Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[Todjaeger]

G'day everyone.
Great to be a part of this forum.
I would like to, if I may, discuss the Sea1180 OPV.
Im thinking these vessels really do need an ASW capability.
I get the fact that 90% of their tasking will likely be constabulary, however being an island nation there may well come a time when we will be hugely grateful for every single ASW asset we can get our paws on.
They could be a resource to bolster escort packages, or indeed even take custody of coastal components of escort tastings.
The notion that it lacks hull mounted sonar is IMHO moot. - if they can put ASW suits in helicopters, they can mount a towed array and a console on a ship.
Even a hull with a single triple LWT launcher, or one each side even without reloads has 3-6 warshots.
To my feeble brain, it's akin to a WW2 Flower corvette, a game changer in the battle of the Atlantic and a "grade 2" capability multiplier in the modern sense.
Crews with ASW mustering would no longer be confined to major fleet units (or helicopters), but could also have the variety of minor vessel postings too.
Continuation/maintenance training could be software driven simulated seek-track-prosecute modules, when not linked into bigger fleet exercises actually seeking targets.
Extrapolating this further, putting a helo based ASW suite, a LWT launcher mount and towed array on acquired surge auxiliaries (god forbid it ever came to that) is perhaps another option to field ASW assets?
What do you guys reckon?
Cheers.

As with many other things, giving the SEA 1180 OPV's an ASW is not that simple, and to do so, or at least to do it properly, would trigger a number of flow-on issues which would need to be considered and addressed.

Even fitting a crude ASW capability of questionable effectiveness would have an impact on both operations and cost (initial and ongoing).

With the design selected apparently lacking a permanent helicopter hangar (and therefore most likely lacking a magazine to re-arm en embarked helicopter) the utility of a SEA 1180 hull for ASW is markedly limited. With the SEA 1180 design at present lacking any sort of meaningful self-defence suite or even CIWS of use vs. AShM, then a SEA 1180 OPV, even kitted out for ASW operations, would be not much more than a target to hostile subs, especially if they were armed with sub-launched AShM in addition to heavyweight torpedoes. As a side note, heavyweight torpedoes fired from submarines typically have a longer range (like twice or more) than LWT's, which means a SEA 1180 OPV would normally be well within the engagement range of a hostile sub before it could get a shot off. This is part of the reason why having the ability to carry naval helicopters is so important for ASW operations, they provide an additional layer of potential detection and engagement.

 

[Stampede]

As with many other things, giving the SEA 1180 OPV's an ASW is not that simple, and to do so, or at least to do it properly, would trigger a number of flow-on issues which would need to be considered and addressed.

Even fitting a crude ASW capability of questionable effectiveness would have an impact on both operations and cost (initial and ongoing).

With the design selected apparently lacking a permanent helicopter hangar (and therefore most likely lacking a magazine to re-arm en embarked helicopter) the utility of a SEA 1180 hull for ASW is markedly limited. With the SEA 1180 design at present lacking any sort of meaningful self-defence suite or even CIWS of use vs. AShM, then a SEA 1180 OPV, even kitted out for ASW operations, would be not much more than a target to hostile subs, especially if they were armed with sub-launched AShM in addition to heavyweight torpedoes. As a side note, heavyweight torpedoes fired from submarines typically have a longer range (like twice or more) than LWT's, which means a SEA 1180 OPV would normally be well within the engagement range of a hostile sub before it could get a shot off. This is part of the reason why having the ability to carry naval helicopters is so important for ASW operations, they provide an additional layer of potential detection and engagement.

A question

When a ASW helicopter is embarked and deployed off the Anzac / AWD. for ASW operations.

Is the Helicopter armed within the hangar, then moved to the flight deck; or is it armed and fuelled on the flight deck?
Also is the magazine on our various Frigates usually next to the hangar or on a different level within the ship?

Regards S

 

[t68]

I came across this magazine on another forum and has an article about the possible future submarine replacement, its mainly concern about industry coming to the table about possible future capability for producing nuclear like power using conventional means. But one section did surprise me was when referring to the French Shortfin Barracuda it stated that we will go down the AIP route with MESMA AIP system. I was under the impression we had ruled that out, are these systems still a possibility or just a plug for Naval Group?

Vanguard Magazine - Vanguard Oct Nov 2017

 

[Wombat000]

Thanks for your reply, Todjaeger.
I do appreciate your points that you make, ....ships still carry LWTs tho.
It implies that the only realistic ASW prosecution is via helicopter, or lkara-like system.
I believe the T26 was initially designed without LWT launchers, a absurd proposition, but perhaps a sign of trends to come?

 

[John Fedup]

I recall seeing the Vanguard article. The author is living in fantasy land if he thinks any of his ideas will be accepted by future Canadian governments, let alone junior’s abominable government.

The current CDR magazine paints a dismal picture of SeaSpan’s JSS/AOR. Delivery is now classified! A date of 2026 is mentioned instead of 2021. New subs for the RCN, not likely this century.

 

[Todjaeger]

Thanks for your reply, Todjaeger.
I do appreciate your points that you make, ....ships still carry LWTs tho.
It implies that the only realistic ASW prosecution is via helicopter, or lkara-like system.
I believe the T26 was initially designed without LWT launchers, a absurd proposition, but perhaps a sign of trends to come?

Ship-mounted LWT's, in concert with naval helicopters (and ASROC if possible) can work together to detect and persecute a potential contact. If it was just a LWT-armed surface vessels though, the detected/attacking sub could close to within ~25 km and pick off the escort with impunity.

Ideally, ASW is conducted using several types of assets to detect and persecute contacts as well as sanitize an area. As I understand it, the inner ring would be ASW-capable escort vessels, which under ideal conditions would require a hostile sub to penetrate an outer ring 100+ n miles out provided by fixed-wing ASW aircraft, and a middle ring that might be 30+ n miles out provided by ASW helicopters. The inner ring itself likely be within ~10 n miles of the high value target(s) being protected. These high value targets would be something like a LHD, AOR or similar asset.

By just having LWT launchers and no embarked helicopters and/or VLS capable of taking ASROC, the SEA 1180 OPV's would have both less ability to detect a potential sub, and be limited in opportunities to engage a contact by first having to close with the contact.

Then there is also issues which would impact the ability of the SEA 1180 OPV to detect a sub contact. Without properly designing the hull, engines and other machinery/mountings, the OPV would end of radiating noise which would interfere with the performance of any sonar systems the OPV and other nearby assets might be trying to use. There are additional potential issues regarding what and where control stations for sonar and weapon systems could be mounted, as well as mounting the actual sonar arrays themselves. IIRC the SEA 1180 OPV design is supposed to have a stern launch & recovery ramp for smallcraft. I would expect that could cause problems fitting a towed sonar array, since AFAIK those are deployed and recovered over the stern.

 

[StingrayOZ]

I came across this magazine on another forum and has an article about the possible future submarine replacement, its mainly concern about industry coming to the table about possible future capability for producing nuclear like power using conventional means. But one section did surprise me was when referring to the French Shortfin Barracuda it stated that we will go down the AIP route with MESMA AIP system. I was under the impression we had ruled that out, are these systems still a possibility or just a plug for Naval Group?

Vanguard Magazine - Vanguard Oct Nov 2017

I do not see the MESMA AIP system being attractive for the short fin Barracuda, as it has all the short comings of other AIP systems plus some. Again like most AIP solutions is not really suitable for Australia and its long transits, keeping liquid oxygen liquid for a transit of several thousand kms through tropical waters will always see significant boil off. I think the heat and the noise, low efficiency of the MESMA system are other draw backs. Plus the safety issues.

Why Australia would ever go down that route when Lithium Ion technology is already displacing more efficient technology and doesn't have any of these draw backs plus quite a few advantages. I tend to tune out when sources start linking Australian subs to MESMA or other liquid oxygen based AIP. I don't see how it will work.

 

[Joe Black]

Australia begins installation of CEC system components on Hobart-class destroyers

Australia begins installation of CEC system components on Hobart-class destroyers | Jane's 360

-----

Just wondering why did we only get 2 sets for Hobart and Brisbane, but no mentioning of Sydney?

 

[spoz]

-----

Just wondering why did we only get 2 sets for Hobart and Brisbane, but no mentioning of Sydney?

Sydney’s combat system has not yet been set to work.

 

[hauritz]

G'day everyone.
Great to be a part of this forum.
I would like to, if I may, discuss the Sea1180 OPV.
Im thinking these vessels really do need an ASW capability.
I get the fact that 90% of their tasking will likely be constabulary, however being an island nation there may well come a time when we will be hugely grateful for every single ASW asset we can get our paws on.
They could be a resource to bolster escort packages, or indeed even take custody of coastal components of escort tastings.
The notion that it lacks hull mounted sonar is IMHO moot. - if they can put ASW suits in helicopters, they can mount a towed array and a console on a ship.
Even a hull with a single triple LWT launcher, or one each side even without reloads has 3-6 warshots.
To my feeble brain, it's akin to a WW2 Flower corvette, a game changer in the battle of the Atlantic and a "grade 2" capability multiplier in the modern sense.
Crews with ASW mustering would no longer be confined to major fleet units (or helicopters), but could also have the variety of minor vessel postings too.
Continuation/maintenance training could be software driven simulated seek-track-prosecute modules, when not linked into bigger fleet exercises actually seeking targets.
Extrapolating this further, putting a helo based ASW suite, a LWT launcher mount and towed array on acquired surge auxiliaries (god forbid it ever came to that) is perhaps another option to field ASW assets?
What do you guys reckon?
Cheers.

The navy has made it pretty clear that these are constabulary vessels.

I think we could see something more interesting when they replace the Huons in the 2030s. This would be the opportunity to build the OCVs that were originally touted a decade ago. Perhaps still based on the same hull but a proper offshore combatant rather than just an OPV.

 

[alexsa]

The navy has made it pretty clear that these are constabulary vessels.

I think we could see something more interesting when they replace the Huons in the 2030s. This would be the opportunity to build the OCVs that were originally touted a decade ago. Perhaps still based on the same hull but a proper offshore combatant rather than just an OPV.

Actually the OCV concept is pretty close to what we got.

http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&r...0ff69404cc7a&usg=AOvVaw0dNQ7xiXDt_q5AAEWcxrr8

These vessels were not intended to be full combat vessels with a main focus on constabulary (Task 1A) work. To move to a limited combat role against similar vessels or participation in ASW using remote unwater sensors (which interestingly is being developed currently as a containerized USV with a towed array). (see section 17 of the attached) .

If you look at the core systems for the OCV (section 14) this is states it might include a core C4I and EW suite with a plug in and play capacity. Otherwise the requirement was sensor for Navigation and local area surveillance, basic armament and multi purpose boats. All those are provided by the OPV selected as far as I can tell (and at least we are not using the 25mm any more).

This considers modular mission elements these look at defensive modular element such as CIWS and NIXIE and not an offensive capability. This is reflected in the countering threats detail in section 24.

So basically the 'touted' OCV is basically what we got. We should not be misled by the name.

 

[Joe Black]

A great read about AWD (DDG)...
AWD TO DDG – The Air Warfare Destroyer program has cause to celebrate with the commissioning of HMAS Hobart.

thought I share.

 

[vonnoobie]

A great read about AWD (DDG)...
AWD TO DDG – The Air Warfare Destroyer program has cause to celebrate with the commissioning of HMAS Hobart.

thought I share.

Good article.. And if reading it right ASC productivity was even greater then I thought.

From the bad old days, the company can point to a very dramatic turnaround in performance and it now compares very favourably with overseas yards. Lamarre, who joined ASC Shipbuilding in January 2015 after 24 years with General Dynamics’ Bath Iron Works in the US, said ship two was 40 per cent less expensive than ship one and ship three would be a further 36 per cent improvement on ship two, for ASC Shipbuilding’s scope of work.

If im reading that right for ASC's work load ship 3 ended up under 40% of the cost of ship 1. Bloody top job to them, Shame we never went ahead with the 4th option, Would have made a big difference today.

 

[Todjaeger]

If im reading that right for ASC's work load ship 3 ended up under 40% of the cost of ship 1. Bloody top job to them, Shame we never went ahead with the 4th option, Would have made a big difference today.

Especially if the 4th AWD build order helped prevent or minimize the "valley of death" for naval shipbuilding. Not only would there be 4 AWD's with a lower average overall cost, it would likely have helped reduce if not completely avoid the expensive stop/restart costs for naval ship production.

NFI whether or not such a decision would have prevented Austal from 'winning' part of the SEA 1180 OPV build. Me being me, I would have hoped so.

 

[vonnoobie]

Well I missed this.

Australian firm to assemble GE engines

We will be assembling the naval engines here with some componants also to be built localy and included in global supply chain.

 

[wowu5]

SEA 5000 competition heats up with tender decision set for April


confirmation that the choice will be made in April

 

[hauritz]

Especially if the 4th AWD build order helped prevent or minimize the "valley of death" for naval shipbuilding. Not only would there be 4 AWD's with a lower average overall cost, it would likely have helped reduce if not completely avoid the expensive stop/restart costs for naval ship production.

NFI whether or not such a decision would have prevented Austal from 'winning' part of the SEA 1180 OPV build. Me being me, I would have hoped so.

I wonder if those savings will carry over to the new frigate program if the F-5000 is selected. The design reportedly has 70% commonality with the Hobart class which should help reduce the startup costs.

 

[vonnoobie]

I wonder if those savings will carry over to the new frigate program if the F-5000 is selected. The design reportedly has 70% commonality with the Hobart class which should help reduce the startup costs.

Not likely. If gov has paid attention then they wont make all the mistakes in setting everything up same with all companies involved however there will still be a new learning curve for new workers (Old ones mostly moved on) and restarting all the various production lines. Will eventually get the costs back down but we wont see the 1st ship coming in under the price of the last AWD.

 

[ASSAIL]

I wonder if those savings will carry over to the new frigate program if the F-5000 is selected. The design reportedly has 70% commonality with the Hobart class which should help reduce the startup costs.

I really hope so. I don't see a big enough advantage in a specialised ASW hull such as the T26 to overhaul the benefits of an ongoing Navantia production run.
ASW is not primarily fought by surface ships, it is a submarine and air game with ship sensors a last resort and both of the other two contenders are/will be competent ASW platforms.
I've stated this several times before but commonality of ship management systems, damage control equipment and familiararity with general layout is a huge advantage for ease of training and posting flexibility for ships' companies.

 

[Volkodav]

Unfortunately the AWD work force is already being run down with only 400 workers being retained across the board. The work force has already been gutted and the mistakes of the past have been made again.