Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[alexsa]

The LHD is not a particularly large vesel by commercial standards but is quite beamy for its length. The problem is that while we have a number of large docks in Australia that could handle construciton 'in dock' tying them up for years with building new tonnage (in lieu of using a buildng way which are very limited now) is not really economical and will impact on the ability of those facilties to complete refits and commercial work.

 

[StingrayOZ]

So the LHD's will have sail unescorted until they meet up with vessels from WA? (subs/AWD etc?) Or are they being located into Sydney? Have you ever seen the spirt of tasmania load up in Sydney?...

Given we are only getting two LHD's and to meet the requirements we have to use them together. I am guessing the third sealift ship will have to be based nearby as well?

I'm just wondering after all the emphasis the Navy put on basing out of Perth, if that was such a good idea if the Navy is going to be working with the Army etc in a much closer way.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

So the LHD's will have sail unescorted until they meet up with vessels from WA? (subs/AWD etc?) Or are they being located into Sydney? Have you ever seen the spirt of tasmania load up in Sydney?...

Given we are only getting two LHD's and to meet the requirements we have to use them together. I am guessing the third sealift ship will have to be based nearby as well?

I'm just wondering after all the emphasis the Navy put on basing out of Perth, if that was such a good idea if the Navy is going to be working with the Army etc in a much closer way.

You’re assuming things that aren’t quite right. Firstly as I mentioned the LHDs will not load in Sydney and if they did they would not do so in the same way as the Spirit of Tasmania III!

They will sail to where the amphibious landing force is: Brisbane, Townsville, Darwin or Adelaide and embark the force from there. If they have to sail unescorted to this location I don’t think anyone will lose any sleep, there is not much of a threat within Australian waters. However there are escorts available in Sydney to provide a harbour to harbour screen if need be. Australian submarines do not provide escorts to surface vessels.

Not all Navy activities are based around supporting amphibious landings. FBW provides the submarines a base within idea reach of their operating areas – at the cost of workforce isolation, something that is having far more effect than an extra few days of transit. For the surface fleet FBW provides a base also closer to operational areas and a presence in the isolated north west Australian coastline.

 

[ThePuss]

This is just scuttlebutt but there is a possiblity of the LHD's receving up to four VLS modules. After all they are getting the same combat system that the ANZACS are receving in there upgrade. So if they do these ships will be more than capable of looking after themselfs

 

[StevoJH]

This is just scuttlebutt but there is a possiblity of the LHD's receving up to four VLS modules. After all they are getting the same combat system that the ANZACS are receving in there upgrade. So if they do these ships will be more than capable of looking after themselfs

Thats not an LHD! Thats the HMAS Kiev!

 

[sandman]

So the LHD's will have sail unescorted until they meet up with vessels from WA? (subs/AWD etc?)

Abraham Gubler sufficiently covered things, but just to add, I think you will find all the AWDs will be FBE home-ported, just as the FFGs are now.

 

[Sea Toby]

This is just scuttlebutt but there is a possiblity of the LHD's receving up to four VLS modules. After all they are getting the same combat system that the ANZACS are receving in there upgrade. So if they do these ships will be more than capable of looking after themselfs

While these ships will have a similar combat data system as the Anzacs, I have read that it will be used for air traffic control rather than SAM targeting and interception. However, at a later time, the same upgrade the Anzacs will receive with a little phased array radar would do the trick. We'll still need that upgrade for the LHDs to do SAMs.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Abraham Gubler sufficiently covered things, but just to add, I think you will find all the AWDs will be FBE home-ported, just as the FFGs are now.

All of the FFGs were not homebased at FBE (when we had six), they were mixed between FBE and FBW. What happens with the AWDs depends a lot on their support structures. Also the key issue is workforce retention. FBW is an important base closer to the operational areas but balancing the fleet 50/50 between the coastlines is a disaster for retaining Navy personnel. It is also strategically focused on a regional threat to Australia that hasn't existed since 1943 (with a brief paper based threat in 1960-64).

 

[Abraham Gubler]

While these ships will have a similar combat data system as the Anzacs, I have read that it will be used for air traffic control rather than SAM targeting and interception. However, at a later time, the same upgrade the Anzacs will receive with a little phased array radar would do the trick. We'll still need that upgrade for the LHDs to do SAMs.

The LHDs will have the Giraffe AMB radar which is a very, very capable system and fore and aft Vampir NG ISRT. They will also have space for up to two missile directors and VLS. They have some 675 tonnes of growth weight in the current design. So if the threat situation changed they could have a quick ASMD upgrade to provide a comprehensive self defence capability. Until then onboard armament is four Mini Typhoon 12.7mm and two Typhoon 25mm guns.

 

[Sea Toby]

This is from the Australian Department of Defence:

Australia's Canberra Class ships will have minimal defensive armament and systems, however. Though they will share Saab's 9LV combat system with the ANZAC Class frigates, their Sea Giraffe AMB radars will be slated for aviation control, not missile or naval targeting. This situation could be improved in future by mounting phased array CEAFAR/CEAMOUNT radars; Australia's ANZAC frigates are already receiving these radars as part of their anti-air upgrades, and integrating them with the same common combat system. Initially, however, the Canberras will mount only 4 RAFAEL Typhoon 25mm remote weapons systems at the corners, for fending off asymmetric threats like small boats.

Isn't this what I said before? Maybe I wasn't exact. Please find a link where I can confirm the Canberras will have mini-Typhoons.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Isn't this what I said before? Maybe I wasn't exact. Please find a link where I can confirm the Canberras will have mini-Typhoons.

Not everything is on the internet and not everything on the internet is accurate. I'm looking at BAES LHD brochure. It shows six RCWS with two 12.7mm on the rear flight deck edges and two 25mm on the deck below above the well dock. There is another on the bow under the ski jump but too small to tell what it is. If they want four 25mm then cool.

 

[Todjaeger]

Not everything is on the internet and not everything on the internet is accurate. I'm looking at BAES LHD brochure. It shows six RCWS with two 12.7mm on the rear flight deck edges and two 25mm on the deck below above the well dock. There is another on the bow under the ski jump but too small to tell what it is. If they want four 25mm then cool.

That sort of arrangement would seem appropriate to counter hostile FAC, at least the smaller varieties like the Dabur- or Super Dvora-classes. I am concerned though about how the Canberra-class would deal with an AShM. Is it possible that there might be Phalanx positions which would be used on an as needed basis? As the Adelaide FFGs are decommissioned that should increase the available pool of CIWS the RAN has which could then be mounted onto the LHD when appropriate.

Granted, the primary responsibility for protecting the LHD would fall upon the escorts it, IMO it would still be sensible to have some defence upon the LHD. OTOH, if they are to be fitted with VLS ESSM or some similar missile and the appropriate radar, FCS and illuminators, that should be sufficient.

-Cheers

 

[rossfrb_1]

The LHDs will have the Giraffe AMB radar which is a very, very capable system and fore and aft Vampir NG ISRT. They will also have space for up to two missile directors and VLS. They have some 675 tonnes of growth weight in the current design. So if the threat situation changed they could have a quick ASMD upgrade to provide a comprehensive self defence capability. Until then onboard armament is four Mini Typhoon 12.7mm and two Typhoon 25mm guns.

Well, the FFGs are due to be pensioned off from 2014ish (I think) - they have/are currently being fitted with MK 41 VLS launchers - have you heard whether there is any (serious) consideration within the RAN to keep some for the LHDs?
Are there any technical reasons why this couldn't be done?
rb

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I think the immediate concern is to build a new ship! Certainly the 9LV and AMB give the LHD a significant capability for self defence. There is also plenty of spare space around the ship, and the weight margin, to fit VLS, CIWS and CWI (illuminators). Also note the each of the LPA's has a CIWS and the two decommissioned FFGs (to date) each provided a CIWS into the maitnenance pool. Also note that those CIWS were built in the 1980s and won't last forever and if refurbed will be required by the AWDs.

 

[Sea Toby]

I agree, lets get the ships built first, and then we carry worry about CIWS and SAMs. There are plenty of CIWS in the RAN inventory, and more can be acquired at a later date. As for the Mk41 cells, its not clear whether the RAN intends to reuse the ones on the FFG-7s for the new Hobart class DDGs, much less having more used cells available for the Canberra class LHDs. Reusing them could save significant funds building the Hobart class DDGs. But I will reply that 4-8 cell Mk41 launchers from the FFG-7s could be installed on the LHDs, 2-8 cell launchers each, along with 2 CIWS each too. But we'll need to install new CEAFAR/CEAMOUNT radars as well for the SAMs.

 

[StevoJH]

I agree, lets get the ships built first, and then we carry worry about CIWS and SAMs. There are plenty of CIWS in the RAN inventory, and more can be acquired at a later date. As for the Mk41 cells, its not clear whether the RAN intends to reuse the ones on the FFG-7s for the new Hobart class DDGs, much less having more used cells available for the Canberra class LHDs. Reusing them could save significant funds building the Hobart class DDGs. But I will reply that 4-8 cell Mk41 launchers from the FFG-7s could be installed on the LHDs, 2-8 cell launchers each, along with 2 CIWS each too. But we'll need to install new CEAFAR/CEAMOUNT radars as well for the SAMs.

Correct me if i'm wrong, but given that the Two newest of the FFG's are only a couple years old then the ANZAC's (and ten years younger then the 4 older FFG), wouldn't it make sense to keep them in service after the AWD's arrive and replace them as part of the ANZAC replacement program? Build 10 ships of whatever replaces the ANZAC's instead of 8.

 

[Todjaeger]

Correct me if i'm wrong, but given that the Two newest of the FFG's are only a couple years old then the ANZAC's (and ten years younger then the 4 older FFG), wouldn't it make sense to keep them in service after the AWD's arrive and replace them as part of the ANZAC replacement program? Build 10 ships of whatever replaces the ANZAC's instead of 8.

The newest of the Adelaide-class FFGs, HMAS Newcastle, was commissioned almost 15 years ago, but would have been laid down between one and two years before that. I have the date around here somewhere...

Also, according to current plan, the last of Adelaide-class are supposed to be getting decommissioned ~2018, right around 25 years of service and just before the expected start of the Anzac follow-on class. Depending on crewing status, as well as service requirements, the AWD program could be extended to replace some of the FFGs, and/or additional Anzac could be ordered instead. At this point I would say it is really too soon to tell, particularly as design requirements for the Anzac replacement have not been mentioned. Given how long some of these projects take, I would expect it has already started and is currently in the phase where its requirements are defined.

-Cheers

 

[Sea Toby]

While the RAN would probably acquire the two New Zealand Anzacs if one of their future governments desired to sell them, I think the Anzac program has ended. Turned out the Aussies ran into weight problems improving the Anzacs, many of their weapon systems and sensors are located high above the main deck. Notice with the new Hobart class destroyers, this is not the case, much of the weapon systems are on the main deck. Its the reason why I like the Norwegian Nansen frigates better than the Meko 200s.

In future frigate programs, this lesson has been learned by many navies around the world. Most if not all of the future frigate and destroyer programs are having more weapon systems on the main deck at a lower level for future upgrade stability reasons.

 

[StevoJH]

While the RAN would probably acquire the two New Zealand Anzacs if one of their future governments desired to sell them, I think the Anzac program has ended. Turned out the Aussies ran into weight problems improving the Anzacs, many of their weapon systems and sensors are located high above the main deck. Notice with the new Hobart class destroyers, this is not the case, much of the weapon systems are on the main deck. Its the reason why I like the Norwegian Nansen frigates better than the Meko 200s.

In future frigate programs, this lesson has been learned by many navies around the world. Most if not all of the future frigate and destroyer programs are having more weapon systems on the main deck at a lower level for future upgrade stability reasons.

The two New Zealand ANZAC's were among the first of the class built, for the amount of money needed to purchase them, the RAN would be much better off to retain the two newest Adelaides as they are more capable platforms then the ANZAC's and have a similar crewing requirement.

Based on the timescale of when the ANZAC replacement will need to enter service, possible partners for a common design would have to be Canada who would need to replace the Halifax class and the UK who will be replacing their Type 22 and Type 23 frigates.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

As for the Mk41 cells, its not clear whether the RAN intends to reuse the ones on the FFG-7s for the new Hobart class DDGs, much less having more used cells available for the Canberra class LHDs. Reusing them could save significant funds building the Hobart class DDGs.

No the AWD project has already applied for FMS acquisition of 48 cells of strike length Mk 41s for each of the Hobarts. The MK 41s fitted to the bow of the Adelaides are only tactical length and can't fit a TLAM, SM-6, SM-3 or SM-2 ER Blk 4. Plus they have only just been installed in the Adelaides and removing them for the Hobarts would be a huge nightmare for only a tiny gain (32 cells out of 144) that would remove the Adelaide's ESSM capability while they are still needed in service.