Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[StingrayOZ]

Maybe the first batch should simply be the best that can be designed and built at this point of time (perhaps an “Improved Collins”) with more advanced requirements being designed into a follow on class where time is not such an enemy.
Tas

I do think the best lower risk, greatest capability is to make a generation II Collins. Essentially the same hull, new diesels (japanese?), new battery (lithium? or atleast some improved lead acid or dual lead and lithium banks), electric mast. As a consequence of the new battery tech you would have loads more room in the hull to stick in systems, more battery, vertical launch TLAM etc. You will get greater performance, range, reliability etc. You get an incremental improvement on what we already have (best conventional?), direct swap for existing Collins (allowing decommissioning and hopefully simple IOC).

Build 6 of these now. The remaining 6 could be a new build clean sheet. Essentially a new clean sheet hull. By the time you finish building those 6 generation 3, your already building the replacement for the generation 2 (with the generation 4). You minimise your changes, the old hull proves your new propulsion or systems reducing risk for the new hull.

I look at how things are done in the commercial world with things like Intels (tick tock) or Holdens (prove the powertrain in the older body) or Falcon/911 (continuous evolution) and wonder why it doesn't happen more often with Military projects.

 

[the road runner]

May have been covered already but an interesting read

Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

I asked the Def pros a couple of months ago ,if Australia is behind on the development on a new sub.(as that is what a few "news" paper reports were stating) And continue to state!

The reply came back...."We are not behind",guess the guys here know something we/and the press dont.

 

[ADMk2]

I asked the Def pros a couple of months ago ,if Australia is behind on the development on a new sub.(as that is what a few "news" paper reports were stating) And continue to state!

The reply came back...."We are not behind",guess the guys here know something we/and the press dont.

We're not behind because we are never going to get the entire 12 submarines that ridiculous plan announced.

We'll be lucky to get 12x RHIB's the way things are going...

 

[Tasman]

We're not behind because we are never going to get the entire 12 submarines that ridiculous plan announced.

We'll be lucky to get 12x RHIB's the way things are going...

I agree that things are not looking good right now. However, the critical issue will be to ensure no capability cap occurs when the Collins class start to be retired. Whether they are replaced by 12, 8, 6 or 4 new submarines those replacements need to be ready on time.

The navy will need to make sure that their long term construction program is realistic and will be able to be funded. The present plan seems a long way from the reality of current and projected federal budgets. I haven't heard many positive statements from the opposition re defence funding so I am not holding my breath that things will improve dramatically if there is a change of government. We can but hope...

Tas

 

[Volkodav]

A thought crossed my mind today, would the RAN be in better shape today had we stuck to the original patrol frigate concept instead of upsizing and upspecing what became the ANZAC class?

These ships ended up being 50% larger than initially planned and probably considerably more expensive. While I am a believer in the "steel is cheap and air is free" mantra it struck me that had the ANZACs been smaller and less capable it would have forced a more timely replacement of the DDGs and possibly also the replacement of the FFGs instead of their upgrade/modernisation. At the same time a smaller ANZAC would have been perfectly capable of filling the role we are now looking at acquiring the OCV to fill.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

A thought crossed my mind today, would the RAN be in better shape today had we stuck to the original patrol frigate concept instead of upsizing and upspecing what became the ANZAC class?

Or that instead of being pushed into the patrol frigate concept the RAN just brought six proper River class replacements. The Anzac class began as the New Surface Combatant (NSC) project to replace the Rivers and looked at everything from 1,200 to 5,000 tonne ships. The RAN wanted this NSC to have high levels of survivability based on Falklands experience.

Then what happened was the Defence of Australia policy was inflicted on the ADF which was as Kim Beazley said “getting Australia out of the Cold War”. But was ‘interpreted’ or ‘designed’ by many civil servants and academics to mean removing any ADF capability to fight high intensity operations around the world so we couldn’t even do another VietNam War even if the Government of the day wanted to. So the NSC was mandated as a Tier 2 EEZ patrol and defence capability. The Navy went along with it knowing that if they got the ships (and eight of them) they could turn them into proper combat ships by scope creep once in service. Even if this produced an overloaded ship.

Now if the NSC remained a proper Tier 1 naval frigate we could have got the 5,000 tonne ship which might be fitted for but would at least have the capacity to absorb the required capability. Baselining on the MEKO ships this would have mean the F123 (Brandenburg class) rather than the MEKO 200.

 

[Volkodav]

Or that instead of being pushed into the patrol frigate concept the RAN just brought six proper River class replacements. The Anzac class began as the New Surface Combatant (NSC) project to replace the Rivers and looked at everything from 1,200 to 5,000 tonne ships. The RAN wanted this NSC to have high levels of survivability based on Falklands experience.

A full size (rather than the mini) Type 23 would have been nice as would the Halifax, but my thinking was something along the lines of the original (small) DDL but with a helicopter 3" gun and Mk41 VLS, space and weight for ASW torps and Harpoon, as well as a combat system similar to that fitted to the real world ANZAC. Options could have included the F-2000 (as used by the Saudis), a smaller Meko, B&V FS1500, Lupo (not really a fan of that though).

The patrol frigate would still have been upgradable but would/could never be considered a proper multi role frigate, it would at best be a corvette leaving a very real need to replace the DDGs during the 90s with a real frigate or destroyer and have that design go on to replace the FFGs instead of modernising them. A cooperative program with Spain on the F-100, Netherland on the Tromp or Germany on the F124 would have been nice with 6 to 8 hulls to replace 9 instead of the three we ended up with.

Could the ASMD updates fitted to Perth be shoe horned into a 2000-2500ton hull? It would make for a very interesting RAN with 6-8 AWDs and 8 ASMD corvettes.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Could the ASMD updates fitted to Perth be shoe horned into a 2000-2500ton hull? It would make for a very interesting RAN with 6-8 AWDs and 8 ASMD corvettes.

CEAFAR is scalable so they offer a corvette sized fit out. But I don’t think you’d be able to fit that plus 32 ESSM, and a volume search radar in addition to a six tonne helo and a 76mm gun in a MEKO 140 type hull.

Of course the plan as laid out in the 93 Force Structure Review was to follow the eight Anzacs with 12 corvettes and six AWD based on the Anzac. The RAN wanted full blown SPY-1D AEGIS for the AWD so they could not be fitted into a MEKO 200 growth hull (MEKO A-400?). But if they had accepted something less like SPY-1F we could have four of them in commission by now with two more to come. As well as around eight Tenix corvettes with another four on the way in place of the ACPB.

 

[Volkodav]

CEAFAR is scalable so they offer a corvette sized fit out. But I don’t think you’d be able to fit that plus 32 ESSM, and a volume search radar in addition to a six tonne helo and a 76mm gun in a MEKO 140 type hull.

Of course the plan as laid out in the 93 Force Structure Review was to follow the eight Anzacs with 12 corvettes and six AWD based on the Anzac. The RAN wanted full blown SPY-1D AEGIS for the AWD so they could not be fitted into a MEKO 200 growth hull (MEKO A-400?). But if they had accepted something less like SPY-1F we could have four of them in commission by now with two more to come. As well as around eight Tenix corvettes with another four on the way in place of the ACPB.

Ah what could have been, as always perfect is the mortal enemy of perfectly good enough. It is a real shame we didn't go for the stretched ANZAC instead of the FFG modernisation and AWD, as you said there would have been more ships and they would have been in service earlier. By waiting for something better we ended up with a capability gap, recruiting and retention issues, as well as a reduction in hull numbers, hence overall capability for a higher overall cost. Well done Australian politics you have done it again.

I was under the impression that we were looking at 8 stretched ANZACs to replace the DDGs and FFGs or was that number reduced in the 93FSR? I also remember reading that consideration was being given to a local build of F-123s as FFG replacements and possibly Ingles build Burkes as DDG replacements.

 

[StevoJH]

While we are talking about 'coulda, shoulda, woulda'....

I sort of wish we'd purchased T45's, with the production line continuing on immediately after the final ANZAC was launched. They just look cool....

Possibly as part of the deal (helping to defray some of the development costs), the UK could have agreed to put the CEAFAR onto the T26. IE. we use Sampson on our 3-4 AWD's, they use CEAFAR on their 12-16 T26's.

Would save them on Artisan, would give us a current AAW capability now, possibly negating the need for the Adelaide upgrade.

Best solution would have been not choosing the Meko 200 design for ANZAC though, who thought putting heavy VLS cells high up on the superstructure along with the FFBNW location for the harpoons was a good idea again?

 

[swerve]

Was CEAFAR offered for the Type 26? I don't remember reading that it was one of the radars in contention.

It would have had to be offered for the Type 23 upgrade & CVF first, of course, since the RN is saving money by standardising, & by planning to carry over kit to new T26s from upgraded T23s as they retire.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

While we are talking about 'coulda, shoulda, woulda'....

I sort of wish we'd purchased T45's, with the production line continuing on immediately after the final ANZAC was launched. They just look cool....

Possibly as part of the deal (helping to defray some of the development costs), the UK could have agreed to put the CEAFAR onto the T26. IE. we use Sampson on our 3-4 AWD's, they use CEAFAR on their 12-16 T26's.

Would save them on Artisan, would give us a current AAW capability now, possibly negating the need for the Adelaide upgrade.

None of this really works as a timeline. Williamstown could not build T45s back to back with the Anzac class. CEAFAR was not in a position to be committed to at the same time as the AWD’s combat system was selected. Especially for a back to back build with the Anzac. Plus of course the whole reason the RAN wanted (and wants) AEGIS is cooperative engagement capability (CEC).

Best solution would have been not choosing the Meko 200 design for ANZAC though, who thought putting heavy VLS cells high up on the superstructure along with the FFBNW location for the harpoons was a good idea again?

Both of these issues are a problem thanks to scope creep. There is no problem with having eight Mk 41 VLS with only eight NSSM loaded. But the weight is dramatically increased when NSSM were replaced with quad packed ESSM (5x weight). Also that second gas turbine fitted to many MEKO 200s would have gone a long way towards improving top weight margins on the Anzac class. Harpoon was added to the Anzac because of delays in the Seasprite which was to provide ASM capability thanks to its Penguin missile. Arguably these scope creeps would be better managed with the Karel Doorman class frigate which was the shortlisted alternative to the MEKO 200.

PS. I think the T45 looks ugly. What's with that unicorn horn of a foremast?

Dave the Lighting Guy: "Hey, I don't wanna sound like a queer or nothin', but I think unicorns are kick ass!"

 

[Volkodav]

The only issue I see with the Karel Doorman is its use of the Mk48 instead of the Mk41 VLS removing the ability to quad pack ESSM or later use the extensible launcher insert for RAM Block II, Nulka etc.

An option that would have been interesting would have been a full sized Type 23 with a 32 cell strike length Mk41 instead of VLS Seawolf. Come to think of it I believe the Type 23 was designed to permit the installation of additional VLS down the starboard side of the hanger and I have also seen sketches of various UK light frigate designs from the mid eighties with an 8 cell VLS installed in a recess either side of the hanger and the Halifax had its Mk48s installed 8 cells each side of the funnel. There were an awful lot of options open to the RAN at the time.

Take the baseline ANZAC fit out, it could easily have been acommodated on a smaller hull but we opted for a significantly larger hull to permit increased scope but then failed to arrange it appropriately; limiting our options to upgrade the platform in the future. I can't help but think the ANZAC was a poorly sized poorly configured compromise and the RAN would have been better off with a larger (fitted for but not with) or a smaller cheaper design permitting either better update options or justification for proper replacements for the FFG and DDG.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

The only issue I see with the Karel Doorman is its use of the Mk48 instead of the Mk41 VLS removing the ability to quad pack ESSM or later use the extensible launcher insert for RAM Block II, Nulka etc.

The 16 Mk 48 VLS on the Karel Doormans were a much better option for the RAN. While they can’t load quad pack ESSM canisters they can load twin pack ESSMs so they can carry 32 missiles. But the big advantage is the Mk 48 VLS is much, much lighter than the Mk 41 VLS. Since the RAN is never going to load SM2s or VL ASROC onto the Anzacs the Mk 48 saves a lot of weight for a loss of on paper only flexibility. As to the extensible launcher it provides no capability than a light weight missile specific launcher for RAN, Nulka or Griffin can provide. Extensible canisters are a good idea for a ship like the DDG 1000 that has no free top space for additional launchers.

 

[Volkodav]

On the top weight issue we would be better off had we opted for a CODAD rather than CODOG, heavy diesels as opposed to the comparatively light GT. Little if any difference in maximum speed and one would imagine a considerable improvement in range above cruising speed.

Time lines are everything in this type of discussion as anything done differently at any point would likely change the entire shape of the RAN for better or worse. For instance, what if Australia had opted to build a pair or more of modified Type 21 frigates instead of the final pair of River Class DE’s? My reasoning behind this suggestion is the Rivers were already out dated and a Type program could have been used to rebuild the Australian shipbuilding base, gain experience in building modern warships and allow the RAN to gain experience in operating GTs and frigate born helos.

End result, there would have been no FFG buy (hence no LAMPS III option), no Patrol Frigate project, the RAN FAA would likely have been flying Lynx , AB 212, or even Sea Sprite since the late 70’s. Had the modified Type 21s proven successful they could have been built in differing configurations instead of the final pair of Rivers, some or all of the Attack Class PBs and the original four FFGs. The entire project could have been used to de-risk the DDL project and depending on its level of success the evolved DDL design could have been further developed to become a full DDG entering service from the late 80s, incorporating NTU elements, MK26 GMLS or even Mk41 VLS, Phalanx in place of the light guns and Harpoon in place of Exocet.

 

[StevoJH]

Would the T21's have enough top weight margin to fit Sea Wolf?

 

[Abraham Gubler]

The Swan and Torrens were replacements for Voyager and the decision to build them made in 64/65 against a fourth Charles F. Adams from the USA. Which was four years before Vospers and Vickers designed the Type 21.

 

[Volkodav]

Would the T21's have enough top weight margin to fit Sea Wolf?

Light Weight Sea Wolf definately, full blown GWS-25 would likely have required the deletion of the Exocets in top weight compensation. An option may have been replacing Seacat with Phalanx or RAM during any mid life update, or even seeing if Mk48 could be worked in, perhaps flanking the hanger.

 

[Volkodav]

The Swan and Torrens were replacements for Voyager and the decision to build them made in 64/65 against a fourth Charles F. Adams from the USA. Which was four years before Vospers and Vickers designed the Type 21.

I knew they were ordered as replacements for Voyager just not that the decission was made in 64/65, poor reseach on my part. I didn't realise the gap was so large which sort of throws out this what if, sort of proves what I was getting at on time lines though. Perhaps a better fit would be for a pair of modified Type 21s being built to prevent a gap in local ship building prior to DDL and to provide experience for industry and the RAN in modern GT powered warships. This build would have been in place of modernising the Darings which would have been retired instead. The no brainer on Swan and Torrens would have been to buy or build a 4th and possibly 5th DDG (as well as not keeping Duchess) instead.

 

[hairyman]

Had we received a fourth Charles F Adams Destroyer, I have no doubt that we would have four AWD"s on order now instead of three.