Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[ddxx]

More likely something to do with the original ship's company complement number was woefully under estimated. Friends of mine who did trips in the early days of FFH service told me stories that a whole ship evolution was literally that, they had to get every warm body out of their racks to help with RAS handling etc. Over the years things have changed as recruitment for under manned categories got better, roles were changed and developed for various departments.

Would the lower crew requirements for recent modern GP frigate designs then come down to a combination of being designed from the ground up with a focus on reducing crew alongside software/automation improvements?

E.g. Mogami and AH140/Type 31 which both quote core crews of less than 100?

-

And on a seperate note to the above reply:

The Anzac’s operational crew size (as per that report) at least seems to be extremely wasteful of personnel given the roles, size and capabilities of the class. And that’s even before we get to the issues highlighted in the report as to budgeting for higher sustainment costs for the fleet as they continue to age.

 

[icelord]

I noticed something curious the other day in regards to the Anzac Class from an ANAO report on their sustainment.

Over the fleet's life there has been a "20 per cent increase in crew size from 157 to 192".

I'd assume that figure includes embarked flight crew of ~16?

The closure of the Quarter deck was part of increase in compartments IIRC. Haven't been onboard Anzacs since i posted off Ballarat in 2011 so unsure what changes were made to create more bunk space if any.

Deployed in 2010 with Flight crew, Enhanced Boarding crew (CDs) and additional members for each dept which was not part of the 157 but made up about 185 crew.

They may have adjusted the term 'crew size' as you always had additionals to core crew. Junior officers under training, Sailors of every rate under training etc.

Upgrading created need for more ET, EW for the equipment also. They allocated bunks for these positions which were housed in Aft (Lima) mess

 

[spoz]

The RN’s concept of ops for the T31s seems to be to use them on foreign stations, so far from. Europe, rather than using high end assets in area such as the Caribbean, NW IO, etc,

 

[76mmGuns]

To be fair though, outside of the 6x Singaporean Formidable Class, one would have to travel to China, South Korea or Japan before you'd find a frigate that would match an Anzac in post-AMCAP upgrade in the region. Cheers.

Which makes it a problem when Chinese frigates and destroyers are sailing around our northern waters, and not staying 8000km away

 

[vonnoobie]

Which makes it a problem when Chinese frigates and destroyers are sailing around our northern waters, and not staying 8000km away

Yes and no, sure them moving out further is an issue but at the same time just like any fleet approaching mainland China would have to contend with not just the navy but aircraft and land based ASM batteries a Chinese ship approaching our mainland would have to contend with the same circumstances. We still retain the home field advantage. When they start sailing a full task force in our EEZ then we should be concerned.

 

[Massive]

The Anzac’s operational crew size (as per that report) at least seems to be extremely wasteful of personnel given the roles, size and capabilities of the class. And that’s even before we get to the issues highlighted in the report as to budgeting for higher sustainment costs for the fleet as they continue to age.

Or could it be that the crew size of a Type 31 Frigate would not ultimately be that much smaller than a Type 26?

My sense is that if more escorts are needed sooner, then increasing the drum beat and the building more (say 4) Hunters would make more sense.

If a second tier light frigate is needed in parallel with the Hunters then a patrol corvette with self-defence capabilities (RAM, Nulka) of around 2000t would make more sense - ie something like a slightly larger K130 to add a sonar capability and better endurance.

Regards,

Massive

 

[Todjaeger]

Or could it be that the crew size of a Type 31 Frigate would not ultimately be that much smaller than a Type 26?

My sense is that if more escorts are needed sooner, then increasing the drum beat and the building more (say 4) Hunters would make more sense.

If a second tier light frigate is needed in parallel with the Hunters then a patrol corvette with self-defence capabilities (RAM, Nulka) of around 2000t would make more sense - ie something like a slightly larger K130 to add a sonar capability and better endurance.

Regards,

Massive

I personally doubt that a patrol corvette would be of significant value, as once a design starts getting armaments, sensors, computer systems and comms appropriate to make use of all that kit, it starts to eat into both the design space and displacement. In order to manage the sorts of endurances and transit ranges that the RAN would likely want/require, that would likely require either a fairly light armament fitout, or a larger vessel with greater displacement.

 

[Massive]

I personally doubt that a patrol corvette would be of significant value, as once a design starts getting armaments, sensors, computer systems and comms appropriate to make use of all that kit, it starts to eat into both the design space and displacement. In order to manage the sorts of endurances and transit ranges that the RAN would likely want/require, that would likely require either a fairly light armament fitout, or a larger vessel with greater displacement.

Then its more Hunters I think.

I was more thinking that the range & endurance of the Arafura class would be the guide.

Regards,

Massive

 

[ngatimozart]

Then its more Hunters I think.

I was more thinking that the range & endurance of the Arafura class would be the guide.

Regards,

Massive

You could have a patrol frigate about the size of the ANZAC class but doesn't have to have all the bells and whistles of a Hunter class. So something with say 16 Mk-41 VLS, 8 AShM, a 57mm or 76mm main gun, has a hull mounted sonar and a good radar but not AEGIS etc. 16 VLS will give you 64 ESSM Blk 2. Something along the lines of the Mogami class but not necessarily the Mogami themselves. The point is you don't go overboard on them and you could build them for probably slightly less than AU$1 billion each, especially if you fit current in service with FVEY navies sensors, weapons etc. You're not building a battlecruiser but a light patrol frigate.

 

[vonnoobie]

You could have a patrol frigate about the size of the ANZAC class but doesn't have to have all the bells and whistles of a Hunter class. So something with say 16 Mk-41 VLS, 8 AShM, a 57mm or 76mm main gun, has a hull mounted sonar and a good radar but not AEGIS etc. 16 VLS will give you 64 ESSM Blk 2. Something along the lines of the Mogami class but not necessarily the Mogami themselves. The point is you don't go overboard on them and you could build them for probably slightly less than AU$1 billion each, especially if you fit current in service with FVEY navies sensors, weapons etc. You're not building a battlecruiser but a light patrol frigate.

Personnaly I think we could potentially do better then $1b a pop if we run such a build same way we did the Anzac class but that is my personnal opinion. HMAS Perth today pre ASMD inflation adjusted was a $350m build in todays dollars. Even including ASMD and inflation todays dollars puts HMAS Perth circa $470m.

 

[Stampede]

You could have a patrol frigate about the size of the ANZAC class but doesn't have to have all the bells and whistles of a Hunter class. So something with say 16 Mk-41 VLS, 8 AShM, a 57mm or 76mm main gun, has a hull mounted sonar and a good radar but not AEGIS etc. 16 VLS will give you 64 ESSM Blk 2. Something along the lines of the Mogami class but not necessarily the Mogami themselves. The point is you don't go overboard on them and you could build them for probably slightly less than AU$1 billion each, especially if you fit current in service with FVEY navies sensors, weapons etc. You're not building a battlecruiser but a light patrol frigate.

Sailing under the umbrella of the majors, what is the smallest you could go that is an asset rather than a liability.

For ASW

A helicopter hangar and flight deck for a MH-60R helicopter
57mm main gun
Mk 56 VLS for 12 ESSM or maybe RAM system.
Decoy launchers and torpedo counter measures.
Hull mounted sonar with radar and CMS of appropriate size for operating the above and working with the fleet.

Another helicopter and flight deck for the task force or alternatively a robust vessel capable of independently middle tier operations.

Thoughts S

 

[John Fedup]

Then its more Hunters I think.

I was more thinking that the range & endurance of the Arafura class would be the guide.

Regards,

Massive

Perhaps a T-26 “Lite” if it could be done with reasonable savings. The added advantage is it allows the possibility of upgrade to heavy if the need arises. Once the verdict is in on the first Hunters, just building more might be better if the design proves itself.

 

[swerve]

You could have a patrol frigate about the size of the ANZAC class but doesn't have to have all the bells and whistles of a Hunter class. So something with say 16 Mk-41 VLS, 8 AShM, a 57mm or 76mm main gun, has a hull mounted sonar and a good radar but not AEGIS etc. 16 VLS will give you 64 ESSM Blk 2. Something along the lines of the Mogami class but not necessarily the Mogami themselves. The point is you don't go overboard on them and you could build them for probably slightly less than AU$1 billion each, especially if you fit current in service with FVEY navies sensors, weapons etc. You're not building a battlecruiser but a light patrol frigate.

TKMS would be happy to sell you new MEKO A200s fitted with whatever you like, & with a Kingklip HMS, TRS4D or Thales equivalent or not too big CEAFAR (just don't go OTT with a bloody great mast), & 57 or 76mm & SAMs for self defence they should come in a long way below a billion AUD.

 

[Mikeymike]

Could something like what is being proposed for Poland's Miecznik frigate program be suitable as a mid tier combatant?

Being around 5000t allows flexibility in loadout so not as heavily armed as in the article in order to increase range to better suit Australian requirements and is sort of midway between the hunters and the Arafuras.

If you were to go the MEKO A300, the CEAFAR radar that should be possible as well as it is of similiar pedigree as the ANZAC class arent they?

 

[Redlands18]

I'm quite sure France would be happy to sell us some Belharra Class Frigates

 

[Reptilia]

Sailing under the umbrella of the majors, what is the smallest you could go that is an asset rather than a liability.

For ASW

A helicopter hangar and flight deck for a MH-60R helicopter
57mm main gun
Mk 56 VLS for 12 ESSM or maybe RAM system.
Decoy launchers and torpedo counter measures.
Hull mounted sonar with radar and CMS of appropriate size for operating the above and working with the fleet.

Another helicopter and flight deck for the task force or alternatively a robust vessel capable of independently middle tier operations.

Thoughts S

How many would we need?

 

[Bob53]

Some of the Damen designs like the sigma 10514 being ordered by Indonesia seem to fit the bill of this recent discussion.

SIGMA Multi Mission Frigate 10514 | Damen

SIGMA Multi Mission Frigate 10514 for Indonesia and Mexico. Damen offers SIGMA Frigates designed for higher survivability and enhanced operational capabilities.

products.damen.com

With a fairly handy weapons load out And range it seems

 

[vonnoobie]

Some of the Damen designs like the sigma 10514 being ordered by Indonesia seem to fit the bill of this recent discussion.

SIGMA Multi Mission Frigate 10514 | Damen

SIGMA Multi Mission Frigate 10514 for Indonesia and Mexico. Damen offers SIGMA Frigates designed for higher survivability and enhanced operational capabilities.

products.damen.com

With a fairly handy weapons load out And range it seems View attachment 48934

No I don't imagine it does. Way too small, no hanger, different and smaller VLS system not to mention the radar and sensor suite etc be a major redesign that one that we would struggle with room for and at a higher crew requirement. This is probably closer to a corvette than an FFH.

Don't think the mods mind discussing this at the moment but keep in mind there at present is zero indication the RAN or GoA is considering something like this and if it was for the cost the would want it future proofed so we would be looking in the 4-6,000 ton range give or take. The Anzacs are pushing 4,000 tons now and what we are discussing is something with similar if not in some cases superior capabilities to the Anzacs a class which is hard pressed for any growth due to stability limitations amongst others.

 

[protoplasm]

No I don't imagine it does. Way too small, no hanger, different and smaller VLS system not to mention the radar and sensor suite etc be a major redesign that one that we would struggle with room for and at a higher crew requirement. This is probably closer to a corvette than an FFH.

Don't think the mods mind discussing this at the moment but keep in mind there at present is zero indication the RAN or GoA is considering something like this and if it was for the cost the would want it future proofed so we would be looking in the 4-6,000 ton range give or take. The Anzacs are pushing 4,000 tons now and what we are discussing is something with similar if not in some cases superior capabilities to the Anzacs a class which is hard pressed for any growth due to stability limitations amongst others.

It'd need to be at the top end of that displacement range, and maybe more. There is little value in building a warship that can't defend itself. That needs significant defensive equipment (VLS, radar, softkill systems, CIWS), which needs enough displacement to support these systems and all of the crew needed to man them. Very quickly you end up with a 6,000 - to 8,000 ton vessel. We don't need patrol boat/corvette sized vessels with a bit more bang, we may need more warships that are able to hold their own in a medium hot environment as part of a task group.

Agree on the mods, if this becomes a fantasy fleet discussion there will be grumpiness.

 

[Bob53]

Yes waiting to poked with the fork on this discussion. But I see fantasy fleet as saying we need 10 of these 20 of that…as opposed to discussing a potential requirement that is cost effective and meets a requirement that could be arising.

The discussion has gone from OPV to up gunned OPV to Corvette to Frigate and now small destroyer.

I think the discussion around a fleet of cost effective enhancements to the fleets is reasonable. But going from 11 Major combatants to 20ish a jump too far (at least in the short term) for a range of reasons Including initial cost, basing and crewing.

On the other hand I think a fleet of 2000- 2500 ton vessels of a mature design built in Australia (not withstanding time, date, builder, workforce place budget) is probably a way to grow our fleet without breaking the bank. Is there really a requirement? A lot of people on this forum seem to think so. Where is the money coming from? I have no idea.

To me the biggest question is does Australia see a big enough threat on the horizon to want to commit to a bigger navy that can project some form of deterrent with the capability to sink a ship or sub into Australia’s approaches ( south of Indonesia and coral sea) as soon as possible! To me that should be a yes but they are plenty here I’m certain would disagree.