That article is written by H I Sutton and he's an international authority on submarine capabilities, especially Russian ones. Anything by him is considered authorative.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0
- Thread starter OPSSG
- Start date
With all this chatter about corvettes and beefing up mass in the RAN.
I can’t help thinking that there is a vessel that seems to tick all the boxes and is exactly what the adf needs.
The Damen Crossover xo.
This light frigate is a very capable vessel that can perform AAW, ASW and AshW. It has the capability for a helicopter and an array of weapons and sensors. The multi mission deck is capable for humanitarian ops and well deck for amphibious raiding ops. And the thing I like about this vessel is it has a low crewing requirement which is what the ran should be looking at when looking to purchase the proposed 12 corvettes. I believe damen work with local shipbuilders to build their platforms so Henderson would be a great fit to start producing these multi mission crossover frigates once the OPV’s and mine hunters have been completed by 2027.
A Damen crossover 115 with a 57mm main cannon, 24 Mk41 VLS, millineum CIWS, hanger and seahawk helicopter, well deck with RHIb and modular tow array sonar with light torps combined with then xdeck which could carry a company of troops would be exactly what the RAN are looking for.. flexibility at a low cost.
What’s everyone’s thoughts on the Damen Crossover xo range of vessels.
I seriously can’t think of a better vessel that could perform all these roles in such a compact ship.
I can’t help thinking that there is a vessel that seems to tick all the boxes and is exactly what the adf needs.
The Damen Crossover xo.
This light frigate is a very capable vessel that can perform AAW, ASW and AshW. It has the capability for a helicopter and an array of weapons and sensors. The multi mission deck is capable for humanitarian ops and well deck for amphibious raiding ops. And the thing I like about this vessel is it has a low crewing requirement which is what the ran should be looking at when looking to purchase the proposed 12 corvettes. I believe damen work with local shipbuilders to build their platforms so Henderson would be a great fit to start producing these multi mission crossover frigates once the OPV’s and mine hunters have been completed by 2027.
A Damen crossover 115 with a 57mm main cannon, 24 Mk41 VLS, millineum CIWS, hanger and seahawk helicopter, well deck with RHIb and modular tow array sonar with light torps combined with then xdeck which could carry a company of troops would be exactly what the RAN are looking for.. flexibility at a low cost.
What’s everyone’s thoughts on the Damen Crossover xo range of vessels.
I seriously can’t think of a better vessel that could perform all these roles in such a compact ship.
Good day folks
As noted previously the mods are getting a bit tired of folk pointing at a bit of kit that takes their fancy and suggests it may be the solution. When making proposals I suggest (to avoid red ink) you justify this in the RAN context. You need to set the requirements.
As noted previously, I have suggested that, as a minimum, any second tier vessels should have the capability of a fully upgraded ANZAC with more cells being benificial. This includes range and sustained cruising speed to achieve that range. If you down load the performance spec you will note that the vessel has a dececnt range of 6700nm ..... but at 14 knots. The sustained speed of the MFU is at least 18 knots. This means having these vessels in a task group will result in a slower tranist speed and more tanking with the AOR.
The other gem is the vessel only has an endurance 15 days will full crew (this is messing and supplies not fuel). Now have a look at a map of Australia and you will note that that does not get you far. What is the point of being able to carry so many but only over a short distance.
Finally there is the combat system and sensor fit. At a minimum (and for commonality) this would be the SAAB 9LV and the CEAFar suite. This is a large power hungary combination an you may end up having to alter the vessel to increase installed power generation. Just remember the product sheet is an advertising blurb and it .does not specifically identify systems. The ability of the vessel to meet its range and combat requirements is likely to have the on the heavy side.
So, once again, if you are going to suggest something ..... justify it against some sort of criteria that is relevant to the Australian context.
alexsa
More about the Ghost Shark. The vessel displayed is actually a US-made ‘Dive-LD’ AUV. It is the test bed vehicle. The actual vessel itself is no doubt many years from completion. An interesting capability, perhaps even game changing, but at this stage well and truly in the concept stage.
I would speculate that the real game changer will be the AI system itself which may eventually find itself controlling a whole range vessels and weapons. Imagine an AI controlled torpedo for example or better yet a whole network of AI controlled torpedoes operating like a wolf pack.
To my mind this is the true game changing aspect of AI. A whole network of weapons and sensors sharing data and coordinating responses in a fraction of the time it would take human beings.
I would speculate that the real game changer will be the AI system itself which may eventually find itself controlling a whole range vessels and weapons. Imagine an AI controlled torpedo for example or better yet a whole network of AI controlled torpedoes operating like a wolf pack.
To my mind this is the true game changing aspect of AI. A whole network of weapons and sensors sharing data and coordinating responses in a fraction of the time it would take human beings.
Hi Alexsa, apologies it’s my first post and I’m at work.
Question why should a second tier vessel have the same requirement as the Anzac.. this is your view not the view of others.
I’m asking to discuss the Damen crossover in the australian corvettes role so would think this is relevant and worthy of discussion.
As there will most likely be a tendering process next year if the force posture review believe mass is a requirement for the RAN.
Question why should a second tier vessel have the same requirement as the Anzac.. this is your view not the view of others.
I’m asking to discuss the Damen crossover in the australian corvettes role so would think this is relevant and worthy of discussion.
As there will most likely be a tendering process next year if the force posture review believe mass is a requirement for the RAN.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
The upgraded RAN ANZAC-class FFH's are second tier RAN vessels, for all intents and purposes.
As has been pointed out several times in the past couple of months, any RAN combatant which might be called upon to operate in or transit through hostile or contested waters will need to have certain minimum levels of capabilities, otherwise the vessel in question would be little more than the currently floating tomb for her crew.
Given the ease of access that many forces (both state and non-state actors) have to weapons like AShM, a decent air defence capability is a reasonable requirement, and by decent I mean more than a VSHORAD or CIWS-like capability. Having CIWS would of course be good, provided such systems were in addition to something with ESSM like capabilities. There is also a need for sufficient missiles to be carried to make saturation attacks more difficult. With the 8-cell Mk 41 VLS fitted to the FFH's, that provides a max of 32 quad-packed ESSM and assuming a pair of ESSM's fired to provide greater chances of intercepting inbounds, that would permit engaging up to 16 targets at ranges of up to ~50 km.
If one were to instead have a new warship fitted out with a smaller and/or more limited weapons loadout, it would be even more likely that a combatant so fitted would require escort in hostile or contested waters.
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
We all need to take a breather and wait for March, see what the recommendation is (12 Corvettes is only conjecture at this stage) then we will have an idea of what any future design will be (if any).
Yep please for the sanity of the mods and those of us who have been around Defence circles for a while, can we please stop speculating about stuff that noone knows anything about as far as final decisions go until March 2023 ? People asking for opinions on platforms like the decision has already been made. It hasn't. You don't know for certain what's being considered and decided upon. The only people that do are cleared for it and won't be making comments about it on public discussion forums. So can we please WAIT until next year before the "coulda woulda shoulda" debate will inevitably start after the review is announced ?
Meanwhile back in the current real world working Navy :
"HMAS Arunta returns to her home port of Fleet Base East, Sydney, New South Wales, following the completion of a successful deployment."
Image Source : ADF Image Library
"HMAS Arunta returns to her home port of Fleet Base East, Sydney, New South Wales, following the completion of a successful deployment."
Image Source : ADF Image Library
Thanks I’m aware of the Anzac capability and would think a properly kitted Damen crossover. Xo would far exceeded its current capability if properly fitted.
I just thought it was worth discussing this vessel further and have you experts have a look into it. Even the RNZN would be a good fit for this ship with low crewing levels and it’s amphibious role would be handy for the pacific island network.
I just thought it was worth discussing this vessel further and have you experts have a look into it. Even the RNZN would be a good fit for this ship with low crewing levels and it’s amphibious role would be handy for the pacific island network.
Yep, additionally the 6th of 12x Arafura Class OPV’s is already under construction and Armidales are starting to retire. Any talk of ‘replacing’ the Arafura Class is nonsense at this late point. The money has largely been spent and while we ‘could’ offload the vessels - perhaps to Border Force, ‘perhaps’ to some Pacific Island nations (though their capacity to run such large vessels might be questionable) given the likely delays in acquiring a replacement, RAN already arguably short of hulls, are not going to be left even shorter than they already are, just because the good idea fairy came along under auspice of DSR and someone thought - hey, wouldn’t it be a great idea if RAN had a more capable class of ships than an over-sized, un-armed OPV?
So would a Flight 3 Arleigh Burke…
I think it slightly more useful to discuss the apparent requirement first and the possible kit second myself…
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
Frigates (thyssenkrupp-marinesystems.com)
The MEKO group offer the F-125, A-200, A-300 Frigates and K-130 and MEKO A100 Corvettes, not quite sure what the MEKO 105 is.
The updated version of the Anzac is the MEKO A200, and if Australia was looking for an exact Anzac replacement, then the A200 would probably be a contender but there is no evidence we are and where does Mr Bergman think we are going to build them and where is the work force, That could do it before the Hunter?
OldTex
Well-Known Member
The article on pages 38-40 of the current issue of APDR is a typical fluff piece by Kym Bergman (although this time it appears that he didn't score a paid trip). He proposes that the RAN (incorrectly) build MEKO 100 Light Frigates to fill the 'gap' before the Hunter class starts to be delivered. What is ignored is that, unless there is a clear reason to do so, a single source contract is not possible under defence procurement guidelines. So a large part of the time before the Hunters are delivered would be spent selecting the design to fill the 'gap'. The article also ignores the limitations of current Australian shipbuilding capacity as well as the lead times required for some of the major elements of the ship (engines, combat system, radar, weapons - especially Mk41 VLS, etc). The next obvious omission from the article is where the personnel to man these 'gap' filler frigates would be drawn from within the RAN. The sustainment and ongoing training demand is also ignored.
As others have said before in this thread, let's just wait until the review is released in March to see what it actually says before we spin off into chicken little mode.
buffy9
Well-Known Member
On a slightly different note, if I may...
I have been listening through RUSI NSW's seminar videos with regards to AUKUS, and there is an interesting bit of information from Rear Admiral Jonathan Earley (13:00 mark) regarding missile introduction in the RAN:
There is some other interesting information with regards to SSN delivery and other topics, and he stresses the priority of getting all the FIC done first before worrying about what type of submarine to procure. Some details ahead of March - though he notes even he as COMAUSFLT isn't necessarily involved with official SSN introduction/discussion.
I have been listening through RUSI NSW's seminar videos with regards to AUKUS, and there is an interesting bit of information from Rear Admiral Jonathan Earley (13:00 mark) regarding missile introduction in the RAN:
An indicator that a decision has been made to arm the Collins with Tomahawks and/or NSM as part of the more general switch in inventory. I'm not familiar with any UGM variant of the NSM, though if the submarine has to launch an AShM some of the missile's LO characteristics might help the sub stay unnoticed for a while longer.
There is some other interesting information with regards to SSN delivery and other topics, and he stresses the priority of getting all the FIC done first before worrying about what type of submarine to procure. Some details ahead of March - though he notes even he as COMAUSFLT isn't necessarily involved with official SSN introduction/discussion.
Last edited:
Thanks OldTex for putting the link up and your comments ….I wasn’t able to get the link to copy over.
I looked at the MEKO 100 in relation to something else I was considering and it doesn't have the range or duration for Australian conditions. It's great for beetling around European waters, but in an Indian-Pacific context it's to short legged and small. The RAN would want / need to fit kit on to it that it's not design to carry and they'd soon have buoyancy problems. IF the RAN were to go down the route of a light GP frigate then the MEKO II hull and machinery would be the better option.
@Tbone Image deleted. No original text and image source not provided. One Moderator has already had to spend time cleaning up your posting mistakes today. You have made nine posts so far so should begin to be familiar with the rules and how this forum operates. You need to improve your posting quality. No demerit points awarded or formal warnings issued, but if there is a repeat performance, then the points and warnings will be issued.
Ngatimozart.
Ngatimozart.
Last edited by a moderator: