That article succeeded in confusing me further as it mentioned neither of the F105 or F110, only the F100.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
I absolutely agree, but as Volk and others have said there are many subsystems on the F-104/5/AWD that are no longer compliant or are obsolete, such as the diesels, and what better place for Navantia to look for their replacement than to its latest design the F-110.
Both the Australian Navy's new frigate and the F110 are due around the same time. I suspect that these ship designs will share a lot of the same systems.
But the F-110 isn't built yet.
The F-110 is a smaller less capable version of the F-105. A lot of its systems are going to be for a smaller ship, with less margin for upgrades than the base F-105 design. While not really clear what is in the F-110, if its based off some of the concepts of the Fridtjof Nanson frigate, they can keep those systems.
The F100, F104 and F105 are different baselines of the same design.
The Hobart class baseline is based on the F104 as it was the final baseline completed of the first batch. The Hobarts specifically also include selected features of the F105, which was in improved / batch 2 design, being designed and built almost concurrently with the Australian program. Finally, the Hobarts also have certain features specific to RAN requirements.
The F310 are a different, smaller design with major differences in role capability and arrangement. For instance, apart from SPY-1F and obvious differences in armament, they have a completely different machinery arrangement with a single GT, two diesels and a very large gear box connecting them.
The F110 is a new design again with a completely different combat system and a new propulsion system, selected in part because it is much quieter than those in the F100, F310, or F105/Hobarts (they use larger more powerful diesels for better cruise performance).
The Hobart class baseline is based on the F104 as it was the final baseline completed of the first batch. The Hobarts specifically also include selected features of the F105, which was in improved / batch 2 design, being designed and built almost concurrently with the Australian program. Finally, the Hobarts also have certain features specific to RAN requirements.
The F310 are a different, smaller design with major differences in role capability and arrangement. For instance, apart from SPY-1F and obvious differences in armament, they have a completely different machinery arrangement with a single GT, two diesels and a very large gear box connecting them.
The F110 is a new design again with a completely different combat system and a new propulsion system, selected in part because it is much quieter than those in the F100, F310, or F105/Hobarts (they use larger more powerful diesels for better cruise performance).
Utter tosh ......... using the Burke as an example, systems can be updated. You are not constrained to using the same diesel as manufacturers do offer updated and complaint systems based on the same foot print.
As an example may Tier I and II compliant engines are largely the same unit but with different emission control systems and engine mapping.
The same goes for all systems such as internal Comms, lighting etc etc. To suggest that a hull design is limited to specific systems is simply nonsense.
Even the merchant marine know this where a bog standard five hatch handy size bulkier built for an operator we feature 'compliant' equipment based on the date of keel lay.
The problem defence has had is they order all ship sets up front which means some of the gear is quite old by the time you get to the end of a 15 year build run. The same would be true of the F110 ....... noting this is a paper design.
The advantage of the F104/5 derivative is that the form of the ship hull and compartments, its piping and main propulsions arrangements as well as the VLS and main gun arrangements will essentially be the same. This makes it much easier to step into series production as it has been done before and the lessons have been learnt.
A new ship (aka T26 - which is not in service. Or FREMM) would need this process to be rebuilt with the associated risk that the issue we had with the first of the AWD's may reoccur.
All true but one thing I should point out is ASC has proven themselves to be extremely capable of bashing steel and during the Hobart built was even feeding required design changes back into Navantia for their approval rather than asking them what to do and sitting on their hands waiting for an answer. So long as too many people haven't been made redundant they will be able to apply their skills and experience to any of the short listed designs. If the teams have been broken up however it still won't matter which design is selected as the skills and experience won't be there anymore anyway.
The number of good people who have already gone due to being displaced or made redundant when Abbott brought Navantia in to "fix" the program, is criminal. Many of them were the ones who were warning what was going to happen if enough wasn't invested in engineering and build assurance. They were the ones that rolled out and built up those functions on a shoestring, and the one's who did the heavy lifting and planning when the word came to do things the way they had been saying it needed to be done since day one. Then in the ultimate political BS Canberra decided to pay Navantia to implement the plan the Alliance had not only come up with but had almost finished implementing, because the PM and Def Min said the project was broken and that Australia had forgotten how to build ships and to just leave the people fixing things to finish the job would prove the government were lying all along for political reasons.
And another enlightening article on the history, advantages, but also the increased cost of the Soryu fitted with Lithium batteries, noting that the offer to Oz may have been for Toshiba batteries rather than the Japanese selection of Yuasa (who make the 787 batteries):
https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/defence-notes/japan-leads-way-li-ion-submarines/
Muar River
Member
This will be interesting to watch the negotiations between the Federal SA members of the Upper and Lower Houses and the SA Government. I'd be interested to learn your views on this matter.
Techport ship-building facility in Adelaide at centre of funding stoush between Federal, SA Governments - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
Techport ship-building facility in Adelaide at centre of funding stoush between Federal, SA Governments - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
I t has been confirmed that Australias new frigate will use Standard SM-2 Block IIIA medium range missiles.
RAN Future Frigates to carry SM-2 Block IIIA anti-air missiles | IHS Jane's 360
I am not sure that there was any real doubt about it ... but it is nice to hear it confirmed.
12 ships armed with SM-2 would make the RAN a potent little fleet in this part of the world.
RAN Future Frigates to carry SM-2 Block IIIA anti-air missiles | IHS Jane's 360
I am not sure that there was any real doubt about it ... but it is nice to hear it confirmed.
12 ships armed with SM-2 would make the RAN a potent little fleet in this part of the world.
Hauritz, scroll down a bit further and their is an article on the break up of ASC:
ASC on track to be split up in mid-2017 | IHS Jane's 360
This raises a few questions for me.
1. Is the submarine building part of the ship building component of the ASC business?
2. Is DCNS using ASC to build the new submarines?
3. Do DCNS have to use ASC as the submarine builder?
4. Are DCNS going to develop their own yard for building the new submarines?
We have had a number of discussions around this particular subject in the past, but time has moved on, decisions have been made and I am a little unclear as to the outcomes. I know that the government is committed to building the submarines in South Australia, but that does not necessarily mean it would be ASC. Is any one at liberty to set me straight on this.
Ignoring the fact that is was announced that ASC would undertake much of the build when the contract was awarded if you look at it logically DCNS would be stupid to try and cut ASC out.
ASC has the infrastructure, personnel and local contacts already (or will have them assuming we dont lose too many personnel), For DCNS to try and start from scratch would put them on a bad start while also irking the most likely company that would be maintaining them.
Nope, I see ASC being the prime with DCNS being in a similar position to Navantia providing the design (Hopefully not to Navantia's same standards) and technical help, possibly some marginal build work but overall much of it will be done in Australia utilizing as much existing personnel and infrastructure as possible.
not to put too fine a point on it - but the DCNS contract is not a contract yet - the next few years are about negotiation
if it can't be negotiated the Commonwealth can select another builder
so DCNS (unless they have had a complete brain fart) will not be jeopardising the core elements of the contract and the Govts political domestic intent
if it can't be negotiated the Commonwealth can select another builder
so DCNS (unless they have had a complete brain fart) will not be jeopardising the core elements of the contract and the Govts political domestic intent
t68
Well-Known Member
They will push as hard as they can but know which side there bread is buttered.
GF have you ever seen a company win the bid then get oveturned at contract negotiation, might have happened on te small stuff but can't remember if it's happened on the big ticket stuff.
Voonobie, you came to the same conclusion I did, I then thought about it and started to question some of the outcomes.
The submarines could still be built in SA by DCNS under a contract with ASC infrastructure. ASC submarine maintenance will only maintain the finished product, so it would not matter who actually builds the submarines.
The framework also gives the Commonwealth an opportunity to sell ASC Shipbuilding if they do not want to retain it, and to make a quick buck in the process. ASC Shipbuilding could get sold of to a third party, such as the winner of the Frigate project, or even to DCNS.
Under this new framework I do not see ASC ship building being guaranteed the build project for either the submarines or the frigates, but both projects could be built under an agreement with ASC Infrastructure. What it actually allows for, is for any company to choose to enter a contract with ASC infrastructure to set up a ship building operation or to use an existing entity to build the ships for that company if they do not want to set up an operation in Australia.
Just saw GF's post and understand where he is coming from.
It will be interesting to see what outcomes the future will deliver.
Last edited:
And you would expect the SM6 would also be carried if procured (noting this appears to be very likely given the content of the defence white paper).
If the CEA suite lives up to expectation they they will be a very capable vessel
John Newman
The Bunker Group
See the link below:
No Cookies | The Advertiser
The article shows a graphic of what DCNS was 'proposing', during its bid, for the expansion of the ASC facility.
Will it be exactly as proposed? Who knows.
EDIT: Just went back to have a look at the link and the 'paywall' is up now, buggar!
Anyway, what the graphic showed was an expansion of the existing ASC submarine facility and not (as is often suggested by the Techport 'flythrough' video) a completely new facility built further back on vacant land behind the existing ASC submarine site.
http://www.techportaustralia.com/media/audio-visual/techport-flythrough
John Newman
The Bunker Group
If the Janes report is accurate, yes they will be very capable, could almost call them DDG's not FFG's!!
I'd assume that ESSM would still part of the weapons fit too?
- Status