Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[Volkodav]

Now that the selection has been made I must confess it wasn’t my first choice although I acknowledge T26 was always the superior platform.
My reasons were based on risk, price and commonality, and I thought the F5000 would get there on all those three.
It’s good to see the government has provided the funds to make the gold plated option possible.

The only possible downside I see is the difference in all the very ordinary equipment that make up the daily routine in the ships, damage control equipment, platform management systems deign philosophy for watertight integrity etc.....ad nauseum.
I don’t think this is huge or insurmountable issue but it once again divides the seagoing ships into separate streams, Spanish and Brit.
Let’s hope that many of those differences can be nullified during the Australian build and that we can make them as similar as possible

One of the less obvious and less public lessons from AWD was that contracting out the design and risk management actually ties your hands in regards to risk mitigation and being able to address arising issues in a timely manner.

Basically, in hindsight, the evolved option may not have actually have worked out more risky or more expensive, it may not even have been as late. The risks were understood and mitigation was being planned, the government did not have the risk appetite and went for what they believed was less risk, more timely and cheaper, while still delivering the required capability.

To me we seem to have gone the opposite way this time, higher upfront cost, greater risk, but more control and greater potential.

 

[StingrayOZ]

I think there is certainly scope for a joint approach to ship development going into the future, that doesn't impact on the sovereign design and construction capability. If Australia and the UK could agree on the fundamentals of a Type 45/AWD replacement I think that is possible.

However, I think they will quite likely be two very different ships, possibly with different requirements and missions. Different, weapons, different sensors, different combat system, different other systems. But there certainly could be some commonality of things like propulsion and mechanical services etc. Certainly sharing commonality on those less sexy more generic systems would save money and make logistics cheaper and more sustainable. Perhaps same basic hull type/form. This might then serve as a basic form for a new global frigate replacement hull. BAE would be well placed to be across both programs.

I would imagine work will start progressively as the sea5000 works progress.

Harpoon is a dead end IMO and will be decommissioned soon (as the RN is trying to do). JSM/NSM is the future according to the USN. Australia is already very much part of the JSM/NSM program developing a seeker, and obviously interested from a F-35 view. If you were to ever fit a AShM to a small ship like the OPV's or a combatant or corvette based off the OPV hull, NSM would be ideal, being much lighter than harpoon and more compact. I imagine with the new subs, we will be looking at NSM or other missile over Harpoon for them.

But that would be a long way off. I wouldn't be surprised if NSM/JSM is selected for the Sea5000 ships before they hit water, then progressively upgraded throughout the fleet when appropriate. NSM is designed to replace Harpoon, and you can fit a 6 cell box launcher usually where an existing 4 cell resides.

But after the initial 12 OPV built, if Australia wanted to build some Corvette or Combat patrol vessels off that design, NSM would be a reasonable fit. Small and light but with significant range. I believe the Darussalam-class carries exocet, so at 250Kg lighter per missile, there would likely be capability to include NSM in to a OCV based off the OPV hull, if we wanted to do that.

As for the P8's I imagine NSM or JSM is quite attractive to replace harpoon for that application too. But we would follow what ever the USN does on that.

 

[ngatimozart]

I
As for the P8's I imagine NSM or JSM is quite attractive to replace harpoon for that application too. But we would follow what ever the USN does on that.

OT, but related. Norway has ordered 5 P-8A and I strongly suspect that they will integrate the JSM with the P-8A.

 

[MrConservative]

As for the P8's I imagine NSM or JSM is quite attractive to replace harpoon for that application too. But we would follow what ever the USN does on that.

Naval Strike Missile of course has been selected for the USN's FFG(X)

 

[Jack Wyatt]

Except for the fact your 8 SSMs then use up 8 cells out of the 32 available. I suspect if NSM/JSM is adopted it may still be in its very own box launcher.

On another site a poster advises that Janes details, amongst other capabilities for SEA 5000, "mandated capabilities include a Mk 41 vertical launch system (VLS) with 48 strike length cells".

 

[MickB]

I think there is certainly scope for a joint approach to ship development going into the future, that doesn't impact on the sovereign design and construction capability. If Australia and the UK could agree on the fundamentals of a Type 45/AWD replacement I think that is possible.

However, I think they will quite likely be two very different ships, possibly with different requirements and missions. Different, weapons, different sensors, different combat system, different other systems. But there certainly could be some commonality of things like propulsion and mechanical services etc. Certainly sharing commonality on those less sexy more generic systems would save money and make logistics cheaper and more sustainable. Perhaps same basic hull type/form. This might then serve as a basic form for a new global frigate replacement hull. BAE would be well placed to be across both programs.

I would imagine work will start progressively as the sea5000 works progress.

Harpoon is a dead end IMO and will be decommissioned soon (as the RN is trying to do). JSM/NSM is the future according to the USN. Australia is already very much part of the JSM/NSM program developing a seeker, and obviously interested from a F-35 view. If you were to ever fit a AShM to a small ship like the OPV's or a combatant or corvette based off the OPV hull, NSM would be ideal, being much lighter than harpoon and more compact. I imagine with the new subs, we will be looking at NSM or other missile over Harpoon for them.

But that would be a long way off. I wouldn't be surprised if NSM/JSM is selected for the Sea5000 ships before they hit water, then progressively upgraded throughout the fleet when appropriate. NSM is designed to replace Harpoon, and you can fit a 6 cell box launcher usually where an existing 4 cell resides.

But after the initial 12 OPV built, if Australia wanted to build some Corvette or Combat patrol vessels off that design, NSM would be a reasonable fit. Small and light but with significant range. I believe the Darussalam-class carries exocet, so at 250Kg lighter per missile, there would likely be capability to include NSM in to a OCV based off the OPV hull, if we wanted to do that.

As for the P8's I imagine NSM or JSM is quite attractive to replace harpoon for that application too. But we would follow what ever the USN does on that.

Agree that the NSM is the better option, but the Harpoon suggestion was aimed at making the greatest use of existing resourses not purchasing new capabilites.
But as John Newman pointed out above, there are other considerations that appear to make this impracticle.
Perhaps a small pool of launchers rotated among the OPVs patroling the northern waters.

 

[Todjaeger]

Agree that the NSM is the better option, but the Harpoon suggestion was aimed at making the greatest use of existing resourses not purchasing new capabilites.
But as John Newman pointed out above, there are other considerations that appear to make this impracticle.
Perhaps a small pool of launchers rotated among the OPVs patroling the northern waters.

Honestly, I just do not see a real advantage to having the SEA 1180 vessels armed with AShM, whether these are Harpoons, NSM, or something else.

From my POV the SEA 1180 vessels are too lightly armed to provide any sort of useful or realistic self-defence capability, since at present they are just to be armed with a 40 mm gun, which I have heard suggestions that it would be a version or development of the Mk 4 Bofors 40 mm. If AShM were added to the vessel's armament, then the SEA 1180 vessel would be just that much larger a threat, without an increase in ability to defend itself.

It would be better IMO if any up-gunning done was first focused on making the class of vessel more survivable in a threatened environment by expanding both the degree and range of threats which the vessel might be able to protect itself from. This would cover things like having a CIWS capability (gun, missile, or both), a point or short-ranged defence missile capability like RAM, Sea Ceptor or ESSM, Nulka and Nixie decoys, and so on.

Just adding AShM launchers would not dramatically increase the capability of the vessel in wartime, as they would be vulnerable to hostile aerial and sub-surface threats and would need to stick fairly close to RAN or allied vessels capable of providing a degree of area protection vs. those threats, as well as being able to provide targeting data to the SEA 1180 vessels to make the AShM potentially useful.

 

[Hazdog]

On another site a poster advises that Janes details, amongst other capabilities for SEA 5000, "mandated capabilities include a Mk 41 vertical launch system (VLS) with 48 strike length cells".

That's interesting,

Looking at the design and how the RN have their T26 plans, it would seem very practical to use the area that was previously used by Sea Ceptor for another roughly 32 Mk41 cells; Making a total of 64. Which will provide a very versatile fit out for the Hunter class.

If anyone could suggest what the space that in the T26 used for Sea Ceptor will be used for in the Hunter class, if not used for Mk41?

 

[Pusser01]

P

It is easy to forget that the Perth is only 12 years old, barely run in and only just past the 1/3 mark of its life expectancy. The ANZACS will still need significant Refits down the track.

Perth is currently in mothballs on the BAE slip and is expected to remain so until mid-2020, when she starts AMCAP as number 4 hull to receive the upgrade, cheers.

 

[Redlands18]

On another site a poster advises that Janes details, amongst other capabilities for SEA 5000, "mandated capabilities include a Mk 41 vertical launch system (V

On another site a poster advises that Janes details, amongst other capabilities for SEA 5000, "mandated capabilities include a Mk 41 vertical launch system (VLS) with 48 strike length cells".

I think the MK41 was mandated but not numbers

 

[Todjaeger]

That's interesting,

Looking at the design and how the RN have their T26 plans, it would seem very practical to use the area that was previously used by Sea Ceptor for another roughly 32 Mk41 cells; Making a total of 64. Which will provide a very versatile fit out for the Hunter class.

If anyone could suggest what the space that in the T26 used for Sea Ceptor will be used for in the Hunter class, if not used for Mk41?

I could be mistaken, but I believe that the area (or at least one of them) set aside from the smaller Sea Ceptor VLS cells has already been used to fit Mk 41 VLS cells.

The RN Type 26 AFAIK is to be fitted with 24 strike-length Mk 41 VLS cells immediately forward of the bridge, in approximately the same position where images released on the RAN Facebook page of a Type 26 with a 'Roo on the stack show 32 VLS cells. On what few renderings I have been able to find which show a top view where one can see VLS cells, it does appear on the RN Type 26 rendering that there is another, different/smaller set of VLS immediately forward of what I take to be the Mk 41 VLS, and aft of the main gun.

Something else people need to remember that the Sea Ceptor is a comparatively small air defence missile, smaller even than the ESSM. In addition, it does not use a hot launch, so the VLS cells themselves do not require some of the features which other missiles like ESSM require, or the Mk 41 VLS provides. Given that the Sea Ceptor missiles can be quad-packed just like the ESSM to fit into a Mk 41 VLS, and that VLS cells intended specifically for Sea Ceptor and therefore not requiring the ability to withstand a hot launch, I would expect the volume required would be quite a bit less.

Having done some checking, it seems that a 3-cell ExLS VLS will fit into the space of a single Mk 41 VLS cell. This would suggest that the space required to fit 48 Sea Ceptor cells (assuming they were using the ExLS) would be a little bit less than the space required to fit an additional 16 cells to a Mk 41 VLS. While the Mk 41 VLS cell count has not been confirmed officially for the RAN yet, it does appear from the renderings available that there have already been changes to the Type 26 design for Australia to switch Sea Ceptor VLS cells to Mk 41 VLS cells. There might also been additional space/weight set aside within the RAN Type 26 design to fit additional VLS cells at a later date, but IMO one would be hard pressed to double the number of Mk 41 VLS cells without introducing a number of compromises to the vessel.

 

[StobieWan]

That's interesting,

Looking at the design and how the RN have their T26 plans, it would seem very practical to use the area that was previously used by Sea Ceptor for another roughly 32 Mk41 cells; Making a total of 64. Which will provide a very versatile fit out for the Hunter class.

If anyone could suggest what the space that in the T26 used for Sea Ceptor will be used for in the Hunter class, if not used for Mk41?

There's two cell clusters, one aft of the gun and on amidships - the forward set could presumably be very easily turned over to Mk41 - there's strike length cells already in the design but I'm sure SDS MK41 could be just aft of that lot. The midships position is more problematic as it's higher up and MK41 weighs more than the Ceptor cells plus the missiles are larger as well.

I've suggested that the 24 cell midships arrangement might be used by an eight cell Mk41 or alternatively, stick all the Nulka and so forth you want there.

edit - Tod got there in better detail before me

 

[Massive]

Honestly, I just do not see a real advantage to having the SEA 1180 vessels armed with AShM, whether these are Harpoons, NSM, or something else.

My view would be that the SEA 1180 ships should have as much optionality built in as possible, though initially fitted them with much more than stabilised 25 mm RWS as standard (or the proposed 40mm).

And while the optionality might be extensive, it is highly unlikely they would all be fitted at once, and they may never be fitted.

For example, options might include:

Helicopter (with hangar)
Stand-off minesweeping boat (from mission bay)
SeaRAM
AShM
Nulka/Nixie

Thoughts?

Massive

 

[Massive]

There's two cell clusters, one aft of the gun and on amidships - the forward set cold presumably be very easily turned over to Mk41 - there's strike length cells already in the design but I'm sure SDS MK41 could be just aft of that lot. The midships position is more problematic as it's higher up and MK41 weighs more than the Ceptor cells plus the missiles are larger as well.

I've suggested that the 24 cell midships arrangement might be used by an eight cell Mk41 or alternatively, stick all the Nulka and so forth you want there.

My sense is that while the hull and superstructure might be similar to the RN the fitout will be very different.

Very happy to be corrected though.

Regards,

Massive

 

[PeterM]

I find it interesting that we are going with the Type26 for the future frigates.

Thinking back the AWD, we shortlisted the F105 and Gibbs and Cox proposals. I am assuming a version of the Type 45 with US systems (Aegis, mk41vls etc) was on the table. I am curious as to why T45 option was not considered at that time, yet the same approach is what we are doing with the Hunter class.

I presume the reasoning was some combination of design matuity, risk and system integration issues. A similar case could be made with the Hunter class.

This is in no way intended to be revisionist, I am more curious if our general approach to ship building or risk tolerance has changed over the last 10 years or so wirh our domestic naval construction experience.

 

[Redlands18]

My view would be that the SEA 1180 ships should have as much optionality built in as possible, though initially fitted them with much more than stabilised 25 mm RWS as standard (or the proposed 40mm).

And while the optionality might be extensive, it is highly unlikely they would all be fitted at once, and they may never be fitted.

For example, options might include:

Helicopter (with hangar)
Stand-off minesweeping boat (from mission bay)
SeaRAM
AShM
Nulka/Nixie

Thoughts?

Massive

The OPVs do not need SeaRAM, Harpoon or Nulka to deal with errant Fishing Boats, People Smuggling Boats or HADR Misiions, SAR Missions or any of the other Missions the Attack's, Fremantle's and Armidale's carried out. They do however need a Aviation capability,a genuine LR Ocean going capability and more accomodation. A superior capability to spend longer periods away from home.
Australia has something like a 9th of the worlds Oceans to Patrol and for the non Warlike missions we have been using 150-300t Coastal Patrol Boats since the late 60s, go figure.
The Navy at present have no requirement for a OCV, that may change one day but only if the Strategic situation changes. If you were to change the OPVs to OCVs i suspect the budget would have to go from the current $4-5b to $9-10b with the extra Weapons, Crew and trg req.
A new Minesweeping capability is req in the early 30s and an improved version of the OPVs carrying remote MCM systems is a possibility.

 

[Volkodav]

I find it interesting that we are going with the Type26 for the future frigates.

Thinking back the AWD, we shortlisted the F105 and Gibbs and Cox proposals. I am assuming a version of the Type 45 with US systems (Aegis, mk41vls etc) was on the table. I am curious as to why T45 option was not considered at that time, yet the same approach is what we are doing with the Hunter class.

I presume the reasoning was some combination of design matuity, risk and system integration issues. A similar case could be made with the Hunter class.

This is in no way intended to be revisionist, I am more curious if our general approach to ship building or risk tolerance has changed over the last 10 years or so wirh our domestic naval construction experience.

The F100 was selected under the now defunct Kinard system.

Basically every major procurement had two selection streams, an Existing Military Off The Shelf solution and an Evolved solution. The Existing selection process would identify the MOTS option, with an absolute minimum amount of change, that best fit the requirements, while the Evolved determined the best paper design, be it a clean sheet design or a very heavily modified one.

I am not sure on the history of which designs sat where and when and how each was dropped (Spoz may be able to help here) but once AEGIS was selected every existing design other than the F-100 and the Flight IIA Burke would have been ruled out. I imagine the Burke would have been eliminated on a combination of upfront and through life costs, as well as crew size.

On the evolved side it was all about meeting the stated requirements to the letter which made a clean sheet, as opposed to a modified design more attractive. This effectively eliminated a great many, perfectly good enough, low risk, modified MOTS options.

If I recall correctly this even saw Navantia offers to fit a second helicopter and additional VLS to their AF-100 proposal rejected as making it no longer an existing design. The preferred evolved design was the G&C International Frigate and the preferred existing design was the F-100. No other design, no matter how well it traded capability for risk could be considered.

Glad to see the back of Kinard as it very effectively forced government to choose between risk and capability with limited scope to balance the two and achieve a sensible, better value for money compromise.

Under Kinard none of the SEA5000 finalists, as offered, would have been considered. We would have had an ASW frigate (likely FREMM), without AEGIS or CAEFAR, up against a notional Star Ship Enterprise.

 

[ASSAIL]

That's interesting,

Looking at the design and how the RN have their T26 plans, it would seem very practical to use the area that was previously used by Sea Ceptor for another roughly 32 Mk41 cells; Making a total of 64. Which will provide a very versatile fit out for the Hunter class.

If anyone could suggest what the space that in the T26 used for Sea Ceptor will be used for in the Hunter class, if not used for Mk41?

That space is at the forward end of the mission bay and a Mk41 cell would intrude into that space so no, it can’t be used unless space is sacrificed and that destroys the utility of the MB.
The drawings in a number of post here illustrate that point.

 

[spoz]

IIRC the T45 was too expensive, and BAE wasn't willing to build it in Australia. There may have been other reasons as well, in any case it was eliminated quite early on. Given the issues they have had with the main engines and the likely problems we would have encountered in our much warmer waters, that looks like a good thing. The last design eliminated before the final two was the German F124 derivative, again IIRC there was concern at the level of change that would have been needed and the risk that implied, particularly in a new shipyard.

 

[John Newman]

On another site a poster advises that Janes details, amongst other capabilities for SEA 5000, "mandated capabilities include a Mk 41 vertical launch system (VLS) with 48 strike length cells".

Janes isn't the authority it once was, and apart from that, how would they know that 48 VLS was mandated?? None of us here has seen any public announcement of those finer details for the RFT, they are just not in the public domain.

No doubt the RFT specified a minimum, but again we don't know what that is, was it 16? or 32? or 48? or even 148??


Firstly, if you go back to the 'parent' designs for the three contenders, the F-105/AWD came with 48 Strike Length Mk41 VLS, and Navantia did publicly state their 'offering' was 48 in the F-5000, the parent Italian FREMM had 16 and space for an additional 16 (eg total 32), the UK T26 has 24 Strike Length Mk41 VLS.

If you have a look at various models/renderings/images of the three designs for SEA5000, they show that F-5000 is 48, and the other two, 32 cells.

Here's a number of links with those models, etc:

sea 5000 pacific 2017 - Google Search

And this on DTR:

Defence Technology Review : DTR OCT 2017, Page 1

And this too:

http://www.navyrecognition.com/inde...tender-with-type-26-hunter-class-frigate.html


It would 'appear' at this stage the Hunter class FFGs will have 32, but of course that could change, who knows??

I think it's also worth going back a few pages (page 2017, Samoa's post), where he said:


As someone who has been directly involved in the SEA5000 CEP for the past three years ......

I know a lot of posters are fixated on specific weapons loadout or ‘insert my niche subject’ but that selected design meets all requirements set out in the CEP by CASG. For example, one of the misnomers, is the VLS cell count, the answer should be well known following any kind of investigative research on-line which should allow you to deduce the answer. While a keyboard warrior considers more is better, you need to appreciate the big picture of providing more (or less) to the overall package of capabilities sought by the CoA that are stipulated in the requirement set. If more, then where is the funding allocation to come from to justify the procurement of additional FMS equipment (the VLS launchers are not an inconsequential cost impact to the overall programme bottom line), noting the DoD must to put forward costs and budgetary submission through first and second pass endorsements to government to allow this to be realizable, and the budget had already been set. Ultimately what is the purpose of ‘more’ if insufficient birds are not planned for inventory. How does this compromise on other capabilities that are specified in the requirement set, which have been built around a set of conops and a doctrine of use? One of the most significant technical aspects of the GCS-A is the platforms inherent margins, which frankly have been engineered into the platform in ways that have not been widely employed before. They are nothing ground-breaking but are clever. So, should the CoA decide after building FOC, or anywhere during the drumbeat that it would like to double the cell load-out it can, and know that it’s going to have to a high level of confidence that this can be done without unacceptable loss of other capabilities, and furthermore and significantly so that this can be done within the drumbeat cycle and not halt the ‘continuous’ build cycle.


The part that stands out to me is:

So, should the CoA decide after building FOC, or anywhere during the drumbeat that it would like to double the cell load-out it can, and know that it’s going to have to a high level of confidence that this can be done without unacceptable loss of other capabilities, and furthermore and significantly so that this can be done within the drumbeat cycle and not halt the ‘continuous’ build cycle.


As to the number of VLS, who knows? Again, it 'appears' to be 32 at this stage, but that could increase if required in the future.

Cheers,