Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[Armchair]

Yes, I thought that BAES Australia was very quiet when the Hunter order was reduced from 9 to 6. It could possibly be that they have been assured that the 3 additional ships will be built in an AAW version rather than in Hunter configuration.

Ideally, those 3 would be additional Tier 1’s with a subsequent batch of 3 being replacements for the Hobart class AWD’s.

So much as we can trust announcements about the late 2040s the AWD replacement is instead of Hunter 7-9.
Planning is to begin in 2027. I wouldn’t assume that the capability will be replaced in full by crewed destroyers or that any shipbuilder would be (or feel) assured by guarantees from an Australian government.

 

[StingrayOZ]

I wonder, with a lot of hypotheticals.

If the security and geopolitical situation gets worse.

• If we do order FFM with (potentially with 32 VLS and ASW capability)
• We also decide to then fit the Hunters with the potentially 64-96VLS for the 6 we are currently scheduled for.
• The next 3 we as specific AWD, get a upsizing and 128 VLS, which may decrease, if we go to a larger VLS system. Multiple countries seem to have 10,000t+ ships in development currently. Italians, Germans, Japanese, Americans, Spanish, potentially the British.

It would be nice to have that as a nuclear option, no more cancelling, no more ad-hoc changes, no more re-tendering, there is a legitimate ready to go option for the ships to significantly increase capabilities if required, that can be incorporated to ships already in the early build process.

If nothing dramatic happens, then things go along the current plan, and we have some very large frigates with moderate loadouts.

7-11 FFM type ships (32VLS) 4000-6000t
6 Hunters (64VLS) with aegis, CEC, etc 10,000t
3 Super-Hunters (128VLS) with aegis, CEC, etc 12,000t

all with ESSM blk II, NSM, SM-2, Sm-6, and the Hunters and super hunters with TLAM type strike and Sm-3 capability. All able to operate MH60R or/and drone or similar.

That would seem to be a pretty nice surface combatant capability.

 

[devo99]

As the GPF will likely end up serving as the backbone of the RAN surface fleet I would hope they receive some form of CEC capability. It would provide a revolutionary increase in fleet defence beyond the radar horizon which has not previously been possible for navies lacking carrier based AEW&C aircraft such as the RAN.

 

[Todjaeger]

I wonder, with a lot of hypotheticals.

If the security and geopolitical situation gets worse.

• If we do order FFM with (potentially with 32 VLS and ASW capability)
• We also decide to then fit the Hunters with the potentially 64-96VLS for the 6 we are currently scheduled for.
• The next 3 we as specific AWD, get a upsizing and 128 VLS, which may decrease, if we go to a larger VLS system. Multiple countries seem to have 10,000t+ ships in development currently. Italians, Germans, Japanese, Americans, Spanish, potentially the British.

It would be nice to have that as a nuclear option, no more cancelling, no more ad-hoc changes, no more re-tendering, there is a legitimate ready to go option for the ships to significantly increase capabilities if required, that can be incorporated to ships already in the early build process.

If nothing dramatic happens, then things go along the current plan, and we have some very large frigates with moderate loadouts.

7-11 FFM type ships (32VLS) 4000-6000t
6 Hunters (64VLS) with aegis, CEC, etc 10,000t
3 Super-Hunters (128VLS) with aegis, CEC, etc 12,000t

all with ESSM blk II, NSM, SM-2, Sm-6, and the Hunters and super hunters with TLAM type strike and Sm-3 capability. All able to operate MH60R or/and drone or similar.

That would seem to be a pretty nice surface combatant capability.

Maybe, but then again, maybe not. One reality check though is even if such plans were made, as well as changes to existing plans, when would these implementations be in service? Right now only the lead Hunter-class FFG is in production IIRC, with the expected in-service date now being a decade away after having been pushed back to 2034. Unless gov't had already decided to have the Hunter-class FFG VLS loadout increased to 64 VLS cells and had changes to the detailed design get started, trying to get the VLS count increased for the first batch would just further delay the Hunter-class frigate in-service date beyond 2034 and TBH also likely delay all future production and in-service dates for the class.

Right now, it would seem that a fleet composition as listed above would likely not be in RAN service until the mid-2040's at the earliest, and that is assuming the world does not get turned into either a glowing cinder or ice cube between now and then.

 

[iambuzzard]

I wonder, with a lot of hypotheticals.

If the security and geopolitical situation gets worse.

• If we do order FFM with (potentially with 32 VLS and ASW capability)
• We also decide to then fit the Hunters with the potentially 64-96VLS for the 6 we are currently scheduled for.
• The next 3 we as specific AWD, get a upsizing and 128 VLS, which may decrease, if we go to a larger VLS system. Multiple countries seem to have 10,000t+ ships in development currently. Italians, Germans, Japanese, Americans, Spanish, potentially the British.

It would be nice to have that as a nuclear option, no more cancelling, no more ad-hoc changes, no more re-tendering, there is a legitimate ready to go option for the ships to significantly increase capabilities if required, that can be incorporated to ships already in the early build process.

If nothing dramatic happens, then things go along the current plan, and we have some very large frigates with moderate loadouts.

7-11 FFM type ships (32VLS) 4000-6000t
6 Hunters (64VLS) with aegis, CEC, etc 10,000t
3 Super-Hunters (128VLS) with aegis, CEC, etc 12,000t

all with ESSM blk II, NSM, SM-2, Sm-6, and the Hunters and super hunters with TLAM type strike and Sm-3 capability. All able to operate MH60R or/and drone or similar.

That would seem to be a pretty nice surface combatant capability.

All we need is politicians with common sense and foresight. Hmmmmm!

 

[Bob53]

I wonder, with a lot of hypotheticals.

If the security and geopolitical situation gets worse.

• If we do order FFM with (potentially with 32 VLS and ASW capability)
• We also decide to then fit the Hunters with the potentially 64-96VLS for the 6 we are currently scheduled for.
• The next 3 we as specific AWD, get a upsizing and 128 VLS, which may decrease, if we go to a larger VLS system. Multiple countries seem to have 10,000t+ ships in development currently. Italians, Germans, Japanese, Americans, Spanish, potentially the British.

It would be nice to have that as a nuclear option, no more cancelling, no more ad-hoc changes, no more re-tendering, there is a legitimate ready to go option for the ships to significantly increase capabilities if required, that can be incorporated to ships already in the early build process.

If nothing dramatic happens, then things go along the current plan, and we have some very large frigates with moderate loadouts.

7-11 FFM type ships (32VLS) 4000-6000t
6 Hunters (64VLS) with aegis, CEC, etc 10,000t
3 Super-Hunters (128VLS) with aegis, CEC, etc 12,000t

all with ESSM blk II, NSM, SM-2, Sm-6, and the Hunters and super hunters with TLAM type strike and Sm-3 capability. All able to operate MH60R or/and drone or similar.

That would seem to be a pretty nice surface combatant capability.

As much as I like the idea of this fleet…. Forecasting anything in the RAN more than 5 years out is like asking a cat where it will be sitting this afternoon. Even if you go back 5 years here what was the fleet looking like then? French subs, 12 OPVs, and everything’s else in the air. Then 3 years ago it was 9 hunters…now 6 and now 6 OPVs. I’d be surprised if current plans survive any change of government. Pretty shatty really It’s like trying to stick jelly to the wall.

 

[John Fedup]

As much as I like the idea of this fleet…. Forecasting anything in the RAN more than 5 years out is like asking a cat where it will be sitting this afternoon. Even if you go back 5 years here what was the fleet looking like then? French subs, 12 OPVs, and everything’s else in the air. Then 3 years ago it was 9 hunters…now 6 and now 6 OPVs. I’d be surprised if current plans survive any change of government. Pretty shatty really It’s like trying to stick jelly to the wall.

Might get worse if Trump decides to screw around with AUKUS. Sure looks like he will get a second term now and if AUKUS is perceived as conflicting with MAGA….

 

[Todjaeger]

As much as I like the idea of this fleet…. Forecasting anything in the RAN more than 5 years out is like asking a cat where it will be sitting this afternoon. Even if you go back 5 years here what was the fleet looking like then? French subs, 12 OPVs, and everything’s else in the air. Then 3 years ago it was 9 hunters…now 6 and now 6 OPVs. I’d be surprised if current plans survive any change of government. Pretty shatty really It’s like trying to stick jelly to the wall.

Not really. Predicting where a cat will be sitting later on in the day is far easier IMO. Just check the most comfortable seat in the sun or coolest spot in the house, depending on the weather.

 

[hauritz]

As much as I like the idea of this fleet…. Forecasting anything in the RAN more than 5 years out is like asking a cat where it will be sitting this afternoon. Even if you go back 5 years here what was the fleet looking like then? French subs, 12 OPVs, and everything’s else in the air. Then 3 years ago it was 9 hunters…now 6 and now 6 OPVs. I’d be surprised if current plans survive any change of government. Pretty shatty really It’s like trying to stick jelly to the wall.

Next 12 months will be crucial. That will be when we will hopefully sort out who will be building the new GPF and what the effect of three key elections, the UK, US and Australia, will have on AUKUS.

 

[Armchair]

Next 12 months will be crucial. That will be when we will hopefully sort out who will be building the new GPF and what the effect of three key elections, the UK, US and Australia, will have on AUKUS.

I will grant the US uncertainty (though that is more complex than just presidential election) but from a glass half full perspective:
AUKUS is the policy of all major parties contesting for government in all three countries (one of which has already had its election).
Australia and the UK appear to be emerging from periods where the PM is regularly changed between elections (so both countries may actually be more politically stable than they were).
A minority ALP government (or incoming Coalition government with a WA defence minister and a SA leader in the Senate) is unlikely to cancel electorally popular industrial programs in WA (especially) and SA.

In my view the bigger uncertainties for the RAN now stem more from industrial, technological and geopolitical concerns rather than electoral matters.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Maybe, but then again, maybe not. One reality check though is even if such plans were made, as well as changes to existing plans, when would these implementations be in service? Right now only the lead Hunter-class FFG is in production IIRC, with the expected in-service date now being a decade away after having been pushed back to 2034. Unless gov't had already decided to have the Hunter-class FFG VLS loadout increased to 64 VLS cells and had changes to the detailed design get started, trying to get the VLS count increased for the first batch would just further delay the Hunter-class frigate in-service date beyond 2034 and TBH also likely delay all future production and in-service dates for the class.

Right now, it would seem that a fleet composition as listed above would likely not be in RAN service until the mid-2040's at the earliest, and that is assuming the world does not get turned into either a glowing cinder or ice cube between now and then.

I don't think it is a realistic thing, just if we needed increased capability, increase defence spending, its a possibility.

I think the first 3 hunters will be finished in their current configuration, I agree any changes now would delay builds. But it seems they could be retrofitted, and the RAN does that quite often with new ships (the HMAS Hobart, had to be retrofitted for the MH60R after it was built, and the whole class is getting upgrades despite <4 years old).

For the first hunters, I am sure they will still want the ASW capability so I think anymore than 64 VLS is doubtful.

As much as I like the idea of this fleet…. Forecasting anything in the RAN more than 5 years out is like asking a cat where it will be sitting this afternoon. Even if you go back 5 years here what was the fleet looking like then? French subs, 12 OPVs, and everything’s else in the air. Then 3 years ago it was 9 hunters…now 6 and now 6 OPVs. I’d be surprised if current plans survive any change of government. Pretty shatty really It’s like trying to stick jelly to the wall.

Oh definitely. However, I guess I am looking at where the weakness and risks are more than anything else. I do wonder if events, geopolitics, technology, and build priorities, may mean we disposed of the Hobart class earlier than expected. I know, a crazy idea currently given the situation, but in 10+ years, the RAN may look very different.

If we are pumping out two very capable ships from two yards successfully (so much hope and copium in that statement!) then it will be the Hobarts that are the less capable and odd ships out, and it may make a lot of sense to replace them, and sell them on the market, who would likely be very interested in that kind of ship.

 

[SammyC]

I wonder, with a lot of hypotheticals.

If the security and geopolitical situation gets worse.

• If we do order FFM with (potentially with 32 VLS and ASW capability)
• We also decide to then fit the Hunters with the potentially 64-96VLS for the 6 we are currently scheduled for.
• The next 3 we as specific AWD, get a upsizing and 128 VLS, which may decrease, if we go to a larger VLS system. Multiple countries seem to have 10,000t+ ships in development currently. Italians, Germans, Japanese, Americans, Spanish, potentially the British.

It would be nice to have that as a nuclear option, no more cancelling, no more ad-hoc changes, no more re-tendering, there is a legitimate ready to go option for the ships to significantly increase capabilities if required, that can be incorporated to ships already in the early build process.

If nothing dramatic happens, then things go along the current plan, and we have some very large frigates with moderate loadouts.

7-11 FFM type ships (32VLS) 4000-6000t
6 Hunters (64VLS) with aegis, CEC, etc 10,000t
3 Super-Hunters (128VLS) with aegis, CEC, etc 12,000t

all with ESSM blk II, NSM, SM-2, Sm-6, and the Hunters and super hunters with TLAM type strike and Sm-3 capability. All able to operate MH60R or/and drone or similar.

That would seem to be a pretty nice surface combatant capability.

Not an unreasonable fleet composition.

I think one consideration for future proofing the fleet is to understand how emerging battlefield technologies will be integrated into the platforms made at the moment. What is perhaps important on a tier 1/2 platform today might not be so in 15 years. Helicopters are an example from history, where early ships had nothing, then got landing pads, then hangars, then ASW/ISR/EW/torpedo fitted combat helos. All over about a 20 year period.

I would view that drones in particular are going to be central to future Naval warfare, and tier 1s and 2s will be motherships, in the same way they have in the past for helos. This means air, surface and subsurface delivery/recovery systems, storage and recharging, and most importantly, comms. Ships will need space for this and the multi purpose bay concept will increase in value over time. I would be of the opinion this will emerge strongly in the 30's, Hunters are just early adopters.

Missiles, in particular strike, will be the mainstay but likely change, probably becomming bigger, needing more expansive launchers. We will need a means of cheaply updating when the time comes. Offboard auxiliary magazines are ideal here, in that they can be easily reconfigured, or scrapped and rebuilt for the updated requirement. This is a lot easier than trying to modify a tier 1/2 (which might not actually be possible). Again another likely 30s development.

I would propose that Tier 1s will be much more of a fly half (intelligence and coordination) in the future than a prop (muscle). Weapons and sensors will increasingly become offboard, placed far out from the tier 1. Tier 2s would likely follow the same strategy, just smaller and more tailored to its mission set.

I don't see our future war strategy about trying to go toe to toe with a Chinese type 55. If we do, then we would likely loose as we could never put out enough platforms to match them 1 to 1.

I can however see a tier 1 staying on the edge of the danger zone and running a dozen or more ISR/EW/AESA configured underwater, surface and air drones out in front of it, upwards of several hundred kms. Staying quiet itself, creating an area of denial with dormant/covalent/hidden autonomous weapons around it, and then launching attacks via other drones (LOCSVs, ghost sharks etc) or shore launchers (himars etc) over the horizon.

The tier 1 an 2 of the future will be battlefield assessment and command. So big on comms, data fusion and control (Aegis, cec etc). It would have enough weapon systems for self defence and last line, but otherwise it's a drone hub.

The question would be less how many VLS cells it has, but rather how many drones it holds.

 

[devo99]

HMAS Sydney leaving Pearl Harbour for RIMPAC.

 

[StevoJH]

These ships are *all* so much more capable then what they are replacing, and all with much higher weapons capacity.

I have doubts whether RAN budgets would allow enough munitions to be purchased to fill them all to capacity in the first place, especially given announcements made of volume munitions purchases in previous years. The reality is that these missiles are not exactly mass produced at the moment, even the US missiles such as SM-2 and SM-6, and there would be significant delays in increasing production.

 

[SammyC]

These ships are *all* so much more capable then what they are replacing, and all with much higher weapons capacity.

I have doubts whether RAN budgets would allow enough munitions to be purchased to fill them all to capacity in the first place, especially given announcements made of volume munitions purchases in previous years. The reality is that these missiles are not exactly mass produced at the moment, even the US missiles such as SM-2 and SM-6, and there would be significant delays in increasing production.

I would suggest the only way this gets resolved is to set up our own production in country.

We bought $ 2 billion of ESSM IN 2022, which would be in the order of 800 units (if the order is all missiles). There is an FMS approval for approx $350m of SM2/6 (my estimate about 80-100 units, again if it is all missiles), but no announcement of a procurement order.

I'm thinking some of the above may be used to upgrade our existing holdings of ESSM and SM2s, plus some support structures, so would be less than those numbers. There are some articles that indicate it could also include equipment for manufacture of components.

The IIR doesn't provide much information, just that there is a $15-20 billion war chest for the next 10 years, and a GWEO enterprise plan to be released late 2024 (so we should know some details soon).

From what I have read, ESSM and SM2/6 production is not on the immediate agenda, that goes to 155mm shells, GMLRS, PRSM and possibly NSM. Hopefully the GWEO plan will provide some details.

I would suggest we need 1,000s of the ESSM, SM2/6 series missiles to have enough war stock, not hundreds.

 

[hauritz]

I would suggest the only way this gets resolved is to set up our own production in country.

We bought $ 2 billion of ESSM IN 2022, which would be in the order of 800 units (if the order is all missiles). There is an FMS approval for approx $350m of SM2/6 (my estimate about 80-100 units, again if it is all missiles), but no announcement of a procurement order.

I'm thinking some of the above may be used to upgrade our existing holdings of ESSM and SM2s, plus some support structures, so would be less than those numbers. There are some articles that indicate it could also include equipment for manufacture of components.

The IIR doesn't provide much information, just that there is a $15-20 billion war chest for the next 10 years, and a GWEO enterprise plan to be released late 2024 (so we should know some details soon).

From what I have read, ESSM and SM2/6 production is not on the immediate agenda, that goes to 155mm shells, GMLRS, PRSM and possibly NSM. Hopefully the GWEO plan will provide some details.

I would suggest we need 1,000s of the ESSM, SM2/6 series missiles to have enough war stock, not hundreds.

One of the many lessons learned from the Russia/Ukraine war is that weapons stocks deplete quickly and you can’t necessarily depend on other countries to replenish your them. Actually we don’t really need to look at recent events to realise that. We were in the same position at the beginning of WW2.

The challenges go beyond the manufacturing of weapons as well. You also need to manufacture pretty much every component. Modern weapons very much depend on sophisticated electronics.

Personally I think one of the priorities we should undertake is building a national stockpile of semiconductors. They are relatively cheap to acquire and have long shelf lives and are vital for just about every weapon system you can think of. At the moment I believe we do have limited capability to produce these things but we need to really ramp up production and prepare for the day when supplies of these components will be cut off.

https://www.aspi.org.au/report/australias-semiconductor-manufacturing-moonshot-securing-semiconductor-talent

 

[Wombat000]

I agree with the focus on ordinance manufacture. Obviously expenditure rates and supply are pivotal.
what is not mentioned is the question of Sonar Bouys.

underwater situational awareness will be essential to any protected maritime traffic, and ASW efforts.

i can imagine ultimately dropping literally thousands at all stages throughout any operations, strategically and tactically.

i tend to regard sonar bouy capability as a modern ‘Coastal Command’, and I hope it maintains a decent level of priority.

 

[StingrayOZ]

These ships are *all* so much more capable then what they are replacing, and all with much higher weapons capacity.

I have doubts whether RAN budgets would allow enough munitions to be purchased to fill them all to capacity in the first place, especially given announcements made of volume munitions purchases in previous years. The reality is that these missiles are not exactly mass produced at the moment, even the US missiles such as SM-2 and SM-6, and there would be significant delays in increasing production.

We would need to build munitions at a pretty good click to keep up with the ship building.

Likely 32 SM missiles a year. Possibly 32-64 ESSM a year. With deliveries starting in 5 years just to keep with filling up new VLS on ships. Keeping that rate with 50% growth about 10 years in. Double that if you want at least a reload capability. The US decline as a manufacturing giant, probably means countries should look at being able to provide their own war stocks, particularly for a global or large scale peer conflict.

I don't believe high intensity war will have SM-2 being fired like machine gun bullets, but they will be consumed ultra quickly..

They are for sea/air control. Deterrence. Australia's role is a bit difference from some of the others. However, having an active production line is super valuable in war, as is the ability to scale quickly. Strategic stockpiles are also useful. Allowing a much bigger stockpile than finished resources. Instead of having 100 finished missiles you could have the components to build ~1000. Resource stockpiles are cheaper to maintain and update. Some proven resources, can be left where they are if they require minimal in country processing to become useful. Some are better mobilized as actual manufacturing assets, than just static stockpiles. Ideally you would have everything going on, a large immediate to use stock pile, large manufacturing base that is actively used as dual purpose, large stockpiles of generic tech or globalized components like semiconductors, extremely large raw materials like plastics, metals, fuels, components for explosives or solid fuels etc.

However, while multinational missiles like ESSM and highly dependent munitions like SM series are high performing, they are most exposed to bottle necks and depletion during global war.

I suggest we look very hard at replicating some capacity to build more indigenous munitions like Japan, Korea, etc under license as part of an out of country second supply. Australia is super attractive for that, being political stable, being geographically far from high intensity conflicts, with huge natural resources, with a vested security interest, with the political will to openly share munitions with allies.

 

[MickB]

We would need to build munitions at a pretty good click to keep up with the ship building.

Likely 32 SM missiles a year. Possibly 32-64 ESSM a year. With deliveries starting in 5 years just to keep with filling up new VLS on ships. Keeping that rate with 50% growth about 10 years in. Double that if you want at least a reload capability. The US decline as a manufacturing giant, probably means countries should look at being able to provide their own war stocks, particularly for a global or large scale peer conflict.

I don't believe high intensity war will have SM-2 being fired like machine gun bullets, but they will be consumed ultra quickly..

They are for sea/air control. Deterrence. Australia's role is a bit difference from some of the others. However, having an active production line is super valuable in war, as is the ability to scale quickly. Strategic stockpiles are also useful. Allowing a much bigger stockpile than finished resources. Instead of having 100 finished missiles you could have the components to build ~1000. Resource stockpiles are cheaper to maintain and update. Some proven resources, can be left where they are if they require minimal in country processing to become useful. Some are better mobilized as actual manufacturing assets, than just static stockpiles. Ideally you would have everything going on, a large immediate to use stock pile, large manufacturing base that is actively used as dual purpose, large stockpiles of generic tech or globalized components like semiconductors, extremely large raw materials like plastics, metals, fuels, components for explosives or solid fuels etc.

However, while multinational missiles like ESSM and highly dependent munitions like SM series are high performing, they are most exposed to bottle necks and depletion during global war.

I suggest we look very hard at replicating some capacity to build more indigenous munitions like Japan, Korea, etc under license as part of an out of country second supply. Australia is super attractive for that, being political stable, being geographically far from high intensity conflicts, with huge natural resources, with a vested security interest, with the political will to openly share munitions with allies.

Now would be a good time to team with companies such as URSA MAJOR in the US, who are developing methods of 3D printing the rocket motors for the SM series of missiles.
Proponants claim that it is faster, cheaper and better quality than traditional methods.
Quicker to ramp up production by adding additional printers.

Set up a local production facility.

 

[MickB]

Now would be a good time to team with companies such as URSA MAJOR in the US, who are developing methods of 3D printing the rocket motors for the SM series of missiles.
Proponants claim that it is faster, cheaper and better quality than traditional methods.
Quicker to ramp up production by adding additional printers.

Set up a local production facility.

Once (if) the tech is proven how long before it is adapted to provide componants for any current or future rocket and missile in ADF service.

If the rockets can be made cheap enough, I have long thought that an Aussie version of something like the BM 21 MRL (with armoured cab) could serve in the reserve units of the RAA.
A cheap simple to use and maintain weapon system.