Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

D

devo99

Well-Known Member
I'd like to see longer term plans for replacing the 3 DDGs with 6, maybe in the form of another batch of AAW Hunters.
Three is pretty clearly too few from both previous RAN estimates and experience with operating the Hobarts with there being supposedly anywhere from two to none available for deployment at a given time.
 
P

Pusser01

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Toowoomba was brought ashore via the floating dock at the CUF over the weekend for a short docking, now 4 out over here at the moment.
 
R

Reptilia

Well-Known Member
StingrayOZ said:
There is definitely a need for something built fast.

So there may be some advantage having first of class built overseas, particularly if it is coming off a hot line. That doesn't mean it has to be, but its that kind of speed that will be the benchmark. Capability, local content, cost would be of course important criteria to be addressed.

If we are talking about a full tender, selection, build, IOC, FOC of a new class, then that is typically a process of 5-10 years. But like planting a tree, the best time to plant it was 15-20 years ago, the second best time is now. So we need to temper any enthusiasm, its a long process. If the Anzac's are tired and outclassed now, in 5 years they will be very tired, and very outclassed. Which is why I think a big expensive Life extension now, is a bit of a waste on the whole fleet, and honestly they were never going to make the 2040's, which is a whole another generation.


Actually I think that is a positive outlook. They could have been stripped and sold off, or cut in half and recycled. For that type of ship 6 isn't bad, an 6 is a good number. We have smaller patrol craft, we need more capable bigger ships. They filled a need in the gap in building at both Osborne and Henderson, and allowed Henderson to build something first before a bigger and more complex ship.



This is officially a naval arms race.


I think Navantia may have been working hard behind the scenes to kill Hunter and BAE. Clearly naming the new class after the third of the Hunter class was a real shot across the bow.

I don't think Navantia is in the drivers seat. There have been plenty of offers and deals aired, none of them have gained much interest. They are aggressive in price, build rate and paper specs. However, no one from RAN, ADF, Gov seems to be falling over themselves to seal the deal. They seem to be using Navantia to force the change in plans, not perhaps to select a Navantia ship.

I hear the real dark horse IMO is Japan. They have the designs, the experience, the yard, the entire logistics, and very efficient crewing. A140 would now seem to be a good fit. Honestly I think the important thing is to start building them.
Click to expand...

What would Japan offer though? The Mogami (16 cell) which they are moving away from, 22 were planned and now just 12 being built by 2027. Then they are building 12 larger FFM (32 cell) between 2027-2036. These are all built at 2 yards simultaneously.
In addition to that they are also building the first ASEV from this year and half the new OPVs.
Hard to see when a small batch or ‘a few’ tier 2 ships could be built for Australia.
The Korean yards have much more capacity but we have seen no ship designs from them(Chungnam?), Navantia and TKMS are really the only 2 that could begin a build relatively soon with designs offered. Navantias Avante 2200 or Alpha 3000 design is proven, the MEKO A210 is not unless the offer was the K130 batch 2, the Saar 6 or the MEKO A200 design.
 
I

iambuzzard

Well-Known Member
A few questions for you guys from a non military layman. What's the best calibre for the main gun on these proposed corvettes/frigates?
127mm, 76mm or 57mm? Do we want a smaller calibre multi purpose or larger for possible shore bombardment seeing as how we could have engagements in the littorial environment to the north?
If we are looking at something in the 5,000t range 16 strike length VLS seems to be undercooking the program. Is 32 VLS possible for that displacement? A reliable CIWS or two will be a necessity as will ASW capabilities including helo ops. Your thoughts?
 
S

SammyC

Well-Known Member
Hi Buzzard.

The lead question on gun size, is: is there a place for a gun in modern missile based warfare. My view is there is, and if you are going to have one then get a big one.

I would have thought for a 5000 tonne vessel that a 127mm (5 inch in the old language) would have been expected. This aligns it with the Hobarts, ANZACs and future Hunters. They still have a good range and accuracy and can evolve with different guided and extended range ammunition in the future. And they have large magazines for when everything else runs out.

I would suggest smaller calibre is better combined with a CIWS and then its a question of what type, such as the traditional 20mm phalanx or something more modern like the bofors 40 mk 4 or Rheinmetall 30/35mm systems. Or perhaps the seaRAM/RIM116 missile style instead. I don't know which of these are best for us, I would ask what others think is the more optimised CIWS platform for Australia.

In regards to missile capacity. I think both the MEKO and Arrow platforms have 32 VLS options. My understanding is the Navantia Tasman is only 16.

Helos seem standard for any frigate or corvette these days and they remain the primary anti submarine system (more than towed array or hull mounted) and for over the horizon surveilance.

My WEEO friends tell me that towed arrays really need a quiet ship to be usable, so this needs to be built into the design.
 
Last edited:
R

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
iambuzzard said:
A few questions for you guys from a non military layman. What's the best calibre for the main gun on these proposed corvettes/frigates?
127mm, 76mm or 57mm? Do we want a smaller calibre multi purpose or larger for possible shore bombardment seeing as how we could have engagements in the littorial environment to the north?
If we are looking at something in the 5,000t range 16 strike length VLS seems to be undercooking the program. Is 32 VLS possible for that displacement? A reliable CIWS or two will be a necessity as will ASW capabilities including helo ops. Your thoughts?
Click to expand...
Sa’ar 6 class corvettes ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems (naval-technology.com)
A great example of how much firepower can be packed into a hull is the Israeli Navy SAAR 6 Corvette at 1900t, it has 16 VLS for Barak area AD and 40 VLS for C-Dome point defence system, as well as 16 Gabriel V SSMs and a 76mm Gun, but it all comes with a cost, range is just 2500nm. Yes you could fit 32 VLS into a 5000t Ship but you have to give capabilities up to do so. A major factor for the RAN is always going to be range and endurance, it is a strength of the Anzacs but that comes at a price of weapon systems and sensors.

The smaller calibre main guns are superior at AAW and offer a true AD layer that the 127mm doesn't. The Mk 45 127mm weighs 21t, and uses a couple of decks for the gun and magazine, the latest 76mm Sovraponte from Leonardo weighs about 5t and is non-deck penetrating, carrying 72 rounds in the turret. The RAN currently has eleven Mk 45 127mm guns mounted on ships, does it need more or would the superior AAW be better?.
 
J

JBRobbo

Member
iambuzzard said:
A few questions for you guys from a non military layman. What's the best calibre for the main gun on these proposed corvettes/frigates?
127mm, 76mm or 57mm? Do we want a smaller calibre multi purpose or larger for possible shore bombardment seeing as how we could have engagements in the littorial environment to the north?
If we are looking at something in the 5,000t range 16 strike length VLS seems to be undercooking the program. Is 32 VLS possible for that displacement? A reliable CIWS or two will be a necessity as will ASW capabilities including helo ops. Your thoughts?
Click to expand...

TKMS enters Australian Tier 2 combatant market | Shephard

TKMS has joined the competition to meet the Australian Defence Strategic Review’s (DSR’s) desite to procure a new Tier 2 surface combatant for the Royal Australian Navy (RAN).
www.shephardmedia.com

Check out the new MEKO A210 design. 127.5m x 16.7m, 4,750t full load, CODAG-WARP propulsion, 29kts+, 6,000 nautical miles @16kts, 30 day endurance, 120 core crew + 32 embarked.

Guns
1x Mk45 Mod4 127mm L/62
2x 30x173mm RCWS
1x 20x102mm Phalanx Blk1B2 CIWS
*at least 2x 12.7x99mm M2HB machine guns

Missiles
4x8-cell strike-length Mk41 VLS (SM-6, SM-2 Blk3B/C, ESSM Blk2, TLAM Blk5, LRASM etc.)
4x4 Mk87 topside canister launchers for NSM

Directed Energy
2x 20kW Laserwaffendemonstrator (LWD)

Torpedoes
2x2 Mk32 SVTT (MU90/Mk54 mod2)
*optional/modular 533mm heavyweight torpedo tubes and minelaying rail system

Boats: up to 2x 11.5m RHIB/USV/UUV in mission bay amidships, 2x 7.5m RHIB in davits further aft

Aviation: flight deck and hangar with space for 1x MH-60R Seahawk + 2x small VTOL UAS
 
StingrayOZ

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
Reptilia said:
What would Japan offer though? The Mogami (16 cell) which they are moving away from, 22 were planned and now just 12 being built by 2027. Then they are building 12 larger FFM (32 cell) between 2027-2036. These are all built at 2 yards simultaneously.
In addition to that they are also building the first ASEV from this year and half the new OPVs.
Hard to see when a small batch or ‘a few’ tier 2 ships could be built for Australia.
The Korean yards have much more capacity but we have seen no ship designs from them(Chungnam?), Navantia and TKMS are really the only 2 that could begin a build relatively soon with designs offered. Navantias Avante 2200 or Alpha 3000 design is proven, the MEKO A210 is not unless the offer was the K130 batch 2, the Saar 6 or the MEKO A200 design.
Click to expand...
There are options, for example the two you listed the Mogami and the FFM. The FFM is quite a capable platform.

As for where, well perhaps also where additional US ship maintenance is going to occur. They are exploring options and putting together work plans. Bigger steps are afoot. Not everything happens in a vacuum. Best to keep open mind. While the Spanish tend to constantly talk and promote, the Japanese are much more reserved.


Redlands18 said:
A great example of how much firepower can be packed into a hull is the Israeli Navy SAAR 6 Corvette at 1900t, it has 16 VLS for Barak area AD and 40 VLS for C-Dome point defence system, as well as 16 Gabriel V SSMs and a 76mm Gun, but it all comes with a cost, range is just 2500nm. Yes you could fit 32 VLS into a 5000t Ship but you have to give capabilities up to do so.
Click to expand...
I would be careful phrasing it that way. C-Dome is based off Iron dome, which is a 90kg missile. A single person can pick it up, just. It is similar in weight to SeaRAM, and most people don't refer to the SeaRAM launcher in the same breath as mk41 VLS.
ESSM is 300kg just the missile and quad packed. Barak is about this size bit smaller.
Sm-6 is 1500kg.
Gabriel is about the same weight as NSM, harpoon is in another class. You could swap the 8 Harpoon for 16 NSM no problem and improve top weight.

So the Saar is like a corvette with two SeaRAM Mk144 mounts, and a total of 4 Mk41 VLS quad packed with ESSM. Israel isn't intending to face off against China, Israel is intending to face off against asymmetric threats of small home made rockets and quad copters. So lots of smaller missiles makes a lot of sense.

That isn't quite the same as saying 32+VLS in a corvette. I'd be pretty disappointed if that was our tier 2, as its worse than our Anzacs. While small drones and missiles are a thing, they don't tend to have huge range, and operate thousands of nautical miles away from firing sites. Even then, Phalanx may be a better, cheaper way of dealing with them. You can get say 20 engagements with Phalanx, and it could be reloaded at sea for existing magazines on existing ships.

Redlands18 said:
The RAN currently has eleven Mk 45 127mm guns mounted on ships, does it need more or would the superior AAW be better?.
Click to expand...
I think this is a very valid question. IMO tier 2 doesn't need a 5". Nice, but not a requirement. 76mm offers good range, rates of fires, and have far less support requirements. 76mm can also do anti surface and naval gun support, just not as well. It worked well enough on the FFGs. Almost all smaller ships can accept a 76mm where 5"on small platforms becomes rare air.
 
R

Reptilia

Well-Known Member
JBRobbo said:

TKMS enters Australian Tier 2 combatant market | Shephard

TKMS has joined the competition to meet the Australian Defence Strategic Review’s (DSR’s) desite to procure a new Tier 2 surface combatant for the Royal Australian Navy (RAN).
www.shephardmedia.com

Check out the new MEKO A210 design. 127.5m x 16.7m, 4,750t full load, CODAG-WARP propulsion, 29kts+, 6,000 nautical miles @16kts, 30 day endurance, 120 core crew + 32 embarked.

Guns
1x Mk45 Mod4 127mm L/62
2x 30x173mm RCWS
1x 20x102mm Phalanx Blk1B2 CIWS
*at least 2x 12.7x99mm M2HB machine guns

Missiles
4x8-cell strike-length Mk41 VLS (SM-6, SM-2 Blk3B/C, ESSM Blk2, TLAM Blk5, LRASM etc.)
4x4 Mk87 topside canister launchers for NSM

Directed Energy
2x 20kW Laserwaffendemonstrator (LWD)

Torpedoes
2x2 Mk32 SVTT (MU90/Mk54 mod2)
*optional/modular 533mm heavyweight torpedo tubes and minelaying rail system

Boats: up to 2x 11.5m RHIB/USV/UUV in mission bay amidships, 2x 7.5m RHIB in davits further aft

Aviation: flight deck and hangar with space for 1x MH-60R Seahawk + 2x small VTOL UAS
Click to expand...
The 2 x 20ft containerised payloads on top of the hangar is also a nice addition. (Missiles, Drones, Hypersonics, Energy storage etc)
 
StevoJH

StevoJH

The Bunker Group
I don't suppose there is any chance that we can wait 18 hours and see what (if anything) is announced tomorrow?

At least if we do that any speculation on platforms will be informed, rather then based on which PR department has spoken to the media most recently.

As for the main gun, to a large extent it probably depends on what platform is chosen and how complicated it would be to change to something else. If these ships are supposed to be lean crewed, the choice of gun may also be impacted by the crew requirements for each mount as long as it can fulfil the requirement (even if not optimal).
 
O

old faithful

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
The biggest surprise would be if they have already chosen the tier 2 ship. If not we will probably have another drawn out selection process, to buy more time and delay in spending any more $ on defence. If that happens, the number can be fudged again, and 8 will probably be reduced to 6 and so on and so on, but hey! Here's to hoping for the best!
 
B

BPFP

Member
Interesting from the ABC (part of a longer piece just published):

The ABC understands significant progress has been made on the Hunter-class program in recent months and two of the future warships could eventually be built simultaneously at Adelaide's Osborne shipyard speeding up the production timetable.

This will be an interesting announcement tomorrow, to say the least.
 
spoz

spoz

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
What an ugly ship! And, like all with that type of bow, wet forward presumably. Given length/depth/beam ratio, looks like it would roll. Not sure I’d want to be onboard in the Southern Ocean!
 
R

Reptilia

Well-Known Member
The MEKO A210 as a Tier 2 would be some get though, a few built in Germany (joint venture between TKMS/Lurrsen like on the F125j first allowing speed of acquisition and a reference before being built in Aus, consolation for screwing the Germans with a cut to the Arafura OPV order and it also aligns nicely with a ship the kiwis might want to partner on, familiarity with the MEKO design ships and keeping commonality with Australian fleet. Don’t see it happening but the RAN and RNZN have been satisfied with the Anzacs performance over its lifetime.

Anyone know what time the presser is?
 
Last edited:
alexsa

alexsa

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
SiVisPacemParaBellum said:
It was designed to increase the stability in rough waters.
Click to expand...
Undoubtably it would have been. However, just as an observation, a hull form that works well in some waters may not work well in all waters. Especially in waters subject to extreams of weather. A vessel designed to work well in the North Atlantic may struggle in the southern ocean due to wave period and height in prevailing conditions...... particularly in a fully developed sea.

As an example, considerable redesign for framing and deck strenght was required for one project I was involved for an existing vessel design that was being built to operate in the southern ocean because of the nature of the conditions.

This is not to suggest that this vessel is not capable but it should not be assumed it is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top