Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

I would expect some more significant information about Sea1000 soon.

They have been busy. There is much political talk at the moment so the government would like some announcements regarding the status of the project. Timing is important.

The news papers were saying this wed night the decision will be made with the announcement to be made on Thursday. However, it isn't clear how reliable that is. It is expected shortly. I would expect sooner than June.

Personally, F-5000 could be a strong contender.. I think it is really a race between FREMM and F-5000 on this one. BAE will still play a part supporting say the F-5000, as they already have the AWD sustainment contract, so a logical extension of that is likely. But I think the Type 26 is just too far in the future, with too many different systems, it would be a great option if we were cutting steel in 2030. I don't think FREMM will come out looking bad.

There is a lot of effort getting the AWD sustainment and support systems up and running, being able to leverage that with the F-5000 and rolling back upgrades onto the DDG's would be highly advantageous.

But I have been wrong before.

On the back of Sea1000 and Sea 1180, I won't be surprised one bit that the winner could be FREMM.

No one here would have backed the DCNS/Naval Group Shortfin Barracuda nor thought that Lurssen OPV80 would be the winner. "Strange things are afoot at circle K" so to speak.

I know we have spoken the craziness of a split buy, I would go with a crazy idea of 3x F5000 and 6xFremm... just to throw in an impossible lot.

Hi all reader for 6 months cant resist now a post

media saying a down select to 2 companies for bafo like ANZAC i seem to recall (though memory not infalliable). Wouldnt suprise me if that was FREMM/T26 because I dont think F5000 has much to offer in relative terms in the industrial space.

If I have to pick one T26 for RN connection with FREMM a close second a very good goldilocks option

StingrayOZ said:

I would expect some more significant information about Sea1000 soon.

They have been busy. There is much political talk at the moment so the government would like some announcements regarding the status of the project. Timing is important.

The news papers were saying this wed night the decision will be made with the announcement to be made on Thursday. However, it isn't clear how reliable that is. It is expected shortly. I would expect sooner than June.

Personally, F-5000 could be a strong contender.. I think it is really a race between FREMM and F-5000 on this one. BAE will still play a part supporting say the F-5000, as they already have the AWD sustainment contract, so a logical extension of that is likely. But I think the Type 26 is just too far in the future, with too many different systems, it would be a great option if we were cutting steel in 2030. I don't think FREMM will come out looking bad.

There is a lot of effort getting the AWD sustainment and support systems up and running, being able to leverage that with the F-5000 and rolling back upgrades onto the DDG's would be highly advantageous.

But I have been wrong before.

Click to expand...

Logical Stingray but I would love to know how Navantia would put together its LSC based around BAE when they are competing with T26 my guess is they cant do it and have to try some sort of go it alone which puts them in the fincan category which alot of aspi type commentators dont get.

Pancake said:

Logical Stingray but I would love to know how Navantia would put together its LSC based around BAE when they are competing with T26 my guess is they cant do it and have to try some sort of go it alone which puts them in the fincan category which alot of aspi type commentators dont get.

Click to expand...

BAE already doing the sustainment for the Navantia AWDs suggest that it's less an obstacle than an advantage to me, though I don't have a personal opinion WRT which should be chosen aside from fears of buying another pig in a poke.

oldsig

oldsig127 said:

BAE already doing the sustainment for the Navantia AWDs suggest that it's less an obstacle than an advantage to me, though I don't have a personal opinion WRT which should be chosen aside from fears of buying another pig in a poke.

oldsig

Click to expand...

Exactly OS BAE does Navantias sustainment so if BAE says NO for F5000 as you would expect and backs itself on T26 what for Navantia?

Are your french subs already completely designed?

When you look a what is actually on offer, it won't be BAE or Fincantieri or Navantia's workers welding the thing together. It isn't like the winner walks away with $40 billion in cash and goes home.

There will be money for the design, customization, logistical supply, orders for ship specific equipment etc. Those with footprints in Australia and doing related work are likely to pick up more of what they are currently doing. BAE Australia does do maintenance, Thales, etc, they will pick up work (after agreement) regardless of the design. They will have to work with Lockmark and Raython and CEA and a hundred other companies on systems and integration and all the other specialized bits and pieces that fit together. There will be hundreds, some of which may be competitors in other spaces, others working together.

From the AusGov perspective is it best when everyone works together. Problem companies that can't play will find themselves on the outside. No one shop offers a full everything deal. These aren't off the rack items from the same shop. There are multiple partners for just about everything.

At the end of the day Australia is spending big coin and is the sort of customer most companies dream of. Cashed up, motivated, knows what it wants, has global influence. $40 billion on frigates, $50 billion on subs, Land 400, F-35 and SH, Wedgetail, C17. Deals that has countries like South Korea and Turkey following behind in the procurement wake. Australia is one of the biggest spenders on military design, globally.

If BAE refuses to play ball on the new Navantia's design Royal Australian Navy ship, then they are out of the Australian military market. Ask Austal what it feels like when no one will play with you on the OPV.. They have some pacific patrol boats to build.. No OPV stuff. Ask Kockums if you want to fight with your customer..

BAE Australia and Navantia already get along, quite happy (that Thales tentacles are somewhat at a distance). If BAE doesn't want to play, well they can lay off staff and perhaps Thales will gladly expand. Many the same people, diffrent company.

But BAE and Navantia have numerous agreements with each other. If anything they have evolved into be more complimentary.

Australia isn't buying just a couple of turn key ships.

Pancake said:

Exactly OS BAE does Navantias sustainment so if BAE says NO for F5000 as you would expect and backs itself on T26 what for Navantia?

Click to expand...

The shareholders may have something to say about that!

Meriv90 said:

Are your french subs already completely designed?

Click to expand...

I am sick of this. What are you insinuating. No ... they are being designed and that is because there are NO of the shelf designs that provide the deployment speed and range we require or the persistence on station. Don’t forget we do not want to fight on our coast but at choke points for routes to out coast ..... or on their coast. Both are a long way away.

So no they are not fully designed but neither is the future frigate. Knowing your unrelenting passion for the FREMM you should note it will have substantial redesign to go from a 16 cell unit to the Mk41 32 cell option they are proposing. Add to that the possible desire for a 127mm gun and the forward real estate is going to get very interesting. Add to that the massive structure required for the CEA Radar you are NOT looking at an off the shelf design.

Back to the point. The F-5000 has certain advantages so do the T26 and the FREMM. In a perfect world I would take 3 F-5000 (as a know quantity for AAW, noting the upgrades for ASW and the ability to cover the ABM role) and 6 T26 as a second batch. That has cost and commonality implications and I doubt it is an option. But what ever they choose it will be a bloody impressive vessel.

However, unless you have an intimate understanding of the workings of the RFT for the new submarine I suggest you are being mischievous. So put up or shut up. If you know sod all you have no right to malign what Australia is looking for based on nationalistic pride. Lets be honest NOBODY builds the submarine we need. We faced the same situation with the Collins.

Really stop, i wasnt going to say anything at all, I just wanted the info nothing else.

Since you were going from a nuclear to non nuclear I just wanted to know if you were in design phase or if it was sorted nothing else. SEA1000 has already been awarded so why would I discuss it.

And I can't have national pride in the sector since we are operating a sub with a majority of german tech. (Nothing bad in it, I would also preferwd the Leo2 in place of developing the Ariete but that is OT)

Pancake said:

Exactly OS BAE does Navantias sustainment so if BAE says NO for F5000 as you would expect and backs itself on T26 what for Navantia?

Click to expand...

That would be very British. Having none of the cake instead of the larger half of it - most of the cost of the project is in the sustainment, not the build

oldsig

Pancake said:

Exactly OS BAE does Navantias sustainment so if BAE says NO for F5000 as you would expect and backs itself on T26 what for Navantia?

Click to expand...

Your turn .... is this based on opinion based spit balling (that is throwing comments out there with absolutely no idea about what the actual situations is) or on information that can be relied upon. If it is the latter please share.

Both Navantia and BAE are heavily engaged in the Australian defence landscape and no government is going to be pleased if they spit the dummy and refuse to deliever. So I suspect that if either is edged out they will focus on the work they have and future opportunities. The alternative is to write yourself out of future work.

Fincantiari have the problem that they have no foot print at the moment so they are working hard to build a case for themselves with the option of commercial work. So in short ..... Navantia and BAE have to play. Fincantiari have to provide a compelling case. In any case ..... if well managed (that may be a big if) .... then DoD could produce a good deal.

If this is spit balling then you are adding nothing to the debate.

Meriv90 said:

Really stop, i wasnt going to say anything at all, I just wanted the info nothing else.

Since you were going from a nuclear to non nuclear I just wanted to know if you were in design phase or if it was sorted nothing else. SEA1000 has already been awarded so why would I discuss it.

And I can't have national pride in the sector since we are operating a sub with a majority of german tech. (Nothing bad in it, I would also preferwd the Leo2 in place of developing the Ariete but that is OT)

Click to expand...

You have been casting dispersions on Navantia for some time so forgive me for the jaundiced attitude. Nuclear would be nice but as discussed ad nausium on this thread the current political climate will not permit this.

If you want to avoid a flash back then avoid comments that leave open suggestion that there are issue with the selection. Australia is. Not perfect but the Collins is still one of the most capable SSG’s about (after sorting out the impact of being on the bleeding edge) and what we are looking for is better than that.

Meriv90 said:

Really stop, i wasnt going to say anything at all, I just wanted the info nothing else.

Since you were going from a nuclear to non nuclear I just wanted to know if you were in design phase or if it was sorted nothing else. SEA1000 has already been awarded so why would I discuss it.

And I can't have national pride in the sector since we are operating a sub with a majority of german tech. (Nothing bad in it, I would also preferwd the Leo2 in place of developing the Ariete but that is OT)

Click to expand...

Hello Meriv90,
As stated many times by the Australian Government, contributors to this forum and the designer, The Short-Fin Barracuda is not a design of a Barracuda design that has been converted to non-nuclear. I will repeat as many contributors have said, not a conversion. The design takes elements from the Barracuda and uses those given elements in the Shortfin Barracuda.

alexsa I am new here and have just noted what u said to Meriv which seemed totally un called for. As a result I have no desire to engage in an unpalatable argument with you I cant see the point. My experience in these matters is significant and your agression is quite off puting. Suffice to say as OS pointed out Navantia sub contracts its ILS to BAE so it is a good question to ask what they tendered now their partner is a competitor. We will find out in due course.

Pancake said:

alexsa I am new here and have just noted what u said to Meriv which seemed totally un called for. As a result I have no desire to engage in an unpalatable argument with you I cant see the point. My experience in these matters is significant and your agression is quite off puting. Suffice to say as OS pointed out Navantia sub contracts its ILS to BAE so it is a good question to ask what they tendered now their partner is a competitor. We will find out in due course.

Click to expand...

Sorry, you cannot suggest problems with a corporate tie up are likely to occur because the two parties are bidding for the the next contact. And before claim this is not what you are suggesting ,,,,, it is certainly what you said even if you dress it up as an innocent question.

This is not agression. This is frustration at the underlying innuendo that certain options are a poor choice because of corporate tie ups or the operating position of that company. Unplayable arguements are those thrown out there to suggest issues with no fact or data to back them up. I try to avoid getting to this point but I am utterly fed up with the unsubstantiated nonsense we are seeing.

As I said above, all options will be a boost for the RAN and we need to be objective. Objectivity has been sadly lacking in recent posts

Hi pancake..

alexas has a wealth of knowledge, when it comes to navy and especially in the design and constructions of naval vessels ... He does this for a living and is a known contributor to this forum and has shed light on many a naval issues. A lot of the senior members get pretty sick of people spouting un educated views and fiction as fact..

As for our future sub deal.. it is still being designed ..of course it was won by the French ..Australia's requirements are for an ocean going sub ,that have massive transit times to get on station for patrols.. This puts us in a 4000-5000 ton plus boat. We want to compete with nuke boats by using a conventional sub ..but also preform in the tropics and in shallow waters... The only other boats that would come close to what we seek would be the Japanese O boats and later Soryu class ...but yet we also seek a boat that can fire land attack weapons ....

Australia really does have a rather unique requirement for a conventional sub..

Cheers

alexsa said:

Sorry, you cannot suggest problems with a corporate tie up are likely to occur because the two parties are bidding for the the next contact. And before claim this is not what you are suggesting ,,,,, it is certainly what you said even if you dress it up as an innocent question.

This is not agression. This is frustration at the underlying innuendo that certain options are a poor choice because of corporate tie ups or the operating position of that company. Unplayable arguements are those thrown out there to suggest issues with no fact or data to back them up. I try to avoid getting to this point but I am utterly fed up with the unsubstantiated nonsense we are seeing.

As I said above, all options will be a boost for the RAN and we need to be objective. Objectivity has been sadly lacking in recent posts

Click to expand...

alexsa i find your posts somewhat rambling and incoherent maybe because its late? In any event I can only speculate because I dont know you. I think it is important to be tolerant of other peoples views and questions especially if they are based on experience, education and training that you may not have in other words they may see things from a different perspective to you and therefore you may not understand where they are coming from. As a suggestion rather than jumping down peoples throats why not 'pull the thread' on their thoughts and we can all be enlightened. Just a suggestion.

In the case of the Hobart class DDG, Navantia is the (platform) subcontractor to BAE, who are the SPO’s managing contractor for sustainment during the transition support period, which lasts five years. The MC contract was let by the CoA, the subcontract by BAE. I am not aware of a situation where Navantia has let a sustainment contract to BAE, at least in Australia. That is, of course, quite separate from each company’s participation in the DDG build program.