Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[gf0012-aust]

Funny that, so do I, as for having anyone overseas learning fixed wing carrier operations, we don't. That's because we dont have nor are we getting an aircraft carrier with cats, angled deck. Operating fixed wing aircraft from a carrier as opposed to STOVL ops from an Amphib are very different. We are getting 2 Amphibiuos assault ships, with the capability of operating STOVL aircraft. In that argument we do have personnel looking at amphibious ops with the Americans

actually we have people attached to a number of navies looking at expeditionary and command issues - not just the US.

 

[gf0012-aust]

there needs to be a fair bit of pause on all this chat about the fatships.

they are being employed as joint C2 assets first - they have a secondary aviation provision role.

we're getting into really silly chat in here and its bordering on the fantastical at times.

hint: I do deal with some of the issues re these assets. it's not just an area of academic interest for me

 

[gf0012-aust]

We work with the data we see published, those are our limitations.Different ways of expressing the endurances, snorkel, surface, full submerged, diesel, aip, speed,...... possible expressions of particular conditions. I would thanks to see the tonnage of fuel.

yes they are - public data is useless for these debates. if you have ever worked in the military esp as a tac planner then you know that all the real data relating to operational and tactical capability is very very different to whats published on the internet. eg Janes and Bakers maritime reference material is only used for basic details in recognition and information - it is not used for tactical information (range speed etc because it is rubbish. Thats why orgs like janes and bakers publish specialised material only to account holders - NONE and i repeat NONE of the real data that impacts upon force planning and management such as range, weapons specifics, fuel holdings etc is in the public domain.

I'd add that both janes and bakers do not have access to any of the rated material either - the vendor does not provide it. The only time that it has relevance is when we acquire a "red" asset and give it a workout and going over - and thats usually through others who "acquired" it in the first place..

quoting any performance material on the internet to create a tactical argument re any platforms empirical capabilities is plain moronic.

SORRY I HAVE TO RECTIFY THAT i doubt a sub has 300 t of fuel because it would require like 300 cubic meters in a size of the sub...sorry.

CREF above.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Ikara was removed from all RAN ships by mid 1991. RN removed it from its ships during the late 1980's. Neither navy has introduced a replacement, that says enough in my opinion.

Seriously, the OP has no idea what he is talking about wrt to mission systems and their use. He is quoting public material as proof of life. btw Ikara was superior to ASROC at a number of levels. The reason why missile/rocket based torpedo systems were abandoned in the 90's was because there are better ways to do business.

The operative word is "nowadays". We arent talking about now, we are talking about 10, 15, 20, even 30 years from now. Plus please remember that any system S-80 has, the current collins has systems that are comparable or better.

The combat system on the collins class submarine is derived from the Raytheon Combat system aboard the las angeles class, ohio class, sea wolf class and virginia class. At least from what i can get hold of from google.

We are not getting S80's - period. When Sea1000 forms up at the hardware level the S80's will be due for their first major refit. We are not getting a vanilla sub - and the S80's are not providing any of the energy management, tac systems and dismount capability that we need.

Like any and every other vendor they will make claims about their platforms. what they say and what we will do has no relationship to real life.

I don't know how many times I have to say this, but some of the other chatter about the S80's being in the mix is borderline trolling. The people who are actually working on SEA1000 are looking at far more different capabilities and systems than what an S80 class can offer today. In absolute terms it is an aged technology.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Present day generation subs are with good electronics capabilities, how these evolve in this 10-15 years, the aip evolution is another issue, but present day capabilities give enough for many missions. For ex. the s80 will have sonar suite form lockeed martin, with a transfer of techonoloy also, for the cilindric sonar, the lateral sonnar, the passive, all derived from the lockheed martin experience with the us navy nuclear subs sonars and combat systems.. So it is top modern nowadays.

Cheers.

and it will be 20 year old technology by the time we issue our hardware reqs.

we're NOT looking at S80's for ideas, we're looking at Tango Bravo and BT solutions.

 

[gf0012-aust]

i cant agree, i understand you, but phisycal size gives the bunkers for fuel, air, aip, the tonnes of each amount, so if collins are 600 tonnes bigger than s80, if we consider the same engine performance, the tonnes of fuel.. just to compared the canberras are 2200 tonnes of fuel for a long endurance and 27000 tonnes of displacement in surface, just having 300 tonnes more of fuel the collins than the s80 would give a biggger endurance, if the 600 t difference gives for 300 t of fuel more. But the engines should be similar, a bit more of consumption for the 600 t bigger sub.

its irrelevant whether you agree or not. the fact is we know about these issues from real world and extant examples. size is not the parameter which determines operational range

We work with the data we see published, those are our limitations.Different ways of expressing the endurances, snorkel, surface, full submerged, diesel, aip, speed,...... possible expressions of particular conditions. I would thanks to see the tonnage of fuel.

tactical planning is universal - the expression differences are irrelevant. you are making claims which are nonsense and we know that its nonsense because we have access to a history of operational data from various users in the sub community. you can make as many claims as you like - the fundamental tenet is that making grand claims when we know your foundation assumptions is wrong still makes your logic wrong. cultural differences mean squat when you get down to planning. the language is universal

 

[StevoJH]

We are not getting S80's - period. When Sea1000 forms up at the hardware level the S80's will be due for their first major refit. We are not getting a vanilla sub - and the S80's are not providing any of the energy management, tac systems and dismount capability that we need.

Like any and every other vendor they will make claims about their platforms. what they say and what we will do has no relationship to real life.

I don't know how many times I have to say this, but some of the other chatter about the S80's being in the mix is borderline trolling. The people who are actually working on SEA1000 are looking at far more different capabilities and systems than what an S80 class can offer today. In absolute terms it is an aged technology.

Yeah, maybe I should have been clearer in what I was saying. I was basically trying to say that if S-80 don't match the Collins class today, they will not even be in the same ballpark as the seaframe, propulsion systems, power storage and compat systems that will be found in the Collins replacement when they enter service in 10 or 15 years time.

 

[gf0012-aust]

The combat system on the collins class submarine is derived from the Raytheon Combat system aboard the las angeles class, ohio class, sea wolf class and virginia class. At least from what i can get hold of from google.

There are only two conventional sub classes that are able to use the Seawolf/virginia/688I BYG variants. Other subs including the S80 which is being flogged ad nauseum on this topic cannot.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Yeah, maybe I should have been clearer in what I was saying.

I knew what you were saying. The response was more for the OP's benefit because he keeps on making claims about subs and subwarfare wrt conventionals that is borderline nonsensical.

again, we're not interested in subs like the S80 because they do not even remotely go down the TangoBravo or BT development opportunity set. Its a standard sub. we're not looking at standard sub competencies for SEA1000.

if we weren't then we would be looking at a scorpene type solution. (but they also don't have the onboard systems that would allow us to use the common combat room solution set of the US nukes)

 

[agc33e]

What are you going on about? Chinook should fit in the hanger, even if the Rotors have to be removed and the MRH-90's are all marinised. Byond that, i'm not sure exactly what you are trying to say, you arent being all that clear.

I mean 160 or 170 mts is the length of the line mts of the hanger and the light load space, from one lift to other. So i would put the chinooks next to the back lift, and next to the fore lift the tigers and uavs, the middle part for the cargo, chinooks maintenance or more tigers.

Money for that sort of design work would be tiny compared to the cost of the ships themselves, not really an issue. CEAPAR/AUSPAR would be mounted higher then SPY-1D, but would likely be MUCH lighter.

The money and the piping, cabling, compatibilities, the ships has many systems, for example the magnetic firm stealth net ( which needs a studied balance..), the system for cooling the hull and superestructure and all the normals. A diffiicult for finding the most possible common "commonwealth" ship. All this proportional, but the superstructure and heavy things are in another level of effort, possible of course, but it would be more a different ship than a derivate ship.

Ikara was removed from all RAN ships by mid 1991. RN removed it from its ships during the late 1980's. Neither navy has introduced a replacement, that says enough in my opinion.

Please, we can imagine a fleet of subs attacking austrilian interest or assets, recall mentions in australian media or magazines to the growing chinese subs fleets, well, for example the 10 awd´s and new anzacs versus 20 x-nation subs, ballroomm dancing, like we send our surface assets for the hunt of the hostile subs, and there is bad sea or risky to send the helo so we are left we the ships torpedos, which are limited and slower than asroc type, the combination with apowerful hull sonnar gives a longer perimert for the hostile sub, it is not the same to localize a zone where probably there is the hostile sub, because of row of hostile torpedos coming and signal from the hull sonnar of the ship, once you localize you can launch a useless long range torpedo, that reaches the target zone later later than an asroc, not to mention to lauch 3 or 4 depths charges at the same time and 3 or 4 asrocs. And not necessarily an hostile fleet of 20 subs.

The combat system on the collins class submarine is derived from the Raytheon Combat system aboard the las angeles class, ohio class, sea wolf class and virginia class. At least from what i can get hold of from google.

Collins are 10-15 years old and the technology is top modern, like it will be the s80 in 10-15, still.

 

[agc33e]

Seriously, the OP has no idea what he is talking about wrt to mission systems and their use. He is quoting public material as proof of life. btw Ikara was superior to ASROC at a number of levels. The reason why missile/rocket based torpedo systems were abandoned in the 90's was because there are better ways to do business.

The iimportant difference between the missile-torpedos and the torpedos is the speed to reach the target zone, and the capacity of sending some to the same zone at the same time.

We are not getting S80's - period. When Sea1000 forms up at the hardware level the S80's will be due for their first major refit. We are not getting a vanilla sub - and the S80's are not providing any of the energy management, tac systems and dismount capability that we need.

Like any and every other vendor they will make claims about their platforms. what they say and what we will do has no relationship to real life.

I don't know how many times I have to say this, but some of the other chatter about the S80's being in the mix is borderline trolling. The people who are actually working on SEA1000 are looking at far more different capabilities and systems than what an S80 class can offer today. In absolute terms it is an aged technology.

I dont think you are right with your info about the s80, possible the ran has better info than you because they were in touch with navantia for getting info about the s80. For example, loockheed martin was awarded a very important prize for excellent and quality and FUTURE PERSPECTIVES because, one of the important reasons, of engaging the project for the s80´s.

 

[agc33e]

Yeah, maybe I should have been clearer in what I was saying. I was basically trying to say that if S-80 don't match the Collins class today, they will not even be in the same ballpark as the seaframe, propulsion systems, power storage and compat systems that will be found in the Collins replacement when they enter service in 10 or 15 years time.

I am not here to sell the s80, i want to give and receive good info about the collins, s80 or any other sub interesting for the ran, as far as i know the main collins requirement difference with the s80 is the endurance, now i see that submerged collins are 3300, so 900 tonnes bigger than s80. It is a different level. I dont want to sound my trompet but let me say that the s80 is the mix of the most advanced components of nato allies in a non nuclear sub, with expected 400 mts max depth (colapse).

 

[1805]

I am not here to sell the s80, i want to give and receive good info about the collins, s80 or any other sub interesting for the ran, as far as i know the main collins requirement difference with the s80 is the endurance, now i see that submerged collins are 3300, so 900 tonnes bigger than s80. It is a different level. I dont want to sound my trompet but let me say that the s80 is the mix of the most advanced components of nato allies in a non nuclear sub, with expected 400 mts max depth (colapse).

I would question if the S80 is the best in class of non nuclear boats at present. The U212a looks like it has a stronger pedegree. I think Australia would be better served by building a series of boats over a 15-20 years period, adding developments and learn as they progresses through classes/sub classes.

 

[agc33e]

I would question if the S80 is the best in class of non nuclear boats at present. The U212a looks like it has a stronger pedegree. I think Australia would be better served by building a series of boats over a 15-20 years period, adding developments and learn as they progresses through classes/sub classes.

I cant say really that, the s80 as design is top modern, like the others.

But the scorpene types are beating the u boats in the international contest lastly, with the chilean contest, the brazilian scorpene derivative (or marlin), the supposed more problems with the greek u boats, the indians are going for the scorpene as well, the malasian ones...

And the s80 will be in the scorpene technology level, but with some others contributions. For ex., as far as i read, the Usa sub technology avaliable upto now for conventional subs were more partials, like additions to collins in combat systems for ex., in this case the usa part of the project is more total, more complete in terms of sensors and integrations of these and weaponry (tactoms). And spanish home techonology as well.

Probably if australia wants an indigeneous project with usa navy systems in conventionals they will have to go for the same project as navantia, maybe with lockheed or raytheon.

Cheers.

 

[StevoJH]

I dont think you are right with your info about the s80, possible the ran has better info than you because they were in touch with navantia for getting info about the s80. For example, loockheed martin was awarded a very important prize for excellent and quality and FUTURE PERSPECTIVES because, one of the important reasons, of engaging the project for the s80´s.

Except for the fact that gf works for the Australian Defense Department in procurement and from what he has said previously, had an involvement in the Collins class program and goes to numerous conferences per year on Submarine technology.

Please read the rest of his posts regarding the unsuitability of S-80. Particularly about their inability to utilise some systems, such as the Raytheon Combat system i mentioned earlier.

@1805, best *blue water* conventional submarine would probably be either Collins or the latest Japanese submarine.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I dont think you are right with your info about the s80, possible the ran has better info than you because they were in touch with navantia for getting info about the s80. For example, loockheed martin was awarded a very important prize for excellent and quality and FUTURE PERSPECTIVES because, one of the important reasons, of engaging the project for the s80´s.

Yes, you're right. I have no idea, I've just worked on 3 different countries submarines, have worked on acoustic and hull management technologies for subs and have also been a supplier of sub-systems on a couple of different subs,

Of course I have no idea about the S80.

stick to what you know, not what you think you know hoovered off the internet and company web sites.

and for the last time, this is about the RAN, if you want to flog the S80 start another thread but stop polluting this thread.

You've been told before, complaining to Web again will mean zero difference as the premise and topic is stated.

Stay on topic or start another thread - and stick to what you know and realise that there are a number of people in here who do this for a job for goodness sake.

 

[Klake]

Sea Power 2010 - spot the differences in the 1:72 scale AWD model

At the Sea Power 2010 conference a 1:72nd scale model of the Hobart class air warfare destroyer was apparently on display.

A small greyscale close-up picture of the fwd superstructure of that model is contained in "The Navy" magazine (on page 12) currently on news stands.

There are some interesting differences between the model photo published in "The Navy" and other published pictures of what, I am assuming, is the same model.

The key differences in the model I spotted were :

(a) There are two (2) missile directors forward, above the bridge level. Every other picture I have seen shows just one (1) missile director forward.
(b) There are two (2) RWS mounted port and starboard on the same level as the bridge. Other pictures of the AWD show one (1) RWS on the centerline, one deck higher.
(c) There is "something" that could be either a large electro-optical sensor or, just perhaps, a small launcher for eight Mistral/Stinger/RAM(?!) class lightweight AA missiles above the bridge.

Can any knowledgable people here confirm whether these model differences are likely to be :

(a) "real world" (meaning authorised and funded) enhancements to the base F105 design; or
(b) whether they represent serious errors on behalf of the modeler(s); or
(c) "RAN aspirational" features of the AWD, that RAN public affairs guys have, somehow, neglected to announce.

It will be interesting to see what, if any, changes appear in future models of the Canberra class - particularly on the Australian built island superstructure.

Klake

 

[Aussie Digger]

At the Sea Power 2010 conference a 1:72nd scale model of the Hobart class air warfare destroyer was apparently on display.

A small greyscale close-up picture of the fwd superstructure of that model is contained in "The Navy" magazine (on page 12) currently on news stands.

There are some interesting differences between the model photo published in "The Navy" and other published pictures of what, I am assuming, is the same model.

The key differences in the model I spotted were :

(a) There are two (2) missile directors forward, above the bridge level. Every other picture I have seen shows just one (1) missile director forward.
(b) There are two (2) RWS mounted port and starboard on the same level as the bridge. Other pictures of the AWD show one (1) RWS on the centerline, one deck higher.
(c) There is "something" that could be either a large electro-optical sensor or, just perhaps, a small launcher for eight Mistral/Stinger/RAM(?!) class lightweight AA missiles above the bridge.

Can any knowledgable people here confirm whether these model differences are likely to be :

(a) "real world" (meaning authorised and funded) enhancements to the base F105 design; or
(b) whether they represent serious errors on behalf of the modeler(s); or
(c) "RAN aspirational" features of the AWD, that RAN public affairs guys have, somehow, neglected to announce.

It will be interesting to see what, if any, changes appear in future models of the Canberra class - particularly on the Australian built island superstructure.

Klake

1. The AWD's will only be equipped with 2x Missile directors. That design was an early iteration that has been changed. (I suspect the earlier than planned inclusion of SM-6 and it's active radar capability, might be the catalyst for that... )

2. They don't represent serious errors of the modellers, they are simply out of date. The model designs have in fact already been updated to reflect the intended configuration of the vessels.

On another board a question was asked directly of the modellers and this is the response given:

"The plan is now to have only two directors. The "space and weight" was provided in the original drawings for this third one but only the two will be fitted, the one on the module on the hanger roof and the other atop the superstructure under the mast. The third was an option early on but now they have fitted the nav radar in its place, which was on the starboard side of the bridge roof, in this position behind the EOSS. The two 25mm Typhoon guns (fully automated versions of those on the ARMIDALE Class PB) are at the moment still going to be fitted to the ship on the bridge wings. However at the moment anything could change and modifications to the model you speak about (our prototype model) have already been done including some other changes around the transom. The other models of the AWD that we have done will, once all the changes have been sorted out, come back to us here and will be modified."

(Courtesy of Russ French of Defence Models and Graphics).

3. No idea what that is, most likely it was the speculated "very short ranged air defence capability" that was mentioned about AWD but never clearly defined. In any case it has been replaced by the navigation radar in that area and the model needs to be updated. The VSRAD capability for the AWD's has now been confirmed to be the Block IB Phalanx CIWS.


Hope this helps.

AD

 

[aussienscale]

Good old Russ French, master model maker !! I served with Russ on the Hobart in the early 90's. Great to see he is still making models, he has an amazing talent. Knowing how detailed and accurate Russ is with his models I can gaurantee he would never make a mistake on any of his models. As stated it would have been because of a later change in fitout and the need to later update the model. If anyone is interested Russ' web page is
www.defencemodels.com.au

 

[aussienscale]

Canberra Class vs Wasp Class

Just wondering if someone could clarify something for me. I have been looking at some comparisons between the two ship and have noticed 2 different displacements listed for the Wasp, the first is 40,500 and the second is 36450. It appears the larger is in what is called long tons and the second in short tons. The Canberra is quoted as 27851, would this be in short tons ? I would assume so as the ships are constructed in Spain, with European country's and Australia using short tons as the norm. If this is the case does that mean the displacement between the Wasp and Canberra is only 8,599 as opposed to 12,649 ? The smaller figure would make more sence when you look at the listed dimensions of both ships there really is not that much difference, with the Wasp being 257 m in length and 32 m beam with a draft of
8.1 m versus the Canberra 230.8 m length, 32 m beam and 7.18 draft