Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[Redlands18]

Basically, yes - but their COSAG system wasn't the simplest to keep operating and their helicopter arrangements were unwieldy. Plus, they were sort of designed as one of their roles to replace cruisers in the "empire trade protection/show the flag" role so they came equipped with teak decks and very comfortable (senior) officer accommodation and large ships' companies, and as a result they were not cheap to operate. Refitting them with a more modern missile system (which was studied) would have been very expensive; while at the time it was being considered the RN was contracting and seeking to standardise on Sea Dart as their longer range AAW missile (Seaslug being effectively obsolescent). However, as the Chileans showed, if you were willing to invest in major refitting they could have much longer service lives than the RN got out of them; so far as I know their build quality was VG. While I never served in one, I know a number of people who did, and they seem to have enjoyed the experience.

OTH, I don't think there is any doubt at all that the RAN made the right decision going down the CFA route; a much more competent weapons system and efficient use of resources in ships that lasted very well indeed.

I wasn’t disparaging the build quality, more about the pro RN attitude that saw a high degree of criticism of the CFA decision. But by the 80s when the RN retired them the County’s were past there use by date as AAW Ships where the CFAs were still very capable AAW Ships into the late 90s. The Chileans used her more as a Helicopter Destroyer with an enlarged Hangar and replaced the Sea Slug with 2x8 Cell Barak SR SAM systems
There can be little doubt that getting the CFAs was one of the Navy’s better decisions of the last 60 years and only now have we got a true replacement in the Hobarts. If we had got the County’s we would have had to looked at a replacement by 1985(that would have been an interesting Exercise).
Guys I suggest we move this discussion to the RAN Thread

 

[ASSAIL]

Picking up from the Norwegian Navy thread re CFA’s vs RN equipment/designs
I was lucky enough to serve in a CFA, Perth in 70’ 71, a time when workups and detachments to the US 7th Fleet were regular and demanding occurrences. I then had the good fortune to be posted to the UK for a PWO course and served two years in RN Leander’s.
What was immediately obvious was the superior radios, radars, sonars and guided weapons found in the DDGs, some of the Brit gear was simply ancient and there were the inevitable cases of “fitted for but not with”
The RN frigates of the day were good ships to serve in but I don’t think I’d like to be in a conflict with one. To use the jargon of today, they lacked lethality.
Unfortunately they were sadly felt wanting during the FI campaign only a few years after I had returned to the RAN.

 

[spoz]

From the time I joined in 67 I don’t recall any criticism of the acquisition of the CFAs. There was concern about a first 11 (CFAs) and a second 11 (Darings/Type 12s) mentality developing, and a bit of banter about plastic ships, but I think everybody knew we had made a good buy.

 

[ASSAIL]

From the time I joined in 67 I don’t recall any criticism of the acquisition of the CFAs. There was concern about a first 11 (CFAs) and a second 11 (Darings/Type 12s) mentality developing, and a bit of banter about plastic ships, but I think everybody knew we had made a good buy.

Certainly the banter at junior level was just that but I served with Sam Burrell and he recounted how his father, VADM Sir Henry Burrell CNS 1959-1962, copped a huge amount of criticism from the very senior cadre in the RAN. He was the man responsible for their selection .Remember at that time the RAN was complete with senior officers all having trained in the UK and spent many years service in the RN.

 

[seaspear]

To add a bit more of interest I found this article on the P.L.A.N program on the missile torpedo
China's New Missile-Torpedo May Curb U.S. Submarine Power
The Russian Admiral Gorshkov class includes the Paket-nk Russia to Equip Subs with Anti-Torpedoes which as the article suggests can be fired by the newer Kilo submarines.
I have included these articles to show the diversity in asw operations

 

[ngatimozart]

To add a bit more of interest I found this article on the P.L.A.N program on the missile torpedo
China's New Missile-Torpedo May Curb U.S. Submarine Power
The Russian Admiral Gorshkov class includes the Paket-nk Russia to Equip Subs with Anti-Torpedoes which as the article suggests can be fired by the newer Kilo submarines.
I have included these articles to show the diversity in asw operations

How much do you actually know about ASW? Having all the fancy weapons is one thing but how do they find their target and how easy is it for the target to be detected? This is not a computer game. The diversity that you claim is nothing relative to the advantages that a hostile sub commander has over defender. I very strongly recommend that you go and research ASW in its fullest extent. There is info out there but you will really have to look for it.

 

[seaspear]

I have never claimed to be an expert and have read as much is publicly available on current asw ,that different navies employ different strategies currently in this field show the experts may disagree

 

[ngatimozart]

I have never claimed to be an expert and have read as much is publicly available on current asw ,that different navies employ different strategies currently in this field show the experts may disagree

Different navies have different approaches depending upon the capabilities that they have, but the science of water is the same for all. The FEYES and NATO navies have very similar ASW approaches because they have operated and trained together for decades. From what I understand it is a discipline where a holistic approach has to be taken or you will fail completely. It is very much an information centric discipline above all else and without that information you might as well sit on your arse in the heads, because that will be about as useful all those fancy weapons will be. Whilst navies who have govts that can throw money at can afford such fancy weapons, other navies have to do with what weapons their govts can afford and are willing to supply them with. That applies equally to Australia and NZ, so no we aren't getting SUBROCs powered by flux capacitors anytime in the near future.

 

[ASSAIL]

It’s good to hear that the wreck of HMAS Vampire I may be found through the efforts of the survey ship Leeuwin and the Minehunter Diamantina.
Vampire was sunk off the Sri Lankan coast while escorting the carrier HMS Hermes and now with the cooperation of the Sri Lankan Navy she may be finally found.

Search for Vampire to begin off Sri Lanka

 

[Pusser01]

It’s good to hear that the wreck of HMAS Vampire I may be found through the efforts of the survey ship Leeuwin and the Minehunter Diamantina.
Vampire was sunk off the Sri Lankan coast while escorting the carrier HMS Hermes and now with the cooperation of the Sri Lankan Navy she may be finally found.

Search for Vampire to begin off Sri Lanka

That is good news, hopefully the RAN might be able to have a further look into the loss of HMAS Matafele in the future.. Now Sydney II & AE1 have been located, I believe she remains the only RAN ship who's location & cause of loss remains unknown, cheers.

HMAS Matafele | Royal Australian Navy

 

[steel jo]

I heard from a former Ikara PM that the issue was that to get the best out of Ikara it needed a helo with a dunking sonar and once the Seakings lost this capability (and the navy a carrier to operate them, Ikara lost most of its effectiveness as it relied on the ships own sonar that offered nowhere near the targeting data or detection range required to get the best out of the system. Happy to stand corrected by those more knowledgeable on how the system was used.

Hi all just a bit more ikky bird info:

Withdrawal

Ikara was withdrawn from service for budget reasons. Navy had to make savings and this was perceived to be the best option. Unfortunately it forshadowed many years of ASW capability degradation (along with loss of sonar from the SK50). This was very sudden. The 2nd DDG going through MOD was literaly days away from getting its launchers back when all work was suspended. This subsequently led to an urgent requirment to repurpose the magazines. As I recall one became the smoking room and the other became bespoke sea rider acomodation (story in itself).

MK44 (mud seeker) / MK46

yes both

Utility of Ikara post SK 50 dipping sonar

whilst the prefered method of use was using the SK50 / Ship data link (Exdak from memory) Ikara was also the preferred attack method for ship sonar based firings outside close SLT range because it was so much faster. This was particularly true of the SQS 23 ships who typically achieved longer contact ranges and for all ships up north where even Mulloka would achieve good ranges.

secondly it was still possible to fire ikara at max range post the gutting of the sk50 using target data provided from the gunnery fcs and P3 and presumably S70 cut through to the Ikara A8 console (at least on T12/Leander) so the capability when lost was hardly a hollow one. A notable loss was the target version which never quite made it into service. This would have been a great addition.

Interestingly Ikara lives on in the RAN fleet in part today but I doubt most posters know where!

 

[steel jo]

Back in the 80's, when the baseline MEKO 200 ANZAC was designed (based on the Portuguese MEKO 200) passive towed arrays were still the main legacy equipment as many Soviet and Chinese submarines had acoustic signatures that could be detected passively. The RAN specification for the ANZAC class would most probably specified provision of space only for the passive array so that is what Blohm and Voss would have designed for the ANZACs. It is true the RN Type 23, designed to fit a predecessor to the 2087, was just being built then but UK faced a greater submarine threat than Australia at that time - as I recall the 1987 Defence White Paper placed little ASW capability emphasis on what was to become the ANZAC class.
I just did a further check and the original CAPTAS was first promoted at EURONAVAL in 1996 well after the ANZAC design was frozen and building commenced.

If i recall Steve the Kiwi ANZAC were delivered with Towed Array

 

[ASSAIL]

Hi all just a bit more ikky bird info:

Withdrawal

Ikara was withdrawn from service for budget reasons. Navy had to make savings and this was perceived to be the best option. Unfortunately it forshadowed many years of ASW capability degradation (along with loss of sonar from the SK50). This was very sudden. The 2nd DDG going through MOD was literaly days away from getting its launchers back when all work was suspended. This subsequently led to an urgent requirment to repurpose the magazines. As I recall one became the smoking room and the other became bespoke sea rider acomodation (story in itself).

MK44 (mud seeker) / MK46

yes both

Utility of Ikara post SK 50 dipping sonar

whilst the prefered method of use was using the SK50 / Ship data link (Exdak from memory) Ikara was also the preferred attack method for ship sonar based firings outside close SLT range because it was so much faster. This was particularly true of the SQS 23 ships who typically achieved longer contact ranges and for all ships up north where even Mulloka would achieve good ranges.

secondly it was still possible to fire ikara at max range post the gutting of the sk50 using target data provided from the gunnery fcs and P3 and presumably S70 cut through to the Ikara A8 console (at least on T12/Leander) so the capability when lost was hardly a hollow one. A notable loss was the target version which never quite made it into service. This would have been a great addition.

Interestingly Ikara lives on in the RAN fleet in part today but I doubt most posters know where!

You have tweaked my interest, I fired 3 missiles in my time so I was quite attached to them even to Stuart and Derwent’s analogue monsters. Where are they?

 

[Volkodav]

Correct me if I’m wrong but I understood the different fuel types between MU90 and Mk45 meant that they could not be stored in the same magazine?

Yes battery verses Otto fuel but as I understand it, it was more an issue of provision for the otto fuel than compatibility issues with the different torp types. As it stood the SH-60B used Mk-46 (or 44?) so the difference was there before the Romeo acquisition.

 

[steel jo]

Poland to buy Australian frigates

great deal at just about any price i suspet for CoA.

does anyone know current status?

 

[steel jo]

You have tweaked my interest, I fired 3 missiles in my time so I was quite attached to them even to Stuart and Derwent’s analogue monsters. Where are they?

NULKA rocket motor


oh note check other aspects of nulka as well

 

[Volkodav]

Hi all just a bit more ikky bird info:

Withdrawal

Ikara was withdrawn from service for budget reasons. Navy had to make savings and this was perceived to be the best option. Unfortunately it forshadowed many years of ASW capability degradation (along with loss of sonar from the SK50). This was very sudden. The 2nd DDG going through MOD was literaly days away from getting its launchers back when all work was suspended. This subsequently led to an urgent requirment to repurpose the magazines. As I recall one became the smoking room and the other became bespoke sea rider acomodation (story in itself).

MK44 (mud seeker) / MK46

yes both

Utility of Ikara post SK 50 dipping sonar

whilst the prefered method of use was using the SK50 / Ship data link (Exdak from memory) Ikara was also the preferred attack method for ship sonar based firings outside close SLT range because it was so much faster. This was particularly true of the SQS 23 ships who typically achieved longer contact ranges and for all ships up north where even Mulloka would achieve good ranges.

secondly it was still possible to fire ikara at max range post the gutting of the sk50 using target data provided from the gunnery fcs and P3 and presumably S70 cut through to the Ikara A8 console (at least on T12/Leander) so the capability when lost was hardly a hollow one. A notable loss was the target version which never quite made it into service. This would have been a great addition.

Interestingly Ikara lives on in the RAN fleet in part today but I doubt most posters know where!

Well the rocket motor in Nulka is derived from the one designed for Super Ikara. Also the control loop logic developed for super Ikara ended up in the Franco Italian Milas system.

 

[Stampede]

Poland to buy Australian frigates

great deal at just about any price i suspet for CoA.

does anyone know current status?

So Poland may get up 16 years of service from our two FFG's.
I certainly hope the ADF doesn't have a what if moment in the next decade.
Transitioning from Armidales to the Afafura class OPV's and Anzac's to Hunters will not happen over night.
A couple of FFG's may well have come in handy for so many roles.
"What if" the region gets ugly in the next decade.
Silly bloody decision on so many levels

Regards s

 

[steel jo]

Well the rocket motor in Nulka is derived from the one designed for Super Ikara. Also the control loop logic developed for super Ikara ended up in the Franco Italian Milas system.

not sure about that claim volko the rocket tech for testing hoveroc used a modified sustainer motor called Murawa which came from Ikara and not super ikara but i am not familiar with what the proposed super Ikky if ever built would have used as a motor.

In any event its the copy over of how the tab into eflux worked on ikara/turana rather than the motor chamber itself worked in the motor that is most significant and i cant see at all how that could coonect to super ikara having predated its dev substantially.

 

[swerve]

Basically, yes - but their COSAG system wasn't the simplest to keep operating and their helicopter arrangements were unwieldy. Plus, they were sort of designed as one of their roles to replace cruisers in the "empire trade protection/show the flag" role so they came equipped with teak decks and very comfortable (senior) officer accommodation and large ships' companies, and as a result they were not cheap to operate. Refitting them with a more modern missile system (which was studied) would have been very expensive; while at the time it was being considered the RN was contracting and seeking to standardise on Sea Dart as their longer range AAW missile (Seaslug being effectively obsolescent). However, as the Chileans showed, if you were willing to invest in major refitting they could have much longer service lives than the RN got out of them; so far as I know their build quality was VG. While I never served in one, I know a number of people who did, and they seem to have enjoyed the experience.

I don't know anything about the helicopter arrangements of the Counties, but as I understand it there were two main obstacles to refitting them for new missiles. One was the maintenance needs you mention, but I think the main issue was the steam turbines. They were part of the manpower/maintenance problem, but also the RN was giving up steam completely, & didn't want to invest in upgrading ships with steam. It would have required keeping all the steam-related stuff they were trying to get rid of, which was unacceptable, & removing the steam plant would have been such a major job that they might as well build new ships.

For a navy with lower manpower costs (e.g. Chile) the manpower-intensive steam plant & the labour needed to look after the woodwork & so on was less of a problem.

And that's enough for this topic on this thread where it doesn't really belong, I think.