John Newman
The Bunker Group
Whilst Navantia may have not been given the opportunity on the AWD's, they are certainly planning for the F5000 have a twin hangar layout.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
And they have upped the growth margin on the evolved design. We need to remember it is over 70% common with the AWD...... not the same. We need to careful how we rate the F-5000 as I suspect few have any insight into what is on offer.
We also need to remember that the T26 has a second hanger space by using the multi mission bay..... (single hanger door) so depending on the mission you may have only one helo.
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
Is there enough internal room in the T26 for the helicopters to be moved past each other? The multi mission bay is forward of the hanger I thought? With a small UAV bay to one side?
I have to admit that one reason I like the Type 26 is that it looks like a much ‘cleaner’ and more modern design.
Is there scope in the F-5000 to replace the LM2500’s if it is decided later that additional generation capacity is required?
From the graphic it appears that the hanger attaches to the multi mission bay so the first helo would have to pass through the hanger before the second one was put in.
The LM2500s are for propulsion in the AWD and I expect it will be the same in the F-5000. There is certainly scope to fit updated generators and it would be hoped this was done.
The thought that crosses my mind with the split build proposal is that it could open the way to Australia joining the USNs new FFG project. Currently the requirements being discussed don't seem to distant from what the RAN desires and partnering with the US project would give us reach back into a much larger program and support structure. The added bonus is we could possibly influence the design to some degree and even gain Australian economic benefit if we could get the US to use some of our desired systems, i.e. the radars.
Yes, But Australia is looking for a frigate (Destroyer) capable of BMD and AAW which the USN is not.
USN are looking at AEGIS and BMD on the new frigates. There is no guarantee they will have them but it looks like they want the FFG to be a DDG light possibly with the only system they will lack being land attack.
It's entirely possible they will be better armed.
Building an F-5000 now I would be looking up swapping out the 2x25mm for the new 2x30mm (which can shoot anti air rounds), same mount. Don't install harpoon, go NSM launchers instead, which we could hopefully fit 12 of for the same mass and deck space. Consider seaRAM to replace phalanx. Combined with an Aegis that is compatible with BMD/SM-3 you have a more capable ship. Newer 3 band radar that is higher, more illumination, better aegis, better CIWS, better against asymmetric threats, double the helicopter or UAV capability (NSM armed? UAV with hellfire?), 50% more anti-shipping missiles, each much longer ranged and more effective. The ASW capability will be inline with our allies, most of which are operating burkes or burke variants. We won't be taking on the world by ourselves.
I don't see how anyone could be disappointed with that.
Australia seems to love waiting for the creation of some sort of high risk uberunit. While I had high hopes for the Type 26, I am not so sure now. Missile VLS load is limited, speed is limited, I think its flex capability won't be a great capability now Australia is building a lot of OPV's, you sort of doubling up with it.
If we are going to build a brand new hull type. Bugger it, build a flight III Burke. Size wise there really isn't much in it anymore.
If the last 3 future frigates were built off a de-risked Flight III burke, with the new Aegis/9LV system that would really round out the 3 x AWD, 6 x F-5000 major surface combatants. That hull would then be the base of future replacement ships.
Gone through all these discussion of sea5000, one thing came through my mind: if the Spanish design is chosen, our “high sea fleet” would practically be a double sized clone of Spanish Armada. From LHD, AWD/FFG to the fleet Oiler, all Spanish. And so, from fire hoses to shower taps, they would share a lots of subsystems, crew training, logistics and upkeep will be much cheaper. A.ka. a much better sustainability. The extra savings may become more SH-60R, or AEW helicopters or better UAV, whatever.
If our navy would go so far to retrofit a 9LVish interface on AWD just to streamline crew training, the benefits of “go Spanish” wouldn’t be overlooked. So, all alternatives need a really strong case to have a fighting chance.
Even I, as a supporter of T26 myself, wonder if it’s benefit outweighs the penalty of extra systems.
If our navy would go so far to retrofit a 9LVish interface on AWD just to streamline crew training, the benefits of “go Spanish” wouldn’t be overlooked. So, all alternatives need a really strong case to have a fighting chance.
Even I, as a supporter of T26 myself, wonder if it’s benefit outweighs the penalty of extra systems.
Last edited:
No doubt if we go ahead with the F-5000 the Spanish will be very interested in something like CEAFAR2 going into the future. As might the Americans.
There is certainly more commonality with the AWD and the Burkes than the Type 26 and the Burkes.
With the UK building only, maybe 8, most likely with limited fitout and limited future upgrades (for the kind of conflict the RAN is likely to be in and RAN systems), we would be tied to some more unique systems.
There is certainly more commonality with the AWD and the Burkes than the Type 26 and the Burkes.
With the UK building only, maybe 8, most likely with limited fitout and limited future upgrades (for the kind of conflict the RAN is likely to be in and RAN systems), we would be tied to some more unique systems.
Well this is where some of the current language being used is maybe a little off ?
People seem to be using the CEAFAR2 as the radar, but isn't AUSPAR meant to be the follow on ? And last I knew, and still stated on the CEA website is that the AUSPAR is a joint Aus/US play ?
CEA Technologies - Solutions With Commitment
Is this not the case anymore ?
Cheers
Trackmaster
Member
Aussie
Very good point.
I seem to recall NG or one of the other big players were involved.
Joe Black
Active Member
My peeve with the Fassmer OPV is that it does only 22 knots as compared to Damen 1800 OPV2 which can hit 26knts. Why Damen is not offering the 1800 OPVs is beyond me. Their 1800 OPV is easily the best design of all the OPVs I have seen.
Joe Black
Active Member
I think US has gone with the new AMDR radar. Not sure what AUSPAR status is. I think RAN can consider going solo on CEAFAR2 and whatever future derivatives.
Actually the version being offered to Australia will only do 21 knots.
OPV80 RAN - Mönch Verlagsgesellschaft mbH
They are being offered with two medium speed engines, instead of two high speed engines.
Fassmer is expecting a decision by the end of the month.
Muar River
Member
Minister Pyne when interviewed in the latest edition of APDR advised that the first ship will be a prototype to be used for experimentation and training throughout the build programme. For this reason, a split build appears unlikely.
Very much this.
And it seems unlikely to me for a mass of reasons. Evolving batches of the same ship makes sense, buying penny packets of different ones with all that implies about different support/supply/training just doesn't from any perspective hoping for the naval shipbuilding continuous build to actually happen.
Sounds like a quote from Monty Python here at times "I'll have two of these, and one of these, and fookit, AAALLL of those"
oldsig
I'm quite comfortable with 21 kts. The requirement for high speed intercept will be met by either the 11mtr RHIB or embarked air.
For 95% of their operations these ships will be patrolling at 12-14kts thereby enjoying fuel economies and comfortable sea riding.
We tend to forget that many of the OPV predecessors in the "patrol" function, including the Bathurst Class corvettes had operational speeds ranging from 9kts (Bass/Banks) to 24 kts and all were proven to be effective minor war vessels.
- Status