Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[ASSAIL]

So because the deployments ended the Army no longer needed its capability? Why didn’t the Army then get rid of its tanks, artillery and rifles? Capability needs to be sustained in peace time so it’s available for operational use. Waterborne logistics remains a vital part of sustaining the Australian Army in any regional operation.

I'll stick to waterborne logistics. I don't disagree that Army was neutered in this capability for a variety of reasons but taken in the context of the post Vietnam "peace dividend", the Defence of Australia claptrap peddled at that time and the consequent movement of units to the North of Australia, the perceived "need" for the capability was always going to be downgraded from a standalone unit.
Inevitably, when the SHTF in Somalia and East Timor, the false economy and stupidity of the move was apparent.

 

[Pusser01]

The Type 12/River class would have been more capable if a few missile systems had been upgraded or evolved. For example the 1960s Shorts proposal for the Sea Cat 2 missile which would have replaced the subsonic Sea Cat missile with a new sleek Mach 2.0 missile. Same guidance system but as demonstrated in the Falklands the Sea Cat was often too slow to successful engage fast jets. Also the anti-ship missile for the Ikara launcher would have provided a lot more flexibility to these ships. Suddenly the Type 12 in the 1980s doesn’t look so bad with an anti-ship missile and far more viable anti-air capability.

Of course the best possible ‘upgrade’ for the RAN River class was just not to have built the last two and in their place brought the fourth DDG. Plus one of the various follow on class proposals actually going ahead like the GPE or DDL or even the full scale Australian Frigate Project. The later – which resulted in the two Australian built FFGs – was originally scoped for 4-6 units to replace the first four River class with deliveries beginning in the late 1980s.

Gday Abe, were there ever any proposals to upgrade the Rivers with a flight deck and hanger similar to the Leanders? Also if Super Ikara had continued through to production, are you aware if it would have been able to fit into an existing SSM canister at the time, or vice versa?
Cheers

 

[alexsa]

Gday Abe, were there ever any proposals to upgrade the Rivers with a flight deck and hanger similar to the Leanders? Also if Super Ikara had continued through to production, are you aware if it would have been able to fit into an existing SSM canister at the time, or vice versa?
Cheers

Saw some imagery of the canister launched Ikara, very impressive but still a bloody big canister. Ikara was not overly long but very tall. Helicopter deployed torpedoes were the death of it.


My understanding of the flight deck issue is would have been a massive undertaking for anything but a lillypad and then would would be required to give adequate strength for anything above a light weight helo (Wasp).

Post script .... have to correct myself, I was referring to the boxed Ikara which after some digging was a canister with a lenght of about 4.5 m and a height of 1.7m but angled so the top was much higher than that. .... very tall bit of kit

 

[Volkodav]

Gday Abe, were there ever any proposals to upgrade the Rivers with a flight deck and hanger similar to the Leanders? Also if Super Ikara had continued through to production, are you aware if it would have been able to fit into an existing SSM canister at the time, or vice versa?
Cheers

Super Ikara used its own canister that took up the same space and used the same cradle as the Italian Otomat missile (two Otomats stacked on the cradle vs a single Super ikara. It was actually co developed with Oto Melara with the Italian going on to develop the MILAS ASW missile which was based on the Otomat.

I wasn't all a waste though the Super ikara rocket was further developed and used in Nulka.

 

[Volkodav]

On the Surface combatant topic again, there is nothing stopping the Type 26 ending up more capable than the Hobart Class AWD depending on the combat system specified as the platform is newer and should be superior in pretty much every way to the F-100. Now if the RAN has 3 AWDs and 6 to 8 Type 26 FFGs with SM2, SM6, ESSM and Tomahawk (or similar) this will be a massive increase over current capability. What would make sense would be to support these ships with a corvette or light frigate similar in size concept to the Turkish MILGEM while also boosting BPC with OPVs to replace the current PB fleet.

 

[alexsa]

On the Surface combatant topic again, there is nothing stopping the Type 26 ending up more capable than the Hobart Class AWD depending on the combat system specified as the platform is newer and should be superior in pretty much every way to the F-100. Now if the RAN has 3 AWDs and 6 to 8 Type 26 FFGs with SM2, SM6, ESSM and Tomahawk (or similar) this will be a massive increase over current capability. What would make sense would be to support these ships with a corvette or light frigate similar in size concept to the Turkish MILGEM while also boosting BPC with OPVs to replace the current PB fleet.

The Milgem platform looks like a nice package at 2300 tonnes. AS for the OPV I quite agree and take the veiw this should not be armed to the same extent as the Corvettes being discussed. A rugged, long range, ice class, air capable platfrom would suit. However such platforms will be well over 2000 tonnes (but cost a lot less than platforms such as MILBEM or K130 type vessels)

 

[Abraham Gubler]

The dismemberment of the Army’s water transport capability had nothing to do with the post VietNam War draw-down, Defence of Australia or any other change in operational focus. It was entirely a product of the Navy attempting to kill off something they misperceived as a rival. In the 1960s the Navy frustrated the Army’s reasonable efforts to recapitalise this capability costing the entire force and Government considerable funds. In the 70s the Navy was able to kill off the entire service but was unwilling in the end to take on the smaller craft (LCM8s) therefore ensuring any efficiency gains through rationalisation have never been achieved. They then overcrewed the LCHs (inefficiency) and then when they were no longer needed for officer sea billets transferred most of them from their primary role (army logistics). They also replaced the sealift ship capability that they had frustrated for a decade with a far more expensive ship (Tobruk: $50m and twice the crew) that supposedly could also provide amphibious deployment capability but was never up to this spec.

On the flip side if none of this had happened the Army would have maintained the low coast sealift service with an excellent cargo ship (Mariner or Skandia) that could have sustained the VietNam deployment without STUFT (MVs Jeparit and Boonaroo) and provided a far cheaper alternative to HMAS Tobruk into the 1990s for sealift missions. Also the Army would have four excellent coastal lift ships with the LSM Mk 2s. With an ability to land over the beach more troops, vehicles and cargo than the LSH (Tobruk) and 6-8 LCH (Balikpapans). The Navy might also have used the $50m spent on Tobruk for something more useful like a real amphib ship or seed money to a realised HMAS Melbourne replacement.

 

[Todjaeger]

The Milgem platform looks like a nice package at 2300 tonnes. AS for the OPV I quite agree and take the veiw this should not be armed to the same extent as the Corvettes being discussed. A rugged, long range, ice class, air capable platfrom would suit. However such platforms will be well over 2000 tonnes (but cost a lot less than platforms such as MILBEM or K130 type vessels)

From your perspective, how cost effective and viable would it be for there to be a common, ice-strengthened hull, fuel bunkerage and machinery, helipad and hangar, with a common superstructure? Then one version could serve the lower-tiered constabulary roles, while the 'high-end' version could fufill some of the roles of the FFH's?

One of the goals I would have with such a split design is to allow for the vessels to be up/down graded in a yard as part of modernization programmes. Basically the low-end vessel would be 'fitted for, but not with...' and only contain some of the weapon, sensor and electronics systems of the high-end version. Some comms, some navigation and sea search radars, hull-mounted sonar, anti-FAC CIWS like 25 mm Typhoon mountings, etc. That way if more high-end capability is required due to changes in security environment, damage to or the loss of a high-end vessel, a lower-end vessel could potentially be converted faster than it would take for a completely new vessel to be constructed and comissioned.

-Cheers

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Gday Abe, were there ever any proposals to upgrade the Rivers with a flight deck and hanger similar to the Leanders? Also if Super Ikara had continued through to production, are you aware if it would have been able to fit into an existing SSM canister at the time, or vice versa?

As Alex pointed out the largest helo, hangar, flight deck combo fitted to a Type 12 frigate (which the River class were) was a very small Wasp. Which basically provided the same capability as Ikara via MATCH: a ship controlled torpedo dropper. The Leander class were a bit bigger which enabled more top weight and the full ASW helicopter capability (Lynx).

The South Africans planned to rebuiltd their Type 12s with Puma helicopters but this was a major rebuild leaving nothing but the original hull. The Kiwis had some radical plans to rebuild one or more of their Type 12s as well but they never progressed. I don’t know of any similar RAN plans.

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,8895.msg82416.html#msg82416

As to Super Ikara this was a 1980s program to boost Ikara range for convergence zone engagement and provide a container launched system. Without a long line towed array or an ASW helicopter it would have been of little use fitted to a River class.

Project Womba (ANST 11/70) was to be an anti ship missile based on the Turana target drone (see attached picture) that could be launched from the Ikara launcher. It was to have entered service in the mid to late 1970s and provide a very effective Harpoon style capability. Such a missile would simply replace Ikaras in the magazines of the River class and DDGs.

Missiles like Womba and Seacat 2 would have made for a much more capable River class but were all cancelled to save money which severely limited the upgrade path of these ships. But when one considers the Type 12 was basically designed just after WWII to be an ASW ship designed to hunt and destroy the Type XXI ‘Electroboat’ U Boats (actually their Soviet built clones) what the RAN had in the late 1980s was not so bad. The original armament of the Type 12s was Double Limbo for anti-submarine and a twin 4.5” and a fit of Bofors 40mm for anti-air.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Abe just wondering if you have any "on line" links regarding Collins 2 future technologies?

Anything I’ve published is well and truly out of date by now.

BMT has a lot of info on their webpage about new sub tech that will likely be included in the RAN’s future submarine. There are a number of papers and videos and the like on their webpage:

BMT Design & Technology - Submarines
Vidar 36 video

BMT Design & Technology - Documents & Resources
various sub design papers

 

[alexsa]

From your perspective, how cost effective and viable would it be for there to be a common, ice-strengthened hull, fuel bunkerage and machinery, helipad and hangar, with a common superstructure? Then one version could serve the lower-tiered constabulary roles, while the 'high-end' version could fufill some of the roles of the FFH's?

One of the goals I would have with such a split design is to allow for the vessels to be up/down graded in a yard as part of modernization programmes. Basically the low-end vessel would be 'fitted for, but not with...' and only contain some of the weapon, sensor and electronics systems of the high-end version. Some comms, some navigation and sea search radars, hull-mounted sonar, anti-FAC CIWS like 25 mm Typhoon mountings, etc. That way if more high-end capability is required due to changes in security environment, damage to or the loss of a high-end vessel, a lower-end vessel could potentially be converted faster than it would take for a completely new vessel to be constructed and comissioned.

-Cheers

You could use a common hull but it would add a lot of cost to each option if they were to be ice strengthern and ghe cost would go up. certainly the same hull may be used for survey ships and the OPV but the draft may be an issue if you want to use the same platform in shallow water (noting the vessel could alwyas use large tenders).


The other cost issue is sinature management. For ASW the platform (machinery and hull form) would need to be designed in such a way to reduce its noise signature. Such refinements are not required on an OPV. IMHO for the sake of cost the OPV should really be a seperate commericial design using as much 'merchant' equipment as possible.


To be honest a lot of the gear on modern OSV's and cargo vessels is very sophisticated.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Isn’t ice strengthening a niche capability for the Australian WoG (ie RAN + BPC)? Surely 2-3 vessels suitably equipped would be enough to provide adequate policing and rescue/disaster response to the Southern Ocean and Antarctic territories.

Then the eventual OPV or war fighting corvette can be customised for tropical waters for the likely patrol and war fighting operational areas of the north of Australia, south east Asian archipelago, western Pacific, Persian Gulf/Arabian Sea waters. Something like the RAN/Tenix OPC that was designed for this very mission 15-20 years ago.

 

[alexsa]

Isn’t ice strengthening a niche capability for the Australian WoG (ie RAN + BPC)? Surely 2-3 vessels suitably equipped would be enough to provide adequate policing and rescue/disaster response to the Southern Ocean and Antarctic territories.

Then the eventual OPV or war fighting corvette can be customised for tropical waters for the likely patrol and war fighting operational areas of the north of Australia, south east Asian archipelago, western Pacific, Persian Gulf/Arabian Sea waters. Something like the RAN/Tenix OPC that was designed for this very mission 15-20 years ago.

Sorry, that was my point. You can get a 'patrol' version of a large OSV with Ice strengtherning and long range for not a lot of coin, provided you don't try to turn itinto something it is not (i.e a front line warship) adn accept it will be about 4000 to 5000 tonnes. Agree about 4 would do and the 'patrol frigate' would be a separate 'military' platform.


Not sure about limiting the vessel to tropical waters (notng they can be pretty nasty as well so I assume this means light conditions) as the ability augment and ASW screen in the SLOC would be very useful, particualry if we drop down to 9 high end surface combatants.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Not sure about limiting the vessel to tropical waters (notng they can be pretty nasty as well so I assume this means light conditions) as the ability augment and ASW screen in the SLOC would be very useful, particualry if we drop down to 9 high end surface combatants.

I think the RAN/Tenix OPC was designed for deep seas, it did have a rounded keel, just the ‘tropicalisation’ was in relation to surviving exposure to a lot of warm water, marine growth, hot dirty air, etc.

Edit: The OPC was designed for unrestricted ops in up to sea state 5, including flight ops.

 

[aussienscale]

Anything I’ve published is well and truly out of date by now.

BMT has a lot of info on their webpage about new sub tech that will likely be included in the RAN’s future submarine. There are a number of papers and videos and the like on their webpage:

BMT Design & Technology - Submarines
Vidar 36 video

BMT Design & Technology - Documents & Resources
various sub design papers

Here is another link to BMT on an SSGT concept, I would be interested in peoples opinion on this one ? It is certainly a shift in thinking, pro's, con's, signature issues etc

BMT SSGT Submarine | BMT Defence Services

Cheers

 

[SASWanabe]

on an entirely different note, i was looking through the old articles on adm and found this about removing the old crane from FBE.

Response to proposed removal of the Hammerhead Crane

this part stuck out to me.

To leave the crane in its current place and therefore build a new wharf east of Garden Island would cost 17 times more than the preferred option, at $123.7 million.

i was curious if anyone had any rough specs on the proposed eastern wharf, big enough for an LHD? or Anzacs and Hobarts only?

 

[FormerDirtDart]

on an entirely different note, i was looking through the old articles on adm and found this about removing the old crane from FBE.

Response to proposed removal of the Hammerhead Crane

this part stuck out to me.



i was curious if anyone had any rough specs on the proposed eastern wharf, big enough for an LHD? or Anzacs and Hobarts only?

I dug this up. It is the report they are referring too, I believe.
Diagrams of the options begin on page 73 (of the PDF viewer)
And yes, this appears to be all about being big enough to base two LHDs and three AWDs

http://www.gml.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Public-Consultation-Response-Report-13.5.13.pdf

 

[SASWanabe]

ooh good, thats exactly the sort of thing i was looking for.


Thank you very much.

 

[StevoJH]

The finger wharf to the east and the extension to FBE1-3 could be a good idea anyway, especially since the replacements for the ANZAC class are likely to be larger ships anyway.

 

[SASWanabe]

doing some scribbles on a map, you could quite easily fit 2 finger wharfs (both 25m wide with 200m open water) off the east side of GI without impeding Elizabeth Bay too much, would give 4 new berths all capable of handling an LHD. but would also require finding a new place for all the residents of the boat compound.