Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[hauritz]

Perhaps a better option would be a split buy. Three F-105 based frigates now ... and further down the track maybe 6 Type 26 frigates.

Given the problems the Royal navy is having with its type 45 it might be prudent to wait until the type 26 is in the water before committing to buy it.

 

[hairyman]

Quite a few posters (including me) have suggested a split buy. I hope our defence planners are watching.

 

[t68]

I like the idea of continuing the Hobarts production line as a flight II AWD, but would the construction time be the same with long lead items with either sensor configuration Aegis or Cefar?

 

[alexsa]

I guess Navantia will be leaning on Siemens, the POD subcontractor. Tried to find out if the Juan Carlos had any POD issues but didn't find any. Several cruise ships have had problems with other POD manufacturers though.

And it may be a power management issue rather than a solely a pod issue. A umbr of machinery (propulsion) breakdowns on large PAX pod driven ships have seen this as an issue.

But again, until Navy or Navantia give more detail we are guessing

 

[alexsa]

I like the idea of continuing the Hobarts production line as a flight II AWD, but would the construction time be the same with long lead items with either sensor configuration Aegis or Cefar?

The SPY 1 boat has sailed really. Lets face it, the evolved F105 with CEAFAR nad either of the two combats systems (don't write of SAAB as the CEAFAR is already succeffullly and effectively integrated into that system) will still have a potent anti air capability.

 

[oldsig127]

Perhaps a better option would be a split buy. Three F-105 based frigates now ... and further down the track maybe 6 Type 26 frigates.

I'm badly averse to the idea of such a split. It just adds another major change midstream, with all the added risks that come with changing to manufacturing yet another new (to us) design.

Better that whatever choice is made, the new ships be built in blocks allowing a maturing within the blocks (and the early ships can be updated to match the later within the block to fix early build gremlins), and if needed, a step change between them if for example technological imperatives drive it that way - same ship but more obviously modified like the stretch of the RNs Type 42 batches

The size of batches is an issue too. Consider that if we choose to build the first three as one batch, then change, it's likely that only the first ship is even in commission when number four (second batch) begins construction. And long lead items will have already had to be ordered possibly before ship number one is in service. So how many in a batch to get a feel for what works and what doesn't?

And just how does the Navy decide what is wrong with the first batch on zero actual experience? I suspect that within this forum, the answer is "does it look as cool as this new design, and does it do what the new design promises". If it doesn't, change to the new design.

I call this the iPhone technique. Keep changing to the latest, whether it's a genuine improvement or not, and that's fine if you're paying for it, or own the manufacturer and make a profit. But this taxpayer owns a tiny bit of the government's debt, but doesn't mind a sensible use of his taxes; however I would look very hard at a politician that allowed changes that don't meet the common sense test.

oldsig

 

[SteveR]

I like the idea of continuing the Hobarts production line as a flight II AWD, but would the construction time be the same with long lead items with either sensor configuration Aegis or Cefar?

There seems to be a theme that we need to have more Anti-air protection but little mention of a submarine threat. During WW2 we lost something like 14 ships around the Australian coast to submarines even though Australia was a low priority for Axis submarines.

Our off shore oil and gas platforms and ore trade are likely to be threatened just as much by the increasing submarine fleets in our region as by aircraft or missiles. As the submariners saying goes - it is more destructive to let water in at the bottom of a vessel than air in at the top.

So let us not forget that SEA 5000 is principally about addressing the underwater threat!

 

[alexsa]

There seems to be a theme that we need to have more Anti-air protection but little mention of a submarine threat. During WW2 we lost something like 14 ships around the Australian coast to submarines even though Australia was a low priority for Axis submarines.

Our off shore oil and gas platforms and ore trade are likely to be threatened just as much by the increasing submarine fleets in our region as by aircraft or missiles. As the submariners saying goes - it is more destructive to let water in at the bottom of a vessel than air in at the top.

So let us not forget that SEA 5000 is principally about addressing the underwater threat!

I certainly had not forgotten that. The ASMD package on the ANZAC provides a very credible medium range package (based on 32 ESSM). What is proposed for the future frigate is a step up form that with more cells, a wider range of missiles and better volume search capability. Essentially what is an ASW platform with a decent air defence capability.

I would expect all the other offerings will do the same.

 

[gf0012-aust]

its worth considering that across the entire combat spectrum there is a shift away from niche roles....

gets back to what AD hilighted the other day in the RAAF thread about being platform agnostic on a combat task wherever possible

 

[Redlands18]

its worth considering that across the entire combat spectrum there is a shift away from niche roles....

gets back to what AD hilighted the other day in the RAAF thread about being platform agnostic on a combat task wherever possible

How well does the Hobart class stack up as ASW platforms?

 

[StingrayOZ]

If we really wanted to increase our ASW capability, then having the patrol ship have a proper hanger to embark air platforms (even if its just telescopic) would make a huge difference as would having space and facilities for handling towed and free range ASW systems (which I believe is already the case for Flex space in most of the designs).Ideally again space for (but not with) a torpedo launcher would be ideal, but not critical as again, could be dismounted onto the air or water platform.

AFAIK if the F-105 sea5000 can support two helicopters, decent bow mounted sonar, torpedo launcher and a towed array then that will do the job. Really the only big flaw with the AWD's is single hanger space, which isn't critical if they are working with the LHD's.

 

[Raven22]

If we really wanted to increase our ASW capability, then having the patrol ship have a proper hanger to embark air platforms (even if its just telescopic) would make a huge difference as would having space and facilities for handling towed and free range ASW systems (which I believe is already the case for Flex space in most of the designs).Ideally again space for (but not with) a torpedo launcher would be ideal, but not critical as again, could be dismounted onto the air or water platform.

I think you'll find if you have OPVs able to do all that, they won'be be OPVs anymore.

 

[Milne Bay]

I think you'll find if you have OPVs able to do all that, they won'be be OPVs anymore.

This is true, but if the seaweed ever hits the fan and ASW assets are needed in a hurry, then the OPV's could/should be modifiable to do the task ala the WW2 corvettes.
Worth at least considering in their selection
MB

 

[Volkodav]

I think you'll find if you have OPVs able to do all that, they won'be be OPVs anymore.

These features are options on many OPV designs, including these being considered for the RAN Program. Also with the mission modules being developed by the US and other navies a future retrofit would not be out of the question.

 

[CJR]

I think you'll find if you have OPVs able to do all that, they won'be be OPVs anymore.

Given plans already seem to be for the OPVs to have a proper combat system and -probably- a hanger and helo deck able to support a Seahawk... Well, a small magazine able to hold half a dozen ASW torps and a few Hellfires is relatively simple metal bashing, leaving a compact towed array sonar as the only thing really missing.

 

[SteveR]

This is true, but if the seaweed ever hits the fan and ASW assets are needed in a hurry, then the OPV's could/should be modifiable to do the task ala the WW2 corvettes.
Worth at least considering in their selection
MB

A useful ASW vessel has to be able to tow something like a 20-40 ton Thales CAPTAS with enough transmitter power to detect a submarine outside torpedo range of 20-40Km. It should also able to carry 2 dipper MH-60Rs for persistent dipping coverage beyond the submarines own ship detection range.

The ASW vessel should have enough structural noise damping to reduce submarine passive counter-detection when said vessel is not transmitting on sonar - just as submarines have grown from 1000 tons to >2000 tons to provide their noise damping so ASW vessels are growing in size.

Thus almost every overseas ASW vessel such as new French FTI are 3-4000 tons or more - a converted OPV just won't cut it.

 

[Milne Bay]

A useful ASW vessel has to be able to tow something like a 20-40 ton Thales CAPTAS with enough transmitter power to detect a submarine outside torpedo range of 20-40Km. It should also able to carry 2 dipper MH-60Rs for persistent dipping coverage beyond the submarines own ship detection range.

The ASW vessel should have enough structural noise damping to reduce submarine passive counter-detection when said vessel is not transmitting on sonar - just as submarines have grown from 1000 tons to >2000 tons to provide their noise damping so ASW vessels are growing in size.

Thus almost every overseas ASW vessel such as new French FTI are 3-4000 tons or more - a converted OPV just won't cut it.

The OPV doesn't have to carry all of that kit.
As long as it can be networked with other assets that do, it can prosecute with its own helicopter (also networked) and whatever weapons the helicopter carries.
I think that the RAN has the same ideas on network centric warfare as the rest of the ADF
MB

 

[ASSAIL]

A useful ASW vessel has to be able to tow something like a 20-40 ton Thales CAPTAS with enough transmitter power to detect a submarine outside torpedo range of 20-40Km. It should also able to carry 2 dipper MH-60Rs for persistent dipping coverage beyond the submarines own ship detection range.

The ASW vessel should have enough structural noise damping to reduce submarine passive counter-detection when said vessel is not transmitting on sonar - just as submarines have grown from 1000 tons to >2000 tons to provide their noise damping so ASW vessels are growing in size.

Thus almost every overseas ASW vessel such as new French FTI are 3-4000 tons or more - a converted OPV just won't cut it.

Your comments are true for a specialised ASW asset but there are levels of usefulness and ASW will always be a joint enterprise incorporating many levels of capability.
An OPV deployed with torpedoes and a basic sonar will only ever be useful in prosecuting a contact Known to be active in a particular area and would never be a primary search platform.
They could also be useful in harbour/seaward defence, around focal choke points and specific targets that an orange submarine may wish to penetrate to land spec forces or other nefarious activity.

Although ASW and SS operations have moved a long way from the mid to late 20th century there is still benefit in operating minor vessels in a basic role similar, as Volk said, to the Bathurst Class corvettes of WW2.

 

[StingrayOZ]

A useful ASW vessel has to be able to tow something like a 20-40 ton Thales CAPTAS with enough transmitter power to detect a submarine outside torpedo range of 20-40Km. It should also able to carry 2 dipper MH-60Rs for persistent dipping coverage beyond the submarines own ship detection range.

The ASW vessel should have enough structural noise damping to reduce submarine passive counter-detection when said vessel is not transmitting on sonar - just as submarines have grown from 1000 tons to >2000 tons to provide their noise damping so ASW vessels are growing in size.

Thus almost every overseas ASW vessel such as new French FTI are 3-4000 tons or more - a converted OPV just won't cut it.

The Frigates will be the main ASW platform.

An role the patrol boats will have will be in support of that. They will have to be modified, I don't think the ASW is urgent enough or local enough to require anything to be acquired now. Many of the current proposals meet these requirements. There is no modification required and no equipment to be purchased.

But if required partnering a Patrol ship with say an AWD then you would have two helicopters. The original AWD requirement was for a ship with two helicopters.

 

[MickB]

Your comments are true for a specialised ASW asset but there are levels of usefulness and ASW will always be a joint enterprise incorporating many levels of capability.
An OPV deployed with torpedoes and a basic sonar will only ever be useful in prosecuting a contact Known to be active in a particular area and would never be a primary search platform.
They could also be useful in harbour/seaward defence, around focal choke points and specific targets that an orange submarine may wish to penetrate to land spec forces or other nefarious activity.

Although ASW and SS operations have moved a long way from the mid to late 20th century there is still benefit in operating minor vessels in a basic role similar, as Volk said, to the Bathurst Class corvettes of WW2.

If the lack of helo numbers became a problem for minor vessels, could a ASW mission module include an updated Ikara rather than torpedo tubes.