Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[Abraham Gubler]

Correct me if i'm wrong, but given that the Two newest of the FFG's are only a couple years old then the ANZAC's (and ten years younger then the 4 older FFG), wouldn't it make sense to keep them in service after the AWD's arrive and replace them as part of the ANZAC replacement program? Build 10 ships of whatever replaces the ANZAC's instead of 8.

The important figure is design life, when the ships are expected to be retired because they are no longer efficient. The figures are:

The CN made it clear on Friday that the RAN needs more surface combatants than 11 (3 AWD, 8 ANZAC). How that happens remains up to the final White Paper prep in the lead up to next years budget.

 

[Todjaeger]

The two New Zealand ANZAC's were among the first of the class built, for the amount of money needed to purchase them, the RAN would be much better off to retain the two newest Adelaides as they are more capable platforms then the ANZAC's and have a similar crewing requirement.

Based on the timescale of when the ANZAC replacement will need to enter service, possible partners for a common design would have to be Canada who would need to replace the Halifax class and the UK who will be replacing their Type 22 and Type 23 frigates.

Personally, I doubt that the RAN would would partner with the Royal Navy for the Anzac-replacement frigate. At this point, the RAN and Royal Navy use different weapon systems, sensors, armaments, etc. Unless the RAN was willing to shift to a principally British/EU-sourced vs. US-sourced service, as it currently seems to be for a number of major systems.

Presently the Royal Navy uses 4.5" guns, compared to the 5" guns used by the RAN. Also the missiles are different, with the RN using Aster, Seawolf and Sea Dart and the RAN employing Standard and ESSM. I would imagine that the RAN would prefer to stick with systems already in inventory, both for logistical and operational commonality.

It would seem that the RAN would have better success partnering with the Canadian Maritime Command. At present both the Halifax-class FFH and Iroquois-class DDH are either coming due or overdue for replacement. The first DDH, HMCS Iroqiois was first laid down in 1969 and is now approaching 40 years old. Granted there was a TRUMP refit in 1992 which saw the Iroquois-class re-roled into an area air defence destroyer. Given the advances made in ship construction and design, as well as shipboard systems, a Hobart-class AWD would IMV give the Canadians better service in air defence.

The Halifax-class frigates are in some respects similar to the Anzac-class but are somewhat larger in displacement and dimensions. However, they too are coming up for replacement, with the oldest frigates having been laid down in 1987.

One question though, would be where the hulls would actually be assembled. I can easily see that as being an issue which could and perhaps would, prohibit too much cooperation between nations. The various countries ordering the vessels would likely wish to protect as much of their shipbuilding industry as possible by having vessel construction occur at one of their shipyards.

Still, it would be nice to see economies of scale come into play, given the timeframe between projects and the costs involved.

-Cheers

 

[StevoJH]

Personally, I doubt that the RAN would would partner with the Royal Navy for the Anzac-replacement frigate. At this point, the RAN and Royal Navy use different weapon systems, sensors, armaments, etc. Unless the RAN was willing to shift to a principally British/EU-sourced vs. US-sourced service, as it currently seems to be for a number of major systems.

Presently the Royal Navy uses 4.5" guns, compared to the 5" guns used by the RAN. Also the missiles are different, with the RN using Aster, Seawolf and Sea Dart and the RAN employing Standard and ESSM. I would imagine that the RAN would prefer to stick with systems already in inventory, both for logistical and operational commonality.

It would seem that the RAN would have better success partnering with the Canadian Maritime Command. At present both the Halifax-class FFH and Iroquois-class DDH are either coming due or overdue for replacement. The first DDH, HMCS Iroqiois was first laid down in 1969 and is now approaching 40 years old. Granted there was a TRUMP refit in 1992 which saw the Iroquois-class re-roled into an area air defence destroyer. Given the advances made in ship construction and design, as well as shipboard systems, a Hobart-class AWD would IMV give the Canadians better service in air defence.

The Halifax-class frigates are in some respects similar to the Anzac-class but are somewhat larger in displacement and dimensions. However, they too are coming up for replacement, with the oldest frigates having been laid down in 1987.

One question though, would be where the hulls would actually be assembled. I can easily see that as being an issue which could and perhaps would, prohibit too much cooperation between nations. The various countries ordering the vessels would likely wish to protect as much of their shipbuilding industry as possible by having vessel construction occur at one of their shipyards.

Still, it would be nice to see economies of scale come into play, given the timeframe between projects and the costs involved.

-Cheers

1) RAN ships don't use the same Sensors or combat systems as the USN either, you can always install different Radar's and Combat systems.

2) The RN ships would most likely be using 6" rather then 4.5" guns (on the same mounting as the 4.5"), so I doubt installing a 5" gun instead of the RN guns would be a problem. Neither Sea Wolf or Sea Dart will be in service by then, and an Actively Guided CAAM may be attractive over the Semi-Active ESSM by then. Eitherway, with the missiles its just a matter of installing a Mk.41 VLS rather then a Sylver 50 or 70.

3) Hobart class is based on the Spanish F100, i believe the Tribal class destroyers are being retired without replacement.

4) Halifax are slightly larger, however with the weight problems in the current ANZAC's i wouldn't be surprised if the replacement was of similar displacement to whatever is chosen to replace the Halifax's.

5) Do the design work together, perhaps even buy some of the systems for the ships together in order to get economies of scale, but construction of the ships should be carried out by each individual country. Each country would be building 8-15 ships so economies of scale still come into play, and multiple shipyards would need to be utilised anyway in order to have them constructed at the required rate.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

The practical experience of naval construction has shown joint designing to be more trouble than its worth, the NATO Frigate is a classic example. Also mass production is somewhat of a misnomer, even with the 'mass' production of Spurance hulls Ingalls shipyard did not achieve any kind of real scale of efficiency. Mass production applies to things like cars where a single factory will build 50,000 cars in a year.

What is important is retaining work force experience between builds and using sub-systems that are supportable, ie spares are available in large numbers.

As to the ANZAC replacement Australia has purchased a range of IP rights to the F-100 ship design from the Spanish. This hull minus the AEGIS combat system could be a perfect option for replacing the ANZAC. Also Australian company Austal could build their 127m long trimaran hull, the same ship as the LCS 2 class, for the RAN.

I would imagine a mix of LCS 2 and F-100(-) would replace ANZAC rather than importing or developing a new design that doesn't offer any kind of real benefits other those that exist.

 

[StingrayOZ]

I think a 4th AWD has always been on the cards. Either that or a 9th frigate.

The AWD hull itself would make a fine frigate if fitted with some less expensive /different equipment. I imagine 4 x AWD + 8 x (Super)frigates using the same hull but with european sensor/equiment. This hull provides some commonality (powertrain, basic layout, non fighting systems etc) and room for upgrades (even up to/near AWD levels).

Canada can just purchase its own design. There are plenty out there, German, Spanish, UK, US.. The development is all done and from the choices provided meet any requirements.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Why European equipment? Just because further F-100s may be sans AEGIS does not mean the combat system has to be from Europe. Australia is prototyping one of the world's best non-AEGIS combat systems at the moment, the Saab Australia 9LV Mk 4 and the CEA PAR and FAR radars.

 

[Sea Toby]

Canada is presently rethinking the make up of their navy. The Cold War era of ASW ocean escorts across the Atlantic is coming to an end. Similar to the Dutch, Canada maybe leaning towards warships with more littoral clout. Meaning more sea lift ships, more aviation lift, and considerably more patrolling of their far north.

At the present moment the priority is to replace their replenishment oilers with a combination oiler/sea lift ship. While this ship doesn't have over the beach capability, this does not mean a new type of ship won't. For example a LCS ship similar to the Americans could be in the picture. The current government wants to buy several ice strengthened OPVs for patrolling their far north.

Not to mention a more rounded navy may require area air defense, more of a DDG instead of any frigates.

So the idea of replacing their 12 frigates may end up with a fleet of several OPVs and LCS types of ships, without any frigates at all, or just a few. Even with the new oiler/sea lift ships, an amphibious ship or two may also be in the picture. An example maybe a Mistral LHD to a Rotterdam LPD, or something similar to a Canterbury, except larger. Northern OPVs is a given, and could replace a similar number of frigates. Then there has been a realization a nuclear powered submarine would be a greater value than frigates. Plus the Upholder diesel submarine program has not been a great success.

Like the US Navy, or even New Zealand's navy, Canada's frigates are not serving their needs or requirements enough. I look forward to a more balanced navy.

 

[gf0012-aust]

The Cold War era of ASW ocean escorts across the Atlantic is coming to an end.

Actually its the opposite. The growth in Chinas submarine fleet has caused a considerable rethink about ASW platforms.

In fact, every UDT I've attended in the last 5 years has seen a refocus on ASW capability in aircraft, skimmers and dismounts.

 

[Sea Toby]

Oh, I agree ASW is very important. But in the 21st Century we don't have to convoy merchant ships across the oceans much any more. With cheap TAGOS ships trailing sophisticated SURTASS arrays operating with P-8s at choke points, the submarine kill rate will be significantly more. Head for the neck of the bottle, not the bottom of the bottle. Not to mention unmentionable satellite coverage. As long as submarines are around, ASW is required. Its just that there are better ways to prosecute submarines than with ASW ocean escorts today. Mid ocean convoying is a tactic of the ancient past. We have come a long ways since WWII, and while the Germans had their day, towards the end of that war their submarines were sunk alarmingly so.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Oh, I agree ASW is very important. But in the 21st Century we don't have to convoy merchant ships across the oceans much any more. With cheap TAGOS ships trailing sophisticated SURTASS arrays operating with P-8s at choke points, the submarine kill rate will be significantly more. Head for the neck of the bottle, not the bottom of the bottle. Not to mention unmentionable satellite coverage. As long as submarines are around, ASW is required. Its just that there are better ways to prosecute submarines than with ASW ocean escorts today. Mid ocean convoying is a tactic of the ancient past. We have come a long ways since WWII, and while the Germans had their day, towards the end of that war their submarines were sunk alarmingly so.

Except I'm not talking about traditional ww2 type ASW duties "escorting merchies" etc...

I'm saying that ASW is back in the game as an issue.

 

[Transient]

Actually its the opposite. The growth in Chinas submarine fleet has caused a considerable rethink about ASW platforms.

In fact, every UDT I've attended in the last 5 years has seen a refocus on ASW capability in aircraft, skimmers and dismounts.

Rethink in what areas? From what to what? Are you just referring to a rethink in emphasis on ASW, or in the way ASW is conducted conceptually, for example? I remember it said that the new ASW warfare concept is to seed the area of operations with sensors carried by UUVs, USVs, which are in turn brought to the area by platforms like SSGN and LCS. Is that what you're referring to, or has there been a change? Please do flesh it out a bit for us, thanks.

 

[Sea Toby]

WWII submarines were blind in comparison to today's submarines. The idea of moving large number of cargo ships via a convoy is like putting a cat atop a fish bowl. Wouldn't the same number of fish do better in a fish bowl as large as a swimming pool? Disperse instead of concentrating.

And didn't the US Navy build TAGOS ships to track Soviet submarines, using much cheaper and numerous ships trailering sonar arrays back during the Cold War? Wouldn't it be more cost effective to buy more TAGOS ships to track more submarines, especially in choke points? And with P-8s and UAVs aloft carrying anti-submarine torpedoes to kill more submarines using UAVs being launched by cheaper TAGOS ships.

A cheaper and more numerous TAGOS ships designed for better ASW besides a costly frigate or destroyer. This isn't news. Hasn't ASW technology moved beyond convoys and corvettes? We didn't use battleships for ASW convoying during WWII. Why would you want to use our more precious warships to do so today?

While its great our more precious warships have ASW capabilities, I would go after a large number of submarines with a cheaper option with ships designed for ASW operations only. Imagine a modern submarine up against a convoy today. The convoy would be mincemeat.

 

[stigmata]

Rethink in what areas? From what to what? Are you just referring to a rethink in emphasis on ASW, or in the way ASW is conducted conceptually, for example? I remember it said that the new ASW warfare concept is to seed the area of operations with sensors carried by UUVs, USVs, which are in turn brought to the area by platforms like SSGN and LCS. Is that what you're referring to, or has there been a change? Please do flesh it out a bit for us, thanks.

I think it's the advent of AIP like sterling that can change the game, it has potential when working with bombers armed with long range cruise missiles, if the sub can relay coordinates. Mahanian doctrine is real risky tho, but with risk comes also potential jackpot.

The practical experience of naval construction has shown joint designing to be more trouble than its worth, the NATO Frigate is a classic example. Also mass production is somewhat of a misnomer, even with the 'mass' production of Spurance hulls Ingalls shipyard did not achieve any kind of real scale of efficiency. Mass production applies to things like cars where a single factory will build 50,000 cars in a year.

Not always agree with you, but in this case, you put it better then i could. cheers

Why European equipment? Just because further F-100s may be sans AEGIS does not mean the combat system has to be from Europe. Australia is prototyping one of the world's best non-AEGIS combat systems at the moment, the Saab Australia 9LV Mk 4 and the CEA PAR and FAR radars.

I did'nt know SAAB was working so closely with Australia defence, do you have some more info on ongoing projects ?

 

[Salty Dog]

And didn't the US Navy build TAGOS ships to track Soviet submarines, using much cheaper and numerous ships trailering sonar arrays back during the Cold War? Wouldn't it be more cost effective to buy more TAGOS ships to track more submarines, especially in choke points? And with P-8s and UAVs aloft carrying anti-submarine torpedoes to kill more submarines using UAVs being launched by cheaper TAGOS ships.

A cheaper and more numerous TAGOS ships designed for better ASW besides a costly frigate or destroyer. This isn't news. Hasn't ASW technology moved beyond convoys and corvettes? We didn't use battleships for ASW convoying during WWII. Why would you want to use our more precious warships to do so today?

While its great our more precious warships have ASW capabilities, I would go after a large number of submarines with a cheaper option with ships designed for ASW operations only. Imagine a modern submarine up against a convoy today. The convoy would be mincemeat.

There are only a handful (4 to be exact) T-AGOS left out of about 18 in it's heyday.

The T-AGOS are part of the Military Sealift Command (MSC) with civilian master and crew and a military detachment. T-AGOS are SURTASS platforms only and not used for tactical ASW and are not warships. They form part of the Integrated Undersea Surveillance System (IUSS) formerly known as SOSUS. As they are not used for tactical ASW, T-AGOS vessels strictly operate independently. Warships are still needed for tactical ASW duties.

I do not believe these SURTASS assets would work with in the chokepoint scenarios you suggest. SURTASS is designed for very long range and low frequency which takes advantage of sound channels and convergence zones typically found in deep waters of the open ocean and not in the realtively shallow waters of a typical choke point. You also have land masses in the chokepoint as well as a higher concentration of acoustic sources from vessel traffic, marine life, etc. Despite huge advances in ASW sensors and processing capability, it would still be quite a challenge to pickup a modern SSK in a chokepoint environment.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I think it's the advent of AIP like sterling that can change the game, it has potential when working with bombers armed with long range cruise missiles, if the sub can relay coordinates. Mahanian doctrine is real risky tho, but with risk comes also potential jackpot.

AIP has almost no strategic effect since they can only power submarines at up to 4 knots. All it is a survival technique used by conventional submarines to avoid hold down.

I did'nt know SAAB was working so closely with Australia defence, do you have some more info on ongoing projects ?

Its not Saab in Sweden but Saab Systems Pty. Ltd. an Australian company set up by the Bofors 20 years ago to produce the 9LV Mk 3 combat system in Australia for the ANZAC frigates. Since then they have developed a lot of domestic capability for combat systems including the BCSS for the Army and the new 9LV Mk 4. The brand Saab only entered the equation a few years ago.

http://www.saabsystems.com.au/history.htm

I would suggest a quick use of Google to gain some background understanding before posting.

 

[StingrayOZ]

The brand Saab only entered the equation a few years ago.

I wasn't aware of the setup and structure of Saab systems. I was assumming them as europeans! My ignorance, I lose track of defence aquisitions and companies over time..

 

[splat]

hello people

seems like the austal usa and general dynamics consortium have won the contract to build 8 to 10 JHSV for the us army/navy.

 

[icelord]

The newest of the Adelaide-class FFGs, HMAS Newcastle, was commissioned almost 15 years ago, but would have been laid down between one and two years before that. I have the date around here somewhere...

Also, according to current plan, the last of Adelaide-class are supposed to be getting decommissioned ~2018, right around 25 years of service and just before the expected start of the Anzac follow-on class. Depending on crewing status, as well as service requirements, the AWD program could be extended to replace some of the FFGs, and/or additional Anzac could be ordered instead. At this point I would say it is really too soon to tell, particularly as design requirements for the Anzac replacement have not been mentioned. Given how long some of these projects take, I would expect it has already started and is currently in the phase where its requirements are defined.

-Cheers

1990! keel was laid dec...i think, i pass it everyday but never registers
1993 she was commisioned
We still have a few years left in the old girl, so far shes handling FFG upgrade quiet well compared with the rest of the FFGs. 6mths of trials next year before we hit operational status.

I think a 4th AWD has always been on the cards. Either that or a 9th frigate

The hope was for 4 AWD's to replace the FFGs, and still a hope, if so so distant.very little to nil chance of 9th FFH(anzac)better to sell one or two and get another AWD then toy around with another oversized patrol boat(they have a very nice reputation in the outer FFH world)
As for the VLS on Canberra...why? hell i don't get he point on the FFGs, ours just gets in the road of cable work, also looking at a bridge blueprints for LHD, one i took note of showed 12.7mm mounts, so not going to covert completely to the 25mm bushmasters just yet

Personally, I doubt that the RAN would would partner with the Royal Navy for the Anzac-replacement frigate. At this point, the RAN and Royal Navy use different weapon systems, sensors, armaments, etc. Unless the RAN was willing to shift to a principally British/EU-sourced vs. US-sourced service, as it currently seems to be for a number of major systems.

That and the delays in the RN replacement would be a risk RAN wouldn't really want, there is only so much of the UK Govt's delays in major projects that anyone there could handle, let alone on the outside.
It would be a good choice, but the safer one, as was the F-100 would be something less risk and faster completion, using the F-100 hull as a base as some have suggested would seem more beneficial then another new choice, but the tender on such things is still years away, and there are companies creating designs now that may benefit more or in the future match RAN requirments

 

[Sea Toby]

I am of the opinion Australia has done well hedging their bets with a couple of later ships of a class, not once but twice. With the Rivers the last two were not given mid life upgrades, well not as much, whereas with the FFG-7s the first two were not given mid life upgrades. If Australia builds the fourth DDG at a later date, Australia will have done this hedging three times, this time with only one ship.

Doing this was preferrable than building a third class of warship, while maintaining their most advanced and expensive warship, the DDG-2s several years longer. One does not know the future, but hedging has worked well with the lower class of warship, saving significant funds, one wonders whether doing the same with the upper class of warship will work as well.

When the DDG-2s were given their mid life upgrades, Australia had just received their new batch of FFG-7s. The same should happen with the cycle of new forthcoming warships. When the new DDGs approach their mid life upgrades, a new class replacing the Anzacs should have joined the fleet too.

Will the next new Anzac ships replacements have Aegis radar? Its too early to speculate now, but if Australia were building new Anzac replacements today I would think the Norwegian Nansen frigates would win the contract.
The Anzac warfighting upgrades, long before a mid life upgrade, has been a bit disappointing, there isn't much weight left to load as much as they wished.

Many nations have ran into this problem, I expect Australia in the future will build ships with a bit more weight room left for future upgrades. Expect new ships to mount most of their weapons on the main deck, not like the Anzacs with some above the superstructure.

 

[StevoJH]

I am of the opinion Australia has done well hedging their bets with a couple of later ships of a class, not once but twice. With the Rivers the last two were not given mid life upgrades, well not as much, whereas with the FFG-7s the first two were not given mid life upgrades. If Australia builds the fourth DDG at a later date, Australia will have done this hedging three times, this time with only one ship.

Doing this was preferrable than building a third class of warship, while maintaining their most advanced and expensive warship, the DDG-2s several years longer. One does not know the future, but hedging has worked well with the lower class of warship, saving significant funds, one wonders whether doing the same with the upper class of warship will work as well.

When the DDG-2s were given their mid life upgrades, Australia had just received their new batch of FFG-7s. The same should happen with the cycle of new forthcoming warships. When the new DDGs approach their mid life upgrades, a new class replacing the Anzacs should have joined the fleet too.

Will the next new Anzac ships replacements have Aegis radar? Its too early to speculate now, but if Australia were building new Anzac replacements today I would think the Norwegian Nansen frigates would win the contract.
The Anzac warfighting upgrades, long before a mid life upgrade, has been a bit disappointing, there isn't much weight left to load as much as they wished.

Many nations have ran into this problem, I expect Australia in the future will build ships with a bit more weight room left for future upgrades. Expect new ships to mount most of their weapons on the main deck, not like the Anzacs with some above the superstructure.

The Rivers were two seperate classes of ships. The first four were Whitby's, the last two were Leanders. With regards to the ANZAC upgrade, with the current work on CEAFAR and with development of AUSPAR currently underway, wouldn't it make sense to fit AUSPAR to the ANZAC replacements if it is replaced in time?