Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[StevoJH]

The most frustrating thing with the Hobarts is that we would possibly be looking at them in a completely different light if they (or a similar) had been ordered when they should have.

The Hobarts (or equivalent) should have been ordered in 2000-2001 as a direct follow on to the ANZAC Class build. By the time they entered service the first four FFG's would have been due to start decommissioning, which would have negated the need for the FFG upgrade.

I think the issue with considering VLS numbers as it depends on what sort of engagement you are expecting. Against a peer opponent (I struggle to consider China a 'near peer' these days) 16 VLS cells quad packed with 64 ESSM might be sufficient. Because unlike the current engagements in the Red Sea where you might engage a couple of hostiles at a time, engagements against a Chinese force (or even Russian or North Korean) are probably going to be more reminiscent (in numbers of missiles) to those described in Red Storm rising rather then accounts of events in the Red Sea or even Ukraine. The friendly forces are also unlikely to be single warships, but likely formations of multiple ships.

At that point, the question to an extent possibly becomes a matter of how many missiles can be controlled by the formation at once and how many VLS cells a formation can bring to bear rather then how many an individual platform can carry.

 

[devo99]

One of the things these means though is that the GP frigates will be dependent on their own organic VLS cell loadouts until LOCSV's are available to deploy and operate in close proximity, likely until the late 2030's if not later. This is also assuming that potential issues with the LOCSV's and that area of technology can in fact be adequately resolved, rather than turning out to be a conceptual dead end.

At this point I do wish to point out that the USN's Constellation-class FFG is the modern replacement for the Oliver Hazard Perry-class FFG, and the new USN frigates are fitted with 32 VLS cells. That does suggest to me that perhaps 16 VLS cells for new frigates might end up being too few in number, particularly for a new class which is to enter service in the early/mid-2030's and likely to see service until the 2060's.

I’d note that at the same time, the Australian equivalent to the Constellation-class is the Hunters and the GP Frigates seem to be leaning more towards a role and force structure equivalent of the USN’s now retired Knox-class frigates. A numerous class of relatively small and cheap ASW frigates which pack pretty good self defence capability for their time. Perhaps we should be having that sort of ship in mind here as precedent.

 

[Stampede]

Stampede, with the current timeframes for builds, I think we get to eat our cake and have it too.

The staffed GP frigates are being prioritised, initially overseas, then with first dibs with our own yards (WA).

The LOCSVs are the last of the ships to be built and come after the GP frigates. So that really means we won't see them until the latter part of the 2030's. I doubt the first steel cut will occur before 2035.

As such we will get to observe the US program for the best part of a decade and only build them when the kinks are ironed out.

I would have the view that the US naval autonomous program will develop fairly rapidly and they will have another two or three evolutions of design before 2030. What they have now with say Vanguard is probably already usable in a pinch.

I like cake.
Also I don't want to have my head in the sand and not be open to new concepts.

Just very guarded as to a LOCSV in RAN service any time soon.
Too much risk!
Yes we need to plan for the future, but just feel there are other more important priorities for the next decade.

Just my perspective.
Regards S

 

[Armchair]

Just very guarded as to a LOCSV in RAN service any time soon.
Too much risk!

It certainly merits close attention (and more than it is receiving in general and specialist media in Australia).
What, however, are the less risky alternatives to augment strike capability for the RAN any time soon?
Modify Hunter to add strike cells? Hunters are not appearing, in the anticipated ASW form, before 2034. Modifications would add time and risk (to a program that is $45bn with a purported $20bn budget gap) and would (presumably) apply to ship 4+, so not appearing any time soon.
Build something else ( e.g. Arrowhead 140 or FREMM or new build Hobart) presumably with Aegis? Where would they be built? At what cost?
Buy second hand Ticonderogas?
Cancel Hunter and build Burkes?

Programs, including USN programs, fail but what other program, that could be started now, could successfully deliver the required capability?

Sure there are different arguments that RAN does not require the capability but those are not about the risk that the LOCSV program fails.

 

[SammyC]

I like cake.
Also I don't want to have my head in the sand and not be open to new concepts.

Just very guarded as to a LOCSV in RAN service any time soon.
Too much risk!
Yes we need to plan for the future, but just feel there are other more important priorities for the next decade.

Just my perspective.
Regards S

I'm glad you like cake.

I understand your point of view and respect it. Times are very volitile and unclear. It will be interesting to watch how these themes develop.

 

[SammyC]

I can envision three things going forward.

The Australian built tier 2 frigates will be to an evolved design, maybe based on the three bought overseas, maybe not.

If the Hunters prove successful the tier 2 frigates may be curtailed at 7 to allow for additional Hunters, or additional FFG or DDG variants.

If the LOCSV proves successful, we will see additional orders for them and evolved versions of them.

Imagine a VLOCSV (the extra V is for Very), with 64, 96, or 128 VLS, a true arsenal ship. One of these for each fat ship (LHD, LPD, AOR), would make a very interesting problem for any aggressor.

I would agree with your point that the Australian built tier 2s are more likely to be modified for our requirements than the first three, simply because there will be more time to do so (these wont start until around 2030). It's possible that the first three may be updated later on as part of say a mid life refit or extended maintence period, or we just accept them as they are. Low cost will always be a factor with the GPs, both in build and through life.

If we went with the Mogami for example, it may be we buy it exactly as is (perhaps with English manuals and our own power points) for the initial three, but look for the FFM fitted with our gear for the subsequent seven. Just for information, I never served on a ship that had an Australian power point. I had to bring plug adaptors for for my shaver and phone charger every where I went.

As a side note I don't actually see much difference between the base Mogami and the revised spec FMM, other than it is bigger and has additional VLS. There's probably a bunch of small ergonomic changes, reliability improvements or equipment new models, but otherwise it is a fairly small update reflecting in-service learnings. For instance it runs much the same propulsion and machinery as its earlier sister, and by the looks of things the layout is much the same. Its far less of a change than say going from a MEKO 200 to a 210.

To your point on expanded use of LOCSVs, I agree. With the virtual Aegis/CEC recently released, it is very compact and can be retrofitted on ships never considered before. It's not a stretch of the imagination to see these vessels acting as future escorts in their own right. Their one limitation however, is that they need to share the mothership sensors, so the LHD, AOR or other will need to provide this.

I'm not so sure on the V concept. Perhaps 64, but larger than that it becomes in my view a liability. If for instance it had 128 VLS fitted fully with ESSM at $2M a pop (for the sake of the argument), then that is a $billion, and a lot to loose if it goes down. I would suggest it is better to allocate the same number of VLS over a couple of smaller vessels such that there are fewer eggs in one basket.

If the LOCSV concept works (and I understand that there is a lot to go before this is achieved) then I see substantially more than six in the fleet. Given that our next ship build design won't be until the mid 40's, it is possible that the Hunters and GP frigates may well be the last staffed warships that we construct.

 

[Bob53]

I have had time to relect on the navy review and to be honest the more I think about it the more concerns I have. The two things that are most concerning me are the centre piece projects of 11 smallish GP frigates and 6 LOCSVs. In principle I am happy with the idea of expanding the surface combat fleet but the choice of a smallish GP frigate and a seperate missile barge have me perplexed.

Why not just simplify and de-risk the program and just go with something like 11 X Type 31 and just forget the LOCSVs. In terms of VLS you would end up with the same number of missiles. You would have perhaps 352 VLS with the Type 31 as opposed to maybe 368 VLS for you GP frigate/LOCSV combo. The crewing requirements would be about the same and what you would have is ship large enough to accept further upgrades over its operational life.

It makes me wonder how much influence AUSTAL have had over this project. Austal gave their approval to it of course and so they should. Sounds like they could have co-authored the damn thing. It gives them the opportunity to push their own LOCSV concept. Remember these are the people who bought us the LCS.

Now isn't the time to take risks on unknown technology. Let the USN build them and revisit the idea 10 years from now.

This seems logical. What would be the cost variances? It might mean GOD could not say we ordered 18 ships…only which is still more than anyone else in the past.

 

[Bob53]

The LOCSV are new tech for Australia but the US have been heading this way for years.

What they are, in reality is prototypes for a war emergency program. They are our modern day Bathurst Class corvette.

Once in service their capabilities can be determined and doctrine written and perfected. Commanders can see what they can do and become comfortable using them.

As confidence increases the roles they conduct will increase and they will become a true force multiplier.

When operating with major combatants I could easily see them loaded with mostly Tomahawk, but in local or litoral SM-6 and ESSM block 2 could be preferred, providing a general purpose strike and defence capability against most air and surface targets that detected by other assets.

Our logistics vessels will be crewed, they will be screened and supported by MALE UAVs, imagine there is a LOCSV loaded with 24 SM-6 and 32 ESSM as well?

Deleted You answered the question in a subsequent post.

 

[Volkodav]

I believe mid life upgrades need to be a thing of the past, as do 30 year life cycles.

They are a false economy that provides diminishing returns and poor value for money.

When technology reaches the point you need to pull a ship out of the water for two or more years to add that capability, you are better off just building a new ship that incorporates it.

If the ship in need of the upgrade is less than ten years old it probably shouldn't have been bought in the first place. Keep it in service, as is , while the new ship is built, then sell it.

This will support a stronger more efficient industry, and get better value out of the ships we have. Start treating them like a commercial fleet, not a heritage building you need to retain the facia of.

 

[Armchair]

This seems logical. What would be the cost variances? It might mean GOD could not say we ordered 18 ships…only which is still more than anyone else in the past.

Building 11 Arrowhead 140 does seem logical (and Arrowhead 140 might be perfectly timed for RNZN) but where (and when) would those ships be built? I suspect it would have been listed as as an exemplar if there was a ready answer to that.

 

[GregorZ]

The most frustrating thing with the Hobarts is that we would possibly be looking at them in a completely different light if they (or a similar) had been ordered when they should have.

The Hobarts (or equivalent) should have been ordered in 2000-2001 as a direct follow on to the ANZAC Class build. By the time they entered service the first four FFG's would have been due to start decommissioning, which would have negated the need for the FFG upgrade.

I think the issue with considering VLS numbers as it depends on what sort of engagement you are expecting. Against a peer opponent (I struggle to consider China a 'near peer' these days) 16 VLS cells quad packed with 64 ESSM might be sufficient. Because unlike the current engagements in the Red Sea where you might engage a couple of hostiles at a time, engagements against a Chinese force (or even Russian or North Korean) are probably going to be more reminiscent (in numbers of missiles) to those described in Red Storm rising rather then accounts of events in the Red Sea or even Ukraine. The friendly forces are also unlikely to be single warships, but likely formations of multiple ships.

At that point, the question to an extent possibly becomes a matter of how many missiles can be controlled by the formation at once and how many VLS cells a formation can bring to bear rather then how many an individual platform can carry.

And perhaps, the less ships in the formation maybe better too, ones with more VLS. Less ships to cover, less bandwidth and comms used for sensor fusion and cec, more missiles per vessel in the formation?

 

[GregorZ]

I’d note that at the same time, the Australian equivalent to the Constellation-class is the Hunters and the GP Frigates seem to be leaning more towards a role and force structure equivalent of the USN’s now retired Knox-class frigates. A numerous class of relatively small and cheap ASW frigates which pack pretty good self defence capability for their time. Perhaps we should be having that sort of ship in mind here as precedent.

The Constellation would be more akin to our yet to be announced GP frigates. They are both coming in to augment the fleet, increase numbers and take on roles that don’t necessarily require an MFU (being a Burke, Tico, Hobart or Hunter). But can operate with the fleet when required. Also both being built cheaper, and their selection processes both faster with an emphasis on an in production or in service design.

 

[Volkodav]

My fantasy fleet.

ANZACs as patrol frigates.
Followed by a dozen indigenous missile corvettes, all from Williamstown.

AWD is split in two, five or six F-100 or evolved F124, to replace the FFGs, built in Williamstown. These will be followed by an ANZAC replacement design.

The second AWD part is a fleet of high end ships built in a new yard in Adelaide with blocks being built and outfitted around the country.

This fleet will consist of DDGs and DDHs. AORs and large amphibious ships will also be built at the new Adelaide yard to support a continuous build.

 

[StingrayOZ]

TBH I myself feel that a 57mm gun is either too much gun, or too little gun. They tend to be big enough and displace enough to require a mounting space that could take a 76mm or 127mm gun, but have a weight of shot that tends to be low enough as well as shorter range to limit the effects of that shot. Also whilst the guns might have reported high ROF, in reality those ROF claims tend to be overestimated calculations which ignore the gun mounting/ready round ammunition capacity. It is rather difficult to achieve a 220 RPM ROF via a Mk 110 57mm gun that can only hold 120 ready rounds two sets of two 20 round cassettes which replenish the ready rounds from the magazine via a hoist.

I think part of that is the US invested a lot into the 57mm gun for the LCS program.
Part of saving face is using that gun. It is a fine 57mm gun, and on small aluminium ships, was big enough. The 57mm gun may find its way as a secondary on larger US ships in the future, like carriers, LHDs, LPDs, perhaps even destroyers. There is nothing really wrong with the 57mm, except that it 57mm. Like all US projects the 57mm is supported locally, and becomes a political program as well as a military one.

They are spending a bunch of money to make the caliber more lethal.

Newsroom Home

Latest news, press releases, and media from Northrop Grumman.

news.northropgrumman.com

Also the US has plenty of other options in terms of hitting targets. Unlike smaller navies. If working with destroyers, the 57mm gun provides a nice in between caliber between 5"guns on destroyers, 20mm and 30 mm CIWS on other ships. Its the USN, a 57mm gun isn't going to single handled take on the Chinese navy. When you have ~70 large destroyers, a dozen carrier groups, you start looking at niche capability. The 57-76mm category seems quite interesting given the drone threat in the red sea. Enough power and range to keep it further from the ship, cheap to fire, fast rate of fire, but limited overkill, some of them are operating near shores etc where firing many 5" rounds into the sky at a drone is going to cause a lot of damage on the ground, or potentially to other shipping, its a busy area, having 25km range is bad in that context.

Part of the issue with the constellation was to make them different to the Burkes. If they fitted a 5" and 64VLS, you have effectively replicated a burke on a different hull. 57mm production was already there, 32 VLS is significant, but significantly different from a burke. The ship is going to be way more useful than the LCS ever could be, and much more like the very popular FFGs, which had a light 76mm gun (think back to the 60's and 70's when these designs were happening 76mm was light weight!), and a useful amount of missiles, efficient in cost, but also clearly multirole flexible platforms that complimented the more powerful, more focused US platforms of the 60/70/80s.

This is clearly an issue we have with the tier 2 and tier 1. Can I see Hunter being fitted with a heavier fitout, sure, closer matching a Burke, but with much lighter crew requirements, more fuel efficient, more Australian content. I expect flight II to have 64 or more VLS, and flight I may be refitted with that at a later date.

Tier 2 probably maxes out at 32 VLS, yeh tactical length could be an advantage here, as it clearly sets boundaries on what the platform is. Its about self defence. Meaning these also become less of a target, if you can't launch long range weapons, it means you are not going to be the first target the enemy tries to take out. 32VLS is a heavy self defence capability. China has a lot of missiles, but not enough to launch them all at every target. Tier 2 gets tier 2 weapons, which are shorter ranged and smaller generally, and probably in less numbers.

Drone ships, subs, destroyers are strategic launch platforms. They are either more expendable (drone ships), or more capable (destroyer) or more stealthy (subs).

Really with TLAM, which is a bulky, non-stealthy, slow, heavy, cruise missile, subs are really they only viable platform. Because any surface ship will be seen coming 1000nm away. Its no longer the 1940's when you needed search planes. Or even the 1970's, when you recovered film dropped by satellites. IMO subs offer the only viable launch platform for that munition in the 2020+ timeframe. Even then, you are going to be firing them in large volleys, like 16-24 at a time, not something a tier 2 combatant can do. Also once the war begins, I think TLAM is pretty useless. Its key advantage is range, so is good at surprise surgical strikes, particularly against undefended or lower tech targets that aren't hardened or protected. If launched in big waves of dozens, then it has the ability to overwhelm targets at huge range, allowing the US is focus its firepower on a small selection of targets and fight its way through defenses, with minimal risk. A SSGN fires 128 TLAM, completely by surprise, over 1000nm away, yeh, effective, and you are never seen. A 6000t frigate fires 2 TLAM 500nm away, and you have just made yourself a target.

Australia is never going to be able to do that, alone, overwhelm and fight through defended positions.

 

[devo99]

The Constellation would be more akin to our yet to be announced GP frigates. They are both coming in to augment the fleet, increase numbers and take on roles that don’t necessarily require an MFU (being a Burke, Tico, Hobart or Hunter). But can operate with the fleet when required. Also both being built cheaper, and their selection processes both faster with an emphasis on an in production or in service design.

I would hardly say the GP frigates are more akin to the Constellation-class than the Knox-class. If this were to be the case then there's hardly a reason to not be building more Hunters as they are equivalent in role and capability. If the USN apparently considers the minimum capability for that sort of ship to be the Constellation-class then either we're looking for ships of a different type or we should be building more Hunters. The Constellation-class may well be the USN's way of increasing fleet mass at a cheaper cost but at risk of stating the obvious, the RAN is not the USN, we cannot afford to pursue the same solutions as they do. There is valid precedent for the use of smaller ASW escorts by the USN to good effect in providing persistent presence operations and increasing the threat to enemy submarines. I would say the Knox-class is a more relevant example of this for the RAN than the Constellation-class though.

 

[iambuzzard]

My fantasy fleet.

ANZACs as patrol frigates.
Followed by a dozen indigenous missile corvettes, all from Williamstown.

AWD is split in two, five or six F-100 or evolved F124, to replace the FFGs, built in Williamstown. These will be followed by an ANZAC replacement design.

The second AWD part is a fleet of high end ships built in a new yard in Adelaide with blocks being built and outfitted around the country.

This fleet will consist of DDGs and DDHs. AORs and large amphibious ships will also be built at the new Adelaide yard to support a continuous build.

If only we could reactivate Williamstown!

 

[Volkodav]

If only we could reactivate Williamstown!

Too late.

My fantasy fleet of the 80s is based on Cockatoo still being open, along with Williamstown.

Williamstown was expanded to build destroyers during WWII, Cockatoo was the big ship yard, building cruisers in WWI and could have built them between the wars but didn't because of misplaced financial concerns.

 

[iambuzzard]

Too late.

My fantasy fleet of the 80s is based on Cockatoo still being open, along with Williamstown.

Williamstown was expanded to build destroyers during WWII, Cockatoo was the big ship yard, building cruisers in WWI and could have built them between the wars but didn't because of misplaced financial concerns.

So many mistakes have been made by successive governments on this. Now we're playing catchup, just like the U.S.

 

[Todjaeger]

So many mistakes have been made by successive governments on this. Now we're playing catchup, just like the U.S.

TBH it seems that right now, a successive gov't might just be making more mistakes, rather than actually getting caught up.

The US made mistakes with their LCS programme and have now essentially recognized that the LCS are not and cannot become fit for service as intended, hence the Constellation-class build programme as a replacement.

It does seem that the approach gov't is taking towards the Tier 2 vessel is the wrong one, though I feel the same can also be said about a number of other decisions that impact other areas of the ADF aside from just the RAN.

 

[Volkodav]

TBH it seems that right now, a successive gov't might just be making more mistakes, rather than actually getting caught up.

The US made mistakes with their LCS programme and have now essentially recognized that the LCS are not and cannot become fit for service as intended, hence the Constellation-class build programme as a replacement.

It does seem that the approach gov't is taking towards the Tier 2 vessel is the wrong one, though I feel the same can also be said about a number of other decisions that impact other areas of the ADF aside from just the RAN.

The tier 2 vessels are replacements for the Arafuras and instead of the proposed corvettes.

This is so much better than I expected. The ships will be superior in every way to the upgraded ANZACs, which were I should add, actually intended to be replaced by the Hunters. The Hunters are now, by default, becoming replacements for the FFGs and a timely replacement for the Hobart's is now pencilled in.

Best of all, not an Arafura class "battleship" or Cape class "missile cruiser" insight!