Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[StingrayOZ]

If you want more VLS, and more importantly, more capability, a Burke type ship is the only meaningful combatant to offer it.
If you want to deploy Tomahawk and SM-3, VLS LRASM, ASROC, it is the only platform that has space for those types of capabilities.

For the effort of setting up a Hobart Flight II or a small build of Type 31, it would take the same, or less effort, time and money to setup a build of 3 Large burke variants.

We have all the small ships a navy could wish for. What we lack is high end capability.

Lets explore a theoretical.

Navantia could lead the build, they are very familiar with suppliers, have an existing contract and build relationship with BIW for build proposals. And do maintenance on US burkes in Spain. The Hobarts heavily inspired by the Burke design and supply chain. Steel perhaps fabricated in WA/Osborne but fitted out at Osborne supported by BAE.

After building 3 burkes, Australia could also lobby to station 2-3 Burkes in AU (1 east/1 west), where they could be maintained. SME's would be able to support the build of the new Burkes, the maintenance of the Australian burkes, and the US ships based in AU. One based in Sydney, one based in Perth.

Crewing would definitely be a problem. Burkes require 300-330. Hobarts are ~200-220. However, several allies operate burke ships, the US has a huge training pipeline, and we can use our AUKUS style embedment to speed and cross skill/upskill people with that onto surface ships. We could low readiness a number of Anzac ships to assist in the the crewing issue, say 1 or 2 ships. We need to bare in mind that by the time the last of the Anzac ships was to be decommissioned, none of the existing crew today, would be on those ships. We are taking the Hobarts out of the water, so this would be an ideal time to retrain a whole crew to be able to operate a burke ship, requiring growth of like 20-30%. Which is doable. I am certain that Sydney or Perth could perhaps attract experienced US sailors. We would be operating the most numerous western naval combatant.

This would be another location that could build and maintain US ships for the US and its allies. While many places are building Type31/Type 26, Australia would be a very trusted supplier if war broke out for Burke type ships. The Japanese and the Koreans, could see value in supporting that kind of capability with Australia.

Ahead of building SSN's in Australia, building a Burke class ship would be a good shake down particularly for SME's, on a simpler and more straight forward build. The costs and lessons learned would essentially come out of the SSN program. Cutting time, cutting costs, cutting risks, building relationships, building experience.

A ship is more than VLS. It is a platform, requiring speed, endurance, noise profiles, sensors, many different sub systems etc. Australia needs a class of a heavy destroyer. Not another light frigate or a OPV with pea shooter. There is no bigger and more capable western naval surface combatant design than the Burke variants.

While 3 is a small number, they could share mission with the existing Hobarts as a pool of 6. Our tier 1 capability. Plus we would have US ships based in Australia. This finally addresses the issues of the Hobarts, being too few in number, being short in capability. The Hobarts are now perfect supports for these larger ships.

While I say Burke, the actual design could be Maya class, Burke Flight III or IV or KHDXIII batch II, which are variations to the same design. 170m would be ideal.

Hunter build continues as per plans. Pressure is relived because now there is no pressure on hunter to be a mega destroyer. There is still 8-9 ships in the Hunter class, and the Hobarts are still going to be prime targets for replacements.

3 x Heavy Burkes (3 x 128 VLS) = 384
3 x Hobarts (tbr with AWD hunters in 2040+) 3 x 48 VLS =144
8 x Anzacs replaced 1 for 1 with Hunters 8x8VLS =64 going to 256

This gives a 14 ship surface combatant RAN. Its achievable. It would double our VLS capability, it would justify US basing of Burkes in Australia, strengthen the alliance, strengthen AUKUS. It would be transformative for the RAN. It would place Australia as the regional power in the area, it would affect team red decision making and planning. It would create a huge shift for the southern Indo-pacific. Call it the Australia class. Australia's status as a Navy power would be significantly increased. It would be achievable (all FOC) by <2035.

End theoretical.

If we are going to spend another $3billion to build another ship, lets build one that is capable enough and would allow/push/support the Americans to base two-three ships here.

 

[Volkodav]

The Gibbs & Cox option for AWD included transfer of IP for the Burke's.

I would go Bath Iron Works not Navantia, we had a much better relation ship with them and they provided much better support, integrating with ASC far more effectively.

BIW has multiple design concepts, even demonstrated upgrades, they could easily incorporate on an Australian Burke to reduce crew size and improve performance as well as capability.

This would not however, be a short term option, probably 2030s at the earliest.

 

[Redlands18]

If you want more VLS, and more importantly, more capability, a Burke type ship is the only meaningful combatant to offer it.
If you want to deploy Tomahawk and SM-3, VLS LRASM, ASROC, it is the only platform that has space for those types of capabilities.

For the effort of setting up a Hobart Flight II or a small build of Type 31, it would take the same, or less effort, time and money to setup a build of 3 Large burke variants.

We have all the small ships a navy could wish for. What we lack is high end capability.

Lets explore a theoretical.

Navantia could lead the build, they are very familiar with suppliers, have an existing contract and build relationship with BIW for build proposals. And do maintenance on US burkes in Spain. The Hobarts heavily inspired by the Burke design and supply chain. Steel perhaps fabricated in WA/Osborne but fitted out at Osborne supported by BAE.

After building 3 burkes, Australia could also lobby to station 2-3 Burkes in AU (1 east/1 west), where they could be maintained. SME's would be able to support the build of the new Burkes, the maintenance of the Australian burkes, and the US ships based in AU. One based in Sydney, one based in Perth.

Crewing would definitely be a problem. Burkes require 300-330. Hobarts are ~200-220. However, several allies operate burke ships, the US has a huge training pipeline, and we can use our AUKUS style embedment to speed and cross skill/upskill people with that onto surface ships. We could low readiness a number of Anzac ships to assist in the the crewing issue, say 1 or 2 ships. We need to bare in mind that by the time the last of the Anzac ships was to be decommissioned, none of the existing crew today, would be on those ships. We are taking the Hobarts out of the water, so this would be an ideal time to retrain a whole crew to be able to operate a burke ship, requiring growth of like 20-30%. Which is doable. I am certain that Sydney or Perth could perhaps attract experienced US sailors. We would be operating the most numerous western naval combatant.

This would be another location that could build and maintain US ships for the US and its allies. While many places are building Type31/Type 26, Australia would be a very trusted supplier if war broke out for Burke type ships. The Japanese and the Koreans, could see value in supporting that kind of capability with Australia.

Ahead of building SSN's in Australia, building a Burke class ship would be a good shake down particularly for SME's, on a simpler and more straight forward build. The costs and lessons learned would essentially come out of the SSN program. Cutting time, cutting costs, cutting risks, building relationships, building experience.

A ship is more than VLS. It is a platform, requiring speed, endurance, noise profiles, sensors, many different sub systems etc. Australia needs a class of a heavy destroyer. Not another light frigate or a OPV with pea shooter. There is no bigger and more capable western naval surface combatant design than the Burke variants.

While 3 is a small number, they could share mission with the existing Hobarts as a pool of 6. Our tier 1 capability. Plus we would have US ships based in Australia. This finally addresses the issues of the Hobarts, being too few in number, being short in capability. The Hobarts are now perfect supports for these larger ships.

While I say Burke, the actual design could be Maya class, Burke Flight III or IV or KHDXIII batch II, which are variations to the same design. 170m would be ideal.

Hunter build continues as per plans. Pressure is relived because now there is no pressure on hunter to be a mega destroyer. There is still 8-9 ships in the Hunter class, and the Hobarts are still going to be prime targets for replacements.

3 x Heavy Burkes (3 x 128 VLS) = 384
3 x Hobarts (tbr with AWD hunters in 2040+) 3 x 48 VLS =144
8 x Anzacs replaced 1 for 1 with Hunters 8x8VLS =64 going to 256

This gives a 14 ship surface combatant RAN. Its achievable. It would double our VLS capability, it would justify US basing of Burkes in Australia, strengthen the alliance, strengthen AUKUS. It would be transformative for the RAN. It would place Australia as the regional power in the area, it would affect team red decision making and planning. It would create a huge shift for the southern Indo-pacific. Call it the Australia class. Australia's status as a Navy power would be significantly increased. It would be achievable (all FOC) by <2035.

End theoretical.

If we are going to spend another $3billion to build another ship, lets build one that is capable enough and would allow/push/support the Americans to base two-three ships here.

HHI Launches South Korea's First KDX III Batch II Destroyer - Naval News
One issue with the KDX III as an option for Australia is how many Mk41 VLS cells they carry, 80 on the Batch 1 and only 48 on the Batch 2. The other VLS cells are the Korean developed K-VLS and K-VLS II and batch II carry only a total of 88 VLS. The Koreans use the Mk41 for US Missiles and the K-VLS for Korean missiles and have not integrated the US missiles into the K-VLS. The batch II are getting only 88 VLS cells total and 16 of them are the larger K-VLS II for the new Hypersonic missile currently in development. So, I couldn't see Australia getting KDX IIIs with 128 VLS, Maybe 72-80 leaving growth potential for a larger missile down the track.

Anyway, purely theoretical at this time and unlikely to happen.

 

[76mmGuns]

We still don't know how many VLS the Hunter will have.

Eyeballing the ship, you could actually pack over 100 Mk 41 VLS cells on the ship - 48-56 fore, and 48-64 in the multi mission hanger bay, in my armchair amateur opinion. Been discussed before

 

[hauritz]

Of course we don’t know how many VLS we could fit onto a Hobart or Hunter class but I suspect it is more than we are seeing. I know BAE was pushing the idea of a Hunter variant that could hold up to 150 VLS.

https://www.reddit.com/r/AustralianMilitary/comments/10z6scp
In a nut shell the proposal from BAE is to build a VLS variant of the Hunter to follow the first three ASW ships to be delivered from 2035. Construction of ASW and VLS versions of the Hunter would alternate through the remainder of the ship build. Of course that offer might be BAE anticipating a cutback in the Hunter order book.

It sounds to me like the government has already committed itself to expanding fleet numbers with smaller hulls, perhaps at the expense of a few of the Hunter builds.

 

[Bob53]

RAM i

If area air defence and AWS are the primary tasks designated for you major surface assets, maybe we could adapt the American navy’s fit out for their Constellation class Frigates. Mounting a Mark 110 57mm in place of the 127mm mark 45 mod 4 would free up both space and weight allowing for the addition of either more VLS or alternatively a RIM-116 mark 49 with 21 rounds also you could replace the Phalanx aft with another mark 49, thus all your 32 strike length VLS could be fitted with longer range surface to air missiles.
As the present Government seems to like missiles over artillery they would probably like this solution.

If you set up with all missiles what do you use to cover a low cost slow(er) moving drone swarm? I think CRAM Phalanx type weapons will now get another lease on life after recent moves saying they would not be suitable against future missile threats. The cost balance in the Ukraine has show this type of weapon is probably better for low end threats With a deeper magazine and not pinging out $900k missiles at each target.Phalanx also suitable for shorter range water line threats like autonomous anti ship drones seen hitting Russian vessels.

 

[Bob53]

Regardless is what happens as mentioned here one of the biggest issues is crewing, if you read the Australian military thread on reddit there is a constant theme from Navy members of being smashed with workload. Basically saying automation is great but when it’s not working, illness or other issues …. crewing numbers as designed by manufacturers are insufficient Leading to excessive workload. its sounds like not a lot of contingency built into crew numbers. So it’s easy to quote lower crew numbers on newer ships but reality is effecting morale and crew retention.

 

[ngatimozart]

You can get it via incognito mode.

NZ interest will depend on what, when, capability and how much, but noise from Wellington does indicate that there is thinking going on about frigate replacement.

The RNZN started the frigate replacement project 2 years ago. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the MOD has started the formal project now. The RNZN start has to occur before the formal MOD project can start.

140m and close to 6000t is a small Frigate? The Hobarts are only 7-8m longer and about 1500t heavier. I wonder if someone is making assumptions here about which Arrowhead design they are talking about, Babcock also has the smaller Arrowhead 120 design to offer, a bit funny they would be calling the larger of their two frigate designs, "a small frigate"

The RNZN, and most likely the NZG, wouldn't be interested in the AH120 as a future frigate, because it is to small to meet their policy requirements. However it would make a nice corvette to replace the Protector Class patrol vessels. Babcock's haven't said much about the AH120 apart from its hull length I think that it possibly could be lighter than an ANZAC Class FFH or close to it.

 

[Flexson]

Regardless is what happens as mentioned here one of the biggest issues is crewing, if you read the Australian military thread on reddit there is a constant theme from Navy members of being smashed with workload. Basically saying automation is great but when it’s not working, illness or other issues …. crewing numbers as designed by manufacturers are insufficient Leading to excessive workload. its sounds like not a lot if contingency built into crew numbers So it’s easy to quite lower crew numbers but reality is effecting morale and crew retention.

My experience going from 2 classes of ship built in the early to mid 80's to 2 classes of ship built in the mid teen's and early 20's.

Operating vs maintaining workload is like a seesaw or balance scale. Low automation and monitoring means simple equipment which is easy to maintain and doesn't break often but requires physical effort to operate and constant monitoring from personnel (low maintenance workload, high operating workload). High automation and monitoring means it doesn't take much physical effort to operate or monitor but there are so many more complex components that can and do break unexpectedly that require maintenance (high maintenance workload, low operating workload)

To me the seesaw has simply tilted from one to the other but the personnel requirement it the same. Except the designers never seem to take into account just how often complex equipment breaks in a maritime environment and reduce crew numbers. Which has a two fold effect; not only do the reduced crew then have to increase their workload to fix the automation and monitoring equipment but they also have to increase their workload to physically operate and constantly monitor the equipment until the automation and monitoring equipment that is suppose to reduce their workload is fixed. So in the end you have less crew doing more work than you would have had with the antiquated system.

 

[ngatimozart]

Time to get off the fantasy fleet rubbish and deal with what is known, NOT what is thought to be known.

If one more poster talks about up gunning the Arafura class, they will be in big trouble. Such talk has been banned on here and that ban will be enforced.

 

[StingrayOZ]

One issue with the KDX III as an option for Australia is how many Mk41 VLS cells they carry, 80 on the Batch 1 and only 48 on the Batch 2. The other VLS cells are the Korean developed K-VLS and K-VLS II and batch II carry only a total of 88 VLS. The Koreans use the Mk41 for US Missiles and the K-VLS for Korean missiles and have not integrated the US missiles into the K-VLS. The batch II are getting only 88 VLS cells total and 16 of them are the larger K-VLS II for the new Hypersonic missile currently in development. So, I couldn't see Australia getting KDX IIIs with 128 VLS, Maybe 72-80 leaving growth potential for a larger missile down the track.

The KVLS is approximately the same size and weight as the American VLS.
KVLS II is larger, but this is also a size the US is looking at.

The KDX-III has 128 cells. 80 mk41 VLS, and 48 KVLS.

Even the KVLS, can fire very large missiles, over 380mm in diameter and 6m long and 1.5T. Sm-2, ASROC, LRASM would fit into this VLS ((although not integrated, because there is no need). The only ones not able to fit would be TLAM and SM-6/SM-3. The maya class has 96 Mk41 VLS.

Yeh, I am not sure the argument that the Burke ships can't hold enough missiles for the RAN is a strong one. If we wanted 96-128 VLS, that would be the ship design for it.

I think CRAM Phalanx type weapons will now get another lease on life after recent moves saying they would not be suitable against future missile threats. The cost balance in the Ukraine has show this type of weapon is probably better for low end threats With a deeper magazine and not pinging out $900k missiles at each target.

SeaRAM still costs about $1m a shot. You just have smaller, less capable shots.

I would go Bath Iron Works not Navantia, we had a much better relation ship with them and they provided much better support, integrating with ASC far more effectively.

It would not be impossible to name Navantia Australia - BIW, if the Americans were interested in buying them out or re-branding. However BIW may prefer due to issues to operate under the Navantia banner. Their people.

Or Navantia could get bought out by CIVMEC.

In a nut shell the proposal from BAE is to build a VLS variant of the Hunter to follow the first three ASW ships to be delivered from 2035. Construction of ASW and VLS versions of the Hunter would alternate through the remainder of the ship build. Of course that offer might be BAE anticipating a cutback in the Hunter order book.

Any such ship wouldn't even get a look into starting construction before 2035, and would be high risk, and wouldn't arrive fast enough to increase fleet numbers. By the time you start looking at 2040+ that is when the Hobarts are should really be looking at being put out to pasture. So even if we said yes today, and made it a priority, it still likely would need to be a Hobart replacement than serve alongside them.

 

[old faithful]

RAM i

If you set up with all missiles what do you use to cover a low cost slow(er) moving drone swarm? I think CRAM Phalanx type weapons will now get another lease on life after recent moves saying they would not be suitable against future missile threats. The cost balance in the Ukraine has show this type of weapon is probably better for low end threats With a deeper magazine and not pinging out $900k missiles at each target.Phalanx also suitable for shorter range water line threats like autonomous anti ship drones seen hitting Russian vessels.

I just googled some costs of ammunition to get an idea.
Germany recently ordered 600,000 rounds of 30mm , at a cost of 576 million euro! Thats about 970 million AUD!

20mm works out at about $4600 per second, or $54500 per minute....which is a lot cheaper!

 

[Meriv]

Of course we don’t know how many VLS we could fit onto a Hobart or Hunter class but I suspect it is more than we are seeing. I know BAE was pushing the idea of a Hunter variant that could hold up to 150 VLS.

https://www.reddit.com/r/AustralianMilitary/comments/10z6scp
In a nut shell the proposal from BAE is to build a VLS variant of the Hunter to follow the first three ASW ships to be delivered from 2035. Construction of ASW and VLS versions of the Hunter would alternate through the remainder of the ship build. Of course that offer might be BAE anticipating a cutback in the Hunter order book.

It sounds to me like the government has already committed itself to expanding fleet numbers with smaller hulls, perhaps at the expense of a few of the Hunter builds.

I'm sorry but if this is true, the possibility of a Type26 AD like the french FREMM AD, why aren't you considering it?

It would bring economies of scale with the Hunter class, risk would be minimized, etc... Etc...

Can I, please, ask an explanation why this solution isn't discussed?

Crewing? But then why the Hobart's keep coming out in the discussion.

Saturation of smaller shipyards?

 

[swerve]

This is the problem with the entire "tier" way of thinking.

The best RN ASW ships for years were the Type 14 Blackwood Class 2nd rate ASW frigates, because all they did was ASW (and occasionally get rammed by Icelandic gunboats). They had the best asw sensors and weapons of the time, with highly trained specialist crews. They regularly out preformed the various Type 12 iterations.

In Australia we have been thinking tiers based on size and the presence or absence of an area air defence missile system. Basically tier 1 is medium size with areavair defence missiles, tier 2 is smaller medium, without area air defence missile system, tier 3 was meant to be like tier 2 but smaller, but ended up being not even worth calling a ship.

A 1st tier ASW capability for the RAN needs to have area air defence capability because we simply didn't buy enough other ships with it.

Yes, this tier thinking definitely has flaws.

It's been said here & elsewhere many times that ideally, escorts to high value units should behave differently, depending on their role (ASW, AAW, surface), & trying to do them all at the same time in one ship compromises at least one role. Thus, to provide the same coverage against both aircraft & submarines with do-everything ships as with ships oriented towards a particular role you still need more than one.

BTW, French ASW FREMMs have won a USN Hook 'em award four years in a row . . . I think that probably means they're "tier 1" at ASW. They have weaker AAW armament than other FREMMs: only 16 Sylver A43 in four out of six of them.

 

[Bob53]

My experience going from 2 classes of ship built in the early to mid 80's to 2 classes of ship built in the mid teen's and early 20's.

Operating vs maintaining workload is like a seesaw or balance scale. Low automation and monitoring means simple equipment which is easy to maintain and doesn't break often but requires physical effort to operate and constant monitoring from personnel (low maintenance workload, high operating workload). High automation and monitoring means it doesn't take much physical effort to operate or monitor but there are so many more complex components that can and do break unexpectedly that require maintenance (high maintenance workload, low operating workload)

To me the seesaw has simply tilted from one to the other but the personnel requirement it the same. Except the designers never seem to take into account just how often complex equipment breaks in a maritime environment and reduce crew numbers. Which has a two fold effect; not only do the reduced crew then have to increase their workload to fix the automation and monitoring equipment but they also have to increase their workload to physically operate and constantly monitor the equipment until the automation and monitoring equipment that is suppose to reduce their workload is fixed. So in the end you have less crew doing more work than you would have had with the antiquated system.

That’s it in a nutshell. And this is one of the major factors causing the retention issue as I understand it. It’s a bit like crew less autonomous trucks. Maybe in a mine pit. Maintenance is a hilux away. But in a military convoy? Say there was 6 trucks and 6 drivers. Now. 6 trucks and 1 driver with follow me. What happens when there is a break down or puncture repair 50/100/200 km from base? Any suggestions?

 

[Bob53]

SeaRAM still costs about $1m a shot. You just have smaller, less capable shots.

Poor understanding by me. Meant 20mm cannon version for drones.

 

[Stuart M]

I'm sorry but if this is true, the possibility of a Type26 AD like the french FREMM AD, why aren't you considering it?

It would bring economies of scale with the Hunter class, risk would be minimized, etc... Etc...

Can I, please, ask an explanation why this solution isn't discussed?

Crewing? But then why the Hobart's keep coming out in the discussion.

Saturation of smaller shipyards?

I think that T26 AD would quickly run into issues surrounding reengineering the ship to suit a role it was never intended for, and Australia has an appalling record on this sort of thing, as can be seen from the Hunter class itself, which is why you see Hobarts keep cropping up despite its dubious suitability given its magazine capacity.
If Australia wants better Air defence ships it would be better off, imo, selecting an established design that would do the job, like the Korean Sejong the Great class, not stuffing around with it as it did with the Hunters or as it did with the Seasprite helicopters, and build them as is.
Do that and the RAN might just get the vast bulk of what it wants instead of some halfarsed expensive chase for the illusion of perfection that just results in expensive disappointment.
"Perfection is the enemy of the good enough" W.S .Churchill

 

[Volkodav]

I think that T26 AD would quickly run into issues surrounding reengineering the ship to suit a role it was never intended for, and Australia has an appalling record on this sort of thing, as can be seen from the Hunter class itself, which is why you see Hobarts keep cropping up despite its dubious suitability given its magazine capacity.
If Australia wants better Air defence ships it would be better off, imo, selecting an established design that would do the job, like the Korean Sejong the Great class, not stuffing around with it as it did with the Hunters or as it did with the Seasprite helicopters, and build them as is.
Do that and the RAN might just get the vast bulk of what it wants instead of some halfarsed expensive chase for the illusion of perfection that just results in expensive disappointment.
"Perfection is the enemy of the good enough" W.S .Churchill

I would actually suggest an ultra quiet ASW platform is more easily adapted to an air defence role than the other way around. Having a large, quiet platform is not at all detrimental to air defence.

Ideally I new larger platform would be developed to combine the capabilities. For example, the RN Type 82 Destroyer (cruiser), though larger than a Country Class DLG, was based on the Type 12 Leander Class frigate hull form.

 

[Brissy1982]

There is one extremely important aspect of the Hunters that you have not touched on, and that is the huge mission bay and the ability to carry a wide range of deployable assets, including a 2nd Helicopter, multiple UAVs, XLUUVs and USVs. What you are leaving out is the potential firepower a XLUUV armed with 2 LWT deployed 100ks from the Hunter could bring, firepower that no Burke, nor Hobart could ever bring.

Thanks for your comment - I absolutely agree that the mission bay on the Hunters has the potential to be a great asset as technologies such as UAVs, USVs and XLUUVs continue to develop. The reason I didn't specifically address them is that the technology is still in development and I didn't want to enter into the realm of speculation about precisely what additional capabilities they could bring. Until those technologies are ready to be operationally deployed the mission bay will at least enable the Hunters to embark 2x MH-60R which would increase their ASW capabilities by enabling at least one of them to be airborne or at immediate readiness to launch at all times.

 

[hauritz]

Perhaps foreshadowing what it wanted in the DSR before the navy review was conducted wasn’t a good idea. It might have been better if the review had been free to explore the option of increasing the VLS load out of the new Hunter frigates. It might actually be a lot more cost effective to add more missiles to the Hunters and increase the production drumbeat than it would be to start up a second frigate production line.