Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[StoresBasher]

I really don't think the Australian Government will ever take any second hand ships/boats from the USA after the LPA disasters.

 

[John Newman]

An article in The Australian about the modifications that have to be made to the AWD's and the Anzac Frigates before the new MH-60R's can fully operate their weapons load:

Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

For those who can't access the full article see below:

THE navy's new combat helicopters will not be able to routinely operate off its major warships with their full load of missiles and torpedoes for several years.

Defence has confirmed that significant modifications will be needed to safely store the Hellfire missiles and submarine-killing torpedoes to be carried by the 24 Seahawk Romeo helicopters that will fly from the navy's three new Air Warfare Destroyers and its eight ANZAC frigates.

Unless the navy has to deal with an emergency operation, these weapons cannot be held in the ships' magazines until changes have been made to the highly specialised storage areas.

It is understood the magazines, which were originally intended to house European-designed torpedoes, are not equipped to store or install the type of fuels used in the Mark 54 lightweight torpedoes or in the missiles designed for attacks on surface warships.

The issue was revealed in an Australian National Audit Office report on the operations of the Defence Materiel Organisation, which said problems matching up the helicopters and the destroyers carried a risk to the full "cost, performance and reputation" of the aircraft.

Defence has confirmed that the necessary modifications will not be carried out until after the three destroyers are completed and delivered to the navy. It could be as late as 2023 before the necessary modifications were made to the last of the three destroyers, a spokesman said.

Defence said that would not be a problem because crews would train to use the weapons in the US. It also insisted the changes would not add to the cost of the project.

The navy has bought 24 of the new Seahawks - a maritime version of the Black Hawk helicopter - for close to $3 billion. The audit office said that purchase was otherwise on course and within budget, with the helicopters to be delivered by 2017.

The three destroyers are due to be delivered to the navy in March 2016, September 2017 and March 2019. They are forecast to cost $8.5bn, although there are indications that could still blow out by hundreds of millions of dollars by the time all three are completed.

The defence spokesman confirmed changes would also have to be made to the ships' external deck lighting to make it compatible with the night vision devices used by the helicopter crews.

Some minor adaptations would also be needed to the internal hangar storage spaces.

The spokesman said the destroyers would be able to operate the new Seahawk Romeos "from day one, albeit with some minor operational limitations".

"There is no problem per se," he said. "There is a deliberate and considered design process to fully integrate the Seahawk Romeo into the Hobart Class Destroyer."

The spokesman said the project was included in the audit report because changes would be needed to the ships that were not foreseen when the vessels were selected for the navy. The destroyer design was chosen before the choice of helicopter was made.

It is understood the helicopter hangars and magazines on the eight ANZAC Class frigates will also need to be modified. Military sources said both the ships and the aircraft were highly sophisticated and some problems marrying them up were expected.

Assuming the report is accurate, It's fair enough as the aircraft were ordered well after the Anzac's were built and it also fair enough that the design and block construction of the AWD's was also underway.

But I do wonder why (if it will take till 2023 to make the necessary modifications), that the AWD's don't have those modifications incorporated now during the building process?

Maybe Hobart is to far along, but why not incorporate the changes to the blocks intended for Brisbane and Sydney?

Also regarding the modifications to the Anzac's, when will they be modified? Is it something that can be done during the ASMD upgrades?

Be interesting to know what the bill will be to make the modifications to all 11 ships!

Interested to hear the thoughts of the Def Pros on this one.

 

[Todjaeger]

Assuming the report is accurate, It's fair enough as the aircraft were ordered well after the Anzac's were built and it also fair enough that the design and block construction of the AWD's was also underway.

But I do wonder why (if it will take till 2023 to make the necessary modifications), that the AWD's don't have those modifications incorporated now during the building process?

Maybe Hobart is to far along, but why not incorporate the changes to the blocks intended for Brisbane and Sydney?

Also regarding the modifications to the Anzac's, when will they be modified? Is it something that can be done during the ASMD upgrades?

Be interesting to know what the bill will be to make the modifications to all 11 ships!

Interested to hear the thoughts of the Def Pros on this one.

Interesting. Agree that it would sound like making the modifications during construction of at least the last two AWD's should be easier. Perhaps not possible with out budgetary and other approvals.

Not sure though why the Mk 54 LWT would be an issue. AFAIK the Mk 54 is basically a Mk 46 torp body, mated to a Mk 50 torp sonar/processor. The MU90 would have been more of a problem IMO because of the fuels and battery used to provide the high speed runs. That is why the MU90 and Mk 50 LWT's were so expensive, and why the Mk 54 LWT was developed.

-Cheers

 

[ASSAIL]

Interesting. Agree that it would sound like making the modifications during construction of at least the last two AWD's should be easier. Perhaps not possible with out budgetary and other approvals.

How many times have we said on this forum that almost every time we choose a system from a non US source or some orphan (Karmen, RCN Cyclone helo), it turns to custard. It's not like the Europeans will be side by side with us in the SW Pacific.
Having two different LWT's in a force our size is ridiculous in fact having the AWDs with two different LWT'S ( NU 90 for ship and 54 for helo )is stupid IMO. Anyone know how that happened?
Chris

 

[ASSAIL]

I really don't think the Australian Government will ever take any second hand ships/boats from the USA after the LPA disasters.

Don't blame the USN Its all down to buyer beware.
I would have loved to have us buy the 4 Kidds, they would still be in service with high end capability.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Don't blame the USN Its all down to buyer beware.
I would have loved to have us buy the 4 Kidds, they would still be in service with high end capability.

its a bit cute to have anyone blame the americans for bill and ben - after all it was the navy engineering report which ultimately sealed the deal

 

[ASSAIL]

its a bit cute to have anyone blame the americans for bill and ben - after all it was the navy engineering report which ultimately sealed the deal

Probably done by a uniform Seaman Officer with no clue about survey.
If it was done by an Engineer or shipwrights they should hang their heads in shame.
Reminds me of a course mate of mine (Diving Officer) who recommended the purchase of the small research ship Flamingo Bay in Darwin.
I knew the ship, knew it was forked and told him so.
Was duly bought and I think it made it as far as Brisbane but half sank on the way to Sydney. I think they hauled it out on the NSW north coast somewhere?

 

[Volkodav]

Don't blame the USN Its all down to buyer beware.
I would have loved to have us buy the 4 Kidds, they would still be in service with high end capability.

The first pair of LSTs selected were in quite good nick from what I have been told, the issue was we procrastinated on the buy and they had been sold else where by the time we got back to the US with the request. Subsequently, with the money already in the kitty, someone decided to grab another pair instead, unfortunately they were nowhere near as good.

The Kidds would have been fantastic, a genuine replacement for the DDGs and could have probably have been acquired for less than the cost of the FFGUP. Interestingly one of the excuses for not getting them was that their crewing requirements would have forced the early retirement of two FFGs which happened anyway. The other reason I heard was that the RAN was concerned that rather than being an interim option such capable ships would see the derailment of the RANs desire to acquire AEGIS equipped AWDs (in reality they wanted Flight IIA Burkes).

 

[Volkodav]

How many times have we said on this forum that almost every time we choose a system from a non US source or some orphan (Karmen, RCN Cyclone helo), it turns to custard. It's not like the Europeans will be side by side with us in the SW Pacific.
Having two different LWT's in a force our size is ridiculous in fact having the AWDs with two different LWT'S ( NU 90 for ship and 54 for helo )is stupid IMO. Anyone know how that happened?
Chris

The F-100 magazines were designed for Mk-46 (ship and helicopter) and Hellfire and changed for the Hobarts to MU90 and Penguin. With the cancellation of the Sea Sprite the Penguin stowage was deleted from the design.

Both the Romeo and the NH-90 are longer than the SH-60B and as such the hanger was modified to accommodate longer helos than the baseline F-104 design. The issue was that until a helicopter (and its weapons) was selected there was no guidance (let alone funding) on changes for the magazine. The NH90 would have used MU90 and the Romeo, although bid with Mk-54 and Hellfire, could have been specified for other systems to be integrated at additional expense. The helo and weapons needed to be selected before the design could be amended.

The issue with the Mk-54 vs the MU90 in magazines is the Oto fuel used in the Mk-54 has differing safety and certification requirements to the electric MU90.

 

[Todjaeger]

Having two different LWT's in a force our size is ridiculous in fact having the AWDs with two different LWT'S ( NU 90 for ship and 54 for helo )is stupid IMO. Anyone know how that happened?
Chris

I might not have this quite right, so please correct me where I err, but IIRC the RAN had decided on going with the MU90 as a replacement for the Mk 46 LWT. This was all pre-Romeo order BTW. As part of this, the FFH's had their systems modified/upgraded to work with the MU90.

What I do not recall off the top of my head, is whether the US Mk 54 LWT had reached IOC by the time the RAN chose the MU90. Something I would be interested in finding out, is why the RAN went with the MU90 instead of the Mk 50 LWT, which AFAIK is a comparable torpedoe (and the RAN would have commonality with and potentially get help/support from the USN) or check with the USN to see if a new US torpedoe was in the works.

Some how I get the sense that the choice was made either based off Powerpoint presentations, or someone wanting to demonstrate some independence from the US. Not mind you that I think the MU90 is a bad LWT, but IIRC it, like the Mk 50, is expensive which is why the Mk 54 was developed so soon afterwards as a replacement.

-Cheers

 

[Volkodav]

I might not have this quite right, so please correct me where I err, but IIRC the RAN had decided on going with the MU90 as a replacement for the Mk 46 LWT. This was all pre-Romeo order BTW. As part of this, the FFH's had their systems modified/upgraded to work with the MU90.

What I do not recall off the top of my head, is whether the US Mk 54 LWT had reached IOC by the time the RAN chose the MU90. Something I would be interested in finding out, is why the RAN went with the MU90 instead of the Mk 50 LWT, which AFAIK is a comparable torpedoe (and the RAN would have commonality with and potentially get help/support from the USN) or check with the USN to see if a new US torpedoe was in the works.

Some how I get the sense that the choice was made either based off Powerpoint presentations, or someone wanting to demonstrate some independence from the US. Not mind you that I think the MU90 is a bad LWT, but IIRC it, like the Mk 50, is expensive which is why the Mk 54 was developed so soon afterwards as a replacement.

-Cheers

The MU90 was sold to the ADF as MOTS but turned out to still be very much developmental. It was originally intended to be deployed on the AP-3 Orion, Seahawk and Sea Sprite as well as major surface combatants but by the time it was sorted the decision was made not to bother integrating it with the AP-3 and Seahawks as with their limited remaining life it would not be worth the money.

Audit summary

At the time we seemed to be buying a lot of Euro gear in preference to US , not sure why but can imagine some likely reasons $$$$$$

 

[ASSAIL]

The MU90 was sold to the ADF as MOTS but turned out to still be very much developmental. It was originally intended to be deployed on the AP-3 Orion, Seahawk and Sea Sprite as well as major surface combatants but by the time it was sorted the decision was made not to bother integrating it with the AP-3 and Seahawks as with their limited remaining life it would not be worth the money.

Audit summary

At the time we seemed to be buying a lot of Euro gear in preference to US , not sure why but can imagine some likely reasons $$$$$$

Gawd it's worse than I imagined. I just love the statement that Defence didn't understand that it wasn't already in service with other navies when they ordered it.
It's either corrupt or the lunatics were running the asylum at that point.

 

[Volkodav]

Gawd it's worse than I imagined. I just love the statement that Defence didn't understand that it wasn't already in service with other navies when they ordered it.
It's either corrupt or the lunatics were running the asylum at that point.

That's why I tend to group governments of both flavours together when it comes to screwing over defence, the Libs are often just as bad and on occasion worse than Labor, just in different ways. They tend to waste a stack of money on poorly thought out and executed decisions while Labor tend to cut capabilities.

The Libs carry on about Collins but its a glowing success in comparison to Sea Sprite, MU90, MRH-90, Tiger, FFGUP, ANZAC WIP (original iteration), M-113 upgrade etc. Labor on the other hand seem to cut money and capability and see defence procurement as an extension of social and industrial policy.

 

[John Fedup]

That's why I tend to group governments of both flavours together when it comes to screwing over defence, the Libs are often just as bad and on occasion worse than Labor, just in different ways. They tend to waste a stack of money on poorly thought out and executed decisions while Labor tend to cut capabilities.

The Libs carry on about Collins but its a glowing success in comparison to Sea Sprite, MU90, MRH-90, Tiger, FFGUP, ANZAC WIP (original iteration), M-113 upgrade etc. Labor on the other hand seem to cut money and capability and see defence procurement as an extension of social and industrial policy.

Unfortunately every political party in Canada sees defence procurement as an extension of social and industrial policy. This explains the wreckage of failed procurements during the past 20 years.

 

[AegisFC]

Don't blame the USN Its all down to buyer beware.
I would have loved to have us buy the 4 Kidds, they would still be in service with high end capability.

I used to know a GMC who was on one of those ships and he said they hid none of the corrosion issues from the Aussie inspectors. This seems to be another case of "this or nothing" that has screwed over the Canadians and the Indians.

The Kidds would of been great, the South Koreans still use a variant of NTU and have some nice COTS computer suite upgrades.

 

[StoresBasher]

Don't blame the USN Its all down to buyer beware.
I would have loved to have us buy the 4 Kidds, they would still be in service with high end capability.

I'm not blaming the USN entirely, but didn't they give us 2 duds instead of the two that we inspected and agreed on

 

[ASSAIL]

Blue Marlin with Adelaide is now just in VHF AIS range north of Capetown so we should be able to track her for the next day on Marinetraffic.

 

[Volkodav]

Gawd it's worse than I imagined. I just love the statement that Defence didn't understand that it wasn't already in service with other navies when they ordered it.
It's either corrupt or the lunatics were running the asylum at that point.

I picked up the Jan-March 2014 edition of "The Navy" yesterday afternoon and one of the stories states that the RAN has successfully conducted the worlds first "war shot" MU90 Light Weight Torpedo. They don't give a date but I get the impression it was late last 2013.

So much for MOTS.

 

[Todjaeger]

I picked up the Jan-March 2014 edition of "The Navy" yesterday afternoon and one of the stories states that the RAN has successfully conducted the worlds first "war shot" MU90 Light Weight Torpedo. They don't give a date but I get the impression it was late last 2013.

So much for MOTS.

Hmm... I have to wonder if their use of 'war shot' is the same as what I think it is.

If so, who were the RAN shooting at, where, and why? Not that I expect any answers anytime soon.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Hmm... I have to wonder if their use of 'war shot' is the same as what I think it is.

If so, who were the RAN shooting at, where, and why? Not that I expect any answers anytime soon.

its normally a SINKEX or HULKEX and we usually do it as part of scheduled wargames....