Welcome to DefenceTalk.com Forum!

By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.

  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

Discussion in 'Navy & Maritime' started by icelord, Feb 13, 2007.

Share This Page

  1. Redlands18

    Redlands18 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2015
    Messages:
    764
    Likes Received:
    175
    Location:
    qld
    I don't know that commonality is that big a deal between Aust and NZ. The Kiwis are going in a different direction with the Anzacs, Rifles, trg ac. It seems to me that there is little attempt at commonality, that quite often when we end up with the same equipment it is because both countries have arrived at the same procurement decision independently. Either way there is a good chance that we are going to end up with the same AOR.

    A joint purchase of 3 ships seems like it would make a good idea, maybe there are people on here who can explain why not.
     
  2. Volkodav

    Volkodav Defense Professional Verified Defense Pro

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    5,809
    Likes Received:
    346
    The ASC proposal was for a BMT Aegir with Australian specified systems, i.e. it could potentially have achieved a significantly higher level of commonality than the Navantia offering. One thing that does worry me about Navantia, especially with a MOTS procurement, is the difficulties they encountered on F-105 relating to lost institutional knowledge and degraded supply chain following the significant slump in orders/work. Having experienced their own black hole, there is no guarantee they will be able to achieve anywhere near the same (adjusted) cost or schedule as Cantabria. DSME on the other hand is currently well into an impressive mass build.
     
  3. Oberon

    Oberon Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2014
    Messages:
    201
    Likes Received:
    11
    Location:
    NSW
    It means that Navantia is the preferred tenderer and that the Australian government will now enter into serious contract negotiations with Navantia prior to contracts being awarded. Daewoo is now out of contention unless negotiations with Navantia break down.
     
  4. rockitten

    rockitten Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2007
    Messages:
    237
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well, on positive side, the Cantabria was designed with more av gas capacity to support a CVBG centered around the JC1 and F-35. Chosen the Spanish design mean our navy has less cost to upgrade if we really get the jet on our Canberra(s).

    By the way, it seems the Spanish news is confirmed
    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...s/news-story/f570b305b3f6b212110c73662673c138
     
  5. vonnoobie

    vonnoobie Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2015
    Messages:
    986
    Likes Received:
    56
    Location:
    Melbourne
    Has been pointed out in the past that such rectifications are not such a difficult task for such ships so more then likely any Australian offering would have come with a larger JP-5 capacity.

    As to the F-35B we wont be getting them for the Canberra's, It has been ruled out by every one from government for cost reasons to the military as it would be a capability gained at the sacrifice of it's intended role, They are dead and dusted.

    As for the Spanish ship, I really don't like the deal. With how often our ships support other nations and those nations support ships sustaining ours having so called commanality is hardly a major requirement. Looking at the cost factor compared to the British deal I don't think we are getting that big a bargain, $700m for 2 ships (Assuming there black hole won't cause cost over runs) compared to just north of $850m for 4 larger more capable ships.
     
  6. ASSAIL

    ASSAIL Defense Professional Verified Defense Pro

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2011
    Messages:
    2,976
    Likes Received:
    1,100
    Location:
    Darwin NT Australia
    Your missing the point. Commonality occurs with the ships engineering and ship management systems, fire and damage control systems and all that other minutiae involved with managing and running the ship. A sailor trained on the LHDs and AWDs qwill not require further training for the Support ships, engineers, spare part inventories and logistic providers etc, this provides great efficiencies for ship availability.

    I doubt if you can compare cost between the alternatives unless you have seen the submissions from both companies. If there is a premium for the Cantabrias I doubt if it will be a large one and therefor deemed acceptable to the acquisition team.
     
  7. Volkodav

    Volkodav Defense Professional Verified Defense Pro

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    5,809
    Likes Received:
    346
    The ASC proposed Aegir, which became the DMSE bid following the Abbott, Johnstone, Corman, not so subtle attempt to kill naval shipbuilding in Australia, incorporated ship control systems, equipment, layouts and processes lifted directly from AWD and LHD where appropriate, as well as other systems common elsewhere in the RAN if nit on their Navantia designed ships. Due to BMTs flexible design it was actually capable of incorporating a potentially higher level of commonality with existing RAN systems than Cantabria.
     
  8. ASSAIL

    ASSAIL Defense Professional Verified Defense Pro

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2011
    Messages:
    2,976
    Likes Received:
    1,100
    Location:
    Darwin NT Australia
    Possibly so but do we know what DSME offered in their submission?
    I'm agnostic on the choice but on the surface it seems that a true MOTS solution is the less risky. It would appear that the DSME would require some tanking changes to increase the load of JP5 needed when supporting the LHDs. The Norwegian ship appears to be as original.
    Anyway, the die is cast and they will be built overseas so revisiting what could have been with ASC is history.
     
  9. Punta74

    Punta74 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2014
    Messages:
    105
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Sydney
    Would it make more sense to build a 3rd AOR Cantabria as a follow on to the first two, or a logistics ship like Choules as DWP suggests ?

    With a timeline of late 2020's you have to then look at a potential replacement for "choules" so that them opens the options for a logistics class x 2.
     
  10. Alf662

    Alf662 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2015
    Messages:
    120
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Sydney
    The IIP appeared to be having a bet each way, until I had a closer read

    For replenishment ships we have:

    Quote:
    Replenishment ships
    3.24 Two new replenishment ships will replace the current mixed fleet
    of one replenishment ship and one oiler (fuel only) by the early 2020s.

    Replenishment ships are able to resupply fuel, water, food and weapons
    to ships at sea to extend their range and endurance.

    As the surface fleet grows with the introduction of larger frigates and larger patrol vessels, Defence will acquire another support vessel such as a third high
    -capacity replenishment ship or an additional logistics support ship similar to
    HMAS Choules in the late 2020s.

    A third replenishment ship would provide an assured capacity to continuously generate one operationally available replenishment ship for Surface Task Group operations.


    For Logisitics Support Ship we have:

    Quote:
    3.28 The Integrated Investment Program also provides for the replacement
    of this logistics support ship around 2030, as HMAS Choules has demonstrated the benefits of this type of vessel in extending the reach of the ADF and enhancing our capacity to deploy larger and better equipped forces.

    HMAS Choules, together with the two Canberra Class amphibious ships, will provide scalable and flexible options for greater capacity sea lift and amphibious operations.

    A third replenishment ship or additional logistics support ship will be
    considered in the late 2020s


    I got the impression that when HMAS Choules is up for replacement around 2030 it will be replaced by two ships that will have the utility of a Logistics ship (as in what we have with HMAS Choules) as well as a replenishment capability.

    Having a third AOR would be great, but having two logistics ships with replenishment capabilities would provide even more flexibility and capability
     
  11. rockitten

    rockitten Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2007
    Messages:
    237
    Likes Received:
    0
  12. StingrayOZ

    StingrayOZ Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2007
    Messages:
    3,407
    Likes Received:
    403
    Location:
    Sydney
    You don't need F-35B's to put a large JP-5 requirement. Operating 6 V-22 off each LHD would put a similar load as a small F-35B carrier. Or more realistically supporting a USMC amphib (even at light tempo), or JSDF flat top destroyer. Certainly in the future (10 years) aviation assets will be even more valuable (faster, longer range, thirstier, bigger but still VTOL). Even things like future LCAC may need JP-5.

    IMO Aegir is laughably short on JP-5, which while I think can be easily corrected the onus would be on Australia specing out with lots of thought what is required. Cantabria is kind of all sorted for us a bit better with probably everything we want in a low risk format we are very familiar with.

    That said personally get 2 well speced Aegir's.
    Then I would get another LHD to replace the LCH, Choules, logistics ships. The LHD can do RAS fuel and stores (would easily be able to tend to multiple OPV's and the like). Obviously vertical replenishment are going to be easy. Sure it would need more sailors than Choules, but training and logistics would be smoother with 3 x LHD's. The LCM's and crews can be shared across the three of them. For anything else then you just get roro's/HSC/containers as you need them. You don't have to use all of its capability and would probably go reduced fitout to cut costs. I know it won't happen, but I do think it worth sitting down from a price/crewing/capability concern and look whats possible. Im not sure another new build Choules (or some other orphan) is the ultimate answer.
     
  13. Jezza

    Jezza Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2005
    Messages:
    223
    Likes Received:
    4
    Location:
    Perth
    RAN acquires Damen vessel for aviation training

    Ridzwan Rahmat, Singapore - IHS Jane's Navy International

    17 March 2014
    The Royal Australian Navy (RAN) is to acquire a 90 m vessel, built by Damen Shipyards, for naval aviation training.

    Speaking to IHS Jane's at the Offshore Patrol Vessel (OPV) Asia Pacific 2014 conference on 17 March, Piet van Rooij, Damen's manager for Design and Proposal, Offshore and Transport, said that the vessel will be based on the company's OPV 2400 platform.

    The full-functional vessel is expected to be used for training RAN aviators on rotary aircraft such as the MH-60R.

    A contract with Australian company Defence Maritime Services, which will manage the acquisition for the RAN, is expected to be signed towards the end of March.

    Question, What happened to this ? Did RAN sign for the vessel or did it get scrapped quietly.?
     
  14. gf0012-aust

    gf0012-aust Grumpy Old Man Staff Member Verified Defense Pro

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2003
    Messages:
    18,005
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    Australia
    are you serious?

    I'd say that the visits to france and spain when their builds were underway was a bit more important

    do you really believe that the acquisition teams make up their minds based on port visits?

    the major obvious benefit is that it underlines and reinforces the fact that the japanese have a real working sub to offer rather than a paper sub

    as has been said on here many many many times before
     
  15. hauritz

    hauritz Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2011
    Messages:
    1,195
    Likes Received:
    161
    I don't know what happened with it ... but to be honest I never understood the point of this ship. There doesn't seem to be any shortage of ships that helicopter pilots could train off.

    It may be more useful as a fill in patrol ship until the new OPVs start entering service.
     
  16. 40 deg south

    40 deg south Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2013
    Messages:
    1,113
    Likes Received:
    131
    Trying to compare publicly released contract prices is always a nightmare, as it's often not possible to determine what is included/excluded. From memory, the figures being tossed around for Norway's Aegir were in the $230-250 million range.

    That's a fair bit less than the $350 mil per Cantabria quoted in the link above. I suspect an 'apples with apples' comparison would show a much lower difference, or Daewoo would have won the order.
     
  17. t68

    t68 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2006
    Messages:
    3,444
    Likes Received:
    114
    Location:
    NSW
    As far as I am awere it being quietly built in Vietnam, and not being a commission ship of the RAN it is slipping under the radar.
     
    Last edited: Mar 10, 2016
  18. Volkodav

    Volkodav Defense Professional Verified Defense Pro

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    5,809
    Likes Received:
    346
    Its a dedicated training asset that takes the load of the fleet. What many don't realise is in the late Noughties, when the tail to teeth rebalance, otherwise known as the hollowing out of the RANs engineering capability, really started to bite two ANZACs were assigned to HMAS Cerberus as training platforms. So of a fleet of eight, one or two were in refit, one was assigned to border protection and of the remaining five one was assigned to along side training and another to sea training at Cerberus. This left three plus Adelaide and Canberra (which had been dropped from FFGUP which had tied up the remaining four in an unusable uncertified state) along with one, sometimes two Collins as our active combat fleet.

    This was culmination of decades of abuse that had seen replacements delayed or cancelled, unsuitable commercial designs adapted, semi commercial designs leased, existing ships pushed harder and maintained by commercial entities to a price, as well as many dedicated training assets retired. It was the point where a couple of decades of cost cutting was just about to flip from saving expenditure to everything falling over at once and not enough suitably qualified and experienced people to even warn of what was about to happen, let alone stop it.
     
  19. Redlands18

    Redlands18 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2015
    Messages:
    764
    Likes Received:
    175
    Location:
    qld
    Is the Damen 2400 vessel going to be a commissioned ship of the RAN or civilian owned, operated and contracted to the RAN for Aviation trg. I could never work that out, either way it will be cheaper than using up the life of billion dollar plus Warships for the job.
     
  20. Todjaeger

    Todjaeger Potstirrer

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2006
    Messages:
    4,927
    Likes Received:
    572
    Location:
    not in New England anymore...
    Alexsa could explain it much better, but IIRC the vessel will be owned/operated under Australian commercial (might not be the correct term) rules, vs. naval rules, and will have a civilian crew operating under contract to the RAN.