Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[76mmGuns]

I think in "76mmGuns" case it may be more aptly described as "Xi" or "dictator-phobia"

That said I think it's reasonable to expect that deterring/helping to deter PLAN gunboat diplomacy may appear on the ADF's job description over the next 30 years and beyond. China's rise (not to mention recent behaviour in the SCS) strikes me as unprecedented in many ways and there is a considerable amount of uncertainty in the region as a consequence of it.

As far as I can tell this seems to have been reflected in the recent DWP and in SEA 5000 itself.

Oh for goodness sake.
This is Sinophobia.
Yes, China wants to be the major player in the western Pacific, and from their point of view this is quite understandable.
Australia's position in this will be to recognise that the major player in our own backyard is not the US or Europe but .............. yes, that's right...... China.
The challenge facing the current and future Australian governments will be to develop a foreign policy that is inclusive of China while continuing our traditional alliances.
The problem will be finding the statesmen who are up to the job in leading the country at this time.
It certainly will not be boring, that's for sure
MB

You're both right about my attitudes about the new Emperor.

I recently realised something. This is the first truly major true threat to world peace since WW2. Even the Cold War was only a war by proxy, and people in the know knew that the Soviet Union, and Russia today, never had the economy to take on the US face to face (excluding nukes).
But the CCP, and now Xi, through China, can.

In 2015, China laid down, launched, or commissioned about 60 warships., and has been doing this each year for most of the 2010's.

And there has been no mention of when they expect to stop building. The USN had almost 600 ships in the 1980's. China does not have a manpower issue. It has no monetary issues (no cumbersome social security system for dole bludgers and single parents with 14 kids). When it takes over Australia, it will have no issue with buying iron ore, since it will just take it.

Ever see a 1000+ ship modern navy before? 1500? 2000?

Does China want to be a big influence, or does it want all of AustralAsia to become it's territory?

It's made my imagination run wild with the thought I might have an active war in our region, or at least have enemy carrier groups circumnavigating Australia on a regular basis.

And India, the obvious counterweight, is as corrupt as China, but lacks the forceful single minded focus of direction and leadership that the CCP has provided for the last 30 years.

Ok, I'll stop now- promise.

I want to see which frigate gets chosen!

 

[weaponwh]

Well Australia is far and logistics nightmare for china to invade . Right now they only want influence. China is very materialistic war is bad for business . Especially they can buy stuff . why goto war when they have $$$ to buy . art of war remember .

 

[hauritz]

That China should want to build up its military should come as no surprise to anyone. That does not mean that they have any plans to conquer the region. Like all nations it wants to extend its influence, protect its trade routes and protect its borders.

War would be an incredibly poor option for China given its dependence on trade. The Chinese economy would collapse overnight if they became embroiled in a major war.

 

[ASSAIL]

This is thread about the RAN.
It's degenerated into endless prattling about anything but.
There are suitable threads for strategic matters.

 

[Boagrius]

^ Fair enough. Back on topic, it appears Navantia are in fact offering F5000 with a second hangar (0:55):

Look forward to finding out which offering gets up in the end

 

[ngatimozart]

It is advisable for people to get this thread back on track very quickly or the Mods will get more grumpier than they already are.

 

[alexsa]

^ Fair enough. Back on topic, it appears Navantia are in fact offering F5000 with a second hangar (0:55):

Look forward to finding out which offering gets up in the end

And for those that thing the stern view shown on the front page of the video is the F110.... look at the F-5000 shown most of the video and draw a line from the flag deck by the forward funnel back to the top of the hanger, add a mission deck opening and sculpt the rear corners of the hanger and there you go. Funnels, uptakes and deck houses are all the same they have simply enclosed a greater.

This arrangement is actually much stronger that the cut down deck structure as it provides a continuous longtittudinal girder above the freeboard deck. It would also increase the internal volume of the ship and low the RCS (boats now being housed inside). It would be quite a good modification if they intend to apply it ...... and if the F5000 gets up.

 

[Stampede]

Oh for goodness sake.
This is Sinophobia.
Yes, China wants to be the major player in the western Pacific, and from their point of view this is quite understandable.
Australia's position in this will be to recognise that the major player in our own backyard is not the US or Europe but .............. yes, that's right...... China.
The challenge facing the current and future Australian governments will be to develop a foreign policy that is inclusive of China while continuing our traditional alliances.
The problem will be finding the statesmen who are up to the job in leading the country at this time.
It certainly will not be boring, that's for sure
MB

The subject from my point of view is not so much one of good or bad guys, but rather the rapid change by one very large country and what this represents.
It is not unreasonable China would want a defence force commensurate with it's population size and economy.This translates to its position within its region for much of its history
In the naval context that is this thread, a big part of their build up is a shift from been a coastal Navy to a true blue water force.
This is development is new and what makes planning for defence such a head ache
For the Australian government, and in particular our Navy and Air force the ability to monitor / defend / police / maybe cooperate / challenge / confront / or take on any potential threat to our sovereignty from approaching forces off our coast is not an unrealistic expectation.
The PLAN is a new player to our immediate geography and now part of this expectation. ( We are not talking about the SCS )
How we do that with our current and projected Navy may need some quick revision.

Our future destroyers will very much be apart of this changing geopolitical defence picture.Their capabilities, or lack of may give some indication as to how we seek to navigate the future maritime challenges to our security.

Will the future Destroyer winner be Spain / UK / or Italy.
I can't say. In fact the more I read about the subject the more confused I get!
So I'm going to toss a coin or go with an outside bid from Uzbekistan.

What ever ship is chosen

I trust the new destroyer class selected is future proofed to deal with all expectations.
I trust the new destroyers are built on time and without delays
I trust at least nine are built.
I trust if any of the above are not fulfilled we may need a plan B.


Regards S

 

[Joe Black]

Saab to provide EOS500 for the OPVs.

SAAB Signs OPV Subcontract Creating Dozens of Jobs

I wonder if RAN would also include an air-surface search radar on top of the expected navigation radar like Sharpeye.

 

[t68]

The subject from my point of view is not so much one of good or bad guys, but rather the rapid change by one very large country and what this represents.
It is not unreasonable China would want a defence force commensurate with it's population size and economy.This translates to its position within its region for much of its history
In the naval context that is this thread, a big part of their build up is a shift from been a coastal Navy to a true blue water force.
This is development is new and what makes planning for defence such a head ache
For the Australian government, and in particular our Navy and Air force the ability to monitor / defend / police / maybe cooperate / challenge / confront / or take on any potential threat to our sovereignty from approaching forces off our coast is not an unrealistic expectation.
The PLAN is a new player to our immediate geography and now part of this expectation. ( We are not talking about the SCS )
How we do that with our current and projected Navy may need some quick revision.

Our future destroyers will very much be apart of this changing geopolitical defence picture.Their capabilities, or lack of may give some indication as to how we seek to navigate the future maritime challenges to our security.
Regards S

Agree, there expansion is not inline with protection of home waters and sealanes of SCS. Someone said they have started block work on a 4th carrier, the intent is clear they want challenge the US far from their SCS out erring chain of islands.it not only increasing maritime carrier capabilty they are expanding their strategic/tactical troop lift via air and sea. They will certainty be in a better position than 1941 Japan within the next 10 years.We traded with Japan right up to the fall of bombs on Pearl Harbour

 

[Joe Black]

Agree, there expansion is not inline with protection of home waters and sealanes of SCS. Someone said they have started block work on a 4th carrier, the intent is clear they want challenge the US far from their SCS out erring chain of islands.it not only increasing maritime carrier capabilty they are expanding their strategic/tactical troop lift via air and sea. They will certainty be in a better position than 1941 Japan within the next 10 years.We traded with Japan right up to the fall of bombs on Pearl Harbour

Many mainland and Taiwanese commentators suggest that China's ultimate goal is to be able to reach the 2nd island chain and challenge or even wrestle the control of west pacific from the US. PLAN want to have the capability to directly threaten Guam.

The entire SCS to them belongs to China. Naturally they see any foreign military presence in SCS as an invasion of their sovereignty. I wish many folks here can read snd understand tge chinese language and to see for yourself how the chinese govt worded their statements and response. To the chinese govt, the foreigners are invading their territory and thus any responses from the people's liberation army is justified in keeping the integrity of their country.

 

[Preceptor]

This is a gentle (for now) reminder that this is the RAN discussion thread. Other threads exist to discuss the SCS, the PLAN, and so on. Further discussion about topics other than the RAN within this thread will be culled.
-Preceptor

 

[76mmGuns]

Back onto frigates, I have a question about a ship which was not chosen as a finalist- the Iver Huitfeld class by the Danish. I don't know anything about the more technical parts of it's design, but on paper, at least at it's wiki page, it looks like a winner.- under 140m, 30 knots, 9000+nm range, x2 76mm guns (heh) , 32 VLS. No news of engine or reliablility issues. It sounds like either most other ships have pork, or I am really missing something. Note I'm not talking abut their supposedly cheaper price tag.

What's the problem with this frigate? Why does it never make any country's frigate choice?

Iver Huitfeldt-class frigate - Wikipedia

 

[Todjaeger]

Back onto frigates, I have a question about a ship which was not chosen as a finalist- the Iver Huitfeld class by the Danish. I don't know anything about the more technical parts of it's design, but on paper, at least at it's wiki page, it looks like a winner.- under 140m, 30 knots, 9000+nm range, x2 76mm guns (heh) , 32 VLS. No news of engine or reliablility issues. It sounds like either most other ships have pork, or I am really missing something. Note I'm not talking abut their supposedly cheaper price tag.

What's the problem with this frigate? Why does it never make any country's frigate choice?

Iver Huitfeldt-class frigate - Wikipedia

In a nutshell, without the RAN adopting the Danish StanFlex system of mission modules, the design loses much of it's potential flexibility and therefore potential armament options/configuration.

Also the shipboard electronics and CMS are designed to work with the StanFlex system and are also completely different from anything currently in service with the RAN. All of these issues could potentially be overcome, but there are costs and programme risks involved.

The Iver Huitfeldt-class frigate's hull is also based off the Absalon-class support ship's hull which is a sort of hybrid frigate-sealift ship. So there is some concern about whether the design and construction was to naval warship standards, or if it was built to another standard. Also the whole programme worked for the Danes because of how it was structured and executed, with a pair of Baltic shipyards building blocks which were then shipped to and assembled in a (now closed) Danish shipyard. The ability to have the blocks built overseas in Lithuania and Estonia were costs were lower and using a hull based off a previous design made the programme viable.

If the RAN were to have attempted to bring a vessel based upon the Iver Huitfeldt-class frigate into service, then either the RAN would have to start using the same weapons, electronics, fittings and machinery as the Danes used (a MOTS design) or have the design modified to fit and use RAN-specified systems. By way of example, changing out the engines/machinery for the propulsion system in a design has to be done carefully to ensure that the buoyancy and trim of the modified design is not negatively impacted, while also making sure that the new gen sets provide the range, speed, and power generation required.

Again, all of this could be done, but such redesign work increases the cost of just the design itself, and the programme risk since if a change is not made correctly, it will negatively impact the design's suitability. As an example of this would be the Spanish S-80 submarine which IIRC was based off a modification of the Scorpene-class sub, and there was a weight imbalance due to a design issue which has delayed the project ~two years and required outside assistance to correct the redesign.

 

[76mmGuns]

In a nutshell, without the RAN adopting the Danish StanFlex system of mission modules, the design loses much of it's potential flexibility and therefore potential armament options/configuration.

Also the shipboard electronics and CMS are designed to work with the StanFlex system and are also completely different from anything currently in service with the RAN. All of these issues could potentially be overcome, but there are costs and programme risks involved.

The Iver Huitfeldt-class frigate's hull is also based off the Absalon-class support ship's hull which is a sort of hybrid frigate-sealift ship. So there is some concern about whether the design and construction was to naval warship standards, or if it was built to another standard. Also the whole programme worked for the Danes because of how it was structured and executed, with a pair of Baltic shipyards building blocks which were then shipped to and assembled in a (now closed) Danish shipyard. The ability to have the blocks built overseas in Lithuania and Estonia were costs were lower and using a hull based off a previous design made the programme viable.

If the RAN were to have attempted to bring a vessel based upon the Iver Huitfeldt-class frigate into service, then either the RAN would have to start using the same weapons, electronics, fittings and machinery as the Danes used (a MOTS design) or have the design modified to fit and use RAN-specified systems. By way of example, changing out the engines/machinery for the propulsion system in a design has to be done carefully to ensure that the buoyancy and trip of the modified design is not negatively impacted, while also making sure that the new gen sets provide the range, speed, and power generation required.

Again, all of this could be done, but such redesign work increases the cost of just the design itself, and the programme risk since it a change is not made correctly, it will negatively impact the design's suitability. As an example of this would be the Spanish S-80 submarine which IIRC was based off a modification of the Scorpene-class sub, and there was a weight imbalance due to a design issue which has delayed the project ~two years and required outside assistance to correct the redesign.

Thanks for your reply. Good detail there. I had a look at the Scorpene sub- is the detail correct? it's range submerged at 5 knots is only 550nm? while surfaced at 8 knots is 6500nm? I searched the first few pages of google about this and couldn't find anything to dispute this disparity.

 

[Todjaeger]

I would need to see the source of the information about the Scorpene-class sub, but I suspect the listing is an apples-to-oranges comparison. In other words, the surfaced range is most likely referring to when the sub is running on diesels, while the submerged range is when running on batteries.

Aside from the raw information likely being deliberately inaccurate, is also ignores the fact that the submerged sub can surface or snort while running the diesels to remain underway while recharging the batteries. Another thing which gets ignored is what sort of hotel load and load the sensors/CMS has while submerged and in use.

Just looking at the published range figures for subs leaves so much information out that is important that the numbers themselves mean very little.

 

[StingrayOZ]

I see ASC is laying off 230 workers. Valley of death and all that.

Shame as a 4th AWD probably would have been a nice bridge, allowing a bit more time for the sea5000 and OPV's. I don't think 4 AWD(or DDG are we are now meant to call them) would have been a waste of money.

 

[Stampede]

Back onto frigates, I have a question about a ship which was not chosen as a finalist- the Iver Huitfeld class by the Danish. I don't know anything about the more technical parts of it's design, but on paper, at least at it's wiki page, it looks like a winner.- under 140m, 30 knots, 9000+nm range, x2 76mm guns (heh) , 32 VLS. No news of engine or reliablility issues. It sounds like either most other ships have pork, or I am really missing something. Note I'm not talking abut their supposedly cheaper price tag.

What's the problem with this frigate? Why does it never make any country's frigate choice?

Iver Huitfeldt-class frigate - Wikipedia

I think Todjaeger has covered your question very well.

What I will add is the importance of having a vision and working towards your goal.The Danes have succeeded in building 5 quality ships of two classes that fit within their naval defence structure. Together with their other smaller ships, they have achieved a well balanced force supported with pragmatic manufacturing and within a realistic budget.

The RAN may not sign up for their ships, but may a Navy can learn from their good planing and observe the results.
I hope and trust future Australian governments keep to the goals of the DWP as it is with regards to our ship building program.

An increase in OPV's however would not disappoint
.

Regards S

 

[Stampede]

I see ASC is laying off 230 workers. Valley of death and all that.

Shame as a 4th AWD probably would have been a nice bridge, allowing a bit more time for the sea5000 and OPV's. I don't think 4 AWD(or DDG are we are now meant to call them) would have been a waste of money.

No one wants to lose employment and yes a 4th AWD makes so much sense.
But that window closed years ago and hopefully those now unemployed are back to the yards in the near future.

Regards S

 

[Todjaeger]

No one wants to lose employment and yes a 4th AWD makes so much sense.
But that window closed years ago and hopefully those now unemployed are back to the yards in the near future.

Regards S

At this point what I am hopeful of (though not holding my breath...) is that going forward, Australia can stick to a coherent and consistent naval ship building scheme and get away from this boom/bust cycle which is so inefficient and wasteful.