Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

StingrayOZ · Nov 1, 2017

vonnoobie said:
I dealt 600kg will make much of a difference. Has been my experience in life that such limitations dont actually give an accurate representation of what the device can perform but rather it being a safe number put in place to keep the lawyers happy.

Should also note that the 10.6 ton of the MRH is for a fully loaded aircraft, with 4.2 ton of fuel, persons and cargo, When operating from an OPV I can imagine any scenario that would require that max load out.

It would be interesting to see how compatible the MRH is with the opv80. Even so the MH-60 is much more probable.

But realistically these are likely to be embarked with smaller aircraft. UAV's etc. The EC135 could be embarked as a light utility helicopter.

Muar River · Nov 1, 2017

Ch9 had a short story on HMAS Darwin's last call into Darwin prior to being decommissioned in December.

Also, news on the future of HMAS Melbourne and HMAS Newcastle

https://www.defenceconnect.com.au/m...igates-future-home-could-be-in-the-baltic-sea

When I look at the bow of HMAS Hobart, I can definitely see the influence of the OHP design. The six OHP frigates have been great for the RAN.

SteveR · Nov 1, 2017

Muar River said:
When I look at the bow of HMAS Hobart, I can definitely see the influence of the OHP design. The six OHP frigates have been great for the RAN.

When I look at the curved bow of the Blohm and Voss designed ANZACs I see the influence of the Bismark.

vonnoobie · Nov 1, 2017

A while ago we where discussing the future of the LCM-1E, After a recent contract with the US Army and Vigor which has awarded them a $979m USD 10 year contract for 37 (including 1 prototype) MSV(L)s I have to wonder if there will be interest by the RAN to jump on board. While longer then the LCM-1E it actually has the same beam allowing them to fit in the Canberra class with out any modifications.

Requirement for it is to be able to transport an M1A2 at combat weight so should fit our needs if it passes the tests. Would be a worth while 1 stop replacement for our LCM-1E's and LCM-8's.

Defence Technology Review : DTR NOV 2017, Page 1

Curious as to what the MSV(Medium) and MSV(Heavy) will be able to do..

rockitten · Nov 2, 2017

Muar River said:
Ch9 had a short story on HMAS Darwin's last call into Darwin prior to being decommissioned in December.

Also, news on the future of HMAS Melbourne and HMAS Newcastle

https://www.defenceconnect.com.au/m...igates-future-home-could-be-in-the-baltic-sea

When I look at the bow of HMAS Hobart, I can definitely see the influence of the OHP design. The six OHP frigates have been great for the RAN.

They even mentioned SM-2 capability, seems our Polish friends want the upgrades along with the deal. How about the tactical length MK-41?

I am curious if they will take HMAS Darwin (which also upgraded) as well either for a 3rd ship or for spares.

ADMk2 · Nov 2, 2017

vonnoobie said:
A while ago we where discussing the future of the LCM-1E, After a recent contract with the US Army and Vigor which has awarded them a $979m USD 10 year contract for 37 (including 1 prototype) MSV(L)s I have to wonder if there will be interest by the RAN to jump on board. While longer then the LCM-1E it actually has the same beam allowing them to fit in the Canberra class with out any modifications.

Requirement for it is to be able to transport an M1A2 at combat weight so should fit our needs if it passes the tests. Would be a worth while 1 stop replacement for our LCM-1E's and LCM-8's.

Defence Technology Review : DTR NOV 2017, Page 1

Curious as to what the MSV(Medium) and MSV(Heavy) will be able to do..

Possibly, however it was stated in Senate estimates on October 25, that unspecified engineering work is being done to improve the bouyancy of the LCM-1E’s and ensure they can carry Abrams and other heavy vehicles across the range of Sea States that they were originally planned to do.

There was also a considerable level of enthusiasm for Mexefloat displayed too. I wonder if that might be a hint of things to come as well, ie: the acquisition of more?

Redlands18 · Nov 2, 2017

rockitten said:
They even mentioned SM-2 capability, seems our Polish friends want the upgrades along with the deal. How about the tactical length MK-41?

I am curious if they will take HMAS Darwin (which also upgraded) as well either for a 3rd ship or for spares.

You would think Darwin would be better then the 2 ex USN Perrys they currently have in service, younger by a couple of years and has had a better upgrade path.

hauritz · Nov 2, 2017

vonnoobie said:
A while ago we where discussing the future of the LCM-1E, After a recent contract with the US Army and Vigor which has awarded them a $979m USD 10 year contract for 37 (including 1 prototype) MSV(L)s I have to wonder if there will be interest by the RAN to jump on board. While longer then the LCM-1E it actually has the same beam allowing them to fit in the Canberra class with out any modifications.

Requirement for it is to be able to transport an M1A2 at combat weight so should fit our needs if it passes the tests. Would be a worth while 1 stop replacement for our LCM-1E's and LCM-8's.

Defence Technology Review : DTR NOV 2017, Page 1

Curious as to what the MSV(Medium) and MSV(Heavy) will be able to do..

I also noticed a physical model of the proposed SEA5000 Type 26.

Defence Technology Review : DTR NOV 2017, Page 1

It looks like it has 48 VLS upfront instead of the 24 on the British version.

On the downside they seem to be talking about a 2022 construction date instead of 2020.

ASSAIL · Nov 2, 2017

hauritz said:
I also noticed a physical model of the proposed SEA5000 Type 26.

Defence Technology Review : DTR NOV 2017, Page 1

It looks like it has 48 VLS upfront instead of the 24 on the British version.

On the downside they seem to be talking about a 2022 construction date instead of 2020.

I read "early 2020's" so not sure where you got 2022? I understood construction start 2020 was critical to the shipbuilding plan otherwise more skills will be lost at Osborne.

hauritz · Nov 2, 2017

ASSAIL said:
I read "early 2020's" so not sure where you got 2022? I understood construction start 2020 was critical to the shipbuilding plan otherwise more skills will be lost at Osborne.

It does mention it a little further down. Prototyping to start in 2020 with construction starting in 2022.

Really this does highlight the big advantage that the F-5000 will have in this competition since I have heard Pyne mention on several occasions that construction will start in 2020.

vonnoobie · Nov 2, 2017

hauritz said:
It does mention it a little further down. Prototyping to start in 2020 with construction starting in 2022.

Really this does highlight the big advantage that the F-5000 will have in this competition since I have heard Pyne mention on several occasions that construction will start in 2020.

I believe she also mentioned the first ship would in effect be a prototype, Could the 2020 - 2022 build start confusion actually be building the prototype from 2020 with non prototype assets from 2022?

hauritz · Nov 2, 2017

vonnoobie said:
I believe she also mentioned the first ship would in effect be a prototype, Could the 2020 - 2022 build start confusion actually be building the prototype from 2020 with non prototype assets from 2022?

I am not really quite sure what prototyping means in this context. Does it mean a full scale ship will be built and reworked until an acceptable final design is achieved?

If that is the case then I guess first steel on the prototype could be cut in 2020 with the second of class ship starting production in 2022.

alexsa · Nov 2, 2017

hauritz said:
I also noticed a physical model of the proposed SEA5000 Type 26.

Defence Technology Review : DTR NOV 2017, Page 1

It looks like it has 48 VLS upfront instead of the 24 on the British version.

On the downside they seem to be talking about a 2022 construction date instead of 2020.

Looking at the image it looks like four sets of 8 cells (Mk41) giving 32 tubes. The FREMM appears to be similarly configured.

Flexson · Nov 3, 2017

hauritz said:
I am not really quite sure what prototyping means in this context. Does it mean a full scale ship will be built and reworked until an acceptable final design is achieved?

If that is the case then I guess first steel on the prototype could be cut in 2020 with the second of class ship starting production in 2022.

Agree. The way I've been reading it is the first ship with construction starting in 2020 will initially be a prototype that they are happy to make mistakes with and learn lessons from. Once perfected it will be one of the nine. Ships constructed from 2022 they are assuming they will have learnt the lessons and from here on in you will see efficient construction. Just the way I'm reading it anyway.

Also the DTR display model of the Type 26 GCS-A is the same display as at PACIFIC 2017 a hyperlink of which has been posted in these pages before. There is a close up of the model which shows 32 cells.

Got a tour on Hobart yesterday. Like almost every warship I expect teething problems... here's to hoping they are minor.

ASSAIL · Nov 3, 2017

Flexson said:
Agree. The way I've been reading it is the first ship with construction starting in 2020 will initially be a prototype that they are happy to make mistakes with and learn lessons from. Once perfected it will be one of the nine. Ships constructed from 2022 they are assuming they will have learnt the lessons and from here on in you will see efficient construction. Just the way I'm reading it anyway.

Also the DTR display model of the Type 26 GCS-A is the same display as at PACIFIC 2017 a hyperlink of which has been posted in these pages before. There is a close up of the model which shows 32 cells.

Got a tour on Hobart yesterday. Like almost every warship I expect teething problems... here's to hoping they are minor.

Talking about "prototype" for shipbuilding is rubbish. Pyne might have used the term but it was used in ignorance.
Is he suggesting Hobart is a prototype? First in class for sure but every first in class has problems which need to be solved. They may take longer to build than following ships but they aren't any different from follow on ships in the production sequence.
In the DDG build there was a 30% efficiency gain on Brisbane and a 50% improvement on Sydney but again that doesn't make Hobart any different.

ASSAIL · Nov 3, 2017

I can't link but a small report on page 4 of the Oz today says that the govt. is bringing forward the upgrades to Nulka. SEA 1397 5B will be installed on all Future Frigates, Anzacs, Hobarts and the LHDs over a 20 year period with the first spend reflected in the next MEO (mid year economic outlook).

The upgrades are considered vital in the circumstances unfolding on the Korean peninsular.

oldsig127 · Nov 3, 2017

ASSAIL said:
Talking about "prototype" for shipbuilding is rubbish. Pyne might have used the term but it was used in ignorance.
Is he suggesting Hobart is a prototype? .

Well, yes, but I can see why. Build a first of class in a class of nine, and take twice as long to finish the first ship because of teething problems, developing and optimising the build sequence, slow initial arrival of material, correcting drawing errors and whatever, and the press/opposition*/public will crucify the Government, Defence, the builder, the designer and the Navy.

Tell them in advance that it's a prototype, and tell the often enough that you can point it out as "expected" you have half a chance of getting to the second and subsequent hulls and proving that the continuous build is not a mistake, that a Royal Commission isn't needed to slow things down by another half decade, and that the build shouldn't instead be reduced to three unarmed frigates and a dozen whale watching boats to satisfy the Greens.

First of Class means *bugger all* to the average punter.

* "opposition* is whichever party is in opposition at the time, whether they fully supported the build initially or not, because that's what politicians do.

oldsig

hauritz · Nov 3, 2017

oldsig127 said:
Well, yes, but I can see why. Build a first of class in a class of nine, and take twice as long to finish the first ship because of teething problems, developing and optimising the build sequence, slow initial arrival of material, correcting drawing errors and whatever, and the press/opposition*/public will crucify the Government, Defence, the builder, the designer and the Navy.

Tell them in advance that it's a prototype, and tell the often enough that you can point it out as "expected" you have half a chance of getting to the second and subsequent hulls and proving that the continuous build is not a mistake, that a Royal Commission isn't needed to slow things down by another half decade, and that the build shouldn't instead be reduced to three unarmed frigates and a dozen whale watching boats to satisfy the Greens.

First of Class means *bugger all* to the average punter.

* "opposition* is whichever party is in opposition at the time, whether they fully supported the build initially or not, because that's what politicians do.

oldsig

All this talk of prototyping is making me think that the type 26 may be a better chance of winning this comp than I first thought.

The F-5000 is about 70% of the Hobart design and it is hard to imagine that there would be any major developmental issues with this design. I imagine that of the three contenders it would be the easiest to bring into production.

The fact that Pyne and now BAE are referring to a prototype being built would suggest that there might have been a bit of a discussion about how the untested type 26 design would be sold to the general public.

StingrayOZ · Nov 3, 2017

ASSAIL said:
The upgrades are considered vital in the circumstances unfolding on the Korean peninsular.

I wouldn't be surprised to see the current events starting to really impact defence procurement projects. Our needs for a Korean conflict, and post Korean conflict are significant greater than what we have currently.

If there was ever a time to prepare for a large scale conflict, it is now. Which is why I wouldn't be surprised to see projects start to move forward. Sea5000 was moved forward, I don't see them moving it backwards.

Sea5000 was meant to be announced in April 2018. I feel that it is 50/50 it will be announced this year, pyne said he would do all he could to announce early as possible. Steel will but cutting 2020.

I believe the comment about a Prototype is that the first ship will not be a MOTS ship. There has to be some degree of risk in choosing any of the designs. The first ship will then eliminate that risk.

Smaller OTS projects are much easier to bring forward. Making the money available sooner will greatly accelerate the projects.

hauritz · Nov 3, 2017

StingrayOZ said:
Sea5000 was meant to be announced in April 2018. I feel that it is 50/50 it will be announced this year, pyne said he would do all he could to announce early as possible. Steel will but cutting 2020.

Absolutely agree. I can't think of any real reason why SEA1180 hasn't been announced other than there might be a double announcement.

Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

Super Moderator

Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Member

Just a bloke

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

The Bunker Group

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Super Moderator

Active Member

The Bunker Group

The Bunker Group

The Bunker Group

Well-Known Member

Super Moderator

Well-Known Member