Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
t68
Well-Known Member
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.
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.
Last edited:
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.
My main point is, looking at the choices, is the FREMM really offering Australia the best in terms of current and future capability in a seriously complex and increasingly hostile maritime environment? I would argue that no, it’s not. European nations can afford to have less capable (in armament) vessels, however, this is offset by a generally much larger fleet to call upon through the NATO alliance. Australia does not have this to fall back on, is essentially by itself in this region and a long way from the United States. 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, and just in that regard would have to have much lower future upgrade potential.
Maybe if we were buying 12 or more of the things, but 9? I simply don't think it's enough especially considering the arguably - on the light side, armament. 48 VLS or better yet 64 I'd be happy with, given the SEA5000 vessel will be the main surface combatant for the RAN, but 32 (max) for the next 30 odd years? Looking at how the PLAN are leaping ahead in terms of capability, I simply don't believe a vessel based on the FREMM will offer anything substantial against near and future threats in our region. The problem is not the threat now, but the threat in 20 odd years. A FREMM in its GP or ASW variant might be decent in a European context now, but would those same variants be able to offer anything substantial in a future fight against some of the planned PLAN destroyers in the next 2-3 decades?
Maybe if we were buying 12 or more of the things, but 9? I simply don't think it's enough especially considering the arguably - on the light side, armament. 48 VLS or better yet 64 I'd be happy with, given the SEA5000 vessel will be the main surface combatant for the RAN, but 32 (max) for the next 30 odd years? Looking at how the PLAN are leaping ahead in terms of capability, I simply don't believe a vessel based on the FREMM will offer anything substantial against near and future threats in our region. The problem is not the threat now, but the threat in 20 odd years. A FREMM in its GP or ASW variant might be decent in a European context now, but would those same variants be able to offer anything substantial in a future fight against some of the planned PLAN destroyers in the next 2-3 decades?
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).
From a design, build and end user point of view, having a mostly similar ship (said to be about 70% commonality with Hobart Class DDG), just makes much more sense than introducing an arguably less capable ship in the FREMM.
While I think the Type 26 would be the best of the bunch, I'm realistic in that I don't think the design will be ready before RAN needs to get the ball rolling. That's why Navantia, in my opinion, should get the nod.
John Newman
The Bunker Group
Sorry, but I beg to differ, go back just over two years ago to June 2014:
Defence Ministers » Minister for Defence – Boosting Australia’s maritime capabilities
The relevant quotes are:
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.
Anyway, just my opinion of course!
Cheers,
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
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?
Even at 6900t, the Italian FREMM still only carries 2/3 the VLS cells maximum, would need to cut into embarked personnel numbers to install the second set of 16 VLS cells to get to the total.
With the Navantia offering, we'd basically have the same ship in service with the AWD, 70% commonality as stated by Navantia with the AWD, a base design the builders are already competent with and a better weapons load out than the RAN would ever get on any FREMM version.
Seems like a no-brainer to me. Just a damn shame we didn't get the Gibbs & Cox version.... 12 of those in service? Yes please.
They are pretty close in maximum displacement, I wouldn't get too caught up on that, these days everyone seems to quote maximum displacement.
FREMM is nice but I do wonder if its there as a bit of a benchmark for both the Type 26 and the F-105 proposals. There isn't a lot of time to get ready if we must cut steel in 2020. But as we have seen anything is possible.
F-105 I imagine would make integration a fair bit easier, it already has the weapon systems we want to use. We are also tooled up to produce them so it is pretty low risk.
I wonder if we want something more amphibious assault rather than amphibious landing. Particularly with the LHD self protection systems..
I see Japan ordered 4 more MV-22's.. My god, they are not cheap!
FREMM is nice but I do wonder if its there as a bit of a benchmark for both the Type 26 and the F-105 proposals. There isn't a lot of time to get ready if we must cut steel in 2020. But as we have seen anything is possible.
F-105 I imagine would make integration a fair bit easier, it already has the weapon systems we want to use. We are also tooled up to produce them so it is pretty low risk.
I wonder if we want something more amphibious assault rather than amphibious landing. Particularly with the LHD self protection systems..
I see Japan ordered 4 more MV-22's.. My god, they are not cheap!
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?
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?
From my understanding (which could be flawed so apologies) thinner beamed ships are great for speed and fuel economy, But no so great in how much top weight they can sustain, situation even more hampered based on what sort of environment's the ship will be operating in and Australia does have some rough seas around her.
If my understanding is correct then the bigger beam is more suitable to Australia and her needs. No doubt any of the vessel's we choose would be an improvement over the Anzac in stability (beam of 14.8m).
----
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?
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.
The army can deploy the LCM-8 for extended periods of time as they have been modified to have basic habitat features such as a toilet and shower. The LCM1-e was never designed to deploy away from it's parent LHD for more than a couple of hours (I could be wrong, so I stand to be corrected).
For any new LCM (and any other vessel) to be able to deploy by itself for a couple of days it should comply with the current AMSA requirements. This includes toilet and shower facilities, potable water or a water maker, black and grey holding tanks or a compliant sewerage treatment plant, galley, and then we have the actual sleeping accommodation.
From my perspective the DWP is giving the army what they have requested and what they need. If that replacement is faster, has a greater range, greater pay load capacity, and better sea keeping qualities, then that is a bonus. Especially if it allows the LHD's to have more operating flexibility to operate further out and not have to hang around to recover it's landing craft.
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.
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.
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.
Hopefully they have learnt their lesson from the ANZACs. In many cases gear such as genset can have precisely the same footprint as the gear it replaces as as you can essentially use an updated version of the same unit with greater output (and I hope they do). If the Navy is going to comply with international conventions (as they have stated they will) then some items (particularly prime movers) will have to changed during the build process to comply with MARPOL Annex VI and its evolving requirements.
Joe Black
Active Member
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.
Electric motors are great for ASW work as they are much quieter. For the AWD derived Sea 5000 to work, one need to look at an alternate engine design plus the difference in the gearbox, etc.
Furthermore, I feel that both T26 and FREMM have better stealth shaping than the AWD. Most of the weapon systems are hidden within the seaframe/hull rather than being highly visible, thus likely to present the highest RCS to a sea skimmer.
I am not suggesting that therefore we should consider T26 or the FREMM, I am just simply highlighting that non of the proposed solution is a winner in all departments. BTW, I also think that the proposed Navantia solution looks real ugly.
A USN LCAC has beensuccessfully landed on / in (?) the RAN LHD HMAS Canberra at RIMPAC. Another integration test that can be ticked off.
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.
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.
An article from Navy News is below:
US Navy LCAC docks successfully with HMAS Canberra | Navy Daily
- Status