Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[hairyman]

If we were to up-arm the OPV's I would go with the NSM not harpoon. It has about twice the range of the harpoon and has some Australian content/, It doesnt take as much space as a Harpoon and is probably cheaper.

 

[76mmGuns]

The problem is that we needed the continuous build programme to be in place and ready to go when the DDG project finished. Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

Yep. Could have used the 4th Hobart as well.

 

[John Newman]

If we were to up-arm the OPV's I would go with the NSM not harpoon. It has about twice the range of the harpoon and has some Australian content/, It doesnt take as much space as a Harpoon and is probably cheaper.

NSM has Australian content? Really?

I don’t believe so, the JSM, which is related to NSM, has some Australian content, but I don’t know that automatically applies to NSM.

People often refer to NSM and JSM in the same breath, but they are different animals.

 

[ASSAIL]

Can we cut the fantasy “nice to haves” please folk.
We’ve been through all this here before and only ended up with cranky Mods.
We have our capital acquisitions set for the next 5 or more years as laid out in various govt. plans.
It will take extraordinary strategic circumstances to change that and we’re no there yet.

 

[John Newman]

Yep. Could have used the 4th Hobart as well.

You’ll have to send a letter to Rudd and/or Gillard and ask them why they didn’t order that 4th ship.

 

[Boagrius]

You’ll have to send a letter to Rudd and/or Gillard and ask them why they didn’t order any ship.

Fixed it for you ;-p

 

[hauritz]

No argument there but then you have the same situation as the T26, the beast we are building has evolved from the base design as Australia pack more capability into it, The FREMM would have been subject to the same process and would likely have suffered from similar delays. My point is that suggesting the FREMM would have been easier is doubtful.

Despite its program delays the Type26 was probably the right choice for Australia if for no other reason than size matters. Mind you when I look at the Constellation class they do seem to have packed about the same capability into a slightly smaller hull. No mission bay but they do have a larger hanger and an extra boat bay compared with the Hunter Class.

When you compare the Constellation class to the FREMM class there have been substantial changes made and yet they plan to have this ship in production in a couple of months and in service by around 2026.

It kind of puts Australia's efforts to shame. Just goes to show how much more efficient the Italian and American ship building industry is.

 

[ngatimozart]

If we were to up-arm the OPV's I would go with the NSM not harpoon. It has about twice the range of the harpoon and has some Australian content/, It doesnt take as much space as a Harpoon and is probably cheaper.

You have incurred a 24 hour reply ban on this thread for this fantasy post. Any further infractions and the ban can be extended and made wider.

This serves as a warning to others who are willing to continue down a similar path.

 

[Todjaeger]

Despite its program delays the Type26 was probably the right choice for Australia if for no other reason than size matters. Mind you when I look at the Constellation class they do seem to have packed about the same capability into a slightly smaller hull. No mission bay but they do have a larger hanger and an extra boat bay compared with the Hunter Class.

When you compare the Constellation class to the FREMM class there have been substantial changes made and yet they plan to have this ship in production in a couple of months and in service by around 2026.

It kind of puts Australia's efforts to shame. Just goes to show how much more efficient the Italian and American ship building industry is.

Again, the delivery date is supposed to be in 2026, but IOC, the Initial Operating Capacity, is not expected until 2030, or about four years after delivery. I suspect this is to get the USN time to build up experience with the Constellation-class as well as to check and ensure that the delivered ship is up to spec. I would not expect a ship to be immediately available for normal service following delivery.

Looking at some of the expected specs for the Constellation-class, it does look like it might have slightly more AShM carried normally, as well as a 21-cell RAM launcher, OTOH the main gun is only a 57 mm. The Hunter-class frigates for the RAN are to have only 8 (vs. 16) AShM, but also LWT's, a pair of 30 mm and a pair of 20 mm Mk 15 Phalanx CIWS, plus a 127 mm/5" main gun, not to mention a mission bay. That suggests that a Hunter-class frigate will have a greater all-around utility as a GP frigate, plus more flexibility for additional roles/missions via the mission bay, including being able to possibly embark a 2nd helicopter or a UAV.

 

[spoz]

Hunters also have an HMS which the FFG-62s will lack, and arguably a more competent above water sensor outfit.

 

[Todjaeger]

Hunters also have an HMS which the FFG-62s will lack, and arguably a more competent above water sensor outfit.

In the grand scheme of things though, is a hull-mounted sonar going to make an appreciable difference in detecting possible sub contacts? Both frigate classes are to be kitted out with towed and variable depth sonars, either of which I would have thought would be significantly more effective.

 

[ngatimozart]

I realise this is the RAN thread and this is OT, but I thought that if the USN isn't keen on the 5in / 127mm gun, I would've thought that they could've gone with the 76m gun. I actually think that the Oto Melera 76mm gun used on the Italian FREMM would be the ideal gun for them. It's something that if the RAN ever build a corvette they should look at.

I also think that the Oto Melera 127mm gun offers greater capability than the current BAE Mk-45 5in gun and would be a better fit on the Hunter Class. It's the gun that the RCN have gone with and I would suggest that, since AFAIK, they haven't fielded a 5in gun, they aren't saddled with the culture of because we've used such and such a make of gun we shouldn't change. So they will have probably done a reasonably unbiased assessment of the two gun systems. I wouldn't say the same for the RN because BAE is a Pommy company.

Just my 1 cents worth.

 

[Stampede]

Just a thought re ASW.

I understand that it is important for ships to appear invisible to a hostile submarine.
Cleaver design of the hull and measures to reduce the noise signature from machinery will endeavor to achieve this end.

I certainly trust the ANZAC, Hobart and future Hunter Classes can achieve this.

Given that at our fleet will often sail at distance, I'd guess the fleet would often have a supply vessel accompanying the task force.
If we are to sail at distance, there's also a not unreasonable expectation there's a purpose.
In all probability to be able to send either; an amphibious group for the mission at hand, show the flag, or alternatively have a vessel capable of carrying a large contingent of rotary aircraft to conduct strike, ASW missions or both.

HMAS Canberra, Choules and Supply come to mind.
Not unreasonable to suggest that any of these vessels are very silent to a submarine threat.
So how does it work
I would imagine these supporting vessels would form a hub for the destroyers to tackle the ASW threat at distance from the main task force.

Just wondering how that works in a fleet of our modest size working independent of allies.


Regards S

 

[ASSAIL]

Just a thought re ASW.

I understand that it is important for ships to appear invisible to a hostile submarine.
Cleaver design of the hull and measures to reduce the noise signature from machinery will endeavor to achieve this end.

I certainly trust the ANZAC, Hobart and future Hunter Classes can achieve this.

Given that at our fleet will often sail at distance, I'd guess the fleet would often have a supply vessel accompanying the task force.
If we are to sail at distance, there's also a not unreasonable expectation there's a purpose.
In all probability to be able to send either; an amphibious group for the mission at hand, show the flag, or alternatively have a vessel capable of carrying a large contingent of rotary aircraft to conduct strike, ASW missions or both.

HMAS Canberra, Choules and Supply come to mind.
Not unreasonable to suggest that any of these vessels are very silent to a submarine threat.
So how does it work
I would imagine these supporting vessels would form a hub for the destroyers to tackle the ASW threat at distance from the main task force.

Just wondering how that works in a fleet of our modest size working independent of allies.


Regards S

Enemy submarines will always know where a TG is.
The point of “quiet” escorts is not to remain hidden from subs but to improve their own sonar performance, not to degrade their towed arrays, in other words improve their signal to noise ratio and improve their own detection ranges.
In most escort screens your ASW assets will be typically from 6-10000 yds from the high value unit, the ASW helos will be further away again, in excess of 12000yds.
It may have changed a bit from my days in the firm, when Moses played Fullback for the Nile Rangers.

 

[Pusser01]

I also think that the Oto Melera 127mm gun offers greater capability than the current BAE Mk-45 5in gun and would be a better fit on the Hunter Class. It's the gun that the RCN have gone with and I would suggest that, since AFAIK, they haven't fielded a 5in gun, they aren't saddled with the culture of because we've used such and such a make of gun we shouldn't change. So they will have probably done a reasonably unbiased assessment of the two gun systems. I wouldn't say the same for the RN because BAE is a Pommy company.

Just my 1 cents worth.

The Canadians did have experience with 5inch guns up until the early 90's. The Tribals were fitted with the Otobreda 127/54 Compact 5in prior to their TRUMP. These guns were then sold to the Dutch for fitting to their De Zeven Provincien class.. How much of that corporate knowledge remains is anyone's guess. Cheers. Iroquois Class Air Defence Destroyers - Naval Technology (naval-technology.com)

 

[Meriv90]

If talking about guns we can get back on topic.

I understand the logic of the 57mm for the Costelattion but IMHO it is too limited against its bigger competitors.

I know it will sound absurd and overkill but on the OPVs i would put the 127mm. Why?

Novel technologies in anti-submarine warfare | Navy Lookout

www.navylookout.com

Kingfisher

In 2019 BAE Systems revealed their KINGFISHER concept for a naval gun-launched modular carrier system. Essentially the frigate can use its 5inch/127mm gun to fire an ASW payload that could include small depth charges, sonobuoys, hydrographic sensors or acoustic decoys. The most promising, simple and affordable option appears to be the depth charge payload. Anti-submarine mortars delivering depth charges to short-range date back to World War II but gun-launching is a new concept, enabled by the accuracy of modern naval guns. Kingfisher could quickly lay a barrage of charges in response to fleeting sonar contacts out to several Kilometers, without the need for airborne delivery of expensive homing torpedoes. Small and affordable depth charges may also be an ideal antidote to UUVs and several ships could fire patterns to cover a wide area relatively quickly. Multiple small underwater explosions would also temporarily deafen submarine or torpedo guidance sonars. Kingfisher could also be used as a ‘hard kill’ anti-torpedo defence system.


In surface actions there is a flexible ladder of escalation that can be used before opening fire; hailing by radio, illumination by fire-control radar, aggressive positioning or a warning shot across the bows. In undersea warfare there a very few options to discourage or deter an adversary without sinking them. Sending a burst of active sonar reveals the position of the emitter and may involve sacrificing the tactical advantage. Kingfisher offers a scaleable response to warn an adversary by laying small depth charges close by without sinking the target. As the line between war and conflict becomes increasingly blurred, having non-lethal response options assumes greater importance.


Other types of payload for Kingfisher would appear to present many more technical problems. A Sonobuoy would require re-engineering to fit into a 5-inch shell and withstand the huge G-forces created when fired from a gun barrel.


Work on Kingfisher has been underway since 2018, self-financed through BAE Systems’ own innovation fund but there has been some coordination with DTSL and the Maritime Capability (MARCAP) staff at NCHQ. The RN has not issued a formal requirement for the system but purchase of the depth charge version would seem like a very sensible low-cost option to equip the Type 26 frigates.

If between Vulcano e Kingfisher the 127mm/5inch is becoming ultra versatile gun, I bet sooner or later you will also have Dart AA guided munition.

But i have no idea how much a 5inch/127mm gun cost.

 

[John Fedup]

The Canadians did have experience with 5inch guns up until the early 90's. The Tribals were fitted with the Otobreda 127/54 Compact 5in prior to their TRUMP. These guns were then sold to the Dutch for fitting to their De Zeven Provincien class.. How much of that corporate knowledge remains is anyone's guess. Cheers. Iroquois Class Air Defence Destroyers - Naval Technology (naval-technology.com)

The Tribals were later fitted with 76 mm Oto Melara so the RCN does have a bit of history with Italian naval guns. WRT the 127 mm Oto Melara, I assume the extended range munitions motivated their selection.

 

[spoz]

If talking about guns we can get back on topic.

I understand the logic of the 57mm for the Costelattion but IMHO it is too limited against its bigger competitors.

I know it will sound absurd and overkill but on the OPVs i would put the 127mm. Why?

Novel technologies in anti-submarine warfare | Navy Lookout

www.navylookout.com

If between Vulcano e Kingfisher the 127mm/5inch is becoming ultra versatile gun, I bet sooner or later you will also have Dart AA guided munition.

But i have no idea how much a 5inch/127mm gun cost.

Putting a 127mm gun on the Arafuras would not be possible for a variety of reasons, including but not limited to what is located in the vicinity.

 

[Stampede]

Enemy submarines will always know where a TG is.
The point of “quiet” escorts is not to remain hidden from subs but to improve their own sonar performance, not to degrade their towed arrays, in other words improve their signal to noise ratio and improve their own detection ranges.
In most escort screens your ASW assets will be typically from 6-10000 yds from the high value unit, the ASW helos will be further away again, in excess of 12000yds.
It may have changed a bit from my days in the firm, when Moses played Fullback for the Nile Rangers.

What's a yard?
Whose Moses and where is the Nile?

Thanks for the reply.

I was wondering as to the separation distance for ASW assets to "high value unit.

Cheers

Regards S

 

[MrConservative]

I know it will sound absurd and overkill but on the OPVs i would put the 127mm.

Comic gold. I need cheering up after we lost yesterday Comedy great Sean Lock. If you had suggested putting two 127mm guns on a Arafura it would have been even funnier!