Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[DDG38]

Happy 123rd birthday to the RAN today. Senior Service still out there getting stuff done.
Cake from a reception at HMAS Watson. Source : ADF Image Library

Members of ship's company watch a sunset onboard HMAS Warramunga while at sea on regional presence deployment.
Image Source : ADF Image Library

Ship's company participate in a morning physical training session onboard HMAS Warramunga during a regional presence deployment.
Image Source : ADF Image Library

 

[JBRobbo]

I'm in two minds about whether the future GP frigates can, could or should even use TLAM. On one hand The Netherlands recently signed up to procure the TLAM for use on their De Zeven Provincien class AAW frigates (and Walrus class subs), none of which feature the Aegis combat system. The question then becomes how does it integrate with their existing combat system (not sure of the name, but fairly certain it's identical to their German 'Sachsen' class counterparts and no others). My guess would be, as with anything untried, probably not well initially. We should observe (it's their money, not ours) and if it works with few hiccups, then you beauty, we maximise that experience and put it to use on the Saab 9LV. My guess is that their CIC integration would be based on the more compact 'submarine-style' console/s (BYG-1/CCS MK2) were it to even come to fruition.

No Timeline Yet to Add Tomahawk, SM-6 to Constellation Frigates, Says Program Manager - USNI News

NATIONAL HARBOR, Md. – The Navy is still working through a timeline to meet a congressional mandate to add Standard Missile 6 and the Tomahawk Cruise Missiles to future Constellation-class guided-missile frigates, service officials told USNI News. A requirement from the Fiscal Year 2023 National...

news.usni.org

“From an Aegis perspective, with the [Aegis] common source library, you can imagine SM-6 may not be that far out of reach … Tomahawk is a little different. If you were trying to install a Tomahawk suite, like on a Flight III [Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer], it wouldn’t fit on a frigate.”

-Referring to the TTWCS additional console space required in the CIC on the comparatively even larger Constellation class frigates, which again don't use the Aegis combat system.

Eventually, I don't think the US will even bother with the Constellation's as they have so many Burke's and so many VLS cells, so unless it is pursued and proven successful by a 3rd party (i.e Netherlands) beforehand, I doubt we ourselves would even try. Therefore, my guess for the RAN would be a MEKO A-200 ANZAC evolution with the same combat system, a marginally better all-GaN based AESA L/S/X-band radar suite, the best off-the-shelf IRST sensor/s & ESM/ECM suites available, the Ultra 'Sea Lancer' single-tow low-frequency variable depth sonar from the Hobart's + their Type-7150 HMS, if too large then the Thales BlueHunter/Kingklip Mk2 etcc . 2x8-cell tactical Mk41 VLS for 64x ESSM Blk2, 4x4 topside Mk87 canisters for 16x NSM, 127mm/62 Mk45 Mod4, 2x2 Mk32 324mm SVTT for MU90/Mk54, Phalanx 6-barrel 20x102mm L/99 CIWS, 2x R-400M RCWS w/ 30x113mm L/50 M230LF

 

[seaspear]

How genuine the plans are for the planned increase in the "fleet" may be seen in actual retention plans for existing personnel and active recruitment of ,Im not sure if any have been pu

 

[vonnoobie]

... Keep saying but keep[s falling on deaf ears. The Meko A200 is not large enough to outfit it with the weapons payload people expect. It has stability issues in rough sea's if over loaded which is why the Anzac only ever had the 1 x 8 cell Mk 41 and not 2 as previously planned. The meko 200's globally that have up to 32 cells are for different missiles smaller and less capable then the ESSM's.

In terms of SSM's yes Egypt and Algeria have 16 fitted but they also operate in far calmer sea's, South Africa on other hand operating in rough sea's has just 8 like our Anzac's.

Yes Meko A200 be easiest to acquire but it is also stuck with no growth margin and extreme limitations on what we can mount on it.

if we outfit them as some have suggested we will have to ask the enemy to wait until the weather improves before we can come out and fight them.

 

[spoz]

TLAM has a stand alone FCS. Not sure I see the point in mounting them in a small frigate; if you want to put them in a Hobart or a Hunter - not that I really see a lot of point even in them either given the number we could embark vs known USN usage in recent campaigns.

 

[ADMk2]

TLAM has a stand alone FCS. Not sure I see the point in mounting them in a small frigate; if you want to put them in a Hobart or a Hunter - not that I really see a lot of point even in them either given the number we could embark vs known USN usage in recent campaigns.

I don’t think anyone is planning on using them the way the USN has been. It is a fact though, that many countries clearly see operational benefit of a capability to employ smaller numbers of cruise missiles, including the French, British and Russian navies in operational scenarios.

Half a dozen to a dozen (perhaps) per ship may not seem like a lot compared to the USN potentially launching dozens or maybe even hundreds per campaign, but that doesn’t mean those half a dozen to a dozen missiles don’t have any utility, or aren’t worth carrying at all.

 

[SammyC]

In regards to TLAM load out, I would view its more about choices. To have one thing, means something else has to be given up.

With a 16 VLS platform (and I am in the camp that believe that's what the final ship will have), 8 cells will be set aside for ESSM at minimum.

The other 8 cells can be used for one lot of: 32 more ESSM (more resiliant self defence), 8 SM2/6 ( longer range self defence), 8 ASROC (more ASW capability), or perhaps 8 Tomahawks. There might also be a future option for LRASM, but not in the near term.

Remember the Tier 2 function is escort, ASW and strike. With that in mind, the additional ESSM or SM2/6 are likely more appropriate choices. The strike in my view is naval and NSM provides that capability. ASW can be conducted by a torpedo carrying helo. The GP frigate is also supposed to be cheap, and I suspect a Tomahawk compatibility fitout is expensive.

Consider the perspective of a GP frigate charged with protecting an oil tanker comming down from Singapore. There are a couple of enemy frigates lurking around islands launching shoot and run missile attacks, and enemy fighters are doing the same. She might need to fend off two or three attacks until in safe waters, and to do so alone.

In that kind of environment, I would suggest the additional ESSM are what is most needed, perhaps the SM2/6 to have a go at the aircraft, and the NSM to give the enemy ships something to think about. TLAM would have less utilisation, unless it is in the anti ship configuration (which I don't think we are buying).

Perhaps the same GP frigate is part of a convoy protecting an LPD, with a Hobart present linked with a couple of those cool looking LOCSVs. In that case the other ships have better capacity for Tomahawk, and the GP would probably add more value with an ESSM or SM2/6 loadout for additional point defence.

Bottom line, when a GP frigate is acting alone, then self defence is likely more important. When its with others, the other ships are likely better suited for land strike. In most scenarios, the Tomahawk is not the most useful choice for the GP frigate.

Perhaps I'm wrong and the GP comes with a 32 VLS, and then more choices are available. Or maybe it gets upgraded to link with LOCSVs for the same flexibility.

But with 16 VLS, I suspect the best loadout is all ESSM.

 

[devo99]

The international norm seems to be 8 cells devoted to ESSM except for the Spanish who seem to dedicate 16 cells on their DDGs to ESSM.
I'd think 8 cells would be enough for ESSM with the other 8 cells adding flexibility to carry a mission dependent load of longer ranged SAMs, anti-submarine weapons or TLAM, really whatever else is needed for the mission.

 

[Reptilia]

Both Podcast(Guardian) and Interview(ABC), Pat Conroy states 16-32 missile cells on the Tier 2 frigates.

Pat Conroy on Labor’s ‘enhanced lethality’ revamp of Australia’s warships – Australian Politics podcast

Daniel Hurst, Guardian Australia’s foreign affairs and defence correspondent, speaks to minister for defence industry Pat Conroy about the revamp of Australia’s warships

www.theguardian.com

https://www.minister.defence.gov.au/transcripts/2024-02-29/radio-interview-abc

 

[OldTex]

In regards to TLAM load out, I would view its more about choices. To have one thing, means something else has to be given up.

With a 16 VLS platform (and I am in the camp that believe that's what the final ship will have), 8 cells will be set aside for ESSM at minimum.

The other 8 cells can be used for one lot of: 32 more ESSM (more resiliant self defence), 8 SM2/6 ( longer range self defence), 8 ASROC (more ASW capability), or perhaps 8 Tomahawks. There might also be a future option for LRASM, but not in the near term.

Remember the Tier 2 function is escort, ASW and strike. With that in mind, the additional ESSM or SM2/6 are likely more appropriate choices. The strike in my view is naval and NSM provides that capability. ASW can be conducted by a torpedo carrying helo. The GP frigate is also supposed to be cheap, and I suspect a Tomahawk compatibility fitout is expensive.

Another way of looking at this is through the VLS lens. The choice of TLAM/SM6/LRASM requires the VLS be Strike length, while all of the other choices only need Tactical length VLS. In both the Maritime Presence/Independent Operation (in a low threat environment) and the Escort/Task Force Element roles the need is for local and medium range air defence missiles so primarily ESSM and some SM2 (perhaps 32 and 8 respectively in a 16 cell VLS). For ASW the primary delivery system will be the MH-60R carrying Mk54 LWTs. The use of VLA would first need those missiles to be introduced into service (but that could happen). Bringing VLA into the loadout configuration could be done within a 16 cell VLS but at the cost of AAW depth. If VLA were to be considered then the growth of the VLS from 16 cells to 24 or 32 cells becomes essential. This would also offer some additional depth in some loadout configurations. The other alternative to growing the number of Mk41 cells might be a couple of 3 cell ExLS but that has other SWaP considerations.

 

[Wombat000]

With regards to suggested missile load outs,
When accounting for numbers, it must be presumed that a % of the magazine will be intended never to be used.
the ship in practical terms must be considered to have less than 8 deployable cells.
- the ship will need to exit the AO to re-arm, and no one will intentionally do that transit with empty holsters.

so 8-cell, even at quad packed, at x number per inbound target does not leave a lot.

whilst 16 cells might be todays default 8-cell of yesterday, all that expense for only 16 only makes the ship prematurely tactically strained and is convincingly ‘fools economy‘.

 

[vonnoobie]

TLAM on Tier 2's is waste of time, money and a distraction from it's core function.

Tier 2's be it operating independently or as part of a task force will have three core goals, AAW, ASW, ASuW. If we are trying to also throw in land strike capability then we can throw low crewing out the window, we can throw minimal modification out the window.. and the time frame, good riddence.

Hobarts and Hunters have or will likely have it, and would say better then 50% chance that the AUKUS submarine will to not to mention the LOSV's, So that is already potentially upwards of 23 platforms capable of performing that task, No need to try and cram it into another 8 - 11 more ships when that isn't even close to their intended role.

 

[Brissy1982]

There is clearly a range of views about the role and armament of the Tier 2 frigates and I think that debate is healthy, as long as it remains courteous. I'm sorry (but not really sorry) that I seem to keep harping on about courtesy, but the discourtesy that seems to be a feature of online discourse these days is quite sickening to me - I abide by the philosophy, "If you wouldn't say it face-to-face, don't say it online!".

There have also been some comments about a possible split build for the Tier 2 frigates, and that is a very interesting proposition.

I will make no bones about it - I am strongly in favour of the Mogami/new FFM as the RAN Tier 2 frigate. I think there is a great to like about these ships, and I think this class(es) of ships has the potential to be both a short-term and long-term boon for the RAN in terms of its low crewing numbers and the range of tasks it can undertake. As I said in a previous post, if I was 20 years younger, I would leap at the chance to serve aboard a Batch 1 or "new FFM"/Batch 2 Mogami-class frigate in the RAN.

With regard to a possible split-build, if the Mogami-class was to be chosen as the RAN's preferred design, from what I have read since my original post on the topic (#8,366), the build of the Batch 1 Mogami-class frigates for the JMSDF may actually have been slowed somewhat - the reasons aren't entirely clear to me, but I suspect it may be to keep the existing Mogami-class build ticking along until the design of the "new FFM" or what I have described as the Batch 2 Mogami-class frigate is settled and ready to start construction. This maintenance of "hot""or at least "warm" production lines seems to be a feature of both Japanese and Korean naval ship-building, which clearly is a priority for the governments of both countries. If only Australian governments had adhered to the same philosophy and avoided "valleys of death", the RAN's current woes could have been avoided - alas, successive governments chose to do nothing instead.

Currently the start of the new FFM/Batch 2 Mogami-class build appears to be likely to start in 2027.

That could give a small window from mid to late 2025 until 2027 between the end of the current Batch 1 Mogami-class frigate build and the start of the new FFM/Batch 2 Mogami-class build. It seems possible that in the small window between the end of the Batch 1 and the start of the Batch 2 builds, Australia could request the "crash-build" of three basic Batch-1 Mogami-class ships to the extent of the hulls, propulsion and power-generation machinery and superstructure (say up to bridge-level), with spaces left for installations of the necessary cables, wiring and cooling for CEAFAR, Saab 9LV, etc. The hulls could then be sea-lifted to Australia (as the LHDs were) for an Australianised fitout to be completed here. That would allow for the installation of CEAFAR, Saab 9LV, Nulka and MASS decoys, and other RAN systems and weapons. The 16-cell Mk-41 VLS could be installed either in the "crash-build" process or as part of the Australian fitout - whichever option would be most efficient (I suspect the latter, but am happy to be corrected).

The result would be something of a "Franken-frigate" for the first three overseas-built vessels, with RAN weapons and sensors inserted into or bolted onto a Batch 1 Mogami-class hull. These ships could represent an advance in capability over the Anzac-class ships, which could be replaced on a one-for-one basis as each new Batch 1 Mogami-class frigate enters service. It would be a moderate- to high-risk approach, but speed to IOC and FOC could be crucial if the Commonwealth is really serious about getting replacements for the Anzac-class into the water in the timeframes outlined in the current government's announcement (first steel cut in 2026, and the first three Tier 2 ships in service by the time the first Hunter-class frigate enters service in 2034).

That would leave the potential for the remaining 8 Tier 2 frigates to be constructed in Australia to a different design. If what I have outlined were to be decided upon by the Commonwealth, then if selected the "new FFM"/Batch 2 Mogami-class design, which is larger and more capable than the Batch 1 design, with Australianisations, could start construction at Henderson from around 2030, which would allow Australia to benefit from the learnings of Mitsubishi Heavy Industries from the construction of the first few "new FFM"/Batch 2 Mogami-class ships for the JMSDF.

Of course, I'm just a former PWO, and a great big nerd - I am quite happy to defer to the expertise of those members who have actual shipbuilding experience.

Do you think I might be on the right track, or am I way off the mark?

 

[John Fedup]

As I understand it, the 20 plus build of Mogami frigates was cut to 12 so that the FFM could start up after the last Mogami has been completed. The cut was likely due to the navy wanting a larger more capable frigate to partially counter the growing PLAN threat.

 

[iambuzzard]

Sou

There is clearly a range of views about the role and armament of the Tier 2 frigates and I think that debate is healthy, as long as it remains courteous. I'm sorry (but not really sorry) that I seem to keep harping on about courtesy, but the discourtesy that seems to be a feature of online discourse these days is quite sickening to me - I abide by the philosophy, "If you wouldn't say it face-to-face, don't say it online!".

There have also been some comments about a possible split build for the Tier 2 frigates, and that is a very interesting proposition.

I will make no bones about it - I am strongly in favour of the Mogami/new FFM as the RAN Tier 2 frigate. I think there is a great to like about these ships, and I think this class(es) of ships has the potential to be both a short-term and long-term boon for the RAN in terms of its low crewing numbers and the range of tasks it can undertake. As I said in a previous post, if I was 20 years younger, I would leap at the chance to serve aboard a Batch 1 or "new FFM"/Batch 2 Mogami-class frigate in the RAN.

With regard to a possible split-build, if the Mogami-class was to be chosen as the RAN's preferred design, from what I have read since my original post on the topic (#8,366), the build of the Batch 1 Mogami-class frigates for the JMSDF may actually have been slowed somewhat - the reasons aren't entirely clear to me, but I suspect it may be to keep the existing Mogami-class build ticking along until the design of the "new FFM" or what I have described as the Batch 2 Mogami-class frigate is settled and ready to start construction. This maintenance of "hot""or at least "warm" production lines seems to be a feature of both Japanese and Korean naval ship-building, which clearly is a priority for the governments of both countries. If only Australian governments had adhered to the same philosophy and avoided "valleys of death", the RAN's current woes could have been avoided - alas, successive governments chose to do nothing instead.

Currently the start of the new FFM/Batch 2 Mogami-class build appears to be likely to start in 2027.

That could give a small window from mid to late 2025 until 2027 between the end of the current Batch 1 Mogami-class frigate build and the start of the new FFM/Batch 2 Mogami-class build. It seems possible that in the small window between the end of the Batch 1 and the start of the Batch 2 builds, Australia could request the "crash-build" of three basic Batch-1 Mogami-class ships to the extent of the hulls, propulsion and power-generation machinery and superstructure (say up to bridge-level), with spaces left for installations of the necessary cables, wiring and cooling for CEAFAR, Saab 9LV, etc. The hulls could then be sea-lifted to Australia (as the LHDs were) for an Australianised fitout to be completed here. That would allow for the installation of CEAFAR, Saab 9LV, Nulka and MASS decoys, and other RAN systems and weapons. The 16-cell Mk-41 VLS could be installed either in the "crash-build" process or as part of the Australian fitout - whichever option would be most efficient (I suspect the latter, but am happy to be corrected).

The result would be something of a "Franken-frigate" for the first three overseas-built vessels, with RAN weapons and sensors inserted into or bolted onto a Batch 1 Mogami-class hull. These ships could represent an advance in capability over the Anzac-class ships, which could be replaced on a one-for-one basis as each new Batch 1 Mogami-class frigate enters service. It would be a moderate- to high-risk approach, but speed to IOC and FOC could be crucial if the Commonwealth is really serious about getting replacements for the Anzac-class into the water in the timeframes outlined in the current government's announcement (first steel cut in 2026, and the first three Tier 2 ships in service by the time the first Hunter-class frigate enters service in 2034).

That would leave the potential for the remaining 8 Tier 2 frigates to be constructed in Australia to a different design. If what I have outlined were to be decided upon by the Commonwealth, then if selected the "new FFM"/Batch 2 Mogami-class design, which is larger and more capable than the Batch 1 design, with Australianisations, could start construction at Henderson from around 2030, which would allow Australia to benefit from the learnings of Mitsubishi Heavy Industries from the construction of the first few "new FFM"/Batch 2 Mogami-class ships for the JMSDF.

Of course, I'm just a former PWO, and a great big nerd - I am quite happy to defer to the expertise of those members who have actual shipbuilding experience.

Do you think I might be on the right track, or am I way off the mark?

Sounds sensible to this layman. Now to get the pollies and Defence hierachy to listen.

 

[Reptilia]

There is clearly a range of views about the role and armament of the Tier 2 frigates and I think that debate is healthy, as long as it remains courteous. I'm sorry (but not really sorry) that I seem to keep harping on about courtesy, but the discourtesy that seems to be a feature of online discourse these days is quite sickening to me - I abide by the philosophy, "If you wouldn't say it face-to-face, don't say it online!".

There have also been some comments about a possible split build for the Tier 2 frigates, and that is a very interesting proposition.

I will make no bones about it - I am strongly in favour of the Mogami/new FFM as the RAN Tier 2 frigate. I think there is a great to like about these ships, and I think this class(es) of ships has the potential to be both a short-term and long-term boon for the RAN in terms of its low crewing numbers and the range of tasks it can undertake. As I said in a previous post, if I was 20 years younger, I would leap at the chance to serve aboard a Batch 1 or "new FFM"/Batch 2 Mogami-class frigate in the RAN.

With regard to a possible split-build, if the Mogami-class was to be chosen as the RAN's preferred design, from what I have read since my original post on the topic (#8,366), the build of the Batch 1 Mogami-class frigates for the JMSDF may actually have been slowed somewhat - the reasons aren't entirely clear to me, but I suspect it may be to keep the existing Mogami-class build ticking along until the design of the "new FFM" or what I have described as the Batch 2 Mogami-class frigate is settled and ready to start construction. This maintenance of "hot""or at least "warm" production lines seems to be a feature of both Japanese and Korean naval ship-building, which clearly is a priority for the governments of both countries. If only Australian governments had adhered to the same philosophy and avoided "valleys of death", the RAN's current woes could have been avoided - alas, successive governments chose to do nothing instead.

Currently the start of the new FFM/Batch 2 Mogami-class build appears to be likely to start in 2027.

That could give a small window from mid to late 2025 until 2027 between the end of the current Batch 1 Mogami-class frigate build and the start of the new FFM/Batch 2 Mogami-class build. It seems possible that in the small window between the end of the Batch 1 and the start of the Batch 2 builds, Australia could request the "crash-build" of three basic Batch-1 Mogami-class ships to the extent of the hulls, propulsion and power-generation machinery and superstructure (say up to bridge-level), with spaces left for installations of the necessary cables, wiring and cooling for CEAFAR, Saab 9LV, etc. The hulls could then be sea-lifted to Australia (as the LHDs were) for an Australianised fitout to be completed here. That would allow for the installation of CEAFAR, Saab 9LV, Nulka and MASS decoys, and other RAN systems and weapons. The 16-cell Mk-41 VLS could be installed either in the "crash-build" process or as part of the Australian fitout - whichever option would be most efficient (I suspect the latter, but am happy to be corrected).

The result would be something of a "Franken-frigate" for the first three overseas-built vessels, with RAN weapons and sensors inserted into or bolted onto a Batch 1 Mogami-class hull. These ships could represent an advance in capability over the Anzac-class ships, which could be replaced on a one-for-one basis as each new Batch 1 Mogami-class frigate enters service. It would be a moderate- to high-risk approach, but speed to IOC and FOC could be crucial if the Commonwealth is really serious about getting replacements for the Anzac-class into the water in the timeframes outlined in the current government's announcement (first steel cut in 2026, and the first three Tier 2 ships in service by the time the first Hunter-class frigate enters service in 2034).

That would leave the potential for the remaining 8 Tier 2 frigates to be constructed in Australia to a different design. If what I have outlined were to be decided upon by the Commonwealth, then if selected the "new FFM"/Batch 2 Mogami-class design, which is larger and more capable than the Batch 1 design, with Australianisations, could start construction at Henderson from around 2030, which would allow Australia to benefit from the learnings of Mitsubishi Heavy Industries from the construction of the first few "new FFM"/Batch 2 Mogami-class ships for the JMSDF.

Of course, I'm just a former PWO, and a great big nerd - I am quite happy to defer to the expertise of those members who have actual shipbuilding experience.

Do you think I might be on the right track, or am I way off the mark?

The new FFM build begins next year for FOC delivery in 2027.

 

[devo99]

The 16-cell Mk-41 VLS could be installed either in the "crash-build" process or as part of the Australian fitout - whichever option would be most efficient (I suspect the latter, but am happy to be corrected).

I have been told there may be some extra effort required to get the VLS fitted as notably none of the Mogamis commissioned into the JMSDF so far have actually been fitted with their VLS with the first one to get it intended to be JS Niyodo which is to be commissioned in December this year.

 

[John Fedup]

I have been told there may be some extra effort required to get the VLS fitted as notably none of the Mogamis commissioned into the JMSDF so far have actually been fitted with their VLS with the first one to get it intended to be JS Niyodo which is to be commissioned in December this year.

Perhaps another reason for reducing the Mogami build number and switching over to FFM.

 

[Armchair]

The international norm seems to be 8 cells devoted to ESSM except for the Spanish who seem to dedicate 16 cells on their DDGs to ESSM.
I'd think 8 cells would be enough for ESSM with the other 8 cells adding flexibility to carry a mission dependent load of longer ranged SAMs, anti-submarine weapons or TLAM, really whatever else is needed for the mission.

But will 8 self defence cells be sufficient in the 2030s? I imagine that one of the questions about extending the life of ANZACs is exactly that.
If there are more than 16 cells then an (expensive) alternative to TLAM would be to acquire some SM-6. It would be a general purpose missile for general purpose frigates (and just the possibility they were on board would provide a tactical challenge for hostile aircraft).

 

[vonnoobie]

Perhaps another reason for reducing the Mogami build number and switching over to FFM.

Actually build was split because Japanese decided not to build same old thing for 11 years, The New FFM is pretty much a batch 2 in basic terms just comes across odd to most because the Japanese batches are bloody huge.

In regards to lack of VLS in the earliest Mogami's that decision was made to speed up introduction of hulls as it wasn't quite ready yet to start build with them. Plan is to go back later on and retrofit the Mk 41's to ships lacking them.