Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[SammyC]

I don't think we need 3 continuous small frigate lines. But we could certainly copy and benchmark the Japanese production output of a yard.

Henderson seems to be/is well sized for this type of ship tho, dimensionally. 17x143m. Two would fit pretty nicely in their build hall. They could easily be benchmarked against the Japanese yards for efficiency and cost. Historically the Japanese are *VERY* good at exporting build expertise, just historically not in ship building. Toyota/Mitsubishi/Nissan etc are famous for running/operating plants all over the globe. Kanban, kaizen, 5S and the whole lean manufacturing movement came out of Japan. I would rather henderson be a fully utilised and efficient yard, than 3 slow building yard lines. But then again, I am not sure if CIVMEC intends to tie itself completely to just building naval ships there.

Osborne should stay focused on larger ships and the submarines. Building bigger and more complex projects but at a slower pace. Something like 6-9 larger surface combatants. Plus 9 SSN.

If civmec wants to take on more civilian work at henderson then there is the opportunity to rejuvenate the old forgacs site at Newcastle, which they already own. It would never be as large as complex as henderson or osborne. But could take on smaller ship builds, possible civilian builds.

If we have no intention of using these sites, they will atrophie, then closed and gone forever never to be re-established. If we intend to use them, we should include plans for them. They are kind of orphaned on the east coast now. But allocating work is a highly political issue now.

Starting projects is hard. Having a system of rolling and evolving will be much less expensive, risky, stressful, hard.

It will be interesting to see the final structure for Henderson, which is still opaque. The Government has however been clear on three points in its recent announcements. Firstly that the maintenance and ship construction area will be Commonwealth owned, secondly it will be exclusive to Defence, and thirdly that supply will be consolidated (both in location and provider numbers). This fits with the need for security and long term sustainment objectives.

This tends to indicate the Commonwealth buying Civmec and Silver Yachts out for their facilities. Perhaps offering Civmec alternative space and funding for a new civilian construction area in return. Possibly Civmec may be offered a contract for shipbuilding labour (supporting Austal or as a JV partner) and/or construction of the dry dock area (very big contract).

Civmec own the Henderson building, so one would think they have a strong hand to negotiate a good deal for themselves, but I'm sure they can see the writing on the wall as to their involvement in the future (will not be getting another lead ship building contract).

I should note, the below link is the announcement Civmec made when the Government outline of the Henderson facility strategy was released back in October. I will draw attention to a particular quote as below from this link

Civmec is working with the Department of Defence, along with the State and Federal Governments on suitable alternate land options in the immediate vicinity for the establishment of a new State-owned Common User Facilities with the infrastructure and capabilities that can support current and future non-defence industries, activities and projects. This planning work is underpinned by the commitments made in the Cooperation Agreement between the Commonwealth of Australia and the State of Western Australia to deliver and sustain Australia’s future Defence capabilities.

New Defence Precinct at Henderson - Civmec

I can't imagine a third shipyard being supported by the Government, as much as I have a soft spot for the old Forgacs yard (I was there for the Manoora/Kanimbla upgrades). Particularly as Austal seems to now have a monopoly on small vessel construction (patrol boats and landing craft) for the foreseeable future.

 

[Reptilia]

Think Sammy is correct, civmec, asc west and silveryachts will become another government owned shipyard.
Civmec may get both Austals current site and the lot to the North and build a new facility or the BAE site?

Osborne South>BAE - Tier 1 Destroyers/Frigates
Osborne North>BAE - Submarines
Henderson>Austal and Mitsubishi or TKMS - Tier 2 Frigates + Patrol Boats/Landing Craft

Building vessels greater than 200m ytbd, most likely Henderson(South of Civmec is my guess) although it would be great to see a shipyard in the East building the larger vessels. Existing eastern sites are only suited to the smaller vessels, under 100m.

Williamstown or Newcastle could have built LCH, LCM, Patrol boats etc and Henderson GPFs and AORs etc.

 

[seaspear]

Is there any possibility that some of the more modern equipment from the retiring ANZAC ships could be transferred to a future Mogami supplied to Australia for finishing off here e.g. Ceafar we would already have crews trained in such equipment

 

[SammyC]

Not much I suspect.

Most likely the radio and cryptographic equipment would be reused. Possibly the main gun, but they are quite old and earlier versions. Definitely not the radar or 9LV for the Mogami. We will get whatever is standard fit for these as they are heavily integrated into the package. I'm interested to see what TKMS offer as I suspect one of their variants will be using both Ceafar and 9LV.

Those ships that decommission will be stripped for parts for the remainder in service, that is perhaps the best use for their parts.

 

[Volkodav]

My point was more about the reality that even Japan's order for Mogami-class frigates did not just start right out of the gate at a rapid production tempo, and that there was time spent on various pre-production activities.

I would think that a number of the 'Australianization' changes would have had an impact more on the detailed design phase and less on production, unless someone stuffed up and put the cart before the horse (or would this be the stern before the bow?) and had production start ahead of the design being finalized.

Something like this did happen, sort of, with the Hobart-class DDG's, but this was because a design change was essentially forced by a change elsewhere. I am specifically referring to the change in heliborne air-dropped LWT's following the retirement of the SH-2G(A) and the replacement of the S-70B2 Seahawks with MH-60R 'Romeo' Seahawks armed with Mk 54 LWT's instead of the originally planned for MU-90 LWT's. With the adopt of the Mk 54 LWT and the fuel they used, the hangar magazine LWT storage system had to be changed to effectively mitigate potential hazards. Unfort the Hobart-class DDG's design had already been completed when the MH-60R order was placed, with the lead ship getting laid down about 15 months after the initial order was placed and about 14 months before the first MH-60R delivery.

The hangar changes shit me.

The question was asked, I know because I was one of the people asking, "we know that both the NH90 and the Romeo are too long for the current hangar design, why are we not fixing it now?" Anyone with half a brain could literally see the hangar wasn't long enough.

But why listen to a techo when there is money to be wasted and schedules to be stuffed.

Still happens now, god I hate project managers, not that many PMs are actually PMs these days.

 

[Volkodav]

Sorry for stating the obvious, but there is also the "AUSTRALIANISATION" factor, as Hunter WAS based on T26, but it has been heavily modified. Add to this that T26 will no doubt have been 'self-modifying' to correct minor mistakes in their design & that this data will probably have been in turn, passed onto Australia to help address some issues.

ALL of this takes time, so trying to compare the Mogami to Hunter isn't like comparing apples to apples.


...& Happy New Year to all South of the Equator.

SA

The Australianisation was driven by the failure to maintain tier 1 numbers at nine, eight or at least six, i.e. replacing the three DDGs and six FFGs with a sufficient number of modern equivalents.

This meant AEGIS and CEAFAR.

The other factor in the Type 26 was the need for a high end ASW ship, something Australia hadn't had since the River Class (Type 12). The reduction in numbers of major combatants meant that if the RAN was to have an ASW platform with the required performance, it pretty much dictated that we start with an ASW platform, and add air defence and strike capabilities.

 

[StevoJH]

I mean, if the Government had ordered 6 Hobart class, then maybe the Hunter class could have had a smaller CEAFAR and ESSM rather then SM-2/6.

The RN has Type 45 and F35B to extend the umbrella.

 

[Volkodav]

I mean, if the Government had ordered 6 Hobart class, then maybe the Hunter class could have had a smaller CEAFAR and ESSM rather then SM-2/6.

The RN has Type 45 and F35B to extend the umbrella.

Hunter could still have had SM-2 and 6 without AEGIS. 9Lv is a capable, scalable, combat system, and if fitted with CEC they would add significantly to the air defence capability.

My understanding is AEGIS and the large radar arrays appear to be the main drivers in the weight and volume increases.

Having additional Hobart's completely changes the entire picture.

 

[seaspear]

Would a ship design that was ordered for tier two be required to operate sm-6 or sm-2 ,the Chu Sam Kai missiles designed for the Mogami and the upgraded version appear to be a surface to air missile this article suggests that Japan may acquire the sm-2 or6 later but perhaps not for all the ships ,if the R.A.N were to operate the sm-6 off these frigates it could provide a missile that has some surface to surface capability

 

[swerve]

Japan has SM-2 missiles already, & was reported in 2022 to have requested SM-6 & been approved to buy it. It also has SM-3 for anti-ballistic missile defence. They're on the AAW destroyers.

It's tested a new naval SAM, A-SAM, which is said to be intended as a longer range alternative to ESSM for the improved Mogami frigates

 

[SammyC]

My understanding is that the Chu Sam is their Type 3 missile which they use like our NASAMS for land based air defence. It's well tested and mature in this role.

It has a range of about 50km, similar to ESSM. A version of this is aparently being upgraded to install on ships, however it will get an additional booster. Perhaps this will give it the range (or near to) of an SM2, but it would need to be a big booster.

The Type 3 is a lot bigger than an ESSM, much more of the size of an SM2, so I can't see it quad packing, therefore it would be an inferior choice as an ESSM replacement for loadout volume. But if its range can be improved, then it might be a reasonable alternative to an SM2.

More broadly though, I do see the flexibility advantage in a ship being compatible with a range of missiles. In the modern world of scarcity, beggars can't be choosers. If a ship was in the situation that the only missile that was available was the Type 3 (perhaps it is in a Japanese harbour late in a conflict scenario for reloading), then I think it would take it. Patriot PAC3 is another example of interchangeability.

Japan operate both the American standard range and their own indigenous family of missiles. One would assume an upgraded Mogami comes capable of using them all, and perhaps one of its strengths would be this ability to use anything.

I can't see a Tier 2 having SM6 on a regular basis. We won't have big numbers of this missile, so it would likely be prioritised to the platforms that can provide front line balistic missile defence (Hobarts and Hunters). While SM6 has an anti ship capability, I would suggest this is something to be considered if the normal anti ship missiles (NSM) have been used up. So call it a back up ASM.

If the Tier 2 has a 32 cell VLS, however I can see it carrying SM2, which we have in larger quantities, particularly the older variants. So 32 ESSM, 8 ASROC and 16 SM2.

 

[old faithful]

My understanding is that the Chu Sam is their Type 3 missile which they use like our NASAMS for land based air defence. It's well tested and mature in this role.

It has a range of about 50km, similar to ESSM. A version of this is aparently being upgraded to install on ships, however it will get an additional booster. Perhaps this will give it the range (or near to) of an SM2, but it would need to be a big booster.

The Type 3 is a lot bigger than an ESSM, much more of the size of an SM2, so I can't see it quad packing, therefore it would be an inferior choice as an ESSM replacement for loadout volume. But if its range can be improved, then it might be a reasonable alternative to an SM2.

More broadly though, I do see the flexibility advantage in a ship being compatible with a range of missiles. In the modern world of scarcity, beggars can't be choosers. If a ship was in the situation that the only missile that was available was the Type 3 (perhaps it is in a Japanese harbour late in a conflict scenario for reloading), then I think it would take it. Patriot PAC3 is another example of interchangeability.

Japan operate both the American standard range and their own indigenous family of missiles. One would assume an upgraded Mogami comes capable of using them all, and perhaps one of its strengths would be this ability to use anything.

I can't see a Tier 2 having SM6 on a regular basis. We won't have big numbers of this missile, so it would likely be prioritised to the platforms that can provide front line balistic missile defence (Hobarts and Hunters). While SM6 has an anti ship capability, I would suggest this is something to be considered if the normal anti ship missiles (NSM) have been used up. So call it a back up ASM.

If the Tier 2 has a 32 cell VLS, however I can see it carrying SM2, which we have in larger quantities, particularly the older variants. So 32 ESSM, 8 ASROC and 16 SM2.

I was unaware that the RAN had, or have ordered ASROC?

 

[SammyC]

Is there any possibility that some of the more modern equipment from the retiring ANZAC ships could be transferred to a future Mogami supplied to Australia for finishing off here e.g. Ceafar we would already have crews trained in such equipment

As a correction to my earlier comments on this, seaspear it got me thinking. I wonder if the Mk41 from the ANZACs, which is the short self defence length, could be used on the Hunters. Normally this Mk41 variant is very limited because it can only be used for ESSM, but perhaps there is a use where its small size could be the right fit elsewhere.

The Type 26 has a 24 cell sea ceptor farm behind the main stack, which sits partially pround of the deck and partially in the mission bay. The dimensional differences between sea ceptor and ESSM are minimal (about 0.5 m). There could be an argument that either an 8 or 16 cell self defence Mk41 would fit in this same spot.

The space would likely be adequate, given the T26 fit. Weight is probably available as it is a lot lighter than the larger strike length Mk41s. I think this area is still free of other encumbrances.

With 8 of these short self defence length Mk41s becoming available as the ANZACs retire, that's enough for all six Hunters with a single 8 cell unit a piece, or the first four with a two unit 16 cell fit. It would make for a 40 or 48 cell platform without presumably massive modification. Perhaps fitted to the second batch of three during construction, and retrofitted to the first three after commissioning.

It would mean that the Hunter ESSM loadout could be via these cells, leaving the longer strike length Mk41 cells at the front for SM2, SM6 or even Tomahawk.

The Government has stated that it will study to see if Tomahawk could be fitted to the Hunters. I would see the only limitation to Hunter Tomahawk compatibility is the number of cells, so perhaps this is something that is being considered as part of that study.

Just speculating.

 

[SammyC]

I was unaware that the RAN had, or have ordered ASROC?

No but perhaps it comes with the Mogami, if that is the selected design. I was hypothesising.

 

[downunderblue]

Quick question, but why does CEAFAR 2 on the Hunter need 6 arrays when most combatants only need 4 for 360 degree 0-85 etc coverage?

Good luck on finding accurate renders but it appears they have gone with a 6 panel facing mast, rather than 4. I assume this provides greater overlap/ redundancy across all three (S/L/X) bands. There seems a lot to like about CEAFAR 2 but it seems each band is a specialised array panel and with so many it clearly start to add up in weight. Maybe 4 would have been fine, especially for what was meant to be a specialist ASW frigate? I really don't want to get into that as it appears to be an issue with only ordering 3 Hobarts (as discussed), but it seems to have forced a lot of pressure on a the Hunter program to excel at almost everything.

I remember a lot of RN types salivating over the Type 45 when it appeared, but on paper it makes the T45 (and clearly our Hobart's) look puny and present as most powerful sensor platform available on a surface vessel atm.

Again on paper, this reinforces to me that a 96 cell Hunter should be an absolute shoe in for the Hobart replacements in a continuous build out of Osborne. Sign me up, please.

 

[downunderblue]

Whilst I'm at it, is there any real reason we are still labeling them (the Hunter class) as Frigates? Who is this for, the politicians, the accountants, or the purists (to maintain a stated destroyer AND frigate fleet), but I don't understand why we can't call a spade a spade (or shovel) etc.

I googled this and noted a RUSI commentator stating “the key distinction between frigates and destroyers is size and, by extension, function” ...surely the all in one pocket knife that is the Hunter class should be called a destroyer??? On that basis, does a 96 cell Hunter as a Hobart Replacement classify as a light Cruiser?

This all reminds me of the JMSDF calling the 26,000 tonne Izumo-class a DDH ... seriously ... who are you kidding, gents?

 

[downunderblue]

As a correction to my earlier comments on this, it got me thinking. I wonder if the Mk41 from the ANZACs, which is the short self defence length, could be used on the Hunters.
...

Just speculating.

I really like your common sense SammyC, but do we think the billions that have already been spent with the reconfiguration/ redesign for AU requirements that this would have already been considered, and likely ignored by now? They've cut steel on this already so yes whilst a great idea, do we really want the design to change and incur greater delay/ cost for redesign. FWIW I think the 'ship has sailed' and I as a taxpayer just want a ship on time, prefarably/ hopefully on budget.

And again, I like the common sense. I wish sometimes there was greater historical transparency on such matters so we can all get behind it all and second guess it less. I for one will avoid criticising the person in the room (or on the ship) forced to make a quick but speculative decision not knowing the future. Hindsight is far to often used to bash the decision-maker maker so I for one will always avoid piling on the back of that decision maker, but again it's also fair to shine some transperancy to know what factors they considered/ ie whether it passed the pub test of being reasonable for a reasonable person based upon known considerations.

My gut says we will never know. It never hurts to ask, but I doubt we will ever get an answer

 

[SammyC]

Quick question, but why does CEAFAR 2 on the Hunter need 6 arrays when most combatants only need 4 for 360 degree 0-85 etc coverage?

Good luck on finding accurate renders but it appears they have gone with a 6 panel facing mast, rather than 4. I assume this provides greater overlap/ redundancy across all three (S/L/X) bands. There seems a lot to like about CEAFAR 2 but it seems each band is a specialised array panel and with so many it clearly start to add up in weight. Maybe 4 would have been fine, especially for what was meant to be a specialist ASW frigate? I really don't want to get into that as it appears to be an issue with only ordering 3 Hobarts (as discussed), but it seems to have forced a lot of pressure on a the Hunter program to excel at almost everything.

I remember a lot of RN types salivating over the Type 45 when it appeared, but on paper it makes the T45 (and clearly our Hobart's) look puny and present as most powerful sensor platform available on a surface vessel atm.

Again on paper, this reinforces to me that a 96 cell Hunter should be an absolute shoe in for the Hobart replacements in a continuous build out of Osborne. Sign me up, please.

Phased arrays are weaker at the more oblique angles. Four panels is about the minimum for effective 360 deg coverage. Some ships use less, such as one, two (T45 Samson) or three sided systems, but these then rotate for the coverage.

A six panel system is simply more effective because the individual panels can work in their ideal arc range. They can have better resolution and target identification as a result.

It can also scan faster and track more targets simultaneously, as each panel has a smaller area to cover.

Additionally it provides some redundancy in the event a panel goes down. A four panel system, with the loss of a single panel will have a surveillance gap. A six panel might be able to compensate.

I should note, not only is the cearar2 a six panel system, it is also multi banded. Multi frequency provides resilience against jamming, beter detection against low observable targets, and increased range to "hide" emmissions from detection.

If you can afford it, then a six panel multi banded system is the Mercedes benz option.

For comparison, the Americans elected to not go down this path primarily for cost. Eary plans for spy 6 was to have a second integrated band, but it was rejected as it was too costly. If you think CEA is expensive, try Ratheon.

 

[SammyC]

I really like your common sense SammyC, but do we think the billions that have already been spent with the reconfiguration/ redesign for AU requirements that this would have already been considered, and likely ignored by now? They've cut steel on this already so yes whilst a great idea, do we really want the design to change and incur greater delay/ cost for redesign. FWIW I think the 'ship has sailed' and I as a taxpayer just want a ship on time, prefarably/ hopefully on budget.

And again, I like the common sense. I wish sometimes there was greater historical transparency on such matters so we can all get behind it all and second guess it less. I for one will avoid criticising the person in the room (or on the ship) forced to make a quick but speculative decision not knowing the future. Hindsight is far to often used to bash the decision-maker maker so I for one will always avoid piling on the back of that decision maker, but again it's also fair to shine some transperancy to know what factors they considered/ ie whether it passed the pub test of being reasonable for a reasonable person based upon known considerations.

My gut says we will never know. It never hurts to ask, but I doubt we will ever get an answer

Probably, however I will be interested to see the end result of the assessment into configuring Hunters for Tomahawk. I can't see how this works without more cells

I'm thinking the thought bubble to fit Tomahawks on Hunters came after the design was finalised, hence not considered earlier. The whole conversation on Hunters and their internal missile capacity has been a very late one, mostly after design considerations were set.

I still think the best solution for Hunters and Tomahawks is an LOCSV.

 

[downunderblue]

I was unaware that the RAN had, or have ordered ASROC?

Are we assuming the ASROC option will consist of the MHI Type 07 VL-ASROC with either a Type 12 or 97 LWT as a payload.

I assume the Mogami software already is preconfigured for this out of their existing 16 cell Mk41, so that's the option available?

Surely ASROC etc is becoming more redundant now more than ever with varied unmanned opinions for increased sensor and payload delivery options. My assumptions however may be completely wrong.