Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[StingrayOZ]

Why would you need the increase the displacement of the AWD by that much?

If you want additional missiles then just use the AWD to direct missiles launched from frigates. The AWD has room to mount CIWS, ESSM, and various SM series, harpoon and possibly tomahawk in numbers sufficent for our region. If Australia builds 4 AWD hulls, thats a pretty strong vessel with enough numbers that they could be used in pairs to protect a small taskforce. (LHD's, Frigates, a few sealift, replentishment, various international participants).

Even if we made the AWD larger, to fit say additional VLS, I doubt we could afford to pack them out. I don't see us needing more than 48 cells x 2. But if situations do arise, then we have options in terms of frigates and allies.

Australia's frigates I think should be based off the F-100 hull (@ ~5,300t). Its big, with out being too big. The only thing I don't like is its helo hanger. Both could be a little larger on the AWD but as a frigate more room might be freed up.

IF we ever need too, its possible the frigate ships could be system upgraded to essentially AWD levels if needed. Should give us real options for upgrades over the life of the ships.

 

[Beagle]

The original proposal was to increase the size of the Anzac replacement not the AWD.

As for a mission deck on the Anzac replacement; I don't see it being really requied, as in what situation would require a companies worth of equipment to be deployed in a hostile beach landing environment?

IMO, if its hostile we will be going in with a large overwhelming LHD sized force or a small recon SAS force. Any meduim operation in between is likely to be "non-hostile" and a RO-RO ship, airlift or the like can manage it. Think about what most of our operations have consisted of so far.

However, as for mission deck idea goes, prehaps just using a second hanger like in the F125. Rarely will more than one helo be aboard a RAN frigate anyway. The second hanger can be used as small storage space (maybe for vehicles to be underslung on the helo) and the extra accomidation can take a recon detachment of SAS personell for insertion.

As for the MRC if you could design it to reverse up and beach itself somehow with a larger offloading ramp, then its a possible replacement for the Balikpapan class LCH. But that is a big IF!

 

[Blas de Lezo]

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.

I think you will find that the F100 was not in any way designed by Gibbs&Cox but is instead a design from Navantia, the project had its genesis on the NFR-90 and it took shape afterwards during the TRILATERAL agreement (Germany,Holland and Spain), The f100 shares more with the De Zeven and F124 than the Burkes ( Structure) and obviously shares systems with the Burkes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NFR-90

Best regards

 

[Todjaeger]

The original proposal was to increase the size of the Anzac replacement not the AWD.

As for a mission deck on the Anzac replacement; I don't see it being really requied, as in what situation would require a companies worth of equipment to be deployed in a hostile beach landing environment?

IMO, if its hostile we will be going in with a large overwhelming LHD sized force or a small recon SAS force. Any meduim operation in between is likely to be "non-hostile" and a RO-RO ship, airlift or the like can manage it. Think about what most of our operations have consisted of so far.

However, as for mission deck idea goes, prehaps just using a second hanger like in the F125. Rarely will more than one helo be aboard a RAN frigate anyway. The second hanger can be used as small storage space (maybe for vehicles to be underslung on the helo) and the extra accomidation can take a recon detachment of SAS personell for insertion.

As for the MRC if you could design it to reverse up and beach itself somehow with a larger offloading ramp, then its a possible replacement for the Balikpapan class LCH. But that is a big IF!

The appeal a larger vessel with a with a mission deck (a la the Absalon-class) has in the Anzac replacement is what additional things can be done with it IMO. There are or have been a few occasions when some additional, smaller lift quantities would have been useful to the RAN. I am thinking of some of the later ops in support of RAMSI, or in Timor Leste. For these sort of ops, a two helicopter vessel (again, like Absalon) would also have been beneficial.

As I understand it, the mission deck is multi-role, able to do more than just serve as a vehicle or troop deck. ISO containers can be put in to provide a modular hospital or HQ function. I could be mistaken, but I do not think the F-100 frigates are particularly well setup to servce as a command ship. I do know that the larger Arleigh Burke-class DDGs used by the USN do not have the space, etc set aside for something like a command staff, in addition to the ships crew. Given that the F-100 frigate performs a similar role but is a smaller ship, I would expect it would not either. Given that at time RAN vessels will be acting as the command ship in a task force. IIRC one or more of the Anzac- or Adelaide-class frigates has done so in the Persian Gulf during some of the various deployments. Having additional available space might make operations more efficient or capable, etc.

Have to run.

-Cheers

 

[swerve]

As I understand it, the mission deck is multi-role, able to do more than just serve as a vehicle or troop deck. ISO containers can be put in to provide a modular hospital or HQ function.

Yes. That's why they call it a flex deck.

 

[sandman]

The appeal a larger vessel with a with a mission deck (a la the Absalon-class) has in the Anzac replacement is what additional things can be done with it IMO. There are or have been a few occasions when some additional, smaller lift quantities would have been useful to the RAN. I am thinking of some of the later ops in support of RAMSI, or in Timor Leste. For these sort of ops, a two helicopter vessel (again, like Absalon) would also have been beneficial.

But that is exactly why we have amphib ships to fill that role. And I dont agree that such a bastardized ship like an absalon would be that much of an advantage.

And when it comes to an escorts primary role (ie warfighting), a mission deck ala absalon is such a large deficiency that it renders the ship pretty much useless in actual combat ops for said primary role.

 

[danielpom]

Help Please

Hello, Sorry to cut in like this, but I would really appreciate some help! Would anybody know if it is possible to join Australian armed forces from England? I am not looking to transfer, but to start fresh . . If anybody knows ANYTHING at all, I would greatl appreciate it!

Thank you.

 

[PeterM]

Firstly, I am no expert, but this is what I would consider for an Anzac replacement.

Use the F100 hull, machinery etc. This leverages existing technology within the RAN and making support and maintenance simpler. The size of the hull would allow consierable upgrade over the ship's lifecycle.

For armament and elctronics I would, at least initially, use what is being installed on the Anzacs during their current refits. With the additional size of the hull, I would add some kind of mission module system, perhaps along the lines of the mission module system the USN have developed for the LCV. This would allow felxibility in capability to suit the mission; mission modules could including short term troop capacity if required.

I don't see the need for permanaent troop capacity, after all strategically we us the airforce C17s and C130 for transport; these are certainly capable of company sized deployments which a "colonial cruiser" would fill, including light armoured vehivles. For anything larger we will have 2 LHDs and the third amphibious ship (when completed).

The army has limited personel, I don't see them being able to regularly sustain detachments on 3 large amphibious ships, overseas depolyments and company sized deployments on several "colonial cruisers".

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I think you will find that the F100 was not in any way designed by Gibbs&Cox but is instead a design from Navantia, the project had its genesis on the NFR-90 and it took shape afterwards during the TRILATERAL agreement (Germany,Holland and Spain), The f100 shares more with the De Zeven and F124 than the Burkes ( Structure) and obviously shares systems with the Burkes.

The TFA has a lot more to do with combat systems than hull technology. As to Bazan/Izar (Navantia is only a recent name) designing the F-100 of course they did but with the assistance of a contracted design agent with loads of design IP. That agent was of course Gibbs & Cox. Having toured DDG-51s and F-100s top to bottom the similarities are immense.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I could be mistaken, but I do not think the F-100 frigates are particularly well setup to servce as a command ship. I do know that the larger Arleigh Burke-class DDGs used by the USN do not have the space, etc set aside for something like a command staff, in addition to the ships crew. Given that the F-100 frigate performs a similar role but is a smaller ship, I would expect it would not either.

Yep you're very much mistaken. The DDG-51s are designed to be parts of battlegroups not leaders of them. So all their space is allocated to this role. The AWDs are designed to be battlegroup leaders. Since all you need is space for some work stations and extra comms channels it is quite easy to design a command capability into a 6,000 tonne ship. Also the original Armada Espanol requirements were very different to the US Navy's. The wardroom on a DDG-51 is a shoe box on the port side of the forward superstructure under the bridge. The wardroom on a F-100 is a spacious restaurant and bar on the main deck amidships...

 

[gf0012-aust]

Hello, Sorry to cut in like this, but I would really appreciate some help! Would anybody know if it is possible to join Australian armed forces from England? I am not looking to transfer, but to start fresh . . If anybody knows ANYTHING at all, I would greatl appreciate it!

Thank you.

Go to Australian House in London, or ring them up and ask for an info pack - or ask them over the phone. There are ADF officers attached to Aust House.

 

[Todjaeger]

Yep you're very much mistaken. The DDG-51s are designed to be parts of battlegroups not leaders of them. So all their space is allocated to this role. The AWDs are designed to be battlegroup leaders. Since all you need is space for some work stations and extra comms channels it is quite easy to design a command capability into a 6,000 tonne ship. Also the original Armada Espanol requirements were very different to the US Navy's. The wardroom on a DDG-51 is a show box on the port side of the forward superstructure under the bridge. The wardroom on a F-100 is a spacious restaurant and bar on the main deck amidships...

Okay, good to know that the space for a command function was already built in. I do recall someone having raised a question about that at some point. Particularly since they had mentioned how cramped an Arleigh Burke could get, trying to add in the staff & work stations needed for command ops in the CIC. IIRC the person was ex-USN and had indicated that for command roles, the Ticonderoga-class crusier was superior, as there were either already extra workstations, or space available to add workstations for command functions.

-Cheers

 

[AegisFC]

Okay, good to know that the space for a command function was already built in. I do recall someone having raised a question about that at some point. Particularly since they had mentioned how cramped an Arleigh Burke could get, trying to add in the staff & work stations needed for command ops in the CIC. IIRC the person was ex-USN and had indicated that for command roles, the Ticonderoga-class crusier was superior, as there were either already extra workstations, or space available to add workstations for command functions.

-Cheers

Burkes are cramped when you embark a staff, especially in CIC. A Ticonderoga has an extra set of Large Screen Displays, and ADS consoles for any embarked staff to use, a Burke doesn't.

 

[rjmaz1]

IMO, if its hostile we will be going in with a large overwhelming LHD sized force or a small recon SAS force. Any meduim operation in between is likely to be "non-hostile" and a RO-RO ship, airlift or the like can manage it. Think about what most of our operations have consisted of so far.

This gets me thinking of the value of a "medium" equiped force.

Any hostile environment will definitely see US Navy assets in theatre, so having similar high end assets that can slot in would be great.

For a non-hostile environment you could simply strap a gun onto a commercial ferry and get the job done with minimal crew. Australia could have a dozen ships similar to New Zealands Offshore Patrol Vessel and this would satisfy the non hostile role brilliantly with an unarmed large RORO ship.

I dont understand the suggestions of upgrading the ANZAC ships to a high level. They should be kept as basic escorts with the AWD's doing the high end hostile missions. That will save money and reduce manning.

 

[Todjaeger]

I dont understand the suggestions of upgrading the ANZAC ships to a high level. They should be kept as basic escorts with the AWD's doing the high end hostile missions. That will save money and reduce manning.

The way I read this, you feel that the AWD should be the only RAN assets able to operate in a high level hostile environment, correct?

If this is the case, I would have to strongly disagree. The RAN is currently only set to receive 3 AWD, enabling ~1 to always be available for deployment. Not having the Anzac receive upgrades would ultimately mean it at somepoint is unable to operate on its own in a hot/hostile area without being escorted by another vessel that is able to not only protect itself, but also other ships.

Given the small overall size of the RAN, having vessels that are insufficiently capable of independent operations does not IMO make sense.

Given that the RAN vessels are currently carrying up to 32 ESSM, they are capable of defending themselves vs. air threats, and to a limited degree, providing area air defence. Upgrading the Anzac radar systems, FCS and illuminators would improve the Anzac's ability to detect and respond to threats against it or other vessels nearby vessels.

-Cheers

 

[Beagle]

The appeal a larger vessel with a with a mission deck (a la the Absalon-class) has in the Anzac replacement is what additional things can be done with it IMO. There are or have been a few occasions when some additional, smaller lift quantities would have been useful to the RAN. I am thinking of some of the later ops in support of RAMSI, or in Timor Leste. For these sort of ops, a two helicopter vessel (again, like Absalon) would also have been beneficial.

As I understand it, the mission deck is multi-role, able to do more than just serve as a vehicle or troop deck. ISO containers can be put in to provide a modular hospital or HQ function. I could be mistaken, but I do not think the F-100 frigates are particularly well setup to servce as a command ship. I do know that the larger Arleigh Burke-class DDGs used by the USN do not have the space, etc set aside for something like a command staff, in addition to the ships crew. Given that the F-100 frigate performs a similar role but is a smaller ship, I would expect it would not either. Given that at time RAN vessels will be acting as the command ship in a task force. IIRC one or more of the Anzac- or Adelaide-class frigates has done so in the Persian Gulf during some of the various deployments. Having additional available space might make operations more efficient or capable, etc.

Have to run.

-Cheers

I see your point. However, it appears the replacement ANZAC's won't be fitted with the Ageis Systems; that should provide plenty of additional space for a multi-purpose room along with a possible reduction in crew numbers. You will also note on the F125 proposal that there is space for 2x ISO containers. It is roughly the same size as the F100 so it gives an indication of what could be fitted into the F100 hull. I would much rather see the purchase of an LCU-2000 or chartering a commercial vessel, than the possible degridation of combat ability or the expense to modify the hulls.

 

[StingrayOZ]

With only 3 (hopefully 4) AWD's that Doesn't leave our region with a whole lot of protective cover. It is quiet possible that Frigates will not always operate in OPV type roles. Australia is not New Zealand, we don't operate in a benign enviroment sanitised by allies. Not that the NZ experience seems to be blazing a trail of low costs/high quality.

If an AWD suffers a fire, mechanical problems, bad weather, committed else where or even damage from action. Australia should still have assets to protect her waters.

While generally yes, US assets would be made avalible, that isn't a sure thing and we don't know what type. For Timor we got a Tico. Next time it may what ever be around. Sometimes to keep the greater peace, the US may not be able to help Australia at all directly, there were great complications when Indonesia was involved because it may just open a can of worms particularly if Australia is not directly threatend but becomes a war of regional security etc. There may also be logistical reasons (committed assets elsewhere, tasking, system upgrades, budget cuts, training etc).Again, we can't rely, nor should we on US assets for everything. They aren't some sort of private security firm we just hire to fight wars in our region.

The AWD have CIC space, as do the LHD's. I would also argue the anzac replacements also have CIC space allocated. We are going to have difficulty sustaining LHD and/or AWD's in a high intensity conflict and its quiet likely that a Frigate will have to act in a CIC role somewhere in the Pacific, a region starved of telecommunications, infrastructure, power and security.

The Frigates should be larger to:
+ Provide room for additional stores for long endurance missions at higher intensities.
+ Provide improve conditions for crews and embarked personel
+ To provide CIC space
+ To allow room for upgrades
+ To provide flexable space

We need 4 AWD's, we need atleast 8 pref 10+ war fighting frigates. OPV's and patrol boats are a whole different matter and no matter how big, will never replace this primary need.

 

[Aussie Digger]

I dont understand the suggestions of upgrading the ANZAC ships to a high level. They should be kept as basic escorts with the AWD's doing the high end hostile missions. That will save money and reduce manning.

An escort for what and to where?

The ANZAC is getting an anti-ship missile defence upgrade because it's 1980's era radar and EO/IR sensors are nearing obsolescence.

Should an escort ship be a floating target, unable to defend even itself against a modern anti-ship missile?

Seems like a waste to have under those circumstances.

In any case, how will upgrading the radar reduce manning, exactly?

 

[rjmaz1]

An escort for what and to where?

A long ranged escort of Australian shipping lanes during war time but not in the war zone. That is a pretty important role considering Australia's involvement in previous conflicts. A non-upgraded ANZAC could perform this mission perfectly.

Another mission would be anti-piracy. The ANZAC's long range and relative high speed of the frigate design allows it to catch pirates. You don't need a high end weapon system for this role.

A lightly armed frigate is highly valuable. Or in our case a highly armed frigate who's capabilities are now considered slightly light. An OPV is often considerably slower than a frigate.

In any case, how will upgrading the radar reduce manning, exactly?

High end, state of the art technology often has very low levels of automation due to many issues such as lack of computing power, lack of mature software and the goal of pure performance.

There are plenty of modern "low end" combat systems that have extremely high levels of automation designed for the new corvettes and armed patrol boats. These systems by todays standards may be considered "low end" performance wise but they would offer performance improvements over older high end systems.

As manning is such a huge issue with Australia it would be wise to accept a lower performance standard providing manning can be significantly reduced. Providing performance is still higher than the previous old system of course.

Even if the performance of the system is slightly lower the reduction in manning would allow for more ships to be manned resulting in more capability.

I do not see why our Frigates cannot have corvette sized manned levels considering they will perform a similar mission to a corvette once we get the AWD's.

 

[gf0012-aust]

A long ranged escort of Australian shipping lanes during war time but not in the war zone. That is a pretty important role considering Australia's involvement in previous conflicts. A non-upgraded ANZAC could perform this mission perfectly.

we've already witnessed the folly of "fitted for but not with"

Another mission would be anti-piracy. The ANZAC's long range and relative high speed of the frigate design allows it to catch pirates. You don't need a high end weapon system for this role.

A lightly armed frigate is highly valuable. Or in our case a highly armed frigate who's capabilities are now considered slightly light. An OPV is often considerably slower than a frigate.

no. pirates commence runs with high speed vessels within the 12 mile limit, or if deployed from slow moving mothers. You don't need to send a warship to catch a pirate mothership when helicopters are much faster and where you can have precision marksmen on board as well. (as currently happens with some of our partners). I can tell you first hand how they operate because my daughter used to be employed in a security role and was on a ship that was attacked last year - some things are known - and the way that they can be engaged is "known"

High end, state of the art technology often has very low levels of automation due to many issues such as lack of computing power, lack of mature software and the goal of pure performance.

what recent example is there of high end comms and sensor suites reducing the manpower by an order of magnitude? you do realise that australian sailors are currently doing more roles than their US equivs anyway? You do realise that we have reduced the manning levels as much as we can. You have crews for fire and damage control reasons as well - thats why the USN is resistant to reduced levels - they're not even comfortable with our levels due to fire and damage control concerns

There are plenty of modern "low end" combat systems that have extremely high levels of automation designed for the new corvettes and armed patrol boats. These systems by todays standards may be considered "low end" performance wise but they would offer performance improvements over older high end systems.

where? what systems? tell me and I'll pass it on. We'd love to know.

As manning is such a huge issue with Australia it would be wise to accept a lower performance standard providing manning can be significantly reduced. Providing performance is still higher than the previous old system of course.

No you can't - we have hit minimum already - see the ref before of fire and damage control issues.

Even if the performance of the system is slightly lower the reduction in manning would allow for more ships to be manned resulting in more capability.

Thats not the reality of procurement. We want sophisticated assets that can merge with our partners assets and be capable in their own right. We've travelled the "kingswood" path before. WOFTAM

I do not see why our Frigates cannot have corvette sized manned levels considering they will perform a similar mission to a corvette once we get the AWD's.

Because you don't understand the manning requirements needed in the first place.