Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[Todjaeger]

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

Unfort I have pretty much run out of time tonight, so I will have to try and address the questions this brings up later on. In brief though, there is a significant difference between air-launched AShM strike packages, and ship-borne ship-launched LACM strike packages.

This is particularly the case for Australia, since there will only be three potential launch platforms in Australian service for ship-launched Tomahawk LACM's over the next decade, whilst the RAAF will have in excess of 100 potential launch platforms for AShM strike packages.

Another thing which is a very major difference is how changing the assigned role of the launching platform can have very different impacts upon force structures. With only three DDG's available for area air defence (not even factoring in the reduction in available numbers due to upcoming upgrades), in order for the DDG's to have a strike role, it would come at the expense of the air defence role.

There are other considers which are rather specific to the missile selected which I will have to bring up later. In a nutshell though, it seems sort of like decision-makers in Australia are attempting to emulate how the USN has utilized the Tomahawk. The reality that the RAN is only a fraction of the size and capabilities of the USN does not appear to have occurred to them however. If one looks at USN launches of Tomahawk missiles, they are almost always in salvoes of dozens of missiles. The handful of published occasions when a small number of Tomahawks were launched was usually vs. a single target which would be essentially undefended and unprotected.

If Australia were to have a need to strike single/individual targets, the RAAF could most likely do that faster and better than the RAN could using a surface vessel. Pretty much the only scenarios which come to my mind where a RAN platform would be better than using RAAF aircraft would be if the target(s) were quite far from Australia and/or friendly bases, like in the SCS, ECS, or mainland Asia.

As a side note, the AGM-158B-2 has a max standoff range of ~1,000 n miles and is a modern, LO munition, which means it would be less likely to get detected and intercepted than the larger and older Tomahawk design

 

[Todjaeger]

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?

Yes, we know and the answer to both questions is, "No."

I would need to go through and dig the DSCA announcement again, IIRC it had been linked to in this thread before, when the announcement was made. The purchase was specifically for the RGM-109E Tomahawk, IIRC 200 were one block, whilst 20 were to be of another manufacturing block.

The important bit though is the R designation in RGM-109E, since the R indicates that it is a ship-launched missile. Sub-launched missiles have a prefix of U, whilst air-launched has A and ground-launched use G.

If Australia were to purchase air or sub-launched Tomahawks, the DSCA announcement would have been for AGM-109 or UGM-109 missiles.

 

[CJR]

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?

The Land Attack Cruise Missile in question is the Tomahawk, which doesn't have an air launched variant in service (looked at in the 1970s/80s but other cruise missile designs beat it out).

The planned purchase is described as being for RGM-109s, so a surface launched version. It's possible (but unlikely) the public documentation is wrong or intentionally deceptive or that the approval for RGM-109s will be used as a basis for quick approval for UGM-109s at some later date... But current available info says they 'taint for the Collins.

Of cause, the question I'd ask is what's the intended delivery schedule? If we're getting 100-200 "tomorrow" then with only three ships able to carry 'em it seems a bit nuts, but if we're getting the first missile in 2025-6ish and a full delivery stretches to the early 2030s then with the first Hunters coming online it isn't so absurd.

 

[Volkodav]

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.

The order for Tomahawk leads me to suspect Australia is considering acquiring Typhon

US Army accepts delivery of first prototype MRC battery - Naval News

The US Army accepted delivery of the first prototype Mid-Range Capability (MRC) battery. The MRC provides a land-based, ground-launched system with a range between the Army’s Precision Strike Missile and the Long-Range Hypersonic Weapon.

www.navalnews.com

Using SM-6 and Tomahawk in four cell Mk-41 VLS derived trailer based launchers, this would be a very interesting system for the Australian Army. Far more capable than the NSM and HIMARS.

 

[Brissy1982]

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.

Thanks @Redlands18 - it appears we are thinking along the same lines about what the future Tier 2 should be. Now we just have to hope the key decision makers reach the same conclusion!

 

[koala]

To put everything in perspective. Even if the ANZACs were to serve for 35 years the last of them would leave service in 2041. If we delivered a new Hunter or its equivalent every two years from 2031 we would only have six ships to replace the ANZACs by 2041 effectively seeing the number of surface combatants drop to 9 vessels. Even if we increase the drumbeat to one new ship a year from 2031 we would see the size of the fleet increase to maybe 12 or 13 vessels by 2040.

Of course there will be those that would argue that the ANZAC class would probably not really be a viable warship going into the 2030s let alone continuing to serve through to the 2040s.

There is no guarantee in my mind that we will even see SSNs in service by the 2030s. That will depend on the whims of the US congress.

We have gotten ourselves into a real mess with the navy.
[/QUOT
Questions I have to ask is about the Longterm employment of our Australian bult ships. built with Australian steel and steel making knowledge.
Yes we pay a premium price but every Australian built ship kinda goes the distance and beyond what the life expectantly is.
Bill and Ben highlight the rust buckets of the day, but the Anzacs seem still good to go.
Anyone comment further as I hope our Anzacs are not full of pinholes leaking through rust

 

[devo99]

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.

All of this and some long range and endurance please! (6,000nmi or more)
Can't be overworking the oilers.

 

[H_K]

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.

Why the need for AEGIS, SM-2/SM-6 and strike length MK 41 cells on a Tier 2 ship?

Also what ASW sensor capability would you spec?

 

[Redlands18]

Why the need for AEGIS, SM-2/SM-6 and strike length MK 41 cells on a Tier 2 ship?

Also what ASW sensor capability would you spec?

It gets back to what a RAN tier 2 ship would be, would it be a A140 based Frigate with 32 VLS Cells, or something the size of an Anzac with 16 VLS cells, either way SL gives you a lot more flexibility. The Hunters are being built with the Aegis/9LV combo and the Hobarts are getting re-fitted with the 9LV interface, so commonality would be a major factor for any tier 2 Frigate. If it is only a Corvette than they may not get Aegis but it would be the SAAB 9LV CMS.

 

[Volkodav]

Why the need for AEGIS, SM-2/SM-6 and strike length MK 41 cells on a Tier 2 ship?

Also what ASW sensor capability would you spec?

Changing threat environment.

As sea skimming antiship missiles became more prevalent systems such as ESSM, RAM, VL Seawolf, and now Seaceptor became the minimum. Now China has deployed fifth generation combat aircraft and antiship ballistic missiles, requiring a step up in weapons and CMS.

If you ignore, or worse can't accommodate a new threat, you lose.

 

[Bob53]

The order for Tomahawk leads me to suspect Australia is considering acquiring Typhon

US Army accepts delivery of first prototype MRC battery - Naval News

The US Army accepted delivery of the first prototype Mid-Range Capability (MRC) battery. The MRC provides a land-based, ground-launched system with a range between the Army’s Precision Strike Missile and the Long-Range Hypersonic Weapon.

www.navalnews.com

Using SM-6 and Tomahawk in four cell Mk-41 VLS derived trailer based launchers, this would be a very interesting system for the Australian Army. Far more capable than the NSM and HIMARS.

Still scratching my head about the pressing need for ground launched anti ship missiles in our context. It would make more sense to send the RAAF on the anti ship mission and use this money on Shorad for our Army or bolster the K9 or Himars capability…or something else. If the army is in a ship killing mission and an enemy dumb enough to be chugging ships within range of these missiles the Muck has hit the fan big time. Does anyone really think our army will be sitting in Timor or North of New Guinea waiting for a target at any time at all ever? derby then?

 

[Volkodav]

Still scratching my head about the pressing need for ground launched anti ship missiles in our context. It would make more sense to send the RAAF on the ant ship mission and use this money on Shorad for our Army or bolster the K9 or Himars capability…or something else. If the army is in a ship killing mission and an enemy dumb enough to be chugging ships within ranger the Muck has hit the fan big time. Does anyone really think our army will be sitting in Timor or North of New Guinea waiting for a target at any time at all ever? derby then?

When you start talking Tomahawk and SM-6 the range circles make a lot more sense.

As for Strikemaster / NSM, there are a lot of choke points to our north that would be very challenging to navigate "if" it were assumed a couple of batteries were dispersed among them.

In the South Pacific friendly nations asking for help, i.e. a PLAN task force in Solomon Islands, Strikemaster could be quickly deployed to bolster friendly defences.

 

[Morgo]

Still scratching my head about the pressing need for ground launched anti ship missiles in our context. It would make more sense to send the RAAF on the ant ship mission and use this money on Shorad for our Army or bolster the K9 or Himars capability…or something else. If the army is in a ship killing mission and an enemy dumb enough to be chugging ships within ranger the Muck has hit the fan big time. Does anyone really think our army will be sitting in Timor or North of New Guinea waiting for a target at any time at all ever? derby then?

I think the logic is something along the lines of:

1) A foreign power (eg China) will not be able to make Australia submit while out SLoC with the US is open. Possibly not even then - we’re a tough nut to try crack - but there’s no chance without this.

2) Given the size of the Pacific, China (or anyone) will struggle to do this unless we get bottled up in the Coral / Tasman seas.

3) You won’t be able to achieve #2 without controlling the Pacific Islands.

4) You won’t be able to achieve #3 unless your own SLoCs are secure in order to resupply the troops you’ve deployed to seize the Pacific Islands.

5) You can’t do #4 if you’ve got a bunch of blokes in trucks carrying tomahawks hiding in the jungles of New Britain or the Solomons.

This makes less sense for something like NSM given its relatively short range, but more for things with a 1000+ range.

 

[H_K]

Changing threat environment.

As sea skimming antiship missiles became more prevalent systems such as ESSM, RAM, VL Seawolf, and now Seaceptor became the minimum. Now China has deployed fifth generation combat aircraft and antiship ballistic missiles, requiring a step up in weapons and CMS.

If you ignore, or worse can't accommodate a new threat, you lose.

I hear you but it seems to me that @Redlands18 and you are actually advocating for more Tier 1 combattants. IMHO there is nothing Tier 2 about the level of capability you describe.

The rhetorical counterpoint would be that the Imperial Japanese naval threat at the beginning of World War II included 6 fleet carriers, 11 battleships and 18 heavy cruisers… yet that didn’t mean that every allied warship needed to be a fleet unit with a main battery of 8” to 18” guns that could go toe to toe with the Japanese main body… there was still space for lesser ships like destroyer escorts, corvettes and more.

Likewise today there should be a role for a Tier 2 non-fleet combattant to patrol sea lanes, escort supply ships etc… most other navies have them. Might be helpful using this thread to refine that potential role.

 

[Bob53]

When you start talking Tomahawk and SM-6 the range circles make a lot more sense.

As for Strikemaster / NSM, there are a lot of choke points to our north that would be very challenging to navigate "if" it were assumed a couple of batteries were dispersed among them.

In the South Pacific friendly nations asking for help, i.e. a PLAN task force in Solomon Islands, Strikemaster could be quickly deployed to bolster friendly defences.

Would an Australian commander sail through those choke points without intel they are clear of threat? I would say no. I’m not sure why anyone thinks a Chinese commander would differ.

As to remote deployments it’s not like we can drop a truck off and that’s it. There would be supporting logistics, C2, security contingent, Shorad and all of these would have a foot print that any peer type adversary would have some chance of targeting.

The US marines have the support of the entire and very large and capable USN, US Army, Airforce and Space agencies for this mission. I’m just sceptical the ADF can carry this mission off with the limited support and resources we could muster a 1000km or more from Australia

 

[ADMk2]

Still scratching my head about the pressing need for ground launched anti ship missiles in our context. It would make more sense to send the RAAF on the anti ship mission and use this money on Shorad for our Army or bolster the K9 or Himars capability…or something else. If the army is in a ship killing mission and an enemy dumb enough to be chugging ships within range of these missiles the Muck has hit the fan big time. Does anyone really think our army will be sitting in Timor or North of New Guinea waiting for a target at any time at all ever? derby then?

Insanely vast maritime approaches to our country, matched against infinitesimally small naval and air capabilities would be a start on the ‘why’.

For the cost of a single Regiment of land based ASM with ~ 24x launchers you could buy approximately 8x F-35A’s or about 1/10th of the cost of one of our future frigates. Invest in the latter and you don’t get much more than we already have (particularly for the navy) invest in the former and you get a suite of overlapping capabilities with different deployment options, different effects options and so forth.

The exact same reason why both the US Army and USMC are rapidly deploying the exact same capability and they have no real shortage of air or naval power, unlike us…

 

[ADMk2]

The order for Tomahawk leads me to suspect Australia is considering acquiring Typhon

US Army accepts delivery of first prototype MRC battery - Naval News

The US Army accepted delivery of the first prototype Mid-Range Capability (MRC) battery. The MRC provides a land-based, ground-launched system with a range between the Army’s Precision Strike Missile and the Long-Range Hypersonic Weapon.

www.navalnews.com

Using SM-6 and Tomahawk in four cell Mk-41 VLS derived trailer based launchers, this would be a very interesting system for the Australian Army. Far more capable than the NSM and HIMARS.

We should be, the “Strikemaster” types of capability offer us very little in comparison and no compatability with physically larger “next generation” hypersonics.

Not to mention all the other benefits of leveraging in-service systems and so on - Tomahawk, SM-6, Mk.41, theatre mission planning systems, existing truck and trailer systems, existing corporate knowledge etc, although I acknowledge many of the same synergies would exist with a Bushmaster / NSM / Konsberg C2 combination.

 

[Stampede]

I hear you but it seems to me that @Redlands18 and you are actually advocating for more Tier 1 combattants. IMHO there is nothing Tier 2 about the level of capability you describe.

The rhetorical counterpoint would be that the Imperial Japanese naval threat at the beginning of World War II included 6 fleet carriers, 11 battleships and 18 heavy cruisers… yet that didn’t mean that every allied warship needed to be a fleet unit with a main battery of 8” to 18” guns that could go toe to toe with the Japanese main body… there was still space for lesser ships like destroyer escorts, corvettes and more.

Likewise today there should be a role for a Tier 2 non-fleet combattant to patrol sea lanes, escort supply ships etc… most other navies have them. Might be helpful using this thread to refine that potential role.

Something to consider, is what a tier two or three vessel brings to a lower end contingency in fire power where you have considerable over match against a threat ,yet you still need some military clout over and above a 25 mm gun.

Do we want to be relying on the over kill of a frigate / destroyer for these many roles.
The RAAF can't do everything.

A medium calibre 57 / 76 mm gun and nothing more, brings a lot of potential to a ship's offensive / defence capability.

It's still a minow compared to a gunned up destroyer, but in turn it's is a giant against a vessel with much less capability.

Add a medium calibre gun to the OPV's and you essentially double the fleets size for certain scenarios.

To clarify , it's not a major fleet , unit just a more flexible OPV.

Money and training well spent

Cheers S

 

[Volkodav]

We should be, the “Strikemaster” types of capability offer us very little in comparison and no compatability with physically larger “next generation” hypersonics.

Not to mention all the other benefits of leveraging in-service systems and so on - Tomahawk, SM-6, Mk.41, theatre mission planning systems, existing truck and trailer systems, existing corporate knowledge etc, although I acknowledge many of the same synergies would exist with a Bushmaster / NSM / Konsberg C2 combination.

I can see the greatest effect of Strikemaster being an enemy not knowing where it is. We could even rumor it's deployment to somewhere it is not.

Combined with mines, submarines, air launched weapons, UUVs, UAVs etc. This would be a very effective area denial capability.

 

[hauritz]

What Tier 2 ship we eventually get depends on how much money we want to spend, its role and how quickly we can get it into service.

I would contend that the rumour concerning the acquistion of 3 AWDs in place of the last 3 Hunters doesn't bode well for tier two ships the size of the Type 31 or Constellation class, mainly because that is where I think the money and crew that will be needed for a large GP frigate would have to come from. Then there is its role. I think it would be expected to cover the role of the Arafuras as well as serve to support the main combattants. Once again the role of patrol vessel is probably suited for a smaller vessel.

Then there is the question of how fast can we build them. Well from the time we ordered them to the time they will enter service it will take 13 years for the Hunter. The first Arafura from selection to commissioning will take around 6 years. I would suggest that Australia will probably be looking at something it could bring into service in maybe 7 or 8 years which would probably mean something like a light frigate/corvette sized vessel.