Perhaps this extract will shed some light on it.
Schiebel counting down to CAMCOPTER S-100 delivery to RAN | Australian Aviation
oldsig
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
oldsig
t68
Well-Known Member
Can it still be stored out of the weather since there no hanger?
Do I recall there being a lift or hatch/es through the flight deck to the mission deck? If so, I should think so. Personally I was disappointed that they never went with a vessel complete with hangar, but then I've never seen the full requirement or that level of detail of the proposals and this may be exactly what Navy was asking to have
oldsig
weegee
Active Member
So i have seen conversation on here recently about the Navantia option not being optimised for ASW. Well according to this good little video they just posted on youtube it seems as though they have tinkered with the hull somewhat in anticipation of the requirements. Also they specifically mention that 2 helos are an option with their design.
Have a look.
Have a look.
buffy9
Well-Known Member
I remember talking with one of my mates in South Australia who was working on the AWD. He said the future frigates couldn't take two hangars unless the hull was modified, which we thought wouldn't happen so that it would be more like the Hobart-class. To be honest I'm glad they are modifying it for better ASW capabilities, especially with the amount of subs in the region over the next few decades.
Interestingly the video did not mention future acquisition and deployment of SM-3 missiles, considering the BM threat that will expand along with the number of submarines in the water. Hopefully the capability will be acquired in the future to deploy from the Hobart class and the FF.
- Looking at the number of VLS cells gives a rough estimate of how much growth space there is in the hull, the FREMM having little room for growth with its 32 cells. The F5000 with what by default is at maximum capacity of 48 VLS and finally the T26 with an unconfirmed number of VLS due to the exchange of sea ceptor missiles with MK41 VLS.
If growth space is the issue then maybe theType 26 is the best option. Both the F-5000 and the Italian version of the FREMM must already be close to using up their growth margins.
Indeed, that was what I was trying to get at... Paper designs are easy to change, rather than 100% complete designs
buffy9
Well-Known Member
The video does point out that the frigates are equipped with strike length VLS for future missiles, likely implying a future tomahawk cruise missile for the navy. If it were up to me and the budget required a choice between the two, I'd probably go for a cruise missile capability over the SM-3. I don't see anything Australian as being a major target for ballistic missiles considering our surface fleet is primarily designed for major escort tasks (when compared to the larger missile payloads when compared to Japan, South Korea, China or the US). I'd rather an offensive capability to hold targets at greater risk which is probably more useful than an anti-ballistic missile capability.
In saying that I do think the budget has enough room for both in the future. The F-5000 choice is probably better if the navy wants to have both as well, considering its larger number of VLS cells. I like the Type 26, but it is going to struggle to jump over the F-5000's (possibly) higher number of VLS cells and its commonality with all other Navantia based vessels in Australian service.
Thanks for the link. Yes, I can see this is an option.
Are they installing electric engines too? The Type 26 and FREMM will, but the Hobart Class doesn't.
I suspect the Australian government would be more interested in the growth inherent in prospective designs as the AAW/BMD capability requirements for frigates is unlikely to be mature yet. The announcement from the prime minister was just a few months ago so it's going to be a while (many years) before proper requirements and the all important funding is made available.
As far as T26 goes, there's a video that shows the Australian version with 32 Mk 41 VLS - seems like some empty space on the missile platform with 32 and room to upgrade? Also at the 53 second mark there seems to be an conversation around the missile platform.
Last edited:
On a different topic- Missiles launched from the Canberra class.
On wiki, the Seahawks can use:
Armament
I'm wondering if they can be fired from the flight deck of a Canberra Class ship, or perhaps if they are attached to a helicopter, if the helicopter can then just roll over near the edge of the deck and fire.. Or if there are portable launchers they can fried from the deck from.
I'm pretty sure someone will avoid the question, then tell me I'm dumb, and that there will always be a frigate escort so you don't have to worry about this sort of thing. My answer to this is: in war, you don't always get what you want. Ships get sunk. And the ANZACS are not powerful- they can barely support 8 VLS with ESSM's. We will not have the full complement of upgunned frigates for 20 years.
On wiki, the Seahawks can use:
Armament
- Up to three Mark 46 torpedoes or Mk-54s,
- AGM-114 Hellfire missile, 4 Hellfire missiles for SH-60B and HH-60H and MH-60R, 8 Hellfire missiles for MH-60S Block III.
- AGM-119 Penguin missile (being phased out),
I'm wondering if they can be fired from the flight deck of a Canberra Class ship, or perhaps if they are attached to a helicopter, if the helicopter can then just roll over near the edge of the deck and fire.. Or if there are portable launchers they can fried from the deck from.
I'm pretty sure someone will avoid the question, then tell me I'm dumb, and that there will always be a frigate escort so you don't have to worry about this sort of thing. My answer to this is: in war, you don't always get what you want. Ships get sunk. And the ANZACS are not powerful- they can barely support 8 VLS with ESSM's. We will not have the full complement of upgunned frigates for 20 years.
Penguin has to be dropped from the helo to arm before its motor ignites; and in any case the ADF no longer has them in inventory.
If you've got the helos onboard then why not launch and let them attack in the way in which they were intended? That way there might be a chance of getting enough Hellfire hits at a great enough range to make a difference.
The ANZACs have 32x ESSM in their 8 cells but they also have the capacity to carry, and do carry when deployed, 8 Harpoon. Those missiles are frigate (and larger) killers which Hellfire with its small warhead and short range is not; in the Naval environment it's designed for small surface vessels, small motor vessels, dhows, FACs at a distance from the launch platform, that sort of thing. While it could conceivably be fired from an LPD if you had the right launcher onboard, if you have a seriously armed enemy within 5 or 6 miles of an LPD still with the capability of doing it significant damage the ability to launch a few Hellfire from the ship will not be of any assistance.
If you've got the helos onboard then why not launch and let them attack in the way in which they were intended? That way there might be a chance of getting enough Hellfire hits at a great enough range to make a difference.
The ANZACs have 32x ESSM in their 8 cells but they also have the capacity to carry, and do carry when deployed, 8 Harpoon. Those missiles are frigate (and larger) killers which Hellfire with its small warhead and short range is not; in the Naval environment it's designed for small surface vessels, small motor vessels, dhows, FACs at a distance from the launch platform, that sort of thing. While it could conceivably be fired from an LPD if you had the right launcher onboard, if you have a seriously armed enemy within 5 or 6 miles of an LPD still with the capability of doing it significant damage the ability to launch a few Hellfire from the ship will not be of any assistance.
Interesting development on the prospects of South Korea going for Barracuda nuclear submarines. Any idea on what this would mean to the Australian submarine programme? Are the designs too different for any involvement?
South Korea eyes French design for indigenous nuclear sub, sources say
South Korea eyes French design for indigenous nuclear sub, sources say
Sorry this is a pretty wild generalisation. Yes a new design can cater for significant changes in scope. However, you can extrapolate on a known hull with a degree of certainty. New designs have risks that errors in calculation or assumptions can result in weight growth. The F125 is an case in point. Designed for growth but this has been absorbed by the fact ship 1 is somewhat overweight.
Modern design processes reduce the likelihood..... but it still happens.
Remember the F-5000 is 70%+ common with the Hobart DDG ..... the 20 to 30% difference allowed the vessel to be designed for a larger all up weight and growth margin. This allows for the mods for the F-5000 which, as a side issue, has always been proposed wiht two hangers. Have a looke at early renderings of the hull and the models if you doubt this. DTR have wrongly described it as a single hanger ship for some reason but all the models have shown two as has the blurb from Navantia.
The T-26 is impressive in what it could be, but the 32 cells (noting we have no idea of what is in their bid) is a weak point IMHO. However, until the first hull is in the water and we get a feel for production issues (hopefully only minor) then there is risk.
The F-5000 ‘appears’ to lack electric drive which appear to put it a bit behind FREMM and F-26 in the ASW side. We are also not aware of the sonar suite on offfer and it is to be hoped it is a step up from the Hobart DDG. However the F-5000 present lower risk and what appears to be a much greater AAW ability based on missile load out options (again we do not know what is in the bids and the T-26 may be offered with more that’s the 32 cells shown on the model).
The FREMM is an in-service design with eclectic drive but seems to have some questions surrounding its ability to carry a 127mm gun combined with the 32 cells proposed. There is not a lot real estate fwd of the bridge. Add to that the Italian ASW FREMM is heavier than the base joint design (in fact both the Italian ASW and GP designs are heavier than the French FREMM) and this may mean growth margins are limited. ..... Again we do not know what is on offer.
To summarise..... don’t assume a new design will work straight off the bat ...... there are risks
The Hellfrire really is reserved for clobbering ships that don’t have an AAW capability given it has a maximum range of around 8km. If you propose to use the S-60R in the role of taking out a surface combatant you are simply going to have the helo killed and the bird will be visible to the target. The LHD will have and escort. It will be their job to take out the threat.
I don't think it's necessarily what is being offered in the conceptual designs that is important, but what is actually possible - what are the growth margins and opportunities for development throughout the ships' life-cycle. Remember that Australia is looking for a reference ship with which to base SEA 5000 on, they are not looking for a completely off the shelf product. There is a design phase prior to build which will determine things like number of VLS etc. If Australia actually want 48 as is being mentioned here frequently, they will simply ask for them to be designed in at this stage. I think the 48 VLS on the Navantia design is more to do with keeping as close as possible with the Hobart class and limiting any design changes as much as possible.
I think you missed my point. To claim a new design offers growth margins in excess of the F-5000 ..... because its new ... is spurious. The F26 is designed around a multi mission bay but it is quite possible that a 32 or 48 cell missile silo will eat into that margin as may the AEGIS and CEA systems. This is not just the weight of the systems but the power demand. AEGIS is a power hog. The vessel may need greater generating capacity because of this compared to the UK version .... so there are a bunch of unknowns.
My point is claiming a new design has greater growth is a gross generalisation unless you are aware of the design parameters.
- Status