Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[ASSAIL]

You've made many good points above but perhaps there is a further, more compelling issue and that is where are these to be assembled (I'm assuming they will be modular)?
If they chose to continue the AWD hull, would there be enough space/workers at Techport CUF to do this while building Collins II and would this be a politically acceptable solution?
If they chose the T26 design/BAE, is Williamstown building slipway big enough or alternatively, would they go to Henderson and again, is this politically acceptable given the state of manufacturing in Vic?
The looming sh...t fight between the SA and Vic govts will make the acrimony over the shifting of the F1 Grand Prix look like a picnic. Watch out for those Sandgropers to.
Lots of variables and it will be interesting to see what eventuates. I'm sure there'll be lots of lobbying and political interference with the most sensible solution being totally compromised.

 

[John Newman]

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.

Going further down the line of "what if's", had the Government selected the Gibbs & Cox "Baby" Burke design (instead of the F100) for the AWD program, which if I remember correctly, was certainly a larger hull that supposedly promised much larger growth potential over the F100's, would/could it's basic design still be a potential candidate for the Future Frigates? Or has its time past by?

When I read the published stats on the Type 26, well according to Wiki, it seems to be approx the same dimensions as the F100's, but stating a lower displacement, is it large enough? Has the basic hull form / size, etc been locked in?

I suppose if Australia did get on board early in the T26 program, and the UK would obviously like us to do that, would we require the ship to be larger than what the UK's requirement is?

And talking of the "Baby" Burke, what about the other end of the scale, the "Super" Burke, the Korean KDX-III design, or is that just way way too large?

Are there any other current designs out there that are potentially suitable for SEA 5000?

If it does come down to a decision between our UK and Spanish friends designs, I'm sure they will be both fighting tooth and nail to have their designs selected.

 

[gf0012-aust]

If it does come down to a decision between our UK and Spanish friends designs, I'm sure they will be both fighting tooth and nail to have their designs selected.

if there is a change of govt then I'd bet that they will not be buying spanish

 

[ASSAIL]

if there is a change of govt then I'd bet that they will not be buying spanish

Is there a basis for that statement gf or is it simply a matter of not wanting anything to do with Labor's legacy?

AFAIK there is nothing in the public domain to reflect that view.

 

[Volkodav]

if there is a change of govt then I'd bet that they will not be buying spanish

Looking at what the Conservatives have done to the UK defence forces and our oppositions almost complete lack of interest in defence, as well as the savage cuts inflicted when the Coalition came to power in 96, I can't help but wonder if Australia will suffer cuts on a greater scale than the UK.

I hope I am wrong but the current mob is so bad that when they are booted the new gov't will have a license to do what ever they want and blame it on their predecessors. “We would have increased defence spending but we had no idea how bad the fiscal position really was, rest assured we will return money to the budget once Labors debt has been paid off, blah, blah, blah.”

 

[Volkodav]

Is there a basis for that statement gf or is it simply a matter of not wanting anything to do with Labor's legacy?

AFAIK there is nothing in the public domain to reflect that view.

Well to be honest it was the previous government that selected the Navantia designs so if they have an issue with the selection the issue is with their own decission making.

 

[Milne Bay]

Well to be honest it was the previous government that selected the Navantia designs so if they have an issue with the selection the issue is with their own decission making.

True, I am interested in Gary's take on this.

 

[ASSAIL]

Well to be honest it was the previous government that selected the Navantia designs so if they have an issue with the selection the issue is with their own decission making.

oops, Thats what happens when you aren't involved in debate for 30 years and only crank up to join this forum.
Nothing to do with my laziness and lack of looking before speaking:flash

 

[zanz]

hey guys just wondering and don't know where else to ask this bit of a stupid question


if one had no military experience whatsoever, and he wanted to join the navy and later be stationed in japan, what are the steps he must take?

obviously joining the navy in the first place. then how many years must you be at home before being able to be "stationed" overseas? do you get to pick where you want? whats the possibility they send you somewhere else?


help is greatly appreciated

 

[Volkodav]

oops, Thats what happens when you aren't involved in debate for 30 years and only crank up to join this forum.
Nothing to do with my laziness and lack of looking before speaking:flash

Oh don't get me wrong everything will still be labors fault just like the sustainment and availability issues with the Collins class are at the moment. Its not who makes the decission that matters its who ever is holding the package when it blows up that counts.

 

[Bonza]

Going further down the line of "what if's", had the Government selected the Gibbs & Cox "Baby" Burke design (instead of the F100) for the AWD program, which if I remember correctly, was certainly a larger hull that supposedly promised much larger growth potential over the F100's, would/could it's basic design still be a potential candidate for the Future Frigates? Or has its time past by?

Personally I don't know enough to say, although others here could probably give you a useful answer. As I recall the decision to pass on the Burke-derived design in favour of the F-100 wasn't met with much enthusiasm from some of our more informed commentators. In fact if I'm remembering correctly I believe there was an even earlier option on the table to simply purchase (or was it license build?) a number of standard Arleigh Burkes from the USN. But the powers that be opted instead for a tailored design... I can't help but think the RAN would have had more capability (and had it delivered faster at that) if they'd just been able to go down that road.

When I read the published stats on the Type 26, well according to Wiki, it seems to be approx the same dimensions as the F100's, but stating a lower displacement, is it large enough? Has the basic hull form / size, etc been locked in?

I suppose if Australia did get on board early in the T26 program, and the UK would obviously like us to do that, would we require the ship to be larger than what the UK's requirement is?

I'm not sure what aspects of the Type 26's design have been decided for good at this point, but if the figure is around 5,400 tons as quoted, I would think that's sufficiently large (it's certainly a damn sight larger than the ANZACs). I could be wrong, but I seem to recall hearing the figure of 5000-6000 tons being thrown around for the future frigate.

From the info available on the Type 26, I think the design's apparent focus on flexibility, provision for a multi-platform mission bay for unmanned systems, and emphasis on ASW (it is slated to become the major surface ASW unit of the RN, isn't it?) are all attractive in some respect. Don't get me wrong, I suspect it's an outside chance at best, but I can see why the RAN would want to take a look at it.

And talking of the "Baby" Burke, what about the other end of the scale, the "Super" Burke, the Korean KDX-III design, or is that just way way too large?

Are there any other current designs out there that are potentially suitable for SEA 5000?

If it does come down to a decision between our UK and Spanish friends designs, I'm sure they will be both fighting tooth and nail to have their designs selected.

Those Korean destroyers are absolute monsters, so it wouldn't surprise me if they were perceived as being too large and possibly too expensive. Beautiful ships, but I can't imagine they'd be cheap.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Is there a basis for that statement gf or is it simply a matter of not wanting anything to do with Labor's legacy?

AFAIK there is nothing in the public domain to reflect that view.

Labor has always had a soft spot for anything (political and military ideas) that gets generated out of the UK, but the Libs are even stronger than them

with people like Howard and Abbott, then I can see the latter cementing ties due to idealogical leanings

spain would be regarded as lefty whereas it doesn't matter which side is on for Abbott in the UK, they would then be another "good ideas fairy" source

 

[ASSAIL]

Labor has always had a soft spot for anything (political and military ideas) that gets generated out of the UK, but the Libs are even stronger than them

with people like Howard and Abbott, then I can see the latter cementing ties due to idealogical leanings

spain would be regarded as lefty whereas it doesn't matter which side is on for Abbott in the UK, they would then be another "good ideas fairy" source

Never mind the RAN's operational experience with US derivative warships. From memory the DDG's and FFG's will, have, defied obsolecence to a greater extent than any others because of their capacity to grow capability.

The libs also chose the MEKO over Yarrow's dumbed down T23 so I guess it really is a lottery.

I've no preference for the platform provided its reliable and sustainable and fitted with US sourced systems.
On pure habitability though, Brit ships win, especially if you're commissioned. Maybe that's the only capability the politicians care about?

 

[RobWilliams]

The libs also chose the MEKO over Yarrow's dumbed down T23 so I guess it really is a lottery.

At least there's gunna be no chance of any dumbed down offering from BAE this time around

In terms of specific Aus systems, there shouldn't be much trouble getting them in the Type 26

 

[ASSAIL]

At least there's gunna be no chance of any dumbed down offering from BAE this time around

In terms of specific Aus systems, there shouldn't be much trouble getting them in the Type 26

Rob, I wasn't deriding the T23 at all, they're fine ships.
There were two T23 variants offered to the RAN when tenders were called for the ANZACS. Yarrow offered a less capable version of T23 to remain within the budget guidelines from the Aus govt. I was referring to that one And with a good dose of hindsight, this version would have been better than MEKO 200 because it would have allowed a much better margin for growth.

 

[Volkodav]

Rob, I wasn't deriding the T23 at all, they're fine ships.
There were two T23 variants offered to the RAN when tenders were called for the ANZACS. Yarrow offered a less capable version of T23 to remain within the budget guidelines from the Aus govt. I was referring to that one And with a good dose of hindsight, this version would have been better than MEKO 200 because it would have allowed a much better margin for growth.

From memory the "Mini" Type 23 was physically shorter and lacked a number of key war fighting systems (stuffed if I can remember which ones) that would not be required in a patrol frigate. The RAN was particularly attracted to it as they perceived that many key Falklands lessons on survivability had been worked into the design. The ships would have retained Seawolf rather than being fitted with ESSM.

 

[RobWilliams]

Rob, I wasn't deriding the T23 at all, they're fine ships.
There were two T23 variants offered to the RAN when tenders were called for the ANZACS. Yarrow offered a less capable version of T23 to remain within the budget guidelines from the Aus govt. I was referring to that one And with a good dose of hindsight, this version would have been better than MEKO 200 because it would have allowed a much better margin for growth.

Oh I know, my reply was meant to be a reference to the fact that BAE are now VERY keen for export orders so you won't find any system cutting in the case with Australia, there was a smiley at the end but it appears not to have shown up

 

[StobieWan]

From memory the "Mini" Type 23 was physically shorter and lacked a number of key war fighting systems (stuffed if I can remember which ones) that would not be required in a patrol frigate. The RAN was particularly attracted to it as they perceived that many key Falklands lessons on survivability had been worked into the design. The ships would have retained Seawolf rather than being fitted with ESSM.

Blimey - sod all growth margin in that one - I'm guessing when you say "shorter" you mean probably a similar length to the Batch 1 as the later ones were extended to include a 4.5 incher on the front and more space internally - they ended up right on their margins at Batch III to the extent they couldn't accommodate Phalanx but were much more capable ships than the original tug-for-TSA idea (thankfully!)

Type 26 should be nearer a decent fit for the RAN as it's the first time a Brit design has been offered with "off the peg" "pick a system, any system, no really, we mean, honestly, stick any missile or radar you like in it" capability. And of course, right now, there's a solid opportunity to get in on the design phase. Can't hurt to send a couple of RAN guys over to spend a bit of time, get some information.

Type 26 is listed as 5,400 tons but given the dimensions, that may well be "standard" as it's a good few metres longer than Type 23 and a bit wider too.

They'd look pretty good with an AUSPAR style four face radar and TI's, Mk41 etc..

 

[Volkodav]

Oh I know, my reply was meant to be a reference to the fact that BAE are now VERY keen for export orders so you won't find any system cutting in the case with Australia, there was a smiley at the end but it appears not to have shown up

The Type 23 would have been a good buy for Australia as it was a real warship, unlike the MEKOs. Preferably the full blown T 23 that is, I am not so sure about the mini, in particular if they dropped to one GT for cost reasons; the RAN would have been very different with eight T 23s as the ANZAC class.

Seawolf may have been an issue for some but I can't really see an issue, there was nothing equivalent in sevice at the time and while it lacked the range of Sea Sparrow (later ESSM) it would still have been fine considering at the time the plan was to maintain at least eight tier 1 ships (DDG and FFG) in addition to the ANZACs. Then again how hard would it have been to fit Mk41 to the T23?

 

[Volkodav]

Blimey - sod all growth margin in that one - I'm guessing when you say "shorter" you mean probably a similar length to the Batch 1 as the later ones were extended to include a 4.5 incher on the front and more space internally - they ended up right on their margins at Batch III to the extent they couldn't accommodate Phalanx but were much more capable ships than the original tug-for-TSA idea (thankfully!)

Type 26 should be nearer a decent fit for the RAN as it's the first time a Brit design has been offered with "off the peg" "pick a system, any system, no really, we mean, honestly, stick any missile or radar you like in it" capability. And of course, right now, there's a solid opportunity to get in on the design phase. Can't hurt to send a couple of RAN guys over to spend a bit of time, get some information.

Type 26 is listed as 5,400 tons but given the dimensions, that may well be "standard" as it's a good few metres longer than Type 23 and a bit wider too.

They'd look pretty good with an AUSPAR style four face radar and TI's, Mk41 etc..

I think you are thinking of the Type 22 or Broardsword Class, batch II were stretched to make room for improved bow and towed array sonar while the batch III also incorporated a Vickers Mk8 4.5" gun, 8 Harpoon (in place of Exocet) and a single Goalkeeper CIWS above and behind the bridge. Later T 22 Batch IIIs also replaced the RR Olympus / Tyne COGOG with a Spey / Tyne COGAG arrangement. Some, I am not sure which batches, I believe also had enlarged hangers to permit the operation of a Seaking helicopter in place of the Lynx.

The tug-for-TSA was the original T 23 concept that also would have relied on RFS support to maintain their helos as they lacked those facilities themselves. This concept died when reality intruded in 1982 and the folly of such a limited single role design was realised leading to the current multi role Duke Class, which I believe does actually have sufficient reserve displacement for both CIWS (I am not sure where) as well as an other 10 VL Seawolf adjacent to the hanger but niether were fitted on cost grounds.