Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[oldsig127]

If the frigates are built at a rate of one per year, allowing for slippage the build ends around 2030.

.

Why one per year? Everything I've read to date suggests a two year period between completions.

oldsig127

 

[40 deg south]

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...

Von, oldsig
Fair enough, I have clearly misinterpreted something. A frigate every two years spreads the build over a much longer period. The planners had better factor in a mid-series update though - after 10 years the sensor/comms/missile fit-out will be starting to look dated.

 

[ngatimozart]

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.



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).

I am not taking it out of context, in fact I would argue that it is well within context of the discussion. Secondly whilst this maybe an affectation on my part, I worked for a living and have never benn commissioned as an officer in any of Her Majesties forces, nor been Knighted. I am a lowerdeck man having neither the intention nor inclination of belonging to a wardroom or officers mess.

There has been no indication that the ANZACs will be retired early and as such, any tendency to indicate thus is somewhat whimsical at the moment. At the moment all that we have is a political statement and I prefer to believe nothing a politician says until I have seen it built, launched and commissioned. Anything until then is hyperbole. Just let's get this thread back on to some semblance of actual reality, rather than the flights of fantasy that it appears to have taken. Us blue tagged bods do actually have a modicum of knowledge about what we generally are talking about. We didn't gain it in yesterdays Kornies packet. In some cases we actually ate weetbix

 

[Volkodav]

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).

Mid life upgrades are far more than weapon and sensor updates, they are major structural work, refurbishment and replacement of the majority of components, pipe work cabling, generators, switchboards, compressors, air-conditioning, sewerage systems, accommodation etc, Basically the ships are gutted and rebuilt to the extent for example that it may have been cheaper, quicker and better value for money, to have built four new FFGs (a stretched ANZACs?) than to have upgraded the existing ships.

It is the platform work you want to avoid, CS is easier and these days you look to spiral development programs that continually upgrade and improve capability. It is the platform that is often more cost effective to replace than upgrade, not the combat system, which should pretty much continually evolve and improve.

 

[40 deg south]

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.

Ngati
It will certainly give the defence planners something to think about. All the information around the mid-life upgrade suggests NZ's ANZACs are exected to serve until around 2030 or slightly later, which fits with the Aussie build schedule.

The Chief of Navy has stated that he wants work to begin soon on defining what sort of vessel NZ wants as a replacement. To this end, I have heard rumours some sort of initial project definition work has begun.

I think there will be three main considerations:

- will NZ want a conventional GP frigate as an ANZAC replacement? I think this is far from a given.

- how the cost of an Aussie-built frigate will compare with other options?

- the poltical relationship at the time any deal is made?

All of these are hard to predict at this stage.

 

[vonnoobie]

Von, oldsig
Fair enough, I have clearly misinterpreted something. A frigate every two years spreads the build over a much longer period. The planners had better factor in a mid-series update though - after 10 years the sensor/comms/missile fit-out will be starting to look dated.

Ideally now that the idea is to have 9 they should be ordered in batches of 3, Implementing updates among each new batch.

 

[Muar River]

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.

I agree the Type 26 is a fine ship and a very handsome one. I don’t doubt the fit-out chosen by the RN will meet the needs of that service. What is the final size of the ship as some articles suggest 6500t while others have it at 5400t?

As you know, the RAN requirements for combat and even platform systems are very different. Note the use of the LM2500 in both the LHDs and AWDs so commonality through the fleet would suggest the LM2500 in a Type 26 variant? In terms of the RAN, I guess we wait for a design from BAE which includes the following specs. This information is taken from the TKS slide presentation to Defence of an evolved MOTs design based on the F-125 coming in at 7000t.

CEAFAR –S/X/L
48 Mk 41 VLS (strike length) cells for SM 2/ESSM/Tomahawk
Integrated sonar suite – HMS and VDS/TAS and TDS
SAAB 9LV CS and Aegis Fire Control


Efficient diesel electric propulsion
 max. speed of 28 knots (maintaining LM2500 at designed power (not de-rated)
 Capability to operate 2 helicopters (MH-60R)
Capability to operate unmanned vehicles (UAV/UUV/USV)
Use of modular mission payloads
Measured signature characteristics and low signature design features
Commonality of systems with existing
Adequate growth margins to adapt to changing requirement through the life of the ships
Range 8000NM @ 12 knots (greater fuel load than F125)

 

[ngatimozart]

I agree the Type 26 is a fine ship and a very handsome one. I don’t doubt the fit-out chosen by the RN will meet the needs of that service. What is the final size of the ship as some articles suggest 6500t while others have it at 5400t?

As you know, the RAN requirements for combat and even platform systems are very different. Note the use of the LM2500 in both the LHDs and AWDs so commonality through the fleet would suggest the LM2500 in a Type 26 variant? In terms of the RAN, I guess we wait for a design from BAE which includes the following specs. This information is taken from the TKS slide presentation to Defence of an evolved MOTs design based on the F-125 coming in at 7000t.

CEAFAR –S/X/L
48 Mk 41 VLS (strike length) cells for SM 2/ESSM/Tomahawk
Integrated sonar suite – HMS and VDS/TAS and TDS
SAAB 9LV CS and Aegis Fire Control


Efficient diesel electric propulsion
 max. speed of 28 knots (maintaining LM2500 at designed power (not de-rated)
 Capability to operate 2 helicopters (MH-60R)
Capability to operate unmanned vehicles (UAV/UUV/USV)
Use of modular mission payloads
Measured signature characteristics and low signature design features
Commonality of systems with existing
Adequate growth margins to adapt to changing requirement through the life of the ships
Range 8000NM @ 12 knots (greater fuel load than F125)

Not bad but I'd upgrade the helos requirements to having it being able to take medium helos, something that has the weight of say the NFH just to future proof it. That is something that has to be allowed for at the beginning because it is expensive to retrospectively add later. The Romeo won't always be the RANs helos. Why Aegis fire control? It is a frigate not an AWD. If the RAN wants or needs more Aegis ships then it needs to build more AWDs. Horses for courses. GP or ASW frigates are not AWDs nor meant to be. How about some common sense here.

 

[StingrayOZ]

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.

The current Liberal Australian government had exactly this idea. Buy off the shelf, from overseas, save a bundle and destroy all those pesky unionised labor voting blue collar workers, they can get jobs in rich liberal voting service industries. Now they are touting $80 billion in local construction.

$80 billion is a lot of money to pull out of the Australian economy and stick into someone elses.

Plus does that country really want to hire thousands of workers just for Australia knowing there won't be any more work as they will shop around in 20 years for the next best deal. I would imagine Japanese companies had quite legitimate concerns, doubling production would mean thousands of highly trained workers coming online almost straight away. Sure, if your ordering 1 or 2 subs, buy off a maker.

Your buying 12? Thats like going to Ford, who makes 250,000 Mustangs, and placing a single order for 200,000 mustangs. Your buying the entire production line.

It doesn't work like that. There are really good reasons why ships aren't the same as trucks or aircraft. A F-18 has a crew of 1, a C-17 a crew of 3. Ships have crews in the range of 200-300. The LHD when all loaded will have nearly 1400 people onboard. Aircraft engines are easily accessible (generally). A submarine engine, you have to cut the whole thing in half to access it to do major changes. Military ships aren't much better.

In my experience, aircraft are built like cars, everything has a part number, they come off a production line, they are designed to be easy to maintain. Ships tend to be built more like buildings, much more dependant on craftmanship, the builds tend to continually evolve, no ship is exactly alike. Oberons was a classic, we spent 75% of the purchase price on their first refit, and we had to do it ourselves.

All of this is my opinion, there are those here who have extensive work history in this exact area. I would differ to Alexa and others informed knowledge of this.

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.

I wish I could say its because Canberra is forward thinking and in touch with reality. Its not, its reactionary. We have powerful friends that send very strong messages to all levels of government in Australia.

I've been to about 15 functions in the last 2 years hosted by the American embassy or American interests, Centre of American studies, visiting academics, us government advisor's, studies, american institutes etc. While most weren't specifically defence, but some were related, the message is extremely clear for Australia. It should be clear to both parties.

 

[Joe Black]

The current Liberal Australian government had exactly this idea. Buy off the shelf, from overseas, save a bundle and destroy all those pesky unionised labor voting blue collar workers, they can get jobs in rich liberal voting service industries. Now they are touting $80 billion in local construction.

$80 billion is a lot of money to pull out of the Australian economy and stick into someone elses.

Plus does that country really want to hire thousands of workers just for Australia knowing there won't be any more work as they will shop around in 20 years for the next best deal. I would imagine Japanese companies had quite legitimate concerns, doubling production would mean thousands of highly trained workers coming online almost straight away. Sure, if your ordering 1 or 2 subs, buy off a maker.

Your buying 12? Thats like going to Ford, who makes 250,000 Mustangs, and placing a single order for 200,000 mustangs. Your buying the entire production line.

It doesn't work like that. There are really good reasons why ships aren't the same as trucks or aircraft. A F-18 has a crew of 1, a C-17 a crew of 3. Ships have crews in the range of 200-300. The LHD when all loaded will have nearly 1400 people onboard. Aircraft engines are easily accessible (generally). A submarine engine, you have to cut the whole thing in half to access it to do major changes. Military ships aren't much better.

In my experience, aircraft are built like cars, everything has a part number, they come off a production line, they are designed to be easy to maintain. Ships tend to be built more like buildings, much more dependant on craftmanship, the builds tend to continually evolve, no ship is exactly alike. Oberons was a classic, we spent 75% of the purchase price on their first refit, and we had to do it ourselves.

All of this is my opinion, there are those here who have extensive work history in this exact area. I would differ to Alexa and others informed knowledge of this.



I wish I could say its because Canberra is forward thinking and in touch with reality. Its not, its reactionary. We have powerful friends that send very strong messages to all levels of government in Australia.

I've been to about 15 functions in the last 2 years hosted by the American embassy or American interests, Centre of American studies, visiting academics, us government advisor's, studies, american institutes etc. While most weren't specifically defence, but some were related, the message is extremely clear for Australia. It should be clear to both parties.

I think you summed up very well. Looking at Singapore, that's exactly what they have done as well, build as many ships locally as possible, with the design being sourced from foreign countries, followed by technology transfer for a local build. That has been the case of all their major vessels save the submarines, which are sourced directly from overseas.

 

[ngatimozart]

Ngati
It will certainly give the defence planners something to think about. All the information around the mid-life upgrade suggests NZ's ANZACs are exected to serve until around 2030 or slightly later, which fits with the Aussie build schedule.

The Chief of Navy has stated that he wants work to begin soon on defining wht sort of vessel NZ wants as a replacement. To this end, I have heard rumours some sort of initial project definition work has begun.

I think there will be three main considerations:

- will NZ want a conventional GP frigate as an ANZAC replacement? I think this is far from a given.

- how the cost of an Aussie-built frigate will compare with other options?

- the poltical relationship at the time any deal is made?

All of these are hard to predict at this stage.

As stated in the 2010 DWP, the defence relationship with Australia is NZs most important defence relationship, and one that NZ has to work hard on because of the ANZUS crisis of 1985, the penny pinching ways since Ruth Richardsons infamous 1991 budget and uncle Helens foreign and defence policy lurches. Those three events have done significant damage to the relationship and even though publicly this may not appear so, NZ is no longer perceived by Canberra as the very reliable ally it once was, with adequate reason. NZ pollies do play on the "special ANZAC relationship" but when push comes to dollars they do very little if anything about it.

This is where these pollies may and should be held to account by all interested and affected parties. I for one would be quite happy for a bit of hard ball to be bought to bear on Wellington by Canberra and Washington, with Wellington being reminded forcefully, if needed, of its responsibilities to NZ, friends and allies or we could end up like this if we already aren't.

I really do admire CN Jack Steers approach to revitalising the RNZN. He has redirected the focus back on too people and their skills. He has bought the RNZN back to its basic core values and everyone now is taught basic seamanship as part if their basic course upon entry. Now if you wear the RNZN uniform you will go to sea at some stage(s) of your career. If you don't like that then you chose the wrong service. You should of joined the Army or the Air Force instead. It's the old adage, if you can't take a joke you shouldn't joined. The one thing I didn't like about Jack is his apparent willingness to accept second hand warships. Don't get me wrong, Jack is a very good hand and a very able CN, probably the best we've had for a while. I just feel that second hand warships are a very false economy which in the end cost the country more than what buying new would.

Given that the COA have finally made a decision about the future frigate and the OPV it is my considered opinion that the future for the RNZN lies with these two builds and without any cost cutting measures. To that end we go with the CEAFAR but not the ESSM, since we have already invested in the Sea Ceptor. That is not a biggy. We keep the 48 strike length VLS - better to many than not enough. I don't see NZ going with tomahawk missiles, full stop, however the NSM would be a starter. If needed we could also fit a medium to long range AAR missile as well. MBDA have an interesting one. We would need a flight deck and hangarage for two medium helos of the NH90 /NFH range. The sprites are due for replacement on or around 2030. Not that the NFH is in the running but it possibly could be then so why restrict yourself. We may have need to operate the NH90 off the frigates so again why restrict ones self. We already have the situation where one of our ships cannot operate the sprites because the flight deck was designed and rated for the Wasp. That's the Endeavor and no indication of any forethought.

OK this is real early days and a lot has to happen, however I do strongly believe that NZ committing to and carrying through with a three frigate build will help ameliorate some of the concerns that Canberra has. If NZ was actually to commit to an ongoing build program of both frigates and OPVs then I feel that would bring long term benefits to both countries. This will work as long as NZ pollies understand that there is no welshing on the deal and that such welshing will result in significant financial, defence, trade and diplomatic penalties. That could stop any future pollies from doing an uncle Helen.

 

[alexsa]

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

Certainly you have a voice, but if you purport to speak with authority on a subject you need to back up with fact.

 

[rockitten]

The current Liberal Australian government had exactly this idea. Buy off the shelf, from overseas, save a bundle and destroy all those pesky unionised labor voting blue collar workers, they can get jobs in rich liberal voting service industries. Now they are touting $80 billion in local construction.

$80 billion is a lot of money to pull out of the Australian economy and stick into someone elses.

Plus does that country really want to hire thousands of workers just for Australia knowing there won't be any more work as they will shop around in 20 years for the next best deal. I would imagine Japanese companies had quite legitimate concerns, doubling production would mean thousands of highly trained workers coming online almost straight away. Sure, if your ordering 1 or 2 subs, buy off a maker.

Your buying 12? Thats like going to Ford, who makes 250,000 Mustangs, and placing a single order for 200,000 mustangs. Your buying the entire production line.

It doesn't work like that. There are really good reasons why ships aren't the same as trucks or aircraft. A F-18 has a crew of 1, a C-17 a crew of 3. Ships have crews in the range of 200-300. The LHD when all loaded will have nearly 1400 people onboard. Aircraft engines are easily accessible (generally). A submarine engine, you have to cut the whole thing in half to access it to do major changes. Military ships aren't much better.

In my experience, aircraft are built like cars, everything has a part number, they come off a production line, they are designed to be easy to maintain. Ships tend to be built more like buildings, much more dependant on craftmanship, the builds tend to continually evolve, no ship is exactly alike. Oberons was a classic, we spent 75% of the purchase price on their first refit, and we had to do it ourselves.

All of this is my opinion, there are those here who have extensive work history in this exact area. I would differ to Alexa and others informed knowledge of this.



I wish I could say its because Canberra is forward thinking and in touch with reality. Its not, its reactionary. We have powerful friends that send very strong messages to all levels of government in Australia.

I've been to about 15 functions in the last 2 years hosted by the American embassy or American interests, Centre of American studies, visiting academics, us government advisor's, studies, american institutes etc. While most weren't specifically defence, but some were related, the message is extremely clear for Australia. It should be clear to both parties.

Well said, Stingray.

Just want to know, those cost we mentioned for many shipbuilding projects such as the 50bn for the submarines, are they only the construction/procurement cost (with all the gears of coz), or they are the cost of the full life-cycle? The labor seems implying it is the former (claiming "all of them" will go overseas), yet the Liberals is claiming the latter (at least 2/3 will be spent in Australia regardless). Which one is more true?

Also, now it seems we are getting 8 rather than 12 submarines, so rolling out 1 submarine every 2 years, and the yard will have to sack the workers in16 years. And if we still don't go for SSN, we have to rebuild the team again 6 to 8 years later. It is getting into a "grey area": not enough for a continuous build yet still quite huge for a project.

To be or not to be, it is the question.

 

[vonnoobie]

Well said, Stingray.

Just want to know, those cost we mentioned for many shipbuilding projects such as the 50bn for the submarines, are they only the construction/procurement cost (with all the gears of coz), or they are the cost of the full life-cycle? The labor seems implying it is the former (claiming "all of them" will go overseas), yet the Liberals is claiming the latter (at least 2/3 will be spent in Australia regardless). Which one is more true?

Also, now it seems we are getting 8 rather than 12 submarines, so rolling out 1 submarine every 2 years, and the yard will have to sack the workers in16 years. And if we still don't go for SSN, we have to rebuild the team again 6 to 8 years later. It is getting into a "grey area": not enough for a continuous build yet still quite huge for a project.

To be or not to be, it is the question.

In regards to the submarine build times and numbers procured, Is there a chance that a future government could order more once the production line and costs stabilize? or that we may go the way Japan has with building there sub's with only an 18 year intended life cycle?

I know officially nothing has been mentioned just wondering if Australia may take either such approach possibly....

 

[StingrayOZ]

Also, now it seems we are getting 8 rather than 12 submarines, so rolling out 1 submarine every 2 years, and the yard will have to sack the workers in16 years. And if we still don't go for SSN, we have to rebuild the team again 6 to 8 years later. It is getting into a "grey area": not enough for a continuous build yet still quite huge for a project.
.

We were going to buy 8 Oberons. We were going to build 8 Collins class. Each time we ended up with 6. Each time we really regretted not getting 8 or more. We will not purchase less than 8 (IMO) as we have been down that road twice and found it wanting, badly. IMO I can see 8 as a minimum. But it is by no means an efficient minimum you will pay nearly as much for 8 as 10. If you ask Japan and the US what sort of commitment they would like to see from Australia, I imagine it would be more than 8.

 

[aussienscale]

In regards to the submarine build times and numbers procured, Is there a chance that a future government could order more once the production line and costs stabilize? or that we may go the way Japan has with building there sub's with only an 18 year intended life cycle?

I know officially nothing has been mentioned just wondering if Australia may take either such approach possibly....

I can't see us reducing life span to 18 years for subs, we just don't have the budget for it. Future orders possible, too many variables and Government changes to see that far into the future, time will tell

Rockkitten SSN's for the RAN are a very long way off, there is no political will in any Government to tackle that subject, certainly won't be in any of our lifetimes

Also with regards to costing, I tried to point you to that in a previous post. All ADF costings are Full Life Costs. Every country does it differently, but many regard the Aus was as the best, even the US is looking at our model of costing

Cheers

 

[aussienscale]

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.

For starters its not about blasting, we all have knowledge, we all have gaps, we can all learn. Its about how you engage in the discussion, this is a discussion board, obviously nothing wrong with putting a POV forward, but we do encourage to stay in the realm of reality, or at least distinct possibilities.

So where to start ? Well I guess we could start with the fact that the RAN, both sides of Government, DMO etc have all stated that Sea1180 will NOT be Aluminium hulled. So that kinda kills the whole LCS idea.

Reply to your points:

1. What the USN does it totally irrelevant, we are talking about the RAN, very different requirements, they will be used in a very different manner and not to the level or intensity that the USN intends to use them, the RAN will simply not be involved in operations of that scale

2.Well you answered that one before with the 24kt minimum speed, we simply do not need a ship capable of those speeds, the RAN has not asked for it, does not need it strategically, operationally or economically ! You are talking about going from an OPV/OCV that would be powered by twin diesels, remote outside chance of being CODAG. You are talking about operating a 120m+ Tri LCS with 2 x MTU's, 2 x GT's and 4 x Gensets pumping through 4 massive waterjets ? Can you imagine the fuel bill alone ?

3. As already mentioned, all indicators are for steel hull. Lessons have been learnt from the PB's

4. Mission Modules, your guess as is good as mine and every other option put up on this thread over the last couple of years, Many ways of doing mission modules and not that hard to come up with local alternatives and solutions

LOT costs, manning, maintenance, upgrades, the fuel bill alone, I just can't see it happening, yes the LCS on paper does fill the requirements, does not make it the ship for the job.

I am sure most on here would have the same opinion as me, some may agree with you or would like to have that option, but they know deep down it won't happen.

And we simply can't afford them, they are too expensive to actually build

Happy to expand more if you like

Cheers

 

[Bluey 006]

Well I guess we could start with the fact that the RAN, both sides of Government, DMO etc have all stated that Sea1180 will NOT be Aluminium hulled. Cheers

Is this confirmed? Or a recent revelation?

I have previously heard steel was the preference but last month when the DefMin visited Austral he was asked this question directly, and indicated all options were open.

I watched the speech on the ABC

 

[aussienscale]

Is this confirmed? Or a recent revelation?

I have previously heard steel was the preference but last month when the DefMin visited Austral he was asked this question directly, and indicated all options were open.

I watched the speech on the ABC

Ok did not see that one, will look it up, but my guess is he was giving the correct political answer while surrounded by people carrying large pieces of aluminium

The consistent message we have seen over the last couple of years is the preference to steel because of the PB's issues and costs, Aluminium is just simply not up to the task.

There are others on here who have direct knowledge of the problems and why, that can answer that one in more detail if they choose to do so, some have an aversion to this thread at the moment and I don't blame them (and that comment is not directed to you or anyone else)

Cheers

 

[John Newman]

Ok did not see that one, will look it up, but my guess is he was giving the correct political answer while surrounded by people carrying large pieces of aluminium

The consistent message we have seen over the last couple of years is the preference to steel because of the PB's issues and costs, Aluminium is just simply not up to the task.

There are others on here who have direct knowledge of the problems and why, that can answer that one in more detail if they choose to do so, some have an aversion to this thread at the moment and I don't blame them

Cheers

Whilst I agree with you 100% about steel being the way to go for the OPV's, I haven't heard or read anything publically one way or the other, nothing ruled in or out.

On the other hand, when the Government recently announced the tender for the Pacific Patrol Boat replacements, it was clearly specified that ships would be build in 'steel', so that appears to be certain for that project at least.