Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

ddxx

Well-Known Member
Apologies if this has been previously covered but a recent senate inquiry stated that the top speed of type 26 would not be known until speed trials of the ship when launched later this year the suggestion was the Hunter class would then be able to match such a speed, my query is why a heavier ship with same power and propulsion would match that of a lighter one by up to three thousand long tons
This would only be possible through changes that have (apparently) already been made but yet to be disclosed.

If the main concern is top speed and through-life power margins, a second MT-30 is a potential solution. I'm not sure what else could be done without reducing capability, speed and power margins.
 

Going Boeing

Well-Known Member
This would only be possible through changes that have (apparently) already been made but yet to be disclosed.

If the main concern is top speed and through-life power margins, a second MT-30 is a potential solution. I'm not sure what else could be done without reducing capability, speed and power margins.
Mounting an additional MT-30 low down in the hull not only gives the power to drive the heavier vessel but would also assist in offsetting stability issues caused by having all the CEAFAR 2 electronics mounted high up in the mast. Range may be an issue due to carrying all that extra weight around.

It’s amazing to think that the RAN is planning to build ASW “Frigates” that are a similar displacement to the Ticonderoga class Cruisers.
 
Last edited:

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
Apologies if this has been previously covered but a recent senate inquiry stated that the top speed of type 26 would not be known until speed trials of the ship when launched later this year the suggestion was the Hunter class would then be able to match such a speed, my query is why a heavier ship with same power and propulsion would match that of a lighter one by up to three thousand long tons
Top speed isn't just a linear function of displacement, hull form is critical. There have been cases of making a ship longer and it becoming faster despite displacing more. There are several here that would be able to explain this in more detail.

But for example, the QE class is 65,000t and has 2xMT30 GT. They are able to shift 65,000t of quite beamy and large draught carrier at a tested 32 kts.

The MT30 is quite a powerful unit. Between 25-40MW. I imagine its probably a question of just using a bit more power, the question is how far does that take it out of its efficiency curve. Its a question, but I don't think it is worth panic about it at this stage. If the designer believes they can feed the mt30 enough air and there is plenty of margin, then it may not be a significant problem at all
 

seaspear

Well-Known Member
In silent operations using the MTU diesel on cruising, mode are for silent operations, the MT30 is for high speed,I understood the cruising top, speed to be at 18knots, its likely that the stealthy cruising speed would be used in pursuit of submarines,Im not sure if an extra MT30 is so useful in that scenario.
 

ddxx

Well-Known Member
Top speed isn't just a linear function of displacement, hull form is critical. There have been cases of making a ship longer and it becoming faster despite displacing more. There are several here that would be able to explain this in more detail.

But for example, the QE class is 65,000t and has 2xMT30 GT. They are able to shift 65,000t of quite beamy and large draught carrier at a tested 32 kts.

The MT30 is quite a powerful unit. Between 25-40MW. I imagine its probably a question of just using a bit more power, the question is how far does that take it out of its efficiency curve. Its a question, but I don't think it is worth panic about it at this stage. If the designer believes they can feed the mt30 enough air and there is plenty of margin, then it may not be a significant problem at all
The BAE Global Combat Ship reference design is rather “stubby” with a beam of almost 21 metres, but a length of only 150.

With my commercial hat on - the most logical reason behind this would be to allow the base hull design to be lengthened if required for future projects with minimal additional cost in terms of design. A smart move.

Considering the issues that have come up, lengthening via an additional block seems like it might be easier than trying to cram and balance within the reference design length. One would think we should have learned our lesson regarding ‘extra fat’ from previous projects too tight on margin.

It’s worth noting that the QE class have an IEP set up - meaning they can also draw from all of their MTUs as well as their GTs at the same time. With Hunter’s CODLOG set up, high speed mode can only use the single GT.

Personally, I’d rather Hunter be even further delayed if properly sized and powered for maximum through-life growth and flexibility.

For fast to build and high drumbeat it’s time to get the ball rolling on a ‘simpler’, modular and highly automated GP Frigate to fill our middle tier - ideally in partnership with our Kiwi fam.

A far more future proofed platform for the launch and recovery of autonomous systems for MCM and ASW undersea surveillance too - specialised vessel projects for which are already budgeted up to a whopping $15.4 Billion - even when the Americans, British and Japanese are all moving to GP Frigate platforms for such roles.
 
Last edited:

seaspear

Well-Known Member
I can understand its top speed may be increased to if required make up for increased weight by adding a mt30 but the ship in stealthy mode uses its diesel would the ship's increased weight require the increase of diesel capacity to meet stealthy cruising speeds achieved by the base type 26?
 

ddxx

Well-Known Member
I can understand its top speed may be increased to if required make up for increased weight by adding a mt30 but the ship in stealthy mode uses its diesel would the ship's increased weight require the increase of diesel capacity to meet stealthy cruising speeds achieved by the base type 26?
Yes, given each has a finite output it would certainly effect how many MTUs are required to be running to reach cruise - resulting in either more fuel burn and reduced range, or, a substantially lower cruise speed.

The only real option in that regard is to bolster the MTUs. To my knowledge, the MTUs to be fitted to Hunter are the highest output they produce for generator sets - meaning you’d likely need to add more sets.

*disclaimer* I’m not an engineer, I just read too much.
 

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
Hoffy that video is over a year old and predated the AUkUS announcement. Since then both USN and RN sources have said the RAN leasing SSNs is unlikely. Neither navy has any spare, except old ones with lots of maintenance issues. Maintenance of old SSNs would test the RAN to the limit and not be a good starting point IMO.
Did you even watch the Video @Hoffy supplied? Its from 26/1/2022 and Capt Skinner talks about the AUKUS announcement in some detail.
 

Scott Elaurant

Well-Known Member
Some interesting observations available online...

CAPT Chris Skinner RAN Ret'd speaks on Nuclear Powered Submarines and other AUKUS technologies for the ADF:

Nuclear Powered Submarines and other AUKUS technologies for the ADF - YouTube

Lease "manned submarines" from UK/USA and base them in Australia?

"What if somebody dies onboard? - Put them in the freezer".
Hoffy

Thanks for the link to the video, which was very interesting. Obviously it is the choice of submarine (Astutes) I would prefer. It all critically hinges on the ability to lease crewed RN SSNs in the years assumed though.
 

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
It’s worth noting that the QE class have an IEP set up - meaning they can also draw from all of their MTUs as well as their GTs at the same time. With Hunter’s CODLOG set up, high speed mode can only use the single GT.
The Lizzies have a significant hotel load, think about mechanical services, potable water, lighting, etc for 1,600. The GT provide about 70 of her 110MW of mechanical capacity, and she only has 4x20MW motors for propulsion. So even flat out she can only put 80MW of power to the water.

The only real option in that regard is to bolster the MTUs. To my knowledge, the MTUs to be fitted to Hunter are the highest output they produce for generator sets - meaning you’d likely need to add more sets.
The efficient cruise speed might be more of an issue, at which point they would need to look at the installed diesel capacity. Again, if the designer isn't particularly worried, it looks solvable. The MTU engines come in a range of sizes, if you require more sets, then move down a size an start again (say 6 engines). The 4 x MTU 20V 4000 M53B a say 3MW each would mean 12 MW total, this is more than the Hobart class, which is about 11MW diesel and about 35MW from the two LM2500. Operating a single GT significantly reduces operational costs (think about a 747 verse say a A330), diesels typically are cheaper again to operate particularly at slower speeds. GT tend to be optimized for a specific output (and operating conditions), although much improved in recent years.

Something like the Type 45 had only 4MW of diesel, so struggled with just hotel load situations if its GT shutdown, particularly in hot conditions where power generation suffers and hotel loads a very high. Although there are complications here, it wasn't just due to the installed diesel power. But that is basically how they intended to fix it.

Routing in intake and exhaust piping for additional GT is often very space consuming and difficult. Its not just space/weight below.
 

the road runner

Active Member
HOBART and ANZAC class ships will have NSM delivery's sped up to 2024
We shall also receive new sea mines in 2024.
The RAAF will also receive Long range missile's early for the RAAF F-18 fleet ,delivery's to begin in 2024.
Def Min Mr Dutton will make the announcement today
Stand by !

Australia to acquire new strike weapons early (msn.com)

Raytheon and LM have been named as strategic partners for the Commonwealths sovereign guided weapons capability

Australian government names Raytheon, Lockheed as strategic partners in guided weapons - APDR (asiapacificdefencereporter.com)
 
Last edited:

Nudge

New Member
L to R : HMAS Brisbane, HMAS Adelaide, HMAS Supply & USS Frank Cable
Greetings DT forum,

Would there be any significance to the USS Frank Cable (LA class sub tender) visiting at this point in our quest to acquire SSN's, other than a routine friendly port visit?

Thanks
 

DDG38

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Greetings DT forum,
Would there be any significance to the USS Frank Cable (LA class sub tender) visiting at this point in our quest to acquire SSN's, other than a routine friendly port visit?
Thanks
No idea. And given the high level classification of the SSN project you won't get a definitive answer from anyone who's involved with it. Given she's based in Guam it's not unusual for her to conduct routine showing the flag port visits in the region.
 

alexsa

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Good day all

The discussion on number of ships, weapons, hull speed and crew increases are all important issues..... and deserve to be explored. If solutions are to be suggested then there needs to be some justification for that. Suggestions such as simply adding another MT30 (without some sort of reasoned assessment of the impact of such a change) or essentially doubling the fleet size (without considering all the cost and crew implications) gets frustrating after a while.

As an example ... looking at the Hunter class we should note:
1. We are not privy to the design changes that have been made in the public domain so some of the issues may have been resolved y tweaks to the design.
2. Simply adding an MT30 is not simple ..... it is a significant change to the arrangement of the vessel internally and would be a very significant redesign of the ship overall. Hull speed is not simply a matter of adding more power (which in a displacement hull has a diminishing return as speed increases) but relies on the design of the hull and its hydrodynamic efficiency. Adding another MT30 may simply add weight, reduce growth capacity and reduce range for no significant increase in speed.
3. Increasing length (hull plug) may increase speed with no increase in power as it may improve the longtitudinal stability (directional stability) of the vessel, however, it is still not a minor change and would also be a significant redesign. It may be beneficial but it is not simple.
4. Is the extra two to three knots worth it? These are escorts to support a task group which will be limited by the speed of the main body. 27 knots may be sufficient.

A little more careful consideration will mitigate some of the frustration.

alexsa
 
Top