Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[gf0012-aust]

Just out of curiosity. Would we be able to incorporate a pumpjet propulsion system into an evolved Soryu class?

You could bolt a snow blower on there if you want to - its an engineering integration issue. anything is possible. integration issues are what generally kills or cripples projects

but, think about it - this class will be the size of a small nuke - and with similar generation capabilities.

the issue about size is not just about range - (which unfortunately is what the half wits in the broader media focus on) - its about energy mgt

the irony is that if the UK was still in the conventional sub building business they could have basically walked away with a contract. the mods and improvements made to the Astutes are pretty mindblowing.

I had a sub engineer describe some of the Astutes features as "gorgeous" - believe me, thats just not normal engineering speak.... There are things on Astute that are better than what the US has - and thats no mean feat

 

[alexsa]

A cashed up big employer that see nuclear as an existential threat, indeed. In 5-10 years the coal industry will be a shadow of itself. Nuclear didn't kill coal, emissions and solar did. Arguably brown coal is already on life support. Coal is shrinking. Nuclear isn't too far behind it. Pro Nuclear in Australia are now talking about uranium mining value adding, not nuclear power stations. The problem is close nuclear fuel cycles and new reactor types may mean there is no market for our Uranium.


Hahaha. Hence why they can't come up with a workable solution, people won't keep clicking!

Sorry you going to have to explain how close fuel cycle (that is reprocessing of waste) is going to kill uranium. In most open pool light water reactors the rods are 20% enriched with U235. This is essentially the driver that allows a self sustaining reaction to occur as the more prevalent U238 cannot in itself support a self sustaining reaction.

A rod is spent when the enriched rod can nolonger release sufficient neutrons to sustain a reaction (or close to it when they pull it out). Within the spent rod much of the U235 will have been used and converted into daughter isotopes in the process (including plutonium). What can be recovered is the reprocessing is recovered but you still need uranium to produce a new rod. Noting U235 is just 1% of the output of refining this means mining and refining as sufficient U235 is required to produce a new rod. (Yes you can use plutonium ..... But why would you).

Reprocessing has gone on for a long period of time as it provides a safe way to store waste ..... Essentially the 'closed cycle' has been around for a while but reactors still need replacement rods which still need new material.

The fact is the volumes are low as the amount of uranium in the core is relatively low. Uranium (UOC) shipped from Australia is shipped in container loads and the number of boxes shipped is limited by the transport index ..... It is not hundreds put it that way.

This is a industry that deals in relatively small volumes.

Solar is a great 'support' to the grid but is not base load. Hydro is very good at base load and really green ...... But don't put a dam where nobody likes it or else.

Combined cycle gas is very good but the producers of gas in Australia export and few (bugger all) feed into the domestic market so this is not cheap (where it should be). Until fusion becomes a reality (noting this as been called 'close' for two decades but not there yet) then there is a place for nuclear if we cannot expand hydro, have limited access to combined cycle gas and limited biomass options.

Not sure what you mean by new reactor types and can only assume this the the much awaited (but never quite there) fusion reactor as all other reactors will use naturally occurring radioactive ores in their fuel cycle to some degree.

fftopic

Fear not I will not stray off topic again as I cannot be bothered to discuss this further.

 

[vonnoobie]

Hydro is very good at base load and really green ...... But don't put a dam where nobody likes it or else.

Not to mention that we have built about all the major dam's that Australia's waterways can sustain, Any new dams might support a town but wont make a peep in the grand scheme of things.

 

[swerve]

...

the irony is that if the UK was still in the conventional sub building business they could have basically walked away with a contract. the mods and improvements made to the Astutes are pretty mindblowing.

I had a sub engineer describe some of the Astutes features as "gorgeous" - believe me, thats just not normal engineering speak.... There are things on Astute that are better than what the US has - and thats no mean feat

Do you know (& are able to comment on) enough about the Barracudas to say how they rate in comparison?

 

[rossfrb_1]

snip

This is a industry that deals in relatively small volumes.

Solar is a great 'support' to the grid but is not base load. Hydro is very good at base load and really green ...... But don't put a dam where nobody likes it or else.

snip
fftopic

Fear not I will not stray off topic again as I cannot be bothered to discuss this further.

Solar as a base load technology has become a mantra if not a religion for some.
I am inclined to believe that home battery technologies such as Tesla Powerwall can be part of that solution for Australia.
Will it happen this year or next - likely not, but I believe that a decade from now these conversations will be much different.
regards
rb

 

[Joe Black]

Plan Pelorus

Just stumbled across an interested article about Plan Pelorus and thought of sharing it here:
http://www.janes360.com/images/assets/422/54422/Beyond_Plan_Pelorus__2.pdf

 

[Stampede]

How about instead of new frigates we build three Flight II AWDs and three Hyugas (adapted to use recycled and refurbished ANZAC ASMD systems) then make up numbers by recycling the ANZAC combat system into a new class of five perfectly good enough frigates (but very highly automated to reduce crew).

More than enough work to keep ASC, BAE and Forgacs, as well as an expanded domestic supply chain, going pretty much indefinitely. This would work even better if the government eventually replaces the entire PB force with OPVs (obviously nine or ten instead of fourteen though unless we return to the OCV concept and replace the MCM and survey vessels as well)

On submarines if you look at Japan, as John explained, they have two yards delivering one new boat every year with each boat them previously only serving sixteen years, so each yard is delivering one boat every two years. Australia has one yard, assuming one boat delivered every two years even a class of eight would take sixteen years to build, i.e. the expected lifespan of the class as designed. Go to twelve boats and that's twenty four years to build which would be a fair life span. Assuming the oldest pair of boats are used, one for along side and one for at sea training and perhaps one on each coast for ASW training with the fleet we could probably quite easily justify a fleet of twelve.

Hi Volk
I like your keenness in getting aviation to sea but I must admit I just dont understand the Hyugas Class. I'm sure no one really believes it's a destroyer so then what is it? Although it looks to all intents and purposes an aircraft carrier we have to shy away from using such terms as the JMSDF, don't do aircraft carriers!
At 19000k full load and close to 200 m it's alot of ship to just carry helicopters.As I understand it Japan tries to have four task groups of up to eight ships with a heavy emphasis on ASW. So while a fast aviation ship would be an excellent fit, doe's it really need to be that big. If I'm correct the Invincibles use to carry 9 ASW helicopters with the premise that when opperating at high tempo they would provide two helicopters in the air at one time. Depending on the source, the Hyugas can carry over 20 aircraft which is alot when including the accompaning destoyers own helicopters.
Something is missing with this ship.
Now if it had a large weapons fit to justify the destroyer tag fine, but its armament is comparable to some light frigates. If it was an amphibious asset great, I can get the need in size. But to my understanding there is no dedicated vehicle deck / ramps / troop accomodation or dock. Maybe the hanger is duel use like Italy's Cavour, but this I cannot confirm.
So all I can think of is that it is a dedicated fast helicopter carrier future proofed in size and weight for VTOL opperations. But just dont call it, or it's big brother the Izumo class, an Aircraft carrier.............. It's just a destroyer!

In the RAN context, I would suggest it's like many things a nice to have.
If we need more aviation to sea then keep it simple and purchse another Bay class,or even a third LHD of the Canberra class. Another option which is probably too late, is to increasing the aviation capacity of the new supply ships.A two spot helicopter flight deck with Hanger space for 5 to 6 helicopters like the Royal navy did with the Fort Victoria Class.
I think expand upon what we have and we'll be OK. Adding a class of large Hyugas ships is fine for a large ASW orientated navy like the JMSDF, not the middle sized RAN.

Enjoy your post's
Kind regards S

 

[swerve]

Hyuga & Ise are ASW flotilla leaders. They can work with the helicopter-less Abukuma class until they retire, & support operations by the larger & newer single helicopter ASW ships. They can operate as fleet flagships; they have the command & control facilities for it, & no doubt data interfaces with other JMSDF ships facilitating that. They have peacetime functions (disaster relief & the like) & could work with Japan's amphibious ships (note that the Oosumi LSD class doesn't really have a hangar, just about being able to get a small helicopter on the lift to the vehicle deck).

Oh, & they have bloody great big hull sonars which wouldn't fit in the average ASW ship.

 

[vonnoobie]

Anyway you cut it we wont ever acquire either the Hyuga or Izumo class ships, They are simply too big both in ship size, crew and build cost while being of limited use for Australia for anyone either in government or active within the armed forces to even consider spending there limited funds on so really a pointless discussion to have.

If (and that is a big if) we were to acquire more assets to deliver extra ASW capability abroad then it would be with assets that we would use for other roles (Replenishment ships) or an asset that is not limited to sole helicopter operations (We simply dont have the extra aviation assets so again a pointless task to increase our aviation carrying capability unless we start to double our actual helicopter numbers), It would be an asset that also has a well deck which means most likely another Bay class ship, possibly a Canberra class or a pair of Endurance class but that is about it.

The Hyuga and Izumo while nice and shiny have no basis in reality for the RAN.

 

[Volkodav]

My understanding is Japan actually refers to their destroyers as escorts so what we are translating as destroyer we could just as easily substitute escort. So instead of air defence destroyer, Aegis destroyer, ASW destroyer and helicopter destroyer they could more accurately be referred to as air defence escort, Aegis escort, ASW escort and helicopter escort.

The Hyugas and Izumos are large, flexible and versatile but not significantly more expensive than an air defence or ASW escort and probably cheaper than an Aegis escort. They are a force multiplier in terms of aviation assets in that they can simultaneously launch several helicopters to prosecute a contact, which according to modelling, is the only way to guarantee an SSN can be fixed and killed. They also offer maintenance facilities that smaller vessels could never provide to their helicopter detachments, this alone can significantly increase the availability of all of the groups helicopters. They carry more aviation fuel, spares and ordinance than a conventional destroyer ever could and in addition they also carry utility, search and rescue, as well as MCM (mine counter measures ) helicopters, types that could never be deployed if there are only destroyer decks and single hangers.

 

[vonnoobie]

My understanding is Japan actually refers to their destroyers as escorts so what we are translating as destroyer we could just as easily substitute escort. So instead of air defence destroyer, Aegis destroyer, ASW destroyer and helicopter destroyer they could more accurately be referred to as air defence escort, Aegis escort, ASW escort and helicopter escort.

The Hyugas and Izumos are large, flexible and versatile but not significantly more expensive than an air defence or ASW escort and probably cheaper than an Aegis escort. They are a force multiplier in terms of aviation assets in that they can simultaneously launch several helicopters to prosecute a contact, which according to modelling, is the only way to guarantee an SSN can be fixed and killed. They also offer maintenance facilities that smaller vessels could never provide to their helicopter detachments, this alone can significantly increase the availability of all of the groups helicopters. They carry more aviation fuel, spares and ordinance than a conventional destroyer ever could and in addition they also carry utility, search and rescue, as well as MCM (mine counter measures ) helicopters, types that could never be deployed if there are only destroyer decks and single hangers.

All those same task can be filled by the Canberra's if needed so again it is something that will never happen. They are a class of ships only suitable to a nations with large numbers of helicopters, The RAN has at maximum 37 in the future (24 Sh-60's, 6 navy MRH-90's and 7 shared MRH-90's) compared to Japan with 128 (Once current acquisitions are completed). It's a simple numbers game, They need the ships, we dont.

They are great ships but not suited to Australia as we have assets being deployed that can fill the exact same role and then some.

Not to mention the case that can be made against asset's that rely purely on helicopter deployments seeing as the USMC had issues with such ships off of Lebanon in the 70's.

 

[t68]

Not to mention the case that can be made against asset's that rely purely on helicopter deployments seeing as the USMC had issues with such ships off of Lebanon in the 70's.

Can you elaborate on this please, to what are you referring to?

 

[vonnoobie]

Can you elaborate on this please, to what are you referring to?

They had issues with the Iwo Jima LPH being an asset whose sole deployment capability was by air that they could not operate independently in Lebanon when anti aircraft fire became too great requiring them to first ferry them to ships that had well decks.

You end up spending a billion plus on a ship that could take aboard half the fleet air arm who could become a useless asset in certain situations if weather or ground conditions prevent the use of helicopters as the USMC has found to be the case. If you are going to be spending that sort of money on a ship you want something that is flexible, An LPH is not, an LHD is.

 

[John Newman]

The RAN has at maximum 37 in the future (24 Sh-60's, 6 navy MRH-90's and 7 shared MRH-90's).

Where do these '7 shared MRH-90s' come from? Haven't heard of that before.

My understanding was that the RAN has 6 MRH-90 airframes out of the 'shared' pool of 46 MRH-90's with Army, (the 47th airframe that is going to be delivered is, as I understand it, to be used as a live training aid for Army and Navy ground crews).

There is no doubt in the future that Army MRH-90's will operate off the LHD's (and possibly Choules too from time to time), but again, as I understand it, it is 6 airframes that are under Navy control.

 

[Volkodav]

They had issues with the Iwo Jima LPH being an asset whose sole deployment capability was by air that they could not operate independently in Lebanon when anti aircraft fire became too great requiring them to first ferry them to ships that had well decks.

You end up spending a billion plus on a ship that could take aboard half the fleet air arm who could become a useless asset in certain situations if weather or ground conditions prevent the use of helicopters as the USMC has found to be the case. If you are going to be spending that sort of money on a ship you want something that is flexible, An LPH is not, an LHD is.

You miss the point of these ships entirely. Although they can be used as LPHs and for HADR, as they and ships such as the Invincibles, Garabaldi, Principe de Asturias etc. were designed to be. Over the years numerous other ships have been employed as required, for example HMAS Melbourne deploying to Darwin post Cyclone Tracy, USS Dwight D. Eisenhower being used to deploy the 1st brigade 10th Mountain Division (including 54 Blackhawks) in Haiti in 1994. Big ships with long flight decks have a level of versatility a frigate, destroyer battleship, STUFT (ships taken up from trade) can never have.

Such a ship, designed without a docking well, can be smaller and cheaper than one of equivalent aviation capacity that is required to have one. Higher speed, lower fuel burn, better seakeeping and far better adapted to the requirements of operating aircraft. Such ships are also ideal for command, control and communications, just look at the profiles of Blue Ridge, Northampton etc. the large flat deck makes for minimal interference with the vast array of communications equipment, while the large volume easily accommodates the required staff teams.

I said can be smaller and cheaper than an LHD but they can also use the money saved on deleting the dock to enhance the combat system and or increase the size of the ship. Izumo is larger but cheaper than Hyuga through deleting the VLS and some combat system functions determined not the be necessary, Hyuga and Ise having them allows them to make up for short falls in the capability of some of the JMSDFs older escorts, while Izumo can be deployed with newer more capable vessels. Too me a smaller navy like Australia probably should look to enhance the capability of as many of our platforms as possible.

Too me a platform such as Hyuga is a no brainer for Australia, its primary role is enhancing the sea control capability of the RAN, providing command and control (in what ever acronym you so desire), being an aviation and ASW force multiplier (i.e. able to better deploy and support existing assets than any current in service platform), adding to the fleets censor coverage, local and possibly even area air defence. There is also the elephant in the room, potential to operate F-35B in the future.

This is a capability that has been put forward for the RAN on numerous occasions since the RN suggested Australia look as acquiring their conceptional escort cruiser instead of separate helicopter carriers and DDGs back in the early 60s.
https://www.bing.com/images/search?...ad1d79b3a5856c2e7aa519fde7c4f65fo0&ajaxhist=0

To my mind such remains a very sensible capability to acquire and retain.

 

[Raven22]

What's the point of a cheap helicopter carrier that we have no helicopters to put on?

If you buy an air wing to make the ship useful, it is no longer cheap.

 

[Volkodav]

Where do these '7 shared MRH-90s' come from? Haven't heard of that before.

My understanding was that the RAN has 6 MRH-90 airframes out of the 'shared' pool of 46 MRH-90's with Army, (the 47th airframe that is going to be delivered is, as I understand it, to be used as a live training aid for Army and Navy ground crews).

There is no doubt in the future that Army MRH-90's will operate off the LHD's (and possibly Choules too from time to time), but again, as I understand it, it is 6 airframes that are under Navy control.

Thanks John good catch, the RAN definitely is only intended to operate six of the proposed MRH fleet.

What I find interesting though is because a certain number of platforms or airframes are ordered it is often seen to be the ideal or final total that will ever be needed/desired/procured. While the numbers are often determined by role i.e. six is fine to support VERTREP from two AORs plus other anticipated utility missions the RAN foresees sometime the numbers are limited by availability, funding, crewing, logistics support assets, or platforms to operate from.

Vonnoobie mentioned specific number in his earlier post as if they were set in concrete, i.e. there was no point acquiring a helicopter carrier as the FAA doesn't will never have enough helicopters to justify it. The reason we ordered 24 verses 29 or 50 MH-60Rs is because that is what was needed to support a force of 11-12 major combatants.

Not so long ago the plan was for 16 SH-60Bs and 11 Super Sea Sprites to support a force of eight ANZACs and six modernised FFGs, the only reason we don't have this force is because the Super Sea Sprite procurement was stuffed up, as was the FFGUP. But for the almost $2 billion and the several years wasted by these two projects the RAN should have been operating fourteen major combatants, 16 upgraded Seahawks (with Penguin) and 11 Super Sea Sprites, with four AWDs coming into service. The reason we don't have this is not because it wasn't wanted, needed or funded, but because the projects were stuffed up and we had to spend more to get less, paid for, in part by cutbacks in numbers.

 

[Volkodav]

What's the point of a cheap helicopter carrier that we have no helicopters to put on?

If you buy an air wing to make the ship useful, it is no longer cheap.

True, but just because a capability is expensive does that mean it is not justified. A helicopter with a dipping sonar is rated as equivalent to a frigate with a variable depth sonar on station. Looking at it in terms of requirements, i.e. x number of sonars are required to hunt a submarine and this can be fill either by X escorts with a hull sonar and an embarked helicopter or by a reduced number of escorts operating in conjunction with a helicopter carrier. This is when the helicopter carrier starts looking cheaper.

 

[Raven22]

True, but just because a capability is expensive does that mean it is not justified. A helicopter with a dipping sonar is rated as equivalent to a frigate with a variable depth sonar on station. Looking at it in terms of requirements, i.e. x number of sonars are required to hunt a submarine and this can be fill either by X escorts with a hull sonar and an embarked helicopter or by a reduced number of escorts operating in conjunction with a helicopter carrier. This is when the helicopter carrier starts looking cheaper.

But all of a sudden you have gone from a cheap supplement to the current fleet to a complete rebalancing of the fleet, by replacing escorts with embarked helicopters on helicopter carriers.

 

[vonnoobie]

Where do these '7 shared MRH-90s' come from? Haven't heard of that before.

My understanding was that the RAN has 6 MRH-90 airframes out of the 'shared' pool of 46 MRH-90's with Army, (the 47th airframe that is going to be delivered is, as I understand it, to be used as a live training aid for Army and Navy ground crews).

There is no doubt in the future that Army MRH-90's will operate off the LHD's (and possibly Choules too from time to time), but again, as I understand it, it is 6 airframes that are under Navy control.

Apologies I did make a mistake, There will be 6 for the navy and a further 7 for common flight training shared between the Army and Navy.

That said it just means even less air frames (30) to go around only so many helipads