Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[40 deg south]

I am surprised the German type 125 didn't get a look in? I thought it ticked a lot of boxes

Australia Shortlisted Navantia Fincantieri and BAE Systems for the SEA5000 ASW Frigate Program

The Navy Recognition website has a piece up that helpfully provides the major dimensions of the short-listed contenders, although in the case of the T26 they are a bit speculative.

From a design risk point of view, presumable the Italian FREMM is the safest (already in water) followed by the F-105 (modification of existing design) with T-26 (computer model only) dead last.

For construction risk, the F-105 has to be the safest bet (familiar contractor, similar to existing design). I'd put T-26 in second place, because of the existing BAE shipyard and similar language and culture. FREMM last, as Fincantieri has no existing Australian presence I am aware of.

As to the merits of the different designs, I wouldn't have a clue. Other than to note that the T-26 is (or at least should be) half a generation more advanced than the two rivals, based on its more recent development.

 

[StingrayOZ]

If type 26 is chosen (if!), as our navy is ordering more hulls than RN (9 vs 8) will that make us have a bigger say in aspects such as final design, schedule priority or work share?

I would say the RAN would have significant input into the design and have had so, since its inception.

Key advantages of the Type 26 IMO:

• Its bigger. Its been steadily packing on volume and now seems to have more beam than a Burke. While slightly shorter than a Burke, theres not much in it, and in terms of growth room, its apparently over "8000+t" (which is getting close to type 45 size). Plenty of growth room.. It would be able to handle pretty massive radars located pretty high up. A very significant missile load out etc. Its wider and longer than a F-125 for example.
  
• Its more modern. F-100 series is ancient. FREMM is also pretty old. Type 26 crew at ~110, would indicate more automation over even a F-125. MT30 40MW GT, pool of diesels, it is arguably the most modern setup. The single more powerful GT will mean lower operating costs compared to twin GT (or quad) setups. The 4 diesels will mean lower costs (less gt), greater range, more electrical capacity. Electrical capacity will be miles more modern, suitable for ships of the future with high energy weapon and systems. Even for things like HVAC.
  

Operating costs ($'s, manpower, availability etc) are going to be quite difficult to beat. Particularly over a large fleet of say 9 ships.

The Type 26 is the dark horse in this race IMO. It would be worth looking at it hard. Something like this fitted with 64+VLS, full spec AUSPAR radar (and the electricity generation to support any sort of radar you wanted), all the assorted systems, would make for a very powerful "frigate". With all the other features we were looking for in a frigate. The money saved over the life of the ships would be massive.

Given the choice between an Type 26 and F-125, with the same level of risk, I can see why you might wait out for the Type 26.

Of course we would have a problem where our frigates are bigger (significantly), better armed and more capable than our destroyer, but I'm sure the RAN can deal with this. Perhaps name them a destroyer as well.

In the geopolitical environment at the moment, I personally would be getting the biggest, most capable and best equipment I can. Particularly if in the long run it will save money.

While the F-105 hull is the quickest and cheapest to procure, if we were to ditch it, ditch it for something much improved. I would probably look at building the F-105 successor on that type of hull. The type 26 you could build an AWD successor off that hull.

 

[hauritz]

The F-105 is an old design that will need to be completely revamped. When I think of re-purposing old designs my mind goes back to Australia's attempt to re-invent the Seasprite ... and we all know how that turned out.

Looking at all three ships I don't know which would be the riskiest ... but I think you have to look at the upside as well as the downside when considering which ship will be the best for Australia's requirements.

For that reason would tend to lean towards the Type 26 simply because I think that the potential benefits will outweigh the risks.

If Australia has had input into its design then it should be the ship that best meets our requirements.

 

[hairyman]

I noticed that South Korea has recently ordered three more Aegis ships, and Japan has ordered two more Aegis ships..
If we were patient enough and ordered the Type 26, we would have no need for additional AWD's, as previously pointed out, the T26 are bigger and better armed than the AWD's, and I suspect, cheaper.

 

[Redlands18]

3 decades of poor decision making that left us without a replacement for the Perth class AWDs, then ended up building an ageing design that is 3 years late and could be at best no better as Air Warfare ships than the ASW frigates. Maybe we should call the ships Cruisers as the type 26 as quite often been compared to Colonial Cruisers of 100 yrs ago.
I wonder how good an ASW frigate the Gibbs & Cox design would have made, would have put us in a much better position to follow on from the AWDs.

 

[StingrayOZ]

I wonder how good an ASW frigate the Gibbs & Cox design would have made, would have put us in a much better position to follow on from the AWDs.

IMO the Type 26 is shaping up that missing on the mini-burke won't be big issue. Your at the same approximate size, able to support even larger radars, but with a much more modern and lower life time cost propulsion setup and far lower crewing requirements. Burkes are great ships for the USN, but like a lot of the USN stuff, it would quickly burn holes in a budget like the RAN's. The Burke propulsion, while effective, isn't the last word in efficiency or low cost, and arguably don't really suit RAN CONOPS. How often do we really tear around at 30kts+?

While I was a big proponent of a 4th awd, that ship has well and truly sailed. TBH the F-100 design is looking smaller and smaller by the day, more and more out of place. 9 replacement frigates is a better call given the fact the AUSPAR looks very capable, and the hulls are likely to be bigger, more modern and more capable than the AWD.

The type 26 seems to be designed from the outset for 64 VLS (room for more?). I wouldn't be surprised (IMO) if RAN requirements are pushing the ship in many of its details, so far in that the RN is shrinking its buy because its getting a lot bigger/capable than initially expected. I wouldn't be surprised if the RAN ships are much better spec'd than the RN ones, and much closer to 8000t than 6000t. Colonial cruiser indeed. Whats the largest ship we can build at Techport? Limited by shiplift?

ABC is reporting a decision on the subs will be announced next week. Rumors have a European is preferred at this point in time (Gasp).

Submarine deal: Successful bid for new Royal Australian Navy boats to be announced next week - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

The ABC understands Cabinet's National Security Committee discussed submarines last night.

It is believed either France or Germany is the frontrunner to build a new fleet to replace the Royal Australian Navy's ageing Collins Class subs

Can't complain that nothing is happening.. ~$100 billion in rolling build ships and submarines on the books. Costed, an soon to be announced.

 

[vonnoobie]

Whats the largest ship we can build at Techport? Limited by shiplift?

ABC is reporting a decision on the subs will be announced next week. Rumors have a European is preferred at this point in time (Gasp).

Submarine deal: Successful bid for new Royal Australian Navy boats to be announced next week - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)


Can't complain that nothing is happening.. ~$100 billion in rolling build ships and submarines on the books. Costed, an soon to be announced.

The Shiplift at Techport is capable of lifting 9,300 tonnes so still well within any possible ship's that we will be looking at for at least the next 2 decades and that is with out expansion. Dimension are 156 x 34 meters. It has been built though with the option to expand the dimensions to 210 meters long with a lift capcity of 22,000 tonnes so we will be able to easily build any of our future surface combatants and even the HMAS Choules if need be (or it's future replacement).

In regards to the submarines, if the European's are favoured then please let that be political correct speak for the German's! if the Japanese are out of favour then I'm sure they have a reason for it but god damn let's not go down the French route ever again.

 

[hauritz]

So much for going for a proven design.

If a European sub gets up it may have implications for other projects such as the future frigate.

All of a sudden the type 26 doesn't look to be that seriously disadvantaged by not being in service.

 

[StingrayOZ]

The Shiplift at Techport is capable of lifting 9,300 tonnes so still well within any possible ship's that we will be looking at for at least the next 2 decades and that is with out expansion. Dimension are 156 x 34 meters. It has been built though with the option to expand the dimensions to 210 meters long with a lift capcity of 22,000 tonnes so we will be able to easily build any of our future surface combatants and even the HMAS Choules if need be (or it's future replacement).

IMO - We should lengthen our frigate replacement to 156m (ie an extra 6 m over the Type 26, only 3m over a standard FREMM). To allow for an upgraded number of VLS. My concern about the Type 26 is how many strike length VLS without compromising its many other aspects (hanger, flex deck, flight deck, etc). But it will be the length of the ships that will become an issue when we replace the AWD (far into the future?). I'm not sure 64 is ideal in this environment (now the Type 052D is being built in numbers - could be exported too). If you look at what Korea, Japan and the US have (and are using in the SCS) they are bigger than that.

In regards to the submarines, if the European's are favoured then please let that be political correct speak for the German's! if the Japanese are out of favour then I'm sure they have a reason for it but god damn let's not go down the French route ever again.

It churns you guts a bit doesn't it? Don't know how accurate it is, but probably indicates that I don't think this race was a clear and easy victory. If its better than the Japanese proposal, then it better be bloody good.

 

[kaz]

I'd best be cautious about articles such as these, remember the reports months prior that TKMS was out of the race.

 

[Vulcan]

Here's a nice render of the Australianised Type 26 doing the rounds on twitter.

 

[Redlands18]

It makes you think that the Japanese bid has come up short somewhere along the line if not technically than politically. I think it will be the type 216 built in Adelaide, but than again i had the type 125 as the Frigate favorite. It will be interesting to see if there is any noise out of SA this week about pushing the govt to build the boats there.

 

[Oberon]

In regards to the submarines, if the European's are favoured then please let that be political correct speak for the German's! if the Japanese are out of favour then I'm sure they have a reason for it but god damn let's not go down the French route ever again.

Something Christopher Pyne said on Sky News a couple of weeks ago about a <b> regional </b> submarine building and maintenance facility in SA made me think he was talking about the German bid.

 

[gf0012-aust]

That's just too funny, but pretty normal for them too !!

Most would be amazed at how brazen they are, just turning up like you are meant to be there works on occasion, I remember this one time........oops better not mention that

In Chinese circles they are pretty well paid and trained Journo's

I was at a sub warfare conference in Hawai'i and the major US primes had models of subs on display (Seawolf, Virginia, LA+). they had an outside area open for public viewing

for 2 days that had small covers over the stern of these models implying that they were "true" facsimiles. (they weren't, they had props that were reverse pitch and back to front and would never have worked even if those subs did have big arse props)

on the 3rd day they went through this pantomine of dropping one of the covers and then furiously pretended to panic as they tried to cover the bums of those sub models back up.

there were chinese "tourists" furiously photographing and filming the subs while they were "undressed".

the company staff almost gave themselves heart attacks laughing so much at all these "tourists" furiously photographing everything and anything they could see.

it was pretty lame, but hysterically funny at the same time.

 

[StingrayOZ]

It makes you think that the Japanese bid has come up short somewhere along the line if not technically than politically. I think it will be the type 216 built in Adelaide, but than again i had the type 125 as the Frigate favorite. It will be interesting to see if there is any noise out of SA this week about pushing the govt to build the boats there.

I wouldn't bet on that info being accurate. But they are widely reporting it. The Japanese are here in Sydney harbor. It would seem to indicate it was a close run race. No one is walking this in. I think you would be nuts to think the Germans and the Japanese aren't doing everything they can to win this.

Something Christopher Pyne said on Sky News a couple of weeks ago about a <b> regional </b> submarine building and maintenance facility in SA made me think he was talking about the German bid.

Liberal MP Christopher Pyne was getting high praise from the Labor SA Premier. The level of love was extremely high. Something like saved the state, hell of a guy, hero for south Australia.

 

[gf0012-aust]

So much for going for a proven design.

If a European sub gets up it may have implications for other projects such as the future frigate.

All of a sudden the type 26 doesn't look to be that seriously disadvantaged by not being in service.

everyone of those news reports is a frantic guess.

nobody from NSC or cabinet will be telling anyone the outcome - the issues surrounding corruption of the tender process would mean that every vendor would run the risk of submitting $5-10m dollar responses for nought - and the disgruntled primes could then challenge the process under probity breach issues.

I can tell you they they are all whistling dixie - any claim has a 33% chance of being right - it does not mean that anyone had inside information - and I can assure you that no one has inside info no matter how much they might be trying to imply inside knowledge

 

[Muar River]

Naïve perhaps but has been at least one report about limitations on the supply of the US combat system.

 

[Todjaeger]

There is also the possibility with rolling builds that the RAN builds hulls 10, 11 and 12 as AWD updates taking advantage of the economies of scale achieved with the Perth. The original three AWD could be attractive buys being sold off relatively early.

I somehow doubt they would be able to be sold off. Or at least, not without ripping out Aegis and the SPY-1 arrays and associated control stations, wiring, etc. FMS requirements and conditions on disposal would dictate how portions (perhaps the whole design?) have to be dealt with. IIRC the Spanish vessel the AWD is based off, is itself based off a design from Gibbs & Cox, so there could be US IP involved in the hull as well.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I somehow doubt they would be able to be sold off. Or at least, not without ripping out Aegis and the SPY-1 arrays and associated control stations, wiring, etc. FMS requirements and conditions on disposal would dictate how portions (perhaps the whole design?) have to be dealt with. IIRC the Spanish vessel the AWD is based off, is itself based off a design from Gibbs & Cox, so there could be US IP involved in the hull as well.

they won't get sold off - the engineering deconstruction to meet ITARs obligations would be prohibitive

 

[Raven22]

The type 26 seems to be designed from the outset for 64 VLS (room for more?).

What makes you say that? The RN specced Type 26 is expected to have 48 CAMM launchers, but only 24 strike length VLS. In the Australian spec it is expected to be modified to have 48 Mk-41 cells, but certainly no more than that.

I can't imagine why the Type 26 would be designed to have 64 cells when neither the RN or any expected export customers (RAN) want that many.