Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[gf0012-aust]

The detail of what you've written is so confused and contradictory I'm just going to leave it alone.

You're making some bold assumptions about the competency of the person you're engaging with.

It would be worth your while remembering that if someone has a blue tag then it means that they have been verified and validated by others in a competency within a profession and/or skillsets within the military/industry. The fact that Alexas is providing a level of detail that others would not have immediate access to, and the level and specifics of detail, should cause you to pause

I'd suggest that you change your tone a bit as its looking very much like that you're seeking to engage in a pi$$ing contest.

 

[Volkodav]

Off the current topic but still RAN does anyone know of any detailed history on the project that resulted in the RAN acquiring 3 Charles F Adams Class DDGs?

I read an article, some time ago, in an edition of Navy Magazine (still have it some where I think) that stated the short listed options as being the CFA Class DDG, the Brooke Class DEG and the RN County Class DDG/DLG. It went on to indicate that the RAN liked the County Class platform but wanted Tartar in place of Seaslug and that when the UK was not prepared to provide this as an option the CFA was selected. From memory the article went on to discuss local construction vs US build, modification of the CFA to incorporate facilities for a Wessex helicopter (including hanger) and options for a fourth ship over and above the initial three.

Details missing were what other options were looked at, i.e. were the Farragut, Leahy, or Belknap Class DLGs considered, maybe an improved Daring with Tartar, or considering Indonesia’s acquisition of a Sverdlov Class Cruiser was a cruiser along the lines of the RN CAG concepts (GW96 etc)from the late 50s (Seaslug/Terrier/Talos options with a pair of twin Mk26 6” mounts forward).

It would be interesting to speculate where the RAN would be today had any of these other options gotten up at the time (including sticking with the CFA but building locally).

 

[Aussie optimist]

Hi all
I've heard quite a few times in this forum of a project for the RAN to acquire corvettes in the 1990's which was cancelled. I've tried to find information of it on the internet however to no avail. What size/capabilities were the these corvettes to hold and how many were they wanting, also did this program just get outright cancelled or did they just add some of the requirements to the armidale's. I should have remembered it as I was still a teenager during the 90's but must have been preoccupied elsewhere at the time. Any info would be appreciated or even a point in the right direction.
Cheers

 

[John Newman]

Off the current topic but still RAN does anyone know of any detailed history on the project that resulted in the RAN acquiring 3 Charles F Adams Class DDGs?

I read an article, some time ago, in an edition of Navy Magazine (still have it some where I think) that stated the short listed options as being the CFA Class DDG, the Brooke Class DEG and the RN County Class DDG/DLG. It went on to indicate that the RAN liked the County Class platform but wanted Tartar in place of Seaslug and that when the UK was not prepared to provide this as an option the CFA was selected. From memory the article went on to discuss local construction vs US build, modification of the CFA to incorporate facilities for a Wessex helicopter (including hanger) and options for a fourth ship over and above the initial three.

Details missing were what other options were looked at, i.e. were the Farragut, Leahy, or Belknap Class DLGs considered, maybe an improved Daring with Tartar, or considering Indonesia’s acquisition of a Sverdlov Class Cruiser was a cruiser along the lines of the RN CAG concepts (GW96 etc)from the late 50s (Seaslug/Terrier/Talos options with a pair of twin Mk26 6” mounts forward).

It would be interesting to speculate where the RAN would be today had any of these other options gotten up at the time (including sticking with the CFA but building locally).

Volkodav,

Don't have much to expand on your question, but its interesting you brought it up.

The other day I "rediscovered" a book that I've had for over 30 years, "Warships of Australia", by Ross Gillett.

It briefly metions, as you said, the County's were also considered, so I also googled up the following on the Perth DDG's:

Perth class destroyer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You may have alread read it, it goes into a bit more detail about the decision between the County and Adams Classes.

The first two were ordered in January 1962.

It also mentions that at one stage consideration was to install "Tartar" on the Battle and Daring class destroyers, this did not proceed.

Then the third, Brisbane, was ordered in January 1963, also mentioned is a possible 4th, but no detail.


There was also one more interesting thing in the book that I'd forgotten, that was a brief mention of the DDL project, which started around the time of the Indonesian confrontation, so I googled that too.

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_light_destroyer_project"]Australian light destroyer project - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

Again you may have already read it, The DDL's were originally planned to be 10 ships, built in Australia, starting out as 1,000 ton design and then growing to 4,200 tons (the book is not in metric!).

The artists impression of the DDL in the book looked very much like a British Type 42!

The DDL project started in 1966 and was cancelled in 1973, and out of that grew the order for the FFG's!

 

[Volkodav]

Volkodav,

Don't have much to expand on your question, but its interesting you brought it up.

The other day I "rediscovered" a book that I've had for over 30 years, "Warships of Australia", by Ross Gillett.

It briefly metions, as you said, the County's were also considered, so I also googled up the following on the Perth DDG's:

Perth class destroyer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You may have alread read it, it goes into a bit more detail about the decision between the County and Adams Classes.

The first two were ordered in January 1962.

It also mentions that at one stage consideration was to install "Tartar" on the Battle and Daring class destroyers, this did not proceed.

Then the third, Brisbane, was ordered in January 1963, also mentioned is a possible 4th, but no detail.


There was also one more interesting thing in the book that I'd forgotten, that was a brief mention of the DDL project, which started around the time of the Indonesian confrontation, so I googled that too.

Australian light destroyer project - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Again you may have already read it, The DDL's were originally planned to be 10 ships, built in Australia, starting out as 1,000 ton design and then growing to 4,200 tons (the book is not in metric!).

The artists impression of the DDL in the book looked very much like a British Type 42!

The DDL project started in 1966 and was cancelled in 1973, and out of that grew the order for the FFG's!

Got the same book and had it for years as well. Another reference that comes to mind relating to the acquisition of of the DDGs was in the book "Wings Across the Sea" which mentioned it along with the decission to get out of fixed wing aviation and convert HMAS Melbourne into an ASW helicopter carrier in the mid to late 50s.

I am mainly interested in whether any consideration was given to acquiring a Terrier DLG as a what if I have had for quite some time was the RAN operating Leahys instead of, or possibly inaddition to (as a Daring replacement) the CFAs.

The options to replace the DDL when it was canned are quite interesting in their own right. I believe that list included but was not limited to Type 42, Tromp, Spruance, OHP (FFG-7) and I believe Australia provided some funds towards the development of the Type 21 Amazon Class frigate but am not sure where this fits into the scheme of things.

Abe has a stack of info on the DDL so maybe he knows.

 

[John Newman]

Hi all
I've heard quite a few times in this forum of a project for the RAN to acquire corvettes in the 1990's which was cancelled. I've tried to find information of it on the internet however to no avail. What size/capabilities were the these corvettes to hold and how many were they wanting, also did this program just get outright cancelled or did they just add some of the requirements to the armidale's. I should have remembered it as I was still a teenager during the 90's but must have been preoccupied elsewhere at the time. Any info would be appreciated or even a point in the right direction.
Cheers

There are others here who will have far more detail and information that me, but from memory this is what happened.

There was a plan to replace the Fremantle patrol boats with a larger class of OPV's.

The government (towards the end of the Hawke/Keating government) was trying to get Malaysia involved in a "joint" purchase of OPV's, and from memory Transfield (Tenix) was going to design the boats, probably to be built here and also in Malaysia.

Malaysia pulled out and eventually selected a German design.

The OPV's were dropped and the Fremantle replacement became the current Armidale patrol boats.

The other point to make with the OPV's was the decision to purchase the SH-2G Seasprites, they were to operate off both the Anzac's and also off the much smaller OPV's.

If the project had gone ahead and both Australia and Malaysia had purchased the OPV's there was also an option for the RAN to purchase further Seasprites.

To springboard to the future, when the planned class of 20 OPV's replace the ACPB, mine hunters, etc, sometime in the mid 2020's, will there be another requirement for a "lighter" helicopter to operate off them?

 

[ASSAIL]

Off the current topic but still RAN does anyone know of any detailed history on the project that resulted in the RAN acquiring 3 Charles F Adams Class DDGs?

I can't give a detailed account but can give some insight through the eyes of a young seaman officer serving in HMAS Perth 1970/71.
At the time I was aquainted with Sam Burrell, an officer whose father RADM Burrell was part of the selection process. Our conversations were along the following lines There was controversy within the Naval Board, as was understandable (all the senior RAN officers had trained and served with the RN and had that RN trait that everything British is the best in the world (note the posts re Typs 45's). Burrell plugged for the CFA and Tartar got it over the line. The general comments after the ships arrived was that they were junk and would not last 20 years. Sure, the messes and wardroom were not gin palaces like the Counties but for those of us who served in them, we wouldn't want to be anywhere else.
They worked, the weapons were superior, the comms were outstanding and the sensors left most things British for dead.
More importantly, it broke the nexus with British equipment and allowed the RAN to make more balanced choices than its history would have otherwise allowed.

 

[John Newman]

[

I can't give a detailed account but can give some insight through the eyes of a young seaman officer serving in HMAS Perth 1970/71.
At the time I was aquainted with Sam Burrell, an officer whose father RADM Burrell was part of the selection process. Our conversations were along the following lines There was controversy within the Naval Board, as was understandable (all the senior RAN officers had trained and served with the RN and had that RN trait that everything British is the best in the world (note the posts re Typs 45's). Burrell plugged for the CFA and Tartar got it over the line. The general comments after the ships arrived was that they were junk and would not last 20 years. Sure, the messes and wardroom were not gin palaces like the Counties but for those of us who served in them, we wouldn't want to be anywhere else.
They worked, the weapons were superior, the comms were outstanding and the sensors left most things British for dead.
More importantly, it broke the nexus with British equipment and allowed the RAN to make more balanced choices than its history would have otherwise allowed.

The point you make about the purchase of the DDG's breaking the apron strings to Britain is certainly true.

Apart from purchase/planned purchase of "opportunity" like Largs Bay (Choules), the on-then-off purchase of Invincible, when was the last major purchase of British equipment?

There is of course Tobruk and the retired Fremantle patrol boats being to a UK design, but nothing else that comes to mind.

In fact, there isn't much in the way of British gear in the whole of the ADF these days.

 

[Volkodav]

I can't give a detailed account but can give some insight through the eyes of a young seaman officer serving in HMAS Perth 1970/71.
At the time I was aquainted with Sam Burrell, an officer whose father RADM Burrell was part of the selection process. Our conversations were along the following lines There was controversy within the Naval Board, as was understandable (all the senior RAN officers had trained and served with the RN and had that RN trait that everything British is the best in the world (note the posts re Typs 45's). Burrell plugged for the CFA and Tartar got it over the line. The general comments after the ships arrived was that they were junk and would not last 20 years. Sure, the messes and wardroom were not gin palaces like the Counties but for those of us who served in them, we wouldn't want to be anywhere else.
They worked, the weapons were superior, the comms were outstanding and the sensors left most things British for dead.
More importantly, it broke the nexus with British equipment and allowed the RAN to make more balanced choices than its history would have otherwise allowed.

An old mate of my dads and later on another bloke I worked for were both CPO Greenies on DDGs, both loved the ships but each prefered other ships. One loved the River Class DEs and the other was of the opinion that a Tartar County would have been the best option due to the GTs and helicopter. On the County a redesign to incorporate Tartar could have easily freed up sufficient space and weight to to permit the installation of Ikara and a hanger, as large as that seen on the Canadian Tribal Class Destroyers, for a pair of Wessex then Seakings.

This aside a US DLG would have been a nice bit of kit for the RAN, but what would have been really interesting would have been a US DLG designed for the RAN requirements, i.e. 2x Terrier, 1x Mk 42 5" gun, 2x Vickers Mk6 3" twins and a helicopter. This is entering the relm of pure fantasy though.

 

[Volkodav]

The point you make about the purchase of the DDG's breaking the apron strings to Britain is certainly true.

Apart from purchase/planned purchase of "opportunity" like Largs Bay (Choules), the on-then-off purchase of Invincible, when was the last major purchase of British equipment?

There is of course Tobruk and the retired Fremantle patrol boats being to a UK design, but nothing else that comes to mind.

In fact, there isn't much in the way of British gear in the whole of the ADF these days.

On the UK designed gear I was told that during the early 80s there was a government to government offer from the UK to build us an Invincible (likely a basic ship without Sea Dart etc.) in exchange for us building a pair of Tobruks for the RFA. The idea was to take advantage of recent experience to reduce costs and construction time to the benefit of both nations.

I don't know the details or to be perfectly honest the factualness of this but considering it would have occured nearly 30 years ago we should know in the next couple of years when the cabinate papers are released.

 

[John Newman]

On the UK designed gear I was told that during the early 80s there was a government to government offer from the UK to build us an Invincible (likely a basic ship without Sea Dart etc.) in exchange for us building a pair of Tobruks for the RFA. The idea was to take advantage of recent experience to reduce costs and construction time to the benefit of both nations.

I don't know the details or to be perfectly honest the factualness of this but considering it would have occured nearly 30 years ago we should know in the next couple of years when the cabinate papers are released.

Yes I remember hearing something like that too, Tobruk had just come into service, the Brits lost one of her sisters.

It will be interesting to see what the Cabinet papers from that time say when they are eventually released.

After the war and the UK decided to keep Invincible I remember there was an offer to sell the "incomplete" Ark Royal or build a 4th, eg, the new HMAS Australia.

And at the same time UK also offered to "give/loan" us Hermes in the interim (which our Indian friends eventually purchased), in fact I'd heard that at one stage back in the 60's we had looked at obtaining Hermes as a Melbourne replacement, more capable of launching larger jets.

Whatever deals were being made by the Fraser Liberal Goverment were soon to end when the "new" Hawke Labor Government came to power and decided that the RAN would not replace HMAS Melbourne.

So that was the end of that!

 

[Anixtu]

you comment has rile me as it is both patronising............... the dumb fools are confused and are following the PAX survey......... and is not strictly correct given the ships current certification (military).

Why would following the passenger ship survey be dumb? It is what was done for the first five years of the ship's life. I see nothing patronising there. My comment was in the context gf0012's very limited "regular surgery" comment and seemed a reasonable suggestion for why she would continue to be docked regularly, in the absence of any elaboration on what he meant.

On point 3. can you tell us what survey regime is being applied in RAN service then? If it is the standard RAN survey regime, does this follow SOLAS cargo ship practice (as seems to be implied)? I'm happy to admit that whilst I am very familiar with Merchant and RFA practice, RAN practice is totally unfamiliar to me, which is why I have not directly commented on it.

 

[Anixtu]

You're making some bold assumptions about the competency of the person you're engaging with.

I'm not interested in a pissing contest and I make no assumptions on his competency, I know exactly who he is, but I can only respond to what he has actually written here.

 

[alexsa]

Why would following the passenger ship survey be dumb? It is what was done for the first five years of the ship's life. .

Unnecesary and costly, particularly where PAX vessels are commonly granted permission to carry out UW survey's in lieu of docking. Modern coatings do not need to be dried out and worked on yearly. Shafts and other HSSC items do not need yearly out of water inspection.

I do not plan to continue thsi discuassion in the public forum as it simply bores everyone else. Have PMed you. If you want to talk about we will do it there.

 

[recce.k1]

Tenix OPV

@ Aussie Optimist and John N, check out the web archive for Tenix's OPV details (eg go back a few years and look in their products section. Hopefully these links will work:

Tenix

http://web.archive.org/web/20050620092054/http://www.tenix.com.au/PDFLibrary/41.pdf

As an aside I like that the design has space fore and aft for the 25mm's/12.7mm's, something nowadays which would be very useful for anti-piracy/FIAC self-defence coverage and the statement it could operate helos in sea state 5 conditions etc.

 

[meatshield]

Can anyone tell me why the CEAFAR and CEAMOUNT weren't put on the hobart class distroyers? From what I've read they seam like a very capable system. Or is whats planned for it better for close in defence.

Please forgive my ignorance in advance.

 

[rip]

I can't give a detailed account but can give some insight through the eyes of a young seaman officer serving in HMAS Perth 1970/71.
At the time I was aquainted with Sam Burrell, an officer whose father RADM Burrell was part of the selection process. Our conversations were along the following lines There was controversy within the Naval Board, as was understandable (all the senior RAN officers had trained and served with the RN and had that RN trait that everything British is the best in the world (note the posts re Typs 45's). Burrell plugged for the CFA and Tartar got it over the line. The general comments after the ships arrived was that they were junk and would not last 20 years. Sure, the messes and wardroom were not gin palaces like the Counties but for those of us who served in them, we wouldn't want to be anywhere else.
They worked, the weapons were superior, the comms were outstanding and the sensors left most things British for dead.
More importantly, it broke the nexus with British equipment and allowed the RAN to make more balanced choices than its history would have otherwise allowed.

Since you guys are discussing past Royal Australian ship building programs and the reasons why they were perused the way that they were, maybe you can explain something that has always puzzled me. The US government offered to give Austria all for four of the Kidd class DDG’s for free. At the time it would have given you the most powerful Navy in the Southern Hemisphere by far. They were in reserve for a few years but they are now doing fine in the Tawnies navy and they are still credible combat ships even today. I asked around at the time but I never got an answer that made any since. Can you explain the reasoning?

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Since you guys are discussing past Royal Australian ship building programs and the reasons why they were perused the way that they were, maybe you can explain something that has always puzzled me. The US government offered to give Austria all for four of the Kidd class DDG’s for free. At the time it would have given you the most powerful Navy in the Southern Hemisphere by far. They were in reserve for a few years but they are now doing fine in the Tawnies navy and they are still credible combat ships even today. I asked around at the time but I never got an answer that made any since. Can you explain the reasoning?

The Kidd class like the rest of Spruance fleet had serious issues about the long term viability of their hull, ie they were falling apart (Ticonderoga class ships have structural modifications to avoid this problem). They are fine in Taiwanese service where they spend most of the year tied up to dock waiting for the big one. But the RAN judged them to not be economical for service as they would only last a few more years at their rates of effort. Especially after the disaster of the LST purchase second hand USN ships were also not seen as politically viable. Though the LSTs were in USN service second class citizens denied access to refits unlike the Kidds which were given proper maintenance. There were also concerns about the high crewing of the Kidds though this could be alleviated by replacing its GMLS missile system with a Mk 41 VLS.

As to concepts of 'power' the RAN is more interesting in having ships at sea wielding real power rather than those tied up at dock looking good on paper. The FFG upgrade project has fitted the SM-2 missile to these ships which is the source of the Kidd’s combat power. That being said a Kidd class structural rebuild was probably a much lower risk option than the FFG systems rebuild which went hugely over budget. Hindsight’s a bitch.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I've heard quite a few times in this forum of a project for the RAN to acquire corvettes in the 1990's which was cancelled. I've tried to find information of it on the internet however to no avail. What size/capabilities were the these corvettes to hold and how many were they wanting, also did this program just get outright cancelled or did they just add some of the requirements to the armidale's. I should have remembered it as I was still a teenager during the 90's but must have been preoccupied elsewhere at the time. Any info would be appreciated or even a point in the right direction.

The Tenix OPC was the design prepared by the Navy and industry to meet this requirement. The 1992 Force Structure Review set a need for 12 of these ships and 16 ‘intermediate’ size helicopters that would operate from them. The new corvettes were going to replace the Fremantle class patrol boat in service and their extra range and helicopter would make them far more capable in the patrol mission. They would also have a significant war fighting mission thanks to their additional weapons. The defence civilians and talking heads saw this warfighting boost as part of their plan to defend the north of Australia from the great mytical invasion. The Navy realised these boats and helos would be extremely capable for littoral operations in south east Asia and the Middle East so strongly supported them. The corvette and their helicopters was cancelled by the Howard Government around 1998 and instead the much cheaper but less capable Armidale class patrol boat acquired in their place.

[ame="http://media.photobucket.com/image/tenix%20opc/abegubler/OPC.png"]Tenix opc image by abegubler on Photobucket[/ame]

The OPC was 80m long and under 1,400 tonnes in displacement. It could make 24 knots and stay at sea for three weeks. Armament was up to a medium calibre gun (57mm or 76mm), eight cell VLS (32 ESSM), eight canister missiles (Harpoon), CIWS and small calibre guns and the 13,500 lb helicopter. In RAN service they would have had a 76mm gun, a SH-2G(A) Super Seasprite helicopter with Penguin missiles and a brace of 25mm or 30mm guns. With the capability for being upgraded with a ESSM capable combat system (CEAFAR?).

The Chief of Navy at the time the Armidales were introduced (Vice Admiral Ritchie) into service expressed that his greatest regret as CN was that they didn’t get an aviation capable replacement for the Fremantle class (ie the OPC). A lot is made of the failed plan to sell these boats to Malaysia ending the program but this had no significant effect on the RAN’s requirement and budget. The OPC was another casualty of the huge range of Howard Liberal Government cost cutting they inflicted upon Defence before East Timor and 911 turned their agenda 180 degrees.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

There was also one more interesting thing in the book that I'd forgotten, that was a brief mention of the DDL project, which started around the time of the Indonesian confrontation, so I googled that too.

Again you may have already read it, The DDL's were originally planned to be 10 ships, built in Australia, starting out as 1,000 ton design and then growing to 4,200 tons (the book is not in metric!).

The growth in the design of the DDLs is one of the most misunderstood elements of Australian shipbuilding history.

The specification for the DDL was primarily for what was then called maritime interdiction and is now known as littoral warfare. The RAN’s experience from the Indonesian Confrontation and the VietNam War (and also WWII in the Pacific) had demonstrated the importance of being able to control the light coastal marine traffic of the south east Asian region. The barges, the junks, the coasters and the like that tend to slip under the notice of major fleet units. These vessels had been the major source of logistics of various enemies and likely threats.

So the DDL was originally conceived as a lightweight corvette sized ship that can be brought in numbers and turned loose on the waters of south east Asia from beach to beach and wipe out all their junks and barges. But then someone realised that far more capable than a force of 10-12 corvettes was 3-4 larger ships each carrying two helicopters equipped with sensors and weapons. The helicopters could cover far more sea space and more effectively engage the small boats than a larger number of corvettes could. So the DDL grew in size and was reduced in numbers. This also coincided with an enhanced air threat as regional nations got their act together and became competent operators of fight bombers. So the maritime interdiction ship now needed Tartar to survive in additional to a two helicopter hangar and flight deck.

The artists impression of the DDL in the book looked very much like a British Type 42!

It used the same COGOG engine system and the RAN had co-funded the development of this propulsion arrangement with the RN. But the rest of the ship was different and Australian designed (at Cockatoo Island dockyard.

The DDL project started in 1966 and was cancelled in 1973, and out of that grew the order for the FFG's!

The order for the first three DDLs went to the cabinet of the Whitlam Government and they canned it for the slightly cheaper option of buying three FFGs (then called the PF or patrol frigate) from the USA. In doing so they set in motion the chain of events which saw the demise of regular Australian naval shipbuilding and replaced it with the current boom and bust system.