Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[vonnoobie]

I wouldn't worry too much about the drumbeat if an old article from ADM is accurate A quiet Hunter - Navy's Future Frigate - Australian Defence Magazine then they are meant to be finished building the last boat in early 2040's with Nigel Stuart quoted in 2018 that the hunters will run at an 18 - 24 month drumbeat. At that I think the plan was for a younger fleet all along if the aim is to replace all our major surface combat ships over an 18-24 year period before starting all over again with immediate replacement of 1st Hunter.

With final builds of all hunters finished between 2027 and early 2040's at least original plan that is at most a 2 year drum beat with potential to reduce to 18 months.

Their really isn't much if anything we could leave off the ships to build them faster. Need to get the hulls right which means assuming the kit we want or we could end up with 2 to 3 different frigate variants with little room to standardise them with out risky and expensive rebuilds.

 

[ngatimozart]

However, the weight of those equipment items isn't so relevant as answering the question "What does Australia leave out"

oldsig

Is the RAN being overly ambitious in its technology goals in this program? If this is the case then I would say reduce that because it exactly doesn't have an exemplary record in this area. So my question is it pushing the envelope to far, to quickly again? To my way of thinking it is less riskier to introduce multiple new technologies in phases because integration is always interesting and bound to throw up problems. Secondly, there is the probability of time constraints being forced upon the program due to outside circumstances.

 

[oldsig127]

Is the RAN being overly ambitious in its technology goals in this program? If this is the case then I would say reduce that because it exactly doesn't have an exemplary record in this area. So my question is it pushing the envelope to far, to quickly again? To my way of thinking it is less riskier to introduce multiple new technologies in phases because integration is always interesting and bound to throw up problems. Secondly, there is the probability of time constraints being forced upon the program due to outside circumstances.

Okay, we're just going around and around.

Which new technology is it that Australia is adding that we should leave out?

Most anything new is part of T26. RAN already uses Aegis and CEAFAR-L and the planned weapon fit. Only integration between Ceafar and Aegis is new AND not part of buying T26 anyway.

In essence, you're saying that the RAN should just build off the shelf T26, regardless of their needs. Someone needs to balance urgency versus utility - get something we don't want NOW, versus get what we do want LATER and whether changing horses mid race would make things better or worse.

oldsig

 

[John Newman]

There appears to be a suggestion that ‘only’ the RAN version is reportedly putting on weight. From Defense News earlier this year:

Canada’s new frigate is getting heavier and more expensive

The Canadian government is seeing a bigger price tag than expected for its Type 26-derivative next-generation frigate.

www.defensenews.com

In particular this paragraph:

“The ship has also packed on 900 tons, now projected to displace 7,800 tons, up from an originally projected 6,900 tons. Fully loaded, the ship is expected to weigh in at 9,400 tons — almost double the 4,700 tons of the currently fielded Halifax class, the former head of Irving Shipbuilding told the CBC earlier this month. That shipbuilder is the project’s prime contractor and had worked with the government to award a subcontract to Lockheed to finalize the design.”

If the above report is accurate, then it’s not only the RAN version of T26 that will end up with a full load displacement of close to 10,000t.

Funny that, hey?

 

[hauritz]

I thought BAE already admitted that the hull would be stretched?
I did a couple of models of the Hunter and Type 26 and the most obvious difference in appearance is the radar mast.
The software I use does allow me to estimate the actual size difference between the two masts.



Presuming my measurements are correct the mast of the Hunter class is 1700 cubic meters compared to around 950 cubic meters for the UK version. The overall volume of the Hunter class is around 26000 cubic meters so at an average of 1/3 ton per cubic meter that very roughly translates into an extra 320tons.

It would only take a slight hull stretch of 1 or 2 meters to compensate for that.

In fact that 320 tons should still be inside the ship growth margin.

Correction that would be an extra 250 tons.

 

[John Newman]

I wouldn't worry too much about the drumbeat if an old article from ADM is accurate A quiet Hunter - Navy's Future Frigate - Australian Defence Magazine then they are meant to be finished building the last boat in early 2040's with Nigel Stuart quoted in 2018 that the hunters will run at an 18 - 24 month drumbeat. At that I think the plan was for a younger fleet all along if the aim is to replace all our major surface combat ships over an 18-24 year period before starting all over again with immediate replacement of 1st Hunter.

With final builds of all hunters finished between 2027 and early 2040's at least original plan that is at most a 2 year drum beat with potential to reduce to 18 months.

Their really isn't much if anything we could leave off the ships to build them faster. Need to get the hulls right which means assuming the kit we want or we could end up with 2 to 3 different frigate variants with little room to standardise them with out risky and expensive rebuilds.

Regardless of the drumbeat being 18mths, 24mths or anywhere in between, we won’t be starting on replacement of the 1st Hunter as soon as the 9th is completed.

You appear to have forgotten something, want to guess what it is? Yes it’s the DDG replacement.

The plan is that when the 9th and last Hunter class is completed, then production will switch to replacing the three Hobart class.

And assuming we stick with 12 MFUs, the first Hunter replacement doesn’t start until the last of the ‘new’ DDGs is completed.

Cheers,

 

[Redlands18]

Regardless of the drumbeat being 18mths, 24mths or anywhere in between, we won’t be starting on replacement of the 1st Hunter as soon as the 9th is completed.

You appear to have forgotten something, want to guess what it is? Yes it’s the DDG replacement.

The plan is that when the 9th and last Hunter class is completed, then production will switch to replacing the three Hobart class.

And assuming we stick with 12 MFUs, the first Hunter replacement doesn’t start until the last of the ‘new’ DDGs is completed.

Cheers,

John
@vonnoobie did actually say all Surface Combatants so i think he did mean after the Hobarts are replaced first.

 

[Boagrius]

Excuse my ignorance but can anyone hazard a guess as to how we are already (I take it) pushing against the growth margins of a 10,000t vessel that has just 32 VLS cells? Like, what on earth is going into them!?

I know it's early days, but I had thought one of its selling points was that the T26 hull had more growth margin built in, potentially allowing it to keep pace with tech developments over the course of the build (off the top of my head - directed energy weapons, Mk41 VLS successor to accommodate hypersonics... etc).

 

[alexsa]

I thought BAE already admitted that the hull would be stretched?
I did a couple of models of the Hunter and Type 26 and the most obvious difference in appearance is the radar mast.
The software I use does allow me to estimate the actual size difference between the two masts.

View attachment 48339

Presuming my measurements are correct the mast of the Hunter class is 1700 cubic meters compared to around 950 cubic meters for the UK version. The overall volume of the Hunter class is around 26000 cubic meters so at an average of 1/3 ton per cubic meter that very roughly translates into an extra 320tons.

It would only take a slight hull stretch of 1 or 2 meters to compensate for that.

In fact that 320 tons should still be inside the ship growth margin.

Correction that would be an extra 250 tons.

Nice rendering. Volume is not a good measure of weight growth as the weight is not distributed homogenously throughout the entire volume of the ship. Items such as engines, gear boxes, generators and motors crowded into machinery spaces are going to weigh more than a mast. It really depends what is in or on the mast (and what the mast is constructed of). If it is simply designed to hold the arrays and comms then perhaps It will will be relatively light even if it takes up a lot more real estate.

I was going to do some work on bench marking against standards for the T26 but decided to take a different job. The advise given to me then was the first three were to be as close to the UK version as practical with follow on batches being 'evolved'. However, they indicated that the appetite for risk (and expanding the changes) had increased. That information is 13 months old but it may have something to do with the need for a bigger growth margin.

 

[Geddy]

Excuse my ignorance but can anyone hazard a guess as to how we are already (I take it) pushing against the growth margins of a 10,000t vessel that has just 32 VLS cells? Like, what on earth is going into them!?

I know it's early days, but I had thought one of its selling points was that the T26 hull had more growth margin built in, potentially allowing it to keep pace with tech developments over the course of the build (off the top of my head - directed energy weapons, Mk41 VLS successor to accommodate hypersonics... etc).

You have a point there. It seems to me that the RAN is very light on with shipborne air defence despite the 48 cells on the AWD. (I promise I won’t mention the F-35B ). It also brings to mind the CIWS systems that are 30 year old technology. The biggest threat in our region to the RAN would have to be antiship missiles launched by aircraft.

 

[justinterested]

I think many people have commented on the use by date of the phalanx as a CIWS. It is clear that in the future frigate program of the Helenic navy in which the contenders:

• Fincantieri FREMM
• Damen Sigma 11515
• Naval Group FDI
• Lockheed Martin HF2
• Babcock Arrowhead 140
• TKMS

have all offered frigates with CIWS consisting of 40mm and/or seaRAM. I could be wrong but I didn't see a single Phalanx amongst them -https://youtu.be/uIO8JvUX0rI. I guess that says something.
The RAN is still waiting for some of their Phalanx to be returned after being updated to block 1B, so I guess we are committed to this platform for a while, but the lack of range is a problem, as many people have already commented on.

 

[Redlands18]

I think many people have commented on the use by date of the phalanx as a CIWS. It is clear that in the future frigate program of the Helenic navy in which the contenders:

• Fincantieri FREMM
• Damen Sigma 11515
• Naval Group FDI
• Lockheed Martin HF2
• Babcock Arrowhead 140
• TKMS

have all offered frigates with CIWS consisting of 40mm and/or seaRAM. I could be wrong but I didn't see a single Phalanx amongst them -https://youtu.be/uIO8JvUX0rI. I guess that says something.
The RAN is still waiting for some of their Phalanx to be returned after being updated to block 1B, so I guess we are committed to this platform for a while, but the lack of range is a problem, as many people have already commented on.

Don’t be to sure we are committed fully to Phalanx, the 12 we have now are 1 each for the Hobarts, AORs and the Choules and 2-3 each for the LHDs, we still have to order. CIWS for the Hunters.

 

[Boagrius]

While Phalanx does seem like a dead end, that's not what puzzles me. I am rather bewildered that we can already be hitting the growth margins of a design that is armed to a level more typical of a vessel half its size?

 

[hauritz]

It will be the 2030s before the Hunters will need CIWS. There might be a few more options by then. Personally I am not sure that a 20mm gun would have the stopping power to deal with hypersonic weapons.

Maybe the Cannucks have the right idea in opting for an extra layer of missile defence instead.

 

[MickB]

It will be the 2030s before the Hunters will need CIWS. There might be a few more options by then. Personally I am not sure that a 20mm gun would have the stopping power to deal with hypersonic weapons.

Maybe the Cannucks have the right idea in opting for an extra layer of missile defence instead.

By this time the extra layer of defence may well be HVPs from the 5 inch gun.
But I would still opt for something more powerful and longer ranged than the Phalanx.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Presuming my measurements are correct the mast of the Hunter class is 1700 cubic meters compared to around 950 cubic meters for the UK version. The overall volume of the Hunter class is around 26000 cubic meters so at an average of 1/3 ton per cubic meter that very roughly translates into an extra 320tons.

They are nice renderings. The volume is interesting to know but isn't the whole story. It matters how much mass is there, and where it is distributed. Often with radar masts, things like cabling, radar panels, cooling is located in the inner surface of the mast. Not just a point at the base of the mast. moment = force x distance. The chunkier profile of the Hunter mast, would seem to indicate more mass, higher and further out. It most likely has a much higher centre of mass either empty or fitted out.

We know that it is a high performing radar, with significant power and cooling requirements. Doubling the cooling requirements and doubling the power requirements could easily explain significant design changes, even if the mast was the same shape and volume. That would have significant impact on the mast, but also in mechanical spaces below, more and or larger generation capability, more and or larger water chilling capability, higher flow, bigger pipes etc. More power requires more fuel to keep the same endurance. It causes a cascade effect along the design.

RAN seems to be putting a big priority on the radar, which makes sense given our capabilities and area of operations.

I am curious to see how the UK, Canadian and Australian ships end out.

Phalanx IMO has evolved to to a different role. It shouldn't be intercepting hypersonic missiles no matter what its bolted to.

 

[ngatimozart]

WRT CIWS, the South Korean navy and DAPA are developing a CIWS based on the GAU-8 30mm and an inbuilt AESA radar. That could be an option to replace Phalanx. When they are obtaining their GAU-8 from isn't stated.

MADEX 2021: LIG Nex1 Unveils its CIWS-II for ROK Navy - Naval News

Korean company LIG Nex1 unveiled its CIWS-II (close-in weapon system) design during MADEX 2021 naval defense exhibition currently held in Busan. LIG Nex1 is specialized in localized naval assets including sonars, sensors, missiles, and other assets for the Republic of Korea Navy (ROKN).

www.navalnews.com

 

[Todjaeger]

WRT CIWS, the South Korean navy and DAPA are developing a CIWS based on the GAU-8 30mm and an inbuilt AESA radar. That could be an option to replace Phalanx. When they are obtaining their GAU-8 from isn't stated.

MADEX 2021: LIG Nex1 Unveils its CIWS-II for ROK Navy - Naval News

Korean company LIG Nex1 unveiled its CIWS-II (close-in weapon system) design during MADEX 2021 naval defense exhibition currently held in Busan. LIG Nex1 is specialized in localized naval assets including sonars, sensors, missiles, and other assets for the Republic of Korea Navy (ROKN).

www.navalnews.com

It will depend on whether or not the S. Korean 30 mm CIWS is deck penetrating or non-deck penetrating. Given that the 30 mm Goalkeeper was deck penetrating, and the potential recoil from a GAU-8, I would not be surprised if the unit ended up requiring a much more significant mounting or deck penetration, which the Mk 15 Phalanx does not require. As a side note, with the Block 1B development, the Phalanx has an anti-surface capability suitable for engaging smallcraft. I expect that the CIWS capability is now being <ahem> targeted at smallcraft, rather than aerial threats.

With respect to the near future RAN air defence capabilities, I think people are forgetting that the RAN fields ESSM currently and should have ESSM Block II sometime in the near future, and the ESSM can (and I believe Block II as well) be quad-packed. So the 48-cell VLS of the Hobart-class DDG can have a range of potential air defence loadouts. These range from 40 SM-2/-3/-6 and 32 ESSM, to up to a max of 384 ESSM. Given the ~50 km range of ESSM, that provides a fairly significant air defence umbrella.

IMO it is also worth looking at the USN's VLS cell count and likely missile loadouts for the Aegis kitted Arleigh Burke-class DDG which have between 90 and 96 VLS cells split into two Mk 41 VLS, one fore and the other aft. IIRC roughly half the VLS cells are normally loaded with LACM to provide the DDG a potent strike capability in addition to their air defence role. Such a loadout would leave roughly 40 to 48 VLS cells available for air defence missile loadouts. Or in other words, about the same amount of VLS cells that the dedicated area air defence destroyers kitted with Aegis and known in the RAN as the Hobart-class DDG, have and would normally have loaded for air defence.

 

[ngatimozart]

@Todjaeger I think that Xavier's video said that the ROKN 30mm CIWS wasn't deck penetrative.

IIRC the ESSM Blk II is quad packed. It also has a surface attack capability.

 

[Todjaeger]

@Todjaeger I think that Xavier's video said that the ROKN 30mm CIWS wasn't deck penetrative.

IIRC the ESSM Blk II is quad packed. It also has a surface attack capability.

ESSM Block I had a surface attack capability developed and IIRC the RAN tested it a few years ago. From what I have been able to gather, the major developmental difference for the Block II is the seeker, instead of a single mode, SARH, the Block II seeker is a dual-mode SARH and ARH. Incidentally I just checked and confirmed that the Block II is also quad-packable. I could not, at the time, recall whether or not the rocket motor and thrust-vectoring sections were the same as Block I and that could have potentially impacted the dimensions of Block II and whether it could quad-pack.