Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[StingrayOZ]

the F100 is an intersting design if you can just add peices to the middle of it.

leave it be if you want a frigate, add 1 if you want a destroyer add another 1-2 if you want a cruiser, add 10 if you want a Battleship

i doubt the RAN could convince the government to go for it tho, being their supposed to be frigates, dont think it would go down well if they're more powerful than our destroyers

I wouldn't rule it out completely, size does not dictate over all capability always. I would think they would use the extra space for helos rather than 32 VLS. We will have plenty of VLS if every Anzac II is carrying 48 VLS anyway. The white paper did specifically specify 7,000t. They could be larger if more lightly missiled.

Although I do wonder if an "Australia" class AWD with 48+32 VLS + Harpoon and 6" gun with 2 vessels would not make for for a strong addition to the RAN. But perhaps this is polishing a old and limited design a bit too far, perhaps a fresh approach would bring more value.

 

[gf0012-aust]

You are across this far more than I am. The key acronym mentioned above is ONR. We can (and do) talk all day long about sea 1000 and its 'capability matrix' however given the scale of the project and its social and economic impacts on the nation we should be looking at running a parallel review of our 'organisational structures'.

a few years back I attended a Fuel Cell Conference in Hanover. There was some very very tricky stuff being shown. The French and Germans were a golden league of where the public commercial sector was, what however was interesting for me was that one of the people I met from ONR didn't bat an eyelid at it and was quite comfortable in the view that the USN was already beyond those stages. So for me, what was a brave new world was already for him, passe' There were a few people from DSTO there as well. In todays climate these poor bar stewards can't even afford to come interstate for meetings unless we fund it - thats ridiculous and makes a mockery of the Govts notion of being smart. They hammered both DSTO (60% financial rape) and CSIRO and then still expect them to be competitive but play as Govt agencies. Unfort this lot are worse than the previous ones. I had high hopes coming in. Nearly all gone I'm afraid.

anyway I ended up meeting him (ONR POC) in London 6 months later at a UAV conference and he basically blew my mind away with what they were doing.

I think I've said before that when I attended a USV/ROV demo in Hawai'i they were getting 8 hrs out of those batteries. 18 months later they were getting 36hr operational duration (18hrs up and 18hrs back)

Its the materials science stuff that will also impact on signature management - IMO it will also mean that the concept of subs as we see them today will be seen as relevant as the Guppy class became once Nautilus got launched.

We don't have to go the bleeding edge or nuclear to make every other conventional sub out there a museum piece - and I include the Japanese in this as outside of the Germans, they're demonstrating the next layer of technical astuteness. Once they get their act together, they'll put the wind up everyone with what they can do and are doing now.

 

[gf0012-aust]

the F100 is an intersting design if you can just add peices to the middle of it.

No one officially is going to slag their new toy, but the reality is that the development curve for the F-100 is already reached at a real estate level unless you start to miniaturise to make space.

So for the cost of enhancing an F-100 you will hit the roof early and still be limited but it will have cost as much as the baseline G&C anyway. The issue being that the G&C will still have 20% extra real estate potential for future systems - including expanded weapons systems/suites.

Nonetheless we'll all pretend that its the best thing since sliced bread and that it was a good decision. VADM Shalders lost a political fight, not a capability fight.

again, politics at work - and not just civilian.

nice ship, but we could have had so much better and with better development fat

edit: as an aside. at the time I was working in the US and my US colleagues were interested in promoting an armoured citadel concept which would have lowered some vessel weight, saved on space and put us in a new technology curve - and using resources that were abundant in australia - and this we would not get held hostage by other countries mineral export provisions etc... my US colleagues came out of these meetings shaking their heads and indicated that we'd be better off not moving ahead anyway as their time was being wasted by technical luddites and technical shape shifters. One of the things I like about americans is that in business negotiations and in technical discussions they have manners. For them to comment as such was an escalated alert of how frustrated they were.

So I have had to suspend frustration and just enjoy my job, although I do miss the weapons and platform development side of what I did before.....

 

[icelord]

Navy frigate saves tanker from pirates

AN Australian navy frigate has thwarted a pirate attack on a UK-flagged chemical tanker in the Arabian Sea.

The guided-missile frigate HMAS Melbourne steamed to the aid of the tanker CPO China after it was boarded by pirates on Monday night Australian time, the Defence Department said.

HMAS Melbourne was more than 260 kilometres away when alerted to the incident but covered the distance in a little over six hours.

While en route its helicopter raced ahead to the CPO China and "was able to deter the pirates from attempting to take control of the ship".

"As a result the pirates aborted the attack and left the vessel when Melbourne arrived on the scene," Defence said.

Earlier, the tanker's crew had locked themselves into a stronghold from where they could maintain control of the ship.

The crew also remained in satellite communications with the outside world after the pirates boarded.

HMAS Melbourne is serving with the Combined Maritime Force's counter-piracy mission.

Australian frigates are regularly deployed to the Middle East Area of Operations to provide maritime security.

Australia's Middle East Commander Major General John Cantwell said a key objective was to assist the international community in reducing acts of piracy.

"Our men and women aboard HMAS Melbourne deserve recognition for their role in providing maritime security and countering piracy in the Arabian Sea," he said.

"This is one of those occasions where their efforts have become highly visible."


Read more: Navy frigate saves tanker from pirates | News.com.au

Bravo Zulu to the crew, hopefully this gets aussie ships a good name over there and more patrol in the right areas rather then no mans land like we have been given for last 2 years,

 

[SASWanabe]

in eveyones opinion what would be the best fit for the strategic sealift ship requirement for a vessel 10-15000 tonnes?

Bay Class - 16,610 tonnes full load 176m
Galicia Class - 13000 tonnes full load 160m
Dokdo Class - 14500 tonnes empty 199m
The Harpers Ferry class - 16900 tonnes empty 186m
Foudre class - 11300 tonnes empty 168m
Ōsumi class - 9050 tonnes empty 178m

Long Shots :

19000t class - 19500 tonnes empty 248m
Mini LHD - 21000 tonnes full load 190m

if i had the choice to pick between those it would have to be the Dokdo but i have no clue how the navy would choose, any imput from the Defpros?

 

[swerve]

Oosumi class ships aren't for sale, whether old or new-build ones.

Dokdo is an LHD, an amphibious assault ship. It doesn't fit the requirement.
Ditto a 'mini-LHD'.
Both would probably be too expensive.

Is the '19000t class' the Japanese 22DDH? If so, it fails on several counts: not designed for the role, too big & expensive, & not for sale.

Foudre or Siroco fits the size & would be cheap, but aren't ideal. They have a very large dock, to facilitate amphibious assaults. Also, they're not new, especially Foudre - the one likely to be offered. She's 20 years old already.

The other three would fit (note that the Harpers Ferry LSDs are officially stated to be 16600 tons full load, lighter than you say). I don't know when the USN will start selling off Harpers Ferry & her sister ships, but it's probably not soon, & they're not new now: built 1988 to 1998, & the oldest should be offered first - but even that may not be in time for the RAN.

Therefore we come down to just two types in your list which can be seriously considered, i.e. an ex-RFA Bay class, Largs Bay, & a new-built (because there aren't any old ones for sale) Galicia-class. The first would be a good fit (so good it's been said the requirement is practically a description of it), is much newer than any of the other secondhand ships, & should be well priced. No reason whatsoever not to buy it. A new Galicia? It's not too bad a fit, but I wouldn't even think about it, because Navantia & Damen Schelde offer a whole family of similar ships (e.g. the Bay class, a British-built variant of that family ), & I'd therefore take the opportunity to get something which is an even better fit for the requirement, & therefore order something very much like a new-build Bay class - probably from Navantia.

BTW, if you tracked back you'd find this has been discussed at length already. I've said nothing new, & only bothered to type it because I'm bored.

 

[SASWanabe]

ahh thanks, i did try looking but the search isnt quite sensitive enough.

the bay would be a good fit, i always thought the navy would have a problem with it because it doesnt have a proper hangar (yes, i know about the tent) that always seems to be a deciding factor for the RAN.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Bay needs to be perhaps slightly modified for enhanced helo facilities, but that would be true of almost any design, perhaps a more permanent tent/covering, but the ship is capable of being modified for that with out too much fuss as it was designed to accept a proper hanger. Seems to be the perfect ship and situation. Shes one of the most capable for its role and essentially brand new and low risk.

Rotary air assets seem to be overtly important for anti piracy work, being able to respond quickly and deter from the air, Australia should definately improve handling/storage for this equipment as its become a very valuable asset. So the sealift ship and the anzac replacements should have extensive helo facilities.

So for the cost of enhancing an F-100 you will hit the roof early and still be limited but it will have cost as much as the baseline G&C anyway. The issue being that the G&C will still have 20% extra real estate potential for future systems - including expanded weapons systems/suites

The F-100 has all the basics and meets the requirements, the evolved burke, yes would have had more potential for growth. Honestly will the RAN ever see the F-100 completely maxed out, would that extra 20% ever really be capitalised? Is that where the RAN should be putting its $'s? Should those funds perhaps be put aside for a 4th AWD sometime in the future? (then again how likely is that will ever see the light of day? Perhaps not a 4th AWD, but its replacement mid life?)

With the ANZAC's we became so short on space, because we had a light ship, and tried up gunning it with all the best stuff. F-100 atleast has space for most of the best stuff (not much space) so while limited in growth, its atleast at an acceptable min level (for now).

I find it hard to think all the AWD being fully armed with SM-3, SM-6, PAC3, a full load out of ESSM, Tlam, Harpoon, 2 phalanx, the best 5" rounds and say a AUSPAR/CEAMOUNT type thing. Even if we have all that, we will be building Anzac replacements of a simular size, so if there is some fantasmically growth area that requires space, perhaps the Anzac II's are better places for it as we can build them in, on a setup we are going to be much more familiar and have greater flexablity in developing/intergrating.

At least something was purchased, meeting the requirement, and it has a reasonable chance of actually being built near ontime and near budget. Perhaps G&C could have made a deal, buy our design and they would buy a controlling interest in ASC.

 

[jack412]

4 years ago I was involved with some materials science work involving titanium and ceramics, CSIRO had done some parallel development and come up with some extraordinary achievements. The irony was that what they had done had significant military implications and they were oblivious, They had licensed the tech to a German manufacturer who wanted to manage heat transference in high powered engines. What they had done however had direct implications on JSF solutions.

whats required IMO is to make sure that the civlian geeks (CSIRO) and the milgeeks (DSTO) and our coalition geek partners (DARPA, ONR, etc...) are fully informed about what we are all doing.

The fiefdoms that exist in DSTO and CSIRO are unfort legacy outcomes of a succession of Governents which expect them to have commercial nouse but do nothing to assist in helping them grow. or worse, when they score significant wins (CSIRO and wireless licensing tech), the Govt cuts their budgets but still takes the legal wins back into consolidated revenue.

pherquing small minded politicians do more damage than anyone in these circumstances.

classic stuff, dont we have a long and illustrious history of basically giving away IP and even not wording MOU joint programs properly ?

 

[aussienscale]

Nuship Canberra

Fyi, here is a link to the latest pic of the Canberra, she is scheduled to launch 17th Feb, have not yet seen a date for when she is due at Williamstown
fotosdebarcos.com :: Ver tema - HMAS Camberra

Does anyone know if work has commenced on the superstructure at Williamstown yet ?

Thanks

 

[Ozymandias]

Fyi, here is a link to the latest pic of the Canberra, she is scheduled to launch 17th Feb, have not yet seen a date for when she is due at Williamstown
fotosdebarcos.com :: Ver tema - HMAS Camberra

Does anyone know if work has commenced on the superstructure at Williamstown yet ?

Thanks

First steel was cut last November. Given the block problems with AWD at the time I believe Williamstown kept it under the radar.

 

[aussienscale]

First steel was cut last November. Given the block problems with AWD at the time I believe Williamstown kept it under the radar.

Thanks for that, not surprising why we have not heard anything then I might have to hassle a friend down there to try and get some pics for me

 

[Volkodav]

First steel was cut last November. Given the block problems with AWD at the time I believe Williamstown kept it under the radar.

There is a school of thought that one of the root causes of the issues with the keel blocks was that BAE didn't provide the same level of attention to what is basically a subby job verses the job in which they are the prime.

A BIW guy I know expressed the opinion that it was very bad business giving such important work to a somewhat distracted competitor because why should they care, they would assume the prime would cop the blame. We were very supprised BAE copped it and hard as they did as we were expecting ASC to be hammered in a repeat of the dud subs carry on.

 

[hairyman]

When the AWD selection process was on, it was touted that the ships would be armed with the S-3 anti-ballistic missile, as well as the S-2 anti-air missile. On current reading it appears that he S-3 is no longer a consideration. Is this correct? If so, why and when did defence change their mind?

 

[RubiconNZ]

When the AWD selection process was on, it was touted that the ships would be armed with the S-3 anti-ballistic missile, as well as the S-2 anti-air missile. On current reading it appears that he S-3 is no longer a consideration. Is this correct? If so, why and when did defence change their mind?

Personally I don't remember the SM-3 though I do remember SM-6 being listed as a possible further acquisition though this is only my recollection.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

When the AWD selection process was on, it was touted that the ships would be armed with the S-3 anti-ballistic missile, as well as the S-2 anti-air missile. On current reading it appears that he S-3 is no longer a consideration. Is this correct? If so, why and when did defence change their mind?

The answer to your question was in this thread a month or so ago.

It’s a fair question and the first pass approval for the AWD involved selecting AEGIS over competitors. Some of the other systems investigated by the RAN at various times for the AWD included NTDS (as on the Kidd class), APAR (as on the Dutch and German AWDs) and the French-British systems that use the Aster missile.

However AEGIS was the shoe in because of an earlier MoU between Australia and the USA on Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC). This is the real reason we want AEGIS not the SPY-1 radars but the ability to use multiple platforms radar measurements to create a single, extremely quick and very accurate radar picture. Each AWD will also be using the radar measurements of a SPY-1D(V), SPQ-9B, 2-3 Anzac PAR Systems, 2-3 SPS-49s and a Wedgetail MESA to create a single radar picture.

As to BMD what Australia is interested is not so much SM-3 which is a mid course weapon and designed to shoot down long range ballistic missiles as they sail overhead en route to some poor city. The nascent BMD requirement is to provide protection for deployed forces not the Australian homeland so is interested in US efforts for terminal weapons that are coming down towards your ship or nearby amphibious landing. For this the US is working on a sea based version of the PAC-3 MSE as the interceptor.

 

[rip]

The answer to your question was in this thread a month or so ago.

Sine AEGIS is evolving towards what they call an OPEN ARCHITEURE and it appears that ABM capacities will be built into all the future US AEGIS platforms and is also being back-fitted into many of the older ones, Australia if and when it thinks it needs that capacity could add the necessary elements relatively quickly to its own platforms. The whole field of ballistic missile defense is in a great deal of flux. This is true for all ranges of missiles and for all battlefields of interest. I do not think any bet you could make at this time, would be a sure one about what will be deemed the most vital system elements in the future.

But right now the thing that everybody is working on the hardest, as the most important issue and not just for ABM engagements is the sensor fusion problem, (the combination of various, different types and kinds, of separately dispersed and located, sensors inputs into accurate and reliable targeting information solution for real time. The simplicity of having one sensor system connected to a weapon’s total functionality is a thing of the past. It’s a very tuff nut to crack. Stuff that had never has to work together before must work together seamlessly, reliably, and very fast.

 

[AegisFC]

When the AWD selection process was on, it was touted that the ships would be armed with the S-3 anti-ballistic missile, as well as the S-2 anti-air missile. On current reading it appears that he S-3 is no longer a consideration. Is this correct? If so, why and when did defence change their mind?

Aegis BMD is not currently available for the baseline Australia has purchased.

 

[Jaimito]

The F100´s baselines, 5 and 6 for the older, 7 for the F105, have avalaible the possibility of integrating the Sm3, like do Japanese, and able to be joined to the Nato antimissil shield.

 

[AegisFC]

The F100´s baselines, 5 and 6 for the older, 7 for the F105, have avalaible the possibility of integrating the Sm3, like do Japanese, and able to be joined to the Nato antimissil shield.

Baselines 6.1/6.3 and 7.1/7.1R do NOT have BMD capabilities as of this time, nor will they for the foreseeable future.