The idea of the sea control frigate is interesting, but it's only a concept at this stage, and regardless I don't think it's as suitable for the RAN as a larger design. Sure it might work for the USN, but they'd be using the smaller vessel to compliment an already existing fleet of high-end surface combatants. The ANZAC replacement (from what I've seen of the requirements) is meant to be the latter, not the former.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
The 'sea control' frigate as described in the article pretty much describes FREMM (France & Italy), Type 26 (UK), Fridtjof Nansen (Norway) & De Zeven Provinciën-class (Dutch) off the top of my head.
VLS, land attack capability, ASW capability, AAW capability, AShM capability, TAS, 76mm gun+, powerful radar/sensor suite, survivable, medium helo etc. There's an endurance requirement too.
Seems like the tick list of the RAN's requirements, getting all that plus leaving space for future growth needs a ship of a decent size.
VLS, land attack capability, ASW capability, AAW capability, AShM capability, TAS, 76mm gun+, powerful radar/sensor suite, survivable, medium helo etc. There's an endurance requirement too.
Seems like the tick list of the RAN's requirements, getting all that plus leaving space for future growth needs a ship of a decent size.
Thanks Blas, as I mentioned at the start, I wasn't sure where they were at with the design. I've seen about 4 variants and I read in one translation that the tri was discarded for all the reasons people have listed and especially risk and cost.
I also read that it would be 6,000 + tonnes as big or bigger than F 100 but without the Aegis. My feeling is that it will (finally) be similar in both function and form to T26 because that's the capability gap the Armada needs to fill will the retirement of the Santa Marias.
Not enough VLS in my opinion. The vessels are going to need to pack useful loads of ESSM, ASROC, land attack missiles and probably a VLS-compatible anti-surface weapon. And even with all that you're still leaving your long-range anti-air capability solely in the hands of the three AWDs. I just think it's going to require more room than is likely to be available.
That's then where it starts becoming a cost cutting exercise, for example is having 3 methods to prosecute sub surface contacts from the ship (ASROC, surface launched torps and helo) worthwhile?
Not really advocating anything here, just throwing things out.
IMO frigates only need a decent self defence capability against air attack, their role is local area air defence rather than fleet area air defence. Given the ranges involved in that type of warfare then CEAFAR/ESSM seems a decent combination, give the AWD's a flexible loadout including some quad ESSM and long range hitters like SM-2 (and SM-6 in the future?) for FLAAD and job's a good'un.
This is an area where if a Type 26 design is selected for Australia then there has to be space fore of the ship to fit more cells as 24 (best case right now but could easily be 16) isn't enough. 32 minimum, 32 could provide 32 ESSM, 8 ASROC, 8 TLAM and 8 LRASM. Seems flexible IMO.
Not really advocating anything here, just throwing things out.
IMO frigates only need a decent self defence capability against air attack, their role is local area air defence rather than fleet area air defence. Given the ranges involved in that type of warfare then CEAFAR/ESSM seems a decent combination, give the AWD's a flexible loadout including some quad ESSM and long range hitters like SM-2 (and SM-6 in the future?) for FLAAD and job's a good'un.
This is an area where if a Type 26 design is selected for Australia then there has to be space fore of the ship to fit more cells as 24 (best case right now but could easily be 16) isn't enough. 32 minimum, 32 could provide 32 ESSM, 8 ASROC, 8 TLAM and 8 LRASM. Seems flexible IMO.
That's the PLAN's design philosophy. DDGs go long, FFGs cover in close.
Sometimes I look over at the stuff they're pumping out (and quickly, with rapid redesigns) and wonder, "Why can't we just have some of those?"
If you're dropping CAMM then there's the space and weight reserved for the after 24 cells which could be transferred to self defence length cells in the mk41 vein. Obviously the Mk41 cells are much heavier unit for unit - but if you could slip in say, 8, that'd give you 32 ESSM right off.
You'd still have the existing 16 or 24 strike length on the bow, plus whatever you could recover from the CAMM cells being deleted at the bow.
I'll be interested to see what Type 26 ends up looking like and I would not be surprised in the least if an export model didn't show up at the next trade show, with a four panel AESA and various other bits of temptingly placed kit.
Maybe the Canadians will reconsider. But I'd love if it we pitched it to Australia - put me down for a large print of an RAN and an RN one in the water please, flying under their respective colours.
Looking at the design it looks like forward of the hanger there would be space for strike length cells of some description(mirroring the T45's).
justsomeaussie
Member
I wonder where the wharf space is going to come from with a vessel with this amount of beam. It's all great to talk about future ships just need somewhere to berth them.
From what I understand of ASW operations, it's really a team effort with helos and surface ships acting in unison to find hostile submarines, then drive them into a position where they can be fixed for a weapon system to take a shot - so I think that overlapping systems are really quite essential. Happy to stand corrected on that, but I'm pretty sure the overlap is intentional - and particularly for the future RAN frigate, which will be the primary ASW vessel for the fleet.
Maybe the frigates can make do with ESSM, it's a pretty capable missile - I really don't know, was just mentioning Standard as another potential weapon system. Then again, I guess the beauty of a VLS is that if you've got multiple vessels operating together, you can alternate what they're carrying, so you can pack one with Standard/ESSM if you don't have an AWD available, while a second vessel might be carrying a heavier load of TLAM and/or LRASM. And I agree, 32 VLS seems like it would be a good number.
At this stage it's all hypothetical I suppose. I really hope it works out for the RAN though.
I'm not sure I understand your point? Replacing 1 frigate type with another, even with a slightly increased beam, would not compromise current berthage presuming there's existing space for the Santa Marias.
Same story for the RAN, these ships are all replacements for the Anzacs
ASW is a layered defence game and the 3 x methods as you describe them are all varying degrees of last ditch prosecution. In general, if the attacking subs have not been found by MPA or other SSK's you're in deep sh#@$t.
However, if your towed array manages to find and your helo manages to localize a contact with dipping sonar plus everything is fully networked, the helo can drop a LWT (they only carry 1 ) and if that fails ASROC can deliver a LWT .
If the contact and your ship are still alive and ship's sonar finds the contact (must be a dumb or desperate sub) the last resort is ship borne LWT's.
So yes you do need as many, and preferably standoff, methods of delivering a weapon and considering ASW is the prime tasking of the replacement frigates the more comprehensive the better.
Last edited by a moderator:
Stepping back and looking at what we say we need from our new frigates its actually sounds like a DDG1000 less the AGS. Looking outside the square I wonder how much a 5" gunned version of DDG1002 would cost compared to a Type 26 or FREMM.
Remember "steel is cheap and air is free" the primary cost factors will come down to the systems selected rather than the platform. Three DDG 1002s paired with the AWDs could cover off the high end requirements sufficiently to permit the adoption of a smaller cheaper option using systems removed from the ANZACs as they retire to flesh out hull numbers. If the DDG 1002 option is cheap enough no problem buy six of them, if not go for a split buy and try and increase hull numbers.
A class of eight smaller indigenous light frigates designed to use updated and refurbished ANZAC systems, smaller crew, more economical propulsion, still capable but lacking the high end land attack capability. ASW capability would still be improved vs the ANZACs but would not make the ships unaffordable, some sort of hybrid electric propulsion would not only reduce running costs it would quieten the hull for ASW and improve time on station.
It would be interesting if such a split buy could be affordable as it would increase capability and reduce operating costs.
Remember "steel is cheap and air is free" the primary cost factors will come down to the systems selected rather than the platform. Three DDG 1002s paired with the AWDs could cover off the high end requirements sufficiently to permit the adoption of a smaller cheaper option using systems removed from the ANZACs as they retire to flesh out hull numbers. If the DDG 1002 option is cheap enough no problem buy six of them, if not go for a split buy and try and increase hull numbers.
A class of eight smaller indigenous light frigates designed to use updated and refurbished ANZAC systems, smaller crew, more economical propulsion, still capable but lacking the high end land attack capability. ASW capability would still be improved vs the ANZACs but would not make the ships unaffordable, some sort of hybrid electric propulsion would not only reduce running costs it would quieten the hull for ASW and improve time on station.
It would be interesting if such a split buy could be affordable as it would increase capability and reduce operating costs.
It seems most logical to seperate the tasks as otherwise if you have an FFG with the AAW capabilities of a DDG then you may as well start combining the roles and make a single class of surface combatant to keep some savings in the design and construction process.
No one seems to be doing a modern iteration of the Spruance class that spanned DD, DDG and CG (AEGIS) variants. Would be a good idea as far as I am concerned, not just for big navies but for small and medium ones too. Come on USN how about DD, DDG and CG versions of the DDG 1000 .....
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Show them the money and I am sure they would get interested but given the state of US finances these days that's not going to happen anytime soon.
wharf space issues are more about draft and length ...
justsomeaussie
Member
Maybe I got the wrong end of the argument but that's what I understood to be the practical issue with using something like the MRV-80 for SEA1180 (outside of steel v al)
are you talking about berthing or dry docking?
justsomeaussie
Member
Berthing
- Status