Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[SammyC]

In relation to the GP Frigate baseline design being sought ‘as is’, do we think it’s fair, practical and perhaps logical to have subsequent numbers (domestic builds onwards) more adapted and built to Australian operating standards and systems?

thinking that the extra lead times of second and subsequent ‘tranche‘ numbers might afford some time for adaptation, yet not disrupting the urgency of the initial hulls in-service time.

this would then imply the initial overseas ‘tranche’ being unique in Australian service, until opportunity to refit or off-load them.
(perhaps the degree of commonality of the selected design might be more than pessimistically expected anyway?).

i hope that this will be the case, and think it most likely will happen.

Australian Navy capability head : ‘zero-change’ is right strategy for Tier 2 general purpose frigate - Naval News

just referring back to this interview with Adm Hughes, he makes it clear that the overseas three will follow the "zero change" strategy, however the first three Australian built units will also be to the same baseline. So at minimum 6 of the 11 GPFs will be unmodified. Hull 7 onwards might be something different.

I think this is an important bit as it derisks the transition to onshore construction, particulary for equipment which will retain is overseas supply line. Basically Henderson will just need to concentrate on getting the steel cutting right, not reestablishing local suppliers or modifying a design.

As much as we might howl about this approach, the other extreme is Constellation (as per Stingray's post above). At least we might get our GPFs in reasonable time.

 

[Redlands18]

Australian Navy capability head : ‘zero-change’ is right strategy for Tier 2 general purpose frigate - Naval News

just referring back to this interview with Adm Hughes, he makes it clear that the overseas three will follow the "zero change" strategy, however the first three Australian built units will also be to the same baseline. So at minimum 6 of the 11 GPFs will be unmodified. Hull 7 onwards might be something different.

I think this is an important bit as it derisks the transition to onshore construction.

As much as we might howl about this approach, the other extreme is Constellation. At least we might get our GPFs in reasonable time.

Thats another thing about the chosen builders, they all provide both an in-service design as well as having designs in development based on those designs. Six A200s followed by five A210s? six Mogami followed by five FFMs?

 

[Reptilia]

Thats another thing about the chosen builders, they all provide both an in-service design as well as having designs in development based on those designs. Six A200s followed by five A210s? six Mogami followed by five FFMs?

A210 will need to exist first.
Both FFM(Mogami successor) and FFX IV(Chungnam successor) will exist in the late 2020s and be in service in the 2030s and 2040s.
-Chungnam(FFX III) to FFX IV is an easy transition because the ship remains the same, only a significant update to the equipment/systems/sensors.
(Good for Aus as they could update overseas built ships 1-3 at a later date to the same spec)
-Mogami to FFM transition is a massive change, so too MEKO A200 to A210.

Daegu 140 crew, Chungnam 120 crew
FFX IV with its new equipment and sensors may reduce crewing requirements even further, this may make the batch IV the frontrunner when you add up all the other +s
Hanwha are set to build the last 2 Chungnam for 600million u.s. That’s a lot cheaper than the other options.
Egypt paid 2.5 billion u.s for 4 meko a200s. Mogamis 450 million u.s each or 3.6 billion for 8 when under consideration by Indonesia.

 

[iambuzzard]

A210 will need to exist first.
Both FFM(Mogami successor) and FFX IV(Chungnam successor) will exist in the late 2020s and be in service in the 2030s and 2040s.
-Chungnam(FFX III) to FFX IV is an easy transition because the ship remains the same, only a significant update to the equipment and systems/sensors.
-Mogami to FFM transition is a,massive change, so too MEKO A200 to A210

At least the FFM will double it's VLS load out to 32 cells. In the 2030s 16 cells won't be enough.

 

[Redlands18]

A210 will need to exist first.
Both FFM(Mogami successor) and FFX IV(Chungnam successor) will exist in the late 2020s and be in service in the 2030s and 2040s.
-Chungnam(FFX III) to FFX IV is an easy transition because the ship remains the same, only a significant update to the equipment and systems/sensors.
-Mogami to FFM transition is a,massive change, so too MEKO A200 to A210

The GFP design will evolve over an expected 15+ year build period and we can expect changes in direction from Governments. A move to a larger more capable ship for vessels 7-11 is a very real possibility. Going to a A210 or even an A300 from TKMS would after building six A200s be easier and make more sense than going to an all-new design. Will the Vessel, chosen in 2025 still be the best option in 2035?

Yes, going from an A200 to an A210 would be a big change but if it comes after several years of building and operating the A200, big difference to choosing the A210 now.

 

[Redlands18]

At least the FFM will double it's VLS load out to 32 cells. In the 2030s 16 cells won't be enough.

And even less so by the early 40s when the last GPF is entering service.

 

[Reptilia]

At least the FFM will double it's VLS load out to 32 cells. In the 2030s 16 cells won't be enough.

True but GPFs may end up with LOSVs also?

 

[Armchair]

FFX IV with its new equipment and sensors may reduce crewing requirements even further, this may make the batch IV the frontrunner when you add up all the other +s

The criteria have been posted a couple of times earlier in the thread.

These are (in priority order): to have manufacture underway in 2026 to deliver in 2029; transfer of the design for an onshore build in Australia; provide an effective maintenance and sustainment system that can be established in Australia; maximum compliance with regulatory, legislative and class standards; and interoperability with Australian and allied systems.

I am not saying you are wrong, but which of the FFX characteristics puts its ahead on these criteria?

 

[Reptilia]

The criteria have been posted a couple of times earlier in the thread.

These are (in priority order): to have manufacture underway in 2026 to deliver in 2029; transfer of the design for an onshore build in Australia; provide an effective maintenance and sustainment system that can be established in Australia; maximum compliance with regulatory, legislative and class standards; and interoperability with Australian and allied systems.

I am not saying you are wrong, but which of the FFX characteristics puts its ahead on these criteria?

I’m saying 3 FFX III(in service next year) built overseas from 2026, 3 FFX III in Aus from 2029 with an easy transition to FFX IV for ships 7-11. The first 6 can be upgraded to the same standard at a later date, maybe as early as 2040 when several other frigates will be in service.

-Cost
-Speed of manufacture
-AESA radar
-Electric Drive for ASW, Hanwha also leads in Hydrogen turbine development and is a big player in battery tech.
-127mm gun, possibly 16 mk41? or more?(kvls is heavier), latest CIWS II.
-low crew 120, possibly future batches less than 120.
-willing to integrate foreign equipment.
-evolution and integration of equipment/systems/sensors much faster with every batch of 3 to 6 ships.
-Familiarity with the Australian supply chain through Hanwha defence australia and its build of redback as9/as10.
-Potential Hanwha takeover of Austal.

 

[Going Boeing]

Buried in this ABC article about sexual misconduct at ADFA, is this report about further delays in getting HMAS Supply back into service.

Further problems exposed with HMAS supply during estimates hearing
One of the Royal Australian Navy's newest warships could be out of service for another year as Defence works to repair a "complex defect" that has already hampered the vessel for more than a year.
In March last year, the ABC revealed that Spanish-built ship HMAS Supply had to be taken in for mechanical work that is being paid for under warranty by the Navantia company.
Rear Admiral Steve Tiffen told the Senate estimates hearing that Navy had since discovered that another spare part needed to be ordered from Europe, which could take up to 40 weeks to arrive in Australia.
Urgent repairs on HMAS Supply
Engineers are working to repair one of the Royal Australian Navy's newest ships, with Defence investigating "possible mechanical defects" on the Spanish-built HMAS Supply.

Read more
"It's called the intermediate shaft, somewhere between the gear box and the propeller shaft and that's a 15-metre-long, 19-tonne, half-a-metre-diameter shaft," the navy's head of maritime sustainment said.
Greens Senator David Shoebridge said: "The sort of thing you should get right the first time you pop it in a ship, isn't it?"
"Absolutely," Rear Admiral Tiffin replied.
Navy Chief Vice Admiral Mark Hammond told the committee estimates he wanted the $670 million ship, which first entered service in April 2021, back on operations as soon as possible.
"This is a complex defect. Navantia have written to the department accepting liability, it will be repaired under warranty."
"I do not want the committee to get the wrong idea, I am not satisfied with the availability of this ship," the navy chief added.

 

[Reptilia]

Buried in this ABC article about sexual misconduct at ADFA, is this report about further delays in getting HMAS Supply back into service.

Further problems exposed with HMAS supply during estimates hearing
One of the Royal Australian Navy's newest warships could be out of service for another year as Defence works to repair a "complex defect" that has already hampered the vessel for more than a year.
In March last year, the ABC revealed that Spanish-built ship HMAS Supply had to be taken in for mechanical work that is being paid for under warranty by the Navantia company.
Rear Admiral Steve Tiffen told the Senate estimates hearing that Navy had since discovered that another spare part needed to be ordered from Europe, which could take up to 40 weeks to arrive in Australia.
Urgent repairs on HMAS Supply
Engineers are working to repair one of the Royal Australian Navy's newest ships, with Defence investigating "possible mechanical defects" on the Spanish-built HMAS Supply.

Read more
"It's called the intermediate shaft, somewhere between the gear box and the propeller shaft and that's a 15-metre-long, 19-tonne, half-a-metre-diameter shaft," the navy's head of maritime sustainment said.
Greens Senator David Shoebridge said: "The sort of thing you should get right the first time you pop it in a ship, isn't it?"
"Absolutely," Rear Admiral Tiffin replied.
Navy Chief Vice Admiral Mark Hammond told the committee estimates he wanted the $670 million ship, which first entered service in April 2021, back on operations as soon as possible.
"This is a complex defect. Navantia have written to the department accepting liability, it will be repaired under warranty."
"I do not want the committee to get the wrong idea, I am not satisfied with the availability of this ship," the navy chief added.

40 weeks!? I wonder what they do from here… they say an alternate is coming, we are going to need another supply/tanker vessel this year for sure.

 

[iambuzzard]

Buried in this ABC article about sexual misconduct at ADFA, is this report about further delays in getting HMAS Supply back into service.

Further problems exposed with HMAS supply during estimates hearing
One of the Royal Australian Navy's newest warships could be out of service for another year as Defence works to repair a "complex defect" that has already hampered the vessel for more than a year.
In March last year, the ABC revealed that Spanish-built ship HMAS Supply had to be taken in for mechanical work that is being paid for under warranty by the Navantia company.
Rear Admiral Steve Tiffen told the Senate estimates hearing that Navy had since discovered that another spare part needed to be ordered from Europe, which could take up to 40 weeks to arrive in Australia.
Urgent repairs on HMAS Supply
Engineers are working to repair one of the Royal Australian Navy's newest ships, with Defence investigating "possible mechanical defects" on the Spanish-built HMAS Supply.

Read more
"It's called the intermediate shaft, somewhere between the gear box and the propeller shaft and that's a 15-metre-long, 19-tonne, half-a-metre-diameter shaft," the navy's head of maritime sustainment said.
Greens Senator David Shoebridge said: "The sort of thing you should get right the first time you pop it in a ship, isn't it?"
"Absolutely," Rear Admiral Tiffin replied.
Navy Chief Vice Admiral Mark Hammond told the committee estimates he wanted the $670 million ship, which first entered service in April 2021, back on operations as soon as possible.
"This is a complex defect. Navantia have written to the department accepting liability, it will be repaired under warranty."
"I do not want the committee to get the wrong idea, I am not satisfied with the availability of this ship," the navy chief added.

It's a bit like the RN with the QE class carriers. I think Navantia could be out of the running for the GPFs after this. FFM is looking good.

 

[hauritz]

Just to state the obvious. My only preference for the new GP frigate is the non-Spanish ship.

 

[iambuzzard]

Just to state the obvious. My only preference for the new GP frigate is the non-Spanish ship.

I can't argue with that, Hauritz. As a layman with no knowledge I would prefer the FFM. 32 VLS, 127mm gun, AShM and Mine Warfare capability. We must also have Phalanx or an equivalent as a last resort. I don't know about Sea Ram.

 

[Reptilia]

Just to state the obvious. My only preference for the new GP frigate is the non-Spanish ship.

RANK IMO
#1 MEKO A210
#2 FFM
#3 MEKO A200
#4 Chungnam FFX III
#5 Mogami
#6 ALFA 3000
#7 Daegu FFX II

I actually think the mekos get priced out over 11 ships.
My personal pick would be the FFM also but how that plays out with none in service until after selection has been made.
Chungnam makes alot of sense factoring in everything else.

 

[Armchair]

In terms of the criteria (I don’t think they will select a ship other than exemplars for ships 1-6 but Redlands vision of A210 etc for 7-11 could come true).

1. to have manufacture underway in 2026 to deliver in 2029;
i think all bids will be in frame on this one (no point bidding if not).

2. transfer of the design for an onshore build in Australia;
Probably easiest for MEKO 200 and Alfa to meet, but the others would work hard to match

3. provide an effective maintenance and sustainment system that can be established in Australia;
Easiest for MEKO 200 and Alfa (existing local maintenance of ships with similar systems) so the others would be working hard to catch up (and Navantia would be anxious).

4. maximum compliance with regulatory, legislative and class standards;
Again probably easiest for MEKO 200 as those standards have been reached on Australian MEKO 200s

5. and interoperability with Australian and allied systems.
This is where the “as is” stipulation becomes tricky. If “as is” means Alfa and MEKO can specify 9LV, MK 41 and even CEAFAR then that might give them an advantage. If not and they have to supply the systems fitted to the last ship they built then Mogami and FFX would be ahead (interoperability with Korean or Japanese systems presumably meeting the definition of “allied”).

 

[SammyC]

For criteria three, I don't think it is too much of a jump for the two asian providers to integrate into the Australian supply system.

Rolls Royce, MAN and MTU all have a substantial presence in Australia for propulsion for instance. Auxiliary systems would likely also be major global brands such as Alfa Laval for coolers and centrifuges, all with an existing Australian footprint. Power systems will be say Siemens, Toshiba, Schneider or ABB. Controls systems (while maybe outwardly branded something else) will be Honeywell, Yokogawa or Emerson. It actually doesn't matter which ship is picked, their mechanical and electrical gear will all be standard and mostly already supported in Australia.

Also remember that even though both countries have their own indigenous weapons and combat systems, they have a very strong American influence, and at minimum are highly integratable with USN equipment. It means we will probably understand them with relative ease and the parts won't be that alien.

Outside of that you're talking beds, bunks and chairs.

Lastly half the stuff in my house came from either Japan or Korea (I still have a classic Sony trinitron TV from the 90s in my shed, and parts for my high powered V8 Suzuki Swift are available for same day delivery in my neighbourhood). Their supply chains moved here years ago.

 

[Reptilia]

I should note that Austal would likely need something comparable to the Civmec and Osborne facilities for the LCH, GPF and LOCSV program, covering a main assembly shed for a minimum two frigate sized construction hulls, a steel cutting, module and pipe fabrication shed, and a paint shed, plus the various office and warehousing sheds. So they will need some leg room.

AME Henderson site (4.63-hectare) where Echomarine is located just sold to DevelopmentWA(State Land Developer) for $51 million. I think the same site was purchased for $21 million from Austal back in 2014.
Be interested to see what they use it for, Demolished/New facility? BAE expansion? or Landing Craft production Halls?

Also, Civmec still interested in defence projects it seems.

https://company-announcements.afr.com/asx/cvl/266464d7-0e52-11ef-a474-6a6ce2286ef8.pdf

 

[SammyC]

I wonder if that is where Silver yachts wil go. Development WA promised them a new facility some time ago, but it had all gone quiet. The only place I can see reporting on that story is Business News, but I refuse to pay their $95 per month membership. Is there any other information available in the article Reptilia?

Don't get me wrong civmec are a good business and have exactly the ship building facilities needed. I would just view that the state demand for their services (be that O&G, mining, infrastructure, or more recently new chemical plants) is high and likely will be so for a while. I just can't see them being able to commit in the order of half to 3/4 of that facility to ship building (particularly with a customer that is a cheapskate on price, comes with a huge bureaucracy and all too frequently attracts the news) when there is other more suited and lucrative work for them. Austal on the other hand are perfectly willing to make themselves a single supplier to Defence.

In the end I think just the sheer volume of work going out in general, particularly on a long term continuous basis, means a new facility is warranted. Also the government doesn't seem to be talking with civmec, only Austal. Maybe civmec have a role as a subcontractor producing some of the modules.

I'm not sure civmec are covering themselves in glory with the Arafura project either. Or enjoying it. There is a lot of unserviceable hulls starting to pile up in their yard with nowhere to go.

 

[Armchair]

For criteria three, I don't think it is too much of a jump for the two asian providers to integrate into the Australian supply system.

I agree on the supply chain issues (Japan and Korean builders may even be able to provide much better access to and support for some systems) but in terms of maintenance there are already Australian facilities that have worked for years on maintaining MEKO and Navantia vessels. I don’t think it is an insurmountable advantage but I think those two start ahead on that criterion.