Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[H_K]

Yes speed is the H260's achilles heel. They are short, fat and dumpy and probably underpowered. Beaching hull designs are not designed for racing.

I'm not sure however that the fast supply vessel form is the long term solution either though. The FSV trades payload and range for speed as they are designed to get small high value equipment out to rigs within a few hours.

For what it's worth, I've been noodling on stern landing ships based on FSVs to solve for the speed issue.

Extrapolating from a real FSV design, here is my take on a ~600 tonne, 60-65 meter long fast landing ship for a reinforced platoon of 60 soldiers (90-100 pax overload) and 12-15 vehicles (~200 tons cargo).

I admit it's more of a thought exercise, based on conversations with a naval architect who is probably one of the top landing craft experts in the world. He has worked on smaller LCM-sized stern landing concepts and his take was that most naval operators might be a little wary of such a large stern landing vessel, so probably a bridge too far...

In terms of design details, I selected a waterjet powered FSV with a reduced draft aft (~1m), which is more compatible with stern landing. Lengthened the hull by 9m (from 50.5m to 59.5m waterline) to increase cargo deck area and accommodation space. Top speed would be 30-34 knots (light loaded), 20-27 knots full load (depending on engine selection - the actual FSV parent design has 4x 1,350kW or 4x 2,000kW), with an operating radius of ~1,500nm at 18-20kts (Darwin <-> Borneo or southern Philippines). Lightship weight of ~280 tons and deadweight of ~320 tons (200 tons cargo + 120 tons fuel & water). Crew of 12-14.

Showing it with a sample load of 7 utility vehicles (Hawkei or Bushmaster), 4 trucks (e.g. Himars) and an engineering vehicle for beach access. Total 105 lane meters, 200 tons, ~60 pax in vehicles with 90-100 total pax possible (overload).

 

[SammyC]

For what it's worth, I've been noodling on stern landing ships based on FSVs to solve for the speed issue.

Extrapolating from a real FSV design, here is my take on a ~600 tonne, 60-65 meter long fast landing ship for a reinforced platoon of 60 soldiers (90-100 pax overload) and 12-15 vehicles (~200 tons cargo).

I admit it's more of a thought exercise, based on conversations with a naval architect who is probably one of the top landing craft experts in the world. He has worked on smaller LCM-sized stern landing concepts and his take was that most naval operators might be a little wary of such a large stern landing vessel, so probably a bridge too far...

In terms of design details, I selected a waterjet powered FSV with a reduced draft aft (~1m), which is more compatible with stern landing. Lengthened the hull by 9m (from 50.5m to 59.5m waterline) to increase cargo deck area and accommodation space. Top speed would be 30-34 knots (light loaded), 20-27 knots full load (depending on engine selection - the actual FSV parent design has 4x 1,350kW or 4x 2,000kW), with an operating radius of ~1,500nm at 18-20kts (Darwin <-> Borneo or southern Philippines). Lightship weight of ~280 tons and deadweight of ~320 tons (200 tons cargo + 120 tons fuel & water). Crew of 12-14.

Showing it with a sample load of 7 utility vehicles (Hawkei or Bushmaster), 4 trucks (e.g. Himars) and an engineering vehicle for beach access. Total 105 lane meters, 200 tons, ~60 pax in vehicles with 90-100 total pax possible (overload).

Suitably impressed, like your work.

Agree with your colleague's concern with stern landing concepts. Beachings tend to be brutal events (most ships spend their entire life avoiding this activity). Delicate propulsion and steering gear can get damaged, stuck or ripped off, or can't get clear water to operate. Bow landings are easier because you can just add lots of steel to reinforce (brute force trauma). The other point is that a ship's bouyancy tends to be less at the bow than the stern (just due to the pointy nature of things). So stern landings can upset overall stability as they put more pressure on the bow region to support the part of the ship that remains floating. Both items can be overcome with good design though.

I would be interested in a version of your concept that could handle 200 tonnes weight, 8x40 foot sea containers and 2x20 foot sea containers (plus some space around them to walk). This would represent an FSV carrying 32 containerised VLS cells plus the necessary controls. Would need to look at the stability issues with the VLS in the raised position.

 

[devo99]

For what it's worth, I've been noodling on stern landing ships based on FSVs to solve for the speed issue.

Extrapolating from a real FSV design, here is my take on a ~600 tonne, 60-65 meter long fast landing ship for a reinforced platoon of 60 soldiers (90-100 pax overload) and 12-15 vehicles (~200 tons cargo).

I admit it's more of a thought exercise, based on conversations with a naval architect who is probably one of the top landing craft experts in the world. He has worked on smaller LCM-sized stern landing concepts and his take was that most naval operators might be a little wary of such a large stern landing vessel, so probably a bridge too far...

In terms of design details, I selected a waterjet powered FSV with a reduced draft aft (~1m), which is more compatible with stern landing. Lengthened the hull by 9m (from 50.5m to 59.5m waterline) to increase cargo deck area and accommodation space. Top speed would be 30-34 knots (light loaded), 20-27 knots full load (depending on engine selection - the actual FSV parent design has 4x 1,350kW or 4x 2,000kW), with an operating radius of ~1,500nm at 18-20kts (Darwin <-> Borneo or southern Philippines). Lightship weight of ~280 tons and deadweight of ~320 tons (200 tons cargo + 120 tons fuel & water). Crew of 12-14.

Showing it with a sample load of 7 utility vehicles (Hawkei or Bushmaster), 4 trucks (e.g. Himars) and an engineering vehicle for beach access. Total 105 lane meters, 200 tons, ~60 pax in vehicles with 90-100 total pax possible (overload).

A similar such vessel is currently being built by Sea Transport Solutions for trials with the USMC around Northern Australia

Sea Transport Group wins USMC contract - Australian Defence Magazine

The US Marine Corps will charter a 73 metre long Sea Transport Group-designed Stern Landing Vessel (SLV) from Sea Transport Group's sister company, Sealease, for a period of three years.

www.australiandefence.com.au

 

[H_K]

Agree with your colleague's concern with stern landing concepts. Beachings tend to be brutal events (most ships spend their entire life avoiding this activity). Delicate propulsion and steering gear can get damaged, stuck or ripped off, or can't get clear water to operate. Bow landings are easier because you can just add lots of steel to reinforce (brute force trauma). The other point is that a ship's bouyancy tends to be less at the bow than the stern (just due to the pointy nature of things). So stern landings can upset overall stability as they put more pressure on the bow region to support the part of the ship that remains floating. Both items can be overcome with good design though.

I would be interested in a version of your concept that could handle 200 tonnes weight, 8x40 foot sea containers and 2x20 foot sea containers (plus some space around them to walk). This would represent an FSV carrying 32 containerised VLS cells plus the necessary controls.

Yes the whole conversation was around the implications of stern landing - the need to reinforce hull plating, physically shield the waterjets, ensure beached stability etc, while still maintaining decent hydrodynamic qualities. He felt confident that they’d solved these technical questions, at least for a ~30m long fast stern landing LCM carrying 2-3 armored vehicles. He couldn’t go into the details… what happens under the waterline is the secret sauce of any landing craft design and very proprietary info.

He’s been involved in 2 recent LCM designs in NATO service, and was also on the losing side of the US Army MSV(L) competition, which means he’s familiar with various fast designs out there (including how BMT oversold their Caimen 90 design to win that bid, leading to serious technical problems).

The challenge according to him is less technical and more market readiness. No operator would buy into a stern landing concept without real world evidence, which requires building a prototype. And then potentially scaling the prototype to much larger sizes…which would require an even bigger leap of faith even if it looks good on paper. Only the US really has the R&D budgets and risk appetite for these kinds of things… for everyone else, a more traditional LCU with a bow visor is lower risk (especially as you get into larger sizes - say 50m+ like Birdoin’s H260 - but you’re unlikely to go much faster than 15-18 knots).

Sea Transport Group was able to get those R&D dollars however their stern landing designs are very slow and the propeller arrangement will never be suitable for a fast landing vessel.

The design I sketched out should be able to carry the container load you suggested, with 3 rows of containers on a ~120ft long cargo deck.

 

[Pusser01]

I seem to remember reading somewhere a few years ago, that Sea Transport Group, were loosely basing their design on the ships used by the shipping company that services the Furneaux Group. These are designed for stern loading at Cape Barron Island onto the beach. They are also regularly left aground there aswell as in the Bridport Harbourt due to the tides. Attached is a video of one aground in Bridport from earlier this year, credit to Jeff Jennings. Cheers.

 

[old faithful]

Anduril Australia set to build Australian Ghost Shark factory

Anduril Australia has announced it will build its first Australian manufacturing facility to deliver Ghost Shark extra-large autonomous underwater vehicles for the Royal Australian Navy and the commercial Dive-XL variant.

www.defenceconnect.com.au

I note that in regards to possible missions, the article mentions " strike". Could it possibly be used to carry and launch Tomahawks in the future? If so this may well be a very useful capability to supplement the DDGs.

 

[Stampede]

Anduril Australia set to build Australian Ghost Shark factory

Anduril Australia has announced it will build its first Australian manufacturing facility to deliver Ghost Shark extra-large autonomous underwater vehicles for the Royal Australian Navy and the commercial Dive-XL variant.

www.defenceconnect.com.au

I note that in regards to possible missions, the article mentions " strike". Could it possibly be used to carry and launch Tomahawks in the future? If so this may well be a very useful capability to supplement the DDGs.

Yes intrigued as to what this concept actually does
No doubt a lot of hush hush stuff but the strike bit was interesting

hmmmmmmmm

awaiting further detail

Cheers S

 

[MARKMILES77]

Is that “confirmation” we are acquiring SM-3 or confirmation that Minister Conroy doesn’t know the difference between SM-2 and SM-3?

It is possible he is confused but SM-2 is already in service and he did seem to be talking about what was being added for missile defence.

 

[Takao]

Yes intrigued as to what this concept actually does

Not the only one....

 

[SammyC]

Anduril Australia set to build Australian Ghost Shark factory

Anduril Australia has announced it will build its first Australian manufacturing facility to deliver Ghost Shark extra-large autonomous underwater vehicles for the Royal Australian Navy and the commercial Dive-XL variant.

www.defenceconnect.com.au

I note that in regards to possible missions, the article mentions " strike". Could it possibly be used to carry and launch Tomahawks in the future? If so this may well be a very useful capability to supplement the DDGs.

Perhaps Mk48 torpedo for naval strike? The modern versions can operate independently with their own homing sensors, so don't need a wire and largely fire and forget. Could possibly carry two underslung or in capsules so it doesn't need a launching tube. 50 km firing radius.

Would make the ghost shark a potent area denial weapon, particularly if we had a fleet of these (a factory seems to indicate we will build lots).

Ships are in general more vulnerable to torpedos in the water than missiles in the air. There is no anti torpedo torpedo, and defence is more based on keeping the launching submarine outside its firing range. That becomes really hard when it is a tiny unmanned battery powered platform, with I suspect almost no signature when in full stealth mode. Torpedos don't need to be mass launched, so two would be an effective payload.

Mk48s are however 1.5 tonnes per pop, so production versions of ghost shark might get a bit bigger for additional buoyancy control.

 

[seaspear]

Perhaps Mk48 torpedo for naval strike? The modern versions can operate independently with their own homing sensors, so don't need a wire and largely fire and forget. Could possibly carry two underslung or in capsules so it doesn't need a launching tube. 50 km firing radius.

Would make the ghost shark a potent area denial weapon, particularly if we had a fleet of these (a factory seems to indicate we will build lots).

Ships are in general more vulnerable to torpedos in the water than missiles in the air. There is no anti torpedo torpedo, and defence is more based on keeping the launching submarine outside its firing range. That becomes really hard when it is a tiny unmanned battery powered platform, with I suspect almost no signature when in full stealth mode. Torpedos don't need to be mass launched, so two would be an effective payload.

Mk48s are however 1.5 tonnes per pop, so production versions of ghost shark might get a bit bigger for additional buoyancy control.

With regards to the comment about there not being an anti torpedo torpedo ,this article suggests otherwise

SeaSpider

World’s first dedicated Anti-Torpedo-Torpedo, designed without compromise to be an effective and affordable solution.

www.atlas-elektronik.com

Are torpedo-killing torpedoes ready for prime time?

Companies promise new technology to take out the stealthy ship killers.

www.defensenews.com

This article goes further into U.S.N concerns of same

A Hard-Kill Solution to Threat Torpedoes

The Navy must compensate for the void in torpedo defense by developing antitorpedo mines.

www.usni.org

 

[hauritz]

Very little info on the Ghost Shark but it does have a superficial resemblance to the Orca XL-UUV. The big feature of that boat is a modular payload bay centre of the boat and judging by its appearance the Ghost Shark it will have a similar arrangement.

The Orca also has a diesel electric setup and looking at the Ghost Sharks fin I would guess that we could once again see a similar set up.

Given that Australia recently cancelled its mine warfare program prior to announcing that the Ghost Shark program was to be accelerated probably points to at least one role planned for the Ghost Shark.

Something like the Ghost Shark is also the sort of force multiplier needed to keep the aging Collins class relevant going into the 2030s.

 

[76mmGuns]

Australia and Anduril jointly invest to promote Ghost Shark production - Naval News

Australia is pouring money into extra-large autonomous underwater vehicles (XL-AUV) Ghost Shark, that will help take up the underwater slack.

www.navalnews.com

Edit: Woops, I missed above 2 comments.

Didn't see any discussion here about Ghost Shark. Seems to be proceeding well, though it's early stages. I can imagine, in my cynical view, that the RAN will fit up to 6 of these into the Hunter MM space, and, on seeing the benefits, and the subs not appearing until 2050's in any appreciable numbers, the number of Hunter's and derivatives increasing again. I mean, the specs given are it's a 2.72-tonne and 5.8m-long Dive-LD submersible, which is far smaller and lighter than 10.5, RHIB's of which the Hunter would have fit 4 of. They might use Hunter's as an ad hoc sub drone carrier, albeit with considerable range restrictions

 

[hauritz]

Australia and Anduril jointly invest to promote Ghost Shark production - Naval News

Australia is pouring money into extra-large autonomous underwater vehicles (XL-AUV) Ghost Shark, that will help take up the underwater slack.

www.navalnews.com

Edit: Woops, I missed above 2 comments.

Didn't see any discussion here about Ghost Shark. Seems to be proceeding well, though it's early stages. I can imagine, in my cynical view, that the RAN will fit up to 6 of these into the Hunter MM space, and, on seeing the benefits, and the subs not appearing until 2050's in any appreciable numbers, the number of Hunter's and derivatives increasing again. I mean, the specs given are it's a 2.72-tonne and 5.8m-long Dive-LD submersible, which is far smaller and lighter than 10.5, RHIB's of which the Hunter would have fit 4 of. They might use Hunter's as an ad hoc sub drone carrier, albeit with considerable range restrictions

Another story on that page is also relevant to Australia.

DSA 2024: New Torpedo-Launching UUV from China - Naval News

Chinese defence solutions company Poly Technology unveils a multimission-capable UUV at the DSA 2024 exhibition in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

www.navalnews.com

While the current narrative is that our region will be awash with submarines going into the next decade it is likely that those numbers are going to be dwarfed by Chinese AUVs.

We could have hundreds or even thousands of these things to contend with.

 

[Lofty_DBF]

Perhaps Mk48 torpedo for naval strike? The modern versions can operate independently with their own homing sensors, so don't need a wire and largely fire and forget. Could possibly carry two underslung or in capsules so it doesn't need a launching tube. 50 km firing radius.

Would make the ghost shark a potent area denial weapon, particularly if we had a fleet of these (a factory seems to indicate we will build lots).

Ships are in general more vulnerable to torpedos in the water than missiles in the air. There is no anti torpedo torpedo, and defence is more based on keeping the launching submarine outside its firing range. That becomes really hard when it is a tiny unmanned battery powered platform, with I suspect almost no signature when in full stealth mode. Torpedos don't need to be mass launched, so two would be an effective payload.

Mk48s are however 1.5 tonnes per pop, so production versions of ghost shark might get a bit bigger for additional buoyancy control.

The ghost shark would require a weapon discharge system to fire Mk 48 in its present form and associated ballast compensation systems. The ballast system would need to handle the changes in weight after a weapon is discharged.

It's going to be very interesting what weapons end up on the ghost shark.

 

[Bluey 006]

It's going to be very interesting what weapons end up on the ghost shark.

Will be interesting indeed.

Perhaps the Very Lightweight Torpedo, given its smaller size and lower weight, and/or the Joint Strike Missile, or maybe down the track, the 3SM.

 

[ADMk2]

It is possible he is confused but SM-2 is already in service and he did seem to be talking about what was being added for missile defence.

The ALP announced air defence missiles being acquiring for the RAN are the ESSM Block 2, SM-2 Block IIIC and SM-6. SM-3 has never before even so much as mentioned by defence or Government as an acquisition we are contemplating and it’s not in any released strategy document. In fact these very strategy documents go so far as to say that “high speed and counter hypersonic missile defence” which could easily translate into SM-3 variants, is being delayed.

Now I accept fully that there is a classified IIP and a public IIP and perhaps he let something slip that comes from the classified portion of the IIP. That is possible and it is far from the first time a Minister has done such a thing. It could also be a hint towards a future announcement we just haven’t been told yet.

It is equally possible that Mr Conroy had a slip of the tongue, or literally doesn’t know the difference between the various designations…

 

[kato]

With regards to the comment about there not being an anti torpedo torpedo ,this article suggests otherwise

SeaSpider

World’s first dedicated Anti-Torpedo-Torpedo, designed without compromise to be an effective and affordable solution.

www.atlas-elektronik.com

SeaSpider is more of a joke - it's been in development for 20 years now, and its actual deployment gets pushed back from one procurement to the next.

There are very few actual hardkill anti-torpedo systems. Effectively the well-established Russian Paket-E/NK system (which is full-sized 324mm torpedoes for surface ships) and the Israeli SHADE system (for submarines).

 

[SammyC]

The ghost shark would require a weapon discharge system to fire Mk 48 in its present form and associated ballast compensation systems. The ballast system would need to handle the changes in weight after a weapon is discharged.

It's going to be very interesting what weapons end up on the ghost shark.

Yes, but one would hope it could be much simpler than for a crewed submarine.

Torpedos pre the Mk48 era used to swim out under their own power, rather than be ejected. The Mk48's however can't do this.

I know the Mk48 needs to register a certain speed before its engine will engage (one of its many safety features), and modern firing tubes are somewhat cosy (minimising damage on the way out) preventing water flow around a propeller. One would think however for an uncrewed system, a swim out option could be developed.

I still think that a bolt on external cannister would work on something like the ghost shark. Fitted when required. Sealed until you need it. Opened and flooded when you do. One each side. Solves some of the ballasting requirements as well, as flooded water replaces the torpedo. Makes reloading easier, and I don't think these drones would go fast enough for it to become a water resistance concern.

I'm not sure the smaller Mk46/54 or Mu90 style light weight torpedos would be useful as a surface ship strike weapon. These are fine for other submarines (where small damage can cripple), but they don't have the power to inflict significant damage to a ship. I'm not sure they even have a seeker configured for surface attack.

Biggest problem comes back to manufacturing. The US factory for Mk48s only builds about 10 a month. I believe at the moment GWEO are only looking to expand our in country Mk48 maintenance but not manufacturing capability, so we will be relying on the American supply for some time.

In regards to ghost sharks pairing up with Hunters. The multi mission bay handling system is I remember only rated to 15 tonnes. While a ghost shark might fit in the bay, I'm not sure it could be lifted. There is no information on the ghost shark weight, but taking 3 tonnes off for two torpedos, I would think the drone will be coming close to that limit. Hopefully they have thought about this, as otherwise it is in my view a match made in heaven. Imagine 3-6 of these patroling a 100km or more perimeter around a surface fleet. Coming back to the Hunter for refuelling and servicing (and reloading). With an ISR and strike capability it would keep most things at bay.

 

[Stampede]

Yes, but one would hope it could be much simpler than for a crewed submarine.

Torpedos pre the Mk48 era used to swim out under their own power, rather than be ejected. The Mk48's however can't do this.

I know the Mk48 needs to register a certain speed before its engine will engage (one of its many safety features), and modern firing tubes are somewhat cosy (minimising damage on the way out) preventing water flow around a propeller. One would think however for an uncrewed system, a swim out option could be developed.

I still think that a bolt on external cannister would work on something like the ghost shark. Fitted when required. Sealed until you need it. Opened and flooded when you do. One each side. Solves some of the ballasting requirements as well, as flooded water replaces the torpedo. Makes reloading easier, and I don't think these drones would go fast enough for it to become a water resistance concern.

I'm not sure the smaller Mk46/54 or Mu90 style light weight torpedos would be useful as a surface ship strike weapon. These are fine for other submarines (where small damage can cripple), but they don't have the power to inflict significant damage to a ship. I'm not sure they even have a seeker configured for surface attack.

Biggest problem comes back to manufacturing. The US factory for Mk48s only builds about 10 a month. I believe at the moment GWEO are only looking to expand our in country Mk48 maintenance but not manufacturing capability, so we will be relying on the American supply for some time.

In regards to ghost sharks pairing up with Hunters. The multi mission bay handling system is I remember only rated to 15 tonnes. While a ghost shark might fit in the bay, I'm not sure it could be lifted. There is no information on the ghost shark weight, but taking 3 tonnes off for two torpedos, I would think the drone will be coming close to that limit. Hopefully they have thought about this, as otherwise it is in my view a match made in heaven. Imagine 3-6 of these patroling a 100km or more perimeter around a surface fleet. Coming back to the Hunter for refuelling and servicing (and reloading). With an ISR and strike capability it would keep most things at bay.

The uncrewed thing is certainly an evolving space to watch.

I feel along with the physics of making this stuff work will be the challenge of price.
No doubt we may be able to develop and build some of this stuff but if the cost cannot be justified, then we will revert to what we know works.

Capability and value for money.

Again an evolving space.



Cheers S