Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

oldsig127

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Can't we just start building uk spec type 26's, worst case? That would make more sense that some new design, or trying to build more hobarts.
Different armaments, different radars, different CMS from anything else we use? No thanks.

I 'm pretty sanguine about the weight and delay reports. Can't at the moment think of any project that doesn't start with them, especially in Defence high tech, yet somehow they usually produce the goods even without the approval of the 4th estate

oldsig
 

hairyman

Member
Everyone seems happy to accept the T26 which is a bigger ship than the Hobart class, but with only two thirds of the VLS. What is taking up the extra space in the T26 if not weaponry?
 

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
Everyone seems happy to accept the T26 which is a bigger ship than the Hobart class, but with only two thirds of the VLS. What is taking up the extra space in the T26 if not weaponry?
I would say the large Mission Bay and a Flight Deck big enough to land a Chinook* at a guess. Their ability to carry both UAVs and UUVs are going to be a big part of their ASW capabilities.
*that is part of the original Type 26 capability, whether the Hunter class will retain this capability I can’t be sure, but have heard nothing about a smaller Flight Deck.
 

alexsa

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
I would say the large Mission Bay and a Flight Deck big enough to land a Chinook* at a guess. Their ability to carry both UAVs and UUVs are going to be a big part of their ASW capabilities.
*that is part of the original Type 26 capability, whether the Hunter class will retain this capability I can’t be sure, but have heard nothing about a smaller Flight Deck.
My understanding a lot of space is also taken up with systems. It was quite a wrangling act to fit AEGIS and SPY1 into the Hobart class from both a system and power supply perspective. The extra space and extra power will make this easier and give the vessel more growth potential.

Advice given to me in my last job was that the fist batch would be pretty much the same as the UK T26 except for the combat systems and VLS. At that stage there was not much appetite for changes to batch 1, however, rumour is that this may have changed and more capacity may be incorporated at the get go.

I will stress this is not an official position and I may now be off track. It does provide food for thought.
 

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
Different armaments, different radars, different CMS from anything else we use? No thanks.

I 'm pretty sanguine about the weight and delay reports. Can't at the moment think of any project that doesn't start with them, especially in Defence high tech, yet somehow they usually produce the goods even without the approval of the 4th estate

oldsig
I should elaborate. RAN systems, weapons, RN hull.

CMS isn't really a structural change, and wouldn't hold up welding a ship together.Even if we had to go with 9lv. I can see the radar mast perhaps being an issue, perhaps as an interim measure build 1 or 2 with the smaller/lighter cheaper still good and modern, Anzac class CEA1 radar setups. This might help mitigate risk across the future builds, help with quicker FOC of future hulls. We would want to see torpedo tubes fitted, but it isn't miles and miles apart. They wouldn't have to be exactly the same fitout, just feature the hull structurally the same.

I could imagine such a combination might be attractive to other nations. Even if we had to live with it, seems like a small compromise if it means costs stay in budget and ships are operational soon.

Everyone seems happy to accept the T26 which is a bigger ship than the Hobart class, but with only two thirds of the VLS. What is taking up the extra space in the T26 if not weaponry?
Bigger flight deck - Chinook (or MV-22 possibly)
Mission bay - I think it can fit up to 3 helicopters, or 2 large helicopters like the merlins and a UAV, shipping containers, UAV's etc.
Able to embark a small amount of forces on board
Growth margin -More spacious and modern design, by all accounts the Hobarts are going to be troublesome to upgrade, because they are already tight on weight, volume, energy, mech services, crew etc.

While only 24 VLS, the UK design as CAMM launchers, with room for 48 missiles. So the design has capabilities. I don't think we are limited to 32 VLS by the design, I think that is the level the RAN was happy to have them armed to.

With VLS, there is no magic number. One missile can destroy a ship. You are better off having fewer, but better longer range more capable missiles, than a hoard of older less capable short range ones. Quality is important, not just quantity.

Ships don't just exchange munitions until there are none left. How many ships ever got to deplete their magazines off all shells before they were taken to the bottom?

Coming from the Anzacs, the VLS on the hunters at 32 is going to feel positively limitless. And with two Phalanx.
 

oldsig127

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
I should elaborate. RAN systems, weapons, RN hull.

CMS isn't really a structural change, and wouldn't hold up welding a ship together.Even if we had to go with 9lv. I can see the radar mast perhaps being an issue, perhaps as an interim measure build 1 or 2 with the smaller/lighter cheaper still good and modern, Anzac class CEA1 radar setups. This might help mitigate risk across the future builds, help with quicker FOC of future hulls. We would want to see torpedo tubes fitted, but it isn't miles and miles apart. They wouldn't have to be exactly the same fitout, just feature the hull structurally the same.
I see it as increasing risk and slowing the whole production line down. Designing the interim, half UK, half Oz will still take time and effort and will almost certainly add to the overall cost - and may not seed things along at all. Even if you do, we have a subset of ships which are a separate batch because of panic, rather than evolution, which would likely need to be MLU'ed to get anything like commonality of equipment.

Delays in "Australianising" will include changing from UK made equipment to Australian made equipment. Build them with UK made (example only! sewage pumps) instead of the Australian sourced version will leave us at the wrong end of a long supply chain for stuff we are trying hard to build an industry to produce.

Summary....in my personal opinion it's a daft idea. But that's me.

(Edit....PS - I agree entirely with your reasoning vis a vis the purchase of the larger T26 and the benefits that accrue)
oldsig
 

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
Well orphan platforms are always painful. I just don't get these reports that its going to be crazy delayed, and years late and larger than the shiplift can carry. I would assume before it ever came to that, the design could be pushed along a spectrum to meet what we need by when we need it.

AFAIK the plan was to still be in the design phase at the point and to be merely prototyping steel and blocks etc. So I don't think its a huge issue right now. I like the type 26 design, I am very curious how these ship look like when they hit the water. Still curious what sort of asroc system the poms are going to use rather than torpedo tubes.
 

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
I don't think most people really care if you call the hunters frigates or destroyers, as long as they are capable.

It seems like they will be. I am curious why there are these leaks about them becoming oversized, or delayed. If they go over 10,000t, won't this exceed the lift capacity of the shiplift at Osborne?

Can't we just start building uk spec type 26's, worst case? That would make more sense that some new design, or trying to build more hobarts.
The 10,000t will be full load Displacement, not the dead weight of ship that is still being fitted out at the time of launching, with no Fuel, Ammo and a fair bit of hardware still to be fitted the weight would have to be significantly less.
 

vonnoobie

Well-Known Member
Not so worried about the shiplift considering it was designed to allow expansion to 210m and 20,000 ton lift capacity in case people forgot.

At the end of the day we are too far down the rabbit hole to even consider an interim measure as any such measures will take years in their own right to get ready to build for as pointed out will be an orphan class. Let's stick with the Hunters as is and not jump the gun and make things worse because of an OH S**T moment.

32 VLS might seem small but it is a 300% increase in cells over the Anzacs. The cells on every Anzac class we have are equal to just 2 hunters, that is 7 more ships with 32 cells each in extra missile capacity.

We are where we are, much as we might want to be in a better position it just can't be done in the realistic world so not trying to sound rude but just deal with it people.
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Our very recently introduced class of destroyers have 48 VLS cells. The Hunters will have 32. There is zero chance of being able to convince Government that a third class is required, with what they would see as, and really is, marginally different armament, so soon after they have received the considered advice of all departments involved, not just Defence, leading to a decision that the capabilities required are those of the Hunters.

I’m afraid that, even if we wanted to, we could not now build more Hobarts - to coin a phrase, that ship has sailed.
Well the Germans, Danes and Dutch seem perfectly satisfied with 32 cells for their air warfare ships.
 

vonnoobie

Well-Known Member
Don't worry about cell numbers. Out of the 350+ frigates in the world only like 106 carry 32 cells or more and about two thirds of the ships carry only a single short range SAM in each cell compared to the mk41 being able to quad pack them. Only a global scale 32 is in the top of the pack.
 

ASSAIL

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
The Jindivik was a target Drone developed by Australia and the UK in the early 50s served with the RAN till 1998,
The Ikara missile was developed from the wire guided Malkara and Jindivick missiles. It carried either the Mk44 or Mk46 ASW torpedoes.
The advantage Ikara had over ASROC was twofold, firstly it had for greater range, out to 22,000yds and second but more important it could be guided in flight from either the host ship sonar data but more likely and useful, from helo dipping sonar via data links. This sounds ordinary today but in the 60’s and 70’s it was a great advance.
In a standard ASW Screen employing surface ships and helos the helos were usually deployed between 12nm-15nm Well ahead/away from the main body so Ikara’s range and data capability was a real advantage compared with ASROC of the days 12,000 yd max
The disadvantage over say MATCH however was that once fired there was no aborted engagement if contact was lost.
Luckily the Ikara magazines were large enough to cope with the problem.
 

Stampede

Well-Known Member
The Ikara missile was developed from the wire guided Malkara and Jindivick missiles. It carried either the Mk44 or Mk46 ASW torpedoes.
The advantage Ikara had over ASROC was twofold, firstly it had for greater range, out to 22,000yds and second but more important it could be guided in flight from either the host ship sonar data but more likely and useful, from helo dipping sonar via data links. This sounds ordinary today but in the 60’s and 70’s it was a great advance.
In a standard ASW Screen employing surface ships and helos the helos were usually deployed between 12nm-15nm Well ahead/away from the main body so Ikara’s range and data capability was a real advantage compared with ASROC of the days 12,000 yd max
The disadvantage over say MATCH however was that once fired there was no aborted engagement if contact was lost.
Luckily the Ikara magazines were large enough to cope with the problem.
Makes one wonder if into the future a similar approach could be reinvented.
Ship launched Torpedo for extra long range with UAV providing target acquisition and guidance support.
What's old is new?
A compliment to the Romeo's ASW helicopter not a replacement.
A modern incarnation of a winged Ikara may get out to the 100 km range.
If I understand the wings where clipped to the main structure for flight. Should not be too big a challenge building a bigger unit to gain distance.
May make a hostile submarine or ship the hunted not the hunter.
A possibility combination for employment in ships much smaller then an ANZAC.

Thoughts


Regards S
 

spoz

The Bunker Group
Ikara took up a fair bit of space in a ship, and, even if some way was found to sort the wings out, wouldn’t go near fittimg in a Mk 41. It was a great system for its time but the world has moved on. However, the concept could undoubtedly be modernised if anybody wanted to.
 

alexsa

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Ikara took up a fair bit of space in a ship, and, even if some way was found to sort the wings out, wouldn’t go near fittimg in a Mk 41. It was a great system for its time but the world has moved on. However, the concept could undoubtedly be modernised if anybody wanted to.
They did attempt a canister launched version. However, the increased prevalence of shipborne helicopter capability with the FFG (and the loss of the carrier and the Sea King in the ASW role) put pay to that idea and these developments ceased.


According to the DST web site the fact that the missile was not updated caused it to be increasingly expensive to maintain resulted in it being withdrawn from service in 1991. It was a great system for its time.

 
Last edited:
Top