Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

Status
Not open for further replies.

t68

Well-Known Member
That said when defence ruled in favour of the F-100 existing option over the G&C evolved design VAdmiral Russ Shalders pushed for latest configuration Flight IIA Burkes instead. This was regected and we ended up paying more for three F-100s than four us built burkes would have cost, more cost and more delay than the more comprehensively planned and understood evolved design would have cost and the same, if not more than a licence built Burke under the mentorship of BIW would have.

Basically we paid more for less, and waited longer to get it, but the point I am trying to make is the Chief of Navy, at the very end of the selection process said no and was able to put forward another option based on his experience and understanding of the RANs needs. At the end of the day the RAN can say they are not happy with any of the short listed designs if they do not meet requirements and push for something else, especially if there are changing circumstances or new information available. Far better to do this before a contract is signed, let along steel cut. Once work starts the RAN will be stuck with what ever is selected, even if it has been overtaken by events and is no longer the best option.


Agree 100% with what you are saying above, from my hazy memory it was only at the last minute that Navatia got a look in and was implied by goverment not to make waves on selection and you will get a 4th hull, it's not the RAN who determine it at the end but goverment and majority of the time they look at short term budget implications.
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
it's not the services who determine it at the end but goverment and majority of the time they look at short term budget implications.
fixed :)

look at the Tiger, HQJOC

ironically Bushmaster (which is a success) was also a political decision. I was contracting to a company who was a supplier to ADI at the time - and we received notice that the Bushmaster wouldn't proceed due to Govt advice

lo and behold, an election comes up, the factory sits in a vulnerable seat and it does a lazarus though govt change in support.

ditto for HQJOC, the eventual site wasn't even on the shortlist, lo and behold, an election comes up, the bell-weather seat needs securing, and bingo. we have a new winner
 

rockitten

Member
ADM's report of FREMM in Australia
FREMM Carabiniere: the new cop in town

2 hanger for 2 large helicopter
"silent speed" up to 15.6knots
Hull noise level designed for 110db, ended up with 85
Quite normal to detect a Type212 at around 40,000 yards (20 nm)

"The warmer waters the ship had experienced both during this deployment, and the former African operations (up to 30 degrees) had not posed any problem, he said." Hmmmmm, Australia has very hot summer. Isn't it?

Question: Is noise level of 85db good or bad by modern standard?
 

Massive

Well-Known Member
a game of paper fleets.oldsig
The Type 26 is a ship on paper. The F105 and the F125 were both a known hull form at least, the FREMM is the only ship that would not need major superstructure modifications.

My point is that MOTS/COTS doesn't seem to apply in these sort of acquisitions because it is not realistic.

The Navy seems to agree as the Type 26 made the shortlist.

On a MOTS/COTS continuum the F125 would be ahead of the Type 26.

Agree I could have been clearer.

Regards,

Massive
 

oldsig127

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
That said when defence ruled in favour of the F-100 existing option over the G&C evolved design VAdmiral Russ Shalders pushed for latest configuration Flight IIA Burkes instead.
Yes, we have heard this from you more times than I can count. On this occasion though I'm curious what on Earth it has to do with my own answer which was on an entirely different subject.

oldsig
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
The Type 26 is a ship on paper. The F105 and the F125 were both a known hull form at least, the FREMM is the only ship that would not need major superstructure modifications.

My point is that MOTS/COTS doesn't seem to apply in these sort of acquisitions because it is not realistic.

The Navy seems to agree as the Type 26 made the shortlist.

On a MOTS/COTS continuum the F125 would be ahead of the Type 26.

Agree I could have been clearer.

Regards,

Massive
Canada's CSC program initially specified a proven existing design which should have excluded the Type 26. Some here now think it is the leading contender. If the UK actually starts cutting steel this year, the chance of Canada selecting it should increase.
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Yes, we have heard this from you more times than I can count. On this occasion though I'm curious what on Earth it has to do with my own answer which was on an entirely different subject.

oldsig
Actually unless I am greatly mistaken that was the first time I mentioned this particular fact, you response however does demonstrate how little regard you actually have for the contributions' of others when they don't fit your beliefs. What I did was give an example of how the short listed contenders are not necessarily the final, final three and that things can change, especially when circumstances change.

Here's on I was on the periphery of, the replacement submarine project. In 2012/13 the preferred option was a locally developed replacement, 2nd was an evolved Collins, with an evolved current Euro option a very distant, not in the running at all, third. The government changed and all of a sudden the design team was disbanded, most of the overseas experts went home and the defmin was talking about canoes and trying to justify building submarines in Japan. Soon after that theres a back bench revolt, the PM announces there will be a competitive evaluation process, something government and defence had apparently been doing for years, a bloke I've known for over twenty five years gets seconded to Canberra to help create this existing process from scratch and the French design wins in a contracting model that was considered the most risky and least likely only a couple of years earlier.

Short and simple, things change, some times for good reasons, sometimes for silly or self serving ones, but they do change. What you are stating, as if it has been carved into stone tablets on Mount Ararat are just the most recent plans and they may or may not change. For example if AEGIS baseline 9 with ABM and SM-3 gets up who wants to bet that someone, somewhere will start pushing that this means the short list should be revisited and maybe a Flight IIA Burke Restart, should be considered to de-risk the project with a new design to follow later. In fact I can pretty much guarantee its already being discussed behind closed doors, doesn't mean it will happen, but just because something didn't come to be doesn't mean it wasn't considered.
 

rjtjrt

Member
Actually unless I am greatly mistaken that was the first time I mentioned this particular fact, you response however does demonstrate how little regard you actually have for the contributions' of others when they don't fit your beliefs..........
Hypocracy.
In recent times your posts are terribly repetitive. Long but same old same old - ASC despite being the repository of all that is expert and infallible were dudded by those evil Coalition politicians, after the nice Labor ones were good to ASC.
 
Canada's CSC program initially specified a proven existing design which should have excluded the Type 26. Some here now think it is the leading contender. If the UK actually starts cutting steel this year, the chance of Canada selecting it should increase.
Can anybody confirm the programme has been 're-profiled' in relation to the delivery schedule? There are suggestions the first ship may not be delivered until 2022/2023. If so, does this impact the chances of this ship in relation to the RAN process?
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
The CSC tender closes this summer. Can't see the the evaluation result happening until early 2018. Cutting steel by 2022, who knows? I don't see any affect of the CSC result for the RAN's evaluation of the Type 26. Both countries will be defining what they need and how much they are willing to pay then a decision will be made (at least in Australia's case, Canada could well procrastinate for years).
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Hypocracy.
In recent times your posts are terribly repetitive. Long but same old same old - ASC despite being the repository of all that is expert and infallible were dudded by those evil Coalition politicians, after the nice Labor ones were good to ASC.
Seriously, this thread has only just reopened and you are at it again. This is defence talk, not news.com.au or facebook, so try saving your petty one-upmanship for those venues.

As for ASC being the repository of "all that is expert and infallible" while in no way infallible, they pretty much were and are the first part as they head hunted the best they could get, not just in Australia, but from around the world. Shipbuilding GM and Engineering Manager were both ex Williamstown, the Engineering Manager also had extensive experience in the UK before being headhunted by Tenix. A former Chief Engineer is now back in the US and last I heard was design lead on the replacement SSBN missile section, while others are in key roles in critical projects around the globe. I based my assessment, not on the opinionated numpties and political players, but on the exceptionally talented people I had the good fortune to work with and learn from.

As for the political side, I have also heavily criticised Labor, in particular Smith, but ironically his failure to do much more than buy a hand full of second hand ships makes it pretty hard to knock his acquisition decisions. I do however rate him as an a grade d.ck for stretching the AWD program and paying for it through redunancies, ironically creating more problems and delays in doing do.

The issues we discuss are not black and white, they are not simple, but rather very complex and as such deserve more than one liners, memes and Powerpoint like dumbing down.
 
Last edited:

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Not directed at anyone in particular, but people play nice or the Mods may step in again. Thank you.
 
The CSC tender closes this summer. Can't see the the evaluation result happening until early 2018. Cutting steel by 2022, who knows? I don't see any affect of the CSC result for the RAN's evaluation of the Type 26. Both countries will be defining what they need and how much they are willing to pay then a decision will be made (at least in Australia's case, Canada could well procrastinate for years).
Thanks for your reply. The RAN could find itself building lead ships of this type if delays to the programme in the UK continue and BAE is the successful bidder.
 

hauritz

Well-Known Member
I don't know as politics is really that big an issue in Australian defence. Mostly there is bipartisan support on defence issues ... and that is what is important. Any defence procurement will need to survive several changes of government.

If anything the idea of an ongoing build program for the navy has taken even more politics out of defence.

After all which political party is going to have the political will to curtail the submarine and ship building programs once they have been established?
 

pussertas

Active Member
T26 design Aerials

Looking at the T26 design there are two aerials mounted midships. They appear to be affixed to the funnels.

Can some kind soul inform what these small aerials are designated to do?

:eek:nfloorl:
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Thanks for your reply. The RAN could find itself building lead ships of this type if delays to the programme in the UK continue and BAE is the successful bidder.
It would be a pretty bold move for either Canada or Australia to start cutting steel before the UK on a Type 26.
 

SteveR

Active Member
It would be a pretty bold move for either Canada or Australia to start cutting steel before the UK on a Type 26.
Pressure from Scottish ship-building unions and BAE have got a sort of promise that T26 hull construction starts this Northern summer. Of course many other important parts such as the drivetrain and improved Mk 45 gun are already under contract.
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Seriously. This is the 2nd time in as many days that the question of posting decorum has had to be raised.

As my other colleague has articulated, It's just not on.

work out how to debate without revving others up. if it can't be done then don't post

count to 500 and then have a cold shower if you still haven't cooled off

the forums should be a place of refuge and a place for an exchange of ideas etc..... they shouldn't be a virtual punching bag under any circumstance. Its the internet - we're not trading shares and seaside property here....

grip it up and get with the program

a bit of self management and personal editing is also in order.

in addition, we don't care how it started, but as night follows day, it doesn't need to continue on
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Agree 100% with what you are saying above, from my hazy memory it was only at the last minute that Navatia got a look in and was implied by goverment not to make waves on selection and you will get a 4th hull, it's not the RAN who determine it at the end but goverment and majority of the time they look at short term budget implications.
Very late in the day the government requested pricing on four ships from both the evolved and the existing option teams, from memory existing claimed they could deliver four for a similar price to what evolved quoted for three. While subsequent evolved ships were assumed to be cheaper this still didn't get the overall project price anywhere near that of the existing design, which was assumed to be a build to print of the existing F-104.
 

ASSAIL

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
I don't know as politics is really that big an issue in Australian defence. Mostly there is bipartisan support on defence issues ... and that is what is important. Any defence procurement will need to survive several changes of government.

If anything the idea of an ongoing build program for the navy has taken even more politics out of defence.

After all which political party is going to have the political will to curtail the submarine and ship building programs once they have been established?
Politics plays a huge part and has done for a long time.
It's all about the pork barrel overriding considered decisions.
The what to be built where has produced much waste and havoc be it in every state except Tasmania although even good old Tassie got a small handout.
WA and SA have been the standouts for pork with Naval shipbuilding but there are others such as helos in Qld and Land vehicles in Vic.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top