Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[StingrayOZ]

5k but unguided.

The prices aren't official but once I read the 3 round salvo of guided rounds should be around 90k in total. But that would be before economies of scale since it is new tech.

Still 20-30k per round is the cheapest guidance we can get.

Its possible to make 76mm rounds cheaper than 5k, but at current production rate that isn't going to happen. There is no priority to make it cheaper than $5k.
20-30k is still, pretty cheap. We know gun technology can scale in manufacturing. Large precision missiles are always going to be expensive, slow and bottleneck in a variety places in production, even if there was a global war.

Before the war in Ukraine, people were thinking the time of the gun, artillery, gun based air defence were over. That isn't exactly true, they have evolved, now to fight new threats and in new ways. Missiles are still very useful, but many gun based systems are also very useful, and importantly can scale.

Not every drone needs a guided round. These drones currently are travelling very slowly, are very weak and following preprogrammed paths. We may need to develop newer ammunition types to deal specifically with these type of threats.

EOS has had good success with just proximity sensing ammunition, based around a 30mm bushmaster.

Slinger - Electro Optic Systems

Lightweight counter-drone lethality incorporating a radar, a 30mm cannon with specialised ammunition, and EOS proprietary stabilisation.

eos-aus.com

Another option that could be interesting would be something like 70mm laser guided rockets. For slow movers that could be the cheapest option. With if enought laser pointers, deal with multiple drones, in a case of a swarm, at the same time.

Again they are moving slowly, so often engagements, you will have time. They could definitely be part of a layered defence. The US has been experimenting with Hellfire and Direct attack guided and Lowcost guided imaging rockets rockets.

Firing something that is the cost of a hydra 70 is going to be much more cost effective to take down a carboard drone than a SM-6.

 

[StingrayOZ]

More grumpy articles in the AFR..

Labor’s best policy might be admitting Red Sea defence gap

If strategy is Labor’s reason, it raises concerns. If there is no available ship, it raises another set of questions about Australia’s alarming lack of military capabilities.

www.afr.com

but this one from Rowan Moffat is pretty scathing.

Australia’s Hunter frigate project should be sunk

Its crystal clear that the replacement ships for the Anzac class that we cannot send to the Red Sea will not provide a worthwhile capability for the Royal Australian Navy.

www.afr.com

Calling for:

• Cancelling Hunter
• Cancelling Hobart Upgrades
• Cancelling Arafura

Arhh yes, that will fix all the navy problems!

 

[Redlands18]

More grumpy articles in the AFR..

Labor’s best policy might be admitting Red Sea defence gap

If strategy is Labor’s reason, it raises concerns. If there is no available ship, it raises another set of questions about Australia’s alarming lack of military capabilities.

www.afr.com

but this one from Rowan Moffat is pretty scathing.

Australia’s Hunter frigate project should be sunk

Its crystal clear that the replacement ships for the Anzac class that we cannot send to the Red Sea will not provide a worthwhile capability for the Royal Australian Navy.

www.afr.com

Calling for:

• Cancelling Hunter
• Cancelling Hobart Upgrades
• Cancelling Arafura

Arhh yes, that will fix all the navy problems!

The Hunters will be a lot more capable of this type of mission than the FREMM class Frigate the Italians are sending to the Red Sea. Don't have a sub to the AFR, so what is he proposing instead?

 

[Volkodav]

If we had Hunters in service they would be ideal for the Red Sea deployment. A couple of months ago the Hunters were too large, and should be replaced with corvettised OPVs, I wonder how they would do in that theatre?

 

[StingrayOZ]

The Hunters will be a lot more capable of this type of mission than the FREMM class Frigate the Italians are sending to the Red Sea. Don't have a sub to the AFR, so what is he proposing instead?

Not a lot.
More "smaller, simpler and faster to build" Hobarts, somehow built at BAE Osborne. He is very critical of the Hunters using the UK supply chain.

Its such a ill thought out criticism and plan it makes me question listening to any retired admirals. About anything. Apparently they are or go mad pretty quick.

The government needs to find the courage to cancel all these projects. Much of the investment already made can be turned to more useful outcomes. BAE Systems can build more of the smaller but more heavily armed Hobart class ships and should not stop until a decent plan for Navy’s fighting capabilities is agreed.

If we had Hunters in service they would be ideal for the Red Sea deployment. A couple of months ago the Hunters were too large, and should be replaced with corvettised OPVs, I wonder how they would do in that theatre?

I agree, a Hunter would be ideal for deployment. But I guess the question is, when will we have three FOC, so we can continuously deploy 1.

My only issue with the Hunter is that I think our fleet is aging out too fast, and we didn't build enough Hobart's in the first place. If we had replaced the FFG 1 for 1 with Hobarts, I don't think anyone would be criticizing the Hunter program much at all. Certainly makes no sense to cancel the program we are already this far into. But having a 6(hobart)+8(Hunter) fleet might be a useful asperation.

I think there is real reason to be cautious about upgrading the Hobarts at $6billion. If we can't afford to send a ship to the red sea, then we definitely can't afford to pull three of them out of the water, disband its crews, and cut it in half. Along with all the Anzacs, and all the Collins. Any accident, delay, integration, supply chain, workforce, engineering issues and the whole fleet could be laid up.

By far the greatest pressure on the RAN is the capability gap. We shouldn't have sold off the FFG's until the Hobarts had been upgraded.

We are looking at the very real possibility of the RAN not having a surface fleet.

 

[south]

There’s no evidence that the ANZAC class wouldn’t be useful. The French Frigate Languedoc used Aster-15 in its engagement against two drones; Aster-15 having a similar range to ESSM.

Apart from USS Carney, I haven’t heard of any of the surface combatants employing more than a couple of weapons.

So while it’s obvious that a Hobart will have more options than an ANZAC (due loadout and SM-2), it’s certainly not clear that an ANZAC could not be gainfully employed, for at least a period of time. There’s also the politics messaging that deploying a warship would send - and I’m sure that would be appreciated.

Regarding sustainment - again - there’s nothing to imply that the RAN need to sustain the effect, particularly DDG, indefinitely. Currently the Houthis are saying they will continue the attacks as long as the Israel-Hamas war continues. Even if the effect was to be required it could be filled by another nation on a rotational basis; or that if the Pacific was to flare up that prioritisation would occur and forces would be shifted. After all - the threat can and to an extent has been isolated; many maritime transport companies are already geographically avoiding the threat.

 

[Meriv90]

Correct me if I'm wrong, regardless of the range, an ESSM is comparable to a CAMM, the ASTER family is more like the SM in quality.

 

[Scott Elaurant]

Lk98:

More grumpy articles in the AFR..

Labor’s best policy might be admitting Red Sea defence gap

If strategy is Labor’s reason, it raises concerns. If there is no available ship, it raises another set of questions about Australia’s alarming lack of military capabilities.

www.afr.com

but this one from Rowan Moffat is pretty scathing.

Australia’s Hunter frigate project should be sunk

Its crystal clear that the replacement ships for the Anzac class that we cannot send to the Red Sea will not provide a worthwhile capability for the Royal Australian Navy.

www.afr.com

Calling for:

• Cancelling Hunter
• Cancelling Hobart Upgrades
• Cancelling Arafura

Arhh yes, that will fix all the navy problems!

Thanks. The logic in the article is pretty hard to square with the facts of the Red Sea situation. Surely our inability to deploy warships to the Red Sea demonstrates that the RAN has an insufficient number of suitably armed ships with modern CIWS and SAMs? Then the response should be to speed up acquisition of more such ships, not cancel them.

 

[Stampede]

We may need to go back to a medium calibre (127mm) gun on the stern to provide all round cover. Where to put it so as to not obstruct the helipad is the $64 question!

It's has been done before.
Many examples from generations past.
The Ticonderoga class being one.

If you want such a configuration , you are most likely working with a clean sheet to design from scratch.

I could certainly see merit in trading off a single 127mm for two 76 or 57mm guns located fore and aft.

Cheers S

 

[Meriv90]

The Hunters will be a lot more capable of this type of mission than the FREMM class Frigate the Italians are sending to the Red Sea. Don't have a sub to the AFR, so what is he proposing instead?

First comparing a 10k+ vs a 7k ship.

27knots vs 31 for the Italians

2 AA oriented 76mm with guided ammunition vs a single 127mm unguided.

1-SH90 vs 2 (1/2 NH-90 or 1 H101 ). (Helos are important for antipiracy, still no need for two of them but it leaves space for drones)

32 vls vs 16vls space for another 16vls.

The positive side on the Hunter probably is range and ability to stay in the theater, plus you got both ESSM(low) and SM(high) while we choose to have only the Aster(High), meaning we have to choose if to risk having the drone at 8km range in order to use the 76mm. Also the sensor but I don't know how CEFAR would fare against small drones(as most radars since they are new menace).

As the situation is right now, an Hunter wouldn't be better than a FREMM ITA, for this specific mission against slow moving drones with Gibuti just in the area.

 

[Redlands18]

First comparing a 10k+ vs a 7k ship.

27knots vs 31 for the Italians

2 AA oriented 76mm with guided ammunition vs a single 127mm unguided.

1-SH90 vs 2 (1/2 NH-90 or 1 H101 ). (Helos are important for antipiracy, still no need for two of them but it leaves space for drones)

32 vls vs 16vls space for another 16vls.

The positive side on the Hunter probably is range and ability to stay in the theater, plus you got both ESSM(low) and SM(high) while we choose to have only the Aster(High), meaning we have to choose if to risk having the drone at 8km range in order to use the 76mm. Also the sensor but I don't know how CEFAR would fare against small drones(as most radars since they are new menace).

As the situation is right now, an Hunter wouldn't be better than a FREMM ITA, for this specific mission against slow moving drones with Gibuti just in the area.

Suggest you take a long hard look at the Mission Bay being fitted to the Hunters, they can carry a 2nd MH-60R Helicopter or multiple drones. Australia is introducing the ESSM Block II with a range of 50km. Work is being done for providing the Mk 45 with a guided round. Why wouldn't an extremely powerful radar like CEAFAR 2 combined with Aegis be able to pick up small drones? No one is claiming the Houthis drones have a high degree of stealth.
The mission is Area Air Defence, the ability to carry long range missiles is the most important factor and a Hunter could carry 16-24 SM family missiles (including the upcoming SM-6) and 32-64 ESSM Blk II.
Please stop taking this as a criticism of the Italian Ship, it is not meant to be, but as you say the Hunter is 3000t heavier so should have more capability and has space for up to 96 VLS, though with significant penalties.

 

[Todjaeger]

Correct me if I'm wrong, regardless of the range, an ESSM is comparable to a CAMM, the ASTER family is more like the SM in quality.

TBH it would seem to depend more on which specific member of the Aster family one is talking about. A RIM-162 ESSM would seem to be comparable in size and capabilities to an Aster 15 in a number of areas. In overall size, the Aster family of missiles are longer than ESSM, but do not have as great a diameter. In a more direct comparison between Aster 15 and ESSM, then one is talking about a 310 kg missile with a diameter of 180 mm and length of 4.2 m as opposed to a ~282 kg missile with a diameter (guidance) of 203.2 mm or diameter (control) 254 mm and a length of ~3.66 m. What I have not been able to locate is an official factsheet for the Aster family which includes the weight of the warhead, so I am current forced to rely upon a few sources which seem to indicate a 15 kg warhead for the Aster family, whilst a USN factsheet on ESSM has indicated that ESSM has a 90 lb/~40 kg blast-frag warhead. Now the ranges are where things get a bit different and there is some degree of overlap, with an Aster 15 typically being listed with a range in excess of 30 km whilst the RAN lists the ESSM with having a range greater than 50 km.

Now the CAMM, or at least the standard Sea Ceptor version is yet another missile which is essentially smaller than either the ESSM or Aster family of missiles, with a ~99kg missile mass, dimeter of 166 mm, length of ~3.2 m and a ~10 kg warhead with a range listed in excess of 25 km.

With all that having been listed, it does not appear that ESSM is more like a CAMM than an Aster 15. Now I have not listed member of the SM family, in part because there are so many options with there being SM-1, SM-2 and SM-6, and then even within different types there are then sub variants and blocks which have further differences. From my POV it makes more sense to consider what role/capability is desired from a missile, with Sea Ceptor, Aster 15, and ESSM all falling somewhere in the short/medium-range air defence spectrum whilst Aster 30 and many of the SM family falling into the medium/long-range air defence spectrum.

 

[Meriv90]

Suggest you take a long hard look at the Mission Bay being fitted to the Hunters, they can carry a 2nd MH-60R Helicopter or multiple drones. Australia is introducing the ESSM Block II with a range of 50km. Work is being done for providing the Mk 45 with a guided round. Why wouldn't an extremely powerful radar like CEAFAR 2 combined with Aegis be able to pick up small drones? No one is claiming the Houthis drones have a high degree of stealth.
The mission is Area Air Defence, the ability to carry long range missiles is the most important factor and a Hunter could carry 16-24 SM family missiles (including the upcoming SM-6) and 32-64 ESSM Blk II.
Please stop taking this as a criticism of the Italian Ship, it is not meant to be, but as you say the Hunter is 3000t heavier so should have more capability and has space for up to 96 VLS, though with significant penalties.

Not taken as criticism at all. I always start with a correct if I'm wrong. Way better to learn new things than having wrong info.

I completely forgot the mission bay and I was thinking of Hunters as in the original ASW configuration. At least until the AAW version is in procurement.

Edit: the question is: if you are using a multimilion dollar missile to down a under 100k drone it's their win from the start? Even if the drone fails it won on the economic side.

 

[Meriv90]

About radar because, again correct me if I'm wrong, different sizes of different objects need different quantities of frequency and thus energy requirements.

As I imagine most radars will be searching for objects moving like Aircrafts/Helicopter/ASuW missiles etc.. etc... but not for some like let's say an expensive quadcopter that is way slower and way smaller.

Edit: on missiles.

Don't know about US missiles but when discussing CAMM and Aster we normally consider them not only for range but for intercept capabilities with the Aster being of higher quality than the CAMM. Significantly more.

 

[Todjaeger]

Don't know about US missiles but when discussing CAMM and Aster we normally consider them not only for range but for intercept capabilities with the Aster being of higher quality than the CAMM. Significantly more.

Realistically though the actual interception performance and testing results would not be in the public domain. There might be results published for missile tests indicating success or failure, but I rather doubt the specifics would get released.

Also going further down into the intercept capabilities rabbit hole one would need to consider the ability of the sensors detecting/tracking the missile to be intercepted, the ability of the CMS to queue the defending/intercepting missile, as well as the accuracy to the intercepting missile itself. TBH I rather doubt that one would be able to eliminate enough variables to be able to determine that it was, or was not specifically the missile itself without conducting comprehensive testing utilizing the exact same sensor and CMS configuration whilst firing missiles from different families.

In short, I tend to be more concerned about whether a particular solution is likely to be effective, since there is not much data I would consider reliable which could be used to accurately determine which particular solution would be 'best'.

 

[Redlands18]

About radar because, again correct me if I'm wrong, different sizes of different objects need different quantities of frequency and thus energy requirements.

As I imagine most radars will be searching for objects moving like Aircrafts/Helicopter/ASuW missiles etc.. etc... but not for some like let's say an expensive quadcopter that is way slower and way smaller.

Edit: on missiles.

Don't know about US missiles but when discussing CAMM and Aster we normally consider them not only for range but for intercept capabilities with the Aster being of higher quality than the CAMM. Significantly more.

So you are claiming there are Quadcopters that are both small enough to evade a modern radar but could carry weapons that could actually damage a modern warship and are hardened against ECM countermeasures. Of course, no one who knows the true capabilities of the CEAFAR radar is going to release information on a public site pertaining to its capabilities, but I would be extremely doubtful it's going to miss a slow-moving Quadcopter at ranges within the capabilities of a CIWS.

 

[Meriv90]

Not claiming, inquiring

 

[Maranoa]

DefMin Marles has revealed the size of the Op Mobility Guardian contingent and it is micro.

 

[DDG38]

DefMin Marles has revealed the size of the Op Mobility Guardian contingent and it is micro.

For the benefit of those who would like to know more than just a one liner : Australia to send small personnel deployment but no warship to Red Sea

 

[hauritz]

If we had Hunters in service they would be ideal for the Red Sea deployment. A couple of months ago the Hunters were too large, and should be replaced with corvettised OPVs, I wonder how they would do in that theatre?

Seems to be a myth perpetrated by the press that the Hunters are these oversized underarmed ships barely capable of defending themselves let alone contribute anything useful to a task force. Reality of course is they compare very well with the US Constellation class except with bigger guns, longer range and a huge mission bay. Remove the mission bay and you the have a ship capable of matching an Arliegh Burke in terms of missile loadouts.

As for contributing to a Red Sea deployment it will not only be able to shoot down drones but it will have a substantial MCM capability and its own small fleet of drones. It would probably be more useful than an AB.