Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[Aussie Digger]

"ANZAC's are NOT all that capable, hence why both Australia and NZ are spending vast sums on upgrades for them..."

Maybe that will refresh your memory.

I think what you are trying to do Popeye is to thrash out every possible non specific, non relevant arguments that hold no specific relevance. You are telling me things i already know and what others know too. Its like you vomit up your last meal and then start eating it again. Sorry, but i dont see any objectivity in your arguments. Once you have something relevant and interesting and positive then i would be glad to hear about it.

My memory is FINE Markus. As opposed to you though telling us all about the "development" of quad packed ESSM silo's, repeatedly?

ANZAC vessels are NOT, especially capable platforms.

They are a LIGHT patrol frigate and armed appropriately for that role. Unlike FFG's for instance which have a stronger anti-air capability, a stronger ASW capability an almost equivalent anti-surface capability (ANZAC has a marginal edge with 5 inch gun compared to 76mm gun on FFG's) and a greater helicopter capability, with ability to embark 2x helicopters.

The FFG's are roughly 1000 tons larger than ANZAC's and can handle rougher seas from all accounts. They are RAN's primary surface combatant until the AWD takes over, with the ANZAC providing a second tier capability.

In regional terms the ANZAC's are nothing special and their ability to go into harms way in an environment encompassing a strong air and submarine threat unescorted is limited at BEST.

Hence why I repeat my earlier assertion that they are not "all that capable".

And would you like to dispute the fact that both Australia AND New Zealand ARE spending large sums to upgrade the currently limited capability of the ANZAC Class vessels?

Or would you like to throw in a few more ad hominem attacks and avoid the discussion completely?

 

[webmaster]

Markus40,

Instead of coming up with pathetic nick names for other members, could you please maintain same level of respect for those who you disagree with as everybody else is required to do so?

Also, if you are frustated, take it out somewhere else not attacking other members and name calling. If you wish to continue to debate on DefenceTalk Forums, we will have to see that you correct this and do maintain some level of decency toward others.

I understand people disagree and sometimes it is frustrating but why make it even harder for yourself by deviating from the argument?

I hope you understand.

Thank you and enjoy!

 

[Timmy]

Anybody have any idea how many Super-Hornet are going "Down-Under"

 

[alexsa]

Interesting. Reason I asked is that the USN Burkes use a sea water compensation system to maintain stability, I figured it was a part of most modern warship designs.

Naval vessel do not have to to comply with MARPOL (they are exempted un the provisions of the convention)and as such if a Navy chose to they could use seawater and simply dump it with running it through an OWS.

The RAN has stated they will comply with MARPOL hence the need to treat all Seawater that may have be contaiminated.

If you choose not to comply with MARPOL it certainly is practical.

 

[StingrayOZ]

I think AU and NZ should act together. Sharing a ANZAC may be the first big leap in that regard. Both working together has better outcomes for all.

NZ should do something. Australia is spending 30 billion dollars+ on its already impressive navy, NZ government does nothing?

These aren't all just about fighting american wars. East Timor, Fiji, pacific in general. Securing regions against two opposing sides.

Australia needs as many Destroyers it can get its hands on. Really 5 destroyers would Allow Australia to act independantly and provide proper escorting capabilities.

I actually think the money is there, but the crews are not, not for two additional AWD's. Sharing or leasing a ANZAC at favourable rates makes both parties happy. ANZACs are good ships at what they are designed for, frigates operating under unbrellas of air cover/larger warships. AWD can provide that cover.

NZ needs to learn to trust and work with Australia in defence. Sure in business and sport we would rip your head off with a smile. But, when we are serious about securing our defence, we mean it.

 

[Markus40]

The ANZAC is one in a family of the Meko 200 with different countries adding and taking away the original design. Thats the beauty of modular design.

Quote from the Blom and Boss website:

The MEKO A ships are the next generation of surface combatants evolved from the MEKO-family and offered by Germany for the export market. They will accommodate advanced propulsion systems, sensors and weaponry while providing improved survivability using low-observable technologies and design. Retrofit and upgrade processes will be easily carried out thanks to a modular open architecture and cutting-edge construction techniques.

The MEKO A-200 Anti-Air Warfare (AAW) frigate has been developed to provide are air defense against advanced airborne threats. They feature two 16-cell VLS at the center of the ship and a 8-cell VLS at the stem deck. The APAR multi-function radar and SMART-L search radar employed onboard the LCF and F124-class frigates will be also provided for the A-200 frigates, integration of the AN/SPY-1F radar system is also possible. Eight Anti-ship missiles, 2 RAM close-in weapon systems, and a 127mm naval gun complete the weapon system. A helicopter hangar and flight deck are located at the stern of the ship for a single medium/light ASW helicopter.

The ANZAC, like the Greek MEKO was designed for 2 MK41 8 cell packs giving a total of 16 cells. Australia only fitted on pack hence the 8 cells.

If you look at the attached picture of Warramunga the plated are next tot he VS behind the funnel is the spot for the second Mk41. Space and weight have already been provided.

Quad packing ESSM will add mass above the CoG but noting the Turkish MEKO carry sparrow in a trainable aluncher one deck higher (wiht thea deed mass of the system) and up to three CIWS this suggests our engine/fuel configuration has a lot to do with the top weight issue. Just to illustrate the point the Greeks MEKO carry 16 sparrow (not ESSM) but also carry harpoon two decks higher, the additional FCS and two CIWS.

 

[Tasman]

Just a quick comment re the Iranian Navy v the RAN. It is very comforting knowing that all cultures appreciate the meaning of "f*** off" Well done lads!!.

"F*** off! reinforced by a well armed boarding party in a defendable position certainly proved to be effective. The RAN commander made a wise choice to order the boarding party out of the RHIB and onto the cargo ship where they set up appropriate defensive positions. Firm language accompanied by pointed machine guns does have a fairly persuasive effect!

Cheers

 

[Markus40]

What i do think is that NZ is a far smaller country than Australia and has far less resources available to provide a sustainable and front edge Naval force that would be required to add significantly to the Australia and NZ Strategic environment.

Because we do have a pacifist government that has long had a reputation for slashing Defence Budgets and building the most minimum of Defence force assets, its hard to see that anything much will change unless we get a change of government.

The ANZACs are really the teeth in NZs Defence right now and nothing more else. And we only have 2 of them. Because the ANZAC is a very capable and good ship its a pity NZ isnt cashing more in on purchasing more. My belief is that this would do wonders for the NZ economy. With a crew of 163 there shouldnt be any reason why NZ cant crew an extra ANZAC namely the HMAS ANZAC if a 4th Destroyer was built. But good on you for bringing this up, this makes alot of sense.

I think AU and NZ should act together. Sharing a ANZAC may be the first big leap in that regard. Both working together has better outcomes for all.

NZ should do something. Australia is spending 30 billion dollars+ on its already impressive navy, NZ government does nothing?

These aren't all just about fighting american wars. East Timor, Fiji, pacific in general. Securing regions against two opposing sides.

Australia needs as many Destroyers it can get its hands on. Really 5 destroyers would Allow Australia to act independantly and provide proper escorting capabilities.

I actually think the money is there, but the crews are not, not for two additional AWD's. Sharing or leasing a ANZAC at favourable rates makes both parties happy. ANZACs are good ships at what they are designed for, frigates operating under unbrellas of air cover/larger warships. AWD can provide that cover.

NZ needs to learn to trust and work with Australia in defence. Sure in business and sport we would rip your head off with a smile. But, when we are serious about securing our defence, we mean it.

 

[Tasman]

The MEKO A-200 Anti-Air Warfare (AAW) frigate has been developed to provide are air defense against advanced airborne threats. They feature two 16-cell VLS at the center of the ship and a 8-cell VLS at the stem deck. The APAR multi-function radar and SMART-L search radar employed onboard the LCF and F124-class frigates will be also provided for the A-200 frigates, integration of the AN/SPY-1F radar system is also possible. Eight Anti-ship missiles, 2 RAM close-in weapon systems, and a 127mm naval gun complete the weapon system. A helicopter hangar and flight deck are located at the stern of the ship for a single medium/light ASW helicopter.

The MEKO A-200 AAW frigate is a next generation frigate designed for export and evolved from the basic MEKO 200 design. The design is a development of the existing MEKO 200 frigates like the Anzac class. With a comparatively small crew (130) I think they, or a variant based on them, would provide a nice follow on frigate to replace the Anzacs and supplement the F100s. 4x F100s and 8 of these could be crewed by the same number of personnel as 3x F100s and 8x Anzacs.

http://www.deagel.com/Frigates/MEKO-A-200-AAW_a000403001.aspx

Cheers

 

[Markus40]

It would seem that i have offended someone and my sincere apologese if i have seemingly crossed the line. My true aim is to bring an objective, positive and open minded argument based on the current topic, focusing on the facts rather than speculation.

Due to alot of speculation and hearsay its sometimes very hard to see the wood for the trees, however i am very pleased and happy with the informed input put together by the other members of the forum and i will from now on concentrate my efforts on their excellent information. I much prefer to enter a dialogue with others who i can learn from and build up my own level of communication and sensible reasoning which adds to my knowledge on the forum. I would like to thank you for the opportunity to be able to contribute in a manner that is becoming and gentlemanly to the other members who show factual wisdom and respect.


Markus40

Markus40,

Instead of coming up with pathetic nick names for other members, could you please maintain same level of respect for those who you disagree with as everybody else is required to do so?

Also, if you are frustated, take it out somewhere else not attacking other members and name calling. If you wish to continue to debate on DefenceTalk Forums, we will have to see that you correct this and do maintain some level of decency toward others.

I understand people disagree and sometimes it is frustrating but why make it even harder for yourself by deviating from the argument?

I hope you understand.

Thank you and enjoy!

 

[Markus40]

Yes i realise that this article was for the next generation of Meko. Im trying to find information that validates that the original Meko design had incorporated a 16 cell launcher. Is there such an article?

Due to the Export Meko designed in Germany there are many prototypes due to its modular design. This is one of the very positive aspects of the design. The options for the countries that purchased this model have opted for a range of different layouts that serve the needs of that particular country. Interesting to see this in full detail.

The MEKO A-200 AAW frigate is a next generation frigate designed for export and evolved from the basic MEKO 200 design. The design is a development of the existing MEKO 200 frigates like the Anzac class. With a comparatively small crew (130) I think they, or a variant based on them, would provide a nice follow on frigate to replace the Anzacs and supplement the F100s. 4x F100s and 8 of these could be crewed by the same number of personnel as 3x F100s and 8x Anzacs.

http://www.deagel.com/Frigates/MEKO-A-200-AAW_a000403001.aspx

Cheers

 

[Tasman]

Yes i realise that this article was for the next generation of Meko. Im trying to find information that validates that the original Meko design had incorporated a 16 cell launcher. Is there such an article?

Here is one. It is not an official RAN site but the info reinforces what has been published in various books and magazines such as Australian Seapower, FRIGATES, Profile 6, Topmill Press, Marrickville, NSW.

http://www.geocities.com/randomsran/AnzacFFH.html

Cheers

 

[alexsa]

The ANZAC is one in a family of the Meko 200 with different countries adding and taking away the original design. Thats the beauty of modular design.

Quote from the Blom and Boss website:

The MEKO A ships are the next generation of surface combatants evolved from the MEKO-family and offered by Germany for the export market. They will accommodate advanced propulsion systems, sensors and weaponry while providing improved survivability using low-observable technologies and design. Retrofit and upgrade processes will be easily carried out thanks to a modular open architecture and cutting-edge construction techniques.

The MEKO A-200 Anti-Air Warfare (AAW) frigate has been developed to provide are air defense against advanced airborne threats. They feature two 16-cell VLS at the center of the ship and a 8-cell VLS at the stem deck. The APAR multi-function radar and SMART-L search radar employed onboard the LCF and F124-class frigates will be also provided for the A-200 frigates, integration of the AN/SPY-1F radar system is also possible. Eight Anti-ship missiles, 2 RAM close-in weapon systems, and a 127mm naval gun complete the weapon system. A helicopter hangar and flight deck are located at the stern of the ship for a single medium/light ASW helicopter.

I know what the MEKO range of ships is and I am not talking aobut the MEKO 200-AAW. In basic english the MEKO 200 - ANZAC frigate was designed to take 2 Mk41 launchers after of the funnel giving a total of 16 cells. The space for the second set is there but plated over (proably used as a store room for all i know).

The fact that this was done and the ship now 'appears' to have top weight issues are seperate to this fact.

 

[Izzy1]

Great to see the Aussies bringing in some more new kit in the form of F100 and the LHD's, can't fail to be impressed with the current procurements being made for Australia's defence as a whole; what with C-17, A330 MRTT and F-18E/F to name but a few.

Just wondering out loud though, would the RAN ever consider a SSN purchase to give it a long-endurance patrol capability? Granted, there may not be the need at the moment for such an extravagent purchase and fears of raising the stakes in terms of a regional arms-race must be considered. I also accept there could be domestic political ramifications of "going nuclear" in terms of propulsion as such for Australia.

But given the thread, does anyone here believe the circumstances could change to warrant such a development?

 

[Tasman]

Great to see the Aussies bringing in some more new kit in the form of F100 and the LHD's, can't fail to be impressed with the current procurements being made for Australia's defence as a whole; what with C-17, A330 MRTT and F-18E/F to name but a few.

Just wondering out loud though, would the RAN ever consider a SSN purchase to give it a long-endurance patrol capability? Granted, there may not be the need at the moment for such an extravagent purchase and fears of raising the stakes in terms of a regional arms-race must be considered. I also accept there could be domestic political ramifications of "going nuclear" in terms of propulsion as such for Australia.

But given the thread, does anyone here believe the circumstances could change to warrant such a development?

Australian political parties have had a long time anti nuclear stance which includes nuclear power for ships and even nuclear power stations. The country has only one nuclear reactor which is for research purposes. However, the present government has now indicated that it believes Australia should reopen the nuclear power debate. It now seems that the present governing party would favour nuclear power but the opposition Labor Party and, of course, the Greens have indicated strong opposition. If the government retains power after the election later this year Australia may begin a move to nuclear power and the possibility of nuclear powered submarines might at least be considered. If Labor wins (as opinion polls suggest is likely) I think the possibility of SSNs is unlikely to even be considered before the replacements for the Collins class themselves need replacing!

Cheers

 

[Markus40]

If the RAN is heading towards a more strategic and global reach with the new advent now of new ships there is a plausable argument on the basis of longer range Submarines, but from the information i know that the Collins SSK have a snort reach of over 9000 NM. Thats pretty good, and armed with the Harpoon and fitted but not with a land based cruise missile make the Collins a very good weapon system. Thank God they managed to clean up the noise issues and computer system that plagued this class for many years.

Another thought in mind that now with Indonesia having placed orders for long reach Russian Subs this maybe on the mind of the War planners in Canberra.

Australian political parties have had a long time anti nuclear stance which includes nuclear power for ships and even nuclear power stations. The country has only one nuclear reactor which is for research purposes. However, the present government has now indicated that it believes Australia should reopen the nuclear power debate. It now seems that the present governing party would favour nuclear power but the opposition Labor Party and, of course, the Greens have indicated strong opposition. If the government retains power after the election later this year Australia may begin a move to nuclear power and the possibility of nuclear powered submarines might at least be considered. If Labor wins (as opinion polls suggest is likely) I think the possibility of SSNs is unlikely to even be considered before the replacements for the Collins class themselves need replacing!

Cheers

 

[icelord]

But who the hell would crew them?
We have enough trouble crewing Collins without a SSN and then we don't even have Tomahawks at present, which would be a major Advantage of an SSN.
And the collins are the best Conventional Diesal Subs in the world at present, and the Indo Subs will have enough trouble finding them as it stands without the need for an SSN. Even with the longer Range they are not part of the "Defence of the Realm" so to speak. The Arguments against the SSNs when Aus looked at Oberon Replacements was that they would be of little benefit when the role of the Sub in RAN Doctrine is to stop Enemy transports and fleets reaching the Coastline. They only go outside of the Defence posture when on tour to allied countries like Japan or US.
This is the same as an argument for 8 Collins, theres no urgent requirment at present, and we only operate 4 out of 6 Collins at any rate because of the Overall issue with the RAN, manpower(and womenpower thank you)

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Great to see the Aussies bringing in some more new kit in the form of F100 and the LHD's, can't fail to be impressed with the current procurements being made for Australia's defence as a whole; what with C-17, A330 MRTT and F-18E/F to name but a few.

Just wondering out loud though, would the RAN ever consider a SSN purchase to give it a long-endurance patrol capability? Granted, there may not be the need at the moment for such an extravagent purchase and fears of raising the stakes in terms of a regional arms-race must be considered. I also accept there could be domestic political ramifications of "going nuclear" in terms of propulsion as such for Australia.

But given the thread, does anyone here believe the circumstances could change to warrant such a development?

It would signal a large shift in marritime doctrine and the employment of submarines for the RAN if we did go nuclear. The primary objective of the Collins SSK's is provide the submerged peice of a doctorine designed to make it very very difficult for anyone to project a naval task force into the sea air gap to the north of Australia. This doctorine is similar to the one used by the soviets in the north atlantic, with an australian feel. Utilising very capable ISR assets such as JORN (Jindabee Over The Horizon Radar Network) and the Wedgetail AEW&C, a combined attack with SSK's and 4 squadrons of harpoon equiped tactical fighters is a formidable combination and arguably one that only the USN could handle, albeit with real trouble.

The Collins does have a secondary role of long range marritime interdiction, and given its range could escort a task force centered arround the LHD's, due to their relatively slow speed. However going SSN would signal a huge shift away from a primarily defencive role, those dead quiet SSK's are perfect in this type of scenario, the SSN's are geared towards power projection. unless we see a really large shift towards an purely expeditionary stance, i dont see it happening, and thats not considering the political, cost and manning issues.

 

[StingrayOZ]

A few things before GF pops in..

Collins is a SSG. Its far, far more capable than the SSK's which usually refer to small euro, green water boats that sit around not doing much. Collins can launch SAS, retrive SAS, harpoon and other simular weapons and a number of other duties.

SSN are super expensive to run. Australia doesn't have the infrastructure either. You need several commercial reactors to be able to viably run a SSN. The collins replacement apparently is not nuclear. But it will no doubt be even more capable, with various AIP avalible today, making strong arguments against nuclear power (which is fairly noisy as well as costly).

The LHD is quiet slow, so collins would easily be able to keep up or around snorting. Australia won't have a super fast task force like the americans running around at 30+ kts. Being slower also makes detection of other subs easier and more likely.

Australia can have quiet a powerful conventional fleet. It is very friendly with several nations that run SSN's but don't have conventionals, so on the odd mission that really requires one, a favour can be called in.



The real question is where does Australia go after 4 or 5 F-100 (lets say evolved type), 2 LHD (lets say with F-35bs), and various other planned upgrades. Theres not a whole lot more the ADF can aquire off a wish list.

Tomahawk (rumored)? A dedicated carrier (CVF)? F-22 (argued)? another 5,000 troops in boots (already planned)? All pretty far off, expensive and which would be the most useful? Where does the ADF go from here?

 

[Izzy1]

Tasman, Markus40, icelord, Ozzy Blizzard, StingrayOZ - Thank you all. Nice to hear a balanced, informed argument.