Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[Abraham Gubler]

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.

A lot of these ships were not serious options but all about demonstrating to Government that the DDL frigate and helicopter (Westland Lynx) mix was the most capable solution to the RAN’s need. One of the options included 12 or so Finnish gunboat corvettes which was seen as an original DDL surrogate and the various available overseas frigates.

The co-development with the RN was about the engine, gearbox and shaft system that was first used in the Type 21 (also used in the Type 42 and Type 22). This COGOG system enabled the ship to run on either Tynes for cruise OR Olympus turbines for sprint.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

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.

There was actually a strong political desire to do this in 1962-63 from the Menzies Government, and they did so with F-111, Adams class and a range of Army support systems. They perceived that the British had betrayed them on the issue of co-development of atomic weapons and the Americans who were at that time offering nuclear sharing by need to formal treaty allies were a much better defence partner. Despite the WWII experience after the war Australia had turned right back to the UK for security agreements and sources of weapons technology. This did not end until around 1960 when the UK started the ‘winds of change’ retreat from empire and despite the grandiose promises of the late 1940s and early 1950s failed to put up their side of shared technology programs.

As to the capability difference between the Adams class DDG and Country class DDG and in particular Tartar and Sea Slug while the American system is far more elegant and has been developed far beter at the time Sea Slug was more capable in terms of coverage. Tartar was developed as just a point defence missile system similar to modern Sea Wolf or Sea Sparrow. The initial range of Tartar was only 8.7 NM. Sea Slug on the other hand was an area defence system with a range of 15 NM or 17.5 NM in the version that would have been available for the Australian Country class. This is twice the range of Tartar.

That being said I still would have chosen an Adams class for capability as Tartar was more responsive, could engage two targets and so on.

 

[ASSAIL]

There was actually a strong political desire to do this in 1962-63 from the Menzies Government, and they did so with F-111, Adams class and a range of Army support systems. They perceived that the British had betrayed them on the issue of co-development of atomic weapons and the Americans who were at that time offering nuclear sharing by need to formal treaty allies were a much better defence partner. Despite the WWII experience after the war Australia had turned right back to the UK for security agreements and sources of weapons technology. This did not end until around 1960 when the UK started the ‘winds of change’ retreat from empire and despite the grandiose promises of the late 1940s and early 1950s failed to put up their side of shared technology programs.

As to the capability difference between the Adams class DDG and Country class DDG and in particular Tartar and Sea Slug while the American system is far more elegant and has been developed far beter at the time Sea Slug was more capable in terms of coverage. Tartar was developed as just a point defence missile system similar to modern Sea Wolf or Sea Sparrow.

The initial range of Tartar was only 8.7 NM. Sea Slug on the other hand was an area defence system with a range of 15 NM or 17.5 NM in the version that would have been available for the Australian Country class. This is twice the range of Tartar.

That being said I still would have chosen an Adams class for capability as Tartar was more responsive, could engage two targets and so on.

AG, The memory is dim but weren't the Perths fitted with RIM 24C version on commissioning? I remember the range being more equal to Sea Slug at about 35k yds. From memory Perth was hull # 27 and was the first with the bow mounted sonar SQS 23 and the single rail Mk 13 launcher. As such, the USN split the class pre and post #27?
Memory is dim just checked on wiki and the class was split from hull #15 onwards with the above mods
Cheers

 

[ASSAIL]

]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.

The following wiki link to VADM Sir Henry Burrell gives further insight into the CFA selectionHenry Burrell (admiral) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Abraham Gubler]

AG, The memory is dim but weren't the Perths fitted with RIM 24C version on commissioning? I remember the range being more equal to Sea Slug at about 35k yds. From memory Perth was hull # 27 and was the first with the bow mounted sonar SQS 23 and the single rail Mk 13 launcher. As such, the USN split the class pre and post #27?

They could be. All I know is we took delivery of 200 Tartar missiles between 1965-67. Which were replaced in 1974-78 with 200 SM-1MRs. A quick look at designation-systems.net says that the Tartar B was produced between 61-63 and then all remaining Tartars went through the TRIP [Tartar Reliability Improvement Program] program to C standard. So the Sea Slug has nothing on the Tartar...

But despite the quality, cost effectiveness and very fast delivery schedule the Adams class does represent a significant failing in Australian shipbuilding and Government support for it. Because before the accidental loss of Voyager there was no program to follow the construction of the four River class DEs which had followed the construction of the three Daring DDs which had followed the Type 15 ASW Frigate upgrades which had followed the war programs. So the continuous program of warship building at Cockatoo and Williamstown was abandoned and followed by a disastrous program of hap hazard building that resulted in the disasters of the Cook and Success build.

All the wartime and difficult post war effort to provide a national warship building industry was flushed down the toilet leading irrevocably to the current mess.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Henry Burrell (admiral) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/url]

The key thing in that webpage is a link to the excellent paper "STRUGGLING FOR A SOLUTION: THE RAN AND THE ACQUISITION OF A SURFACE TO AIR MISSILE CAPABILITY" by Peter Jones and James Goldrick.

http://www.navy.gov.au/w/images/Working_Paper_2.pdf

And in particular:

“The discussions with the British in particular were complex and lengthy. Some Australian illusions were dispelled, notably the idea that a smaller ship than the COUNTY class could be produced to carry the SEA SLUG missile. Furthermore, the Admiralty did not have the capacity to redesign the COUNTY to take the TARTAR missile—an option which would probably have been the RAN’s initial preference, given the other logistic and training compatibilities which remaining with British designs would have sustained. Although Vickers, the commercial ship builders, suggested informally to Burrell that they could manage the redesign of the COUNTY to take TARTAR, the CNS was not willing to take up this offer.”

The interest was in the Adams class because they were 15% cheaper than a County, available with excellent financing and very quickly from US build. Which was all good for the Navy in the short term…

 

[John Newman]

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.

Tenix opc image by abegubler on Photobucket

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.

This discussion about the Tenix OPC brings up, in my mind, some interesting what ifs?

If the OPC's had been ordered by the Government, it should also have meant that the extra 16 SH-2G(A)'s would have been ordered too, bringing the total SH-2G(A) order to 27, to operate off both the Anzac's and the OPC's.

So with 27 Seasprites on order/in production, would the Government have persisted with them, despite all the development and intergration problems, rather than as we know, cancel the order for the 11 destined for the Anzac's.

Yes it good that the Romeo's are being ordered to replace the current Seahawks and failed Seasprites, but where would that have left the OPC's?

I'd imagine that a Seahawk would be too large and heavy to operate from the OPC's, so would that have opened the door to the Lynx?

It also makes me think about when the "future" OPV's that are proposed for the 2020's to replace the Armidale's, Minehunter's, etc, what "size" of helicopter could eventually and effectivly operate off them?

Would it open the door again to a Lynx size aircraft?

 

[Sea Toby]

Generally speaking I believe numbers eventually won out. The British at that time were too arrogant whereas the Americans would llsten, and buy items in return as an offset. An American program offered much wider sales opportunity than a British program. Eventually the Aussies were able to win offsets from other nations development programs as well. Boeing has done very well buying parts worldwide.

Unfortunately with the Super Seasprites, Kamen isn't Boeing modifying equipment or with writing software.

 

[Tasman]

It also makes me think about when the "future" OPV's that are proposed for the 2020's to replace the Armidale's, Minehunter's, etc, what "size" of helicopter could eventually and effectivly operate off them?

Would it open the door again to a Lynx size aircraft?

If so let us hope that whatever helo is chosen it is ordered in time to be available when the ships enter service. We don't want to see history repeated whereby RAN ships spend their first decade of operational service without a dedicated helo available or at best an interim utility type such as the Squirrels that were deployed when the FFGs first entered service.


Tas.

 

[StevoJH]

Generally speaking I believe numbers eventually won out. The British at that time were too arrogant whereas the Americans would llsten, and buy items in return as an offset. An American program offered much wider sales opportunity than a British program. Eventually the Aussies were able to win offsets from other nations development programs as well. Boeing has done very well buying parts worldwide.

Do you have references for these claims?

At the end of the day the CFA class were cheaper to purchase, had the missile system the RAN wanted and also had a considerably lower crewing requirement.

They weren't however the "platform" that the RAN wanted since the County class platform was more versatile with its helicopter facilities, additional guns (identical to ones already in service) and partial GT propulsion

Unfortunately with the Super Seasprites, Kamen isn't Boeing modifying equipment or with writing software.

Huh?

 

[Abraham Gubler]

At the end of the day the CFA class were cheaper to purchase, had the missile system the RAN wanted and also had a considerably lower crewing requirement.

They weren't however the "platform" that the RAN wanted since the County class platform was more versatile with its helicopter facilities, additional guns (identical to ones already in service) and partial GT propulsion

Steve he was referring to the Lynx vs Seasprite competition for the intermediate naval helicopter. Not the Adams class vs County class for the 1960s RAN DDG.

On that topic interestingly the proposal for an Australian built County was to be all steam powered and have hangar space for three Wessex ASW helos! Presumably a Tartar Mk 13 launcher and Ikara was to be squeezed in there somewhere.

On the topic of the Lynx vs Seasprite the reason the later won was it had a better missile (Penguin) and was cheaper. Since at that time the DoD had very high risk appetite when it came to developing software systems there was no reason to judge the more expensive Lynx offer as better than the Seasprite.

 

[ASSAIL]

They weren't however the "platform" that the RAN wanted since the County class platform was more versatile with its helicopter facilities, additional guns (identical to ones already in service) and partial GT propulsion

With that versatility there were disadvantages. Their cost was prohibitive in both initial purchase and ongoing sustainment. The compliment was about 150 crew more than the CFA's at 470+.
The Counties were certainly beautiful ships with fantastic accommodation and messes but the "versatility" you quote was only related to embarked air and possibly their use as a command platform.
Their unreliabilty and excessive maintenance and Sea Slug's poor performance both led to their early withdrawal from the RN's order of battle after only 20 years of service. Hindsight is a wonderful thing but we made the correct choice. I would have hated to see the RAN lumbered with these dinosaurs until 2000

 

[John Newman]

Steve he was referring to the Lynx vs Seasprite competition for the intermediate naval helicopter. Not the Adams class vs County class for the 1960s RAN DDG.

On that topic interestingly the proposal for an Australian built County was to be all steam powered and have hangar space for three Wessex ASW helos! Presumably a Tartar Mk 13 launcher and Ikara was to be squeezed in there somewhere.

On the topic of the Lynx vs Seasprite the reason the later won was it had a better missile (Penguin) and was cheaper. Since at that time the DoD had very high risk appetite when it came to developing software systems there was no reason to judge the more expensive Lynx offer as better than the Seasprite.

Abe, when you mentioned that Australia wanted to have hangar space for three Wessex, it reminded me that after County's were transferred to Chile, they had major rebuilds to extend the helicopter deck and hangar.

I found some photo's showing the Chilean modifications, one with the flight deck extended all the way to the stern and the other stopping where the Seaslug had been.

I also found this link dedicated to the County Class:

Untitled Document

If an Australian order had gone ahead they may have looked something like what Chile did to increase hangar capacity.

Which leaves the final question, where would the Tartar launcher (and maybe Ikara) have gone? Atop of, or back of hangar maybe?

Or in front of the bridge in place of one of the 4.5" mounts (as was done later when Exocet was installed)

I don't think it could have gone where the Seaslug was, would there have been enough "depth" at that location for the Tartar magazine?

From memory the Seaslug magazine was under the rear of the flight deck and fed missiles into the launcher horizontally from "hatches" into the back of the launch cradle.

 

[MickB]

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.

To follow this thought a little further, would a ship like Japans Hyuga class helicopter destroyer be far more cost effective to Australia than an aircraft carrier (that I know we will not get, yet people still call for it). Perhaps a scaled down version, helicopter frigate?

 

[Abraham Gubler]

With that versatility there were disadvantages. Their cost was prohibitive in both initial purchase and ongoing sustainment. The compliment was about 150 crew more than the CFA's at 470+.
The Counties were certainly beautiful ships with fantastic accommodation and messes but the "versatility" you quote was only related to embarked air and possibly their use as a command platform.

Their unreliabilty and excessive maintenance and Sea Slug's poor performance both led to their early withdrawal from the RN's order of battle after only 20 years of service. Hindsight is a wonderful thing but we made the correct choice. I would have hated to see the RAN lumbered with these dinosaurs until 2000

But the County was never seriously considered by the RAN in an as is condition or British built. What it brought to the table was a ship that could be built by Cockatoo Island or Williamstown dockyards without major technical change to their operations. That is compared to changing the source of design and construction methodologies to American technology.

But such an Australian built County would be very different to the British vessels including the absence of gas turbines and Sea Slug. Therefore the difference in crewing between this ship and the Adams class would be much less and down to things that add capability like the helicopter(s).

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Abe, when you mentioned that Australia wanted to have hangar space for three Wessex, it reminded me that after County's were transferred to Chile, they had major rebuilds to extend the helicopter deck and hangar. I found some photo's showing the Chilean modifications, one with the flight deck extended all the way to the stern and the other stopping where the Seaslug had been. If an Australian order had gone ahead they may have looked something like what Chile did to increase hangar capacity.

Which leaves the final question, where would the Tartar launcher (and maybe Ikara) have gone? Atop of, or back of hangar maybe? Or in front of the bridge in place of one of the 4.5" mounts (as was done later when Exocet was installed) I don't think it could have gone where the Seaslug was, would there have been enough "depth" at that location for the Tartar magazine? From memory the Seaslug magazine was under the rear of the flight deck and fed missiles into the launcher horizontally from "hatches" into the back of the launch cradle.

The two sources on the Australian built County option that I’ve seen are Norman Friedman’s book "British Destroyers & Frigates: The Second World War and After” which mentions the three Wessexes and that the Admiralty thought it too difficult to accommodate. The other source is the paper I linked to above which mentions the RAN’s desire for a Tartar armed County with all steam propulsion and how Vickers offered to design it because the Admiralty wouldn't. There is probably more information squirreled away in the archives that one day may come public.

But as to the configuration of this ship it would probably not be similar to the Chilean modified Counties at all. These ships were not designed from scratch to not have Sea Slug and have an expanded helicopter capability but rather are modifications with all such inherent limitations. Also the Chileans have a requirement for a very large flight deck able to accommodate two Pumas at the same time which might not be a RAN requirement.

Attached is an image of the County class deck arrangement as built. The Sea Slug magazine extends on the horizontal well into the ship. The Australian County would not have this nor the aft engine room with the gas turbines. Her three (or at least two) Wessex hangar would likely be where the aft stack on the County is with the flight deck behind it. The Tartar Mk 13 launcher was designed to replace gun mounts so one could replace the the B mount twin 4.5” gun. Aft I’m sure the large County hull minus the heavy Sea Slug launcher and loading room could easily accommodate another pair of 4.5” in X position and Tartar in Y. Ikara magazine and port and starboard launchers could easily fit anywhere along the Sea Slug magazine length. Therefore the bigger and more comfortable hull of the County could enable a RAN ship with the same electronics as the Adams class, two 4.5” twin Mk 8 turrets, two Mk 13 Tartar launchers (80 missiles in total), two Ikara launchers (20 or 40 missiles) and a large two (maybe three) Wessex helicopter hangar. The only rub is the RAN didn’t expect any type of Australian built County to be ready by 1968 which is probably being very generous.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

To follow this thought a little further, would a ship like Japans Hyuga class helicopter destroyer be far more cost effective to Australia than an aircraft carrier (that I know we will not get, yet people still call for it). Perhaps a scaled down version, helicopter frigate?

But then you are concentrating a large number of maritime interdiction helicopters into a single area. The advantage of having one or two helos on each surface combatant is the ships can be spread out and the helicopters can cover the gaps. Having 10 or so such helicopters on a single ship is not going to enable the same kind of coverage. The reason many ASW carriers carry a full squadron of ASW helicopters is this provides enough force to cover a convoy of ships from submarine attack.

 

[Samoa]

LHD at FBE

Talking about port facilities and upgrades there is ideas of the LHDs basing out of northern ports. Here is a rendenition of an LHD alongside at FBE. It is will an awesome sight !

 

[StevoJH]

I don't think it could have gone where the Seaslug was, would there have been enough "depth" at that location for the Tartar magazine?

I wouldn't be surprised if there was enough space if it could be built up to just below flight deck level.

Alternatively you could possibly fit Ikara aft there with the Mk.13 dropped in place of B turret?

From memory these ships had a massive missile magazine running much of the length of the ships along the lower decks. Switching to the much more compact tartar could free up a lot of room within the superstructure for expanded aviation facilities?

 

[icelord]

Talking about port facilities and upgrades there is ideas of the LHDs basing out of northern ports. Here is a rendenition of an LHD alongside at FBE. It is will an awesome sight !

IF the morons in the finger wharf and the yuppies of sydney get there way, i can guarantee thats the closest you will get to seeing the LHD and AWD in syd harbour...