Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[alexsa]

Going to be an interesting white paper in a few months that will answer a lot of questions.

Keeping it realistic what's expected, and what surprises are/could be forecast for the RAN?

Keeping it realistic ..... with the future frigate there a a couple of 'requirements' that appear to have survived the change in government:

1. Future frigate to be in the order of 7000 tonnes
2. Likely to have some land attack capability (if this means TLAM is not clear)
3. May use SM-6 (again not definitive)
4. Most likely will use the CEA radar suite and systems developed for the ASMD upgrade.

Beyond that

I expect the afloat support will go offshore in order to save funds. You will not be able to beat the price from some of the builders and why would you.

The ACPB replacement does not appear to be on the 'do it now' list given the boats are being 'repaired'. Really one that the white paper will answer. I would love to see and OPV but suspect this is a bit further down the track.

Pacific patrol boat RFT is out and it is a very long time before the cut steel. Given they are small vessels this will not solve the valley of death for all major ship building companies.

Submarines, there is so much noise around this one that that figuring our reality appears difficult. A wait and see really.

 

[aussienscale]

I believe the SM-6 is not meant to entirely replace the SM-2 series of missiles rather complement them.

Yes your are right Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) does solve some of the problem for a task force but what about ships operating independently? (we only have 3 x AWD remember)

Also I could be wrong on this but I think as it stands the current CEAFAR doesn't have cooperative engagement capability(CEC)

Can anyone confirm?

CEAFAR and AUSPAR in the future are not the carriers of CEC, CEC is an integrated network/fusion of Fire Control Systems which are all brought together by the respective CMS being used, different CMS systems can talk together if they have CEC, our first CEC capable ships will be the Hobart Class.

This was discussed some time ago and from memory the SAAB 9LV does have the capability to use CEC, but no plans that I am aware of at this stage to have that integrated, but would make sense to have that done at some time in the future

Cheers

 

[John Newman]

I believe the SM-6 is not meant to entirely replace the SM-2 series of missiles rather complement them.

Yes your are right Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) does solve some of the problem for a task force but what about ships operating independently? Also I could be wrong on this but I think as it stands the current CEAFAR doesn't have cooperative engagement capability(CEC)

Can anyone confirm?

In an 'ideal' world all the RAN's fighting ships would be equipped with 96 Strike Length Mk41 VLS, but they don't, and we don't live in an ideal world.

So taking the more 'probable' reality that the Future Frigates (as with the AWD's), will have 48 strike length Mk41 VLS, that gives many different configurations or possible combinations, for example:

* 8 cells with quad packed ESSM (that's 32, added to the remaining 40 cells that gives you 72 missiles).
* 20 cells with either SM-2 or SM-6 or a combination of both.
* 10 cells with TLAM
* 10 cells with ASROC

Or any other combination that the particular circumstances necessitated.

It could be that that 'single' ship all on it's own out there is equipped with ship borne anti submarine torpedos and also two MH-60R's equipped with anti submarine torpedos too, in that case, ASROC may not need to be carried (if ever selected that is), so the load out could vary, more SM-2/6 or more TLAM.

The possible combinations are endless!!

 

[Bluey 006]

In an 'ideal' world all the RAN's fighting ships would be equipped with 96 Strike Length Mk41 VLS, but they don't, and we don't live in an ideal world.

So taking the more 'probable' reality that the Future Frigates (as with the AWD's), will have 48 strike length Mk41 VLS, that gives many different configurations or possible combinations, for example:

* 8 cells with quad packed ESSM (that's 32, added to the remaining 40 cells that gives you 72 missiles).
* 20 cells with either SM-2 or SM-6 or a combination of both.
* 10 cells with TLAM
* 10 cells with ASROC

Or any other combination that the particular circumstances necessitated.

It could be that that 'single' ship all on it's own out there is equipped with ship borne anti submarine torpedos and also two MH-60R's equipped with anti submarine torpedos too, in that case, ASROC may not need to be carried (if ever selected that is), so the load out could vary, more SM-2/6 or more TLAM.

The possible combinations are endless!!

Absolutely...48 cells can work

So long as they don't cheap out on the future frigates and we end up with a single helo and 16 or 24 cell VLS.

That said, I still believe a variant of the Super-Ikara has merit beyond the frigates - OPV/MRCs,replenishment vessels, amphibious vessels, AWD

 

[John Newman]

There are lots of good options out there but to hark on with the main aim ...... if it cannot be built quickly it is not going to resolve the whole 'valley of death' issue. Forjacs will soon run out of work and BAE systems are already laying off people.

The evolved solution is very nice and I like a lot of the thinking ....... but:
1. it is a paper ship - with the F125 coming in at 5600 tonnes growth to 6200 tonnes is no small design feat; and
2. we are not tooled up for it.

Maybe down the track as a new 'batch' but if we are going to beat the valley of death what ever we choose will need to be a real design of known quantity....... and really soon!

As I said, nice ship and the distributed arrangement and electric drive is a very good feature for the limited view we have of the sales pitch.

PS - Have to correct myself .... the F125 is at the 7000 tonne mark, still not a completed design that we can throw into production, but more mature than the T26.

Agree.

Despite (what appears to be), the growing list of possible candidates for the Future Frigate, UK Type 26, FREMM, Meko 400 and of course an 'evolved' AWD hull, the shadow that is hanging over that choice is what is going to be the current Governments response to the 'Valley of Death' for naval shipbuilding in this country?

Of course the VoD could have been lessened (at the very least), if the previous Rudd/Gillard/Rudd Governments actually placed some orders for the RAN with Australian shipbuilders during their six years in Government, but they didn't, they could have order the 4th AWD (would have given the industry a couple of years of extra block work), but didn't, could have spent money during the GFC to expand Techport so there was the possibility the two AOR's could have been build here, but again they didn't! Anyway, got that off my chest!!

So what does the current Government do to both satisfy the needs of the RAN (which I think should always be the No 1 priority) and also satisfy the various shipbuilding companies and various State Governments too?? Can the Navy and Industry both be winners? Probably not!!

Obviously until the Government hands down the new DWP, the answers to the above won't be known, we won't know what the Government intends to do to reduce the effects of the VoD, the RAND report has given some hints as to what is possible, but of course the recommendations are not necessarily ones that the Government will follow, or be able to follow (depending on which competing priority it tries to address, the needs of the RAN or the needs of Industry).

The 'flavour of the month' last year (announced by the previous Def Min), was to investigate the possibility of an evolved AWD hull and bring block work on the Future Frigate forward to allow for some sort of 'continuity' for the yards currently building blocks for the AWD, is it still the flavour of the month? No doubt the DWP will tell us that.

Since then there appears to be another couple of options to keep industry going, the confirmation by the current Def Min that a class of OPV's will replace the ACPB's and a slightly previous announcement of a class of up to 21 replacement Pacific Patrol boats.

I keep asking myself can the Government find a solution to not only allowing the RAN to procure the best possible option for the Future Frigate and also keep the Naval shipbuilding industry 'alive', all within the time constrains and also budget constraints it has to contend with too, is it possible??


The more obvious solution, the one the Government has flagged, is to start work on an evolved AWD hull sooner rather than later, this may allow for continuity across the various yards currently building blocks for the AWD project and the remaining work to be done on the LHD's too.

Another alternative is to start building a reasonably sized class of OPV's asap. Lots of questions, how many hulls? Can the hulls be built in blocks and can those blocks be shared around as with the AWD? Can the work cover the time effectively between the end of the AWD's and the Future Frigates?

If not enough to fill the gap, can the letting of contracts for the replacement Pacific Patrol boats and possible the LCH(R) be let too? Can all of the above give industry the 'time' it needs to survive and also allow the Government and the RAN the 'time' it needs to select the 'best' available option for the Future Frigate?

Lots of questions, not a lot of answers!

Sill the main question is, can the requirements of the RAN, Industry and their respective supporting State Governments all be satisfied? Can they all be winners and there are no losers?

Bloody hard one to answer!!

 

[Volkodav]

There was a Super Ikara project in the late 70s, early 80s. It was a canister launched system with wings that folded down against the missile body and was designed in conjunction with the Italians. It was apparently quite a capable system and was progressing well, the only issue being that none of the existing, or planned new frigates had sufficient space to install a sufficient number of canisters to make it worthwhile. It was also offered to the RN but again there was insufficient space to fit the canisters.

Super Ikara was cancelled but various components have found their way into other systems, i.e. the rocket motor was apparently evolved into that used on Nulka. Also, while the projects Italian partner went on to develop their OTOMAT derived MILAS ASW missile independently, there appear to be considerable similarities in it's control systems.

 

[Bluey 006]

There was a Super Ikara project in the late 70s, early 80s. It was a canister launched system with wings that folded down against the missile body and was designed in conjunction with the Italians. It was apparently quite a capable system and was progressing well, the only issue being that none of the existing, or planned new frigates had sufficient space to install a sufficient number of canisters to make it worthwhile. It was also offered to the RN but again there was insufficient space to fit the canisters.

Super Ikara was cancelled but various components have found their way into other systems, i.e. the rocket motor was apparently evolved into that used on Nulka. Also, while the projects Italian partner went on to develop their OTOMAT derived MILAS ASW missile independently, there appear to be considerable similarities in it's control systems.

So now that we are in the position where we are likely to have larger frigates and larger vessels in general,and in a time where submarines are again deemed to be a major threat in our region.

Do you think it would be worth reviving the project, updating electronics and guidance etc, making it more compact and marketing it globally as alternative to the Mk 41 launched ASROC?

 

[John Newman]

So now that we are in the position where we are likely to have larger frigates and larger vessels in general,and in a time where submarines are again deemed to be a major threat in our region.

Do you think it would be worth reviving the project, updating electronics and guidance etc, making it more compact and marketing it globally as alternative to the Mk 41 launched ASROC?

I don't think there is a black and white answer to the question, its more of how long is a piece of string?

Before the Government and DSTO invest many hundreds of millions of dollars, is there a market/need/requirement for what you are suggesting? If no, forget it, if yes go to the next stage.

Are there other competitors in the market place that are ahead of you, well ahead of you, can you produce a superior product at a reasonable price that the market will pick up? If no, again, forget about it, if yes, go to the next stage.

Can you find a reliable industry partner to also invest in and develop the product, and on and on it goes.

I think the points that Assail made were more than relevant, Ikara was a great capability for it's day, but that day seems to have passed and things have moved on.

Will we ever see a new version of Ikara ever again? I don't think so.

 

[swerve]

PS - Have to correct myself .... the F125 is at the 7000 tonne mark, still not a completed design that we can throw into production, but more mature than the T26.

With two hulls in the water (the first was launched over a year ago), & the third & fourth laid down, I think F125 is pretty close to a completed.design. Not in service yet, so not proven, but I doubt it's being redesigned.

I agree that the A-400 generic export model of the A-400, & the RAN-specific version of the A-400, aren't yet completed designs. An A-400 modified for the RAN with CEAFAR & Mk 41 would need a lot of work - but so would any ship that isn't off the shelf, but modified for RAN requirements, & at least ThyssenKrupp has a good record in building such modified versions of its basic designs, & supporting their build in foreign yards.

 

[swerve]

Except the F125 does not really fit the bill at the moment. Its air defence is RAM. The stated desire is CEAFAR which is pretty pointless if you do not have the VLS to back it up.

The F125 is replacing the Bremen class frigate which is an ASW frigate with limited AAW capability. The F125 is a much more flexible platform but lacks the ASMD of the ANZAC so it would be a step back if we took it on as is.

Follow the link & read the PDF.

The TKMS proposal isn't F125 as is, but an RAN version -

Mapping these requirements onto the F125 design, and taking into account our MEKO experience and track record, we see no difficulties or undue risk in accommodating
 All of the RAN combat system requirements, including
 CEAFAR –S/X/L
 48 Mk 41 VLS (strike length) cells for SM 2/ESSM/Tomahawk

Etc.

Keeping it realistic ..... with the future frigate there a a couple of 'requirements' that appear to have survived the change in government:

1. Future frigate to be in the order of 7000 tonnes
2. Likely to have some land attack capability (if this means TLAM is not clear)
3. May use SM-6 (again not definitive)
4. Most likely will use the CEA radar suite and systems developed for the ASMD upgrade.

I.e. exactly what TKMS is proposing (it doesn't mention SM6, but that's a minor detail).

 

[John Newman]

With two hulls in the water (the first was launched over a year ago), & the third & fourth laid down, I think F125 is pretty close to a completed.design. Not in service yet, so not proven, but I doubt it's being redesigned.

I agree that the A-400 generic export model of the A-400, & the RAN-specific version of the A-400, aren't yet completed designs. An A-400 modified for the RAN with CEAFAR & Mk 41 would need a lot of work - but so would any ship that isn't off the shelf, but modified for RAN requirements, & at least ThyssenKrupp has a good record in building such modified versions of its basic designs, & supporting their build in foreign yards.

To follow on from the points you are making, below are the points from page 14 of the PDF:

The MEKO® A-400 Generic Evolved Mots Multi-Role Frigate Design
•The German Naval Industry is currently analysing three important future frigate programmes today:
–the German Navy MKS 180 Multi-Role Combat Ship
–the Canadian Navy Surface Combatant
–The Royal Australian Navy SEA 5000 Future Frigate
•While each of these programmes has unique national requirements, there is a large overlap in primary platform and combat system capability requirements with the F125
•The F125 will reach proven operational maturity by 2017, qualifying it as MOTS
•We therefore envisage the basic F125 platform (hull and machinery) adapted to incorporate generic requirement capabilities of MKS 180, SEA 5000 and CSC, resulting in an Evolved MOTS MEKO® A-400 Generic Design that is >80% common to all
•Specific national requirements would then be incorporated into the design, resulting in class variations such as MEKO® A-400 RAN; MEKO A-400 CAN, etc

And page 16 of the PDF:

The MEKO® A-400 RAN Future Frigate
•Analysing what we know of the latest RAN Top-Level Requirements, we confirm that these drive out a ship of not less than 7000-tons and conclude that a modified F125, will provide a suitable basis for an evolved MOTS design
•Mapping these requirements onto the F125 design, and taking into account our MEKO experience and track record, we see no difficulties or undue risk in accommodating

All of the RAN combat system requirements, including
CEAFAR –S/X/L
48 Mk 41 VLS (strike length) cells for SM 2/ESSM/Tomahawk
Integrated sonar suite – HMS and VDS/TAS and TDS
SAAB 9LV CS and Aegis Fire Control

All of the RAN platform requirements, including
Efficient diesel electric propulsion
 max. speed of 28 knots (maintaining LM2500 at designed power (not de-rated)
 Capability to operate 2 helicopters (MH-60R)
Capability to operate unmanned vehicles (UAV/UUV/USV)
Use of modular mission payloads
Measured signature characteristics and low signature design features
Commonality of systems with existing
Adequate growth margins to adapt to changing requirement through the life of the ships
Range 8000NM @ 12 knots (greater fuel load than F125)

 

[alexsa]

Follow the link & read the PDF.

The TKMS proposal isn't F125 as is, but an RAN version -


Etc.


I.e. exactly what TKMS is proposing (it doesn't mention SM6, but that's a minor detail).

No argument but the internal rework for 48 cells (some strike length) is not trivial. And again we are not tooled up for it. I know it is sledged to a degree but series production of the F105 hull will allow the current work programme to continue and remove the risk of major internal redesign of the main hull structure ..... and it ticks all those boxes as well.

The tooling up period cannot be underestimated, nor can the associated risk.The F105 hull is not perfect but systems can be upgraded (particularly in generation capacity) and, even if it is only for an extended run of 3 vessels, this would at least allow the current workforce to be retained, along with the skills.

As an aside tooling up includes the logistics support behind block build and delivery as well as system. Again not trivial issues.

I suspect if we bought a Damen design tomorrow you would still be looking at a reasonable lead time to get it into production. It would appear we really are on the cusp.

 

[StingrayOZ]

The tooling up period cannot be underestimated, nor can the associated risk.The F105 hull is not perfect but systems can be upgraded (particularly in generation capacity) and, even if it is only for an extended run of 3 vessels, this would at least allow the current workforce to be retained, along with the skills.

Which is really the question. Do you get out of the F-105 business and make say 3 hulls then try to amortise the setup costs of a new type over ~5-6 builds. Trying to get the advantage of a completely new hull design. While the new designs are pretty wiz bang, wiz bang is also expensive. New designs are likely to be more complicated and have significant risk and expense which we have already run through with the f-105. For us now, building 105 hulls are essentially lowest possibile risk.

IMO its probably the best decision to go with the F-105 and is new hulls would see significant benefit just build new hulls in 15-20 years time. Something Australia perhaps should have considered in previous generations of ships.

I do think the Frigates built off F-105 hulls could be very capable ships. It would be hard to see where we could get better bang for our bucks. If 8 were built I would imagine the RAN would be one of a handful of navies with that level of capability globally. It would also keep the door open for a 4th AWD if we ever wanted to do that.

I would also imagine sm-2 will coexist with sm-6 for a long time. I don't see asroc getting into the Australian inventory at least for now. TLAM is probably a higher concern, as might be ABM. Capabilities we don't have at all, as opposed to ASROC which is really a niche capability.

 

[ASSAIL]

Which is really the question. Do you get out of the F-105 business and make say 3 hulls then try to amortise the setup costs of a new type over ~5-6 builds. Trying to get the advantage of a completely new hull design. While the new designs are pretty wiz bang, wiz bang is also expensive. New designs are likely to be more complicated and have significant risk and expense which we have already run through with the f-105. For us now, building 105 hulls are essentially lowest possibile risk.

IMO its probably the best decision to go with the F-105 and is new hulls would see significant benefit just build new hulls in 15-20 years time. Something Australia perhaps should have considered in previous generations of ships.

I do think the Frigates built off F-105 hulls could be very capable ships. It would be hard to see where we could get better bang for our bucks. If 8 were built I would imagine the RAN would be one of a handful of navies with that level of capability globally. It would also keep the door open for a 4th AWD if we ever wanted to do that.

I would also imagine sm-2 will coexist with sm-6 for a long time. I don't see asroc getting into the Australian inventory at least for now. TLAM is probably a higher concern, as might be ABM. Capabilities we don't have at all, as opposed to ASROC which is really a niche capability.

Most seem to forget that Navantia has been given $75m to pursue the feasibility of updating the F-105 hull to include AUSPAR et al. They are also working on their F-110 which includes a range of options for upgrading the propulsion system for a more effective ASW unit and they are looking to the RAN as a potential customer.
Given the sentiments expressed by the Head of the DoD it would not surprise me if the smaller F110 (4,500 tonnes) emerged as the Plan "B"

F-110 Frigate

 

[Volkodav]

Most seem to forget that Navantia has been given $75m to pursue the feasibility of updating the F-105 hull to include AUSPAR et al. They are also working on their F-110 which includes a range of options for upgrading the propulsion system for a more effective ASW unit and they are looking to the RAN as a potential customer.
Given the sentiments expressed by the Head of the DoD it would not surprise me if the smaller F110 (4,500 tonnes) emerged as the Plan "B"

F-110 Frigate

Back in 2007 Navantia offered an evolved design based on the F-100 that better met the RANs stated requirements but this was rejected out of hand as they were the preferred existing option under the Kinard rules so were restricted to offering a MOTS solution. Characteristics of the evolved solution included 64 vs. 48 strike cells, a second helicopter and from memory, an improved propulsion system.

Ironically, had we not been so bloody minded, the evolved F-100, which would have been a more realistic, better resourced and supported project than the F-104+ that the government had erroneously assumed could built from print with no problems or delays. It could have been the best of both worlds, with the enhanced engineering and design capability an evolved version, while remaining simpler and cheaper than the G&C option, would have required, de-risking and avoiding many of the early issues encountered with the F-104 build.

 

[alexsa]

Which is really the question. Do you get out of the F-105 business and make say 3 hulls then try to amortise the setup costs of a new type over ~5-6 builds. Trying to get the advantage of a completely new hull design. While the new designs are pretty wiz bang, wiz bang is also expensive. New designs are likely to be more complicated and have significant risk and expense which we have already run through with the f-105. For us now, building 105 hulls are essentially lowest possibile risk.

IMO its probably the best decision to go with the F-105 and is new hulls would see significant benefit just build new hulls in 15-20 years time. Something Australia perhaps should have considered in previous generations of ships.

I do think the Frigates built off F-105 hulls could be very capable ships. It would be hard to see where we could get better bang for our bucks. If 8 were built I would imagine the RAN would be one of a handful of navies with that level of capability globally. It would also keep the door open for a 4th AWD if we ever wanted to do that.

I would also imagine sm-2 will coexist with sm-6 for a long time. I don't see asroc getting into the Australian inventory at least for now. TLAM is probably a higher concern, as might be ABM. Capabilities we don't have at all, as opposed to ASROC which is really a niche capability.

I agree that continuous build is the best approach. It allows Australia to build capability in ship building so the next design change does not pose such a challenge as the skill sets do not wane between projects, It also allows tooling up to occur concurrently as this can be established can while the previous production run is completing.

If you look at building in blocks then groups of three makes sense with a return to 12 MFU's. This would allow a pause between groups for updates and some specialisation (i.e land attack or increased numbers of cells). By the time you get to future frigate 9 then AWD1 is up for renewal rather than a mid life upgrade.

 

[StingrayOZ]

If you look at building in blocks then groups of three makes sense with a return to 12 MFU's. This would allow a pause between groups for updates and some specialisation (i.e land attack or increased numbers of cells). By the time you get to future frigate 9 then AWD1 is up for renewal rather than a mid life upgrade.

That would seem to make the whole industry sustainable and more efficient. Given what AWD will need to be capable of, a whole new hull may be more suitable in the 2030-2040 range than trying to update, as radar, weapons etc may be much larger.

I don't think a 4th AWD is likely, a 9th anzac II is much more likely and would most likely be cheaper and more suitable.

If you package it together, the AWD, sea 5000, new subs, new OPV's, new pacific boats. You have a very viable industry. That could be low risk and low cost with the added benefits of local build. The RAN would get what she needs, industry gets what they need and the government gets a very good deal out of it. If ASC can be shown to work efficiently, with foreseeable future work, heck someone might even want to buy it. Where as at the moment who would want to touch it. Im not surprised the japanese are pretty cagey about sub work.

That said I quite like the F-124 and F-125. That is what we are trying to do with the F-105 design. Hopefully the $75m goes pretty far and the spanish work hard to try to keep Australia's business.

 

[Punta74]

Looks like its all go for Hobart's launch this Saturday. Not sure if they will be streaming it live.

Tweet from Awd Alliance just sent below :

AWD Alliance @awd alliance
Four days to go until the launch of #AusNavy’s future destroyer, #hobart39 @Australian_Navy @DeptDefence @ASCdefence @Raytheon

 

[Blas de Lezo]

Great news and welcome Hobart to the f100 family.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jA2EYSe_xnI

Can the event be watched online?

 

[Joe Black]

SA Builds Support for Submarines Contract with European Bidders

SA Builds Support for Submarines Contract with European Bidders

Looks like SA is really begging for work.