Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[ASSAIL]

When I started this discussion on the USN thread I recalled that the RAN had wanted the Dutch (as I now have been reminded of) M Class.
I understood that the final selection was down to the 2 options, Dutch, German but Meko won out despite the RAN's advice (mini AB/ F105 sounds familiar).
I can remember talking to a senior WEEO a the time and he was absolutely furious.
If the Karel Doormans were built, would we be in the same position as we now are with the stability limitations or would the ASMD upgrades be a simple exercise?

 

[Abraham Gubler]

If the Karel Doormans were built, would we be in the same position as we now are with the stability limitations or would the ASMD upgrades be a simple exercise?

I guess the answer is always in the detail. The M Class were designed to support their own growth and had a top weight stability margin to have: 32 ESSM (dual packed in 16 Mk 48 VLS cells), 8 Harpoons, a 10 tonne helicopter, 127mm gun and two 30mm CIWS (Dutch Goalkeeper). That is however with two Spey GTs down below and could be inflicted with the same problems as the MEKO 200 ANZ if the GTs were cut from two to one for cost savings and increased fuel bunkerage.

However on the later issue the Doorman class had a range of 5,000 NM at 18 knots. The Anzac class with a single GT have a range of 6,000 NM at 18 knots but the original MEKO 200 design with two GTs had a range of only 4,000 NM. 5,000 NM tends to be the RAN’s range requirement so the Doorman would not need to lose a GT for extra fuel so retain the top weight margins.

For ASMD the ship has the built in weight margin for ESSM and two quite weighty VSRAD (Goalkeeper CIWS) so could probably easily accommodate two Phalanx CIWS. For the radars the more weighty 3D SMART TIR on the tall mast would provide margin to be replaced by CEA FAR units. Be interesting if the VSR had to go on top of the TIR like in HMAS Perth for radar integration issues in that this would free up more deck space aft.

Also the Doorman would be better suited for the failure of the Seasprite program as it has space aft for the Harpoons that were both lower so generating less top weight issues and also away from the foremast so not conflicting with the comms and flag bins like on the Anzac class. This means no need to expose the Harpoons to the elements right forward like on the Anzac class.

Another interesting thing about the Doormans is between 2004-06 the Dutch sold six units. The RAN and RNZN would be at the head of the list to buy these if they wanted (if they were class partners). For the Kiwis they would make a cheap and more capable alternative to Project Protector’s OPVs. And the RAN might even consider the remaining four as a way of boosting the fleet for patrol duties. Nice thought: RAN and RNZN with 16 Anzac frigates between them.

 

[Volkodav]

The mini Type 23 was also a finalist and I have heard very highly regarded my the RAN. Not sure how much shorter It would have been or what they would have cut, systems wise, to fit the requirement / price.

 

[rjtjrt]

How is HMAS Success going?
John

 

[ASSAIL]

A couple of days ago AWD Alliance lifted the bridge and ops room block onto the NUSHIP Hobart.
I couldn't find any image on the AWD alliance website and subsequently complained to them via email.
It was in fact posted on Youtube and if you look carefully there is a tiny icon on the top right of the Home page. Here it is.

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jh0BPHxlDwQ"]The Bridge of the first destroyer lifted onto the ship structure - YouTube[/nomedia]

Slowly, slowly we are getting there and a ship is inexorably growing.

 

[alexsa]

A couple of days ago AWD Alliance lifted the bridge and ops room block onto the NUSHIP Hobart.
I couldn't find any image on the AWD alliance website and subsequently complained to them via email.
It was in fact posted on Youtube and if you look carefully there is a tiny icon on the top right of the Home page. Here it is.

The Bridge of the first destroyer lifted onto the ship structure - YouTube

Slowly, slowly we are getting there and a ship is inexorably growing.

Thanks for that. The only PR shots seen before this included a Politician who had little to do with the ordering of this ship pointing and grinning. All that achieved was to block out the view of the ship.

 

[weegee]

S-80 Class issues

Hey guys,

Just wondering what everyone thinks about the trouble Navantia is having with the S-80 being a fatty and unable to surface once dived etc was this relayed to the Aust Gov previously when they were evaluating weather to go off the self for the new sub designs?
If it was not then it is defiantly a thank god we dodged that bullet moment and a kindly reminder why NOT take another untested design and enlarge it ?

My only hope is that we go a evolved collins class design, we now know the subs inside and out we know what we have to do to get the best out of the design why would we go and start with something fresh again when we can just tweak a design that works well for us?

 

[justsomeaussie]

As I understand it OOT euro designs simply aren't designed for the range that Australia requires. So it's either design it ourselves or take an existing design and lengthening it to give us the endurance we need.

 

[gf0012-aust]

My only hope is that we go a evolved collins class design, we now know the subs inside and out we know what we have to do to get the best out of the design why would we go and start with something fresh again when we can just tweak a design that works well for us?

euro OTS have already been discounted.

it will either be an evolved or local

 

[gf0012-aust]

As I understand it OOT euro designs simply aren't designed for the range that Australia requires. So it's either design it ourselves or take an existing design and lengthening it to give us the endurance we need.

its more about onboard power generation and combat system requirements

a "long range" per se on a small sub with a less capable combat system is decidedly unattractive

its something that the general media seem to struggle grasping

 

[justsomeaussie]

its more about onboard power generation and combat system requirements

a "long range" per se on a small sub with a less capable combat system is decidedly unattractive

its something that the general media seem to struggle grasping

What's a long range in service European sub?

 

[the road runner]

it will either be an evolved or local

Dose the Australian Government own the "rights and Intellectual Property" of the Collins class? Or will Australia have to pay Kockums(now HDW) royalties to evolve the Collins design?

@justsomeaussie

HDW 216 design that has not been built yet.
Walrus could be considered an ocean going sub but really the Japanese "O" and Soryu class would be in the class the RAN is looking for.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Dose the Australian Government own the "rights and Intellectual Property" of the Collins class? Or will Australia have to pay Kockums(now HDW) royalties to evolve the Collins design?

IP rights were resolved about 2 months ago.

the detail of those rights is not in the public domain

considering that the US singularly fixed some of the technical probs that the swedes had made then some of those rights were strange ones for the Swedes to "fight" over

 

[gf0012-aust]

What's a long range in service European sub?

absolute numbers are classified, but they can do transcontinental.....

but, the sensor fitout and warload issues are the keys....

also things like CEC issues sympathtic to overall force development, posture and allies etc.... are important.

larger designs such as Sth Korean or Japanese subs are a better choice if an overseas design is considered as a baseline

 

[Abraham Gubler]

What's a long range in service European sub?

The big problem for a simple open source understanding of submarine range is that the kind of tabulated data needed to assess it just isn’t provided easily in the open source. Submarine producers will provide a maximum range based on how far the submarine can sail without needing refuelling or a maximum submerged range providing how far the submarine can get on its battery power (or battery plus AIP power).

But what is really needed to assess range for the RAN is can the submarine do the following:

Transit 3,000 NM from base to patrol area with 33% indiscretion at a speed of 12 knots, then patrol for four weeks at a rate of advance of 6 knots at 2% indiscretion while providing hotel load of 500 kW and maintaining a battery reserve for a 20 knot sprint for 12 hours followed by transit 5,000 NM from patrol area to base with 33% indiscretion at a speed of 12 knots.

With the numbers of course being rough ‘guestimations’ but should not be too far from the track. I very much doubt a Type 214 or S-80 or other European SSK could complete such a mission.

 

[t68]

This 2010 paper I hope shows what GF and Abraham have been saying now and in the past and I hope it gives the correct ratio’s in determining a submarine size. It is relation with AIP. Collins has the provisions to use AIP but GF sometime ago gave the rational why the RAN did not feel the need for it.

https://www.navalengineers.org/SiteCollectionDocuments/hamilton_award_papers/122_1/paper9.pdf

 

[gf0012-aust]

just bear in mind that AIP then didn't meet the expectations and benefits...

AIP tech now is an improved beast, however IMO there are/is still better (and non nuclear) options that exist.

pretty sure that both Abe and I have discussed this in broad terms prev

 

[swerve]

...
larger designs such as Sth Korean or Japanese subs are a better choice if an overseas design is considered as a baseline

Have I missed something? I thought South Korean subs were licence-built U214s.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Have I missed something? I thought South Korean subs were licence-built U214s.

They are building a new bigger fleet sub sized boat.

 

[weegee]

euro OTS have already been discounted.

it will either be an evolved or local

that's what I thought I was wondering if our gov got a sniff of the current issues with the s80 and that helped make the decision against OTS designs as we had been burnt before also.

On another note is there a reason we don't operate tomahawks from our subs? I know we operate harpoons. Firstly could they even operate from a Collins class?
Secondly does the RAN require land attack capability from our subs? Or from the surface fleet for that matter?
Thanks