Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[StingrayOZ]

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

Wasp is a classic example why many USN ships don't work for the RAN.

Man power - Classic Wasp is hugely manpower intensive. over 1000 sailors. this goes with their general doctrine and CONOPs. Damage control, watches, supervision, maintenance etc. The US has the man power for big intensive crews and they use them.

Steam Turbines(!). - Not only do they chew through fuel, they are also maintenance heavy and supervision heavy. The last of the Wasps was Makin Island with gas turbines and diesel generators. It apparently used a 1/3 of the fuel of a traditional Wasp most of the time.

The individual unit is just massive. It takes two LHD's to recreate one Wasp, but because of maintenance etc we would still need at least two.

The actual cost of additional friction with the water and the additional mass of the steel is actually fairly low in outright terms. If you were to shrink a Wasp class down 50-75% it would still cost a small fortune to run and would not be highly suitable for the RAN.

I remember after Timor, Australia was all over Wasp ships. Ministers, uniforms, aircraft. But it was instantly clear a Wasp class wasn't a good fit for the RAN. Like it wasn't when HMS invincible evaporated back to the UK.

Luckily the Spanish PDA/SPS which became JC1 was just coming off the drawing boards, pretty much perfectly fitting the needs of a middle power. With much lower crewing requirements but very capable size. Two deployed make a very good approximate of a one american LHD. Still, the crewing of two JC1 is less than the crewing of one Wasp LHD.

There are of course limits, scaling up designs can be problematic. Collins is a good example of some of those issues (but in a more complicated form).

 

[Volkodav]

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

There is more to fuel burn than weight and more to through life costs than fuel consumption. One of the reasons the Armidales were built with aluminium hulls was the perceived savings through reduced fuel burn, too bad about the greater (read more time consuming and expensive) maintenance requirements, structural and availability issues that decision caused.

Also not having enough space and weight available will increase costs if all the updated systems you want to use, i.e. the USN ones, are designed for physically much larger platforms. Fitting a 360ci Hemi to a Rover Mini might sound cool but it won't be cheap, if it is possible at all, on the other hand a modern, fuel injected sedan would likely give you better usable performance, more flexibility and cost less.

Ok another real example here, imagine Australia acquired and upgraded the four, already extremely capable Kidd class DDGs instead of spending more than this would have cost on upgrading the FFGs? How much easier do you think those much larger, much quieter ships would be to maintain and upgrade than the already very tight FFGs? The best thing about getting them would have been proving to the bb counters that big ships can be the more holistically, economic choice.

 

[alexsa]

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

You need to be careful. The stern extention on the FFG 7 required a lot of redesign and it was a pretty minor change (mind you it was right aft on a ship with very limited growth margin). A midships 'plug' involves lots of internal rearrangement and you may still have torsional issues.

If you look at the batch II T42 the main growth in the hull was forward of the bridge not amidships as this did not muck up the machinery spaces. They still needed torsional reinforcing from memory.

Beam growth is probably less radical and when combined with a longer bow profile (noting the torsional issues of the longer hull).

Basically it is not a simple process. However, the evolved F105 hull appears to have a growth path to 7400 tonnes (see ling which is hardly a compelling source). When looking at sources I should point out they also quote figures in short tons and long tons which should not be confused with tonnes 'displaced'. If that is the case they may have designed the growth margin into the hull form.

http://www.navyrecognition.com/inde...-the-australian-navy-sea5000-asw-frigate.html

We simply do not have the information at the moment and we will need to wait for the final bids.

 

[t68]

Wasp is a classic example why many USN ships don't work for the RAN.

Man power - Classic Wasp is hugely manpower intensive. over 1000 sailors. this goes with their general doctrine and CONOPs. Damage control, watches, supervision, maintenance etc. The US has the man power for big intensive crews and they use them.

Steam Turbines(!). - Not only do they chew through fuel, they are also maintenance heavy and supervision heavy. The last of the Wasps was Makin Island with gas turbines and diesel generators. It apparently used a 1/3 of the fuel of a traditional Wasp most of the time.

The individual unit is just massive. It takes two LHD's to recreate one Wasp, but because of maintenance etc we would still need at least two.

The actual cost of additional friction with the water and the additional mass of the steel is actually fairly low in outright terms. If you were to shrink a Wasp class down 50-75% it would still cost a small fortune to run and would not be highly suitable for the RAN.

I remember after Timor, Australia was all over Wasp ships. Ministers, uniforms, aircraft. But it was instantly clear a Wasp class wasn't a good fit for the RAN. Like it wasn't when HMS invincible evaporated back to the UK.

Luckily the Spanish PDA/SPS which became JC1 was just coming off the drawing boards, pretty much perfectly fitting the needs of a middle power. With much lower crewing requirements but very capable size. Two deployed make a very good approximate of a one american LHD. Still, the crewing of two JC1 is less than the crewing of one Wasp LHD.

There are of course limits, scaling up designs can be problematic. Collins is a good example of some of those issues (but in a more complicated form).

That's the point I'm getting at going larger is not always economical for a lot of the reason you described, the additional cost in crew build thru life and running cost is not always cheaper. And my responce was in relation to this post,

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?

There's a cut off point to increasing where it becomes a waste of additional expenditure, where talking increasing the size from 7000t to 10000t plus that's a 50% increase, at this point in time we may only need the equvivant of say a 5500/6000t hull but future proofing may only require a 7000/7500t hull.

RAN manning needs might have a cap X amount of crew, going to a vessel distinctly larger may increase the manning level to Y more than planned, so what does the RAN do then lean man the ship which than may lead to the ship not meeting it's goal's or reduce the buy so the overall shipping meets the expected manning levels of the smaller ship? Yes the ship might execced the future growth margins needed but building a ship that exceeds future growth is potentially increasing the thru life costs for no additional capabilty.

 

[the road runner]

Just a bit of Hobart time lapse footage after returning from sea acceptance trials..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRuB6A7eUWE

 

[alexsa]

Future Frigates

Sorry I have to bring this back to earth. There are three contenders for the future Frigate and none are anywhere near 10,000 tonnes. Irrespective of what may have been, unless the ground changes dramatically we are not going to see an evolved T26 or a supersized F105 going into the water if steel is to be cut in 2020.

You never know there may be scope for evolution between 'batches' (I hope we have batches even if it only upgrades equipment and includes lessons learnt or evolving requirements within the same hull) but the first few will be one of those three designs.

Going from 7000 tonnes to 10000 tonnes is essentially a new design even if it looks similar and shares a lot of DNA. This would be a dramatic change from the three contenders we are looking at.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Going from 7000 tonnes to 10000 tonnes is essentially a new design even if it looks similar and shares a lot of DNA. This would be a dramatic change from the three contenders we are looking at.

the term "scope change" would be an understatement of some magnitude

no projects are going to be changing parameters - more to the point, the services 3 Stars won't accept any changes

there won't be any upscaling done

 

[oldsig127]

Ok another real example here, imagine Australia acquired and upgraded the four, already extremely capable Kidd class DDGs instead of spending more than this would have cost on upgrading the FFGs? How much easier do you think those much larger, much quieter ships would be to maintain and upgrade than the already very tight FFGs? The best thing about getting them would have been proving to the bb counters that big ships can be the more holistically, economic choice.

I should imagine that every pay day the bean counters would cringe at paying a crew twice as large. People are still an uncomfortably high percentage of the ongoing cost of weapon systems, ships included. And we don't actually have all that many to spare - largely because we have to pay those who ARE actually willing to accept the personal costs of service.

oldsig

 

[cdxbow]

Fitting a 360ci Hemi to a Rover Mini might sound cool but it won't be cheap, if it is possible at all, on the other hand a modern, fuel injected sedan would likely give you better usable performance, more flexibility and cost less..

Sorry, OT but it's been done SEMA 2011: MINI Cooper S with 6.4 Liter HEMI Engine - GTspirit

 

[t68]

Sorry, OT but it's been done SEMA 2011: MINI Cooper S with 6.4 Liter HEMI Engine - GTspirit

LOL, wonder if he's ever taken it down the track?

 

[gf0012-aust]

LOL, wonder if he's ever taken it down the track?

when I was a kid in darwin I had my 66 mini deluxe trained and trucked up from adelaide.

I had a worked cooper s motor in it, a split system using modified Honda CB750 megaphones slung down each side.

one of the best handling cars I've ever had, it was like chewing gum on the road

I used to knock off 253 holdens and 245 valiants in it.

That little brick earnt me a few free beers

 

[ngatimozart]

LOL, wonder if he's ever taken it down the track?

When I was a young fulla there was a guy around central Otago way who had a Morris Minor with a 350 chevvy engine in it. We were cruising between Clyde and Alexandra one weekend arvo doing about 70 - 80 mph when this Morris Minor blitzed past us doing about warp factor 9. When we pulled up at the petrol station behind him, later we wondered why he was getting out of the back seat - that was until we saw what he had beneath the bonnet

In the 1970's a guy used to race a Baby Austin on the drag racing circuit here in NZ. Did the 1/4 mile in about 7 seconds I think. Was a long time ago when I saw it race at Thunder Park in the Hawkes Bay.

fftopic

 

[gf0012-aust]

When I was a young fulla there was a guy around central Otago way who had a Morris Minor with a 351 chevvy engine in it. We were cruising between Clyde and Alexandra one weekend arvo doing about 70 - 80 mph when this Morris Minor blitzed past us doing about warp factor 9. When we pulled up at the petrol station behind him, later we wondered why he was getting out of the back seat - that was until we saw what he had beneath the bonnet

In the 1970's a guy used to race a Baby Austin on the drag racing circuit here in NZ. Did the 1/4 mile in about 7 seconds I think. Was a long time ago when I saw it race at Thunder Park in the Hawkes Bay.

fftopic

wash your mouth out

the obvious visual difference:

Ford 351c, 351m and 351w have equally spaced headers
Chev 350's have the 2 inner headers butting up to each other

probably a chev as they were slightly narrower and would have been an easier fit in a morrie

 

[ngatimozart]

wash your mouth out

the obvious visual difference:

Ford 351c, 351m and 351w have equally spaced headers
Chev 350's have the 2 inner headers butting up to each other

probably a chev as they were slightly narrower and would have been an easier fit in a morrie

Was a chevvy - sorry got the size wrong.

 

[hauritz]

I was just looking at the French solution to replacing its Batral Landing Ships.

B2M (Bâtiment Multi-Mission) Vessels - Naval Technology

I have heard of it before but never had a close look at it.

It is a different class of ship to the one it is replacing ... a proper multi-role ship. It is also designed to operate in this part of the world. They are based in French Polynesia and Noumea.

Should Australia ever get around to replacing its LCH I was wondering if this sort of ship could be a considered a candidate. The old Balikpapan Class were obviously useful because of their over the beach capability and shallow draft ... but on the downside they were short-legged and had pretty average sea keeping.

As a compromise this vessel could undertake a lot of the Balikpapan's missions, plus also serve in the constabulary role if required.

 

[Volkodav]

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.

And then again you could actually read the posts including the suggested trade offs and then you wouldn't look like a goose when you post your usual "where's the money coming from" mantra.

Simple facts:
- steel is cheap and air is free
- increasing the size of a given platform, within reason, can actually increase capability and reduce through life costs.
- for a larger platform to be significantly more expensive than a tighter one to procure it actually has the be in a completely class, i.e. a destroyer with four GTs, a 3D radar, very large low frequency sonar and three or four fire control channels, rather than a frigate with two GTs, no 3D radar, small sonar, one or two fire control channels etc.
- through life costs are higher than acquisition costs
- maintenance is more difficult, time consuming and expensive on tighter platforms
- upgrades are more difficult, time consuming and expensive on tighter platforms

The only time it is sort of acceptable having a tight platform is when you are procuring a platform that you intend to dispose of without any major upgrades or dockings, i.e. about 15 years or less with the replacement well underway before that time.

There are always trade offs but size alone doesn't dictate those costs, nor does it dictate crew size, just look at the DDG 1000 and Ford Class carriers. More to the point look at the USN crew reduction programs on existing platforms. There are also programs such as replacing fluid power with electric alternatives on multiple ship systems reducing power consumption (pumps and compressors use electric motors and suffer power loss), improving reliability, durability, survivability, safety and maintenance demands, hence the manpower required for maintenance. There are hybrid electric upgrades such as being introduced (and retrofitted) the USNs DDGs, that in effect convert COGAG ships to combined GT and GT generator electric drive by fitting electric motors to the propulsion systems for low speed efficient (and silent) cruising. The is also the possibility of fitting armatures around the ships shafts to enable the propulsion plant to produce additional electrical power at speed.

This stuff and all the associated savings are available on large ships but impossible or hideously expensive to fit to small ones. Often (unfortunately usually with hindsight after it gone pear shaped) it proves to be more expensive to upgrade an old tight platform than to build a new larger one. There is no magic pie which is why ferked up procurements of ships that are too small, or upgrades of ones that are too small, in the mistaken belief that it is cheaper than buying a bigger ship, are a false economy. For a big ship to have significantly higher through life costs than a smaller one it needs to have, not just more equipment, but a greater variety of equipment than a smaller ship. This is where you get the greater crew requirements and higher maintenance costs, greater variety of equipment, not from the same number of, but larger and more capable systems.

 

[alexsa]

when I was a kid in darwin I had my 66 mini deluxe trained and trucked up from adelaide.

I had a worked cooper s motor in it, a split system using modified Honda CB750 megaphones slung down each side.

one of the best handling cars I've ever had, it was like chewing gum on the road

I used to knock off 253 holdens and 245 valiants in it.

That little brick earnt me a few free beers

Mine was an LS1275 (one of the last 200 built .... before they restarted production) with the Leyland square front. Reworked with twin large bore SU's , extractors and a suspension and exhaust upgrade...................... Went like stink and would burn rubber in 2nd ....but it just needed a fifth gear

now we are way ................ fftopic

 

[alexsa]

I was just looking at the French solution to replacing its Batral Landing Ships.

B2M (Bâtiment Multi-Mission) Vessels - Naval Technology

I have heard of it before but never had a close look at it.

It is a different class of ship to the one it is replacing ... a proper multi-role ship. It is also designed to operate in this part of the world. They are based in French Polynesia and Noumea.

Should Australia ever get around to replacing its LCH I was wondering if this sort of ship could be a considered a candidate. The old Balikpapan Class were obviously useful because of their over the beach capability and shallow draft ... but on the downside they were short-legged and had pretty average sea keeping.

As a compromise this vessel could undertake a lot of the Balikpapan's missions, plus also serve in the constabulary role if required.

We have a lot of this capability planned in the 12 OPV. As far as uplift capability is concerned we have Ocean Shield and Ocean Protector in service for border protection. I don't see why we would progress down this path in view of this,

What these ships don't offer compared to the LCH or a future LSH is the over beach capability. There is a reason that there are a lot of landing barges used in the northern parts of Australia and in PNG and the Solomon Islands and that is the lack of even basic port facilities in many locations.

IMHO I see a place for an LSH (like the Damen 100) in the RAN, however, it depends on defense priorities noting there are a number of commercial barges that can be chartered to do this work if needed. Not perfect but when the resource bucket is under pressure and the focus is on large more capable ships .... it may be the only practical option.

 

[hauritz]

Simple facts:
- steel is cheap and air is free

I think this is one of the problems. People just don't like the idea of empty space in a warship ... or anything else for that matter.

Imagine building an office block and intentionally leaving a floor vacant for 10 or 20 years on the off chance that you may need it later on.

The temptation to actually use that space is overwhelming ... but if you just left it empty ... or filled it with ballast it wouldn't add much to the cost of a ship and of course it would be available for other purposes later on.

Unfortunately that wouldn't happen. If Australia were to buy a ship the size of an Arleigh Burke they would want it to be fitted out like an Arleigh Burke.

 

[hauritz]

We have a lot of this capability planned in the 12 OPV. As far as uplift capability is concerned we have Ocean Shield and Ocean Protector in service for border protection. I don't see why we would progress down this path in view of this,

What these ships don't offer compared to the LCH or a future LSH is the over beach capability. There is a reason that there are a lot of landing barges used in the northern parts of Australia and in PNG and the Solomon Islands and that is the lack of even basic port facilities in many locations.

IMHO I see a place for an LSH (like the Damen 100) in the RAN, however, it depends on defense priorities noting there are a number of commercial barges that can be chartered to do this work if needed. Not perfect but when the resource bucket is under pressure and the focus is on large more capable ships .... it may be the only practical option.

I don't think the additional capability of a dedicated LCH or LSH is high on the government's list of priorities at the moment ... and if you take the whitepaper as gospel it won't be for at least a couple more decades.

I think from a military perspective the additional capability of a few small to medium sized landing craft fade into insignificance compared to the capability already possessed with the Canberras and Choules. There is also the possibility of another logistics ship being added to the fleet in the late 2020s.

The only real role I can see for the LCH at this stage id humanitarian work ... and there are other options available for that.

As you mentioned there are a lot of barges already available in the region. This would further reduce the need for the navy to actually operate these vessels themselves ... at least for peacetime operations.