Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[alexsa]

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.

OK, Size is critically important. Noting the ship has to carry all the systems envisaged for the the future frigate and the power out put to support them ...... and have a reasonable unsupported range then 3000 tonnes will be a significant challenge (honestly damn near impossible without compromising the requirements). Looking at the ANZAC at about 4000 tonnes as a baseline; these vessels are right on their margins and only carry one helo, no towed array and less cells for missiles than appear to be required for the future frigate. They are also on the blood for power generation.

This is due in part to the need to have bunker capacity to give the ANZAC's longer range which, compared to other MEKO 200's, is quite long. It really is a case of robbing Peter to pay Paul. To add the weight required by the systems and helps you have to cut back else where and, in the absence of a reduction in capability, this will be in the form or range or propulsion/generating arrangements.

Noting our geography ...... long range is critical

 

[hairyman]

That was my main doubt re these new ships, the range, which I have not seen. However as I am suggesting them for consideration in a CORVETTE purchase, it may not be that critical. And I only suggested a reduction of the number of Future Frigates to suggest where the money for them could come from. I have seen a suggested cost of about $450, US no doubt. You know how this would appeal to our government.

 

[ASSAIL]

That was my main doubt re these new ships, the range, which I have not seen. However as I am suggesting them for consideration in a CORVETTE purchase, it may not be that critical. And I only suggested a reduction of the number of Future Frigates to suggest where the money for them could come from. I have seen a suggested cost of about $450, US no doubt. You know how this would appeal to our government.

Please explain how your proposals fits in with the Integrated Investment Plan, you know that highly relevant roadmap for the ADFs future force?
One can throw all sorts personal wish lists around and it may sound wonderful and other fora do this endlessly. However, this is a forum for the real world discussing either the real or planned capabilities for various defence forces.
Your proposals belongs in La la land.

 

[alexsa]

Please explain how your proposals fits in with the Integrated Investment Plan, you know that highly relevant roadmap for the ADFs future force?
One can throw all sorts personal wish lists around and it may sound wonderful and other fora do this endlessly. However, this is a forum for the real world discussing either the real or planned capabilities for various defence forces.
Your proposals belongs in La la land.

Well the winner was La La Land ........ hang on sorry it was Moonlight

Sorry ....... silly but I could not resist noting a lot of what we are talking about is ethereal

 

[Volkodav]

Ok need some reality here. The Hobarts are actually too small, too tight, have insufficient growth margin, and insufficient power generation capacity for the requirement they were meant to fill. The three short listed contenders are also smaller and less capable than the larger ships the RAN desired to replace the ANZACs. The last thing we need to do is be looking at ships that are less than half the size of those required to meet the RANs requirements in terms of systems they need to do the job the government has set them.

The reason we are in this situation is because every time, with the possible exception of the ANZAC project, the RAN has gone in with a set of requirements for surface combatants they have ended up with something smaller and less capable than they actually needed. The Perth Class DDGs were meant to have helicopters, the FFGs were bought instead of Light Destroyers that were significantly more capable and although the ANZACs were larger and more capable than specified in the Dibb Report or the following white paper, they were no where near as capable as the planned additional FFGs. (ironically the FFGs are cheaper to operate and sustain than the ANZACs).

The ANZAC s are only serving in the role they are because successive governments failed to replace our high end combatants with modern equivalents. When acquired the Battle, Daring and Perth Class destroyers were state of the art general purpose combatants, filling more the traditional cruiser role in the RAN than that of destroyer. The River Class DEs/frigates were state of the art sub hunters, as were the Q class Type 15 ASW frigate conversions. What we ended up with was two classes of evolved patrol frigate (the Adelaides and the ANZACs) no destroyers and no ASW frigates. When the government(s) failed to replace the DDGs, the FFGs and ANZACs were forced to back fill, despite their limitations.

The last thing we can afford to do is hobble what is meant to be a cruiser navy with another generation of patrol frigates. Especially as the selected destroyers (F-100) and proposed frigates do not actually meet force requirements.

 

[hairyman]

I have felt constantly that our Hobart class lack firepower. Mostl other Aegis destroyers out there have more than 48 VLS, although the Hobarts also have eight tube launched anti shipmissiles.
Now I am going to sit back and wait for all the know alls on here to tell me the Hobarts are well armed for a 7000 ton warship.

 

[Milne Bay]

I have felt constantly that our Hobart class lack firepower. Mostl other Aegis destroyers out there have more than 48 VLS, although the Hobarts also have eight tube launched anti shipmissiles.
Now I am going to sit back and wait for all the know alls on here to tell me the Hobarts are well armed for a 7000 ton warship.

Yes there are other Aegis ships with more armament, but mostly these are bigger ships.
The Danes, the Spanish and the RAN have smaller ships but the US, Japan and S Korea have larger ships. If a ship needs to be longer ranged it also needs more space for fuel so a little less for weaponry.
MB

 

[Volkodav]

I have felt constantly that our Hobart class lack firepower. Mostl other Aegis destroyers out there have more than 48 VLS, although the Hobarts also have eight tube launched anti shipmissiles.
Now I am going to sit back and wait for all the know alls on here to tell me the Hobarts are well armed for a 7000 ton warship.

The issue isn't firepower, its things like power generation, cooling, cabinet and rack space for new widgets, space power and cooling for new consoles. They are very tight making upgrade or even repair by replacement difficult and time consuming, i.e. sometimes the only way something can be fixed or replaced is to disassemble and reassemble it insitue instead of just pulling it out and sending it off for work or better still replacing it with an item from the rotable parts pool.

As commissioned the ships will have a power and cooling budget, i.e. a list of concurrent activities that cannot happen as there will be insufficient power and cooling to support them. There are new systems that may be desired that will be impossible to install due to the as built limitations. It will be near impossible to upgrade these ships as we did the Perths as the USN is all about fitting things on their DDGs not Australian and Spanish Frigates. For example the USN has the possibility of converting one hanger on the Flight IIA Burkes into an auxiliary machinery room with an additional GT Generator plus cooling and other gear, where would that fit on a Hobart? Without extra power how will radar and other sensor upgrades be supported, how can new weapons, perhaps HELs be fitted supported?

 

[Muar River]

There is a nice photo of HMS Duncan and SPS Juan de Borbon moored together in Hamburg in Australian Warship magazine. The very fine and attractive lines of the Spanish frigate are noticeable against the Duncan. I do think if the RAN has 12 of the Spanish designed frigates it has done very well.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I have felt constantly that our Hobart class lack firepower. Mostl other Aegis destroyers out there have more than 48 VLS, although the Hobarts also have eight tube launched anti shipmissiles.
Now I am going to sit back and wait for all the know alls on here to tell me the Hobarts are well armed for a 7000 ton warship.

seriously? was that really necessary? not the kind of thing that I'd expect to see normally coming from you....

 

[hauritz]

There aren't a lot of options apart from the frigates Australia has shortlisted. Most European designs seem to top out around the 7000 ton mark.

When you think about it few navies have the same sort of requirements as the RAN. Most are just concerned with their immediate neighbourhood. Be it the South China Sea or the North Atlantic.

The only country that actually builds the sorts of ships Australia needs is the US.

 

[gf0012-aust]

The only country that actually builds the sorts of ships Australia needs is the US.

yep, population of mumbai and we have territorial and mapping responsibility for 1/9th of the worlds oceans

 

[StingrayOZ]

The issue isn't firepower, its things like power generation, cooling, cabinet and rack space for new widgets, space power and cooling for new consoles. They are very tight making upgrade or even repair by replacement difficult and time consuming, i.e. sometimes the only way something can be fixed or replaced is to disassemble and reassemble it insitue instead of just pulling it out and sending it off for work or better still replacing it with an item from the rotable parts pool.

As commissioned the ships will have a power and cooling budget, i.e. a list of concurrent activities that cannot happen as there will be insufficient power and cooling to support them. There are new systems that may be desired that will be impossible to install due to the as built limitations. It will be near impossible to upgrade these ships as we did the Perths as the USN is all about fitting things on their DDGs not Australian and Spanish Frigates. For example the USN has the possibility of converting one hanger on the Flight IIA Burkes into an auxiliary machinery room with an additional GT Generator plus cooling and other gear, where would that fit on a Hobart? Without extra power how will radar and other sensor upgrades be supported, how can new weapons, perhaps HELs be fitted supported?

But what else were we to get? We assessed the mini-Burke. It was rejected. To be honest, with hindsight I think we dodged a bullet with the Type 45, it wasn't right for us. What does that leave? Between the AWD and the Sea5000 frigate Australia has just about assessed or compared every suitable frigate out there.

We end up back at the F-105 with two hangers which is arguably what we wanted for the AWD before we changed the spec and made two hangers not a requirement.Given the choices, you are still talking about a large dimension ship slightly narrower and slightly shorter than a Burke, with a large weight margin. The radar is high, the 48VLS is possibly upgrable, the powertrain is dated but low risk and proven, it has sufficient range and endurance and manning and operationally it can fit in the RAN.We can also probably build 9 pretty decent frigates off it.

Or at least until the type 26 appears, which hopeful is wider than a full size Burke, nearly as long, able to displace 8,000t with margin for another 1,000 or so. Greater power generation than a Type 45 with a more reliable power train setup. Flex space, modern design features, power, volume, weight, thermal for modern systems and future upgrades. But we pay for that, there is risk in that, and time is important. We can't keep shelving projects waiting for the next wonder design.

We end up having the same problems. Australia needs special mega Australian units of everything. Arguably, we can live with the F-105 hull family. Money saved can go into more and better missiles, greater loads of SM-6/SM-3/NSM/LRASM/ASOC, better support and enablers, sensors, decoys, more frequent upgrades and better something else. If we need something better, then build it, not everything can be future proofed. Its quite possible the AWD won't last 30 years in Australian service.

At which point full size destroyers will be pushing 14,000t+. The argument to build a 8500t over a 7000t ship will be quite pointless.

 

[gf0012-aust]

The issue isn't firepower, its things like power generation, cooling, cabinet and rack space for new widgets, space power and cooling for new consoles.

its the 6th gen requirements which are driving future construction. there is that hope that distributed lethality can give you a virtual platform response through connectivity etc... (eg as in USN future vision NIFC-CA and step children) or ultimately a maxi purple version of Plan Jericho, but you still need capable vessels to start with

energy generation and management is a significant driver in all of the future USN builds, skimmers and subs as 6th gen needs it.

 

[hairyman]

I apologise for sounding off earlier. Us old blokes do that now and again.

If we really want the Type 26 but are worried about the timing, we could always build a few of the Spanish or French frigates, by then it should be known how well the T26 is doing and finish off with them. I know it would be a lot of extra work and expence setting up for two ship types, but it could be worth in the long run.

 

[Volkodav]

The G&C International Frigate and the F104 were not the only options but they were the options foisted upon the RAN by the Kinaird Two Pass system that required a preferred evolved solution and a fall back existing solution. Ironically the roles could have quite easily been switched with the evolved solution being an evolved F105 that fully met the RANs requirements and the existing being an improved but still MOTS Flight IIA Burke incorporating a raft of approved but, at that point, yet to be funded upgrades.

This little change would have seen the design resources' applied to the baby burke instead utilised on the Navantia design, this, ironically, would have resulted in the discovery of the issues with the Navantia design data allowing them to be sorted out as part of developing the evolved version. At the same time BIWs status as capability partner combined with the US' considerable experience in supporting overseas builds, even those involving considerable redesign, would ensure the mistakes made on the actual build like would not have happened.

 

[alexsa]

I apologise for sounding off earlier. Us old blokes do that now and again.

If we really want the Type 26 but are worried about the timing, we could always build a few of the Spanish or French frigates, by then it should be known how well the T26 is doing and finish off with them. I know it would be a lot of extra work and expence setting up for two ship types, but it could be worth in the long run.

I am a fan of batch building so speculatively (daydreaming again) you could change platforms between batchs

The T26 appears to have a lot of capability ...... and a lot of risk. We would be on the bleeding edge of this one if we took it on and we would need to establish a new process to build them. I have doubts about the FREMM mainly around the VLS capacity noting there will be quite a bit of structural rejigging required (noting tha is my opinion and I could be wrong).

For the immediate future I think the evolved 105 offers the best option in speed to build and risk for at least the first one or two batches of 3 hulls. It would be nice if we looked hard at new platforms and move latter batches to that if it is practical..... particularly if the new platform could support the replacment AWD's.

I honestly hope we do not do what we did with the ANZAC and order 10 ships sets worth of gear at the outset tying us to one design ....... and resulting in obsolete gear being fitted to ships in the latter part of the build. Even if we stay with the 105 hull it needs to evolve between batches as needs and expericance are evaluated

Anyway we can only hope.

 

[ASSAIL]

I am a fan of batch building so speculatively (daydreaming again) you could change platforms between batchs

The T26 appears to have a lot of capability ...... and a lot of risk. We would be on the bleeding edge of this one if we took it on and we would need to establish a new process to build them. I have doubts about the FREMM mainly around the VLS capacity noting there will be quite a bit of structural rejigging required (noting tha is my opinion and I could be wrong).

For the immediate future I think the evolved 105 offers the best option in speed to build and risk for at least the first one or two batches of 3 hulls. It would be nice if we looked hard at new platforms and move latter batches to that if it is practical..... particularly if the new platform could support the replacment AWD's.

I honestly hope we do not do what we did with the ANZAC and order 10 ships sets worth of gear at the outset tying us to one design ....... and resulting in obsolete gear being fitted to ships in the latter part of the build. Even if we stay with the 105 hull it needs to evolve between batches as needs and expericance are evaluated

Anyway we can only hope.

I'm in total agreement with this philosophy mainly through derisking and commonality of the huge collection of basic ship systems.
Further, if we stay with the G&C design philosophy upgrades to further batches are evolutionary not revolutionary and provide a continuum to industry.
Given that philosophy, batch 3 of the Future Frigate may even look similar to the AB cousins Kongo or KDX although Secdef Richardsons view is that anything over 6000 tonnes is unnecessary, let's hope he's changed his mind.

 

[alexsa]

I'm in total agreement with this philosophy mainly through derisking and commonality of the huge collection of basic ship systems.
Further, if we stay with the G&C design philosophy upgrades to further batches are evolutionary not revolutionary and provide a continuum to industry.
Given that philosophy, batch 3 of the Future Frigate may even look similar to the AB cousins Kongo or KDX although Secdef Richardsons view is that anything over 6000 tonnes is unnecessary, let's hope he's changed his mind.

I think technology will force their hand. The power equation will continue to grow with new and more complex/capable systems (Burke Flight III being an example).

Here the T26 has an advantage given its beam. It could more easily take a hull plug (in the design phase) to increase displacement with less risk of adversely changing the rolling or torsional characteristics. Mind you full electric drive would help a lot as you don't have to worry as much about shaft lines when tinkering with the hull lay out.

By the time the final 3 'future frigates' are to be built I suspect there will be a few proven options out there that have leveraged off the T45, T26, DDG 1000 and Burke lessons

 

[Hazdog]

Tiger LHD

The Australian Navy and Army are starting sea trails for Tiger ARH on the LHD's.

Can't wait to see these operating in a future RIMPAC!