Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

old faithful

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Astutes may still run tube launched missile systems, but they can still carry up to 38x weapons.

I struggle to envisage ADF carrying the stocks of weapons to even fill some of the more ‘enthusiastic’ suggestions for ADF force structure.

A casual glance at the announced weapon stocks we have acquired for various capabilities aren’t enormous.

150x SM-2.
200x LRASM.
Around 1500 rockets / missiles of various designation for HIMARS.
108x AMRAAM for NASAMS II.

Decent numbers perhaps, but we aren’t acquiring guided weapons stocks in their many thousands, that we’d need to fill some of the latest suggestions…
How many NASAM Units is army actually getting? I thought is was around 24?
Are the amraams the exact same as what the RAAF use? If so, perhaps some of the old stock 120Bs might be available for the Army?
But surely, Army would want the longest range versions they could get, considering ground launch reduces the range considerably.

Bloody hell.....https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.anao.gov.au/sites/defau...kQFnoECAwQBg&usg=AOvVaw2IDMAlKXrMcprNs-ZLmbJ5

6 fire units in total!!!! With only 1 battery to be operational, 3 fire units.....I hope there is a follow on order, or this is a total waste of time and money!
 

Pusser01

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Stuart is scheduled to hit the water tomorrow thus completing her docking phase of AMCAP. Some people may note that she is now fitted with twin Terma Scanter 6002 nav radars. These are replacing the Sharpeyes currently fitted & will be rolled out during the remaining AMCAP's & future Transcaps. I've only come across the attached regarding the fitting of the radars. Cheers
Higher definition for naval navigation radars - Issuu
 

ADMk2

Just a bloke
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
How many NASAM Units is army actually getting? I thought is was around 24?
Are the amraams the exact same as what the RAAF use? If so, perhaps some of the old stock 120Bs might be available for the Army?
But surely, Army would want the longest range versions they could get, considering ground launch reduces the range considerably.

Bloody hell.....https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.anao.gov.au/sites/defau...kQFnoECAwQBg&usg=AOvVaw2IDMAlKXrMcprNs-ZLmbJ5

6 fire units in total!!!! With only 1 battery to be operational, 3 fire units.....I hope there is a follow on order, or this is a total waste of time and money!
2x batteries, one of which will be the operational battery, the other a training battery. With an additional fire unit, likely for IET.

The number of launchers per fire unit hasn’t been publicly broadcast to my knowledge. But common belief is 4-6 launchers per fire unit.

Army head of land capability in October 2022 also confirmed RBS-70 will be retained alongside NASAMS II for some time to come in the V-SHORAD role, while Army examines it’s capability needs for V-SHORAD, counter-UAS and so forth.

2x batteries is no different to 2x ARH squadrons, our forthcoming 2x HIMARS batteries, 2x UAS batteries and so on.

That’s the scale of Government direction, I am afraid, not to mention an Army that refuses to invest in adequate CS capability because it is still addicted to the idea of light infantry operations conducted from Vung Tau style bases and imagining our towed guns will over match the insurgent / light forces we’ll only ever have to face…

A single NASAMS II fire unit would work great in that scenario… How many others? We’ll see…
 

PHOTOGRAPHER

New Member
200x LRASM.
Im positive i read onine that the actual order was for 137? (might have been as few as127) warshots even though we were approved for 200.

I rarely post here as having been out of the ARES for over 30 years my knowledge of current equipment has lapsed, despite my INTENSE interest in the subject. I read regularly though and value the information posted here greatly.

I have a follow-up question regarding the discussion of RAN needs and its ideal weapons loadout for surface platforms. There has been a back and forth regarding the ideal number of tubes our navy requires but most of the recent discussion has been about point-defence or at the very least short range anti-missile loadouts. My question is.... what are we defending? Yes we don't want our warship to be sunk with all hands; I get that. The interest for me is the lack of discussion around OFFENSIVE loads to these potential ships. If you do nothing more than protect yourself you might as well stay in port.

What do we need that is feasible in the very short term to project a strong offensive capability against the logical opponent in our region? Is NSM the answer or do we need longer-ranged weapons like surface-launched LRASM, and how does this affect the size of vessels required? Is a corvette likely to give us the strike power required to make it worth the effort?

Respect to everyone who posts regularly as i value your insight. Please be kind to an irregular poster.
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Possibly, but SIMBAD-RC launchers firing Mistral missiles were an initial part of ANZAC ASMD, before we went down the CEAFAR / ESSM path.
I believe it was part of ASMD as Phalanx and RAM were too heavy. Top weight is a major issue for the class.
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
Im positive i read onine that the actual order was for 137? (might have been as few as127) warshots even though we were approved for 200.

I rarely post here as having been out of the ARES for over 30 years my knowledge of current equipment has lapsed, despite my INTENSE interest in the subject. I read regularly though and value the information posted here greatly.

I have a follow-up question regarding the discussion of RAN needs and its ideal weapons loadout for surface platforms. There has been a back and forth regarding the ideal number of tubes our navy requires but most of the recent discussion has been about point-defence or at the very least short range anti-missile loadouts. My question is.... what are we defending? Yes we don't want our warship to be sunk with all hands; I get that. The interest for me is the lack of discussion around OFFENSIVE loads to these potential ships. If you do nothing more than protect yourself you might as well stay in port.

What do we need that is feasible in the very short term to project a strong offensive capability against the logical opponent in our region? Is NSM the answer or do we need longer-ranged weapons like surface-launched LRASM, and how does this affect the size of vessels required? Is a corvette likely to give us the strike power required to make it worth the effort?

Respect to everyone who posts regularly as i value your insight. Please be kind to an irregular poster.
There are a few points to keep firmly in mind when discussing surface warships like frigates and destroyers. Such vessels (and corvettes and cruisers too, to one degree or another) are referred to as "escort vessels" for a reason. Such vessels have roles providing protection to other vessels in times/areas of conflict. Such protection might be needed vs. aerial, surface, or sub-surface threats, or even a combination thereof. Hence why there tends to be so much focus on air defence missile loadouts, because a major threat vector to shipping is from aerial threats which could be aircraft and/or standoff ordnance like AShM.

To get an idea on what sort of missile loadout a vessel would have in a land attack role, look at the various flights of USN Arleigh Burke-class DDG's with 90 or 96 VLS cells. IIRC when such vessels are in a land attack role, up to half of their VLS cells might be loaded with LACM. Consider too that when the USN sends in vessels with LACM, they are not operating in isolation or alone. Indeed, there is a decent chance that such a DDG might be a part of a larger USN formation like a CSG (carrier strike group) which in addition to the CVN, would include one or two Ticonderoga-class CG's (which alone might include 122 VLS cells) as well as two or three DDG's.

Depending on who, what, and where a strike target is, it could potentially require dozens to hundreds of ordnance be launched to successfully neutralize such a target. Australia would need to massively increase both the VLS cell count across the entirety of the RAN, as well as the size and scope of the warstocks to have a significant shift in land attack capability.

Also, by trying to shift RAN MFU's from an escort/defence role to an offensive role, that would leave Australian shipping, both military and commercial/civilian vulnerable to attack. How much of a negative impact would there be on Australian interests and operations if one of the LHD's was damaged/mission-killed/sunk, because there were inadequate escort vessels and the LHD was successfully targeted by AShM?
 

Bob53

Well-Known Member
Astutes may still run tube launched missile systems, but they can still carry up to 38x weapons.

I struggle to envisage ADF carrying the stocks of weapons to even fill some of the more ‘enthusiastic’ suggestions for ADF force structure.

A casual glance at the announced weapon stocks we have acquired for various capabilities aren’t enormous.

150x SM-2.
200x LRASM.
Around 1500 rockets / missiles of various designation for HIMARS.
108x AMRAAM for NASAMS II.

Decent numbers perhaps, but we aren’t acquiring guided weapons stocks in their many thousands, that we’d need to fill some of the latest suggestions…
Let’s say it’s some time in future and we have 5 ships at sea 2 Hobarts, 2 Anzacs and 1 Hunter …what do we need to stock their silos with a mix of air defence and some land/ASM capabilities assuming a Hunter has 48 cells and by that stage we have NSM and Tomahwak?
 
Last edited:

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
Le

Let’s say it’s some time in future and we have 5 ships at sea 2 Hobarts, 2 Anzacs and 1 Hunter …what do we need to stock their silos with a mix of air defence and some land/ASM capabilities assuming a Hunter has 48 cells and by that stage we have NSM and Tomahwak?
What is the overall role of the TF and what or where is the rest of the RAN fleet? I ask because it really makes a difference, since five main fleet units is likely to comprise nearly half the RAN surface fleet, unless there is a decision made very soon to expand the number of majors in service.

Further, with there only being three Hobart-class DDG's in the RAN, it would most likely be difficult to have two deployed together. Having said that, with the ships as given, could likely be fitted with a total of 40 NSM (5 x 8-cells) to provide an AShM and possibly some land attack capability. The Mk 41 VLS aboard each of the five vessels would likely have at least eight cells with quad-packed ESSM for 32 missiles each. That would take up the entirety of the ANZAC-class FFH's VLS cells which are not strike-length IIRC so could not take LACM like TacTom's any way. The Hobart-class DDG's would each be left with 40 VLS cells, and these would likely be best loaded with various iterations of the Standard missile. The Hunter-class FFG, likely having only 32 VLS cells to start (at least for now...) would then have 24 VLS cells available and again would probably be best loaded with Standard missiles.
 

ddxx

Well-Known Member
At the end of the day ASW role specific major, large surface combatants equiped with AEGIS make no sense.

They do not align with RAN Doctrine, or the basic realities of our environment.

Even Hobart isn’t a role specific ship, with hull mounted and towed array sonar alongside a ASW focused helicopter, it’s a very capable ASW platform.
 

ADMk2

Just a bloke
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
At the end of the day ASW role specific major, large surface combatants equiped with AEGIS make no sense.

They do not align with RAN Doctrine, or the basic realities of our environment.

Even Hobart isn’t a role specific ship, with hull mounted and towed array sonar alongside a ASW focused helicopter, it’s a very capable ASW platform.
So the ship RAN literally requested, doesn’t align with it’s own doctrine?

I am as critical as anyone on the delays on improving capability for defence, but the Hunters when finally delivered will be a superb capability for the RAN.

The moaning abut the lack of cells is fairly puerile to me. They will boost overall RAN VLS count by at least 143 strike length cells compared to what we have today (and that is ‘if’ they are only restricted to the 32x cell configuration we have seen in mock ups, rumours abound that more are possible).

The very reason AEGIS, CEAFAR2 and SM-2/6 is being added to the Hunters is so they are not ‘role specific’. Supposedly very high end ASW ships yes, but also capable AAW and ASuW with the fitouts they are getting…
 

ddxx

Well-Known Member
So the ship RAN literally requested, doesn’t align with it’s own doctrine?

I am as critical as anyone on the delays on improving capability for defence, but the Hunters when finally delivered will be a superb capability for the RAN.

The moaning abut the lack of cells is fairly puerile to me. They will boost overall RAN VLS count by at least 143 strike length cells compared to what we have today (and that is ‘if’ they are only restricted to the 32x cell configuration we have seen in mock ups, rumours abound that more are possible).

The very reason AEGIS, CEAFAR2 and SM-2/6 is being added to the Hunters is so they are not ‘role specific’. Supposedly very high end ASW ships yes, but also capable AAW and ASuW with the fitouts they are getting…
My post is pretty well backed up by this paper by former Chief of Navy, Vice Admiral Dr David Shackleton AO.

He breaks down, with sources, the bizarre juxtaposition with official Doctrine.

Whilst I don’t agree with his conclusion that Burkes are the answer, the case he puts forward as to the deficiencies are both well reasoned and supported by references.
 

OldTex

Well-Known Member
My post is pretty well backed up by this paper by former Chief of Navy, Vice Admiral Dr David Shackleton AO.

He breaks down, with sources, the bizarre juxtaposition with official Doctrine.

Whilst I don’t agree with his conclusion that Burkes are the answer, the case he puts forward as to the deficiencies are both well reasoned and supported by references.
Well I would say that his pushing for Burkes is based on 2 factors. Firstly his "choice" for the AWDs (being Burkes) didn't get up. Secondly, and this is a direct quote from his biography, he has a vested interest in Burkes and baby Burkes being procured by the ADF as "from late 2002 to 2019 he undertook a variety of roles in Australia’s Defence industry, retiring in December 2019 as Managing Director of Gibbs and Cox (Australia)". His opinion piece is pushed in the ASPI because it will stir the pot so it is little more than click-bait.
 

ddxx

Well-Known Member
Well I would say that his pushing for Burkes is based on 2 factors. Firstly his "choice" for the AWDs (being Burkes) didn't get up. Secondly, and this is a direct quote from his biography, he has a vested interest in Burkes and baby Burkes being procured by the ADF as "from late 2002 to 2019 he undertook a variety of roles in Australia’s Defence industry, retiring in December 2019 as Managing Director of Gibbs and Cox (Australia)". His opinion piece is pushed in the ASPI because it will stir the pot so it is little more than click-bait.
That doesn’t change the bulk of the report which picks apart both the reasoning and history of the project relative to doctrine.

The flaw being his conclusion which lets down the value of the rest of the report.
 

Stampede

Well-Known Member
That doesn’t change the bulk of the report which picks apart both the reasoning and history of the project relative to doctrine.

The flaw being his conclusion which lets down the value of the rest of the report.
Today, tomorrow, next week , next month, next year and the year after that and those that follow till the Hunter class come on line sometime in 2030's our fleet is Hobart's, Anzac's and progressively the Arafura class.
These are the known constants we have to work with going forward.
The "what if's" of the past may provide good lessons for the future, but for our real fleet today they are but words on paper nothing more.
The variable this decade maybe some surprises thrown up in the DSR.
We eagerly wait to see what that space looks like.
Even then, it still takes time to build stuff, so lets concentrate with the bread and butter of the fleet we have for the rest of this decade.
If there are opportunities to improve these vessels then lets explore that realm.

Cheers S
 

ASSAIL

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
My post is pretty well backed up by this paper by former Chief of Navy, Vice Admiral Dr David Shackleton AO.

He breaks down, with sources, the bizarre juxtaposition with official Doctrine.

Whilst I don’t agree with his conclusion that Burkes are the answer, the case he puts forward as to the deficiencies are both well reasoned and supported by references.
Dave Shackleton is, was always a Surface and Air Warfare proponent, that was his specialist training and his first priority.
ASW was far too much of a black art for his liking.
He likes multiple big missiles on USN derivative ships
(My personal observations from long long ago and once he achieved Flag rank his utterances haven’t changed)
 

ADMk2

Just a bloke
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
My post is pretty well backed up by this paper by former Chief of Navy, Vice Admiral Dr David Shackleton AO.

He breaks down, with sources, the bizarre juxtaposition with official Doctrine.

Whilst I don’t agree with his conclusion that Burkes are the answer, the case he puts forward as to the deficiencies are both well reasoned and supported by references.
He breaks it down with his own “interpretation”.

Classic case of pre-determined end-point arguing. “Hunter doesn’t carry enough VLS cells, therefore just as Turnbull said it must be optimised for ASW which is in breach of RAN doctrine!” ’This‘ is therefore how we’ll get to that point and ‘this’ is why the RAN should choose a ship that just so happens to be made by the company I worked for and is the one I advocated for my whole service…

His entire argument is negated by the fact that Hunter ‘can’ carry more than 32x VLS cells, if RAN so chooses. T26 the reference design for instance carries a 48x cell VLS launcher for the CAMM anti-air missile, as well as a 24x cell Mk.41 VLS and an 8x cell canister launcher for Naval Strike Missiles.

That equals 80x cells based on my finger-counting technique…

Other configurations may well be possible involving additional Mk.41 VLS, that negate his argument. Rumours suggest that is the case and Shackleton’s version that 32 is the max, is not.

If it did carry more cells as the T26 does, according to his “interpretation” this would mean the Hunter is no longer ‘optimised for ASW’ and therefore not in breach of established RAN doctrine…

Yet the T26 in reality is the dedicated ASW ship and the Hunter a more general purpose ship, thanks to it’s far more substantial AAW capability, compared to T26…

This simplistic sort of rubbish belongs with the likes of APA and is why ASPI has a poor reputation…
 
Last edited:

OldNavy63

Active Member
Where there is smoke there may be fire. I still remember the UK Secretary of Defence being very adamant that the submarine construction was a three way partnership. While he refused to be drawn into detail it would seem to me that the UK would have very little influence if Australia went with an entirely US design.

Maybe the topless page three lady has contacts inside the UK ministry of defence and knows something we don’t.
Yep, the topless page three ladies are probably working undercovers, oops (!) I mean undercover. :/
 

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
All IMO..

How survivable is a ship that can't see, can't communicate and can't coordinate a response. The future is networked combatants that share data, share information, even coordinate the frequency and direction of their sensors to gather a full map with the least and most distributed, stealthy and un-jamable way possible. Even in the ASW space this includes assets like MH60R's and aegis ships sharing data over Hawklink, which can link with data from P8's and other assets to form a complete picture above and below the surface. Aegis isn't going away, it is becoming everything, a common library of computer protocols for Army, Airforce and Navy to share data and tactical information across all battlespaces for all equipment.

What do we need that is feasible in the very short term to project a strong offensive capability against the logical opponent in our region? Is NSM the answer or do we need longer-ranged weapons like surface-launched LRASM, and how does this affect the size of vessels required
NSM is still fairly short ranged. It is however more modern, more effective. It is effectively silent death, rather than Harpoon beaming with multiple radars on a 1970's airframe. NSM will also allow for an increase in load out, We can put 12 NSM where we have 8 harpoons in many cases, or put 8 NSM and use the weight savings for other systems.

LRASM is longer ranged, smart, stealthy and a heavy hitter. TLAM is even longer ranged, but on an older airframe, but gives tremendous reach. But these will consume VLS very quickly on the Australian fleet given how few cells we have and how modern ships are not one shot one kill propositions. Currently at anyone time, we can only basically assume 1 Hobart is ready and able to deploy. During the Aegis updates, it will drop to less than 1. Which is why I support 3 new build Hobart's. This would give 6 broadly similar in capability (if different in design and specs) ships, that could carry 48 VLS. Having 6 ships means that we could have 2-3 ships deployed most of the time, so going from 48 VLS to 96-144, and a possibly surging beyond even that. This is why Spain built 5 and not 3. This is why the UK built 6 type 45's. We could have by 2029, if we chose to, have the same air warfare capability as the UK has with its fleet of 6 Type 45's with 6 Hobarts (3xHobart 1 and 3xHobart 2). Unlike the UK, ours would be aegis, with CEC, SM2, SM6, potentially SM-3, TLAM (UK can only fire TLAM from their subs), and quad packing the modern ESSM II.

We currently have no hunters, so only the Hobarts can handle these weapons, although perhaps TLAM on Collins can be done with LOTE and while Collins isn't going to carry a huge number, they won't know exactly where it is, so 6 TLAM popping up from basically anywhere is a huge wild card. TLAM is long enough ranged that firing it from a diesel sub means that it could still be 1000nm away from its target, and quite likely beyond detection of the launch and beyond chasing it down. Keeping diesel subs relevant for a while yet. Sub launched NSM might be even better in this regard given its stealthier and smarter capabilities, although trading range for that.

But in modern western Navies, typically surface ships are not the main anti-shipping system. That is aircraft. Currently we have very few aircraft that can fire LRASM.. AFAIK Only 24 Superhornets... P8's perhaps later this year or early 2024, F-35 will have to wait until blk IV. We have also limited capability to sustain aircraft over 1000nm from our airbases.

The Hunters (and the F-35) are fantastic weapons. But their age has not yet really arrived. Hunters will be post 2030. Blk IV F-35 is probably similar 2027-2030. They are the future. With the F-35 we are hopefully going to receive the full delivery this year, and they can perform some missions, they just aren't really in their final form just yet. Technical refresh 3 has just flown, so its very close. These will arrive, we just need to wait for that.

So until then - IMO it basically a single Hobart/FFG (IndoPacific Endev before we had all the Hobarts we had to use a FFG) on deployment at anyone time with maybe a Collins lurking if within region. It has historically protected a LHD and had an Anzac tagging along.
1676379659137.png
This is about all we can manage on a good day. Image from US and Australian Joint Task Force Exercise in Guam: July 2020 - Second Line of Defense - But the Image is from the ADF uncredited.


Going into 2025 we will lose Hobart capability and our Collins capability will be capability gapped as the fleet gets smaller while we pull ships and boats out to upgrade them.

Is a corvette likely to give us the strike power required to make it worth the effort?
IMO- No. No corvette is big enough to carry the sensors, weapons and sensors and have the range we need. We could build a good corvette, but a corvette won't be regionally useful, and won't change the equation against China. We aren't trying to deter a middle power, but a peer of the US.

The US is also looking at trying to build up their fleet as fast as they can. Their solution is the Constellation class, a 57mm gun, 32vls, 16xNSM, aegis compatible subset combat system (aegis10), firing SM-2, SM-6, ESSM, Spy 6 radar etc. They tried the corvette thing, and wasted a lot of time and money. They Europeans do the corvette thing better, but even there in a protected Mediterranean sea, it has limitations.

A large ship like a Burke would kill the RAN and reduce the number of VLS at sea, because the crewing requirements.

You would have 1 burke for 2 Hobart's (96 Hobart's cells, 48 available at a time, for 96 Burke cells available half the time). You would have 1 burke for 3 Anzacs or 3 Hunters (96 burke cells for 3x32=96 hunter cells, hunters available 3 times as much). When the ship would be unavailable during refit, upgrades etc we would loose most of the RAN. They are too man power intensive, but also maintainer intensive, fuel intensive, missile intensive. Like by a factor of 3-6 times compared to something like a Hunter. Burke Radars are located lower than a Hobarts, they have shorter radar horizons than a Hobart or a Type 45 despite being a bigger ship. There are dimensions beyond VLS count that are important, particularly for a middle power navy.
 

Bob53

Well-Known Member
What is the overall role of the TF and what or where is the rest of the RAN fleet? I ask because it really makes a difference, since five main fleet units is likely to comprise nearly half the RAN surface fleet, unless there is a decision made very soon to expand the number of majors in service.

Further, with there only being three Hobart-class DDG's in the RAN, it would most likely be difficult to have two deployed together. Having said that, with the ships as given, could likely be fitted with a total of 40 NSM (5 x 8-cells) to provide an AShM and possibly some land attack capability. The Mk 41 VLS aboard each of the five vessels would likely have at least eight cells with quad-packed ESSM for 32 missiles each. That would take up the entirety of the ANZAC-class FFH's VLS cells which are not strike-length IIRC so could not take LACM like TacTom's any way. The Hobart-class DDG's would each be left with 40 VLS cells, and these would likely be best loaded with various iterations of the Standard missile. The Hunter-class FFG, likely having only 32 VLS cells to start (at least for now...) would then have 24 VLS cells available and again would probably be best loaded with Standard missiles.
Thanks …..where I was heading from the post prior to mine … from ADMmk2 ….
do we have anything like the load out required in that scenario…in stock, proposed, planned or budgeted for? I mean if we couldn’t or don’t have plans to fill that level…..what’s the point of having more cells? Maybe fill them if needed but it’s sounding like we would be in huge trouble if we needed war stocks (sounds like same applies for Army …not so much RAAF) with anything less than 4-5 years notice.

as above …. If I have it right?
40 x NSM
160 X ESM
104 x SM2
 
Last edited:
Top