Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[StevoJH]

Ignoring the fact that the UK spends somewhere in the vicinity of twice what Australia does on defence.

What is the use case for a *single* carrier operated by the RAN in our region? A single carrier is not a capability, or at least not an enduring one. Its why the RN bought two. Just look at how much time the MN and Russians have no carrier available as an example.

Don't forget the difficulties of operating aircraft over the modern battlefield against peer or near peer opponents as shown over Ukraine, let alone in the relatively small numbers that a single carrier brings to the party.

Oh wait, I can't ignore the elephant in the room. Money and People.

If you want a fast jet capability at sea, you are talking about a 30-40% increase in the ADF's fast jet fleet. That does NOT come cheap. Then you need the pilots (and possibly even more difficult) the maintainers to support them.

If the RAN decides it needs more airframes at sea, better to do what it is already doing and enhance capabilities already in service. Buy more MH-60R's, its not like there is a shortage of deck spots for them these days.

 

[Armchair]

Curious as to how many Essm the RAN will actually need to stock. And also wonder how long the shelf life is?
Any thoughts?
Say 20 ships, that's about 7 ready to deploy and 6 more almost ready. Say a full load out for 12- 13 ships, plus re loads. 32 per ship is 416 ish, then say probably 3 of those ships will have 48 to 64, so let's call it 570, then there is the re loads.....so stock will be what? 1000? 1200? What will the magazines need? Then there are SM2/6 how many?

This ( I think Russian) article suggests a service life for ESSM of 10 years.

An anti-aircraft missile Evolved Sea Sparrow (RIM-162) | Missilery.info

ESSM (Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile) RIM-162 antiaircraft guided missile of various versions is used as a means of air defense of surface ships against attacks of cruise missiles, airplanes,

en.missilery.info

I don’t know the reliability of the source (it contains some accurate information and one or two garbled inserts). A 2002 US DoD doc also refers to a 10 year service life for Block 1 though. https://media.defense.gov/2002/Jul/05/2001715839/-1/-1/1/02-126.pdf
Bear in mind the 20 ship fleet would not exist before the 2040s (17 ships need to be built and no more than 8 retire). Will ESSM Block 2 still be the munition of choice then?

 

[Morgo]

My goodness.... settle down. I would have thought the laughing emoji was a surefire sign, I was being sarcastic! Tounge in cheek. Obviously not
Not to mention I prefaced it with I'm not sure how reliable this is.

I didn't at all suggest we should acquire it in my original post.



I know they don't, I was there.

That said, since we are here now ......

With all due respect to the Mods

1. There is a reasonable argument that while in the past discussing a RAN Carrier was well and truly in the realm of fantasy, now in our current strategic environment it may warrant some genuine thought. Especially if one may be on offer at a discounted rate and we now have AUKUS, which impacts the plausibility of such a prospect.

Discussing purchasing a near new carrier from a close ally at a reduced rate is no more fanciful than some of the other dribble we have seen on this forum (let's not forget it is a forum, not a daily report) in the past 12 months.

It has been noted by many that the world is facing some of the most complex and challenging strategic circumstances in living memory and all the conditions mimic those before previous world wars, except now the multipolar order is much more complex with non-state actors, new technologies and societal changes that further complicate the threat matrix.

Yes we have had the Naval review and that is the plan (for now!) but the GoD on announcing the DSR cited a desire to increase our strategic deterrence, improve the range and force projection of the Australian defence force. A carrier does exactly that! It would be prudent to hear the Royal Navy out if they want to offload it. Especially since it is already built and ready for service, something that can't be said for the SSNs.

If the strategic threat is imminent enough and much of the commentary from "strategic experts" says that it is (a threat that warranted AUKUS and steps to purchase of SSNs), we will find a way to overcome the challenges and cost of operating a fixed-wing carrier. RAN has done it before and it can again.

Yes, there are cost challenges and crewing hurdles that probably make it unviable for Australia. Still, you can be fairly certain our AUKUS partners would be open to assisting us with crewing if it meant another carrier in the Western Pacific that contributes to collective security as we head into a particularly dangerous period. To completely dismiss it without some analysis would be unwise. Opportunities to acquire near new carriers don't come up often.

We are talking about home basing of subs and joint crewing, what is the difference between Sub and Carrier? This concept could be applied to both. Instead of saying no, better commentary would be how could we make this work if we need/want to.

2. Between the lines the original post is less about the carrier and more about the challenges faced by the Royal Navy, and what this means for the RAN in terms of challenges and opportunities. What we can learn from their mistakes? How can we reduce running costs? How could we reduce crewing requirements? etc



We can't, but somehow we can afford 350+ Billion for our SSNs and 58 Billion in the next decade long before we see one. If we spent $2-3 Billion on a carrier (yes, I am aware the cost would be far higher than just ship acquisition cost) we'd at least have something to show for it by 2030. To be fair they probably should through it in for free.


Anyway, I have no desire to reignite the "carrier" storm we have seen previously here. Just wanted to post some news that could be of interest to fellow posters.

No mate. Just no. Please don’t go there.

I’d much rather have the Spaniards churn out another LHD with all this spare capacity they apparently have.

Or 3x Hunters back, or 3x extra DDGs.

Or 12 extra of these unmanned missile trucks were getting full of Tomahawks.

Or a squadron of P8s.

Or squadron of F35s.

Or a couple of hundred IFVs and a few more SPGs.

Or any number of other, better uses of money.

 

[OldTex]

Vanguard

This vessel was launched in Jan as the latest actual experimental ship. It was made by Austal US. It will be interesting to see how it develops.

From the image heading the article on the launch of OUSV 4 Vanguard it appears to be a minimally modified FSV. There have been suggestions that such a vessel could carry 4 launchers equivalent to 40' containers. LM has such a concealed launcher called the Mk70. While this combination might provide a prototype for the LOCSV there is one glaring issue. That issue being that the missile canisters in the Mk70 must be raised in order to launch which changes the CoG for the vessel. This raises a concern about the stability of the vessel conducting a salvo launch underway in varying sea states. So a minimally modified FSV might not be the cheap and easy way to bring the LOCSV into the fleet.

 

[ADMk2]

From the image heading the article on the launch of OUSV 4 Vanguard it appears to be a minimally modified FSV. There have been suggestions that such a vessel could carry 4 launchers equivalent to 40' containers. LM has such a concealed launcher called the Mk70. While this combination might provide a prototype for the LOCSV there is one glaring issue. That issue being that the missile canisters in the Mk70 must be raised in order to launch which changes the CoG for the vessel. This raises a concern about the stability of the vessel conducting a salvo launch underway in varying sea states. So a minimally modified FSV might not be the cheap and easy way to bring the LOCSV into the fleet.

Mk.70 is one way to do it. Adaptable deck launchers are another. In cells of 2, 4 or 8. They require practically no maintenance, no deck penetration and are (allegedly) reloadable at sea and are available as full strike length compatible cells or tactical length which could be very easily concealed as to their true purpose, if so desired.

 

[devo99]

Ok so entirely an assumption, nothing based on a fact.... However of the two classes the Mogami's/New FFM are replacing the Asagiri class destroyer has the same 6,000nm range of our Anzac's and 2 knots faster... Japan isn't exactly in the habit of going backwards in the capabilities of what they replace.

If FFM has the capability then I'd love to see them in the fleet. But I'm entitled to my assumptions as someone who's not responsible with actually making the decision.

 

[seaspear]

Mk.70 is one way to do it. Adaptable deck launchers are another. In cells of 2, 4 or 8. They require practically no maintenance, no deck penetration and are (allegedly) reloadable at sea and are available as full strike length compatible cells or tactical length which could be very easily concealed as to their true purpose, if so desired.

This ex destroyer captain was worried he only had 96 missiles available in a high end conflict , so I could see why he might be spruiking this there might be some naval captains happy to have 96

 

[SammyC]

From the image heading the article on the launch of OUSV 4 Vanguard it appears to be a minimally modified FSV. There have been suggestions that such a vessel could carry 4 launchers equivalent to 40' containers. LM has such a concealed launcher called the Mk70. While this combination might provide a prototype for the LOCSV there is one glaring issue. That issue being that the missile canisters in the Mk70 must be raised in order to launch which changes the CoG for the vessel. This raises a concern about the stability of the vessel conducting a salvo launch underway in varying sea states. So a minimally modified FSV might not be the cheap and easy way to bring the LOCSV into the fleet.

I would agree Vanguard is a modified FSV, very similar to the Ranger and Mariner, and it remains a prototype. I will suggest its design is for smaller, lighter loads (say 300-400 tonnes) at higher speed. Vanguard probably has the capacity for 8 cells with associated gear. The article does allude to improved unmanned crewing and autonomous capability, so it probably has some newer below deck technology to try out.

I read another article from an engine supplier (I think Caterpillar) talking about automating engine filter changes (something normally done by a person, often weekly) so perhaps some of these features have been fitted for testing.

Silly as it sounds, uncrewing an engine space comes down to things like filter changes. When I was at sea, this was the most common activity (other than unblocking toilets, fixing the clothes driers or repairing hot water services) that the marine technicians did. The actual engines themselves rarely needed attention. Otherwise it was opening/closing manual valves (fit a controller), and doing inspection rounds (fit a camera).

Vanguard is perhaps not ideal for the mk70 VLS with respect to stability. There are however other hull forms that can manage high centre of gravity loads. In comparison to the FSV style, our own Ocean Protector has a hull form for much heavier and taller loads and rougher seas. There are other trade offs such as speed (she is an SV, not a FSV), but the point is it can be done.

Looking at the USN budget estimates, they have requested funding for about a half dozen autonomous platforms in the $250M range to be built over the next five years. For this money one would expect they are more full size for 32 missiles, so stay tuned.

Stampede, you questioned modularity v integrated for the missile capability, good question. It will be interesting to see which eventually wins out. One of the principles of the LOCSV is however low cost. I also think interchangeably is valuable. In that light modular is perhaps better. The mk70 and adaptable deck launchers seem ideal for this type of vessel.

 

[Armchair]

Stampede, you questioned modularity v integrated for the missile capability, good question. It will be interesting to see which eventually wins out. One of the principles of the LOCSV is however low cost. I also think interchangeably is valuable. In that light modular is perhaps better. The mk70 and adaptable deck launchers seem ideal for this type of vessel.

Adaptability for other missions would be brilliant but the RAN has a specific deficiency. If long range strike is basically a RAN (as opposed to RAAF) mission then its major warships have too few cells (or, I would argue, there are not enough DDGs) and the alternative fixes such as accelerating or adapting Hunter are (presumably) risky and (hideously) expensive (and the latter might undermine ASW capability further). The VLS deficiency on DDGs / FFGS will persist into the 2050s on current plans (by which time the missile environment will be completely different and strike length VLS might be obsolete).
The technical challenge for the RAN LOCSV program may be finding a low maintenance vessel that can maintain the same speed of advance as a Hobart on patrol.

 

[Wombat000]

I suggest the deficiency in VLS is a result, and a potential perpetuation, of there seemingly being a fixation on limited numbers per hull.

Not so long ago Western navies could dictate operations with some level of certainty and rotate units as required, allowing modest magazine designs.
Do we really think thats the case now?

Does China even produce an FFG with 16 cells? (I must look that up!)

Strike is one thing, but you have to have the resilience to still be there.

 

[Volkodav]

if a navy has 12 ships and 4 are available then you have enough (maybe) for one task force and one on patrol or escorting resupply/ reinforcements.
if a navy has 20 ships there is some chance you could deploy task forces of 3 ships in two oceans simultaneously (or the 6-7 ships in one ocean that is probably needed for a large amphibious commitment).
Australia has large amphibs and a strategy of defence through off-shore power projection in its region it also has crew number problems. If you buy the strategy then you probably end up with the high-low mix (different strategies lead to other options better discussed in the ADF thread).

It's not as simple as that. The more ships you have in a fleet, and the younger the fleet, the higher the percentage of of that fleet with be available at any one time.

Three ships gives you one almost all the time, but you need four to guarantee one.

Four ships however with give you two available for deployment most of the time, with one other in extended availability (refit/ maintenance) and one in short availability.

A fleet of five gives you two almost all of the time and three sometimes, with as many as four being available for a planned surge.

The greater the number of ships in your fleet the larger the percentage of them available for deployment within the planned upkeep cycles.

A fleet of ten could quite easily give you a sustained deployable presence of four with surges of upto eight possible.

A fleet of twenty could be tweeked to provide eight to ten, with a surge of eighteen or nineteen.

With a continuous build and a shorter asset life without mid life updates, major upgrades and life extensions, platforms can be run harder, with less maintenance and rectification work required.

 

[MickB]

Has there been any talk of selling on the Anzacs as they retire?
Perhaps to our south american friends.

 

[Going Boeing]

Has there been any talk of selling on the Anzacs as they retire?
Perhaps to our south american friends.

I wouldn’t be surprised if some ANZAC equipment such as the gun, CEAFAR, 9LV, Nulka, etc end up migrating across to the new frigates.

If not, I hope that they preserve them on hard stands as reserve vessels in event of hostilities breaking out. They would still be useful for some lesser roles and I’m confident that a number of sailors who have left the service would sign up again if needed to man them.

 

[aussienscale]

I wouldn’t be surprised if some ANZAC equipment such as the gun, CEAFAR, 9LV, Nulka, etc end up migrating across to the new frigates.

If not, I hope that they preserve them on hard stands as reserve vessels in event of hostilities breaking out. They would still be useful for some lesser roles and I’m confident that a number of sailors who have left the service would sign up again if needed to man them.

So are we keeping some of this in long storage for a decade + ? Where and how ? how are we maintining it ? at what cost and expense ? These types of systems and computer components do not like being turned of for long periods of time !!

 

[thatsamguy]

Interesting quote from Pat Conroy suggests that a lot of the discussion we've had here on 9LV, CEAFAR etc. might be wide of the mark, particularly for the first 3 GP Frigates. Sounds much more like the absolute basics like powerpoints and regulatory stuff.

Pat Conroy - media transcript (also flagged in the Army thread re: 18 Landing craft medium & 8 LCH)

I said publicly, the Deputy Prime Minister has said it publicly – our commitment, the only way we can deliver them at speed is no change or as little change as necessary to satisfy Australian regulatory conditions

 

[Going Boeing]

So are we keeping some of this in long storage for a decade + ? Where and how ? how are we maintining it ? at what cost and expense ? These types of systems and computer components do not like being turned of for long periods of time !!

I am well aware that electronics and mechanical systems need to be exercised frequently to keep them serviceable but, if hostilities occur, it will be much faster to restore existing vessels back to service condition than to build new ships. A similar scenario to what the airlines dealt with when they brought their aircraft out of the COVID long term storage.

Obviously, the government would have to allocate funds to build the hard stands and have some basic maintenance performed but if the warnings are correct about potential hostilities, it’s worth considering - just another form of insurance. If tensions ease, then the vessels would obviously be disposed of.

 

[vonnoobie]

I wouldn’t be surprised if some ANZAC equipment such as the gun, CEAFAR, 9LV, Nulka, etc end up migrating across to the new frigates.

If not, I hope that they preserve them on hard stands as reserve vessels in event of hostilities breaking out. They would still be useful for some lesser roles and I’m confident that a number of sailors who have left the service would sign up again if needed to man them.

While I like the idea of having reserve ships, and @aussienscale asks very important questions around it I don't think the Anzac's are the best vessels to go that route with for the simple fact by the time they are removed from service they will be well on in age and much of the gear well and truly flogged to death. IF we ever move to a fleet age of give or take 20 years then maybe that could be done, but 30+ year old ships no. If such where to be done you would also want it well planned out between personnel to maintain them and the infrastructure to do such. Neither Henderson or Osborne in current or planned growth would have room to undertake this nor would they be ideally set up for it so you are also talking building an entire new port facility.

 

[ADMk2]

Might be slow on the uptake, but when was HMAS Choules, fitted with CEAFAR radar panels, as she plainly now is, (as of last Saturday) anyway?

 

[Reptilia]

So are we keeping some of this in long storage for a decade + ? Where and how ? how are we maintining it ? at what cost and expense ? These types of systems and computer components do not like being turned of for long periods of time !!

2029-2034 3x overseas built Tier 2 in service and the 1st locally built Tier 2 under way during/after the Landing Craft Heavy build from 2028/29.
If we decide to go with the Germans, they may need some of the Anzac equipment to make design changes prior to a MEKO A200 build in 2026.

 

[StevoJH]

I don't think the A200 is really viable, none of the A200's in service use ESSM or Mk.41 so far.

They are all using SAM's with proprietary VLS systems and missile weights that are half or less the weight of ESSM.

At best you are getting ANZAC Class Batch 2. Although at least the VLS seems to be a couple of decks lower which has to help with stability?