Australian Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

Status
Not open for further replies.

FORBIN

Lieutenant General
Registered Member
Yes that was the story

Combat ready Abram is over 60 tons the promotional video was showing a much lighter tank I think it was the M60 Patton

RAN took 12 of these craft $240 million deal and has 59 Abram tanks

Question is what will be the outcome
A thing to know normaly Spanish Tercio de Armada use again M-60A3 52 tons in a company of 17 but with economic problem Army have stored 54 on 108 Léo 2A4 and thinking transfered to Marine Corps.
 
kinda tricky:
Frigate contenders warned off ASC/Austal build option

14 Sep 2017
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Exchanges in the Senate References Committee have made it clear the government has no intention of amending the terms of the Request for Tender (RfT) for the Sea 5000 Future Frigate program to mandate the inclusion of an Australian shipbuilder.

This means the winner among the three shortlisted international contenders for the $35 billion program will retain responsibility for the construction – albeit in Australia – of its proposed Future Frigate design.

The three competing designs comprise a version of the Type 26 Global Combat Ship offered by the UK’s BAE Systems, a modified F-100 design proposed by Spanish shipbuilder Navantia, and a derivative of the Carlo Bergamini-class variant of the FREMM multi-mission frigate offered by Fincantieri of Italy.

At the committee’s 8 September hearing into the future sustainability of Australia’s naval shipbuilding industry, Labor Senator Kim Carr quoted Clause D of the RfT as stating “The successful tenderer will not be directed to utilise any particular shipbuilding workforce or engage any particular provider of shipbuilding services. In particular, the Commonwealth is not mandating that the successful tenderer use the workforce of ASC.”

Independent Senator Nick Xenophon earlier quoted a passage stating the Commonwealth’s intention “that the successful tenderer will directly manage and supervise the workforce undertaking shipbuilding work. The responsibility for build management and supervision should not be subcontracted in its entirety to a third party entity”.

Both Austal CEO David Singleton and ASC Shipbuilding CEO Mark Lamarre told the committee that meaningful engagement with the contenders had ended after the RfT’s release on 31 March. Three months later the two companies entered a teaming arrangement for Future Frigate construction.

Responding to questions from Senator Carr, Department of Defence Associate Secretary Brendan Sargeant confirmed that CASG head Kim Gillis had subsequently telephoned the three contenders.

“Austal and ASC were making statements about their desire to participate in the (RfT) process,” Sargeant said.

“It may be that people thought the Government was making a decision to change that process and the communications with the companies were to ensure that they understood that the process as designed would proceed.”

Asked if the change in attitude of the preferred tenders to Austal and ASC had anything to do with Gillis’s telephone call, Sargeant responded “I have no idea. That would be speculation on my part and I don’t think it’s appropriate for me to talk about how tenderers might approach their commercial relationships.”
 

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
If Australia gets all three Hobarts out and working and then builds nine of these new FFGs, which if they are built to the specs I am hearing will be better than the ANZACs, then they will end up with 12 very effective surface combatant.

if they match that with 12 really good SSKs...and I still worry about DCNS getting Australia what it needs, but know they are capable of doing so...then Australia will have ended up upping its game with that force of Surface and sub surface combatants.
 

FORBIN

Lieutenant General
Registered Member
If Australia gets all three Hobarts out and working and then builds nine of these new FFGs, which if they are built to the specs I am hearing will be better than the ANZACs, then they will end up with 12 very effective surface combatant.

if they match that with 12 really good SSKs...and I still worry about DCNS getting Australia what it needs, but know they are capable of doing so...then Australia will have ended up upping its game with that force of Surface and sub surface combatants.

If they double the SSK fleet remains curious and unusual have " only " same number of MSC 12 with 9 futur FFG planned added to 3 Hobbart, Australia don' t have " dangerous " neighboors but a very large area to control with in more long deployment the need is clearly for saying 15, same for fighters, Ground units, very good quality very modern especialy AF all is new almost !!! but the number is a bit low ofc money is not unlimited.
 

KIENCHIN

Junior Member
Registered Member
Yes that was the story

Combat ready Abram is over 60 tons the promotional video was showing a much lighter tank I think it was the M60 Patton

RAN took 12 of these craft $240 million deal and has 59 Abram tanks

Question is what will be the outcome
Another Aussie FUBAR.
 
noticed Aug 6, 2017
"The Hobart set sail from Adelaide for Sydney where on September 23 it will be commissioned ..."

except of this info the article is pretty strange so just the link here:
Air Warfare Destroyer Hobart sets sail for Sydney to begin life in the navy

August 6, 2017
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
now I read kinda reminder by NavalToday:
Australia’s AWD Hobart is entering service this weekend
Posted on September 21, 2017
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The Royal Australian Navy’s first Aegis-equipped air warfare destroyer HMAS Hobart is set to officially enter service in a ceremony in Sydney, on September 23.

Starting construction in January 2010, Hobart is entering service seven years later as the third Australian destroyer to bear the name Hobart.

The previous two were a former Royal Navy Leander class light cruiser (Hobart I) and an improved Charles F Adams class guided missile destroyer (Hobart II).

Hobart is also the first of three destroyers in her class to be delivered by AWD Alliance. The other two ships will be called Brisbane (III) and Sydney (V).

Hobart was launched in May 2015 and started builder’s sea trials in September 2016.

Her sea acceptance trials involved close interactions with a range of fighter aircraft, surface ships and helicopters, as well as other civilian platforms in a range of simulated scenarios.

Hobart is 146.7 metres long, has a top speed of 28 knots (52km/h), a range of about 5000 nautical miles and room for more than 200 crew.

The ship carries a range of weapons, detection and electronic warfare systems onboard, which include an Aegis threat tracking system, SPQ Horizon Search Radar, 48 vertical launch missile cells, a 5″ gun for coastal operations and two quad launchers of anti-ship HARPOON weapon systems.

The AWDs have also been equipped with anti-surface, anti-submarine and naval gunfire capabilities.

The next-gen destroyers are part of an $8 billion collaboration between ASC, Raytheon Australia and the Australian Department of Defence. The ships are being built at Techport Australia, about 15km northwest of Adelaide.
the article gives several numbers, none of them is the displacement though (7k t full),
and a single shot off "a 5″ gun for coastal operations" would blow off a Pirates' boat if needed, I guess
 
Australia to receive “digital shipyard” in Adelaide, frigate contender promises
oh really?
One of the contenders competing for the Royal Australian Navy’s $35 billion Future Frigate project has promised to transform Adelaide into a digital shipyard should it be awarded the lucrative contract.

BAE Systems Australia said it would transform Australia’s shipbuilding industry through the development of a digital ship yard in Adelaide.

“The digital shipyard will ensure that every aspect of the ship during the design and build and throughout its service life is live and accessible to the crew as well as all those involved in the maintenance and upgrades of the fleet and approved suppliers,” BAE Systems announced.

Digitisation will also bring the ‘ship to life’ during its service life. Intelligent systems, on board and linked to those ashore, will monitor the performance of the ship and its systems allowing ship’s staff to focus on the right tasks and ensuring that the right parts and specialist help are available before they are needed.

The digital shipyard will include an inventory of parts, including cost and acoustic signature, suppliers and their details, providing Australian industry the opportunity to improve upon all parts and systems used in the construction of the Global Combat Ship.

The design authority transfer will start in 2018, leveraging an investment of more than AUS$1.5 billion in design and engineering effort to date to develop the world’s most advanced warship. To support the transfer, A$100 million will be invested in an information and technology system to digitise the shipyard.

“Having a single point of truth in the design phase will mean that each of the nine ships will be replicated, which hasn’t been done in Australia previously and which will benefit every stage of the program including the upgrading and maintenance of the ships during service,” BAE Systems chief executive Glynn Phillips said.

“It will also be the first time in Australia, where a ship’s systems will have the ‘intelligence’ to report on its own performance and maintenance needs and have the ability to order both the maintenance and parts required prior to docking.”
source is NavalToday
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

Lethe

Captain
It is your dream... obviously don't make sense with Politic and RAAN don't need such combattant type as Corvettes ! :rolleyes: sometimes your able imagine incredible things ! your not in the reality.

On the contrary, I think an 056-type vessel could be very useful for Australia, and indeed such a project has long been kicked around. See here for details:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


The problem, as always, is money and priorities. Our politicians and brass are more interested in showy capabilities like the Canberra-class LHDs that allow us to be seen to "do our bit" with the Americans, than they are with the nation's fundamental security interests and the requirements that derive from those interests.

Given the way warships work (limited availability, limited 'footprint', and relatively slow), and as a nation with an enormous coastline to defend, Australia does in fact need numbers. And the only way to get those numbers is to make the units affordable, i.e. OPV/Corvette-size. I am not suggesting that such should come at the expense of true blue water combatants which are also very necessary to secure Australia's interests, but they should certainly come ahead of vanity projects like the Canberra-class LHDs, anything related to Afghanistan or Iraq, or indeed anything that values "interoperability with allies" above suitability for Australian requirements *cough* M1 Abrams *cough*.

Australia is spending a lot of money and has and will continue to get some rather impressive kit out of it. But I would argue that that money could've been much better spent to deliver more and more important capabilities that would better secure the nation's interests.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top