Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[t68]

It's a pity that they could not put all the OPV in one yard with SA building JP2048 PH5 Straight after DDG's A bit like the UK building batch II rivers to keep the yard going.

 

[ASSAIL]

Unfortunately the AWD work force is already being run down with only 400 workers being retained across the board. The work force has already been gutted and the mistakes of the past have been made again.

I would assume that the white collar engineers, draftsmen, project managers would still be around, if not currently employed, knowing that a 30+ year career is just around the corner. These are the people who other posters say were the biggest lag for the AWD, getting them re adjusted into shipbuilding. Their lay off hasn't been that long and the corporate memory is still pretty fresh.
As far as the blue collar workforce has been reduced it will be quicker to reassemble than the start up for the Hobarts although I don't deny the difficulties ahead. This time they are not competing with a mining construction boom as they were in the past.

 

[hauritz]

SEA 5000 competition heats up with tender decision set for April


confirmation that the choice will be made in April

I have a feeling that the Canadians and the Americans will also be eyeing off the result of this competition as they both are running there own frigate competitions at the moment.

I really hope so. I don't see a big enough advantage in a specialised ASW hull such as the T26 to overhaul the benefits of an ongoing Navantia production run.
ASW is not primarily fought by surface ships, it is a submarine and air game with ship sensors a last resort and both of the other two contenders are/will be competent ASW platforms.
I've stated this several times before but commonality of ship management systems, damage control equipment and familiararity with general layout is a huge advantage for ease of training and posting flexibility for ships' companies.

Perhaps this is a selection process that should never have happened.

Instead they could have just made a determination as to whether or not the Hobart hull was suitable for the new frigate ... which apparently it is otherwise it would not have been shortlisted. That decision made they could have just continued on with a variant of the Hobart.

It may not be the best absolute ASW frigate ... but I think a lot of that is subjective anyway.

 

[StingrayOZ]

400 is still better than none. But it is still going to be a problem. Everything should have been made as a decision earlier, but it is too late now, I had hoped that perhaps a decision was possible very early in 2018 (or late 2017) allowing people be kept or bought on a bit early. Or maybe the OPV could have been pushed forward.

I would still imagine F-5000 would be easier than a whole new hull type. To build, to bring into service, to upgrade, to maintain etc.

 

[Volkodav]

I would assume that the white collar engineers, draftsmen, project managers would still be around, if not currently employed, knowing that a 30+ year career is just around the corner. These are the people who other posters say were the biggest lag for the AWD, getting them re adjusted into shipbuilding. Their lay off hasn't been that long and the corporate memory is still pretty fresh.
As far as the blue collar workforce has been reduced it will be quicker to reassemble than the start up for the Hobarts although I don't deny the difficulties ahead. This time they are not competing with a mining construction boom as they were in the past.

No, most of the redundancies have been in the white collar area, initially to make space for the Navantia "experts" but now to save money. The sad truth is they would be twiddling their thumbs on the OPV anyway, irrespective of how soon it could have been kicked off or how many were built. The only thing that could have prevented this would have been a fourth AWD ordered under Labor, followed by an accelerated frigate or more capable OCV program, or a second batch of three AWD being ordered under Abbott, followed by the new frigates.

 

[t68]

if they are talking prototyping would that give an indication that Navantia is the least likely to win other wise there would be no need for prototyping?

 

[Joe Black]

400 is still better than none. But it is still going to be a problem. Everything should have been made as a decision earlier, but it is too late now, I had hoped that perhaps a decision was possible very early in 2018 (or late 2017) allowing people be kept or bought on a bit early. Or maybe the OPV could have been pushed forward.

I would still imagine F-5000 would be easier than a whole new hull type. To build, to bring into service, to upgrade, to maintain etc.

As much as I know it would probably be not accepted by Tim Barrett, I reckon a split buy could work well - Build 3 F5000 and 6 T-26s. I don't think it is wise to jump onboard with the T-26 yet. I would rather RN and BAE iron out all the major issues being Australia commits to the T-26 class. Lessons should have been learnt from the T-45 Daring class.

There will be a lot of positives with a F-5000 order too, and especially if the Canadians come onboard with the F-5000 for their CSC program.

 

[StingrayOZ]

I can see the F-5000 being very promising platform. It will be interesting to see what happens with the FFG(X)

I think the 4th AWD would have been the best choice, I just think of the money saved not having to deliberately slowing the build, the efficiency building another awd, keeping everyone employed. But the decision as I recall was right in the middle of the pain of the AWD program.

Ships are expensive, hopefully the commitment to continous builds gets rid of this stop start insanity.
I see the US has announced the FFG(X) will be about $1b a ship, and that is for something I assume less capable than the AWD at a 20 ship build in existing yards.

New Frigate Program Heats Up As U.S. Navy Says It Will Pay Nearly $1B Per Ship

 

[ASSAIL]

if they are talking prototyping would that give an indication that Navantia is the least likely to win other wise there would be no need for prototyping?

It won't be a Hobart, its stated that there's 70% commonality with the SEA 5000 which is a large difference. How it's different we can only surmise at the moment but it will need a "prototype/first of Class/LRIP" or whatever you call it.
Remember a chimpanzee has 99% of the human genome and it's not the same, although.....some.....

 

[koala]

I can see the F-5000 being very promising platform. It will be interesting to see what happens with the FFG(X)

I think the 4th AWD would have been the best choice, I just think of the money saved not having to deliberately slowing the build, the efficiency building another awd, keeping everyone employed. But the decision as I recall was right in the middle of the pain of the AWD program.

Ships are expensive, hopefully the commitment to continous builds gets rid of this stop start insanity.
I see the US has announced the FFG(X) will be about $1b a ship, and that is for something I assume less capable than the AWD at a 20 ship build in existing yards.

New Frigate Program Heats Up As U.S. Navy Says It Will Pay Nearly $1B Per Ship

I found this to be an interesting article

The Navy's Rationale For Not Reactivating Perry Class Frigates Doesn't Float

Some circles in the US Navy are interested in bringing back the OHP frigates as coastal and antipiracy vessels.
I wonder why Australia should readily either sink ours or offload our Perry's before our AWD's are fully FOC or even commissioned or built. I thought with the FFG upgrade the remaining OHP's would be very capable in protecting the Australian coastline for many years to come and if also kept in working reserve could be a great training vessel and also free up our superior new majors for the main battles.
And if crewing is an issue a part Polynesian and Kiwi crew could be a solution

Just a thought, Cheer's

 

[oldsig127]

I found this to be an interesting article

The Navy's Rationale For Not Reactivating Perry Class Frigates Doesn't Float

Tyler Rogoway. Not a very authoritative source. On just about anything

oldsig

 

[AegisFC]

Tyler Rogoway. Not a very authoritative source. On just about anything

oldsig

He has no idea what he is talking about. The USN OHP's that havne't been sunk have been raided for parts for the international users there just are not that many left in reserve.

 

[alexsa]

I wonder if those savings will carry over to the new frigate program if the F-5000 is selected. The design reportedly has 70% commonality with the Hobart class which should help reduce the startup costs.

Don’t forget there will be the cost for the undercover build process that is now being built. This will add to the cost but needs to be seen as a long term benefit to the continuous build cycle

 

[ASSAIL]

Don’t forget there will be the cost for the undercover build process that is now being built. This will add to the cost but needs to be seen as a long term benefit to the continuous build cycle

Is the cost of the new production buildings being allocated to the SEA 5000 programme or has ASC infrastructure got an unrelated budget for them? The same goes for the new facility for SEA 1000 ?

 

[spoz]

The Osborne south facilities are now owned by Australian Naval Infrastructure Pty, and are totally separate from ASC. The intent, as I understand it, is that they will in effect be leased to whoever is building something although I have no idea how the “lease” will be set up or what conditions might be expected.

I think, but am not sure, that the same applies to the s/m facilities, current and future.

 

[alexsa]

Is the cost of the new production buildings being allocated to the SEA 5000 programme or has ASC infrastructure got an unrelated budget for them? The same goes for the new facility for SEA 1000 ?

I think the infrastructure costs will be spread acrsoss the continuous build plan and owned by a government entity, but the Osborne extension be used for SE5000 in the first instance. Know how policians and the press do there figures it is quite possibe some wil combine the costs.

There will need to be a new set to work programme in the new factility by the eventual operator of the facility and you can bet that this will be applied to SEA5000 noting ASC are building the two new OPVs suggesting this will be done in the current facility.

The new submarine construction will also be at a new facility and this will also be covered in the Australian Naval Infrstruture build as well as far as I can tell from the governments utterances on this.

The only facility that may sit outside this is the CIVMEC/Forjacs new facility at Henderson. This appears to be a commercial (i.e not owned by Australian Naval Infrastructure

 

[Joe Black]

An article to call for a larger RAN

A ‘clever’ Australia needs a larger, more potent navy
A ‘clever’ Australia needs a larger, more potent navy | The Strategist

I always think RAN is a little on the lean side considering the vast Indian and Pacific Ocean plus a very congested and contested South China Sea RAN would see itself get involved in. Perhaps an increase in number of surface combatants might be warranted in the future. I think RAN might want to consider how automation and even AI could be applied in future ships to reduce manning crew per ship too if that will help alleviate some of the restricted manpower issues.

 

[Joe Black]

Another great article. This time about UAV/UAS platforms onboard on RAN ships, especially how the ISR capability within RAN would grow with these platforms.

FIRST CONTACT – The Royal Australian Navy has taken its first tentative steps into unmanned aerial system operations.

The latest payload add‑on is Australian firm Sentient Vision Systems’ ViDAR (visual detection and ranging) which gives ScanEagle a capability for broad area maritime surveillance. ViDAR uses a secondary high resolution camera to scan 180 degrees along the aircraft path, overlaying its images with subsequent images to discern persistent pixel anomalies. A distant small wooden boat would not be noticed by the standard camera, but would be seen by ViDAR which can then cue it for a closer look by other sensors.

“It is a bit of a game changer for us,” LCDR Crowther said. “Clearly it’s subject to environmental conditions again because it works in the visual spectrum. On clear day it gets reliable hits beyond 15 nautical miles (25km). Sentient says their analysis shows it increases the search effectiveness of a ScanEagle about 80 times. That is mind blowing.”

Sentient Vision says ViDAR can scan a swathe 20 nautical miles (35km) wide, searching an area of more than 13,000 square nautical miles in 12 hours. It can detect wooden and rubber boats travelling at low and high speed, people in the water, and even submarine pericopes, and distinguish between them. One insider said the future for Australian industry in the growing UAS sector was more in developing the smart sensor packages than the actual platforms.

I'm extremely excited and proud that we Aussies have been able to innovate and improve the ScanEagle's capability with the introduction of ViDAR technology.

 

[PeterM]

An article to call for a larger RAN

A ‘clever’ Australia needs a larger, more potent navy
A ‘clever’ Australia needs a larger, more potent navy | The Strategist

I always think RAN is a little on the lean side considering the vast Indian and Pacific Ocean plus a very congested and contested South China Sea RAN would see itself get involved in. Perhaps an increase in number of surface combatants might be warranted in the future. I think RAN might want to consider how automation and even AI could be applied in future ships to reduce manning crew per ship too if that will help alleviate some of the restricted manpower issues.

A larger navy is good in principle. However, there are the factors needed to procure, operate and support any increase in capability, all of what will have considerable cost impacts, let alone the amount of time needed grow capability.

Realistically with the current plans, the RAN has been growing significantly in capability in recent years.

I appreciate the intent of the article, but I am curious as to what the author believes is the 'right' size for the RAN and how it is proposed to be funded?

 

[Geddy]

An article to call for a larger RAN

A ‘clever’ Australia needs a larger, more potent navy
A ‘clever’ Australia needs a larger, more potent navy | The Strategist

I always think RAN is a little on the lean side considering the vast Indian and Pacific Ocean plus a very congested and contested South China Sea RAN would see itself get involved in. Perhaps an increase in number of surface combatants might be warranted in the future. I think RAN might want to consider how automation and even AI could be applied in future ships to reduce manning crew per ship too if that will help alleviate some of the restricted manpower issues.

I would have thought that a more doable option would be to increase the offensive and defensive capabilities of a given platform rather than more vessels. CRAM and Tommahawk are just two example of what could be done.
A stronger long range offensive anti-ship capacity in the air would a cheaper way this same goals could be achieved.

Having seen 9 major ships of the fleet at Garden Island, on a rare visit to Sydney this week, I was impressed. Would like to see their crews given the best in equipment.