Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[John Fedup]

Really? Is China that unbelievably arrogant that they believe that if they keep pushing nobody will push back? Some countries in the region can give China a fairly bloody nose.

Based on NATO's response to Russia, it is understandable that China may want to test the waters to see how much they can get away with. China's neighbours may not be willing to take the BS that NATO countries have but then again they have reality to deal with. S. Korea needs Chinese influence with regards to N. Korea and Japan has its huge earthquake recovery costs and stagnant economy to deal with. The last thing either nation needs is a pi$$ing match with China. Then again, China may miscalculate.

 

[alexsa]

Its good to have HMAS Arunta back after a very long time of extended readiness and ASMD upgrade.
Now that we have 6 Anzacs operating and 2 in upgrade we once again may have a spare unit to send to RIMPAC in 2016

https://twitter.com/CN_Australia/status/479712154887540736/photo/1

Mind you, if we had an OCV a FFH/G would not be required for OP Resolute

Agree with you 100% and they would olso be excellent for the anti piracy operations taking quite a load off the MFU's.

 

[alexsa]

Based on NATO's response to Russia, it is understandable that China may want to test the waters to see how much they can get away with. China's neighbours may not be willing to take the BS that NATO countries have but then again they have reality to deal with. S. Korea needs Chinese influence with regards to N. Korea and Japan has its huge earthquake recovery costs and stagnant economy to deal with. The last thing either nation needs is a pi$$ing match with China. Then again, China may miscalculate.

I think China may over reach if they are not careful. The have a burgeoning middle class and growing domestic economy but it is very much a two tier system with a lot of poverty in country.

They still rely on export for much of their income (this is changing with Chinese overseas investment) but their cost of production is blossoming and they have a bad debt issue with some of their banks (some of the sums suggested are eye watering).

Their current stance is pushing the region into alliances focus against China and this will roll onto trade as well.

 

[Volkodav]

Agree with you 100% and they would olso be excellent for the anti piracy operations taking quite a load off the MFU's.

Agreed, even a small class of OPVs intended solely to free up MFUs used in boarder protection would make a massive difference. Even only three or four would do the job but through their efficiency and effectiveness as well as their low operating costs would rapidly demonstrate the folly of simply buying more patrol boats.

 

[hauritz]

As others have said, Canada did indeed say no to the Type 26 because it was a design in progress and a proven design was desired. Needless to say the Type 26 progress has surpassed the progress of our non-functional defence procurement ministry. Australia, considering the region's volatility, can not afford to dick around with defence like Canada does.

If Canada want a proven design and Australia have indicated that they want to further develop the Hobart hull then maybe there could be an unlikely alliance there.

Having said that I actually think both Australia and Canada would be better off with the Type 26.

 

[Monitor66]

Agreed, even a small class of OPVs intended solely to free up MFUs used in boarder protection would make a massive difference. Even only three or four would do the job but through their efficiency and effectiveness as well as their low operating costs would rapidly demonstrate the folly of simply buying more patrol boats.

I'll second that. Four OPVs home ported in Darwin would be meaningful.

I note that there is an RFI on the streets for a UAV capability for the ACPB fleet. This will also be carried over to the ACPB replacement.

 

[Volkodav]

I'll second that. Four OPVs home ported in Darwin would be meaningful.

I note that there is an RFI on the streets for a UAV capability for the ACPB fleet. This will also be carried over to the ACPB replacement.

Darwin really should be expanded into a major naval base for OPVs, small amphibs as well as a fforward operating base for MFUs and subs. Geography dictates this especially in light of China's muscule flexing and the US pivot.

 

[Monitor66]

Darwin really should be expanded into a major naval base for OPVs, small amphibs as well as a fforward operating base for MFUs and subs. Geography dictates this especially in light of China's muscule flexing and the US pivot.

Agree entirely. Has been begging for it for a long time. I'm sure the city itself would welcome the investment, added workforce and visitors.

 

[John Fedup]

If Canada want a proven design and Australia have indicated that they want to further develop the Hobart hull then maybe there could be an unlikely alliance there.

Having said that I actually think both Australia and Canada would be better off with the Type 26.

The CSC (Canadian Surface Combatant) ship program's purpose is the replacement of the Tribal class destroyers and the Halifax frigates. It is unclear whether the CSC will be an all frigate fleet or if three of the whatever is selected will be modified as dedicated destroyers. Once you get to the 6000+ ton area, three of the ships could easily be configured for destroyer missions. The French Fremm is in this range and the Italian version is closer to 7000 tons. Currently Irving has outsourced design work to Odense Maritime Technology and Bath Iron Works. Who knows what will result from this. It does not appear the Type 26 is on the table but it should be, especially if three nations were to get involved.

Our destroyers require immediate replacement so selecting anything currently being built would be a positive step. As usual, cost is the limiting factor. The Type 45 or Burke classes are beyond what any CDN Govt will pay. Assuming the Hobart is in the water in 2016 and it performs then perhaps it should be an option for Canada and Australia to explore in conjunction with a possible long term submarine replacement as our Victoria class will need replacement in the late 2020s.

 

[StevoJH]

The CSC (Canadian Surface Combatant) ship program's purpose is the replacement of the Tribal class destroyers and the Halifax frigates. It is unclear whether the CSC will be an all frigate fleet or if three of the whatever is selected will be modified as dedicated destroyers. Once you get to the 6000+ ton area, three of the ships could easily be configured for destroyer missions. The French Fremm is in this range and the Italian version is closer to 7000 tons. Currently Irving has outsourced design work to Odense Maritime Technology and Bath Iron Works. Who knows what will result from this. It does not appear the Type 26 is on the table but it should be, especially if three nations were to get involved.

Our destroyers require immediate replacement so selecting anything currently being built would be a positive step. As usual, cost is the limiting factor. The Type 45 or Burke classes are beyond what any CDN Govt will pay. Assuming the Hobart is in the water in 2016 and it performs then perhaps it should be an option for Canada and Australia to explore in conjunction with a possible long term submarine replacement as our Victoria class will need replacement in the late 2020s.

I think that Australia or any other country would have to be very careful about planning any defence related buy with Canada at the moment, or relying on a specific purchase quantity.

The Canadian Government seems to have a lot of "commitment issues".

 

[John Fedup]

I think that Australia or any other country would have to be very careful about planning any defence related buy with Canada at the moment, or relying on a specific purchase quantity.

The Canadian Government seems to have a lot of "commitment issues".

I would say your comment concerning "commitment issues" is 100% right on. Just look at the CCV program cancellation which was a sole CDN requirement, vendors spent millions of dollars preparing bids only to see the army deciding this was no longer a requirement which was total BS. The Harper Govt wanted to make a big deal balancing the budget. The easy solution, screw defence procurements. The delays to the Navy ship programs and the fighter replacement program show this.

This situation will only improve the US tells Canada to anti up or Pi$$ off.

 

[StobieWan]

Anzacs - topweight issues?

My learned colleagues - help me understand something - I was of the impression that the Kiwi and Australian Anzacs were on their top weight limits and that the Australian upgrades with CEAFAR etc were carefully managed affairs because of this, but I'm dealing with a total doughnut on another forum who insists otherwise.

Someone set me straight on this one please

 

[aussienscale]

My learned colleagues - help me understand something - I was of the impression that the Kiwi and Australian Anzacs were on their top weight limits and that the Australian upgrades with CEAFAR etc were carefully managed affairs because of this, but I'm dealing with a total doughnut on another forum who insists otherwise.

Someone set me straight on this one please

Alexsa will be able to help with more technical information, but yes they do have troubles, and IIRC, the Australian Anzac's had to have additional lead ballast added during the AMSD upgrade process and are very borderline with top weight issues.

Our NZ brothers will be able to also clarify, but the NZ Anzac's not as much problems as ours because of the difference in upgrades, harpoon cannisters etc, and will be better off after their intended upgrades

Cheers

 

[gf0012-aust]

My learned colleagues - help me understand something - I was of the impression that the Kiwi and Australian Anzacs were on their top weight limits and that the Australian upgrades with CEAFAR etc were carefully managed affairs because of this, but I'm dealing with a total doughnut on another forum who insists otherwise.

Someone set me straight on this one please

the bloke on the other forum doesn't know what he's talking about.

they were borderline - esp with the harpoon fitout

in the early days there was serious concerns re balance and CoG - so much so that there was serious consideration to reworking the superstructure

 

[StobieWan]

I know he doesn't know what he's talking about I'm just praying I can find a public source to back it up.

Summary of his points, the Kiwis have dropped the ball by selecting CAMM, as it'd be an easy cheap fix for their ships, the Aussie ships never had problems, and they're missing out on having local stock of ESSM, plus servicing etc.

From where I'm standing, the NZ program looks pretty sensible for their ambitions and so does the Australian one.

 

[RobWilliams]

Here's a wild guess, is it on Warships?

 

[gf0012-aust]

.............the Aussie ships never had problems

he obviously doesn't know any of the proj engineers who worked on them then......

up until recently they were regarded as being akin to oversized corvettes

much better now - but the were lemons in the past

 

[Volkodav]

Same old story, bought to do one job then forced by government procurement decisions to do another. They were designed and built to be patrol frigates supporting a force of six to eight high end general purpose guided missile frigates / destroyers but were forced to step up and fill the shoes of these high end general purpose vessels when successive government failed to order proper replacements.

The first plan was the ANZAC WIP (Warfighting Improvement Program) where it was inteneded to fit AEGIS and SPY-1F to the ANZACs, I am not sure how much was wasted on this before it was realised that it wouldn't fit and would stuff stability. ASMD is the second attempt and appears to be a much more suitable system the trouble is the platform is still over loaded hence the significant reduction in speed. When I look at an ANZAC I can't help but wonder how much better off we would be if they had been followed by a stretched FFG version, with a larger VLS and greater stability margins, to replace the DDGs and FFGs; imagine these larger, more capable ships fitted with ASMD instead of the ANZACs, they would give the AWDs a run for their money, capability wise, while being far more affordable and permitting the RAN to have maintained hull numbers.

 

[StobieWan]

Here's a wild guess, is it on Warships?

Bingo Skipper101.

 

[StobieWan]

Same old story, bought to do one job then forced by government procurement decisions to do another. They were designed and built to be patrol frigates supporting a force of six to eight high end general purpose guided missile frigates / destroyers but were forced to step up and fill the shoes of these high end general purpose vessels when successive government failed to order proper replacements.

The first plan was the ANZAC WIP (Warfighting Improvement Program) where it was inteneded to fit AEGIS and SPY-1F to the ANZACs, I am not sure how much was wasted on this before it was realised that it wouldn't fit and would stuff stability. ASMD is the second attempt and appears to be a much more suitable system the trouble is the platform is still over loaded hence the significant reduction in speed. When I look at an ANZAC I can't help but wonder how much better off we would be if they had been followed by a stretched FFG version, with a larger VLS and greater stability margins, to replace the DDGs and FFGs; imagine these larger, more capable ships fitted with ASMD instead of the ANZACs, they would give the AWDs a run for their money, capability wise, while being far more affordable and permitting the RAN to have maintained hull numbers.

How much of a drop in speed? Is that due to increased displacement for ballast?

Obviously, I'm told there are no issues