Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
t68
Well-Known Member
don't forget the rule of threes out of nine hulls three available at all times, if anything it should be two or three Flight II AWD using cefar II plus the nine T26
There is no doubt that the RN hull designs, starting with the T12's were very efficient and that cavition inception speeds were around 14 kts compared with say the CFA DDGs at 12 kts. However the searchlight sonars in those hulls, Type 177 and 187 were not particularly good and in simple CASEXs initial detection was often gained by the US sonars such as SQS 23 and the more powerful SQS 26in other USN hulls.
The advent of towed arrays, both active and passive and other VDS sonars makes the hull mounted sonars sensors of last resort and therefor the actual performance of the hull is not as critical as it used to be.
Further, initial detection of submarines is almost always accomplished by aircraft or other submarines.
In short, the difference in hull performance though important is not critical and I suggest the other factors such as BMD and AAW capabilities will be as important if not more important to the decision makers.
T26 is a 7,000 tonne ship and needs to do much more than ASW. A 2,500 tonne hull such as the T12 could be excused for being a specialist ASW ship but not these, they need to have capabilities way beyond.
Not under the current acquisition strategy as it has been announced. If we wanted that we should have built 6 Hobarts.
Point to note on ASW, the Hobart class has a bistatic sonar capability. I’m not sure if the 2087 gives the T23 that capability (2031 wouldn’t) but even without knowing what’s in the CONOPS it would seem probable that Sea 5K will require it.
The Thales 2087 sonar has multistatic capability with adaptive beam forming and can work in a multitude of operational modes. It's in a different league compared with that on the Hobart class. I'm not sure what is specifically been offered as part of the F-5000 bid however.
In relation to the ASW capability for SEA 5000, it's important to understand what the innovations and leading edge capabilities are in this space. The FREMM and Type 26 have the diesel engines mounted above the waterline and specialized hulls that limit the acoustic signature. In the case of Type 26, this has been designed from the ground up and has leveraged the UK Astute submarine programme on noise dampening and also the design of the electric drive.
I don't think it's a question of having "some" ASW capability with respect to the SEA 5000 - you either have the complete capability or you don't - and the hull design, propulsion system, and other elements are important contributors to this. I'm not confident that Navantia are in a position to change the Hobart class design into a credible multi-mission ASW ship that will enable Australia to deal with the growing threats in the pacific over the course of the next few decades.
Last edited:
Sounds a bit like a Thales ad, I wonder what Ultra would say?
Point being, however, that whichever design is chosen will need a very competent integral sonar fit. Given what is fitted to the GP/AAW ship that might be quite a challenge..
Do Ultra manufacture all the components for the integrated system or are the the integrators of components within the system?
I assume the choice in the AWDs was between one of the well used CAPTAS/Thales models or Ultra and I can only assume it was because of the lightweight handling advantages. I'm not familiar with any performance comparison.
Ultra are ASW system integrators as well as component and complete solution providers, though I'm not sure what the case will be with respect to any of the bids for SEA 5000. I do know though that Ultra's new S2150 Ultra Hull Mounted Sonar is being offered on the Australian version of the Type 26 and there are aspirations from Ultra to upgrade the Hobart class destroyers with this - and if Navantia win SEA 5000, then with whatever they offer as default. Currently the Hobart class has an Ultra HMS based on the S2091 one designed for the Type 45. As far as the Hobart towed array goes, Ultra did offer Australia a multi-static sonar but they went for a lightweight bi-static one instead - I don't even know what model it is.
In the Canadian frigate programme, Ultra are offering the complete ASW solution as part of the Lockheed Martin/BAE Systems Type 26 bid.
IMO the big point of difference between the type 26 and the other contenders is the 385 cubic meter mission bay. The navy is already in the process of procuring unmanned systems and the type 26 certainly does offer a lot more flexibility when it comes to deploying those systems.
Go back to a 15 ship surface fleet? I like it. Actually it has always been one thing that has boggled me as in the late 90's when we did have it the ships had larger crews while the number of Navy personnel at the time was lower then today yet now we have smaller crews, larger navy and less ships. Is it a lack of ships, new grown capabilities eating up the personnel, medical reasons or something else.
Jack Wyatt
Member
Reading up on the Type 26, isn't there only one hanger meaning the mission bay has to accommodate the second helicopter? Both the FREMM and the F5000 have provision for two hangars which could be adapted for UAVs?
To me, the overriding issue of difference is that the USN did not included the Type 26 in it own FFG(x) programme considerations. As our major partner in the Pacific, it would be beneficial to chose a design common to both navies and take advantage of upgrade pathways etc.
Noting the size of the vessel being considered and the combat system combination to be fitted the line between the DDG and the future frigate has been blurred so the six and nine really does not really make sense based on the nomenclature.
If the intent is to increase the number of hulls with 48 cells the perhaps a split buy may have merit. In this regard I note we have no firm idea if the number of cells offered in the response to the RFT for the T-26 and FREMM. The models of the SEA5000 vessels did show 32 but they may have offered a growth path (cannot see that on the FREMM given the lack of real estate behind the 76mm - which will be worse if a 127mm is fitted).
In size and capability they could all be characterized as destroyers noting the 'future frigate with the CEA/SAAB/AEGIS combination will be theoretically better at employing the ESSM in medium range anti ship missile defense than the AWD. Both will have a robust AAW capability albeit the future frigate (ASW DDG is you will) may have less missiles to play with but will potentially have a greater ASW capability.
I cannot see an increase to 15 MFU under the current budget. The only way I see this happening is if we retain some of the ANZAC class in a ready reserve, however, these are not young ships and there would be cost in retaining them. Unless the international situation gets worse (which is not unlikely) I think 12 is our lot.
Last edited:
When did the RAN have a fleet of 15 surface combatants? It certainly wasn’t the late 90s
Last edited:
The best count I can reach is in 1982 when we had 13 soon to be 14 escorts if you count the training ship Vampire.
3 x DDGs, 6 x Rivers, 3 x FFGs.
All the Rivers remained in commission as did all the DDGs. FFGs Adelaide, Darwin and Canberra were all newly commissioned with Sydney soon to be in Jan '83.
Can't improve a snapshot in time to find 15.
If you count sloops it was probably back at the Korean war period that we got close. Not sure and I don't have the time to try and work out what was in service.
You can't choose a design based on what someone else may or may not select in two years time. The correct design for Australia is the one that best meets the requirements now, allows for capability growth in the future, and enables Australia to achieve their strategic objectives in the pacific region. There's absolutely no way the Australian DoD will be distracted by what may happen in the US in two years just as there's no chance the US will do anything other than choose the right design for their own needs.
Apologies was my mistake, Was 12 surface combatants in service around 1996 with 3 x Perths, 6 Adelaides, 2 Rivers and 1 Anzac. Number of ships was off though my questioning on the manning still stands as those ships combined had a far larger crewing requirements then what we have at current or planned today even though the Navy was smaller in personnel then what it is now.
Jack Wyatt
Member
The big point of difference for me in the SEA 5000 contenders is not the mission bay but that the FREMM and F100 are still in the running in the US FFG(x) programme while Type 26 is not.
The US is our major Pacific partner and interoperability with US forces as well as those from South Korea and Japan must be an important consideration in defence procurement. I would expect our Government to be across the reasons for the non inclusion of the Type 26 in the FFG(x) programme and to take those reasons into consideration when making the decision on the successful bidder. Don't you find it curious that the US has not included it while we have?
Similarly, it would be naïve to think the US may have an interest in the SEA 5000 programme especially considering US companies are heavily involved.
- Status