Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[StingrayOZ]

Carriers tend to have faster speed, and there are many reasons why that may be needed. For example if you wanted to operate with a CVN then 30kt speed may be a requirement.

As you mentioned, the JC1 is not designed for 30kt operations.

Is it a requirement for Australia? Perhaps not. It depends what we want to be able to do with it.Lowest risk and lowest cost would be a stock standard 3rd LHD and some F-35. Right through to a PoW carrier with full airwing.

 

[John Newman]

I must admit that when I heard the news about Izumo yesterday, I had mistakenly thought at first she was another ship of the existing and smaller Hyuga class, well I was certainly wrong about that. (Note to self: pay more attention to Japanese Naval developments!).

You certainly have to give it to the Japanese, every time they produce a new class of Submarine, Destroyer, Aegis Destroyer and Helicopter (Destroyer) Carrier, they appear to be larger and more capable than the preceding class, makes you wonder what the eventual follow on to the Izumo class might be like in terms of size and capability!

If the RAN was ever to consider Carriers again (yes one can dream), there are now two purpose built designs that might fit the bill, Izumo and the Italian Cavour.

Over the years I've always thought that a ship of the size of the former HMS Hermes would be an appropriate size for the RAN, large enough to expand the size and composition of the air group in times of need.

Both Izumo and Cavour certainly appear to be on par with Hermes, in fact they appear to be a bit longer and similar displacements too.

Oh well, stop dreaming, back to reality!

 

[StingrayOZ]

Im sure the RAN would be looking forward to an operation where both the Canberra class and the Izumo can operate together and there can be a chance to look of if such a design would ever deliver a capability the RAN needs.

However, we are going to have enough problems creating dock and supporting facilities for our two new LHD's. I see the crane removal is all going a head, but I've hear nothing about doubling the size of harrys cafe de wheels for tri-service use.

Also naval review is coming up and a vivid type light show is promised for the opera house and other buildings.

 

[icelord]

Im sure the RAN would be looking forward to an operation where both the Canberra class and the Izumo can operate together and there can be a chance to look of if such a design would ever deliver a capability the RAN needs.

However, we are going to have enough problems creating dock and supporting facilities for our two new LHD's. I see the crane removal is all going a head, but I've hear nothing about doubling the size of harrys cafe de wheels for tri-service use.

Also naval review is coming up and a vivid type light show is promised for the opera house and other buildings.

Will be taking part in this years IFR and have been told we will be front and centre for the light show and fireworks, apparently being a Darwin based boat we have been told bringing our own left overstock of fireworks from this years Territory day is going a little to far...
The light show will be a story telling across Sydney harbour with about 5 Minor War Vessels involved, the main display being between Mrs Maquaries and Opera House...i'm only saying 'main display' as that's where we are set to be

As for Harrys, she will get the point after the first week that its time to expand

 

[ngatimozart]

A comment I see here and on other naval threads "steel is cheap and air is free" has been discussed on a US Navy blog, Navy Matters written by US Navy ComNavOps, Commander - Naval Opinions. In this particular entry Navy Matters: Steel is Cheap and Air is Free the crux of the discussion is that the saying "steel is cheap and air is free" is a fallacy and the blogger uses the LCS to present the argument. I'm not an engineer so can't adequately comment on the discussion so I'll leave to those far more authorative and intelligent than I to comment. I just find this interesting and wish to know more.

 

[Volkodav]

A comment I see here and on other naval threads "steel is cheap and air is free" has been discussed on a US Navy blog, Navy Matters written by US Navy ComNavOps, Commander - Naval Opinions. In this particular entry Navy Matters: Steel is Cheap and Air is Free the crux of the discussion is that the saying "steel is cheap and air is free" is a fallacy and the blogger uses the LCS to present the argument. I'm not an engineer so can't adequately comment on the discussion so I'll leave to those far more authorative and intelligent than I to comment. I just find this interesting and wish to know more.

Well my first argument to counter this would be "if that is truly the case, why isn't the LCS smaller?"
Perhaps (to be honest there is no perhaps about it) part of the cost element in the case of the Bollinger build was due to the yards inexperience in fabricating aluminium, poor project management, questionable practices aimed to meet milestone with payments attached while ignoring flow on delays and cost from those decisions. Had a long discussion with an ABS surveyor involved in LCS and his description of Bollingers management was not flattering, the word criminal may or may not have been used.

Besides that LCS is a very poor example as the platforms were designed for very high speed and were actually prototypes of a totally new concept. It would be more accurate to compare the cost of a DDG verses an FFG with many of the same systems squeezed in and then to factor in life of type when it come time for major upgrades.

True that a larger heavier hull of the same form requires more power and more fuel for a given speed and range but another factor is a larger hull introduces more flexibility to adapt the hull form for greater efficiency when fitted with a given pay load / outfit.

If the USN was prepared to do without the high speed and shallow draft they could have had something more along the lines of Absalon but that wasn't their requirement.

Really not that impressed with this blog or its conclusions, "steel is cheap and air is free" is an over simplification but when you are talking like for like its is true more often than not.


This is a pretty interesting read comparing the LCS 1&2 , Absalon and F125.

noticiarionaval: LCS- So why doesn’t USA clone Absalon?

 

[swerve]

"Steel is cheap & air is free" is true, but ignores the additional costs that a larger ship necessitates, for example propulsion machinery, fuel costs, & hull maintenance.

Doubling the size of a ship doesn't double costs, but it does mean significant extra cost. A 6000 ton warship isn't marginally more expensive than a 3000 ton warship with the same weapons, sensors, etc., it's significantly more expensive. But the extra costs are not in proportion to the increased size.

So, I'd say that it is wrong to say that "steel is cheap & air is free" is a fallacy, but it is also wrong to blithely assume (as those who keep trotting out "steel is cheap & air is free" usually do) that the extra costs of bigger hulls are small enough to be safely ignored. The author's main point is therefore correct: you shouldn't just bump up the size on a whim. Bigger hulls need to be justified in terms of what you expect to put on them in the future, & whether that's worth the extra cost. It very often is, but that should not be taken for granted. There's an optimal size range for each role. What exactly is optimal is a matter for expert analysis, & depends very much on circumstances, but bigger is not always better.

 

[Volkodav]

"Steel is cheap & air is free" is true, but ignores the additional costs that a larger ship necessitates, for example propulsion machinery, fuel costs, & hull maintenance.

Doubling the size of a ship doesn't double costs, but it does mean significant extra cost. A 6000 ton warship isn't marginally more expensive than a 3000 ton warship with the same weapons, sensors, etc., it's significantly more expensive. But the extra costs are not in proportion to the increased size.

So, I'd say that it is wrong to say that "steel is cheap & air is free" is a fallacy, but it is also wrong to blithely assume (as those who keep trotting out "steel is cheap & air is free" usually do) that the extra costs of bigger hulls are small enough to be safely ignored. The author's main point is therefore correct: you shouldn't just bump up the size on a whim. Bigger hulls need to be justified in terms of what you expect to put on them in the future, & whether that's worth the extra cost. It very often is, but that should not be taken for granted. There's an optimal size range for each role. What exactly is optimal is a matter for expert analysis, & depends very much on circumstances, but bigger is not always better.

Agreed.

Steel is cheap and air is free, is probably a poor way of suggesting that reasonable growth margins add value, flexibility and longevity to a design. Think the longevity and major upgrades US ships designed and built after the start of WWII received compared to treaty constrained ships of similar vintage. The extra size made a big difference.

Back onto the blog in question, both LCS designs are larger than their designed role and outfit would suggest was necessary so basically the example used actually contradicts the argument. Another US example is the Burke class DDGs, would they still be in production today had the USN been satisfied with a smaller less versatile design? The Spruance Class DDs served well but were canned for being larger than they needed to be but look at the upgrades they received and the designs evolved from them.

As this is the RAN thread the perfect example is the ANZAC class, when they were ordered Dibb (the brains trust behind the patrol frigate case that led to the ANZACs) complained that they were too big and heavy. Now half way through their lives the extra margins have been used up and we wish we had bought something bigger not smaller.

Look at the Armidale Class PBs, good idea at the time, perfectly suited to the requirements put forward but being shagged at a rapid rate now the situation has changed and they are being worked to death as SAR assets in all sorts of cruddy weather. I do not doubt that current experience will see them replaced with something larger and more durable while retaining a similar sized crew and equipment. Ironically the 80m corvette intended to replace the Fremantle Class PBs before being cancelled on cost and the assumption they weren't needed would have performed much better in the current situation.

 

[AegisFC]

The Spruance Class DDs served well but were canned for being larger than they needed to be but look at the upgrades they received and the designs evolved from them.

The Sprucans were decommed and promptly scrapped or blown to pieces rather than modernized for political reasons by Rumsfield and company, not for being too large.

Friedmans book on US destroyers deals with the size issue. Going off the top of my head (I'll double check later) but for the Spruance class the price difference between minimum size for the requirements and what was produced with lots of room for upgrades was less than 10-15%.

 

[weegee]

Talisman Saber 2013

Hey Guys I just came across this vid on youtube about Talisman Saber 2013 it is made by the Yanks but it has some nice Aussie content in there as well.

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbAXnOQsnBM"]Talisman Saber 2013 - YouTube[/nomedia]

 

[gf0012-aust]

Friedmans book on US destroyers deals with the size issue. Going off the top of my head (I'll double check later) but for the Spruance class the price difference between minimum size for the requirements and what was produced with lots of room for upgrades was less than 10-15%.

I met Friedman in OZ a few years back when he was a guest of the ADF.

He gave us a briefing on Joint capabilities (basically he believed that the USN was the only service that understood and delivered "joint" in its entirety) and a follow on discussion on sensible platform development

He was a glowing advocate of the sprucans and made it pretty clear that as a long term investment that hull shape and form was the embodiment of cost effective through life development

an interesting bloke, but he could be like a mad cats whiskers when he got animated

 

[Volkodav]

The Sprucans were decommed and promptly scrapped or blown to pieces rather than modernized for political reasons by Rumsfield and company, not for being too large.

Friedmans book on US destroyers deals with the size issue. Going off the top of my head (I'll double check later) but for the Spruance class the price difference between minimum size for the requirements and what was produced with lots of room for upgrades was less than 10-15%.

By canned I meant criticized

 

[Volkodav]

N-subs 'likely to cost same as diesel models'

An interesting piece in The Australian today. Basically an international paper suggests the Australia could build and operate nuclear powered submarines if there was the will to do so.

If you check out the talent in senior management at ASC it is probably correct as there are quite a few very experienced nuclear sub people (among others) there, not to mention the close ties to GD Electric Boat.
ASC - Executive - Stephen Ludlam, Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer

Anyway here's the story for some context.

by: Verity Edwards
From: The Australian
August 14, 2013 12:00AM

AN international research paper on the feasibility of a nuclear-powered submarine fleet has found there is expertise to build them in Australia, and the nation would not have to create its own nuclear industry first.

The University College, London, green paper, which involved former senior energy adviser to the British government Tim Stone and US-based international nuclear law expert Helen Cook, found nuclear-powered subs could be assembled here and were unlikely to cost more than conventional diesel or electric-powered subs.

UCL International Energy Policy Institute director Stefaan Simons said there was a need to debate nuclear-powered capabilities before the commonwealth spent billions on a conventional system, which might not suit defence needs.

"It's not easy, and neither is coming up with a new design or an Australian design for conventional submarines to meet the stated requirements," Professor Simons said.
.. .
"That's going to be very different and could well be more costly, particularly because of over-runs caused by delays and mistakes. It may not be more challenging to build nuclear-powered submarines."

But this year's Defence White Paper ruled out nuclear subs.

A spokeswoman for Defence Minister Stephen Smith said Labor would not consider nuclear propulsion for the country's submarines.

"Acquiring nuclear-powered submarines would involve outsourcing the construction, maintenance and sustainment of the submarines to another country, which the government has ruled out," she said.

"The submarines would have to be built overseas (and) fuelled, docked, defuelled and disposed of overseas."

But the UCL green paper suggested nuclear-powered subs could be assembled in South Australia as the government had indicated for its future fleet, with a propulsion system imported from a partner such as Britain or the US.

Professor Simons said it was virtually certain the nuclear fuel would be supplied as part of a complete propulsion system, which did not need refuelling.

The paper found the country that supplied the propulsion system would also be likely to take spent fuel, and Australia was likely to manage only "short-lived" radioactive waste produced during operations and maintenance in existing sites.

Professor Simons said the paper had investigated construction workforce needs, the legislative and nuclear regulations required and procurement.

The paper suggests there was a small workforce skilled in nuclear technology, but "several thousand" skilled workers would be needed for assembly.

The report said there was a need to work with allies to establish any fleet, which would have been needed in any case for conventional subs. "The principal (incorrect assertion) is that you must have a nuclear submarine industry and that's not the case," Professor Simons said.

"We keep stressing that we're talking about nuclear-powered submarines, we're not talking about nuclear weapons."

Opposition defence spokesman David Johnston said nuclear-powered subs were not a part of Coalition policy.

 

[Volkodav]

A complaint made by many an Army or Navy is that Airforces are better at staff work which in a nut shell means they are better at getting their ideas, wants and needs across to the holders of the purse strings. It is not so much that they are deliberately undermining the other services but rather that they see their needs to be more important, they did after all choose to join the airforce over the others so likely believe them to be more important and more capable when it comes do protecting the interests of their country.

Remember, before there were airforces the likes of Jackie Fisher were pushing for Dreadnaughts and Battle Cruisers in the media to win over public opinion and force the governments hand.

 

[OPSSG]

Off-topic, US centric, cross services discussion moved to the AirSea Battle thread, here (at the Military Strategy and Tactics section).

 

[swerve]

Ta.

I should have known better (slaps own wrist).

 

[rjtjrt]

Interesting quote from an obituary in Telegraph UK for Sir Sandy Woodward.

The bit about amphibious warefare ships being poorly armed and this being an issue in the Falklands War.


Sir ‘Sandy’ Woodward: a shy but decisive fighter - Telegraph

"Originally Posted by Captain Mike Clapp - COMAW in 1982
Sandy Woodward and I first met on HMS Devonshire, the cadet training ship, in 1951. He had joined the Britannia Royal Naval College, Dartmouth, at 13. I was a ‘Special Entry’ at 17. He was in the term above me and my recollection is of a somewhat serious and academically minded cadet who spent a lot of time playing bridge. He was to become a submariner while I was pressed into the Fleet Air Arm.....................

Nearly eight years later, our paths crossed again. He was then the Flag Officer, First Flotilla, and I was the Commodore, Amphibious Warfare. On April 2, 1982, I received a signal ordering me to prepare for an amphibious landing on the Falkland Islands...............

Our next meeting, on HMS Hermes, was just before we approached San Carlos Water for the landings. I had a useful, friendly chat with Sandy, who confirmed that he was now in support of us. From then on I spoke with him every evening bar one, when life was too frantic. We were often under massive air attack, but my ships were poorly armed and were unable to hit back as hard as we wished. "

 

[t68]

Interesting quote from an obituary in Telegraph UK for Sir Sandy Woodward.

The bit about amphibious warefare ships being poorly armed and this being an issue in the Falklands War.


Sir ‘Sandy’ Woodward: a shy but decisive fighter - Telegraph

"Originally Posted by Captain Mike Clapp - COMAW in 1982
Sandy Woodward and I first met on HMS Devonshire, the cadet training ship, in 1951. He had joined the Britannia Royal Naval College, Dartmouth, at 13. I was a ‘Special Entry’ at 17. He was in the term above me and my recollection is of a somewhat serious and academically minded cadet who spent a lot of time playing bridge. He was to become a submariner while I was pressed into the Fleet Air Arm.....................

Nearly eight years later, our paths crossed again. He was then the Flag Officer, First Flotilla, and I was the Commodore, Amphibious Warfare. On April 2, 1982, I received a signal ordering me to prepare for an amphibious landing on the Falkland Islands...............

Our next meeting, on HMS Hermes, was just before we approached San Carlos Water for the landings. I had a useful, friendly chat with Sandy, who confirmed that he was now in support of us. From then on I spoke with him every evening bar one, when life was too frantic. We were often under massive air attack, but my ships were poorly armed and were unable to hit back as hard as we wished. "

I think you meant for this to go in the RN tread not the RAN, interesting nonetheless

 

[rjtjrt]

I think you meant for this to go in the RN tread not the RAN, interesting nonetheless

No, I meant it to go in RAN thread, but just as applicable to both navies.
My point was the possible folly of very limited air defence onboard Amphibious ships, in RAN service now and in near future.

 

[Volkodav]

No, I meant it to go in RAN thread, but just as applicable to both navies.
My point was the possible folly of very limited air defence onboard Amphibious ships, in RAN service now and in near future.

I understand what you are saying and agree.

While the official line is ships such as the LHDs will never go into harms way without an escort of AWDs and FFHs it just goes against the grain to imagine such an important and strategically critical platform being incapable of defending itself against anything more than small, lightly armed boats.

Considering the small size of the ARA vs. what can be carried by just one LHD, let alone the value of the ship as a command platform you would think CIWS and an anti ship missile defence system would be a minimum, with a mine detecting sonar and torpedo defence system also fairly high up the list of priorities.