Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[Wombat000]

Dunno.
torpedo hits I appreciate are catastrophic, but just examples of what comes to mind….

im thinking of USS Stark.
USS Cole.
RN ships recovered following hits in the Falklands, or allowing crews time to evacuate before detonations.
Recent USN ship collisions.
USN submarine recovered following horrendous damage in terrain strike.

Amazing results from courageous, capable and degraded remaining crews.

 

[Reptilia]

Lurrsen explanation on why the OPV90 was a better fit for RAN than K130 was interesting, this is useful I think when a designer is talking about the difference between two of their own products. Many of the corvettes are made for quieter waters than the Pacific/Indian ocean. It may be that normal corvettes are not suitable and a up armed OPV may be more suitable for the waters it operates. While a ship may or may not see combat, a ship will definitely see ocean. If it is not suitable for the ocean, it doesn't matter how more combat built it is.

In Australia's case, it won't be dealing with low range threats, like terrorists. The threats are big peers. In that context, lots of little compartments may not matter when there is 500kg warhead travelling a mach 2 hitting your corvette, there is no staying in the fight and damage control in that situation, its all or nothing.

The OPV90 is still an up armed OPV, not a frigate. Lurrsen designs and makes frigates, they are larger and differently configured, with more redundancy, generation, stores, more compartments, etc. But all that takes space, costs more, takes longer to build, more crew etc. The OPV90 has ~70% commonality with the OPV's, so in terms of risk and effort, that is a lot less than Type 31, Navantia destroyers and corvettes. Nothing against them, but its too late.

However it may be useful to have a few up armed OPV's, while the Hobarts are all out of the water, the Anzacs are out of the water, Collins is out of the water, and the RAN has very little surface combat ship capability. While we wait for Hunters. While we wait for SSNs. While China invades Taiwan, while war in Europe rages. Our biggest issue is one of our own creation with block obsolesce and block upgrades across the whole fleet.

They wouldn't be able to replace either the Hobarts or the Anzacs or the Hunters, but it would be some capability, we could afford it, and crew it. We would have some Anzacs, so they can still do the long range heavy stuff.

If we wanted to dispose of them, some medium sized corvettes with low crewing needs, I imagine would be popular on the second hand market in SEA, Eastern Europe or elsewhere.

I don't think Australia has the luxury of looking for a perfect solution. Just less bad options.

I would love if my armchair, was a magical time travelling armchair, and we could go back to right so many wrongs. But unfortunately my armchair just goes forward in time, one second per second.

How come the MRF120 doesn’t get a shout? Too risky?
would love to have more info to compare with the C90.

 

[spoz]

No, what I am saying is use OPVs for what they are designed for, not for something they are not designed for. And that upgunning an OPV doesn’t make it into a competent combatant without also ensuring that the non sexy bits are taken care of; and even then, a bigger combatant is more survivable of the same hit than a smaller. And that, as observed above, god DC saves ships; or if that is not possible keeps the survivors alive to be rescued.

 

[swerve]

DC seems like a bit of a joke. A lot like submarine rescue capability. What is going to be left of a warship after a missile or torpedo hit?

HMS Glamorgan was hit by an Exocet off the Falklands in 1982. 14 dead, but the ship survived. She limped home (>12,500 km) after emergency repairs, was repaired & refitted, retired in 1986 & sold to Chile. Permanently decommissioned in 1998.

 

[ADMk2]

Lurrsen explanation on why the OPV90 was a better fit for RAN than K130 was interesting, this is useful I think when a designer is talking about the difference between two of their own products. Many of the corvettes are made for quieter waters than the Pacific/Indian ocean. It may be that normal corvettes are not suitable and a up armed OPV may be more suitable for the waters it operates. While a ship may or may not see combat, a ship will definitely see ocean. If it is not suitable for the ocean, it doesn't matter how more combat built it is.

In Australia's case, it won't be dealing with low range threats, like terrorists. The threats are big peers. In that context, lots of little compartments may not matter when there is 500kg warhead travelling a mach 2 hitting your corvette, there is no staying in the fight and damage control in that situation, its all or nothing.

The OPV90 is still an up armed OPV, not a frigate. Lurrsen designs and makes frigates, they are larger and differently configured, with more redundancy, generation, stores, more compartments, etc. But all that takes space, costs more, takes longer to build, more crew etc. The OPV90 has ~70% commonality with the OPV's, so in terms of risk and effort, that is a lot less than Type 31, Navantia destroyers and corvettes. Nothing against them, but its too late.

However it may be useful to have a few up armed OPV's, while the Hobarts are all out of the water, the Anzacs are out of the water, Collins is out of the water, and the RAN has very little surface combat ship capability. While we wait for Hunters. While we wait for SSNs. While China invades Taiwan, while war in Europe rages. Our biggest issue is one of our own creation with block obsolesce and block upgrades across the whole fleet.

They wouldn't be able to replace either the Hobarts or the Anzacs or the Hunters, but it would be some capability, we could afford it, and crew it. We would have some Anzacs, so they can still do the long range heavy stuff.

If we wanted to dispose of them, some medium sized corvettes with low crewing needs, I imagine would be popular on the second hand market in SEA, Eastern Europe or elsewhere.

I don't think Australia has the luxury of looking for a perfect solution. Just less bad options.

I would love if my armchair, was a magical time travelling armchair, and we could go back to right so many wrongs. But unfortunately my armchair just goes forward in time, one second per second.

Many of the problems would have been addressed if they listened to people on this board. Capping AWD at 3 ships was a disastrously bad decision for where we are now.

Even just one more would have significantly helped, but the original RAN plan (but not government’s ) of 6x would have been infinitely better.

Sigh…

 

[Todjaeger]

Dunno.
torpedo hits I appreciate are catastrophic, but just examples of what comes to mind….

im thinking of USS Stark.
USS Cole.
RN ships recovered following hits in the Falklands, or allowing crews time to evacuate before detonations.
Recent USN ship collisions.
USN submarine recovered following horrendous damage in terrain strike.

Amazing results from courageous, capable and degraded remaining crews.

Add to this list the INS Hanit, the Sa'ar 5-class corvette in the Israeli Navy which was hit by an AShM fired by Hezbollah in 2006. Four crew perished in the strike, but the vessel remained afloat and was able to make it to port for repairs under it's own power.

In short, a hit by something will not automatically sink/kill a vessel and with a good design and damage control, a damaged vessel might very well be able to withdraw for repairs on its own.

However, there are a few takeaways from the above. As mentioned, the design needs to be good, as in have features which can help reduce or minimize the impact of damage and/or aid in damage control. It is also better to avoid being hit, which in turn means having appropriate systems for self-defence and countermeasures.

Trying to cram all that is needed to be an effective, modern combatant into a comparatively small volume, low displacement hull is going to force a number of compromises. In the Australian context, this gets even worse because of the transit times and distances just to get around Australia, never mind to an operational area of interest to Australia. The space and displacement for fuel and victuals also needs to be included.

 

[Volkodav]

Peter Lürssen is hardly going to say the RAN would be better off with the Type 31.

The OPV designs, armed or not, are cheaper, simpler ships than the K130 and its derivatives, and I imagine, more profitable.

Convincing the government that it's a simple matter to switch to building an actual warship could missfire for them as government could then ask, well instead of K130 why not Mogami, why not KDX, what not Type 31?

Steel is cheap and air is free but multiple redundant firefighting systems aren't. Additional compartmentalization, fire fighting, flood mitigation is not cheap either.

Once you get beyond a certain level of capability it makes sence to improve survivability, once you do that, it makes sense to increase size, as that alone, given all else is the same, costs little and increases resilience.

With the original corvette concept that was replaced by the Armidales, we were talking near ANZAC levels of capability on a smaller, shorter range hull, acquired in greater numbers as a complement to ANZAC. Now Peter Lürssen is trying to convince us we need a slower less capable, less survivable, OPV derived design to replace the ANZACs.

There are now half a dozen Capes and six Arafuras replacing the Armidales, that is already a more capable constabulary force than previously maintained. Realistically we shouldn't be talking minor combatants at all.

The priority should be rebuilding major combatant numbers, i.e. the Hunters, and actual warfighing and complementary capabilities that have been run down over the last two decades, such as mine warfare, and as we have seen with the search for the MRH wreckage, hydrographic.

We need to wait for the review into surface fleet, but I do not feel armed OPVs is the answer. This would just repeat the mistakes of the past, a planned capability boost becomes a capability reduction. What I refer to is the FFGs becoming defacto DDGs, and the ANZACs, defacto FFGs, when both were originally intended as supplements and increases to fleet size and warfighting ability.

Now we seem to be taking about replacing patrol frigates, masquerading as FFGs, with OPVs masquerading as corvettes.

Build the Hunters as long over due FFG replacements, build a class of proper GP frigates to replace the ANZACs, Supplement the Hobart's with real destroyers, then build a real corvette to replace the Capes and Arafuras.

 

[Reptilia]

Peter Lürssen is hardly going to say the RAN would be better off with the Type 31.

The OPV designs, armed or not, are cheaper, simpler ships than the K130 and its derivatives, and I imagine, more profitable.

Convincing the government that it's a simple matter to switch to building an actual warship could missfire for them as government could then ask, well instead of K130 why not Mogami, why not KDX, what not Type 31?

Steel is cheap and air is free but multiple redundant firefighting systems aren't. Additional compartmentalization, fire fighting, flood mitigation is not cheap either.

Once you get beyond a certain level of capability it makes sence to improve survivability, once you do that, it makes sense to increase size, as that alone, given all else is the same, costs little and increases resilience.

With the original corvette concept that was replaced by the Armidales, we were talking near ANZAC levels of capability on a smaller, shorter range hull, acquired in greater numbers as a complement to ANZAC. Now Peter Lürssen is trying to convince us we need a slower less capable, less survivable, OPV derived design to replace the ANZACs.

There are now half a dozen Capes and six Arafuras replacing the Armidales, that is already a more capable constabulary force than previously maintained. Realistically we shouldn't be talking minor combatants at all.

The priority should be rebuilding major combatant numbers, i.e. the Hunters, and actual warfighing and complementary capabilities that have been run down over the last two decades, such as mine warfare, and as we have seen with the search for the MRH wreckage, hydrographic.

We need to wait for the review into surface fleet, but I do not feel armed OPVs is the answer. This would just repeat the mistakes of the past, a planned capability boost becomes a capability reduction. What I refer to is the FFGs becoming defacto DDGs, and the ANZACs, defacto FFGs, when both were originally intended as supplements and increases to fleet size and warfighting ability.

Now we seem to be taking about replacing patrol frigates, masquerading as FFGs, with OPVs masquerading as corvettes.

Build the Hunters as long over due FFG replacements, build a class of proper GP frigates to replace the ANZACs, Supplement the Hobart's with real destroyers, then build a real corvette to replace the Capes and Arafuras.

Arafura 7-12 cancelled for 6 or so C90, Agree, this would be a mistake. The Anzacs are still in service for sometime.
If Arafura 7-12 is no longer, any vessels other than opvs or corvettes that nvl group could put forward for the ran?
German built freeing up civmec…

opens up lots of options
Navantia, more Hobarts or follow on destroyer, Alfa 3000s, JSS, also apart of FSSS(RN replenishment).
Babcock, Arrowheads(140 and paper 120), nz anzac replacement?
Mitsubishi, Mogamis(they also have a stretched destroyer (80cells) and shorter opv/corvette design)
Hyundai, kddx, chungnam ffx, cvx (1/2/3) carrier
Hanwha, kddxs, also follow on ffx III
TKMS, new gen Meko designs
BMT, Venator, Caimen, Aegir
BAE, maintenance hall, second line for hunters or Hobart replacement, type 83?. Could free up currrent Henderson bae facility for expansion (maintenance or new construction yard) or alternate use.

 

[Redlands18]

HMS Glamorgan was hit by an Exocet off the Falklands in 1982. 14 dead, but the ship survived. She limped home (>12,500 km) after emergency repairs, was repaired & refitted, retired in 1986 & sold to Chile. Permanently decommissioned in 1998.

Glamorgan, 6000t, also had size on her side compared to the Type 42, 4000t and type 21, 3000t. She survived where 2 members of the class of appreciably smaller Destroyers which was replacing her did not.

 

[Bob53]

I don't build or select the ships, or sail them. Just trying to understand them.

However, there is I think a connection to low crewing and how much damage control you can realistically do. They don't build ships like they used to. Look at say Oberon to Collins, which went from 7-9 airtight bulkheads to collins which has two splitting the sub into roughly thirds.

We no longer build ships with belted armor. We no longer build battleships.

With 60 crew, with a fair number on the bridge, you aren't going to be able to do damage control like a WW2 cruiser could or in the same way. Your threats are different, its not a 5" shell that is likely to do damage, but a large missile with way more kinetic damage. With that in mind, designs evolve.

Ship design values different things now. Better egress in emergencies, better/more automated systems. I assume these ships priorities crew sortie out of the ship over locking themselves in a compartment and fighting at all cost to keep the ship. There is damage control, but its not based around surviving an impact and detonation from 500-1000kg high explosive warhead.

Re the belted armor…is any ship armored these days? Would a US carrier be armored around the hull?
I understand re a single hit but I think the Chinese concept of massed missiles at every target might be 2/3/4 impacts after the initial hit takes the defences down.

Does anyone else think that the whole palaver of governments indecision on ship and sub design is just meant to be a special form of torture for the readers of this site? If the governments ever just made a decision and stuck with it this thread would be about 20 pages long instead of the thousands on this page and its offshoots for sub. I love reading all the views but there is a real sense of dejavu about a lot of it. Imagine we had built 6 Hobarts, had gone ahead and chosen and started building a sub ( inserts design here) from around 2012 and selected and chosen and started building an Anzac Frigate replacement around 2015. There wouldnt be much to talk about here.

 

[Morgo]

Re the belted armor…is any ship armored these days? Would a US carrier be armored around the hull?
I understand re a single hit but I think the Chinese concept of massed missiles at every target might be 2/3/4 impacts after the initial hit takes the defences down.

Does anyone else think that the whole palaver of governments indecision on ship and sub design is just meant to be a special form of torture for the readers of this site? If the governments ever just made a decision and stuck with it this thread would be about 20 pages long instead of the thousands on this page and its offshoots for sub. I love reading all the views but there is a real sense of dejavu about a lot of it. Imagine we had built 6 Hobarts, had gone ahead and chosen and started building a sub ( inserts design here) from around 2012 and selected and chosen and started building an Anzac Frigate replacement around 2015. There wouldnt be much to talk about here.

Lots of magnificent photos of hulls hitting the water.

If only....

 

[hauritz]

The DSR made a point of mentioning that the selection process would be streamlined if an obvious choice was available.

I assume that this process will not only apply to the selection of the design but to the suppliers and subcontractors as well.

A concerted effort to streamline this process could shave years off a build.

 

[Stampede]

The DSR made a point of mentioning that the selection process would be streamlined if an obvious choice was available.

I assume that this process will not only apply to the selection of the design but to the suppliers and subcontractors as well.

A concerted effort to streamline this process could shave years off a build.

My guess is they already had a good idea of the intended review outcome in broad terms with the review timetable providing time to polish and negotiate the end result.

The end result is hopefully next month.

Again think time to service trumps what we may prefer for service.




Cheers S

 

[StingrayOZ]

Peter Lürssen is hardly going to say the RAN would be better off with the Type 31

To be fair to Lurssen, it wasn't his only suggestion.

“I think as overall deal with AUKUS, you should try to get the American position ships in Australia. I mean, talking as industry, you want them to be in Australia and not in Singapore because they have lots of maintenance that need to be done and you can do it as good as your Singaporeans can.

“We stand behind the proposal to move the dock there if so wanted, and offer them the possibility to actually lift very large ships.”

Lurssens solution is Burkes, from America. To be fair that is how the Spanish do it. 3 Burkes, 5 F-100, their FFG's..

Re the belted armor…is any ship armored these days? Would a US carrier be armored around the hull?

They are built chunky. Perhaps not Armoured exactly, but quite strong and over built, and they are massive. They are big military ships that have long lives and are worked hard. Like Ice hardend ships, its not armor, but its over built compared to a normal ship.

The DSR made a point of mentioning that the selection process would be streamlined if an obvious choice was available.
I assume that this process will not only apply to the selection of the design but to the suppliers and subcontractors as well.
A concerted effort to streamline this process could shave years off a build.

NVL say 70% commonality, so 70% of the project continues as ordered. To start a new build with a new builder at Henderson would take much longer. The Spanish offered using some of their yards, possibly some of their currently being built ships or and some of their already in order equipment and then trying to get more in AUS later, but even that proposal has probably aged out. If you get rid of NVL, you are paying penalties, and already ordered equipment starts to stack up, increasing the cost of breaking the deal.

If we have ~6 OPV's, it may help justify the Americans stationing a Burke in Perth. Although the Americans rarely do things by single. Its probably more realistically 3 Destroyers in Perth, perhaps a SSN or three. 6 OPV's, some anzac action.

Navantia, more Hobarts or follow on destroyer, Alfa 3000s, JSS, also apart of FSSS(RN replenishment).
Babcock, Arrowheads(140 and paper 120), nz anzac replacement?
Mitsubishi, Mogamis(they also have a stretched destroyer (80cells) and shorter opv/corvette design)
Hyundai, kddx, chungnam ffx, cvx (1/2/3) carrier
Hanwha, kddxs, also follow on ffx III
TKMS, new gen Meko designs
BMT, Venator, Caimen, Aegir

These are all options for 2035 or later. Some of these have huge risk, with companies with no Australian footprint, some with not in service designs.

Again, what can we do before 2027-2028 when the rest of the RAN gets put into dry dock.

 

[swerve]

Glamorgan, 6000t, also had size on her side compared to the Type 42, 4000t and type 21, 3000t. She survived where 2 members of the class of appreciably smaller Destroyers which was replacing her did not.

The two Type 21s were sunk by bombs - in one case multiple bombs.

Ardent was hit by three bombs initially, of which two exploded, but was still seaworthy & under control, & the crew was fighting fires. She was then attacked by five A-4s which dropped several bombs, some of which exploded in the sea close to her, damaging the hull, & some of which penetrated but did not explode. That killed more crew & scuppered the firefighting. She burned out & sank next day.

Antelope was hit by two bombs which didn't explode. One later exploded while an attempt was being made to defuse it. Fires spread to her missile magazines, which exploded. She burned out & sank next day.

Coventry was hit by three bombs, of which two exploded. The third didn't explode, but breached a bulkhead opening the largest space in the ship to water penetration. She flooded, capsized, & sank quickly.

Sheffield was hit by a single Exocet, which because of where it hit exposed serious weaknesses in firefighting capability. A hit on Sheffield in the same place as the hit on Glamorgan might not have sunk her. She was the only warship sunk by a missile.

The Type 21s were small - same length as & a bit slimmer than an ANZAC. Batch 1 Type 42s were a bit bigger. Batch 3 was bigger.

 

[Reptilia]

To be fair to Lurssen, it wasn't his only suggestion.



Lurssens solution is Burkes, from America. To be fair that is how the Spanish do it. 3 Burkes, 5 F-100, their FFG's..


They are built chunky. Perhaps not Armoured exactly, but quite strong and over built, and they are massive. They are big military ships that have long lives and are worked hard. Like Ice hardend ships, its not armor, but its over built compared to a normal ship.


NVL say 70% commonality, so 70% of the project continues as ordered. To start a new build with a new builder at Henderson would take much longer. The Spanish offered using some of their yards, possibly some of their currently being built ships or and some of their already in order equipment and then trying to get more in AUS later, but even that proposal has probably aged out. If you get rid of NVL, you are paying penalties, and already ordered equipment starts to stack up, increasing the cost of breaking the deal.

If we have ~6 OPV's, it may help justify the Americans stationing a Burke in Perth. Although the Americans rarely do things by single. Its probably more realistically 3 Destroyers in Perth, perhaps a SSN or three. 6 OPV's, some anzac action.


These are all options for 2035 or later. Some of these have huge risk, with companies with no Australian footprint, some with not in service designs.

Again, what can we do before 2027-2028 when the rest of the RAN gets put into dry dock.

Cant do much before 27-28.
Luerssens saying the first c90 by 2028 with follow on corvettes every 10 months. That’s slow if steel is being cut in 2024.
Navantia offered 3 Hobarts for $6 billion by 2030 last year if built in Spain. I’m guessing that would be pushed out to 2031 or 2032 by now.
2 more hobarts by 2028-2029 seems doable from now and 96 cells is equivalent to 6 corvettes(96 cells). Possibly even 3 hobarts(144cells) by 2030/31 if Aus built some blocks or completed a small percentage of the build like they did with the lhds.

 

[Rob c]

Sheffield was hit by a single Exocet, which because of where it hit exposed serious weaknesses in firefighting capability. A hit on Sheffield in the same place as the hit on Glamorgan might not have sunk her. She was the only warship sunk by a missile.

As the hit on Glamorgan was into the hangar and no hull penetration happened I think Sheffield most probably would have survived as well. Glamorgan's biggest problem was a fully fueled helicopter in the hangar, which made fire fighting more challenging. From memory she returned to action within a short period of time and had no difficulty returning to England as she was still considered fully sea worthy.
Again from memory Sheffield's hit destroyed the main fire plumbing. and had this not happened and the fire had not burnt out most of her she to would have survived as plugging the hole would have been possible.

 

[Redlands18]

As the hit on Glamorgan was into the hangar and no hull penetration happened I think Sheffield most probably would have survived as well. Glamorgan's biggest problem was a fully fueled helicopter in the hangar, which made fire fighting more challenging. From memory she returned to action within a short period of time and had no difficulty returning to England as she was still considered fully sea worthy.
Again from memory Sheffield's hit destroyed the main fire plumbing. and had this not happened and the fire had not burnt out most of her she to would have survived as plugging the hole would have been possible.

The point I'm trying to make is in reference to ship size in future RAN ships. The larger the vessel, the less likely a missile or bomb strike is going to hit a fatally critical system. A big difference between hitting the Hangar on a 6000t, 160m Destroyer than hitting a Hangar on a 2000t, 95m Corvette with the same size warhead. Even on the Counties, the Hangar was in the last 3rd of the ship, on a Corvette it is sitting midships, much closer to everything, so the amount of time you have before a fire reaches a critical system is much shorter, you also have a bigger crew, nearly twice that of the Type 42 and 3 times that of the Type 21, similar to what a Hobart would have compared to a C90.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Cant do much before 27-28.
Luerssens saying the first c90 by 2028 with follow on corvettes every 10 months. That’s slow if steel is being cut in 2024.
Navantia offered 3 Hobarts for $6 billion by 2030 last year if built in Spain. I’m guessing that would be pushed out to 2031 or 2032 by now.
2 more hobarts by 2028-2029 seems doable from now and 96 cells is equivalent to 6 corvettes(96 cells). Possibly even 3 hobarts(144cells) by 2030/31 if Aus built some blocks or completed a small percentage of the build like they did with the lhds.

I imagine there will be a fair bit of calculation over the two offers. But I haven't heard much about the Navantia one recently. And Albo was in europe recently, meeting with the Germans.

It may come down to what we can crew and when it can be built. Times ticking away.

 

[Volkodav]

A slight tangent, it would have been interesting to see how a full production run version of the Type 82 would have performed instead of the Type 42.

Also, the RN very nearly got a class of 209 m long, 16000 ton, armoured, gun and missile armed cruisers instead of the Counties.