Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[Milne Bay]

River class Batch 1 is being withdrawn because we're buying Batch 2.

We're buying Batch 2 because we have a contract with BAE to spend a minimum amount on warships each year, meant to tie us into continuous build to avoid the waste inherent in stop-go.

Despite having that contract in place the MoD & politicians have failed to get their act together to order the planned ships, i.e. Type 26..

So we had to either give BAE the money for nothing, or order something.

Buying something has the advantages of keeping up workforce skills (one of the aims of the continuous build contract), & we can also get something better & newer than what we already have.

River Batch 2 was about the only thing that could start building quickly enough & would actually be useful.

So, we're not buying 'em because Batch 1 is thought to need replacing. It's the other way round.

It's a ghastly waste of money, entirely due to the shocking incompetence & indecisiveness of politicians, the MoD, & the RN high command.

If they are still in good condition then they can at least be onsold to another navy. Further to that the ships will remain in service, I presume, until each replacement is accepted int service itself.
The RAN has had decades of ships being withdrawn from service years before their replacements were ready - sometimes years before they were even ordered..
Still, that state of affairs in the UK is troubling to say the least.
MB

 

[alexsa]

True, probably doesn't hurt. Damen have also been selected for the icebreaker.
BTW there is a competition to name it.. Boaty McBoatface?

I would hope we get something of the size of the UK river class batch II. It would seem silly not to learn from the UK mistakes (batch I are being withdrawn?).

True - but both examples were, or are, built overseas (rightly so for these vessels). It is also notable that both the EGS and RGS were built by Damen as well.

The issue is compliance with the RFT and the Australian Industry content... You can have really good history but flounder on a rubbish package in so far as industry content is concerned.

 

[alexsa]

Sorry, double post

 

[Volkodav]

And again this is not a warship. It is a commercial vessel with a flight deck and some service equipment to support aviation training. While it appears to be a well managed project it is not the same as a military build with a combat system and weapons.

I like the Damen OPV product we need to compare apples with apples

So in a nutshell, being a commercial design from a competent commercial and military designer and builder, Sycamore is closer in survivability, capability and performance to an OPV than it is to an Armidale. Actually I think any competent person with inside knowledge of the Armidales would likely rate Sycamore as closer to a Hobart or Burke than an Armidale. That said, those in the know would probably agree an updated Fairmile D, HDML, Attack or Fremantle (or even Johnstons career ending canoe) would likely be more warship like and capable than an Armidale.

 

[Volkodav]

I suspect from my experience and interactions the potential for the same approach to be re-employed is not yet zero

Too many "expert's" with no defence, let alone shipbuilding or marine sustainment experience, who are brought in because of their perceived expertise in their commercial areas, who actually lack any under standing of the time scales, logistics and complexity of major capital projects. On top of that they come in believing the political and media bs about overly fussy, wasteful, inefficient and out of date culture, practices and processes in shipbuilding and think they are going to sweep through the place with a new broom and save billions.

End result:
Warehouses (that cost millions) full of equipment that's requires regular inspection and maintenance while in storage, that is obsolescent before it can be fitted to the ship.
Material, subcontracted fabrications and equipment that are accepted based on written / digital affirmations' rather than inspection or physical /functional assessment, that are discovered to be out of spec, non compliant or just unusable as or after they are being fitted.
Competent contractors who ask for advice assistance to get it right the first time being told to sort it out themselves as helping them may make it hard to sue them for breach of contract if it is wrong (this one really sh!ts me as they really did refuse to help contractors because of liability concerns).

 

[StingrayOZ]

River class Batch 1 is being withdrawn because we're buying Batch 2.

We're buying Batch 2 because we have a contract with BAE to spend a minimum amount on warships each year, meant to tie us into continuous build to avoid the waste inherent in stop-go.

Despite having that contract in place the MoD & politicians have failed to get their act together to order the planned ships, i.e. Type 26..

So we had to either give BAE the money for nothing, or order something.

Buying something has the advantages of keeping up workforce skills (one of the aims of the continuous build contract), & we can also get something better & newer than what we already have.

River Batch 2 was about the only thing that could start building quickly enough & would actually be useful.

So, we're not buying 'em because Batch 1 is thought to need replacing. It's the other way round.

It's a ghastly waste of money, entirely due to the shocking incompetence & indecisiveness of politicians, the MoD, & the RN high command.

Wow, I was aware there was some arrangement, didn't know it was that wacky (or more correctly had left to become that wacky).

But Batch I is different from Batch II. It's bigger (90m), has helo capability (still no hanger). Greater flare at the bow, seems more seaworthy. Longer endurance etc.

At least they built them in batches!

 

[swerve]

If they are still in good condition then they can at least be onsold to another navy. Further to that the ships will remain in service, I presume, until each replacement is accepted int service itself.
The RAN has had decades of ships being withdrawn from service years before their replacements were ready - sometimes years before they were even ordered..
Still, that state of affairs in the UK is troubling to say the least.
MB

Yes, the surplus batch 1 Rivers should be possible to sell on, & of course it's much better to commission a replacement then retire the old ship than the other way round.

The big problem here isn't the ships, but what led to their procurement. The government tied itself in to spending for the purpose of forcing itself & the bureaucracy to order ships on time, then failed to do so. Dooooh!

 

[Milne Bay]

Yes, the surplus batch 1 Rivers should be possible to sell on, & of course it's much better to commission a replacement then retire the old ship than the other way round.

The big problem here isn't the ships, but what led to their procurement. The government tied itself in to spending for the purpose of forcing itself & the bureaucracy to order ships on time, then failed to do so. Dooooh!

Jeez - and I thought that our politicians were useless.
That is some cluster#u@k
MB

 

[rockitten]

Yes, the surplus batch 1 Rivers should be possible to sell on, & of course it's much better to commission a replacement then retire the old ship than the other way round.

The big problem here isn't the ships, but what led to their procurement. The government tied itself in to spending for the purpose of forcing itself & the bureaucracy to order ships on time, then failed to do so. Dooooh!

Hi swerve (or anyone here), would you mind if you can educate me a bit, does the Riverclass OPV built on Mil spec (as a war-fighting vessel with all necessary blast and fire protections) or civilian spec (practically a big yacht/fishing boat in grey paint-work)?

The reason I am asking that is because, there are "some rumor(s)" about the new DE/OCV project in Taiwan: a yard "out-bidden" others by making the vessel in civilian spec, but the yard claim it's bid fits "all specification" in the RoT documents.........

 

[gf0012-aust]

for a brief moment I thought that people were trying to resurrect the whitby/leanders....

 

[ngatimozart]

for a brief moment I thought that people were trying to resurrect the whitby/leanders....

Jeez don't give the poms that idea.

 

[swerve]

Hi swerve (or anyone here), would you mind if you can educate me a bit, does the Riverclass OPV built on Mil spec (as a war-fighting vessel with all necessary blast and fire protections) or civilian spec (practically a big yacht/fishing boat in grey paint-work)?

Somewhere in between, AFAIK, but don't take my word for it. I don't know much.

One thing I do know is that the Batch 2s are more warlike than the Batch 1s, e.g. better protection for the magazine (kevlar armour has been reported), increased watertight integrity, improved firefighting, etc.

 

[SpazSinbad]

MATV Sycamore Completes Sea Trials 20 Apr 2017 Amelia McMahon

"...MV Sycamore was put through her paces with an extensive testing program of all onboard military systems. This included testing of the air traffic radar, flight deck lighting and firefighting, flight deck communication systems and helicopter traverse installation procedures....

...Damen also added that the MATV will enable the RAN to accomplish numerous other secondary tasks, such as undertaking torpedo and mine recovery operations, navigation training, dive support, officer sea familiarisation, target towing and consort duties, as well as unmanned aerial vehicle support.

The storage capacity of the vessel provides the RAN with the option to mobilise the vessel in humanitarian relief operations...."

https://www.faaaa.asn.au/matv-sycamore-completes-sea-trials/

PHOTO: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/MATV-Sycamore_840x487.jpg

 

[MARKMILES77]

Had wondered why Christopher Pyne announced that Aegis and the 9LV combat management systems were both being considered for the future frigates.
Surely the 9LV was a shoe in. Much of the development work done in Australia. Already integrated with CEAFAR radars. Already used on the current frigates, used on the LHDs, going to be used on the new tankers and probably on the new OPVs. RAN seemingly satisfied with the way it functions.Why even announce this when it is no contest. Is it just to create the perception of some sort of competitive tension?

Suddenly realised I am totally wrong!
All of the above is true, but it is not enough and Aegis will likely be the Combat Management System of the new frigates.
Why?
To ensure the frigates have the potential for Ballistic Missile Defence in the future and not just the AWDs.
If Australia wanted to give the frigates a BMD capability and they went with 9LV, they would have to completely develop that capability in 9LV themselves.
Not a minor task.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Had wondered why Christopher Pyne announced that Aegis and the 9LV combat management systems were both being considered for the future frigates.
Surely the 9LV was a shoe in. Much of the development work done in Australia. Already integrated with CEAFAR radars. Already used on the current frigates, used on the LHDs, going to be used on the new tankers and probably on the new OPVs. RAN seemingly satisfied with the way it functions.Why even announce this when it is no contest. Is it just to create the perception of some sort of competitive tension?

Suddenly realised I am totally wrong!
All of the above is true, but it is not enough and Aegis will likely be the Combat Management System of the new frigates.
Why?
To ensure the frigates have the potential for Ballistic Missile Defence in the future and not just the AWDs.
If Australia wanted to give the frigates a BMD capability and they went with 9LV, they would have to completely develop that capability in 9LV themselves.
Not a minor task.

Depends on what level of BMD capability they are likely to operate. SM-6 is capable of Terminal BMD. I don't imagine SM-6 will be that difficult to integrate into 9LV. In this case it is just BMD is just a bit faster target being intercepted a bit higher.

SM-3 however would pose greater challenges, as you really need great level of capability to intercept a BM or orbiting object mid course. SM-6 is likely to be cued by the launching ship, where as SM-3 is likely to be reliant on mutliple ships and multiple sensors.

I would think SM-6 is likely, SM-3 is unlikely for the frigates. If we want SM-3 then that should really be pushed over to the AWD's and they should have their Aegis baseline upgraded.

 

[SteveR]

Had wondered why Christopher Pyne announced that Aegis and the 9LV combat management systems were both being considered for the future frigates.
Surely the 9LV was a shoe in.

Suddenly realised I am totally wrong!
All of the above is true, but it is not enough and Aegis will likely be the Combat Management System of the new frigates.
Why?

If Australia wanted to give the frigates a BMD capability and they went with 9LV, they would have to completely develop that capability in 9LV themselves.
Not a minor task.

Actually I think the major advantage for AEGIS over 9LV for Frigates with an ASW priority is the integration of the MH-60R 'Romeos'.

AEGIS Hawklink and the forthcoming AEGIS 10 Baseline are designed to fully integrate the Romeo's in a way the 9LV does not do, and probably never could because of ITAR constraints.

Future Romeo integration improvements will role out as AEGIS baselines emerge every 5-6 years.

 

[MARKMILES77]

D If we want SM-3 then that should really be pushed over to the AWD's and they should have their Aegis baseline upgraded.

That is the problem.
We don't have enough AWDs for that to be the solution to the BMD problem.
3 ships are inadequate.
Hence why the frigates will need that capability.

 

[hauritz]

That is the problem.
We don't have enough AWDs for that to be the solution to the BMD problem.
3 ships are inadequate.
Hence why the frigates will need that capability.

How realistic is it to cram all of that into a frigate size ship?

It seems to me that we might be trying to fit the capabilities of the Hobart along with improved ASW capability and a second helicopter into a 7000 ton hull.

This seems to go beyond what the Italian, British and Spanish plan for their own versions of these ships.

 

[MARKMILES77]

How realistic is it to cram all of that into a frigate size ship?

It seems to me that we might be trying to fit the capabilities of the Hobart along with improved ASW capability and a second helicopter into a 7000 ton hull.

Not sure how realistic but having Aegis at least gives you the option.

This seems to go beyond what the Italian, British and Spanish plan for their own versions of these ships.

They don't have North korea threatening them with nuclear destruction.
I think Ballistic Missile Defence is going to become a focus of Australian defence policy.

 

[hauritz]

They don't have North korea threatening them with nuclear destruction.
I think Ballistic Missile Defence is going to become a focus of Australian defence policy.

I sincerely hope that this doesn't become a focus of Australian Defence Policy.

If it does I can see tens of billions of dollars being pissed up against a wall trying to develop an Anti-Ballistic Missile Defence system which will probably not work anyway.

Ballistic missiles aren't like cruise missiles. The further away they are fired the higher they fly. The trajectory of a ballistic missile fired from North Korea to Australia will effectively put it out of the range of any surface to air missile system until it enters its terminal phase.

The best bet would be for Australia to support the US in basing the THAAD missile system in South Korea. The best chance of intercepting North Korean ballistic missiles is during the launch phase.