warned and I for one am not going to tolerate it anymore !!
 

alexsa

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Suggest you read the post again!
Read it and the comment about pragmatism stands. From the Australian context what you suggest makes no sense and is not justified.

If want to argue the toss provide some evidence of your background in shipping operations, building and/or modification. Alternatively you could convince me that your background is such that you can speak with authority from a military perspective.
 

vonnoobie

Well-Known Member
I understand that those with blue name tag's have years of experience and value there knowledge that being said, No offense intended against any one being in a particular field does not make the person right all the time.

In regards to the Anzac class, I only viewed keeping them as a temporary stop gap measure between the retirement of the ACPB's and the future OPV/OCV/Corvette, Though I will admit John Newman's idea of ordering extra Cape class patrol boat's from Austal would be the cheapest option though more may have to be acquired depending on production time for the OPV/OCV.

rockitten, Liberty class from Austal?? Only vessel's from Austal that jump to mind are the Independence class which is too large and the MRV 80 which a variant of is currently under construction for Oman. As to the modules, Well they are far from being ready to my knowledge ( limited as it is ;) ).
 

t68

Well-Known Member
Read it and the comment about pragmatism stands. From the Australian context what you suggest makes no sense and is not justified.

If want to argue the toss provide some evidence of your background in shipping operations, building and/or modification. Alternatively you could convince me that your background is such that you can speak with authority from a military perspective.
What you say about fuel burn ratio and manning issue from the Anzac compared to an OPV is undoubtly true, but I can see no reson why if we have the capacity to continue using them if avaliable and the intended new vessel slip to the right it's it's not like the Anzac have not been used in this role before as noted as a plan B if this don't pan out as intended.

I can see both sides of the coin and believe both of you are correct
 

SASWanabe

Member
rockitten, Liberty class from Austal?? Only vessel's from Austal that jump to mind are the Independence class which is too large and the MRV 80 which a variant of is currently under construction for Oman. As to the modules, Well they are far from being ready to my knowledge ( limited as it is ;) ).
this is the only Liberty i could find from Austal

http://www.austal.com/en/products-and-services/commercial-products/ferries-passenger/liberty.aspx

which i don't think the RAN would be interested in :D But IIRC early on in the LCS program LCS-2 (Independence) was rumored to be getting named Liberty.

P.S what happened to all the Aussie mods?? it has been ages since i saw GF, AD or Bonza post.
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Part of the problem is we are currently using frigates for duties we could be using OPVs, or rather should be able to use patrol vessels for, but for several decades have failed to actually order vessels of a suitable design and capability to do the job. The reason we are getting OPVs or corvettes is so we don't have to use major fleet units to pick up the slack.

Remember the"Children over board" fiasco, that was the FFG HMAS Adelaide, which demonstrates we have been using major fleet units to supplement patrol forces for years. There is no need to rerole the ANZACs as OPVs, we will simply continue to use them as is to support BPC as required, even though it is expensive, inefficient and a poor use of resources.
 
Nothing much new, but an interesting mention of a new candidate for the SEA5000: Denmark is offering Iver Huitfeldt frigate.

Again, just in case anyone who cannot by-pass the subscription.
["Tony Abbott fires first election salvo with navy gamble

The Australian
August 05, 2015 12:00AM

Brendan Nicholson
Defence Editor
Canberra

Tony Abbott has launched his first big promise for the next election with an ambitious $89 billion gamble on new warships and sub*marines for the navy, but questions remain about how many jobs will be created or saved.

Promising a fleet of sophisticated “future frigates” will be built in South Australia to replace the navy’s Anzac warships three years ahead of schedule, the Prime Minister unveiled phase one of an election pledge that he vowed would award the battered manufacturing state “first prize”.

The government said the plan would modernise the navy but it also hopes to shore up political support.

Conceding it was too late to stop some job losses in the shipbuilding industry because of existing projects coming to an end, Mr *Abbott said the former Labor government had caused the problem by failing to order any new ships during its six years in power

He said 2500 jobs would be created or saved as a result of yesterday’s pledge, under which about nine frigates would be built at a cost of about $20bn in South Australia from 2020. But the current workforce of 2000 is expected to drop to 1000 before increasing. The government was unable to say exactly where the 2500 shipbuilding jobs would be located.

The Prime Minister did not say whether the announcements could save Melbourne’s Williamstown dockyard, employing 1000 people, or the 500 jobs at the Forjacs shipyard in Newcastle, which both face closure for lack of work.

The plan to upgrade the navy also includes about $50bn devoted to building and maintaining a fleet of new submarines, which is a hotly contested contract among bidders from Japan, Germany and France. Mr Abbott and Defence Minister Kevin Andrews also announced plans to spend about $19bn for an undisclosed number of offshore patrol vessels, or corvettes, which will be smaller than frigates but bigger than the navy’s existing Armidale Class patrol boats. It has not been decided where these vessels will be built but The Australian understands there are likely to be about a dozen of them. Mr Andrews said more information would emerge in the defence white paper, which is expected next month.

Mr Abbott strongly rejected suggestions that the massive spending commitment amounted to pork-barrelling to shore up his government’s flagging support in a state badly bruised by the loss of manufacturing jobs.

His personal ratings, measured by Newspoll, show his satisfaction in South Australia in the March quarter hit the lowest level for any prime minister in any state in 20 years before partially recovering in the June quarter. “I’m worried about the defence of our country and I’m worried about making sure that government does not shirk the decisions needed to keep our defences in the best possible order,” Mr Abbott said.

Labor’s assistant defence spokesman, David Feeney, said the government’s numbers did not add up. “This is a bogus exercise that was purely about politics and not policy,” he said. “There’s nothing in these announcements to save Williamstown dockyard or Forjacs in Newcastle.

“And, worse, there is no prospect of this work starting in Adelaide until 2020, by which time shipyards across Australia will have been idle for years.”

Australian Strategic Policy Institute analyst Andrew Davies said the announcement left a lot of unanswered questions. “This is a very big vote of confidence in an industry that has been underperforming,” Dr Davies said. “The government is making a substantial bet that by locking in work, they can get rid of a lot of the in*efficiencies that we’ve seen. That remains to be seen. Some things will get better and we’ll avoid start-up costs but this is untested.”

Mr Abbott said the precise number of jobs for South Australia would depend upon which vessel was chosen but the projects announced yesterday would save 1000 jobs that would otherwise have been lost.

“But the yard for building major surface ships will be here in Adelaide, because the infrastructure’s here,” he said. “Now, the subordinate yard may be in South Australia, it may be somewhere else, it may be at Williamstown, for instance, but the major focus for surface shipbuilding will be here in Adelaide.”

The key would be to get shipbuilding on to a sustainable “continuous build” program, Mr Abbott said.

He did not say how many of the new frigates, designed to destroy submarines and protect the fleet from air and missile attacks, would be built but The Australian revealed this week there were likely to be nine.

The naval shipbuilding industry fears massive job losses due to the so-called valley of death when current programs to build three air warfare destroyers and two giant landing ships are complete.

The government also confirmed yesterday it was putting an additional $1.2bn into the struggling Air Warfare Destroyer project, which has been stricken by delays and cost blowouts. Construction of the frigates is scheduled to begin once the third AWD is delivered.

“This is a historic day and this is a historic announcement,” Mr Abbott said. “What we are announcing today is basically a fleet build here in Australia, centred on South Australia, because we have confidence that a restructured domestic surface naval shipbuilding industry can be competitive, can give us the best possible ships, at the best possible price, maximising the local build.”

The British Type 26 Global Defence Ship is considered a likely option for the new frigate but while design work is complete, building of the first vessel in the class has not yet begun.

Two other European options are Germany’s very large Blohm and Voss MEKO A-400 RAN built by TKMS and the French FREMM multi-mission frigate.

Denmark is offering its hi-tech but low-cost Iver Huitfeldt frigate.

The promised white paper, now delayed until next month, will provide details of further projects including how many new submarines will be bought, at least eight, and possibly 12.

Japan, France and Germany are engaged in a competitive evaluation process and by late this year they must each submit options to build them in Australia, in their home country or in a *“hybrid” mix of both."
Can someone advise when the third AWD is likely to be completed? The article above suggests construction of the new frigates will commence once the Sydney is completed. This may be before 2020?

It is ironic the Type 26 is the saviour of 600 jobs on the Clyde and many more in the supply chain (Warships magazine). Warships magazine also mentions the overruns, cost increases and contract re-negotiations that plagued the Type 45 destroyers and aircraft carrier builds. The last thing Defence needs is something such as this to occur especially with the success of the Anzac build. What are your views on this compared say to a build by Blohm and Voss of the Meko
A400M RAN?
 

rockitten

Member
rockitten, Liberty class from Austal?? Only vessel's from Austal that jump to mind are the Independence class which is too large and the MRV 80 which a variant of is currently under construction for Oman. As to the modules, Well they are far from being ready to my knowledge ( limited as it is ;) ).
Ya, my fault, that should be the Independence. But I would prefer the LCS rather than the MRV 80 though:
1. First, the design of Austal LCS has been built and proven, so any flaws in the design should be rectified by now.
2. By using the same type of vessel with the USN, our navy can utilize any upgrade and improvement of the class and modules from the USN.
3. Also, using the same type of vessel with the USN give us better integration with USN, both operation, training and logistics.
4. Aluminum is cheap, air is free, a bigger hull means bigger storage and accommodation space, which is good for endurance.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top