Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[StevoJH]

Possibly aegis combat management system its better/easier for cooperative engagement capability for the f35, and for the awd´s and anzacs ii between them.

But the question is if the aegis combat managemt system, which maybe grew with the years around an original combat system of an air/surface radar/s, it is such that that it can accomodate a different radar/s. I would say yes, for ex for the sonars, i am sure aegis combat manag syst has no problem in using the sonar of the f100 or the sonar of the nansen frigates which was the spherion something, but note for me, the processors of the sonar are not part of the combat management system strictly, because if you change the sonar, their processors go with it, and the combat manag system remains the same. Said in other way, the comb manag syst is not who processes the sonar signals, and it is not who processes the spy radar signals, that is the aegis combat system (processor and complements for spy+radars) is not the same as aegis combat management system.:jump2

Imagine the ran decides more autonomy in an international mission and decides to put some f35 in a canberra or simply f35 from the raaf, the canberra is not with the aegis combat management system and should be able to communicate well, via satcom, datalink or whatever radio comms uses the modern f35. We are going further and asking whether the f35 is able to communicate an objetive for the tactom directly with finger click? Who knows but for that you´ve got the aegis cmb mang syst... Also you have the comms from the ships to the f35, i would put an spy radar in the canberras...:

Cheers.

What are you going on about?

One ship has Aegis and CEC, another has say the Saab combat system. Both have link 16. Data is collected by the ship with Aegis via the datalink, the data is processed and then sent back to the other ship.

This can include targetting data through CEC.

However, each individual ships still has its own individual combat system.

Or at least thats my understanding. I'm sure gf or someone else could correct me if i'm incorrect.

 

[edujoser]

Hi everyone.
Here is Edu from Spain.

There is a spanish web forum of ship-spotters where you can find pictures of HMAS Canberra construction and the Juan Carlos I as well as many other military ships. I have some pictures posted on it.

As I am not allowed to post links yet on this forum, check google : fotosdebarcos.com scroll down and click on Oceania.

Hope you find it interesting.

 

[StingrayOZ]

That fact, and the fact that the Anzac II's will not be armed with S3 missiles, as they are over-kill for their role, would be why the Anzac II's will be fitted with a cheaper and more practicle system.

So is SM-3 confirmed for the AWD's? While the white paper called for both the AWD and the Anzac replacements to be capable of BMD, the current vibe was that PAC-3 would operate on both for that role. Given that SM-3 is expensive, yet far, far far more capable.

I really hope Australia gets some SM-3 capability for the AWD and then backs that up with PAC-3 capability on the ANZACII's. That way would have a layered defence that would be the most capable avalible. PAC3 would be able to deal with aircraft, missiles and as a last ditched effort, while SM3 would be able to remove ballistic missile and low level, space based threats.

All that aside, I would still like to see Australia acquire more than three AWD's.

Absolutely. We need the 4th AWD!

 

[agc33e]

With another 10 years of development before any of them hit the water, I wouldn't be surprised if they gave Aegis a run for its money.

Just thinking the equipment the anzacs are going to have to integrate, like the lamps for the helo, the vertical launcher and weapons, the usa sonar maybe, electronic warfare...we could say it is impossible to have other combat mang system than aegis. the thing is i think it would be the first ship to use the aegis comb mang system out of a main radar spy? i dont know the type of ships in the us navy.

 

[agc33e]

Correct me if I am wrong, I think I have read somewhere (probably on here) but wasnt there a suggestion that the replacement Anzac's might be based on a watered down version of the AWD'S ? If that was the case you would think the same system would be used for an overall picture. How do these new systems tie in with the F35 the RAAF will be getting, as I understand it the F35 can share battle information between themselves and also pass it onto the ground an sea forces as well.
Any info appreciated

Well the anzacs ii can be seen watered in terms of the antiair warfare, that we dont know, but if you put to the anzacs ii, 2 helos hangers, 64 cell vertical launcher, lots of asroc, lots of tactoms, harpoons, torpedos, and then antiair warfare, ciws-sam, and what the auspar can give with the essm and sm2 (iluminators), and what can give? I dont know but you can couple one anzac ii and one awd and be stronger stronger above and below the sea, because you can relief the awd from tactoms for example..and then you add a collins and they 3 very stron force, because the awd protects the anzac ii, the anzac ii protects the sub and the awd from hostile subs, and the collins attacks....

 

[StingrayOZ]

If Australia builds the AnzacII's on the F-100 hull or modified form of it, there won't be a shortage of VLS. It should put Australia at a near level to Japan in terms of avalible VLS. Hopefull 12 ships with 48 VLS each = 576 cells. Assuming we don't try to put any on the LHD or the 20 OCV's we are going to build (and its possible to do both perhaps 8 if we needed to but realistically searam or essm only and even thats highly unlikely).

Also Australia is also pretty strong on harpoons, we have 8 on the Anzacs, so I would assume 8 on the Anzac II and the AWD. So thats another 96 large land and sea attack missiles.Add to that what ever the subs are capable of (each collins can launch ground attack harpoons now (max useful load of I dunno 10?, Collins II should have some VLS). Theres another 60 avalible.

Given that the SM2/6/ESSM/Tactom/PAC3 can be cued by AWD's and the Auspar in terms of illuminators actually addresses some of the weaknesses of the F-100 aegis design, it will be a very potent combination.

Back it up with the biggest and best OTHR (JORN) out there which also fully intergrates into the Australian and US defence networks. Wedgetail, Super hornets and F-35's with long range stand off missiles.

Now that not to say Australia has or will fill every launcher all the time. But the capability is there.

 

[aussienscale]

Future RAN

The current Defence White Paper does state that the Hobart Class will be fitted with the SM-6, has this changed that anyone know's of ? Also the paper states that in conjunction with the Canberra Class LHD's that Quote "The Government has decided to enhance this amphibious capability by acquiring a large strategic sealift ship to move stores, equipment and personnel. Based on a proven design, the new ship will have a displacement of 10,000 - 15,000 tonnes, with landing spots for a number of helicopters and an ability to land vehicles and other cargo without requiring port infrastructure. The new ship will provide ongoing sustainment support for deployed forces, allowing the LHD ships to remain in areas of operations in direct support of the land force ashore." So a third LHD is unlikely, looking at the above statement and looking at the "proven design's" available at the moment all ship's bar one are either below or above the stated displacement. The only proven design I could find (please correct me if I have missed any) is the Spanish Galicia Class LPD. No matter which design we end up with for the RAN, I do hope it is built in Australia, Tenix in Williamstown would be on a good roll to do so after completion of the LHD's ?
Any thought's on possibilities ? Also any ideas on the new LCH ?

 

[PeterM]

The current Defence White Paper does state that the Hobart Class will be fitted with the SM-6, has this changed that anyone know's of ? Also the paper states that in conjunction with the Canberra Class LHD's that Quote "The Government has decided to enhance this amphibious capability by acquiring a large strategic sealift ship to move stores, equipment and personnel. Based on a proven design, the new ship will have a displacement of 10,000 - 15,000 tonnes, with landing spots for a number of helicopters and an ability to land vehicles and other cargo without requiring port infrastructure. The new ship will provide ongoing sustainment support for deployed forces, allowing the LHD ships to remain in areas of operations in direct support of the land force ashore." So a third LHD is unlikely, looking at the above statement and looking at the "proven design's" available at the moment all ship's bar one are either below or above the stated displacement. The only proven design I could find (please correct me if I have missed any) is the Spanish Galicia Class LPD. No matter which design we end up with for the RAN, I do hope it is built in Australia, Tenix in Williamstown would be on a good roll to do so after completion of the LHD's ?
Any thought's on possibilities ? Also any ideas on the new LCH ?

There are a few options for the strategic sealift vessel. In addition to the Galicia (13,900t)/ Rotterdam (12,750t), the Dutch have an enlarged version 16,800t (Johann de Witt)
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/rotterdam/

There is also a couple of UK designs, firstly there is the Albion class LPD (18,500t) and the Bay class ALSL (16,200t)
LPD (R) Albion Class Landing Platform Dock - Naval Technology
Bay Class Auxiliary Ship Alternative Landing Ship Logistic (ALSL) - Naval Technology

another option could be an enlarged version of HMNZS Canterbury (9,000t), which was built by Tenix in Melbourne
http://www.navy.mil.nz/visit-the-fleet/cant/default.htm


As far as the LCH goes, personally I would like to see the Joint High Speed Vessel, I think that would offer the best value and exceptional capabilties. But realstically it is at the upper end cost wise.
Austal Awarded US Defense JHSV Contract - Austal

Other options include :

more traditional designs like the Caimen 200 LCT
BMT Defence Services - Fast Landing Craft Tank Caimen-200 (Design DS703)

designs based on the french LCat technology like the MPV (multipurpose projection vessel) and MPC (multipurpose patrol craft)
CNIM - Landing Craft and Multipurpose Patrol Craft - Naval Technology

France is replacing their Champlain class (possibly with something like the MPV), so whatever design is selected for that could be a decent option.

Presumably there will be other options as well.

 

[Lofty_DBF]

HMAS Farncomb

HMAS Farncomb will be docking at ASC's WA Henderson facility this Wednesday for its first schedule maintenance at the new facility.

http://www.ancr.com.au/AMC_Floating_Dock.pdf

The above is a link to the floating dock that will lift the submarine out of the water and if you look carefully you can see the self-propelled modular transfer system. (red multi wheeled)
I will post pictures later this week.

 

[swerve]

There are a few options for the strategic sealift vessel. In addition to the Galicia (13,900t) /Rotterdam (12,750t), the Dutch have an enlarged version 16,800t (Johann de Witt)
There is also a couple of UK designs, firstly there is the Albion class LPD (13,000t) and the Bay class ALSL (16,200t).

I doubt the Albion class LPD would be considered. It's not appropriate, being an assault ship with extensive command facilities.

The Bay class is a variant of the Enforcer family, as are Galicia/Rotterdam & Johann de Witt. The Dutch navy are also buying a larger (28000 ton full load) JSS variant with no dock as a combined transport & support ship.

BTW, those tonnages aren't on the same basis. You've given full load for the Bays & Johann de Witt, but standard for Albion. Official full load tonnages -
Albion - 18500 (docked down 21500) - assault & command ship. 4 240 ton LCU. Mk10.
JdW - 16800 - 2 LCU Mk 2 (NL) or 4 LCU Mk 1 (NL).
Bay - 16200 - optimised for logistics rather than assault. Smaller dock (only one LCU Mk 10 or 2 LCVP), more cargo deck.
Galicia & Rotterdam - ca 13000 (note that they have the same hull: apparent differences are due to different measurement methods). 4 LCM1-E in Galicia, or 2 LCU Mk 2 (NL) + 3 LCVP in Rotterdam.

Landing craft, to give an idea of dock size -
LCU Mk 2 (NL) - 36.3 x 6.85 metres
LCU Mk 10 - 29.8 x 7.4 m
LCU Mk 1 (NL) - ca 27 m long
LCM1-E - 23.3 x 6.4 m
LCVP (NL) - 16 x 4.2 m
LCVP Mk 5 (UK) 15.7 x 4.3 m

Both Albion & Johann de Witt carry 4 LCVP on davits.

As you see, the dock size differences are significant. The impact on cargo vs assault capacity could be relevant for the RAN requirement, which as I understand it, is for a logistical support ship, i.e. akin to the Bays. However, a more logistics-oriented variant of Rotterdam or Galicia would be low risk: basically a slightly smaller Bay.

 

[stoker]

There are a few options for the strategic sealift vessel. In addition to the Galicia (13,900t)/ Rotterdam (12,750t), the Dutch have an enlarged version 16,800t (Johann de Witt)
LPD Rotterdam Class Landing Platform Dock - Naval Technology

There is also a couple of UK designs, firstly there is the Albion class LPD (18,500t) and the Bay class ALSL (16,200t)
LPD (R) Albion Class Landing Platform Dock - Naval Technology
Bay Class Auxiliary Ship Alternative Landing Ship Logistic (ALSL) - Naval Technology

another option could be an enlarged version of HMNZS Canterbury (9,000t), which was built by Tenix in Melbourne
RNZN - Canterbury


As far as the LCH goes, personally I would like to see the Joint High Speed Vessel, I think that would offer the best value and exceptional capabilties. But realstically it is at the upper end cost wise.
Austal Awarded US Defense JHSV Contract - Austal

Other options include :

more traditional designs like the Caimen 200 LCT
BMT Defence Services - Fast Landing Craft Tank Caimen-200 (Design DS703)

designs based on the french LCat technology like the MPV (multipurpose projection vessel) and MPC (multipurpose patrol craft)
CNIM - Landing Craft and Multipurpose Patrol Craft - Naval Technology

France is replacing their Champlain class (possibly with something like the MPV), so whatever design is selected for that could be a decent option.

Presumably there will be other options as well.

Would it not be more practical to build an( Albion type) LPD ( new 'Tobruk class') on a Canberra class LHD hull.

Admittedly its a tad longer at 230 metres than an Albion at 178 metres, but what we would have is a standardized hull & machinery, which would be a logistical and training advantage. The large hull could also have increased increased fuel bunkerage which would enable this hull to provide refuelling at sea capabilities.

We could have this new Tobruk LPD designed and the hull built in Spain, and finished in Australia as per our Canberra class. This would enable a very reasonable delivery schedule.

 

[swerve]

Would it not be more practical to build an( Albion type) LPD ( new 'Tobruk class') on a Canberra class LHD hull..

The Australian requirement is for a sealift ship. Albion is optimised for command & assault, with a very large dock, & relatively small cargo space. I think what you really mean is a Bay type LSD on a BPE hull. Or rather, same lower hull, but without the full-length deck, island & ski-jump, &, I presume, a full-width, built-up superstructure, & probably a smaller dock, & more cargo space.

Yes, it could be done. It'd take a lot of redesign, though.

I think it's worth revisiting the statement in the White Paper:
"The Government has decided to enhance this amphibious capability by acquiring a large strategic sealift ship to move stores, equipment and personnel. Based on a proven design, the new ship will have a displacement of 10,000 - 15,000 tonnes, with landing spots for a number of helicopters and an ability to land vehicles and other cargo without requiring port infrastructure. The new ship will provide ongoing sustainment support for deployed forces, allowing the LHD ships to remain in areas of operations in direct support of the land force ashore."

That's almost identical to the requirement the Bay class was procured against. That doesn't mean Australia will buy a Bay, but it does suggest that the RAN is looking for something similar. A slightly modified Galicia (same basic design as the Bays) would fit that description exactly.

 

[meat_helmet]

The Australian requirement is for a sealift ship. Albion is optimised for command & assault, with a very large dock, & relatively small cargo space. I think what you really mean is a Bay type LSD on a BPE hull. Or rather, same lower hull, but without the full-length deck, island & ski-jump, &, I presume, a full-width, built-up superstructure, & probably a smaller dock, & more cargo space.

Yes, it could be done. It'd take a lot of redesign, though.

Its also worth noting that the RAN decided only to keep the ski-jump on the Canberras because it would have been too expensive to remove it - they actually wanted the extra heli space and didnt want the STOL capability.

Navy hopes fly, but aircraft carrier still off radar - Opinion - Editorial - General - The Canberra Times

So that gives an idea of some of the costs involved in redesigns. There are also the crewing issues for a larger ship.

It still seems possible if the build for the Canberras goes very well they might just get another dumbed-down one though.

 

[StevoJH]

Its also worth noting that the RAN decided only to keep the ski-jump on the Canberras because it would have been too expensive to remove it - they actually wanted the extra heli space and didnt want the STOL capability.

Navy hopes fly, but aircraft carrier still off radar - Opinion - Editorial - General - The Canberra Times

So that gives an idea of some of the costs involved in redesigns. There are also the crewing issues for a larger ship.

It still seems possible if the build for the Canberras goes very well they might just get another dumbed-down one though.

Its different. The ski jump forms part of the ships structural integrity in the JCI/Canberra class rather then being super structure.

As superstructure does not affect the structural integrity of the ship other then weight distribution issues, it should not actually be all that expensive. A change of superstructure is like building a house. A change of the hull without replacing the structural support would be like digging a hole under the foundations of the house.

 

[jimmyjames]

Its also worth noting that the RAN decided only to keep the ski-jump on the Canberras because it would have been too expensive to remove it - they actually wanted the extra heli space and didnt want the STOL capability.

i'm sure that there are a lot of people in all 3 defence services's that would be happy to have the options in the future that are provided by the ski jump(even if the navy and other won't openly admit to it) and the navy might have learnt from the "fitted for and not with" problems from years ago.... the options and the future plans that it could provide is the important issue .. for strategic planning and until the equipment is purchased, only then it will become a fixed and known quantity for discussion.
force commanders want options and capabilities to allow them flexibility for planning
Canberra class ships are better than anything that we looked at and could afford.

 

[swerve]

Its different. The ski jump forms part of the ships structural integrity in the JCI/Canberra class rather then being super structure.

As superstructure does not affect the structural integrity of the ship other then weight distribution issues, it should not actually be all that expensive. A change of superstructure is like building a house. A change of the hull without replacing the structural support would be like digging a hole under the foundations of the house.

Yeah, but if you're going to turn a BPE into an LPD or LSD for sealift I reckon you'll need to take off the top deck, including the ski-jump. That's a major redesign.

 

[PeterM]

The strategic sealift ship will come down to the exact requirements the ADF is looking for and cost vs capability.

the 2009 DCP states (p17) regarding the Strategic Sealift vessel:

This is likely to be an ACAT II project and Defence will commence work on developing this phase for Government consideration beyond 2019.​

So this project is some way off (the better part of a decade) and there could be new designs in coming years, also requirements could change.


In my opinion it is much more worthwhile discussing the LCH replacement (JP 2048 Phase 5 Landing Craft Heavy Replacement). There is a broad scope and a range of options with interesting technologies and capabilities. The DCP2009 lists an aquisition cost of between $500m-$1500m for the 6 vessels, giving a wide range of potential options.

The scope is listed as

'Phase 5 will acquire six new heavy landing craft with improved ocean going capabilities able to transport armoured vehicles, trucks, stores and people. It will provide a capability to conduct independent small scale regional amphibious operations or to support the CANBERRA Class as part of an Amphibious Task Group.'​

First Pass approval is expected 2012/13 - 2014/15, so it isn't that far off, and the various options will be existing options or designs under development at the moment.

 

[riksavage]

The following link provides a summary of the forthcoming UK/US amphibious exercise in the US involving both countries respective ARG (baby and big brother). With the arrival of the Aussie LHD's I suspect and hope future exercises of this type will include a heavy Aus element with at least one LHD, AeW and AsW in attendance. I suspect there are embedded Australian assets from all three services observing the exercise to help develop future doctrine.

Nice to see a French sub is joining the fray.

All news : RN Live : News and Events : Royal Navy

 

[StingrayOZ]

A 7th spot wasn't going to change the world anyway. The whole ship was designed for 6 spots.

The BPE was better than mistal anyway, and met requirements. Why blow $'s chasing fractionally more strained capability and a whole bunch of risk.

There is no point in converting the BPE. You either buy it as it is, or buy something more appropriate. If you want a carrier buy a italian one, if you want A LPD buy one. Galacia class seems to fit the requirements well.

If we do ever want or work with another nations carrier, the jumps will be useful. Some UAV's might be able to use them as well.

 

[Sea Toby]

Would it not be more practical to build an( Albion type) LPD ( new 'Tobruk class') on a Canberra class LHD hull.

Admittedly its a tad longer at 230 metres than an Albion at 178 metres, but what we would have is a standardized hull & machinery, which would be a logistical and training advantage. The large hull could also have increased increased fuel bunkerage which would enable this hull to provide refuelling at sea capabilities.

We could have this new Tobruk LPD designed and the hull built in Spain, and finished in Australia as per our Canberra class. This would enable a very reasonable delivery schedule.

I don't believe your government wants to spend another $2 billion on another Canberra hull when Rotterdam or Bay ships will run no more than $400 million, or an enlarged Canterbury will run no more than $200 million...

Frankly the government wants to buy a smaller ship which lifts half the troops and equipment as a Canberra LHD. At times a Canberra will be too large, much alike using a sledge hammer when a tap hammer will do... There is nothing wrong with flexibility...