Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[hauritz]

If we are going to stick with the F-100 hull I wonder whether or not it might be more cost effective to keep the Hobart production line running rather than stopping it, and then restarting it again later on.

There must be some economy of scale if you do continue building the same basic hull without any breaks in production.

It might be cheaper in the long run to order a fourth or even fifth Hobart now, and then revert the production line to an AUSPAR version later.

 

[aussienscale]

If we are going to stick with the F-100 hull I wonder whether or not it might be more cost effective to keep the Hobart production line running rather than stopping it, and then restarting it again later on.

There must be some economy of scale if you do continue building the same basic hull without any breaks in production.

It might be cheaper in the long run to order a fourth or even fifth Hobart now, and then revert the production line to an AUSPAR version later.

Definately ! has been an ongoing issue with our industry forever in a day, a fourth Hobart would be nice, and needed, but unfortunately it will not happen, not with current budget, and certainly won't change when Labour get the boot, because Libs are more than likely to keep this going as well and cry poor due to the Labour Gov debt.

There is no reason why we should not have our yards in constant work if planned properly, it has been discussed many times before on here, but will never happen, same argument is going on for the Sub's, get the program right and there is no reason why we should not be constantly be building one class leading into the next with no downtime, loss of skills etc

F100 hull with updated running gear will be fine, just keep main deck and up to current needs, incorporate AUSPAR, CEC and whatever comes along should not be a big ask. As I understand it, Navantia have a number of people running around Canberra, im sure they have plenty of ideas ? :

 

[Volkodav]

I have never been able to work out why the RAN thinks it needs a 7000 ton ship. That is bigger than the Hobart Class.

The only contender I can see that would meet the RAN's size requirement is the F-125 ... which seems to be intended as a land attack/special forces/multi Role ship similar to the Absalon concept.

Steel is cheap and air is free, fuel use can be reduced through having a greater length with additional size making it possible to use a more hydrodynamically efficient hull form, not to mention through adopting an all electric set up which would permit the ship to use electrical power produced by her diesel / GT generators, instead of her propulsion engines, for propulsion when high speeds aren't required reducing fuel use and cost even further. Extra size also makes sustainability and future upgrades cheaper and easier, i.e. had the ANZACs been big enough they would have been upgraded with AEGIS in the ANZAC WIP.

 

[StobieWan]

I’m sure they could fit 32-64 ESSM in there somewhere. Just not where the soft launch CAAM is located (either side of the forward Phalanx). In the super structure is probably not such a good idea as this would be two decks higher than the forward missile magazine and even 16 SDSS length Mk 41 VLS cells with 64 ESSM is a lot of weight to put up high on the ship.

I'd thought you could just delete the soft launch CAMM silos and just carry the strike cells forward another pair of rows ? Assuming there's space under the missile deck - even if you had two rows of strike length cells then a single or double row of the shorter ones ahead, that'd be enough possibly for 32-64 ESSM with the existing strike cells retained (assuming you want 'em)

I don't know how Artisan stacks up weight wise vs Auspar but suspect there's not much in it and 26 is a pretty decent size ship so should have good margins.

BAE are making the right noises to be flexible and cooperative (eager to please in fact) in terms of getting folk on board for the GCS program, the ship is already prepped for a modular build, the boat handling and aviation facilities look extensive and flexible. There's a lot to like, put it that way.

 

[AegisFC]

Also curious, while we are on the subject, about the Hobart Class and the position of the SPY ? Looking at the attached picture between the positioning on the Burke and the Alvaro/Hobart potential pro's and con's ?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/81/AWD_contenders_(DN-SD-06-07081).jpg

The positioning of SPY on the Burkes was partially an over reaction to how poorly the Tico's ride and the USN's favoring a higher bridge.
I've talked to some SPY tech reps who have been on the F-100's and they were saying the SPY deck is very crowed compared to the Burke and that working on certain pieces of gear was an interesting experience.

 

[peterAustralia]

There was something just on the radio. HMAS Success has broken down in Bass Straight and they were sending a couple of tugs to assist

 

[weegee]

There was something just on the radio. HMAS Success has broken down in Bass Straight and they were sending a couple of tugs to assist

You honestly couldn't make up some of the stuff that happens to the RAN could you????? surely if this is true it will put some pressure on scrapping her sooner rather than later and getting something fit for purpose?

 

[the road runner]

post deleted

 

[hauritz]

They keep doing this ... they spend a fortune trying to keep broken down, old ships serviceable and it never works.

They didn't learn this lesson with the Kanimbla class fiascos and they are still failing.

 

[ASSAIL]

On a more pleasant note I see that Blue Marlin and Canberra are well on their way with their destination on Marine Traffic given as being Port Louis (Mauritius)

If that is true it means they will be pushing the S Equatorial current right across the Indian Ocean.
Its a very long diversion to make sure they stay out of the heavy Southern Ocean swells if that is the point and may illustrate just how critical the hogging forces are to that 55m bow overhang.

 

[StingrayOZ]

I think the blue marlin idea has merit we can just float our navy on other ships! Or at least a couple of navy tugs (but can the ships float?).

We really should have gotten something when we had to double hull it. When is Spain coming down to party? Can we pay cash?

 

[peterAustralia]

has anyone heard any more about this breakdown, I cant find anything on the internet. I know what I heard on the radio, (ABC 774), but cant find any more information. I hope I have not started a red herring (false rumour)

all I could find out was that it was in Port Phillip Bay a couple of days ago and was leaving, so that kinda gels. The other news was that a Spanish ship (SPS Cantabria) is to be leased for most of 2013 to take over from HMAS Success whilst it is in repairs (I assume this is old news)

[ame]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPS_Cantabria_%28A15%29[/ame]

Given that this Spanish ship is newly built, (commissioned September 2010), is there a chance that we will extend the lease indefinitely, I know the Spanish economy is not flash and they would like the money,.. but wont they want their ship back eventually? The Spanish Navy cant be thrilled that we have borrowed their newly built fleet oiler.

 

[swerve]

Having a closer look at the design the biggest problem would probably be fitting ESSM onboard. Looks like the T26 is designed for 24 MK 41 Strike VLS (land attack, etc) and 16 small cells for quad packed Sea Ceptor (CAAMM). Which would probably only allow for 16 ESSM in place of the 64 CAMM. So unless they eat into the Strike VLS they will to find space for more ESSM (32-64 in total).

If you look at this page, you can download a high resolution image which clearly shows two sets of 12 cells for CAMM forward of the 24 large VLS cells, & a 12 x 2 set of cells (counting hatches) behind the mast.

The hatches are quite a lot smaller than those of the 24 large silos, so they may be single cells, rather than quad packed. Given their numbers, that makes sense. 48 CAMM is a decent load for self-defence. 192 is a hell of a lot.

 

[StobieWan]

If you look at this page, you can download a high resolution image which clearly shows two sets of 12 cells for CAMM forward of the 24 large VLS cells, & a 12 x 2 set of cells (counting hatches) behind the mast.

The hatches are quite a lot smaller than those of the 24 large silos, so they may be single cells, rather than quad packed. Given their numbers, that makes sense. 48 CAMM is a decent load for self-defence. 192 is a hell of a lot.

I'm guessing those cells are meant to be representative of the launchers for Type 23 which will be pulled through into Type 26 so they'll be similar to the fairly simple layout for SeaWolf (ie, just a bit more complicated than a hole in the deck with a cable for firing)

They won't, therefore, appear on the export configuration and instead you'd likely see a third or fourth row of Sylver. Depends on how much room is behind.

Some of the rendering on that diagram is iffy anyway as the main gun looks like a broomstick and the Phalanx has this huge water spigot look so best not get too reliant on details being totally accurate.

Ian

 

[Volkodav]

If you look at this page, you can download a high resolution image which clearly shows two sets of 12 cells for CAMM forward of the 24 large VLS cells, & a 12 x 2 set of cells (counting hatches) behind the mast.

The hatches are quite a lot smaller than those of the 24 large silos, so they may be single cells, rather than quad packed. Given their numbers, that makes sense. 48 CAMM is a decent load for self-defence. 192 is a hell of a lot.

LMs Extensible Launching System would have to be an option with its low platform impact. I don't know but it may help both the type 26 and CAMMs export prospects if ELS is integrated in the Type 26 and CAMM in the ELS.

 

[Anixtu]

The hatches are quite a lot smaller than those of the 24 large silos, so they may be single cells, rather than quad packed.

CAMM/Sea Ceptor quad packs in Mk41 or Sylver but is in single cells for its own dedicated VLS. The T26 graphics illustrate single cells in a dedicated CAMM VLS.

 

[peterAustralia]

Looks like th HMAS Success story was false, sorry for the that, I blame the darn ABC radio for making a fool of me. It was set to leave the Port of Melbourne for Sydney at 8am today

Expected ship movements

 

[Abraham Gubler]

The hatches are quite a lot smaller than those of the 24 large silos, so they may be single cells, rather than quad packed. Given their numbers, that makes sense. 48 CAMM is a decent load for self-defence. 192 is a hell of a lot.

The info about 64 missiles in quad packs was from one of the webpages detailed the new design announcement. Personally I wouldn’t put too much reliance on the early artwork as is often in this case the graphic designer can play with some of the details.

Anyway wether there are 32 CAMM or 24 in each of these modules isn’t of much impact on refitting with ESSM. CAMM is a soft launch missile so it is ejected from the VLS before the rocket motor ignites. Therefore its VLS is little more than a canister. Mk 41 VLS allows for a high energy rocket to ignite in the cell and can divert its exhaust up and out of the ship. Weight wise the difference is huge also even the shortest Mk 41 VLS system (SDSS) is going to be about twice as long as the CAMM launcher. Plus of course each ESSM weighs three times as much as a CAMM. I very much doubt you could replace the forward CAMM launchers with any ESSM.

LMs Extensible Launching System would have to be an option with its low platform impact. I don't know but it may help both the type 26 and CAMMs export prospects if ELS is integrated in the Type 26 and CAMM in the ELS.

Extensible launching system only works for soft launch missiles. You can’t use it for ESSM because it needs to exhaust before ejection from the VLS. If you want a big hitter like ESSM (and clearly SEA 5000 does as to the requirement for AUSPAR) rather than an overgrown VSHORADS like CAMM then you have to pay the price with heavy VLS.

 

[rand0m]

Hull's high-water delivery: Biggest warship ever to serve in the Royal Australian Navy | thetelegraph.com.au

At 230m long and 32m wide the LHD's hull is as long as the Rialto Tower in Melbourne is high and she will sit just 40cm lower than the deck of the Sydney Harbour Bridge.

40cm off the Sydney Harbour bridge? isn't that cutting it a little too close?

 

[Milne Bay]

Hull's high-water delivery: Biggest warship ever to serve in the Royal Australian Navy | thetelegraph.com.au



40cm off the Sydney Harbour bridge? isn't that cutting it a little too close?

She'll never have to go under Sydney Harbour Bridge. No need to worry.