Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[RobWilliams]

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?

The biggest issue would be space, currently the RN is going to fit CAMM in dedicated quad launchers where VL Seawolf was and is something like 1m longer than Seawolf, so whilst there is an element of space to be found there might be that much.

The shortest length Mk41 - i think - is something like 5.5m, I'm not confident enough to say if that amount of space is available, but my gut reaction would be it's unlikely. If the launch canisters added 2.5m onto the depth needed for the missile then sure, but I've not got any info about it so I'm not sure. It'd be a very tight squeeze as things stand, that's my opinion.

 

[Volkodav]

The biggest issue would be space, currently the RN is going to fit CAMM in dedicated quad launchers where VL Seawolf was and is something like 1m longer than Seawolf, so whilst there is an element of space to be found there might be that much.

The shortest length Mk41 - i think - is something like 5.5m, I'm not confident enough to say if that amount of space is available, but my gut reaction would be it's unlikely. If the launch canisters added 2.5m onto the depth needed for the missile then sure, but I've not got any info about it so I'm not sure. It'd be a very tight squeeze as things stand, that's my opinion.

Thats what I wasn't sure on, the amount of space to accomodate the length of the Mk41, sure there was the Mk48 that could have been worked in adjacent to the hanger but fitting the Mk41 forward of the bridge would be better / more versatile. I suppose an Australian derivative T-23 could have been re-arranged to do this but then again would you want the risk of such a major change when Seawolf was perfectly good enough and there were meant to be eight SM-1 armed ships backing them up.

 

[StobieWan]

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.

You're right - I'm confusing a fuzzy mental picture of a Batch 1 Type 22 with a 40mm or similar with something on Type 23 - having looked around I'm talking Gerbil poo, ignore me

I dare say Type 23 would have been a blinder in RAN service even with SeaWolf - doubt there'd have been depth under the silo to get ESSM in there as the deck was already built up a bit anyway but I guess for a single row of Mk41, there might be someplace you can stuff 'em.

 

[Volkodav]

You're right - I'm confusing a fuzzy mental picture of a Batch 1 Type 22 with a 40mm or similar with something on Type 23 - having looked around I'm talking Gerbil poo, ignore me

I dare say Type 23 would have been a blinder in RAN service even with SeaWolf - doubt there'd have been depth under the silo to get ESSM in there as the deck was already built up a bit anyway but I guess for a single row of Mk41, there might be someplace you can stuff 'em.

Like I said Seawolf isn't a bad missile just so long as you have an area air defence missile armed ship near by. I have always like the idea of a GP FFG/DDG variation of of the Batch III T22, either Seadart / Seawolf or Standard / Seasparrow, you can do pretty much anything with what ifs though.

A more realistic MOTS option would have been the German Type 123 instead of the MEKO for the ANZACs and the Type 124 for the DDG/FFG replacement instead of the AWD program. Imagine a MLU T123 with CEAFAR and an MLU T124 with AUSPAR.

Then again the T22, T23 or T123 would mean the government of the day actually ordered a warship rather than an armed yatch for the RAN.

 

[Sea Toby]

This was the problem with British designed ships until the upcoming Type 26s. Their ships were designed with British weapons systems in mind for their own purposes, not so much for export. The genius of the Meko design by the Germans is that the ships were designed with exports in mind with any weapons systems. The British missed out whereas the Germans sold the Meko design to a number of nations.

 

[ngatimozart]

The Japanese Ministry of Defence is in process of deciding if and how much information it will share with RAN about its submarine technology. This report published yesterday in Asashi Shimbum Defense Ministry mulls request to provide submarine technology for Australian Navy and reposted on Pacific Sentinel

 

[John Newman]

The Japanese Ministry of Defence is in process of deciding if and how much information it will share with RAN about its submarine technology. This report published yesterday in Asashi Shimbum Defense Ministry mulls request to provide submarine technology for Australian Navy and reposted on Pacific Sentinel

Reading the report it seems that the request is specifically related to propulsion technology, it will be interesting to see if they will release that technology to us.

But I was wondering are we restricting our requests to the Japanese to just the propulsion systems or are we also interested in the actual design of the hulls too? Which, on the surface, appear to be about the "size" of boat that is being proposed for the Collins replacement.

As I understand it the 4 options are:
1. Existing design (excluding the Japanese boats)
2. Existing design (as option no 1, but with Australian modifications)
3. Evolution of the existing Collins (I wonder how much "evolution" there can be before it is classed as a "new" design?)
4. New design

I suppose the things that are known, at least in the public arena, is that we know where they will be built, we know they will have the US combat and weapon systems, but everything else is still open.

Could an evolution of the existing Collins design be fitted with the Japanese propulsion systems and the US combat system or would it mean that option 4, eg, a whole new design is more likely?

 

[Milne Bay]

Reading the report it seems that the request is specifically related to propulsion technology, it will be interesting to see if they will release that technology to us.

But I was wondering are we restricting our requests to the Japanese to just the propulsion systems or are we also interested in the actual design of the hulls too? Which, on the surface, appear to be about the "size" of boat that is being proposed for the Collins replacement.

As I understand it the 4 options are:
1. Existing design (excluding the Japanese boats)
2. Existing design (as option no 1, but with Australian modifications)
3. Evolution of the existing Collins (I wonder how much "evolution" there can be before it is classed as a "new" design?)
4. New design

I suppose the things that are known, at least in the public arena, is that we know where they will be built, we know they will have the US combat and weapon systems, but everything else is still open.

Could an evolution of the existing Collins design be fitted with the Japanese propulsion systems and the US combat system or would it mean that option 4, eg, a whole new design is more likely?

From earlier posts, I think that propulsion and power generation were the two big aspects of the Soryu class that interested those behind the evolved Collins design.
Given the problems that Collins has had in those areas - it is not surprising.
I think an evolved Collins will be a new design by default - even if based on existing parameters.

 

[John Newman]

From earlier posts, I think that propulsion and power generation were the two big aspects of the Soryu class that interested those behind the evolved Collins design.
Given the problems that Collins has had in those areas - it is not surprising.
I think an evolved Collins will be a new design by default - even if based on existing parameters.

I suppose that was the point that I was wondering, how much stretching of the length or increasing the hull diameter (as necessary) can be done before it is considered a new design?

Which option would be less risky:
* Produce a copy of the Japanese boat (as it is) or the next evolution of it, and then fit the US combat and weapon systems, or
* Enlarge the existing Collins design and incorporate all the new technologies?

 

[Milne Bay]

I suppose that was the point that I was wondering, how much stretching of the length or increasing the hull diameter (as necessary) can be done before it is considered a new design?

Which option would be less risky:
* Produce a copy the Japanese boat (as it is) or the next evolution of it. and then fit the US combat and weapon systems, or
* Enlarge the existing Collins design and incorporate all the new technologies?

Well there's the rub.
How much are the Japanese willing to share.
Propulsion and power generation are one thing - giving us access to the Soryu design is quite another.
I'm not sure that the Collins is such a bad boat that it can't be improved with an evolved design. With its achilles heel(s) remedied by Japanese tech, an evolved Collins could be a world beater. Who needs a Soryu!
Son of Collins ............ look out world!

 

[John Newman]

Well there's the rub.
How much are the Japanese willing to share.
Propulsion and power generation are one thing - giving us access to the Soryu design is quite another.
I'm not sure that the Collins is such a bad boat that it can't be improved with an evolved design. With its achilles heel(s) remedied by Japanese tech, an evolved Collins could be a world beater. Who needs a Soryu!
Son of Collins ............ look out world!

I agree, its one thing for the Japanese to open the door to the propulsion and power generation systems, and of course its another to open the door completely to the Soryu design, countries don't easily give away their "crown" jewels easily.

But it is also interesting, its reported that the current Japanese PM is being quiet "bullish" about wanting to establish a "defence triange" in the Pacific and Indian Oceans.

So if he gets his way, maybe the door will be a bit further open, naturally there will be a price to pay, not necessary in dollars, but in other ways.

And I wasn't trying to give the Collins a kick in the head, but more wondering where more or less risk would lie between option 3 and 4.

If we did get access to the Soryu design, with a US combat / weapons system, would it be more or less of a risk compared to that of a possibly highly modified Collins design?

Obviously and regardless of what design, it has to meet the requirements too.

 

[ASSAIL]

I suppose that was the point that I was wondering, how much stretching of the length or increasing the hull diameter (as necessary) can be done before it is considered a new design?

Which option would be less risky:
* Produce a copy of the Japanese boat (as it is) or the next evolution of it, and then fit the US combat and weapon systems, or
* Enlarge the existing Collins design and incorporate all the new technologies?

ASC must still be gunshy on all the ramifications surrounding IP on foreign designs having been through the wringer with the Collins improvements and Kockums.
I don't know the point at which an evolved design becomes a new design but I bet ASC want ownership of it.

My bet is on evolved Collins with Japanese back end only because there seems to be optimism about the design competence within ASC and with what they can poach (Hammonds last visit)

It would be a bonus if they could get Canada on board during the design phase and amortise the development costs. (Wishful thinking really)!

 

[ngatimozart]

ASC must still be gunshy on all the ramifications surrounding IP on foreign designs having been through the wringer with the Collins improvements and Kockums.
I don't know the point at which an evolved design becomes a new design but I bet ASC want ownership of it.

My bet is on evolved Collins with Japanese back end only because there seems to be optimism about the design competence within ASC and with what they can poach (Hammonds last visit)

IMHO it would be in Australias best interest that ASC retain ownership to the IP of any new sub design. From what has been said here the Collins appears to have come of age and turning out to be a good boat. Maybe an Australian designed boat mentored by US and Japanese sub experts to ensure design viability and quality.

It would be a bonus if they could get Canada on board during the design phase and amortise the development costs. (Wishful thinking really)!

Considering the problems the RCN have had with the Upholder / Victoria Class I would think that they might be keen to have a good look. Their current govt doesn't appear to be afraid to make big decisions regarding defence because they've just asked for expressions of interest for replacement of their CF18 Hornets. Yes they have signed up to the F35 but they are becoming less than enthusiastic because of the increasing costs and continual delays in IOC. So if the RAN came to an arrangement with the Japanese then the Canadians may find that very interesting.

If there is an agreement between the JMSDF and the RAN around sub technology I would wonder what the quid pro quo would be besides royalties for IP. Access to Australian radar research? That would have to interest the Japanese.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Then again the T22, T23 or T123 would mean the government of the day actually ordered a warship rather than an armed yatch for the RAN.

The New Surface Combatant (NSC) project which was what it was called before Anzac class did consider a larger more capable ship in the ~5,000 tonne class of the German Type 123 but the Government thanks to Dibb and Lange was convinced to go down the tier II patrol frigate line and the RAN and RNZN were able to sneak this up to an upgradeable frigate.

As to their replacement I think it’s a bit early to get into platform vs platform. Obviously there will be offers from ASC and BAES (at least) which will probably be centered on the F100 IP and Type 26 respectively. At this point the debate should be on specifying capability. The F100 IP could generate a very good ASW frigate but it won’t be as silent as the diesel electric propulsion of the Type 26

I think it’s too late to push the barrow of a fleet wide single surface combatant class because the AWD program wasn’t specified for such. Which is why the Government and DMO wanted the F100 and the Navy wanted the Evolved AWD. The F100 was good enough for the spec but the Navy knew the Ev AWD was what they needed in the fleet. But as soon as we went from building off the shelf DDG 51s to a competitive, 'evovled' option AWD they should have specified the AWD for an all figate and destroyers replacement either as a single type or variants (like Spurance and Kidd).

As part of the Cost and Operational Analysis Exercise (COEA) for DDX (aka analysis of alternatives) in the late 90s the USN’s NAVSEA developed a range of design concepts. One was a very nice ‘21st century Spruance/Kidd’ ship with electric propulsion (the 3B1) that could be built with or without AEGIS and provide an awful lot of capability. Such a ship concept could have been specified for the AWD and built without too much additional complexity and cost from the current program.

Too late for that now…

 

[StoresBasher]

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

Most overseas postings are operational, in the Navy you have to apply specifically for these and then get selected.
Generally you get to pick where you want to go, but the needs of the Navy can sometime outweigh those of the individual

Chances of the getting stationed in Japan are pretty much zero.

 

[John Newman]

Just came across this on the Defence website regarding HMAS Choules:

Defence Ministers » Minister for Defence – Interview with Lyndal Curtis, ABC

The relevant couple of paragraphs:

LYNDAL CURTIS: You’ve had to replace all of them now?

STEPHEN SMITH: All the transformers have now been replaced because all of our evidence points to the transformer problem being a class-wide problem, and so every ship, whether it’s a Navy ship or a civilian ship of that class, throughout the world, has now been alerted to the issue and the difficulty. So we think we’re dealing not with a Choules specific problem, but with a class-wide problem.

LYNDAL CURTIS: And when will HMAS Choules be back in service?

STEPHEN SMITH: My most recent advice, which was in the last couple of days, is that we expect Choules to be back in action by April-May.


Acording to Smith it appears that the transformer problem is not just isolated to Choules and that it is a class wide issue. When he says "civilian" ship, I assume he is referring to RFA ships, or are these transformers also in commercial (civilian) ships too?

I wonder if there will be compensation sought from the manufacturer? Maybe something like the RR engine issue on the A380's perhaps?

Or would the transformers be to far out any warranty period to make a claim against the manufacturer?

And still another 3-4mths before Choules is back in service too, than will make it 10 or 11mths out of service.

 

[RobWilliams]

Well if he does mean RFA ships then any such fault or risk is being kept very quiet in the UK.

At least, i've heard nothing about it.

 

[John Newman]

Well if he does mean RFA ships then any such fault or risk is being kept very quiet in the UK.

At least, i've heard nothing about it.

Rob,

It suprised me too, everything that I have read (and I only have access to material in the public arena), seemed to indicate that it was a problem isolated to Choules, this is the first time that I've heard it to be a class wide issue.

For a Def Min to make a statement like he did, if it wasn't factual and turned out to be false, it would certainly leave the door open to some sort of legal action by the manufacturer, you would think so anyway.

Be interesting to see what develops further out of this for both the RAN and the RFA too.

 

[prkralex]

Well if he does mean RFA ships then any such fault or risk is being kept very quiet in the UK.

At least, i've heard nothing about it.

Rob

I guess what John is saying it right. I came across these articles. That talk similar.

 

[RobWilliams]

Yeah I get that he's most likely more informed than myself, which isn't too hard to achieve

But my point was that if such a crippling defect existed across the whole fleet, i'd really expect the UK media to be all over it. They generally are when SNAFUs turn up in the defence sector anyway.

Nevertheless, it will be interesting to see where this leads. The only way it could only be an isolated incident for Choules - off the top of my head - is that the propulsion systems may have been tinkered with for RAN requirements? I've got no idea if this has/has not happened however.