Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[ASSAIL]

This would definitely be the most logical and easy to carry out option. At 6000-7000t, for a frigate, that leaves plenty of room for future growth. The main thing that we'd be missing out on would be the stealth advances of a future design. I guess that would have to be relegated to the eventual AWD replacement.

Stealth is a much hyped attribute for a 5-6,000tonne escort. They "escort" LHD's and support ships and remain within 6 miles from them. They roll and pitch in a seaway so carefully crafted angles change continually.
I have a deep cynical suspicion that so-called stealth is more fad than a real attribute.
Just build them so the fore deck crew can throw lines, take or give a tow, come to a buoy and generally enjoy their work without being cooped up below deck.

 

[t68]

Stealth is a much hyped attribute for a 5-6,000tonne escort. They "escort" LHD's and support ships and remain within 6 miles from them. They roll and pitch in a seaway so carefully crafted angles change continually.
I have a deep cynical suspicion that so-called stealth is more fad than a real attribute.
Just build them so the fore deck crew can throw lines, take or give a tow, come to a buoy and generally enjoy their work without being cooped up below deck.

I guess it still would have its advantages if it can confuse the operator to think it was background clutter when detached from the main group

 

[ngatimozart]

I guess it still would have its advantages if it can confuse the operator to think it was background clutter when detached from the main group

Yes but at what cost? It could be cutting off your nose to spite your face.

 

[Volkodav]

Many, if not most, current warship designs incorporate features, such as angled external surfaces to reduce radar returns, this includes both the F-100 and the Burkes of all sizes. Basically its nothing new and I would be very surprised if any future design selected for the RAN didn't also include some measure of signature reduction.

 

[t68]

Yes but at what cost? It could be cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Not saying its the perquisite to have just saying it can have its advantages, the UK type 45 and the type 26 appear to have incorporated the latest designs within limitations.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Stealth is a much hyped attribute for a 5-6,000tonne escort. They "escort" LHD's and support ships and remain within 6 miles from them. They roll and pitch in a seaway so carefully crafted angles change continually.
I have a deep cynical suspicion that so-called stealth is more fad than a real attribute.
Just build them so the fore deck crew can throw lines, take or give a tow, come to a buoy and generally enjoy their work without being cooped up below deck.

I saw some returns data on modified hulls when working on a sig reduction mgt prog - some of the numbers were pretty spectacular.

hull design is a critical companion to upper deck reduction

 

[ASSAIL]

I saw some returns data on modified hulls when working on a sig reduction mgt prog - some of the numbers were pretty spectacular.

hull design is a critical companion to upper deck reduction

Even if the sig reduction is substantial it doesn't help if you're traipsing around the ocean escorting a lump the size of a factory. Active countermeasures, Nulka etc, give a greater degree of comfort in these circumstances because orange will fling ASM's based on the main body signature not on an escorts puny attempt to be smaller.

( I reckon you could see that top hat of a T45 and irradiate it, for miles, the ball is the problem)

 

[gf0012-aust]

Even if the sig reduction is substantial it doesn't help if you're traipsing around the ocean escorting a lump the size of a factory. Active countermeasures, Nulka etc, give a greater degree of comfort in these circumstances because orange will fling ASM's based on the main body signature not on an escorts puny attempt to be smaller.

( I reckon you could see that top hat of a T45 and irradiate it, for miles, the ball is the problem)

true, buit where ships are designed to maximise lower sig rteturns then the whole design starts to be different

eg the phased arrays start to become a sloping return element themselves, weapons systems get to be below deck or flush with return baffles on the perimeter.
In one demo vessel the entire comms tree was telescopic and there was greatewr use of photonics

at that stage you're talking about a 21st cent version of the Merrimac
flush vls, flush pls, lowered comms, arrays as part of the sig bouncing profile etc... it can be done, but she's not your average looking ship

 

[RobWilliams]

I'd imagine reducing radar returns makes soft kill measures which spoof radar guided missiles even better in a sense that the target now has the return 1/10th or whatever of an older design (or, correspondingly, the decoy has increased in 'capacity' to produce a radar return x10) which makes the decoy 'more' appealing.

Thing is, every major fleet is doing it (US, UK, France, Aus, India, China) so there has to be something in it on some level which makes it worthwhile, even if all of those navies are escorting the radar equivalent of an aircraft hangar.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I'd imagine reducing radar returns makes soft kill measures which spoof radar guided missiles even better in a sense that the target now has the return 1/10th or whatever of an older design (or, correspondingly, the decoy has increased in 'capacity' to produce a radar return x10) which makes the decoy 'more' appealing.

Thing is, every major fleet is doing it (US, UK, France, Aus, India, China) so there has to be something in it on some level which makes it worthwhile, even if all of those navies are escorting the radar equivalent of an aircraft hangar.

especially on smaller vessels where the benefits can be realised much faster. hence why there is also a move to smaller vessels - even a mini version of the LCS has been touted.

its the big ships in a task force which provide the easy money on detection - but even carriers can "disappear" in some sig environments

 

[RobWilliams]

I've been told how much of an electronic beacon a CBG conducting flight operations is also about how - in general - it's main defence is being mobile to increase the search area for OPFOR.

Good example is La Feyette class, French 3,600t frigate with a clean design plus wood/glass fibre composite superstructure.

Can imagine how effective a small 'stealthed' ship - like the LCS - could be if firing ASCM salvos whilst hiding in littoral clutter.

 

[Volkodav]

On the valley of death, the obvious solution would be to build two or three batch 2 AWD AEGIS F-105s. Update the obsolescent systems, fit a second helicopter, basically do all the things that Navantia offered to do for the baseline AWD but Australia refused on the basis that it was meant to be the"existing solution" and there was no interest in improvements.

The RAN gets a couple of extra high end ships, industry gets to extend the current program with breathing space to the ANZAC replacements opening up options on what can be built.

 

[AegisFC]

On the valley of death, the obvious solution would be to build two or three batch 2 AWD AEGIS F-105s. Update the obsolescent systems, fit a second helicopter, basically do all the things that Navantia offered to do for the baseline AWD but Australia refused on the basis that it was meant to be the"existing solution" and there was no interest in improvements.

The RAN gets a couple of extra high end ships, industry gets to extend the current program with breathing space to the ANZAC replacements opening up options on what can be built.

Do that and the RAN can get Aegis Baseline 9E that has BMD 5.0.

 

[Joe Black]

On the valley of death, the obvious solution would be to build two or three batch 2 AWD AEGIS F-105s. Update the obsolescent systems, fit a second helicopter, basically do all the things that Navantia offered to do for the baseline AWD but Australia refused on the basis that it was meant to be the"existing solution" and there was no interest in improvements.

The RAN gets a couple of extra high end ships, industry gets to extend the current program with breathing space to the ANZAC replacements opening up options on what can be built.

That would be a very logic and sensible thing to do, but you all the pollies, they are opposite to logic and sensibility. They are always after quick fixes that seldom prove optimal.

 

[Punta74]

MoD speech from yesterdays industry group.

Defence Ministers » Minister for Defence – Australian Business Industry Group

 

[StingrayOZ]

Moving the conversion from the JC1 thread about JP2048 Phase 5 to here.

Throwing a couple of names contenders from what the JP2048 P5 was origionally written.

Batral class
Caiman 200
Stern landing ship

For some out of the box options:
HSV or JHSV type ship
L-Cat

I quite like the Caiman 200, if it could be fitted with basic helo facilities and if it was possible to connect to the LHD.

 

[aussienscale]

Moving the conversion from the JC1 thread about JP2048 Phase 5 to here.

Throwing a couple of names contenders from what the JP2048 P5 was origionally written.

Batral class
Caiman 200
Stern landing ship

For some out of the box options:
HSV or JHSV type ship
L-Cat

I quite like the Caiman 200, if it could be fitted with basic helo facilities and if it was possible to connect to the LHD.

I have always been a fan of the Caimen 200, and just quietly also like the concept of the 90 and 60. The size of the 200 would be a very good fit to the LCH replacement and looking at the basic design, I don't see that there would be any problems adding a flight deck to the back of if, it is a bow ramp design anyway, and I don't think weight or top weight issues would be an issue

Cheers

 

[ASSAIL]

I have always been a fan of the Caimen 200, and just quietly also like the concept of the 90 and 60. The size of the 200 would be a very good fit to the LCH replacement and looking at the basic design, I don't see that there would be any problems adding a flight deck to the back of if, it is a bow ramp design anyway, and I don't think weight or top weight issues would be an issue

Cheers

Top weight may not be an issue but total Dead weight will be. Depending upon strength of helo deck, it could reduce load capacity by upwards of 30 tonnes and if you then add helo fuel and stores we lose one of three battle tanks. (DWT = 200 tonnes for this ship).
Basically it is a truck for carrying max khaki load and I'm not sure of the advantage of a helo which would be impossible to carry on independent ops (unless no other cargo was needed eg border duties) and redundant on combined ops.
A good choice though IMHO.
I saw a Batral in Darwin last year and it looked very dated.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Top weight may not be an issue but total Dead weight will be. Depending upon strength of helo deck, it could reduce load capacity by upwards of 30 tonnes and if you then add helo fuel and stores we lose one of three battle tanks. (DWT = 200 tonnes for this ship).
Basically it is a truck for carrying max khaki load and I'm not sure of the advantage of a helo which would be impossible to carry on independent ops (unless no other cargo was needed eg border duties) and redundant on combined ops.
A good choice though IMHO.
I saw a Batral in Darwin last year and it looked very dated.

I guess it depends what the helo is for and when its needed. It may not be required all the time, so some of those compromises could be acceptable. I would imagine to have heavy lift, and helo, and speed and everything else you end up with a big expensive ship which then also costs a lot to operate and isn't good at landing (HSV?).

I wonder if something like the Caiman 200 with a helo deck could support ASW operations like the JHSV's do (range? useful aviation fuel load?) . I would imagine it would be useful for troop focused missions. Smaller craft might find less demanding aircraft (UAV?) more useful most of the time (ie when landing/supporting forces ashore).

 

[Volkodav]

Steel is cheap and air is free meaning a class of larger vessels such as the US Army LSVs could be viable, as could even a small OPV based LPD .

Looking outside the square this small LPD / large OPV (i.e. 3-4000 tonne) would have a floodable stern dock sized for a single LCM or LCU (US style LCU(R)?) and minimal cargo space. Heavy equipment would be preloaded on the landing craft while troops, light equipment and general stores would be accommodated on the LPD. LCVPs or even CBs could be carried on davits or launched from a multi mission deck. It could also accommodate a helicopter or two, a medium calibre gun and perhaps a basic self defence suite including RCS (Typhoon or Mini-typhoon), EOD and/or even RAM / CAAM.

Interestingly, the impression I have had is the LCHs are being retired to free up crews for patrol boats, FSUs and also for the new LCM(E)s. It a man power driven rather than capability issue and long term, once crewing, especially in technical areas have stabilised, larger more capable ships can be looked at again.