Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[hauritz]

I actually agree with the idea of buying bigger than you need as it allows for future growth. The problem is that people have the tendency to want to fill things up.

Had Australia bought the Arleigh Burke class and been content to fit it out with only 48 VLS then it probably would have been quite affordable and you would have plenty of space for growth over the next 20 to 30 years.

 

[rockitten]

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.

I feel disgustingly bitter as so many rejected the option J (which, I believe would deliver the best sub for RAN) for "more Australian job".

Deep in my heart, I would like to see a rerun of the selection process.

 

[Volkodav]

I feel disgustingly bitter as so many rejected the option J (which, I believe would deliver the best sub for RAN) for "more Australian job".

Deep in my heart, I would like to see a rerun of the selection process.

It almost sounds like DCNS are tying to do a eurocopter on us, promise the world, deliver sweet fa then only start to get their stuff together after Australians step up into the critical roles. Still think we missed a bullet with option J . IMO the best option was a local design but labors prevarication and Abbots stuffing around stuffed that up.

 

[hauritz]

yeah ... they could have have built a new tranche of Collins subs with the fixes and upgrades applied to them and followed up with a stretched version in the 2030s.

It seems that a lot of the hard earned lessons learned from the Collins class have been forgotten and once again we have thrown our lot in with a European builder .... which seemed to be the source for most of the problems with the Collins subs in the first place.

 

[Stampede]

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.

Hi Volk

Assuming your Hyuga style ship is for ASW and not Amphibious operations then maybe the starting point is how many helicopters are needed in a area of operation for such a task. Without getting into a how long is a piece of string argument, I'll work on the task of hunting a near peer conventional sub. If I recall Britain's Invincible class had around 9 ASW helicopters which was deemed sufficient to hopefully have two airborne 24/7. Add to the need of SAR and the logistical needs of the task force then it's not unrealistic up to another half dozen helicopters would be needed.
Now helicopter numbers for a task force around the 15 mark would seem about right and would be problematic if just housed with the destroyers, hence the appeal of a Hyuga style ship.
But I feel it's about balance and for myself I would be reluctant to sacrifice destroyer numbers when for a navy of our size using our LHD's may present a better option.
If or OPV's were a ASW Corvette armed and equipped vessel then maybe your suggestion may have traction, but that does not look like it will happen.
My answer
Keep the inventory simple and get another LHD.

Regards S

 

[hauritz]

Spain uses their LHD as a carrier so I don't see any issues with using them to base ASW helicopters on the rare occasions that we need to mount a task force.

Instead of buying a second logistics ship in the late twenties and replacing the Choules in the 2030s the RAN could look at buying a third Canberra instead.

As for helicopter numbers ... we do have 24 ASW helicopters and we will be acquiring UAVs at some point so we probably won't need that many extra helicopters. I suspect that we would only deploy one helicopter and drone per frigate which would leave you with a pool of a dozen helos to equip the rest of the fleet. Maybe we would need to buy a few extra airframes but I would be surprised if we couldn't raise a flight of between 4 and 6 helos if required.

 

[hairyman]

If we were to build or purchase a Hyuga type ship, we could build a number of small frigates without helicopter facilities or hangar, as why would we need more helicopters than carried on the Hyuga?

 

[StingrayOZ]

It almost sounds like DCNS are tying to do a eurocopter on us, promise the world, deliver sweet fa then only start to get their stuff together after Australians step up into the critical roles. Still think we missed a bullet with option J . IMO the best option was a local design but labors prevarication and Abbots stuffing around stuffed that up.

Some of my linkedin contacts are lighting up about this. I think we need some more context. Ultimately the government wants to rid itself of ASC being both customer and supplier has been a head ache.

The barracuda design has the largest volume and many believe it had the lowest risk as a hull design, it is literally a nuclear hull made conventional. The Germans were paper, and the Japanese proposal seemed to indicate an enlargement which they were pretty mysterious about and manufacturers didn't share Abe's enthusiasm.

Instead of buying a second logistics ship in the late twenties and replacing the Choules in the 2030s the RAN could look at buying a third Canberra instead.

I think this is the only viable option going forward. The crewing is basically there, some money exists, the timing would be doable, roles are interchangeable. Training, parts, upgrades, risk, fixes, logistical support are all now off the shelf items already within the RAN. While not easy, it is somewhat in the realm of plausible. The issues we have with just two ships, has already bitten us in the bum and is showing Australia's capability as being very theoretical only.

The only modification I would make is a stretch of ~15m, extra deck area, extra embarked forces space, extra machinery/fuel space, possibly a few extra knots of speed. We could then build the ARG concept around a 2 LHD fleet.

 

[t68]

Spain uses their LHD as a carrier so I don't see any issues with using them to base ASW helicopters on the rare occasions that we need to mount a task force.

Spain has a future ambition of an pure aircraft carrier to replace PDA, the Spanish JC1 is meant only to be a secondary capbilty whilst PDA (or replacement) was in a maintenance period, I have seen renderings of a replacement which appeared to be a smaller version of JC1 minus the well dock etc

AIRCRAFT CARRIER: A temporary platform for carrier-based naval aircraft, acting as a flight deck for strategic projection airborne vectors (Navy’s Air Wing), capable of becoming a temporary platform to substitute the aircraft-carrier, “PRINCIPE DE ASTURIAS”, when she is not available due to downtime (repairs, modifications, etc.).

https://www.navantia.es/ckfinder/userfiles/files/sala_pr/folleto LHD_marzo_para navantia_ingles.pdf

 

[StingrayOZ]

Spain has a future ambition of an pure aircraft carrier to replace PDA, the Spanish JC1 is meant only to be a secondary capbilty whilst PDA (or replacement) was in a maintenance period, I have seen renderings of a replacement which appeared to be a smaller version of JC1 minus the well dock etc

https://www.navantia.es/ckfinder/userfiles/files/sala_pr/folleto LHD_marzo_para navantia_ingles.pdf

There is no real point in building a smaller JC1 (particularly if you already have a JC1), it would cost more. I've seen them too, I don't know how credible they are. Spain doesn't have the money these days for something like that.

Another LHD might actually be cheaper than trying to extensively reconfigure the existing LHD's for things like LCAC/SSC, V-22 and other VTOL, embarking, self defence missiles, heavier tanks, Land 400 compatibility, 2030 C3 etc.

Will be interesting to see what/if Turkey orders another LHD and how they go operating F-35b's off it.

 

[PeterM]

Looking at transformation the RAN is undergoing, there is likely to be a huge increase in helicopter capacity:

3 Hobart class (with hanger space for 1 medium helicopters ea)
9 Future Frigates (potentially with hanger space for 2 medium helicopters ea)
12 OPV (potentially with hanger space for 1 medium helicopters ea)
2 AOE (with hanger space for 2 medium helicopters ea)

The RAN will have 24 Mh-60Rs and 6 MRH-90s to work with.

Assuming that Canberra, Adelaide and Choules predominately operate Army helicopters, there will still very likely be considerable shortfall between available capacity and the number of available RAN helicopters (assuming availability rates for ships and helicopters are somewhat similar at around 66%). What is the likelihood of getting an additional purchase of 6-12 RAN helicopters/UAVs (perhaps MH-60R, MH-60s or MQ-8) at some point in short-medium term?

As far as Volkodav’s hypothetical DDH discussion goes, from my armchair perspective, while I do like the Japanese DDHs (they are capable vessels), they wouldn’t make a ton of sense for the RAN.

If there was to be a future requirement for a light ASW carrier capability (due to regional sub proliferation etc), it would make more sense imho for the RAN to look at the lower end of the scale. I was thinking 1-2 ships along the lines of the Chakri Naruebet (based of the design of Principe de Asturas) at around 11,500t, 26kts, self-defence of 4 Phalanx and 8 cell Mk 41 launcher, hanger space for around 10 aircraft and crew around 600. While certainly not in the same league as an Izumo, Cavour, America class, they would be more economical while providing a decent ASW helicopter capability. It would also open the door to consider a future F-35B capability should that be desirable.

I am not a fan of trying to shoe-horn the LHDs into light carriers, let them fulfil their primary roles.

 

[SpazSinbad]

To be effective an F-35B requires 600 feet, or 500 feet with a suitable ski jump, for take off with full internal fuel & internal weapons. This is current F-35B KPP Key Performance Parameter.

 

[swerve]

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).

The Atagos are bloody big (10,000 ton) AEGIS destroyers with 96 Mk 41 cells, plus anti-ship missiles - the works. And yes, they're more expensive than Izumo. Most of that expense is the systems & weapons. The Akizuki class is significantly cheaper than Izumo, despite being much more heavily armed. That's what the extra 20,000 tons, built to military standards, costs. The Hyuuga class also cost significantly more than the Akizuki class. About the same price as Izumo, in fact (the extra weapons & sensor fit presumably making up for the smaller size).

So, you won't get three of 'em for the same price as three frigates. You can probably get two for the price of three Akizukis, which the JMSDF calls destroyers but which correspond to frigates (mainly ASW, longest range AAW weapon ESSM) in other navies. But then what? Izumo, on its own, is like a giant OPV, apart from its helicopters. It has lower-grade radar etc. than current Japanese ASW 'destroyers'/frigates (& so does Hyuuga), & close-in self-defence weapons only. If you don't invest in the helicopters or other aircraft (whether manned or unmanned) & the personnel to operate them, they're a waste of metal, burning up a lot of fuel. And if you do fill 'em up, then the price rockets.

Your arithmetic doesn't add up. The ships cost more than those you propose them as alternatives to, they should cost more to operate, & without a lot of expensive additional equipment & people to operate it, Izumo has very limited usefulness. The JMSDF knows this, of course, but it has the equipment & people to make her useful.

Operate army helicopters off 'em? Then what flies off the LHDs?

You're proposing a reduction in capability, replacing planned ships with more lightly armed ships the value of which lies in their ability to operate weapons & systems you'd need to buy, but without proposing to spend the money to buy the extra stuff or hire the people to operate it.

It's been said that when comparing the weapons fit of Hyuuga with an ANZAC I omitted the helicopters. Correct - but as I keep bloody well saying, the helicopters it can carry aren't part of the fit-out or included in the price. They're an extra which the RAN doesn't have, has no plans to buy, & which would make a massive difference to the price & operating cost.

 

[vonnoobie]

Can we just nip this in the bud?

The Hyuga or any DDH wont be acquired under any circumstances as a stand in for any of the FFG's.

It may be acquired or a future form of it down the track in the form of either a Choules replacement of a possible future logistics ship.

 

[swerve]

There is no real point in building a smaller JC1 (particularly if you already have a JC1), it would cost more. I've seen them too, I don't know how credible they are. Spain doesn't have the money these days for something like that.

There is a point if you want it as well as the one you have, don't want the weight, complexity (building cost, maintenance) & internal layout constraints of the dock, & would be interested in possibly re-jigging it for greater speed.

The Spanish economy has been growing healthily & the trade balance in surplus for a few years now. Tax revenues are rising accordingly, & although the budget's still too much in deficit it's improving steadily. Past overspending has left Spain with very good infrastructure, so no pressure there, & defence spending is rising, with a commitment to increase it further. There's a backlog of neglect to make up, but that's now shrinking.

So, Spain might well have the money 'for things like that' before very long.

 

[Hazdog]

I feel disgustingly bitter as so many rejected the option J (which, I believe would deliver the best sub for RAN) for "more Australian job".

Deep in my heart, I would like to see a rerun of the selection process.

Okay mate, The option J submarine is smaller inside than our current collins class submarines. imagine trying to develop new and better capabilities in a smaller frame... not going to happen effectively. The short-fin allows for upgrade to be easily installed and fixed whereas it will be much harder to upgrade a smaller sub, option J.
Sorry Mate wasn't going to work.

 

[hauritz]

Okay mate, The option J submarine is smaller inside than our current collins class submarines. imagine trying to develop new and better capabilities in a smaller frame... not going to happen effectively. The short-fin allows for upgrade to be easily installed and fixed whereas it will be much harder to upgrade a smaller sub, option J.
Sorry Mate wasn't going to work.

The other thing to consider is that the Soryu isn't really light years ahead of what we already have. In fact if you look at the information available in the public domain the Collins actually rates higher than the Soryu in a number of key areas.

It has better range, more space inside and probably a better combat system.

For all of its short comings the Collins Class is still quite an impressive vessel.

My own personal option would have been to simply continue developing the Collins class.

 

[protoplasm]

The other thing to consider is that the Soryu isn't really light years ahead of what we already have. In fact if you look at the information available in the public domain the Collins actually rates higher than the Soryu in a number of key areas.

It has better range, more space inside and probably a better combat system.

For all of its short comings the Collins Class is still quite an impressive vessel.

My own personal option would have been to simply continue developing the Collins class.

Sans political interference this is likely to have produced the best outcome. Rudd/Gillard/Rudd (with Smith throughout that) then Abbott ensured that a long term project to develop Collins II was never going to happen.

 

[hauritz]

Looking at transformation the RAN is undergoing, there is likely to be a huge increase in helicopter capacity:

3 Hobart class (with hanger space for 1 medium helicopters ea)
9 Future Frigates (potentially with hanger space for 2 medium helicopters ea)
12 OPV (potentially with hanger space for 1 medium helicopters ea)
2 AOE (with hanger space for 2 medium helicopters ea)
.

The future of the RANs helicopter capability will be based around unmanned aircraft. The navy is already evaluating the Camcopter S-100 for its new OPVs. A more capable aircraft will probably be required for the new frigates. The intention I believe is for the new frigate to eventually operate one manned and one unmanned aircraft.

In any case the new frigates won't be in service until the middle of the next decade. In fact the number of helicopters we can operate off our frigates will drop from 14 down to 11 once the Adelaide class is retired. The last of our new frigates won't even entering service until the late 30s or even early 40s so there should be a number of Seahawk airframes available for other tasks for the next couple of decades at least.

If there is a gap in the RAN's helicopter capability it would probably be for a smaller utility helicopter. Even though the plan is to operate unmanned helicopters off its OPVs I feel that a few more manned utility helicopters would still be useful.

 

[H_K]

This is the best summary I've found of DCNS' plans for FSP (sorry can't post links):

en.meretmarine.com/dcns-groundwork-ran-sub-programme/168786

Seems sensible to me:

- Avoid the cock-ups of the AWD Alliance separate designer/builder arrangement
- Bring in an experienced shipyard to own, operate, and upgrade ASC
- Help critical French suppliers set up shop in Australia
- Heavy emphasis on upskilling and training the required Australian trades

The uproar seems to be over the fact that the design work and early program mgt will all be done in France (300-500 people for the first 5 years), with minimal Australian help. Well sorry, if you knew how to design a sub you obviously wouldn't be buying French (or option J or D)...