Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
What are you talking about? The Arafura-class OPV (SEA1180) build programme is already split, with the first two currently under construction at ASC's Osborne SA facility, with the remaining 10 vessels of the class to be built by Civmec in Henderson WA.
An interim build would have to be simple ie: an OPV. Taking more of the builds from WA while possible would have two negative impacts, the WA mob would scream bloody murder while the industry and capabilities we are building up their to build our smaller ships in a continuous basis would be broken before it's started
If we want an interim build it needs to be something simple that we can bring forward or replace something that didn't need to be replaced yet. For the Navy their isn't really anything that fits that bill so it would come down to border force. Some of their ships would benefit from being replaced with an Arufura class even scaled down in capability from the RAN version.
If you want an interim build that is the one that could be done quickly and make the most sense.
If we want an interim build it needs to be something simple that we can bring forward or replace something that didn't need to be replaced yet. For the Navy their isn't really anything that fits that bill so it would come down to border force. Some of their ships would benefit from being replaced with an Arufura class even scaled down in capability from the RAN version.
If you want an interim build that is the one that could be done quickly and make the most sense.
protoplasm
Active Member
Yep, the simplest way to avoid a small valley between builds if the Hunter program was pushed to the right by 18 months would be to add one more Arafura to the build schedule at Osborne. It could be a Border Force flagship, a utility or training ship for the RAN, or just an additional Arafura class vessel to go into the rotation with the rest of them. It would actually be a relatively cheap way of ensuring workforce continuity at Osborne.
As Vonnoobie indicated the last thing you would want to do is touch the Henderson build schedule. The whining, whinging and moaning would be politically unpalatable, but the damage to the continuous small shipbuilding plan in WA is not something that we should be even contemplated.
Talking about building extra ships to ensure ship yards survival is all well and good, but is pretty pointless if you don't cover the more important (and show stopping) issues of budget and actually manning them. There is a long term training pipeline to consider and the RAN does not have a magic sailor tree they can just pluck extra ship's company to draw upon. The human element is a factor that I rarely see considered when talking about building new platforms. No point having a shiny new grey messenger of death if you can't put enough people on it to sail it out past the port limits.
John Newman
The Bunker Group
I think before people get too excited about this potential ‘up to 18 months’ delay, and potential capability gap, it’s worth looking back to the ‘original’ time frame for SEA 5000.
When the Future Frigate plan was first announced in the 2009 Rudd DWP, the plan was that tenders wouldn’t start until around 2019-20, and that translates to a decision not being made until ‘after’ 2021.
Compared to the original time scale, we are still ahead of the game.
For those that can remember, it was during the Abbott Govt, that things were brought forward, firstly with investigations into modifying the Hobart DDG design (2014-15?), then the full competition between the T26, FREMM and Navantia Hobart evolved design, in the end the modified T26 was selected in 2018, the number of ships was increased from the original 2009 plan of eight to nine too.
If the report is accurate, so far I can only see reporting by AFR, then up to 18mths is disappointing.
But I’d rather see the design details sorted now, rather than after construction has started.
From a shipbuilding point of view, if the delay is up to 18mths, then moving one more OPV to Osborne, is probably a reasonably good interim solution.
Yes it takes one OPV away from Henderson, but there is also the plan to start construction of the up to eight modified OPVs for the mine warfare and hydrographic ships around the mid 2020s.
Disappointing if this delay is true, but certainly not the end of the world either.
Cheers,
When the Future Frigate plan was first announced in the 2009 Rudd DWP, the plan was that tenders wouldn’t start until around 2019-20, and that translates to a decision not being made until ‘after’ 2021.
Compared to the original time scale, we are still ahead of the game.
For those that can remember, it was during the Abbott Govt, that things were brought forward, firstly with investigations into modifying the Hobart DDG design (2014-15?), then the full competition between the T26, FREMM and Navantia Hobart evolved design, in the end the modified T26 was selected in 2018, the number of ships was increased from the original 2009 plan of eight to nine too.
If the report is accurate, so far I can only see reporting by AFR, then up to 18mths is disappointing.
But I’d rather see the design details sorted now, rather than after construction has started.
From a shipbuilding point of view, if the delay is up to 18mths, then moving one more OPV to Osborne, is probably a reasonably good interim solution.
Yes it takes one OPV away from Henderson, but there is also the plan to start construction of the up to eight modified OPVs for the mine warfare and hydrographic ships around the mid 2020s.
Disappointing if this delay is true, but certainly not the end of the world either.
Cheers,
What actually concerns me are the claims that the RAN have already taken the design to within a hair width of its displacement limits now before steel has been cut. And that's after they've already lengthened the hull once. 270 tonnes of free displacement in a 9,000 tonne ship isn't all that much to play with and that significantly decreases the higher above the cog you go and the higher in the ship the cog is. It's got the hallmark of another Anzac class where freeboard is a lot lower and the ships slower because of all the extra weight topside and the extra ballast to counter act that.
If the Admirals want cruisers or DDGs the same size as the Burkes, then say so and do the job properly, but trying to jam pack everything into a platform and leave yourself no room for future upgrades is rather silly. They could come out as wallowing under powered tubs that roll on wet grass compared to the RN and RCN variants. Hopefully not, but this does smack of the SH-2G(A) Super Seasprite fiasco in some ways when the RAN got to ambitious for its own good. One would've hoped that they would've learned from that.
If the Admirals want cruisers or DDGs the same size as the Burkes, then say so and do the job properly, but trying to jam pack everything into a platform and leave yourself no room for future upgrades is rather silly. They could come out as wallowing under powered tubs that roll on wet grass compared to the RN and RCN variants. Hopefully not, but this does smack of the SH-2G(A) Super Seasprite fiasco in some ways when the RAN got to ambitious for its own good. One would've hoped that they would've learned from that.
John Newman
The Bunker Group
Mate, before we start throwing rocks at the RAN and the Admirals, there is also another major player in the game, BAE Systems.
Long before a final ship design was selected, all three contender, Italy, Spain and the UK, would have been, or should have been, aware that whichever ship design was chosen, the combat management system, weapons systems and radar systems were already chosen and mandated.
Is the issue that the RAN has packed more into their requests since selection, or did BAE Systems ‘over promise and under deliver’ in the first place?
Is this a ‘chicken and the egg’ question, which came first??
I have no idea, and maybe we’ll only know if there is an Auditor General report into the project.
Anyway, we’ll just have to wait and see.
Cheers,
Some consideration as to the build location of the Mine Warfare / Hydrographic vessels may be the answer.
I assume they were slated for the west, but not sure if yet any contract has been signed.
Australian Warships latest Mag have the build slated for the middle of this decade with a total of eight to be built ( Not up to eight ).
Four each for Hyro and mine operations.
These 20 Arafura vessels will be a welcome addition as they enter the fleet to perform their respective roles.
The Perth Class start long term refit's in 2014 with a destroyer laid up for up to two years at a time.
The ANZAC's will continue to shoulder the load both through out the 2020's and into the thirty's.
We certainly need the stars to align across all our maritime projects as the construction slippage margins are looking precarious compared to our strategic geo/political environment.
I can see us expecting a lot from the Arafura range of vessels.
Regards S
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
I think you meant the ANZAC-class FFH, not the Perth-class DDG (an Australian version of the USN's Charles F. Adams-class DDG), as the last of the RAN's Perth-class, HMAS Brisbane (II) D41, was decommissioned on 19 October 2001.
Would there be much risk/benefit in going beyond the increased hull length? Ie: increasing it straight up to 160m give or take.
Would it dramatically increase design time/risk? And would it provide increase future growth potential while decreasing the cog (centre of gravity)?
Would it dramatically increase design time/risk? And would it provide increase future growth potential while decreasing the cog (centre of gravity)?
John Newman
The Bunker Group
At this stage the media report is suggesting an ‘up to’ 18 month delay, not 80 months or even 180 months, why throw the mine warfare and hydro ships into the mix??
If and I say ‘if’ there is a requirement for some sort of gap filler, one more OPV would be the obvious solution.
The Osborne workforce is currently building two OPVs and obviously has experience with that design and construction method, eg, they wouldn’t have to ‘re learn’ something different.
Anyway, all speculation as to the extent of the Hunter issue and extent of the delay at this stage.
Oh I think a single Arafura if needed wouldn't fill the gap. As said they are building 2 at the moment, assuming their efficiency has gone up unless they are ordered to go slow on such a build it would be done quicker then the current 2 there
But agreed all speculation at the moment.
Yep I understand that, but it is something that has to be considered and yes there are a lot of unknowns in the public domain. If BAE is the problem then that would also be evident in the RN and RCN programs. As of today I am unaware of similar displacement concerns, but I could be mistaken to. We've been celebrating a certain world test cricket win.
My reasoning is that the RAN has form for being over enthusiastic sometimes and unlike the Seasprite debacle, this is a program that it cannot afford to get wrong because of the sums invested and the strategic situation. So IMHO some degree of caution would be wise on the first batch and then in the subsequent batches you can be a bit more adventurous because you will have the base design and ships in batch one giving you hard data from which to work.
John Newman
The Bunker Group
I noticed in the top photo all the trees in the foreground have had a hair cut, actually more like a crew cut.
Did you take your chainsaw with you before taking the pics? Ha ha!!
Arghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh !
Very embarrassed
I'm a generation out.
Hobart Class not Perth Class
2024 not 2014
Rushed post
I'll stay back after class and clean the blackboards
Cheers
Regards S
Boagrius
Well-Known Member
...we use whiteboards now ;-p
- Status