Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[Redlands18]

Time to get back to talking about Skimmers, thought i might do a pros & cons on the Sea 5000 Tenders.
Type 26.
Pros : 1. A brand new design with lots of future growth potential.
2. Will be working with a nation and navy that we have a language and cultural
Bond with.
3. Its the largest of the 3 designs at 149.9m.
4. Can carry a Helicopter up to Chinook size.
Cons : 1. The design is not yet in the water and is actually still under Devolpment.
2. The British have little experience integrating US or Australian systems into
Their ships (Harpoon the exception).

FREMM
Pros : 1. It's a realitivley new design thats already has a couple of years service.
2. Would be ordering at the desins zenith when any issues should have been
identified and fixed.
Cons : 1. We have never ordered an Italian Ship before.
2. It's the smallest of the 3 at 144m.

AWD-ASW
Pros : 1. It's based on a design already ordered for the RAN, with up to 70%
Commonolity.
2. Australia already has a strong institutional knowledge on how to build
This design.
3. Strong commonality with the AORs as well as the AWDs.
Cons : 1. The design is getting pretty long in the tooth.
2. Would have limited growth potential.
3. Will need to redisgn hanger area to fit 2 Helicopters.
4. Some work on the design to quieten it for ASW operations.

I think it will come down to how much risk Australia wants to take versus how much commonality versus somewhere in the middle. Do we want the new boy on the block with a lot of potential, the one at the very top of its game or the mature one we are very familiar with.

 

[alexsa]

Time to get back to talking about Skimmers, thought i might do a pros & cons on the Sea 5000 Tenders.
Type 26.
Pros : 1. A brand new design with lots of future growth potential.
2. Will be working with a nation and navy that we have a language and cultural
Bond with.
3. Its the largest of the 3 designs at 149.9m.
4. Can carry a Helicopter up to Chinook size.
Cons : 1. The design is not yet in the water and is actually still under Devolpment.
2. The British have little experience integrating US or Australian systems into
Their ships (Harpoon the exception).

FREMM
Pros : 1. It's a realitivley new design thats already has a couple of years service.
2. Would be ordering at the desins zenith when any issues should have been
identified and fixed.
Cons : 1. We have never ordered an Italian Ship before.
2. It's the smallest of the 3 at 144m.

AWD-ASW
Pros : 1. It's based on a design already ordered for the RAN, with up to 70%
Commonolity.
2. Australia already has a strong institutional knowledge on how to build
This design.
3. Strong commonality with the AORs as well as the AWDs.
Cons : 1. The design is getting pretty long in the tooth.
2. Would have limited growth potential.
3. Will need to redisgn hanger area to fit 2 Helicopters.
4. Some work on the design to quieten it for ASW operations.

I think it will come down to how much risk Australia wants to take versus how much commonality versus somewhere in the middle. Do we want the new boy on the block with a lot of potential, the one at the very top of its game or the mature one we are very familiar with.

You appear to be suggesting that you quote from a knowledge base. So a few questions:

1. How do you know what the growth potential of the T26? Certainly the T26 is largest and it may have more growth potential but this driven weight which is speculative at this stage as the 'derivative' for Australia is a color drawing at the moment. So I suggest we do not know the growth potential. For example if strike length 48 cells (noting that is 'if") are required that could eat up your margins where this is already in other designs.

2. On the same issue how do you know the growth potential of The F105 derivative is 'limited"? The AWD has stated tonnage of 6890 tonnes and Navantia suggest the derivative as growth to 7500 tonnes. On what basis do you contend this is limited?

3. Really both the FREMM and F105 hulls are at their design zenith to use your words, but both will need modification. There will be less for the F105 so how do you see the FREMM as less risk.

Note: The proposed model of the Navantia design has been show with two helicopter hangers so we leave that as a moot point.

4. What quieting needs to be done to the F105 derivative and how do you know it needs it!

To be honest I cannot answer all these questions as I do not have the information nor is it in the public domain. As such I question your assessment. I really don't mind where a view is expressed but get a little irked where this is presented as fact.

Quite happy to be corrected if you actually know that there are acoustic limitations with the F105, or that the T26 has large growth margins (noting the design is currently about 80% as far as I am aware), or that there is less risk with FREMM compared to the others ..... but if not can you please couch your comments in terms that don't suggest this is a fact.

 

[Volkodav]

During the final bids for AWD when the G&C International Frigate was the prefered evolved solution and the F-104 baseline of the F-100 was the prefered existing solution Navantia offered a whole raft of options including a second helicopter, additional VLS (for a total of 64) with option for greater displacement, length, volume etc. Basically anything we wanted they were prepare to offer but because it was the "existing option" most of this was knocked back and only a limited number of improvements from the F-105 and RAN specific equipment were allowed.

I am so glad we appear to have seen the back of Kinaird as IMO it limited options and increased risk by not permitting common sense changes. We could have had a much better ship but for stupid rules limiting what could be changed. More powerful and economical propulsion diesels that are actually MARPOL compliant, better generators, digital propulsion GTs, second helicopter. If not extra bls cells, at least space and weight for them and perhaps most important, extra growth margins.

There is no doubt what so ever that Navantia could have designed a stretched F-100 for us, just look at the frigates they did for Norway. An evolved ship could even have been better design for build in Australia, reducing the issues we had early in the project. Ironically, had we been building an evolved design it would have justified the sort of mitigation measures the AWD was so sorely lacking at the start because the knobs behind Kinaird determined they weren't necessary for a "build to print" existing design.

 

[Todjaeger]

For SEA5000, one thing which I hope is being thought about, is not just a degree of commonality with the AWD, but also with the OPV's, assuming of course that modular packages are being considered for the future OPV's.

To my way of thinking, the RAN should be looking to the future in terms of how weapons are fitted to and maintained for naval vessels. Some of the large weapon systems like a 5"/127 mm gun, or non-tactical length VLS have so much displacement and require so much real estate aboard a vessel that they cannot be easily taken out and overhauled, or swapped between vessels. AFAIK others like some of the sensors and/or comms systems need to be rather precisely located and aligned, so might not be able to swap easily.

A number of the smaller weapon systems this could be done with, and IMO the RAN should be looking at what is required and how well it does or could work.

Something else which might be considered, especially if development is far enough along, is for a UUV to be operated from the vessel. Even if the UUV is unarmed, if it can be kitted out with a decent sonar, it can be operated as another element in an ASW picket line.

 

[ngatimozart]

Italian FREMM Frigate

The Italian variant of the FREMM is one of the three designs that has been short-listed for SEA5000, built by Ficantieri, cheaper and less austere than the French variant. The FREMM (FRigate European Multi-Mission) program is a joint French – Italian program managed by OCCAR with DCNS building the French Aquitaine Class variant of the FREMM and Ficantieri the Bergamini Class. The class has two sub types; a GP sub type with the Carlo Bergamini (F590) as the GP lead ship and an ASW sub type with the Virginio Fasan (F591) as the ASW lead ship. The Italian component of the FREMM program cost is believed to be around €5.7 billion up to around 2018 for a 10 ship fleet consisting of six GP frigates and four ASW frigates. The unit costs for the Bergaminia Class are thought to be approximately €382 million (AU$582 million)* which is around 60% greater than the €250 million targeted in 2003.

Italian FREMM AS specs:

Italian FREMM AS drawing:

Table 3.1.2., from Waters (p.94) gives the specifications for the GP variant. It should be noted that since the Carlo Bergamini and Virginio Fasan were built that Italians have added a 3.2.m extension to increase the length of the flight deck to accommodate the safe operating margins with respect of the AW101 Merlin helicopters rear ramps. This modification will be retrofitted to the first two ships.

Italian FREMM GP Specs:

Italian FREMM GP drawing:

Table 3.1.2., from Waters (p.98) gives the specifications for the GP variant. The main differences between the two is the sensors and weapons load out, in the GP sub type a third RHIB is carried in place of the Towed Sonar Array and is launched and recovered via a stern ramp, a Oto Melara 127/64 gun is carried in place of the Oto Melara STRALES 76/62 gun on the ASW sub type and two Oto Melara KBA 25mm guns are carried in the GP sub type but not on the ASW sub type. They have a different ASMD philosophy and use the Oto Melara 127mm and 76mm guns for air defence instead of CIWS etc., found in other navies. The Strales system can support engagements up to five nautical miles and greater and is effective against missiles and similar targets. It is fitted to the guns and uses guided ammunition utilising RF guidance.

The Italians use the Sylver (pdf) VLS instead of the ubiquitous Mk 41 VLS. It is noted that the Mk57 VLS is used on the USN DDG1000 Zumwalt Class and may be the Mk41 VLS replacement. Whilst there is only one VLS nest of 16 cells fitted at the moment, provision is made for a second nest of 16 cells to be fitted, mainly the Sylver A70 strike length cells for the SCALP Naval. At present this space has been allocated for extra crew accommodation, bringing the accommodation up to 200. The Marina Militare has found that it was somewhat ambitious in its initial crewing numbers. This may reflect their crewing and naval philosophy rather than the level of automation. Currently both sub types are fitted with the Teseo SSM and MILAS ASW missiles, however in the ASW sub type the Teseo missiles are replaced with MILAS missiles.

The ships can carry two helos, either an AW101 / NFH combination, two NFHs or one helo and UAVs. The starboard hangar is sized for the AW101 and the port one for the NFH. The flight deck uses the Curtis Wright TC-ASIST recovery system. The ship has a CODLAG propulsion system driving twin shaft controllable pitch propellers. There is also a 2MW electrically powered azimuth retractable thruster in the forward engine room that can be used in a get me home situation. It has a speed of around seven knots. On electric engines the ship can run silently at 15 knots.

Is this the right ship for the RAN? It does have plenty to offer and unlike the other two it is in the water and FOC. It is a relatively new design and of the three designs most likely presents the least risk. The RAN will not fit out the ship the same way that the Italians have done, by using different weapons, VLS, sensors C3 etc. The FREMMs do offer the ability to be modified to individual client needs so this is not a deal breaker.

*Exchange rate 3rd May 2016.
Main Source: Waters, C: 2014, Italian FREMMs: Carlo Bergamini (GP) and Virginio Fasan (AS), pp 88 - 107, in Waters C, 2014, Seaforth World Naval Review 2015, Seaforth Publishing, Barnsley, UK.

 

[ASSAIL]

For SEA5000, one thing which I hope is being thought about, is not just a degree of commonality with the AWD, but also with the OPV's, assuming of course that modular packages are being considered for the future OPV's. .

Naturally commonality for sustainment is one dynamic but training is another.
It would make the training regime so more effective if system operators, both sensor/weapon and ship management, if they were familiar whatever ship they served on.
Men joining a DDG or frigate from an OPV or between DDG and FFG would have the same CMS, scalable off course, the same ship management system, the same damage control equipment and whatever else. This would prevent streaming of billets such as occurred in the late 60s onwards where once in the Rivers or once in the CFAs one tended to stay there. It would enhance operational readiness and crew competence.
In view of the above I would hope this would be a consideration in down selecting equipment for all our future platforms with the bar already established by the LHDs and DDGs.
When the UK was the sole supplier of all our ships and UK designs were built here this phenomenon already existed and has now been lost for 50 years (post 1965)

 

[oldsig127]

Naturally commonality for sustainment is one dynamic but training is another.
(snip for brevity)
When the UK was the sole supplier of all our ships and UK designs were built here this phenomenon already existed and has now been lost for 50 years (post 1965)

All of which sounds like a head start for Navantia in the ASW Frigate space, given the other three Navantia ship classes which will be in RAN service in the near future. Spain replacing the UK in practice.

And all else being equal, it would have a definite impact on the decision, though whether enough to win Navantia another contract will depend on a hell of a lot of other factors too.

oldsig

 

[Todjaeger]

Naturally commonality for sustainment is one dynamic but training is another.
It would make the training regime so more effective if system operators, both sensor/weapon and ship management, if they were familiar whatever ship they served on.
Men joining a DDG or frigate from an OPV or between DDG and FFG would have the same CMS, scalable off course, the same ship management system, the same damage control equipment and whatever else. This would prevent streaming of billets such as occurred in the late 60s onwards where once in the Rivers or once in the CFAs one tended to stay there. It would enhance operational readiness and crew competence.
In view of the above I would hope this would be a consideration in down selecting equipment for all our future platforms with the bar already established by the LHDs and DDGs.
When the UK was the sole supplier of all our ships and UK designs were built here this phenomenon already existed and has now been lost for 50 years (post 1965)

<insert facepalm here>

I had not even thought of commonality for system operators. Not sure how much commonality would be between some of the ship systems like engines, ballasting, or even damage control procedures, but for systems... Having someone rated to operate the control station for same, an ESSM launch system, and then having the exact same control interface and layout for use aboard the AWD, the Future Frigate, and aboard an OPV if they have the option to be armed to that degree...

I find it sort of funny that the notion had not even crossed my mind. So the idea is potentially even more advantageous that I had first thought. So it becomes a question of how feasible is such an arrangement, and at what cost.

 

[alexsa]

All of which sounds like a head start for Navantia in the ASW Frigate space, given the other three Navantia ship classes which will be in RAN service in the near future. Spain replacing the UK in practice.

And all else being equal, it would have a definite impact on the decision, though whether enough to win Navantia another contract will depend on a hell of a lot of other factors too.

oldsig

And to be honest the batch build process allows ships to evolve (even to new designs) keeping this commonality in mind. It does not prevent a new design but allows an evolution of the operation of the vessel for training systems

Dare I say it this has been the selling point for Airbus in its products (not advocating for Airbus just to be clear).

The T26 appears to be a very capable ship but for my money an initial build of an evolved F105 has a lot to recommend it as you will have more than three ships on which much of the arrangement will be similar. Have served on River Class frigates this certainly made moving to other ships in the class a much easier process.

 

[Nick underscore]

I read this today in the latest APDR - APDR - Split Build .

Not sure whether the number is fixed, but they're quoting 'senior defence officials' stating that the OPV's will be capped at 80m. I hope this isn't the case.

Has this been referenced elsewhere publicly?

Cheers

 

[Volkodav]

All of which sounds like a head start for Navantia in the ASW Frigate space, given the other three Navantia ship classes which will be in RAN service in the near future. Spain replacing the UK in practice.

And all else being equal, it would have a definite impact on the decision, though whether enough to win Navantia another contract will depend on a hell of a lot of other factors too.

oldsig

The F-100 has a lot of FFG-7 dna, Spain having built six of them prior to embarking on the F-100 project following the collapse of the NATO Frigate program. The amount of carryover from the Perry and even the Knox class in the ship spec was noted by some of the BIW personnel who worked on AWD.

 

[ASSAIL]

I read this today in the latest APDR - APDR - Split Build .

Not sure whether the number is fixed, but they're quoting 'senior defence officials' stating that the OPV's will be capped at 80m. I hope this isn't the case.

Has this been referenced elsewhere publicly?

Cheers

I don't think that the 80m is rigid. If so it precludes one of the 3 contenders, Damen, whose model 1800 and Sea Axe 1800 are both a few mtrs over 80 whilst their 1400 is only 72m.
The two German ships are both 80m.

 

[ASSAIL]

All of which sounds like a head start for Navantia in the ASW Frigate space, given the other three Navantia ship classes which will be in RAN service in the near future. Spain replacing the UK in practice.

And all else being equal, it would have a definite impact on the decision, though whether enough to win Navantia another contract will depend on a hell of a lot of other factors too.

oldsig

Not necessarily, IPMS - Integrated Platform Management Systems are common in most modern platforms including submarines. L3, Northrop Grumman, Sperry Siemens Eca et al all have versions fitted in various navies. The point I make is simply that they should be common and familiar as far as possible.

 

[Raven22]

The 80m limit for the OPVs is based off berthing requirements - any larger and they won't fit into the various ports on the north coast the OPVs will need to use.

 

[alexsa]

The 80m limit for the OPVs is based off berthing requirements - any larger and they won't fit into the various ports on the north coast the OPVs will need to use.

Out of curiosity which ports? Even Kurumba (which is a difficult place to get into) can take 110m LOA. Certainly the current dedicated PB facilities may be difficult but many of the small ports with berths (as opposed to landing barges and ramps) can handle over 80m! The majority of ports in the north east, north and north west that have access for a vessel of around 80m can berth larger vessels.

By way of example the Trinity Bay has a LOA of 81m, beam of 15m and summer draft of 5.38m and it services Horn Island, Thursday Island and Bamaga. Both the Fassmer 80m and 90m offerings draw only 3.8m and is only 13m beam.

Bing Bong could be problematic but that port is dedicated to one vessel (the Aburi) and a particular cargo.

As a side issue I note there is a new 80m product on the Fassmer web site

http://www.fassmer.de/fileadmin/use...ding/salesblaetter/SB_74_Naval_OPV_LY5_ma.pdf

 

[Milne Bay]

As a side issue I note there is a new 80m product on the Fassmer web site

http://www.fassmer.de/fileadmin/use...ding/salesblaetter/SB_74_Naval_OPV_LY5_ma.pdf

Thank you for the link.
This Fassmer product looks tailor made for the Australian requirement.
It also has the ability to be up-armed if it is ever needed to be.
I like it
MB

 

[Raven22]

Out of curiosity which ports?

No idea, but that's the reason for the 80m limit.

 

[Alf662]

No idea, but that's the reason for the 80m limit.

I am just guessing here, but in addition to existing RAN berthing facilities, it could also have some thing to do with accessing some of the smaller Pacific Islands and their small harbours.

 

[ASSAIL]

No idea, but that's the reason for the 80m limit.

I think the main difficulty maybe in Cairns because berthing for the current10 home ported ships there is tight but a little easier with the departure of the LCHs
The main berth very nearly intrudes into the port main swing basin (an area dredged to allow large ships to be turned 180 degs.
This however will be alleviated by the port development plan which moves the swing basin further into Trinity inlet away from HMAS Cairns, certainly the outside wharf would allow all the proposed OPVs berthing room but until the development takes place they couldn't double up. It is still quite tight however because of the closeness of the sugar refinery wharf (used by about 19 ships pa)
There are plans by ARUP for the redevelopment but I don't have access away from my desk.
The are no length restrictions at DArwin Naval Base that would prevent the OPVs being over length by a few metres

 

[Nick underscore]

No idea, but that's the reason for the 80m limit.

Cheers Raven, Assail & Alexsa.

Wondering what the endurance of the new Fassmer OPV? She is a nice design. Previous Fassmer OPV in service with Chilean Navy - 80m Fassmer OPV

Hope that Damen's 1800 series, will still be in the mix. Both the Standard 83m OPV & the 85m Sea Axe design.