Australian FFG Frigate Upgrade.

[tatra]

Mate, that article is from December 2004, when Warramunga was first fitted with the Quad launchers and Harpoon II capability. As I pointed out in my post above, it has now been 15 months since Warramunga was fitted with Harp II, NO OTHER ANZAC frigate has yet been fitted with it, and Warramunga (in the most recent publicly available photo's (January 06) has had it's Harp II tubes removed and only the basic stands remain. Hence my remark earlier, that all does not seem to be going well with the ANZAC Harpoon II integration.

The placement of the Harp tubes in front of the bridge on the ANZAC was the less preferred option, due to it ruling out being able to place a Mk 41 VLS system or a CIWS there, AND the placement of the tubes there interferes with the firing of the chaff/flare launchers.

The ANZAC class could not mount the tubes behind the bridge (as was originally planned) though due to "top weight" issues, but seeing as though nearly every other MEKO user mounts them there and the placement benefits the ANZAC's gain by mounting them there, perhaps the RAN is re-thinking this issue, and this accounts for the delay?

Or perhaps the integration is going as planned and the tubes have been withdrawn for maintenance or something and it's just a typically lengthy process. Who knows? Perhaps GF can find out (or knows already) if he reads this?

It's not uncommon for Harpoon equipped ships to carry only the stands in peacetime. This doesn't mean Harpoon is not fitted. As for placement behind the bridge, perhaps the topweight issue has less to do with Harpoon installation and more with the projected installation of phased array radar panels. This is the main difference between ANZAC and other nations' Meko200. The latter carry a 'regular' radar fit and SSMs behind the bridge. ANZAC is projected to get phased array radar panels fitted 'high up', the weight of which may preclude simultaneous installation of Harpoon 'high up'.

http://www.ausmarinetech.com.au/img/proj/CEAFAR/3dimage1.jpg
http://www.ausmarinetech.com.au/index.php?subaction=showfull&id=1080002280&archive=&start_from=&ucat=2&page=article

 

[gf0012-aust]

As for placement behind the bridge, perhaps the topweight issue has less to do with Harpoon installation and more with the projected installation of phased array radar panels. This is the main difference between ANZAC and other nations' Meko200. The latter carry a 'regular' radar fit and SSMs behind the bridge. ANZAC is projected to get phased array radar panels fitted 'high up', the weight of which may preclude simultaneous installation of Harpoon 'high up'.

One of the early problems identified with this class was an issue of the centre of gravity. at one stage serious consideration was being given to lancing the entire superstructure and doing a redesign.

Inherently, the platforms issues on stability favour VLS - any mounts sitting too high up could possibly raise balance concerns again.

I'm guessing that the demons of the past have revisited.

 

[alexsa]

One of the early problems identified with this class was an issue of the centre of gravity. at one stage serious consideration was being given to lancing the entire superstructure and doing a redesign.

Inherently, the platforms issues on stability favour VLS - any mounts sitting too high up could possibly raise balance concerns again.

I'm guessing that the demons of the past have revisited.

As far as I know Harpoon is not currently configured in a manner that would allow it to be launched using VLS. Is there any move to change this given the DD(X) configuration as this would appear to be a possible solution for the ANZAC and would be usedful for the FFG as well?

If it happens I would appear to be a good reason to add the second 8 cell Mk 41 to the ANZAC (personnally I would like to see this in place anyway).

On the ANZAC (and slightly off track) I note the original design configuration for the ANZAC (as advertised and given on the GA plan) had the Harpoon mounts behind the bridge, as well as CIWS, 16 Mk41 cells and a second fire control channel all mounted quite high up (apparently above the CoG). It seems to me that some thing has gone adrift in the design in that it cannot now be achieved. Is it possible the proposed ASMD have anything to do with this?

 

[Rich]

Has there been any interest in Australia in the Spruance class destoyers the USN is retiring? And wouldnt that be a good "bang for the buck" move by the AN? Which is apparently suffering from "frigate'itis"..............thank you

 

[gf0012-aust]

Has there been any interest in Australia in the Spruance class destoyers the USN is retiring? And wouldnt that be a good "bang for the buck" move by the AN? Which is apparently suffering from "frigate'itis"..............thank you

No. The Australian Govt has made it clear that its not interested in Navy obtaining second hand US gear after the debacle of the Newports.

We have been offered all the Kidds and 3 Ticonderogas in the past.

 

[Rich]

Obviously a brand spanking new DD-51 or Type-45 would be preferable. My point was a free Spruance is better then no Spruance. Because you can only throw so many systems on a sub-4,000 ton frigate before it spins upside down.

The Spruance's would give your navy another dimension. Most of all in ASW. Lets face facts here, Australia should have 9,000+ ton multi-mission platforms in its navy.

 

[KAPITAIN]

Well i am a great believer that australia should havea carrier and a 9000 tonnes multi mission DDG or even a CG would be good in thier fleet id like to see this sort of navy for the australians ok its wishful thinking.

2 aircraft carriers
2 cruisers
8 destroyers
12 frigates
22 patrol craft
6 auxilaries
8 submarines

something like that would be good.

 

[Sea Toby]

Australia has a population of 20 or so million. A European country to compare Australia's military per capital would be the Netherlands, not the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, or Spain which have twice if not three or four times the population of Australia.

Australia will by 2015 have 3 air warfare destroyers, 8 general purpose frigates, 6 diesel submarines, 12+ patrol boats, 6 minehunters, 2 replenishment oilers, and 2 LHDs along with another sealift ship.

The Netherlands will by 2015 have 4 air warfare destroyers, 4 general purpose frigates, 4 diesel submarines, 10 minehunters, 2 replenishment oilers, 2 LPDs. It appears the Netherlands maybe acquiring one or more OPVs to replace recently sold frigates to Chile.

The Australians have 10,800 naval personnel, the Dutch have 8,800 naval personnel.

While the Dutch are building their air warfare destroyers and their second LPD currently, in the next ten years it appears the Dutch will only be acquiring one more replenishment oiler and one or more OPVs. The Dutch have sold off their Orion fleet of ASW patrol aircraft.

On the other hand the Australians will soon start building their air warfare destroyers and three larger amphibious ships and will more than likely convert another cream puff used oiler to a replenishment oiler, currently the Australians are building patrol boats having recently finished building a class of 8 frigates and 6 minehunters. The Australians are also updating their Orions.

While Australia maybe a bit larger in population than the Netherlands, the two first world nations do match well, much better than attempting to compare the forces of the United Kingdom to Australia, which has three times the population and government revenues.

Canada has a larger population than Australia, and it appears Australia is doing more for the allied cause than the Canadians which by 2015 will be down to its 12 general purpose frigates, 4 diesel submarines, 12 OPVs, and 2-3 multi-role replenishment/sealift ships. Canada only has 8,900 naval personnel.

Of course the mighty Royal Navy has 37,400 active naval personnel, plus 2300 royal fleet auxiliary personnel, not to mention 17,400 naval reserve personnel. The Royal Navy by 2015 will have 2 new aircraft carriers, 4 ballistic missile submarines, 12 attack submarines, 6-8 air warfare destroyers, 16-20 general purpose frigates, 3 OPVs, 22 minehunters, 1 LPH, 2 LPDs, 3 LSDs, 2 large replenishment ships, 2 replenishment ships, 2+ replenishment oilers, and 6-8 vehicle cargo ships, plus a larger number of utility craft due to its larger size in manpower and warships.

 

[Whiskyjack]

Australia has a population of 20 or so million. A European country to compare Australia's military per capital would be the Netherlands, not the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, or Spain which have twice if not three or four times the population of Australia.

Australia will by 2015 have 3 air warfare destroyers, 8 general purpose frigates, 6 diesel submarines, 12+ patrol boats, 6 minehunters, 2 replenishment oilers, and 2 LHDs along with another sealift ship.

The Netherlands will by 2015 have 4 air warfare destroyers, 4 general purpose frigates, 4 diesel submarines, 10 minehunters, 2 replenishment oilers, 2 LPDs. It appears the Netherlands maybe acquiring one or more OPVs to replace recently sold frigates to Chile.

The Australians have 10,800 naval personnel, the Dutch have 8,800 naval personnel.

While the Dutch are building their air warfare destroyers and their second LPD currently, in the next ten years it appears the Dutch will only be acquiring one more replenishment oiler and one or more OPVs. The Dutch have sold off their Orion fleet of ASW patrol aircraft.

On the other hand the Australians will soon start building their air warfare destroyers and three larger amphibious ships and will more than likely convert another cream puff used oiler to a replenishment oiler, currently the Australians are building patrol boats having recently finished building a class of 8 frigates and 6 minehunters. The Australians are also updating their Orions.

While Australia maybe a bit larger in population than the Netherlands, the two first world nations do match well, much better than attempting to compare the forces of the United Kingdom to Australia, which has three times the population and government revenues.

Canada has a larger population than Australia, and it appears Australia is doing more for the allied cause than the Canadians which by 2015 will be down to its 12 general purpose frigates, 4 diesel submarines, 12 OPVs, and 2-3 multi-role replenishment/sealift ships. Canada only has 8,900 naval personnel.

Of course the mighty Royal Navy has 37,400 active naval personnel, plus 2300 royal fleet auxiliary personnel, not to mention 17,400 naval reserve personnel. The Royal Navy by 2015 will have 2 new aircraft carriers, 4 ballistic missile submarines, 12 attack submarines, 6-8 air warfare destroyers, 16-20 general purpose frigates, 3 OPVs, 22 minehunters, 1 LPH, 2 LPDs, 3 LSDs, 2 large replenishment ships, 2 replenishment ships, 2+ replenishment oilers, and 6-8 vehicle cargo ships, plus a larger number of utility craft due to its larger size in manpower and warships.

Hi Sea Toby,

Just to clarify, the strength of the RAN is around 13,000.
http://www.defence.gov.au/budget/04-05/dar/03_01_workforce01.htm
And the RN figure also includes the RM, which is around 6000-7000.

Cheers.

 

[Rich]

The RAN air warfare destroyer program is going to deliver a DD when? Was it 2015? Right now the program is nothing but a traveling road show trying to "sell" it to the public.........correct? There has been no actual work done on the project yet........yes?

So it leaves the RAN wth a green water navy for a blue water mission. Im not sure you can compare the Aussies with a Euro-navy because they have completly different defense requirments. Australia is situated in the vastness of the pacific in the most important maritime trade route in the world. They have a far greater need for a far more powerful navy then any mainland Euro country.

And current plans are only for 3 AWDDs? I think as a stop gap, and as a hedge, they, and we, would be better off if the RAN operated some of the Spruances were retiring. They are still a most capable platform.

 

[alexsa]

The RAN air warfare destroyer program is going to deliver a DD when? Was it 2015? Right now the program is nothing but a traveling road show trying to "sell" it to the public.........correct? There has been no actual work done on the project yet........yes?

So it leaves the RAN wth a green water navy for a blue water mission. Im not sure you can compare the Aussies with a Euro-navy because they have completly different defense requirments. Australia is situated in the vastness of the pacific in the most important maritime trade route in the world. They have a far greater need for a far more powerful navy then any mainland Euro country.

And current plans are only for 3 AWDDs? I think as a stop gap, and as a hedge, they, and we, would be better off if the RAN operated some of the Spruances were retiring. They are still a most capable platform.

Actually the AWD is a bit more that just a travelling road show trying to sell the AWD and a number of agreements have been signed in respect of the vessels systems already. The DMO web site (although not updated for some time) gives and indication of what activity is going on:

http://www.defence.gov.au/dmo/msd/sea4000/sea4000.cfm

The road show was intended to canvas Australian companies to see if they had the capacity to be involved. The Allaince web site covering the road show is available at:

http://www.ausawd.com/index.html

Further from my uniformed perspective looking at the DoD announcements and the recent capability announcements that the AWD has passed all the budget goal posts to date. In other words it is running along with a full head of steam.

The Spurance class vessels are man power intesnsive, have had a full career to date (meaning they will be more maintenance intensive) and won't be a patch on the capability of the AWD. To me what it appears what they would do is soak up a lot of defence budget for limited capability to fill a role that is more effectivley handled by the FFG (which has a smaller crew). The upgraded FFG would appear to have a significantly better AAW capability than the Spruance with SM-2 and ESSM and has similar SSM capability so we are better off completeing the upgrade fo the 4 FFG's as planned. I have to admit it appears ADI did make a real dogs breakfast of getting the first one completed.

I think the comment about the size fo Australia and what we can afford is a valid one but if the platforms currently being in the capabiliyt plan are built it will be quite a credible force in the region.

 

[seantheaussie]

So it leaves the RAN wth a green water navy for a blue water mission. Im not sure you can compare the Aussies with a Euro-navy because they have completly different defense requirments. Australia is situated in the vastness of the pacific in the most important maritime trade route in the world. They have a far greater need for a far more powerful navy then any mainland Euro country.

The bulk of Australia's exports go to countries with very powerful navies. There are not many enemy navies out there who want to mess with US, Japan, China, SKorea.

 

[KAPITAIN]

Id also like to add russia to your list.

Even though russia is experiancing finacial issues since the cold war it is still none the less 2nd biggest navy in the world, even china doesnt have as many vessel as russia YET.

Despite the average age of thier vessels they are still very capible, i mean would you realy want to mess with peter the great seriously?

 

[gf0012-aust]

The RAN air warfare destroyer program is going to deliver a DD when? Was it 2015? Right now the program is nothing but a traveling road show trying to "sell" it to the public.........correct? There has been no actual work done on the project yet........yes?

It's a bit more than a travelling road show - the main point being that none of what is happening is now in the public eye.

US primes for example have been too and fro into Oz negotiating with potential suppliers and builders. There is a flurry of activity going on identifying key staff requirements and the Govt has established some maritime centres as part of the dev/build process.

 

[Michael RVR]

KAPITAIN - But we don't export to Russia..

 

[rickusn]

"i mean would you realy want to mess with peter the great seriously?"

Absolutely. Its a huge target whos defences are suspect at best.

 

[Sea Toby]

As I recall Australia was offered the Kidd class destroyers with Mk 26 SAM launchers, and they have been offered the first four of the Ticenderoga class with Mk 26 SAM launchers. Since Australia passed on these newer better air warfare destroyers and cruisers, why would Australia desire an older Spruance class without a Mk 26 SAM launcher? Especially considering they have Anzac class frigates with an 8-cell MK 41 SAM launcher for Sea Sparrow, and after their upgrades they will have quad packed the Evolved Sea Sparrow missiles, able to launch 32 ESSM instead of 8 Sea Sparrows. Australia may eventually add the second 8-cell Mk 41 launcher to the Anzacs.

The Australians are also upgrading four of their six Perry class FFGs, keeping the Mk 13 launcher for 40 Standard/Harpoon missiles, and adding an 8-cell Mk 41 launcher for quad pack, 32 ESSM. These Perry class frigates after their upgrade will be more powerful than their old Adams class destroyers.

Eleven Australian surface warships surely beats 8 Dutch surface warships. Six Australian submarines beats 4 Dutch submarines. Australia is pulling its share, however, New Zealand is another story.

 

[KAPITAIN]

Id seriously doubt any right minded same captain would want to mess with it.

When i was visiting my stepfather in st petersburg (i go there and murmansk regularly) peter the great was in for over haul and the amount of weapons on that ship well..............

There is atleast 3 types of SAM's i couldnt count all the CIWS guns and the VLS launcher's for the 2nd most powerfullest anti ship missile on earth.

If i was comanding a DDG id simply run away and get some bigger ships or team up to go in and get it.

 

[rickusn]

Not me.

One SSN. One torpedo. One sunk target. LOL

Or aircraft with precision weapons.

The reason it has so many redundant systems is that they are all relatively unreliable, ineffective and in some cases obsolete.

Even a well trained Captain and crew of a relatively well-armed and sensored DDG could mission kill the ship you worship w/o geetting a scratch.

Why? See below.

As for the rest. It does indeed bristle with weapons but suffers when it comes to targeting and employing thiose weapons.

Plus you have to go to sea far more often to be a credible foe.

And the Slavas are even less imposing.

But think what you want.

Because for me it doesnt matter what I think. All that matters is what I know.

And I know from the facts that the ship you speak of is not an awe inspiring threat but only an enormous target that can be quite easilly eliminated by "any right minded sane captain"( quote edited for spelling).

But it is a wonderful ship for showing the flag but its only claim to fame is the prestige factor.

I wouldnt want to be on her in a sea battle of any type. Her life expectancy and that of the crews can be measured in minutes if not seconds.

The Slavas are even worse. Any hit by any surface or air weapon would render them a flaming hulk in a split second. An SSN would sink them so suddenly and catastrophically that it would take decades to locate what was left of the wreck.

Im prepared for battle. Are you? I know you arent.

But bring it anyway if you have a mind because Im ready.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Just a gentle reminder about the topic title.

Feel free to start a new thread on the competency of the Peter the Great though. I'm sure there will be respondents to it.

In closing, to paraphrase the submariners mantra - "there are two types of ship/boat - submarines and targets."