Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[Sea Toby]

So much is classified with AUSPAR, I am not able to judge the differences between Aegis and AUSPAR. I do know AUSPAR works well with the Anzacs combat data system. As for the next generation of warships, who really knows? By that time something new may have been created.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

So much is classified with AUSPAR, I am not able to judge the differences between Aegis and AUSPAR. I do know AUSPAR works well with the Anzacs combat data system. As for the next generation of warships, who really knows? By that time something new may have been created.

AUSPAR is not an AEGIS its just radar (AEGIS is a combat system with the SPY-1 radar) and AUSPAR has not been plugged in with the ANZAC class combat system (9LV). That radar is CEAPAR which is the basis for AUSPAR but they are very different.

There are some people within Defence looking at the ANZAC replacement. It is not so far out that it will be a science fiction boat. The ANZACs will need replacing from around 2025. Certainly one very senior defence shipbuilder I spoke to once was of the mind that the F-100 hull provided a range of options for the Navy after the AWD project as it currently stands.

The late building of the two extra Rivers and the two extra Adelaides was never a planned intention by the RAN. The last two River DEs were built, along with the upgrade of the Daring class DDs, because the DDL program had been delayed by the Government. The last two Adelaides were built as a way of transforming the naval shipbuilding industry from a state owned enterprise to AMECON, later Transfield, later Tenix, later BAES.

 

[ThePuss]

The late building of the two extra Rivers and the two extra Adelaides was never a planned intention by the RAN. The last two River DEs were built, along with the upgrade of the Daring class DDs, because the DDL program had been delayed by the Government. The last two Adelaides were built as a way of transforming the naval shipbuilding industry from a state owned enterprise to AMECON, later Transfield, later Tenix, later BAES.

Good point very well made....with ASC being government owned and with the current economic situation i expect something very simular to happen to the AWD project that happened to the DE's and the FFG's classes.

 

[StevoJH]

AUSPAR is not an AEGIS its just radar (AEGIS is a combat system with the SPY-1 radar) and AUSPAR has not been plugged in with the ANZAC class combat system (9LV). That radar is CEAPAR which is the basis for AUSPAR but they are very different.

There are some people within Defence looking at the ANZAC replacement. It is not so far out that it will be a science fiction boat. The ANZACs will need replacing from around 2025. Certainly one very senior defence shipbuilder I spoke to once was of the mind that the F-100 hull provided a range of options for the Navy after the AWD project as it currently stands.

The late building of the two extra Rivers and the two extra Adelaides was never a planned intention by the RAN. The last two River DEs were built, along with the upgrade of the Daring class DDs, because the DDL program had been delayed by the Government. The last two Adelaides were built as a way of transforming the naval shipbuilding industry from a state owned enterprise to AMECON, later Transfield, later Tenix, later BAES.

Don't forget that just before the last pair of Rivers was laid down, HMAS Melbourne decided to run over Voyager.

 

[battlensign]

Don't forget that just before the last pair of Rivers was laid down, HMAS Melbourne decided to run over Voyager.

Hah Hem,

Don't you mean that Voyager decided it was a good idea to turn in front of the 20Kton ship bearing down on it?

Brett.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Don't forget that just before the last pair of Rivers was laid down, HMAS Melbourne decided to run over Voyager.

This has nothing to do with the force structure decisions because after the loss of Voyager the Royal Navy transferred to the RAN the HMS Duchess.

 

[StevoJH]

This has nothing to do with the force structure decisions because after the loss of Voyager the Royal Navy transferred to the RAN the HMS Duchess.

Forgot about that.

@battlensign, must have seemed like the thing to do seeing as how she cut a USN destroyer in half later in her career in the exact same situation as well.

 

[alexsa]

. The last two Adelaides were built as a way of transforming the naval shipbuilding industry from a state owned enterprise to AMECON, later Transfield, later Tenix, later BAES.

And partly as an interim fix to the fact no replacment for the CFA Class had been seriously considered.

 

[Sea Toby]

And partly as an interim fix to the fact no replacment for the CFA Class had been seriously considered.

Yes, the Oliver Hazard Perry's carried pretty much the same Mk 13 SAMs of the Charles F. Adam's. While they didn't carry the Ikara, they did carry Seahawk ASW helicopters, along with a 3-inch gun mount, not to mention Phalanx CIWS when required.

The three Charles F. Adams were not retired until the last two of the Oliver Hazard Perrys were built.

 

[The_Wrecker]

Does anyone know when CEAPAR/AUSPAR will be fitted to the Anzacs. I know they have done test fittings on Arunta but that was a fair while ago. When is the project going to start in ernest?

 

[Abraham Gubler]

The full ASMD system with CEAFAR will go to sea on HMAS Perth in 2012. AUSPAR is still a technology development project with the USA and is a long way from an actual ship based system.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Latest progress report:

7 November, 2008

CEA Technologies meets critical project deadline

CEA Technologies met an important technical milestone in the ANZAC Frigate Anti-Ship Missile Defence upgrade project. Yesterday CEA successfully demonstrated their CEAFAR fixed-face active phased array radar operating two faces to track air targets in a complex land environment. The demonstration is part of the project confidence building and risk reduction program. Technical Director Ian Croser said today, “This was an extraordinary achievement – to do so much in such a short time says a lot for the company and its people”.
The next step in the program is a sea trial on a Royal Australian Navy ANZAC Frigate in mid November, requiring CEA to take on additional work that commenced just five months ago. “This early demonstration of a production build dual face system on an ANZAC will further increase confidence that Navy will get what it needs to significantly enhance the capability of the Class. But we are well on the way to meeting this next major challenge” said Ian Croser.

 

[The_Wrecker]

Thanks for your quick reply Abraham. You will have to excuse my ignorance but will the existing An/SPS-49 radar be retained to help with long range scanning or will the new system have the capability to supercede it? Also, will the new system be located in a new superstructure over the bridge as in some of the modelling I have seen?

 

[Pusser01]

Latest progress report:

This has been fitted to Perth alongside FBW over the past week.

 

[ThePuss]

The three Charles F. Adams were not retired until the last two of the Oliver Hazard Perrys were built.

Whilst you are are correct in saying that the DDG's did not decommission untill after the last FFG's was commissioned. It was over six years from the last FFG commissioning to the first DDG retiring. Newcastle commissioned in 93, Perth paid off in 99, Hobart in 2000 and my first ship the Brisbane in 2001 (God rest her beautiful soul).

 

[alexsa]

Whilst you are are correct in saying that the DDG's did not decommission untill after the last FFG's was commissioned. It was over six years from the last FFG commissioning to the first DDG retiring. Newcastle commissioned in 93, Perth paid off in 99, Hobart in 2000 and my first ship the Brisbane in 2001 (God rest her beautiful soul).

Agreed, this kept the numbers up (12) as the ANZAC's came on line and the CFA were paid off. It also meant we did not take a serious look at a new AWD in the early 90's when this should have been progressed hence the large gap between the loss of the CFA and the new AWD coming inot service. The two late build FFG's were not a great investment in that regard.

 

[ThePuss]

Thanks for your quick reply Abraham. You will have to excuse my ignorance but will the existing An/SPS-49 radar be retained to help with long range scanning or will the new system have the capability to supercede it? Also, will the new system be located in a new superstructure over the bridge as in some of the modelling I have seen?

As you can see in the attached photo the CEAFAR is now mounted on the the aft mast module (it was previously was going to be mounted on the fwd mast) and that 49 is retained and is mounted on top of the aft mast (with ESM above that). TIR (Taget Indication Radar/ Sea geraf) is removed but the Director is retained for use by the gun (I do not know if it will still be able to broadcast CWI for missiles or not).

 

[KiwiRob]

if Australia were building new Anzac replacements today I would think the Norwegian Nansen frigates would win the contract.

I don't know why people call them Norwegian, since all they are is a cut and shut F100 designed and built in Spain, the only thing Norwegian about them is the ownership. You ae right they would make a good ANZAC replacement as they have a lot in common with the F100.

 

[StingrayOZ]

But arent the Norwegian frigates simular in price to a F-100 anyway. They don't seem to be a whole lot cheaper. Over 3 billion for the project. The only savings seem to be in a smaller VLS numbers and a smaller radar.

 

[swerve]

I don't know why people call them Norwegian, since all they are is a cut and shut F100 designed and built in Spain, the only thing Norwegian about them is the ownership. You ae right they would make a good ANZAC replacement as they have a lot in common with the F100.

Haven't there been stories of handling problems? IF true, a version with less or lighter equipment would be preferable.