Okay (though could have sworn this had been done before - unless this is just a prompt to allow you to shoot these ideas down with your arguments that you have been secretly been preparing for months just for this moment! :p):

 

1) ABMD,

 

2) SLAM/TLAM,

 

3) The ability to do both 1 and 2 whilst maintaining missile numbers for the AAW role,

 

4) Embark 2 Helicopters (somewhat mitigated if the design can carry a UAV and a Helo at same time)

 

5) Provide for the Close-in defence of the ship in the higher end of spectrum AAW operations (Multiple simultaneous threats from supersonic, sea skimming and potentially stealthy Russian designed ASMs). Hence the RAM suggestion.

 

Brett.

 It seems to me that almost everyone has failed to see the full picture here. Apart from one or two comments, no one has really said what is lacking in the Rudd Governments White Paper. But let's not forget that Australia's defence needs have been neglected badly by successive governments over the last 34 years, essentially since the end of the Veitnam War. The first major blunder was  to not replace HMAS Melbourne when she was decommissioned, yes the opportunity was there to purchase one of the British ships, but the Falklands campaign ended that. The list of mistakes goes on and on, Seasprites, inadequate numbers of F18's and so on. But now there is a window of opportunity to balance out those past errors and protect Australia's future. Three AWD's will not suffice; four is the needed requirement at the very least, but six would be ideal. As we are getting two LPH's, the four AWD number is critical. A ro-ro platform is a good idea in essence, but strategically, one could be leased commercially at any time. More importantly for the Australian fleet, is a dedicated fixed wing carrier, of at least 35,000 tonne class; carrying F35b's, Hawkeye's and S70's. The twelve subs is a good number, but the propulsion system needs to be from this century, not the last. Lastly, personel numbers have to raised to at least 16,000 full time members, to reflect an effeciant fleet status, and Australia should have it's own force of Marines as part of the Navy, a minimum requirement would be around five to eight thousand.

 The Army seems to have been given a reasonable deal, but I believe another order of Abrams tank should be placed, as well as additional Tiger choppers.

 The Air Force though is another matter. The extra Herc's and a replacement for the old Caribou is sound, but another four C17's should be ordered to increase battlefield lift capability. The hundred F35's will be, just alright, but as everyone has said, they are not a replacement for the 'Pig'. At the very least, pressure should applied on the U.S to release for foreign sale the F22 Raptor, thirty or so of those would go a reasonable way as a F111 replacement.

 I welcome further comment.

 

Ray. Ex RAN

-Before this boorish American responds, let me preface this by saying I served on Aegis ships.

 

Top of my list would be to go all electric, that is get rid of the gearing and shafts and have the GT's and Diesels functioning solely as generators with propulsion from electric motors.  The Darings use it and the DDX (both of them) as well as the CVF will use it.

-I think you'd be better off fitting a bulbous bow. The purpose behind the all electric is to power energy-based weapons. I think it is over-hyped, IMO. You have a good design with CODAG; we, the US should have such a frigate. Don't mess with it. I certainly wouldn't base my decisions on what DDG-1000 is or has done.

A stretch providing space and weight for an increase in the size of the VLS, possibly a 155mm inplace of the Mk45, definitely a second helo.  Maybe a phased array director to replace the legacy mechanical variety.

-This is a must, IMO. Leave the strike capability to the missiles carried, but extend your sensor range. Surface ships are prisoners of the horizon. They always have been. The best way to "break out" of prison is by airborne sensors.

 

Reprofiling the superstructure for greater stealth.

-The question becomes, how much do you have now, and how much more is needed? Are you using stealth to prevent targeting or are you using it to spoof seekers? Or are you using it to help out NULKA? I think your design does the first and the third very well already. I'm not sure you'll get to the point where you can effectively do the second without going radical, like DDG-1000, again not necessarily the example you want to follow.

With the focus on Maritime Operations and all the indicators suggesting the ADF strategists foresee Amphibious landing operations (quite justifiable).It is interesting a Marine infantry component, has been completely over looked.

 

 A RAM( Royal Australian Marines) battalion (500-2000) to complement the existing amphibious operations capabilities. These Maritime forces would be first on the scene in any Future Pacific related scenario. A supplemented capability in this Area would challenge concerns over "not enough boots on the ground".

 

I tend to agree that a forth AWD will be inevatable, however the Future Frigates (8-10) are a slight concern to me; while the concept is fantastic (7000tons, towed and hull sonar , BMD, geared for Land strike), one wonders how they can do all that! without becoming a DDX type super ship ( and super expensive too).

If they have radar and missiles capable of BMD ( then surely the radar could fill in; in the AAW role?)

 

One assumes that they would need at least 64 cells ?

 

Starting to look impressive... ( However we probably could trade off 2 subs for two Major surface combatants)

 

4 AWD

8 Future Frigate

2 LHD

1 LSD ( landing ship dock)

12 Future SUB's

20+ MRV

1500 Naval Infantry

 

 

 

I'd be happy to have SDSS Mk 2 launchers with ESSM fitted aft on the boats we have on order, to be added to the existing 48x VLS launchers, plus Phalanx 1B, Nulka and "other" electronic and counter-measure dispenser systems. 

 

This would provide -

 

Nulka / active radar jamming /Directed infra-red / Chaff / Flares (as fitted. Not sure each of these will be fitted, ALL the time, but most will).

 

Mini-Typhoon 12.7mm. 

 

Typhoon 25mm.

 

Phalanx 1B 20mm.

 

64x ESSM SAM.

 

32x SM-2/6 SAM.

 

16x SM-2/3/6 / TLAM. 

 

That's a helluva defensive arsenal, IMHO.

 

-Size of the VLS is probably over-hyped as well. The only reason to add is if you want to have Tomahawk. Then the question becomes how many do you want to carry and why? Let's think about this 48 missiles. How many SM-2s are you going to carry? 20? That leaves 28 cells. Figure 8 for VLA. That leaves 20. If you want to carry as many ESSMs as SMs then you still have 15 cells free for Tomahawk. Are you going to need more?  If you're going to need more, you'll need more ships anyway. More missiles isn't necessarily bad, but will you use them?

 

The 155mm is an answer to a question not asked, IMO. There is a reason ~5" has evolved as a primary cannon for naval guns. They have to be a jack of all trades. 127mm/5" does that better than most.

 

As for the directors, why would you replace them with phased arrays? Phased arrays come with weight penalties. Weight high is bad. IMO, it's better to get active missiles. Perhaps an AIM-120 seeker mated to a RIM-162?

 

Facility to operate a variety of autominous unmanned vehicles, definitely to extend their sensor range but possibly to increase their strike range and / or to provide operational protection in port or close waters.





 

Been a while since I started this thread and quite a few things have changed but I should clarify some of my suggestions for the now irrelevant batch II AWD's. All electric propusion is finding favour in civil and military applications due to its advantages reliability, maintainability, fuel effeciency and lower cost of ownership. While providing additional power for future energy based weapons is another advantage there are far greater near term benifits that can be derived from replacing most if not all hydraulics with electric actuation etc.

 

Many serving members of the RAN have a stated preference for the 64 cells of the losing design to the 48 cells of the F-100. The governments recent anouncement of their desire to deploy SM-6 and a TLCM type on the AWD's in addition to SM-2 and ESSM suggests that a larger VLS would have been useful.

 

As for a phased array director, I was thinking of the CEAMOUNT system being trialed for the ANZAC class frigates at the moment. I am no expert on radars but this type seems to offer some definate advantages. 

A few issues. 

 

1. I agree 4x AWD's should be the minimum number of "destroyers" we should operate. As stated earlier, I believe the "short" ESSM launch system for ESSM should be added to the AWD's so that the strike length vertical launch cell capacity we have, can be maximised (ie: TLAM, SM-2/6 and if necessary SM-3 can be used) and thereby the capability of the "AWDs" can truly be maximised.

 

2. I have significant reservations about the number of subs, v surface combatants in your and other structures. 12x subs would be fine, but skimmers do the majority of Navy's actual operational deployments. There was absolutely no justification in the White Paper for such a high number of subs and there is no concrete plan that shows any real sign of delivering the increased recruiting and retention we need to man our existing fleet, let alone one that is doubled in size. Personally I think RAN should be capable of operating equal sized and capability level forces off both west and east coasts of Australia simultaneously and support same at sea and rotate it's forces with like replacements.

 

Therefore IMHO:

 

1. A 4th AWD should be acquired.

 

2. HMAS success should be replaced with 2x new ships able to provide a similar but enhanced capability to that which Success can.

 

3. HMAS Sirius should be supplemented with an additional vessel of the same level of capability.

 

4. A 3rd LHD should be acquired, to allow 2x LHD's to be at sea, the majority of the time.

 

As to subs, Navy is authorised and funded for 660 odd submariner positions within it's current fleet, yet can only manage to fill about 420 of these positions. With positions numbers of at least 1000 being the likely requirement for this new fleet, I'd like to see improved manning for the current fleet sustained for MANY years, before additional hulls are ordered, to expand the fleet. It doesn't matter what they are propelled by or armed with, if they are tied up at the dock, for lack of staff...

 

3. An aircraft carrier. In theory, the idea is fine. In practice, I can't see how we could, A) afford it, B) man it. It isn't only RAN sub force that is hurting for manning, but Navy as a whole. It is consistently doing the worse out of the 3 services

Mk 41 VLS is not the ONLY system capable of launching ESSM.

 

It should be quite possible to fit SDSS launchers to the AWD's to carry up to 64x ESSM missiles without using a single Mk 41 VLS cell. 

 

With the carriage of 32x SM-2/SM-6, each AWD would then have 16x strike length VLS cells for TLAM, SM-3 or additional SM-2/6 missiles, depending on the required task at hand.

Even without the SDSS, the 48x VLS capability is a fearsome load compared to what we HAVE currently in RAN, especially given the AWD's ability to actually EMPLOY such a loadout... 

 

 

Many serving members of the RAN have a stated preference for the 64 cells of the losing design to the 48 cells of the F-100. The governments recent anouncement of their desire to deploy SM-6 and a TLCM type on the AWD's in addition to SM-2 and ESSM suggests that a larger VLS would have been useful.

-Advantages over what? Over a missile that guides itself? Even phased array directors have a limited number of missiles they can control in the terminal phase.  A ship employing an active missile doesn't suffer that disadvantage.  Meanwhile, another phased array radar high up in the superstructure, and it has to be high up to be useful, nets stability disadvantages. 

-I'm going to profess my ignorance. What are SSDS launchers? The Mk29 launcher the USN uses with its SSDS Mk2 ships? For a minute I thought you were referring to the launcher on the ANZACs, but that's a Mk41 Mod 5. So what is an SSDS launcher? 
Thanks.