Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[rockitten]

I was rather disappointed at the time when the Perth class DDG's were retired that one of them didn't end up alongside Vampire, and more recently when Sydney was retired (firstly the plan was to offer her as a dive wreck), then when that didn't happen, she was stripped and recently towed out the heads to WA for scrapping.

Would have been a good to see the three types all alongside each other, Anzac? Won't hold my breath, sadly!!

Melbourne deserve a better maritime museum too. It is probable the only maritime museum in capital city that doesn't has a big ship.

I was a volunteer in NMM and personally helped-out the upkeep of HMAS Vampire (especially the paint job), we are always short of hands and the upkeep is killing us.

Unless there is a huge budget boost, and much more extra volunteers, an extra frigate would most likely make thing worse.

 

[the road runner]

If it's not to soon to know, are the future frigates combat system and weapons to be purchased completely new or a combination of new and recycled from the Anzacs.

What would remain on the Anzacs if they were to be sold on.

As the Hobart has a Mod 4 Mark 45 gun and the Anzacs HAD a Mod 2 gun that has now been upgraded to a Mod 4 Mark 45 gun( ?) ..you would expect us to stick with Mark 45 guns and "recycle" off the Anzacs for our future frigates ...

Im sure the old salty dogs will chime in here to clarify

EDIT.. I am sure i read the Anzacs got an upgraded gun to Mod 4 but can not find a link ..

 

[Redlands18]

Melbourne deserve a better maritime museum too. It is probable the only maritime museum in capital city that doesn't has a big ship.

I was a volunteer in NMM and personally helped-out the upkeep of HMAS Vampire (especially the paint job), we are always short of hands and the upkeep is killing us.

Unless there is a huge budget boost, and much more extra volunteers, an extra frigate would most likely make thing worse.

Hopefully they will at least recycle the name with one of the new Frigates.
Maybe thats why there has not been another ship since the Vampire, in the too hard basket. Good on'ya for Volunteering anyway Mate, thank you (unfortunately i live in Brisbane, so can't help). Been through her once years ago, looked in great knick, gets taken around to the dry dock at Garden Island every 5 years I've heard.
The Navy should bring the Recruits up once a year for a week to help with the maintenance, great way to learn about the Navy's history.

 

[ADMk2]

As the Hobart has a Mod 4 Mark 45 gun and the Anzacs HAD a Mod 2 gun that has now been upgraded to a Mod 4 Mark 45 gun( ?) ..you would expect us to stick with Mark 45 guns and "recycle" off the Anzacs for our future frigates ...

Im sure the old salty dogs will chime in here to clarify

EDIT.. I am sure i read the Anzacs got an upgraded gun to Mod 4 but can not find a link ..

I believe the later ANZACS got the Mod 4 gun shield, with a couple of early ones retaining the rounded Mod 2 shield, but they are all still running the mod 2 barrel etc, while the Hobarts have the full Mod 4 fitout...

 

[Volkodav]

I believe the later ANZACS got the Mod 4 gun shield, with a couple of early ones retaining the rounded Mod 2 shield, but they are all still running the mod 2 barrel etc, while the Hobarts have the full Mod 4 fitout...

Yep, the ANZACs have the 54 cal barrel while the Hobarts have the longer 62 cal. I anticipate the new frigates will have new equipment rather than refurbished, where I could see the surplus systems from the ANZACs being used is on later OPVs, or even to boost the defensive capabilities of the Canberra's.

 

[MickB]

Yep, the ANZACs have the 54 cal barrel while the Hobarts have the longer 62 cal. I anticipate the new frigates will have new equipment rather than refurbished, where I could see the surplus systems from the ANZACs being used is on later OPVs, or even to boost the defensive capabilities of the Canberra's.

Reading this forum, the main objection I see to Volkodav's proposal of 6 frigates and 3 DDHs rather than 9 frigates, is the perceived greater cost.

With the current plan we will purchase 9 new Frigate hulls and 9 new complete fitouts of weapons and sensors.

We could instead purchase 6 new Frigate hulls with 3 Hyuga sized DDHs tacked on the end of the build.
Yes the DDH hulls will be more expensive, but how often here have I read " Steel is cheap and air is free". So the comparatively small additional cost of the hull shouldn't matter much across the life of the ship.

The 6 Frigates would require the purchase of only 6 new complete fitouts of weapons and sensors.

When looking at the Hyuga its onboard weapons fit is smaller than most Destroyers and Frigates half is size. This is no doubt due to its conops and the needs of Helo operations.

Thus our the DDHs could be equipped almost entirely from equipment recycled from the Anzacs. (Radar, Combat System, VLS, Decoys, Torpedos etc)

The savings from not purchasing the 3 additional shipsets of weapons and sensors would go a long way in purchasing the additional Helos required to operate from the DDHs.

An additional unbudgeted sorce of extra funds could be the sale of the FFGs to Poland.

There will always be the cost of the extra manpower but I believe the extra capability worth the cost.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Yep, the ANZACs have the 54 cal barrel while the Hobarts have the longer 62 cal. I anticipate the new frigates will have new equipment rather than refurbished, where I could see the surplus systems from the ANZACs being used is on later OPVs, or even to boost the defensive capabilities of the Canberra's.

I would imagine the 5" would be new or at least fitted with the 62 cal barrel and mod 4 gun shield.

Not sure how much will be stripped and stored. There was some talk about selling/gifting some of them to regionals. Specifically Indonesia (but likely to Malaysia, Singapore and NZ). Maybe even Philippines or Vietnam. I don't know how realistic any of that is.

OPV might be after some of the sensors, coms, jammers, etc.I don't see a whole lot of major weapon systems transferring.

 

[swerve]

Reading this forum, the main objection I see to Volkodav's proposal of 6 frigates and 3 DDHs rather than 9 frigates, is the perceived greater cost.

With the current plan we will purchase 9 new Frigate hulls and 9 new complete fitouts of weapons and sensors.

We could instead purchase 6 new Frigate hulls with 3 Hyuga sized DDHs tacked on the end of the build.
Yes the DDH hulls will be more expensive, but how often here have I read " Steel is cheap and air is free". So the comparatively small additional cost of the hull shouldn't matter much across the life of the ship.

The 6 Frigates would require the purchase of only 6 new complete fitouts of weapons and sensors.

When looking at the Hyuga its onboard weapons fit is smaller than most Destroyers and Frigates half is size. This is no doubt due to its conops and the needs of Helo operations.

Thus our the DDHs could be equipped almost entirely from equipment recycled from the Anzacs. (Radar, Combat System, VLS, Decoys, Torpedos etc)

The savings from not purchasing the 3 additional shipsets of weapons and sensors would go a long way in purchasing the additional Helos required to operate from the DDHs.

An additional unbudgeted sorce of extra funds could be the sale of the FFGs to Poland.

There will always be the cost of the extra manpower but I believe the extra capability worth the cost.

Steel is cheap & air is free, but three 18,000 ton ships need three times as much hull maintenance as three 6000 ton ships, need much bigger powerplants (which aren't cheap) which need more crew & more maintenance, & if you want to actually use their capability, require buying a lot more helicopters, which are very expensive. Three Hyuuga class could carry a few dozen helicopters, which means a lot more helicopter crews, & a lot of weapons for them to use.

Oh, & they're not designed to operate alone - hence the light defensive armament. They're not substitutes for frigates or destroyers, but complements to them. The JMSDF expects them to need escorts.

They're a way to get a lot of ASW helicopters to sea & function as leaders of ASW flotillas (extensive helicopter maintenance facilities, command centres), & are designed on the assumption that they'll work within a navy which is big enough to provide such flotillas. The JMSDF has 36 destroyers & frigates, plus 6 'destroyer escorts' - & only two Hyuugas, & two of the bigger & somewhat ambiguous Izumo class.

The RAN doesn't have enough helicopters to fill three Hyuga class, & it doesn't have enough escorts for them.

 

[ADMk2]

Steel is cheap & air is free, but three 18,000 ton ships need three times as much hull maintenance as three 6000 ton ships, need much bigger powerplants (which aren't cheap) which need more crew & more maintenance, & if you want to actually use their capability, require buying a lot more helicopters, which are very expensive. Three Hyuuga class could carry a few dozen helicopters, which means a lot more helicopter crews, & a lot of weapons for them to use.

Oh, & they're not designed to operate alone - hence the light defensive armament. They're not substitutes for frigates or destroyers, but complements to them. The JMSDF expects them to need escorts.

They're a way to get a lot of ASW helicopters to sea & function as leaders of ASW flotillas (extensive helicopter maintenance facilities, command centres), & are designed on the assumption that they'll work within a navy which is big enough to provide such flotillas. The JMSDF has 36 destroyers & frigates, plus 6 'destroyer escorts' - & only two Hyuugas, & two of the bigger & somewhat ambiguous Izumo class.

The RAN doesn't have enough helicopters to fill three Hyuga class, & it doesn't have enough escorts for them.

Agreed. The other problem I have with the 'steel is cheap and air is free' idea is that all that extra real estate never sits there empty as a 'just in case'. It is filled with systems that DO cost money. A ton of it, on top of the extra maintenance burden that such incurs, as you've pointed out.

 

[Volkodav]

Agreed. The other problem I have with the 'steel is cheap and air is free' idea is that all that extra real estate never sits there empty as a 'just in case'. It is filled with systems that DO cost money. A ton of it, on top of the extra maintenance burden that such incurs, as you've pointed out.

Its not as simple as that, for instance the larger Cape class is much easier to maintain than the Armidales for the simple reason the installed equipment and systems are more accessible. Same with the Hobarts, some of there systems will be absolute nightmares to maintain, let alone replace because of accessibility and removement path issues. GTs are easier to maintain and replace than diesels, this means a Hyuga type with four GTs will be easier to work on than an ANZAC with one inaccessible GT (no removal path) and two diesels.

A lot of it comes down to design and build strategy, as well as taking the need for maintenance and upgrades into account. Also the more space you have the more flexibility you have to fit alternative (to the initially designed) equipment through life, even if only to address obsolescence issues. For example the FFGUP was hideously expensive as upgrading a ship that was never designed to be upgraded was far more challenging then expected while the Spruances, everyone of them a potential DDG we much easier to upgrade and never reached their full potential, but guaranteed had the cold war continued, they would have.

As to number of helicopters etc. its not purely about how many Romeos and Taipans the ADF has, these platforms would also be infinitely more effective at operating fixed and rotary winged UAVs and UCAVs than any frigate or destroyer could ever hope to be. There's also ARHs and Chinooks to be considered, the SOF support helos (potentially Sierras), maybe even tilt rotors in the future. Then there is the fact that these ships can launch a greater percentage of their aircraft faster than a DDG/FFG could, and also their far more extensive maintenance facilities that would be able to service the skimmer ships flights for deeper maintenance and even provide them with spare aircraft to cover this (this would be especially valuable with various types of UAVs).

Through deck ships could even exchange helo types with skimmers as required, i.e. switching ASW Romeos for MCM configured Sierras, replace one helo with a pair of Firescouts. Provide helos to escorting OPVs or I the future OCVs.

 

[weegee]

I actually got this from the Canadian Navy page. I am surprised I hadn't seen it on any media here in Aus.

Construction starts on first Australian Navy auxiliary oiler and replenishment ship | Naval Today

But great news that the project is underway.

 

[alexsa]

Steel is cheap & air is free, but three 18,000 ton ships need three times as much hull maintenance as three 6000 ton ships, need much bigger powerplants (which aren't cheap) which need more crew & more maintenance, & if you want to actually use their capability, require buying a lot more helicopters, which are very expensive. Three Hyuuga class could carry a few dozen helicopters, which means a lot more helicopter crews, & a lot of weapons for them to use.

Oh, & they're not designed to operate alone - hence the light defensive armament. They're not substitutes for frigates or destroyers, but complements to them. The JMSDF expects them to need escorts.

They're a way to get a lot of ASW helicopters to sea & function as leaders of ASW flotillas (extensive helicopter maintenance facilities, command centres), & are designed on the assumption that they'll work within a navy which is big enough to provide such flotillas. The JMSDF has 36 destroyers & frigates, plus 6 'destroyer escorts' - & only two Hyuugas, & two of the bigger & somewhat ambiguous Izumo class.

The RAN doesn't have enough helicopters to fill three Hyuga class, & it doesn't have enough escorts for them.

Agreed, they are a vessel that requires and escort which would logically mean more escorts are required.


Add to this is the fact that we will need to escort more than just warships in some situations noting we are a maritime nation. We may also have 'escort' two to three groups with this type of fleet and we would not have the escorts to do this.


The cost of three such vessels and required escorts distorts the force profile

 

[Redlands18]

No Canberra or Adelaide.

Sorry double post

 

[Redlands18]

No Canberra or Adelaide.

http://navaltoday.com/2017/06/19/30...-gear-up-for-month-long-drill-talisman-sabre/
Sorry guys link not working.
No Canberra no Adelaide fot Talisman Sabre, how much will this throw out the ADFs future planning? Will the Navy now have to try and have all 3 Amphibs ready for TS19 in 2 years time?.

No names released yet for the 2 AORs, my money is still on HMAS Supply & HMAS Stalwart.

 

[spoz]

Couple of minor points of clarification:

a. The Mk 4 5/62 has some internal differences to the Mk 2 5/54; you can't just substitute the barrel.

b. In the context of DoA, the original operation intent for the ANZACs was as a Tier 2 Patrol Frigate. As such, they were supposed to spend almost all their time on their diesels and only use the GTs for the occasional sprint. The analysis of the time was that the GT would be installed for the life of the ship, standfast a catastrophic failure the probability of which was assessed as very low, and thus removal routes were not required.

 

[weegee]

http://navaltoday.com/2017/06/19/30...-gear-up-for-month-long-drill-talisman-sabre/
Sorry guys link not working.
No Canberra no Adelaide fot Talisman Sabre, how much will this throw out the ADFs future planning? Will the Navy now have to try and have all 3 Amphibs ready for TS19 in 2 years time?"

In the article I read from that website it states the Canberra and Choules will be there when it states which ships will be attending?

"HMA Ships Canberra, Choules, Anzac, Toowoomba, Ballarat, Darwin, Melbourne, Success, Diamantina, Huon, Gascoyne and Melville will all take part"

I don't know if my link works any better but try here:
http://navaltoday.com/2017/06/19/30...nel-gear-for-month-long-drill-talisman-sabre/

 

[Redlands18]

http://navaltoday.com/2017/06/19/30...-gear-up-for-month-long-drill-talisman-sabre/
Sorry guys link not working.
No Canberra no Adelaide fot Talisman Sabre, how much will this throw out the ADFs future planning? Will the Navy now have to try and have all 3 Amphibs ready for TS19 in 2 years time?"

In the article I read from that website it states the Canberra and Choules will be there when it states which ships will be attending?

"HMA Ships Canberra, Choules, Anzac, Toowoomba, Ballarat, Darwin, Melbourne, Success, Diamantina, Huon, Gascoyne and Melville will all take part"

I don't know if my link works any better but try here:
30,000 Australian and US personnel gear for month-long drill Talisman Sabre | Naval Today

It's a bit confusing that article because underneath that line it says Australia's largest ships HMAS Canberra and Adelaide will not be attending as they are tied to Port due to propulsion issues.

 

[CJR]

In the article I read from that website it states the Canberra and Choules will be there when it states which ships will be attending?

"HMA Ships Canberra, Choules, Anzac, Toowoomba, Ballarat, Darwin, Melbourne, Success, Diamantina, Huon, Gascoyne and Melville will all take part"

I don't know if my link works any better but try here:
30,000 Australian and US personnel gear for month-long drill Talisman Sabre | Naval Today

And the very next line it state Canberra isn't attending. Either there's been a very late (i.e. as article goes to press) confirmation that the LHDs are both out, or more likely, the quasi-infinite number of monkeys employed in place of journalists and editors failed to both fact-check and proof-read the article.

My money is very much on the latter.

Edit: Or Schrodinger's LHDs? Would need to keep 'em in a box with no observers present for that to work...

 

[Volkodav]

Couple of minor points of clarification:

a. The Mk 4 5/62 has some internal differences to the Mk 2 5/54; you can't just substitute the barrel.

b. In the context of DoA, the original operation intent for the ANZACs was as a Tier 2 Patrol Frigate. As such, they were supposed to spend almost all their time on their diesels and only use the GTs for the occasional sprint. The analysis of the time was that the GT would be installed for the life of the ship, standfast a catastrophic failure the probability of which was assessed as very low, and thus removal routes were not required.

Yes on both cases, I have to be careful what I say as I was on the AWD project and did a paper on an aspect of the Mk45 while there. Where I read what sometimes blurs so when uncertain I keep it simple to avoid offending the technology control (ITAR) gods.

A former colleague actually managed the removal of a GT from an ANZAC and from what he told me it wasn't pretty. They had to disassemble it insitu and awkwardly withdraw the components through patches cut specifically for the job.

Other factors in terms of maintenance of different types include provision for draining the bilges, the FFGs for example have holes cut in the frames from build for them to drain to the lowest point for pumping while the ANZACs (and Armidales?) don't, this means sailors need to get down on the hands and knees between each frame and pump, bail, mop the water / oil, dead fish etc up.

 

[MickB]

Agreed, they are a vessel that requires and escort which would logically mean more escorts are required.


Add to this is the fact that we will need to escort more than just warships in some situations noting we are a maritime nation. We may also have 'escort' two to three groups with this type of fleet and we would not have the escorts to do this.


The cost of three such vessels and required escorts distorts the force profile QUOTE



An Anzac Frigate is an escort yet you say a DDH with a superior armament requires an escort. Does this this mean the escort also requires an escort.

Yes the DDH is a higher value target and yes warships operate better in company with other ships, no one is suggesting that it operate is the SCS on its lonesome.

But it seems an ideal vessel to patrol and protect Australia's SLOC from a submarine threat. Covering an area larger than a regular Frigate and freeing them up to escort the LHDs.

As for higher threat enviorments, it has been stated many times in this forum (mostly about to the Canberras lack of defensive armament) that is these cases we would be part of a coalition. This greatly increases this number of possible escorts.

One of the most valuable things a mid level power can bring to such a coalition are combat enablers and niche capability.

When acting in concert with the US, Japan and South Korea for example, which would make the greatest contribution, one more Frigate or a DDH.