t68
Well-Known Member
Cheers thanks, was just wondering if other Army or RAAF assets may have been sent, would have been a good time to still have LCH in inventory to assist our kiwi mates.
Such information is normally on the DoD site or the relevant Ministers...
Defence Ministers » Minister for Defence – Australian Defence Force to support Kaikoura evacuation following New Zealand earthquake
t68
Well-Known Member
Cheers thanks for that, yes I did check that site I either missed it or wasn't up at the time. But thanks anyway.
On Radio NZ just now the NZ Joint Forces commander pretty much explained that the "CANZUS" helicopters will have a busy day today, off loading supplies from HMNZS Canterbury which has returned to Kaikoura (after returning from evacuating the hundreds of tourists that wanted to leave on Wednesday) and today will also fly in-land into isolated rural areas with civil defence/engineering type assessment teams to check on areas of concern and presumably the well-being of those families that live is isolated rural communities (or on their own) that have been cut off from receiving help and utility services such as power and water etc.
Today the weather appears fine (yesterday there was heavy rain and not a lot of flying activity), so should all be go. No doubt the MSM will hitch some rides along the way and report back. The US armed forces' social media sites generally are pretty good at communicating what activities their personnel and units are up to so perhaps also look at their sites and feeds for info over the next few days.
Surfing the news and came across this.. the program related to the RAN with the Adelaide FFG's but the manner in which it was performed seems to have made all sides happy including competing companies, They are touting as a posible bench mark standard for other maritime projects.
BAE Systems and Thales turn competition into cooperation on FFG | afr.com
I have to wonder if it could be taken further and applied towards Army and Air force projects.
BAE Systems and Thales turn competition into cooperation on FFG | afr.com
I have to wonder if it could be taken further and applied towards Army and Air force projects.
Bluey 006
Member
“The submarines project will see Australian workers building Australian submarines with Australian steel – here where we stand today – for decades into the future… 50 years from now submarines will be sustained here, built here, surface vessels will be built here because of the commitment we’ve made to this great national endeavor." said by PM
“We want to ensure the tenderers’ responses maximise Australian industry opportunities through a local build using Australian made steel,” said Minister Pyne.
I notice announcements of late have definitively stipulated Australia made steel. Do we perhaps think there is more to this than the economic factors?
“We want to ensure the tenderers’ responses maximise Australian industry opportunities through a local build using Australian made steel,” said Minister Pyne.
I notice announcements of late have definitively stipulated Australia made steel. Do we perhaps think there is more to this than the economic factors?
For politicians yea, It's about job's which equal votes. All the expert's have been saying since day dot when the government started calling for more Australian steel used to save the industry wouldn't actually make a lick of difference since the annual intake by the RAN would be so low it would be marginal to the refineries in VIC and SA (The government is concentrating on the big steel refineries).
We should be ignoring the 2 big refineries and concentrating on the little ones we have that can produce high quality specialized steel's such as what we used in the Collins class.
But Joe public is silly all to often and politicians are even worse. Trying to compete on a global scale at a cost base that makes it impossible, Government is wasting time giving too much attention to unviable large refineries (Which like ship building we can only truly support one rather then two locations) when they should be pushing our higher quality specialized niche capabilities.
It's the niche capabilities that should be paid attention to but are forgotten in it all.
My 2 cents.
On the other hand among the objections to the OPC and the OCV a decade later was the amount of steel required would be excessive and be a poor use of resources compared to infrastructure and construction (specifically mining related) projects. Similar arguments were made in reference to skilled labour etc. Boy things have changed.
Abraham Gubler has made the point previously that a properly planned whole of fleet, life cycle, would result in a sustainable local design and build capability, this would logically include maximum local content as the successful ANZAC and COLLINS projects did. Ideally in every five year period you would have one or two large amphib or axillary vessels, two or three submarines, two or three destroyers or frigates, three OPVs (maybe one day corvettes or fast frigates), two or three small/medium amphibs, and two or three specialty vessels (MCMVs hydrographic vessels etc.) exact numbers depending on required numbers of platforms and the planned life of type, ie. 20, 25, or 30 years, with extra time allotted for first of class or major updates to the design being built.
Such an arrangement would see a consistent requirement for various types of steel providing a sustainable base load of work for our steel makers, including for speciality steels for subs and ballistic protection of warships. This in tern would cover overheads that often send such producers bust in lean times and make them more competitive in good times as well. It would make an indigenous design capability, even if it only adapted existing designs to RAN requirements, sustainable as well as making us a more attractive partner for future multinational projects.
In a nut shell this is what we should have been doing for decades, ideally from the end of WWII, but potentially from the 1920s and definitely from the Australian Frigate Project that built Melbourne and Newcastle from the late 80s. Sensible, sustainable and affordable, in fact it likely would have delivered more ships, built to higher standards at less cost than actually occurred under our at times schizophrenic procurement system(s).
I believe, and will happily stand corrected if I am wrong, that the FFGs are actually cheaper to maintain and sustain (and possibly also cheaper to operate than the ANZACs). This is despite their greater complexity, capability and age, ie. SM-2 (plus 32 ESSM), second helicopter and Phalanx.
This article explains some of it but another factor is the base design incorporates many features (due to the type being the ultimate iteration of the massive USN DE / ocean escort build during the cold war). Things like frames in bilges having mouse holes to drain to the lowest point for easy extraction, gas turbines designed to be removed through the funnel using rails designed into the ship, plus many other little things that just make operating and maintaining them that little bit easier. During the various AWD design reviews it was quite common for experienced operators and maintainers to request that things were done or set up like they were on the FFGs with mention also made of features seen on the ANZACs that they definitely didn't want repeated ie. the great difficulty in pumping / cleaning the bilges of bilge water and the need to disassemble the GT to remove it, as well ad the steep angle of ladders causing many injuries to crew members.
Some old hands with experience on everything from the Rivers (Type 12s), DDGs, FFGs and ANZACs (even Daring's, Battles and Qs/Type 15s) looked at the ANZACs as glorified pleasure craft, not warships. This was due in most part to design factors that were seen as a must on the RAN ships designed for the RN and USN, but not really given consideration on the "designed for export" MEKOs, cheap to buy / build, but come back to bite you on through life costs.
Seriously got to wonder if we may have been better off just building additional, maybe modified FFG-07s instead of the MEKOs.
I never served in the FFGs although I was offered a posting as XO to Adelaide as an incentive to keep me from resigning. However, having served in T12s and CFAs I understand that both types were designed with the principle rule that they must be maintained by uniform staff, they must be survivable and easily damage controlled and that almost all fittings were military standard ( no cheap Bunnings crap) and they were designed for a 30 year life.
From what I've read, the Anzacs didn't meet these criteria. I don't wish to belittle the class' fine building record and service and by many measures they have been successful but point made.
It's similar to comparing the RNs Type 22 (traditional naval design) to their T21s ( COTS)
In view of this comparison I only hope Gibbs and Cox have had enough influence on the AWDs to ensure they are more in tune with the FFG 07s than with the Anzacs.
According to the Bath guys on the AWD project the Navantia Ship Spec for the AWD was basically that of the FFG-07 with stuff added and that it was fair enough as the spec had been evolved from Spain's build of six FFGs. There were even elements in it from the Knox / Baleares FF/FFG, as well as the preceding Garcia / Brooke class DE/DEG (FF/FFG), basically a long evolution through the various generations of post WWII USN DE/FF classes.
Ironically the origin of the FFG-07 class was as a PFG (Patrol Frigate Guided Missile) and Zummwalt's low end of the high low mix to maintain numbers with pending retirement of the various FRAM upgraded WWII destroyers, i.e. the USN concept of what was needed in the role the RAN acquired the ANZACs for. Compared to the DDGs and especially their replacements (the Kidds and Burkes) the FFGs were quite austere, lacking 3D radar, 5" gun, second shaft and 30kt plus speed but, despite the RANs initial reservations, the design has proven quite durable, with Stark surviving hits from two Exocets and Samual B Roberts surviving being mined. Both returned to full service (one of the managers on the Roberts repair was seconded to AWD and told me that the decision to repair rather than scrap was more politics and moral than financial i.e. they couldn't let Iraq or Iran cost them a ship).
Getting off the reservation here but just imagine an FFG-07 ASMD upgrade, with a scaled CAEFAR system, for the younger ships with the CEASCAN radar providing the missing 3D capability SM-2 needs for full capability and CEAMOUNT the extra fire control channels. Had we built additional FFGs instead of MEKOs this could well have been on the cards.
Joe Black
Active Member
I would also suggest more automation included to reduce the crewing requirements, perhaps replace the MK13 with Mk41 VLS too.
Unlikely, We are also at the threshold of loosing our AAA credit rating which will be a bigger concern to the politicians and general public then an increase beyond 2%.
I don't think Trump would push for it either considering Australia has pushed ahead with 2% aim on it's own accord long before he came to the picture and has been a staunch ally of the US for over 70 years, Him trying to say Australia isn't doing enough would be responded with a nice big F*** off.
As it is the budget is moving towards a good level, We are acquiring all the right asset's and are increasing cooperation with Singapore, Indonesia and India.. We are pretty much setting our selves up for the right fluid force with plenty of friendly nations and allies around us. Beyond expanding our sphere of friendship (influence , Which should have been started decades ago) there isnt a lot more we can do in the big picture that is realistic.
The loosing Tenix bid for FFGUP included replacing the Mk-13 with a Mk-41, can't remember if it was a 32 or 48 cell arrangement. What is also interesting is Taiwan had planned to build an additional batch of FFG-7 to a modified design, I haven't been able to find the detail but it was a major redesign with twin shafts VLS and a 5" gun forward.
I read somewhere else on this forum, can't recall where - that Navantia took over the design after Taiwan baled due to costs, and it became the Alvaro De Bazan Class - So we have effectively just built three of them.
Bluey 006
Member
Not exactly the angle I was going down. I was thinking at the molecular /nano level during manufacturing
Interesting thoughts all the same