Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[ThePuss]

Building the 4th AWD will almost pay for itself with the sale of ASC. You lock in mainence contracts and a upcomming new generation of submarines and frigates after the AWD and the LHD's and it starts to look like a viable little business. Frigates may have export opportunities with atleast NZ, and the subs I imagine would be export possibilities for Canada and several other countries.

Particularly if the buyer is a well respected defence company, which as a state oddity ASC would have never been considered for. Exports of submarines could be a big winfall.

The 4th AWD has to be built for so many reasons. It makes ASC more attractive, more viable, more valuable. Australia gets a massive boost in the number of avalible AWD's at any one time. The overall number of cells australia would have (particularly useful for SM3/6). The redundancy, the fleet possibilities, etc.

I think the RAN will be very happy if it gets 2 x LHD's, 4 x AWD's, some sort of "sealift ship" to add to its 6 x subs and 8x frigates. That is a decent small blue water navy. A bigger issue is crewing...

Re the 127mm gun. Will there be a smoothbore varient?

Good Post but why would you smoothbore a naval gun?, This is not close range Tank Verse Tank Stuff.

If you want extra velocity (Range) why not
(A) increases the length of the barrel, A longer barrel gives the round a longer time to accelerate, thus giving you extra range.An Example of this is the Mod 4 Mk 45, 5" Gun which increased its calibre to 62 calibre compared a mod 2 at 54 cal. (making a barrel longer on a naval gun is much simpler than a land vehicle as weight issues are much less of an issue).
(B) Increase the Charge, A bigger Charge makes the round go further.
(c) Rocket Assit the round, Yes ERGEM has cancelled but the extra range bit worked fine, it was just the GPS system that was not up to scratch, so make ERGEM a pure ballistic system and it would work fine, abit with a reduced accuracy.

 

[swerve]

Re the 127mm gun. Will there be a smoothbore varient?

Can't see the point. Smoothbore is for high-velocity for punching holes in heavy armour at relatively short range, direct fire. Naval guns have no need to do that. They do need the best accuracy that they can get in indirect fire at extended ranges.

 

[JoeMcFriday]

I understand the logic behind the views on the timing that will see a fourth AWD being announced, they're all very compelling, like many, i feel it will happen.
It's hard not to slip into wishful thinking though, on a FUTURE fleet that includes:
3 x LHD [The third I see as a true force multiplier, not just one more ship]
4 x AWD [Why aren't they called DDGs?]
6 X FFGs [or FFHs? To replace Anzacs and based on the AWD hull?]
9 x MPC [Multi-purpose Corvettes but mainly tasked for ASW/Escort/Patrol duties built in WA]
3 x AOR [ or multi-role fleet replenishment ships if there is a suitable vessel type]
6 x SSG [Collins replacement]
Plus of course sufficient Helos, Patrol boats, sealift capacity, mine-sweepers, small specialised craft etc in numbers that are sufficient to be effective and of types that can be increased, replaced or repaired quickly if need be.
Would this list provide a balanced fleet? I'm not sure what number of frigates should kept if the corvettes were built? Eight needed for mainly fleet duties or what?
If there is ever a call to [ASW] patrol our main ports, the need for many cheaper, 70+ crew corvettes is obvious,I hope, as the frigates would be elsewhere in such times.
In the meantime they would see patrol or political duties that the boats can't perform but for which the frigates might be overkill or unavailable.
I know I'm only dreaming and I'm not looking to buy into an argument about political reality but what does everyone think about that list?
Apart from said political reality, what are the major flaws in for example the balance of the list?
Any suggestions of ship types to fill the available slots would be welcome too. LOL
Cheers,
Mac

 

[harryriedl]

Good Post but why would you smoothbore a naval gun?, This is not close range Tank Verse Tank Stuff.

If you want extra velocity (Range) why not
(A) increases the length of the barrel, A longer barrel gives the round a longer time to accelerate, thus giving you extra range.An Example of this is the Mod 4 Mk 45, 5" Gun which increased its calibre to 62 calibre compared a mod 2 at 54 cal. (making a barrel longer on a naval gun is much simpler than a land vehicle as weight issues are much less of an issue).
(B) Increase the Charge, A bigger Charge makes the round go further.
(c) Rocket Assit the round, Yes ERGEM has cancelled but the extra range bit worked fine, it was just the GPS system that was not up to scratch, so make ERGEM a pure ballistic system and it would work fine, abit with a reduced accuracy.

the Guided Volcano should work on the BAE mod gun same caliber and the increased range of ERGM so the RAN has a good NGS

 

[Aussie Digger]

the Guided Volcano should work on the BAE mod gun same caliber and the increased range of ERGM so the RAN has a good NGS

Vulcano is not yet qualified on the Mk 54 Mod 4 gun and will need significant testing before it would be fired by this weapon, I'd suggest.

Also the "guided" Vulcano rounds are still under development, much like all the other "guided" 127mm ammunition that is "out there".

As much as I like the idea of Vulcano, the Mk 54 Mod 4 gun achieves the same long range as the "standard" Vulcano ammunition natures fired from standard 127mm guns, but without using sub-calibre shells. I'd be quite happy if RAN "shelled out" for Vulcano on it's ANZAC frigates, which are only equipped with the shorter ranged, Mk 54 Mod 2, however the cost seems prohibitive at this time.

As the Puss pointed out, there are many ways to increase range performance if necessary. If you can achieve the same range, simply by increasing barrel length, that is going to be a cheaper option than acquiring new ammunition natures...

 

[icelord]

4 x AWD [Why aren't they called DDGs?]

If there is ever a call to [ASW] patrol our main ports, the need for many cheaper, 70+ crew corvettes is obvious,I hope, as the frigates would be elsewhere in such times.

They are not called DDGs as they are not really destroyers in a sense, more AWF, plus they would hate to admit the DDGs of old should have been replaced.

70+ corvettes would not be ideal with current manning issues, maybe bring it down to 40-50 and we'll start debating types.

 

[gf0012-aust]

70+ corvettes would not be ideal with current manning issues, maybe bring it down to 40-50 and we'll start debating types.

Start debating at 3 - not 40-50

 

[JoeMcFriday]

icelord,
Thanks for the explanation re. the 'Claytons' destroyer. LOL
Re. the corvettes, I was only proposing nine corvettes with a crew of up to 70 [including air wing] each. Sorry for my awkward phrasing but in the list it's shown as nine ships.
I had in mind the Austal MPV, locally built and very versatile.
http://www.austal.com/index.cfm?objectID=DDAD0578-65BF-EBC1-2C1EA1B423C292D9
If ever we could exceed the nine suggested all the better.
Cheers,
Mac

 

[StevoJH]

icelord,
Thanks for the explanation re. the 'Claytons' destroyer. LOL
Re. the corvettes, I was only proposing nine corvettes with a crew of up to 70 [including air wing] each. Sorry for my awkward phrasing but in the list it's shown as nine ships.
I had in mind the Austal MPV, locally built and very versatile.
http://www.austal.com/index.cfm?objectID=DDAD0578-65BF-EBC1-2C1EA1B423C292D9
If ever we could exceed the nine suggested all the better.
Cheers,
Mac

Armidale Class (From Austal Site)
Hull Type: Monohull
Length: 56 metres
Capacity: 29 manning complement
Speed: In excess of 25 knots
Accommodation : Officers: single berth, CO's cabin, 3 x 2 berth cabins. Senior Sailors: 2 x 2 berth cabins, Junior Sailors: 1 x 2 berth cabins, 4 x 4 berth cabins, Austere accommodation: 20 berths
Weapons : Primary: 25mm Rafael Typhoon Mk25 Stabilised naval gun, Secondary: 2 x 12.7mm M2HB machine guns.
Patrol Range : 3000 nm
Delivery Dates : Delivered from mid 2005 - 2007

Multi Role Vessel (from Austal Site)
Characteristics
Length: 78.5 metres LOA
Speed: >25 knots sprint
Range: 6,000 nm
Deadweight: 320 tonnes
Mission Deck: 540 m2
Flight deck: MRH-90
Accom: 43 personnel

Listed Roles:
• EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE BORDER PATROL
• COMMAND & CONTROL
• INTEGRATION, SURVEILLANCE, RECONNAISSANCE
• AT-SEA REPLENISHMENT
• SEARCH AND RESCUE
• LAW ENFORCEMENT
• FISHERIES PATROL
• FORCE TRANSPORTATION
• SPECIAL FORCES SUPPORT
• ANTI-SUBMARINE WARFARE
• MINE HUNTING
• HYDROGRAPHIC SURVEY
• HELO FLIGHT TRAINING
• LIGHT SEALIFT
• LIGHT AMPHIBIOUS OPERATIONS
• AREA OF OPERATION THEATRE HOSPITAL
• HUMANITARIAN SUPPORT

Going from the CGI images of the MRV along with the listed roles, it looks like it would make an ideal replacement for the survey vessels, Armidale class(if they werent brand new) and MCM vessels. I Assume some sort of ASW and MCM packages along the lines of the LCS would have to be developed though.

Would be interesting to know if they could be fitted with 76mm guns.

Edit: Austal site mentions Mission modules required.
Could they be marketed for the UK's C3 requirement?

 

[StingrayOZ]

They are still destroyers (Air Warfare Destroyer) and they look like turning out to be pretty capable. I honestly belive they are the best ship Australia could buy for the money for what we need. Depending on the missile load out, suitable for all and any deployment, even v.high intensity wars.

As for corvettes. Well we have patrol boats (in the 200t range), Im not sure a regular corvette type vessel is really what we need. With unique weapons and additional crewing concerns.

I would rather money spent on stuff that would be of high value. A 3rd LHD, landing craft, missiles, CIWS, LHD moveable gun boat, (fast 40+kt) patrol boats, fast sealift (HSC), F-35B (which realistically would be cheaper than a corvette and infinately more useful) etc.

I could imagine the use of having a fast corvette with say a 76mm gun (with guided munitions?) and some typhoons escorting a HSC or two. But is it a must have? If your going into harms way why not load up a LHD (tigers, troops, tanks etc) and two AWD's, a frigate or two and a collins and send the fleet in with fixed wing air support and a 1000 troops.

Speed? What threat would be be fighting against?

Regarding my smoothbore comment, I had linked smoothbores with guided munitions given they seemed to appear at the same time. I assumed guiding shells would be easier if they weren't shot out of rifled barrels. My bad. Still, if we ever go back to an age of big guns and amoured ships...

 

[JoeMcFriday]

I understand the logic behind the views on the timing that will see a fourth AWD being announced, they're all very compelling, like many, i feel it will happen.
It's hard not to slip into wishful thinking though, on a FUTURE fleet that includes:
3 x LHD [The third I see as a true force multiplier, not just one more ship]
4 x AWD [Why aren't they called DDGs?]
6 X FFGs [or FFHs? To replace Anzacs and based on the AWD hull?]
9 x MPC [Multi-purpose Corvettes but mainly tasked for ASW/Escort/Patrol duties built in WA]
3 x AOR [ or multi-role fleet replenishment ships if there is a suitable vessel type]
6 x SSG [Collins replacement]
Plus of course sufficient Helos, Patrol boats, sealift capacity, mine-sweepers, small specialised craft etc in numbers that are sufficient to be effective and of types that can be increased, replaced or repaired quickly if need be.
Would this list provide a balanced fleet? I'm not sure what number of frigates should kept if the corvettes were built? Eight needed for mainly fleet duties or what?
If there is ever a call to [ASW] patrol our main ports, the need for many cheaper, 70+ crew corvettes is obvious,I hope, as the frigates would be elsewhere in such times.
In the meantime they would see patrol or political duties that the boats can't perform but for which the frigates might be overkill or unavailable.
I know I'm only dreaming and I'm not looking to buy into an argument about political reality but what does everyone think about that list?
Apart from said political reality, what are the major flaws in for example the balance of the list?
Any suggestions of ship types to fill the available slots would be welcome too. LOL
Cheers,
Mac

StingrayOZ,
As you can see from the list above, I agree with you on the 3rd LHD and the "small specialized craft", I also listed a 4th AWD, replenishment ships and SSG in an attempt to cover the 'big ticket' items.
The idea of the corvettes is to provide a vessel that fills the gap between the Anzacs and the Armidales ie can do extended ASW patrol work or fleet duties.
The Austal design can accomodate helo ops, vehicle and troop movements, accomodate a 100 extra people, perform ASW patrols, insertions and more.
http://www.austal.com/index.cfm?objectID=DDAD0578-65BF-EBC1-2C1EA1B423C292D9
Neither the Armidales or Frigates can do all of these missions and the LHDs may not be available for smaller tasks or be 'overkill'. Able to make at least 35knots they are no slouches and require a very small crew, yet have the range to 'show the flag' wherever required and with much more versatility in tasking than either of those classes.
It is the inherent versatility in the design concept which attracts me although I think a slightly larger version, say 500 tons, would be even more versatile and should be able to carry a 76mm gun plus local air defence weapons?
I don't understand what you mean by unique weapons being a liability, I would think that as much commonality as possible would be required.
As for mission modules perhaps some of the work being done on the USNs LCS could be leveraged?
While they must be expected to go "into harms way" at some time, the Corvettes would primarily be for long endurance patrol, escort or rescue work etc, not as primary assault platforms, more like the traditional corvette role [only faster/dryer].
According to Dr. Gumley the acquisition cost of the F35a is currently at $130m per unit, so I take your point the F35b [though dearer] will be cheaper than a corvette but it is a single seater and as yet has no proven ASW or disaster relief capabilities. LOL
As for speed and what enemy, time is usually the main enemy in an emergency isn't it?
Stevo's post shows the difference between the patrol boat limits and the MP corvette's potential very well.
I think the Navy will solve its manning problems and I also think life on a corvette with a core crew of around 40 will appeal to many, as well as provide more opportunities for diversity and advancement to all ranks.
Anyway, I thought they'd be a very useful, versatile and economic addition to a future RAN.
Cheers,
Mac

 

[diggumsbang]

various

Hello all,

I have been doing a bit of research as of late regarding the future procurement of various types of vessels for the RAN. Specifically, I would greatly appreciate if anyone could assist me in better understanding the following:

FUTURE SEA LIFT PLATFORM & CAPABILITY:

What are the most likely candidates to fill the RAN's requirement for the planned Strategic Sea Lift Ship? In addition, if the RAN decides to purchase a third Canberra Class LHD, will this purchase impact and/or influence the Strategic Sea Lift procurement?​

AIR WARFARE DESTROYER:

The Hobart Class AWD Alliance website stipulates under 'Ship Specifications' (refer link) that this class will be fitted with a Phalanx CIWS and Typhoon systems to provide VSRAD.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I was under the impression that there has been a common shift at an international level (US led), for the Phalanx CIWS systems to be phased out by SeaRAM CIWS type systems?



I am curious as to the RAN's justification for wanting to incorporate this seemingly 'out dated technology' & 'of a lesser capability' system onto its major surface combatants of the fleet?

Does the change of Federal Government provide any renewed chance to arm the AWD with Tomohawk Land Attack Cruise Missiles? This of course is in light of Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's recent comments about how Australia will need to further strengthen its Naval capabilities.

What 'block' of SM-2 has been slated as being the principle air defence missile for the AWD? Further, will the AWD only have ESSM & SM-2 capability, or is there an intention to integrate additional surface-to-air missile systems (ie SM-3: AEGIS Ballistic Missile Defense) in addition?
​

'SECOND GENERATION' COLLINS CLASS SUBMARINES:

The Federal Government has made no qualms about its intentions to procure a significantly increased submarine capability, one which will include almost double the number of current submarines in the fleet, whilst having a quantam leap in all-round capabilities over that provided currently.

What is the realistic number of platforms most likely to be purchased? 6, 8, 10, 12 or more?

Would basing these future submarines on the Western, Eastern and Northern coastlines of Australia be probable? Like many, I consider that the Federal Government has placed such a great degree of significance in developing these future platforms as it has, in response to their growing concerns of the military capabilities of the likes of China and India.

This is why I also consider that the current policy to base the current Collins SSK fleet solely out of Fleet Base West to be an innacurate reflection of the ever changing political climate. This is also why I think that the future submarine force will based predominantly between the Northern and Western Australian coastlines.
​

Hope this results in some good discussion between us all!!

Anthony

 

[Sea Toby]

As for the third sea lift ship, I think much depends upon the upcoming white paper. Does Australia want a merchant ship with a lot of cargo capability, or does Australia want a military ship that can carry troops as well? Currently Australia could buy as the third sea lift ship a smaller Bob Hope type of vessel, or an LSD, or something less such as an enlarged Canterbury. I would prefer a LSD. An LSD should cost about 10% of another LHD. If another LHD is bought, forget about adding anymore capability, as the LHD would be the most expensive option for a third sea lift ship.

Good question about the AWD. Depends upon how the AWD is configured with sensors, along with buying SM-3s. However, if a third LHD is bought, forget about the fourth AWD.

With Australia being so far away from Asia and the rest of the world, except for Indonesia, corvettes are a terrible idea. Anyone wanting corvettes are seeing defence as a very local matter, not world wide.

With the current manpower situation, I don't see how Australia could buy more than 6 new submarines. Good long range submarines costs more than a frigate. Would you rather have more submarines or more surface ships? While submarines are great for warfare, they aren't useful for constable patrol duties.

 

[swerve]

As for the third sea lift ship, I think much depends upon the upcoming white paper. Does Australia want a merchant ship with a lot of cargo capability, or does Australia want a military ship that can carry troops as well? Currently Australia could buy as the third sea lift ship a smaller Bob Hope type of vessel, or an LSD, or something less such as an enlarged Canterbury. I would prefer a LSD. An LSD should cost about 10% of another LHD. If another LHD is bought, forget about adding anymore capability, as the LHD would be the most expensive option for a third sea lift ship.

If the cargo ship option is preferred, I think two smaller ships would be preferable to one large one, for reasons of flexibility. e.g. two Point-class (or similar size from another supplier) rather than one twice the size.

 

[AegisFC]

The Hobart Class AWD Alliance website stipulates under 'Ship Specifications' (refer link) that this class will be fitted with a Phalanx CIWS and Typhoon systems to provide VSRAD.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I was under the impression that there has been a common shift at an international level (US led), for the Phalanx CIWS systems to be phased out by SeaRAM CIWS type systems?​

No, Phalanx is still being produced and is still a popular choice for quite a few countries, the only US ship class that I know of with SeaRAM is the trimaran LCS.

I am curious as to the RAN's justification for wanting to incorporate this seemingly 'out dated technology' & 'of a lesser capability' system onto its major surface combatants of the fleet?

It isn't out dated, the original versions are, but the newer systems are updated and the addition of a FLIR pod on the side makes it useful against surface craft. Phalanx has other advantages, lots of ammunition and parts are already stockpiled for it, technician schools are already in place and experienced techs are in place to maintain it, and all the bugs are worked out. It is self contained and is easily unbolted and transferred to other ships or for depot level maintenance.

Further, will the AWD only have ESSM & SM-2 capability, or is there an intention to integrate additional surface-to-air missile systems (ie SM-3: AEGIS Ballistic Missile Defense) in addition?

Probably not at first. ABMD only exists for a certain computer baseline right now. Their was a discussion about AMBD in this forum, just do a search of either my user name or Galrahn.​

 

[Stryker001]

With the current manpower situation, I don't see how Australia could buy more than 6 new submarines. Good long range submarines costs more than a frigate. Would you rather have more submarines or more surface ships? While submarines are great for warfare, they aren't useful for constable patrol duties.

About 8 to 10 submarines with vertical launch missiles, manpower by the time the subs start to come online the mining boom will be significantly reduced, submariners are a perfect posting for women. They can be manned, in the years prior to the delivery start recruiting 15 year old into the puss for the direct purpose of serving in the Submarine fleet, the time line will mean that by the time they are going on board they would be of the age to go to war.

You need a stronger [FONT=&quot] esprit de corps to be generated in the civilian community so young people want work on the submarines. [/FONT]

 

[Goknub]

Ran

With regards to Sub numbers I think 8 or 10 would be very doable and the larger fleet size would reduce the time each sub had to be at sea. This would reduce fatigue issues and help retention. Also, I believe 4 subs would be the minimum number needed to justify a second base.

As to capabilities, I'd prefer rebuilding Collins as they are. Any modification is going to cost huge $$$ and I'd rather see a larger fleet size than a small number of all-singing, all-dancing supersubs.

-------

Corvettes? Your really wasting your money. I'd double the AWDs to 6 to replace the FFHs.
Anzac x 8
AWD x 6
Collins x 8

Not much in SE Asia or beyond would be able/willing to take that on.

 

[Lofty_DBF]

manpower by the time the subs start to come online the mining boom will be significantly reduced

There is that many new mines that have been built or or scheldule to be be constructed and they all need people now and into the future defence will struggle for a long time to attract and retain personnel.

Senior management of the Navy know about the many issues that affect personnel and have chose to do very little about it.
This has been going on for the last 10 years.

The navy should offer better trades which would help attract more personnel.

[/QUOTE]submariners are a perfect posting for women. [/QUOTE]
Have you ever been to sea on a submarine? how do you come to this conclusion?
Females on submarines have caused that many more problems.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Good question about the AWD. Depends upon how the AWD is configured with sensors, along with buying SM-3s. However, if a third LHD is bought, forget about the fourth AWD.

Well maybe not. A 3rd LHD would play into ASC value as would a 4th AWD. While not as much as the AWD in outright $'s, it would be significant. In order of priority surely a 4th AWD would be greater than a 3rd LHD. What point is there of a LHD if you can't offer it protection?

As for Tomahawk, its really not an issue. We have land attack harpoon, which has the same warhead as a tlam, simular guidance, just not the outright range. In our region of islands, range is not required. We can deliver it from sub, surface or air. There aren't heavily defended sam sites in our region so we don't need a huge haul of long range missiles for land targets. We have a stock of SM-2, and by the time the AWD are commissioned, newer SM6 varients should be assessed. I think SM-3 is a option, but we may just see how things pan out in regards to defence shields.

As for additional subs. We have six. I think it would be a good idea to have eight, 4 based in Perth, 4 based in Sydney or Brisbane. I wouldn't build additional collins I would build additional new build subs. This would proberly solve many of our sub manning issues.External stores I belive are part of the design, so I would imagine that say 10 vertical launch harpoons (either naval or land attack). I also belive we should look at creating a Pacific and Indian fleet.

Pacific fleet
1 x LHD
4 x Subs
2 x AWD
4 x Anzacs (+2 NZ Anzacs could realistically be included in fleet designs)

Indian Fleet
2 x LHD
4 x Subs
2 x AWD
4 x Anzacs

This particular refers to basing, not say the structure of a particular taskgroup. We can mix and match at anytime, even when ships are drydocked, even relocate ships acording to where crewing issues can be solved or where a large number of operations will be conducted. But a formidable taskgroup could be formed from either fleet. Even rotate ships through each fleet.

 

[Stryker001]

There is that many new mines that have been built or or scheldule to be be constructed and they all need people now and into the future defence will struggle for a long time to attract and retain personnel.

Senior management of the Navy know about the many issues that affect personnel and have chose to do very little about it.
This has been going on for the last 10 years.

The navy should offer better trades which would help attract more personnel.

submariners are a perfect posting for women. [/quote]
Have you ever been to sea on a submarine? how do you come to this conclusion?
Females on submarines have caused that many more problems.[/quote]

I'll conscript then for the puss, females on more problems, not as many problems as having in dock and not at sea.

I propose to have CDT, to create have a SEAL section to be permanently attached to the submarines during time of conflict which when the come online will be basically all the time. So the Puss can have a stand alone spec-ops capability outside of the SAS.

As well as vertical launch missiles, a ASDS capability, also.

I need one 'baby Nimitz' carrier preferably two I would settle for one and another hull to be held in dry dock and an Island in the Pacific to complete the strategic triangle.

I know no manpower, no money, no enemies, just do it.