Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[ASSAIL]

According to Marine Traffic, NUSHIP Supply should arrive in Fremantle at 1930 Friday evening 02OCT.
The caveat here is I don’t have satellite position updates. Info was from 15 days ago!

 

[Trackmaster]

https://venturaapdr.partica.online/apdr/apdr-oct-2020/features/ignore-the-rumours-the-hunter-class-frigates-are-still-the-same-size

The hunters are the same physical dimensions as the Type 26.

But there is also a piece on improving the aviation capacity of the OPVs.

The story on aviation capacity of the OPVs is staggering.
The ability to land a helicopter on that great expanse of steel was actually removed. The structure was weakened, meaning that a helicopter can't be supported.
To an outside observer, very strange thinking indeed.

 

[Stampede]

The corvettes for the RAN were planned when the world was a safer place, there were no AEGIS DDGs planned, let alone high end ASW frigates, it was numbers to provide sea control in choke points to the north. New type FFGs, perhaps stretched ANZACs to replace the DDGs and early FFGs (though the RAN was hoping for proper DDG replacements for the Perth's), the ANZACs themselves, and the corvettes to replace the Fremantle's.

This was a sea control / trade protection mission. The world is more dangerous now, requiring DDGs and high end frigates, while Timor showed the need for not just big amphibs but command and control. Corvettes would still be nice to have instead of OPVs but twelve major combatants, each more capable than anything considered in the 90s is more sensible considering the current strategic situation.

Hi Volk

The latest edition of APDR has some commentary about the Arafura Class amongst other things which some may find of interest.

https://venturaapdr.partica.online/apdr/apdr-oct-2020/responsive

Regards S

Just noticed It has been posted !!!!!!!

 

[Stampede]

The story on aviation capacity of the OPVs is staggering.
The ability to land a helicopter on that great expanse of steel was actually removed. The structure was weakened, meaning that a helicopter can't be supported.
To an outside observer, very strange thinking indeed.

Sent a note to APDR who confirmed such an outcome re the flight deck some time ago.
Yes apparently the flight deck was deliberately weakened.
Sure keep it as an OPV doing constabulary stuff for the next few decades, but please have the option to land a helicopter on that large deck space when needed.

Sometimes defence is just weird

Regards S

 

[swerve]

Thanks for the info Assail, after the Falklands are you aware if there was ever a plan to fit the Type 21 with Seawolf? Cheers

I don't know for sure, but I think the RN didn't want to spend any money on them unless absolutely necessary. I've read reports (can't comment on their accuracy) that there had been thought of fitting Seawolf, but it would have been a tight fit (including stability) & was rejected. More effective than Seacat, definitely, but also heavier.

Even before the Falklands I think they were seen as having problems, with too little growth margin, & they all had to have their hulls reinforced after the Falklands war because of hull cracking, with at least one needing emergency repairs at sea off the Falklands. The reinforcement added significant weight, I think. After the war they were thought too fragile, & not only because of the cracks. All retired in the early 1990s & sold to Pakistan, which wasn't going to work them as hard as the RN.

Royal Navy Ships (Hulls) - Hansard

Fast, though.

 

[Volkodav]

My understanding is the Type 21 was built as an interim between to obsolescent Modified Type 12 s and their delayed successor Type 22. I have read that they were intended to have Seawolf, but it wasn't ready, and retrofit of the system was an initial requirement. Light Weight Seawolf, intended for but not fitted to the batch III Type 42s and Invincibles, may have been considered.

Type 21 was apparently conceived as a successor fast sloop to the Tribal class sloops / frigates and not as a North Atlantic sub hunter. Australia also contributed funding for its development, being interested in a more durable, higher speed version with US weapons and sensors, but never ordered any.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Sent a note to APDR who confirmed such an outcome re the flight deck some time ago.
Yes apparently the flight deck was deliberately weakened.
Sure keep it as an OPV doing constabulary stuff for the next few decades, but please have the option to land a helicopter on that large deck space when needed.

Sometimes defence is just weird

Regards S

Doesn't make much sense to me. I could understand it if the ADF was in a process of cutting back, and Navy felt threatened that the argument of small ships being able to land a helicopter would have put pressure on its arguments for more capable big platforms.

But clearly these days that kind of thinking and concern is long gone. No matter how capable the OPV's were, no one is ever going to think they are replacement frigates or destroyers. The ability to land helicopters would have been useful.

What happens when we want sell them on when we are finished with them, or highlight our naval construction capability. Not sure if the ability for the landing spot to be crushed under a helicopter is particularly attractive.

Beyond that, they may have been useful to load shipping containers onto. I assume it is not possible to load any shipping containers on landing spot either? Don't the ships have special lifts to go to the mission deck for that specific purpose? Doesn't this then compromise the mission deck?

If there is completely valid benefits of it, then that is great, but at the moment it doesn't seem to get communicated.

 

[Morgo]

Doesn't make much sense to me. I could understand it if the ADF was in a process of cutting back, and Navy felt threatened that the argument of small ships being able to land a helicopter would have put pressure on its arguments for more capable big platforms.

But clearly these days that kind of thinking and concern is long gone. No matter how capable the OPV's were, no one is ever going to think they are replacement frigates or destroyers. The ability to land helicopters would have been useful.

What happens when we want sell them on when we are finished with them, or highlight our naval construction capability. Not sure if the ability for the landing spot to be crushed under a helicopter is particularly attractive.

Beyond that, they may have been useful to load shipping containers onto. I assume it is not possible to load any shipping containers on landing spot either? Don't the ships have special lifts to go to the mission deck for that specific purpose? Doesn't this then compromise the mission deck?

If there is completely valid benefits of it, then that is great, but at the moment it doesn't seem to get communicated.

This seems like complete and utter madness. What's the point of a flight deck that can't handle helicopters? Sunbathing?

Sadly I would also guess they would be far too weak to pop a couple of these on them in a time of crisis....

Adaptable Deck Launcher

 

[DDG38]

Random thought, maybe someone's line of thinking for a thin flight deck is only for use by UAVs ? Firescout etc, don't weigh as much as a MH60. Even still, seems a breathtaking decision to remove that capability out of the build.

 

[ngatimozart]

Random thought, maybe someone's line of thinking for a thin flight deck is only for use by UAVs ? Firescout etc, don't weigh as much as a MH60. Even still, seems a breathtaking decision to remove that capability out of the build.

I can't understand the reasoning why they would degrade the flight deck capability. It just seems very short sighted and ludicrous.

 

[Boagrius]

I get the impression the RAN has bent over backwards to ensure that a future government cannot pass these off as anything more than constabulary vessels. That said the flight deck issue seems a little... extreme.

 

[oldsig127]

This seems like complete and utter madness. What's the point of a flight deck that can't handle helicopters? Sunbathing?

Sadly I would also guess they would be far too weak to pop a couple of these on them in a time of crisis....

Adaptable Deck Launcher

If they were made of 3" steel plate it still wouldn't matter. These bright ideas about converting the OPVs into line of battle ships all fall on their arse because they make no allowance for the missing sensors and suitable CMS to actually use the things.

We need to get at least a bit realistic. It's absolutely bloody nuts to derate the flight deck, yes, but the ships weren't bought as defacto frigates, weren't designed as defacto frigates, and should perhaps be seen in the light of their actual tasks - which would surely be enhanced by lilypad capacity, but not by the biggest gun, missile,laser beam etc you could carry.

oldsig

 

[Massive]

You seem to downplay the capability provided by the Collins boats. They already provide a more than adequate deterrent to potential hostiles and although those capabilities will be improved by the introduction of the Attacks, Collins will play an active deterrent role for decades.
The challenge for SUBFORCE is to maintain the currency and reliability of Collins until each is replaced.

This was not my intention at all.

I fully agree with your post here.

Regards,

Massive

 

[Massive]

I think you can comfortably assume that a reduction in fleet numbers wasn't feasible (after all, cuts weren't announced in the DDG or FFG world).

As a simple, less sensitive guide to some of the thinking, MFUs are used much more than detterence.

As it stands we've done the prioritisation of capabilities, and as the FSP shows, 9 FFGs are still a higher priority than many other things.

Just have to change their names....

Thanks Takao,

I appreciate the considered reply.

I will concede the point here on the 9 Hunters.

My general approach here is based on your oft posted "the budget is committed, if you want to propose something else you need to be able to say what you would cut".

What is the "deterrence" role of an MFU? What would they deter?

Thanks again,

Massive

 

[toryu]

Random thought, maybe someone's line of thinking for a thin flight deck is only for use by UAVs ? Firescout etc, don't weigh as much as a MH60. Even still, seems a breathtaking decision to remove that capability out of the build.

Thus is just my personal opinion, but I've suspected this is the idea since shortly after the decision to use the Lürssen design was made. Nothing else makes sense to me. I doubt we'll even see anything as large as the Firescout (B). I think the Navy toying around with Camcopter and ScanEagle probably points the way to the size/class of rotary and fixed wing UAVs being considered. The vessel selected, the choices made and the platforms being played with just screams that they're after small systems that can be containerised and just lifted on or off the ship depending on requirements.

And this makes sense given the primary (but not fixed) role the class is meant to play. These small systems can provide basic OTH surveillance for many hours. Cheap enough to be procured in decent numbers. When the Navy is done experimenting and selects its preferential systems somewhere down the track, I would hope to see deployed Arafuras (doing the primary patrol/surveillance job) running around with multiples of each type of system. 2-3 rotary and 1-2 fixed wing**. 24 hour persistent surveillance in a large area out to well beyond horizon (80km+), that drastically expands on the range of the ships primary mast sensors. The area that each ship could patrol in one pass would be improved several times over.

The only thing I feel is missing from the class then is a small drone hangar hooked up to the ships climate systems. Working out of a sun-baked shipping container in the tropics would be unpleasant and seems less efficient that making one central storage and maintenance area.

I could have misinterpreted all of this entirely. The RAN does seem to throw a lot of curveballs with its acquisitions.

(**probably wishful thinking)

 

[Redlands18]

Thus is just my personal opinion, but I've suspected this is the idea since shortly after the decision to use the Lürssen design was made. Nothing else makes sense to me. I doubt we'll even see anything as large as the Firescout (B). I think the Navy toying around with Camcopter and ScanEagle probably points the way to the size/class of rotary and fixed wing UAVs being considered. The vessel selected, the choices made and the platforms being played with just screams that they're after small systems that can be containerised and just lifted on or off the ship depending on requirements.

And this makes sense given the primary (but not fixed) role the class is meant to play. These small systems can provide basic OTH surveillance for many hours. Cheap enough to be procured in decent numbers. When the Navy is done experimenting and selects its preferential systems somewhere down the track, I would hope to see deployed Arafuras (doing the primary patrol/surveillance job) running around with multiples of each type of system. 2-3 rotary and 1-2 fixed wing**. 24 hour persistent surveillance in a large area out to well beyond horizon (80km+), that drastically expands on the range of the ships primary mast sensors. The area that each ship could patrol in one pass would be improved several times over.

The only thing I feel is missing from the class then is a small drone hangar hooked up to the ships climate systems. Working out of a sun-baked shipping container in the tropics would be unpleasant and seems less efficient that making one central storage and maintenance area.

I could have misinterpreted all of this entirely. The RAN does seem to throw a lot of curveballs with its acquisitions.

(**probably wishful thinking)

I think you will find that systems like the S-100 come with its own specialised Shipping Container that is set up not only to transport the system but has control stations, has the Antenna fitted, can carry the necessities for maintenance and repairs and is fully climate controlled. There is no way in the wide world you could operate out of a unmodified shipping container on the deck of a ship in either the weather extremes of the Tropics or the Southern Ocean, the extreme heat or cold would play havoc with the Electronics let alone what it would do to the operators.

 

[StingrayOZ]

There is no way in the wide world you could operate out of a unmodified shipping container on the deck of a ship in either the weather extremes of the Tropics or the Southern Ocean, the extreme heat or cold would play havoc with the Electronics let alone what it would do to the operators.

Anything is possible. A roof you say? Air conditioning.. Arrh the days when the RAN could only afford 1 hat, and only officers could afford shirts.

Historic Naval Ships Visitors Guide - HMAS Vampire

archive.hnsa.org

The Camcopter s-100 container system is pretty sweet, although I am not sure its designed for marine operations. It includes two laptops, air con, blinds.

CAMCOPTER® S-100 System - Schiebel

schiebel.net

OPV's have 9LV so combat system wise its not terrible. But I suspect even that was selected to cut training costs.

 

[SteveR]

NUSHIP Supply is approaching Rottnest Island:

https://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/details/ships/shipid:6309282/mmsi:503172000/imo:9816921/vessel:NUSHIP_SUPPLY

 

[spoz]

Anything is possible. A roof you say? Air conditioning.. Arrh the days when the RAN could only afford 1 hat, and only officers could afford shirts.
View attachment 47696

Historic Naval Ships Visitors Guide - HMAS Vampire

archive.hnsa.org

Who's that in the CO's chair? It looks a bit like Jim O'Hara who of course never captained her; but it also looks like he has LEUT's rings while the officer at the pelorus looks like a sub; so the afternoon watch with the captain having a snooze? Terrific ships.

 

[Stampede]

Thus is just my personal opinion, but I've suspected this is the idea since shortly after the decision to use the Lürssen design was made. Nothing else makes sense to me. I doubt we'll even see anything as large as the Firescout (B). I think the Navy toying around with Camcopter and ScanEagle probably points the way to the size/class of rotary and fixed wing UAVs being considered. The vessel selected, the choices made and the platforms being played with just screams that they're after small systems that can be containerised and just lifted on or off the ship depending on requirements.

And this makes sense given the primary (but not fixed) role the class is meant to play. These small systems can provide basic OTH surveillance for many hours. Cheap enough to be procured in decent numbers. When the Navy is done experimenting and selects its preferential systems somewhere down the track, I would hope to see deployed Arafuras (doing the primary patrol/surveillance job) running around with multiples of each type of system. 2-3 rotary and 1-2 fixed wing**. 24 hour persistent surveillance in a large area out to well beyond horizon (80km+), that drastically expands on the range of the ships primary mast sensors. The area that each ship could patrol in one pass would be improved several times over.

The only thing I feel is missing from the class then is a small drone hangar hooked up to the ships climate systems. Working out of a sun-baked shipping container in the tropics would be unpleasant and seems less efficient that making one central storage and maintenance area.

I could have misinterpreted all of this entirely. The RAN does seem to throw a lot of curveballs with its acquisitions.

(**probably wishful thinking)

Toryu

A good summation of the peace time aspirations for the class.
A quantum leap in surveillance and sea keeping ability at distance than the previous three generations of patrol "boats".
The helicopter limitations of the flight ( Flexi / mission ) deck will hopefully be remedied, even if the class over the next three decades of service never fire a war shot.
Working on the theory the class don't have the luxury of a peaceful life; then the question will be asked, not what was it designed for and what it cannot do! But rather what is its potential.....................The questioned asked of any defence asset in 1942 not 1935.
My wishful thinking is the vessel has integral scope in design to be much more than it's peaceful incarnation.

But yes, your correct in your thoughts it will not be a frigate, but it could however be much more than a patrol boat.

Regards S