Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

spoz said:

And the other ship shown is a Spanish F100, not even an Australian DDG

Click to expand...

Volkodav said:

Its great to see that they are pursuing sustainment work in both Spain and Turkey. The WA mafia are really out doing themselves now, moving on from killing local construction to now wanting to win refits from the other side of the world.

Click to expand...

Joking aside, my reaction to the whole video was to note that it's quite massive , overkill if Civmec were to be restricted to building the OPVs and subsequent ship classes.

They already have facilities to dock and work on ANZAC class sized ships; this leaves them in a position where sustainment work on the AWDs, Hunters and any other ship of that size from allies like NZ should be possible AND also able to set to building destroyer sized ships at some time in the more distant future.

In terms of the national good, it can't hurt to have two yards of such capacity, so long as neither want to get all the goodies.

oldsig

I think the idea is that they can do (or at least bid) sustainment work on the Hunter class that are stationed out of FBW. Not an entirely crazy idea. They could also offer support capabilities to anyone in the Indian ocean area or region or beyond. Civmec obviously sees a future there. Thinking particularly to the UK and US operating in the Persian gulf area. And also for sales to that region.

I could see them being interested in a variation of the 1180 OPV (or its successor or another Lurrsen ship like a corvette), or a variation of the Type 26, with an Indian ocean yard able to support and/or build and Australia able to deploy and train.

Also while the OPV are getting built, future ships past the 12 might be bigger and would also logically might also be built in WA.

I don't have a problem with capability being built, particularly if it fits into a bi-partisan, logical, supported continuous build program. I think it would also be useful to have more than one military ship builder in the nation. As we have seen, it has been useful to be able to shift allocated work through to different yards if needed.

I hope with Civmec being a bigger company with interests on the west and east coast, it becomes about what is good business and good for the country rather than just WA before all else and undermining other projects for locality reasons. Lose some of that provincial or parochial thinking and acting.

I would like to see them investing a bit at the Tomago yard, which could be used for civilian and military module or block work.

It seems that the first contracts are being signed for the Hunter class. I came across this article on the Naval today site:
Australia awards BAE Systems first Hunter-class frigate contract

In reading it i noticed some stats on the class that I am not sure had been confirmed on here? I know there was some speculation on the missile fit out but I can't remember if we all had an answer or not? (sorry if this is old news). But it states the Hunter Class will have a 24 Cell vertical launch system? I must say I thought they would have had at least a 32 cell oh well what ever they have fitted is still going to be a large increase in capability on the Anzac's

weegee said:

It seems that the first contracts are being signed for the Hunter class. I came across this article on the Naval today site:
Australia awards BAE Systems first Hunter-class frigate contract

In reading it i noticed some stats on the class that I am not sure had been confirmed on here? I know there was some speculation on the missile fit out but I can't remember if we all had an answer or not? (sorry if this is old news). But it states the Hunter Class will have a 24 Cell vertical launch system? I must say I thought they would have had at least a 32 cell oh well what ever they have fitted is still going to be a large increase in capability on the Anzac's

Click to expand...

I believe they are referring to BAE's original design of the GCS , not the Australian version -

"BAE’s GCS design – on which the frigates will be based – is 149,9 meters long, displaces 6,900 tons and carries a 24-cell Mk41 vertical launch system."

Beam said:

I believe they are referring to BAE's original design of the GCS , not the Australian version -

"BAE’s GCS design – on which the frigates will be based – is 149,9 meters long, displaces 6,900 tons and carries a 24-cell Mk41 vertical launch system."

Click to expand...

The 6900 tonnes is the rated light load displacement. The full load displacement is reported as over 8000 tonnes but refined to 8800 tonnes on the RAN site. The Hunner class and T-26 have the same length, same beam, same draft range and same block coefficient (driven by the underwater hull shape). Bascially it is the same hull.

For Weegee, as you note the T26 has 24 Mk41 cells. However it also has Seaceptor cells in addition to that. The Hunter class has omitted the Seaceptor cells and is configured for 32 Mk 41 Cells. The other main change is the radar, associated systems and CMS (AEGIS with SAAB interface) as pointed out by the article.

oldsig127 said:

Joking aside, my reaction to the whole video was to note that it's quite massive , overkill if Civmec were to be restricted to building the OPVs and subsequent ship classes.

They already have facilities to dock and work on ANZAC class sized ships; this leaves them in a position where sustainment work on the AWDs, Hunters and any other ship of that size from allies like NZ should be possible AND also able to set to building destroyer sized ships at some time in the more distant future.

In terms of the national good, it can't hurt to have two yards of such capacity, so long as neither want to get all the goodies.

oldsig

Click to expand...

It apears CIVMEC may also be involved in the maintenance of the new vessels in the same manner Henderson is currently engaged wiht the ANZAC Class. In the East such work is done in Codock (Garden Island - Captain Cook Dock). I expect this work could not really be done by ASC in Osborne while it is engaged in building the Hunter Class. However, I suspect the CIVMEC could handle the small ship construction and maintenance of MFU noting the size of the facility.

I also suspect Osborne will be fully subscibed with the continuous build programme for surface ships as well as Submarine maintenance (current facility) and the new SSG in the new facility to be built.

In the end you will have a large yard in Osborne servicing surface ship building, submarine building and submarine maintenance (noting the common user facility is also used for commercial dockings) while Henderson covers small ship build.

I expect Codock and Henderson will provide fleet support and maintenance as is currently the case.

I agree, it seems they have the balance about right.
I understood that all the Hunter class were being stationed at FBW.
BAE Systems is established at Henderson so I had assumed that they would be offered the sustainment contract and not Forgacs (it seems that the shipbuilding arm of CIVMEC will continue to trade under the Forgacs name) CIVMEC and BAE would continue with their extensive commercial work much of it related to the oil and gas industry.

I would assume that there is enough refit work to share the load between east and west. Refitting in GI would be 2 x LHD, 2 x AOR, 1 x LPD, 3 x DDG and 4 x MHC and in the West the 8+1 Anzac/Hunter, 2 x OPV plus IDs for 6 x SSG.
I would also assume, maybe? That HMNZS Aotearoa would dock at GI when needed.

alexsa said:

It apears CIVMEC may also be involved in the maintenance of the new vessels in the same manner Henderson is currently engaged wiht the ANZAC Class. In the East such work is done in Codock (Garden Island - Captain Cook Dock). I expect this work could not really be done by ASC in Osborne while it is engaged in building the Hunter Class. However, I suspect the CIVMEC could handle the small ship construction and maintenance of MFU noting the size of the facility.

I also suspect Osborne will be fully subscibed with the continuous build programme for surface ships as well as Submarine maintenance (current facility) and the new SSG in the new facility to be built.

In the end you will have a large yard in Osborne servicing surface ship building, submarine building and submarine maintenance (noting the common user facility is also used for commercial dockings) while Henderson covers small ship build.

I expect Codock and Henderson will provide fleet support and maintenance as is currently the case.

Click to expand...

Codock was the acronym for Cockatoo Dockyard, now closed. Are they now using the name for GID?

I doubt they'd turn down the business, unless the terms were unacceptable.

alexsa said:

The 6900 tonnes is the rated light load displacement. The full load displacement is reported as over 8000 tonnes but refined to 8800 tonnes on the RAN site. The Hunner class and T-26 have the same length, same beam, same draft range and same block coefficient (driven by the underwater hull shape). Bascially it is the same hull.

For Weegee, as you note the T26 has 24 Mk41 cells. However it also has Seaceptor cells in addition to that. The Hunter class has omitted the Seaceptor cells and is configured for 32 Mk 41 Cells. The other main change is the radar, associated systems and CMS (AEGIS with SAAB interface) as pointed out by the article.

Click to expand...

48 Sea Ceptor, according to a letter from the MoD Secretary of State to someone who wrote asking questions.
https://www.parliament.uk/documents.../141009_SoS_re_Type_26_Global_Combat_Ship.pdf

It is assumed that the Hunter class will have 32 VLS based on the model mockup but I haven't seen anything in writing officially confirming just how many VLS the Hunter will actually be fitted with.

Others may have more information.

ASSAIL said:

I understood that all the Hunter class were being stationed at FBW.

Click to expand...

That's interesting, haven't heard that before (have you got a link or any info about that?).

My understanding was that the current 8 x Anzac class was spit 5 in the West and 3 in the East.

I would have assumed that eventually we would see the 3 x DDGs plus 3-4 Hunters in the East and the remaining 5-6 Hunters in the West, which gives you an approx. 50/50 split of MFUs on each coast.

Cheers,

I thought I had read it somewhere but now can’t find the link.
This link provides the establishment of “Ship Zero” for the class which pRovides onshore training and maintenance facilities and relieves pressure on sea training.
I may have read this and assumed that all will be based in the West however I’m still certain I saw a statement somewhere.
It would make sense IMHO, closer to submarines and taking pressure off GI and the requirement for Navy to billet crews near central Sydney.

Ship Zero: Australia investing AU$670m in Future Frigate hub

ASSAIL said:

I thought I had read it somewhere but now can’t find the link.
This link provides the establishment of “Ship Zero” for the class which pRovides onshore training and maintenance facilities and relieves pressure on sea training.
I may have read this and assumed that all will be based in the West however I’m still certain I saw a statement somewhere.
It would make sense IMHO, closer to submarines and taking pressure off GI and the requirement for Navy to billet crews near central Sydney.

Ship Zero: Australia investing AU$670m in Future Frigate hub

Click to expand...

So if I read that correctly there is an investment of $1.487 billion in ships zero.
That's a lot of zeros
MB

Milne Bay said:

So if I read that correctly there is an investment of $1.487 billion in ships zero.
That's a lot of zeros
MB

Click to expand...

It's not all in ship zero's. Ship zero's are the Hunters and OPV's which combined are $970 million, The remainder are base upgrades of various kinds. While the $970 million does appear to be a lot on the outside need only look at it from the inside. Just guessing here but they could be losing a large chunk of there days at sea just training up personnel, By having these land based training solutions that are a fraction of the cost of ships and an even smaller fraction in maintenance and sustainment they can greatly increase there days at sea for operational needs.

swerve said:

48 Sea Ceptor, according to a letter from the MoD Secretary of State to someone who wrote asking questions.
https://www.parliament.uk/documents.../141009_SoS_re_Type_26_Global_Combat_Ship.pdf

Click to expand...

Don't worry about what it says there, That document is dated from 2014 so has no bearing on the Hunter class as our program didn't start sourcing tenders until well after then. That document only deals with the UK related issues and queries in regards to the Type 26.

Oberon said:

Codock was the acronym for Cockatoo Dockyard, now closed. Are they now using the name for GID?

Click to expand...

Good point .... and I should have remembered that as I spent a bit of time there

While reading Ngatimozart's posted link on the "South China Sea thoughts" thread (excellent read about SLOC consequences for Russia during WW1), I noticed the following article on nuclear subs. Not sure if the link has been posted anywhere else. The author's points are valid IMO but his solution is not possible because the US sub production is simply unable to meet Australia's needs in time, even if the Columbia program wasn't pending.

A working sub fleet – for less than half the cost – The Australian Naval Institute

John Fedup said:

While reading Ngatimozart's posted link on the "South China Sea thoughts" thread (excellent read about SLOC consequences for Russia during WW1), I noticed the following article on nuclear subs. Not sure if the link has been posted anywhere else. The author's points are valid IMO but his solution is not possible because the US sub production is simply unable to meet Australia's needs in time, even if the Columbia program wasn't pending.

A working sub fleet – for less than half the cost – The Australian Naval Institute

Click to expand...

Tom Lewis is one of many ex uniforms all of whom agitate for SSNs and of course, if one analyses the RANs required capability nuclear makes sense however they conveniently ignore reality.
The Australian people are comfortable with us having the largest known uranium deposits in the world and for us to export to third parties but the very thought of having anything nuclear, power station, ship or sub sends the nation into frenzied State of apoplexy.

Providing a relevant submarine capability therefore depends on taking conventional technology to its limits on endurance, on discretion and on power, that’s the reality we have to deal with and that’s what we hope Naval Group’s design can deliver.

All the rest, such as Lewis’ article is white noise.

ASSAIL said:

Tom Lewis is one of many ex uniforms all of whom agitate for SSNs and of course, if one analyses the RANs required capability nuclear makes sense however they conveniently ignore reality.
The Australian people are comfortable with us having the largest known uranium deposits in the world and for us to export to third parties but the very thought of having anything nuclear, power station, ship or sub sends the nation into frenzied State of apoplexy.

Providing a relevant submarine capability therefore depends on taking conventional technology to its limits on endurance, on discretion and on power, that’s the reality we have to deal with and that’s what we hope Naval Group’s design can deliver.

All the rest, such as Lewis’ article is white noise.

Click to expand...

I disagree PM Howard was the latest who tried to stir the debate the minority(Greens, left factions) have the loudest voices and shut down debate, if nuclear was a cheaper alternative power(carbon pricing) here then if the question was put before the Australian people in a plebiscite only then could we have a serious debate, but we have not had the serious debate but can we have the serious debate is another issue without the left shouting out and closing down debates

Nuclear – Parliament of Australia