Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[ASSAIL]

The best ship in the world is useless if it can't interoperable with your fleet or you can't maintain it (Collins and Armidale are good examples here).

I'm not sure why you single out Collins and ACPB's? Your statement is correct for all ships if they are not maintained, period. Both Collins and Armidales are perfectly capable of operating with our fleet and with others which they have done well since their commissioning.
What the RAN has not done well is to keep its engineering standard to that of the past. All the fashionable glib speak bs that "reformers" have tried in sustainment have failed gloriously. The failure has effected all our fleet to varying degrees.

This has little to do with selection of capability.

 

[justsomeaussie]

I'm not sure why you single out Collins and ACPB's? Your statement is correct for all ships if they are not maintained, period. Both Collins and Armidales are perfectly capable of operating with our fleet and with others which they have done well since their commissioning.
.

I was highlighting that both vessels perform well but aren't maintained to a standard where they can be effectively used. It's why ILS needs to be an integral past of ship selection. Everyone focuses on up front costs of vessels and less on the on going sustainment.

 

[ASSAIL]

I was highlighting that both vessels perform well but aren't maintained to a standard where they can be effectively used. It's why ILS needs to be an integral past of ship selection. Everyone focuses on up front costs of vessels and less on the on going sustainment.

OK understand your point now. I totally concur.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Everyone focuses on up front costs of vessels and less on the on going sustainment.

ILS is handled better in some Services than in others.....

and its a cultural thing thats been shifting over the years

There are still engineers who see ILS as an ugly red headed step sister instead of being a separate discipline in its own right

ILS is not helped when all of a sudden others decide that we need to fast track purchases of some other platforms and then recoil in horror when they discover the sustainment costs - at that point other platforms and projects suffer as the money to sustain is not additional and must come out of existing monies

hence cuts in training, travel etc when the mad panic kicks in

 

[ASSAIL]

There's a nice summary of the ILS (Intergrated Logistic Support) concept I've found on the net but its from a commercial source linked to defence (LSA) and I'm not sure if its appropriate to post the link?
Is there an ADF defined usage? and if so can someone post a link please

 

[Volkodav]

I was highlighting that both vessels perform well but aren't maintained to a standard where they can be effectively used. It's why ILS needs to be an integral past of ship selection. Everyone focuses on up front costs of vessels and less on the on going sustainment.

Hence one of the reasons why 10 -12 AWDs would be better and not necessarily that much more expensive than 3-4 AWDs and 6-8 Types 26s, the RAN will already have the support system in place for the AWD while the Type 26, especially if it is Australianised, will require another, quite different support system. Each FEG, each SPO each TLS or what ever contract is an additional overhead requireing substantial investment on money and personel (both in short supply).

Droves of people suffling paper and fighting battles every day to get the job done, professional engineers employed in "clerical" engineering roles, reviewing and approving documents rather than working as engineers solving problems and making things better.

At the end of the day would the RAAF ever consider running a mixed fleet of 1 sqn of F-22, 2 of Typhoons and 3 of Gripens? No, why not? well the support overheads would result in a massive reduction in capability vs what could be had when cncentrating on a single type.

What can a Type 26 or similar do compared to an AWD? Maybe it would be very slightly better at ASW, what can an AWD do that a Type 26 can't, well lets see anti air warfare, battlespace command and within in an available upgrade spiral ABM.
You pay more upfront for the platform but gain capability and save in training and other support costs.

 

[justsomeaussie]

I can tell you one thing, the ILS of AEGIS and SPY-1 is astronomical compared to CEAFAR. It's simply massive over kill.

 

[Volkodav]

I can tell you one thing, the ILS of AEGIS and SPY-1 is astronomical compared to CEAFAR. It's simply massive over kill.

Yes but once you have the system in service and the support elements in place what is the support cost of each additional deployed system? There is a significant investment in overheads that occur whether you are talking 3 hulls, 4, 5, 10 , or 12; so logically your return on those overheads better the larger the class of ships supported. At the end of the day, as I understand it, later hulls of the ANZAC replacement are envisioned to have many AWD capabilities because this is what is wanted and needed.

 

[AMTP10E]

Base manning of the AWD is not much greater than an ANZAC, running on diesels the fuel usage should not be that much greater, in fact if the RAN could get over its fear of high pressure fuel systems, it would be cheaper to run. Through life costs of ten to twelve AWDs would likely not differ much from a mix of AWDs and high end ASW frigates when you factor in savings of a common fleet. So TLS costs not that different and much greater capability.

I'd be careful using the ANZAC as some sort of magic base line for manning since they are undermanned by at least 10% and AWD is a bigger and more complex beast.

 

[Volkodav]

I'd be careful using the ANZAC as some sort of magic base line for manning since they are undermanned by at least 10% and AWD is a bigger and more complex beast.

True, 163 nominal for an ANZAC isn't it, should be closer to 180 from what I've been told. AWD is a nominal 180 but 202 seems to be the norm for the Armada on an F-100 with a higher proportion of operator maintainers to pure operators or maintainers, we seem to expect to get everything done with a smaller crew and traditional job silos.

To put in perspective the AWD is the largest surface combatant the RAN has acquired since WWII, it is closer to a traditional cruiser in physical size than to a destroyer. That said there is also a very large degree of automation and so long as preventative maintenance is carried out as required these proven automated systems are very robust. They are better designed than the ANZACs and are real warships rather than armed motor yachts as I have heard the ANZACs being referred to by experienced naval archs.

They are not perfect but there are many improvements that could easily and affordably be incorporated in to a second batch of ships. The first that comes to mind is high pressure common rail diesels for propulsion and power generation, increasing output and reliability while reducing fuel burn and maintenance overhead. Facilities for a second helicopter also come to mind as do additional VLS and perhaps an active phased array director in place of the continuous wave illuminators.

They are not cheap but they are capable and at the same time a class of far less capable and versatile frigate will not be cheap and will drive up support overheads through the simple fact that they are different. The AWDs are not Burkes or evolved Burkes, they are smaller, cheaper, smaller crewed, more efficient, modern, multi-role surface combatants. They are a suitable substitute for an expensive high end ASW frigate and it could be argued that a class of ten AWDs would provide greater capability at lower cost and less crew than 3 AWD and 8 upgraded ANZACs. Add a 25 to 30 knot 2000t OCV using systems developed for the US LCS program and you have to ask why we would need a separate class of frigates.

 

[StoresBasher]

I'd be careful using the ANZAC as some sort of magic base line for manning since they are undermanned by at least 10% and AWD is a bigger and more complex beast.

On my current serving FFH, I don't know the exact number of ships company.
But 10% would seem to be conservative, even then a lot of (technical) positions are filled up by personnel specifically onboard for competency log progression/completion.
Add to this a shortage of fully qualified people for specific positions, means when someone breaks, there are no replacements.
On top of this many ships programmes are extremely grueling, giving no time at all for proper respite and maintenance.

 

[swerve]

...
To put in perspective the AWD is the largest surface combatant the RAN has acquired since WWII, ...

HMASs Sydney, Vengeance & Melbourne weren't surface combatants?

 

[the road runner]

Just looked at a great video of HMAS Farcomb in a Typhoon at periscope depth.
A very good video put out by RAN Media.You guys in the RAN really deserve a pay rise.

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZUAO-SbKUU"]HMAS Farncomb vs Super Typhoon - YouTube[/nomedia]

 

[Milne Bay]

Just looked at a great video of HMAS Farcomb in a Typhoon at periscope depth.
A very good video put out by RAN Media.You guys in the RAN really deserve a pay rise.

HMAS Farncomb vs Super Typhoon - YouTube

All through it I was wondering what she was doing on the surface during a typhoon!
Then the closing credits!
Oh...... I see!

 

[old faithful]

On my current serving FFH, I don't know the exact number of ships company.
But 10% would seem to be conservative, even then a lot of (technical) positions are filled up by personnel specifically onboard for competency log progression/completion.
Add to this a shortage of fully qualified people for specific positions, means when someone breaks, there are no replacements.
On top of this many ships programmes are extremely grueling, giving no time at all for proper respite and maintenance.

Crikey!
And you lecture me about opsec!!!!!

 

[Volkodav]

HMASs Sydney, Vengeance & Melbourne weren't surface combatants?

Well correct me if I am wrong but doesn't convention tend to list carriers, as well as MCM and amphibs separately to surface combatants? While I am not aware of any hard and fast definition I believe the rule of thumb is that a surface combatant is not a submarine and has its own armament that it uses to engage the enemy (as opposed to lauching something else to attack them).

I suppose this convention is probably strained a bit in this day and age with ship based helos and other craft including ROVs of various types.

I should add that I am not attacking the Type 26 as it looks to be a fine design that will serve the RN well, rather I am opinioning that having selected the F-100 as the basis of the AWD we should concentrate on that. Personally I would rather have seen a Type 45 derivative with US combat system selected for the AWD build as it is IMO probably the best surface combatant platform out there at the moment and a generation or more ahead of either the F-100 or Burke. Then again hasn't it always been the case the RN excels at platforms and the USN at systems.

 

[Lofty_DBF]

All through it I was wondering what she was doing on the surface during a typhoon!
Then the closing credits!
Oh...... I see!

Farncomb was snorting during that video.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Well correct me if I am wrong but doesn't convention tend to list carriers, as well as MCM and amphibs separately to surface combatants?

Yep, it also included the battleships when the US ran SAGs

Capital assets were listed separately

 

[hauritz]

Even if the requirement wasn't for additional ships with the capability of the AWD I think that a good case could be made for basing any new ships on its hull and machinery.

Would there be that much difference in terms of difficulty in adapting the F-26 design to Australian needs as opposed to adapting the F-100?

The RAN made the case for a single hull design replace our patrol boats, mine hunters and even our hydrographic vessels and yet doesn't see the obvious benefits of a single hull for the destroyers and frigates.

 

[Bonza]

Even if the requirement wasn't for additional ships with the capability of the AWD I think that a good case could be made for basing any new ships on its hull and machinery.

Would there be that much difference in terms of difficulty in adapting the F-26 design to Australian needs as opposed to adapting the F-100?

The RAN made the case for a single hull design replace our patrol boats, mine hunters and even our hydrographic vessels and yet doesn't see the obvious benefits of a single hull for the destroyers and frigates.

Perhaps there's a reason why the AWD hull isn't appropriate for the future frigate, though? For example, I know the future frigate is supposed to be capable of high-end ASW, and that there's mention of operating multiple types of drone (both air- and water-borne) from the vessel. Is it possible that the machinery and hull shape of the AWD is simply not suited to sub hunting, or that it is lacking the requisite space (or structural design, or something - just throwing out ideas here) to accommodate the kind of facilities that might be required for the operation of multiple future drone systems, in addition to the usual rotary aviation?

Something else that occurs to me is that given the timeframes in which the future frigate should be built and deployed, a decision by the RAN to consider more modern parent designs than the F-100 could very well be deliberate, as they may wish to select a design with future requirements in mind, such as a need for increased power generation, upgrades to onboard computing and electronic systems, space for incorporating new naval systems as they come in to service (preferably without top weight issues such as the ANZACs have experienced over the years), and so on. I don't know enough about the F-100 design to say, but if its growth potential is particularly limited for some reason then I think considering a more recent design makes perfect sense.

There's a lot of assumptions on my part in there, but as I said I'm just throwing out ideas. Personally I'd rather see a large, modern frigate with good margins for design growth than a significantly higher number of AWDs, though I'm happy to stand corrected on that if I'm selling the F-100 short.