Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[Stampede]

How do you know they are in good condition? How well have they been looked after? How well were they built? What was there original intended life span? Australia has already been burnt once in buying ex US Military Vessels(Bill&Ben).
And it will be the oldest ones being sold and that’s the early 90s at best. I think even if the Navy was interested in this capability they would proceed with a lot of caution on these.

All good questions and I don't have the answers.
Apparently on the selling list are the LCU2000's.
"If they are in good condition"
"If the the price is right"
Then certainly a good one to look at.............Basically they are a larger and more capable version of our older LCH.
Minimal crew and the ability to land and extract itself yet also capable of long ocean voyages.
Three to four of such a vessel sounds a good fit for the RAN. Maybe something NZ could look at as well.
Sometimes the stars align and you need to take the opportunity if it comes.
Again, only if they are in good condition and the price is right.

Regards S

 

[Mark_Evans]

How do you know they are in good condition? How well have they been looked after? How well were they built? What was there original intended life span? Australia has already been burnt once in buying ex US Military Vessels(Bill&Ben).
And it will be the oldest ones being sold and that’s the early 90s at best. I think even if the Navy was interested in this capability they would proceed with a lot of caution on these.

I don't know how well they have been treated but these two are the last ones built (2003?)

 

[FormerDirtDart]

The article has been updated
You Can Buy One Of The Army's Most Capable Ships As The Service Guts Its Naval Fleets (Updated)
The listing for the LSV SSGT Robert T. Kuroda on the government auction site has been removed from the Boats and Marine Equipment category
But, the listing linked at the beginning of the article is still visible, but it does say the auction period has closed. And no bids are visible

 

[FormerDirtDart]

I don't know how well they have been treated but these two are the last ones built (2003?)

They entered service in 2006 and 2007, and as a sub-class have been significantly modified from the other six vessels in the class

 

[MickB]

How do you know they are in good condition? How well have they been looked after? How well were they built? What was there original intended life span? Australia has already been burnt once in buying ex US Military Vessels(Bill&Ben).
And it will be the oldest ones being sold and that’s the early 90s at best. I think even if the Navy was interested in this capability they would proceed with a lot of caution on these.

Auction site list them as operational, able to sail upon purchase.
Not an answer to overall condition but not left to rot in storage as with Bill & Ben.

 

[At lakes]

This question comes from someone whose exposure to submarines is limited to two cans of warm English beer in HMS Warspite whilst it was alongside in Singapore.

There have been a couple of news items on the news channel 24 this afternoon stating the Navy will not be going with modern batteries in their new submarines, lithium ion batteries, I think they said. Instead they will be going with the old fashion batteries. What is the issue with the lithium batteries? I have heard a couple of stories the most serious being if they get wet they may or will catch fire or blow up. It went on to say that the Japanese are installing them in their new Submarines.

 

[OPSSG]

This question comes from someone whose exposure to submarines is limited to two cans of warm English beer in HMS Warspite whilst it was alongside in Singapore.

There have been a couple of news items on the news channel 24 this afternoon stating the Navy will not be going with modern batteries in their new submarines, lithium ion batteries, I think they said. Instead they will be going with the old fashion batteries. What is the issue with the lithium batteries? I have heard a couple of stories the most serious being if they get wet they may or will catch fire or blow up. It went on to say that the Japanese are installing them in their new Submarines.

My 2 cents of speculation. The new battery tech is being tested by a French company and may not be sufficiently mature yet to fit onto the 1st boat of the Attack Class. The Japanese Ōryū is the first Japanese submarine to mount lithium-ion batteries. The main downside to lithium-ion batteries is very well publicized: they are known to “runaway” and combust—exactly what you don’t want on a submarine. When they do so they produce very high heat, give off toxic fumes, expel conductive dust and are hard to extinguish using traditional means. To overcome these concerns, the designers are building larger lithium-ion cell matrices with reinforced boundaries and enhanced chemistry that is less susceptible to these events. Extensive short-circuit, saltwater intrusion, drop and impact testing has also been done to certify the batteries for such critical use. Also, a specialized fire extinguishing system will have to be installed (which may be specified for the Attack Class).

The Japanese must have matured the tech or accepted risk. I suspect the clever Japanese have matured it (trade secret) and their program would meet Naval Sea System Command SUBSAFE programme requirements and the United States Department of Defense System Safety approach (MIL-STD-882E) – to provide maximum assurance of the submarines’ safety.

Not really a problem. Just have to wait for it to mature for later boats and install during a mid-life upgrade for earlier batch. The goal is to be at the cutting edge and not bleeding edge tech.

 

[At lakes]

OPSSG I thank you for your detailed explanation

 

[OPSSG]

As an example, the Type 218SG (or Invincible Class) launched in Feb 2019 by TKMS comes with AIP tech (and that may be removed in a mid-life upgrade if lithium ion battery tech for a submarine application matures). The AIP system we will use going forward with the Type 218SG is a Fuel Cell system that is developed in Germany — as an interim tech solution. This AIP system uses Polymer Electrolyte Membrane (PEM) fuel cells. PEM fuel cells are electrochemical energy converters in which hydrogen ions and oxygen ions are combined to produce electrical charge. Singapore’s CONOPS for submarines is different from Australia’s but we do use some Australian signature management tech in them. Bottom sitting is important to the Singapore Navy (much like Sweden). Whereas range and longer endurance is important to Australia. But perhaps the most crucial customisations are in the Type 218SG’s combat system and it’s improved sonar (Read more at 'Submarines like BMWs': A closer look at the Navy’s newest, custom-made German submarine) and not the type of batteries used.

OPSSG I thank you for your detailed explanation

It’s my pleasure to speculate (and do clearly state this point).

BTW, a technology's Technology readiness levels (TRL) is determined during a Technology Readiness Assessment that examines program concepts, technology requirements, and demonstrated technology capabilities. TRLs are based on a scale from 1 to 9 with 9 being the most mature technology. It’s an achievement to grow the maturity of battery tech, by SAFT (which is the supplier to TKMS and I would guess also for the Type 218SG, eventually) from TRL 6 to 7, and from to 7 to 8. The Attack Class must not implement a TRL 7 battery product, in production design, as it will cause program delays. At the most (for risk acceptance) a designer would want to plan for is for a TRL 8 or more product.

As you know, Australia’s future submarine has achieved key milestones with the signing of the overarching strategic partnering agreement on 11 February 2019 and in quick succession the design contract on 5 March 2019. This is good news for the future submarine platform itself, but there have also been developments in the broader submarine transition picture. Moving Australia’s submarine capability from where it is now with a fleet of six Collins-class submarines to a future fleet of 12 Attack-class submarines will be the most challenging capability transition that the Australian Defence Force has ever undergone. In October 2018, Marcus Hellyer in discussing a regionally superior submarine capability, attempted to refocus the discussion from the future submarine itself to the key issues that the government and the Department of Defence will need to resolve in order to transition successfully. That is worth reading.

 

[Redlands18]

As an example, the Type 218SG (or Invincible Class) launched in Feb 2019 by TKMS comes with AIP tech (and that may be removed in a mid-life upgrade if lithium ion battery tech for a submarine application matures). The AIP system we will use going forward with the Type 218SG is a Fuel Cell system that is developed in Germany — as an interim tech solution. This AIP system uses Polymer Electrolyte Membrane (PEM) fuel cells. PEM fuel cells are electrochemical energy converters in which hydrogen ions and oxygen ions are combined to produce electrical charge. Singapore’s CONOPS for submarines is different from Australia’s but we do use some Australian signature management tech in them. Bottom sitting is important to the Singapore Navy (much like Sweden). Whereas range and longer endurance is important to Australia. But perhaps the most crucial customisations are in the Type 218SG’s combat system and it’s improved sonar (Read more at 'Submarines like BMWs': A closer look at the Navy’s newest, custom-made German submarine) and not the type of batteries used.

It’s my pleasure to speculate (and do clearly state this point).

BTW, a technology's Technology readiness levels (TRL) is determined during a Technology Readiness Assessment that examines program concepts, technology requirements, and demonstrated technology capabilities. TRLs are based on a scale from 1 to 9 with 9 being the most mature technology. It’s an achievement to grow the maturity of battery tech, by SAFT (which is the supplier to TKMS and I would guess also for the Type 218SG, eventually) from TRL 6 to 7, and from to 7 to 8. The Attack Class must not implement a TRL 7 battery product, in production design, as it will cause program delays. At the most (for risk acceptance) a designer would want to plan for is for a TRL 8 or more product.

As you know, Australia’s future submarine has achieved key milestones with the signing of the overarching strategic partnering agreement on 11 February 2019 and in quick succession the design contract on 5 March 2019. This is good news for the future submarine platform itself, but there have also been developments in the broader submarine transition picture. Moving Australia’s submarine capability from where it is now with a fleet of six Collins-class submarines to a future fleet of 12 Attack-class submarines will be the most challenging capability transition that the Australian Defence Force has ever undergone. In October 2018, Marcus Hellyer in discussing a regionally superior submarine capability, attempted to refocus the discussion from the future submarine itself to the key issues that the government and the Department of Defence will need to resolve in order to transition successfully. That is worth reading.

Thanks Mate for that explanation on TRL I have never come across it before, nothing wrong with any day you learn something new.

 

[Volkodav]

Hobart has just completed a maintenance availability during which she was modified to operate the MH60R (a mod being made to Sydney in build). Brisbane is completing a smaller maintenance period before the next phase of her operational testing.

I asked the question back in 2012 why we were building them to operate SH-60Bs when we knew they would never deploy with them and would have either NH-90s or Romeos instead. We knew the hanger was not deep enough, we knew the magazines would have to be changed, but carried on as if they were going to operate the Bs anyway, because that's what the government said to do. No one could tell my why we couldn't come up with a common structural configuration that could accommodate either Romeo or NH-90 with everything type specific left as for but not with to allow easy, affordable fitout at a later date, well some could, but it wasn't polite or complementary towards the decision makers.

 

[Tasman]

I asked the question back in 2012 why we were building them to operate SH-60Bs when we knew they would never deploy with them and would have either NH-90s or Romeos instead. We knew the hanger was not deep enough, we knew the magazines would have to be changed, but carried on as if they were going to operate the Bs anyway, because that's what the government said to do. No one could tell my why we couldn't come up with a common structural configuration that could accommodate either Romeo or NH-90 with everything type specific left as for but not with to allow easy, affordable fitout at a later date, well some could, but it wasn't polite or complementary towards the decision makers.

Our decision makers have left me flabbergasted so many times that I now get surprised when they actually get something right!
Tas

 

[MARKMILES77]

Now that NASAMS 2 is on the way for Army it raised a question in my mind relevant to the RAN.
If HMAS Canberra or Adelaide were sent to a high threat area, is there any fundamental reason why Hawkei NASAMS launchers couldnt be lifted onto the deck to give a SAM/ASMD capability to the vessels? Say two launchers on the lower rear deck, port and starboard alongside the rear elevator and one alongside the front ski jump. And now that the RAAF has AIM-120Ds operating with 1 Squadron, if these were intergrated with NASAMS you could probably not even need to buy AMRAAM-ER.
For that matter could you put a NASAMs on the flight deck of the new OPVs?
It is certainly large enough, probably for two Hawkeis.

 

[Mark_Evans]

Now that NASAMS 2 is on the way for Army it raised a question in my mind relevant to the RAN.
If HMAS Canberra or Adelaide were sent to a high threat area, is there any fundamental reason why Hawkei NASAMS launchers couldnt be lifted onto the deck to give a SAM/ASMD capability to the vessels? Say two launchers on the lower rear deck, port and starboard alongside the rear elevator and one alongside the front ski jump. And now that the RAAF has AIM-120Ds operating with 1 Squadron, if these were intergrated with NASAMS you could probably not even need to buy AMRAAM-ER.
For that matter could you put a NASAMs on the flight deck of the new OPVs?
It is certainly large enough, probably for two Hawkeis.

I don't even think you need the hawkei.
It looks like it is a self-contained, standard 20ft ISO container.
EXCLUSIVE: LAND 19 Phase 7B passes Gate 2 with the Enhanced NASAMS – ADBR

 

[Redlands18]

Now that NASAMS 2 is on the way for Army it raised a question in my mind relevant to the RAN.
If HMAS Canberra or Adelaide were sent to a high threat area, is there any fundamental reason why Hawkei NASAMS launchers couldnt be lifted onto the deck to give a SAM/ASMD capability to the vessels? Say two launchers on the lower rear deck, port and starboard alongside the rear elevator and one alongside the front ski jump. And now that the RAAF has AIM-120Ds operating with 1 Squadron, if these were intergrated with NASAMS you could probably not even need to buy AMRAAM-ER.
For that matter could you put a NASAMs on the flight deck of the new OPVs?
It is certainly large enough, probably for two Hawkeis.

NASAMS has its own Radar which deploys with it, a version of CEAFAR is being developed I believe. So you have to ask 2 questions. Could NASAMS be easily integrated into the Ships CMS/Radar? And if you were to use the NASAMS Radar on the Flight Deck as well, will it interfere with the Ships own Radars?
There are more knowledgeable people on here then me to answer those questions.

 

[Todjaeger]

NASAMS has its own Radar which deploys with it, a version of CEAFAR is being developed I believe. So you have to ask 2 questions. Could NASAMS be easily integrated into the Ships CMS/Radar? And if you were to use the NASAMS Radar on the Flight Deck as well, will it interfere with the Ships own Radars?
There are more knowledgeable people on here then me to answer those questions.

In addition to the need to integrate a launcher with the ship's own sensors and CMS, there would also likely be issues with the exhaust from missile launches, as well as missile launch path and ship clearance. These issues could all be addressed, but much like the idea of fitting ESSM to the LHD's, it becomes a question of at what cost, and is it worthwhile?

Realistically, if one or both of the LHD's are going to be deployed to an area where they need area air defence (IIRC NASAMS 2 has a range of ~40 km) then one of the Hobart-class DDG's should be escorting the LHD with a missile loadout of ESSM and SM-2 or later, depending on when the deployment occurs. It is also possible that in the future one or more Hunter-class FFG's would also be assigned such escort duties.

What I would not want to see is for the LHD's to pick up a new organic air defence capability at the expense of existing core capabilities. I could easily see where trying to fit and utilize a short/medium-ranged SAM system aboard a ship could lead to negatively impacting the ship's ability to launch and recover helicopters and other aviation assets.

 

[Stampede]

I asked the question back in 2012 why we were building them to operate SH-60Bs when we knew they would never deploy with them and would have either NH-90s or Romeos instead. We knew the hanger was not deep enough, we knew the magazines would have to be changed, but carried on as if they were going to operate the Bs anyway, because that's what the government said to do. No one could tell my why we couldn't come up with a common structural configuration that could accommodate either Romeo or NH-90 with everything type specific left as for but not with to allow easy, affordable fitout at a later date, well some could, but it wasn't polite or complementary towards the decision makers.

I could never figure out why we when building the New Hobart Class we would not have had a hangar capable of accommodating two medium sized helicopters.
With that omission having been done, you would think it would be at least obvious to satisfy Volks above concerns. Apparently not!
Having a chat with someone at the new 822X Squadron, they were confident that they could accommodated both the Romeo and the S-100 UAS within the existing ANZAC Class hangar. Apparently this will not be the case with the much larger Hobart Class.
Given that the Hobart class have a Spanish lineage and that, that Navy has a history of operating the SH-60B/Fs
I'm completely puzzled as to space constraints and design limitation of the Hobart's for both now and future aviation systems.

Clearly some very poor planing with regards to the Aviation Capability with this new class of ship.

Regards S

 

[Redlands18]

In addition to the need to integrate a launcher with the ship's own sensors and CMS, there would also likely be issues with the exhaust from missile launches, as well as missile launch path and ship clearance. These issues could all be addressed, but much like the idea of fitting ESSM to the LHD's, it becomes a question of at what cost, and is it worthwhile?

Realistically, if one or both of the LHD's are going to be deployed to an area where they need area air defence (IIRC NASAMS 2 has a range of ~40 km) then one of the Hobart-class DDG's should be escorting the LHD with a missile loadout of ESSM and SM-2 or later, depending on when the deployment occurs. It is also possible that in the future one or more Hunter-class FFG's would also be assigned such escort duties.

What I would not want to see is for the LHD's to pick up a new organic air defence capability at the expense of existing core capabilities. I could easily see where trying to fit and utilize a short/medium-ranged SAM system aboard a ship could lead to negatively impacting the ship's ability to launch and recover helicopters and other aviation assets.

It sort of has been done before by the RAN. When the Success deployed to the Gulf for GW1 she carried a couple of RBS-70 MANPADs and Personnel for close in AD, fortunately it never got tested.

 

[Todjaeger]

It sort of has been done before by the RAN. When the Success deployed to the Gulf for GW1 she carried a couple of RBS-70 MANPADs and Personnel for close in AD, fortunately it never got tested.

A SHORAD MANPADS like RBS-70 which is laser-guided with a max range of ~8 km is a capability quite a bit different from a short to medium-ranged radar cued area air defence missile system with a range comparable to that of an ESSM.

Among other things, a MANPADS does not require integrating with shipboard systems like radar, the CMS, etc.

 

[MARKMILES77]

A SHORAD MANPADS like RBS-70 which is laser-guided with a max range of ~8 km is a capability quite a bit different from a short to medium-ranged radar cued area air defence missile system with a range comparable to that of an ESSM.

Among other things, a MANPADS does not require integrating with shipboard systems like radar, the CMS, etc.

Does NASAMS require intergration with the CMS?
Why cant it operate as a Stand Alone system?