Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[John Newman]

Hi all,

Can we reopen the Future Frigates Thread in order to de-clutter some replies and streamline information?

Personally I'd suggest not.

What happened with that thread was that it wandered off into more general RAN discussion, and not just specifically the Future Frigate, and you end up with discussions spread across the two.

(Mate, you could always PM the Mod team and ask the question if you wish.)

Anyway, a no from me (just my opinion of course).

 

[John Newman]

Two hello hangers ... not one.

For Hairyman ..... the age of the platform has been discussed at length in the past on this thread. To use your analogy about hull age then then the Burke is even worse as it based on a older design.

There is supposed to be 70% commonality between the AWD and the evolved design. Defence may also have go the message about 'batch' ordering systems during build rather than buy 9 ship sets at the onset...... which is not a great idea.

All good points.

And good point about the AB's too, Arleigh Bourke was laid down in 1988 (commissioned in 91) and here we are, almost 30 years since she was laid down, the class is still going strong and 'growing' too, and I wouldn't be surprised if the Flight III ships will still be coming off the production line well into the 2030's too.

As to the eventual Future Frigate project winner, as long as it is the right ship, appropriately armed and equipped, and with the appropriate 'growth' margins for its 30 year life, that will do me.

I must say I had been leaning to the 'evolved' AWD, commonality reasons, (familiarity of construction following the 'half sister' AWD's, etc), but more recently I've been leaning towards the Type 26.

One of the reasons (and not the only reason), is that the UK will be building 8 and we will be building 9, is there more benefits to be had by having a fleet of 17 very similar ships under construction at the approx. the same time?

 

[SteveR]

All good points.

And good point about the AB's too, Arleigh Bourke was laid down in 1988 (commissioned in 91) and here we are, almost 30 years since she was laid down, the class is still going strong and 'growing' too, and I wouldn't be surprised if the Flight III ships will still be coming off the production line well into the 2030's too.

As to the eventual Future Frigate project winner, as long as it is the right ship, appropriately armed and equipped, and with the appropriate 'growth' margins for its 30 year life, that will do me.

I must say I had been leaning to the 'evolved' AWD, commonality reasons, (familiarity of construction following the 'half sister' AWD's, etc), but more recently I've been leaning towards the Type 26.

One of the reasons (and not the only reason), is that the UK will be building 8 and we will be building 9, is there more benefits to be had by having a fleet of 17 very similar ships under construction at the approx. the same time?

After Volks comment on AWD parts going out of warranty before installation, I think JN's comment on having a current parallel build overseas makes sense as parts can be ordered almost just-in-time as sub-equipment production lines are still open.

To me though the big issue is how quiet each competitor will be - to reduce counter-detection by submarines in the primary ASW role?

Both the FREMM and Type 26 are designed for primary ASW - with electric cruise motors - but the AWD has diesel cruise through a gearbox. By now NUSHIP Hobart is probably being assessed for its actual noise so RAN will have some idea of that issue. Anyway, as Volk as implied. the Hobart Diesels are no longer compliant with emission standards and will have to be replaced in any Frigate revision.

Finally Navantia and Spanish Armada press releases indicate the F110 frigate, currently under design and probably due to start construction by 2019, has 'hybrid' propulsion and a main ASW role, so it is possible the current Navantia SEA 5000 (Frigate) AWD evolution may be updated with engines and systems from the F110, with supplier production underways for much of the SEA 5000 build. Though I am not sure we can wait that late to be sure the F110 systems work as advertised.

 

[John Fedup]

One of the reasons (and not the only reason), is that the UK will be building 8 and we will be building 9, is there more benefits to be had by having a fleet of 17 very similar ships under construction at the approx. the same time?

The rumour mill here has an elevated slant towards the Type 26 for the CSC program but it is still early days and the bid timeline will likely be extended past the April 2017 due date. The 15 ships will be probably drop to 10 but when added to the UK and OZ numbers, some additional benefits above and beyond could be in store. Then again, nothing should be counted on as the Canadian military defence procurement system does have some "issues"!nfloorl:

 

[Muar River]

After Volks comment on AWD parts going out of warranty before installation, I think JN's comment on having a current parallel build overseas makes sense as parts can be ordered almost just-in-time as sub-equipment production lines are still open.

To me though the big issue is how quiet each competitor will be - to reduce counter-detection by submarines in the primary ASW role?

Both the FREMM and Type 26 are designed for primary ASW - with electric cruise motors - but the AWD has diesel cruise through a gearbox. By now NUSHIP Hobart is probably being assessed for its actual noise so RAN will have some idea of that issue. Anyway, as Volk as implied. the Hobart Diesels are no longer compliant with emission standards and will have to be replaced in any Frigate revision.

Finally Navantia and Spanish Armada press releases indicate the F110 frigate, currently under design and probably due to start construction by 2019, has 'hybrid' propulsion and a main ASW role, so it is possible the current Navantia SEA 5000 (Frigate) AWD evolution may be updated with engines and systems from the F110, with supplier production underways for much of the SEA 5000 build. Though I am not sure we can wait that late to be sure the F110 systems work as advertised.

Who pays for the redesign of the FREMM and BAE designs to fit the US kit? The Navantia design is already fitted with US systems and has 48 VLS. The other two designs do not so changes to design appear significant. Also, the RAN requires a speed of 28 knots with the latest I can find on the BAE design reflects a planned speed of 26 knots. We know the FREMM is rated at 29 knots, the F110 is rated at over 28 knots and some uprating of the BAE propulsion will be required.

 

[John Newman]

Who pays for the redesign of the FREMM and BAE designs to fit the US kit? The Navantia design is already fitted with US systems and has 48 VLS. The other two designs do not so changes to design appear significant. Also, the RAN requires a speed of 28 knots with the latest I can find on the BAE design reflects a planned speed of 26 knots. We know the FREMM is rated at 29 knots, the F110 is rated at over 28 knots and some uprating of the BAE propulsion will be required.

Sorry, but I don't get what you mean by 'who pays for the redesign?'

It's not like we are procuring an 'off the shelf' solution (after negotiating configuration, price, etc), and then saying to the winning bidder, 'oh by the way lets change them all'.

All three contenders will be working away at the moment refining their 'original' designs to include the desired or requested weapons and sensors, and then present that to Government.

And sure if after the winner is selected and contracts are signed, we then 'change' the requirement from what has been contracted, then we would be up for additional costs.

As I've always understood it (and others can probably explain far better than me), you might have a number of 'initial' bidders, this then gets short listed, and during the 'short listed' period (whatever you what to call it), Governments do sign contracts with those short listed contenders and provide 'some money' to assist in that design process before the winner is selected.

Have the three sort listed contenders for SEA5000 been given any money? Probably for this phase, and probably the same amount each.

 

[John Newman]

The rumour mill here has an elevated slant towards the Type 26 for the CSC program but it is still early days and the bid timeline will likely be extended past the April 2017 due date. The 15 ships will be probably drop to 10 but when added to the UK and OZ numbers, some additional benefits above and beyond could be in store. Then again, nothing should be counted on as the Canadian military defence procurement system does have some "issues"!nfloorl:

Hi John,

Yes well I could have added the 'potential' Canadian CSC numbers to the Australian and UK requirement of 17 ships between them, but......

As you point out, Canadian procurement does have 'some issues' Ha, ha! (sorry mate, I know that hurts to say that about our Canuck cousins).

But yes if, and that is a very very big 'IF', if all three nations selected the Type 26 for their respective programs, there is the potential for approx. 30 similar ships to be under construction during the same period of time.

Obviously each of the three nations will have their differing requirements for weapons (possibly Canada might follow Australia's path and choose mostly US weapons for example) and the same will no doubt apply to the sensors too.

But still, there may be a lot of 'commonality' where each nation could benefit from 'bulk' purchases of equipment during construction, ongoing spares and maintenance, and even future 'common' upgrades to those systems too.

But of course, it will be all too hard, it will be like 'herding cats', eg, impossible to control.

Nice thought, not going to hold my breath!!!!

 

[ASSAIL]

Hi John,

Yes well I could have added the 'potential' Canadian CSC numbers to the Australian and UK requirement of 17 ships between them, but......

As you point out, Canadian procurement does have 'some issues' Ha, ha! (sorry mate, I know that hurts to say that about our Canuck cousins).

But yes if, and that is a very very big 'IF', if all three nations selected the Type 26 for their respective programs, there is the potential for approx. 30 similar ships to be under construction during the same period of time.

Obviously each of the three nations will have their differing requirements for weapons (possibly Canada might follow Australia's path and choose mostly US weapons for example) and the same will no doubt apply to the sensors too.

But still, there may be a lot of 'commonality' where each nation could benefit from 'bulk' purchases of equipment during construction, ongoing spares and maintenance, and even future 'common' upgrades to those systems too.

But of course, it will be all too hard, it will be like 'herding cats', eg, impossible to control.

Nice thought, not going to hold my breath!!!!

At the risk of repeating myself I suggest that there is far more benefit in fleet commonality than some assume.
It's not just about combat systems, weapons and sensors because they will be common in whichever hull is selected.
It's more about ship management systems, damage control philosophy and equipment, similar hull fitting design such as hatches doors, labelling and a raft of other considerations.
These are important because any sailor can be posted to any ship and be familiar with their procedures and surroundings, training therefor is easier and more efficient.
Currently we have planned or commissioned all,majors with Spanish systems. If the Navantia offering is chosen ALL major surface combatants (xmt Choules) will be the same and that's a position we haven't enjoyed since all our ships were British design pre the CFA DDGs. We won't repeat the mistake of streaming postings to one particular type because of familiarity with it.
I have no current insight but I'm reasonably sure that even today there has probably been posting streams between the FFGs and Anzacs, it doesn't promote wide experience.

 

[hairyman]

If the future frigate has 48 VLS, same as the AWD, although the AWD has 8 Harpoon missiles seperate to the VLS, will the Future Frigate also have its anti ship missiles seperate to the VLS, or will they be included in the VLS? Also I imagine there will be less emphasis on anti aircraft and anti-missiles in the VLS layout to make room for land attack missiles and anti submarie missiles like ASROC, It will be interesting to see what they have in mind.

 

[John Newman]

At the risk of repeating myself I suggest that there is far more benefit in fleet commonality than some assume.
It's not just about combat systems, weapons and sensors because they will be common in whichever hull is selected.
It's more about ship management systems, damage control philosophy and equipment, similar hull fitting design such as hatches doors, labelling and a raft of other considerations.
These are important because any sailor can be posted to any ship and be familiar with their procedures and surroundings, training therefor is easier and more efficient.
Currently we have planned or commissioned all,majors with Spanish systems. If the Navantia offering is chosen ALL major surface combatants (xmt Choules) will be the same and that's a position we haven't enjoyed since all our ships were British design pre the CFA DDGs. We won't repeat the mistake of streaming postings to one particular type because of familiarity with it.
I have no current insight but I'm reasonably sure that even today there has probably been posting streams between the FFGs and Anzacs, it doesn't promote wide experience.

Certainly agree about 'commonality' for your reasons above, and certainly if the evolved AWD is selected for the Future Frigate, then it's probably a given that will happen.

But I also remember a few years back when ASC (in conjunction with BMT and DSME) were pushing for the Aegir design (against Navantia) for the AOR replacement, they also said that their offering would also have the those 'common' systems, etc, that were installed in the LHD's and AWD's.

Begs the question, regardless of which design is chosen, Spanish, UK or Italian, will the Government mandate that those systems be common to the existing platforms?

 

[John Newman]

If the future frigate has 48 VLS, same as the AWD, although the AWD has 8 Harpoon missiles seperate to the VLS, will the Future Frigate also have its anti ship missiles seperate to the VLS, or will they be included in the VLS? Also I imagine there will be less emphasis on anti aircraft and anti-missiles in the VLS layout to make room for land attack missiles and anti submarie missiles like ASROC, It will be interesting to see what they have in mind.

How long is a piece of string?

Apart from not clearly knowing how many VLS cells each contender is offering (yes it would appear the Spanish offering is capable of 48 cells), there is no clear picture of what AShM will continue to be used by the RAN and RAAF in the 2020's, 2030's or beyond.

As we all know Harpoon is common across a number of RAAF platforms (I also understand it is being integrated into RAAF P-8A's too) and of course it is in current service across surface and sub-surface combatants in the RAN.

We could see the RAAF using, either or all, of Harpoon (or future versions), JSM, LRASM (or JASSM or -ER) or JSOW.

The RAN could continue to use 'tube' launched Harpoon (there is another Harpoon version under development, Block II+ ER, with a reported 250k range).

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/a...tended-range-harpoon-to-stave-off-kon-425271/

LRASM which can be VLS or box launched.

Exclusive: First Image of the Lockheed Martin LRASM Top Side Launcher

There is of course NSM (the naval version of JSM).

https://www.kongsberg.com/en/kds/products/missilesystems/navalstrikemissile/

Some potentials are either tube/box launched, some appear to be 'both' VLS and box.


So when I say 'how long is a piece of string', it really is how long is a piece of string sort of answer!

 

[ngatimozart]

How long is a piece of string?

Apart from not clearly knowing how many VLS cells each contender is offering (yes it would appear the Spanish offering is capable of 48 cells), there is no clear picture of what AShM will continue to be used by the RAN and RAAF in the 2020's, 2030's or beyond.

As we all know Harpoon is common across a number of RAAF platforms (I also understand it is being integrated into RAAF P-8A's too) and of course it is in current service across surface and sub-surface combatants in the RAN.

We could see the RAAF using, either or all, of Harpoon (or future versions), JSM, LRASM (or JASSM or -ER) or JSOW.

The RAN could continue to use 'tube' launched Harpoon (there is another Harpoon version under development, Block II+ ER, with a reported 250k range).

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/a...tended-range-harpoon-to-stave-off-kon-425271/

LRASM which can be VLS or box launched.

Exclusive: First Image of the Lockheed Martin LRASM Top Side Launcher

There is of course NSM (the naval version of JSM).

https://www.kongsberg.com/en/kds/products/missilesystems/navalstrikemissile/

Some potentials are either tube/box launched, some appear to be 'both' VLS and box.


So when I say 'how long is a piece of string', it really is how long is a piece of string sort of answer!

Gidday John,
You haven't melted have you mate? Have a dozen cold stubbies - that should help. :drunk1

Regarding the Harpoon, my own POV is that it is now an old and tired weapon system that has reached its used by date. IMHO LRASM or similar would be the way to go in the future because of its LO and "brainpower" compared to Harpoon. The other point I would like to make is that IMHO vertical launch is better than box launchers on the upper deck because with the VLS the weight is kept lower in the hull and frees the upper deck for other things.

 

[hairyman]

I would imagine that box launchers would take up more room than the same number of VLS launchers. Is that correct?

 

[ngatimozart]

I would imagine that box launchers would take up more room than the same number of VLS launchers. Is that correct?

It would depend if the Navy wanted to increase the number of VLS cells to accommodate the SSM capability; if so maybe, however if the Navy decided to stay with the same number of VLS cells then yes.

 

[Volkodav]

Depends how far you want to take it, for instance the Hobarts use the same old tech MTU diesel generators, as wr have been using for yonks why the USN are using upgraded GT generators with electric start and much lower maintenance requirements and provide significantly more power for the weight and volume. There are so many systems that upgrading them or replacing them with modern altetnatives will improve performance, reliability and reduce through life costs.

Heres a senario, all the designs we are looking at for SEA 5000 have diesels, but imagine if they didnt and we were looking at GTs for propulsion and power generation, no need for diesel certified MTs anymore and a possible reduction in the number of qualified LS and POs.

 

[John Newman]

Gidday John,
You haven't melted have you mate? Have a dozen cold stubbies - that should help. :drunk1

Regarding the Harpoon, my own POV is that it is now an old and tired weapon system that has reached its used by date. IMHO LRASM or similar would be the way to go in the future because of its LO and "brainpower" compared to Harpoon. The other point I would like to make is that IMHO vertical launch is better than box launchers on the upper deck because with the VLS the weight is kept lower in the hull and frees the upper deck for other things.

Hi mate, it's 25c at the moment here in Sydney HALF of yesterday!!

And I've just opened a second bottle of a nice NZ Sav Blanc too!!

Don't disagree about Harpoon, and certainly LRASM, or similar appears to be the right path for many decades into the future, and certainly about VLS launched too

But....

The questions I have, will the Future Frigates enter service with sufficient number of VLS cells and will they be 'initially' equipped with tube launched Harpoon (possibly same configuration that the AWD's will be).

So in the future, and maybe this won't happen until well into the 2030's that Harpoon is replaced on both types of ships.

If LRASM for example was chosen (which can be launched by box or VLS), the advantage could be that the tube launched Harpoon is replaced with box launched LRASM, thereby not reducing the capacity of the VLS cells.

Anyway, lots of possible contenders and possible combinations of launch method too!!

 

[Muar River]

Sorry, but I don't get what you mean by 'who pays for the redesign?'

It's not like we are procuring an 'off the shelf' solution (after negotiating configuration, price, etc), and then saying to the winning bidder, 'oh by the way lets change them all'.

All three contenders will be working away at the moment refining their 'original' designs to include the desired or requested weapons and sensors, and then present that to Government.

And sure if after the winner is selected and contracts are signed, we then 'change' the requirement from what has been contracted, then we would be up for additional costs.

As I've always understood it (and others can probably explain far better than me), you might have a number of 'initial' bidders, this then gets short listed, and during the 'short listed' period (whatever you what to call it), Governments do sign contracts with those short listed contenders and provide 'some money' to assist in that design process before the winner is selected.

Have the three sort listed contenders for SEA5000 been given any money? Probably for this phase, and probably the same amount each.

Thanks for your reply John. My issue relates to risk to the project, the changes to the design and of course cost associated with those changes. There is also the risk of delays to the project. I do note Navantia were provided with 70 odd million for investigations into the feasibility of using the AWD design as a basis for the FF.

 

[pussertas]

Diesel's to supply electricity

Back in the mid 70's I was a frequent visitor to HMAS Cerbeus.

At that time there were several ships engines installed for training purposes. None were hooked up to a generator to produce electricity for the base.

Somewhere I saw that the RAN were proposing to build an engine shop to test the new engines for our future submarine and to provide training. Presumably either at FND or FBW. (It well may have been on this forum) :coffee

It would save heaps of $$$ for such engines being able to produce electricity for the base.

If the Collins class diesels are not completely knackered and requiring a rebuild it would appear to make sense to fit a 480/240 generator to them and install them on defense bases.

Do enjoy this forum.

 

[rockitten]

Depends how far you want to take it, for instance the Hobarts use the same old tech MTU diesel generators, as wr have been using for yonks why the USN are using upgraded GT generators with electric start and much lower maintenance requirements and provide significantly more power for the weight and volume. There are so many systems that upgrading them or replacing them with modern altetnatives will improve performance, reliability and reduce through life costs.

Heres a senario, all the designs we are looking at for SEA 5000 have diesels, but imagine if they didnt and we were looking at GTs for propulsion and power generation, no need for diesel certified MTs anymore and a possible reduction in the number of qualified LS and POs.

So, if the Spanish design won the SEA5000, is it possible to retrofit those upgrades to AWD during MLU?
-
An AB of RAN, who was a friend of mine, once mentioned our navy spent 500 bucks for a fire axe, just because that's the one commissioned with the ship. If you get another one(AKA, a new type of gear) from Bunnings, you have to do all commissioning process, which cost more money and time........

The Spanish design, no matter how (relatively) outdated it is, does have a huge advantage of commonality of gears. I can foresee a "Spanish Armada" of large ships, from AOE, LPD, AWD to FFG, a home-made fleet of corvette/mine-sweeper/hydro-graphic vessels sharing a common hull, and a French submarine fleet, 3 stream of training and supply chain.

 

[alexsa]

After Volks comment on AWD parts going out of warranty before installation, I think JN's comment on having a current parallel build overseas makes sense as parts can be ordered almost just-in-time as sub-equipment production lines are still open.

To me though the big issue is how quiet each competitor will be - to reduce counter-detection by submarines in the primary ASW role?

Both the FREMM and Type 26 are designed for primary ASW - with electric cruise motors - but the AWD has diesel cruise through a gearbox. By now NUSHIP Hobart is probably being assessed for its actual noise so RAN will have some idea of that issue. Anyway, as Volk as implied. the Hobart Diesels are no longer compliant with emission standards and will have to be replaced in any Frigate revision.

Finally Navantia and Spanish Armada press releases indicate the F110 frigate, currently under design and probably due to start construction by 2019, has 'hybrid' propulsion and a main ASW role, so it is possible the current Navantia SEA 5000 (Frigate) AWD evolution may be updated with engines and systems from the F110, with supplier production underways for much of the SEA 5000 build. Though I am not sure we can wait that late to be sure the F110 systems work as advertised.

The F110 is much smaller

As far as 'gear going out of date' the solution is simple ...... and one used by the merchant marine when vessels are ordered. Order for each hull of a small group of hulls. If you are going to fit ships with equipment from the same manufacturer then you can form a relationship with them and order batches of gear.

This allows you to move to updated version of equipment through batches of ships. For instance MTU gensets and prime movers have evolved to offer greater power on the same footprint.

However, if you want to save money you order 10 ship sets of gear and get the stuff that no longer complies with current environmental standards (aka the ANZAC ship sets). Save money but have issues in the long run.

A different design does not solve this issue if you just go ahead and order 9 shipsets on day one. Proposing a different design on this basis is not logical.