Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[MickB]

Hairy man - Hyuga

Vonnoobie - three frigates sacrificed for three DDH / Light Carriers.

So taking this into account, how is a fleet of three DDH, three DDG, and six FFG inferior and less flexible than one with three DDG and nine FFG? In particular when the DDH has the same combat system, sensors, and mostly the same weapons as the FFGs they are supplanting. How are they more difficult to build when they have the same systems from the same supplier's as the frigates? They are bigger but bigger is actually easier to build, in particular to outfit.

Far from a reduction in numbers they would maintain numbers and multiply capability using existing and planned ADF assets and capabilities more efficiently and effectively. Even the small increase in crew is not a problem as a significant number of them could be junior sailors and officers who are taking advantage of the training billets these ships would provide, building experience under competent supervision before going out into the fleet fully qualified and experienced in their field from their time on the DDH/CVL. The aviation side would be covered from the personnel who would normally deploy with the aircraft.

If DDHs were built at the end of a 6 frigate production run, it will allow additional time for enhanced design and emerging technologies to incorporate more automation thus further reducing crewing levels.
As stated above the the aviation support personnel would deploy with their aircraft.

If the final batch of F35s purchased were B models, then its support would consist mostly of RAAF personal deployed aboard as required.

 

[Alf662]

Hairy man - Hyuga

Vonnoobie - three frigates sacrificed for three DDH / Light Carriers.

The AWDs will never deploy alone except for maybe flag showing, they, our most powerful surface combatants will always operate with other fleet or coalition / allied assets, that's how it works. Same with the new frigates, something would have to be very wrong for one of them to be operating alone, they will pretty much always be deployed with other Australian or friendly combatants.

So taking this into account, how is a fleet of three DDH, three DDG, and six FFG inferior and less flexible than one with three DDG and nine FFG? In particular when the DDH has the same combat system, sensors, and mostly the same weapons as the FFGs they are supplanting. How are they more difficult to build when they have the same systems from the same supplier's as the frigates? They are bigger but bigger is actually easier to build, in particular to outfit.

The blocks and superblocks would actually be the same size as those for a frigate, there would just be more of them. Actually, ask navantia what's quicker, easier and cheaper to build, a frigate or a carrier / LHD? Maybe ask Ingles and Kawasaki too, maybe Hyundai as well. So what if they take longer to build, it just spreads out the work more and actually helps maintain a continuous build that could be expanded to include the eventual LHD, LPD and AOR replacements.

The RAN plans to acquire Firescout type UCAVs and the ADF has requirements for additional helicopters to support special forces etc. and possibly helicopters or UAV/UCAV for the OPVs, all types that in a task force setting would be more efficiently operated and supported from a DDH / light carrier. In fact, lets assume each FFG is assigned one Romeo and one Firescout and the additional helo is assigned to the DDH, that means each of the two DDH in active service / deployed has the two Romeo's it would have had as a frigate, one from the DDH in refit or reserve and three from the frigates now operating Firescouts. Six Romeos on a DDH are far more effective than the same number dispersed through the taskforce or fleet, they are also easier and cheaper to maintain, in fact the DDH would become a force multiplier through being able to support/maintain the helicopters of the ships flights.

The three DDH, unlike the frigates the replace, would also be able to operate AEW, SAR (or CSAR) and MCM helicopters, when not if these capabilities are acquired. Tilt rotors will not be an issue either and should the ADF acquire F-35B, guess what? There is also the army's ARH force, be it upgraded Tigers or something else, they will be certified for operation from the LHDs so logically also the DDH but somehow can't imagine them being dispersed onto frigates and AWDs.

The DDH would also have superior situational awareness to the frigates the supplant as they would logically have the same combat system and sensors but they would be mounted higher and hence have a greater horizon. They would also have larger command spaces and more data coming in from their greater number of helicopters, UAVs and UCAVs, just imagine the picture they would have with AEW and F-35B. Then there is their ESSM and possibly even SM-6 from their MK-41 VLS, as well as CEC.

Far from a reduction in numbers they would maintain numbers and multiply capability using existing and planned ADF assets and capabilities more efficiently and effectively. Even the small increase in crew is not a problem as a significant number of them could be junior sailors and officers who are taking advantage of the training billets these ships would provide, building experience under competent supervision before going out into the fleet fully qualified and experienced in their field from their time on the DDH/CVL. The aviation side would be covered from the personnel who would normally deploy with the aircraft.

Volk, whilst I can see the sense in what you are suggesting it is just to far away from the intent of the white paper and could never get of the ground.

However, I think we have some other things that we need to consider which are all in the White Paper:
1. Choules is up for replacement at around 2030.
2. Choules is also up for a refit to improve her utility and integration into the fleet and wider ADF.
3. A third supply ship or a second LPD has been allowed for.
4. The Army is getting a new riverine capability.

What you are actually suggesting is a better fit for the replacement of Choules as it would also provide a dedicated riverine support capability which would also be required.

A DDH replacement with an amphibious capability would be much more useful for the following reasons:

1. You would not be sacrificing any front line combat ships.
2. Organic support for army riverine operations is provided.
3. Improved facilities for army aviation.
4. Support from other fleet units may not be required.
5. New major platform for ASW operations.
6. Better platform for HADR operations.
7. Additional sensor and weapons platform that the fleet otherwise would not have.
8. Some appeasement to the Japanese after option J submarine debacle.
9. A platform that is not as intimidating as an LHD.

I doubt very much that you would get three, but two could be a remote possibility.

 

[gf0012-aust]

If the final batch of F35s purchased were B models, then its support would consist mostly of RAAF personal deployed aboard as required.

yep, any fixed wing fleet air arm structure developed will be RAAF bums on seats - Navy won't get that structure back

 

[swerve]

Ise & Hyuuga have over twice the crew of the Anzac class frigates & five times the displacement. That's five times the mass to move (engines & fuel aren't free) & maintenance costs to fit. The Japanese have a reason for wanting all that floating hangar & deck space: operating a lot of ASW helicopters (& perhaps other helicopter types, e.g. MCM, & AEW if they get any), & providing support for helicopters operating off other ships.

Where are all those helicopters in the RAN? Filling those hangars would be very expensive. The JMSDF has over 100 ASW & MCM helicopters, which means that all that floating hangar & flight deck space makes sense. And where are all the other ships? The JMSDF has 42 destroyers/frigates/DEs, not all with hangars or even helicopter decks at the moment, to work with four 'DDH' helicopter carriers.

Oh, & they have destroyer speed, & systems that the RAN's amphibious ships don't have: bow sonars, other sensors, SAMs, etc. I don't think they could be procured for the same price as amphibs of similar size.

 

[Raven22]

Hairy man - Hyuga

Vonnoobie - three frigates sacrificed for three DDH / Light Carriers.

The thing is, three DDH / Light Carriers are going to be far, far more expensive than three extra frigates, and no amount of wishful thinking will change this.

By your post, they will be far bigger, hence more expensive, have the same weapons and combat system, hence no cheaper there, require a doubling/tripling of the aviation available to the RAN (otherwise the entire endeavour is pointless), and the ships will require far more crew, unless we are to imagine that larger ships with the same combat system and more aviation somehow can be run with the same number of crew.

It's one thing to advocate extra aviation for the RAN, but you can't pretend that it won't be far more expensive than current plans. It's very easy to come up with force structure plans when cost and personnel caps don't come into the picture.

 

[pussertas]

The biggest issue IMO is getting the subs quickly enough. My personal opinion is we should be cutting steel at about now.

We are going to have life extend Collins IMO.

The main problem with the Collins class was the poor choice of engines.

Would it be possible to remove one of the poor performing Swedish engines and to replace it with a modern French or German engine as a part of the Collin's refit. That way the RAN would be able to gain knowledge of the actual engine and not have to rely on French advice.

It's in the French best interest to promote their own engines just as the Swedes did.

We look likely to be the originating navy for this 'orphan' submarine.:grab

 

[Volkodav]

First of all I realise it is never going to happen for political reasons more than anything else, but I believe it is worth discussing because such an acquisition would be transformational and nowhere near as difficult to achieve today because of the work done on the LHDs and the level of "jointness" being developed around those platforms.

I realise they will be more expensive than the frigates I am proposing they are acquired instead of and they will be more expensive to operate, but probably not as expensive as additional AWDs. Nor will they require the aquisition of any equipment, in particular helicopters, of any type or in greater numbers than are already planned. Their strength is they will be able to better operate what we already have or are planning to get.

Most Japanese destroyers only operate a single helicopter, prefering to concentrate them on their DDHs which have the capability to surge them upon detecting a submarine. The DDHs are also have far superior command and control, maintenance facilities, larger magazines, greater variety and quantity of aviation stores and parts, greater facility for workshops with artificers and specialist technicians to conduct more complex repairs. Basically they get more out of an existing number of helicopters than is possible when they are distributed through out the fleet.

As to propulsive power required and average fuel consumption and costs I will have to defer to more knowledgeable members, but I do know it is not a linear relationship to size and displacement with hull form playing a significant part.

Now, if the ADF does acquire MH-60S, Osprey, F-35B, stealthy UCAVs, modular airborne mine countermeasures kits, modular AEW kits etc. they would all be able to operate from a DDH type but only the Sierras' from a frigate. When 3D printing of critical components is perfected (USN is working on this and RAF Tornados are already flying with 3D printed line replaceable items) this could be employed on a large flexible ship like a DDH, LHD, or even LPD, but not really on a frigate. We could always buy and outfit a couple of destroyer tenders and aviation repair ships, maybe reconfigure our AORs into multirole support and repair ships, maybe even convert Ocean Protector and Ocean Shield I suppose. The other option would be to do without such innovative capabilities and continue to replace like with like fiddling with numbers and size as money dictates.

 

[Volkodav]

The main problem with the Collins class was the poor choice of engines.

Would it be possible to remove one of the poor performing Swedish engines and to replace it with a modern French or German engine as a part of the Collin's refit. That way the RAN would be able to gain knowledge of the actual engine and not have to rely on French advice.

It's in the French best interest to promote their own engines just as the Swedes did.

We look likely to be the originating navy for this 'orphan' submarine.:grab

Yes and yes.

The project team and RAN wanted MTU while Kockums insisted that their existing relationship with Hedemora would produce the better result for the RAN and that they would never work with anyone other than Hedemora. A number of gaskits were blown when MTUs were selected for Sweden's new Gotland class subs shortly after Australia's contract signature with Hedemora.

After many years of saying cutting the hull open during FCD could and should be done the hull of HMAS Collins was cut open above the main machinery compartment for her second FCD. This provided overhead crane access to the diesel generators and other normally difficult to access equipment. Interesting that it took an overseas expert to get it done even though Australian experts had been pushing for it for over a decade. You seriously have to wonder how much money is wasted and how many opportunities are lost because of the ignorance, cultural cringe and risk adversity of our subpar management and political leadership.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Is it likely that Collins would get an extensive life extension or upgrade?
Or is it that they will just continue on?
Would the MTU be an almost drop in change?

It surprised me that Collins still has a massive NiCd battery the size of a fridge to run the 24v electrics. Surely NiMH or Li-I would be a huge upgrade. NiCd is not an attractive battery type for many reasons (environmentally, hazmat, production, energy density, memory, etc).

Then I start thinking about more efficient and effective LED lighting etc. There would be a lot of MOTS stuff that could be used.

Its not going to massively improve Collins performance but you could make some improvement.

 

[Volkodav]

Is it likely that Collins would get an extensive life extension or upgrade?
Or is it that they will just continue on?
Would the MTU be an almost drop in change?

It surprised me that Collins still has a massive NiCd battery the size of a fridge to run the 24v electrics. Surely NiMH or Li-I would be a huge upgrade. NiCd is not an attractive battery type for many reasons (environmentally, hazmat, production, energy density, memory, etc).

Then I start thinking about more efficient and effective LED lighting etc. There would be a lot of MOTS stuff that could be used.

Its not going to massively improve Collins performance but you could make some improvement.

Remember in volume is fixed, if you put a lighter battery in a Collins it will turn turtle on you. These boats were designed in the 80s using proven tech from the 60s and 70s meaning there are some characteristics you just need to live with. On the other hand anything that reduces power consumption without feeling up stability is a good thing, I.e. LEDs.

 

[gf0012-aust]

On the other hand anything that reduces power consumption without feeling up stability is a good thing, I.e. LEDs.

stuff like that is constantly under review as well - especially when energy mgt is a top order and ongoing req

I'd love to see what they're doing to the latest carrier - thats got tricky smart things all over it...

 

[StingrayOZ]

Remember in volume is fixed, if you put a lighter battery in a Collins it will turn turtle on you. These boats were designed in the 80s using proven tech from the 60s and 70s meaning there are some characteristics you just need to live with. On the other hand anything that reduces power consumption without feeling up stability is a good thing, I.e. LEDs.

In some cases though you could replace and either make the item higher capacity or just put steel ballast next to it (or encase it in thicker steel etc). I can understand the weight issue, I would imagine that is part of the reasons any submarine upgrades are going to be massively expensive.

Do we have enough stock of 1980's vintage gear to run them into the 2030's? Is there any money for upgrades?

Which is why we should be (theoretically) cutting steel now. Suffern cut steel in 2007 and is meant to be in the water this year. So while Shortfin should be quicker, it is still a different submarine. So expecting 10 years from first cut to commissioning is not unusual and is pretty standard. Undoubably Australia's shortfins will be much harder to interegrate systems on .

 

[vonnoobie]

In some cases though you could replace and either make the item higher capacity or just put steel ballast next to it (or encase it in thicker steel etc). I can understand the weight issue, I would imagine that is part of the reasons any submarine upgrades are going to be massively expensive.

Do we have enough stock of 1980's vintage gear to run them into the 2030's? Is there any money for upgrades?

Which is why we should be (theoretically) cutting steel now. Suffern cut steel in 2007 and is meant to be in the water this year. So while Shortfin should be quicker, it is still a different submarine. So expecting 10 years from first cut to commissioning is not unusual and is pretty standard. Undoubably Australia's shortfins will be much harder to interegrate systems on .

Problem with cutting the steel now, Our submarine does not yet exist in design. Might be better to start cutting steel now and I would prefer it but until we know exactly where each and every part is going it's something we have to bite our tongue on, Not unless we want to go and rework everything later on..

 

[pussertas]

RAN New Submarines ump-jet propulsors

Yes and yes.

The project team and RAN wanted MTU while Kockums insisted that their existing relationship with Hedemora would produce the better result for the RAN and that they would never work with anyone other than Hedemora. A number of gaskits were blown when MTUs were selected for Sweden's new Gotland class subs shortly after Australia's contract signature with Hedemora

Always thought that the Hedermora diesels had the advantage of being placed three abreast whilst the MTU's had a larger diameter and would have needed a hull lengthening to accommodate them?

DCNS are offering pump-jet propulsors. The numbers are fairly small (!3 plus: One for each submarine plus at least another one for training purposes) so would it be economical to build them locally from either a DCNS or a RN design?

Who would own the Intellectual Property rights if pump-jet propulsors were built locally? Hopefully the RAN?

 

[Massive]

OPV mission modules

Sounds as if the OPVs won't have mission modules.

"The only clear capability ‘news’ we got was for SEA 1180. A question from the floor asked whether any flexible mission-modules might be required to expand the roles of the OPV. We learned that this concept was now officially and properly dead. The program director replied ‘Not in these twelve vessels’. He re-emphasised that the focus is on the constabulary role, and that only the absolute minimum modification from the Off-The-Shelf capability was being sought, essentially just to meet regulatory requirements."

Full blog post from ASPI Strategist here:

https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/future-frigates-industry-briefing-talk-hand-face-gagged/

Guess the only way you might end up with for but not with is if the OTS capability already includes this space (Navantia BAMS for instance).

Thoughts?

Massive

 

[rjtjrt]

Problem with cutting the steel now, Our submarine does not yet exist in design. Might be better to start cutting steel now and I would prefer it but until we know exactly where each and every part is going it's something we have to bite our tongue on, Not unless we want to go and rework everything later on..

In current magazine ADM, page 24, the Head of Future Submarine Program, Rear Admiral Sammut is reported to have said steel cutting on pressure hull of new sub will start at about time 80-85% of design is complete.

ADM: ADM editions

 

[oldsig127]

Guess the only way you might end up with for but not with is if the OTS capability already includes this space (Navantia BAMS for instance).

Thoughts?

Massive

Navantia BAMS is not on the short list so you can forget that. On the other hand, I thought that some of the three options (if we guess correctly which each company will propose) included appropriate space.

oldsig

 

[StingrayOZ]

Problem with cutting the steel now, Our submarine does not yet exist in design. Might be better to start cutting steel now and I would prefer it but until we know exactly where each and every part is going it's something we have to bite our tongue on, Not unless we want to go and rework everything later on..

Should be cutting steel now. We should have the design work finished and be ready to go. Obviously the delays in the decisions have harmed the project.

The hull should be pretty much ready to go, with the only public physical change is Shortfin being a few metres shorter (why? Why not just again fill with ballast or batteries and make it the same Physical size)

One of the major issues with submarines is internal volume. Batteries are very dense, but power distribution, computers, sensors, mech services take up precious volume. I don't see smaller subs as the solution for Australia.

 

[ASSAIL]

Should be cutting steel now. We should have the design work finished and be ready to go. Obviously the delays in the decisions have harmed the project.

The hull should be pretty much ready to go, with the only public physical change is Shortfin being a few metres shorter (why? Why not just again fill with ballast or batteries and make it the same Physical size)

One of the major issues with submarines is internal volume. Batteries are very dense, but power distribution, computers, sensors, mech services take up precious volume. I don't see smaller subs as the solution for Australia.

The Shortfin design does not exist. You make it sound like there is a simple transformation between the Suffren and the conventional. That is not the case, the rejigging of the entire internals will,take time and that will effect how the boat comes together. eg. will the propulsor be effective when you reduce the power train from 10 MW to 4 MW, how do you transform the steam and nuc plant into generator and battery space and how will that effect the build programme? There will be thousands of changes required, this is in effect a new boat and cutting steel premature will resolve nothing as this is the comparitively simple side of the build.
Where is the steel coming from? You can't cut it we have the production method sorted in Oz provided we still have a steel industry.

Let's not repeat the mistakes we made with the AWDs where construction started before the design was finalised, it's far better to sacrifice the starting date than to have worse delays caused by an ever changing design.

 

[John Newman]

The Shortfin design does not exist. You make it sound like there is a simple transformation between the Suffren and the conventional. That is not the case, the rejigging of the entire internals will,take time and that will effect how the boat comes together. eg. will the propulsor be effective when you reduce the power train from 10 MW to 4 MW, how do you transform the steam and nuc plant into generator and battery space and how will that effect the build programme? There will be thousands of changes required, this is in effect a new boat and cutting steel premature will resolve nothing as this is the comparitively simple side of the build.
Where is the steel coming from? You can't cut it we have the production method sorted in Oz provided we still have a steel industry.

Let's not repeat the mistakes we made with the AWDs where construction started before the design was finalised, it's far better to sacrifice the starting date than to have worse delays caused by an ever changing design.

Agree 100% The design doesn't exist.

I read this in April last year on the ASPI Strategist website:

https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/designing-the-shortfin-barracuda-block-1a/

The authors of the article are: Gerard Autret is the Chief Naval Architect of the Shortfin Barracuda and a DCNS expert in submarine naval architecture. Sean Costello is the CEO of DCNS Australia.

The relevant quote was:

A common misunderstanding about the conventionally powered Shortfin Barracuda Block 1A is that is somehow “converted” from the nuclear powered French Barracuda. This characterisation is inaccurate. In fact the conventional ship uses the nuclear ship as its design reference.

And this too:

In summary, the description of the design process and choices made in the development of the Shortfin Barracuda Block 1A show that one submarine is not converted to another. Rather, a design reference is selected and an iteration of a new design is developed to meet the requirement with interpolation of known data and the re-use of proven technologies.

The way I have read that is that the Australian Shortfin will use the French Barracuda as its design 'reference' but that doesn't specifically mean that it is just a 'shortened' version.

Cheers,