Welcome to DefenceTalk.com Forum!

By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.

  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

Discussion in 'Navy & Maritime' started by icelord, Feb 13, 2007.

Share This Page

  1. t68

    t68 Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2006
    Messages:
    2,875
    Likes Received:
    19
    Location:
    NSW
    if they are talking prototyping would that give an indication that Navantia is the least likely to win other wise there would be no need for prototyping?
     
  2. Joe Black

    Joe Black Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2004
    Messages:
    377
    Likes Received:
    7
    As much as I know it would probably be not accepted by Tim Barrett, I reckon a split buy could work well - Build 3 F5000 and 6 T-26s. I don't think it is wise to jump onboard with the T-26 yet. I would rather RN and BAE iron out all the major issues being Australia commits to the T-26 class. Lessons should have been learnt from the T-45 Daring class.

    There will be a lot of positives with a F-5000 order too, and especially if the Canadians come onboard with the F-5000 for their CSC program.
     
  3. StingrayOZ

    StingrayOZ Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2007
    Messages:
    2,793
    Likes Received:
    9
    Location:
    Sydney
    I can see the F-5000 being very promising platform. It will be interesting to see what happens with the FFG(X)

    I think the 4th AWD would have been the best choice, I just think of the money saved not having to deliberately slowing the build, the efficiency building another awd, keeping everyone employed. But the decision as I recall was right in the middle of the pain of the AWD program.

    Ships are expensive, hopefully the commitment to continous builds gets rid of this stop start insanity.
    I see the US has announced the FFG(X) will be about $1b a ship, and that is for something I assume less capable than the AWD at a 20 ship build in existing yards.

    New Frigate Program Heats Up As U.S. Navy Says It Will Pay Nearly $1B Per Ship
     
  4. ASSAIL

    ASSAIL Defense Professional Verified Defense Pro

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2011
    Messages:
    2,121
    Likes Received:
    73
    Location:
    Darwin NT Australia
    It won't be a Hobart, its stated that there's 70% commonality with the SEA 5000 which is a large difference. How it's different we can only surmise at the moment but it will need a "prototype/first of Class/LRIP" or whatever you call it.
    Remember a chimpanzee has 99% of the human genome and it's not the same, although.....some.....
     
    Last edited: Jan 11, 2018
    stoney likes this.
  5. koala

    koala Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2012
    Messages:
    40
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Northern Beaches Sydney
    I found this to be an interesting article

    The Navy's Rationale For Not Reactivating Perry Class Frigates Doesn't Float

    Some circles in the US Navy are interested in bringing back the OHP frigates as coastal and antipiracy vessels.
    I wonder why Australia should readily either sink ours or offload our Perry's before our AWD's are fully FOC or even commissioned or built. I thought with the FFG upgrade the remaining OHP's would be very capable in protecting the Australian coastline for many years to come and if also kept in working reserve could be a great training vessel and also free up our superior new majors for the main battles.
    And if crewing is an issue a part Polynesian and Kiwi crew could be a solution

    Just a thought, Cheer's
     
    Last edited: Jan 11, 2018
  6. oldsig127

    oldsig127 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2014
    Messages:
    284
    Likes Received:
    4
    Location:
    Brisbane
    Cadredave, AegisFC and ngatimozart like this.
  7. AegisFC

    AegisFC Super Moderator Staff Member Verified Defense Pro

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2006
    Messages:
    2,020
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    Virginia
    He has no idea what he is talking about. The USN OHP's that havne't been sunk have been raided for parts for the international users there just are not that many left in reserve.
     
    Cadredave likes this.
  8. alexsa

    alexsa Defense Professional Verified Defense Pro

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2005
    Messages:
    2,384
    Likes Received:
    40
    Location:
    Australia
    Don’t forget there will be the cost for the undercover build process that is now being built. This will add to the cost but needs to be seen as a long term benefit to the continuous build cycle
     
  9. ASSAIL

    ASSAIL Defense Professional Verified Defense Pro

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2011
    Messages:
    2,121
    Likes Received:
    73
    Location:
    Darwin NT Australia
    Is the cost of the new production buildings being allocated to the SEA 5000 programme or has ASC infrastructure got an unrelated budget for them? The same goes for the new facility for SEA 1000 ?
     
  10. spoz

    spoz Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2009
    Messages:
    183
    Likes Received:
    6
    Location:
    Osborne, SA
    The Osborne south facilities are now owned by Australian Naval Infrastructure Pty, and are totally separate from ASC. The intent, as I understand it, is that they will in effect be leased to whoever is building something although I have no idea how the “lease” will be set up or what conditions might be expected.

    I think, but am not sure, that the same applies to the s/m facilities, current and future.
     
    Last edited: Jan 11, 2018
  11. alexsa

    alexsa Defense Professional Verified Defense Pro

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2005
    Messages:
    2,384
    Likes Received:
    40
    Location:
    Australia
    I think the infrastructure costs will be spread acrsoss the continuous build plan and owned by a government entity, but the Osborne extension be used for SE5000 in the first instance. Know how policians and the press do there figures it is quite possibe some wil combine the costs.

    There will need to be a new set to work programme in the new factility by the eventual operator of the facility and you can bet that this will be applied to SEA5000 noting ASC are building the two new OPVs suggesting this will be done in the current facility.

    The new submarine construction will also be at a new facility and this will also be covered in the Australian Naval Infrstruture build as well as far as I can tell from the governments utterances on this.

    The only facility that may sit outside this is the CIVMEC/Forjacs new facility at Henderson. This appears to be a commercial (i.e not owned by Australian Naval Infrastructure
     
  12. Joe Black

    Joe Black Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2004
    Messages:
    377
    Likes Received:
    7
    An article to call for a larger RAN

    A ‘clever’ Australia needs a larger, more potent navy
    A ‘clever’ Australia needs a larger, more potent navy | The Strategist

    I always think RAN is a little on the lean side considering the vast Indian and Pacific Ocean plus a very congested and contested South China Sea RAN would see itself get involved in. Perhaps an increase in number of surface combatants might be warranted in the future. I think RAN might want to consider how automation and even AI could be applied in future ships to reduce manning crew per ship too if that will help alleviate some of the restricted manpower issues.
     
  13. Joe Black

    Joe Black Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2004
    Messages:
    377
    Likes Received:
    7
    Another great article. This time about UAV/UAS platforms onboard on RAN ships, especially how the ISR capability within RAN would grow with these platforms.

    FIRST CONTACT – The Royal Australian Navy has taken its first tentative steps into unmanned aerial system operations.

    I'm extremely excited and proud that we Aussies have been able to innovate and improve the ScanEagle's capability with the introduction of ViDAR technology.
     
  14. PeterM

    PeterM Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2008
    Messages:
    396
    Likes Received:
    5
    A larger navy is good in principle. However, there are the factors needed to procure, operate and support any increase in capability, all of what will have considerable cost impacts, let alone the amount of time needed grow capability.

    Realistically with the current plans, the RAN has been growing significantly in capability in recent years.

    I appreciate the intent of the article, but I am curious as to what the author believes is the 'right' size for the RAN and how it is proposed to be funded?
     
  15. Geddy

    Geddy New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2007
    Messages:
    15
    Likes Received:
    0
    I would have thought that a more doable option would be to increase the offensive and defensive capabilities of a given platform rather than more vessels. CRAM and Tommahawk are just two example of what could be done.
    A stronger long range offensive anti-ship capacity in the air would a cheaper way this same goals could be achieved.

    Having seen 9 major ships of the fleet at Garden Island, on a rare visit to Sydney this week, I was impressed. Would like to see their crews given the best in equipment.
     
  16. t68

    t68 Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2006
    Messages:
    2,875
    Likes Received:
    19
    Location:
    NSW

    Agree, but unfortunately that's also defined by the limited funding for capability, we saw that with the AWD build program Gibbs &Cox was the preferred vessel not only in more capability per vessel but more future growth, with the trade off being the less capability per ship but with a hoped option of a forth hull, 3 Baby Burkes would have given us the same VLS capability as 4 current Hobarts. Its only speculation now if it would have been cheaper or not
     
  17. hauritz

    hauritz Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2011
    Messages:
    653
    Likes Received:
    3
    In Australia's case it could be manpower costs that would stop it from significantly expanding the size of its navy so I agree that we might end up having to squeeze every bit of capability we can out of the hulls we will have.

    The final design for Australia's new frigates haven't been determined yet and the government has already started to add on extra capabilities such as AEGIS and Ballistic Missile defences. Land attack missiles may soon follow.

    Australia may yet regret not going for a larger hull design such as the Baby Burke.
     
  18. alexsa

    alexsa Defense Professional Verified Defense Pro

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2005
    Messages:
    2,384
    Likes Received:
    40
    Location:
    Australia
    I understand the man power issue is be exacerbated but a large number of ineffectives (due to medical, physical or mental health issues). I admin this is third hand from someone who has just left the RAN and was involved in manpower. I don’t have any reason to believe he would embellish this. If you look at the number of uniform members in the navy offer the last 30 years and the crew sizes relative to the ships we should be able to man up all current vessels effectively.

    If this situation is true then we have a significant HR issue that is directly impacting effectiveness.

    PS: it can be a bit hard to get definite figures on the aDF numbers. The ADF took a bit hit in the mid 80s from around 72K personal (ful time) but stabilised at about 58K by about 1996.

    The Challenge of Military Service: Defence Personnel Conditions in a Changing Social Context – Parliament of Australia

    Current manning for the ADF is just over 58K
     
    Last edited: Jan 12, 2018
    PeterM likes this.
  19. StingrayOZ

    StingrayOZ Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2007
    Messages:
    2,793
    Likes Received:
    9
    Location:
    Sydney
    I wonder how the RAN will function when the UK and Canada come on line with new ships and it will become harder to steal/poach/attract sailors from the RN and the Canadian Navy. But this affects the RAN no matter what its size as does ineffectiveness issues.

    IMO its not an impossible dream to go to 14 surface combatants it may even be desirable in terms of hull management for upgrades, and fleet life. I think if you wanted more than that you would be looking at corvettes or something with a lot less man power and trading in larger hulls for more smaller hulls.

    I don't think a baby burke was ever a realistic hull for the entire surface combatants like the F-105 hull might be. Crewing size (220) and over all cost would have ruled it out.
     
  20. Takao

    Takao New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2017
    Messages:
    14
    Likes Received:
    5
    Location:
    Canberra
    I think you are on to something here alexsa, there are HR issues that need to be addressed first. A couple of RAN officers and I tried to chase this topic in 2016 and couldn't get a definite answer. But, broadly speaking, the RAN of the early 1960s had similar numbers of ships and personnel that they do today. Despite that, our FAA has been cut and our ships require less crew (look at the engineering department of the two HMAS Brisbane's!). So where is the 'gap' in personnel?

    The best we could come up with was a combination of Joint requirements (especially at the operational level) and the greater corporate governance requirements. Not sure what is more important, Fleet or Canberra. Nonetheless, I'd be concerned that the current RAN does not have the depth to fight a major war, especially if taking losses (but then again, that's an ADF issue).