From my limited understanding of the issue, it come down to not only the weight limitations but is also speed issue. The further distance from shore the LHD the greater turn around time which effects timings in operational objectives.they want a faster ship to shore connector.Is there any real reason to replace lcm-1e? My understanding is the only limitation is landing Abrams in sea state 3 or greater.
That's.... A pretty minor use case
To my mind the Italian FREMM is starting to shape up as the most serious contender.The article claims that the GP variant is more austere than the ASW variant, but that is not really so. Actually the true austere FREMM frigates are the French variants and they are reasonably more expensive for less. The two Italian variants are designed for different tasks. The GP variant has eight SSMs in box launchers, which the ASW variant replaces with ASROC type ASW missiles. If you have 32 Mk 41 VLS cells that gives you a load out of 128 individual ESSM. However, say if 20 tactical length Mk 41 VLS cells are fitted with the remaining 12 being strike length and it is decided to acquire Mk41 compatible SSM, then a load out of 12 SSM reduces the ESSM load out to 80; still a considerable improvement compared to the current max of 32 on the ANZAC class. So really not bad at all.
Is there a FREMM design that includes 48 Mk41 VLS and other features desired of a SEA 5000 frigate though? An off the shelf FREMM is far less suitable for the requirement than an off the shelf F100. The FREMM may prove a superior solution, but it won't be because the design work is already done.I haven't heard anything about the Navantia redesign of the Hobart class but I imagine that there will be a lot of redesign work that needs to be done.
The FREMM on the other hand is done.
The Navantia design (from the early concepts shown about the place) reconfigures the hanger from single to dual, that is the only major difference in the design visually, apart from the CEA radar mast. It is supposed to have larger end of life displacement as well for future growth - out to about 7400t (Navy Recognition).To my mind the Italian FREMM is starting to shape up as the most serious contender.
The design work on the Type 26 is apparently only about 60% complete and there isn't really any indication when it might be finished.
MOD denies money shortage causing delays on the Clyde in the construction of Navy frigates (From Herald Scotland)
I haven't heard anything about the Navantia redesign of the Hobart class but I imagine that there will be a lot of redesign work that needs to be done.
The FREMM on the other hand is done.
Sorry, but I beg to differ, go back just over two years ago to June 2014:I haven't heard anything about the Navantia redesign of the Hobart class but I imagine that there will be a lot of redesign work that needs to be done.
The FREMM on the other hand is done.
Not suggesting that the Spanish offering is a better 'long term' solution over either the Italian or UK offerings, but I think it would be pretty fair and reasonable that if the selection was based on what was actually ready to go to meet the Government timeframe, when steel is planned to start cutting in 2020, then I'd think its reasonable to suggest that the Spanish design would be first, followed by the Italian and lastly the UK design, which appears to have a very long way to go for UK purposes, let alone for export.The Government has also agreed to bring forward preliminary design work to ensure Australia maintains the necessary capabilities to retain the option of building the future frigate in Australia. This work will focus on continued production of the current AWD hull, suitably adapted and utilising capabilities from the cutting-edge Australian companies CEA Technologies Australia and SAAB Combat Systems. Further decisions on the future frigate will be taken in the context of the 2015 Defence White Paper.
The Government has committed $78.2 million to bring forward preliminary engineering and design work necessary to keep open the option of building the future frigate in Australia. In parallel, the Government is reviewing Australia’s shipbuilding requirements, capabilities and capacities in order to inform a long-term strategic naval plan that provides the ADF with leading-edge capabilities and Australian taxpayers with value for money.
The quoted displacement of the Bergamini FREMM variants is 6,900 tonnes, and of the Hobart class AWD, 6,870 full load. Unless the Navantia version on the modified Hobart hull is larger, you've got things bass ackwards and make the assumption that Fincantieri won't propose an expanded versionWhich is why I'm highly sceptical that a smaller, lighter design in the FREMM, can meet the future requirements and challenges that this region will require of a modern, highly capable frigate that must have excellent growth margins way out to about 2050. This is something that I simply don't believe the FREMM (in either DCNS or Fincantieri versions) can offer the RAN. It is a smaller ship (in terms of general size and displacement) than either the Navantia or BAE offerings, and just in that regard would have to have much lower future upgrade potential.
Isn't the Hobart DDG full load displacement at 7000t? That's straight from the AWD Alliance website. How much more can the Italian FREMM variant be stretched displacement wise when the base French variant is 6000t?The quoted displacement of the Bergamini FREMM variants is 6,900 tonnes, and of the Hobart class AWD, 6,870 full load. Unless the Navantia version on the modified Hobart hull is larger, you've got things bass ackwards and make the assumption that Fincantieri won't propose an expanded version
But FWIW the vapour rising from the T26 is indeed larger and heavier, should we decide to wait a decade for it
Indeed, as usual here, the discussion is revolving around published information and NOT the detailed proposals from the contenders which we should certainly not be privy to at this stage - It's ALL vapour.
oldsig
I wonder if we want something more amphibious assault rather than amphibious landing. Particularly with the LHD self protection systems..From my limited understanding of the issue, it come down to not only the weight limitations but is also speed issue. The further distance from shore the LHD the greater turn around time which effects timings in operational objectives.they want a faster ship to shore connector.
The Bergamini-class is said to be 144.6 metres by 19.7, & the Hobart-class 147.2 by 18.6. Why is the slightly beamier ship 'a smaller ship'? Wouldn't it have a touch more scope for stretching?Which is why I'm highly sceptical that a smaller, lighter design in the FREMM, can meet the future requirements and challenges that this region will require of a modern, highly capable frigate that must have excellent growth margins way out to about 2050. This is something that I simply don't believe the FREMM (in either DCNS or Fincantieri versions) can offer the RAN. It is a smaller ship (in terms of general size and displacement) than either the Navantia or BAE offerings,
In regards to stretching ships, beams etc what are the stability issues such as do smaller beams effect how much top weight we could have down the track?The Bergamini-class is said to be 144.6 metres by 19.7, & the Hobart-class 147.2 by 18.6. Why is the slightly beamier ship 'a smaller ship'? Wouldn't it have a touch more scope for stretching?
From what I have read it is my understanding that the army are not happy with the LCM1-e as a replacement for the LCM-8. The army have spent many years slowly modifying the LCM-8's that they have in service to cater to their operational needs.Is there any real reason to replace lcm-1e? My understanding is the only limitation is landing Abrams in sea state 3 or greater.
That's.... A pretty minor use case
I think it has more to do with giving army and navy more options. The landing craft are like little siblings that can only crawl so the LHD's have to tend to them all of the time. It would be much better if those siblings were a little bit older and independent so they can run away and hide, and like all kids, get up to some real mischief.StingrayOZ .... I wonder if we want something more amphibious assault rather than amphibious landing. Particularly with the LHD self protection systems..
They have also suggested a growth path to 7500 tonnes and the potential for 64 cells. I suspect that once the design work is done the T26 will be a very good vessel, the problem is we do not want to be building a prototype. At least with the modified F105 we have block construction issues largely sorted out.The F100 at least already has 48 VLS cells and AEGIS included in its weight, so that 6900 tonne gets you a lot closer to the SEA5000 requirement than the FREMM's
Gear can be replaced in the design stage and the future frigate is supposed to be built in batches so gear can be updated between each batch.In regards to the F-105 offering from Navantia and the commonality with the Hobart's, Isn't a lot of the gear in the Hobart's based on old tech that no one really uses anymore? (recollection from earlier discussions on the Hobart's). If that's the case, then do we really want to continue down the path of old tech that more and more nations are moving away from?
Sure, but usually not when it comes down to propulsion. The main difference between the T26/FREMM vs the Hobart AWD/F105 is the use of CODLAG for propulsion rather than CODLOG.Gear can be replaced in the design stage and the future frigate is supposed to be built in batches so gear can be updated between each batch.
Let's face it ...... This is exactly what has been done with the Burkes noting they are an 80s design.
I guess that answers the question if they can operate with the divider in the middle still in place.A USN LCAC has beensuccessfully landed on / in (?) the RAN LHD HMAS Canberra at RIMPAC. Another integration test that can be ticked off.
Correct, but it was to beamy to go further than the divider so it could not get to the steel beach. They would only ever be able to operate one at a time, not two.I guess that answers the question if they can operate with the divider in the middle still in place.
MV-22, LCAC.. I think the LHD are proving some of the potential in a space Australia never previously considered.