Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[Raven22]

HMAS Canberra is playing in Talisman Sabre. At least until the Navy find a way to break her again.

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.

That's a false equivalency. You might as well say which would make the greater contribution - a frigate or a nuclear powered aircraft carrier.

No one is arguing that a DDH would be a more powerful vessel than a frigate, the argument lies with the cost. A vessel that is 2-3 times the size of a frigate, with a combat system and weapons fit out as large if not larger, with a much larger crew, and each needing an entire extra squadron of helicopters to make worthwhile, is going to be MUCH more expensive than a frigate. It's not a case of three frigates or three DDH, its probably a case of three frigates or one DDH.

And while each DDH might not need an escort for force protection (assuming it has a weapons fit out as good as the new frigates), it will need an escort to be made useful. There are a lot of things you can do with a frigate that you are not going to do with a 16 000 tonne flat top - radar/sonar picquet, naval gunfire support, chasing small craft around the littoral etc etc. A DDH tooling around the ocean by itself isn't going to be good at very many things. Therefore you would have more jobs for escorts with a smaller escort pool to do them. Unless you were going to buy a lot of extra escorts as well, it would severely distort the force composition of the surface fleet. All for much larger cost.

 

[vonnoobie]

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.

Comparing the Anzac to the DDH is not a great example. It is better to compare the DDH to our future frigate which will have between 32 and 48 VLS cells, much better radar and various other features.

When you compare the DDH to the future frigate (Any one of the 3) the DDH is a crew heavy vessel (Unless we can find the extra personnel it is already a non starter) while also only having at best half the armament of the future FFG.

Sure you could add in more weapons but with that comes an even larger crew on a ship we dont have the crew for to start with.

'Steel is cheap - Air is free' has some merit of truth to it but only to an extent. You need to have your vessel in the sweet spot where it is large enough to be easily and cheaply maintained while not being so small it is costly to update/maintaine or so large that it requires more crew and maintenance.

Afraid it might be a bit too small, Allow 25% larger discplacement, Hell even 50% more discplacement but the DDH's being proposed are 100% (Hyuga at standard load) - 285% larger (Izumo at full load).

If we had the extra crew's sweet go for it, But to fill those vessels will require sacrifices else where so do we have less Frigates? OPV's? Submarines? Scrap the Hobarts?.

 

[alexsa]

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.

The DDH has a 16 cell Mk41 configuration for ESSM and ASROC..... the vessel we are considering deleting from future build for this capability is the future frigate with will ESSM, SM2 and likely SM6 .... and will and ASW specialist escort.


Even looking at the ANZAC the ASMD upgrade and 32 ESSM this is a pretty potent medium defence capability.

 

[Stampede]

Hi all

Just a general interest piece from the Department of defence web site regarding the MRH-90 Taipan conducting sea trials off an Anzac Class frigate.

Helicopter weathers trial period | Navy Daily

Good to see some forward momentum with this helicopter.

Regards S

 

[swerve]

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.

If you want a ship with more deck space & support facilities for helicopters than a frigate, fine - but it isn't a frigate alternative, & you can't buy or operate something like Hyuuga for a similar price to a frigate. All the other things you want to operate off it cost money & need operators. It either needs escorts, or the systems (sensors, weapons) & crew to defend itself. You can't cut the number of escorts & substitute a Hyuuga: at worst, you need to add escorts to go with it, & at best, you need it to be heavily armed enough to defend itself & also do the job of an escort - & I think that needs at least as many weapons as a frigate, & perhaps more.

What you're suggesting is a significant additional capability, needing additional personnel, at a significant additional cost.

You could put more helicopter support facilities afloat at less cost by putting them on auxiliaries, as has been done by other navies.

 

[ASSAIL]

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.

In relation to limber holes, the drain holes in frames, these should have been corrected during the build by the owners rep. Not sure if an organisation still exists in the RAN which enforces standards but I have stood by New ship builds in both Australia and Japan and as the owners rep I have insisted that these type of oversights are corrected, very often the small detail of the build is left to the yard supervisor and is not listed on the plan. For instance, pipe runs may exist in schematic form only and it's up to the yard to run them (very different with a module build as piping needs to match up)
The Navy used to have General Office of overseeing and inspection, I can't remember it's exact title but these gents were ultra pedantic and highly experienced inspecting newbuilds and refits and most likely would have picked up the limber hole shortfall amongst other things

 

[swerve]

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

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.

Superior armament? It normally carries 16 ESSM in four cells. It could carry more, but that would mean giving up ASW (its primary role) weapons. It has no main gun, just a couple of 20mm CIWS, no anti-ship missiles, & the same ASW torpedo fit as the ANZAC.

 

[Volkodav]

What everyone seems to be missing is the RAN doesn't operate their major surface combatants as escorts and hadn't done since Melbourne was retired. Even when we still had a carrier most of our destroyers and frigates were operating more like cruisers or sloops on independent ops, in small self supporting surface action groups together, or as part of coalition operations. None of them were ever intended to operate alone in any but a totally permissive environment, even the ANZACs in their original Patrol Figate configuration were intended to operate with and complement the DDGs and FFGs with their very complementary point defence Sea Sparrow missiles, anti surface Super Sea Sprites and 5" guns, as were the cancelled corvettes.

Also, many of the independent ops currently conducted by the majors are pretty much constabulary duties (border protection or UN type security and interdiction ops) done because successive generations of patrol boats weren't upto the job formally performed by the Bathurst Class corvettes / mine sweepers (actually purpose designed seaward defence vessels). Now the RAN is getting proper OPVs majors will no longer need to be assigned to supplement the minors and the OPVs could conceivably also free up majors in some international deployments'. If later minors, built to replace the hydrographic and MCMV fleets are along the lines of the original OCV project, this would be even more the case.

Considering the majors will rarely, if ever, operate alone and never in a high threat environment, and that OPVs will replace them in constabulary roles, replacing three frigates with three through deck combatants will not result in the loss of numbers, capability and flexibility some of you seem to fear. In fact the complementary capabilities such ships would bring would enhance the capabilities and survivability of any task group they were part of.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Considering the majors will rarely, if ever, operate alone and never in a high threat environment, and that OPVs will replace them in constabulary roles, replacing three frigates with three through deck combatants will not result in the loss of numbers, capability and flexibility some of you seem to fear. In fact the complementary capabilities such ships would bring would enhance the capabilities and survivability of any task group they were part of.

I certainly hope the OPV's are capable enough to operate far and wide in the constabulary roles. But I would like to see that actually happen. If a variant is chosen with no hanger, limited range and endurance, low speed and sea state limitations that is going to seriously curtail that capability. If only armed with a 30mm gun, you would have to question that capability in any sort of regional or global tension/instability situation.

However, I would still be hesitant to replace surface combatants with a through deck ship of any type. That would bring numbers down, and with two massive oceans on either side of the continent, upgrades, sustainment etc I worry that it gets too close to the bone. Maybe 1 could be traded in to still give us 11.

I would be looking at something through deck to replace Choules. Then Australia would have 3 flat tops. By procuring two and replacing one surface ship that would then give 4 capable ships.

But this seems a bit silly. A much better/realistic idea would be to equip every one of the 12 OPV's with at least a telescopic hanger and able to handle and embark a full sized helo. Combined with the future frigates with embarking 2 helicopters, this results in a very significant organic aviation support capability. This costs nearly nothing in terms of man power and very little in terms of procurement cash.

Japan's destroyers have only a single space in the hanger, the Kongos have no support capability. Hence part of the reason why they have dedicated aviation ships as there is limited space on the fleet. Certainly that seems to be a good fit for them and how they have constructed their fleet, with multiple dedicated air platforms.

But buying a OPV that is too slow to keep up even with the RAN's cruising speed for fleet operations, with no capability to embark a helicopter would seem to limit options. Given the future of smaller drones, an OPV embarking multiple aerial drones and UUV's would be a valuable addition if required.

Hence why I keep banging on about speed in blue water and some sort of embarking capability. It would be a shame to throw that potential away, particular given it may not have any significant additional cost in procurement or manpower, and would be useful for other roles of the OPV.

Given the huge volume of water that Australia has, a distributed approach may be more appropriate in most situations.

 

[Raven22]

Considering the majors will rarely, if ever, operate alone and never in a high threat environment, and that OPVs will replace them in constabulary roles, replacing three frigates with three through deck combatants will not result in the loss of numbers, capability and flexibility some of you seem to fear..

What you suggest is not a realistic option. Three through deck ships of the type you describe are going to be far, far more expensive than simply buying three more frigates. It is not a case of three frigates or three DDH (or whatever), it is probably a case of three frigates or one DDH. That WILL result in a loss of numbers, capability and flexibility.

If you continue to wish away the cost problem, you might as well advocate three carriers instead of three frigates.

 

[Volkodav]

What you suggest is not a realistic option. Three through deck ships of the type you describe are going to be far, far more expensive than simply buying three more frigates. It is not a case of three frigates or three DDH (or whatever), it is probably a case of three frigates or one DDH. That WILL result in a loss of numbers, capability and flexibility.

If you continue to wish away the cost problem, you might as well advocate three carriers instead of three frigates.

I have been let down by my google foo and have been unsuccessful in finding the reference that I have been looking for that shows an apples for apples cost demonstrating that the Izumos were cheaper to procure than the Hyugas, which in turn were cheaper than the corresponding destroyer (I cannot recall if this was the Akizukis or the Atagos).

Sounds counter intuitive but then look at our own navy and the cost of the Hobarts verses the Canberras, or even Spain and the F-100s verses the JCI. A ship four times the displacement, with a 9LV combat system (similar to that on the ANZACs, an LM2500 GT (same as Hobart), two more powerful diesels than Hobart has, plus many other similar or even identical systems to the Hobarts, but also with substantial command and control facilities, extensive aviation and amphibious facilities and even a full hospital, was substantially cheaper to procure. Why, because destroyers and frigates are very complex and expensive ships to build and operate. Their systems are very tightly packed into the smallest package possible (usually because uninformed people / politicians and public servants think this is cheaper) and things such as the VLS, guns, sensors etc. are very expensive.

As a mental exercise and not a serious proposal, imagine a modified Canberra with the amphibious facilities and stowage deleted, i.e. no dock, no steel beach, no vehicle stowage, no ballast system, reduced accommodation and hotel services, smaller hospital, reduced power consumption, possibly a more efficient hull form etc. All else remaining the same we would have a lighter ships with lower power consumption, smaller maintenance requirements and a smaller crew, i.e. it would cost less. You could even add a second GT and uprated azipods, an ASMD mast (perhaps even scavenged from an ANZAC), a couple of eight cell VLS from either the ANZACs or Adelaides, use some of the volume freed from deleting the amphibious features for a weapons magazine and JP-5 stowage. End result, a ship that costs the same but probably less than a Canberra, that is already cheaper than a Hobart or new frigate. Now lets just for the exercises sake assume the ADF acquires F-35B to replace the SHs......

Just because something is bigger doesn't mean it should be automatically assumed to be more expensive and therefore unaffordable and not to be bothered even looking at.

DMAIC

https://www.dmaictools.com/

 

[hauritz]

It seems to me that the only time Australia would ever likely to be involved in a task group would either be as part of a coalition force or escorting the LHDs.

If you were looking at operating additional ASW helicopters off a big deck warship then the simplest solution might be just to operate them off the Canberra or Adelaide.

Anyway according to globalsecurity org the Hyuga cost $US1.06 billion in 2005 while the Izuma cost around $US1.1 billion. So in today's dollars it wouldn't surprise me if the Izuma came in a little cheaper than the Hyuga.

DDH-161 Hyuga / DDH "13,500 ton" Class

DDH-183 Izumo 22DDH Class helicopter destroyer

 

[Raven22]

Hang on, isn't the proposal here that the through deck ship, whatever you want to call it, will have its own armament in line with that of the replacement frigates? If that's the case, how could it possibly not be more expensive? You have the same complexity as the frigate in terms of weapon systems, a hull three times the size, a crew at least twice as big (based on the Izumi-class), and the need to buy an extra squadron or two of helicopters (and crew them, and sustain them) to fill the flight deck.

If the proposal is for a through deck ship without any significant armament (so it's cheap) how does that help the RAN? It will then absolutely need an escort (which would have to come from a much smaller escort pool), plus we still don't have any helicopters to stick on the flight deck. You have a big empty ship with nothing to fill it with.

I think we are in agreement that a big empty ship will be cheap. I think where we differ is the usefulness of such a ship. As soon as you pay for things to make the ships useful (armament, aircraft) it is no longer cheap.

 

[MickB]

Superior armament? It normally carries 16 ESSM in four cells. It could carry more, but that would mean giving up ASW (its primary role) weapons. It has no main gun, just a couple of 20mm CIWS, no anti-ship missiles, & the same ASW torpedo fit as the ANZAC.

You seem to have forgotten the Helos and their armament. I'm sure they bring a little extra the the equation.

When talking of the Hyuga it was intended to give a general idea of what was proposed, not saying we should build an exact clone.

In keeping with the idea of equipment recycled from the Frigates we could give each DDH:

* 24 VLS cells (86 ESSM if Australia does not purchase ASROC). Less if we get a VLS launched Harpoon replacement.

* 8 Harpoon Launchers.(More if you find the deck space. The Anzacs will leave behind 64 launchers).

*2 x 3 tube Torpedo tubes.( More if you find the deck space. The Frigates will leave 22 triple launchers).

* 1 x 76mm gun, not likely but possible.

* CEAFAR radar, the larger ship will allow it to be scaled up and acheive a higher performance.

*Nulka decoys.

These plus the Helos does sound like a superior fitout than the Anzacs to me.

 

[alexsa]

It seems to me that the only time Australia would ever likely to be involved in a task group would either be as part of a coalition force or escorting the LHDs.

If you were looking at operating additional ASW helicopters off a big deck warship then the simplest solution might be just to operate them off the Canberra or Adelaide.

Anyway according to globalsecurity org the Hyuga cost $US1.06 billion in 2005 while the Izuma cost around $US1.1 billion. So in today's dollars it wouldn't surprise me if the Izuma came in a little cheaper than the Hyuga.

DDH-161 Hyuga / DDH "13,500 ton" Class

DDH-183 Izumo 22DDH Class helicopter destroyer

yep, and the DDH-183 has 2 CIWS and 2 SeaRAM and carries no anti-submarine torpedoes


You also need to tie this to the currency used to buy the ships. The Yen has had a pretty bumpy ride. Before 2009 the yen was buying over .01 USD while has stayed below 0.0095 USD since 2013.


I don't buy the flat top argument and price comparisons being mooted as it is simply not apples with apples. Look at the AOR's the price includes a lot more than the ships noting how the project is costed.


The crew cost on either of the DDH will be prohibitive compared to the future frigate not to mention maintenance and fuel etc etc. The cost of buying the additional my not be a great deal in a relative sense but working it and joining it certainly will be an issue.


Finally if the navy ever deploys in anger, particularly with the LHDs, the will be multiple task groups to support the amphib group and supporting vessels in addition to any detached groups that may be necessary. The Amphibs and support vessel will need to be escorted. Such operations will not necessarily involve a major power but things like Timor need to be considered. Escorts will be at a premium and another three platforms only capable of self defense and limited offence (none really as they rely on the air assets) would leave the three DDG and 6 Future frigates (noting not all will be available) sorely pressed.


And that is the last I will comment on this to be honest.

 

[alexsa]

You seem to have forgotten the Helos and their armament. I'm sure they bring a little extra the the equation.

When talking of the Hyuga it was intended to give a general idea of what was proposed, not saying we should build an exact clone.

In keeping with the idea of equipment recycled from the Frigates we could give each DDH:

* 24 VLS cells (86 ESSM if Australia does not purchase ASROC). Less if we get a VLS launched Harpoon replacement.

* 8 Harpoon Launchers.(More if you find the deck space. The Anzacs will leave behind 64 launchers).

*2 x 3 tube Torpedo tubes.( More if you find the deck space. The Frigates will leave 22 triple launchers).

* 1 x 76mm gun, not likely but possible.

* CEAFAR radar, the larger ship will allow it to be scaled up and acheive a higher performance.

*Nulka decoys.

These plus the Helos does sound like a superior fitout than the Anzacs to me.

It is not the ANZAC you need to compare against it is the future frigate requirements (i.e. SM2, SM6 and ESSM) plus effective ASW capability. Even with the items you propose (if they can be practically fitted) this vessel will only have the number of aircraft as an advantage over the future frigate.


On practicality; you cannot simply add guns and VLS to a platform without significant redesign in both arrangement and supporting systems ....not to mention the stability issues. The perception that you can simply stick things on a ship is an issue that causes considerable irritation with anybody involved in ship design ....... looking at what you blithely propose I would suggest this would be a major undertaking.


Finally it is a good idea to at Japan's fleet mix as to the importance of a balance of capabilities (also look at the ships the DDH replaced) . The DDH does not dominate noting the 22DDH is a flat top by any other name

 

[MickB]

I think we are in agreement that a big empty ship will be cheap. I think where we differ is the usefulness of such a ship. As soon as you pay for things to make the ships useful (armament, aircraft) it is no longer cheap.

Glad you agree that the basic ship will be comparitivly cheap, but you seem to have missed the posts about recycling weapons and sensors from the Frigates.

The money saved by not purchasing the last three weapon and sensor packages on the Frigate build can be put towards purchasing Helos.

Not saying this is cost neutral, but affordable I think.

 

[MickB]

On practicality; you cannot simply add guns and VLS to a platform without significant redesign in both arrangement and supporting systems ....not to mention the stability issues. The perception that you can simply stick things on a ship is an issue that causes considerable irritation with anybody involved in ship design ....... looking at what you blithely propose I would suggest this would be a major undertaking.

Agree, but as stated above I did not intend a Hyuga clone. Putting such a ship on the tail of the Frigate build will give it time to be designed properly to our requirements.

I too will leave it here.

 

[vonnoobie]

My final 2 cents on this as it is just dragging on and on and on. We can't afford to reduce the number of surface assets, the fleet has already had that enought through the late 90's and nauties.

That being said, If we can get larger ships to the same level as that as any future FFG sweet but first I ask any one to solve the most critical issue first. man power. You need at minimum double the crew for the Hyuga and that is with out all the other systems that the FFG would have. Until any one can come up with a viable way to get the extra crew (which also means extra shore based personnel to support them) this entire discussion is pointless.

--------------------

All that aside.

recent new's that I'm not sure how I feel about.

The subs that ate ASC - InDaily

Seems DCNS has back tracked and ASC won be building the submarine but rather DCNS will be doing it all in house with zero work contracted out at all to ASC.

Also appears that the level of job's and Australian content has back tracked going from 2,900 down to 2,000 while between 1,300 and 1,500 direct and indirect job's will be created in France.

Will this job mix and content mix only apply to the first few submarines and gradually increase Australian content or will this be the mix for the life of the contract?

With DCNS effectively stripping ASC of it's submarine expertise over the long term what effect will it have on our ability to be self sufficient as we had aimed? We will effectively be put into the position that any work has to go through DCNS or we have to take the increased cost and risk of rebuilding and independant capability. No happy Jan.

 

[Volkodav]

A big empty ship is cheaper than a tightly packed smaller one, but it can and will be filled with gear the ADF already has, will be getting, or could easily get. The larger crew isn't an issue either as the navy has a stack of sailors who would love to go to sea but can't because they don't have the required qualifications and or experience to fill the available billets. Sometimes its because there are not sufficient qualified supervisors or mentors to get these sailors up to speed. This is where bigger ships are useful, they can employ more trainees and ensure they have the supervision and get the experience they need and then can step, fully qualified into a skimmer.

As I stated before big empty ships with flat decks, hangers and maintenance shops are very useful for supporting deployed rotorcraft from other ships, even carrying spare or alternative aircraft for other ships. Then there are UAVs and UCAVs, as well as other arising technologies, such as 3D printing of components and consumables from raw materials on board, this is something the USN is seriously looking at for their carriers, LHDs and LHAs.

The counter argument is they are big, they look expensive, therefore we can't afford them.