Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[ngatimozart]

Did I say aluminium????

I became convinced a while ago that fire and fatigue issues made them unsuitable for warship hulls, unless you were prepared to institute an expensive aircraft like maintenance regimen.

Also the alleged savings in 'through life costs' don't seem to stand up in the real world, indeed the only published figures I could find for maintenance of aluminium hulls showed they were more expensive to maintain than steel, though to be fair it was a bit of comparing apples to oranges.

It's also about 3 times the cost to make per ton of hull, though it makes up a bit because it's about half the weight. Then you add the fire proofing stuff which reduces the weight benefit by roughly a third.

So an all aluminium hull was clearly out.

What about a roughly 50% steel, 50% aluminium ship? See att.
The lower steel hull is very well braced by the 2 decks, making what should be a very rigid structure.

Why not all steel? You would still have all the fire issues and the associated costs for the top half if you stay with aluminium. Steel has the penalty of weight but I think that weight penalty would outweigh the problems that aluminium presents. The Danes have a trapdoor in their Iver Huitfeld frigate flight decks so they can drop 20ft shipping containers through to the deck below, so maybe that's an idea for you to consider about gaining overhead access to your "landing deck".

 

[cdxbow]

Why not all steel? You would still have all the fire issues and the associated costs for the top half if you stay with aluminium. Steel has the penalty of weight but I think that weight penalty would outweigh the problems that aluminium presents.".

Reduce weight and particularity top weight. The first att, has figures from Beavers & Lamb study for a 91m corvette, which I have used to work up a 100m trimaran using both steel and 50% of steel and aluminium. Basically you save about 250 tons, which you would have to decide was worthwhile.

The Danes have a trapdoor in their Iver Huitfeld frigate flight decks so they can drop 20ft shipping containers through to the deck below, so maybe that's an idea for you to consider about gaining overhead access to your "landing deck".

Those clever bloody Danes. I think we should get them to plan our naval acquisitions, for a small country them seem to be able to deliver a navy with about as much capability as our own at a fraction of the cost. Something similar came to mind when I was doing the drawings was the possibility of a AUV launch system located between the outrigger and main hull. It would be away from the stern to allow covert launching of AUV. See att. 2, which is done in a brochure style. Note the AUV launch system in the second panel with the 3/4 rear view. I am guessing that the ability to launch and retrieve AUV ( and mines and sonabouys) on the sly might be a very desirable capability in the future. I am interested what forum members would think? The hard part, is of course, the AUVs haven't really developed as far as UAVs, so what type of classes might be deployed is a bit of guesswork. Illustrated is an 8m AUV.

The ship has the usual large flight deck that trimarans are good at, as well as large hull volume. The trimaran hull also lends itself to hull shaping for stealth. The other novel idea, and perhaps impractical, is a modular forward hold that could be equipped with a number of different systems or weapons. The ship would also have a number of stanflex slots.

 

[ngatimozart]

Reduce weight and particularity top weight. The first att, has figures from Beavers & Lamb study for a 91m corvette, which I have used to work up a 100m trimaran using both steel and 50% of steel and aluminium. Basically you save about 250 tons, which you would have to decide was worthwhile.



Those clever bloody Danes. I think we should get them to plan our naval acquisitions, for a small country them seem to be able to deliver a navy with about as much capability as our own at a fraction of the cost. Something similar came to mind when I was doing the drawings was the possibility of a AUV launch system located between the outrigger and main hull. It would be away from the stern to allow covert launching of AUV. See att. 2, which is done in a brochure style. Note the AUV launch system in the second panel with the 3/4 rear view. I am guessing that the ability to launch and retrieve AUV ( and mines and sonabouys) on the sly might be a very desirable capability in the future. I am interested what forum members would think? The hard part, is of course, the AUVs haven't really developed as far as UAVs, so what type of classes might be deployed is a bit of guesswork. Illustrated is an 8m AUV.

The ship has the usual large flight deck that trimarans are good at, as well as large hull volume. The trimaran hull also lends itself to hull shaping for stealth. The other novel idea, and perhaps impractical, is a modular forward hold that could be equipped with a number of different systems or weapons. The ship would also have a number of stanflex slots.

Being me I think I'd rather have the extra 250 tonnes of steel. One of my damage control instructors was a survivor from the Sheffield sinking during the Falklands War. With your placement of the Harpoons I'd get as low down as possible probably up for'ard. I know that stability problems aren't as great on a trimaran, I think you'd still want to keep the top weight as low as possible. I'd also move the beer store to a more secure location where it's not near explosives fuels or chemicals etc.

 

[Monitor66]

I notice that on the Australian Army site there is some discussion about getting JHSV vessels to replace Balipapan's. Is there any thought of any use for the RAN for the JHSV?:dance2

Not for the LCH replacement (Phase 5 of JP 2048). The LCH replacement will be a stern or bow ramp landing craft, probably in the 60-70m range. The JHSV is not that kind of vessel; it transports men and light materiel from port-to-port and cannot land anything over the beach.

 

[Volkodav]

Thanks for your thoughts regarding the Akizuki. I can see the appeal in building so many vessels locally but I very much doubt it's going to happen, and I don't know that I'd like to see future frigate purchases deferred in favour of smaller patrol frigates lest the RAN run in to the same issues as with the ANZACs. But that is just my opinion, and I'm not as well informed as some.

Not deferring the ANZACs in favour of PFs I would like to see them and the FFGs replaced with multi role DDGs and DDHs to better cover off the land attack and ASW missions in support of the Hobart Class DDGs. I would like to see ASMD ANZAC ungraded systems cascaded to a class of new light frigates designed and built to complement the high end destroyer force rather than be discarded with the ANZACs or used on and degrading the potential capability of a more conventional ANZAC replacement. Such a ship would help build and maintain high level design skills in Australia and made affordable if part of a larger corvette, sloop , OPV build as well as provide a range of locally supported designs for export.

 

[MrConservative]

I would like to see ASMD ANZAC ungraded systems cascaded to a class of new light frigates designed and built to complement the high end destroyer force rather than be discarded with the ANZACs or used on and degrading the potential capability of a more conventional ANZAC replacement. Such a ship would help build and maintain high level design skills in Australia and made affordable if part of a larger corvette, sloop , OPV build as well as provide a range of locally supported designs for export.

I have recently been mulling over a variation of the same thing Volk for the RNZN. Us to buy in to 2 surface combatants with the same radar, coms, sensor and weapons fit as the RAN SEA 5000 to replace Te Kaha and Te Mana and then crossdecking all or as much as we can the forthcoming/recent Anzac upgrades across to two 2750T - 3250T / 95m - 105m vessels 1A Ice capable, mission deck, helo and hanger - sort of a son of Thetis / baby brother of Absalon to replace Wellington and Otago.

 

[AegisFC]

Getting back to the subject of the ANZAC replacement, I've been interested to read about the capabilities of the Japanese Akizuki-class destroyer. 5000 tons (over 6000 fully loaded), 32 VLS with a mix of ESSM and ASROC, a 5-inch gun and 8 anti-ship missiles, onboard torpedo tubes and a couple of CIWS, with facilities for embarking a single Seahawk-size helo. Apparently the class is meant to act as ASW screening for the larger Kongos and other surface combatants. The only thing I had questions about was the electronic systems, as from my understanding some of these are indigenously developed Japanese systems and I would imagine the RAN would prefer something American or local.

Anyone else have any thoughts on the class? There could be limitations or details I don't know about as I've only really read a bit of info online.

I know some people who have worked on or have had tours of a couple Japanese surface ships they all had glowing reviews of the ships except for one thing: they all mentioned the comparative lack of subdivision and water tight doors compared to a US or even European designs.
So their designs are well made and pack a punch they have somewhat of a glass jaw.

 

[alexsa]

Did I say aluminium????

I became convinced a while ago that fire and fatigue issues made them unsuitable for warship hulls, unless you were prepared to institute an expensive aircraft like maintenance regimen.

Also the alleged savings in 'through life costs' don't seem to stand up in the real world, indeed the only published figures I could find for maintenance of aluminium hulls showed they were more expensive to maintain than steel, though to be fair it was a bit of comparing apples to oranges.

It's also about 3 times the cost to make per ton of hull, though it makes up a bit because it's about half the weight. Then you add the fire proofing stuff which reduces the weight benefit by roughly a third.

So an all aluminium hull was clearly out.

What about a roughly 50% steel, 50% aluminium ship? See att.
The lower steel hull is very well braced by the 2 decks, making what should be a very rigid structure.

You design is clearly based on the sea frame hull form used by Austal and as such it will be significantly weight restricted unless you use aluminium as submergance of the underwater vollume is going to impact the operating dynamics through drag pretty quickly. You will end up with a ship with very limited growth margins and very limited dead weight. Tunnel slam will be worse as well if it sits deeper.

These are great hull forms where the vessel is intended to operate in certain weather conditions at speed. LCS works for the USN as they have the luxury of being able to use such a transformal fast vessel within the ORBAT of a large number of ships.

What you are proposing is to have a very large proporation of the RAN operating an expensive vessel that is limited in the conditions it can operate. A light frigate would be better able to undertake the combat roles while a very capable (and relatively cheap) OPV could undertake the other roles you envisage.

The RAN is too smaller fleet to have such a large part of its ORBAT dedicated to a niche capability.

 

[ngatimozart]

I have recently been mulling over a variation of the same thing Volk for the RNZN. Us to buy in to 2 surface combatants with the same radar, coms, sensor and weapons fit as the RAN SEA 5000 to replace Te Kaha and Te Mana and then crossdecking all or as much as we can the forthcoming/recent Anzac upgrades across to two 2750T - 3250T / 95m - 105m vessels 1A Ice capable, mission deck, helo and hanger - sort of a son of Thetis / baby brother of Absalon to replace Wellington and Otago.

I'd agree with that except I'd rather see three of each purely to given the RNZN the ability to have one of each fully operational 24/7/365, plus I think that the extra ships would pay for themselves in that, the fleet wouldn't be thrashed and maintenance could be kept up as programmed. This is a long term view - the rule of threes.

I understand the cost argument and the impact that it would have but I feel that something as important to NZ defence as the Maritime Strike Force, especially the naval component, shouldn't be heavily, if not strategically, compromised by ignorance and sheer stupidity by pollies & treasury.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Just about the JHSV (from the Aus Land thread) and suitability of Aluminium vessels.

As it stands the JHSV isn't exactly a fit for JP2048 p5. However I think the fact the americans rapid purchase of JHSV's shows the potential. I think the problem with aluminium vessels is when you try to adapt them to something they are not (blue water ships). While flexible, that aren't everything to everyone, and compliment and are multipliers to existing assets.

Being able to deploy and retrieve aircraft up to V-22 at up to 40 kts, move 300-400 troops, 600 tons of equipment they are pretty handy. Jarvis bay was able to move more tonnage to Timor faster than a C-130 (which was not an ideal situation being inter rather than intra theater lift) but would be very powerful in resupplying along a long cost line or in between islands. Given Australia lack of helos, cost of operating helos for resupply, etc its a niche that is not current filled by Choules, LHD's, LCMs, or JP2048 p5 and multiples all those assets. It actually assists the helos for longer hauls as it could be used to shorten flights or as a lilly pad. If some sort of mini-mexe or Small LCM or in conjunction with LARC-V's (or simular) then again, a very powerful multiplier in support of something other than a single massive beachhead. In a single day you could resupply along ~800 km with 600 tons.

Looking at Timor or PNG, or Indonesia, or Fiji, or similar, you could see the power of having something that can move things within your area of operations very quickly, with significant loads. Operating littoral you aren't going to have the issues trying to operate a cat or tri aluminium hulled vessels in big blue sea states.

 

[MickB]

Just about the JHSV (from the Aus Land thread) and suitability of Aluminium vessels.

As it stands the JHSV isn't exactly a fit for JP2048 p5. However I think the fact the americans rapid purchase of JHSV's shows the potential. I think the problem with aluminium vessels is when you try to adapt them to something they are not (blue water ships). While flexible, that aren't everything to everyone, and compliment and are multipliers to existing assets.

Being able to deploy and retrieve aircraft up to V-22 at up to 40 kts, move 300-400 troops, 600 tons of equipment they are pretty handy. Jarvis bay was able to move more tonnage to Timor faster than a C-130 (which was not an ideal situation being inter rather than intra theater lift) but would be very powerful in resupplying along a long cost line or in between islands. Given Australia lack of helos, cost of operating helos for resupply, etc its a niche that is not current filled by Choules, LHD's, LCMs, or JP2048 p5 and multiples all those assets. It actually assists the helos for longer hauls as it could be used to shorten flights or as a lilly pad. If some sort of mini-mexe or Small LCM or in conjunction with LARC-V's (or simular) then again, a very powerful multiplier in support of something other than a single massive beachhead. In a single day you could resupply along ~800 km with 600 tons.

Looking at Timor or PNG, or Indonesia, or Fiji, or similar, you could see the power of having something that can move things within your area of operations very quickly, with significant loads. Operating littoral you aren't going to have the issues trying to operate a cat or tri aluminium hulled vessels in big blue sea states.

My Dad (army water transport) had plenty of stories of long slow trips transporting vehicles and plant to PNG and the gulf country by Sydney based LSM.

HSVs based in Cairns or Darwin would be a great asset in moving men and equipment around the north and near neighbors. I know that the C17s can and do perform some of the same tasks but at what point does sea transport become more cost effective.

This is also another platform to give officers command experance before moving on to a major fleet unit.

 

[oldsig127]

Not for the LCH replacement (Phase 5 of JP 2048). The LCH replacement will be a stern or bow ramp landing craft, probably in the 60-70m range. The JHSV is not that kind of vessel; it transports men and light materiel from port-to-port and cannot land anything over the beach.

I confess to absolute ignorance of this sector, and a search of the net has been pretty uninformative. I think i found one concept that meets that (very brief) brief. What I am curious about is just what IS in the market in the way of cross beach landing craft larger, faster and longer legged than the existing LCH that can meet our frequent need to support our pacific neighbours on islands without even rudimentary port facilities.

So - does anyone have a link or two to possible solutions to help quench my curiosity?

 

[John Newman]

I confess to absolute ignorance of this sector, and a search of the net has been pretty uninformative. I think i found one concept that meets that (very brief) brief. What I am curious about is just what IS in the market in the way of cross beach landing craft larger, faster and longer legged than the existing LCH that can meet our frequent need to support our pacific neighbours on islands without even rudimentary port facilities.

So - does anyone have a link or two to possible solutions to help quench my curiosity?

When the LCH discussion comes up from time to time, the BMT Caimen is often suggested as a possible LCH replacement:

http://www.bmtdsl.co.uk/media/5119403/AMPD003_0214_Caimen200.pdf


[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hsPVYaVcaiA"]BMT Caimen®-200 Fast Landing Craft Tank (LCT) - YouTube[/nomedia]


Also this French design has sometimes been suggested by some here as a possible replacement, it includes aviation facilities (thought it is a pretty old design, sort of looks like a mini Tobruk):

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BATRAL_class_landing_ship"]BATRAL-class landing ship - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

We will probably have to wait till the new DCP is release in 12 months to know if the project to replace the LCH is still on the table or not.

 

[StevoJH]

Caiman 200 is awesome. I wouldn't mind a modernised Batral but i'm thinking that it might be a bit too big (though it could probably just about double as an OPV if the vehicle deck is covered?)

 

[John Newman]

Caiman 200 is awesome. I wouldn't mind a modernised Batral but i'm thinking that it might be a bit too big (though it could probably just about double as an OPV if the vehicle deck is covered?)

Well if the ASC/BMT designed Aegir gets the nod for the replenishment ship replacements we could ask them to thrown in half a dozen Caimans as a sweetener for the deal to go through.

Would help with filling in the 'Valley of Death' hole that is soon to appear!!!

 

[Monitor66]

When the LCH discussion comes up from time to time, the BMT Caimen is often suggested as a possible LCH replacement:

http://www.bmtdsl.co.uk/media/5119403/AMPD003_0214_Caimen200.pdf


BMT Caimen®-200 Fast Landing Craft Tank (LCT) - YouTube


Also this French design has sometimes been suggested by some here as a possible replacement, it includes aviation facilities (thought it is a pretty old design, sort of looks like a mini Tobruk):

BATRAL-class landing ship - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We will probably have to wait till the new DCP is release in 12 months to know if the project to replace the LCH is still on the table or not.

The Batral-class has now been decommissioned, and whilst the Caimen 200 is fairly innovative and looks impressive it remains a concept only (no prototype built or orders to date). The RAN would want to see at the very least an advanced prototype/demonstrator in the water before they gave it the nod (too much technical risk, and therefore also commercial, schedule and cost risks). Someone, however, may order the Caimen 200 before the Ph 5 JP2048 tender hits the streets in the next 12-18 months so there is still hope.

See the new 80m Landing Craft Tank for the Turkish Navy. Local builder ADIK has just delivered eight of them. No reason we couldn't build six of these in Australia to replace LCH.

Anadolu Den. Ins. Kiz. San ve Tic. A.S. | Furstrans Group | LCT | LST | Shipyard

There has also been internal discussions at the CDG level about stern landing vessels, such as that from Australian naval architects Sea Transport Solutions. Link below.

Sea Transport Naval Architecture

They have significant advantages over conventional lading craft designs, including better head sea capability and avoidance of the dreaded slamming effect, and therefore improved seakeeping and speed, which in turn provides an enhanced ability to undertake extended open ocean voyages.

 

[Bonza]

Not deferring the ANZACs in favour of PFs I would like to see them and the FFGs replaced with multi role DDGs and DDHs to better cover off the land attack and ASW missions in support of the Hobart Class DDGs. I would like to see ASMD ANZAC ungraded systems cascaded to a class of new light frigates designed and built to complement the high end destroyer force rather than be discarded with the ANZACs or used on and degrading the potential capability of a more conventional ANZAC replacement. Such a ship would help build and maintain high level design skills in Australia and made affordable if part of a larger corvette, sloop , OPV build as well as provide a range of locally supported designs for export.

Thanks for the additional details, I see what you mean now. I definitely don't want to see the ANZAC upgrades discarded and very much doubt they will be, however I'm still not sure about lighter frigates operating in support of the Hobarts when the original future frigate concept called for eight large high capability warships. But if that isn't possible for some reason, or numbers go down (I do recall the now ex-DefMin stating something about six rather than eight ships at one point) then I can see the case for a larger fleet based around small but high capability vessels.

Anyway this is far more your area than mine, thanks for the thoughts.

AegisFC, thanks for the detail on Japanese naval vessels too, that's quite interesting.

EDIT: Actually Volk I think I missed your point in what you were saying, don't mind me, I'm having brain farts at a rapid pace today...

 

[Volkodav]

I would like to see the ANZACs and FFGs replaced with 3 DDG1000s, 3 through deck DDH and 8 light frigates re using upgraded ANZAC systems.

Not going to happen but I would like to see it.

 

[StevoJH]

I would like to see the ANZACs and FFGs replaced with 3 DDG1000s, 3 through deck DDH and 8 light frigates re using upgraded ANZAC systems.

Not going to happen but I would like to see it.

Forget the DDG1000.

I'd like to see 3 Hyuga class DDH's (one per AWD) and 6 Type 26 Frigates.

This would maintain the number of Major Surface Combatants at 12.

Not that I think there would be a chance of this happening, but......

 

[StobieWan]

I'm pretty sure the Anzac upgrades are being studied in detail by the Type 26 guys and there'll be a briefing package available with "look, all this stuff just fits in right here, like *this*"

I think type 26 could be a goer - modern, quiet, spacious (wayyy more margin and room than the Anzacs) and we know the entire mast is modular - a new design with sensors and all can be fitted at will.


And they're already using your gun...hangars for two helos, mission bay..

Not liking DDG1000 for anything - orphan class so far....