8kg for a 5" (127mm) shell? More like 18kg I would think.
A WW2 25 pounder, (12kg) is an 88mm calibre.
A WW2 25 pounder, (12kg) is an 88mm calibre.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0
- Thread starter OPSSG
- Start date
This subject keeps getting attention
www.abc.net.au
ABC News today
I wonder?
Regards S
'Unsuited for Australia's needs': Former navy chief calls for nation to back out of $45 billion frigate deal
Vice Admiral David Shackleton says Australia's troubled $45 billion future frigate program should be scrapped, arguing the British-designed warships "won't give the government a range of military options it could need for managing a conflict".
www.abc.net.au
ABC News today
I wonder?
Regards S
Skimmed the article and my key take away from it, he is an idiot.This subject keeps getting attention
'Unsuited for Australia's needs': Former navy chief calls for nation to back out of $45 billion frigate deal
Vice Admiral David Shackleton says Australia's troubled $45 billion future frigate program should be scrapped, arguing the British-designed warships "won't give the government a range of military options it could need for managing a conflict".
ABC News today
I wonder?
Regards S
Wants to diminish our ASW capability because make no mistake an AAW ship that can do ASW on the side won't be as good as a dedicated ASW asset.
Replace like for like the Hunters with AB's? That is another 1,350 ship crew needed alone not counting the shore based support and with them it's another 2,000 or so shore based staff based on tooth to tail ratio of 1 to 1.5.
And his fall back is more Hobart's....
He is a DDG fanboy nothing more that hasn't been in the service for 20 years. Frankly not worth listening to this guy... And it was an ASPI article
Don’t confuse two different guns; the BAE (Bofor) gun has sold some 60 or 70 examples. About 30 of those have gone (are going) to NATO navies including 10 to the RN for the T31. Others are used by, for example, the Finns where I believe it is integrated with a version of 9LV. It’s a modern and very capable gun whose first installation was in about 2009. It is, of course, made by the same people who make the 57 and uses many of the same concepts. There’s an interesting review of it here: In focus: the Bofors 40mm Mk 4 gun that will equip the Type 31 frigates | Navy Lookout
The Leonardo gun of the model originally specified for Arafura seems to still be a paper gun - although it may exist in prototype form. Certainly, so far as I can ascertain, it has no operational shipfits as yet.
PS I have absolutely no connection with BAE, except that of having been a very dissatisfied customer in the (now somewhat distant) past, so I hold no candle for them.
The Leonardo gun of the model originally specified for Arafura seems to still be a paper gun - although it may exist in prototype form. Certainly, so far as I can ascertain, it has no operational shipfits as yet.
PS I have absolutely no connection with BAE, except that of having been a very dissatisfied customer in the (now somewhat distant) past, so I hold no candle for them.
A rather scathing, though well-considered assessment of the Hunter Class program by former Chief of Navy, VADM (retired) David Shackleton.
Summary: Australia’s Hunter-class frigate program must be stopped and redirected
Full Report: The Hunter frigate: An assessment
Summary: Australia’s Hunter-class frigate program must be stopped and redirected
Full Report: The Hunter frigate: An assessment
There is blood in the water and the sharks are feeding. I don't think we can be dismissive of this project being reviewed. Plenty of pressure from now many now public sources.
It still doesn't mean there is a fundamental flaw with the ship, but if build schedule continues to slip and risk/cost continue to increase and the world continues to get worse.. No project is beyond review or cancellation.
But what are our alternatives?
The Burkes are a fine ship, but much more crew intensive. We also won't be building 9 of them so we are talking about shrinking the RAN. We also then have a very mixed surface fleet of Anzacs, Hobart's, Burkes, and maybe hunters later?
It's easy to say build more Hobarts. But the Hobarts we built had lots of dated systems and we are now putting them through a $5+ billion upgrade even though the last one was commissioned just 23 months ago. Even then, its not like we have actively been cultivating this as a viable plan B, we have an unsolicited proposal and some vague mumbling from labor about looking at something like this. At least the design had a proper refresh when the US looked at it for the FFG(X) program.
Its confusing because the Type 31 has both the 57mm and 40mm guns.
40mm imo is great secondary gun, as used say on the type 31. On something like the type 26 you could possibly have 1 x 5", 2 x 40mm (replacing the 30mm), 2 x Phalanx and all the missiles. The Leonardo is perhaps light enough to do that, not sure about the bofors. Which is why I think the 40 was being looked at the OPV, not because its perfect as a OPV gun, but because it could derisk it as a secondary gun for other warships.
But if a ship has only one gun, imo the 57mm is the better jack of all and the ship is designed around something like that. IMO, but as I mentioned, getting agreement on calibres often hard because everyone has a favourite and they all have sweet spot they work best against as you trade rounds, range and firing rate.
Proliferation of drones and loiter munitions imo make secondary guns more important than they were previously. Its not just about hypersonics or large cruise missiles.
WaveWalker
Member
Regarding the Hunter class, I am at a loss as to how the ship can come in at possibly 10,000t and still have insufficient space/weight (allegedly) to be more heavily armed. Trying to do too much with one vessel perhaps? Or should it just be allowed to be an ASW platform with more Hobart’s or another class to increase firepower available to the fleet?
I don't agree with him on this at this time, but he is definitely not an idiot.
He is also consistent, not so much a DDG fanboi, but rather a believer in large, high end combatants that are good at all things.
In his thesis he remarked that when the upgrade cycles required by the Perth (Adams) Class DDGs were factored in that a DLG, such as the Belkap Class, would have been better value for money, Terrier (then Standard ER) and a helicopter, as well as much better C3I systems. We bought DDGs, wanted to pay for DEGs, and desired DLG (CLG) levels of capability.
We basically repeated the entire DDG acquisition process, Shackleton outlined in his paper, for the Perths with the Hobarts and now again with the Hunters. The requirement was for a large multirole ship that could do everything we required and we selected the most capable of the smallest, cheapest options that did most of what we required, then spent lots of time and money on getting it up to what was needed (or as close as we could get it). Arguably this was more expensive than just building what we needed in the first place.
In a nutshell there are basically two ways the required capability can be obtained, procure a sufficient number of high end, multi role platforms, or procure a greater number of more specialised, but complementary lower end platforms. We have done neither.
We went the lower end, more specialised option, then, despite planning to do so, never acquired sufficient numbers of them, nor of the required complementary capability. There were meant to be four Darings, we got three, there were meant to be twelve DEs we got four plus two, there were meant to be four or more Perths (later ones to have helicopters) we got three, there were meant to be ten FFGs we got four plus two, there were meant to be four Hobarts (the final analysis was based on four F-100s verses 3 G&Cs), we got three. Every time we have gone cheaper so we can afford more hulls, we have ended up with fewer hulls.
The biggest problem with lower end platforms in greater numbers is that to Joe Public and the politicians they elect, one big grey ship looks like another big grey ship so twelve big grey ships sounds very impressive, except that for the given capability we actually need 23 big grey ships, or the twelve we have need to be bigger.
In the sixties when the DDGs were ordered one of the reasons Tartar was the preferred missile system was the expectation that it could be retrofitted to the Daring, and possibly the Battle Class destroyers, for a total of six to eight DDGs, which could not have been the case with the much larger Terrier and Seaslug systems. The destroyer conversions didn't happen but initially the DDL (originally envisioned as a supplement to the destroyers and DEs) grew to into mini DDGs with Tartar/Standard MR, before being cancelled and replaced with the FFGs, which eventually increased the number of guided missile ships to nine.
The Tartar/Standard ships became the first tier of a three tier system in which the ANZACs (Patrol Frigates) were the second tier and the Fremantles (Patrol Boats) the third tier. The Fremantles were meant to be replaced with corvettes armed with the same weapon systems as the base ANZACs, (NSSM/ESSM, Harpoon, 76/57mm gun, Super Seasprite/Lynx), but somewhere along the way it was decided that patrol boats were as good as corvettes, FFGs were as good as DDGs, and Patrol Frigates were as good as FFGs. To cap it off, as we had only previously had about a dozen destroyers and frigates, that three AEGIS FFGs (Hobarts), eight upgraded FFH (ANZACS) and 14 PBs were equivalent to 3 DDGs, 6 FFGs, 8 PFs, 12 OPCs.
I know where Shackleton is coming from. Had we acquired Belknaps in the 60s as DLGs they would have been reclassified as cruisers and their replacement would have had to have been a minimum of three Burkes. With three Burkes (probably Flight IIA) the FFG upgrade could have been less extensive and less risky and their replacements could have been less ambitious, i.e. one of the various other Euro Frigates but with systems along the lines of the ANZAC ASMD upgrade. Then when the ANZACs came due for replacement we would have had the option of building something far more capable in light of the changing strategic situation. The thing is we chose the F-100, we cancelled the corvettes, we upgraded the FFGs and ANZACs and we chose the Type 26 as the reference design. We have what we have and we can't afford to cancel anything, improve, yes, supplement yes, but replace, no.
Build the Type 26 but engage with BAE to switch to a larger more capable design for subsequent batches.
Last edited:
It's worth noting that in Shackleton's full report he only suggests cancelation if the Hunter design can not be amended to allow for a cell count commensurate with the ship's size and capabilities.
Given the program is already delayed, and over $6b is budgeted for design, I'd much prefer to see Defence bite the bullet and explore an extension to the hull which allows for an additional ~64 strike length cells midship, along with additional space for power and fuel below - from ship one, batch one.
In the most basic terms, a 64 cell Mk 41 system fully loaded with a mixture of SM-2 and TLAM comes in at well under 250 metric tonnes, and measures 8.7 metres in length, 6.3 metres in width, and 7.7 metres in height. (Source)
32 Cells on a 10,000 tonne ship with full AEGIS CMS, CEAFAR, SM-2/6 and BMD capability is like building a state-of-the-art commercial kitchen only to provide the chefs with a bar fridge-sized pantry.
Given the program is already delayed, and over $6b is budgeted for design, I'd much prefer to see Defence bite the bullet and explore an extension to the hull which allows for an additional ~64 strike length cells midship, along with additional space for power and fuel below - from ship one, batch one.
In the most basic terms, a 64 cell Mk 41 system fully loaded with a mixture of SM-2 and TLAM comes in at well under 250 metric tonnes, and measures 8.7 metres in length, 6.3 metres in width, and 7.7 metres in height. (Source)
32 Cells on a 10,000 tonne ship with full AEGIS CMS, CEAFAR, SM-2/6 and BMD capability is like building a state-of-the-art commercial kitchen only to provide the chefs with a bar fridge-sized pantry.
Not aimed at anyone in particular.
There's a lot of yap about what the Hunter Class is to have and what's been done to the final design that makes it different from the original T-26 design. That's all it is yap because the people that do know are keeping their traps shut about like they are supposed too and the ones that don't know are busy yapping about what they don't know making up all sorts innuendo based on stuff all. Give it a rest until something for certain is known. This is starting to be like an old fishwives session.
I see the Hobarts as replacements for the FFG's. Because that is effectively what they are. The Perth Class was decommissioned and not replaced for 20 years. That isn't just a few years, that is a generation. The Hobart's aren't a true DDG, they are a high end Frigate. Spain calls them a Frigate. They were designed to replace their FFG's (which they still kept).
The remaining four FFG's should have been replaced by at least four Hobart's. Realistically the 6 FFG's should have been replaced by 6 Hobarts. Hobarts could replace Anzac on a 1 to 1 basis, in terms of crewing. If we are after a plan B or plan C, some sort of Hobart makes some sense. Single hangar, a CEAFAR config designed for its power and size.
Building Burkes or DDG(X) or Maya or KDXIII's. You would have to significant reconfigure the navy, hire much more sailors, widen training pipelines etc. That would take time. DDG(X) has only just started it would take more time for this to detail out. Maya is already a real in water platform, already evolved up from Burke, with IEP. But I don't think anyone knows how happy the Japanese are with that type, but for the ballistic cruiser, they proposing a scaled up Maya and SPY-7.
The remaining four FFG's should have been replaced by at least four Hobart's. Realistically the 6 FFG's should have been replaced by 6 Hobarts. Hobarts could replace Anzac on a 1 to 1 basis, in terms of crewing. If we are after a plan B or plan C, some sort of Hobart makes some sense. Single hangar, a CEAFAR config designed for its power and size.
Building Burkes or DDG(X) or Maya or KDXIII's. You would have to significant reconfigure the navy, hire much more sailors, widen training pipelines etc. That would take time. DDG(X) has only just started it would take more time for this to detail out. Maya is already a real in water platform, already evolved up from Burke, with IEP. But I don't think anyone knows how happy the Japanese are with that type, but for the ballistic cruiser, they proposing a scaled up Maya and SPY-7.
The F-100 replaced the Baleares Class FFG, originally DEG or a guided missile version of the Knox Class FF with a Mk-22 GMLS (a 16 round derivative of the Mk-13 with only the inner missile ring). The FFG-7 or Santa Maria Class are to be replaced with F-110.
Rock the kasbah
Active Member
I know little of military boats but I do know a bit about boats.
When I see the Arafura I see alot of different things, It looks very sea worthy, with slight alterations would make a good island trader, long liner / tuna etc. and I would like to see one pimped out with a bar etc. on that back deck and a nice 2pak finish. I really like the look of that boat and believe 20 is not enough.
My question,
Is the hunter a good hull ( right size, weight etc. ) that we can build and then make a batch of this and then a batch of that but using the one template and not swiss army knifing the thing ?
When I see the Arafura I see alot of different things, It looks very sea worthy, with slight alterations would make a good island trader, long liner / tuna etc. and I would like to see one pimped out with a bar etc. on that back deck and a nice 2pak finish. I really like the look of that boat and believe 20 is not enough.
My question,
Is the hunter a good hull ( right size, weight etc. ) that we can build and then make a batch of this and then a batch of that but using the one template and not swiss army knifing the thing ?
I am fascinated by the Americans decision to build their Constellation class frigates with a 57 mm main gun, given they are based on the FREMM class which was part of the Sea 5000 from which Hunter variant of the type 26 was selected for the RAN’s future frigate. the ABs are clearly the USN front line destroyers but these will still form a major element or their surface fleet and they seem to be prioritising missiles for both anti ship and shore bombardment.
in Terms of overall size and crew, these will closer to The Hunters than the Anzacs and I am not suggesting that we ditch the 127 mm from the Hunters, as there seems to be enough going with these plans anyway . Rather how might this effect any plans to upgrade the Anzacs which sadly seems unavoidable if they are to remain in service for well over a decade?
Possible fits might be more NSMs and or a mark 49 SeaRam launcher mounted aft of the 57mm, any thoughts of those with far greater insight would be most appreciated
in Terms of overall size and crew, these will closer to The Hunters than the Anzacs and I am not suggesting that we ditch the 127 mm from the Hunters, as there seems to be enough going with these plans anyway . Rather how might this effect any plans to upgrade the Anzacs which sadly seems unavoidable if they are to remain in service for well over a decade?
Possible fits might be more NSMs and or a mark 49 SeaRam launcher mounted aft of the 57mm, any thoughts of those with far greater insight would be most appreciated
Well that makes more sense, they get rid of the less capable, and replace that.
Although I guess if they had built 6 they would have started decommissioning the older FFG/Santa Maria to crew it. Which is why perhaps some sources claim they are replacing the FFG.
Two more decades!? If there are no more delays.
Spain is an interesting comparison to the RAN. Their navy was a similar size and composition to ours, theirs actually being more modest in many ways, but they maintained the size and capabilities they had in the 60s and 70s, arguably improving them, while we cut capability. They supported and expanded their industrial capability while we cut ours. There is nothing they did from the late 60s that we couldn't have done, looking at it objectively, there are many things we planned to do but didn't do, that they carried through with.
We were building more advanced and capable ships in the 40s and 50s than they were building in the 60s. The Australian designed DDL was much more advanced and capable than the Spanish Baleares class, the difference is they built theirs while we cancelled our project and bought four ships from the US. They built a replacement for their carrier, we cancelled our project. They built all six of their FFGs locally, we bought four and built two, they designed a high end replacement for their first FFGs, building five to replace five, we license built three of their design to replace nine ships.
Spain copped it hard in the GFC, much harder than we did, they supported local industry and kept people in jobs, we, despite the mining boom take two, killed local manufacturing and damaged our defence industry.
Takao
The Bunker Group
Let's not forget that Shackleton is more than just a former CN. ASPI conveniently leave it out of his biography, but he has been (still is?) the Managing Director of Gibbs and Cox (Australia). How on earth can you take an article from him arguing we should buy Arleigh Burke's as unbiased or unquestionable is beyond me. That he has been given any air time on this topic raises an eyebrow about journo's and ASPI - for different reasons.
As an aside, I'm trying to find the first time something said Hunter has 32 cells. All my searching leads back to ASPI, specifically Marcus Hellyer. Anyone got any idea? Noting that the design review isn't finalised, there isn't anything official from the RAN or DOD out there (not that I'm tracking), so I'm trying to find where this 'fact' comes from. I can't help shake the idea that this entire premise ('too few VLS!') is built on someone's guess/opinion.
Dave Shackleton is no fool but I must say subtlety is not his strong suit.
The ex CN (99 - 02) is my junior Officer era and I totally understand his bias.
He had extensive service in the CFA DDGs and once you’ve done that as a warfare officer going back to an RN designed ASW frigate(Rivers) is like going back to kindergarten. His priority has always been above water warfare which of course is an anathema to us ASW types.
He is naturally wrong re the Hunters but does make a case for increasing missile capacity assuming that it’s still only 32 Cells.
The Type 26 reference design has a 24 cell Mk 41 VLS, i.e. 3x8 cell modules in a 2x12 arrangement, plus 48 cells for Sea Ceptor arranged in four 6 cell groups forward of the Mk41 and another four aft of the funnel, over the integrated mission bay.
Each 4x6 Sea Ceptor group take up about as much deck space as the 24 cell mk-41, but obviously not as much depth and would weigh a lot less.
Graphics of the Hunter show 32 cells arranged as 4x8 cell where the Type 26 has them as 2x12, suggesting, so long as stability could be maintained 48 cells in a 4x12 arrangement would be possible with the available volume. Sacrificing some mission bay volume, and again dependent on stability, an additional 216 to 24 cells could be fitted aft of the funnel.
Take this a step further, a stretch aft of the funnel could potentially provide sufficient volume and stability for the 48 cells forward, 48 cells aft of the funnel, volume for a second GT and extra fuel. Time to do some modeling and tank tests I think, and its not just what we can do here, there is AUKUS to tap into remember.