At the moment the minor vessel fleet is being reduced over the next few months. Melville is scheduled to decommission in a few months, along with Huon, which has been laid up since the start of the year. Both remaining SML's were also decommissioned last year.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0
- Thread starter OPSSG
- Start date
They are very old ships, I was in highschool when they were built.
There were plans for leased commercial and commercial partners to work in that area if I recall.
CEAFAR is a radar, Aegis is a combat management system; or a battle space management system if you prefer. It can have any radar you like integrated with it; CEAFAR in Hunters for example. SPQ-9B, SPY-1 and SPG-62 through the Mk 99 FCS for others. A radar is of no use by itself, it’s the CMS that controls the engagement.
Brissy1982
Active Member
I am in no way disputing what you have said, @spoz - to that end, I have gone back and edited my earlier post (which I admit was written hurriedly on the bus on my way to work this morning).
My point was that as things stand, a SPY-1-based AEGIS CMS will, even with assistance from SPQ-9B, have less time to detect, identify, track and engage an inbound missile than a 9LV-based CMS with CEAFAR and ESSM.
I am happy to discuss further, either by PM or on here on the thread, as long as we are both courteous.
I don’t disagree that, in theory, a non rotating radar will provide a slightly longer engagement window; but only by the ARP at a maximum. Everything else is digital so in theory once the aerial has faced the target, the time is infinitesimal; the determinant of the time taken to engage is probably going to be the human in the loop.
While SPQ-9 was a surface search set, -9B was optimised for ASMD; it is “single look” to provide a track to the CMS. (Note, the Wikipedia entry is not complete). I can’t remember the -9B ARP but as it is dual faced, it is probably < 1 second.
Both systems discussed can, of course, control ESSM.
While SPQ-9 was a surface search set, -9B was optimised for ASMD; it is “single look” to provide a track to the CMS. (Note, the Wikipedia entry is not complete). I can’t remember the -9B ARP but as it is dual faced, it is probably < 1 second.
Both systems discussed can, of course, control ESSM.
‘No concerns’ with South Korean takeover bid for Austal: Marles
A bit of an update on the Austal takeover pantomime. Looks like Hanwa would not be blocked by the government in purchasing Austal. Marles stated this in a press conference earlier today.
Still lots to go, and Austal frostily stated afterwards that they still rate Hanwa's offer as insufficient.
A bit of an update on the Austal takeover pantomime. Looks like Hanwa would not be blocked by the government in purchasing Austal. Marles stated this in a press conference earlier today.
Still lots to go, and Austal frostily stated afterwards that they still rate Hanwa's offer as insufficient.
Purely personal opinion, if Austal are to be involved in the GP Frigate build I would insist they are taken over by an competent builder first.
They are not half as good as their bought and paid for political supporters claim.
Would agree. I think Hanwa, given its ownership of the Daewoo yards, would be a good match. The US has been speaking with them as well to take a stake in their defence shipbuilding program. The other options for Austal are all private equity, which no real skills advantage.
If the Korean FFX is selected as the GP frigate, then it would be an ideal match. Not sure how it would work with one of the other designs though. Would Japan for instance be comfortable to share their Mogami design with a S Korean competitor?
If the Korean FFX is selected as the GP frigate, then it would be an ideal match. Not sure how it would work with one of the other designs though. Would Japan for instance be comfortable to share their Mogami design with a S Korean competitor?
Which FFX is in the examples? I forget. The latest one in service is FFX II, but FFX III is being built, with one launched & expected to be commissioned by the end of the year, so I presume that's probably the one in the list. 129 metres, 4300 tons full load.
And is the Mogami contender the current production one, or the next version, which should begin this year?
And is the Mogami contender the current production one, or the next version, which should begin this year?
Hanwha doesn't want Austal for its Australian manufacturing sites, it wants Austal's fast transport design intellectual property and US Navy contracts. Nobody wants an Australian shipyard, especially not one in Western Australia which has the highest cost of business in any state. Selling Austal is a fools errand.
I think more is being read into the "exemplar" term than was intended.
It was more a "this is what's available", as a guide to setting requirements.
I do have a different view on this.
I agree that the more valuable part of Austal is the US division. It has a growing stakehold in the USN ship building program, but not without its problems. Hanwa would be well positioned to correct these and improve it.
The Vietnam and Philippine division are near to closing, and I would suggest this would occur regardless of the eventual buyer. They build ferries and this is a shrinking market with many competitors.
The Australian branch, prior to the government providing a commitment to continuous ship building, was heading for closure. Now that it has a forward book for the landing craft and (unless it stuffs things up) the GP frigate and LOCSV programs, it becomes a very financially backable facility and a significant part of the profitable Austal business. This work fills its capacity out to 2040. And it looks like the government will tip in a lot of capital to construct more sheds to separate it from Civmec. What more would a potential buyer want.
I will also note that the Australian division contains the global engineering design team (they do the designs for the USN ships). This is one of two in Australia, and from the government point of view is a strategic asset in its own right (its this resource that triggered the government to commit to a build program, not the yard itself). Given the specialised training here, it is almost imposible to replace if shut down.
I think Hanwa see the Australian part of Austal as an opportunity to buy an 11+6 ship build, plus a sure thing for the next generation of vessels. Its the icing on the cake to the US division.
Yea WA is expensive. Most people who live here are boguns. Everybody drives an oversized ute. And to top it off the water is full of sharks. Coffee is still more expensive in Sydney, our idea of a traffic jam is a 10th the size of an east coast one. And our beaches are better.
More seriously though, the heavy industrial base (mostly mining and gas but also a lot of manufacturing) does provide a baseload engineering and trade workforce that rivals anywhere else. The skills are here and they are well suited to a rejuvinated maritime industry. Austal (and the government) will just need to pay market price for the labour.
Last edited:
FFX batch IV has also been announced.
6 by 2032 on top of the 6 FFX III by 2028.
www.navalnews.com
6 by 2032 on top of the 6 FFX III by 2028.
South Korea Approves New FFX Batch-IV Frigate Program - Naval News
South Korea’s DAPA has approved the launch of the FFX Batch-IV frigate program for the Republic of Korea (ROK) Navy.
www.navalnews.com
1000% this.
Basing in Perth makes sense.
Building in Perth does not and is just a boondoggle.
Sacrilege!
On the subject of this, will an official RFT be issued?
In recent times the government has seemingly dispensed with the tender process instead opting for a prefered candidate. That is in line what was recommended in the DSR.
Where else would you build them.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Realistically, where are construction facilities for a frigate-sized steel build located, apart from SA? The last large vessel built by Austal in WA was completed in July of 2020 and that was of a trimaran high speed ferry, not a steel mono-hull warship.
Basically, it looks like if Australia wants a second yard capable of producing warships established somewhere, then a site will need to be selected, the yard itself built (or an existent yard expanded) and a work force raised and skilled.
If the above is an accurate assessment, it does manage to raise several questions in my mind. Chief among them being how/why it is that Australia has to have two naval shipyards? Relating to that, is will future work be sufficient to support both yards, or are we looking at yet another boom/bust build cycle where in 20 years or so, work will have run out and one or possibly both yards will have to effectively shut down?
If new halls (around 150m in length) are to be built, it’s going to be next to the current austal yard or next to bae. That’s if civmec is no longer in the mix.
Spain
Tasman(Alpha 3000) 109m
*(Alpha 5000) 121m
-
Germany
MEKO A200 121m
*MEKO A210 127m
-
Korea
Daegu(FFX II) 122m
Chungnam(FFX III) 129m
(FFX IV) 129m
-
Japan
Mogami 133m
FFM 142m
*No reference prior to Australian build so probably can be ruled out.
Spain
Tasman(Alpha 3000) 109m
*(Alpha 5000) 121m
-
Germany
MEKO A200 121m
*MEKO A210 127m
-
Korea
Daegu(FFX II) 122m
Chungnam(FFX III) 129m
(FFX IV) 129m
-
Japan
Mogami 133m
FFM 142m
*No reference prior to Australian build so probably can be ruled out.
"HMAS Adelaide conducted the first Landing Helicopter Dock (LHD) sized berthing alongside the brand new Kuru Wharf at HMAS Coonawarra, Darwin, NT. This event marks a significant achievement regarding ongoing upgrades of waterfront facilities at Larrakeyah Defence Precinct. The Kuru Wharf measures at approximately 250 metres in length, with two approach jetties. The new wharf is now able to support up to Landing Helicoper Dock size naval vessels, providing game-changing capability support in the North." Image source : ADF Image Library
