Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[Stampede]

Read it and the comment about pragmatism stands. From the Australian context what you suggest makes no sense and is not justified.

If want to argue the toss provide some evidence of your background in shipping operations, building and/or modification. Alternatively you could convince me that your background is such that you can speak with authority from a military perspective.

Alexsa

Thanks for reading the post again I appreciate the courtesy.
Looks like we have a difference of opinon.
I'm not a defence professional but have been a defence enthusiast for three decades so while I can't claim to be an expert I can claim to have an interest.
As a junior poster in a healthy forum I trust that still entitles me to a voice.

Kind Regards
Stampede

 

[Raven22]

Ya, my fault, that should be the Independence. But I would prefer the LCS rather than the MRV 80 though:
1. First, the design of Austal LCS has been built and proven, so any flaws in the design should be rectified by now.
2. By using the same type of vessel with the USN, our navy can utilize any upgrade and improvement of the class and modules from the USN.
3. Also, using the same type of vessel with the USN give us better integration with USN, both operation, training and logistics.
4. Aluminum is cheap, air is free, a bigger hull means bigger storage and accommodation space, which is good for endurance.

There is the slightly awkward fact that the LCS was designed for a completely different role to that of an OPV. I'd imagine the RAN would want a vessel actually suited to the role, and not just the one that looks shiniest in the brochures.

 

[vonnoobie]

There is the slightly awkward fact that the LCS was designed for a completely different role to that of an OPV. I'd imagine the RAN would want a vessel actually suited to the role, and not just the one that looks shiniest in the brochures.

Agreed, who knows we may end up choosing it (unlikely) but there are a number of vessels just as suited to an OPV role. All comes down to what the government wants them to be able to do.

 

[rockitten]

There is the slightly awkward fact that the LCS was designed for a completely different role to that of an OPV. I'd imagine the RAN would want a vessel actually suited to the role, and not just the one that looks shiniest in the brochures.

But the new "OPV"s are suppost to replace not just the Armadale class PB, but also the Huon class mine hunter and the survey ships. So at least, many modules from LCS (like the one below) will be just what we want for our OPV
Harris Corporation Awarded IDIQ Contract to Support U.S. Navy's Maritime Mine Countermeasures

One extra positive point for LCS is that, even if we don't procure the modules now, when-ever there is an urgent need, we can always borrow/purchase the modules from USN's stock with proven design and SOP. That's something only possible if we are using the same LCS as USN.

And finally, the LCS has a similar capacity as the Balikpapan-class LCH, the MRV 80 doesn't.

 

[hairyman]

How about a comparison of the prices of each unit. There would be no comparison of their abilities, nor of their price. You get what you pay for.
To my mind the LCS is overkill for what we want, whereas the MRV80 not up doing what we want. Whatever happened to the Daiken vessels we were so keen on a few week ago?

 

[ASSAIL]

But the new "OPV"s are suppost to replace not just the Armadale class PB, but also the Huon class mine hunter and the survey ships. So at least, many modules from LCS (like the one below) will be just what we want for our OPV
Harris Corporation Awarded IDIQ Contract to Support U.S. Navy's Maritime Mine Countermeasures

One extra positive point for LCS is that, even if we don't procure the modules now, when-ever there is an urgent need, we can always borrow/purchase the modules from USN's stock with proven design and SOP. That's something only possible if we are using the same LCS as USN.

And finally, the LCS has a similar capacity as the Balikpapan-class LCH, the MRV 80 doesn't.

You seem to forget that the LCS hulls, both types, cost in excess of USD 500m. They displace over 3,000 tonnes and they have no "over the beach" capability. Twelve such hulls, $6b. IIRC the budget for SEA 1180 was $2b for 20 hulls.

Despite being suggested by others here many times, bringing up personal wish lists that bear no relevance to the last (2009) published, yet still relevant Defence Capability Plan - SEA 1180 adds nothing to the debate. We all have favourite platforms but without reference to reality there's no point in discussing them for possible application in the RAN.

 

[Volkodav]

There is the slightly awkward fact that the LCS was designed for a completely different role to that of an OPV. I'd imagine the RAN would want a vessel actually suited to the role, and not just the one that looks shiniest in the brochures.

Not to forget that the RAN has just gone through some very expensive and painful aversion therapy where hybrid certified aluminium high speed vessels are concerned. They went for the ACPBs and their management model because it was thought they would be cheap to own and capable of doing the job, they weren't.

The US is coming to the same realisation with both LCS designs that there are no short cuts where design and certification of warships are concerned. It is actually far better to spend more up front and avoid problems later, hence the major modifications to the series production versions.

Far better to nail down the requirements, including how long they are expected to serve for, before carefully selecting a design that actually meets requirements. For instance the losing contenders for the ACPB project were much more durable with steel, or composite hulls. They were also more expensive to buy and as they were heavier, they were also more expensive to run (in modelling at least). The issue is neither the RAN, the maintainer, or even the builder / designer, had any idea just how difficult and expensive they would be to keep in service, or that they would be incapable of actually reaching their intended life of type.

 

[Oberon]

How about a comparison of the prices of each unit. There would be no comparison of their abilities, nor of their price. You get what you pay for.
To my mind the LCS is overkill for what we want, whereas the MRV80 not up doing what we want. Whatever happened to the Daiken vessels we were so keen on a few week ago?

Daiken? Don't you mean Damen? Daiken make air conditioners.

 

[vonnoobie]

You seem to forget that the LCS hulls, both types, cost in excess of USD 500m. They displace over 3,000 tonnes and they have no "over the beach" capability. Twelve such hulls, $6b. IIRC the budget for SEA 1180 was $2b for 20 hulls.

Despite being suggested by others here many times, bringing up personal wish lists that bear no relevance to the last (2009) published, yet still relevant Defence Capability Plan - SEA 1180 adds nothing to the debate. We all have favourite platforms but without reference to reality there's no point in discussing them for possible application in the RAN.

$500m? Last I checked fixed price work for the latest batches are $360m a piece. One also need's to account for factor's such as if the US yards building such ships are as efficient as Henderson? which has a lot of experience.

In regards to SEA 1180, I have not seen any pricing's indicating $2b for 20 hulls but rather $3 - $5 billion for 20 hulls while according to SEA 1180 - Four into one does go | Australian Defence News & Articles | Asia Pacific Defence Reporter the 2012 DCP (I have not had the chance to read it) indicated a price of $5 - $10 billion for 20..

 

[Joe Black]

Daiken? Don't you mean Damen? Daiken make air conditioners.

I would think that for the OPV/OCV requirement, the Damen OPV 2 Sea Axe 1800 or 2400 are probably the most suitable for RAN, I would suspect they would almost match the requirements down to a T.
See here: Offshore Patrol Vessel 1800 Sea Axe

 

[Oberon]

I would think that for the OPV/OCV requirement, the Damen OPV 2 Sea Axe 1800 or 2400 are probably the most suitable for RAN, I would suspect they would almost match the requirements down to a T.
See here: Offshore Patrol Vessel 1800 Sea Axe

Yes, they certainly look the goods. They could be built in a local shipyard, and provide shipbuilding work, without having to bring the ANZAC replacement forward.

 

[vonnoobie]

Yes, they certainly look the goods. They could be built in a local shipyard, and provide shipbuilding work, without having to bring the ANZAC replacement forward.

Actually they would have to bring them forward by at least 2 - 6 years unless we plan to extend the life of the last couple of Anzacs.

Depending on the commissioning times of the replacement frigates (Every 18 - 24 months) and the actual commissioning times of the Anzac's they would have to either be retired early or have a life extension on them or perhaps a mix of both.

 

[hauritz]

i don't see how the Fremantles can be replaced by a new class of OPV in a reasonably timely manner.

It is suggested that building this new class commence around 2018 ... But the Fremantles will be struggling to get much beyond 2020. If you go with a continuous build concept of delivering one vessel every year or so then you are going to have a pretty big capability gap.

At this stage I am thinking that the RAN might have to acquire at least some extra patrol boats to cover the transition period to the new OPVs.

 

[vonnoobie]

i don't see how the Fremantles can be replaced by a new class of OPV in a reasonably timely manner.

It is suggested that building this new class commence around 2018 ... But the Fremantles will be struggling to get much beyond 2020. If you go with a continuous build concept of delivering one vessel every year or so then you are going to have a pretty big capability gap.

At this stage I am thinking that the RAN might have to acquire at least some extra patrol boats to cover the transition period to the new OPVs.

.... The Fremantles were replaced by the Armidale class PB's... Its the Armidale's we are looking to replace now....

 

[Stock]

August issue of Defence Technology Review now available to view:

Defence Technology Review : DTR AUG 2015, Page 1

 

[40 deg south]

Australia reveals new shipbuilding industry plan to bypass 'Valley of Death' - IHS Jane's 360

Janes have what looks like a reasonable summary of the government plans.

Its none of my business as a non-Australian, but I'm still struck by the willingness of the government to spend up large to secure a very modest number of manufacturing jobs. There seems to be a huge emphasis on 'saving manufacturing' in chosen locations, and very little attention to whether this is the best way to equip RAN with the vessels it needs. Or am I missing something?

I can understand the desire to build defence equipment locally, but there comes a point where the cost becomes unsustainable in both time and dollars. A case in point, Canada's decision to locally construct two Berlin-class AORs that will leave their navy without replenishment capability for half a decade.

 

[StobieWan]

It is ironic the Type 26 is the saviour of 600 jobs on the Clyde and many more in the supply chain (Warships magazine). Warships magazine also mentions the overruns, cost increases and contract re-negotiations that plagued the Type 45 destroyers and aircraft carrier builds. The last thing Defence needs is something such as this to occur especially with the success of the Anzac build. What are your views on this compared say to a build by Blohm and Voss of the Meko
A400M RAN?

Type 26 is a project which is intended to be somewhat more risk averse than type 45 - the bulk of the systems involved are tried and tested or in many cases, pulled through Type 23.

Engines: MT30 (already widely used and in service in the RN with CVF
Radar Type 997 (being installed on Type 23)
Missiles CAMM/FLAADS/Sea Ceptor (about to be installed on Argyll)
Sonar:Already fitted to 8 type 23.

The list goes on. Type 26 is not a risky design - it's instead, a large, roomy ship with a flexible mission bay, generous hangar and flight deck, modular mast and world class quietening arrangements.

 

[ASSAIL]

$500m? Last I checked fixed price work for the latest batches are $360m a piece. One also need's to account for factor's such as if the US yards building such ships are as efficient as Henderson? which has a lot of experience.

In regards to SEA 1180, I have not seen any pricing's indicating $2b for 20 hulls but rather $3 - $5 billion for 20 hulls while according to SEA 1180 - Four into one does go | Australian Defence News & Articles | Asia Pacific Defence Reporter the 2012 DCP (I have not had the chance to read it) indicated a price of $5 - $10 billion for 20..

If Henderson build LCS it will take a number of hulls to get up to their US efficiency.
$360 US, add 25% for AUD.
The 2012 DWP made no ref to OCVs and had no updated DCP.
A full size LCS has no application to SEA 1180 unless you are suggesting that some are built in lieu of replacement frigates.
Stick to reality, vapourware and Starship Enterprise belong on the Silver screen, not here.

 

[Volkodav]

Australia reveals new shipbuilding industry plan to bypass 'Valley of Death' - IHS Jane's 360

Janes have what looks like a reasonable summary of the government plans.

Its none of my business as a non-Australian, but I'm still struck by the willingness of the government to spend up large to secure a very modest number of manufacturing jobs. There seems to be a huge emphasis on 'saving manufacturing' in chosen locations, and very little attention to whether this is the best way to equip RAN with the vessels it needs. Or am I missing something?

I can understand the desire to build defence equipment locally, but there comes a point where the cost becomes unsustainable in both time and dollars. A case in point, Canada's decision to locally construct two Berlin-class AORs that will leave their navy without replenishment capability for half a decade.

The issue is we keep rebuilding the industry, get things ticking along just fine, then shut it all down and buy off shore for a generation, then rebuild it all again. We also conduct hideously expensive mid life upgrades and life extensions that deliver dubious capability gains at great expense. Overall we spend huge sums of money for no net gain in defence capability or economic benefit.

It has been known for years that it is more efficient to maintain a capability than to drop it a rebuild it over and over again for the sake of saving some short term, up front, expenditure during boom times when it is cheaper to buy overseas. It is cheaper to replace ships at twenty or twenty-five years, without a midlife upgrade, let alone a life extension, if you factor in the costs associated with having to rebuild an industrial capability that has atrophied while you were upgrading and life extending the old ships.

There is also the simple fact that an upgraded old ship will never be as capable as a comparable new ship and such a vessel will struggle to achieve fifteen additional years. It will also be more expensive and difficult to maintain, often achieving lower levels of availability and capability than a new build that would easily last twenty or twenty-five years.

Its a big picture thing, not just through life for a single platform or type but a holistic view of maintaining and adapting a capability through changing times. Short term savings made because of a budget crunch, or because of an extended period of overvalued currency making imports cheaper, will inevitably end up costing future generations more, either in outlays to rebuild what was lost, to continue buying off shore or in a reduction in capability, hence strategic options to protect national interests.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Its none of my business as a non-Australian, but I'm still struck by the willingness of the government to spend up large to secure a very modest number of manufacturing jobs. There seems to be a huge emphasis on 'saving manufacturing' in chosen locations, and very little attention to whether this is the best way to equip RAN with the vessels it needs. Or am I missing something?

I can understand the desire to build defence equipment locally, but there comes a point where the cost becomes unsustainable in both time and dollars. A case in point, Canada's decision to locally construct two Berlin-class AORs that will leave their navy without replenishment capability for half a decade.

We aren't spending the money to just save jobs, that how the politicians are spinning it. Its certainly a factor though.

Australia isn't building 12 super conventional subs, 20 OPV's, 8 destroyer sized frigates, replacement landing craft just to keep a few thousand people busy. Ship/sub building is certainly a strategic industry and one it may be worth paying to keep. Particularly if your spending $50+ billion, it might be a good idea for some of that money to go back into your economy and set up infrastructure to maintain your new toys.

Australia has ordered 2 of the largest non US LHD's, 3 AWD's, given a bay class LPD, F-18 SH, F-18 growlers, C-17's, C-27j, Bushmasters vehicles, Land 400 order is imminent, and the navy's long list at a critical time. Many are obsolete, many are being replaced from 70's Vietnam era and outlook. Look at the region. Two superpowers are redrawing lines on the planet.