Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[Richo99]

Destroyer vs Frigate

Just an observation, the AWD is a frigate that we have decided to call a destroyer.

It may just be that definitions have changed in the last 20 years.

Its worth noting that just about every country developing a comparable vessel in recent years has replaced so called destroyers with much larger and more capable frigates performing the same roles as the old destroyers did. Only the UK call their new ships destroyers. Given that the Hobarts are arguably more capable than the Type 45s it does beg the question what the Hobarts should be designated. If only ships as capable as an AB can now be called a Destroyer, than 95% of the worlds navys will be reduced to frigate forces...

Netherlands - 4400t Tromp DDG replaced by 6050t De Zeven Provinciën FFG
Italy - 4500t Audace DDG replaced by 7000t Horizon FFG
France - 5300t Suffren DDG replaced by 7000t Horizon FFG
Germany - 4700t Lutjens DDG replaced by 5700t Sachsen FFG
UK - 5300t Type 43 Batch3 DDG replaced by 8000t Type 45 DDG
Australia - 4700t Perth DDG replaced by 6900t Hobart ???

 

[alexsa]

Only the UK call their new ships destroyers. Given that the Hobarts are arguably more capable than the Type 45s it does beg the question what the Hobarts should be designated.

Big call. Capability covers a different systems and arrangements including those that may be fitted in the future. To argue that the Hobart is 'arguably' more capable than the 45 suggests is is better in all aspects (i.e on board and support capability such as helo's) including potential growth.

I suspect in this sense the disparity may not be as significant as you suggest.

 

[Richo99]

Big call. Capability covers a different systems and arrangements including those that may be fitted in the future. To argue that the Hobart is 'arguably' more capable than the 45 suggests is is better in all aspects (i.e on board and support capability such as helo's) including potential growth.

I suspect in this sense the disparity may not be as significant as you suggest.

So based on that... I'm not sure if you think the Hobart is more or less capable.
Maybe a better description is that the two classes are comparable in capability.
My real point however was that today's frigates are more comparable to destroyers of old, and lamenting the passing of our 'destroyer' capability is not really warranted given it really appears to be just an evolution of the definition.

 

[Volkodav]

So based on that... I'm not sure if you think the Hobart is more or less capable.
Maybe a better description is that the two classes are comparable in capability.
My real point however was that today's frigates are more comparable to destroyers of old, and lamenting the passing of our 'destroyer' capability is not really warranted given it really appears to be just an evolution of the definition.

Well I would argue that the type 45 has a more modern, versatile and capable platform. It has greater growth magins as well as being significantly more effecient due to its all electric propulsion. The design has space and weight reserved for additional vls, harpoons, two phalanx etc. It can also hanger and operate a much larger helo than the F-100. Oh by the way the type 45 was eliminated from Australian consideration as it was seen as too developmental and therefore high risk, personally I would love to have seen a type 45 with AEGIS and either SPY 1 or 3. it would delivered the better platform with greater growth potential while retaining the advantages of FMS for the combat system.

 

[justsomeaussie]

Previous fleets were in previous threats. Cold war isn't what we are in today.

We need amphibious capability, we need that 3 LHD for about half a dozen reasons. You need 4 AWD for the same reasons, because deploying the LHD's in anything except a completely benign aid environment without 2 capable (AWD) escorts is asking for trouble. You can't do that with less than 4.

I don't see carriers, I don't see 8 destroyers.. But we might get 8 very very capable frigates.

I'd challenge we need amphibious capability as much as we are positioned. It has been raised recently in public forums that there is no really well defined operation where the LHDs are used within its envelope. In the end it just ends up being an expensive way to do HADR.

 

[ASSAIL]

So based on that... I'm not sure if you think the Hobart is more or less capable.
Maybe a better description is that the two classes are comparable in capability.
My real point however was that today's frigates are more comparable to destroyers of old, and lamenting the passing of our 'destroyer' capability is not really warranted given it really appears to be just an evolution of the definition.

The T45's commissioned without the capabilities that could make them an excellent platform. They lack a decent gun, they lack CEC, they lack missile range.
What they are is an excellent platform that suffers the British disease of being given enormous potential for improvement but systems that don't compare with what is available from the US.
I know I'll cop flack for this but the RN has always touted its sytems and weapons as being the "best in the world" when they're clearly not. Money for R&D is paramount.
Its only after having used systems and weapons from various sources that you get a true comparison.

 

[RobWilliams]

the RN has always touted its sytems and weapons as being the "best in the world" when they're clearly not.

I heartily agree that it's a claim that's made far too often, but if it's not made then the media gets sour about us getting "second rate" equipment.

The current gun is just fine for NGFS, didn't have problems with it in Libya and in all likelyhood will be upgunned when the Type 26's come in to keep the commonality hopefully with the Oto 127/64.

CEC's out of the current planning round but NOT dropped altogether.

When you say "missile range", I assume you mean the variaty rather than the physical range? As 120km isn't particularly bad. Even then, it's not a particularly pressing issue when taken into context with the growth available in the hull and what's actually available from MBDA.

 

[Jhom]

I heartily agree that it's a claim that's made far too often, but if it's not made then the media gets sour about us getting "second rate" equipment.

The current gun is just fine for NGFS, didn't have problems with it in Libya and in all likelyhood will be upgunned when the Type 26's come in to keep the commonality hopefully with the Oto 127/64.

CEC's out of the current planning round but NOT dropped altogether.

When you say "missile range", I assume you mean the variaty rather than the physical range? As 120km isn't particularly bad. Even then, it's not a particularly pressing issue when taken into context with the growth available in the hull and what's actually available from MBDA.

I consider the lack of land-attack missile capability as the biggest flaw of the T45 as of right now.

 

[RobWilliams]

I consider the lack of land-attack missile capability as the biggest flaw of the T45 as of right now.

I could tick off a loooooong list of what I'd LIKE to see happening to her, not arguing that one bit.

But I think it'd be prudent to remember that every single improvement which I can think of (127mm, Harpoon, CEC, +16 strike length cells off the top of my head), it has the space margins to be able to do that.

That's not to say I particularly dislike the Hobarts, I think you're onto an excellent platform with those and it'd be a terrible waste to not get the 4th at least. A very capable platform.

 

[StingrayOZ]

I'd challenge we need amphibious capability as much as we are positioned. It has been raised recently in public forums that there is no really well defined operation where the LHDs are used within its envelope. In the end it just ends up being an expensive way to do HADR.

I think saying the LHD's are only useful HA/DR is selling it short.

Any deployment anywhere in the region will be operated from and dependant on the LHD's. From training and basic policing through to amphibious landings and amphibious assaults (in combination with say US/Nato/UN forces) and everything in between. To begin, sustain and end any mission. Not just for us, but for any coalition we lead.

T45 and AWD are quite different ships. The AWD have yet to be completed so its hard to say exactly what will be more capable in 5 years time (and for what mission). The AWD look like having the latest US missiles. T45 has some very interesting and unique systems. Ideally they would be deployed together.

Say if we were to do east timor now, same circumstances. 2 x AWD and 2 T-45 would offer complimenting capabilities (particularly when supported by a latest Burke). Having 2x LHD deployed and sustained in area would also be immensely important. Realistically thats the type of mission we are mostly going into in the future.

 

[justsomeaussie]

Say if we were to do east timor now, same circumstances. 2 x AWD and 2 T-45 would offer complimenting capabilities (particularly when supported by a latest Burke). Having 2x LHD deployed and sustained in area would also be immensely important. Realistically thats the type of mission we are mostly going into in the future.

Your example proves my point. There was zero air threat a low sub threat and low troops threat. So low in fact that we used a commercial ferry to move troops around.

So it's right on the edge of HADR and stabilisation operations. Not embarking troops on the shores of North Korea. What are the two AWDs doing in the Timor AO? Getting bulk pay and AASMs like last time we had warships there.

If we can't envision a role where the LHDs will be deploying troops in a combat environment then we might as well have gone back to commercial ferry with helo capacity.

 

[StobieWan]

I consider the lack of land-attack missile capability as the biggest flaw of the T45 as of right now.

That's about the least of my concerns with the Type 45 - we've TLAM shooters galore in the form of the SSN fleet with only a stock of 60 ish TLAM's in any event. Type 26 will bring more land attack in some form or another.

The Hobarts have a wider selection of capabilities (a decent sonar, tubes, harpoon) so in many ways they're a mini-burke whereas the Daring is more of a spiritual successor to the type 42's, being a focussed AWD. Either way, they're getting Harpoon shortly, with more stuff to follow.

I wonder if the Hobarts will get an ABM role at some point ? I recall hearing that the Hobarts use OpenAegis and that the integration for SM3 and the radar hasn't been done for this CMS - meaning that Australia could have to fork out for that effort before it was available.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Your example proves my point. There was zero air threat a low sub threat and low troops threat. So low in fact that we used a commercial ferry to move troops around.

Yes in 1999 Indonesia couldn't really field an air force. We did have the RAAF on high alert.In a few years that will be very different. Air for example:
* 24 F-16 blk 32
* 10 F-16 blk 15
* 16+ Capable Supersonic trainers
* 5 Su-27 (perhaps many more)
* 10 Su-30 (perhaps many more)
* KF-X ?? (eventually 50?)
Which is enough if we were repeating ourselves, you would want to address the air threat. Of course other nations in the region are also sorting out air forces as well. Im not saying we need the AWD to defend from Indonesia, but highlights how the environment is changing and will continue. In the next 10 years we will see an explosion in the number of nations operating and the number of UAV's. They are game changers. Whereas nations couldn't afford effective airpower, that will change, its not just about Western nations lowing air force costs.

Subs will be different again as well.

So it's right on the edge of HADR and stabilisation operations. Not embarking troops on the shores of North Korea. What are the two AWDs doing in the Timor AO? Getting bulk pay and AASMs like last time we had warships there.

Dealing with air, surface and subsurface threats. Could be as simple as half a dozen boats with militants and half a dozen RPG's each, to sea/shore based mortar attacks from opposition in the thousands, to a cohesive modern military force with subs, surface vessels and air support backed by a larger player. In the 50 years that we will have the LHD's for, things will change dramatically in our region.

Oh and the americans won't send any assets unless we can provide adequate screening for them. Which means air, surface and subsurface. In ET most of the forces were I believe tied up trying to meeting this very strict requirement, regardless of the actual threat.

If we can't envision a role where the LHDs will be deploying troops in a combat environment then we might as well have gone back to commercial ferry with helo capacity.

I would argue we need that to free the LHD's for what they need to do. Which is do or train for higher intensity operations where all services are involved with key partner nations. This is not capability you can throw together overnight and drive off a commercial ferry.

How do you say secure Port Moresby (300,000) with a commercial ferry? (say if the police and the army have chosen different prime ministers to back). It would be sunk in harbor. Even a light duty police mission in PNG is likely to require significant equipment. Say widespread rioting and looting and refugees. Indonesia is threatening to chase over borders.

I would think a reasonable task force (at maximum) would be:

2 x LHD (with 1,100 troops on each mostly Aus/NZ)
2 x AWD (offering command, air defence, air surveillance, sub defence, NGFS, for the LHD and its operations)
2 x Anzacs (offering NGFS, area patrols, defence for ships outside of the AO)
1 x LSD (doing sealift, some allied troop movement, etc)
1 x fleet oiler
1 x high speed ferry (40kt) Moving troops/equipment/civilians/medical(backhaul) inter and intra
1 x collins in theatre, 2 x where they need to be out of

Internationals:
T-45 (UK), T-26 (UK), Burke(US), fleet oiler, L&C sealift (US), ANZAC (NZ), MRV (NZ), some more misc sealift, SSN, singaporean LPD.

All up deploying 3,000 troops/personnel and equipment for a sustained period in a short period (<12 hrs). After that, airport is secured, C-17's, hercs are flying in. SH/F-35 are doing air surveillance/training and are on standby.

Its not a completely realistic or detailed example, but shows what perhaps we should be aiming for and what type of operations we can reasonably foresee happening in the future.

 

[aussienscale]

So low in fact that we used a commercial ferry to move troops around.

To be fair, using this example is a little misleading We used a commercial ferry to move troops because the ADF did not have the ability or capability to do so any other way, had this type on contingency been planned for properly in the first place the very same type of asset's that will come on line in the coming years would have proved their weight in gold.

It is situations like Timor that come up in our "low threat" area that catch us out, the initial phase of Timor could have turned out very differently indeed, we were lucky for a number of reasons

Cheers

 

[Volkodav]

Your example proves my point. There was zero air threat a low sub threat and low troops threat. So low in fact that we used a commercial ferry to move troops around.

So it's right on the edge of HADR and stabilisation operations. Not embarking troops on the shores of North Korea. What are the two AWDs doing in the Timor AO? Getting bulk pay and AASMs like last time we had warships there.

If we can't envision a role where the LHDs will be deploying troops in a combat environment then we might as well have gone back to commercial ferry with helo capacity.

Well there is the small issue of USS Belleau Wood (a 40000 ton Tarawa class LHA), USS Mobile (Ticonderoga class AEGIS cruiser) and HMS Glasgow all participating in the INTERFET intervention. With out them I am pretty sure HMAS Jervis Bay would not have been able to run her ferry service.

 

[justsomeaussie]

Well there is the small issue of USS Belleau Wood (a 40000 ton Tarawa class LHA), USS Mobile (Ticonderoga class AEGIS cruiser) and HMS Glasgow all participating in the INTERFET intervention. With out them I am pretty sure HMAS Jervis Bay would not have been able to run her ferry service.

Yes we can all read Wikipedia. Some of us where actually there too. I guess what you were saying is that the Tico was there as a part of a battlegroup and without it the Indonesian armada and their two broken subs would of been charging at us.

 

[gf0012-aust]

play nice

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Yes we can all read Wikipedia. Some of us where actually there too. I guess what you were saying is that the Tico was there as a part of a battlegroup and without it the Indonesian armada and their two broken subs would of been charging at us.

Come on we all know the only thing that stopped the Indonesian Army from attacking INTERFET was the intense fear they were afflicted with by the presence of bombed up, on alert F-111s in Darwin! And yes this is something someone has actually said to me. No bonus points for guessing who?

But back to the point there is an operational requirement for using LHDs in medium-high intensity operations and it certainly isn’t the old trope of war with Indonesia. It’s fighting alongside the US and other nations to stop someone going rogue and trying to destroy the global trade system from the Suez Canal to Japan and everything in between. This doesn’t have to be China and while Iran is suspect no. 1 there is instability potential within our region that could generate it. All well within the 10-15 years it takes to establish force element capability in the ADF.

Of course there is a serious lack of capability within the ADF to provide the kind of force protection and combat support even the LHDs with a reinforced battalion group would need. Light fleet carrier, shore bombardment system, robust ship to shore system, etc.

 

[harryriedl]

That's about the least of my concerns with the Type 45 - we've TLAM shooters galore in the form of the SSN fleet with only a stock of 60 ish TLAM's in any event. Type 26 will bring more land attack in some form or another.

The Hobarts have a wider selection of capabilities (a decent sonar, tubes, harpoon) so in many ways they're a mini-burke whereas the Daring is more of a spiritual successor to the type 42's, being a focussed AWD. Either way, they're getting Harpoon shortly, with more stuff to follow.

I wonder if the Hobarts will get an ABM role at some point ? I recall hearing that the Hobarts use OpenAegis and that the integration for SM3 and the radar hasn't been done for this CMS - meaning that Australia could have to fork out for that effort before it was available.

From a quick chat to two JO on Dragon AAW and protection of HVA is central to the 45 mission everything else is extra. Compare for example with the Horizons they have Anti-Ship missiles(some with land attack capability) Torpedo tubes ect but worse Radar systems not as sophisticated propulsion. the F100s(and derivatives) are jack of all trades in an impressively small hull to cram AEGIS and all the extras wanted without sacrificing ship liveability and C2 capabilities the Aussie vessels are not pushing the envelope as the T45s are with new radar and propulsion systems which were developed during its development good ships as they are they aren't a further development of destroyers

 

[Volkodav]

Yes we can all read Wikipedia. Some of us where actually there too. I guess what you were saying is that the Tico was there as a part of a battlegroup and without it the Indonesian armada and their two broken subs would of been charging at us.

So you are suggesting that the operation could have been conducted without the command and logistics support provided by a LHA and a Tico? Strange because I was under the impression that the shock of our inability to conduct such an unopposed operation with out support from the US was pretty much the reason why the LHD and AWD projects finally got traction.

In relation to your snipe, are you saying those ships were not there? Because unless that is what you are saying, and you can prove it, your argument that a catamaran ferry is all we will ever need is pretty much disproven by facts