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. StingrayOZ

    StingrayOZ Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2007
    Messages:
    3,133
    Likes Received:
    194
    Location:
    Sydney
    This Canadian analysis of the Australian project seems flawed, superficial and doing my head in. It what you might expect if you had a coffee conversation at an airport with someone not familiar with the project at all.

    But looking at it more closely I wonder about the parts relating to the Canadian program.
    • Also building a smaller ship doesn't scale costs particularly well. This is well known. The F-105 isn't just smaller, it has its radar mounted higher, different crewing, fewer gas turbine engines (2 verse 4). It has different operational and ongoing costs. It is differently configured for command operations for example. It also has 121 less crew. Purchase price is just a tiny fraction of total cost of ownership..
    • Valuing a ship purely by displacement seems problematic and limited, maybe the Canadians are going to end up just building oil tankers which have tremendous displacement and are cheap (except in Canada) to build?
    • Also with the Canadian program, building one ship a year, are they intending to replace their entire combatant fleet every 15 years? In other places it assumes the final ship will be completed in 2041.
    • Aren't the Canadians worried about the lesson Australia learned about scheduling on their minor ships production in Vancouver?
    • The heuristic method? Are they just accounting 13% (the wage difference between a welder in Huntington and Halifax) as the the only cost difference other than exchange rate, and the fact the ships are ~75% smaller makes them 75% the cost? (4.7) and again in appendex D?
    • Wikipedia seems to be a primary source of all info.
    I dunno.. Seems odd.
     
    spoz likes this.
  2. KiwiRob

    KiwiRob Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2007
    Messages:
    892
    Likes Received:
    47
    Location:
    Norway
    Some might say having an educated population takes precedence, why bother defending a nation of idiots?
     
  3. John Fedup

    John Fedup Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2013
    Messages:
    3,689
    Likes Received:
    211
    Location:
    Vancouver and Toronto
    Can’t comment on Australia’s budget allocations but in Canada there are $hitloads of stuff that could be trimmed or trashed before having to cut education or defence. Pollies in both nations allocate funds with a high priority given to enhancing their re-election prospects.
     
  4. foxdemon

    foxdemon Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2010
    Messages:
    95
    Likes Received:
    16
    That is a peculiar point of view. I don’t see it in terms of whether or not a nation is worth defending ( after all, even idiot nations will see themselves as worth defending), but rather in terms of whether or not it can defend itself. What universal education brings is economic growth, which should translate into a greater ability for that nation to acquire the means with which it might defend itself.

    On a slight digression, elite education, as opposed to universal education, yields a competent elite, which should translate into more effective national leadership. It is when the nation’s elite becomes idiots that a nation is in real trouble. A historical example is the Hungarian establishment prior to the Ottoman conquest of that country. Google the phrase “more was lost at Mohacs”.

    In the Australian context, educational outcomes did not improve in line with increased spending. It seems that a lack of funding isn’t the issue with declining acedemic performance. So possibly we should have got that extra destroyer in hindsight. But this wasn’t apparent at the time. In my view, increasing education funding at the expense of other priorities such as defense was a rational decision given the knowledge available. Now that it is apparent that the problem is deeper than that, we will have to explore the nature of those problems and devise a means to address them.
     
  5. spoz

    spoz Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2009
    Messages:
    347
    Likes Received:
    71
    Location:
    Osborne, SA
    Mulling this, I wonder if someone has heard the term Cost per Compensated Gross Ton, a measure used in assessing shipyard efficiency, and assumed that it refers to the actual displacement of the ships being built in the yard - which it does not?
     
    Last edited: Feb 15, 2019
  6. ASSAIL

    ASSAIL Defense Professional Verified Defense Pro

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2011
    Messages:
    2,653
    Likes Received:
    650
    Location:
    Darwin NT Australia
    The conversation becomes clouded by simplistic comparisons. CCGT is really limited to commercial vessels or rather, there is no coefficient (AFAIK)in the OECD list which you can apply to naval vessels.(Compensated Gross Tonnage is calculated by multiplying the tonnage by this coefficient).
    Naval ships vary so much between classes between types of ship, between weapon outfits etc that it would almost be impossible to calculate any meaningful coefficients that could be used.
    This is exactly why any comparisons made on tonnage are practically useless.
     
    Last edited: Feb 15, 2019
    aussienscale likes this.
  7. spoz

    spoz Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2009
    Messages:
    347
    Likes Received:
    71
    Location:
    Osborne, SA
    1. Hmm, reading what I just wrote (which I’m too late to edit) I’ve been a bit simplistic myself. If anybody’s interested, check out the OECD 2007 definition of Compensated Gross Tonnage which for some reason I can’t link to. CGT is a well understood measure when applied to building Merships but warships vary so much, even within the same class of ship, that universal agreement as to what the coefficient should be is effectively mission impossible. However, if an individual organisation internally uses a standardised system to examine the relative efficiency of different shipyards it has some, limited, applicability but in very broad terms. It does have more value when looking at the effect of say continuous improvement programs or the effects of a learning curve in one yard. (And now I can’t get rid of the “1”. #$#@ tablet!)
    (And which Assail pretty much explained as I was typing)
     
    Last edited: Feb 15, 2019
  8. ngatimozart

    ngatimozart Super Moderator Staff Member Verified Defense Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2010
    Messages:
    5,738
    Likes Received:
    712
    Location:
    In the rum store
    @Rob c that's uncalled for. You should be thoroughly ashamed of yourself. Think of all those poor idiots who will now have to have months of therapy.
     
  9. oldsig127

    oldsig127 Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2014
    Messages:
    511
    Likes Received:
    116
    Location:
    Brisbane
    Sorry Ng, we're not providing you defence AND therapy. The one is bad enough

    oldsig
     
    ngatimozart likes this.
  10. ngatimozart

    ngatimozart Super Moderator Staff Member Verified Defense Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2010
    Messages:
    5,738
    Likes Received:
    712
    Location:
    In the rum store
    Don't worry we can more than provide our own therapy. Plenty of breweries this side of the ditch who brew very tasty medicine.
     
    StevoJH likes this.
  11. Stampede

    Stampede Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2015
    Messages:
    645
    Likes Received:
    85
    Location:
    Melbourne

    Regarding Phalanx,
    I have not heard of any other updates that have not been mentioned already on DT.
    Speculative only,but the two Typhoon mounts on the Canberra class, one forward on the starboard side and the other aft on the port side should be enough to provide 360 degree coverage around the ship. Maybe the easy option?.
    Will typhoons be substituted for phalanx is guess work at this stage.
    My preference would that if phalanx is added, it should not be at the expense of the existing four typhoon systems and should also not encroach on any of the existing flight deck space.
    The Phalanx is not a light system at some 6 tonnes, so I'm wondering on a ship of Canberra's size would it present a problem if the systems were mounted high up on the Island structure.
    Much smaller Japanese ships such as the Asagiri and Hatsuyuki classes each have a pair of phalanx mounted high up on their superstructures.
    Maybe an option if they can work out all the electrical interference stuff!
    Anyway just some thoughts.

    On a side note
    I understand there is not too much in altering the existing 25mm typhoons to a 30mm calibre.
    This heavier round certainly has much greater benefits in range and ammunition types to the existing round so I would certainly consider this an attractive option.
    Alternatively, in the future the new 40mm mount on the Arafura class may prove the way forward for a new standardised round for across the fleet.
    Somehow the 25mm size looks a bit dated and inadequate and I must admit to have been surprised when we went with this size for the new Hobart Class.

    Thoughts


    Regards S
     
  12. spoz

    spoz Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2009
    Messages:
    347
    Likes Received:
    71
    Location:
    Osborne, SA
    Typhoon 25mm mounting weight about 750 kg, Leonardo 40 Light weight more than 2100kg - so I wouldn’t expect them to be swapped out in the Hobarts any time in the near future.
     
  13. StingrayOZ

    StingrayOZ Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2007
    Messages:
    3,133
    Likes Received:
    194
    Location:
    Sydney
    Seems odd.

    I wonder if these types of calculations were used to select the winner of the CCS. It just seems odd.

    If you look back over the original RAND report on Australian shipbuilding it does briefly mention CGT and a few other metrics. But the way they were used, in comparison to similar programs is more detailed and more illustrative of a type of comparison. They used 3 types of bench-marking, input, comparative, parametric. The parametric was used on similar programs, destroyer to destroyer for example.

    The RAND report is quite detailed, and specific, it really clarifies the whole ship building strategy in a very detailed way. It provides options before during and after the programs. It also took a lot of the politics out of some the decision making. It got it to a bipartisan state, clearly articulated the befits to the nation. It also reaffirmed other local production programs and planning.

    I don't see a lot of that being evidenced in the Canadian program. Its an older program. I wouldn't say more successful.

    I am sure there will be plenty of bench-marking the Australian program as it progresses to the Canadian and UK programs and wider programs. The OPV and sub programs too will be bench-marked, and I am sure they intended to beat the efficiencies off foreign yards.
     
  14. ASSAIL

    ASSAIL Defense Professional Verified Defense Pro

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2011
    Messages:
    2,653
    Likes Received:
    650
    Location:
    Darwin NT Australia
    The calculation is used to compare relative efficiencies of shipyards building similar ships not to select which ship to build.
    It would have played no part in the selection of the CCS.
     
  15. Stampede

    Stampede Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2015
    Messages:
    645
    Likes Received:
    85
    Location:
    Melbourne
    True the the 40 mm option is a different animal and a completely new system.
    What about upgrading the existing mounts to 30mm.
    Greater range.
    Heavier shot
    Wide range of ammunition types
    Army moving to 30 mm
    Speculate not a great cost for benefits gained.

    Thoughts S
     
  16. StingrayOZ

    StingrayOZ Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2007
    Messages:
    3,133
    Likes Received:
    194
    Location:
    Sydney
    I would hope so, but some of the Canadian commentary seems to have expanded on these type of calculations and relating to ship design.

    I know there was significant unhappiness with the Canadian selection process and build process. Critisim from multiple builders in a way that doesn't normally happen.
    Canadian warship project a mess, as one of world’s largest shipbuilders threatens minister it won’t bid
    Federal government wants OK to award Canadian Surface Combatant contract

    Fincantieri, Alion and Navantia weren't exactly happy with the Canadian selection outcome.

    Isn't this basically a fairly straight forward change, with most of the existing mount and parts being exactly the same.

    The Typhoon Mk-30c, is light (1200kg loaded), carries more ammunition, greater firing arcs and has the better range and power (airbursts?) of the 30mm. Would seem to be an ideal upgrade. Designed to be be bolted on replacing existing setups.
     
  17. Stampede

    Stampede Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2015
    Messages:
    645
    Likes Received:
    85
    Location:
    Melbourne
    Agree StingrayOZ
    Typhoon Mk-30c, certainly has it's appeal

    Attached is a good overview
    Defence Technology Review : DTR OCT 2017, Page 8

    I wonder what will come of the typhoon mounts off the Armidale class when they retire.
    Maybe refurbished in a new calibre and spread across the fleet!!!!

    Regards S
     
  18. Todjaeger

    Todjaeger Potstirrer

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2006
    Messages:
    4,660
    Likes Received:
    395
    Location:
    not in New England anymore...
    I am uncertain whether or not there would really be any value in upgrading existing Typhoon mountings with 25 mm Bushmaster I guns to 30 mm Bushmaster II guns. As things now stand, there are something like 19 Typhoon mountings kitted out with the M242 Bushmaster 25 mm cannon. Given how long the M242 Bushmaster has been in ADF service, I suspect there is a plentiful supply of parts and spares to sustain a comparatively small pool of guns for RAN use. Particularly when one considers just how many M242's are or likely have been in ADF service, what with them being the main armament for the ASLAV. There is also likely going to be a plentiful supply of 25 mm munitions already in Australia.

    Please do not misunderstand me. I do not really think a 25 mm M242 in a Typhoon mounting is really an adequate naval gun. The range and effect of the round is rather short, and the ROF of the gun is really inadequate to defend or intercept aerial threats. Pretty much all it would be appropriate for is defending against swarming smallcraft. A larger 30 mm M44 Bushmaster II would have increased range as well as increased effect due to the larger size of the round and more options which the round can come in. However, the ROF would still be inadequate against inbound aerial threats so it would not be suitable as a CIWS.

    If the gun/mounting combination was to remain restricted to use against smallcraft, I do not really see a capability gain sufficiently large to justify upgrading to yet another calibre.

    If the RAN were to decide to standardize upon a single mounting and small calibre rapid-fire gun across the fleet, then there would be some merit in making such a change. For right now though, I would advise keeping what is already in service.
     
  19. ngatimozart

    ngatimozart Super Moderator Staff Member Verified Defense Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2010
    Messages:
    5,738
    Likes Received:
    712
    Location:
    In the rum store
    The RAN honours CAPT J P Stevenson. Commander of HMAS Melbourne at time of Evans collision.

    RIP Sir.

    There are no flowers on a sailor’s grave
    No lilies on an ocean wave
    The only tribute is the seagulls sweep
    And the tears upon a loved one’s cheek
    Fear not for those who go down to the sea in ships
    For as sunset draws near and dawn breaks afar
    We remember those who have crossed the bar
    They shall not grow old
    as we who are left grow old.
    Age shall not weary them
    nor the years condemn.
    At the going down of the sun
    and in the morning,
    we will remember them.
    Lest we forget.

     
    StingrayOZ and Tasman like this.
  20. JBRobbo

    JBRobbo New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2019
    Messages:
    15
    Likes Received:
    4
    Location:
    Newcastle
    I saw this mentioned on the RAN Facebook page recently but they conveniently left out the 'controversy'. So sad that he was made out to be a scapegoat like that when he did everything by the book. R.I.P