Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[StingrayOZ]

Agree with this. A 96 cell ship would probably be over the 9,000 tonne range; perhaps they mixed up the number of missiles carried vs launchers. Theoretically a 48 cell mk 41 could hold 16 cells quad pack ESSM = 64 missiles. Remaining 32 cells with SM-2/SM-6 and/or TLAM/LRASM = 32 missiles for a total of 96 missiles. I think they navy probably asked for ships that were just as big as the constructed AWD's and the govt. said find something more economical.

This story seems to derail the concepts of F-100 based Anzac replacements. It would also derail the idea of Type 26 based replacement (or any replacement being larger than the Anzacs at around 4000t). I would like to see more evidence before fully committing to this being fact. (IE like what is in the whitepaper).

I assume a F-100 base build but with fewer VLS would be the most obvious solution. Also not quad packing ESSM. Because actual cost isn't important its the magical number of "missiles" where essm is counted in the same breath as Tlam.

 

[alexsa]

This story seems to derail the concepts of F-100 based Anzac replacements. It would also derail the idea of Type 26 based replacement (or any replacement being larger than the Anzacs at around 4000t). I would like to see more evidence before fully committing to this being fact. (IE like what is in the whitepaper).

I assume a F-100 base build but with fewer VLS would be the most obvious solution. Also not quad packing ESSM. Because actual cost isn't important its the magical number of "missiles" where essm is counted in the same breath as Tlam.

My understanding, and willing ot be corrected, is that F105 design can grow to 64 cells and is aleady at the 7000 size. Depending of Navy is seeking 96 cells or over 100 'missiles' then the F015 could do the latter with a mix of ESSM and other missiles.

Otherwise they may be looking at an AB noting 96 VLS and 8 harpoon cannisters would give you 104 launchers.

Not really enough information.

 

[Bluey 006]

Sounded like RAN wants to obtain a couple of Burke class DDGs.

I dont see that that FREMM frigates necessary presents the best option for us. Other than the hull/Sea frame, the rest of the ship, the armament/weapons, sensors and combat system will be so totally different. We probably want the US systems rather than the French dominated European systems. I would see that BAE Type 26 or Navantia F110 would probably make more sense for us.

There is also the Lockheed martin and Austral multi mission surface combatants...

I personally would like to see an Australian version of the Type 26, I believe the revised design was to be smaller than the 6500t originally envisioned, down to around 5,400t which might make it more the size that they are looking to sign off on...

Maybe, 32 Cells... or 24 strike length cells and 24 shorter cells for ESSM etc.. that said with things like the LRASM coming online in the next 10 years ( which will be fired from the VLS and the Harpoon isn't) more cells is probably required

I do think they should be looking at 9 x ANZAC replacements rather than 1 for 1 , so that we have a total of 12 major surface combatants (3 x AWD and 9x Frigates)

2040 roughly mid life for these frigates could be a very different world

 

[Volkodav]

My understanding, and willing ot be corrected, is that F105 design can grow to 64 cells and is aleady at the 7000 size. Depending of Navy is seeking 96 cells or over 100 'missiles' then the F015 could do the latter with a mix of ESSM and other missiles.

Otherwise they may be looking at an AB noting 96 VLS and 8 harpoon cannisters would give you 104 launchers.

Not really enough information.

There seems to be the inference in the story that the RAN is somehow being unreasonable in this requirement, however when you look at it in terms of an Arliegh Burke they are quite realistic. Review it again with the assumption we are talking about Flight IIA Burkes being ordered from Tenix Williamstown as a direct replacement for the Perth Class DDGs and early Adelaide Class FFGs and this apparently unreasonable and unaffordable 2015 option becomes possibly the best option interms of capability, value for money and perhaps even cost, in hindsight.

 

[knightrider4]

There seems to be the inference in the story that the RAN is somehow being unreasonable in this requirement, however when you look at it in terms of an Arliegh Burke they are quite realistic. Review it again with the assumption we are talking about Flight IIA Burkes being ordered from Tenix Williamstown as a direct replacement for the Perth Class DDGs and early Adelaide Class FFGs and this apparently unreasonable and unaffordable 2015 option becomes possibly the best option interms of capability, value for money and perhaps even cost, in hindsight.

I guess where the article is at odds with project SEA 5000 is that it states a force level ASW capability and task force command capability. Not stating for a minute that the Burke doesn't have good ASW capability. But certainly the specifications mentioned in that article seem way out of SEA 5000's scope.

 

[knightrider4]

This story seems to derail the concepts of F-100 based Anzac replacements. It would also derail the idea of Type 26 based replacement (or any replacement being larger than the Anzacs at around 4000t). I would like to see more evidence before fully committing to this being fact. (IE like what is in the whitepaper).

I assume a F-100 base build but with fewer VLS would be the most obvious solution. Also not quad packing ESSM. Because actual cost isn't important its the magical number of "missiles" where essm is counted in the same breath as Tlam.

I agree an evolved F-105 makes some sense, however will the hull be suitable for a vessel with ASW its primary focus? Certainly the propulsion system will need a major redesign one would have thought as it will be older than some of the posters here.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Does ASW need to be its prime focus?
Previous white papers have earmarked ballistic missile (of some type) and land attack as areas for capability. It also outlined the 7,000t design.

IMO ASW could be more efficiently be done in conjunction with OPV's as previously discussed. IMO its less about a single platform providing all the capability as a systems between multiple assets (helo, dismounts, UUV etc). The idea that all the sensors have to be on the ship and the ship itself has to sail around and do it all from its hull mounted sensors and weapons, is dated (IMO).

The platform is less important that the systems it can support. There are plenty of dated platforms that have very modern and capable systems which exceed the performance of newer platforms with lesser systems.

Certainly the F-105 could and should be updated. Certainly if you asked the RAN what was required to meet the original 2007 WP the only proven, low risk ship would have been the Burkes.

Actually with all the activities between Australian and Japanese governments I wouldn't have been surprised if the RAN asked for Kongo or Atago or similar design. 96 cells, a little over 7,000t displacement. Was this what they were angling for (Atago or Burke), ask for the biggest and best and see what is said.

The story is a little vague was exactly was asked and what was rejected. It certainly doesn't give the RAN opinion on it.

Thumbs up for asking for full size capability. Hopefully they still get something capable out of it, that is good for Australia, the region, the RAN, local industry etc.

 

[Volkodav]

Most of the problems with the AWD are down to us having forgotten how to build ships. The end result is cost blowouts and delays that likely would not have occurred had there not been a shipbuilding black hole at the end of the ANZAC project. Other issues related to expecting world results from a never before used contract model, a builder that had never built a ship before, a platform designer who had never exported a design or assisted with an overseas build, a CS designer who were doing god knows what as the selected CS was already part of the selected design all working from a green fields site that hadn't even been completed. Add in cost cutting and workforce restructuring (to save money up front) and there were bound to be delays, throw in the fact that the original schedule was dream land stuff and there was no hope.

Now the first ship is about to be launched, the yard and contractors are up to speed (I have my doubts about Raytheon) and the government is seriously contemplating throwing it all away and ordering the future frigates off shore, before inevitably kicking off local ship building again in a decade or so. Lessons learned (or that should have been learned) are that a timely order of Flight IIA Arliegh Burkes from Tenix (i.e. before the BAE sale therefore negating the need for the sale) Williamstown and contracting LM as the CS designer (because they are the actual AEGIS CSdesigner for everyone else), to follow the last of the ANZACs seamlessly, would have seen three ships in service already with few if any of the issues encountered on the current project.

Sooner, better, cheaper and yet the current debacle is industries fault?

 

[StingrayOZ]

I think its an interesting POV, but I think waiting for the white paper will guide everyone where this is going.

IMO it doesn't appear that ASW is the problem, the problem is the RAN is dreaming too expensive. The RAN most likely gave an upper spec of what they wanted. It seems unlikely if this report is true that the RAN is going to get Burkes or similar sized/capable ships as frigate replacements. Given they didn't get Burkes as AWD's this is not really that surprising.

Burkes straight after the Anzacs would have made a lot of sense. But we are well past that now. The hope is they can wrangle out a decent Frigate replacement.

 

[knightrider4]

Most of the problems with the AWD are down to us having forgotten how to build ships. The end result is cost blowouts and delays that likely would not have occurred had there not been a shipbuilding black hole at the end of the ANZAC project. Other issues related to expecting world results from a never before used contract model, a builder that had never built a ship before, a platform designer who had never exported a design or assisted with an overseas build, a CS designer who were doing god knows what as the selected CS was already part of the selected design all working from a green fields site that hadn't even been completed. Add in cost cutting and workforce restructuring (to save money up front) and there were bound to be delays, throw in the fact that the original schedule was dream land stuff and there was no hope.

Now the first ship is about to be launched, the yard and contractors are up to speed (I have my doubts about Raytheon) and the government is seriously contemplating throwing it all away and ordering the future frigates off shore, before inevitably kicking off local ship building again in a decade or so. Lessons learned (or that should have been learned) are that a timely order of Flight IIA Arliegh Burkes from Tenix (i.e. before the BAE sale therefore negating the need for the sale) Williamstown and contracting LM as the CS designer (because they are the actual AEGIS CSdesigner for everyone else), to follow the last of the ANZACs seamlessly, would have seen three ships in service already with few if any of the issues encountered on the current project.

Sooner, better, cheaper and yet the current debacle is industries fault?

It will be interesting to see what the Governments shipbuilding plan comes up with. I think we can safely assume that the submarines will be built overseas. As for the future frigates one would think that is within Australias shipbuilding capacity as well as the OPV's. The timelines for building both submarines and the future frigates in Australia doesn't seem realistic but who knows what will happen.

 

[Volkodav]

IMO we should be building destroyers, frigates, OPV sized multi-role vessels, patrol boats and small to medium amphibious craft locally while the once in thirty year LHD, AOR and (dream land) carriers would be tacked onto other nations projects and built off shore. Had we developed a rolling build along those lines in the 70s, 80s, or even90s, I honestly believe we would have a capable and sustainable naval shipbuilding industry as well as a significantly larger and more capable RAN than we do today and would not have had to spend a cent more to achieve it.

 

[John Fedup]

IMO we should be building destroyers, frigates, OPV sized multi-role vessels, patrol boats and small to medium amphibious craft locally while the once in thirty year LHD, AOR and (dream land) carriers would be tacked onto other nations projects and built off shore. Had we developed a rolling build along those lines in the 70s, 80s, or even90s, I honestly believe we would have a capable and sustainable naval shipbuilding industry as well as a significantly larger and more capable RAN than we do today and would not have had to spend a cent more to achieve it.

All too similar to our situation in Canada except we will not likely ever have LHDs and the RCN knows dreaming about carriers is a no-go.

 

[ASSAIL]

The conversation about what capability will result from the future frigates is endless and all of us have views. What piqued my interest in the Cameron Stewart article was just how he got the information. Was it because of a closeness to Dennis Richardson (Head of the DoD for those non Australians ) or rather was it a journo desperate to have something to say to big note himself.
From what we have discussed on here, with contributions by some who are close to defence, there has not been any hint of a capability as imposing as that suggested.

 

[Volkodav]

I was at a meeting several years ago where a senior sir, after going through just a very small number of the numerous requirements the F-105 didn't meet or actually flew in the face of, commented that we as we always went for the MOTS solution that least satisfied RAN requirements (against professional advice), our requirements set would likely never be used.

 

[Joe Black]

I was at a meeting several years ago where a senior sir, after going through just a very small number of the numerous requirements the F-105 didn't meet or actually flew in the face of, commented that we as we always went for the MOTS solution that least satisfied RAN requirements (against professional advice), our requirements set would likely never be used.

Understandable, but the armed services must also realise that there we live in a real world where money is never enough, everyone got to do more with less, that includes the military in this age of economic downturns. We will never going to get the best of everything and that everything we get will fit into our exact requirements or specification. But what we can do is to modify our processes and tactics to realise the strategic goals set by the government policies with what our money can buy us.

Is the F-105 really that bad compared to the mini Burke. They shouldn't forget that they also got the Juan Carlos class LHD at the same time rather than the Mistral-class. Personal I think it was a win-win situation where RAN get a decent enough AWD, and get the best LHD. Surely, the mini Burke would have been nice, but had ASC built them, it could well be experiencing the same problems and challenges they currently have.

In general, I don't think Australian Defence Forces are doing that badly in terms of the equipment they have got. Sure, they can get better tools, equipment and weapons, I suppose it comes down to being matured in terms of asking for the right tool to do the right job, rather than asking for the sky and see what you get. There's a mentality of asking for a Royce-Roll so that we can get a top of the range Toyota.

 

[t68]

I can't help think that at the time the AWD were ordered was it better to have ordered either the Burkes straight of the production line in the USA then put the savings into the Anzac replacement with perhaps 4 additional builds, in that time we could have built the AOR here.


I guess what needs to be looked at is who much would the savings be in doing a foreign build compared to domestic build.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Surely, the mini Burke would have been nice, but had ASC built them, it could well be experiencing the same problems and challenges they currently have.

Just a bit on this.

The Air Warfare Destroyer program – Parliament of Australia

The weld quality on Block 107 was found to be poor; just as bad, heat distortion had buckled the flat deck plating out of tolerance. A significant amount of re-work is necessary which has delayed delivery of the first blocks from Williamstown [it should be noted that as at September 2011 three blocks have been delivered from BAE Systems at Williamstown].

It is quite possible BAE would have stuffed up regardless. It is quite probable that Labor would have then delayed the project more to even out workflow at a cost and additional time.

I was at a meeting several years ago where a senior sir, after going through just a very small number of the numerous requirements the F-105 didn't meet or actually flew in the face of, commented that we as we always went for the MOTS solution that least satisfied RAN requirements (against professional advice), our requirements set would likely never be used.

Looks to be interesting if we have to revisit why the F-105 was chosen. Do the Anzac replacements need to have 2 helos for example. It wasn't a deal breaker for the AWD, will it be a deal breaker for the Frigate replacements.

 

[Volkodav]

There is a mistaken belief that the F-105 is a cheaper option than a DDG-51 when truth be known a Burke ordered in the 90s as a Perth Class DDG replacement would have cost less than we expected to pay a decade later with the AWD, definitely if ordered from Ingalls or BIW but possibly also if ordered from Tenix. One of the main reasons the G&C International Frigate and the F-105 became the preferred options for the existing and evolved alternatives is their diesels and smaller crews were expected to significantly reduce operating costs, what you have to wonder however is whether this saving will ever make up the costs associated with delaying the project, resulting in a shipbuilding black hole, having to rebuild capability, having to upgrade and life extend the FFGs, not to forget the cost and schedule over runs related to the selected contract model as well as those associated with the selected design and designer.

Steel is cheap and air is free, AEGIS costs pretty much the same no matter which design its fitted to with smaller hulls likely to prove more expensive due to greater difficulty with integration. Pretty much everything the RAN specified is already baselined on the Flight IIA Burkes so wouldn't need to be integrated and the only real additional costs would be the extra Phalanx and Mk 41 VLS, which could have been made for but not with if dollars were that big an issue. In addition there are a number of ready for production, or in fact already available upgrades and modifications to the Burks that would dramatically reduce operating costs, crew size and maintenance overheads that Australia could have specified, such as hybrid electric drive, electrical in place of pneumatic and hydraulic drives an starters.

Far from being more expensive, a well planned and timely replacement of the DDGs could easily have delivered substantial savings, while reducing costs and accelerating in service dates.

 

[Bluey 006]

There is a mistaken belief that the F-105 is a cheaper option than a DDG-51 when truth be known a Burke ordered in the 90s as a Perth Class DDG replacement would have cost less than we expected to pay a decade later with the AWD, definitely if ordered from Ingalls or BIW but possibly also if ordered from Tenix. One of the main reasons the G&C International Frigate and the F-105 became the preferred options for the existing and evolved alternatives is their diesels and smaller crews were expected to significantly reduce operating costs, what you have to wonder however is whether this saving will ever make up the costs associated with delaying the project, resulting in a shipbuilding black hole, having to rebuild capability, having to upgrade and life extend the FFGs, not to forget the cost and schedule over runs related to the selected contract model as well as those associated with the selected design and designer.

Steel is cheap and air is free, AEGIS costs pretty much the same no matter which design its fitted to with smaller hulls likely to prove more expensive due to greater difficulty with integration. Pretty much everything the RAN specified is already baselined on the Flight IIA Burkes so wouldn't need to be integrated and the only real additional costs would be the extra Phalanx and Mk 41 VLS, which could have been made for but not with if dollars were that big an issue. In addition there are a number of ready for production, or in fact already available upgrades and modifications to the Burks that would dramatically reduce operating costs, crew size and maintenance overheads that Australia could have specified, such as hybrid electric drive, electrical in place of pneumatic and hydraulic drives an starters.

Far from being more expensive, a well planned and timely replacement of the DDGs could easily have delivered substantial savings, while reducing costs and accelerating in service dates.

With the DDG-51 Flight III being upgraded to the Raytheon - Air and Missile Defense Radar (AMDR) from the start of next year, it makes you wonder if the AN/SPY-1D(V) was the right choice for the AWD? Longevity, support, upgrades etc

Anyone have thoughts on this?

 

[Oberon]

With the DDG-51 Flight III being upgraded to the Raytheon - Air and Missile Defense Radar (AMDR) from the start of next year, it makes you wonder if the AN/SPY-1D(V) was the right choice for the AWD? Longevity, support, upgrades etc

Anyone have thoughts on this?

The Raytheon AMDR probably wasn't on the horizon (no pun intended ) when the AWD was ordered way back in 2007.