Is it feasible to add containerised missiles to some of the lhd ships per this article to add to load out for fleet
Club-K Container Missile System | Military.com
Club-K Container Missile System | Military.com
Last edited:
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0
- Thread starter OPSSG
- Start date
This is the BAE proposal.
www.navylookout.com
Using the Hunter as a reference design seems a simpler solution than going with a completely new ship. I am not sure what they mean by the term flexible mission space. It almost seems like they are suggesting a plug in module design that could be changed from one configuration to another as required.
Adding firepower to the Type 26 Frigate | Navy Lookout
www.navylookout.com
By the time we get to the end of six hunters we are quite far into the future. The 2040's battle space looks quite different.
Larger missiles in larger VLS. We have basically come to the end of the Mk41 kinetically. There will be larger missiles in larger missile VLS.
Direct energy weapons will move from prototype/oddity and small scale installs, to much larger more capable weapons.
Radar, computing, sensors, needs will increase.
I do think we would be looking more like something ~165m long, 21-22m wide, 2x gt but with some diesel generation. May not have a manned helicopter but more of an autonomous fleet of drones.
I am not sure about going to 14 to 16 major fleet units. I think we will go to 12 + 6. Smaller crewing ships are bad at everything, except they have a small crew. But if crewing issues are crippling your navy then they are likely to be required.
Tier 1 (12-18) my guess
4-6 Type 83 (128/+ cell) (165-180m), AAW, bigger cells, more power generation and storage, lasers, hypersonics etc
6-12 Type 26 (32/48/64/96cell) (150m), all the same variant or split between ASW and AAW.
Tier 2 options
Mitsubishi Mogami B2 (142m)
Babcock Arrowhead 140 (139m)
BAE Adaptable strike frigate (130m)
TKMS MEKO A210 (127m)
-New ships lifts. Darwin/Cairns. 120m or less, 5,000ton or less.
Darwin
invest.nt.gov.au
+ New 250m Wharf HMAS Coonawarra
Cairns
www.advancecairns.com
+ New Wharf HMAS Cairns combined with existing (300m+)
Around 120m or less, under 5000ton options left
Navantia Alpha 5000 (121m)
Babcock Arrowhead 120 (120m)
*Current Anzac class (118m)
Gibbs & Cox Light Frigate (117m)
Navantia Alpha 3000 Tasman (109m)
NVL group K130 (90m)
Luerssen MMPV90 (90m)
Luerssen Arafura(upgunned) (80m)
Austal Manta (78m)
Austal Evolved Cape class(upgunned) (58m)
Potential Hanwha takeover of Austal could possibly lead to Korean tier 2 also.
www.afr.com
Future sustainment of tier 2 vessels
PROJECT GALILEO RMC(Regional maintenance centres) (West-Henderson, East-Sydney, North East-Cairns, North-Darwin)
4-6 Type 83 (128/+ cell) (165-180m), AAW, bigger cells, more power generation and storage, lasers, hypersonics etc
6-12 Type 26 (32/48/64/96cell) (150m), all the same variant or split between ASW and AAW.
Tier 2 options
Mitsubishi Mogami B2 (142m)
Babcock Arrowhead 140 (139m)
BAE Adaptable strike frigate (130m)
TKMS MEKO A210 (127m)
-New ships lifts. Darwin/Cairns. 120m or less, 5,000ton or less.
Darwin
Darwin Ship Lift
The Darwin Ship Lift facility will service the needs of the general maritime sector within the Asia Pacific region and long term needs to of defence sector.
invest.nt.gov.au
Cairns
Cairns Marine Precinct - Advance Cairns
www.advancecairns.com
Around 120m or less, under 5000ton options left
Navantia Alpha 5000 (121m)
Babcock Arrowhead 120 (120m)
*Current Anzac class (118m)
Gibbs & Cox Light Frigate (117m)
Navantia Alpha 3000 Tasman (109m)
NVL group K130 (90m)
Luerssen MMPV90 (90m)
Luerssen Arafura(upgunned) (80m)
Austal Manta (78m)
Austal Evolved Cape class(upgunned) (58m)
Potential Hanwha takeover of Austal could possibly lead to Korean tier 2 also.
Meet the $42 billion mystery Korean in Austal’s data room
Korean conglomerate Hanwha has hired Macquarie Capital banker Stuart Owen to provide advice.
Future sustainment of tier 2 vessels
PROJECT GALILEO RMC(Regional maintenance centres) (West-Henderson, East-Sydney, North East-Cairns, North-Darwin)
Last edited:
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Would assume any future large surface combatant needs two GTs if direct energy weapons are in the mix. A Zumwalt IEP package sounds about right. Future hypersonic missiles are going to larger along with their associated new launcher. If a larger missile capacity is desired then this large surface combatant probably needs to around 12,000 plus tons at a minimum.
iambuzzard
Active Member
If this keeps going at this rate we'll be fielding Iowa Class type battleships again, only loaded with very big missiles not guns.
The problem is they make very big targets.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Not sure about dimensions wrt Iowa and Zumwalt but the latter is 15k tons versus an Iowa ~50k+ tons. It has been reported that Zumwalt’s radar return profile reassembles a fishing boat. As a target it wouldn’t be any more vulnerable than T26, perhaps less due to its stealthy design.
iambuzzard
Active Member
John, I was stretching it a bit but you get my drift. We're heading back to very big ships but as long as they are protected and do the job without too much manpower that's all that matters. Supercarriers may need thousands , but we don't have them or the manpower.
If we make the type 26 design larger, we will need more power, if we want margins for sensor and weapon growth we will need more power. Air defence ships typical do have a tighter speed requirement and may spend more time at higher speeds than an asw unit.
Italian and Spanish future airdefence ships are looking around about that size. Chinese destroyers are already their.
They won't be cheap.
The cost is in the systems not so much the steel. The bigger the ship the more systems you can fit.
Ironically, as a rule of thumb, the bigger the ship the more automation you can build in. They can also be designed with easier access for maintenance and damage control.
A bigger ship can also have more survivability features built in. This is where a larger hull starts costing more. Double hulling, compartmentisasion, greater redundancy, physical separation of systems.
It costs more, but it is also more likely to get a multi billion dollar combat system and a highly trained crew home, after accomplishing the mission the cheaper ship wasn't able to.
Germany's just started building the first F126: 166 metres, 10500 tons. And that's a GP frigate, optionally fitted for ASW, with ESSM & RAM for air defence. Shipflation. After that, it plans to build a new AAW ship, the F127. The TKMS proposal is about 12000 tons.
Going Boeing
Well-Known Member
Some time ago, I mentioned that the steel used in the Collins class was stronger, had better blast resistant properties & was easier to weld than the steels used in the Virginia & Astute classes. Pat Conroy has just announced that the same combination of suppliers (steel from BlueScope Steel and a heat treatment process from Bisalloy) would be used to supply the latest technology steel in the production of the Australian AUKUS SSN’s - it would be a significant coup if they could get this steel used in the British built SSN’s as well.
Aussie steel set for SSN-AUKUS submarines
Aussie steel set for SSN-AUKUS submarines
https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2021-04-15/181256/
Sounds like they won’t have any domestic competition in the UK either.
The US was looking at the steel it was using, and their qualification processes so there is some opening there. I think it is a good sign that we are still in the sub steel business. Making shaping and welding sub steel usually requires amazing QA processes. Making it is only part of the equation, being able to test and QA it is another matter.
Given the stated strategic ambition to be able to achieve "localised sea control" there is clearly a need for a larger fleet, with the numbers stated in various reports being anywhere from 16 to 24 MFU.
The most logical approach feels like extending the Hunter build to 12, and then a class of destroyers - at least 4.
Let's see. The whole Tier 1/2 discussion feels as if it will be a mess.
Though as the government has moved quickly on the Army DSR recommendations this may well happen quicker than we think. I am a bit suspicious regarding budget (and the impact the SSNs will have on the same) but let's see.
Regards,
Massive
The second you need MEOs, WEOs, PWOs and the associated senior sailors you have crewing issues.
PBs and other minor craft don't grow them but need them in shore based support roles. i.e. they consume but do not produce.
When you have a larger fleet of larger ships that require the full range of technical and warfare sailors and officers, you have the capacity to use one or more of them to do nothing but training and qualifying crews.
If the proverbial hits the fan, you have an additional couple of high end hulls available to deploy.
When you are running lean, the smallest maintenance issue could delay an entire cohort from qualifying, worsening your crewing issues.
The secret isn't a secret, it's as simple as maintaining a buffer of equipment and gainfully employed personnel.
PBs and other minor craft don't grow them but need them in shore based support roles. i.e. they consume but do not produce.
When you have a larger fleet of larger ships that require the full range of technical and warfare sailors and officers, you have the capacity to use one or more of them to do nothing but training and qualifying crews.
If the proverbial hits the fan, you have an additional couple of high end hulls available to deploy.
When you are running lean, the smallest maintenance issue could delay an entire cohort from qualifying, worsening your crewing issues.
The secret isn't a secret, it's as simple as maintaining a buffer of equipment and gainfully employed personnel.
Tier 1 ships - 180+ crew
Tier 2 ships - 20-120 crew
Think the number of Tier 1 ships will depend on which Tier 2 is chosen.
More Tier 1 (12+) with Tier 2 (12+) Cape class, Manta, Arafura, MMPV90 etc, (cheaper less than 60 crew.)
Less Tier 1 (9-12) with Tier 2 (–12) Tasman, Aus Light Frigate, Arrowhead 140 etc, (expensive and likely 100 crew+)
I think the aim of tripling Austal workforce says alot. You dont need to go to those levels for just 2 Capes, 18 LMV-V and less LMV-H.
Not sure where Austal is at with autonomy but the MANTA with the cube system is interesting, the ultra low crew is a big +, the potential cost per ship and the production rate in a facility that does not need to expand to produce them.
Last edited:
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Has there been any statement released by the RAN and/or gov't on what actually constitutes a Tier 2 vessel that I have yet to come across? If not, then postulating about what the crew size will be for as-yet undefined hypothetical ships is IMO rather a waste.
Right now my main worry about the whole Tier 1/Tier 2 division is that definitions might be set by gov't in an effort to arrange workshare to benefit regional politics, rather than to build an overall more capable RAN and/or Australian naval shipbuilding (which in turn should lead to improved capabilities to support/sustain the RAN over the long term).
A tier 2 with a combat system, VLS etc. will need MEOs, WEOs and PWOs over and above what a PB or even OPV requires.
If you can't get enough of these then go big on your combatants so you can train more.
If you can get enough of these, then post them to real, survivable, warships, not blinged up pleasure craft.
If you can't get enough of these then go big on your combatants so you can train more.
If you can get enough of these, then post them to real, survivable, warships, not blinged up pleasure craft.