I don't know him and know stuff all about him, even though I have worked closely with people who do know him, some of who served with him. You would think they would have had some stories to share but the mention of his name caused their faces to go red, steam to come from their ears and incoherent obscenities from their mouths, often accompanied by things being thrown and smashed. So I don't know him and am glad of it.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
Very possible, I am not an economic expert and am very happy to be corrected if there are more authoritative sources.
The main point I was trying to make is that Australia's defence spending has had a huge growth over the last 15 years or so. This can mean there will be additional options that could be considered as our defence needs evolve.
John Newman
The Bunker Group
On your first point regarding the dollar amounts for Defence spending, the figures below are from the 2016 DWP (the Government's own figures), page 180:
* 2016-2017 Financial Year - $32.374b
* 2025-2026 Financial Year - $58.742b
Over the 10 year period set out in the 2016 DWP, spending will have increased by $26.368b in the 10th year compared to the 1st year.
On your second point regarding this increasing levels of expenditure that it means the Government has 'additional options', sorry, but I disagree.
Yes on the one hand Defence will be receiving $26b more in year 10 (2025-26) than compared to year 1 (2016-17), but all of that money has already been budgeted and allocated to all of the projects currently set out in the 2016 DIIP. To the best of my knowledge there isn't any spare billions of dollars just sitting there in the Defence budget that hasn't been allocated to a particular project.
For the RAN alone, the Government is talking of expenditure of around $90b for the continuous shipbuilding (and submarine) programs.
Now that's not to say that things can't change, but the only way to allow for 'additional options' is for Defence spending to increase above 2% of GDP or for some projects to be canned and other projects take their place.
It's always worth having a read (or re-read of the DWP and DIIP) to see where all that money is planned to be allocated to.
Cheers,
Good evening everyone. I have something on my mind regarding the SEA500 selection- people have talked about many things, but no one has mentioned the range the frigate is capable of. On paper, it looks like a choice between the following:
Type 26 and Fremm: 32 VLS and range 6900-7000nm
vs
Navantia 48 VLS and range 5000nm.
Ignoring the engineering specifics of making a ship quieter aside, it looks like a tradeoff: 2000nm more, vs 16 extra VLS cells.All three are similar size and tonnage.
Does anyone have an opinion about htis? Which is more important? range sailed- can the ship reach a destination, or extra VLS- can the ship carry enough missiles/missile launched torpedoes?
Type 26 and Fremm: 32 VLS and range 6900-7000nm
vs
Navantia 48 VLS and range 5000nm.
Ignoring the engineering specifics of making a ship quieter aside, it looks like a tradeoff: 2000nm more, vs 16 extra VLS cells.All three are similar size and tonnage.
Does anyone have an opinion about htis? Which is more important? range sailed- can the ship reach a destination, or extra VLS- can the ship carry enough missiles/missile launched torpedoes?
At what speeds and at what time on station at those ranges? I wouldn’t be too concerned about Wiki type figures alleging certain range...
Clearly the RAN doesn’t have a major issue with the range of the F-100 series...
They do actually, the F-100 is the design chosen against the wishes of the RAN. That said they are not bad ships, they just don't meet all the requirements the RAN had going into the project.
Of course, hence why they short-listed the Navantia solution for the AWD project and why they have done so again for SEA-5000...
Now I’ve no doubt the RAN preferred the Gibbs and Cox design, but that is rather different to suggesting they have a real problem with the Navantia design...
Just stating the fact it didn't meet all the requirements, none of the existing designs did, which is why there were evolved designs. Of the existing designs the F-100 was judged most suitable because it already had AEGIS among other things, AEGIS having been selected before the platform was. I'm not guessing or inventing this, I sat in on meeting and reviews where this very thing was discussed, as well as how to mitigate the known deficiencies of the design. The key mitigation would have been a fourth hull, didn't happen but as the new frigates are likely to have a decent AW capability it really doesn't matter now, its just when the AWDs were selected they were going to be our only AW platforms.
No-one is arguing I think that any specific design met all RAN requirements without modification, because it is plain they didn’t. As you have said all of the designs considered for AWD and definitely SEA-5000 are evolved designs.
The topic discussion was whether the Navantia solution has an inferior and perhaps therefore unacceptable range capability and plainly from RAN’s point of view it doesn’t. Which is not to say of course that it is perfect, I am aware fuel carriage modifications and engine upgrades were chosen to afford greater range than the Spanish versions however it was recommended by the RAN to proceed to Phase 2 of the AWD project and now SEA-5000, so it clearly isn’t a major issue.
I think the simple fact that there is a selection process for SEA 5000 is a good indication that the RAN isn't convinced that the Hobart is entirely suitable.
It wouldn't surprise me if the Navantia ship managed to win again against the RAN's prefered ship purely because it has the advantage of already being in service and being the lowest risk option ... which is how it won selection in the first place.
How do you work that out? They are two different projects; there was never any capability to expand Sea 4000 beyond 4 hulls, and the fourth option lapsed in October 2008. The requirements set for Hobart was established in 2006 - 12 years ago so requirements will probably have moved on a bit.
And in any case, it would not be possible to build more Hobarts; the PDEs (to take an example) are no longer available. So if you're going to get a new design (which is what the Navantia offering is, as I understand it without inside knowledge, notwithstanding it is based on the F100) then you would be mad if you didn't consider all the market had to offer you; particularly when the initial prime focus, at least, and the focus that led to the down select was ASW, not AAW.
Last edited:
The recent discussion about icebreakers in the US and Canadian threads has prompted me to report on the progress of e future Australian ship Nuyina. Although strictly speaking she is not Naval she is a strategic asset for us in the Southern Ocean and thus worthy of comment.
She is currently being built in the Damen yard in Romania.
http://www.antarctica.gov.au/icebreaker[URL="http://www.antarctica.gov.au/icebreaker"]Australias new icebreaker RSV Nuyina[/URL]
She is currently being built in the Damen yard in Romania.
http://www.antarctica.gov.au/icebreaker[URL="http://www.antarctica.gov.au/icebreaker"]Australias new icebreaker RSV Nuyina[/URL]
Port Phillip Bay is unsuitable as the entrance at "The Heads" is easily blocked by mines or a sunken vessel.
Portland may be an option but its at least 5 hours from Melbourne by road.
I love the construction update on this ship, a diagram showing where they are up to and a few reports along the way.
I really hope they adopt this kind of approach for the Sea5000 and Sea1000 builds.
I also see she has two landing barges.
https://navaltoday.com/2017/11/09/d...-barges-for-australian-icebreaker-rsv-nuyina/
She will be a capable ship.
I may be wrong ... but I can't think of a single incident where a ship that was already in service with a particular navy had to recompete for selection for a similar requirement. The Navantia ship should have been a shoe-in for selection of this new frigate. I am sure that when the requirements for SEA5000 were being drawn up that it would have been obvious that the Hobart class matched most of those requirements and yet despite this the navy decided to throw open the selection process and look for a completely new design.
To me this doesn't seem like a huge vote of confidence in the Hobart design.
I take your point about it being an opportunity to consider what else was available in the marketplace but the benefits of simply continuing a production line should have outweighed any technological edge enjoyed by its competitors.
As a result of this I can actually see a conflict arising between the navy and government over the selection of this new ship. The navy may well prefer one of the newer designs while the government's priority may be simply to get the cheapest option in production as quickly as possible.
The next few months could get quite interesting as this selection process enters its final phase.
Sorry I disagree and you are basing your view on assumption. The SEA 5000 RFT was quite different to that for the AWD the move to provide the ship with a very capable combat system came late in the piece. The main focus of the SEA5000 was ASW and that is reason enough that the FREMM and the T26 be considered in what is a major project.
The evolved F105 has advantages over other two in that the vessel is ahead of the other in that it is designed for Aegis and provides a large missile load out without modification and is a mature design in service.
The T26 is a paper vessel but may offer outstanding ASW capability. FREMM is a relatively mature ASW design.
Finally there are the concurrent projects that may result in quite a few hulls of the same design being built providing a large support systems noting all three are bidding for CSC and the USN FFG-X.
I would not be jumping to assumptions.
protoplasm
Active Member
It’s always worth remembering that the outcomes of selection processes like this have a huge political component to them.
This isn’t about politician and bureaucrat bashing, but rather being aware that there are reasons why decisions are made that may not be as simple as it seems. The perceptions of risk have a significant impact.
This all means that it can be difficult to draw conclusions from selection processes. We have a climate now that is adverse to Abbott style “captains calls” hence competitive bid processes even when a logical choice is already present
Well the RAN are the ones, through CASG that recommend which designs are short-listed, so...
I'm curious how Australia was able to squeeze an extra 500 nm into Hobart, when the F100s upon which she is based have a range of 4500 nm at the same speed? Was there enough room in the hull for extra fuel storage, or was a capability removed?
- Status