RAN Collins class subs: verdict?

[EnigmaNZ]

NZ submarines, there was a debate over the replacements for the 4 Leanders, 4 new frigates or move away from surface warships and acquire 4 submarines, the frigates won, and we have the ANZACS.

DDG-51, later flight 2A have a hanger and provision for 2 helos, 2 x LAMPS or 1 x LAMPS and 1 x Cobra
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/ddg-51-flt2a.htm
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/ddg-51.htm

The US is not moving away from billion dollar warships to frigates, in fact all the OH Perrys are due to be decommissioned over the coming years and will not be replaced, they are already losing their MK13/SM-1s. The closest replacement will be the new Litteral Warfare Ship.
"There are 35 FFGs in the fleet today (2002), including eight in the Naval Reserve Force. As Navy shipbuilding funds continue to fall, the FFG 7s are being phased out of the fleet, and no new frigate design is currently proposed as a replacement. "
http://www.navyleague.org/sea_power/sep_02_49.php

DD9X) CG(X) are hardly smaller cheaper platforms.
"The Navy's new DD(X) program is the centerpiece a family of three surface combatant ships, including a destroyer, a cruiser and a smaller craft for littoral operations. The DD(X) contract, to be awarded in 2005, could end up totaling $100 billion for some 70 warships in the DD(X) family: destroyers, cruisers, and a downsized seagoing killer called LCS, short for littoral combat ship"
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/dd-x.htm

Australia lives in a volitile region, and participates in peacekeeping where a command of the skys is paramount. Its needs the AAW destroyers to provide air cover for other combatants while proforming these roles. Relations with Indonesia are sometimes tense, as was seen in East Timor recently durring that country independence from Indonesia, alliance ships were harrassed by fighters from Indonesias airforce and threats had been made to fire on alliance forces should they cross into Indonesia's airspace.
http://www.etan.org/et2001b/june/17-23/22reveal.htm
As air to surface missiles and surface to surface missiles evolve and proliferate, and become longer ranged and more accurate, and are acquired by nations not well disposed towards the west, defences need to be available to take out these threats, Australia is looking into the future and will have the capacity to deal more effectively with regional threats on its own, as well as pull its weight in the wider coalitions it becomes involved in.

To get back to the Collins, is AIP likely at some point in the future, and what system would be deployed, I would prosume something like "slowpoke" would be out of the question (small nuclear powerplant of less than 1Mw intended only to top up the batteries and provide low speeds on patrol in the order of 3 to 5 knots). While the Collins are getting their 7 meter extension for AIP, slip in another 7 meters and the US 12 cell submarine VLS, whether fitted with Harpoon Bk2 or Tactical Tomahawk, make one helluva platform.

 

[gf0012-aust]

To get back to the Collins, is AIP likely at some point in the future, and what system would be deployed, I would prosume something like "slowpoke" would be out of the question (small nuclear powerplant of less than 1Mw intended only to top up the batteries and provide low speeds on patrol in the order of 3 to 5 knots). While the Collins are getting their 7 meter extension for AIP, slip in another 7 meters and the US 12 cell submarine VLS, whether fitted with Harpoon Bk2 or Tactical Tomahawk, make one helluva platform.

They're already "real estated" for AIP . The decision was made not to run with AIP due to existing suitable performance parameters. They are able to do similar rotations as US nukes if required.

One of their primary roles is as a special forces truck. the AIP park would make a suitable holding area for current specwarfare roles. Converting them for VLS in real terms is not technically difficult.

 

[EnigmaNZ]

"They're already "real estated" for AIP"
Did you mean they can be retrofitted with AIP without being diced and sliced Gary? I have read articles relating to it in the past but my memory fails me. Thank God for google
P.S. you didn't use the word "matrix" once in your reply lol, your slipping :

 

[gf0012-aust]

"They're already "real estated" for AIP"
Did you mean they can be retrofitted with AIP without being diced and sliced Gary? I have read articles relating to it in the past but my memory fails me. Thank God for google

we'd have to cut into the hull to fit it, but space was always allocated for an AIP system in the initial design. A system was tested a few years back and it was determined that no real benefit was gained that could justify the retro-fit

P.S. you didn't use the word "matrix" once in your reply lol, your slipping :

hmmm, not once? damn, must have left it out of my solution matrix.

 

[seantheaussie]

Sean, I don't understand how you consider the AWD's useless for DOA tasks. Does the fleet no longer have a responsibility to protect itself and Australia from air attack? Do protecting our sea lanes no longer matter

I consider DOA to be mainly concerned with detering an invasion. Any nation strong enough to consider invading Australia would sink 3 AWDs easily. The same amount spent on fighters would be a much greater deterrent in DOA. In case anyone has missed it I am obsessed with cost effective acquisitions.

Does a strong ASuW and ASW capability no longer matter? Remember the AWD's will in all likelyhood replace the FFG's, meaning the end of ANY sort of long range air defence capability present in the RAN, should the AWD's not be acquired. (This capability is already extremely limited given the radar and fire control limitations of the FFG's). The FFG's operational service cannot be extended much longer due to problems with the superstructure cracking...

Do you think ESSM equipped ANZAC frigates will be sufficient to provide the air defence capability for the RAN and for any deployed forces whether operating with the US or without?

ASuW is for planes that outrange the target. I prefer the enemy unable to shoot back. The subs would do their thing outside air range. Ships need self defense ASuW missiles but it should not be their primary purpose.AWDs are a bloody expensive way to get ASuW and ASW capability. To be honest I would have liked to sell the ANZACs to the US Coastguard as their National Security Cutter.

Australia is intent upon improving it's expeditionary forces capability. That's not a bad thing. DOA is the LEAST likely contingency the ADF will have to face.

DOA is 20 times less likely but 50 times more important. The result of not going to somalia, cambodia, afghanistan, iraq & East Timor would be imperceptable to the average Australian

In addition as GF pointed out, the manning levels of Arleigh Burkes are far beyond what the RAN can support. The Perth Class DDG's were retired early for just this reason. 2 of our 6 FFG's are partly being retired for this reason also...

GF also pointed out that the RAN mans the same ships with less men.The US is also making a large effort to lower manning on current ships (smartships?) which we could take advantage of.

On top of this I doubt the Arleigh Burkes would be much cheaper anyway. They are a far bigger warship than we are intending to acquire. The AWD's will probably end up between 6000 and 7000 tons. The Arleigh Burkes are slightly over 8000t...

AWDs r&d cost, upgrade platform specific r&d costs & uncertain delivery dates means Arleigh Burkes would almost certainly provide more capability per billion dollars than a 3 ship class of AWDs.

 

[Supe]

seantheaussie:

If you cut out the ANZAC Frigates that leaves us with five Frigates of the FFG class. Are you suggesting that five Frigates are enough to maintain a credible defence capability? What is your idea of the sort of ships and numbers the RAN should be provided with?

 

[Aussie Digger]

Sean, your argument that "anyone who was strong enough to consider invading australia could sink 3 AWD's" is a 'non sequitur'. Any such notional enemy could also sink 3 Arleigh Burkes and could also shoot down any number of fighters we could realistically acquire...

Cost effectiveness? The JSF program is costing $15 billion, for "up to" 100 aircraft. SEA 4000 is costing $6 billion for 3 ships and associated costs. No amount of fighters (plus the necessary A2A refuellers) can ever provide the persistence that a large warship can.

DOA unfortunately encompasses far more than a large scale invasion of Australia. In such an event more submarines would be more useful than either fighters OR surface ships in attacking the numerous transport/amphibious ships such an invasion would require.

ASuW is anti-surface warfare and is a primary capability of any warship... Have you heard of "5 inch friday" from Iraq in 2003? Where HMAS ANZAC was called upon to sit less than 4 kays off the Iraqi coast and pound Iraqi defences (firing over 90 munitions in the process) constantly over a 24 hour period in direct support of the British Royal Marine Commando's?

Compare this capability (ie: the ability to provide immediate indirect fire support within seconds of a request for such) to an air tasking order for air support from fighters? I KNOW what the diggers on the ground are going to want...

As a former Recon section commander I have worked with MFC's (mortar fire controllers) as part of a Joint Offensive Support Co-ordination Group (JOSSC) in live fire exercises at Shoalwater Bay where Naval Gunfire Support has been used. (HMAS Parramatta I was told). The quality and accuracy of that fire support was second to none IMHO and superior in reaction time (and effects) to the 500lb bombs that the F-111's dropped that day...

GF didn't point out that the RAN operates "the same ships" with less men. He pointed out that the RAN intends to operate a ship "of the same capability as the Arleigh Burke" with less manning requirements. What you are not taking into account is the through life costs of the platform. It's equivalent to spending $100 today to save $200 next year.

The RAN has received a proposal from Gibbs and Cox as part of the AWD tender process for a "scaled down" version of the Arleigh Burke (the International Frigate design). This ship will carry approximately the same warload as the AB and operate roughly the same systems, but will have a significantly reduced manning level and a significantly smaller overall size compared to AB. Whilst the initial platform cost might exceed that of a mature production run AB, the TLS costs are bound to be significantly cheaper, otherwise why would the RAN be bothering?

You'd prefer to sell the ANZAC's as well? Do you therefore advocate that Australia shouldn't have a Navy at all? That makes a LOT of sense for a Country with the greatest length of coastline in the WORLD and one so heavily dependant on it's sea lines of communication (for trade etc)...

 

[gf0012-aust]

Just to add some perspective to the discussion:

• Australia has internationally recognised responsibility for protecting and policing almost 1/9th of the worlds oceans and waterways relating to our borders and territories
• 95-98% of our international trade (by weight and volume) comes by sea
• the bulk of our oil and gas stocks require a form of maritime protection due to issues of distance from the mainland. In wartime that would be unnegotiable. Aircraft have limited utility in these roles.

for an island continent, we need to remember all the "P's" of warfighting

1. projection
2. persistence
3. precision
4. political will and intent
5. protection
6. production
7. platform multipliers

An island continent like Aust requires a balanced force mix - but it also requires an emphasis on a credible naval capability to police our territories and assets properly.

datalinking assets like the AWD's and the Collins with ISR assets like JORN and SWR (as partial examples of what we can do) are critical platforms in the battle management equation.

If you take out the AWD's we end up with degraded ISR and management capability - and thats still critical for DOA bearing in mind the 1/9th committments.

 

[Supe]

I'd like see more numbers in Frigates and Subs. The proposed total of 12 Frigates seems rather light to me. Australia should also be investing in more Subs. They make for an awesome offensive platform (weapons/intel gathering) and provide a great deterrent to any nation wanting to impose upon our sphere of influence, economic zones, shipping lanes and sovereignty.

 

[Aussie Digger]

I'd like see more numbers in Frigates and Subs. The proposed total of 12 Frigates seems rather light to me. Australia should also be investing in more Subs. They make for an awesome offensive platform (weapons/intel gathering) and provide a great deterrent to any nation wanting to impose upon our sphere of influence, economic zones, shipping lanes and sovereignty.

Me too. So does the RAN. But the RAAF wants more fighters, the Army wants more Battalions and every ADF employee wants more money. Unfortunately there's only so much to go around...

 

[gf0012-aust]

i beleive reading somewhere that pakistan was interested in the collins class.:coffee

Nope, definitely not.

 

[Supe]

The problem is, people want to do Defence on the cheap. It's not attractive to spend billions of dollars on weapons/personnel/infrastructure/maintenance etc when it could be spent on other areas. It's a matter of perceptions. For most people, an attack on Australia is deemed remote at best, inconceivable at worst. It's not an easy argument to make that we need these capabilities. Defence is a complex issue that people only understand when it's already too late. Look at pre-WW2 Australian Defence and it's laughable (we weren't unique). If the Japanese had invaded Malaya/Singapore/Dutch East Indies earlier in the war, Australia would have not been in any condition to defend itself.

The lessons of the past are seldom learned. It's a stick your head in the sand mentality and hope it all goes away.

I just don't see twelve Frigates as credible numbers as either a defence deterent or in operations (assuming Australia goes it alone). I'm not an expert so I can't determine the appropriate amount but I would find it hard to believe in a pressing situation, that twelve would be enough. Ditto for Subs. I factor possible attrition and downtime of ships plus our immense coastlines in my reasoning here. Technologies such as satellites, radar and datalinking may be force multipliers but at the end of the day, you want numbers on the ground, or in this case in the sea.

Does anyone want to suggest an appropriate amount of surface combatants and Subs the RAN should possess?

 

[gf0012-aust]

Does anyone want to suggest an appropriate amount of surface combatants and Subs the RAN should possess?

We should never have dropped the extra 2 Collins, and we should have started Ser2 design some time ago.

My firm belief is that in an ideal world we should have set up the following

6 x AWD's - enables 1 to be cycled out for service and scheduled maint
12 x DDGH/FFGH - enables 1 to be cycled out every year and thus 10-11 always active.
8-12 x Subs - enables 80% of the fleet to be kept on station and 1-2 to be rotated out.

The AWD's and DDGH/FFGH's should have been sympathied off of each other. ie, like the Kongos and Murasames.

 

[Aussie Digger]

I think that 12 frigates would be okay, providing that we could acquire 6 AWD's. That way 6 "surface action groups" comprising 2 frigates and a Destroyer and a Sub, could be "surge" deployed, at the least 4 of these groups and several independant ships could probably be surged in a time of crisis.

Despite Sean's arguments about cost effectiveness, you could argue that the ANZAC's and FFG's to date have failed to live up to the "effective" part of the equation due to their decidedly limited capabilities.

Only once since Vietnam has the RAN been called upon to employ a major weapon system in combat, ie: the Mk 45 5 inch gun on HMAS ANZAC in GW2. However this says more about the limitations of the platforms themselves, with regards to their weapons fitout's, rather than an opportunity to "use" said weapons.

RAN frigates have been operationally deployed in the Gulf ever since 1990 and could have been used any number of times if appropriately armed. Arguing that their weapons fitouts be even further reduced in the name of "cost effectiveness" is absolutely ridiculous...

The most predominant role RAN warships have conducted operationally since Vietnam, is low level patrol and maritime interception duties. Something a patrol boat could realistically achieve...

 

[gf0012-aust]

........... Only once since Vietnam has the RAN been called upon to employ a major weapon system in combat, ie: the Mk 45 5 inch gun on HMAS ANZAC in GW2. However this says more about the limitations of the platforms themselves, with regards to their weapons fitout's, rather than an opportunity to "use" said weapons.

RAN frigates have been operationally deployed in the Gulf ever since 1990 and could have been used any number of times if appropriately armed. Arguing that their weapons fitouts be even further reduced in the name of "cost effectiveness" is absolutely ridiculous...

The most predominant role RAN warships have conducted operationally since Vietnam, is low level patrol and maritime interception duties. Something a patrol boat could realistically achieve...

The most highly regarded RAN asset in Iraq has been the Kanimbla - thats because it's been used as management asset, command and control, special forces respository, CDT parking bay etc... the pointy ships had limited utility as their defensive systems were inadequate at the time.

having skimmers that can only be protected by other elements of an action group is not smart thinking. there has to be a degree of autonomy and capability. The pre-upgr Adelaide/OHP's and pre-upgr ANZACs are a classic example of cost inefficiency for cost and requirement.

 

[seantheaussie]

Sean, your argument that "anyone who was strong enough to consider invading australia could sink 3 AWD's" is a 'non sequitur'. Any such notional enemy could also sink 3 Arleigh Burkes and could also shoot down any number of fighters we could realistically acquire...

I believe 6 billion dollars worth of aircraft are harder to kill $ more dangerous than 3 AWDs. If so there is a small point at which spending the money on JSFs would deter an enemy whilst AWDs would not.

Cost effectiveness? The JSF program is costing $15 billion, for "up to" 100 aircraft. SEA 4000 is costing $6 billion for 3 ships and associated costs. No amount of fighters (plus the necessary A2A refuellers) can ever provide the persistence that a large warship can.

True but I prefer to buy DOA combat effect rather than persistance

DOA unfortunately encompasses far more than a large scale invasion of Australia. In such an event more submarines would be more useful than either fighters OR surface ships in attacking the numerous transport/amphibious ships such an invasion would require.

If the subs were in the right place. The speed of aircraft means they WILL be in the right place.Aircraft are also better at gaining air superiority

ASuW is anti-surface warfare and is a primary capability of any warship... Have you heard of "5 inch friday" from Iraq in 2003? Where HMAS ANZAC was called upon to sit less than 4 kays off the Iraqi coast and pound Iraqi defences (firing over 90 munitions in the process) constantly over a 24 hour period in direct support of the British Royal Marine Commando's?

Are you really advocating we put 2billion dollar ships 4km off the enemy coast?If you need NGS put the guns on a cheap ship with small manpower that you can afford to send into mine infested water within range of just about every enemy weapon. As NGS & patrol ship have two common denominators of low price & low manpower perhaps they should be joined.

GF didn't point out that the RAN operates "the same ships" with less men. He pointed out that the RAN intends to operate a ship "of the same capability as the Arleigh Burke" with less manning requirements.

GF can you please clarify this

The RAN has received a proposal from Gibbs and Cox as part of the AWD tender process for a "scaled down" version of the Arleigh Burke (the International Frigate design). This ship will carry approximately the same warload as the AB and operate roughly the same systems, but will have a significantly reduced manning level and a significantly smaller overall size compared to AB. Whilst the initial platform cost might exceed that of a mature production run AB, the TLS costs are bound to be significantly cheaper, otherwise why would the RAN be bothering?

The Australian defence force always aims for the perfect capability at an uncertain price rather than gets a defined capability at a certain price.

You'd prefer to sell the ANZAC's as well? Do you therefore advocate that Australia shouldn't have a Navy at all? That makes a LOT of sense for a Country with the greatest length of coastline in the WORLD and one so heavily dependant on it's sea lines of communication (for trade etc)...

I was giving my opinion of the ANZACs capabilities which you asked for. You would have to prise the RAN's submarine, antisubmarine, antimine(Howard is doing this) & patrol capabilities from my cold dead hands. I do not respect the cost effectiveness of the other current surface forces although I know we need a surface navy.

SupeIf you cut out the ANZAC Frigates that leaves us with five Frigates of the FFG class. Are you suggesting that five Frigates are enough to maintain a credible defence capability? What is your idea of the sort of ships and numbers the RAN should be provided with?

I don't know the cost of surface forces & I refuse to have a dream budget with my dream navy which apparently makes me unique

 

[nz enthusiast]

Well if you can get the personal, why don't you get an aircraft carrier. It will send out a clear message 'don't mess'.

 

[gf0012-aust]

GF can you please clarify this

GF didn't point out that the RAN operates "the same ships" with less men. He pointed out that the RAN intends to operate a ship "of the same capability as the Arleigh Burke" with less manning requirements.

my original quote:

The Kongos or their fittings aren't for sale. The Kongos are typically used as an example of a superior Burke with lower manning levels. The USN and the RAN are currently working together on reduced crew models for the USN. They're actually takling our lead on this.

Aussie Digger's actually on the mark as to what I meant.

Well if you can get the personal, why don't you get an aircraft carrier. It will send out a clear message 'don't mess'.

we're getting "pretend aircraft carriers". there are a few blokes in the RAN starting to learn spanish.

 

[Aussie Digger]

I believe 6 billion dollars worth of aircraft are harder to kill $ more dangerous than 3 AWDs. If so there is a small point at which spending the money on JSFs would deter an enemy whilst AWDs would not.

If the subs were in the right place. The speed of aircraft means they WILL be in the right place.Aircraft are also better at gaining air superiority


Are you really advocating we put 2billion dollar ships 4km off the enemy coast?If you need NGS put the guns on a cheap ship with small manpower that you can afford to send into mine infested water within range of just about every enemy weapon. As NGS & patrol ship have two common denominators of low price & low manpower perhaps they should be joined.


The Australian defence force always aims for the perfect capability at an uncertain price rather than gets a defined capability at a certain price.

I was giving my opinion of the ANZACs capabilities which you asked for. You would have to prise the RAN's submarine, antisubmarine, antimine(Howard is doing this) & patrol capabilities from my cold dead hands. I do not respect the cost effectiveness of the other current surface forces although I know we need a surface navy.

As to the potential for the AWD's to be destroyed or even damaged as opposed to fighter aircraft, how many warships have been sunk (or even significantly damaged) as a direct result of enemy action since WW2? Bugger all. How many fighters have been shot down or damaged significantly enough to render them useless in the same time period? Heaps.

I know that comparison is simplistic, but I think it does illustrate to some degree that warships simply aren't as vulnerable as a lot of people think. The AWD's will be one of the most survivable warships ever built. The RAN intends to operate them in NGS roles, though probably not 4k's off the coast. That was done soley (in mine infested waters) due to the limitations of the weapon systems employed on the warship...

In addition, no matter how cheap the ship is, the RAN will never be able to afford the attrition rate your "cheap ship" with a big gun plan would cause... How could that possibly be cost-effective? Not to mention the mutiny you'd cause trying to get RAN sailors to risk their lives in this manner...

The positioning of subs OR fighters is simply an ISR and planning issue. The subs and warships can also operate at a far greater distance from Australia than even A2A supported fighters, which becomes a VERY significant issue should foreign country basing rights be a problem.

Unless of course, you want to try and defend Australia by letting the enemy get close enough to us that the short range fighters we will buy can reach them. My preference of course is to take the fight to any potential enemy, rather than sit back behind "Fortress Australia". Warships let you do that without the political concerns of our fighters being based in a foreign country...

The ADF has possibly been to over-ambitious capability wise in the past, though there are signs this is lessening somewhat nowadays. (M1A1 purchase for instance. Though of course there were still critics of the purchase of the "old" tech in the M1A1...)

The cost effectiveness of the FFG upgrade isn't too bad though. For $1 Billion we will be getting 4 of the most capable and survivable frigates in the world. HMAS Sydney has completed it's upgrade and is undergoing sea trials at present with planned handover to the RAN in September 05. I believe someone around here mentioned problems with the FFG UP, bt nothing official has been released about it. I'd be interested if someone could provide some info on this?

 

[seantheaussie]

In addition, no matter how cheap the ship is, the RAN will never be able to afford the attrition rate your "cheap ship" with a big gun plan would cause... How could that possibly be cost-effective? Not to mention the mutiny you'd cause trying to get RAN sailors to risk their lives in this manner...

It would still be far safer than the infantry. As mines are the biggest danger how could AEGIS NGS possibly compare in cost effectiveness with no advantage against mines over cheap low manned ship.
Will others please state their preferences for NGS AEGIS V's ESSM V's low cost.

The positioning of subs OR fighters is simply an ISR and planning issue.

I can reposition fighters an order of magnitude faster than you can reposition subs. We will make ISR mistakes just like everyone else.

Unless of course, you want to try and defend Australia by letting the enemy get close enough to us that the short range fighters we will buy can reach them. My preference of course is to take the fight to any potential enemy, rather than sit back behind "Fortress Australia". Warships let you do that without the political concerns of our fighters being based in a foreign country....

I prefer to mass my forces. I would never send my navy out to combat the invasion fleet without harpoons raining from above(I think I've got a fair point here).

gf0012-aust have you ever, in any thread, on any board, in the history of mankind said RAN crews the same ships with smaller crews than USN? C'mon I'm dying here.

In case anyone cares for every $3 I spent on subs I would spend $2 on frigates/destroyers & $1 on amphibious/command ships. What are your ratios?