Go Back   DefenceTalk Forum - Military & Defense Forums > Global Defense & Military > Navy & Maritime

Defense News
Land, Air & Naval Forces






Military Photos
Latest Military Pictures




Defense Reports
Aerospace & Defence








Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

This is a discussion on Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates within the Navy & Maritime forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; Originally Posted by John Newman I was rather disappointed at the time when the Perth class DDG's were retired that ...


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 43 votes, 4.14 average.
Old 1 Week Ago   #21286
Defense Enthusiast
Sergeant
No Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 214
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Newman View Post
I was rather disappointed at the time when the Perth class DDG's were retired that one of them didn't end up alongside Vampire, and more recently when Sydney was retired (firstly the plan was to offer her as a dive wreck), then when that didn't happen, she was stripped and recently towed out the heads to WA for scrapping.

Would have been a good to see the three types all alongside each other, Anzac? Won't hold my breath, sadly!!
Melbourne deserve a better maritime museum too. It is probable the only maritime museum in capital city that doesn't has a big ship.

I was a volunteer in NMM and personally helped-out the upkeep of HMAS Vampire (especially the paint job), we are always short of hands and the upkeep is killing us.

Unless there is a huge budget boost, and much more extra volunteers, an extra frigate would most likely make thing worse.
rockitten is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1 Week Ago   #21287
Defense Enthusiast
Major
the road runner's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: sydney
Posts: 871
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by MickB View Post
If it's not to soon to know, are the future frigates combat system and weapons to be purchased completely new or a combination of new and recycled from the Anzacs.

What would remain on the Anzacs if they were to be sold on.

As the Hobart has a Mod 4 Mark 45 gun and the Anzacs HAD a Mod 2 gun that has now been upgraded to a Mod 4 Mark 45 gun( ?) ..you would expect us to stick with Mark 45 guns and "recycle" off the Anzacs for our future frigates ...

Im sure the old salty dogs will chime in here to clarify

EDIT.. I am sure i read the Anzacs got an upgraded gun to Mod 4 but can not find a link ..
the road runner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1 Week Ago   #21288
Defense Enthusiast
Corporal
No Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: qld
Posts: 158
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by rockitten View Post
Melbourne deserve a better maritime museum too. It is probable the only maritime museum in capital city that doesn't has a big ship.

I was a volunteer in NMM and personally helped-out the upkeep of HMAS Vampire (especially the paint job), we are always short of hands and the upkeep is killing us.

Unless there is a huge budget boost, and much more extra volunteers, an extra frigate would most likely make thing worse.
Hopefully they will at least recycle the name with one of the new Frigates.
Maybe thats why there has not been another ship since the Vampire, in the too hard basket. Good on'ya for Volunteering anyway Mate, thank you (unfortunately i live in Brisbane, so can't help). Been through her once years ago, looked in great knick, gets taken around to the dry dock at Garden Island every 5 years I've heard.
The Navy should bring the Recruits up once a year for a week to help with the maintenance, great way to learn about the Navy's history.
Redlands18 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1 Week Ago   #21289
Just a bloke
Major General
No Avatar
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 2,148
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by the road runner View Post
As the Hobart has a Mod 4 Mark 45 gun and the Anzacs HAD a Mod 2 gun that has now been upgraded to a Mod 4 Mark 45 gun( ?) ..you would expect us to stick with Mark 45 guns and "recycle" off the Anzacs for our future frigates ...

Im sure the old salty dogs will chime in here to clarify

EDIT.. I am sure i read the Anzacs got an upgraded gun to Mod 4 but can not find a link ..
I believe the later ANZACS got the Mod 4 gun shield, with a couple of early ones retaining the rounded Mod 2 shield, but they are all still running the mod 2 barrel etc, while the Hobarts have the full Mod 4 fitout...
ADMk2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1 Week Ago   #21290
Defense Professional / Analyst
General
No Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,343
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ADMk2 View Post
I believe the later ANZACS got the Mod 4 gun shield, with a couple of early ones retaining the rounded Mod 2 shield, but they are all still running the mod 2 barrel etc, while the Hobarts have the full Mod 4 fitout...
Yep, the ANZACs have the 54 cal barrel while the Hobarts have the longer 62 cal. I anticipate the new frigates will have new equipment rather than refurbished, where I could see the surplus systems from the ANZACs being used is on later OPVs, or even to boost the defensive capabilities of the Canberra's.
Volkodav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1 Week Ago   #21291
Defense Enthusiast
Corporal
No Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 117
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volkodav View Post
Yep, the ANZACs have the 54 cal barrel while the Hobarts have the longer 62 cal. I anticipate the new frigates will have new equipment rather than refurbished, where I could see the surplus systems from the ANZACs being used is on later OPVs, or even to boost the defensive capabilities of the Canberra's.
Reading this forum, the main objection I see to Volkodav's proposal of 6 frigates and 3 DDHs rather than 9 frigates, is the perceived greater cost.

With the current plan we will purchase 9 new Frigate hulls and 9 new complete fitouts of weapons and sensors.

We could instead purchase 6 new Frigate hulls with 3 Hyuga sized DDHs tacked on the end of the build.
Yes the DDH hulls will be more expensive, but how often here have I read " Steel is cheap and air is free". So the comparatively small additional cost of the hull shouldn't matter much across the life of the ship.

The 6 Frigates would require the purchase of only 6 new complete fitouts of weapons and sensors.

When looking at the Hyuga its onboard weapons fit is smaller than most Destroyers and Frigates half is size. This is no doubt due to its conops and the needs of Helo operations.

Thus our the DDHs could be equipped almost entirely from equipment recycled from the Anzacs. (Radar, Combat System, VLS, Decoys, Torpedos etc)

The savings from not purchasing the 3 additional shipsets of weapons and sensors would go a long way in purchasing the additional Helos required to operate from the DDHs.

An additional unbudgeted sorce of extra funds could be the sale of the FFGs to Poland.

There will always be the cost of the extra manpower but I believe the extra capability worth the cost.
MickB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1 Week Ago   #21292
Defense Aficionado
Lieutenant General
StingrayOZ's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Sydney
Posts: 2,572
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volkodav View Post
Yep, the ANZACs have the 54 cal barrel while the Hobarts have the longer 62 cal. I anticipate the new frigates will have new equipment rather than refurbished, where I could see the surplus systems from the ANZACs being used is on later OPVs, or even to boost the defensive capabilities of the Canberra's.
I would imagine the 5" would be new or at least fitted with the 62 cal barrel and mod 4 gun shield.

Not sure how much will be stripped and stored. There was some talk about selling/gifting some of them to regionals. Specifically Indonesia (but likely to Malaysia, Singapore and NZ). Maybe even Philippines or Vietnam. I don't know how realistic any of that is.

OPV might be after some of the sensors, coms, jammers, etc.I don't see a whole lot of major weapon systems transferring.
StingrayOZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1 Week Ago   #21293
Super Moderator
General
swerve's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Reading, Berkshire
Posts: 6,526
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by MickB View Post
Reading this forum, the main objection I see to Volkodav's proposal of 6 frigates and 3 DDHs rather than 9 frigates, is the perceived greater cost.

With the current plan we will purchase 9 new Frigate hulls and 9 new complete fitouts of weapons and sensors.

We could instead purchase 6 new Frigate hulls with 3 Hyuga sized DDHs tacked on the end of the build.
Yes the DDH hulls will be more expensive, but how often here have I read " Steel is cheap and air is free". So the comparatively small additional cost of the hull shouldn't matter much across the life of the ship.

The 6 Frigates would require the purchase of only 6 new complete fitouts of weapons and sensors.

When looking at the Hyuga its onboard weapons fit is smaller than most Destroyers and Frigates half is size. This is no doubt due to its conops and the needs of Helo operations.

Thus our the DDHs could be equipped almost entirely from equipment recycled from the Anzacs. (Radar, Combat System, VLS, Decoys, Torpedos etc)

The savings from not purchasing the 3 additional shipsets of weapons and sensors would go a long way in purchasing the additional Helos required to operate from the DDHs.

An additional unbudgeted sorce of extra funds could be the sale of the FFGs to Poland.

There will always be the cost of the extra manpower but I believe the extra capability worth the cost.
Steel is cheap & air is free, but three 18,000 ton ships need three times as much hull maintenance as three 6000 ton ships, need much bigger powerplants (which aren't cheap) which need more crew & more maintenance, & if you want to actually use their capability, require buying a lot more helicopters, which are very expensive. Three Hyuuga class could carry a few dozen helicopters, which means a lot more helicopter crews, & a lot of weapons for them to use.

Oh, & they're not designed to operate alone - hence the light defensive armament. They're not substitutes for frigates or destroyers, but complements to them. The JMSDF expects them to need escorts.

They're a way to get a lot of ASW helicopters to sea & function as leaders of ASW flotillas (extensive helicopter maintenance facilities, command centres), & are designed on the assumption that they'll work within a navy which is big enough to provide such flotillas. The JMSDF has 36 destroyers & frigates, plus 6 'destroyer escorts' - & only two Hyuugas, & two of the bigger & somewhat ambiguous Izumo class.

The RAN doesn't have enough helicopters to fill three Hyuga class, & it doesn't have enough escorts for them.
swerve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1 Week Ago   #21294
Just a bloke
Major General
No Avatar
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 2,148
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by swerve View Post
Steel is cheap & air is free, but three 18,000 ton ships need three times as much hull maintenance as three 6000 ton ships, need much bigger powerplants (which aren't cheap) which need more crew & more maintenance, & if you want to actually use their capability, require buying a lot more helicopters, which are very expensive. Three Hyuuga class could carry a few dozen helicopters, which means a lot more helicopter crews, & a lot of weapons for them to use.

Oh, & they're not designed to operate alone - hence the light defensive armament. They're not substitutes for frigates or destroyers, but complements to them. The JMSDF expects them to need escorts.

They're a way to get a lot of ASW helicopters to sea & function as leaders of ASW flotillas (extensive helicopter maintenance facilities, command centres), & are designed on the assumption that they'll work within a navy which is big enough to provide such flotillas. The JMSDF has 36 destroyers & frigates, plus 6 'destroyer escorts' - & only two Hyuugas, & two of the bigger & somewhat ambiguous Izumo class.

The RAN doesn't have enough helicopters to fill three Hyuga class, & it doesn't have enough escorts for them.
Agreed. The other problem I have with the 'steel is cheap and air is free' idea is that all that extra real estate never sits there empty as a 'just in case'. It is filled with systems that DO cost money. A ton of it, on top of the extra maintenance burden that such incurs, as you've pointed out.
ADMk2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1 Week Ago   #21295
Defense Professional / Analyst
General
No Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,343
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ADMk2 View Post
Agreed. The other problem I have with the 'steel is cheap and air is free' idea is that all that extra real estate never sits there empty as a 'just in case'. It is filled with systems that DO cost money. A ton of it, on top of the extra maintenance burden that such incurs, as you've pointed out.
Its not as simple as that, for instance the larger Cape class is much easier to maintain than the Armidales for the simple reason the installed equipment and systems are more accessible. Same with the Hobarts, some of there systems will be absolute nightmares to maintain, let alone replace because of accessibility and removement path issues. GTs are easier to maintain and replace than diesels, this means a Hyuga type with four GTs will be easier to work on than an ANZAC with one inaccessible GT (no removal path) and two diesels.

A lot of it comes down to design and build strategy, as well as taking the need for maintenance and upgrades into account. Also the more space you have the more flexibility you have to fit alternative (to the initially designed) equipment through life, even if only to address obsolescence issues. For example the FFGUP was hideously expensive as upgrading a ship that was never designed to be upgraded was far more challenging then expected while the Spruances, everyone of them a potential DDG we much easier to upgrade and never reached their full potential, but guaranteed had the cold war continued, they would have.

As to number of helicopters etc. its not purely about how many Romeos and Taipans the ADF has, these platforms would also be infinitely more effective at operating fixed and rotary winged UAVs and UCAVs than any frigate or destroyer could ever hope to be. There's also ARHs and Chinooks to be considered, the SOF support helos (potentially Sierras), maybe even tilt rotors in the future. Then there is the fact that these ships can launch a greater percentage of their aircraft faster than a DDG/FFG could, and also their far more extensive maintenance facilities that would be able to service the skimmer ships flights for deeper maintenance and even provide them with spare aircraft to cover this (this would be especially valuable with various types of UAVs).

Through deck ships could even exchange helo types with skimmers as required, i.e. switching ASW Romeos for MCM configured Sierras, replace one helo with a pair of Firescouts. Provide helos to escorting OPVs or I the future OCVs.
Volkodav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1 Week Ago   #21296
Defense Enthusiast
Sergeant
weegee's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Sydney
Posts: 234
Threads:
I actually got this from the Canadian Navy page. I am surprised I hadn't seen it on any media here in Aus.

Construction starts on first Australian Navy auxiliary oiler and replenishment ship | Naval Today

But great news that the project is underway.

Last edited by weegee; 1 Week Ago at 07:41 PM. Reason: Spelling
weegee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1 Week Ago   #21297
Defense Professional / Analyst
Major General
alexsa's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,225
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by swerve View Post
Steel is cheap & air is free, but three 18,000 ton ships need three times as much hull maintenance as three 6000 ton ships, need much bigger powerplants (which aren't cheap) which need more crew & more maintenance, & if you want to actually use their capability, require buying a lot more helicopters, which are very expensive. Three Hyuuga class could carry a few dozen helicopters, which means a lot more helicopter crews, & a lot of weapons for them to use.

Oh, & they're not designed to operate alone - hence the light defensive armament. They're not substitutes for frigates or destroyers, but complements to them. The JMSDF expects them to need escorts.

They're a way to get a lot of ASW helicopters to sea & function as leaders of ASW flotillas (extensive helicopter maintenance facilities, command centres), & are designed on the assumption that they'll work within a navy which is big enough to provide such flotillas. The JMSDF has 36 destroyers & frigates, plus 6 'destroyer escorts' - & only two Hyuugas, & two of the bigger & somewhat ambiguous Izumo class.

The RAN doesn't have enough helicopters to fill three Hyuga class, & it doesn't have enough escorts for them.

Agreed, they are a vessel that requires and escort which would logically mean more escorts are required.


Add to this is the fact that we will need to escort more than just warships in some situations noting we are a maritime nation. We may also have 'escort' two to three groups with this type of fleet and we would not have the escorts to do this.


The cost of three such vessels and required escorts distorts the force profile
alexsa is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 1 Week Ago   #21298
Defense Enthusiast
Corporal
No Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: qld
Posts: 158
Threads:
No Canberra or Adelaide.

Sorry double post
Redlands18 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1 Week Ago   #21299
Defense Enthusiast
Corporal
No Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: qld
Posts: 158
Threads:
No Canberra or Adelaide.

http://navaltoday.com/2017/06/19/300...alisman-sabre/
Sorry guys link not working.
No Canberra no Adelaide fot Talisman Sabre, how much will this throw out the ADFs future planning? Will the Navy now have to try and have all 3 Amphibs ready for TS19 in 2 years time?.

No names released yet for the 2 AORs, my money is still on HMAS Supply & HMAS Stalwart.
Redlands18 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1 Week Ago   #21300
Junior Member
Private First Class
No Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Adelaide, SA
Posts: 85
Threads:
Couple of minor points of clarification:

a. The Mk 4 5/62 has some internal differences to the Mk 2 5/54; you can't just substitute the barrel.

b. In the context of DoA, the original operation intent for the ANZACs was as a Tier 2 Patrol Frigate. As such, they were supposed to spend almost all their time on their diesels and only use the GTs for the occasional sprint. The analysis of the time was that the GT would be installed for the life of the ship, standfast a catastrophic failure the probability of which was assessed as very low, and thus removal routes were not required.
spoz is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:12 AM.