Joe Black
Active Member
Fremantle class???? You meant Armidale class ACBPs?
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Political opportunism trumps everything. The Canadian election campaign has started so there will be ample examples of this during the next 11 weeks. Hopefully defence doesn't suffer anymore than it already has during this campaign.
The attached 2009 paper by Defence SA is a very good reference for anyone interested in naval shipbuilding generally but more specifically here in Australia.
It explains warship construction costing, various price inputs, relativities to other warship programmes overseas (in particular, the successful and ongoing DDG 51 build in the US) and the various rationale and differences between construction methods.
The paper takes us through the successful ANZAC build programme and the reasons for its success, the Collins build and the genesis of the AWD saga.
The highly informative paper may be old news to some of the more experiences commentators but I have found it most helpful even though I have had many years in the build and sustainment arena of small commercial ships.
Even though there may have been changes in detail since 2009 it remains relevant and promotes the continuous/rolling build philosophy only now being embraced by government.
http://www.defencesa.com/upload/media-centre/publications/cor/3304/NavalShipbuildingPaperFinalLoRes.pdf
It explains warship construction costing, various price inputs, relativities to other warship programmes overseas (in particular, the successful and ongoing DDG 51 build in the US) and the various rationale and differences between construction methods.
The paper takes us through the successful ANZAC build programme and the reasons for its success, the Collins build and the genesis of the AWD saga.
The highly informative paper may be old news to some of the more experiences commentators but I have found it most helpful even though I have had many years in the build and sustainment arena of small commercial ships.
Even though there may have been changes in detail since 2009 it remains relevant and promotes the continuous/rolling build philosophy only now being embraced by government.
http://www.defencesa.com/upload/media-centre/publications/cor/3304/NavalShipbuildingPaperFinalLoRes.pdf
Joe Black
Active Member
US has been learning to do this since the 70s. The Ticonderoga CG is based on the Spurance destroyer hull (so is the Kidd class actually), and with the Burke class, they also simply evolve the same ship to different Flights. If we are any smarter, we should start a similar continuous program whereby rather than building all 9 future frigates with the same spec, we build them in a lot of 3s, and progressively update them with newer technology in subsequent batches similar to the DDG flight model.
Here's a good article for food for thoughts:
http://www.aspistrategist.org.au/the-future-frigate-power-generation-and-emerging-weapons-systems/
I'm around mate, just not particularly active in this thread as it's frankly gone sideways.
Bluey 006
Member
I have no interest in getting drawn into the anarchy that has been this forum of late but due to the change in language (OPV -> Corvette) from both the Defence and political executive I did want to raise an option for the ACPB –SEA1180 requirement that has mostly!! slipped under the radar.
The Singaporean Littoral Mission Vessel (LMV)
Reasons why it may be a contender:
PM Abbott’s recent visit to Singapore and the signing of the deal that strengthens national security, defence and economic co-operation. Also, his desire to increase Singaporean investment in Australia (a few days prior to the launch of the first LMV).
The small size (1200 tonnes) but similar crew size to the ACPB (23 vs 21) which means minimal additional crew costs. The enhancements to port infrastructure would also be less than other bigger 1800-2500 tonne designs.
Its ability to be configured using containerised mission modules for a variety of missions including humanitarian assistance and disaster relief (HADR), mine countermeasures (MCM), and counter piracy, among others.
It is designed as a patrol vessel but is corvette like (has lo end VLS system etc)
Its mast design would ideally suit a scalable CEA radar
Capable of aviation operations.
Produced in our region by a key regional ally
Will be in service with a key regional ally by 2018
Optimised for unmanned systems
Operates non-lethal (ideal for turning back the boats-lol) and lethal weapons
Integrated bridge and combat centre enhancing situational awareness
Could operate alone or as part of task force
Designed from the outset to be easy to maintain, reliable and efficient
Well within the capabilities of local industry
Reasons why it might not be a contender
No Hanger for helicopter
Range and endurance are a little short
Unknown ability to operate in rough sea states
Lack of ASW capability
Optimised for Singaporean sailors
-----------
I am not advocating this as the desired solution, rather looking to assess it as an option and fit.
N.B: I understand this vessel has been discussed before, but thought I’d re raise it in light of new information.
The Singaporean Littoral Mission Vessel (LMV)
Reasons why it may be a contender:
PM Abbott’s recent visit to Singapore and the signing of the deal that strengthens national security, defence and economic co-operation. Also, his desire to increase Singaporean investment in Australia (a few days prior to the launch of the first LMV).
The small size (1200 tonnes) but similar crew size to the ACPB (23 vs 21) which means minimal additional crew costs. The enhancements to port infrastructure would also be less than other bigger 1800-2500 tonne designs.
Its ability to be configured using containerised mission modules for a variety of missions including humanitarian assistance and disaster relief (HADR), mine countermeasures (MCM), and counter piracy, among others.
It is designed as a patrol vessel but is corvette like (has lo end VLS system etc)
Its mast design would ideally suit a scalable CEA radar
Capable of aviation operations.
Produced in our region by a key regional ally
Will be in service with a key regional ally by 2018
Optimised for unmanned systems
Operates non-lethal (ideal for turning back the boats-lol) and lethal weapons
Integrated bridge and combat centre enhancing situational awareness
Could operate alone or as part of task force
Designed from the outset to be easy to maintain, reliable and efficient
Well within the capabilities of local industry
Reasons why it might not be a contender
No Hanger for helicopter
Range and endurance are a little short
Unknown ability to operate in rough sea states
Lack of ASW capability
Optimised for Singaporean sailors
-----------
I am not advocating this as the desired solution, rather looking to assess it as an option and fit.
N.B: I understand this vessel has been discussed before, but thought I’d re raise it in light of new information.
t68
Well-Known Member
Interesting little ship, if the helicopter is of significant value a strech might be the answer to fit a hanger
Singapore launches first Independence-class Littoral Mission Vessel - IHS Jane's 360
V, all you are saying are true, but what 40 deg South questioning is a more fundamental question: How much premium for a local build is acceptable? All states have unemployment problem and all industries need government support, but the politicians are dodging the question: Why shipbuilding in SA is special?
Costing 15% more may be okay, but how about 30%, how about 50% or even 100% more? The government is now trying to introduce a 25 years continuous build, a more realistic shipbuilding schedule, and privatizing the whole industry (ASC). If the shipyards still screw up big like the AWD fiasco (I sincerely hope not), should we give them another hands-out?
-
P.S. Your comment about our hideously expensive upgrades is exactly the reason why I want LCS as our "corvettes": I have no doubt RAN is referencing the LCS for the corvettes, then why don't we bite the bullet and just get the LCS rather then buying a cheap hull and then pay for the hideously expensive upgrades & conversions to make it like a "mini-LCS"?
I certainly do.
Ditto ^
IMHO if we do actually go down the Corvette/Large OPV route i would put my money on it being something from Damen probably the 2400,2600 or Holland class.
The 2400 being the most likely because by the time they start being built DMS will already have one in service
IMHO if we do actually go down the Corvette/Large OPV route i would put my money on it being something from Damen probably the 2400,2600 or Holland class.
The 2400 being the most likely because by the time they start being built DMS will already have one in service
...and every time an attempt is made to get it back on track its off into la la land again.
That's me, I'm with you and I'm over it until the DWP is released and we can be discussing reality.
Very interesting which I plan to read on in detail when timing presents its self.
That aside section 2.2.2 in relation to the 20 OCV's, States that they were to be larger then the Anzac class, Was that a miss quote or did they literally plan in the past to have 20 x 3,500t+ vessels?
I'll second that. Nothing I'm seeing points to LCS-type vessels.
Much will depend on which foreign yards put themselves forward with local primes, and the prime will win it based on a balance of capability, cost, risk, schedule and AIC. But I'm expecting a steel monohull.
Its miss-written that passage is the same as the one immediately above for the future frigates.
looks like someone accidentally copied the entire future frigate blurb.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
A few things to keep in mind. A number of studies have been done to determine at what point is does the premium (if any) paid for naval construction in Australia still deliver a more economically advantageous product, than just importing warships from overseas.
Keep in mind that the number can fluctuate for a number of reasons, but at the time (c. 2007) a 30%+ premium paid for construction in Oz would actually be better than importing the same warship from overseas. Never mind the advantages of retaining skilled workers who are qualified to conduct deep maintenance, modification and repair work in Oz if/when needed.
One of the principle issues I see with maintaining naval construction in Australia, is the tendency of politicians, to fund defence industries in their respective 'power bases', and depending on who is in power and where their 'power bases' are located, the defence industry just built up has to move or shut down in just a few years, following a shift in political power. If Oz leadership could (would?) take a longer term view, something akin to the US quadrennial review, and makes decisions which are based on what is good for the whole vs. what benefits them, and/or their political allies, then there would likely be an even greater percentage advantage for Oz.
Bluey 006
Member
I also don't see the LCS as a realistic option - a derivative of the MRV 80 maybe.... but at the end of the day it is vaporware
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.
I guess the other thing with the 2400 is I don't think the cranes etc at the minor warfare bases ( Darwin, Cairns etc) can lift that much (i could be wrong) and they would need significant upgrading, so the 1800 might be more applicable. If the OPVs are based out of fleet bases - East and West what impact does that have on local economies ( and those electorates)?
Utilizing the Anzac program as a basis the premiums tends to also disappear over a long term production if I'm not mistaken. While we are likely to have decent premiums on the OPV's/OCV's and Frigates I imagine they would at the very least shrink to an acceptable level.
In regards to politicians and moving defense industries, Agreed. To much of every thing these day's in regards to politicians is based on the short term view rather the long term. At the rate they keep shifting the major ship building facilities in a decade or so it will go from SA to WA...
John Newman
The Bunker Group
So are you suggesting that the Aviation Training Ship actually cost $1 Billion or more??
Would like to see your source and some details on that.
Bluey 006
Member
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
- Status