Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[spoz]

In risk terms, of the exemplars quoted I would rank the Mogami/FFM highest. The ship has an entirely bespoke weapons and sensor fit and the Japanese have never exported a warship. We don’t have a lot of Japanese speakers, and that would make shipyard interactions interesting.

Next would be the Koreans; while they too have a bespoke weapon and sensor mix they do have experience in exporting ships, and adapting such things as platform management systems to receiving nation language and specific requirements. While we don’t have many Korean speakers, in Naval shipbuilding terms they are more used than the Japanese to sorting things out with people who don’t speak the same language.

Then the Navantia offering; the least developed of the designs, but they have experience exporting to Australia and adapting things to our requirements; and they use similar weapons and sensor systems. And, despite what seems to be a prevailing view on this forum, the RAN’s experience with them hasn’t been that bad - sure, there have been a few problems, but there always are in shipbuilding. Considerable numbers of Navantia people worked on AWD in Australia and know us reasonably well.

Least risky would seem to be a Meko derivative. They are designed for export and have been exported to a wide variety of customers, we have experience with the designers and builders (not all of it good!) and the ships are readily adaptable to whatever weapons and sensors we choose to fit. Plus, such things as platform management systems are likely to be developments of things we are already familiar with.

That’s my risk view but not necessarily the view I would take if we are purely considering potential capability.

 

[Armchair]

That’s my risk view but not necessarily the view I would take if we are purely considering potential capability.

Is your ranking for the 3 + 8 build or just for the offshore 3?
If the former: do you give Navantia any points for its consortium with Austal and Civmec and possible work towards a design incorporating Australian systems, or are they things that the others could catch up with easily?

 

[Brissy1982]

The new FFM build begins next year for FOC delivery in 2027.

Ah, okay - maybe what I read about the Mogami-class build was incorrect, or I might have misunderstood it. If the "new FFM" build is commencing in 2025, then Australia could potentially work with Mitsubishi Heavy Industries in Japan to insert the construction of three "new FFM" frigates for RAN into the build schedule. One apparent feature of Japanese shipbuilding that is enviable is a level of surge capacity - if this is an option, then MHI might be able to build three "new FFMs" for the RAN concurrently with the 12-ship build for the JMSDF. This could be on the same basis as in my previous post i.e. construction of the hull, propulsion and power-generation machinery and superstructure up to bridge-level in Japan with spaces left for the installation of Australian weapons, sensors and equipment, with the vessels then sea-lifted to Australia for completion of the Australianised fitout. An interesting possibility.

 

[SammyC]

A perspective on Navantia. They tend to polarise views.

Ship building is a very advanced art and most programs any where in the world encounter problems of some sort. Navantia, being the most recent of our builds (AWD, LHD and AOR) means that its issues are the most fresh in people's minds. I will however point out that the vast majority of these have have been rectified to a satisfactory level and all of the Navantia platforms are operational and doing their job. Maybe they are a bit pokey, and a few bits fall off now and then, yes they had some very public propulsion breakdowns, but overall they work and we have learnt how to use them.

For comparison, look at the LCS program in the US, the Type 26 is a long way from trouble free and TKMS made the German Government so angry with the K130 and F125 ships that they refused to talk with them for a while (aparently they are good friends now though).

I'm pretty sure if we went back in time, there were problems with the ANZACs, FFGs and I heard that old Success had a rough construction time in Cockatoo Island. All of these went on to become successful platforms, and the build issues eventually faded into antiquity.

So stepping back and looking at the bigger picture, I will suggest that Navantia are no better or worse than anybody else, and if we go with another builder for the GP frigate there will still be problems we have to work through.

That said, their ALFA 3000 proposal is a little on the small side, it kinda reminds me of a Fiat 500 Abarth. Awesome for going around round abouts at high speed.

Remember however that the Tasman was presented at a time when the word on the street was for a corvette. Now its a frigate and I suspect they will evolve their offer over the next year to something larger. I will note Navantia designed the Norwegian Fridjtof Nansen class (an AESA radar ship) which is about the 5,000 tonne range and they have a stretched version of the 3000 (the 4000) which while still small is about 4000 tonnes.

I suspect Navantia have the most available yard for building, and they will likely be the cheapest of the available options. I would view these factors will be considered favourably.

Just to state for the record, I'm not a Navantia groupie, I just have a pragmatic view of them. I actually like the Mogami design the best and think the new FFM is the top end wish list platform. Unfortunately I think it will be priced as such.

 

[spoz]

At various times I’ve worked with Navantia, TKMS (although they were Blohm & Voss at the time), Austal, Bath Ironworks, Babcock, HII and BAE. Each has strengths; equally, each has weaknesses - none is perfect from the customer’s perspective but then you don’t expect them to be. That’s why you have project teams and oversight and inspection. But there is no doubt that the more often any of them works with a customer, the better they understand that customer. They might not agree with all the customer wants, but they do have increasing understanding of both what and why. Equally, somebody new to a particular customer has a learning curve - as of course does the customer with a new supplier.

 

[Flexson]

and all of the Navantia platforms are operational and doing their job.

Are they? Have they? Has anyone asked what Supply has been doing since the media reported it was turned back to Sydney from Cairns 12 MONTHS ago?

 

[SammyC]

Ahh yes, if memory serves me Supply had a nasty shaft alignment problem. The news tells me that she is due to undock shortly, so hopefully the repairs worked.

Stalwart might need a similar repair.

 

[StevoJH]

Ahh yes, if memory serves me Supply had a nasty shaft alignment problem. The news tells me that she is due to undock shortly, so hopefully the repairs worked.

Stalwart might need a similar repair.

Supply has been in and out of Captain Cook dock quite a few times due to shaft alignment issues. Stalwart is to be assessed to see if it has the same problem, but the article I read said that it is showing signs of possible shaft misalignment. They've had to fit her in around Commercial work which emphasises that the East coast really needs a civil ship maintenance capability in addition to the capability provided by Defence facilities.

Its a shame that there is no longer a floating dock on the East Coast. I remember there used to be a floating dock at Newcastle that I have vague memories of seeing the occasional ANZAC class frigate using when I lived in Newcastle.

I believe there was a floating dock in Brisbane until relatively recently as well (may have been the former Newcastle dock as Forgacs owned Cairncross).

There is or was a smaller (130 metre) dock in Brisbane, but Lendlease bought it off Forgacs and were planning on filling it in and converting to Commercial and Residential real estate.

Highly unlikely to ever happen, but how deep is the Parramatta River around Cockatoo Island? Is it shallow enough to make a bridge affordable? Its still in Government ownership and has two dry docks, one of which will fit every Surface Combatant in the inventory and the other which would fit anything smaller then the Hobart class. Parts of the island are still in use commercially, and many of the buildings appeared to be locked, empty and not of heritage value (specifically some of the buildings south of the dry docks) when I was there last year.

 

[Stampede]

Tier two vessel.

Many challenges.
Time, budget, crewing partnership and more!

Something that will be part of the mix is "expectation".

A generation of use of the ANZAC Class should reinforce the expectations of a given size of vessel and equally how it fits within the broader force.

As the dialogue on DT has shown there is a broard interpretation of what this new vessel should do and what it should carry.

As we look starry eyed into the shop window it's tempting to look at bigger and more capable options.
Most would like the current ANZACs to be more capable than what they are now, but at the same time they were intended to be apart of a fleet that was supposedly meant to look very much different to what we have today.

Understandably we want to make ANZACs replacement larger and more capable, the challenge with this mission creep will be to keep perspective as to its role and place in the broader fleet.

Adding more weapons and sensors while desirable will start to make this more of a vessel approaching the size of a Hobart or larger.
If we are looking at this then I fear that the number of 11 ,will start to look like 6 or 7 very quickly.

If we are doing this Tier two thing , then we want the benefit of numbers.
Basically a ship with ANZACS capability with 16 /24 VLS and a CIWS.

Probably the size of the old FFGs.

What that looks like we'll find out hopefully next year.


Cheers S

 

[GregorZ]

In risk terms, of the exemplars quoted I would rank the Mogami/FFM highest. The ship has an entirely bespoke weapons and sensor fit and the Japanese have never exported a warship. We don’t have a lot of Japanese speakers, and that would make shipyard interactions interesting.

Next would be the Koreans; while they too have a bespoke weapon and sensor mix they do have experience in exporting ships, and adapting such things as platform management systems to receiving nation language and specific requirements. While we don’t have many Korean speakers, in Naval shipbuilding terms they are more used than the Japanese to sorting things out with people who don’t speak the same language.

Then the Navantia offering; the least developed of the designs, but they have experience exporting to Australia and adapting things to our requirements; and they use similar weapons and sensor systems. And, despite what seems to be a prevailing view on this forum, the RAN’s experience with them hasn’t been that bad - sure, there have been a few problems, but there always are in shipbuilding. Considerable numbers of Navantia people worked on AWD in Australia and know us reasonably well.

Least risky would seem to be a Meko derivative. They are designed for export and have been exported to a wide variety of customers, we have experience with the designers and builders (not all of it good!) and the ships are readily adaptable to whatever weapons and sensors we choose to fit. Plus, such things as platform management systems are likely to be developments of things we are already familiar with.

That’s my risk view but not necessarily the view I would take if we are purely considering potential capability.

The Mogami (particularly the eveolved version) would carry the least risk IMO. MK41 VLS, Seahawk, 5“ gun in RAN use today. Swap the torps, CIWS and SSM for what we use now and hopefully be able to swap CMS for 9LV. Thats not as easy as it sounds, but a lot easier than paper ships.
The RAN crew/manning issues is a constant point made on this forum, the Mogami requires only 90. They will also be coming off a hot production run (the evolved) and Japan has capacity to build more as I understand, so should be able to slot our 3 in quite well.
The added bonus is the mine warfare capability these can provide, they could be used as a Huon replacement, increasing the cost and crewing efficiency further for what is already reported as comparable cheap option.

 

[devo99]

Tier two vessel.

Many challenges.
Time, budget, crewing partnership and more!

Something that will be part of the mix is "expectation".

A generation of use of the ANZAC Class should reinforce the expectations of a given size of vessel and equally how it fits within the broader force.

As the dialogue on DT has shown there is a broard interpretation of what this new vessel should do and what it should carry.

As we look starry eyed into the shop window it's tempting to look at bigger and more capable options.
Most would like the current ANZACs to be more capable than what they are now, but at the same time they were intended to be apart of a fleet that was supposedly meant to look very much different to what we have today.

Understandably we want to make ANZACs replacement larger and more capable, the challenge with this mission creep will be to keep perspective as to its role and place in the broader fleet.

Adding more weapons and sensors while desirable will start to make this more of a vessel approaching the size of a Hobart or larger.
If we are looking at this then I fear that the number of 11 ,will start to look like 6 or 7 very quickly.

If we are doing this Tier two thing , then we want the benefit of numbers.
Basically a ship with ANZACS capability with 16 /24 VLS and a CIWS.

Probably the size of the old FFGs.

What that looks like we'll find out hopefully next year.


Cheers S

I agree, in my view what the RAN needs out of the GP Frigates is an actual Anzac-class replacement in role and with increased capability within that role to act as a regional deployment ship which complements the tier 1s in patrol duties and ASW escort. That means long ranged ships with good ASW and self defence capability which are numerous enough to meet a high op tempo of RPDs for which a Hobart or Hunter wouldn't be necessary.
A differentiation should probably also be made between mission creep and future growth. They should be able to incorporate new technologies like the Anzac-class were but not so much that they'll be pushed into roles they weren't intended for as a cheap alternative to dedicated ships like the Adelaide-class were.
If we really want more frigates with 32 VLS cells then maybe, just maybe we want more Hunters. The only other 32 cell design that really covers the type of role the Anzacs fills is FREMM. But at that point we're just getting the Fincantieri design that lost out to Type 26. FFM is nice but it is designed around a very different operational concept to the Anzac-class.

 

[vonnoobie]

I agree, in my view what the RAN needs out of the GP Frigates is an actual Anzac-class replacement in role and with increased capability within that role to act as a regional deployment ship which complements the tier 1s in patrol duties and ASW escort. That means long ranged ships with good ASW and self defence capability which are numerous enough to meet a high op tempo of RPDs for which a Hobart or Hunter wouldn't be necessary.
A differentiation should probably also be made between mission creep and future growth. They should be able to incorporate new technologies like the Anzac-class were but not so much that they'll be pushed into roles they weren't intended for as a cheap alternative to dedicated ships like the Adelaide-class were.
If we really want more frigates with 32 VLS cells then maybe, just maybe we want more Hunters. The only other 32 cell design that really covers the type of role the Anzacs fills is FREMM. But at that point we're just getting the Fincantieri design that lost out to Type 26. FFM is nice but it is designed around a very different operational concept to the Anzac-class.

While I understand the complex issues in different systems betweebn Japanese/Kprean ships and the RAN you actually mention 'operational concept'... How exactly is the operational concept between them different in your opinion... I truly am curious because I couldnt see any difference.

 

[old faithful]

Curious as to how many Essm the RAN will actually need to stock. And also wonder how long the shelf life is?
Any thoughts?
Say 20 ships, that's about 7 ready to deploy and 6 more almost ready. Say a full load out for 12- 13 ships, plus re loads. 32 per ship is 416 ish, then say probably 3 of those ships will have 48 to 64, so let's call it 570, then there is the re loads.....so stock will be what? 1000? 1200? What will the magazines need? Then there are SM2/6 how many?

 

[Bob53]

Curious as to how many Essm the RAN will actually need to stock. And also wonder how long the shelf life is?
Any thoughts?
Say 20 ships, that's about 7 ready to deploy and 6 more almost ready. Say a full load out for 12- 13 ships, plus re loads. 32 per ship is 416 ish, then say probably 3 of those ships will have 48 to 64, so let's call it 570, then there is the re loads.....so stock will be what? 1000? 1200? What will the magazines need? Then there are SM2/6 how many?

What? You’re talking about reality! In in short supply atm.

 

[CJR]

Curious as to how many Essm the RAN will actually need to stock. And also wonder how long the shelf life is?
Any thoughts?

Current info from SIPRI arms trade register suggests about 500 ESSM delivered, 175 SM-2s delivered for FFGs (possibly modified for VLS use now?) and 80 SM-2s ordered specifically for Hobart class.

 

[StevoJH]

In the interests of covering off the options.

In the interests of a fast and cheap build, if the lead time of combat system and radar was skipped. Does anyone have an idea what the timeframe would be regarding ringing up Babcock and getting 3x Type 31 Hulls completed without combat systems, weapons, radars and CMS and shipping them to Perth, Adelaide or Sydney for fitting out?

Same question would be applicable for MEKO and Mogami.

Fit them out with CEAFAR, 9LV, mk.41 and 5" gun from retiring ANZAC class frigates (with upgrades as necessary) and then augment as required during future refit cycles. That gives new hulls (fast) with greater growth factor for the future and lean crewing of under 100 per hull while hopefully increasing the build speed and reducing the cost over ordering brand new equipment.

The only issue with the mk.41 in the ANZAC's is that they are self-defence length but that should be fine in the short term as they could be supplemented with longer modules should RAN wish to fit SM-2/6 or Strike capability. Does the Navy have additional self-defence length Mk.41's in storage from Sydney and Darwin?

 

[elleelmo]

You don’t dock a ship at anywhere near full load displacement…….

One of Navy’s concerns for many years is the single point of failure which is the Captain Cook Dock. Another facility with the capacity to dock the largest ships (although not at full load!) has long been wanted.

Apart from the fact it has been sold to Lendlease who intend to fill it with sand and build units, the Cairncross graving dry dock on the Brisbane river, capable of 85,000 dwt tons 263 metres long x 33.5 metres wide 8.5 metres deep access is a billion dollar start to a a second east coast base as well as backup to Captain Cook. Now just a big hole in the ground, it needs a bit of work but could dry dock every ship in the RAN fleet. It has been said that the long shallow Moreton Bay transit is negative for a Sub base. However over 70 US submarines were based or repaired in Brisbane during WW 2. Yeah I know that was over 70 years ago.

 

[devo99]

While I understand the complex issues in different systems betweebn Japanese/Kprean ships and the RAN you actually mention 'operational concept'... How exactly is the operational concept between them different in your opinion... I truly am curious because I couldnt see any difference.

Currently as I understand it, the main job of the Anzacs is essentially being the face of the RAN going out and running patrols, visiting ports, showing the flag around the Indian Ocean, SEA and the Eastern Pacific ect. That involves a lot of cruising long distances for fairly long periods of time. The JMSDF generally does this with their DDs and DDGs. The FFMs and Mogamis are more oriented toward local ASW escorting and mine warfare within the first island chain which is the JMSDF's primary area of focus.

 

[devo99]

The only issue with the mk.41 in the ANZAC's is that they are self-defence length but that should be fine in the short term as they could be supplemented with longer modules should RAN wish to fit SM-2/6 or Strike capability. Does the Navy have additional self-defence length Mk.41's in storage from Sydney and Darwin?

Just a note, no ship has been fitted with self-defence length cells (5.3 m). The cells which are fitted to the Anzacs and were fitted to the Adelaides are tactical length cells (6.8 m) which can fit ESSM, VLA and SM-2 while self-defence length cells are limited to only ESSM.

 

[ADMk2]

In the interests of covering off the options.

In the interests of a fast and cheap build, if the lead time of combat system and radar was skipped. Does anyone have an idea what the timeframe would be regarding ringing up Babcock and getting 3x Type 31 Hulls completed without combat systems, weapons, radars and CMS and shipping them to Perth, Adelaide or Sydney for fitting out?

Same question would be applicable for MEKO and Mogami.

Fit them out with CEAFAR, 9LV, mk.41 and 5" gun from retiring ANZAC class frigates (with upgrades as necessary) and then augment as required during future refit cycles. That gives new hulls (fast) with greater growth factor for the future and lean crewing of under 100 per hull while hopefully increasing the build speed and reducing the cost over ordering brand new equipment.

The only issue with the mk.41 in the ANZAC's is that they are self-defence length but that should be fine in the short term as they could be supplemented with longer modules should RAN wish to fit SM-2/6 or Strike capability. Does the Navy have additional self-defence length Mk.41's in storage from Sydney and Darwin?

ANZAC Class frigates mount 22 feet Tactical Length Mk.41, not the superseded 17 feet self-defence length Mk.41.

The Mk.25 quad- packed canister for ESSM is 22 feet in length…