InterestedParty
Active Member
Surely we are not talking about buying the MEKO A200 after all the discussion about the ANZACs and even the Hobarts as having no growth path. Deja vu all over again
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0
- Thread starter OPSSG
- Start date
More numerous ships and LOSVs likely to solve that problem.
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
Why would the RAN be taking Frigates out of the water in Cairns and Darwin? Won't have the Civilian workforce in place to do much of the work, they will be situated in Perth and Sydney. There is no evidence at this stage we are basing GPFs in the North. The Shiplifts will be busy anyway with Arafura's and Capes, the upcoming Army's LMV-H fleet will require these new shiplifts, depending on where they are based.
Very different scenario, the Anzacs were designed as Patrol Frigates to serve alongside 8 Tier 1 DDG/FFGs. We have been forced to upgrade them to a standard way above what was ever expected of the Meko 200 design. If we had immediately followed the Anzacs with 6-8 Hobarts, we would be in a much healthier situation today and the shortcomings of both designs would not be so glaring.
The big concern is, the Hunters are cut back to 3 or even outright cancelled (be happier when I hear the Hunter has been officially laid down)
If they design them for a 20 year service life to then be replaced (without a major refit) by new ships built in the same yard then the growth margin issue becomes less critical.
Having said that, the last of these ships will be built in the 2040s for service into the 2060s. Flexibility for later batches to carry new (and bulkier) systems seems desirable
You would think the labour savings might end up bringing prices down…
The AUKUS Subs are going to be big.
And apparently we could not put a sub to sea for 4 years 2009-2012?
They could if that was scoped into the project, lower cost, high local content, high production capability.
If you want maximum performance out of modern materials, science and technology, then it costs. You definitely want high end capability. But not everything needs to be all high end all the time. Israel, South Korea, France etc all have this kind of high low stuff.
Part of Iron dome was to address these. They were able to do it. With more modern technologies and techniques, it is entirely possibly to make them much cheaper and in much higher volumes with much more local content. Australia can make aluminium, plastics, glass, fuel, explosives.
From Arrow to Iron Dome: The economics of Israel's air defense strategy | CTech
How much did it actually cost Israel to shoot down Iran’s flood of ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, and suicide drones?
www.calcalistech.com
But the problem is to make it cheap, you need to compromise on things like foldable fins, speed, advanced guidance, performance etc. Its still useful, but is no longer a wonder weapon if deployed as a singular system (which it isn't see Davids sling). It has a proximity fuze (not kinetic hit to kill, which is much harder) solid rocket motor, so less range, less speed control, uplinked guided by Fire control radar, with a fairly simple radio seeker (no IR or advanced features). 4-17km range, mach 2, it is a pretty average defence, but if deployed in numbers, can offer low engagement costs for less capable threats.
Iron Dome's - Tamir Missile
Iron Dome Short range Air Defence System has found unprecedented success during its service since 2011 and has been credited with more than 1500 operational intercepts; a success rate of some 90...
fullafterburner.weebly.com
However, not sure if Australia by itself is ideal to develop this. Partnering with the Japanese, or Koreans may be an option, and they would really like a reliable ally to partner with with a rock solid supply chain and impressive US alliance history.
Australian Navy capability head : ‘zero-change’ is right strategy for Tier 2 general purpose frigate - Naval News
The Royal Australian Navy’s two-star capability head has made a robust defence of the ‘shrink-wrapped’ procurement strategy being pursued for the accelerated acquisition of 11 new Tier 2 general purpose frigates.
www.navalnews.com
I feel as if we are backing ourselves into a corner with this zero change policy. Its too large of a project to get it wrong.
Noting the above, I'm interested to hear your thoughts?
Potential weapons/CMS each platform may have etc.
Lack of future growth margins are obviously an area of concern noting the relatively small size of the potential vessels..
Last edited:
Odd for sure. 1-3 no change built offshore, 4-6 no change built onshore, 7-11 future decisions on where the design goes.Australian Navy capability head : ‘zero-change’ is right strategy for Tier 2 general purpose frigate - Naval News
The Royal Australian Navy’s two-star capability head has made a robust defence of the ‘shrink-wrapped’ procurement strategy being pursued for the accelerated acquisition of 11 new Tier 2 general purpose frigates.
I feel as if we are backing ourselves into a corner with this no zero change policy. Noting the above, I'm interested to hear your thoughts? Potential weapons/CMS each platform may have etc
Sounds like it will cost alot more money with future upgrades….
If no changes are to be made they should stop screwin around and buy the new FFM directly off the Mitsubishi production line in the late 2020s if available. Most up to date design that will actually exist prior to delivery and the largest of the designs with potentially the most growth capability. Alot of the Equipment going onto the new FFM is identical or more similar to the RAN than the other designs.
With our AUKUS partner, the U.K, one has to wonder why it was not on the list and why we can’t just buy the type 31 off the shelf, maybe we can get HMS bulldog or campelltown in 2030 and Babcock continue production.
Last edited:
KrustyKoala
New Member
Sounds like it will cost a lot more money for a future Government but not this one. But im sure that wasn't the intention...
iambuzzard
Well-Known Member
We would need to fit a 127mm to replace the 57mm main gun.
The A140 can be fitted with the 127mm.
iambuzzard
Well-Known Member
127mm, 32 Mk.41 VLS strike length, Phalanx x 2, and 8 NSM with ASW capabilities would be my minimum requirements. And I'm just a layman hobby shop owner with no military experience. Just a few friends who have served including MacKenzie Gregory who survived the sinking of HMAS Canberra in WWII
iambuzzard
Well-Known Member
Can it carry 32 Mk.41 Strike Length VLS?
Yes.
Australian Navy capability head : ‘zero-change’ is right strategy for Tier 2 general purpose frigate - Naval News
The Royal Australian Navy’s two-star capability head has made a robust defence of the ‘shrink-wrapped’ procurement strategy being pursued for the accelerated acquisition of 11 new Tier 2 general purpose frigates.
I feel as if we are backing ourselves into a corner with this zero change policy. Its too large of a project to get it wrong.
Noting the above, I'm interested to hear your thoughts?
Potential weapons/CMS each platform may have etc.
Lack of future growth margins are obviously an area of concern noting the relatively small size of the potential vessels..
Well that's a fairly blunt message, not much ambiguity there. So there will definately be no Seafar and probably not 9LV on the first 6 GPFs.
Looks like we will just need to learn a new combat system and potentially weapons. Best we get on with it.
The design itself is not really assessed, they are all deemed worthy. It's the industrial plan that is being valued. Build speed is a huge priority.
I think the sort of modifications might be limited to English signage. Paint colour might not even been changed.
Modern Combat systems and radars are not insurmountable. We are upgrading Hobart's just dozens of months after completion. Dropping in 9lv consoles just after construction is possible. Power, weight, space, cooling should allow.
But I don't expect any new or different weapons to change for the build. If they need to change it will be after they are built.
But pulling new ships out for upgrades isn't likely to happen for years
I think there is still ambiguity as to what zero change means for ALFA3000 and Meko 200. Zero change from what exactly?
I assume the MEKO would be baselined against the Egyptian fleet, being the most recent and modern version and what is currently on the production line.
The Navantia Tasman is a distant cousin to the Saudi and Venezuelan Avante 2000 series, which is a corvette at best. I would have thought they will struggle with this point as the 3000 series and Tasman proposal is a substantial change.
It will be interesting to see what these two providers put up, as this comparison to an operating baseline without change put the Europeans at a disadvantage.
On the other side of the equation (after baseline comparison), the most important tender requirement is to be able to start building by 2026 and provide the first platform by 2029. They will both be in the hunt on this criteria, so don't count them out.
The Navantia Tasman is a distant cousin to the Saudi and Venezuelan Avante 2000 series, which is a corvette at best. I would have thought they will struggle with this point as the 3000 series and Tasman proposal is a substantial change.
It will be interesting to see what these two providers put up, as this comparison to an operating baseline without change put the Europeans at a disadvantage.
On the other side of the equation (after baseline comparison), the most important tender requirement is to be able to start building by 2026 and provide the first platform by 2029. They will both be in the hunt on this criteria, so don't count them out.