Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0
- Thread starter OPSSG
- Start date
Type 31 Frigate: Delivering a warship design solution to address navies’ personnel challenges
There was an earlier discussion on the work done to ensure smaller crews are sustainable.
The above link is an article from Babcock regarding the Type 31, there is a download button on the link which is the full detailed document. It was too large to attach the full document to this thread.
The type 31 has a crew of 110 in comparison to the 174 on a Type 23 and 194 on a type 45. I would suggest similar analogies could be made to other low crew ships such as the Mogami.
The article was useful in that it shows the research that goes into specifying a crew size. It's not a thumb suck.
Many of the themes, such as automation and remote operation are the same as already reviewed, however there were a couple of points that caught my attention, namely;
*the ability to conduct navigation, CIC and CCR functions all from the bridge during normal cruising (substantial watchkeeping reduction)
*the ability of CCTV to be resiliant to damage, effective in smoke/low light, and have optical recognition for fire, flood and people
*computerised damage control boards (no more crayon)
*testing of crew sizes in damage control, including with reduced numbers for casualties
*use of fire resistant insulation on bulkheads and decks to minimise boundary cooling
*extensive automation of combat systems, including integration of optical and EW systems to automatically identify and track objects
*extensive use of redundant systems, in particular sea water and power
Interestingly, the one aspect that the article indicated is difficult to manage with reduced crews is flooding. It is still difficult to replicate the human action of bashing a wedge in a hole.
There was an earlier discussion on the work done to ensure smaller crews are sustainable.
The above link is an article from Babcock regarding the Type 31, there is a download button on the link which is the full detailed document. It was too large to attach the full document to this thread.
The type 31 has a crew of 110 in comparison to the 174 on a Type 23 and 194 on a type 45. I would suggest similar analogies could be made to other low crew ships such as the Mogami.
The article was useful in that it shows the research that goes into specifying a crew size. It's not a thumb suck.
Many of the themes, such as automation and remote operation are the same as already reviewed, however there were a couple of points that caught my attention, namely;
*the ability to conduct navigation, CIC and CCR functions all from the bridge during normal cruising (substantial watchkeeping reduction)
*the ability of CCTV to be resiliant to damage, effective in smoke/low light, and have optical recognition for fire, flood and people
*computerised damage control boards (no more crayon)
*testing of crew sizes in damage control, including with reduced numbers for casualties
*use of fire resistant insulation on bulkheads and decks to minimise boundary cooling
*extensive automation of combat systems, including integration of optical and EW systems to automatically identify and track objects
*extensive use of redundant systems, in particular sea water and power
Interestingly, the one aspect that the article indicated is difficult to manage with reduced crews is flooding. It is still difficult to replicate the human action of bashing a wedge in a hole.
Going Boeing
Well-Known Member
Thanks boeing, so "compact" and "simple" would not be a descriptor for this system.
Breaking it down, it looks to have two parts, the first being a transfer rig from the supply vessel (fancy, but not too dissimilar in working principle to existing at sea replenishment systems), and the second being a loading mechanism into the VLS (crane).
The part on the right forms the receiving end of the transfer system. It provides a hard mounting point for cables under tension, and some arms that capture and steady the cannister, and then swing it around to pass into the loading mechanism.
The loading mechanism is a simple mast crane with two circular guides to stop the cannister wobbling. It looks like it starts in the horizontal, mates up to the receiver, takes the cannister and then pivots into the verticle. It then moves on rails and sliders to the VLS cell for loading. The crane then lowers, job complete. The cannister is effectively only loose for the transfer stage between the two ships, and once captured by the receiver is stable thereafter.
Rinse and repeat 32 times for a Hobart.
A couple of points.
- I assume there is a reverse operation to unload the empty cannisters. They are reloadable and expensive in their own right. This doubles the duration of the evolution.
- The transfer and loading mechanisms, like you said boeing, are large. I could not see them being stored as full assemblies, so there would be a substantial set up prior to reloading. I don't know where you would stow that on a Hobart, but perhaps it can be transferred by helo from the supply ship beforehand.
- There is space on the Hobarts between the superstructure and the VLS for the transfer system to be mounted (the pictures show it mounted to the deck with hard points), so it would fit.
- Time. A standard replenishment lasts between 60 and 90 minutes (that's the normal time to get a full tank of fuel and a heavy bulk material ressuply. That means for a 32 cell replenishment, each swapout (old cannister out, new cannister in) needs to be done within 2-3 minutes. I doubt that's possible, so this would either extend replenishments or extend the duration. Mind you, this would not be a normal operation, so it's probably OK.
Reading the comments in the article, it appears this system is good for up to sea state 6. Which is rough, that's about as much as a resupply could be done in anyway.
My take is its better than the original knuckle crane system originaly used by the Americans and discontinued. It probably however needs some simplification to make it fully usable.
I'm thinking the transfer mechanism could be hard mounted to the superstructure infront of the bridge, and then folded out when needed.
The loading mechanism rails could be permanently welded to the VLS. There should be enough space to the aft end of the VLS for the rails to extend and form a holding bay for the loading mechanism. It might need some shielding for firing and weather protection, but it could possibly work.
I look forward to the mk2 version.
Last edited:
To this point, it's unlikely that all 32 cells will need reloading at once anyway as if a DDG has been forced to empty all of its cells it'd be lucky to still be in one piece.
Correct.
However remember a DDG configuration would be more like 96 cells, and it could have well launched a third to half its holding in an interaction.
Note I just noticed I crossed up my Hunter and Hobart VLS capacities, so 48 for a Hobart.
Also a lot of our missiles are going to be on LOCSV barges, which would more likely return to harbour to re-arm rather than replenish at sea.
However remember a DDG configuration would be more like 96 cells, and it could have well launched a third to half its holding in an interaction.
Note I just noticed I crossed up my Hunter and Hobart VLS capacities, so 48 for a Hobart.
Also a lot of our missiles are going to be on LOCSV barges, which would more likely return to harbour to re-arm rather than replenish at sea.
A further article on the system with a photo showing the whole thing.
USS Chosin (CG 65) and USNS Washington Chambers (T-AKE-11) conduct a Transferrable Rearming Mechanism (TRAM)
The Ticonderoga-class guided-missile cruiser USS Chosin (CG 65) breaks away from the Lewis and Clark-class dry cargo ship USNS Washington Chambers (T-AKE 11) during an at-sea demonstration of the Transferrable Reload At-sea Method (TRAM) while underway in the Pacific Ocean Oct. 11, 2024. Sailors...
Captains like good looking ships…imagine what that will do to the shillouette
Even if the system is successful it may not be fitted to many ships. It might be something most valued on big cruisers (that survive the upgrade) with big loadouts, that sit in the middle of big taskforces. Sticking more mass, weight etc to ship always creates compromises. Not every ship would be expected to be fitted with the system. Then the RCS may be far less important. Maybe more focused on ships firing tlam and SM-3 as the fleet will have lower stocks of those, so replacing those munitions while at sea could be critical. It may not even have to be perfect, just create some uncertainty about existing missile loadouts of ships for the enemy. Even if they only reload 6 missiles, that means the enemy has to assume that the ship is still fully capable particularly around SM-3 launches which will be very distinct. The cruisers used to have the VLS reloading system previously, the strikedown modules. It made more sense for them as a concept. So this is more as an modern replacement for that system.
5-Cell Strikedown Module
I don't see this as a priority for Australia. Hobarts have a lower VLS count which means their is inherently less benefit. Australia doesn't really have massive missile stocks and probably won't have its ships in high frequency firing areas. Also disabling a Hobart to reload it, well do we have the fleet to enable that to happen, we have a small number of hobarts.
Could be something included on future ships and future designs, with nice flush mounting, more consideration to layout for allowances less compromises.
I think the ultimate solution will be a flush mount industrial robot to remove/insert the canisters rather than using cranes. They're probably there now in terms of ability (2.5t) for the lighter loads, issue will then be how the canisters are moved between ships while at sea (choppers or drones).
Sunk cost: how the AUKUS bill keeps rising for taxpayers
The trusty AFR says that Sen Marles will release the plan for the WA ship building precinct tomorrow.
Interestingly Civmec just bought out Luerrssen Australia, including all its people.
Below is an exerpt from the above link for those unable to access the paywall
The trusty AFR says that Sen Marles will release the plan for the WA ship building precinct tomorrow.
Interestingly Civmec just bought out Luerrssen Australia, including all its people.
Below is an exerpt from the above link for those unable to access the paywall
Last edited:
Much has been said about SEA 1180.
Hopefully now we get both clarity and momentum to finish the project and support the reduced number of six OPV's into the future.
Agree
"absolute dogs breakfast of a project"
Cheers S
There is a very good paper I can't link, titled "The Fallacy of Using a Parent Design: The design is mature".
This bad enough when it is the same design team / yard on a project, once you are talking a different yard, maybe in a different country, for a different navy, the issues compound.
The main thing is the government or Navy come up with good use for these ships… I personally hope they can used for hydrographic, minelaying and mine countermeasures but that seems to be pushed back to be part of the Hunter and GPF programs. Would it be possible to use these ships as part of a first response to crisis around the pacific? Base them in PNG and Fini and hand them over to the Pacifis Response Group being set up.. they have cargo carrying capacity and modular fit out.. they would be great to carry a small 100 personnel team to deal with humanitarian crisis or state assistance for law and order. Together with transferring the spartan cargo aircraft you could have the equipment to support the pacific islands within a year!