Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

Status
Not open for further replies.

PeterM

Active Member
You are right Bonza, our way of pricing defence buy's seems to confuse people from other countries who tend to quote only unit price, whereas we do include all the other "bit's and pieces" such as though life costs, maint, training and spares etc
Very good points

Other factors to cost of units include size and status of production runs. Over time the costs can come down significantly, particularly for larger production runs.

The MH-60R is already on well established with large ongoing production runs.

Whereas the NFH is relatively early on in its production cycle


I am wondering if the NFH is substantially more expensive than the MH-60R?

The bigger has already suggested that the RAN requirement can be fulfilled by fewer aircraft
 

Locarnus

New Member
You are right Bonza, our way of pricing defence buy's seems to confuse people from other countries who tend to quote only unit price, whereas we do include all the other "bit's and pieces" such as though life costs, maint, training and spares etc
Yep, I was a bit surprised about the price.
I like the life cycle costs better, because it is what really counts for comparison. But then the info of the duration of this life cycle would be of importance as well.
And it would make clear that the figures are life cycle costs.
 

PeterM

Active Member
Yep, I was a bit surprised about the price.
I like the life cycle costs better, because it is what really counts for comparison. But then the info of the duration of this life cycle would be of importance as well.
And it would make clear that the figures are life cycle costs.
Lifecycle costs are much better imho, they give a much more realistic point of view.

It is worth comparing the lifecycle costs versus the unit cost. It shows the expected overhead of operation. This can be quite substantial in come cases.
 

ThePuss

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
Some very nice photos of HMAS Warramunga at RIMPAC 2010 firing the first Harpoon off an FFH can be seen at RIMPAC 2010 - Department of Defence

Also she conducted a SINKEX on the old USN New Orleans RIMPAC 2010 - Department of Defence I went to RIMPAC 2005 where Parramatta sunk an old Spruance DD, 20 rounds of 5" HEPD (High Explosive Point Detonating) hit her on the same place right on the water line and blew her bow off....she went down in minutes :D

Even more good pic's at RIMPAC 2010 - Department of Defence showing Warra and Newcastle blasting off multiple ESSM and SM2

All and all a good fun couple of days for the Gunbusters in the task group :cool:
 
Last edited:

agc33e

Banned Member
You are right Bonza, our way of pricing defence buy's seems to confuse people from other countries who tend to quote only unit price, whereas we do include all the other "bit's and pieces" such as though life costs, maint, training and spares etc
Probably that implies a different pricing for dollars per hour of flight, once flying, because that 2.1 bill price includes maintenance.., also possibly technology transfer to australian based industries, because the plan it was to produce them or at least parts etc. It would be an interesting transfer of technology in case australia wants to make an adventure in the rotary uav´s, for ex., we have seen in defencetalk photos of russian uav´s, the size of normal attack helos, probably uav´s are the future in terms of fleet and land projection cost-risk effeticveness.

Cheers.
 

StevoJH

The Bunker Group
Some very nice photos of HMAS Warramunga at RIMPAC 2010 firing the first Harpoon off an FFH can be seen at RIMPAC 2010 - Department of Defence

Also she conducted a SINKEX on the old USN New Orleans RIMPAC 2010 - Department of Defence I went to RIMPAC 2005 where Parramatta sunk an old Spruance DD, 20 rounds of 5" HEPD (High Explosive Point Detonating) hit her on the same place right on the water line and blew her bow off....she went down in minutes :D

Even more good pic's at RIMPAC 2010 - Department of Defence showing Warra and Newcastle blasting off multiple ESSM and SM2

All and all a good fun couple of days for the Gunbusters in the task group :cool:
How many SM-2's have the Adelaides fired before now?
 

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
The -R seahawks are the latest iteration to enter USN service with hellfire 2 capability (that the tiger has). The NH-90s represent the best the europeans can offer and appears to have slightly better performance..
That is interesting. Given the Tiger is having issues, and the general reluctancy to put a tiger on a ship, having hellfire capability would be a nice thing to permanently have on ships such as the LHD. They are both capable choices and a win either way, I think I am now favouring the seahawks given the inservice ability, NH having issues (eurocopter having issues), smaller size etc.

agc33e said:
the most dangerous ship of the ran is not going to be the awd but the anzacs ii, because what fleet can cope a simultaneous attack of 40 sm2´s (2 anzacs) ?
While the ANZAC II is still publically mysterious, the whitepaper implied it would be one serious peice of kit. 7000t and ballastic missile capability are not things usually associated with a 2nd tier naval ship. If it ends up having the full VLS compliment (and it may) + harpoons its going to be one upgunned frigate. While not using AEGIS, AUSPAR or simular would compliment AEGIS nicely, adding all sorts of capability (additional directors? ABM detection?)

AWD will do air defence quiet nicely, but the ANZAC II seem to be shaping up as very capable multirole ships that will do some air defence but pack some serious antishipping/ground attack capability. Pair them together and you have some mighty impressive stuff.

Still need that 4th AWD tho. How can we have two fleets with only 3 ships!? WA will never see them(I assume)!
 

weasel1962

New Member
Re:

That is interesting. Given the Tiger is having issues, and the general reluctancy to put a tiger on a ship, having hellfire capability would be a nice thing to permanently have on ships such as the LHD. They are both capable choices and a win either way, I think I am now favouring the seahawks given the inservice ability, NH having issues (eurocopter having issues), smaller size etc.
The problems facing the NH-90 fleet (seat weight, room, door gunner etc) probably won't have an impact on the asw/NFH helo choice. Engine failure is a concern though but there is an option to go with the T-700 engines instead of the RTM-322.

Melbourne did a firing late last year, which was the first and only other shoot so far. Not sure how many she fired though.
I tot there were supposed to be 2 tests. One for the continuous homing and one for the terminal homing.
 

aussienscale

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
While the ANZAC II is still publically mysterious, the whitepaper implied it would be one serious peice of kit. 7000t and ballastic missile capability are not things usually associated with a 2nd tier naval ship. If it ends up having the full VLS compliment (and it may) + harpoons its going to be one upgunned frigate. While not using AEGIS, AUSPAR or simular would compliment AEGIS nicely, adding all sorts of capability (additional directors? ABM detection?)

AWD will do air defence quiet nicely, but the ANZAC II seem to be shaping up as very capable multirole ships that will do some air defence but pack some serious antishipping/ground attack capability. Pair them together and you have some mighty impressive stuff.

Still need that 4th AWD tho. How can we have two fleets with only 3 ships!? WA will never see them(I assume)!
You are right we do need that 4th AWD. With regard to the Anzac II's there is a lot of conjecture that they will actually use the AWD hull for the construction of them, so essentially a watered down version of the AWD if you like, it would make sense to do this on the back of the AWD construction ? any thoughts or has anyone any further information on this ?
So if we do (when ?) get the 4th AWD, that combined with the potential look and makeup of the Anzac II's will be a pretty mean looking fleet !! I can't wait to see how this pans out, combine that with the OPV's, LHD's, new Sub's, LCH's etc the fleet is shaping up very well indeed
 
Last edited by a moderator:

agc33e

Banned Member
AWD will do air defence quiet nicely, but the ANZAC II seem to be shaping up as very capable multirole ships that will do some air defence but pack some serious antishipping/ground attack capability. Pair them together and you have some mighty impressive stuff.

Still need that 4th AWD tho. How can we have two fleets with only 3 ships!? WA will never see them(I assume)!
I see that you dont count the antisub capabilities, light weight torpedos for the f100, sorry i think in the past i said heavy weight torpedos probably my mistake, and the helos platform with also light weight torpedos, with range as you know 11 kms, its a pity they dont heavy weight torpedos for bigger range from where to hit subs or ships, maybe they dont find it the best (?)...but these capabilities-ranges could be improved by asroc, they say the rocket is +10 miles or +18kms, plus the 11 of the light weight torpedo...18 kms further away for any sub to launch his torpedo, what would we prefer having an hostile sub at 11 until you can throw him a torpedo, or be able to hit it at +29 kms? Or what you would prefer to have an hostil torpedo coming at 100 km/h that it arrives until us in 20 minutes or in 7 minuts, thats the time the awd/anzac would have to move at 50 km/h and scape from the searching head of the torpedo, so the awd/anzac has moved 17 kms or 6 kms, in the case of filoguided torpedos (i suppose is filoguided all the trip (?)) we need to eliminate any hostile that points our position/moves to the sub, i hope the surface radar and the spy make a good job for that, but anyway if the have a carrier or helos superiority these can keep appearing and disapering in our ship horizont and keep our ship targeted until the hostile subs comes, laucnhes the heavytorp filoguided, and what is the solution for this situation:
-Mr. Todjaeger suggestion of a dirigible uav enough heavy (probably only for lhd or galizia flight deck or dock) to carry a good radar so that with our sm2 or essm (are guided as well?) can eliminate the hostile jets or helos from appear in our horizon and target us during the 20 mins of our ships moving (the time the torpedo reaches us from 29 kms away at 100 km/h). This uav can be kept above with a big endurance at a distance like 20-30 kms, for not being a good reference for the hostiles, with respect to our ship/s.
-Or we can use the hull sonar big range, let me paste this phrase "This system is the basic sonar watchstanders tool to keep an eye on all traffic; often picking up surface ships at greater range than most radar systems", i suppose it refers to the surface search radar of the ship that has range until the horizon, from its height position. And recall that fisherman´s small boats have sonar for the fishes for 6 km for ex...we can guess if the awd/anz hull sonar identifies subs at 30-40-50 kms, and if it does it can go direct to the sub and eliminate it with asrocs before his unconfortable heavyweight hostile filoguided torpedo reaches us.
-Or we can have air superiority from instantly available jets to avoid the hostile detecting and tracking our ship for telling it to his sub, and make air safety for our asw helos to go working..

But in the case of asroc i would understand navies dont make public all the weapons that have their ships, for giving less info for potential future sudden conflicts.

And we cant say that any navy hasnt those heavy filoguided torpedos, they are in the market and who acquires them might not make it public.

Cheers.:cool:
 

PeterM

Active Member
While the ANZAC II is still publically mysterious, the whitepaper implied it would be one serious peice of kit. 7000t and ballastic missile capability are not things usually associated with a 2nd tier naval ship. If it ends up having the full VLS compliment (and it may) + harpoons its going to be one upgunned frigate. While not using AEGIS, AUSPAR or simular would compliment AEGIS nicely, adding all sorts of capability (additional directors? ABM detection?)

AWD will do air defence quiet nicely, but the ANZAC II seem to be shaping up as very capable multirole ships that will do some air defence but pack some serious antishipping/ground attack capability. Pair them together and you have some mighty impressive stuff.

Still need that 4th AWD tho. How can we have two fleets with only 3 ships!? WA will never see them(I assume)!
The Future Frigates will be very useful ships

It is interesting that the Royal Navy are currently looking at a 6,850 tonnes design for their type 26 frigate to replace the type 22 and type 23, which isn't that much smaller than their Daring class AWDs (7,500t).

I am interested in the "strong emphasis on anti-submarine warfare" that has been identified for the Future Frigates in the white paper and capability plan. Presumably these will be significantly enhanced anti-submarine capabilities over our current frigates. What kind of anti-submarine systems and weapons are possible options to be used?
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
but these capabilities-ranges could be improved by asroc, they say the rocket is +10 miles or +18kms, plus the 11 of the light weight torpedo...18 kms further away for any sub to launch his torpedo, what would we prefer having an hostile sub at 11 until you can throw him a torpedo, or be able to hit it at +29 kms? Or what you would prefer to have an hostil torpedo coming at 100 km/h that it arrives until us in 20 minutes or in 7 minuts, thats the time the awd/anzac would have to move at 50 km/h and scape from the searching head of the torpedo, so the awd/anzac has moved 17 kms or 6 kms, in the case of filoguided torpedos (i suppose is filoguided all the trip (?)) we need to eliminate any hostile that points our position/moves to the sub, i hope the surface radar and the spy make a good job for that, but anyway if the have a carrier or helos superiority these can keep appearing and disapering in our ship horizont and keep our ship targeted until the hostile subs comes, laucnhes the heavytorp filoguided, and what is the solution for this situation:
again.

if you haven't worked out that Todjaeger has a working insight irrespective of the fact that he does not have a blue handle (and he's not the only one in here like this) - then I suggest that you pause a bit before crapping on about how sub warfare and ASW actually works.

Australia developed one of the first launched torpedo systems in the world, it was purchased by the RN and others... we know all about ASROC concepts.

has it occurred to you that western navies have dropped ASROC and IKARA for a reason?

You're going on holiday as all you do is pollute the forums. a number of people have tried gentle education but you persist in stuffing up perfectly good threads.

This is your last chance - get with the program and learn from others instead of making things up and destroying the coherency of what have been useful posts.

Seriously. If you want to discuss doctrine or any other issue then do it in the right thread or create your own - do NOT pollute perfectly good threads with commentary that flies in the face of how and why navies actually fight.
 

OpinionNoted

Banned Member
again.

if you haven't worked out that Todjaeger has a working insight irrespective of the fact that he does not have a blue handle (and he's not the only one in here like this) - then I suggest that you pause a bit before crapping on about how sub warfare and ASW actually works.

Australia developed one of the first launched torpedo systems in the world, it was purchased by the RN and others... we know all about ASROC concepts.

has it occurred to you that western navies have dropped ASROC and IKARA for a reason?

You're going on holiday as all you do is pollute the forums. a number of people have tried gentle education but you persist in stuffing up perfectly good threads.

This is your last chance - get with the program and learn from others instead of making things up and destroying the coherency of what have been useful posts.

Seriously. If you want to discuss doctrine or any other issue then do it in the right thread or create your own - do NOT pollute perfectly good threads with commentary that flies in the face of how and why navies actually fight.
Whats the reason asroc isnt under consideration(or is it a possibilty ?)for awd and anzac 2?
Is it the RAN operating on the cheaper side by not having to absorb that operational cost of asroc or previous ikara replacement in super ikara?... and is RAN relying on allied assets to provide in depth ASW?.
Is the ASW heli and shipborne torps enough to do the job to the point of not having to seriously consider what asroc would bring to the ASW table?...would the inclusion of asroc not bring a big enough capability improvement to be considered worthwhile?
 

Bonza

Super Moderator
Staff member
again.

if you haven't worked out that Todjaeger has a working insight irrespective of the fact that he does not have a blue handle (and he's not the only one in here like this) - then I suggest that you pause a bit before crapping on about how sub warfare and ASW actually works.

Australia developed one of the first launched torpedo systems in the world, it was purchased by the RN and others... we know all about ASROC concepts.

has it occurred to you that western navies have dropped ASROC and IKARA for a reason?

You're going on holiday as all you do is pollute the forums. a number of people have tried gentle education but you persist in stuffing up perfectly good threads.

This is your last chance - get with the program and learn from others instead of making things up and destroying the coherency of what have been useful posts.

Seriously. If you want to discuss doctrine or any other issue then do it in the right thread or create your own - do NOT pollute perfectly good threads with commentary that flies in the face of how and why navies actually fight.
agc33e

I'd like to reinforce what gf0012-aust has said, only because you seem to have a lot of trouble accepting information that isn't to your liking. You really need to reconsider your engagement style, you need to stop making assumptions and presenting them as fact, and you need to start taking other people's posts seriously, and stop this stubborn insistence that your own limited point of view is the only correct one. Right now you only take from other people's posts those things that you feel fit in with your own views - and not only is that an ignorant way to conduct yourself, it's also rather disrespectful of other participants.

If you think about the above and change the way you post, you're not only going to find it easier to engage with people on the forums, you're also going to help the quality of the threads in which you participate, and by keeping an open mind you keep yourself open to learning from others. If you go back to your previous habits, your lifespan on the forums is going to be sorely limited. Please, have a think about it before you come back.
 
Last edited:

weasel1962

New Member
Re:

As an aside, the "asroc" is still operational on the burkes, spruances and ticos in the form of the Mk-41 fired VLA (small numbers carried, something like 2-3 per ship). I think the Japs got ok for local production in 2005 and it should have entered inventory. The Korean red shark should be a variant.

The mk-15 canister which carries the VLA for the Mk-41 is produced by BAE (unfortunately Australia only has a hand in the quad-pack production for the sea sparrow).

I had the impression that LM was developing the -ER version using wing-glide and moving the torp from the -5A to the Mk 54. Everyone does the glide nowadays...from footballers, bombs to missiles. It could be similar to the CLAW concept for the P-8.

Lastly, I'm not sure but I think the MILAS is still operational with the Italians as well. The russians have the rpk-29 besides the older rpk-2 and rastrub.

I don't think its an obsolete weapon yet. I wouldn't be surprised if very small numbers eventually end up on the hobart (even with the mk-32 which could have been a cost-consideration) but that's pure guesswork.
 

StevoJH

The Bunker Group
Spraunce class are all gone. From memory the last decommissioned in 2003. Most of them have been SINKEX'd during exercises now.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top