Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

Status
Not open for further replies.

alexsa

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Up until the 80s, the RAN had its own ship design capabilities. They were got rid of following one or other of the reviews because they were “non core”. Now, if you want a warship design in Australia that is not a patrol boat or a fast cat you go to a design house for it - BAE, Damen, BMT, Gibbs and Cox, Navantia, Lurssen, Naval Group. They are all international companies and what you get will be a modification of one of their existing designs. You might get that modified, in fact quite heavily modified, in Australia but there is unfortunately no argument from their commercial perspective to set up an ab ignitio design capability in Australia at present. And certainly not if you pick each new ship you build from a different designer as that doesn’t generate a continuous workflow that can justify it. During the build process the design “migrates” to Australia for TLS purposes, but the design authority remains the original company from whom the Australian arm will need to seek deep level advice.
Agree, I think we began to lose the design side with the DDL deferment in 1973 and subsequent cancellation (happy to be corrected). Hopefully the continuous build programme will result in the ability to design (or re-design) in country noting the Hunter and the Attacks will be build in batches and there should be evolution between designs.

Bit of a pity about the DDL. It was killed by design creep and concern about the cost and technical (suspect you are across all of that). It would have been a capable ship compared to the FFG-7. It would have also kept the yard working following on from the DE build (mind you, the yard had a reputation for being inefficient and expensive).

I did have a plan of the DDL but appear to have mislaid it.
 

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
Agree, I think we began to lose the design side with the DDL deferment in 1973 and subsequent cancellation (happy to be corrected). Hopefully the continuous build programme will result in the ability to design (or re-design) in country noting the Hunter and the Attacks will be build in batches and there should be evolution between designs.

Bit of a pity about the DDL. It was killed by design creep and concern about the cost and technical (suspect you are across all of that). It would have been a capable ship compared to the FFG-7. It would have also kept the yard working following on from the DE build (mind you, the yard had a reputation for being inefficient and expensive).

I did have a plan of the DDL but appear to have mislaid it.
There is a Video on the AWM Site showing the DDL Model. seemed to pack a lot into a ship similar in size to a Type 42 DDG
 

Stampede

Well-Known Member
I've had a bit of a read thru from post #30281 (seeing as I've been missing in action due to grand-parenting duties) & CHOULES & KAREL DOORMAN keep on getting mentioned. It has to be remembered that ONE design led to the other, as CHOULES or LSD(A), as they're called over here in the UK, are derived from the Dutch design for KAREL DOORMAN.

Long term acquisitions & the design ethos behind what 'X' ship will be required in 2030 is a bitter pill to swallow. Plan too early & CONOPS will have flipped 180 & you end up with a design / hull type that you're committed to build & almost instantly it's obsolete / needs heavily modified to even be useable. The other side of the design is that you wait 5 years, the pollies drag their heels, the programme gets delayed / cropped / rehashed & the fleet gets a ship 3 - 5 years after they really need it, that's not capable enough as the CONOPS have changed, costs too much & needs instant modifications to meet the needs of the fleet. Damned if ya do, damned if ya don't !

Australia needs to start looking at what she can design / produce / manufacture internally & if that means getting ideas from the likes of Damen / BAE / Navantia (NOT building under Licence, but actually designing from scratch, with external advice / consultation), then in the long term THAT would be better.

Know what you want the ship to do / think about leveraging with other nations in the Indo-Pacific rim (sourcing common components for the hull / hotel services / internal equipment/furnishings, to help leverage the bulk-buy options / reduce overall costs to each nation involved), THEN you'd be onto a winner !

SA
"Damned if ya do, damned if ya don't ! "

A lot of opportunity to do a good job with this project, both for the vessels themselves and also the potential to set up the ability to manufacture larger ships should we deem this necessary.

As to the vessels, part of the answer will be needs and time.
For the later the threat perception will play it's part in that decision.

I would of liked a Navy of three's, but in the Amphibious / supply group we have not gone done that path by just purchasing pairs of ships. ( Canberra and Supply Class ).
For the future, a Multi Role / Supply ship now makes a lot of sense.
Two or three would be a good fit to get our Amphibious / supply group up to a minimum total of six vessels.

What such a ship looks like; well many have recently been discussed and there are more such concepts listed at expo's to choose from.
Take your pick. All will have their merits and limitations
Navantia's concept looks good, but I'd double the helicopter compliment to four.

Re time , it would be fortuitous to acquire a second Bay Class now from the UK.
Unfortunately for us I think the UK value these ships too much to let another go.

What will be interesting for the RAN will be what modifications the UK carry out on one of their Bays Class ships to fulfill their requirements as a stop gap- Littoral strike vessel. ( What ever that is! )



Upshot it will get a hanger and some other mod's. - Something for us to consider.


Regards S


PS - keep HMAS Sirius till we sort out the above!
 

hauritz

Well-Known Member
If anything I think the high manpower costs in countries like Australia could drive the argument for larger more capable ships. If doubling the size and capability of a ship could be achieved with only a modest increase in the crew size then that could be a better value for money option.
 

swerve

Super Moderator
I've had a bit of a read thru from post #30281 (seeing as I've been missing in action due to grand-parenting duties) & CHOULES & KAREL DOORMAN keep on getting mentioned. It has to be remembered that ONE design led to the other, as CHOULES or LSD(A), as they're called over here in the UK, are derived from the Dutch design for KAREL DOORMAN.
..ulk-buy options / reduce overall costs to each nation involved), THEN you'd be onto a winner !

SA
Wrong way round, surely?

Choules (as one of four Bay class LSDs) was built first, to a design derived from the Spanish Galicia-class & the Dutch Rotterdam, which were built as a joint Dutch/Spanish project. They're all members of the Damen/Navantia Enforcer family.

Karel Doorman is based on the same design, but later & bigger.

Rotterdam laid down 1995, commissioned 1998
Galicia 1996-1998
Castilla 1997-2000
Lyme Bay 2000-2007
Largs Bay (Choules) 2002-2006
Mounts Bay 2002-2006
Johann de Witt 2003-2007
Cardigan Bay 2003-2006

Karel Doorman 2011-2015
 

Systems Adict

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Wrong way round, surely?

Choules (as one of four Bay class LSDs) was built first, to a design derived from the Spanish Galicia-class & the Dutch Rotterdam, which were built as a joint Dutch/Spanish project. They're all members of the Damen/Navantia Enforcer family.

Karel Doorman is based on the same design, but later & bigger.

Rotterdam laid down 1995, commissioned 1998
Galicia 1996-1998
Castilla 1997-2000
Lyme Bay 2000-2007
Largs Bay (Choules) 2002-2006
Mounts Bay 2002-2006
Johann de Witt 2003-2007
Cardigan Bay 2003-2006

Karel Doorman 2011-2015

DOH !!

My Bad - should have done my research...

Bay-class landing ship - Wikipedia

Having worked on all x4 Bay Class, you'd think I'd know better !
 

DDG38

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
"On Monday 30 August 2021, HMAS Sirius departed Fleet Base West for her final deployment. The supply ship will deploy to South East Asia and the Southwest Pacific. Originally commissioned on the 16th September 2006, HMAS Sirius will celebrate her 15th anniversary while deployed before returning to Fleet Base West for decommissioning in December 2021." Image source : ADF Image Library
20210830ran8095516_0125.jpg
 

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
"On Monday 30 August 2021, HMAS Sirius departed Fleet Base West for her final deployment. The supply ship will deploy to South East Asia and the Southwest Pacific. Originally commissioned on the 16th September 2006, HMAS Sirius will celebrate her 15th anniversary while deployed before returning to Fleet Base West for decommissioning in December 2021." Image source : ADF Image Library
View attachment 48463
Wonder what her fate will be, could be a good pickup for someone.
 

alexsa

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Wonder what her fate will be, could be a good pickup for someone.
A very good question. IMHO it will either be another navy, sold at a bargain basement price or the breakers. Getting that ship back into commercial survey would be interesting and expensive. Handy size tanker day rates are about $11000 to $13000 USD a day. I am assuming the ship is burning low sulphur fuel as there is no scrubber fitted to the ship so she wont be the cheapest to run (mind you scrubbers are a maintenance pig and pump a lot of crap into the water).

I will be watching the disposal with interest.
 

Pusser01

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
A very good question. IMHO it will either be another navy, sold at a bargain basement price or the breakers. Getting that ship back into commercial survey would be interesting and expensive. Handy size tanker day rates are about $11000 to $13000 USD a day. I am assuming the ship is burning low sulphur fuel as there is no scrubber fitted to the ship so she wont be the cheapest to run (mind you scrubbers are a maintenance pig and pump a lot of crap into the water).

I will be watching the disposal with interest.
I have heard on the grapevine that maybe Chile is sniffing around as a replacement for Araucano. Cheers.
 

alexsa

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
I have heard on the grapevine that maybe Chile is sniffing around as a replacement for Araucano. Cheers.
Chile seem to have a taste for some of our ships. I doubt they will ask a high price and, while the vessel had some shortcomings, it may serve them well.
 

walter

Active Member
Chile has a taste for anyone's"ships as long as it's cheap.;)

Bought Dutch ships too.


Almirante Williams (Flagship)FF-19United KingdomType 22 Batch 2
(Boxer-class)
Multipurpose frigate4,900 t2003 (UK:1988)Valparaíso
Almirante CondellFF-06United KingdomType 23
(Duke-class)
Anti-submarine frigate4,200 t2008 (UK:1991)Valparaíso
Almirante LynchFF-072007 (UK:1997)
Almirante CochraneFF-052006 (UK:1990)
Capitán PratFFG-11AustraliaAdelaide-classAnti-aircraft frigate4,100 t2020 (AUST:1993)Valparaíso
Almirante LatorreFFG-142020 (AUST:1992)
Almirante RiverosFF-18NetherlandsKarel Doorman-class
(M class)
Multipurpose frigate3,320 t2007 (NED:1993)Valparaíso
Almirante Blanco EncaladaFF-152005 (NED:1993)

etc,etc
 

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
Chile has a taste for anyone's"ships as long as it's cheap.;)

Bought Dutch ships too.


Almirante Williams (Flagship)FF-19United KingdomType 22 Batch 2
(Boxer-class)
Multipurpose frigate4,900 t2003 (UK:1988)Valparaíso
Almirante CondellFF-06United KingdomType 23
(Duke-class)
Anti-submarine frigate4,200 t2008 (UK:1991)Valparaíso
Almirante LynchFF-072007 (UK:1997)
Almirante CochraneFF-052006 (UK:1990)
Capitán PratFFG-11AustraliaAdelaide-classAnti-aircraft frigate4,100 t2020 (AUST:1993)Valparaíso
Almirante LatorreFFG-142020 (AUST:1992)
Almirante RiverosFF-18NetherlandsKarel Doorman-class
(M class)
Multipurpose frigate3,320 t2007 (NED:1993)Valparaíso
Almirante Blanco EncaladaFF-152005 (NED:1993)

etc,etc
The Lynch(ex HMS Grafton) was a great pickup for Chile, only 9yo at the time of sale, the other 2 Type 23s were only 15 and 14yo at time of sale.
 

alexsa

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
I heard the same thing this week.

Even if we give her away it will be better for Defence's pocket than paying the approximately $6.9 Million we paid to scrap Success. Contract Notice View - CN3616236-A3: AusTender .

Alternatively, as an avid scuba diver I'm all for more dive wrecks.
To be fair, Chile have done a pretty good job of acquiring reasonable capable hulls and upgrading them. Their maintenance and repair capability appears to be good. If Sirius goes there is will be a good use of a relatively young asset.
 

chis73

Active Member
"On Monday 30 August 2021, HMAS Sirius departed Fleet Base West for her final deployment. The supply ship will deploy to South East Asia and the Southwest Pacific. Originally commissioned on the 16th September 2006, HMAS Sirius will celebrate her 15th anniversary while deployed before returning to Fleet Base West for decommissioning in December 2021." Image source : ADF Image Library
I am surprised there hasn't been more of a push to keep Sirius (at least in reserve). As I understand it, there is still something of an issue regarding strategic fuel stocks in the north (for example at RAAF Tindal, although it was announced these were to be improved last year - see here). A spare fuel tanker in time of crisis would be handy.
 

alexsa

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
I am surprised there hasn't been more of a push to keep Sirius (at least in reserve). As I understand it, there is still something of an issue regarding strategic fuel stocks in the north (for example at RAAF Tindal, although it was announced these were to be improved last year - see here). A spare fuel tanker in time of crisis would be handy.
Sirius is not a particularly large tanker. The RAN site states it has a capacity is 34,806 cz (cubic metres) of fuel including 5486 cz (cubic metres) of aviation fuel. As noted in the ASPI article the issue with Tindal and aviation fuel is its shelf life. The solution to that would appear to be preservation of domestic refining capacity and large crude storage capacity. Fuel has to be moved to places like Tindal by road in any case. I do agree that greater storage capacity at Tindal would appear to be wise.

By retaining (and expanding) refining capacity then you are importing crude (which does keep) as a feed stock. The Sirius would not be suitable for this role. While I have some sympathy of keeping her in reserve that also has costs as the vessel still needs to be maintained and monitored.

Just my thoughts on the issue.
 

Wombat000

Active Member
Further roll out (pardon pun) of community usage of alternately powered vehicles, will also reduce competition the ADF would experience of any constrained fuel supply.
Strategic resilience imperative, methinks.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top