Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[matt00773]

I'

The big point of difference for me in the SEA 5000 contenders is not the mission bay but that the FREMM and F100 are still in the running in the US FFG(x) programme while Type 26 is not.

The US is our major Pacific partner and interoperability with US forces as well as those from South Korea and Japan must be an important consideration in defence procurement. I would expect our Government to be across the reasons for the non inclusion of the Type 26 in the FFG(x) programme and to take those reasons into consideration when making the decision on the successful bidder. Don't you find it curious that the US has not included it while we have?

Similarly, it would be naïve to think the US may have an interest in the SEA 5000 programme especially considering US companies are heavily involved.

I'm just trying to set expectations on the likelihood of any tie-up on a frigate design. Australia is about to make a decision based on worked that has been carried out over many years whilst the US announced their programme only very recently. The requirements are also very different as Australia want heavy emphasis on world leading AWS and other lead ship and forward area capabilities. The US have more of a general purpose requirements set. What you seem to be implying is that US would follow Australia's lead on selecting a frigate design - this is simply not going to happen.

If regional partnership and interoperability with Japan was an important consideration, Australia would not have selected the French design for their submarine programme.

 

[ASSAIL]

Apologies was my mistake, Was 12 surface combatants in service around 1996 with 3 x Perths, 6 Adelaides, 2 Rivers and 1 Anzac. Number of ships was off though my questioning on the manning still stands as those ships combined had a far larger crewing requirements then what we have at current or planned today even though the Navy was smaller in personnel then what it is now.

Only just, Swan decommissioned in September '96
The difference in the escort manning is not as great as you suggest, in '96 total crew was 2,720 and when we have 3 DDGs, 8 Anzacs and 2 FFGs it's 2,420.
Today's numbers include 600 each for the LHDs which is a big leap from 180 on Bill and Ben and were now doing so much more, things listed here before such as extra Dive teams multiple crewing in the patrol force and more.
I don't see any inconsistency.

 

[John Fedup]

The big point of difference for me in the SEA 5000 contenders is not the mission bay but that the FREMM and F100 are still in the running in the US FFG(x) programme while Type 26 is not.

The US is our major Pacific partner and interoperability with US forces as well as those from South Korea and Japan must be an important consideration in defence procurement. I would expect our Government to be across the reasons for the non inclusion of the Type 26 in the FFG(x) programme and to take those reasons into consideration when making the decision on the successful bidder. Don't you find it curious that the US has not included it while we have?

Similarly, it would be naïve to think the US may have an interest in the SEA 5000 programme especially considering US companies are heavily involved.

I believe the USN wanted an existing ship and the price had to be under a billion dollars. This eliminated the Type 26 due to the former condition and the latter condition would likely be difficult to meet IMO.

 

[Volkodav]

The thing with the proposed numbers of major surface combatants in the 90s was they were a trade off for not replacing the carrier Melbourne. The CVL/CVS, its Trackers and Skyhawks, soaked up a lot of manpower and money that is simply not factored into the regular discussions on here about hull numbers then verses 80s through until the 2010s.

With the decision not to acquire a replacement for Melbourne additional major surface combatants were to be acquired to (as much as possible) compensate for the loss of capability. Proposed major combatant hull numbers got as high as 17 at the time of the ANZAC contract signature, three DDGs, six FFGs and the eight ANZACs, with as many as eight submarines and a more capable replacement for the Fremantle class patrol boats also planned.

A lot of things changed since then, the fall of the Berlin Wall, the peace dividend, the early 90s recession just to start, continuing cuts and hollowing out of defence, deferral and cancellation of programs, etc. before Timor then the war on terror saw a reverse. As pointed out by others we now have two LHDs which, again, many fail to factor in to hull and personnel numbers, as well as the elephant in the room, the doubling of the submarine fleet to twelve.

The RAN is in a much better place than it was for most of the last two to three decades, but it was also in a much better place in the 50s, 60s and 70s, when the dozen odd major combatants supported two then only one small but effective carriers. Simply counting the number of major combatant hulls and saying "its been about a dozen since the end of WWII" has absolutely no bearing on the capability of the fleet as a whole at any given time as there is a hell of a lot more to it than hull numbers.

 

[hauritz]

Another thing to consider for the future is the advent of unmanned vessels. In much the same way that unmanned aircraft will likely replace most of our manned combat aircraft in the future I suspect that we might see the same thing happen with our warships.

In 30 or 40 years destroyers, frigates and submarines might be as obsolete as battleships.

 

[Jack Wyatt]

I'


I'm just trying to set expectations on the likelihood of any tie-up on a frigate design. Australia is about to make a decision based on worked that has been carried out over many years whilst the US announced their programme only very recently. The requirements are also very different as Australia want heavy emphasis on world leading AWS and other lead ship and forward area capabilities. The US have more of a general purpose requirements set. What you seem to be implying is that US would follow Australia's lead on selecting a frigate design - this is simply not going to happen.

If regional partnership and interoperability with Japan was an important consideration, Australia would not have selected the French design for their submarine programme.

While the successful SEA 5000 design will have good ASW capability, the Government announced the Aegis cms will be utilised. These ships will have far greater capability than just being 7,000 ton ASW warships.

I don't believe it is outrageous to believe the SEA 5000 process may to a small extent inform considerations. We know the F100 has US DNA and Aegis, launch cells, GTs will all be US. The FREMM also is a contender in both SEA 5000 and FFG(x). If I implied the US Navy would follow Australia's lead well that was not my intention.

In terms of submarines, there is a very limited market for diesel electric submarines to meet our range and size requirements. So while a French design has been chosen, Lockheed Martin will provide the combat system. Also, the General Manager Submarines was a former US Rear Admiral (retired) who was previously in charge of the replacement of the Ohio Class Submarines. Two further US Rear Admirals (retired) were also involved in the peer review.

 

[StingrayOZ]

I don't think Australia will wait for the US review, if every nation did this, no one would make any decisions.

The announcement I believe is middle of this year, so it shouldn't be far away.

While the ASW capability will be important, I don't see why that would need to be at the expense of a very capable air warfare capability. With so few combatants and the general deterioration in global security, I see a strong multi-role focus rather than a niche tool.

 

[matt00773]

Regarding the capabilities of the SEA 5000 frigate, I'm sure this is what I'm saying - that's its a multi-mission forward area lead ship. As far as ASW goes, this has to be baked in from the beginning due to the specific nature designing it for silent propulsion and acoustic hull properties. Every time I see a news story, the RAN or government always refer to SEA 5000 as a ASW frigate. Having a primary role as ASW doesn't detract from AAW, ASuW etc. capabilities which will make it very strong in performance.

 

[matt00773]

While the successful SEA 5000 design will have good ASW capability, the Government announced the Aegis cms will be utilised. These ships will have far greater capability than just being 7,000 ton ASW warships.

I don't believe it is outrageous to believe the SEA 5000 process may to a small extent inform considerations. We know the F100 has US DNA and Aegis, launch cells, GTs will all be US. The FREMM also is a contender in both SEA 5000 and FFG(x). If I implied the US Navy would follow Australia's lead well that was not my intention.

In terms of submarines, there is a very limited market for diesel electric submarines to meet our range and size requirements. So while a French design has been chosen, Lockheed Martin will provide the combat system. Also, the General Manager Submarines was a former US Rear Admiral (retired) who was previously in charge of the replacement of the Ohio Class Submarines. Two further US Rear Admirals (retired) were also involved in the peer review.

The CMS being used on SEA 5000 will be Saab 9LV with the home grown Ceafar radar system. Whilst this is Aegis "like", it's not the Lockheed Martin Aegis CMS/platform on the Hobart class air destroyers. There's no question these will be more than just ASW frigates, it's just that you have to design for ASW from the outset if you're going to be any good at it.

 

[Todjaeger]

The CMS being used on SEA 5000 will be Saab 9LV with the home grown Ceafar radar system. Whilst this is Aegis "like", it's not the Lockheed Martin Aegis CMS/platform on the Hobart class air destroyers. There's no question these will be more than just ASW frigates, it's just that you have to design for ASW from the outset if you're going to be any good at it.

It was announced in October 2017 that SEA 5000 will feature the Aegis Combat Management System together with an Australian tactical interface designed by Saab Australia.

Here is a link to the SEA 5000 timeline.

 

[StingrayOZ]

They appear to be Aegis back boned and BMD capable. With the combat setup being rolled back into the AWD's and linked with CEC capability.
That to me indicated a very serious focus on Anti air capable. I would assume its capable all the way up to SM-3.

These days you need a network of ships to provide realistic protection and to get the most out of your munitions. A class of 3 ships isn't a network when only one is available. It can plug into other networks (USA/Japan), but we can't host our own.

That being said FREMM/Type 26 and F-5000 are all pretty capable. F-5000 would seem to have the advantage with strike length cells, which these days are very valuable for long range interception. Does the Type 26 flex bay really offer usable advantage over what a F-5000 or FREMM would have, is the noise signature significantly different? Operational etc. The F-5000 has key advantages, because it is going to be most similar to the AWD's which is in-service and we already own 3 of. Some of the upgrades may even roll back onto the AWD's. But it is really a major upgrade of the AWD platform, is that still competitive?

I just hope the build program is flawless. We can't afford delays these days and smooth build is likely to help the Aussie radar get more of a look in on various projects around the globe.

 

[Stampede]

There is no doubt that the RN hull designs, starting with the T12's were very efficient and that cavition inception speeds were around 14 kts compared with say the CFA DDGs at 12 kts. However the searchlight sonars in those hulls, Type 177 and 187 were not particularly good and in simple CASEXs initial detection was often gained by the US sonars such as SQS 23 and the more powerful SQS 26in other USN hulls.
The advent of towed arrays, both active and passive and other VDS sonars makes the hull mounted sonars sensors of last resort and therefor the actual performance of the hull is not as critical as it used to be.
Further, initial detection of submarines is almost always accomplished by aircraft or other submarines.
In short, the difference in hull performance though important is not critical and I suggest the other factors such as BMD and AAW capabilities will be as important if not more important to the decision makers.
T26 is a 7,000 tonne ship and needs to do much more than ASW. A 2,500 tonne hull such as the T12 could be excused for being a specialist ASW ship but not these, they need to have capabilities way beyond.

There is no doubt that the RN hull designs, starting with the T12's were very efficient and that cavition inception speeds were around 14 kts compared with say the CFA DDGs at 12 kts. However the searchlight sonars in those hulls, Type 177 and 187 were not particularly good and in simple CASEXs initial detection was often gained by the US sonars such as SQS 23 and the more powerful SQS 26in other USN hulls.
The advent of towed arrays, both active and passive and other VDS sonars makes the hull mounted sonars sensors of last resort and therefor the actual performance of the hull is not as critical as it used to be.
Further, initial detection of submarines is almost always accomplished by aircraft or other submarines.
In short, the difference in hull performance though important is not critical and I suggest the other factors such as BMD and AAW capabilities will be as important if not more important to the decision makers.
T26 is a 7,000 tonne ship and needs to do much more than ASW. A 2,500 tonne hull such as the T12 could be excused for being a specialist ASW ship but not these, they need to have capabilities way beyond.

Agree, the hull may not be the main decider.
Australia will want a lot of value from these ships and this will be achieved by offering a variety of capabilities.
The destroyer will be a big naval pocket knife of a ship.

Which one is best..............................I don't know.
For myself, I just hope a decision is made and there is a successful build supported in the years ahead by both political parties

Regards S

 

[40 deg south]

Schiebel Camcopter S-100 UAS ready for Royal Australian Navy service

RAN's Camcopters are moving closer to acceptance.
Has there been anything published about what vessels they will be deployed on, or the payloads they will carry?

 

[hauritz]

Schiebel Camcopter S-100 UAS ready for Royal Australian Navy service

RAN's Camcopters are moving closer to acceptance.
Has there been anything published about what vessels they will be deployed on, or the payloads they will carry?

I was under the impression that these are mostly intended for use with the OPVs although these won't be in service anytime soon.

Until then I guess they might occasionally see some service on some of the navy's existing ships.

The home page shows how these aircraft will be stored, transported and operated. It seems to be a self contained 20' container including workstations. I imagine it would be pretty horrible to work in that tin box.

CAMCOPTER® S-100 System - Schiebel

 

[ASSAIL]

I was under the impression that these are mostly intended for use with the OPVs although these won't be in service anytime soon.

Until then I guess they might occasionally see some service on some of the navy's existing ships.

The home page shows how these aircraft will be stored, transported and operated. It seems to be a self contained 20' container including workstations. I imagine it would be pretty horrible to work in that tin box.

CAMCOPTER® S-100 System - Schiebel

It would take nothing to fit an A/C wall unit to that"tin box" there are many examples, particularly in the North, where containers are so fitted.

 

[hauritz]

It would take nothing to fit an A/C wall unit to that"tin box" there are many examples, particularly in the North, where containers are so fitted.

Actually when I look at it again that container would appear to be for landbased operations. It does mention maritime operations and states that it will be a simple ship integration and no requirement for specialized infrastructure ... so you could probably fly it from anywhere that you could plug in your laptop.

 

[spoz]

And the OPV 80 in Bruneian service is reported to have quite a large Ops room for a ship of its size; plus the model shown at Pacific last year had a container and an air body shown on the flight deck.

 

[ADMk2]

The CMS being used on SEA 5000 will be Saab 9LV with the home grown Ceafar radar system. Whilst this is Aegis "like", it's not the Lockheed Martin Aegis CMS/platform on the Hobart class air destroyers. There's no question these will be more than just ASW frigates, it's just that you have to design for ASW from the outset if you're going to be any good at it.

Other way around dude. The CMS is AEGIS and it will have a SAAB ‘Tactical Interface’...

SEA5000PH1_FutureFrigates | Capability Acquisition and Sustainment

 

[76mmGuns]

I was reading back on the discussion about the OPV back around pages 1130+

I was wondering how much use the helicopter flight deck will really get, since there is no hanger and the OPV won't be carrying one.

Let's say a helicopter uses the deck as a refueling springboard just.... once in 6 months. What other uses could that real estate be used for, given it is rated for a...9 or 10 ton helicopter? I assume what you put there can't be heavier than that, so a 5 inch gun is out of the question , for example.

 

[ASSAIL]

It's good to see the Naval Shipbuilding College is starting to become a reality.
The government has announced that KBR and Huntington Ingalls Industries have been selected to pull it all together.
This is a great initiative and I for one would be encouraging my grandsons to enroll rather than some meaningless waffle course at some university.

Naval Shipbuilding College set to get underway - Defence Connect