Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[Redlands18]

To the best of my knowledge, the Chinese carrier programme has effectively been running since they early 2000's, after they purchased the Russian carrier Varyag allegedly for the purposes of converting it to be a floating hotel & casino, back in 1998. By circa 2010, the real game plan of actually turning her back into a carrier for the PLAN was in full swing. Part of that workload was the redesign / reverse engineering for the shipyards to start producing their own Chinese built carriers & similar to the British QE class, I understand that the new ones are being built in sections / blocks / modules, then shipped to the Dalian shipyard where the ship is put together.

In parallel to all of this, as far back as 2009, I have recollection of a blog showing images of how they were using a land based facility (complete with ski-jump), so it was the same size & shape, to simulate the island & control centre.
China's land based carrier

& as for operating away from home...?

While all those who celebrate holidays on 25th December, Guess where Liaoning (Carrier #1 / CV16) was ? A mere 350 nautical miles from Guam.
Shandong (Carrier #2 / CV17), did something similar in April, but only getting to about 400 nautical miles from Guam.

FYI Guam is about 1850 nautical miles (as the crow flies), from mainland China.

PLAN carrier transit routes December 22 & April 23

SA

The point I was trying to make was that the Fujian is a CATOBAR Carrier and China has zero experience in operating a carrier catapult system, both the STOBAR carriers so far use Ski Ramps. No doubts China could operate either of the STOBAR carriers off Northern Australia in 2024 but to claim they could operate a ship that is still under construction in mid 2023, with a brand new, unproven catapult launch system in 2024?

 

[Redlands18]

The Spruances were much better ASW platforms than the FFGs and much larger, the Broardswords, specialist ASW frigates, were larger than the Sheffield Class DDG. The USSR had very large ASW cruisers. It's not so much about the weapons, but the sensors and optimising the platform to get the most out of them.

Sometimes high end ASW platforms have enough space and weight to fit a decent GP or even air warfare capability. Often they don't.

The Type 26 also has a multi mission deck, going forward this will be critical. This is one way how the UuVs, and all the other goodies, people are so excited about are going to get to where they are needed.

I think in many ways the Hunters are closer in concept to the Italian Andrea Doria class Helicopter Cruisers of the 1960s, which could carry 4 Helicopters but also had a heavy AAW armament of 1x2 Terrier SAM and 8x76mm Guns. The difference being the Hunters are swapping out 3 Helicopters for drones.

 

[ddxx]

It’s an anti-submarine frigate not an Air Warfare Destroyer. All those sensors and hull and machinery quietening features take up space. From all accounts it will excel in this role while being able to defend itself and the ships being escorted by it. It is a huge step up from an ANZAC. Not sure why you are advocating for it to be an Arleigh Burke (which is not particularly good at ASW, shorter range and double the crew complement.

The only practical difference between Hunter's Air Warfare capability and Hobart's is magazine depth, or more precisely, a difference of 16 cells.

Both platforms have/will have:

• the Aegis CMS with the Australian Interface (AI)
• the integration of the same AAW weapons - ESSM, SM-2 and SM-6 (in due course)
• highly capable radars (with Hunter arguably having an edge here via CEAFAR)

We can only have so many large tier one surface combatants, so short changing such an impressive (and expensive) fit with a lack of magazine depth just doesn't really make a lot of sense.

ASW capability is about acoustics, a really good TAS/VDS, and embarked ASW flight. There's no practical reason as to why magazine depth should be limited.

I certainly am not advocating for the Burke, it's just a rather stark comparison in terms of light ship weight - and again shows how restricted Hunter will be with such limited installed power for her displacement.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Is the problem the Hunters are not loaded with VLS or that there aren't enough ships in the RAN? Or that the Hobarts aren't capable enough?

If we had 8 x Hunter frigates and 6 x Hobart DDG's, would people still be worried that 32 VLS is not enough?
Or 8 x Hunters and 4 x Burkes?
If the first Hunter arrived with 48 VLS (32 strike and 16 self defence), would that fix everyone's concerns?
Should we perhaps not spend $5b on refitting the Hobarts, and just acquire Burkes for a 1 to 1 replacement?
Is the real problem that our light frigate has 32VLS or our Air warfare ship has 48VLS?
Concider Spain a country with a similar GDP.

Future Spain
5 x F-110 with 16 cells = 80 Cells
5 x F-100 with 48 cells = 240 cells
320 Cells total

Future Australia
3 x Hobarts with 48 = 144
8 x Hunters with 32 = 256
400 cells total

The Hunters will have a similar amount of Firepower as 5 Hobarts. Doesn't seem too bad to me. Hunters are meant to be at sea more often than hobarts, same with the F-110. What the reduce in loadout they make up for endurance. The problem is that currently:

Current Australia:
3 x Hobarts 48 =144
8 x Anzacs 8 = 64
210 cells total.

Spain today:
5 F-100 48 = 240 Cells
6 FFG 48 missiles 1 launcher = 288 missiles

South Korea today,
3x STG 112 = 336
6x CYSS 56 = 336
3x GTG 16 = 48
702 cells total

* VLS or missile count isn't everything. Radar, sensors, helicopters, and more importantly, endurance plays dramatically. While the Anzacs have a small load out, their endurance and tempo is very high.

IMO prolonging the Anzacs are a key issue, they are good ships, but that doesn't mean they are designed for a 2040 combat environment. The RAN doesn't have enough ships. We didn't build a 4th or 5th AWD. The Hunters while strong in air defence for a ASW frigate, are not an Air defence destroyer.

We don't have to match any other country, but is we want more naval fire capability quickly, we will need more ships, and ships with more capability.

The Hunter is a fine replacement for Anzacs. But it can't replace non-existent Hobarts, which we built to replace FFG's, and we had 6 FFG's, and the Hobarts were the low end capability, for replacement of FFG's. We never really ever replace the DDG. A replacement would be 3 flight III Burkes.

Fucking with the hunter design does nothing to solve our problems. In any way. Even if ships 3-6 came with 56 or 64 VLS, its not enough quick enough and you will compromise the ASW Frigate aspect to get that additional capability.

 

[ADMk2]

Is the problem the Hunters are not loaded with VLS or that there aren't enough ships in the RAN? Or that the Hobarts aren't capable enough?

If we had 8 x Hunter frigates and 6 x Hobart DDG's, would people still be worried that 32 VLS is not enough?
Or 8 x Hunters and 4 x Burkes?
If the first Hunter arrived with 48 VLS (32 strike and 16 self defence), would that fix everyone's concerns?
Should we perhaps not spend $5b on refitting the Hobarts, and just acquire Burkes for a 1 to 1 replacement?
Is the real problem that our light frigate has 32VLS or our Air warfare ship has 48VLS?
Concider Spain a country with a similar GDP.

Future Spain
5 x F-110 with 16 cells = 80 Cells
5 x F-100 with 48 cells = 240 cells
320 Cells total

Future Australia
3 x Hobarts with 48 = 144
8 x Hunters with 32 = 256
400 cells total

The Hunters will have a similar amount of Firepower as 5 Hobarts. Doesn't seem too bad to me. Hunters are meant to be at sea more often than hobarts, same with the F-110. What the reduce in loadout they make up for endurance. The problem is that currently:

Current Australia:
3 x Hobarts 48 =144
8 x Anzacs 8 = 64
210 cells total.

Spain today:
5 F-100 48 = 240 Cells
6 FFG 48 missiles 1 launcher = 288 missiles

South Korea today,
3x STG 112 = 336
6x CYSS 56 = 336
3x GTG 16 = 48
702 cells total

* VLS or missile count isn't everything. Radar, sensors, helicopters, and more importantly, endurance plays dramatically. While the Anzacs have a small load out, their endurance and tempo is very high.

IMO prolonging the Anzacs are a key issue, they are good ships, but that doesn't mean they are designed for a 2040 combat environment. The RAN doesn't have enough ships. We didn't build a 4th or 5th AWD. The Hunters while strong in air defence for a ASW frigate, are not an Air defence destroyer.

We don't have to match any other country, but is we want more naval fire capability quickly, we will need more ships, and ships with more capability.

The Hunter is a fine replacement for Anzacs. But it can't replace non-existent Hobarts, which we built to replace FFG's, and we had 6 FFG's, and the Hobarts were the low end capability, for replacement of FFG's. We never really ever replace the DDG. A replacement would be 3 flight III Burkes.

Fucking with the hunter design does nothing to solve our problems. In any way. Even if ships 3-6 came with 56 or 64 VLS, its not enough quick enough and you will compromise the ASW Frigate aspect to get that additional capability.

Worth bearing in mind too, that Mk.41 VLS systems are not the ‘only’ weapon systems to be fitted to these ships, nor are they the only missile firing systems these ships will be fitted with.

RAN may well decide that something like RIM-116 RAM Block II could meet their requirements for a self-defence missile capability.

Additional NSM canister launched missiles might be possible too, meaning that a vertically launched strike missile capability may not be required, given mooted range and lethality enhancements either already present in RGM-184A Block IA standard NSM missiles or proposed for future iterations.

RAN has admitted it is investigating ‘lethality improvements’ beyond existing plans for the fleet. Some of the ideas above will likely come into significant consideration I would hazard a guess.

Adding 1-2, 21x round self-defence missile launchers and an extra 8x canister launched missiles would free up the 32x cell VLS for the AAW mission rather decently I’d expect.

It’s not all doom and gloom with Hunters apparently having a 32x cell strike length VLS from where I sit. They are replacing the ANZAC class with it’s single 8x cell VLS afterall….

 

[Scott Elaurant]

This story is a few weeks old so apologies if others have seen it. It is definitely good news for AUKUS though. Enabling legislation to allow the transfer of Virginia SSNs to the RAN was introduced to the US Congress on June 9, with bipartisan support. This will allow legal authority for the USN to accept financial contributions for Virginias to be accepted from Australia, and for the USN to transfer Virginias to the RAN. The US defence technology export laws are quite cumbersome, so getting these legal constraints out fo the way early is good for meeting the AUKUS timetable.

House Dems introduce bill to allow Virginia sub transfer to Aussies - Breaking Defense

The proposed legislation would begin the process of knocking down key legal hurdles impending the AUKUS security pact.

breakingdefense.com

This week Huntington Ingals (HII) executives are visiting Australia at present to look at expanding their local presence. They are one of the two main contractors who build and construct Virginias in USA. They could help set up an SSN maintenance facility in Perth.

HII execs visit Australia, prepping for 'generational partnership' for AUKUS - Breaking Defense

"We very much view this as a generational partnership, one that we're leaning into, and one that we believe will help generate capability and capacity in Australia," Eric Chewning, HII's executive vice president for strategy and development, told a group of reporters.

breakingdefense.com

 

[StingrayOZ]

Adding 1-2, 21x round self-defence missile launchers and an extra 8x canister launched missiles would free up the 32x cell VLS for the AAW mission rather decently I’d expect.

Exactly, we could always bolt on two SeaRAM launches instead of Phalanx. Or 24 CAMM like the Canadians. Or ~16 self defence ESSMII.

They are replacing the ANZAC class with it’s single 8x cell VLS afterall….

8 VLS with no CIWS and packed with ESSM only.

These capabilities would take zero away from the Hunter. With more than 64 ESSM II, some sort of 2x CIWS, 8xSM-6, 8xTLAM and 8xNSM, its a fair bit of firepower from a frigate, combined with a helo or two with torpedos or/and NSM and/or hellfires, and the 5" and the 30mm's.

If you feel that the AWD aren't enough, then look at proper destroyers with more than twice the load out of a Hobart, or all the Anzacs, per single ship.

 

[Redlands18]

House Dems introduce bill to allow Virginia sub transfer to Aussies - Breaking Defense

The proposed legislation would begin the process of knocking down key legal hurdles impending the AUKUS security pact.

breakingdefense.com

This week Hunter Ingals (HII) executives are visiting Australia at present to look at expanding their local presence. They are one of the two main contractors who build and construct Virginias in USA. They could help set up an SSN maintenance facility in Perth.

HII execs visit Australia, prepping for 'generational partnership' for AUKUS - Breaking Defense

"We very much view this as a generational partnership, one that we're leaning into, and one that we believe will help generate capability and capacity in Australia," Eric Chewning, HII's executive vice president for strategy and development, told a group of reporters.

breakingdefense.com

We got Hunter class Frigates on the brain have we ? It is of course Huntington Ingals

 

[Scott Elaurant]

We got Hunter class Frigates on the brain have we ? It is of course Huntington Ingals

Yes a Freudian slip there

 

[Bob53]

Is the problem the Hunters are not loaded with VLS or that there aren't enough ships in the RAN? Or that the Hobarts aren't capable enough?

If we had 8 x Hunter frigates and 6 x Hobart DDG's, would people still be worried that 32 VLS is not enough?
Or 8 x Hunters and 4 x Burkes?
If the first Hunter arrived with 48 VLS (32 strike and 16 self defence), would that fix everyone's concerns?
Should we perhaps not spend $5b on refitting the Hobarts, and just acquire Burkes for a 1 to 1 replacement?
Is the real problem that our light frigate has 32VLS or our Air warfare ship has 48VLS?
Concider Spain a country with a similar GDP.

Future Spain
5 x F-110 with 16 cells = 80 Cells
5 x F-100 with 48 cells = 240 cells
320 Cells total

Future Australia
3 x Hobarts with 48 = 144
8 x Hunters with 32 = 256
400 cells total

The Hunters will have a similar amount of Firepower as 5 Hobarts. Doesn't seem too bad to me. Hunters are meant to be at sea more often than hobarts, same with the F-110. What the reduce in loadout they make up for endurance. The problem is that currently:

Current Australia:
3 x Hobarts 48 =144
8 x Anzacs 8 = 64
210 cells total.

Spain today:
5 F-100 48 = 240 Cells
6 FFG 48 missiles 1 launcher = 288 missiles

South Korea today,
3x STG 112 = 336
6x CYSS 56 = 336
3x GTG 16 = 48
702 cells total

* VLS or missile count isn't everything. Radar, sensors, helicopters, and more importantly, endurance plays dramatically. While the Anzacs have a small load out, their endurance and tempo is very high.

IMO prolonging the Anzacs are a key issue, they are good ships, but that doesn't mean they are designed for a 2040 combat environment. The RAN doesn't have enough ships. We didn't build a 4th or 5th AWD. The Hunters while strong in air defence for a ASW frigate, are not an Air defence destroyer.

We don't have to match any other country, but is we want more naval fire capability quickly, we will need more ships, and ships with more capability.

The Hunter is a fine replacement for Anzacs. But it can't replace non-existent Hobarts, which we built to replace FFG's, and we had 6 FFG's, and the Hobarts were the low end capability, for replacement of FFG's. We never really ever replace the DDG. A replacement would be 3 flight III Burkes.

Fucking with the hunter design does nothing to solve our problems. In any way. Even if ships 3-6 came with 56 or 64 VLS, its not enough quick enough and you will compromise the ASW Frigate aspect to get that additional capability.

It’s hard to do a comparison and say well compared to A, B is not so bad. Spain doesn’t really have a massively growing threat to their North so can afford to have a get by Navy…enough to show the flag and keep limited budgets in order.…that said they have a lot more ships per km of coastline that us with a much smaller area to cover…you could say are doing more than Australian with what they have.

Im not sure Australia has that luxury anymore… my only concern with magazine depth is to do if any ships are operating outside of the air umbrella where magazine depth would help avoid being over whelmed. People here say that won’t or is vey likely to happen. I’m not sure how they are so confident of this.

 

[Bob53]

Worth bearing in mind too, that Mk.41 VLS systems are not the ‘only’ weapon systems to be fitted to these ships, nor are they the only missile firing systems these ships will be fitted with.

RAN may well decide that something like RIM-116 RAM Block II could meet their requirements for a self-defence missile capability.

Additional NSM canister launched missiles might be possible too, meaning that a vertically launched strike missile capability may not be required, given mooted range and lethality enhancements either already present in RGM-184A Block IA standard NSM missiles or proposed for future iterations.

RAN has admitted it is investigating ‘lethality improvements’ beyond existing plans for the fleet. Some of the ideas above will likely come into significant consideration I would hazard a guess.

Adding 1-2, 21x round self-defence missile launchers and an extra 8x canister launched missiles would free up the 32x cell VLS for the AAW mission rather decently I’d expect.

It’s not all doom and gloom with Hunters apparently having a 32x cell strike length VLS from where I sit. They are replacing the ANZAC class with it’s single 8x cell VLS afterall….

1 or 2 RAM would be a massive boost With 2 x almost equivalent to an extra 10 VLS equipped with ESSM.

 

[seaspear]

Why would you not include the future submarine vls and loadout to the surface platforms of the Hobart and Hunter class ,I can appreciate these totals are not known but countering such can be more problematic for distant surface ships

 

[StingrayOZ]

It’s hard to do a comparison and say well compared to A, B is not so bad. Spain doesn’t really have a massively growing threat to their North so can afford to have a get by Navy…enough to show the flag and keep limited budgets in order.…that said they have a lot more ships per km of coastline that us with a much smaller area to cover…you could say are doing more than Australian with what they have.

Spain still has more VLS and more missiles in their fleet. Because they built 5 F-100, they have numbers. Plus the US bases ~3 Burke destroyers in Spain, so that is what nearly another 300 VLS.

Spain with a coast line similar to what, NSW? has a fleet of more capable combatants, with more firepower. Plus 3 American destroyers.

Thats so the can control the strait of Gibraltar .
Obviously super important. But Cutting off the Gibraltar isn't exactly going to paralyze China.

Cutting off Malacca certainly would, and you would have the Chinese attention. But the Americans seem to have no interest in that. The nearest American ships are based... Hawaii? Guam? Africa? Americans have almost no power projection capability in the Indian Ocean.

So maybe we need 2-3 more destroyers, base them on the west coast, and need to talk to the Americans about basing 2-3 destroyers on FBW. Having at least 1 deployed constantly.

Comparing with South Korea, which is a higher threat environment, but similar GDP. So there is scope to do more, to be more capable. But even then, they have frigates, with <64 VLS. Not everything is 130 VLS death stars.

Why would you not include the future submarine vls and loadout to the surface platforms of the Hobart and Hunter class ,I can appreciate these totals are not known but countering such can be more problematic for distant surface ships

Im not trying to create an accurate metric. just broadly looking into this problem of "Hunters need MOAR VLS!!"..

Collins is not really a missile launch platform. We won't be getting our first nuke boat for 10 years. When we get it, it will be busy being a submarine doing submarine work, not really focusing on being a strike launch platform or air defence platform. They are fantastic, but they aren't going to shoot long range bombers out of the sky, or protect he fleet from air threats.

Which is the same problem as Hunter being an antisubmarine platform, but then also being an anti-air platform. It needs to be doing different jobs, travelling in different areas, travelling at different speeds. It is designed to protect itself while doing antisubmarine, not also protect a fleet, somewhere else, with a different mission.

 

[MickB]

[QUOTE="Stampede, post: 426988, member: 4119
Like others, I observe and ask why does the Hunter only have 32 VLS when the smaller Hobart has 48.
Seems strange
Now I do get all the mission bay, specialised ASW profile and more modern computer stuff but what are we talking about.
Two by MK 41 8 Cell VLS to equal the Hobarts loadout of 48.
Hopefully even more.)

Can you show me me where it is stated as a fact that the final design of the Hunter class only has 32 vls cells?

 

[swerve]

Spain still has more VLS and more missiles in their fleet. Because they built 5 F-100, they have numbers. Plus the US bases ~3 Burke destroyers in Spain, so that is what nearly another 300 VLS.

Spain with a coast line similar to what, NSW? has a fleet of more capable combatants, with more firepower. Plus 3 American destroyers....

More than NSW. About 2.5 times including the Canaries, & 1.75 times without them. But since the Spanish navy & air force patrol & stand ready to defend the Canaries coast (I've seen 'em - including F-18s), one should count the islands. All four Meteoro class (BAMs) are based at Las Palmas.

Which is the same problem as Hunter being an antisubmarine platform, but then also being an anti-air platform. It needs to be doing different jobs, travelling in different areas, travelling at different speeds. It is designed to protect itself while doing antisubmarine, not also protect a fleet, somewhere else, with a different mission.

Absolutely! The ability to defend other ships in the same area is a bonus, a useful ability but not one that the main role should be sacrificed for.

 

[Todjaeger]

It’s hard to do a comparison and say well compared to A, B is not so bad. Spain doesn’t really have a massively growing threat to their North so can afford to have a get by Navy…enough to show the flag and keep limited budgets in order.…that said they have a lot more ships per km of coastline that us with a much smaller area to cover…you could say are doing more than Australian with what they have.

Im not sure Australia has that luxury anymore… my only concern with magazine depth is to do if any ships are operating outside of the air umbrella where magazine depth would help avoid being over whelmed. People here say that won’t or is vey likely to happen. I’m not sure how they are so confident of this.

I would just like to point out that the distance from Russia to Spain (closest point to closest point) is ~2,750 km in a direct line. The distance between the southern coast of Hainan to Darwin is ~4,100 km. I am not dismissing the potential future threat, but the distances in the Pacific are formidable.

Such distances also impact elements of ship fitout, as additional space and displacement for bunkerage and victuals would required if a warship is going to be able to get anywhere and then actually be on station and useful for any duration.

 

[seaspear]

Spain still has more VLS and more missiles in their fleet. Because they built 5 F-100, they have numbers. Plus the US bases ~3 Burke destroyers in Spain, so that is what nearly another 300 VLS.

Spain with a coast line similar to what, NSW? has a fleet of more capable combatants, with more firepower. Plus 3 American destroyers.

Thats so the can control the strait of Gibraltar .
Obviously super important. But Cutting off the Gibraltar isn't exactly going to paralyze China.

Cutting off Malacca certainly would, and you would have the Chinese attention. But the Americans seem to have no interest in that. The nearest American ships are based... Hawaii? Guam? Africa? Americans have almost no power projection capability in the Indian Ocean.

So maybe we need 2-3 more destroyers, base them on the west coast, and need to talk to the Americans about basing 2-3 destroyers on FBW. Having at least 1 deployed constantly.

Comparing with South Korea, which is a higher threat environment, but similar GDP. So there is scope to do more, to be more capable. But even then, they have frigates, with <64 VLS. Not everything is 130 VLS death stars.



Im not trying to create an accurate metric. just broadly looking into this problem of "Hunters need MOAR VLS!!"..

Collins is not really a missile launch platform. We won't be getting our first nuke boat for 10 years. When we get it, it will be busy being a submarine doing submarine work, not really focusing on being a strike launch platform or air defence platform. They are fantastic, but they aren't going to shoot long range bombers out of the sky, or protect he fleet from air threats.

Which is the same problem as Hunter being an antisubmarine platform, but then also being an anti-air platform. It needs to be doing different jobs, travelling in different areas, travelling at different speeds. It is designed to protect itself while doing antisubmarine, not also protect a fleet, somewhere else, with a different mission.

I was thinking of the future AUKUS class

 

[Stampede]

Can you show me me where it is stated as a fact that the final design of the Hunter class only has 32 vls cells?

Fair question; I cannot, which is why I stated earlier in the post re VLS numbers
"Maybe it will eventuate in the final design or evolve with later batches , I don't know. "

BAE's Hunter Class Graphic suggests 32 cells.
What we physically get in 10 years time when the first ship enters service may in fact be something different.


The point still stands, VLS numbers matter.

LM's sale brochure does indicate what a VLS does and suggests what capability's it is targeting for the future.

https://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/dam/lockheed-martin/rms/documents/naval-launchers-and-munitions/MK41-VLS-product-card.pdf

It's not just ESSM.

VLS units will continue to house a broad range of weapons catering for a broad range of strike and defensive weapons.

Numbers are important.

Cheers S

 

[Stampede]

Not sure what happened to this post ...........................Mods Delete please

 

[Julian 82]

Fair question; I cannot, which is why I stated earlier in the post re VLS numbers
"Maybe it will eventuate in the final design or evolve with later batches , I don't know. "

BAE's Hunter Class Graphic suggests 32 cells.
What we physically get in 10 years time when the first ship enters service may in fact be something different.


The point still stands, VLS numbers matter.

LM's sale brochure does indicate what a VLS does and suggests what capability's it is targeting for the future.

https://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/dam/lockheed-martin/rms/documents/naval-launchers-and-munitions/MK41-VLS-product-card.pdf

It's not just ESSM.

VLS units will continue to house a broad range of weapons catering for a broad range of strike and defensive weapons.

Numbers are important.

Cheers S

One thing to keep in mind is there are also developments that will improve the utility of the Mk 45 5 inch gun. The hyper velocity projectile and the kingfisher projectile (as examples) may be in production in the 2030s and will significantly improve the magazine depth of the Hunter class.