Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[StevoJH]

Don't get hung up on the age of the design. Just remember the T26 has been in gestation for 20 years and the AB design is 30 odd years old
The more mature the design the the less risk and cost.

My main concern with age of design is about the running costs of the underlying architecture (such as propulsion, manning requirements etc) compared to a more modern design, and also ease of upgrade.

The T26 is weird, because they've thrown around so many different concepts over the years, and its now in the 3rd(?) or 4th(?) iteration of the design process, i'd say its a bit unclear about how old the actual underlying design is. Remember that 20 years ago they were talking about 'Future Surface Combatant', messing around with trimaran designs and building RV Triton (is that still with ABF or gone now?)

DDG:
The DDG-51 design probably isn't a good comparison of a design still in production so long after its original design in my opinion, at least in the Australian context. Yes it can do its job, yeah its probably still the most capable multi-role surface combatant on the seas right now/

*But* it has much higher manning requirements (300+) then most new combatants, even ones approaching it in size and it still has many of the same basic systems such as propulsion choices (though in upgraded form) that it had 30 years ago as well.

Its also gone up significantly in displacement over that time as well, with the same overall dimensions, which has to have eaten into the margin for further upgrades of the later units.

Saying all that, this is all purely my opinion and i'll never pretend to be an expert. So I could be completely wrong and if someone who knows more then me says different i'll definately listen to what they have to say.

 

[Todjaeger]

Operating two separate designs just doesn't make sense for such a small navy in the neighbourhood we inhabit. The RN's ship procurement should be held as the example to avoid not something to emulate. We need a single patrol ship and war ship design suitable for producing in as great a quantity as can be sustained. The F-100 design should serve as the basis for future evolution just as the F88 rifle has for the Army.

I disagree. If a navy is only going to operate a single escort design, then they need to decide either to make it a GP design which is okay at a variety of roles (AAD, ASW, ASuW, etc.) but not really good at a particular role, pick a single role to be really good at, with everything else being okay at, or build in capabilities (and the associated costs) to be very good at multiple roles.

Take the Hobart-class AWD design as an example. Very good for AAD with the SPY-1Dv1 radar and Aegis combat data system, and a VLS mix of Standard and ESSM. However, for something like a strike/land attack role depending on the desired volume of missile fire, the design might require another escort for AAD. For ASW, mounting a pair of twin LWT launchers and only having space for a single naval helicopter would prove limitations, and I do not know if the Hobart-class hull form is optimized for ASW work.

Given the RAN's need to cover several different roles at the same time, it does seem like the current path of having vessels which specialize in a specific role, but are capable of GP operations in other roles, is the correct one to take. The question now is just how much can be in common between the different specialized vessels. Unfortunately we already know that attempting to replicate the AWD's would be quite difficult, as some of the machinery used in them is already out of production having been replaced with newer designs. A Flight II AWD design with updated machinery could be possible, and then a future order for some other escort with a non-AAD focus could placed in blocks.

As it stands, whatever gets ordered is going to be different from the AWD's to a degree, and it might, or might not, be as effective at non-AAD roles as it is at AAD.

 

[ASSAIL]

My main concern with age of design is about the running costs of the underlying architecture (such as propulsion, manning requirements etc) compared to a more modern design, and also ease of upgrade.

The T26 is weird, because they've thrown around so many different concepts over the years, and its now in the 3rd(?) or 4th(?) iteration of the design process, i'd say its a bit unclear about how old the actual underlying design is. Remember that 20 years ago they were talking about 'Future Surface Combatant', messing around with trimaran designs and building RV Triton (is that still with ABF or gone now?)

DDG:
The DDG-51 design probably isn't a good comparison of a design still in production so long after its original design in my opinion, at least in the Australian context. Yes it can do its job, yeah its probably still the most capable multi-role surface combatant on the seas right now/

*But* it has much higher manning requirements (300+) then most new combatants, even ones approaching it in size and it still has many of the same basic systems such as propulsion choices (though in upgraded form) that it had 30 years ago as well.

Its also gone up significantly in displacement over that time as well, with the same overall dimensions, which has to have eaten into the margin for further upgrades of the later units.

Saying all that, this is all purely my opinion and i'll never pretend to be an expert. So I could be completely wrong and if someone who knows more then me says different i'll definately listen to what they have to say.

The point being that a "mature design" doesn't mean nothing changes and for that look no further than the ABs No 51 is a very different ship to No 117 but it still looks similar. The design has evolved with changes and improvements that are based on experience and that is the benefit.
The options are FREMM that is in production with around 10 + in service so that is mature, F 100 the same but no one is suggesting that there be no changes to propulsion, hanger or other internals but they have been built and the basic blocks are the same and build idiocyncacys have been ironed out, and finally T26 of which none yet have been built.
The first two options provide low risk and certainty, the latter is unknown.
As a result, there is merit in constructing two batches, first and ASW iteration of F 100 or FREMM and if desired and if T26 proves to be vastly superior after it has matured, a further 6. Otherwise just keep on building the first choice.

The RAN has always had diversity in its major escorts and in the early years it mattered not as all the designs were British or derivations of such however, with the introduction of the CFA DDGs we had two different design philosophy's and manning ended up being streamed in the majority of cases. While I have no first hand knowledge, I suspect the same applies between the FFGs and ANZACs today. What I'm suggesting is that it should remain a priority for all the major classes of ships to be similar to operate and sustain.
Sorry for banging on about this here and in previous posts

 

[hairyman]

As one is an Air Warfare Destroyer primarily, and the other anti-submarine warfare Frigate, i would say they nee:duel:dueld to be different designs.:duel

 

[hairyman]

As one is an Air Warfare Destroyer primarily, and the other anti-submarine warfare Frigate, i would say they need to be different designs.:duel

 

[PeterM]

Not entirely sure that is accurate, as the Millennium Gun is also a self-contained, non-penetrating modular deck mounted gun. The Millennium Gun would need a power connection to recharge an on-board battery, as well as connections to an external fire control system and an operator's station, while the Sea Phalanx version of the Mk 15 CIWS is completely self-contained with sensor and autonomous engagement ability.

I have not been able to determine the required footprint for the Mk 15, but the deck does require reinforcement to deal with both the weapon weight (~6,000 kg for the later Mods) and shock from firing the weapon. I could be mistaken but I believe the Mk 15 also requires power and coolant connections.

The Millennium Gun requires ~6 m^3 of space for the mounting, and is almost half the weight of the Mk 15, coming in at ~3,300 kg. That suggests to me that while it might not currently be possible to just 'swap' a Phalanx for a Millennium Gun, it certainly should be possible to mod a site for mounting a Phalanx so that a Millennium Gun could be mounted instead.

Another important consideration is whether or not a particular CIWS is really even relevant anymore. In many respects it does look like the Mk 15 has had it's heyday and now it is time to move on to weapons that have longer range and/or are able to get hits on a target more effectively.

Is it viable option to replace the RAN's 25mm Typhoon mountings with the 35mm Millenium Gun (should there be the requirement)?

 

[alexsa]

Not entirely sure that is accurate, as the Millennium Gun is also a self-contained, non-penetrating modular deck mounted gun. The Millennium Gun would need a power connection to recharge an on-board battery, as well as connections to an external fire control system and an operator's station, while the Sea Phalanx version of the Mk 15 CIWS is completely self-contained with sensor and autonomous engagement ability.

I have not been able to determine the required footprint for the Mk 15, but the deck does require reinforcement to deal with both the weapon weight (~6,000 kg for the later Mods) and shock from firing the weapon. I could be mistaken but I believe the Mk 15 also requires power and coolant connections.

The Millennium Gun requires ~6 m^3 of space for the mounting, and is almost half the weight of the Mk 15, coming in at ~3,300 kg. That suggests to me that while it might not currently be possible to just 'swap' a Phalanx for a Millennium Gun, it certainly should be possible to mod a site for mounting a Phalanx so that a Millennium Gun could be mounted instead.

Another important consideration is whether or not a particular CIWS is really even relevant anymore. In many respects it does look like the Mk 15 has had it's heyday and now it is time to move on to weapons that have longer range and/or are able to get hits on a target more effectively.

The above deck equipment for SeaRAM is no lightweight either at about 7700kg with 11 missiles but for some smaller ships you would save weight on the sensor fit.


RAM block II offers a longer range defense against missiles than the millennium gun suggesting that if you had a choice this would be better for vessels such as the AORs, Choules and the LHD which are or will be equipped to take the Mk15. To be honest if the cost was not so horrific changing out the Mk 15 for SeaRAM across the board would be nice.


The Millennium Gun appears to be a useful replacement for the 25mm auto cannons but retrofitting this to an exiting vessel with in the Typhoon footprint may be a challenge.It will be interesting to see what gun is mooted for the OPV

 

[oldsig127]

As one is an Air Warfare Destroyer primarily, and the other anti-submarine warfare Frigate, i would say they need to be different designs.:duel

Remind me which two different designs the USN uses for AAW and ASW?

It seems to me that they have retired or are retiring the FFGs, which pretty much leaves one class of 60+ Arleigh Burkes which do both.

Yes, I know they're thrashing about looking for a frigate to fit below those large ships, but even they will probably be patrol/GP vessels

oldsig.

 

[Goknub]

I believe this is a period of cultural change for the RAN. Much of the terminology used still reflects a British concept of operations developed during the Cold War. Ship development objectives identified by a single role (ie AWD or ASW) and referred to as "escorts". Given the close historic ties between the RN and RAN this only makes sense.
The realities of operating in Asia don't match this Atlantic way of thinking and this has lead the RAN towards warship designs that can operate in all roles as the situation dictates.
Compare the Type 45 to the AWD, both are identifed by the single role of air defence but the AWD is in practical terms an all-purpose warship.

It's this change in ideology that should drive SEA 5000 in my view. These should be seen (and thus equipped) as capital ships, all-purpose warships equipped to deal with any situation. This is particularly true since the RAN typically operates in small numbers of 1 to 3 ships. There is just no fat for a single role ship and a split design just adds needless cost and complexity.

 

[alexsa]

I believe this is a period of cultural change for the RAN. Much of the terminology used still reflects a British concept of operations developed during the Cold War. Ship development objectives identified by a single role (ie AWD or ASW) and referred to as "escorts". Given the close historic ties between the RN and RAN this only makes sense.
The realities of operating in Asia don't match this Atlantic way of thinking and this has lead the RAN towards warship designs that can operate in all roles as the situation dictates.
Compare the Type 45 to the AWD, both are identifed by the single role of air defence but the AWD is in practical terms an all-purpose warship.

It's this change in ideology that should drive SEA 5000 in my view. These should be seen (and thus equipped) as capital ships, all-purpose warships equipped to deal with any situation. This is particularly true since the RAN typically operates in small numbers of 1 to 3 ships. There is just no fat for a single role ship and a split design just adds needless cost and complexity.

I disagree, the vessel need to be more capable (given the paucity of numbers) but some specialization is called for a Navy the size of the RAN. If you look at the difference in the Navantia Future Frigate offering and the Hobart Class DDG there has been modification for the ASW role (the increased aviation capacity being a case in point) which required increased in growth margin. Even the T26 was originally mooted as ASW and GP variants with the FREMM being built along these lines as well.


The Hobart DDG will be our premier AAW platform but is still a multirole platform. The future frigate (or destroyer) being focused on ASW with a very credible AAW and ASuW capability as well.

 

[hairyman]

Remind me which two different designs the USN uses for AAW and ASW?

It seems to me that they have retired or are retiring the FFGs, which pretty much leaves one class of 60+ Arleigh Burkes which do both.

And which Australian ship is the equivelant of the Arleigh Burkes? AWD, Future Frigate. Put them both together and they might be.

With each a GP role but AWD leaning towards Air Defence and Future Frigate favouring ASW, it is the only option we have unless we buy Arleigh Burkes, and I dont fancy their cost.

 

[pussertas]

Yes. Agree

How about Defence does what it plans - build a class of nine. Sure, evolve them in batches, refit the earlier ships with the improvements if it passes the financial and operational common sense tests, and start again at the end.

Of course, that won't let us all drool over our personal favourite ship in RAN paintwork, but those who would prefer option "z" will learn to love option "x" without the pussers and others going nuts keeping a million extra different parts

oldsig

Yes. Could not agree:jump2 more.

 

[oldsig127]

Remind me which two different designs the USN uses for AAW and ASW?

It seems to me that they have retired or are retiring the FFGs, which pretty much leaves one class of 60+ Arleigh Burkes which do both.

And which Australian ship is the equivelant of the Arleigh Burkes? AWD, Future Frigate. Put them both together and they might be.

With each a GP role but AWD leaning towards Air Defence and Future Frigate favouring ASW, it is the only option we have unless we buy Arleigh Burkes, and I dont fancy their cost.

It appears that I misunderstood your post, which to me suggested that the role *had* to be undertaken by ships with one or other role, whereas the USN doesn't do that at all.

Of course none of ours will be 8000 ton plus with the capacity to do both at the highest level, but they *could* be if we had the will, people and treasure

Oldsig

 

[StingrayOZ]

I would, it'd be lunacy and so unbelievably unlikely that only a sudden decision to buy a new aircraft carrier would surprise me more.

What is it with people determined to buy penny packets of ships rather than consistent classes large enough to offer massive benefits in manufacturing scale and savings in training and maintenance to the Navy? And worse, choose a few based on a Spanish design, then maybe a few based on a British design, then maybe a few of an entirely different *type* of ship designed in Japan. Let's make it as hard as possible to supply them, maintain them, and man them.

And don't forget - let's avoid giving parliament the opportunity to insert ten year delays at every changeover.

How about Defence does what it plans - build a class of nine. Sure, evolve them in batches, refit the earlier ships with the improvements if it passes the financial and operational common sense tests, and start again at the end.

Of course, that won't let us all drool over our personal favourite ship in RAN paintwork, but those who would prefer option "z" will learn to love option "x" without the pussers and others going nuts keeping a million extra different parts

oldsig

There are issues with just building more F-105 frigates.

* The design has limited growth potential, particularly after we add a second hanger and a taller radar mast.
* The crewing is more than twice that of comparative designs
* Propulsion and power generation is last century. These ships will have issues supporting modern weapons and more modern radars and sensors. Is one phalanx sufficient in 2040.
* These ships were never chosen for ASW, while not bad in that regard, they aren't designed around various dismounted systems and would have limited capability to embark and deploy such systems.

The problem with the Type 26 is that it is still fairly high risk and not in service.

The AWD's are already in service with us, and much the fitout is going to be shared across the LHD and AOR. So unless we build AWD's forever more we are going to have to look at a more modern design.

Of course once we start building Type 26's then there is nothing stopping us having a continuous build and replacing all 12 surface combatants with ships based off the Type 26 form.

35mm no the frigates, opv and land 400 would be interesting.

 

[Volkodav]

Remind me which two different designs the USN uses for AAW and ASW?

It seems to me that they have retired or are retiring the FFGs, which pretty much leaves one class of 60+ Arleigh Burkes which do both.

And which Australian ship is the equivelant of the Arleigh Burkes? AWD, Future Frigate. Put them both together and they might be.

With each a GP role but AWD leaning towards Air Defence and Future Frigate favouring ASW, it is the only option we have unless we buy Arleigh Burkes, and I dont fancy their cost.

LCS and the new frigate program. In fact if you look back less than a decade you will see that while Australia was keen on a high end replacement for the ANZACs they were also aiming for LCS like capabilities in the original SEA1180 OCV. I recall discussions as the AWD designer decision approached that one of the advantages of the F100 was being an existing design with a current build it would be available sooner and being cheaper we could afford four instead of just three and possibly could even build additional examples to replace the FFGs and not upgrade the ANZACs.

 

[Muar River]

There are issues with just building more F-105 frigates.

* The design has limited growth potential, particularly after we add a second hanger and a taller radar mast.
* The crewing is more than twice that of comparative designs
* Propulsion and power generation is last century. These ships will have issues supporting modern weapons and more modern radars and sensors. Is one phalanx sufficient in 2040.
* These ships were never chosen for ASW, while not bad in that regard, they aren't designed around various dismounted systems and would have limited capability to embark and deploy such systems.

The problem with the Type 26 is that it is still fairly high risk and not in service.

The AWD's are already in service with us, and much the fitout is going to be shared across the LHD and AOR. So unless we build AWD's forever more we are going to have to look at a more modern design.

Of course once we start building Type 26's then there is nothing stopping us having a continuous build and replacing all 12 surface combatants with ships based off the Type 26 form.

35mm no the frigates, opv and land 400 would be interesting.

The Type 26 programme has also seen numbers cut from 13 to 8 on affordability. Speed has been cut to 26 knots as a cost saving measure and I did read where BAE had offered to cut a considerable sum of the purchase price if all ships were ordered at once, an offer which apparently has not been taken up. What do you read into that?

 

[oldsig127]

There are issues with just building more F-105 frigates.
.

Very interesting and all, but nothing to do with what I posted and misses the point by a mile, which was NOT to suggest we just keep building F105 frigates, but that we choose ONE design and build enough of them to get the benefits of scale, while evolving them through batches of (say) 3+3+3 or 4+5.

What I find an unbelievably silly suggestion is that we start chopping and changing from one design to another midstream, which may satisfy the desire to see more types in RAN service, or to have more specialised ships, but introduces the sort of production,training and logistical nightmares that neither manufacturers nor Defence will want. Changing to the latest greatest design every few years is the sort of thing that costs a billion extra, gives unpredictable benefits (or maybe disadvantages) and inserts the opportunity for politicians and lobbyists to delay endlessly while achieving nothing.

oldsig

 

[oldsig127]

Remind me which two different designs the USN uses for AAW and ASW?

LCS and the new frigate program. In fact if you look back less than a decade you will see that while Australia was keen on a high end replacement for the ANZACs they were also aiming for LCS like capabilities in the original SEA1180 OCV. I recall discussions as the AWD designer decision approached that one of the advantages of the F100 was being an existing design with a current build it would be available sooner and being cheaper we could afford four instead of just three and possibly could even build additional examples to replace the FFGs and not upgrade the ANZACs.

With the best will in the world, the LCS is NOT an ASW frigate, and the "new frigate program" doesn't actually have a design, much less a ship in the water so it hardly "uses" it yet.

If you want to wander off at a tangent, feel free, but don't quote me first when it's nothing to do with what I said

oldsig

 

[Raven22]

Very interesting and all, but nothing to do with what I posted and misses the point by a mile, which was NOT to suggest we just keep building F105 frigates, but that we choose ONE design and build enough of them to get the benefits of scale, while evolving them through batches of (say) 3+3+3 or 4+5.

What I find an unbelievably silly suggestion is that we start chopping and changing from one design to another midstream, which may satisfy the desire to see more types in RAN service, or to have more specialised ships, but introduces the sort of production,training and logistical nightmares that neither manufacturers nor Defence will want. Changing to the latest greatest design every few years is the sort of thing that costs a billion extra, gives unpredictable benefits (or maybe disadvantages) and inserts the opportunity for politicians and lobbyists to delay endlessly while achieving nothing.

oldsig

How would changing to Type 26 after building here extra F100s be any different to current plans in that regard?

Current plans see three F100 AWDs built, followed by nine frigates of a common design. Total 12 surface combatants in two classes.

A split buy would see three further F100s built (albeit to a modified design), followed by six frigates of a common type. Total 12 surface combatants in two classes.

It probably would be slightly more expensive than just building nine frigates to a common design, but the scheduling advantages of building more ships as soon as possible as well as having a mature Type 26 to choose would counter balance that.

I think you are widely over estimating the problems of a split buy. All it does is move the split from hull four to hull seven.

 

[alexsa]

While not completely disagreeing ...just a few comments

There are issues with just building more F-105 frigates.

* The design has limited growth potential, particularly after we add a second hanger and a taller radar mast.
.

The displacement of the evolved F105 has been increased over the Hobart AWD, as such this may not be strictly correct and is based on assumption.

* The crewing is more than twice that of comparative designs

Really ... more than twice. This is down to the operating arrangements of the service and what gear is carried. look at Choules .... as an RFA it had a crew of 65 and has over 100 in RAN service.


In any case the Hobart DDG has a complement of over 180 (plus air crew) with accommodation for over 230. The T26 has a complement of around 120 but has capacity for over 200. I suggest that like the Hobart the aviation crew will be extra and extra crew would also be carried for specific missions. In any case it is not more than double.


,

* Propulsion and power generation is last century. These ships will have issues supporting modern weapons and more modern radars and sensors. Is one phalanx sufficient in 2040.

How do you know this? If the power systems remain unchanged you may have issues but the evolved 105 can be equipped with more powerful and modern gensets that will fit in the same foot print. Hopefully this will be done, however, to state emphatically that this will be an issue without the details of the design is not a valid comment. if this does not apply to the Burkes' .... which are an older design ..... it does not apply here.

* These ships were never chosen for ASW, while not bad in that regard, they aren't designed around various dismounted systems and would have limited capability to embark and deploy such systems.

What dismounted systems and how do you know they cannot operate them????


To be fair the ASW suite has not been divulged in detail


The reason I make these point is a lot of the 'judgement' on the options is based on assumption as we have no visibility of precisely what is being offered