Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[StingrayOZ]

Of course you try to match threat and response but that sometimes does not go at all well - just ask Repulse or PoW. We in uniform accept that, it’s part of the deal, but we sure don’t want to make it a likely situation, where some genius decides that yes, an OPV90 because it has a pop gun and a couple of cells (but probably insufficient DC) is capable of doing a task that blind Freddy knows it can’t. The ship is the best lifebelt, and we need to give combatants of any size the best chance of staying afloat while not compromising the ability to achieve their missions.

Well then we should have selected ships before now.

We are building the Arafura and the Hunter. That is it and the Hunter looks like joining the RAN FOC sometime in the late 2020's.

I guess I am trying to be realistic.

• We lose one Anzac permanently. Possibly more.
• We lose all three Hobarts with MLU 2024- ~2030s. Navantia on track for Hobart Class modernisation milestones
• We lose all six Collins with LOTE till 2024~2030s. Collins Life of Type Extension - ASC
• We lose the remaining 7 Anzacs with their upgrades around 2024-2030. Not all at once but like the previous Anzac upgrade, certainly reduced capability during this period. 2024~2030s https://www.anao.gov.au/work/performance-audit/anzac-class-frigates-sustainment. https://www.australiandefence.com.au/defence/sea/anzac-frigates-to-gain-capability-lose-weight It should be noted that we are currently operating them with nearly 200 crew and for longer periods, despite the fact they are old ships, while upgraded, mostly still have old hotel services and systems at the core of the ship. This costs money. $3.4b between 2019-2027.

US says more capable ships. Navy is looking at basically the complete collapse of sea going vessels between 2024-2030. A new ship type would take ~10+ years to select, spec, contract etc. Even better, select an overseas built ship, and the industry that is supporting the existing fleet dies, no fleet, no ships. Maybe we can fly in fly out contractors from Europe. Sounds cheap.

Why build OPV80's at all, why not build OPV50's? Why build anything, perhaps we can life extend Armidale's, $3b for another 10 years, and during that 10 years most won't be available for the upgrade. Leave the original golden rivet and rebuild the entire ship around it, complete with circa 1990's tech. Are the broken 300t 20 year old aluminium Armidales more survivable than a 90m 2500t steel OPV's? Last time we were doing deep maintenance on the Patrol boats we lost one in a fire.

Let us just say then that I have a rather different perspective on how effective Tomahawk LACM's would be, if Australia attempted to use them as some seem to be suggesting.

One needs to remember that if a target is worth Australia taking warshots at, then said target is also likely worth being defended by whoever Australia would be shooting at. This means that enough ordnance would need to arrive on target, through whatever potential and likely defences might be trying to intercept the inbound LACM. This is also assuming that Australia can get the targeting data it would need in order to make attempting the strike worthwhile.

At this point, I remain skeptical that even a strike package of 24 Tomahawks would be worthwhile.

What are we hitting in our region with more than 24 of our 220 Tomahawks? Whats the defended target you are concerned about?

From ADBR.. I think Australia has a reasonable strike capability. China effectively has no presence in our region with hardened targets. So unless we are striking against US targets?

 

[vonnoobie]

Interesting discussion. Personally I don't think its a bad thing having hundreds of missiles in our inventory, given how slowly they seem to be manufactured. I mean, even the USN only ordered about 12 or 18 NSM's for 2023, I think, if I remember the report from UNSI site correctly. Even though we lack the VLS, at least it's better than waiting until 2030's when the first Hunters get commissioned and start ordering missiles then. It's not ideal, but given how quick it is to run out of missiles, more we have earlier, the better, even given obsolescence.

Two ways to look at it. On the one hand it's good to have them and have a decent reserve of them. On the other hand a decade from now they may be obsolete and require upgrades/replacement.

It's all good and well to get a head start, but if you buy it all a decade before you start gaining more assets that can utilize it (not counting the fact that the Hobart's will be getting pulled out of service for costly upgrades) then you are wasting a lot of capital today that may be worth zero in the future at the expense of projects today that could actually use it.

A more logical approach would have been to buy for example 50 now, then 15 a year for a decade from 2030ish onward with options to change them to an upgraded variant should such occur. Gives you what you can use today, Leaves capital today free for today's needs, and sets a contractual safety net for future acquisition's timed around when the Hunter's would start to become available.

 

[MickB]

Well then we should have selected ships before now.

We are building the Arafura and the Hunter. That is it and the Hunter looks like joining the RAN FOC sometime in the late 2020's.

I guess I am trying to be realistic.

• We lose one Anzac permanently. Possibly more.
• We lose all three Hobarts with MLU 2024- ~2030s. Navantia on track for Hobart Class modernisation milestones
• We lose all six Collins with LOTE till 2024~2030s. Collins Life of Type Extension - ASC
• We lose the remaining 7 Anzacs with their upgrades around 2024-2030. Not all at once but like the previous Anzac upgrade, certainly reduced capability during this period. 2024~2030s https://www.anao.gov.au/work/performance-audit/anzac-class-frigates-sustainment. ANZAC frigates to gain capability, lose weight - Australian Defence Magazine It should be noted that we are currently operating them with nearly 200 crew and for longer periods, despite the fact they are old ships, while upgraded, mostly still have old hotel services and systems at the core of the ship. This costs money. $3.4b between 2019-2027.

US says more capable ships. Navy is looking at basically the complete collapse of sea going vessels between 2024-2030. A new ship type would take ~10+ years to select, spec, contract etc. Even better, select an overseas built ship, and the industry that is supporting the existing fleet dies, no fleet, no ships. Maybe we can fly in fly out contractors from Europe. Sounds cheap.

Why build OPV80's at all, why not build OPV50's? Why build anything, perhaps we can life extend Armidale's, $3b for another 10 years, and during that 10 years most won't be available for the upgrade. Leave the original golden rivet and rebuild the entire ship around it, complete with circa 1990's tech. Are the broken 300t 20 year old aluminium Armidales more survivable than a 90m 2500t steel OPV's? Last time we were doing deep maintenance on the Patrol boats we lost one in a fire.



What are we hitting in our region with more than 24 of our 220 Tomahawks? Whats the defended target you are concerned about?

From ADBR.. I think Australia has a reasonable strike capability. China effectively has no presence in our region with hardened targets. So unless we are striking against US targets?
View attachment 50871

I don't understand what a diagram of LRASM has to do with a discussion of ship mounted Tomahawks.
Ships are mobile, they may be attached to an allied force operating out of SK, Guam or Japan.
Which changes the whole targeting package and missile loadout balance when including the complete task group, given these countries have the Burke style destroyers that so many drool over.
( I admit I would prefer them over the Hobart myself)

Too much discussion seems to be on Austraila alone Vs whomever, not about operating as part of an allied task group which would be the reality in any future conflict.

And as to the LRASM itself, the contingencies of war may see the F35s forward deployed to several possible countries.
As seen in recent wargames.
Thus the range circle from the Aust mainland is not the only possible option.

 

[Morgo]

I do not care how anyone might try and twist or change things, but a USN Constellation-class vessel is a frigate, not a corvette.

You are of course 100% correct.

But the issue is that no one in any official capacity has said we need corvettes as far as I’m aware. Just a “larger number of smaller vessels.”

Only Peter Luerssen, Navantia and other vested interests / talking heads have talked up corvettes, unless I’ve missed something.

A Constellation is smaller than a Hunter, and per last week’s rumours (noting both your and my BIG IFs) is in the mix for the “Tier 2” vessel. I don’t think it’s the most likely option, but who knows?

 

[Redlands18]

You are of course 100% correct.

But the issue is that no one in any official capacity has said we need corvettes as far as I’m aware. Just a “larger number of smaller vessels.”

Only Peter Luerssen, Navantia and other vested interests / talking heads have talked up corvettes, unless I’ve missed something.

A Constellation is smaller than a Hunter, and per last week’s rumours (noting both your and my BIG IFs) is in the mix for the “Tier 2” vessel. I don’t think it’s the most likely option, but who knows?

Constellation-Class (FFG 62) Guided-Missile Frigates, USA (naval-technology.com)
The Constellation is 151x19m, basically the same dimensions as the Type 26 baseline at 149.9x20m, just the given displacement is lower, they have basically the same armament except for 57mm v 127mm, basically the same CMS, Aegis, v Aegis/9LV, just as well keep building Hunters as build Constellations.

 

[Bob53]

For those suggesting Arleigh Burkes. current sail away cost for 10 ships is $1.45 billion $US Each. Navy Reveals Contract Costs of Latest 10-Hull Destroyer Deal - USNI News
comments section is interesting.

Just thinking out loud..would the US like the idea of another line in Australia producing AUKUS Burkes?,

 

[John Fedup]

For those suggesting Arleigh Burkes. current sail away cost for 10 ships is $1.45 billion $US Each. Navy Reveals Contract Costs of Latest 10-Hull Destroyer Deal - USNI News
comments section is interesting.

Just thinking out loud..would the US like the idea of another line in Australia producing AUKUS Burkes?,

I would imagine the only the advantage to the US is not having to give up domestic production to foreign navies as the USN cannot buy foreign built ships.

 

[Redlands18]

For those suggesting Arleigh Burkes. current sail away cost for 10 ships is $1.45 billion $US Each. Navy Reveals Contract Costs of Latest 10-Hull Destroyer Deal - USNI News
comments section is interesting.

Just thinking out loud..would the US like the idea of another line in Australia producing AUKUS Burkes?,

For the RAN or USN? I can't see any political impediment to Australia building Burkes in Australia for the RAN, it would be paying for and crewing them that would be the issue. All USN ships must be built in US shipyards, its US law, so no we would not be building Burkes for the USN.
Sail away cost is about $2B per Burke Flt III as per your link, $14.5B is what the Navy is paying the shipbuilders to build 10 ships but that is only about half the cost because that doesn't include all the Government furbished equipment that the Government buys separately such as the Spy Radars. So the actual cost of a Burke flt III would be over $US2B, currently about $AUD3.5B.

 

[H_K]

For those suggesting Arleigh Burkes. current sail away cost for 10 ships is $1.45 billion $US Each

Without any sensors, weapons or program costs, ie. hardly sail away.

Full costs are detailed each year in the Navy’s SCN (Shipbuilding & Construction) report, starting on page 236:

Request Rejected

FY24 (DDG 143 to be built from 2026-2031)
$1,195 basic construction + hull & mechanical outfit
$690 electronics (including $$$ for AEGIS & AMDR)
$215 weapons
$32 change orders
= $2,130 million unit cost

+$170M in design & program fixed costs each year which are the same whether 0, 1, 2 or 3 hulls are built

 

[Morgo]

Constellation-Class (FFG 62) Guided-Missile Frigates, USA (naval-technology.com)
The Constellation is 151x19m, basically the same dimensions as the Type 26 baseline at 149.9x20m, just the given displacement is lower, they have basically the same armament except for 57mm v 127mm, basically the same CMS, Aegis, v Aegis/9LV, just as well keep building Hunters as build Constellations.

Yes I don’t think it’s the most likely outcome, especially when the FREMM design was an unsuccessful entrant for SEA 5000. 6 x Type 31 seems to be the logical choice to me.

My point is that the public narrative around the “Tier 2” combatant appears to have been hijacked by those with a vested interest in selling corvettes rather than proper patrol frigates. Thankfully, if the rumors are to be believed, the Government isn't falling for it.

 

[swerve]

Constellation-Class (FFG 62) Guided-Missile Frigates, USA (naval-technology.com)
The Constellation is 151x19m, basically the same dimensions as the Type 26 baseline at 149.9x20m, just the given displacement is lower, they have basically the same armament except for 57mm v 127mm, basically the same CMS, Aegis, v Aegis/9LV, just as well keep building Hunters as build Constellations.

Type 26 beam's 5% greater, which accounts for much of the displacement difference between the public figure for Constellation & the RN's Type 26, all else being equal, but God only knows what the Hunter class will end up weighing.

 

[John Fedup]

Type 26 beam's 5% greater, which accounts for much of the displacement difference between the public figure for Constellation & the RN's Type 26, all else being equal, but God only knows what the Hunter class will end up weighing.

It will be more than the CSC which in the 8-9000 ton range, if you believe current estimates for both.

 

[hauritz]

Let us just say then that I have a rather different perspective on how effective Tomahawk LACM's would be, if Australia attempted to use them as some seem to be suggesting.

One needs to remember that if a target is worth Australia taking warshots at, then said target is also likely worth being defended by whoever Australia would be shooting at. This means that enough ordnance would need to arrive on target, through whatever potential and likely defences might be trying to intercept the inbound LACM. This is also assuming that Australia can get the targeting data it would need in order to make attempting the strike worthwhile.

At this point, I remain skeptical that even a strike package of 24 Tomahawks would be worthwhile.

I understand your skepticism. In 2017 the US fired 59 Tomahawks against Syria. This resulted in a handful of casualties, they took out a SAM site and destroyed around a dozen or more aircraft.

For Australia that one attack would represent a pretty big hunk of its missile stock.

And of course China isn’t Syria. Their defences would be far more effective. Plus they would have a far greater ability to respond to such an attack. Also they could replenish their missile stocks far quicker than we could.

A very expensive business fighting wars.

 

[ASSAIL]

[QUOTE="hauritz, post: 432298, member: 32516"

A very expensive business fighting wars.
[/QUOTE]
Yes it is but to quote from a Finland politician, a country with a 1370km border with Russia, one that has withstood an historic invasion and is now joining NATO;
“Defence readiness is expensive but independence is priceless”.

 

[Brissy1982]

Yes I don’t think it’s the most likely outcome, especially when the FREMM design was an unsuccessful entrant for SEA 5000. 6 x Type 31 seems to be the logical choice to me.

My point is that the public narrative around the “Tier 2” combatant appears to have been hijacked by those with a vested interest in selling corvettes rather than proper patrol frigates. Thankfully, if the rumors are to be believed, the Government isn't falling for it.

Hopefully the rumours are ultimately proved right and the future Tier 2 is a frigate and not a corvette.

With the Commonwealth government acquiring a majority shareholding in CEA Technologies, I think it is reasonable to expect that we'll see the RAN's future MFUs mandated to be equipped with some version of CEAFAR to promote sovereign capability and commonality across the surface fleet in terms of AAW radars - perhaps scaled up compared to the Hunters if future air warfare destroyers are built, and perhaps scaled down compared to the Hunters for the future Tier 2. The fact that CEAFAR is both a sovereign and scalable system, as well as being as good as any other AAW radar currently in service that I'm aware of, would seem to make it the obvious choice of AAW radar for future RAN platforms. What do others think?

 

[Maranoa]

I don’t understand this line of thinking.

IF the leaks are correct, then all the noise about these being a smokescreen for cuts was way off the mark. The net result seems likely to be a rebalance of 3 hulls from Hunters to DDGs (seems sensible) plus an entirely new class of 6 vessels which are likely to be at least as capable as the ANZACs currently are, (ie if we go ALFA 3000) and possibly a substantial upgrade (ie if we go for Type 31 or Constellation). Zero cuts.

Yes this will take time to implement but what were you expecting? A carrier group by Christmas? The lead times on changes to fleet structure are measured in decades and there’s not much to be done in the meantime.

No, I don't expect a carrier group by Christmas. But I also didn't expect a government that came to power saying it would radically harden Australia's defence arrangements to do the exact opposite and cut the Army's offensive capability immediately, halt the RAAF's expansion and who knows what they will do with the RAN apart from dumbish stuff like fitting a very vulnerable corvette with a 100 million or so worth of exquisite PGMs it can't actually target.

 

[Redlands18]

Hopefully the rumours are ultimately proved right and the future Tier 2 is a frigate and not a corvette.

With the Commonwealth government acquiring a majority shareholding in CEA Technologies, I think it is reasonable to expect that we'll see the RAN's future MFUs mandated to be equipped with some version of CEAFAR to promote sovereign capability and commonality across the surface fleet in terms of AAW radars - perhaps scaled up compared to the Hunters if future air warfare destroyers are built, and perhaps scaled down compared to the Hunters for the future Tier 2. The fact that CEAFAR is both a sovereign and scalable system, as well as being as good as any other AAW radar currently in service that I'm aware of, would seem to make it the obvious choice of AAW radar for future RAN platforms. What do others think?

If Australia is looking at a tier 2 Frigate, than its almost certain that the combat systems are already chosen, CEAFAR radar, AEGIS with 9LV interface, Mk 41 strike length VLS for SM family and ESSM, NSM, whatever CIWS are fitted to the Hunters and able to handle the MH-60R Helo, the only exception would be the main gun.

 

[Volkodav]

No, I don't expect a carrier group by Christmas. But I also didn't expect a government that came to power saying it would radically harden Australia's defence arrangements to do the exact opposite and cut the Army's offensive capability immediately, halt the RAAF's expansion and who knows what they will do with the RAN apart from dumbish stuff like fitting a very vulnerable corvette with a 100 million or so worth of exquisite PGMs it can't actually target.

How have they cut the Army's offensive capability?

What RAAF expansion have they halted?

Which corvettes are being fitted with 100 million or so worth of exquisite PGMs?

Somethings that hadnt yet been ordered, haven't been ordered, and that's it. Some plans aren't progressing, some structures are being changed.

SSNs are going ahead, the first Hunters appear to be going ahead, the Arafuras continue to be built. Collins, ANZAC and Hobart upgrades continue.

There is breathing space with projects currently underway to get the next step right.

 

[Todjaeger]

How have they cut the Army's offensive capability?

What RAAF expansion have they halted?

Which corvettes are being fitted with 100 million or so worth of exquisite PGMs?

Somethings that hadnt yet been ordered, haven't been ordered, and that's it. Some plans aren't progressing, some structures are being changed.

SSNs are going ahead, the first Hunters appear to be going ahead, the Arafuras continue to be built. Collins, ANZAC and Hobart upgrades continue.

There is breathing space with projects currently underway to get the next step right.

However, they (gov't) already appear to have made some rather expensive decisions which IMO are rather wrong. For the RAN, it is spending ADU$1.3 bil. to get LACM's which only three vessels over the next decade will be able to carry and launch, and doing so would automatically limit their respective abilities to perform their primary (air warfare) role, which I believe many here will agree was already rather limited. When one also recalls that those same DDG's are due to go through upgrades soon, so that there will be long stretches where it is likely that one DDG will be outright unavailable due to upgrade work...

The USN can have their Arleigh Burke-class DDG's missile loadouts include a mix of air defence and land attack missiles, in part because each ship has so many VLS cells. As an example, a Flight IIA Arleigh Burke-class DDG has a total of 96 VLS cells, which is a match for a pair of Hobart-class DDG's. IIRC the USN usually has roughly a 50/50 mix of air defence and land attack fitted to their DDG's, but one needs to also remember that the USN often has multiple DDG's operating together or nearby, particularly if part of an overall TF or group like a CSG. This enables the USN to have sufficient VLS cells to manage volumes of LACM fires, as well as have sufficient available missiles for air defence.

With the RAN likely only being able to deploy a single DDG at any one time, and with the only other vessel and VLS available to the next decade being the ANZAC-class with their 8-cell VLS quad-packed with ESSM, one has to really consider whether or not it makes more sense to add a land attack capability at the expense of air defence, particularly area air defence.

 

[Morgo]

However, they (gov't) already appear to have made some rather expensive decisions which IMO are rather wrong. For the RAN, it is spending ADU$1.3 bil. to get LACM's which only three vessels over the next decade will be able to carry and launch, and doing so would automatically limit their respective abilities to perform their primary (air warfare) role, which I believe many here will agree was already rather limited. When one also recalls that those same DDG's are due to go through upgrades soon, so that there will be long stretches where it is likely that one DDG will be outright unavailable due to upgrade work...

The USN can have their Arleigh Burke-class DDG's missile loadouts include a mix of air defence and land attack missiles, in part because each ship has so many VLS cells. As an example, a Flight IIA Arleigh Burke-class DDG has a total of 96 VLS cells, which is a match for a pair of Hobart-class DDG's. IIRC the USN usually has roughly a 50/50 mix of air defence and land attack fitted to their DDG's, but one needs to also remember that the USN often has multiple DDG's operating together or nearby, particularly if part of an overall TF or group like a CSG. This enables the USN to have sufficient VLS cells to manage volumes of LACM fires, as well as have sufficient available missiles for air defence.

With the RAN likely only being able to deploy a single DDG at any one time, and with the only other vessel and VLS available to the next decade being the ANZAC-class with their 8-cell VLS quad-packed with ESSM, one has to really consider whether or not it makes more sense to add a land attack capability at the expense of air defence, particularly area air defence.

I get why you're concerned and on the face of it if it's for the Hobarts only it does seem a bit daft.

Two questions:

1. Do we know that they're not the air launched versions? Could they be integrated with P-8's?

2. Do we know that the Collins post LOTE won't be able to launch them?