The seawater hoses are one of the reasons the Collins class are so quiet, these hoses replace pipes to completely isolate the machinery from the hull. Shouldn't have been an issue at periscope depth, the crew would have shut all hull valves before the automated system cut in. What they really need is some form of visual or physical indication of the material condition of the hoses that gives the crew ample warning to replace them before failure.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
I have no issue with the concept of mission modules, infact I believe that not only should the OCV be designed to use US spec models but also that we should also design the ANZAC replacements to make use of them as well.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #9,123
The reason it was released is they would not want a repeat of the incidents in the West that were blown out of proportion being repeated. By jumping on the story, they can release it and explain the situation in more detail. This is perhaps the first time they have ever done it, and if the media doesnt Frak it up, then they may repeat it rather then having minor situations blown out. Ships flood all the time, and they are above water. Subs are rare, but when it happens its more dangerous. BZ to whoever had the balls to release the statement.
When it comes to the Anzac II im wishing we could draw away from the AWD hull, and move towards a Multi-Role Frigate, namely the Iver Huitfeldt class frigate of the Danish Navy.
Im a fan of the Danish Absalon class, and see multi role frigates and modules as the way we operate in the future. For me the Danes are well ahead of the game, the Absalon is a remarkable ship and the Ivers are and expansion of its hull. We have had at times on our FFGs and Anzacs the need for room, and for mission capability beyond what we have. At times we have overloaded if you will our crew beyond its recommended capacity for deployments, and when on the Australian station for training.
If we stick with the AWD hull for the Anzac II, then sure we save a few bucks and design here, but we lost a capability to expand our operations. By removing Aegis and half the VLS, we just get the 'frigate that could'. We may as well have more AWDs rather then a frigate, which is designed for interim, not a patrol boat, not a destroyer, but the middle ground for different missions.
Look at our current situation with illegal immigrants, when onboard a ACPB they take up alot of already restricted room, and we can only carry so many. This was something that was not envisioned when purchased, which is why we are looking bigger. By going with larger frigate we allow the chance for expansion and capability.
Sadly this would be far from the minds of those in Canberra reviewing the Anzac IIs...
I still find it hard to accept the drop from 3 DDG and 6 FFG plus a couple of FFs to a total of 3 AWD and 8 FFH, what a joke. We actually had more escorts in service when we were also manning a carrier aswell.
What ever happened to the plan for 8 tier 1 (DDG/FFG?AWD), 8 tier 2(Rivers and ANZACS) and 12 tier 3 combatants(corvettes)?
What ever happened to the plan for 8 tier 1 (DDG/FFG?AWD), 8 tier 2(Rivers and ANZACS) and 12 tier 3 combatants(corvettes)?
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
Someone thought it was a good idea to purchase the Armidale Class?
I'll put my money on the "module" concept being a fancy version of "built for but not with". It'll be a cheap(?) way to get hulls in the water without all the extra costs of actual warships. Add a Scan Eagle-type tucked in at the rear and a decent VLS-launched UAV; then your average Frigate can do it all so to speak.
The F100 hull presents an opportunity to the RAN that I doubt they will take. The AWD is the minimum needed for a front-line warship so the order should increased to 8 ships.
Flesh out the surface fleet with 6 F100's reduced to a Frigate capability and 4 or 6 F100's with everything high-tech removed/crew reduced to be used as Patrol Ships and the RAN has a commonality advantage across most of its fleet.
The F100 hull presents an opportunity to the RAN that I doubt they will take. The AWD is the minimum needed for a front-line warship so the order should increased to 8 ships.
Flesh out the surface fleet with 6 F100's reduced to a Frigate capability and 4 or 6 F100's with everything high-tech removed/crew reduced to be used as Patrol Ships and the RAN has a commonality advantage across most of its fleet.
Wasn't the plan:
4 AWD (we will only get 3, but there was an option for 4)
8 ANZAC II (based of F-100 basic hull, 7,000t)
20 OCV's. That are ~2,000t. Perhaps 10 of two different types.
That would seem to be a fairly good mix, particularly if 4 of the 8 Anzac II's were armed effectively with AWD fitout (48 cells + harpoons), bar Aegis (or a cheaper version). 4 would be GP patrol frigates, 5", maybe 24 cells (don't need to be filled or filled with some ESSM and older SM-2 stock) stuff pulled off the ANZAC's, space for harpoons (not fitted), phalanx (not fitted), expanded helo capabilities etc.
OCV's would be lightly gunned (typhoon or maybe an old 76mm or that LCS gun) with maybe some mini's.
You would then have 3 AWD, 4 near AWD (to operate in conjunction with a AWD or simular ship), 4 large capable frigates. 20 OCV's that would have helo/UAV/UUV capability, policing, refugee interception, pirates, smugglers, etc. Space for a phalanx I think would be handy (fitted for not with, and only on a few). No missiles.
OCV's would be continuously built locally, say 1 every year.
You would still only have 11 front line escorts all built off the same hull. But 7 would be really capable ships. 4 would be really good patrol ships not loaded with unneeded combat load out (but could be upgraded mid life or sold on). Then with 20 2000t hulls, they can go out and do blue water patrols any and everywhere in the EEZ or region. They could also be deployed to anywhere in the globe as a policing ship. Life time would be 20 years max at which point they would be crushed. Make em monohulled aluminiums with a built in design life.
4 AWD (we will only get 3, but there was an option for 4)
8 ANZAC II (based of F-100 basic hull, 7,000t)
20 OCV's. That are ~2,000t. Perhaps 10 of two different types.
That would seem to be a fairly good mix, particularly if 4 of the 8 Anzac II's were armed effectively with AWD fitout (48 cells + harpoons), bar Aegis (or a cheaper version). 4 would be GP patrol frigates, 5", maybe 24 cells (don't need to be filled or filled with some ESSM and older SM-2 stock) stuff pulled off the ANZAC's, space for harpoons (not fitted), phalanx (not fitted), expanded helo capabilities etc.
OCV's would be lightly gunned (typhoon or maybe an old 76mm or that LCS gun) with maybe some mini's.
You would then have 3 AWD, 4 near AWD (to operate in conjunction with a AWD or simular ship), 4 large capable frigates. 20 OCV's that would have helo/UAV/UUV capability, policing, refugee interception, pirates, smugglers, etc. Space for a phalanx I think would be handy (fitted for not with, and only on a few). No missiles.
OCV's would be continuously built locally, say 1 every year.
You would still only have 11 front line escorts all built off the same hull. But 7 would be really capable ships. 4 would be really good patrol ships not loaded with unneeded combat load out (but could be upgraded mid life or sold on). Then with 20 2000t hulls, they can go out and do blue water patrols any and everywhere in the EEZ or region. They could also be deployed to anywhere in the globe as a policing ship. Life time would be 20 years max at which point they would be crushed. Make em monohulled aluminiums with a built in design life.
the road runner
Active Member
Do you guys think NAVY is being screwed by the capability of the ships(war fighters) the government is/wants to purchase?
The 3 AWD are a good buy ,don't think anyone is disputing that.Im sure more AWD would be a good look for the RAN(4 plus)
It seems the 8 frigates built off the AWD hull are" built for but not with," a capability we need? @ icelord i see your point about the Absalon class ,but isnt a "specific ship," better than a "jack off all trades," in this instance for a frigate replacement?
As to the OCV what would be Navy's (and not governments) pick for such a ship?
Navy has put out some Video on HMAS Farncomb sinking the 12,000 ton US Kilaueu.For some reason i love seeing the Collins class sinking big ships.
[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BhjHBOVY83s&feature=g-all-u"]HMAS Farncomb successful sinking at RIMPAC - YouTube[/nomedia]
The 3 AWD are a good buy ,don't think anyone is disputing that.Im sure more AWD would be a good look for the RAN(4 plus)
It seems the 8 frigates built off the AWD hull are" built for but not with," a capability we need? @ icelord i see your point about the Absalon class ,but isnt a "specific ship," better than a "jack off all trades," in this instance for a frigate replacement?
As to the OCV what would be Navy's (and not governments) pick for such a ship?
Navy has put out some Video on HMAS Farncomb sinking the 12,000 ton US Kilaueu.For some reason i love seeing the Collins class sinking big ships.
[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BhjHBOVY83s&feature=g-all-u"]HMAS Farncomb successful sinking at RIMPAC - YouTube[/nomedia]
Last edited:
Seems HMAS Farncomb was at periscope depth to fire its torpedo. Is this common/normal or only in training? Kind've gives away its position of course. Do the Collins class subs ever practice deep torpedo firings? Curious.As to the OCV what would be Navy's (and not governments) pick for such a ship?
Navy has put out some Video on HMAS Farncomb sinking the 12,000 ton US Kilaueu.For some reason i love seeing the Collins class sinking big ships.
HMAS Farncomb successful sinking at RIMPAC - YouTube
My major concern over the OCV is that the extra costs required build/operate them is going to have to come from somewhere.
Perhaps fewer full combat-capable ships but most likely by cuts to the Army, at least until the next Timor crisis comes along and we find ourselves in the same mess as in '99.
Given the reduced budgets the ADF will be operating under for the forseeable future, replacing 200t patrol boats with 2'000t patrol ships seems excessive.
Perhaps fewer full combat-capable ships but most likely by cuts to the Army, at least until the next Timor crisis comes along and we find ourselves in the same mess as in '99.
Given the reduced budgets the ADF will be operating under for the forseeable future, replacing 200t patrol boats with 2'000t patrol ships seems excessive.
Noting that the target was a drifting hulk and virtually silent, one of the best ways for Farncomb to gain a firing solution would have been via periscope. Probably a lot of safety factors aswell noting it was during an exercise.
Cheers
it worked for the belgrano....
We have already seen a reduction in the number of combat capable ships, remember we did have 6 FFGs and 8 ANZACs not so long ago now 4 and 8 with only 3 AWDs ordered to replace the FFGs. The AWDs are actually more an over due replacement for our DDGs effectively leaving the FFGs without replacement.
Add to this the fact that the ACPBs are not fit for the full spectrum of boarder protection duties required, i.e. they would be down right dangerous to operate in the Southern Ocean and are pretty much useless for rescuing large numbers of civilians. A large steel hulled ship is a no brainer.
Personally I would like to see the larger hull (2000t) with an all electric set up with provision for a variable number of diesel generators in addition to the propulsion diesels (option to replace the propulsion diesels with GTs in some of the ships if required).
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #9,138
The Anzac II will be less then 7000t, even if the hull is based on the AWD they will want to keep the weight down across the board, so 48 VLS launched is a little more then envisioned. The best we could hope for is 16, and even then they will never be fully loaded.
The reason im mentioning the Absalons is because we need to re think the role our navy will be taking part in. With the LHDs we will see a massive shift in amphious capability. A larger OCV will allow the vessels to do more work off the Australian station, and become more involved in the Pacific region much like the RNZN OPVs that sail around Samoa and Tonga every year. By becoming more involved within this area we will be able to work alongside pacific island navies, who may just end up with the ACPB when they are done with RAN service( a shit deal but DMS will end up dumping them on the region, and then having the Governements Pacific Islands Patrol Boat fund pay for the work)
The frigates we need for future roles would be required to escort the LHDs during interventions, and be able to link with the AWD within the Task force. The OCV would have a role in close protection for deploying LCM and LCH as the LHD would best be over the horizon to deploy troops to the next class of LCH. The Anzac II would be patrolling off the coast within 5" range for bombardment of the shoreline if needed, and respond to the AWD who would be C&C for surface combatants to protect the sky and seas while Amphib ops were being conducted.
While this is the grand scenario envisioned by many, the reality of it is that the Anzac II will be conducting patrols in the MEAO, engaging the Asia Pacific region navies in annual excercises and conducting Fleet Concentration Periods off the coasts of Australia. My argument for the Absalon and Iver is that, we need to be ready for any shift in roles required. When brisbane floods happened, my Anzac class ship was given alert that we may be sent up to Qld for the utilisation of our Helo. When Japan was flooded, the best option we had was an FFG and her helo. What im getting at is at one point our Amphib capability was none, and all we could use was a ship with missiles, guns and a helo. With the Absalon and Iver they carry missiles, guns, helos and cargo capacity to be utilised for emergency relief. We can make more room for medics and doctors and have a module with all the gear they require. By the time we have 2 LHDs and an LPD, we cannot guarantee there wont be an issue which causes all three to be unavailable for use. By having a multi-role frigate available, we are able to contribute without looking weak. A multi role frigate gives options, which makes commanders very happy. When you have no options, and are given no choice, you end up with what we did to the LPAs. A situation would occur, they would have to sail at short notice as a FFG or FFH was useless in the requirements.
By spreading our capability across the fleet, we come up with a more effective navy then what we have right now.
Except there were never 6 FFGs and 8 Anzacs in service at the one time due to the construction schedule of the latter and the decomissioning of Adelaide and Canberra.
For a very brief period around 2005 there were 5 and 8 in service (13 total) but over the past 25 years there has generally been only 11-12 escorts at any one time (and as low as 9 in 2000). Consequently whilst 3 AWDs does represent a reduction in hulls compared to the 4 FFGs they are replacing, the resultant 11 hulls is not inconsistant with the past 25 years.
Non-replacement of the FFGs is a furphy - we had 12 escorts in Jan 87 (5 DEs + 3 DDGs + 4 FFGs), we have 12 now, and when the AWDs arrive we'll have 11. So there is a reduction of 1, and that is all, not a total non-replacement of a class of 6 vessels.
I stand corrected, HMAS Perth, the final ANZAC comissioned in August 2006
with HMAS Canberra decomissioning in November 2005. However both Adelaide and Canberra were planned to be upgraded under the original SEA 1390 scope. Unfortunately project delays and cost increasses saw the oldest pair withdrawn from service instead of being upgraded (a manning shortage due to resources boom phase I didn't help)
The AWDs are belated replacements for the CFA DDGs with speculation that the newer FFGs would be retained for longer than is now planned. One of the reasons for the selection of the F-100 over the evolved was it made the building of a fourth hull affordable, although the option was not taken up by the new government.
All of this is a long way short of the 8 tier 1(DDG and FFG replacements), 8 tier 2 (ANZACs) and 12 to 15 tier 3 (planned corvettes) that were planned in the mid 90s. The thing is had this gone forward the tier 1 ships would not have been AEGIS, in fact I believe serious consideration was being given to either a stretched ANZAC with SM-2 or even a GP frigate design (F123 from memory) with a large number of ESSM but no SM. The corvettes, I believe, were also planned with VLS and ESSM as one of the arguements put up against them was the RAN didn't have enough PWOs to support so many additional warships.
The thing that makes me laugh is up until the start of the 80s we crewed a carrier in addition to a dozen older escorts requiring much larger crews than anything we operate today.
- Status