Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[downunderblue]

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 range. They can have better resolution and target identification as a result.

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.

Rolls Royce or Mercedes Benz? Benz now very common now and feel like a modern day Ford LTD. Surely our Hunter is the RR of Frigates ... (wont go there ...)

Makes sense and thanks for replying.

 

[downunderblue]

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. It brings to mind the earlier point about changes to the Hobarts caused by the change of helo and torpedo.

If we really want a long range land attack option, wouldn't it be best deployed from a long range bomber ... a B-21 perhaps ...

12 B-21's can make a significant impact, return, refuel, rearm and be back as a threat in 12 ish hours? A surface or even subsurface combatant has one shot then a long time recover ... I could go into another analogy there but decided for maturity to avoid it.

Any land attack from the RAN should only be seen as a secondary or tertiary option IMO and those cells are precious and a considerable limitation.

We do miss a true F-111 replacement.

 

[SammyC]

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.

As a more birds eye take on ship launched torpedos, the MU90 and Mk54 both have ranges in the 10-15km range. These are OK for helo or aircraft launched approaches, however for ship launched, that's way too close to the submarine for comfort. Submarines can fire torpedos with ranges up to 40kms (enabling an effective firing position of say 15-20km away to run down a ship).

The type 07 has a better range of about 30km due to the rocket booster, still not long enough in my opinion, but better than 15km.

I think you need a helo system (preferred) and a ship system (alternate). There are times when the helo will not be available or has missed with its shot.

No we don't have asroc, but the Mogami comes with it integrated, and it might be a useful extra capability.

 

[Reptilia]

‘BAE is also exploring alternative ways to up-arm the frigates through the use of containerised air-defence and surface-to-surface missiles.’

BAE Offers Evolved, Up-armed Hunter for Australia - Naval News

BAE is offering an up-armed, evolved variant of the Hunter class frigate to the Royal Australian Navy, as the Navy looks to increase its lethality.

www.navalnews.com

Batch 2, who knows….

 

[Stampede]

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.

We don’t really know what the final layout is for the Hunter Class but I’d speculate it will look like what’s in the public arena.

Re missiles thats 32 Cellls

That said, I’d does beg the question how the space and weight for the “mushroom farm” is used on the RAN type 26 compared to the RN version.

ESSM is much heavier missile than sea ceptor, maybe that is the issue .
I confess as a layman though the weight difference between the two SAM systems looks negligible on a 10000t ship.

We’ll see what eventuates

Cheers S

 

[seaspear]

‘BAE is also exploring alternative ways to up-arm the frigates through the use of containerised air-defence and surface-to-surface missiles.’

BAE Offers Evolved, Up-armed Hunter for Australia - Naval News

BAE is offering an up-armed, evolved variant of the Hunter class frigate to the Royal Australian Navy, as the Navy looks to increase its lethality.

www.navalnews.com

Batch 2, who knows….

Looking where the plug in of the missiles is and having 4 by 4 N.S.M ,s it does look like room for 4 by 6 instead, just speculating

 

[SammyC]

We don’t really know what the final layout is for the Hunter Class but I’d speculate it will look like what’s in the public arena.

Re missiles thats 32 Cellls

That said, I’d does beg the question how the space and weight for the “mushroom farm” is used on the RAN type 26 compared to the RN version.

ESSM is much heavier missile than sea ceptor, maybe that is the issue .
I confess as a layman though the weight difference between the two SAM systems looks negligible on a 10000t ship.

We’ll see what eventuates

Cheers S

Yes, most likely, particularly for the first three.

An 8 cell self defence Mk41 with 32 ESSM weighs about 22 tonnes. A 24 cell CAMM mushroom farm with missiles is about half that, so yes a difference in weight. Given the overall weight capacity of the mission bay area however, one would think it has a minimal impact.

 

[Bob53]

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

SM6 over $6m a pop.

 

[seaspear]

Im sure its not the cheapest but this article states its unique it what it can do and having some protection against ballistic missiles that will sink the ship you want the most effective

SM-6 Missile

Raytheon’s SM-6® missile is three missiles in one and the only weapon that can perform anti-air warfare, ballistic missile defense and anti-surface warfare missions. This capability offers navies more flexibility in limited ship space.

www.rtx.com

 

[ADMk2]

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.

The thought bubble for Tomahawk on Hobart came after the ships were built, let alone just designs, so where there is a will… I guess…

RAN also has organisational experience in adding VLS systems to major surface combatants with FFG-UP. I am not sure they recall that project particularly fondly and I am not sure as a result, that they are going to be rushing into adding cells when they were never intended in the original design.

 

[Milo]

An 8 cell self defence Mk41 with 32 ESSM weighs about 22 tonnes. A 24 cell CAMM mushroom farm with missiles is about half that, so yes a difference in weight. Given the overall weight capacity of the mission bay area however, one would think it has a minimal impact.

There has been discussion in the past regarding the MK 41 VLS fitted to the ANZAC class frigates and pretty sure the conclusion was that they are tactical length rather than self-defence length.

 

[Armchair]

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.

Well the LOCSV is the selected solution to the VLS count problem (For Hobart and Hunter). The RAN, however, does not know how the LOCSV program (effectively a bilateral program led by US) will turn out though. Will it work? will the USGov cancel it even if it works? If LOCSV ends up simply as a long range strike magazine, with no ability to track the missiles it launches, then Hunter will need the ability to control Tomahawk. Given the unknowns exploring the fit of Tomahawk to Hunter seems sensible.

Two other thoughts.

If the RAN is anticipating having a vessel available to provide a contribution to a firing line in the event of a major Pacific war (or a Houthi Red Sea style contingency) then there are only 3 Hobarts to deliver that between now and 2050 or so. If there is no Hobart available (e.g, escorting a LHD or providing cover for Fleet Base East or for an off shore deployment) then maybe they will need to send a Hunter to fulfill that commitment.

Finally, if Hunter could carry Tomahawk then adversaries need to plan for the maximum strike range available to it. The ship seemingly on ASW patrol 2000km off your coast might be just about to launch a first strike on your airbase.

 

[SammyC]

Im sure its not the cheapest but this article states its unique it what it can do and having some protection against ballistic missiles that will sink the ship you want the most effective

SM-6 Missile

Raytheon’s SM-6® missile is three missiles in one and the only weapon that can perform anti-air warfare, ballistic missile defense and anti-surface warfare missions. This capability offers navies more flexibility in limited ship space.

www.rtx.com

The SM6 can do a lot of things, but it's primary purpose (and why it costs $6m) is its leading edge air and balistic defence. The anti ship function is useful an add on capability.

If you compare it with a dedicated anti ship missile, say the NSM. The SM6 has a 65kg air burst warhead, and a non stealth balistic trajectory. The NSM has a 250kg penetrating warhead, a low observable body and a contour hugging flight path. The NSM is about $2m a pop as well, so a lot cheaper. A LRASM as another comparison has awarhead up around 450kg. So the SM6 can damage another ship, but it is less likely to kill or cripple it. It might be enough to take it out of the fight however in certain circumstances.

The SM6 can certainly be used against another ship, but I would view in situations where an NSM is not available (already used), such as for a second or third volley, particularly when the other ship might already be damaged or have significantly depleated in defence missiles.

Don't get me wrong, I think missiles that have multiple uses, such as the SM6, add valuable options to a commanding officer. But you would also want you single purpose missiles as well. I know the Americans are considering a future version of the SM6 that has a land attack capability as well for the same reason.

 

[SammyC]

Well the LOCSV is the selected solution to the VLS count problem (For Hobart and Hunter). The RAN, however, does not know how the LOCSV program (effectively a bilateral program led by US) will turn out though. Will it work? will the USGov cancel it even if it works? If LOCSV ends up simply as a long range strike magazine, with no ability to track the missiles it launches, then Hunter will need the ability to control Tomahawk. Given the unknowns exploring the fit of Tomahawk to Hunter seems sensible.

Two other thoughts.

If the RAN is anticipating having a vessel available to provide a contribution to a firing line in the event of a major Pacific war (or a Houthi Red Sea style contingency) then there are only 3 Hobarts to deliver that between now and 2050 or so. If there is no Hobart available (e.g, escorting a LHD or providing cover for Fleet Base East or for an off shore deployment) then maybe they will need to send a Hunter to fulfill that commitment.

Finally, if Hunter could carry Tomahawk then adversaries need to plan for the maximum strike range available to it. The ship seemingly on ASW patrol 2000km off your coast might be just about to launch a first strike on your airbase.

All valid points.

 

[Pusser01]

There has been discussion in the past regarding the MK 41 VLS fitted to the ANZAC class frigates and pretty sure the conclusion was that they are tactical length rather than self-defence length.

That is correct, we recently pulled out the VLS on Stuart for a PDE changeout, it takes up a fair bit of length on a 48ft trailer. Cheers.

 

[seaspear]

The SM6 can do a lot of things, but it's primary purpose (and why it costs $6m) is its leading edge air and balistic defence. The anti ship function is useful an add on capability.

If you compare it with a dedicated anti ship missile, say the NSM. The SM6 has a 65kg air burst warhead, and a non stealth balistic trajectory. The NSM has a 250kg penetrating warhead, a low observable body and a contour hugging flight path. The NSM is about $2m a pop as well, so a lot cheaper. A LRASM as another comparison has awarhead up around 450kg. So the SM6 can damage another ship, but it is less likely to kill or cripple it. It might be enough to take it out of the fight however in certain circumstances.

The SM6 can certainly be used against another ship, but I would view in situations where an NSM is not available (already used), such as for a second or third volley, particularly when the other ship might already be damaged or have significantly depleated in defence missiles.

Don't get me wrong, I think missiles that have multiple uses, such as the SM6, add valuable options to a commanding officer. But you would also want you single purpose missiles as well. I know the Americans are considering a future version of the SM6 that has a land attack capability as well for the same reason.

I'm not suggesting the SM6 as a first resort for surface engagements but last its why I suggested the plug in to the Hunter class instead of hosting 4by 4 by4 NSM could have 4 by 6 ,I'm not sure if the Tomahawk is being considered for the Hunter class let alone a future Mogami class variant like the Hobart class ,certainly any heavy engagement ships could deplete missiles fast ,the effectiveness of many of the ballistic missiles a ship could face would likely render a single strike to cause unsurvivable damage ,the SM-6 is claimed as the only missile to stop such a threat, I don't think you can put a price on a missile to address this

 

[seaspear]

I can find a number of articles on the development and purchase of laser weapons by the A.D.F but not for deployment on naval vessels

Australia Buys Laser Weapon That Shoots Down 50 Drones in One Charge

The Australian Defence Force has procured a new laser weapon that can reportedly shoot down over 50 drones in one charge.

thedefensepost.com

Australia is building a tank-destroying laser weapon

Australia has joined the race to field a practical high-energy laser weapon as it awards AU$$12.9 million (US$8.74 million) to QinetiQ Australia to develop a prototype with a twist – the goal is to build a laser that can take out main battle tanks.

newatlas.com

thedefensepost.com/2023/10/24/australia-mitsubishi-laser-development/
this article suggests this a collaboration with the U.K,s founder of Dragon fire on development of such but seems coy on actual deployment

Sovereign Lasers for future air defence - Australian Defence Magazine

Qinetiq is pitching the possibility of creating a sovereign Laser Directed Energy Weapon to Australia | Grant McHerron

www.australiandefence.com.au

 

[SammyC]

That is correct, we recently pulled out the VLS on Stuart for a PDE changeout, it takes up a fair bit of length on a 48ft trailer. Cheers.

Fair nuff. I stand corrected. I always thought they were self defence.

Regardless. Usefull second hand bits of kit. It adds an extra tonne to the calculation and 1.5m to the height.

Those PDEs must have done some mileage.

 

[Todjaeger]

The SM6 can do a lot of things, but it's primary purpose (and why it costs $6m) is its leading edge air and balistic defence. The anti ship function is useful an add on capability.

If you compare it with a dedicated anti ship missile, say the NSM. The SM6 has a 65kg air burst warhead, and a non stealth balistic trajectory. The NSM has a 250kg penetrating warhead, a low observable body and a contour hugging flight path. The NSM is about $2m a pop as well, so a lot cheaper. A LRASM as another comparison has awarhead up around 450kg. So the SM6 can damage another ship, but it is less likely to kill or cripple it. It might be enough to take it out of the fight however in certain circumstances.

The SM6 can certainly be used against another ship, but I would view in situations where an NSM is not available (already used), such as for a second or third volley, particularly when the other ship might already be damaged or have significantly depleated in defence missiles.

Don't get me wrong, I think missiles that have multiple uses, such as the SM6, add valuable options to a commanding officer. But you would also want you single purpose missiles as well. I know the Americans are considering a future version of the SM6 that has a land attack capability as well for the same reason.

A point of correction. The warhead weight of NSM should be around 120 kg, not 250 kg. This Kongsberg NSM brochure lists NSM as having a total weight of ~407 kg but no specific warhead weight. However, this Kongsberg brochure for NSM-AL (the helicopter/UAS version) lists an overall weight of ~410 kg with a warhead weight of 120 kg. The RGM-84 Harpoon Block II, which is/has been in RAN service has a warhead of ~227 kg, whilst having an overall weight of ~690 kg, being an overall larger and heavier missile than NSM.

From my POV one point of interest with NSM is that it can be used for both anti-shipping and land attack roles at standoff ranges.

 

[SammyC]

A point of correction. The warhead weight of NSM should be around 120 kg, not 250 kg. This Kongsberg NSM brochure lists NSM as having a total weight of ~407 kg but no specific warhead weight. However, this Kongsberg brochure for NSM-AL (the helicopter/UAS version) lists an overall weight of ~410 kg with a warhead weight of 120 kg. The RGM-84 Harpoon Block II, which is/has been in RAN service has a warhead of ~227 kg, whilst having an overall weight of ~690 kg, being an overall larger and heavier missile than NSM.

From my POV one point of interest with NSM is that it can be used for both anti-shipping and land attack roles at standoff ranges.

Naval Strike Missile

Interesting. This Ratheon site states a 500 lb (226kg) warhead. Mind you I would believe the Kongsberg brochure more, and 120kg sounds more balanced for a 400 kg weapon.