Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[Joe Black]

To be honest I can't think of a single French buy that hasn't caused the ADF grief. Mirage, Success (Durance), MU-90, Tiger, MRH-90, even the Hotchkiss MG issued to the Light Horse in WWI apparently wasn't fit for purpose, nor did it work as intended. We forget after a decade or two, go back and get bitten again. Love the concept and look of a lot of a lot of French gear, just despair at execution and lack of honesty over performance, development status and cost.

We do wonder though, is it just a whole string of "bad luck" with French gear for us Aussies? Singapore Navy seems to like their La Fayette derived Formidable class frigate from the French. They bought their SAMs (Mistrals, Aster 15 & 30), they bought their helos (Super Puma and Cougars), and their tanks (AMX-13, albeit they are now all phased out by the German's Leo2s). The Indians and the Malaysians love their Scorpene SSKs. Indian seems to find their Mirage 2000 ok. So why do we keep having issues with French gears?

With the ITARS, I get that. If BYG-1 and MK48 ADCAPS are what we defined as pre-requisites, we need to consider integration issues and there's no 2 ways about it.

Oh I suppose the only "French" gear I would suppose we could considered a success currently in the ADF is the KC-30A/A330-MRTT.

Gf, I am not disputing with you, just think that Shortfin Barracuda is not all bad, but given we have something better to work with as a starting point (ie, Soryu), perhaps the obvious choice is to go with that. And btw, I know you're an Aussie, just teasing you about your "anti-French made stuff" sentiment. , but you got to admit the French do make sexy stuff!

Oh, I would love to see the next evolved Soryu replace their props with a pumpjet propulsion system.

 

[Volkodav]

The Soryu exists and is in service now, what is being offered is an evolution of an existing proven design.

212, 212A and 214 exist, are in service and have been license built. Their technology is proven and scalable but scaling them up to the required size is risky.

The Barracuda SSN has been ordered but is not yet in service, let alone proven, its scaled down conventional version is very much vapour ware. This is a conceptional design based on a class that is far from proven.

 

[Oberon]

We do wonder though, is it just a whole string of "bad luck" with French gear for us Aussies? Singapore Navy seems to like their La Fayette derived Formidable class frigate from the French. They bought their SAMs (Mistrals, Aster 15 & 30), they bought their helos (Super Puma and Cougars), and their tanks (AMX-13, albeit they are now all phased out by the German's Leo2s). The Indians and the Malaysians love their Scorpene SSKs. Indian seems to find their Mirage 2000 ok. So why do we keep having issues with French gears?

It's when we try to build it in Australia when we strike problems. Different way of doing things. I remember the problems at Cockatoo Dockyard when they were building the AOR.

 

[Volkodav]

It's when we try to build it in Australia when we strike problems. Different way of doing things. I remember the problems at Cockatoo Dockyard when they were building the AOR.

Didn't help they provided the blueprints in French with no indication whether the dimensions on a particular drawing were metric or imperial, and when imperial what version. In shades of what was to come with AWD a virtual army of engineers, naval architects, draftsmen, designers and technical officers had to be hired to make the design data usable, with no assistance from the French what so ever.

In the great Australian tradition were the politicians and bureaucrats underestimated the amount of work required, then let the overseas party who were meant to provide production drawings, advise and assist, off the hook all together. The whole lot was dumped on an understaffed under budgeted group who where then expected to fix all the unanticipated problems and still somehow meet the original unrealistic and unachievable cost and schedule.

When all went to poo it was all the Aussie workers fault, the planned second ship was cancelled and the yard closed.

 

[Bonza]

Can anyone tell me if the F125-class frigates from Germany are worth looking at when it comes to the Future Frigate? I note that tonnage-wise they're quite large, however due to their mission set they seem woefully undergunned compared to other warships of similar size. Their total lack of VLS worries me, as with only three Hobarts the Future Frigate will need to retain some flexibility in its armament. The capability to carry ESSM, Standard, ASROC, Tomahawk or a future anti-ship missile affords a great deal of mission-specific tailoring and it baffles me that a 7,000 ton modern warship wouldn't include at least some of these systems.

Does anyone know if the class has the weight margins and space to accommodate useful numbers of VLS? I apologise if I seem somewhat fixated on this one particular issue, but I've heard the F125s mentioned as possible candidates for the RAN and frankly with my limited understanding I'd rather not touch them with a ten foot pole. There's a number of warships out there that manage around 32 VLS on a displacement that's smaller by about 2,000 tons. So does the F125 have a lot of room to play with, or are they modular in some way, something like that? Or does all that tonnage go into operating a pair of NH90-sized helicopters, a mission deck for embarked RHIBS and ROVs, and maintaining a lengthy time on station?

Again, forgive the blinkered point of view but I do think it's an important factor when it comes to the future primary surface combatant of the RAN.

 

[Bonza]

After the trouble caused by the Mirage, MU-90, Tiger and MRH-90 I think we're frankly lunatics to be considering any French designs, let alone a design that's essentially a sketch on the back of a serviette of a notional conventional variant of a nuclear submarine that itself isn't in service yet despite being over-time and over-budget. Add in the woes inherent in integrating US systems with such a sub - and I would want to give up neither the Virginia's combat system nor the Mk. 48 ADCAP torpedo - and surely there is not one remaining realistic or logical reason for the Barracuda to remain in consideration.

I would rather endure the hardships of the early Collins program all over again than see a single one of these non-existent submarines get the nod from my country.

 

[oldsig127]

Can anyone tell me if the F125-class frigates from Germany are worth looking at when it comes to the Future Frigate?

(snipped for brevity)

Again, forgive the blinkered point of view but I do think it's an important factor when it comes to the future primary surface combatant of the RAN.

I apologise in advance to others because this link has been posted here repeatedly. You should have a read of it to answer your questions - but in essence the proposal is to marry the hull and machinery with modularity appropriate to customer needs - in this case specifically the RAN requirement

https://www.aspi.org.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0016/26503/Kamerman-The-German-experience-slides.pdf

oldsig127

 

[cdxbow]

Can anyone tell me if the F125-class frigates from Germany are worth looking at when it comes to the Future Frigate? I note that tonnage-wise they're quite large, however due to their mission set they seem woefully undergunned compared to other warships of similar size. Their total lack of VLS worries me, as with only three Hobarts the Future Frigate will need to retain some flexibility in its armament. The capability to carry ESSM, Standard, ASROC, Tomahawk or a future anti-ship missile affords a great deal of mission-specific tailoring and it baffles me that a 7,000 ton modern warship wouldn't include at least some of these systems.

Does anyone know if the class has the weight margins and space to accommodate useful numbers of VLS? I apologise if I seem somewhat fixated on this one particular issue, but I've heard the F125s mentioned as possible candidates for the RAN and frankly with my limited understanding I'd rather not touch them with a ten foot pole. There's a number of warships out there that manage around 32 VLS on a displacement that's smaller by about 2,000 tons. So does the F125 have a lot of room to play with, or are they modular in some way, something like that? Or does all that tonnage go into operating a pair of NH90-sized helicopters, a mission deck for embarked RHIBS and ROVs, and maintaining a lengthy time on station?

Again, forgive the blinkered point of view but I do think it's an important factor when it comes to the future primary surface combatant of the RAN.

The proposed Meko 400AU design has a 16 cell and 32 cell VLS if these images I have collected are correct. See att. first image. I imagine the VLS could be increased to a few more cells eg the 32 becomes 48, taking it past the AWD without sacrificing much. I hope they are the full length VLS to give more options.

I really like the designs redundancy, modularity & flexibility, in fact I liked it so much I drew a picture of it at sea, decked out with the oz gear and with a bit of hull shaping to reduce RCS. See 2nd att.

 

[Bonza]

I apologise in advance to others because this link has been posted here repeatedly. You should have a read of it to answer your questions - but in essence the proposal is to marry the hull and machinery with modularity appropriate to customer needs - in this case specifically the RAN requirement

https://www.aspi.org.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0016/26503/Kamerman-The-German-experience-slides.pdf

oldsig127

Ah, I don't know why I have missed it previously. My apologies for making you repeat yourself, and thanks for the link.

 

[StingrayOZ]

The Soryu exists and is in service now, what is being offered is an evolution of an existing proven design.

212, 212A and 214 exist, are in service and have been license built. Their technology is proven and scalable but scaling them up to the required size is risky.

The Barracuda SSN has been ordered but is not yet in service, let alone proven, its scaled down conventional version is very much vapour ware. This is a conceptional design based on a class that is far from proven.

Surely we can ask Brazil and Spain how there French linked submarine programs are going.

Spain has spend $2billion on there first slightly modified Scorpene, however DCNS isn't really running that project (but shows what can happen taking on modifications). I can't seem to find much about the Brazillian one but the first isn't expected to be operational for 8 years and the entire nuclear program is in doubt after corruption.

Frances own project is getting a hammering
DCNS Loss To Trim Thales Profits €100M

DCNS has launched a cost-cutting plan to find €100 million of savings this year and will complete in the first half a strategic development program, a DCNS spokesman said.

The high cost on the Barracuda was a cause for concern, and there is a potential for deeper losses on building the submarine, Sash Tusa, analyst at Edison Investment Research, said in a research note.

"We see this as far more worrying: The Barracuda programme (for up to 6 boats) has been stretched out, and deliveries look to stretch from later this decade to the end of the following one," the note said.

It seems to be in a worse than Astutes cost/time wise according to the market. France's Navy has ordered 3.

Let alone a sub with different dimensions, propulsion, from a builder who hasn't build diesel subs at this size before. Who is right in the middle of a project blowout of the base design.

That's on top of all the issues we have had historically with French gear.

I still think we need a tender process, and to look at it. Its quite an interesting proposal. Many pundits have talked about a diesel Virginia or a diesel Astute, this is along those lines, but by the French.I think looking at it will kill future talk of a diesel versions of nuclear subs (particularly French ones) and cost wise I don't think anyone doubts (not even DCNS?) it would be the most expensive (by far) out of the 3 proposals.

Can anyone tell me if the F125-class frigates from Germany are worth looking at when it comes to the Future Frigate?

IMO I think they are quite interesting. Main party tricks are crew levels are way down, propulsion is fairly fancy and a redundancy philosophy that means the ship has two of nearly everything.It is definitely a ship of the future (hull/propulsion/crewing wise).

I think they are valid option to look at, but all that redundancy isn't cheap (double the cost?), the Germans currently have only fitted and integrated an offensive weapon load slightly below below coarse language (literally, a megaphone, a water pistol and a torch) and with so little crew you have to wonder how they will handle emergencies etc. What they are proposing is only ~80% common of what there current F-125 has, or so I've heard.

 

[hauritz]

This intrigues me ... I am not sure that there is a real requirement for a maritime attack helicopter but it may be a better option than upgrading the tiger for maritime operations.

Singapore Airshow 2016: Bell, BAE Systems Australia to promote AH-1Z Viper to ADF | IHS Jane's 360

 

[chargerRT]

This intrigues me ... I am not sure that there is a real requirement for a maritime attack helicopter but it may be a better option than upgrading the tiger for maritime operations.

Singapore Airshow 2016: Bell, BAE Systems Australia to promote AH-1Z Viper to ADF | IHS Jane's 360

how does the AH-1Z handle 'on deck' with its skids, compared to helo's with wheels? google is not my friend... I cant find any info regarding this. obviously the USMC has no probs, but is this a negative? it seems like a good ship otherwise...

 

[ngatimozart]

how does the AH-1Z handle 'on deck' with its skids, compared to helo's with wheels? google is not my friend... I cant find any info regarding this. obviously the USMC has no probs, but is this a negative? it seems like a good ship otherwise...

That is also my concern although it would be on a large vessel so wouldn't necessarily have the same issues as, say a small flight deck on a frigate. The Italians operate Hueys off their ships so there would be a solution. Normally on land with the Iroquois they just placed small dolly wheels by the skids and then towed the helo normally. Maybe someone with more knowledge of helos with skids being operated at sea will be able to advise.

Edit.
Question: Does anyone know how difficult or easy it would be to change the AH-1Z undercarriage from skid to wheels? I was thinking along the lines of the Lynx which originally had a skid undercarriage, then a four castor wheel fixed undercarriage when it went to sea with the RN.

 

[Gordon Branch]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xp3WvYiamcs

 

[hauritz]

Bell Helicopter, BAE Systems position AH-1Z for potential Tiger replacement? | Australian Aviation

Here is a thought ... sell the Tigers to NZ and buy the AH-1Z instead.

 

[swerve]

Surely we can ask Brazil and Spain how there French linked submarine programs are going.

Spain has spend $2billion on there first slightly modified Scorpene, however DCNS isn't really running that project (but shows what can happen taking on modifications).

As I understand it, the Spanish problems are Spanish. Spain got Navantia to build a version with locally-designed modifications - & that's what's gone wrong. Spain had previously built two generations of French submarines under licence successfully.

Re F125/A400

IMO I think they are quite interesting. Main party tricks are crew levels are way down, propulsion is fairly fancy and a redundancy philosophy that means the ship has two of nearly everything.It is definitely a ship of the future (hull/propulsion/crewing wise).

I think they are valid option to look at, but all that redundancy isn't cheap (double the cost?), the Germans currently have only fitted and integrated an offensive weapon load slightly below below coarse language (literally, a megaphone, a water pistol and a torch) and with so little crew you have to wonder how they will handle emergencies etc. What they are proposing is only ~80% common of what there current F-125 has, or so I've heard.

I've read the brochures put out by TKMS, & as I understand it what they're offering isn't an F125, but an RAN-specific version of a new ship based on the F125. That is, they started with the F125 & they've redesigned it into more of a general destroyer/frigate, with VLS etc. That's the MEKO A400. Then they sketched out a version of that aimed at the RAN's ANZAC replacement. They say the RAN version is 80% the same as the base model A400 - not the F125. It's more different from the F125 than that.

It's the same hull as F125, but modified propulsion (faster), Australian radars (CEAFAR . . .), VLS for ESSM & if desired Standard, proper ASW capabilities, etc.

 

[t68]

Bell Helicopter, BAE Systems position AH-1Z for potential Tiger replacement? | Australian Aviation

Here is a thought ... sell the Tigers to NZ and buy the AH-1Z instead.

It's interesting to note several members advocating the sale of tiger to the Kiwis. while I am all for them getting a capabilty of this nature, but why do people think they would be a better fit for NZ than the ADF?

These are not the SeaSprites where they could just put the avionics back to baseline specs, it's reported that these helicopter are costing more per flight hour than the rest of the ADF rotary fleet and that includes CH-47D, if the ADF has trouble with parts inventory and fleet intergraton why won't NZ have the same problems?

 

[vonnoobie]

It's interesting to note several members advocating the sale of tiger to the Kiwis. while I am all for them getting a capabilty of this nature, but why do people think they would be a better fit for NZ than the ADF?

These are not the SeaSprites where they could just put the avionics back to baseline specs, it's reported that these helicopter are costing more per flight hour than the rest of the ADF rotary fleet and that includes CH-47D, if the ADF has trouble with parts inventory and fleet intergraton why won't NZ have the same problems?

Hit the nail on the head, The issue for the Tiger isn't a particular set of upgrades but the aircraft as a whole thus these issues will persist with who ever acquires them and if NZ was to acquire them then the costs to sort it all out will likely mean reductions in capabilities in other area's that are already at breaking point.

If Australia chooses to dump the Tiger and get the Viper and if NZ decides to get some form of gunship then it is almost certain they would go for the Viper along with us. Proven, active and cheaper both to buy and operate.

 

[ngatimozart]

It's interesting to note several members advocating the sale of tiger to the Kiwis. while I am all for them getting a capabilty of this nature, but why do people think they would be a better fit for NZ than the ADF?

These are not the SeaSprites where they could just put the avionics back to baseline specs, it's reported that these helicopter are costing more per flight hour than the rest of the ADF rotary fleet and that includes CH-47D, if the ADF has trouble with parts inventory and fleet intergraton why won't NZ have the same problems?

Maybe because we have a different approach due to the different govt attitude to defence IF the Tigers came this side of the ditch we would probably use some for spares and that solves the AOG problems. We do the same with the NH90s and the Sprites. That way we keep the aircraft flying and are not waiting for an aircraft manufacturer to ship spares via the slow boat to Jupiter. Regarding the CPFH, that's an altogether another matter.

Our PM is spending today and the weekend with your PM. Maybe PM Turnbull can make PM Key an offer that he can't refuse Also maybe PM Turnbull should put the hard word on PM Key about NZs poor defence resourcing

Vonn: No we will not take Tasmania under any circumstances. Maybe you should offer it to HE Field Marshall Fleet Admiral Commodore Frank Bainimarama, the glorious and exalted all wise leader of Fiji. He would be wanting some lebensraum We could accept some sheep, but they must not be scrawny and preferably be accompanied by the same number of banjos.

 

[ASSAIL]

Hit the nail on the head, The issue for the Tiger isn't a particular set of upgrades but the aircraft as a whole thus these issues will persist with who ever acquires them and if NZ was to acquire them then the costs to sort it all out will likely mean reductions in capabilities in other area's that are already at breaking point.

If Australia chooses to dump the Tiger and get the Viper and if NZ decides to get some form of gunship then it is almost certain they would go for the Viper along with us. Proven, active and cheaper both to buy and operate.

Please, NOT a GUNSHIP. These are reconnaissance helos!