weegee
Active Member
Just a quick question. Why does Canberra run with L02 and Adelaide L01 when Canberra is the lead ship and bearer of the class name?
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
Because the pennant number 01 (Adelaide) and 02 (Canberra) are the same as the previous (FFG) ships bearing their names.
Same as the AWD Hobart and Brisbane will have the same pennant numbers as the previous DDG ships of the same names.
Canberra in dry dock
weegee
Active Member
Ahh that makes a lot of sense. When is Adelaide set for sea trials? I suppose it will be lateish 2015?
Way too early to throw anything around just yet.
I'll keep you posted when I find out.
I'm headed down to Williamstown next month for my inductions.
the road runner
Active Member
When is Canberra due to set sail again from Sydney Harbour?
I have an itchy camera finger
I have an itchy camera finger
It would be interesting if that was the case as I believe that was all done in Spain and is a repeat of the setup in JCI. So well proven and fully trialled with Canberra being ship two having followed JCI with almost no break in construction.Can anyone confirm or deny the rumours that NUship Canberra had issues with her propulsion system during sea trials?hwell
Been reading a bit on CEAFAR and the Howard Governments intention to employ an expanded version on the FFG and ANZAC replacements. This appears to still be the case with Def Minister Johnston apparently taking the same line, an expanded version of CEAFAR for the FFG and ANZAC replacements.
Now this is interesting for a number of reasons
Now this is interesting for a number of reasons
- I was under the impression the FFGs were being retired to provide crews for the AWDs
- The FFGs will need a life extension (in particular the older pair) if they are to last until a replacement post 2020
- An expanded version of CEAFAR would likely deliver similar or superior performance to SPY-1D on the AWDs
- Depending on the combat system selected these new combatants may end up more capable in the air warfare role than the AWDs
- The RAN could, if all of this is the case, find themselves with a fleet of 8 to 12 capable GP / Air Warfare / land attack Frigates in addition to the AWDs
- The AWDs would be looking pretty old hat and useless in comparison by this stage as they approach the point of their mid life upgrades having already used all their design margin
- Which in turn raises the question of why the government of the day didn't opt for the Flight IIA Arleigh Burke, or G&C international Frigate as the RAN wanted or the Type 45/SPY3/AEGIS combo suggested by industry when they were already planning what they knew would be superior to the F-100
justsomeaussie
Member
I'm pretty well versed in active phased array radar but point one is taking things too far. In terms of technological advancement CEAFAR is far ahead of the 1D but still simply doesn't have anywhere near the power output. So an expanded version which could compete with the 1D in terms of radiation would be a gigantic leap.
Of course being an active array with elemental beam forming it will have huge capabilities in EW and immense clarity but the fundamental limiting factor is the output power.
SPY3 and the Dual Band are still a way off at TRL 6.
I should have specified the AUSPAR and other advanced projects that were already under way when the AWD design decision was made instead of referring to an expanded CEAFAR. I believe the capability provided by AEGIS and SPY-1D(v) was needed just that it was poorly executed, the reason to go for a cheaper platform was to get more hulls but in the end we didn't.
The reason to go for the existing design was to reduce risk and speed construction, the design was not existing in truth with no baseline set and the supply chain was compromised due to the break in orders resulting in obsolescence and support issues. The problems are numerous, caused by the choice of design and incorrect assumptions made by the government against expert advice.
I am not for one second saying the Gibbs and Cox evolved design would have been better, they cut their own throats by stuffing up their weight estimates, they were so far off it was a different ship.
What Australia should have done was go to BIW and request a fully sorted optioned up Flight IIA Burke. Adopt Hybrid Electric Drive, electric as opposed to compressed air generator start, Digital Fuel control, Phalanx 1B to name a few of the many proven bolt on manpower and operating cost reducing systems that BIW has been offering the USN for years and then build three or four in Adelaide starting a couple of years earlier. There would have been far fewer issues ,much lower risk, more reliable supply chain and the RAN would have received a far more capable timely platform.
The reason to go for the existing design was to reduce risk and speed construction, the design was not existing in truth with no baseline set and the supply chain was compromised due to the break in orders resulting in obsolescence and support issues. The problems are numerous, caused by the choice of design and incorrect assumptions made by the government against expert advice.
I am not for one second saying the Gibbs and Cox evolved design would have been better, they cut their own throats by stuffing up their weight estimates, they were so far off it was a different ship.
What Australia should have done was go to BIW and request a fully sorted optioned up Flight IIA Burke. Adopt Hybrid Electric Drive, electric as opposed to compressed air generator start, Digital Fuel control, Phalanx 1B to name a few of the many proven bolt on manpower and operating cost reducing systems that BIW has been offering the USN for years and then build three or four in Adelaide starting a couple of years earlier. There would have been far fewer issues ,much lower risk, more reliable supply chain and the RAN would have received a far more capable timely platform.
justsomeaussie
Member
Happy to be corrected but as I understand it there is no public knowledge of CEAFAR or AUSPAR being about to compete with a SPY-1D. AUSPAR is always reported as a classified program with the US developing prototypes. All I've read is that a higher power version is being positioned for Future Frigate, not what the power is or what it could compare to.
There's zero public knowledge but there is a hell of a lot of inside info running around about how its competitive and in some areas - superior
and thats by people directly involved
justsomeaussie
Member
So till it's public we shouldn't be guessing or making speculative comparisons. It's hardly fair comparing an architecture of a PESA array based on 1970s technology with a modern AESA. It's like comparing a brutally powerful 1970s Mustang with an fuel efficient high tech 2010 BMW, it's simply not a fair comparison.
Once AMDR or SPY3 has publishable stats along with the higher power CEAFAR then we can draw conclusions but for one to state that you could drop a high power CEAFAR/AUSPAR next to a 1D and it to be comparable is simply making things up.
To date Government is talking about a Future Frigate radar, not future Destroyer with very different radar needs.
I'm a big fan of CEAFAR the technology is truly world beating but let's not get ahead of ourselves.
Nobody is getting ahead of themselves
those who do have a clue have said jack schitt in here....
justsomeaussie
Member
CEA have a public presentation a couple of months back in R1. Certainly set the path forward. Very interesting.
Its a case of extrapolation, we know SPY-1 will eventually be superceeded however I note that they are continuing to improve it as well. The fact remains the USN has a huge investment in the system, just through the number of ships deployed with it, so it is worth their while improving rather than replacing it.
Things are a bit different for the RAN, while we will have three hulls with SPY, if a cheaper better system becomes available that would permit us to provide a similar or superior capability to all of our new primary surface combatants we should take it.
I would go so far as to suggest it may be worth while building a class of light frigate or corvette with the same sort of combat power as the upgraded ANZACs as a follow on for the AWDs by going for a split build to replace the Armidales. Get some (6-8) OPVs in the water ASAP to take to load of the frigates deployed on border protection taskings as well as the taking on the longer ranged rough stuff that is killing the PBs.
Then as things settle down start building the new light frigates / corvettes (another 12-14?) that would be interchangeable with ANZACs on international / UN deployments. These, along with the OPVs, would progressively increase numbers of deployable warships in the RAN , introduce mission modules to the RAN and see the retirement of the last of the patrols boats as well as taking over much of the MCM and hydrographic taskings as well.
Once this is underway we will hopefully be in a position to design, develop (alone or in conjunction with a partner) and begin construction of a class of indigenous destroyers that suit are needs and truly leave the Hobarts for dead.
Things are a bit different for the RAN, while we will have three hulls with SPY, if a cheaper better system becomes available that would permit us to provide a similar or superior capability to all of our new primary surface combatants we should take it.
I would go so far as to suggest it may be worth while building a class of light frigate or corvette with the same sort of combat power as the upgraded ANZACs as a follow on for the AWDs by going for a split build to replace the Armidales. Get some (6-8) OPVs in the water ASAP to take to load of the frigates deployed on border protection taskings as well as the taking on the longer ranged rough stuff that is killing the PBs.
Then as things settle down start building the new light frigates / corvettes (another 12-14?) that would be interchangeable with ANZACs on international / UN deployments. These, along with the OPVs, would progressively increase numbers of deployable warships in the RAN , introduce mission modules to the RAN and see the retirement of the last of the patrols boats as well as taking over much of the MCM and hydrographic taskings as well.
Once this is underway we will hopefully be in a position to design, develop (alone or in conjunction with a partner) and begin construction of a class of indigenous destroyers that suit are needs and truly leave the Hobarts for dead.
Realistically AUSPAR wasn't/isnt ready, and CEAFAR wasn't really operational when the AWD decision was occurring (AFAIK). Proving it on a destroyer platform is something that is yet to happen. For risk alone it made sense not to go down that road (IMO).
I really see them as two different systems, for two different ships. At some point in the future that may change (with time and money). Despite any technical superiorities any and each has. The AWD project is late enough as it is, I don't think anyone wanted to add more risk, cost, complication etc. Its one of the main advantages of the F-100 design over the G&C design.
Interesting about Canberra. There may be minor teething issues, it isn't a navy ship yet, its only just gotten wet. I would be surprised if they had a design or operational issue, as its pretty much a carbon copy powertrain wise isn't it? Fairly known quantity.
I really see them as two different systems, for two different ships. At some point in the future that may change (with time and money). Despite any technical superiorities any and each has. The AWD project is late enough as it is, I don't think anyone wanted to add more risk, cost, complication etc. Its one of the main advantages of the F-100 design over the G&C design.
Interesting about Canberra. There may be minor teething issues, it isn't a navy ship yet, its only just gotten wet. I would be surprised if they had a design or operational issue, as its pretty much a carbon copy powertrain wise isn't it? Fairly known quantity.
That's why I said in an earlier post that we would have been better off going earlier for an optioned up Flight IIA Burke over either the F-100 or the G&C options.
I say optioned up as there are features the USN leave off their current DDGs as they are covered off by other platforms and capabilities that the RAN doesn't have in such abundance or at all. i.e. RAN ships would have CIWS, Harpoon etc. There are also a raft of cost saving (some up front some through life) features that BIW and Ingalls have put forward to the USN that have not been adopted yet than an export customer building in their own yard could incorporate more easily than the US with their almost production line current builds.
Don't get me wrong, it would not be cheap but in hindsight it could be suggested than an earlier decision (pre valley of death after the last ANZAC) on a locally constructed Flight IIA Burke with construction in Williamstown or Port Adelaide with BIW support would have been less risky with fewer delays and slips than the build that was selected.
I am not for one second suggesting that the RAN should have skipped AEGIS but rather we should have gotten it earlier if possible. Now we have it we should look to delay the FFG/ANZAC replacements (assuming the AWDs do not become the permanent FFG replacements) through building OPVs and light frigates / corvettes until new systems are available to make the new GP frigates more capable and useful than the AWDs.
justsomeaussie
Member
I don't know who this bloke is (Tom Worthington) but here he is talking about using CEAFAR in a P8.
Net Traveller: Maritime Patrol Aircraft with Australian Phased Array Radar
Long term is an intersting concept, if you could replace the wedgetail with a linear CEAFAR array under the wings it would certainly be an interesting demonstrator.
Here is a Navantia brochure with CEA radars:
http://www.navantia.es/ckfinder/userfiles/files/sala_pr/fragatasf110.pdf
Long term could the Australian combatatant fleet turn CEAFAR type radars only?
Net Traveller: Maritime Patrol Aircraft with Australian Phased Array Radar
Long term is an intersting concept, if you could replace the wedgetail with a linear CEAFAR array under the wings it would certainly be an interesting demonstrator.
Here is a Navantia brochure with CEA radars:
http://www.navantia.es/ckfinder/userfiles/files/sala_pr/fragatasf110.pdf
Long term could the Australian combatatant fleet turn CEAFAR type radars only?
- Status