Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[ThePuss]

I agree with Abraham, why spend $500 million or more for a ship with less than half the vehicle lane meters, not to mention zero extra helicopter capability of a Canterbury type of ship which can be bought for $150 million. A frigate design will require 150+ crew, whereas a Canterbury only requires 63.

You really don't want a vehicle deck as much as you want another frigate. Vehicle decks aren't expensive, frigates are.

Valid point but small navies like Australia need to consoldate their ships more than large navys. Yes the Absalons have a lot less deck space than Canterbury, However I never said the ship would be based on the Absalons and it is only designed for 150 troops and a small amount of vehicles.

To do with the manning. Yes Canterbury has a much smaller crew, how ever if your are saying to have a frigate AND have a MRV then in seaman officers alone you would need to have two sets of 4 bridge watch keeping officers, a navigator, a operations officer, a XO and a CO. One ship halfs the officers required. Same in other departments too, So infact your manning issuses are actually less, not greater.

Where manning may be an issue however could be the Army. Is it willing to have 1 of its 9 light infantry companys floating around the pacific constantly? ......probably not unfortunately.

If it was, the ship would have to be designed to keep the grunts active, fit and not board out of there brains.

It would have a very large gym, Class rooms and a WTSS range (A WTSS range uses lasers attached to real weapons, which is everything from 9mm pistols to 84mm Carl Gustuv recoiless rifes and projector on a large screen. The weapons are even connected to compressed air lines to simulate recoil. They are wildly used in the ADF with most bases (even navy ones) having them as they can be used to simulate a range or simulate a battle which is very fun for a navy puke like myself. They do not take up a lot of space and there is no reason why you could not install them on a large ship). If the ship was well set up like that and with decent accomodation the grunts they might like the opportunity to go on a 3 month cruise around the Pacific on seagoing pay, After all a rack is much more comfortable than a hole in the dirt!

 

[Sea Toby]

The army might spend a couple of weeks on exercises, as you say in a fox hole, but they wont spend six months deployed out at sea, much less three months. Marines might, the army won't.

While many have posted they love the Absalon class, I for one don't like the class. The ship is too big, destroyer sized, and armed as a light frigate. Light frigates costs much less than this multi-purpose ship, for starters frigates are smaller.

The army personnel won't be aboard all the time, and much like an amphibious ship, will have to load the army and its equipment aboard everytime they are needed. While a nation may deploy a frigate to the Middle East, for example, a nation won't deploy the multi-purpose ship to the Middle East, unless the army went too. Otherwise, what is the point of having a partial ship designed to carry troops and equipment half the world away from your army?

I say again, do you want another frigate disguised as a sea lift ship? Without a well dock, its not truly an amphibious ship. If you want more sea lift, I suggest buying far less expensive sea lift ships such as the Canterbury, or something similar. They are cheaper, larger, hold more troops and equipment, and are based near the army, not deployed half way around the world as a frigate.

I am not a big supporter of multi-purpose ships. I would rather have amphibious ships over sea lift ship, and frigates designed as a warship over a half breed peaceniks dream up.

The Canterbury was the Kiwi attempt to build a multi-purpose ship as a sea lift/patrol vessel. Its problems reveal its shortcomings as a failure as a patrol ship, and its inability as an amphibious ship except in pristine sea conditions. Frankly, its a sea lift ship.

New Zealand came to the conclusion to move a motorized company group they needed 390 lane meters of vehicle space. The Absalon despite its destroyer size has only 240 lane meters of vehicle deck space, its more suited for light infantry only. In other words, peacekeepers only. There is also no hospital facility, or a separate command and control room either.

I would prefer a separate sea lift ship, or an amphibious ship which can carry a company group or a battalion at a far less price. For the price of one Absalon, two or three Canterburys can be bought.

I say again, do you want sea lift or do you want another frigate.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

I have to say i agree with sea toby on this issue. I personally dont see the value of a destroyer sized frigate with the ability to move a coy sized battle group, appart from the ability to evac embassy personnel from a small pacific nation. Pretty big investment/sacrifice for a niche capability if you ask me. And unless you have one roaming around the SP with a coy loaded up for months at a time (i'm sure the army boys would love that) the response time to a crisis will still be much much slower than air insertion and only marginally faster than the full deployment i.e. its going to take time for the coy to deploy to the naval base or for the vessel to deploy to a close port.

As sea toby pointed out without a well deck insertion/deployment options are limited. Additionally the crossed roles will limit deployment options, i.e. you cant deploy these assets to the gulf if you need them for operations in the SP were their niche capability is intended to operate.

Personally I'm all for more sea lift but n an all out Falklands esk style deployment i think these vessels may even be a liability considering the the conflicting roles. You cant exactly put a fully loaded MP frigate on radar or ASW picket duty which limits your escort/formation options significantly.

Deploying a coy and a large surface combatant to the SP constantly for the sole purpose of reacting to an embassy evac (or the like) seems like a waste of recourses IMHO. How many SP incidents like this have occurred in the last 10 years where this vessel would have been used? 3? Big investment if you ask me, especially when a small sea lift vessel (ala cantuberry) can do the job perfectly well considering there is virtually no ASW/AAW need in theater? I guess the question is, is this task worth devoting 'round the clock resources and considerable investment in?

IMHO if we need a coy deployment capability for SP ops in littorals then maybe we should be looking at an additional 4 LCS's instead of replacing 4 major surface combatants with MP frigates.

 

[StingrayOZ]

I kinda like the idea of a big frigate.

Some of this extra space could be used to house additional troops and their equipment etc. They don't need a well dock. A large helospot (chook sized) will be adequate (with hanger) and could be used with smaller helicopters and shared container space or later weapon systems.

I like the idea of flexible space onboard a frigate, but don’t for one moment think they are flexible task ships able to perform any mission under the sun. But having additional roomy hulls that could be at a later stage upgraded to more advanced weapon systems has got to be a good thing, as is using the same platform if it can fill both roles with minimal compromise. Timor has showed us sometimes you just have to use what ever is at hand.

I don’t think we need 6,000t+ design. 4,500-5,000t should be fine. Then again, steel isn’t that more expensive and Australia needs larger ships with so few units to play with. I do like the heavy look of the Absalons, nice looking ship.

While the LHD’s will do most of the heavy lifting, only if they are used together and at absolutely maximum capacity will they meet the requirements we have for them. An additional sealift ship will help, but any frigate we look at (and frigates are now in the 6,000t size) should have some sealift capability.

 

[ThePuss]

Sea Toby and Ozzy Blizard I dont want to start a flame war here as everybody is entitled to their own opinion, however I think I have addressed most if not all your points in previous posts.

I have already shown how the manning of a expeditionary frigates is actually less than running a frigate and a MRV.

I already have said it would be difficult to get the army to agree to having a company deployed to one of these ships, but if the political will/need was there I have shown ways to alleviate the boredom of the troops involved.

Why do you keep saying i want an Absalon for?. I have never said that.

In respon to your question ST, I want a Frigate with a very small well deck for a single LCM and a couple of raiding craft. It would have a small mission deck which would carry few (around 10) vehicles. This is what I have been saying from my inital post so why ask the question?

At no stage I have proposed an MRV with weapons, only a warship with a limited capability to land a small task group in a low threat environment.

My inital post said only one of these ships would be employed it this role. So why couldn't one of the other three be deployed to the gulf?. Having a well deck and heaps of accomodation gives you much more capability than a standard frigate. The well deck could hold numerous RIBS and the accomodation could take many more boarding parties than normal and still have room to take a task group command.

Perhaps I gave you guys I false impression by posting such a large tonnage for what I was actually proposing, but im no naval architect so it was just a "Guestamaition" and would probably be much less.

The main reason I propsed these ships is that I come from a back ground of being made to carry a 40 odd army detachment for prolonged and repeated deployments in a frigate that has been designed to carry her 164 crew and her 164 crew only.

Steel is cheap, Air is cheaper.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Perhaps the best option for this kind of role is not combining a frigate with a LPD but a patrol boat with an LPD. Especially since the mission need is policing the South Pacific where a sophisticated combat system is not needed. The Abaslon types are designed for the Persian Gulf where you need a high end ASMD capability.

There is actually an Australian design that does this and quite well the Austal MRC and the slightly bigger MRV. The MRV [Multi Role Vessel] is a slightly improved MRC design no doubt aimed at the aviation training vessel requirement for the Joint Helicopter School to be acquired under Air 9000 Phase 7.

The MRV is an 86m long trimaran with a deadweight of 500 tonnes for its 500 m2 multi-role mission deck. It has a crew of 35 with 29 additional high quality berths, 30 more austere berths and seating for 100. It has hangars for two MRH90s and a 25mm Typhoon gun system.

This kind of ship could easily deploy a company sized force rapidly into the South pacific and sustain it until the ADAS with the two LHDs and fleet support show up. It could also be used for long range patrol missions with a platoon sized force embarked.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Sea Toby and Ozzy Blizard I dont want to start a flame war here as everybody is entitled to their own opinion, however I think I have addressed most if not all your points in previous posts.

Mate disagreement within a discussion is not a flame war, its a debate which is why we're all here.

I have already shown how the manning of a expeditionary frigates is actually less than running a frigate and a MRV.

That makes sense considering you have a single vessel instead of two.

I already have said it would be difficult to get the army to agree to having a company deployed to one of these ships, but if the political will/need was there I have shown ways to alleviate the boredom of the troops involved.

This is my whole point mate, there simply isn't the need for this sort of investment IMHO. The problem is not only convincing the army to deploy a coy battlegroup sitting on a MP frigate indefinitely (rotated of course) but you have to convince everyone else that its worth the time and money. I doubt the political will is there.

My inital post said only one of these ships would be employed it this role. So why couldn't one of the other three be deployed to the gulf?. Having a well deck and heaps of accomodation gives you much more capability than a standard frigate. The well deck could hold numerous RIBS and the accomodation could take many more boarding parties than normal and still have room to take a task group command.

Yeah, you're right you would only need one in the SP at a time. But to allow for 'round the clock capability (the whole point) you need 3, one deployed, one undergoing refit and one possibly training. If you deploy two of them to the gulf then you're going to run into trouble if you have a major exercise or need an asset in dock for major refit i.e. deploying two MP frigates somewhere other than the SP is essentially unsustainable considering they're the only assets that can fulfill this role. That limits your deployment options significantly when you have a 12~14 surface combatant navy. The DoD is not going to deploy an AWD to police shipping in the gulf, especially considering we only have 3 (hopefully 4). That means your 4~6 ANZAC's or their replacements are going to take a heap of operational stress considering they will be the navy's main deployment option. In short dedicating such a large portion of the fleet to a niche capability in the SP is going to unbalance the OrBat dramatically IMHO.

Perhaps I gave you guys I false impression by posting such a large tonnage for what I was actually proposing, but im no naval architect so it was just a "Guestamaition" and would probably be much less.

Its not the nuts and bolts i have a problem with mate its the concept.

The main reason I propsed these ships is that I come from a back ground of being made to carry a 40 odd army detachment for prolonged and repeated deployments in a frigate that has been designed to carry her 164 crew and her 164 crew only.

Steel is cheap, Air is cheaper.

Some additional births is a different kettle of fish to 4 MP frigates with a single strategic purpose in mind for the whole MP thing.

Maybe a more balanced approach would be if we used the AWD hulls for ANZAC replacement there could be some extra room for a platoon sized detachment to fit in comfortably.

Perhaps the best option for this kind of role is not combining a frigate with a LPD but a patrol boat with an LPD. Especially since the mission need is policing the South Pacific where a sophisticated combat system is not needed. The Abaslon types are designed for the Persian Gulf where you need a high end ASMD capability.

There is actually an Australian design that does this and quite well the Austal MRC and the slightly bigger MRV. The MRV [Multi Role Vessel] is a slightly improved MRC design no doubt aimed at the aviation training vessel requirement for the Joint Helicopter School to be acquired under Air 9000 Phase 7.

The MRV is an 86m long trimaran with a deadweight of 500 tonnes for its 500 m2 multi-role mission deck. It has a crew of 35 with 29 additional high quality berths, 30 more austere berths and seating for 100. It has hangars for two MRH90s and a 25mm Typhoon gun system.

This kind of ship could easily deploy a company sized force rapidly into the South pacific and sustain it until the ADAS with the two LHDs and fleet support show up. It could also be used for long range patrol missions with a platoon sized force embarked.

This is a much better idea IMHO, three of these vessels would be perfect for this role, and the low manning requirements are a definite bonus. Additionally they don't inhibit other operations. Perfectly adequate for those sort of ops and not too expensive either.

 

[ThePuss]

Mate disagreement within a discussion is not a flame war, its a debate which is why we're all here.



That makes sense considering you have a single vessel instead of two.



This is my whole point mate, there simply isn't the need for this sort of investment IMHO. The problem is not only convincing the army to deploy a coy battlegroup sitting on a MP frigate indefinitely (rotated of course) but you have to convince everyone else that its worth the time and money. I doubt the political will is there.




Yeah, you're right you would only need one in the SP at a time. But to allow for 'round the clock capability (the whole point) you need 3, one deployed, one undergoing refit and one possibly training. If you deploy two of them to the gulf then you're going to run into trouble if you have a major exercise or need an asset in dock for major refit i.e. deploying two MP frigates somewhere other than the SP is essentially unsustainable considering they're the only assets that can fulfill this role. That limits your deployment options significantly when you have a 12~14 surface combatant navy. The DoD is not going to deploy an AWD to police shipping in the gulf, especially considering we only have 3 (hopefully 4). That means your 4~6 ANZAC's or their replacements are going to take a heap of operational stress considering they will be the navy's main deployment option. In short dedicating such a large portion of the fleet to a niche capability in the SP is going to unbalance the OrBat dramatically IMHO.



Its not the nuts and bolts i have a problem with mate its the concept.



Some additional births is a different kettle of fish to 4 MP frigates with a single strategic purpose in mind for the whole MP thing.

Maybe a more balanced approach would be if we used the AWD hulls for ANZAC replacement there could be some extra room for a platoon sized detachment to fit in comfortably.



This is a much better idea IMHO, three of these vessels would be perfect for this role, and the low manning requirements are a definite bonus. Additionally they don't inhibit other operations. Perfectly adequate for those sort of ops and not too expensive either.

A valid post mate, I will post a repley when i have a chance to think over the pros and cons of your proposal

 

[Todjaeger]

Perhaps the best option for this kind of role is not combining a frigate with a LPD but a patrol boat with an LPD. Especially since the mission need is policing the South Pacific where a sophisticated combat system is not needed. The Abaslon types are designed for the Persian Gulf where you need a high end ASMD capability.

There is actually an Australian design that does this and quite well the Austal MRC and the slightly bigger MRV. The MRV [Multi Role Vessel] is a slightly improved MRC design no doubt aimed at the aviation training vessel requirement for the Joint Helicopter School to be acquired under Air 9000 Phase 7.

The MRV is an 86m long trimaran with a deadweight of 500 tonnes for its 500 m2 multi-role mission deck. It has a crew of 35 with 29 additional high quality berths, 30 more austere berths and seating for 100. It has hangars for two MRH90s and a 25mm Typhoon gun system.

This kind of ship could easily deploy a company sized force rapidly into the South pacific and sustain it until the ADAS with the two LHDs and fleet support show up. It could also be used for long range patrol missions with a platoon sized force embarked.

IIRC this vessel/design has been discussed on DT before. Likely earlier on in this thread actually. From what I recall, the general concensus was that the Austal MRC or MRV was an interesting design but not really appropriate for the RAN.

Again, IIRC the design is built to the HSC standard, as such cannot operate more than 8 hours from port (in other words no ocean crossings) or in bad weather or rough seas. While the design is a fast trimaran, with 500 dwt there is a relatively low threshold on how much material could be carried before it effects the operating speed and efficiency of the vessel. It is distinctly possible that the design could be laden so that it ends up only somewhat faster than a much larger conventionally designed monohull. The end result being that the Austal design could get someone relatively close by first (weather & seas permitting) but with only a fraction of what a larger ship could deliver.

Now, if the design were purchased by countries other than Australia, countries like Indonesia, Malaysia, or the Philippines for example. Basically areas where it would be operating in a green or brownwater environment and therefore its shallow draught would be an advantage and its need for shelter/port in rough weather would not be a disadvantage... Then the design could do quite well.

-Cheers

 

[Todjaeger]

I have been ruminating on an 'Anzac replacement' frigate for a couple of weeks now. Given the recent posts by ThePuss, Oz, Kato and Swerve, I had cause to modify some of my thinking.

As I understand it, at present the role of the Anzac-class FFH's is that of a GP and perhaps ASW frigate, with the FFG taking the AAD role. As the Anzac upgrade gets further underway, they will (finally!) be fitted with improved radars and ASuW capabilities as well. In the next decade, the Hobart-class AWD will be replacing the FFG and taking the AAD role.

What I have been thinking about is the suitability for an Absalon-class or similar vessel type to replace the Anzac-class FFH.

Now, I am no ship designer/engineer, so I will instead layout what I would like to see or use in the 'Anzac replacement' so that others can critique both the overall concept as well as the underlying ideas. At the end, I will try and highlight what I see as possible pros and cons.

The starting point would be the plans for the Hobart-class AWD. As much as is reasonably possible, I would use the hull-form and machinery layout of the Hobart-class in the 'Anzac replacement', instead having a different superstructure.

I would have the 'Anzac replacement' permanently equipped with a Mk 45 Mod 4 5" (127mm)/62-cal, I would also have permanently mounted 2 (or perhaps 4) 35mm Millenium guns, either in a fore/aft, or port/starboard arrangement, or perhaps both if 4 guns. There would also be two sets of triple 324mm torpedoe tubes firing port/starboard (Mk 32 anyone?) There would also be 5 spaces for Standardflex containerized weapon systems. Also like on the Absalon-class, there would be an internal multipurpose mission deck and rear Ro/Ro ramp which accesses it. The multipurpose deck would be designed so that it can carry vehicles, upto & including Australia's M1A1 AIM Abrams tanks, and/or different containerized modules. Like on the Danish Abasalon's these containers could be additional accomodations, C4/HQ assets, hospital unit, etc. There would also likely be additional accomodations built into the design itself. The main sensors and CDS would revolve around CEAFAR/AUSPAR and Saab Australia's 9LV Mk 4, if it can accomodate the architecture needed for Standardflex. Sonar would include hull-mounted, mine avoidance and a towed array. There would also be hangar space for two helicopters of NH-90 at least.

The main focus of this design is to have a combat capable (large) frigate, able to provide equal if not superior capabilities to that of the upgraded Anzac-class FFH's it would be replacing. At the same time, by including some of the features (Standardflex & the mission deck) it could, under the appropriate circumstances, perform missions that an ordinary frigate either could not, or not do nearly so well.

Assuming the designs can be adapted as mentioned above... The Pro's are as I see them:

Support of Australian industry by utilizing Australian designs or those produced under license in Australia.

Maximum commonality to other designs and equipment already in use by the RAN.

Greater flexibility in what missions a RAN frigate can conduct, and what roles it can fufill.

The Con's, again as I seem them.

The RAN would have project risk as a result of needing to adapt existing designs instead of using a MOTS solution. It is possible that the F-100 adapted hull could not accomodate needed machinery & the mission deck wouldout redesign. Also, the Standardflex (C-flex) architecture might be incompatible with the Saab Australia 9LV Mk4 CDS and/or the CEAFAR/AUSPAR radar...

A larger vessel (an Absalon-class is nearly twice the displacement of an Anzac-class...) would likely have a higher cost than that of a smaller vessel that was less flexible and more closely resembled an upgraded Anzac in terms of systems and performance.

Again, just a reminder. This design is intended to be the 'Anzac replacement' and as such the most attention would be paid to making sure that it can fufil whatever requirement roles that frigate is to have. The ability to carry, drop off or pickup troops & personnel, or to deliver vehicles, etc is really more to be a boost to a navy that is restricted in the numbers and types of vessels it can operate due to personnel limits.

Please let me know what you think, or if there are areas which could or should be better explained or expanded upon.

-Cheers

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I’m sorry to say but you’re not the first to be working along these lines or publishing it.

To install a mission deck at the stern of an F-100 frigate would require a major redesign as you would have to lift the structure a deck above the current flight deck to provide the required headroom. This could be achievable with the flight deck being moved forward (which is better for flight operations) and the hangar incorporated into the superstructure where the AEGIS used to be. However it is a major job, especially sorting out the changed centre of gravities and exhaust uptakes.

Rather than the Danish Stanflex the best option for modular capabilities would be to use the same standards as the US Navy’s LCS project enabling a range of modular specialist functions like organic MCM and raiding parties to be carried. Providing that mission deck with the ability to carry 60 tonne MBTs is immensely misplaced. The heaviest vehicles it is likely to carry would be an IFV or EFV at about 30 tonnes, or half the weight of an MBT.

 

[Todjaeger]

I’m sorry to say but you’re not the first to be working along these lines or publishing it.

To install a mission deck at the stern of an F-100 frigate would require a major redesign as you would have to lift the structure a deck above the current flight deck to provide the required headroom. This could be achievable with the flight deck being moved forward (which is better for flight operations) and the hangar incorporated into the superstructure where the AEGIS used to be. However it is a major job, especially sorting out the changed centre of gravities and exhaust uptakes.

Rather than the Danish Stanflex the best option for modular capabilities would be to use the same standards as the US Navy’s LCS project enabling a range of modular specialist functions like organic MCM and raiding parties to be carried. Providing that mission deck with the ability to carry 60 tonne MBTs is immensely misplaced. The heaviest vehicles it is likely to carry would be an IFV or EFV at about 30 tonnes, or half the weight of an MBT.

Not very surprised that a F-100 variant hull likely would not suit. Had been looking through images of the stern of the Absalon and trying to compare that with the stern of the F-100, unfortunately I do not have decent images of the F-100 stern.

If the modular systems from the LCS project would give the desired flexibility in terms of armament variation, I would have no problem with using that system instead of Stanflex. Not sure if the LCS system would appropriately cover what I have in mind for the mission deck modular systems though...:unknown

I agree, it would be unlikely that an 'Anzac replacement' would be used to either land or retrieve something like an MBT. However, IIRC the Danish Absalon can potentially carry 7 Leo II MBT if it had to. However, there is another reason I had for including a mission deck able to support such a weight. Depending on what could be mounted internally on the aft end of the mission deck, as well as the maximum safe size for the hatch covering the Ro/Ro ramp in the stern, it might be possible for the 'Anzac replacement' to deploy and/or retrieve LCMs without the use of a well deck. If possible, it would most likely not be something done commonly, or in high sea states, but again could add just that little extra bit of flexibility. Particularly since it could also allow an 'Anzac replacement' to act as a delivery and mothership for small patrol boats and/or USVs...

-Cheers

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Firstly I didn't say the F100 hull was unsuitable for a mission deck just that it would require a major redesign in that you can't fit it in amongst the current structural configuration. If you want to add a LCM stern capability then you will need a lot more space and weight than a mere Absalom/LCS type mission deck. Especially as you would need some kind of interface? Either a ballast-down well dock or a 150 tonne capacity crane. This is really entering “Weapons of Choice” levels of realism. For that kind of capability you will need a hull like the RSN’s Endurance class not the F100 as you base.

 

[AegisFC]

Not very surprised that a F-100 variant hull likely would not suit. Had been looking through images of the stern of the Absalon and trying to compare that with the stern of the F-100, unfortunately I do not have decent images of the F-100 stern.

This good enough?
http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a10/dubalicious42/IMG_1354.jpg

I also have these.
http://www.defencetalk.com/pictures/data/4602/IMG_1908.JPG

http://www.defencetalk.com/pictures/data/4602/IMG_1906.JPG

Hope those help.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Something like this with the deckplans is what you need.

http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j35/abegubler/AWD_VLS.gif

 

[splat]

if you were to increase the hobarts displacement by 50% but keeping its sensor weapons fit as currently planned,would that add much to the build cost and fuel operating costs?and would extra propulsion be installed and would that increase the sailor complement?

 

[Todjaeger]

if you were to increase the hobarts displacement by 50% but keeping its sensor weapons fit as currently planned,would that add much to the build cost and fuel operating costs?and would extra propulsion be installed and would that increase the sailor complement?

For what reason/why would the Hobart-class displacement increase by 50%? Since it is to be based off the Spanish F-100 class, it is currently expected to have a full load displacement of ~ 6,250 tonnes already.

Given that G&C offerred a larger design based off a modified version of the USN Arleigh Burke-class DDG which was likely rejected at least in part due to project risk... Why would the RAN want to significantly modify the AWD? Also, what would be done with the extra ~3,000 tonnes?

I would expect though, that such a significant increase in vessel displacement would either adversely effect the max & crusing speeds, or require more powerful (or just more) engines.

-Cheers

 

[splat]

For what reason/why would the Hobart-class displacement increase by 50%? Since it is to be based off the Spanish F-100 class, it is currently expected to have a full load displacement of ~ 6,250 tonnes already.

Given that G&C offerred a larger design based off a modified version of the USN Arleigh Burke-class DDG which was likely rejected at least in part due to project risk... Why would the RAN want to significantly modify the AWD? Also, what would be done with the extra ~3,000 tonnes?

I would expect though, that such a significant increase in vessel displacement would either adversely effect the max & crusing speeds, or require more powerful (or just more) engines.

-Cheers

just curious as to the cost and manning issues if a larger ship were planned,one that could have a more credible armaments package if needed through the extra space a larger ship would provide.

 

[alexsa]

if you were to increase the hobarts displacement by 50% but keeping its sensor weapons fit as currently planned,would that add much to the build cost and fuel operating costs?and would extra propulsion be installed and would that increase the sailor complement?

I assme you intend increasing the dimensions of the vessel. the F100 is quite beamy and would probably stand a mid ships pug of 10 to 15m without too may problems. You wouel not want to mess wiht the shaft line or steering gear as this wouel involve a major and redesing wiht assocated costs and risk.

A 50% increase in displacment is a big ask and givne the vessl TBC is prably quite low such an increase even on an extended hull will resutl in a much lower freebaord and increase hydronamic drag and hull stress. in other words it really is not practical..... or even advisable.

I don't see the point in a hybrid frigate when we could build a very good long range escort frigate on the F100 hull (even extended if you wished and fitted in the same method as the german force stablization frigate). The mony it would cost to design and build a new hybrid is likely to be engough to buy another smaller amphiboous support vessel similar to the MRV ...................... without the risk.
ent.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

The 5,800 tonne F100 was designed by Gibbs & Cix as a smaller version of the DDG-51 design and is often referred to as the 'Baby Burke'. If you want something 50% bigger than the F100 then you can just look at their 8,100 tonne Evolved AWD design or 'Mini Burke'. If you want to look at something bigger again yet designed with the same technology and layout then there's the 9,200 tonne DDG-51 Flight II. You can scale up to the 'Super Burke' the 10,300 tonne KDX III. There is also the diminutive F100 the 5,300 tonne Nansen class... All of these ships were based on the original Gibbs & Cox 8,300 tonne DDG-51 Flight I design.