Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[battlensign]

Having been on a russian whiskey class, I can tell you that the Oberon in comparison is the Hilton Hotel....

Anything that helps impinge on crew moral and subsequently operational effectiveness of red-force boats is okay by me......

Brett.

P.S GF - ever get a chance to read that barely literate SSN article?

 

[battlensign]

AWD and RAN observers might have seen the discussion on this and other fora, and even in an article in the Weekend Australian's recent 'Defence Supplement', about the possibility of using the F-100 hull for the basis of any ANZAC replacement vessel to maximise econimic benefits from the program and minimise associated risk. The more intelligent of us may have even noticed the WP gave a nominal displacement of 7000tons for the envisaged ANZAC replacements. Noting that the F-100 series is about 6250tons, using such a hull wasn't out of the realms of possibility.

It appears that employing the F-100 hull for such a replacement has been made easier. I would refer you all to a recently updated Air Warfare Destroyer Alliance website factsheet (that I am not naive enough to believe that I am the only one to read) which goes through what vessel is being used as a baseline (F-104 rather than F-105) and identifies the extent of changes and Australianisation:

Air Warfare Destroyer Alliance - Project Overview - The Hobart Class - Differences from the F100 Class

I find it particularly interesting that the factsheet has this to say about the Aus F-100 displacement:

The ship’s displacement will be increased to 7,000 tonnes for an improved service life margin.

Perhaps this is why the WP was willing to give and actual figure for displacement of 7000tons despite the fact that purely ASW frigates tend to be somewhat smaller than their Air Defence colleagues. Additionally, it would if I am correct, once again raise the interesting question of what numbers of VLS will be on board? and what will they contain? My best guess would be 16 VLS for 64 ESSMs and 16 VLS for TLAMs for a total of 32.

Brett.

 

[StingrayOZ]

I think we can all agree that there will be more than sufficent VLS in the RAN for any concievable conflict. I would expect the AWD to have greater than 48 VLS (56 or possibly more up to 64). Say 32 ESSM, leaves plenty of cells for TACTOM, SM2/3/6, PAC3. Lets assume we get four of those. Thats between 192 and 224 (256 absolute maxium) just on the AWD. The fact the hull is going from 6000t to 7000t is a big change, should allow much more growth room (for cells and radar).

I would imagine the ANZAC II would have perhaps 32 VLS but larger spaces avalible for hangers etc. There would most likely be room for 48 cells if we really needed them at a later date. That 256 VLS (384 max) on the ANZAC II's. So we are likely to get atleast 450 VLS in the surface RAN but could be as high as 700 in some sort of prewar refit. Thats MORE than enough, we don't need to worry about VLS. Even if we engaged with some soviet Navy that had travelled forward through time to the pacific. I would also assume the subs would have ~16 cells as well carrying tomahawks. So there is another 200 just for that.

What we need to worry is what type and what quality. I think if you want an effective BMD you need SM-3 or atleast SM-3 compatable systems and the missiles able to be ordered short notice from the USN. A small pool (16-32 missiles) could be shared with the AWD's. PAC3 could then be the regular BMD on any non SM-3 AWD and ANZAC II and offer minium low threat protection. In a BMD attack the SM-3 would be the first line, PAC-3 cleaning up. SM-3 means we can also disable (or threaten to) low orbit spacecraft/missiles. That is important because we can mop up stuff the US can't in our region. SM-3 is also the only credible defence against balistics WMD, unless you want a ton of radioactive junk falling over Sydney or your fleet.

TACTOM we should order ~250+ of. This is our long arm punch, unless you want to get unconfortably close to strike every frontline ship need this. upgrade for land/marine attack.

Harpoon I see taking a bit more of a back seat in the new fleet, its not bad but we don't need it as much. However, they won't go to waste.

The OCV is big enough I would imagine you could load 4 Harpoon on them as well. Maybe some (~16) ESSM/searam or some CIWS as well. Just enough to deter active attacks (RPG's etc) on them and defend themselves on blue water. They should get 76mm guns as well. I would imagine a mini Seamount/auspar will eventually be fitted to them, and make them very capable patrolling Corvettes.

The OCV is strong enough that it can patrol hostile waters by itself or intergrate as part of a taskforce to fend off gun boats, escort landing craft, patrol sealanes and the like.

I would also assume the LHD are going to get some ESSM as well although I don't think it has been mention specifically.

Australia would be able to form a pretty formidable taskforce if she was required. with 4 AWD, 2 would be avalible, numerous (4+) ANZACII would also be avalible, and two subs should be avalible to be moved into even distant theatres. Several OCV's will be avalible and can take lighter duties from the ANZACII's in theater or at home.

Thats if we get everything the WP talks about. However I do believe for the RAN, the WP shows great planing, serious concern of likely and terrible situations and the level of leadership we need to show regionally. This fleet will be the hub our neighbours/allies hook into and join together in a time of crisis to protect our region. Forging us together.

 

[swerve]

Having been on a russian whiskey class, I can tell you that the Oberon in comparison is the Hilton Hotel....

Ugh! I looked over HMAS Onslow when I was working in Sydney (very convenient - I lived in a flat overlooking Darling Harbour, so it was a short walk), & being shut up in there is my idea of hell.

 

[Aussie Digger]

I see Australia is going pirate hunting now too...

MINISTER FOR DEFENCE ANNOUNCES AUSTRALIAN CONTRIBUTION TO INTERNATIONAL ANTI-PIRACY EFFORTS

Minister for Defence, the Hon. Joel Fitzgibbon MP, today announced that the Australian Defence Force would contribute to international efforts to combat piracy off the Horn of Africa.

“The contribution will help to curb piracy in the region, protect Australian and international maritime trade and underline our commitment to targeted increased engagement with Africa,” Mr Fitzgibbon said.

Australia will flexibly task our frigate and AP-3C maritime patrol aircraft that are currently based in the Middle East between anti-piracy operations and their current counter-terrorism and maritime security patrol duties under OP SLIPPER. This will enable Australia to provide a robust and effective contribution to anti-piracy efforts while ensuring we remain able to respond to the most pressing tasking across the region at any time.

Australia will also play a significant role in broader maritime security efforts in the region by providing on a rotational basis a Commander and Fleet Battle staff to command counter-terrorism activities under international Task Force 150 from Combined Maritime Forces (CMF) Headquarters in Bahrain. Additionally, Defence will provide a small number of Navy planning staff to CMF Headquarters for multinational anti-piracy and maritime security planning and co-ordination.

“Piracy is a threat to global maritime security, including to Australia’s merchant trade and to Australian tourists passing through the Gulf of Aden and the Suez Canal. In 2008 there were 111 pirate attacks in the region, with 42 successful hijackings. There have been around 100 registered attacks, including over 25 successful hijackings, so far this year,” said the Minister.

This commitment reflects Australia’s support for United Nations Security Council Resolutions 1846 and 1851, which call on states to take an active role in the fight against piracy off the coast of Somalia.

“Our contribution helps demonstrate Australia’s commitment to global security and our ongoing support to the United Nations,” Mr Fitzgibbon said.

 

[rossfrb_1]

Ugh! I looked over HMAS Onslow when I was working in Sydney (very convenient - I lived in a flat overlooking Darling Harbour, so it was a short walk), & being shut up in there is my idea of hell.

I know it's generations apart, but i've visited the u-995 near Kiel - now that would have been a tough tin to live in.
U995
i takes my hat off to all submariners.
rb

 

[Marc 1]

Having been on a russian whiskey class, I can tell you that the Oberon in comparison is the Hilton Hotel....

Was that the one they had tied up at the Maritime Museum a few years back? As I recall there were only two permanent berths - captains and first officers - and the first officer's wasn't even flat - it had a 'mound' in the padding at about knee level so a pipe could pass through it. Everyone else unrolled a mattress somewhere... like on top of a racked torpedo. I'm not tall at 5' 11" but I kept hitting my noggin on pipes/valves and other things that projected into walkways. Agreed - the O boats were a big improvement on that.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Question.

Are the AWD going to be 7,000t? I recently picked up some literature from ASC saying 6,250t.

I understand the RAN wants a 750t future capability margin. Is this where 7,000t comes from (6,250 + 750 = 7,000t)? I would imagine we would be smart about it and not just have our ships sitting lower, poor sea keeping and less stable but actually make the design larger. Does the design have to be larger than F-104/105 origionals?

Air Warfare Destroyer Alliance - Project Overview - The Hobart Class seems to be confusing...

 

[uuname]

. I would refer you all to a recently updated Air Warfare Destroyer Alliance website factsheet (that I am not naive enough to believe that I am the only one to read) which goes through what vessel is being used as a baseline (F-104 rather than F-105) and identifies the extent of changes and Australianisation:

Air Warfare Destroyer Alliance - Project Overview - The Hobart Class - Differences from the F100 Class

Am I the only one disappointed that they didn't mention a155mm gun, even if only as a possible option?

Both the US and UK are implementing them, and if the same basic ship design will be used for the ANZAC mk2, having the bigger gun as standard would seem sensible.

At the very least, it would seem wise to strengthen the front to allow for a future upgrade.

 

[winnyfield]

Am I the only one disappointed that they didn't mention a155mm gun, even if only as a possible option?

Both the US and UK are implementing them,

Last I heard, nothing definite has been decided.

The UK wants to put a 155 howitzer (the US gun is different) but still a lot issues to be overcome, the germans tried with a pzh2000 but canned it - rate of fire, anti-aircraft capability etc.

There is a lot of development in 127mm extended range (70km+) ammo.

 

[battlensign]

Question.

Are the AWD going to be 7,000t? I recently picked up some literature from ASC saying 6,250t.

I understand the RAN wants a 750t future capability margin. Is this where 7,000t comes from (6,250 + 750 = 7,000t)? I would imagine we would be smart about it and not just have our ships sitting lower, poor sea keeping and less stable but actually make the design larger. Does the design have to be larger than F-104/105 origionals?

Air Warfare Destroyer Alliance - Project Overview - The Hobart Class seems to be confusing...

Definately going to be 7000tons starting displacement. It doesn't have to be larger than the original F-100s, but it is highly desirable. 750tons margin above that makes for a significantly more upgradable Destroyer (more options).

Brett.

 

[uuname]

Last I heard, nothing definite has been decided.

I was under the impession that the US AGS had been selected for the Zumwalts, and under consideration for future Burkes.
USA 155 mm/62 (6.1") Advanced Gun System (AGS)

The UK gun is supposed to have firing trials some time this year, so we may hear more soon.

I appreciate that there's no guarantee that the guns will prove to be better than what is available now, but if the US and UK both want a bigger gun, chances are that at least one of them will get it.

I worry that given that any F100/Hobart based ships won't have the same weight and space margins as the larger US/UK ships, I suspect that if allowances aren't made during initial constuction, retrofitting for a larger gun will prove expensive (or impossible).

 

[AegisFC]

I was under the impession that the US AGS had been selected for the Zumwalts, and under consideration for future Burkes.
USA 155 mm/62 (6.1") Advanced Gun System (AGS)

Fitting AGS on a Burke would take a significant redesign and future Burke production is just slightly upgraded Flight IIA's.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Is the 155mm really required?

We will have tigers able to operate off LHD's, a good 5" across the fleet, amphibious capability, OCV which could be fitted with 76mm or (possibly) even 5" themselves (or maybe a long range motar). I don't see the 155 as a real need. We would be better spending the money/space on missiles, VLS, systems, radar, tigers etc.

I was thinking about our submarines and I found an interesting link.

BMT Group Limited - News - New High Mobility Submarine Designed By BMT

Gas turbine diesel submarine.. I would imagine something like this would be very useful. A submarine able to transverse large distances quickly at ~30kt+ then using high capacity molten salt batteries and fuel cells spend a long time underwater on station. Also able to recharge its batteries quicker if required. Not sure if it could do this snorkling, but conventional diesels could still perform that role.

I would imagine a 5,000 or 6,000t sub could really hussle if motivated by 25 MW LM2500 (a bit big perhaps?).

Armed with 16 VLS tubes, 22 torpedos, UAV and UUV, towed array, 24 man SAS insertion.. 12 of those would be pretty impressive.

 

[LancasterBomber]

I was thinking about our submarines and I found an interesting link.

BMT Group Limited - News - New High Mobility Submarine Designed By BMT

Gas turbine diesel submarine.. I would imagine something like this would be very useful.

Thanks for sharing that. Certainly interesting times in the area of batteries. I wonder if the future hull design could be more structured towards the concept of a 'mothership' rather than an attack weapon in its own right.

Is it possible to send private messages on this forum?

 

[Firn]

It is just a concept, albeit an interesting one.

UUV/ROV integration is becoming a cornerstone in the sub design. The "heavy" US Navy UUV-class is (like other designs) launched through the standard heavy NATO torpedo tubes, and is well suited for existing designs. A special "hangar" and the ability to quickly recover and to support a combination of UUVs would still be a possible gamewinner.

 

[LancasterBomber]

It is just a concept, albeit an interesting one.

UUV/ROV integration is becoming a cornerstone in the sub design. The "heavy" US Navy UUV is (like other designs) launched through the torpedo tubes, and is well suited for existing designs. A special "hangar" and the ability to quickly recover and to support a combination of UUVs would still be a possible gamewinner.

I hope we go down this path. I will take a keen interest in this area.

 

[uuname]

Is the 155mm really required?

Required? No, I can't imagine any realistic situation you'd really need the bigger gun. However, I believe it would be useful in many of the duties the ship is likely to perform.

Having the big gun means you can deliver damage at a good range at low cost. Using missiles (or even ER shells) gives you much less bang for your buck.

Let's face it- if you use a cruise missile to blow up a "Taliban base" that is two tents and a camel, you didn't win. The weapon cost far more than the stuff it destroyed.

If the only options you have are expensive ones, any sort of combat is going to bleed funds at a horrific rate.

For the defence of the country, that probably doesn't matter so much- any price is a bargain there.

For supporting allied operations, however, it would be nice to have some "cheap" alternatives to offer. With a bigger gun, the ships can be tasked with costal bombardment, rather than blowing through millions of dollar's worth of missiles. They can offer something useful to a combined force, simply because they don't need to conserve every shot.

We will have tigers able to operate off LHD's

Are they okay in the corrosive environment? I thought most equipment got chewed up pretty fast if it wasn't specifically designed for it.

Fitting AGS on a Burke would take a significant redesign and future Burke production is just slightly upgraded Flight IIA's.

Well, if it would be expensive to redesign the Hobarts to take the gun even at an early stage, that's the major rationale for having it blown out of the water...

 

[harryriedl]

Required? No, I can't imagine any realistic situation you'd really need the bigger gun. However, I believe it would be useful in many of the duties the ship is likely to perform.

Having the big gun means you can deliver damage at a good range at low cost. Using missiles (or even ER shells) gives you much less bang for your buck.


For supporting allied operations, however, it would be nice to have some "cheap" alternatives to offer. With a bigger gun, the ships can be tasked with costal bombardment, rather than blowing through millions of dollar's worth of missiles. They can offer something useful to a combined force, simply because they don't need to conserve every shot.


Are they okay in the corrosive environment? I thought most equipment got chewed up pretty fast if it wasn't specifically designed for it.



Well, if it would be expensive to redesign the Hobarts to take the gun even at an early stage, that's the major rationale for having it blown out of the water...

the BAE gun should also be able to use all the fancy land based guns Excalibur and the like as well which is always handy

 

[Aussie Digger]

Required? No, I can't imagine any realistic situation you'd really need the bigger gun. However, I believe it would be useful in many of the duties the ship is likely to perform.

Having the big gun means you can deliver damage at a good range at low cost. Using missiles (or even ER shells) gives you much less bang for your buck.

Let's face it- if you use a cruise missile to blow up a "Taliban base" that is two tents and a camel, you didn't win. The weapon cost far more than the stuff it destroyed.

I'd like to see the ship carried gun that can reach Taliban positions, it'd be an impressive feat of engineering if nothing else...

For supporting allied operations, however, it would be nice to have some "cheap" alternatives to offer. With a bigger gun, the ships can be tasked with costal bombardment, rather than blowing through millions of dollar's worth of missiles. They can offer something useful to a combined force, simply because they don't need to conserve every shot.

HMAS ANZAC provided naval gunnery support (NGS - what RAN calls "Coastal Bombardment) missions during Gulf War 2 using it's 127mm gun and "standard" (non- ER) rounds.

Well, if it would be expensive to redesign the Hobarts to take the gun even at an early stage, that's the major rationale for having it blown out of the water...

VERY expensive and quite unnecessary too. The 127mm gun that will be going on the Hobart Class Destroyers (Mk 45 Mod 4 as opposed to Mk 45 Mod 2 on the existing ANZAC class) matches the range of current land based 155mm guns without -ER rounds, ie: up to 40klms.

Extended range rounds for 127mm naval guns have demonstrated ranges beyond 60k's. Even further ranged ammunition (Vulcano, ERM etc) is under-development and showing good promise, with the initial Vulcano rounds at least, demonstrating 60k ranges. Later editions are intended to demonstrate 100k + ranges.

Range won't be an issue with 127mm guns for the next few years I should imagine...