Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[ngatimozart]

The Arafuras are designed to regularly operate as far as 50 South - they are not intended merely for ops in tropical waters. They are not, however, intended to operate in ice. They could almost certainly operate to the ice in summer, but it’s not something that you would want to do as your normal conops. As others have noted, there are much better designs of an appropriate size to do that; so why would you compromise on a likely less successful solution.

Oh, I forgot it’s NZ, so given Charles Upham and to a lesser extent the Protector group maybe…. (Sorry Kiwis ….. but this discussion belongs in your thread, not ours)

Note however that in the Australian context, the Ocean Protector replacement may well fit in this space.

Both the Charles Upham and Protector project were done on the cheap as budget by the respective governments. The RNZN didn't want to to touch either with 40ft barge poles. Indeed the Ocean Protector replacement may be a contender.

Its not just hull strength. A journey further than 50s would likely require additional endurance and range. Extensive deck and fitting heating etc. Most of the time these ships will never be cutting through any sea ice at all, its the other aspects that are probably more important than the ability to break ice of significant thickness. While in the north there tends to be a wide variety of ice thickness, it is less so in the south. year ice, will be broken by a ice breaker in the first part of summer. Then basically any ship can pull up at the coast in summer. No one goes through in winter. Icebreakers have been trapped in glacial calving events at any time of the year.

The Arafuras could make a visit like the Colombians did in 2015 with their OPV. It is based off a Fassmer 80.

Due to Antarctica remoteness and harshness, oceanic conditions, you tend to want larger, more powerful more capable ships with greater range and endurance with very different needs.

I would not want to take the Arafura class below 50°S because they are not built for the Southern Ocean. Unlike the Columbians, both NZ & Australia don't have the luxury of a continental landmass close by for most of the voyage with a short crossing to the Antarctic Peninsula. We have a good 2,000 nm of open ocean to cross with nowhere to run when it gets real rough.

The Southern Ocean wave climate is different to the North Atlantic wave climate and ongoing research is showing that. It's been found that the significant wave height is approximately 4 metres higher and the mean wave periods about 4 - 6 seconds longer than those in the North Atlantic. I do have a copy of the DTA paper about the Southern Ocean wave climate but I will not be posting a link to it here because I don't have permission to.

The fetch in the Southern Ocean is basically unlimited and at any given time there are five low pressure systems - storms spinning off the Antarctic continent into the Southern Ocean. So you have these five low pressure systems circling across the bottom of the world as they make their way north. This is basic NZ and Australian climatological knowledge taught in first year Uni atmospheric science courses.

Up until now Lloyd's of London and other maritime organisations have been using the North Atlantic classification system to certify ships for the Southern Ocean, but the NZDF DTA have found this to be somewhat inaccurate and are proposing a Southern Ocean Classification System to the appropriate Classification Authorities.

The Vard 9 209 has been mentioned a couple of times in the RNZN thread as well. This vessel has been built by Chile for duties in the Southern Ocean is 109 metres
edit that should read Vard 9 203.

The VARD 9-203 is thought to be the preferred option at the moment and IIRC the budget is around NZ$600 million.

BTW @spoz is right this is a RNZN topic.

 

[ASSAIL]

SEA 1180 area of operations is defined as;
48S to 5N and 95E to 180E
See below paragraph 11

https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=bf32c3ce-39e7-4463-835a-0ff69404cc7a

 

[oldsig127]

SEA 1180 area of operations is defined as;
48S to 5N and 95E to 180E
See below paragraph 11

https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=bf32c3ce-39e7-4463-835a-0ff69404cc7a

Ha. Thanks, I was looking for that. And it has been quoted on DT a number of times, but my Search-Fu failed me. Of course, it's for the earlier requirement for twenty OCV, but the area of operations didn't change for the OPV

oldsig

 

[alexsa]

Its not just hull strength. A journey further than 50s would likely require additional endurance and range. Extensive deck and fitting heating etc. Most of the time these ships will never be cutting through any sea ice at all, its the other aspects that are probably more important than the ability to break ice of significant thickness. While in the north there tends to be a wide variety of ice thickness, it is less so in the south. year ice, will be broken by a ice breaker in the first part of summer. Then basically any ship can pull up at the coast in summer. No one goes through in winter. Icebreakers have been trapped in glacial calving events at any time of the year.

The Arafuras could make a visit like the Colombians did in 2015 with their OPV. It is based off a Fassmer 80.

Colombian Navy Supports Scientific Expedition in the Antarctic - Diálogo Américas

The Colombian Navy is providing logistical, operational, and scientific support – and its largest and most sophisticated ship – for 20 researchers conducting the country’s first scientific expedition to the Antarctic. The Colombian Navy is providing logistical, operational, and scientific...

dialogo-americas.com

Due to Antarctica remoteness and harshness, oceanic conditions, you tend to want larger, more powerful more capable ships with greater range and endurance with very different needs.

Mostly correct. Just a couple of clarifications noting this may apply to the OP replacement.

The polar codes distils all the structural, safety (including emergency systems) and pollution requirements in a single code (which leverages off changes to SOLAS and MARPOL).

However, the Polar Code applies to all commercial vessels at all times of the year. This recognises that risks still exist during the summer period given the isolation (as noted in your post) and noting there is still ice about and water temperature will have an impact on machinery and hull structure.

PC1 and PC2 category A vessels are intended to operate in Polar waters in winter in multi year ice. You would expect PC1 and PC2 will be ice breakers. However, this is only up to the limitations of the design. Each ship is required to hold a manual outlining the design limitations of the vessel and voyage planning is required to take this into account.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Your right, when I mean any ship, they was perhaps overstating it, the intention was to indicate its much easier and much less demanding to make a summer trip, particularly after a breaker has been through, and in peak summer many northern bays don't require cutting through ice, many ship with some light ice capability, would likely be able to do it, if they could survive the southern ocean or make a little jaunt down the protected side of south America. If conditions are favorable and with a bit of luck and if you keep away from glacial areas.

For Antarctica, presence is key. If you have presence, people just tend to keep away if they are up to something dodgy. Its a big open space.

 

[ddxx]

I'm wondering if anyone knows if the Darussalam Class's often quoted 7,500 nmi range is accurate? I just can't figure out how that figure makes sense when compared to Arafura's 4,000 nmi range as they both appear to have similar installed power and maximum speeds?

There's not much in the way of legitimate sources on the topic of Darussalam's specifications.

 

[Todjaeger]

I'm wondering if anyone knows if the Darussalam Class's often quoted 7,500 nmi range is accurate? I just can't figure out how that figure makes sense when compared to Arafura's 4,000 nmi range as they both appear to have similar installed power and maximum speeds?

There's not much in the way of legitimate sources on the topic of Darussalam's specifications.

Not something we could know, at least not without more information, since we have quoted ranges, but not at what speed. Using the ANZAC-class frigates, the data was a max speed of ~27 kts, and a range of 6,000 n miles (at 18 kts IIRC).

For both the Arafura-class and Darussalam-class OPV's we have listed top speeds, and ranges, but no indication of at what speed that range is quoted.

As a side note, I would be somewhat cautious about some of the data provided so far. The RAN lists that Arafura-class OPV as having a max speed of 20 kts, but the ADM seems to think it is 22 kts.

 

[Stampede]

Just a follow on to post 8689 in the Army thread re connectors for the LHD's

From Navantia

https://navantia.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/KODAL75S.pdf

A connector with some scope for limited independent operations.

Ticks a lot of boxes.


Regards S

 

[Pusser01]

With Anzac coming out of the water at the AMC in Henderson, there are now 4 Anzac's on the dry. Toowoomba, Stuart & Ballarat are on the hardstand at BAE in various stages of their AMCAP's. Cheers.

 

[Redlands18]

Just a follow on to post 8689 in the Army thread re connectors for the LHD's

From Navantia

https://navantia.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/KODAL75S.pdf

A connector with some scope for limited independent operations.

Ticks a lot of boxes.


Regards S

As an eventual LCM-1E replacement, especially if they where to go with the Kodal 90 as the LCM-8 replacement but that is down the track some ways and the ADF are looking at 3 other Amphibious Vessel projects + the Riverine Patrol Craft project before they would be thinking about replacing the LCM-1E fleet.

 

[Tasman]

With Anzac coming out of the water at the AMC in Henderson, there are now 4 Anzac's on the dry. Toowoomba, Stuart & Ballarat are on the hardstand at BAE in various stages of their AMCAP's. Cheers.

That leaves only the three Hobarts and four Anzacs in the water. Just wondering how often since World War 2 that the RAN have only had seven major surface combatants available.

Tas

 

[Pusser01]

That leaves only the three Hobarts and four Anzacs in the water. Just wondering how often since World War 2 that the RAN have only had seven major surface combatants available.

Tas

Out of those 7 mate, I know a couple of them are also going to be conducting maintenance activities alongside aswell over the next couple of months.

 

[ddxx]

That leaves only the three Hobarts and four Anzacs in the water. Just wondering how often since World War 2 that the RAN have only had seven major surface combatants available.

Out of those 7 mate, I know a couple of them are also going to be conducting maintenance activities alongside aswell over the next couple of months.

Is this the DDGs going in for their major upgrades?

By the time the first Hunter is commissioned in December 2033, the youngest Anzac will be 27 years old. Let's hope they're ageing well so far(?)

Otherwise, we might be in a tight position for a long while yet.

 

[Pusser01]

Is this the DDGs going in for their major upgrades?

By the time the first Hunter is commissioned in December 2033, the youngest Anzac will be 27 years old. Let's hope they're ageing well so far(?)

Otherwise, we might be in a tight position for a long while yet.

DDG's just doing scheduled maintenance activities at the moment. The Anzac's are aging relatively well so far. Have to remember they will have all gone through 3x 18-24 month periods of upgrades/maintenance out of the water spaced over approx. 18 years. This is almost 6 years out of the water for each ship over that period. Cheers.

 

[ddxx]

DDG's just doing scheduled maintenance activities at the moment. The Anzac's are aging relatively well so far. Have to remember they will have all gone through 3x 18-24 month periods of upgrades/maintenance out of the water spaced over approx. 18 years. This is almost 6 years out of the water for each ship over that period. Cheers.

The cumulative time out of water is a really good point.

Somewhat on a side-note regarding the Anzacs - does weight margin still remain to fit a CIWS?

 

[oldsig127]

The cumulative time out of water is a really good point.

Somewhat on a side-note regarding the Anzacs - does weight margin still remain to fit a CIWS?

Very frequently discussed here, and the answer is a resounding no.

oldsig

 

[ddxx]

Very frequently discussed here, and the answer is a resounding no.

oldsig

Sorry, I haven’t been around here for as long as some.

That does make it difficult to imagine the Anzacs being useful for the next couple of decades in the context of both the strategic circumstances and the objectives raised in the 2020 Strategic Update.

Don’t get me wrong, they’re very capable for what they are and the underlying base design - Defence has worked well with what they have.

I just struggle to see any evidence which supports them being viable surface combatants for the next two and a half decades, beyond presence, surveillance and patrol activities.

 

[Stampede]

Sorry, I haven’t been around here for as long as some.

That does make it difficult to imagine the Anzacs being useful for the next couple of decades in the context of both the strategic circumstances and the objectives raised in the 2020 Strategic Update.

Don’t get me wrong, they’re very capable for what they are and the underlying base design - Defence has worked well with what they have.

I just struggle to see any evidence which supports them being viable surface combatants for the next two and a half decades, beyond presence, surveillance and patrol activities.

Your concern is mirrored by others with regards to their relevance in the decades ahead.
While they are still impressive ships for their size, they are not in the 8000 t plus category which seems to be the new norm for a major warship.
The replacement Hunter Class are of just such a size, but they wont be in providing any meaningful ship numbers for many years to come.

Alas, for today we have what we have.

Maybe your default question is, what do we do between now and when we finally actually achieve a dozen major warships.

Well for the future we only have what is currently planned.

As such!

The Anzac's will have a lot expected from their 4000 t



Regards S

 

[ADMk2]

Sorry, I haven’t been around here for as long as some.

That does make it difficult to imagine the Anzacs being useful for the next couple of decades in the context of both the strategic circumstances and the objectives raised in the 2020 Strategic Update.

Don’t get me wrong, they’re very capable for what they are and the underlying base design - Defence has worked well with what they have.

I just struggle to see any evidence which supports them being viable surface combatants for the next two and a half decades, beyond presence, surveillance and patrol activities.

There is hopefully some margin being clawed back under the forthcoming TRANSCAP program, that my allow some improved weapons capability, as has been discussed previously on this thread, but time will tell…

 

[Milne Bay]

With Anzac coming out of the water at the AMC in Henderson, there are now 4 Anzac's on the dry. Toowoomba, Stuart & Ballarat are on the hardstand at BAE in various stages of their AMCAP's. Cheers.

Why is HMAS Anzac coming out of the water?
I thought that its AMCAP program was complete and that it had finished sea trials.
Puzzled?
MB