Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

hauritz said:

Money could be an issue.

Lurssen seems to be offering the hangerless OPV 80 which also only displaces around 1500 tons. Its stable mate ... the OPV 85 comes with a hanger and is just a little bit bigger.

Click to expand...

You could be correct.

Without inside knowledge I guess it's all a bit speculative.However cost and timetable seem to be a big part of this project so I don't have great expectations for a gunned up corvette.
It appears government want a well priced off shore patrol vessel delivered to a tight timetable so I hope at least this criteria is met.
For myself I'd like the ship to deliver a bit more than the above but maybe I'm been indulgent.

Hopefully we all have an answer before years end.

Regards S

UK Defence Secretary Michael Fallon talks up local build in aggressive bid to build Australia's next warships

Britain is ordering its eight new vessels in two batches. Defence company BAE Systems says the Turnbull government would benefit from this because any teething problems in the British build can be refined for an Australian variant.

I wouldn't be surprised if Australia might want to jump in on the 2nd revision design.
With the F-105 based design for the first 3, and the type 26 design for the last 6.

Which makes me wonder if the first 3 will basically be AWD's with two hangers and a new radar.

StingrayOZ said:

I wouldn't be surprised if Australia might want to jump in on the 2nd revision design.
With the F-105 based design for the first 3, and the type 26 design for the last 6.

Which makes me wonder if the first 3 will basically be AWD's with two hangers and a new radar.

Click to expand...

If that was to be the possible case would we be better off getting 3 more AEGIS/AN-SPY1D vessels or getting them with the Saab 9LV/CEAFAR 2?

vonnoobie said:

If that was to be the possible case would we be better off getting 3 more AEGIS/AN-SPY1D vessels or getting them with the Saab 9LV/CEAFAR 2?

Click to expand...

I think the only real mix is AEGIS/CEAFAR or 9LV/CEAFAR. With future munitions, SPY1D having a limited future in new builds (upgrades?) I would say CEAFAR is the way to go. Its likely to be mounted higher than SPY1D can be.

9LV verse AEGIS. Others know more about that. But I would assume AEGIS is going to be preferred if firing SM-3 (I would imagine integration is easier/cheaper/faster with AEGIS), tighter integration with the US fleets or acting more like AWD's in an air defence role rather than a GP frigate. The downside is trying to keep step with the US on upgrades. Either way, both are capable and workable.

Personally I would probably like to see 3 x F-105 basically dual hanger/Ceafar AWD with AEGIS. This would give 6 top of the line Air Defense ships. We can then manage AEGIS updates, Sm-3 etc. Really it would be Flight I Hobarts and Flight II Hobarts. I would like to see Sm-6/Sm-3 integrated on all of these and an AEGIS baseline that supports SM-3 BMD from the get go.

I would then push the UK to make the 2nd batch of Type 26's (Australia's first batch) the longest possible hull form with the most amount of displacement. Ensuring 48 strike length VLS in the hull (none of this 24 strike only bs, but I would keep the 24 defensive VLS for quad packed ESSM and nulka). Two x 35mm millennium mounts and two phalanx mounts. 9VL and CEAFAR. I think that would be a strong combination.

I think that would be a good mix. With two main common type of hulls, with different focuses. I think they would compliment each other nicely.

Hopefully the UK and Canada build a useful number of Type 26's. Sharing upgrades and development, training and superior inter-operation.

StingrayOZ said:

UK Defence Secretary Michael Fallon talks up local build in aggressive bid to build Australia's next warships

Britain is ordering its eight new vessels in two batches. Defence company BAE Systems says the Turnbull government would benefit from this because any teething problems in the British build can be refined for an Australian variant.

I wouldn't be surprised if Australia might want to jump in on the 2nd revision design.
With the F-105 based design for the first 3, and the type 26 design for the last 6.

Which makes me wonder if the first 3 will basically be AWD's with two hangers and a new radar.

Click to expand...

I can't see the Government, RAN or industry wanting to build two types of frigate. Personally, I hope we see a Spanish Armada down under as the RAN appears to have done everything right with the AWD, LHDs and AORs.

I was concerned to learn the type 26 design speed had been reduced to 26 knots from 28 knots as a cost saving measure. The US Navy appear to be headed in the other direction in terms of speed with their proposed new frigate. We should be consistent with the US.

Muar River said:

I can't see the Government, RAN or industry wanting to build two types of frigate. Personally, I hope we see a Spanish Armada down under as the RAN appears to have done everything right with the AWD, LHDs and AORs.

I was concerned to learn the type 26 design speed had been reduced to 26 knots from 28 knots as a cost saving measure. The US Navy appear to be headed in the other direction in terms of speed with their proposed new frigate. We should be consistent with the US.

Click to expand...

We have pretty much always had two types of surface combatant hulls sometimes three.

I have no problems with the type 26, in theory. It will be a much better general purpose "frigate", with a large flex space area, easier to launch boarding parties, more modern propulsion with lower maintenance, better aviation facilities and cost and significantly less crewing and likely superior endurance (like 50%+ better). It will have more space, and generally be a more modern design reflecting its near 20 years newer. If you can still get 48 strike length cells, then having 72 vls overall, having two ~30mm and two 20mm CIWS is also going to be pretty attractive upgrade over the 48 vls and single 20 mm CIWS, particularly in a SCS type environment. It is also likely to mount the radar higher. But having a crew of less than half the AWD, is going to be hard to pass up..

You could operate the Type 26 twice as much. Or operate twice as many ships. Or use that crew to flesh out the new bigger OPV's or add some other capability to the RAN.

if we went with a 6+6 arrangement the AWD's would be ideal for integrating into US groups and we would have enough to be able to sustain that kind of deployment. The greater endurance of the type 26 would be ideal for persistence type missions in far away regions where speed is not a concern.

Type 26 is hardly slow. Faster than 26kt. I imagine it will be about as fast as an ANZAC.

alexsa said:

If the RAN were to move away from Phalanx then SeaRAM could be an obvious replacment given the AORs, Choules, DDG (AWD) and (soon) the LHD will have the ability to simply bolt this on with no modification.

However I do like the 35mm with AHEAD ammunition. If this weapon gets selected for LAND 400 then it may have a place in lieu of the 25mm Typhoon

Click to expand...

If we went SeaRAM I wonder if a 60–120 kW LaWS system could be added on a double mount as a layered solution. I have read some information suggest that it is feasible but additional weight added to the mount must be kept under approximately 1200–1500 lb.

A system such as LaWS could provide graduated lethality from warning to destruction. Which might be useful in the hybrid warfare environment that many engagements will be fought in the coming years.

In such environments the precision and covert engagement of a enemy sensor or particular system maybe preferable to a "hard kill" option.

Also, the cost per shot benefit of lasers is well noted, I won't bang on about it as has been discussed to death in the past. What I will say though, is that the value of this, perhaps, should be weighted higher in the modern world. A world where swarm drone attacks by terrorists or other non state actors are very much a reality.

DE weapons have their limitations but backed up by a kinetic system they could provide previously unavailable options for commanders.

If what the various posters are saying is correct, 3 upgraded AWD's followed by 6 type 26 frigates would be ideal. However I cant see the wisdom of having both 20 mm phalanx and 35mm millenium guns on the same ship. I would prefer the more modern millenium guns, especially if the army go with 35mm ammunition for its new armoured vehicles.

StingrayOZ said:

We have pretty much always had two types of surface combatant hulls sometimes three.

I have no problems with the type 26, in theory. It will be a much better general purpose "frigate", with a large flex space area, easier to launch boarding parties, more modern propulsion with lower maintenance, better aviation facilities and cost and significantly less crewing and likely superior endurance (like 50%+ better). It will have more space, and generally be a more modern design reflecting its near 20 years newer. If you can still get 48 strike length cells, then having 72 vls overall, having two ~30mm and two 20mm CIWS is also going to be pretty attractive upgrade over the 48 vls and single 20 mm CIWS, particularly in a SCS type environment. It is also likely to mount the radar higher. But having a crew of less than half the AWD, is going to be hard to pass up..

You could operate the Type 26 twice as much. Or operate twice as many ships. Or use that crew to flesh out the new bigger OPV's or add some other capability to the RAN.

if we went with a 6+6 arrangement the AWD's would be ideal for integrating into US groups and we would have enough to be able to sustain that kind of deployment. The greater endurance of the type 26 would be ideal for persistence type missions in far away regions where speed is not a concern.

Type 26 is hardly slow. Faster than 26kt. I imagine it will be about as fast as an ANZAC.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the detailed reply. No doubt there are many advantages to the type 26 but I believe the claimed 70 per cent commonality with the AWD, the fact the hull is in production and the political drive to get the build underway will see Navantia get up. Also, with the DTR reporting the ships will be built in three tranches pretty much rules out the possibility of a split build. As we've seen with the Burkes, an old design can be upgraded to be an effective unit.

Also, could an Aegis/CEAFAR installation in our frigates be viewed as a trial for potential US Navy frigate?

hairyman said:

If what the various posters are saying is correct, 3 upgraded AWD's followed by 6 type 26 frigates would be ideal. However I cant see the wisdom of having both 20 mm phalanx and 35mm millenium guns on the same ship. I would prefer the more modern millenium guns, especially if the army go with 35mm ammunition for its new armoured vehicles.

Click to expand...

Easier and cheaper to have 2 Phalanx installed on an empty spot then to install an extra 2 Milleniums. Also leaves easier options going forward allowing them to use that empty space for what ever need they like compared to if it was just a Millenium spot that you can't just go and remove.

StingrayOZ said:

We have pretty much always had two types of surface combatant hulls sometimes three.

I have no problems with the type 26, in theory. It will be a much better general purpose "frigate", with a large flex space area, easier to launch boarding parties, more modern propulsion with lower maintenance, better aviation facilities and cost and significantly less crewing and likely superior endurance (like 50%+ better). It will have more space, and generally be a more modern design reflecting its near 20 years newer. If you can still get 48 strike length cells, then having 72 vls overall, having two ~30mm and two 20mm CIWS is also going to be pretty attractive upgrade over the 48 vls and single 20 mm CIWS, particularly in a SCS type environment. It is also likely to mount the radar higher. But having a crew of less than half the AWD, is going to be hard to pass up..

You could operate the Type 26 twice as much. Or operate twice as many ships. Or use that crew to flesh out the new bigger OPV's or add some other capability to the RAN.

if we went with a 6+6 arrangement the AWD's would be ideal for integrating into US groups and we would have enough to be able to sustain that kind of deployment. The greater endurance of the type 26 would be ideal for persistence type missions in far away regions where speed is not a concern.

Type 26 is hardly slow. Faster than 26kt. I imagine it will be about as fast as an ANZAC.

Click to expand...

I think the UK Defmin and Formin pushing the T 26 is just a diversion. The problem being that some on the NSC and Cabinet may pay attention.

I do suspect a precautionary tale needs to be told about IEP propulsion because a) it is still a new and developing system as the sad tale,of the Type 45s have shown, b) it will inevitably be more expensive and complex that a standard CODOG/CODAG system using proven LM 2500 units and c) the benefit for ASW efficiency is overstated.

The RAN is a middle size Navy almost always fighting in coalition and mostly dependant on US based sustainment and changing propulsion system for something at complete variance with the rest of the Fleet is nonsensical.

IEPs are often proposed as the future for laser high energy weapons and other non specified advancements but these will probably not enter service in the RAN during the lives ofthe new frigates so the reasoning doesn't apply.

The ASW improvements in hull radiated noise gained by IEP are marginal only and the importance of submarine detection by screening surface ships is low in the overarching ASW theatre so any cost benefit analysis should rule it out.

Therefor it is my view that whatever Frigate is chosen, lower risk lower cost and easier sustainable machinery is mandatory and commonality with the rest of the Fleet should always be paramount.

Stobies 's link in the RN thread is highly relevant. https://www.rina.org.uk/Project_Napier_sees_twin-track_plan_adopted_to_resolve_Type_45_problems.html

StingrayOZ said:

I wouldn't be surprised if Australia might want to jump in on the 2nd revision design.
With the F-105 based design for the first 3, and the type 26 design for the last 6.

Click to expand...

I would, it'd be lunacy and so unbelievably unlikely that only a sudden decision to buy a new aircraft carrier would surprise me more.

What is it with people determined to buy penny packets of ships rather than consistent classes large enough to offer massive benefits in manufacturing scale and savings in training and maintenance to the Navy? And worse, choose a few based on a Spanish design, then maybe a few based on a British design, then maybe a few of an entirely different *type* of ship designed in Japan. Let's make it as hard as possible to supply them, maintain them, and man them.

And don't forget - let's avoid giving parliament the opportunity to insert ten year delays at every changeover.

How about Defence does what it plans - build a class of nine. Sure, evolve them in batches, refit the earlier ships with the improvements if it passes the financial and operational common sense tests, and start again at the end.

Of course, that won't let us all drool over our personal favourite ship in RAN paintwork, but those who would prefer option "z" will learn to love option "x" without the pussers and others going nuts keeping a million extra different parts

oldsig

vonnoobie said:

Easier and cheaper to have 2 Phalanx installed on an empty spot then to install an extra 2 Milleniums. Also leaves easier options going forward allowing them to use that empty space for what ever need they like compared to if it was just a Millenium spot that you can't just go and remove.

Click to expand...

Not entirely sure that is accurate, as the Millennium Gun is also a self-contained, non-penetrating modular deck mounted gun. The Millennium Gun would need a power connection to recharge an on-board battery, as well as connections to an external fire control system and an operator's station, while the Sea Phalanx version of the Mk 15 CIWS is completely self-contained with sensor and autonomous engagement ability.

I have not been able to determine the required footprint for the Mk 15, but the deck does require reinforcement to deal with both the weapon weight (~6,000 kg for the later Mods) and shock from firing the weapon. I could be mistaken but I believe the Mk 15 also requires power and coolant connections.

The Millennium Gun requires ~6 m^3 of space for the mounting, and is almost half the weight of the Mk 15, coming in at ~3,300 kg. That suggests to me that while it might not currently be possible to just 'swap' a Phalanx for a Millennium Gun, it certainly should be possible to mod a site for mounting a Phalanx so that a Millennium Gun could be mounted instead.

Another important consideration is whether or not a particular CIWS is really even relevant anymore. In many respects it does look like the Mk 15 has had it's heyday and now it is time to move on to weapons that have longer range and/or are able to get hits on a target more effectively.

ASSAIL said:

I think the UK Defmin and Formin pushing the T 26 is just a diversion. The problem being that some on the NSC and Cabinet may pay attention.

I do suspect a precautionary tale needs to be told about IEP propulsion because a) it is still a new and developing system as the sad tale,of the Type 45s have shown, b) it will inevitably be more expensive and complex that a standard CODOG/CODAG system using proven LM 2500 units and c) the benefit for ASW efficiency is overstated.

Click to expand...

IIRC, the Type 26 will be CODLOG using a single MT30 GT and four MTU diesels. This arrangement has about the same power output (if used for IEP) as the Type 45's 2 WR21s and two Warstila diesels. The UK parliamentary hearings elaborated on the development problems and incomplete testing of the WR21 GT.

I'm not sure how good an idea it would be to build an F-100 derivative frigate unless you just want to build more AWD's. Its a 20 year old design now, and if you want to integrate CEAFAR you would want a completely different upper superstructure, and presumably that would affect weight distribution, stresses on the hull which would probably cost a fair bit.

I don't know how much how much 9LV and associated hardware costs, but i'm assuming its probably less then Aegis. I can't seem to find the FMS notification RE the Aegis sale, but I think I remember seeing it at the time and it being somewhere between $700million and $1 billion per ship? That was inclusive of *everything* required for a shipset.

Todjaeger said:

Not entirely sure that is accurate, as the Millennium Gun is also a self-contained, non-penetrating modular deck mounted gun. The Millennium Gun would need a power connection to recharge an on-board battery, as well as connections to an external fire control system and an operator's station, while the Sea Phalanx version of the Mk 15 CIWS is completely self-contained with sensor and autonomous engagement ability.

I have not been able to determine the required footprint for the Mk 15, but the deck does require reinforcement to deal with both the weapon weight (~6,000 kg for the later Mods) and shock from firing the weapon. I could be mistaken but I believe the Mk 15 also requires power and coolant connections.

The Millennium Gun requires ~6 m^3 of space for the mounting, and is almost half the weight of the Mk 15, coming in at ~3,300 kg. That suggests to me that while it might not currently be possible to just 'swap' a Phalanx for a Millennium Gun, it certainly should be possible to mod a site for mounting a Phalanx so that a Millennium Gun could be mounted instead.

Another important consideration is whether or not a particular CIWS is really even relevant anymore. In many respects it does look like the Mk 15 has had it's heyday and now it is time to move on to weapons that have longer range and/or are able to get hits on a target more effectively.

Click to expand...

I stand corrected, Didn't realise the millenium was non penetrating.

StevoJH said:

I'm not sure how good an idea it would be to build an F-100 derivative frigate unless you just want to build more AWD's. Its a 20 year old design now, and if you want to integrate CEAFAR you would want a completely different upper superstructure, and presumably that would affect weight distribution, stresses on the hull which would probably cost a fair bit.

I don't know how much how much 9LV and associated hardware costs, but i'm assuming its probably less then Aegis. I can't seem to find the FMS notification RE the Aegis sale, but I think I remember seeing it at the time and it being somewhere between $700million and $1 billion per ship? That was inclusive of *everything* required for a shipset.

Click to expand...

Apperantly the 3 Aegis combat systems combined cost a total of $1.3 billion AUD.

One thing I did find out in searching that up, Apperantly each drawing on the AWD by 2013 had an average of 2.75 revisions each though Navantia played this off as being normal and ASC and the alliance as a whole not being able to handle such work. I imagine changes do occur but is 2.75 really standard or was Navantia grasping at straws with that?

vonnoobie said:

Apperantly the 3 Aegis combat systems combined cost a total of $1.3 billion AUD.

One thing I did find out in searching that up, Apperantly each drawing on the AWD by 2013 had an average of 2.75 revisions each though Navantia played this off as being normal and ASC and the alliance as a whole not being able to handle such work. I imagine changes do occur but is 2.75 really standard or was Navantia grasping at straws with that?

Click to expand...

Only 2.75? My house plans went through 6......

That would be a question for one of the ship builders on the forums, but 2.75 sounds extremely reasonable to be honest, considering that the program had been ongoing for 5+ years by then.

The link below shows $450 million for 3 shipsets, but doesn't list AN/SPY-1D or the VLS cells as far as I can see.

Australia – AEGIS Combat System Components for Air Warfare Destroyer Program | The Official Home of the Defense Security Cooperation Agency

StevoJH said:

I'm not sure how good an idea it would be to build an F-100 derivative frigate unless you just want to build more AWD's. Its a 20 year old design now, and if you want to integrate CEAFAR you would want a completely different upper superstructure, and presumably that would affect weight distribution, stresses on the hull which would probably cost a fair bit.

Click to expand...

Don't get hung up on the age of the design. Just remember the T26 has been in gestation for 20 years and the AB design is 30 odd years old
The more mature the design the the less risk and cost.

Operating two separate designs just doesn't make sense for such a small navy in the neighbourhood we inhabit. The RN's ship procurement should be held as the example to avoid not something to emulate. We need a single patrol ship and war ship design suitable for producing in as great a quantity as can be sustained. The F-100 design should serve as the basis for future evolution just as the F88 rifle has for the Army.