Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[ASSAIL]

I had the same impression, just can't see why we would introduce a new GT, does not make sense.

Interesting read for those interested, going slightly off tangent

Special Report: Sea 5000 and ASW capability – making sense of a complex picture - Australian Defence Magazine

Was not aware of this though, interesting

"Bi-static: This is where a ship’s sonar sensors can operate together, as well as independently (mon-statically), so that the HMS transmits and the VDS receives. This increases the possible sonar paths available to the ship and therefore increases the likelihood and accuracy of detections. Bi-static operations require an integrated ASW processing architecture. The Hobart-Class DDG is one of the only ships in the world to have this capability."

Cheers

It's widely fitted in submarines and while I'm not certain I thought it was fitted in the ASW T23s and the RCN Halifax Class.
Don't know about the USN

 

[koala]

You've been making a lot of claims on here without supporting any such claims. We do have a requirement that reputable verifiable sources be posted when such claims are made. Also what is your experience in defence?

Hi Team,

A novice like me only took 30 seconds to find some answers, although maybe not from reputable sources it gives a better idea from the previous poster

 

[koala]

Hi Team,
An overview of the multistatic sonar program in Australia - IEEE Conference Publication
A novice like me only took 30 seconds to find some answers, although maybe not from reputable sources it gives a better idea from the previous poster

Woops post the link will I

 

[koala]

An overview of the multistatic sonar program in Australia - IEEE Conference Publication

sorry fellas finally, sorry for my bad

 

[Volkodav]

Which is maybe one of the disadvantages for the T26 derivative.
We have a navy universally fitted with LM 2500, I can think of no sane reason to add sustainment complexity.
However, I thought we had mandated LM?

Playing devils advocate here but the USN is also a user of the MT30 so it would be a perfectly sensible addition to the RAN. Besides the LM2500 versions used on the Hobarts are quite literally the last of the old generation of that type and are no longer available, if the selected SEA5000 design uses LM2500 it will be a quite different model to those already in service.

 

[Volkodav]

In what ship? The answer for the DDG is going to be "no". For the Sea 5K the layout of the VLS system will be determined in the final design. We don't even know what the preferred design looks like yet, so it's a question which can't be answered - and the question anyway is why?

I suppose he is thinking along the lines of some Japanese and Danish designs with Mk56 VLS exclusively for ESSM supplementing the Mk41 and its greater variety of ordinance options. If I recall correctly, before the AF-100 was announced the winner of the AWD comp Navantia were offering to increase the number of VLS cells to match the G&C evolved concepts 64. What wasn't clear was if this was to be an extra two strike length modules, or whether they were looking to shoe horn a couple of PD length Mk41s or even Mk56s somewhere in the superstructure for ESSM alone.

 

[Volkodav]

Actually there is the Extensible Launching System (ExLS) by LockMart that would fit the bill because this is something that it is designed for. So no probs with that and could be an easy way of increasing ESSM load-out without impinging on other load-outs.

I believe the ExLS is soft launch only though I could be wrong. If it is that would rule out ESSM but permit Seaceptor, RAM Block II (VLS) etc.

 

[Volkodav]

Need to be careful not to talk out of school but ASW is not the Hobarts, or any of the F-100 derived designs, strong point, hence the requirement for the SEA 5000 ships the excel at ASW. The Ultra set up apparently give the Hobarts the edge over the F-100s but they are still not as good as a number of legacy designs more attuned to ASW, let alone being world leaders. I like the Hobarts and was proud to be part of the project but have serious doubts about continuing with the design as it was not what the RAN actually wanted in the first place when the decision was made back in 2007, let alone what could be had now, more than a decade later. Imagine trying to get the RAAF to acquire new build F-4 Phantoms instead of F-35s, or trying to convince the Army they need AML90s instead of Boxers, or M-60s instead of Abrams.

 

[StingrayOZ]

I suppose he is thinking along the lines of some Japanese and Danish designs with Mk56 VLS exclusively for ESSM supplementing the Mk41 and its greater variety of ordinance options. If I recall correctly, before the AF-100 was announced the winner of the AWD comp Navantia were offering to increase the number of VLS cells to match the G&C evolved concepts 64. What wasn't clear was if this was to be an extra two strike length modules, or whether they were looking to shoe horn a couple of PD length Mk41s or even Mk56s somewhere in the superstructure for ESSM alone.

I would guess mk56 would be easier and have less dramatic impact on volume than more strike at the front. I think it was aired as a possibility rather than a fully engineered option.

But out of all the proposals, it is likely the F-5000 already has the largest strike VLS load out. But by the time we are looking at that the question is what are we using for CIWS. Still a 20mm gun into the 2040's? What are we trying to achieve? Just because it was maybe suggested for the AWD doesn't mean it is still possible for the F-5000 or that its relevant. SM-2 IV and Sm-6 have pretty long engagement envelopes, combined with NSM and LRASM, are we still expecting a lot getting through to the inner bubble?

Certainly in terms of defence money, filling 48 vls x 12 ships would be a big ask in time and money. I don't even think Navy surface guys would see it as even a medium term priority.

 

[matt00773]

This is a professional defence forum with many on here who are defence professionals. We deal in facts and we have a similar citing regime to that of universities. Hence if it is claimed that x does y we require that such a statement be supported by citing the source. A posters defence experience or lack of it, determines their level of familiarity with the topic.

Finally there is no need to be snarky with other posters on this forum. We encourage vigorous and rigorous debate BUT we have an expectation of civility and good manners.

This is a very disappointing response. If you think that a particular statement I've made requires support from a source, please do let me know - I have no idea what you're actually referring to. Otherwise I'll assume statements are easily verified through a basic internet search as is the case with most discussion on this forum. Let's not bring "university citing regime" into this - let's just not go there...

 

[Preceptor]

This is a very disappointing response. If you think that a particular statement I've made requires support from a source, please do let me know - I have no idea what you're actually referring to. Otherwise I'll assume statements are easily verified through a basic internet search as is the case with most discussion on this forum. Let's not bring "university citing regime" into this - let's just not go there...

Statements which involve 'common knowledge' which might be something like an M4/M16 is chambered in 5.56 x 45 mm NATO ammunition is one thing. However, when commenting on problems, successes or solutions to specific defense programs or equipment then providing links to the source material is good. Some of this material may be in the public domain, but not appear anywhere that most people, even those that visit defense forums like DefenceTalk, will encounter.

This is why a number of posters, when raising specific issues or equipment to discuss, will provide a link or links for others to read.
-Preceptor

 

[matt00773]

Statements which involve 'common knowledge' which might be something like an M4/M16 is chambered in 5.56 x 45 mm NATO ammunition is one thing. However, when commenting on problems, successes or solutions to specific defense programs or equipment then providing links to the source material is good. Some of this material may be in the public domain, but not appear anywhere that most people, even those that visit defense forums like DefenceTalk, will encounter.

This is why a number of posters, when raising specific issues or equipment to discuss, will provide a link or links for others to read.
-Preceptor

Thanks for this information. That pretty much clears it up and validates my previous response.

 

[Todjaeger]

I would guess mk56 would be easier and have less dramatic impact on volume than more strike at the front. I think it was aired as a possibility rather than a fully engineered option.

But out of all the proposals, it is likely the F-5000 already has the largest strike VLS load out. But by the time we are looking at that the question is what are we using for CIWS. Still a 20mm gun into the 2040's? What are we trying to achieve? Just because it was maybe suggested for the AWD doesn't mean it is still possible for the F-5000 or that its relevant. SM-2 IV and Sm-6 have pretty long engagement envelopes, combined with NSM and LRASM, are we still expecting a lot getting through to the inner bubble?

Certainly in terms of defence money, filling 48 vls x 12 ships would be a big ask in time and money. I don't even think Navy surface guys would see it as even a medium term priority.

I would disagree about the medium term priority. Firstly, medium term to me would involve things which occur over the next 10 - 20 years. Now if one looks at just the next 10 years, then the first of the ANZAC-class frigates should be getting decommissioned around that time and their replacements from SEA 5000 should be entering service. However, by the mid-2030's I would expect all the SEA 5000 ships to either be in service, or undergoing acceptance trials. In which case, the total number of VLS cells in RAN service might be 48 cells x 12 ships, or possibly even more depending on what the predicted service needs at the time are.

As it is, the min/max VLS cell requirements for the SEA 5000 offerings have not been made public, however I would be shocked if the RAN retained the max missile loadout it currently has with the Adelaide-class FFG and the ANZAC-class FFH. Which means there should be some sort of plan to manage at least a fleetwide VLS loadout for a surge deployment.

 

[spoz]

Thanks for the link and the important informative quote from the article.

Does anyone know how much quieter a ship running on electric engines are, vs gas or diesel?

It’s not actually the engines that are inherently quieter, you still need prime movers, GT or diesel, so you have to arrange to silence them as best you can. The electric motors remove the need for gearboxes which are inherently noisy, and allow the shaft line which is also noisy to be shorter.

 

[weegee]

I see on the Navantia twitter feed that Nuship Brisbane has gone to see again on her second set of trials? Sorry cant seem to post the link but she has been accompanied by her big sister to obviously show her the way.
There's a nice shot of both ships travelling through the channel from ASC, I must say I do like the look of the ships

 

[oldsig127]

I see on the Navantia twitter feed that Nuship Brisbane has gone to see (sic)again on her second set of trials?

Marinetraffic shows her steering NE at about 18kts in the middle of St Vincents Gulf. Past track shows a series of laps and turns at varying speeds further out to sea which suggest that she's been doing just that and is heading back to port.

oldsig

(Edit: typo)

 

[spoz]

Second week of acceptance trials. Hobart was consort for the first three days, she was back alongside on Thursday.

 

[aussienscale]

three proposals will offer the latest ASW technology - multi-static.

I would not be so sure about that, but what the article did suggest as I read it is the future upgrade path, and the apparent integration issues. But once again what is best, or perceived as best, what has been asked for, what is wanted and the final decision are very different.

Just to point out as a reminder to all, so not directed specifically at you, members on this forum with blue name tags are vetted Defence Professionals, this means we have been verified by the Webmaster and Mod team by providing records of service, qualifications or other relevant experience in related industries. This is what is meant to set this forum apart, but standards of reference have slipped of late.

Cheers

 

[40 deg south]

Navantia cuts steels on second AOR ship for RAN | Jane's 360

As per the article, construction on the second AOR has commenced, with a 2020 delivery planned.

http://navy.mil.nz/downloads/pdf/navy-today/nt219.pdf

Meanwhile, NZ's tanker is also due from Hyundai in 2020, so it will be interesting to see which one arrives first. The linked article is more about the standard of accommodation on board than any other vessel characteristics. It is good to learn that NZ has embarked observers on the USCG icebreaker to study the art of sailing in ice.

 

[hauritz]

Need to be careful not to talk out of school but ASW is not the Hobarts, or any of the F-100 derived designs, strong point, hence the requirement for the SEA 5000 ships the excel at ASW. The Ultra set up apparently give the Hobarts the edge over the F-100s but they are still not as good as a number of legacy designs more attuned to ASW, let alone being world leaders. I like the Hobarts and was proud to be part of the project but have serious doubts about continuing with the design as it was not what the RAN actually wanted in the first place when the decision was made back in 2007, let alone what could be had now, more than a decade later. Imagine trying to get the RAAF to acquire new build F-4 Phantoms instead of F-35s, or trying to convince the Army they need AML90s instead of Boxers, or M-60s instead of Abrams.

Will the RAN make its recommendations to the government purely based on what they perceive to be the best ASW vessel?

That there is even a competition to select a new frigate is not a strong vote of confidence in the Hobart design. Both the type26 and FREMM have stronger claims as ASW platforms then the Hobart class. Navantia may have a lot of convincing to do that they have been able to improve the ASW capability of the F-5000 over what the RAN already knows of the Hobart class.