Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[ASSAIL]

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

.
I remember a very senior WEEO (later to become VADM) berating the choice of the Meko 200 and suggesting that most knowledgeable heads had supported the Karel Doorman

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

.

Early Seawolf was a complete dog. I was on exchange at the time the first production units were fitted to the type 22's (Boxer?, Broadsword?) at Devonport and the cast of thousands that were required to keep the onboard guidance systems working. It took a great a long time to get to satisfactory SATS.

RAN would have been better off with a larger (fitted for but not with) or a smaller cheaper desthe ign permitting either better update options or justification for proper replacements for the FFG and DDG.

Aint that the truth, so, having built the three new Hobarts, wouldn't you think the lessons learned from all the disasterous stop/go naval shipbuilding decisions made by either side of politics and the lack of guts displayed by some very senior officers in kowtowing to the politics of the day over some decades, there would be a continueum of construction in Adelaide straight into the Anzac replacement.

AS for the T45, I'm definitely not a fan. Firstly it looks bloody terrible, as one poster on a Brit forum suggested, it wears a dunces hat, Secondly, the concept of force defence seems to have departed from the RN. They don't seem to be that fussed about not having CEC as a core capability and are happy to deploy the ships to the gulf without it (I understand that the CEC capability was a core requirement for the Hobarts). Thirdly the gun is a disgrace although I must admit, that having operated on a CFA with 2 x Mk 42 turrets with a RoF of 40 per minute, the Mk 45 seems slim.
Finally, I think there is a decade of improvement to be had before its missile system will perform as stated.
Cheers

 

[ASSAIL]

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?

The T 21 were great little ships. Unfortunately they took the wrap for all the disasters of theFalklands campaign. The real problem there was that they were deployed to places where they simply should not have been. They, like the Type 12's and the Leanders simply had no effective AAW capability. This lack of capability was systemic across the RN, Seaslug, early Sea dart and Sea cat were no match for ASMs or ground attack aircraft especially in enclosed waters. The whole episode was a wake up call to the RN who went on to make massive improvements to Sea Dart.

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.

I agree with you that the 2 x leanders and the Attacks were of little value to any military capability. The Swan and Torrens were undeployable to conflicts such as GW1, they entrenched us in the 60's for another 2 decades. The Attacks were stated as replacements for the HDML's/SDB's/Fairmiles but were thrust into the most remote and then uncharted areas of Australia with little or no support. The fell into the border protection/fishery support role after the signing of the 1974 MOU with Indonesia on traditional fishing rights and the huge incursion of Taiwanese pair trawling on the NW shelf in 1973 (remember RANDET Broome?)
Even for these roles they were unsuitable however, they were a start and raised defence's awareness of the N and NW coasts.

I disagree in part, with you on the four FFG's. Sure, if we had a different mix of units as suggested they could be sacrificed but given the delay and obfuscation on purchasing or building capability, they were a quick fix that again gave us the opening for USN missile technology.

Cheers

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I remember a very senior WEEO (later to become VADM) berating the choice of the Meko 200 and suggesting that most knowledgeable heads had supported the Karel Doorman

One marketing image from the time showed a CAD wire drawing of the ‘M class’ (before the lead ship was named Karel Doorman) fitted with a Mk 45 forward and Goalkeepers forward and aft. Combined with the aft of the stack position of the Harpoons (away from the tophamper) would imply that this class would have been much better at handling the ‘fitted for’ growth of the Anzacs. Especially since they were designed with more emphasis on the G in CODAG than the D so would likely have remained with two GTs as an Anzac.

They were also to have been built in a greenfields site on the Hunter River which would presumably be much better at handling future surface ship construction (AORs, LHDs, AWDs) than Williamstown wasn’t. Better ship, better yard, better local infrastructure and workforce, etc. Another poor defence decision.

Early Seawolf was a complete dog. I was on exchange at the time the first production units were fitted to the type 22's (Boxer?, Broadsword?) at Devonport and the cast of thousands that were required to keep the onboard guidance systems working. It took a great a long time to get to satisfactory SATS.

It’s also a growth limited guidance system. Tracking both the missile and the target and then combining the two limits the engagement capacity to the number of directors. Unlike interrupted continuous wave illumination as used in ESSM and SM2 in which the target only needs to be illuminated at the terminal phase of interception. So you can engage many more missiles at the same time. Also makes for much lighter and less complex directors.

Aint that the truth, so, having built the three new Hobarts, wouldn't you think the lessons learned from all the disasterous stop/go naval shipbuilding decisions made by either side of politics and the lack of guts displayed by some very senior officers in kowtowing to the politics of the day over some decades, there would be a continueum of construction in Adelaide straight into the Anzac replacement.

Lessons learnt in Defence? Sensible political management? Thou speakest heresy!

AS for the T45, I'm definitely not a fan. Firstly it looks bloody terrible, as one poster on a Brit forum suggested, it wears a dunces hat, Secondly, the concept of force defence seems to have departed from the RN. They don't seem to be that fussed about not having CEC as a core capability and are happy to deploy the ships to the gulf without it (I understand that the CEC capability was a core requirement for the Hobarts).
Finally, I think there is a decade of improvement to be had before its missile system will perform as stated.

The T45 looks like a ship who’s combat system is designed to a series of political comprises and suffers for it.

Thirdly the gun is a disgrace although I must admit, that having operated on a CFA with 2 x Mk 42 turrets with a RoF of 40 per minute, the Mk 45 seems slim.

Interesting that the NGS lesson learnt from the Falklands was we need to have Mk 8 113mm guns on all RN frigates and destroyers. Not that the gun was unreliable and underperformed (which it did). Meanwhile the NGS lessons learnt from VietNam were completely forgotten as well. The Mk 71 203mm and the Mk 66 twin barrel 127mm to provide replacement NGS for heavy cruisers and LFS rocket ships (respectively) and the replacement for the MK 45 the Mk 65 (48 rpm) never made it into service.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

The T 21 were great little ships. Unfortunately they took the wrap for all the disasters of theFalklands campaign. The real problem there was that they were deployed to places where they simply should not have been.

The Type 21 was almost built for the RAN and in a customised form via the DDL program. The T21 provided the technology base and Vickers (half of the duo that designed it) provided the expertise to assist Codock. The DDL had everything the RAN wanted and needed as one would imagine from a ship closely designed to meet the user’s requirements. From a really nice wardroom through to the twin 30mm guns the RAN wanted from Sea Dragon experience for shooting up junks and trawlers. Also with Sea Skua armed Lynxes (as included in the cabinet submission) it would have put the FAA into the destroyers in a way that would have been very useful from 1980 to today. If 12 of these had been built into the early 90s they could have been followed with a 1990s DDG replacement and then their own replacement into the 2000s. The only problem on their horizon was the yard chosen to build them was a basket case. Which is a pretty big problem.

I agree with you that the 2 x leanders and the Attacks were of little value to any military capability. The Swan and Torrens were undeployable to conflicts such as GW1, they entrenched us in the 60's for another 2 decades. The Attacks were stated as replacements for the HDML's/SDB's/Fairmiles but were thrust into the most remote and then uncharted areas of Australia with little or no support. The fell into the border protection/fishery support role after the signing of the 1974 MOU with Indonesia on traditional fishing rights and the huge incursion of Taiwanese pair trawling on the NW shelf in 1973 (remember RANDET Broome?)
Even for these roles they were unsuitable however, they were a start and raised defence's awareness of the N and NW coasts.

If you look closely at the RAN’s force structure plans in the 40s and 50s and even into the early 60s you see a continued role of the Bathurst class corvettes. 32 were kept post war in reserve to form the basis of a wartime maritime interdiction fleet expansion. Their minesweeper capability being made obsolete and meant to be replaced by acquisition of Ton class (or their Canadian built Bay class copy) which didn’t happen until early 60s. But the corvettes were still part of war plans for coastal ASW and maritime interdiction. The corvettes were never replaced and another element of the force structure died by starvation. While I’ve never seen any proposals to replace the corvettes if such a ship had been acquired in the 50s and/or 60s it would have provided a far more capable coastal patrol capability than the Attacks. Would also be very useful in the Confrontation and for Operation Market Time in VietNam.

 

[Boatteacher]

The T 21 were great little ships. Unfortunately they took the wrap for all the disasters of theFalklands campaign. The real problem there was that they were deployed to places where they simply should not have been.

I'm not sure what credibility he carries with this forum, but the Type 21 carry an entry in Anthony Preston's "The World's Worst Warships". The essence of his complaint is that they were not robust enough for the North Alantic - due he infers to the commercial background to their design - and lacked stability to be upgraded. As a result they had short in service lives.

 

[alexsa]

I don’t think we need more than eight submarines. Not in this day and age. The money would be much better spent on a more flexible military tool.

And I will publish the 6,000-8,000 words needed to provide a proper argument backing up those three sentences later this year!

I agree and look forward to your 6000 to 8000 words

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I'm not sure what credibility he carries with this forum, but the Type 21 carry an entry in Anthony Preston's "The World's Worst Warships". The essence of his complaint is that they were not robust enough for the North Alantic - due he infers to the commercial background to their design - and lacked stability to be upgraded. As a result they had short in service lives.

With lots of Australians on this forum there are many of us who are highly aggrieved by his son’s single handed efforts to foist the carafe into contemporary men’s fashion. But it’s hard to blame the father for the sartorial sins of the son. Preston’s worst warships list is total crap.

The Vosper-Vickers designs (Mk 5 to Mk 10, incl the Type 21s) are excellent ships that achieved high performance for cost. The only commerciality of their designs was that two defence companies were contracted to design them rather than the Royal Navy designing them in house. The Type 21 was compromised by cost to be 40% smaller than it needed to be to meet the need that it was retrospectively asked to do. But it was designed to be a Type 81 replacement (Tribal class) not a Type 12M (Leander class) replacement.

 

[ASSAIL]

The T 21 were great little ships. Unfortunately they took the wrap for all the disasters of theFalklands campaign. The real problem there was that they were deployed to places where they simply should not have been.

I'm not sure what credibility he carries with this forum, but the Type 21 carry an entry in Anthony Preston's "The World's Worst Warships". The essence of his complaint is that they were not robust enough for the North Alantic - due he infers to the commercial background to their design - and lacked stability to be upgraded. As a result they had short in service lives.

They were light and yes, horrors, they were commercial, which did not sit well with the Admiralty. They were a fill in because of the laborious development of the T22. A quick glance at wiki tells us that they developed cracks in the weather experienced in combat situations in the FI, what it fails to tell you is that a number of RN frigates developed hull structure damage in those conditions.
As I stated in the previous posts, they copped the wrap for the whole of the RN during that campaign, it was better to blame Vospers than the Admiralty!
Their worst crime however, was that they were underarmed and vulnerable to air attack and were stupidly placed into vulnerable areas. Subsequently 2 were lost.
The 6 remaining units are still performing (I haven't checked this lately) good deeds with the Pakistanis as the Tariq class 38 yrs on.

I had a good mate, a fellow RAN exchange Officer who was the PWO G on one Alacrity IIRC and he had nothing but praise for it particularly CAAIS.

 

[Boatteacher]

With lots of Australians on this forum there are many of us who are highly aggrieved by his son’s single handed efforts to foist the carafe into contemporary men’s fashion. But it’s hard to blame the father for the sartorial sins of the son. Preston’s worst warships list is total crap.

I wasn't aware of the family relationship (assuming you're serious). Small world! I can't argue the rights or wrongs of the 'crap' judgement. It makes an interesting read; if sometimes not entirely consistant in its approach.
One day I need to learn how to do that neat grey panel quoting. Its not obvious from the 'reply button' function.

 

[Tee_Centre_10]

I'm coming a bit late to this argument, but one solution to supporting ops ashore in the absence of a carrier might be to look back at the LSM(R) of WW2 and fit the LCH replacement with a Mk45 127mm gun.

I'm sure you could buy refurbs from the US quite reasonably (the 127mm on the RDN Absalons are ex-US refurbs), and I'm sure their inclusion wouldn't look at all aggressive and "warrie" when delivering humanitarian aid.

 

[ADMk2]

I'm coming a bit late to this argument, but one solution to supporting ops ashore in the absence of a carrier might be to look back at the LSM(R) of WW2 and fit the LCH replacement with a Mk45 127mm gun.

I'm sure you could buy refurbs from the US quite reasonably (the 127mm on the RDN Absalons are ex-US refurbs), and I'm sure their inclusion wouldn't look at all aggressive and "warrie" when delivering humanitarian aid.

Problem is they remain short ranged, slow firing and lack any kind of guided munition capability.

With the ADF Joint Fires efforts now gathering pace, having such a weapon that isn't plugged in to the network is arguably going to be a hinderance more than a help.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I wasn't aware of the family relationship (assuming you're serious). Small world! I can't argue the rights or wrongs of the 'crap' judgement. It makes an interesting read; if sometimes not entirely consistant in its approach.

I found out about the connection between Matt Preston and Anthony Preston reading a Women’s Day or something like that at the doctor's or on a loo somewhere. Something about his dad being a famous naval historian and lo and behold I have some books in my library about ships written by a Preston.

The infamous list of world’s worst ships reads to me more like ships that lost battles or suffered accidents and disasters of some type or where strategically misplaced. Which is certainly not exclusive to the quality of the ship design or build. He even has the Bismarck in there. Now it may have been a strategic blunder by the Germans to build and use but it was pretty much the world’s best battleship at the time and has the ships battered by it and pounding taken to prove it.

One day I need to learn how to do that neat grey panel quoting. Its not obvious from the 'reply button' function.

It’s all about old school html coding. You should prefix the quoted text with a [ quote ] and follow it up with [ /quote ] just without the spaces between the bracket and the quote.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I'm coming a bit late to this argument, but one solution to supporting ops ashore in the absence of a carrier might be to look back at the LSM(R) of WW2 and fit the LCH replacement with a Mk45 127mm gun.

I'm sure you could buy refurbs from the US quite reasonably (the 127mm on the RDN Absalons are ex-US refurbs), and I'm sure their inclusion wouldn't look at all aggressive and "warrie" when delivering humanitarian aid.

The 127mm rocket was a weapon designed to bombard the beach with so as to destroy mines, obstacles and keep the heads down of the defenders so your amphibious assault can make it ashore. This is not a capability needed by the ADF to support our concept of amphibious assault.

Fitting a 127mm gun to the LCH replacement, even a 1,200 tonne ship, will consume around one third of its payload. In order to fit on the ship it would have to go aft which is a good location for a NGS gun on most ships but not on one that lands bow first to the beach to offload its payload therefore masking the gun. The LSM(R) had an aft mounted 127mm so as to defend the ship as it sailed back out to sea to reload its rocket launchers after firing them. But the biggest problem is that the LCH replacement may not be part of the task force used in amphibious deployments with the LHD. So it won’t help them in the higher end of the intensity bracket of conflicts where they will need fires.

 

[recce.k1]

The Type 21 was almost built for the RAN and in a customised form via the DDL program. ........If 12 of these had been built into the early 90s they could have been followed with a 1990s DDG replacement and then their own replacement into the 2000s.

I seem to recall some rumours as a lad in the late 70's or early 80's about the RNZN showing some interest in them too. Wonder if it were a serious proposition by the RNZN (if so, as one of the initial Type 12 replacement options perhaps)?

Again if so I wonder whether RNZN were looking to source from the UK (tradition) or instead work in with RAN (pre-dating the ANZAC ship building arrangement)? This would be about the time (or perhaps slightly pre-date when) the politicians on both sides of the ditch were looking at closer economic relations and I wonder whether also borne out from experience gained from years of closer ANZUS naval cooperation in the wider Pacific rim?

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I seem to recall some rumours as a lad in the late 70's or early 80's about the RNZN showing some interest in them too. Wonder if it were a serious proposition by the RNZN (if so, as one of the initial Type 12 replacement options perhaps)?

Again if so I wonder whether RNZN were looking to source from the UK (tradition) or instead work in with RAN (pre-dating the ANZAC ship building arrangement)? This would be about the time (or perhaps slightly pre-date when) the politicians on both sides of the ditch were looking at closer economic relations and I wonder whether also borne out from experience gained from years of closer ANZUS naval cooperation in the wider Pacific rim?

That’s an interesting tidbit. I’m sure the RNZN would prefer to buy from Australia because it puts them much closer to the source of spare parts, training and so on. Two DDLs would have been far more expensive than the two ex RN Leanders brought by the RNZN in 81-82. But the later were post review opportunities which couldn’t be planned for. Perhaps the RNZN DDLs could be built without Tartar/Standard to lower costs? Anyway this is about time to stick a picture of the DDL into this thread.

 

[Volkodav]

So Abe we really did look at building the Type 21?
I had heard read that this was so but have also been told that it was not the case. The fact that the Type 21 was designed as a replacement for the Type 81 would have made it an even better fit for the RAN as the Type 81 Frigate / Sloop was what I imagine inspired the original DDL requirement.

Do you have any details on the Type 21 proposed for Australia?

Would it have had a Mk 45 5" gun and NATO Sea Sparrow, space and weight for Harpoon, would it have been larger than the RN Amazons?

As an aside Vosper had a number of successfully exported designs that were quite similar, the MK5,7 and 10 I believe. The first two were more corvettes than frigates and the last were larger vessels for Brazil. We could have build two or three different sized variants to forfill our needs while still reaping some rewards from the common design heritage and systems.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

So Abe we really did look at building the Type 21?

Only in the context of the DDL. Australia ponied up some cash to help design the engine arrangement for the T21 which was a very successful COGOG set with Spey and Olympus used in lots of ships. The T21 technology also came into the DDL via Vickers. Vospers gets the credit/blame but all the Mk 5-10 boats were jointly designed with Vickers. I guess the DDL had a lot of T21 DNA in the same way that the Evolved AWD had DDG 51 DNA. Just with the smoothed off box Australian styling for the superstructure (see a range of Shipping Board designs of the 1960s) rather than the Vospers big MTB styling.

Would it have had a Mk 45 5" gun and NATO Sea Sparrow, space and weight for Harpoon, would it have been larger than the RN Amazons?

Harpoon came along later in the design timetable and the DDLs were designed for space and weight for four Exocet coffin launchers (like the T21). But in a totally different location with two each would have been positioned on the chaff deck (prophecy for the Anzac class?) which were P&S of the foremast. These launchers were super heavy so these decks would have been pretty strong. Once Harpoon is available and the Mk 13 GMLRS modified to store and fire it then those Exocet decks would be ideal locations for the Phalanx CIWS.

As an aside Vosper had a number of successfully exported designs that were quite similar, the MK5,7 and 10 I believe. The first two were more corvettes than frigates and the last were larger vessels for Brazil. We could have build two or three different sized variants to forfill our needs while still reaping some rewards from the common design heritage and systems.

Vospers and Vickers came together to design the Mk 5 around 1965 and since then have grown it up to the Mk 10 for Brazil. They also had a range of other offerings including corvettes in the 1980s and DDGs in the 1970s all based on the same ship DNA.

 

[stef_petit]

Hi everyone,

Sorry to interrupt this thread for a totally different question.
I am from Belgium and I am interested to join the Royal Australian Navy. I have got a question about the crew on a patrol boat.
How many Boatswain's Mates are there on a Armidale Class Patrol Boat?
And what is the difference between a coxswain and a boatswain?

Many thanks in advance!
Stef Petit

 

[Vanguard]

Hi everyone,

Sorry to interrupt this thread for a totally different question.
I am from Belgium and I am interested to join the Royal Australian Navy. I have got a question about the crew on a patrol boat.
How many Boatswain's Mates are there on a Armidale Class Patrol Boat?
And what is the difference between a coxswain and a boatswain?

Many thanks in advance!
Stef Petit

Coxswains are police officers, usually with experience from one of the state police forces or the AFP, they do all the legal matters required when policing Australia's territorial waters and also monitor crew behaviour, I believe some navies refer to them as regulators.

 

[Tasman]

HMAS Choules makes maiden voyage to Hobart

HMAS Choules and her escort HMAS Darwin looked great with the sun shining on them as they entered the Derwent a short time ago. It is Choules first trip to the Apple Isle.

Photos:

Tasman's Blog


Tas