Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[Volkodav]

The Absalom keep turning up in every internet analyst's toolkit. Some facts:

Modules consume about 10% of the volume of the ship just to accommodate them - in other words, just to have the space to move stuff around and fit new things, you lose 10% of the tonnage available - that's according to an interview with the project manager for the Type 26.

In use, it's turned out that the best way to use these modules is to assign some modules to certain ships, and assign appropriate personnel to those modules and ships. That's according to an interview with a Danish Navy Captain in Warships International.

What I'm saying is, modules have some attractions (very simple upgrades for instance!) but they're not a magic solution.

I'm sure an ANZAC II will have some sort of modular support however,

Ian

I suppose there is an arguement that steel is cheap and air is free (Gibbs from G&C wasn't it?), anyway even if the extra volume isn't used for exchangable modules it sure does make maintenance availabilities and upgrades a lot easier.

I am all for single role short service ships that are procured to do a job and then be replaced or retired as required, i.e. the Armidale Class Patrol Boats, 15 year (I believe) planned life of hull with no major upgrades intended. When they reach the end of those lives they will be replaced with new ships fitting the needs of the time.

When you are talking 30 or 40 year service life, make it it bigger than you need now because the gear you will be fitting during its mid life or life extention upgrade hasn't been invented yet. Infact if at all possible design the ship in such a way that you can easily replace or upgrade ships generators and propulsion because what it is built with will not last 40 years and there will without a doubt, even if you don't need more power, be units with the same out put that are far more efficient, easier to maintain and have a much lower cost of ownership.

What is seen as excess size or even waste in a new ship will prove its value down the track.

 

[ADMk2]

The Absalom keep turning up in every internet analyst's toolkit. Some facts:

Modules consume about 10% of the volume of the ship just to accommodate them - in other words, just to have the space to move stuff around and fit new things, you lose 10% of the tonnage available - that's according to an interview with the project manager for the Type 26.

In use, it's turned out that the best way to use these modules is to assign some modules to certain ships, and assign appropriate personnel to those modules and ships. That's according to an interview with a Danish Navy Captain in Warships International.

What I'm saying is, modules have some attractions (very simple upgrades for instance!) but they're not a magic solution.

I'm sure an ANZAC II will have some sort of modular support however,

Ian

I don't think the Absalon's are THE solution to every naval problem, but they'd make a tremendous littoral warfare asset...

 

[Volkodav]

I don't think the Absalon's are THE solution to every naval problem, but they'd make a tremendous littoral warfare asset...

The Govt seems keen on replacing the ANZACs with an equivalent number of ASW slanted FFG with a land attack capability to supplement the AWDs and (proposed)OCVs with no room left for an Absalon type platform.

However I wonder if a greater number of AWDs, including larger more capable batch II ships supported by a reasonable number of Australian tailored Flexible Support Ships. This concept would include a range of smaller role specific craft and ROVs (covering MCM, inshore patrol, assault, force protection, fast interception etc.) that can be carried and supported (as required) in theatre by not just by said Flexible Support Ships, but also LHDs, Sealift Ship, and eventual LCH replacements.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Not necessarily. The FF's are to be built in Australia and the initial FF's could just as easily replace retained FFG's as FFH's, assuming the ships have the life to stay that long (which clearly the FFH's do, given they are to be replaced by the FF's anyway).

The FFGs will pay off when the AWDs commission. Their crews will be the crew of the AWDs and in the case of HMAS Sydney (FFG #3) she needs to provide her name, bell and mess bits to the Nuship Sydney (AWD #3). The current schedule for decommissioning is Sydney in 2013 with the others to follow.

Further to add to what AD has been saying the planned concept of operations for the future RAN surface combatant fleet is to sustain two combat task forces. Each task force will have an AWD and 2-3 frigates (Anzac class and their replacements) and a Wedgetail orbit sustained overhead. Using CEC this task force will combine the airborne MESA radar, the AWD’s SPY-1, 2-3 CEFAR suites and the 2-3 volume search radars of the frigates (SPS-49 now and likely to be upgraded to Saab AMB in the future). That is a pretty good radar coverage for a naval task force. Especially since CEC will be transmitting to each ship the dwell by dwell results of all 18-25 of these radars where each combat system will dynamically intelligence average these results to provide an amazingly accurate picture at the limits of normal single platform radar visibility.

The SEA 5000 vessel is likely to be fitted with the same radar suites as the Anzacs (CEAFAR and AMB) until AUSPAR is ready. They might even carry the very same radars to push back the spend to their MLU. What they will bring to the plate is far more VLS cells with subsequent weapons options (SM6 for AWDs, cruise missiles in addition to their own ESSMs), additional shipboard hangar space (helos, UAVs, UUVs, etc) and a bigger, more sustainable ship platform. I don’t see how STANFLEX will make much of a difference for the SEA 5000 ship because it will want to have its capabilities on hand all the time. It will not be a swing role platform but a multi role ship. The SEA 1180 ship is a different story but.

 

[ADMk2]

The Govt seems keen on replacing the ANZACs with an equivalent number of ASW slanted FFG with a land attack capability to supplement the AWDs and (proposed)OCVs with no room left for an Absalon type platform.

However I wonder if a greater number of AWDs, including larger more capable batch II ships supported by a reasonable number of Australian tailored Flexible Support Ships. This concept would include a range of smaller role specific craft and ROVs (covering MCM, inshore patrol, assault, force protection, fast interception etc.) that can be carried and supported (as required) in theatre by not just by said Flexible Support Ships, but also LHDs, Sealift Ship, and eventual LCH replacements.

The FF's are just called "ASW" Frigates for the purpose of political correctness, the same as the Tigers are known as "Armed Recon Helos" and not gunships...

I believe there won't be much practical difference between the FF and the AWD in anti-air capability. Hopefully they will however be sized appropriately to include the land attack mission you mention as well as the surface and sub-surface attack roles they need to cover...

But I agree several of the support ships you mention would nicely support the LHD's in future years...

 

[hairyman]

When the AWD's were first discussed, they were to be armed with SM3, anti-ballistic missiles. Now it is SM2, SM6, and ESSM plus land attack missiles and Harpoon. Just as well they were dropped, as with only 48 tubes, for 3 or 4 different missiles the Hobarts would not have been able to carry enough of each to be effective. I hope when they get around to a AnzacII it has more than 48 missile capacity.

 

[StevoJH]

When the AWD's were first discussed, they were to be armed with SM3, anti-ballistic missiles. Now it is SM2, SM6, and ESSM plus land attack missiles and Harpoon. Just as well they were dropped, as with only 48 tubes, for 3 or 4 different missiles the Hobarts would not have been able to carry enough of each to be effective. I hope when they get around to a AnzacII it has more than 48 missile capacity.

Don't hold your breath.

Remember the current ANZAC class frigates only have 8 cells.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

When the AWD's were first discussed, they were to be armed with SM3, anti-ballistic missiles.

Not by anyone in the Navy...

48 cells is a lot when your primary AAW weapon is quad packed ESSMs. 32 SM2s and 64 ESSMs is the standard Spanish loadout but when carrying TLAMs they go to 24 SM2s, 64 ESSMs and 8 TLAMs. Such a loadout across three ships (1 AWD, 2 S5Ks) in the future task force is 72 SM6s, 192 ESSM2s/SBMSE, 32 cruise missiles.

 

[John Newman]

When the AWD's were first discussed, they were to be armed with SM3, anti-ballistic missiles. Now it is SM2, SM6, and ESSM plus land attack missiles and Harpoon. Just as well they were dropped, as with only 48 tubes, for 3 or 4 different missiles the Hobarts would not have been able to carry enough of each to be effective. I hope when they get around to a AnzacII it has more than 48 missile capacity.

For a start the Harpoon's won't be in the VLS, they will be in quad packs (x 2) between the funnels.

And from what I understand the VLS will be loaded initially with ESSM and SM2's, with the SM2's to be be eventually replaced by the SM6.

The question will be when the Cruise missiles are included, at a later date, will the SM6 or the ESSM load, or both, be reduced?

Is there room for an ESSM VLS system to be added atop the hangar, as in the ANZAC's?

 

[Volkodav]

When the AWD's were first discussed, they were to be armed with SM3, anti-ballistic missiles. Now it is SM2, SM6, and ESSM plus land attack missiles and Harpoon. Just as well they were dropped, as with only 48 tubes, for 3 or 4 different missiles the Hobarts would not have been able to carry enough of each to be effective. I hope when they get around to a AnzacII it has more than 48 missile capacity.

Abe covered this!!!!!!!!!

Lets say we choose to ship 8 SM-3 (assuming the necesary upgrades are carried out to the CS) we would still be able to ship more than twice the number of ESSM / SM 2s as any previous RAN platform.

Assuming it was decided that we absolutely had to have 8 SM3 and 36 SM2/6 that would still leave room for 32 ESSM, most regional airforces would run out of aircraft before we ran out of missiles. Chuck in 2 or 3 ANZAC replacements with 48 cells carrying ESSM and SM6 as well as cruise missiles and possibly a stand off ASW missile (VLASROC) and second AWD that would be escorting a ship on ABM duty and the missile count starts getting silly. We could run an Airpower Australia type simulation using Harpoon and swat SU 27s all day long.

It could actually be argued that unless there is a requirement for a VLASROC type weapon and possibly moving Nulka into an Extensible Launcher (maybe RAM Block II and an anti swarm missile) as well, that the new combatants could safely make do with less than 48 cells, 24 or 32 could well be enough.

 

[John Newman]

Not by anyone in the Navy...

48 cells is a lot when your primary AAW weapon is quad packed ESSMs. 32 SM2s and 64 ESSMs is the standard Spanish loadout but when carrying TLAMs they go to 24 SM2s, 64 ESSMs and 8 TLAMs. Such a loadout across three ships (1 AWD, 2 S5Ks) in the future task force is 72 SM6s, 192 ESSM2s/SBMSE, 32 cruise missiles.

Abe, looking at your loadout figures for 1 AWD and 2 SEA5000's, I didn't realise that the SEA5000 ships were to be fitted with SM6?

Has that been the plan all along?

I though they would have ESSM, Cruise and Harpoon, but havn't read anything about SM6.

If SM6 is on the SEA5000, is the targeting and control of the SM6 done by the AWD with its AEGIS system?

 

[MickB]

[Q

UOTE=StobieWan;236716]The Absalom keep turning up in every internet analyst's toolkit.

Point Taken, since reading this I did what I should have done earlier, and read previous posts.

Those most critical of this ship seem to regard it as under armed eg: destroyer hull with frigate armament. As this vessel is meant as a frigate replacement (ANZAC II) I don't see that as such a problem.

Do any of the other options discussed had a vastly better armament?(Not being sarcastic asking a real question). I think of the extra space and flexability of the mission deck as a bonus not as the vessels prime focus.

I was also sugesting not just the Absalon but a mixed force with the Iver Huitfeldt. In what combination was the discussion I had hoped to start.

 

[Volkodav]

AB, looking at your loadout figures for 1 AWD and 2 SEA5000's, I didn't realise that the SEA5000 ships were to be fitted with SM6?

Has that been the plan all along?

I though they would have ESSM, Cruise and Harpoon, but havn't read anything about SM6.

Makes sense, SM6 has an active seeker to make it effective beyond the range of the launch platforms directors, as such, while probably not as effective when fired from a non AW platform it would work. Add CEC to the equassion and it makes even more sense, it will effectively be carrying the missiles for other platforms to control.

 

[John Newman]

Makes sense, SM6 has an active seeker to make it effective beyond the range of the launch platforms directors, as such, while probably not as effective when fired from a non AW platform it would work. Add CEC to the equassion and it makes even more sense, it will effectively be carrying the missiles for other platforms to control.

Agree, that an AWD with CEC will be able to make the SM6 more effective.

Its just that I hadn't heard that the SEA5000 ships will have SM6.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Abe, looking at your loadout figures for 1 AWD and 2 SEA5000's, I didn't realise that the SEA5000 ships were to be fitted with SM6?

The S5K ship will have strike length VLS cells and CEC all it needs to carry and fire SM6s. Fire control will be through the AWD including terminal illumination for some targets. Other targets, over the horizon or outside the AWD’s field of regard, can be illuminated by Wedgetail. Other targets can be prosecuted by the SM6’s active seeker.

Has that been the plan all along?

Since about 2000-2001 when the RAN realised they could get CEC via a Navy to Navy MoU with the USN.

 

[John Newman]

The S5K ship will have strike length VLS cells and CEC all it needs to carry and fire SM6s. Fire control will be through the AWD including terminal illumination for some targets. Other targets, over the horizon or outside the AWD’s field of regard, can be illuminated by Wedgetail. Other targets can be prosecuted by the SM6’s active seeker.



Since about 2000-2001 when the RAN realised they could get CEC via a Navy to Navy MoU with the USN.

Abe, thanks for that info.

Makes sense with the proposed SEA5000's being fitted with strike length VLS for Cruise Missiles that they could be loaded with SM6.

It just that in the public domain, at least, I hadn't come across the possibility/probablity of them being fitted with SM6.

Which brings up another question, if a SEA5000 ship is not in company with a AWD, how effective will its own sensors be to get the most out of SM6?

From what I understand an FFG with SM2 doesn't have the range in its sensors to match the range of the SM2's it is loaded with, is that true?

Does that also mean that a SEA5000 ships sensor would be inside the range and limits of SM6?

Are they on their own, going to be more or less capable, in the AAW arena, than an updated FFG?

Edit: and yes I am aware that the AWD's are to replace the capability of the DDG's and updated FFG's. And the SEA5000's are to replace the ANZACS.

I'ts just an interesting comparison of capabilities between an updated FFG with SM2 and a SEA5000 with SM6 in the AAW arena.

 

[MickB]

Would the use of CEC allow for specialized ships to extend the magazine capacity of the AWD.

A HSV fitted with multiple launcher cells could keep station with the AWD. By using the missiles aboard the HSV first, the load on the AWD could be retained for later use, thus extending its time on station.

Once its load is depleted the HSV would make a fast transit to the nearest base to replenish.

If fitted with limited self defense the crew required would not be large.

I understand that fitting the launcher cells would be easier and cheaper by venting down between the hulls of a catamaran.

I know such a vessel is unlikely in the extreme but was interested in its practicality.

 

[Todjaeger]

Would the use of CEC allow for specialized ships to extend the magazine capacity of the AWD.

A HSV fitted with multiple launcher cells could keep station with the AWD. By using the missiles aboard the HSV first, the load on the AWD could be retained for later use, thus extending its time on station.

Once its load is depleted the HSV would make a fast transit to the nearest base to replenish.

If fitted with limited self defense the crew required would not be large.

I understand that fitting the launcher cells would be easier and cheaper by venting down between the hulls of a catamaran.

I know such a vessel is unlikely in the extreme but was interested in its practicality.

Alexsa could likely provide better commentary, but here goes...

As I understand it, a HSV (like those built by Austal & Incat) would not really be a practical option as a missile barge. Such vessels are not really designed to operate in 'blue water' environments, being multi-hull vessels built to HSC standards, which IIRC requires that they operate within ~8 hours transit time of a port. So basically means that such an HSV could not travel with a task force, unless the task force basically stayed near coastlines.

Also, since the HSV's are typically aluminum-hulled vessels, they seem to have ~half the service life of traditional steel-hulled naval vessels and have limitations in terms of tonnage available for cargo/weapons/systems.

If one is looking for the greatest displacement available for weaponry, as well as the ability to operate in open waters, then traditional monohulls AFAIK are the best. The areas where such hull forms are not necessarily the best are in terms of maximum speed and minimum draught.

-Cheers

 

[jack412]

Which brings up another question, if a SEA5000 ship is not in company with a AWD, how effective will its own sensors be to get the most out of SM6?

From what I understand an FFG with SM2 doesn't have the range in its sensors to match the range of the SM2's it is loaded with, is that true?

Does that also mean that a SEA5000 ships sensor would be inside the range and limits of SM6?

I read there are also going to use off board sensors too, including the P-8, Wedgetail and f-35, so i guess that individual sensors aren't that critical when it's all working as a system

 

[aussienscale]

Do you think the roles & way we operate currently with the Adelaide, ANZAC & Armidale class will change very much versus a few years time when we have the Hobart class, ANZAC replacement & Armidale replacement? With the ANZAC & Armidale class planned replacements being somewhat larger, increased range, payload, capabilities. Will the future ANZAC frigates actually become destroyers/destroyer role? Will the future Armidale class change from a patrol boat to an OCV/corvette? Whilst the numbers may be smaller on paper, could the ships themselves much more diverse in the rolls they can play?

In addition to what has already been said, with regard to the Armidale replacement, and changes in operational use etc, the simple answer is to look at where the BPC's are heading I would say that once the Armidales are gone and replaced with the OCV's and the continued development of the BPC role that Patrol Boats as we have come to know them will be a thing of the past for the RAN

Cheers, sorry the for late reply, I have been away for work