thats certainly the long term view
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
John Newman
The Bunker Group
Agree.
And because that info is not in the public domain, then the required number of VLS is pure speculation.
Yes it clear that the Spanish ship is capable of being equipped with 48 Mk 41 VLS, but as you said, if the RFT is 'less' than that amount, it could easily be reduced to 24 (or 32).
The Type 26 (again based on info for the UK version), appears to be equipped with 24 Mk 41 VLS and 24 canisters/cells for CAMM, the question would be 'if' the RAN's requirement was larger (32 or 48) could the existing design be modified to include that number? Who knows.
The FREMM appears to the one with the least amount of 'spare' real estate for any increase above 32, as I understand it, the current Italian version, there are 16 cells and 'space' for another 16.
Interesting link below:
Naval Analyses: Bergamini class (FREMM) frigates of the Italian Navy
If you scroll toward the bottom of the page there is very good model of an "Improved FREMM" which clearly show how tight space is between the bridge and the back of the main gun, 32 VLS appears to be the max (unless fitted somewhere else on the ship, as was proposed by the Germans with the Meko A400).
We are probably going to have to wait until early 2018 for the winner to be announced to see the final configuration, that is unless the contenders release more details (or allowed to release those details) prior to the announcement.
In any event, I hope that when the winner is announced, we can actually see what the other two had proposed.
Personally I'd like to see at least 48 VLS cells, why? Well over the 30 year life of the ships it allows for the introduction of other weapons beyond the quad packed ESSM and SM-2/6 (which would appear to be the initial weapons fit), weapons such as TLAM (which was proposed in the 2009 DWP for the Future Frigates), LRASM and possibly the VLS version of ASROC for example.
Anyway, we are just going to have to hold our breaths until early next year!!!
The Australian F125 proposal would have been differently configured, with a 32-cell VLS forward and a second 16-cell VLS midships and the RAM launchers (which are the primary reuse on F125) replaced by a pair of Phalanx CIWS. The design is relatively flexible, and Germany is also reusing it in a more heavily armed, slightly enlarged configuration too (for the 9,000-ton MKS180).
A F125 reusing the FFG equipment would have had its charm too. Though that'd have been more a low-manning patrol frigate, probably requiring readjustment of RAN strategies.
Poland was originally planning to replace its frigates with seven German-designed, Polish-built Meko A100 corvettes, same design as the German K130. The contract bombed, and the trade-off Polish components of the K130 were replaced too.
Poland then procured two OHPs from the USN. Those OHPs due to their state need somewhat urgent replacement. And it's not like they'll get the Australian frigates for free.
The current Polish military shopping list is worth around 12 billion Euro. The amount of money effectively transferred from Germany to Poland via the EU is around 12 billion Euro per year.
John your right in that it's a bit of awaiting game.
I can't say which of the three is best and what they will carry but I'll take a stab in the dark and guess it will be an improvement over an ANZAC with only 8VLS and no CIWS.
Not hard to envisage that any 6000t plus ship will not be without some street cred
Exciting days
Thanks S
What I think may be a plan would be to build three more destroyers based on the Spanish design, AWD mk II if you like,make them bigger than Mk1, capable of handling two helicopters, then 6 frigates of whichever design we prefer (at this stage I fancy the UK one). If we want to increase the number of ships in the surface fleet then build a number of small frigates which would fill a role in the RAN.
Pretty much what I've been saying since Labor failed to order a fourth DDG in 2010. At the time we were speculating that a continuous build of six, three batch one and three batch two would make a lot of sense and then only buying six ANZAC replacements of whatever type.
It sounds like a no brainier, especially when the infastructure is already in place (albeit the first ship would be ready before the ANZAC's are set to be retired).
But then again, we are talking the government again.
marine link op-ed on HMAS Darwin leaving FBW
HMAS Darwin Farewells The West
and Arunta heads off to the MEAO
http://www.marinelink.com/news/depl...-04-03&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=MR-ENews
HMAS Darwin Farewells The West
and Arunta heads off to the MEAO
http://www.marinelink.com/news/depl...-04-03&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=MR-ENews
TheRealist
Member
Makes a lot of sense. I've been thinking the same myself. Build them in batches with periodic improvements.
This shows the arrangement of the Missiles on the Type 26, This image link is old but it could still be relevant.
DSEI 2013 Highlights – The Type 26 Global Combat Ship - Think Defence.
I hope this provides a good look at how the missile launcher is arranged.
I do hope that the CAMM launchers are interchanged with MK41 Missile launchers.
Possibly allowing a possible 32 + cells.
DSEI 2013 Highlights – The Type 26 Global Combat Ship - Think Defence.
I hope this provides a good look at how the missile launcher is arranged.
I do hope that the CAMM launchers are interchanged with MK41 Missile launchers.
Possibly allowing a possible 32 + cells.
It might not be too far off the mark when you consider the continuing murmurs about Aegis Baseline 9. Three Originals to be updated to Baseline 9 and three additional but the money fairy would want to be in good form.
I wonder if the cost difference between an F 100 variant and BAEs hideously expensive T26 would make the above a possibility?
I don't normally engage in the wot ifs but the dragon flys signalling the start of the dry have got to me!
I would imagine it would have been cheaper to order a 4th AWD to begin with. I wonder how doable BMD is with the number of AWD's we have currently or if the 9VL combat system is compatible with the BMD capability of SM-6 or SM-3.
With the type 26 I had always though the CAMM 15 would be swapped for US VLS so a 32+16 configuration.
As much as I like the Type 26 simply continuing the production line of the Hobart would have been the simplest and probably cheapest option.
Has there ever been another case where a competition for a new frigate or destroyer included a design that was already in service with that navy?
Really there should never have been a selection competition for the SEA 5000 project in the first place. They should have just kept building more Hobart class ships and kept building them until a demonstratively better design became available.
Last edited:
And how would you know a demonstratively better design became available without a competition?
What you are saying is basically happening anyway - if the FREMM or Type26 don't prove to be demonstratively better, they will keep building (modified) F100s.
That's OK you can that ... but you don't need to cease production of the Hobart class while you wait for the results of the selection process.
I'll take it a step further to illustrate just how much money we wasted on the AWD project.
The costs and risks of the ship the RAN wanted, the Flight IIA Arleigh Burke, were very well understood, the lead yard on the project was very experienced in supporting overseas builds, two nations had successfully built their own versions of the ship, the parent navy had a very strong relationship with the RAN, and the RAN had over three decades of very successful service from ships from that source. In addition the RAN ideally wanted these ships ready to replace the the Perths as they retired, but would have accepted them following straight on from the ANZAC build, they were also willing to forgo upgrading the original four, already shagged, FFGs, so long as they got their new destroyers in a timely manner.
It is a simple fact that a timely order and build of three (or preferably four) enhanced Flight IIA Burkes from Transfield / Tenix at Williamstown would have negated the need for the expensive and delayed FFGUP, would have prevented the shipbuilding blackhole of the mid to late 2000s and its associated costs and would have prevented the loss of so many experienced and talented destroyer crewmen, by estimation, saving several billion. In fact I believe Williamstown could have built three, or possibly four, high end Burkes, if ordered in the late 90s, and had them in service and fully supported before the first FFGUP achieved IOC, for between four and five billion, i.e. the cost of the FFGUP, plus the cost over runs on the Hobarts, neither of which would have been required with Burkes entering service from the mid to late 2000s.
Following this line of thought that means there is six billion that wouldn't need to be budgeted for the AWD program and used for other things. Even factoring in the higher cost of ownership of the Burkes it would never get anywhere near the six billion saved by procuring them in the first place. Besides, being a US design the RAN could hook into existing USN projects to reduce crewing, improve efficiency and reliability, i.e. hybrid drive, replacement of fluid power systems with electric drive ones, increased automation etc.
How do I know this? I spent three years working with the people who could have done just this as they battled to make the F-100 build in a green fields shipyard and new workforce work.
Relevance to the current Sea 5000 discussion? Just imagine if we select FREMM or Type 26, the order is delayed, perhaps by a change of government, and lets say the WA mafia get their way and Austal get to ferk up all twelve OPVs leading to Techport being left stagnant for a couple of years........
Having just reread my original reply I though it may be worth doing a short version.
Changing design, especially after the current work force draws down (and certainly if ASC doesn't get any OPV work) may see the problems with the FFG and Hobart builds repeated, with the associated cost blowouts and schedule slips. The same was also seen on the final two River Class DEs built after a break in naval shipbuilding when the DDGs were ordered overseas, indicating what could happen even if a modified or Batch II F-100 is ordered after too long a break.
Taking these factors into account ordering even a single additional F-100 (though a batch of three would be an ideal minimum) could actually save the tax payer more than the theoretical extra cost of an AEGIS Destroyer over the proposed frigates. Looking at the bigger picture, had a simple evaluation and short listing taken place instead of the convoluted Kinard BS which resulted in the riskiest evolved option competing against the cheapest existing option, I believe we could have easily had a very different and likely more successful result.
Tod could answer this better but my understanding is that most of the change up is software with some hardware upgrades.
The space hungry monster is SPY 1.
- Status