Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[John Newman]

Sydney was actually commissioned able to operate the MH-60R, the other 2 needed modifications to do so. The first 2 would have been for the S-70B Seahawk which Spain uses.

Yes I think that’s correct, Sydney was able to be modified before delivery, the first two after delivery.

But my point still stands, a change in helicopter/weapons required a change in design, in the case of the Hobart class the MH-60R were ordered about 3-4 years after the ship design was ordered.

That’s the thing, selecting a ‘reference’ design that will meet your own requirements, require modification, it takes time and money.

Hence why the extra time required to turn the UK T26 class design into the Australian Hunter class.

 

[ASSAIL]

Exercise Kakadu has provided a few pics from Darwin Harbour.
I used to be able to go to the wharf and take some pics but a bit difficult from the Adelaide Hills.

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=pfbid04grBt1XtJYZv9ZnwVGmfuTDg6uAxpG47pR6doT3eQZXVEQiw7hSD8twdaT6azofKl&id=100064719514611

 

[Gooey]

Hello Ladies and Gents whom may know,

If RNZN were to get Hunter Class (yes, small word with big meaning) could NZ Industry be brought into the production cycle at this relatively late stage?

I ask partly because NZ screwed the ANZAC build program to their industries benefit by saying 2 + 2 options but I understand getting production 'quotas' for 4 boats. Also, because it would arguably be the best FFG for the Navy ... if (.... again!) resources suddenly became available in the Land of the Long White Cloud/Shaky Isles.

 

[John Fedup]

Hello Ladies and Gents whom may know,

If RNZN were to get Hunter Class (yes, small word with big meaning) could NZ Industry be brought into the production cycle at this relatively late stage?

I ask partly because NZ screwed the ANZAC build program to their industries benefit by saying 2 + 2 options but I understand getting production 'quotas' for 4 boats. Also, because it would arguably be the best FFG for the Navy ... if (.... again!) resources suddenly became available in the Land of the Long White Cloud/Shaky Isles.

I would say doubtful wrt to any participation. The biggest reason is cost for any of the T26 variants. If some future NZ defence concerned government appreciates that a state of the art ASW frigate is important then just asking one of the nations building T26s to add additional ships to their build programs makes sense. The CSC will have a CMS that the RNZN is familiar with and our program won’t commence until 2026 so perhaps there is a limited opportunity for NZ suppliers. More likely than not, NZ will opt for a less capable frigate, T31/32 or maybe the USN’s new frigate.

 

[Stampede]

A article today on the ABC with regards to the Attack Class

Leaked document sheds light on cancellation of French subs contract

A leaked confidential document gives an insider's perspective on how the Morrison government went about cancelling the French submarine contract, highlighting how officials running the contract were kept in the dark.

www.abc.net.au

Is it new news or not I'm not sure.

French SSN anyone!


Regards S

 

[Aardvark144]

Just continuing with the same ABC and Journo twisting the knife into the previous Government again.

 

[Richo99]

Just continuing with the same ABC and Journo twisting the knife into the previous Government again.

Or alternatively..
Smoke and fire. I wouldn't discard this reports legitimacy just yet.
Regardless, this is political and not permitted on this forum

 

[alexsa]

Or alternatively..
Smoke and fire. I wouldn't discard this reports legitimacy just yet.
Regardless, this is political and not permitted on this forum

True but, avoiding the politics, there was a great deal of agitation on the local industry input side with suggestions that the Naval group were ...resistant. Industry input was a hot political consideration as evident in Senate Estimates.

At the end of the day an SSN fits Australia's needs but it was never previoulsy an option before hence large SSG boats needing very long legs and low indescretion ratios such as the Collins and the Attack were the front runners in each programme. IMHO, and irrespective of the macenations of governments and oppositions, the SSN option was a good call.

 

[spoz]

Sydney was actually commissioned able to operate the MH-60R, the other 2 needed modifications to do so. The first 2 would have been for the S-70B Seahawk which Spain uses.

And which we used at the time the ships were ordered.

The air weapons magazines will also require stowages for Hellfire; I don’t think the RN uses that, at least not in frigates (Apache probably does from the CVs). Plus there are things like Hawklink, which ties the aircraft into the ship’s combat system, more than say Link 16 does; and the mission planning system and the SHOL system are likely to be different, many things.

 

[hauritz]

For those interested in the Navantia proposal for three new Hobarts.

Navantia ofrece otros tres destructores a Australia antes de 2030

Navantia ha ofrecido a la Royal Australian Navy construir otros tres destructores clase Hobart en ocho años.

www.defensa.com

The proposal is to use the Hobart as the baseline with improved anti-aircraft and anti-submarine capabilities.

Navantia present three options.

1. Entirely built in Spain
2. Shared construction with Australia.
3. Entirely built in Australia

 

[Scott Elaurant]

True but, avoiding the politics, there was a great deal of agitation on the local industry input side with suggestions that the Naval group were ...resistant. Industry input was a hot political consideration as evident in Senate Estimates.

At the end of the day an SSN fits Australia's needs but it was never previously an option before hence large SSG boats needing very long legs and low indiscretion ratios such as the Collins and the Attack were the front runners in each programme. IMHO, and irrespective of the machinations of governments and oppositions, the SSN option was a good call.

Technically there has been an understanding that SSNs would better suit the RAN's needs than an SSK for a long time. It is not only a question of the possibility of action in the South China Sea. Consider the areas of Australia's maritime responsibility and interests that they might need to patrol in the Indian, Southern and South Pacific Oceans. The distances are vast. An SSN makes considerable sense.

There have been detailed engineering studies of the feasibility of an RAN/RN joint SSN build projet dating back at least 10 years. This University College London (UCL) Report is from 2012 work. Interestingly, UCL looked at the supply chain for the UK's Astute Class SSNs and noted that construction of an RN SSN was both technically feasible and not necessarily more expensive than developing a newly designed long distance SSK from scratch. This assumes that a partner such as USA, UK or France would supply the SSN Reactors.

COULD AUSTRALIA'S FUTURE SUBMARINES BE NUCLEAR-POWERED?

Developing a nuclear-powered submarine may present no greater challenge for Australia than developing its own uniquely modified conventional submarine, according to a green paper published today by University College London. Developed by UCL’s International Energy Policy Institute in Adelaide...

issuu.com

This 2013 paper by Reynolds looks at the political and approval issues involved in an Australian SSN. It identifies consideration of RAN SSNs dating back to the 1980s and concludes that an alliance with the UK or France to deliver an SSN is most likely, given political, strategy and legal (NNPT) constraints.

An Astute Choice Anglo-Australian Cooperation on Nuclear Submarines in Historical Perspective on JSTOR

Wayne Reynolds, An Astute Choice, Security Challenges, Vol. 9, No. 4 (2013), pp. 21-44

www.jstor.org

.

 

[Lolcake]

For those interested in the Navantia proposal for three new Hobarts.

Navantia ofrece otros tres destructores a Australia antes de 2030

Navantia ha ofrecido a la Royal Australian Navy construir otros tres destructores clase Hobart en ocho años.

www.defensa.com

The proposal is to use the Hobart as the baseline with improved anti-aircraft and anti-submarine capabilities.

Navantia present three options.

1. Entirely built in Spain
2. Shared construction with Australia.
3. Entirely built in Australia

Wondering if this will have the spy 6 vs 7

 

[Systems Adict]

The air weapons magazines will also require stowage's for Hellfire; I don’t think the RN uses that, at least not in frigates (Apache probably does from the CVs).

While I appreciate that Hellfire's are 'Air Weapons' for the Apache, I don't believe that the T26 design is capable of supporting them at this time. I'm sure that there'd be something around the Hazard Class / SHIPCAT for the weapon, never mind trying to integrate the rounds into any racking design.

From memory, I'm sure that T26 is designed around Wildcat, Merlin & Chinook helo's. Other Choppty-hopters from Allies could probably land to do a splash-n-dash, but apart from them maybe changing flight crew, or supplying belted ammo for guns, I don't see it tying in within RN CONOPS

 

[spoz]

Thanks, what I thought. But the Hunters do, it is the ASM used on MH60R, so the reference ship design has to be modified to accomodate them. That will probably require, for example, a gas eflux system for the air weapons magazine to accomodate an inadvertent rocket motor ignition. T26 may well have that given Wildcat can carry Sea Venom and Martlet, but the requirements may well not be the same. Plus Hellfire comes in a particular type of box, commonly called a coffin, and stowing them has to be appropriately designed in. There may well be other issues, things like RFI issues would need to be considered, etc.

For the aircraft, power, water, air and data requirements might well be different, spares and the requirement for their stowage certainly will be, and equipment and space, including overhead, for maintenance probably will be. Even between 70B and 60R the changes that had to be made to the Hobarts and ANZACs were significant; and T26 is designed around 2 helos totally unlike anything in RAN service.

 

[Systems Adict]

Thanks, what I thought. But the Hunters do, it is the ASM used on MH60R, so the reference ship design has to be modified to accommodate them. That will probably require, for example, a gas eflux system for the air weapons magazine to accommodate an inadvertent rocket motor ignition. T26 may well have that given Wildcat can carry Sea Venom and Martlet, but the requirements may well not be the same. Plus Hellfire comes in a particular type of box, commonly called a coffin, and stowing them has to be appropriately designed in.

Most large weapon magazines are designed with a 'blow-off plate'. With Air Weapons Hazard class / SHIP CAT, the munitions have a tendency for 'sympathetic detonation' (i.e. if x1 goes off, they will all generally go off from the results of fragmentation from an explosive event happening).

There is quite a bit of specialism involved in the calculating size / shape of each plate for each magazine, as it is dependent on numerous factors that have to be discussed / agreed then entered into a specialist algorithm to get the end result (in the form of the size of the plate).

 

[StingrayOZ]

For those interested in the Navantia proposal for three new Hobarts.

Navantia ofrece otros tres destructores a Australia antes de 2030

Navantia ha ofrecido a la Royal Australian Navy construir otros tres destructores clase Hobart en ocho años.

www.defensa.com

The most important aspect of this project and the key element determining viability, would be the naming of the ships.
I am still working out how they will get the other 3 capital city names.

Melbourne is free
Perth is the last Anzac ship.
Adelaide is a LHD.

Maybe Melbourne, Warramunga and Arunta? Presuming these two Anzacs come out of service. All have been used on destroyers of note before. Or do they ditch Melbourne for another tribal name. Decisions, decisions people.

But then how does the future hunters naming scheme go.

 

[Volkodav]

Swordsman and Tasmania. The river names were originally destroyers too.

 

[Milne Bay]

Voyager, Vampire and Vendetta would not be a bad choice
MB

 

[Redlands18]

The most important aspect of this project and the key element determining viability, would be the naming of the ships.
I am still working out how they will get the other 3 capital city names.

Melbourne is free
Perth is the last Anzac ship.
Adelaide is a LHD.

Maybe Melbourne, Warramunga and Arunta? Presuming these two Anzacs come out of service. All have been used on destroyers of note before. Or do they ditch Melbourne for another tribal name. Decisions, decisions people.

But then how does the future hunters naming scheme go.

Ahhh Darwin is a capital city for 250,000 Australians. I think if they went Melbourne Class, it would be.
Melbourne
Darwin
Newcastle or Fremantle

Swordsman and Tasmania. The river names were originally destroyers too.

Tasmania is all but taken with the 3rd Hunter named Tasman, and there appears to be a unwritten rule about naming ships after states. With the DD Tasmania being the only time and that was in 1919 but none in the 103 years since.

 

[Antipode]

The most important aspect of this project and the key element determining viability, would be the naming of the ships.
I am still working out how they will get the other 3 capital city names.

Melbourne is free
Perth is the last Anzac ship.
Adelaide is a LHD.

Maybe Melbourne, Warramunga and Arunta? Presuming these two Anzacs come out of service. All have been used on destroyers of note before. Or do they ditch Melbourne for another tribal name. Decisions, decisions people.

But then how does the future hunters naming scheme go.

Warramunga sounds scary enough!

On less crucial matters, I wonder if those warships would be able to pad Chinook helos as the Hunter class will. Would it be worth the cost/risk of redesign?

Salud