Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[Volkodav]

On the OCV, the Turkish Milgem corvette looks to fit our requirements in terms of size and capability but probably costs more than we would be likely to pay.

Something in this configuration (a mini frigate) would be a good fit within our current shipbuilding capabilities, built across three yards (perhaps assembling the different variants at different yard) with common blocks built at specific yards for the entire class. Twenty ships built over ten or fifteen years. Drop the GT in favour of diesels only, look at all electric options and provide for exchangeable modular containerised role specific systems as well as a significant margin for future updates, possibly including VLS and AUSPAR.

 

[Jaimito]

Sorry for Collins submarine is 70 days endurance, like 20-25 more days than an Scorpene. In 70 days i suggest a change of crew in the 35 days.

Ok, transponders in cargo ships, compulsory? Compulsory in fisher´s chips? These ones sure can stop and move slow and don´t wake up any suspect, for fishing, anyway let me doubt there is no flexibility for a cargo ship to stop in his route and not being "discovered".

I recall that in the Lhd the Sea Kings can change the turbine using the cranes without moving the helo from where is parked.

I will post an impressive config for using the Flight deck in the hypothetical thread.

:

 

[Todjaeger]

Sorry for Collins submarine is 70 days endurance, like 20-25 more days than an Scorpene. In 70 days i suggest a change of crew in the 35 days.

Ok, transponders in cargo ships, compulsory? Compulsory in fisher´s chips? These ones sure can stop and move slow and don´t wake up any suspect, for fishing, anyway let me doubt there is no flexibility for a cargo ship to stop in his route and not being "discovered".

I recall that in the Lhd the Sea Kings can change the turbine using the cranes without moving the helo from where is parked.

I will post an impressive config for using the Flight deck in the hypothetical thread.

:

Comparatively smallcraft like fishing trawlers are not necessarily required by treaty to be equipped with transponders. However, many of the larger vessels, and those carrying certain types of cargoes, do have to be equipped with transponders. Not to mention in order for Australia (and any oher nation for that matter) to meet certain treaty requirements, have to operate and equip vessels to certain standards depending on what it is doing. Tanker/oiler-type vessels have to be double-hulled to meet MARPOL IIRC. While military vessels can be exempted from this, if the whole point is to have a 'secret' refueling ship, then a single-hulled military exempt tanker is not going to be a secret.

-Cheers

 

[alexsa]

Sorry for Collins submarine is 70 days endurance, like 20-25 more days than an Scorpene. In 70 days i suggest a change of crew in the 35 days.

Ok, transponders in cargo ships, compulsory? Compulsory in fisher´s chips? These ones sure can stop and move slow and don´t wake up any suspect, for fishing, anyway let me doubt there is no flexibility for a cargo ship to stop in his route and not being "discovered".

I recall that in the Lhd the Sea Kings can change the turbine using the cranes without moving the helo from where is parked.

I will post an impressive config for using the Flight deck in the hypothetical thread.

:

To add some meaning to this discussion I suggest you have good look at the statutory requirment for cargo ships with regard to tracking and reporting. Catch words are LRIT, AIS global AIS and mandatort reporting systesm. Suggest you also have a look at VTIS coverage and systems.

Anybody not playing the game wiht respect to the requirements will stand our like a sore thumb.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Ok, transponders in cargo ships, compulsory? Compulsory in fisher´s chips? These ones sure can stop and move slow and don´t wake up any suspect, for fishing, anyway let me doubt there is no flexibility for a cargo ship to stop in his route and not being "discovered".

Why not make your refuelling ship a purpose built submarine or why we are at it why not build the actual submarine to a 3,000-4,000 tonne size so it can carry all of its fuel, plus larger and more reliable powerplants so it doesn't need a refuelling auxiliary or maintenance tender? Submarine warfare is all about stealth, not just tactical stealth but strategic and operational. Tying contemporary submarines to a forward base or tender is as foolish as requiring them in the 1940s to send radio messages back to base every day. To paraphase quote a RAN Vice Admiral: “We will design the future submarine not some journalist or commentator…”

 

[Jaimito]

I try to adapt to your answers, ok let´s use a militar tanker for the subs, 5000 t. or 7000t. etc, with some ciws, everyone knows when leaves port is for refuelling subs somewhere but where, how are they going to follow the track of this ship if it hasn´t transponders? It´s like a destroyer that leaves port, who knows where it goes? What´s the matter if the Ran sub´s tanker is seen by a Russian cargo ship 2000 kms off their coast, is Russia going to assume that a sub is patrolling international or Russian waters in front of their coast? Just like the Russian nuke was seen quite close to Usa coast but still in international waters as they said in media, and no explanations were asked to Russian goverment.
When i say Russia, it´s the furthest example, but i could mean Iranian coast seeking for weapons trade, and all the rest.
In peace time this ship, the sub´s militar tanker is going to be really useful for far away long sustained operations, because we are going to be in peace time probably 100 % of future time and there won´t be any problem, diplomatic or so, about the tanker being discovered (despite being militar) wherever.
Now in wartimes.... deploy this ship alone in a stealth discrete mission refuelling like 2000 kms away from the hot zone, this distance might be enought for making it sure for the refueller not to encounter hostile subs and destroyers.
So Aip systems for example to go in and out of hot zones from and to refuelling zones give the abitlity of not showing the snorkel ever, which it is supposed to be detected by either the ship´s surface radars or either the Airborne radars (?).
And i don´t rule fisher´s ships.
Said in other way, if you want a big sub with a 70 or +70 days endurance and so 70 days continuous mission for the same crew, probably Ran wont be able to crew 12 subs, at least not cheaply or not as cheap as giving smaller missions more attractive for sailors to apply. And don´t compare the flexibility for your subs fleet, for them to have a couple of sub´s refuellers avalaible than to need to visit foreign ports to refuel, change crew and suplies, either you visit these ports after 45 days (Scorpene), 55 days (S80), 70 days (Collins).
Edit: i am refering that the endurances of sub´s are surpassing my ideal number of days for crew for continuous mission or total number of days of mission per year. This ideal number is the one that ensures that you get those 12 crews for having the fundamental capability of 12 subs in the water next to the fleet in a sudden conflict because an attractive job. So the sooner need to visit foreign ports is due to crew rotation not sub endurance, but is it the most important need nowdays? It seems no.




The Spanish combat system for the Spanish Lhd, the Scomba uses transfer from Aegis management, exactly from the Comand and Decision programs, and the Aegis Display System, but from what is wanted as not too expensive Scomba, i think the transfer Australia is buying is bigger, with Aegis Weapons system included (not the Aegis combat system for the Spy but for installing Auspar etc..), and the Cec programs, Asw, helos...

 

[alexsa]

I try to adapt to your answers, ok let´s use a militar tanker for the subs, 5000 t. or 7000t. etc, with some ciws, everyone knows when leaves ... but for installing Auspar etc..), and the Cec programs, Asw, helos...

Sorry enough is enough. It is pointless besides which Have you ever tried to a ship to ship transfer of fuel where one ships is a submarine. As there are no RAS points the options are (noting he sub will need to be fitted for either):

1. Tow line combined with fuel line
2. Alongside transfer

Both require near perfect conditions to be feasible. As noted by some comentators if you want more range simply built it into the design........ it is much lower risk.

 

[Todjaeger]

Sorry enough is enough. It is pointless besides which Have you ever tried to a ship to ship transfer of fuel where one ships is a submarine. As there are no RAS points the options are (noting he sub will need to be fitted for either):

1. Tow line combined with fuel line
2. Alongside transfer

Both require near perfect conditions to be feasible. As noted by some comentators if you want more range simply built it into the design........ it is much lower risk.

The other issue which has been repeatedly coming up in my mind, is what sort of conops would require (or even suggest it as a good idea...) submarine replenishment at sea?

The Oberon-class SSG which the RAN utilized prior to the introduction of the Collins-class SSG AFAIK had conducted 'sneak-and-peek' ISR missions during the Cold War, periodically taking a look at what the Soviets had going on in and around Vladivostok. Depending on just how much of that Government has acknowledged as occuring, some of the Oz DefPros might be able to either confirm or shed more light on what was done.

It is quite likely that what ever sub replaces the Collins-class will be even more capable, in terms of range/endurance, as well as the overall performance of harvesting systems. Which then begs the question of what point does RAS serve for a sub? USN SSN's are capable of circumnavigating the globe, remaining completely submerged the entire time. The actual limitation that the nuclear subs have in mission endurance is based upon just how much foodstuffs/stores the sub can carry, and how long crew health and morale can be maintained. IIRC, USN SSN mission cruises are usually of several weeks duration, and depending on the AoO, might include one or more Port-of-Call visits.

In short, even if the future RAN SSG were to operate in a manner similar to how the USN operates its SSN's, the RAN sub would not realistically need to be refueled at sea by a tanker.

-Cheers

 

[aussienscale]

GF would be the one to ask that type of question , I do recall a link was posted some time ago (I think by GF ?) that was about a book that had been released with info regarding what the Oberon's got up too. I will post in edit if I can find it again or GF may beat me to it.

But it spoke about sitting on the bottom and taking pictures of ships hulls and very close up pics of props etc, which required the subs to be within meters of a moving ship to take the pictures underwater without detection etc

 

[Hoffy]

GF would be the one to ask that type of question , I do recall a link was posted some time ago (I think by GF ?) that was about a book that had been released with info regarding what the Oberon's got up too. I will post in edit if I can find it again or GF may beat me to it.

But it spoke about sitting on the bottom and taking pictures of ships hulls and very close up pics of props etc, which required the subs to be within meters of a moving ship to take the pictures underwater without detection etc

Which is why the Collins Class can be super quiet. You can turn off the engines etc and run on battery power..
AFAIK this is not possible with current nuclear technology.
Feel free to correct me on this point.

 

[Bonza]

GF would be the one to ask that type of question , I do recall a link was posted some time ago (I think by GF ?) that was about a book that had been released with info regarding what the Oberon's got up too. I will post in edit if I can find it again or GF may beat me to it.

But it spoke about sitting on the bottom and taking pictures of ships hulls and very close up pics of props etc, which required the subs to be within meters of a moving ship to take the pictures underwater without detection etc

There's a whole bunch of information relevant to the above at the following link:

The O-Boat Mystery Boats

Hope it's beneficial.

 

[Todjaeger]

Which is why the Collins Class can be super quiet. You can turn off the engines etc and run on battery power..
AFAIK this is not possible with current nuclear technology.
Feel free to correct me on this point.

Some of the nuke boats have circulation pumps which need to be kept running in order to prevent "bad things" from happening. Other nuke boats do not need to keep the pumping running at all times.

-Cheers

 

[Volkodav]

Some of the nuke boats have circulation pumps which need to be kept running in order to prevent "bad things" from happening. Other nuke boats do not need to keep the pumping running at all times.

-Cheers

Current nukes have a steam turbine driving a shaft through mechanical gears; the Collins has an electric motor in the extreme aft of the sub with a short shaft driving the propeller. Nukes would be a lot quieter if they were all electric, i.e. the reactor and turbine are combined with a generator and fully rafted, isolating them from the hull, with the propeller being driven by an electric motor in the extreme aft.

Another option in an all electric set up would be to have multiple streamlined pods which would then leave the stern free to be used as a lockout chamber as seen in an EB concept a couple of years back.

 

[aussienscale]

Adf 2009 dcp dec 2010 update

Link below for the update Defence Capability Plan , 334 page pdf file.
http://www.defence.gov.au/dmo/id/dcp/DCP_Dec10.pdf

A lot of info to digest so forgive me for lack of input at this stage

 

[Volkodav]

Link below for the update Defence Capability Plan , 334 page pdf file.
http://www.defence.gov.au/dmo/id/dcp/DCP_Dec10.pdf

A lot of info to digest so forgive me for lack of input at this stage

We had a read and discussion about it at work, the glaring issue is the gap between the AWD and cutting steel on the ANZAC replacements. If the government is serious about building a sustainable naval ship building sector they will need to either build an additional AWD (or two), bring forward the ANZAC replacement, or disappoint Austal and select a more frigate like option for the OCV and award it to the major players to maintain their hard and expensively earned skill base.

 

[aussienscale]

We had a read and discussion about it at work, the glaring issue is the gap between the AWD and cutting steel on the ANZAC replacements. If the government is serious about building a sustainable naval ship building sector they will need to either build an additional AWD (or two), bring forward the ANZAC replacement, or disappoint Austal and select a more frigate like option for the OCV and award it to the major players to maintain their hard and expensively earned skill base.

Also noted the like of the AWD, OCV etc still has number quoted for the project but the "Rudd" boats in recent times have had the magic 12 dropped ?

GF are you able to clarify this ? As I know there is much discussion in a number of circles regarding the actual number, are we still looking at 12 ?

 

[Volkodav]

Also noted the like of the AWD, OCV etc still has number quoted for the project but the "Rudd" boats in recent times have had the magic 12 dropped ?

GF are you able to clarify this ? As I know there is much discussion in a number of circles regarding the actual number, are we still looking at 12 ?

Not privy to the current discussions but I believe the project definition stage will be used to work out the numbers once the size, endurance, discretion rate and required payload have been determined.

What is certain is six hulls is not enough and no MOTS solution will be able to do the job. Our area of operation is much larger and more varied than the Europeans operate in, the distances we travel are greater the waters (often) deeper and the missions longer. There is no comparison.

 

[Jaimito]

The other issue which has been repeatedly coming up in my mind, is what sort of conops would require (or even suggest it as a good idea...) submarine replenishment at sea?

In short, even if the future RAN SSG were to operate in a manner similar to how the USN operates its SSN's, the RAN sub would not realistically need to be refueled at sea by a tanker.

-Cheers

If you deploy a surface fleet with subs with an oiler/replenisment ship or two for the fleet, this fleet is going to stay away for longer than the endurace/range of its subs, then how they refuel/replenish the subs?

Actually a militar tanker for the sub should have the gears and cranes to put the pipe on the sub, this just has to open and close the door. For the fuel and the Vertrep. Good sea state.

Then Ran has to think for the replenishment/tanker ship in the paper, to acquire, if better have 1 big tanker of 20000 t., or 2 of 10000 t., or 3 of 7000 t., for example, so that there is the flexibility to refuel (and change crew) independent subs worldwide, and also to go with the fleet/s.

So 3 Awd, 3 Lhd, who knows if F35b, 3 tankers and repl. ships, as many subs as possible. Able to have 3 different fleets.

A group protected by an Awd and Anzacs, the Awd has 360 º radar Aegis defence coverage, just put in the opposite side to the Awd wrt the tanker and Lhd, as say, put the Anzacs. And if Anzac 2 then even increase the amount of Essm in the Awd, instead of 16 cells of 4 Essm that gives 64, put, imagine 40 cells times 4 160 Essm. The Sm2, Tactoms, Asrocs in the Anzac 2.
In the sense that the Awd has the Aegis combat and the Spy that can defend very well against missiles so make the most of that system to mainily load it with Essm if Anzac 2 can have the others. Anzac 2 launches the Sm2 but the Awd guides it, isn´t it?
Now, the portion of horizont asigned to the 2, for example, Anzac 2-1, for defending it is small, the Awd copes at least 3/4 of the horizon.
So 2 Anzac give their systems in that 1/4 horizon. And their Ciws or Sea Ram in that 1/4 of horizon in case their main system (Auspar, Ceafar) collapse under electronic warfare, in that smal portion of the horizon which maybe even the Awd can tackle, as its high antenna etc. So at least make sure the Anzac have the possible best Ciws or Sea Ram.

Edit: In the sense, i would put more importance in having more subs than having less subs which are larger, if difference in number is big enough. But of course there is the quality of the sub apart from endurance or number of subs.

 

[Todjaeger]

If you deploy a surface fleet with subs with an oiler/replenisment ship or two for the fleet, this fleet is going to stay away for longer than the endurace/range of its subs, then how they refuel/replenish the subs?

What sort of mission role/conops would the RAN have a SSG 'shadowing' near a LHD or taskforce for any length of time where the task force would not have the opportunity to refuel/resupply in a neutral or friendly port?

RAN SSG employment seems to be focused on ISR tasks, as well as shipping interdiction and if need be, sub escort for skimmers. Of these, the ISR tasks would seem the ones where the greatest ranges between port-of-calls are required.

I just do not see a reasonable scenario where the RAN would have a task force located and operating somewhere that would mandate RAS for an AOR, and at the same time have the task force sufficiently exposed to hostile submarines as to require the RAN task force to have its own, organic sub presence.

So far, what has been proposed seems to be a strange cross between a submarine tender, and AOR. Unfortunately, it does not seem to have a reasonably viable role within the RAN force structure.

-Cheers

 

[Jaimito]

What sort of mission role/conops would the RAN have a SSG 'shadowing' near a LHD or taskforce for any length of time where the task force would not have the opportunity to refuel/resupply in a neutral or friendly port?

I just do not see a reasonable scenario where the RAN would have a task force located and operating somewhere that would mandate RAS for an AOR, and at the same time have the task force sufficiently exposed to hostile submarines as to require the RAN task force to have its own, organic sub presence.
-Cheers

Well i heard 24 subs for India, 32 for China, North Korean ones and the Russian quite a few. Sudden conflict. Enough subs for having an attitude in the game defensive or ofensive? Who rules the initiative is who has the best balance in sea, air, and underwater, more sensors more info.