Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[TaranisAttack]

Well as nice as I'm sure a fleet of eight 7000 ton destroyers would be to replace a bunch of NATO type frigates I think it's highly unrealistic at best! This confusion seems be from the idea that because they may have a BMD role, they must therefore have a full air warfare fitout but that is simply not true. Furthermore, there's one big hint many of you seem to have missed, they are cutting the 4th destroyer, if they wanted more AWD's they would just buy 11 F100's but they aren't they are buying 3 and getting some frigates to replace the old frigates. The idea that the F100's aren't good enough and are being replaced with something better is also fairly unrealistic, if they wanted a really capable AWD they would have just picked the Type 45 or the AB at selection and bought 11 of them but they didn't!

The most likely scenario is that they will be based on the F100 hull, but fitted out only with a standard medium range frigate radar basicly like the FREMM frigates (not FREDA), no area air defence capability as found on the F100's. The BMD capability would most likely be provided by the F100's, with the 7000t frigates acting as missile launchers, the missiles being guided by the F100!

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I like your style!

But in relation to missile loadout - we already know that FFHs carry 32 ESSM, FFGs will carry 32 ESSM and 40 SM2 and that the AWD will carry at least 32 ESSM and 24 SM2/6 - how classified could it be?

Well the FFG's Mk 13 launcher carry a mix of SM-1 (~36) and Harpoon (~4), probably the same with SM-2 whenever they are delivered. Also the FFHs can carry up to 32 ESSM but how many do they actually carry? But these ships have pretty constrained missile load out options, only one or two types per launcher.

The US Navy with lots of Strike Length Mk 41 VLS cells keeps it rather close to the chest the kind of TLAM, SM-2, SM-3, VLA, ESSM mix their CG-47s and DDG-51s carry. A lot of people were amazed to find out after the decommissioning that the DD-963s with VLS carried 16 VLA and 45 TLAMs.

I don't know where you get your 32 ESSM, 24 SM-2 loadout for the AWD from? The Spanish F100s without TLAM carry 64 ESSM and 32 SM-2s. With TLAM they are carrying 64 ESSM, 24 SM-2 and 8 TLAM.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Well as nice as I'm sure a fleet of eight 7000 ton destroyers would be to replace a bunch of NATO type frigates I think it's highly unrealistic at best!

It wasn't conjecture based. But rather an apparent leak to a respected defence journalist.

The idea that the F100's aren't good enough and are being replaced with something better is also fairly unrealistic, if they wanted a really capable AWD they would have just picked the Type 45 or the AB at selection and bought 11 of them but they didn't!

Ahh an expert in the RAN's SEA 4000 project history? The F100 AWD is far more capable than the Type 45 in air warfare. It was chosen because exercises with the Spanish and US Navy showed that a F100 was something like >95% as capable as a DDG-51 in air warfare.

 

[battlensign]

I don't know where you get your 32 ESSM, 24 SM-2 loadout for the AWD from? The Spanish F100s without TLAM carry 64 ESSM and 32 SM-2s. With TLAM they are carrying 64 ESSM, 24 SM-2 and 8 TLAM.

That might be why I said 'at least' - in so far as your numbers are similar but with more ESSM, which is perfecty fine because my stated loadout minimum was only 32 of the AWDs 48 cells.......

Brett.

P.S I am still in shock and drooling over the 184 TLAMs.......

 

[TaranisAttack]

It wasn't conjecture based. But rather an apparent leak to a respected defence journalist.

It doesn't make a 7000t frigate a 7000t air warfare destroyer. The fact of the matter is, if Australia actually had 8 air warfare destroyer money it would be spending on other things, the desperate lack of fighters for the air force perhaps. 70 seems to the current estimate for F35's for the RAAF, nowhere near enough say the RAAF. The idea of 8 + 3 air warfare escorts is flawed in the very fact Australia won't even have anything needing that much escorting! We're looking at 2 flat top assault ships which it seems won't have any fixed wing component, there is simply no need for 11 of such escorts. The force mix is completely rediculous. However if these 8 ships were actually frigates then you would find a very realistic force mix, similar other navies.

Ahh an expert in the RAN's SEA 4000 project history? The F100 AWD is far more capable than the Type 45 in air warfare. It was chosen because exercises with the Spanish and US Navy showed that a F100 was something like >95% as capable as a DDG-51 in air warfare.

The Type 45 has what is widely regarded as the most advanced air warfare system of any ship until DDX comes out, its also extremely expensive, but anyway that is for another discussion, lets try to keep the thread on topic.

 

[gf0012-aust]

This boost is aimed at powers like Indonesia and vietnam and not at giants like China and India.

Indonesia and Vietnam????

Indonesia:
We already are involved with developing the Indon navy at a planning level and at a greenwater development level.

We already have strong military exchanges beyond the special forces level, we have young indonesians at australian universities doing governmental studies.

hell, we share a classified version of the white paper with them.

Vietnam:

We've had good relationships with the Vietnamese ever since the early 90;s based on other government exchanges. In fact we developed trust and respect through education and government exchanges.

The Viets are not a threat - and make it very clear that we have a mutual respect that over rides any prev history. You can thank the current head of the CoA HR&EO Commission for setting that framework in place and getting the ground work right.

 

[gf0012-aust]

1.I said vietnam because it is planning to get six improved kilos from russia

2. Trust me bringing India on your side is not that simple as you will find out in the future.

1) Kilos aren't a threat - and Vietnam is certainly not a threat either - see prev

2) I dealt with the IN Liaison Officer in the Indian Govt about 6 years ago - again he made it very clear that India wanted a closer relationship with Australia. Ironically, the same govt official who repaired our Vietnamese relationship was also instrumental in fixing our Indian one. Even when we cut diplomatic ties with each other the Indian Govt requested that he stay in New Delhi,

People often make assumptions about the Indian/Australian relationship which are just plain wrong. There are more "good things" than negative aspects by a golden mile.

 

[PeterM]

The French L-CAT would be an option. Also amphibious developments of the Australian fast catamarans.

The US Navy is starting the ball rolling on the T-Craft or Sea Base to Shore Connector (SSC) program for a big hovercraft. It would be ideal.

I believe the SSC, L-CAT, HLCAC and LCU (R) are all still under development , what is the estimated in service dates for these? Could these options be viable landing craft options for the LHDs?

I made the assumption (rightly or wrongly) that these vessels are to replace the the 6 current LCH. The Australian Catamaran version is an intriguing option.

Looking at the whitepaper designation again:

9.25 The Government will also introduce six new heavy landing craft with improved ocean-going capabilities, able to transport armoured vehicles, trucks, stores and people in intra-theatre lift tasks to augment the larger amphibious vessels.

Could the JHSV be considered a heavy landing craft? It seems to fill all of these options, maybe that is an option for the LCH replacement.

 

[TaranisAttack]

Some LCACs for the Canberra LHDs would be an excellent move.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

It doesn't make a 7000t frigate a 7000t air warfare destroyer. The fact of the matter is, if Australia actually had 8 air warfare destroyer money it would be spending on other things, the desperate lack of fighters for the air force perhaps. 70 seems to the current estimate for F35's for the RAAF, nowhere near enough say the RAAF. The idea of 8 + 3 air warfare escorts is flawed in the very fact Australia won't even have anything needing that much escorting! We're looking at 2 flat top assault ships which it seems won't have any fixed wing component, there is simply no need for 11 of such escorts. The force mix is completely rediculous. However if these 8 ships were actually frigates then you would find a very realistic force mix, similar other navies.

Clearly you haven't been following the development of Australian defence capability closely. Whatever your opinion is you're welcome to it. But you could at least try and be informed...

The Type 45 has what is widely regarded as the most advanced air warfare system of any ship until DDX comes out, its also extremely expensive, but anyway that is for another discussion, lets try to keep the thread on topic.

Ahh the thread is about the RAN... And who thinks the T45 is the most advanced air warfare ship? The T45 combat system is not up to scratch with the Mk 6 AEGIS in the AWD.

 

[PeterM]

the door is certainly open for a 4th AWD if there is future need (Surface Combatants 9.12)

In my opinion if this capability is required, then would make sense for the Future Frigates to use some modified version of the Hobart hull.

What kind of systems would this class likely have for the "strong emphasis on submarine detection and response operations" considering they are much larger hulls compared to the Anzac Class?

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

@ Ananda

1. I said indonesia because of australias involvement in timor and also because of indonesias sub purchase that you already mentioned.

Indonesia is a de-facto ally of Australia. Both nations have ratified a non binding treaty committing both to ensuring the territorial integrity of the other, from both internal and external threats. The ADF is far, far more likely to be fighting alongside the TNI than meeting it in battle. Australians tend to be preoccupied with Indonesia from the confrontation in the 60's. The world is a very different place now. The only possible threat Australia could face from Indonesia is f it was politically unstable and fractured, and one of the great Asian powers gained hegemony over one of the fragments. Only the major Asian powers have the capability to actually pose a threat to the ADF.

2. Yet another point is australia taking on china which is a fiasco in its own right.I can give several arguments but it will become very lengthy.More if time permits.

You're right a regional conflict involving china would be a fiasco (not to mention bloodbath), but Australia would hardly be "taking on" china; we would be part of a coalition based on the US. Thus we would only be "taking on" a part of the Chinese military, on our own (or our partners) ground. There is no realistic chance, whatsoever, of a major conflict between China and the Commonwealth without US (and Japanese) involvement. Just like there was no chance, whatsoever, of Australia taking on Imperial Japan alone, that didn't stop us from being caught with our pants down in 1942 did it? I dare say the powers that be vowed that Australia would never ignore the rise of a major maritime power in East Asia again, and more to the point not have the lions share of the nations combat power deployed in other theaters while there is a threat closer to home. That's what this white paper is a reaction to, the rise of a major naval power in East Asia, and no one plans to take on China alone. We don't have partners and allies (with a vested interest in checking any aggressive Chinese action and protecting their allies) for nothing!

That doesn't mean anyone is planing on going to war, but we are simply equipping ourselves should that eventuality arise.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Well, lets see it delivered as promised first. It's all well and good to promise it, but ADF has to find $2b a year in savings to make it happen...

The last time ADF had to find such savings (ie: early 90's), infantry units were running around the bush yelling "bang" at each other as a training exercise...

Indeed, i did shudder at that number. 10% savings! Ouch....

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

I don't think the RAN would be too keen to replace all SM-2s with SM-6. SM-6 gives you a great over the horizon capability (assuming you have some AEW around to target it) but reliance on active homing will increase your risk to being decoyed by high end strike fighters (equipped with Turds). Particularity in the middle 25-50km or so where the RAN is going to want to make sure it takes down everything that comes that close.

Weapons that don't need a Mk 99 fire control system are likely to be carried in the NGC: SM-6, TLAM, VLA (if the ASW mantra gets some more sway) and SBMSE (which is an active homer). Because of AEGIS CEC these weapons can be used by the AWD as if they were onboard.

Silly question, but i was under the impression that you could use an SM-6 (or AMRAAM) in an SARH mode just like an SM-2 with off board illumination??? Is that not the case? :unknown

 

[TaranisAttack]

the door is certainly open for a 4th AWD if there is future need (Surface Combatants 9.12)

In my opinion if this capability is required, then would make sense for the Future Frigates to use some modified version of the Hobart hull.

What kind of systems would this class likely have for the "strong emphasis on submarine detection and response operations" considering they are much larger hulls compared to the Anzac Class?

The fact they are larger doesn't mean they will have proportionally more or larger weapons systems. A lot of the displacement may well be dedicated to crew comfort and endurance, this seems to be a common factor if you look at ships like the RN's C1/C2, Italian/French FREMM ect. Living conditions are really important for crew recruitment and retention.

 

[gf0012-aust]

The fact they are larger doesn't mean they will have proportionally more or larger weapons systems. A lot of the displacement may well be dedicated to crew comfort and endurance, this seems to be a common factor if you look at ships like the RN's C1/C2, Italian/French FREMM ect. Living conditions are really important for crew recruitment and retention.

Recent Australian naval combat vessels are far higher automated and far more multi task managed than in other Navies. Noticeably so against the USN, and similar (proportionately) to the UK.

 

[TaranisAttack]

Recent Australian naval combat vessels are far higher automated and far more multi task managed than in other Navies. Noticeably so against the USN, and similar (proportionately) to the UK.

Type 23 Frigate = 181
ANZAC Frigate = 170

No huge difference there.

 

[PeterM]

Type 23 Frigate = 181
ANZAC Frigate = 170

No huge difference there.

Some ship complements for comparison

Hobart class AWD - 180

Evolved Burke class - 220

Álvaro de Bazán (F100) class - 240


Anzac class - 170

Adelaide class (FFG) - 176 - 221


A larger hull doesn't necessarily mean larger crew requirements, the AWD has roughly the same complement as the Adelaide class it replaces despite being alot bigger and much more capable.

Also the AWDs carry significantly less crew than their US and Spanish equvalents. I would imagine the Future Frigates will have a complement of around 170.

 

[swerve]

Recent Australian naval combat vessels are far higher automated and far more multi task managed than in other Navies. Noticeably so against the USN, and similar (proportionately) to the UK.

I'm puzzled by that. In proportion to tonnage, the ANZAC has about the same, or slightly more, crew than the Type 23, & the Hobart class will have more crew in proportion to size than Type 45, Horizon, Nansen, Ivar Huitfeltd or FREMM - significantly more in some cases.

...
Also the AWDs carry significantly less crew than their US and Spanish equvalents. I would imagine the Future Frigates will have a complement of around 170.

But more than some European ships.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

A larger hull doesn't necessarily mean larger crew requirements, the AWD has roughly the same complement as the Adelaide class it replaces despite being alot bigger and much more capable.

Crew has little to do with hull size. There is a lot of variance because there are different counting methods (does the crew include the Naval helicopter flight?) and because Navies operate ships in different ways. Plus of course the kind of onboard systems requiring crew and support. The figures quoted here aren't consistent, for example include maximum occupancy levels (is not crew) and some ships without counting the helicopter flight.