Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[Tasman]

Hey AD
Tenix got the Go ahead to build the LHD, Comment?

Now we see whether the ships will be able to smoothly come in compared with 'other' projects, and whether or not the Alliance Group for the AWD will work

AD may have some other comments to make about Tenix but I think most agree that they did well with the Anzac frigate project and the teaming with Navantia will certainly do no harm.

Maybe Tenix should stick with naval projects and keep away from things like M113s, apart from ensuring that they can get in and out of the LHDs easily!

How long, I wonder, will it be before there is a push for the RAAF to include F-35Bs in its JSF order? I suspect that nothing will happen until well after the election as the navy will be anxious not to create a political storm by suggesting that the LHDs could also be 'aircraft carriers' (which seems to be a banned term in ADF and Oz political circles)!

BTW, The selection of the BPE should ensure that the army will be able to deploy its M1A1 tanks with ease.


Cheers

 

[ThePuss]

Today is a very happy day for the RAN, but also a sad one. The Spanish LPD was clearly the only ship to chose as it is vastly more capable the the French design.

However today we chose the vastley less capable AWD. 48 cells and just one hangar is not enough. Also the hull is too small by far and the loss of fire control channels is critical. We are making the same mistake we made with the ANZAC. i,e buying a ship with very little room for grow over its life.

I agree there way big risk issues with the "Evolved" design, but why don't we buy Flight 2 AB's and not have to worry about any risk and even better we could of bought them straight "off the line" to have them even earlier than the F100's

The only hope we have is that the AWD will be stretched but I see no mention of this yet so im not holding my breath.

 

[gf0012-aust]

AD may have some other comments to make about Tenix but I think most agree that they did well with the Anzac frigate project and the teaming with Navantia will certainly do no harm.

Maybe Tenix should stick with naval projects and keep away from things like M113s, apart from ensuring that they can get in and out of the LHDs easily!

Tenix always had a better chance than Thales/Another Defective Item. Mistral was never a serious contender IMV.

Not sure why anyone would argue ANZAC was a succes - it was almost a superstructure lance job due to build problems.

I'm sure AMPT10 can fill in the gaps if he comes out of lurking.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Well I am hopeful of F-35B's.

There is a small window, to place the order. We will already have the carriers, we are already ordering the aircraft, we just have to get compatable aircraft. It may cost Australia an additional ~$250 million. But thats chump change. A quarter of the price to upgrade the seasprites for 24 F-35B's costing around $10 million more. Only the greens would winge about that small additional cost.

Given that the RAN dropped having 7 spots on the BPE LHD like the mockup and keeping the skijump. I take this as a sign someone is trying to work this through. That would have been the deathknell.

We will have more carriers than France has at the moment, with arguably more capable and advanced aircraft.

I look forward when Australia's first and second fleets are operational in ~2016.

 

[gf0012-aust]

We will have more carriers than France has at the moment, with arguably more capable and advanced aircraft.

I look forward when Australia's first and second fleets are operational in ~2016.

I think I'd rather have the CdG (now that its been fixed!)

and I definitely prefer CATOBAR over STOBAR/STOVL

 

[old faithful]

Tas,what config do think the AWD,s helo,s will be. ASW to provide a limited anti sub capability, or more of a mini AEW platform with a limited surface war fighting capability? Would be nice to have 2 choppers on board...
Very happy that the BPE won out!

 

[gf0012-aust]

Very happy that the BPE won out!

Ditto - less than happy that the G&C missed out.

It will bite them (DMO) on the bum circa 2025 when they realise that its run out of space to handle UUV/USV/UAV's and Collins Mk2 supplementary toys....

then they'll wonder how they're going to stow and rapidly deploy the unmanned gear, and then they'll wonder why they ran out of helo's for cruise missile picket and ASW duties.....

 

[old faithful]

yeah mate,think the limited hanger space is gonna be an issue with AWD,s in the not so distant future. Helo may have to stay at home to make room for UAV,s.
Im not aware of the Collins stuff,but suspect it may be along the lines of UAV,s?...

 

[gf0012-aust]

yeah mate,think the limited hanger space is gonna be an issue with AWD,s in the not so distant future. Helo may have to stay at home to make room for UAV,s.
Im not aware of the Collins stuff,but suspect it may be along the lines of UAV,s?...

Someone should hold these muppets to account in the future for their decisions.

WTF would you go for a limited capacity and growth asset when we are on the cusp of integrating completely new and complex techs that require additional space - not less?

the mind boggles.

I like the spanish design - I just think its not the right decision for Oz.

 

[Tasman]

Tenix always had a better chance than Thales/Another Defective Item. Mistral was never a serious contender IMV.

Not sure why anyone would argue ANZAC was a succes - it was almost a superstructure lance job due to build problems.

You learn something new every day. I was always under the impression that the Anzac program had been one of Australia's more successful recent defence projects. Perhaps I've been spending too much time reading comments on the ADF website! I've heard that there are topweight issues that are apparently preventing these ships from being able to mount all the weapons that were originally allowed for in the design (e.g. CIWS and second 8 cell VLS system) but what were the build problems?

Cheers

 

[gf0012-aust]

I've heard that there are topweight issues that are apparently preventing these ships from being able to mount all the weapons that were originally allowed for in the design (e.g. CIWS and second 8 cell VLS system) but what were the build problems?

Build problems were related to redesign issues. at one stage there was serious consideration given to lancing the superstructure.

and placing the launchers in that position is a serious afterthought. (plus they don't have armoured cables, the cables are exposed and vulnerable etc...)

the lack of growth potential on the F-100 makes them an ANZAC Mk2

 

[pepsi]

I'm not sure how long this has been up on their site, but i've only just seen it now, sorry if its been posted

http://www.lhd.tenix.com/

 

[riksavage]

A few questions:

When the two Spanish designed LPD's are built where will they be based?

Will the intention be to keep one active and one in reserve (does Australia have the man-power to keep both at sea)?

Does Australia have the dry-dock facilities capable of holding vessels of this size for scheduled repair / upgades, or will they have to return to Navanta etc?

 

[Tasman]

the lack of growth potential on the F-100 makes them an ANZAC Mk2

That is my main concern re the F100 baseline design. They may be OK now but in twenty years time I suspect that there will be considerable regret that the larger design was not selected.

Cheers

 

[Tasman]

yeah mate,think the limited hanger space is gonna be an issue with AWD,s in the not so distant future. Helo may have to stay at home to make room for UAV,s.
Im not aware of the Collins stuff,but suspect it may be along the lines of UAV,s?...

The lack of space for a second helo is actually a retrograde step as the FFGs they will replace can carry two.

Re your query about the type of helo they are likely to carry I expect they will enter service with a choice of the Seahawk or the Seasprite (seeing that cabinet rejected a recommendation by Defence to scrap the contract). No doubt the MRH-90 in a naval version (or perhaps versions) will eventually spend time on these ships. With only one helo they will have to rely on assets from other ships. At least the BPE will provide the opportunity to take additional helos and UAVs, etc, to sea for naval as well as army needs as I suspect they will have more aviation space than the army will need for its own purposes.

A few questions:

When the two Spanish designed LPD's are built where will they be based?

Will the intention be to keep one active and one in reserve (does Australia have the man-power to keep both at sea)?

Does Australia have the dry-dock facilities capable of holding vessels of this size for scheduled repair / upgades, or will they have to return to Navanta etc?

AFAIK both ships will be based on the East Coast but no doubt they will deploy to the West when required.

It is planned to keep both ships in active service.

Re repair/upgrades the following is a quote from the press statement (see Post 219):

The Government has ensured the Landing Helicopter Dock contract will lay the groundwork for Australian industry to provide full in-service support for the life of the ships. This will provide a steady and reliable source of demand on industry that, over ship life, will amount to several times the value of the actual construction program.

Cheers

 

[knightrider4]

F100

Yo know maybe the Gibbs & Cox design was just too expensive. We are paying $8 billion for the F100 which is at the top end of estimates being thrown around. Perhaps the Government just wasnt prepared to pay anymore and Gibbs & Cox just werent prepared to lower the cost.

 

[RubiconNZ]

If the 8 Billion is on the high end, do you think it is possible the Government will wait on a design/feasibility study of a evolved F100 before the build order goes ahead?

 

[Tasman]

If the 8 Billion is on the high end, do you think it is possible the Government will wait on a design/feasibility study of a evolved F100 before the build order goes ahead?

The figure of $A8bn for the AWDs is much higher than expected, especially given the comments that the F100 is the cheaper ship. There is nothing in the Minister's press release that indicates that an evolved F100 is being considered.

I was disappointed that the Opposition Defence Spokesman was critical of the high cost of the LHD and AWD on ABC TV News tonight. I wonder what his suggestions for cheaper alternatives are? Surely the Labor Party are not going to suddenly oppose these projects!

Cheers

 

[Markus40]

Seems everyone is throwing their two cents into this debate. Its my opinion that the F100 is a far better deal despite the capability of the AB design and i do think that the F100 was a better choice for the RAN than the AB. I think the government were fairly keen on getting the project under way as soon as possible and this was available with the F100 than the AB. Thus saving costs. I am interested to hear that the F100 will be able to be upgraded to the SM-3 missile at some point which will have a inter theatre anti ballistic missile capability.

The AB did have its drawbacks as it was far heavier and more expensive when the F100 had the same 360 degree capability as the AB with maybe a 1000 mile less range and one less heicopter. Having 48 cells than the higher 63 is not a disadvantage, and the system will never probably at any point require any more VLS cells than what the F100 has already. I cant see why there needs to be a second helo. Its just more expense. Either way both systems are highly capable and the tide turned the Spanish way. Good on them.

I do think that the ADF at some time in the future should consider a fourth F100 maybe once the last Destroyer comes off the line. This then will give a greater versatility to the operational aspect of the Navy.

As to the LHD Navantia. Thats a sexy design for the RAN and its well designed for the ADF future requirements. I do agree that the F35B will need to be addressed at some point later after the election, as this element is vital to the amphibious operation. Having heard Dr Nelson this afternoon on TV in Parliament giving his speech over the contract i am convinced that Australia does have a very strong Navy that is now able to project its Maritime elements strategically around the globe.

Now is a good time to start new drives for recruitment and there is no doubt in my mind that by the time the New warships arrive that the RAN will be able to crew them effectively. Very good news for the ADFs.

 

[Tasman]

I cant see why there needs to be a second helo. Its just more expense.

As gf said the lack of space for UUV/USV/UAV's, etc, may well be a problem in the future. It also means that the ship won't be able to carry helos for both ASW and AEW or picket duties. However, the ability of the BPE to carry some helos for these duties as well as the helos needed for army support will help overcome this problem.

I do think that the ADF at some time in the future should consider a fourth F100 maybe once the last Destroyer comes off the line. This then will give a greater versatility to the operational aspect of the Navy.

I agree 100% even if it means placing an Anzac in reserve.

As to the LHD Navantia. Thats a sexy design for the RAN and its well designed for the ADF future requirements. I do agree that the F35B will need to be addressed at some point later after the election, as this element is vital to the amphibious operation. Having heard Dr Nelson this afternoon on TV in Parliament giving his speech over the contract i am convinced that Australia does have a very strong Navy that is now able to project its Maritime elements strategically around the globe.

Even without the F-35B the LHDs will be very capable in supporting embarked troops using MRH-90s and Tiger armed helos. Personally, though, I hope that a squadron of F-35Bs will be acquired.

Now is a good time to start new drives for recruitment and there is no doubt in my mind that by the time the New warships arrive that the RAN will be able to crew them effectively. Very good news for the ADFs.

Excellent point. The excitement created by major new equipment orders ought to be used to advantage for recruitment purposes. Hopefully the promise of improved living conditions for personnel in the new ships compared with those they will replace will also help with retention, which is perhaps a bigger issue than recruitment.

Cheers