Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

Stampede said:

So Poland may get up 16 years of service from our two FFG's.
I certainly hope the ADF doesn't have a what if moment in the next decade.
Transitioning from Armidales to the Afafura class OPV's and Anzac's to Hunters will not happen over night.
A couple of FFG's may well have come in handy for so many roles.
"What if" the region gets ugly in the next decade.
Silly bloody decision on so many levels

Regards s

Click to expand...

That article is from 7 Months ago and says the Polish President will visit Australia in August to sgn a deal that will see the first Ship delivered in July "2019" i think if that is the case we would definitely know about it.
The last thing i have heard on this story is that the Polish have said no and it may have even been mentioned on this thread. The whole story died a very quick death some months back and i even saw a article that claims the whole thing was fabricated by Polish Expats,
ill try to find it when its more
convenient

ASSAIL said:

Certainly the banter at junior level was just that but I served with Sam Burrell and he recounted how his father, VADM Sir Henry Burrell CNS 1959-1962, copped a huge amount of criticism from the very senior cadre in the RAN. He was the man responsible for their selection .Remember at that time the RAN was complete with senior officers all having trained in the UK and spent many years service in the RN.

Click to expand...

Henry Burrell discusses the CFA acquisition at some length in his autobiography (“Mermaids Do Exist”, pp 253-270). It seems the process of getting to the point of deciding against the Counties was a difficult one but thereafter, in his mind at least, the CFAs were the obvious choice. The other thing that comes through is the apparent “take it or leave it” attitude of the Admiralty as against the “what can we do to help?” approach of the USN (the latter of course continuing to the present day).

I know most of the official papers of that period have now been released but so far as I know the only people to make use of them have been Brown and Friedman in Books on RN ship design. About time an Australian picked up on them and continued the work of Hyslop.

Brown mentioned the County the RAN wanted in his Rebuilding the Royal Navy book and it pretty much follows what an old member here, Abe Gubbler, related several years back. The RAN didn't want a RN County class DLG they wanted a shorter, lighter, steam only (no GTs) destroyer with Tartar and I believe two Wessex helos, basically a virtually new design at a time when the RN design capacity was overloaded with the County and proposed Escort Cruiser. The RN looked at the RAN requirements and suggested that the Escort Cruiser may be a better option for the RAN, not sure which of the many versions they were on at this point but there was a six helicopter through deck sketch with Tartar and a Mk6 4.5" twin.

Anyway part of the logic was the RAN was keen to convert the Darings and possibly the Battles into DDGs during mid life refits making Tartar the preferred option as it was designed to fit in the space of a Mk-38 5" twin that was similar in below deck volume to the Mk-6 4.5", something that the monstrous SeaSlug system could hope to do. Tartar was also desired because of its advertised anti surface capability, needed as a counter for Indonesia's cruiser, in the absence of similar RAN ships.

As an aside, the Escort Cruiser was seen by the RN as a replacement for the command and control capability being lost as there remaining cruisers retired, as well as a way to get more large ASW helos to sea, and as a supplement to the Commando Carriers, able to deploy and support a commando force. An interim solution was the helicopter conversion of the Tiger Class Cruisers and after a multitude of changes the Invincible Class were acquired to fill a similar but different concept.

https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a497264.pdf
This thesis though ten years old provides some interesting thoughts on probability of effective algorithms in determining success of Asroc
MTLS and ASROC – killing the submarine without a helicopter
Certainly this article argues for the use of the VLS system to carry Asroc in the type 26

steel jo said:

not sure about that claim volko the rocket tech for testing hoveroc used a modified sustainer motor called Murawa which came from Ikara and not super ikara but i am not familiar with what the proposed super Ikky if ever built would have used as a motor.

In any event its the copy over of how the tab into eflux worked on ikara/turana rather than the motor chamber itself worked in the motor that is most significant and i cant see at all how that could coonect to super ikara having predated its dev substantially.

Click to expand...

Was told this by the Super Ikara PM who I worked with on another project much later on so going off what I was told rather than experience on the project myself. Could be the super's motor was derived from the original Ikara motor.

Super apparently attracted a lot of interest but then when the prospective customers looked at available deck realestate no one seemed to have anywhere to fit the system on the required platforms. The original Ikara was good in that it could fit in the space required for a single Limbo, disappointed it wasn't fitted to Vampire and Vendetta in their MLU.

spoz said:

Henry Burrell discusses the CFA acquisition at some length in his autobiography (“Mermaids Do Exist”, pp 253-270). It seems the process of getting to the point of deciding against the Counties was a difficult one but thereafter, in his mind at least, the CFAs were the obvious choice. The other thing that comes through is the apparent “take it or leave it” attitude of the Admiralty as against the “what can we do to help?” approach of the USN (the latter of course continuing to the present day).

I know most of the official papers of that period have now been released but so far as I know the only people to make use of them have been Brown and Friedman in Books on RN ship design. About time an Australian picked up on them and continued the work of Hyslop.

Click to expand...

Have and love those books, fill in so many gaps.

One of the issues the UK had was lack of money to evolve and improve systems to the same degree as the US. Often the base UK system was superior to the comparable US system but then the US would continually improve and evolve theirs to a much higher level of capability and reliability while the UK would invest in the next generation with little left over for improvements on the existing systems. SeaSlug was apparently more capable and reliable than Terrier in both systems original iterations but then the US had the T3 Get Well program, followed by Standard using the magazines, launchers and platforms, while the UK only managed a Mk2 SeaSlug, failed to modernise the original batch of four ships, then moved to Sea Dart on Bristol, Type 42 and Invincibles.

On Tartar, the original Mk-11 launcher was reportedly leaky and unreliable, while the Mk-13 was a classic that pretty much just worked. The 16 round Mk-22 GMLS variant of the Mk-13 would have been interesting on our Darings in MLU, could even conceivably have been fitted to the Battles. Replace Limbo with Ikara and there is a very different RAN in the 60s and 70s.

I am going to take a different tack here. Let's say a typical submarine-launched torpedo has a range of around 50km ... but how effective is it really going to be at that range?

Fired at that range it would take the best part an hour to reach its target.

It seems to me that if a submarine is going to engage a surface vessel at extreme range it is still better off using a missile, and that is assuming that it could even accurately identify a target at that range.

I will leave it up to others to say what the practical firing range of a sub-launched torpedo would be but if I were to guess I would say that it would probably be inside the range of ship-launched ASW torpedos.

Torpedos dont have to travel a straight course and can be programmed like this to avoid giving away the bearing of the submarine ,also given speeds may not be accurate ,or other modes the torpedo may be capable of operating in

Volkodav, I think you've missed out some As, & some of your RNs should be RANs.

seaspear said:

https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a497264.pdf
This thesis though ten years old provides some interesting thoughts on probability of effective algorithms in determining success of Asroc
MTLS and ASROC – killing the submarine without a helicopter
Certainly this article argues for the use of the VLS system to carry Asroc in the type 26

Click to expand...

It surprised me that the type 45 has no torpedoes fitted and can only launch by helicopter.
It also surprised me that the type 26 may be fitted with no torpedoes.

Doesn't the MU90 also have a hard kill option to intercept heavies? Which I guess would be an advantage to still have ship launched torpedoes.

hauritz said:

I am going to take a different tack here. Let's say a typical submarine-launched torpedo has a range of around 50km ... but how effective is it really going to be at that range?

Click to expand...

Most heavies can be wire guided with a fiberoptic cable, they are quite big units, so actually have a lot of space for sensors and processing.
For them to target a surface ship is fairly trivial. Surface ships only exist in a single plane, the surface, they make heaps of noise, not just from engines, but from wake, waves contacting with hull, and I would imagine there would be quite a bit of noise after they detected a torpedo incoming.

It may be the sub would want it in visual range or at the very least very good audio ranges, maybe they are getting intel and not just randomly sinking any enemy acoustic sounds. Masts are probably 7 nm away max with a periscope. How big is the formation? what is the high value asset you are trying to take out? what capability do they have to get you etc.

This is why its very important to have your enemy acoustically mapped (and yourself). Not just the class, but specific vessels etc. Firing on a sub is several magnitudes harder, particularly if its trying to be unseen.

While ship launched torpedos probably aren't the only solution, they would likely be part of a solution. It no doubt, complicates an attack.

Is your ship alone on a single ship transit/patrol, or part of a taskforce with signficant ASW capability? I think there are many factors you have to consider. Do you have your own subs operating with you? Where are they and what are they doing?

StingrayOZ said:

It also surprised me that the type 26 may be fitted with no torpedoes.

Click to expand...

Do you mean from a UK perspective or are you talking about the Hunter Class ? The Hunter's will have the MU90's

Hunter Class FFG | Royal Australian Navy

Cheers

swerve said:

Volkodav, I think you've missed out some As, & some of your RNs should be RANs.

Click to expand...

Thanks, fixed now, hope it makes more sense with the extra vowels.

Personally I think the Escort Cruiser option would have been a very interesting option for the RAN, if the Darings had been converted to DDGs as well that is. Moot point as the RN cancelled the project, rehashed it as a version of the Bristol and then finally ended up with the Invincibles one of which proving too expensive for the RAN, let alone three. Then again considering the timeframe, (pre Suharto and the greater stability he brought to the region) and Australian build of three Escort Cruisers could have been justified, whether the UK built any or not. Substantially smaller than the later Invincible they would have been cheaper and served as a replacement for Melbourne and Sydney, not as capable as Melbourne in her CVS config, but much better than no carrier at all from 80/81 when Australia had to make do without not only fixed wing ASW and fighters, but dunking sonar helos as well. The Escort Cruisers were seen as a potential harrier platform during their conception.

The Navy Is Ripping Out Underperforming Anti-Torpedo Torpedoes From Its Supercarriers
The U.S navy took out this very newly introduced anti torpedo torpedo over reliability concerns ,that were raised during the auditing process it may have been a paper tiger , it may be that other similar systems in other navies are similarly evaluated .
There are claims that the mark 48 version seven can be launched wireless, which can have an advantage in not worrying about cutting the wire and run
Australia has also been involved in the development of U.S.N torpedos

OldNavy63 said:

The following link describes the (RN) T26 Mission Bay.

The Type 26 frigate mission bay. Part 1 – design and development

While the article (Part 1of 2) is specifically for RN T26, it provides an indication as to how that space may be utilised in our Hunter class.

Click to expand...

Part 2 of the article describing the Type 26 mission bay appeared on the Save The Royal Navy website over the weekend.

The Type 26 frigate mission bay. Part 2 – configuration and contents

aussienscale said:

Do you mean from a UK perspective or are you talking about the Hunter Class ? The Hunter's will have the MU90's

Hunter Class FFG | Royal Australian Navy

Cheers

Click to expand...

Sorry the UK Type 26.

Which makes it a bit weirder than the Australian and likely Canadian ships will feature them.
I dunno, with something like a QE class wouldn't you want to double down on ASW capability.

OldNavy63 said:

Part 2 of the article describing the Type 26 mission bay appeared on the Save The Royal Navy website over the weekend.

The Type 26 frigate mission bay. Part 2 – configuration and contents

Click to expand...

Thanks for the second link
Certainly gives some clarity as to some of the loads the hangar and mission bay can be used for.
It appears that the Hunter Class can in fact carry two MH-60R or NH- 90 helicopters in tandem.
The option of two helicopters is pleasing.
What's most impressive is the range of options provide for in the mission bay.
Certainly a handy space for a range of contingencies and future proofs the ship for the decades to come.
A good choice.

Regards S

StingrayOZ said:

Sorry the UK Type 26.

Which makes it a bit weirder than the Australian and likely Canadian ships will feature them.
I dunno, with something like a QE class wouldn't you want to double down on ASW capability.

Click to expand...

Yep, I find it a little strange, considering they are being portrayed as the premier ASW platform, they are a big unit with plenty of space, does not make sense to me, not proclaiming to be an ASW expert, but from what I do know and learned over the years, it is certainly a strange omission.

Cheers

aussienscale said:

Yep, I find it a little strange, considering they are being portrayed as the premier ASW platform, they are a big unit with plenty of space, does not make sense to me, not proclaiming to be an ASW expert, but from what I do know and learned over the years, it is certainly a strange omission.

Cheers

Click to expand...

Yeah, I agree. This may be a poor analogy, but it feels like when they stopped putting guns on fighter aircraft in the 60s. Sure, if the systems and missiles work, your fine, but what if they don't work? What if scenarios occur which weren't foreseen or understood?
And, as you say, it's not like it's a small platform with limited space and weight margins. I wonder what the opinion of the RN captains would be.

Its also designed to go to sea, by itself, as a global frigate. The Type 45 also don't have them. Also where are you storing your torpedoes otherwise? What are they doing with the space that will be used on Australian and Canadian designs? Whats the advantage?