Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

Status
Not open for further replies.
John Newman

John Newman

The Bunker Group
MrConservative said:
There is also no doubt the consideration that the RNZN will soon be bringing into the mix the HMNZS Aotearoa which is considerably more capable than the Endeavour and in the longer term context CY will replaced by probably a vessel that is another leap ahead in size and capability. Aotearoa's design remit included the rationale as being a contributing regional asset and not just a national centric one and Canberra is well aware of that and encouraged it.
Click to expand...
Mr C, of course! A very good point indeed!

The addition (delivery 2020?) of the far larger and much more capable HMNZS Aotearoa does add another interesting dimension to the mix of 'replenishment' capabilities in our region (on top of the RAN's two new Cantabria AOR's due for delivery around the same time too), no doubt about that.

And then as you said, the eventual replacement of CY (longer term?) with a more capable amphibious ship too. And hopefully Canberra and Wellington will keep their heads together on these 'joint' capabilities too.

So that brings up the interesting question, when the 2016 DWP/DIIP was drafted, and it said either an additional AOR or LPD for the RAN, then possibly what NZ is doing/planning was taken into consideration? Possibly??

It may well be that in the mid 2020's when the then Oz Govt does come to the point of making the decision on either the additional AOR or LPD for the RAN that what NZ has to bring to the table will add 'weight', one way or the other, to the eventual decision made.

With three new, large and capable 'Anzac' AOR's in our immediate region, then maybe the focus will be more on an additional amphibious capability instead?

Interesting! Thanks for the input Mr C!
 
John Newman

John Newman

The Bunker Group
Massive said:
I would not advocate two Choules LPDs. I am advocating for none.

Amphibious fleet:

2xCanberra
3x Endurance class

That's it.

Replenishment:

3 Cantabria

Regards,

Massive
Click to expand...
Mate, yes do understand the point you are making, and the different 'mix' of ships you are advocating too, all good.

But that doesn't exactly align with what is in the DWP/DIIP, and that is what I have been basing my comments and suggestions on, not a different mix to that which is planned/proposed.

Again, apart from what is currently in service, or about to enter service, the DWP is talking about either a 3rd AOR or 2nd LPD (not one additional AOR and 3 smaller Endurance types to replace Choules).

How the replenishment/amphibious mix eventually ends up, well who knows?


But what is interesting (to add to the discussion) is Mr C's last post regarding what NZ can bring to the table in the future too. It will be interesting to eventually know what influence (or not) that will have on the Oz Governments thinking when it comes to making that decision on either the additional AOR or LPD, maybe that will have an influence one way or the other too.
 
H

hauritz

Well-Known Member
Massive said:
I think the DWP is talking about a ship the RAN already has - Choules - and that no additions are planned other than eventual replacement.

Regards,

Massive
Click to expand...
I am pretty sure that the Defence Integrated Investment talks about an "additional" vessel to be acquired in the late 2020's as well as the Choules being upgraded and having its life extended.

The wording is a little open to interpretation ... but to me it does sound like the Choules will serve into the 2030s and the additional ship will indeed be an additional ship.

It also sounds to me like it will probably be a third Cantabria class.
 
John Newman

John Newman

The Bunker Group
Massive said:
I think the DWP is talking about a ship the RAN already has - Choules - and that no additions are planned other than eventual replacement.

Regards,

Massive
Click to expand...
The DIIP says:

Replenishment ships
3.24 Two new replenishment ships will replace the current mixed fleet of one replenishment ship and one oiler (fuel only) by the early 2020s. Replenishment ships are able to resupply fuel, water, food and weapons to ships at sea to extend their range and endurance. As the surface fleet grows with the introduction of larger frigates and larger patrol vessels, Defence will acquire another support vessel such as a third high‑capacity replenishment ship or an additional logistics support ship similar to HMAS Choules in the late 2020s. A third replenishment ship would provide an assured capacity to continuously generate one operationally available replenishment ship for Surface Task Group operations.


And a bit further on it says:

Logistics support ship
3.28 The Integrated Investment Program also provides for the replacement of this logistics support ship around 2030, as HMAS Choules has demonstrated the benefits of this type of vessel in extending the reach of the ADF and enhancing our capacity to deploy larger and better‑equipped forces. HMAS Choules, together with the two Canberra Class amphibious ships, will provide scalable and flexible options for greater capacity sea lift and amphibious operations. A third replenishment ship or additional logistics support ship will be considered in the late 2020s.


It does say the plan provides for the replacement of Choules around 2030 and also says a third AOR or 'additional' logistic support ship. The wording is a bit ambiguous to say the least.
 
S

Stampede

Well-Known Member
John Newman said:
The DIIP says:

Replenishment ships
3.24 Two new replenishment ships will replace the current mixed fleet of one replenishment ship and one oiler (fuel only) by the early 2020s. Replenishment ships are able to resupply fuel, water, food and weapons to ships at sea to extend their range and endurance. As the surface fleet grows with the introduction of larger frigates and larger patrol vessels, Defence will acquire another support vessel such as a third high‑capacity replenishment ship or an additional logistics support ship similar to HMAS Choules in the late 2020s. A third replenishment ship would provide an assured capacity to continuously generate one operationally available replenishment ship for Surface Task Group operations.


And a bit further on it says:

Logistics support ship
3.28 The Integrated Investment Program also provides for the replacement of this logistics support ship around 2030, as HMAS Choules has demonstrated the benefits of this type of vessel in extending the reach of the ADF and enhancing our capacity to deploy larger and better‑equipped forces. HMAS Choules, together with the two Canberra Class amphibious ships, will provide scalable and flexible options for greater capacity sea lift and amphibious operations. A third replenishment ship or additional logistics support ship will be considered in the late 2020s.


It does say the plan provides for the replacement of Choules around 2030 and also says a third AOR or 'additional' logistic support ship. The wording is a bit ambiguous to say the least.
Click to expand...
What ever flavour of ship, it appears we are hopefully going from the current five vessels to six in the combined supply / amphibious group.
If true, at least a move in the right direction with numbers.

Regards S.
 
D

DaveS124

Active Member
Just to bring the RAN chat back from the 2030s to 2017, CN had no choice but to address the LHD azipod issue yesterday.

Bits follow from an Australian Defence Magazine report.

The two LHDs have been conducting an ambitious program of trials and evaluations since they were commissioned in 2015 and 2016. But VADM Barrett said the Navy had been careful to operate the ships within the specifications outlined by the manufacturers.

"We've not operated the ships beyond the sustainment for which we've been given funding for," he said.

VADM Barrett confirmed the total days spent at sea by both vessels in 2016 numbered 118 with Adelaide and Canberra having conducted 42 and 19 days respectively so far in 2017.
Click to expand...
Entire article here - Senate Estimates probes Navy's LHD propulsion pod issues
 
D

DaveS124

Active Member
Stampede said:
Trust a fix is not too far away.
Click to expand...
Agreed. To me this story has more than a hint of mountains and molehills. If it prove to be a design fault then Siemens will be in richly deserved guano, and devising a solution will hurt them, not Defence.

Anyway, some genuines news from an article in the recent defence supplement in the Weekend Australian. This is behind a paywall, with a weird URL function as well. As soon as I can grok that I'll post the link. About half the article removed.

The reasons for posting this here will be immediately obvious. Read on....


Missiles to shield fleet in $35bn ships


Julian Kerr
Sydney

Although the nine future frigates are to be optimised for anti-submarine warfare, confirmation that their armament will include SM-2 missiles means they will also be providing a valuable contribution to the Royal Australian Navy’s task group protection.

The SM-2, along with the CEAFAR2 S/X/L band active phased- array radar systems under development by Canberra-based CEA, has been directed by the government to be essential rather than desirable for the $35 billion SEA 5000 Phase 1 purchasing that is expected to begin replacing the RAN’s eight Anzac-Class frigates from about 2027.

Equipping the ships of the Future Frigate program with the SM-2, which has a range of more than 160 kilometres, and the Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile, will enable the ships to contribute to the longer-distance air defence of an RAN task group as well as to its inner layer of protection.

Commodore Rob Elliott, the Future Frigate program sponsor and the director-general surface combatants and aviation within the RAN’s Strategic Command, points out that of the three Hobart-class air warfare destroyers (AWDs) expected to be in service by 2021, it is possible that only one may be available for operations at any one time due to maintenance.

A frigate providing an anti-submarine screen ahead of a task group containing a high-value unit such as a 27,500 tonne, Canberra-Class Landing Helicopter Dock ship would require the SM-2 for its own protection as well as that of the task group.

Selection of the Future Frigate’s combat management system (CMS), the heart of the ship’s warfighting capability, is scheduled for September. This is being contested by the US Navy’s Aegis command and weapon control system and Saab Australia’s tailored version of the Saab 9LV CMS, already deployed on the Anzac Class and the two LHDs and mandated for the RAN’s two under-construction replenishment ships.

The 9LV solution would incorporate the International Aegis fire-control loop, developed by the US to allow non-Aegis ships to fire standard missiles, including the SM-2.

The frigates’ anti-air capability will be further boosted by the CEAFAR2 radar suite, a development of the technology used in the medium-range CEAFAR1 active phased-array radar installed on the Anzac Class as part of their highly successful antiship missile defence upgrade.

Each future frigate will carry a single MH-60R naval combat helicopter equipped with a dipping sonar, with a decision yet to be taken on whether an unmanned aerial system (UAS) will be carried at the same time.

In a task group context, additional MH-60Rs could be deployed on an LHD.

Although the Schiebel Camcopter S-100 was selected last December to enable the RAN to further understand the vertical take-off and landing UAS requirement, Elliott stresses that the S-100 and the Insitu ScanEagle UAS now in the RAN’s inventory are there purely for trials to inform decisions yet to be made by government on project SEA 129 Phase 5 (maritime tactical UAS).

Julian Kerr writes for Australian Defence Magazine and Jane’s Defence Weekly.
 
H

hairyman

Active Member
The concensus seems to be that our AWD's are really frigates.
If that is the case, why dont we build three of the Future Frigates in an Air Warfare configuration, but make them big enough to be recognised as Destroyers?:grab
 
John Newman

John Newman

The Bunker Group
hairyman said:
The concensus seems to be that our AWD's are really frigates.
If that is the case, why dont we build three of the Future Frigates in an Air Warfare configuration, but make them big enough to be recognised as Destroyers?:grab
Click to expand...
Consensus amongst whom?

I think these days the definition of what might be called a destroyer or a frigate is less about 'size' but more about the configuration and role of the particular ship.

Does it really matter if a ship is 6, 7, 8, 9 or even 10,000t? I think what matters is its sensor and weapons fit.

The AWDs (or DDGs if you want to call them that too), have a primary air warfare capability and a secondary anti submarine warfare capability.

On the other hand the Future Frigates (or FFGs as they might end up being called), will have a primary anti submarine warfare capability and a secondary air warfare capability.

But lines between both types of capabilities that a ship might be equipped with have certainly blurred over time.

If for example, the Future Frigates are build on the same hull as the AWD's, the primary difference is going to be the AWD will have the sensors to primarily perform the air warfare role, but of course it will still have a decent anti submarine capability, on the other hand the Future Frigates are supposed to have a better anti submarine capability and a lessor sensor fit for the air warfare role.

But again as I said, the lines are more blurred these days, what was clearly a Destroyer or a Frigate in the past, is not so easy to distinguish these days, except for the fact that one might have a 'higher' capability in one area over the other.

I really don't care what they are called, as long as they do the job!!
 
StingrayOZ

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
PeterM said:
The new June 2017 issue of the Defence Technology Review has a fair amount on information on the three OPV designs for Sea 1180.

Defence Technology Review - Defence Technology Review

I am curious on the professional opinions comparing the various merits and capabilities of each and how they fit our likely CONOPS.
Click to expand...
Shame it didn't have more on the Damen proposal. If they end up offering something based off the 1800 seaaxe (and that seems likely) then that would seem to offer all the key features like a hanger, good open ocean sea keeping, reasonable operating costs, range, speed, dedicated boat handling facilities.

But it is likely to be more expensive than some of the cheaper options that don't have hangers, in a much lighter weight class, much slower, smaller etc.
 
weegee

weegee

Active Member
StingrayOZ said:
Shame it didn't have more on the Damen proposal. If they end up offering something based off the 1800 seaaxe (and that seems likely) then that would seem to offer all the key features like a hanger, good open ocean sea keeping, reasonable operating costs, range, speed, dedicated boat handling facilities.

But it is likely to be more expensive than some of the cheaper options that don't have hangers, in a much lighter weight class, much slower, smaller etc.
Click to expand...
I think if the contract was awarded for looks alone well the Sea Axe would have my vote and should win. I think that is the best looking out of the lot.

I wonder if not having the hanger will hurt the Lurssen too much? Even if the OPV is not going to carry a helo all the time I would think the extra storage space would be advantageous?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top