Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[DaveS124]

Meanwhile, back in the real world, the Hobart has returned from her second serial - acceptance trials. There's some useful comment in this Channel 7 clip (at the video) https://youtu.be/fdWLBw0CR5M

Also, the ASWEX component of current FCP has ended, chasing a Collins and USS Oklahoma City. Operators happy with the outcomes, although in any ASWEX all claims must be taken with a sack of salt: skimmers always say they sunk it in 10 seconds, and subs say they shot the whole TG in a nanosecond.

But as Mandy Rice Davies said, they would say that, wouldn't they?

 

[rjtjrt]

Volkadav
Tempting as it is to post a nasty reply, I won't.
I always am more impressed if a person who wants to insult someone does it to their face, rather than on an anonymous forum.
It is ironic as I had read your reply and was coming to an understanding of the arguement you were making, that many navies have increased their ship sizes.
None the less affordable defence remains a defining feature of mature discussion on defence matters.

 

[Volkodav]

I should imagine that every pay day the bean counters would cringe at paying a crew twice as large. People are still an uncomfortably high percentage of the ongoing cost of weapon systems, ships included. And we don't actually have all that many to spare - largely because we have to pay those who ARE actually willing to accept the personal costs of service.

oldsig

One of the biggest causes of the RANs extremely expensive retention, and associated depth of experience and competence problems is the current crews are too small for the amount of work there is to do plus also the lack of a critical mass of trained competent technical sailors to support training, leave and shore postings' while still being able to put ships to sea.

The Kidds had all received NTU which gave them near AEGIS capabilities. The plan was if acquired as a replacement for the Perths, two Adelaides would also be retired to provide the extra crew they needed. No great loss, as although given as the reason for not buying the Kidds, problems with the FFGUP saw two Adelaides retired without replacement anyway. Money spent on the FFGUP could instead have been funneled into upgrading the Kidds, replacing the manpower intensive Mk-26 GMLS with Mk-41 etc. even looking at evolving CEAFAR for these larger ships as well. They had large crews but at the time the RAN had the manpower, the contraction came later as a result of poor decisions forcing a reduction in ship numbers.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Shouldn't need to be said but apparently not the case

Everyone needs to play nice.

Thread frozen for a few hours to allow some introspection to take place

re-opened

 

[koala]

Our future frigate has been a very interesting topic, but there is a lot of talk about size and the amount missile cells with 48 cells on the Hobart's not being enough.
My question is:- would our war stocks and peacetime budgets be ever able to load out an entire fleet with over 48 missiles cells each, including the SM range, ESSM and future Tomahawk style, or would they be fitted for but not with?
I wonder how much armament and ammunition is actually carried in our peacetime war stocks?

 

[koala]

when I was a kid in darwin I had my 66 mini deluxe trained and trucked up from adelaide.

I had a worked cooper s motor in it, a split system using modified Honda CB750 megaphones slung down each side.

one of the best handling cars I've ever had, it was like chewing gum on the road

I used to knock off 253 holdens and 245 valiants in it.

That little brick earnt me a few free beers

Would have given you a run in the XU1 Torana, but the Cooper used to get me on the dirt roads

 

[gf0012-aust]

Our future frigate has been a very interesting topic, but there is a lot of talk about size and the amount missile cells with 48 cells on the Hobart's not being enough.
My question is:- would our war stocks and peacetime budgets be ever able to load out an entire fleet with over 48 missiles cells each, including the SM range, ESSM and future Tomahawk style, or would they be fitted for but not with?
I wonder how much armament and ammunition is actually carried in our peacetime war stocks?

that's the other realpolitik reality - and is one of the delimiters for building arsenal ships etc....

once you start heading north of 48 cells per vessel then your budget for other things will take a hit.

 

[Stampede]

that's the other realpolitik reality - and is one of the delimiters for building arsenal ships etc....

once you start heading north of 48 cells per vessel then your budget for other things will take a hit.

Yep, if we can get a dozen modern ships each with 48 cells I feel that is a fair ambition for a nation of our size. To be able to sustain a modern 5/6th Gen integrated maritime task force of say three ships in a on going area of operation would not be an insignificant naval force or political statement of intent.
144 cells of hostility would make most adversaries think twice.
Then again there is always a bigger kid on the block and not wanting to take a knife to a gun fight, for a nation of our size we should be realistic as to what we can achieve.

Regards S

 

[vonnoobie]

that's the other realpolitik reality - and is one of the delimiters for building arsenal ships etc....

once you start heading north of 48 cells per vessel then your budget for other things will take a hit.

Out of curiosity could the ships be fitted with the cells but not necisarily all loaded?

I'm sure there would be extra maintenance costs associated with the extra cells but munitions for them would not necisarily have to be loaded aboard to fill it to it's brink especially in peace time or so I'm guessing.

Figure having them there ready already fitted but not utilized would be a decent middle ground allowing for them to be pulled into service far more quickly then a ship fitted fr the extra cells but not with them (ie: She would need dock time to fit the cells).

 

[StingrayOZ]

Out of curiosity could the ships be fitted with the cells but not necisarily all loaded?

I'm sure there would be extra maintenance costs associated with the extra cells but munitions for them would not necisarily have to be loaded aboard to fill it to it's brink especially in peace time or so I'm guessing.

Figure having them there ready already fitted but not utilized would be a decent middle ground allowing for them to be pulled into service far more quickly then a ship fitted fr the extra cells but not with them (ie: She would need dock time to fit the cells).

I would argue that reserving space, weight and volume is all that is required at this stage. Some times its useful to have points to escalate to.

I certainly don't think the RAN would be able to fill 64 VLS on all 12 of its surface combatants. I guess more importantly what would we be filling them with.

But say for example if we opened up a production line to assemble NSM for the F-35, Super Hornet, Surface ships and the submarines (replacing Harpoon). Australia might be interested in having significant naval and landstrike capability. A lowish cost, common munition. But that is more of an industry support question.

 

[ADMk2]

Our future frigate has been a very interesting topic, but there is a lot of talk about size and the amount missile cells with 48 cells on the Hobart's not being enough.
My question is:- would our war stocks and peacetime budgets be ever able to load out an entire fleet with over 48 missiles cells each, including the SM range, ESSM and future Tomahawk style, or would they be fitted for but not with?
I wonder how much armament and ammunition is actually carried in our peacetime war stocks?

80x SM-2 Block IIIB.

Australia –SM-2 Block IIIB STANDARD Missiles | The Official Home of the Defense Security Cooperation Agency

175x SM-2 Block IIIA

DSCA: Australia seeks 175 Standard Missile-2s | AWIN content from Aviation Week


Earlier orders of Harpoon Block II included 30x upgrade kits for Block 1C to Block II standard and new build orders for 64x live missiles were made in 2001 / 2002 and no public orders have been made since.

From these you can glean an insight into the weapons stocks of expensive precision guided missiles that ADF maintain. They aren't token purchases by any means, but the realities of the costs of huge munitions inventories have to be realised...

 

[hairyman]

We tend to forget the Harpoon missiles. Our AWD's have 48 VLS plus eight tubes for the Harpoons, so they carry 56 missiles apiece.

 

[Redlands18]

We tend to forget the Harpoon missiles. Our AWD's have 48 VLS plus eight tubes for the Harpoons, so they carry 56 missiles apiece.

Won't the Hobarts be carrying a mix of Standards (2s only to start with and some 6s down the track) & quad packed ESSMs, so the Missile numbers could be anywhere between 72 & 96.

 

[ADMk2]

We tend to forget the Harpoon missiles. Our AWD's have 48 VLS plus eight tubes for the Harpoons, so they carry 56 missiles apiece.

56x launch tubes / VLS.

ESSM is quad-packed per VLS tube remember? So they carry (hypothetically) far more than 56x missiles...

 

[Volkodav]

I believe the planned load out is 32-40 SM-2 and 32-64 ESSM. Initially the RAN was leaning to the 40/32 load out but as their experience with ESSM has grown they now favour 32/64. Remember that ESSMs envelope is pretty close to SM-1 so it is by no means a capability reduction verses legacy systems, especially as ESSM can now be lofted on auto pilot and only requires guidance in the terminal phase as for SM-2, while ESSM Block II will have an active seeker as well.

 

[rjtjrt]

I believe the planned load out is 32-40 SM-2 and 32-64 ESSM. Initially the RAN was leaning to the 40/32 load out but as their experience with ESSM has grown they now favour 32/64. Remember that ESSMs envelope is pretty close to SM-1 so it is by no means a capability reduction verses legacy systems, especially as ESSM can now be lofted on auto pilot and only requires guidance in the terminal phase as for SM-2, while ESSM Block II will have an active seeker as well.

It sounds like that will be more affordable as well.
More ESSM cf SM-2 will save some for other programs.

 

[Massive]

The discussion keeps turning to replacement frigate options not being MOTS/COTS or being paper ships.

When I read the comments it seems that the expectation is that the key benefit of the MOTS/COTS is the hull and superstructure, with virtually everything else being chosen specifically by the RAN in this case.

As an example, how similar would a F105 be to the AWDs?

Is this the case? If so, is the Type 26 or indeed the F125 being ruled out prematurely (the Type 26 as it seems well suited, the F125 as we know the builder can work well here given the Anzac experience)?

Regards,

Massive

 

[Massive]

The only real role I can see for the LCH at this stage id humanitarian work ... and there are other options available for that.

Not sure this is correct in the context of an army that is about to get a lot heavier.

The smaller size also provides a lot more flexibility.

You would only need 4.

Regards,

Massive

 

[oldsig127]

Is this the case? If so, is the Type 26 or indeed the F125 being ruled out prematurely (the Type 26 as it seems well suited, the F125 as we know the builder can work well here given the Anzac experience)?

Regards,

Massive

The F125 was ruled out months ago. There are three options, Type 26, the Italian ASW variant of FREMM, and an ASW variant based on the F105. Anything else discussed here (and often 90% of the discussion about the actual candidates) is a game of paper fleets.

oldsig

 

[Volkodav]

The F125 was ruled out months ago. There are three options, Type 26, the Italian ASW variant of FREMM, and an ASW variant based on the F105. Anything else discussed here (and often 90% of the discussion about the actual candidates) is a game of paper fleets.

oldsig

That said when defence ruled in favour of the F-100 existing option over the G&C evolved design VAdmiral Russ Shalders pushed for latest configuration Flight IIA Burkes instead. This was regected and we ended up paying more for three F-100s than four us built burkes would have cost, more cost and more delay than the more comprehensively planned and understood evolved design would have cost and the same, if not more than a licence built Burke under the mentorship of BIW would have.

Basically we paid more for less, and waited longer to get it, but the point I am trying to make is the Chief of Navy, at the very end of the selection process said no and was able to put forward another option based on his experience and understanding of the RANs needs. At the end of the day the RAN can say they are not happy with any of the short listed designs if they do not meet requirements and push for something else, especially if there are changing circumstances or new information available. Far better to do this before a contract is signed, let along steel cut. Once work starts the RAN will be stuck with what ever is selected, even if it has been overtaken by events and is no longer the best option.