She was late, massively over budget, and that yard was closed soon after (now a museum).

Not sure what size ships the Yards in Newcastle, Melbourne and Adelaide can build, but the LHD’s are being built in Spain.

Yes Success was a bit of a problem and yes Cockatoo Island is now a Museum- well the bits that aren’t off limits due to asbestos mind you.

Newcastle can handle ships up to Tanker size with ease, they managed to do repairs there all the time to bulk carriers and Naval ships that have a bit of a plonk on various reefs 😉

Williamstown can build them without a problem

Adelaide could easily build them as could the builders in North Queensland and Western Australia, so there is no doubt we could build them here with ease.

Blimey the difference in scale between those three is orders of magnitude not a just a few feet! Size difference in the helipads! Its very intersting to look at the different design philosophies of them, each represent a differnt recent period in ship design…

Indeed mate, Wave Ruler embarks a Merlin aboard, Success embarks a Seaking and Endeavour used to embark a Wasp but now doesn’t even use the helo deck.

Ruler built in 2001, 31000tonnes

Success built in 1984, 18000tonnes

Endeavour built in 1988, 12300tonnes

There are many interesting things about HMNZS Endeavour:
[INDENT]

[/INDENT]

Yeah i should have thought about that first point before hammering away on the keyboard :o.

It’s ok mate, many a time have I banged away and forgotten what I was talking about or missed the point entirely thus bringing up new points- of course most of the time mine is due to lack of sleep.

One thing i’ve wondered about with the Armidales is that the crew stated on Wiki is 21 but im guessing they will generally have more people on board, how many spare bunks are there. I ask as once you put some men in each RHIB the crew left is pretty small not accounting for people on watch during the night. I would guess most of the time however they only use one RHIB for saying hello to fishermen etc. Just wondering:)

Well as I have been aboard HMAS Wollongong, I can testify that there are a large amount of spare bunks board each of the Armidales- 30 to be precise. These are located aft on 01 deck which is usually reserved for internment of suspected assilum seekers or illegal fishermen.

There is not much out on the interweb about the FSC program we can only really have educated guesses at what is needed/wanted and what we could get.

Educated guesses are best coming from educated people, sadly I doubt any one in the navy has any decent education- they weren’t issued with it :p

I see the sense in Australia building it’s own ships but with tankers i think the money saved in a foreign build could be huge. Building classes of vessel that keep shipyards working is the best idea for home yards whereas one or two ship classes are better built abroad. Unless of course your home industry can do it for a similar price point. Keeping industries like shipbuilding running is tough as it requires them to either be commercially successful or for the nation to maintain a shipbuilding tempo for it’s naval forces.

We built HMAS Success didn’t we? We also built all the Anzacs and the up coming Hobart class vessels, so we do have a decent ship building industry!

Why others dont is politics and the lack of will to run large programs over time, for instance in the UK we could afford IMHO to produce more T45’s and then run out a line of ASW configured ships, This could save quite a lot of cash in the long term while still buying votes.

The only problem there is that it takes money away from the polies pockets and we can’t have that can we? I mean how on earth would they buy their second houses down south? :dev2:

One new Auxiliary bah thats a bit unlucky, i would say then either an enlarged Berlin class to allow more fuel bunkerage or the Aegir 18R. An additional note is that Australia has most of it’s intrests quite close to home so it only really needs auxiliaries for the odd deployment further from home.

Ummmmm actually we have continual deployments in the Arabian gulf (since 1993 in fact) and now we are to also form part of Task force 151 off the coast of Africa in order to help stem the tide of Pirates. Though this could easily be handled by the current HMAS Sirius

Woot new thread i’ll be sure to post back.

Knew you’d be happy 😉

If the F125 sticks to standard MEKO modular design principles then yes it could be a contender.

Given that French and Italians are building their FREMM’s along a common frame with common systems does preclude it from the competition

Can’t say much about the C1 project, but I know the RN and RAN have had arguments in the past about fitouts (refer the DDL project of the 70’s).

Now to answer some of the other questions that have been raised:

The F125 is not really suitable to what the RAN wants, they want an excellent ASW platform to hunt small quiet submarines in noisy littoral waters in the northern island chains. They also want an open ocean capable platform. To me this suggests a large ship with a strong self defense AAW fit as it may be operating within range of Air Attack or it may be in open ocean where a larger ship is better for stability and endurance. It would also be a better idea to have IFEP so that the ship can minimise it’s own noise to aid in the location of subs.

Finally someone understands the idea of what we are facing- thank you Flubba! As I pointed out above- with large numbers of modern D/E subs entering service in this region, our ASW force is going to be stretched to it’s limits. A bigger platform would be able to handle more threats in a sustained and persistant attack- hence the need for both UxV and Manned helo ops

The FREMM ASW variant would seem to fit in quite a few ways but the main stumbling point is that the ship is not big enough mainly as it was designed for the Med. Other stumbling points would be equipment as i doubt the French or Italians would be happy with most of their own equipment being supplanted by US or Australian kit. The FREMM would fit if the size criteria were relaxed but i doubt this will happen.

I doubt it also

The non-Aegis F100 design would seem like the ideal soloution it would offer commonality with the Hobart class and would be easier to push for politically, it would also help with the case for more Hobart class destroyers which are badly needed. However the design does need some redesign to become an ASW frigate and to remove the Aegis systems and add ASW equipment. One thing im unsure of is if the Frigate version would really need all the VLS cells as it would not carry a radar capable of using much more than ESSM so money could be saved and space gained by removing most of them. It would really only need 16 cells for 64 ESSM which would provide adequate AAW punch. However are there any plans for the RAN to acquire any sort of land attack missile? if so then more cells would need to be kept for this purpose.

Yes the RAN are thinking about adding TLAM’s to the future frigate, this is dependant on the Hobart class and replacement sub’s getting them as well. As for the radar, as mentioned above- CEAFAR and CEAMount are to be added as well as a host of other arrangements, ADACS and NCDS as well as a plug in ability to utalise the local Aus-Net nodes would aid in this platform becoming a credible force multiplier.

If the options are open for suggestions i would still stick with the idea of looking to see what the RN choose for the C1 requirement as this looks set to be somewhat ideal for the RAN’s needs. The C1 so far looks to be shaping up to be around the 6-7k tons mark and will be a powerfull ASW platform with decent ratings in other areas. The design will also be cheap to both acquire and operate as well as being globally deployable to anywhere in the world. There is one massive downside though we all know the RN is going tit’s up so things may turn out to be hairy, we’ll order 12 and it’ll get cut down to 6 allowing unit cost to rocket. The program will also be a decade late and 150% over budget and come with everthing FFBNW including the engines no doubt and the windows. (A wee rant from me but i have very little doubt that we will end up with around 6 hulls and that they will be crap)

The only problem with the C1 is that it is still a drawing board design, given recent scandals in the ADF in regards to equipment purchases and such, I highly doubt that the RAN would by a design that isn’t being used, in part at least, by any other navy. I realise, of course, the F-100 ASW Frigate is along those same lines, but most of the equipment fitted on these vessels would have been in use by our navy at the time of construction- therefore reducing the risk assessment on this design.

I personally would say the best route for the RAN is go for the F100 derivative as the hull is there with a known cost and it offers great commonality and would give Navantia a clean sweep of the large surface units of the RAN so costs should come down. An extra point a tad bit off topic if all the major units are bought from Navantia and all goes well consider giving them the work to build Auxiliaries or use it as an incentive to do well.

I agree, there is a call for Auxiliaries to be built and admittedly the RAN are already looking at Navantia for this work as well. But yes, logistical costs would be reduced to a bare minimum by ordering from one place and the idea of swap and change as need be does tend to bring stars to the eyes of the bean counters in Canberra.

Switch that mast out with the new CEAFAR radar mount being refitted onto the ANZAC’s. Preferrably AUSPAR would be ready by then instead though.

The intent is, as I understand it, to add these mature electronics systems to any future design chosen to serve in the RAN- this includes the CEAmount and CEAFar as well as a more advanced version of ADACS and NCDS- which coupled with the Wedgetails of the RAAF could actually be of high benefit to top end security especially on interception duties of FFV’s and people smugglers.

What you are producing here is basically an AAW F-100 and an ASW F-100. I’ve increasingly become a fan of single-purpose escorts, but a frigate I think should be more like a weak allrounder. And in these days with a heavy emphasize on UxV technology, and endurance and creature comfort over top speed. That said the German F125 (despite all the criticism) looks pretty good.

Yes indeed it does seem like a two class system of the same vessel, the same could be said of the original Anzac project if you remember back that far enough- the first four were to be ASW platforms and the last four were to fill the gap as AAW frigates when the DDG’s paid off. You’ll remember the designs going around of the time- Anzacs with odd looking radar mounts.

Yes there is a call for other weapons for the future frigate, but with the growing number of subs now entering service in this region, the RAN feels that a higher proportion of the duties of the new frigate should be detection and classification of subs entering our area. Look at the types coming in to service around here: Scorpeons with Malaysia, Kilos and other vessels made in China, Vietnam has ordered six kilos and Indonesia has bought some ex south Korean Type 209s and is requesting info on up to 6 more new builds from both Korea and Russia (Type 212 and Kilo respectively, though the German ones being built in Korea would be on cost grounds obviously). Addition of UxV tech is paramount to the RAN, they are seeing this development as a must have in order to help reduce costs of patrols.

I can’t see any future RAN surface combatant without a 3D phased array radar system. I suspect it will provide an excellent anti-submarine capability, but then so will the “Air Warfare Destroyer” so I don’t see as much issue there, as some.

Any ANZAC replacement will also need to provide an extensive VLS load-out capability that the former Howard Government passed on when it chose the F-100 design over the G&C Evolved frigate design.

Whatever RAN chooses, I hope they opt for a bigger hull that will actually allow them to add the kit they need over the lifespan of the vessel, something they haven’t got with the ANZAC’s and it looks increasingly likely that they won’t have it with the F-100 class either…

The future frigate will have a 3D radar, just not one that is on the same level as the SPY-1D that the AWD’s are getting- see above.

As for the VLS question, all designs these days have this system, so that is a given- the question is- how many tubes will be fitted? As for the Gibbs and Cox design, that was, quite rightly, seen as too much of a risk to order. Sure the tech was in place and used extencivly in the USN, but the design itself was not and this was the deciding factor in the choice.

If you look at the specs I have written in above which came from the project sheet off the DMO- a bigger ship is in order and we are going to see the return of the previous labor governments policy of “Fitted for but not with”, though some circles are questioning this and saying that there will be a policy of “Space provided for but not fitted” which will allow the RAN to buy the maximum number of hulls with the minimum amount of weaponry, after all this is how they got all eight Anzacs.

How unaffordable would it be (and i’m guessing very) to just keep building full spec F100s? If you are going to build a 7,000 ton warship it would seem a waste to fit it up with a pea shooter and a couple of couple of barrels of 4X???

Yes it would be out of our budget to keep building full spec vessels, at most we are still debating the fourth one which I have my views on (we need it). Building a 7000 tonne vessel has advantages of space available for all manner of systems upgrades in the future. Now when you take into account the expected service life of a vessel (30-40 years), having room to expand your technological base to keep the vessel at peek fighting ability comes as a no brainer!

2 french solutions
6000 tons design, the FREMM

New design of 4000 tons, the FM 400

or german option
6000 tons F125 design

or meko D design

I like the looks and stats of both these vessels and I have been reading about versions of the FREMM being offered to the Greek, they are an interesting class of ship. But I doubt the F125 will be ordered as our governments have always decided not to buy a replacement from the same country as the type that is being replaced- which is sad really, I mean what if it is a better vessel? the thing about these two is that they are on the bottom pile in terms of tonnage, the specs clearly state that the new FFG should be of around 7000 tonnes and 6000 isn’t 7000. Thus I see both of these vessels not even being looked at sadly.

Excellent post Mr Worsley.

Thanks mate, I do try to take this work seriously, for me the future of Naval and indeed Defence Matters are not a joke but something to be seriously discussed and if i can share my knowledge then great, what makes it all the better is that I continually learn as well!

The RR design is an ugly one alright, they have sold though the French have a few for emergency towing and pollution control i think :S. They are handy ships to have when far away from help.

I don’t doubt their versitility, usually the ugliest vessel does some of the most amazing work!

Drugs are a massive problem in the caribbean and it’s nice to see VT coming up with some nice designs that people seem to like. I think they would suit patrolling Australia’s coast line and would be able to deploy easily into the surrounding areas of intrest.

VT have always come up with great designs, go back to the 70’s and have a look at the Mk7 for Kenya and Mk8 for Iran. As for what would best suite the RAN needs, well we need to study each proposal and see which best suites… I guess that means another threat- ok, coming up!

The Caimen 200 LCT would be very close to ideal for the role that it would be intended. I dont think there would be a massive problem sticking a Heli deck over the rear of the vehicle deck, that would allow light to medium helicopters to land and re-fuel.

My line of thinking as well, and as I said before, a surgery (not a hospital) would also go down well considering deployment zones.

[QUOTE=Flubba;1461163]The point raised about the ANZAC replacement is a good one, a Hobart class with no Aegis might fit the bill but what would be ideal is the planned RN C1 which will be coming along in the next decade. There seems to be a few overlaps between the RAN and RN C3 could fit the patrol vessel requirement and C1 the ANZAC replacement.

I’ve looked at the C1 and the entire family proposed there, they are indeed interesting and obviously incorporate the latest thinking along the “Stealth” lines

The question really does boil down to it’s capabilities and the risk involved in buying the design- Recent NAO reports have come down heavy on the RAN and Government over the way the SH-2G(A) was handled and as such, all future projects will be subject to clearly defined goals before purchase rather than having more capability added as we go along in the project.

Also with the RFA supposed to be getting new tankers soon and if the RAN is in the market then thats another overlap. I especially liked the idea that the RNZN might buy a Aegir 10 which would be great for commonality and cost. What am i missing about the Berlin class btw?

I can see the advantage of joining up with the UK on buying a tanker, though I doubt the way the poms are going that they will have much of a force soon. Their ever decreasing fleet and defence budget is alarming even to someone this far away. I feel that if we signed up with the British for a tanker program, we’d be subject to huge amounts of delays as they sort out what they want and where they would get the money from- this is totally unacceptable to our forces and our population would not stand for it.

If we enter into an agreement with New Zealand on the Aegir program, then I expect the ground work would be done already as we already have common needs and common goals and indeed we have already got the infrastructure in place- Anzac class, Project Protector vessels, need I go on? Them buying the 10 and us buying the 18 or 18R would only add to that back ground!

The Berlin class vessels are more akin to the large T-AKE’s of the USNS but vastly smaller, thus posessing a capability like these vessels have would put the RAN certainly at the forefront in the region in terms of support capabilities and turn our limited blue water navy into a credible blue water navy!

What a beauty the Chakri with one of my loved AV-8S Matador!!!

1Saludo

Perhaps you can tell me the operational status of these planes, last I heard they were non operational as only three pilots were still qualified and the planes were not serviceable.