Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

Scott Elaurant

Well-Known Member
The F-105 design was updated for the US frigate bids. They being Navantia and G&C completely reworked the ship in a number of areas, and it would be essentially a flight II of the design if built. The US paid for this work, it was extensive, Warren was talking about it before stepping down. The F-105 proposal went quite far, but eventually lost out to the FREMM proposal that is now the constellation class which also has extensive changes.

Not long after the F-110 final version appeared, and seemed to feature many of the same type of modifications, but now reconfigured as a light frigate. Navantia also claims it could build a large ship very quickly which would be "simular" to a Hobart class. They are also going to update the F-101-105 ships.

The F-110 while similar in size and hull form to the Hobart/F-105, is quite different in bridge stucture and fitout, only one gas turbine, 4 diesels etc. It has far less crew, 150 vs ~230..

Navantia's proposal is being assessed by RAND for viability, which seems to indicate it is broadly suitable for the RAN. There would be no need to assess it unless it was broadly suitable.

We don't know what exactly being assessed. If it is new build, improve F-105 as proposed for the Constellation class. Or New build F-105 for the Sea5000, or F-110 frigates, or F-110 hulls with 48 VLS and a destroyer type fitout, or some classic form of the Hobart class made to meet modern code and equipment as older equipment is not available anymore and not up to code. The F-110 has been designed to operate alongside the F-105 and Spain intends to keep both classes operating.
Stingray

thanks very much for the clarification of the Navantia class F-100/105/110 development. As long as any “Batch 2” Hobart class build was to the upgraded F-110 standard that seems a viable candidate for a “tier 1” warship for the RAN.

I am not wishing to imply that I think the Navantia offer should win the decision. It will depend on many factors. But I do think the RAN needs more “tier 1” warships. Therefore while switching the Arafura build to a “tier 2” warship makes sense in terms of the DSR, we should not lose sight of the need to make up for lost time building up the “tier 1“ hull numbers.

Given your comments on crew numbers I can understand why the Constellation class is a less viable alternative.
 

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
The U.S.N will commission its newest Freedom Class with the name of USS Canberra in honour of the H.M.A.S Canberra from WW2
US Navy ship called Canberra to be commissioned in Sydney - CONTACT magazine (contactairlandandsea.com)

Moderator Edit: The correct nomenclature for RAN warships is His Majesty's Australian Ship. From WW1 all Australian warships were / are HMAS.
John Howard was presented the ships Bell from the first USS Canberra in Washington by George W Bush on 10 Sept 2001(date is very easy to remember due to what happened the next day). One thing you say about the USN, they are not afraid to honour close allies, there is also the USS Winston S Churchill, a Burke class DDG.
 

swerve

Super Moderator
...
So no order for mk41 systems, no order for missiles, no money announced to acquire, but an intention, to perhaps, fit, at some time, mk41 into the type 31.
True, but it's a big step forward. I imagine that discussions are going on between the navy, the MoD & the Treasury about what exactly will be done & when, but the fact that the 1SL has made a public statement shows serious intent.
 

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
Given your comments on crew numbers I can understand why the Constellation class is a less viable alternative.
Crew numbers are very dependent on systems and weapons fitted. For the Americans the Constellation is a "low crew ship" with about a third less crew than a Burke.

One of the reasons why the Spanish didn't fit more than 16 VLS is apparently the 5" Oto gun is highly automated, with a Volcano module, but that automation takes up space. If they had fitted a BAe 45 5", like on the Hobart's, F101-F-105, Hunter class, or a smaller automated gun (57mm or 76mm) there is room to fit many more strike length cells. Which is why its often not a good idea to compare ships with very different equipment and fitouts and judge one as being "better". Fit that mk45 and your crewing requirement goes up as well, 6 crew to operate the gun, more crew, more supplies, more bunks, more crew to feed.

The Type 31 with mk41 installed would seem to eat up the back half of all that flex space that is very important for a frigate.

Honestly I don't think the either the F-110 or Type 31 is being considered unless they are considering killing off the Hunter program completely. There is too much overlap there.

Its the Arafura that can't take basically any weapons RAN has and has a mission that should probably sit with a civilian force or be gifted to allies in the region. Arafura is perfect for that.

It is about finding something with a crewing requirements more like 40-80 and has some self protection systems and can fit existing weapons. This excludes things like Type 31 and F-110. Hunter is a big ship, 10,000t, and has a significant crew of ~150, so something with a crew of a quarter to half of the Hunter is a completely different category. The core ship with no weapons fitted (ie fitted as a OPV) may be 40 fitting the weapons would lift it to 80. Perhaps not every ship would be fitted as such.
True, but it's a big step forward. I imagine that discussions are going on between the navy, the MoD & the Treasury about what exactly will be done & when, but the fact that the 1SL has made a public statement shows serious intent.
It is huge and I think changes some of the ideas about the Type 31. We may see the first few ships lighted fitted out as more patrol ships, while later batches are fitted with significant more capable weapon systems. Raises some questions about the Type 26.

But as pointed out, there are many questions. Is this instead of CAMM? Will there be missiles. Why fit Mk41 to the Type 31 frigate, and not the type 45 destroyer. What impact will it have on the ships capability in other areas. It would appear to block the flex space in between the central flex space and the hangar. Guess we will see.

if we believed everything leadership mentioned or announced, Australia would have F-35B's, a couple of carriers, Japanese, French and American submarines. Long road from announcement to actual capability.
 

Bob53

Well-Known Member
Apologies if previously answered but is there any reason it would not make sense for Australia to become part of the USN constellation build and have an Australian yard building the same ship for the RAN? It sees, that all or most systems are compatible with what we have or plan to use going forward. if the USN is using systems we don’t currently have in service could we adopt and benefit from the volume of equipment and munitions the USN would be ordering.8D646C26-C79F-4804-B4B2-6E1398675E62.jpeg

Attached is from Wikipedia ….
 
Last edited:

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Why why why why why would we buy / build an equivalent, instead of, or to supplement, the Hunters? Switching to anything else would just burn money and time.

It's not as if the Hunters are obsolete, or don't meet requirements. Nor is it a case of any of the options being mentioned providing significantly greater, if any improvement over the Hunters. It's not even a case of them being available earlier.

In fact, based on past experience, changing direction, even for the very best of reasons, still results in detrimental cost and schedule impacts.

By all means supplement the Hunters with a complementary capability (TBD), so long as it results in increased capability sooner. By all means follow the Hunters, whether it be three, six, nine or twelve of them, with an evolved design, an improved design or a much more capable and flexible design.

Do not can the Hunters because you don't like BAE and want Navantia, or some other designer instead.
 

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
Apologies if previously answered but is there any reason it would not make sense for Australia to become part of the USN constellation build and have an Australian yard building the same ship for the RAN? It sees, that all or most
Except for 57mm we don't have, SeaRAM we don't have, RAN ships use MU90 for ship based torpedos, 9LV consoles, ceafar radar vs Spy6, the gt is 2500+G4 vs the ancient things we operate, sonar is different, we don't operate firescout, towed array is different, and its a design that is not yet FOC. It isn't the glove fit it first appears to be.

Its also very much in the same space as the Hobart class and the Hunter class, but is different to both and with a builder who doesn't have any? local footprint or delivered any ship building here in Australia. How many ways do we want to build essentially the same ship?

The main issue with the Hunter from what I can see from the outside, is that we spent a lot of effort specing it to be a very capable ship. It seems as if the UK also had its runs as a first of class issues as well. Its very frustrating that it is late, that the dates Pyne set were hopelessly unrealistic, for what ever reason, and it was noted at the time they were, and arguably we should have built a 4th AWD just to derisk the $6b DDG hobart upgrade program. We wasted so much money not building anything, then wasted more money and time on the attack class. But too late for that now.

But there is no one in government saying cancel the Hunter. But there may be some specing, as what the UK is doing with the Type 31. Hunter is a big ship, with lots of flexible space and big margins. If Australia no longer sought a large frigate with lots of flex space, well then, the radar, the combat system, is all there.

The talk is about smaller, more numerous combatants. Something that has a light defensive capability, but can probably take over the non-high intensity warfighting duties. We are back to the original concept of OCV- off shore combat vessels. 1500-3000t..~40 base, 80 full crew.

Richard Marles said:
“The second is that the DSR has observed that navies around the world are moving in the direction of having a larger number of smaller vessels. Now, with those two ideas in mind, we are thinking about the long-term structure of our surface fleet [into the 2030s].”
Building Fremm, F-110, nor constellations nor Type 31 will really net any more ships. Your just flicking between manufacturer. They are all ~150m x ~20m ships with 120-160 crew.

Moving to a smaller ship, with a core crew of ~40 sailors, but a weapons crew ~20-40 crew would allow the ship to more efficiently use the crew the RAN does have. So rather than a fully single crew the ship, the core crew could be single and the weapons crew could be more flexibly deployed. I don't know if that *IS* what they are going for, but something in that range would be wildly different from Hobart's and Hunter, and would offer real flexibility and useful capability, free the Hunters up to be all they can be.
 
Last edited:

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Why why why why why would we buy / build an equivalent, instead of, or to supplement, the Hunters? Switching to anything else would just burn money and time.

It's not as if the Hunters are obsolete, or don't meet requirements. Nor is it a case of any of the options being mentioned providing significantly greater, if any improvement over the Hunters. It's not even a case of them being available earlier.

In fact, based on past experience, changing direction, even for the very best of reasons, still results in detrimental cost and schedule impacts.

By all means supplement the Hunters with a complementary capability (TBD), so long as it results in increased capability sooner. By all means follow the Hunters, whether it be three, six, nine or twelve of them, with an evolved design, an improved design or a much more capable and flexible design.

Do not can the Hunters because you don't like BAE and want Navantia, or some other designer instead.
Because that's far too logical and doesn't comply with Project Baldrick cunning plan.

Cunning plan.png
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Something that needs to be factored in to crewing discussions is that it's about more than numbers.

Each ship, regardless of size or total crew, requires a commander, a 2IC/XO, maintainers and operators. The maintainers need to include charge qualified technical SNCOs and or officers. There need to be a sufficient number of suitably qualified and experienced watch keepers.

Once you add more than a 25mm Typhoon, you need a PWO and probably a WEO heading the relevant departments, they need to be suitably experienced and qualified to lead those departments. You have a WEO you will likely have a level of systems complexity you will require a MEO.

Basically there are overheads that every vessel has, and extra overheads combatants with any level of capability have. One of the arguments against the OPC / corvette back in the late 90s was it would require an almost doubling of the number of PWOs in the RAN.

The best way to train and upskill these people is on big ships with largish crews. Train them, get them competent then get them onto the smaller (actual) warship to consolidate and improve. Back to a major to upskill head up a department, then back to the small ship at the boss. Then back to big ships or shore postings to train, coach and mentor the next generation.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
One of the reasons why the Spanish didn't fit more than 16 VLS is apparently the 5" Oto gun is highly automated, with a Volcano module, but that automation takes up space. If they had fitted a BAe 45 5", like on the Hobart's, F101-F-105, Hunter class, or a smaller automated gun (57mm or 76mm) there is room to fit many more strike length cells.
Interesting, as the CSC will have the 127 mm Oto gun, I wonder if this is the reason why CSC will only have 24 VLS instead of 32?
 

Meriv90

Active Member
On the FREMM idependently from having the 76mm (ASW) or the 127mm(GP model) there is space for 32VLS with 16 mounted, the space of the other 16 is used for a gym for the crew for now.
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
I suspect the Mogamis, Daegus and Type 31s are likely what was being referred to by greater numbers of smaller warships.

If we could get a reasonable number of this size and capability ship, to supplement the Hobart's/Hunters I wouldn't object.

What also comes to mind is the increased and more survivable littoral capability. This conceivably could be an APD / high speed assault transport variant of the "smaller" warship.
 

hauritz

Well-Known Member
In all likelihood I think that the smaller vessel being touted by Marles will be more akin to the OCV that was recommended in the defence review conducted by the Rudd government. I don’t see any actual benefit in a slightly downgraded version of Hunter class. I don’t see the point in halting the production of the Hunter in order to build new Hobarts. I see absolutely zero chance of a Labor government building ships overseas that could be built in an Australian yard.
The cynic in me just sees the government going to Lurrsen and asking if they can make the Arafura a little longer, give it a 57 or 76 mm main gun, add something like C Dome and call it a day.
 

ddxx

Well-Known Member
I suspect the Mogamis, Daegus and Type 31s are likely what was being referred to by greater numbers of smaller warships.
This makes a lot more sense, especially when you consider the core crew requirements.

It’s hard to see why you’d go with (for example) Navantia’s proposed ALFA 3000 Corvette/Light Frigate with a core crew of ~92 over something like Arrowhead 140 or Mogami which have similar core crew requirements.

Imagine if we went with something smaller than Anzac for her original ‘Tier Two’ role? Her ability to adapt (albeit within still tight margins) has been crucial and is something smaller hull designs can’t provide.
 
Top