Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
Pancake
New Member
True in part Jack but commonality is only a strength when the equipment deficiencies associated with such benefits are acceptable or in fact the benefits of such commonality exceeds the benefits of the commanality otherwise the RAN would presumably use the same equipment for ever.
case in point the MT30 in the Type 26 has significant advantages over the LM2500. At some point the RAN is likely to change the question is when not if.
Care to expand on what you believe are the overriding advantages of the RAN swapping to the MT30 over the LM2500 ?
We expect any statements to have verifiable supporting material on this forum, if you wish to make a statement, back it up with expanded information, quotes, references to highlight your POV
Cheers
Pancake
New Member
well only if current navantia systems are supportable what if they are not? Adding more systems only compounds the RANs problems
I know the linked video is an advertorial but it does give an indication of how many LM2500s are in service worldwide therefore with such universal coverage, why would the RAN contemplate using MT30 which is almost absent in this part of the world?
Pancake
New Member
to compare mk46 (mod unknown sic) and mk 54 to MU 90 is quite silly really as the MU 90 was purchased precisely because it is better and bridges that gap wrt range and may well be a great fit on a fremm with captas it might even restore the balance between escorts and regional ssk heaven forbid?
Your logic is questionable. The RAN has over 100,000 tonnes of Navantia designed ships with Navantia Ship Management Systems. There are a variety of less complex equipment many from Australian suppliers and the major sensor and weapons systems are from global players.
If the F5000 was selected the systems and suppliers would generally be the same so I fail to understand how that compounds the sustainment issue.
On the contrary, if any of the other two were chosen it would compound the sustainment issue and this, combined with the greater training effort required, is the very reason that I have advocated the Navantia design on this thread on a number of occaisions.
Pancake
New Member
Fair call I will post the data for the significantly superior performance of MT30 over LM2500 in 40C degrees ambient air temps asap
Pancake
New Member
Ah no because you are assuming no significant problems.
Lets be honest about the f5000 it inhereits all the problems of the awd in a sub optimum hull with sub optimum sonar with a potentially non compliant aic package and marginal propulsion system coupled with constrained expansion capability at a questionable price. the more you change the design to make it more acceptable from a capability pov the more you defeat the commonality argument and in any event as ASC wont be building them i am not sure how far that goes anyway
Last edited:
the road runner
Active Member
I think the AWD build was great to kick start the expansion of ship building for the RAN as outlined by Government.. Lets not forget that issues were found in the construction of the AWD . An example would be the wrong dimensions of a Pre fabricated block ...but that was done by BAE an English company! To state the AWD is "Sub optimum" is a pretty big call and one i would not agree with.. Costs escalated on the AWD build as the Government decided to slow the construction down on hulls 2 and 3... All in all..Australia has 3 AWD in the water and should be congratulated on that feat
ASC cut steel on the AWDs ...this is what they are very good at ... and will continue to do so on the future frigate.. The AWD/ Replenishment ships and LHDs share a number of common systems...
I don't know of any navy that operates 100% of the same systems across the whole fleet ... i would imagine this would be impossible to do..
Cheers
How do you justify what you are claiming? Do you think that you are better qualified than a defence professional who has salt water in his veins instead of blood? How about some sources to back up your claims.
You seem very sure of the disadvantages, in your opinion, of the ship.
I few truths, first no one knows the final hull configuration and what if any are the profile changes. No one knows what the propulsion system will be and whether or not electric propulsion is included.
We are unaware of the sonar package although the reported excellence of the Hobart's Ultra system is encouraging.
Given the above any commentary on suitability or performance of various systems or capabilities is pure speculation.
Finally, you made a remark about price but failed to include the scope of the project included in that price.
Restarting a dormant shipbuilding industry from scratch, building a greenfield shipyard to do the work, dealing with a designer who was not part of the build consortium and was not the prime contractor, dealing with government induced interruptions to the build schedule in order to lower the cost and improve the budget non surplus but in fact increased the build cost substantially and delayed schedule by up to 18 months and what you failed to include was the improvement in cost and schedule of over 65% from ship one to ship three bringing its cost and schedule into line with world wide practice.
Take the time to read back through this thread and hoist in the entire AWD saga and you would understand why it would be a very good starting point for SEA5000 and understand the advantages and disadvantages of each of the proponents.
Your unsubstantiated opinions do you no favours.
The MT30 turbine is steadily becoming the standard in this part of the world with peer nations:
Selected for Japan’s New 30FFM Frigate:
Rolls-Royce MT30 Gas Turbine to Power Japan’s New 30FFM Frigate
Incorporated on South Korean FFX-II-class frigates:
http://www.janes.com/article/77569/south-korean-navy-receives-first-ffx-ii-class-frigate
What I don't seem to understand from certain members on this forum - those who advocate the F-5000 for the SEA 5000 project - is how there is an immediate defensive position established when this vessel is challenged in any way. The typical response narrative is that there is no information stated about the propulsion, noise signature, sonar, etc. of this ship and therefore any negative statements cannot be verified and must somehow be retracted . If there is indeed no information on the F-5000 that can express its capability in any meaningful way, then how can its appropriateness for SEA 5000 be so certain and so vigorously defended?
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
The shared DNA from recent builds is a factor in favour of a F-5000 selection but other factors will be important as well and the sum total of pluses and minuses will be what determines the final result barring any pollie interference. What is being offered in terms of modifications for meeting Australian requirements isn't in the public domain yet. Looking forward to the outcome.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Honestly I find this comment rather silly, or at least questionable in terms of judgement. Among other things, it managed to ignore the problems with defining a piece of kit as 'better' than another.
If the three types of torpedoes are operating at their max speed, the ranges on them are comparable according to published figures, which is about 10 - 12 km. There are three areas where the MU 90 does stand out from the Mk 46 and Mk 54, and these areas are max published speed (~10 kts faster), published diving depth (1,000+ m) and cost, USD$2.1 mil. Range is not an area it stands out in, unless the MU 90 is operating at it's minimum speed of 29 kts, in which case the the torpedoe range can increase to ~23 km, which is still within range of a number of sub-launched heavyweight torpedoes, never mind any sub-launched AShM.
In terms of design history or generation, the MU 90 is comparable to the US Mk 50 torpedoe, with both having design elements intended to provide useful against some of the fast, deep-diving Soviet SSN's. The problem with these designs is that the propulsion systems used to permit operation at depth and speed is quite expensive. As a result, the USN moved on from the Mk 50 to the Mk 54, which mated a Mk 50 seeker to a Mk 46 shell and propulsion system.
As it stands now, I fully expect the RAN will start transitioning to the Mk 54, since these torpedoes cost slightly more than a third of the cost of a MU 90, and for the torpedoe performance areas both would seem to meet RAN requirements. In addition to adopting the Mk 54 across the ADF, that would also mean Oz avoids the cost of integrating MU 90's onto the Orion's, Poseidon's, and MH-60R Romeo's. As a pair of side notes, when the RAN purchased the MU 90, it (like a number of other pieces of Euro kit) was sold as a completed system, which IIRC it was not and Australia encountered a number of problems getting them fitted to and operational aboard the ANZAC-class FFH's. The second side note is that the threat outlook which led to the MU 90 being believed as the appropriate LWT to fit aboard RAN vessels has changed, and the need for LWT's to operate at great depth no longer seems to be the case since the regional submarine threats are unlikely to be of Russian origin.
At this point, if there was a threat to Australian shipping or forces from one of the handful of deep-diving SSN's, I would expect that a RAN sub would be tasked with neutralizing the threat, using Mk 48 Mod 7 CBASS heavyweight torpedoes.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
My take on it is that members who are 'defending' the Navantia offering are not so much getting defensive, or even necessarily advocating for it. Rather it seems that there are a few people, mostly newer members, who have made assertions about the F-5000 design being inferior to either the FREMM, Type 26, or both. Given that no one here on DT is in a position to both know and comment on the capabilities and qualities of the designs offered, apart from what has been released publicly, it then becomes a bit rich (and members take a rather dim view of such behavior) for someone to make statements binning a design without providing information or releases to support what they are claiming.
My own personal opinion is that F-5000 design, being a derivative of the same family like the Hobart-class DDG, will having some commonality advantages in terms of fitout, and layout with the Hobart-class DDG, and possibly even the Canberra-class LHD's and the upcoming AOR's which are to be named the Supply-class IIRC.
Relating to that, I suspect that the commonality advantages with extant RAN vessels, plus the fact that Navantia already has experience integrating the RAN-preferred weapons systems and working with Australian entities to build vessels for the RAN will be viewed by the decision makers as being of greater value than minor performance advantages the other contenders might claim. Two things to also keep in mind with this, the first is that we, the public, do not know what efforts had been made on the various designs to make them conform to the Australian tender, so it could very well be that some of the assertions members have been making about a specific design being 'better' as something like ASW might not in fact be correct. The second is that Australia has had some fairly recent and repeated experience getting 'burned' by Euro defence programmes where capability claims have been overstated, while costs and the amount of development required have been understated. With these factors in mind, it is quite possible for the Australian decision makers to opt for the design which is sourced from a company which already has experience building and integrating ships with the Aegis CMS, Mk 41 VLS, ESSM and Standard missiles, and so on.
Jack Wyatt
Member
There is an article detailing sonar for each of the contenders linked on this forum. As I recall, the article highlights the fact there is only one system offered by a contender which provides a development pathway from the Hobart Class. Guess which one?
From the point of view of an Aust taxpayer, for a design apparently with so many shortcomings, it has managed to be shortlisted by the RAN, USN and RCN for their respective frigate programmes.
I read a comment on a UK forum (Save the Royal Navy) which stated that -
"according to the Australian review of offers, the Type 26 came in at "highest cost" and "highest risk". He/she goes on to state that "Navantia looks like the winner at the lowest cost" Is your comment about "questionable price" related to this advice?
All of the SEA 5000 ships will be a remarkable asset for the RAN and final configuration for each is unknown although reference models and equipment are well known.
However those that advocate the F5000 do so because the RAN is only a medium sized navy and commonality of equipment and systems helps efficiencies in training and manning. The USN and RN have never/rarely had to deal with differences of fitted equipment or differences in design philosophy because every ship is familiar and that is a position I would like to see attained by the RAN
However when a poster states that any of the ships is "sub optimal" It should be called out because all have their advantages and disadvantages for selection by the RAN.
Until we've seen the submitted designs there is no basis for challenging any of them apart from the posters opinion.
I do advocate the F5000 but I do so for reasons stated not because I consider one "better/optimal" than the other.
I've just read Tod's contribution above and he has expressed this position with much greater clarity than I
Given the tone of some of these posts, one could suspect that some of these new posters are in fact shills for a particular design intending to use this and other forums to influence public opinion. Taken further it would not surprise if several of them were not in fact the same person posting under different names.
- Status