Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[hairyman]

"Last I heard, DDG-1000 won't provide terminal illumination for anything other than ESSM, so in terms of air defence, it'd be a step down as well."
Ian, the D1`000 will be armed with SM3 as well as ESSM and I believe SM6.

From Naval-technology.com.
DDG 1000 will have a sensor and weapons suite optimised for littoral warfare and for network-centric warfare. Northrop Grumman has put forward a solution based on a peripheral vertical launch system (PVLS).
The solution consists of 20 four-cell PVLS situated round the perimeter of the deck, rather than the usual centrally located VLS. This would reduce the ship's vulnerability to a single hit.
The advanced vertical launch system (AVLS) that forms the basis of the PVLS is being developed by BAE Systems Land and Armaments and Raytheon and has been designated the mk57 VLS.
Missile systems under consideration include tactical tomahawk (intended to succeed Tomahawk TLAM), standard missile SM-3 and the evolved Sea Sparrow missile (ESSM) for air defence.

And a correction to my original post, the crew size is 142, including air wing (two helicopters).

 

[hairyman]

And I believe we have not had a cruiser since HMAS Australia.

 

[ADMk2]

Sorry ADMk2 but in which part of my previous statement did I state that we are or even that I'd "like" to see it happen? I was purely mentioning that the LHD's are CAPABLE of running as a light aircraft carrier. I've been on these forums (or at least reading) long enough to memorise this entire thread back to front, please don't confuse me with a couple of others on here or direct any further rants at me.

Thank you.

You are the one stating these could be used as an aircraft carrier are you not?

The Spanish aren't using the Juan Carlos as an aircraft carrier. It's an amphibious ship they will use to train their pilots from when their actual aircraft carrier is unavailable.

The Canberra Class LHD's "could" be used as destroyers too. All they'd need s the weapons, sensors and combat system to do so, but guess what, RAN aren't getting them either, because it's an Amphibious ship...

 

[icelord]

"Last I heard, DDG-1000 won't provide terminal illumination for anything other than ESSM, so in terms of air defence, it'd be a step down as well."
Ian, the D1`000 will be armed with SM3 as well as ESSM and I believe SM6.

From Naval-technology.com.
DDG 1000 will have a sensor and weapons suite optimised for littoral warfare and for network-centric warfare. Northrop Grumman has put forward a solution based on a peripheral vertical launch system (PVLS).
The solution consists of 20 four-cell PVLS situated round the perimeter of the deck, rather than the usual centrally located VLS. This would reduce the ship's vulnerability to a single hit.
The advanced vertical launch system (AVLS) that forms the basis of the PVLS is being developed by BAE Systems Land and Armaments and Raytheon and has been designated the mk57 VLS.
Missile systems under consideration include tactical tomahawk (intended to succeed Tomahawk TLAM), standard missile SM-3 and the evolved Sea Sparrow missile (ESSM) for air defence.

And a correction to my original post, the crew size is 142, including air wing (two helicopters).

Whats being reffered to is current USN procurment, has turned the 10+ DDG1000 required, into 3 and they are planning on utilising the rail gun onboard, and having it go to Anchor and bombard whoever the US is fighting along the coast(if they're lucky) and having tomahawks and an array of other missiles for fun. The politics and budget has overtaken the stratergy side, and forced them to look at the role of the Zumwalts, which is basically an at anchor fire support.

 

[StobieWan]

"Last I heard, DDG-1000 won't provide terminal illumination for anything other than ESSM, so in terms of air defence, it'd be a step down as well."
Ian, the D1`000 will be armed with SM3 as well as ESSM and I believe SM6.

From Naval-technology.com.
DDG 1000 will have a sensor and weapons suite optimised for littoral warfare and for network-centric warfare. Northrop Grumman has put forward a solution based on a peripheral vertical launch system (PVLS).
The solution consists of 20 four-cell PVLS situated round the perimeter of the deck, rather than the usual centrally located VLS. This would reduce the ship's vulnerability to a single hit.
The advanced vertical launch system (AVLS) that forms the basis of the PVLS is being developed by BAE Systems Land and Armaments and Raytheon and has been designated the mk57 VLS.
Missile systems under consideration include tactical tomahawk (intended to succeed Tomahawk TLAM), standard missile SM-3 and the evolved Sea Sparrow missile (ESSM) for air defence.

And a correction to my original post, the crew size is 142, including air wing (two helicopters).

It's still a unique ship to the Australian forces and would be money right out the door to the US instead of being spent on ships manufactured locally. It's a big, expensive chunk of real estate that doesn't fit into the force structure and has no place in the RAN.

I don't believe there's any funding for a fourth Hobart anyway, but if there were, that'd be a better place to spend the cash than on a DDG-1000 (which isn't for sale in any event)

 

[hairyman]

My preference would also be Australian built ships of course. But I dont know if 3 AWD's and 8 Anzac II's will be enough to do all that the RAN will be required to do in the future. There are 12 ships in the fleet now, and there were 14 recently.
My suggestion is that we build a number (3 - 6) of ships based on the Hobart, but cheaper, to replace the O.H.Perry's. We could start building these ships before the AWD run of ships is completed. Then we use a slightly smaller hull (perhaps another Meko class) for the Anzac II's, when it is time to replace them. That would give us a fighting fleet of 14 to 17, depending on how many OHP replacements we built.:rel

 

[rand0m]

My preference would also be Australian built ships of course. But I dont know if 3 AWD's and 8 Anzac II's will be enough to do all that the RAN will be required to do in the future. There are 12 ships in the fleet now, and there were 14 recently.
My suggestion is that we build a number (3 - 6) of ships based on the Hobart, but cheaper, to replace the O.H.Perry's. We could start building these ships before the AWD run of ships is completed. Then we use a slightly smaller hull (perhaps another Meko class) for the Anzac II's, when it is time to replace them. That would give us a fighting fleet of 14 to 17, depending on how many OHP replacements we built.:rel

Not sure if you're aware but the plan is set as follows (happy to be corrected);

Adelaide class frigates (6) will be replaced by Hobart class frigates (3) (SEA 4000)

ANZAC class frigates (8) will be replaced by a future frigate (8) (SEA 5000)

Balikpapan class (6) will be replaced by a larger replacement (6) (JP 2048 Phase 3)

Armadale, Huon, Leeuwin, Paluma class (26) to be replaced by an OCV (20) (SEA 1180)

Collins class (6) to be replaced by a future submarine (12) (SEA 1000)

Kanimbla & Tobruk (3) class to be replaced by Canberra class & HMAS Choules (3) (JP 2048 Phases 4A and 4B)

HMAS Success & Sirius (2)to be replaced by a Sea Logistic Support and Replenishment Support vessel (2) (1654 Phase 3)

 

[phreeky]

Adelaide class frigates (6) will be replaced by Hobart class frigates (3) (SEA 4000)

I thought only 4 Adelaides remained anyway?

On that point, is the reduction of an original 6 Adelaide class frigates down to an eventual 3 Hobart class considered a big downgrade? Does the capability increase more than make up for that?

 

[StingrayOZ]

I thought only 4 Adelaides remained anyway?

On that point, is the reduction of an original 6 Adelaide class frigates down to an eventual 3 Hobart class considered a big downgrade? Does the capability increase more than make up for that?

Australia needs the hulls in the water. While the AWD will be near infinitely more capable, it is only three ships. Which effectively means we can only really permanently deploy 1 long term. We certainly don't have redundancy for things like battle damage, weather damage, collisions, big upgrades (esp ones involving complex integration issues) etc. You can still deploy the other ship but then that affects long term crewing and/or maintenance.

Secondly if anything was to happen to a AWD while deployed (eg battle or weather damage) then there would be no air defence (or very reduced) for the task force. So a broken prop, dead engine, damaged radar, or fire could essentially leave the whole force vulnerable.

Thirdly one of the major advantages of AEGIS is CEC (cooperative engagement capability) and being able to fuse information and resources between ships (ie a networked force). With only one ship deployed this isn't possible. Its one ship networked to itself. (plus some other stuff but that doesn't really change what's on the ground/ocean).

While the ANZAC replacements will be expected to somewhat hook into other ships, its unclear how effectively they will do this or if they can do this with US assets. The ANZAC replacements are also a way off, and IOC of them and the last of the origional ANZACs means for much of the AWD life they will be operating with no or limited CEC. We could surge two ships into the water, but not with out long term consequences so unlikely to be done for training purposes or as regular operation. So we will be dependant on the USN nipple still with 3 hulls.

4 Changes that. We have redundancy for all occasions. We can deploy 2 AWD most of the time and train and take advantage of CEC. We can better protect a taskforce by ourselves instead of being totally dependant on getting another AEGIS navy to come along. It also solves local build issues (workforce, skills, viability of on going maintenance contacts). We can deploy the two AWD together or separately (1 on the east and 1 on the west) to train or protect assets in either ocean.

Historically the RAN has had at least 12 front line hulls. Stuffing around with that number will cause issues no matter how capable those hulls are.

 

[ADMk2]

Australia needs the hulls in the water. While the AWD will be near infinitely more capable, it is only three ships. Which effectively means we can only really permanently deploy 1 long term. We certainly don't have redundancy for things like battle damage, weather damage, collisions, big upgrades (esp ones involving complex integration issues) etc. You can still deploy the other ship but then that affects long term crewing and/or maintenance.

Peacetime availability is not the same as wartime availability and surge capability is a figure beyond that, the issue isn't as simple as counting numbers and suggesting this or at isn't sufficient.

In saying that, I tend to agree we need more hulls, but an extra AWD isn't the only way to achieve that. I'd like to see the Future Frigate program expanded to at least 11 ships for instance.

The FFG's can cover the extra hull requirement between AWD and FF before they are retired, so extra FF's added on to the existing project scope would neatly replace the capability they provide.

Without covering costs, manning etc, I think RAN should maintain a minimum of 14 major surface combatants. If the justification for increased submarine numbers is the increased maritime threat and we require additional Amphibious capability to support littoral operations, then how we can justify or support a reduced surface combatant force is beyond me.

Secondly if anything was to happen to a AWD while deployed (eg battle or weather damage) then there would be no air defence (or very reduced) for the task force. So a broken prop, dead engine, damaged radar, or fire could essentially leave the whole force vulnerable.

True enough, but it's no different to any other major capability, you could say the same for LHD's, Wedgetail, C-17 and so on. It's an unavoidable limitation you have in a small force. It means your force protection measures have to become a higher priority, the types of operations you can realistically conduct become more limited and so on.

Fortunately we have some pretty handy allies, that possess a lot of capability they are willing to deploy to help. We saw that in Interfet. A USN AEGIS Cruiser deployed as part of the naval "Coalition" added vastly to the whole beyond that which the sum of the parts (20 odd naval vessels) could contribute. There's no doubt of the capability that the deployment of a single Arleigh Burke Destroyer (well within capability given USN operates about 60 of them...)

Thirdly one of the major advantages of AEGIS is CEC (cooperative engagement capability) and being able to fuse information and resources between ships (ie a networked force). With only one ship deployed this isn't possible. Its one ship networked to itself. (plus some other stuff but that doesn't really change what's on the ground/ocean).

CEC isn't an AEGIS capability. It's a system that could be employed on virtually any major suface combatant as far as I know, as well as aircraft including Wedgetail and MPA aircraft. I recall there was some discussion of adding it to the ANZAC's, but it seems almost certain to be added to FF's down the track.

While the ANZAC replacements will be expected to somewhat hook into other ships, its unclear how effectively they will do this or if they can do this with US assets. The ANZAC replacements are also a way off, and IOC of them and the last of the origional ANZACs means for much of the AWD life they will be operating with no or limited CEC. We could surge two ships into the water, but not with out long term consequences so unlikely to be done for training purposes or as regular operation. So we will be dependant on the USN nipple still with 3 hulls.

Again, CEC isn't limited to AEGIS only and is extremely likely to make up a significant part of the combat systems of all future RAN and appropriate RAAF elements.

4 Changes that. We have redundancy for all occasions. We can deploy 2 AWD most of the time and train and take advantage of CEC. We can better protect a taskforce by ourselves instead of being totally dependant on getting another AEGIS navy to come along. It also solves local build issues (workforce, skills, viability of on going maintenance contacts). We can deploy the two AWD together or separately (1 on the east and 1 on the west) to train or protect assets in either ocean.

What if 2 AWD's are damaged? Where's the redundancy then? We can play this sort of game all day...

I don't see a 4th AWD as the ONlY way to achieve the hull numbers I think we need.

 

[rand0m]

Peacetime availability is not the same as wartime availability and surge capability is a figure beyond that, the issue isn't as simple as counting numbers and suggesting this or at isn't sufficient.

In saying that, I tend to agree we need more hulls, but an extra AWD isn't the only way to achieve that. I'd like to see the Future Frigate program expanded to at least 11 ships for instance.

The FFG's can cover the extra hull requirement between AWD and FF before they are retired, so extra FF's added on to the existing project scope would neatly replace the capability they provide.

Without covering costs, manning etc, I think RAN should maintain a minimum of 14 major surface combatants. If the justification for increased submarine numbers is the increased maritime threat and we require additional Amphibious capability to support littoral operations, then how we can justify or support a reduced surface combatant force is beyond me.



True enough, but it's no different to any other major capability, you could say the same for LHD's, Wedgetail, C-17 and so on. It's an unavoidable limitation you have in a small force. It means your force protection measures have to become a higher priority, the types of operations you can realistically conduct become more limited and so on.

Fortunately we have some pretty handy allies, that possess a lot of capability they are willing to deploy to help. We saw that in Interfet. A USN AEGIS Cruiser deployed as part of the naval "Coalition" added vastly to the whole beyond that which the sum of the parts (20 odd naval vessels) could contribute. There's no doubt of the capability that the deployment of a single Arleigh Burke Destroyer (well within capability given USN operates about 60 of them...)



CEC isn't an AEGIS capability. It's a system that could be employed on virtually any major suface combatant as far as I know, as well as aircraft including Wedgetail and MPA aircraft. I recall there was some discussion of adding it to the ANZAC's, but it seems almost certain to be added to FF's down the track.



Again, CEC isn't limited to AEGIS only and is extremely likely to make up a significant part of the combat systems of all future RAN and appropriate RAAF elements.




What if 2 AWD's are damaged? Where's the redundancy then? We can play this sort of game all day...

I don't see a 4th AWD as the ONlY way to achieve the hull numbers I think we need.

Do you think the roles & way we operate currently with the Adelaide, ANZAC & Armidale class will change very much versus a few years time when we have the Hobart class, ANZAC replacement & Armidale replacement? With the ANZAC & Armidale class planned replacements being somewhat larger, increased range, payload, capabilities. Will the future ANZAC frigates actually become destroyers/destroyer role? Will the future Armidale class change from a patrol boat to an OCV/corvette? Whilst the numbers may be smaller on paper, could the ships themselves much more diverse in the rolls they can play?

 

[ADMk2]

Do you think the roles & way we operate currently with the Adelaide, ANZAC & Armidale class will change very much versus a few years time when we have the Hobart class, ANZAC replacement & Armidale replacement? With the ANZAC & Armidale class planned replacements being somewhat larger, increased range, payload, capabilities. Will the future ANZAC frigates actually become destroyers/destroyer role? Will the future Armidale class change from a patrol boat to an OCV/corvette? Whilst the numbers may be smaller on paper, could the ships themselves much more diverse in the rolls they can play?

I think the roles the deployed ADF will play in future will be superficially similar to that it does now. The numbers of vessels that are deployed will be similar, the basic capabilities (Frigate, Amhibious ship and deployed helicopters) will be the samw.

What will be different, will be the level of capability the force can generate with advanced, long range air defence and strike weapons available, sensors, combat systems,CEC / Networking, EW and so on, the task forces we generate will be far more lethal and survivable.

The most ironic thing I see is that so many critics talk about the advanced capabilities of S-300, S-400 or whatever and wonder how our strike capabilities will penetrate them, yet when we introduce AEGIS and other 3D Phased array radars, IRST, advanced EW capability, CEC and so on mated to SM-6, the same critics automatically assume these won't be up to the job, despite being many times more capable than S-300/400 etc and unlike them ARE actually moveable...

I think that all too common POV is hilarious.

 

[sgtgunn]

I just read that one of the proposals for the ANZAC Ship Project to replace the Leaander-class was an airship!

Does anyone have anymore information about that?

I'm having a hard time envisioning a frigate-blimp. :unknown

Adrian

 

[StingrayOZ]

The FFG's can cover the extra hull requirement between AWD and FF before they are retired, so extra FF's added on to the existing project scope would neatly replace the capability they provide.

That would relieve the some of demand for a 4th AWD from a capability point but not from a local build. But FFG's would be acting in a very different space and the capability gap between an AWD and a FFG is pretty big. We wouldn't replace that FFG until the end of the FF build.

CEC isn't an AEGIS capability. It's a system that could be employed on virtually any major suface combatant as far as I know, as well as aircraft including Wedgetail and MPA aircraft. I recall there was some discussion of adding it to the ANZAC's, but it seems almost certain to be added to FF's down the track.

AFAIK there are different levels of CEC and interoperability. Im not aware of any non AEGIS setup CEC for ABM for example.

What if 2 AWD's are damaged? Where's the redundancy then? We can play this sort of game all day...
I don't see a 4th AWD as the ONlY way to achieve the hull numbers I think we need.

But the chances go way down for every step of redundancy. We (humans) were able to send people to the moon with 1960's tech by being triple redundant in every critical system. Having a single point of failure is pretty risky.

 

[MickB]

With the seemingly successful use of Stanflex modules across several classes within the Danish Navy, could they be intergrated into Anzac II and the OPV.

Could a mix of locally manufactured Abselon, Iver Huitfelt and Rasmussen classes be the way for us to go. They appear to fit the size, manning and capability issues being discussed.

An Abselon or two could assist with amphibious lift. If fitted to operate CB90s 4 to 6 of these boats would add great flexability in littoral waters or anti piracy patrols.

 

[StobieWan]

AFAIK there are different levels of CEC and interoperability. Im not aware of any non AEGIS setup CEC for ABM for example.

CEC has nothing to do directly with any native capability of a particular platform - it's tool for sharing information.

The Hobarts have no inherent ABM capability - they operate Open Aegis - an export derived variant of the AEGIS system. The USN has developed a software upgrade for the DDG-51's that would support ABM capability but that can't be ported to Open Aegis. Australia (or anyone else relying on Open AEGIS) would have to develop this for themselves.

Conversely, you could have anything on the other end of a CEC link (rail gun, giant fighting robot, DDG-51) and CEC will pipe it the information available.

Ian

 

[AegisFC]

AFAIK there are different levels of CEC and interoperability. Im not aware of any non AEGIS setup CEC for ABM for example.

As it stands right now the BMD variants of Aegis do not have CEC and the current COTS baselines that have CEC are probably never going to get BMD upgrades.
There is a baseline in development that uses both however Australia is not likely to get it any time soon since it is a complete computer suite and CIC change out.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

As it stands right now the BMD variants of Aegis do not have CEC and the current COTS baselines that have CEC are probably never going to get BMD upgrades.
There is a baseline in development that uses both however Australia is not likely to get it any time soon since it is a complete computer suite and CIC change out.

But Australia has little interest in the BMD capability of an AEGIS BMD ship. This is mid-course BMD for shooting down MRBMs/ICBMs en route to North America or Japan from Korea. Australian nascent requirements for BMD are terminal defence against TBMs fired at an amphibious beachhead or AShBMs fired at the fleet. A very different set of requirements and solutions.

 

[StobieWan]

With the seemingly successful use of Stanflex modules across several classes within the Danish Navy, could they be intergrated into Anzac II and the OPV.

Could a mix of locally manufactured Abselon, Iver Huitfelt and Rasmussen classes be the way for us to go. They appear to fit the size, manning and capability issues being discussed.

An Abselon or two could assist with amphibious lift. If fitted to operate CB90s 4 to 6 of these boats would add great flexability in littoral waters or anti piracy patrols.

The Absalom keep turning up in every internet analyst's toolkit. Some facts:

Modules consume about 10% of the volume of the ship just to accommodate them - in other words, just to have the space to move stuff around and fit new things, you lose 10% of the tonnage available - that's according to an interview with the project manager for the Type 26.

In use, it's turned out that the best way to use these modules is to assign some modules to certain ships, and assign appropriate personnel to those modules and ships. That's according to an interview with a Danish Navy Captain in Warships International.

What I'm saying is, modules have some attractions (very simple upgrades for instance!) but they're not a magic solution.

I'm sure an ANZAC II will have some sort of modular support however,

Ian

 

[ADMk2]

That would relieve the some of demand for a 4th AWD from a capability point but not from a local build. But FFG's would be acting in a very different space and the capability gap between an AWD and a FFG is pretty big. We wouldn't replace that FFG until the end of the FF build.

Not necessarily. The FF's are to be built in Australia and the initial FF's could just as easily replace retained FFG's as FFH's, assuming the ships have the life to stay that long (which clearly the FFH's do, given they are to be replaced by the FF's anyway).

AFAIK there are different levels of CEC and interoperability. Im not aware of any non AEGIS setup CEC for ABM for example.

What BMD setup does Australia have or plan? At this point none. Besides, that's changing the topic. The original point was your contention that having CEC on only 3 AWD's limits it's utility.

Sure. Until you put CEC onto every other major Australian maritime platform...

But the chances go way down for every step of redundancy. We (humans) were able to send people to the moon with 1960's tech by being triple redundant in every critical system. Having a single point of failure is pretty risky.

A single point of failure like, a single fighter type? A single AEW&C type? A single submarine type? A single armed recon helo type? A single ground based air defence type, a single maritime patrol aircraft type and so on and so on...

Defence is riddled with potential single points of failure in major capability. It's how you manage risk that is important, not whether or not risk exists (which it ALWAYS does, most especially with military equipment).