Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[t68]

Why did ADF conduct a BACN trial? Because they DO want the damn thing to work, but now it's going to need a Gulfstream G550 in theatre to support it.

Just out of curiosity where are you getting this infomation in regards to the role of Gulfstream 550?

I was under the impression that that where strategic SigInt & Elint platform, I was under the impression P8 was going to have the overland ground surveillance, battle management and the command and control role.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Just out of curiosity where are you getting this infomation in regards to the role of Gulfstream 550?

I was under the impression that that where strategic SigInt & Elint platform, I was under the impression P8 was going to have the overland ground surveillance, battle management and the command and control role.

Nope, actually the P8, E7 and 550 will all be involved depending on circumstances.

there's also a move to add some capability to the KC-30's

battlespace management at Plan Jericho looks at as many assets as relevant delivering across a capability req. depending on the ask determines who's there

 

[ADMk2]

Just out of curiosity where are you getting this infomation in regards to the role of Gulfstream 550?

I was under the impression that that where strategic SigInt & Elint platform, I was under the impression P8 was going to have the overland ground surveillance, battle management and the command and control role.

From Northrop Grumman. Australia is not the only country that needs to connect a bunch of disparate communications systems...

 

[gf0012-aust]

Just out of curiosity where are you getting this infomation in regards to the role of Gulfstream 550?

‘Airborne gateway’ provides air-land integration for Jericho Dawn firepower demonstration | Australian Aviation

Communications relay testbed Gulfstream arrives in Australia | Australian Aviation

 

[MARKMILES77]

They could then take a little extra time evaluating the other contenders.

The time for that is gone. Australia really wanted a two hanger solution anyway. But a CEAFAR Aegis F-105 with two hangers would be something that could very easily be produced with very low risk, and build off our existing hull building experience. With updated systems and equipment. The integration would probably be easier, with a more recent Aegis baseline.

Arguably it would be better than building another AWD. You get twice as much aviation capability (or more using UAV's), you get new systems and engines that are compliant. You get the same combat power, CEC, a better radar rounding out the package. These really would be AWD pluses. But that means they will eat more into their design life margin.

Ideally I would see the Type 26 in Australian use the upgraded F-105 as a benchmark, with a 10-15m hull plug bringing it to the approximate dimensions of the Atago Class. No doubt that would provide for more strike length VLS than 24. Also command space, additional fuel bunkerage, machinery space, etc.

Around 10,000t.

I worry that the capability that is being advocated for the new frigates is going a little over the top.
Stretched T26s, 10,000 tonne frigates, this, in my opinion, is not the way to go.
If some sort of giant, super capability frigate is chosen there will invariably be a budgetary push to cut numbers.
We could well end up with only 6 or 7 not 9.
I would rather have 9 CEAFAR FREMMs with a 32 cell VLS than 6 very large frigates with a 64 cell VLS.

 

[StingrayOZ]

I worry that the capability that is being advocated for the new frigates is going a little over the top.
Stretched T26s, 10,000 tonne frigates, this, in my opinion, is not the way to go.
If some sort of giant, super capability frigate is chosen there will invariably be a budgetary push to cut numbers.
We could well end up with only 6 or 7 not 9.
I would rather have 9 CEAFAR FREMMs with a 32 cell VLS than 6 very large frigates with a 64 cell VLS.

I don't see the frigate numbers going anywhere. There is going to be tremendous pressure from particularly the US but also Japan, Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia and the UK.

Australia isn't in a vacuum on this. There is largely bi-partisan support for sea5000 and the new subs. I would argue recent US development has put more pressure on Australia to step up.

I don't see Australia building 9 Type 26's. I see the Spanish F-105 plus with two hangers getting the immediate gig for a batch of 3 IMO. This would then put either a batch of FREMM (unlikely but possible) or Type 26. Probably in two batches of 3.

My comment was more about the future capability of the Type 26. I would imagine the first batch of Type 26 would be normal spec.

But when it comes down to the final batch of Type 26, I would fully expect IEP with perhaps two MT30's (or maybe additional diesels), basically setting up for AWD replacements. The hull stretch will be to accommodate additional fuel load, volume, cooling, for additional power generation, systems among other things.

Yeh, I think by 2030 we should be looking at 10,000t ships. Ideally we would commit to this off the bat and build all type 26 hulls with a healthy space and power margin to allow cost effective refits.

While it seems like a huge jump, when we finially got the US to participate in InterFET, they sent USS Mobile Bay. A 10,000t cruiser. Not for the missile load out, but for the command and control capabilities.

Australia needs a ship with the endurance, capability and the command capabilities of a cruiser. We operate in the the Indian and Pacific oceans and in nearly every sea on the planet. We also are in the position where its quite likely that Australia is leading a fleet of other nations ships. In that way Australia is more like the US in its needs, than say Italy.

Its not about missile load outs, its about a big, high powerful radar that covers a huge area, power to run that radar, space to handle the input and output of the data. Being able to be the anti-air commander for a big mixed fleet.

Australia also wants each unit to be multi-capable. While some navies have 7,000t ships that focus on ASW, or surface, its pretty clear we expect ours to do everything.

Which is why I see the type 26 being the inevitable end choice. Which is why it can be armed with more missiles than the type 45. With more power than a type 45 and will most likely be bigger than a type 45.

 

[John Fedup]

I like your vision for an enhanced Type 26 down the road and I hope the RCN goes down the same road. They likely prefer the Type 26 and hopefully they start off with the current design in a 3 ship batch followed by a bigger and better version in follow up batches.

IEP for second batches should be the way forward for all Type 26s in the RN, RAN, and RCN. This path will be easier once the Zumwalt and the re-engineered Type 45 IEP systems prove themselves. Future laser and rail guns systems will need the power and IEP will help manage the power. A second MT30 could very well be in the cards for a larger gen2 Type 26.

 

[StingrayOZ]

I like your vision for an enhanced Type 26 down the road and I hope the RCN goes down the same road. They likely prefer the Type 26 and hopefully they start off with the current design in a 3 ship batch followed by a bigger and better version in follow up batches.

IEP for second batches should be the way forward for all Type 26s in the RN, RAN, and RCN. This path will be easier once the Zumwalt and the re-engineered Type 45 IEP systems prove themselves. Future laser and rail guns systems will need the power and IEP will help manage the power. A second MT30 could very well be in the cards for a larger gen2 Type 26.

I wouldn't have to be a pure IEP setup. The CODLOG is half way there. The 2nd Mt30 could be configured for electrical only. But its not going to be as flexible as a full IEP setup.

This way you have significant electrical/propulsion generation capability. Minimal risk. Still a proper IEP setup would be where you want to go.

Obviously over the F-105 having one MT30 over 2 x LM2500 is going to be a pretty big advantage. One MT30 is going to have nearly as much generation capability as the two LM2500 in the AWD's.

Radars, weapon systems, other sensors are not likely to get less energy demanding. No doubt there will be further gains and more computers on ships.

 

[Raven22]

I don't see the frigate numbers going anywhere. There is going to be tremendous pressure from particularly the US but also Japan, Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia and the UK.

Australia isn't in a vacuum on this. There is largely bi-partisan support for sea5000 and the new subs. I would argue recent US development has put more pressure on Australia to step up.

I don't see Australia building 9 Type 26's. I see the Spanish F-105 plus with two hangers getting the immediate gig for a batch of 3 IMO. This would then put either a batch of FREMM (unlikely but possible) or Type 26. Probably in two batches of 3.

My comment was more about the future capability of the Type 26. I would imagine the first batch of Type 26 would be normal spec.

But when it comes down to the final batch of Type 26, I would fully expect IEP with perhaps two MT30's (or maybe additional diesels), basically setting up for AWD replacements. The hull stretch will be to accommodate additional fuel load, volume, cooling, for additional power generation, systems among other things.

Yeh, I think by 2030 we should be looking at 10,000t ships. Ideally we would commit to this off the bat and build all type 26 hulls with a healthy space and power margin to allow cost effective refits.

While it seems like a huge jump, when we finially got the US to participate in InterFET, they sent USS Mobile Bay. A 10,000t cruiser. Not for the missile load out, but for the command and control capabilities.

Australia needs a ship with the endurance, capability and the command capabilities of a cruiser. We operate in the the Indian and Pacific oceans and in nearly every sea on the planet. We also are in the position where its quite likely that Australia is leading a fleet of other nations ships. In that way Australia is more like the US in its needs, than say Italy.

Its not about missile load outs, its about a big, high powerful radar that covers a huge area, power to run that radar, space to handle the input and output of the data. Being able to be the anti-air commander for a big mixed fleet.

Australia also wants each unit to be multi-capable. While some navies have 7,000t ships that focus on ASW, or surface, its pretty clear we expect ours to do everything.

Which is why I see the type 26 being the inevitable end choice. Which is why it can be armed with more missiles than the type 45. With more power than a type 45 and will most likely be bigger than a type 45.

You do realise the navy works to a budget, just like everyone else right?

Just because a 10 000t ship has more capability than a 7000t ship, doesn't mean it should be chosen - you still have to make the ships fit the budget.

The RAN thread does love to go down the fantasy thread path.

 

[hairyman]

Will the F-105 be as big or bigger than the AWD"s? It looks certain that the Type 26 will be. We may as well stop talking about Future Frigate and call it Future Destroyer, because that is what they will be.

 

[Volkodav]

You do realise the navy works to a budget, just like everyone else right?

Just because a 10 000t ship has more capability than a 7000t ship, doesn't mean it should be chosen - you still have to make the ships fit the budget.

The RAN thread does love to go down the fantasy thread path.

A 10,000t destroyer can cost as little or less through life than a 7000t or smaller one when you are talking a given capability, the cost only goes up when you cram the bigger ship ad full as the smaller design. A smaller ship can end up more expensive to buy, own and operate as the options to achieve the required capability are limited by volume, power generation and cooling realities, this only gets worse come time for major refits, upgrades and even just fixing obsolescence issues that becom a factor in any ship you want to keep for more than fifteen to eighteen years.

 

[rjtjrt]

You do realise the navy works to a budget, just like everyone else right?

Just because a 10 000t ship has more capability than a 7000t ship, doesn't mean it should be chosen - you still have to make the ships fit the budget.

The RAN thread does love to go down the fantasy thread path.

I always want to ask these posters what they suggest RAN give up so as to afford the suggested acquisition?
It is not a magic pie.

 

[rjtjrt]

A 10,000t destroyer can cost as little or less through life than a 7000t or smaller one when you are talking a given capability, the cost only goes up when you cram the bigger ship ad full as the smaller design. A smaller ship can end up more expensive to buy, own and operate as the options to achieve the required capability are limited by volume, power generation and cooling realities, this only gets worse come time for major refits, upgrades and even just fixing obsolescence issues that becom a factor in any ship you want to keep for more than fifteen to eighteen years.

Volk, you have far more knowledge of this than I do. However, if bigger ships are just as affordable, why don't navies in general do it?

 

[Volkodav]

Volk, you have far more knowledge of this than I do. However, if bigger ships are just as affordable, why don't navies in general do it?

Look at how much ships have grown in general since the 70s and 80s when the political classes thought big ships were just undefendable targets and navies were meant to be moving to FACs and corvettes instead of frigates and destroyers. Its similar to the regular rhetoric of light, mobile wheeled vehicles verses MBTs and AIFVs. Does anyone with any knowledge seriously question why the LAND400 contenders are so much larger and heavier than the M-113 and ASLAV, or why the M-1A1 SEP is bigger and heavier than the Leopard AS1? Does anyone seriously think the Army should be getting Scimitars, Stormers and Stingrays to reequipe the RAAC?

The LCS is the size of an FFG-7, while the F-100 is basically the size of a 1930s light cruiser, and about 2000t heavier than the Perth Class DDGs and Adelaide Class FFGs. The ANZAC Class, though they have consistently proven too small and too tight to receive a balanced and effective upgrade, and are according to the contracted maintainers more expensive and difficult to sustain than the larger, much more capable but older Adelaide class, were actually significantly larger and more capable than the initial requirement. It is a simple fact that had the ANZACs been larger (i.e. a hull plug, even if fitted with exactly the same systems as the actual vessels) they would have been as easy to build or easier, there would have been greater freedom in layout, maintenance and upgrades would have been easier to plan and conduct, there would have been a greater number and variety of options for dealing with obsolescence and with designing upgrades. The other thing is they would have had better sea keeping and suffered less wear and tear as a result of their short length increasing pitching and slamming.

An example, on the FFGs and Hobarts a complete GT can be, quickly and easily, removed and replaced through a rail system installed through the funnels to the machinery spaces. On the smaller, more modular ANZACs the GTs need to be disassembled and removed in pieces through holes (patches) cut in the ships decks and sides. Maintenance work on the bigger ships is easier and cheaper because their is more space meaning easier access, easier removal and replacement and more space for concurrent activities.

So basically most navies are going bigger and have been doing so for decades. They would likely go bigger still but for non technically minded politicians and bureaucrats' who associate weight with cost without looking at even initial sustainment costs, let alone through life costs.

 

[t68]

Volk, you have far more knowledge of this than I do. However, if bigger ships are just as affordable, why don't navies in general do it?

From my limited understanding, once they get to a certant size of function internal space will become waste and use still have the cost of moving a heavy hull through te water at additional cost for no gain, from what I gather the very reason why they chooses Canberra and not Wasp LHD

 

[Volkodav]

From my limited understanding, once they get to a certant size of function internal space will become waste and use still have the cost of moving a heavy hull through te water at additional cost for no gain, from what I gather the very reason why they chooses Canberra and not Wasp LHD

I think you would find the fact a Wasp is a third bigger, has three times the crew, is much much more expensive to buy and operate probably has more to do with it than it having, in your opinion, wasted internal space that costs more to move through the water. A Wasp is a much larger, much more capable ship than the JCI/Canberra, its like saying a Ticonderoga class AEGIS CG is a waste of space and weight for no gain because its bigger and heavier than an FFG-7, or even an F-100.

 

[t68]

I think you would find the fact a Wasp is a third bigger, has three times the crew, is much much more expensive to buy and operate probably has more to do with it than it having, in your opinion, wasted internal space that costs more to move through the water. A Wasp is a much larger, much more capable ship than the JCI/Canberra, its like saying a Ticonderoga class AEGIS CG is a waste of space and weight for no gain because its bigger and heavier than an FFG-7, or even an F-100.

No not saying that at all, all I'm saying if you increase the size and don't have the need or will to fill out that increase in space, you will increase the thru life running cost for no additional gain, you will in our additional costs in fuel repaires etc

 

[alexsa]

Will the F-105 be as big or bigger than the AWD"s? It looks certain that the Type 26 will be. We may as well stop talking about Future Frigate and call it Future Destroyer, because that is what they will be.

Depending on which source you look at the evolved 105 has a growth path to 7000 or 7400 tonnes. If the physical dimesions of the hull form are the same then this can only be done by increasing the draft..... and resistance

I slight tweak in length or beam would obviate some of the need to go deeper but there is no clear indication if the final evolved design will be any bigger.

 

[Milne Bay]

Depending on which source you look at the evolved 105 has a growth path to 7000 or 7400 tonnes. If the physical dimesions of the hull form are the same then this can only be done by increasing the draft..... and resistance

I slight tweak in length or beam would obviate some of the need to go deeper but there is no clear indication if the final evolved design will be any bigger.

From a build perspective, a plug to lengthen the hull looks attractive, but I imagine that the effect on sea-keeping and performance has to be measured and show acceptable results.
Would an increase in beam produce similar resistance to increasing the draft?
MB

 

[rockitten]

Aafter reading all those 10000t discussions makes me wonder:

We really should order 9 Burke FtIIA (the ASW version) instead. It has 2 hanger, it has plenty of VLS, excellent hull for ASW, enough room for improvement, the design is already proven and is practically off-the shelf.

Too bad it will never happens.