Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
There does seem to be a remarkable lack of urgency.
The government seems to be trying to achieve two goals. The first is to deliver a new generation of warships and the second is to create a sustainable shipbuilding industry.
The problem is that the first goal really requires those ships to be built and delivered as quickly as possible while the second is best achieved by building those ships at a steady rate over the next 20 - 30 years.
The government may yet be forced to make a decision as to which is more important ... national security or a sustainable shipbuilding industry.
Unless you are going to build a cookie cutter Collins you are still looking at a significant redesign for Collins II. None of that work has started nor are the staff in place. I suspect you will find that the time line for an evolved Collins II would now be the same, if not longer, than the Shortfin.
If you went for a very basic evolution it may be marginally shorter but then what is the point if you don’t get the capability.
National security is in the hands of the ships we have. If any country chose to emergency build ships at every diplomatic impasses, they'd all be broke, with enormous reserve fleets of quickly and cheaply built vessels of bugger all use except as replacements for the similar ships that they could actually crew.
OR, would have sold them for peanuts to third world countries to avoid ongoing maintenance costs
And that's forgetting the extra shipyards built at speed and great expense to lie rusting pending conversion to riverside apartments.
oldsig
John Newman
The Bunker Group
Just posted this on the RCN forum page (has relevance here too):
Want to know what Navantia is offering for the RCN?
Here's a sneak peak (surprised this hasn't been posted already?), this is from the Navy Recognition website:
https://www.navyrecognition.com/ind...s-its-proposal-for-csc-frigate-programme.html
I read a week or so ago (think it was on Defense-Aerospace?), that Navantia has teamed up with SAAB Australia (for 9LV CMS) and CEA (for CEAFAR2) to offer a 'variation' on their offering for the RAN's SEA 5000 project. So here's a bit more detail (and a couple of graphics too).
Looking at the two graphics, top one is the RCN offering and also below is a graphic of the RAN offering.
A couple of interesting 'variations' between the two.
* Both have a 5" main gun, both appear to have the same 48 cell Mk41 VLS arrangement at the front of the ship (same basic configuration).
* The RCN design has two x RAM launchers, one on the hangar and one above the bridge (as opposed to the single Phalanx on the hangar of the RAN design).
* The RCN design has two Millenium guns (if you look at the graphic you can see one of them mounted just at the back of the 'mast' area, either side of the forward exhaust stack).
The RCN design has 2 x 4 RBS-15 Mk3 AShM located on top of the hangar (the RAN's 2 x 4 Harpoon are located behind the forward exhaust stack.
Couple of other interesting 'variations' too:
* The whole mast area (where CEAFAR2 is mounted), has been 're-profiled' into what appears to be a 'slimmer' design, less 'bulky' that the design for the mast on the RAN's version.
* One other interesting thing is the design of the forward exhaust stack, it is 'angled' at the top, more like what appeared on the first four Spanish F-100 ships, the RAN's design for the exhaust stack (flat at the top) appears to align with the Spanish F-105, AWD design (could this mean a different propulsion set up too??).
Couple of things of note, I do like the idea of two Millenium guns (could a similar path be chosen on the RAN design??).
I like the look of the re-profiled mast, looks better, visually at least (possibly another 'hint' as to what the final RAN offering might be??).
I also like the idea of two RAM launchers, one on the hangar and one above the bridge on the RCN design (again, a possible example of how the RAN version could have a similar set up, regardless of RAM or Phalanx, eg, one forward and one aft as opposed to proposed RAN design).
Anyway Guys, enjoy!!
(I'll also post this on the RAN forum page too, no doubt this might start some further debate in both the forums!!).
Want to know what Navantia is offering for the RCN?
Here's a sneak peak (surprised this hasn't been posted already?), this is from the Navy Recognition website:
https://www.navyrecognition.com/ind...s-its-proposal-for-csc-frigate-programme.html
I read a week or so ago (think it was on Defense-Aerospace?), that Navantia has teamed up with SAAB Australia (for 9LV CMS) and CEA (for CEAFAR2) to offer a 'variation' on their offering for the RAN's SEA 5000 project. So here's a bit more detail (and a couple of graphics too).
Looking at the two graphics, top one is the RCN offering and also below is a graphic of the RAN offering.
A couple of interesting 'variations' between the two.
* Both have a 5" main gun, both appear to have the same 48 cell Mk41 VLS arrangement at the front of the ship (same basic configuration).
* The RCN design has two x RAM launchers, one on the hangar and one above the bridge (as opposed to the single Phalanx on the hangar of the RAN design).
* The RCN design has two Millenium guns (if you look at the graphic you can see one of them mounted just at the back of the 'mast' area, either side of the forward exhaust stack).
The RCN design has 2 x 4 RBS-15 Mk3 AShM located on top of the hangar (the RAN's 2 x 4 Harpoon are located behind the forward exhaust stack.
Couple of other interesting 'variations' too:
* The whole mast area (where CEAFAR2 is mounted), has been 're-profiled' into what appears to be a 'slimmer' design, less 'bulky' that the design for the mast on the RAN's version.
* One other interesting thing is the design of the forward exhaust stack, it is 'angled' at the top, more like what appeared on the first four Spanish F-100 ships, the RAN's design for the exhaust stack (flat at the top) appears to align with the Spanish F-105, AWD design (could this mean a different propulsion set up too??).
Couple of things of note, I do like the idea of two Millenium guns (could a similar path be chosen on the RAN design??).
I like the look of the re-profiled mast, looks better, visually at least (possibly another 'hint' as to what the final RAN offering might be??).
I also like the idea of two RAM launchers, one on the hangar and one above the bridge on the RCN design (again, a possible example of how the RAN version could have a similar set up, regardless of RAM or Phalanx, eg, one forward and one aft as opposed to proposed RAN design).
Anyway Guys, enjoy!!
(I'll also post this on the RAN forum page too, no doubt this might start some further debate in both the forums!!).
John Newman
The Bunker Group
You spotted that too? (ok you win the prize of the day!), I was leaving that out until later to see if anyone noticed (buggar, you spoiled my other surprise!).
And equally with what appears to be a shortened flight deck (and deeper hangar on the RCN version), is also the 'space' between the back of the forward exhaust stack where Harpoon is normally located on the F-100, F105, AWD and RAN F-5000 designs).
It appears, from the top graphic, that the space has been 'closed' up, it's shorter, hence probably why the RCN version has it's AShM missiles mounted on the hangar rather than that space.
Cheers,
John Newman
The Bunker Group
The S92 (or in Canadian service, CH-148 Cyclone), is certainly a longer airframe, and has a larger rotor diameter than an MH-60R for example, but I also think it has a folding tail too? Anyway, certainly a larger airframe, so it may well need a deeper hangar (but a shorter helipad? That's interesting too).
At the end of the day, the link I supplied, only show representational graphics, not actual scale diagrams, but it does possibly indicate that there might differences between Navantia's RCN and RAN offerings might be just a bit more than where equipment and armament is located too.
Will be very interesting if both the RAN and RCN chose the basic Navantia design as the basis for their respective Future Frigates and Frigates and Destroyers too.
(On a side note, maybe part of the Canadian interest in our soon to be retired Classic Hornets is also tied to us selling them our sensors, etc, for the Canadian CSC project too, interesting times ahead!!).
Not a big fan of the smaller helipad or the smaller radar.
But loving the 2x35 and the seaRAM mount. Thats quite a potent combo.
Are those harpoons on the hangar?
But loving the 2x35 and the seaRAM mount. Thats quite a potent combo.
Are those harpoons on the hangar?
The model for the Australian ship was done quite some time ago. It is possible that the model shown as the Canadian version could also be the latest incarnation of the Australian ship ... with some variations in the weapons.
Joe Black
Active Member
I like the additional side panels on the mid section of the hull. Surely it will provide a slightly lower radar cross section than the F105/Hobart/F5000.
I definitely think that the Navantia's proposal for the CSC looks better than the F5000 for Sea 5000. Other than the RBS15 and the two RAM launchers, I like what they have proposed as a weapon fit. I would suggest NSM/JSM and 1xSeaRAM would be a much better fit for RAN. The RAM launcher on top of the bridge will obscure and impede the putting of a Optical sensor such as the Safran's Vampir IR search and track system.
I'm not too sure if I would bet my house on that relatively old model for SEA 5000.
I certainly think the CSC graphic is interesting but I wonder if they used an old copy of F 100 for the basics. I understood that the Armada reverted to the Hobart style fore funnel after the first two of their builds, not sure why.
Having seen the latest images from inside Parramatta's pergola where space was quite tight and given that extra L band arrays will also be fitted, I don't see how the mast could be slimmed down much more than the Anzacs
It was discussed on here some time ago, was changed for better air wake flow for flight ops:
"Using the F104 as the baseline, several key changes have been made to the AWD to meet SEA 4000 requirements, including a displacement increased from 5800 to 7000 tonnes; a new hangar to accommodate several different helicopter types; improved air wake, via a redesigned funnel top; increased range due to increased fuel (bunker) volume; bow thrusters; a more powerful diesel engine and improved cold weather operations"
https://www.asiapacificdefencereporter.com/articles/96/AWD-moves-ahead
Cheers
Just to clarify Saab Australia has teamed with Navantia Spain for the Canadian Surface Combatant project but NOT for the SEA 5000 Future Frigate project. The Australian Government has mandated a combat system consisting of the CEAFAR 2 radar , the Aegis system, managing Air Warfare, and other tactical functions managed by the Saab 9LV system. The selection of the platform and shipbuilder for SEA 5000 is still under consideration by the government.
According to the Defence Capability Plan JP2048 - Amphibious Deployment and Sustainment has the following phases:
1 - LPA Watercraft
2 - Study
3 - LHD Watercraft
4 - A/B - 2 x CANBERRA Class LHD
4 - C Strategic Lift Ship
5 - LCH Replacement (6)
Capacity Specifications for LHD:
- Total Cargo Capacity - 830 Lane Metres
- Light Vehicle Deck - 1180m2
- Heavy Vehicle Deck -1410 m2
- Vehicle Carrying Capacity - Up to 110 vehicles depending on type and size
- Up to 23 M1A1 tanks
- 4 x LCM1E landing craft
- 8 Helicopters
- Embarked force 1000 with messing for up to 1400
Which therefor casts doubt on the veracity of the image for the RCN CSC which shows the original funnel and a very slim CEAFAR pergola.
Actually up until previous PM Abbotts brain snap in initially deciding to buy some Japanes Koryu class submarines and then being forced into a CEP the plan had always been an Evolved Collins or Collins Mk2. After all thats what every other Navy in the world does. Take an existing design, modify, update and build. Repeat. Kockums, who designed Collins and are now part of Saab, submitted an unsolicited bid to build 12 Evolved Collins class for less than $20Billion. This was rejected and the outcome of the CEP process was 12 Barracudas for about $50 billion. Big win for the taxpayer there. It will of course be more than that given almost every aspect of the submarine is being re-designed.
While there would have been more design work required on the Evolved Collins much of the initial work had already been done, particularly out of the upgrades to the Swedish Gotland class and the development of the new A26 submarine. Much of the technology for both these, including the new Stirling Mk3 AIP engine, would have been available.
What needs to be avoided at all costs is a capability gap. The skills and competence required to operate and maintain submarines takes generations to develop but can be lost very quickly.
Yes, should have gone with the evolved Collins quite some time ago .... but did not. Labor bear much of the responsibility for this.
Sorry I have a jaundiced view of unsolicited bids and quoted amounts. Kockums did not exactly bath themselves with glory with the Collins (noting they were certainly not entirely responsible for some of the issues). Eventually the Collins were upgraded to the point they are and extremely potent vessel.
As we do not know what was in the bid in so far as combat system, integration and weapons/sonars it is hard to judge the value. Not sure the unsolicited bid include the selected fire control system either noting this is a space and power hog.
In the new vessel they are looking greater absorbed power and range. The Stirling engines simply do not make sense for Australia given the distances the vessel are expected to deploy and speeds desired. The best fit is a nuke ... the alternative is what we are getting.
Actually, the original funnel on F100 was short; it was lengthened on all of the class then in commission in the mid naughties.
- Status