Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[seaspear]

This is a few years off but in the timeline for when Australia under AUKUS acquires submarines but hypersonic missiles could be on the list
Take Note China: The Navy Is Arming Its Submarines With Hypersonic Missiles | The National Interest

 

[Scott Elaurant]

That article appears to be from 2015. Hence:

No and it is still a good question. I haven’t seen any recent news of progress on a sub (tube) launched version of NSM.

Hence my original comment that at present the French MdCN is the only long range torpedo tube launched SSM in NATO service.

 

[Volkodav]

Operationally firing a harpoon from a sub is basically equivalent to shooting a flare and saying "here I am". Torpedoes are preferable, missiles are more a last resort.

Land attack is a different, you choose where and when to launch, then get out.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Operationally firing a harpoon from a sub is basically equivalent to shooting a flare and saying "here I am". Torpedoes are preferable, missiles are more a last resort.

Harpoon is pretty short range, and pretty chunky, and doesn't have a particularly advanced flight profile and has a big old radar. Its going to be obvious to everyone its been fired, it will have a significant radar return, IR signature and also radars blasting out.

NSM would be a better bet. Its going to be a lower profile, not blasting radars, and have a bit longer range. However, Norway is building subs at the moment, and no sub customer has really wanted to pay to develop it as a submarine weapon, even it its pretty straight forward to do that. I believe the biggest priority now is getting it on aircraft (JSM) and helicopters. Submarine launches are meant to happen on the new Norwegian submarines around 2025.

At least with TLAM, you have sufficient distance in your favour. TLAM is already integrated into the combat systems of Collins and Hobarts.

 

[alexsa]

My personal view is that whatever SSN design is chosen, it must have vertical launch capability of the size of the Virginia Payload Tubes (~87” diameter) as we have to look as far as possible into the future to make them competitive at the end of their service life ie, in 55-75 years time. VPT’s will be able to launch future hypersonic weapons an well as UUV’s to take on a number of missions.

If the decision was to build hybrid Astute’s, the RAN would have a capable submarine for the current threat but not suitable for future threats because of the lack of vertical launch tubes. The volume of design work to fit the S9G reactor and related systems, as well as integrating the US combat/fire control system & possible redesign the torpedo stowage/handling system would be substantial and may not be completed much earlier than the SSNR design - especially if the SSNR is essentially a cut down Dreadnought which is at an advanced design stage.

The Common Missile Compartment for the Columbia & Dreadnought classes are assembled in blocks of 4 tubes so, if the SSNR design is based on the Dreadnought, one CMC of 4 tubes can be retained and used for weapons, UUV’s etc as in the Block 5 Virginia’s, thus having a design with a lot of capability which can be updated throughout its service life. Yes, there would be a lot of weight & balance issues as well as system changes but it may not take much longer than designing a hybrid Astute class.

It’s not inconceivable that a couple of improved LA class submarines are leased to buy time for the SSNR design to be completed - we’ll know in a few weeks.

I don’t share your view due to three issues:
1. The Astute can fire TLAM through its torpedo tubes as well as any other current weapon. It will remain a potent hunter killer for the foreseeable future and has a more flexible load out of current weapons that the Virginia as all weapons are fired from tubes while the Virginia block IV can only carry 21 (or 22) torpedos as that is all that can be carried in the Torpedo compartment.
2. Waiting for SSNR will push the build at least a decade leaving the RAN with a significant capability gap.
3. We don’t appear to have an option on the Virginia block IV or V noting the USN needs.

There is nothing preventing ‘doing both’ starting with a block of (say 4) mod Astutes (or what ever is selected) followed up with a run of SSNR if the is the desired.

I suspect if we want to wait for VLS, either as a Virginia Block V (noting Block IV will cease production) or SSNR I think we will have severely damaged the effectiveness of the submarine arm as the Collins will be running out of life and this will compromise transition to the new vessels.

Still, we are all guessing until the March release. I simply hope the endless delays are over and we see progress.

 

[Going Boeing]

I don’t share your view due to three issues:
1. The Astute can fire TLAM through its torpedo tubes as well as any other current weapon. It will remain a potent hunter killer for the foreseeable future and has a more flexible load out of current weapons that the Virginia as all weapons are fired from tubes while the Virginia block IV can only carry 21 (or 22) torpedos as that is all that can be carried in the Torpedo compartment.
2. Waiting for SSNR will push the build at least a decade leaving the RAN with a significant capability gap.
3. We don’t appear to have an option on the Virginia block IV or V noting the USN needs.

There is nothing preventing ‘doing both’ starting with a block of (say 4) mod Astutes (or what ever is selected) followed up with a run of SSNR if the is the desired.

I suspect if we want to wait for VLS, either as a Virginia Block V (noting Block IV will cease production) or SSNR I think we will have severely damaged the effectiveness of the submarine arm as the Collins will be running out of life and this will compromise transition to the new vessels.

Still, we are all guessing until the March release. I simply hope the endless delays are over and we see progress.

I suspect that hypersonic weapons will become much more prevalent in the next 20-30 years and the indications are that the initial ones will not fit in a torpedo tube. The only articles that I recall that discussed their launch from submarines indicated that only 3 of them will fit in a VPT whereas there‘s room for 6-7 TLAM’s.

Additionally, the ability to launch/recover UUV’s from VPT’s is highly desirable. Their use for ISAR, Mine Laying, Decoys, etc is the way of the future - if we don’t have this capability, we’ve missed an opportunity.

Like you, I eagerly await the big announcement.

 

[seaspear]

It could be likely any common submarine under the command of the various AUKUS navies will be built to the prevailing doctrine of the U.S.N in those desired capabilities and that may include vertical launch tubes for missiles

 

[Going Boeing]

I’m surprised that the USN has taken this long to have a fleet wide combat system as described in this article. Obviously, this is taking Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) to a whole new level. If Allied Navies were to fit compatible systems, it would facilitate more seamless interoperability (subject to appropriate rules of engagement, etc).

USN creating the Nirvana of one Combat System

I believe that the RAN is heading in a similar direction with the widespread deployment of the SAAB Australia 9LV combat system on the majority of its vessels.

SAAB 9LV Combat System RAN

 

[Stampede]

Some talk in The Age and on Sky News that BAE have a proposal to change the Hunter build from 9 ships to 6 Hunter, plus 3 Extra large Hunters with additional missile capacity.

Not sure on details or what Defence / Gov will make of the proposal, but it's an interesting idea.
Build time table would remain about the same.
Navantia's pitch of three this decade however has the time appeal.
BAE's proposal has potentially three very large missile destroyers as apart of the fleet in the 2030's which also has merit.

If both Navantia and BAE are suggesting such ideas ,there may be some reality that defence are looking at a broad range of options.

Some clarity next month.


Cheers S

 

[76mmGuns]

Some talk in The Age and on Sky News that BAE have a proposal to change the Hunter build from 9 ships to 6 Hunter, plus 3 Extra large Hunters with additional missile capacity.

Not sure on details or what Defence / Gov will make of the proposal, but it's an interesting idea.
Build time table would remain about the same.
Navantia's pitch of three this decade however has the time appeal.
BAE's proposal has potentially three very large missile destroyers as apart of the fleet in the 2030's which also has merit.

If both Navantia and BAE are suggesting such ideas ,there may be some reality that defence are looking at a broad range of options.

Some clarity next month.


Cheers S

I saw the idea of building an Anti Air/Guided missile destroyer version in the other RAN thread a few years ago, back when one of the regulars here posted a graphic showing the timeline of the continuous build, with the Anti air versions, starting around late 2030's, with a question mark.

I know tptb here don't like fantasy fleet/ship discussions, but since that graphic, in my mind, I've toyed with the idea with a front line fleet of at least 9 anti sub Hunters, and 6 to 9 anti air Hunter's

Have a good weekend folks

 

[Scott Elaurant]

Some talk in The Age and on Sky News that BAE have a proposal to change the Hunter build from 9 ships to 6 Hunter, plus 3 Extra large Hunters with additional missile capacity.

Not sure on details or what Defence / Gov will make of the proposal, but it's an interesting idea.
Build time table would remain about the same.
Navantia's pitch of three this decade however has the time appeal.
BAE's proposal has potentially three very large missile destroyers as apart of the fleet in the 2030's which also has merit.

If both Navantia and BAE are suggesting such ideas ,there may be some reality that defence are looking at a broad range of options.

Some clarity next month.


Cheers S

I bow to you guys knowledge of capability, but in production and fleet numbers terms this doesn't look like a good idea to me. I thought we were trying to increase hull numbers? This offer doesn't increase hull numbers but switch from frigates to destroyers. It puts off the extra destroyers to the 2030s, not this decade as proposed by the Navantia AWD offer. If we want to increase fleet size this doesn't do it. If we want to increase destroyer numbers this doesn't do it till a decade later. Commercially this looks like an attempt by BAE to capture the opportunity to build more destroyers identified by the interest in the Navantia offer. It will increase the cost of the BAE contract (at least by the design cost of the destroyer) but not increase construction or fleet numbers.

On this timeframe (presumably design this decade, build next decade) why not tender for the next destroyer design? There are many DDG options being built by friendly nations, and the ADF should be tendering expenditure of this scale, unless the offer has some specific time or cost advantage, which it seems to lack. Plus, and sorry to be negative, once again this offer would commit the RAN to a new undeveloped and untested design, with all the risks entailed.

To me Australia really needs to be getting out of this habit of building 3 AWDs here and 3 frigates there, or we will never get any economy of scale and increase numbers. IMO we should learn from Japan and do continuous builds with 6 or 8 ships in each class. I'm not trying to suggest fantasy fleets here, just principles. If I'm wrong about the desire to increase hull numbers my apology, but I thought I had read that from several sources in the past two years.

The story is also mentioned here:

A defence contractor pitches to build the deadliest warship in Australia’s history

A defence contractor has a new pitch to build the deadliest warship in Australia's history amid concerns about the strength of China. BAE Systems Australia seeks to overhaul its current plans to build nine Hunter class frigates and instead replace three of the nine warships with warfare...

www.skynews.com.au

 

[Stampede]

I bow to you guys knowledge of capability, but in production and fleet numbers terms this doesn't look like a good idea to me. I thought we were trying to increase hull numbers? This offer doesn't increase hull numbers but switch from frigates to destroyers. It puts off the extra destroyers to the 2030s, not this decade as proposed by the Navantia AWD offer. If we want to increase fleet size this doesn't do it. If we want to increase destroyer numbers this doesn't do it till a decade later. Commercially this looks like an attempt by BAE to capture the opportunity to build more destroyers identified by the interest in the Navantia offer. It will increase the cost of the BAE contract (at least by the design cost of the destroyer) but not increase construction or fleet numbers.

On this timeframe (presumably design this decade, build next decade) why not tender for the next destroyer design? There are many DDG options being built by friendly nations, and the ADF should be tendering expenditure of this scale, unless the offer has some specific time or cost advantage, which it seems to lack. Plus, and sorry to be negative, once again this offer would commit the RAN to a new undeveloped and untested design, with all the risks entailed.

To me Australia really needs ot be getting out of this habit of building 3 AWDs here and 3 frigates there, or we will never get any economy of scale and increase numbers. IMO we should learn from Japan and do continuous builds with 6 or 8 ships in each class. I'm not trying to suggest fantasy fleets here, just principles. If I'm wrong about the desire to increase hull numbers my apology, but I thought I had read that from several sources in the past two years.

The story is also mentioned here:

A defence contractor pitches to build the deadliest warship in Australia’s history

A defence contractor has a new pitch to build the deadliest warship in Australia's history amid concerns about the strength of China. BAE Systems Australia seeks to overhaul its current plans to build nine Hunter class frigates and instead replace three of the nine warships with warfare...

www.skynews.com.au

Fair comment.

I shared the media commentary because BAE's pitch was new to me and maybe to others as well.
It is an increased capability compared to the originally planned 9 like ships of the same Class but the outcome is for the next decade.
Three much larger vessels within this class however is concept is worth exploring.
Like yourself I'm more interested in what can realistically be achieved within the decade ahead.
I don't want to indulge in fantasy fleets for we will soon find out government intent going forward next month with the DSR.

Big question is government focus for this decade or the next.

The ADF's shopping list will reflect this policy.

We will find out what Navy looks like going forward.

Cheers S

 

[icelord]

I bow to you guys knowledge of capability, but in production and fleet numbers terms this doesn't look like a good idea to me. I thought we were trying to increase hull numbers? This offer doesn't increase hull numbers but switch from frigates to destroyers. It puts off the extra destroyers to the 2030s, not this decade as proposed by the Navantia AWD offer. If we want to increase fleet size this doesn't do it. If we want to increase destroyer numbers this doesn't do it till a decade later. Commercially this looks like an attempt by BAE to capture the opportunity to build more destroyers identified by the interest in the Navantia offer. It will increase the cost of the BAE contract (at least by the design cost of the destroyer) but not increase construction or fleet numbers.



On this timeframe (presumably design this decade, build next decade) why not tender for the next destroyer design? There are many DDG options being built by friendly nations, and the ADF should be tendering expenditure of this scale, unless the offer has some specific time or cost advantage, which it seems to lack. Plus, and sorry to be negative, once again this offer would commit the RAN to a new undeveloped and untested design, with all the risks entailed.



To me Australia really needs to be getting out of this habit of building 3 AWDs here and 3 frigates there, or we will never get any economy of scale and increase numbers. IMO we should learn from Japan and do continuous builds with 6 or 8 ships in each class. I'm not trying to suggest fantasy fleets here, just principles. If I'm wrong about the desire to increase hull numbers my apology, but I thought I had read that from several sources in the past two years.



The story is also mentioned here:

A defence contractor pitches to build the deadliest warship in Australia’s history

A defence contractor has a new pitch to build the deadliest warship in Australia's history amid concerns about the strength of China. BAE Systems Australia seeks to overhaul its current plans to build nine Hunter class frigates and instead replace three of the nine warships with warfare...

www.skynews.com.au

I do agree with your assessment of bulk builds of boutique 3 builds. It would be nice to get a consistent fleet for a little while. At least Anzacs were 8 build and we have discussed to death the lack of supporting class ships

Its all conjecture and the Australian article points out BaE and Navantia offers are outside of Strategic Review, so not much consideration as taking them up on the offer makes SDR useless before its even announced

 

[Reptilia]

I saw the idea of building an Anti Air/Guided missile destroyer version in the other RAN thread a few years ago, back when one of the regulars here posted a graphic showing the timeline of the continuous build, with the Anti air versions, starting around late 2030's, with a question mark.

I know tptb here don't like fantasy fleet/ship discussions, but since that graphic, in my mind, I've toyed with the idea with a front line fleet of at least 9 anti sub Hunters, and 6 to 9 anti air Hunter's

Have a good weekend folks

Im going with…
3 Hobarts built in Spain(Navantia), possibly some work done in Aus. (2025-2033)
9 Hunters built In Australia(BAE) (2032-2050)
6-8 Type 83 Destroyers(BAE) after Hunter build (2052-2068) - U.K aimimg to have the first type 83 late 2030s, early 2040s
Followed by future asw frigate Or combo asw/awd type

What they build at civmec post 2030 will be interesting with a future dry dock.

 

[alexsa]

Im going with…
3 Hobarts built in Spain(Navantia), possibly some work done in Aus. (2025-2033)
9 Hunters built In Australia(BAE) (2032-2050)
6-8 Type 83 Destroyers(BAE) after Hunter build (2052-2068) - U.K aimimg to have the first type 83 late 2030s, early 2040s
Followed by future asw frigate Or combo asw/awd type

What they build at civmec post 2030 will be interesting with a future dry dock.

Given the content of the article I am not sure why you include the Navantia DDG in your list. The situation is very unclear with a lot of postering but I don’t see more Navantia DDG’s being an option as these vessels are a bit tight to take the stuff they have and the article does not indicate that Navantia are currently in the mix.

Things could change …… I sense DDL all over again.

 

[Bob53]

Why why why would we consider a design change mid stream to antI ship anti air destroyer…. or is this then a GP destroyer?

Is this in response to Shackleton comments? To counter navatanias offer? Or because it’s our navy’s requirements have changed? It was only recently a requirement for 9 x ASW frigates. How and when did the requirements change?

Sure it would have been good to find room for extra VLS on the Hunters if the actual number is 38 but as far as I m aware NO ONE knows that actual number of VLS in the final design just yet.

We keep getting fed that the design is full and close to maximum weight ….where will they find space for another 100+ VLS If this was to get up….A hull plug? Right now this looks like an unsolicited pitch that needs to be set aside or lead to distraction from what is urgent ..,getting Hunters design completed.

 

[Stampede]

Why why why would we consider a design change mid stream to antI ship anti air destroyer…. or is this then a GP destroyer?

Is this in response to Shackleton comments? To counter navatanias offer? Or because it’s our navy’s requirements have changed? It was only recently a requirement for 9 x ASW frigates. How and when did the requirements change?

Sure it would have been good to find room for extra VLS on the Hunters if the actual number is 38 but as far as I m aware NO ONE knows that actual number of VLS in the final design just yet.

We keep getting fed that the design is full and close to maximum weight ….where will they find space for another 100+ VLS If this was to get up….A hull plug? Right now this looks like an unsolicited pitch that needs to be set aside or lead to distraction from what is urgent ..,getting Hunters design completed.

I guess it's some what about the fleets composition for the next 30 plus years.
If we have a constabulary force of Inshore / off shore vessels and major units what our those numbers.
For the later it's the current plan of 11 to 12 ships.
Therefore we have a ship building plan to reflect this composition which is how things stand today.
How do we address a greater perception of threat going forward.
Sticking with a ship solution, is it an increase in major ship numbers or the introduction of a middle tier unit like a Corvette / Light frigate.

From my perspective we are looking at when do the Hobart Class retire, what and when do they get replaced, what with and in what numbers.
Yep it's a long way off.
Yet planning starts now.

BAE's pitch has relevance with this question.
It may not be the answer but it will be in the mix.

In some ways it would be a bit like looking at the MEKO offerings when we were getting to the end of the ANZAC build.

If a middle tier is introduced do the Hunters stay at 9 units?
Again does BAE's offering play a part in these numbers.

Merit in all combinations.

For myself I'd introduce a middle tier to increase numbers and capacity in the short term.

One thing I'm confident of is that whatever is announced in the DSR will probably be adjusted and modified considerably in the decades ahead.
That's just how things evolve.

Cheers S

 

[FormerDirtDart]

Since the subject is open to a certain extent, Defence Connect had an interesting opinion piece back in mid-January on RAN future destroyer development. It proffered that it might be advisable to see if it is possible through AUKUS to participate in the USN DDG(X) program. With the possible outcome being beginning a build of a RAN DDG(X) immediately following the completion of the Hunter build. And while the author brings up the British 'Type 83' program (misidentified as Type 86) to address the early stages of partner destroyer development, I'm left wondering about the possibilities of a 'trilateral' AUKUS destroyer, as parties discuss the prospects of a trilateral SSN build

It is never too early to start planning for our next destroyers

AUKUS has opened the door for truly transformational collaboration and capability development for the three partners, so should Australia partner with the US to develop a fleet of DDG (X)? Hailing fr

www.defenceconnect.com.au

 

[Tasman]

Interesting just how much speculation there is right on the eve of the SDR. Obviously both the DOD and senior RAN sirs are being tight lipped pending its release and I've been chuckling at the predictably unsuccessful attempts of media personalities trying to extract answers from Richard Marles! I'm really looking forward to the SDR and follow on announcements and just hope it doesn't end up as a huge disappointment or even disaster.

Meanwhile it was good to see HMAS Arunta acting as flagship at the Royal Hobart Regatta:



Tas

 

[Volkodav]

I have a different view from many. Mine is based on constraints and how we plan to work with or around them.

Ships are a system of systems intended to deliver a required or needed capability, in conjunction with other systems of systems.

Most seem fixated on the platform and to a lesser degree, the number of platforms. The real issue is the combination of systems that deliver the capability.

The most difficult part is designing, developing and integrating systems, in comparison, the platform is comparatively easy. For the platform you need a competent team to design, build and deliver an appropriate "platform system" to reliably get the other systems where they need to go, then home again.

There is an obsession with restricting size and weight, to the degree that combat capability is compromised because there is insufficient volume, power, cooling etc. to deliver the required capability.

This is why many on here are opposed to corvettes, they rightly point out that a larger platform will be longer ranged at higher speed and more survivable. My argument is that in the near term there is a constraint derived from time, contractual obligations, production capacity and crewing that may make the corvette a good enough option that can be delivered in time, verses a better solution that almost definately cannot.

The "good enough, that can be delivered in time" is also where we are with Hunter, while LOTE is the only feasible option remaining on submarines, after all others timed out. Ideally Hunter should have had a new platform design but the demand was SEA 4000 should shoehorn everything required into an existing design, Type 26 was the largest, most modern and most flexible option. It is now apparent that this wasn't the best way forward but it's what we have and any change will result in an intolerable capability gap.

The Hobart's are too small and too lacking in capability, with very limited capacity to be upgraded. Six or twelve of them would have been great, we built three. This is why the Hunters have AEGIS and a medium sized VLS, we needed high end ASW to fill a gap that has been growing for decades, but it was also seen that air and missile defence was a growing deficit. This is why the RAN wanted 10000t plus multirole destroyers with AEGIS and a strategic length VLS, but they got Hunters.

There are two ways to go in developing capability, sufficient numbers of networked good enough, or sufficient numbers of networked best you can get.