Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[Aussie Bhoy]

HMAS Stuart is out of the dock at Henderson. The last of the Anzac Frigate ASMD upgrades. It seems to have been a very successful project.

One question, what was the reason for enclosing the quarterdeck as part of the upgrades? Strengthening the helicopter deck, better seakeeping, or something else?

 

[oldsig127]

One question, what was the reason for enclosing the quarterdeck as part of the upgrades? Strengthening the helicopter deck, better seakeeping, or something else?

As I understand it, in order to increase the buoyancy margins (excuse me if I've used the wrong term!) to cope with the increased displacement. So you could say - better seakeeping I guess. Or so they'd still stay on the proper side of the wet bit.

oldsig

 

[Volkodav]

As I understand it, in order to increase the buoyancy margins (excuse me if I've used the wrong term!) to cope with the increased displacement. So you could say - better seakeeping I guess. Or so they'd still stay on the proper side of the wet bit.

oldsig

Yep spot on, ASMD added a lot of weight fairly high up which required the addition of a fair amount of ballast to maintain stability. As you said the displacement increased substantially which means draft increased and freeboard reduced. I don't imagine the smokers in the crews will be too happy, that was where they were banished for their fixes.

 

[Hazdog]

Here is the article in question,

Hopefully we implement the ideas and execution of these upgrades into the future.

Sunset for ASMD upgrades as HMAS Stuart undocks.

 

[Samoa]

Yep spot on, ASMD added a lot of weight fairly high up which required the addition of a fair amount of ballast to maintain stability. As you said the displacement increased substantially which means draft increased and freeboard reduced. I don't imagine the smokers in the crews will be too happy, that was where they were banished for their fixes.

Well actually.... the replies are imply the quarter deck was plated in to recover buoyancy. This is not the case. The ballast was added to offset adverse seakeeping impacts, that is correct (ie. stability). The quarter deck treatment was part of a wider range of improvements to reduce RCS impacts of the open deck structure. Doing so had many side benefits. The quarter deck in the original design (even before ASMD) would often suffer from wash in higher seas, and stored materials (in this case wheely bins !) would end up over the side. During HMAS ANZAC initial sea trials the test and trials team had to rush the rear door and lock it, during astern manoeuvres when it was discovered the sea conditions was conducive to flooding of the quarter deck. Certainly the plating in of the quarter deck has even more benefits on an ASMD configured ship, as the ship's waterline is now higher. Other benefits includes adding new "compartments" to the ship, while not completely water tight, they are suitable for a lot more practical usage than previous. The smokers are now relegated to the "waist" between the fore mast house and the ASMD mast, but even that space has plans underway.

 

[Samoa]

Bang on, the IMO Noise code is a good reference for those who are interested. Even commercial ships have maximum noise level standards applied to the living and working spaces.

Yes that is true, but my statement was trying to hint at the fact that compartment audible noise limits are not the same as an ASW ship's requirement for low acoustic noise transmission through water. The article seems to try and tie the two together, while they are related (ie. both noise), it implies the ship must be a quiet ASW platform, which may not be the case. Under water radiated noise (URN) also covers frequencies which are of interest as they propagate through seawater, and can be used to characteristic the platform from which they radiated from. The ULF (ultra low frequencies) are more synonymous to vibration, as opposed to audible frequencies, such as speech and the like (30Hz to 3kHz), which do not propagate as well. It's just a simple matter of journalistic licence, which never lets details get in the way of a good story.

 

[Mark_Evans]

Just a newby so forgive me if this has been covered already. Would Australia get any value out of a Littoral Combat Ship (austal independace class) with a detuned engine to improve range? Something floating around off top of western australia with remote survelliance drones?

 

[Todjaeger]

Just a newby so forgive me if this has been covered already. Would Australia get any value out of a Littoral Combat Ship (austal independace class) with a detuned engine to improve range? Something floating around off top of western australia with remote survelliance drones?

Probably not. The LCS has the crew size and armament of a large, well-armed OPV but is the size and cost of a frigate. Also due to the construction, there is limited future growth potential, especially once the mission module displacement gets factored in. IMO the RAN would be better served by a conventionally designed mono-hulled frigate or OPV in whatever role the LCS would be getting utilized for.

 

[hauritz]

Defence Technology Review - Defence Technology Review
Interesting article about the Combat system for the OPVs, could be upgraded to 9LV or equiv. As you said in a earlier post Volk, things can change.

I finally got a chance to look at this.

The adoption of that Combat System would be logical since it is on just about every other ship in the navy.

Also there seems to be a recognition that a larger hull ship could be useful in other roles other than just as a constabulary work.

The insistence on an OTH design and the tight build schedule might yet be the fly in the ointment, although I notice that none of the contenders have specified a CMS.

All the contenders are to finalise their submissions by the end of this month and it will be interesting to see which vessels will be offered.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Just a newby so forgive me if this has been covered already. Would Australia get any value out of a Littoral Combat Ship (austal independace class) with a detuned engine to improve range? Something floating around off top of western australia with remote survelliance drones?

Not specifically.

I think the sea 1180 project would want to take advantage of some aspects of the LCS program. Such as modular with systems and swing roles. Between general patrol, mine sweeping, Special ops, intelligence, anti-piracy, HDAR etc.

I think weapon systems and sensors might be something that might also transfer.

But the LCS were heavily compromised to get that speed. If you don't want the speed your really better off chasing another platform.

In Australia's case I would argue that the speed of the LCS platform could be had with a fast ferry variant. Something like a JHSV. Say a 100m-130m cat, with two LM2500's, and a top speed of ~60 kts. With expanded aviation capabilities, able to launch and operate multiple UAV's and ASW assets. I don't think we need a whole fleet of these type of ships, just the ability to lease one. They can also do intra-theater lift (if kept away from threats), HDAR etc.

The LCS program is under a bit of pressure. There is talk about ending the LCS, and the US building a traditional ship like say the, Álvaro de Bazán based frigates. Given the choice between a F-105 and a LCS, I would probably choose the F-105 for the RAN.

 

[Alf662]

Not specifically.

I think the sea 1180 project would want to take advantage of some aspects of the LCS program. Such as modular with systems and swing roles. Between general patrol, mine sweeping, Special ops, intelligence, anti-piracy, HDAR etc.

I think weapon systems and sensors might be something that might also transfer.

But the LCS were heavily compromised to get that speed. If you don't want the speed your really better off chasing another platform.

In Australia's case I would argue that the speed of the LCS platform could be had with a fast ferry variant. Something like a JHSV. Say a 100m-130m cat, with two LM2500's, and a top speed of ~60 kts. With expanded aviation capabilities, able to launch and operate multiple UAV's and ASW assets. I don't think we need a whole fleet of these type of ships, just the ability to lease one. They can also do intra-theater lift (if kept away from threats), HDAR etc.

The LCS program is under a bit of pressure. There is talk about ending the LCS, and the US building a traditional ship like say the, Álvaro de Bazán based frigates. Given the choice between a F-105 and a LCS, I would probably choose the F-105 for the RAN.

I understand where you are coming from Stingray. Sourcing a high speed catamaran would not be a problem as we have Incat and Austal that would be more than capable of supplying a vessel.

Incat Defence
No Cookies | The Mercury
Expeditionary Fast Transport | Austal: Corporate

HSV restrictions would really restrict how the RAN could operate these kind of vessels and an of the shelf commercial vessel would not have the flight deck. Susceptibility to damage would restrict its use to pretty much HADR or possibly even a dedicated hospital ship.

:idea2 Having said that I am sure that that AMSA and the RAN/ADF could come to an arrangement regarding operating one if DFAT had the will to fund it's operation. :lol2

 

[alexsa]

I understand where you are coming from Stingray. Sourcing a high speed catamaran would not be a problem as we have Incat and Austal that would be more than capable of supplying a vessel.

Incat Defence
No Cookies | The Mercury
Expeditionary Fast Transport | Austal: Corporate

HSV restrictions would really restrict how the RAN could operate these kind of vessels and an of the shelf commercial vessel would not have the flight deck. Susceptibility to damage would restrict its use to pretty much HADR or possibly even a dedicated hospital ship.

:idea2 Having said that I am sure that that AMSA and the RAN/ADF could come to an arrangement regarding operating one if DFAT had the will to fund it's operation. :lol2

These vessels are not cheap to buy, operate and maintain and are designed to operate on fixed routes (in the commercial world) with a maximum sea state that is less than a similar length slower speed vessel and carry a lot less cargo.

What is the fixation with speed for HADR noting if the weather is poor that option will not be available to you. Add to this a 100m multipurpose cargo ship is going to be able to carry around 10 times the cargo uplift as the HSV and will do this in one trip using a fraction of the fuel. On the odd occasions where high speed transport might be required then chartering in is a better option.

For moving men quickly lets fact it the C17 is you go to platform noting the HSV is n to designed for opposed operations.

It is instructive that HMAS Jervis Bay (the INCAT version) was handed back PDQ after its operations in Timor.

If you have the money to use the way the USMC do it works but that is for a specific task with relatively short distances. This is not a platform you could operate to Fiji or Vanuatu (as they are not equipped for this and in commercial use the PAX version have to be 4 hours from a safe haven) and would really only have a place directly to the North. We do not have that luxuary

 

[gf0012-aust]

HSV's have a;ready been rejected by RAN. One of the RAN DefPros on here was involved with evaluating them during ET

they just didn't fit into the fleet force development model and provide enough benefit

 

[Alf662]

HSV's have a;ready been rejected by RAN. One of the RAN DefPros on here was involved with evaluating them during ET

they just didn't fit into the fleet force development model and provide enough benefit

And here is an example of why AMSA place so many restrictions on HSV operations:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...ft-ships-can-t-stand-buffeting-from-high-seas

 

[StingrayOZ]

These vessels are not cheap to buy, operate and maintain and are designed to operate on fixed routes (in the commercial world) with a maximum sea state that is less than a similar length slower speed vessel and carry a lot less cargo.

What is the fixation with speed for HADR noting if the weather is poor that option will not be available to you. Add to this a 100m multipurpose cargo ship is going to be able to carry around 10 times the cargo uplift as the HSV and will do this in one trip using a fraction of the fuel. On the odd occasions where high speed transport might be required then chartering in is a better option.

For moving men quickly lets fact it the C17 is you go to platform noting the HSV is n to designed for opposed operations.

It is instructive that HMAS Jervis Bay (the INCAT version) was handed back PDQ after its operations in Timor.

If you have the money to use the way the USMC do it works but that is for a specific task with relatively short distances. This is not a platform you could operate to Fiji or Vanuatu (as they are not equipped for this and in commercial use the PAX version have to be 4 hours from a safe haven) and would really only have a place directly to the North. We do not have that luxuary

Oh definitely. But if we ever did need a fast ship specifically,would it be more likely to be a HSV type than a LCS type? I don't see Australia building a large fleet of 40kt+ LCS type ships.

Arguably with the non-replacment of the LCH ships, Australia is weaker in intra-theater lift than we were 3 years ago. The LCM's aren't going anywhere far from the LHD's, and we only have two of those and they are likely to belocated close to where they have disembarked a couple of thousand troops and supporting them, rather than roaming the islands.

If we were even to deploy a large force (multinational mission of the order of multiple regiments) in the region (PNG, Fiji etc), we would likely need some sort of fast ship logistics ship hauling small amounts of timely cargo, but to areas with no air field or large port facilities.

C17's and conventional cargo ships can haul into a airport or large shipping port. But beyond that, in our region logistics would be tough. We certainly don't have a large Chinook fleet to haul large distances and would be a waste if there were austere ports available. Most of the region has a fractured road network or archipelagos with distances which make rotary assets of limited use due to range. Even in a HDAR type situation, particularly for medical/tourist evacuation, medical supplies etc.

The ship that we would probably lease in such an scenario just got RPG'd. While highlighting how inappropriate it is to drive such a vessel into hot zones, it also highlights how critical it was that it leased to begin with and was targeted.

I'm not saying we should buy a bunch of them, but its more conceivable that Australia might lease that capability. More conceivable than buying a fleet of LCS. Which have simular operation and procurement costs, carry even less cargo and are even less flexible.

 

[gf0012-aust]

And here is an example of why AMSA place so many restrictions on HSV operations:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...ft-ships-can-t-stand-buffeting-from-high-seas

Not an overly accurate reflection of the issues

HSV's have done numbers of successful transoceanic missions

principle difficulties under USN service were due to an Austal design mod late build where they wanted to reduce weight. The hulls were then modified back to original strengthened specs

the other issue is that the fast twincat concept involves more than just Austal

INCAT also delivered the TSV concept to US Army which have been quite successful on transoceanic missions.

I'm not a fan of INCAT and Bob Clifford by any means, but the two different vessel types have performed very differently on similar missions to similar geolocs

as for the AMSA references, I'd wait for one of the DefPros to comment on this as they have some familiarity with AMSA

 

[alexsa]

definitely. But if we ever did need a fast ship specifically,would it be more likely to be a HSV type than a LCS type? I don't see Australia building a large fleet of 40kt+ LCS type ships. .[/QUOTE]

The Austal LCS is based on the Seaframe concept used in their 127m fast ferry which is built to the high speed craft code. This hull design is a HSV hull.

If we were even to deploy a large force (multinational mission of the order of multiple regiments) in the region (PNG, Fiji etc), we would likely need some sort of fast ship logistics ship hauling small amounts of timely cargo, but to areas with no air field or large port facilities.

.

Ok, so how is a high speed craft going to be able to operate in a port without facilities any more than any other vessel. If fitted with ramps for seaboard discharge you still need shore connectors and these cannot be provided by the HSV but are bought in by other vessels.

In ET the Jervis Bay acted as a high speed taxi .... not as the first responder. Added to this is the only place we could reasonably use such a capaabiltiy is to the north.

 

[gf0012-aust]

The Austal LCS is based on the Seaframe concept used in their 127m fast ferry which is built to the high speed craft code. This hull design is a HSV hull.

Which also acted as the baseline for the LCS via its Benchijigua Express inheritance

 

[Volkodav]

Following their experience with the ACPBs I believe it will be a long time before the RAN considers aluminium hulls again. They have their place but probably not in the RAN.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Following their experience with the ACPBs I believe it will be a long time before the RAN considers aluminium hulls again. They have their place but probably not in the RAN.

Lets hope that Austal have understood that and stop trying to flog them to AustGov

I note some plonker from Austal sprouting that all of their alloy build experience was transferable to steel builds....

must have had an interesting metallurgical background to come up with that pearlier.....