Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0
- Thread starter OPSSG
- Start date
I thought she was the lead ship in the next Anzac 'assurance' upgrade whatever its called. Any guess on her fate.
The more I think about it the more I like the idea. I can't think why you would really need to change much other than add extra VLS in place of the mission bay. It already comes with CEAFAR2 and CEAMOUNT. Could be the fastest solution to getting extra VLS into the fleet.
I find it interesting that Navantia, Civmec and Austal are all involved in this.
First of all I am sure that those companies have been consulted as part of the surface fleet review and the DSR. They would have a pretty good idea about what ship is required
Secondly they appear to be working together rather than in competition. If you want to accelerate a project than bringing together experienced builders such as Navantia, Civmec and Austal might not be a bad idea.
Also not a big vote of confidence in Luerssen from Civmec.
It was changed a few months ago that Warramunga would now be "Ship 1" for the Transcap starting mid-2024. I think that there are 3 options for Anzac: 1. Stays laid up & slots into become Ship 2-3 of Transcap starting late 2025ish. 2. Undergoes a scheduled drydocking & then rejoins the fleet after 6 months or so. 3. Gets decommissioned & stripped for spare parts prior to scrapping. Noting the DSR mentions lack of hulls in water, IMO, I think either 1 or 2 are the more likely options for the moment. If Anzac is decommissioned there realistically wouldn't be a replacement prior to 2030. Cheers.
That is one huge and heavily armed corvettes. I'm impressed that they could squeeze in a ciws and torpedos and 12 nsm. And ceafar. It will be benchmark to beat.
That is also a pretty loaded frigate.
I would imagine people might see these and be less excited about Burke's and Hobart's.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
TBH I would hope that, if and when HMAS Anzac is decommissioned, she is kept as a museum ship. Perhaps I am being overly nostalgic but she does have a service record for being the first RAN vessel to fire in anger in over three decades when she provided NGFS in 2003 whilst in the Persian Gulf.
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
There are a number of good reasons to preserve Anzac, the history behind the name, lead ship of what will be if not already the RANs combined longest serving class and having fired in anger in a war like operation. I would like to see her upkeep come out of the Defence budget and done as a joint project between the Australian War Memorial and the Maritime Museum at Darling Harbour in Sydney.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Not sure that it would really be much to beat. A vessel (whether classed as a corvette or a frigate does not matter at this point) that displaces ~3,600t has the same displacement that the ANZAC-class FFH's started out having, and with a length of 109m is possibly ~9m shorter that the FFH, with a beam of 15.3m might be 0.3m broader that current RAN FFH's. This becomes significant in that the ANZAC-class frigates have been found to be very limited in terms of what more can be done to them, with not much remaining in terms of growth margins as well as topweight issues which require careful management. Side note, I believe that the overall displacement of RAN FFH's which have been upgraded is now ~3,800t.
Going with a new class/design which is perhaps slightly smaller, but essentially the same displacement and with a possibly greater weapons loadout, I would naturally wonder what the range/endurance of the design currently is, as well as what margins remain for future growth.
Frankly, if someone wants me to be less excited about more Hobart-class or Hobart II-class vessels, they would really have their work cut out.
If the 'modified' version of the Hunter-class deletes the towed sonar array, particularly if done so in a way that would make it difficult to add back in later, then perhaps having Osborne do a simultaneous/split built. With the towed sonar getting removed, one of the significant ship-mounted ASW sonars is gone, and so to a fair bit of the ASW focus of the Hunter-class. At that point it might make more sense to also not spend all the coin involved in rafting and noise isolation for the more air defence oriented vessels.
I still think that the RAN will need a fair number of ASW frigates given the likely number of subs which will be operated by various powers in the Indo-Pacific region in the coming years.
To be honest unlikely she would be, too many bits will come off her to keep the others going. It also comes down to cost, I don't believe her preservation should come out of already tight defence budget. The whole Otama saga has cost Defence as they were directed to wear the cost of her transport & scrapping here in WA.
to my simplistic brain, losing ASW situational awareness by not equipping a towed sonar is counter intuitive.
I’m thinking it is a minimum required fit for all MCU and anything feasibly tasked with escort duties.
I get the more competitive VLS upgrade, but seriously? ……
Clearly that's why they've called it a Tasman corvette - because it'll get you a one way trip from Sydney to Auckland before needing to refuel.
For reference the Avante 2200 design which the "Tasman-class" design is based off has a range of around 5,000nmi at cruising speed with an endurance of 21 days while being 5m shorter and 1.3m thinner. Avante 2200 Combatant
Scott Elaurant
Well-Known Member
Obviously there are heaps of issues I don't know, including price. But if that Navantia corvette has reasonable weaponry, CEAFIR radar, 5,000nm range, and Civmec and Austal are willing to partner with them for construction, it has to at least be in the running for the Tier Two choice.
with the bae proposal…
The sweet spot is surely (multi role) 64 cells, 16 nsm + ASW capabilities + main gun.
over
current
32 mk41 VLS + 8 nsm + asw capabilities + main gun
on the table
96 VLS (96 mk 41) + 16 nsm + main gun (- ASW capabilities)
or
96 VLS (64 mk 41 + 32 mk 57) + 16 nsm (-main gun and - ASW capabilities)
or
128 VLS (128 mk 41) + 16 nsm (-main gun and - ASW capabilities)
The sweet spot is surely (multi role) 64 cells, 16 nsm + ASW capabilities + main gun.
over
current
32 mk41 VLS + 8 nsm + asw capabilities + main gun
on the table
96 VLS (96 mk 41) + 16 nsm + main gun (- ASW capabilities)
or
96 VLS (64 mk 41 + 32 mk 57) + 16 nsm (-main gun and - ASW capabilities)
or
128 VLS (128 mk 41) + 16 nsm (-main gun and - ASW capabilities)
Last edited:
It definitely fits pretty well into the original doctrinal role of the Anzacs as regional presence ships with sufficient armament for self defence and basic escort. 5,000nmi cruising and 21 days endurance isn't really ideal for that role though so I'd hope the slight size increase comes with extra fuel and stores.
Last edited:
navantia have a tweener alpha 5000(32 cell), something between the Tasman class(16 VLS) and flight 2 Hobart(looks like the original f100 design with 96 cells prior to navantia takeover), closer to the gibbs and Cox offering
1st pic, behind alpha 5000
Also meko a210
also navantia flight 3
babcock a140
Also… new batch 2 mogami ffm model on show.
1st pic, behind alpha 5000
Also meko a210
also navantia flight 3
babcock a140
Also… new batch 2 mogami ffm model on show.
Last edited:
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
I would be seriously surprised if Australia looked at these 3 designs, they are all brand new designs, how much would Australia be prepared to gamble on an all-new design when we are doing it already with the Hunter.
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
Takao
The Bunker Group
Yeah - in the rush to salivate, lets not forget that 'Tasman-Class' (and BTW, a stupid name for a RAN vessel. Not Navy and very antagonistic to Maori's along with pretty questionable ethics and leadership) is slightly more advanced than someone sketching a ship in MS Paint. It's 50% heavier than the Saudi ships for starters, meaning significant redesign. It's years away from where Hunter is in the process right now.