Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
That's an arguememt that's been tossed around on here ad nauseum. The Arleigh Burkes have been in continuous, almost, construction for nearly 30 years, are still being built, have close copies being built in Japan and SOK and to my knowledge there are few complaints about its modernity.
We could go revolutionary and follow the T45 route but look how well that turned out for the RN or we could continue the evolutionary path and Batch Navantia's F100 basic design on a step improvement/upgrade path with little risk for both cost and function.
I know which path I would choose as we only have one shot at getting this right, if it fails a gunshy government will be tempted to pull the plug, then what? Zilch!
Do they? The Germans won the last big naval contract for RAN, French won the previous one before that and then Spaniards won multiple previous large contract awards for RAN (AWD’s, LHD’s, LLC’s, Supply ships etc...)
Where were the British in all this? We don’t use their hulls, systems, sensors, weapons or aircraft, yet they have all this clout to influence our overall acquisitions?
As for the reputed capability if T26, well it might be great. But then a few years down the track we might see the UK (and us) spending 160m pounds on fixing it’s propulsion system too...
Thanks, saved me saying that. It is over 30 years as the actual design was started before the Falklands war but I understand it leveraged off the lesions learnt.
Same for the Nimitz Class which are only just being replaced. A base design does no prevent update to systems and arrangements and the AB has been a steady evolution of the design. The same is true of the F100 series. The F100 to F104 were different to the F105 which evolved into the Hobart class. The F-5000 version is a further iteration of this design.
We do not know what the features of the proposed frigates with the response for the RFT .... you never know an electric auxillalry drive my be blended into the F-5000 (this is common in commercial vessel now where an electric motor is geared to the shaft so it can act as an electric drive or shaft alternator). Basically depending how much they are evolving the design it could (potentially) have very similar capability. ..... we are going to have to wait until details of the proposals are published ..... but, if the vessel are built in batches we could see evolution over the 9 vessels (in fact I bloody hope we do).
The concept of the F100 design is based on that of an FFG7 on steroids, as far as hull form and loose arrangement below 1 deck is concerned. However, the detailed design is a product of the 90s and, as has been observed, it has been evolved, first to the F105 and then to Hobart; and it continurs to evolve. It’s the nature of a mature approach to design to take an extant successful design and evolve it to meet new needs. There are examples all over the place - to take one, the T23 is largely an evolution of the Leander, which of course emerged from the type 12s; and the T26 is a further evolution of the same concept. So it’s origins goes back 60 years (at least, I’m not sure where the T12 came from) but does any body care? Does it matter? Of course not, in fact it is a good thing. Another example: the C.F Adams design was the ultimate development of pre war USN destroyer concepts and they were great ships. Similarly with the F100 basic design, or the Burkes; evolution of success is goodness.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Canada and Australia are both considering the Type 26 and F105 but differ with the third contender, Dutch frigate design for Canada and the Italian FREMM for Australia. For Australia, I think the choice probably should be the Spanish design. Minimal risk, will have the desired missile capacity, and a workforce that is already experienced in building a very similar design. As I believe Australia will announce a selection first, if the Spanish design is selected, it will provide our pollies with an easy choice to minimize political heat by duplicating the selection. The same scenario could equally apply to the Type 26. Any commitment to build any design here has to be considered a win! Certainly a dual build for either design will greatly benefit BAE or Navantia.
Not thinking so much of past performances as I am the concerted effort they are making at the moment.
In recent months we have seen regular meetings between Australian and British Defence officials. These meetings have focussed on security and trade issues both of which are extremely important to Australia. While the British operating its warships in this region or purchasing CEAFAR for its new frigates may not be contingent on Australia buying the Type 26 it is certainly a pretty big carrot to wave in front of the Australian government.
I take your point in a lack of British influence but you can rest easy on the propulsion system on Type 26 - that's not remotely revolutionary and has been extensively tested ashore - and I suspect if the RAN wanted LM2500 instead of MT-30 that could be done. I do think Type 26 will be a better candidate for ASW than a warmed over F100, but the lack of one to point at and say "Hey, look, it floats..and *everything*" is hurting export sales. If HMG had lit the fuse on a build four years ago, and one was just working up in trials now, that'd be a powerful sales tool.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Yep, the propulsion system, CODLOG, is a proven system and was selected because of the Type 45 issues with its propulsion, IEP. IEP is ok, it was the redesign of the WR21 turbine jointly developed by RR and NG that wasn't properly retested that is the problem. The MT30 turbine is used on the Freedom class littoral ship. IEP with MT30 turbines are used in the Zumwalt and QE carriers so it will be interesting to see how IEP works out in the latter two ships. The MT30 or LM2500 choice is up to the RAN, either way is good.
Odd, that someone would make a connection between the low-risk combination of MT30 (used in other types, bought by foreign navies, e.g. Italy & the USN) plus four reliable MTU diesels, & the boundary-pushing one-off propulsion of the Type 45, with its complicated combination of US-designed intercooler & recuperator (the area where the failures occur) with a unique British GT, plus two lower-power diesels never intended to drive the ship.
Type 26 doesn't have the systems which fail in Type 45, & even if it did, it has enough backup power to be able to carry on operating.
Type 26 doesn't have the systems which fail in Type 45, & even if it did, it has enough backup power to be able to carry on operating.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Too bad the the MT30 wasn't around for the Type 45 build. A Type 26 with one MT30 and the four proposed MTU diesels in a IEP setup would have been interesting but given the fiscal constraints faced by the U.K. such a setup would likely be unaffordable.
Jack Wyatt
Member
[
Swapping out GTs and making many other significant mods would make the Aust Govt lead agency for a new class of Type 26. All the risks and development costs would be ours.. In my humble opinion as a taxpayer, the Aust Govt doesn't need to expose itself to this when a highly capable and proven design exists which utilises many of the systems already in service and near sister ships have already been constructed in our shipyards.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
The MT30/MTU diesel or LM2500/diesel(?) CODLOG setup should be doable in what ever design Australia decides upon. The high tech weapons and sensor-kit integration with the selected CMS is the tough part.
You make changes to the propulsion system seem simple, that's not the case. Any change involves time and expense including redesigned piping, mounts, access, weight distribution, and so forth. Integration is not just an elecrronic issue.
Type 45 was originally offered with LM2500's by BAE - proven, risk free GT with a massive customer base - it was HMG that wanted a RR/GE design which is now an orphan. But yeah, coming back to my point, the Type 26's fundamentals are either already proven or have been very thoroughly derisked. Given the main mast is entirely modular, integrating CEAFAR etc would be straight forward. I doubt you'll get a better sub hunter platform tbh.
It's just "how much is ASW central to the plot.."
Pardon my ignorance,
But how can anyone be so confident on the claimed ASW performance of this vessel (T26)?
I has not even entered the water yet.
What factors make it 'the best', are they theoretical or actual?
I see a lot of claims being made that the T26 is the best platform for the job, not much to back it up though ? so a lot of personal opinions going around, lets stick to the facts shall we please !
The problem is no one know what was in the RFT, what are the requirements for Sea 5000 ? What are the conops, what are the capability requirements ? That is what will drive what is chosen
The entire focus of the RN over the last fifty years has been ASW. We know that the many of the systems fitted to Type 26 are proven, and that the noise isolation side of Type 26 relies on some basic,and proven concepts with which the designers are familiar. We're already given to understand that the "silent" cruise speed of the Type 26 is about four knots faster than Type 23 for instance. If there's any aspect of the design I'd put money on working, I'd put my chips in the "ASW" slot.
I have made no comment on the CONOPS for Sea 5000 and won't therefore make any defence of Type 26 vs that requirement - simply that if the emphasis is on ASW, I would expect Type 26 to perform better *in that regard* better than the Navantia design at the least.
There will be many factors involved in the final selection process and I'm only stating that the ASW pedigree of an RN design has traditionally been consistently good, given that for thirty years the entire purpose of the larger part of the RN surface fleet was to prosecute Soviet diesel and nuclear subs.
We do know that the sensor suite for ASW ops will have been in active operation in the Type 23 fleet for several years and if you want to see how that works, you can easily arrange access. That leaves the selection of machinery used to drive the ship, and how well the usual range of noise isolation and suppression works. We do know that type 23 has a good reputation as a sub hunter and many of the improvements evident in 26 will have either been driven by practical experience with Type 22 and 23 or from onshore test rigs using Type 26 kit.
I kinda think if the requirements slant towards ASW, then it's reasonable to believe Type 26 will look more attractive. If they're not, I have no idea, and that's what I said in my original comment.
I have been lurking around in the background for a few years now and I have really enjoyed everybody's input on this forum. While we are discussing what type of ship should replace the ANZAC Frigates, it probably is time to have a discussion on what they and the new OPVs should be called. Here is my two bobs worth.
Frigates: Melbourne Class
Melbourne
Darwin
Vampire
Vendetta
Voyager
Stuart
Parramatta
ANZAC
Perth.
OPV: Newcastle Class
Newcastle
Williamstown ( a new name to reflect the long history of Williamstown's shipbuilding and maritime heritage)
Swan
Torrens
Derwent
Yarra
Success
Warramunga
Arunta
Tobruk
Armidale
Nestor.
Frigates: Melbourne Class
Melbourne
Darwin
Vampire
Vendetta
Voyager
Stuart
Parramatta
ANZAC
Perth.
OPV: Newcastle Class
Newcastle
Williamstown ( a new name to reflect the long history of Williamstown's shipbuilding and maritime heritage)
Swan
Torrens
Derwent
Yarra
Success
Warramunga
Arunta
Tobruk
Armidale
Nestor.
I haven't said I believe Type 26 is the best platform for the requirements at all - I've simply stated that for one of the possible requirements, Type 26 is likely to be best in class - one or other of the rest of the field may well be better at other elements but for ASW, it''ll be good. I did very specifically state that I don't know how important that functionality will be in terms of the requirements.
- Status