Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[John Newman]

And nearly copied my post word for word, I'll just stop to say very much my thoughts as well. Apart from tight budgets with many hands outstretched (Subs, supply ships, future frigates, patrol boats etc) I can't really see the RAN ending up in a situation needing a carrier without having an ally alongside with one (USA/UK). All said and done, if the brief hit my desk with the will and want I'd be going for the Cavour too. Order a squadron of F-35B and before you know it you could be rolling.

Apart from the competing budget priorities (and even if Defence spending gets to 2% much soon than later and more importantly stays there!), I just can't see it happening, regardless of a way being found to afford such a capability without sacrificing another capability in the process.

Firstly you would need both major political parties to have a continuing bipartisan agreement that 'yes a fixed wing capability was to be re-established and maintained', and I can't see that happening for a start.

It would also need, in my opinion, some major shift in our regional circumstances with the resultant changes in our Defence and Foreign policies and outlook too.

I'm not anti carrier, my heart would like to see it, but my head tells me otherwise!

 

[Volkodav]

Who knows what a decade operating a pair of LPHs will do to public and political perceptions. They are big, they look like carriers, all that is missing is the actual fixed wing aviation. If in several years the government were to announce that an extra ship was required to meet operational requirements the public likely would not blink if the dock was missing and it could deploy a squadron of F-35B, especially if our LHDs had been cross decking USMC aircraft for years.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Who knows what a decade operating a pair of LPHs will do to public and political perceptions.

in the aust press they'll be called battleships

 

[t68]

Extracts from “A REPLACEMENT AIRCRAFT CARRIER AND FIXED WING AIRCRAFT FOR THE R.A.N. 1962” as can be seen a lot of the operational needs of the RAN are still current to what the operational needs in 2014 nothing seems to have changed except we now have bigger capital ships to protect, with China flexing and enhancing her ties in the South Pacific most notably Fiji.

Abraham Gubler show me the way to it some time ago on another forum.



"To ensure the use of the seas of our areas of interest for our own and for friendly shipping and to deny them to the shipping of the enemy”. The priority of the sea responsibilities may vary from time to time but it is contended that, for an effective contribution, the Navy needs an offensive capability. If we have no offensive capability the initiative remains at all times with the enemy, the maxim that the best method of defence is attack is undoubted true.

The R.A.N. must be prepared to meet the responsibilities listed in paragraph 1, and , in common with our other Defence Forces to operate in two dissimilar types of war :
(a) In conjunction with allies, to meet our Treaty obligations in south East Asian waters.
(b) To operate alone, for a time at least, in the defence of the Australian mainland and island territories

A situation could exist where both the above requirements need to be met concurrently. Australia has already nominated for planning purposes the majority of her readily available forces to the various SEATO plans.

To enable 'the Navy to meet its responsibilities and perform all its t asks effectively, it will be shown that fixed winged aircraft, operate from a modern aircraft carrier, are essential.

SEATO planning which assumes a non-hostile Indonesia has made clear that with commitments facing the U.S. and U.K. forces, Australia will be responsible for the escorting and logistic support of her contribution to the area of hostilities in South East Asia. When these forces have arrived the RAN will operate in concert with its allies, but since little or no assistance from these allies can be expected before this, our own resources must be sufficient to the safety and timely arrival of our national contribution.

Air defence of convoys.
The operational radius of shore based fighter especially with supersonic capability is necessarily limited, and to provide combat air patrol and the concentrated effort needed the “airfield” must be near the convoy, vis, an aircraft carrier. There is no other means of providing air defence or strike for a convoy in areas of Indonesian aircraft or surface forces can operate and our forces cannot. To assume that shore based aircraft can be brought up to the necessary position in the ocean hundreds of miles from land to counter a developing attack is irrational.

The provision of anti-submarine protection is done in conjunction with the Air Force, within the range and availability of its aircraft. Ground support for army and air cover over the beaches in an amphibious landing are additional tasks which may be required in the future. This emphasis the need for fighter/strike at ranges beyond shore based aircraft can operate continuously. Lack of this capability will confine any amphibious operation to areas to within range of shore based aircraft if any air threat however slight, exists. Such a situation will preclude the full mobility which control of the seas and local air superiority can impart.

The role of a carrier in the RAN would be
1. Reconnaissance
2. Air Defence
3. Submarine detection & destruction
4. Air Strike
5. Airborne early warning and air direction
6. Ground support


I would like to think as time goes on and we have the LHD with troops on board and they are intercepted by a non-allied third party fast jets and to see how exposed they were and the realization of the implications of not supplying adequate defence measures, those how reside in the lodge will get the message.

 

[justsomeaussie]

Extracts from “A REPLACEMENT AIRCRAFT CARRIER AND FIXED WING AIRCRAFT FOR THE R.A.N. 1962” as can be seen a lot of the operational needs of the RAN are still current to what the operational needs in 2014 nothing seems to have changed except we now have bigger capital ships to protect, with China flexing and enhancing her ties in the South Pacific most notably Fiji.

Would the strategic difference now be that with the growth and availability of ASM the ability to project power though a carrier is limited?

Simply it's far easier to take out a capital ship than ever before. I understood that was also the crux of wanting 12 submarines; that in a modern war capital ships have an extremly short life span due to advances in HE and targeting, moving beyond the ability to detect and counter.

 

[Bonza]

I would like to think as time goes on and we have the LHD with troops on board and they are intercepted by a non-allied third party fast jets and to see how exposed they were and the realization of the implications of not supplying adequate defence measures, those how reside in the lodge will get the message.

Except they'll be deploying with purpose-built air warfare destroyers armed with SM-2ER/hopefully SM-6 long-range missiles, and probably an ANZAC or two with CEAFAR/CEAMOUNT and ESSM missiles. And take into account the magazine sizes you get with surface combatants- 32 ESSM per ANZAC, and 48 VLS with a mix of Standard/ESSM per Hobart. If these escorts are appropriately deployed to support a layered air defence, I don't think the LHD will be as exposed to hostile air as you might think - particularly for our region. And I don't think we're likely to be transporting large numbers of troops and vehicles to somewhere outside our region unless we're part of a coalition. I know sometimes that reasoning sounds like a bit of a cop out, but looking at the past it's not unrealistic.

 

[gf0012-aust]

And I don't think we're likely to be transporting large numbers of troops and vehicles to somewhere outside our region unless we're part of a coalition. I know sometimes that reasoning sounds like a bit of a cop out, but looking at the past it's not unrealistic.

the combat vignettes aren't normally geared towards us sending a huge mob on our own....

if there is something major to blow up then everyone affected in our region is assuming that other partners will be stepping up to the plate in some form or fashion.

the irony for china is that her behaviour in the region is achieving the exact opposite of what she was trying to establish. Even nations that were somewhat ambivalent about the US in the pacrim see her as a vector of balance and good neighbourly behaviour

HADR vis a vis China and everyone else around here is oft touted as the standout example of why she's not generating respect beyond military posturing

 

[ASSAIL]

Getting back to the real world.
There has been little discussion about the Anzac replacement other than T26.
Has there been any formal exchange between DMO and BAE?
Has any alternative been considered such as the Navantia F110?

Promising project Spanish frigate F-110 | Encyclopedia of safety (I'm not sure if this is the final version, it seems to have changed a few times)
T26 is optimized for RN systems although I acknowledge that open architechture IT makes this less relevant.
The Navantia option is optimized for US systems, it replaces OHP's and I assume some kind of platform commonality with the DDG's and LHD's.
It's a long time since we built Brit sourced ships.

Love to hear some thoughts.

 

[aussienscale]

Aussienscale posted:-

"IF we were to get a carrier it would most certainly be a STOVL, the minimum size for a CATOBAR is around the UK's QE size and not really practical for the RAN."


The Charles DeGaule is a lot smaller than QE11...but still manages with Rafael M. Would a non nuclear vessel of about that size be suitable for the RAN? I would have thought it would be.

CDG could be apart from the fact it is nuclear powered. And there are other earlier conventional designs such as the BSAC 220 etc, so there are plenty of options out there. I just don't see the need for a CATOBAR, it brings in a whole raft of other problems for just a single carrier fleet.

STOVL makes more sense as I mentioned based on the current and future fleet, and to that end a Cavour Class would suit nicely. But it is still not going to happen unless something drastically changes on a whole lot of levels, I am ex RAN and would love to see a carrier again, but I am not holding my breath

Cheers

 

[Bonza]

Getting back to the real world.
There has been little discussion about the Anzac replacement other than T26.
Has there been any formal exchange between DMO and BAE?
Has any alternative been considered such as the Navantia F110?

Promising project Spanish frigate F-110 | Encyclopedia of safety (I'm not sure if this is the final version, it seems to have changed a few times)
T26 is optimized for RN systems although I acknowledge that open architechture IT makes this less relevant.
The Navantia option is optimized for US systems, it replaces OHP's and I assume some kind of platform commonality with the DDG's and LHD's.
It's a long time since we built Brit sourced ships.

Love to hear some thoughts.

The Type 26 does seem pretty appealing, so long as the eventual product matches the stated design intent and capabilities. A large, quiet hul with a multi-mission bay, a lot of room and a relatively open approach to systems and armament sounds pretty much spot on to me. Personally I think finding a vessel of the appropriate size is vital for this particular replacement - it would be a shocker to repeat history and settle for the smaller, less capable design (which was arguably the case with the AWD as well as the ANZAC, given the US was ready and willing to straight up sell Flight II Burkes to Australia).

Not sure about the other options out there besides the Type 26 and a modified Hobart-class hull, I just hope whatever we pick is something in the region of 5000-6000 tons and roomy. Give the RAN some room for future systems growth, which has been a sticking point on the ANZACs and from what I understand it sounds like it'll be the same with the Hobarts...

 

[ASSAIL]

The Type 26 does seem pretty appealing, so long as the eventual product matches the stated design intent and capabilities. A large, quiet hul with a multi-mission bay, a lot of room and a relatively open approach to systems and armament sounds pretty much spot on to me. Personally I think finding a vessel of the appropriate size is vital for this particular replacement - it would be a shocker to repeat history and settle for the smaller, less capable design (which was arguably the case with the AWD as well as the ANZAC, given the US was ready and willing to straight up sell Flight II Burkes to Australia).

Not sure about the other options out there besides the Type 26 and a modified Hobart-class hull, I just hope whatever we pick is something in the region of 5000-6000 tons and roomy. Give the RAN some room for future systems growth, which has been a sticking point on the ANZACs and from what I understand it sounds like it'll be the same with the Hobarts...

The F110 is a 6,000 +tonne hull with compatible multi role ability, the specs are almost identical to T26 Without knowing too much about it, we have a relationship with Navantia, it should be cheaper than T26, it is further along the modernity curve and the timing is right.

I'm not a fan of RN platforms having served on quite a few (apart from the luxurious wardrooms). Although we built the Battles, Darings and T12's, they weren't without their considerable problems during construction.
OTOH, the jury is still out on the Hobarts however, the way the LHD's have come together and Cantabria's seamless 9 month deployment augers well.
I also suspect that Navantia will be more accommodating and hungrier than BAE.

On the contrary, there have been a few rumbles on here about the AWD construction at ASC so consider this thought bubble as provocation to the BAE acolytes.

 

[aussienscale]

I also think at this stage the T26 is looking the goods and our compliment would be Australian build, I don't see the integration of 9LV with CEAFAR/CEAMOUNT etc as any major issue. Anyone heard any further on the announcement that Australia would be interested in working with the UK on the C1 & C3 variants ?

The Navantia F-110 looks interesting, but no real firm details as yet, maybe a bit light IMO for our area of operations ? Southern Ocean etc, also not sure about the hull and its suitability for those areas ? Alexa may be able to comment more ?



Info on the F-110 mentions the jury is still out on the superstructure design depending on what system they go for IE: Aegis system ? or is there a possibility of a partnership with Australia for the Ceafar/Ceamount/Auspar ?

I was also a fan of the possibility of basing it on the F-100 hull, but others on here (Volk ?) put up good points that the design will be pretty long in the tooth when the time comes ?

Cheers

Found this on the F-110, translated, will see what else I can find through Navantia

http://translate.google.com.au/tran.../es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clase_F-110&edit-text=

 

[RobWilliams]

The F-110 is a trimaran design which won't be a cheap or easy thing to construct, find it a bit of a stretch to imagine that a class run of 5 + 6 for Spain and Aus respectively of a trimaran frigate would be cheaper than a 13 + 6 run of a monohull design assuming comparable systems. The Spanish navy wants 5 of them in service by the mid 2020s according to Janes, which assumes initial ISDs towards the start of the 2020's, the same as the Type 26. So can't imagine there's a whole lot of difference in terms of how modern they are respectively*.

Considering the timings, the Type 26 final design for the RN is to be sealed next year with first steel cutting the year after. How far along is the design of the F-110?

Interesting point being the mission dock, good idea, but when it was tested for the Type 26 it was discovered that it offered less than optimal acoustic characteristics.

Doubt Navantia is more hungry for exports than BAE either, the Type 26 has been designed with exportability as a key driver, can the same thing be said of the F-110? The production material for it i've read only discusses the Spanish Navy.

*Especially later Type 26's, they're going to be being constructed into the 2030's a few years after the last F-110 is in service.

 

[ASSAIL]

The F-110 is a trimaran design which won't be a cheap or easy thing to construct, find it a bit of a stretch to imagine that a class run of 5 + 6 for Spain and Aus respectively of a trimaran frigate would be cheaper than a 13 + 6 run of a monohull design assuming comparable systems. The Spanish navy wants 5 of them in service by the mid 2020s according to Janes, which assumes initial ISDs towards the start of the 2020's, the same as the Type 26. So can't imagine there's a whole lot of difference in terms of how modern they are respectively*.

Considering the timings, the Type 26 final design for the RN is to be sealed next year with first steel cutting the year after. How far along is the design of the F-110?


Interesting point being the mission dock, good idea, but when it was tested for the Type 26 it was discovered that it offered less than optimal acoustic characteristics.

Doubt Navantia is more hungry for exports than BAE either, the Type 26 has been designed with exportability as a key driver, can the same thing be said of the F-110? The production material for it i've read only discusses the Spanish Navy.

*Especially later Type 26's, they're going to be being constructed into the 2030's a few years after the last F-110 is in service.

I can count on you Rob, thanks for your input

 

[gf0012-aust]

If Alexas is out of his London jetlag you might get some commentary on him re trimarans....

I had some discussions with some Maritime Engineers from DERA a few years after they'd purchased a lot of tri hull designs from the Russians, they were not convinced about the utility and benefit of tri's beyond certain dimensions

I'd be surprised if the lease for the current tri was extended, but as there's a shortage of avail OPV hulls they might do a tick and flick

 

[RobWilliams]

I can count on you Rob, thanks for your input

Just suppositions mind

If the Type 45 is anything to go by, hopefully the growth margin of the Type 26 should be quite good. But it'll probably be struck with the same problem, "Oh, there's space for this as well? Why don't we get it NOW?!".

 

[Blas de Lezo]

The F-110 is a trimaran design which won't be a cheap or easy thing to construct, find it a bit of a stretch to imagine that a class run of 5 + 6 for Spain and Aus respectively of a trimaran frigate would be cheaper than a 13 + 6 run of a monohull design assuming comparable systems. The Spanish navy wants 5 of them in service by the mid 2020s according to Janes, which assumes initial ISDs towards the start of the 2020's, the same as the Type 26. So can't imagine there's a whole lot of difference in terms of how modern they are respectively*.

Considering the timings, the Type 26 final design for the RN is to be sealed next year with first steel cutting the year after. How far along is the design of the F-110?

Interesting point being the mission dock, good idea, but when it was tested for the Type 26 it was discovered that it offered less than optimal acoustic characteristics.

Doubt Navantia is more hungry for exports than BAE either, the Type 26 has been designed with exportability as a key driver, can the same thing be said of the F-110? The production material for it i've read only discusses the Spanish Navy.

*Especially later Type 26's, they're going to be being constructed into the 2030's a few years after the last F-110 is in service.

I am afraid the trimaran design was just a design study from Navantia whilst the Armada was polishing their requirements.

The F110 has to replace the OHP´s so it will be something placed between BAMs and the F100´s.

Latest info we have looks like this

La Armada contaría con su primera fragata F-110 dentro de ocho años - Noticias Infodefensa España

The Armada seem to be thinking on this lines and it seems the concept has it supporters both sides of the atlantic.

http://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2014-04/its-time-sea-control-frigate


Regards

 

[Bonza]

La Armada contaría con su primera fragata F-110 dentro de ocho años - Noticias Infodefensa España

Going by the google translation of that article, it sounds like the displacement they're aiming for will possibly be a bit too small for the RAN. If they're going for a middle ground between the BAM at 2670 tons and the F-100 at 5800 tons, they might end up being around the same displacement as the current ANZAC class, which as noted previously has had issues with growth margin. This is the legacy of choosing a single mid-tier design when the project originally called for a class of smaller patrol frigates in addition to a class of larger, high-end surface combatants.

If the F-110 stays at that displacement then selecting that design could potentially be a repeat of the ANZAC decision, so I sincerely hope we look at something else. That said, if for some reason Australia does buy in, all I can say is that I'm relieved it isn't a trimaran, based on what I've head from reliable sources on these forums.

 

[Blas de Lezo]

Going by the google translation of that article, it sounds like the displacement they're aiming for will possibly be a bit too small for the RAN. If they're going for a middle ground between the BAM at 2670 tons and the F-100 at 5800 tons, they might end up being around the same displacement as the current ANZAC class, which as noted previously has had issues with growth margin. This is the legacy of choosing a single mid-tier design when the project originally called for a class of smaller patrol frigates in addition to a class of larger, high-end surface combatants.

If the F-110 stays at that displacement then selecting that design could potentially be a repeat of the ANZAC decision, so I sincerely hope we look at something else. That said, if for some reason Australia does buy in, all I can say is that I'm relieved it isn't a trimaran, based on what I've head from reliable sources on these forums.

You could very well be right but my money is on a similar displacement to the Nansen Frigate about 5000T , above the 4000T of the OHP´s that substitutes and below the 6000T of The F100´s.
Considering the systems that have to be fitted in that monohull.......

 

[RobWilliams]

So the F-110 is a smaller ship than the F-100? Hopefully they've learned from the F-100 about future growth potential. Don't want to be worrying about space or weight when considering future upgrades.

The article then goes on to say that currently it's not sure if a 3in or 5in will be used, i'd be interested to know what the internal sacrifices would need to be made compared to the Spanish ships if the Spanish go for a 3in and the RAN want a 5in.

The concept of a sea control frigate isn't new, plenty of European countries have and are proceeding down this route. Most to come out of the US with respect to the LCS or the hypothetical frigate option to replace it is one giant political football. The article in particular is written by a junior US Lt.