Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[Todjaeger]

They are ice strengthened for sea ice and they are single shaft with a max speed of 17 kts. The engineering changes required to give them another shaft and extra speed are huge, big enough to fail them as a MOTS candidate, which is required by the CEP.

It's akin to saying we want a Lebanese cucumber so we'll buy a zucchini and add a bit so it looks like a cucumber.

I would also imagine that the RAN would not be interested in having the OPV with an ice strengthened hull. Or at least not one to the degree of the Knud Rasmussen-class which if memory serves, is strengthened to a greater degree than the RNZN OPV's, since the RNZN vessels are Class 1C, or 40 cm of first year ice, while the Danish OPV can do 40 cm of sea ice, or 70 cm of fjord ice.

I do wonder how much the ice strengthening impacted the displacement of the class vessels.

 

[rockitten]

that's the problem though with all the public project docs - they describe the notional platform - but out of a security necessity they won't go into the absolutes of the CONOPs which is used to ultimately help people do the acquisition assessment etc...

its the CONOPs which ultimately determines whats selected - the representational platform derived from project docs can be virtually meaningless

to add confusion to the mix some of the other critical assessment vectors is that of things like australian industry capability, strategic selection implications, political intervention (no matter how vague and oblique)

eg look at the broad range of platforms that got offered up for AWD - or even phatships.

the dangerzone is when we end up with companies box flogging their wares which can sometimes not even get remotely close to the requirements.

then we end up with carrots painted yellow and sold to us as parsnips......or Assails cucumbers packaged up as zucchinis

Just wonder, does the failed SPG bid (korean SPG vs PzH2000) belong to case one (poorly defined spec leads to a case of too many to choose) or case two (someone powerful using a wrong stuff for the bid)

To make it not a one-liner, I have forgotten who mentioned that, but someone mentioned than the danish single screw OPV is nearly essential for operating in frozen water. Can anyone tell me why? From what I learn from yacht, twin screw is good for ship maneuverability, why it is bad on antarctic?

 

[John Fedup]

Just wonder, does the failed SPG bid (korean SPG vs PzH2000) belong to case one (poorly defined spec leads to a case of too many to choose) or case two (someone powerful using a wrong stuff for the bid)

To make it not a one-liner, I have forgotten who mentioned that, but someone mentioned than the danish single screw OPV is nearly essential for operating in frozen water. Can anyone tell me why? From what I learn from yacht, twin screw is good for ship maneuverability, why it is bad on antarctic?

The choice of single versus twin screw depends on many factors (cost of operation, hull design for ice clearance around the shaft, operating depth, and other stuff). Here is a link describing designs for tankers to be used in Arctic operations.

http://nparc.cisti-icist.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/npsi/ctrl?action=rtdoc&an=8894841

 

[Volkodav]

My memory is failing badly, but I DO remember this link being posted here three times by myself and at least twice by others.

It's the Initial Capability Description for SEA1180 dated July 2011

How much relevance it has to SEA1180 as it is now envisioned, I do not know, but it gives quite a good rundown on "as was planned" and is a very interesting read

http://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=bf32c3ce-39e7-4463-835a-0ff69404cc7a

oldsig127

Thanks for that, been a while since I've read it and it was worth refreshing my memory.

This is worth a read along side the SEA1180 PDF for anyone looking to understand what has been discussed on here for the last week or more, ref up spec'ing the OCVs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StanFlex
and
STANFLEX Modules Standard Flexible Royal Danish Navy

Now connect the roles and missions listed in the PDF to the appropriate module type and it rapidly become apparent that the Maritime / Littoral role could easily be filled by a base constabulary vessel, plus a 76mm gun module and Mk-56 VLS (I believe the Mk-48 modules have been upgraded), SIGINT/ELINT, VDS modules. Look at the Sea Axe for instance with its below flight deck multi-mission deck, containers or modules installed in that deck have access over the stern through doors and potentially through the side through openings below the flight deck. This means that is an ASW module with torpedoes is developed it could be fitted in the mission deck, also ROV modules could deploy their payloads over the side as well, as the RHIBs, Interceptor Craft (SB90E is only marginally larger than a 9m RHIB), or even a RHIB based USV.

I've pointed this out before there are Mk-75 76mm guns from the FFGs that could be built into modules, the 25mm Typhoons from the Armidales likewise could be incorporated into modules including magazine, the Mk-32 torpedo tubes, Harpoon, Phalanx. I am actually curious if an eight cell self defence length Mk-41 could possibly be built into a module, not a StanFlex one but something for the RAN. Should we acquire any new systems, i.e. Sea Sceptre, Millennium, NSM, ExLS, RAM (including Sea RAM or Block II), they could be integrated into modules too.

Once we have the modules in service we could do things such as fit a VDS, Hydro survey, and MCM for a counter mine mission, along with 76mm and ESSM if the intent is to support a deployment to the Gulf etc. VDS, Hydo, Oceanographic, and ASW for ASW. The only version that would have only one type of module would be the Constabulary / OPV, every other mission would require a mix of modules.

The other possibility, not often mentioned is that the modules could be designed to be used shore or even from oil rigs etc. An MCM module could be fixed to a wharf at a naval base and deploy its ROV from there for training, or depending on the distance the ROV can operate from its container, possibly be used to keep the base clear of mines. Harpoon or NSM modules could be fitted to oil rigs and there we have our deployable land based anti shipping missile. Land based ESSM anyone?

 

[Blas de Lezo]

I just have seen this on the local press, I know is just a one liner and the article is in Spanish

http://www.lavozdegalicia.es/noticia/economia/2016/03/09/australia-elige-oferta-navantia-fabricacion-dos-barcos-logisticos/0003_201603G9P31991.htm

But says Australia has chosen Navantia for the AOR Ships although Daewoo is still in the game?? Something about Navantia being the Preferencial bidder ?

 

[Muar River]

Thanks. The Cantabria is a fine ship which will continue the line of Navantia ships in the RAN (hopefully).

 

[the road runner]

I just have seen this on the local press, I know is just a one liner and the article is in Spanish

http://www.lavozdegalicia.es/noticia/economia/2016/03/09/australia-elige-oferta-navantia-fabricacion-dos-barcos-logisticos/0003_201603G9P31991.htm

But says Australia has chosen Navantia for the AOR Ships although Daewoo is still in the game?? Something about Navantia being the Preferencial bidder ?

The Cantabria dose share a number of systems/parts that the LHD has.For me ,thats a great selling point ! Its a very impressive looking ship and would look great with a kangaroo on the side. Cheers for posting Blas

Edit. If the article is to be believed and announcement on the chosen AOR will be in June of this year

 

[ASSAIL]

The choice of single versus twin screw depends on many factors (cost of operation, hull design for ice clearance around the shaft, operating depth, and other stuff). Here is a link describing designs for tankers to be used in Arctic operations.

http://nparc.cisti-icist.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/npsi/ctrl?action=rtdoc&an=8894841

Thanks for that link John. It was heavily skewed to heavy tankers and bow design and the advantages of lowering propeller torque for twin vs single screw tankers. The was some reference to protecting the prop from ice interaction which was better in single screw.

I'm no naval architect but I'm assuming that the reason why the Knuds have single screw is as above. Being a very small 2000 tonnes full load hull they don't get the benefit of a great bulk to shift the ice away from their screw and so the Danes have gone to single as the best protection.

Finally, out of interest, do you have an idea of the configuration of your new Arctic patrol ships?

Should have researched myself! I did notice that the Svalbard class have twin azipods which I understand are excellent in ice but your Harry de Woolfs have chosen to go with twin shafts? Seems odd that you would change away from the successful design they were derived from.

Mods please change to RCN thread if appropriate and sorry for OT

 

[John Fedup]

Thanks for that link John. It was heavily skewed to heavy tankers and bow design and the advantages of lowering propeller torque for twin vs single screw tankers. The was some reference to protecting the prop from ice interaction which was better in single screw.

I'm no naval architect but I'm assuming that the reason why the Knuds have single screw is as above. Being a very small 2000 tonnes full load hull they don't get the benefit of a great bulk to shift the ice away from their screw and so the Danes have gone to single as the best protection.

Finally, out of interest, do you have an idea of the configuration of your new Arctic patrol ships?

Should have researched myself! I did notice that the Svalbard class have twin azipods which I understand are excellent in ice but your Harry de Woolfs have chosen to go with twin shafts? Seems odd that you would change away from the successful design they were derived from.

Mods please change to RCN thread if appropriate and sorry for OT

The switch to shaft from azipods was a cost reduction decision. Typical stupidity from our pollies/bureaucracy types that have stuffed up numerous defence acquisitions.

 

[40 deg south]

I just have seen this on the local press, I know is just a one liner and the article is in Spanish

http://www.lavozdegalicia.es/noticia/economia/2016/03/09/australia-elige-oferta-navantia-fabricacion-dos-barcos-logisticos/0003_201603G9P31991.htm

But says Australia has chosen Navantia for the AOR Ships although Daewoo is still in the game?? Something about Navantia being the Preferencial bidder ?

If confirmed, this will be excellent news for Navantia and their shipyard at Ferrol. Not a surprising decision, given the number of vessels designed or built by Navantia already in Australian service..

This also fits with the news published by Janes last week about New Zealand selecting Hyundai as their preferred supplier for an AOR. Both New Zealand and Australia shortlisted DSME (Daewoo) and one other; Navantia for Australia and Hyundai for NZ. If Australia chose Daewoo I suspect NZ would have followed suit for the sake of commonality.

 

[Redlands18]

If confirmed, this will be excellent news for Navantia and their shipyard at Ferrol. Not a surprising decision, given the number of vessels designed or built by Navantia already in Australian service..

This also fits with the news published by Janes last week about New Zealand selecting Hyundai as their preferred supplier for an AOR. Both New Zealand and Australia shortlisted DSME (Daewoo) and one other; Navantia for Australia and Hyundai for NZ. If Australia chose Daewoo I suspect NZ would have followed suit for the sake of commonality.

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.

 

[Volkodav]

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.

 

[Oberon]

I just have seen this on the local press, I know is just a one liner and the article is in Spanish

http://www.lavozdegalicia.es/noticia/economia/2016/03/09/australia-elige-oferta-navantia-fabricacion-dos-barcos-logisticos/0003_201603G9P31991.htm

But says Australia has chosen Navantia for the AOR Ships although Daewoo is still in the game?? Something about Navantia being the Preferencial bidder ?

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.

 

[rockitten]

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.

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

 

[vonnoobie]

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
Nocookies | The Australian

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.

 

[ASSAIL]

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.

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.

 

[Volkodav]

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.

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.

 

[ASSAIL]

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.

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.

 

[Punta74]

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.

 

[Alf662]

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.

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