This lack of choice is, imho, a result of the US concurrency debacle, which has caused a quarter century of failed US naval and air hardware outcomes. This has lead to less options available to choose from, less design advancement. Even though Japan and SK have nicely adapted the AB, it's still a 1980's design. You can't turn a 1990's Nokia mobile phone into a 2020's smartphone. This has forced us to look at Europe and others for designs, and their offerings are often not optimal given their much smaller defence budgets. Result? Only 1 choice for modern jets. No options for modern frigates or destroyers from the US. Constellation is just a longer FREMM, which we judged not worthy. So here we are.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0
- Thread starter OPSSG
- Start date
This lack of choice is, imho, a result of the US concurrency debacle, which has caused a quarter century of failed US naval and air hardware outcomes. This has lead to less options available to choose from, less design advancement. Even though Japan and SK have nicely adapted the AB, it's still a 1980's design. You can't turn a 1990's Nokia mobile phone into a 2020's smartphone. This has forced us to look at Europe and others for designs, and their offerings are often not optimal given their much smaller defence budgets. Result? Only 1 choice for modern jets. No options for modern frigates or destroyers from the US. Constellation is just a longer FREMM, which we judged not worthy. So here we are.
We were thinking of different targets. I was thinking of something like the lancet suicidal drone. A drone large that is firing its own missiles well may firing be out of phalanx range and require a ESSM. But as you say ECM or a laser would be better options if available at adequate range, power and speed of target acquisition then the the paradigm shifts again.
yeah just about choked on my toast when I read that DSR comment from Marles about smaller ships. Wonder what navies he was referring to?
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
One thought of mine which has been recurring is that there might be some amongst the policy and decision-makers of AusGov that might be thinking about or attempting some sort of Australian-version of the USN/USMC distributed lethality, which in some respects would explain why such interest in greater numbers of smaller platforms.
Unfortunately though, and not unlike how it seems that portions of Army are to shaped similar to how the USMC is being re-shaped, the entirety of the ADF and Defence is significantly smaller and less capable than the US Armed Forced and DOD+ supporting agencies.
USN: Constellation class
RN: Type 31
JMSDF: Mogami
All 5000t+ ships but smaller than Arleigh Bourke, Type 26 and Maya classes respectively.
Never assumed it was a reference to a corvette as that would not make sense for the RAN.
Regards,
Massive
Brissy1982
Active Member
I really hope what Marles said about other navies going for larger numbers of smaller ships was merely an off-the-cuff, off-script remark, though I fear it wasn't. If there is indeed a body of opinion in defence planning circles that larger numbers of smaller ships is the best way to increase the lethality of the surface fleet, I hope the team conducting the review of the surface fleet reaches the opposite conclusion - increased lethality requires a larger number of larger, more capable ships. Hopefully a review team led by a former USN flag officer for whom a ship with "adequate" capabilities means a Burke-class DDG can reach that conclusion, and make recommendations accordingly. Fingers crossed!
Last edited:
Well at the moment, the DSR has been disappointing, and the NR was another unexpected delay to urgent questions. While the government seems firmly committed to AUKUS SSN, the deteriorating global security situation has yet to in any real way make its way felt.
I was hoping we would get a short brief by early Sept, now I hear very late sept to oct before it even concludes and then nothing is confirmed to be announced publically.
Talking about ASW.. I can see Sydney becoming a favorite haunt for the Quad exercises.
Nah, no way. It's full of New South Welshmen and Kiwis.
These are not replacing larger ships. In US case it’s instead of substantially smaller LCS. In the RN type 31 replacing the smaller type 23. Not sure what Moganami replace so the statement is a long stretch aimed at uninformed voters and lazy media I expect.
And all in addition to bigger ships, not instead of.
The Mogami-class ships will initially replace the five ships of the Abukuma class, which are much smaller, then the Asagiri-class, which are slightly smaller (a bit longer, but slimmer).
Type 31 is replacing the GP Type 23s, which are slightly smaller. The ASW Type 23s are being replaced by Type 26 . . .
Constellation class is replacing the Oliver Hazard Perry class (retired without adequate replacement) & some LCS - both lighter.
The changing role of the army might see a diminished role for Australia’s LHDs. I am not sure what role a large amphib would play as far as supporting littoral operations is concerned. I know the USMC is looking at smaller sized amphibs. If, as appears likely, the army goes down the same path they could operate these vessels themselves , which would reduce the role of the navy’s amphibious forces even further. This might also bring in the question the navy’s plans for a pair of JSS.
This could provide the navy with an opportunity to utilise the Canberra class in a more frontline surface combatant role. I won’t say aircraft carrier because I don’t see the funding for that, but I can see a role as a helicopter/UAV/AUV/ASV carrier. Could even be considered as a priority role given that Australia is developing a range of autonomous vehicles and will be operating a significant number of Seahawks.
Possibly the sort of quick fix the navy could acquire before the end of the decade.
Last edited:
Normally I would agree but in this case the Hunters will already have the sensors, combat system and generation capacity required for the air defence role which is one of the reason the design finalisation took so long. The CEAFAR Radar suite combined with the SAAB 9LV tactical interface and AEGIS/CEC combat system will already make these vessels a potent AAW platform.
If the sole and immidate desire is to increase the cell then evolving the Hunter design of hulls 7 to 9 would probably be quicker than going with a whole new hull as it is reasonable to assume he RAN will not move away from the CEAFAR Radar suite combined with the SAAB 9LV tactical interface and AEGIS/CEC combat system for the next combatant noting the DDG's are being updated to the SAAB 9LV/AEGIS baseline 9 combination.
If you are looking at a whole new 10000 tonne plus DDG design then this could follow on from the Hunters as sufficient time to assess alternatives or to do a clean sheet design would then be possible in the time available. By this time work on follow on from the Burkes and/or the emerging UK large multirole DDG may be beyond the paper stage. If we look at past development process of new hulls this can be a very very long process.
Last edited:
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
Can't agree with the first statement at all, I see the opposite if anything. Their Command-and-Control facilities are vital for littoral operations, probably as important as the aviation capabilities. They carry a 60 bed Hospital as well. The DSR calls for a larger fleet of Med sized Amphibs acquired quicker than planned but I see these as an adjunct to the current Amphib fleet not as a replacement. There may be tweaks to how the LHDs are used, with maybe a greater use of the aviation capabilities but they would still form the heart of an Amphib operation.
Even the government concedes that the actual structure of the Army in light of the DSR is unclear. We are talking about small teams deployed around the region. The emphisis is that they need to be stealthy and that makes the presence of a 30,000 ton LHD a bit of a liability in my opinion.
The Defence strategic review’s vision for the Australian Army
The recent Defence strategic review (DSR) highlights Australia’s deteriorating strategic circumstances and foreshadows the kind of Australian Defence Force (ADF) required to address future challenges. It recommends a shift from a balanced force – capable of responding
I don't think any vessel big or small will go into harms way relying just on stealth.Even the government concedes that the actual structure of the Army in light of the DSR is unclear. We are talking about small teams deployed around the region. The emphisis is that they need to be stealthy and that makes the presence of a 30,000 ton LHD a bit of a liability in my opinion.
The Defence strategic review’s vision for the Australian Army
The recent Defence strategic review (DSR) highlights Australia’s deteriorating strategic circumstances and foreshadows the kind of Australian Defence Force (ADF) required to address future challenges. It recommends a shift from a balanced force – capable of respondingwww.aph.gov.au
LHD's in my opinion are one of the most useful and flexible bits of kit in the ADF.
They will always be a target because they offer so much.
Smaller amphibious ship for USMC well yes.
Good for them and probably looks like our future landing craft heavy.
Like the USMC a compliment not a replacement for the larger amphibious vessels
Don't see a fire sale of US LHD's any time soon.
Cheers S
Stuart M
Well-Known Member
I think that if one wanted to evolve the Hunters design to have a greater AAW capacity it would be better to do so after #9, designing that in would also take a very, very long time and I'd suggest that now would be the time to do so. Of course the key issue, imo, to discuss now is what kind of anti-air warfare capacity does Australia want? Burke levels or something like the Korean Sejong the Great?
Where are things at with the Future Heavy landing craft? How far of from a selection there and what’s is the number to be acquired!
This might be a dumb question, but why? There’s a great big flex space in the middle of the ship that could be replaced by a serious number of VLS if you’re willing to sacrifice it.
Obviously some very important questions about stability that need to be solved, and some complex redesign work to be done, but why would this take more than a couple of years to resolve?
Edit: Adding a link to my previous thoughts on this.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0
Last edited:
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Such a change would likely seriously change a vessel's displacement and very importantly, displacement distribution and CoG, as well as all the potential issues with launching missiles and the requisite clearance and hot gas exhausts.
If one looks at this YouTube video of a model of the Hunter-class for the RAN, what I take to be the flex space is amidships aft of the funnel but forward of the hangar. Without more exacting diagrams or pictures it is hard to determine specifically, but it appears that the bottom of the flex space volume starts below the level of the deck where the Mk 41 VLS is forward, but likely well above the bottom of the Mk41 VLS which IIRC would penetrate something like two decks. It might be possible to replace some of the flex space with a VLS, but that would either require rearranging this because either space currently used beneath the flex space would be needed for penetrating VLS cells, or the whole of the flex space gets used which puts a VLS amidships but well above the waterline. Given the topweight issues experienced with the ANZAC-class frigates, I do not think it a good idea to attempt to shoe-horn a decently sized VLS into such a space. It would be a much better proposition to have a 2nd set of VLS cells put into a dedicated position in a purpose-made design. If one looked at the USN's Arleigh Burke-class DDG's, which do have two sets of VLS cells, one fore and another aft, such positioning makes more sense to me, instead of attempting to launch missiles from amidships between superstructure spaces in used by a vessel.
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
That project wasn't due to start for another 2-3 years at the earliest, so no funding at all nor planning in place. The ADF would have been nowhere near ready to send a formal proposal to Government. Probably didn't even have a project Office up and running in April, and this is not going to be a straightforward project either, it is an Army project (Land 8710 phase 2) but the Australian Army has no current experience in operating a vessel of this size and complexity. The RAN is going to have to be heavily involved in this project, at very least, platform selection and Trg. At the same time, the Army will be introducing a raft of other new capabilities, like MRL, ASuW, SPGs, IFVs, SP ATGW. The RAN, SSNs, OPVs.
The DSR may have recommended that this capability be brought forward, but whether the ADF can do it, is the question.