Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[ASSAIL]

Thanks fellow posters, an evolving discussion which begins to reflect a diverse range of options for the ANZAC II.

Then there are others such as the ROK CDX II Chungmugong Yi Sun-sin-class destroyer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia or maybe something Japanese Akizuki Class Akizuki-class destroyer (2010) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The field is crowded so one liner justifications for any one choice are out.

Cheers
Chris

 

[Volkodav]

Thanks fellow posters, an evolving discussion which begins to reflect a diverse range of options for the ANZAC II.

Then there are others such as the ROK CDX II Chungmugong Yi Sun-sin-class destroyer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia or maybe something Japanese Akizuki Class Akizuki-class destroyer (2010) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The field is crowded so one liner justifications for any one choice are out.

Cheers
Chris

Design our own.

It is not that hard compared to the effort involved in submarines.

Just develop the required platform using the selected off the self systems, potentially much easier and less risky that trying to adapt someone elses design that already has all the compromises they opted for incorporated.

Choose the propulsion, auxiliary, combat systems we want / need MOTs / COTS and roll them into a purpose designed hull.

Anything we choose by way of an existing platform will likely need different grade of steel for the hull to suit the RANs operational area, different internal arrangements to fit compatible systems used elsewhere in the fleet. Other changes are likely to be required to cover obsolescence issues arising over the years since the original design. Some equipment may be specifically required by the RAN that the parent navy doesn't need because it is covered off by another platform or asset they have in service, or their geography operational environment, simply doesn't require it. Changes to legislation and international treaties my require corresponding changes to the platform that were not needed when the parent navy got their ships.

Lots of reasons why MOTS solutions are not a risk free, affordable and easy as many seem to think.

IMO it can be less risky and more affordable to develop a robust set of requirements, select the required systems to meet the desired capabilities and design a suitable platform into which to integrate it while leaving a reasonable reserve of stability for future modernisations.

 

[harryriedl]

Thanks fellow posters, an evolving discussion which begins to reflect a diverse range of options for the ANZAC II.

Then there are others such as the ROK CDX II Chungmugong Yi Sun-sin-class destroyer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia or maybe something Japanese Akizuki Class Akizuki-class destroyer (2010) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The field is crowded so one liner justifications for any one choice are out.

Cheers
Chris

I can tell you from a brief visit of the KDX-II (at DESI)It seems rather unsuitable in many respects it had what can be mildly rather dated accommodation(it looked bloody dreadful when compared with the K130, T23) and was very highly crewed which is not what Aus wants (of course they would be happy to spec it more to Aus liking but its not ideal either way) It also got an incredibly dated 2D set as main air search and from what I saw I didn't like the DC particularly either

 

[StobieWan]

I can tell you from a brief visit of the KDX-II (at DESI)It seems rather unsuitable in many respects it had what can be mildly rather dated accommodation(it looked bloody dreadful when compared with the K130, T23) and was very highly crewed which is not what Aus wants (of course they would be happy to spec it more to Aus liking but its not ideal either way) It also got an incredibly dated 2D set as main air search and from what I saw I didn't like the DC particularly either

Interesting perspective - thanks for posting - always interesting to see commentary from people who've had a walk around the article in question,

Ian

 

[ASSAIL]

I can tell you from a brief visit of the KDX-II (at DESI)It seems rather unsuitable in many respects it had what can be mildly rather dated accommodation(it looked bloody dreadful when compared with the K130, T23) and was very highly crewed which is not what Aus wants (of course they would be happy to spec it more to Aus liking but its not ideal either way) It also got an incredibly dated 2D set as main air search and from what I saw I didn't like the DC particularly either

Thanks Harry, I posted those two basically as Gibbs & Cox lookalikes that may be suitable in some way and were different from the standard eurofrigates but I had no idea of the actuals.
You never know, with our new defmin being a senator from West Australia, we may end up with full blown Austal LCS2 built in Perth.

 

[ngatimozart]

Off Topic. I'd just luck to wish those who are affected by the NSW bushfires good luck and hope that you and your loved ones make it through safe and sound. As we say on this side of the ditch, kia kaha which means stand tall and stand strong.

 

[alexsa]

Thanks Harry, I posted those two basically as Gibbs & Cox lookalikes that may be suitable in some way and were different from the standard eurofrigates but I had no idea of the actuals.
You never know, with our new defmin being a senator from West Australia, we may end up with full blown Austal LCS2 built in Perth.

I hope not. We really don't have the scope to use such a highly specialised vessel (configerable) given its operating limitations and cost.

 

[Volkodav]

I hope not. We really don't have the scope to use such a highly specialised vessel (configerable) given its operating limitations and cost.

Agreed, besides considering the AWD uses a different grade of steel to the F-100 to improve durability in cold southern waters I can perceive there will be real issues with an aluminium hull if it is expected to operate in the same waters.

 

[ASSAIL]

Agreed, besides considering the AWD uses a different grade of steel to the F-100 to improve durability in cold southern waters I can perceive there will be real issues with an aluminium hull if it is expected to operate in the same waters.

Steady fellas, my comment on the LCS was firmly tongue in cheek but one never knows when pork barrelling dictates common sense.

 

[alexsa]

Steady fellas, my comment on the LCS was firmly tongue in cheek but one never knows when pork barrelling dictates common sense.

Got that but we are dealing with politicians, locally made and looking racy may just get over the line even if it would be a retrograde step

 

[Bluey 006]

:sniper

 

[gf0012-aust]

Did BMT's SSGT Submarine concept get looked at for Australia's Future Submarine?

there's been no request for a formal submission yet

"every man in town" has been box flogging their wares for the last few years -

 

[Abraham Gubler]

there's been no request for a formal submission yet

"every man in town" has been box flogging their wares for the last few years -

The SSGT was presented at a Pacific Seapower conference almost 10 years ago. It is a submarine with gas turbines in the hull and intakes and exhausts in the sail and was designed to transit with the top of the sail broached. I think you'll find it was more of a 'what if' type design from BMT rather than anything serious. In this day and age with large scale satellite surveillance for rent having a fleet submarine without discrete transit would be pointless.

 

[gf0012-aust]

The SSGT was presented at a Pacific Seapower conference almost 10 years ago.

The last time I saw it was with you at one of the PANPAC conferences years ago.....

 

[StingrayOZ]

Its an interesting idea, fraught with issues. As Abe said, no doubt meant as a concept car type proposal, rather than a true production car reality.

I would imagine it was envisaged to go as an escort submarine, to travel with other ships offering escort capability both during transit and where its heat signature, noise, radar etc would be less of an issue. But it would still have heaps of issues, water ingestion into turbines (!), submerging with turbines, acoustics, sea water in its fuel, having such a whopping big sail, etc. Then it had all sorts of weird stuff like zebra batteries.

However, I think a more futuristic proposal would be something like a Collins sub hull, with modern power plants (direct injection diesel) with a lithium Ion battery. With around 4 times the energy storage and greater power levels. We have a low risk and capable hull we are familiar with that is suitable for our needs, anything else and we would be basically starting at square one again.

Same for the anzac replacements. We should at least consider a clean sheet design as Volkadov suggests . No one really has anything that does everything we want. There would have to be a lot of localisation and design changes.

 

[icelord]

Same for the anzac replacements. We should at least consider a clean sheet design as Volkadov suggests . No one really has anything that does everything we want. There would have to be a lot of localisation and design changes.

And here lies the biggest problem with our builds, we tinker with some things for no reason, and by pass others that wont work with us.

You know what i would like to see on the future frigate, a drain in the abolutions that actually worked whilst at sea, and could drain water from an area...its something small, something you wouldn't give a thought to but a small round hole that is not even in the corner of a ship at sea and never drains actual water. If they want to build new ships, at least ask those on the current ones what little changes would work better.

 

[Volkodav]

And here lies the biggest problem with our builds, we tinker with some things for no reason, and by pass others that wont work with us.

You know what i would like to see on the future frigate, a drain in the abolutions that actually worked whilst at sea, and could drain water from an area...its something small, something you wouldn't give a thought to but a small round hole that is not even in the corner of a ship at sea and never drains actual water. If they want to build new ships, at least ask those on the current ones what little changes would work better.

They have on the AWD, the amount of input from serving members and maintainers on what is needed to keep the ships in good, clean working order was quite impressive. remember the first four FFGs were built in the states exactly to the current US baseline and the Australian built pair were built to the HMAS Darwin baseline. The ANZACs were an off the shelf design that disregarded many RAN requirements.

The RAN has procedures to set requirement for what they need in a clean sheet design that they never get to use because we always buy off the shelf and then try and adapt what we bought / built to fit what we need. Far better IMO to select the systems we need to meet the mandated requirements and then design a platform to get those systems where they are needed to do their job and then home again.

Look at the Hobart for instance, the RAN was denied a purpose designed platform so we adapted someone elses purpose designed platform. We had to modify the propulsion and bunkerage to get the required range at the required speed, we had to change the grade of steel used to permit operations in the required areas, we had to work in a SPQ-9 in the mast above SPY-1 to provide the required radar horizon for ASMD. All of this was done and there were still compromises where the design does not meet the stated requirements of the RAN. I should add that neither the G&C design of the Flight IIA Burke did either. About the only thing that would meet the requirements would be a late build Ticonderoga's systems crammed into a new design hull.

Look at it this way, lets say we went to the US when we were shopping for the AWD and said we want an upgraded Ticonderoga in a new hull, can you help us? The answer would be yes and they would help us design and build this ship to meet our requirements. It wouldn't be cheap but it wouldn't be prohibitively expensive either. Basically it is what the Spanish, Koreans and Japanese did (AEGIS that is, not the Ticonderoga bit), they designed platforms around proven and integrated US systems, that met their requirements.

We missed the boat on the AWD and will pay the price when mid life updates are due but the ANZAC replacement is a different matter and somewhat easier to do. Choose the combat system, SAAB will likely have the next evolution of 9LV, CEA will have their next generation scalable radars and illuminators, pick and choose the best US weapon systems to integrate into the CS and then design a platform to carry it.

 

[Sea Toby]

They have on the AWD, the amount of input from serving members and maintainers on what is needed to keep the ships in good, clean working order was quite impressive. remember the first four FFGs were built in the states exactly to the current US baseline and the Australian built pair were built to the HMAS Darwin baseline. The ANZACs were an off the shelf design that disregarded many RAN requirements.

The RAN has procedures to set requirement for what they need in a clean sheet design that they never get to use because we always buy off the shelf and then try and adapt what we bought / built to fit what we need. Far better IMO to select the systems we need to meet the mandated requirements and then design a platform to get those systems where they are needed to do their job and then home again.

Look at the Hobart for instance, the RAN was denied a purpose designed platform so we adapted someone elses purpose designed platform. We had to modify the propulsion and bunkerage to get the required range at the required speed, we had to change the grade of steel used to permit operations in the required areas, we had to work in a SPQ-9 in the mast above SPY-1 to provide the required radar horizon for ASMD. All of this was done and there were still compromises where the design does not meet the stated requirements of the RAN. I should add that neither the G&C design of the Flight IIA Burke did either. About the only thing that would meet the requirements would be a late build Ticonderoga's systems crammed into a new design hull.

Look at it this way, lets say we went to the US when we were shopping for the AWD and said we want an upgraded Ticonderoga in a new hull, can you help us? The answer would be yes and they would help us design and build this ship to meet our requirements. It wouldn't be cheap but it wouldn't be prohibitively expensive either. Basically it is what the Spanish, Koreans and Japanese did (AEGIS that is, not the Ticonderoga bit), they designed platforms around proven and integrated US systems, that met their requirements.

We missed the boat on the AWD and will pay the price when mid life updates are due but the ANZAC replacement is a different matter and somewhat easier to do. Choose the combat system, SAAB will likely have the next evolution of 9LV, CEA will have their next generation scalable radars and illuminators, pick and choose the best US weapon systems to integrate into the CS and then design a platform to carry it.

Lately there have been much discussion of building a warship or replenishment ships from scratch wholly within Australia. When in the past has Australia ever built such a warship with every part wholly built and designed within Australia? The answer is never, not even during WWI. Simply put, neither the government or its privately owned shipyards have made the investments to do so in the past or presently. One wonders whether any Australian shipyard is capable of building a Panamax sized vessel economically of any kind, the largest ship ever built in Australia was the knock off French Durance class HMAS Success. Her building time doubled and costs trebled. Australia doesn't presently have the infrastructure, much less the required trained workforce to do so. Nor the expertise.

And alike Canada, even if the government chose to invest heavily in its infrastructure and the required trained workforce, there are no guarantees either will last longer than the present planned building program. Whatever would be gained would be lost as soon as the planned building program was finished.

 

[Sea Toby]

The Canadians see it as nation building and also has a strategic effect to keep their shipbuilding alive, it's not only just about the $ but the long term effect on keeping skills in house you build you maintain it, most spare will be bought off shore anyway you go about it unless its all home grown and as part of any ship building program this will be put aside under a maintenance schedule, the only down side if the do not get their supply chain set up and established before hand could in theory see the ship side lined to a similar degree like HMAS Choules if they are not really familiar with its operating systems. The Australian goverment will also be going thru this assement to replace our replenishment ships we also could be building overseas and building in house so it's not as cut and dried as it seems.

ASC has proposed to build two replenishment ships in South Korea while building a third one in Adelaide. The third one to be built in Australia will take as long to build as the two in South Korea, if not longer. Time is money, the ship will probably cost three times as much too. The South Korean shipyards have the infrastructure in place, along with the required trained workforce.

It is cut and dried, except for political pork barrel. When you can't meet the time in building along with costs, whatever was gained with the heavy investments will be lost as soon as the ships are finished. The government should be planning upon economic long term investments, not short temporary ones.

 

[Volkodav]

Nothing personal Toby, but what do you know about Australian ship design and building capabilities? Besides, I am not talking about doing it from scratch but rather designing and building a platform to carry the selected systems as opposed to adapting an existing design with all the associated compromises and increased through life costs.

One of the main reasons this hasn't been done previously is to many people who don't know listen to risk adverse other people who also don't know. For some reason the negative are always allowed to drive the agenda and positive results are always over looked. The average person still believes the Collins class was a failure when it is only now, towards the end of its career being matched in some areas by new designs.

Just because nervous bean counter types lack the intellect and skill to undertake complex engineering projects doesn't mean everyone else is as useless.