Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
As indicated in a previous post the 'proposed' fit for these ships when first mooted was 16 cells, 8 cannister harpoon (behind the bridge), two CIWS, decoys fwd, HMG's, a 76mm guns (thankfully change to 127mm) and ASW tubes as well as a medium helicopter. I should also add that two FC directors were also include din the proposal.
This weapons fit is consistent wiht other MEKO 200 applications such as the 'track II' MEKO in the Turkish navy
http://www.turkishnavy.net/yavuze.htm
There are difference but the top weight of the sparrow laucher and two CIWS is carried at the same height (if not higher). the Greek Hydra class MEKO 200 is very similar to the ANZAC and again it carried close to the 'intended' weapons fit (includine 2 CIWS and 2 directors). A comparision of MEKO 200 vessel can be found at:
http://64.233.179.104/translate_c?h...l&prev=/search?q=MEKO+200&start=10&hl=en&sa=N
So what Tenix did to appreantly limit the ability of these ships to carry what is effectivley their designed. the most signficatn difference between the ships is ther propulsion system as all the others, except Yaves, have two LM2500 and two generators with a higher top speed. it is possible this has reduced the fixed mass below the centre of gravity.
The other difference is range with ANZAC getting and extra 1900 to 1100 nm at 18 knots. This suggests extra tankage which when full wouel provide extra mass bellow the CoG but when slack (part filled) could create free surface issue for the vessel which would have a detrimental effect on stability.
The extra range is a definate plus but it would appear this may have had a retrograde impact on the ability of the vessel to carry the orignally proposed weapons fit. It is possible somebody miscalculated.
In saying this I must stress this is speculation as the proposal I saw (whcih included all the systems and weapons detailed above) was based on the propulsion configuration the ANZAC is fitted with and further it indicated space and weight had been allowed for the additional equipment. I cannot say with certainy what has subsequently altered that but I suspect there are those that could enligten us.... if it was permitted.
Alexa
Yes I am sure some people could enlighten us. I think you will find the propulsion changes were for specific operational reasons.
Further, there is a limit to what can be stuffed into 3500 tonnes, the issue for the RAN is what to have? Extra RIBS for boarding or CIWS or ... or ...
The challenge is simple - what is most important both now and for the future.
108
Yes I am sure some people could enlighten us. I think you will find the propulsion changes were for specific operational reasons.
Further, there is a limit to what can be stuffed into 3500 tonnes, the issue for the RAN is what to have? Extra RIBS for boarding or CIWS or ... or ...
The challenge is simple - what is most important both now and for the future.
108
My point is others have stuffed all this gear in the same hull form, and in some case into a ship with a very similar superstructure. In a number of case this include ships boats as opposed to RHIBs whcih take up even more room.
Have a look at the Vasco deGama Class. It has an 8 cell sparrow acarried higher than the MK41 on ANZAC (meaning a higher CoG), Harpoon behind the bridge (higher CoG), CIWS on the hanger (not carried on ANZAC) and RHIBs
http://www.hazegray.org/features/nato/portugal/gama/
Same for the Track II MEKOs; in Trukish service albeit with a 76mm gun, and again they have boats
The Greek navy MEKO200 share the same basic superstructure as the ANZAC and is fitted wiht
127mm gun
16 cells
2 x CIWS
8 harpoon behind the bridge
2 FC directors
2 ships boats (yet these take up more room than RHIBs and are carried higher)
ASW TT
Seawawk
Decoys
etc etc ..... in otherword everything the ANZAC was orignainlly proosed to carry in in the locations proposed.
http://greekmilitary.net/navy.htm
What this says is the hull from can carry it but some other factors have had an impact on capability in this area. I am aeare the propulsion changes were for specific reaons and the result of the changes is a significant increase in range. I am also aware the propsed 'space and weight' weapons fit was based on the ANZAC propulsion configuration.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
I'm surprised they didn't tender an upgraded version of HMAS Toobroken... :shudderHey AD
Tenix got the Go ahead to build the LHD, Comment?
Now we see whether the ships will be able to smoothly come in compared with 'other' projects, and whether or not the Alliance Group for the AWD will work
Any word on Start date, i know they want it before the Election in November
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Hey Mr Defence Specialist, have a look a photo from above an ANZAC vessel if you truly believe an additional Mk 41 VLS system can't be fitted to an ANZAC class vessel.
The phrase "fitted for but not with" was created for the damn things...
ANZAC's were designed for Sea Sparrow. The RAN vessels have since been modified to accept ESSM. NZ's might too one day.
ANZAC's are NOT all that capable, hence why both Australia and NZ are spending vast sums on upgrades for them...
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
That was NZ's fault. Not ours. I don't really see why it is incumbent upon Australia to fill the capability gaps NZ has chosen to accept...
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Man... I'm gone for a day and out comes something like 75 posts.
Regarding the news of Navantia winning selection for the LHD and AWD.
For the LHD, very good news for the RAN, I feel that the BPE design was far superior overall vs. the Mistral. It should allow more, and more varied operations. The only thing I would like to see differently about it would be for the RAN to get three (or the intellectual property to build a third) that way Australia would be able to always have two LHDs available for deployment.
As for the F-100 (or the variant) being selected as the AWD design, I'm cautiously disappointed. If the F-100 (non-upgraded variant) is the one actually intended for service, as currently fitted it should be sufficient to be a main escort/lead warship in the RAN for the next 5-10 years. The question becomes, what about from 10-30 years from now? Doing a direct comparison between the current Adelaide and current F-100 designs, the F-100 is obviously a better overall design due to a larger main gun and more advanced radar/combat data system. A negative is that it can only operate one helicopter at a time, which given the amount of maintenance time per flight hour would mean that more often than not, the F-100 design wouldn't have a helicopter available for deployment. Remember also that the AWD is likely not always going to be escorting another vessel, it will often be deployed on it's own, therefore might not have other vessels to cover areas where the F-100 is weak.
A slightly off the wall idea that occurred to me.
The F-100 design having been selected, might end up replacing the Adelaides and some of the Anzacs if the total number on order is increased past the planned 3 (or 4, depending). And then the follow-on Anzac replacement frigate might then be changed to a multi-role destroyer vessel not unlike the 'Baby Burke' design was. This could cause the RAN surface fleet to resemble the following 6-8 FFG (F-100 with SPY) and 4-6 DDG (also equipped with a phased radar array)
If that is the scenario the ADF is looking at, I find that a bit more palatable. Otherwise the F-100 looks to close to the Adelaide in capabilities and future growth potential.
-Cheers
Regarding the news of Navantia winning selection for the LHD and AWD.
For the LHD, very good news for the RAN, I feel that the BPE design was far superior overall vs. the Mistral. It should allow more, and more varied operations. The only thing I would like to see differently about it would be for the RAN to get three (or the intellectual property to build a third) that way Australia would be able to always have two LHDs available for deployment.
As for the F-100 (or the variant) being selected as the AWD design, I'm cautiously disappointed. If the F-100 (non-upgraded variant) is the one actually intended for service, as currently fitted it should be sufficient to be a main escort/lead warship in the RAN for the next 5-10 years. The question becomes, what about from 10-30 years from now? Doing a direct comparison between the current Adelaide and current F-100 designs, the F-100 is obviously a better overall design due to a larger main gun and more advanced radar/combat data system. A negative is that it can only operate one helicopter at a time, which given the amount of maintenance time per flight hour would mean that more often than not, the F-100 design wouldn't have a helicopter available for deployment. Remember also that the AWD is likely not always going to be escorting another vessel, it will often be deployed on it's own, therefore might not have other vessels to cover areas where the F-100 is weak.
A slightly off the wall idea that occurred to me.
The F-100 design having been selected, might end up replacing the Adelaides and some of the Anzacs if the total number on order is increased past the planned 3 (or 4, depending). And then the follow-on Anzac replacement frigate might then be changed to a multi-role destroyer vessel not unlike the 'Baby Burke' design was. This could cause the RAN surface fleet to resemble the following 6-8 FFG (F-100 with SPY) and 4-6 DDG (also equipped with a phased radar array)
If that is the scenario the ADF is looking at, I find that a bit more palatable. Otherwise the F-100 looks to close to the Adelaide in capabilities and future growth potential.
-Cheers
So the Anzac's don't have any sort of sea water compensation system that fills the fuel tanks with water as they are emptied and thus maintaining stability? I thought pretty much all modern warships are fitted with at least a ballast system to keep them stable and level as fuel is consumed.
The Anzacs have always been lightly armed compared with their Greek, Turkish and Portuguese cousins. Had they been able to be fitted with the extra 8 VLS cells and CIWS as designed, they would be quite powerful ships for their size but as a number of members have pointed out the Australian ships are being limited by problems with topweight and available space. What is unknown is whether this is a problem arising from changes in design detail (e.g different engines and layout of radar), constructional problems or additions of equipment not in the other Meko 200s (Nulka, more 5" ammunition and fuel, for example).
At least the Anzacs were designed to be able to 'grow' even if subsequent upgrades have been more limited than originally envisaged. If the F100 design selected for the RAN is the baseline ship, as seems almost certain, the margin for growth will be restricted as space for additional equipment is extremely limited.
Cheers
Hi Markus. Enjoy reading your posts. Has anyone figured out the spot factor of a Harrier vs the STOVL F-35 and how that would relate to the new Canberra class re: How many F-35 STOVL can safely be operated from the ship should that requirement ever happen? Do we know that 6-12 STOVL number is figured out for Spanish Harriers or F-35 STOVL? I refer to the difference in dimensions of the two jets.
Hey there Mr Popeye!! The ANZACs have no capability ha? Hmmmm. I wonder where you got that from. It seems from what you are saying they do have a capability with the upgrades they do get right? I hope so.
It is extremely unlikely that another 8 cell launcher would be fitted to add to the ships capability. The ANZAC was built from the Meko 200 prototype which has the 2 x 4 cell launcher. From what i do know another development under the Evolved Seasparrow Missile Project is a ``Quadpack'' capability which will allow each cell of the eight cell Vertical Launching System to be capable of storing and firing four missiles, rather than the current single missile capability. This is a far better idea than deciding to drill holes into the superstructure to add more capability. But of course i know you enjoy drilling holes into anything that doesnt need fixing Mr Popeye.
It is extremely unlikely that another 8 cell launcher would be fitted to add to the ships capability. The ANZAC was built from the Meko 200 prototype which has the 2 x 4 cell launcher. From what i do know another development under the Evolved Seasparrow Missile Project is a ``Quadpack'' capability which will allow each cell of the eight cell Vertical Launching System to be capable of storing and firing four missiles, rather than the current single missile capability. This is a far better idea than deciding to drill holes into the superstructure to add more capability. But of course i know you enjoy drilling holes into anything that doesnt need fixing Mr Popeye.
RubiconNZ
The Wanderer
A Small Intercession
Aussie sailors fend off Iran capture
June 22, 2007 07:01am
Article from: AAP
AN Australian Navy boarding crew in the Gulf of Persia repelled an Iranian gunboat that threatened them a matter of weeks before 15 British sailors were captured in a similar incident, it was reported today.
The capture of the British crew in March developed into a major diplomatic incident before their release was negotiated.
But BBC reporter Frank Gardner, a security specialist, reported the Australians had pointed their guns at the Iranians and used "colourful language" before the gunboat withdrew.
"What I've been told by several sources, military sources, (is that) there was a similar encounter, in this case between the Royal Australian Navy and Iranian gunboats, some months ago, or at least some months prior to the seizing of the British sailors," Gardner told ABC radio.
"The Australians escaped capture by climbing back on board the ship they'd just searched. I'm told that they set up their weapons.
"No shots were exchanged but the Iranians backed off and the Australians were able to get helicoptered off that ship and they didn't get captured."
He did not mention the name of the Australian ship.
Australians ships rotate through duties in the Gulf, chiefly searching ships.
"What I'm hearing is that it was a pretty robust attitude by the Australians," Gardner said.
"The words that somebody said to me was that they used pretty colourful language but I'm sure that alone didn't make the Iranians back off.
"They reacted, I'm told, incredibly quickly, whereas the Brits were caught at their most vulnerable moment climbing down off the ship (and) getting into their boats."
Gardner said the British should be embarrassed about the incident but the issue was whether military intelligence had been passed on.
"The point of this story is not that the Aussies were fantastically brave and the Brits were a bunch of cowards, although I'm sure some people will interpret (it that way)," he said.
"Lessons should have been drawn from what happened to the Australian crew."
He said he had not been able to find out whether the information on the Australian incident had been passed on to the British.
I wonder if the colorful language was in keeping with the professional standard of the RAN in keeping with them being Ambassadors of Australia
nfloorl:
On a seriousness note though just goes to show that Iran was spoiling for a fight or at least trying to gauge world reactions of such actions, they just picked the wrong group to try and bully.
Aussie sailors fend off Iran capture
June 22, 2007 07:01am
Article from: AAP
AN Australian Navy boarding crew in the Gulf of Persia repelled an Iranian gunboat that threatened them a matter of weeks before 15 British sailors were captured in a similar incident, it was reported today.
The capture of the British crew in March developed into a major diplomatic incident before their release was negotiated.
But BBC reporter Frank Gardner, a security specialist, reported the Australians had pointed their guns at the Iranians and used "colourful language" before the gunboat withdrew.
"What I've been told by several sources, military sources, (is that) there was a similar encounter, in this case between the Royal Australian Navy and Iranian gunboats, some months ago, or at least some months prior to the seizing of the British sailors," Gardner told ABC radio.
"The Australians escaped capture by climbing back on board the ship they'd just searched. I'm told that they set up their weapons.
"No shots were exchanged but the Iranians backed off and the Australians were able to get helicoptered off that ship and they didn't get captured."
He did not mention the name of the Australian ship.
Australians ships rotate through duties in the Gulf, chiefly searching ships.
"What I'm hearing is that it was a pretty robust attitude by the Australians," Gardner said.
"The words that somebody said to me was that they used pretty colourful language but I'm sure that alone didn't make the Iranians back off.
"They reacted, I'm told, incredibly quickly, whereas the Brits were caught at their most vulnerable moment climbing down off the ship (and) getting into their boats."
Gardner said the British should be embarrassed about the incident but the issue was whether military intelligence had been passed on.
"The point of this story is not that the Aussies were fantastically brave and the Brits were a bunch of cowards, although I'm sure some people will interpret (it that way)," he said.
"Lessons should have been drawn from what happened to the Australian crew."
He said he had not been able to find out whether the information on the Australian incident had been passed on to the British.
I wonder if the colorful language was in keeping with the professional standard of the RAN in keeping with them being Ambassadors of Australia
nfloorl: On a seriousness note though just goes to show that Iran was spoiling for a fight or at least trying to gauge world reactions of such actions, they just picked the wrong group to try and bully.
Such systems were used in the Oberons in the ballsat tanks used as fuel tanks with no great problems. it is a little more difficult in fuel tanks in surface ships given the tank design. In addition gas turbines and the MTU's get less than enthusiastic about salt water contamination in fuel meaning is must be separted out completely.
Apart from the need to have much more capable separtors, as you will always have to deal with contamination in this sort of system, the 'slops' from the separtion process also have to be dealt with. Given the navy follow MARPOL this means a slops tanks and 15ppm OWS. The volumes to go through the OWS will be enourmous (100's of tonnes) noting the capacity of these units is not great as they are designed for small amounts but will have to run all the 'ballast water' and slops. Another options is to have a dewatering tank but ther are space an weight implciaitosn wiht this as well.
Finally the water ahs to be removed throguh an approved discharge sysstem before you fuel, you cannot simply dump it out of the tanks as the fule comes in both becasue of th risk of fuel being pumped over the side and, if you are going to comply wiht MAEPOL, the watet has to go through the OWS. In other waords it must be removed before fuel which removes the stability advantage.
The other choiose is to simply ignore MARPOL, which the navy can do, but I don't see that happening.
The ship will also need the associate piping for putting water in the fuel tanks (it cannot not share a common supply line) and running the water to the
Thank you ElP for your question. Details of the spot positioning hasnt at this point been confirmed on the BPE Adelaide Class, however we can get a fairly good idea of what the most likely scenerio is based on the Navantia Spanish designed BPE.
From the specs of the Spanish BPE there will be most likely 6 landing spots in all to cover both Helo and STOVL recovery operations. In addition to this and the beauty of this design is that there is really good space for parking for at least 10 Helos/STOVLs or a combination of both and at least an additional 4 -6 landing spots for a mixture of the same. Not to mention the in ship area of operations.
The Harrier is in many ways smaller in comparison to the F35B however you could at least have 6-8 F35Bs parked on the deck and the remainder in Helos. It really depends on the operation required as numbers versus ratio could easily change with each mission when required. Hope this goes in some way to answer your question. Cheers.
From the specs of the Spanish BPE there will be most likely 6 landing spots in all to cover both Helo and STOVL recovery operations. In addition to this and the beauty of this design is that there is really good space for parking for at least 10 Helos/STOVLs or a combination of both and at least an additional 4 -6 landing spots for a mixture of the same. Not to mention the in ship area of operations.
The Harrier is in many ways smaller in comparison to the F35B however you could at least have 6-8 F35Bs parked on the deck and the remainder in Helos. It really depends on the operation required as numbers versus ratio could easily change with each mission when required. Hope this goes in some way to answer your question. Cheers.
Last edited:
Popeye, you are in serious trouble. Youre depressed i know.
My suggestion is that it would be a good idea to pass on the frigate to the RNZN to bolster our own Naval power.
My suggestion is that it would be a good idea to pass on the frigate to the RNZN to bolster our own Naval power.
There is provision in the design of the Anzacs for another 8 cell Mk41 VLS. It is not a matter of drilling holes. The VLS comes in an 8 cell module and the space is already there. The reason it is unlikely to be fitted seems to be a concern with topweight with the Australian built Anzacs.
The OZ Anzacs already have the quad ESSM so they can carry 32 missiles each with their existing setup (as well as 8 Harpoon in 2 quad mounts which is now fitted in at least 3 ships - Anzac, Warramunga and Arunta).
Cheers
- Status