Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

Status
Not open for further replies.

t68

Well-Known Member
I hope you're right, but that's just two years away with Adelaide not yet commissioned, and Canberra yet to conduct a landing operation. It seems an impossibly short timeline.



This I agree with, but more likely at TS 2019 and then exercised pretty infrequently given the considerable stretch with the current size of our services

what would be interesting to see if they ever send a fullARG to Rimpac
oldsig127
Since the Tailesman Saber/Sabre ex are conducted every two years you would expect that they should be able to work up a full ARG at least once every four years depending on unexpected circumstance, which would also show that whilst we have come along way we are not there yet in being able to sustain it long term.

What would be interesting to see if they ever send a ARG to Rimpac
 

Raven22

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Since the Tailesman Saber/Sabre ex are conducted every two years you would expect that they should be able to work up a full ARG at least once every four years depending on unexpected circumstance, which would also show that whilst we have come along way we are not there yet in being able to sustain it long term.

What would be interesting to see if they ever send a ARG to Rimpac
The full ARG is an ADF main effort to achieve - once it's been shown it can be done, it won't be done again unless actually needed. You'll still see something that looks like an ARG being exercised regularly, but it won't be the full ARG.
 

Stampede

Well-Known Member
A through deck destroyer or cruiser, without a well dock and extensive facilities of an LHD, as well as being significantly smaller, would be substantially cheaper (to own and operate) and infinitely more flexible. The RAN already has two LHDs, ships so large and capable that the question arises, what would a third, larger version, actually carry? Are we going to double the size of the army to give the extra large amphib something to do? Add Choules and the much needed LCH replacements there is probably little justification in a third LHD, let alone a larger derivative.

A smaller through deck ship, as stated previously is cheaper to own and operate, has higher performance, smaller crew, lower operating costs, carries more aircraft for its size, can be acquired in greater numbers meaning its capabilities can be in more places at any given time than the LHDs. Potentially they would be more survivable through superior sensor and armament suits in addition to the capabilities provided by the aircraft carried, AEW, ASW, CSAR, ARH and even MCM helicopters, rotary and fixed wing UCAVs, they can even function as an LPH if required. You likely wouldn't send a. strategic asset such as an LHD to the Persian Gulf or East Africa but one of these ships would be ideal. They would complement and support the major surface combatants, even significantly add to the capability of any force escorting an LHD. Then if you add a half dozen or more F-35B to the mix the impact goes through the roof.

On OPV to OCV to light frigate, initially the ACPBs should be replaced by OPVs and possibly OCVs with provision for multi-mission modules (preferably USN spec as developed for the LCS program). The thing is we have eight ship sets of sensors and weapons from the ANZACs that will be surplus once the new frigates / destroyers start to come on line, as well as systems removed from the Adelaide class FFGs as they were / are retired. Why not pull them through to a light frigate that shares a high level of commonality with the OPV / OCV? Some would be base OPVs, some would be multi-mission OCVs and some would be corvettes / light frigates using ANZAC ASMD and / or FFGUP systems.

Instead of throwing useful kit away, or worse paying to keep it in storage even though it will never be used again, why not just use it? What I am looking at is ways to enhance capability within a limited budget and reusing capable systems is one way to do this. The Japanese, Italians and many others are convinced of the benefits of supporting as many helicopters as possible at sea. Experience has proven that a through deck design is superior for operating and supporting helicopters than a hybrid helicopter carrier, let alone a surface combatant with a hanger for only one or two helicopters. Such a setup is without a doubt superior for supporting UAVs and UCAVs as they evolve and inevitably grow in size and platform impact.

Just my two cents, but as I see it we have our big LHDs, our purple assets and our low end patrol vessels, what we need is actual warships, vessels to add to and if possible multiply the fleets offensive and defensive capabilities.
I like the comment about the LHD being a strategic asset.
I too doubt the LHD,s will be sent along way from home as a single unit .These vessels will need to stay in Australian waters and be on call for government to do the many roles that they do best. If and when they head to distant waters I assume it will be apart of a supporting task force.
It does raise the question as to the right mix and numbers of ships for the Royal Australian Navy For myself something along the lines of the Absalon class have much potential as a being a good fit. This type of versitile ship could be deployed alone or as part of a task force. Maybe one of Damen's crossover ships with their two spot helicopter deck and logistical capacity has potential
Maybe 3 x AWD, 6 x future frigate, 3 x Absalon plus ??? number of OPV would be affordable..
The DWP may enlighted us.
 
Last edited:

vonnoobie

Well-Known Member
Been wondering with nothing at all being mentioned on a replacement for the Balikpapan class LCH's beyond them being replaced with a larger vessel's with what I assume to be on a one for one basis as to what around would fit?

Assuming we would want to retain the beaching capability we are limited heavily on what we can get and from whom. Few of our usual supplier's/allies have such vessel's and none as far as I can tell have built anything recently, At least not to the size we want.

Unless we want to go for an entirely new design I'd imagine an updated version of an older class, I'm personally thinking something like the Runnymede class large landing craft would be the best fit thinking about it realistically.

Regards, Matthew.
 

oldsig127

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Unless we want to go for an entirely new design I'd imagine an updated version of an older class, I'm personally thinking something like the Runnymede class large landing craft would be the best fit thinking about it realistically.

Regards, Matthew.
The search function here isn't terribly friendly, but this subject and some of the options have been discussed here fairly frequently and reasonably recently. You might profitably have a look for yourself if no-one else responds

(edit - March, and again in early April. This is one of a range of Damen vessels which might fit the requirement)

http://products.damen.com/en/ranges/landing-ship/landing-ship-transport-100

oldsig127
 

alexsa

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
What real options do we have to deal with the Valley of Death

I note the discussion on what follow on frigates we should build to avoid the valley of death. In real terms the F105 derivative is the ONLY option.

Noting the yards are now laying off staff this allows for hull block construction to continue and provide work to BAE, Forgacs and ASC. I am a fan of vessel being build in 'blocks' (blocks of three would be logical in this case) to allow for iterative upgrades as you go.

As far as the other options are concerned:
1. The T26 is still in design and work cannot start on construction of this option any time soon.
2. The Meko 400 as proposed for the RAN is still in design so construction cannot start on this option any time soon
3. For any other 7000 tonne options ...... there are not many. Even if we went for a T45 derivative we are not tooled up for this either...... so we are not going to be able to start work on this anytime soon.

The Pacific Patrol boat project is small fry and steel will not be cut until 2017 .... this does not help BAE who are laying off workers now. Certainly this project will not keep our ship builders going.

A combination of 9 frigates (in blocks or otherwise) and OPV's provides a pretty solid work flow which cna start almost immediately and for the Frigates can build on what we have learnt from the AWD. A combination of FF and OPV may allow a design change part wya throught the nine future frigates but I am not sure that will happen.

I am happy to hear the number 9 as that returns to the 12 MFU.

As far as Austal building MFU out of aluminium I doubt that will happen again because we are looking at new new design (and assocaited delays) and aluminium has its own issues and expense. A fleet of LCS type vessel (or their 'frigate' follow on brothers) will not suit the RAN operational needs....... however I suspect this comment relates to the OPV.
 

vonnoobie

Well-Known Member
The search function here isn't terribly friendly, but this subject and some of the options have been discussed here fairly frequently and reasonably recently. You might profitably have a look for yourself if no-one else responds

(edit - March, and again in early April. This is one of a range of Damen vessels which might fit the requirement)

Landing Ship Transport 100

oldsig127
Cheers mate.
 

vonnoobie

Well-Known Member
I note the discussion on what follow on frigates we should build to avoid the valley of death. In real terms the F105 derivative is the ONLY option.

Noting the yards are now laying off staff this allows for hull block construction to continue and provide work to BAE, Forgacs and ASC. I am a fan of vessel being build in 'blocks' (blocks of three would be logical in this case) to allow for iterative upgrades as you go.

As far as the other options are concerned:
1. The T26 is still in design and work cannot start on construction of this option any time soon.
2. The Meko 400 as proposed for the RAN is still in design so construction cannot start on this option any time soon
3. For any other 7000 tonne options ...... there are not many. Even if we went for a T45 derivative we are not tooled up for this either...... so we are not going to be able to start work on this anytime soon.

The Pacific Patrol boat project is small fry and steel will not be cut until 2017 .... this does not help BAE who are laying off workers now. Certainly this project will not keep our ship builders going.

A combination of 9 frigates (in blocks or otherwise) and OPV's provides a pretty solid work flow which cna start almost immediately and for the Frigates can build on what we have learnt from the AWD. A combination of FF and OPV may allow a design change part wya throught the nine future frigates but I am not sure that will happen.

I am happy to hear the number 9 as that returns to the 12 MFU.

As far as Austal building MFU out of aluminium I doubt that will happen again because we are looking at new new design (and assocaited delays) and aluminium has its own issues and expense. A fleet of LCS type vessel (or their 'frigate' follow on brothers) will not suit the RAN operational needs....... however I suspect this comment relates to the OPV.
Agreed, While there may be better frigate options in the future for the time being they only exist on paper and still have a long way to go.

Ideally best option would be to build a batch of 3 Hobart's as the extra AWD's will come in handy while possibly having two different classes of frigates could cause issues (Logistically, maintenance, costs etc) going into the future not to mention the Anzac's still have another decade of life in them.

So build 3 more Hobart's, That should realistically take 4.5 - 6 years allowing time to evaluate and tool up for the future frigate.

As to building in batches of 3, Well we should realistically do that with all major vessels, OPV's/OCV's, frigates, destroyers, submarines etc, Allow's work to be done in semi bulk order with out having to wait too long between order's to implement new tech.

That aside, A few navies do keep some of the older vessel's to test new tech on before implementing it among the general fleet, Is Australia in a position to do this or would we be better off coming to an understanding of using one of our allies test ships??
 

ASSAIL

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
The full ARG is an ADF main effort to achieve - once it's been shown it can be done, it won't be done again unless actually needed. You'll still see something that looks like an ARG being exercised regularly, but it won't be the full ARG.
IOC for the LHD's and the ARG has always been planned for Talisman Sabre 2017. As for timing, I suggest they are pretty well on track as there is ample time to complete "First of Class" trials with Canberra which leaves Adelaide to get up to operational readiness without that embuggerance.
I have no doubt that there will be some form of Amphibious capability, ARG or otherwise, taken to future RIMPACs
 

alexsa

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Agreed, While there may be better frigate options in the future for the time being they only exist on paper and still have a long way to go.

Ideally best option would be to build a batch of 3 Hobart's as the extra AWD's will come in handy while possibly having two different classes of frigates could cause issues (Logistically, maintenance, costs etc) going into the future not to mention the Anzac's still have another decade of life in them.

So build 3 more Hobart's, That should realistically take 4.5 - 6 years allowing time to evaluate and tool up for the future frigate.

As to building in batches of 3, Well we should realistically do that with all major vessels, OPV's/OCV's, frigates, destroyers, submarines etc, Allow's work to be done in semi bulk order with out having to wait too long between order's to implement new tech.

That aside, A few navies do keep some of the older vessel's to test new tech on before implementing it among the general fleet, Is Australia in a position to do this or would we be better off coming to an understanding of using one of our allies test ships??
I think the chance of additional AWD is unlikely. The stated intention is for the future frigate is to use a system based on the ASMD systems being rolled out on the ANZAC. I suspect this will included the 3D volume search radar being proposed by CEA if this can be succesfully developed.

There are advantages to this noting the CEA phased array radars are scalable and it also provide work for CEA and would help ensure they continue to remain viable. It will be intersting to see if the build programme ahs OPV and Frigates running concurrently or in batches ...... or a combination of the two to increase work available.
 

Samoa

Member
I think the chance of additional AWD is unlikely. The stated intention is for the future frigate is to use a system based on the ASMD systems being rolled out on the ANZAC. I suspect this will included the 3D volume search radar being proposed by CEA if this can be succesfully developed.
This is being done under SEA1448 PHase 4B, and is being fast tracked to try and have the design including ship redesign done before the last ANZAC goes through the current ASMD upgrade. It will be shoehorned onto the ANZACs as rolling upgrades, in order to support FF derisking.
 

Raven22

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
I think the chance of additional AWD is unlikely. The stated intention is for the future frigate is to use a system based on the ASMD systems being rolled out on the ANZAC. I suspect this will included the 3D volume search radar being proposed by CEA if this can be succesfully developed.
There's no reason you couldn't build three frigates based on the F100 hull to fill the valley of death, and use the time to choose the hull type of your choose for the remaining six.
 

vonnoobie

Well-Known Member
I think the chance of additional AWD is unlikely. The stated intention is for the future frigate is to use a system based on the ASMD systems being rolled out on the ANZAC. I suspect this will included the 3D volume search radar being proposed by CEA if this can be succesfully developed.

There are advantages to this noting the CEA phased array radars are scalable and it also provide work for CEA and would help ensure they continue to remain viable. It will be intersting to see if the build programme ahs OPV and Frigates running concurrently or in batches ...... or a combination of the two to increase work available.
I agree the chance of any more AWD's is unlikely, Though we may get lucky in the next few week's and get a fourth one at the very least with Abbott jumping on board with continuous build concept.

The CEA radar scalability will be good for us, Could fit it onto our future OPV's/OCV's though most will be against that as it's viewed at arming them up too much from there intended role. As to CEA's viability I have no worries there, They have the only 4th gen phased array radar in the world and it appear's to be working with out a hitch.

A number of people have shown interest in the CEA radar's over t he year's but have been holding off until it was a mature product. Lockheed Martin has eyed it as a part of the Aegis system, While in South Africa it was incorporated into a land based missile system and successfully used. Having the newest most advanced radar of it's class able to easily be made smaller or bigger and just as useful on land then it is on sea gives them a lot of market opportunities. I don't think Australia going into the future will be there main customer.

As to how the build the Figates and OPV's, Well not a bloody clue really. They could decide to build the OPV's all in one hit, Then build the Frigates all in one hit then build the new Destroyers all in one hit and while that would have some cost saving's by mass producing in a shorter time frame it also has the negative aspect of being less easily incorporating new tech into vessel's. Easier to do it in construction then after the fact.
 

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
I hope you're right, but that's just two years away with Adelaide not yet commissioned, and Canberra yet to conduct a landing operation. It seems an impossibly short timeline.
The LHD's are only one part of a full ARG. While difficult I believe that is actually one of the more believable parts of the full ARG. We have had personnel embedded with forces overseas, we have simulators built for the LHD the personnel have been training on for years.

It will have to be infrequently because the chances that 2xLHD's +LSD + Army + air assets are all going to be available all at the same time without severely disrupting schedules (maintenance etc) is highly unlikely. IMO the ARG should be a capability that the ADF can pull together most of the time, not something that can only occur in very special occasions planned many years in advanced. IMO it should have the capability to sustain it.

Looking back to East Timor I, in such a situation we are unlikely to have years of advanced notice and even if we did outside forces will work around our timetable. We were meant to have our two Kanimblas available. We didn't. In 2006 we had to deal with crisis's in East Timor and a Coup in Fiji with overlapping time frames.

We have previously deployed Kanimbla to the middle east, I see no reason why wouldn't do so again. Or to South East Asia, or the SCS, or East Africa, or North Africa.

Hence why with two ships we ended up with two shagged platforms. Which is why I keep coming back to a 3rd LHD.
 

MickB

Well-Known Member
It does raise the question as to the right mix and numbers of ships for the Royal Australian Navy For myself something along the lines of the Absalon class have much potential as a being a good fit. This type of versitile ship could be deployed alone or as part of a task force.
As I have posted before, I think the best way to avert the valley of death is to build a class of 3 Absalon style ships based on the F100 hull. This will keep the work flowing and give time for other, more modern frigate designs to mature.

Reduce the original armament to a 76mm gun, 8 cell VLS and 2 typhoons.( CWIS fitted when required)
Remove gas turbine, enlarge flight desk and hanger, add mission deck.
This versatile ship could fill many roles but should not come a the expence of a main fleet unit, but rather be treated as a high end OCV. With the reduction of future OPV/OCV purchase from 20 to 16 to compensate.

If the FFGs have sufficient hull life left, then give them the ASMD upgrade and have them back up the AWDs.

Like Volkodav I would also like a class of 3 DDHs added to the fleet for all the reasons so well stated by him.

This would give a near future fleet of
2 LHDs,1 Bay, 3 AWDs, 3 DDHs, 2 FFGs, 8 FFHs, 3 large OCVs (Absalon)
16 OPVs, 6 LCH replacpments, 6 Collins.

A navy this size would provide for a continued build cycle for both the surface combatants and submarine fleets.

If built in batches of 3 a future navy may look like this
3 LHDs, 6 AWDs, 3 DDHs, 6 Frigates, 3 large OCVs, 15 OPVs, 6 LCH replacements, 9-12 Collins replacements.
 
Last edited:

Raven22

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
As I have posted before, I think the best way to avert the valley of death is to build a class of 3 Absalon style ships based on the F100 hull. This will keep the work flowing and give time for other, more modern frigate designs to mature.
How would that plan possibly avoid the valley of death? How much time would it take to redesign the F100 hull into an Absalon-type ship (assuming such a thing was desirable or even possible) and how much risk would that entail? You are essentially proposing a clean sheet design to be built straight away to give time for other clean sheet designs to mature. That doesn't make sense.

I also think that assuming any large warship with an armament larger than a small cannon won't be counted as a surface combatant is extremely optimistic. Your proposed fleet has 8 extra 'surface combatants' than current plans allow. Where is the navy going to magically get the resources to enable this?
 

vonnoobie

Well-Known Member
If you want something like the Absalon in short order to bridge the shipbuilding gap then building an exact copy of the Absalon (Possibly different propulsion, weapons, etc) is the only way to go.

The time to redesign the F-100 and test it would make the idea of them being a vessel built to bridge the gap between the AWD's and frigates pointless. The gap would appear and we would be left with ship's costing more then needed (Why pay for a new untested design when the Absalon already exists).

If we choose not to get more Hobart's then get some of the Absalon's and beyond different radar's, metal compositions etc keep them exactly the same design even down to the StanFlex payload's.

Keeping that the same would also make the Knud Rasmussen OPV's that the HDMS use a strong viable option for us.

As to the 2 FFG's, No point upgrading them or planning to keep them as by the time we get around to doing it they will be approaching retirement, Commissioned in 1989 and 1992 respectively allowing a 30 year life has us disposing of them in 2019 and 2022. Trying to keep them longer will only have us suffering the same fates that many of the older RCN vessel's suffer. More of a hindrance then a benefit.
 

Stampede

Well-Known Member
The LHD's are only one part of a full ARG. While difficult I believe that is actually one of the more believable parts of the full ARG. We have had personnel embedded with forces overseas, we have simulators built for the LHD the personnel have been training on for years.

It will have to be infrequently because the chances that 2xLHD's +LSD + Army + air assets are all going to be available all at the same time without severely disrupting schedules (maintenance etc) is highly unlikely. IMO the ARG should be a capability that the ADF can pull together most of the time, not something that can only occur in very special occasions planned many years in advanced. IMO it should have the capability to sustain it.

Looking back to East Timor I, in such a situation we are unlikely to have years of advanced notice and even if we did outside forces will work around our timetable. We were meant to have our two Kanimblas available. We didn't. In 2006 we had to deal with crisis's in East Timor and a Coup in Fiji with overlapping time frames.

We have previously deployed Kanimbla to the middle east, I see no reason why wouldn't do so again. Or to South East Asia, or the SCS, or East Africa, or North Africa.

Hence why with two ships we ended up with two shagged platforms. Which is why I keep coming back to a 3rd LHD.

Will back you with the third LHD.
These ships will be the most sort after ADF asset in the decades to come.
The window of oppertunity however to do the block work at BAE Williamstown for a third LHD appears to be fading so lets place the hull order with Navantia and move forward.
Suggest work HMAS Choules hard and on sell it or just put it a box somewhere, it was a good buy for then and now, but its no LHD and owes us nothing. ( Yes, Choules is impressive compared to our previous amphibious assets but its not the future.)
The Canberra class in the future will prove their worth many times over for the important role of humanitarian and disaster relief opperations both around Australia and in our region. It will be a good ambassador!
It is also a NAVY SHIP and a very flexible and important MILITARY asset for Australia's unique geography, and suggest defence needs.
It's no F111, but it is the point of difference to other growing regional militaries who don't have such an asset.
It may one day be the game changer.
 

t68

Well-Known Member
To be honest I think the Absalon-class support ship is the near perfect fit as multi role escort for the Canberra’s. they can act as part of the ASW group with a couple of MH-60R move troops in the ARG/ARE, can be used for mine-laying operations or move if needed as a worst case move a troop of MBT they also provide the land forces with organic NGS. But as Raven said they won’t do anything for the valley of death at the moment.

If the government wants to plug it (VOD) they have no choice but a flight II Canberra, only changes they really have to make are any obsolesce issues, adding CEAFAR means money on redesigning the ship which cost $$ the whole point of extending the build numbers are to minimise job losses and experienced workforce
 

Raven22

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
To be honest I think the Absalon-class support ship is the near perfect fit as multi role escort for the Canberra’s. they can act as part of the ASW group with a couple of MH-60R move troops in the ARG/ARE, can be used for mine-laying operations or move if needed as a worst case move a troop of MBT they also provide the land forces with organic NGS.
Can't say I agree with that. An Absalon-type ship would be useful for doing low level independent tasks to avoid having to send an expensive LHD/AWD. If you are sending a full Amphib task group, with LHDs and dedicated escorts, single role ships make far more sense - let the amphibs be amphibs and let the escorts be escorts.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top