Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[spoz]

Let's not start worrying on the basis of a story in that well known lover of Defence projects and all to do with them, the AFR. Firstly, the story is not sourced in any way and it's from the AFR!! Very good on financial stuff, not noted for their commentary on anything else, particularly Defence.

Second, from Ngati's issue; the Hobart class don't seem to have had that issue - and they took two years longer to get fully into build not because of any particular capability issue but because of commissioning a new yard and (basically) a lack of understanding of the work approaches and patterns between the two sides (Volk where are you?). ANZACs, for those that can remember back that far, had much the same problem - they got away with it by re baselining the program at least three time, something you couldn't do in the modern era. So, we might have form for overspecifying but with the exception of the SH2G(A), for which I can show scars, it doesn't normally stuff us up that much.

Construction work, albeit of a prototype block or blocks is apparently underway at Osborne, and from my (extremely limited) understanding the first of the major design reviews is supposed to be on track to be completed sometime later this year as programmed. So, a slip might happen but you certainly wouldn't take the word of AFR - and even if it did occur it wouldn't necessarily mean the sky is falling.

 

[StingrayOZ]

If the Admirals want cruisers or DDGs the same size as the Burkes, then say so and do the job properly, but trying to jam pack everything into a platform and leave yourself no room for future upgrades is rather silly.

I don't think that is the problem here.

In many ways the hunters are less ambitious than the Canadian ships. Its just they have a very large radar and have speced things for hot climates. The RAN had input on the original Type 26 design before it was finalized in the UK, and the RAN was blamed for the ships going from ~7000t to 8000t.. Do we need such a sized radar? Why did we design the radar before we had a ship to put it on? Isn't the ceafar technology scalable?

The Burkes have their radar located lower than the Hobarts, and are way too crew intensive. You would have the halve the fleet if we bough Burkes, just from a crewing concern.

18 months isn't the end of the world, but it does seem to throw a spanner in the continuous build. I don't think its is far to blame BAE either, BAE warned government that the timing was off. The government had set a very ambitious schedule.

We have also seen previous reports from the same person regarding the project.

Navy's new $45b warships face two-year delay

Trouble with the design risks impeding delivery of the navy's new frigates, potentially triggering another so-called 'valley of death' for Adelaide's shipbuilding workforce.

www.afr.com

So if the project was 2 years behind schedule last year, and is now 18 months behind schedule, they may be closing the gap.

To be honest the continuous build was always going to have a gap between the AWD and the future Frigates.

I do think we should build more OPV's or similar. They would be easy to crew, and if we ever need to dispose of them, I am sure there would be a dozen nations that would be interested in such a vessel. They could even be civilian crewed, and operated.

Or we could always start building Type 31e!

 

[ASSAIL]

...we use whiteboards now ;-p

That’s unacceptable bias, blackboards matter.

 

[John Newman]

That’s unacceptable bias, blackboards matter.

And don’t forget black bags matter too.

 

[DDG38]

"HMAS Brisbane, Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force destroyer JS Makinami, Republic of Korea Navy destroyer ROKS Wang Geon, and United States Navy destroyer USS Rafael Peralta sail through the East Australian Exercise Area during Exercise PACIFIC VANGUARD." Image Source : ADF Image Library (and yes the RAN PR staff have got the caption wrong for the ship order)

 

[aussienscale]

"HMAS Brisbane, Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force destroyer JS Makinami, Republic of Korea Navy destroyer ROKS Wang Geon, and United States Navy destroyer USS Rafael Peralta sail through the East Australian Exercise Area during Exercise PACIFIC VANGUARD." Image Source : ADF Image Library (and yes the RAN PR staff have got the caption wrong for the ship order)
View attachment 48326

Sorry for the one liner, but that is a pretty sweet line up !!

 

[Stampede]

The RAN thread has gone quiet.!



This piece from Marcus Hellyer is not a bad over view of the conundrum Navy has transitioning from ANZAC to Hunter and Collins to the Attack Class.

Managing risk in the submarine transition: the latest on the Collins life-of-type extension | The Strategist

The Royal Australian Navy is in the early stages of a long transition that is notable for its strategic risk. Both its core surface and subsurface combat fleets are ageing but are planned to be ...

www.aspistrategist.org.au

Worth a read and yes there is a soon to be posted follow on article with the "Answers!"


Regards S

 

[ngatimozart]

A point about the Hunter Class build. IIRC there is room in the program to quicken the drumbeat if required. Maybe that's something that requires serious consideration. Secondly, maybe the RAN needs to scale back its wish list and actually start getting steel cut and ships in the water. It can always add all of the items on its wish in subsequent tranches. That's one advantage of the tranche system.

 

[ASSAIL]

A point about the Hunter Class build. IIRC there is room in the program to quicken the drumbeat if required. Maybe that's something that requires serious consideration. Secondly, maybe the RAN needs to scale back its wish list and actually start getting steel cut and ships in the water. It can always add all of the items on its wish in subsequent tranches. That's one advantage of the tranche system.

There’s no point in beginning construction until all main design items are complete, we learned that lesson building the Collins subs.
Besides, steel is being cut, prototyping on the frigates commenced in January IIRC and will continue on 10 blocks even as construction proper begins.
Are these prototype blocks capable of being used in the build programme? Maybe Spoz knows that answer.

 

[spoz]

I’m not at all close to that, but my understanding is that they won’t be. However that’s hearsay and may well be outdated; and certainly the prototype blocks for the Hobarts were used.

 

[John Newman]

Are these prototype blocks capable of being used in the build programme? Maybe Spoz knows that answer.

I remember reading an article/interview earlier this year, possibly on APDR or ADM or one of the other Defence media websites, regarding the five prototype blocks (can’t find the link).

I believe it was someone from BAE Australia who stated that the prototype block would not be used as production blocks.

Could that change if there are delays? Who knows, but it was pretty clear that they wouldn’t be used.

Cheers,

 

[oldsig127]

A point about the Hunter Class build. IIRC there is room in the program to quicken the drumbeat if required. Maybe that's something that requires serious consideration. Secondly, maybe the RAN needs to scale back its wish list and actually start getting steel cut and ships in the water. It can always add all of the items on its wish in subsequent tranches. That's one advantage of the tranche system.

The danger of accelerating the drumbeat is that the build project will finish early. Hello "Valley of Death" problem, unless they immediately start building the replacement AWDs or something else to fill the gap.

OR increase the total number of MFUs with all that implies

Not inclined to credit the idea of scaling back the wish list either. What differences are there with the RN T26? Principally weapons, radar and CMS. So which of those do we leave out until tranche 2 in order to build the ships quicker?

oldsig

 

[ngatimozart]

The danger of accelerating the drumbeat is that the build project will finish early. Hello "Valley of Death" problem, unless they immediately start building the replacement AWDs or something else to fill the gap.

OR increase the total number of MFUs with all that implies

Not inclined to credit the idea of scaling back the wish list either. What differences are there with the RN T26? Principally weapons, radar and CMS. So which of those do we leave out until tranche 2 in order to build the ships quicker?

oldsig

You mightn't have a choice about increasing the drumbeat and if that happens, the valley of death in shipbuilding could be moot.

I believe that the RN City Class is 8,000 tonnes and the RCN CSC is of similar displacement to the RN City Class, so o my question is where is the Hunter Class extra 2,000 tonnes coming from?

 

[oldsig127]

You mightn't have a choice about increasing the drumbeat and if that happens, the valley of death in shipbuilding could be moot.

I believe that the RN City Class is 8,000 tonnes and the RCN CSC is of similar displacement to the RN City Class, so o my question is where is the Hunter Class extra 2,000 tonnes coming from?

I wouldn't get fixated on that unless you know how the tonnages are being reported and whether they're properly comparable.

I don't *know* where the extra comes from, but one guess is it's related to CEAFAR-L and Aegis and the RAN choice of weapons.

So which do we elect to leave out?

oldsig

 

[ngatimozart]

I wouldn't get fixated on that unless you know how the tonnages are being reported and whether they're properly comparable.

I don't *know* where the extra comes from, but one guess is it's related to CEAFAR-L and Aegis and the RAN choice of weapons.

So which do we elect to leave out?

oldsig

Well the RCN CSC is having the SPY-7 fitted and I wouldn't think that the CEAFAR-L would be 2,000 tonnes, do you? 2,000 of weapons is a shit load of weapons as well. I doubt that even the weapons load of a USN CGN or CCG would be a quarter of that.

 

[John Fedup]

Well the RCN CSC is having the SPY-7 fitted and I wouldn't think that the CEAFAR-L would be 2,000 tonnes, do you? 2,000 of weapons is a shit load of weapons as well. I doubt that even the weapons load of a USN CGN or CCG would be a quarter of that.

Both the RAN and RCN are adding extra kit so I understand why the RN version is lighter but the CSC and Hunter shouldn’t be that much different unless CEAFAR 2 is significantly heavier than SPY 7 or there is other kit the Hunter has.

 

[spoz]

While I’m not privy to this, so far as I know the 10000 ton figure has only ever appeared in the press and Wikipedia; sources to be wary of. I have never seen an official statement to that effect, only attributions to unnamed sources. I have seen an 8800 tone EOL estimate, and senate estimates suggested that some design margin had been used, but that doesn’t mean one is looking for 2000 tons.

 

[oldsig127]

Well the RCN CSC is having the SPY-7 fitted and I wouldn't think that the CEAFAR-L would be 2,000 tonnes, do you? 2,000 of weapons is a shit load of weapons as well. I doubt that even the weapons load of a USN CGN or CCG would be a quarter of that.

They don't need to be that much heavier in isolation to cause that much in total. For example, if CEAFAR needs to be mounted significantly higher there will be knock on weight gain in the mast, and stability effects which might require ballasting or hull form changes.

However, the weight of those equipment items isn't so relevant as answering the question "What does Australia leave out"

The NZ answer would be "the ship", the Canadian answer would be "the urgency" but I want to know what the RAN can consider unnecessary frills that they can do without, from those things which are Australian initiated changes to the T26

oldsig

 

[thatsamguy]

The approx 10k full load displacement source is linked to in the ASPI article via Senate Estimates.

Source: Page 79 - Senate Estimates

To spare you all from bashing your heads against the wall in having to read the back and forth of that particular display of ridiculousness that I did, here is the pertinent section:

Senator PATRICK: Can I go to CASG to the Hunter class, Ms Lutz. We had a QON where you described the light ship displacement of the Hunter class 8,200 tonnes. What's the full load placement of the Hunter class at this time?
Ms Lutz: As we are currently in system definition review, we are still refining the concept design and working through the preliminary design, so we don't have a fully loaded value at this stage.
Senator PATRICK: Sure. I'm sure you don't have a final one, but you would have at least, at this point—and at any point you would understand—
Ms Lutz: We understand. We understand that we can meet the performance requirements, including speed and range at this stage.
Senator PATRICK: If I go to your website, it says 8,800 tonnes is the full load displacement. Is that correct?
Ms Lutz: Well, no. Because obviously the light ship is 8,200 tonnes. So that will be updated as we progress through—
Senator PATRICK: No, 8,800 tonnes.
Ms Lutz: Yes, I know. That's fully loaded. That's what is on the website.
Senator PATRICK: It's normally about 10 per cent more than the light weight, isn't it?
Ms Lutz: I don't know.
Senator PATRICK: Is it a national security secret what the current weight is? I accept it might change.
Ms Lutz: Okay, we expect it to be around 10,000 tonnes.

[edit] fixed formatting

 

[thatsamguy]

Continuing that quote from estimates - it looks like the 10k full load displacement is linked to hull changes, that may be fed back into future batches of T26.

I wonder if this is due to the weight of the full sized CEAFAR being up that high on the superstructure affecting the CG and needing to balance that out? Will be interesting to see if the hull has been stretched a few meters or if other dimensions changed as well.

Senator PATRICK: Thank you very much. That's useful. Has there been any milestones that have been delayed because of the weight issue at all?
Ms Lutz: As I mentioned yesterday, the definition review has been delayed. It's not necessarily the weight issue. The design maturity, which is related to obviously the weight of the 26, did change so we had to make some changes and review our changes for the Hunter.
Senator PATRICK: You said they were predominantly hull changes?
Ms Lutz: Yes.
Senator PATRICK: Are those hull changes feeding back into the Type 26, if it's of benefit there?
Ms Lutz: They are expected to be fed back into batch 2 of the Type 26, but that's not confirmed.