Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
At one of the early stages there was serious discussion about lancing the superstructure due to weight and centre of gravity issues,
ie too much more fruit on the superstructure raised concerns about rollover etc in heavy sea states
Rheinhardt
New Member
Regarding the ANZAC class, the new Zealand ships have a CIWS system and I am fairly certain that there is physical space to add an additional VLS system, which isn't something perse that you contested. Now I would like to know what makes you think the ship is so topheavy, so unstable, that even just the addition of a RIM-116 will make it dangerously unstable. And I inteded for the additional VLS to be fitted with advanced ASMs, thereby replacing the harpoon launchers and mitigating most of the additional weight for the VLS. I don't think I said that the ANZACS are cruisers, but just because you mentioned it, they do have the same range as a Ticonderoga-class cruiser.
Yes ofcourse the AWDs will provide area-air defence to fleet assets, that is there role, and at this rate they will be the only RAN assets capable of doing so, im not arguing that, merely stating that they as the sole Area-air defence assets of the RAN are incapable of defending the territories of the commonwealth of australia, which is ultimately is the mission of the navy, and that there are more cost effective alternatives.
Indeed I though I was very clear when I suggested that the RAN take a hi-low approach to naval force composition, specifically mentioning the RN as an example, which has had this approach for a very long time, operating two classes of frigates, and is probably the clearest example of what I mean, incidentally turkey is now adopting this model. And do this instead of building large, expensive US cruiser look-a-likes.
What I mean by high, the high end would be something with say 32-40 large VLS (with ASMs inside the VLS), the low end would be perhaps smaller vessals lacking area defence capabilities and comparable in role (but no design) to the US LCS program. Just look at the Type_054A_frigate, Iver_Huitfeldt-class_frigate, those are good examples of what I mean (by ship), and china knows what it is talking about. Being more modest, they are also much cheaper, a few hundred million each instead of upwards of a billion! I have actually been on one there frigates.
Sorry this is nonsense
First ........ read the recent email trail on top weight on the ANZAC ........... I do not intend to repeat this.
Second - Turkey have a significantly different operating environment compared to Australia so this observation is not relevant
Third - There is no way the RAN will buy Chinese frigates and weapons systems given who we operate with.
Rheinhardt
New Member
Common be nice...That is a bit unfair now isn't it, I merely want to know why you think it is too top heavy, if I knew about this information you are referring too, I probably wouldn't have asked you.
I also didn't say the turkish operating environment was the same, I literally just said that they have adopted a hi-low force structure like the RN! Nor did I say that RAN should buy chinese ships, merely that they are an example of a cost-effective high-end frigate! I litterally didn't say these things....
Sorry I just don't see how any of this is nonsense, it makes perfect sense to me and is entirely truthful....
1 and 3 were addressed - and even if you didn't know about 1, then 3 should be self evident for anyone familiar with the history of Aust with the US since, WW1, especially since WW2 and decidedly so Vietnam + and esp since 5I's was establishedCommon be nice...That is a bit unfair now isn't it, I merely want to know why you think it is too top heavy, if I knew about this information you are referring too, I probably wouldn't have asked you.
I also didn't say the turkish operating environment was the same, I literally just said that they have adopted a hi-low force structure like the RN! Nor did I say that RAN should buy chinese ships, merely that they are an example of a cost-effective high-end frigate! I litterally didn't say these things....
Sorry I just don't see how any of this is nonsense, it makes perfect sense to me and is entirely truthful....
Last edited:
You did 'incidentally' point to the Turkish model for high low mix...... and in this regard I stick to my point, what may be a good mix for Turkey will not by extrapolation work for the RAN given the distances and operating environment. Their 'cost effective' high end frigate' may be inadequate for the operations the RAN envisage. To put this in context the same goes for the submarine argument and you cannot simply point to a platform and say 'that looks like it will work' without understanding the concept of operations.Common be nice...That is a bit unfair now isn't it, I merely want to know why you think it is too top heavy, if I knew about this information you are referring too, I probably wouldn't have asked you.
I also didn't say the turkish operating environment was the same, I literally just said that they have adopted a hi-low force structure like the RN! Nor did I say that RAN should buy chinese ships, merely that they are an example of a cost-effective high-end frigate! I litterally didn't say these things....
Sorry I just don't see how any of this is nonsense, it makes perfect sense to me and is entirely truthful....
You certainly did infer the chinese frigate should considered on a cost basis..... . which is nonsense.
Rheinhardt
New Member
... I don't know how else I can say it, I litterally did not say that australia should buy warships from china, you guys keep bringing it up, I don't know why. I just think its a nice, cost effective high-end frigate, and if you want to view china as a rival, so be it. But I would think it would make those ships even more pertinent in regards to their respective capabilities and cost effectiveness relative to any current or potential Australian surface vessels.
All I am saying is that they are a nice high-end frigate like the Danish one I mentioned, I am not advocating for either one to be honoust, I am just saying those are a good example of a type of ship australia could operate on the high-end spectrum if it had a hi-lo frigate model like the UKs RN, and that they are significantly more cost effective.
I mean its just an alternative Idea, its not even that radical, I don't see how there is any difference between this and the RN hi-lo force structure, its exactly the same thing, the only difference would be the types of ships in the mix, I don't see why what I am saying should be this confusing, or controversial, its nothing new and I am sure its been brought up many times before, and will be brought up many times in the future.
Yeah and I understand where you are coming from, I was just mentioning that the royal navy (which is an ocean going navy), isn't the only navy to explicitly adopt this sort of hi-low frigate structure which I am advocating. And you know in the context of a hi-low frigate mixture I think that RAN should look at both of those frigates, not necessarily to buy, but just as examples of a high-end frigate, you know when the Americans design something cool the Chinese will look at that and see what they can take out off it, and because of it some of these Chinese military systems bear remarkable similarities to some western designs.
And you will probably find that none of those are optimal designs for high end-frigates, that certain design changes might be needed for Australia's unique situation, or that since then design technology allows for improved designs, that there is room for improvement on these ships.
what is the point of identifying a chinese vessel for a build option if we cannot integrate any of our partners systems onto it?
those systems would not be released to us if we bought something from a nation that is in real terms hostile to our principle strategic partners
just because vessels from different countries are operated for a given mission profile doesn't mean that they are suitable for our CONOPs reqs
the cost in building vessels is in integration of the various comms and combat systems - its not about the hull. The hull then has to be relevant to the nation specific CONOPs. We definitely would not be buying chinese hulls, but we may well buy sth korean hulls and then fit them out ourselves
this has been patiently alluded to if not outright pointed out.
its not woolworths
It is true that the NZ ships have had a Phalanx CIWS fitted but the Australian ships have Nulka and Harpoon, neither of which are carried by the Kiwis. The issue of topweight in the Anzacs has been widely known and has been discussed at length in this forum (admittedly going back a while now). Do you really think the RAN would have dispatched these ships to the Gulf without fitting CIWS from the pool if this had been an option? Yes there was space for a second VLS allowed for in the original design but it was weight not space that took fitting it out of the equation. RAN ships have to operate in the open oceans which makes excessive top weight a serious issue.
Tas
Definitely not how the RN does things, our destroyers are for defending the fleet against air attack & our Type 23s are ASW frigates designed to hunt and destroy enemy submarines and have the capability to target enemy surface ships with AShMs and can provide local area air defence. That's not a hi-low approach at all. Both classes do different roles and are designed to operate together in a high intensity warfighting scenario.
I know the last part isn't aimed at the RN, but our Type 45's are £1 billion (or ~A$1.8 billion), they're 1000 tonnes heavier than a Hobart and bigger in all 3 dimensions of length/beam/draught. This isn't willy-waving, the RN builds 'large, expensive US cruiser look-a-likes', so if that's part of the criteria of a hi-low mix *then that's another tick about the RN not fitting the model if Turkey is adopting the model by not doing that.
The First Sea Lord in the UK has actually spoken out against the Royal Navy adopting a two tier model because he believes that it would gradually erode our high end capability.
*Interesting technicality in itself, why - if turning to a hi-low model - would be building very high capability vessels which would indeed be very expensive be a bad thing? If you're dropping numbers then capability *has* to rise and by implication so do the costs, if not you're just castrating your fleet.
I see everything else in your post has been addressed, but before commenting on price I would suggest as well all the reading you can do on the points raised that you also read up on how the ADF does their funding and acquisition pricing, many countries cost differently, so just going by listed price for any given programme and comparing that as an apple v apples comparison does not work
Cheers
A word to the wise. I've posted a reply to you on the RNZN thread and I sometimes have an aversion to repeating myself. There are people on here who actually know what they are talking about. Some of them have spent time explaining the basics to you. You need to read and understand what they have posted. You also have to read what has been written here and elsewhere and educate yourself before you post. If you don't you may find your time on here difficult until you learn the basics. We encourage new members and others to ask questions etc., but we don't take to kindly to arrogance etc.
I feel I need to pipe in here. But your statement is not strictly true. Yes all of the ANZAC class has reduced stability margins compared to the original entry into service. You might be surprised to know that the margins are different for every ship due to the rolling upgrades done on various vessels, but not all at the same time and in the same manner. To say that an ANZAC class cannot take a CIWS is simply incorrect. It has a space allocation. The weight margin can be addressed by ballast corrections during the refit, as was done with HMAS Perth. With the solid ballast upgrade, plated in quarter deck, the ASMD ANZAC version of Perth actually has an improved stability margin over the original ship. Also as the ships age, the crew self improvements actually eat into the margins just as much as the engineered changes, hence ANZAC, the FOC has the poorest margin. Sure it is recognised that changes to ballast load out will have other impacts such as reduced top speed, etc, but if this acceptable in order to support the capability gained then it is deemed "acceptable". HMAS Perth has heavy machinery such as the cooling system for the Phased Array mounted low to offset the amount of ballast required. Also the use of lighter materials such as aluminium mast structures and GRP can improve the circumstances further, both of which were employed for the ASMD upgrade.
Happy to agree there are difference across the class and the plating in of the quarter deck increased the buoyant volume, hence transverse stability by quite a bit. And I would note my comments were not focused on Perth and the significant changes (including ballast) made on her, rather the fact that on the original design the projected gear could not be fitted without operational limitations
So I agree with your comments .....but prior to the very significant ASMD changes the fitting of the the second set of cells, two CIWS (not that any of us expected that two would be provided), Harpoon in front of the funnel and the additional FC system had issues in that it meant that 'generally' ship could not run to lower fuel loads (and resultant free surface effect) hence a reduction in operational flexibility if all this gear was fitted. This is the gist of my comment.
As a result in pre ASMD upgrade ANZAC class (which more closely equates the the RNZN vessel) the Harpoon was sited where the mooted fwd CIWS would have been and the second Mk 41 was not fitted. After Harpoon and other pre ASMD upgrades it was generally accepted that CIWS was not a goer.
Back to your comments on Perth, the fact we could fit the proposed gear given the combined enhancement in the ASMD upgrade and combined with ESSM which gives the vessels a very useful missile load out with a very capable weapons system. I suspect if we look at the class as a whole (noting the differences) the ANZAC class is pretty much at the upper edge of its growth margin. I don't expect we will see Phalanx on an RAN ANZAC.
I though I'd just chime in with a question especially to those in the know. I've always been curious as to how the Greek Hydra class based on the same Meko design as the ANZAC class has always been quoted a lighter vessel. The ANZACS have I believe been quoted with a 3600 t full load displacement and the Hydra at 3350. I understand the Hydra have 2 Gas turbines as opposed to our one but that most of our extra volume is taken by extra fuel allowing for a range of approx 6000nm as opposed to 4100nm. They are able to fit 16 cell VLS, 2 CIWS and 8 Harpoon launchers + 5 inch gun,2 TTT on the Hydra.
I quite understand the difference in our requirements especially that of range and endurance as opposed to the Greek ships requirement of speed and firepower. I am also quite impressed with what ASMD has done for our ships but does anyone know the final displacement of our vessel after the ASMD upgrade just to see what little growth margin is left. Please understand I am only showing simple comparison of 2 naval services differing requirements on a similar platform.
I quite understand the difference in our requirements especially that of range and endurance as opposed to the Greek ships requirement of speed and firepower. I am also quite impressed with what ASMD has done for our ships but does anyone know the final displacement of our vessel after the ASMD upgrade just to see what little growth margin is left. Please understand I am only showing simple comparison of 2 naval services differing requirements on a similar platform.
Sure. I agree that additional equipment fittout will produce compromises in other areas. I guess the point I was making, is that the original statement was made that additions such as CIWS could not be fitted due to top weight. Yes there are weight margin issues in the class, but that doesn't mean it can't be addressed, if the perceived need to add the capability is priority.
Yes, the growth margins are slim, but they were never that great to start with. I'd agree the argument is mute anyway, as the RAN ANZAC class will most likely not ever (never say never !) be fitted with CIWS. As I understand it, they are going through a fit out of Typhoon 25mm, two mid-ships as I last heard for improved force protection. Together with the ASMD upgrade and data link enhancements and the new 9LV454 CMS, they are a potent package, and for their displacement I would rate this vessel amongst the most effective in the world. Missile testing conducted at PRMF in 2013 proves it. I diverge....
I suppose it comes back to the fact that the ANZACs were ordered as tier 2 Patrol Frigates and never intended to receive major upgrades such as these. It was initially intended that there would be a class of larger more capable tier 1 FFG or DDG following the ANZACSs into service to replace the DDGs and eventually the. FFGs. Imagine the ASMD improvements on a F124 sized hull with its larger VLS and provision for CIWS as well as heavy radars.
Bingo and that is the reason the two tier system is problematic. A large hull with good power genrationa capability and large growth margin would have provided even greater growth potential with a diminished need to fiddle with weights.
Hence the ANZAC replacement needs size.
- Status