Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

Status
Not open for further replies.
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:

BAE Systems Wins Australia’s SEA 5000 Tender with Type 26 - Hunter-class Frigate


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.


(S
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,
Thanks for your detailed reply. It certainly appears there is flexibility in the design. Just out of interest, I'll include the full statement which makes interesting reading and may stimulate further discussion -

"Mandated capabilities include a Mk 41 vertical launch system (VLS) with 48 strike length cells, Standard Missile-2 Medium Range (SM-2MR) IIIA and RIM-162 Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile (ESSM) Air Defence Missiles, the Australian-developed CEAFAR2 S-/X-/L-band active phased array radar, a Mk45 MOD 4 5 inch gun, and accommodation for a single MH60R naval helicopter, and unspecified unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs)"
 

Hazdog

Member
I couldn’t open that file but these pictures clearly show the placement of those mid ships SeaCeptor VLS

Type 26 GCS

These have been posted a few days ago
Also note that some of the pics seem to be the proposed RCN version without the midships launches and with SeaRam and not Phalanx
Understood, Interesting about the SeaRam, could the Hunter's easily adopt this?
The area that my image highlighted was the forward SeaCeptor VLS area (a few metres behind the main gun), that on the Hunter class is bare.
This area on the T26 is filled by four 6 cell SeaCeptor VLS mounts; not the rear four SeaCeptor mounts.
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
Understood, Interesting about the SeaRam, could the Hunter's easily adopt this?
The area that my image highlighted was the forward SeaCeptor VLS area (a few metres behind the main gun), that on the Hunter class is bare.
This area on the T26 is filled by four 6 cell SeaCeptor VLS mounts; not the rear four SeaCeptor mounts.
One needs to remember though that the whole area where on the RN Type 26 24 Mk 41 VLS and 24 Sea Ceptor VLS are fitted houses 32 Mk 41 VLS on the RAN Type 26. Another consideration is that it is IMO very likely that strike length Mk 41 VLS penetrate further than Sea Ceptor cells do, so what ever compartments and spaces are in that area of the RAN design need to be considered as well. It might be possible for extra Mk 41 VLS cells to be fitted to the RAN design, but at present we are really too light on detail (at least those who can make comments) to know for certain.
 

Stampede

Well-Known Member
Gents, having been a resident of the Western Suburbs of Melbourne all my life, I have watched ships being built at the old Williamstown Dockyard from HMAS Derwent to the LHDs and it is sad to see it so empty at the moment. Now that BAE has the contract to build the Hunter Class Frigates, can anyone see it having a role in the building process or should I save my money to buy a new unit there with city and bay views when it is sold for housing?
A fair question that may of been answered in your last sentence. Williamstown is a prime bit of real estate.
Will BAE stay in Melbourne, or as I suspect consolidate in South Australia. I cannot say. If the push is to have most of the construction work completed in SA and WA then Melbourne like other eastern states may not get much work; but still it's a long term project that both state and federal politicians will push and pull to satisfy their electorates.
For Melbourne the Naval skills are already in their own valley of death, but with large road and rail transport construction projects both on the go and projected this will be the City's and states main priority.
I like the nostalgia and history of Williamstown. Its a unique part of the City and I have enjoyed may a visit to see the ANZACs and LHD's take shape, but alas I feel it may of had its day as a ship building yard.
So unfortunately the next thing to sail out of Williamstown will probably be HMAS Latte and Cappuccino.

I'm priced out of Williamstown, so mickm good luck to you and get your realestate bids in early.


Regards S
 

ASSAIL

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
A fair question that may of been answered in your last sentence. Williamstown is a prime bit of real estate.
Will BAE stay in Melbourne, or as I suspect consolidate in South Australia. I cannot say. If the push is to have most of the construction work completed in SA and WA then Melbourne like other eastern states may not get much work; but still it's a long term project that both state and federal politicians will push and pull to satisfy their electorates.
For Melbourne the Naval skills are already in their own valley of death, but with large road and rail transport construction projects both on the go and projected this will be the City's and states main priority.
I like the nostalgia and history of Williamstown. Its a unique part of the City and I have enjoyed may a visit to see the ANZACs and LHD's take shape, but alas I feel it may of had its day as a ship building yard.
So unfortunately the next thing to sail out of Williamstown will probably be HMAS Latte and Cappuccino.

I'm priced out of Williamstown, so mickm good luck to you and get your realestate bids in early.


Regards S
Williamstown was not so warmly remembered in the 1960s 70s and 80s. It was a dump and commonly referred to as Dogtown.
I did a refit, or part of one there in Derwent in 1974 and apart from the total lack of any productivity from the Dockyard (constant demarcation disputes, days to complete work which should have taken hours) the town itself was, to be kind, dreary.

I must confess though, my maternal ancestors migrated and settled there in the 1860s and I’m told it was a pleasant place at that time.
 

alexsa

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
One needs to remember though that the whole area where on the RN Type 26 24 Mk 41 VLS and 24 Sea Ceptor VLS are fitted houses 32 Mk 41 VLS on the RAN Type 26. Another consideration is that it is IMO very likely that strike length Mk 41 VLS penetrate further than Sea Ceptor cells do, so what ever compartments and spaces are in that area of the RAN design need to be considered as well. It might be possible for extra Mk 41 VLS cells to be fitted to the RAN design, but at present we are really too light on detail (at least those who can make comments) to know for certain.
Thanks ..... you save me from saying this. Deck penetrations have a significant impact and have two be designed in. Going through a number of decks requires additional bracing and this, if you want to avoid problems, should be designed in at the outset. The bigger the holes in your structure the more you need and empty space does not mean you can cut a bigger hole without consequences.
 

hauritz

Well-Known Member
The Hunter class looks like it will have additional 8 MK41 launchers compared to its British counterpart. This would suggest that there was planning at the very beginning for fitting extra VLS. When you look at the deck housing the VLS are built into there does seem to be a sizable space up front left available for additional missiles. The Hunter class is a huge frigate and I can't help but feel that there has already been space allocated for additional cells to be fitted as required.

However, for the moment 32 VLS is adequate for a ship that's primary mission is ASW.
 

weegee

Active Member
I stumbled across this today about basing some subs in fleet base east.

Sydney set to become base for next fleet of submarines

I must say i always thought it was a silly idea to remove them all 100%. It just makes sense to split the fleet for ease of transit to our 2 major oceans and then have your maintenance in between the 2 locations.

P.s for a giggle have a read at all the alarmist comments under the article about good going painting a target on Sydney's back etc haha Its like they forget there has been a navy base in Sydney for 100 years :confused:
 

d-ron84

Member
I stumbled across this today about basing some subs in fleet base east.

Sydney set to become base for next fleet of submarines

I must say i always thought it was a silly idea to remove them all 100%. It just makes sense to split the fleet for ease of transit to our 2 major oceans and then have your maintenance in between the 2 locations.

P.s for a giggle have a read at all the alarmist comments under the article about good going painting a target on Sydney's back etc haha Its like they forget there has been a navy base in Sydney for 100 years :confused:
Wow! That has to be some of the dumbest comments I’ve seen for awhile.
 

BPFP

Member
Bring Cockatoo Island back to life - -- although there would be a lot of pushback against using a world heritage listed former shipyard and naval base as a ... naval base.
 

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
Wow! That has to be some of the dumbest comments I’ve seen for awhile.
Loved the one about moving the Subs to Barnaby Joice's electorate, best idea ever, create a couple of hundred thousand jobs, cost several Trillion $ but its not in Sydney hey

PS : There is a B****y great Mountain range between the closest part of Barnaby's Electorate and the Sea.
 

John Newman

The Bunker Group
Thanks for your detailed reply. It certainly appears there is flexibility in the design. Just out of interest, I'll include the full statement which makes interesting reading and may stimulate further discussion -

"Mandated capabilities include a Mk 41 vertical launch system (VLS) with 48 strike length cells, Standard Missile-2 Medium Range (SM-2MR) IIIA and RIM-162 Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile (ESSM) Air Defence Missiles, the Australian-developed CEAFAR2 S-/X-/L-band active phased array radar, a Mk45 MOD 4 5 inch gun, and accommodation for a single MH60R naval helicopter, and unspecified unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs)"
Mate, thanks for reproducing the complete statement (can you please put a link to it?), but......

Who is the person claiming that 48 Strike Length VLS is mandated? Is it the person writing the article? Is a comment of a poster? Who??

Do they have a link to a genuine current Government document, specifically the RFT? (I think not).

If 48 VLS was mandated, why is it that no one here has seen that information from the Government published in the public domain?


Not trying to rain on your parade, but unless there is some official document that says 48 VLS is mandated, then it's just a number.

Cheers,
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Loved the one about moving the Subs to Barnaby Joice's electorate, best idea ever, create a couple of hundred thousand jobs, cost several Trillion $ but its not in Sydney hey

PS : There is a B****y great Mountain range between the closest part of Barnaby's Electorate and the Sea.
New England Canal?
 

oldsig127

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Wow! That has to be some of the dumbest comments I’ve seen for awhile.
I have my suspicions that ignorance is a prerequisite for posting on any newspaper website. It's clear to the most casual viewer that almost none of the respondents know anything whatsoever of the subject at hand. This replies equally to any subject, not merely defence.

The surest demonstration that everyone is entitled to have an opinion, but that many would be better off not being proved a fool

oldsig
 

John Newman

The Bunker Group
I have my suspicions that ignorance is a prerequisite for posting on any newspaper website. It's clear to the most casual viewer that almost none of the respondents know anything whatsoever of the subject at hand. This replies equally to any subject, not merely defence.

The surest demonstration that everyone is entitled to have an opinion, but that many would be better off not being proved a fool

oldsig
All very true.

Reminds me of a number of old sayings:

"You can't legislate against stupidity", "You can't put brains in statues"

And my most favourite of all, and used regularly by me:

"Opinions are like arseholes, everybody's got one!"

Cheers,
 

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
I have my suspicions that ignorance is a prerequisite for posting on any newspaper website. It's clear to the most casual viewer that almost none of the respondents know anything whatsoever of the subject at hand. This replies equally to any subject, not merely defence.

The surest demonstration that everyone is entitled to have an opinion, but that many would be better off not being proved a fool

oldsig
Same old complaints, why are we buying 12 Subs when we can't crew 6? When a 5min Google search will tell you that one 3rd of the Crew of Sea 1000 Boat 7 haven't even been born yet. Just so much easier to be ignorant.
 
Mate, thanks for reproducing the complete statement (can you please put a link to it?), but......

Who is the person claiming that 48 Strike Length VLS is mandated? Is it the person writing the article? Is a comment of a poster? Who??

Do they have a link to a genuine current Government document, specifically the RFT? (I think not).

If 48 VLS was mandated, why is it that no one here has seen that information from the Government published in the public domain?


Not trying to rain on your parade, but unless there is some official document that says 48 VLS is mandated, then it's just a number.

Cheers,


Here is the link with the relevant post the last on the page.


Type 26 or FIO5 or FREMM – the winner is?


Janes and “mandate” caught my eye as did the lack the Aegis cms. Perhaps the latter gives some indication of the date of the article noting when the PM announced that requirement?
 

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
I have my suspicions that ignorance is a prerequisite for posting on any newspaper website. It's clear to the most casual viewer that almost none of the respondents know anything whatsoever of the subject at hand. This replies equally to any subject, not merely defence.

The surest demonstration that everyone is entitled to have an opinion, but that many would be better off not being proved a fool

oldsig
But for the greatest ignorance of all, Youtube beats them all, both in the uploaded Videos and the Mind numbing comments that follow.

A case of the truely ignorant feeding the Truely dumb.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Not aimed at anyone in particular.

There have been some claims made on here that haven't been backed up by sources. Therefore if you are claiming something, unless it is common knowledge please back it up with a source. If you can't please state that it is an opinion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top