Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[Ozzy Blizzard]

To be fair, I should have acknowledged that most of the Canadian frigates, corvettes and minesweepers were sold off soon after WW2 finished.

A major difference between the two fleets was that Canada specialised in ASW whilst the RAN maintained a more balanced fleet. Even when various governments and major allies (USN and RN) tried to push Australia firmly down the ASW path in the 60's and 70's the RAN managed to maintain a balance (e.g. getting A4G Skyhawks for Melbourne along with the 3 Adams class DDGs and the 6 Oberon class submarines).

The present program continues the policy of developing and maintaining a well balanced fleet. The combination of the Canberra class LHDs, Hobart class AWDs, improved Anzac class frigates and upgraded Collins class submarines looks a good one to me. What I want to see now is the solving of the problem of retention of experienced personnel.

Tas

RCN was geared towards the primary purpose of NATO navies in the Cold War, keeping the Atlantic lines of communication open. Maintaining the G-I-UK line and escorting convoys was the difference between winning the war in Europe or not. The RAN was not faced with such a huge SSK/SSN threat and sea lanes to protect, so we were able to maintain a more ballanced force structure. Although I'm sure the allies would have been chomping at the bit to have an additional ASW carrier group to use against the soviet SSK/SSN's pooring out of the Barrents or Vladivostock, but it just wasn't justified.

This difference in operational environment and strategic objectives means a comparison between the RCN and RAN is not really a valid one.

IIRC the RCN played a huge (and usually forgotten) role in the battle of the Atlantic, notably before the USN got heavily involved.

 

[alexsa]

IIRC the RCN played a huge (and usually forgotten) role in the battle of the Atlantic, notably before the USN got heavily involved.

True and even after the USN got involved. The RCN provided a significant proportion of ships to the escort/support groups in the North Atlantic ............... but this is off topic.

 

[Blas de Lezo]

AWD pictures

Hello Everybody, I found this interactive illustration of what seems to be the final design of the Hobart class AWDs, also the Spanish F 105.
Soon they´ll start taking shape, 1 phalanx , 3 typhoons , 1 Mk 45, that’s a lot of gun power!!!
They look the business!! Congratulations.

http://www.revistanaval.com/album/1-2008-06-05-f105-awd-hobart/3

sorry, a much better link
http://www.ausawd.com/media/pictures.html

 

[Sea Toby]

I was thinking in terms of two Phalanxs, one forward atop the bridge, and one atop the hangar aft, plus two typhoons, one to port and starboard of the superstructure.

 

[battlensign]

I was thinking in terms of two Phalanxs, one forward atop the bridge, and one atop the hangar aft, plus two typhoons, one to port and starboard of the superstructure.

Are my eyes deceiving me or have they removed the UNREP capability from the original location we were discussing earlier to one behind the main superstructure? Has the design increased the distance between the Mk 41 Cells and the main Bridge structure? (seems bigger and more plausible)

Brett.

 

[Blas de Lezo]

The UNREP has been moved and has been made stealthier; the aft has been redesigned to accommodate VDS/TAS sonar. The hangar has been redesigned to accommodate two air units (it does not specify if 2 helos or 1 helo+UAV) and HSR on the Hobarts, the F105 will get two INDRA Aries.

The F105 will also, like her sisters,continue without a CIWS, such is the faith of the Armada on current capabilities of the Ship.

 

[alexsa]

Certainly appear the UNREP station has moved amidships IWO the aft funnel.

I would like more inforamtion on the helo accomodation.

I would be concnered about taking this picture as definaitive noting there are differences between this and the models constructed as part ofthe contract. As an example the model has the 25mm Typhoons on the bridge deck level where this picture has them at the back of the hanger structure (where they would obstruct part to the CIWS arc of fire).

It would be nice to get better pictures of the models.

 

[Sea Toby]

Have you tried the makers web site? There are more photos of other models too. Anzacs, NZ MRV, NZ OPVs, and NZ IPVs, among others.

http://www.defencemodels.com.au/Projects/Hobart.asp

 

[alexsa]

Have you tried the makers web site? There are more photos of other models too. Anzacs, NZ MRV, NZ OPVs, and NZ IPVs, among others.

http://www.defencemodels.com.au/Projects/Hobart.asp

Yep, not a lot of close up detail of the entire model. Brigde close up is informative.

 

[Salty Dog]

I'm not sure if a link ot these has been previously posted, but here is a link to a set photos of the F-101, Alvaro de Bazan - taken while she was visiting Adelaide, South Australia in March 2007.

F-101 Photo set

 

[Tasman]

The UNREP has been moved and has been made stealthier; the aft has been redesigned to accommodate VDS/TAS sonar. The hangar has been redesigned to accommodate two air units (it does not specify if 2 helos or 1 helo+UAV) and HSR on the Hobarts, the F105 will get two INDRA Aries.

The F105 will also, like her sisters,continue without a CIWS, such is the faith of the Armada on current capabilities of the Ship.

Thanks for the information you have provided. It is very informative and indicates that the Australianisation will be limited which is probably sensible as the project needs to remain low risk.

Re the lack of CIWS in the Armada units, I hope that the RAN will not go down that path. I expect that it will recycle upgraded Phalanx units removed from decommissioned FFGs.

Tas

 

[Tasman]

HMAS Darwin now has Mk41 VLS fitted.

The guided missile frigate, HMAS Darwin (FFG04) arrived in Hobart on 6 June for a short visit. Darwin is now fitted with a Mk41 VLS forward of the Mk13 missile launcher. Consequently she can now carry up to 32 ESSM missiles for short to medium range defence against air aircraft or missiles as well as her usual load of 8 Harpoon anti ship missiles and 32 SM-1 long range anti air missiles (to be replaced by the more advanced SM-2). Hopefully Darwin's upgrade will not suffer the protracted teething problems experienced by her sister ship, HMAS Sydney.

Tas

 

[Aussie Digger]

Some interesting comments from Vice Admiral Shalders at the Senate Estimates Committee on 4 June 2008 in relation to the RAN,

1. The Penguin ASM's purchased for the Seasprite helo's are NOT going to be integrated onto the Seahawks and are in the process of being sold back to the manufacturer and/or an undisclosed foreign Country.

2. The FFG-UP is beginning to work well, with the systems, missiles and radar systems working well on 3 out of 4 ships, with only HMAS Darwin to finish it's upgrade. The troublesome ESM systems are improving with the current system to be maintained (rather than replaced as was being considered) and more work is currently underway to bring the ESM/EW fit up to an operational level in November 08, all things working out well...

3. The Collins Class manning levels are not QUITE as bad as has been portrated in the media, with 3x subs able to be fully manned at present, along with the sub training group and support elements. Given that chief of Navy is required to deliver 2x operational submarines on a regular basis, Navy can provide the operational requirement as directed by Government.

4. The ANZAC ASMD upgrade is not proceeding quite as well as hoped and is keeping Dr Gumley "awake at night". DMO has decided to progress in "phases" with thr ASMD system to be proven on a land basis, then 1x shipset of the system will be acquired and fitted to an ANZAC vessel for sea trials. If successful then the remaining vessels will be fitted with the system. If it fails, Dr Gumley admitted he would have no hesitation in modifying or cancelling the upgrade all together...

Doesn't sound all that great to me...

Perhaps next Government will fit the ships WITH and not FOR from the start and they won't have to worry about these extensive and difficult upgrades down the track?

 

[Tasman]

Some interesting comments from Vice Admiral Shalders at the Senate Estimates Committee on 4 June 2008 in relation to the RAN,

1. The Penguin ASM's purchased for the Seasprite helo's are NOT going to be integrated onto the Seahawks and are in the process of being sold back to the manufacturer and/or an undisclosed foreign Country.

2. The FFG-UP is beginning to work well, with the systems, missiles and radar systems working well on 3 out of 4 ships, with only HMAS Darwin to finish it's upgrade. The troublesome ESM systems are improving with the current system to be maintained (rather than replaced as was being considered) and more work is currently underway to bring the ESM/EW fit up to an operational level in November 08, all things working out well...

3. The Collins Class manning levels are not QUITE as bad as has been portrated in the media, with 3x subs able to be fully manned at present, along with the sub training group and support elements. Given that chief of Navy is required to deliver 2x operational submarines on a regular basis, Navy can provide the operational requirement as directed by Government.

4. The ANZAC ASMD upgrade is not proceeding quite as well as hoped and is keeping Dr Gumley "awake at night". DMO has decided to progress in "phases" with thr ASMD system to be proven on a land basis, then 1x shipset of the system will be acquired and fitted to an ANZAC vessel for sea trials. If successful then the remaining vessels will be fitted with the system. If it fails, Dr Gumley admitted he would have no hesitation in modifying or cancelling the upgrade all together...

Doesn't sound all that great to me...

Perhaps next Government will fit the ships WITH and not FOR from the start and they won't have to worry about these extensive and difficult upgrades down the track?

Good news and bad news.

Great that the FFG upgrade is back on track and that the Collins class manning problem is manageable within current demands but worrying re the Anzac class ASMD upgrade. I'm surprised that the government is not integrating the Penguin missiles onto the Seahawks to provide an anti surface capability. However, as all RAN frigates will have Harpoon capability perhaps its not a big issue.

I couldn't agree more re the need for future vessels to be fully equipped from the start of their service. Hopefully this will be the case with the Hobart class.

Tas

 

[StingrayOZ]

The hobarts are sounding good. Still along way from commissioned ships in the water but they are heading in the right direction.

The Anzac upgrade is worrying. Given that it is one we will have to live with for a while yet..

For but not with is not all terrible. If you have a AWD fitted for but not with 2 CIWS mounts but only have one CIWS fitted, but can fit another at another stage that is fine. Buy and drop in solution. Thats future planning done the right way. As are unused VLS tubes, buy more when you need them.

Its when they try to do a massive system jump or overhaul that things get out of control.

 

[Tasman]

For but not with is not all terrible. If you have a AWD fitted for but not with 2 CIWS mounts but only have one CIWS fitted, but can fit another at another stage that is fine. Buy and drop in solution. Thats future planning done the right way. As are unused VLS tubes, buy more when you need them.

Fitted for but not with is OK if the equipment to be fitted is readily available. It is normal for ships to carry reduced ammunition stocks in peacetime. For example, the Anzacs usually only carry a full load of Harpoon cannisters when deploying operationally. Similarly they are all fitted for a pair of Mini Typhoons but these are not usually shipped when operating in home waters.

The problem with the Anzacs was that they were not really fitted for but not with at all. Space and weight was provided for additional systems but not the necessary wiring, weapon consoles, etc.

Tas

 

[StingrayOZ]

But thats the problem. Are we perhaps not better off just buying whole new ships when we try and do one of these massive system upgrades. Or instead of a massive system upgrade, perform a smaller system upgrade coupled with improved weapons etc.

the ASMD was never initally planned, certainly not to the extent of placing wiring etc.

 

[PeterM]

Other than replacing the Meroka CIWS with the Phalanx, the most obvious equipment change seems to be that the F100 has two Mark 32 double torpedo launchers for Mk 46 lightweight torpedoes and also two anti-ship mortars; these don't seem planned for the Hobart AWD.

The Hobart does have ability to deploy RHIBs though.

Has the RAN decided that the ability to deploy small boats is more important than anti submarine torpedos?

Interestingly the RN's Daring class AWD also seems to lack anti-sub torpedos, which other nations (US, Spain, France, Italy, Japan) include on their AWDs.

 

[AegisFC]

Other than replacing the Meroka CIWS with the Phalanx, the most obvious equipment change seems to be that the F100 has two Mark 32 double torpedo launchers for Mk 46 lightweight torpedoes and also two anti-ship mortars; these don't seem planned for the Hobart AWD.

The F-100 does not have Meroka, or any CIWS.

The Hobart does have ability to deploy RHIBs though.

The F-100 carries RHIBS.

 

[Sea Toby]

Other than replacing the Meroka CIWS with the Phalanx, the most obvious equipment change seems to be that the F100 has two Mark 32 double torpedo launchers for Mk 46 lightweight torpedoes and also two anti-ship mortars; these don't seem planned for the Hobart AWD.

The Hobart does have ability to deploy RHIBs though.

Has the RAN decided that the ability to deploy small boats is more important than anti submarine torpedos?

Interestingly the RN's Daring class AWD also seems to lack anti-sub torpedos, which other nations (US, Spain, France, Italy, Japan) include on their AWDs.

The torpedo tubes for the Hobarts are fixed into the ship, unlike the Anzacs which swing out beside the superstructure on the main deck. Thus the Hobart class DDGs do have six ASW torpedo tubes.