Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

Status
Not open for further replies.

Stock

Member
I believe a single major surface combatant type is a better bet for Australia. In particular the need for decent VLS capacity to support fire support missions. What is needed is a VLS JDAM that the deployed forces can rely on for even the smallest engagement. The SF hunt for Alfredo Reinado and his rebels in East Timor ended in a shoot-out. This doesn't need a 1,500km cruise missile. What this will mean is that even if dual or quad packed, the limited number of silos will fill up very quickly. This is before we even consider possible VLS UAVs.

There is a need for closer inshore support. Something similar to the early concept of the LCS as a literals brawler. Apart from a medium calibre gun, a 120mm mortar cable of delivering guided rounds and a decent anti-armour missile would be sufficient. This should be doable with a 2,000t OPV.
A 120mm mortar will give you the ability to engage targets out to about 9-10km using conventional ammo, and provide persistent fire support. See link below to the Patria Nemo system. No reason why an OPV could not accommodate a weapon system of this size and recoil force. A 2,000t OPV would be able to have a magazine holding at least 100 rounds of 120mm, which is significant.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=3LfWKfCaIiM

The ship-launched Griffin missile has a range of about 8km, as does Hellfire or Spike ER. Spike NLOS gets out to 25km apparently.

The Saab-Boeing Ground Launched Small Diameter Bomb looks very promising as a precision fires system, but at this time is only being marketed for land-based launch applications. Would seem to be compatible with ship launch however. Range is 150km with a 360 deg engagement capability and can hit targets on reverse slopes.
 

Stampede

Well-Known Member
Call it what you like, Volks idea is for a heavy multi-role helicopter cruiser which could also be capable of fast jet operations. Only difference between Volks idea and past is his is future proofed unlike the Italian Cruiser Vittorio Veneto. It could also relives the pressure on the RAAF in providing fast air over the task force without compromising all our assets (AAR) to its protection at distance from the mainland



Realistically, our amphibious capability. not much can’t see anything except for the LCH replacement on the horizon




And that’s Volks whole point; it’s a substitute for the Frigates not for the LHD. Remember it’s armed with a 16 cell Mk 41 VLS 16 ESSM and 12 RUM-139 VL ASROC in addition to the MH-60R with AGM-114 Hellfire & Mark 54 anti-submarine torpedo

instead of 9x ASW Frigates have 6x Frigates and 3x Heavy ASW Helicopter Cruisers



Agreed the above is a good starting point. I too would like to see 6x large vessels capable of sustaining and rotating the task force, with the oilers in addition to the task force, in theory the RAN has a need of between 4-6 oilers to satisfy the requirements of both East &West fleets
Thanks for the post
I think with the Helicopter cruiser approach you can certainly bring alot of rotary wing to a task force, which is always good. Suggest some clarity if the intention is for a future F35B platform or just helicopters.This may influence the size of the ship.
I do get your intention and its destroyer/aviation orientation; I'll just will stick with a third LHD for our sized navy. We only have so many helicopters!
At the small end, the design of the Endurance 160 multi role support ship has some merit. More of a amphib than a fast ASW asset to keep up with the fleet. Certainly not a F35B platform.....Sorry Singapore.
As to the Italian navys Vittorio Veneto, yes it was a inovative 70's design that was a good platform for a modest number of helicopters but not for JUMP JETS.Probably tried to do too much for the ships size.
Must give it to the Italians, they have been quite innovative with a number of ships across a range of classes. Just as importantly .......Their ships look good !!!!!!

Like youself I'm looking for to the DWP.

As to the LCH replacement it will be good to see whats intended and remove the speculation. To some extent what is selected governs other units across the fleet.

Regards
 

ASSAIL

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Agreed the above is a good starting point. I too would like to see 6x large vessels capable of sustaining and rotating the task force, with the oilers in addition to the task force, in theory the RAN has a need of between 4-6 oilers to satisfy the requirements of both East &West fleets
We all seem to switch on and switch off from being purple back to dark blue in these discussions but if we have to sustain an ARG in a hostile environment, say West Papua, we need to be able to fully provide for the troops on the ground without US intervention.
I was reminded of this lately as the Lewis and Clark USNS T-AKE 6 Amelia Earhart has been pre deployed to Darwin for Ex Talisman Sabre. These ships were specifically designed to support a Marine Force and their escorts and would be ideal in the Australian amphibious situation. They would be ideal dual purpose support ships for both normal fleet duties and to support the ARG .

Wishful thinking I know.

Simply providing another Cantabria or Daewoo does not adequately cover the "forces ashore" but does fine for the naval force.
 

Stampede

Well-Known Member
We all seem to switch on and switch off from being purple back to dark blue in these discussions but if we have to sustain an ARG in a hostile environment, say West Papua, we need to be able to fully provide for the troops on the ground without US intervention.
I was reminded of this lately as the Lewis and Clark USNS T-AKE 6 Amelia Earhart has been pre deployed to Darwin for Ex Talisman Sabre. These ships were specifically designed to support a Marine Force and their escorts and would be ideal in the Australian amphibious situation. They would be ideal dual purpose support ships for both normal fleet duties and to support the ARG .

Wishful thinking I know.

Simply providing another Cantabria or Daewoo does not adequately cover the "forces ashore" but does fine for the naval force.
Don't doubt its utility.
Lewis and Clark USNS-ake is a big ship for a big navy.
The medium sized RAN may have to be content with other multi purpose options or it's limitations.
While not ideal lets see what we get in a AOL ( push for three) and the LCH replacement.
 

Stampede

Well-Known Member
the trouble with corvettes is that they tend to cost a lot more than is originally planned. There is the risk of ending up with a ship that has small displacement and limited ability against nation states, but the cost is a high proportion of the cost of a destroyer.

Perhaps is better instead of talking vessel size, to talk vessel money.

A 7000t destroyer is say 1 to 1.5 billion dollars. An OPV is 100 to 150 million a piece. What is the cost of a corvette? 500 million, 600, maybe more. The original rational of the OPV was to replace the Armidale class at around 30 million dollars apeice. Do you want a 600 million dollar vessel checking up on fishing boats?

There is a definate need more an OPV. Cheap, long range, endurance, modest crewing etc. If you start to go down the corvette route with nukla decoys etc, the unit price is going to triple or more. There are heaps of areas where a lightly armed OPV would be fine, Solomons, Fiji, PNG, Polynesia, disaster relief, fishery protection, border protection.

Its nice to have a third carrier, its nice to have nuclear subs, its nice to have more money spent on items, but there are only so many dollars. What can be done for x dollars is the question. Australia comes in around 14th in the world in spending. Assuming is defence expenditure gets up to 2 percent of GDP (and thats a big if, since we cant balance the budget now), it might rise from 1.8% GDP to 2.0% GDP, thats roughly a tenth extra.

So working out what we want, has to be constrained by how much money we have. As to more amphibious capability in the Karl Dorman class, why add another class of vessel, why not just get another Choules, I am sure Britain would build us one if we asked.

I just ask, that when talking about ships, think of how much they are going to cost and what can be afforded
Good point re cost.
When does a OPV become a light frigate?
Always looking for the correct mix of low / medium / high end ships to cover all contingencies for the best dollar value.
A speculative and difficult balancing act.
 

t68

Well-Known Member
We all seem to switch on and switch off from being purple back to dark blue in these discussions but if we have to sustain an ARG in a hostile environment, say West Papua, we need to be able to fully provide for the troops on the ground without US intervention.
I was reminded of this lately as the Lewis and Clark USNS T-AKE 6 Amelia Earhart has been pre deployed to Darwin for Ex Talisman Sabre. These ships were specifically designed to support a Marine Force and their escorts and would be ideal in the Australian amphibious situation. They would be ideal dual purpose support ships for both normal fleet duties and to support the ARG .

Wishful thinking I know.

Simply providing another Cantabria or Daewoo does not adequately cover the "forces ashore" but does fine for the naval force.
Agree with all that two distinct roles, the Lewis and Clark for the land based task force freeing up the oilers for shipping.But I do wonder if we could use it to it full potential considering that we will only exercise the capabilty once in a blue moon. It would certanly make a good HADR asset.

Dreaming I know but those six large Amphiboius assets should be 3-4 LHD plus 2x Bay class LPD in the stragic sea lift role
 

Goknub

Active Member
I was reminded of this lately as the Lewis and Clark USNS T-AKE 6 Amelia Earhart has been pre deployed to Darwin for Ex Talisman Sabre.

Wishful thinking I know.
This is the sort of sea-lift ship I believe the RAN should be looking at. A pair of these to bring the logistical tail and maintain the support of deployed forces. Sea basing is a great concept but needs the size to back it up if we are going to be more than a token force. Just feeding a Brigade plus force of 5,000 would be a major effort.
This is where the Army needs to be joining with the Navy to push these larger assets. The C17s were an eye-opener in terms of capability when we got them, these would be too.

South Korea should be able to produce them for less than the $500mil the US apparently paid for theirs.

HMAS Choules could ultimately be gifted to NZ at some point if we wanted to keep the force structure clean.

---------

The ADF can better justify larger carts (army) if the horses (amphibs) are big enough haul the damn things around. How's that for an analogy?
 

aussienscale

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
We all seem to switch on and switch off from being purple back to dark blue in these discussions but if we have to sustain an ARG in a hostile environment, say West Papua, we need to be able to fully provide for the troops on the ground without US intervention.
I was reminded of this lately as the Lewis and Clark USNS T-AKE 6 Amelia Earhart has been pre deployed to Darwin for Ex Talisman Sabre. These ships were specifically designed to support a Marine Force and their escorts and would be ideal in the Australian amphibious situation. They would be ideal dual purpose support ships for both normal fleet duties and to support the ARG .

Wishful thinking I know.

Simply providing another Cantabria or Daewoo does not adequately cover the "forces ashore" but does fine for the naval force.
Agree, to a point :)

The T-AKE are an impressive ship, although a bit light on the fuel side of things, but that is a relatively simple fix. But maybe a little too much for the RAN, they are really designed more for the "War Footing" side of things.

And while I understand what you are meaning with regards to Aus not always having to rely on the US for a Timor style event (And nor should we have to rely on them), the Cantabria or Aegir 18A are both not really there, both lacking in Ammunition, Water and general cargo & refrigerated/frozen cargo.

Another big issue I have with both of these ships is the JP-5 capacity, I believe this needs to be increased by at least 2/3 in the case of the Cantabria Class, without decreasing F-76/Cargo Fuel, from around the 1,500 m3 to around the 2,500 m3 levels, we will have a high requirement to sustain flight operations for sustained periods, and the LHD could potentially be the only safe haven to re-fuel for some time.

I would like to see something along the lines of an 18A Aegir (180m and 26,000 tonnes) inspired Aegir 26A (200m and 37,000 tonnes), giving more space to stores, ammo, water refrigerated/frozen stores etc, while not compromising on the F-76/JP-5 capacity

Just my two cents, but my gut feel is that the Spanish will come through with one hell of a deal, the Korean ship building industry is not in desperate need of more work, but Spain will kill for it !!

Cheers
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
We all seem to switch on and switch off from being purple back to dark blue in these discussions but if we have to sustain an ARG in a hostile environment, say West Papua, we need to be able to fully provide for the troops on the ground without US intervention.
I was reminded of this lately as the Lewis and Clark USNS T-AKE 6 Amelia Earhart has been pre deployed to Darwin for Ex Talisman Sabre. These ships were specifically designed to support a Marine Force and their escorts and would be ideal in the Australian amphibious situation. They would be ideal dual purpose support ships for both normal fleet duties and to support the ARG .

Wishful thinking I know.

Simply providing another Cantabria or Daewoo does not adequately cover the "forces ashore" but does fine for the naval force.
Abe suggested the type some time ago as a suitable replacement for Success and Sirius as their actually / potential fuel load of is actually more than sufficient for our requirements. Their cargo system is actually purpose designed using 3D modelling to ensure rapid and easy access to all stores, three of them could easily replace the AOR, AO as well as serve in its original designed role.
 

Goknub

Active Member
Just my two cents, but my gut feel is that the Spanish will come through with one hell of a deal, the Korean ship building industry is not in desperate need of more work, but Spain will kill for it !!

Cheers
The AOR replacement will certainly be interesting from the political aspect. Maintaining a single partner for the Navy would simplify things and as mentioned, the Spanish would love some good news given the state of their economy. The South Koreans on the other hand are a nation that would seem a natural ally for Australia but one we have little contact with. Establishing a relationship via procurement could be useful.

A larger AOR with additional fuel and dry stores would make a great sales pitch. Adding a third for a good price would be even better. Now that DMO has been buried we may even take up the offer.
 

vonnoobie

Well-Known Member
If that is they way we want to go with the AOR then I'd suggest something along the size of the Tide class that the UK is getting built in South Korea, 4 ships for around $900m AUD and 37,000t a piece.

While I'm sure it would have it's challenges it shouldn't be impossible to convert the excess fuel capacity into dry storage capacity? Cant Imagine it would have too much of an effect on the cost's of the ship/s?
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
the trouble with corvettes is that they tend to cost a lot more than is originally planned. There is the risk of ending up with a ship that has small displacement and limited ability against nation states, but the cost is a high proportion of the cost of a destroyer.

Perhaps is better instead of talking vessel size, to talk vessel money.

A 7000t destroyer is say 1 to 1.5 billion dollars. An OPV is 100 to 150 million a piece. What is the cost of a corvette? 500 million, 600, maybe more. The original rational of the OPV was to replace the Armidale class at around 30 million dollars apeice. Do you want a 600 million dollar vessel checking up on fishing boats?

There is a definate need more an OPV. Cheap, long range, endurance, modest crewing etc. If you start to go down the corvette route with nukla decoys etc, the unit price is going to triple or more. There are heaps of areas where a lightly armed OPV would be fine, Solomons, Fiji, PNG, Polynesia, disaster relief, fishery protection, border protection.

Its nice to have a third carrier, its nice to have nuclear subs, its nice to have more money spent on items, but there are only so many dollars. What can be done for x dollars is the question. Australia comes in around 14th in the world in spending. Assuming is defence expenditure gets up to 2 percent of GDP (and thats a big if, since we cant balance the budget now), it might rise from 1.8% GDP to 2.0% GDP, thats roughly a tenth extra.

So working out what we want, has to be constrained by how much money we have. As to more amphibious capability in the Karl Dorman class, why add another class of vessel, why not just get another Choules, I am sure Britain would build us one if we asked.

I just ask, that when talking about ships, think of how much they are going to cost and what can be afforded
You missed the point entirely, probably because you haven't bothered to read my earlier posts.

First of all what you have written about corvettes could just as easily apply to any naval platform that isn't adequately planned or project managed.

Two the terms I am using, light frigate and corvette, refer to a frigate that is smaller and lighter than the RANs AWDs and desired 5000 to 7000t and a smaller combatant that is faster and better armed than an OPV making it suitable for fleet task force operations. It would actually be easier if we called the planned new frigates destroyers, then I could just refer to my concept as frigates.

Three the remaining FFGs and all ANZAC ASMDs are full of useful, up to date systems that could be easily and cheaply refurbished and reused on a new more modern platform. While still very capable these systems are of little value for the proposed ANZAC replacements but would transform the capability of the light frigate. I am not just referring to weapons but also sensors, propulsion plant, and auxiliaries.

Four, if you look at modern platforms such as Singapore's Formidable class you will see that a capable frigate can operate with a very small crew i.e. 70, perhaps even less. The Sigma class as operated by Indonesia fits the size we are meant to be considering for our OPVs / OCVs have a complement of 80 and German's K130s have a crew of 65. A patrol boat division, of which there are seven, has three PB crews and two Hull POs, which is about 65 to 70, meaning we can easily crew several "light" frigates without increasing manpower.

Five steal is cheap and air is free, meaning a more capable OPV of 4000t (such as the BAM at almost 3000t and the Dutch Holland class at almost 4000t are viable alternatives to smaller the 1500-2000t vessels we seem to be talking about. This extra size would provide a hanger and multi-mission deck for very little extra cost and make it comparatively easy to design in the ability to integrate USN LCS Mission Modules, such as MCM, as well as potential Australian developed hydrographic modules.

Six, combining refurbished and upgraded propulsion systems such as the ANZACs diesels (which could be ungraded to the same T93 spec as the RNZN) and even LM2500 GTs, would provide better performance than an OPV with new diesels, at lower cost. We already own the eight cell Mk-41 VLS on the upgraded Adelaide and ANZACs, the 76 and 127mm guns, Mini Typhoons, Nulka, Phalanx (there is an RAN pool of these weapons), Mk-32 torpedo tubes (upgraded for MU90), CEAFAR radars, Vampir NG IRST, Spherion B sonar, torpedo decoy, SRBOC. There are even items of equipment such as diesel generators, compressors, pumps, motors valves, etc, that could be refurbished and reused for much less than buying new items from overseas. Even the some of the SAAB 9LV combat system could probably be reused as it is also used on the LHDs and continues to be developed and improved.

When you look at the quantity of useful equipment we have at our disposal it is quite clear that it would be possible to build a larger more capable vessel using that equipment for lower cost than building a smaller less capable vessel with all new systems. The smaller OPV would need new systems as apart from the Typhoon and .50cals, pretty much everything else on the Armidales is shagged or not up to what is required by an OPV.

Long story short, my proposal has the potential to deliver much more capability for less cost than the proposed OPVs. Build six or eight frigates, six or eight corvettes and six or eight OPVs to replace the PBs, MCMs and hydrographic ships. Use as many pulled through systems as possible and where that is not possible use common systems between the vessels to keep costs down. The use of so much in-service equipment reduces training and logistics costs of a new class in addition the obvious fact we already own the stuff and don't need to spend hundreds of millions buying new equipment.

The reason the FFGs and ANZACs are being replaced is the platforms are shagged and too limited by size to be further upgraded to face modern threats. Their systems, fitted to new platforms would save money while increasing capability and providing a very useful complement to the proposed twelve primary surface combatants. I have stated this many times in previous posts as you would be aware if you had read them, so by all means disagree with me and point out any issues you have with my thinking, but please do not tell me how to suck eggs when the primary issue is you have not been bothered to read what I actually proposed.
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Good point re cost.
When does a OPV become a light frigate?
Always looking for the correct mix of low / medium / high end ships to cover all contingencies for the best dollar value.
A speculative and difficult balancing act.
Irrelevant points because he didn't read my earlier posts where I explained in detail that if we refurbished and used systems pulled through from the FFGs and ANZACs we could quite possibly build light frigates and or corvettes instead of OPVs and OCVs for the same or less money. The hull is only a small part of the cost and, incidentally we are far more experienced at building frigates than OPVs, the largest cost is the ships systems, if you already own those systems the resulting ship is much cheaper than one you need to outfit with all new gear.

Steal is cheap and air is free, add size so you can fit systems you already own and you can have an ASMD equipped frigate for less money than an OPV.
 

rockitten

Member
V, agree, rather than 2 scaled downed Tide class, we should just buy 3 Tide class with necessary systems for RAN. It will be cheaper and better that way.

For the stuff from ANZAC and Perry though, if the 7000tonne ANZAC replacment really go ahead as planned, I am very sure it will be where those 5" guns, NUKA, MK-41, SAAB 9LV and CEA modules ends up. But is it really cheaper (and better) to refurbish those 20+ years old engines and turbines then just buy new?

Last time we retired the Darlings, we got plenty of twin 4.5" turrets, IKARA and Boforts 40mm, all ended up as scrap or shored as display/training assess. If RAN can keep one hull (preferably HMAS Melbourne) for a maritime museum in Melbourne, I will be very happy.
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
V, agree, rather than 2 scaled downed Tide class, we should just buy 3 Tide class with necessary systems for RAN. It will be cheaper and better that way.

For the stuff from ANZAC and Perry though, if the 7000tonne ANZAC replacment really go ahead as planned, I am very sure it will be where those 5" guns, NUKA, MK-41, SAAB 9LV and CEA modules ends up. But is it really cheaper (and better) to refurbish those 20+ years old engines and turbines then just buy new?

Last time we retired the Darlings, we got plenty of twin 4.5" turrets, IKARA and Boforts 40mm, all ended up as scrap or shored as display/training assess. If RAN can keep one hull (preferably HMAS Melbourne) for a maritime museum in Melbourne, I will be very happy.
No the new large frigate will use most likely AUSPAR, which is the next generation system, 32 to 64 cell strategic length VLS, the Adelaides and ANZACs have only eight cell units, and 62 calibre Mk-45 Mod4 guns as used on the AWDs which is the entire point of my suggestion, these systems will truly be surplus to requirements once the FFGs and ANZACs retire. As to refurbishing 20+ year old DEs and GTs its quite easy militaries and industry have been doing it for years as it is much much cheaper than buying new. The reason new ships use new systems is because they need improved performance, otherwise they would use refurbished old systems.

With the Rivers, Darings and Perths their systems were updated 40s and 50s tech and on the way out by the time the ships were retired so no point refurbishing them where as those used on the modernised Adelaides and ANZACs are much new and still very much up to date therefore worth keeping.
 

vonnoobie

Well-Known Member
I can see where you are coming from Volk, The Stuff in the FFG's and Anzac's wont be of any use in our other ships and a lot of the really good stuff has only been installed on them over the last decade.

Rather then having 6-8 frigates, 6-8 corvettes and 6-8 OPV's I'd suggest more of 12 frigates and 12 OPV's (With options for more OPV's).

With the 12 frigate option it allows for a sub class with one class taking all the equipment from the Anzacs (8 ships) and the subclass taking all the equipment from the FFG's (4 ships). The Formidable class would probably be the best fit.

In regards to refurbishing and upgrading system's/part's, The LM2500's that we have fitted seem to have a very low shp output, Is this due to the ships being small or are they not able to be upgraded to the very latest in updates?
 

ASSAIL

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Don't doubt its utility.
Lewis and Clark USNS-ake is a big ship for a big navy.
.
No, the L&C's are re-supply ships for a Marine Expeditionary Unit just as they are needed for an ARG to support over 2,500 troops ashore and their supporting sea base.

Their utility can only be useful if our next DWP reinforces the ARG/Sea Base concept which currently prevails. If we only pay lip service to Purple concepts and revert to the past then replacing Success and Supply with like will do fine and the RAN can do its thing and the Army needs can be symbolically met while we simply hope for US support in all circumstances.
 

ASSAIL

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Just had a coffee with one of "Border Force's" supervising engineers (an ex Attack class shipmate) and it appears that some of the ACPB's are so badly knackered that Navy has requisitioned 2 x Cape class PB's (Nos 3&5) in order to fulfil their obligations. He also suggested that Austal would build 2 x more Capes for Navy 9 & 10 to reinforce the ACPB fleet at which time 3&5 would be returned.

Further, Border Force are so short of qualified engineers that they are operating the fleet with only 2 and the remainder have exemptions from AMSA to allow Class III 's to man their ships (a class III is well below the required qual). This is despite advice from crews, during the Cape class build, that extra training would be urgently required to meet the standards, advice that was totally ignored by Canberra. (Border Force vessels are manned under AMSA rules)

Sounds all too depressingly familiar when operational control of a fleet is centrally micro managed from an ivory tower.
 

hairyman

Active Member
Getting back to the frigate/destroyer issue, I would prefer us to increase the number of AWD class ships, but with 56 to 64 VLS cells. Already the weapons systems of the AWD are being superceeded, with european countries using 9 cell instead of 8 cell ESSM systems, 36 missiles instead of our 32. If we were to arm the additional ships with 18 instead of 16 ESSM VLS, and use all of the additional cells for Tomahawk or other land attack or anti maritime missiles, use Auspar instead of the expensive Aegis system,we would end up with a more general purpose vessel than the current AWD's.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top