Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[alexsa]

May you please provide a link to this? Thanks.

To the aviation issue I believe that the initial Type 26 proposal before budget constraints the design was large enough to house 2 Romeo's. (I cannot provide a link for this).

On another note, It's obvious to any person that it was a simple edit job of the UK Type 26 promo video.

It is the cover photo of their page, It includes harpoon, and addition side door aft of the mission bay (torps maybe), a different bridge wing and a different mast to the one on the video..... cannot count the VLS.

It looks closer to this image of the T26 in this report but I have no idea which is the most recent.

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/no-type-26-frigate-not-cut-three-ships/

The CEA panels in the Facebook image do look a bit small. However, it is all PR

 

[alexsa]

If we are going that big you would think the Govt would buy the latest flight of Burke?

The German proposal had 64 VLS and 28 plus knots of speed.

I'd suggest 48 VLS is more realistic with possible growth to 64 VLS. I recall Volk did provide advice on Navantia offering of an evolved design?

When Navantia released detail of the design work done with CoA funds it included a possible growth path to 64 cells. All PR imagery shows 48 Cells. We would need a large increase in inventory of current missiles to fill the additional 16 cells on 9 frigates. If (and it is an if noting there is no funding for such an idea) we picked up ASROC or TLAM (again noting no current funding) then the additional cells may have a use.

As far as I can see for the blurbs the land attack capability mooted early in the discussion of the future frigate has not been spoken about for some time.

12 vessels with 48 cells offers a lot of capacity, especially where the SSM are carried in seperate box launchers.

 

[Milne Bay]

When Navantia released detail of the design work done with CoA funds it included a possible growth path to 64 cells. All PR imagery shows 48 Cells. We would need a large increase in inventory of current missiles to fill the additional 16 cells on 9 frigates. If (and it is an if noting there is no funding for such an idea) we picked up ASROC or TLAM (again noting no current funding) then the additional cells may have a use.

As far as I can see for the blurbs the land attack capability mooted early in the discussion of the future frigate has not been spoken about for some time.

12 vessels with 48 cells offers a lot of capacity, especially where the SSM are carried in separate box launchers.

If - as is quite possibly intended - the future frigates are built in batches, then a growth path to 64 cells may not only be desirable but may become mandatory if the strategic outlook goes pear shaped. Even if 48 cells is seen to be sufficient for the time being, having the ability to include a growth path to 64 cells could be an asset in the down-select of a design.
MB

 

[alexsa]

If - as is quite possibly intended - the future frigates are built in batches, then a growth path to 64 cells may not only be desirable but may become mandatory if the strategic outlook goes pear shaped. Even if 48 cells is seen to be sufficient for the time being, having the ability to include a growth path to 64 cells could be an asset in the down-select of a design.
MB

But it entails a lot of risk. The impact of the Mk41 module can be considerable particutly if you need more than the tactical or elf defence versions. Also this is are large square out of the hull structure and the structural impact cannot be underestimated.

The evolved F105 'appears' to have the design potential for 64 cells. The T26 only has 16 Mk41 cells at the moment. We have no visibility of what the design can cater for but if the max is 36, or even 48, then the addition 16 has the potential for significant design challenges.

As and example have a look at the modifications to the first 3 FFG7 in Australia ..... the additional sloped hull extension (less than 3m) had significant structural issues that required reinforcing doubling plates in the modification. Increasing an opening in the hull structure has the same effect. I can be fixed but it comes with a lot of redesign.

 

[swerve]

... The T26 only has 16 Mk41 cells at the moment. We have no visibility of what the design can cater for but if the max is 36, or even 48, then the addition 16 has the potential for significant design challenges.....

Everything I've seen says 24 strike length Mk 41 cells - & that's what is in official statements. See page 3.

 

[Hazdog]

It is the cover photo of their page, It includes harpoon, and addition side door aft of the mission bay (torps maybe), a different bridge wing and a different mast to the one on the video..... cannot count the VLS.

It looks closer to this image of the T26 in this report but I have no idea which is the most recent.

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/no-type-26-frigate-not-cut-three-ships/

The CEA panels in the Facebook image do look a bit small. However, it is all PR

I think what you believe to be Harpoon tubes are actually a torpedo countermeasure launcher. (If you mean the tubular devices just forward of the rear masts)

Could someone please provide a link or some useful information on the possible F-100 redesign with 64 VLS? Could be a very useful proposal, considering it will bring up multiple options for the future of multiple mission packages, i.e. Air-defence, ASW and Anti-Ship Warfare+.

 

[Muar River]

On Page 1014 Volk and Assail provide details of an offer in 2007 of an evolved design with increased VLS, two helicopters and a revised propulsion system. It includes information about the feasibility study undertaken by Navantai and funded by the Aust Got into the suitability of the F100 as the future frigate.

 

[alexsa]

I think what you believe to be Harpoon tubes are actually a torpedo countermeasure launcher. (If you mean the tubular devices just forward of the rear masts)

Could someone please provide a link or some useful information on the possible F-100 redesign with 64 VLS? Could be a very useful proposal, considering it will bring up multiple options for the future of multiple mission packages, i.e. Air-defence, ASW and Anti-Ship Warfare+.

Please read the post ..... The attached image is the T26 for RN service, you need to go the the Facebook page for the rendering of the RAN versions ...... and they are clearly harpoon type tubes along with the red kangaroo on the funnel.

The RN image was simply provided to indicate there are inconsistencies between rendering making it hard to rely upon them.

The 64 cell was mooted as being within the growth path of the revised design. I have not seen a rendering.

 

[hauritz]

Agree


Consideration should be given to extending the lives of the last FFGs and the time table of withdrawal of the ANZAC's as the new ASW destroyers hit the water.
There are a lot of juggling balls in the air in the 2020's regarding new OPV's and destroyers coming into service and the geo political dynamics placing demands on maritime capability. A short term fix my see the need for a bigger navy at short notice whose time table is not matched by naval construction.
We will have to work with what we have and some retention of older and still capable vessels may have appeal if things on the horizon look bad.

Even keeping some in a reserve for return to service on a needs basis will not break the bank.

Certainly its not the first time old naval ships have had a second life and contributed to the needs of the day.

Just a thought.


Regards S


PS : I am mindful additional ships need a crew; but of course that is another challenge and conversation.

Of course a lot of this also depends on how seriously we view the security of this region in the 2030s.

At the moment 2030 is lot further off than the next federal election so naturally the politicians from both sides are more interested in winning votes in South Australia and West Australia than they are in dealing with threats on the other side of the wall (GOT reference)

If we are seriously looking at the 2030s as being a potentially turbulent period then we should be arming ourselves as quickly as possible.

As things stand we are facing a potential capability gap with our submarines during the 2030s.

 

[Raven22]

Of course a lot of this also depends on how seriously we view the security of this region in the 2030s.

If we are seriously looking at the 2030s as being a potentially turbulent period then we should be arming ourselves as quickly as possible.

I actually have a lot of sympathy for our politicians on this one. Every man and his dog has said Australia needs to develop a sustainable shipbuilding industry that avoids the boom/bust nature of previous projects. This is exactly what is being set up, yet the policy is being criticised for not doing enough quickly enough. Of course, if you speed up construction now to get gulls in the water, it simply means there will be no work to sustain the industry in 20 years time again. It's a bit of lose-lose situation - no matter what happens it will be criticised. Of course, if more sense was used over the last 20 years we wouldn't be in the predicament to begin with, but still.

 

[StingrayOZ]

I actually have a lot of sympathy for our politicians on this one. Every man and his dog has said Australia needs to develop a sustainable shipbuilding industry that avoids the boom/bust nature of previous projects. This is exactly what is being set up, yet the policy is being criticised for not doing enough quickly enough. Of course, if you speed up construction now to get gulls in the water, it simply means there will be no work to sustain the industry in 20 years time again. It's a bit of lose-lose situation - no matter what happens it will be criticised. Of course, if more sense was used over the last 20 years we wouldn't be in the predicament to begin with, but still.

I think we just keep building. We can manage the number of hulls we have with a combination of elimination of a mid-life refit and earlier paying off. Australia has the sort of naval equipment other navies want, look at the interest in the FFG's from countries like Poland. The ships are well maintained and upgraded, they are efficient to operate and manageable by a small nations. Being able to place ships into reserve would be a pretty prudent move. As a major regional power, other nations will look to us in a crisis to help improve their own military capability. Some will be quite independent, but others are not.

Given the situation it is quite likely for a couple of reasons that the 2030ish region is likely to be unstable, globally and within our region.

I know its not as simple as that, particularly when it comes to funding etc, but I think that is the attitude we need to take.

 

[Raven22]

I know its not as simple as that, particularly when it comes to funding etc, but I think that is the attitude we need to take.

Well, yes, defence planning gets very easy when you assume away small problems like funding...

 

[foxdemon]

I think we just keep building. We can manage the number of hulls we have with a combination of elimination of a mid-life refit and earlier paying off. Australia has the sort of naval equipment other navies want, look at the interest in the FFG's from countries like Poland. The ships are well maintained and upgraded, they are efficient to operate and manageable by a small nations. Being able to place ships into reserve would be a pretty prudent move. As a major regional power, other nations will look to us in a crisis to help improve their own military capability. Some will be quite independent, but others are not.

Given the situation it is quite likely for a couple of reasons that the 2030ish region is likely to be unstable, globally and within our region.

I know its not as simple as that, particularly when it comes to funding etc, but I think that is the attitude we need to take.

I think you raise an interesting point. Exporting would make continuous build far more viable. Problem is there are already a good number of nations doing that very thing and our products would have to compete in that market. What's more the industrial infrastructure needed to support such production has whittled away. Other ship builders in our region have good heavy industrial capacity to support their naval yards and they are able to build ships at lower cost.

Selling off used ships after retiring them early and building replacements might be a way around this. It means we get enough value out of it by using the vessel in our own service then get at least some cash to help cover costs of the program as a whole. However we really need a broader industrial strategy if we are serious about ship building.

Stingray, if you have the time, research how steel industries developed in the US and Europe in the late 19th century. The need for battleship armour was a major motivator to governments supporting their nation's steel industries.

 

[Stampede]

Of course a lot of this also depends on how seriously we view the security of this region in the 2030s.

At the moment 2030 is lot further off than the next federal election so naturally the politicians from both sides are more interested in winning votes in South Australia and West Australia than they are in dealing with threats on the other side of the wall (GOT reference)

If we are seriously looking at the 2030s as being a potentially turbulent period then we should be arming ourselves as quickly as possible.

As things stand we are facing a potential capability gap with our submarines during the 2030s.

Yes I feel submarine availability and numbers will be an interesting dance late next decade.
Also interested as to when we can say we have 7 subs and then keep counting.....2030's?
For the immediate future I do have reservations as to available numbers of our surface fleet for the next decade.
I certainly see some challenges ahead.
I feel China's posturing will be commensurate with the modernisation of her fleet.
This fleet expansion in both numbers and quality of vessels is only going to give confidence to the Chinese governments increasing global robustness, particularly in the Indo / Pacific sphere.
Now this does not necessarily mean they are the bad guys but they are the big guys on move and my concern is that their naval growth will alter the military balance very quickly and thus lead to increasing uncertainty in the region.
The 2030's is a concern but I'd suggest the early 2020's will see a lot more use of Chinese soft power backed up by an increasingly aggressive Chinese coast guard force to get there way in the South China Sea.
Supported by an increasingly global navy this is a challenge for all in the region.
At some point the west will be forced to either confront or back down.
This is dangerous stuff.
Now I don't advocate a position one way or the other but we will be forced to make hard choices at some stage and I'd suggest that will be in the early 2020's not the following decade.
For our navy time may not be on our side as we transition to our new bigger fleet.
Suggest Navy starts building up crew numbers now and looks at how to employ some of our retiring ships for future service. We don't need another dive wreck!.
2 x FFG's, ANZAC's, Sirius all still have something to give.......!

If we have to make hard political choices then better to have some strength to back them up.
Time will tell if China has out played everyone with the South China Sea.
If so, is it in our interests for such dominance to occur south of the equator.

Chinese surveillance ships in our region will be an increasing norm.
I trust in the future they don't bring some of there PLAN friends.

Regards S

 

[StingrayOZ]

Well, yes, defence planning gets very easy when you assume away small problems like funding...

We are committed to a continuous build program there are several ways we can meet that. Obviously there are limits to the budget. I am not saying we need to disregard that. Just that its not simple.

It is likely Australia will have to deal with the issues of a continous build program.
https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/the-surface-fleet-the-question-of-numbers/

Concidering Pynes recent comments. It would certainly seem like we are heading that way.

 

[pussertas]

Merge the best ideas of the new frigate programe

We are committed to a continuous build program there are several ways we can meet that. Obviously there are limits to the budget. I am not saying we need to disregard that. Just that its not simple.
.

Since the COA are paying for the development of all three candidates it should be possible to merge the better aspects of each design into the chosen hull.

Pussertas
:jump2

 

[John Newman]

Since the COA are paying for the development of all three candidates it should be possible to merge the better aspects of each design into the chosen hull.

Pussertas
:jump2

That all sounds good in theory, but.....

How do you 'cherry pick' all the best bits from all three different designs and then find the best hull out of the three that will accommodate those best bits?

We might as well have created out own design bureau and started with a clean sheet of paper and designed it from scratch (not going to happen of course!).

Unfortunately everything is a compromise in some way, we issue an RFT, we specify the 'must haves', the 'it would be good to have', and so on and so on.

At the end of the day whatever the three 'existing' designs offer, it will be a compromise in some way or other (as it always is with defence procurement).

And again because the details for the RFT is not in the public domain we have no idea. for example, of what is the 'minimum' number of strike length Mk 41 VLS is desired, what is the 'optimum' number or the 'max' number.

Is it 48? is it 32? or is it 24? Who knows? And no doubt there are 100's of other 'must haves', etc, in the RFT.


At the end of the day, the Government has identified three different ships from three different designers, given them the details of the RFT and now it is up to 'them' to come up with the solution.

 

[StingrayOZ]

At the end of the day, the Government has identified three different ships from three different designers, given them the details of the RFT and now it is up to 'them' to come up with the solution.

All of them will likely be pretty different from the original designs.

F-105 will have two hangers, new radar mast, most likely some updated systems and gear. Crewing is likely to have been looked at.
Type 26, well nothing has been built but it is clear the mast will be different and a significant reworking of the VLS is likely.
FREMM - I assume we want something different from 16 x aster50 and we will want a different radar.

All three have short comings and strengths. I wonder how closely they are comparing FREMM and the F-105. Updating the F-105 to have something similar to the Italian FREMM would likely make it faster, more fuel efficient, a better asw platform, lower noise, more hotel generation, better future budgets for power and have lower maintenance cost and probably reduce the crewing demands.

The problem is the Europeans make ships for for a different level of threat. We want a ship armed like a burke, but with the build and running costs of a eco euro.

Its like the OPV's a lot of companies are keeping their cards pretty close to their chest.

 

[Muar River]

Article from latest Defence Technology Review. Navantia proposing a condensed build and construction schedule to meet the 2020 timeline.

Defence Technology Review : DTR AUG 2017, Page 1

 

[spoz]

Hobart on her way to Sydney, currently off Warnambool. About ss6 I understand, so possibly not very comfortable...