t68
Well-Known Member
As GF alluded to is about draft and length, ships can be berthed abreast of one another.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
Mate I think you may be thinking about replacement Patrol Forces since you quoted SEA 1180.
The conversation was about frigate replacements and that is why people, me included, are confused about your concern re berthing?
Do you still have a concern?
If they can reduce the price of a DDG 1002 by replacing compound parts with steel, it would probably cost no more than our F105;s. Instead of building an extra two Hobarts, imagine the bang for our buck with two DDG 1002"s. Dreaming I know, but I would go for it! And then I would settle for the T26 to replace the Anzac's, unless something better comes along over they next few years.
John Newman
The Bunker Group
It's been interesting reading the various comments the last few days about the Future Frigate and what designs might or might not be suitable for the task.
I suppose until we see the new DWP, due in around 12mths, we won't know (in the public arena at least) if the intention is still to proceed with the type and size of ship mentioned in the 2009 DWP.
One area that has been discussed is the types of missile systems that could be potentially incorporated in the Future Frigates, and I'm interested to know what they may (or may not) include:
* ESSM - Probably a given.
* TLAM (or it's successor) - If the new 2015 DWP is consistent with the 2009 DWP, then the Future Frigates will have a Land Attack Cruise Missile capability.
* Anti-Ship Missile - If they do, the question I have, would it be Harpoon or would Harpoon be either supplemented or eventually replaced, possibly by LRASM at that time?
* SM2/6 - As the AWD's are equipped with SM2/6, would arming the Future Frigates with the same weapons be seen as necessary or a 'nice to have' capability?
* ASROC - The RAN has never used this weapon, but I understand a VLS version is operated on the US DDG-51 class, would it be considered? Or would any ship based anti-submarine torpedo capability be via the embarked helicopter and the Mk 32 launch system?
Probably very unlikely that all 5 of the above will be included, probably more likely to be at least ESSM, TLAM and Harpoon (or LRASM, VLS launched), maybe SM2/6 as a 'nice to have' and probably not ASROC.
Whilst I'm sure there are and will be many other ways that the possible contenders will have to be measured to be suitable for the task (and especially once we know what those capabilities are expected to include), I do wonder how the two ships that appeared to be discussed the most, UK Type 26 and a non AEGIS version of the F100's stack up in missile carrying capabilities.
I would assume that an F100 bases solution would have the same 48 cell strike length VLS as the AWD's, on the other hand the T26, based on the last couple of models exhibited shows either 16 or 24 strike length VLS, which is half of the F100 Frigate, though there may be space elsewhere to fit a VLS for the ESSM to free up the strike length VLS for the other missile systems (depending on the requirement) that would be need to be carried by the Future Frigates.
Interested in your thoughts.
Cheers,
I suppose until we see the new DWP, due in around 12mths, we won't know (in the public arena at least) if the intention is still to proceed with the type and size of ship mentioned in the 2009 DWP.
One area that has been discussed is the types of missile systems that could be potentially incorporated in the Future Frigates, and I'm interested to know what they may (or may not) include:
* ESSM - Probably a given.
* TLAM (or it's successor) - If the new 2015 DWP is consistent with the 2009 DWP, then the Future Frigates will have a Land Attack Cruise Missile capability.
* Anti-Ship Missile - If they do, the question I have, would it be Harpoon or would Harpoon be either supplemented or eventually replaced, possibly by LRASM at that time?
* SM2/6 - As the AWD's are equipped with SM2/6, would arming the Future Frigates with the same weapons be seen as necessary or a 'nice to have' capability?
* ASROC - The RAN has never used this weapon, but I understand a VLS version is operated on the US DDG-51 class, would it be considered? Or would any ship based anti-submarine torpedo capability be via the embarked helicopter and the Mk 32 launch system?
Probably very unlikely that all 5 of the above will be included, probably more likely to be at least ESSM, TLAM and Harpoon (or LRASM, VLS launched), maybe SM2/6 as a 'nice to have' and probably not ASROC.
Whilst I'm sure there are and will be many other ways that the possible contenders will have to be measured to be suitable for the task (and especially once we know what those capabilities are expected to include), I do wonder how the two ships that appeared to be discussed the most, UK Type 26 and a non AEGIS version of the F100's stack up in missile carrying capabilities.
I would assume that an F100 bases solution would have the same 48 cell strike length VLS as the AWD's, on the other hand the T26, based on the last couple of models exhibited shows either 16 or 24 strike length VLS, which is half of the F100 Frigate, though there may be space elsewhere to fit a VLS for the ESSM to free up the strike length VLS for the other missile systems (depending on the requirement) that would be need to be carried by the Future Frigates.
Interested in your thoughts.
Cheers,
While I was a fan of the F-100/105 hull for the base of Anzac II, I am moving more and more away from the idea, and looking at the timings involved believe it will not be an option. The Space for a 48 cell VLS would be nice, but I don't really think necessary (happy to be corrected though).
I do like the idea however as you have mentioned if room is available on say T26 etc to have a dedicated VLS for ESSM in the superstructure between bridge and hanger etc. That leaves a lot of flexibility in a strike length 24 cell VLS with ASM, SM2/6 and ASROC. Don't recall, but has there been the suggestion of CEC for them ? I don't see a need for TLAM but happy to be corrected.
As a primary ASW Frigate ASROC would just be another layer to the system as Assail has previously mentioned along with helo, torpedo's etc but not sure of any intention to aquire.
I would also be interested to have some input from NG, Mr C and CD and other fellow Kiwi's for an NZ perspective as I believe there is a fair chance NZ would be in the buy ?
Cheers
Last edited:
Gordon Branch
New Member
I am a little curious with this desire for ASROC.
We had two classes of ships equipped with Ikara which, from my understanding, was a better weapon for prosecuting a contact than ASROC as it was controlled and not ballistic as I believe ASROC is. We removed Ikara from the DDGs and didn't some of the Type 12s have Ikara removed? That implies to me the requirement for a ASW missile system lapsed.
Our later acquisitions (FFGs and Anzacs) didn't have an ASW missile fitted even though the Anzac has the VLS capable of launching ASROC. Both classes rely on their helicopters and ship launched torpedoes for prosecuting targets. It would appear the Navy doesn't consider missile launched torpedoes a requirement. Unless it planned for the Hobart Class to have ASROC?
We had two classes of ships equipped with Ikara which, from my understanding, was a better weapon for prosecuting a contact than ASROC as it was controlled and not ballistic as I believe ASROC is. We removed Ikara from the DDGs and didn't some of the Type 12s have Ikara removed? That implies to me the requirement for a ASW missile system lapsed.
Our later acquisitions (FFGs and Anzacs) didn't have an ASW missile fitted even though the Anzac has the VLS capable of launching ASROC. Both classes rely on their helicopters and ship launched torpedoes for prosecuting targets. It would appear the Navy doesn't consider missile launched torpedoes a requirement. Unless it planned for the Hobart Class to have ASROC?
Most of the composite parts are balsa wood so I doubt it'd make much difference (I kid you not, the deck house on DDG1 and 2 are made from clad balsa wood - properly packaged it's self extinguishing and very light)
The cost of DDG1000 is, like almost every surface combatant, mostly composed of it's propulsion, sensor and weapons systems. We're talking IFEP, AGS, SPY3 and a shed load of other stuff. There's no way you'd get that for anything like the price of a frigate.
Last edited:
An old boss of mine worked on the Super Ikara project for a container launched ASW missile developed in conjunction with Oto Melara. It was marketed to the RN and RAN but neither had sufficient space and weight reserves on their new combatants (Type 23 and FFG-7) for the missile. Oto Melara went on to develop MILAS on their own which apparently uses some tech from the previous joint project but fits a torpedo to a modified Otomat missile airframe, this system is in service with the Italian Navy. Almost have to wonder if a RAN order for the Type 23 could have been used as leverage to get the RN to equip them with Super Ikara as an either or option with Harpoon?
I have been told that the issue the Ikara had in the 90s was post cold war submarines were seen as less of the threat and the RAN in particular was lacking a suitable platform to take their Sea Kings to sea which was a problem for Ikara as it worked best when used in conjunction with a dipping sonar.
I have been told that the issue the Ikara had in the 90s was post cold war submarines were seen as less of the threat and the RAN in particular was lacking a suitable platform to take their Sea Kings to sea which was a problem for Ikara as it worked best when used in conjunction with a dipping sonar.
There's currently 16 - 24 because in RN service in front of that silo is another smaller silo of 24 CAMM canisters, however until the design is finalised then we can only speculate about exactly how much the design can grow and if strike/tactical length silos can be fitted in that space.
I'd be highly surprised if the number shown in the models was your lot.
I could easily imagine 48 Mk-41 cells forward of the bridge should the CAMM cells be deleted. Interestingly 64 Mk-41 cells take up less space than the 48 A50 Sylver cells in the Type 45 suggesting that the 16 cell option in the Type 26 is probably the Sylver and the 24 cell is Mk-41.
I was the one speculating DDG-1002 in place of frigates, 6 instead of 8 would be great but even 3 would likely cover off the strike role then a number of less capable frigates could be bought to flesh out numbers. I have no problem with buying high end ships MOTS with either a local build, local outfit or even a full OS build in the parent yard so long as money saved is used to build sustainable numbers of lower end ships locally.
I would hazard that 3 Flight IIA Burkes and 3 to 6 DDG-1002s could be bought from the US for less than 3 F104s and 6 to 8 bespoke ANZAC replacements could be built locally. However local yards would be well and truly capable of building a sustainable OCV or OPC program of 12 to 20 hulls as well as fleet tankers (2 or 3), 4-6 LCH replacements (larger, ocean going, helicopter equipped) as well as a class of 8-12 light frigates or corvettes (to rebuild surface combatant numbers) and 6 mine hunters and 6 survey vessels should the government choose not to go multi role with an OCV option. This is a very large and if properly planned, sustainable building program of 38 to 53 hulls, enough to keep to yards going indefinitely irrespective of where the destroyers and submarines are built.
Indeed, the Mk-41 is definitely more space efficient and that's my conclusion also. Hopefully the space and weight margins have been saved for such an endeavour, with respect to the RN it would be very good to know if it would be possible to put proper VLS in the space occupied by CAMM for future upgrades
Got back from Williamstown last night.
We had a day of inductions and a ship tour of LHD01.
I was not allowed to take any pics at all, but we had an exhaustive look around the that only took in a fraction of the ship.
A lot of compartments are finished and locked, the rest of the work continues.
The superstructure is on the hull, but still being welded and the last module is needing a slight re-alignment.
We were all impressive with just about everything onboard, and hoping that she will stay on schedule for sea trials next year.
We had a day of inductions and a ship tour of LHD01.
I was not allowed to take any pics at all, but we had an exhaustive look around the that only took in a fraction of the ship.
A lot of compartments are finished and locked, the rest of the work continues.
The superstructure is on the hull, but still being welded and the last module is needing a slight re-alignment.
We were all impressive with just about everything onboard, and hoping that she will stay on schedule for sea trials next year.
t68
Well-Known Member
First thought that came to mind was a bloody big hammer and persuasion bar.
weegee
Active Member
Hey Guys,
Quick question I know there has been talk of how our LHD will travel and with what escorts etc.
I am curious as to how the USMC travel with their Wasp and America class. Is it the same basic formation for the USN Carriers? or a reduced amount of escorts etc?
How will our task force differ to theirs? Or are we modelling our group off theirs?
Thanks
Quick question I know there has been talk of how our LHD will travel and with what escorts etc.
I am curious as to how the USMC travel with their Wasp and America class. Is it the same basic formation for the USN Carriers? or a reduced amount of escorts etc?
How will our task force differ to theirs? Or are we modelling our group off theirs?
Thanks
Gordon Branch
New Member
This link has probably been posted before but it is worth a re-look.
A partial answer to your question is on pages 20 and 42.
http://www.defence.gov.au/opEx/exercises/caex/pdf/hawkins.pdf
A partial answer to your question is on pages 20 and 42.
http://www.defence.gov.au/opEx/exercises/caex/pdf/hawkins.pdf
Last edited:
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Here is the USN page covering composition of an Expeditionary Strike Group (ESG). One of the major differences seem to be that a USN ESG would include three different types of amphib, namely an LHA or LHD, an LPD, and an LSD. At present the RAN has no LPD, so the force would be smaller, but the surface escort force of a cruiser, a destroyer and a frigate the RAN should be able to manage. The primary differences between the escort vessels really is role. The cruiser for land attack (and likely some command & control), the destroyer for air defence, and the frigate for ASW.
Now depending on what the NZDF ends up choosing to replace Canterbury with in the future, a joint ANZAC ESG could be possible.
-Cheers
It will be interesting to see what way NZ goes replacing Canterbury, do they go an Galicia size/style ? Or something along the lines of Endurance Class (or a couple).
Although Choules was purchased by the RAN, Phase 4C was not scratched or cancelled, or course new DWP will shed light. If it is still on the cards a local build of 3, 2 RAN and 1 NZ, Galicia sized would go nicely indeed
Tried to find, would be interested in the logistic supply behind US ESG's ? but only found same info on front line units. Does anyone have any info on what supply/fuel ships follow the groups around ?
Which also bring up the forthcoming replacement for both the RAN and RNZN for Success/Endeavour replacements ? If such a force and agreement does become a reality between both countries, NZ will also require a ship of same or similar class/size to fill in when needed
Cheers
40 deg south
Well-Known Member
aussie
In the press release last week announcing a (modest) funding boost, our DefMin included the following statement
NZ has an election in September, which suggests an Endeavour replacement decision will be announced before then, following the RFI last year. How far along is DMO with the Australian tanker replacement programme?
Given the replacement tanker and littoral warfare support ship, the just-announced ANZAC upgrade in Canada (2016-20) and the need to replace the Hercs and Orions looming, Canterbury is likely to be with us for a long time to come.
- Status