Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
Alex would be able to be more precise but, using that doyen of accurate info wiki
the Armada F100-104 have a displacement tonnage of 5,800, F105 (on which the Hobarts are based) displacement 6,390 and Hobart 7,000 so, in answer to your question, yes and capability was added not removed.
Some ballast tanks were converted to fuel storage tanks
I would imagine they would remain at 32, 48 would increase risk and cost and also the space has to come from somewhere, so giving up something else.
Also I don't think the Hobarts displace exactly 7,000t I think that is the maximum with growth (at full load).
The original Navantia design didn't meet the requirements of the AWD project exactly. It didn't have two helicopters for one. An issue they intend to fix for the sea5000 frigates.
The requirements for SEA 4000 did not specify two helos
We don’t have detailed information of the ship but the evolved design is over 70% common with the Hobart but has increased growth margins over the Hobart and F105. If 25% change allows for some configuration changes meaning the vessel may have variations in tank arrangements, more efficient prime movers (noting improvements can be seen over different models of the same unit) or improved energy efficiency (not to be sneezed at as any reduction is electrical load will translate into range ..... even thinks like LED lighting can have a significant impact).
In short there are a range of changes that could have been made that would increase range
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Not sure that 'just' adding one or two metres would be sufficient to fit an additional 8-cell Mk 41 VLS. In any case, such a potentially substantial change would have cost and design factors. Once one starts adding the potential weight of a loaded VLS (Strike length 8-cell Mk 41 VLS + quad-packed ESSM is ~24,000 kg) that can impact a vessel's stability in the water, and some thought also needs to go into keeping the vessel stable if/when the almost 9,000 kg of munitions are fired. If the goal is to get to a 48-cell capacity like on the Hobart-class AWD, then one is looking at a 30 tonne empty weight, and potentially another ~18 tonnes loaded.
While the displacements involved might seem rather inconsequential when compared with the ~7,000 tonne displacement of a destroyer like the Hobart-class, just a little bit in the right (or wrong) place can make a major difference. IIRC the RAN's ANZAC-class FFH was originally to be fitted for, but not with a Mk 15 Phalanx CIWS and a 2nd 8-cell Mk 41 VLS. Due to the extra weight and missile loadout available with quad-packed ESSM, there were insufficient margins to fit either that high up as originally planned. The fortunate part being though that the original plan would have provided 16 RIM-7 Sea Sparrows and a Mk 15 Phalanx CIWS, and the revised plan replaced that with 32 RIM-162 ESSM instead.
A strike length VLS penetrates a lot of decks and is going to have implications. The bigger the hole the more reinforcing required. There will also be internal shuffling with the adjacent compartments. Weight distribution will also play a part with resepect to stability, bending forces and torsional effects. Not impossible but not a simple process. Without details drawings nobody on this forum could tell you what the implications
The actual difference in listed length over all is about 500mm - 146.7m for Alvaro de Bazan and 147.2m for Hobart. My information, which I cannot presently confirm, is that Cristobal Colon is also 147.2m
I suspect the F-5000 (evolved F-105/AWD) will have the same length as the F-105/AWD but there are no detailed specifications in the public domain. They have release a few more rendering of how it will look
F-5000 Future Frigate - Navantia Australia
I had a quick count and going by that rendering looks like 48 VLS cells abaft the main gun.
Yep .... 48 'strike length' cells and two hangers. The length of the cell is important when considering what missiles can be carried. The 7.7m length of the strike length limits where this can be carried on the main deck as you have to cater for the hull shape. This being said when the F-5000 was first discussed there was some talk of a growth path to 64cells. I have not seen any reference to this for some time.
One other point for those in favor as RAM as an option (noting the Canadian CSC offer) .... Lockheed Martin are looking at options so that RAM can also be Quad packed in a Mk41.
Is there any point to more cells than 48 if the ships' primary purpose is anti-submarine warfare?
Asked out of ignorance of course, but I am not aware of any any anti-submarine weapon in the RAN inventory that requires strike length cells.
Perhaps there is one that the RAN might use or is in development, but I was under the impression that helo launched weapons were the go-to for anti-submarine prosecution
Do you have a reference for that ? I have not heard of that before ?
Also the AWD's have different propulsion to their Spanish Friends. While both use LM-2500 IIRC the Hobarts use a different model developing more HP, and we have different diesel engines as well as a necessity of the higher displacement.
So extra fuel bunkerage makes sense, just have not seen it referenced before, or have forgotten about it
Cheers
John Newman
The Bunker Group
The more cells, the more options for the future too.
As I understand it, the Future Frigates (FFGs) will be equipped similarly to the DDGs (Navy is now referring to the new AWDs more traditionally as DDGs), quad packed ESSM, and SM-2/-6.
And if the DDGs end up with an SM-3 capability, potentially so could the Future Frigates, especially if both the DDGs and FFGs have CEC (to be installed on the first two DDGs shortly).
Then of course there is the future potential (across both types) of LRASM, JSM and a Tomahawk TLAM type capability from the Mk41 VLS too.
And as for a 'specific' ASW Mk41 VLS weapon, don't forget the USN uses a VLS version of ASROC:
RUM-139 VL-ASROC - Wikipedia
From what has been published so far, Navantia has clearly said 48 cells for the F-5000, the other two (FREMM and T26), not so clear, but it appears from all the models and graphics that they will have 32 cells.
Still appears on the renderings that the forward funnel is not in use ? but not too surprising looking at the T26 and FREMM propulsion systems.
So if they have taken out one of the LM2500's from the base F105/AWD design, will be interesting to see what their solution is to compete with the newer setup of the competitions "ASW" propulsion set up ?
This also has to be taken into consideration with the current chatter about range, if the design is 1 GT down on the parent design, that makes for a whole lot of extra range
Cheers
CEC is already fitted to the DDGs. What is needed is for the Hobart to proceed to the US to commission it and once that's done I'm not clear whether the other two will need to go or whether once we have one unit certified that will be sufficient to commission the remaining two.
It's been mentioned before so others here may be able to expand.
John Newman
The Bunker Group
Actually CEC is not yet installed on the DDG's, it was only announced last December that development was completed and it is now ready to be installed, see link below:
AWDs to receive US CEC system in coming months - Defence Connect
Some quotes from the article:
"This is an incredibly important event for Australia because it means that this is the first international release of the capability outside of the United States," Ward said.
"This is a profound statement by the US Navy of the importance of the Australian-United States relationship.
"I am delighted that, as combat system integrator of the Air Warfare Destroyer, Raytheon Australia will play a significant role in the installation, activation and test of this equipment on the first two Air Warfare Destroyers over the coming months. Using the talents of our Sydney workforce we will carry out this work on HMAS Hobart at Garden Island, while our large combat system workforce in Adelaide is undertaking work on the second AWD, Brisbane."
The one interesting point from the article (and other articles announcing CEC for the DDGs), is that at this stage they have only mentioned two systems, eg for Hobart and Brisbane, but not for Sydney as yet (you would assume it would end up on all three ships in the class?).
And hopefully the nine new FFGs also eventually end up with CEC too.
I suspect it is a lack detail on th rendering.Still appears on the renderings that the forward funnel is not in use ? but not too surprising looking at the T26 and FREMM propulsion systems.
So if they have taken out one of the LM2500's from the base F105/AWD design, will be interesting to see what their solution is to compete with the newer setup of the competitions "ASW" propulsion set up ?
This also has to be taken into consideration with the current chatter about range, if the design is 1 GT down on the parent design, that makes for a whole lot of extra range
Cheers
My understanding is the propulsion machinery configuration is unchanged. This make since given there are two shaftlines each with its own propulsion package (i.e diesel and gas).
If the fwd funnel unused you would end up running the exhaust from the fwd E/R to the aft funnle and that is not going to happen.
Finally the scale model of the evolved F-105 with CEA radar had the GT and Diesel outlets in the fwd funnel
- Status