Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[40 deg south]

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/opvs-display-pacific-2015-tom-dearling?trk=hp-feed-article-title-like


Well that and the RAN has worked with Cantabria for a year, and from what I've heard most found it to be a nice ship. It was also specifically designed with the AWD, LHD in mind. You would have to put them as player to beat.

I don't think 25,000t is too big for a AOR. I thought DSME was one of the successful tenders for the NZ AOR project. IMO the bigger size is one of the key reasons why it might be chosen over the Cantabria.

Thanks Stingray.
Based on the shared construction with other vessels and the RAN Cantabria deployment, I'd always suspected that Navantia had the inside running for the new AORs, with the Koreans in the mix to keep them honest on price. Interesting that you have come to similar conclusions.

You are correct, DSME and Hyundai have been shortlisted by NZ for the Best And Final Offer phase. We should get a decision/contract in early 2016. My concern isn't that an Aegir 18 is too big for NZ's needs, but that it may be too big for NZ's wallet! The current Endeavour is about 12,000 tonnes at full load (Wiki), and convincing Treasury that a 28,000 tonne vessel is needed as a replacement will be a big ask.The only way is will fly is if they can play up the HADR/sealift capabilities, with a vessel that offers some backup to the Canterbury. The original RFI was leaning heavily in that direction - the RFT moved back in the direction of a conventional AOR with deck space for a dozen TEU containers. Presumably driven by the price signals from the RFI.

I could see real benefits from a Transtasman oiler fleet of three vessels based on the same design, but I'm far from convinced it will happen.

 

[Alf662]

Thanks Stingray.
Based on the shared construction with other vessels and the RAN Cantabria deployment, I'd always suspected that Navantia had the inside running for the new AORs, with the Koreans in the mix to keep them honest on price. Interesting that you have come to similar conclusions.

You are correct, DSME and Hyundai have been shortlisted by NZ for the Best And Final Offer phase. We should get a decision/contract in early 2016. My concern isn't that an Aegir 18 is too big for NZ's needs, but that it may be too big for NZ's wallet! The current Endeavour is about 12,000 tonnes at full load (Wiki), and convincing Treasury that a 28,000 tonne vessel is needed as a replacement will be a big ask.The only way is will fly is if they can play up the HADR/sealift capabilities, with a vessel that offers some backup to the Canterbury. The original RFI was leaning heavily in that direction - the RFT moved back in the direction of a conventional AOR with deck space for a dozen TEU containers. Presumably driven by the price signals from the RFI.

I could see real benefits from a Transtasman oiler fleet of three vessels based on the same design, but I'm far from convinced it will happen.

It is a pity that the original ASC / DSME proposal for three Aegir's did not get off the ground. Add a fourth New Zealand vessel of the same class and operational availability for the RAN & RNZN would be very high, reduced spares inventory for both Navy's would have reduced the overall cost of ownership. For both Navy's to be going down different paths may well end in much higher operating costs for both Navy's.

 

[StingrayOZ]

You are correct, DSME and Hyundai have been shortlisted by NZ for the Best And Final Offer phase. We should get a decision/contract in early 2016. My concern isn't that an Aegir 18 is too big for NZ's needs, but that it may be too big for NZ's wallet! The current Endeavour is about 12,000 tonnes at full load (Wiki), and convincing Treasury that a 28,000 tonne vessel is needed as a replacement will be a big ask.

From all reports they are great value for money, hence why the UK is acquiring similar ships, as are the Norwegians, built in Korea even though both the UK and Norway could build similar ships (just not that price). Endeavour was originally built in Korea, and was a size that these types were back then. Now they are larger and more capable.

These ships certainly do have capabilities above and beyond simple fleet oilers. The capability comes for not much more dollars over a much smaller ship. You have a hospital, accommodation for 160 personnel, flight deck and hanger for 2 helos.

I quite like the Aegir18 but IMO they don't carry enough Jp-5. There were murmers that this could be adjusted, but I haven't seen anything that has changed this. IMO it is only a concern for the RAN regarding JP-5 but from what I can see its not a requirement of the project so the RAN may end up getting exactly the same ship as NZ

I think the Aegir will be a good fit for the RNZN and will still be able to resupply RAN ships in normal operations just fine and perform its other missions really well.

Which would be good because last year the then defence minister announced there would only be 2 ships for the RAN rather than the 3 some proposals were putting forward (2 Korean builds 1 local build). (as mentioned above - 4 ships!).

With RAN and RNZN with 3 large ships between them, there would be 2 capable ships available most of the time. I would say its completely possible that all 3 will be the same. Its really just Australia still wrestling with the idea of Spanish or Korean.

 

[John Newman]

DSME, Navantia unveil design proposals for new RAN replenishment ships - IHS Jane's 360

More info released on the replacement AORs. Will commonality with other Spanish-designed RAN vessels give Navantia the edge?

At 25,00 tonnes, the DSME offering may be a bit large for NZ's parallel acquisition, if that is what is on offer to RNZN.

On the question of 'commonality' with the other Spanish designed ships, I remember when ASC put their proposal out, based on the Aegir 18A, a number of years ago, they did in fact say in their marketing document:

"standardising systems common to the Air Warfare Destroyers" (see attached link):

http://www.asc.com.au/Documents/News/ASCAegirBrochure_FINAL.pdf


So it's probably reasonable to assume that the current offering direct from DSME would most likely also have those 'common' systems included in the build too.

 

[Alf662]

On the question of 'commonality' with the other Spanish designed ships, I remember when ASC put their proposal out, based on the Aegir 18A, a number of years ago, they did in fact say in their marketing document:

"standardising systems common to the Air Warfare Destroyers" (see attached link):

http://www.asc.com.au/Documents/News/ASCAegirBrochure_FINAL.pdf


So it's probably reasonable to assume that the current offering direct from DSME would most likely also have those 'common' systems included in the build too.

Navantia are forming a consortium with Sage Automation for the Integrated Platform Management System, but the ships will almost entirely be built in spain.

DSME have entered into a MOU with BAE, BMT, L3 & SAAB which indicates to me that it would have a higher Australian content. If that is the case and the Navantia Integrated Platform Management System is required then it makes sense for sage Automation to get involved and to come to some sort of agreement with Navantia

Here is a link from ADBR which is along similar lines to what 40 degrees south posted about a week ago: Replenishment vessel contenders promote SEA 1654 solutions

 

[aussienscale]

Navantia are forming a consortium with Sage Automation for the Integrated Platform Management System, but the ships will almost entirely be built in spain.

DSME have entered into a MOU with BAE, BMT, L3 & SAAB which indicates to me that it would have a higher Australian content. If that is the case and the Navantia Integrated Platform Management System is required then it makes sense for sage Automation to get involved and to come to some sort of agreement with Navantia

Here is a link from ADBR which is along similar lines to what 40 degrees south posted about a week ago: Replenishment vessel contenders promote SEA 1654 solutions

This quote from the link you posted say's it all to me in the current political climate

“The ships will be built basically in Spain, that is the baseline proposal,” he said. “If the Commonwealth would like to do some work here, there is an open door for that, although it has to be further developed and analysed.”

And that last part in particular, if they have not developed that part of the proposal, and is not part of the submission, the just blew it

Cheers

 

[Alf662]

This quote from the link you posted say's it all to me in the current political climate

“The ships will be built basically in Spain, that is the baseline proposal,” he said. “If the Commonwealth would like to do some work here, there is an open door for that, although it has to be further developed and analysed.”

And that last part in particular, if they have not developed that part of the proposal, and is not part of the submission, the just blew it

Cheers

That was my take on it as well, if DSME are offering more Australian content then Navantia would have to produce an extremely competitive tender.

BAE already have a relationship with Sage and Navantia, which makes me think that a common IPMS system would be possible. If DSME do win, I cannot see Navantia walking away from still being involved and supplying the IPMS system (some thing is better than nothing).

I stumbled on some information on what I think is the latest Navantia IPMS system, I do not recall seeing it before, so I have posted it here: http://www.intersystems.com/assets/sites/9/Navantia-c2a44ae8f06ae23b209b717bf70d6605.pdf

 

[Blas de Lezo]

Navantia made its proposal for Sea 5000 at Pacific 2015 Sidney.
Shares Platform Management with AWD and AOR and as you can see, enough commonality with AWD to allow ASC to build on their experience .
Navantia, Saab Australia and CEA Technologies have partnered up to do a 10 month engineering study towards the next face of Sea 5000.

[ame]http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y168/rgc/NAVANTIA_SEA5000_2.jpg_zpsjlg8mhf5.png[/ame]

i5.photobucket.com/albums/y168/rgc/NAVANTIA_SEA5000_2.jpg_zpsjlg8mhf5.png

 

[vonnoobie]

Question for those in the field of naval ship design, Would it be a difficult task to convert some of the fuel storage from say ship fuel into JP-5 storage (In regards to the Aegir 18A)?.

While I have noticed that the Cantabria holds more JP-5 over all the Aegir 18 holds more fuel in general 10,505 cubic meters vs 12,000 - 16,000 cubic meters respectively.

If it is not too tricky of a task (or costly) then the Aegir in my uneducated opinion start's to become the better option especially with it's range (We really don't want to have our naval asset's limited not by just there own range but also the range of the supporting AOR)

Can't say I wouldn't mind us getting a pair of Tide class which financially speaking may not be out of reach if the UK purchase is anything to go by. But I'm sure that would also have it's draw backs and is a fantasy wish in any case, A politician that will willingly spend extra to gain a vastly more capable asset for our armed forces are few and far between =).

Regards, vonnoobie.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Question for those in the field of naval ship design, Would it be a difficult task to convert some of the fuel storage from say ship fuel into JP-5 storage (In regards to the Aegir 18A)?.

I believe it should be possible, but the question is would it add any cost or risk to the project. I haven't seen it specifically mentioned by the professional media or in commentary about the project. We like OTS these days.

Navantia made its proposal for Sea 5000 at Pacific 2015 Sidney.
Shares Platform Management with AWD and AOR and as you can see, enough commonality with AWD to allow ASC to build on their experience

Nice. The radar is positioned very high up (higher than even the AWD). Funnels look different. Really does look like a different flavoured AWD. I like this concept.

 

[vonnoobie]

Further queries on the AOR's and other support elements of the RAN..

1. Between the Success and Sirius they have a combined JP-5 capacity of 6,698.69 cubic meters.
2. With the growth in naval aviation asset's on capacity to support them (Choules, Canberra's etc) I have heard it mentioned several times that we need an increased capability in how much JP-5 fuel our AOR's can support.
3. Under the current 1 for 1 replacement with the two ships on offer assuming the SPS Cantabria's JP-5 capacity is the higher end carried the 2 ships would only provide 47.32% of our current capacity.

Is there a change in how we support our ships that I am not aware of? Have we been supplying more capacity in the past then actually needed? or has some one wanted to take the cheapest route with the replacement?

Just not having number's match up so some clarity would be greatly appreciated, Cheers.

That all mentioned, have recently been reading up on the HMAS Stalwart (A 215/D 215) which appears to have been a great ship with plenty of value, Has me wondering was there ever any thought into building a replacement?

 

[Volkodav]

On JP5 it is my understanding that it requires stainless steel pipework and possibly even tanks and while systems are often, even usually, set up to permit JP5 to be provided to non-aviation uses, such as propulsion and generators, there are measures in place to ensure regular fuel can never enter the JP5 pipework or tanks as this would cause difficult, if not impossible to rectify contamination. Increasing JP5 stowage would be a major change best undertaken at design / build phase.

 

[StingrayOZ]

On JP5 it is my understanding that it requires stainless steel pipework and possibly even tanks and while systems are often, even usually, set up to permit JP5 to be provided to non-aviation uses, such as propulsion and generators, there are measures in place to ensure regular fuel can never enter the JP5 pipework or tanks as this would cause difficult, if not impossible to rectify contamination. Increasing JP5 stowage would be a major change best undertaken at design / build phase.

I would hope it is considered at the Design phase. It would be a disaster to try to retrofit significant Jp-5 bunkerage to any ship (I recall this was discussed regarding the LHDs at somepoint, with crazy ideas of bladders or containers!) let a lone a brand new AOR if at some point in the future we identified we needed more.

An America class LHD has 2000+m3 of Jp-5 storage (over 5 times the amount proposed for the original Korean AOR). San Antonio class has ~1400m3. So its not like the Canberra LHD's are unexpectedly large for that type of ship. In fact my argument is they are quite small, so it would be worth spec'ing a AOR that had significant JP-5 Capacity. Not a AOR that is only really designed to service destroyers with very limited aviation (~25 m3) etc.

Under the current 1 for 1 replacement with the two ships on offer assuming the SPS Cantabria's JP-5 capacity is the higher end carried the 2 ships would only provide 47.32% of our current capacity.

Sirius offers most of the capacity, she is a converted commercial ship so her Jp-5 capacity may have been a compromise as the smallest amount she could be converted to carry without expensive design changes. She is 46,000t.

V-22, F-35, Chinooks, CH-53E, LCAC all gobble fuel at a staggering rate and could use up a Ageir 18a JP-5 store in literally a few days of operations. If we wanted to support operations of any of these in our region (by say Japan or the US) we would really struggle with the proposed ships. But even outside of that, our LHD capability would be limited by our AOR.

 

[rockitten]

V-22, F-35, Chinooks, CH-53E, LCAC all gobble fuel at a staggering rate and could use up a Ageir 18a JP-5 store in literally a few days of operations. If we wanted to support operations of any of these in our region (by say Japan or the US) we would really struggle with the proposed ships. But even outside of that, our LHD capability would be limited by our AOR.

So do you think the original model for RN (Ageir 36?) is suitable for our navy? Or do you think it may be a bit over killed?

 

[vonnoobie]

We have generally been operating 1 ship similar in size to the Aegir 26 (HMAS Westralia, HMAS Sirius) for the last 26 years (and 8 days, But whose counting ) so I don't see the factor of it being too big being a real issue.

As has been mentioned with ships the size we are currently looking at and the increased amount of JP-5 fuel used chewing such stores up in a few days at times then the current options are not truly viable, On the other hand we are also likely to more often take part in a lot of low intensity deployments with limited if any US involvement (Small nation building for the little guys so to speak) and a ship the size of the Aegir 26 would be over kill in such a situation.

I'm wondering (Though almost certain not to occur) if we would be better off getting 1 for 1 replacement in there respective size classes (ie: 1 x Aegir 18A and 1 x Aegir 26). Not a perfect solution but between crewing limitations, budgetary restriction's and independent capability probably the best one.

 

[StingrayOZ]

So do you think the original model for RN (Ageir 36?) is suitable for our navy? Or do you think it may be a bit over killed?

I don't think it would be overkill for our navy. We have a ship of that size before we decided to more than double the tonnage of our navy. These ships may also be called on to supply allies in our region. The acquisition and operational costs of these ships don't really scale compared to combat ships.

As has been mentioned with ships the size we are currently looking at and the increased amount of JP-5 fuel used chewing such stores up in a few days at times then the current options are not truly viable.

I all depends on the operational requirements. Perhaps the navy sees only 2 or 3 navy helicopters ever operating from the LHD, in low intensity operations and deploying only one LHD at a time, rare operating helicopters from AWD's, Frigates, and OPV/OCV.

However, I would have thought for ARE capability we would need more than that. Let alone a full ARG where your deploy both LHD's, our entire fleet of Chinooks, a dozen NH90's, some tigers, plus any additional allied assets (USMC elements in Australia?). And you turn up with a AOR that can't even replenish half a single ship? You might as well refit the replenishment capability back to the LHD's and have those act as replenishment ships. Perhaps the navy sees it as an Army problem and doesn't believe ARE or ARG are really I don't see how that is possible as everything purple/combined and ARE and ARG were part of previous white papers and most likely part of future ones. We have already tested ARE capability earlier this year (off the coast of Australia for a short period).

If you look at something like the US T-AOE, they carry ~10,000 m3 or more than 25 times the proposed amount or the US T-AKE carry ~7,500m3. Size wise they are all pretty much the same size as a LHD (beam, length), they just sit deeper in the water when loaded. Both carry nearly equal amount of Marine diesel and Aviation fuel. (the T-AOE actually carry more aviation than marine diesel).

The Cantabria was designed with 1 LHD in mind. Spain doesn't ever consider the possibility of deploying two heavily loaded (~400 more on each than they plan for) LHD's landing over 2200+ personnel + equipment. That is outside the capability of the Spanish defense forces.

IMO we should really be looking (or considering) at something with Double the Cantibria capability. Twice the food stores, twice the munitions storage, twice the JP-5. Or getting more ships. If we had say 3 Cantibria's then you would be able to deploy 2. Being able to deploy 2 ships gives you more flexibility.

If we can only get two ships, then get two T-AKE design. If we must or require the flexibility of 3 ships, then get 3 Cantibria capability (or modify the Korean design to have 4+ times the JP-5 and get 3 of those).

This is a case where its about the capability, not the platform.

 

[StingrayOZ]

McPhedran has discovered the Japanese.

Japan wants to build our future submarines

Japan is offering secret technology to win submarine contract

All that changed in Sydney on the eve of the Pacific 2015 Maritime Convention when Mr Ishikawa told News Corp Australia that his country was willing to release ‘100 per cent’ of its submarine technology to Australia.
“Our objective is to have everything available to transfer,” Mr Ishikawa said.
Rear Admiral Sato from the Maritime Staff Office backed his colleague and said that all technologies would be released to enable Australia to build the submarine. However he said some intellectual property would need to be ‘controlled and protected’ by Australia.
The technologies on the table include advanced welding techniques, top-secret stealth capabilities, combat system integration, state-of-the-art high capacity lithium ion batteries and a unique all-weather snorkel system that can gather oxygen for the diesels even during a typhoon.

IMO this is a very good move. Japanese are being clearer to the public what they are willing to provide.

 

[alexsa]

you'd think that they'd work out that a vessel with an armoury, secure comms and the various vessel specific mission statements would trigger the response "if it walks like a duck....." etc....

albeit a very commercially certified and operated duck

 

[alexsa]

Thanks Stingray.
Based on the shared construction with other vessels and the RAN Cantabria deployment, I'd always suspected that Navantia had the inside running for the new AORs, with the Koreans in the mix to keep them honest on price. Interesting that you have come to similar conclusions.

You are correct, DSME and Hyundai have been shortlisted by NZ for the Best And Final Offer phase. We should get a decision/contract in early 2016. My concern isn't that an Aegir 18 is too big for NZ's needs, but that it may be too big for NZ's wallet! The current Endeavour is about 12,000 tonnes at full load (Wiki), and convincing Treasury that a 28,000 tonne vessel is needed as a replacement will be a big ask.The only way is will fly is if they can play up the HADR/sealift capabilities, with a vessel that offers some backup to the Canterbury. The original RFI was leaning heavily in that direction - the RFT moved back in the direction of a conventional AOR with deck space for a dozen TEU containers. Presumably driven by the price signals from the RFI.

I could see real benefits from a Transtasman oiler fleet of three vessels based on the same design, but I'm far from convinced it will happen.

II actually fail to see the advantage. Provided fuelling connections are comparable (as they are) then the Navantia product has not advantage as there are few similarities in construction (except for the fact they are all steel the framing. steel type, subdivision, hull form and fact one ship type is a tanker make these very different ships)...... the LHD and AWD are completely different ships to the AOR in both construction and propulsion. Others systems are customer specified.

It will come down to capability and price an the Aegir is not to be written down lightly as it can be delivered very quickly.

 

[alexsa]

Question for those in the field of naval ship design, Would it be a difficult task to convert some of the fuel storage from say ship fuel into JP-5 storage (In regards to the Aegir 18A)?.

While I have noticed that the Cantabria holds more JP-5 over all the Aegir 18 holds more fuel in general 10,505 cubic meters vs 12,000 - 16,000 cubic meters respectively.

If it is not too tricky of a task (or costly) then the Aegir in my uneducated opinion start's to become the better option especially with it's range (We really don't want to have our naval asset's limited not by just there own range but also the range of the supporting AOR)

Can't say I wouldn't mind us getting a pair of Tide class which financially speaking may not be out of reach if the UK purchase is anything to go by. But I'm sure that would also have it's draw backs and is a fantasy wish in any case, A politician that will willingly spend extra to gain a vastly more capable asset for our armed forces are few and far between =).

Regards, vonnoobie.

If you look at chemical tankers and product carriers as an example .... a common hull type can be customised to carry different grade products.... including the use of stainless steel. it really comes down to understanding your requirements before ordering.

Remember the Koreans make a habit of adaptable design in the merchant world.