Perhaps the fewer VLS in the latest model has more to do with budgetary constraints than anything else.
The 2013 model would indicate 24 MK41 and 40 single launchers which would still fall short of what the Hobart could potentially carry.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
The 2013 model would indicate 24 MK41 and 40 single launchers which would still fall short of what the Hobart could potentially carry.
I would not assume budgetary constraints for the Australian offering. If anything the design has evolved from 2013.
If the midships space could take two 8 cell Mk41 VLS then you would have 48 cells (albeit some will be self defense or tactical length). However, I have not seen an image of that part of the GCS-A model.
Muar River
Member
USNI News on the ADF's amphibious capability. It must be an exciting challenge to work with the US Forces.
https://news.usni.org/2017/10/05/australias-amphibious-force-nearing-full-operational-capability
https://news.usni.org/2017/10/05/australias-amphibious-force-nearing-full-operational-capability
It may not be able to, ESSM and MK41 arent exactly the same as CAMM (although I would have thought the location would have been compatible).
I have to say I can't see any even from other angles from the bae twitter feed.
https://twitter.com/BAESystemsAus
Or at navy recognition
https://www.navyrecognition.com/ind...d-with-aegis-combat-system-and-cea-radar.html
It would appear that space/weight margin has been taken up with the harpoon launchers. Seems like an offense/defence compromise.Those harpoon launchers look a lot higher than on the F-5000, I wonder how much margin there is.
The type 26 Sea5000 seems to rely more on guns. 2x phalanx (but with limited arcs), 2 x 30mm. Verse the F-5000 which is 1 x phalanx (with good arc) and 2 x 25mm.
Which for me really puts the F-5000 in front in Air to air. 16 strike length cells is not minor (50% greater load out than the alternatives).
Particularly if you want to carry a combination of SM-2, SM-6, TLAM/Strike, SM-3. With missile size getting bigger, having strike length can accommodate a larger range of missile types (like SM-6).
I'm just not feeling the type 26 as compelling in the current environment for the RAN's requirements.
Muar River
Member
Some very good images of the FF contenders in the latest DTR magazine.
Defence Technology Review : DTR OCT 2017, Page 4
The outlay on AEGIS necessitates the maximum number of strike length cells.
Defence Technology Review : DTR OCT 2017, Page 4
The outlay on AEGIS necessitates the maximum number of strike length cells.
Also of interest is the Fassmer/Austal OPV80 with hanger for 1180. I quite like this arrangement and I hope it gets up. Supporting NH90 or MH60 helicopters with an hanger is ideal. As is ability to carry 3 shipping containers and an open flex deck with ramp. The only thing I would change is the gun, and go with a 35mm instead of the 40mm.. It is also on the Naval recognition site.
Also more noises about the Type 26 not being quite ready and to build more AWD's. Why not just build F-5000's instead. It's hard not to see the F-5000 as an evolution of the AWD with many upgrades possibly rolling back to the AWD's. The type 26 isn't a proven platform (with not that much in common with an RAN ship) and isn't worth desperately waiting for.
John Newman
The Bunker Group
Just finished looking at the double page spread on the Fassmer OPV in the current DTR online mag.
The more I see of the Austal/Fassmer OPV80 design, the more I like it, seems to tick all the boxes (in my opinion) of what I had always thought SEA 1180 was meant to achieve from way back when the project was originally announced in the 2009 DWP.
Eighty metres, approx. 2000t, flight deck and hangar capability for a 10t helicopter (if and when required), mission deck below for 3 x 20ft containers, etc, etc, too.
It has my vote!!!
And talking of the 2009 DWP (was it that long ago??), the original 'version' of SEA 1180 envisaged a fleet of 20 x OPV's of approx. 2000t that would replace 26 ships, 14 x ACPB's, 6 x Huon class mine hunters and the two different classes of hydrographic ships too (six in total)
We at least have a firm commitment on 12 OPV's for the ACPB's, the logical extension moving forward (and maybe we won't get to see the full original plan for 20 x OPV), is to see a follow order in the mid to latter 2020's for additional ships to replace those other ships.
Maybe somewhere down the track we could see 4-6 (probably 4) more OPV80's to replace the Huon class.
And going out on a limb, I also like the look of the slightly larger Fassmer OPV90, that might be a good replacement for the two Leeuwin class Hydrographic ships.
https://www.fassmer.de/en/shipbuilding/products/navy-vessels/90m-opv/
Anyway, not going to hold my breath (no doubt there are greater minds at work on this than mine!!).
Cheers,
Another vote here for the Fassmer.
I think that the hanger is a tipping point - all other things being equal
MB
Dunno what’s up with the odd 40mm gun they appear to be pitching. Perhaps they just left it on there as it is already integrated and ADF can tell them what they want?
Why?
The Norwegian frigates have AEGIS & no strike length cells: ESSM only in the VLS. I'm no expert, but I thought there was more than one flavour of AEGIS.
The link provides ASPIs full article advocating a further three unmodified Hobarts, possibly upgraded to BMD.
Production could start in 2019, the other three contenders for SEA 5000 would have more time to complete their design and there may be international opportunities for the last 6 ships.
This is a solution which I and others here have championed for a while although we haven't spoken about continuing production of the Hobarts but instead using the base design.
For all the reasons mentioned it makes sense IMHO
https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/sea-5000-less-risk-capability/
Muar River
Member
Our Govt recently announced a slight rebalancing of the role of the new frigates with the purchase of AEGIS (from ASW to AAW). The Govt announced the ships would be used to counter the threat of missiles from rogue nations in our region .
Obviously for the ships to undertake their role and for the not inconsiderable (but worthwhile outlay), they need to be equipped with the maximum no of VLS. 48VLS over 32 VLS is a significant difference.
Also, 12 destroyer like vessels for example with 48 VLS equipped with AEGIS and CEC makes a commendable contribution to the security of our region and allows interoperability with the US Navy, Japan and South Korea.
I have attached a link to the SMH article on AEGIS.
New fleet of Australian frigates to be built for missile defence in face of rogue threat
I previously was a big advocate of a 4th AWD. That bus really has left, the problem with more awd from what I can see:
* Single hangar. While bearable for the 3 AWD, building another 3 with single hangars really limits the organic helicopter capability.
* Dated propulsion and other systems, it was tight to acquire three for the AWD we did build, a lot of these are going to be less compliant and require updating. Effectively what is being done with the f-5000
* Ordering Spy radar sets and full suite of aegis consoles and systems.Given the US is now focused on flight III, a lot of this stuff is being phased out of mass production.
The F-5000 gives you two helicopter hangar, the CEAFAR2 radar, all the other system improvements (services, electrical generation, powertrain, etc) we would want to have and will most likely refit into the existing AWD. You might take the opportunity in incorperate some other improvements (12 NSM, 30mm, maybe 35mm replacing phalanx).
If you really wanted to get moving, I would be building F-5000's.
If all we wanted is ESSM self defence and fire off a couple of SM-2's then the 9lv would be fine. Its the more advanced Aegis capabilities we are after and to effectively deploy that additional capability you need more cells.
Given Australia's views and the regional situation, Australia isn't looking for a light weight frigate.
I would imagine given the recent situation, people are planning how to squeeze any additional capability out of absolutely anything.
Last edited:
Gidday. You are a newbie here and are not allowed to make one line posts. I suggest that you read the rules.
My reading of the article is the next three would be 'based' on the Hobart, basically the F-5000. I quite like this option as it derisks the T26 if we go down that path and provides a modern platform for the next AWD (again if we go down that path).
I have a feeling that regardless of whether the f-5000 design wins the Hobart class will probably be upgraded to near F-5000 standard anyway. A small batch of additional Hobart/F5000 now and perhaps even jumping onboard the US FFG(X) program later on could be the least risky option.
Something that was alluded to was using OPVs or corvettes to supplement the navy's anti-submarine capability. That with addition ASW aircraft and unmanned systems could be a big force multiplier with a comparably small outlay.
Certainly, I think the additional ASW helicopters should be considered at some point.
The future fleet will have 12 destroyer/frigates at least 12 OPVs and 2 large LHDs so they could have the potential of operating 40 or more helicopters if they wished.
Meanwhile, back in the real world, the actual RAN is doing some interesting work.
Excerpts here from an article in The Diplomat.
US-Japan-Australia Trilateral Gets Boost with First Submarine Drills
Development is significant not only in and of itself, but within the context of wider trilateral cooperation.
Prashanth Parameswaran
October 2, 2017
Last month, Australia participated in submarine drills with the United States and Japan for the first time. The move was significant not only as a development in and of itself, but within the context of U.S.-Japan-Australia trilateral cooperation.
From 12 to 19 September, in yet another step in U.S.-Japan-Australia trilateral cooperation, the Royal Australian Navy (RAN) for the first time joined a trilateral submarine exercise with the US Navy (USN), and the Japan Maritime Self Defense Force (JMSDF).
The exercise, called Submarine Competition (SUBCOMP), was held in waters south of Japan, with the competition stressing each country’s ability to conduct various aspect of anti-submarine warfare (ASW). This year’s SUBCOMP featured four JMSDF submarines, the Los Angeles-class attack submarine USS Key West, and, for the first time, a RAN Collins-class submarine HMAS Dechaineux.
Read the entire article here https://thediplomat.com/2017/10/us-...teral-gets-boost-with-first-submarine-drills/
Excerpts here from an article in The Diplomat.
US-Japan-Australia Trilateral Gets Boost with First Submarine Drills
Development is significant not only in and of itself, but within the context of wider trilateral cooperation.
Prashanth Parameswaran
October 2, 2017
Last month, Australia participated in submarine drills with the United States and Japan for the first time. The move was significant not only as a development in and of itself, but within the context of U.S.-Japan-Australia trilateral cooperation.
From 12 to 19 September, in yet another step in U.S.-Japan-Australia trilateral cooperation, the Royal Australian Navy (RAN) for the first time joined a trilateral submarine exercise with the US Navy (USN), and the Japan Maritime Self Defense Force (JMSDF).
The exercise, called Submarine Competition (SUBCOMP), was held in waters south of Japan, with the competition stressing each country’s ability to conduct various aspect of anti-submarine warfare (ASW). This year’s SUBCOMP featured four JMSDF submarines, the Los Angeles-class attack submarine USS Key West, and, for the first time, a RAN Collins-class submarine HMAS Dechaineux.
Read the entire article here https://thediplomat.com/2017/10/us-...teral-gets-boost-with-first-submarine-drills/
From what I read the latest Rheinmetall Millennium 35mm has an effective range of about 5Km, whereas according to Bofors 40 Mk4 has a maximum range of 12Km:
Navy Recognition
If your OPV is chasing a fleeing illegal spotted on the horizon the Millennium won't reach whereas the Bofors 40 Mk4 will provide the necessary shot across the bow. The 40 Mk4 also provides more than adequate 3P fuzed ammunition for protection against air threats.
John Newman
The Bunker Group
Whilst 'more' ASW helicopters always sounds good, I still struggle a bit to see it actually happening, and if it does happen, probably not for quiet a while yet.
By 2020 the three remaining FFG's will be gone, yes they all had a double hangar, but they were rarely operated with two airframes.
That will leave the fleet, for most of the 2020's, with 3 x AWD and 8 x Anzac all with single hangar arrangements.
Assuming all goes to plan with the Future Frigates, start cutting steel in 2020, you might just see two (or three?) of the ships in commission by around 2030ish, the 9th is planned for deliver in 2038.
That is when there will be 3 x AWD (single hangar) and 9 x Future Frigates (double hangar) in service.
Even when the double hangar ships are in service, I would imagine that for the vast majority of the time they will operate with a single MH-60R and most likely a UAV of some sorts, maybe up to MQ-8C size.
With the 24 MH-60R's, the plan is that eight are always available for deployment and the remaining for training and maintenance, and has been stated, to provide a 'surge' capability when required too.
And of course how many of the 11 (eventually 12) Destroyer/Frigates will be on operational deployment at any one time? Half? Two thirds max?
Unless the Government, or some future Government, actually states that the Future Frigates will operate with two MH-60R's, then the current number of airframes appears just about sufficient for the job.
As for the OPV's and the LHD's, not holding my breath there, especially for the OPV's, maybe you might see one or two assigned to an LHD, in a major operation, but then again maybe not.
Just because we will have all these hulls that are capable of taking an MH-60R sized helicopter, doesn't actually mean that will ever happen.
On the other side of the coin, I certainly see the need for a greater number of utility airframes for the use amongst the LHD's, new AOR's, Choules (and eventually either the additional AOR or Choules type ship).
And maybe a larger pool of LUH (more of the HATS type EC135 airframes) for occasional use on the OPV's and Hydrographic fleets. The OPV's are far more likely to have a UAV regularly deployed.
Anyway, just my opinion!!
- Status