Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[Reptilia]

The mystery deepens.

In Pat Conroy’s recent address to the National Press Club, he specifically mentioned that the number of VLS launchers in the RAN fleet was being increased to 880. Doing the numbers, that means that the GPF’s will have 32 VLS each - the A200 is only equipped with 16 so Conroy’s statement would indicate that TKMS is offering a more capable version (or the Government has already decided that they are purchasing the evolved Mogami and stating those numbers was a major slip by Conroy).

For the A200 to have 32 cells- some possibilities are
-Smaller Main Gun or removal of ?
-Removal of the 30mm secondary gun and platform forward of the bridge?
-MK II variant, a redesign of the A200 following the Egyptian order may be able to take 32 cells?

 

[swerve]

Perhaps more secondary guns would be preferable to removing any.

 

[StevoJH]

For light frigates, meant as supplements to the major units? You're saying that doubling the number of destroyers & frigates isn't enough: even the second tier units have to have at least twice the firepower of your current first line frigates.

Given what's been happening in the last few years, perhaps more attention should be paid to defence against attacks by large numbers of small, cheap devices, which I don't think means more Mk 41 VLS.

From what I understand the ANZAC's weren't exactly originally intended to be the replacement for the DDG's and FFG's.

All 6 FFG's were also originally supposed to get FFGUP, which gave them 32 ESSM plus a combination of up to 40 missiles (mixed between Harpoon and SM2) from the Mk.13 launcher.

 

[Underway]

I'm thinking 16 would meet minimum need, remember that's equivalent to 64 ESSM, which is more than sufficient for point defence.

Note the original wording for the capability in the surface combatant review was to "provide air defence through a limited number of point and self defence systems". SeaRAM would probably satisfy this definition. 16 VLS with ESSM is an upgrade on that.

32 cells would be beneficial and would be one of the extra features of the Mogami weighed up when evaluating the two proposals.

I completely agree. Tier 2 needs self defence capability only and will be relying on other ships for Area air defence. 64 ESSM is plenty for that purpose if you include a CIWS and ships gun as well. And that's just hard kill. They probably won't have the sensors to get full effectiveness from SM family anyways, though extra launchers for CEC (if that can be fitted into the non-Aegis CMS) would fine.

 

[Reptilia]

Perhaps more secondary guns would be preferable to removing any.

Looks like both the Mk II A200 and A210 designs have had 2xDEWs added in addition to the 2x30mm guns + Phalanx

 

[Underway]

Looks like both the Mk II A200 and A210 designs have had 2xDEWs added in addition to the 2x30mm guns + Phalanx

That's just glossy brochure stuff. The Rhienmetal DEWs are not ready for show time yet but TKMS wants to show that they have power for them for future proofing.

 

[Reptilia]

That's just glossy brochure stuff. The Rhienmetal DEWs are not ready for show time yet but TKMS wants to show that they have lower for them for future proofing.

Sure, glossy brochure stuff for now but that’s the aim.
The Australian DoD are partnered with Mitsubishi electric on DEW development.
2 Australian companies also doing some good work (EOS/AIM)
Dragonfire also a possibility under Aukus.

 

[Going Boeing]

Maybe TKMS is offering the Meko A400 to meet the RAN requirements! (tongue firmly planted in cheek).

TKMS Shows MEKO A-400 AMD Missile Frigate At Euronaval 2024

 

[swerve]

Redefining the word 'light', of course.

 

[Armchair]

I completely agree. Tier 2 needs self defence capability only and will be relying on other ships for Area air defence. 64 ESSM is plenty for that purpose if you include a CIWS and ships gun as well. And that's just hard kill. They probably won't have the sensors to get full effectiveness from SM family anyways, though extra launchers for CEC (if that can be fitted into the non-Aegis CMS) would fine.

That is probably true: the main mission of the GPF will be undersea warfare. Its main threats will be submarines and maritime patrol aircraft launching cruise missiles but just reprising another view for readers who are coming late to the discussion.

The surface fleet analysis was written before the Houthis starting lobbing ballistic missiles at ships. ESSM does not (so far as I know) provide point defence against (most things classed as) ballistic missiles. A first of class GPF in service in 2030 will be in the middle of its service life in 2045 and ships of the new RAN GPF will still be under construction then.

It would seem wise to design in extensive missile launch capacity for a class of ships that could be in service in the 2070s or beyond. In 2024 terms that probably means reserving space and weight for 32 VLS (even if the full set of VLS is added later or only to later ships in the class). How that space and weight is used in 2060 may be a very different matter.

I would also note that the defence against shore based missiles might not just be SM-3 or SM-6 interceptors but long range strike missiles. A GPF frigate might never have the sensors to guide a ballistic missile interceptor but it could be provided with targeting to strike shore batteries (or aircraft on the ground) at long range,

 

[Underway]

That is probably true: the main mission of the GPF will be undersea warfare. Its main threats will be submarines and maritime patrol aircraft launching cruise missiles but just reprising another view for readers who are coming late to the discussion.

The surface fleet analysis was written before the Houthis starting lobbing ballistic missiles at ships. ESSM does not (so far as I know) provide point defence against (most things classed as) ballistic missiles. A first of class GPF in service in 2030 will be in the middle of its service life in 2045 and ships of the new RAN GPF will still be under construction then.

It would seem wise to design in extensive missile launch capacity for a class of ships that could be in service in the 2070s or beyond. In 2024 terms that probably means reserving space and weight for 32 VLS (even if the full set of VLS is added later or only to later ships in the class). How that space and weight is used in 2060 may be a very different matter.

I would also note that the defence against shore based missiles might not just be SM-3 or SM-6 interceptors but long range strike missiles. A GPF frigate might never have the sensors to guide a ballistic missile interceptor but it could be provided with targeting to strike shore batteries (or aircraft on the ground) at long range,

ESSM can provide self defence or "local defence" (it's not point defence as they can engage crossing targets) against ballistic missiles targeted at your ship in the terminal phase. The challenge I see is the sensor and targeting angles (greater than 70 degrees upwards) for a lot of ships if the missiles final trajectory is steep depending on the sensor types. Hence why SM family with their longer ranges are better.

Of note ESSM 2 has active homing which solves the semi active problem for ballistic missiles.

 

[icelord]

It’s a good sign that BAE are already involved in the Mogami offer.

Id say thats more a Negative then a positive having worked on Hunter Class

The UK division is fine, its BAE Aus that are a pain in the rear. But thats just my grumpy version from seeing how they are slowing HCF in some areas

 

[Going Boeing]

Id say thats more a Negative then a positive having worked on Hunter Class

The UK division is fine, its BAE Aus that are a pain in the rear. But thats just my grumpy version from seeing how they are slowing HCF in some areas

Was your experience at BAES Australia before Ben Hudson took over? I hope that he has the management skills to lift the performance of all the staff - they are key to a number of major projects and the ADF needs them to deliver.

https://www.baesystems.com/en-aus/article/bae-systems-australia-new-chief-executive-#

 

[Volkodav]

From what I understand the ANZAC's weren't exactly originally intended to be the replacement for the DDG's and FFG's.

All 6 FFG's were also originally supposed to get FFGUP, which gave them 32 ESSM plus a combination of up to 40 missiles (mixed between Harpoon and SM2) from the Mk.13 launcher.

Originally there were only meant to be two FFGs upgraded with the first four replaced as part of a program to replace them and the Perth Class DDGs.

This was meant to follow on from the ANZAC program in Vic, and likely would have extended long enough to have eventually replaced the final, upgraded, pair as well.

We were that close to having a continuous build but in Victoria, not SA or WA. Ten ANZACs followed by eight or nine DDG and FFG replacements, followed in turn by ANZAC replacements.

Thus derailed when the government decided to insert the corvette program. Thus would have been for about a dozen ships with ANZAC like capabilities, but on a smaller hull.

To free schedule for this program the DDG replacement was deferred and the FDG upgrade was expanded to all six.

At this point I believe it was still intended to build nine ships to replace the DDGs and FFGs, there just would have been a period where there were fewer tier 1 ships while the tier 3 fleet was established.

The rest is history, corvettes were never ordered, Armidales were built, only four FFGs were upgraded and the ANZACs became the backbone of the fleet.

Only three Hobart's were built to replace the nine DDGs and FFGs, and the Hunters were ordered as replacements for the ANZACs.

It's only been since the Surface Fleet review that we are looking at increasing numbers again.

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

It would seem wise to design in extensive missile launch capacity for a class of ships that could be in service in the 2070s or beyond. In 2024 terms that probably means reserving space and weight for 32 VLS (even if the full set of VLS is added later or only to later ships in the class). How that space and weight is used in 2060 may be a very different matter.

I quite agree. Just because you can fit 64 ESSM into 16 Mk 41 cells doesn't mean job done. You might want to put cruise missiles in, or an anti-submarine rocket.

After all, you can't say how long the ships will be away from a friendly port that has facilities to resupply the RAN. Much better to have spare missiles ready to go and not need to go into port where you'll be more vulnerable to attack.

 

[Bob53]

OT but what’s happened to Nagimotzart? Haven’t seen him here for sometime.

 

[Volkodav]

The thought crosses my mind that there are different complexities of blocks. Why not get WA up to speed on simpler ones and construct the more complex ones in Adelaide? Not just for the GPF but Hunter as well.

As experience grows do more complex blocks in WA. Then start bidding workshare for all projects based on performance (mostly time and quality).

Sustain both facilities but reward good performance with a larger work share of simpler blocks, the complex blocks would be assigned based on capability. Audit it and use the corruption body if there is pork barreling.

Develop an enterprise structure with common systems and tools across yards and Commonwealth, designers will have to adapt as part of the contact.

 

[John Fedup]

OT but what’s happened to Nagimotzart? Haven’t seen him here for sometime.

I sent a PM awhile ago (several months) and replied he was taking a break to help out with some family matters. I am missing his informed posts! Hope all is well. Also, noticed the absence of Mr. Conservative and OPSSG, again hope all is well. Given the age of many members here, perhaps some kind of "all is well" notice system might be useful.

 

[H_K]

There has obviously been a lot happening behind the scenes with the A-200 proposal. I have hardly found any information at all of the TKMS proposal. Everybody assumes it is the Egyptian Variant but that seems to miss the whole point of the modular MEKO concept. What Germany maybe offering is a very much baseline A-200 to which Australia gets to choose what modules it wishes to incorporate.

I wonder if TKMS will bring back its A-200 AAW proposal from the late 90s... this variant's main changes from the baseline were in the masts (SMART-L / APAR combo or SPY-1F) along with 3 MK-41 VLS (1x full length launcher forward for 8x SM-2 and 2x8 short launchers midships for 64x ESSM).

Given the desire for an off-the-shelf solution and fast timeline it's an interesting debate whether this would qualify. The CMS + sensor integration would likely be the hardest bit... one option would be to ask Saab to "lift & shift" the 9LV / Sea Giraffe / CEROS AAW solution which is being integrated on upgraded German F-123 frigates and on new build Finish frigates. That would require physical integration work but at least would bring aboard an off-the-shelf integrated combat suite from a single vendor with also a high commonality with existing RAN systems... which is arguably preferable in the long run to sticking with the off-the-shelf (but non-RAN standard) Atlas ANCS CMS. Another further change could be to try to drop in a CEAFAR mast, but that would add time, expense & risk and might be pushing physical limits.

A-200 AAW proposal (1990s):

BTW, one advantage of Meko A-200 over Mogami is that the technology transfer package largely exists, as the Egyptians built one hull themselves, so this could allow for a two track build abroad while ramping up domestic production (at Civmec Henderson?).

 

[Scott Elaurant]

I will leave the details to the experts, but personally I am actually quite happy with the apparent outcome of the Sea 3000 process. It looks like we are going to get a large (11?) number of modern hulls up around 4500 to 5000 tonnes, not 3000. That is good for long term growth. Each will have phased radar, 32VLS, SH60, 5 inch gun and CIWS. That is a good fit-out for a Tier 2 ship. Whether that ends up being the Meko A200/210 with 7000nm range, or Mogami "new FFM" with excellent RCS and very efficient crewing, we seem to have put the marginal options to one side.

The Sub Brief video channel has a video up on the Algerian Navy Eradii class frigates. These are the latest iterations of the Meko A200 design. The weapons fit is quite different to what Australia would get, but it is otherwise interesting.