Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

Status
Not open for further replies.

t68

Well-Known Member
Not so, escorts remain with the high value target and as such are constrained by a requirement to remain within a high noise environment.
Agree with what you are saying, but that's one of the underlying problems with the RAN we do not have enough combat weight to provide the escorts to the phat ships as well as having the ability for independant action away from the main body.

With only three AWD one or two of them will be acting as the LHD escorts and up to three Anzacs as well, it's being able to sustain concurrent actions where the RAN falls short IMHO. If Volks idea ever gets up I don't think we should cut numbers in the ASW frigate fleet.
 
Agree with what you are saying, but that's one of the underlying problems with the RAN we do not have enough combat weight to provide the escorts to the phat ships as well as having the ability for independant action away from the main body.

With only three AWD one or two of them will be acting as the LHD escorts and up to three Anzacs as well, it's being able to sustain concurrent actions where the RAN falls short IMHO.
Someone suggested a while back that the ANZAC II class should be increased up to nine (3 x 3 blocks). The more I think on this the more this makes sense to me. I don't see NZ 'partnering' on this one.
 

aussienscale

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Someone suggested a while back that the ANZAC II class should be increased up to nine (3 x 3 blocks). The more I think on this the more this makes sense to me. I don't see NZ 'partnering' on this one.
NZ will not be partnering on this at all, they have chosen a totally different path which will divide the purchasing/replacement cycle of both countries for a very long time leaving their Anzac replacements as a 2 ship orphan fleet in the bottom of the Pacific.

a build of 9 hulls would be nice for the Anzac II but 12 would be ideal/required IMO

Cheers
 

hairyman

Active Member
I agree that eight is not enough, and I dont really think 3 are enough when it comes to the AWD's. 12 frigates and 4 AWD's would probably be enough surface ships to do all that we now expect the RAN to do.
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
I agree that eight is not enough, and I dont really think 3 are enough when it comes to the AWD's. 12 frigates and 4 AWD's would probably be enough surface ships to do all that we now expect the RAN to do.
That gets us up to the sixteen that was deemed unaffordable during Mining Boom MkI when three DDGs and two FFGs were retired without replacement, but is still less than the twenty three destroyers and frigates needed to supplement and support the three carriers and eight submarines that were believed necessary to maintain a two ocean navy in the late sixties. Mind you this is also the period where the Army and RAAF also missed out on necessary capabilities such as HAWK SAMs, SPGs, replacements for worn out reserve equipment, strategic airlifters, replacement LSMs, attack helicopters, while money was spent on conscription and a major sustained deployment to Vietnam.
 

ADMk2

Just a bloke
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
The focus of ADF anti-submarine force has resulted in the acquisition of several different capabilities that operate either separately or collaboratively in support of the ASW operations, namely the Anzac and Collins fleet, the P3 Orions and now the MH-60R. The Anzacs and Collins fleet and P3 replacement are in numbers resembling at best a training capability, should we compromise numbers of submarine's and Anzac replacement to achieve the aim of having more helicopters at sea(with a strike capability)or should we expand the longer ranged future P8 Poseidon fleet increase the submarine and Anzac replacement fleet moving from a training capability to sustainable operational fleet I believe it's crunch time on what the ASW requirements, its not much use having a Amphibious capability that capability won't deploy in times of heightened tension if their is a fear of not being able to clear our SLOC.
I think that a rather interesting viewpoint. A future RAAF MPA fleet of 12x P-8A's and 7x Triton MUAV's represents a mere 'training' capability? These are being acquired keeping the numbers of ANZAC replacements in line with current numbers (of a hopefully far more capable vessel) and planned for doubling of submarine numbers (and again presumably a far more capable vessel).

In numbers alone these exceed our extent MPA capability and the performance difference is massive. This 'training' capability dwarfs what the UK is able to provide and the way I see it, exceeds what any individual European power is capable of employing. (Though France arguably according to some sources has greater platform numbers, I doubt many consider Atlantique's superior to the P-8A and certainly not the Triton in overall capability).

I think this capability is being rather understated here. A training capability that is greatly more capable than the operational force we currently have and have used extensively on operations for the past 30 years?

If this is a training capability, then there is an awful lot of 'training' capability in the world and very little 'operational' capability...
 

ADMk2

Just a bloke
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
I agree that eight is not enough, and I dont really think 3 are enough when it comes to the AWD's. 12 frigates and 4 AWD's would probably be enough surface ships to do all that we now expect the RAN to do.
I think the opportunity for an additional AWD has probably passed, but I agree that numbers could (and should) be expanded for the future frigate.

I think at a minimum we should be looking at 10-12 vessels in this class. This effectively was what the ANZAC class program achieved (between Australia and NZ) but without a committed NZ 'pulling its weight' in the regional context with modern surface combatants, capable of operating in high end combat situations, we need to ensure we have that capability available to us.

Increased commitment to the FF will also be very beneficial to our ship-building industry...
 

t68

Well-Known Member
I think that a rather interesting viewpoint. A future RAAF MPA fleet of 12x P-8A's and 7x Triton MUAV's represents a mere 'training' capability? These are being acquired keeping the numbers of ANZAC replacements in line with current numbers (of a hopefully far more capable vessel) and planned for doubling of submarine numbers (and again presumably a far more capable vessel).

In numbers alone these exceed our extent MPA capability and the performance difference is massive. This 'training' capability dwarfs what the UK is able to provide and the way I see it, exceeds what any individual European power is capable of employing. (Though France arguably according to some sources has greater platform numbers, I doubt many consider Atlantique's superior to the P-8A and certainly not the Triton in overall capability).

I think this capability is being rather understated here. A training capability that is greatly more capable than the operational force we currently have and have used extensively on operations for the past 30 years?

If this is a training capability, then there is an awful lot of 'training' capability in the world and very little 'operational' capability...

As far as I am awere we only have 8 P8 on order, and have not heard any more on the BAMS supplementary aircraft.

Whist I agree the future equipment is of a higher quality but they can only be in one place at a time.

My reference is to the current list equipment of the RAN, namely the Anzac and the Collins. We have 24 MH60R on order and that is expected to achieve 8 operation aircraft for the Anzacs which can only carry one helicopter.

At the moment we are flat out sustaing one frigate on a rotational basis in the ME, one the LHD fully worked up will be the priority tasking for escort duties, in our case eight is not enough.

Six Collins to be replaced by ? submarine the way this current goverment is going we all know twelve is pigs might fly stuff but I hope they go thru with it

So would you be happy with the idea of reducing the Frigate fleet in order to achieve the proposed(Volks idea)capabilty increase with ASW helicopter carrier which can have more MH60R in the air at any one time
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
As far as I am awere we only have 8 P8 on order, and have not heard any more on the BAMS supplementary aircraft.

Whist I agree the future equipment is of a higher quality but they can only be in one place at a time.

My reference is to the current list equipment of the RAN, namely the Anzac and the Collins. We have 24 MH60R on order and that is expected to achieve 8 operation aircraft for the Anzacs which can only carry one helicopter.

At the moment we are flat out sustaing one frigate on a rotational basis in the ME, one the LHD fully worked up will be the priority tasking for escort duties, in our case eight is not enough.

Six Collins to be replaced by ? submarine the way this current goverment is going we all know twelve is pigs might fly stuff but I hope they go thru with it

So would you be happy with the idea of reducing the Frigate fleet in order to achieve the proposed(Volks idea)capabilty increase with ASW helicopter carrier which can have more MH60R in the air at any one time
I should make it clear I am not suggesting a further reduction in numbers but rather a trade off in capability. i.e. a small number of very capable vessels supported by a larger number of less specialised GP frigates that are specifically designed to be easily upgraded through their service lives. I am not talking "for but not with" as seen with the ANZACs but rather that they would initially be fully capable and equipped with systems cascaded from the ANZAC ASMDs but unlike the ANZACs and more like the Spuances, would be specifically designed to be upgraded into full DDGs, with land attack capability, if required.

So basically the ideal would be eight large, highly automated (small crew) frigates, initially reusing ASMDsystems, more effectively and efficiently on a much more capable and modern platform (all electric propulsion, more seaworthy, much larger margins) that could be fully upgraded into land attack and ABM capable DDGs with AUSPAR etc. The minimum would be eight smaller frigates, purpose designed to use the current ASMD systems to greater effect than on the current ANZACs with their space and stability issues. Either option would be significantly cheaper and offer superior through life potential, than Johnstons F-100 based Frankenfrigates.

The whole idea of reducing the cost, but not effectiveness of the replacement frigates, is to free up money to acquire a transformational capability to support the AWDs. My prefered option here would be a 20-30,000t DDH, with ASW, MCM, CSAR, AEW and possibly attack helicopters, designed to be re-roled as a light carrier with a dozen or more F-35B, UAV/UCAV and maybe tilt rotors in addition to the helicopters.

On the subs, I am very much of the opinion that unless they can be acquired through FMS they should be as a minimum, fabricated and assembled locally. An FMS acquisition would pretty much have to be then current block Virginias. Any other foreign design / build option is IMO, based on Australian and overseas experience, far too risky in terms of performance, cost, schedule and sustainment.

Finally, we absolutely have to, as a bare minimum, replace the ACPBs with OPVs. A far preferable option would be a family of modular, multirole combatants, covering EEZ (and international in support of the UN) patrol, MCM, ASW, survey and independent low end combat tasks in a low threat environment, or higher end missions in support of (and under the protection of) the RANs major combatants.
 

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
Either option would be significantly cheaper and offer superior through life potential, than Johnstons F-100 based Frankenfrigates.
The F-100 based replacement solution predates Johnston. Given the issues at the moment I still firmly believe the F-100 hull is the only viable option to have it built in the near future.

However it is only the hull that I would use. I would be seeking new propulsion in a CODLAG arrangement with diesel engines + GT much like the F-125.

Would it be possible to have a common "fleet engine" across the RAN (surface, subs, OPV). Each engine would be ~2MW. Commonality would make things a heck of a lot easier. I know sub engines are a sensitive topic, but I guess the question would be, is it possible.
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
The F-100 based replacement solution predates Johnston. Given the issues at the moment I still firmly believe the F-100 hull is the only viable option to have it built in the near future.

However it is only the hull that I would use. I would be seeking new propulsion in a CODLAG arrangement with diesel engines + GT much like the F-125.

Would it be possible to have a common "fleet engine" across the RAN (surface, subs, OPV). Each engine would be ~2MW. Commonality would make things a heck of a lot easier. I know sub engines are a sensitive topic, but I guess the question would be, is it possible.
The F-100 hull is an aging, compromised, complex, difficult to fabricate, light weight design. It is in some ways evolved from the FFG-7 (of which IZAR built six) but strangely deleted some really good features that the USN had included in successive generations of combatants. The shell plating is really thin to save weight but will cause issues with durability particularly in terms of corrosion also the manner in which the plates are aligned goes against best practice and unnecessarily builds in stress concentrations. Many experienced shipbuilders, BIW, ex Tenix, BAE, TKMS etc. were continually amazed at the quirks of the design that added nothing but caused grief for the builders and would also result in maintenance issues in years to come.

Yes an F-100 derivative has been discussed for some time but Johnston was the main fan. The truth is that Labors failure to order new AORs and the new governments decision to to exclude Australian yards from bidding, as well as a bizarre resistance to ordering any additional AWDs are the driving force behind a bodged up no AEGIS F-100 rather than any urgent need to replace the recently upgraded ANZACs. There has been some suggestion that the ANZACs are shagged because they were run into the ground on border protection duties due to the previous governments"failed" policies but I call BS on this as at any given time two or more ANZACS were often laid up due to crewing issues so they have not seen as much use as may have been expected, especially as so many other combatants were retied without replacement between 1996 and 2007.

As for common engines, no. The Bravo diesels in the F-100s are no longer MARPOL compliant even though they have been detuned in an attempt to improve their emissions. The GTs are an older, less efficient, no longer available type that was specified for their commonality with the ANZACs. The propulsion diesels of the AWD are to large for smaller vessels, are likely unsuitable for submarines and too old tech for new ships. As for using the propulsion system of the new frigates on other vessels, the only ships they would likely be suitable for is the eventual AWD replacement but that is thirty years off so a newer generation propulsion system would obviously be available by then.
 

swerve

Super Moderator
I'd look at the B&V MEKO 600 or Type 26 if you want up to date frigate hull & propulsion designs.

I'd examine the Iver Huitfeld class because of the price, but I'd like to know how it's achieved, & if corners have been cut that would bite back, & FREMM, but with an eye on the work needed to modify it for the mix of Australian & US systems I think Australia wants.

The Koreans & Japanese have no experience building warships for foreign customers, but they have ships worth looking at, if one is confident that hurdle can be overcome, e.g. the Japanese 25DD class (ASW optimised Akizuki, I think) & the follow-on planned for 2020 onwards.
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
I'd look at the B&V MEKO 600 or Type 26 if you want up to date frigate hull & propulsion designs.

I'd examine the Iver Huitfeld class because of the price, but I'd like to know how it's achieved, & if corners have been cut that would bite back, & FREMM, but with an eye on the work needed to modify it for the mix of Australian & US systems I think Australia wants.

The Koreans & Japanese have no experience building warships for foreign customers, but they have ships worth looking at, if one is confident that hurdle can be overcome, e.g. the Japanese 25DD class (ASW optimised Akizuki, I think) & the follow-on planned for 2020 onwards.
The previous government seemed interested in the Type 26 but all mention of this disappeared after the election when Johnston took over the portfolio and set his heart on the F-100. He's gone now but his replacement is a bit of a dinosaur, he has probably requested that wooden hulled sail frigates be included in any tender.
 

ADMk2

Just a bloke
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
As far as I am awere we only have 8 P8 on order, and have not heard any more on the BAMS supplementary aircraft.

Whist I agree the future equipment is of a higher quality but they can only be in one place at a time.
The additional 4 aircraft already has first pass approval and full Government support, so there is no real issue there.

'One place at one time' arguments are non-sequitor. Yes if the full 30x year old 15x strong fleet of AP-3C's were all dedicated to MPA only duties (which we 'know' they aren't) and they all had the same availability, range, cruise speed, sortie generation capability and overall capability they could be in more places at once than a fleet of 12x P-8A's. But IF they had all that, we wouldn't be buying P-8A's in the first place...

They don't, they can't and so on. Apples with apples my friend. Australia's ASW capability might not be all it 'could' be, but it certainly isn't going backwards. Quite the contrary.

My reference is to the current list equipment of the RAN, namely the Anzac and the Collins. We have 24 MH60R on order and that is expected to achieve 8 operation aircraft for the Anzacs which can only carry one helicopter.
Almost. Those 8 Romeos are to be deployed across AWD AND the ANZAC class and eventually the FF class. 8 is the usual 'peace time' number RAN is planning on deploying. Not the maximum it can deploy nor does this represent any kind of 'surge' capability. Furthmore 8 Romeos at sea any one time represents far more ASW capability than we presently have with the peacetime deployments conducted by the 16 strong S-70B2 fleet and more than we would have had even had the Seasprogs gone ahead, given their ASuW focus and lack of genuine ASW capability.

At the moment we are flat out sustaing one frigate on a rotational basis in the ME, one the LHD fully worked up will be the priority tasking for escort duties, in our case eight is not enough.
And yet we've had both FFG's AND the ANZAC Class deployed there, but we can only 'sustain' one frigate? That isn't correct. We choose to sustain one. We have others on border protection duties nearly constantly, 3 frigates available to go and shadow a 'surprise' Russian fleet back in November and yet we can only sustain one 'operational' deployment?

I agree 8 frigates isn't enough. I've already suggested we need at least 2 and in reality 4 more, but lets not pretend one operationally deployed frigate is all the current surface fleet can sustain...

Six Collins to be replaced by ? submarine the way this current goverment is going we all know twelve is pigs might fly stuff but I hope they go thru with it

So would you be happy with the idea of reducing the Frigate fleet in order to achieve the proposed(Volks idea)capabilty increase with ASW helicopter carrier which can have more MH60R in the air at any one time
Not sure what this Government is 'planning'. There doesn't seem to be much thought in many of their decisions. All I know is they've committed publicly to increased P-8A numbers and given the project first pass approval. They've also committed to an enlarged submarine fleet. Whether that will be 12 remains to be seen, but it won't be this Government making that decision, that's for sure.
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
What would be interesting is an apples for apples comparison of conventional verses nuclear options.

I suspect that a Block III or IV Virginia would have a similar, if not slightly lower, acquisition cost to a bespoke conventional fleet submarine of the type the RAN requires. I would assume support costs, including support infrastructure, for the SSN would be higher than for an SSG but I could be wrong. I would also assume that fewer SSNs would be required to meet a given requirement, but again I could be wrong.

If we are seriously looking to acquire a suitable SSG from overseas then I suspect an SSN alternative may be a lot more affordable than many suspect.
 

t68

Well-Known Member
What would be interesting is an apples for apples comparison of conventional verses nuclear options.

I suspect that a Block III or IV Virginia would have a similar, if not slightly lower, acquisition cost to a bespoke conventional fleet submarine of the type the RAN requires. I would assume support costs, including support infrastructure, for the SSN would be higher than for an SSG but I could be wrong. I would also assume that fewer SSNs would be required to meet a given requirement, but again I could be wrong.

If we are seriously looking to acquire a suitable SSG from overseas then I suspect an SSN alternative may be a lot more affordable than many suspect.

Agree, can a nuc boats be sustained if we do not have a domestic nuclear power capabilty.

On the other hand it would be harder or the goverment not to provide adequate funding as a nuc boat just can't be put on blocks and walk away from it if you want to save some $$
 

aussienscale

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Agree, can a nuc boats be sustained if we do not have a domestic nuclear power capabilty.

On the other hand it would be harder or the goverment not to provide adequate funding as a nuc boat just can't be put on blocks and walk away from it if you want to save some $$
Well the S9G is fuelled for life, approx 33 years of operation, so we would have no requirement to re-fuel unless there is an issue. So it would be the people to operate and maintain, what requirements are required for that, I am not sure ?

That also leads into the issue of what happens when the reactor gets to the end of its life ?
 

ManteoRed

New Member
Nuke positives-
Likely cheaper per hull $
Likely need less hulls to achieve desired results $$
No recurring fuel costs
Could have the boat, more or less when you want it as the line is hot and rolling them off like clock work, just a matter of getting/picking a production slot.
It has been suggested that the US would be willing to perhaps lease the reactor, thereby "taking it back" when Aus is done with it, dealing with the dirty end of the work.

Nuke negatives-
No current experience in the RAN with nuke operations
If deciding to do depot work locally, would be costly to build the experience and the facilities for it
Greater crewing requirements
Because it wasnt built locally its a hit to local industry/jobs/tax revenue
But from what I can tell the biggest negative, is the word "nuclear." Politically, it seems to be a dirty word and potential career killer in Oz.
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
The just departed CEO of ASC was the former head of RR submarines, a nuclear reactor expert, the Engineering Director he appointed was a highly experienced in building and commissioning civilian nuclear reactors. Basically the necessary skills can be imported as can the trained operators, a number of the RANs submariners are ex RN anyway, just employ more from the engineering side of things.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Some interesting comments on this thread regarding a nuclear option for subs. Given Australia's long range/endurance requirements, this option is worth considering. The unit cost will be somewhat higher but this may be offset by more capability thus reducing the fleet size. If a reasonable price for decommsioning the reactor could be worked out with the US this should reduce the public fear factor. An Australian SSN fleet could induce the USN to partner in on a local sub base, again resulting in some support savings. This is a proven system that has known costs.

The alternative is to build or partially build a modified Diesel/electric sub locally. Depending on the Australian overall content for the project, the political pressure may force this option and it will likely cost more overall once all the developmental costs for factored in. I guess the potential exists for having some of blocks for a Virginia built in Australia but that may not be acceptable to the Electric Boat people.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top