I was thinking the same. A lot of time could be saved by using bolt on weapons that don't need to be fully integrated with complex combat systems. Forgacs and ASC have demonstrated they can build simple hulls relatively quickly. If the hull was designed from the outset to utilise containerised weapons you could greatly reduce the development and production phase.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0
- Thread starter OPSSG
- Start date
I made it clear the OPV were no suited and should be replaced with a larger vessel...!!
it's not me saying it Civmec have said it themselves.. "Having a big shed does not give you capability to build two AWDs" [MOD EDIT]
MOD: Do not troll users or use inappropriate language toward users. This is not facebook/twitter. Points Awarded.
Last edited by a moderator:
Easy there big fella. We're all friends here. But the point is that your point of view was not clearly expressed.
To quote you:
It is still not to late to build Type31 multirole frigates for our navy instead of Arafura OPV's, they cost close to the same with similar build time lines..
We should also be shifting Patrol boat duties to our ABFC maritime branch to operate alongside the Pacific islands and the 20+ Guardian class PB's we gifted them.. Arafura OPV is the right vessel for our ABFC maritime branch
(Emphasis added is mine.)
I read that to be simultaneously arguing both for and against cancelling the OPVs. Hence my comment. How else should I read that?
The point of this forum (as far as I can tell) is for people to express their points of view and then have them challenged, often by mug punters (like me) and by seasoned defence professionals (like many others on the forum). And, in theory, we all learn something in the process. So if you're going to post something, it's going to get critiqued.
No need to get your back up about it chief.
Yeah true, what i don't get is why we did not build more Navantia ships to begin with, the whole point of Navantia being in Aus was so we could build more ships then we didn't use Navantia beyond the 3 AWD's.. Even the Navantia Avante 2400 would of been a better ship than our Arafura for our RAN, not only does it have more tonnage and better equipped the draft on it is less than the Arafura which is over 4m draft.. End of the day we will not have enough warships for the next decade and they will use these Arafura to fill shortfalls created by refits and rotational maintenance if we do not build general purpose frigates.. I'm pretty easy with which design they go for as long as they have a solid surface to air missile load either SM-2 or SM-6 with the ESSM's they are going to need to be able to take out multiple missile barrages. UK got it right with the Type 31 mutli role frigate concept which is what we need otherwise we could see Arafura to fill shortfalls.. They could build 2 here in Henderson at Civmec in the new shed at the same time as building 2 in SA and we could have 4 new ships 1st before they start taking more ships out of service for refits.. we have 4 ANZAC frigate crews now with no ships due to refits and on average 3 ships in AMCAP rotation soon to be more crew with no ships with the Hobart AWD refits.. Biggest thing is they need to open up recruiting, on average 80,000 people apply for the ADF each year with close to 50% for the RAN yet recruitings capped at 8,000 personnel for ADF roles.. You look at singapore with 1/4 our population and about 1/3 our defence budget with a military nearly on par with ours but they have massive 400,000 reservist personnel pool, if Singapore can do it with less than we have than we surely can do it.. Canberra spent to much time looking for kick back deals they should of known we would have future refits like we had in the past with ANZAC frigates, Chris Pyne did alright out of his time as defence minister with his export business, it's a shame he did not apply that same enthusiasm to our ADF..
Last edited:
MOD DELETE Transferring it from RAN to ABFC is not cancelling it our tax money still pays for it and the ships still get built.. MOD DELETE
MOD EDIT: No trolling, play nice. Point awarded.
Last edited by a moderator:
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
The whole point of Navantia being in Australia was as a Subcontractor to the AWD Alliance, It was the job of the AWD Alliance to build 3 DDGs with the possibility of a 4th, at no stage was Navantia guaranteed any Shipbuilding in Australia. They were invited to bid for Sea 5000 in a completely different project but their bid failed.
In many ways the Alliance was a good system, just not followed through with properly. The final nail in the coffin was appointing Navantia, an under performing contractor, to "fix" the project and "teach" ASC how to build ships. The irony was the ex and current BIW, EB, NASCO, BAE, AMECON and even Navantia people on the project left many of the "navantia experts for dead.
Post GFC Navantia made most workers over 50 redundant, their supply chain was starved of work and many suppliers folded, resulting in issues on F-105 that they hadn't had on the first four ships. What was worse is, although they encountered these issues, they didn't give the Alliance the heads up so they could avoid them. Navantia, in many ways soiled their own nest where Australia was concerned.
On the plus side, as with the submarine program, we have kept some of the best as shiny, newly minted Aussies.
Can you please be civil, this forum is not Twitter.
JulioCompactus
Member
yes one of the great mysteries of the AWD Alliance was why Navantia was not included. Many have asked why the 4th ship was not built i.e. why was the option not exercised. The simple answer to this was the Federal Government didn't want to fund it.
Knowing our ADF i can just see these Arafura neing used to fill shortfalls, even if they up gun them it's still not going to be enough especially aagainst chines and russian ships or submarines.. The only vessels we really have with any punch is our 3 AWD's which will in refits for the rest of this decade, i think it is about 2 years of refits each AWD then add sea trials after refit.. ANZAC frigates area good ship but realistly they will only be good for 1 or 2 engagements before needing to load up again., they are to lightly armed. Another scenario if an up gunned Arafura was in the Pacific or escorting vessels in shipping lanes and had multiple engagements how long will it last.. I think it's time they put more money into our ABFC, what you posted here for armed Arfura would be good for our ABFC with ships full of reservists.. Then when that future war with the CCP happens we have an additional pool of lightly armed vessels that can operate alongside our RAN frigates and AWD's or can be utlised with other ships like multi role frigates in our shipping lanes..
That's a shame on the SEA500 that would rule them out, we need more ships with a bigger magaxine with more SM-2 and SM-6, 3 AWD's is not enough especially considering they are apart of our countries multi layered missile defence bubble.. I think that guy on the Arafura video with LRASM was basing it on more the Brunei version of our Arafura which they are suppose to be upgrading to Harpoons.. NSM is a good missile but so is the new 5th gen Rafael Sea Breaker which has more range with pontential of a booster for an ER variant plus being an A.I. missile which would make a good Harpoon replacement for Aus.. They could put 16 Sea Breaker missile on our ANZAC frigates for about the same weight as 8 Harpoons which would allow for multiple engagements and be a better armed vessel to match it's operational endurance for deployments.. They could potentially manufacturing the Sea Breaker out of the same facility as the Spike LR2's here in Aus..
That one is easy, up until the actual decision was announced, almost everyone on the project assumed the Evolved design was going to win. Gibbs and Cox aren't builders, they are designers, so the Alliance was set up to do the detail design and then the build, that's why so many BIW staff were embedded in the project, it was assumed lots of experience designing and building Burkes would be of use.
When navantia won the assumption was it was an existing, proven design and could just be built to print, using Navantias supply chain. End result, the design capability required was not recruited and the there wasn't even any build assurance factored in until the former chief marine surveyor for ABS made a big deal about it at CDR. The existing bid won because it was so much cheaper, it was cheaper because of assumptions made about the maturity of the design and the project that were simply wrong, while the evolved option had been far more realistic.
John Newman
The Bunker Group
Mate, grow up, you’ve been here on DT for five minutes, no need to act like an arrogant prick.
Keep it up and you’ll be banned.
Here is some advice, read the old RAN thread and the posts in this one before spitting venom. This has been discussed at length.
The ANZAC after the ASMD upgrade is a capable AAW vessel with 32 medium range missiles with ESSM Block II to be included in the options. A load out of 32 capable missiles combine with combat system that can utilise this missile at its maximum range against a Coyote supersonic target is no slouch. Add that to the fact it can engage a crossing supersonic target gives it a capability to protect other vessels. This is a capability a lot of vessels with greater tonnage do not have.
It comes with compromise as in the size of the ANZAC means a reduction in speed to absorb the capability (deeper draft more ballast). A small vessel cannot provide the same capability. As I have said in the past small tonnage means compromise. An OPV with a 4000nm range and no RAS capability is not going to be an escort in our sea lanes. The minimum capability in the current environment would equivalent to an ASMD ANZAC.
Certainly OPV's, if desired, could support coastal defence in a permissive environment (i.e there is not a hostile task force in SSM range) using UAV's and USV's in a search function for irregular vessels.
So ... to the main point. To add capability to something like the OPV is limited as every kg you add eats into its range. Every weight you add above CoG eats into stability margin. The OPV is only intended to operate in permissive environments. If the vessel is to play outside this .... you need a bigger hull.
With my Mod hat on ..... I strongly suggest you calm down and do some research and moderate your tone.
iI was being civil the fact was your mate was the 1 trolling me from the start when he took my post out of context making his sarcastic comment.. I see your rules only apply to some people, all good i'll go elsewhere, i don't do games on the internet..
Mod edit: Member banned. When multiple members as well as Moderators indicate that posting behavior is a problem, that should've been a clue that you weren't in fact responding in a civil fashion.
-Preceptor
Last edited by a moderator:
Antipode
Member
Hi guys. Always a pleasure to read you.
Wouldn’t the gradual acquisition of spanish F100 original batch vessels tick many of the boxes necessary for Australia to adress the 2025-2030 asset availability concerns?
Not triying to be a magic genie. In understand it would be somewhat very expensive. But as a short term solution? They are not exactly alien ships to the RAN.
Navantia has a presence, and it wouldn’t be about making new boats, but fitting them to RAN’s needs. (Availability of yards and workforce)
Crew them could be hard. But as hard as a design more different to the Hobart class?
Same for cost. Expensive for a quite-short-to-live result. But if necessity arises, probably cheaper and more feasible than something new. What goes on expected life, comes in availability when it could matter most.
As for Spain, it’s looking for an excuse to arm up the F110s (they have been offered with 32VLS). In terms of political cost, for a larger and more armed batch of F110s announcement, the moment would probably be now.
I hope this wasn’t chewed and re-chewed somewhere at the old thread.
“Fantastic RAN fleets and where to make/crew/pay for them” is closed as well.
Salud!
Wouldn’t the gradual acquisition of spanish F100 original batch vessels tick many of the boxes necessary for Australia to adress the 2025-2030 asset availability concerns?
Not triying to be a magic genie. In understand it would be somewhat very expensive. But as a short term solution? They are not exactly alien ships to the RAN.
Navantia has a presence, and it wouldn’t be about making new boats, but fitting them to RAN’s needs. (Availability of yards and workforce)
Crew them could be hard. But as hard as a design more different to the Hobart class?
Same for cost. Expensive for a quite-short-to-live result. But if necessity arises, probably cheaper and more feasible than something new. What goes on expected life, comes in availability when it could matter most.
As for Spain, it’s looking for an excuse to arm up the F110s (they have been offered with 32VLS). In terms of political cost, for a larger and more armed batch of F110s announcement, the moment would probably be now.
I hope this wasn’t chewed and re-chewed somewhere at the old thread.
“Fantastic RAN fleets and where to make/crew/pay for them” is closed as well.
Salud!
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
The AWD Alliance was formed in 2005, the F-105 design was not chosen until 2007 so why would Navantia be a part of the Alliance
Why would Spain put the F-101s on the Market? they are their most modern capable Frigates, the F-110s will replace the Santa Maria class(Spanish built Perry's) over the next decade, and only then will they look at replacing the F-101s sometime in the mid 30s.
Well, economically Spain has been hurting in a massive recession for a long time and they have down-sized elements of their military forces, for example moving forward they are only retaining 18 out of 24 original Tiger attack helicopters. So actual examples exist where they have chosen to divest themselves early of relatively current military platforms.
But this is of course entirely speculatory, that they would be interested in offloading F-101 frigates, that they are in anyway close to Hobarts so that they could be relatively seamlessly moved across and that RAN would be interested in acquiring them, noting mixed results in the past where we have acquired existing platforms… Let alone whether we could afford them, crew them, sustain them and so on…
JulioCompactus
Member
The Hobart are based on F104 with some F105 mods included, and then further modified fo Australian requirements including an almost completely different combat system, from the version of Aegis to the type of HMS fitted. Any of the Spanish ships would be very much a one off in the RAN in a capability, training and logistical sense. And modifying one to match the RAN spec, even if possible would be a mammoth job
I don’t understand the logic of trying to plug the gap until the Hunters are ready by looking at any designs that would need modification / Australianisation. Which is probably all of them.
The Hunter design process seems to be drawing to a close and will soon be ready to cut steel. Prototyping finished next year.
I can’t see how any design would be ready to start construction ahead of that.
So if we have excess shipbuilding capacity (a big if) why would we do anything except accelerate the shipbuilding program and plan for a fleet of 10-12 Hunters instead of 8? Or plan to start the Hobart replacement sooner?