Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[Stuart M]

I would actually suggest an ultra quiet ASW platform is more easily adapted to an air defence role than the other way around. Having a large, quiet platform is not at all detrimental to air defence.

Ideally I new larger platform would be developed to combine the capabilities. For example, the RN Type 82 Destroyer (cruiser), though larger than a Country Class DLG, was based on the Type 12 Leander Class frigate hull form.

This is true, but I would suggest that there is a distinction between a new design that is based on a hull form, compared to trying to make an existing design do something else, which I suspect is the inference in using the Hunters for air defence. Case in point, how good at air defence were the Leopard class, a similar platform to the Leander class? whereas Bristol was significantly larger with a competent anti air armament (for its time).
By all means use the Hunter hull form but lets not try and make the Nascar do Formula 1.

 

[Brissy1982]

Tier 1 ASW ships. Very definitely, just as the Type 45 is a tier 1 AAW ship. The hull is reckoned to be very quiet, & paired with its excellent ASW sensors, & ASW weapons, it should be very good indeed at hunting subs.

I think you've missed their point.

You are of course absolutely correct - the Hunters will definitely be Tier 1 in terms of their ASW capability, which is their primary mission. I expressed myself clumsily in my original post - what I should have said was that 32 Mk41 VLS makes them Tier 2 in terms of their missile capacity. But they are not intended to be long-range AAW or strike platforms, and I think my suggestion of using the Hunters as AAW goalkeepers for HVUs against AShMs by equipping them with large numbers of ESSMs would be a sensible use of their very good radar and combat system while also making best use of 32 VLS cells. My main point about the Hunters is that the temptation to use them as jack-of-all-trade ships in practice will need to be resisted - trying to cram Tomahawks, LRASM, SM-2/SM-6 and ESSM into 32 VLS cells at the same time would be a mistake as they wouldn't be able to carry a sufficient number of any missile type to be really effective. If the number of VLS cells on the Hunters can be increased above 32, then the situation might be different, but it remains to be seen whether that will happen.

 

[StingrayOZ]

I would actually suggest an ultra quiet ASW platform is more easily adapted to an air defence role than the other way around. Having a large, quiet platform is not at all detrimental to air defence.

I would be hesitant to rush into a make item A into item B project.

Looking backwards, the Type 26/Hunter is a large frigate. Looking forward its a positively small for a future long air warfare platform. As missiles are now limited by the size of the Mk41 VLS, future cells will get much larger. Japan, Italy and the US have plans for destroyers, much much larger and more focused.

The type 26/Hunter may be an excellent, starting point, but a half baked, over ambitious, rushed project would be sure to cause calamity, they always do. I also think there is too much pressure to make it a Hunter + Burke destroyer in one flex space, and huge missile load out, focused and general purpose. Ultimately we need 8-9 Hunters and more than 3 destroyers. Making Mega ultra Hunters that are 30,000t and capable of space flight, but still only 8-9 of them is not ultimately going to fix all the issues.

I think leave the Hunters be. Let them be general purpose ships.
Its like this obsession with Anzacs to keep upgrading them. Ultimately, we have taken the design to the limits. They are a capable small frigate, but they aren't a heavy cruiser. They can never be, a heavy cruiser. It can't fire Tlams amd SM-3. It won't singularly, destroy an opposing taskforce.

Sometimes we tend to give requirements and scope to a new platform that the US wouldn't even give to a whole carrier taskforce. This isn't just a navy thing. This recalls those who thought they could turn the F-111 into an air to air fighter, and a bomber, at the same time. Where as everyone else just builds, two things, one for each job.

 

[Volkodav]

I would be hesitant to rush into a make item A into item B project.

Looking backwards, the Type 26/Hunter is a large frigate. Looking forward its a positively small for a future long air warfare platform. As missiles are now limited by the size of the Mk41 VLS, future cells will get much larger. Japan, Italy and the US have plans for destroyers, much much larger and more focused.

The type 26/Hunter may be an excellent, starting point, but a half baked, over ambitious, rushed project would be sure to cause calamity, they always do. I also think there is too much pressure to make it a Hunter + Burke destroyer in one flex space, and huge missile load out, focused and general purpose. Ultimately we need 8-9 Hunters and more than 3 destroyers. Making Mega ultra Hunters that are 30,000t and capable of space flight, but still only 8-9 of them is not ultimately going to fix all the issues.

I think leave the Hunters be. Let them be general purpose ships.
Its like this obsession with Anzacs to keep upgrading them. Ultimately, we have taken the design to the limits. They are a capable small frigate, but they aren't a heavy cruiser. They can never be, a heavy cruiser. It can't fire Tlams amd SM-3. It won't singularly, destroy an opposing taskforce.

Sometimes we tend to give requirements and scope to a new platform that the US wouldn't even give to a whole carrier taskforce. This isn't just a navy thing. This recalls those who thought they could turn the F-111 into an air to air fighter, and a bomber, at the same time. Where as everyone else just builds, two things, one for each job.

The root cause of an asw frigate being adapted as a general purpose frigate with both high end ASW and air defence capabilities can be traced back to former SecDef Denis Richardson (the primary driver behind building subs in Japan for Australia in exchange for defence and trade treaties) rejecting defence advice they needed something bigger and significantly more capable than the Hobart's to replace the ANZACs.

He said no to a suitably a suitably sized destroyer but yes to AEGIS, enhanced ASW, a large active phased array radar, VLS, 5" gun and helicopters, so long as they could be integrated into a modified off the shelf frigate of less than 10000 t.

This was, in essence, a return to the delusional, totally impractical requirements setting by non technical "bosses" who don't listen to competent people with access to actual facts, decision making of the 1960s.

 

[Volkodav]

This is true, but I would suggest that there is a distinction between a new design that is based on a hull form, compared to trying to make an existing design do something else, which I suspect is the inference in using the Hunters for air defence. Case in point, how good at air defence were the Leopard class, a similar platform to the Leander class? whereas Bristol was significantly larger with a competent anti air armament (for its time).
By all means use the Hunter hull form but lets not try and make the Nascar do Formula 1.

The Leopards and Salisbury's preceded the Leanders (which were evolved from the original Type 12s). There was originally meant to a be an ASW version of the diesel powered Type 41/61 platform, specifically for convoy escort work along side the 41 and 61, but the RN continued with Steam for the ASW frigates. It was the larger, faster more capable Type 12 that evolved into the GP frigates (Leaders), not the smaller, slower diesel powered ships.

The actual GP designs of the time were the County Class DDG/DLG and the Type 81, GP frigate / Sloop. The Type 81 was in essence followed by the GP Type 82 and BAEs proposal for a larger GP follow on for the Hunter is the paper Type 83 concept.

There was a early/mid 90s GP proposal for a Type 42 DDG replacement. Basically imagine Type 45 Daring systems, incorporated into a a Spruance/Ticonderoga sized platform that has the overall appearance of a stretched, double ended Type 23 Duke class ASW frigate.

 

[spoz]

This is true, but I would suggest that there is a distinction between a new design that is based on a hull form, compared to trying to make an existing design do something else, which I suspect is the inference in using the Hunters for air defence. Case in point, how good at air defence were the Leopard class, a similar platform to the Leander class? whereas Bristol was significantly larger with a competent anti air armament (for its time).
By all means use the Hunter hull form but lets not try and make the Nascar do Formula 1.

The Type 41s and 61s where not similar platforms to the Type 12s, which were developed into the Leanders. The 41s and 61s were quite a lot smaller (330 feet versus 370 feet) although their displacements were roughly similar), were powered by diesel engines not steam turbines, and had different propellor designs. The apparent similarity in the bow shape is about the (accurate) RN perception at the time of what made for good sea keeping, while the bridges shape is just the standard bridge shape of the time. Having served in both, very little else was the same, in a design sense, although of course they used a lot of common minor equipment.

 

[ngatimozart]

I just googled some costs of ammunition to get an idea.
Germany recently ordered 600,000 rounds of 30mm , at a cost of 576 million euro! Thats about 970 million AUD!

20mm works out at about $4600 per second, or $54500 per minute....which is a lot cheaper!

Ah yes but 30mm is far more effective than 20mm and that's where you get VfM / bang for buck. Another point, what is the 30mm ammo type and does 20mm ammo have the same capabilities? That could be comparing apples and oranges.

 

[Stuart M]

The Type 41s and 61s where not similar platforms to the Type 12s, which were developed into the Leanders. The 41s and 61s were quite a lot smaller (330 feet versus 370 feet) although their displacements were roughly similar), were powered by diesel engines not steam turbines, and had different propellor designs. The apparent similarity in the bow shape is about the (accurate) RN perception at the time of what made for good sea keeping, while the bridges shape is just the standard bridge shape of the time. Having served in both, very little else was the same, in a design sense, although of course they used a lot of common minor equipment.

Interesting, I thought the Leanders were a similar type and an evolution.. learn something new every day!

 

[H_K]

He said no to a suitably a suitably sized destroyer but yes to AEGIS, enhanced ASW, a large active phased array radar, VLS, 5" gun and helicopters, so long as they could be integrated into a modified off the shelf frigate of less than 10000 t.

This was, in essence, a return to the delusional, totally impractical requirements setting by non technical "bosses" who don't listen to competent people with access to actual facts, decision making of the 1960s.

What was the alternative? A warmed-up 1980s design like the US DDGs, with lower ASW performance and high manning costs would have come with its own slew of problems… and not a lot of other off-the-shelf options out there bigger than T26

 

[Volkodav]

What was the alternative? A warmed-up 1980s design like the US DDGs, with lower ASW performance and high manning costs would have come with its own slew of problems… and not a lot of other off-the-shelf options out there bigger than T26

A new design using proven systems is one option, usually ignored, that delivers good results.

A split buy of ASW frigates and destroyers, is another option.

Then again, the Burke is no slouch at ASW. If some of the hybrid electric drive options were employed they would be extremely quiet. That is an electric motor on each shaft is driven by the ships generators at low speed, it was a measure to reduce fuel burn on station but could also be tuned for ASW, as the generators are gas turbines installed higher in the hull.

Japan and South Korea have both developed substantially improved Burke's.

 

[Bob53]

Ah yes but 30mm is far more effective than 20mm and that's where you get VfM / bang for buck. Another point, what is the 30mm ammo type and does 20mm ammo have the same capabilities? That could be comparing apples and oranges.

regardless of calibre and cost per round, no matter what way you look at it, a gun is going to be a lot cheaper and possibly more effective to combat the low end drones than missiles. And my point was this would seem to revive the Phalanx style weapons requirement. What I was seeing was them being phased out in favour of missiles due to the new gen AShMs. What we are seeing in the Ukraine swings back a requirement for a radar equipped gun.

 

[John Fedup]

A new design using proven systems is one option, usually ignored, that delivers good results.

A split buy of ASW frigates and destroyers, is another option.

Then again, the Burke is no slouch at ASW. If some of the hybrid electric drive options were employed they would be extremely quiet. That is an electric motor on each shaft is driven by the ships generators at low speed, it was a measure to reduce fuel burn on station but could also be tuned for ASW, as the generators are gas turbines installed higher in the hull.

Japan and South Korea have both developed substantially improved Burke's.

Hybrid is one option but so is IEP, a solution that is now proven on the QE class and Zumwalt. Quiet plus extra power for future energy weapons.

 

[swerve]

Ah yes but 30mm is far more effective than 20mm and that's where you get VfM / bang for buck. Another point, what is the 30mm ammo type and does 20mm ammo have the same capabilities? That could be comparing apples and oranges.

Against some small drones 20mm may be overkill, so greater effectiveness would be wasted.

 

[old faithful]

The reason I was pointing out cost of 20mm and 30mm ammunition, is to point out that it is a very expensive way to combat drones. At the ranges that phalanx is effective, it would only be capable of engaging munitions fired from big drones, or very small drones with small payloads. In which case , they are more effective and cheaper solutions. If the phalanx was used to engage munitions fired from large drones, well that's what it is for in the first place. ECM maybe the most effective way to counter smaller drones or swarms of them.

 

[swerve]

Hybrid is one option but so is IEP, a solution that is now proven on the QE class and Zumwalt. Quiet plus extra power for future energy weapons.

Also Juan Carlos & her derivatives Canberra, Adelaide & Anadolu. I've read that Juan Carlos has had problems with propulsion, but they've not stopped her operating ane are limited to the azimuthal pods, & are expected to be fixed with new azipods. The electrical system as a whole has worked well, AFAIK.

 

[Redlands18]

Also Juan Carlos & her derivatives Canberra, Adelaide & Anadolu. I've read that Juan Carlos has had problems with propulsion, but they've not stopped her operating ane are limited to the azimuthal pods, & are expected to be fixed with new azipods. The electrical system as a whole has worked well, AFAIK.

Navy's billion-dollar vessels mostly 'ship-shape' after years of engine troubles - ABC News
The Canberra class had problems with the propulsion systems as well, but this was fixed by 2019. Hard to understand why the Juan Carlos has not been fixed yet, sounds like the same issue. No problems have been publicly reported, other than that attributed to Volcanic debris, picked up by Adelaide while responding to the 2021 Tongan Volcano disaster.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Hybrid is one option but so is IEP, a solution that is now proven on the QE class and Zumwalt. Quiet plus extra power for future energy weapons.

But you want a very reliable system for hotel and propulsion on a destroyer.

The Japanese had to grow the Maya class over the Atago class purely for COGLAG propulsion. 2 x lm2500, 2 smaller GT as generators, 2 diesels as generators. The Italians are going CODOGAL. IEP advantage is at lower speeds. There is something to be said for bolting GT to propellers when wanting to run at max speed.

Maya is alread 10000+t, The Italian destroyers are ~14,000t. There is also a proposal (or rethink of the 2014 cancellation) of a Block IV Burke as the DDG((X) program is having issues, this would be around 13,000t.

Navy Eyes Yet Another Arleigh Burke Destroyer Variant After Warship Plans Hit Snags

Unfortunately, there are serious questions about whether the Arleigh Burke class hullform can support any additional capability growth.

www.thedrive.com

Italy plans new destroyers for 2028 delivery

Fresh from a burst of shipbuilding spurred by the retirement of old vessels, the Italian Navy is now back at the drawing board to design what it considers the cornerstone of its fleet — new destroyers.

www.defensenews.com

Maya-Class Guided Missile Destroyers

Maya-class (27DDG-class) guided-missile destroyer is an improved variant of the Atago-class destroyers of the Japan Maritime Self Defense Force (JMSDF).

www.naval-technology.com

 

[John Fedup]

But you want a very reliable system for hotel and propulsion on a destroyer.

The Japanese had to grow the Maya class over the Atago class purely for COGLAG propulsion. 2 x lm2500, 2 smaller GT as generators, 2 diesels as generators. The Italians are going CODOGAL. IEP advantage is at lower speeds. There is something to be said for bolting GT to propellers when wanting to run at max speed.

Maya is alread 10000+t, The Italian destroyers are ~14,000t. There is also a proposal (or rethink of the 2014 cancellation) of a Block IV Burke as the DDG((X) program is having issues, this would be around 13,000t.

Navy Eyes Yet Another Arleigh Burke Destroyer Variant After Warship Plans Hit Snags

Unfortunately, there are serious questions about whether the Arleigh Burke class hullform can support any additional capability growth.

www.thedrive.com

Italy plans new destroyers for 2028 delivery

Fresh from a burst of shipbuilding spurred by the retirement of old vessels, the Italian Navy is now back at the drawing board to design what it considers the cornerstone of its fleet — new destroyers.

www.defensenews.com

Maya-Class Guided Missile Destroyers

Maya-class (27DDG-class) guided-missile destroyer is an improved variant of the Atago-class destroyers of the Japan Maritime Self Defense Force (JMSDF).

www.naval-technology.com

Zumwalt’s 15,000 tons powered by IEP is no slow poke. No exotic gear/transmission system is required.

 

[ngatimozart]

Zumwalt’s 15,000 tons powered by IEP is no slow poke. No exotic gear/transmission system is required.

Yes it's not the SNAFU on the RN Type 45 DDG.

 

[hauritz]

I would be hesitant to rush into a make item A into item B project.

Looking backwards, the Type 26/Hunter is a large frigate. Looking forward its a positively small for a future long air warfare platform. As missiles are now limited by the size of the Mk41 VLS, future cells will get much larger. Japan, Italy and the US have plans for destroyers, much much larger and more focused.

The type 26/Hunter may be an excellent, starting point, but a half baked, over ambitious, rushed project would be sure to cause calamity, they always do. I also think there is too much pressure to make it a Hunter + Burke destroyer in one flex space, and huge missile load out, focused and general purpose. Ultimately we need 8-9 Hunters and more than 3 destroyers. Making Mega ultra Hunters that are 30,000t and capable of space flight, but still only 8-9 of them is not ultimately going to fix all the issues.

I think leave the Hunters be. Let them be general purpose ships.
Its like this obsession with Anzacs to keep upgrading them. Ultimately, we have taken the design to the limits. They are a capable small frigate, but they aren't a heavy cruiser. They can never be, a heavy cruiser. It can't fire Tlams amd SM-3. It won't singularly, destroy an opposing taskforce.

Sometimes we tend to give requirements and scope to a new platform that the US wouldn't even give to a whole carrier taskforce. This isn't just a navy thing. This recalls those who thought they could turn the F-111 into an air to air fighter, and a bomber, at the same time. Where as everyone else just builds, two things, one for each job.

When you look at the size of some of some of the next and current generation warships it seems to contradict the claims of the Australian Defence Minister that other navies are opting for smaller ships.

In reality even the smaller ships are getting much bigger. The Type 31 is much larger than the Type 23 and new Constellation class FFGs are bigger than the Oliver Hazard Perry class.

For what it actually is, which is a hybrid ASW/AAW warship, the Hunter is probably about the size you would expect.

From what I have gathered the navy needs a more capable ship than the Arafura. The Arafura is mostly intended to be a constabulary warship and I can see the justification for adding extra capabilities to that ship. However these ships should never be regarded as frontline warships.

The Hunter class on the other hand probably represents the minimum capability you would need from a frontline warship operating in this region. If anything we should be working towards an even more capable design to eventually supersede the Hunter and Hobart classes.