RAN Dreamland Thread

[StobieWan]

This is a placeholder for RAN "fantasy" or generally unrealistic items - it will be relatively lightly moderated as a result as long as contributions remain respectful and are at least formatted and readable.

So, if you want to discuss flat tops for the RAN, nuclear subs, or any amount of uncosted and unworkable proposals for the RAN, please do so here. The intention is to free up the RAN thread for discussions of a more grounded nature. Knock yourself out.

 

[SouthernSky]

Disappointing that some in the RAN thread weren't able to show a bit of self restraint even after they had been encouraged to do so. Now we have a thread to cater for something that this forum has prided itself in resisting.

 

[StobieWan]

It's not so much to encourage it as separate it out from the main discussion thread - some def pros are getting head aches and some seem happy to engage, but if the alternate thread can't be managed with at least some restraint in the wilder items, I'll shut it of course.

 

[Volkodav]

http://navyleague.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/The-Navy-Vol_74_No_2-Apr-2012.pdf

Just for Rockitten.

Also, apart from the very easy to find references in Wikipedia the offer of a modified Legend class NSC for SEA1180 is also mentioned in Huntington Ingalls Industries archived press releases. A model of their proposal, a NSC fitted with CEAFAR and a VLS with ESSM was also displayed at Pacific 2012
Patrol Frigate Concepts from Huntington Ingalls Industries Gain Traction Internationally | Defense Media Network

A real world proposal, the only issue being the extremely high cost of the platform. There are cheaper options out there, for example HMAS Perth was delivered for $144m in 2006 while the less capable Bertholf was commissioned in 2008 and cost about $650m. Perhaps an updated MEKO A200 could be an option using refurbished ANZAC systems?

Currently there are thirteen PBs (down from fourteen), twenty one crews and seven divisions. Each Division has two boats and three crews, generally each is commanded by a Commander with a couple of Lt CMDRs and several junior officers, CPOs, including three Charge qualified CPO Marine Technicians and two Hull POs (one per boat). Each division basically has enough qualified and experienced personnel to man an OPV / OCV, LCS or light frigate.

 

[rockitten]

http://navyleague.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/The-Navy-Vol_74_No_2-Apr-2012.pdf

Just for Rockitten.

Also, apart from the very easy to find references in Wikipedia the offer of a modified Legend class NSC for SEA1180 is also mentioned in Huntington Ingalls Industries archived press releases. A model of their proposal, a NSC fitted with CEAFAR and a VLS with ESSM was also displayed at Pacific 2012
Patrol Frigate Concepts from Huntington Ingalls Industries Gain Traction Internationally | Defense Media Network

A real world proposal, the only issue being the extremely high cost of the platform. There are cheaper options out there, for example HMAS Perth was delivered for $144m in 2006 while the less capable Bertholf was commissioned in 2008 and cost about $650m. Perhaps an updated MEKO A200 could be an option using refurbished ANZAC systems?

Currently there are thirteen PBs (down from fourteen), twenty one crews and seven divisions. Each Division has two boats and three crews, generally each is commanded by a Commander with a couple of Lt CMDRs and several junior officers, CPOs, including three Charge qualified CPO Marine Technicians and two Hull POs (one per boat). Each division basically has enough qualified and experienced personnel to man an OPV / OCV, LCS or light frigate.

That's an interesting read, thanks V.

An updated MEKO A200 sounds good, especially if some design works can be done in Australia.

When I read those US warship series written by Norman Friedman, I have an impression that modern warship's design (and cost) were heavily influenced by what sort of system you want to install on it (such as Knox for the LF sonar).

I can see every reason why you are making the OPV a "mini-frigate". But if we fit out the OPV so much like a frigate, the cost may ended up just like a frigate. And once the Navy and politicians see those vessels as a frigate, that may affect the real ANZAC replacement programme (either less capable or less hull)


Personally, I agree with your idea (how to fill the survey and MCM roles is another story). What I worry (and resisting the temptation) is that our OPV may ended up like another LCS disaster: a corvette project ended up as a 3000tonne (not so good) frigate.

 

[Volkodav]

That's an interesting read, thanks V.

An updated MEKO A200 sounds good, especially if some design works can be done in Australia.

When I read those US warship series written by Norman Friedman, I have an impression that modern warship's design (and cost) were heavily influenced by what sort of system you want to install on it (such as Knox for the LF sonar).

I can see every reason why you are making the OPV a "mini-frigate". But if we fit out the OPV so much like a frigate, the cost may ended up just like a frigate. And once the Navy and politicians see those vessels as a frigate, that may affect the real ANZAC replacement programme (either less capable or less hull)


Personally, I agree with your idea (how to fill the survey and MCM roles is another story). What I worry (and resisting the temptation) is that our OPV may ended up like another LCS disaster: a corvette project ended up as a 3000tonne (not so good) frigate.

A brand new OPV with brand new engines, generators, combat system, sensors and weapons, even if substantial less capable than those currently fitted to an ANZAC will cost much more than refurbished systems we already own. So long as the selected platform is large enough the ANZAC systems can be pulled through to the new light frigates. The bonus will be the new platforms will be more modern, easier and cheaper to maintain and operate, have a smaller crew and be more capable than the ANZACs. The propulsion diesels for instance can be refurbished to the latest standard, as the RNZN has done with their ANZACs, increasing power, while reducing fuel burn, improving reliability and ease of maintenance.

 

[Cadredave]

The propulsion diesels for instance can be refurbished to the latest standard, as the RNZN has done with their ANZACs, increasing power, while reducing fuel burn, improving reliability and ease of maintenance.

Sorry for the one liner mate

Just a small correction The RNZN didnt refurbish the Diesels we brought a newer model which provided all the above; more power, reduced fuel burn etc

CD

 

[vonnoobie]

There are cheaper options out there, for example HMAS Perth was delivered for $144m in 2006 while the less capable Bertholf was commissioned in 2008 and cost about $650m.

Is this an actual fact? Just have never seen anything to say the price of the HMAS Perth was so low, Read that it came in at under budget but never imagined it to be that low.. Honestly if that is an actual number why didn't we just keep on building them? Even a newer model of the MEKO 200.. Would have been cheaper to build them and push them aside then to rebuild the shipbuilding industry..

 

[Volkodav]

Sorry for the one liner mate

Just a small correction The RNZN didnt refurbish the Diesels we brought a newer model which provided all the above; more power, reduced fuel burn etc

CD

What you've said is what I've read but not what I've been told. The T93 is an upgrade of the T83 and upgrade kits are available and once installed the result is a new engine. I will happily stand corrected if I have been misinformed on this but I am confident of my sources.

 

[Volkodav]

Is this an actual fact? Just have never seen anything to say the price of the HMAS Perth was so low, Read that it came in at under budget but never imagined it to be that low.. Honestly if that is an actual number why didn't we just keep on building them? Even a newer model of the MEKO 200.. Would have been cheaper to build them and push them aside then to rebuild the shipbuilding industry..

ADM: Tenix delivers the final Anzac frigate

All in there

 

[vonnoobie]

ADM: Tenix delivers the final Anzac frigate

All in there

Cheers, Though I should point out by my reading the $144.8 million figure is in 1988 dollars, In 2014 dollars (most recent year available) when accounting for inflation it is $308.58 million.

Does give an idea of how well a program runs when it is set up properly, Some of the work force is given training over seas ahead of our start and is long term. Between first and last cost per a ship dropped roughly 24.9%, With cost per a ton on the HMAS Perth coming in at $85,716.66, Or including the current upgrades (which I imagine would have been cheaper again implementing during construction rather then after) $112,800 a ton.. Allow average historical exchange rates and it comes in at around just north of $160,000 a ton, And they say that Australia can't be competitive in ship building?

 

[rockitten]

Cheers, Though I should point out by my reading the $144.8 million figure is in 1988 dollars, In 2014 dollars (most recent year available) when accounting for inflation it is $308.58 million.

Does give an idea of how well a program runs when it is set up properly, Some of the work force is given training over seas ahead of our start and is long term. Between first and last cost per a ship dropped roughly 24.9%, With cost per a ton on the HMAS Perth coming in at $85,716.66, Or including the current upgrades (which I imagine would have been cheaper again implementing during construction rather then after) $112,800 a ton.. Allow average historical exchange rates and it comes in at around just north of $160,000 a ton, And they say that Australia can't be competitive in ship building?

"The ten ships have been delivered under a fixed-price contract and a project budget of $3.93 billion in 1988 dollars, or about $7 billion in 2006 dollars."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valour-class_frigate
Well, if wiki is right (if), South African purchased 4 MEKO200 in 2007 from Germany for R9.65 billion (roughly A$1.06billion). Of coz, the ANZAC class have much more advance (expansive) stuff than the bare-bone South African ones. And RSA probably had less project cost as all ships were simpler and all were built by HDW in Germany.

Valour Class - A-200
"According to a September 2006 report in Business Day, South Africa was ready to take up an option for a fifth Meko class A200 frigate from the German frigate consortium that built four other ships for the South African Navy. The report was something of a surprise as there had been no public indication that the navy was interested in the extra ship. According to Business Day the fifth ship would costa in the region of R2 Bn, considerably more than the R1.2 Billion paid for each of the first four frigates. The report stated that the chief of the navy, Rear Admiral Johannes Mudimu, had confirmed the intention of buying the extra ship. He said the original contract had been for five ships but only four were taken because of budget constraints."

So for project vs projects, it is A$7 billion for 10 ships vs roughly A$1.06billion for 4 simpler ships.

For ship vs ship, using vonnoobie's method, the HMAS Perth (A$144.8m in 1988) would be A$188.8 by 2007 and the South African deal is roughly A$132million per ship by 2007.

 

[vonnoobie]

"The ten ships have been delivered under a fixed-price contract and a project budget of $3.93 billion in 1988 dollars, or about $7 billion in 2006 dollars."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valour-class_frigate
Well, if wiki is right (if), South African purchased 4 MEKO200 in 2007 from Germany for R9.65 billion (roughly A$1.06billion). Of coz, the ANZAC class have much more advance (expansive) stuff than the bare-bone South African ones. And RSA probably had less project cost as all ships were simpler and all were built by HDW in Germany.

Valour Class - A-200
"According to a September 2006 report in Business Day, South Africa was ready to take up an option for a fifth Meko class A200 frigate from the German frigate consortium that built four other ships for the South African Navy. The report was something of a surprise as there had been no public indication that the navy was interested in the extra ship. According to Business Day the fifth ship would costa in the region of R2 Bn, considerably more than the R1.2 Billion paid for each of the first four frigates. The report stated that the chief of the navy, Rear Admiral Johannes Mudimu, had confirmed the intention of buying the extra ship. He said the original contract had been for five ships but only four were taken because of budget constraints."

So for project vs projects, it is A$7 billion for 10 ships vs roughly A$1.06billion for 4 simpler ships.

For ship vs ship, using vonnoobie's method, the HMAS Perth (A$144.8m in 1988) would be A$188.8 by 2007 and the South African deal is roughly A$132million per ship by 2007.

$188.8? RBA: Inflation Calculator Using the RBA inflation calculator (that I have found to be quite accurate often having used it quite a bit over the years), In 2007 it would have cost around $255.78 million, Not $188.8 million, Sorry to nit pick but wasn't exactly a small difference.

Also, Using Yearly Average Exchange Rates - Oz Forex Foreign Exchange the R9.65 billion acquisition cost for 2007 would have come in at just north of $1.635 billion AUD, Or just over $400 million a vessel in which case by the time we built HMAS Perth we were on par with Germany for productivity.

May be that the sites I'm using aren't as accurate as I've come to believe, Which particular site's/methods did you use to adjust the inflation and exchange rates?

 

[Blackshoe]

Battleships.

Because why not?

 

[vonnoobie]

Battleships.

Because why not?

Even for dreamland thread that is way way way way out there... Sound's like an idea from those 15yr old kids playing PC games thinking that big massive ships and big massive gun is the be all end all xD lolz.I know you do it in joke but I hate those kids

 

[Volkodav]

Battleships.

Because why not?

Apparently the only time Australia looked at acquiring battleships was in 1939 on the eve of WWII when some bright spark said lets build one.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Apparently the only time Australia looked at acquiring battleships was in 1939 on the eve of WWII when some bright spark said lets build one.

I wonder what a locally built battleship in 1939 would even look like. It would be interesting to see if there are any official RAN records about such a ship.

https://www.navyhistory.org.au/a-battleship-for-the-ran-considerations-1937-49/

Seems to only reference Australian policy documents, which may not include anything that has been tucked away in the extensive RAN collections.

It also references a submarine fleet of 11 for a similar price. Some things change?

 

[Volkodav]

I wonder what a locally built battleship in 1939 would even look like. It would be interesting to see if there are any official RAN records about such a ship.

https://www.navyhistory.org.au/a-battleship-for-the-ran-considerations-1937-49/

Seems to only reference Australian policy documents, which may not include anything that has been tucked away in the extensive RAN collections.

It also references a submarine fleet of 11 for a similar price. Some things change?

I believe the battleship was a bit like the armoured brigade we were going to contribute to the invasion of Iraq, senior members of government thought we had the capability and we didn't, i.e. the lets build one was because they had no idea what was involved.

The only reason we had a battlecruiser in WWI is because that was the type that replaced the armoured cruisers in production by the time we placed the order. Had there not been a Washington Treaty I imagine the RAN would have gone with light battlecruisers or large cruisers instead of battleships anyway.

 

[Bluey 006]

Volk,

A while ago you were pushing an aviation ship for the RAN. I wanted to bring up an option at the time but resisted due to the ....err chaos ... on the RAN thread.

Now there is a place for it, here it is...

IMHO there probably is a need for the type of ship you are suggesting, its chances of getting up are about 0 though. That said, could the same effect be achieved with a smaller lighter UxV aviation ship such as below:

UxV Carrier

 

[vonnoobie]

In regards to Battle ships, Australia and WWII. Originally the proposal came around to build one in Australia to create job's and growth, In 1937 the idea popped up of one being built exclusively for Australia in Australia. Idea never gained traction as while we had dock's large enough over all the facilities were too out dated, and not set up to such a project.

We got the battle cruiser as that was part of the make up for the 'Fleet Units' proposed by the Admiralty in the UK, Consisting of 1 Battle cruiser, 3 light cruisers, 6 destroyers and 3 submarines. Had been put forth to Australia, Canada, New Zealand (partially) and possibly South Africa in future, Only Australia and New Zealand made any purchases with Australia buying a full Fleet Unit (minus 1 submarine) and NZ buying and donating a Battle Cruiser.

In the 1930's further suggestions had been made by the Admiralty as to what fleet we should have, With Australia funding and supplying a fleet made up of 1 - 2 Battle cruisers, 1 -2 Carriers, a dozen or so destroyer leaders and destroyers, and a number of other escorts and submarines (Off the top of my head, Ill track down exact numbers), Beyond an idea in 1937 nothing serious into Australia ever having a battle ship took place.