Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[SammyC]

Sammy, I believe the Type 42 was used in the Falklands War. I think you mean the Type 45. No harm pal. Cheers, Buzzard.

Yep 45. My bad.

 

[SammyC]

It appears to me that the RAN now has the beginnings of a new transformative era.

For all the dramas of delays, building training blocks, building yard infrastructure we are developing a construction line to the Hunters sizeable quiet hull that has scope to be modified as appropriate with likely minimal impact to build tempo, because it’d be a variant of what’s already on the production line instead of a new sheet.

For the Hunters, it’d be a painful capability loss to remove the towed array. I’m unconvinced that combatants are sustainable without it in today’s environment. Subs must be considered a constant plausible threat.

The same goes for the Mogami.
A planned hot production line with a platform that has good future evolution potential.

Both First and Second Tier classes look like they have a good build and development future.

I would agree.

Problem is towed array sonars are horrendously expensive. The Hunter will have the best in the world when operational. And as a result it will also have the most expensive towed array sonar in the world.

In 2023 we bought a SURTASSE towed sonar for the installation on a single survey ship, This cost $300 million.

This is the reason it was removed from the BAE proposed AAW Hunter, not for any technical requirement or limitation.

I would personally hope that an eventual AAW replacement (of whatever hull form is selected) comes fitted with a towed array sonar.

 

[Wombat000]

Well, naively perhaps they might be less niche by the time an AAW variant is settled upon, and cheaper by scale?

The RAN may like to think of itself as having an aspirational doctrine of task group deployments, with ships benefiting capability of others in the group, however the sheer expanse of area, limited ship numbers will mean that just like today those ships should be assumed to at times operate alone.

Not much point having an awesome platform if you’re not confident in its multi domain survival.

 

[Reptilia]

Will the Hunter AWD be able to add DEWs and Hypersonics also? I have my doubts.
If we stay with BAE my guess is they go the riskier option -will end up putting the same mast from Hunter ASW on a Type 83.(after 6 hulls)

Batch 1 Hunter ASW x3 >2034/36/38
Batch 2 Hunter ASW or AWD x3 >2040/42/44
Hunter AWD or Type 83 x3 >2046/48/50

 

[Going Boeing]

Will the Hunter AWD be able to add DEWs and Hypersonics also? I have my doubts.
If we stay with BAE my guess is they go the riskier option -will end up putting the same mast from Hunter ASW on a Type 83.(after 6 hulls)

Batch 1 Hunter ASW x3 >2034/36/38
Batch 2 Hunter ASW or AWD x3 >2040/42/44
Hunter AWD or Type 83 x3 >2046/48/50

The schedule for new Hunters would be a lot better if they reduced the drumbeat to 18 months as that would possibly allow extra AWD’s to enter service before the Hobart replacements are built. The trouble with doing that of course is that it may not permit continuous ship building.

 

[MickB]

I've seen this a lot, and while it seems an ideal answer at first, there are questions about how sensible this is. The cost per hull decreases as you produce more, yes. But the Type 26 hull is specialised for ASW, so it's quiet. And hence expensive. Much more so than a non-ASW ship.

So, while the per unit cost would decrease, it may be straight up much cheaper to use a non-ASW hull in the first place. Having seen a sketch of the dollar numbers, it's hard to argue that. Why spend hundreds of millions when you can accept a tens of millions substitute?

Of course, I'd get the unit cost down by buying 6+ ASW Hunters (with better names) and I'd be replacing the Hobarts with 6+ DDG. Best of both worlds!

While I have been told that the hull being quiet is mostly about sensor performance, would it not also make it less of a target to the subs.

If so would it not also be an advantage to make your AWDs less of a target to any subs that might hunt them, by also having a quiet hull.

 

[Bob53]

Absolutely.
Japan ordered 2 ASEV, 1 under construction - service dates 2027 or 2028 and 2028 or 2029. (Not really suitable for RAN at this point in time.)
The new Destroyer for the 2030s(DDGX to replace the Kongo class is under development, so too the DDX to replace the Murasame class.)
BAE will have the Hunter AWD as an option and probably the Type 83.

Impressive ship…huge! Japan's ASEV Super Destroyer: Fresh Details Unveiled - Naval News

 

[Bob53]

I've seen this a lot, and while it seems an ideal answer at first, there are questions about how sensible this is. The cost per hull decreases as you produce more, yes. But the Type 26 hull is specialised for ASW, so it's quiet. And hence expensive. Much more so than a non-ASW ship.

So, while the per unit cost would decrease, it may be straight up much cheaper to use a non-ASW hull in the first place. Having seen a sketch of the dollar numbers, it's hard to argue that. Why spend hundreds of millions when you can accept a tens of millions substitute?

Of course, I'd get the unit cost down by buying 6+ ASW Hunters (with better names) and I'd be replacing the Hobarts with 6+ DDG. Best of both worlds!

Is there any problem in having a quiet AW destroyer? I can imagine someone getting the idea of using the hull but save the cost by removing some of the quiet stuff and then turning into an equally expensive loud hull.

 

[Bob53]

I guarantee BAE would find a way to charge the RAN $5000 for every bolt added to the design change as they did a spectacular job with the current contract for every change between T26 and Hunter costs alot more then that.

They really do need to seperate BAE and BAESMA...selling ASC yard to the company thats selected for the ship build created a massive conflict of interest that is "being managed".

I believe we should have added ships 1 and 2 to UK build when we realised our shipyard was in trouble for the total 9 build. The problem Aus have is we keep trying to change designs with the same people involved.

Navantia, Lurssen, BAE...the company name changes but the small industry means its the same people moving around, some of these are good but some are terrible to work with.

I do hope Mitsubishi leads the charge and sets build 4 before we can "Australianise" a great design

We should be buying the design and appointing the builder that bids best to build it.

 

[hauritz]

We should be buying the design and appointing the builder that bids best to build it.

True. So far BAE hasn't exactly set the world alight with its management of the Hunter program. What could be crucial for any Japanese bid is how they manage the constuction of the Australian built version of the Mogami.

 

[Todjaeger]

While I have been told that the hull being quiet is mostly about sensor performance, would it not also make it less of a target to the subs.

If so would it not also be an advantage to make your AWDs less of a target to any subs that might hunt them, by also having a quiet hull.

Not quite accurate as I understand it from a friend who is an ex-USN dolphin. A modern sub with a decent crew is going to know where the surface vessels are. The hull quieting measures are taken not to improve sensor performance, but to reduce radiating noise from the ship itself which could cause false positive contacts, i.e. the ship's and/or embarked helicopter's sonar and sonobuoys could detect a noise generated by the ship, which might look like a hostile sub and therefore be a false positive contact. AFAIK hull quieting measures are not going to be sufficient to keep a sub's sonars from detecting a surface vessel in the area.

Is there any problem in having a quiet AW destroyer? I can imagine someone getting the idea of using the hull but save the cost by removing some of the quiet stuff and then turning into an equally expensive loud hull.

The problem is cost. The hull shape itself can help (or hurt) flow noise generated by the hull passing or cutting through the water. However, I believe most of the noise reduction efforts and improvements have to do with the machinery installed in the hull and where/how it is installed. The efforts taken to reduce or eliminate radiated noise and vibration by isolating machinery and installing dampers and noise/shock absorbing materials it both time consuming and expensive. Not sure exactly how expensive (and for that matter, not sure exactly what and how much needs to be done) but we are talking about a noticeable difference in per hull costs. For those with greater knowledge, it would be nice if a price range could be provided, like hull quieting might increase the hull cost by nnn % percent.

 

[K.I.]

Absolutely.
Japan ordered 2 ASEV, 1 under construction - service dates 2027 or 2028 and 2028 or 2029. (Not really suitable for RAN at this point in time.)
The new Destroyer for the 2030s(DDGX to replace the Kongo class is under development, so too the DDX to replace the Murasame class.)
BAE will have the Hunter AWD as an option and probably the Type 83.

The Type 83 will surely be a stretched T26, I can't see it being a completely new design.

 

[iambuzzard]

It appears to me that the RAN now has the beginnings of a new transformative era.

For all the dramas of delays, building training blocks, building yard infrastructure we are developing a construction line to the Hunters sizeable quiet hull that has scope to be modified as appropriate with likely minimal impact to build tempo, because it’d be a variant of what’s already on the production line instead of a new sheet.

For the Hunters, it’d be a painful capability loss to remove the towed array. I’m unconvinced that combatants are sustainable without it in today’s environment. Subs must be considered a constant plausible threat.

The same goes for the Mogami.
A planned hot production line with a platform that has good future evolution potential.

Both First and Second Tier classes look like they have a good build and development future.

Besides

The Type 83 will surely be a stretched T26, I can't see it being a completely new design.

Is it possible for a stretched Type 26 hull to have a 96 VLS cell count and retain the towed array and the 127mm gun? I'm no expert at all on what can be retained as far as the quiet hull is concerned, but certainly now is the time to start looking into it. Even 5 years down the track is too late. We need to get into a program of evolving our existing building programs as Wombat000 has already mentioned. If the ongoing governments of both persuasions get this right instead of playing with our lives with petty politics we just might come out of a potential hot war in one piece.

 

[iambuzzard]

Besides

Is it possible for a stretched Type 26 hull to have a 96 VLS cell count and retain the towed array and the 127mm gun? I'm no expert at all on what can be retained as far as the quiet hull is concerned, but certainly now is the time to start looking into it. Even 5 years down the track is too late. We need to get into a program of evolving our existing building programs as Wombat000 has already mentioned. If the ongoing governments of both persuasions get this right instead of playing with our lives with petty politics we just might come out of a potential hot war in one piece.

Plus the Mogami design looks to be the future with endless possibilities for future technologies down the track.

 

[downunderblue]

Not quite accurate as I understand it from a friend who is an ex-USN dolphin. A modern sub with a decent crew is going to know where the surface vessels are.

The Brits for all their historical difficulties with air defence, seem to make/ have always had excellent ASW platforms, and the Type 26 GCS was meant to be continue that designing the best platform ASW ship in the world.

You will always struggle to validate what you end up hearing, but I heard the benefits of a low observable ship was an increased 'comfort'/ survivability operating closer to a subsurface threat (or HWT range).

I'm not sure if this is as relevant as in the past and how this holds up now with submarines operating antiship missiles, along with better sensors and airborne platforms (am sure ASW drones won't be far off) where the engagement range is moving further apart, but surely being 'low observable' would be of benefit (on top of as you suggested it likely improves sensor clarity/ performance).

A lot of this was discussed when the Type 26 was down selected. I thought at the time that the Navantia F101/104(?) would be the favourite but a lot of commentary highlighted how 'inferior' an ASW platform it was compared to the GCS. And here we now are.

 

[Todjaeger]

The Brits for all their historical difficulties with air defence, seem to make/ have always had excellent ASW platforms, and the Type 26 GCS was meant to be continue that designing the best platform ASW ship in the world.

You will always struggle to validate what you end up hearing, but I heard the benefits of a low observable ship was an increased 'comfort'/ survivability operating closer to a subsurface threat (or HWT range).

I'm not sure if this is as relevant as in the past and how this holds up now with submarines operating antiship missiles, along with better sensors and airborne platforms (am sure ASW drones won't be far off) where the engagement range is moving further apart, but surely being 'low observable' would be of benefit (on top of as you suggested it likely improves sensor clarity/ performance).

A lot of this was discussed when the Type 26 was down selected. I thought at the time that the Navantia F101/104(?) would be the favourite but a lot of commentary highlighted how 'inferior' an ASW platform it was compared to the GCS. And here we now are.

My friend described the situation as being broken down into two types of sonar contacts for an SSN, the first one was hostile subs, the other were simply targets.

One also needs to remember that the potential effective range of sub-launched anti-ship weapons does tend to exceed the range of ship-launched ASW weapons. Looking at the potential ranges for a Mk 48 HWT, one potential range is ~40 km, vs. the ~9 km range of a Mk 54 LWT... If one them factors in the possible ranges of sub-launched AShM like the UGM-84 Harpoon II which is still in RAN inventory, we are now getting into 120+ km ranges. In other words, an ASW ship will be well within firing range of a sub's weapons long before it would be close enough to take a direct shot itself.

ASW ops themselves are conducted by multiple assets cooperating together in screening rings around a high value target, or else to sanitize an area like a natural chokepoint prior to high value targets transiting through an area. IIRC the third/outer screening ring ideally would be provided by fixed wing ASW aircraft operating 100 - 200 km ahead/away from the high value target.

As I understand it, the most likely reason for a sub targeting surface shipping to approach a screening ASW vessel is so that the sub can get a better track and targeting solution upon something of high value past the screening escort, and not because the sub was unaware of the ASW vessel.