Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

Status
Not open for further replies.

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
Didn't the Hunter models have two Phalanx fitted? Plus two 30mm guns?
I think that is appropriate, if you want more then fit CAMM or seaRAM in a launcher elsewhere.

Laser is great for some threats, like small drones. Where something missile or gun based is not appropriate. However, it won't be taking out supersonic antiship missiles anytime soon (other than blinding IR sensors). Laser could also be useful as a communication device.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Given the progress of missile development and the economics and magazine capacity of AA defence, lasers have to be a partial solution. If they can't be made workable then highend expensive surface ships are fodder for relatively inexpensive swarming missile attacks. The USN knows this and it is no doubt a concern to the RAN, RN, and RCN as they start their T-26 builds. Too bad IEP wasn't an option for the T-26, would have made laser (and EMRG) integration easier.
 

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
The current Laser CIWS are estimated to be about <50kw.. So significant, but not crazy amounts of power. There are ~300kw lasers in development for this type.

IEP could be adapted to the Type 26 hull in upgrades or later builds. I wouldn't rule it out yet. But people clearly wanted to avoid Type 45 problems.
 

oldsig127

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Is the power consumption of a possible future laser weapon being taken into account with the new designs
This is a perfectly sensible question.

Look at the size of the Zumwalts, which were built to support a directed energy weapon. The only other USN ships I can recall being promoted as carrying powerful lasers are the new carriers. It's one thing powering a laser able to burn out an optical seeker, another entirely to burn a hole in a moving body and the difference is the power required. Lots of it if the articles online are any guide. And I doubt we have a ship capable, or planned.


oldsig
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
The current Laser CIWS are estimated to be about <50kw.. So significant, but not crazy amounts of power. There are ~300kw lasers in development for this type.

IEP could be adapted to the Type 26 hull in upgrades or later builds. I wouldn't rule it out yet. But people clearly wanted to avoid Type 45 problems.
That is true but the T45 IEP problem wasn't a concept problem but rather a WR21 turbine problem. Had the package worked as promised it very well could have been specified for the T26. IEP seems to be performing well on the Zumwalt and QE classes. Both classes use dual RR MT30 turbines and MTU diesels. If lasers become useful AA weapons, using the T26's single MT30 for electricity production to feed electric motors and energy weapons makes sense as a future upgrade or new block build.
 

vonnoobie

Well-Known Member
In regards to the former discussion to the build rate of the Hunters according to BAE the initial ships will be 24 months while a possibility of 18 months between the later ships will be there. Also states that the future Hobart replacements will have ship 1 and 2 under construction by the time the last Hunter is delivered though like many others I imagine the future DDG will be an evolution or variant of the Hunter's.

NoCookies | The Australian

For those that cant get past the pay wall (Im surprised I managed, Luck of the draw)

The first of the Royal Australian Navy’s nine Hunter-class future frigates will enter service about 2029-31, and the $35 billion program has had an encouraging start.

Notably, a head contract was signed by the government with ASC Shipbuilding (ASCS) just six months after the selection in June 2018 for an 8800-tonne-full-displacement, Australianised version of the BAE Systems (BAES) Type 26 Global Combat ship to replace the RAN’s eight Anzac-class frigates.

This incorporates allowable profit margins, other terms and conditions, the acquisition of long lead material and detailed scope for design and engineering work necessary to allow prototyping to commence in 2020 and to ensure steel is cut on the first ship in 2022.

Separately, the peppercorn sale by the federal government of its ASCS to BAES Australia through a sovereign capability offer deed was also signed. The Defence Department retains one golden share, enabling it to ensure the company acts in the national-security interests of Australia.

ASCS will remain a subsidiary of BAES Australia throughout the build process, during which the company is fully accountable for the ships’ delivery from the $530 million digital shipyard now being built by the federal government at Osborne South on the outskirts of Adelaide.

BAES is focusing on design changes necessary for the Hunter class to accommodate Australian-specific systems. These include the Aegis combat system, Standard SM-2 Block IIIA/B and Evolved Seasparrow (ESSM) anti-air missiles, the Australian-developed CEAFAR2 active phased array radar, a new tactical interface, and the MH-60R naval combat helicopter.

“BAES’s job is to supply the entire ship and they have Lockheed Martin Australia and Saab as combat system integration partners to help them with that task,” says Paddy Fitzpatrick, assistant secretary ship acquisition — surface combatants in Defence’s Capability and Sustainment Group.

“Sea 5000 is running about five years behind the UK’s Type 26 program — enough time to allow us to learn from their process, and apply lessons learned to our own,” Fitzpatrick says.

Nigel Stewart, ASCS managing director for BAES, says the whole ship design changes will continue to be progressed in the UK for 18 months to two years “because that’s where we currently have the engineering horsepower’’.

“The combat system design work is being led by our Adelaide-based team. The whole ship design will then be transferred to Australia in gradual stages as we start to build the ship, and in parallel we transfer the design authority into Australia as well,” Stewart says.

“Australia doesn’t want the first Hunter to be a first-of-class ship. By the time the first Hunter enters service, there will be at least three de-risked [experience-tested] Type 26s in service with the Royal Navy.”

The new shipyard, being built adjacent to the existing Air Warfare Destroyer construction yard and leased to ASCS, will be completed by March 2020.

BAES Australia will move into the new facility in July 2020 and start prototyping activity in December of that year. Five prototype blocks (sections) will be built in total.

“Initially we’d like them to build the same block that they’ve built before for the UK Type 26. They know all the problems with it, they know exact widths, they know how to train the relevant people, they know the hours it takes to build, and the costs,” CASG’s Fitzpatrick says.

“I think it’ll take somewhere between 22 and 24 months to train the workforce, build the practice blocks, qualify the yard, and ensure all the systems are operational and fully reliable before we actually construct the initial block for the first-of-type. That would commence in December 2022.”

The first of the Hunter class should be launched between 2027-28 and enter service between 2029-31.

The ships are initially planned to be built on a two-year interval, culminating with the possibility of 18 months between later ships. The last ship is expected to enter service in 2044-46.

Looking ahead, fulfilling the government’s objective of continuous build would require work to start on the ensuing program after the completion of Ship Seven given that the yard will accommodate three ships in production at the same time.

“By the time we’ve delivered the last of the Hunter class we’ll already be in build of ships one and two of whatever will replace the air warfare destroyers,” Stewart says.
At least that clears up any debate in regards to time frames and that they are thinking ahead in regards to the DDG's to ensure the yard keeps running smoothly.
 

spoz

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
BAES doesn’t determine either the design or the timescale for the DDG replacement; that’s the Government’s prerogative. Their contract, and “ownership” of ASC, ends with the ninth FFG. What Stewart expresses may be their aspiration, it is no more.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
This is a perfectly sensible question.

Look at the size of the Zumwalts, which were built to support a directed energy weapon. The only other USN ships I can recall being promoted as carrying powerful lasers are the new carriers. It's one thing powering a laser able to burn out an optical seeker, another entirely to burn a hole in a moving body and the difference is the power required. Lots of it if the articles online are any guide. And I doubt we have a ship capable, or planned.


oldsig
It seems strange that the latest block of AB destroyers weren't adapted to IEP thus allowing ample electrical power for lasers by using their GTs since the USN is aware of the limitations on conventional AA defence against a swarming missile attack. The cost constraints placed on the new frigate build probably eliminate any chance of IEP but adding twenty ships to the fleet capable of utilizing lasers would make sense.
 

swerve

Super Moderator
That is true but the T45 IEP problem wasn't a concept problem but rather a WR21 turbine problem. Had the package worked as promised it very well could have been specified for the T26. IEP seems to be performing well on the Zumwalt and QE classes. Both classes use dual RR MT30 turbines and MTU diesels. If lasers become useful AA weapons, using the T26's single MT30 for electricity production to feed electric motors and energy weapons makes sense as a future upgrade or new block build.
Strictly speaking, not a problem with the turbine itself, but the stuff around it. The package includes an intercooler & a recuperator (US-designed: it was originally a joint project, meant to be used by both the RN & USN), to boost efficiency, & they have a problem.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Yes, correct and this was well discussed on the RN thread a couple of years ago now. Should have been more precise, my bad.:( I vaguely recall a design change on these components during the test period and instead of resetting the test duration, data from the original design was combined with data from the redesigned unit and the system passed. Had the redesigned package been tested properly, the problem would have been discovered saving a lot of grief. IEP is a success on the QE class. Haven't heard much lately about the T45 fix but I believe there is a plan underway.
 

vonnoobie

Well-Known Member
This article states the first Hunter to be "in the water in 2023" doesnt say complete of course ,
ANZAC Midlife Capability Assurance Program | APDR
Is there information on what the stage of construction will really/expected to be in 2023 ?
Yeah I'm sorry but that article is massively wrong regarding the Hunters. We wont start building the first one until late 2022 at he earliest and when you consider it is at least 5 years from start to commission for a new class of ship that gives us a 2027 time frame at the earliest though navy and industry are them selves also coming out with figures ranging into late 2020's to early 2030's. What the article stuffed up is that the first Type 26 from he UK should be in the water by 2023.
 

hauritz

Well-Known Member
The Anzacs might start retiring from 2032 but the class itself will have to remain operational a lot longer than that. I would say they would have probably need to keep at least a couple of them around until the 2040s.
 

vonnoobie

Well-Known Member
The Anzacs might start retiring from 2032 but the class itself will have to remain operational a lot longer than that. I would say they would have probably need to keep at least a couple of them around until the 2040s.
If memory serves they will be replaced on a one for one basis so the last Anzac should be replaced by the 8th Hunter.
 

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
That is true but the T45 IEP problem wasn't a concept problem but rather a WR21 turbine problem. Had the package worked as promised it very well could have been specified for the T26. IEP seems to be performing well on the Zumwalt and QE classes. Both classes use dual RR MT30 turbines and MTU diesels. If lasers become useful AA weapons, using the T26's single MT30 for electricity production to feed electric motors and energy weapons makes sense as a future upgrade or new block build.
I am very confident we will see IEP on the type 26's during their build life. There is no problem with the concept of IEP, just how it was implemented on the Type 45. But putting IEP on the 26 from the get go would have been excessively risky.

I don't think direct energy weapons are really ideally suited for middle power navies right now. Could easily see a 300kw laser being fitted in the mid 2030's. That would be a useful addition, for blinding sensors at a distance, for targeting, for small drones, etc. Guns and missiles will be with us for a while yet.

The Type 45 issues have significantly impact on its operation. Australia doesn't want that kind of headache, someone else can be first customer, we will buy in when its lower risk.

Australia is very hard on propulsion. The RAN does huge transits continuously. So there are issues even with proven designs. Pretty much every ship and boat in Australian service has propulsion issues at some stage. Because eventually we rack up so much at sea time we become leading customers. Like with the LHD, it took the RAN what? A year to overtake Spains entire pod experience?. We also operate in very hot conditions most of the time.

The type 45 issues would not have been as significant or perhaps even noticed if they had only operated in European waters. It was the arabian deployments that really highlighted the issue.
 

Stampede

Well-Known Member
Yeah I'm sorry but that article is massively wrong regarding the Hunters. We wont start building the first one until late 2022 at he earliest and when you consider it is at least 5 years from start to commission for a new class of ship that gives us a 2027 time frame at the earliest though navy and industry are them selves also coming out with figures ranging into late 2020's to early 2030's. What the article stuffed up is that the first Type 26 from he UK should be in the water by 2023.
Apologies for stating the obvious.
But the only date for the Hunters that truly matters is when the first of the class can sail into harms way.
This is only when they earn their keep and truly provide an option for the Commonwealth.
Ship in the water , all systems go , crew up to speed with all systems , Crawl ,walk , run , Sail.
Then and only then can we hand the baton from the ANZACs to the Hunters and even then I'd prefer that was done when the second Hunter is up to speed.
A dozen major fleet units achieved at the start of the transition and not at the end.

This all looks a long way off in 2019 even with a seamless build.

Regards S
 

hauritz

Well-Known Member
It appears that the RAN had some visitors arrive yesterday with little fanfare. Gave some of the locals a bit of a fright.

Chinese warships cause surprise in Sydney Harbour
Apparently a surprise for the NSW government. The NSW Premier was not informed of the arrival of three Chinese warships until the vessels steamed into Sydney Harbour yesterday morning.

It makes me wonder exactly what sort of jurisdiction the state actually has in regards to who enters its territorial waters.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top