Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[SASWanabe]

Because of DMSs' private corporate structure we will probably never know for sure how much it cost, But im gonna quote Volkodav from post 12372 on page 825 of this thread i don't know where he got his info.

Informally it is costing about the same as a Cape.

 

[John Newman]

No Mate! I didn't suggest that, I said the whole Helicopter Aircrew Training System (HATS) package cost a Billion or more. Big difference...

Press release

Main stream media


If you do the numbers for the whole package it seems the Ship cost wasn't insignificant - although that only based on open source data

Bluey, seriously?? You say you mentioned it as part of HATS? Where did you mention HATS (or should I say AIR 9000 Ph7??).

The relevant paragraph you wrote was:


"I am a big fan of the Damen vessels, they do fit well. However "the aviation training ship was built in a foreign shipyard amid claims that Australian industry could not come up with a viable tender" (the whole package was over a $1 billion). If the OPVs are to be built in Australia it would seem local yards and/or Damen need to be a lot more competitive, especially when you consider that operational vessels are likely to be more expensive again."


Now unless I'm going blind, where was HATS mentioned??

The way I read you comment (after the $1 Billion line) was that Damen needs to be a lot more competitive, just reading it as you wrote it, true?

As I understand it (and I don't have 'inside' information), the Aviation Training Ship is just a 'part' of the whole AIR 9000 Ph 7 project, and that DMS (owned by Serco) is providing/leasing the ship to the RAN, but enough of that.

What you also said after the $1 Billion comment was, that "If the OPVs are to be built in Australia it would seem local yards and/or Damen need to be a lot more competitive".

So how do you know that if a Damen design was selected for a production run of more than 'just' one specialised ship that it wouldn't be competitive for a whole fleet of OPV's?

 

[Bluey 006]

Because of DMSs' private corporate structure we will probably never know for sure how much it cost, But im gonna quote Volkodav from post 12372 on page 825 of this thread i don't know where he got his info.

While I have the utmost respect for Volkodav and respect his knowledge (I have done for well over a decade), that seems very very low for a 2400 tonne ship (unless there are next to no systems on board)

The whole contract for the Capes was 350 Million , this included through life maintenance. From what i can tell in the ANAO report the acquisitions cost were about 270-280 Million which means that each vessel is around 35 Million.

A Damen 2400 for $35m? Really

I know steel is cheap and air is free but at that price , hell lets buy 30 and use the additional funds left over from the project budget to fix the health system

 

[Bluey 006]

Bluey, seriously?? You say you mentioned it as part of HATS? Where did you mention HATS (or should I say AIR 9000 Ph7??).

The relevant paragraph you wrote was:


"I am a big fan of the Damen vessels, they do fit well. However "the aviation training ship was built in a foreign shipyard amid claims that Australian industry could not come up with a viable tender" (the whole package was over a $1 billion). If the OPVs are to be built in Australia it would seem local yards and/or Damen need to be a lot more competitive, especially when you consider that operational vessels are likely to be more expensive again."


Now unless I'm going blind, where was HATS mentioned??

The way I read you comment (after the $1 Billion line) was that Damen needs to be a lot more competitive, just reading it as you wrote it, true?

As I understand it (and I don't have 'inside' information), the Aviation Training Ship is just a 'part' of the whole AIR 9000 Ph 7 project, and that DMS (owned by Serco) is providing/leasing the ship to the RAN, but enough of that.

What you also said after the $1 Billion comment was, that "If the OPVs are to be built in Australia it would seem local yards and/or Damen need to be a lot more competitive".

So how do you know that if a Damen design was selected for a production run of more than 'just' one specialised ship that it wouldn't be competitive for a whole fleet of OPV's?

Honestly John.... sometimes :mad

The "whole package" - referring to the whole AIR 9000 Ph 7 project which the Training ship is part of (which most people here have knowledge of).

"the OPVs are to be built in Australia it would seem local yards and/or Damen need to be a lot more competitive" - referring to the fact that it got out that it went offshore because local industry tenders ( for the ship component) were to high

No doubt a larger run will include cost savings , no one disputes this. But remembering the premium for local build.

---------------

Honestly dude, while you clearly demonstrate knowledge in Defence matters and I welcome the contribution you make, and, even enjoy reading your posts.But sometimes, you show little regard for (occasionally even attacking) other posters ( sometimes even Defence professionals). I hate to break it to you but you are not always right and your views are not always shared by others or the best solution. This is an open forum and part of the point ( and most of the fun) of an open internet forum is discussing differing views, wacky ideas and real facts.

Its a "discussion" forum not a competition, take a chill pill mate....

I hope there is no hard feelings

 

[aussienscale]

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.

Mate seriously ? How do you read LCS for Sea 1180 ?

I would love your in depth analysis on why the LCS suits the requirements of the project ? Please go into as much detail as you like referencing the DWP, DCP, plenty on info available on Sea 1180 from Navy and Government sources on subjects such as Initial Capability Description on the actual requirements of the project, along with the consistent indicators from both sides of Government on what the vessels will be and the roles intended by the Navy

Also good commentary from some of the better members of the media fraternity (IE NOT MASS MEDIA) and so much more, but lets just start with that shall we ?

Look forward to the reply

Cheers

 

[StingrayOZ]

No Hanger for helicopter

If there is no hanger to embark a UAV/Helo I don't see it getting much traction. A helicopter is such a force multiplier to the OPV/OCV concept. You then have a very mobile platform that can be armed, or fitted with sensors, or deploy equipment/forces etc.

Not that they will always embark a helicopter, but we may eventually get enough UAV's to have many of them embark a UAV which may take over many the roles of a traditional naval helicopter.

IMO improved sea keeping/range and an aviation hanger are the prime aspects of making the boats larger.

 

[John Newman]

Honestly John.... sometimes :mad

The "whole package" - referring to the whole AIR 9000 Ph 7 project which the Training ship is part of (which most people here have knowledge of).

"the OPVs are to be built in Australia it would seem local yards and/or Damen need to be a lot more competitive" - referring to the fact that it got out that it went offshore because local industry tenders ( for the ship component) were to high

No doubt a larger run will include cost savings , no one disputes this. But remembering the premium for local build.

---------------

Honestly dude, while you clearly demonstrate knowledge in Defence matters and I welcome the contribution you make, and, I even enjoy reading your posts.But sometimes, you show little regard for (occasionally even attacking) other posters (even Defence professionals). I hate to break it to you but you are not always right and your views are not always shared by others. This is an open forum and part of the point ( and most of the fun) of an open internet forum is discussing differing views, wacky ideas and real facts.

take a chill pill mate....

I hope there is no hard feelings

Seriously Bluey (and by the way I'm not a dude), you need a bit of a reality check, my comments were purely based on the way you constructed your comment, nothing more nothing less, maybe you should go back and re-read what you actually wrote and then you might understand my questions, I'm more than happy for anyone to challenge my posts and comments, and I'd hope that you would be the same.

Me attacking Def Pros? If you are referring to the misunderstanding that V and I had recently (not that it's any of your business), well that was resolved 'privately' and it was actually based on a 'misunderstanding' too.

If you like, send me a PM to discuss further or if you would prefer confirmation that V and I resolved our misunderstanding, then I'm sure you can also PM Volk for confirmation of that too.

Seriously bluey, If you aren't prepared to have your statements/comments questioned (just as I'm more than happy to have my comments questioned), then I won't bother, no stress and no problem for me one tiny little bit!

 

[Bonza]

Can we not get in to another back and forth he-said she-said on this thread? Honestly sometimes I think it would be easier to just close the bloody thing for a week so people could cool off...

 

[ngatimozart]

Nothing much new, but an interesting mention of a new candidate for the SEA5000: Denmark is offering Iver Huitfeldt frigate.

Again, just in case anyone who cannot by-pass the subscription.
Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian
"Tony Abbott fires first election salvo with navy gamble

The Australian
August 05, 2015 12:00AM

Brendan Nicholson
Defence Editor
Canberra

Tony Abbott has launched his first big promise for the next election with an ambitious $89 billion gamble on new warships and sub*marines for the navy, but questions remain about how many jobs will be created or saved.

Promising a fleet of sophisticated “future frigates” will be built in South Australia to replace the navy’s Anzac warships three years ahead of schedule, the Prime Minister unveiled phase one of an election pledge that he vowed would award the battered manufacturing state “first prize”.

The government said the plan would modernise the navy but it also hopes to shore up political support.

Conceding it was too late to stop some job losses in the shipbuilding industry because of existing projects coming to an end, Mr *Abbott said the former Labor government had caused the problem by failing to order any new ships during its six years in power

GRAPHIC: Overhauling the navy
Interactive Container

He said 2500 jobs would be created or saved as a result of yesterday’s pledge, under which about nine frigates would be built at a cost of about $20bn in South Australia from 2020. But the current workforce of 2000 is expected to drop to 1000 before increasing. The government was unable to say exactly where the 2500 shipbuilding jobs would be located.

The Prime Minister did not say whether the announcements could save Melbourne’s Williamstown dockyard, employing 1000 people, or the 500 jobs at the Forjacs shipyard in Newcastle, which both face closure for lack of work.

The plan to upgrade the navy also includes about $50bn devoted to building and maintaining a fleet of new submarines, which is a hotly contested contract among bidders from Japan, Germany and France. Mr Abbott and Defence Minister Kevin Andrews also announced plans to spend about $19bn for an undisclosed number of offshore patrol vessels, or corvettes, which will be smaller than frigates but bigger than the navy’s existing Armidale Class patrol boats. It has not been decided where these vessels will be built but The Australian understands there are likely to be about a dozen of them. Mr Andrews said more information would emerge in the defence white paper, which is expected next month.

Mr Abbott strongly rejected suggestions that the massive spending commitment amounted to pork-barrelling to shore up his government’s flagging support in a state badly bruised by the loss of manufacturing jobs.

His personal ratings, measured by Newspoll, show his satisfaction in South Australia in the March quarter hit the lowest level for any prime minister in any state in 20 years before partially recovering in the June quarter. “I’m worried about the defence of our country and I’m worried about making sure that government does not shirk the decisions needed to keep our defences in the best possible order,” Mr Abbott said.

Labor’s assistant defence spokesman, David Feeney, said the government’s numbers did not add up. “This is a bogus exercise that was purely about politics and not policy,” he said. “There’s nothing in these announcements to save Williamstown dockyard or Forjacs in Newcastle.

“And, worse, there is no prospect of this work starting in Adelaide until 2020, by which time shipyards across Australia will have been idle for years.”

Australian Strategic Policy Institute analyst Andrew Davies said the announcement left a lot of unanswered questions. “This is a very big vote of confidence in an industry that has been underperforming,” Dr Davies said. “The government is making a substantial bet that by locking in work, they can get rid of a lot of the in*efficiencies that we’ve seen. That remains to be seen. Some things will get better and we’ll avoid start-up costs but this is untested.”

Mr Abbott said the precise number of jobs for South Australia would depend upon which vessel was chosen but the projects announced yesterday would save 1000 jobs that would otherwise have been lost.

“But the yard for building major surface ships will be here in Adelaide, because the infrastructure’s here,” he said. “Now, the subordinate yard may be in South Australia, it may be somewhere else, it may be at Williamstown, for instance, but the major focus for surface shipbuilding will be here in Adelaide.”

The key would be to get shipbuilding on to a sustainable “continuous build” program, Mr Abbott said.

He did not say how many of the new frigates, designed to destroy submarines and protect the fleet from air and missile attacks, would be built but The Australian revealed this week there were likely to be nine.

The naval shipbuilding industry fears massive job losses due to the so-called valley of death when current programs to build three air warfare destroyers and two giant landing ships are complete.

The government also confirmed yesterday it was putting an additional $1.2bn into the struggling Air Warfare Destroyer project, which has been stricken by delays and cost blowouts. Construction of the frigates is scheduled to begin once the third AWD is delivered.

“This is a historic day and this is a historic announcement,” Mr Abbott said. “What we are announcing today is basically a fleet build here in Australia, centred on South Australia, because we have confidence that a restructured domestic surface naval shipbuilding industry can be competitive, can give us the best possible ships, at the best possible price, maximising the local build.”

The British Type 26 Global Defence Ship is considered a likely option for the new frigate but while design work is complete, building of the first vessel in the class has not yet begun.

Two other European options are Germany’s very large Blohm and Voss MEKO A-400 RAN built by TKMS and the French FREMM multi-mission frigate.

Denmark is offering its hi-tech but low-cost Iver Huitfeldt frigate.

The promised white paper, now delayed until next month, will provide details of further projects including how many new submarines will be bought, at least eight, and possibly 12.

Japan, France and Germany are engaged in a competitive evaluation process and by late this year they must each submit options to build them in Australia, in their home country or in a *“hybrid” mix of both."

Well they'd be silly not to look at the Iver Huitfelds. Not so much as a ship for the RAN but at the design and construction phillosophies because the designers offered different solutions to upgrade issues further down the track. Simple things such as ensuring all the cabling was easily accessible and didn't involve difficult and costly deck head, bulkhead and deck engineering prior to accessing the cableways for new cable installation. Generic monitors / work stations in control rooms, bridges etc., so that a monitor / work station has multiple uses rather than a single bespoke usage. Then any changes to function are software driven, not hardware driven. Whilst I think there are aspects to the Iver Huitfeld design that may make it attractive to the NZG, there are certain aspects about it that would not appeal to the RAN. However what I am suggesting is look at the design and build philosophies and methodologies and not at the ship itself. There is some very innovative thinking in that design and cost is now an issue for the ADF.

 

[ngatimozart]

Quite a likely option, With only having an intended 15 year life span or so, Them being used more heavily then ever anticipated thus reducing there life we are getting into a replacement issue.

Pray tell, what do you base this piece of wisdom on?

The ACPB's being commissioned over a 32 month period, yet would take 6 - 12 years to replace, We will need a stop gap measure be it utilizing the Anzac's, leasing some PB's from elsewhere or ordering a small number of vessels similar in size to the ACPB's (Possibly based off the future PCPB replacement).

Do you think that eight or nine future frigates are just going to magically appear all at once in 2020. Jeez wish it was that easy then yes Kiwis would have a couple of CVNs with air wings about same size and structure as the USN air wings. Get real, the first ship of the class, IIRC Anzac will likely be paid off first as it's replacement is commissioned and maybe declared FOC, with subsequent ships being replaced as time goes by.

 

[ngatimozart]

China does convert some of their not so capable frigates as OPV for their coast guard, and they are now regularly participating china's aggressions in south china sea and Senkaku islands. But to be honest, if the frigate and OPV project get delayed just like the AWD and Collins did (which is very likely), we may see the ANZACs have to soldier-on pretty close to 30 years. So the ANZACs may "ended up" as "potential OPV" : the real OPVs are yet to be available.

IMHO, the most low risk choice for the OPV will be the Liberty class from Austal, the design has been proven and USN will develop most of the modules we need.

And vonnoobie, selling stuffs to Taiwan may not be as hard as you think, what we need to do is stripped-off any non US equipments, and then sell it back to US and then Yanks will re-sell them to Taiwan. In fact, that is how Taiwanese arm forces sourcing spares for their arsenal.

What the PRC does with it's retired frigates is up to it, but what may work for them does not necessarily work for Australia or NZ. They have a totally different philosophy and fund there militaries and para militaries totally different to either Australia or NZ. Hence if you are going to make comparisons make it so that apples are compared to apples and not lemons. Bring some modicm of reality back to the debate.

 

[ngatimozart]

Suggest you read the post again!

Alexa is a defence professional who has forgotten more about defence than you'll ever know. You have no reason to treat him lîke shit and this post by you is exactly doing that. You owe him an apology at the very least. Therefore an apology is called for and an expectation of one being given to Alexa by you exists.

 

[ngatimozart]

I will follow this rolling build of frigates and OPVs with great interest. There will be a significant amount of interest in Wellington regarding this and given the ANZAC frigate build success this new direction in Aussie warship building may just have a lot of support in Wellington. Now if a decent OPV could be designed and constructed then that would be the icing on the cake. I also think at when the COA and the RAN look at OPV designs they should look at a sub class which is Ice Class 1C capable. You say at the moment that you have an icebreaker that can operate in Antarctic Waters but having say 3 or 5 OPVs that can operate in the Antarctic is really a no brainer given the potential resources that exist down there. It is not something that you can acquire overnight. Just saying. And that treaty is only as good as its participants allow it to be. There are, IIRC, no penalties in it for any nation, signatory or non signatory, who decides to break the conditions of the treaty. It is not written in stone.

 

[40 deg south]

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....

...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.

Volk
Fair enough. No dispute that it can cost more to rebuild a capacity than to retain it. I'm just not certain how big a shipbuilding industry the RAN can sustain. Take the current plan - 8 frigates built from 2020, and a larger (but unknown) number of OPVs starting from 2018.

If the frigates are built at a rate of one per year, allowing for slippage the build ends around 2030. The first of class is only 10 years old. Given the OPVs are being built concurrently on a separate site (presumably), what does the frigate yard build next? I struggle to see how a sizable industry can be maintained, unless every single vessel used by the RAN is built domestically, and for some specialised types, I'm not sure this makes sense. I'm impressed by your current government's committment to the shipbuilding industry, but unsure that the numbers can be made to stack up.

I disagree with you on the merits (or otherwise) of mid-life upgrades, simply because electronics are evolving at a much faster rate than hulls. A 15-year old hull is likely to be only slightly less efficient than a newly-designed one. The same can't be said for radar or comms equipment. That is why I admire the Danes for their designs like the Iver Huitfeldt class - all the cabling and electronics is designed to be accessible and easily replaced without the need to break out the welding torches and rivet guns. This should keep the cost of an upgrade down to sensible levels - something that traditional naval design hasn't been good at. (Ngati has been forcefully pushing this point and I have come to agree with him).

 

[rockitten]

Mate seriously ? How do you read LCS for Sea 1180 ?

I would love your in depth analysis on why the LCS suits the requirements of the project ? Please go into as much detail as you like referencing the DWP, DCP, plenty on info available on Sea 1180 from Navy and Government sources on subjects such as Initial Capability Description on the actual requirements of the project, along with the consistent indicators from both sides of Government on what the vessels will be and the roles intended by the Navy

Also good commentary from some of the better members of the media fraternity (IE NOT MASS MEDIA) and so much more, but lets just start with that shall we ?

Look forward to the reply

Cheers

Mate seriously ? How do you read LCS for Sea 1180 ?

I would love your in depth analysis on why the LCS suits the requirements of the project ?

Also good commentary from some of the better members of the media fraternity (IE NOT MASS MEDIA) and so much more, but lets just start with that shall we ?

Look forward to the reply

Cheers

https://www.aph.gov.au%2FDocumentStore.ashx%3Fid%3Dbf32c3ce-39e7-4463-835a-0ff69404cc7a&ei=wTjDVaiwHsXbmAWCu7jIAg&usg=AFQjCNHulhnm4dKr6OM3WQ9nPIJUm1CSpg&bvm=bv.99556055,d.dGY

From what I read for the requirement of the OPV/OCV,
1. One single modular multirole class
2. Up to 2000 tonnes
3. Rely modular unmanned system for MCM and hydrographic tasks, and the modules have to be portable and transportable by rail, truck, air or sea and easy to be load/offload
4. Should be able to embark a helicopter or UAV
5. It is not suppose to operate in Antarctic Ocean (below 48degree south)
6. Need a shallow draft to go littoral, yet has the speed and endurance to go with the TG
7. It is not suppose to be a "traditional MCM", so no need to be building in specialist hulls which had little or no magnetic influence, very little acoustic noise, and created minimal pressure waves.
8. All mine hunt are suppose to be done stand-off" by using remote control vehicles. The mission of OPV/OCV in MCM warfare is to go with the TG (or just ahead of the beach landing), make sure the choke points (beach) are safe enough for the TG (AG) to get through, so the job has to be done quick and the distance of the stand-off cannot be too far away.
8. Need a large hold for law enforcement missions (collection of legal evidence and suspects/refugees) and high speed ( at least 24 knots at sea state 3) for interceptions
9. Good sea keeping and range no less than 3500nm (we have a large EEZ) also need to be large ( at least 60m in length)
10. No less than 35 crew and bunks for mission team. 20~30 additional bunk for "mission specialists"
11. Other bla bla bla such as special force support, disaster relief and even force transportation.

You may say, this board description fits many vessels, how can a 44knots and "3000 tonne" Independence class fit in this description. Well:
1.In the 2000s, the LCS was suppose to be a 2000 tonne class CORVETTE. Yanks didn't beef up their firepower and reclassified them as "frigates" until 2014. By the time the SEA1180 was drafted, the LCS were lightly armed with just a 57mm and a pair of 25mm guns.
2. The speed of a trimaran is like an airplane, 44 knots in light load, clam sea, but will reduced to 30 knots under rough sea and heavy load.
3.The spec only specify steel or aluminum hull (so no wood or fiber glass hull, but did mention low signal at acceptable cost. For mine counter measures operations, should we sail into the mine field with a steel hull or aluminum hull? I would go for aluminum.
4. LCS does have the MCM modules, the other option will be the StanFlex or a "fitted for but not with" approach. The "module" doesn't have to be in containers or pallets, but if not, how can it to be easily load and installed?

So a modular, shallow draft, high speed, lightly armed and likely aluminum hulled corvette with displacement around 2000 tonne, it sounds a lot like a LCS before it became a frigate. And, our navy has been using the ANZAC class for a corvette job for years, so a LCS didn't surprised me at all.

Okay, that's my reply. I can foresee a lots of blast from you guys, but at least I didn't hide behind the screen.

 

[40 deg south]

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.

Stingray
Sorry, I didn't mean all Australian defence spending was a job creation scheme. But for some reason naval equipment seems to be treated that way at present certainly as far as public/media comment goes.
People seem to accept its sensible to buy Boeing aircraft and MAN trucks from existing overseas production lines, but have trouble accepting the same reasoning when it comes to anything that floats. Why? - I have no idea.

Agree strongly with your closing comment about superpowers redrawing lines on the map - I wish Wellington was paying as much attention to this as Canberra is.

 

[ngatimozart]

Volk
Fair enough. No dispute that it can cost more to rebuild a capacity than to retain it. I'm just not certain how big a shipbuilding industry the RAN can sustain. Take the current plan - 8 frigates built from 2020, and a larger (but unknown) number of OPVs starting from 2018.

If the frigates are built at a rate of one per year, allowing for slippage the build ends around 2030. The first of class is only 10 years old. Given the OPVs are being built concurrently on a separate site (presumably), what does the frigate yard build next? I struggle to see how a sizable industry can be maintained, unless every single vessel used by the RAN is built domestically, and for some specialised types, I'm not sure this makes sense. I'm impressed by your current government's committment to the shipbuilding industry, but unsure that the numbers can be made to stack up.

I disagree with you on the merits (or otherwise) of mid-life upgrades, simply because electronics are evolving at a much faster rate than hulls. A 15-year old hull is likely to be only slightly less efficient than a newly-designed one. The same can't be said for radar or comms equipment. That is why I admire the Danes for their designs like the Iver Huitfeldt class - all the cabling and electronics is designed to be accessible and easily replaced without the need to break out the welding torches and rivet guns. This should keep the cost of an upgrade down to sensible levels - something that traditional naval design hasn't been good at. (Ngati has been forcefully pushing this point and I have come to agree with him).

If, and at present that's a big if, NZ was to agree to, fund and actually acquire three hulls, then that takes the build to 11 hulls. In between times the COA may actually see the need to fund extra hulls for the RAN. Who knows - it is yet early days and IMHO the NZG needs to seriously look at getting onboard with this development because it covers the two classes of ships that we do need to either replace and / or increase numbers in. It will come at about the right time in the replacement timeframe. It would have to be a long term commitment on NZs part with no easy out clauses so that no future peaceniks govt can do an uncle Helen.

 

[vonnoobie]

Pray tell, what do you base this piece of wisdom on?

The fact the ACPB's are suffering more serious issues and that they only were intended for a 15 year service life. In effect between 2020 and 2023 the ACPB's will be useless unless we bring in a stop gap measure or do a full on rebuild for them.

In most simple way possible the ACPB fleet will be getting retired faster then we can replace it with the planned OPV's/OCV's.

Do you think that eight or nine future frigates are just going to magically appear all at once in 2020. Jeez wish it was that easy then yes Kiwis would have a couple of CVNs with air wings about same size and structure as the USN air wings. Get real, the first ship of the class, IIRC Anzac will likely be paid off first as it's replacement is commissioned and maybe declared FOC, with subsequent ships being replaced as time goes by.

I never said the frigates would magically appear, You Sir are simply taking my post out of context. The mentioning of the Anzac's was only one part of a possible solution (Which I agree is very unlikely) depending on there availability if the Anzac's were retired earlier then planned (Bringing forth future frigate replacement sooner).

 

[vonnoobie]

Volk
Fair enough. No dispute that it can cost more to rebuild a capacity than to retain it. I'm just not certain how big a shipbuilding industry the RAN can sustain. Take the current plan - 8 frigates built from 2020, and a larger (but unknown) number of OPVs starting from 2018.

If the frigates are built at a rate of one per year, allowing for slippage the build ends around 2030. The first of class is only 10 years old. Given the OPVs are being built concurrently on a separate site (presumably), what does the frigate yard build next? I struggle to see how a sizable industry can be maintained, unless every single vessel used by the RAN is built domestically, and for some specialised types, I'm not sure this makes sense. I'm impressed by your current government's committment to the shipbuilding industry, but unsure that the numbers can be made to stack up.

I disagree with you on the merits (or otherwise) of mid-life upgrades, simply because electronics are evolving at a much faster rate than hulls. A 15-year old hull is likely to be only slightly less efficient than a newly-designed one. The same can't be said for radar or comms equipment. That is why I admire the Danes for their designs like the Iver Huitfeldt class - all the cabling and electronics is designed to be accessible and easily replaced without the need to break out the welding torches and rivet guns. This should keep the cost of an upgrade down to sensible levels - something that traditional naval design hasn't been good at. (Ngati has been forcefully pushing this point and I have come to agree with him).

From what I have read the government is leaning more to a 24 month time table rather then a 12 month time table, With what is now 9 planned frigates that gives you 18 years, by which time you start coming up on towards replacements for the Hobart's...

 

[rockitten]

Stingray
Sorry, I didn't mean all Australian defence spending was a job creation scheme. But for some reason naval equipment seems to be treated that way at present certainly as far as public/media comment goes.
People seem to accept its sensible to buy Boeing aircraft and MAN trucks from existing overseas production lines, but have trouble accepting the same reasoning when it comes to anything that floats. Why? - I have no idea.

Agree strongly with your closing comment about superpowers redrawing lines on the map - I wish Wellington was paying as much attention to this as Canberra is.

And a lots of procurement in RAAF didn't even went through a evaluation process or a flawed one, yet no one cares a damn.

One reason I can think of, is that the aircraft/army vehicle manufacturing business was already dead or in much smaller scale than the shipbuilding industry, so buying offshore received much less resistance from the union and the special-interest groups.