I would suggest she will play a role, but not fully active as she has not reached IOC, but a good op to do quals for what she is designed for
Cheers
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
Cheers
I believe it would solve a few problems if we were to build two classes of frigates for the RAN. The first, a class of four ships to replace the four remaining Oliver H. Perrys in service, something like the Meko 400 would be ideal.
Second class of eight to replace the Anzacs, perhaps the suggested small version of the F100 from Spain.
The Meko could be built at Williamstown, where the Meko 200 based Anzacs were built.
Second class of eight to replace the Anzacs, perhaps the suggested small version of the F100 from Spain.
The Meko could be built at Williamstown, where the Meko 200 based Anzacs were built.
Swerve dealt with one issue in his response but I am at a loss as to why you think another 4000 tonne frigate is a good idea. Both the ANZAC and the OHP suffered from a lack of growth margin. Don't forget range and enduracne are improtant qualities in Australia and a larger vessel provides that and the ability to cater for larger systems.
To go for another 'resticted' hull for the MFU would be a mistake.
All the literature points to about 7000 tonnes so the small F100 is unlikely to make the cut.
Jut to be clear I don't ofject to small vessels and see a place (in an ideal world where politics and money are not such an issue) for an OPV with a point defence capability and towed ASW sensors as an additional escort, however, we should not knacker the ability of the MFU by picking a small hulll,
I agree with you however, I fear that the RAN may be gazumped by the Defence Dept. head on this one. Richardson has already questioned the need for a "large 7,000 tonne frigate replacement as being far too extravagant and told the navy to reduce its expectation. That sends some pretty ugly signals to me, I just hope the senior sirs' advocacy skills have improved enough to convince him otherwise.
I realize the three AWD's are supposed to be replacements for the Adelaide class of six, but to my mind they are replacements for the three Charles F. Adams destroyers which so far have never been replaced., like three for three. If they were genuine replacements for the Adelaide class there should have been six ordered.
John Newman
The Bunker Group
The quotes from Richardson is in the article posted back on page 1006 of this thread, post #15081, the relevant paragraphs you referred to are:
To me that reads more like the Navy 'appearing' to want an Arleigh Burke size/capable ship, slightly less so on the displacement side, but certainly equal to on the missile capacity side.
So does that rule out an evolved AWD? I don't read it as exactly that, I read it more as Navy wanting something bigger and better than an evolved AWD for example.
I agree with you but Navy will need to be casreful not to over reach as just sometimes ends up in a worse situation (say the demise of the DDL).
I hope you're right but I'm a pessimist when it comes to selection by people who don't use the ships.
I think that an evolved F104 is the right way to go but the reason why I proposed the F-110 as plan B was that shared systems, drawing method, Navantia established relationship, construction method and other various commonality with the AWD's and if our masters decided to make further savings it would be the most rational alternative.
cdxbow
Well-Known Member
I hope we are not so dumb that we build another small frigate with inadequate space to grow. A nice big hull with lots of space and modularity would be much better than a high spec small hull. Sadly they do say that making the same mistake twice is the definition of experience.
I'm with the folks here who believe the future frigate is the wrong boat to be building at this time to save local ship building. The future frigate needs to be more considered, more attuned to the future, and incorporating current trends in hull design and propulsion; it's going to have to serve into the 2050's, so a 1990's designed hull is not likely to cut it for long. By analogy, would anyone expect an 1890's designed hull to be suitable for use in WWII?
Joe Black
Active Member
I kinda agree with your sediment, I think the Def Min is likely to explore putting F110 capability on the F-105 hull as one of the first and quickest options to adopt. I think if Navantia comes to the party and can help produce an enlarged size F-110 based on F-105 sea frame plus accommodating 2 helos, then I think we might have a winner.
Darn, I really like the Meko A-400 proposed by TKMS.
t68
Well-Known Member
would that really need to be a factor they take the continuos buil philosophy every twenty years a new hull will be in the water, isn't that what the RAND report suggested?
As others have said before on this forum, steel's cheap and air is free. But, you still have to pay for the extra cost of fuel to push a larger hull around the ocean.
Hulls haven't changed as widely in the last 30 years as they did in the first 30 years of iron clads.Its not like these are propelled by steam.
It will be interesting how much modification we do with the money and the hull we have. The compromises may be minimal in the hull and essentially nothing in terms of ability and operations.
I don't think the government is really worried about the fuel costs as they are with the overall costs. If a bigger ship makes upgrades cheaper, makes operating it cheaper, means one platform can do more hence make the navy cheaper overall then its a win. I would think one of the greatest expenses is man power cost in operating the ships.
In a simplistic view yes .... but.
Vessel hull form, block coefficient, the nature and type of machinery and desired speed are big drivers of operating costs. If you want a vessel with just gas turbines then your fuel burn is going to be greater than one with CODAG and other hybrid drives.
The F105 uses a combination of GT and diesels to improve economy. The A-400 uses a GT, DA's and electric drive (noting I have never been a fan of the single GT and monster gear box arrangement noting this is also used on the ANZAC) for the same purpose.
I suspect the difference is not as great as may be assumed.
Which is why Navantia have developed CODELAG for the F-110 and I would suspect that it rates a large mention in an evolved AWD and puts the monster gearbox to rest.
I'm afraid that your mind is not taken into account by those making the decisions.
Replacing ships one for one with bigger, more capable ships is not unusual. Insisting that replacements must be equal in numbers isn't realistic.
The Perth class has been out of service since 2001. There isn't going to be a 'replacement' after all this time, any more than there's going to be a replacement aircraft carrier.
Navies change. They don't keep the same structure, & numbers, just with different ships. It's not realistic, or even desirable.
Well. the German is now hard selling the Type 216 + A-400 package, bundle with taking over and upgrading ASC.......
Thyssen Krupp wants to buy Adelaide’s ASC as part of submarine deal
You have to hand it to the germans, they know what to say and do. Buying ASC is a pretty big carrot. Export to Canada and other countries. They will be winning local voters over with plans to expand techport and white elephanting the Japanese proposal.
* Ian McPhedran travelled to Germany as a guest of TKMS.
Also love the submarine comparison table. Soryu doesnt have aip? I suspect many things are suspect or odd on that table. Too bad it doesn't include engines, underwater endurance etc.
- Status