Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[Massive]

I'm not sure in what circumstances a 76mm would be expected to be used by an RAN OPV?

Certainly not in peacetime. Could the same be said for 25mm on an Armidale though? Is there an example where a 12.7mm on a stabilised RWS could not do the same peacetime job?

Could say the same of discussion of fitting a Millenium gun as main armament.

The Lurssen and Fassmer ships have 57 and 76mm in the versions in service. As I said, I doubt they OPVs would be truly off the shelf, bu if so, then they would have a main armament of this calibre.

Please keep in mind that the comment was in the context of the capability the OPVs would bring and a possible upgrade path due to multi-mission modules.

As always appreciate you taking the time to respond.

Massive

 

[rockitten]

http://dcnsgroup.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/DCNS-SEA1000-Insert-FINAL_low-res.pdf

The Shortfin Barracuda is 97 metres in length and displaces 4,500 tons when surfaced.

Not sure why the hull would have to be 2 m shorter. IMO this could be a case where steel is cheap, air is free, the design is done, France has already designed a submarine 2m longer, why not build a submarine the same physical size as the French submarine. Then you would have the same hull size, the same flow characteristics, fewer differences between the two submarines.

If changing the length of a submarine was not problematic then Collins would have had less problems than what she had in terms of hydrodynamic performance.

Every submarine ever made could do with more interior volume. That way you wouldn't have to pack food stores into peoples beds, bags into torpedo tubes, bed racks above and below torpedoes, store bags in torpedo tubes, etc as much. Or you could use the space for future growth much like Collins ended up using the AIP space for other things.

There is a great type of ballast that is good for submarines, it pretty cheap, its very useful, its very dense, in fact its made of lead - batteries.

I did have this similar thought before: Why no one ever made a 10000 tonne diesel submarine, afterall, the chinese does have a 8000+tonne diesel sub, even if that's just a equipment test vessel, but it is doable.

It seems to me it is because of weight saving. To withstand numerous pressure and DE-pressuring, the pressure hull has to build strong. And that mean it is thick and heavy.

Shortfin Barracuda for example, our generator only have 40% power output of the nuclear reactor, to keep the performance reasonable, we have to reduce some drag and weight. Reduce length by 2m mean 2 meter X OD of hull less area for friction (and also noise generation). And to reduce weight, we can either make the hull smaller/shorter but less room, or make the hull thinner but less diving depth.

We have to completely redesign the internal layout anyway, we can "claim back the lost 2m" inch-by-inch through smaller fridge, less headroom for bunk.....etc. For a thinner hull, we will have to make-do with the reduced diving depth and extra structural design cost.

So it seems to me the 2m less approach does make sense. But I am not a naval architect or structural engineer, so please take it with a shipload of salt and feel free to whip.

 

[ASSAIL]

For those not familiar with modern commercial evacuation systems, as fitted to the LHDs the following video of one of them deploying is of interest. The blue tubes in the video have a spiral structure inside which enables a slow decent into the rafts.

https://youtu.be/wUTNiZr2UwE

 

[Massive]

and its easily updated, its gone through a raft of improvements and all were basically software code changes

Interesting point.

Though this would also be the same for, say, millenium guns.

For SeaRAM would it just be software updates as well (to system and to missiles?)

Regards,

Massive

 

[Volkodav]

Interesting point.

Though this would also be the same for, say, millenium guns.

For SeaRAM would it just be software updates as well (to system and to missiles?)

Regards,

Massive

Yes but the difference is the Phalanx was original equipment in the FFGs so we basically selected by default. Once it was in service it was perfectly logical to acquire additional systems rather then go to the effort of selecting and then having to support something different. With the various upgrades and improvements available, as well as the existing support system it just never made sense to acquire anything else while the existing system remained competative.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Shortfin wont have to match a SSN at speed. The drag from the additional 2m of length will be very minimal, of the order of a single percent or less, and more than made up from extra battery capacity.

I am almost certain hull thickness will be the same as the French. If we are changing hull thickness we might as well clean sheet.

I doubt you can make a submariner's bunk any smaller, they are already shorter than my body height and with the increasing height of future Australians your likely to make the subs uncrewable. We could go back to hot bunking or using hammocks.

Smaller subs don't necessary mean quieter subs.

 

[vonnoobie]

Shortfin wont have to match a SSN at speed. The drag from the additional 2m of length will be very minimal, of the order of a single percent or less, and more than made up from extra battery capacity.

I am almost certain hull thickness will be the same as the French. If we are changing hull thickness we might as well clean sheet.

I doubt you can make a submariner's bunk any smaller, they are already shorter than my body height and with the increasing height of future Australians your likely to make the subs uncrewable. We could go back to hot bunking or using hammocks.

Smaller subs don't necessary mean quieter subs.

Perhaps.. but people a lot smarter then you or I have seen fit to make them slightly shorter so there must be a logical reason for it.

As it is it isnt the hull we are getting anyway, The Barracuda is only a reference point with some chararistics of the hull being pulled over onto our boat's, along with all the advanced tech (And anything we can get from the US/UK) to create an entirely new boat.

In any case it is a question that is not likely to ever be answered until I'm losing my mind because that would entail them giving out knowledge of both our future submarines and the French submarines, Something neither Australia nor France will do until both classes are long decommissioned at which point I'll be pushing my 90's....

 

[hairyman]

Getting back to the phalanx, if they were first selected for our OHPerrys, I would suggest that they are close to being outdated. What are the latest European ships using in their place?

 

[John Newman]

Getting back to the phalanx, if they were first selected for our OHPerrys, I would suggest that they are close to being outdated. What are the latest European ships using in their place?

They are being upgraded.

Have a read of the link in my post above.

 

[vonnoobie]

Not sure they are being outdated but does appear the RAN isn't going ahead with them no questions asked with our future ships. The 2 new systems being acquired are purely for testing so our future Frigates may or may not have them.

 

[Redlands18]

Not sure they are being outdated but does appear the RAN isn't going ahead with them no questions asked with our future ships. The 2 new systems being acquired are purely for testing so our future Frigates may or may not have them.

As far as i know there is no publicly released information on what Weapon systems will be used on the new Frigates, it's all conjecture at this stage. Will they refurbish weapons from the Anzacs? Mk 41 VLS is a probable but will it be Tac length or Strike length. SSMs are way up in the air, with VLS Launched weapons on the horizon. If they give the new Frigates a CIWS each than we will need at least 17 systems in the future. And is a SLCM in the picture for the Frigates.

 

[Richo99]

Not sure they are being outdated but does appear the RAN isn't going ahead with them no questions asked with our future ships. The 2 new systems being acquired are purely for testing so our future Frigates may or may not have them.

Cant understand why we need 2 extra ciws for testing purposes "to inform the self-defence capability requirements for the RAN’s Future Frigate program" when the RAN has been using the system for 20+ years and is well and truely familiar with its capabilities. RAN comments do not say that they are 'purely' for testing purposes.

I would also note that the 2 extra systems are being purchased under project Sea 1654 (ie the new Cantabria tankers).

Whilst it has been noted that 2 of the existing phalanx will be fitted to the new tankers (1 each), Navantia images of the tankers show 2 systems per ship ie one for one aft.

These three facts suggest that a) the systems are not just for testing, and b) the 2 extras will be fitted to the tankers and will not be available for the future frigates.

 

[gf0012-aust]

just to get some clarity into the hull thickness debate

there is no relationship between hull thickness and hull rating for subs - ie its not necessarily so

hull strength is a metallurgical issue, not a thickness issue

 

[Volkodav]

just to get some clarity into the hull thickness debate

there is no relationship between hull thickness and hull rating for subs - ie its not necessarily so

hull strength is a metallurgical issue, not a thickness issue

Yep, frames, deep ones, shallow ones and their spacing, including the numerous location of one to clock officers in the noggin when leaving a particular compartment.

 

[pussertas]

Names for Australia's new Submarines

First launched Barracuda 1A Class: HMAS Besant
Second Launched: HMAS Stoker


We rely should give Teddy Sheehan another mention since like all the above the Poms denied him a VC.
:

 

[alexsa]

First launched Barracuda 1A Class: HMAS Besant
Second Launched: HMAS Stoker


We rely should give Teddy Sheehan another mention since like all the above the Poms denied him a VC.
:

Besant and Stoker are already in use for the DMS RGS and EGS vessels which support defense submarine rescue services.

 

[Milne Bay]

Probably better to stop the bus, back it up a bit, and have a look at the 'big' picture, rather than the dot on the wall.

As has been mentioned here numerous times, there is currently a 'pool' of 12 Phalanx, and it appears that another two will be ordered reasonably soonish(?) for the Future Frigates, have a read of this:

Where to now for naval missiles?

As it stands at the moment there are 3 x FFG's fitted with (or capable of being fitted with) Phalanx, and don't forget they are also equipped with Nulka(?) and ESSM too (and as these three remaining FFG's retire and are replaced by the AWD's, their Phalanx will no doubt go back into the 'pool').

The eight Anzacs, as has been discussed and reported, have top weight issues, so no Phalanx fitted, but have Nulka and ESSM.

So as it appears the 'pool' of 12 is just about sufficient at the moment.

Now moving forward....

The plan is to have the 3 x AWD's fitted with 1 x Phalanx as they enter service, the plan appears to be that the 2 x LHD's will be upgraded/equipped with up to 3 x Phalanx each and also Choules to receive 1 x Phalanx and the two new AOR's (2019 and 2020) 1 x Phalanx each.

So if you add all of that up, it equals 12, and that equals the 12 in the pool too.

so moving forward again.....

Somewhere in around 10 years the first of the Future Frigates should replace the first of the Anzacs to retire.

So lets 'assume' that Phalanx (or another future upgraded version) is still in RAN inventory at that time around the mid 2020's or beyond.

The requirement would possibly look like this:
* 3 x AWD (1 each)
* 2 x LHD (3 each)
* 1 x Choules (1)
* 2 x AOR (1 each)
* 9 x Future Frigate (1 each, the nine will come into service over a long period too)

Added to that is the possibility of the additional AOR or Choules type ship (mid 2020's and beyond), add another mount to the requirement.

If each ship was in commission, and if each was equipped with the appropriate number of mounts that would total 22 mounts.

I would imagine that if the RAN eventually ended up with a 'pool' of around 20 mounts, that would cover all bases, and again not all ships are or will be in service/commission at the one time.


Of course if the 'poo hit the fan', one would hope that we could possibly obtain additional mounts from the USN pool sooner rather than later, and a couple of example could be that the AOR's and Choules might require/end up with a 'second' mount.

Anyway....

Cheers,

From the link:

Such a move has long been anticipated, given that the self-defence capabilities for such large and important assets are presently limited to four 25mm Typhoon remotely-controlled weapon systems. While these should be effective against asymmetric attacks, they would be incapable of dealing with any anti-ship guided missiles that might escape the defensive screen thrown up by accompanying escorts.


This is an interesting statement - especially considering that some of the accompanying escorts (Anzac class) do not have any CIWS themselves.
This could possibly lead to a situation where the LHD's might survive and the escorts are lost.
MB

 

[ASSAIL]

From the link:

Such a move has long been anticipated, given that the self-defence capabilities for such large and important assets are presently limited to four 25mm Typhoon remotely-controlled weapon systems. While these should be effective against asymmetric attacks, they would be incapable of dealing with any anti-ship guided missiles that might escape the defensive screen thrown up by accompanying escorts.


This is an interesting statement - especially considering that some of the accompanying escorts (Anzac class) do not have any CIWS themselves.
This could possibly lead to a situation where the LHD's might survive and the escorts are lost.
MB

I think ESSM and CEAFAR can look after the Anzacs, they've proven to be very effective at Barking Sands.

 

[vonnoobie]

I think ESSM and CEAFAR can look after the Anzacs, they've proven to be very effective at Barking Sands.

99.99% unlikely to ever happen but theoretically could we install a VLS system with CEAFAR into some of our other larger non combat asset's? (LHD's, Choules, AOR's etc).

Budget alone would make this a fairy wish item but just curious if it is technically possible.

 

[Milne Bay]

I think ESSM and CEAFAR can look after the Anzacs, they've proven to be very effective at Barking Sands.

Yes of course, but the article assumes that the same escorts have let through leakers:

While these should be effective against asymmetric attacks, they would be incapable of dealing with any anti-ship guided missiles that might escape the defensive screen thrown up by accompanying escorts.

Leakers, by their very nature have not been dealt with by ESSM and CEAFAR - hard to see how the escorts themselves are not vulnerable.
MB