Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[Joe Black]

Yeah, that #RPM that manufacturers tend to throw around always irritates me. After all, how can a gun fire 300 rounds per minute, when the gun would exhaust the available/ready ammunition in just over 14 seconds...

They are tend to go in burst of few rounds. With something like the AHEAD rounds, they are just as effective with a few rounds in burst mode than a wall of lead thrown out by your typical 20mm Phalanx CIWS. I wouldn't be surprised if say the Millenium CIWS is preferred over the Phalanx by many European navies.

 

[StingrayOZ]

As I said above, it would appear the Attack boats will be approx the same dimensions as the parent French boat.

What I’ve seen reported is that diameter will be the same, but length might be a few metres shorter, of course this isn’t guaranteed either way.

This ASPI article from early 2016 is a good read:

We are using the French boats because of their hull and other fittings and systems. Changing the diameter and you are starting from scratch essentially. Significantly changing the length would also require significant reengineering and study into the hydrodynamics. We have been here before.

IMO The 1m shorter at the announcement was more about implying they wouldn't be too big. Making a submarine 1m shorter really makes no sense, for the reengineering you would need to do, just fill it with ballast and enjoy the extra metre and growth potential. Maybe you wouldn't need crew to sleep on top of the torpedo's, or piss in the sink or bottle cause there are no toilet facilities in the rear of the boat, or pack stores into sleeping quarters and have the crew sleep on top of them. You could put in a proper exercise bike or rowing machine.. As noted there are valid questions about the amount of war loads that are carried as is.

Quoted displacement varied quite a lot during the bidding process, yet the dimensions of the submarine never changed. IMO we would be mad to "try and make it smaller" in the interests of saving money. In the end, no one really cared to much about the displacement.

Its clear that these are going to be some 55% larger in volume than the Collins class. We need that volume. The Japanese subs are very tight with volume. Arguably, if the standard Japanese subs were selected, we would be going back from where we are with Collins unless the Japanese design was significantly modified.

They are tend to go in burst of few rounds. With something like the AHEAD rounds, they are just as effective with a few rounds in burst mode than a wall of lead thrown out by your typical 20mm Phalanx CIWS. I wouldn't be surprised if say the Millenium CIWS is preferred over the Phalanx by many European navies.

Each still has its strengths and weaknesses. The Phalanx on the LHD are replacing 25mm typhoons. I think in the role they are envisioned and the threats they are designed to handle, they are a great choice. If you want to have something further reaching for air threats, I would be looking beyond the 40mm at something missile based.

 

[Stampede]

We are using the French boats because of their hull and other fittings and systems. Changing the diameter and you are starting from scratch essentially. Significantly changing the length would also require significant reengineering and study into the hydrodynamics. We have been here before.

IMO The 1m shorter at the announcement was more about implying they wouldn't be too big. Making a submarine 1m shorter really makes no sense, for the reengineering you would need to do, just fill it with ballast and enjoy the extra metre and growth potential. Maybe you wouldn't need crew to sleep on top of the torpedo's, or piss in the sink or bottle cause there are no toilet facilities in the rear of the boat, or pack stores into sleeping quarters and have the crew sleep on top of them. You could put in a proper exercise bike or rowing machine.. As noted there are valid questions about the amount of war loads that are carried as is.

Quoted displacement varied quite a lot during the bidding process, yet the dimensions of the submarine never changed. IMO we would be mad to "try and make it smaller" in the interests of saving money. In the end, no one really cared to much about the displacement.

Its clear that these are going to be some 55% larger in volume than the Collins class. We need that volume. The Japanese subs are very tight with volume. Arguably, if the standard Japanese subs were selected, we would be going back from where we are with Collins unless the Japanese design was significantly modified.



Each still has its strengths and weaknesses. The Phalanx on the LHD are replacing 25mm typhoons. I think in the role they are envisioned and the threats they are designed to handle, they are a great choice. If you want to have something further reaching for air threats, I would be looking beyond the 40mm at something missile based.

I was wondering if the Phalanx would complement or actually replace the 25mm Typhoons.
If the Typhoons are to be replaced, do we have a firm number of Phalanx systems for each LHD.
I believe 360 degree coverage can be achieved with only two units, but three systems are often mentioned.

Can anyone confirm or post a link with this outcome.

Regards S

 

[StingrayOZ]

There are 3 phalanx on each of the Canberra class after the upgrade.

Upgraded Phalanx for LHDs in 2018 - Australian Defence Magazine

Government approval has been received to install up to three Phalanx 20mm Close-In Weapon Systems (CIWS) on both of the RAN’s 27,500 tonne Canberra class Landing Helicopter Docks (LHDs).

www.australiandefence.com.au

There are strong overlapping arcs at the rear, and reasonable arcs from the front unit.

 

[SteveR]

The Australian article:

"Australia’s $220 billion submarine disaster surfaces as PM’s nightmare sinks in


It's an article by Robert Gottliebsen. Partially on how Robert had been alone in writing about this problem, and also complimenting the PM on not denying the issue and getting into it. It also talks about how the problem is so large that it can actually affect Australia for a generation, since it's a $220bn issue.

If there's anything else, I don't recall,since I only skimmed it once.

Note that the French Defence Website has come up with the following response:

Attack-class Program to enter System Functional Review on time, as planned - Naval News

An op-ed published by Australian newspaper The Australian Financial Review on the Attack-class submarine program blames Naval Group for being over budget, late on schedule and for failing in its commitment to spend 60 per cent of the contract value locally. According to Naval Group, such...

www.navalnews.com

I interpret this to mean the RAN asked for an Engineering Change Proposal - ECP (possibly the Type 2076 sonar over the Thales French sonar?) which then drove up the price by a few $B over 12 subs of the class. We wanted a regionally superior sub and that comes with a price, particularly if we specify this after the original contract is signed.

Robert Gottliebsen probably has no concern for the RAN crews who have to place their lives on the line when war starts.

 

[Redlands18]

Note that the French Defence Website has come up with the following response:

Attack-class Program to enter System Functional Review on time, as planned - Naval News

An op-ed published by Australian newspaper The Australian Financial Review on the Attack-class submarine program blames Naval Group for being over budget, late on schedule and for failing in its commitment to spend 60 per cent of the contract value locally. According to Naval Group, such...

www.navalnews.com

I interpret this to mean the RAN asked for an Engineering Change Proposal - ECP (possibly the Type 2076 sonar over the Thales French sonar?) which then drove up the price by a few $B over 12 subs of the class. We wanted a regionally superior sub and that comes with a price, particularly if we specify this after the original contract is signed.

Robert Gottliebsen probably has no concern for the RAN crews who have to place their lives on the line when war starts.

Probably complain about the cost of the Memorial Services.

 

[oldsig127]

A fairly busy news day for Australian Defence

Australia says it will spend $770 million on navy weapons development

Australia will spend A$1 billion ($770 million) developing new naval weaponry capabilities, including long-range missiles and torpedoes, the federal government said on Monday, part of a vast defence upgrade amid rising regional tensions.

www.reuters.com

A fairly obvious announcement by the minister.

Also, "The Australian" covered the response by the Minister and Naval Group to the hatchet job last week. As I read it in the traditional wood based media, I can't post a link, but it was quite fair until the last few paragraphs where the unsubstantiated nonsense was repeated, just to keep it in mind.

oldsig

 

[Bob53]

from the Reuters report quoted by Oldsig ...this appear to be the salient point.

The government said it would provide anti-ship and surface-to-air missiles with ranges of more than 370 km (230 miles), and maritime land strike missiles with ranges of 1,500 km to “enhance the protection of our maritime resources and borders, and hold adversaries at risk of much greater distances”

I doubt the RAN will develop anything but a purchase make sense. What maritime land strike missiles are in the western armoury? Tomahawk and possibly JASSMER are the only 2 I can think of. And what anti ship missiles have a range of 370km? LRASM and Tomahawk? Would SM2 have a 370km anti air range?

 

[Boagrius]

from the Reuters report quoted by Oldsig ...this appear to be the salient point.

The government said it would provide anti-ship and surface-to-air missiles with ranges of more than 370 km (230 miles), and maritime land strike missiles with ranges of 1,500 km to “enhance the protection of our maritime resources and borders, and hold adversaries at risk of much greater distances”

I doubt the RAN will develop anything but a purchase make sense. What maritime land strike missiles are in the western armoury? Tomahawk and possibly JASSMER are the only 2 I can think of. And what anti ship missiles have a range of 370km? LRASM and Tomahawk? Would SM2 have a 370km anti air range?

I think JASSM-ER can reach about 1000km IIRC and LRASM should make 370km easily. SM6 IB might get out to 370km as well but SM2 definitely wouldn't. JASSM-XR and Tomahawk would go past the 1500km mark quite comfortably, so we will have to wait and see what it all translates to.

 

[ADMk2]

I think JASSM-ER can reach about 1000km IIRC and LRASM should make 370km easily. SM6 IB might get out to 370km as well but SM2 definitely wouldn't. JASSM-XR and Tomahawk would go past the 1500km mark quite comfortably, so we will have to wait and see what it all translates to.

I note they specifically included SM-6 Block 1 and enhanced SM-2 Block IIIC so the ‘enhanced’ SM-2 might go out that far?

 

[Bob53]

Yeah, that #RPM that manufacturers tend to throw around always irritates me. After all, how can a gun fire 300 rounds per minute, when the gun would exhaust the available/ready ammunition in just over 14 seconds...

This is of concern. That’s a shallow mag particularly when that’s the only anti air protection on an Arafura. Any one here have a house or car without insurance? To me multiple layers of anti air just seem like Cheap insurance particularly when talking about $300m plus ships like the Arafura and all the way to the LHDs. Over the project life it seems like we are penny pinching on self protection. When compared to the overall project costs for the Arafura or LHDs I never understand why they don’t have a CIWS and or Sea RAM or RIM116 on the
LHDs. Understand the LHDs are supposed to be accompanied by an AWD but when things heat up how often do things go to plan, ships ever need to turn around or get damaged or sunk and a large ship with lots of men and their gear then gets left unprotected. Arafura are not supposed to be fighting ships but I don’t think an enemy would care what they are And there’s probably a better chance of one of them running into an enemy wanting to set an example in far NW AU Waters. Carry a big stick and talk softly is my preference.

 

[Boagrius]

I note they specifically included SM-6 Block 1 and enhanced SM-2 Block IIIC so the ‘enhanced’ SM-2 might go out that far?

Don't think so. AFAIK the SM2 Blk IIIC retains the same fundamental propulsion/fuel set-up as the Blk IIIB that the RAN already uses, so kinematics should be much the same. Primary difference is that it introduces an active radar seeker derived from the SM6 and ditches the IR backup found on the SM2 IIIB. My guess is that it gives you a weapon that can do OTH targeting and/or CEC without the extreme range and cost of an SM6.

Potentially still quite valuable when combined with something like F35 or E-7 in that you could theoretically start knocking down YJ12's or YJ18's well before they crest the radar horizon.

 

[StingrayOZ]

1,500 km range is quite far, a few publications have mentioned this will be TLAM or a variation of it.

ADF to commit to maritime missile programs | ADBR

As forecast in last July’s 2020 Defence Strategy Update and accompanying Force Structure Plan, the Commonwealth is set to commit to several maritime missile programs for the ADF as it…

adbr.com.au

The statement about industry participation and sovereign capability is a bit mysterious. Hopefully there will be greater clarification later in the week.

 

[ngatimozart]

1,500 km range is quite far, a few publications have mentioned this will be TLAM or a variation of it.

ADF to commit to maritime missile programs | ADBR

As forecast in last July’s 2020 Defence Strategy Update and accompanying Force Structure Plan, the Commonwealth is set to commit to several maritime missile programs for the ADF as it…

adbr.com.au

The statement about industry participation and sovereign capability is a bit mysterious. Hopefully there will be greater clarification later in the week.

Is it possible that they are intending to license build some missiles? They are license building the Spike LR and they could be building on that capacity. It would be a way of ensuring war stocks.

 

[John Newman]

Interesting to go through the ADBR article point by point:

ADF to commit to maritime missile programs | ADBR

As forecast in last July’s 2020 Defence Strategy Update and accompanying Force Structure Plan, the Commonwealth is set to commit to several maritime missile programs for the ADF as it…

adbr.com.au

* Continued investment in ESSM Blk2
* SM-2MR Blk IIIC - 150km range
* SM-6 Blk I - 240km range
* Anti Ship Missile - 370km range
* Maritime Land Attack Missile - 1500km range

Whilst not named in the Def Mins press release, it would appear the AShM fits the range profile of LRASM.

Again not named in the press release, the Maritime Land Attack Missile fits the range profile of Tomahawk.

I can’t imagine that JASSM-ER is under consideration, it’s a USAF air launched weapon, not a USN weapon or a maritime launched weapon either.

More good news for the RAN.

Cheers,

Edit:

The Def Mins press release:

Morrison Government boosts maritime security | Defence Ministers

The Morrison Government will invest $1 billion to commence the early development of advanced guided weapons to enhance Australia’s maritime security.This significant commitment will modernise the Navy’s platforms to project and maintain sea control.This project will provide Navy with...

www.minister.defence.gov.au

There is also mention of advanced lightweight torpedoes too.

 

[John Newman]

There was also another naval announcement today too:

Henderson Shipyard becomes sovereign capability powerhouse | Defence Ministers

Australian industry is continuing to reap the benefits of the Morrison Government’s unprecedented investment in new infrastructure and shipbuilding activities which is creating thousands of Australian jobs.Through the Morrison Government’s up to $183 billion Naval Shipbuilding Plan, Henderson...

www.minister.defence.gov.au

This paragraph stands out:

“Under project SEA 1905 Phase 1, Defence has made a down-select decision to explore a variant of the offshore patrol vessels for the new Mine Countermeasures and Survey Vessels under project SEA 1905 Phase 1. This will support the construction of new vessels which will be built at the Henderson precinct, supporting local jobs in Western Australia.”

It was mentioned in the mid year 2020 update that Defence was looking at the potential of using the OPV hull as a replacement for the Mine Warfare and Hydro ships (up to 8 ships), it would appear that is going to happen.


Another couple of interesting paragraphs too:

“With plans highlighted in the 2020 Force Structure Plan to build two multi-role sealift and replenishment ships, a Pacific Support Vessel, and an ice-rated replacement for Ocean Protector in Australia, additional major docking facilities will be required in the near future to supplement the capability of the Captain Cook Graving Dock in Sydney.

“The construction of such a facility would be an enormous boost to our sovereign shipbuilding and sustainment industry, and the West Australian Government’s forward leaning approach and commitment to this work is crucial to Defence.“

Interesting to note the planned replacement for Ocean Protector will be ice rated, the replacement is possibly planned to spend a bit of time operating in the Southern Ocean.

Hopefully the updated 2020 Naval Shipbuilding Plan is released soon.

Cheers,

 

[Boagrius]

* SM-6 Blk I - 240km range
* Anti Ship Missile - 370km range
* Maritime Land Attack Missile - 1500km range

Whilst not named in the Def Mins press release, it would appear the AShM fits the range profile of LRASM.

I suspect these are conservative estimates too. At any rate all these new weapons will put a premium on available VLS cells. I doubt I'll be the only one watching the Hunter Class' VLS count closely.

 

[ASSAIL]

This is of concern. That’s a shallow mag particularly when that’s the only anti air protection on an Arafura. Any one here have a house or car without insurance? To me multiple layers of anti air just seem like Cheap insurance particularly when talking about $300m plus ships like the Arafura and all the way to the LHDs. Over the project life it seems like we are penny pinching on self protection. When compared to the overall project costs for the Arafura or LHDs I never understand why they don’t have a CIWS and or Sea RAM or RIM116 on the
LHDs. Understand the LHDs are supposed to be accompanied by an AWD but when things heat up how often do things go to plan, ships ever need to turn around or get damaged or sunk and a large ship with lots of men and their gear then gets left unprotected. Arafura are not supposed to be fighting ships but I don’t think an enemy would care what they are And there’s probably a better chance of one of them running into an enemy wanting to set an example in far NW AU Waters. Carry a big stick and talk softly is my preference.

The Arafura are constabulary units and would not be deployed where an air threat exists without further modification.
They are not a GP corvette or a mini escort and arming them as such would be a waste of scarce resources.
Should the proverbial hit the fan then added protection in some form would be relatively easy.

 

[Stampede]

There was also another naval announcement today too:

Henderson Shipyard becomes sovereign capability powerhouse | Defence Ministers

Australian industry is continuing to reap the benefits of the Morrison Government’s unprecedented investment in new infrastructure and shipbuilding activities which is creating thousands of Australian jobs.Through the Morrison Government’s up to $183 billion Naval Shipbuilding Plan, Henderson...

www.minister.defence.gov.au

This paragraph stands out:

“Under project SEA 1905 Phase 1, Defence has made a down-select decision to explore a variant of the offshore patrol vessels for the new Mine Countermeasures and Survey Vessels under project SEA 1905 Phase 1. This will support the construction of new vessels which will be built at the Henderson precinct, supporting local jobs in Western Australia.”

It was mentioned in the mid year 2020 update that Defence was looking at the potential of using the OPV hull as a replacement for the Mine Warfare and Hydro ships (up to 8 ships), it would appear that is going to happen.


Another couple of interesting paragraphs too:

“With plans highlighted in the 2020 Force Structure Plan to build two multi-role sealift and replenishment ships, a Pacific Support Vessel, and an ice-rated replacement for Ocean Protector in Australia, additional major docking facilities will be required in the near future to supplement the capability of the Captain Cook Graving Dock in Sydney.

“The construction of such a facility would be an enormous boost to our sovereign shipbuilding and sustainment industry, and the West Australian Government’s forward leaning approach and commitment to this work is crucial to Defence.“

Interesting to note the planned replacement for Ocean Protector will be ice rated, the replacement is possibly planned to spend a bit of time operating in the Southern Ocean.

Hopefully the updated 2020 Naval Shipbuilding Plan is released soon.

Cheers,

So SEA 1905 Phase 1 seems to moving forward.
Further details will be very interesting.
Particularly the time table to build these upto 8 vessels.
Are they to commence construction after the Arafura build in the late 2020's???
If so that would seem to me a bit late.
If not, is their capacity to keep the Arafura build time table and start construction of Phase 1905 vessels for their delivery to the RAN this decade.
The premise that we need to double our MCM force seems to imply a need!!!.
Yes I appreciate these replacements will also be for our survey fleet but I assume they will be multipurpose MCM / Survey ships hence "the double in size "tag.

Regards S

 

[Sandhi Yudha]

"With ranges in excess of 370 kilometres for anti-ship and surface-to-air missiles, and 1,500 kilometres for maritime land strike missiles, these new weapons will enhance the protection of our maritime resources and borders, and hold adversaries at risk at much greater distances."

I thought Australia was also an MCTR-member, or are the MCTR-rules only for land based missile systems?

Quote taken from Australia to Procure Long Range Anti-Ship and Land Attack Cruise Missiles - Naval News