Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[agc33e]

With some research, we could plan a refuelling system for the drones, external from the mothership or the tanker of the fleet, like the air jets with the refuellers, an extendable item and then connect like rast etc, so braking the fleet less and abling to have the drones all the transit in the water...is like having the helos sensors all the day there and risking just the drone, fully safe from home port to deployment (thinking defensively).

And good value the load capacities of a galicia class complementing the deployment with a canberra or 2.

Cheer.s.

 

[gf0012-aust]

The NH90's barely fit in the allocated spaces now. The loaders must break out in a sweat everytime they try to lock one down.

adding more external stores just isn't going to happen unless someone redesigns the helo to have cantilevered mounts

 

[StevoJH]

It is recalled that in April last year, the Spanish shipyard was submitted to tender for construction of 12 submarines convened by the Australian Navy. The final decision is scheduled for November 2011, which would fit with the work load of the Spanish public company as it coincides with the completion of S-80 submersible that makes for the Spanish Armada. The S80 features a combat system and sonar equipment developed jointly between Navantia and Lockheed Martin.

No one told the person writing the Article that any submarines would be built by ASC and that construction probably wouldn't start for another half a dozen years at least?

And yes, as stated before, the 8 Frigates will be ANZAC replacements. Personally I think they should build 9 if they only get 3 AWD's.

 

[gf0012-aust]

No one told the person writing the Article that any submarines would be built by ASC and that construction probably wouldn't start for another half a dozen years at least?

having attended the SIA conference a few months back - and which was attended by CMDR Sub Sqdrn and by Rear Adm Tripovich - going off the info they provided I'd say that the Spanish report is completely optimistic.

They are one of many who keep on offering solutions - and no requirements have even been defined. 2011 is a fairy story date of significant proportions.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Thanks for clarifying GF as to where the program is at and where its not. I think the GT idea has some merits worth looking into.

Providers often talk up opportunities as if they are done deals. However, with all the business we are doing with natavia, it would make sense to take a long hard look at what they are offering. If not the submarine design, then technologies, solutions and expertise.

I think Galacia will be looked at as the 3rd sealift ship. I personally think thats the kind of ship they have in mind over say HSV's, a 3rd LHD, or even a commerical roro etc.

Adding to what steveo said, I would perfer 4 AWD and 8 Frigates. I hope we don't end up with 8 frigates and 3 AWD's.

 

[StevoJH]

Adding to what steveo said, I would perfer 4 AWD and 8 Frigates. I hope we don't end up with 8 frigates and 3 AWD's.

That would of course be the preferred option, but I don't think it will happen for some reason.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I think Galacia will be looked at as the 3rd sealift ship. I personally think thats the kind of ship they have in mind over say HSV's, a 3rd LHD, or even a commerical roro etc.

Adding to what steveo said, I would perfer 4 AWD and 8 Frigates. I hope we don't end up with 8 frigates and 3 AWD's.

I would be incredibly surprised if a 3rd LHD got up.

it would mean a rewrite of Plan Blue to deal with support, crewing issues, sustainment. All at a time when the Govt is drilling through projects and cutting the spend.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Its a shame, because we are only going to be a little short from pretty much a very very capable ADF. While I could live a Galacia class instead of a 3rd LHD (a single Galacia is better than what we have now). its still not perfect as we are getting two ships to do the job we really need 3 ships for. However, given the role of the LHD and the fact we will proberly know when we need to seriously deploy them, and the money we won't have to spend its a fair trade off I guess, if the money is spent in other areas to compensate. I don't think the RAN or anyone else is going to fight for it.

I think the 4th AWD is a bit more imperitive. We need that 4th AWD as no other asset other than allied assets would be able to fill that role. Who knows how long it will take for the ANZAC II to become operational and for the systems to be intergrated and at what level of intergration. To do CEC etc we need to have more than 1 ship deployed to a task force. We need 4 AWDs. I would like to think the RAN would fight for that. If the OZ built AWD go over budget/headaches then we could simply buy one off the spanish directly. Still I would find that hard to believe, this is the same government that gave money away freely to stimulate the economy, the windfall from getting rid of ASC, boosting S.A economy etc would pay for that 4th hull.

 

[t68]

What is the RAN looking precisely for in a sealift ship, a ship capable of only using wharf only capability as in a commercial ro-ro or more specialized like HMAS Tobruk with beaching capability?

Personally i like the idea of keeping a ship capable of beach herself and getting the equipment on the beach in the quickest time available if there are no wharf available once the LHD have done there thing and made the beach secure.

Although a Galicia or bay class are three times as big as a single Round Table class LSH (HMAS Tobruk) i believe there are positive’s in expanding the ships with new build and having 2/3 ships in her class instead of one large extra sealift ship.
She has 2 spots for helicopter and both are rated for Chinooks landing, can take approximately 12 M1 Abrams 40 M113 and 300 equipped solders.

There are disadvantage with more ships, greater manning footprint more maintenance with more ships but with the advantage of being able to land in more than one spot at a time and being able to beach itself if no wharf are available. Maybe the only modification would be a large ramp front and rear which might be able to manover to lay out flat to the beach or go at an angle if tied up along a dock to off load vehicles’ without the crane.

 

[icelord]

What is the RAN looking precisely for in a sealift ship, a ship capable of only using wharf only capability as in a commercial ro-ro or more specialized like HMAS Tobruk with beaching capability?

Personally i like the idea of keeping a ship capable of beach herself and getting the equipment on the beach in the quickest time available if there are no wharf available once the LHD have done there thing and made the beach secure.

Although a Galicia or bay class are three times as big as a single Round Table class LSH (HMAS Tobruk) i believe there are positive’s in expanding the ships with new build and having 2/3 ships in her class instead of one large extra sealift ship.
She has 2 spots for helicopter and both are rated for Chinooks landing, can take approximately 12 M1 Abrams 40 M113 and 300 equipped solders.

There are disadvantage with more ships, greater manning footprint more maintenance with more ships but with the advantage of being able to land in more than one spot at a time and being able to beach itself if no wharf are available. Maybe the only modification would be a large ramp front and rear which might be able to manover to lay out flat to the beach or go at an angle if tied up along a dock to off load vehicles’ without the crane.

As great as beaching Tobruk was, took a lot of effort, and took alot of the old girl, and if you drive past Kuttabul these days you will see why. Most Amphib operations these days are looking towards over the horizon, so that you limit the risk to a major ship, and put forward more manouverable smaller landing craft. The type purchased will go hand in hand with the new LCH and LCM that are to be called for.

Both ideas being thrown about have merit. A Ro-Ro would allow a more direct landing after the LHD have launched the first waves of troops who secure ports, but then you need to attack a place with ports, and not destroy them. A Ro-Ro would require less people then Galacia.

I do agree with smaller transport vessels then one, big troop transport. In this if they go Ro-Ro then 2 'bay' class types would work well, if they look elsewhere, there would be medium sized ships that could deploy 200-300 troops fast and effective(yeah yeah, HSV...i want it noted, the RAN operated the HSV before the USN, and used it effectively...Ala Timor. but thats another debate:gun). For small to medium theres always the Endurance class used by Singapore with good results.

 

[agc33e]

Yes, it is an impressive capability to deploy two big ships full of soldiers and equipment, imagine we are used to 2 canberras, and one is off, if we have the galicia no problem. Or the 3.
If canberras are 360 mill euro, for example, then galicias should be maximun 180 mill euro, but with all the differente capacities:
-600 soldiers plus equipment (400 for the command and control centre (high disponibility nato base) galicia type).
-33 tanks (abrahams?) or 170 armoured vehicles or/and 4 lcmes.
-4 sh 3 or 6 ab-212. Or 4 heavy helos, or 6 mediums (nh90 type).
-weapons bunkerage for any type of naval weapon, including for 30 torpedos.
-it has in the garage a middle column which makes more laborious the filling of the garage, and has a wood like platform that has to be changed with the time.
-all the electronics suite (radars, comms, datalink, electronic warfare).
-good capacity hospital.
-120-30 crew plus air unit.

I dont know the price of a tobruk, but the price of a big sub say 600-800 mill dolllars/euros, price of the big u boats or a bit plus (for example), if the ran is thinking in many subs, is it the same 12 subs than 11? probably. So we can save one sub for buying a 4th awd or for some more important assets?

But in the case of a 4th awd, lets note that with 3 we have a big capacity (320-576 essm type missiles) for the air defence, yes with 4 we have more strategic flexibility in deploying 2 or 3 instead 1 or 2 whenever, but with the support of the ran frigates this flexibility is achieved also.

But what about receiving a saturation attack with hostile torpedos? aegis: +100 targets at the same time, torpedos: able to cope with 3 or 4 at the same time? So we really worry with the submarine warfare, how many hostile subs? then this says how many we need for defending the fleet, if we want very high range and very long station time on theater, maybe we get less subs and less fleet defending/offending capability.

Let me add about the drones, that if we have them with sensors we could have them with 2 or 3 torpedos and 2 depth charges, etc.. i would deploy a galicia full of drones and sh3, full of torpedos and etc, put a hull sonar and a torpedo launcher to the galicia and the mambo king.

As with respect problems with building the awd, i have to say that the norwegians were going to build some modules, but the were not fully miliespec done, so not enough rigourisity, and navantia ended up doing them, i suppose navantia has learnt the lesson and will be alert on quality control issues when transfering the design etc.

Cheers.

 

[agc33e]

To complete the info on the galicias:

Vehículos: 90-170 dependiendo del tipo, en 1.010 m2 de zona de aparcamiento (capacidad para 170 M-113, 130 Pizarro o 33 M60A3).
Material y munición: 700 tn.
4 ascensores (lifts) de carga.
3 rampas de acceso material.
2 grúas (cranes) de carga (25 y 2,5 tn.).
En total más de 3500 m2 de superficie de carga incluyendo pañoles (warehouses), cubierta de vuelo (flight space) y hangar.
Aeronaves:
Hangar para 4 helicópteros pesados (heavy) o 6 medios.
Operaciones día y noche (day and night), vuelo visual e instrumental, vertrep y HIFR. G.S.I. y horizonte artificial.
Talleres de mantenimiento (maintenance warehouses).
Puesto de control de vuelo (flight control position).


And an impressive hospital, i past the link:
Buques de Asalto Anfibio Clase 'Galicia' - Surface Ships - Armada Española

if it doesnt work the i hope you know where it is.


Actually galicias are ships for complementing bigger ones, of for making smaller jobs to the canberras, more big assets more simultaneous actions.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Yes, it is an impressive capability to deploy two big ships full of soldiers and equipment, imagine we are used to 2 canberras, and one is off, if we have the galicia no problem. Or the 3.

I think ideally they would have something that could do amphibious landings, for this reason. At the very least we would have 1 LHD and 1 say Galacia, combined with any allied amphibious ships is still pretty significant capability. After the inital landing a Galacia class would be able to completely replace a LHD, allowing it to return to port to resupply etc.

I dont know the price of a tobruk, but the price of a big sub say 600-800 mill dolllars/euros, price of the big u boats or a bit plus (for example), if the ran is thinking in many subs, is it the same 12 subs than 11? probably. So we can save one sub for buying a 4th awd or for some more important assets?

The white paper specifically chose 12 subs, I believe it suggests we need 14 in the higher levels of this paper. These are not numbers picked out of the air they are a requirement. That said it does seem to be one area where cuts will be made, I think we can safely assume atleast 8 subs. However money saved here does not mean money for a AWD.

But in the case of a 4th awd, lets note that with 3 we have a big capacity (320-576 essm type missiles) for the air defence, yes with 4 we have more strategic flexibility in deploying 2 or 3 instead 1 or 2 whenever, but with the support of the ran frigates this flexibility is achieved also.

For these types of ships I belive it is vital to have 2 deployed at once to ensure redundancy and coverage. It would be very difficult/impossible to protect, sustain and resupply a task force with just 1 AWD. Which means to do the job they are ment to do, they can only do it when an friendly (ie the US) comes along for the ride. The frigates will do many things but they are not AWD. What ever the level of intergration its not going to be the same as a AWD in terms of extending the sensor footprint, firing channels, CEC etc.

 

[StevoJH]

How about something like Mexaflote, could you unload an RO-RO with them linked up together?

 

[Alonso Quijano]

CARTAGENA
Navantia increases your chances of building twelve S-80 for Australia

Australian navy technicians will visit the shipyard next week to learn the technology used in submarines Spanish

20.02.10 - 01:15 - ANTONIO LOPEZ | CARTAGENA.

Navantia Cartagena is one of the world's shipyards are better positioned to build several for the Australian Navy submarine, which provides do in the next twenty years to twelve submarines. The shipbuilding company introduced mid last year riding a blueprint for the twelve fully submersible and next week expected to visit this country technicians to show the technology used in constructing S-80 for Spain.
At present, the Ministry of Defense of Australia considers proposals from four countries involved in its construction (Germany, France, England and Spain). Sources from the Spanish shipyard explained to this newspaper that rely on some of the submarine being built by Navantia as in the S-80 than it does to the Spanish Armada uses the latest technology that exists in shipbuilding.

The decision not be known for at least two years, at which time Navantia will be ready the first S-80, so it will be known then that the true results of this project so ambitious naval.
The shipyard has already made available to Australia the technology included in these submarines, so that from the company believe they have many options to get it, because it is more modern submarines being built today in the world.
The same sources pointed out that if you finally get a contract, design and construction of submarines will be in full in Cartagena, and not in a participatory manner as with the two types built Scorpene for Malaysia and Chile, in which he participated with French shipyard DCNS.

 

[StevoJH]

Not happening. Its already been stated that the Collins Replacements will be built in Adelaide where the collins class were constructed. And I still don't see how the S-80 improves on the Collins let alone how it will be state of the art in 10-15 years when the Collins replacement is due to enter service.

Oh, and a quick google search just showed up that the "caps" on the end of the S-80's pressure hull are manufactured at barrow.

 

[Aussie Digger]

I dont know the price of a tobruk, but the price of a big sub say 600-800 mill dolllars/euros, price of the big u boats or a bit plus (for example), if the ran is thinking in many subs, is it the same 12 subs than 11? probably. So we can save one sub for buying a 4th awd or for some more important assets?

Doesn't work like that. Government makes the major capability decisions and the decisions they've taken so far is to acquire 3x AWD vessels and are "planning for" 12x future submarines. Whether this happens or not remains to be seen, as does the decision to acquire a 4th AWD, but either way capabilities are not going to be "traded off" against each other in such a manner.

But in the case of a 4th awd, lets note that with 3 we have a big capacity (320-576 essm type missiles) for the air defence, yes with 4 we have more strategic flexibility in deploying 2 or 3 instead 1 or 2 whenever, but with the support of the ran frigates this flexibility is achieved also.

I agree, but again, Government has to make that decision. I doubt you'll find much of anyone arguing against a 4th AWD for RAN, but it's Government that holds the purse-strings and makes the decision.

But what about receiving a saturation attack with hostile torpedos? aegis: +100 targets at the same time, torpedos: able to cope with 3 or 4 at the same time? So we really worry with the submarine warfare, how many hostile subs? then this says how many we need for defending the fleet, if we want very high range and very long station time on theater, maybe we get less subs and less fleet defending/offending capability.

Government makes the decisions, but let me get this right, you want to sacrifice submarine numbers to improve anti-submarine warfare capabilities?

Don't our submarines have some anti-submarine capability?

As with respect problems with building the awd, i have to say that the norwegians were going to build some modules, but the were not fully miliespec done, so not enough rigourisity, and navantia ended up doing them, i suppose navantia has learnt the lesson and will be alert on quality control issues when transfering the design etc.

Cheers.

I don't know what problems you are referring to. We are already manufacturing the AWD's within Australia. They are ahead of schedule from all reports and so far I have not heard of any problems with the build (some initially chosen contractors yes, but not the newly chosen ones).

Norway has nothing to do with it, that I am aware of and I'm quite certain we already have the "designs" or else what is the construction phase doing? Cutting metal and building modules off the top of their heads?

 

[swerve]

How about something like Mexaflote, could you unload an RO-RO with them linked up together?

IIRC the USN do it with their equivalent, linking them from ship to shore to make a pontoon bridge. I think the RFA has unloaded from rear ramps to Mexeflotes, then driven the Mexeflotes to shore. It needs calm water, though, & preferably a sheltered anchorage.

Definitely second choice to capturing a port & backing the ro-ros straight up to a quay, but AFAIK doable.

 

[agc33e]

The white paper specifically chose 12 subs, I believe it suggests we need 14 in the higher levels of this paper. These are not numbers picked out of the air they are a requirement. That said it does seem to be one area where cuts will be made, I think we can safely assume atleast 8 subs. However money saved here does not mean money for a AWD.

It they want the can change the white paper, i would have 5 awd and 10 subs instead of 12 subs, defensively should be almost the same, with the help of the helos and ship torpedos, offensively a little less, but for the special operations of patrolling away should suffiece as well, while 3 awd as we comment ...

For these types of ships I belive it is vital to have 2 deployed at once to ensure redundancy and coverage. It would be very difficult/impossible to protect, sustain and resupply a task force with just 1 AWD. Which means to do the job they are ment to do, they can only do it when an friendly (ie the US) comes along for the ride. The frigates will do many things but they are not AWD. What ever the level of intergration its not going to be the same as a AWD in terms of extending the sensor footprint, firing channels, CEC etc

The anzacs and the others i dont know much, but the new frigates will be very capable about air... and submarine if wanted, also for command and control and the helos.

 

[agc33e]

Not happening. Its already been stated that the Collins Replacements will be built in Adelaide where the collins class were constructed. And I still don't see how the S-80 improves on the Collins let alone how it will be state of the art in 10-15 years when the Collins replacement is due to enter service.

In many things, like inferior in others.

Oh, and a quick google search just showed up that the "caps" on the end of the S-80's pressure hull are manufactured at barrow

.
The caps are made at barrow like they could be made at cherbourg, france, but that is for the first units of the s80, in cartagena they are just now putting the heavy machinery for making themselves. As with other parts it doesnt mean navantia cant do some parts of the s80, just is cheaper or better to buy it to other, but if the bussiness grows they will agregate production capacities, the workers in navantia in cartagena are asking for more own produced things, like the italian periscope, like the german torpedo launchers and permanent magnetism device for the propeller, and the usa part of the combat system.