Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

R

Reptilia

Well-Known Member
Going Boeing said:
The illustration in the article, that Severely linked, shows that the Bridge and mast structure in the New FFM are mounted quite a bit higher than in the original Mogami.

View attachment 52052
Click to expand...
One of the flaws in the original Mogami design. From the bridge -Original Mogami, eyeline looks almost right at the top of the main gun.

Other changes I’ve read…
-Mast has been rotated
-Hull lengthened
-Beam widened
-Height increase between decks
-Crew spaces expanded
-32 cell VLS - Strike length
-More Range
-Bridge wings with walkaround
-More Radar arrays
-More automation
-Multifunction sonar
-UAV flying sensor
-Next Gen missiles
-Module improvements reducing build time

Probably redesigned with export in mind.
 
Last edited:
S

Samoa

Member
spoz said:
The mission bay is designed as an area in which a second helicopter could be stored, as well as more RIBs, USVs, or containerised systems. It would not, however seem to be high enough for the installation of Mark 41 cells; and there are of course a number of things on the decks immediately below it which would prevent a Mk41 penetrating the deck. Installing more cells there would therefore almost certainly require a serious redesign of the ship’s internals; not of course impossible but also not a short term activity.
Click to expand...
This statement is in fact incorrect. The proposal incorporates full strike length Mk41 VLS including provision for foundations and deluge tanks without impact on the SCC. The model at Pac did not include the top combing extension hat which sits slightly proud of the deck. The design had already considered all structural impacts to major bulkheads and was a minimum impact design proposal. It was viable for readiness into production as the second ship.
 
J

JBRobbo

Member
What is the consensus on a modern ASW mortar like the latest versions of the RBU-6000 with guided rounds, the only similar western counterpart seems to be the shorter ranged Swedish ASW-600/601 recently re-installed on their minehunters. The Indian Navy have the RBU-6000 on almost every new ship as well as 533mm torpedoes instead of 324mm. I've seen promotional graphics for the TKMS MEKO A-300 with 2x2 533mm SVTT as a modular option for e.g. Thoughts on ASW mortars or ship launched Mk48 CBASS?
 
S

Sandson41

Member
JBRobbo said:
What is the consensus on a modern ASW mortar like the latest versions of the RBU-6000 with guided rounds, the only similar western counterpart seems to be the shorter ranged Swedish ASW-600/601 recently re-installed on their minehunters. The Indian Navy have the RBU-6000 on almost every new ship as well as 533mm torpedoes instead of 324mm. I've seen promotional graphics for the TKMS MEKO A-300 with 2x2 533mm SVTT as a modular option for e.g. Thoughts on ASW mortars or ship launched Mk48 CBASS?
Click to expand...
Conventional wisdom is they're too short range. They were designed when subs had to get pretty close to have a good chance of hitting a maneuvering warship. these days, you're dead by the time they're in range.

Not sure what the Indians think of that.
 
spoz

spoz

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Samoa said:
This statement is in fact incorrect. The proposal incorporates full strike length Mk41 VLS including provision for foundations and deluge tanks without impact on the SCC. The model at Pac did not include the top combing extension hat which sits slightly proud of the deck. The design had already considered all structural impacts to major bulkheads and was a minimum impact design proposal. It was viable for readiness into production as the second ship.
Click to expand...
No, it is not. As noted above they could make changes from batch 2, not ship 2. The first batch of three is contracted for and beyond PDR.
 
Underway

Underway

Active Member
JBRobbo said:
What is the consensus on a modern ASW mortar like the latest versions of the RBU-6000 with guided rounds, the only similar western counterpart seems to be the shorter ranged Swedish ASW-600/601 recently re-installed on their minehunters. The Indian Navy have the RBU-6000 on almost every new ship as well as 533mm torpedoes instead of 324mm. I've seen promotional graphics for the TKMS MEKO A-300 with 2x2 533mm SVTT as a modular option for e.g. Thoughts on ASW mortars or ship launched Mk48 CBASS?
Click to expand...
To short range. Even the Kingfisher rounds for the 127mm are kind of dumb (except maybe to blind a submarines sensors but that remains to be seen).

Surface launched Mk48 is interesting, but you would have to design a ship from the keel up to efficiently use them as they are large, heavy, and awkward. Not a bolt on solution. And the amount of space they would take up, combined with their launch and handling system would probably be the same amount of space as a hangar for a helicopter which is much better at killing submarines than death riding your ship at one. Also ASROC...
 
D

downunderblue

Member
Reptilia said:
One of the flaws in the original Mogami design. From the bridge -Original Mogami, eyeline looks almost right at the top of the main gun.

Other changes I’ve read…
-Mast has been rotated
-Hull lengthened
-Beam widened
-Height increase between decks
-Crew spaces expanded
-32 cell VLS - Strike length
-More Range
-Bridge wings with walkaround
-More Radar arrays
-More automation
-Multifunction sonar
-UAV flying sensor
-Next Gen missiles
-Module improvements reducing build time

Probably redesigned with export in mind.
Click to expand...
Export or co develop with AU. Either/or, but it's an immensely impressive vessel/ design. Dare I say it, but it "rocks" and a massive win for the RAN (am especially thinking MCM & the low crew component) if the Govt signs off on it.

TKMS in the dust, baby (on the assumption that NSC read the briefing material properly).
 
V

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Samoa said:
No that is not correct. Propulsion and electrical generation remained per the Hunter baseline. It was a minimal impact design limited to 2 of the 12 design zones only. That was the brief.
Click to expand...
The original releases talked about what you describe, but the final definitely had a more conventional CODAG propulsion setup, I believe incorporating a second GT to ensure required speeds could still be achieved.
 
B

Bob53

Well-Known Member
Underway said:
To short range. Even the Kingfisher rounds for the 127mm are kind of dumb (except maybe to blind a submarines sensors but that remains to be seen).

Surface launched Mk48 is interesting, but you would have to design a ship from the keel up to efficiently use them as they are large, heavy, and awkward. Not a bolt on solution. And the amount of space they would take up, combined with their launch and handling system would probably be the same amount of space as a hangar for a helicopter which is much better at killing submarines than death riding your ship at one. Also ASROC...
Click to expand...
Can they be deck capsule mounted so there is no handlings system. Load like a vls? One shot no reloads.
 
S

Samoa

Member
Volkodav said:
The original releases talked about what you describe, but the final definitely had a more conventional CODAG propulsion setup, I believe incorporating a second GT to ensure required speeds could still be achieved.
Click to expand...
I am not sure what ‘final’ you are referring to…. but the GMF proposed is as per the Hunter baseline. ASC shipbuilding in conjunction with UK Naval Ships are of course collaboratively working on future warship designs, which involve more capability enhancements that currently in either Type 26 and Hunter. While the GMF is public knowledge albiet in limited manner, those other designs are not. But, I would say that adding a second GT is currently not on the cards given the enhanced MT30 that is now available. Speed Vs flexibility trade of electrical load distribution is a more important driver for future warfare dominance than top speed alone.
 
S

Sandson41

Member
Bob53 said:
Can they be deck capsule mounted so there is no handlings system. Load like a vls? One shot no reloads.
Click to expand...
They definitely could. The Type 12 Whitbys tried this in the 1950s. I imagine the weight and space would be a major issue for any modern design, but the real problem remains range. That's why it failed in the fifties. You're trying to hunt the sub, not engage in a mutual death match.
The modern trend is very long range and multi-asset. Ships working with friendly subs and helos. Unmanned vehicles. Maybe smart mines if the circumstances allow. I haven't personally heard of any recent news on the surface ship launched torpedo front except for efforts to build an defensive interceptor torpedo as a countermeasure.
 
V

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Samoa said:
I am not sure what ‘final’ you are referring to…. but the GMF proposed is as per the Hunter baseline. ASC shipbuilding in conjunction with UK Naval Ships are of course collaboratively working on future warship designs, which involve more capability enhancements that currently in either Type 26 and Hunter. While the GMF is public knowledge albiet in limited manner, those other designs are not. But, I would say that adding a second GT is currently not on the cards given the enhanced MT30 that is now available. Speed Vs flexibility trade of electrical load distribution is a more important driver for future warfare dominance than top speed alone.
Click to expand...
I will try and dig it out, there was an article detailing BAEs proposal, pre release of the review. I think there was also a video from one of the sea power conferences.
 
Underway

Underway

Active Member
Sandson41 said:
I haven't personally heard of any recent news on the surface ship launched torpedo front except for efforts to build an defensive interceptor torpedo as a countermeasure.
Click to expand...
Of the Type 26 family, Hunter and River Class are both installing SLTT's. Creates a minimum no go zone for enemy subs that want to sneak past and go after an High Value Unit. City class doesn't even bother with SLTT, but the UK has an aircraft carrier to provide 24/7 helicopter coverage of their task groups. Very different doctrine given the different tools available for the navies.

The River Class TLS are also multi-torp capable. UK uses the same system for some of their surface ships.
 
Systems Adict

Systems Adict

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Underway said:
City class doesn't even bother with SLTT, but the UK has an aircraft carrier to provide 24/7 helicopter coverage of their task groups.
Click to expand...
The Type 26 design (similar to the Type 45 design for the UK RN), does have the capability to have a TLS fitted.

Spaces were reserved in the design for the equipment (IPMD - Installation Provision Made in Design ), but the actual fit would be an A&A (Amendement & Alteration) package, to be completed post delivery of the ship, at a time when the Navy needs that capability / has the funds to pay for it.

SA
 
Last edited:
B

Bob53

Well-Known Member
Sandson41 said:
They definitely could. The Type 12 Whitbys tried this in the 1950s. I imagine the weight and space would be a major issue for any modern design, but the real problem remains range. That's why it failed in the fifties. You're trying to hunt the sub, not engage in a mutual death match.
The modern trend is very long range and multi-asset. Ships working with friendly subs and helos. Unmanned vehicles. Maybe smart mines if the circumstances allow. I haven't personally heard of any recent news on the surface ship launched torpedo front except for efforts to build an defensive interceptor torpedo as a countermeasure.
Click to expand...
As you refer to… air launched torpedoes 80km away from the ships makes more sense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top