Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[Hazdog]

Cantibria Class AOR

In a hard copy of the most recent Australian Warships magazine, Has shown new computer generated images of the future AOR with 2 Phalanx CIWS (fore and aft) on each ship, with this said Australia would be soon looking to increase it's pool of CIWS to give each ship the required protection.

I am sorry I cannot provide a photocopy of the magazine article.

Have a Good Day.

 

[oldsig127]

In a hard copy of the most recent Australian Warships magazine, Has shown new computer generated images of the future AOR with 2 Phalanx CIWS (fore and aft) on each ship, with this said Australia would be soon looking to increase it's pool of CIWS to give each ship the required protection.

.

Yes, it's been discussed repeatedly here since the FMS request was reported in about October 2014 (?), though the exact numbers on each LHD and the Cantabrias is less certain.

oldsig

 

[hauritz]

The issue with ship numbers is due to the RAN's preference for big capable ships. Even the British baulked at the idea of building more than 8 Type 26 frigates ... but Australia is considering up to 9 of them.

The only way to boost actual ship number is to pay more money ... or accept less capable ships.

This is why I see the OPVs as an opportunity lost if they are not at least fitted for a broader range of tasks.

After all if the proverbial ever hit the fan then the navy would be bolting missiles and guns to anything that floats.

 

[SteveR]

The reason we are getting OPVs is because the PBs were never fit for purpose, i.e. with our EEZ and obligations under international treaty PBs have been out of their depth for a couple of decades. This was realised when the replacements for the Fremantle's were first planned, hence the OPC / corvette. .

South Africa (SA) has selected the Damen 1800 85m Sea Axe for its OPVs.

https://navaltoday.com/2017/02/23/south-africa-announces-preferred-bidders-for-new-navy-vessels/[/url]

As long as negotiations and build in SA commence soon (BIG IF) this design can present credentials that its risks will be solved during SA construction and trials. I am not aware that this particular design has been built elsewhere whereas the 2 German OPV candidates for the RAN are in service.

 

[John Newman]

The issue with ship numbers is due to the RAN's preference for big capable ships. Even the British baulked at the idea of building more than 8 Type 26 frigates ... but Australia is considering up to 9 of them.

The only way to boost actual ship number is to pay more money ... or accept less capable ships.

This is why I see the OPVs as an opportunity lost if they are not at least fitted for a broader range of tasks.

After all if the proverbial ever hit the fan then the navy would be bolting missiles and guns to anything that floats.

You can look at what is happening, or planned to happen, as a glass half full or half empty.

So at the 'big end of town' we have three AWD's in production and what appears to be a clear commitment to nine (9) large well equipped Future Frigates (FFG's, almost DDG's).

It appears that the 12 major fleet units will be fitted with and not just fitted 'for', which is pretty good, and especially when you look at most 'Western' navies, the RAN is doing pretty well at that big end of town (where most of the money and resources are going to be consumed too) when it comes to replacement of major fleet units.

Twelve Shortfins to replace the six Collins (I still have doubts that we will ever see all 12 in service at the one time, but anyway...).

Two new AOR's, possible third or an additional Choules type ship.

All looks pretty good to me.


OPV's, an opportunity lost? Can look at that a couple of ways.

Clearly the OPV's are not going to be OCV's, but who knows into the future, but at least 12 larger more capable ships are going to enter service to replace the ACPB's, certainly with growth potential (at what cost? who knows).

But lets also look at the LHD's for example, lots of comments about their self defence systems at time of ordering, but of course the DWP is allowing for an increased capability there.

Choules is going to be upgraded with better self defence systems too.

Maybe it's a case of get the 'approval' as is, and look at what might be 'enhanced' at a later date.

I think the glass is half full (not half empty).

Just my opinion of course.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Its not just about numbers of vessels

the reality is that australia has territorial carriage of responsibility of patrolling and protecting 1/9th of the worlds oceans

on an island continent
on a land mass fractionally smaller than canada
with a national population smaller than the population of mumbai

so force development is always about multi transoceanic capability and a distributed footprint

its not just because we need more to look impressive. there is a functional and operational requirement where the tactical footprint has to meet the strategic imperative

 

[Volkodav]

Where the OPVs are a lost opportunity compared to the OCV concept is that although the majority would be outfitted and used exclusively as patrol vessels there were not insignificant savings, flexibility and capability factors relating to the potential selection of a MOTS solution incorporating flexible multi purpose decks and flexible systems foundations'. The savings would be made in the areas of training, building and sustainment of an eventually much larger class of flexible vessels, with zero impact on the performance, capability, or cost of the baseline OPV configuration.

 

[rockitten]

Where the OPVs are a lost opportunity compared to the OCV concept is that although the majority would be outfitted and used exclusively as patrol vessels there were not insignificant savings, flexibility and capability factors relating to the potential selection of a MOTS solution incorporating flexible multi purpose decks and flexible systems foundations'. The savings would be made in the areas of training, building and sustainment of an eventually much larger class of flexible vessels, with zero impact on the performance, capability, or cost of the baseline OPV configuration.

I know the different between an OPV and OCV is not that much nowadays.

One thing I wonder though, if an OPV is fitted for but not with the potential as a OCV, to keep the reserve CG, real-estate, buoyancy, power gen capacity, etc, etc, will we ended up with a more expensive (and bigger) hull but still not as capable corvette/light frigate for the same cost?

 

[Volkodav]

I know the different between an OPV and OCV is not that much nowadays.

One thing I wonder though, if an OPV is fitted for but not with the potential as a OCV, to keep the reserve CG, real-estate, buoyancy, power gen capacity, etc, etc, will we ended up with a more expensive (and bigger) hull but still not as capable corvette/light frigate for the same cost?

No where near the same costs unless the government stuffs up the contract, i.e. they award the work to a builder for political rather than strategic or commercial reasons. The result of this could easily be that builder produces a class of vessels that are not fit for purpose, have design or build faults, or are of insufficient quality and durability for the role they have been acquired, resulting in them costing far more to own and operate than planned, needing to be remediated at great expense and then replaced far earlier than planned. All of these things happed with the Armidale Class PB program and look set to haven again with the OPVs.

Add in that there are competent naval ship builders that have already stared breaking up design, engineering, build and support teams, that will be very difficult and expensive to replace. The combat systems teams will also whither and die and the tax payer will pay the price in rebuilding those teams, their lost expertise and experience. The major ship builders predominantly use Australian citizens trained locally and experts who have taken out Australian citizenship, supported by a small number of experts from worlds best practice enterprises contracted to manage and mentor the Australian work force. The politically supported option however is a private company with a track record of supplying substandard products to the RAN, failing to support them in service, who makes extensive use of contract and 457 labour to minimise costs and maximise profits, for no advantage to the Australian tax payer, let alone the RAN.

I don't have the data at hand but I have seen enough of it to realise how much cost cutting / minimisation / and pork barreling in the early stages of a project can cost in delays and cost overruns in the long term. We have been here before, we had a competitive and efficient naval ship building industry that was gutted and run down through lack of work while panda companies with political influence where given the contracts that could have prevented this happening. Even worse was when work was sent overseas for short term cost savings with no regard for the damage done to local strategic capability, or the extra cost involved in rebuilding those capabilities down the track.

When you look at the cost overruns on both the Hobarts and Canberras, combined with the failure of the Armidales you have to ask whether awarding the PB replacement to Transfield/Tenix, Forgacs or ASC, even ADI/Thales allowing them to retain existing trained teams instead of making them redundant, would have actually saved money and time while giving the RAN a better quality, more durable class of PBs? Take it a step back to the OPC / corvettes of the mid 90s and look how much was wasted on life extending the Fremantle's, building then fixing the Armidales ( including money on trying to increase there capabilities) plus the cost of the rundown to the shipbuilding industry, whether the corvettes may have worked out cheaper over all.

 

[StingrayOZ]

I know the different between an OPV and OCV is not that much nowadays.

One thing I wonder though, if an OPV is fitted for but not with the potential as a OCV, to keep the reserve CG, real-estate, buoyancy, power gen capacity, etc, etc, will we ended up with a more expensive (and bigger) hull but still not as capable corvette/light frigate for the same cost?

Most of the ships for the patrol boat replacement do have that space and weight reserved. Its not like we are looking at <900t boats where you really locking those options off the table for a OCV/OPV.

Many of the ones that would be of the size Australia is looking at can take a 76mm and one or two 20mm. You would really have to constrict the offerings to rule those options off the table at this size.

Damen 1800 opv and Lurssen 85 can both take 76mm. The lurssen can also fit 4 x NSM. Lurssen 90 allows to be up gunned with mk57 VLS, 4 NSM, 2 remote 20mm.

Looking at what is happening in say Yemen with the attack on the Saudi frigate and the HSV Swift, or the endless stream of incidents with Chinese fishing vessels, or anti-piracy missions, I wouldn't say the life of these types of vessels is always going to be in benign environments.

I could easily see a patrol boat being deployed to the gulf on top of our existing commitments. Arguably it would be more appropriate than a 7,000t frigate.

 

[hauritz]

The Italian FREMM continues its tour of Australia and will be exercising with the RAN. It will be interesting to see how it performs against the Collins class subs. That may yet be the big determining factor.

FREMM Carabiniere: the new cop in town

My only real issue with the ship is whether or not it can fit all of the equipment required by the RAN.

The FREMM only has 16 VLS (short length) ... with provision for an additional 16 strike length. Currently the space that will be required for these additional cells is being used for 21 extra berths.

Even with these additional VLS it will still lag behind the updated Hobart and Type 26 in this area.

Also the gun arrangement of two 76 mm guns. I believe Fincantieri plan to replace the forward gun with a 127mm main gun but looking at the layout of the ship that would seem very tight. I am not sure whether or not the RAN intends to retain the rear 76mm. I am sure if it had its choice the RAN would prefer additional VLS to the 76mm gun ... but given that this gun is directly above the hanger I don't see this happening.

 

[StingrayOZ]

The Italian FREMM continues its tour of Australia and will be exercising with the RAN. It will be interesting to see how it performs against the Collins class subs. That may yet be the big determining factor.

FREMM Carabiniere: the new cop in town

My only real issue with the ship is whether or not it can fit all of the equipment required by the RAN.

The FREMM only has 16 VLS (short length) ... with provision for an additional 16 strike length. Currently the space that will be required for these additional cells is being used for 21 extra berths.

Even with these additional VLS it will still lag behind the updated Hobart and Type 26 in this area.

Also the gun arrangement of two 76 mm guns. I believe Fincantieri plan to replace the forward gun with a 127mm main gun but looking at the layout of the ship that would seem very tight. I am not sure whether or not the RAN intends to retain the rear 76mm. I am sure if it had its choice the RAN would prefer additional VLS to the 76mm gun ... but given that this gun is directly above the hanger I don't see this happening.

FREMM brings low risk, a more modern platform than the F-105 but much more real and low risk than the Type 26. Its a valid option and worth looking at, but I doubt many would call it the front runner.

I imagine the F-105 redesigned hanger will be benchmarked against the Fincantieri design and layout. As will several of its other features and its ability to conduct ASW.

I don't see the RAN being that interested in the rear facing 76mm, but its interesting and I can see why the Italians are quite keen on it. I would imagine a 5" and the extra VLS would most likely eat into some of that top weight and thus the 76mm is unlikely to be seen in that configuration. Phalanx would most likely be fitted instead.

FREMM is a real ship (pretty much), the type 26 is looking pretty rocky to happen in the timeframe and given the issues with the RN funding and the reduction in numbers its probably looking less strong than it was a few years ago. The F-105 is a modification, but squeezing two hangers in is going to be interesting, there will have to be some compromises and although the AWD's are a good ASW platform, are they as good as Type 26 or FREMM? The AWD build program wasn't without issue either so there are issues to be look at there as well.

Certainly in my opinion the F-105 frigate with two hangers seems to tick all the boxes. Probably what we will build, at least for now.

 

[hauritz]

Yeah ... I sometimes wonder why we are having a selection process at all.

I would have thought that proceeding with a flight 2 Hobart design would have been a simpler option.

 

[hairyman]

It might be worth while looking at the Japanese 3000 ton frigate they are going to start building next year
I have lost the source but this is what I copied

According to the program, the vessels appears to be fitted with an integrated mast with several planar arrays for radar(s), a 5 inch (127mm/L62) main gun, two remote weapon stations between the bridge and the main gun, and what could be a Phalanx CIWS on top of the helicopter hangar.
It also has a top speed of over 30knots. Say 4 or five of these instead of corvettes, even if we have reduce the number of frigates back to 7 or 8. The frigate at this stage is known as 3OFF or FFX.

 

[ASSAIL]

It might be worth while looking at the Japanese 3000 ton frigate they are going to start building next year
I have lost the source but this is what I copied

According to the program, the vessels appears to be fitted with an integrated mast with several planar arrays for radar(s), a 5 inch (127mm/L62) main gun, two remote weapon stations between the bridge and the main gun, and what could be a Phalanx CIWS on top of the helicopter hangar.
It also has a top speed of over 30knots. Say 4 or five of these instead of corvettes, even if we have reduce the number of frigates back to 7 or 8. The frigate at this stage is known as 3OFF or FFX.

Why introduce a platform from way out of the blue? You must be aware of the SEA 5000 process, the government has announced the three contenders who've been selected to refine and present their contenders.
There is no further possibility.
Further, you must have been following the debate re the Kiwi P3K replacement and all the subsequent comments on complications surrounding ITARS, IP, FMS ad nauseum and after you've read all that you randomly throw in Oddball?

The discussion needs to relate to the real world and to the published material, IIP, which steers capability investment through the next decade or so.

 

[John Newman]

It might be worth while looking at the Japanese 3000 ton frigate they are going to start building next year

A 3000t frigate?

Yes that is going to have a lot of growth potential (not!) over it's service life.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Yeah ... I sometimes wonder why we are having a selection process at all.

I would have thought that proceeding with a flight 2 Hobart design would have been a simpler option.

I would say a lot about it is benchmarking the new F-105 design with other new designs to make sure the modifications still give us a good over all capability.

If they squeeze two hangers on the ship, but designed poorly that would be a big issue. This way they can benchmark against a good design with two hangers from the get go. No doubt the spanish team have been keen to try to match or exceed any aviation and ASW capability offered by the FREMM platform. If it comes up the modified F-105 matches exceeds the FREMM in ASW and Helo then its obviously going to be a very strong platform, and a good choice for the RAN. We have had issues Australianizing designs before, FREMM is a good benchmark to beat.

Plus you need a viable fall over solution.

At the end of the day I think the F-105 design that underpins the AWD is very likely to underpin the sea5000 frigates. I think that design will give Australia the kind of strategic weight we are looking for, with a price we can afford and compromises we can live with and the benefits we want.

 

[hairyman]

Instead of you blokes jumping up to criticize, how about we wait and see what the Japanese come up with? They are apparently building these 3000 ton vessels in lieu of more Aegis destroyers, two for one, to give them more warship numbers. I am not suggesting that we look at the as our new frigates for heavens sake. but asan alternative to a corvette, if you read my post properly.

 

[John Newman]

Instead of you blokes jumping up to criticize, how about we wait and see what the Japanese come up with? They are apparently building these 3000 ton vessels in lieu of more Aegis destroyers, two for one, to give them more warship numbers. I am not suggesting that we look at the as our new frigates for heavens sake. but asan alternative to a corvette, if you read my post properly.

Actually I did read you post properly and you said: "even if we have reduce the number of frigates back to 7 or 8", why do that?

They may well work out to be successful in whatever role Japan intends for them, and of course Japan currently has 36 DDG and DD's, plus half a dozen DE's too.

We don't.

 

[vonnoobie]

Instead of you blokes jumping up to criticize, how about we wait and see what the Japanese come up with? They are apparently building these 3000 ton vessels in lieu of more Aegis destroyers, two for one, to give them more warship numbers. I am not suggesting that we look at the as our new frigates for heavens sake. but asan alternative to a corvette, if you read my post properly.

Because Japan largely intends to operate these ship's in there home waters while we intend to operate our ships globally.

Because this would add an entirely new class of ship to the maintenance schedule making things less stream lined.

Because the cost to acquire this handful of ship's would probably be better served enlarging the OPV's and making them fitted for but no with with a number of systems.