Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[Going Boeing]

I was aware that the AUKUS SSN is planned to have payload tubes but the number has not been announced. At the time that the plan was announced, there was a drawing released showing 3 tubes along the centre line behind the sail but it was not considered an official configuration.

One possibility is, if the AUKUS SSN ends up with a similar diameter hull to the Dreadnought class, then it could be configured with the same “Common Missile Compartment“ of 4 payload tubes as fitted to the Columbia & Dreadnought classes. While that hull diameter might be considered too large for an SSN, it would result in a lot of commonality of systems components in the RN fleet and reduce the amount of design work for the SSN.

 

[SammyC]

I'm not sure the intention is to structure the AUKUS SSN as an SSGN.

Retaining all four CMCs with 16 tubes for the AUKUS represents about 116 TLAMs (If the Ohio conversion is anything to go by, each Trident tube I think held about 7 TLAMs after modification).

It makes for a rather large submarine and that adds to cost, complexity and I suspect some reduction in operational capabilities. Note the block 5 Virginias are about $0.5-1B more than the block 4s and take a lot longer to build, as a result of the VPMs.

SSNs are primarily ASW and ASuW, land attack remains an ancillary function. For the Brits, they are principally used to protect the SSBNs, so stealth, manoeuvrability and speed are most important, rather than missile capacity.

I think there is a place for something like the earlier block 4 Virginias with a smaller number of VLS tubes (say 12-24, so maybe one CMC style system), as this provides a modest strike capability without impacting torpedo capacity. More than this I would suggest starts to compromise other functions.

I actually think there is more of a place for something like the dry deck shelter fitted to some of the Virginias. The wild card remains how they will be configured to house and work with UUVs. I would view this as a must.

I can see the AUKUS SSN would be the same diameter as the Dreadnaught class (simply to house the same reactor) and to have a great deal of commonality, but that does not mean it will the same length.

 

[Going Boeing]

I may not have expressed it clearly but, I was thinking that the AUKUS SSN could have one CMC of 4 payload tubes whereas the the Dreadnought will have 3 CMC’s (12 tubes) and the Columbia will have 4 CMC’s (16 tubes). I was mainly indicating the potential for a lot of commonality with systems in the Dreadnought class.

 

[John Fedup]

Some kind of commonality with Dreadnought makes sense for the future AUKUS SSNs both from a cost and delivery POV. Same applies to the USN SSN(X) with some Columbia DNA.

 

[SammyC]

I may not have expressed it clearly but, I was thinking that the AUKUS SSN could have one CMC of 4 payload tubes whereas the the Dreadnought will have 3 CMC’s (12 tubes) and the Columbia will have 4 CMC’s (16 tubes). I was mainly indicating the potential for a lot of commonality with systems in the Dreadnought class.

Ahh, OK. Yes I think that is a reasonable proposition.

 

[Scott Elaurant]

Previously the Government had only announced $10B in infrastructure investments ($8B WA, $2B SA), so there is another $8B of stuff to be built that has not been publicised. That's a lot of money on top of the other investments in port, maintenance and construction facilities, so it will be interesting to see what this is earmarked for (I can't think of what other infrastructure would be needed, any thoughts?).

This is only an educated guess but ultimately I expect the following will be required, each costing billions, to complete a fully sustainable SSN capability:
- upgrade FBW to support SSNs including stores, basic maintenance and crew accommodation and training facilities (already included in $8B WA upgrade)
- upgrade ASC to a nuclear engineering standard, including containment structures, uprated shiplift, enlarged build shed, and crainage etc designed to radiation resistant standard. Surely this will cost more than $2B budgeted so far for ASC.
- construct new FBE fitted to support SSNS similar to upgraded FBW (similar or larger cost than $8B for FBW)
- long term storage and disposal facility for nuclear waste, logically in SA. RAN SSNs at end of life could be dismantled and reactors removed at ASC if facility is upgraded to nuclear engineering standard. Note that Naval Group do this at Cherbourg, where they build their new SSNs. That is where the required skills are located.

Naval Group starts the deconstruction of a third French nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarine in Cherbourg | Naval Group

Naval Group is the European leader in naval defence. Naval Group uses its extraordinary know-how, unique industrial resources and capacity to arrange innovative strategic partnerships to meet its customers’ requirements. As a system-integrator and prime contractor, the group designs, produces...

www.naval-group.com

 

[SammyC]

I remember thinking when Aukus and SSNs for Aus were announced that I wonder what had changed in the forecast that pushed SSN being a better option than the Attack Class planned and worth the high risk / high cost process that SSNs would require. Sure, I expect there are many reasons including political, but this passage from Marles about expecting snorting subs to be more detectable in the coming future as one of those reasons is very interesting.

Ref: Transcript from ABC News Breakfast

Bold emphasis & truncation my own:

I've been pondering this for a bit. It seems reasonable that AI combined with expanding high resolution satellite imagery, and perhaps more advanced acoustic detection, could locate submarines that are snorting, at some point in the future (say 10-15 years). So this is plausable.

It does however beg the question why other nations intend to persist with diesel-electric designs. I believe the Canadians are considering long range submarines, but are only considering diesels, and the Japanese are building their latest class the Taigei with diesels (albeit with nice big batteries). Both nations have similar requirements to Australia, particularly extended range and underwater speed. Both are wealthy enough to afford nuclear.

One would think that if Australia had this view on future SSK stealth concerns, other nations (such as Canada and Japan) would be thinking along the same lines. At the moment it appears they are not.

The logical conclusions here are that either they disagree with this forecast, they intend to use their submarines differently (such as for coastal protection, rather than expeditionary surveillance), they see more promise with AIP systems, or they don't see a way to nuclear options.

It will be interesting to see how this space develops. Some other articles I have read indicate that the Japanese are seeking VLS capability on their next generation subs. This suggests they want an underwater strike option that necessitates long range ocean traversing. I struggle to see how this could be fitted on a diesel platform. I wonder if they would join a future AUKUS SSN build.

 

[SammyC]

This is only an educated guess but ultimately I expect the following will be required, each costing billions, to complete a fully sustainable SSN capability:
- upgrade FBW to support SSNs including stores, basic maintenance and crew accommodation and training facilities (already included in $8B WA upgrade)
- upgrade ASC to a nuclear engineering standard, including containment structures, uprated shiplift, enlarged build shed, and crainage etc designed to radiation resistant standard. Surely this will cost more than $2B budgeted so far for ASC.
- construct new FBE fitted to support SSNS similar to upgraded FBW (similar or larger cost than $8B for FBW)
- long term storage and disposal facility for nuclear waste, logically in SA. RAN SSNs at end of life could be dismantled and reactors removed at ASC if facility is upgraded to nuclear engineering standard. Note that Naval Group do this at Cherbourg, where they build their new SSNs. That is where the required skills are located.

Naval Group starts the deconstruction of a third French nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarine in Cherbourg | Naval Group

Naval Group is the European leader in naval defence. Naval Group uses its extraordinary know-how, unique industrial resources and capacity to arrange innovative strategic partnerships to meet its customers’ requirements. As a system-integrator and prime contractor, the group designs, produces...

www.naval-group.com

Thanks Scott, I had forgotten about the intention for an east coast submarine base. Given it will need to be built from scratch, yes it will be expensive.

I had also not considered the need for decommissioning facilities, also likely to be expensive.

I agree, I would have thought the Osborne yard would cost more than $2B.

 

[Scott Elaurant]

I've been pondering this for a bit. It seems reasonable that AI combined with expanding high resolution satellite imagery, and perhaps more advanced acoustic detection, could locate submarines that are snorting, at some point in the future (say 10-15 years). So this is plausable.

It does however beg the question why other nations intend to persist with diesel-electric designs. I believe the Canadians are considering long range submarines, but are only considering diesels, and the Japanese are building their latest class the Taigei with diesels (albeit with nice big batteries). Both nations have similar requirements to Australia, particularly extended range and underwater speed. Both are wealthy enough to afford nuclear.
….
It will be interesting to see how this space develops. Some other articles I have read indicate that the Japanese are seeking VLS capability on their next generation subs. This suggests they want an underwater strike option that necessitates long range ocean traversing. I struggle to see how this could be fitted on a diesel platform. I wonder if they would join a future AUKUS SSN build.

I’ve been thinking about this too. This is only speculation, but I think it is technically feasible. One option for detection could be new satellites capable of chemical detection, which might be able to detect the diesel plumes from a snorting diesel submarine. These have been developed for peaceful purposes (detecting greenhouse gas emissions) using shortwave infrared sensors.

Point detectors (in low earth orbit) can now identify point sources of methane, dust or greenhouse gases emitting as little as 0.1 tonnes/hr and accurate within 60 metres. There are both wide area and point search satellites already in orbit. Obviously, these could be tasked to sweep oceans and locate snorting submarines by detecting their diesel plumes. With large scale computer processing this could be done similarly to satellite scanning for surface ships.

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adh2391

If this is correct then snorting will become detectable within a few hours of data processing, assuming the sea you are in is being scanned. An AIP or large battery SSK that can remain submerged will still be undetectable. So for short range missions where diesel speed or range is not required an SSK will still perform well. So no problems in the Baltic or for Japanese or Korean SSKs going into the Japan or Yellow Seas. But for a Collins transiting from Perth to Indonesia it would be a problem.

My apology if this seems too speculative but my point is we already have the technology now to do this. It would just be a case of connecting together the components with some good data processing to form a system, then testing and calibrating it till it works.

 

[JohnJT]

Interesting involvement by HMAS Stuart in the USN's latest test of an SM-6 interception of a MRBM. Especially considering she is non-Aegis, non-CEC.

Decoding Australia’s Role in the recent Aegis FTM-32 test – Defense Archives

An Australian warship without the Aegis combat system took part in the "robust" participation of Australia in an Aegis test so far according to the U.S MDA.

defensearchives.de

 

[John Fedup]

It does however beg the question why other nations intend to persist with diesel-electric designs. I believe the Canadians are considering long range submarines, but are only considering diesels, and the Japanese are building their latest class the Taigei with diesels (albeit with nice big batteries). Both nations have similar requirements to Australia, particularly extended range and underwater speed. Both are wealthy enough to afford nuclear.

Don't think the range issue applies to Japan compared to Canada and Australia.

The logical conclusions here are that either they disagree with this forecast, they intend to use their submarines differently (such as for coastal protection, rather than expeditionary surveillance), they see more promise with AIP systems, or they don't see a way to nuclear options.

Japan uses there subs regionally. Canada, probably the same unless nuclear were to become available. The US wants the NA Arctic for themselves. The only way this changes is if AUKUS wants to leverage Canadian nuclear resources to help support sub manufacturing and speed of deliveries.
.

Some other articles I have read indicate that the Japanese are seeking VLS capability on their next generation subs. This suggests they want an underwater strike option that necessitates long range ocean traversing. I struggle to see how this could be fitted on a diesel platform. I wonder if they would join a future AUKUS SSN build.

Japan might want to join but again the US likely wants a small club.

 

[Going Boeing]

Interesting involvement by HMAS Stuart in the USN's latest test of an SM-6 interception of a MRBM. Especially considering she is non-Aegis, non-CEC.

Decoding Australia’s Role in the recent Aegis FTM-32 test – Defense Archives

An Australian warship without the Aegis combat system took part in the "robust" participation of Australia in an Aegis test so far according to the U.S MDA.

defensearchives.de

This article gives more information about the test, quite a large ADF involvement.

MDA, US Navy Conducts Successful Intercept with SM-6 - Naval News

 

[SammyC]

US Navy Achieves Engine Testing Milestones for LUSV Program - Naval News

An interesting update on some LOCSV (LUSV if you are American) progress above.

One of the technology enablers for this platform is a highly reliable engine. An intial test to gain entry to the program is to go 720 hours (30 days) without any form of maintenance or failures that would require local intervention. Three engine providers were able to successfully complete this test, being Cat (3512 and 3516), Cummins (QSK95) and MTU (20V 4000). These can do upwards of 3-4MW in marine form, so good sized.

I've done a lot of work with these engines in power generation applications, and they are all good, but I would never have been able to run them for 30 days without intervention. Most we would do is a few days before sending someone in to check. Simple things like oil replenishment and filtration, not to mention leak clean up (the cats were by far the worst for leaks). It would be interesting to see what they did to improve the reliability, but I can imagine some of the upgrades would have been reasonably simple (auto filling oil sumps, self cleaning filters etc).

The test is a little simplistic, for instance a new engine would have much better chance of passing this benchmark over an engine approaching overhaul, its unclear the load they were required to do, and I'm sure they weren't rocking all over the place. Engines are also only one piece of plant, and there are a myriad of other systems that will need to prove reliability before the LOCSV gets legs. But its a nice start.

The other point of note, is the 30 day period. This aligns I would think with a typical patrol. For most of my time at sea, we rarely stayed out for more than 30 days, even when on long multi month deployments. It would therefore allow most maintenance to be done in port rather than at sea.

The other point to note is all these models are ideal generators. So perhaps pointing to an electric drive as the preference. I could well be wrong, however an electric system has a lot less moving parts (no gearbox for instance), so less things to go wrong. Electric motors, are extraordinary reliable.

 

[Going Boeing]

Another article about the SM-6 MRBM intercept test is interesting as it shows additional detection equipment being used in the hangar of HMAS Stuart. This indicates a potential upgrade of the Anzac class systems in the future to have this capability included.

An extension of this thinking is that the E7 Wedgetail may have been testing upgrades to its radar system to improve ballistic missile detection. The US has previously indicated that the version of the E7 that they are procuring is updated from the version that has been in RAAF service for a number of years and this test could be part of that increased capability.


US Missile Defence Agency member Steven Foster shows Royal Australian Navy Petty Officer Thomas Dann how to control detection equipment in the Hanger of HMAS Stuart during a missile-detection test off Hawaii. Photo by Leading Seaman Rikki-Lea Phillips.

 

[ADMk2]

Another article about the SM-6 MRBM intercept test is interesting as it shows additional detection equipment being used in the hangar of HMAS Stuart. This indicates a potential upgrade of the Anzac class systems in the future to have this capability included.

An extension of this thinking is that the E7 Wedgetail may have been testing upgrades to its radar system to improve ballistic missile detection. The US has previously indicated that the version of the E7 that they are procuring is updated from the version that has been in RAAF service for a number of years and this test could be part of that increased capability.

View attachment 51246
US Missile Defence Agency member Steven Foster shows Royal Australian Navy Petty Officer Thomas Dann how to control detection equipment in the Hanger of HMAS Stuart during a missile-detection test off Hawaii. Photo by Leading Seaman Rikki-Lea Phillips.

That is portable ePATAS telemetry tracking equipment, not ‘detecting’ equipment, per se.

Only useful in exercise scenarios unless potential adversaries are kind enough to broadcast telemetry details of their missile launches, to us…

NSWC Corona Technicians Prep USS Fitzgerald for Pacific Dragon 2022

Telemetry Technicians (from left) Jered Herndon, Joseph Higelin and Steven Foster of the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Corona Division Performance Assessment Department pose for a photo after installing components of an enhanced Portable Advanced Telemetry Acquisition System aboard the Arleigh...

www.dvidshub.net

 

[SammyC]

Hanwha Group launches bid for Austal

With Austal in the sale process, Hanwa have been talked about as a potential buyer for some time, however this appears to be the first time they have made an official statement.

Given that Hanwa owns a majority stake in the Daewoo yards that build the Daegu class frigates (in conjunction with Hyaundai), this might change the dynamics of the GP frigate choice. Suddenly the vessel that I though was at the back of the pack, might shoot to the front. Interestingly I think Hanwa won the build for the final two batch 3s, which incorporate a phased array radar system and are due for build completion in 2027.

FIRB stands in the way, however given the closer relationship we have with S Korea, and Hanwa's incorporation into the army program with Redbacks and Huntsmans (there is a developing theme here with spiders, $10 bucks that their Daegu offer will be called the funnelweb), I suspect this might be OK.

Hanwa have also been keen to break into the US military market, and I remember reading an earlier article where they were reviewing buying some of the mothballed yards in the US (aparently at the request of the USN). An Austal takeover makes that plan simpler.

There is still a while to go, and the US private equity buyers that are also stalking Austal might stump up a better offer.

 

[Reptilia]

Hanwha Group launches bid for Austal

With Austal in the sale process, Hanwa have been talked about as a potential buyer for some time, however this appears to be the first time they have made an official statement.

Given that Hanwa owns a majority stake in the Daewoo yards that build the Daegu class frigates (in conjunction with Hyaundai), this might change the dynamics of the GP frigate choice. Suddenly the vessel that I though was at the back of the pack, might shoot to the front. Interestingly I think Hanwa won the build for the final two batch 3s, which incorporate a phased array radar system and are due for build completion in 2027.

FIRB stands in the way, however given the closer relationship we have with S Korea, and Hanwa's incorporation into the army program with Redbacks and Huntsmans (there is a developing theme here with spiders, $10 bucks that their Daegu offer will be called the funnelweb), I suspect this might be OK.

Hanwa have also been keen to break into the US military market, and I remember reading an earlier article where they were reviewing buying some of the mothballed yards in the US (aparently at the request of the USN). An Austal takeover makes that plan simpler.

There is still a while to go, and the US private equity buyers that are also stalking Austal might stump up a better offer.

Don’t forget the ‘Whitetail’ rocket artillery system.
The Daegu has a complement of 140, highest of the 5 exemplars. Likely the Chungnam offered.

 

[DDG38]

Just announced, HMAS Anzac will decommission on 18th May 2024.
HMAS Anzac to decommission (Facebook link)

 

[Stampede]

Just announced, HMAS Anzac will decommission on 18th May 2024.
HMAS Anzac to decommission (Facebook link)

Well that's it.

Fits with the age of the vessel and it's original intended life span.
Which one next, Arunta and when?
Ideally we would have a replacement by now, but we don't and that's it.

As the fleets numbers drop, will this help or hinder personal retention?
Hopefully the former.

Cheers S

 

[H_K]

Well that's it.Fits with the age of the vessel and it's original intended life span.

Putting a brave face on it IMHO. Retiring a 28 year old ship that should have been able to stay in service until 2030 (at least) with a fairly limited docking/refit, had it not been for personnel shortages.