Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

There has been a variety of discussion here around how many VLS cells the new GP Frigate will contain.

The report did highlight 4 options as exemplars, none of which have 32 VLS. However Marles did announce they were considering options from 4 nations.

Pat Conroy on The Guardian's podcast stated that the VLS of the GP Frigate would be between 16 and 32 VLS with the whole fleet at (Tier 1 & 2) containing between 700-800 VLS cells at completion, with the first steel cut in 2026 for the GP Frigate.

This suggests that the evolved versions of the exemplars (A210, FFM etc.) or slightly modified versions of the exemplars are under consideration to account for the 32 VLS option mentioned by Pat Conroy, alongside the exemplars with 16 VLS cells.
 

SammyC

Well-Known Member
There has been a variety of discussion here around how many VLS cells the new GP Frigate will contain.

The report did highlight 4 options as exemplars, none of which have 32 VLS. However Marles did announce they were considering options from 4 nations.

Pat Conroy on The Guardian's podcast stated that the VLS of the GP Frigate would be between 16 and 32 VLS with the whole fleet at (Tier 1 & 2) containing between 700-800 VLS cells at completion, with the first steel cut in 2026 for the GP Frigate.

This suggests that the evolved versions of the exemplars (A210, FFM etc.) or slightly modified versions of the exemplars are under consideration to account for the 32 VLS option mentioned by Pat Conroy, alongside the exemplars with 16 VLS cells.
I would view that the strategy around VLS capacity comes down to an understanding of the strike capability envisaged. Strike is the ability to hit another ship or shore target.

If the strike requirement is anti ship, then the NSM is the choice, and these are deck cannister based rather than VLS. So consider designs that maximise NSMs in preference to the VLS capacity. I will note that the NSM advertises with a secondary shore function, so they also provide some shore strike capability.

If the strike capability is to include shore attack, particularly deep shore where Tomahawk would be needed, then the VLS capacity becomes relevant.

For a smaller GP frigate, focussed on ASW and escort roles, I would have thought that strike is focused primarily on anti ship. Hence designs that have larger NSM holdings (say 16) are preferable, and smaller 16 cell VLS for AAW defence (so say 64 ESSM) would probably be fine.

I kinda think Tomahawk is better left for the Hobarts, LOCSVs and perhaps Hunters, rather than the GP frigates. It feels like it is trying to do too much with a small platform. Of note I'm not aware of any publications indicating that Tomahawks are being considered for the GP frigates, just that they will have a general/unspecified strike capability.

As a last point if shore strike is needed, then the gun provides a capability. So a 5 inch gun remains a useful addition.

Bottom line is that I don't see a problem with a 16 cell VLS platform provided that it comes with a substantial NSM holding.
 

Morgo

Well-Known Member
There has been a variety of discussion here around how many VLS cells the new GP Frigate will contain.

The report did highlight 4 options as exemplars, none of which have 32 VLS. However Marles did announce they were considering options from 4 nations.

Pat Conroy on The Guardian's podcast stated that the VLS of the GP Frigate would be between 16 and 32 VLS with the whole fleet at (Tier 1 & 2) containing between 700-800 VLS cells at completion, with the first steel cut in 2026 for the GP Frigate.

This suggests that the evolved versions of the exemplars (A210, FFM etc.) or slightly modified versions of the exemplars are under consideration to account for the 32 VLS option mentioned by Pat Conroy, alongside the exemplars with 16 VLS cells.
This is interesting. Sounds to me like the decision point isn’t whether the GPs will got from 16 to 32 (which would increased planned VLS from 704 to 880) but perhaps instead whether Hunter batch 2 has 32 or 64 (704 vs 800).

Either way it’s a whole lot of firepower.
 

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
This is interesting. Sounds to me like the decision point isn’t whether the GPs will got from 16 to 32 (which would increased planned VLS from 704 to 880) but perhaps instead whether Hunter batch 2 has 32 or 64 (704 vs 800).

Either way it’s a whole lot of firepower.
Certainly, a vast improvement on the 200 we have now.
 

seaspear

Well-Known Member
With regards to the uncrewed ships being proposed for the navy ,there does not seem to be information on the range or its ability in heavier seas, is it feasible to have such ships towed by larger ships to be deployed as needed?
This article suggests the Austal design is not in the running
 

GregorZ

Member
I would hope the GPs have at least half there VLS as strike length. For this I would think 32 cells would work. With strike length, it provides the ability to carry LRASMs and Tomahawks. The LRASM will provide a nice range boost and hitting power to the GPs, the Tomahawk ability will provide flexibility to mission planners. If the GPs have a CEC fitted, they could also be used to add SM magazine depth to the Hunters or Hobarts when running with.
 

InterestedParty

Active Member
With regards to the uncrewed ships being proposed for the navy ,there does not seem to be information on the range or its ability in heavier seas, is it feasible to have such ships towed by larger ships to be deployed as needed?
This article suggests the Austal design is not in the running
Without a crew or just having a minimal crew how does the optionally crewed ship protect itself or carry out damage control if needed. Surely it would be vulnerable to even a speedboat with a couple of javelins and couldnt venture out of sight of other fleet units.
I would have thought it to be the naval equivalent of a tank formation having no infantry support
 

JBRobbo

Member
Without a crew or just having a minimal crew how does the optionally crewed ship protect itself or carry out damage control if needed. Surely it would be vulnerable to even a speedboat with a couple of javelins and couldnt venture out of sight of other fleet units.
I would have thought it to be the naval equivalent of a tank formation having no infantry support
It never sails by itself, it'll be like a 3,000t colostomy bag VLS for any unit/s nearby with the necessary sensors, combat system and/or connectivity to use whatever weapons they've chosen to load to their full extent/cost benefit.
 

MickB

Well-Known Member
Austal's fingerprints are all over this. They are the prefered Australian ship builder, are currently experimenting with the technology and are involved with providing autonomous vessels to the USN. While there are many sceptial about how mature this capability might be it wouldn't surprise me is it was the first cab off the rank as far as the delivery of new vessels to the RAN was concerned.

In the Australian context Austal is trialing its unmanned tech in a retired ACPB.
This may mean the Aus version may not be a direct copy of the US but may have local content and suppliers.
 

seaspear

Well-Known Member
It never sails by itself, it'll be like a 3,000t colostomy bag VLS for any unit/s nearby with the necessary sensors, combat system and/or connectivity to use whatever weapons they've chosen to load to their full extent/cost benefit.
Interesting if this class of vessel is capable of being refuelled at sea
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
I suspect it will end up being a very highly automated frigate normally with a bridge crew but otherwise similar defensive and offensive systems to a regular frigate.

Maintenance will be in port and by teams flown or boated in from other ships.
 

SammyC

Well-Known Member
USN LUSV

USN Ghost Fleet Program

Vanguard

I've been trawling the internet for information on the USN autonomous fleet (had some time on my hands where I could either mow the lawn or procrastinate, guess which option won out).

The above are a couple of useful articles that provide an overview of the USN autonomous fleet plan. They call our LOSCV a LUSV (unmmanned rather than optionally manned in the acronym, but not much easier to pronounce). It's intended to be about 60-90 metres and 1,00-2,000 tonnes, so much the same size as an Arafura. It would hold 16-32 launchers for land attack (Tomahawk) and anti ship (NSM), so not necessarily all VLS. It would cost in the order of $250m US ($380 AUS) per platform.

The machinery is intended to last 30-60 days without intervention, and I've seen somewhere else (sorry can't find the article) that Caterpillar have been trialling their 3512/3516 diesel engines to achieve this standard (and they can).

The USN have several vessels already trialling autonomous technology, with two notables being the Ranger and Mariner (converted offshore supply ships), and these are already tagging along with task groups. They are fitted with the virtual Aegis system and Ranger recently demonstrated an SM6 remote missile firing.

Vanguard (an Austal USA build) was launched this year as the first purpose built LUSV and is the newest addition. It is starting to look like what an actual LUSV might be. Forward budget funding estimates show the USN getting about half a dozen of these over the next 3-5 years, so expect some rapid maturation of the technology.

Their first unmanned effort was Sea Hunter, which I think came to Sydney recently. It has a sister ship the Sea Hawk. Both are about 30 metres in length and 150 tonnes. Both have travelled the high seas by themselves. In addition to pioneering long distance remote operation, these are aparently being used to test their capability for submarine tracking and detection. Consider these small surveillance craft that could be used along with the LUSV for intelligence gathering and enemy spotting. They call them MUSVs (medium rather than large in the acronym, bonous points for creativity).

The LUSV is not much more than a powered barge, with a basic navigation package and an Aegis/CEC link. It would be designed to American classification society (so civilian) standards. I would suggest in a conflict it becomes disposable if hit (provided there is no crew of course). They are intentionally small such that the loss of a single vessel is not impactful, very different from the arsenal ship concept.

Consider 3 of these LUSVs holding about 100 missiles between them as a group attached to say a Burke. This doubles the Burke's firepower for a about a third of the cost of a Burke (they cost approx $2B US), and for no additional head count. Alternatively it makes a Constellation about as powerful as a Burke. This is, I will suggest, the new principle of distributed lethality.

The broader picture for the USN is to have upwards of 30-50% of their fleet autonomous and uncrewed by about 2050. They recognise that they can't build and staff warships at the rate that will be needed for the future, and the community acceptance of casualties is decreasing.

So the idea of a Hunter having a single tag along LOSCV is the start of a longer conversion to autonomous warships. I would foresee that the next fleet (so ships built in the late 2040s and 50s) will be built on this technology.

A future state (beyond 2040) might be to have a Hunter (or replacement platform) with a fleet of several LUSVs for missile loading and several more MUSVs out on the perimeter for over the horizon surveilance. In this concept, the Hunter becomes more the quarterback as the sensor, data analyser and firing authoriser, plus the mothership for all the small vessels.

Notably, under this model, the number of missiles on the actual Hunter (or replacement) platform becomes less important. It really only needs to hold its own local defence needs. It's an interesting twist to the current concerns with her capability.
 
Last edited:
It never sails by itself, it'll be like a 3,000t colostomy bag VLS for any unit/s nearby with the necessary sensors, combat system and/or connectivity to use whatever weapons they've chosen to load to their full extent/cost benefit.
Think of Ghost Bat but for the navy.
 

devo99

Well-Known Member
I would view that the strategy around VLS capacity comes down to an understanding of the strike capability envisaged. Strike is the ability to hit another ship or shore target.

If the strike requirement is anti ship, then the NSM is the choice, and these are deck cannister based rather than VLS. So consider designs that maximise NSMs in preference to the VLS capacity. I will note that the NSM advertises with a secondary shore function, so they also provide some shore strike capability.

If the strike capability is to include shore attack, particularly deep shore where Tomahawk would be needed, then the VLS capacity becomes relevant.

For a smaller GP frigate, focussed on ASW and escort roles, I would have thought that strike is focused primarily on anti ship. Hence designs that have larger NSM holdings (say 16) are preferable, and smaller 16 cell VLS for AAW defence (so say 64 ESSM) would probably be fine.

I kinda think Tomahawk is better left for the Hobarts, LOCSVs and perhaps Hunters, rather than the GP frigates. It feels like it is trying to do too much with a small platform. Of note I'm not aware of any publications indicating that Tomahawks are being considered for the GP frigates, just that they will have a general/unspecified strike capability.

As a last point if shore strike is needed, then the gun provides a capability. So a 5 inch gun remains a useful addition.

Bottom line is that I don't see a problem with a 16 cell VLS platform provided that it comes with a substantial NSM holding.
I personally hope that a standoff anti-submarine weapon such as VL-ASROC or Type 07, as is used by the Mogami-class, is purchased. 8-16 NSM, 32 ESSM and either 8 SM-2s or 8 VL-ASROC is a pretty useful armament for the type of light frigate being looked at. This is especially so if they have CEC.
 

Maranoa

Active Member
A quick googles see that with the exception of the Tasman corvette (which is not actually shortlisted), all of the others would require massive integration, test, verification and validation efforts at great cost before any of the SM2/SM6/ASROC or NSM munitions above could be even placed in their VLS cells let alone launched using all of those bespoke sensor suites. It looks like the mother of all non recurring engineering costs. This is looking like the dumbest of dumbest ideas ever dreamed up with no hope of ever 'seemlessly networking' in the ADF's single fused digital battlespace C4I systems without decades of software issues/trials/certification ect ect ect. A money pit that will burn up ridiculous amounts of cash that could be spent elsewhere.
 

Armchair

Active Member
A quick googles see that with the exception of the Tasman corvette (which is not actually shortlisted), all of the others would require massive integration, test, verification and validation efforts at great cost before any of the SM2/SM6/ASROC or NSM munitions above could be even placed in their VLS cells let alone launched using all of those bespoke sensor suites. It looks like the mother of all non recurring engineering costs. This is looking like the dumbest of dumbest ideas ever dreamed up with no hope of ever 'seemlessly networking' in the ADF's single fused digital battlespace C4I systems without decades of software issues/trials/certification ect ect ect. A money pit that will burn up ridiculous amounts of cash that could be spent elsewhere.
I agree integration costs are important but no ship has been short listed yet (but Alpha 3000 is mentioned as an exemplar).
Loading SM2, SM6 and ASROC in RAN GP Frigate VLS cells are all, at this stage, proposals of internet posters - probably not worth worrying about integration costs for those yet (I am not saying they are bad ideas necessarily).
I am not sure anyone has proposed loading NSM into the specific VLS cells being discussed.

Do you have an alternative to the plan (in broad terms) that you would prefer?
 

hauritz

Well-Known Member
A quick googles see that with the exception of the Tasman corvette (which is not actually shortlisted), all of the others would require massive integration, test, verification and validation efforts at great cost before any of the SM2/SM6/ASROC or NSM munitions above could be even placed in their VLS cells let alone launched using all of those bespoke sensor suites. It looks like the mother of all non recurring engineering costs. This is looking like the dumbest of dumbest ideas ever dreamed up with no hope of ever 'seemlessly networking' in the ADF's single fused digital battlespace C4I systems without decades of software issues/trials/certification ect ect ect. A money pit that will burn up ridiculous amounts of cash that could be spent elsewhere.
Not a lot of other options.

I do think that actually beating the Hunter into service is being optimistic even with an overseas build. It will take at least a year for selection maybe another year for contacts and then of course the design phase begins. They will probably be lucky if they can start cutting steel before the end of the decade.

With the ANZACs probably all out of service by the mid 2030s we could have a smallish surface fleet of 3 DDGs perhaps a couple of Hunters and maybe three OS built GP frigates. Not ideal.
 
Top