If MK41 could not be fitted on the MEKO A200, it would not be on the list.
Conroy said 16-32 cells, surely he is aware which design can take 32 and that we use MK41. maybe 32 tactical or 16 strike and 16 tactical is possible? Maybe just 16…
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0
- Thread starter OPSSG
- Start date
Conroy said 16-32 cells, surely he is aware which design can take 32 and that we use MK41. maybe 32 tactical or 16 strike and 16 tactical is possible? Maybe just 16…
Brissy1982
Active Member
Well done on finding this transcript - in response to a previous post I had looked everywhere for a statement that there would be "no Australianisation" of the chosen Tier 2 frigate, but I wasn't able to find any express statement to that effect.
I read the quote from Minister Conroy as paying lip service to the recommendation in the DSR that the Department of Defence needs to stop pursuing perfection at the expense of speed to capability - the Albanese government has accepted the DSR and so needs to back its recommendations. The Hunter class is an obvious example of the tendency to pursue perfection over speed to capability.
However, the Minister stops short of saying that there will be "no Australianisation" of the Tier 2 frigates; rather he says there will be either no design changes or as few as possible to meet Australian regulatory requirements. What those regulatory requirements might be, he does not say.
He uses quite rubbery language, and quite deliberately so - he is a politician speaking to a journalist about a Tier 2 frigate design that has not yet been selected at an event attended by some important Australian defence industry representatives. He is not going to commit himself to any course of action in those circumstances, so he has done the political dance by avoiding giving a definitive answer to the question, while paying lip service to the DSR, while also leaving room for future manoeuvres based on political and/or military considerations, including keeping Australian defence industry gainfully employed.
Quite a good performance, really - I give it 7.5 out of 10.
The Russian and Chinese judges are less impressed - they think he should have just lied, so they've only given him 3 out of 10. However, they don't understand what it's like to be a politician in a Western democracy which insists on having pesky things like free and fair elections every few years.
Second that, good media transcript from Pat Conroy.
Something else caught my eye when I read it.
I hadn't realised the size of the upcoming landing craft heavy until I read this. The transcript refers to something in the range of 3,000-5000 tonnes. That's bigger than Tobruk! And there will be 8 of them!
These will be major ships in their own right, and likely bigger than the GP frigates.
I thought we would be getting something similar to Balikpapan. Looks like the landing craft medium however are in that size range, and themselves are much bigger than the current LCM8s.
I overlooked this completely in all the noise about the combat ships. Tell me if I have misread this.
This represents a substantial upgrade in amphibious capability, and a between the mediums and heavies, a lot of ship building in WA between now and the early 2030s.
Now I properly understand why the first three GP frigates are being built overseas. There will be no capacity to build anything else in WA. Its not just about time.
Something else caught my eye when I read it.
I hadn't realised the size of the upcoming landing craft heavy until I read this. The transcript refers to something in the range of 3,000-5000 tonnes. That's bigger than Tobruk! And there will be 8 of them!
These will be major ships in their own right, and likely bigger than the GP frigates.
I thought we would be getting something similar to Balikpapan. Looks like the landing craft medium however are in that size range, and themselves are much bigger than the current LCM8s.
I overlooked this completely in all the noise about the combat ships. Tell me if I have misread this.
This represents a substantial upgrade in amphibious capability, and a between the mediums and heavies, a lot of ship building in WA between now and the early 2030s.
Now I properly understand why the first three GP frigates are being built overseas. There will be no capacity to build anything else in WA. Its not just about time.
Last edited:
Going Boeing
Well-Known Member
One paragraph from Pat Conroy’s media transcript is interesting for his choice of words:
“The other reason we’ve gone with a hybrid build where the first three in an existing yard and then the final eight are being built in Western Australia is that the shipyard in Western Australia, Henderson Maritime Precinct, will be busy with other projects that we need urgently. So they’re building two more patrol boats for us right now. Then we’ve brought forward by two years the construction of landing craft medium for the Australian army, and we brought forward by seven years the construction of landing craft heavy, which are giant vessels to transport the army.”
That indicates that Austal will be part of the consortium that builds the GP Frigates - does that narrow down which vessel is likely to be selected?
“The other reason we’ve gone with a hybrid build where the first three in an existing yard and then the final eight are being built in Western Australia is that the shipyard in Western Australia, Henderson Maritime Precinct, will be busy with other projects that we need urgently. So they’re building two more patrol boats for us right now. Then we’ve brought forward by two years the construction of landing craft medium for the Australian army, and we brought forward by seven years the construction of landing craft heavy, which are giant vessels to transport the army.”
That indicates that Austal will be part of the consortium that builds the GP Frigates - does that narrow down which vessel is likely to be selected?
Or that Austal may be supplying some parts or may mean nothing at all. They may simply be covering basis here.
With the 2 Canbera class, Choule, or the 2 Future JSS, 8 LCH and 18 LCM , it's not a case of "we're gunna need a bigger boat" it's more, "we're gunna need a bigger Army!".
Austal certainly gives every expectation that they will be part of the consortium as the government’s strategic ship building partner.
Austal welcomes the findings of the Surface Fleet Review
MEDIA RELEASE 21 FEBRUARY 2024 AUSTAL WELCOMES THE FINDINGS OF THE SURFACE FLEET REVIEW Austal welcomes the findings of the Surface Fleet Review and the Australian Government ’s response to it. It provides a very clear pathway to increase the Royal Australian Navy’s vessel capability in areas of...
I read that transcript (optimistically) to mean there would be no modifications to the ship but that they would still fit government furnished equipment (9LV, CEAFAR, MK 41).
If not then the question is what the “unmodified” design of the ALFA3000 is. If it is Tasman class with 9LV, MK 41, NSM, Nulka, CEAFAR then there may be a single source selection (people keep referring to a “short list“ but Ausgov has not used that term for this so far as I know).
Government supplied or not modifications need to be made to make it fit, This isn't like buying some after marklet fibre glass body kit off ebay and using self tappers to make it stay in place or having your mate Robb 7 beers in wire up the new LHD headlights. Anything we want to put in will require modification big or large but the bigger the thing we want likely more modifications needed.Austal certainly gives every expectation that they will be part of the consortium as the government’s strategic ship building partner.
Austal welcomes the findings of the Surface Fleet Review
MEDIA RELEASE 21 FEBRUARY 2024 AUSTAL WELCOMES THE FINDINGS OF THE SURFACE FLEET REVIEW Austal welcomes the findings of the Surface Fleet Review and the Australian Government ’s response to it. It provides a very clear pathway to increase the Royal Australian Navy’s vessel capability in areas of...www.austal.com
I read that transcript (optimistically) to mean there would be no modifications to the ship but that they would still fit government furnished equipment (9LV, CEAFAR, MK 41).
If not then the question is what the “unmodified” design of the ALFA3000 is. If it is Tasman class with 9LV, MK 41, NSM, Nulka, CEAFAR then there may be a single source selection (people keep referring to a “short list“ but Ausgov has not used that term for this so far as I know).
Likely where they mention regulatory requirements comes down to safety aspects, power switches, safety features etc etc End of the day we get a big enough hull we can likely more easily refit them later if we so desire.
The paint spec comes to mind. The original Spanish spec was both banned under Australian WH&S and environmental regulations, as well as being difficult, if not impossible to apply in the climatic conditions in Adelaide.
Then there were the grades of steel used in the hill. The Spanish spec was unsuitable for the climatic extremes RAN ships face.
The amount of wood used in the Spanish ships was a damage control nightmare.
Brissy1982
Active Member
I don't think Austal's likely involvement in the construction of the Tier 2 frigates can be taken to narrow down the design that is ultimately chosen. I don't see any agenda at play - I think the Commonwealth and RAN will look at a range of designs and choose the one that is the best fit for Australia's requirements based on all the relevant factors. Austal will act professionally whichever design is chosen, even if they are privately disappointed with the decision - it will certainly be in their long-term interests to do so.
The furnishings, decor, wood panelling etc. in the wardroom and officers cabins. There was a lot of decorative wood, the other thing now I think about it was ash trays everywhere.
iambuzzard
Well-Known Member
Probably to fit out the Captain's cabin and the wardroom.
I have no doubt that Austal welcomes the findings of the Surface fleet review since just about everything in it is a win for them.Austal certainly gives every expectation that they will be part of the consortium as the government’s strategic ship building partner.
Austal welcomes the findings of the Surface Fleet Review
MEDIA RELEASE 21 FEBRUARY 2024 AUSTAL WELCOMES THE FINDINGS OF THE SURFACE FLEET REVIEW Austal welcomes the findings of the Surface Fleet Review and the Australian Government ’s response to it. It provides a very clear pathway to increase the Royal Australian Navy’s vessel capability in areas of...
I read that transcript (optimistically) to mean there would be no modifications to the ship but that they would still fit government furnished equipment (9LV, CEAFAR, MK 41).
If not then the question is what the “unmodified” design of the ALFA3000 is. If it is Tasman class with 9LV, MK 41, NSM, Nulka, CEAFAR then there may be a single source selection (people keep referring to a “short list“ but Ausgov has not used that term for this so far as I know).
Arafuras ... gone. Opportunity to build more Capes.
Hunters ... Cut back freeing up more funding for other projects more beneficial to Austal.
Optionally crewed vessels ... Just so happens that Austal is near the forefront of that technology.
Tier two combatants ... The Japanese, Koreans and Germans simply don't have the connections in Australia that Austal has. Partnering with Navantia puts Austal in a strong position to win this bid.
Everyone was surprised when 6 optionally manned vessels were announced as part of the navy review. I bet Austal wasn't. Reality is that Austal isn't merely offering a single ship type but an entire tiered system of uncrewed and optional crewed vessels.
While other contenders for the new tier 2 GP frigates are basically just selling ships Austal is proposing an entire network of manned and unmanned vessels. Their partnership with Navantia in not only promoting the Alfa3000, but also a flight III destroyer suggesting they are gunning to replace BAE as the builder of tier one vessels.
Yep, almost like Austal co-wrote the review,
InterestedParty
Active Member
I am curious about what happens with these launch vessels once their stock of missiles is depleted.
Do they hang around the fleet as a defenceless vessel requiring protection or do they require an escort to take them to a reloading port.
Do they hang around the fleet as a defenceless vessel requiring protection or do they require an escort to take them to a reloading port.
iambuzzard
Well-Known Member
And to address the elephant in the room, how are we going to crew all these magical ships and boats (subs)? We are effectively tripling or more the number of hulls in the water. Most people can't see past the destroyers and frigates and forget the support craft. They will need to have a degree of self defense so that will require extra crew. Plus a degree of electronic defence systems. That will require a lot of crewing.
We will effectively be bigger that the Royal Navy.
Going Boeing
Well-Known Member
Sending such a high level ambassador to Australia indicates that South Korea is serious about winning the Tier 2 GP Frigate contract.
South Korea sending high-powered Ambassador to Australia - APDR
South Korea sending high-powered Ambassador to Australia - APDR
This was mentioned to me back at Indopacific Expo 2022 so it's been in the works for at least two years now.
Last edited: