Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

Status
Not open for further replies.

rockitten

Member
The USN wants to build up to 20 frigates with a ceiling of just under US $1bn per ship. Total cost of the programmed is $19bn US.
One thing puzzle me though: if that's "just" 20 hulls, why don't USN build more Burke instead?

Interesting to see what happens to Sirius noting she was purchased new in 2004 and is only 13 years old. She would still be useful and aux tanker (noting the flight deck has proved less that successful) so I wonder if she may be on-sold.
If my memory serve me correctly, when Sirius was commissioned, one magazine (I have forgotten if that the "reporter" or "defence") mentioned that the ship, as a converted commercial tanker, had less than 20 years hull life so it was a short-gap solution, the service life was expected less than 18 years.

Of coz, HMS Oceas was "expected" to service only 18 years too, yet Brazilian navy wants it.......
 

Milne Bay

Active Member
One thing puzzle me though: if that's "just" 20 hulls, why don't USN build more Burke instead?
The Arleigh Burkes cost Cost: US$1.843 billion per ship (DDG 114–116, FY2011/12) - and that was six years ago.
I am guessing they have a need for cheaper general purpose frigates - hence the $1bn proposed price tag
MB
 

Flexson

Active Member
The Baron of the Han (Murchison) deserves a resurrection as well as might some of the other Rivers (Culgoa?) plus of course there are the Ns or the Qs, not to forget Vamps, VD and probably Voyager. The fact that the latter was lost should not matter, in fact it should be all the more reason to commemorate her, and after all it will be at least 60 years... There are actually better choices for both the OPVs and the FFs than to go down the big city/country town route yet again.

And as a PS I’m a former tough, tenacious tanker man so I’m very happy with Supply, building 215 now, that’s something else!
Would have loved the new DDG's to be Vampire, Vendetta and Voyager. But I think the names Vampire and Vendetta are too aggressive for Australian politicians and while I agree with you about it should be ok to use Voyager again I think that the brass won't want to bring up all the controversy around the sinking of her and Frank E. Evans.

I think my weakest name idea would be Bataan. She was originally suppose to be called Chingilli or Kurnai as it was a Tribal and got named Bataan in respect to the Battle of Bataan which was mostly the Americans; probably because they named one of their ships Canberra. As you suggest one of the other rivers would be appropriate; I like Barcoo.
 

Flexson

Active Member
One thing puzzle me though: if that's "just" 20 hulls, why don't USN build more Burke instead?


Maybe not an RAN thread convo but the USN plan for the 355 fleet is to have 52 small surface combatants, the LCS's are being stopped at 32 so 20 Frigates. And they don't want to spend more then 950 million per vessel where a Burke is about 1.75 billion.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Except that support ships have taken "S" names for some time and both Supply and Stalwart have history in this area.


Interesting to see what happens to Sirius noting she was purchased new in 2004 and is only 13 years old. She would still be useful and aux tanker (noting the flight deck has proved less that successful) so I wonder if she may be on-sold.

Post Script ..... Hey John, may be another interim solution for Canada along with some Classic Hornets .............. Sorry the devil made me say it.
Don't give junior any ideas!:D
 

alexsa

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
If my memory serve me correctly, when Sirius was commissioned, one magazine (I have forgotten if that the "reporter" or "defence") mentioned that the ship, as a converted commercial tanker, had less than 20 years hull life so it was a short-gap solution, the service life was expected less than 18 years.

...
Utter rubbish. This was a commercial Mid range product carrier built in Korea. At the time these were a very good hull..... and if mantained.... still is. Have a look at scrapping statistics and tell when a product tanker has been run up a breach (particularly one with low hours) with a 20 year life.

The old Panama box boats are being cut up at 7 years (Chinese built) as change to the Panama Canal have made the obsolete but the same cannot be said for tankers.

Sorry ...... ‘some magazine’ does not cut it as a reference. Added to which the quality of some of these journals is poor at best.

Noting the average age of the world merchant fleet is over 22 years I would suggest you need to do some research.

Post Script.... the reason 7 year old box boats got breach was a massive over capacity becoming a reality. These vessels were simply the least effective vessels about.... and were losing money. If you really want to have a good look at the industry google Splash 24/7. It is na industry news letter. If you go back 20 months you will see a period of utter carnage in the building sector. Tankers were much less effected.

Glib comments serve no purpose
 
Last edited:

hauritz

Well-Known Member
Perhaps we should hang on to the Sirius.

The white paper speculated that an additional supply/logistics ship would be acquired in the late 2020s. If that is the case then why not hold onto the Sirius until at least that time.
 

Stampede

Well-Known Member
Perhaps we should hang on to the Sirius.

The white paper speculated that an additional supply/logistics ship would be acquired in the late 2020s. If that is the case then why not hold onto the Sirius until at least that time.
Yep!

Our amphibious / supply fleet should step up to a total of six vessels from the current five.
Our future fleet of 24 OPV / Destroyers / Frigates will require a varied array of support ships and in turn will be required to support these larger assets across a wide spectrum of activities.


So agree, if Sirius has some extra life then keep her in the fleet until a replacement or replacement's are found.
Maybe Two LSD's like Choules or alternatively something along the lines of Netherlands Karl Doorman multi function support ship.

Many options in ships but lets not forget the numbers.

Regards S
 

hauritz

Well-Known Member
Yep!

Our amphibious / supply fleet should step up to a total of six vessels from the current five.
Our future fleet of 24 OPV / Destroyers / Frigates will require a varied array of support ships and in turn will be required to support these larger assets across a wide spectrum of activities.


So agree, if Sirius has some extra life then keep her in the fleet until a replacement or replacement's are found.
Maybe Two LSD's like Choules or alternatively something along the lines of Netherlands Karl Doorman multi function support ship.

Many options in ships but lets not forget the numbers.

Regards S
I agree.

In my opinion it isn't a question of Australia needing either an additional replenishment ship or an additional logistics ship ... they will probably need both.

By the late 2020s Australia will not only have the two LHDs and the Choules but also around half a dozen 7000 ton destroyer/frigates. These are proper blue water assets so it isn't hard to see why additional afloat support would be needed. If they are going to support deployed ground forces they will need plenty of extra sealift capability as well.
 

ASSAIL

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Before suggesting any thought bubbles about what each one thinks would be a "good" idea about what we should have or not have in our Fleet one needs to read the DWP and IIP which sets out how Defence spends its budget allocation.
If you keep/acquire one capability you need to forgo another.
Keeping Sirius beyond its planned life has a cost. Defence spending is not like health and education where overspends are routine and accepted by the electorate as being inevitable. If defence exceeds its budget all hell breaks loose within the great unwashed.
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
Before suggesting any thought bubbles about what each one thinks would be a "good" idea about what we should have or not have in our Fleet one needs to read the DWP and IIP which sets out how Defence spends its budget allocation.
If you keep/acquire one capability you need to forgo another.
Keeping Sirius beyond its planned life has a cost. Defence spending is not like health and education where overspends are routine and accepted by the electorate as being inevitable. If defence exceeds its budget all hell breaks loose within the great unwashed.
Does anyone have an idea on the cost/benefit of selling HMAS Sirius at the end of the planned service life, vs. Gov't (or the RAN) retaining ownership of the vessel but leasing like was done before conversion and commissioning as HMAS Sirius?

Depending on how long the vessel could be leased for before being taken out of service, and for how much, it might be better to retain ownership. That way if some future event does start to appear on the horizon, the RAN might have an additional oiler available.
 

aussienscale

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Does anyone have an idea on the cost/benefit of selling HMAS Sirius at the end of the planned service life, vs. Gov't (or the RAN) retaining ownership of the vessel but leasing like was done before conversion and commissioning as HMAS Sirius?

Depending on how long the vessel could be leased for before being taken out of service, and for how much, it might be better to retain ownership. That way if some future event does start to appear on the horizon, the RAN might have an additional oiler available.
The problem with Sirius is the lack of capability, yeah she carries a bucket load of fuel, but not much else, always the issue with something not purpose built.

Originally there was talk of an order of 3 Cantabria Class, but that slowly ebbed away. Will an "option" be taken before construction ramps down too far on the current two ships ? possible, I have no doubt that Navantia and the Spanish Government would be offering a good price for a third to keep the yards going, but as mentioned by Assail, the DWP & IIP pretty much says it all at this stage.

Something that has to be remembered though, is we are getting purpose built, fit for purpose ships, one for each coast. This is a massive step up from what we have traditionally had. This is still a win !

Will we keep Sirius for the short/medium term after the Cantabria's come on line ? I think for a short time, but believe she will be disposed once the new ships hit FOC, or not long after. Purely based on manning and budgetary constraints, and just to bring a little politics into it, probably a new Government in power when that decision time comes around, and I believe the Defence budget will have had a hatchet taken to it !

Cheers
 
Can anyone provide advice on the propulsion upgrades and improvements being undertaken as part of the mid life upgrades for the Anzac frigates? No doubt the diesels are being replaced as per the NZ Anzacs but will the LM GTs be replaced with say the more powerful G4 model?

The attached link has a photo of Arunta and Perth on the hardstand at Henderson presumably commencing the upgrade?

https://www.asiapacificdefencerepor...-Australia-welcomes-200-million-Nulka-upgrade
 

alexsa

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Does anyone have an idea on the cost/benefit of selling HMAS Sirius at the end of the planned service life, vs. Gov't (or the RAN) retaining ownership of the vessel but leasing like was done before conversion and commissioning as HMAS Sirius?

Depending on how long the vessel could be leased for before being taken out of service, and for how much, it might be better to retain ownership. That way if some future event does start to appear on the horizon, the RAN might have an additional oiler available.
To be useful as a tanker the RAS gear would need to be stripped out and the accomodation returned to commercial standards that would meet the Maritime Labour Convention. I understand the ship was modified to fit more bodies in many of the cabins.

Not hellishly expensive but still a cost. With the RAS gear, container storage and control stations she is likely to struggle to comply with commercial terminal requirements as a product tanker.

Best sold for what it is I suspect
 

PeterM

Active Member
Why does it sound like it could be the F110? It does not say that anywhere in the release and this is a conceptual design that is not in production yet.

Les face it given the reference to a family of hulls could also be a derivative of the F100-F105/AWD family noting this carries the AEGIS system and there is a lot of US DNA in this vessel. It might also be based on the evolved F100 (F5000) frigate as part of the F100 'family'.


The fact is the media release tells us nothing and we are once again we are speculating.
My assumption was admittedly speculation.My thinking is based around the cost and that the purpose of the FFG(X). . Looking at the cost and capabilities the USN are looking for, the F110 seems to me to be the most likely candidate for the parent design. Cost wise the USN want 20 ships for $19bn, the F110 budget is 4bn euros for 5 vessels.

https://news.usni.org/2017/07/10/na...issile-frigate-program-in-request-to-industry

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportu...447b8015337e910d330a87518c6&tab=core&_cview=0

The F100/F105 designs are more capable vessels and other options such as the Fridtjof Nansen class cost around $2.5bn for 5 vessels. But you are certainly right in that there are a number of other possibilities.

The main point of my post, however, was that with the USN using a Navantia parent design for FFG(X), there could be opportunities on the table that the RAN could leverage with the Navantia proposal for SEA5000.
 
Last edited:

alexsa

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
My assumption was admittedly speculation.My thinking is based around the cost and that the purpose of the FFG(X). . Looking at the cost and capabilities the USN are looking for, the F110 seems to me to be the most likely candidate for the parent design. Cost wise the USN want 20 ships for $19bn, the F110 budget is 4bn euros for 5 vessels.

https://news.usni.org/2017/07/10/na...issile-frigate-program-in-request-to-industry

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportu...447b8015337e910d330a87518c6&tab=core&_cview=0

The F100/F105 designs are more capable vessels and other options such as the Fridtjof Nansen class cost around $2.5bn for 5 vessels. But you are certainly right in that there are a number of other possibilities.

The main point of my post, however, was that with the USN using a Navantia parent design for FFG(X), there could be opportunities on the table that the RAN could leverage with the Navantia proposal for SEA5000.
Be careful of quoted costs. You really need to know what is captured in it. If we look at the AWD costing this includes support and construction of facilities so the total project is more than the cost per unit. Same with the AOR which is 1.5 billion but only about half of that is for the ships.

So it has to be apples with apples.

Certainly Navantia have the opportunity to leverage off the F100-AWD programme in their bit...... not to mention the 70m of design work for the evolved F105 that was paid for by the CoA.
 

John Newman

The Bunker Group
The problem with Sirius is the lack of capability, yeah she carries a bucket load of fuel, but not much else, always the issue with something not purpose built.

Originally there was talk of an order of 3 Cantabria Class, but that slowly ebbed away. Will an "option" be taken before construction ramps down too far on the current two ships ? possible, I have no doubt that Navantia and the Spanish Government would be offering a good price for a third to keep the yards going, but as mentioned by Assail, the DWP & IIP pretty much says it all at this stage.

Something that has to be remembered though, is we are getting purpose built, fit for purpose ships, one for each coast. This is a massive step up from what we have traditionally had. This is still a win !

Will we keep Sirius for the short/medium term after the Cantabria's come on line ? I think for a short time, but believe she will be disposed once the new ships hit FOC, or not long after. Purely based on manning and budgetary constraints, and just to bring a little politics into it, probably a new Government in power when that decision time comes around, and I believe the Defence budget will have had a hatchet taken to it !

Cheers
Agree with your points (and with Assail and alexsa too), voices of reason.

In the not too distant future we will see two new fully equipped AOR's entering service replacing one rather elderly AOR and a rather large AO, but with minimal capabilities other than being a rather large fuel tanker and not much else.

As I understand it, the two new AOR's have been reported as scheduled for delivery in 2019 and 2020 (will that slip? Who knows), the statement by the Def Min the other day, announcing the names, said that the ships would enter service from 2020 and reach FOC in 2022.

And of course on top of that, the DWP and DIIP are suggesting a decision just prior to 2025 on if a 3rd AOR or additional Choules type ship would enter service in the late 2020's.


Now without trying to go off into 'la la land', I do wonder if there is a 'part way' solution to keeping Sirius a bit longer and also not eating into the operational and manpower budget, yes everything does come at a cost.

Maybe at the least, it is worth keeping Sirius in some sort of ready reserve, not operational but at least keeping the ship maintained on the basis that 'if' required it could re-enter service at reasonably short notice.

Not suggesting that the two AOR's will have unknown issues arising upon entering service, but if recent history is anything to go by (Choules problems and also the problems with the two LHD's), it might be worth keeping Sirius around as an 'insurance' policy considering she is still a relatively young ship.

And of course this all comes at a cost, I would assume (yes should never assume), but to maintain Sirius in an extended readiness state or a maintained mothballed state, shouldn't cost an arm or a leg, millions of dollars? Probably yes, 10s of millions of dollars? Maybe? Beyond that, probably not.

In the big scheme of things, maybe worth considering hanging on to her until at least the two new AOR's are fully at FOC and possibly a little bit longer until their is a final decision on what will happen with the potential 3rd AOR.

Anyway, just my two cents worth!
 

aussienscale

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
In the big scheme of things, maybe worth considering hanging on to her until at least the two new AOR's are fully at FOC and possibly a little bit longer until their is a final decision on what will happen with the potential 3rd AOR.

Anyway, just my two cents worth!
In the scheme of things it is possible, maybe even probable that she may be kept until the early to mid 20's until a decision on a third is made, but on the building timeline the decision would be made you would think well before the last ship is finished.

So she has a few years left in her yet, that's for sure. Things also change quickly, if, and only if, we had the budget she could make a good bulk fuel supply ship in support of operations for the LHD's, delivering fuel etc in support of landed forces, such as an ET type situation.

But that is a big if, and more than likely something the new AOR's would be able to handle anyway. I think as mentioned when the time comes, she will be sold to someone based on her current purpose, pretty sure there would be a few Navies around the world that would be interested.

Cheers
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Agree with your points (and with Assail and alexsa too), voices of reason.

In the not too distant future we will see two new fully equipped AOR's entering service replacing one rather elderly AOR and a rather large AO, but with minimal capabilities other than being a rather large fuel tanker and not much else.
......

And of course this all comes at a cost, I would assume (yes should never assume), but to maintain Sirius in an extended readiness state or a maintained mothballed state, shouldn't cost an arm or a leg, millions of dollars? Probably yes, 10s of millions of dollars? Maybe? Beyond that, probably not.

In the big scheme of things, maybe worth considering hanging on to her until at least the two new AOR's are fully at FOC and possibly a little bit longer until their is a final decision on what will happen with the potential 3rd AOR.

Anyway, just my two cents worth!
Yep and the Aotearoa, Endeavour replacement, is not due for delivery until 2020, so the RNZN can't cover for you either, because we'll be in the same boat, excuse the pun.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top