Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[Sideline]

I Understand that you would love to see BAE Williamstown flattened and rebuilt.
BUT Look at ASC Osborne. now look at the BAE site on a map, there is no room to expand in Melbourne

The ASC Osborne site has 5-7 times the growth space, it's still close to the east coast and
Adelaide property prices are 70% of Melbourne prices making it easier to attract and keep staff

 

[vonnoobie]

would love to see bae williamstown flattened and rebuilt. Was a great yard back in the day, hopefully they Can do some major shipbuilding in that location in the future. Would be the Perfect size yard to build opvs and other smaller vessels etc, let wa focus on the proposed big ships.

Nope. Historical site and buildings so that won't ever happen. As it is we already have such capability to build smaller ships already with all the ship builders in Henderson WA so be a waste of funds.

The two best things we can do is continue to expand Osborne and build a large dry dock in Henderson. Anything more then that is throwing away money for no benefit worse yet means spreading work so far between 3 different sites that they all operate below efficiency driving up costs ....

 

[Reptilia]

Nope. Historical site and buildings so that won't ever happen. As it is we already have such capability to build smaller ships already with all the ship builders in Henderson WA so be a waste of funds.

The two best things we can do is continue to expand Osborne and build a large dry dock in Henderson. Anything more then that is throwing away money for no benefit worse yet means spreading work so far between 3 different sites that they all operate below efficiency driving up costs ....

is this the currentshipbuilding plan?

Austal Henderson - 8x Cape class, potentially followed by 18x LMVs , potentially followed by USVs
Civmec Henderson - 10x Arafura class, potentially followed by 8x MCM, potentially followed by 2x JSS
BAE South Osborne - 2x Arafura class, followed by 9x Hunter class, potentially followed by future destroyer
… North Osborne - 8x Future Submarines, …

 

[spoz]

BAE are not involved in the OPV. There is also the Young Endeavour replacement, Port Macquarie; and potentially an Ocean Protector replacement and a Salvage and a repair ship as yet unapproved

 

[Stampede]

BAE are not involved in the OPV. There is also the Young Endeavour replacement, Port Macquarie; and potentially an Ocean Protector replacement and a Salvage and a repair ship as yet unapproved

Add to the list a lot of the smaller stuff.
Army / Navy landing craft / connectors and other littoral vessels both big and small.
A lot of work for someone.


Cheers S

 

[TScott]

I Understand that you would love to see BAE Williamstown flattened and rebuilt.
BUT Look at ASC Osborne. now look at the BAE site on a map, there is no room to expand in Melbourne

The ASC Osborne site has 5-7 times the growth space, it's still close to the east coast and
Adelaide property prices are 70% of Melbourne prices making it easier to attract and keep staff

I'm not sure Adelaide over Melbourne is a selling point for attracting and keeping top level staff. Regardless of property prices.

 

[Massive]

My view is that if you want more MFUs, you should crank out Hunters as quickly as possible. They are going to be beasts by all accounts and we should produce as many of them as possible as efficiently as possible.

I'd be interested to understand if there is value in skipping the AWD upgrade, building additional Hunters and retiring the AWDs.

My understanding is that the upgrade will be both expensive and extended, and that the AWDs are already heavily space constrained.

Regards,

Massive

 

[Going Boeing]

I'd be interested to understand if there is value in skipping the AWD upgrade, building additional Hunters and retiring the AWDs.

My understanding is that the upgrade will be both expensive and extended, and that the AWDs are already heavily space constrained.

Regards,

Massive

There’s good logic in what you said, the main issue is whether they are going to fit enough VLS tubes in the Hunters to be able to replace the AWD’s in the Air Defence role - certainly, from the information available in the public domain, the combat system and sensors are suitable for the role.

Continuing to operate the AWD’s with the current Baseline 7 AEGIS system would still be very useful except for the BMD capability so, the replacement AEGIS systems could be diverted to the Hunters with the new upgraded SPY Radar order being cancelled.

 

[Reptilia]

I'd be interested to understand if there is value in skipping the AWD upgrade, building additional Hunters and retiring the AWDs.

My understanding is that the upgrade will be both expensive and extended, and that the AWDs are already heavily space constrained.

Regards,

Massive

sounds like a good idea but the current government talked about potentially building 3 more hobarts. That’s from both albanese and O’Connor.
I’m with you though, more hunters seems logical.

 

[Morgo]

There’s good logic in what you said, the main issue is whether they are going to fit enough VLS tubes in the Hunters to be able to replace the AWD’s in the Air Defence role - certainly, from the information available in the public domain, the combat system and sensors are suitable for the role.

Continuing to operate the AWD’s with the current Baseline 7 AEGIS system would still be very useful except for the BMD capability so, the replacement AEGIS systems could be diverted to the Hunters with the new upgraded SPY Radar order being cancelled.

My earlier thoughts on this matter:

It's utter stupidity.

If you look at the RN design it looks like there is room to replace the 2 x 24 Sea Ceptor cells (in front of the Mk 41 and between the funnel and the mission bay) with 2 x 24 Mk 41, giving you a total of 72 cells:

https://navalpost.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Type-26-CITY-CLASS-B-1024x461.jpg

Not too shabby.

Not enough for you? Really want to build something to complement / replace the Hobarts? Then build a variant that gets rid of the mission bay and replaces it with VLS. It looks like there's enough real estate there to fit a huge number of cells if you were so inclined. On paper, in this space (20m x 15m) you could fit 2 x 61 cell arrays (8.7m x 6.3m) and create a 100+ cell monster. This would give you broadly the same layout as an AB anyway in an otherwise common hull with a world class sub hunter.

I know that none of this considers impact on weight / stability / penetration / cost / speed / range. My point isn't that any of the above is what's going to happen (it's almost certainly not, and who knows anyway per Ngati's note above), but the idea that you would need to scrap the current cutting edge design which is about to go into production and start from scratch / go for a legacy design because you need more cells is just dumb. There looks to be plenty of flexibility in the design if that's what you want.

In short - it looks like there is heaps of room for VLS if you sacrifice the mission bay.

So I think this is a great idea.

More Hunters with more cells more quickly please.

 

[Reptilia]

My earlier thoughts on this matter:



In short - it looks like there is heaps of room for VLS if you sacrifice the mission bay.

So I think this is a great idea.

More Hunters with more cells more quickly please.

The Type 26 frigate mission bay. Part 1 – design and development | Navy Lookout

www.navylookout.com

‘The size of Type 26 offers the potential for its use as the basis of the design for future combatants. An air defence or anti-ballistic missile variant could perhaps replace the mission bay with additional vertical launch cells. The design features some spare electrical generation capacity but should it be insufficient for the needs of future directed energy weapons (DEW), then it is possible that extra power generation modules could be installed in the mission bay. There are very few disadvantages to having a large spare space in the superstructure of a warship and the mission bay is likely to prove very useful in service and embark equipment that has not even been imagined yet. In the next article, we will examine some of the potential configurations and types of payloads that might be carried.’


^
some of the comments below suggest 32 to 64 extra cells down the middle of the mission bay with rhib launchers either side.

 

[Morgo]

The Type 26 frigate mission bay. Part 1 – design and development | Navy Lookout

www.navylookout.com

‘The size of Type 26 offers the potential for its use as the basis of the design for future combatants. An air defence or anti-ballistic missile variant could perhaps replace the mission bay with additional vertical launch cells. The design features some spare electrical generation capacity but should it be insufficient for the needs of future directed energy weapons (DEW), then it is possible that extra power generation modules could be installed in the mission bay. There are very few disadvantages to having a large spare space in the superstructure of a warship and the mission bay is likely to prove very useful in service and embark equipment that has not even been imagined yet. In the next article, we will examine some of the potential configurations and types of payloads that might be carried.’


^
some of the comments below suggest 32 to 64 extra cells down the middle of the mission bay with rhib launchers either side.

Best to just get the bloody baseline version into production before any tinkering though!

 

[oldsig127]

I'm not sure Adelaide over Melbourne is a selling point for attracting and keeping top level staff. Regardless of property prices.

It certainly would be if they wanted to work in an established yard building leading edge vessels as you'd expect of high level staff. The likelihood that Williamstown being anything other than a feeder or minor vessels yard any longer seems far fetched given the competing political, commercial, real estate, environmental and nimbyism rife in Melbourne...or anywhere near major city waterfronts.

Being able to look over the fence on your way to the footy is not a reason

oldsig

 

[Reptilia]

We will need another major yard eventually on the east coast. Who knows when or where…

Williamstown might only be a small site but it could be a feeder yard or build all sorts of small structures (eg masts) and smaller vessels (eg usvs). Forgacs built quite a few awd blocks In newcastle with no real issues. not Saying williamstown should build gigantic blocks given the new facilities at Osborne but there is alot of stuff they could build over many classes of ship.

 

[Going Boeing]

The Type 26 frigate mission bay. Part 1 – design and development | Navy Lookout

www.navylookout.com

‘The size of Type 26 offers the potential for its use as the basis of the design for future combatants. An air defence or anti-ballistic missile variant could perhaps replace the mission bay with additional vertical launch cells. The design features some spare electrical generation capacity but should it be insufficient for the needs of future directed energy weapons (DEW), then it is possible that extra power generation modules could be installed in the mission bay. There are very few disadvantages to having a large spare space in the superstructure of a warship and the mission bay is likely to prove very useful in service and embark equipment that has not even been imagined yet. In the next article, we will examine some of the potential configurations and types of payloads that might be carried.’
Some of the comments below suggest 32 to 64 extra cells down the middle of the mission bay with rhib launchers either side.

One thing that stood out when reading that article is the weight of the Mission Bay Handling system and its supporting structure. My understanding is that elevated weight is the major problem that the Hunter designers are grappling with as the CEAFAR AESA radar has its electronics mounted directly on the back of the antennas which are mounted very high for obvious reasons and results in a heavy main mast. The SPY radar has its electronics positioned lower in the AWD’s with wave guides connecting up to the antennas. With a number of other heavy items mounted high (such as secondary guns, hanger winch for helicopter engine changes, CIWS systems, etc) you get an idea of the design problems. The British Type 26’s are planned to have some air defence missiles at the forward end of the mission bay but models of the Hunter class don’t show any in this location, possibly deleted because of excessive weight in such an elevated position had to go to offset the weight of the mast.

This indicates that the only way to increase the missile load on the Hunters would be with Mk57 VLS mounted along the periphery of the vessels in a much lower position - potentially along the sides of the flight deck as on the Zumwalt class. The fact that the stern of the Hunter class doesn’t taper in makes this more viable.
Mk57 VLS

As has been said before, we’ll have to wait and see what the experts do with the design.

 

[Reptilia]

The RNs top view type 26.

@Reptilia Source please. You've been here long enough to know the rules.

Ngatimozart.

 

[oldsig127]

The RNs top view type 26.View attachment 49373

Very nice graphic, but what?

Need some reason you posted it, of comment on what, if anything, new it reveals

oldsi

 

[Reptilia]

Very nice graphic, but what?

Need some reason you posted it, of comment on what, if anything, new it reveals

oldsi

Just wondering why we can’t add another 8 cell VLS above the mission bay. I thought they had shorter canister lengths available, the 5.3m over the bows 7.9m

 

[alexsa]

Just wondering why we can’t add another 8 cell VLS above the mission bay. I thought they had shorter canister lengths available, the 5.3m over the bows 7.9m

I have warned folk about this before .... you simply cannot just add systems and cells. These thing take up space, add weight and impact the stability and stress on the hull. I will red warning anybody who continues down the path unless they can justify the design change otherwise it is pointless spit balling. A few things to consider:

1. The mission bay adds the ability of operating USV's and UUV's from the vessel. These would have the potential to increase the vessels search footprint in the ASW role. This is highly desirable.

2. We do not know how many cells will be on the final design. We do know it will grow in weight and has capabilities not seen in the UK T26.

3. Adding cells above the CoG may have a significant impact on stability. Asking questions such as '" why done we add cells above the mission bay" are pointless unless you have access to the design and its stability characteristics.

Suggest we wait for the final design sign off.

alexsa

 

[alexsa]

One thing that stood out when reading that article is the weight of the Mission Bay Handling system and its supporting structure. My understanding is that elevated weight is the major problem that the Hunter designers are grappling with as the CEAFAR AESA radar has its electronics mounted directly on the back of the antennas which are mounted very high for obvious reasons and results in a heavy main mast. The SPY radar has its electronics positioned lower in the AWD’s with wave guides connecting up to the antennas. With a number of other heavy items mounted high (such as secondary guns, hanger winch for helicopter engine changes, CIWS systems, etc) you get an idea of the design problems. The British Type 26’s are planned to have some air defence missiles at the forward end of the mission bay but models of the Hunter class don’t show any in this location, possibly deleted because of excessive weight in such an elevated position had to go to offset the weight of the mast.

This indicates that the only way to increase the missile load on the Hunters would be with Mk57 VLS mounted along the periphery of the vessels in a much lower position - potentially along the sides of the flight deck as on the Zumwalt class. The fact that the stern of the Hunter class doesn’t taper in makes this more viable.
Mk57 VLS

As has been said before, we’ll have to wait and see what the experts do with the design.

Much of the computing power and control of the radar certainly mounted lower in the hull but as to the comment about wave guides. Just remind me. why would they have wave guides Wave guides when the TR units are an integral part of the actual mast mounted antenna?