Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[Stampede]

Where are things at with the Future Heavy landing craft? How far of from a selection there and what’s is the number to be acquired!

A good question I don't have the answer to.

For starters I'd like some clarity of timing for the medium land craft to replace the LCM8.
Timing and numbers.

As to the heavy, I'd like that to be a priority as well, but feel a decision will be kicked down the road.
As the commonwealth has a number of vessels like ocean shield and the like across a number of departments we a least have some logistics capacity off shore.

Part of the question / answer will be the capacity of the medium landing craft.

Coastal hugger, or will it actually have some regional off shore deployment capability?

Maritime defence is a chorus of silence at the moment.

We wait!

Cheers S

 

[Stuart M]

This might be a dumb question, but why? There’s a great big flex space in the middle of the ship that could be replaced by a serious number of VLS if you’re willing to sacrifice it.

Obviously some very important questions about stability that need to be solved, and some complex redesign work to be done, but why would this take more than a couple of years to resolve?

Edit: Adding a link to my previous thoughts on this.

Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

Weight and stability issues would be my bet, as that space was designed in as a 'flex space', not a dedicated VLS space (as far as I know). There has already been significant increases in top weight to make it what it is now, and, I'm no marine designer, but how far does one go before you have to look at hull length and width to add in yet more changes to the base Type 26?

 

[alexsa]

I think that if one wanted to evolve the Hunters design to have a greater AAW capacity it would be better to do so after #9, designing that in would also take a very, very long time and I'd suggest that now would be the time to do so. Of course the key issue, imo, to discuss now is what kind of anti-air warfare capacity does Australia want? Burke levels or something like the Korean Sejong the Great?

Fair enough but you missed my point. The Hunters (as proposed) have the sensor, fire control, connectivity and combat system and he power supplies got support it that is superior to the current DDG fit. The DDG will be upgraded but will not get the CEAFAR radar suite. So we are really only looking at using space for additional cells. This could be at the expense of part of the multi mission bay. It really depends upon what Navy want. I don’t see the Hunter getting a Burke class VLS fit but lets face it our DDG’s don’t meet that either.

Let’s not forget the final number of cells has not been confirmed for the Hunter. If they end up with 48 cells in base configuration then they would be superior for the unmodified DDG.

We are all guessing and some other the fantasy fleet proposals ignore realities. Roll on the review of the surface fleet….. not that it will solve out issues but at least we will have something concrete to discuss.

 

[alexsa]

Weight and stability issues would be my bet, as that space was designed in as a 'flex space', not a dedicated VLS space (as far as I know). There has already been significant increases in top weight to make it what it is now, and, I'm no marine designer, but how far does one go before you have to look at hull length and width to add in yet more changes to the base Type 26?

@Stuart M

On what basis do you consider the vessel has a topweight problem. The delay in finalising the design was to address such issues. Certainly the ANZAC has limitations but it is a 4100 tonne platform. If you are going to make such claims you need to justify it. What issue to the length and width do you perceive as an issue noting this…

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/special-reports/design-changes-optimal-for-australian-hunter-class-future-frigates/news-story/f3c6b757ac14840995fa00d5b4a8e166#:~:text=BAE's%20Lockhart%20subsequently%20disclosed%20that,01%20change%20in%20its%20hydrodynamics.

Please provide a justification.

Alexsa

 

[hauritz]

Just noting that Indonesia has laid the keel for the first of its Type 31 frigates. That is the keel laid just two years after it being ordered. The UK expected all 5 of its type 31s delivered although not necessarily in service, by 2028.

Got to say that seems like a pretty impressive build rate compared to the Type 26 or even the Arafura.

It has to make you wonder how quickly they could deliver new frigates for the RAN.

 

[DDG38]

Just noting that Indonesia has laid the keel for the first of its Type 31 frigates. That is the keel laid just two years after it being ordered. The UK expected all 5 of its type 31s delivered although not necessarily in service, by 2028.

Got to say that seems like a pretty impressive build rate compared to the Type 26 or even the Arafura.

It has to make you wonder how quickly they could deliver new frigates for the RAN.

Yeah right, go ask Transport NSW how happy they are with the build quality of the ferries they got from Indonesia. Faster build times doesn't necessarily mean better.

 

[Stuart M]

@Stuart M

On what basis do you consider the vessel has a topweight problem. The delay in finalising the design was to address such issues. Certainly the ANZAC has limitations but it is a 4100 tonne platform. If you are going to make such claims you need to justify it. What issue to the length and width do you perceive as an issue noting this…

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/special-reports/design-changes-optimal-for-australian-hunter-class-future-frigates/news-story/f3c6b757ac14840995fa00d5b4a8e166#:~:text=BAE's%20Lockhart%20subsequently%20disclosed%20that,01%20change%20in%20its%20hydrodynamics.

Please provide a justification.

Alexsa

Hmm, I thought I was asking questions about someone else's ideas, but ok.


$45bn Hunter-class Frigates have no set speed, range requirements | The Australian

February 17 2022

Defence officials have revealed the nation’s $45bn Hunter-class frigate program has no set speed or range requirements, and if the program is further delayed, they will recommend it to be listed as a “project of concern”.
The admissions in a Senate estimates hearing came as independent Senator Rex Patrick accused a Defence official of lying in previous evidence suggesting the ship had no weight or propulsion problems.

February 1 2022

$45bn Hunter-class frigates slow, unsafe: Defence | The Australian

The document, marked “sensitive”, warns that the inclusion of a US combat system and Australian-designed CEAFAR2 radar have pushed the ships’ “space, weight, power and cooling margins” to their limits, posing “significant potential risk”.

The proposed ships are now “substantially heavier” than BAE’s original Type-26 frigate design, which has also faced delays and design headaches, requiring a modified hull to accommodate the additional weight and design changes.


The report warns that the changes have caused serious design issues that have cascaded through the program, driving up electrical power consumption with “a negative impact on speed and range”, and causing problems with the cooling of the vessel’s combat system.

“The overall power demand of the Hunter-class frigate still exceeds its generating capacity … and is exacerbated in tropical and antarctic environmental conditions,” it says. “Vessel maximum speed at start of life will be substantially lower than comparable RAN surface combatants.”

How Defence’s $45 billion Hunter Frigate Project failed | The Australian

June 12 2023

At that stage the Type 26 was the least likely of the four contenders because it was such high risk. Yet as the selection process continued, the Type 26 mysteriously replaced the French FREMM as the third contender.

But when the Australian National Audit Office released a report on the Hunter project last month, it found Defence had “not retained” the records that explained that decision.

From this point, a series of Fawlty Towers-style missteps led to the Type 26 going from being the least likely warship to being the chosen one for Australia.

......
Defence then made two more astonishing mistakes that artificially propelled the Type 26 to outright favouritism for Australia’s choice of frigate.

The first was to swallow British claims that the design of the Type 26 was more mature than it actually was and that the high-risk project was “on track” when in fact it was about to be mired to delays in British shipyards.

Then incredibly, and contrary to the facts, Defence advised the government that the Type 26 was in fact a “mature” design. Defence did not do any assessment to test this claim.

This lie was called out early last year by the Independent Assurance Review, which stated “The Type 26 was not a mature Reference Ship Design (and) has matured much more slowly than anticipated”.

But ok, lets whack in some more VLS tubes for the hell of it.

@Stuart M The Australian? You are joking right. Since when have they been the fountain of wisdom WRT Defence? WRT Defence The Australian IS NOT a reliable or reputable source.

Ngatimozart.

 

[Stuart M]

Fair enough but you missed my point. The Hunters (as proposed) have the sensor, fire control, connectivity and combat system and he power supplies got support it that is superior to the current DDG fit. The DDG will be upgraded but will not get the CEAFAR radar suite. So we are really only looking at using space for additional cells. This could be at the expense of part of the multi mission bay. It really depends upon what Navy want. I don’t see the Hunter getting a Burke class VLS fit but lets face it our DDG’s don’t meet that either.

Let’s not forget the final number of cells has not been confirmed for the Hunter. If they end up with 48 cells in base configuration then they would be superior for the unmodified DDG.

We are all guessing and some other the fantasy fleet proposals ignore realities. Roll on the review of the surface fleet….. not that it will solve out issues but at least we will have something concrete to discuss.

No, I didn't miss your point, the point that does matter is that neither you nor I are in a position to say if the design can accept more VLS tubes in that position, at which point all the radars cms and power generation stuff you mentioned is moot.

I honestly think that this talk about extra this or that on the Hunters is just fantasy stuff, and I don't know why it's even discussed as none of us here can know what those ships are going to look like until the things are built, and those that do cannot say.

 

[Bob53]

T

That project wasn't due to start for another 2-3 years at the earliest, so no funding at all nor planning in place. The ADF would have been nowhere near ready to send a formal proposal to Government. Probably didn't even have a project Office up and running in April, and this is not going to be a straightforward project either, it is an Army project (Land 8710 phase 2) but the Australian Army has no current experience in operating a vessel of this size and complexity. The RAN is going to have to be heavily involved in this project, at very least, platform selection and Trg. At the same time, the Army will be introducing a raft of other new capabilities, like MRL, ASuW, SPGs, IFVs, SP ATGW. The RAN, SSNs, OPVs.
The DSR may have recommended that this capability be brought forward, but whether the ADF can do it, is the question.

Thanks based on some of the chat and suggestions thrown up here here I was thinking it was planning underway.

 

[alexsa]

Hmm, I thought I was asking questions about someone else's ideas, but ok.


$45bn Hunter-class Frigates have no set speed, range requirements | The Australian

February 17 2022



February 1 2022

$45bn Hunter-class frigates slow, unsafe: Defence | The Australian



How Defence’s $45 billion Hunter Frigate Project failed | The Australian

June 12 2023




But ok, lets whack in some more VLS tubes for the hell of it.

Your assumption was ,...." Weight and stability issues would be my bet", None of what you provide is evidence of a topweight problem rather it is commentary from the press and vested interests. There is no 'evidence' from the project that there are topweight issues, there is certainly evidence from the project that the vessel has had to grow to accomodate the additional systems. We live in hope that the project knows what it is doing.

No arguement that any changes would require an assessment of the impact on stability but without access to information on what space can be used and the stability data we cannot make a value judgement.

 

[Stuart M]

Your assumption was ,...." Weight and stability issues would be my bet", None of what you provide is evidence of a topweight problem rather it is commentary from the press and vested interests. There is no 'evidence' from the project that there are topweight issues, there is certainly evidence from the project that the vessel has had to grow to accomodate the additional systems. We live in hope that the project knows what it is doing.

Eh? Defence itself has issues with these ships.. This if from one of their reports, its linked above.

a classified Defence Department report reveals.

, further that defence admits there are problems

A Defence spokeswoman said the document was an internal management tool that provided a snapshot of program risks at a point in time, and solutions to the problems were “well underway”.

And what problems?

“low confidence” that the vessels will meet Royal Australian Navy weight-margin standards, leaving the first three ships potentially “unable to respond to technological surprise with future capability upgrades”.

I assume nothing; My evidence is for issues is Defence admitting there are issues in one of Defences own documents. Was the 'Defence spokeswoman' lying when she said this or is this a clever double cross worthy of Ian Fleming to trick the CCP into think these ships are duds??

So chuck in an extra VLS and yeah 'weight and stability' might be a factor.

Whilst I'm certain that functional ships will be delivered, it remains to be seen how much growth is available, for all we know the RAN might be getting something like the Type 21's in terms of upgradability.


Aus media can spin something, take something out of context, but why make shit up when you get incriminating documents straight from the MoD? they are bad sometimes, but they're not UK tabloids.

No arguement that any changes would require an assessment of the impact on stability but without access to information on what space can be used and the stability data we cannot make a value judgement.

Information we will not get to make a judgement, which means every single one of us is arguing from a point of ignorance to one degree or another, so let's not assume that any old stuff can just be chucked into these things.

 

[76mmGuns]

I discussed top weight issues a while back. I compared the weight of the current reinforced roof, top crane, and having 8 deck mounted ASM on the roof, and compared it with 48 Mk 41 VLS instead. The centre of gravity would be lower. The weight would not be the same but the difference is not hundreds and thousands of tons. I cannot say anything about handling.

In any case, it's all hyperbole, since we don't know how many VLS the Hunter will have fore yet. Eyeballing it, you could fit 56 Mk 41 VLS, if you pack it in. I'm more curious why the RAN is keeping the number of cells secret.

 

[Stuart M]

I discussed top weight issues a while back. I compared the weight of the current reinforced roof, top crane, and having 8 deck mounted ASM on the roof, and compared it with 48 Mk 41 VLS instead. The centre of gravity would be lower. The weight would not be the same but the difference is not hundreds and thousands of tons. I cannot say anything about handling.

In any case, it's all hyperbole, since we don't know how many VLS the Hunter will have fore yet. Eyeballing it, you could fit 56 Mk 41 VLS, if you pack it in. I'm more curious why the RAN is keeping the number of cells secret.

As Ive said, we are all arguing from a point of ignorance, none of us here can say what these ships will be on launch let alone what they will be in twenty years.
Anyway, I'm out of this thread; The speculation, it's getting tedious.

 

[Swifty87]

Surely this fantasy fleet thread has run it's course...

 

[Hoffy]

Purchase of sea mines announced:

Australian Defence Force to purchase smart sea mines | Defence

"The quantity and types of sea mines that Defence will acquire remain classified."

 

[Bob53]

Surely this fantasy fleet thread has run it's course...

Yes. I love all the ideas and info thrown around but it’s going around in a circles a bit .

http://imgur.com/a/a5tsZyP

 

[MickB]

Yes. I love all the ideas and info thrown around but it’s going around in a circles a bit .

http://imgur.com/a/a5tsZyP

Normally I would agree but in this case the Hunters will already have the sensors, combat system and generation capacity required for the air defence role which is one of the reason the design finalisation took so long. The CEAFAR Radar suite combined with the SAAB 9LV tactical interface and AEGIS/CEC combat system will already make these vessels a potent AAW platform.

If the sole and immidate desire is to increase the cell then evolving the Hunter design of hulls 7 to 9 would probably be quicker than going with a whole new hull as it is reasonable to assume he RAN will not move away from the CEAFAR Radar suite combined with the SAAB 9LV tactical interface and AEGIS/CEC combat system for the next combatant noting the DDG's are being updated to the SAAB 9LV/AEGIS baseline 9 combination.

If you are looking at a whole new 10000 tonne plus DDG design then this could follow on from the Hunters as sufficient time to assess alternatives or to do a clean sheet design would then be possible in the time available. By this time work on follow on from the Burkes and/or the emerging UK large multirole DDG may be beyond the paper stage. If we look at past development process of new hulls this can be a very very long process.

People who bemoan the perceived (we still do not know the exact number) lack of VLS in the Hunter are missing an important point.
The Hunter is firstly a ASW ship but will, on the day it is launched have a better AA capability than virtualy every specialised AAW ship in virtualy every European Navy.

This is not a bad thing to have.

 

[ADMk2]

Can't agree with the first statement at all, I see the opposite if anything. Their Command-and-Control facilities are vital for littoral operations, probably as important as the aviation capabilities. They carry a 60 bed Hospital as well. The DSR calls for a larger fleet of Med sized Amphibs acquired quicker than planned but I see these as an adjunct to the current Amphib fleet not as a replacement. There may be tweaks to how the LHDs are used, with maybe a greater use of the aviation capabilities but they would still form the heart of an Amphib operation.

Additionally the DSR specifically noted the requirement for a combined arms land combat capability, capable of being deployed into / from littoral environments.

Such is simply not possible without the core of such a capability being, large amphibious capable flat-tops...

Which is why we have a pair of LHD's and arguably need more.

 

[aussienscale]

Eh? Defence itself has issues with these ships.. This if from one of their reports, its linked above. , further that defence admits there are problems
And what problems?


I assume nothing; My evidence is for issues is Defence admitting there are issues in one of Defences own documents. Was the 'Defence spokeswoman' lying when she said this or is this a clever double cross worthy of Ian Fleming to trick the CCP into think these ships are duds??

So chuck in an extra VLS and yeah 'weight and stability' might be a factor.

Whilst I'm certain that functional ships will be delivered, it remains to be seen how much growth is available, for all we know the RAN might be getting something like the Type 21's in terms of upgradability.


Aus media can spin something, take something out of context, but why make shit up when you get incriminating documents straight from the MoD? they are bad sometimes, but they're not UK tabloids.



Information we will not get to make a judgement, which means every single one of us is arguing from a point of ignorance to one degree or another, so let's not assume that any old stuff can just be chucked into these things.

Please link to this "classified" document ? I would be very interested to read !

Cheers

 

[aussienscale]

As Ive said, we are all arguing from a point of ignorance, none of us here can say what these ships will be on launch let alone what they will be in twenty years.
Anyway, I'm out of this thread; The speculation, it's getting tedious.

The speculation is getting tedious ? Yet you quote a news paper article that quotes a supposed "classified" document that states Defence is unhappy with the Hunters ? Huh Then you claim that as factual, where is the link to the Defence document that supports your speculation ?

Waiting ?