This is a discussion on Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates within the Navy & Maritime forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; Originally Posted by Vivendi
AFAIK the Norwegians involved in the Nansen class project with Navantia were less than impressed by ...
AFAIK the Norwegians involved in the Nansen class project with Navantia were less than impressed by N. performance-- I don't know much details however I believe there were issues at different levels.
There was no shortage of input from the Norwegians to Australia about how unhappy they were at some of the build and partnering stages - IIRC I stated this some years ago and on here.
________________ A corollary of Finagle's Law, similar to Occam's Razor, says:
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
AFAIK the Norwegians involved in the Nansen class project with Navantia were less than impressed by N. performance-- I don't know much details however I believe there were issues at different levels.
I have not heard the Spanish navy had complaints wrt Navantia works, and they send people to inspect the works as well.
Quote:
OTOH the issues were not so serious that they threatened to kill or seriously hamper the project.
But the block/s made in Norway were unusable and there had to be unconfortable (not easy agreement) negotiations to solve the money of those block/s. Will Williamstown yard ask for money to Navantia? Or maybe they have clear whose mistake or misunderstood is and have agreed to say less as possible of it? You can´t trust in unofficial info.
Apart there is the first Canberra with most of blocks done, mounted and probably inspected by Australian people, they have been done to Lloyd´s standards and so far Australian are ok.
Ferrol and Fene; on the other hand, have a long proud history of production workers doing what they think is right, even if the naval architects and structurals think otherwise. Which results in lots of configuration management problems (product not matching the drawings), and sometimes they stuff it up because they think they know better than the engineers; but often problems are fixed before it's too late to prevent rework.
Hehe that is the reason why they make blocks so fast and exact enough to use them.
from a build model defined by Govt that may be so - but from a capability level, not in my opinion.
I've seen some of the output on selection and it cranks me up that we have another decision made in absentia of a few critical warfighting suggestions.
we went cheap again, and we will pay the price as we always change the design enough to make it more expensive than the tactically preferred solution.
we always do this.
we don't bloody learn
we allow political process to intervene beyond acceptable levels
we pretend that we made the right choice to keep the govt of the day looking good
a bad baseline decision decided by money - and which will laughably end up costing more than the more capable option and a vessel with less development flexibility.
all this despite some coherent and persistent concerns about local industry competency and the contracting model - and not just from within.
all IMO of course.
sadly it won't be the last time we buy the wrong box to fit in the designated hole.
I suppose you are refering to Arleigh Burke? It is 9000-10000 tonnes, almost double the F105, 2 more gas turbines, that is double life cost expense related, 100 more people, that is 50% more manning cost related, and the ship itself completed, from Us webs, is 2200 millions dollars. F105 is estimated 750 mill. euro total price today´s price. If you had go for Burkes then you´d be mortgaging future ADF budget flexibity, just imagine to be mortgaged like that and sudden strong crisis appears...eg total lifecycle cost is like 3 times asset initial cost.
Burke´s 9.3 draft.
Now if Evolved Burke is to be reduced a bit up to 8000 tonnes, a bit cheaper initially, but Arleigh Burke´s had more than 20 months of delay, so you could expect the Evolved design not to be a path of roses...just imaging the same block problem in Burkes, just it would have bigger worst consequences.
And not to speak if you want an Anzac 2 on 9000 tonnes or have to go for other design.
The main difference between them is Burke´s on 96 cells in Vls.
Just putting 48 cells in Awd and Anzac 2 and Australia will be the 2nd strongest navy in the world, but probably you can put more than 48 cells (each module for Vls´s has 8 cells).
Edit: say 3 times total life cycle cost then: 3 Burkes: (1 Burke 2200 mill. $ for development and delays from Evolved Burke) 6600 mill $ times 3 is 20000 mill $.
3 Awds: (1 Awd 750 mill euro) 2200 mill euro times 3 is 6600 mill $, so the Adf has saved 13400 mill $/euros plus the money and time saved on Anzac 2 replacement and commonality, maintenances, spares, flexibility on crew substitution...
Last edited by Jaimito; November 3rd, 2010 at 07:21 PM.
I suppose you are refering to Arleigh Burke? It is 9000-10000 tonnes, almost double the F105, 2 more gas turbines, that is double life cost expense related, 100 more people, that is 50% more manning cost related, and the ship itself completed, from Us webs, is 2200 millions dollars. F105 is estimated 750 mill. euro total price today´s price. If you had go for Burkes then you´d be mortgaging future ADF budget flexibity, just imagine to be mortgaged like that and sudden strong crisis appears...eg total lifecycle cost is like 3 times asset initial cost.
Burke´s 9.3 draft.
Now if Evolved Burke is to be reduced a bit up to 8000 tonnes, a bit cheaper initially, but Arleigh Burke´s had more than 20 months of delay, so you could expect the Evolved design not to be a path of roses...just imaging the same block problem in Burkes, just it would have bigger worst consequences.
And not to speak if you want an Anzac 2 on 9000 tonnes or have to go for other design.
The main difference between them is Burke´s on 96 cells in Vls.
Just putting 48 cells in Awd and Anzac 2 and Australia will be the 2nd strongest navy in the world, but probably you can put more than 48 cells (each module for Vls´s has 8 cells).
Edit: say 3 times total life cycle cost then: 3 Burkes: (1 Burke 2200 mill. $ for development and delays from Evolved Burke) 6600 mill $ times 3 is 20000 mill $.
3 Awds: (1 Awd 750 mill euro) 2200 mill euro times 3 is 6600 mill $, so the Adf has saved 13400 mill $/euros plus the money and time saved on Anzac 2 replacement and commonality, maintenances, spares, flexibility on crew substitution...
A few comments and corrections here. The proposed G & C 'Baby Burke' was essentially a smaller version of the Arleigh Burke-class DDG, more inline with the Japanese Kongou-class DDG which IIRC was itself a G&C design.
In terms of the higher crew requirement, that has very much to do with USN doctrine, particularly with regards to damage control. USN vessels tend to be crew heavy compared to similar vessels operated by other navies. While these numbers might be off (I am doing this from memory) a USN FFG-7/Oliver Hazard Perry-class FFG would deploy with something like 300-320 crew aboard. Meanwhile, a RAN Adelaide-class FFG (the Australianized version of the OHP frigate) would deploy with ~220 crew aboard. Same ship, very similar fitout in terms of sensors, electronics and machinery, but the USN frigate would have nearly 50% more crew. That has very much to do with US experience handling damage control.
As such, I would expect that the 'Baby Burke' would have a similar crew requirement to that of the now chosen Hobart-class AWD version of the Navantia F100 design.
Some advantages that the 'Baby Burke' had over the F100, is that the design being newer and larger would allow for more room for 'futureproofing' the design. If at some future date the RAN decided (or found out...) that the AWD needed additional VLS cells on deployments, the current F100 design does not really have much additional room to install them. An Arleigh Burke-class DDG OTOH has two separate sets of VLS, one fore and the other aft, and AFAIK the 'Baby Burke' was to have a similar arrangement available. This would mean that if it was decided to have the AWD fitted 'for, but not with' the max allotment of VLS cells, more could potentially be added without requiring something drastic like a hull plug. Additionally, by having a pair of VLS cells located on opposite ends of the ship, damage to the vessel is less likely to achieve a complete mission kill. In an F100, if there is significant damage to a vessel's bow/forecastle, then it it quite likely that the 5" gun as well as the VLS would be rendered inoperative.
Altogether, going with a smaller vessel design can make it less expensive to purchase, it might also impact the long-term operational viability of the design. Unfortunately, the rather complex question of which design would be the better choice can really only be known in hindsight.
-Cheers
________________
"I'm doing the same thing I do every night, Pinky..." comment from one lab mouse to another.
In terms of the higher crew requirement, that has very much to do with USN doctrine, particularly with regards to damage control. USN vessels tend to be crew heavy compared to similar vessels operated by other navies. While these numbers might be off (I am doing this from memory) a USN FFG-7/Oliver Hazard Perry-class FFG would deploy with something like 300-320 crew aboard. Meanwhile, a RAN Adelaide-class FFG (the Australianized version of the OHP frigate) would deploy with ~220 crew aboard. Same ship, very similar fitout in terms of sensors, electronics and machinery, but the USN frigate would have nearly 50% more crew. That has very much to do with US experience handling damage control.
Not correct. USN crew numbers onboard OHPs are more or less the same as those of the RAN.
In terms of the higher crew requirement, that has very much to do with USN doctrine, particularly with regards to damage control. USN vessels tend to be crew heavy compared to similar vessels operated by other navies. While these numbers might be off (I am doing this from memory) a USN FFG-7/Oliver Hazard Perry-class FFG would deploy with something like 300-320 crew aboard. Meanwhile, a RAN Adelaide-class FFG (the Australianized version of the OHP frigate) would deploy with ~220 crew aboard. Same ship, very similar fitout in terms of sensors, electronics and machinery, but the USN frigate would have nearly 50% more crew. That has very much to do with US experience handling damage control.
Where the hell did they put them?!? i remember on Newcastle struggling with an additional 30 people during a Long N course, with students sleeping in the hanger, LeutCommanders and above sleeping in Jnrs messes and bunks in every spare compartment onboard, and that was with some crew on leave to make room...thankfully there was no embarked Flight during that time, otherwise it could have struggled.
If a FFG requires more room for deployment they place an accomadation module in the spare hanger of the ship, with the other for Helo. I know the FFH sturggles when surging people onboard for operations or VIP guests. We lost our Tv so they could fit another bunk for translator in the MEAO. But to be fair the bunk system on Anzac is much better then FFG, as i can roll over in my pit and actually sit up as well
The US also dont multi task when it comes to equipment like the RAN and other navies do. We have a stoker trained to repair multi componants on a ship, with a Leading hand able to specialise in that piece of equipment, but still maintain knowledge of other sections. The USN have stokers trained for their kit, and little else. Without covering whole ship Equipment. Same goes with Greenies(electrical technicians for the unsalted) ours are split into sections, but are capable to work on multiple systems without too much head scratching(well, theres still some but mostly from the maintainer himself)
Oddly enough, the only one who gets wholeship training and knowledge is their officers, while ours are trained in either weapons electrical, seamanip, mechanical and supply. Then specialise within their branch. USN do 'jack of all trades, master of none'
As such, I would expect that the 'Baby Burke' would have a similar crew requirement to that of the now chosen Hobart-class AWD version of the Navantia F100 design.
RAN did some heavy engagement with the USN and with G&C on crewing issues, the numbers were coming down.
either way, the reality is that we purchased these due to political imperative - not tactical competency and through life advantages.
nice ships - just not for us.
anyway, the deals done and we have to live with these for the next 30+ years. In the first 10 years we'll discover that they cost more to build and maintain than the alternative - and will have less upgrade potential.
$hitt happens, and we'll live with it - again.
________________ A corollary of Finagle's Law, similar to Occam's Razor, says:
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
Not correct. USN crew numbers onboard OHPs are more or less the same as those of the RAN.
AND
Quote:
Originally Posted by icelord
Where the hell did they put them?!? i remember on Newcastle struggling with an additional 30 people during a Long N course, with students sleeping in the hanger, LeutCommanders and above sleeping in Jnrs messes and bunks in every spare compartment onboard, and that was with some crew on leave to make room...thankfully there was no embarked Flight during that time, otherwise it could have struggled.
As I said, I was doing that from memory. I will check with an ex-USN crewmen when I get a chance to double check numbers. I do quite distinctly remember though that USN OHP's did have a significantly higher number of crew vs. similar RAN FFG's, and that was due to different doctrine re: crew roles.
-Cheers
________________
"I'm doing the same thing I do every night, Pinky..." comment from one lab mouse to another.
As I said, I was doing that from memory. I will check with an ex-USN crewmen when I get a chance to double check numbers. I do quite distinctly remember though that USN OHP's did have a significantly higher number of crew vs. similar RAN FFG's, and that was due to different doctrine re: crew roles.
-Cheers
I would have to agree with you Tod, when I was in the Puss IIRC our FFG's were around the 180 mark and having done in company time with US Carrier Groups their FFG's were around the 220 mark, give or take. Our ships did have a different fitout as far as messing arrangements went. When I was on the Hobart we had some US Comms operators do a crossdeck and they said that even the DDG (by which time the US did not even have any left in service) had better accomodation than their ship, much more room and better facilities. This goes back to the early 90's though so not sure what current arrangements are
As I said, I was doing that from memory. I will check with an ex-USN crewmen when I get a chance to double check numbers. I do quite distinctly remember though that USN OHP's did have a significantly higher number of crew vs. similar RAN FFG's, and that was due to different doctrine re: crew roles.
-Cheers
US ships tend to have larger crews as they have different philosophies wrt to fire and damage control.
I'd be very surprised if the crewing was identical as its not my experience that this is so.
________________ A corollary of Finagle's Law, similar to Occam's Razor, says:
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
RAN did some heavy engagement with the USN and with G&C on crewing issues, the numbers were coming down.
either way, the reality is that we purchased these due to political imperative - not tactical competency and through life advantages.
nice ships - just not for us.
anyway, the deals done and we have to live with these for the next 30+ years. In the first 10 years we'll discover that they cost more to build and maintain than the alternative - and will have less upgrade potential.
$hitt happens, and we'll live with it - again.
Given all they'll probably ever have to do is visit RIMPAC and a few other ex's, maybe chase a few wooden Dhows around the Middle East and probably be drafted in to help deal with refugee problems, they'll probably suffice...
I have not heard the Spanish navy had complaints wrt Navantia works, and they send people to inspect the works as well.
.
And to my knowledge the Swedish Navy never complained much about the subs made by Kockums -- still the Collins class had a number of issues.
Of course the Collins class is quite different from the Swedish subs (that was part of the problem) but then again there are numerous differences between F100 and Nansen -- seems to me the differences are larger and more numerous between the F100 class and Nansen than between the Hobart class and F105 (although I may be wrong). Dimensions are different, radar is different, Nansen was strengthened to get som limited "ice-breaking" capabilities, etc.
AFAIK the Hobart class will have the same dimensions as the F100 class, is this correct?
Just putting 48 cells in Awd and Anzac 2 and Australia will be the 2nd strongest navy in the world, but probably you can put more than 48 cells (each module for Vls´s has 8 cells).
Are you saying that the F100/Hobart class can fit more than 48 cells? Where would they go?
At the risk of starting a pissing contest; the comment on "2nd strongest navy" is just ridiculus. I suggest you check some of the other navies out there, e.g. the Japanese navy, the South Korean Navy, and the Chinese Navy,
At the risk of starting a pissing contest; the comment on "2nd strongest navy" is just ridiculus. I suggest you check some of the other navies out there, e.g. the Japanese navy, the South Korean Navy, and the Chinese Navy,
absoluetly agree. It is nonsense
________________ A corollary of Finagle's Law, similar to Occam's Razor, says:
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
Last edited by Aussie Digger; November 4th, 2010 at 09:50 AM.
